While I agree it does not invalidate the study because it is one of the gold standards, it is disingenuous to say that the information provided to gain informed consent in a double blind study has no impact on that study.
You seem to think that a double blind study is to measure the effect of a medication against “no medication”, but it is, in fact, to measure effect against placebo. Double blind is specifically designed to remove experimentator effect in a full consent framework. In fact, the study that are not done with consent, generally in a single blind (the experimentated) are always frowned upon by the community for good reasons.
That does not invalidate a double-blind study.
While I agree it does not invalidate the study because it is one of the gold standards, it is disingenuous to say that the information provided to gain informed consent in a double blind study has no impact on that study.
You seem to think that a double blind study is to measure the effect of a medication against “no medication”, but it is, in fact, to measure effect against placebo. Double blind is specifically designed to remove experimentator effect in a full consent framework. In fact, the study that are not done with consent, generally in a single blind (the experimentated) are always frowned upon by the community for good reasons.
You are missing the point and I won’t restate what was already stated explicitly.
“you’re wrong”
“no?”
“well you’re right but this new claim”
“here’s why you’re wrong in detail”
“you aren’t engaging with me. The time for conversation has passed. goodbye.”
Removed by mod
Removed by mod