{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03228476821192053, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009933774834437087, 'mean_word_length': 5.2, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assigning Causation in Disease: Beyond Koch's Postulates

Assessing and assigning causality is important in the treatment and prevention of disease. However, identifying causality has philosophical and practical difficulties, which often provoke heated discussion. The intent of this essay is to look at causality in disease: to explore some of the history and some problems involved; to suggest possible approaches to their solution; and to discuss why it is important to try to assign causality. Koch's postulates frequently are used to establish causation of disease. Their fulfillment often is viewed as the "gold standard" for proofof causality [I]. On the other hand, the philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994) maintained that a hypothesis can not be proved, only disproved [2, 3]. There exists an apparent conflict between "proof" of causality and the views of Popper, and this has led to much discussion of causation in the epidemiological literature with criticism as well as defense ofPopper's views [4-8]. Popper's views raise questions about the adequacy of Koch's postulates. Are they the ultimate test in decisions concerning causality, and how do they relate to the Popperian approach to science?