If you (and others) didn't have such strong evidence, and if you had never told me, I would never in a million years have guessed that food could have such a profound impact on mental health. I really might start listening when people tell me I should eat right (/eat something healtier than grease, starch, and cheese)

No. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a data point, not proof in any sense.

Understanding this principle is one of the historical keys to modern science btw. Understand that I'm not saying the gummis don't have an effect. I'm saying the effect is not proven.

You have correlated a change in behavior with a rather small change you made a few days ago. Less than a quarter teaspoon of artificial sweetener. What of the changes you made two weeks ago? Last month? Not all changes will show immediately; if dietary changes are of fat-soluble substances, they will stick around in the body for quite some time. (Sucralose is considered not fat-soluble, so that is a point in favor of causality.)

Are all behavioral changes necessarily overnight? What to make of the time before the gummis arrived?

The human body is a pretty complex thing. Michael Pollan points out that thyme, if taken in large quantities by itself, promotes cancer; but in small quantities WITH other foods, helps prevent cancer, because it contains large amounts of different anti-oxidants. He points out that our obsession with single points of nutrition is actually unhealthy, and it's the complete diet that must be looked at. The simple "X is good for you/Y is bad for you", which our culture currently promotes, is not enough explanation. Perhaps X and Y combined is a natural and beneficial diet.

BTW, this is a relevant cookie:

If a person (a) is poorly, (b) receives treatment intended to make him better, and (c) gets better, then no power of reasoning known to medical science can convince him that it may not have been the treatment that restored his health.
-- Sir Peter Medawar, The Art of the Soluble

Toad, you're starting to sound like TW here. "If you don't test every widget with a multimeter you are only guessing" or some such.

It is a valid scientific method to change one input variable and see what happens to the output. That's what Clod's doing with her kids diet.

Causality only seems like a minor point dar. It's the whole point. If anyone can find one trained scientist that agrees with Clod that she has demonstrated proof, bring them.

Meanwhile I agree with Clod that she should avoid the gummis, and that she can't reintroduce them in an attempt to prove causality.

After having a mild heart attack, my Dad started drinking his coffee black. He would swear omitting cream & sugar from his coffee caused him to lose weight, completely disregarding other changes to his diet and lifestyle.

But, in Clod's case she has been closely monitoring every god damn molecule that her kids ingest, for a long time. She's also been monitoring output and behavior.

So unlike my Dad, and unlike UT's examples, Clod has valid results of what works for her kids. And that's what this is about, not medical research, just what works for her kids. Go Mom. :thumb2:

Tony is right about correlation != causation, etc. etc. etc.
But Clod knows her baby. And if she has to eliminate 5 things that might be causing a problem to get one real problem -- maybe that's worth it? To get her baby talking again?

See, this is where you're getting TW-like. AFAIK, Clod is not intending to submit any papers to the NEJoM. She doesn't need to be 100% sure that the vitamins are bad for her kids. If she's pretty sure, she's going to yank it.

If you've got a dozen lab rats (workers), you can provide proof. When you're one mom, you're just looking for improvement. Clod's making pretty much everything her kids eat from scratch. Do you really think it would be a good use of her time to do double-blind tests on her kids vitamins?

And now I've just made myself start missing LabRat.

There's just no benefit to suggesting that she should be constantly second guessing herself. It's non-constructive criticism, really. Of course she could be wrong... and it seems like she'd pick up on that not too far down the road, even without a double-blind study and some peer review...

THIS. She spends every waking moment of her day trying to get both of her kids to have ANY semblance of "normalcy" she can even begin to approach. If an expiriment appears to work for her, so be it.

E-mail sent to Pelosi Clod.

You are an amazing woman, and I for one am very proud of the strength you continue to maintain, and the strides you continue to make. Hugs to you.

I'd like to hug her too, but Mr Clod might not understand... worse yet, he might. :blush:

I am saddened by these replies, but I'll take them at face value as my problem, and will no longer post in the thread.

Oh stop pouting. You're talking about the principles and procedures of valid medical research, while Clodfobble, not having the time or resources for that, is trying to do the best she can for her kids, RFN. :p

Just like you, I support what Clodfobble is doing as a mother for her own children and am blown away by her dedication. One of the main purposes of this thread is to show support for her and what she's doing, and I absolutely support her. I have a strong gut feeling that she is right. But I also support your point that scientifically speaking, she hasn't proven anything. I think you are a valuable contributor to this thread because you bring an impartiality to it. It needs that.

I have no idea how she's been taking your posts, but I haven't had the impression that she was hurt by them. She can speak up if she was. You shouldn't bow out.