> 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.
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.