diet
The various forms of fasting have many, mostly positive health effects. The most obvious is that of losing weight and body fat. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of measuring the effects of a 14-day Periodic Fasting (PF) intervention (<200 cal) on multi-organs of primary interest (liver, visceral/subcutaneous/bone marrow fat, muscle) using non-invasive advanced magnetic resonance spectroscopic (MRS) and imaging (MRI) methods.
One subject participated in a 14-day PF under daily supervision of nurses and specialized physicians, ingesting a highly reduced intake: 200 Kcal/day coupled with active walking and drinking at least 3 L of liquids/day. The fasting was preceded by a 7-day pre-fasting vegetarian period and followed by 14 days of stepwise reintroduction of food. The longitudinal study collected imaging and biological data before the fast, at peak fasting, and 7 days, 1 month, and 4 months after re-feeding. Body fat mass in the trunk, abdomen, and thigh, liver and muscle mass, were respectively computed using advanced MRI and MRS signal modeling. Fat fraction, MRI relativity index T2* and susceptibility (Chi), as well as Fatty acid composition, were calculated at all-time points.
A decrease in body weight (BW: −9.5%), quadriceps muscle volume (−3.2%), Subcutaneous and Visceral Adipose Tissue (SAT −34.4%; VAT −20.8%), liver fat fraction (PDFF = 1.4 vs. 2.6 % at baseline) but increase in Spine Bone Marrow adipose tissue (BMAT) associated with a 10% increase in global adiposity fraction (PDFF: 54.4 vs. 50.9%) was observed. Femoral BMAT showed minimal changes compared to spinal level, with a slight decrease (−3.1%). Interestingly, fatty acid (FA) pattern changes differed depending on the AT locations. In muscle, all lipids increased after fasting, with a greater increase of intramyocellular lipid (IMCL: from 2.7 to 6.3 mmol/kg) after fasting compared to extramyocellular lipid (EMCL: from 6.2 to 9.5 mmol/kg) as well as Carnosine (6.9 to 8.1 mmol/kg). Heterogenous and reverse changes were also observed after re-feeding depending on the organ.
These results suggest that investigating the effects of a 14-day PF intervention using advanced MRI and MRS is feasible. Quantitative MR indexes are a crucial adjunct to further understanding the effective changes in multiple crucial organs especially liver, spin, and muscle, differences between adipose tissue composition and the interplay that occurs during periodic fasting.
This interesting and well-reported study supports the idea that fasting does not just “burn fat” uniformly; it shifts energy stores differently across organs and fat depots. Visceral fat appears more responsive and more durable in its reduction than subcutaneous fat, which is relevant because visceral fat is more strongly linked to cardiometabolic risk. Because this was a case report with one participant, the findings are best viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive.
The long-standing consensus surrounding moderate alcohol consumption has recently been disrupted by a landmark review. Initiated under a US congressional mandate to evaluate the evidence base for the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the study—convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) alongside the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—concluded that even a single alcoholic beverage per day significantly elevates the risks of serious chronic illness and premature death. After unexplained bureaucratic delays, the release of this taxpayer-funded research delivers a sobering truth: there is no net health benefit derived from alcohol consumption at any level.
For decades, public perception was shaped by data suggesting that a daily glass of wine or beer could act as a cardiovascular shield. This new review systematically dismantles that notion by identifying significant methodological biases in the previous evidence. Chief among these is the “sick quitter” effect, wherein baseline categories of non-drinkers inadvertently included individuals who had abstained precisely because of pre-existing, severe health conditions. By correcting for these distortions, the review demonstrated that health risks accumulate linearly. Alcohol acts as a dose-dependent toxin with no safe lower threshold, and even minimal daily intake accelerates linear risk trajectories for:
- liver cirrhosis,
- severe hypertension,
- various malignancies, including esophageal, colorectal, and breast cancers.
Beyond chronic pathology, low-level consumption also:
- impairs cognitive architecture,
- accelerating brain aging,
- elevates the immediate probability of physical injury.
The friction surrounding the report’s delayed release has exposed systemic vulnerabilities at the intersection of federal policy and corporate lobbying. Historically, US dietary guidelines defined moderate drinking as up to two drinks per day for men and one for women. The new scientific consensus exposes these thresholds as dangerously obsolete, highlighting a stark disconnect between federal health advice and contemporary medical data.
