I really don t know and admit my sample size is small But I do believe their approach isn t satisfactory as a core foundation for the treatment section in an encyclopedia Even if they reliably did good work their output is not directly relevant to how is this disease treated I think we forget that is the primary question The why is this treatment recommended is a secondary question which ultimately leads to the what evidence is there that it is effective safe along with is it available in my country and what are the side effects etc etc But sadly it seems WP medical articles are not written by people asking reader questions in order to guide what to say They are written by non experts surveying the handy output of PubMed and collating a bunch of factoids they don t fully understand In fact that approach sounds just like the one done by the volunteer authors of the Cochrane ketogenic diet paper who are district hospital doctors with no clinical experience of the subject I managed to avoid your cold through my regime of mega vitamins herbal tinctures and homeopathic bath salts Talk