by SeaGypsy » Thu 08 Mar 2012, 08:52:01
I guess The Lancet is full of quackery Vision? Dr Roy L Swank is the name.
This kind of research takes a very long time, his was over 35 years and 144 patients from diagnosis to terminus. No like study has ever been performed. Due to lacking double blind subjects his results (which are close to miraculous) never met the full bar of science. No serious debunking has been done. One feeble attempt over 2 years went nowhere, while a new similar test is being conducted in Orlando. In 35 years we will know if Swank deserved better name. He certainly set a heck of a lot of minds in motion, not just in fringe medicine.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he diet
The diet consists of:
Saturated fat should not exceed 15 grams per day
Unsaturated fat (oils) should be kept to 20-50 grams per day
No red meat for the first year; after that, a maximum of 3 oz. (85 grams) of red meat per week
Dairy products must contain 1% or less butterfat
No processed foods containing saturated fat
A good source of omega-3 (oily fish, cod liver oil, cod liver oil tablets, etc.) along with a multi-vitamin and mineral supplement are recommended daily
Wheat, gluten or dairy product quantities are not restricted. But foods which cause allergies or reactions to an MS sufferer should be avoided
[edit]Research
Swank's research on 144 patients over a 34-year period was published in The Lancet (1990). The study showed that those who followed the diet had not shown any significant deterioration of their condition over a 34-year period, while those that did not follow the diet did significantly deteriorate over the same period.[2][3]
Swank's research has been disputed because it lacked double-blind testing. However, a new study (2011) on relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) is currently being conducted at the Oregon Health & Science University[4]. Some very limited secondary sources suggest that diet interventions, such as supplements of Omega-6 fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids or vitamins do not have any major effect on the progression of the disease or number of relapses.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swank_dietWith said 'some secondary sources' amounting to a comparatively pathetic 2 year study yielding no result:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... EEA.d02t01$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ain results
Trial quality was poor, particularly as regards descriptions of randomisation, blinding and adverse event reporting. Some studies had large numbers of drop-outs; dropouts were never included in the analyses. PUFAs did not have a significant effect on disease progression, measured as worsening of Disability Status Scale. Omega-6 fatty acids (11-23 g/day linoleic acid) had no benefit in 75 relapsing remitting (RR) MS patients (progression at two years: relative risk (RR)=0.78, 95% CI [0.45 to 1.36]) or in 69 chronic progressive (CP) MS patients (RR=1.67, 95% CI [0.75 to 3.72]. Linoleic acid (2.9-3.4 g/day) had no benefit in CPMS (progression at two years: RR=0.78, 95% CI [0.43 to 1.42]). Slight decreases in relapse rate and relapse severity were associated with omega-6 fatty acids in some small studies, however these findings are limited by the limited validity of the endpoints.
Omega-3 fatty acids had no benefit on progression at 12 months in 14 RRMS patients or at 24 months in 292 RRMS patients (RR=0.15, 95% CI [0.01 to 3.11], p= 0.22 at 12 months, and 0.82 95% CI [0.65 to 1.03], p=0.08, at 24 months).
The low frequency of reported adverse events suggests no major toxicity associated with PUFA administration.
No studies on vitamin supplementation and allergen-free diets were analysed as none met the eligibility criteria.
Yet the esteemed debunker team still had this to say about their pathetic acquittal of their grant:
PUFAs seem to have no major effect on the main clinical outcome in MS (disease progression), and does not substantially affect the risk of clinical relapses over 2 years. However, the data available are insufficient to assess any potential benefit or harm from PUFA supplementation. Evidence bearing on the possible benefits and risks of vitamin supplementation and antioxidant supplements in MS is lacking. More research is required to assess the effectiveness of diets interventions in MS.