[fuzzylogic]

Agreed....but in the medical field, correlation is part of the ‘science’. Almost everything is based on statistical outcome as we just don’t understand how it all works.

Every drug that goes through a ‘double blind trial’ is purely about generating statistics of outcomes. If there’s a strong statistical correlation it’ll be judged on those merits.

Butter is bad...oops, butter is good, ...eggs are bad, oops...

[miniTAX]

“but in the medical field, correlation is part of the ‘science’. Almost everything is based on statistical outcome as we just don’t understand how it all works”

---

It’s not always like that when we did real hard science based on biochemistry and physiology, the Krebs cycle (and later the Randle cycle dear to carnivores) comes to my mind. We still do such science but it is drowned in junk science especially in the nutrition field.

Every paper must be assessed first based on the quality of the experimental setup and evidence.
Observational studies with ridiculous relative risks such as 15% are not on the same footing as randomized trials with known physiological mechanisms and reproducible results. Yet they are lumped together and treated both as gospel by the illiterate media and populace. That’s the sad state of the current science in general and medical science especially.