Articles like this on nutrition in the New England Journal of Medicine use a range of strategies to confuse and confabulate the entire topic of clinical nutrition, so that doctors/policymakers will be confused and repulsed by the topic, thereby allowing the drug-medical cartel to reign supreme with the only alternatives and authority being that of drug-pushing and drug-dependency.
See: my previous post from yesterday that contains the full text of the article.
Citation: Allen LH. Micronutrients - Assessment, Requirements, Deficiencies, and Interventions. N Engl J Med. 2025 Mar 6;392(10):1006-1016
NEJM is the vanguard of “medical libertarianism” pushing the paradigm of “we will say and do anything we want because we say and do anything we want” to promote medical dominance and drug/surgery dependence.
TWENTY-ONE (21) STRATEGIES used by the major medical journals (eg, Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, BMJ) and the Drug Cartel to SNAFU the conversation on Nutrition:
Misrepresenting the state of the clinical art: Publication of stale, outdated, incomplete information with the pretense that it reflects the current state of the art.
Self-Contradiction: Contradicting their own publications when doing so is convenient for ongoing medical hegemony and drug sales.
Fake placebos: Violating any and all reasonable standards with regard to the selection of placebos—when they want nutrition to look ineffective, they use a very competitive active placebo; when they want nutrition to look effective (for example when trying to promote sales of a patented prescription-only form of fish oil) then they use a dangerous/harmful placebo to make the prescription product look safe and effective.
Stonewalling: Refusing to publish counterpoints—in my experience with publishing articles/letters for the past 30+ years, NEJM is the only journal that has consistently (eg, 3-4x) refused to publish my critiques, even when I cite authoritative data, especially emphasizing data from their own publication.
Fake clinical standards: Using 1) wrong laboratory tests, 2) wrong reference ranges, 3) inadequate supplement dosing [or using 4) toxic/bolus dosing], 5) inadequate durations, 6) delayed implementation of intervention, against 7) false placebos 8) inappropriate outcome markers in order to fake the appearance of using objective laboratory assessments and “placebo-controlled studies” to pseudo-establish that deficiencies don’t exist and that supplementation does not provide benefit.
Abnormal formatting to confuse the reader: Using awkward formatting so that the articles are more difficult to read and interpret. Allen in “Micronutrients - Assessment, Requirements, Deficiencies, and Interventions. N Engl J Med. 2025 Mar” demonstrates the most defective use of tables and abbreviations that I have ever seen in my 30+ years of looking at research—for such a simple article, the data should have been presented clearly.
Biased article access to tilt the dominant narrative: Pro-drug and anti-nutrition articles are generally made available by the journals for free, while drug-negative and pro-nutrition articles are generally restricted behind a paywall (even when the research was funded by taxpayer dollars and should therefore be in the public domain) to reduce access. This obviously results in an imbalance of data availability, with pro-drug anti-nutrition articles gaining more access to the public and the corporate news media, while pro-nutrition articles are hard to find for the public, doctors, politicians, and the media.
Confusing/unprofessional article format—but only when talking about nutrition: Using tables to “summarize” information without having presented and substantiated the information in the text. This is strategically bad editing and typesetting, but only when discussing Nutrition.
False promises of oversimplification: Consistently promising their readership of doctors to cover the entire topic of nutrition within a few pages and consistently failing to deliver—this cannot avoid disappointing their readership and promoting aversion to the topic of nutrition. Allen in “Micronutrients - Assessment, Requirements, Deficiencies, and Interventions. N Engl J Med. 2025 Mar” promises to review 20 micronutrients but only reviews 12 of them and provides 0 (zero) clear instruction on how to implement supplementation on any of the reviewed nutrients. Image the reverse: a review article on antibiotics that fails to mention dosing and clinical applications—such an article would be seen as worthless and would never be published.
Nonstandard terminology to confuse the topic of Nutrition: Using awkward terminology and unknown abbreviations instead of clearly communicating the data in a manner that is clinically useful.
Bizzaire contortions of language to promote confusion: Using bizzaire contortions of language instead of simply speaking clearly; using distractions to waste the time of the reader—but only when discussing nutrition.
"Conclusions: Changes in dietary composition within prevailing norms can affect physiological adaptations that defend body weight." JAMA 2004 Nov
In order to confuse a very important topic, THE LANCET* starts an Editorial on vitamin D and Covid (as in the global plandemic that was and is the greatest medical crisis of our lifetimes) by quoting a beer commercial from 1936; you would NEVER see such journalistic misbehavior in discussions about antibiotics or vaccines but you can see this absurdity with high freuquency in medical journal articles discussing nutrition—their goal is to make the topic appear absurd and confusing. * Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2021 Feb
VIDEO REVIEW the Importance of Vitamin D in Antiviral Defense and Immunomodulation: The COVID Scandal of Intentional Ignorance
·
Learn more with these articles and videos on vitamin D:
Excluding relevant clinical trial data to promote the conclusion that no clinical trial data exists: Failing to include relevant clinical trial data and then stating “clinical evidence does not exist.” Failure to review relevant recent research is a form of scientific misbehavior.
Lack of appropriate detail: Failing to include details, nuance, and context that would make the information useful for doctors. This article does NOT represent the clinical practice of nutrition as performed by nutrition-knowledgeable doctors.
False promises: Pretending to provide complete reviews but failing to do so; the article “Micronutrients — Assessment, Requirements, Deficiencies, and Interventions” in N Engl J Med 2025Mar completely fails to detail interventions for most of the nutrients that are discussed. The intervention recommendations are outdated and inadequate and incomplete.
