It is a misrepresentation because doctors aren't saying "that's impossible" they're saying "what you claim your product does is false because for your implementation to work would require impossible reactions".
You've misrepresented their position of debunking junk medicine by claiming their position is that the end result is impossible.
And you imply (by omission basically) that the people in Steps 1 and 4 are from the same field (junk medicine) which is never the case. You want to attribute this general fuzzy-wuzzy idea concept to junk medicine to validate junk medicine as a whole.
However, of course results claimed by junk medicine will be replicated by real medicine later. Junk medicine doesn't have to work. Junk medicine has had baldness cures and impotency cures since forever. Real medicine now actually does have stuff to correct baldness and impotency. That does not mean that junk medicine had anything to do with solving the problems. The best that could be said for junk medicine is that it articulates problems.
You've misrepresented their position of debunking junk medicine by claiming their position is that the end result is impossible.
And you imply (by omission basically) that the people in Steps 1 and 4 are from the same field (junk medicine) which is never the case. You want to attribute this general fuzzy-wuzzy idea concept to junk medicine to validate junk medicine as a whole.
However, of course results claimed by junk medicine will be replicated by real medicine later. Junk medicine doesn't have to work. Junk medicine has had baldness cures and impotency cures since forever. Real medicine now actually does have stuff to correct baldness and impotency. That does not mean that junk medicine had anything to do with solving the problems. The best that could be said for junk medicine is that it articulates problems.