This was written as advice to doctors. It included a review of studies “both in support and against the possibility of such a relationship.”
NOTE: The studies cited — in 2006 — were almost exclusively done in the 1970s and 1980s. Even more astonishing is the space given to the Kavale and Forness meta-analysis dated in 1983. They don’t mention the date or the fact that this “analysis” is 40 years old!!!! Oh … wait … at the time this paper was written, it was only 23 years old. Does that make it okay? Didn’t we learn in school that studies more than five years old are not appropriate as proof of anything when WE were writing a paper?
The doctor is not counseled to recommend any dietary changes, but to accommodate a parent who insists on trying it. Then, of course, if the child does improve, the doctor should follow the David (1987) protocol to do a “double blind test” attempting to prove the parent wrong.
An interesting case report of their own is described in which a child was reported to become aggressive after eating chocolate. So they gave her an allergy test to cocoa, and then even a double-blind challenge … to cocoa. There was no abnormal behavior and thus the doctor was able to prove to the parent that they were wrong. No, wait — they forgot something. The parents never said the child became aggressive after cocoa …. but after CHOCOLATE. Did nobody notice that “chocolate” contains other ingredients besides cocoa? How about artificial vanillin? Nobody tested for THAT.