Dr. Eric Mein of the Meridian Institute has treated a number of psoriasis patients. My favorite one is:
"Case 1 is a 40-year-old woman, a physician. Her psoriasis began in 1991. At the beginning of the project, she described her symptoms:
“My psoriasis affects my hands and feet. It causes mild to moderate itching and is worsened by washing my hands. I need to frequently wash my hands in my medical practice, so the psoriasis affects my comfort during the day. It is worsened when I am stressed, i.e., if I don’t get sufficient sleep. It is somewhat stressful to answer questions that my patients have about “what is wrong with my skin?” I feel it indicates that there is some imbalance in my body. I wish to have an overall healthier body.”
In addition to the psoriasis, she had also had some asthma and allergies (allergic rhinitis) in the past, but homeopathic medicine had led to a major improvement in those conditions and some improvement in her psoriasis.
At the 6-month follow-up, Case 1 reported that her psoriasis symptoms were “much improved,” and her symptoms other than psoriasis were “much improved.” She felt that her psoriasis degree of disability was “much less disabling,” and that her attitudes and emotions were “much improved.” In her written comments, she said “I had complete clearing of psoriasis on hands and elbows. I had 80% improvement of psoriasis on feet, then I had 3 weeks of antibiotics to prophylax from tick bite. After that my psoriasis on my feet mildly flared – to about 60% of improvement.”
"In the before/after pictures, Case 1 had major improvement. Her most prominent symptom, the rough, red areas on her hands and elbows, were completely cleared. There was still some psoriasis on her foot. She also showed improvement on the two measures of psoriasis symptoms (Table 1). Her lactulose/mannitol ratio, which had been high at the beginning (.134) was normal after six months (.038)." See -- http://www.meridianinstitute.com/psorias5.html
You will also be delighted to know that "Edgar Cayce is not alone in recognizing that toxins leaking from the intestines are involved in psoriasis." The technical term for leaky intestines is 'intestinal permeability.' Several researchers have written on this subject in the medical journals." See -- http://www.meridianinstitute.com/psorias2.htm
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,573
Hey Rodney, have you found any REAL doctors that diagnose people with "leaky gut syndrome"? Is there any peer-reviewed publications about "leaky gut syndrome"? In otherwords, is there any science to your claims?
The meridian institute is a quack organization.
The meridian institute is a quack organization.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,573
Here is what a REAL doctor has to say about leaky gut syndrome.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/fad.html
Today's "fad" diagnoses used to explain various common symptoms are chronic fatigue syndrome, hypoglycemia, food allergies, parasites, "environmental illness," "candidiasis hypersensitivity," "Wilson's Syndrome," "leaky gut syndrome," and "mercury amalgam toxicity." The first four on this list are legitimate conditions that unscientific practitioners overdiagnose. The rest are figments of pseudoscientific imagination.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/fad.html
Today's "fad" diagnoses used to explain various common symptoms are chronic fatigue syndrome, hypoglycemia, food allergies, parasites, "environmental illness," "candidiasis hypersensitivity," "Wilson's Syndrome," "leaky gut syndrome," and "mercury amalgam toxicity." The first four on this list are legitimate conditions that unscientific practitioners overdiagnose. The rest are figments of pseudoscientific imagination.
Two questions:
(1) Why is the man who runs the quackwatch site more of a "real doctor" than Eric Mein?
(2) Why is it that the site can only say this about LGS:
" . . . leaky gut syndrome," is described by proponents as a condition in which the intestinal lining becomes irritated and porous so that unwanted food particles, "toxins," bacteria, parasites, and "Candida" enter the bloodstream and result in "a weakened immune system, digestive disorders, and eventually chronic and autoimmune disease." Treatment of this alleged condition can include dietary changes (such as not eating protein and starch at the same meal); "cleansing" with herbal products; "reestablishing good balance" of intestinal bacteria; and supplement concoctions claimed to strengthen and repair the intestinal lining."
In other words, where are the studies refuting LGS? You will note that the site goes into great detail about some of the other alleged quackery, but can't seem to come up with anything about LGS.
I'm still waiting for Rodney to name one "toxin" shown to be eliminated through psoriatic leasions.
Also, if psoriasis is caused by "leaky gut syndrome", why on earth are they treating the leasions and not the root cause (the "leaky gut")????
After all, we all know that doctors only treat symptoms but sCAM treats the whole patient
Also, if psoriasis is caused by "leaky gut syndrome", why on earth are they treating the leasions and not the root cause (the "leaky gut")????
After all, we all know that doctors only treat symptoms but sCAM treats the whole patient
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
You know, that "explanation" also ignores the very real results of what happens when there actually are perferations in the intestinal tract.
This does not result in psoriasis, or anything even remotely resembling it.
