I’ve had numerous psychotherapy clients tell me that they don’t “believe in vaccines.” I point out that vaccines aren’t like the tooth fairy. The tooth fairy is fictional, vaccines exist. What they don’t believe in, because there’s so much disinformation floating around, is the science underlying the creation of vaccines. I refer people to their physicians. Alas, many folks with high school diplomas or bachelors degrees in art history know more than physicians.
Moving forward, my greatest fear is that we will not produce enough trained medical people to meet our needs. My M.D. brother said that funding cuts to med schools are forcing them to decrease enrollment. We are in a world of hurt! Thank you, Dr. Love, for being a voice of reason and truth.
This is excellent. I do think we are living in such polarizing times that everything gets skewed and reduced to black and white. Yes there are problems with big Pharma (problem of incentives) but of course this doesn't justify falling for the Big Wellness. Not every functional medicine doctor is trying to scam their patients, some are genuinely caring but fell for the "root cause" regime. Dr. Makary is actually a credentialed physician who has made some good arguments in his book. However, his acquiescence to the RFK crazies has so far outweighed any good he may bring to the FDA. Life is more nuanced than what we want it to be but science is definitely under attack and we need more people like you to bring it to light.
I fully agree with your assessment and deeply regret the anti-science demolition work of the Trump administration. I speak with emotion because I am alive thanks to excellent oncologists and advanced medical science: I survived 2 non-Hodgkins lymphomas and a major aggressive skin tumor (epidermoid) that destroyed the facial nerves of my left side face. I partially recovered after major reconstructive surgery and physiotherapy. Keep the good work. However, bear in mind that RFK Jr and MAHA are not the only sources of misinformation and disinformation on medical and health science. There are also instances in which credentialized scientists working in recognized publicly funded institutions (FDA, CDC, major universities) who ignore evidence and manipulate data, sometimes by incompetence and some time because of vested ideological and political interests (I exclude here industry research which as obvious vested interests). To strengthen the effort to contain the attempt by the current Trump administration to demolish science we need to recognize ALSO that there is also "bad" science among the established official science.
It is not possible to underminE scientific research. It simply exists. What actually deserves to be undermined is knowledge monopolies that perpetuate scientific dogamatism. Arguably, the most egregious example of scientific dogmatism is the American Heart Association's anti-saturated fat campaign. Read 'A short history of saturated fat: the making and unmaking of a scientific consensus' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9794145/
Biomedical research is all about developing treatments for diseases. Research to identify a cause so a disease can be prevented does not get funded. Here's an example: "Conclusions: All agreed that a 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of historically low (2%) with currently high (7.5%) linoleic acid intakes on cardiac endpoints would address the knowledge gap about the effects of different omega-6 PUFA intakes on the risk of heart disease." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21430375/
No such study has ever been funded. Why? Because epidemiliogists, not biochemists have controled funding; at least until recently. Excerpt: "Is a particular dietary recommendation harming people in the U.S.? For almost 20 years, scientists have been arguing over whether Americans and others on a typical Western diet are eating too much of omega-6s, a class of essential fatty acids. Some experts, notably ones affiliated with the American Heart Association, credit our current intake of omega-6s with lowering the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Others, which include biochemists, say the relatively high intake of omega-6 is a reason for a slew of chronic illnesses in the Western world, including asthma, various cancers, neurological disorders and cardiovascular disease itself." https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/110212/an-essential-debate
If anyone reading this comment happens to be scientifically curious, do an 'adipose tissue arachidonic acid metabolic syndrome' web search.
Having perused arachidonic acid, endocannabinoid system and eicosanoid research for 8 years, I've concluded that the field of nutrition research is still ignoring dietary arachidonic acid as per this comment: (1996) "Excessive signaling of arachidonic acid (AA) metabolites has been associated with various chronic degenerative or autoimmune diseases, and intervention with the metabolism of AA is widely employed therapeutically in these afflictions. In essence, AA is the most biologically active unsaturated fatty acid in higher animals. Its concentration in membranes and its magnitude of effects depend on its amount, or that of its precursors and analogues, in the diet. The tendency of the field of nutrition to ignore the role of dietary AA will optimistically be reversed in the future." The article also said, "The underlying rationale for this symposium is that dietary AA is perhaps the single most important nutritional determinant in regulating AA levels in Americans. This may ultimately account in part for the striking differences in chronic diseases between strict vegetarians and the bulk of the omnivorous population." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8642436/
David, you’ve clearly spent time exploring a narrow subset of the literature, but your conclusions rely heavily on cherry-picked interpretations and an oversimplification of how science works.
