Re: Scientific method vs a little bit of knowledge

On the contrary, you have not read L. Pauling's work but accepted the tired old excuse that whatever refutes your unassailable beliefs obviously did not use the scientific method. THAT IS YOUR BELIEF.

Is your scientfic methodology of such high quality that you won 2 Nobel Prizes like he did? I seriously doubt it. Do you know if the people he refuted won Nobel Prizes also? I doubt that too.

Pauling did pristine scientific work but when he refuted the arguments of some sacred cows suddenly his scientific work wasn't any good, not scientific anymore.

You avoided discussing your comparison in detail other than to say the refuted stuff of the old sacred cows must have been better. Doesn't prove anything. No evidence for your opinion there. Your opinion is that Pauling's work did not meet the high (LOL) standards that refuted it. But where is your evidence for this? You want others to provide references and evidence for their opinion--that applies to you too, if you want to be believed.

Under what principles of research was The Lancet (gallstone) article working that allow you to say you can't find the control part, but that's O.K.?