After 30 years as a staunch defender & publiciser of the RCT process (book, journalism), I trust anecdotal reports more highly now. Not ideal, but probably the best we've got.
The Freddd Protocol (methyl-folate, methyl B12, etc) has done an awful lot for me in the short time. Of necessity, today I dropped my hydrocortisone, DHEA & T3 (thyroid) doses again - the fourth time in 6 weeks. Two months ago they were 6 times the present doses. My energy & functioning are much better now than they were on the recent, higher doses.
Via supplements & diet over the last 20 years I have much reduced blood-sugar problems, and have eliminated Meniere's Disease, ankylosing spondylitis, Restless Legs Syndrome, and most recently glomerulonephritis (kidney disease). Had I listened to the medical specialists who told me these diseases were probably irreversible, I may presently be in a wheelchair and/or on dialysis, or just dead.
Freddd has trialled his methods with hundreds of people (some of them here), & whilst the findings arising out of this were not peer-reviewed, neither was he paid off by a drug company to publish the good data, spin the ambivalent, and bottom-drawer the bad.
Dr Ben Goldacre spent many years (justly) ripping apart the spurious claims of alternative practitioners in a famous column in The Guardian. Eventually - in his 430-page book Bad Pharma - he turned his attentions on his own profession:
Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don't like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug's true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in a drug's life, and even then they don't give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion.
In their forty years of practice after leaving medical school, doctors hear about what works through ad hoc oral traditions, from sales reps, colleagues or journals. But those colleagues can be in the pay of drug companies – often undisclosed – and the journals are too. And so are the patient groups. And finally, academic papers, which everyone thinks of as objective, are often covertly planned and written by people who work directly for the companies, without disclosure. Sometimes whole academic journals are even owned outright by one drug company. Aside from all this, for several of the most important and enduring problems in medicine, we have no idea what the best treatment is, because it's not in anyone's financial interest to conduct any trials at all. These are ongoing problems, and although people have claimed to fix many of them, for the most part they have failed; so all these problems persist, but worse than ever...
The Protocol has worked very well for many; for others not. Will it work for you? Will it continue to work for me? I don't know. In Australia (last time I checked the data) 30,000 people were killed annually by "preventable hospital mishaps". By contrast, there is little risk to trying carefully titrated methy-folate & -B12.