The most controversial/ridiculed/discredited/dangerous treatments out there.

[Rufous McKinney]

Cranio sacral WITH THE RIGHT THERAPIST

exactly.

similar to our "experience" with traditional medicine doctors. How rare is it, that we can actually work with one of them? Or how long did it take to find that doctor you really like?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/6489/

somehow that was a 404 error. (paper didn't go there)

I am aware of recent dicoveries with interstitial and need to look into that alot more.

I'm imeidatley interested in the connective tissue component. I see a possible culprit there.

Fluid probably flows in these spaces (and everything we might need is in that fluid). What might happen if it becomes disorganized, as connective tissue gets broken down by our viral culprits? It is broken down in my fat pads, throughout my body. Why not also in those spaces, What if this loss of "structural elements" leads to: loss of flow? Or impaired flow.

Our bodies do not flow is the main message I've received. Blood stagnation, lymph stagnation etc.

 

[cfs since 1998]

a discredited one is rituximab. A lot of people improved on it but I believe whitney dafoe got worse on it..

To be fair it was successful in the smaller blinded placebo-controlled trial. It's not known why the larger trial failed so miserably, but most patient reports on social media have been negative too. So I'd wait and see if the Norweigans can prove the efficacy of daratumumab.

 

[Rufous McKinney]

To be fair it was successful in the smaller blinded placebo-controlled trial.

are you saying there was a study on CCI operations? do you have a citation?

 

[Rufous McKinney]

How does any of this work? Well science hasn't caught up yet but maybe it's by subtle manipulations of The Interstitium...

We need a thread dedicated to uderstanding more about this Interstitium

Great overview here is called Chapter 2: Interstitium

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53446/

Hydration matters here. And our bodies are known to be "dry".Its yet another symptom, impairing Flow.

 

[Wishful]

The typical cost of a double-blind controlled study to approve a drug in the US

Those high costs are for official approval of a drug, and I think that's mostly for proving safety. Showing that a homeopathic remedy measurably reduced a tumor, or that a purple crystal measurably reduced arterial plaques doesn't require the expense of proving that there are no unwanted side-effects. Just proving a treatment had a reliable measurable effect should be enough to earn funding for the other steps for official approval.

It would also generate a lot of new headlines, discussion in the research community, etc. Proving that something such as homeopathy did have reliable measurable effects might even be worth a Nobel prize. surely that's incentive for proving it ... yet no one has.

 

[cfs since 1998]

are you saying there was a study on CCI operations? do you have a citation?

Sorry, I was referring to rituximab. I should have only quoted part of that post.

 

[cfs since 1998]

Those high costs are for official approval of a drug, and I think that's mostly for proving safety. Showing that a homeopathic remedy measurably reduced a tumor, or that a purple crystal measurably reduced arterial plaques doesn't require the expense of proving that there are no unwanted side-effects. Just proving a treatment had a reliable measurable effect should be enough to earn funding for the other steps for official approval.

That's not how it works.

 

[pamojja]

That's not how it works.

Here for example the very long story how it did fare with DMSO:

The FDA's War Against DMSO and America​

Till now, I only had one remarkable episode with DMSO: Got a precautionary antibiotic prescribed for a root canal treated tooth extraction. Applied 30% DMSO instead, the next day stunned, I couldn't feel the operation anymore. Had to search with my tongue, to find the remaining hole.

God thanks, all those very effective alternative treatments are easily available. Convincing by their use very fast by themselves.

 

[Rufous McKinney]

I'll read that later, Glanced at it, thanks for posting. Of course they would hate DMSO, who can make any money off of that? And when medicine is mostly about Making Money Off Of It, you start to see a fatal flaw.

There is a nanny state quality that is getting real old around here.

Meanwhile, I need to find DMSO in glass. Somehow.

 

[pamojja]

Shouldn't be too difficult. I know you don't like this shop, I too get it locally, but just for example: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=dsmo+pha...ps,495&ref=nb_sb_ss_p13n-pd-dpltr-ranker_3_12

 

[Rufous McKinney]

I too get it locally, but just for example: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=dsmo+pha...ps,495&ref=nb_sb_ss_p13n-pd-dpltr-ranker_3_12

thank you- I think they had sold out of glass bottles (unless it was the castor oil I wanted in glass, also hard to lay ones hands on ).....in the store, they had sold out. We shipped this plastic bottle via the Mexico Underground Railroad. and it got here. And I"ve used it some. But knowing it's in plastic, is making me nervous. So ironically, I really should SHOP MORE.

 

[andyguitar]

Literally because Chinese medicine is about a MIX of herbs, as opposed to isolating an active ingredient. As long as that is the case, studies will never happen.

There are some studies, like this one.....

 

[Rufous McKinney]

here are some studies, like this one.....

I can sort of make out its a formula (we would view that as Over the Counter).

The issue is, this formula may be fine, may work for certain individuals. But it's contraindicated for others, and those details are unlikely to be addressed in a study.

I see some value in a study like above, during a pandemic with COVID running around and we do not quite know how to respond.

