> There's no evidence of a dose/effect at this type of interaction.
That's pretty self-evidently false, isn't it? I don't see how you could possibly say that, given the OP article.
There's a pretty awful trend among certain people to claim that there is "no evidence" of something, when what they mean is that the evidence isn't strong enough to be convincing, or hasn't been corroborated by a peer-reviewed, double-blind, reproducible study.
But saying that direct statements reflecting the observations of people experiencing the phenomenon are "no[t] evidence" is both intellectually dishonest and an awful waste of credibility.
That's pretty self-evidently false, isn't it? I don't see how you could possibly say that, given the OP article.
There's a pretty awful trend among certain people to claim that there is "no evidence" of something, when what they mean is that the evidence isn't strong enough to be convincing, or hasn't been corroborated by a peer-reviewed, double-blind, reproducible study.
But saying that direct statements reflecting the observations of people experiencing the phenomenon are "no[t] evidence" is both intellectually dishonest and an awful waste of credibility.