Thanks for your comments - they are quite helpful. > Regarding (1), there's a word for people who try to go around the medical establishment and run a business

Thanks for your comments - they are quite helpful. > Regarding (1), there's a word for people who try to go around the medical establishment and run a business selling a cure-all pill. It's "quack", not "hack". I manufactured a supplement once, then I realized it was a legal minefield. I have plans to apply for FDA approval for a claim for a device. This would provide legal protection against the status quo, while destroying their harmful business at the same time. I gave a bottle of my supplement to a young woman who'd just been not-helped at the hospital. I called her a few days later - she said, "THAT STUFF REALLY WORKS!" I called a few months later, and her sister said she was in the state mental hospital. People need more than a supplement to become truly well. > The credible approach is to write a case report plus literature review and get it published. I suggest the topic of the literature review should be "low-cost, low-risk interventions to assist in diagnosing subtypes of schizophrenia". "... for the Emergency Room physician." Yeah, I like that idea. I have some ideas of people to work with. Robert Whitaker has pointed out to the psychiatrists that their "science" is paid for by the industry whose products they use [1]. He hasn't gotten very far in the last 15 years. [1] http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/09/confessions-of-a-trespasser/ http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/09/confessions-of-a-trespas...