Anti-woo commentators are a bunch of smug and condescending...

[Th1onein]

81. See post #46

It is often the case that the poster cites some anecdotal evidence. Then, the anti-wooer comes in and says, "Oh, that's anecdotal." Of course it is, but it doesn't mean that it's not EVIDENCE. It's not empirical evidence, but it IS evidence. That evidence SHOULD make us ask questions; it should lead us to DO the work to provide empirical evidence to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. But research is now controlled by monied-interests and big business. And if it's against what serves their interests, that research that might just provide that empirical evidence is just never done. So, then, we hear, "There is NO EVIDENCE to support that."

Go back in history; look at just alternative cancer treatments. One physician/researcher (don't remember his name, offhand) had empirical evidence, and you know what they said? They said they didn't believe the evidence because the results were too good to be true.

One guy, head of the FDA (don't remember his name either, I'm getting old) even said that if a new drug comes out and it's NOT promoted by a large pharma, it WON'T get passed. Now, how is that helping to promote research, much less helping people who are sick?