Naturopathy

[jillio]

Hmm, I find this interesting. Even though there are flaws whether it's biased or not in these research - How exactly do we get to really know that there are causes or let's say - a validation to know which one is correct or isn't correct?

By using measurments that can be supported scientifically, by using control groups that contain the population you claim the treatment will help, and by controlling, in the experiemental condition, the variables that could be responsible for what has been observed other than the variable being studied. None of this was done in the study cited.

 

[jillio]

Whats more ...

Those that are defending this diet signed up to show their allegience to this quackery. I wonder if they realized this was a deaf forum or not? What reason would they have to sign up on the forum other than beating the drum for this alledged treatment?

Btw, good job, Jillio!

Thanks, Oceanbreeze. I suspect that these posters were solicited for the sole purpose of defending naturopathy. If you recall, several times it was stated the poster who originally made these claims that she would leave it to this friend or that friend to reply.

Unfortunately, they haven't done any better a job of providing any scientific support for their claims.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Thanks, Oceanbreeze. I suspect that these posters were solicited for the sole purpose of defending naturopathy. If you recall, several times it was stated the poster who originally made these claims that she would leave it to this friend or that friend to reply.

Unfortunately, they haven't done any better a job of providing any scientific support for their claims.

Yeah... Oh well. I know that I've not been swayed. I also am somewhat interested in this as I have ADD. I read the thread and read about this "treatment", and I decided I will stick to what I've been doing for the last several years. I know it works!

 

[Jolie77]

By using measurments that can be supported scientifically, by using control groups that contain the population you claim the treatment will help, and by controlling, in the experiemental condition, the variables that could be responsible for what has been observed other than the variable being studied. None of this was done in the study cited.

I see. Thanks for clarifying it.

I also wonder, Even if it was a controlled study, wouldn't that still be biased in a sense? Let's say - to a variety, 3/4 of the kids are said to have ADHD and the 1/4 of kids doesn't have ADHD but yet the study says 1/2 of them have ADHD. How would that be virtually different than by what the study cites?

 

[Jolie77]

Yeah... Oh well. I know that I've not been swayed. I also am somewhat interested in this as I have ADD. I read the thread and read about this "treatment", and I decided I will stick to what I've been doing for the last several years. I know it works!

I'm the same way too. I'm particular to find out about these information because I have an interest in this thread as well. I wanted to see how both sides outweighs this and that in order for me to see how informative it can be, or rather, to see how this exactly works.

 

[shulafaus]

Originally Posted as comments by Jillio to Shulafaus


Shula said:
I am a volunteer ... etc.

Jillio said:
There you go. You are a volunteer. A volunteer has either the experience nor the education to determine why a patient has gotten better. Your assumptions that it is the diet that is resposnible cannot be substantiated and supported through empirical research.

Shula answers:
Jillio, I don't know why you want to make this a personal attack, but that is okay with me. Yes indeed -- although I have a degree in psychology, having gone back to school specifically to study bio-psychology, I am not qualified to determine if or why a patient has gotten better. However, I don't have any patients. I am not a doctor.

Our members go to their own doctors, and their DOCTORS determine if they got better.

We are the support for the families wanting to remove additives from their diet - for whatever reason. We are the support for doctors who want their patients to avoid the additives and/or the salicylates -- doctors increasingly send their patients to us for the training we provide.

We are certainly well qualified to teach the diet, and we have a team of people (mostly volunteers, again) who contact companies to get the information needed and the signed forms required for a company's product to appear in our Foodlist. Companies do not - and can not - pay for this. If their product meets our guidelines, they are included. If they do not, then they are NOT included. Period. The American Foodlist & Shopping Guide books are divided by region of the U.S., and each is about 200 pages long containing many thousand brand-name products. We also provide handbooks with advice on how to handle school functions, visiting relatives, etc.

Yes - in case you are wondering - there is a membership fee which includes all materials and unlimited access to the support boards and HelpLine. We are member-supported and donation-supported. We are also nonprofit, so those who cannot afford the membership fee can get a reduction. None of us gets lots of money or gets any kind of commission. We (both volunteers and staff) do this work as a way of giving back to the organization who helped us when we needed the help.

We are not conducting double blind research here. We are teaching parents HOW to implement a diet and HOW to make it as easy as possible and as pleasant as possible for their families. This is not a MEDICAL diet. This is how people USED TO EAT before "ADHD," "hyperactivity" and "asthma" were household words. There is no possibility of a deficiency of Red #40 or Yellow #5, and indeed, they and the other additives we eliminate have been shown -- by mainstream RESEARCH -- to cause a number of unpleasant physical side effects ... see the research at Research on Food Dye and Flavorings and Feingold diet - Studies on BHT & BHA

Most of us, in our own families, have accidentally done our own "double blind" tests in which the child was inadvertently exposed to something and had a reaction. Certainly, over the last 27 years my son had enough errors in diet to realize that when he goes off diet he gets into trouble. On the other hand, he can also use that -- as a child he would get a reaction by the clock at the 2-hour mark, but as an adult he doesn't get a reaction for about 12 hours. Thus, when he is at a wedding or other affair and wants to ignore the dietary restrictions, he can eat whatever he wants ... he will be fine until the next morning, so he just plans on the next day being "hangover recovery."


Shula said:
We do have medical people on our medical advisory board including Dr. L. Eugene Arnold who reported on nonstimulant treatments for the NIH Consensus Development Conference in 1998, Dr. Arnold Brenner, who did his own research to prove Dr. Feingold wrong back in the 1970s and discovered that he was not wrong, and Dr. Bernard Weiss, a toxicologist at Rochester U.

Jillio said:
Why isn't that research made available so that it can be analyzed? The fact that they are on your board leads any thinking person to conclude that their attempts at research are biased. The fact of the matter is,there is no scietific research that supports your claims, or the claims of the Feingold organization. Zilch, nada, zero, none.

Shula answers:
Their research is available. By and large it was done before they were asked to be on our advisory board. We asked them to advise us because they had done this research and were experts in the field. Don't put the cart before the horse.

