I can see both sides of this. Having read most of nih.gov /PubMed, it is easy to see how some research can easily be classified as paid advertisements. They a

I can see both sides of this. Having read most of nih.gov /PubMed, it is easy to see how some research can easily be classified as paid advertisements. They are quite easy to spot once you have read through enough research. Telltale signs are a lack of prerequisites, lack of reproducible methods, lack of test subjects, lack of funding references, lack of email addresses. Some folks have even found it rather easy to get fake research papers published without anyone having actually vetting the data. So in summary, I believe some of the blame falls on the scientific community for not doing a better job policing itself and making it easier to report pseudo-research to moderators using a publicly transparent methodology. In terms of the patients getting frustrated with a lack of acknowledgment of their issues, I believe that is due to a misconception about the medical industry. It is very rare to find doctors that will "color outside the lines", so to speak. If a medical condition is not well documented and accepted by the medical industry and insurance companies, then a doctor is risking a journey down a rabbit hole and risking the patient being frustrated without having a clear path to a treatment (for symptoms or a cure). It is frustrating for everyone involved, but I don't think this is something that medical professionals can do anything about. I have no idea what the right path is. For my own issues, I have considered starting forums for scientists and biohackers to share findings, but I am just lazy and busy enough to kick that can down the road.