I see you belong to 38 communities on medhelp - kinda says it all............
Is that good or bad? lol!
I think I will re-format my question.
This information is just screaming at me to get out there!
If I were an MS sufferer, or suspected, I would definitely be interested in this possible treatment. Anti-allergic with no meds treatment!
Love & Light
We have lots of evidence-based treatments from which to choose. This isolated paper from 1954 does not posit one, nor does it posit a feasible theory of MS aetiology.
immisceo, I understand the conventional medical protocols available.
We MUST however, remain open minded. Modern medicine does not have the ultimate answers for everything and when it comes to MS, the diagnosis and treatment are FAR from ideal.
Whoever is totally satisfied with their present situation, by all means,
nobody can argue with that.
If I were an MS sufferer and was given this information, I would definitely
look into it seriously. There is NO risk involved!!!
And in light of being a totally non-invasive approach, it holds a lot of
merit. There's less bias where there's no profit potential as there's nothing to sell!!!
I can see the controversy with established medical procedures, where in
Dr. Coca's approach, ANYONE can do the Pulse Test, avoid the offesive
substances and hopefully experience improvement or remission in whatever
their issue is. Personally I seek the TRUTH and I love simple solutions that work. Can you blame me for that?
Are you perhaps in the conventional medical field?
Love & Light
I have noted the "interest" in your original post. I checked out the reference you posted and found it a waste of my time.
The Pulse test represents junk science when it comes to MS due to its small sample size, lack of controls and it's failure to even suggest why "idioblapsis" should even be related to MS. (I noted that there is no attempt in the original article nor in the many iterations one can find on Amazon, to describe exactly what idoblapsis is - other than a poorly definable reaction involving the autonomic nervous system.) There also seems to be no end to the ails that this dietary avoidance program might "cure" or "improve". That alone makes me suspicious.
The problem with looking at things in the diet is that other variables which relate to life cannot be controlled for - things such as the toxins in the home, noxious agents blowing in through the window or jumping onto one's lap (:)) Not to mention the various agents to which we are exposed outside the home. If my pulse were to rise after eating brussel sprouts, it could well be due to their taste alone.
The amount of research that has gone into MS is staggering - leaving out all that might have been contributed by Big Pharma. The studies are in the tens of thousands in the last half century. Allergy has not been recognized to play a role.
Please don't yell TRUTH at us as if no one here is looking for truth or answers. And please don't make (snide?) references regarding whether someone who shows no interest might lean toward conventional medicine. That's just rude.
You are correct that this test is easy and non-invasive. I hope those that are interested, do it and report back. How they will know that it is the diet alone which caused any increased heart rate, I have no idea. The heart rate rises with any meal, increasing with the type of foods and the amount. And since the number of relapses varies with each individual, even year to year, only after many years would they have an inkling if it had might helped. However, they would also have no idea whether that would have been their course all along with no change in their diet. Many people stabilize later in the course of the disease after having some tough years.
One thing that this test could possibly do is allow people to feel better - not a small thing when it comes to MS.
If I were to test every theory put out there I would be busier than a one-armed coat hanger. Personally I am going to file Dr. Cocoa's theory right next to the one which advocates daily ingestion of a large amount of dark chocolate - advocated some years ago by a very large independent MS site. That program was much tastier, but it gave me migraines. :((
I wrote this for the other members of the forum, in case they wondered what my reaction was.
Quix, MD (background - post-doctoral work in Immunology and Allergy)
Quix, the Truth I speak of, is what works in real life.
And if the Pulse test or, for this matter, any other non-invasive test or procedure that does not meet the conventional medical research criteria, due to lack of controls, or small sample size, or other reason, should not be discarded as waste, when there's reasonable evidence that it might work, irregardless of "acceptable" scientific analysis and research which is never static-albeit very slow to filter through to practical application and perhaps rigid - and definitely subject to corrections due future new developments and discoveries.
I fully understand the limitations of the pulse test, which is not necessarily
supported by strict scientific evidence, but I suggested it for it's simplicity of application as "just" a test, which could be easily performed by
most people here should they choose to do it, considering their already challenging condition.
