I don't agree with this paper's statistical analysis, and I think there's probably a different trigger for the change BUT I came here to say that I strongly agr

I don't agree with this paper's statistical analysis, and I think there's probably a different trigger for the change BUT I came here to say that I strongly agree with you that the paper has to be taken on its specific merits. It's perfectly possible to have good epidemiology based on time series data. (I feel like I should cite something. It's been a long time since I was a professional epidemiologist and I'm way too lazy to look up anything recent, but Oli Miettinen's book "Theoretical Epidemiology" is an example of how some epidemiologists are very clever and very careful.)