Controlling for confounding factors is required when such factors exist. To use it as an argument to attack the study is rather bold, considering not correcting

Controlling for confounding factors is required when such factors exist. To use it as an argument to attack the study is rather bold, considering not correcting would actually be statistical malpractice. If you believe confounding factors make it impossible to use empirical methods to study the subject you're just giving up on scientific method. Because your alternative seems to be a few slogans that claim to be "common sense", but are really just a projection of your moral preferences into a causal model. Fortunately, policy professionals are not giving up on evidence-based decision-making quite as quickly.