Why FDA Warned Dr. Mercola to Stop Writing About Vitamin D

This article was previously published March 15, 2021, and has been updated with new information. In the summer of 2020, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) — a consumer advocacy group partnered with Bill Gates' agrichemical PR group, the Cornell Alliance for Science,1 and bankrolled by billionaires with ties to Monsanto, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund and Bloomberg Philanthropies2 — launched a social media campaign to put an end to Mercola.com. July 21, 2020, CSPI issued a press release3 in which they accused me of falsely claiming "that at least 22 vitamins, supplements and other products available for sale on his web site can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19 infection." This despite the fact that their Appendix of Illegal Claims4 clearly show no COVID-19-related claims exist on any of the product links. The group also testified in a Senate hearing on the topic of COVID-19 scams and urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to take regulatory action against me. In an August 12, 2020, email, CSPI president Dr. Peter Lurie5 — a former FDA associate commissioner6 — made the spurious claim that I "profit from the COVID-19 pandemic" through "anti-vaccine fearmongering" and reporting of science-based nutrition shown to impact your disease risk. Former FDA Official Pulls Strings to Target Natural Health Seeing how Lurie is a former FDA official, it was disheartening, but not surprising, that the FDA followed up by issuing us a warning letter7 for "Unapproved and misbranded products related to COVID-19." Lurie has publicly taken credit for the FDA's action,8 thereby establishing the potential that CSPI is pulling strings under the new administration through relationships they did not have back in August 2020 when they first launched their assault on my free speech. According to the FDA, vitamin C, vitamin D3 and quercetin products are "unapproved new drugs sold in violation of section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." Thereby, the agency also listed Mercola.com on its Fraudulent COVID-19 Products page. Lurie also appeared to hint that he wants federal authorities to remove my StopCOVIDCold site, where you can download a free scientific report detailing the benefits of maintaining appropriate vitamin D levels to protect against viral infections. He also urged "state attorneys general to investigate how they may further protect consumers from Mercola's illegal marketing."9 "Americans are justifiably concerned about becoming infected with the coronavirus and contracting COVID-19. Being misled to believe that supplements could prevent or treat COVID-19 could cause consumers to fail to take protective measures such as mask-wearing, putting themselves and others at risk, or fail to seek actual medical treatment if sick," Lurie wrote.10 It's ironic that Lurie dismissed offhand peer-reviewed, published science demonstrating certain nutrients can boost your immune function and help lower your risk of severe infection — be it from SARS-CoV-2, the seasonal flu or anything else — and touted mask wearing, which has no published scientific evidence to back its universal use, as one of the most important prevention strategies against COVID-19. Sadly, this is where we still are today. "Trust the science," they say, while simultaneously promoting scientifically unverified claims and trying to eradicate anyone who simply reports the findings that are actually published in the medical literature that may negatively impact the pharmaceutical industry. CSPI and FDA Cannot Censor Speech The CSPI was trying to censor my efforts to educate people on how to avoid vitamin D deficiency which, without doubt, places them at far higher risk of complications and death from respiratory infections. Well, I did not capitulate at the time and I still am not going to stand by doing nothing while people die from COVID-19 and other respiratory infections due to vitamin D deficiency. In October 2020, I co-wrote a paper together with William Grant, Ph.D.,11 and Dr. Carol Wagner,12 both of whom are on the GrassrootsHealth vitamin D expert panel. The paper demonstrates the clear link between vitamin D deficiency and severe cases of COVID-19. This paper was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Nutrients.13 With that, I have established my medical and scientific merit, and will continue to express my professional opinions, based on the available science, and defend my freedom of speech as the U.S. Constitution provides for. The FDA's warning letter highlighted statements in articles on my website that are fully referenced and supported by published science. I remain committed to providing truthful information, for free, to anyone that wants it, and I'm all for having a rigorous scientific debate when necessary. However, CSPI has taken credit for pressuring the FDA to issue this warning letter to suppress my f

Why FDA Warned Dr. Mercola to Stop Writing About Vitamin D

This article was previously published March 15, 2021, and has been updated with new information.

