The idea that scientists should spend their time disproving somebody else's theory is as primitive as "guilty until proven innocent." It makes absolutely no logical sense.
You kidding? First of all, it's your analogy that makes no logical sense, and Where it concerns MY life and MY health, I most certainly can, and do, expect that scientists should prove that their (potentially deadly) product is superior to natural alternatives, especially if they are going to claim that natural alternatives don't work.
And you are the one who came on this thread making the assertion that "there is no scientific evidence that proves that radical diets have any impact..." But of course, the only reason that scientific evidence doesn't exist, as you've so kindly pointed out, is....
Why would scientists suddenly want to spend time disproving a diet works? What's in it for them? All they have to do is prove the product they sell does what they say it does.
Yeah, they only care about their own profits, not your health, or mine either.
Of course, IF they could prove these diets didn't work, what would be in it for them would be that more people would use their products, rather than relying on natural alternatives, and they would make even more money, but only IF they could prove it. I have no doubt they've tried, but the problem is, they can't prove something that isn't true.
I could write a book and say unicorn urine is the new foutain of youth, and thousands of people could buy it, and it would still appear on Amazon.
No, because most people are perfectly aware of the fact that unicorns don't exist. However, "urine therapy" actually has been practiced for eons, and there are people who swear by it. About as plausible as consuming the venom of poisonous snakes, which is exactly what the prescription medication that is burning my husband alive, is formulated from.
And then, there's fecal transplants, which seem to be obtaining some pretty amazing results.
The paleo diet has existed for thousands of years. It's how many people eat naturally today, as you say. Of course it works! Nobody here is saying the paleo diet doesn't work.
Maybe you should go back and read your posts, because that's exactly what you have, at least, been implying.
My problem is when people make big irresponsible claims such as "the SCD diet will make you go drug free". It's appalling. The OP specifically asked that question. I was not off-topic. Suggesting that a diet will replace conventional therapy is a lie.
No, it is not a lie. Many people who follow the SCD diet are drug free. Charleigh's son is drug-free. My husband stopped taking medications for his digestive issues years ago. The medication that's killing him is for his blood pressure. Oh, did I mention that it's formulated from poisonous snake venom? Yes, I believe I did.
It's the same thing as saying a diet would replace chemotherapy. It could replace it. You have to leave a chance for doubt or you raise hopes for nothing.
You must not be aware of the fact that, depending on the type of cancer, providing it is caught in time, prior to it metastisizing, and removed completely during surgery, for the most part, chemo/radiation treatments are no recommended or performed. More people were dying from chemo and radiation treatments than they were from the cancer.
Both my parents had cancer, neither had chemo or radiation and are both alive and cancer free--and are both past the 10 year mark.
When you make claims such as "SCD diet will make you go drug free", which is something the OP read, it's saying "if you adopt my diet you will no longer need the medicine because my diet will cure you", which is nothing short of intellectual fraud.
One more time, the only med my husband is on is for his blood pressure. But everyone's body chemistry is different, and what works for one, doesn't work for all.
Case in point: the diet did nothing for me, but I already ate very well.
Try drinking kefir.
Oh, and I noted you claimed to have tried the paleo diet for 3 weeks. 3 whole weeks, huh? Do you really not know why it didn't work?