Tag: science

Posted on in americanpolitics, beliefs, Bible, biblicalworldview, bigpharma, biology, christianfaith, coercivecontrol, evolution, genderideology, historicalfigures, holistic health, industrialinfluence, manipulation, materalism, mental health, mentalhealth, mentalhealthindustry, nervous system, neuroplasticity, neuroscience, nuance, pastoralcounseling, philosophy, podcast, politics, pseudoscience, religion, research, science, scripture, therapy, therapyharm, trauma

Beneath the White Coats: Psychiatry, Eugenics, and the Forgotten Graves

Dogma in a Lab Coat

We like to believe science is self-correcting—that data drives discovery, that good ideas rise, and bad ones fall. But when it comes to mental health, modern society is still tethered to a deeply flawed framework—one that pathologizes human experience, medicalizes distress, and often does more harm than good.

Psychiatry has long promised progress, yet history tells a different story. From outdated treatments like bloodletting to today’s overprescription of SSRIs, we’ve traded one form of blind faith for another. These drugs—still experimental in many respects—carry serious risks, yet are handed out at staggering rates. And rather than healing root causes, they often reinforce a narrative of victimhood and chronic dysfunction.

The pharmaceutical industry now drives diagnosis rates, shaping public perception and clinical practice in ways that few understand. What’s marketed as care is often a system of control. In this episode, we revisit the dangers of consensus-driven science—how it silences dissent and rewards conformity.

Because science, like religion or politics, can become dogma. Paradigms harden. Institutions protect their power. And the costs are human lives.

But beneath this entire structure lies a deeper, more uncomfortable question—one we rarely ask:

What does it mean to be a person?

Are we just bodies and brains—repairable, programmable, replaceable? Or is there something more?

Is consciousness a glitch of chemistry, or is it a window into the soul?

Modern psychiatry doesn’t just treat symptoms—it defines the boundaries of personhood. It tells us who counts, who’s disordered, who can be trusted with autonomy—and who can’t.

But what if those definitions are wrong?

We’ve talked before about the risks of unquestioned paradigms—how ideas become dogma, and dogma becomes control. In a past episode, How Dogma Limits Progress in Fitness, Nutrition, and Spirituality, we explored Rupert Sheldrake’s challenge to the dominant scientific worldview—his argument that science itself had become a belief system, closing itself off to dissent. TED removed that talk, calling it “pseudoscience.” But many saw it as an attempt to protect the status quo—the high priests of data and empiricism silencing heresy in the name of progress. We will revisit his work later on in our conversation. 

We’ve also discussed how science, more than politics or religion, is often weaponized to control behavior, shape belief, and reinforce social hierarchies. And in a recent Taste Test Thursday episode, we dug into how the industrial food system was shaped not just by profit but by ideology—driven by a merger of science and faith.

To read more:

The Convergence of Science, Religion, and Society: A Look at the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

This framework—that science is never truly neutral—becomes especially chilling when you look at the history of psychiatry.

To begin this conversation, we’re going back—not to Freud or Prozac, but further. To the roots of American psychiatry. To two early figures—John Galt and Benjamin Rush—whose ideas helped define the trajectory of an entire field. What we find there presents a choice: a path toward genuine hope, or a legacy of continued harm.

This  story takes us into the forgotten corners of that history, a place where “normal” and “abnormal” were declared not by discovery, but by decree.

Clinical psychiatrist Paul Minot put it plainly:

“Psychiatry is so ashamed of its history that it has deleted much of it.”

And for good reason.

Psychiatry’s early roots weren’t just tangled with bad science—they were soaked in ideology. What passed for “treatment” was often social control, justified through a veneer of medical language. Institutions were built not to heal, but to hide. Lives were labeled defective. 

We would like to think that medicine is objective, that the white coat stands for healing. But behind those coats was a mission to save society from the so-called “abnormal.”
But who defined normal?
And who paid the price?

The Forgotten Legacy of Dr. John Galt

Lithograph, “Virginia Lunatic Asylum at Williamsburg, Va.” by Thomas Charles Millington, ca.1845. Block & Building Files – Public Hospital, Block 04, Box 07. Image citation: D2018-COPY-1104-001. Special Collections.

Long before DSM codes and Big Pharma, the first freestanding mental hospital  in America called Eastern Lunatic Asylum opened its doors in 1773—just down the road from where I live, in Williamsburg, Virginia. Though officially declared a hospital, it was commonly known as “The Madhouse.” For most who entered, institutionalization meant isolation, dehumanization, and often treatment worse than what was afforded to livestock. Mental illness was framed as a threat to the social order—those deemed “abnormal” were removed from society and punished in the name of care.

But one man dared to imagine something different.

Dr. John Galt II, appointed as the first medical superintendent of the hospital (later known as Eastern State), came from a family of alienists—an old-fashioned term for early psychiatrists. The word comes from the Latin alienus, meaning “other” or “stranger,” and referred to those considered mentally “alienated” from themselves or society. Today, of course, the word alien has taken on very different connotations—especially in the heated political debates over immigration. It’s worth clarifying: the historical use of alienist had nothing to do with immigration or nationality. It was a clinical label tied to 19th-century psychiatry, not race or citizenship. But like many terms, it’s often misunderstood or manipulated in modern discourse.

Galt, notably, broke with the harsh legacy of many alienists of his time. Inspired by French psychiatrist Philippe Pinel—often credited as the first true psychiatrist—Galt embraced a radically compassionate model known as moral therapy. Where others saw madness as a threat to be controlled, Galt saw suffering that could be soothed. He believed the mentally ill deserved dignity, freedom, and individualized care—not chains or punishment. He refused to segregate patients by race. He treated enslaved people alongside the free. And he opposed the rising belief—already popular among his fellow psychiatrists—that madness was simply inherited, and the mad were unworthy of full personhood.

Credit: The Valentine
Original Author: Cook Collection
Created: Late nineteenth to early twentieth century

Rather than seeing madness as a biological defect to be subdued or “cured,” Galt and Pinel viewed it as a crisis of the soul. Their methods rejected medical manipulation and instead focused on restoring dignity. They believed that those struggling with mental affliction should be treated not as deviants but as ordinary people, worthy of love, freedom, and respect.

Dr. Marshall Ledger, founder and editor of Penn Medicine, once quoted historian Nancy Tomes to summarize this period:

“Medical science in this period contributed to the understanding of mental illness, but patient care improved less because of any medical advance than because of one simple factor: Christian charity and common sense.”

Galt’s asylum was one of the only institutions in the United States to treat enslaved people and free Black patients equally—and even to employ them as caregivers. He insisted that every person, regardless of race, had a soul of equal moral worth. His belief in equality and metaphysical healing put him at odds with nearly every other psychiatrist of his time.

And he paid the price.

The psychiatric establishment, closely allied with state power and emerging medical-industrial interests, rejected his human-centered model. Most psychiatrists of the era endorsed slavery and upheld racist pseudoscience. The prevailing consensus was rooted in hereditary determinism—that madness and criminality were genetically transmitted, particularly among the “unfit.”

This growing belief—that mental illness was a biological flaw to be medically managed—was not just a scientific view, but an ideological one. Had Galt’s model of moral therapy been embraced more broadly, it would have undermined the growing assumption that biology and state-run institutions offered the only path to sanity. It would have challenged the idea that human suffering could—and should—be controlled by external authorities.

Instead, psychiatry aligned with power.

Moral therapy was quietly abandoned. And the field moved steadily toward the medicalized, racialized, and state-controlled version of mental health that would pave the way for both eugenics and the modern pharmaceutical regime.

“The Father of American Psychiatry”

Long before Auschwitz. Long before the Eugenics Record Office. Long before sterilization laws and IQ tests, there was Dr. Benjamin Rush—signer of the Declaration of Independence, founder of the first American medical school, and the man still honored as the “father of American psychiatry.” His portrait hangs today in the headquarters of the American Psychiatric Association.

Though many historians point to Francis Galton as the father of eugenics, it was Rush—nearly a century earlier—who laid much of the ideological groundwork. He argued that mental illness was biologically determined and hereditary. And he didn’t stop there.

Rush infamously diagnosed Blackness itself as a form of disease—what he called “negritude.” He theorized that Black people suffered from a kind of leprosy, and that their skin color and behavior could, in theory, be “cured.” He also tied criminality, alcoholism, and madness to inherited degeneracy, particularly among poor and non-white populations.

These ideas found a troubling ally in Charles Darwin’s emerging theories of evolution and heredity. While Darwin’s work revolutionized biology, it was often misused to justify racist notions of racial hierarchy and biological determinism.

Rush’s medical theories were mainstream and deeply influential, shaping generations of physicians and psychiatrists. Together, these ideas reinforced the belief that social deviance and mental illness were rooted in faulty bloodlines—pseudoscientific reasoning that provided a veneer of legitimacy to racism and social control within medicine and psychiatry.

The tragic irony? While Rush advocated for the humane treatment of the mentally ill in certain respects, his racial theories helped pave the way for the pathologizing of entire populations—a mindset that would fuel both American and European eugenics movements in the next century.

American Eugenics: The Soil Psychiatry Grew From

Before Hitler, there was Cold Spring Harbor. Founded in 1910, the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) operated out of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York with major funding from the Carnegie Institution, later joined by Rockefeller Foundation money. It became the central hub for American eugenic research, gathering family pedigrees to trace so-called hereditary defects like “feeblemindedness,” “criminality,” and “pauperism.”

Between the early 1900s and 1970s, over 30 U.S. states passed forced sterilization laws targeting tens of thousands of people deemed unfit to reproduce. The justification? Traits like alcoholism, poverty, promiscuity, deafness, blindness, low IQ, and mental illness were cast as genetic liabilities that threatened the health of the nation.

The practice was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 in the infamous case of Buck v. Bell. In an 8–1 decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” greenlighting the sterilization of 18-year-old Carrie Buck, a young woman institutionalized for being “feebleminded”—a label also applied to her mother and child. The ruling led to an estimated 60,000+ sterilizations across the U.S.

And yes—those sterilizations disproportionately targeted African American, Native American, and Latina women, often without informed consent. In North Carolina alone, Black women made up nearly 65% of sterilizations by the 1960s, despite being a much smaller share of the population.

Eugenics wasn’t a fringe pseudoscience. It was mainstream policy—supported by elite universities, philanthropists, politicians, and the medical establishment.

And psychiatry was its institutional partner.

The American Journal of Psychiatry published favorable discussions of sterilization and even euthanasia for the mentally ill as early as the 1930s. American psychiatrists traveled to Nazi Germany to observe and advise, and German doctors openly cited U.S. laws and scholarship as inspiration for their own racial hygiene programs.

In some cases, the United States led—and Nazi Germany followed.

The International Congress of Eugenics’ Logo 1921

This isn’t conspiracy. It’s history. Documented, peer-reviewed, and disturbingly overlooked.

From Ideology to Institution

By the early 20th century, the groundwork had been laid. Psychiatry had evolved from a fringe field rooted in speculation and racial ideology into a powerful institutional force—backed by universities, governments, and the courts. But its foundation was still deeply compromised. What had begun with Benjamin Rush’s biologically deterministic theories and America’s eugenic policies now matured into a formalized doctrine—one that treated human suffering not as a relational or spiritual crisis, but as a defect to be categorized, corrected, or eliminated.

This is where the five core doctrines of modern psychiatry emerge.

The Five Doctrines That Shaped Modern Psychiatry

These five doctrines weren’t abandoned after World War II. They were rebranded, exported, and quietly absorbed into the foundations of American psychiatry.

1. The Elimination of Subjectivity

Patients were no longer seen as people with stories, pain, or meaning—they were seen as bundles of symptoms. Suffering was abstracted into clinical checklists. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) became the gold standard, not because it offered clear science, but because it offered utility: a standardized language that served pharmaceutical companies, insurance billing, and bureaucratic control. If you could name it, you could code it—and medicate it.

