Yup there is a significant amount of scientific research that links lectin and other anti nutrients in grains to many current western diseases. There are many documented cases where people have cured many auto immune disease by not eating grains, these include lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, cron's disease, thyroid diseases and more.

This is chapter 4 of Robb Wolf's book
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo-diet-solution/

A post on lectin with cited references
http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html

A paper from a UCLA Prof
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/Arthritis.htm

A good paper from vrp.com with 30 cited references dating back to the 70s
http://www.vrp.com/digestive-health/lectins-their-damaging-role-in-intestinal-health-rheumatoid-arthritis-and-weight-loss

A paper in the British Medical Journal
http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7190/1023.full

There are a lot more.
Generally there is nothing in grains that we need, they are low in fiber compared to vegetables which I am sure you know, and they cause us to be fat.

There is a whole text book on it and other dietary causes of western disease.
http://www.amazon.com/Food-Western-Disease-evolutionary-perspective/dp/1405197714/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

Part 2:

Anatomy and Physiology

• Gray's Anatomy. My friend suggests getting both a modern version and if you can, one of the classical editions. She does not like the Barnes and Noble or some of the other "collector editions" because she thinks the illustrations are too small to read, despite the elegant binding they come in.
  
  
• The Anatomy Coloring Book My friend greatly recommends the entirety of this series of books.
  
  
• Human Anatomy and Physiology by John W. Hole. My friend owns the 2nd edition (1981) version of this book. She can't speak for the newer, modern version but she says this is an excellent college-level text on human anatomy and physiology.
  
  
• Human Anatomy & Physiology (Marieb, Human Anatomy & Physiology). This is a more modern text that my friend has and suggests.
  
  

  Other Medical Texts (Pathology, organic chemistry, biology, nutritional science, etc)
  

  
  

• Clinical Pathophysiology Made Ridiculously Simple by Aaron Berkowitz
  
  
• Robbin's Basic Pathology
  
  
• Food and Western Disease: Health and Nutrition From An Evolutionary Perspective
  
  
• Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism
  
  
• Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition
  
  
• Real Food For Pregnancy by Lily Nichols
  
  
• Nutritional Grail: Ancestral Wisdom, Breakthrough Science, and the Dawning Nutritional Renaissance
  
  
  
• Dr. Klein's Organic Chemistry (textbook)
  
  
• Campbell's Biology (textbook) - Any newer edition will do. She also suggests the biology coloring book as an additional exercise book.
  
  

  Formularies, Pharmacy
  

  
  

• Herbal Formularies for Health Professionals, Volume I, Volume II, and Volume III by Dr. Jill Stansbury
  
  
• Fenner's Formulary: Containing Formulae for the Preparation of All the Elixirs, Emulsions, Essences, Flavoring Extracts, Glycerites, Solutions, ... Preparations, Now in Use by Byron Fenner. A classical formulary, it is also available in PDF form from forgottenbooks and the SWSBM.
  
  
• Remington: The Practice and Science of Pharmacy
  
  
  

  Classical Herbals
  

  
  
  

• Culpeper's Herbal
  
  
• King's American Dispensatory
  
  
• The classical herbals listed on Henriette's Herbal Page
  
  

Relevant http://vimeo.com/27570335

Edit: I also suggest Staffan Lindenburgs book Food and Western Disease: Health and nutrition from an evolutionary perspective

Staffan Lindeberg's book. He's the doctor who did the Katava Study.

So you're saying that since we know very little about what early Paleolithic man ate (~2.5 million years ago up until 10,000), and despite the fact that we know our brains grew and stomachs shrank specifically because of meat consumption, we should eat vegan.

And that (RE: #3) because our day-to-day lives look very little like (in a literal sense) a hunter-gatherers life, we ought not eat meat? We may not run around and hunt our food, but how many of us run around all day, to this job or that, working overtime, etc. If anything, I'd think it would make more sense to streamline your foods for maximum efficiency - i.e., eat the foods that are most nutritious, which certainly includes a hefty amount of vegetables, but also includes a significant (dietarily) amount of high-quality meat product whose bioavailability or healthy fats and complete proteins (nevermind micronutrient breakdown) is virtually unmatched. That would only make sense in this over-worked and un-rested era.

(By the way, Paleo is all about quality. Only grass-fed/pastured animals, preferably that includes a hefty dose of the nutrient dense organ meat, as well as a short-but-intense exercise plan that would very much mimic that of a hunter-gatherer.)

RE: #4 - if you seriously can find me one piece of information that does not show very clearly an exponential increase in grain consumption in the last 100 years (that goes right along with the prevalence of diseases of civilization), I'd love to see it. I really don't think it exists.

Just a few examples (that aren't even talking about Paleo):

• Dangerous Grains
  
  
• The Great Cholesterol Con
  
  
• Trick and Treat: How Healthy Eating is Making Us Ill
  
  
• Food and Western Disease: Health and nutrition from an evolutionary perspective
  
  
• Gluten and Autism
  
  
• MS and Diet
  
  
• RA and Diet
  
  
• If those aren't enough, happy reading. I hate to break it to you, but even non-paleo dr.'s and scientists from across a host of fields are all coming to the conclusion - based on biochemistry and specifically how our guts, intestines, etc. interact with them - that grains are a far bigger problem than quality meats.
  
