No problem but the opinions of a single individual is anecdotal evidence at best. That is the problem. Most people don't even understand what science is and how it is different from the opinion of a learned individual who may also be a scientist.
They are two different things.
True science requires some kind of consensus via a significant body of research. I'm sure you can find all kinds of books written by notable and learned figures proposing all sorts of hypotheses.
That is all they are until there is substantial evidence to back them up.
If someone has ground breaking scientific evidence they publish it in a peer-reveiwed journal not a book. Further these findings then need to be replicated by others before they can be considered part of the body of scientific evidence.
If "niacin" was the magic solution to mental health problems then I would have read extensive meta-analyses on it in the literature and I haven't.
Further bread (in the UK at least) is fortified with niacin - whilst this has eliminated pellagra (the deficiency syndrome) it has not reduced levels of mental illness which would seem to go against this hypothesis.
Also it should be noted that niacin can in high doses be associated with liver damage.
I'm not saying there is no possibility for this to be true but you have to be careful when you make simplistic statements that say that all previous research and practices must be thrown out on the basis of one book.
Working for 50 years with mental illness as Hoffer did might not be scientific. I'm not sure what your criteria for scientific is.
On a different note, I wasn't offended, I was grateful for your feedback and preparedness to comment as always, I respect your input cryptofiend.
Being offended is just ego, you like everyone else has total feedom to comment, after all I did post it on a public forum.
No problem but the opinions of a single individual is anecdotal evidence at best. That is the problem. Most people don't even understand what science is and how it is different from the opinion of a learned individual who may also be a scientist.
They are two different things.
True science requires some kind of consensus via a significant body of research. I'm sure you can find all kinds of books written by notable and learned figures proposing all sorts of hypotheses.
That is all they are until there is substantial evidence to back them up.
If someone has ground breaking scientific evidence they publish it in a peer-reveiwed journal not a book. Further these findings then need to be replicated by others before they can be considered part of the body of scientific evidence.
If "niacin" was the magic solution to mental health problems then I would have read extensive meta-analyses on it in the literature and I haven't.
Further bread (in the UK at least) is fortified with niacin - whilst this has eliminated pellagra (the deficiency syndrome) it has not reduced levels of mental illness which would seem to go against this hypothesis.
Also it should be noted that niacin can in high doses be associated with liver damage.
I'm not saying there is no possibility for this to be true but you have to be careful when you make simplistic statements that say that all previous research and practices must be thrown out on the basis of one book.
That is not scientific at all.