Dr. Arnold's research (again) is at Treatment Alternatives for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder L

I did not previously provide Dr. Brenner's research simply because it is pretty old. But it is on our website at Diet & Behavior: Research on ADD / ADHD with a lot of other studies, and here is the citation and full text:

A study of the efficacy of the Feingold Diet on Hyperkinetic Children:
Some favorable personal observations.
Brenner A, Clinical Pediatrics (Phila) 1977 Jul;16(7):652-6

FULL TEXT:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Brenner77.pdf

Dr. Bernard Weiss has quite a few studies and articles published, and they are also linked to the list of studies above. He analyzed some of the studies done by other researchers, as well. Here you go:

Behavioral responses to artificial food colors.
Weiss B, et al.
Science 1980 Mar 28;207(4438):1487-9
-- this was a study done on kids who were NOT hyperactive

FULL TEXT:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Weiss80.pdf


Food additives and environmental chemicals as sources of childhood behavior disorders.
Weiss, B,
J Am Acad Child Psychiatry 1982 Mar;21(2):144-52

FULL TEXT (this is an anlysis of other early studies):
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Weiss82.pdf


Food additives as a source of behavioral disturbances in children.
Weiss, B,
Neurotoxicology 1986 Summer;7(2):197-208

- MedLine doesn't have the abstract, and I haven't scanned the entire study yet into a PDF, but here is the abstract, or most of it:

" The proposition that certain food additives, such as synthetic colors and flavors, might provoke behavioral disturbances in children surprised most of us. When Feingold (1975) advanced his thesis, he met a surge of scepticism and hostility leavened by large doses of indifference. Not much has changed in the intervening decade, but now the rejection of Feingold's hypothesis conflicts directly with a slowly growing body of data....

We ought to heed what the late Philip Handler (1979) wrote about risk-benefit analysis: 'A sensible guide would surely be to reduce exposure to hazard whenever possible, to accept substantial hazard only for great benefit, minor hazard for modest benefit, and no hazard at all when the benefit seems relatively trivial.'" "


Low-level chemical sensitivity: a perspective from behavioral toxicology.
Weiss B.
Toxicol Ind Health 1994 Jul-Oct;10(4-5):605-17

- Sorry, I don't have the full text available, but here is the abstract:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/weiss1994abstract.pdf

Food Additive Safety Evaluation: The Link to Behavioral Disorders in Children
Weiss B.
Advances in Clinical Child Psychology vol 7 1984, pp. 221- 251

FULL TEXT:
http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Weiss84.pdf




Shula said:
...I gave you the links to the research ...

Jillio said:
You provided links to nothing more than abstracts,

Shula answers:
Unfortunately, one of the links - the one with most of the full texts in it - was given incorrectly. I apologize for that, and understand it must have been frustrating. The correct page with working links (again) is at Diet and Health: PDF documents

Abstracts, however, from reputable journals in MedLine, are not useless -- and that is far more than was given you by Stephen Barrett at Quackwatch, yet you have no problem believing whatever he says. Why is that, I wonder?

Jillio adds:
...and even some of the abstracts were contradiciting your claim. For instance, in one of the abstracts, it was stated that children who had specific items removed fromtheir diet, and then were tested with both the forbidden food item and a placebo showed the same effects with both. That one point alone indicates that the diet is not responsible.

Shula answers:
No - the inclusion of that study and other "negative" studies indicates that I have tried including studies on both sides of the picture. You do not, however, give the citation or author of which study you are talking about -- would you like to give me a clue?

My guess would be the Adams study. If you look (now that you can) at the full text of that study at http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Adams81.pdf you will see my notes on the left side of the first page. Not there because it was noticed later is that in this study he has a chart of what he used for his challenge with a total of 26.3 mg ... but if you actually add up what he lists in his own chart on page 311, you only get 18.8 mg. I wonder how the peer reviewers missed that? Now, looking again at the chart, you will see that the frosting with coloring and the frosting without coloring is the same color -- both are white. They had to be, since WHITE frosting was used as the placebo. Now, when you give your kid a cupcake with YELLOW frosting, do you really think that this test with so little coloring that the frosting never changed color is adequate to prove that it is safe? Don't you think maybe the yellow frosting has a whole lot more color in it?

You know, if you do a double blind study on giving kids cocaine, and you give them only about 1 mg of cocaine, you will find it safe. Nothing will happen to the kids. Is that good enough research to let the schools decide to include it in their lunch program in unlimited amounts?



Jillio adds:
When I review research, I need more than an abstract. Abstracts are virtually usless. I need to see methodology, statistical analysis, population, and conclusions. Those are the areas that fallicious claims, improper methodolgy, population skews, and incorrect conclusions are found. Failure to provide an entire article is generally indicative of someone, such as a volunteer, knows absolutely nothing about research and are not thinking in a critical manner, but merely acceptingwhatever some quack has told them is true without taking time to investigate the claim for themselves. When researchers fail to make the rentire research report available, it is generally because they know theat their methods are questionable, and the conclusions would prove invalid as a result.

Shula answers:
I am not a researcher and this is not my own research. Furthermore, not all the studies are available in full text, and some are not even in English. Again, the page I had linked to for accessing full studies (many but not all) was not working, but is working now. Take another look.

Since each and every study I refer to was published in peer review literature, it is considered credible. I agree not all of it is perfect. In fact, the Gross 1987 study is terrible. The Pellsser study is lacking in what I would prefer to see as a proper control group. The Lien 2006 study has an inadequate conclusion that sugar in soda is a causative agent; nevertheless, they draw a powerful correlation. None of them is useless, and none of the researchers are quacks. Yes, some of them are biased. Where I was able to determine bias, I have notes on our research page. I would be very pleased to include notes about flaws you may come up with as well, if you really want to carefully review any of these studies and if your conclusions are substantiated.

By the way, you have not told me what your qualifications for analyzing research are.


Shula said:
How about the article by the American Academy of Pediatrics, in which they now admit that they "MIGHT HAVE BEEN WRONG" for the past 30 years? See their whole article at http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/AAP08.pdf

Yes, it is on our website -- I had to pay for it.

Jillio complained:
Why would I spend good money for invalid research? No other medical research is costly to the consumer. If it is valid research by ethical researchers, I can obtain it for free. I don't pay for false research any more than I pay for false "cures".

Shula answers:
You must have misunderstood. I did not ask YOU to pay for it. I cannot give you the direct link to the original article as it appears on the AAP website because it is not free. I paid for it, and I posted it to share. Why should the AAP charge for access? Because that is what many of the journals do. One must either have a subscription to the journal, or buy access to the article itself on the internet, or go down to a medical library to copy the article if it is available. Surely you knew that?

And are you saying that the AAP article is not valid? This is the American Academy of Pediatrics, here ... they WRITE the treatment guidelines for doctors. I don't always agree with them, but they are not quacks. If they are quacks, then who do you trust?

