It's certainly dangerous with regard to cognitive bias, but I have backing from an excellent doctor who has noted my results experimentally, so I am convinced of what I'm saying.
edit: I would also stress that a lot of things that many of my former doctors were skeptical about were mere symptom reports. I think I would know when my intestines hurt, yet some doctors acted like this was malingering, or a "panic attack" when really I have food allergies (but they wouldn't know that since they gave up from the get go).
Who said anything about not believing you (or believing you)? Why jump to conclusions about my mind-state, like that?
Can't I just be curious to see what it is you mean, and perhaps learn something I don't know?
>Can't I just be curious to see what it is you mean, and perhaps learn something I don't know?
Fair enough! I think you're right to ask for sources. What I'm saying there is that I have nothing on hand that would convince you of my claim, so whether you believe me or not is left to you, and if you don't, I will concede that discussion.
Since I now know you're only asking out of interest, I guess that point is moot now.
For the record, I find it dangerous to feel "vindicated" about any personal dispute on the basis of any number of articles in the scientific press, especially so if they're in a field that you are not specialising in. It's very easy for your feelings to get in the way and push you towards all sorts of misunderstandings of what is claimed in those publications.