This friction might underscore the impact of the commercial determinants of health, exposing how multi-billion-dollar alcohol conglomerates employ aggressive public relations campaigns and sophisticated scientific interference to preserve market shares. By aggressively marketing alcohol as a benign staple of a healthy lifestyle, the industry had successfully obscured its intrinsic risks. The new evidence shifts the conversation from personal indulgence to an important public health issue.
Update (July 2026): a US government–commissioned analysis of alcohol-related risk was published. Here is its abstract:
The purpose of this study was to estimate the lifetime risk of alcohol-attributable mortality and morbidity in the United States based on a person’s average lifetime weekly alcohol consumption to assess the impact of per-occasion alcohol consumption on health.
Lifetime risks were estimated using a cause-specific modeling approach that combined exposure data from national health surveys, relative risks, population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and morbidity data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. A narrative review assessed the health impact of per-occasion alcohol consumption on health.
At low levels of consumption, no protective net effect of alcohol consumption on health was observed. Elevated mortality and morbidity risks were associated with alcohol consumption starting at relatively low levels. Males consuming >6.5 (95% CI [<1, 13.5]) and females consuming >7.0 (95% CI [<1, 11.5]) drinks per week had life-time alcohol-attributable mortality risks >1:1,000. At >8.5 (95% CI [2.5, 13]) drinks per week for both males and females, these risks increased to >1:100. At 14 drinks per week for males (the upper limit of the former Dietary Guidelines for males), the risk of an alcohol-caused death was 1:25 (4%). Drinking patterns also impacted risk. Above 1 drink per occasion, higher consumption was associated with progressively increased risks of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, and injury.
Alcohol consumption, including at what may be perceived as “moderate” levels, is associated with increased mortality and morbidity risks. These results support tightening alcohol use guidance in the United States, for both males and females, to no more than 1 drink per day.
Public health significance statement: The Alcohol Intake and Health Study shows that for Americans, even what is socially considered “moderate drinking” increases the risk of dying or developing health problems, helping people better understand the net health impact of alcohol. Furthermore, by identifying the levels of alcohol use that raise the risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and injury, these findings can guide individuals, families, and communities in making safer choices about drinking patterns. The results also support changing the U.S. Dietary Guidelines on alcohol to recommend that current adult drinkers consume 1 drink or less in a day.
Authors and independent observers have described the report as having been sidelined during the Trump administration, citing conflicts with industry interests and existing “moderate drinking is safe” messaging.
My previous post provided tips for examining health claims. An area where health claims need to be examined cautiously is supplements, and one UK firm seems to deserve scrutiny more than most. British Supplements, was founded around 2015 by Chris Boyle. Rather than positioning himself as a traditional executive or scientist, Boyle markets himself as a rebellious outsider fighting against a corrupt health industry. He heavily promotes a narrative of “us versus them,” framing himself as a truth-teller. He regularly uses his platform to criticize mainstream competitors like Holland & Barrett, alleging they sell “private-label junk” filled with binders and excipients.
There is no publicly available record of any formal professional background, medical training, scientific schooling, or nutritional education for Chris Boyle. As far as I can see, he does not hold degrees or certifications in biochemistry, pharmacology, dietetics, medicine, or any related fields. In his public branding and communication, Boyle’s lack of formal scientific or medical training is not something he attempts to hide; rather, he weaponizes it as part of his “rebel outsider” persona to build trust with customers who are skeptical of the traditional medical and regulatory establishment.
Boyle’s firm is an online seller of mushroom and herbal products marketed under a “Clean Genuine” label. Operating with an antagonistic, anti-establishment brand voice, the company has constructed a conspiratorial marketing ecosystem designed to bypass UK advertising laws. It has fast grown into a highly profitable, multi-million-pound operation. Despite its “underdog” and “persecuted outsider” marketing narrative, it is now a major player in the direct-to-consumer wellness market, fueled by heavy advertising on social media and public transport. Recently, the company has even taken out a nationwide bus-advertising deal. To sell products like Turkey Tail and Lion’s Mane for serious illnesses without violating UK regulations, Boyle employs a “half-censorship” tactic. By partially starring out crucial terms, he tells customers that he is forced to censor the text due to a corrupt alliance between “Big Pharma” and the UK government.
