It seems like the ultimate goal for anyone in medicine and science is to become an “expert” because experts rule. The media wants their opinion on every medical and scientific issue and whenever they bloviate, common slobs are expected to listen. Experts are supposedly the closest to the truth. They know the literature and available science. They are also the basis for “evidence based medicine” where everything a physician does must be backed by solid research.
The High Priests of Knowledge
In science and medicine, current experts are the guardians and high priests of the current truth. Throughout most of the history of medicine, this body of knowledge was based on opinion, intuition, common sense and some degree of empiric observation. This Dark Age of medicine gave us bloodletting, leech therapy and a long list of other dubious or harmful treatments. Although the introduction of evidence-based medicine where treatments are subjected to controlled studies has greatly improved the situation, many of our established treatments are still based more on smoke and mirrors rather than solid evidence based studies. Despite these limitations, today’s current experts often have a much more solid foundation for many of their medical opinions than the medical giants of bygone eras.
Jump in Your Time Machine and Look Backwards
Unfortunately, despite the backing of evidence based medicine, the current experts are virtually always wrong. How do I know? Travel 20 years into the future and look backwards and you will see that time always rolls over the wisdom of current experts. This process generally isn’t linear, in that current concepts roll along for a prolonged period of time with small incremental changes, only to be abruptly cast aside when revolutionary new ideas suddenly appear. Where do these new concepts come from? They are almost never the result of evidence-based studies, but instead come from the world of empiric observation. Someone notices that the apple always falls down and then uses a process of logical thinking to come up with a new and improved theoretical model to explain the observation. At this point onward, the evidence-based studies used to evaluate the new model move in an entirely new direction. Thus medicine moves both through a slow process of evolution driven by evidence-based studies interspersed with sudden abrupt changes driven by the empiricists. The empiricists who bring about these revolutionary changes are in a sense “future experts”.
Future Experts and Their Crystal Ball
Future experts have the ability to see a little bit into the future. By paying careful attention to basic research and empiric (real world) observations, future experts have the ability to see where we are headed, especially when dealing with abrupt changes. They are the first to see the new and better truth from the future. Crackpots also deviate from the current experts but their opinions are based on fluff, personal opinions and non-scientific thinking. Crackpots lead us away from the future truth. I have dedicated my medical career to always attempting to be somewhat of a future expert and the CARB syndrome concept embodies my effort to peek into the future for a better truth. As a consumer of health care information, if at all possible, your goal should be to find and learn from future experts. You want to see this better future a little bit ahead of everyone else and this won’t happen if you only live in a world of current experts.
It may be somewhat challenging for you to identify exactly who these “future experts” are during the years before they are eventually recognized as current experts. This process of determining who has a better theory than the existing dogma normally takes time. Time will ultimately reveal those theories that are closer to the truth. Unfortunately, it is not always in your best interest to wait for time to declare the winner in this quest for the best information, especially when it comes to your health and wellbeing. You want to be the first to have access to the best information, not the last. Often it is in your best interest to have this information today, not tomorrow. In this information age, those with access to the highest quality information will always end up ahead of the pack. When you are dealing with something as important as your health, that’s exactly where you want to be.
An example might be helpful. Recently I stumbled across the work of Dr. Joseph R. Kraft. He spent years measuring 5 hours glucose tolerance tests and insulin levels on over 16,000 patients. He found that over 80% of them had abnormal tests suggesting that they had pre-diabetes or overt diabetes. He was of the first in the medical field to dig deep and explore the enormous extent of abnormal metabolism in our society. Gary Taubes in his book “Good Calories, Bad Calories” was also one of the first to target insulin rather than calories as the devil when it comes to many of our chronic diseases. I consider both of them to be future experts. Richard Johnson was one of the first people to warn us about the dangers of fructose. Robert Lustig was one of the first people to warn us about the toxic nature of sugar. Loren Cordain and Robb Wolf were pioneers when it comes to evolutionary eating. I consider all of them to be future experts.
Strange Bedfellows—Future Experts and Crackpots
One of the confounding factors preventing you from finding and using the best information is that many of the people trying to use new theories to challenge the current experts will turn out to be wrong—sometimes very wrong. These misguided scientists are called “crackpots”. Before time has the chance to declare the winner in the battle for quality information, future experts and crackpots may look very similar. Another obstacle potentially denying you access to the best information is the fact that current experts usually don’t like to be challenged and thus they often resist giving up their expert status when confronted with a challenging new theory. Unless they are truly open minded, experts tend to resist the theories of both the future experts and the crack-pots and the easiest way to accomplish this task is for them to classify all competing ideas as coming from crack-pots. If you want to achieve optimal health, you need access to the absolute best theories–the ones that consistently gives you the best results. At any given time, the highest quality theories with the best information will virtually always come from future experts, not the experts. Thus your real challenge is to differentiate the future experts from the crackpots.
Differentiating Future Experts from Crackpots.
On the surface this task might seem to be somewhat challenging because the experts consider both groups to be wrong. In reality, there is a simple method anyone can use to tell the difference between these two groups. Follow these rules and you can jump ahead of the experts and learn what the future experts know:
- Future experts tend to think scientifically, whereas crackpots do not. Future experts are familiar with the current knowledge base, they are well educated in their field and they use an empiric scientific approach. Crackpots are similar to magicians—they tend to pull their ideas out of thin air and their concepts often do not have a solid basis in science.
