Dear Evelyn:
You should not be surprised that if you submit a reference that is contrary, it will be held up to a reasonable level of scrutiny. I stand by my own
opinions and need no instruction about how to express them. None of these papers are sacrosanct (including those from Ebringer) and I am willing to think critically about any of them.
Both you and Ebringer work in the field and must be polite; I do not have the same restriction and I have no fear of any censorship within certain genteel bounds. All hypotheses should be challenged and if they can be defeated or supported based upon evaluation techniques or obvious results, it does not take any specialized experience or knowledge to form a useful opinion.
Although I do not and have not worked in the medical industry, I have written and reviewed many technical papers for publication and understand well enough the scientific rigor that should be employed.
Whether I have every arcane detail correct, I more respect actual results than all the debate over epiphenomena and unverifiable claims.
And I respect all the members of this site who are certainly well enough able to tell the difference between my own opinions and fact. If I provoke more study and research, for whatever the goal, I do not consider this a bad thing.
Perhaps I need a [disclaimer] before sharing the experiences that have helped me...
