JAMA isn’t going to stake their reputation on bad science. You guys act like nobody else looks at it before they publish it. There is always a battle for page space. If your research model is crap, you get ripped worldwide before it gets anywhere close to the publisher.
I took the time to read each of the links, and the authors in my view adequately explained their research motivations.
It should be no surprise that people devoted to advancing the health of people publish articles identifying places where the health of people is affected.
The best analog I can come up with, is the compulsory use of hunter orange in eastern states. Firearms injuries during firearms hunting seasons, decline precipitously after the adoption of hunter orange.
I doubt it’s adoption was any kind of conspiracy led by the safety orange dye industry.
Plenty of people still hate the idea of wearing hunter orange. Doesn’t change the facts however.
I wear it because I don’t want you to shoot me accidentally.
