>>Your doctor assumes that the only kind of evidence is a “double blind research study,” which of course it is not.<<
Well, we talked about more than that single approach (although it is the gold standard).
Your link basically boils down to: Not demonstrably helpful, but not harmful either.
“Well, we talked about more than that single approach (although it is the gold standard).”
Typically not. Most studies like this are funded by drug companies. Subsequent independent studies tend to show worse results than initially reported.
The study is most often short-term. No one has any idea of the results of taking those drugs long-term. No one has studied that.
The studies do not look beyond enough evidence to make claims the FDA will approve in order to market the drug to doctors.
No one does tests to see if these drugs promote cancer or other diseases.
Finally, despite “the gold standard” of these studies, after approval and “success”, a great number of these drugs kill people - like Vioxx (somewhere around 60,000, I read once). How can a “gold standard” result in death, if it is the ultimate test?
“Your link basically boils down to: Not demonstrably helpful, but not harmful either.”
I respectfully disagree.
Also, this is simply one link. If your doctor looked outside his field, or read other scientific journals in additional fields like clinical nutrition, he would see things his discipline never considers.
best.