Just a personal observation that Quackwatch and similar sites do also have their own agenda, which is generally "anti-anything-alternative" and so just because a treatment or protocol or physician etc is negated there, does not make them "quack" per se or without merit. There are treatments accepted nowadays that were on these types of negative lists before becoming widely acknowledged. "Scientific based" medicine is not without flaws, and the value of accumulated anecdotal evidence is often ignored. As in all things, balanced views often help more than biased ones. JMHO

I agree that the "quackwatch" site can be harsh (but their bias, I think, is against scammers seeking financial gain rather than alternative approaches per se), I do remain very open to alternative treatments....and I am doing some (yoga, meditation, supplements, etc) it's just that I worry most about approaches that can be dangerous. I do like sciencebasedmedicine.org better ....no hyperbole....just a review of studies... evidence pro and con.

My primary suggestion is to review what is out there to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, good, solid treatments (and doctors) rarely are advertised on the web and testimonies abound....but anecdotes are just that. As noted, my own naive faith in conventional medical science led to my disabling autonomic and sensory neuropathy. I know too well many "scientific" medical studies are biased and or industry-funded. It's sort a wild west world in medicine now...especially in the U.S.... not to mention crazy costs and insurance woes. I just wish to seek more assurances about efficacy and safety than I had in the past. I don't wish to see myself or others needlessly suffering more.