I took your response as your opinion and it was argued well, which is why I took the time to read your references. But it did give me a weird feeling that your

I took your response as your opinion and it was argued well, which is why I took the time to read your references. But it did give me a weird feeling that your link 1 pretends to be science when it isn't and link 2 pretends to be solid science when it's just an opinion piece written by researchers. My statement was clearly identifiable as my private unscientific opinion on the topic, so I consider it safe for outsiders to read. But articles on medical topics that pretend to be science when they are not, that can cause a lot of pain if outsiders read it without being aware that it's only sudo science. That's why I thought it would be useful to criticize your references.