Chinese medicine is largely individualized, its custom. For your own unique set of issues, limitations, sensitivities.

 

[Mary]

It would also generate a lot of new headlines, discussion in the research community, etc. Proving that something such as homeopathy did have reliable measurable effects might even be worth a Nobel prize. surely that's incentive for proving it ... yet no one has.

You might find this documentary interesting. It's about a Nobel Prize laureate and something called "water memory", which is closely akin to homeopathy: -

Just proving a treatment had a reliable measurable effect should be enough to earn funding for the other steps for official approval.

Not really - look at all the studies showing verifiable abnormalities in persons with ME/CFS and yet funding (pre our current administration, which is even worse) has remained a trickle. Research funding - who gets the $ - is quite political.

 

[Wishful]

I don't view videos (slow internet). I did check the wiki for water memory, and it seems thoroughly debunked.

 

[pamojja]

If something is easy to test and valuable if proven, yet no one has done it, I take that as strong evidence that the claims are false.

Here for example the very long story how it did fare with DMSO:

I don't view videos (slow internet). I did check the wiki for water memory, and it seems thoroughly debunked.

You still do read. If you compare the existing literature on DMSO and compare it to being debunked on Wikipedia, it should be obvious that any media in investor's pockets is a cheap channel for them to multiply their unfounded misinformation for own profits (or make the test yourself, and try to add referenced facts to such Wikipedia debunking, where you will see with your own eyes how fast your valid edits get deleted again).

SOME of the very valuable treatments out there were purposefully or wrongly discredited throughout the history

Video you don't view. But valid counterargument with boatloads of reverenced literature you ignore. Your choice, to rather believe the counter-advertisements of huge investor conglomerates. My choice not to, because my health depends on my own verifications. Agreed to disagree.

 

[Wishful]

Video you don't view.

Aside from not enjoying stuttering videos, I feel that videos (and fast-talking hucksters) are far better at manipulating people than text is. With text, you can stop and ponder a sentence, maybe search for more information before proceeding. With videos or speed, you lack the opportunity to question the validity of what had been said. Information imparted that way might form memory connections without a connection to how valid the data is. So, at a later time, if someone asks you about that information, you might be likely to pass on unvalidated "knowledge".

So, rather than watch/listen to a video that is pushing a claim, I checked for other sources. The wiki for water memory didn't make it sound like there was any real basis for doubt. The promoters of the theory approved of the testing process ... until the results failed to support the claim. I've read wikis on other topics that left plenty of room for doubts. DMSO I haven't looked into.

 

[Wayne]

DMSO I haven't looked into

I would highly recommend doing so. It's an amazing substance, with a remarkable ability to quickly improve circulation and reduce inflammation (and reduce pain). It's saved many lives in the ER with people coming in with closed head injuries because of its ability to stop the runaway inflammatory process within minutes. There's much more it can do, and the research has been ongoing for decades.

 

[pamojja]

I've read wikis on other topics that left plenty of room for doubts. DMSO I haven't looked into.

That's what I pointed out (in their order as quotes, in my post):

1., You made an argument.
To which 2., I brought a counterargument.
Which 3., you simply ignored, but preferred to continue to argue someone else instead, meanwhile.

Both your counterarguments without your own verification, other than secondary easily manipulated, As Wikipedia. Your evading answer gives me reason to doubt, you'll ever look into DMSO. And that is completely fine with me.

I don't believe videos either, but would verify their primary sources. And then might put to test, if I have use for my own health. You ignore counterarguments, but doubt due to secondary literature only, without further own verification. Which is your good right to do. Therefore, I concluded we agree to disagree.

 

[Wayne]

Wikipedia

I recall ChatGPT making a passing, somewhat dismissive comment one time about Wikipedia. So I just asked it point blank: -- What do you think of Wikipedia and its credibility?

Spoiler: What ChatGPT Thinks of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a very useful starting point for most topics, but its credibility depends on how it's used and the quality of the specific article in question. Here's a nuanced take:

---

Strengths of Wikipedia​

1. Breadth of Coverage: It covers an enormous range of topics, from mainstream science to niche hobbies.
2. Transparency: Every article has an edit history, talk page, and list of references—so you can often trace how and why content has changed.
3. Citations and Sources: Many articles cite reputable sources, including peer-reviewed journals, books, and major media outlets.
4. Community Monitoring: Popular pages are often closely watched and quickly corrected if vandalized.

---

Limitations and Concerns​

1. Vulnerability to Bias: Articles can reflect the biases of dominant editors or ideological leanings of the community.
2. Edit Wars: On controversial topics, pages may be locked or content may flip back and forth depending on who last edited it.
3. Quality Variability: Some articles are rigorously sourced and maintained, while others are poorly written or outdated.
4. Not Peer-Reviewed: It doesn't go through formal academic peer review, so it's not considered a scholarly source.

---

Best Use Practices​

• Use it to get an overview, learn key terms, and find credible sources in the references.
• Don’t cite it as an authority in academic or professional work—use the sources it cites instead.
• For controversial or emerging topics, double-check with other reputable sources, especially primary research or expert commentary.