In the summer of 2020, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) — a consumer advocacy group partnered with Bill Gates' agrichemical PR group, the Cornell Alliance for Science,1 and bankrolled by billionaires with ties to Monsanto, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund and Bloomberg Philanthropies2 — launched a social media campaign to put an end to Mercola.com.

July 21, 2020, CSPI issued a press release3 in which they accused me of falsely claiming "that at least 22 vitamins, supplements and other products available for sale on his web site can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19 infection." This despite the fact that their Appendix of Illegal Claims4 clearly show no COVID-19-related claims exist on any of the product links.

The group also testified in a Senate hearing on the topic of COVID-19 scams and urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to take regulatory action against me.

In an August 12, 2020, email, CSPI president Dr. Peter Lurie5 — a former FDA associate commissioner6 — made the spurious claim that I "profit from the COVID-19 pandemic" through "anti-vaccine fearmongering" and reporting of science-based nutrition shown to impact your disease risk.

Former FDA Official Pulls Strings to Target Natural Health

Seeing how Lurie is a former FDA official, it was disheartening, but not surprising, that the FDA followed up by issuing us a warning letter7 for "Unapproved and misbranded products related to COVID-19." Lurie has publicly taken credit for the FDA's action,8 thereby establishing the potential that CSPI is pulling strings under the new administration through relationships they did not have back in August 2020 when they first launched their assault on my free speech.

According to the FDA, vitamin C, vitamin D3 and quercetin products are "unapproved new drugs sold in violation of section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." Thereby, the agency also listed Mercola.com on its Fraudulent COVID-19 Products page.

Lurie also appeared to hint that he wants federal authorities to remove my StopCOVIDCold site, where you can download a free scientific report detailing the benefits of maintaining appropriate vitamin D levels to protect against viral infections. He also urged "state attorneys general to investigate how they may further protect consumers from Mercola's illegal marketing."9

"Americans are justifiably concerned about becoming infected with the coronavirus and contracting COVID-19. Being misled to believe that supplements could prevent or treat COVID-19 could cause consumers to fail to take protective measures such as mask-wearing, putting themselves and others at risk, or fail to seek actual medical treatment if sick," Lurie wrote.10

It's ironic that Lurie dismissed offhand peer-reviewed, published science demonstrating certain nutrients can boost your immune function and help lower your risk of severe infection — be it from SARS-CoV-2, the seasonal flu or anything else — and touted mask wearing, which has no published scientific evidence to back its universal use, as one of the most important prevention strategies against COVID-19.

Sadly, this is where we still are today. "Trust the science," they say, while simultaneously promoting scientifically unverified claims and trying to eradicate anyone who simply reports the findings that are actually published in the medical literature that may negatively impact the pharmaceutical industry.

CSPI and FDA Cannot Censor Speech

The CSPI was trying to censor my efforts to educate people on how to avoid vitamin D deficiency which, without doubt, places them at far higher risk of complications and death from respiratory infections. Well, I did not capitulate at the time and I still am not going to stand by doing nothing while people die from COVID-19 and other respiratory infections due to vitamin D deficiency.

In October 2020, I co-wrote a paper together with William Grant, Ph.D.,11 and Dr. Carol Wagner,12 both of whom are on the GrassrootsHealth vitamin D expert panel. The paper demonstrates the clear link between vitamin D deficiency and severe cases of COVID-19. This paper was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Nutrients.13

With that, I have established my medical and scientific merit, and will continue to express my professional opinions, based on the available science, and defend my freedom of speech as the U.S. Constitution provides for.

The FDA's warning letter highlighted statements in articles on my website that are fully referenced and supported by published science. I remain committed to providing truthful information, for free, to anyone that wants it, and I'm all for having a rigorous scientific debate when necessary.

