I shared this earlier but forgot to put any type of context to it. I believe an important point to make is this is where/how science starts.
An observation. An anecdote.
"Science" does not burst forth from the forehead of Zeus like some kind of fully formed demi-god. It starts with "oh, wow! That's interesting! Let's take another look at this..."
Is that the end of the scientific process? Clearly no, but the folks who suggest it's RCT's or GTFO are kinda simpletons.
It's also worth mentioning the "The plural of anecdote does not evidence make..." was largely an outgrowth of the 1960's tobacco companies trying to underplay the growing case of tobacco--> story. Which BTW, has no RCT's to hang a hat on.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1541414/full
l
The link to the study is broken, missing the last "l" in /full