It results in infection of the abdominal cavity, eventually involving multiple organs, and leading quite quickly and easily to sepsis and death.
The abdominal cavity is a perfect incubator for little nasties like bacteria, and there's not as much of an immune response outside the organs and blood vessels there.
Heck, where are the biopsy results that prove leaky gut syndrome? Seems like it would be simple enough to examine a section of intestine, either via biopsy or through a camera, and show the physical changes that would be needed for this to occur. There would be involvement in other areas of the body, as well. Toxins in the abdominal cavity, for one, would also provoke responses. Toxins in the blood stream would cause issues throughout the body, not just in the skin. Any toxins released should show higher concentrations in kidneys and liver.
In short, nothing has proven Leaky Gut Syndrome, so there's currently nothing to disprove. No one's shown evidence of physical changes in the intestinal tract. No one's shown the toxin levels in the bloodstream from this. No one's shown the toxin levels in the lesions. No one's suggested a reasonable route or mechanism for the body to remove toxins via skin lesions.
It is, quite simply, medicine by WAG (Wild-***** Guess). And this "doctor" is devising treatments on a condition that has not been shown to exist, of which the mechanisms are unknown, and the effects are at best assumed rather than proven.
We are not in the Dark Ages, and I, for one, resent the attempts to bring us back there.
This does not result in psoriasis, or anything even remotely resembling it.
It results in infection of the abdominal cavity, eventually involving multiple organs, and leading quite quickly and easily to sepsis and death.
The abdominal cavity is a perfect incubator for little nasties like bacteria, and there's not as much of an immune response outside the organs and blood vessels there.
Heck, where are the biopsy results that prove leaky gut syndrome? Seems like it would be simple enough to examine a section of intestine, either via biopsy or through a camera, and show the physical changes that would be needed for this to occur. There would be involvement in other areas of the body, as well. Toxins in the abdominal cavity, for one, would also provoke responses. Toxins in the blood stream would cause issues throughout the body, not just in the skin. Any toxins released should show higher concentrations in kidneys and liver.
In short, nothing has proven Leaky Gut Syndrome, so there's currently nothing to disprove. No one's shown evidence of physical changes in the intestinal tract. No one's shown the toxin levels in the bloodstream from this. No one's shown the toxin levels in the lesions. No one's suggested a reasonable route or mechanism for the body to remove toxins via skin lesions.
It is, quite simply, medicine by WAG (Wild-***** Guess). And this "doctor" is devising treatments on a condition that has not been shown to exist, of which the mechanisms are unknown, and the effects are at best assumed rather than proven.
We are not in the Dark Ages, and I, for one, resent the attempts to bring us back there.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,573
Because he's not a quack.
Where are the studies that confirm LGS being a cause of psoriasis (sp.) or even an objective way to identify if a person has LGS or not. Basically, studies refuting LGS need not be conducted until there are studies that show LGS to be a real ailment.
Last edited:
You refer to Eric Mein as a "doctor", as if he really isn't one. But he is. And, as far as I can tell, neither you nor the rest of the people on this thread are doctors. I've provided you links, but you ignore them, as if somehow you can discredit LGS with an opinion. A true skeptic would do a little research, and you might start by checking out the journal articles cited on this link -- http://www.meridianinstitute.com/psorias2.htm
Tautological reasoning.
I've given you links indicating that LGS may be a cause of psoriasis. The evidence is not conclusive, but Quackwatch doesn't even attempt to refute the Meridian Institute studies. If it wants to say that LGS remains unproven, fine, but why does it say that LGS is quackery when it has no facts on its side?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,573
He's also a licensed MD.
"I've given you links indicating that LGS may be a cause of psoriasis. "
The meridian institute is not a scientific organization, they haven't published any articles about LGS and psoriasis in any peer-reviewed scientific journals. It's not upon the doubters to prove absurd claims false, but upon claimants to prove their claims true. It is a fact that there has never been an established link between LGS and psoriasis. Meridian institute is a quack organization.
"I've given you links indicating that LGS may be a cause of psoriasis. "
The meridian institute is not a scientific organization, they haven't published any articles about LGS and psoriasis in any peer-reviewed scientific journals. It's not upon the doubters to prove absurd claims false, but upon claimants to prove their claims true. It is a fact that there has never been an established link between LGS and psoriasis. Meridian institute is a quack organization.
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,092
From that reference:
Emphasis in bold mine. So, by Mein's own admission, there is exactly one person who regularly treats patients--not test subjects, but patients--using Cayce's methods, and he isn't actually an M.D. (and is thus not subject to medical malpractice suits, so the answer to my earlier challenge is "nobody does," QED). See the "about the author" page on the website advertising his book; the letters "M.D." are conspicuously absent after his name.