However, CSPI has taken credit for pressuring the FDA to issue this warning letter to suppress my free speech. The FDA's warning letter was simply another attempt by CSPI to smear me with false accusations.

As CSPI well knows, thanks to the U.S. constitution and the first amendment, I have every right to speak publicly on matters regarding health, so CSPI's accusations were nothing but another attempt to "cancel" me while concealing their own duplicity. For the record, we fully addressed the warning letter; the FDA cannot simply stop free speech that CSPI does not like.

This Is NOT the First Time CSPI Endangered Public Health

CSPI continues to be a vitamin D denier even though overwhelming evidence points to its ability to reduce the risk of developing severe COVID-19. This isn't surprising, coming from a Rockefeller-funded organization that pushed deadly trans fats on the American public until the facts became undeniable, at which point they simply rewrote the organization's history on this subject to hide its past stance.

In 1986, CSPI described trans fat as "a great boon to Americans' arteries."14 Two years later, in 1988, they still praised trans fats,15 saying "there is little good evidence that trans fats cause any more harm than other fats" and that "much of the anxiety over trans fats stems from their reputation as 'unnatural.'" Meanwhile, in the real world, the CSPI's highly successful trans fat campaign resulted in an epidemic of heart disease.

The CSPI's role in the promotion of trans fats and its influence on the food industry was discussed in David Schleifer's article, "The Perfect Solution: How Trans Fats Became the Healthy Replacement for Saturated Fats,"16 in which he noted that:

"Scholars routinely argue that corporations control US food production, with negative consequences for health … However, the transition from saturated to trans fats shows how activists can be part of spurring corporations to change."

It wasn't until the 1990s that CSPI started reversing its position on synthetic trans fats, but the damage had already been done, and it never admitted its error. In fact, rather than openly admitting it had misled the public with erroneous claims, CSPI simply deleted sections of its previous support of trans fat from the web.17

In the graphic below, notice how their historical timeline18 of trans fat starts at 1993 — the year CSPI realized the jig was up and they had to support the elimination of trans fat.

CSPI then started raising money for campaigns to stop the heart disease-causing substance they first promoted. How diabolical is that? Create the problem and then take money from others for the solution.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

This obfuscation was noted by Mary Enig, Ph.D., in a 2003 article, in which she wrote:19

"On October 20, 1993, CSPI had the chutzpah to call a press conference in Washington, DC and lambast the major fast-food chains for doing what CSPI coerced them into doing, namely, using partially hydrogenated vegetable oils in their deep fat-fryers.

On that date, CSPI, an eager proponent of partially hydrogenated oils for many years, even when their adverse health effects were apparent, reversed its position after an onslaught of adverse medical reports linking trans fatty acids in these processed oils to coronary heart disease and cancer …

Thanks to CSPI, healthy traditional fats have almost completely disappeared from the food supply, replaced by manufactured trans fats known to cause many diseases. By 1990, most fast food chains had switched to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil …

Who benefits? Soy, or course … [and] in CSPI's January, 1991 newsletter, Jacobson notes that 'our effort was ultimately joined … by the American Soybean Association.'"

Even more egregious is the CSPI's continued recommendation to eat unsaturated fats like soy and canola oils20 and avoid butter and other healthy saturated fats, saying that "changing fats doesn't lower the risk of dying."21

This wholly disregards the compelling evidence showing that industrial vegetable oils, omega-6 linoleic acid in particular, pose significant health risks and contribute to chronic disease. And chronic disease, in turn, impacts mortality.

