[pgreenwood]

Not sure why this comment is getting downvoted. The article itself states that:

> "This is an observational study, and as such, no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect. The researchers also acknowledge that their study was retrospective, and they weren't able to account for dose or length of gabapentin use."

[bitmasher9]

Not to be too meta, but it’s kind of boring to point out the obvious limitation of the research method.

“No casual link is proven” could be said about so much science, specifically medical science and other disciplines which limit research methods for ethical or practical constraints. So you end up with this comment in every front page post about an observational medical study. We could be discussing the actual research or its implications, instead of repeating a discussion on limitations of research methodology.

In addition, I find these types of critics to be a little too cynical even for my taste. There’s a whole group of people that feel smart by finding ways to dismiss scientific studies even when there is some actually interesting data being brought up.

[MobiusHorizons]

On first brief reading I misunderstood the title to be causal, even though it only claims a link. I think it is worth pointing out for those who check the comments before reading.

Edit: clarity

[Footkerchief]

Yes, these comments are necessary pushback against the habit of these disciplines to push interventions that don't work because their evidentiary standards are bad.