Re: and more....

no I didn't ignore what you said at all. do you understand what I mean by the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy? you really must do some reading then you will understand how so many times people have believed that a treatment has helped when it hasn't. there are many functions of the body that change over time. therefore the difficulty is deciding whether or not a change is caused by an intervention or not. if you can't undestand that then you can't begin to understand why the prospective double blind randomised controlled trial is the gold standard. anecdotes are generally no use at all except to generate a hypothesis. contrary to what you say many of these phenomena are studied - as you yourself said there have been (negative) studies into this treatment. it does seem to be a phenomenon in alternative medicine that negative research is a badge of accreditation. Tweet