There are people around here who like to cause controversy... They call for “scientific studies that prove” everything they disagree with, but they seem to forget that..:
A lot in health is proven and backed up by practice with patients, by experience.
✅ There are no studies for much of it, since the vast majority of research is funded and publicized for what can generate money (so there's little on how much water to drink a day, all the factors that affect metabolism and their interrelationships, etc).
The more experience and study a good health professional has, the more knowledge they have from classes, lectures, courses, books, articles, texts, conversations, etc. And of course they won't waste time saving every reference for every piece of knowledge they've acquired just to “justify” their reasons for “believing” in X, Y or Z to the few annoying people who come along.
✅ For everything in life there are those who believe, those who are neutral and those who refute, and everyone will find studies, texts, colleagues who agree and “evidence” to support their points of view. In other words, common sense and one's own, reasonable beliefs, based on personal sifting, will always exist and are fundamental, since “all unanimity is stupid”, right? How would humanity evolve without healthy disagreements, which allow us to review concepts and paradigms and grow?
✅ If you decide to comment on a post that isn't yours because you disagree with manifest knowledge, how about you clearly state what you disagree with and provide evidence for it instead of “demanding” that the owner of the post “provide you with evidence”? After all, the burden of proof is on the accuser, right?
✅ I share knowledge on the internet and social networks (and I learn from you) to try to help others with knowledge that I think is valid, useful and certainly backed up, whether some people believe it or not. And I'm not worried about attaching evidence to everything I say, since the aim here is to be useful and not necessarily technical. But I'm always willing to learn and even change my mind if different knowledge comes from humble people who know how to work as part of a team, with the proper backing and who know how to communicate politely.
For all these reasons, pardon my sincerity, but from now on, for those who “just want to stir things up” and even offend or pretend to be “scientifically superior and wiser” (without humility, in essence... or just insecure, deep down, and that's why they go on the “attack”), I reserve the basics, quickly: exclusion and blocking. After all, I have more to do, more to help thousands of people and more to be happy about here!
Right?
Cheers and apologies for these clarifications. It's just that some cyberchats occasionally need more “forceful” clarifications in order to disappear for good.
Português do Brasil 
English 