[Recommended] Gut and Psychology Syndrome

epileric

New
Messages
4,500
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I've never read it either (& for that reason alone wouldn't recommend it) but I am familiar with the author. I"m sure everyone remembers me talking about Dr. Mercola who has been known to spread untrue "medical advice"as well as having the FDA constantly after him for illegal activity.
He is what he is: a family doc who, in my opinion, gives out lots of useless advice without sufficient evidence. But I expect most doctors to be a bit more skeptical. Well-trained physicians know that the latest thing may not be the latest good thing. Without real evidence guiding treatment, we’re just making things up. Doctors who make things up are dangerous.
http://getbetterhealth.com/modern-snake-oil-physician-touts-baseless-cures-for-rheumatoid-arthritis
/2011.12.11

Natasha Campbell-McBride is one of Mercolas fellow quacks who is known to publish unproven anecdotes & rhetoric.
I first encountered this practitioner at--surprise! surprise!--at a website that is one of the foremost sources of alternative medicine pseudoscience and quackery on the Internet, I'm referring, of course, to Mercola.com
Even though visiting a quacks website may not make you one (though it sure might imply it) Her unproven theories & lack of scientific proof & fact do.
Yep, the tropes are all there: That the medical industry is out only for profits, that there is a predisposition to "vaccine injury" causing autism and various other health issues. And, of course, Dr. Campbell-McBride has the cure, a special diet. How do we know it works? Why, because of the testimonials, of course! Certainly, properly conducted scientific research culminating in randomized, double-blind clinical trials has nothing to do with it.
What Dr. Campbell-McBride is talking about here is nothing more than a variant of the ancient concept of autointoxication, whereby our own human waste products "poison" us. The difference is that she's attributing it to bacteria living in our gut. But where do many of the bacteria living in your gut end up? In your poop, of course! In any case, Campbell-McBride even has a name for her invented autism syndrome: Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS). She's even developed a whole cottage industry of dietary woo to treat it, which can be found on various websites, including Gut and Psychology Syndrome, The GAPS Diet, and in her book Gut and Psychology Syndrome Book: Natural Treatment For: Autism, ADD, ADHD Depression, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Schizophrenia. And, of course, she has her own website and if you check it out you'll see that she claims to be able to treat anything from acne to depression to diabetes to autism to ADHD to schizophrenia to tummy pain.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/08/gaps_in_a_doctors_reasoning_about_vaccines.php

Knowing what I do about Joe Mercola & what the science sites say about Natasha Campbell-McBride I would be very careful when following her advice.
 
Last edited:

Bernard

Your Host
Administrator
Messages
6,539
Reaction score
9
Points
153
It's a shame that there is such a catch-22 with regards to the scientific process for diets and training programs (like neurofeedback/biofeedback) that offer no incentive for anyone to spend time and money on large scale clinical trials. No ROI means no investment.

Dr. Kossoff @ Johns Hopkins is a rare jewel in this regards.
 

RobinN

Super Mom
Messages
7,836
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I appreciate Dr Mercola's approach. All the more reason for me to read this book.

After following alternative therapies, 50+ seizures has been reduced without drugs, to NONE, in a year. Bless those that march to the beat of a different drummer.
 

epileric

New
Messages
4,500
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I appreciate Dr Mercola's approach. All the more reason for me to read this book. .
I find it very hard when someone speaks highly of a book they haven't read yet to perceive them as objective.
 

Endless

Even Keel
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I say people should try all the dietary and alternative approaches that they want to, as long as the treatments aren't harmful. Which some herbs and diets are but that's another topic.

Even if there is no proof of efficacy, and if it doesn't hurt, it may just help. And it gives people back the feeling of control over their own body.

Though, correlation doesn't mean causation. If someone tries something new and they get better it doesn't mean the new treatment caused the improvement. There could be another reason.

