“And as soon as it got into the supplement space,” he continued, “the need for data kind of went out the window, and it all became a marketing exercise.”
I'm not sure how to interpret this. The article doesn't say that the recent big-news AI proofs are wrong.
The fact that an AI could be wrong doesn't seem worthy of a "declaration."
Thoughts?
However, the theory took off and “outpaced the actual data,” Dr. Kaeberlein said. “You get high-profile people writing review articles, talking at conferences, nowadays going on podcasts stating what I would say are early stage models as if they are proven fact.”