Well, I'm not talking about epidemiology, just personal choice. People had to use incomplete information for personal choices for centuries, I'm afraid. I'm not

Well, I'm not talking about epidemiology, just personal choice. People had to use incomplete information for personal choices for centuries, I'm afraid. I'm not sure what to do about that, the alternative seems to be chasing after the conclusion of the latest study and a lot of said latest studies are very poor, often in very insidious ways that are hard to identify. If something was literally poisonous and was consumed by lots of people, we'd be seeing drastic effects. Like drastically slashed life expectancy. If something was literally hyper-beneficial and extended your life by 20 years, we'd be seeing some cohort expressing that, as well. If there are lots of confounders, it just means it's not the only problem, which I think is already frequently true for many of these things (i.e., smoking and weight gain associated with lots of root issues). The effects of a lot of things taken in vacuum often seem less significant than their very confounders.