Na\"ive regression requires weaker assumptions than factor models to
  adjust for multiple cause confounding
  The empirical practice of using factor models to adjust for shared,
unobserved confounders, $\mathbf{Z}$, in observational settings with multiple
treatments, $\mathbf{A}$, is widespread in fields including genetics, networks,
medicine, and politics. Wang and Blei (2019, WB) formalizes these procedures
and develops the "deconfounder," a causal inference method using factor models
of $\mathbf{A}$ to estimate "substitute confounders," $\hat{\mathbf{Z}}$, then
estimating treatment effects by regressing the outcome, $\mathbf{Y}$, on part
of $\mathbf{A}$ while adjusting for $\hat{\mathbf{Z}}$. WB claim the
deconfounder is unbiased when there are no single-cause confounders and
$\hat{\mathbf{Z}}$ is "pinpointed." We clarify pinpointing requires each
confounder to affect infinitely many treatments. We prove under these
assumptions, a na\"ive semiparametric regression of $\mathbf{Y}$ on
$\mathbf{A}$ is asymptotically unbiased. Deconfounder variants nesting this
regression are therefore also asymptotically unbiased, but variants using
$\hat{\mathbf{Z}}$ and subsets of causes require further untestable
assumptions. We replicate every deconfounder analysis with available data and
find it fails to consistently outperform na\"ive regression. In practice, the
deconfounder produces implausible estimates in WB's case study to movie
earnings: estimates suggest comic author Stan Lee's cameo appearances causally
contributed \$15.5 billion, most of Marvel movie revenue. We conclude neither
approach is a viable substitute for careful research design in real-world
applications.
