Thread by @prof_goldberg

I see that we are still slavishly worshipping at the idol of RCTs in epidemiologic science as the evidentiary warrant for public health action. I have written LOTS on the foolishness of this, its disastrous ethical & policy implications, & it's role in #ManufactureOfDoubt.

1/

It's almost as if people have never heard of the #PrecautionaryPrinciple. If we demanded evidence of exposure-harm or intervention-benefit that flowed from RCTs to warrant public health interventions, we would have essentially NO public health action AT ALL.

2/

More on this, from my 2016 paper on importance of maintaining epistemically reasonable standards for proof of harm (& benefit!) as warrant for public health action:

(The subject of the paper is COIs and lays out my arg for regarding them as ordinary epidemiologic exposures)

3/

Finally, in a very real sense almost the entire #ThirdBook, which is on traumatic brain injury, collision sports, & public health law/ethics, addresses this question of the sufficient evidentiary warrant for public health law interventions.

4/

If we are not discussing what the #PrecautionaryPrinciples does in relaxing the standards of evidence we require to justify at least some kinds of public health interventions, we are missing the boat IMO.

5/

#PHLaw #PhEthx #PublicHealthPolicy #PolicyStudies #PandemicEthx #SDoH #LawIsASocialDeterminantOfHealth #Policy #PolicyAdvocacy #PublicHealthLaw #PublicHealthEthics #WeExist #UseOurKnowledge