Alright Mark, I've got an additional clarification for you as well as a question. First, the clarification:

I believe that you're lumping in the light therapy that I did with a more common form of light therapy, EMDR. This is an (for lack of a better word) inappropriate comparison, as the light therapy that I did is nothing like EMDR in the slightest. In fact, it even says so right on the (admittedly poorly designed) website. Really, the only similarities between the two are that both are aimed at resolving trauma and both use lights to accomplish that goal. The types of lights that are used and the manner in which those lights are used is completely different, as are the intended results.

Personally, I would not recommend EMDR to anyone on this board unless they can find an EXTREMELY careful EMDR therapist. While EMDR can be effective in helping those dealing with psychological trauma, it can also easily overwhelm a vulnerable psyche (taking the problem from bad to worse). It is not at all uncommon to see people become re-traumatized from an overly aggressive session of EMDR therapy, and yes, I've heard of a risk of relapse with EMDR as well, though I really don't know enough about it to comment on that aspect of the therapy. While EMDR is one of the most effective forms of widely accepted PTSD therapy out there (noting the fact that there are barely any PTSD therapies available that could be called "widely accepted"), it's my opinion that there are far more effective therapies emerging at this time. The light therapy I did would be one of those.

Now, onto my question:

You claim that both craniosacral therapy and alkalized water produce the same placebo-level effects in clinical trials, but I'm wondering what objective measures were used to derive these rates of success. Allow me to elaborate:

Basically every single person on this board has the same story. "I hit my head, I have felt awful ever since. I have had every test in the book done on me, but doctors cannot find anything wrong with me. My life is hell, what do I do?"

Now let's say that one of these people with this common story goes to see a craniosacral therapist and a couple of months later all of the symptoms that they've been struggling with suddenly vanish. They "feel like themselves again." In the eyes of objective medical tests, what has that craniosacral therapy accomplished?

I suspect the clinical answer is "nothing." Absolutely nothing. Since the doctors were never able to locate an objective measure to define the patient's state of health, the work has netted no positive gains outside of some anecdotal evidence from the patient (and as we all know, patients can't be trusted to comment on their own condition).

What is obvious to me is that, especially in reference to the brain, modern medicine's ability to diagnose deficiencies, abnormalities, and damage in the body is woefully inadequate. There is no objective measure for "I feel like ****", nor is there a measure for a statement as nebulous as "I just don't feel like myself."

So here's my question again: How do these clinical trials account for these shortcomings in modern diagnostics?

I will be earnestly interested to hear your response.