CSPI Primarily Protects Big Business

This tendency to fall in line with industry science and propaganda has become a trend within CSPI. For example, it wasn't until 2013 that CSPI finally downgraded the artificial sweetener Splenda from its former "safe" category to one of "caution."22

In 2016, they downgraded it again, from "caution" to "avoid."23 Despite that, CSPI continues to promote diet soda as a safer alternative to regular soda, saying it "does not promote diabetes, weight gain or heart disease in the way that full-calorie sodas do."24

The group has also taken a strong pro-GMO stand and actively undermined the GMO labeling movement,25 which resulted in the U.S. being the only country in the world that does not have clear GMO labeling. In August 2001, the organization urged the FDA to take enforcement action against food companies using non-GMO labels, claiming such labels could "deceive consumers."26

In a similar vein, the group opposes clear labeling of ultraprocessed fake meat. In a May 2018 letter to the FDA,27 CSPI urged the agency "to reject efforts by the United States Cattlemen's Association to prohibit use of the terms 'meat' or 'beef' on plant-based and cultured proteins marketed as alternatives to traditional meat." All in all, it appears the CSPI is completely against the idea of a well-informed public.

The CSPI has also been a promoter of the thoroughly debunked low-fat myth. In 1995, they launched a "1% or Less" campaign that urged everyone over the age of 2 to switch from whole and 2% milk to skim milk (also known as nonfat or fat-free milk) in order to reduce their saturated fat intake.28,29,30

It was another successful campaign that resulted in the doubling of skim milk sales.31 However, just like their trans fat campaign, this was equally ill advised, seeing how research32,33 shows full-fat dairy actually lowers your risk of death from diabetes and cardiovascular causes such as stroke.

CSPI Has Repeatedly Violated Its Mission Statement

Considering the suspected, and in some cases well-verified, health hazards of trans fats, artificial sweeteners, soy, GMOs, low-fat diet and fake meat, CSPI's intent to protect and advance public health is questionable to say the least.

It seems they're more interested in protecting profitable industries, and the CSPI's efforts to destroy companies selling vitamins and supplements with natural antiviral effects34 is simply more evidence of that.

The fact is, they sought to bring an end to Mercola.com because we were and still are such a serious threat to their agenda and they want to eliminate as many of the truth tellers as they can.

Source : Mercola More   

What's Your Reaction?

like
0
dislike
0
love
0
funny
0
angry
0
sad
0
wow
0

Next Article

We Have a Way Bigger Problem Than “Disinformation”

