In response to Cecil’s column on thevampirism/porphyria link, I want to draw attention to a recent article in Scientific American that seems to have a good explanation of a lot of what Cecil dismissed as bunk, as well as information on new treatments for the disease.
The article isn’t about folklore, the author is not qualified on the subject of folklore, and Scientific American isn’t a journal of folklore. There is no reason to think the author is doing anything more than passing on an urban legend to make a catchy lead paragraph. As a matter of fact, not one of the points Cecil makes in his article is overturned, or even addressed, in this piece.
well show me all of Cecil’s credentials on every single topic he’s ever addressed in this column…
“researchers have speculated that the tales may have been inspired by real people who suffered from a rare blood disease, porphyria”
“Speculated” … “may have been” … “inspired by”
3 disclaimers in one sentence. Rock solid. Sounds more like an attempt at a eye catching intro.
A light browsing of the rest of the article will reveal that it doens’t mention vampires one more, and ends with a discussion about working with and against immune cells. It may explain more about the disease, but it doesn’t have anything to do with vampires. Have to agree with JWK.
Geez. I feel like I’m being attacked… Forget I ever posted if you want. The article does explain the symptoms of porphyria, and that “there is evidence” that garlic worsens symptoms. I really only posted this as a comment. But I still am curious as to what Cecil’s credentials are, since I haven’t found much beyond “he writes a column and knows everything.”
And yeah maybe it was a lapse in judgment what I wrote, I sure wish I could edit my freakin’ posts after I post them 
Cecil’s main “credentials” come under the heading of consistently doing his homework, something the author and editors of the Scientific American piece didn’t do, at least as far as that first paragraph goes.
And you, too, didn’t do your homework. Did you actually read either piece? If you did, why didn’t you notice that Cecil’s piece presents actual information and logic, whereas the Scientific American piece just says “speculated” … “may have been” … “inspired by”, and all of that, in fact, only in the lead paragraph of an article on a completely different subject?
Mods can I close this thread? or delete it? or something? I made a mistake, and I get flamed. geez.
You consider that a flaming? 
Just a correction.
Feel the love.