Munchies:
I'm actually a Christian.
That said, if someone is making health claims, then they need to have proof they actually work. There's a lot of snake oil out there that at best doesn't do what it claims and at worst actively harms someone.
Weetabix:
'Science' is no longer proof. It's so heavily biased towards the interests of the people funding the research that it needs to be considered an opinion.
I'd much rather go with anecdotal experiences of people who are actually trying to improve their own health. It's not proof either but there is no proof so give up on that.
If you really want to know if something works you would have to try it yourself having read and watched as much as you can about the treatment.
It's OK to believe in God, the proof is all around us. Don't believe in science, prove things yourself to your own satisfaction.
Prove things to my own satisfaction?
My dear, that's science.
I will concede that not all research is created equally. That's why you have to research the research as well as have a working understanding of the topic to understand the paper in the first place.
That said, the point of research is to confirm repeatability. Was this a one-off? Are there any limitations? Does this work with some groups better than others? And so on and so forth.
And the funny thing about anecdotal evidence is that it's subject to the same flaws as peer-reviewed research. People lie because they have an incentive to do so. Or maybe they are doing something else that's causing changes and misattributing that to this breathing method. Maybe it does work, but only for certain kinds of people. Who's to say? But unlike anecdotal evidence, peer-reviewed research lays the methodology and conclusions out for all to see.
You just gotta understand what you're looking at.
