The Ancestralize Manifesto

Contrary to common beliefs, no scientific theory should ever be considered the final truth. Most new paradigms that later become mainstream begin as controversial ideas that are supported by only a small minority of scientists. [ * ] People prefer to turn to "experts", but, in the case of medical and nutrition science, what if most experts believe in outdated theories and many of their beliefs cause harm to people following their advice?

Most medical practitioners and even researchers view diseases as collections of symptoms rather than as entities to be understood through their underlying mechanisms and root causes. But most symptoms are part of the healing mechanisms developed through evolution. Focusing on silencing symptoms means we cannot reverse the disease and may slow or even halt the healing process. [ * ] [ * ]

The vast majority of scientists in the field don't consider evolution when formulating their hypotheses, leading to many theories that don't make sense in light of it. The exact cause of most chronic diseases is that our diet and lifestyle don't align with our biology, shaped by evolution. As a result of a flawed mindset, holistic lifestyle interventions that could restore people's homeostasis by eliminating the root causes of disease are often dismissed as unscientific by the mainstream. [ * ] [ * ] [ * ]

Almost all humans in modern societies are addicted to quick-absorbing carbohydrates to some extent. [ * ] Being attracted to foods high in carbohydrates and low in fiber didn't cause problems when such foods weren't available. The problem began with the advent of agriculture and has worsened at an accelerating rate since then. Agriculture, coupled with the food industry, produces increasingly addictive, lower-quality foods. It is hard to convince a person with an addiction that the substance they are addicted to is dangerous and that they should stop taking it. The same is true for scientists, doctors, and decision-makers about dietary policies. It is unsurprising that official nutritional advice advocates low-quality foods that are high in rapidly absorbing carbohydrates. [ * ] [ * ] [ * ]

To achieve high profits from a new pharmaceutical, it must be protected by patents. However, compounds and materials that occur in nature cannot be patented; therefore, most pharmaceuticals are xenobiotics, foreign to our biology. Side effects of xenobiotics, even serious ones, can arise years or decades after exposure, making it difficult to determine their cause. [ * ] [ * ]

Sponsors have a significant impact on what mainstream science accepts or rejects. When large corporations in the pharmaceutical and food industries develop products that support fashionable hypotheses (such as that grains are healthier than meat or that saturated fat is harmful and seed oils are beneficial), they will invest in ensuring that those hypotheses are not challenged. This will keep harmful ideas mainstream for a very long time. [ * ] [ * ] [ * ] [ * ]

Those who don't support mainstream views can easily become pariahs. They have fewer opportunities to share their ideas. Journals don't accept their publications; their posts get lower rankings on social networks, and they risk their careers. [ * ] [ * ] [ * ]

It is hard to provide strong evidence in this field because even randomized controlled trials (RCTs), considered high-level evidence, have many shortcomings. A list of just a few issues that occur frequently:

1. Many studies cannot be conducted in humans, only in animals, due to ethical concerns (e.g., perceived or actual risks of the intervention or no-intervention). For example, participants in control groups of drug trials are often also administered a drug instead of a true placebo to "protect" them.
2. The product must be very profitable to cover the costs of the clinical trials, which are very expensive.
3. Funders often ensure their products receive a positive evaluation.
4. RCTs are too short to demonstrate many of the intervention's harmful or beneficial effects.
5. In lifestyle interventions, it is difficult to change a single variable; many confounders are not controlled for. Tricks are used to claim statistical significance for an effect that is clinically not significant, while adverse effects remain hidden.
6. You cannot randomly assign people to different lifestyles or diets over the long term.

Papers in medical science often rely on observational studies with low correlations to establish causality. Important confounders and results from other fields may not be considered in those studies. (Good examples are papers stating that meat causes cancer or heart disease. [ * ] )