Yes, a hypothesis is the foundation of any scientific study of a theory, thanks for bringing us back to 3rd grade. You are absolutely wrong in thinking "rigorously studied" holds any oats in science, if you have read many medical studies lately you would know that they most always end in "much more thorough investigation is needed". Speaking of doing your own research, people should be very wary of taking "medicine" as established and credible science. Much of our modern medicine, especially vaccines, is based on statistically observed results with very limited mechanistic understanding of how the kitchen chemistry affects the body. Alternative medicine that "works" is very open to interpretation and even medicine of insignificant value is often permitted in practice. Do your own research is not a reprimand or condescending jab at ones comment, it is an encouragement for people to get interested in finding answers instead of surrendering their curiosity to any one source of information.
Let’s break down your response:
“Yes, a hypothesis is the foundation of any scientific study of a theory, thanks for bringing us back to 3rd grade”
- You literally posted it as evidence, of which is bore none. At all.
“You are absolutely wrong in thinking "rigorously studied" holds any oats in science, if you have read many medical studies lately you would know that they most always end in "much more thorough investigation is needed".”
- I’m absolutely wrong? Wow, but strong for somebody who follows up with “if you have read many medical studies lately” when I am literally a medical scientist. And being rigorously studied is exactly what “hold oats” in science. The only time it doesn’t is when somebody uneducated disagrees with it and therefore tries to palm off prior studies as useless for some reason.
“Speaking of doing your own research, people should be very wary of taking "medicine" as established and credible science. Much of our modern medicine, especially vaccines, is based on statistically observed results with very limited mechanistic understanding of how the kitchen chemistry affects the body.”
- Seriously? Modern medicine is actually, constantly, endlessly, studied and revisited. And especially vaccines? Based on statistically observed results? You should find out what’s actually involved in novel pharmacology especially in regards to the clinical development phases. And how does a statistic help somebody code for a novel virus?? That is literally impossible, apart from the techniques used to speed up identification. And saying science has a limited view of chemistry in the body is ludicrous.
“Alternative medicine that "works" is very open to interpretation and even medicine of insignificant value is often permitted in practice.”
- No it isn’t open to interpretation. It works or it doesn’t. This is the joy of science as opposed to uneducated rigmarole trying to discredit actual study. And some things are permitted by some people in practice. Doesn’t make it right or effective.
As for your finishing statement in this pile of word salad, do your own research is only ever mentioned, in my experience, by people who have never actually researched anything. Reading a paper poorly and cherry picking isn’t research, studying something as the source is.
Your comments are also entirely vague and never actually mention anything specific to the topic apart from trying to discredit actual science.