Contrary to your claim, scientific research can be undermined—by distorting findings, defunding rigorous methodologies, or spreading misinformation disguised as “critical thinking.” What you describe as “dogmatism” is often simply the weight of converging evidence and peer-reviewed replication. Not perfect, but far from a “knowledge monopoly.”
As for your example about linoleic acid, the fact that a 5-year RCT hasn’t been funded doesn’t prove bias or suppression—it reflects the real-world limitations of resources and feasibility in nutritional research. It’s ironic that you distrust epidemiology while citing articles that rely heavily on epidemiologic observation to support your arguments about omega-6 fats.
Your fixation on arachidonic acid may be sincere, but framing it as “ignored” by nutrition science is misleading. AA is well-studied in inflammation and immune signaling, and the therapeutic targeting of its pathways (NSAIDs, COX inhibitors) is ubiquitous in clinical medicine.
Bottom line: skepticism is healthy, but it must be paired with humility and methodological literacy—not just contrarian certainty.
Thanks for your comments. I select information to illustrate my points. I do not cherry-pick. I have been researching the connection between nutrient intake and health outcomes for 48 years. I didn't realize what I was doing wrong until I read this. “We now know that major changes have taken place in the food supply over the last 100 years, when food technology and modern agriculture led to enormous production of vegetable oils high in ω-6 fatty acids, and changed animal feeds from grass to grains, thus increasing the amount of ω-6 fatty acids at the level of LA (from oils) and arachidonic acid (AA) (from meat, eggs, dairy). This led to very high amounts of ω-6 fatty acids in the food supply for the first time in the history of human beings.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5093368/
Epidemiologists know that swapping animal protein for plant protein is beneficial. However, they cannot mechanistically explain why. Steve blechmen figured it out. "The Mediterranean diet is low in arachidonic acid and rich in healthy fats such as monounsaturated fats found in extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO), nuts and omega-3 fatty acids from fish, which has been shown to lower the risk of inflammation, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity, and other degenerative diseases." https://advancedmolecularlabs.com/blogs/news/new-red-meat-study-controversy
If you are of the scientifically curious sort, I suggest you do some 'adipost tissue arachidonic acid' web searches in conjunction with whatever mental or physical malady comes to mind. Examples: adipose tissue arachidonic acid metabolic syndrome, adipose tissue arachidonic acid depression, adipose tissue arachidonic acid autism, adipose tissue arachidonic acid breast cancer.
David, thank you for the response. But what you’re describing—“illustrating your point” with selectively supportive literature while dismissing broader consensus—is cherry-picking, regardless of intent.
Your passion for the role of dietary omega-6s and arachidonic acid is clear, but invoking decades of personal research and linking every ailment to one molecule does not strengthen your argument. It suggests tunnel vision. Science advances through testing competing hypotheses, rigorous controls, and replication, not keyword searches followed by confirmation.
Yes, the Western diet has changed dramatically over the last century. And yes, imbalances in fatty acid profiles may play a role in chronic disease. But credible research does not reduce complex, multifactorial conditions like autism, depression, or cancer to one dietary input. Nor does it selectively elevate biochemistry over epidemiology when convenient.
If your position has scientific merit, it must survive scrutiny through transparent, peer-reviewed methodology, not self-reinforcing web searches and broad pathologizing of mainstream nutrition science. That is not curiosity. That is conviction dressed up as inquiry.
I fully agree with your assessment and deeply regret the anti-science demolition work of the Trump administration. I speak with emotion because I am alive thanks to excellent oncologists and advanced medical science: I survived 2 non-Hodgkins lymphomas and a major aggressive skin tumor (epidermoid) that destroyed the facial nerves of my left side face. I partially recovered after major reconstructive surgery and physiotherapy. Keep the good work. However, bear in mind that RFK Jr and MAHA are not the only sources of misinformation and disinformation on medical and health science. There are also instances in which credentialized scientists working in recognized publicly funded institutions (FDA, CDC, major universities) who ignore evidence and manipulate data, sometimes by incompetence and some time because of vested ideological and political interests (I exclude here industry research which as obvious vested interests). To strengthen the effort to contain the attempt by the current Trump administration to demolish science we need to recognize ALSO that there is also "bad" science among the established official science.
