This line of questioning always goes to the same place: it's not about educating the OP of better ways to do science, but them attempting to argue with me about whatever suggestions I make. I'm not getting sucked into it. My ability to do a "better" study is not relevant here.
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.
You of course cannot determine how others will respond to you, as I cannot determine how you'll respond to me.
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.
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.