Now, when I have poured scorn on on so called 'alternative' nonsensical and medieval 'treatments' such as homeopathy and acupuncture and insisted on scientific proof there have been sneering comments along the lines of 'falsified science'. I entirely agree - especially from the stable of Ancel Keys who cherry picked his data and the reason for the exponential rise in T2 diabetes and why most of the people here are suffering from the disease.
However, there is a difference between sloppy and dishonest science and the gold standard of scientific endeavour - the double/triple blind randomised trial.
There is a difference between that and 'My granny felt better after...etc - that is anecdote and there's rather a big difference when offering feelings as evidence and this:
Here's some more. I don't expect you to read it, and I include the reference merely to illustrate just how involved the process is - just have a skim:
I doubt the detractors adhering to unproven therapies hoping that a pill is the easy route will bother to even read the above, but hope springs eternal!