Jillio continues complaining:
And, if you indeed do have complete copies of this research, and it indeed does provide empirical evidence for your claim, your failure to post such is just more indication that naturopathy is nothing more than unfounded mystical belief, and not science in the least.

Shula answers:
If I have research that provides evidence of anything .. and if I don't post it, that is not an indication of anything except that I didn't post it. I have more research on the website than most people do on any kind of website. I have lots more than Quackwatch does on the subjectof diet and behavior.

By the way, you can see our information book at Blue Book: Behavior, Learning & Health and notice please that there are more than 20 pages of research discussion with 191 citations. That is more than most people even want to see.

But where does my posting or not posting have anything to do with NATUROPATHY? In my entire website I have not even used that word. I am not even sure I know what it means. We teach people how to take the artificial chemicals (that never in the history of the world were part of the human diet until recently) out of the diet. We teach people to eat better without sacrificing the "typical American diet" that kids love. We teach people that their food should consist of FOOD, not chemicals. Chemicals are not part of a normal human diet. A normal human diet is supposed to contain FOOD. So this is naturopathy? This is mysticism? Well, whaddaya know.

Since you had pasted your various complaints into the quote of my post, I thought the best way is to use the same procedure to answer each one. So please see my answers to each complaint in blue inside the quote box above.

I hope that it will clarify things. I am not your enemy, and I am not a quack.

The diet works - I have SEEN it work for over 25 years. On the other hand, it does not help everybody, and it is not always enough alone to improve whatever their symptoms are. It can, however, be used with any other treatment needed.

I am not a doctor. I don't treat patients. I don't diagnose anybody. I help teach people how to get the petrochemical additives out of their diet -- that is ALL that I do. I have had doctors write me that I have changed the way they look at medicine. I have had parents write me that after failure of every kind of medication and treatment, the diet saved their children and their sanity. I have had adults write me to thank me for their promotion at work now that they are able to finish projects. I have had a parent write me that her child with very serious seizures never responded to the anti-seizure medication until he went on the Feingold diet in addition. I have been invited to speak at professional conferences, and I will never forget one where a mom came over to me and broke into tears as she thanked me for saving her child's life. Well, that was certainly a special moment, but I didn't do it. The families did it themselves - by removing the petrochemical additives from their food. All I (and my organization) did was help teach them how. Those chemicals are related to petroleum. They have no business being IN the food in the first place. They are not food. Chemically, they are more like drugs - added to food without benefit of the FDA testing for side effects as is done for drugs. Yet they are used in unlimited quantities ... well, technically they are limited to "acceptable manufacturing procedures" which presumably means use as much as you want as long as it doesn't gum up your machinery. This is not a normal human diet -- and did not exist until about 40-50 years ago -- and our children are paying the price.

 

[shulafaus]

But the simply fact still remains that this paper cannot be used as support for treatment of ADHD because there were no children with ADHD in the study.
.

Jillio -- we do not say that this study proves anything about ADHD. But what it proves is that synthetic petrochemical food dyes ARE NOT GOOD FOR KIDS. They DO have neurological toxicological effects. They DO affect attention and activity levels to some extent ... and that is an adverse effect ... at age 3 and at age 8. What about age 5? Are you going to suggest that magically it won't bother 5 year olds?

Consider the benefit-risk ratio. These food dyes and other synthetic additives added to food benefits ONLY the manufacturer, but has no benefit whatsoever to the consumer ... and in fact appears to cause damage. Even if that damage is not large, the benefit-risk ratio is not acceptable.

None of the dangerous (in my opinion) additives are necessary. There are safer colorings; there are safer preservatives; there are safer flavorings. The only benefit conferred by the synthetic additives is that they are CHEAPER. That is not good enough for me.

But okay, you don't like the McCann study. That is okay. Take a look at the series of Tanaka studies. He is a toxicologist and directly studied food dyes. In Japan. I am pasting them here but you can find the abstracts at Research on Food Dye and Flavorings -- my conclusion is that they KNOW the colorings are not really safe, but they figure they are "not that bad." Ugh.


Effects of amaranth on F1 generation mice. Tanaka T. Toxicology letters 1992 May;60(3):315-24
" The color additive, amaranth, (Red No. 2) was given in the diet to provide dietary levels of 0 (control), 0.03, 0.09 and 0.27%, from 5 weeks of age in F0 generation mice to 9 weeks of age in F1 generation mice. . . There was no effect on the parameters of litters, litter size, pup weight and litter weight. The body weight of pups during the lactation period in the treatment groups increased less significantly, and the survival index at postnatal day (PND) 21 of the amaranth 0.27% group was reduced. Developmental parameters, direction of swimming on PND 4 in male pups and olfactory orientation in each sex were significantly reduced in the treatment groups. The dose levels of amaranth in this study influenced some reproductive, developmental and behavioral parameters in mice. "


Reproductive and neurobehavioral effects of amaranth administered to mice in drinking water. Tanaka T., Toxicology and industrial health. 1993 Nov-Dec;9(6):1027-35
" The color additive amaranth [Red #2] was given in the drinking water at levels of 0 (control), 0.025, 0.075, and 0.225% from 5 weeks of age in F0 generation until F1 generation mice were weaned,. . . Average body weight in both sexes of the F1 mice was significantly increased in the 0.025% group in both sexes. Survival index at postnatal day (PND) 21 was reduced in the 0.025% amaranth group. For the neurobehavioral parameters, surface righting at PND 4 in female offspring and olfactory orientation in both sexes were significantly affected by treatment. Several parameters of movement activity of male offspring at 3 weeks of age were affected in amaranth 0.075% group . . . "
.


Reproductive and neurobehavioral effects of Sunset yellow FCF administered to mice in the diet. Tanaka T., Toxicol Ind Health 1996 Jan-Feb;12(1):69-79
Selected reproductive and neurobehavioral parameters were measured in mice given the color additive Sunset Yellow [FD&C Yellow #6] FCF in the diet. The additive was given at levels of 0 (control), 0.15, 0.30, and 0.60%, from five weeks of age in the F0 generation to nine weeks of age in the F1 generation. There were few adverse effects on litter size, weight, or sex ratio. Average body weight . . . was significantly increased . . . In the neurobehavioral parameters, swimming direction was significantly affected in a dose-related manner in male and female offspring . . . Also in the early lactation period, surface righting and negative geotaxis were significantly affected in male offspring in the middle-dose group, and swimming head angle was significantly affected in female offspring in a dose-related manner. The dose levels of Sunset Yellow FCF in this study did produce some adverse effects in reproductive and neurobehavioral parameters.
.