2. The Eradication of Spiritual and Moral Meaning

Struggles once understood through relational, existential, or moral frameworks were stripped of depth. Grief became depression. Anger became oppositional defiance. Existential despair was reduced to a neurotransmitter imbalance. The soul was erased from the conversation. As Berger notes, suffering was no longer something to be witnessed or explored—it became something to be treated, as quickly and quietly as possible.

3. Biological Determinism

Mental illness was redefined as the inevitable result of faulty genes or broken brain chemistry—even though no consistent biological markers have ever been found. The “chemical imbalance” theory, aggressively marketed throughout the late 20th century, was never scientifically validated. Yet it persists, in part because it sells. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)—still widely prescribed—were promoted on this flawed premise, despite studies showing they often perform no better than placebo and come with serious side effects, including emotional blunting, dependence, and sexual dysfunction.

4. Population Control and Racial Hygiene

In Germany, this meant sterilizing and exterminating those labeled “life unworthy of life.” In the U.S., it meant forced sterilizations of African-American and Native American women, institutionalizing the poor, the disabled, and the nonconforming. These weren’t fringe policies—they were mainstream, upheld by law and supported by leading psychiatrists and journals. Even today, disproportionate diagnoses in communities of color, coercive treatments in prisons and state hospitals, and medicalization of poverty reflect these same logics of control.

5. The Use of Institutions for Social Order

Hospitals became tools for enforcing conformity. Psychiatry wasn’t just about healing—it was about managing the unmanageable, quieting the inconvenient, and keeping society orderly. From lobotomies to electroshock therapy to modern-day involuntary holds, psychiatry has long straddled the line between medicine and discipline. Coercive treatment continues under new names: community treatment orders, chemical restraints, and state-mandated compliance.

These doctrines weren’t discarded after the fall of Nazi Germany. They were imported. Adopted. Rebranded under the guise of “evidence-based medicine” and “public health.” But the same logic persists: reduce the person, erase the context, medicalize the soul, and reinforce the system.

Letchworth Village: The Human Cost

I didn’t simply read this in a textbook. I stood there—on the edge of those woods—next to rows of numbered graves.

In 2020, while waiting to close on our New York house, my husband and I were staying in an Airbnb in Rockland County. We were walking the dogs one morning nearing the end of Call Hollow Road, there is a wide path dividing thick woodland when we came across a memorial stone:

“THOSE WHO SHALL NOT BE FORGOTTEN.”

We had stumbled upon the entrance to Old Letchworth Village Cemetery, and we instantly felt it’s somber history. Beyond it, rows of T-shaped markers each one a muted testament to the hundreds of nameless victims who perished at Letchworth. Situated just half a mile from the institution, these weathered grave markers reveal only the numbers that were once assigned to forgotten souls—a stark reminder that families once refused to let their names be known. This omission serves as a silent indictment of a system that institutionalized, dehumanized, and ultimately discarded these individuals.

When we researched the history, the truth was staggering.

Letchworth was supposed to be a progressive alternative to the horrors of 19th-century asylums. Instead, it became one of them. By the 1920s, reports described children and adults left unclothed, unbathed, overmedicated, and raped. Staff abused residents—and each other. The dormitories were overcrowded. Funding dried up. Buildings decayed.

The facility was severely overcrowded. Many residents lived in filth, unfed and unattended. Children were restrained for hours. Some were used in vaccine trials without consent. And when they died, they were buried behind the trees—nameless, marked only by small concrete stakes.

I stood among those graves. Over 900 of them. A long row of numbered markers, each representing a life once deemed unworthy of attention, of love, of dignity.

But the deeper horror is what Letchworth symbolized: the idea that certain people were better off warehoused than welcomed, that abnormality was a disease to be eradicated—not a difference to be understood.

This is the real history of psychiatric care in America.

The Problem of Purpose

But this history didn’t unfold in a vacuum. It was built on something deeper—an idea so foundational, it often goes unquestioned: that nature has no purpose. That life has no inherent meaning. That humans are complex machines—repairable, discardable, programmable.

This mechanistic worldview didn’t just shape medicine. It has shaped what we call reality itself.

As Dr. Rupert Sheldrake explains in Science Set Free, the denial of purpose in biology isn’t a scientific conclusion—it’s a philosophical assumption. Beginning in the 17th century, science removed soul and purpose from nature. Plants, animals, and human bodies were understood as nothing more than matter in motion, governed by fixed laws. No pull toward the good. No inner meaning.

By the time Darwin’s Origin of Species arrived in the 19th century 1859, this mechanistic lens was fully established. Evolution wasn’t creative—it was random. Life wasn’t guided—it was accidental.

Psychiatry, emerging in this same cultural moment, absorbed this worldview. Suffering was pathologized, difference diagnosed, and the soul reduced to faulty genetics and broken wiring.

Today, that mindset is alive in the DSM’s ever-expanding labels, in the belief that trauma is a chemical imbalance, that identity issues must be solved with hormones and surgery, and in the reflex to medicate children who don’t conform.

But what if suffering isn’t a bug in the system?

What if it’s a signal?

What if these so-called “disorders” are cries for meaning in a world that pretends meaning doesn’t exist?

The graves at Letchworth aren’t just a warning about medical abuse. They are a mirror—reflecting what happens when we forget that people are not problems to be solved, but souls to be seen.

Sheldrake writes, “The materialist denial of purpose in evolution is not based on evidence, but is an assumption.” Modern science insists all change results from random mutations and blind forces—chance and necessity. But these claims are not just about biology. They influence how we see human beings: as broken machines to be repaired or discarded.

As we said, in the 17th century, the mechanistic revolution abolished soul and purpose from nature—except in humans. But as atheism and materialism rose in the 19th century, even divine and human purpose were dismissed, replaced by the ideal of scientific “progress.” Psychiatry emerged from this philosophical soup, fueled not by reverence for the human soul but by the desire to categorize, control, and “correct” behavior—by any mechanical means necessary.

What if that assumption is wrong? What if the people we label “disordered” are responding to something real? What if our suffering has meaning—and our biology is not destiny?

“Genetics” as the New Eugenics

Today, psychiatry no longer speaks in the language of race hygiene.

It speaks in the language of genes.

But the message is largely the same:

You are broken at the root.

Your biology is flawed.

And the only solution is lifelong medication—or medical intervention.

We now tell people their suffering is rooted in faulty wiring, inherited defects, or bad brain chemistry—despite decades of inconclusive or contradictory evidence.

We still medicalize behaviors that don’t conform.

We still pathologize pain that stems from trauma, poverty, or social disconnection.

We still market drugs for “chemical imbalances” that have never been biologically verified.

And we still pretend this is science—not ideology.

But as Dr. Rupert Sheldrake argues in Science Set Free, even the field of genetics rests on a fragile and often overstated foundation. In Chapter 6, he challenges one of modern biology’s core assumptions: that all heredity is purely material—that our traits, tendencies, and identities are completely locked in by our genes.

But this isn’t how people have understood inheritance for most of human history.

Long before Darwin or Mendel, breeders, farmers, and herders knew how to pass on traits. Proverbs like “like father, like son” weren’t based on lab results—they were based on generations of observation. Dogs were bred into dozens of varieties. Wild cabbage became broccoli, kale, and cauliflower. The principles of heredity weren’t discovered by science; they were named by science. They were already in practice across the world.

What Sheldrake points out is that modern biology took this folk knowledge, stripped it of its nuance, and then centralized it—until genes became the sole explanation for almost everything.

And that’s a problem.

Because genetics has been crowned the ultimate cause of everything from depression to addiction, from ADHD to schizophrenia. When the outcomes aren’t clear-cut, the answer is simply: “We haven’t mapped the genome enough yet.”

But what if the model is wrong?

What if suffering isn’t locked in our DNA?

What if genes are only part of the story—and not even the most important part?

By insisting that people are genetically flawed, psychiatry sidesteps the deeper questions:

  • What happened to you?
  • What story are you carrying?
  • What environments shaped your experience of the world?

It pathologizes people—and exonerates systems.

Instead of exploring trauma, we prescribe pills.

Instead of restoring dignity, we reduce people to diagnoses.

Instead of healing souls, we treat symptoms.

Modern genetics, like eugenics before it, promises answers. But too often, it delivers a verdict: you were born broken.

We can do better.

We must do better.

Because healing doesn’t come from blaming bloodlines or rebranding biology.

It comes from listening, loving, and refusing to reduce people to a diagnosis or a gene sequence.

The Hidden Truth About Trauma and Diagnosis

As Pete Walker references Dr. John Briere’s poignant observation: if Complex PTSD and the role of early trauma were fully acknowledged by psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) could shrink from a massive textbook to something no larger than a simple pamphlet.

We’ve previously explored the crucial difference between PTSD and complex PTSD—topics like trauma, identity, neuroplasticity, stress, survival, and what it truly means to come home to yourself. This deeper understanding exposes a vast gap between real human experience and how mental health is often diagnosed and treated today.

Your Body Is the Scoreboard

Instead of addressing trauma with truth and compassion, the system expands diagnostic categories, medicalizes pain, and silences those who suffer.

The Cost of Our Silence

Many of us know someone who’s been diagnosed, hospitalized, or medicated into submission.

Some of us have been that person.

And we’re told this is progress. That this is compassion. That this is care.

But when I stood at the edge of those graves in Rockland County—row after row of anonymous markers—nothing about this history felt compassionate.

It felt buried. On purpose.

We must unearth it.

Not to deny mental suffering—but to reclaim the right to define it for ourselves.

To reimagine what healing could look like, if we dared to value dignity over diagnosis.

Because psychiatry hasn’t “saved” the abnormal.

It has often silenced, sterilized, and sacrificed them.

It has named pain as disorder.

Difference as defect.

Trauma as pathology.

The DSM is not a Bible.

The white coat is not a priesthood.

And genetics is not destiny.

We need better language, better questions, and better ways of relating to each other’s pain.

And that brings us full circle—to a man most people have never heard of: Dr. John Galt II.

Nearly 200 years ago, in Williamsburg, Virginia, Galt ran the first freestanding mental hospital in America. But unlike many of his peers, he rejected chains, cruelty, and coercion. He embraced what he called moral treatment—an approach rooted in truth, love, and human dignity. Galt didn’t see the “insane” as dangerous or defective. He saw them as souls.

He was influenced by Philippe Pinel, the French physician who famously removed shackles from asylum patients in Paris. Together, these early reformers dared to believe that healing began not with force, but with presence. With relationship. With care.

Galt refused to segregate patients by race. He treated enslaved people alongside the free. And he opposed the rising belief—already popular among his fellow psychiatrists—that madness was simply inherited, and the mad were unworthy of full personhood.

But what does it mean to recognize someone’s personhood?

Personhood is more than just being alive or having a body. It’s about being seen as a full human being with inherent dignity, moral worth, and rights—someone whose inner life, choices, and experiences matter. Recognizing personhood means acknowledging the whole person beyond any diagnosis, disability, or social status.

This question isn’t just philosophical—it’s deeply practical and contested. It’s at the heart of debates over mental health care, disability rights, euthanasia and even abortion. When does a baby become a person? When does someone with a mental illness or cognitive difference gain full moral consideration? These debates all circle back to how we define humanity itself.

In Losing Our Dignity: How Secularized Medicine Is Undermining Fundamental Human Equality, Charles C. Camosy warns that secular, mechanistic medicine can strip people down to biological parts—genes, symptoms, behaviors—rather than seeing them as full persons. This reduction risks denying people their dignity and the respect that comes with being more than the sum of their medical conditions.

Galt’s approach stood against this reduction. He saw patients as complex individuals with stories and struggles, deserving compassion and respect—not just as “cases” to be categorized or “disorders” to be fixed.

To truly recognize personhood is to honor that complexity and to affirm that every individual, regardless of race, mental health, or social status, has an equal claim to dignity and care.

But… Galt’s approach was pushed aside.

