Experiments can be had. Look at the fluids. Look at what is in those fluids. Find out what those fluids do in you body. Find out what Zinc does. Look at the consequences for zinc depletion. Look at natural remedies. You could do an experiment. Try to do a week of Flab and then a week of No Fab and then take notes. Compare the two.
Not really... You need a big enough sample size to come to scientifically valid conclusions. I'd like to read a peer-reviewed scientific paper about it. Or, ideally, several of them.
How big is big enough and how small is too small? If there are trillions and trillions of aliens, or other humans, on planets, in other galaxies, in parallel universes, then how can any number be suffice as we humans here, when compared with them? Subjectively speaking, you can argue either way, and doing so degrades science. If somebody kills you, is there a valid conclusion if you were the only one killed?
Science seems to be your religion. The scientific method are things people do. You seem to assume that everything scientists say and do are flawless, perfect, in how they go about experimenting, in testing theories. One example is the Carbon-14 Dating.
Experiments can be had. Look at the fluids. Look at what is in those fluids. Find out what those fluids do in you body. Find out what Zinc does. Look at the consequences for zinc depletion. Look at natural remedies. You could do an experiment. Try to do a week of Flab and then a week of No Fab and then take notes. Compare the two.
Maybe these videos clarify what I mean:
The videos here agrees with what I am saying.
Not really... You need a big enough sample size to come to scientifically valid conclusions. I'd like to read a peer-reviewed scientific paper about it. Or, ideally, several of them.
How big is big enough and how small is too small? If there are trillions and trillions of aliens, or other humans, on planets, in other galaxies, in parallel universes, then how can any number be suffice as we humans here, when compared with them? Subjectively speaking, you can argue either way, and doing so degrades science. If somebody kills you, is there a valid conclusion if you were the only one killed?
Google "representative sample size". There are mathematical models for it.
Science seems to be your religion. The scientific method are things people do. You seem to assume that everything scientists say and do are flawless, perfect, in how they go about experimenting, in testing theories. One example is the Carbon-14 Dating.