[Lou L]

"They aren't peer-reviewed...YOU'VE seen NED."

In other words, you have anecdotes, not data. Nothing that can be re-produced, no data generated that supports efficacy, nothing that a doctor could point to in support of a decision, nothing a patient could be hopeful about in terms of a treatment.

There is a saying, "the plural of anecdote is NOT data." You have a few anecdotes that likely wouldn't hold up to any scrutiny. By all means, you cling tightly to that.

And one more thing--I do work in the pharmaceutical industry and have for 30 years. I've learned a lot about the scientific approach to medicine, and unfortunately, I've seen a lot of it corrupted by politics on both sides of political spectrum. Am I biased? I don't think so, nor should I be disqualified for having an opinion that's different than yours (and a great many, here on this forum.)

[Jane Long]

Thanks for confirming that my hunch (that you are definitely connected to BigPharma) was correct.

Take care.

[grey_whiskers]

There is a saying, "the plural of anecdote is NOT data."

Spoken like a true midwit.

The plural of anecdote, if sufficiently numerous, is "empirical."