Gary Taube’s limits and my interest in molecular epidemiology

Curative medicine contributes only 10% to 40% to individual health (figures are depending on models and methodology according to a recent commentary in the Deutsche Ärzteblatt, for milestones check the BMJ) – a reason why I finally decided to become an epidemiologist.

Working then a few years in epidemiology, Gary Taubes shaked the smalled world of epidemiologists: Having spent some time undercover at Harvard epidemiology department he finally published a paper that many epidemiologist regarded as mock while I agreed with him.Epidemiology with all the small risks does not make any sense if not put in proper context (see also Trichopoulos and Phillips – Trichopoulos admitts that only 4-fold risks should be taken seriously if there is no credible hypothesis in the background).
So, finally being a molecular epidemiologist – things become perverted: Biological marker (that should serve as backbone) have now become relevant exposure or outcome factors itself with all the hassle that make up 10% to 40% of this blog.


Taubes seem to have also influenced the Risch/Merikangas article …