For what it’s worth, I interpreted the original post as Elizabeth calling it a pseudo RCT, and separately saying that commenters cited it, without implying commenters called it a pseudo RCT
I understood ‘pseudo’ here to mean ‘semi’ not ‘fake’. So my interpretation of Elizabeth’s argument is ‘people point to this study as a sort-of-RCT but it really doesn’t resemble that’
For what it’s worth, I interpreted the original post as Elizabeth calling it a pseudo RCT, and separately saying that commenters cited it, without implying commenters called it a pseudo RCT
I understood ‘pseudo’ here to mean ‘semi’ not ‘fake’. So my interpretation of Elizabeth’s argument is ‘people point to this study as a sort-of-RCT but it really doesn’t resemble that’