His website employs customer reviews to make forbidden clinical claims. British Supplements encourages customers to leave detailed, condition-specific feedback, structuring its website collections such that searching for terms like “cancer” highlights these reviews. While the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) demands that customer testimonials used in marketing are legally considered advertisements and must be clinically backed, the company falsely claims that “Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998” protects this type of “free speech”, dismissing regulators as tools of a “United Kingdom of North Korea.”
The brand positions itself within a broader web of alternative-medicine conspiracies. On social media and review platforms like Trustpilot, Boyle aggressively attacks critics. Negative reviewers are routinely insulted, with Boyle publicly labeling them as “woke,” “Karens,” “femboys,” or suffering from “mental breakdowns.”
This aggressive stance is more than just an offensive marketing strategy; it represents a growing public health challenge. By promoting unproven remedies to severely ill patients and actively cultivating distrust in evidence-based medicine and regulatory bodies, British Supplements not only financially exploit vulnerable consumers, it also endager the health of those who might believe in their unsubstantiated claims.
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) likes to present itself as a champion of disease prevention. Its advocates routinely claim to promote health before disease develops, to strengthen the body’s defences, and to address root causes rather than symptoms. This rhetoric is highly attractive, because prevention sounds proactive, humane, and economical. Crucially, it is also good for the SCAM practitioner’s bank account. Yet there is a snag: almost none of the preventive claims made for SCAM are supported by reliable evidence, whereas the prevention that works comes overwhelmingly from conventional medicine and science.
To show preventive benefit, an intervention must demonstrably reduce the incidence of symptom, disease, complication, or mortality in properly designed studies. That may require randomised trials, epidemiological studies, large cohorts, reproducible findings, and enough follow-up to show that fewer people actually experienced the given endpoint. Mainstream medicine has repeatedly met this standard. Immunization, blood pressure control, smoking cessation, lipid lowering, cancer screening, and risk-factor modification are all products of biomedical research, not of alternative healing traditions.
SCAM, by contrast, tends to use prevention in a loose, impressionistic, and unfalsifiable way. A practitioner may claim that a treatment “balances energy,” “supports immunity,” or “keeps the body in harmony,” but such phrases do not establish a preventive effect. They are placeholders for evidence, not evidence itself. In practice, the absence of disease after treatment is treated as proof that the treatment worked, even though the same outcome occurs every day without any intervention at all.
Acupuncture is a good example. Its defenders portray it as a preventive system capable of preserving general health or warding off illness, but the evidence base does not support that claim. Some reviews do suggest that acupuncture may help with some pain-related and symptom-focused conditions, yet its preventive value is largely unproven. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that acupuncture prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Chiropractic care is even more revealing because preventive claims are often tied to the doctrine of spinal “subluxation” and nervous system dysfunction. Yet the literature on prevention is thin and methodologically weak. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that chiropractic prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Herbalism benefits from the romantic appeal of “natural” remedies, but that appeal should not be confused with demonstrated preventive efficacy. Individual plant compounds have certainly inspired real drugs, yet that is a triumph of pharmacology, not of herbalism as a system. When herbal medicines are tested for prevention, results are usually weak, inconsistent, or insufficient to support recommendation. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that herbal medicine prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Homeopathy is one of the most extreme cases within SCAM. It is often sold as gentle, individualized, and even preventive, but its basic principles are scientifically implausible, and its clinical evidence is either flawed or negative. Preventive homeopathy, including ideas such as “homeoprophylaxis,” is particularly problematic because it can give people a false sense of security while displacing interventions that genuinely prevent disease, such as vaccination. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that homeopathy prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
SCAM speaks almost constantly about prevention, but the evidence for actual preventive benefit is close to non-existent. What we know about prevention, what truly reduces disease incidence and improves population health, comes from conventional medicine, epidemiology, public health, and biological science. SCAM will no doubt continue to borrow the language of medicine and prevention, but – as far as I can see – it has failed to supply the proof.
The health-related news comimg out of the US get more worrying by the day. In June 2026, a New World screwworm was detected in Texas cattle for the first time since 1966, a catastrophic failure traceable to the Trump administration’s systematic dismantling of animal disease prevention programs. The flesh-eating parasite, whose larvae consume living tissue and can kill livestock within days, has returned due to preventable policy choices.
