To clarify some things about my post: I know who Dr. Embry is, of course. I actually exchanged a couple emails with him last year, when I was trying to get an update on the status of clinical trials for his diet. His website describes
an ongoing study with the note that "it is hoped that results will be available early in 2008." Dr. Embry responded quickly and courteously to my emails, though he didn't actually answer my question with any specifics. At any rate, I agree his heart is in the right place, and he has been actively crusading for MS, which is a wonderful thing. I didn't intend my comments to be critical of
the man, just of this rant/newsletter. This article plays fast and loose with the facts and mis-characterizes the status of CCSVI in the research community, which isn't helpful.
Regarding vitamin D, I'm also aware of the growing evidence of a link between Vitamin-D and MS. My own MS specialist had my Vit-D levels tested after my first visit (they were normal), and I now take D supplements every day (6000IU).
But, current evidence does not support the "given" that vitamin D
prevents MS. That would be huge if you could eliminate your chance of getting MS simply by taking a supplement. It would also cast down on CCSVI, since it doesn't seem plausible for a vitamin supplement to fix a physical problem. At any rate, the research articles on Embry's own website are far more cautious in their conclusions, such as
the overview article that states: "Vitamin D supplementation
may help prevent the development of MS and may be a useful addition to therapy. However, current studies are in small populations and are confounded by other variables, such as additional vitamin and mineral supplementation." (Emphasis mine). Maybe it's semantics, and he's using "prevent" synonymously with "reduce the incidence of".
Years ago I read a great book called
"Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion". The basic premise of the book is that humans have evolved to have a bunch of decision-making shortcuts. These shortcuts tend to be effective time-savers much of the time, but once in a while they lead to incorrect decisions (which is how marketers and con-men can get us to do things that aren't in our best interest). For me, and I think for many neurologists and others with a science background, one shortcut for separating valid ideas from nonsense is to look for common markers of quackery and illogical thinking, e.g. red flags. If I see an article that states as facts things I know are
not well supported by science, that's a red flag. An emotion-laden rant against the establishment is another. A couple like those, and part of my brain is ready to dismiss the whole article. If you want to convince skeptics, you're just making life harder if you use articles laced with these red flags.
/Scut
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
): The ones without internet. We still have to spread the word and if a journalist, scientific or not, finds some clear words for it, that's a good thing.
