I understand your opinion on the matter; however, using me as an example- many of my peers might very well dismiss my coaching efforts because my programming is so unconventional relative to the mainstream of NCAA physical preparation coaches.
Likewise, we know how a certain population wrote off Charlie due to subject matter that is moot here on the forum.
Of course the list goes on looking back in time: Davinci’s house arrest due to his cosmological findings that were, at that tiime, in consistent with the catholic church, Newton, Einstein, and so on.
My point being that peer reviewed research is only at its peak of value amongst populations that value the opinions of those particular peers.
As a result, if one accepts the law of opposites than we must accept that the finding of one is just as valuable as the finding of another, assuming they are presenting opposing results, supposing that the findings may effectively rationalized into practice.
If you take a step back for a moment I think we’ll agree that we all basically rationalize our viewpoints based upon the findings of our own or someone else, somewhere in time.
There’s so much ‘research’ out there that just about anyone can find something to validate anything.
In the case of hyperplasia in humans, simply because it makes rational sense from the standpoint of high level training, I think the furthering of this discussion might make forward progress regardless of how many sources may be cited for or against the notion.