Trump slashed over $382 million in USAID funding dedicated to international disease monitoring, including specific programs tracking screwworm spread through Central America and Mexico. More than 100 US-funded FAO programs were thus terminated, representing nearly 10% of the FAO’s planned budget. Scientists had warned for months that screwworm was advancing north through Mexico, accumulating 9,574 confirmed cases by late 2025, yet the administration cut surveillance funding precisely when vigilance was most critical.
The consequences are now undeniable. An infected three-week-old calf was discovered in La Pryor, Texas, approximately 30 miles from the Mexican border, triggering a 20-kilometer quarantine zone. The pest could further shrink the US cattle herd, already at its lowest level in 75 years, potentially costing Texas alone up to $1.8 billion in economic losses through livestock deaths, medication expenses, and labor costs.
Beyond negligence, Trump actively undermined US ranchers. In October 2025, he announced plans to import Argentine beef to lower grocery prices, calling domestic cattle producers’ concerns about tariffs as not understanding economics. The cattle industry condemned this as “undermining the future of farmers” and creating “turmoil at a crucial time”. Canadian authorities subsequently imposed temporary livestock import restrictions from affected Texas areas, emblematic of the international trade vulnerabilities the outbreak creates.
The administration’s response – claiming they “bought time” while defending against inevitable predictions that models showed screwworm entering in 2025 – reads as damage control rather than genuine accomplishment. Meanwhile, the USDA established sterile fly releases and quarantines, emergency measures that should have been unnecessary with proper preventative funding.
Trump’s agricultural policy combines reckless budget cuts with market interference that harms American producers. The screwworm outbreak is not merely bad luck; it is the direct result of prioritizing ideological slashing of foreign aid over protecting American food security and the livelihoods of ranchers who already face record-high consumer prices and shrinking herds.
New World screwworm poses serious, potentially fatal dangers to humans through myiasis, where larvae burrow into and consume living tissue. While primarily affecting livestock, humans can be infested as well – particularly those with open wounds, diabetes, or peripheral vascular disease. The first US human case was confirmed in August 2024. Infestations cause painful, foul-smelling wounds that worsen rapidly and can lead to death if untreated, with scalp involvement carrying an 8% mortality rate as larvae may burrow through the skull into the brain.
Update 11/6/26:
USDA had already confirmed the first US livestock case in decades in a 3-week-old calf in Zavala County, Texas, and by June 9, 2026 it was reporting six domestic animal detections, including cases in Texas, New Mexico, and a goat in Gillespie County.
A few final points:
- Precautions consist in measures like keeping wounds clean and covered, wearing protective clothing, using insect repellent, and sleeping indoors with screens are essential.
- Treatment might include Ivermectin – yes, the drug that was hyped for COVID might finally come into its own.
- The US meat market share in Europe is extremely small, less than 1% of Europe’s total meat consumption.
- The whole story might seem insignificant, would it not confirm the many other ways in which the Trump administration is almost systematically endangering public health in the US and beyond (see previous posts).
For several decades, eggs were commonly portrayed as a major cause of raised cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. That position has been substantially revised: current evidence suggests that dietary cholesterol has a relatively modest effect on blood cholesterol in most people, whereas saturated and trans fats are more important determinants of LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk.
The physiology is more nuanced than the older “cholesterol-in, cholesterol-out” model implied. The liver does synthesise cholesterol endogenously, and many people compensate for increased dietary cholesterol by reducing hepatic production, but the degree of compensation varies considerably between individuals. For that reason, eggs are not best understood as “heart-healthy” in all circumstances, but rather as a food whose impact depends on the wider dietary pattern and the individual’s metabolic risk profile.
There is stronger support for improving lipid profiles by changing the quality of dietary fat and increasing fibre intake. Replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated fats, is associated with lower LDL cholesterol and a reduced risk of cardiovascular events, while soluble fibre helps lower LDL cholesterol by interrupting enterohepatic bile acid recycling. In practical terms, this means that foods such as olive oil, nuts, seeds, legumes, oats, vegetables, and oily fish are more consistently supported than a narrow focus on single items such as eggs.
Low-carbohydrate and ketogenic diets are more complex. Many people lose weight on them, which may improve some cardiometabolic markers, but a subset of lean individuals show pronounced rises in LDL cholesterol and related atherogenic markers during carbohydrate restriction. Emerging evidence also indicates that gut microbial changes may contribute to altered lipid metabolism, although this area is still developing and should not be overstated.
