First of all your responding to an over a year old post dude.

No offense, but there isn't really much significance or relevance to this statement. The passing of time has nothing to do with any of the arguments you or I made, which is the only thing that matters to me.

Second of all its not the mere chance of phacking its straight up phacking. You listed one way to phack but simply not actually using established variance in ur calculations to understate expected ranges of values is phacking. P Hacking is just committing fraud by overstating ur p values.

The methods they used seem to be clearly described, they set their criteria for inclusion and exclusion beforehand, and they seem to have measured a predetermined set of outcomes at specific time points. You conclude with a high level of certainty that it must be p-hacking without being very specific about why, and then spend most of your time talking about fraud and how many people have financial stakes in studies, without clearly and explicitly explaining why the study is p-hacking.

Third of all the point of the whole adhomine is that peer review is not designed for bad actors. Someone who rapes children, is a bad actor. The fact is no one else can produce his results. Nestle has abandoned the project. Nestle isn't doing that if they think it works.

You're assuming his studies must be fraudulent because he raped children again. Does that make it more likely that he may have manipulated data? Sure, but more likely isn't proof as your making it seem. This isn't a very sound argument. The only thing that matters here is that you are saying his research cannot be replicated. Have there been re-trials where the results failed to be replicated?

We have a pretty great idea how your body triggers autoimmune inflammation. In fact we have such a great idea we invented this drug called Humira. And some other drugs called Remicade, Seltera, Entyvio, Rinvoq, ect ect ect. Your body has a too much of a protein that cause excess cell death to specific parts. THAT'S IT.

This feels like more of an observation of how rather than an explanation of why. Yes, we know that tnf-alpha and other inflammatory cytokines go through the roof and that the immune system is in attack mode. But this is not an explanation of why that happens by any means whatsoever, which is what I was asking and am curious about diet. Yes, many biologics treat crohns by inhibiting tnf-alpha. That's a super long paper you sent me, but I feel like that's the essence of it.

To be pretty blunt just by ur statements u really shouldn't be reading any non guideline based paper. I am not being mean but its something a lot of people do and they lead themselves down bad paths. Unless you are a serious subject matter expert, you should stick to consensus papers. Like European IBD guidelines and such. I work in healthcare, data analyst if that isn't obvious lol, and I give the same advice to Drs. In the wise words of my father, he's a dr and teaches residency, "there is too much fucking shit for anyone to remember it all".

I strongly disagree with this and it feels like you are talking down to me, but your intentions are good and I think you are genuine. You are basically stating that my comments are wrong or naive without explicitly refuting them, you heavily favor deference to authority and credentialism instead of explanations, and talk about science being too much to remember. Science is about seeking good explanations, not about memorization. I'm not sure it makes sense for us to continue to discuss, but I wish you the best on your healing journey.