Why?

Because it didn’t serve the state.

Because it didn’t serve power.

Because it didn’t make money.

Today, we see a similar rejection of truth and compassion.

When a child in distress is told they were “born in the wrong body,” we call it gender-affirming care.

When a woman, desperate to be understood, is handed a borderline personality disorder label instead.

When medications with severe side effects are pushed as the only solution, we call it science.

But are we healing the person—or managing the symptoms?

Are we meeting the soul—or erasing it?

We’ve medicalized the human condition—and too often, we’ve called that progress.

We’ve spoken before about the damage done by Biblical counseling programs when therapy is replaced with doctrine—how evangelical frameworks often dismiss pain as rebellion, frame anger as sin, and pressure survivors into premature forgiveness.

But the secular system is often no better. A model that sees people as nothing more than biology and brain chemistry may wear a lab coat instead of a collar—but it still demands submission.

Both systems can bypass the human being in front of them.

Both can serve control over compassion.

Both can silence pain in the name of order.

What we truly need is something deeper.

To be seen.

To be heard.

To be honored in our complexity—not reduced to a diagnosis or a moral failing.

It’s time to stop.

It’s time to remember that human suffering is not a clinical flaw. It’s time to remember the metaphysical soul/psyche. 

Our emotional pain is not a chemical defect.

That being different, distressed, or deeply wounded is not a disease.

It’s time to recover the wisdom of Dr. John Galt II.

To treat those in pain—not as problems to be solved—but as people to be seen.

To offer truth and love, not labels, not sterilizing surgeries and lifelong prescriptions.

Because if we don’t, the graves will keep multiplying—quietly, behind institutions, beneath a silence we dare not disturb.

But we must disturb it.

Because they mattered.

And truth matters.

And the most powerful medicine has never been compliance or chemistry.

It’s being met with real humanity.

Being listened to. Believed.

Not pathologized. Not preached at. Not controlled.

But loved—in the deepest, most grounded sense of the word.

The kind of love that doesn’t look away.

The kind that tells the truth, even when it’s costly.

The kind that says: you are not broken—you are worth staying with.

Because to love someone like that…

is to recognize their personhood.

And maybe that’s the most radical act of all.

SOURCES:

  • “Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics from 1927 to 1942, [Eugen] Fischer authored a 1913 study of the Mischlinge (racially mixed) children of Dutch men and Hottentot women in German southwest Africa. Fischer opposed ‘racial mixing, arguing that “negro blood” was of ‘lesser value and that mixing it with ‘white blood’ would bring about the demise of European culture” (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race,” HMM Online: https://www.ushmm.org/exhibition/deadly-medicine/ profiles/). See also, Richard C. Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon J. Kamin, Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature 2nd edition (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2017), 207.
  • Gonaver, The Making of Modern Psychiatry
  • Saving Abnormal-The Disorder of Psychiatric Genetics-Daneil R Berger II
  • Lost Architecture: Eastern State Hospital – Colonial Williamsburg
  • 📘 General History of American Eugenics
    Lombardo, Paul A.
    Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell (2008)
    This book is the definitive account of Buck v. Bell and American eugenics law. It documents how widespread sterilizations were and provides legal and historical context.
    Black, Edwin.
    War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (2003)
    Covers the U.S. eugenics movement in depth, including funding by Carnegie and Rockefeller, Cold Spring Harbor, and connections to Nazi Germany.
    Kevles, Daniel J.
    In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (1985)
    A foundational academic history detailing how early American psychiatry and genetics were interwoven with eugenic ideology.

    🧬 Institutions & Funding
    Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Archives
    https://www.cshl.edu
    Documents the history of the Eugenics Record Office (1910–1939), its funding by the Carnegie Institution, and its influence on U.S. and international eugenics.
    The Rockefeller Foundation Archives
    https://rockarch.org
    Shows how the foundation funded eugenics research both in the U.S. and abroad, including programs that influenced German racial hygiene policies.

    ⚖️ Sterilization Policies & Buck v. Bell
    Supreme Court Decision: Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/200/
    Includes Justice Holmes’ infamous quote and the legal justification for forced sterilization.
    North Carolina Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation
    https://www.ncdhhs.gov
    Reports the disproportionate targeting of Black women in 20th-century sterilization programs.
    Stern, Alexandra Minna.
    Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America (2005)
    Explores race, sterilization, and medical ethics in eugenics programs, with data from states like California and North Carolina.

    🧠 Psychiatry’s Role & Nazi Connections
    Lifton, Robert Jay.
    The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (1986)
    Shows how American eugenics—including psychiatric writings—helped shape Nazi ideology and policies like Aktion T-4 (the euthanasia program).
    Wahl, Otto F.
    “Eugenics, Genetics, and the Minority Group Mentality” in American Journal of Psychiatry, 1985.
    Traces how psychiatric institutions were complicit in promoting eugenic ideas.
    American Journal of Psychiatry Archives
    1920s–1930s issues include articles in support of sterilization and early euthanasia rhetoric.
    Available via https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org
Posted on in americandieteticassociation, americanpolitics, beliefs, bigpharma, billionaires, coercivecontrol, commericalcults, cults, deconstruction, dietculture, exchristian, health, holistic health, influencers, informed, manipulation, medicalconsequences, mental health, mentalhealth, mentalhealthindustry, misinformation, MLMS, mormoninfluencers, multilevelmarketing, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, pharmaceuticalcompanies, physiology, podcast, politics, progressives, pseudoscience, resilence, scams, science, self-help, serendipity, socialmedia, socialmediainfluence, stress, stressresilence, survivoradvocacy, testimonies, wellness, worldview

Escaping One Cult, Joining Another? The Trap of Ideological Echo Chambers

When ‘Cult Recovery’ Looks a Lot Like a New Cult

I had a lot of different topics in mind for my final solo episode of Taste of Truth Tuesdays Season 3. For example, The Stress-Mitochondria Connection: How B vitamins, Taurine and Magnesium Fuel your Energy, A world without religion: Freedom or Fragmentation, How Emotional Trauma contributes to Chronic Pain or the Social Media Dilemma How to Break Free from the Digital Grip… But then, a new development landed right in my lap—one that perfectly encapsulates the concerning trends I’ve been observing in the deconstruction, ex-Christian, anti-MLM, and ex-cult communities.

My friend Brandie, who I had on in Season 2 for the episode From Serendipity to Scrutiny, recently blocked me. And why? Because I simply pushed back and asked questions. We’d had some private conversations in the DMs that had already raised red flags for me, but apparently, even the slightest bit of pushback was enough to get me cut off. This isn’t just about one friendship—it’s about a much bigger pattern I’ve seen unfolding.

The Deconstruction Pipeline: When Leaving a High-Control Group Means Entering Another

One of the biggest ironies in the ExChristian circles is how quickly people flee high-control religious environments only to land in equally dogmatic ideological spaces. This isn’t a coincidence—it’s human nature. As Jonathan Haidt lays out in The Righteous Mind, our reasoning evolved more for argumentation than truth-seeking. We are wired for confirmation bias, and when we leave one belief system, we often replace it with another that feels equally absolute but now appears “rational” or “liberating.”

This is where figures like Steven Hassan and Janja Lalich come in (because this isn’t just about Brandie) self-proclaimed experts on cults who, ironically, exhibit the same control tactics they claim to expose. Hassan, a former Moonie turned cult deprogrammer, has made a career out of helping people escape authoritarian religious systems. But a deeper look at his work reveals an ideological bent (it’s hard to ignore). He frequently frames conservative or traditional religious beliefs as inherently cult-like while giving progressive or leftist movements a pass. He has called Trumpism a cult but is conspicuously silent on the high-control tactics within certain progressive activist spaces. His criteria for what constitute undue influence seem to shift depending on the political context, (BITE model) making his framework less about critical thinking and more about reinforcing his preferred ideological narrative. I did what Hassan won’t: use his own model to break down the mind control tactics of the extreme left.

Janja Lalich follows a similar pattern. A (supposedly) former Marxist-Leninist, she applies her cult analysis primarily to religious and right-wing groups while glossing over the coercive elements in the far-left spaces she once occupied (or still does). Her work is valuable in breaking down how high-demand groups operate, but she, too, appears to have blind spots when it comes to ideological echo chambers outside of the religious sphere. These represent a pattern rather than an isolated incident. Other platforms like (The New Evangelicals, Dr. Pete Enns (The Bible for Normal People), Eve was framed, Jesus Unfollower, Dr. Laura Anderson just to name a few.) highlight control tactics when they appear in traditional or conservative groups but fail to apply the same scrutiny to their own ideological circles.

This selective analysis creates a dangerous illusion: it allows people leaving fundamentalist religious spaces to believe they are now “free thinkers” while unknowingly adopting another rigid belief system. The deconstruction pipeline often leads former evangelicals straight into progressive activism, where purity tests, ideological loyalty, and social shaming operate just as effectively as they did in the church. The language changes: “sin” becomes “problematic,” “heresy” becomes “harmful rhetoric”, but the mechanisms remain the same.

Haidt’s work on moral foundations helps explain this phenomenon. Progressive and conservative worldviews are built on different moral intuitions, but both can be taken to extremes. The key to avoiding ideological capture is intellectual humility—the ability to recognize that no belief system has a monopoly on truth and that reason itself can be weaponized for tribalism.

John Stuart Mill warned of this centuries ago: the greatest threat to truth is not outright censorship but the cultural and social pressures that make certain ideas unspeakable. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind echoes this concern, showing how overprotective thinking and emotional reasoning have created a generation that confuses disagreement with harm.

Franklin O’Kanu’s concept of the “fake intellectual” is particularly relevant here—people who claim to be champions of free thought while aggressively enforcing ideological orthodoxy.

In this episode, through my experience with Brandie, I’ll illustrate how skepticism is selectively applied, and how ‘critical thinking’ communities can become just as dogmatic as the systems they reject. And unlike Hassan or Lalich, my connection with Brandie was personal. And that’s why I felt this warranted an entire podcast episode. Because what happened with her is a microcosm of a larger issue: people leaving high-control spaces only to re-enter new ones. They are convinced that this time, they’ve finally found the “truth.” Spoiler alert: that’s not how truth works.

So, let’s talk about it.

Blocked for Asking Questions

Recently, Brandie posted on Instagram about DARVO—a psychological tactic where abusers Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender to avoid accountability. I agree that MLMs use DARVO. But I wanted to add friendly pushback, that I’ve noticed anti-MLM advocates use similar tactics to silence critics—especially when it comes to questioning the food industry— but she had turned the comments off.

So I went to Substack, wrote a note, tagged her and asked for us to have a discussion. and that’s when she blocked me. Not for being aggressive. Not for being rude. But for questioning her narrative.

So much for open conversation.

DARVO: The Classic Manipulation Tactic

DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender—a tactic frequently used by abusers, cult leaders, and high-control groups when they’re called out. It flips accountability on its head, making the person asking legitimate questions seem like the aggressor while the actual manipulator plays the victim.

How MLMs Use DARVO

Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) schemes thrive on DARVO because their entire business model is built on deception. Here’s a classic example:

  1. Deny – A distributor is confronted with the fact that 99% of people in MLMs lose money. Instead of addressing the data, they deny it completely:
    “That’s just a myth! I know tons of people making six figures!”
  2. Attack – When pressed further, they go on the offensive, accusing the skeptic of being negative or jealous:
    “Wow, you’re so close-minded. No wonder you’re not successful!”
  3. Reverse Victim and Offender – Finally, they paint themselves as the victim and the questioner as the bully:
    “I’m just a woman trying to build a business and empower others. Why are you trying to tear me down?”

This tactic shuts down meaningful discussion and keeps people trapped in a system that exploits them.

Do you know what else exploits individuals? Fear and propaganda.

