I love the QS movement, but I sometimes worry for it. It is young, and there is a wide variety of methodologies being used to draw conclusions, some are solid,

I love the QS movement, but I sometimes worry for it. It is young, and there is a wide variety of methodologies being used to draw conclusions, some are solid, others are far from it. This can be expected from a group of people that have no requirements for joining, and this is a strength as well as a weakness. I have noticed that QS has attracted some "alternative [to] medicine" types who seem to be happy to have the validation, as well as some seriously interesting projects from hard core science types. I am hoping that as this movement evolves, it will mature in the right way. Having amateurs participating is incredibly worthwhile, but guidance and best practices will hopefully develop in the community so that when people want to draw conclusions about causality, they can do it legitimately.