The major issue with this paper and this protocol is that it is not reproducible.
As the protocol is not accessible / published, we cannot determine how the difference in the set of measures between participants were determined and as such no researcher can independently replicate this study.
This is why those licensed diet / lifestyle change are never science: by definition. Even if they actually produce the desired outcome, all the research is produced either by the creator or by researchers that entered a license agreement and thus have conflicting interests and bias.
> The major issue with this paper and this protocol is that it is not reproducible.
Sorry, such claim is a pure bullshit. It is reproducible, even the parts of the suggested treatment lead to significant improvements in quality of life for affected patients.
What we have here is: 1) the paper has some claims 2) it has weak theoretical coverage 3) it does not perform orthogonal hypothesis validation (validating each parameter in isolation) 4) the size of trial is small
Plus some political plays between scientific society participants.
But it is far from non-reproducible. There are a few people in the field who had big successes with similar therapies. (Dr. Derrick Lonsdale)
As the protocol is not accessible / published, we cannot determine how the difference in the set of measures between participants were determined and as such no researcher can independently replicate this study.
This is why those licensed diet / lifestyle change are never science: by definition. Even if they actually produce the desired outcome, all the research is produced either by the creator or by researchers that entered a license agreement and thus have conflicting interests and bias.