I saw this firsthand in a recent conversation with a friend who’s deeply entrenched in leftist ideologies and what I’d call “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” She shared a post warning people to change their bank accounts because of a false claim that Elon Musk’s staff had access to personal financial data. I pointed out that the post was misinformation, but instead of engaging with the facts, the conversation quickly shifted in a way that mirrors the DARVO tactic.

First, she denied that the post could be harmful or misleading. Then, she attacked me for not understanding the larger “fear” that people are feeling in the current political climate. Finally, she reversed the roles, casting herself as the victim of a chaotic world and me as the one creating unnecessary tension by questioning the post.

This is a textbook example of DARVO, a tactic that deflects accountability, shifts blame, and keeps people trapped in fear-driven narratives. It keeps them from having honest, fact-based conversations and prevents any real understanding of what’s going on around them.

How Brandie Used DARVO on Me

Ironically, despite being an anti-MLM advocate, Brandie used the exact same manipulation tactics when I pushed back on some of her positions. This is a woman who criticizes manipulative marketing tactics in MLMs, yet here she was, employing the very same tactics in our discussion. It’s a stark example of how these patterns can be so ingrained that even those who oppose them can fall into using them.

Deny – When I questioned her promotion of dietitians who endorse processed foods like Clif Z Bars (which recently faced a class-action lawsuit for misleading health claims), she refused to acknowledge the legitimate concerns. Instead, she dismissed it by claiming that caring about food ingredients was more stressful for the body than just eating the food itself—a false dichotomy that undermines any nuance in the conversation, especially when she often critiques the same logical fallacy in other contexts.

Attack – Rather than engaging with my points, she made it personal, implying that I was being antagonistic or bad-faith for even questioning her stance.

Reverse Victim and Offender – Finally, when I didn’t back down, she blocked me, flipping the narrative to make it seem like I was the one causing harm simply by asking questions.

When Therapy Becomes Thought Control: The Weaponization of Mental Health

What makes this dynamic even more interesting is that both my friend in Portland and Brandie, an anti-MLM advocate, are therapists. These conversations have all unfolded within a culture that professes to value feelings, emotional well-being, and mental health awareness. More people are going to therapy than ever before, and an increasing number of people are training to become therapists—mostly women. Currently, around 70-80% of psychologists and therapists are female, and those seeking help are also more likely to be female.

The field has increasingly become a vehicle for ideological activism. Dr. Roger McFillin has spoken extensively about this shift, describing how therapy now often reinforces victimhood narratives rather than fostering resilience. Instead of helping clients process experiences and build coping skills, many therapists nudge them toward predetermined ideological conclusions—especially in areas of identity, oppression, and systemic injustice.

This shift has eroded one of psychology’s most fundamental ethical principles: informed consent. Clients, particularly young and vulnerable individuals, are often funneled into ideological frameworks without realizing it. Under the guise of “affirming care” or “social justice-informed therapy,” therapists may subtly guide them toward specific worldviews rather than offering a full range of perspectives. What should be a process of self-discovery instead becomes thought reform, where questioning the prevailing narrative is framed as harmful or regressive.

Therapy is no longer just political—it has become a mechanism of enforcement. We see this in counseling programs that demand ideological conformity from students, in therapists who blur the line between clinical work and activism, and in public figures like Janja Lalich and Steven Hassan, who claim to expose undue influence while engaging in the same tactics. This is ideological gatekeeping disguised as expertise.

Rather than fostering open exploration, the field is increasingly defined by rigid dogma. Questioning the dominant ideology isn’t framed as critical thinking—it’s labeled as resistance, ignorance, or even harm. And when that happens, dissenting voices aren’t debated; they’re erased. If this trend continues, therapy won’t just be a tool for self-improvement. It will be a tool for social control. It already is.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Skepticism

Brandie and the anti-MLM crowd claim to combat misinformation, yet they overlook a significant issue: the influence of Big Food and Big Pharma on public health narratives.

On her social media story and in private conversations, Brandie has defended dietitians who actively promote ultra-processed foods. Some registered dietitians with large platforms endorse products like Hawaiian Punch and Clif Z Bars as acceptable—even healthy—options.

Clif Z Bars, for example, were recently involved in a $12 million class action settlement for falsely marketing their products as “healthy and nutritious.” These bars are 37% added sugar, essentially sugar bombs.

Yet, a dietitian Brandie supports feeds these bars to her young children, publicly calling them a “healthy snack.” Why is this not considered misinformation?

A deeper issue lies in the conflicts of interest within the nutrition field. 95% of the 2020 U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee members had conflicts of interest with the food and pharmaceutical industries. Many had financial ties to corporations like Kellogg, Abbott, Kraft, Mead Johnson, General Mills, and Dannon. Similarly, a 2023 report by U.S. Right to Know revealed that 65% of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee had high-risk or medium-risk conflicts of interest with industry actors like Novo Nordisk, the National Dairy Council, Eli Lilly, and Weight Watchers International.

Interestingly, both Clif Z Bars and Hawaiian Punch—the two foods mentioned in this discussion—are owned by Mondelēz International, a company that has faced scrutiny over its ties to government-advising scientists and other potential conflicts of interest. This raises an important question: How much of what we’re told by credentialed experts is shaped by corporate influence rather than unbiased science?

These conflicts of interest raise serious concerns about industry influence over public health recommendations. Yet, if you question this, you’re labeled anti-science.

This kind of blind faith in authority is no different from religious dogma. The pursuit of truth should always leave room for debate. This also highlights why blindly trusting “credentialed experts” is insufficient. Degrees and titles don’t guarantee that recommendations are free from corporate influence.

Rather than acknowledge these conflicts, Brandie and her followers discredit those asking valid questions, often accusing them of using the “Just Asking Questions” fallacy.

The “Just Asking Questions” Fallacy

A common tactic used to dismiss skepticism is labeling it as the “Just Asking Questions” (JAQ) fallacy. This fallacy occurs when people imply that merely questioning an issue is a form of misinformation or bad faith argumentation.

Many dietitians and anti-MLM advocates are deeply entrenched in mainstream narratives on topics like vaccine safety, climate change, and pharmaceutical efficacy. When skeptics ask pointed questions about these subjects, they are often accused of using JAQing off—a term that suggests they are sowing doubt without providing counter-evidence. The accusation assumes that asking difficult questions is inherently conspiratorial, rather than a legitimate means of inquiry.

But skepticism is not the same as denialism. Critical thinking demands that we interrogate all claims—especially those made by institutions with financial or ideological incentives. Dismissing questions outright only serves to protect entrenched power structures.

The Counterpoint: Intellectual Humility and the Dogma of Data

While it’s vital to engage critically with the information we’re presented, it’s equally crucial to consider the potential pitfalls of blind adherence to any ideology—whether it’s religious, political, or scientific. In the modern age, science and data have often become the new forms of dogma. The scientific community, which prides itself on skepticism and inquiry, is sometimes treated as an unassailable authority—leaving no room for dissent or alternative perspectives.

The worship of science and data as infallible can feel eerily similar to religious dogma. It demands conformity in the name of progress, dismisses alternative viewpoints, and often shuts down debate—all while asserting that it’s in the name of critical thinking and rationality. In this system, the pursuit of truth can ironically become an exercise in tribalism and intellectual rigidity.

What is critical to recognize is that science and reason themselves are not immune to bias, corruption, or influence. Take, for example, the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, which compromises the integrity of public health policies. This conflict of interest is a significant factor in the mistrust surrounding many mainstream health recommendations, especially when we see how corporate interests shape the outcomes of clinical trials, the approval of drugs, or public health initiatives.

Take the nutrition field, for example. The dietitian mentioned earlier endorses Clif Z Bars for her young children, but if you challenge this, you’re accused of being anti-science or fear-mongering.

Similarly, when figures like RFK Jr. highlight pharmaceutical industry ties to regulatory agencies, critics don’t engage with the data. Instead, they attempt to discredit the person asking the questions.

The Real Issue is Deception from Trusted Intuitions

The real misinformation often stems from corporate-backed institutions. Public trust in physicians and hospitals fell from 71.5% in April 2020 to 40.1% in January 2024—not due to misinformation, but because people witnessed firsthand the contradictions, shifting narratives, and financial incentives behind public health decisions. Trust is eroded by deception, not by questioning.

RFK Jr. isn’t “sowing doubt” for the sake of it. He’s pointing out documented cases where pharmaceutical companies have manipulated clinical trials, buried adverse data, and exercised significant influence over regulatory bodies. His book The Real Anthony Fauci outlines a heavily researched case against the unchecked power of Big Pharma and its ties to government agencies. If his claims were false, he would face lawsuits, yet his work continues to spark vital discussions.

True skepticism means demanding better science, not blindly trusting authority. The real danger lies in silencing those who ask critical questions.

Big Food and the Shaming of Health Advocates

A recent study has revealed something I find all too familiar: intimidation tactics used by industries like Big Tobacco, ultra-processed food companies, and alcohol sectors to bully and silence researchers, whistleblowers, and anyone challenging their agenda. This tactic—used by Big Food to discredit critics—reminds me of the way people are shamed or bullied for questioning processed foods or advocating for healthier diets. If you’ve ever pointed out the risks of sugary snacks or fast food, you’ve probably been labeled an extremist, a health-obsessed “wellness warrior,” or worse, a “purity culture” advocate. I can’t help but feel this is just another form of gaslighting, where we’re told that it’s worse to worry about the ingredients in our food than it is to consume those ingredients, even if they are known to contribute to chronic health conditions.

Ironically, this kind of manipulation is the same strategy Big Tobacco used for decades to muddy the waters around the health risks of smoking. And now, ultra-processed food companies are doing the same thing—distracting us from the very real, documented consequences of a poor diet.

Why We Need to Trust Ourselves, Not JUST the Experts

What frustrates me is how the anti-MLM community often jumps on wellness advocates who want to clean up their diets for health reasons. While I agree that MLMs are a breeding ground for manipulation, this should not mean we ignore the very real need to question the food industry’s stranglehold on our diets and health. It’s vital to recognize that not all experts have your best interests at heart. Many of the mainstream recommendations we’re told to follow come from organizations or industries with questionable motives—whether it’s Big Pharma, Big Food, or Big Tobacco. These same industries have a long history of misleading the public, and many of their experts are bought and paid for by corporate interests.

Wanting to improve your diet to manage or reverse chronic health conditions shouldn’t be dismissed as obsessive or extreme. It’s a rational, self-preserving choice that empowers you to take control of your health, even when the mainstream narrative tells you otherwise.

Is This Healing or Just Another High-Control Belief System?

Brandie often talks about “cult recovery” and the importance of psychological resilience. But is she really modeling resilience? Because true resilience isn’t about avoiding discomfort—it’s about engaging with it, questioning your own biases, and standing firm in discussions, even when they challenge your worldview.

Instead, she’s teaching people to coddle their minds. To create ideological echo chambers where questioning the “right” experts is heresy. To avoid any perspective that might cause discomfort. If she’s teaching people to avoid discomfort rather than work through it, I’m not sure how that aligns with the principles of ethical psychotherapy.

True healing requires grappling with discomfort, not running from it. When you teach people to shut down their discomfort rather than confront it, you’re not promoting growth—you’re just pushing them into another high-control belief system.

That’s not healing. That’s just another form of control.

And let’s be real—if your response to fair, thoughtful criticism is to shut down the conversation and block people who used to support you, you haven’t actually deconstructed anything. You’ve just built a new echo chamber with different branding.

The Bigger Picture

This isn’t just about Brandie. It’s about a larger pattern I see in the deconstruction and anti-MLM communities. Many of them claim to be freeing minds, but in reality, they’re just recruiting people into a different kind of ideological purity test.

The message is clear: You’re allowed to be skeptical, but only in the “approved” ways.

That’s not intellectual freedom. That’s just another cult.

Where Do We Go From Here?

We need real conversations about manipulation and misinformation—whether it comes from MLMs, Big Food, Big Pharma, or influencer dietitians who profit from pushing corporate-backed narratives. It means we need to question everything—without replacing one unquestionable authority with another. And we need to be willing to hold all forms of power accountable, not just the ones that fit neatly into our existing beliefs.