This article was originally published here. My Jewish father was an old country lawyer who believed deeply in fairness and justice for all living people, so I was curious what he thought about the Nazis. It was spring of 1977, and the American Nazi Party had announced their intention to hold a July 4th rally in the town of Skokie, a predominantly Jewish community in Illinois. Not surprisingly, the town of Skokie had sought an injunction to ban the rally, and the Nazis had, ironically, sought the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to fight the injunction. The subject at the family dinner table was this: Should the American Civil Liberties Union protect the free-speech rights of Nazis? Remember, we’re of Jewish heritage, so it’s hard to look at the philosophical issues involved objectively because there’s so much emotion attached to the subject matter. Nonetheless, I’ll never forget my father’s response: “They have to defend them,” he said of the ACLU’s decision to fight the ban on behalf of the Nazi Party. “Free speech isn’t just for people you agree with.” It isn’t. Free speech is about vigorously defending the rights of people with whom you disagree. “Censorship almost always creates more damage than whatever’s being censored would’ve caused,” my father told me. Right now, the country is bitterly and tragically divided over the challenges associated with COVID. I want to suggest that we’re facing a bigger challenge — equally terrifying, but one on which we can and should be united: the quietly emerging challenges to our free speech. There’s a below-the-radar increase in censorship and “de-platforming” taking place right now, and it’s making disturbing inroads into our First Amendment rights. Exhibit A: Last month, Dr. Joseph Mercola — one of the most influential voices in integrative medicine and the owner of the number one natural health website in the world — felt he had no choice but to remove over 20 years of content from his website, content that I and many other people have found immensely valuable over the past two decades. Among other things, Dr. Mercola was known for exposing his readers to brilliant but renegade thinkers like Kilmer McCully, M.D., the professor who was basically de-platformed out of his lab at Harvard for advocating the view that homocysteine was as serious a risk factor for coronary heart disease as cholesterol, a piece of “disinformation” that did not sit well with the establishment. Postscript: Dr. McCully was welcomed back to Harvard after about two decades of subsequent research essentially proved he was right all along.1 But I digress. Dr. Mercola explained why he’s taking down the content on his site in a disturbing video on YouTube,2 the crux of which is that he could no longer endure the backlash (some might say persecution) he was enduring for publishing information that questioned conventional narratives on nutrition and health — information that has been come to be branded “disinformation”. By backlash, I’m talking threats on his life. He believes this is probably due to a New York Times hatchet piece — and I don’t use that term lightly — that labeled him number one on its list of top “disseminators of disinformation” on health-related issues. If you’d like an example of the dangerous misinformation that brought death threats to members of the Mercola organization, take a look at one of the FDA’s warning letters to Dr. Mercola, which states that he is illegally selling products — specifically vitamin C, vitamin D and quercetin — intended to “mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19”.3 Never mind a recent published paper entitled “Vitamin D Insufficiency May Account for Almost Nine of Ten COVID-19 Deaths: Time to Act”4 or that, according to Medscape, vitamin D deficiency quadruples the death rate from COVID.5 Apparently, the FDA and the NY Times have decided that Joe Mercola is guilty of what’s turning out to be the defining sin of the 21st century: Disinformation. I wonder if that word scares you as much as it does me. See, I was a kid during the cold war, and one of the things we used to read about was how the Soviet Union would send dissidents to “re-education” camps. They had to be “re-educated” because they were filled with all sorts of subversive ideas (like communism was terrible) and had to be “set straight” and rehabilitated before they could be allowed to re-enter society. Re-education? Disinformation? It sounds like North Korea to me. The entire concept should be chilling to any American, and I don’t care where you stand on vaccination — or on anything else! Look, I know there are exceptions to the free speech rule — my father always used to say that free speech doesn’t include the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre — but we’re not talking about those one-off cases. We’re talking about something much, much more insidious. Who Decides What’s Disinformation? The minute y

We Have a Way Bigger Problem Than “Disinformation”

This article was originally published here.

My Jewish father was an old country lawyer who believed deeply in fairness and justice for all living people, so I was curious what he thought about the Nazis.

It was spring of 1977, and the American Nazi Party had announced their intention to hold a July 4th rally in the town of Skokie, a predominantly Jewish community in Illinois. Not surprisingly, the town of Skokie had sought an injunction to ban the rally, and the Nazis had, ironically, sought the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to fight the injunction.

The subject at the family dinner table was this: Should the American Civil Liberties Union protect the free-speech rights of Nazis? Remember, we’re of Jewish heritage, so it’s hard to look at the philosophical issues involved objectively because there’s so much emotion attached to the subject matter. Nonetheless, I’ll never forget my father’s response:

“They have to defend them,” he said of the ACLU’s decision to fight the ban on behalf of the Nazi Party. “Free speech isn’t just for people you agree with.”

It isn’t. Free speech is about vigorously defending the rights of people with whom you disagree.

“Censorship almost always creates more damage than whatever’s being censored would’ve caused,” my father told me.

Right now, the country is bitterly and tragically divided over the challenges associated with COVID. I want to suggest that we’re facing a bigger challenge — equally terrifying, but one on which we can and should be united: the quietly emerging challenges to our free speech. There’s a below-the-radar increase in censorship and “de-platforming” taking place right now, and it’s making disturbing inroads into our First Amendment rights.

Exhibit A: Last month, Dr. Joseph Mercola — one of the most influential voices in integrative medicine and the owner of the number one natural health website in the world — felt he had no choice but to remove over 20 years of content from his website, content that I and many other people have found immensely valuable over the past two decades.

