if you’ve got a plausible biological pathway
Well it’s certainly possible to infer causality from large observational trials, but the point is…
Gid M-K; Health Nerd
21

Ummm…we’re about 50 years overdue for some new theory (opening up a new class of “plausible biological pathways”) explaining observations both the practice of medicine and medical research filter out because they don’t fit the theory developed in the age of autopsies (plus germ theory from Pasteur).

So please, please stop filtering king-isn’t-wearing-any-clothes observations because, for example, they don’t fit dose-response dogma. Or because of unwillingness to ask “why” instead of restating calories-in-calories-out dogma.

(Spoken by a failed Lorenzo’s Oil style father who was astonished by the medical profession’s collective choice to make itself useless 22 years ago dealing with the fallout of a sick house incident affecting me, my wife, and our then 6 and 2 year old children. What happened to us cannot possibly occur, given the basic theory underlying both the practice of medicine and medical research today. That means the theory states as absolutes approximations which do not hold in our case.)

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.