[EarthLaunch]

> In comparison, most modalities don't tend to claim success rates on amputations. Though both involve the destruction of tissues.

That comparison deliberately wipes out the actual differences between immune disease and amputation which give rise to the idea that the immune system can be affected by diet in ways amputation cannot. If you want to be scientific, use reason.

> "it would be worth the inconvenience of trying it out for a few months even if the odds of success are very small." - isn't that the sales pitch of every snake oil salesman or true believer?

That is an invalid answer to that pitch. There are many times that pitch is completely valid, too; when a small inconvenience is worth trying even if the odds of success are very small (such as this article's study itself!).

I still can't understand why there's so much anti-reason surrounding "defense" of "science-based" medicine. If it's an overreaction to quackery, then it's an ineffective one.

[sago]

> a small inconvenience is worth trying even if the odds of success are very small

Pascal's wager works the same way. And it would be a reasonable argument if you forget to multiply by the number of such claims.