Well, Jenni, I’m afraid your interpretation is just plain wrong. Before I embarked on the BSD, I spent some time looking at the public sources for studies supporting the theory and whilst there is a good basic body of scientific research, that’s what it is, a number of small research projects.
So I believe the science – I wouldn’t be doing the diet if I didn’t, but my “belief” is no substitute for the hard clinical studies and detailed evaluation with representative samples of the wider population and the results subject to full peer review. I’m willing to put faith in it for my health but I don’t believe that means we should expect national health authorities to change their policies until there is the evidence.
My view is that medical professionals will, and probably should, err on the side of caution until there is conclusive evidence. Consequently, that’s why even though I do not have a lot of time for my GP and I similarly value my nurse’s professionalism and constructive challenge and healthy scepticism, but I equally understand why they aren’t yet going to run out and recommend it to everyone who walks through the door.
I have issues with the UK approval process and the current funding model for academic clinical trials, but I would rather the time was taken to ensure that this is suitable for a wide population and has no unforeseen side-effects for the general population or for groups with other common health problems.. History is on my side – remember: thalidomide was an effective treatment for nausea and was therefore prescribed or recommended for morning sickness. That scandal led to a tightening of the clinical studies regulations in the US, UK and Germany.
I know there are fast track processes for new drugs (flu vaccines, Ebola, AZT etc) but new non-drug treatments seem to pose a problem.
I trust that this clarifies my position.