I think that the fact that a research PhD with amazing credentials saying something is really not the point. The most amazing scientist without the most verifiable science behind him or her is no different to anyone else.
Ultimately the question boils down to this, you, me anyone has the right to believe anything on faith - I can believe that lemongrasss is good for me, and you may not. I can believe that my mothers advice, a fitness gurus advice, what I see on TV, what a journalist said is right or wrong. I can take a medicine that has proven to be good for another ailment and believe it's good for mine. These are all beliefs, not ideas and remedies proven by rigorous scientific method. Therefore any discussion of them in a large forum with diverse views would be a fruitless experience with one group of people agreeing that whatever belief I have makes sense, potentially providing anecdotal evidence backing that up, and other people saying the opposite. It's not a discussion that ends up anywhere useful... those are my thoughts on this.
I could be wrong of course, but I really don't think anything TommyC proposed in the OP, or anything I can think of from his previous posts/threads, is based on faith. I think t is based on science. I don't agree with "The most amazing scientist without the most verifiable science behind him or her is no different to anyone else." IF by that you mean "without a large scale RCT(and preferably a Pharmaceutical company doing the study).
There is much science that is not a large and expensive (millions$)RCT, and just because it does not rise to the standard of RCT does does not mean it is not science and in fact is faith. For example, if one group gets vitamin X and has results much better than another group which got nothing(not even placebo), or even if just compared to historical results and expectations for a group, that is not faith, that is fact, and that is science. Even if it has not yet risen to the gold standard large scale RCT does not mean it is worthless ad not at a minimum good food for thought. ESPECIALLY if it keeps happening in multiple studies by a lot of different institutions. And it is the same with in vitro and in vivo animal studies, they are science and not faith. They don't prove that vitamin X is going to cure my PC, but they might well be worthy of discussion and as it always says "further research is needed, RCTs are needed".
And then the decades go by and the unbiased RCTs just never seem to appear.
And on the idea some seem to have that nothing is worth even discussing unless it is large RCT because to do otherwise is dangerous, I would like to point prescript
ion drugs that go through the RCTs before being turned loose on the public. After the (often manufacturer supplied) requisite, large RCTs are done, the drugs are declared "safe and effective" by the FDA and released to the public often for megabucks. But how often do you hear, a year or two or 10 down the road, that further research has shown the drug is NOT safe, and maybe not very effective either. Suddenly there is a "black box warning" or the drug is even pulled from the market, AFTER people have been hurt or killed. I had that personally happen to me as an anesthesia provider. Luckily no one was killed or even injured, it was just several very close calls with the newest FDA approved "safe and effective" drug. Then suddenly, BAM, pulled from the market a few weeks later. Though it didn't happen to my patients, there were some killed. I used to think the older anesthesiologists were just cheap skates when they did not want to use the newest, most expensive drugs. But in reality, they had just learned the hard way over the years to require more evidence than "FDA approved".
Point being? Even FDA approved drugs with RCTs behind them are not a guarantee of safe AND effective compared to a drug being replaced. Still, it is the best we have, but a question arises: how can this happen? How can there be large scale RCTs proving a drug both safe and effective and then people are killed by that drug? Why didn't those dangers show up in the RCTs?
Any study we read, RCT or otherwise, has potential
bias and might not be true science. IMO.