MS responds very well to a whole range of therapies that have no proven disease modifying abilities. It is an almost perfect disease for a methodology to claim success on. The Relapsing Remitting course is variable, so people with the condition are likely to seek new treatment during worse periods, and thereafter regress to the mean. The knock on effects of the lesions in brain and spine can often be self-limiting (tiredness, pain, lack of coordination, mood changes, diminished vision), so are very conducive to placebo effects. MS can in some patients plateau and relapse rates drop off or cease (not often, but sometimes), so it is perfect for testimonials of dramatic benefits, if you don't systematically count the failures.
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.
> In comparison, most modalities don't tend to claim success rates on amputations. Though both involve the destruction of tissues.
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.
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.