"credentials aren't a sufficient guarantee of correctness."
That is correct, but a name and his background would carry a lot of weight. Why should I believe an article without a name and background.
Who is libertymavenstock?
Since you do not know who he is from your reply, I did some research and found the writers real name. He name is Andrew Gaiziunas.
He has a twitter account: Andrew Gaiziunas @agaiziunas Aviator, innovator, and expert in curing malignant ‘status quo’ diseases. Co-founder at #turbadium, working for social equality by democratizing high finance.
His main business is Cyptocurrency.
I wonder what he means by "working for social equality by democratizing high finance" Could social equality be a red flag
In his tweet just an hour ago
Link to his Tweet
"Absolutely. Full disclaimer, theory based on 80%
anecdotal evidence, 10%/10% pre-print/peer-reviewed stuff we found in public domain. But every time we looked for a missing piece of the puzzle it came up exactly where we thought it should be."
Anedotal evidence define according to Dictionary.com: not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
My summary: the paper (aka posting under a fake name ) is not a reliable paper. The author confess in a full disclaimer it is anecdotal evidence. Other words nothing is proven in his paper/posting. He has not conducted any medical research, there is no other research references in paper/posting.