Using a meta-study that showed tiny changes (statistical significance is irrelevant here, virtually any intervention could have had that kind of impact) to bols

Using a meta-study that showed tiny changes (statistical significance is irrelevant here, virtually any intervention could have had that kind of impact) to bolster a handful of anecdotes is pretty silly. I don't argue that this doesn't help a fraction of people, but the case is pretty weak and the long-term results of tampering with a critical hormone are unknown. No offense to the author but I've read at least 3 of his articles posted here and they all follow a similar pattern.