

No, there's no evidence that would convince any but the most credulous.

The "evidence" is identical to the sort of evidence that has been
used to justify all sorts of quack treatments for quack diseases
in the past.


I like the implication here.  It must not be that the quacks making
millions off such "diseases" are biased -- rather that those who
doubt their existence don't understand the real world.  It seems
easy to picture a 19th centure snake oil salesman saying the same
thing.

However, I have been in the trenches long enough to have seen multiple
quack diseases rise and fall in popularity.  "Systemic yeast syndome"
seems to be making a resurgence (it had fallen off a few years ago).
There will be new such "diseases" I'm sure with best-selling books
and expensive therapies.


Well this, of course, is convincing.  I guess I'd better start diagnosing
any illnesses that people want so that I can keep my lips.