> Maybe those physicians, who are licensed to practice medicine in the United States, know better than you do.
There is nowhere near a consensus among professional physicians that this drug is as good as you claim it to be. Meanwhile I can find plenty of physicians like Dr. Oz who are snake oil salesmen, so I reject your fallacious appeal to authority.
EDIT: I see that you have now edited your comment to say "(An appeal to authority is the purpose of medical licensing.)". You should not edit your comments in an attempt to make people who responded to you look bad, or look like they missed something that was actually not there.
Now you keep adding even more! If you want to respond, then respond. I quoted the entire text of your original comment at the top of mine.
The Sinclair method faces a lot of institutional incentive-related difficulties (generic drug, permanent treatment). It also has some aspects that are counterintuitive at first glance (e.g. it requires drinking alcohol, which creates skepticism when proposed by an alcoholic) but which are scientifically grounded. To anyone facing the problem of alcoholism: please do take the time to research it, read the studies, and form your own opinion. It’s really worth the time, and it’s not something you’re likely to hear about through traditional sources (yet) for the aforementioned reasons.
Considering my experience with Varenicline and how it effectively worked in abandoning nicotine, I tend to agree that a deconditioning drug taken while consuming is a very effective therapeutic path.
> Yes there are many unethical physicians, but majority of physicians still are hard-workers and know way better than you.
The majority of physicians do not prescribe this drug, and even the ones who do prescribe it do not recommend that patients try to obtain it online and self-medicate.
You twisted my meaning into an attack on physicians, which it certainly was not. It was a rejection of a fallacious appeal to authority.
The fact that some physicians recommend something is simply not convincing. It's not hard to find a small number of physicians who would recommend homeopathy either, nor is it hard to find a small number of scientists who reject climate science. A consensus among physicians (or scientists) is what makes an appeal to authority reasonable.
There is nowhere near a consensus among professional physicians that this drug is as good as you claim it to be. Meanwhile I can find plenty of physicians like Dr. Oz who are snake oil salesmen, so I reject your fallacious appeal to authority.
EDIT: I see that you have now edited your comment to say "(An appeal to authority is the purpose of medical licensing.)". You should not edit your comments in an attempt to make people who responded to you look bad, or look like they missed something that was actually not there.
Now you keep adding even more! If you want to respond, then respond. I quoted the entire text of your original comment at the top of mine.