More to the point, my ability (or lack) to come up with an experiment is not an excuse for you or anyone else to cite bad science with impunity. Likewise, if a study design is bad, it's bad regardless of my ability to correct it.
If you're going to fold like a cheap suit to a softball question (that isn't shifting the burden, it's trying to understand what you consider a good methodology) then kindly either shut the fuck up or fuck off and let the adults talk.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38623345>
Specifically: "no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are": <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12307773>
The question remains - what is “good science?”
You're slinging shade but parlous little illumination here. Adjusting that balance would make for a rather more substantive discussion.
If you want to think I'm "wrong" because I don't, then you're more than welcome to do so. But it doesn't change the fact that most observational epidemiology is riddled with bias, and is of low quality.
If, however, you do answer in good faith, credibly, and substantively to a specific question or request, you'll know, and fair-minded readers will generally recognise, that you've done so.
Or you could, say, contribute over a half-dozen responses within the thread with roughly a quarter of them explicitly withholding or defending the withholding of that substantive contribution.
Your call.
No, you don't need to deliberately expose people to toxins to do that. That's a straw man, when much of what passes for observational epidemiology is loaded with obvious uncontrolled confounders (like poverty).