Learner1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 6,305
- Location
- Pacific Northwest
"ME" isn't some scary black box that can't be helped. Though I admit it's complex, I have gained a lot of function by testing genetics, metabolomics and other markers, and piecing together complex biochemistry, encouraging more favorable gene expression and improving metabolomics, using much of the research leading ME/CFS researchers have published.Good in theory, and might be practical for simple issues (a clearly defined problem in a well-understood system) but I don't think it's practical for ME, where we don't understand what's going on and what all the interconnections are. For every success story, I expect there would be a large number of stories where the person does lots of testing, comes up with theories of how to fix the abnormalities...and doesn't get any improvement, because there are so many interactions that aren't covered by the theories. It's a matter of personal judgement as to how much effort is worthwhile to put into testing and theorizing. I've had more success with just trying various things, more or less at random, and paying attention to changes in my symptoms.
Simplistic analysis and just trying stuff is like throwing darts and a dartboard turned around backwards and blindfolded.
What I saw was education on spotting misleading techniques for health claims.
This is true. If Barrett and Quackwatch were done fabulous, why not go after pharmaceuticals that kill people or damage people and don't provide the benefits advertised or "sold" to the FDA to get them approved? Or surgical techniques that are unnecessary but profitable in the fee for service US medical system!What I notice missing from the list are commercial pharmaceuticals that lack proper clinical evidence for what they claim to do, and which techniques they use to mislead consumers. I'm sure that would cost them any funding from Big Pharma. I wonder if there's a site that provides that sort of education.
From the Journal if the American Heart Association:I also note that Quackwatch doesn't list supplements that also lack scientific evidence (omega-3 oils for heart health come to mind).
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/circulationaha.114.015176
It's not just competition for dollars. It is turning doctors, medical systems, insurance companies, the FDA, etc. against treatments that are effective, cheaper in many cases, and are alternatives to what Big Pharma and conventional medicine offers.If Big Pharma was really controlling Quackwatch and using it to convince people to use prescription drugs instead, surely they'd convince (force) the site to list those supplements as 'questionable' if not 'outright quackery'. Supplements and herbal remedies should be costing Big Pharma a significant amount of potential income. No, if Quackwatch was a site of pure evil, I think it would look a lot different.
These factors make patients have to pay out of pocket for many treatments that are effective, or worse, against the law, like dichloroacetate, for example, making them tragically out of reach for many.
Last edited: