Again apropos of Erin’s “eyeball”, it occurs to me that the isotonic transformation applied in the MERIT design I’ve criticized in another thread could be seen as a way to indulge the illusion so vital to RNCT’s, that this pesky randomness statisticians are always going on about can somehow be swept away without their assistance:
In any case, the upshot of these last 2 posts is that, if we are looking for empirical evidence on the mental substrate for RNCT’s, then Project Optimus provides plenty of material. Indeed, FDA OCE developed and advocated its “randomized, parallel [yet non-comparative] dose–response trials” out in the open (on YouTube, in a ‘white paper’, in JCO and the NEJM), much as Project 2025 did for the current US Administration.