• Welcome to Crohn's Forum, a support group for people with all forms of IBD. While this community is not a substitute for doctor's advice and we cannot treat or diagnose, we find being able to communicate with others who have IBD is invaluable as we navigate our struggles and celebrate our successes. We invite you to join us.

Field Control Therapy

San Diego
I don't have any experience with Field Control Therapy, but I have to say that clicking around on various websites touting it is not very encouraging. It has many of the hallmarks of a lot of very, shall we say, "unproven" therapies.

Years ago my elderly mother used to get taken in and waste her money on a lot of fake cures. So I wrote out these guidelines to help her tell the real from the fake. Some of these may apply in this case:

Rules of Thumb for Distinguishing Real Medical Science from Pseudoscience and Quackery

1. Real science will be backed up by data generated in large, properly-controlled clinical trials. Pseudoscience will be backed up by anecdotes and testimonials. If there is any data at all in pseudoscience it will be from small, poorly-run studies.

2. Real science will publish its results in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals. Pseudoscience will often try to sell you a book that they claim will change your life and cure all your problems.

3. Real science will make modest claims of success accompanied with cautions and limitations. Pseudoscience will loudly make extravagant claims of miracle cures for a whole host of diseases. A true miracle drug might be able to treat two or three different problems – usually related conditions that share a biological pathway or origin. Quack treatments will claim to cure a long list of ailments - say 10 or 20 or more often unrelated conditions.

4. In modern times real science is almost always a team effort – developed and validated through years of research by multiple teams of doctors and scientists working at various universities, research institutes, and drug companies. Pseudoscience is often the work of a lone individual or a very small group, who claim to have special knowledge unavailable to others, and who almost single-handedly developed this secret miracle cure.

5. Pseudoscience will also sometimes blame its lack of acceptance by the wider medical world on evil conspiracies to suppress the "Truth."
Great Post thanks. Yea you are so right. All the websites are the same full of testimonials and trying to sell produce. The same is probably true for diets. No science behind them either.
I've not heard of field control therapy. Don't know what that is, or is helpful obviously.

Sadly in the medical science world there is a great deal of problems seen with research. Many well known people are sounding the alarm on the problems seen. As some examples of that can be read here:



...At this point I am going to try and join two thoughts together. Almost every study done on blood pressure lowering, blood sugar lowering and cholesterol lowering was done before the year 2005. I only choose these three areas as they are the three area of maximum drug prescribing in the world. Billions upon billions are spent in these areas, hundreds of millions are ‘treated’.

The evidence used for this mass medication of the Western World is demonstrably, horribly, biased. Had companies been forced to register their trials prior to publication, positive results would have been reduced by at least 49%. Almost certainly far more. You could put this another way around and say that it very likely that only 8% of studies would have been positive.

We do not know which trials would have been positive, or which negative. Yet we have based the entire edifice of drug treatment, of hundreds of millions of people, on unreliable nonsense. The study in PLOS is only the latest demonstration of this fact. The database of medical research – everything until at least 2005 is a gigantic festering mess. It needs to be stripped out and cleansed.

Do you think this is too strong?

Well I shall now quote Dr Marcia Angell, Dr Richard Horton and Dr Richard Smith. Editors of, respectively, the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet and the British Medical Journal. The three highest impact factor journals in medical research.

‘It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.’ Marcia Angell.

‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.’ Richard Horton

‘The poor quality of medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seen only minimally concerned about the problems and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.’ Richard Smith

Who, in a position of power, will finally wake up and realise that the vast database of medical research stinks of bias and manipulation. Who can we call upon to take up the gigantic and painful task of clearing out the Augean stables?