  Yes, every one of these will talk about shit-quality meats, but also extensively about "high-quality, whole" grains. And before you use the word "pseudoscientific" again, I'd just like to say I'm not sure that you know what it means. These citations are from scientists. I haven't yet seen you cite one scientist. And before you quote the China Study - don't. It's bunk, been proven to be bunk, by people smarter and more thorough than Denise Minger's pretty solid piece on Campbell's skewing of the stats.
  
  Get your learn on.
  
  Personally, I don't give a shit if you eat meat or not. But you're conflating a moral issue (of yours) with a health issue (of ours). I'll agree with you that the vast majority of meat that gets eaten in this country is crap. Factory farms need to go. Grain-feeding animals needs to stop. So do food subsidies for corn and grain. But beyond your morals, there's absolutely nothing unhealthy about eating a grass-fed steak, or a cage-free, chicken that's been allowed to run around outside and do its chicken-y thing. So long as you tolerate those well (food allergy tests - another thing I'm not sure you're aware of that's very, very popular in the Paleo community, and many people come back allergic or intolerant of many animal products).
  
  Anyway, I'm done here. You still haven't specifically told me what's pseudoscientific. You've linked to a group with an agenda and wikipedia, but have made all sorts of claims that imply you have some very specific knowledge relating to some damaging aspects of consumption of high-quality meats in a balanced diet with high-quality fruits, veggies, etc. I can link you studies and papers by scientists and doctors all day. You haven't cited one.
  
  Moreover, you make the claim that because we don't know what foods we're evolved to thrive on we shouldn't eat Paleo - all the while claiming Veganism is better. On what grounds if you can't say what we've evolved to eat? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

>Name me a moral concept. Or a few. And why are we assuming that nature is non-moral?

That's the thing, I'm saying that there are no distinctively "moral" properties in nature. Morality, defined as "The extent to which an action is right or wrong," is a useful fiction, based on the conventions and designs of other human beings. When someone says that "rape is morally wrong," what they are saying in effect is that its consequences are undesirable, and should be prohibited as a matter of principle. Once enough people come together and reach a consensus on this point, a new moral is born. But the moral itself does not derive its authority from an objective ground of value, which stands above and beyond the practical interests and agreements of human beings.

I'm far more comfortable with using the terms good or evil, just or unjust, equal or unequal, appropriate or inappropriate, suitable or unsuitable, proportional or disproportional, adaptive or maladaptive, functional or dysfunctional, efficient or inefficient. Note that I'm not talking about good or evil in a theistic or moral sense, I'm speaking in purely functional terms. A "good" thing of a certain kind is one which performs its function well. For instance, the function of a knife is to cut: cutting is that which a knife alone achieves, or achieves better than other objects. It is a distinctive quality of a knife that it cut well or badly. To the extent that an object lacks these traits, it will be evil or bad as a result. In that sense, the words that I use are devoid of subjective valuations, there is no expression of liking or prejudice, rather, I'm using these words to point to objective criteria, and as a result the claims are matters for empirical investigation, not what one or another ideology proclaims is right or wrong.

>Humans feel pain and process emotions in the same way that most mammals do.

I never denied that fact. However, I'd characterize the issue differently. As I said before, it is in the consitution of our species that we eat animal flesh for subsistance. Obviously, I'm not claiming that we require a wholly carniverous diet, only that a large proportion of our food comes from animals. The only implication that follows from this is that nature prescribes that lower animals are the proper prey of human beings, and thus it is fitting, appropriate, or suitable to our species. You are the one introducing a moral claim into this situation. And as I said, your claim is groundless as it appeals to an arbitrary preference of subjective taste. It has no moral authority. You also lack the general consent of others, which would be required to turn this into a principle or norm of conduct. So where does that leave us? I maintain that we have a natural right or entitlement to prey on other creatures for the good of our species. This right follows from the fact that we are proportionally superior, in nearly all respects, as it pertains to fitness, which is the only measure of comparison at issue in the final analysis. If you dispute this claim, kindly explain how it is possible for us to fish out entire oceans, or reduce whole ecosystems to cinders to suit our purposes. The suffering of other animals is indeed an evil, but only for those species so unfortunate to become victims of the human appetite.

Here's a small taste of the contradictory evidence you requested.

• Eaton. B. The ancestral human diet: what was it and should it be a paradigm for contemporary nutrition?
  
  
• Milton. K. A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human evolution
  
  
• Richards. M. A brief review of the archaeological evidence for paleolithic and neolithic subsistence
  
  
• A functional and structural comparison of man's digestive tract with that of a dog and sheep
  
  
• Fox. M. Cancer cells slurp up fructose, us study finds
  
  
• Heany. A. Fructose induces transketolase flux to promote pancreatic cancer growth
  
  
• Gluckman. P. Principles of evolutionary medicine
  
  
• Travathan. W. Evolutionary medicine
  
  
• Travathan. W. Evolutionary medicine and health: new perspectives
  
  
• Stearns. S, Evolution in health and disease
  
  
• Lindeberg. S. Food and western disease: health and nutrition from an evolutionary perspective
  
  
• Nesse. R. Why we get sick: the new science of Darwinian medicine
  
  
• Boaz. N. Evolving health: the origins of illness and how the modern world is making us sick
  
  
• Cordain. L. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic
  
  
• Cordain. L. The paleo diet
  
  
• Wolf. R. The paleolithic solution: the original human diet