Oh, another thing that's conspicuously absent: references to these "many well documented cases." Footnotes? Endnotes? Nada.
And hold the phone... last time I checked, the fundamental tenet of chiropractic "care" is that all health problems are caused by "vertebral subluxations," and that the answer, in all cases, is to "correct" these "vertebral subluxations." This is mutually exclusive with Cayce's recommendations. If you're going to be a quack, the least you can do is have the decency to consistently stick with a single school of quackery.
And while I'm at it, let's take a closer look at the results of Mein's 1999 non-blinded study, shall we?
Do I smell post-hoc rationalization? Well, let's give Mein the benefit of the doubt for now. So patients who didn't have problems sticking to the diet shouldn't have encountered any problems, right?
Case 1:
Nota bene: "excellent compliance."
So, despite "excellent compliance with the diet," bottom line not cured.
Guess what? Despite failure to comply with the Cayce diet at all, I've had my psoriasis clear up in particular areas as well, specifically my back and groin. It happens. But as long as my scalp continues to drive me nuts (absent treatment), there's no way I'm going to consider myself "cured."
On to case 2. Again, "excellent compliance" with the diet and teas, and yet:
Bottom line, again: not cured.
Case 3:
Bottom line: not cured.
Case 4:
Now, admittedly, subject 4 stated he'd had difficulty sticking to the diet. In addition, his compliance with the colonics, adjustments and castor oil packs was also "poor." Nevertheless, he self-reported improvement comparable to that reported by subjects 1 and 2, whose compliance with the diet had been considered "excellent." Evidently, compliance with the diet was not the clinching factor. Hold that thought, I'll return to it later.
In the interim, bottom line is not cured.
Case 5:
So, five out of five not cured. Though, arguably, that number should be six out of six. The sixth subject, who dropped out of the study, reported no change in her psoriasis despite sticking to the diet for two months. This rather undercuts Mein's earlier quoted emphasis on "the importance of this aspect."
Which brings me back to that thought I asked you to hold earlier. The Cayce regimen consisted of four components--diet, castor oil packs, colonics, and spinal "adjustments"--and when we examine Mein's evaluations of the subjects' compliance with the various elements of the regimen, there is no consistent pattern, except that no subject managed to comply to a satisfactory degree ("good" or better) with more than two of all four elements. Now, it might be argued that successful treatment requires satisfactory compliance with all four elements, and that the reason none of the subjects was actually cured is because none of them managed to do so. However, Mein himself fails to make this point, instead emphasizing the importance of the diet, in spite of the fact that those subjects whose compliance with the diet was "excellent" did not show any consistently greater degree of improvement than those who scored lower. In fact, there is no consistent correlation between adherence to the regimen or any of its aspects and improvement in the condition. Note also that improvement in the psoriasis is not quantified anywhere in the report; the only hard figures are in the "lactulose/mannitol ratio" (whatever that is) which is all well and good, but which the report indicates has to do with assessing the degree of "intestinal permeability" and not with assessing the severity of the psoriasis. The latter is essentially left to the subjects' self-reporting, and it's worthy of note that the subjects' reports are all roughly similar, to the effect "oh, it's so much better, and I'm sure it'll completely clear if I can stick with this regimen," even though the subjects' compliance with the regimen is all over the place.
Now, that common element in self-reporting leads to another sticking point. As patnray pointed out, psoriasis waxes and wanes, in many cases almost seasonally, and six months is arguably insufficient time to adequately assess the effect of the regimen. Now, with all the subjects reporting improvement, and claiming that they were sure that if they could stick with the regimen for just a little while longer they'd be cured all together, one has to wonder why Mein does not report tacking on a follow-up, say another six months later, to confirm (surely!) that all the subjects had in fact achieved the cures they were so certain they would achieve. Especially considering that Mein's first study, four years earlier, had yielded almost identical results, with "most" subjects reporting "some healing of their psoriasis" (note that this implies that not all subjects experienced improvement, and evidently none were actually cured, or surely this would have been mentioned).
Or we could just apply Occam's Razor.
Look, psoriasis sucks. It's currently incurable, and even though it's treatable with corticosteroids, the treatment is expensive (a 50 gram can of Olux foam costs more than USD100 and lasts three months at most), has side-effects, and many American health insurances won't cover the medication (or so my pharmacist tells me) because the condition is not life-threatening and insufficiently impacts the quality of life or some such horsesh*t (strangely, these considerations do not apply to Viagra, but that's another rant). There are OTC treatments like coal tar shampoo, but these are, by definition, not covered by insurance, and really, they're effective at most in keeping psoriasis down once it's been beaten into submission by aforementioned corticosteroids.