Among other things, Dr. Mercola was known for exposing his readers to brilliant but renegade thinkers like Kilmer McCully, M.D., the professor who was basically de-platformed out of his lab at Harvard for advocating the view that homocysteine was as serious a risk factor for coronary heart disease as cholesterol, a piece of “disinformation” that did not sit well with the establishment.

Postscript: Dr. McCully was welcomed back to Harvard after about two decades of subsequent research essentially proved he was right all along.1 But I digress.

Dr. Mercola explained why he’s taking down the content on his site in a disturbing video on YouTube,2 the crux of which is that he could no longer endure the backlash (some might say persecution) he was enduring for publishing information that questioned conventional narratives on nutrition and health — information that has been come to be branded “disinformation”.

By backlash, I’m talking threats on his life. He believes this is probably due to a New York Times hatchet piece — and I don’t use that term lightly — that labeled him number one on its list of top “disseminators of disinformation” on health-related issues.

If you’d like an example of the dangerous misinformation that brought death threats to members of the Mercola organization, take a look at one of the FDA’s warning letters to Dr. Mercola, which states that he is illegally selling products — specifically vitamin C, vitamin D and quercetin — intended to “mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19”.3

Never mind a recent published paper entitled “Vitamin D Insufficiency May Account for Almost Nine of Ten COVID-19 Deaths: Time to Act”4 or that, according to Medscape, vitamin D deficiency quadruples the death rate from COVID.5

Apparently, the FDA and the NY Times have decided that Joe Mercola is guilty of what’s turning out to be the defining sin of the 21st century: Disinformation. I wonder if that word scares you as much as it does me.

See, I was a kid during the cold war, and one of the things we used to read about was how the Soviet Union would send dissidents to “re-education” camps. They had to be “re-educated” because they were filled with all sorts of subversive ideas (like communism was terrible) and had to be “set straight” and rehabilitated before they could be allowed to re-enter society.

Re-education? Disinformation? It sounds like North Korea to me. The entire concept should be chilling to any American, and I don’t care where you stand on vaccination — or on anything else!

Look, I know there are exceptions to the free speech rule — my father always used to say that free speech doesn’t include the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre — but we’re not talking about those one-off cases. We’re talking about something much, much more insidious.

Who Decides What’s Disinformation?

The minute you accept the notion of “disinformation” you automatically buy into the notion that there’s one truth. (In fact, if you google “opposite of disinformation,” the first word that appears is “truth,” followed by “facts”).

Now, you might say, “What’s wrong with that?” But the problem is, facts don’t “speak for themselves.” Facts are impartial, and always have to be interpreted. Otherwise, they’re just numbers without context — they have to be woven into a narrative. And as we all know, it’s possible for intelligent people, acting in good faith, to look at the exact same facts and come up with very different narratives.

As the Nobel-prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, Ph.D., has taught us, we rarely if ever make decisions based on facts and data.6 Our decisions, conclusions and interpretations are subject to cognitive distortions such as confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and availability bias. It’s been well-documented that people see what they expect to see — if you doubt it, look at the results of the classic “invisible gorilla” experiment, which you can actually watch on YouTube.7

The fact that there are multiple “readings” of the same data, multiple perspectives and interpretations of facts may be confusing, but is ultimately a good thing. And guess what? I want to be able to hear all those interpretations. And so should you. Be suspicious — and frightened — when the powers that be don’t want you to hear them.

When you buy into the notion that there is one clear-cut truth in science, health, and medicine, without nuance, shading, or consideration of alternate perspectives — you have to answer a very uncomfortable question: Who decides what the “truth” is going to be? And … for how long it’s going to be “true”?

I’d like anyone reading this who is familiar with the history of science and has read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions8 to tell me that they think that what we now think is absolutely true about the Coronavirus — or any other health issue, for that matter — is likely to remain “absolutely true” 100 years from now.

