LadyForCamus Wrote:An incomplete picture of the mechanism of action of a particular treatment is not any kind of argument or evidence against its demonstrable efficacy.But... it... is. In science-based medicine (the form of medicine overwhelmingly practiced today) the scientific plausibility of a treatment being effective is the most important criterion, more important than studies.
Furthermore, there are, as far as I know, no high-quality studies about that. Almost none of them are blinded, and most of them even lack the control group. Experiments which are not blinded nor controlled mean very little. Such an experiment is what convinced McArthur Wheeler that lemon juice makes him invisible to the cameras.
And why don't we see that effect in animals? Grass-fed cows are mostly in the state of ketosis, since most of the energy in grass is in the form of fat, there are little usable carbohydrates or protein in most types of grass. Grain-fed cows, on the other hand, get most of their energy from starch. If there were any truth to that ketosis protecting against epilepsy, we would expect epilepsy to be much more common in grain-fed cows than in grass-fed cows. But that's not the case. Similarly, nearly all the carbohydrates that rabbits eat are in the form of cellulose, yet epilepsy is rather common in rabbits.
OK, maybe I am a bit biased against the claims of diets being able to cure diseases because I've been in that vegan/meat-eater debate for a long time. What do you think is the difference between those attempts to cure epilepsy with diet and attempts to cure type-2-diabetes with diet? There are low-quality studies which show a meat-based diet can cure type-2-diabetes, there are also low-quality studies, often cited by Neal Barnard, showing a low-fat (also excluding, for some reason, unsaturated fat) diet cures type-2-diabetes. The right thing to do is to reject both of those claims and be very skeptical of any similar claims, right?
