"As anyone trained in the applied sciences knows, field experience is
the foundation developing solutions to identified problems.

You pay a doctor for the experience s/he has and not for the research"

As anyone in any form of science knows impressions formed in a doctor's
office are at very best suggestive.  Only with formal research can the
validity of those impressions be found.  The clinical doctor is as to
the car mechanic as the auto engineer is to the research scientist.

You pay a mechanic for his experience, you pay an enjineer for solutions
to fundamental problems; who in turn publishes them in research
journals.

In the case at hand, the relationship between mets and the risk of
diabetes has for some years now been under research and have formed the
basis for clinical guidelines in the doctor's office and at medical
schools; as are accessed in research journals and by continuing
education..

So a simple request for research in support of an assertion about mets
and diabetes is quite reasonable and in order.

"Through many days of prayer seeking the LORD's guidance on how to
effectively call out as one of HIS lowly watchmen regarding the
catastrophic event (Revelation 6:14) that may possibly happen sometime
between now and the end of the year"

He just added 10 months to his "maybe".  What a dork. And a quack.