“ Couldn’t the same be said of Dr. Zelenko?”
Yes it could be said of him too. However, the difference between this backwoods doctor and that backwoods doctor (Dr Z ) is that Dr Z has anecdotal evidence to back up his claims. The Canadian doctor is just looking at the sky and speculating what might happen years down the road.
I'm also confused by your use of the word "anecdotal." Wasn't Dr. Zelenko's patients actual real people known to him, who's treatments the doctor has recorded in his patients' files? He's not just repeating a story that he heard from someone else.
Maybe you meant to say that his treatments didn't follow the rigors of a clinical study, but they certainly weren't "anecdotal."
You'll pardon me if I sense a certain attitude of condescension in how you characterize these people. Is that meant to discredit them because you disagree with them, or do you feel that they are not worthy of being called doctors and should be shamed out of their profession?
-PJ