>>936641689>no, you don'tNo you actually do. Without an RCT you cannot check cause and effect. You can correlate, and correlations being spurious is the rule not the exception, and the only way to find out if the exception is an actual exception is with an RCT. There's no actual getting around this.
I know in grade school it's said that "RCTs are the gold standard" but that's a half-truth. RCTs are THE ONLY STANDARD. Everything else is hypothesis generation, and while a hypothesis isn't de facto wrong because it has no RCT attached to it? Again, you can't check cause and effect without the RCT. Period.
>you autistic fuckOh well now I'm double-wrong, clearly.
>as has been pointed out to you every time you say that>get some new materialI don't know what you're talking about, but ultimately if someone "points out" that we don't need an RCT to prove cause and effect then the only they pointed to is their illiteracy of science. Simple as.