Alright... I have some free time so I'll bite. Not much of a point, because you've stated you will not be returning, but I do have the right to voice my opinion.
Dogs are actually meat-based omnivores. 75% of their natural diet would be animal origin protein with the remainder being vegetation, fruits, insects, and animal scat, including that from herbivores. Once again, the dog's physiology is very similar to humans and they suffer from nearly everything that afflicts humans, including IBS, epilepsy, hypothyroidism, lupus, diabetes, glaucoma, degenerative myelopathy, cancer and much more.
You're forgetting an important fact... Just because an animal ingests something, does not mean they're injesting it *for nutritional value*. Many animals injest things to improve their digestive function, but pull no nutritional value from it. Carnivores pull nearly 100% of their nutritional value from animal sources, but you're correct that they do injest other things. The difference is, it's not for the nutrients, it's for some other function.
Dogs injest plant matter to either add fiber to their diet to help promote regularity, or to induce vomitting when something they've already eaten is not digesting well. Much in the same way some large herbivores will eat rocks to help break down the plant material in their stomach. They're not pulling nutrition from the rocks, they're injesting them to help break down the substances they're pulling nutrition from, be it leaves, grass, twigs, or what-not. Carnivores do the same thing, but rather than rocks, they'll injest other substances that help break down things in their diets they are pulling nutrition from.
You're making it sound like dogs/wolves/other canines spend portions of their time eating plants and pulling fruit off of bushes for nutrition. That has not, and at no point in their evolutionary history has not been the case. In certain rare cases, typically on islands where nutrients are limited, it has been observed... but the same goes for herbivores as well. There are deer who turn into carnivores and eat rabbits to get nutrients from them that they can not get to any other way, but the rabbits can because of their much smaller size and different diet. Look up a video of that if you want to watch a horrifying video of a deer killing and eatting a rabbit... I'm not going to post one because it's actually a lot more horrifying to watch than it sounds. :?
--
I also have a problem with these extensive claims. In my honest opinion, it sounds to me like you compiled a list of similiar neurological disorders and lumped them all together, without looking into what each disease actually stems from.
For example, I'll quote your site:
I will try to make it clear which foods should be avoided when coping with the "excitotoxin"-related disorders such as epilepsy, insomnia, ADHD, chronic pain (e.g. fibromyalgia), and neurodegenerative diseases such as ALS, MS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and more.
http://dogtorj.tripod.com/id31.html
I put Huntington's in bold because I'm going to focus on that as an example.
Your claim that Huntington's Disease is an excitotoxin related disorder is flat out wrong, and here is why...
Huntington's Disease is a genetic disease caused by a mutation in the Huntington Gene. The symptom's are caused because a certain portion of the gene repeats itself many times (Read - at bare minimum 40 times, up to as many as 250 repeats).
To claim that the G.A.R.D. diet is a treatment method or cure for such a condition means you're claiming that the GARD can either alleviate the symptoms caused by a genetic mutation which doesn't respond or have anything to do with diet, or that it can literally change the structure of the gene itself so the disease goes away.
Such an claim is almost comical in it's absurdity, except I also realize that many people will believe most of what they read on the internet without investigating it further and finding the actual causes of the disorder they're reading about or effective treatment methods.
--
I'd like to explain myself though, I don't have any problems with you reporting others experiences. However, I do have a problem with those personal experiences being touted as medical fact. They're untested experiences which may or may not be true, and should be regarded as such. Until more research is done, I feel it's irresponsible to tout it as the "Miracle Diet for Epilepsy" or "Epilepsy: The Dietary Solution" when the facts supporting that claim simply don't exist. They may exist for dogs, but for humans that's a different matter.
However, I do realize that this is the internet... and those who realize what I'm saying will agree, and those who hold fundamental differences than I do will disregard what I'm saying. It's the nature of how these things work. I try to keep as open a mind as possible about these things, but at the same time I dislike bold claims with no scientific support...
And no, I don't consider "Google" as a good citation either. There's lots of garbage on the internet, so using search engines can lead to a lot of conflicting information and misinformation being touted as fact for corporate interests. :?
One last question, if you ever do return:
If there's so much interest in your work by the scientific community, then why have there been no attempts by other medical professionals or scientists to study the effects of the GARD diet independantly.
Just because you don't have access to the needed funding for such a task, doesn't not mean others don't have access to it. If it's such a miracle cure, why are they not doing actual medical studies about it, and why haven't they for the past 12 years?
