I am COMPLETELY on-board the peer-reviewed, scientific evidence train. The plural of anecdote is not data. I can't even begin to tell you how strongly I agree!

However...

I think it's important to add that I'm similarly skeptical of the notion that because we don't know about something right now, it doesn't exist. I think we have to be very wary of accepting the current thinking as the ONLY POSSIBLE thinking, especially when it comes to the brain.

The fact is that we don't know it all, and if past history is any indication of the future of science, some of what we think we know isn't 100% correct yet. Science is always evolving, happily.

Lack of peer-reviewed evidence is not evidence that something doesn't exist or isn't happening. It may just mean that it hasn't yet been studied. Lack of peer-reviewed evidence isn't the same as a debunking.

With that said, I completely agree that lack of evidence of effectiveness is a *very* good reason to think twice--or 3 or 4 or 5 times!--before handing someone your money for an unproven treatment for a disorder that may not even exist.

Basically I dislike blind faith in anything, even science!


Kriston