Unscientific
I am reminded of a couple of unscientific coffee promos from my (relative) youth.
Edgar Cayce, AFAIR a studio photographer during the day, used to fall into trances and say things that he could have no knowledge of while awake. Speculation: he plugged into Jung's super-conscious. Anyway, at one session he was asked about coffee. He said that coffee, taken on its own, was a food, it was good for you. But if taken with milk or cream, it formed an indigestible mass in your stomach and was bad for you. Of course, even if you accept the scenario, the "entities" who gave the advice through Cayce, now over 70 years ago, could hardly have had access to science (such as it is) on coffee.
About 20 years ago, I also read about coffee enemas (yes, you read that correctly) touted as a cure for certain cancers. Unlike some other alternative treatments (such as tiny amounts of the pits of fruits in the peach family, which is larger amounts would kill you dead), this one would be a nightmare if they ever wanted to do a double-blind test. You'd have to come up with a liquid that looked like, smelled like, tasted like coffee even to a connoisseur, but wasn't coffee, for the control group. The enema treatment does weirdly go with the results of the caffeine study. IANAD.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
