Having done their clinical studies, if they still say there is no proof, is that because there is no proof; or because they didn't want to find any?
Then again, could it be that they did thier tests on the wrong animals. If antibiotics had originally been tested on guinea pigs they wouldn't have passed the first hurdle.
so all the clinical test that they have done are worthless then?
it would be nice if the testing were carried out in a(n) honest fashion.
but , when someones / some companies reputation is on the line they usually do things in a(n) honest fashion, dont they.
if you dont think that they could be trusted to carry out
honest testing then why should we trust what they have already tested.
you almost make it sound like they would intentionally do testing that would deliver false results.
do you think they would?
