⟳ Репост от Peter Egge Langsæther
The critique of unmeasured confounding is often levied in a lazy/broad way. It is trivially true in any observational study. But if the critic can't think of a plausible such confounder and posit a reasonable direction/magnitude of its bias then they're not doing productive science.
Arman OganisianWe really do need to get away from the binary. It should be "is there unmeasured confounding or not." Almost certainty there is - it's a matter of how much and what direction.