Reproductive and neurobehavioural toxicity study of erythrosine administered to mice in the diet. Tanaka T. Food Chem Toxicol 2001 May;39(5):447-54
" Erythrosine was given in the diet to provide levels of 0 (control), 0.005, 0.015 and 0.045% from 5 weeks of age of the F(0) generation to 9 weeks of age of the F(1) generation in mice, and selected reproductive and neurobehavioural parameters were measured. . . .In movement activity of exploratory behaviour, several parameters were significantly changed in the high-dose group, and those effects were dose related in adult females in the F(0) and F(1) generations and in male offspring in the F(1) generation. . . . "



Reproductive and neurobehavioural toxicity study of tartrazine administered to mice in the diet. Tanaka T., Food Chem Toxicol. 2005 Aug 5 (epub ahead of print)

" Tartrazine was given in the diet . . . and selected reproductive and neurobehavioural parameters were measured. In movement activity of exploratory behaviour in the F(0) generation, number of vertical activity was significantly increased ...The average body weight . . .was significantly increased . . . In behavioural developmental parameters, surface righting . . . was significantly accelerated . . . Cliff avoidance at PND 7 was significantly accelerated . . . Negative geotaxis at PND 4 was significantly delayed . . . number of movement showed a significant tendency to be affected . . . Nevertheless, . . . the actual dietary intake of tartrazine is presumed to be much lower. It would therefore appear that the levels of actual dietary intake of tartrazine is unlikely to produce any adverse effects in humans. "

Please click on the link to the entire abstract and read it carefully. It is astonishing that in the face of these clear adverse effects on mice, he would conclude that it is not a problem for humans. And his basis for such a conclusion? Simply that we would theoretically eat less than the mice did.

 

[jillio]

I see. Thanks for clarifying it.

I also wonder, Even if it was a controlled study, wouldn't that still be biased in a sense? Let's say - to a variety, 3/4 of the kids are said to have ADHD and the 1/4 of kids doesn't have ADHD but yet the study says 1/2 of them have ADHD. How would that be virtually different than by what the study cites?

Well, if they are using control groups, then they would match the numbers of kids with ADHD and kids without ADHD. They would also control for other variables to make sure that the population (both treatment group and control group) was representative of the population as a whole.

All studies have limitations, but that doesn't necessarily make them biased. When bias comes into play is when you see problems population sample selcetion, sloppy methodology that doesn't control for extraneous variables, claims being genralized to include a population base that wasn't included in the study, and funding an sponsorship by an organization that has something to gain. All of those things are red flags.

 

[jillio]

Jillio -- we do not say that this study proves anything about ADHD. But what it proves is that synthetic petrochemical food dyes ARE NOT GOOD FOR KIDS. They DO have neurological toxicological effects. They DO affect attention and activity levels to some extent ... and that is an adverse effect ... at age 3 and at age 8. What about age 5? Are you going to suggest that magically it won't bother 5 year olds?

Consider the benefit-risk ratio. These food dyes and other synthetic additives added to food benefits ONLY the manufacturer, but has no benefit whatsoever to the consumer ... and in fact appears to cause damage. Even if that damage is not large, the benefit-risk ratio is not acceptable.

None of the dangerous (in my opinion) additives are necessary. There are safer colorings; there are safer preservatives; there are safer flavorings. The only benefit conferred by the synthetic additives is that they are CHEAPER. That is not good enough for me.

But okay, you don't like the McCann study. That is okay. Take a look at the series of Tanaka studies. He is a toxicologist and directly studied food dyes. In Japan. I am pasting them here but you can find the abstracts at Research on Food Dye and Flavorings -- my conclusion is that they KNOW the colorings are not really safe, but they figure they are "not that bad." Ugh.


Effects of amaranth on F1 generation mice. Tanaka T. Toxicology letters 1992 May;60(3):315-24
" The color additive, amaranth, (Red No. 2) was given in the diet to provide dietary levels of 0 (control), 0.03, 0.09 and 0.27%, from 5 weeks of age in F0 generation mice to 9 weeks of age in F1 generation mice. . . There was no effect on the parameters of litters, litter size, pup weight and litter weight. The body weight of pups during the lactation period in the treatment groups increased less significantly, and the survival index at postnatal day (PND) 21 of the amaranth 0.27% group was reduced. Developmental parameters, direction of swimming on PND 4 in male pups and olfactory orientation in each sex were significantly reduced in the treatment groups. The dose levels of amaranth in this study influenced some reproductive, developmental and behavioral parameters in mice. "


Reproductive and neurobehavioral effects of amaranth administered to mice in drinking water. Tanaka T., Toxicology and industrial health. 1993 Nov-Dec;9(6):1027-35
" The color additive amaranth [Red #2] was given in the drinking water at levels of 0 (control), 0.025, 0.075, and 0.225% from 5 weeks of age in F0 generation until F1 generation mice were weaned,. . . Average body weight in both sexes of the F1 mice was significantly increased in the 0.025% group in both sexes. Survival index at postnatal day (PND) 21 was reduced in the 0.025% amaranth group. For the neurobehavioral parameters, surface righting at PND 4 in female offspring and olfactory orientation in both sexes were significantly affected by treatment. Several parameters of movement activity of male offspring at 3 weeks of age were affected in amaranth 0.075% group . . . "
.


Reproductive and neurobehavioral effects of Sunset yellow FCF administered to mice in the diet. Tanaka T., Toxicol Ind Health 1996 Jan-Feb;12(1):69-79
Selected reproductive and neurobehavioral parameters were measured in mice given the color additive Sunset Yellow [FD&C Yellow #6] FCF in the diet. The additive was given at levels of 0 (control), 0.15, 0.30, and 0.60%, from five weeks of age in the F0 generation to nine weeks of age in the F1 generation. There were few adverse effects on litter size, weight, or sex ratio. Average body weight . . . was significantly increased . . . In the neurobehavioral parameters, swimming direction was significantly affected in a dose-related manner in male and female offspring . . . Also in the early lactation period, surface righting and negative geotaxis were significantly affected in male offspring in the middle-dose group, and swimming head angle was significantly affected in female offspring in a dose-related manner. The dose levels of Sunset Yellow FCF in this study did produce some adverse effects in reproductive and neurobehavioral parameters.
.