As a forensic psychiatry where - for the most part - most patients rarely tell the truth, I find it tremendously disconcerting to find that MAHA physicians are quite comfortable - as a simple matter of discourse - lying, deceiving, and misrepresenting with such authority and frequency as they consistently do. Frankly, it is quite shocking to venture no further than several posts from the home page of SubStack, only to be met with a "BREAKING!" and then discover a complete misrepresentation of a legitimate study, every single day of the week. Take, for example, a recent post of Peter McCullough, stripped of his board certification & hospital admission privileges for disinformation, who took on the issue of myocarditis and the Covid-19 vaccines. He cited a single study, provided a direct link in the NLM, then proceed to lie about its content. Knowing better, I copied the "Conclusion" of the study, added three studies that indicated you are more likely to contract myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 disease that any vaccine, and departed. Within 5-minutes, my email lit up with responses, all grossly vulgar, claiming I "made up" my stupid name, my medical degree was worthless, etc. yet not once mentioning anything I had posted, including a comment from Dr. McCullough. Likewise, I saw him lead a panel (on the "pillow guy's" tv network) detailing a Swedish study where the panel decried the fact that mRNA from a vaccine had "invaded" DNA, despite claims from Pfizer that it was impossible (Karalinska Institute, authors of the study had debunked the purely theoretical study everywhere); an Indian study they reported claimed excess deaths in elderly vaccinated men with comorbidities (but failed to mention the authors suggested a correlation with monsoon season & other weather events only in India); fertility issues (the study only examined rats); and miscarriages (the study was about the timing of vaccinations and a simple mitigating algorithm). Their lying and deception is seemingly endless. I do not claim to be a truth "warrior" by any means, but when I have the opportunity, in my very small corner of the world, I do not hesitate to calmly provide the truth to the best of my ability. Alons enphant...
I’ve had numerous psychotherapy clients tell me that they don’t “believe in vaccines.” I point out that vaccines aren’t like the tooth fairy. The tooth fairy is fictional, vaccines exist. What they don’t believe in, because there’s so much disinformation floating around, is the science underlying the creation of vaccines. I refer people to their physicians. Alas, many folks with high school diplomas or bachelors degrees in art history know more than physicians.
Moving forward, my greatest fear is that we will not produce enough trained medical people to meet our needs. My M.D. brother said that funding cuts to med schools are forcing them to decrease enrollment. We are in a world of hurt! Thank you, Dr. Love, for being a voice of reason and truth.
Another great (real)root cause story- h. Pylori infection underlying peptic ulcer disease.
Yes! I remember when that story broke.
This is excellent. I do think we are living in such polarizing times that everything gets skewed and reduced to black and white. Yes there are problems with big Pharma (problem of incentives) but of course this doesn't justify falling for the Big Wellness. Not every functional medicine doctor is trying to scam their patients, some are genuinely caring but fell for the "root cause" regime. Dr. Makary is actually a credentialed physician who has made some good arguments in his book. However, his acquiescence to the RFK crazies has so far outweighed any good he may bring to the FDA. Life is more nuanced than what we want it to be but science is definitely under attack and we need more people like you to bring it to light.
I fully agree with your assessment and deeply regret the anti-science demolition work of the Trump administration. I speak with emotion because I am alive thanks to excellent oncologists and advanced medical science: I survived 2 non-Hodgkins lymphomas and a major aggressive skin tumor (epidermoid) that destroyed the facial nerves of my left side face. I partially recovered after major reconstructive surgery and physiotherapy. Keep the good work. However, bear in mind that RFK Jr and MAHA are not the only sources of misinformation and disinformation on medical and health science. There are also instances in which credentialized scientists working in recognized publicly funded institutions (FDA, CDC, major universities) who ignore evidence and manipulate data, sometimes by incompetence and some time because of vested ideological and political interests (I exclude here industry research which as obvious vested interests). To strengthen the effort to contain the attempt by the current Trump administration to demolish science we need to recognize ALSO that there is also "bad" science among the established official science.
