Paul Saladino· MD
do you understand that correlation is not causation that observational studies are valuable for generating a hypothesis which must then be tested by an interventional study but cannot be used to draw causative inference
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
do you understand that correlation is not causation that observational studies are valuable for generating a hypothesis which must then be tested by an interventional study but cannot be used to draw causative inference
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
do you understand that correlation is not causation that observational studies are valuable for generating a hypothesis which must then be tested by an interventional study but cannot be used to draw causative inference it is impossible it is really just incorrect to do that is a folly and it will lead us down a path of ruin and deception
do you understand that correlation is not causation that observational studies are valuable for generating a hypothesis which must then be tested by an Interventional study but cannot be used to draw causitive inference it is impossible it is really just incorrect to do that is a Folly and it will lead us down a path of Ruin