A whole nother topic is people who peddle so called cures for money. The cure could be an herb, a medicine, a diet, selling a frame of mind, or almost anything else. It could be a "tonic," a motivational speech, a book, or a website. Praying on sick people is not nice. Representing something as effective when it's not is not nice. Falsely raising people's hopes and taking their money is not nice. Creating a cult-like following and cashing in is not nice. Selling methods or things that actually hurt people is not nice.


Anyway, I think that people who want to should trot out that alternative medicine and try it, especially the stuff that is safe. And especially if someone isn't making a bunch of money educating people about it (no conflict of interest and their motives are pure) Who knows - for somebody it may be the answer.
 
Last edited:

RobinN

Super Mom
Messages
7,836
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I believe knowledge is power, and that doesn't mean I always agree with what I read, but it is definitely worth it to me to weigh all the information and take from it what works.
 

epileric

New
Messages
4,500
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It's a shame that there is such a catch-22 with regards to the scientific process for diets and training programs (like neurofeedback/biofeedback) that offer no incentive for anyone to spend time and money on large scale clinical trials. No ROI means no investment.

Dr. Kossoff @ Johns Hopkins is a rare jewel in this regards.
Sorry Bernard but I have to disagree with you there. First, when you say the Scientific Process I am assuming you are referring to the methods of funding because the Scientific Process (or Scientific Method) has nothing to do with money or finances. Regarding financing, there is a huge amount of scientific research being done through grants which means no return on investment, the majority being in Universities like John Hopkins. Just to give an examples there’s the Harvard Healthy Eating Platewhich was funded by the NIH and the Heart, Lung & Blood Institute (see final paragraph)where I see nobody profiting on investment as incentive

For Neurofeedback/Biofeedback Brain Train have a list of 11 organizations that provide grants and a link to another list of more grant resources As well the International Society for Neurofeedback & Research list their grant funded projects up to 2007.

As for general epilepsy research there’s CURE who give out grants specific to epilepsy research and the Epilepsy Research Recognition Awards Program (remember to donate to your choice if you can folks)

Other examples of organizations that give various research grants are the NIH, the PURA

A couple of years ago it was John Hopkins U that topped the list for spending the most on medical, science & engineering research.
The Johns Hopkins University spent $1.68 billion on medical, science and engineering research last year – the most of any university — according to a new National Science Foundation ranking.
Rounding out the top five are the University of California, San Francisco, University of Wisconsin, Madison, the University of Michigan and the University of California, Los Angeles.
The total funding ranking includes research support from federal agencies, foundations, corporations and other sources.
The university also ranked first on the National Science Foundation’s separate list of federally funded research and development, spending $1.42 billion in fiscal year 2008 on research funded by the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense.
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2009/10/05/daily32.html

Even Dr. Kossoff received grant money for his clinical Ketogenic trials. The research was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health and the Carson Harris Foundation. Co-investigators include Amisha Patel, Paula Pyzik, Zahava Turner and James Rubenstein (final paragraph)

I’m not claiming that there is no need for improvement, both in funding & scientific methodology, but I do find it hard to see this as a catch-22 though. After all it is the same system that allowed Dr. Kossoff to prove the validity of the Ketogenic Diet and has continued to encourage his research as well as what has been financing what research has been done on neuro/biofeedback and less publicized treatments.
 
Last edited:

Bernard

Your Host
Administrator
Messages
6,539
Reaction score
9
Points
153
... Regarding financing, there is a huge amount of scientific research being done through grants which means no return on investment, ...
Eric, I spent a lot of time researching the requirements for applying for grants from CURE and other sources. I suggest you do the same and get back to me on whether I was right or wrong.

The money spent on researching diets and non-patentable treatments is a very small drop in the overall bucket. This is why you haven't seen any large scale studies on these things - only very small (n<= 15) studies that always conclude that more research is needed. The money for large scale studies always goes to avenues where commercial ROI for the researchers is promising.
 
Top