[quintaindilemma]

What's your point here in the second paragraph? You say that

1. people use their own "shamanic" medicine based on published scientific papers,

2. people disparage clinical practioners' theories which are based on research and which are later often refuted,

3. you conclude that the "many of those theories" of (2) are "based on lots of research" but often flawed,

4. which "does not bode well for" experiments based on the papers of (1).

What does (2) have to do with (1), unless the content of the papers and "experiments" in each are closely related?

Perhaps you could clarify what you were trying to say here.

[rscho]

1. People want to take metformin. They will cite various sources they extract from Pubmed, but the truth is that they got the impression that metformin was good for them while reading pop-sci articles and Facebook threads.

2. They then proceed to ask their doc for metformin, since it's a prescription drug. Unless the doc wants to commit career-seppuku or the patient has a reason for taking metformin according to current guidelines based on years of clinical use and research, the doc will refuse even when presented said Pubmed evidence.

Conclusion: people who want to take metformin will look into alternate sources, because they built a preconceived belief and nothing a sensible professional says will change their mind. People then proceed with metformin and if a change in indication occurs in the future that agrees with their belief, they will feel vindicated while in fact they are just lucky fools.