The fable of the superiority of randomized studies no longer holds up against the reality of observational studies

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Blablablablabla .... You have NOTHING left to fuel your lies and your incessant deceit.

everyone can see what you have left ...

The facts, which for a year are in line with what I had advanced while at the same time you only messed up yourselves miserably on all subjects, from global warming to covid (with your clogs) ... Already that you were not credible, here you are buried "six feet under". Good soap opera, isn't it?

[ABC2019]

Blablablablabla .... You have NOTHING left to fuel your lies and your incessant deceit.

everyone can see what you have left ...

The facts, which for a year have been consistent with what I had put forward:

Seriously, have you come up with something once, in a year?

I thought you never made a prediction!

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Stop, you're hurting yourself. Besides, I no longer respond to a clown on the ground who tries by all means to rot again a topic on which he no longer masters anything ...

[ABC2019]

aah, ok, I prefer, I thought for a moment that you wanted to make a reasoning, I was afraid of neurological attack because of the covid ... but no, obviously, nothing serious, here I am reassured!

[Janic]

WHEN you do randomized studies, it can't mask a result that exists (if it was fun to do a randomized study by blindfolding a sample of people and exposing them to either the sun or a radiator, you would ALSO find that it is the Sun that gives sunburns).

it is good this one, you will have to take it out to ridicule yourself once more. Both the sun and the heater can cause burns.

And since randomized studies (not rigged of course) cannot mask an effect that exists, if they do not see effect is that there is no effect.

if a blind person does not see the sun, it is because there is no sun and if it is burnt it is because it comes from the radiator or the fireplace. Well done the unstoppable logic!

[ABC2019]

WHEN you do randomized studies, it can't mask a result that exists (if it was fun to do a randomized study by blindfolding a sample of people and exposing them to either the sun or a radiator, you would ALSO find that it is the Sun that gives sunburns).

it is good this one, you will have to take it out to ridicule yourself once more. Both the sun and the heater can cause burns.

I spoke of sunburn, no burns, it is not the heat that causes sunburn but UV rays (it can also be a "cold" UV lamp !!)

if a blind person does not see the sun, it is because there is no sun and if it is burnt it is because it comes from the radiator or the fireplace. Well done the unstoppable logic!

double-blind studies are not blind, they see what others cannot see (including the disadvantages of treatments).

[Obamot]

How can we claim to be “scientific”While at this point ignoring the opinion of eminent scientists (real ones) who tell you under what conditions this or that type of study is relevant and which other is not: it smells like a buffoon full nose.

[Christophe]

Obviously in some cases, randomized studies are unnecessaryes, and observational studies may suffice, but randomized studies can never give worse results as observational studies.

Bin if when they are pipeautées because partially organized !!

Is there just me who thinks that ABC is screwing us up here?

But, come on reassure us, you certainly meant ALSO good?

[ABC2019]

How can we claim to be “scientific”While at this point ignoring the opinion of eminent scientists (real ones) who tell you under what conditions this or that type of study is relevant and which other is not: it smells like a buffoon full nose.

in the given snippet they nowhere say that randomized studies are inferior to observational studies, they just say they may not be necessary.

Just like you don't need a computer to do a two-digit multiplication, but that doesn't mean the computer would give you the wrong answer.

[ABC2019]

Obviously in some cases, randomized studies are unnecessaryes, and observational studies may suffice, but randomized studies can never give worse results as observational studies.

Bin if when they are pipeautées because partially organized !!

it is much less easy to pipeaut a randomized study than an observational study (contrary to what Guy seems to believe).

Except of course to put false figures in your post, but that's called fraud and it can happen in both cases.