In case you didn't see it earlier (a week or two ago, perhaps in a comment somewhere?) http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/january2015/01122015reset... Apparently reseting the immune system can halt MS to a certain degree. And that's what I think our real progress will be: by degrees, because those things are complex.
The problem is that basic research really is crucial to understanding many diseases, but you can't get it funded because it's not sexy enough (or really, because funding has been cut so much in most countries). So on one hand, the claims that you see are definitely blown out of proportion, but it doesn't mean that something useful wasn't learned. You'd have to read the paper to really know.
Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
Sorry don't mean to rant.
For me, these silent migraines seem to occur after I eat a meal high in histamine. (A salad with balsamic vinegar produces a reliable, strong effect within a few hours.) There is some recent research coming out of Europe that suggests that histamine intolerance is very real, but doctors and researchers in the US haven't caught up to this yet.
Overview of the research on histamine intolerance can be found here: http://www.aerzteblatt.de/pdf/103/51/a3477e.pdf
Histamine has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028390810...
Anyway, if you ever want to chat about this stuff (even if it's just to commiserate!), feel free to contact me using the email in my profile.
If you check out just about any 'alternate' modality, you'll have a very good chance of finding it claims high success on MS. In comparison, most modalities don't tend to claim success rates on amputations. Though both involve the destruction of tissues.
It's a great case study in science based medicine.
"what do you have to lose?" - in general time, often money, and a demonstrated reduced likelihood of pursuing scientifically valid treatments. The more claims of beneficial treatments adding to therapeutic noise, the harder it is for individuals to assess treatments properly. On aggregate, we're worse off for the claims of well meaning (and hucksterish) folks.
"it would be worth the inconvenience of trying it out for a few months even if the odds of success are very small." - isn't that the sales pitch of every snake oil salesman or true believer?
FWIW: I have PPMS, and I've heard literally hundreds of claims, ranging from many different (and contradictory) diets, through 'eastern medicine' to revival prayer meetings. The details of the method change, but the structure of the claims, and the way they use evidence, are remarkably similar.
That comparison deliberately wipes out the actual differences between immune disease and amputation which give rise to the idea that the immune system can be affected by diet in ways amputation cannot. If you want to be scientific, use reason.
> "it would be worth the inconvenience of trying it out for a few months even if the odds of success are very small." - isn't that the sales pitch of every snake oil salesman or true believer?
That is an invalid answer to that pitch. There are many times that pitch is completely valid, too; when a small inconvenience is worth trying even if the odds of success are very small (such as this article's study itself!).
I still can't understand why there's so much anti-reason surrounding "defense" of "science-based" medicine. If it's an overreaction to quackery, then it's an ineffective one.
Pascal's wager works the same way. And it would be a reasonable argument if you forget to multiply by the number of such claims.
Because you should be downvoted for this.
People who have long-standing health conditions, that they have perhaps battled their whole lives, don't need people on the Internet arm-chair quarterbacking their treatment. They have medical professionals that they've worked with for years and trust, they have almost certainly done more research than you or I about their condition, and they have heard the latest fad cure-all from everyone, everyday, for years. They get it on their facebook wall, they get it from well-meaning (but poorly informed) friends and family, and they get it from strangers on the Internet.
Don't be that stranger on the Internet. Your intentions are positive and laudable, your actions are not.
In short: Unless someone has asked for advice about treatment options for their chronic condition, it is probably impolite to offer it.
Source: Conversations with friends with MS, CP, disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, and various trainings in how to provide safer spaces for people with a variety of conditions.
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/07/40497653...
The fact is that doctors are often NOT that helpful for people with complicated neurological conditions (no one knows this better than I do!), so some of us are left to fend for ourselves. Given that that's the case, I don't see what's so terrible about asking someone whether they have tried a treatment that some people have found to be effective. My perspective is that an elimination diet is worth a try for anyone with an autoimmune or difficult-to-diagnose neurological condition. That opinion is based on a lot more knowledge and personal experience than you have assumed it is, but it's true that I didn't make that clear in my comment.
The only reason I even responded to MyBunny was that he said that he was having "a hard time finding hope." I thought that if there was even a sliver of a chance that my suggestion could help him find hope, then it was worth getting downvoted to oblivion. But if my voice is merely one of a chorus that have suggested the same worthless idea to him, then for that I am sorry.
Ultimately, I do see your point, and thank you for your perspective, but I don't think that I can entirely agree with you.
Though I still think the advice to only offer treatment suggestions when asked is always sound. The Internet seems to exacerbate the problem of overwhelming amounts of unsolicited advice, which can breed its own sort of despair.
Research into ketogenic diets is pretty new, (and as far as I am aware, has been shown to have positive effects on neurodegenerative diseases in rat studies). There is a possibility that it may help.
Certainly there may be gems of valuable input that may come from strangers on the internet, but with no other signals indicating quality, it is just more noise in an already complicated topic.
Again: In conversations with someone who has a chronic condition, unless the person has asked for advice (in some way) about their treatment, it is generally rude to offer your thoughts on the matter. Just as I wouldn't suggest you go on a diet if I think you're a little overweight or that I think you should be on antipsychotic drugs because I saw you get angry one time, your knowledge of a strangers situation is too low to be helpful. And, they hear it all the time, and most of the time the advice they get is bullshit.
It has helped him deal with things.