Quote:
Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth
Dude, you are coming off as a prick if you deem to dismiss any and all pathologies simply because they have yet to gain established practicum. Observational data, often comes out as a secondary finding many times in research and investigative protocols. Hell, new findings pop up about the health related effects of substances we've been ingesting for years that were previously unknown. Of course, there is a lot of snakeoil salesman, but caveat emptor to those that don't do their own research and due diligence. It certainly doesn't mean everything is junk science. That's obtuse and dangerously ignorant
My dad is a doctor and we've had a number of conversations about vitamin B and it's benefits. He's head of the largest clinical phase 1 group in America. Clinical phase 1 are 1st time in man drug trials, so he has a decent amount of understanding of physiological responses to compounds in man. He and I are both in agreement on the gains in vitamin B and their benefits. Just FYI.
|
I am not dismissing "any and all pathologies simply because they have yet to gain established practicum". I am simply calling the bullshit on these ridiculous buzzwords. It's not obtuse at all. We have practice standards that we abide by based on hashed out concepts and evidence, and we also know the crazy shit that people think they have because of quack people who misinterpret clinical ideas and construe them in odd ways to sound like health pioneers. it's getting ****ing old.