> Again, you don't understand how testing for medicine efficacy works. I understand perfectly well how the process works. I understand your objection. It is no

> Again, you don't understand how testing for medicine efficacy works. I understand perfectly well how the process works. I understand your objection. It is not wrong, it is merely of no consequence. Outside the realm of logical posturing, "evidence of absence" is valid. In the real world, you need to distinguish between there being "no evidence (but we haven't looked)" and "no evidence (but we have looked everywhere)" and everything in between. Any treatment starts out unproven, but as the evidence of absence mounts, the impetus to look even further dwindles, to the point where a treatment can be considered proven ineffective, again, for all intents and purposes.