Science is nothing like religion. Science depends upon results, religions depend upon dogma. If you can't see the difference there we aren't going anywhere. That you can switch words around to make my statement wrong by jumping into entirely different concepts doesn't refute anything
But the general attitude of "There Is But One Law And It Is SCIENCE" gets old after a while. Some times I think we have a few too many atheists around here.
If you're disregarding science for something that you yourself admit is inherently unscientific, in the world of medicine no less, then it looks to me like we don't have nearly enough.
"There is One True Medicine and all other options are inherently bullshit." is not a scientific statement. I /thought/ it was tongue in cheek, but by your response here, maybe I was wrong. There is no One True anything in science, because science recognizes that odds, context, and limited information pretty much preclude that from ever being possible. Like Democracy, it is not perfect, it is simply the best we have (and there are ways to do it poorly and ways to improve your methodology).
Medicine isn't even science. It has science in it, sure. But there's a lot more to it than that, as we're all well aware.
You're both sounding stubbornly dogmatic, here. As long as he doesn't go around insisting to other people that it will help them, lying to them about likely effects, or trying to spend the countries money on it, I've got no problem with him. People do a lot of things for a lot of very unscientific reasons. Big woop. I just want laws against this stuff being fraudulently advertised.