A double-blind study is where you take a large group of patients and divide them into two groups at random. One group is subjected to the drug or procedure that you think will help their medical problem, while the other group takes a placebo drug or is instructed to do activities that are not expected to help. The patients aren't told which group they are in. Nor are the people who are assessing whether each patient's health improves over the course of the study (i.e. whether the "treatment" cures their problem).Thank you for your attention, I don't know what is a double-blind study.
At the end of the data collection, the results are collated and only then is it revealed which patients were in the "test" group and which were in the "control" group. Statistical tests are used to evaluate whether the patients in the test group had significantly better health outcomes than patients in the control group.
This is the gold standard test you need to conduct to prove that your treatment works. You need a large enough sample of patients, not just 7 or 10. Try 100 people, perhaps.
The problem is that you don't know whether the problem would have cleared itself up without your "cure".I had chronic constipation for nearly 6 years, I happened to make this discovery in September 2025, I told 15 other patients of chronic constipation around me, my cure worked and work on them very well, and completely solved their problems.
That's not how peer review works. The editors of the journals don't judge your theory. They send your paper to expert reviewers who are competent to judge it. The editors do, however, screen your paper before sending it to reviewers, to see whether your work is sufficiently persuasive to make it worth reviewing in depth.I submitted my paper to JAMA, LANCET and a few other journals, their editors are too incompetent to judge my theory...
The problem with your work is that it relies entire on anecdotal evidence, as far as I can tell.
You'll have to do better than that if you want anybody to take any notice.
Again, editors of scientific journals are not experimenters. They do not test cures. They give your paper a once-over look to see whether you have tested it rigorously. If you haven't, then they reject your paper.... and they did not test my cure on other patients...
That's obviously what has happened here. The editors were correct in rejecting your work, because you haven't made any effort to find out whether your "cure" actually works.
As far as I can tell, they made the right decision.... they made unwarranted decision saying their journals were not appropriate for my work.
You came here to try to publicise your "cure". Probably you hope to make money and/or become famous.So I came here, I really want to use my talents to help hundreds of millions of patients of chronic constipation who can stand solve their problems.