Reproductive and neurobehavioural toxicity study of erythrosine administered to mice in the diet. Tanaka T. Food Chem Toxicol 2001 May;39(5):447-54
" Erythrosine was given in the diet to provide levels of 0 (control), 0.005, 0.015 and 0.045% from 5 weeks of age of the F(0) generation to 9 weeks of age of the F(1) generation in mice, and selected reproductive and neurobehavioural parameters were measured. . . .In movement activity of exploratory behaviour, several parameters were significantly changed in the high-dose group, and those effects were dose related in adult females in the F(0) and F(1) generations and in male offspring in the F(1) generation. . . . "



Reproductive and neurobehavioural toxicity study of tartrazine administered to mice in the diet. Tanaka T., Food Chem Toxicol. 2005 Aug 5 (epub ahead of print)

" Tartrazine was given in the diet . . . and selected reproductive and neurobehavioural parameters were measured. In movement activity of exploratory behaviour in the F(0) generation, number of vertical activity was significantly increased ...The average body weight . . .was significantly increased . . . In behavioural developmental parameters, surface righting . . . was significantly accelerated . . . Cliff avoidance at PND 7 was significantly accelerated . . . Negative geotaxis at PND 4 was significantly delayed . . . number of movement showed a significant tendency to be affected . . . Nevertheless, . . . the actual dietary intake of tartrazine is presumed to be much lower. It would therefore appear that the levels of actual dietary intake of tartrazine is unlikely to produce any adverse effects in humans. "

Please click on the link to the entire abstract and read it carefully. It is astonishing that in the face of these clear adverse effects on mice, he would conclude that it is not a problem for humans. And his basis for such a conclusion? Simply that we would theoretically eat less than the mice did.

Your first sentence disqualifies your interpretation of research. Anyone who knows anything about research at all, or is involved with research at all, knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that research does not prove anything. It either supports a hypothesis, or it doesn't support a hypothesis, meaning that it does support the null hypothesis. Surely they taught you that in the class you said you took. If not, I would suggest that the class you took didn't teach you the fundamental and basic principles of research.

The whole reason this thread was started was because another member of this forum claimed that naturopathy could cure autism, ADHD, and several other mental disorders. This has not been proven, nor has it been supported in any way by any research.

Likewise, your claim that the "research" you have posted proves anything. It does not.

You seem to be quite skilled at taking statements from an article, most likely completely unrelated to the topic, out of context and attempting to use them to support your claims regarding naturopothy. However, that, just like the research you posted, should be a red flag for anyone reading your posts. Your interpretations are faulty, your research is inherently flawed, and your skills at defending both are questionable. That is not a person attack. It is a professional assessment.

Again, post some empirical support that is both valid and reliable to support your claims, and we might be able to enter into an intelligent discussion about the topic. Continue to post unrelated studies, and "research" that is flawed methodlogically, and there is nothing for us to discuss, as you ruin your own credibility by doing so.

Studies on mice are not applicable. Again, show me scientific studies conducted with the human population in question that presents scientific support and empirical evidence to support your claims. You are wasting time and space by posting that which is irrelevent, and it is not even substantial enough to distract one from the fact that it is irrelevent. I keep asking for valid and reliable research, and you keep posting that which is neither. Is that you don't know what is meant by valid and reliable and empirical eveidence, ort is it just that you can't find such because it does not exist?

 

[jillio]

Since you had pasted your various complaints into the quote of my post, I thought the best way is to use the same procedure to answer each one. So please see my answers to each complaint in blue inside the quote box above.

I hope that it will clarify things. I am not your enemy, and I am not a quack.

The diet works - I have SEEN it work for over 25 years. On the other hand, it does not help everybody, and it is not always enough alone to improve whatever their symptoms are. It can, however, be used with any other treatment needed.

I am not a doctor. I don't treat patients. I don't diagnose anybody. I help teach people how to get the petrochemical additives out of their diet -- that is ALL that I do. I have had doctors write me that I have changed the way they look at medicine. I have had parents write me that after failure of every kind of medication and treatment, the diet saved their children and their sanity. I have had adults write me to thank me for their promotion at work now that they are able to finish projects. I have had a parent write me that her child with very serious seizures never responded to the anti-seizure medication until he went on the Feingold diet in addition. I have been invited to speak at professional conferences, and I will never forget one where a mom came over to me and broke into tears as she thanked me for saving her child's life. Well, that was certainly a special moment, but I didn't do it. The families did it themselves - by removing the petrochemical additives from their food. All I (and my organization) did was help teach them how. Those chemicals are related to petroleum. They have no business being IN the food in the first place. They are not food. Chemically, they are more like drugs - added to food without benefit of the FDA testing for side effects as is done for drugs. Yet they are used in unlimited quantities ... well, technically they are limited to "acceptable manufacturing procedures" which presumably means use as much as you want as long as it doesn't gum up your machinery. This is not a normal human diet -- and did not exist until about 40-50 years ago -- and our children are paying the price.

Quite frankly, I agree. You are not a doctor. You are not a health care professional. You do not have an advanced degree in health care, nor in mental health care. You are not licensed, and therefore, are not accountable to any governing body. That, indeed, makes you a very dangerous person. You are unqualified to provide health care advise, you are unqualified to make health care recommendations, yet you admittedly are doing so.

You do not have the expertise to decide what is normal and what is not normal. You are perfectly free to do what ever you want regarding your own health. However, you do not have the right to place the health of others in jeopardy by making unsubstantiated claims that have never been supported, or to prey on the wishful thinking of parents who have a child that may have been diagnosed with a serious disorder that requires medical supervision. To tell parents that their child does not have a disorder, and only needs to be put on a restrictive diet could very well endanger that child in many ways.

A physician is held accountable. A psychologist is held accountable. A clincial counselor is held accountable. A nurse is held accountable. People like you claim to have as much expertise as all those professionals combined, yet are not held accountable through licensing and certification. You misrepresent you qualifications, you misrepresent the claims of cures and treatment, and you put people at very real risk for complications. That is unacceptable.

 

[shulafaus]

(1) They also exhibited an increase in activity after being given a placebo.
...


(2) Obviously, you know nothing of the bell curve, as your application is totally ridiculous.

...

(3)Evidently, they didn't teach you in that class of yours that research in which participants are paid is useful for marketing, but the very fact that they are paid can, and often does, skew the results of empirical results. What you are talking about is a marketing study, not a scientific one.

