FDA Censorship: The Battle for Public Health Information
1 views4:20
This video uncovers the tension between government agencies, scientific evolution, and public health, sparked by a Supreme Court ruling on federal agency trust. We delve into the FDA's restrictive approach to health claims, questioning who truly dictates what information reaches the public.
Discover why science operates on probabilities, not absolute proofs, and how the FDA's censorship hinders informed health decisions. Through powerful examples like folic acid's impact on neural tube defects, witness the real-world harm caused when crucial, evidence-based health information is withheld, despite numerous studies demonstrating significant benefits.
Subscribe to the BrightVideos.com email newsletter to receive a daily digest of the most important and popular videos uploaded each day. (You can unsubscribe at any time.)
Transcript
Jonathan, this is highly relevant also because a recent Supreme Court decision involving the labeling of glyphosate, uh my understanding is, of course, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the court ruled that because a federal agency had said that the product is safe when used as directed, therefore the company cannot be held liable for lack of warning on the label. So in that case, the Supreme Court is saying, well, we can trust one government agency. But what you're saying is that the FDA is saying, we can't trust any agencies other than ourselves. Is that, am I saying that correctly? Yeah, and, and you know how ridiculous that is, particularly because, as you know, Mike, very well because you're a scientist, you know that science is evolutionary, it's a debate all the time. And so, um, in science, things are more probable than not and what is accepted today as a truism will probably within the next five years be debunked and there'll be a new theory in its place. That's the way science works. But we live here and now and we have to make decisions based on the best ...
