Absolutely - each one of us should be looking at the facts and making our own conclusions - and question any conclusions that don't pass the smell check, from any side.Exactly what one should be doing regarding all of these groups. Yes?
I think what SkepVet really loathes in some of these groups/individuals, is they can sometimes (often times in some cases) use fear mongering to sell their company line. I see the same thing from members of various forums, including this one. Personally I find it offensive, and I believe this is why SkepVet comes across at times as such a hard azz. He personally finds much of this type of "science" to be offensive. I'm not attempting to make excuses for his comments, I'm simply offering an explanation from my viewpoint after reading some of his various comments over the years.
I agree that's the beef that SkeptVet has with these groups/individuals, but the problem is, he's doing exactly the same thing, from the other side. There are extreme people from both sides that are making this flawed argument:
Because there is no definitive scientific proof for what's really best, you should assume that X is best and Y is bad.
I hope everyone can see why that argument doesn't make sense? And, because there is no scientific proof, in order to support any choice, no matter which side you're on, you have to rely on anecdotal evidence and indirect references. So, it would be erroneous to dismiss any side by making the argument of "well, science doesn't support you". Science doesn't support any side, not at this point, so we have to stop using science as an excuse to categorically dismiss any side's validity - because the argument of "science doesn't support you or me, so therefore I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't make any sense.