Because if we’re not careful, we’ll escape one high-control group only to fall right into another.

Sources:

Posted on in AI, americanpolitics, beautystandards, beliefs, bigpharma, billionaires, biology, bodyimage, challenges, children'srights, civilrights, coercivecontrol, cults, deconstruction, genderideology, health, historicalfigures, history, hormones, industrialinfluence, influencers, manipulation, medicalconsequences, mental health, mentalhealth, mentalhealthindustry, misinformation, nuance, pharmaceuticalcompanies, physiology, podcast, politics, progressives, pseudoscience, scams, self-help, selfcompassion, socialjustice, socialmedia, socialmediainfluence, technology, transhumanism, trump, wellness

From ‘Women’ to ‘AFAB’: The Ideological Capture of Biology and the War on Reality

Welcome back to Taste of Truth Tuesdays. Today, we’re diving into a topic I’ve wanted to explore for a while now. Earlier this month, I came across a writer on Substack who posted something that really struck me. In his piece, he used dehumanizing language ‘assigned female at birth’. While his intention may have been to be inclusive, I found it to be exclusive and downright misogynistic.

It reminded me of back in 2021, I had a few people reach out to me on Instagram, pointing out that we had shifted from using the term ‘women’ to ‘AFAB’—’assigned female at birth.’ My gut reaction was intense—what the hell is going on here? It also reminds me of when I was living in Portland, I was constantly stressed, seeking external validation, and lacked the courage to speak up against gender ideology around 2013-2015. Little did I know, it would eventually take over the world.

Now, we’re going to dive into the consequences of transgenderism and its impact on children. And here’s the thing: I’m no longer afraid of being canceled or ridiculed. Honestly, I’ve already lost all my friends. But at this point, I’ve come to appreciate who I am, and standing for truth in today’s world has never been more important. It’s worth every consequence.

How We Got Here—The Origins of Gender Ideology

To understand how we went from recognizing biological sex as reality to debating whether we can even say the word “women” in medical journals, we have to look at where gender ideology came from.

This whole mess started with psychologist John Money in the 1950s. He was one of the first people to separate “gender” from “sex,” arguing that gender was a social construct, independent of biology. Expanding on John Money’s experiments is crucial because they expose the disturbing origins of gender ideology. Money, a psychologist and sexologist, was instrumental in pushing the idea that gender identity is entirely socially constructed, separate from biological sex. However, his most infamous experiment—the case of David Reimer—reveals the dark and unethical foundation of this belief system.

David Reimer was born male, alongside his identical twin brother, Brian. After a botched circumcision, Money convinced his parents to raise David as a girl, “Brenda,” after undergoing surgery and hormone treatments. Money believed this would prove that gender identity was purely a matter of socialization. However, David never truly identified as female. He struggled with severe psychological distress, eventually rejecting the imposed identity in his teenage years and transitioning back to male. His twin brother Brian also suffered severe emotional distress, and both tragically died by suicide in their 30s—a devastating consequence of Money’s reckless experiment.

The nature vs. nurture debate is at the heart of this issue. Money’s work attempted to prove that nurture—socialization and upbringing—could completely override biological sex. Yet, the failure of the Reimer case demonstrated the opposite: biology plays an undeniable role in identity and development. Attempts to force individuals into gender identities that contradict their biology often lead to severe psychological distress.

While John Money championed the idea that gender was purely a social construct, his ideological opponent, Dr. Milton Diamond, spent decades proving otherwise. Diamond, a biologist and sexologist, conducted extensive research showing that biological sex has an innate influence on identity. He exposed the flaws in Money’s work, particularly the David Reimer case, and argued that forcing an identity contrary to one’s biology leads to immense suffering. Diamond’s work underscored the importance of acknowledging biological sex while still allowing for individual gender expression—a stance completely at odds with today’s gender ideology, which seeks to erase biological realities altogether.

Intersex conditions are often misused as a justification for erasing sex-based distinctions. While intersex individuals exist, they make up a small fraction of the population and do not negate the binary nature of human sexual reproduction. Most intersex conditions result in variations of male or female biology, not a third sex. Using intersex as a reason to eliminate sex-based language ultimately harms both intersex and non-intersex individuals by denying the reality of biological differences.

Beyond David Reimer’s case, Money’s broader work was filled with moral controversies. His therapy sessions with young children were highly controversial and ethically disturbing by today’s standards. He conducted what he called “sexual rehearsal therapy,” which involved encouraging children to engage in sexual activities with their parents or siblings as a form of treatment for various psychological issues.

These sessions were intended to help children overcome sexual anxieties or developmental disorders, but they often crossed serious ethical boundaries and caused significant harm to the children involved. The lack of informed consent, the inappropriate nature of the activities, and the potential for long-term psychological damage have led to widespread criticism of Money’s methods.

Despite this, Money’s ideas laid the foundation for modern gender ideology. His theories, though discredited by cases like David Reimer’s, were absorbed into academia and later expanded upon by activists. The result? A cultural shift where subjective identity is prioritized over biological reality, and dissent is often met with backlash.

Understanding the origins of gender ideology is crucial because it reveals the shaky foundation upon which these ideas were built. Science, ethics, and real-world consequences all point to the same conclusion: biology matters, and attempts to erase it come at a significant human cost.

His theories were later expanded by Judith Butler in the ‘90s, who pushed the idea that gender is performative and entirely detached from biology. This philosophy has now morphed into the idea that sex itself is a “social construct.”

The Trans Flag’s Creator: A Window into Gender Ideology’s Evolution

Monica Helms, born Robert Hogge, designed the trans🏳️‍⚧️ pride flag in 1999.

Genevieve Gluck wrote in Reduxx Magizine:

According to researcher Dr. Sarah Goode, CEO of StopSO (Specialist Treatment Organization for the Prevention of Sexual Offending), pedophiles who organize online have developed their own culture, language, and symbols. One common symbol used in pedophile forums incorporates the colors baby blue, pink and white. In her lecture, ‘Hidden Knowledge: What We Ought to Know About Pedophiles,’ Dr. Goode shows a slide of the image, and says, “The pink half represents ‘girl lovers’ and the blue half represents ‘boy lovers.’”

The color code system appears to predate the initial design of the transgender flag and can be traced back to at least as early as 1997, according to online pro-pedophile forums.

Areas in Europe that advertise child trafficking to pedophile sex tourists have used the color code: “blue curtains mean a boy child prostitute and pink curtains a girl.”

It is unclear whether Helms was aware of this correlation at the time, but when discussing the symbolism behind the trans flag in an interview in 2017, Helms stated that blue represented young boys and pink represented young girls.

Whatever the case may be, his personal history and writings reveal disturbing patterns that echo the unsettling dynamics of gender ideology we’ve seen in figures like Dr. John Money. Helms, who now identifies as a woman, has long been involved in controversial and fetishistic behaviors, even writing “forced feminization” and erotic short stories. His writings include disturbing themes, such as the sexualization of minors, notably in a short story where a man marries a young girl who ages slowly, reflecting a disturbing fantasy that came to him in a dream.

In his memoir, More Than Just a Flag, Helms describes his “bigender” identity, as an “enlightened” being who floats between multiple identities, switching from male to female, sometimes simultaneously, or in an instant. He recalls times of experimentation, especially as an adult, where he would wear clothing inappropriate for his age and faced consequences for doing so at work.

Adding a deeply unsettling layer to the conversation, Helms, who was 70 at the time in 2022, made headlines by claiming to have changed his age to 25. Given the logic behind these transformations, this age shift sparked a viral conversation, with some commenters pointing out that his partner, Darlene Darlington Wagner, would now be “just 16 years old.” This raises questions about how fluid identity could extend beyond gender and into age.

As gender ideology increasingly became intertwined with political movements, it found its way into the mainstream, especially within the Democratic Party. Initially, intellectual discussions around gender began with French philosophers whose ideas about the body, power, and identity influenced later iterations of gender theory. But these complex theories have since been stripped of their nuance and rebranded into a political dogma that now dominates much of the left-leaning discourse.

The Democratic Party, which once championed civil rights and social justice, now finds itself navigating a fine line between advocating for freedom and accommodating forces that seek to change the very definition of identity itself. But at what cost? The more corporate interests and industries gain traction in shaping these ideologies, the more the left’s original values of anti-corporate resistance become a distant memory.

Which brings us to today’s nightmare.

From Fringe Theory to Political Dogma—How Gender Ideology Took Over the Democratic Party

How did academic theorizing become an institutionalized belief system within mainstream politics, particularly in the Democratic Party? This transformation happened through several key developments:

  1. The Rise of Queer Theory in Academia – Universities became breeding grounds for gender ideology throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Gender studies departments, influenced by postmodernist philosophy, framed gender as entirely fluid, rejecting biological sex distinctions. As students trained in these theories graduated and took positions in media, education, and activism, they carried these ideas into broader society.
  2. Institutional Capture and Activism – Activist organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began pushing gender ideology into corporate policies, legal frameworks, and public schools. Their influence, combined with the rapid spread of social media, helped mainstream these concepts far beyond the academic world.
  3. Legal and Policy Shifts – Under the Obama administration, gender ideology gained political traction, particularly through Title IX reinterpretations that mandated schools to accommodate self-declared gender identities. This was further expanded under the Biden administration, with policies requiring federally funded institutions to adopt gender-affirming policies in sports, healthcare, and education. Let’s talk about the hilarious double standards around the billionaires funding the LGBT movement. We’ve all seen the left melting down over the influence of billionaires—except, of course, when those billionaires are funding agendas they support. An article from First Things calls out some of the big names behind the LGBT movement, and guess what? It’s showcases this massive contradiction.
  4. Big Tech and Media Reinforcement – Social media platforms, major news outlets, and entertainment industries began actively promoting gender ideology while censoring dissenting views. This created a cultural environment where questioning gender ideology was framed as hateful or bigoted, further entrenching it within left-wing politics.
  5. The Redefinition of Civil Rights – Transgender identity was increasingly framed as the next major civil rights frontier, equating sex-based protections with racial and disability rights. This shifted the Democratic Party’s platform to fully embrace gender ideology, making skepticism or critique politically unacceptable within mainstream liberal discourse.

The Shift from ‘Women’ to ‘AFAB’—Erasing Women for Ideology

So why has the term “women” been replaced with “AFAB” (Assigned Female At Birth)? The justification is that saying “women” is “exclusionary” to trans-identified females. But in reality, it’s deeply misogynistic.

Jennifer Bilek, in her Dispatches from the 11th Hour essays, has done incredible work exposing how gender ideology isn’t some organic civil rights movement—it’s a well-funded social engineering project backed by billionaires and biotech companies. She points out that this linguistic shift isn’t just about “inclusion.” It’s about destabilizing categories of sex for the benefit of corporate and medical industries.

When you erase the words “women” or “woman,” you erase women’s ability to advocate for their needs. You make it harder to talk about female-specific health issues. And you make it easier for policies to prioritize ideology over science.

The Medical and Scientific Consequences of Erasing Sex

This isn’t just an abstract cultural issue. It has real, dangerous consequences for medicine and science.

Historically, women have been excluded from medical research—for decades, studies were conducted almost exclusively on male subjects, and the results were assumed to apply to women. The problem? Women are not small men. We have different hormonal cycles, different metabolic rates, and different responses to medications.

Here are just a few examples of how ignoring biological sex in medicine harms women:

  • Heart disease: Women’s symptoms are different from men’s, and because most research was done on men, women are more likely to be misdiagnosed.
  • ACL injuries: Women are at a significantly higher risk due to differences in hip structure and ligament laxity, yet training protocols are still modeled on male athletes.
  • Medication dosages: Women metabolize drugs differently, but dosages are often tested on male bodies, leading to overdoses or ineffective treatments for women.