(1) I have just re-read the entire article, and the activity of the children receiving drinks with coloring was compared to the activity of the children when they were receiving placebo. The children were put on an additive-free diet and given placebo drinks every day from the beginning. Since that was the baseline to which their activity after test materials was compared, it could not have risen when given placebo - because it would have risen over what measurement? THAT was the baseline. They were comparing test material to placebo. Now, it is possible that there was a rise when given placebo during the testing period over the placebo baseline, but I don't see it. The statistics, however, are complex, so please be so good as to show me where that is recorded.


(2) Yes, I know what a bell curve is. And I also know that if something occurs across the population that affects all children more or less equally, then the curve itself is shifted. If we are talking about IQ, for example, most kids would still be in the normal range with a 5% shift, but there would be more in one of the tails ... if, therefore, it is a downward shift, more kids would be in the retarded range while fewer would be in the gifted range. While most would still be "normal," this would be a disaster.


(3) If participants are paid, it may make them participate more enthusiastically, but if it is a double blind study, it could not skew results even if they wanted to, simply because they would not know which is the "right" answer. Be that as it may, however, I see no indication that the participants were paid. So what did I miss? Indeed, it says only that the schools received some money for their participation in getting the information to the parents and helping with recruitment, but that would hardly skew anything ... unless you think that the schools would know in advance which kids were likely to react to food dyes. Now how would they possibly know such a thing?

The design study passed the research ethics committee. Are you holding them to a higher standard? Whose standard?

 

[jillio]

I'm the same way too. I'm particular to find out about these information because I have an interest in this thread as well. I wanted to see how both sides outweighs this and that in order for me to see how informative it can be, or rather, to see how this exactly works.

If I had encountered one single piece of evidence that supports the claims being made, I would tell you, as a parent, that it would be worth checking into. I am open minded enough to know that we don't know all we need to know about many mental disorders, autism and ADHD included. That is why there in ongoing research into these disorders; so that we, as professionals, will be able to increase our knowledge base and best advise parents and clients.

My problem is not in looking for new information and better answers. It is with these people who claim to have found a cure as simple as a change in diet, and giving these parents false information that has never been substantiated. Especially when the people offering this false information do not have the credentials to do so. There are people who will fall prey to this, and real damage can be done, and has been done to the victims.

I don't want to see parents and children taken advantage of, and I don't want to see their health and well being endangered by false information. It is difficult enough to raise a child with a disability. To confuse the parent by telling them that all they need to do is change their child's diet and they will be cured of a chronic disorder such as autism or ADHD is nothing more than lying to these parents. The same goes for adults. To tell an adult who is suffering from a serious disorder such as Bi-Polar Disorder that they don't need their meds, and all they need is a diet change and some massage puts that person at a very real risk. Ethically, I cannot sit back and not correct these false statements.

 

[shulafaus]

If you are going to spend so much time looking up articles, try and find something valid and reliable that was done empirically, not this psuedoresearch sponsored by the very organization that promotes the diet. If you want to support your claims, you need independent research that validates it, not the orgainization that promotes the diet coming up with invalid research. Find some independent empirical research to support these claims, and you will have an argument. Otherwise, it is nothing more than anecdote, and anecdote supports nothing. At this point, you have wasted a lot of space and a lot of time posting absracts and links that go right back to the Feingold organization, not links to empirical research in reputable journals. The factof the matter is, there is no scietific evidence that supports the claim that the Feingold diet is useful in managing ADHD, much less in treating it, or as has been claimed, curing it.

You and Fredfam seem to make the same erors. Why don't I find that surprising.

The organization that promotes the diet? I suppose you are talking about the Feingold Association? While it is flattering that you think we might be sponsoring research published in all these famous and mainstream journals, we have never done so. We sponsor NO research. The fact that the research is posted on the Feingold website is because I have either xeroxed it from a medical school library or accessed it on line from its publication by paying for it or, sometimes, by having it sent to me by email by the original author. I had to post it somewhere. That does not affect its validity. You can certainly look all this stuff up yourself on MedLine -- it is all real and none of it was done, sponsored, or paid for by us.

And who is Fredfam anyway?

 

[jillio]

(1) I have just re-read the entire article, and the activity of the children receiving drinks with coloring was compared to the activity of the children when they were receiving placebo. The children were put on an additive-free diet and given placebo drinks every day from the beginning. Since that was the baseline to which their activity after test materials was compared, it could not have risen when given placebo - because it would have risen over what measurement? THAT was the baseline. They were comparing test material to placebo. Now, it is possible that there was a rise when given placebo during the testing period over the placebo baseline, but I don't see it. The statistics, however, are complex, so please be so good as to show me where that is recorded.


(2) Yes, I know what a bell curve is. And I also know that if something occurs across the population that affects all children more or less equally, then the curve itself is shifted. If we are talking about IQ, for example, most kids would still be in the normal range with a 5% shift, but there would be more in one of the tails ... if, therefore, it is a downward shift, more kids would be in the retarded range while fewer would be in the gifted range. While most would still be "normal," this would be a disaster.


(3) If participants are paid, it may make them participate more enthusiastically, but if it is a double blind study, it could not skew results even if they wanted to, simply because they would not know which is the "right" answer. Be that as it may, however, I see no indication that the participants were paid. So what did I miss? Indeed, it says only that the schools received some money for their participation in getting the information to the parents and helping with recruitment, but that would hardly skew anything ... unless you think that the schools would know in advance which kids were likely to react to food dyes. Now how would they possibly know such a thing?

The design study passed the research ethics committee. Are you holding them to a higher standard? Whose standard?

No, dear, the placebo does not provide the baseline. The baseline is taken prior to any drinks being given. Then a second measurement is taken following the administration fo the placebo, and the adminsitration of the non-placebo. One does not give a placebo and then take a baseline measurement. Obviously, you are very confused regarding the nature of a double blind study, and have no understanding of the phenomenon known as the "placebo effect."

Shifts in the bell curve are not determined by percentages, but by standard deviations. When you are referring to an I.Q. test, the test has been standardized, and simply haveing a greater number of people falling outside that standardized score at any given time does not shift the curve.

Quite obviously, you do not know what is involved in a double blind study, and are totally unaware of extraneous variables. Not to mention the use of self reports/parental reports or any second hand report from a non-professional regarding behavioral specifics. These ,quite simply are not reliable instruments for obtaining quantitative information.

 

[jillio]

The organization that promotes the diet? I suppose you are talking about the Feingold Association? While it is flattering that you think we might be sponsoring research published in all these famous and mainstream journals, we have never done so. We sponsor NO research. The fact that the research is posted on the Feingold website is because I have either xeroxed it from a medical school library or accessed it on line from its publication by paying for it or, sometimes, by having it sent to me by email by the original author. I had to post it somewhere. That does not affect its validity. You can certainly look all this stuff up yourself on MedLine -- it is all real and none of it was done, sponsored, or paid for by us.

