What you did is called a n=1 study. Since Big Pharma doesn't want to fund research into things they can't profit from, n=1 studies is all we have to understand the science of the human body a lot of the time. Its better than doing things blind.

>> You really want to go back to the days before evidence based medicine? Really?

> No, quite the opposite. But I also want people to stop rejecting things due to lack of evidence.

Science-based medicine is rejecting positive claims when there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. You can't claim that you want the oppose of abandoning evidence based medicine and simultaneously claim you want people to stop rejecting things due to lack of evidence.

> If individuals or groups of people claim a benefit from something, why should that be rejected without proper investigation?

There's a difference between rejecting something as a justified claim and rejecting it as a hypothesis for which there may be reason for further investigation -- the former is warranted more often than the latter, though even the latter can be warranted when, in addition to a lack of evidence for the claimed causal mechanism, there is a lack of evidence for the phenomenon it explains, or where there is evidence for the phenomenon but there is also sufficient evidence to conclude that an alternative cause to the proposed one was at work.

n=1 studies of treatments for medical conditions frequently suffer from either or both of these problems; particularly the first, as they generally lack sufficient evidence that improvement outside of the range plausible without any intervention occurred.

> I stand by my claim that Iodine and Magnesium cured my asthma and I have test data to back it up.

As iodine deficiency depresses immune function and asthma symptoms are commonly triggered by respiratory infections (either alone or in combination with other environmental factors), I don't think anyone concerned with evidence-based medicine would be surprised that there are people for whom increasing iodine intake reduced or eliminated asthma symptoms. Iodine also has other well-established effects that relate directly to known risk factors for asthma.

> But your doctor is unlikely to recommend it and no company is going to do clinical trials.

Sure, your doctor is unlikely, absent other evidence indicative of an iodine deficiency, to conclude that your asthma is due to an iodine deficiency and recommend that as an appropriate intervention. Because its not particularly likely to be true or an effective intervention.

OTOH, with symptoms that are more closely tied to an iodine deficiency, they are likely to test for that (and with test results showing such a deficiency, they are likely to recommend iodine to correct it.)

I imagine similar things are generally true of magnesium.