In 2016, the NIH finally mandated that women be included in medical research, a huge step forward. But now, under gender ideology, we’re reversing that progress by saying we can’t acknowledge sex at all.

If we replace “women’s health” with “AFAB health,” how do we effectively study and treat female-specific conditions like PCOS, endometriosis, or pregnancy-related complications?

We don’t. Because that’s the point.

The Connection Between Transgenderism and Transhumanism

As the journalist, Stella Morabito, has written:

“Transgenderism is a vehicle for state power and censorship.”

It is tyranny dressed up in the clothes of what has become the carcass of the progressive left and it seeks absolute power and control over humanity and nature.

This is where things get dark.

Jennifer Bilek and other researchers have pointed out how gender ideology is just one arm of a larger movement: transhumanism—the belief that humanity should merge with technology, that our bodies are “obsolete,” and that we should ultimately move beyond biology altogether.

Think about what the transgender movement pushes:

  • The idea that our bodies are wrong and need to be medically altered
  • A reliance on synthetic hormones for life
  • The normalization of body modification to fit identity over reality

Now zoom out: Who benefits from this ideology? Pharmaceutical companies. The same billionaires pushing trans activism are also deeply invested in AI, biotech, and synthetic biology.

Oligarchs on both the political right like Peter Thiel and on the left like Jeff Bezos. JD Vance is the co-founder of Narya Capital and invested in Amplied Bio which has announced a strategic partnership RNAV8 to support MRNA therapeutic developers. Even MAHA’s hero RFK Jr has invested in Crispr technology. Financially disclosers released in Jan 2025 reveal he holds invested in Crispr therapeutics which specialists in gene editing technologies, as well as Dragon Fly Therapeutics which focuses on immunotherapies. So, despite his history of expressing concerns against gene-editing therapy. He did state he would divest from these companies if confirmed secretary of HHS. So, Mr. Secretary, we are keeping eyes on you. 👀

I haven’t even mentioned of Elon Musk with NeuraLink and who knows what else that guy has planned. I am a big fan of DODGE and the exposure of the corruption, YET I definitely keep a skeptical eye on him as well.

The goal is not just to let people “live as their authentic selves.” The goal is to dissolve sex-based reality entirely, making people dependent on medical interventions for life. This isn’t liberation—it’s medical enslavement.

Brave New World Revisited: The Synthetic Creation of Culture

Earlier this year I read Huxley’s Brave New World, and it didn’t read as fiction, it read as he had a crystal ball into the future. In his dystopia, human reproduction was industrialized, the family unit was obsolete, and people were engineered for compliance under the guise of “progress.” Sound familiar? The push for synthetic reproduction, the erasure of sex-based identity, and the growing narrative that biology itself is a problem all mirror Huxley’s warning.

Jennifer Bilek exposes how transhumanism is the real endgame. The same corporate interests promoting gender ideology are also pioneering artificial wombs, genetically modified embryos, and bioengineered organ harvesting. This is a world where human beings are no longer conceived but manufactured. Where the natural, biological family is replaced by state-sanctioned, lab-grown “life.”

Huxley warned us about a future where people would love their servitude—where the loss of freedom would be reframed as liberation. That future is unfolding now. The question is: Are we resisting dehumanization, or are we embracing it under a new name?

The Erasure of Women Illustration by Greg Groesch

Fighting Back Against the Erasure of Women

So what do we do?

  1. Refuse to comply with ideological language. Women are women—not AFABs.
  2. Call out the erasure of sex in medicine and policy. We must advocate for sex-based language in healthcare.
  3. Expose the billionaires funding this movement. This is not grassroots activism—it’s top-down social engineering.

The fight to protect reality isn’t just about ideology. It’s about protecting women, safeguarding science, and ensuring future generations don’t grow up in a world where “female” is a forbidden word.

Sources:

Posted on in americanpolitics, beliefs, Bible, biblicalworldview, christianfaith, coercivecontrol, conspiracies, cults, deconstruction, exchristian, faith, historicalfigures, history, manipulation, misinformation, nervous system, neuroplasticity, nuance, physiology, podcast, politics, progressives, pseudoscience, religion, resilence, self-help, selfcompassion, socialmedia, stress, stressresilence, theology, worldview

Reclaiming Critical Thinking in an Age of Narrative Warfare

How Media Manipulation and Pseudo-Intellectualism Are Undermining Independent Thought

In today’s episode of Taste of Truth Tuesdays, I sit down with Franklin O’Kanu, also known as The Alchemik Pharmacist, to unpack one of the most pressing issues of our time: the erosion of critical thinking. Franklin, founder of Unorthodoxy, brings a unique perspective that bridges science, spirituality, and philosophy. Together, we explore how media narratives, pseudo-intellectualism, and societal conditioning have trained people to ignore their inner “Divine BS meter” and simply accept what they’re told.

The Death of Critical Thinking

As Franklin points out, we’ve lost the ability to thoughtfully absorb and analyze information. The past few years have conditioned individuals to disregard anything that doesn’t align with mainstream sources, experts, or consensus. Instead of engaging with information critically, many have been taught to dismiss it outright. The result? A culture that values conformity over curiosity and blind acceptance over intellectual rigor.

We discuss how this shift has been accelerated by media bombardment, especially during the pandemic. The New York Times even published an article on critical thinking, but instead of encouraging intellectual engagement, it suggested that questioning mainstream narratives is dangerous. This is narrative warfare at its finest—manipulating public perception to ensure that only “approved” ideas are given legitimacy.

The Power of Narratives: How Ideological Echo Chambers Shape Reality

Franklin O’Kanu often cites James Corbett’s work on media’s role in shaping public perception as a major inspiration behind his Substack. Corbett’s central thesis is simple: narratives build realities—and whoever controls the dominant narrative controls public thought. Nowhere is this clearer than in the nihilistic messaging that dominates left-leaning social media platforms like Meta. The idea that humans are an irredeemable blight on the planet has been mainstreamed, despite evidence to the contrary.

This same unquestioning adherence to an ideological narrative played out during the pandemic with phrases like “Trust the science” and “Don’t do your own research.” I explored this trend in my Substack, particularly through the lens of so-called ‘cult expert’ Steven Hassan. Hassan built his career exposing ideological manipulation, branding himself as the foremost authority on cult mind control. But here’s the irony: while he calls out high-control religious groups, he seems completely blind to the cult-like tactics within his own political ideology.

Information Control: Censoring ‘Dangerous’ Ideas

Hassan’s BITE model—which stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control—is designed to help people recognize manipulation.

In cults, leaders dictate what information followers can access. The extreme left does the same.

  • Censorship of Opposing Views – Deplatforming, banning books, firing professors—if an idea threatens the ideology, it’s labeled “harmful” and shut down.
  • Historical Revisionism – Complex events are reframed to fit simplistic oppression narratives, ignoring inconvenient facts.
  • Selective Science – Only research that supports the ideology gets funding and visibility. Studies on biological sex differences, IQ variations, or alternative climate models? Silenced or retracted—not because they’re disproven, but because they’re inconvenient.
  • Discouraging Exposure to Counterarguments – Followers are taught that listening to the other side is “platforming hate” or “giving oxygen to fascism.”

This is exactly what happened when Franklin challenged the mainstream climate change narrative. The moment he questioned NetZero policies, he wasn’t just hit with the usual accusations: “climate denier,” “science denier,” and the ever-expanding list of ideological insults meant to discredit rather than debate, but he was blocked. This is how bad ideas survive—by shutting down the people who challenge them.

Franklin warns that if you’re not careful, these narratives can take you down a dark rabbit hole built on lies. Once an ideological framework is built around selective truth, it becomes a self-reinforcing system—one that punishes dissent and rewards conformity. And once you let someone else dictate what information is “safe” for you to consume, you’re already in the first stages of ideological capture.

The Rise of the Fake Intellectual

Platforms like Facebook/Instagram/YouTube have perfected the illusion of intellectual discourse while actively suppressing opposing voices. This has led to what Franklin calls the fake intellectual—individuals or organizations that present themselves as champions of knowledge but ultimately serve to shut down real dialogue.

Fake intellectuals don’t invite discussion; they police it. They rely on appeals to authority, groupthink, and censorship to maintain an illusion of correctness. True intellectualism, on the other hand, is rooted in curiosity, openness, and the willingness to engage with challenging perspectives.

Reclaiming Intellectual Integrity

One of the most powerful insights from our discussion is the role belief plays in shaping our world. Franklin warns that when we accept narratives without scrutiny, we risk being deceived. This applies across industries—medicine, science, finance, and even religion. These systems function because people believe in them, often without verifying their claims. But if we fail to question these narratives, we become passive participants in a game where only a select few control the rules.

So, how do we resist narrative warfare and reclaim critical thinking? Franklin suggests:

  • Cultivating intellectual humility—being open to the possibility that we might be wrong.
  • Recognizing media manipulation—understanding how information is curated to shape public perception.
  • Engaging with diverse perspectives—actively seeking out voices that challenge our beliefs.
  • Trusting our own discernment—developing the confidence to think independently instead of outsourcing our opinions to authority figures.

Franklin expands on this in his writings, particularly in his two articles, How to See the World and How to Train Your Mind. As he puts it, “We all have these voices in our heads. Philosophy is really just understanding the reality of the world, and there’s a principle in philosophy—keep things as simple as possible.” He breaks it down like this:

  • You are a soul. That’s the foundation. If every child grew up knowing this, it would change the way we see ourselves.
  • You have a body. Your body exists to experience the physical reality of the world.
  • You have a mind. Your mind is an information processor that collects input from your senses. But it also generates thoughts—sometimes helpful, sometimes misleading.

Franklin uses a simple example: Is my craving for ice cream coming from my body, my mind, or my soul? That question highlights the need to discern where our impulses originate. He extends this concept to online interactions: How many thoughts do we have just from seeing something online? How many narratives do we construct before our soul even has a chance to process reality?

Online spaces, Franklin argues, give rise to what he calls the “inner troll.”🧌 He connects this to the spiritual concept of demons—forces that seek to provoke, enrage, and divide. “Think about the term ‘troll,’” he says. “What is that, really? It’s an inner demon that gets let loose online. The internet makes it easy for our worst instincts to take over.”

So, what’s the antidote? Franklin emphasizes the importance of the pause. Before reacting to something online, before getting swept into outrage, take a step back. Ask: What is happening here? What am I feeling? Is this a real threat, or is my mind generating a reaction?

“It’s extremely hard to do online,” Franklin admits. “But when we practice stepping back, we can respond more humanely—more divinely. That’s the key to reclaiming critical thinking in a world that thrives on emotional manipulation.”

The digital age bombards us with narratives designed to capture our attention, manipulate our emotions, and direct our beliefs. But we are not powerless.

On an episode last season, we discussed a concept I learned from Dr. Greg Karris—something he calls narcissistic rage in fundamentalist ideologies. It helped me understand why people react so viscerally when their beliefs are challenged. My friend Jay described a similar idea as emotional hijacks, tying it to the amygdala’s response. This concept also appears in Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Daniel Goleman and is expanded upon in Pete Walker’s Complex PTSD.

When the amygdala gets triggered—exactly what Franklin was describing—we have to learn to recognize the physical sensations that come with it. Elevated heart rate. Sweaty palms. That’s your body sounding the alarm. But in that moment, your prefrontal cortex—the part responsible for logic and rational thinking—is offline. Your biology is overriding your soul’s intention. And that’s why taking a step back is so crucial.

The best way to get your higher reasoning back online? Create space. Pause. Let the emotional surge settle before you engage. As simple as it sounds, it’s one of the hardest things to do. But in a world where reactionary thinking is the default, practicing this skill is an act of rebellion—and a path to reclaiming our intellectual and emotional sovereignty.

