Abstract
In response to several articles on corporate corruption of science that appeared earlier in this journal, a critic outlined an epistemological model based on an unsupported assertion that epidemiologic evidence is always required to support cause–effect relationships. This model, if adopted, would eliminate co mpensation to victims of toxic exposures and impede regulation of accepted hazards. Epidemiology is only one element in support of cause–effect determinations. The critic's proposal of an anti-health epidemiology was initially developed by corporations with the goal of providing defense in litigation, and is based not on science but on a corporate need to enhance profits at the expense of public health.