Only in a semantic sense. If you're going to doubt things based on anecdote, I could equally promote their likelihood based on equivalent anecdotes myself
I.e. I know lots of people who eat
F&V even on low-carb who are healthy, therefore this is probably effective
-
-
You know, I'd really like to understand your perspective, but I'm baffled at the moment. Maybe sleeping on it would help.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
To me - and I suspect Dr. Guess - the implication is that you don't believe the established evidence is convincing, but you've personally been convinced by anecdotes which are far less reliable that even the "weak" evidence for F&V
-
Oh, I see. I don't think the evidence for F&V *in the context of low carb* is weak, I think it's completely absent. Therefore there should be no claims about it; even though we both have reasons for our different predictions, they both ought to be carefully marked as that.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
