What percent of epidemiology studies are 'junk'?

Which epidemiological studies are most reliable and why? ... It answers the question, "How many people have a particular characteristic (such as Disease X) at this very moment? ... While such a study design provides clues for further research, it must be remembered that there is no data on individuals. read more

This is a good thing, and is not about "junk," whatever you think that term means. Here's why. A great deal of epidemiology, and applied research in general, is investigational, and uses available, generally observational (as opposed to experimental), data. read more

Their findings, published in the "European Journal of Epidemiology," indicated that, for each 10 percent increase in the density of fast food restaurants in a region, people are 1.39 times more likely to die from a cardiovascular condition. read more

As the Obama EPA had determined (by secret science-based weak association epidemiology) that PM2.5 was associated with thousands of premature deaths annually (each valued by EPA via junk economics at about $9 million), the CPP was “determined” by the Obama EPA to provide billions of dollars in benefits annually ⎯ an imaginary amount of benefits that far exceeded the actual multi-billion estimated compliance costs of the CPP. read more