Don’t trust anyone. Give more credence to people who give caveats and delineate whether things are theory, anecdotal, or have good reproducible trial data. I’ve occasionally seen patients do well with randomly generated data that chooses from among good options for them. So I think some complete junk science can at times give patients some motivation to follow a good plan that they could have done without the expensive gizmo random data. But then the gizmo gets credit for physical scientific data rather than its role in motivation and mindset. And the people selling the expensive gizmos give great podcast presentations that are quite faulty. Many studies in pubmed have fabricated data. All that being said, two thoughtful individuals outside of NOSTR are John Kempf at advancing eco agriculture and Dan Kittredge at the bionutrient food association. And for the record I don’t condone random data generation and selling it to people as fact.