There's other more in depth research, that makes the link between MS and allergies.
At any rate, here's an excerpt from a published article:
"The Allergic Aspects of Multiple Sclerosis" by Hinto D Jonez, MD
In dermal scratch tests of over 2200 patients of demyelinating diseases,
almost all were noted to be sensitive to some group of allergens, such as foods, molds, epidermal materials or pollen.
For the complete article this is the reference: PMC1521914/pdf
I really have no intention to be "rude" to anyone here, whether they approve of my non-conventional direction in my pursuit of answers, or not.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I take no offense at all when people disagree with certain parts of my posts either.
That is democratic and it invites more discussion in the end.
One of the main problems with "Personally I seek the TRUTH and I love simple solutions that work." is that your approach is totally flawed! Your approach is no different than walking through someone's front door and telling them everything you believe they are doing wrong raising their pet anaconda. You know nothing about snakes, you don't even have any but you still have absolute faith in you being absolutely right, and they being absolutely wrong.
In order for someone to search and then believe in the discovery enough to preach to those people living with a particular condition, without taking into account that those very people you are trying to enlighten, will 'always' know and understand more about their condition than you ever will, is less about enlightening others and more about your intrinsic motivations to play at being the wizard from the Wizard of OZ.
There isn't 'truth' in any theory, if your consciously compelled to seek anything that excludes an element, that for what ever reason you don't like. If you can't include all aspects of fact, then the truth you believe in, is of itself untruthful! There's nothing wrong with believing in or finding something interesting that's factually inaccurate, but you fall into mad scientist territory when you scorn anyone who questions any flaws in your logic.
If your ambition is to enlighten others with truth and a simple solution, you must first understand what 'you' get out of creating controversy and potential distress, to the people in those communities you choose to visit, when it is not they who is actively seeking you or your wisdom but you who is actively seeking their attention!
I never implied that I believed in any truth regarding any theory in regards to MS, as this by definition requires belief, which according to Oxford dictionaries
is define as follows:
1an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:
his belief in extraterrestrial life
a belief that climate can be modified beneficially
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion:
we’re prepared to fight for our beliefs
contrary to popular belief existing safety regulations were adequate
a religious conviction:
the medieval system of fervent religious belief
2 (belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something):
a belief in democratic politics
The truth I seek is personal and in no way did I make any reference that
implied that my suggestion to look into the pulse test has anything to do with the truth. When I am thirsty and I drink water, I satisfy my thirst, therefore this is the truth for me.
The truth is that my friend who has has MS, is feeling better on gluten free diet, as the pulse test indicated she was allergic to it. Is it coincidence,
is it placebo? I don't know. But for her it is the truth that she's feeling better
My intention was not to come here and convince anyone to abandon their treatment and accept my wisdom in the form of doing a simple test
and this will take care of your MS.
I simply asked if anyone had come across this information.
So if making a suggestion outside the "established" and "acceptable" medical practices, is considered a basis for creating controversy and potential distress in this community, then perhaps, it is best for all concerned that I leave this community.
Thank you for voicing your personal agenda, I purposefully made no reference or implication regarding any particular medical condition or community and also made a point of not mentioning the article and yet for reasons only you could understand, you chose to assume hidden meanings in the words written and belief that i held a position that was never stated or implied.
You create controversy and potential distress not because you post articles supportive of your particular beliefs, but because you do so with the expectation of confrontation and continue to respond passive aggressively. Interpreting other peoples words with new meanings that are not implied or stated because it is your expectation that any opposing opinion, must be coming from someone who is a believer of "the "established" and "acceptable" medical practices" .
If you're feeling misinterpreted when "I simply asked if anyone had come across this information. " i'm sorry about that but have a read of your responses, and ask your self what on earth prompted your responses? If it wasn't that you already had your personal beliefs, and expectations helping you to alter and add meaning to words that are not there. Then what would make you reply and comment about things only you have mentioned?