Actual evidence from actual scientists.
[Image description: A patient holds bottles of medications for hormone replacement therapy as part of her gender-affirming care.]
Actual evidence from actual scientists.
[Image description: A patient holds bottles of medications for hormone replacement therapy as part of her gender-affirming care.]
Exactly. Some things just can’t be studied as part of a double blind RCT. For example, see: Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
The paper is funny, but the authors are making a serious point. RCTs are great when they’re possible, but just because they’re not possible doesn’t mean we can’t gather strong evidence anyway.
Thank you for that paper, that’s a great analogy honestly.