Few things in health and medicine pass that test. Remember, as recently as 50 years ago, we thought it was “absolutely true” that low-fat diets prevented obesity and heart disease. To say otherwise was to be spreading disinformation. You remember how well that worked out.

Cholesterol “Disinformation?”

I know this all to be true from personal experience. For the past decade or so, I’ve been making the case that cholesterol does not cause heart disease, that too many people are on statin drugs unnecessarily, that saturated fat does not clog arteries, and that our myopic focus on an outdated HDL-LDL lab test is causing us to take our eye off the ball when it comes to doing what we can actually do to prevent heart disease.

When cardiologist Steven Sinatra, M.D., and I originally appeared on The Dr. Oz Show, a committee of doctors wrote in saying we should be banned from television. (“Cancel culture” hadn’t come into vogue yet, but that’s what they were asking for!)

I appeared — with a dozen smart, credentialed people, including professors from places like Harvard Medical School — in a documentary9 produced by the Australian Broadcasting Company and hosted by a television journalist with a Ph.D. from Columbia Journalism School that reasonably questioned the conventional wisdom of cholesterol and statin drugs.

There was a coordinated campaign in Australia to remove the video from YouTube — a campaign that was briefly successful. A PR firm planted headlines in the local papers saying essentially that “31,000 people would die” if they followed the disinformation in the documentary. We were essentially cancelled and de-platformed.

And when Dr. Timothy Noakes — one of the most respected medical researchers and professors in South Africa — began to question the high-carb diet and recommended high-fat for his patients, the powers that be attempted to take his license and deplatform him for going against “standard medical practice” and giving advice that was “unscientific.”

This resulted in a four-year trial, thousands of pages of scientific articles entered as evidence, and two international witnesses being flown in, all of which led to the total vindication of Dr. Noakes and the restoration of his license.10 Turns out Dr. Noakes was right all along — and we’d never have known it if he had been silenced.

It doesn’t matter if you agree with me about cholesterol, or if you agree with the people who disagree with me, or if you agree with Dr. Noakes about the benefits of high-fat diets, or with Dr. Mercola about the benefits of vitamin D3, and it doesn’t matter where you stand on vaccinations. The cost of silencing dissident voices is simply greater than whatever damage could be done by people spouting ideas that the establishment does not agree with.

If you don’t object vehemently to the censorship of ideas expressed in writing, speaking, and video, you are essentially agreeing to the idea of a Truth Police, because somebody’s got to make the decision on what constitutes disinformation.

Who shall that be? The people who work at YouTube and Facebook? The government? The American Heart Association? The Scientologists? The Anti-Scientologists? The Vegans? The Carnivores? Democrats? Republicans? I vote for none of the above!

The only way to not have to solve the awful Rubik Cube problem of who shall be the “Truth Police” is this: Eliminate the position. We don’t need truth police. We need to be able to hear all lawful points of view on any subject and we need to start reading up on things and trusting ourselves to make our own judgements.

And, as long as I’m dreaming, wouldn’t it be nice for us to all make our judgements and arrive at our opinions without being so attached to our tribe’s version of the truth? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could hold our positions on health matters in a space that allowed us to modify our positions when new data and interpretations present themselves?

OK, I know that’s a fantasy, but it’s how science actually works. Science is the practice of questioning things, constantly — offering alternative hypotheses to accepted “wisdom,” and then testing those new hypotheses. If you don’t hold “conventional wisdom” up to examination, then you’re not doing science, you’re doing propaganda. Questioning is how we grow our knowledge base in the first place.

You can’t do that if you silence the questioners. “Disinformation?” Bring it on! I want to hear all points of view. I’ll disregard the ones I think are crazy, but I want the opportunity to decide for myself what makes sense and what doesn’t, and I want you to have that same opportunity.

No matter where we stand on other matters, I hope we can stand together for “open borders” in the marketplace of health information.

Source : Mercola More   

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.