The Golden rule of Science
There’s truth and there’s science, says Tony Wardle, and sometimes they can be the same thing
He’s not my most favourite person but Winston Churchill did have a good turn of phrase. “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened” is one of his. Nowhere does this have more relevance than in scientific research, particularly if the results threaten vested interests or rigid mindsets.
Whether it’s drug testing or seeking the root cause of disease, we plebs are encouraged to believe that there is a one shot, blinding moment when truth is revealed and you can shout “Eureka – this drug is safe”, or “Wowie - red Smarties make you impotent”. But life ain’t like that.
In drug safety tests, there is no one point at which truth is illuminated, it is more a series of depressing experiments that cause damage to some animals but not others, that seem to control the target disease in some species but not others. A judgment is then made whether the drug can be let loose on humans to see how it really works. So perhaps it’s no wonder that prescription drugs, correctly dispensed and properly taken, are now the fourth biggest killer in the West.
Scientific research is not simple either and mostly sets out to confirm an existing belief – so if you’re not looking for something you’re unlikely to find it! It’s a bit like a jigsaw puzzle where there’s nothing to start you off so you pull out the bits you can recognise – the edge pieces. As you find a home for each piece, the picture starts to reveal itself and even though you might still be struggling with a pile of sea or sky pieces, you’ve got a pretty good idea of the whole thing.
In science, it’s those missing pieces that allow charlatans and other disgruntled scientists, politicians and vested interests, to subvert the findings. They concentrate on the missing pieces and use them to rubbish the whole thing. As most journalists want a simple story to present simply to simple people, this conflict of views is ideal. The result is confusion, cynicism and the attitude that you can prove anything you want with science.
Not all research, of course, comes to the same conclusions so if you want to rubbish a piece of work there is always a tailor-made counter view you can pull off the shelf and deploy. A laboratory study carried out on a dozen or so people is interesting and perhaps helpful but it may, for various reasons, be inaccurate. A study carried out on thousands of people in real life situations – an epidemiological study – has far greater value. When there’s a dispute, few people are aware of the difference between the two types of work.
Then there is self censorship. Dr David Ryde, a VVF adviser, is now retired but was the UK’s lowest-prescribing GP who, wherever possible, treated people through diet – a vegan diet. He had some of the best outcomes in Britain. He was called to the Ministry to discuss his extraordinary results and naturally expected the information to be communicated to all GPs. “Good god, we can’t do that, there would be a riot,” was the response.
In his book, The China Study (see page 18) Prof Colin Campbell gives numerous examples of how, at the highest levels, petty rivalries and self interest have filleted science. When the National Academy of Sciences wanted to publish a report on diet, nutrition and cancer, it declared it was going to hand the job to an external panel. They didn’t give the reason – that its own internal people had close links with the meat and dairy industries. Furious, the internal scientists immediately set up a new external body and invited well-known scientists to join it. They got the job and everyone on the team, apart from Campbell, was involved in the meat and dairy industries.
He writes that science is governed by the golden rule – he who has the gold makes the rules!
“There are powerful, influential and enormously wealthy industries that stand to lose a vast amount of money if people start shifting to a plant-based diet. Their financial heath depends on controlling what the public knows about nutrition and health. They do everything in their power to protect their profits and their shareholders.
“The entire system – government, science, medicine, industry and media – promotes profits over health. Most, but not all, of the confusion is created legally. The most damaging aspect of the system is not sensational. It is a silent enemy that few people see and understand.”
Campbell is writing about the US but the same applies here. There may be some pieces missing from the jigsaw but for 20 years or more, the overwhelming weight of evidence is that a plant-based, wholefood diet is a major solution to the diseases that are killing us and destroying our children’s health. When other important elements are added into the livestock equation – animal suffering, environmental degradation and third world impoverishment – it’s something of an outrage.
As Mr Blair hands more and more of our infrastructure over to the private sector, the greater will be the difficulty in communicating the truth about diet and health.