DuckingOutstanding
Senior Member
- Dec 22, 2015
- 1,108
- 769
No, no doctor with a sense of ethics is going to endorse or advocate something that could be potentially dangerous as it would violate the Hippocratic Oath....Well that’s actually encouraging! Where I am right now, most of those things would still be classed as quackery.
The most potent cure for free radical proliferation that had been known to pioneers in such areas of medical research, even over a hundred years never came to light. I found four publications into the doctors journals on the entire internet. Four. And two of them were in german. That is a sticking point for me….and that’s one such instance as to why i’m a little skeptical at times
It’s good that the medical field seems to have now many hotspots for free thought and publications on alternative medicine though, thanks to the internet but it’s just made me question how decisions pertaining to efficacy are made by any declared authorities, just in case any finding happened to be a real hidden gem. Do you think even any rigorously qualified medical professional might be met with an unjustifiable degree of resistance that prevents traction. And as for biohacking, how would you personally begin to assess any report into it’s effectiveness.
Edit: sorry to bombard you with questions. This is not scrutiny, i’m just curious as i’ve no hands on experience in such things myself.
Side note, all of the above methods I mentioned have strong supportive evidence to back them - biohacking does not..
Example - any doctor in the Pacific Northwest is going to recommend that you take vitamin d supplements especially during the winter, as there is much less sunlight people are indoors much more often, causing a vitamin D deficiency which negatively affects health in multiple ways...