Epidemiology of the 2020’s is not your grandfather’s epidemiology. The field has come a loooong way. There are now many more validated mathematical approaches to deriving that dreaded objection – causation from correlation. There are sophisticated models now. Merely saying “correlation is not causation” in response to an epidemiological study now marks you as a bit behind the times.
It’s a brand new era for epidemiology and nutritional epidemiology too. Unless you have kept up with the field, you may be unaware of all the newest approaches which combined with big data crunching are revolutionising this science. I admit, I wasn’t on top of all the developments and this was a valuable tip for further exploring the field (and, based on this, I’ve already ordered a book!).
Here is an excellent video on the subject from a channel I generally quite like, Plant Chompers:
It really is well worth the time, even at over 40 minutes, never mind the clickbaitish-seeming title.
4 Likes
Thanks, what a great video, going forward I won’t listen to anyone who trashes epidemiology, although I think Peter has increased credibility to the overall field. The moneyball reference is goated, the statisticians vs. the intiuitionists.
2 Likes
That was really informative. Thank you for posting.
Not very convincing to me – just another influencer with no more insight than others.
Mendelian randomization does not confirm causality – just correlation.
BTW I worked at DuPont 20 years on WV at the chemical plant producing Teflon and using PFOA. I’m not even convinced that causation was established. DuPont settled because it was the cheaper option.