And who is Fredfam anyway?

You most cetainly did not access it from a medical library, because it is not medical research.

And yes, it does affect it validity. Can you even define reliability and validity as they apply to research?

And what does the Feingold organization get from posting all of this flawed "research"? They get to sell the various products that they claim, falsely, will cure many illnesses. It is a misrepresentation and a scheme.

And I am still waiting for you to post even one form of empirical research that has been published in a peer reviewed professional journal that supports what you continue to claim. You have not done so yet.

You are not a professional in the field of health care, nor of mental health care. You are, quite simply, a marketer and an advertiser.

And I've got a better question: Why did you come to a deaf message board? Do you expect us to believe that you just happened, as a representative of the Feingold organization, to find a deaf message board with a topic on naturopathy? I believe that about as much as I believe the other naturopathic claims that have been refuted with science.

 

[Jolie77]

If I had encountered one single piece of evidence that supports the claims being made, I would tell you, as a parent, that it would be worth checking into. I am open minded enough to know that we don't know all we need to know about many mental disorders, autism and ADHD included. That is why there in ongoing research into these disorders; so that we, as professionals, will be able to increase our knowledge base and best advise parents and clients.

My problem is not in looking for new information and better answers. It is with these people who claim to have found a cure as simple as a change in diet, and giving these parents false information that has never been substantiated. Especially when the people offering this false information do not have the credentials to do so. There are people who will fall prey to this, and real damage can be done, and has been done to the victims.

I don't want to see parents and children taken advantage of, and I don't want to see their health and well being endangered by false information. It is difficult enough to raise a child with a disability. To confuse the parent by telling them that all they need to do is change their child's diet and they will be cured of a chronic disorder such as autism or ADHD is nothing more than lying to these parents. The same goes for adults. To tell an adult who is suffering from a serious disorder such as Bi-Polar Disorder that they don't need their meds, and all they need is a diet change and some massage puts that person at a very real risk. Ethically, I cannot sit back and not correct these false statements.

I understand you meant well by defending for those who may fall into believing these false information. That is why I am wanting to if there's any validations that can be structured by any claims that has been made. If there is one that can be supported by any clause, I'm for it.

I, too, have often been told by counselors, physicians, volunteers, nutritionists, so and on that there are diets, medications, experimental phases, and changes that may be beneficial for my son. While it may seem too good to true, half of the time, the more I learn about how it outweighs - That is when I get really wary about it. One thing may work for one but it doesn't work for others.

There was one really odd thing that came up to me a while back ago. I was approached by an college student who was majoring into communication disorders. She came to me and mentioned there was a "special" soap which will help my son's brain to make it focused and to be stimulated. When I asked her how exactly is it that she's into communication disorder major and gets into to know about these stuffs without a structured evidence which will make the soap be successful? She gave me a brochure about it. So, I was willingly to look into the brochure. When I looked into it, I was not satisfied because it sounded too good to be true. When it does sound too good to be true, most of the time, it is not even the whole truth. There were things that just did not add up to it.

It's like when one group says they are right and the other group argues that they are right too. Both of the groups are flawed because there isn't a lot of things that will not exactly pinpoint to the source to where it may or may not be successful.

 

[jillio]

I understand you meant well by defending for those who may fall into believing these false information. That is why I am wanting to if there's any validations that can be structured by any claims that has been made. If there is one that can be supported by any clause, I'm for it.

I, too, have often been told by counselors, physicians, volunteers, nutritionists, so and on that there are diets, medications, experimental phases, and changes that may be beneficial for my son. While it may seem too good to true, half of the time, the more I learn about how it outweighs - That is when I get really wary about it. One thing may work for one but it doesn't work for others.

There was one really odd thing that came up to me a while back ago. I was approached by an college student who was majoring into communication disorders. She came to me and mentioned there was a "special" soap which will help my son's brain to make it focused and to be stimulated. When I asked her how exactly is it that she's into communication disorder major and gets into to know about these stuffs without a structured evidence which will make the soap be successful? She gave me a brochure about it. So, I was willingly to look into the brochure. When I looked into it, I was not satisfied because it sounded too good to be true. When it does sound too good to be true, most of the time, it is not even the whole truth. There were things that just did not add up to it.

It's like when one group says they are right and the other group argues that they are right too. Both of the groups are flawed because there isn't a lot of things that will not exactly pinpoint to the source to where it may or may not be successful.

Exactly, Jolie. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

I don't see the advantage in going back into the middle ages with all of this magical thinking. We might as well go back to the days of selling snake oil off of ox driven carts, and drilling holes in the heads of the mentally ill to release "evil spirits".

I, too, keep asking for emprical support for the claims made, but as of yet, there have been none supplied. If anyone can provide me with a study that actually, scientifically supports the claims that diet can "cure" a disorder that is well known to be chronic and not curable, I will certainly give that evidence credence. But there simply is none.

 

[shulafaus]

To confuse the parent by telling them that all they need to do is change their child's diet and they will be cured of a chronic disorder such as autism or ADHD is nothing more than lying to these parents. The same goes for adults. To tell an adult who is suffering from a serious disorder such as Bi-Polar Disorder that they don't need their meds, and all they need is a diet change and some massage puts that person at a very real risk. Ethically, I cannot sit back and not correct these false statements.

It's too bad you make statements about us without first actually reading what we say. We do not say anywhere on the website or person-to-person that the diet is a "cure" or that the parents should discontinue medication without a doctor's guidance. What we do say is that the diet is a test to find out if the additives or particular foods are causing problems or symptoms. That is the way elimination diets have always worked -- they must be tried to find out if what you propose to eliminate is a problem for you. If you are a professional, then you surely already know this.

By the way, you may not be aware of it, but Dr. Feingold was not just any run-of-the-mill pediatrician or allergist. He was Chief of Allergy of all the Northern California Kaiser Permanente Medical Centers. He authored medical textbooks on allergy. This is not mentioned by those who try to belittle his work.

As for autism or bipolar disorder or tourette syndrome ... we made no claims about these problems being helped by diet. But our members did. They reported to us that they were helped in full or in part by the diet. After 25 years of consistent reports, we can be pretty sure that they are right. By the way, if you look at Parent Ratings of Behavorial Effects of Biomedical Interventions you can see parent ratings of all medical, supplement, and dietary treatments for autism. Now don't get excited - this is not OUR site, or OUR survey. And it is compiled from thousands of parents. It might be useful for anybody considering any treatment at all to see what percent of people it helped, what percent it hurt, and what percent had no effect.

