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