It is not possible to underminE scientific research. It simply exists. What actually deserves to be undermined is knowledge monopolies that perpetuate scientific dogamatism. Arguably, the most egregious example of scientific dogmatism is the American Heart Association's anti-saturated fat campaign. Read 'A short history of saturated fat: the making and unmaking of a scientific consensus' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9794145/
Scientific consensus is also a faulty construct. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2719747/
It’s not possible to undermine research? Do you not see the gutting of funding to…. Conduct research?
Biomedical research is all about developing treatments for diseases. Research to identify a cause so a disease can be prevented does not get funded. Here's an example: "Conclusions: All agreed that a 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of historically low (2%) with currently high (7.5%) linoleic acid intakes on cardiac endpoints would address the knowledge gap about the effects of different omega-6 PUFA intakes on the risk of heart disease." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21430375/
No such study has ever been funded. Why? Because epidemiliogists, not biochemists have controled funding; at least until recently. Excerpt: "Is a particular dietary recommendation harming people in the U.S.? For almost 20 years, scientists have been arguing over whether Americans and others on a typical Western diet are eating too much of omega-6s, a class of essential fatty acids. Some experts, notably ones affiliated with the American Heart Association, credit our current intake of omega-6s with lowering the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Others, which include biochemists, say the relatively high intake of omega-6 is a reason for a slew of chronic illnesses in the Western world, including asthma, various cancers, neurological disorders and cardiovascular disease itself." https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/110212/an-essential-debate
If anyone reading this comment happens to be scientifically curious, do an 'adipose tissue arachidonic acid metabolic syndrome' web search.
Having perused arachidonic acid, endocannabinoid system and eicosanoid research for 8 years, I've concluded that the field of nutrition research is still ignoring dietary arachidonic acid as per this comment: (1996) "Excessive signaling of arachidonic acid (AA) metabolites has been associated with various chronic degenerative or autoimmune diseases, and intervention with the metabolism of AA is widely employed therapeutically in these afflictions. In essence, AA is the most biologically active unsaturated fatty acid in higher animals. Its concentration in membranes and its magnitude of effects depend on its amount, or that of its precursors and analogues, in the diet. The tendency of the field of nutrition to ignore the role of dietary AA will optimistically be reversed in the future." The article also said, "The underlying rationale for this symposium is that dietary AA is perhaps the single most important nutritional determinant in regulating AA levels in Americans. This may ultimately account in part for the striking differences in chronic diseases between strict vegetarians and the bulk of the omnivorous population." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8642436/
David, you’ve clearly spent time exploring a narrow subset of the literature, but your conclusions rely heavily on cherry-picked interpretations and an oversimplification of how science works.
Contrary to your claim, scientific research can be undermined—by distorting findings, defunding rigorous methodologies, or spreading misinformation disguised as “critical thinking.” What you describe as “dogmatism” is often simply the weight of converging evidence and peer-reviewed replication. Not perfect, but far from a “knowledge monopoly.”
As for your example about linoleic acid, the fact that a 5-year RCT hasn’t been funded doesn’t prove bias or suppression—it reflects the real-world limitations of resources and feasibility in nutritional research. It’s ironic that you distrust epidemiology while citing articles that rely heavily on epidemiologic observation to support your arguments about omega-6 fats.
Your fixation on arachidonic acid may be sincere, but framing it as “ignored” by nutrition science is misleading. AA is well-studied in inflammation and immune signaling, and the therapeutic targeting of its pathways (NSAIDs, COX inhibitors) is ubiquitous in clinical medicine.
Bottom line: skepticism is healthy, but it must be paired with humility and methodological literacy—not just contrarian certainty.
Thanks for your comments. I select information to illustrate my points. I do not cherry-pick. I have been researching the connection between nutrient intake and health outcomes for 48 years. I didn't realize what I was doing wrong until I read this. “We now know that major changes have taken place in the food supply over the last 100 years, when food technology and modern agriculture led to enormous production of vegetable oils high in ω-6 fatty acids, and changed animal feeds from grass to grains, thus increasing the amount of ω-6 fatty acids at the level of LA (from oils) and arachidonic acid (AA) (from meat, eggs, dairy). This led to very high amounts of ω-6 fatty acids in the food supply for the first time in the history of human beings.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5093368/
Epidemiologists know that swapping animal protein for plant protein is beneficial. However, they cannot mechanistically explain why. Steve blechmen figured it out. "The Mediterranean diet is low in arachidonic acid and rich in healthy fats such as monounsaturated fats found in extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO), nuts and omega-3 fatty acids from fish, which has been shown to lower the risk of inflammation, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity, and other degenerative diseases." https://advancedmolecularlabs.com/blogs/news/new-red-meat-study-controversy
If you are of the scientifically curious sort, I suggest you do some 'adipost tissue arachidonic acid' web searches in conjunction with whatever mental or physical malady comes to mind. Examples: adipose tissue arachidonic acid metabolic syndrome, adipose tissue arachidonic acid depression, adipose tissue arachidonic acid autism, adipose tissue arachidonic acid breast cancer.
