Talk:Ketogenic diet

message: This edit by User:FULBERT added the text "while harms or dietary intolerance in young children were rarely reported in the literature." The relevant text I can find in the source (Pharmacologic and Dietary Treatments for Epilepsies in Children Aged 1–36 Months) is "Dietary harms were not well-reported." There is a section in the source called "Harms of Dietary Treatments" It discusses four trials that report various harms along with their other findings. It isn't clear what led them to conclude "Harms of diets were rarely reported, so we drew no conclusions about harms or dietary intolerance." Possibly the wide range of occurrence reported, type of side-effect or lack of specifics of side effects mean they were unable to draw conclusions. But I think the text added to our article suggests harm or intolerance is rarely reported because it rarely occurs, rather than that details of harm or intolerance are rarely adequately collected during studies. Often there is just a non-specific rate of drop-out without going into details of why. The review is critical of current studies in this population group ("the lack of reporting on treatment outcomes beyond seizure frequency"). I would be surprised if the infant population was significantly better at tolerating this diet compared to slightly older children. 
My conclusion is this is a review critical of the lack of knowledge in this field (epilepsy treatment of very young children) and a comment that they so lack information in one aspect (harm caused by diet) they can't draw any conclusions is probably not encyclopaedically relevant to this article. We certainly shouldn't give the impression that side-effects or harm is rare in infants, because it doesn't say that.  If you agree, I'll remove the sentence. Perhaps there is something else we can draw from this source? -- Colin°Talk 08:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am finding that sentence confusing, and now that I've read your comment, I'm even more confused about what was meant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  harms or dietary intolerance in young children 

message: bon courage reverted my addition of what I thought was a pretty interesting finding, published by folks from the NIAID. He said in his revert the edit needed a Med RS. -:) Oh well , I am not sure what more of a medical resource it would need, if he had cared to look it up ( or my credentials -:). It is a medical resource. This entire page doesnt have anything about immune modulation (yet) and this new finding is cutting edge, might explain why ketogenic diet works in epilepsy. I will restor emy edit as I think this was a frivolous revert of a well sourced  good faith edit. Wuerzele (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You added this paper , a 2-week primary study. It doesn't pass WP:MEDRS. No dispute that you added this in good faith but this is not well sourced content. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   I agree. It seems too early. Let’s wait for better sources (MEDRS-compliant-reviews). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

text: ← this combination of cluelessness about the basics of our medical sourcing guidelines, assumption of bad faith, and "don't you know who I am!?" argumentation is pretty alarming in an editor with a non-trivial contribution history. Bon courage (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of addition of immunomodulatory effect