That does not even make sense.
When I have additional information to add to an article about a science/health related topic that might help people to better understand the implications of the subject of the article, I post it. When I see pseudoscientific nonsense, I point it out because I know that many people simply do not have the scientific background to either recognize pseudoscience, or to know what exactly makes it pseudoscience even if they do recognize it as such.
There is a disturbing lack of scientific literacy in this country, and this lack jeopardizes our position as the world's superpower. You can't have a superpower where the majority of the population is scientifically illiterate and superstitious. So I do what I can to increase scientific literacy.
The very nature of your attempts to discredit me in the past reveal that you do recognize that I have the education and credentials that I say I have. Your previous attempt to claim that all I do is "copy-paste" (i.e. that I am able to provide references for everything I post, even if I don't go to the trouble of posting the references every time), or your attempts to discredit me as a "shill" are clear admissions that you recognize my expertise. After all, one cannot be a "shill" for (just to pick a random example) "big pharma" unless one has a pretty esoteric set of skills and education, as detailed in this job listing. You don't find people with those qualifications working at McDonald's.
You might not like the scientific view of things--it certainly does not fit the magical belief system that makes people believe, for example, that "supplements" will cure them of just about anything--but it won't go away just because of superstitions.
My philosophy is that expertise is apparent, even to people who are completely unfamiliar with the expert's particular field of knowledge. It shows in the way experts present themselves, in the way that they describe things.
As always, if someone has a philosophical disagreement with the science I present, either with specific facts or with the interpretation of the facts in accordance with theory, they are welcome to show that I am wrong. If I am wrong about something, anyone can reference the medical literature to show how and why I am wrong. If they cannot do that, and their "disagreement" consists of calling me a shill or otherwise trying to discredit me without addressing the facts that I present, then I have to conclude that they actually do recognize that I know what I'm talking about--they just don't like it because it challenges their superstitions.
Present your “peer reviewed papers” and I will stop disagreeing.
That is all that I have asked.