The reason I haven't budged an inch is because you haven't produced any compelling evidence to support your case. In this thread, I haven't seen a single controlled, randomised, double blind human trial of a thousand or more over a year or more (or any meta-studies) that directly said what you wanted it to say. According to memory, I don't think you've produced one. Yet this is the series and design of the trials expected of a treatment before it is allowed on the market in the allopathic world. I can choose to treat my life threatening illness with methods that have proven themselves in four or more trials consisting of human sample groups of 3000 or more, with blinds, controls, and randomised selection, taking place over three or more years, or I can choose to treat it according to your single trial without controls or blinds or randomisation, using sample groups of 7 rats or 10 rabbits. I can treat it with evidence-based solutions or I can treat it based on one layperson's guess that
I sincerely doubt they're even aware of that fact, thoroughly disconnected from the web of life.
Assumptions such as these are really nothing more than guesses--how many doctors and scientists do you know, and what do you know about how they make up their days and what they have studied? If you know a good number of scientists, and you know how their days work and what their general sphere of knowledge looks like, then your sincere doubts might mean something. How many doctors' routines have you personally observed in order to express this sincere doubt? Also, if scientists are so unaware and detached, who are these scientists running all these trials you've been citing for 24 pages? You see, I'm just not going to budge on assumed concepts that have been put across in this manner--with sincere doubts that have been snatched from the ether.
Here's an animal trial that says betaine/GABA transporters play no role in seizure control, yet, in context, we can be pretty certain that they do. I can pull a trial that says the opposite of every trial you've published here, because these studies are not conclusive. Do you see how pulling out raw data to illustrate a point does no good except for those deciding which trials are worth running in the future?
http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3376448/
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. But I've only wanted to see the kind of evidence that the medical community functions around.
As for your proclamations that my posts have been filled with negativity, let me offer you their motivation: it takes very little time for hypotheses such as your own to travel around the web, particularly with the girth at which you are posting them on various forums and pages. Typical readers struggling with epilepsy are desperate, broke, and dying to drop their medications in favour of something easier to endure. They also may not have the background to appreciate the difference between meta-analysis and a small animal study, or to understand that every trial needs to be contextualised in terms of why it wasn't repeated, why it was last done in 1920, whether it was later redacted, whether it was peer reviewed, how it compares to relevant trials, or, indeed, whether the physiology even makes sense. At best, patients might choose to spend money they don't have on your lay suggestions. At worst, they may choose to drop their medication in favour of your suggested diet, go into status, and die. I write here not out of negativity, but in the hope that I will add some clarification to readers that 24 pages of Google results do not a scientist make. No, you aren't asking or directly suggesting that readers drop their treatments, but that is what many people do. No, you aren't pretending to be a medical professional, but you are offering medical advice for critical disorders. I've given this allegory to you before, but I'll offer it again. If I am unable to drive a car, there is nothing unethical about me not driving a car, or about me studying all kinds of things about driving and cars. If I am unable to drive a car, but get into the driver's seat and take passengers from A to B, there is an ethical problem.
I'll be stepping away now.