My boot camp instructor’s name is Keith and he’s about as hard-assed as they come. Love him. He reminds me of Jack Nicholson’s character in A Few Good Men. “You want me on that wall…you NEED me on that wall.”
Today as our class was grunting and sweating out jumping lunges and hill sprints, he told the class of an experiment he did on himself eliminating gluten from his diet for a month. Bottom line: he lost 9 pounds after a few days, and put that weight back on after two days of reintroducing gluten back into his diet. I’m with you dear reader, besides a handful of people with Celiac disease, I think the gluten free graze is a lot of BS. But Keith is not a fool. He knows he did not loose muscle or fat in 48 hours, that what he experiencing was shifts in water weight. And he monitors his food and his weight very carefully.
Feh, you say, one anecdote, no controls, gluten diet stuff is still BS, not science. Yeah, but it dawned me after class watching everyone come up to him with questions about what he ate that Keith is a master of outreach, by that I mean the part of science where epistemology happens. As a scientist, I sorta feel we have the lock on epistemology, how we know what we know and create knowledge, but as we discussed on a PubStyle Science, the world is more complicated than the scientific method. A critical part of creating knowledge happens when disinterested observers become convinced of one side of an argument. That’s what I saw happening at boot camp, people who don’t care about randomized controlled trials were becoming convinced. Hell, even me.
Point is, scientists and doctors can look down their noses at alternative medicine and old wives’ tales about what to eat, but it is our own fault for being so damn slow to examine issues that people care about. Clinical research moves too damn slowly, and many people turn their noses up at the medical establishment in return.
There is increasing attention to the need to accelerate medical research, but most efforts are misguided because they are intertwined with a capitalistic urge to develop new pharmaceuticals. Yes, we need better drugs for horrible diseases. But the Pharmaceutical Era has reached it’s peak and we could accelerate research if we started to think about anti-pharmaceutical approaches. The gluten thing is a good example. Testing a new drug requires much bureaucracy to protect people from harm. More on this in another post, but what I call anti-pharmacy, eliminating compounds from consumption might move quicker. “Don’t eat gluten for a month” is arguably inherently safer proposition than “take this drug for a month.”
Another place where I see the general public doing an end run around the medical establishment is with pot. I was recently in Colorado and visited a marijuana dispensary for the first time in my life. (Purely for research purposes, I assure you!) It was a store that had a history of operating in the medical marijuana space, and the staff explained in great detail the different medical benefits of different strains of pot. This strain for arthritis, this strain for cancer. Yes, yes, more untested BS, I’m with you, I’m with you. But these folks know that different strains have different concentrations of different active ingredients, and the fact is that while controlled trials are years/decades away, people are experimenting on themselves. While I agree that 90% of the claims will eventually be confirmed BS, I’d be willing to bet that there are scientifically confirmable truths in there somewhere. There is no doubt that different chemical components will be found to have different effects and different toxicities. It’s not the fault that people believe this stuff now, IMHO, it’s our fault in the medical community that we move so damn slow to test their hypotheses.