I think that one of the problems that has been highlighted here, and on other threads, is that you can probably find a scientific study to back up pretty much anything. And as soon as one study is done, another comes along to contradict it.
Anyone remember that you shouldn't eat eggs because they contain a high level of cholesterol? But then you should eat several eggs a week because it's a
different kind of cholesterol, and actually eggs are beneficial.
Or, and I saw this recently on The Story of Science on BB2, when Radium was first discovered by scientists, how it went into everything. You could buy radium water purifiers, radium toothpaste, even radium condoms - because the scientists thought it was an amazing new discovery and it was promoted as the latest, life preserving wonder.
And, more recently - Andrew Wakefield of the MMR scandal. His paper appeared in the peer-reviewed Lancet, as apparent scientific fact. He has since been discredited, along with all his research.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that you should probably take such things as untested, or even tested trials of anything (including conventional medicine) with a grain of salt (unless there are many comparable studies with proven results). What's 'truth' from a science perspective can change with subsequent discoveries. Or even the latest study done with a different criteria.
Science doesn't have all the answers - yet.
