If you artificially restrict your definition of “evidence” to accept only RCTs, you end up rejecting the thesis of the rotundity of the earth. Because most scientific theorems are proven by direct mechanistic evidence.
https://twitter.com/ToshiAkima/status/1627184316940976130
Anthropogenic climate change is considered 99.9% certain without a single RCT. Because RCTs are not a universal scientific standard of evidence. A Cochrane review on climate change would reject it as having low-level, not 99.9%, certainty theguardian.com/environment/20…
If restricted to RCTs, there is no “evidence” that modern clean-water systems, built after the cholera epidemics of the 19th century, reduce the spread of cholera. Because for public health engineering systems, RCTs are not a standard of proof.
https://twitter.com/toshiakima/status/1449625627141705730?s=61&t=47j_mnpyZjGIvB-VcpQ_Cg
That is why smoking in indoor public areas has been essentially banned due to evidence of harm gained without any RCTs. The ban on asbestos is also not supported by RCTs. Nor should they be tested by RCT, as it would be unethical.
Lastly, RCTs are not the requisite standard of evidence before implementing clean-air ventilation standards, whether to mitigate against viral aerosols, particulate pollutants, or to improve CO2 levels. Neither indoor CO2 nor outdoor CO2 regulation needs RCT support.
To demand RCTs before taking action on either atmospheric CO2 emissions or indoor CO2 standards is to act as an anti-science merchant of doubt. They are often funded by similar Koch brothers' dark money pushing an anarcho-capitalist anti-regulatory agenda.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
