You know what you're right. But not far behind these quacks are neurologists.

If you've ever had someone in your family that might have had Alzheimers or Parkinsons you'll know what I mean.

I think that is being unfair. It's the sad reality that for many neurological conditions we don't have good treatments or cures. However, things like levodopa are godsends for many with Parkinsons, for example.

My pet peeve is people dismissing potentially very valuable scientific results because they’re afraid of quackery…

Yes we should be cautious but no we should not dismiss. In fact I consider myself very fortunate for stumbling on this information as it may be very helpful for someone I love and I want to explore every possible way that can help.

That's the precise essence of why quackery is dangerous. People are searching for "every possible way that can help" and quackery can easily exploit that natural tendency. (I am not qualified to render any opinion on whether this specific protocol is quackery.)

The problem is the lack of incentives to take the “huh that’s interesting, but I don’t know if I can trust it because it’s published in a quack journal” … and ever reproduce the research and get it into more trusted more prestigious journals.

There’s a reproducibility crisis in many fields of research, and medical research has multiple confounding factors, the “no prestige in just redoing the research”, lack of money for trying things that might fail to generate RoI for pharmaceutical companies, and the general medical research problems of clinical trails and ethics review and all the other stuff involved in good quality medical research.

Consequently this stuff gets thrown in the quackery bucket and ignored. It’s frustrating to see things that won’t hurt anyone to try again and properly debunk or expand the evidence for, winding up in an ideological trench war where the outcome is getting to enter round two of the “funding your actual research” trench war.

If you had a legitimate research finding, why would you publish it in a quack journal?

Presumably, because the more prestigious journals declined to publish it.

Why did all of them decline to publish it? There was probably a reason. A paper being published in a quack journal does actually carry a signal about the quality of paper, IMO. No one turns down publishing in Cell or Neuron to publish in Donald's Journal o' Quackery and Crockpot Recipes.

Yes, the point you’re making is valid and I generally speaking agree with it. The issue isn’t necessarily that it was published in a quack journal, it’s that now this idea has been published in a quack journal it’s “tainted” and suggesting that it be looked at again for any other reason than some significant new evidence discovered completely by accident (because you’re a quack too if you believed the idea in this paper) and it has to be pretty significant evidence too (otherwise it might look like you are cherry picking evidence for your quack belief) and only then can you consider the idea worth properly studying… all because by originally being published in a quack journal, the idea has the taint of quackery.

Now most quack research is not particularly useful… but it can be made more useful to society if it’s used properly, we should be more willing to publish reproductions and failures to reproduce existing research, and we should be encouraging early career scientists in all disciplines to take this kind of quack research and to prove it wrong, it’s all there to disprove, easy done. We would get more critical thinking in our research students we would get more evidence to disprove other quack research and every now and then we might even stumble onto something good that would have gone ignored as just quackery for an unknown period of time.

If we want to fix the reproduction crisis we can’t ignore the shit research papers and only reproduce the good ones we think might work, we need to be willing to look at research like this, which involves a pretty/relatively harmless high dose vitamin regimen that can be easily monitored by a clinician performing the research work (double blinds of course) and then we go from “idea that won’t be touched again and quacks try to convince people with flimsy research” to “idea conclusively proven or disproven and scientifically have settled the question without leaving reasonable doubts that can be used by quackery peddlers or others mis-using the scientific method for their own gain.

That's also the precise essence of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I'd much rather have the information in front of me so I can evaluate it and make my own determinations. If the parent commenter had their way I would've never seen this information. Now I can actually vet it out and do my own research.

I think it's infinitely more dangerous to deprive people of information.

> much rather have the information in front of me so I can evaluate it and make my own determinations

This is the danger. Most people, myself included, are not qualified to make that determination alone. In this case, as expected, it looks like it was crap [1][2].

I'm not arguing in any way for censoring anything. But there is legitimate danger when people, often desperate, compare legitimate medical research, which will be subdued, with quackery, which will be ostentatious, and then, worst case, reject the actual medicine or hurt themselves trying to administer rogue therapies.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35771376

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35771048

One notable exception to that is Kyrie Irving and other Covid vaccine skeptics, who were amazingly somehow able to "do their own research"

Counterpoint. Historically people have not been able to evaluate these types of claims. See the history of snake oil salesmen and the origins of the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act.

I don’t think it is a problem when people look at stuff, think it is interesting and try something relatively benign on themselves. For me the problem is when people start trying to play doctor without medical training or license.

I agree with you in regards to the dangers of snake oil and snake oil salesmen and the general inability for the vast majority of people to properly vet medical information.

That being said, I would say it’s unfortunately by necessity that people start trying to play doctor. I live in Canada, our healthcare system is currently in shambles such that it’s impossible to get timely care. Even the care we do get is time-limited and only focused on saving your life (which is great, but ignores the value of improving quality of life too). Also most of our medical interventions are so far behind the state of the art due to a Byzantine regulatory process that anyone actually trying to help a loved one with a health issue is forced to take matters into their own hands otherwise we fall through the cracks. The medical system is simply failing way too many people in Canada that it’s inevitable people Will take their health and the health of their loved ones into their own hands by necessity.

It's not fear, it's challenging a conclusion made by people based on their credentials. If the science stands up to scrutiny and peer review, then great, but if it doesn't then it's not true.

The quackery label comes in not from the science but from the people behind it and the monikers / titles that they applied to themselves - unrecognized and not formally tested monikers / titles.

The formal testing is so that there's a proven and traceable minimum knowledge and background behind a person's statements. Like a bachelor's degree for a software engineer vs a two week boot camp.

Reminds me of this post I saw on CompSci Reddit once. A person claimed to have made an O(n) algorithm for finding loops in a graph (or something like that), and he posted the source code. The comments were all in the line "big if true, but I'm going to have to see a peer reviewed paper" to which he answered along the lines of: "I'm paid to write code, I'm not paid to write papers. I made this algorithm solve a problem at work, take it or leave it".

The thread died without anyone actually checking if his algorithm worked or not.

Who knows...

Do explore it, but check other (reputable) sources for the effect on Parkinson and for counter-indications (although there don't seem to be obvious ones).

The journal, however, is bad. Looking for articles, the first I found claims that sounds of nature have a positive effect on gambling addicts, something unwarranted by the actual experimental conditions. The peer review and editorial process seem to be lacking.

I mean sounds of nature have a positive effect on most people so that sounds like low hanging fruit, lol.

You did not, in fact, stumble upon information. You stumbled on a person making statements. There’s a difference, especially when lives are at stake.

In this context they're functionally equivalent, in that anyone making statements is also communicating information. Could you explain the difference that I did not grasp?

Agreed; this is akin to the "woo" applied writ large to the lucid dreaming phenomenology; or anything "metaphysical" crossing into "empirical" -- I have a fondness for the UAP topic and it's poster child for this effect. I know there's a grain of truth in the bucket but the wackery is beyond my ability to dredge.

This isn't an unfounded fear of quackery, they've supported their view to an extent.