Paul Saladino· MD
the totality of the evidence shows that epidemiology is a horrible type of science to base any sort of hypothesis on or at least you can only generate a hypothesis and then you have to test it
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
the totality of the evidence shows that epidemiology is a horrible type of science to base any sort of hypothesis on or at least you can only generate a hypothesis and then you have to test it
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.
I kind of share the view of George and John and the people who think that it is a very very limited use not of no use there is a case but we over index on that stuff when what we really in my mind need to be doing is doubling down on the kind of work you do — because that's the only place I think we're going to get causal information