> Randomized controlled studies have little to no scientific value Really? How would you convince me that, say, Nivolumab is a better treatment for cancer tha

> Randomized controlled studies have little to no scientific value Really? How would you convince me that, say, Nivolumab is a better treatment for cancer than the current standard of care? I doubt you have something better than a randomised controlled trial, given there is international acknowledgement that this is the gold standard - the only thing to top it is several RCTs spanning several centres and countries. >Too easy to report random results Subgroup analysis is always taken with a pinch of salt. >impossible to control for all factors Well that's the point of a randomised controlled trial. The 'controlled' part is 'randomised'. >sample sizes never remotely large enough For what? >Psychiatric theories can’t be falsified, making them not science. Not sure what question you have in mind, but the question "Does anti-psychotic medication 'A' improve overall survival in patients diagnosed with refractory schizophrenia" is certainly a question that can be tested in a scientific way. I'm not a psychiatrist, but your comments don't make sense.