[ekianjo]

Observational is not considered as evidence. At best, it gives you cues to conduct a next research (randomized, double-blind, controlled) in order to actually do Science.

There are tons of observational studies that tell sh*t like there are correlations between eating cabbage and having great long hair, but most of the time it's pure luck, sample bias, or just error range.

Observational studies are NEVER accepted as sufficient to claim anything with authorities. At the most you can exercise caution based on risks observed in Safety observational studies, but when it comes to proving efficacy ... you will raise major criticism.

And just putting "observational" and "randomized" does not mean he understands the terms. When you write "Aspirin Really Is Kind of a Wonder Drug" without substantial evidence in your article, without dissociating observational and randomized results, I have a hard time believing this is from a science-educated person.