David, thank you for the response. But what you’re describing—“illustrating your point” with selectively supportive literature while dismissing broader consensus—is cherry-picking, regardless of intent.
Your passion for the role of dietary omega-6s and arachidonic acid is clear, but invoking decades of personal research and linking every ailment to one molecule does not strengthen your argument. It suggests tunnel vision. Science advances through testing competing hypotheses, rigorous controls, and replication, not keyword searches followed by confirmation.
Yes, the Western diet has changed dramatically over the last century. And yes, imbalances in fatty acid profiles may play a role in chronic disease. But credible research does not reduce complex, multifactorial conditions like autism, depression, or cancer to one dietary input. Nor does it selectively elevate biochemistry over epidemiology when convenient.
If your position has scientific merit, it must survive scrutiny through transparent, peer-reviewed methodology, not self-reinforcing web searches and broad pathologizing of mainstream nutrition science. That is not curiosity. That is conviction dressed up as inquiry.
I fully agree with your assessment and deeply regret the anti-science demolition work of the Trump administration. I speak with emotion because I am alive thanks to excellent oncologists and advanced medical science: I survived 2 non-Hodgkins lymphomas and a major aggressive skin tumor (epidermoid) that destroyed the facial nerves of my left side face. I partially recovered after major reconstructive surgery and physiotherapy. Keep the good work. However, bear in mind that RFK Jr and MAHA are not the only sources of misinformation and disinformation on medical and health science. There are also instances in which credentialized scientists working in recognized publicly funded institutions (FDA, CDC, major universities) who ignore evidence and manipulate data, sometimes by incompetence and some time because of vested ideological and political interests (I exclude here industry research which as obvious vested interests). To strengthen the effort to contain the attempt by the current Trump administration to demolish science we need to recognize ALSO that there is also "bad" science among the established official science.
As a forensic psychiatry where - for the most part - most patients rarely tell the truth, I find it tremendously disconcerting to find that MAHA physicians are quite comfortable - as a simple matter of discourse - lying, deceiving, and misrepresenting with such authority and frequency as they consistently do. Frankly, it is quite shocking to venture no further than several posts from the home page of SubStack, only to be met with a "BREAKING!" and then discover a complete misrepresentation of a legitimate study, every single day of the week. Take, for example, a recent post of Peter McCullough, stripped of his board certification & hospital admission privileges for disinformation, who took on the issue of myocarditis and the Covid-19 vaccines. He cited a single study, provided a direct link in the NLM, then proceed to lie about its content. Knowing better, I copied the "Conclusion" of the study, added three studies that indicated you are more likely to contract myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 disease that any vaccine, and departed. Within 5-minutes, my email lit up with responses, all grossly vulgar, claiming I "made up" my stupid name, my medical degree was worthless, etc. yet not once mentioning anything I had posted, including a comment from Dr. McCullough. Likewise, I saw him lead a panel (on the "pillow guy's" tv network) detailing a Swedish study where the panel decried the fact that mRNA from a vaccine had "invaded" DNA, despite claims from Pfizer that it was impossible (Karalinska Institute, authors of the study had debunked the purely theoretical study everywhere); an Indian study they reported claimed excess deaths in elderly vaccinated men with comorbidities (but failed to mention the authors suggested a correlation with monsoon season & other weather events only in India); fertility issues (the study only examined rats); and miscarriages (the study was about the timing of vaccinations and a simple mitigating algorithm). Their lying and deception is seemingly endless. I do not claim to be a truth "warrior" by any means, but when I have the opportunity, in my very small corner of the world, I do not hesitate to calmly provide the truth to the best of my ability. Alons enphant...
That's the thing about (real) science. It's true whether you believe it or not.
Attributed to Neil deGrasse Tyson.