July, '01 | briefing | mail | don't say this | flakers' jargon | articles | other places | archives | send mail | ed dewke | legal stuff | order | search | PsorHeads | 2001 Ed Dewke

Dr. Connolly’s Rationale Doubted
from Allen K.

In your June briefing you wrote extensively about Robert Connolly's book, "Psoriasis Can Be Cured" which, you wrote, makes the case for psoriasis being caused by "liver dysfunction and high levels of toxic substances introduced through diet and built-up through insufficient excretion of normal metabolic waste."  If this were true, it would be a damning indictment against the mothers of psoriatic babies.  The only excuse for "built-up toxic substances and metabolic waste" in a newborn would be an overabundance of same in the mother. 

You have also archived stories about young children (elementary school age) who become psoriatic quickly and sometimes with no evident inherited proclivity.  Could it be these children become toxic and full of metabolic waste that fast? 

No, while I, like you, am in no position to dispute the claims of those who have cleared on Dr. Connolly's diet, I think his explanation of the cause is as far-fetched as Pagano's leaky gut syndrome.  Which, extrapolated, means I don't put stock in either writers' explanation for the success of their dietary regimens. 

Once upon a time I believed babies were delivered by storks because I was told this was so, I saw storks occasionally, and babies definitely did come from somewhere.  Later I learned there was an alternative explanation — one that I was able to confirm personally.  Some of us do have psoriasis, and many of us who do also eat pork ... but I'm no longer willing to accept the connection. Do you suppose there are psoriatics out there who DON’T eat pork?

If stopping pork consumption cleared my psoriasis (I know there are more dietary restrictions involved) I'd still believe there is an unknown explanation.  Enduring the Connolly dietary "cure" may prove to be similar to starting a fire by rubbing two sticks together:  possible, yes, but ultimately not the most desirable technique. -Allen K.


Ed’s Response:  I respect your doubt, Allen.  I think it is a fundamental complaint about most natural remedies or homeopathic therapies: the change may be predictable but the cause seems speculative.  I think what’s going on here is a form of “modeling,” which is a way people create knowledge when empirical evidence is unobtainable or spotty (or sometimes even when it isn’t).  Modeling is like a connect-the-dots game wherein the dots are things that are true based on our shared observation and the lines are “explanations” we create to define the being and relationships of the dots.  Much of what Connolly “asserts” may (or may not) be difficult to verify, but he has provided enough lines-between-the-dots to satisfy himself.

However, I should have written more about Connolly’s P-therapy association with “bioenergetics.”  You may have picked up on this word in his table of contents.  Chapter 6 is titled “Bioenergetics — the Breakthrough in Psoriasis.”  I searched on bioenergetics on the web and came up with many references, one of which I found particularly interesting.  It is a list of articles published by the “Biophysical Journal” and categorized under the topic “bioenergetics.”  A quick scan of the titles suggests there’s some serious investigation going on here.  I didn’t read any of these articles, so I can’t say they dispute OR contribute to the causality question in Dr. Connolly’s “cure.”  I was impressed enough to conclude my ignorance of bioenergetics is probably a personal problem.

I’m glad you brought up the issue of P-babies and P-kids, Allen, because I had not considered Connolly’s approach from their perspective.  I think they add some credence to my doubt and assertion that the “disease” we call P has an underlying cause (a “proclivity” in some people) that none of our current therapies — including Dr. Connolly’s — really addresses.  For whatever reasons (bioenergetics?), Connolly’s restrictive diet, dietary supplements, and acupressure regimen may palliate P symptoms, but the fact that only a small percentage of us have them, and that even newborns can be effected (see Lessons Learned by a P-kid Mom in this month's mail), indicates something beyond permanent repair by diet is wrong with us.  But, if diet can subdue the beast, and we have the will power to stick to the diet...?  -Ed

P.S. I loved your question, “Do you suppose there are psoriatics out there who DON’T eat pork?”  My supposition is yes, there probably are.  Good thing Dr. Connolly’s got several other no-nos in his diet.  At one point in the book he says, paraphrased here, that after total clearing you can ease up somewhat on the dietary restrictions, with the exception of pork.  Don’t ever eat pork. 

This Month's Mail | Archives