You want to prove to everyone you're right about not needing controls, you should explain your reasons. Saying it's not needed because it's not needed is hardly an acceptable argument.
In your posts you have asked people to explain themselves and frequently criticized the intelligence of the person whose answer didn't meet your standard for that question.
Yet when I asked you to further define your terms, you refused. You finally said you didn't see any "control" in the Lancet article. But then you added that it wasn't needed. So I guess it will take another bunch of posts to get an answer from you as to why a "control" isn't needed in this case--based on your past behavior.
Why don't you put it on the table and explain why you do not see a need for a control in this article. Instead of playing word games by hiding your own definitions of something while demanding definitions of others and then saying it isn't so. Why should anyone take your word for it? You may have an extensive background in what you have been talking about, however there isn't any way of proving that is there? Anyone can add anything or say anything they want about their background on the internet. So we do the best we can by sharing what we know. So, what do you know about the matter of control not being needed in the Lancet example? Why hide behind an attitude of "if you keep asking about control you should know the answer to your question?" What about the many people who read this forum who don't know why the control is not needed, from your point of view--or never heard of "control" in an experiment?
Why you would think/react as if this was some sort of tick question I do not understand. If you are well versed in your scientific literature then you know very well that it highly important which terms are used in an experiment and how they are used. In highly controversial matters in Science every word in the discussion or conclusion is fought over if there is going to be doubt that the conclusion(s) do follow from the results of the experiment. That's right, some scientists hate to leave any sense of doubt in their conclusions so they make CONCLUSIONS THAT ARE OVERREACHING. The conclusions go beyond what is supported by the experimental results of the experiment/test they just ran. They overgeneralize as their conclusions go beyond the data.
1.Something that you prove not using the gold standard is not as good as something proven by the gold standard.
2. You did not see a control in the Lancet article; therefore, not proven by gold standard.
3. So how can you say the conclusion you favor has the indelible stamp of a proven scientfic fact, applicable to everyone, without having been tested by using the gold standard?