- The ideas of the futures experts easily pass the common sense test because their theories fit what is happening in the real world and everyone has some access to these real world observations. The ideas coming from crackpots often fail this common sense test because real world observations don’t support their theories. It is often easier for a layperson than it is for a scientist to apply the common sense test because scientists and professionals often have a hard time keeping an open mind. Their heads are full of the pre-existing knowledge base that they learned from the current experts. They need to unlearn the old stuff before they can learn something new. This process is not a natural human trait, but it is possible to do so with a little effort. It’s called being a true empiric scientist.
- Future experts usually have a deep education in their field, whereas crackpots often have little formal education in the field or their training is in an unrelated area. You need a solid scientific education base before you can mount a credible challenge to existing knowledge. In other words, you must know a subject intimately before you can credibly challenge it.
- When a theory is applied in the real world, it must pass the results test. The future expert’s theory is always better at predicting what happens in the real world than existing theories or theories from crackpots. If the world is flat and you sail your ship away from the coast, eventually you will sail off the edge of the world. If the world is round, you will eventually come back to where you started and perhaps find a few new continents in the process. You do not need to perform any lab experiments to make these observations. You simply sail your ship and see what happens. Remember, it always pays to go with the theory that consistently gives you the best results. The corollary is, if using your theory doesn’t give you consistent improved results, find another theory that does so.
- Future experts often end up nailed to the cross, whereas crackpots often escape this fate. The current experts seem to intuitively know which group posses the greatest threat to their position–the future experts, the ones who clearly know more about the truth than they do. Crackpots don’t pose a threat to your wellbeing unless you decide to follow them. Time tends to move crackpots further from the truth. Thus future experts need to know how to survive in a hostile world until time has proven them right. You need to find them before they end up on the cross.
- Are you being ripped off? Future experts tend to focus on science and the truth, with economic interests taking a back seat. Crackpots often want something from you because they are usually seeking fame and fortune. They view you as the ticket to achieving this goal and they want you to pay for it. For crackpots, money and financial concerns always seem to come ahead of the search for better information. When it comes to financial issues, future experts are often satisfied if they make enough money to survive and pay their bills. They ask a fair price for useful information. Crackpots will take as much from you as you are willing to give and then come back for more. Many of them know that their information is flawed, yet this doesn’t stop them from taking your money because their true goal is to rip you off.
- Use the intuition test. Your intuition is an extremely important function of your subconscious brain–the part of your brain that keeps on trucking even as you rest and take a break. Unlike the common sense test discussed above, intuition comes from your subconscious mind rather than your conscious thought processes. As with all other humans, you have a vast amount of brain tissue that is constantly taking in information from the world around you. Your brain is continually processing and storing this information in a way that leaves no conscious perception of this remarkable process. Your subconscious mind also provides you with a “sixth sense”, giving you a subtle perception that you are right about something even though you have no conscious awareness of how you gained this insight. When you experience this “gut feeling” about something, it provides strong evidence that you are on the right track, especially if your approach passes the other tests.
Remember that all theories generated by future experts must at some point be subjected to the rigors of evidence-based science—the type of science that takes place under controlled conditions where the effects of various factors can be studied for their individual effects. Empiric and evidence-based science work together to provide us with new scientific truth.
Sign Me up as a Future Expert
I consider myself to be a future expert. I have used the process described above to develop the Carbohydrate Associated Reversible Brain syndrome or CARB syndrome concept. This new disease model is based on the observation that people who consume highly processed food for a long period of time tend to develop certain brain dysfunction symptoms that interfere with their ability to function. They also tend to develop insulin resistance and excessive body fat (obesity) regardless of their size or weight. These brain dysfunction symptoms and metabolic changes tend to unfold in a predictable manner over time, fitting the pattern of a disease.
The current experts believe that metabolic problems and obesity are driven by over eating and calories. The CARB syndrome theory proposes that they are due mainly to diet composition. This recent article supports my position. Nobody seems able to explain the rapid rise in brain disorders like ADHD, depression, bipolar disorder and similar conditions. The CARB syndrome model readily explains this phenomenon. For example years ago we had only one type of major depression and it was defined by a loss of appetite and weight loss. Today many people diagnosed with depression have an increased appetite and weight gain. In my opinion this type of depression is CARB syndrome, not true major depression. It’s a different disease with a different treatment.
How can you tell whether or not I’m a crackpot? After all both future experts and crackpots share the fact that they are challenging the current experts. I would suggest that you use the seven methods listed above to separate these two groups. Unfortunately you can never be 100% certain about which group you are dealing with. That’s why when considering a given theory like the CARB syndrome concept that is yet unproven, you want to make sure that all treatment recommendations based on that theory are low risk. The treatments for CARB syndrome are mainly dietary changes, exercise and targeted supplements all of which are very low risk.
A Slave of Results
In summary I can assure you that I work very hard to be a future expert. Time will determine whether or not I have been successful. Experiencing improved outcomes as a result of using a new model is another indication that you are dealing with a future expert. Over the past few decades many of my patients have indeed experienced improved outcomes when their treatments were based on this new disease model. As a clinician I am a slave to better results. Show me a more effective disease model and I will use it. To date that has yet to happen.