Highly restrictive “detox” or “alternative” dietary programs are unsupported by clinical evidence and may be nutritionally unbalanced and thus harmful. They might be claimed to “purify” the body or reset metabolism, but heart health is better served by sustainable patterns that improve LDL cholesterol, support fibre intake, and minimise excess saturated fat.
What does all that mean in practice? Here are a few simple rules that follow from the new insights:
- Do not over-emphasize dietary cholesterol (e.g., eggs) as a primary driver of cardiovascular risk.
- Focus instead on reducing saturated and trans fat intake.
- Replace saturated fats with unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats (e.g., use olive oil, eat nuts and seeds).
- Increase intake of soluble fibre (e.g., oats, legumes, vegetables) to help lower LDL cholesterol.
- Consider overall dietary patterns rather than judging single foods in isolation.
- Recognize that individual responses to dietary cholesterol vary; tailor intake accordingly if lipid levels are a concern.
- Include foods with consistent cardiovascular benefit, such as oily fish, plant-based foods, and whole grains.
- Be cautious with low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diets, particularly if lean, and monitor lipid profiles if following such diets.
- Prioritize sustainable, balanced eating patterns over restrictive or extreme diets.
- Avoid “detox” or alternative dietary regimens lacking clinical evidence, as they are ineffective or harmful.
Key references
- Carson JAS, Lichtenstein AH, Anderson CAM, et al. Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular risk: a science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141:e39–e53.
- Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1279–1290.
- Hooper L, Martin N, Jimoh OF, et al. Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;(5):CD011730.
- British Heart Foundation. Healthy eating – reduce your risk of developing heart disease. 2023. – Search
- NHS. Facts about fat. 2022. – Search
- Ketogenic Diet reduces friendly gut bacteria and raises cholesterol levels
- Gut bacteria can break down cholesterol | Nature Reviews Cardiology
- Healthy eating: applying All Our Health – GOV.UK
For some time, I had suspected that the stupidity of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. runs deep. Just how deep, is a surprise even to me. Let me give you just two examples from a choice of plenty:
EXAMPLE No 1
In January 2026, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released far-reaching new Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025–2030. They dramatically “flipped the food pyramid” by encouraging Americans to consume red meat and whole milk, sources previously discouraged by public health experts because of their contributios to heart disease and other chronic conditions.
“American households must prioritize whole, nutrient-dense foods—protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains—and dramatically reduce highly processed foods. This is how we Make America Healthy Again”, Kennedy commented. “Thanks to the bold leadership of President Trump, this edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans will reset federal nutrition policy, putting our families and children first as we move towards a healthier nation,” Secretary Rollins said. “At long last, we are realigning our food system to support American farmers, ranchers, and companies that grow and produce real food. Farmers and ranchers are at the forefront of the solution, and that means more protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains on American dinner tables.”
The scientific community responded with outrage, calling it a reckless abandonment of evidence-based nutrition and science. Promoting saturated fats and red meats contradicts decades of medical research and will increase cardiovascular disease rates across the US.
EXAMPLE No 2
In a hilarious revelation Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took to Joe Rogan’s podcast to inform the world that the UK has become a dystopian nightmare. “It’s like the Soviets. It’s like Kafka,” he declared in February 27, 2026.
The trigger for this epiphany? David Lammy, the UK’s Deputy Prime Minister, announced plans to scrap jury trials for offenses carrying less than three years imprisonment. Instead, a judge will decide. Lammy felt that this was necessary because of the backlog that meant cases could not be heard for years. RFK Jr., ever the historian, reminded listeners that the UK was once the “birthplace of Magna Carta”. Now, according to him, the UK is a “dictatorship over speech restrictions”.
Joe Rogan was horrified. “Existential threat to freedom of thought!” he cried, as if the UK had outlawed laughter or something. The pair seemed genuinely shocked that a country with a functioning parliament and a Prime Minister might have different ideas about justice than, say, a certain American podcast audience.
The comparison to Kafka is particularly weird: Kafka’s The Trial features a man arrested by a mysterious bureaucracy for an unspecified crime. Meanwhile, RFK Jr. seems to be arguing that replacing juries with judges in minor cases is the moral equivalent of the Soviet Union. A bold claim, especially from someone whose vis part of a government that checks people’s social media upon arrival – one of several reasons why I would never travel to the US, while these people are in power. But not as bold as Kennedy’s Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines. In his 2025 HHS confirmation hearing, Senator Raphael Warnock pressed him on statements likening the CDC to a “Nazi death camp,” which RFK Jr. denied, claiming he was comparing injury rates rather than the institution itself.
