robbbbert I don't know what you do for a living - your vocation - but as a physician, I must make decisions for patients, relying on a process that is morally, ethically, and categorically relying on my expertise, to reach the most reasonably correct decision based on an evidence-based process. Increasingly, I am challenged by patients who heard a story/advertizement on tv/radio/social media about a medication/treatment and demand something NOW. I am exceptionally well-read in medicine, alternative medicine, science, bioethics, and philosophy and utilize these "symphonically" to explain why I make a decisions. Do I listen to "opinions?" Attentively. Am I swayed by "opinions?" Rarely. Why? Because, as I have noted many times, relativism may well be the norm in "little corners of the universe," where anyone is free to agree or disagree, but in my corner of the world, the instruction to "believe nothing, verify everything" can result in great harm. I cannot morally, ethically, or philosophically condone beliefs/teachings/practices that are contrary to evidence-based medicine. If you came to my practice, or you brought your spouse, or your parent to my practice, you should expect nothing less than my compassion, integrity, attentiveness, instruction, and 30-years of clinical practice.
Finally, the expression, "the jury is still out" is the norm in scientific/medical research. Open up the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine or the British Lancet and see that nearly every study concludes that "more research is necessary," despite their in-depth study & findings. That was my point about a real scientist will never "paint themselves into a corner," as new data is continually emergent. You seem to imagine that, because there are contradicting opinions or lack of consensus, there can be no "facts" or a clinical decision cannot be reliably made. This is patently and absolutely false. In any given patient presentation, decisions must be made, relying on the best data available, be it blue light blockers or a new prostate medication recently approved by the FDA for late-stage therapy. Most importantly, I adamantly believe in respect for varying learned opinions - this drives new research, discoveries, and breakthroughs. At the same time, I have absolutely no tolerance for ignorant "pronouncements," labeling people "phobic" or the scientific data "crap" when someone lacks qualification to do so. Therefore, when you say, "We don't know what is fact and not fact," I would suggest that you don't know what is fact - among the 2,000+ citations in the National Library of Medicine about the effects of light on human health , there are many discoveries & facts - and you simply lack qualification. I believe your comment was directed at me, and I am sorry you did not address me directly.
