5 ms·

Other claims by this author have been called pseudoscience, so be cautious about this. From Wikipedia: "Scientists and dieticians have classified Gundry's claim

Other claims by this author have been called pseudoscience, so be cautious about this. From Wikipedia: "Scientists and dieticians have classified Gundry's claims about lectins as pseudoscience." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Gundry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Gundry).

BitwiseFool 5y ago
This is actually something I grapple with. There are plenty of examples where the field of medicine wound up being defiantly wrong and a few 'kooks' who knew better were dismissed before the field finally came around. Things like washing one's hands between patients, ulcers being caused by bacteria and not stress, and babies not being able to feel pain. All that being said, these few examples don't mean the man is correct. Just that medicine can be defiantly wrong until proven otherwise. But that really shouldn't undermine the confidence in all aspects of modern medicine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies
concinds 5y ago
Have been called "pseudoscience" by a "dietitian and journalist" writing for the Washington Post, not by a scientist; that's the source Wikipedia uses to backup their "pseudoscience" claim. The article is rather short, and it seems like mainstream science doesn't discount the risk of inflammation and autoinflammation from lectins at all[0]. Whether cutting out lectins is a good diet for most people is in debate, but whether lectins can be harmful is not. I don't find it comforting that an opinion article in a newspaper can turn into "encyclopedic truth", and then come to define a man's life even in unrelated issues. 0: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/lectins/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/...

BitwiseFool 5y ago

This is actually something I grapple with. There are plenty of examples where the field of medicine wound up being defiantly wrong and a few 'kooks' who knew better were dismissed before the field finally came around. Things like washing one's hands between patients, ulcers being caused by bacteria and not stress, and babies not being able to feel pain. All that being said, these few examples don't mean the man is correct. Just that medicine can be defiantly wrong until proven otherwise. But that really shouldn't undermine the confidence in all aspects of modern medicine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies

concinds 5y ago

Have been called "pseudoscience" by a "dietitian and journalist" writing for the Washington Post, not by a scientist; that's the source Wikipedia uses to backup their "pseudoscience" claim. The article is rather short, and it seems like mainstream science doesn't discount the risk of inflammation and autoinflammation from lectins at all[0]. Whether cutting out lectins is a good diet for most people is in debate, but whether lectins can be harmful is not. I don't find it comforting that an opinion article in a newspaper can turn into "encyclopedic truth", and then come to define a man's life even in unrelated issues. 0: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/lectins/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/...