Perhaps the real dystopia is RFK Jr. spending his time lecturing other countries while the US degrades into a Kafkaesque nightmare of its own?
I remember it well: when I was a kid, I went every day in the evening to a nearby farm to fetch a litre of luke warm raw milk. I was lucky; I never caught tuberculosis or any other infection that is transmitted in this way.
Today, raw milk has become the centrepiece of a heated debate. Once only on rural homesteads, unpasteurized milk is now being championed by a powerful coalition of political figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., promoters of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), and “trad wife” influencers. This movement frames raw milk as a “magical health secret” suppressed by a corrupt establishment. However, beneath the veneer of “food freedom” and nostalgic aesthetics lies a complex interplay of populism, nutritional misinformation, outright BS, and significant public health risks.
The issue is largely fuelled by RFK Jr. and his “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) idiocy. For him, raw milk is less of a dietary preference and more of a symbol of resistance against federal overreach. He frequently characterizes the FDA’s restrictions on raw milk as a “war on farmers” and an example of “regulatory capture.” In his worm-eaten mind, federal agencies are not protecting the public from pathogens but are instead protecting the profits of “Big Dairy” by criminalising traditional foodways. By pushing for the legalisation of raw milk, Kennedy taps into a deep-seated distrust of institutions that has intensified in the post-pandemic US. He frames the choice to drink unpasteurized milk as a fundamental civil liberty, positioning himself as a defender of the individual against a nasty “nanny state.”
Simultaneously, the “trad wife” and SCAM movements are providing the lifestyle framework for raw milk promotion. On social media, influencers portray a return to traditional domesticity, featuring sourdough starters, hand-churned butter, and glass jars of creamy, raw milk. In this context, raw milk provides a “moral signal” for those who have little else to worry about. What counts is the willingness to go to great lengths to bypass industrial food systems and provide “pure” and “natural” nourishment for the whole family – because pasteurisation “kills” the milk, destroying vital enzymes and probiotics that could cure everything from asthma to lactose intolerance.
As soon as these claims are held up to scientific scrutiny, the “magic” begins to dissipate. The core argument – namely that raw milk is nutritionally superior – is largely unsupported by sound evidence. Modern pasteurisation is as non-invasive as possible. While heat slightly reduces levels of Vitamin C, milk is not a primary source of that vitamin anyway. Moreover, the levels of protein, calcium, and essential minerals remain virtually identical to the raw product. Furthermore, the valuable “enzymes” touted by advocates are enzymes that the human stomach acid neutralizes before they can be absorbed.
On top of all this, there is potential for serious harm. The most dangerous aspect of the raw milk nonsense is the dismissal of microbial risk. Before pasteurisation became standard in the early 20th century, milk was a leading cause of tuberculosis, typhoid, and scarlet fever. Today, even on the most meticulously managed farms, cows can naturally shed E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria and contamination can occur in a split second during the milking process. The rise of the H5N1 (Bird Flu) virus in dairy cattle in recent years has added a lethal new variable; while pasteurisation effectively inactivates the virus, raw milk remains a potential vector for human infection. A recent study showed, for instance, that unpasteurized milk, consumed by only 3.2% of the population, and cheese, consumed by only 1.6% of the population, caused 96% of illnesses caused by contaminated dairy products.
So, the current raw milk frenzy puts a spotlight on the ignorance of those who support it. While raw milk is marketed as a health-conscious return to nature, it is primarily a brainless and unnecessary revival of long-forgotten risks. Pasteurization is – after immunisation (that is also rejected by these clowns) – one the most successful public health interventions in history. Advocates are not just embracing “food freedom”; they are embracing a level of risk that modern medicine spent a century eliminating.
