It's important to demarcate flavors of medicine at play here:
- MD "allopathic medicine" this is what we all consider normal medicine. They have hardcore requirements for clinical evidence.
- ND "naturopathic medicine" is a fully government licensed form of medicine (in certain places such as pacific northwest). They generally have less hardcore requirements for evidence, but do use evidence nonetheless, sometimes pre-clinical. All this recent interest in "senolytics"... a lot of what exists such as quercetin or fisetin, those are herbals, the ND's domain. And these have preclinical evidence against cancer. SOME are pretty cool and scientific people, of course, some are crazy hippie dippies what with the mushrooms and the healing crystals
- leeches "humoral medicine". This is an ancient and non-empirical form of medicine based on primarily the works of Roman physician Galen but bears similarities to medicines in other nations like China - "hot" and "cold" disease states vs hot & cold food, four humors, one of which is blood. If the disease is "too much humoral blood" the treatment is then the leech to lower that blood. This is very much distinct from the ND (at least I hope)
Make it through 12 allopathic specialists before receiving even one of the three diagnoses you need to get your life back (finally stumbled across an MD who was also an ND…),
you may be left unimpressed with allopathy as well.
doesn’t change the fact I have my life back due to addressing infection with antibacterials
As far as we know it's rather: you got your life back and happened to take some herbs at the same time. Basic correlation. Could be causal but no controls nor proof whatsoever. Hardly controversial indeed.
Yes, it’s through the placebo effect alone I am no longer bedridden.
That could indeed be one of the possibilities. But, again: no controls nor proof. Also, again, to be cystal clear because looking at your tone it seems I hit a nerve there: I never in any way said it's impossible those herbs in fact helped.
There is a big difference between believing something cured you, and publicly promoting something as a cure.
I see this all the time in various social media communities: For example, people with an autoimmune diseases that got better after eliminating dairy or starting to take willow bark supplements or whatever. The moment they see a benefit, they jump on Reddit or YouTube or whatever to promote it as a cure and tell everyone to do the same thing as them.
Promoting an extremely specific medical treatment without evidence larger than N=1 is both unethical and scientifically sloppy. At least you could bother to temper the advice with some caveats.
But apparently everyone on social media can be a medical authority these days, and giving out medical advice without a license is okay.
You're heavily implying it is a cure, yes. Even if it's not a cure, you're still irresponsibly peddling an unproven medical treatment that has no established effect other than yourself, so my point stands. You have no particular reason to believe it works on anyone else because you haven't tried it on anyone else. This type of pseudoscience doesn't belong on HN.
For those wondering... this is just antibiotics. It worked because the biofilm created by Lyme disease doesn't have any resistance to this combination for the period of time the parent was using it. (The biofilm is the tricky part of treating Lyme disease.)
Alcohol suspension tincture of the following antibacterial herbs together, which target Lyme's various coinfections:
a. Cryptolepsis sanguinolenta
b. Polygonum cuspidatum (aka: Japanese knotweed)
c. Artemisia annua (aka: Sweet wormwood)
d. Uncaria tomentosa (aka: Cat’s claw)
Begin with one drop two times per day, increasing to tolerance/under advisement of your ND/MD, or wellness consultant.