Next, Franklin and I dive into a pressing issue: The Coddling of the Mind in society—a theme I’ve explored numerous times on the podcast and in my blogs. Franklin brings up a fascinating point, saying, “One thing that’s happened with COVID, though it started before, is the softening of humanity. We’ve become so soft that you can’t say anything anymore. And what that’s done is pushed away true intellectual rigor. We used to be able to sit and share ideas, but now we’re obsessed with safe spaces. And this started on college campuses.”

Franklin’s observation taps into a broader cultural shift that has eroded the foundations of intellectual engagement. In the past, people could engage in discussions where the goal wasn’t necessarily to convince others, but to explore ideas, challenge assumptions, and learn. The push for safe spaces—often an attempt to shield individuals from discomfort or offense—has inadvertently led to the silencing of open debate. In this environment, people have become more focused on avoiding offense than on confronting difficult ideas or engaging in intellectual rigor. This dynamic, Franklin argues, has stripped away the very essence of what it means to debate, discuss, and learn.

This idea echoes themes explored in Gad Saad’s The Parasitic Mind, where Saad delves into how certain ideologies undermine intellectual diversity and critical thinking. Franklin builds on this, urging that true intellectual growth comes from understanding where someone is coming from, even if their views differ from your own. “Learn what happened to individuals to understand how they arrived at their conclusions,” he says. “Remove personal bias and avoid attacks. Only then can you critique the point effectively, offering counterpoints that strengthen both arguments and allow experiences from both sides to shine.” This approach, Franklin explains, fosters a more nuanced understanding of each other’s perspectives, allowing both sides to learn and grow rather than simply entrenched in opposing views.

This fragility encourages echo chambers and groupthink, where dissent is silenced, and alternative perspectives are rejected outright. Ironically, in the pursuit of empathy, freedom, and inclusivity, movements like deconstruction can end up mirroring the same intellectual and moral rigidity they sought to escape.

I could continue typing out the entire conversation, or you could just listen. 🙂

In an age where the appearance of truth is often prioritized over truth itself, our ability to think critically is more important than ever. This episode is an invitation to break free from intellectual complacency and reclaim the power of questioning.

Article mentioned in the interview:

Posted on in carbs, challenges, dietculture, disorderedeating, exercise, fitness, fitnessjourney, health, holistic health, hormones, hypothyroidism, masterthebasics, metabolism, misinformation, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, science, self-help, socialmedia, veganism, vegetarianism, weightloss, wellness

The Real Story Behind Nutrition Research: Unpacking ‘Statistical Significance’

What You Need to Know About Risk and Bias

If you’ve ever been confused by conflicting diet headlines, you’re not alone! Nutrition research aims to help us understand how different foods impact our health, but the process isn’t always straightforward. From small sample sizes to biases and misinterpreted data, the field is full of challenges that can lead to mixed messages. Today, we’re breaking down the complex world of nutrition research, unpacking what it really tells us, what it doesn’t, and how we can read between the lines to make sense of it all.

This is a complex topic, especially when it comes to understanding terms like absolute and relative risk, which can often be confusing without a visual, so be sure to scroll along as you listen!

Let’s dive in!

I recently sat down with Jacqui, a passionate advocate for empowering women to understand and support their bodies at every life stage. Our conversation was deeply insightful, particularly as Jacqui highlighted the importance of critically assessing nutrition research, an area she’s worked in for years. From her early love for nutrition labels to her background in bio-nutritional statistics and clinical trials, Jacqui’s journey has led her to focus on prenatal research and nutrition that fosters development.

Throughout our interview, Jacqui stressed the need for a more nuanced approach when it comes to nutrition science, pointing out how certain research methodologies and common misinterpretations can lead us astray.

1. The Pitfalls of Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs)

One of Jacqui’s key points was the reliability—or lack thereof—of Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs), a tool frequently used to assess dietary habits. FFQs often rely on participants’ memory, which can be imprecise and subjective.

Jacqui shared her firsthand experience collecting FFQ data and witnessing how confused participants often were when asked to recall what they ate. This variability in data collection can significantly impact the accuracy of nutritional studies, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about diet and health.

FFQs, though commonly used in research, often do not capture the full complexity of individual diets. This leads to inaccuracies in studies that can misguide dietary guidelines and public health advice. Jacqui emphasized that this is a critical issue because it directly affects how we understand nutrition and the effectiveness of dietary recommendations.

Read more here

2. Understanding Relative Risk vs. Absolute Risk in Nutrition Headlines

Nutrition studies often grab attention with sensational headlines, particularly when they report relative risks. Jacqui explained how a “33% increase in risk” can sound alarming, but in many cases, it doesn’t reflect the real picture. The key issue here is the difference between relative risk and absolute risk.

  • Relative risk refers to the increased risk of a particular outcome in one group compared to another. While this sounds important, it can be misleading without context. For example, a small increase in relative risk might not translate to a significant increase in your actual chance of experiencing that outcome.
  • Absolute risk, on the other hand, tells us the actual probability of an event happening.

Jacqui stressed the importance of recognizing this distinction when reading nutrition headlines.

A 33% increase in relative risk might sound alarming, but when we examine the absolute risk, the actual impact could be much less significant. Understanding this distinction helps consumers interpret research with greater accuracy, preventing them from falling for misleading headlines.

  • Swipe through examples here!

Review Jacqui post here to learn more!

3. The Problem with ‘Statistically Significant’ Results

The term “statistically significant” often sounds impressive, but Jacqui warned that it’s not always a reliable indicator of a meaningful finding. In nutritional research, a statistically significant result means that the data supports a specific conclusion beyond what could be expected by chance. However, Jacqui compared this to winning a small lottery: just because the result is statistically significant doesn’t necessarily mean it’s practically important.

In many cases, results that are statistically significant may not have a meaningful or clinically significant impact on real-world outcomes. For example, a study might show a statistically significant difference in health markers between two groups, but the actual difference might be so small that it doesn’t matter in terms of improving health.

When encountering results labeled as statistically significant, Jacqui advised readers to take a step back and ask: Is this result meaningful in the real world, or is it just a statistical fluke?

4. Why Nutritional Research Seems Contradictory

Another fascinating part of our conversation focused on the reasons why nutritional research can often feel contradictory. Jacqui pointed out that factors like small sample sizes, observational study designs, and various biases can skew the outcomes of studies. These variables contribute to conflicting opinions and conclusions in the field of nutrition.

Moreover, biases—whether financial or ideological—can shape the results of studies and the way findings are interpreted. For instance, when a study is funded by a food company, the results might be more favorable toward the products of that company, consciously or unconsciously.

Jacqui encouraged listeners to develop a critical eye when reading nutrition studies. Instead of accepting conclusions at face value, she suggested asking questions like: What’s the sample size? Who funded the study? What biases could influence the results?

5. How to Approach Nutrition Research as an Informed Consumer

So, how should we navigate the sea of nutrition research to make informed decisions about our food? Jacqui’s advice is simple yet powerful: approach nutrition research with a critical mindset.

Here’s how to do it:

  • Look beyond the headlines: Understand the difference between relative and absolute risk and question whether the findings are clinically significant.
  • Question study design: Be wary of studies with small sample sizes or those that rely on self-reported data, like FFQs. Also, consider the biases that may influence results.
  • Seek balanced perspectives: Look for research that examines multiple viewpoints and is not influenced by financial or ideological pressures.

Jacqui’s passion for empowering women through nutrition, particularly prenatal research, shines through in her work. By shedding light on the limitations and complexities of nutrition research, she offers us a much-needed roadmap to make informed decisions about our health. Whether you’re navigating the confusion of wellness trends or simply trying to understand what’s truly healthy, Jacqui’s insights can help us all approach nutrition with more clarity and skepticism.

Want more insights from Jacqui? Follow her on Instagram, where she shares practical advice and challenges the latest trends in wellness.

Learn more about Jacqui

Work with Jacqui: https://www.wellnesswithjacqui.co.za/contact 

The lazy cookbook https://www.wellnesswithjacqui.co.za/product-page/the-lazy-cookbook

Women’s health course: https://cominghometoyourself.thinkific.com/courses/coming-home-to-yourself

Stay curious, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in!

Posted on in americandieteticassociation, brainhealth, challenges, conspiracies, deconstruction, ellenGwhite, evolution, fitness, goal setting, historicalfigures, history, holistic health, hormones, industrialinfluence, influencers, mental health, mentalhealth, nervous system, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, progressives, pseudoscience, self-help, seventh-day adventist church, socialjustice, thyroid health, vagus nerve, veganism, vegetarianism

Is Veganism a Psy-Op? Maybe. The Real Issue is Engineering Ourselves Away from Nature

In today’s complex world of nutrition and health, embracing skepticism and critical thinking is essential. Rather than accepting dominant narratives, challenge them to uncover the truth.

🥕 Veganism vs. Meat: What’s the Real Issue? 🥕

The debate over veganism often gets tangled in oversimplified conspiracies. However, the real concern lies in our growing disconnect from nature’s balance. Our modern lifestyles and diets are increasingly detached from natural ecosystems, which profoundly affects our health and well-being.

To truly grasp the nuances of nutrition and health, especially when it comes to veganism, we must examine how our beliefs have been shaped by science, history, and religion. Over the next few weeks, we will time traveling through the last century to see how these elements intertwine and influence our perspectives on veganism.

🔬Before Lobbyism: The Golden Age of Nutritional Science 🔬

Before the rise of lobbyism and industrial influence in the mid-20th century, nutritional science was marked by pioneering research that laid the groundwork for our understanding of essential nutrients. One such figure was Elmer McCollum: Vitamin Pioneer.

Elmer McCollum, a prominent nutrition researcher in the early 20th century, made groundbreaking discoveries regarding vitamins A, B, C, and D. His work was instrumental in identifying the role of these vitamins in preventing nutritional deficiencies.

Vitamin A (Retinol): McCollum’s work significantly advanced the understanding of vitamin A, which is crucial for vision, immune function, and skin health. Retinol, the active form of vitamin A, is primarily found in animal-based foods like liver, fish oils, eggs, and dairy products. Unlike plant-based sources, which provide provitamin A carotenoids like beta-carotene that the body must convert into retinol, animal sources deliver this vitamin in its ready-to-use form.

🧬 BCO1 Gene and Vitamin A 🧬

Did you know that about 45% of people have a genetic variation that makes it hard for them to get enough vitamin A from plant foods? This is because of a gene called BCO1.

The BCO1 gene is responsible for converting beta-carotene (found in carrots, sweet potatoes, and other plants) into active vitamin A, also known as retinol. But for almost half of the population, this gene doesn’t work very efficiently, meaning their bodies can’t make enough vitamin A from plants alone.

Vitamin A is crucial for things like good vision, a strong immune system, and healthy skin. If you can’t get enough from plants, you might need to include animal foods like liver, fish oils, or dairy in your diet to make sure you’re meeting your vitamin A needs.

This explains why some people might struggle with a vegan diet—they need the more easily absorbed form of vitamin A that comes from animal products.

McCollum’s research emphasized the importance of unprocessed, nutrient-rich foods in maintaining health. Diets high in refined grains can exacerbate nutritional deficiencies by displacing more nutrient-dense foods. This indirectly touches on the issues, we see today related to grain consumption, though McCollum’s era was more focused on preventing deficiencies than on inflammation.

The Refinement of Grains: A Double-Edged Sword

As the food industry grew and refined processing techniques became widespread, the nutritional value of grains was compromised. The removal of bran and germ during processing not only reduced the essential vitamins and minerals in grains but also increased their glycemic index. This shift contributed to inflammation and other metabolic issues, like Type-2 Diabetes a concern that has become more prominent in later research.

A Shift in Focus: From Nutritional Science to Industrial Influence

McCollum’s era represents a time when nutritional science was still largely driven by the quest to understand and prevent deficiencies. However, as we moved into the mid-20th century, the influence of lobbyists and industrial interests began to muddy the waters, promoting processed foods and refined grains that strayed from McCollum’s principles of whole, nutrient-rich foods.

