LinkedIn bans anyone who criticizes the anti-nutrition pro-pharma bias of their platform
Discover more from DrV’s Newsletter, Notes, Essays, Articles, Videos, and Book Chapters
LinkedIn bans anyone who criticizes the anti-nutrition pro-pharma bias of their platform
LinkedIn blocked/banned me from their website, again, simply for typing one sentence about a bogus vitamin D study.
In a single sentence, I said that the new vitamin D study published in PLoS Medicine (Annweiler, 2022 May) was bogus because they used supraphysiologic dosing of vitamin D (ie, 400,000 IU) which is 1) known to be harmful and 2) to not provide benefit…and for this LinkedIn blocked/banned me from their website, again.
LinkIn trolls and algorithms blocked and banned me again today, this time because I wrote one single sentence stating that a new vitamin D study was bogus, which it is.
1. Telling the truth (or even having an opinion) is against their policies when it comes to pharma and nutrition
2. LinkedIn says they value their members and they strive for transparency, but then they block you from seeing why they blocked you so you cannot even understand let alone attempt to fix the problem
3. LinkedIn claims to be “fair and consistent” but then blocks experts from using their expertise if that contradicts (even in the smallest way) their pro-pharma and pro-tech bias
I was commenting on a vitamin D study, and I happen to have 20 years of expertise on the topic of vitamin D research and clinical use.
4. This new study (Annweiler, PLoS Medicine 2022 May) used an ineffective and potentially dangerous treatment and the study is therefore unethical and should be withdrawn/retracted immediately to avoid misdirecting healthcare and public policy for millions of people.
This bolus (400,000 IU of vitamin D) treatment is guaranteed to fail, and the failure of this intervention has been established for more than 20 years; as such, this is bogus/incompetent research that is 1) designed to fail, 2) designed to mislead the public and government policymakers, and as such 3) this research is unethical, should not have been published and should be immediately withdrawn/retracted by the journal.
The bolus treatment used in this study is known to be ineffective, as I stated in my 2004 article provided above in PDF format; this article is also indexed by the US National Institute of Health’s PubMed database: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15478784
Other authors independently reached the same conclusion by writing, “The vitamin D bolus is bogus.”
LinkedIn bans anyone who criticizes the anti-nutrition pro-pharma bias of their platform
Good for you, Dr. Vasquez, calling out this utterly bogus vitamin D study. You know every once in a while similarly bogus studies appear, as when the wrong dose of the wrong kind of vitamin E was applied to the wrong clinical condition, and then, predictably, 'Look! It doesn't work!'
LinkedIn is not worth the effort spent. Substack is much better, worth staying here.