This is just crap, for example: - The quality of their claims is directly related to the quality of their input. There is no discussion on the quality of their

This is just crap, for example: - The quality of their claims is directly related to the quality of their input. There is no discussion on the quality of their input. - They by no means justify their causal relation assumption - They make weird claims, for example they call their method a "gold standard", but there does not exist a gold standard for this kind of pseudo-science at all. And their method has the same flaws they mention other methods have.