The US “Health Freedom Movement” (HFM) is a coalition of activists, alternative practitioners, supplement and device manufacturers, and libertarian or populist politicians who oppose strong government regulation of healthcare. They claim to defend the individual’s right to choose any treatment or product they consider beneficial, especially so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Its roots lie in resistance to medical licensing and in movements around homeopathy, naturopathy, and chiropractic, which often portrayed organized medicine as a cartel limiting patient choice. The John Birch Society and other conservative groups use the term to oppose fluoridation, vaccination mandates, and federal health programs. During 1990s–2000s, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, backed by a coalition of supplement companies and “health freedom” advocates, limited the FDA’s pre‑market control over supplements; libertarian politicians like Ron Paul and figures such as Prince/King Charles support aspects of this agenda. More recently, anti‑vaccination activism, opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and then COVID‑19 mandates and vaccines gave the HFM a major boost and re-grouped as “medical freedom” or “health freedom” across partisan lines, but with a strong right‑wing infrastructure.
The HFM’s main players include politicians (e.g. Ron Paul, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and media personalities (e.g. Gary Null, Kevin Trudeau, and many supplement‑selling influencers as well as SCAM doctors). Many of them have strong financial ties to supplement, wellness, or SCAM industry.
The HFM’s stated aims sound liberal: individual autonomy, informed and access to SCAM. In practice, however, its core goals are sharper and consistently deregulatory:
- Limit or abolish pre‑market safety and efficacy requirements for supplements and many SCAMs.
- Oppose or roll back mandatory childhood vaccination, COVID‑19 vaccination and mask rules, school-entry requirements, and sometimes even basic disease‑reporting obligations.
- Resist overarching government health programs, including water fluoridation, electronic health records, and population‑level data sharing, which they portray as surveillance or tyranny.
- Create broad legal shields for all types of SCAM practitioners and restrict the enforcement powers of medical boards and public‑health authorities.
While the rhetoric centres on “freedom” and “choice”, the policy is liberating commercial interests from evidence‑based standards and oversight. For this, the HFM uses a mixture of advocacy and classic populist agitation:
- Legislative lobbying: Drafting model bills that redefine or exempt SCAM practitioners, weaken vaccination requirements, and restrict state health departments’ emergency powers.
- Litigation: Groups such as the “Health Freedom Defense Fund” use lawsuits against mask mandates, vaccine requirements, and school or airline rules both as legal tools and as high‑visibility fundraising and mobilization devices.
- Electoral politics: Endorsing and funding candidates who promise to “reign in” public‑health agencies, defund WHO, or defy CDC guidance; in some places, anti‑vaccine activists have captured local hospital or school boards.
- Media ecosystems: Conferences, podcasts, Substack newsletters, and “documentaries” circulate narratives of regulatory capture, big‑pharma malfeasance, and heroic mavericks, often entwined with sales of supplements or courses.
These activities reinforce distrust of science and conventional medicine and thus create a host of issues and problems:
- Selective use of autonomy: Autonomy is invoked vigorously when opposing vaccines, fluoridation, or regulation of supplements, but tend to disregard it when patients are misled by misinformation, coercive marketing, or opaque conflicts of interest in the alternative sector itself. Yet protection against deception and unsafe products is essential for meaningful autonomy; “choice” among misrepresented options is not genuine choice.
- Systematic downplaying of risk and evidence: The HFM treats lack of evidence of benefit as if it were evidence of safety and legitimacy and often dismisses adverse‑event data. Regulators and critics must meet impossibly high standards, while proponents of SCAM face essentially none.
- Commercial conflicts of interest: Many leading voices within the HFM derive substantial income from selling SCAM. The HFM criticizes “Big Pharma” conflicts of interest while largely ignoring or concealing its own.
- Wilful ignorance of collective harms: Opposition to vaccination, masking, and quarantine treats infections as purely individual matters, neglecting that infectious disease risk is shared and that one person’s “choice” can impose morbidity and mortality on others. Yet any rights framework that leaves no space for legitimate public‑health constraints on individual choice is incompatible with controlling epidemics.
- Alliance with broader conspiracist and extremist currents: Sections of the HFM have fused with anti‑globalist, anti‑UN/WHO, and sometimes far‑right political currents, amplifying conspiracy narratives and distrust that spill over into many domains beyond health. Thus they corrode trust in institutions that are necessary for coordinating large‑scale health responses.
In a nutshell, the HFM is a deregulatory, commercially entangled project that uses the language of liberty to erode evidence‑based medicine and to normalise quackery as well as anti‑vaccination politics. To put it bluntly: the HFM does not seem to operate in the best interest of either the individual patient or the collective public health.