Double standards, double jeopardy: Whenever they find results that “nutrition does not work” then they are very sure of the results, significance and break-through clinical importance; the article gets double exposure with an accompanying Editorial and is generally made available for free. If they later perform an additional analysis using the same data and the same population and the same intervention and find that “nutritional supplementation reduces cancer risk by 25%” then they frame it as a “suggestion” and “a trend in a positive direction.”
Administering nutritional interventions at the same time as drugs/vaccines and then giving all the credit to drugs/vaccines: Giving inappropriate credit to vaccines when implementing nutritional interventions at the same time. British Medical Journal 2019 published 2 articles that served as HPV vaccine advertisements while the authors and editors intentionally overlooked a nationwide vitamin D supplementation program, with vitamin D already having a proven role in combating viral infections in general and HPV in particular.
Buying influence in television and printed media with advertising dollars: Drug companies in America use direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA), which is illegal in most other countries, with the pretense of “informing” and “educating the public about advances in medicine and science” but the true aim of this strategy is not simply to advertise their products but rather to influence television/newspaper/magazine editors—when media outlets receive the majority of their funding from drug company advertisements, those media outlets are highly unlikely to pursue and publish news that offends the drug industry; on the contrary, these news outlets publish stories glorifying the drug-medical industry, thereby grooming the audience to be evermore receptive to using medical solutions for all their nonmedical problems. Likewise, drug companies fund multimillion-dollar advertisements in medical journals and thus likewise skew editorial decisions toward publishing pro-drug and anti-nutrition articles masked as “research.”
“Journals with the most pharmaceutical advertisements (pharmads) published significantly fewer major articles about dietary supplements (DS) per issue than journals with the fewest pharmads (P < 0.01). Journals with the most pharmads published no clinical trials or cohort studies about DS. The percentage of major articles concluding that DS were unsafe was 4% in journals with fewest and 67% among those with the most pharmads (P = 0.02). The percentage of articles concluding that DS were ineffective was 50% higher among journals with more than among those with fewer pharmads (P = 0.4). Conclusion: These data are consistent with the hypothesis that increased pharmaceutical advertising is associated with publishing fewer articles about DS and publishing more articles with conclusions that DS are unsafe.” Kemper KJ, Hood KL. Does pharmaceutical advertising affect journal publication about dietary supplements? BMC Complement Altern Med 2008 Apr 9;8:11. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-8-11 PMC2322947.
Repeatedly claiming that nutritional supplements are dangerous because the US FDA has failed to appreciate the substantial research and then claiming that this strategic ignorance is evidence that no evidence exists: Bullshit about “FDA regulation” and “quality standardization” is a recurrent motif in pro-drug and anti-nutrition propaganda; meanwhile, FDA-endorsed drugs have abysmal quality control and are a leading cause of death in the United States even though these drugs are government-endorsed and mostly administered by American-educated American-trained American-licensed physicians. Schmeling M, Manniche V, Hansen PR. Batch-dependent safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Eur J Clin Invest. 2023 Aug;53(8):e13998 https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13998
Character assassination, censorship of information, prebunking: Using coordinated attacks against experts and anyone else who interferes with absolute medical hegemony.
When Eric Topol MD published the obvious data showing that Vioxx was lethal and that the FDA and Merck colluded to mislead doctors and the public, he was fired from his position at Cleveland Clinic.
Merck Created Hit List to "Destroy," "Neutralize" or "Discredit" Dissenting Doctors https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/merck-created-hit-list-to-destroy-neutralize-or-discredit-dissenting-doctors/
The drug company Merck drew up a list of influential doctors and researchers it wanted to “neutralise” and “discredit,” as part of its marketing of the arthritis drug Vioxx (rofecoxib), according to evidence heard by an Australian court this week. https://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1432
Dr Alex Vasquez published Antiviral Nutrition in 2014 and the book was consistently ranked as a best-seller, but Amazon censored the book at the start of the 2020 plandemic to erase any options from the treatment repertoire for covid to pave the way for drug/vaccine-dependency.
Perpetually and systematically failing to educate medical doctors about Nutrition in medical school and post-graduate training programs: Consistently failing to educate doctors about nutrition in medical school and hospital-training/residency programs keeps doctors ignorant and skeptical about the entire topic of nutrition, which is otherwise as simple as ensuring that the body has the molecules and means to support optimal function.
Completely ignoring the entire science of Pharmacology in any discussion on Nutrition, as if the concepts of Administration, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion (ADME) only applied to drugs: All medical students have to study the science of drug metabolism because the Administration, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion (ADME) of each drug is different and important for proper patient treatment in each specific situation. But according to the major medical tabloids, the science of Pharmacology isn’t applied to Nutrition because that would help legitimize the science of Nutrition. Being reckless with Pharmacology is one of the strategies used by the medical cartel to delegitimize Nutrition and misapply nutrients in clinical scenarios in ways designed to make nutrition appear ineffective.
COUNTERING the PBS-NYT-JAMA-NEJM-HARVARD COORDINATED DISINFORMATION against Nutritional Supplements, Fish Oil, to promote "prescription-only" drug sales
In 2016, PBS-NYT published a biased hit-piece docudrama against nutritional supplementation in general and the nutrition industry in particular; this was part of a coordinated effort that included an onslaught of bogus research that would not be published until 2018 in order to condemn
Self-Paced Learning: Antiviral Nutrition Protocol Structure, Science, Application
We all need a better understanding of viral infections, especially now
Share this post