My dear old thing! That is a perfectly natural assumption to make and there is no need to apologise. If I were convinced of the truth of this idea, that is likely exactly what I would be, here practising the argument before I have to make it as a wild-haired prophet.

But I think I have managed to retain enough sanity to not want to believe it if it's not true. And I have pretty high standards for truth, and they definitely include intervention, cause, randomisation, placebos and control.

At the moment, I think that my hypotheses are probably false (because there is no way that I can see that it can be a widespread problem and yet fibro-turks are hot)

If it's false, then I think it's probably important to refute it properly if only to stop Wilson.

But I don't care very much about that. My own problems seem to be gone, they are or were probably either non-existent or horribly idiosyncratic and no one can help me with them, and I am just going to have to work it out on my own. That's a man's death and I am glad to have found a worthwhile enemy.

But I disagree with you about beautiful hypotheses. If they disagree with experiment then they are wrong, no question.

But they are worth looking at carefully, and a science that does not bother is not a science. And probably not truth-finding, even over the long run.

If you run into any interested opponents, do tell them there is someone wrong on the internet. There is still a mystery to explain! It's just back to being a hobby, for me.