Just a note about bipolar .... just because one has a diagnosis does not necessarily mean it is written in stone. My niece's son was diagnosed with bipolar. He became "crazy" for a few days every two weeks. She talked to me and was very distressed (he was only 10 years old). She wanted to know if there was anything else it could be. I suggested she ask what the school did every two weeks and see if she could find a clue. Lo and behold, the school polished their floors during school hours with strong smelling chemicals every two weeks on the same day he became "crazy." Whatever that chemical was, it was hurting him. He didn't need medication; he needed not to be breathing poison every two weeks, and as soon as he was no longer exposed to whatever that stuff was, he was fine. No more diagnosis. Instant cure, huh? Is that naturopathy, too?

Stimulant medications work for ADHD - no doubt about it. Aspirin works for headache. However, if I can find the reason for my headache, and can avoid it, then I don't need the aspirin. By the same token, it is reasonable to try a diet without additives for a month to see if symptoms improve. If they do, then you may not need any stimulant medications .... a great saving of time and money. And a great saving of health, because these medications are NOT safe over the long term. They carry a Black Box Warning for good reason, and I know at least one medical examiner who is appalled at the number of children he has seen die of small vessel disease (and heart attack) caused by long-term stimulant use. Makes me wonder what the hearts of most children taking stimulants (who don't die) are going to look like when they are 50 and 60 years old. And I know a pediatric cardiologist who is "unimpressed" at the safety studies done for drugs like Ritalin. So while yes, the drugs work - the question is whether it is necessary in a particular case.

Sure, my son used to be on Ritalin (until he got Tourette Syndrome). On Cylert he was hallucinating. On what's-it-called (the BP med used for ADHD) he was passing out ... his neurologist gave up, back in 1980. He was by then diagnosed with ADHD, OCD, TS, dysgraphia, dyslexia, and mood swings. With asthma and chronic ear infections for good measure. One psychiatrist said I should never expect too much, but must simply be his "cheering section." I can't believe I paid that guy. My son went through so many tests and treatments (mainstream treatments - the best there was available, at Emory University). When they gave up, I was looking at an 8 year old kid whose life was as good as over. He was in a special education school, unable to control his mind or his body. He looked like he was "possessed" with over 30 different motor and vocal tics. When we heard about the diet, it was one more thing to try but I didn't have high hopes. And in less than a week, he was behaviorally normal. By the end of the year, his tics were completely gone and he has been in "permanent remission" ever since. Oh yes -- and his asthma and ear infections were gone too. I figure that the $28 I spent on the Program back then saved me hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, work time lost taking him to doctors, and special schooling, none of which he needed once he was on the diet.

When I first tried the diet, his doctor told me the "diet only works for 2% of children." That is not true, but at the time I didn't know. However, I was willing to try the diet in case he was in the 2% because at that point, he was in the 0% of being helped.

Isn't it worth a couple of weeks of additive-free foods to find out if your child can grow up without medication? Why on earth would you want to prevent people from trying it?

If you prefer to think I am just making this all up, then I guess I have nothing more to say.

 

[jillio]

I have checked your website. And elimination diets, or systematic elimination of any substance, is done to determine allergic reactions. ADHD is not caused by an allergic reaction to a food. Austism is not caused by an allergic reaction to a food. Bi-polar disorder is not caused by an allergic reaction to a food.

If you post said claims by your members, then you are giving those claims credibiltiy through your organization. To say that you simply posted the information is to simply attempt to divert responsibility. Again, a case of not having to be accountable for the spreading of false information because you are nither licensed nor certified, and therefore, do not have to abide by professional standards and professional codes of ethics. That is exactly what is so dangerous about claims like these and the people who make them. They do not have to be accountable for the harm they do.

ADHD and autism result from neurological dysfunctions. They are not the result of food allergies, and no where in the volumes of research and study is there anything to suggest that this would be the case. The only ones suggesting such are people such as yourself with no medical training, no advanced education regarding diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders, and quite often, with no education whatsoever that would qualify you to make such determinations.

Again, you are offering nothing but anecdote with nothing to support the claims you are making. Either you don't have the evidence that has been requested numerous times, or it simply is not available. Your inability to supply such answers the question of which one it is.

Continuing to offer anecdote supports nothing. And it truly surprises me that you don't know who fredfam is, because you sound just like her in your posts. "A friend of a friend of a doctor who is married to a nurse told me......"
Anecdote, pure and simple. We are not here to tell stories. That belongs in the creative writing forum. We are here to find out if there is any empirical evidence available to substantiate the outlandish claims that are made by naturopaths. And we have our answer. There is not. Despite having been given numerous opportunities to supply it, you are still relying on nothing more than anecdote.

 

[shulafaus]

Whats more ...

Those that are defending this diet signed up to show their allegience to this quackery. I wonder if they realized this was a deaf forum or not? What reason would they have to sign up on the forum other than beating the drum for this alledged treatment?

Btw, good job, Jillio!

"Those that are defending this diet" == ? You mean there is more than just me around? Where are the rest of you?

Yes, indeed, I came to this site because one of my volunteers wrote to tell me that they had seen misinformation and part of my job is to correct misinformation wherever it occurs. I would not want your members to be misled - whether or not they are deaf.

Something Jillio said in one of her many posts on the subject is very true -- many studies do have bias. Literally ALL the studies funded by the "Nutrition Foundation" were biased. And they were the ones reviewed in 1983 by the "committee" (also part of the "Nutrition Foundation") ... so who were these Nutrition Foundation members? See at Nutrition Foundation Members -- they were makers and users of food additives, companies like Dow Chemical and Coca Cola and the universities whose research was funded by them. Considering how much Jillio dislikes "bias" - why does she accept all their statements uncritically? You know ... that really just doesn't make sense.

Let's take one last look, and then I'd like to close this subject and let you guys get on with your other discussions .... there has not been a single study in more than 20 years that concludes that behavior does not respond to dietary change. Not one. And there have been plenty of studies that conclude that diet affects behavior and attention as well as neurological development ... many of these studies used the oligoantigenic (few foods) diet rather than the Feingold diet; according to one researcher it is easier to get funded for that. You may accept that as direct or indirect support for the Feingold diet in particular - or not. But that is why articles like the Quackwatch article are reduced to talking about the studies back in the 1970's as though they were relevant.