> There's no inherent reason to prefer more "natural" solutions to medical issues. It just sounds good. Put up clinical trials to give your hypothesis real stan

> There's no inherent reason to prefer more "natural" solutions to medical issues. It just sounds good. Put up clinical trials to give your hypothesis real standing. Part oft he problem with clinical trials of nutrition is that they do not stratify for genetics. Take Riboflavin for example. For a long time there were studies saying it worked and then studies saying it did not. But when they looked at MTHFR variants in people the result became more consistent that for these people with the minor allele Riboflavin worked. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167527320337451 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01675... https://jmhg.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43042-022-00221-z https://jmhg.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43042-022-00... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300908420300742 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03009... So in this case, if someone was deficient in Riboflavin, supplementing Riboflavin is much more preferable since the deficiency is the root cause of the hypertension and correcting the deficiency might resolve a variety of issues, not just the hypertension.