🥕 The Influence of Religion and Early Health Movements 🥕

Ellen G. White, a key figure in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, significantly impacted early American dietetics with her advocacy for a plant-based diet and abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine. Her health reforms, which emphasized vegetarianism and whole foods, were institutionalized through health institutions like the Battle Creek Sanitarium and figures like Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. The sanitarium’s success and the dissemination of these dietary principles led to the establishment of the American Dietetic Association in 1917, which originally promoted many of these plant-based, whole-food principles. The Adventist emphasis on preventive health care and diet principles laid the groundwork for many modern dietary guidelines and continue to influence discussions around veganism.

🔬 The Role of Science in Shaping Dietary Beliefs 🔬

In the early 20th century, scientific advancements also played a role in shaping nutrition. The Fetner Report highlighted the need for standardized nutritional guidelines and brought attention to the importance of vitamins and minerals. Meanwhile, innovations like Crisco introduced hydrogenated fats into American diets, shifting culinary practices and influencing our understanding of what constitutes a healthy diet.

In a future episode dropping 9/10, we’ll take a deeper dive into how industrialization, scientific reports, and influential figures like John D. Rockefeller and Ancel Keys have further impacted our dietary beliefs and public health policies. Stay tuned as we explore:

  • The Flexner Report: How it reshaped medical education and its ripple effects on nutrition science.
  • The Rise of Processed Foods: The transformation of our food supply and its long-term health implications.
  • Rockefeller’s Influence: The role of industrial interests in shaping modern dietary guidelines.
  • Ancel Key’s: His research became highly influential in the field of nutrition, primarily took place during the mid-20th century, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s. His most famous work, the Seven Countries Study, began in 1958 and was published over several decades. This research was pivotal in linking dietary fat, particularly saturated fat, to heart disease and played a significant role in shaping dietary guidelines that emphasized reducing fat intake to prevent cardiovascular disease. Now adays it is seen as deeply controversial due to several perceived flaws that have been widely discussed by critics over the years.

How does current research define the top nutrient-dense foods?

📰 Spotlight on Micronutrient Density: A Key to Combatting Global Deficiencies

A March 2022 study published in Frontiers in Nutrition titled “Priority Micronutrient Density in Foods” emphasizes the importance of nutrient-dense foods in addressing global micronutrient deficiencies, particularly in vulnerable populations. The research identifies organ meats, small fish, dark leafy greens, shellfish, and dairy products as some of the most essential sources of vital nutrients like vitamin A, iron, and B12. These findings could be instrumental in shaping dietary guidelines and nutritional policies.

🔗 Read more here.

🍽️ Plant vs. Animal Nutrients: Understanding Bioavailability 🍽️

When it comes to nutrient absorption, not all foods are created equal. The bioavailability of nutrients—the proportion that our bodies can absorb and use—varies significantly between plant and animal sources.

🌱 Plant-Based Nutrients: While plant foods are rich in essential vitamins and minerals, they also contain anti-nutrients like phytates and oxalates. These compounds can bind to minerals such as iron, calcium, and zinc, inhibiting their absorption. For example, non-heme iron found in plants is less efficiently absorbed compared to the heme iron from animal sources. Similarly, the vitamin A found in plants as beta-carotene requires conversion to retinol in the body, a process that is not always efficient, particularly in certain populations.

🍖 Animal-Based Nutrients: Animal products, on the other hand, often provide nutrients in forms that are more readily absorbed. Heme iron from meat, retinol from animal liver, and vitamin B12 from dairy and eggs are all examples of highly bioavailable nutrients. These forms are directly usable by the body without the need for complex conversions, making animal products a more reliable source for certain essential nutrients.

🌍 Global Property Rights: Gender Inequality 🌍

Promoting veganism can unintentionally undermine the very principles of women’s rights and social justice that the political left often advocates for. In many countries, women face significant legal and cultural barriers that prevent them from owning land, despite laws that may suggest otherwise. However, in these same regions, women often have the ability to own and manage livestock, which serves as a crucial economic resource and a form of wealth.

This disparity highlights the persistent challenges in achieving gender equality in property rights, especially in rural areas where land ownership is key to economic independence and security. While livestock ownership is valuable, it doesn’t offer the same level of security or social status as land ownership. The lack of land rights perpetuates gender inequality, limiting women’s economic power, social status, and access to resources.

🌿 Plant-Based Diets and Environmental Costs 🌿

Plant-based diets are often praised for their environmental benefits, yet it’s crucial to recognize the complexities involved. While the availability of vegan foods has significantly improved, making it easier than ever to follow a plant-based diet, this increased accessibility does not necessarily equate to better environmental outcomes.

Many vegan products rely heavily on industrial agriculture and monocropping practices. These methods can lead to deforestation, soil depletion, and the loss of biodiversity. The production of popular vegan ingredients, such as soy and almonds, often involves large-scale farming that can have detrimental effects on local ecosystems. Additionally, the industrial processes used to produce processed vegan foods, including heavy use of pesticides, fertilizers, and water, also contribute to environmental concerns.

Understanding these trade-offs is crucial for making informed dietary choices. Opting for sustainably farmed, organic produce and supporting local farmers can help mitigate some of these negative impacts. It’s not just about choosing plant-based foods, but also about how they are produced.

🔄 Ethical Food Choices 🔄

Making ethical food choices involves a comprehensive evaluation of your diet’s impact on health, the environment, and animal welfare. While plant-based diets can be a step towards reducing your carbon footprint, it’s important to consider the broader implications of industrial agriculture and monocropping. Strive for a balanced approach that aligns with your values and promotes sustainability. This might include supporting local and organic options, as well as exploring ways to minimize your environmental impact through diverse and responsible food choices.

By being mindful of these factors, you can better navigate the complexities of dietary decisions and work towards a more ethical and sustainable future.

🔍 Listen to Our Podcast for More 🔍

For an in-depth exploration of these topics and more, tune into our podcast. We offer detailed discussions and insights into how history, science, and societal trends shape our understanding of nutrition and health. Stay curious and informed!

In a future episode dropping 9/10, we’ll take a deeper dive into how industrialization, scientific reports, and influential figures like John D. Rockefeller have further impacted our dietary beliefs and public health policies. Stay tuned as we explore:

  • The Flexner Report: How it reshaped medical education and its ripple effects on nutrition science.
  • The Rise of Processed Foods: The transformation of our food supply and its long-term health implications.
  • Rockefeller’s Influence: The role of industrial interests in shaping modern dietary guidelines.

The interplay of religion, science, and industry has profoundly influenced our beliefs about veganism and nutrition. By understanding these historical and scientific contexts, we gain insight into the broader impact on our dietary choices and health.

Don’t miss the upcoming episode where we’ll explore these themes in greater depth!

Resources:

1. Historical and Nutritional Science:

“Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” by Weston A. Price: Examines traditional diets and their impact on health, providing historical context for nutritional science.

“The Adventist Health Study: 30 Years of Research” edited by Gary E. Fraser: Covers the impact of vegetarian diets advocated by the Seventh-day Adventists.

“Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health” by Marion Nestle: Examines how food industries shape dietary guidelines and public perception.

“The Vitamin D Solution” by Michael F. Holick: Offers insights into the importance of Vitamin D, complementing McCollum’s work on essential nutrients.

Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (Library of Religious Biography) Paperback – July 2, 2008

Articles:

“Ellen G. White and the Origins of American Vegetarianism” from Journal of the American Dietetic Association: Explores the historical influence of Ellen G. White on American dietetics.

“Elmer McCollum: The Vitamin Pioneer” from The Journal of Nutrition: Provides an overview of McCollum’s contributions to nutritional science.

Genetic Factors and Vitamin A

  • Research Papers:
    • “The Role of Genetic Variability in Vitamin A Metabolism” by Steven A. Arneson et al. (Journal of Nutrition): Discusses the genetic factors affecting Vitamin A conversion.
    • “BCO1 Genetic Variation and Beta-Carotene Conversion” in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Explores how genetic differences impact the conversion of beta-carotene to Vitamin A.

The Impact of Industrial Agriculture

  • Books:
    • “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” by Michael Pollan: Investigates the industrial food system and its environmental impact.
    • “The End of Food” by Paul Roberts: Looks at the global food industry and its implications for health and the environment.
  • Articles:
    • “The Hidden Costs of Industrial Agriculture” from Environmental Research Letters: Analyzes the ecological impacts of industrial farming practices.

1. Regenerative Agriculture Principles and Practices

  • Books:
    • “Regenerative Agriculture: How to Create a Self-Sustaining Farm Ecosystem” by Richard Perkins: Provides a comprehensive guide to regenerative farming practices.
    • “The Regenerative Garden: How to Grow Healthy Soil and Manage Your Garden for the Future” by Maria Rodale: Focuses on regenerative techniques for gardening.
    • “Dirt to Soil: One Family’s Journey into Regenerative Agriculture” by Gabe Brown: Shares practical experiences and insights from a farmer who has successfully implemented regenerative practices.
  • Articles:
    • “Regenerative Agriculture: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?” from Regenerative Agriculture Initiative: Provides an overview of regenerative agriculture principles and benefits.
    • “The Benefits of Regenerative Agriculture for Soil Health and Sustainability” from Agronomy Journal: Discusses how regenerative practices impact soil health and sustainability.

2. Sustainable and Ecological Farming

  • Books:
    • “The Soil Will Save Us: How Scientists, Farmers, and Foodies Are Healing the Soil to Save the Planet” by Kristin Ohlson: Explores how soil health can be restored through sustainable practices.
    • “Beyond the Jungle: Regenerative Agroforestry and Resilient Communities” by S. H. Smith: Examines the role of agroforestry in regenerative practices and community resilience.
  • Articles:
    • “Sustainable Agriculture and Its Impact on Environmental Conservation” from Sustainable Agriculture Research: Analyzes how sustainable farming methods contribute to environmental conservation.
    • “Ecological Farming: Benefits Beyond the Farm Gate” from Ecology and Society: Looks at the broader ecological benefits of adopting ecological farming practices.

3. Soil Health and Carbon Sequestration

  • Books:
    • “The Carbon Farming Solution: A Global Toolkit of Perennial Crops and Regenerative Agriculture Practices for Climate Change Mitigation and Food Security” by Eric Toensmeier: Focuses on using regenerative practices to sequester carbon and improve soil health.
    • “Soil: The Incredible Story of What Keeps Us Alive” by David R. Montgomery: Provides an in-depth look at soil science and its crucial role in agriculture and climate stability.
  • Articles:
    • “Carbon Sequestration and Soil Health: The Role of Regenerative Agriculture” from Agricultural Systems: Discusses how regenerative agriculture practices contribute to carbon sequestration and soil health.
    • “Soil Organic Matter and Its Role in Carbon Sequestration” from Journal of Soil and Water Conservation: Explores the importance of soil organic matter in maintaining soil health and sequestering carbon.

4. Food Systems and Regenerative Practices

  • Books:
    • “The Ecology of Food: A Historical Perspective” by Peter M. Smith: Provides historical context on food systems and their ecological impact.
    • “The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals” by Michael Pollan: While it explores various food systems, it touches on sustainable and regenerative practices in agriculture.
  • Articles:
    • “The Future of Food: Regenerative Agriculture and Its Role in Sustainable Food Systems” from Food Policy: Examines the role of regenerative agriculture in creating sustainable food systems.
    • “Regenerative Agriculture and Food Security: An Integrative Approach” from Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics: Looks at how regenerative practices contribute to food security and sustainability.

Gender Inequality and Property Rights

  • Books:
    • “Women, Work, and Property: Gender Inequality and the Economic Impact of Land Rights” by Elizabeth N. L. Allwood: Analyzes the intersection of gender, land ownership, and economic empowerment.
  • Articles:
    • “Gender and Land Rights: A Global Overview” from World Development: Examines gender disparities in land ownership and its implications for women’s economic status.

“Women in Half the World Still Denied Land, Property Rights Despite Laws.”