Seems like a non-sequitur in response to his specific statement- OP isn't endorsing naturopathy (nor am I), the discussion is about the specific efficacy of silexan. The linked article is a meta-analysis of silexan by a board-certified psychiatrist. No one here is pro-naturopathy.
If silexan isn't effective, surely you can prove that empirically and without resort to an argument from authority. If a naturopath says drinking water is good for you too, that doesn't mean that specific claim is wrong because naturopathy is pseudoscience (which it is). We're evaluating silexan here.
Larger discussion is that a lot of modern medicine is not based on well-replicated studies, either
If silexan isn't effective, surely you can prove that empirically and without resort to an argument from authority. If a naturopath says drinking water is good for you too, that doesn't mean that specific claim is wrong because naturopathy is pseudoscience (which it is). We're evaluating silexan here.
Larger discussion is that a lot of modern medicine is not based on well-replicated studies, either