[SantalBlush]

That is a working paper written in casual form that isn't vetted. I could probably cherry pick a better paper to support your case myself.

Moreover, even if we had a good paper that corroborated what you have here, I'm sure you probably realize that it takes more than a single paper, or even a handful of papers, to declare some truth finalized. "Pretty damning." Come on, dude.

[Ericson2314]

I picked it because it is someone who wasn't taught this sort of thinking, and who took a job where they didn't until recently do this sort of thinking on the main.

Yes, the paper itself isn't a turning point, but the claims of the paper, if one chooses to accept them, are damning. A science should never confuse theoretical prediction and empiric evidence.

Indeed, other agencies like the FDA make the opposite mistake e.g. insisting on endless RCTs for e.g. JJ + mRNA booster vaccine when the theory-based extrapolation from other evidence is simple, and the opportunity cost of waiting non-negligible.

It is bad and quite odd given the overall trend of science towards "mindless empiricism" that Econ has the opposite problem!