My objection is that your “reesearch” is unscientifically subjective, and therefore in reality just high priced disinformation. I don’t particularly level this at you, but at all similar “researchers.”
There is a vast body of objective information that much more closely meshes with real world human physiology that is being selectively ignored because it calls into question the effectiveness of methods and products of vested “mainstream” practitioners and manufacturers.
There is a vast body of objective information that much more closely meshes with real world human physiology that is being selectively ignored because it calls into question the effectiveness of methods and products of vested “mainstream” practitioners and manufacturers.
Really? Without having any idea of the kind of research that I do (other than what I say publically, "medical"), you know the quality of my research, and exactly how my research is "unscientifically subjective"? That's truly amazing.
As for the "vast body of objective information that much more closely meshes with real world human physiology", how was it derived? Valid information is derived through the exact same scientific method that I was taught to use; if the information was not derived using the scientific method, it is not valid. Good scientists do not ignore valid scientific results. We also do not latch onto an idea and refuse to let go of it if the evidence does not support it. Unfortunately, with a lot of those crackpot sites, that is exactly what happens.