>Until someone either conducts a naturalistic experiment with lots of people exposed to large doses of microplastics and compares them to a control group, or we expose some larger animals to microplastics over a long time in a true randomized controlled study, I'm going to remain skeptical.
I know an anti-vaxxer who says the same thing about lifesaving vaccines, but in the opposite direction. He seems to claim that there are few/no truly inert (meaning pure saline, as opposed to aluminum-doped adjuvant without the inactive virus) placebo controlled RCTs for many of the most commonly scheduled vaccines. And until there is one, he won’t believe they are safe.
I find that people who say "we need real-life practical studies" often have a viewpoint 180 degrees opposite to mine regarding research. They become annoyed when RCT (randomized controlled trials) studies prove that homeopathy or acupuncture doesn't work. They want to conduct "practical" studies with less rigorous design protocols. I want the opposite: I just want an RCT with clinically significant outcomes reported clearly (for example, a tenfold increase in microplastic consumption raised the prevalence of Parkinson's from 2 to 4 percent in the research group).
The usual response I get is something like, "that kind of research is really hard to do." My response to that is, "conducting just easy research is not only unhelpful but actually detrimental to the field."
> I just want an RCT with clinically significant outcomes reported clearly (for example, a tenfold increase in microplastic consumption raised the prevalence of Parkinson's from 2 to 4 percent in the research group).
What is the experiment you are proposing here exactly? It sounds like you want to give extra microplastics to a randomly selected group for tens of years, and then comparing the incidence of Parkinson disease among them compared with a control group who was administered some placebo. Is that what you are proposing?
If that is what you are asking for then that is a “never gona happen unless you go full Mengele, and even then it is hard” type of research.
As I mentioned earlier, one approach is a natural experiment following an accident. You could compare recovery outcomes between two groups that received different treatments (e.g., immediate vs. delayed medical care) due to circumstances beyond the researchers' control. You would observe and measure recovery over time and analyze differences to assess the treatment's impact.
Alternatively, compare the sickness rates in a population near a new factory emitting microplastics with a similar population elsewhere. With many potential sites, extensive on-site research could yield valuable insights beyond what is available from desk-based studies.
Or, consider an experiment where you add plastic to one fish-filled pool and use another pool as a control, monitoring the ecosystems over a year or two. This could provide more robust data than some commonly seen studies.
>I know an anti-vaxxer who says the same thing about lifesaving vaccines, but in the opposite direction. He seems to claim that there are few/no truly inert (meaning pure saline, as opposed to aluminum-doped adjuvant without the inactive virus) placebo controlled RCTs for many of the most commonly scheduled vaccines
It's impossible to know that the vaccines are net life-saving without proper placebo-controlled RCTs. Without that, you just have scientific-sounding marketing material.
I know an anti-vaxxer who says the same thing about lifesaving vaccines, but in the opposite direction. He seems to claim that there are few/no truly inert (meaning pure saline, as opposed to aluminum-doped adjuvant without the inactive virus) placebo controlled RCTs for many of the most commonly scheduled vaccines. And until there is one, he won’t believe they are safe.
The guy is nuts imo