[ncmncm]

Your wholesale invention of "animus against well designed RCTs" anyway explains your impassioned defense of fetishizing RCTs. I have never encountered any such animus, and doubt you have, either.

You reveal that you missed that Pearl spells out circumstances where observational studies do suffice to demonstrate what you insist requires an RCT.

And, you show you missed the entire section on the historical events that led to your and others' continuing fetishization of RCTs as the only possible means to demonstrate causation, and their lack to make any such demonstration impossible, which you continue to insist upon, against reason.

Your late admission that RCTs may be poorly designed, and thus fail to demonstrate what they claim, contradicts your previous fetishistic insistence on RCTs' infallibility.