So there are a lot of psoriasis sufferers out there who have been told by the "conventional" medical profession that their condition is incurable, and can only be kept at bay at serious monetary expense (I'm lucky in that my insurance does cover my meds, but even so, I'm potentially looking at an outlay of several hundred dollars co-pay a year, every year for the rest of my life, just to not have to suffer the Dandruff From Hell). It's no big stretch of the imagination that a lot of psoriasis sufferers are ready to turn to sCAM, in the hopes that it can provide what conventional medicine has stated it is, at present, powerless to provide, namely a cure for psoriasis. I have zero doubt (though like all good skeptics, I'm prepared to change my mind when presented with evidence to the contrary) that Mein's test subjects (again, not patients--test subjects) are drawn from this group.
As I emphasized earlier, both of Mein's studies were non-blinded; not single-blinded, let alone double-blinded. So we have two studies in which both Mein himself and the test subjects not only were fully aware of the fact that Cayce's methods were being put to the test, but both parties were motivated to want the results to be positive. Oh sure, the colonics and the adjustments are expensive (which may go some way to explaining why subjects 3,4, 5 and 6 failed to undergo more of them), but if it can cure you of psoriasis within six months, or maybe a year at the outside, it's just a small investment, comparatively speaking, right?
So what if it doesn't work? What if the Cayce regimen doesn't do a goddamn thing? We resort to good old cognitive dissonance, that's what! Why do you think the most concrete assessment in Mein's studies of the severity of the psoriasis is based on the subjects' self-reporting? Because those subjects have a stake in wanting the treatment to be effective, and in believing the treatment to be effective regardless of actual results!
And hey, here's the kicker from Mein's conclusions:
Emphasis in bold mine. Is it possible to conceive of any statement which screams more loudly "I want to take credit for the achievements of conventional medicine" than this? Am I supposed to believe there is anything to a "complementary" treatment which promises results but encourages me to continue applying corticosteroids (which actually work) at the same time?
You know what, Rodney? I'm happy for you that you evidently don't suffer from psoriasis (if you did, you'd recognize this stuff for the garbage it is immediately). I hope you, or any of your loved ones, never do develop psoriasis. But until you do, or one of your loved ones does, and you thus develop a personal stake in the matter, I'll thank you to keep your ignorant trap shut on a condition of which you have zero understanding.
Last edited:
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
I've done a little research. KNow what I found?
Absolutely zero evidence of Leaky Gut Syndrome as an actual condition. No peer-reviewed studies. No research showing the specific causes. No description of mechanism that does not contradict well-established and well-tested medical knowledge. No reasonable route for toxins to reach skin. NO physiological mechanism for "toxins" to cause these lesions. No mention of toxins responsible.
IN short, I found an amazing lack of research into Leaky Gut Syndrome, combined with an equally amazing amount of claims based upon fantasy and wishful thinking.
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,092
Lest it not be obvious, I support Huntsman's points unequivocally. There's a long-standing term in conventional medicine for "leaky gut syndrome" (or, more precisely, its effects) and that term is peritonitis. It doesn't involve the slow release of unspecified "toxins" into the system, to cause "nuisance" disorders like psoriasis; it kills you stone dead in a matter of hours from readily identified causes.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Yep. One of the reasons that you really, really, really don't want to be shot in the gut when you're more than a few minutes from medical care. Extremely painful, as well. And pretty well garaunteed to be fatal without prompt treatment...which is itself rather painful.
Presumably the documentation is in Pagano's book "Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative."
So Pagano is a quack because he takes a broader view of traditional chiropractic care?
A proper comparison is how these patients did on traditional psoriasis treatment vs. Cayce's treatment. The patients themselves seem to be quite satisfied, even if you're not.
But they report generally positive results using Cayce's treatment.
If Mein recommended that psoriasis sufferers summarily stop their conventional treatments, Randi and his minions would be apoplectic.
I'm sorry you suffer from psoriasis, but your dismissal of Cayce's treatment seems to be based on your worldview. Has anyone debunked the claims John Pagano makes in his book? If not, why not? Take a look at this link -- http://psorsite.com/docs/pagano_website.html -- "Dave" seems to think as you do about Pagano, but is forced to concede: "Even less interesting were the thoroughly hateful comments from people who thought that this review claims that Pagano's method doesn't work. If the article says anything of the sort, I would have liked to see it pointed out. Nobody did so, though." So, apparently, the issue to Dave is not whether Pagano's method successfully treats psoriasis, but whether his website is up to snuff.
Have you read the journal articles to which I linked?
I agree about the lack of research. Most doctors summarily dismiss LGS rather than investigating it. Fortunately, there are a few exceptions.
Did it ever occur to you that there was nothing to investigate, Rodney? That there already was an answer that fit? I realize I'm talking to someone who relies on logical fallacies to make his arguments, but there has to be some sort of actual thought in there, right?
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
You're think that, but then there's the ramps...