Double Standards and Double Jeopardy against Nutrition Research, even against life-saving treatments in the time of a "global health emergency" and "crisis"
Double Standards and Double Jeopardy against Nutrition Research, even against life-saving treatments in the time of a "global health emergency" and "crisis"
“Nutrition research faces nearly insurmountable resistance for publication in high-level journals, let alone any mainstream acceptance into clinical practice or insurance reimbursement.” DrV
Observing the recent retraction of a successful vitamin D study (PDF provided below) showing massive safety and benefit against the €0v!D viral infection, I recalled a noteworthy 2001 editorial by Dr Marc Micozzi (PDF provided below) titled “Double Standards and Double Jeopardy for CAM Research” in which he noted that too many studies performed by medical researchers/organizations/shills are designed to fail and find fault when studying “medical alternatives” such as nutrition and chiropractic, and yet when new high-profit drugs are being “investigated” they literally get a green light and a rubber stamp of approval before the results are even published for peer review in the so-called scientific community. Anyone who has watched the news over the last two years has seen experimental vaccines get international government approval based on press releases and marketing materials from the drug companies producing those same drugs. The supposedly scientific data supporting these claims wasn’t even provided to the governments for review, but nonetheless the drugs were approved for multiple billions of dollars of expense to be applied to hundreds of millions of patients yet again without any safety or efficacy data being conclusively demonstrated.
I have seen this play out hundreds of times, for example in the bogus “research” performed against chiropractic to make the profession/treatment look dangerous or inefficacious; one remarkable study showing clinical and cost-saving benefits of chiropractic treatment was ignored because the accompanying editorial published by the journal said that they could not be certain that the results would be applicable to the general population even though the study population had more than 1,000,000 (ONE MILLION) participants!
“A willingness to report negative findings [against medical alternatives such as nutrition and chiropractic] far exceeds the acceptance of positive findings [evidence of safety and efficacy] and there is clear evidence of bias against CAM research. Another aphorism of scientific research is that, “if you need statistics to show positive results, you should have done a better experiment.” Marc Micozzi MD PhD
In the United States, the FDA has granted approval to some drugs following studies with fewer than TWENTY (20) subjects; somehow that is deemed acceptable for high-profit drug approval but a chiropractic study showing safety and benefit gets rejected despite having more than ONE MILLION participants with the false excuse that “more subjects were needed” before the data could be applied to the general population.
“Nutrition research faces nearly insurmountable resistance for publication in high-level journals, let alone any mainstream acceptance into clinical practice or insurance reimbursement.” DrV
Nutrition research faces nearly insurmountable resistance for publication in high-level journals, let alone any mainstream acceptance into clinical practice or insurance reimbursement. As I have reviewed following months and hours of work in my videos, vitamin D shows massive benefit against our current viral plague and yet is almost completely ignored by mainstream media and excluded from routine clinical implementation by mainstream medicine. We understand the need for this treatment because we know that 60 to 80% of the general population worldwide is deficient in this essential nutrient. We understand how to administer it safely. And we understand its effectiveness for a wide range of conditions including:
Positive nutrition (and chiropractic) studies will get relentlessly scrutinized until some minor defect is found to “justify” either withdrawing or ignoring the data, while a negative nutrition/CAM study will be accepted as valid, reported in the mainstream media and infused throughout medical-political culture overnight.
In one of the most recent examples of double standards and double jeopardy, we note the recent vitamin D study using 60,000 international units per day for approximately one week in the treatment of acute viral infection provided biochemical/laboratory benefits as well as clinical benefits against the illness. Almost immediately after publication, the article was withdrawn by the Journal due to a nit-picky technical accusation of failure of the randomization process even though the groups were practically identical per any real-world evaluation. This is basically a technical glitch, if any glitch exists at all. However as I’ve noted previously (PDF provided below), a negative study claiming inefficacy of vitamin D was allowed to be published despite obvious differences between the treatment groups indicating another failure of randomization, but this one was somehow acceptable because the results were negative and were used as evidence against vitamin D’s utility. Positive nutrition (and chiropractic) studies will get relentlessly scrutinized until some minor defect is found to “justify” either withdrawing or ignoring the data, while a negative nutrition/CAM study will be accepted as valid, reported in the mainstream media and infused throughout medical culture overnight.
“€0v!D infection does not cause immune dysregulation (manifesting ultimately as "cytokine storm") as much as it unmasks and amplifies the previously existing immune dysregulation, initiated and maintained by a lifestyle that commonly includes obesity, dysbiosis, and multiple nutritional deficiencies.” DrV
