{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreibuuktxqsomamansterycpi7hk3kepr7fb6l3xt55szif4qfdvhcm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mib56jud54j2"
  },
  "path": "/t/thinking-clearly-about-association-studies-risk-factors-and-causal-salad-included/28679#post_3",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-29T12:32:33.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "tags": [
    "https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/392/bmj-2025-085749.full.pdf"
  ],
  "textContent": "trumanfrancis:\n\n> It’s a rhetorical posture causal intent with the causal accountability stripped out. The authors want you to read the finding causally. They just don’t want to be held to the standards that causal inference requires.\n\n+1\n\nbesttd:\n\n> Having been confused about this state myself: rationally, I lean towards this research being generally useless or even harmful\n\nAgree completely. When poorly-considered, poorly-designed, and poorly-reported clinical research gets press coverage, there’s _no question_ it can harm patients. I’ve seen this happen countless times.\n\nHere’s another recent publication you might find useful:\n\nhttps://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/392/bmj-2025-085749.full.pdf",
  "title": "Thinking Clearly about Association Studies (Risk Factors and Causal Salad included)"
}