Brendon Marotta

No-evidence medicine is all around us:

• “There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission of coronavirus.”
• “There is no evidence masks work to prevent transmission.”
• “There is no evidence of airborne transmission of COVID-19.”
• “There is no evidence that early life trauma affects people later in life.”
• “There is no evidence that infant circumcision causes long-term harm.”
• “There is no evidence that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer.”

No-evidence medicine is the idea that because a practitioner or organization is not aware of the evidence for an idea then there must not be any evidence, and the idea can be dismissed without further inquiry.

You’ve encountered no evidence medicine if you’ve ever had this exchange:

“Do you have a study for that?”
“Yes.” *provides study*
“Well, I’ve never heard of that study before!”

Or this exchange::

“We don’t have any evidence of that.”
“Well, shouldn’t we do some research?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“Because there is no evidence!”

No-evidence medicine is a form of narcissism. When children hide their eyes, they think the world has gone away. Likewise, practitioners of no-evidence medicine think if they pretend the evidence isn’t there, the idea they ignore ceases to be true.

When a practitioner of no-evidence medicine is forced to acknowledge the evidence, they will never admit they once argued the opposite. Or if they do, they will say “but how could we have known!” as if there weren’t others trying to show them the evidence.

The response of medical organizations, media, and politicians to COVID-19 has provided many examples of no-evidence medicine:

Have any of these groups acknowledged that up until February they were calling COVID-19 “just the flu” and telling people to go out?

I also wrote a whole article detailing the no-evidence medicine medical establishments were practicing around COVID-19 that you can read here.

Another example: January 24 the World Health Organization wrote about potential COVID019 treatment Chloroquine that “there is insufficient evidence to support its further investigation.” In other words, ‘there is no-evidence… and don’t go researching to find more!’

Evidence-based medicine is about admitting what you do not know and researching it further. No-evidence medicine is about saying that what you currently know is the sum of all possible knowledge and refusing to research it further.

• Evidence-based medicine: “We don’t know, so we should research it further.”
• No-evidence medicine: “We don’t know and don’t want to, so don’t research it further.”

You can tell where no-evidence medicine is being practiced by what is not being researched. For example, in my documentary American Circumcision interview subjects bring up how there are no longitudinal studies on circumcision, and certainly none on its impact on men’s feelings or psychological experience.

The next time you see someone say there is “no evidence” of something, see if they are open to evidence. If not, you are talking to a practitioner of “no-evidence medicine” not evidence-based medicine.

Read More: People Will Die If The Medical Establishment Censors COVID-19 Discussion

If you’ve never used supplements, this guide is for you.

I had someone ask me recently (when they saw my cabinet full of supplements): “What supplements should I be taking?”

This person had never used any kind of supplements before, wanted to take better care of their health, and didn’t know where to start.

The answer I gave them might be helpful if you’re in the same position.

There is a lot of health advice online for hardened “gym bros” or “biohackers” who know what they are doing, but less for those just starting out.

If that’s you, this is your guide.

Disclaimer: I’m not your doctor. This isn’t absolute health advice, just what I’ve found in my own personal experience.

Supplements are meant to supplement, not replace.

First: supplements are meant to supplement, not replace.

Most of your nutrition should come from whole foods.

If you can supplement a vitamin, or get the same vitamin by adding more of a leafy green to your diet, eat the greens.

For example, if you’re low in selenium, you could supplement that or add a few Brazil nuts to your diet. Brazil nuts will be cheaper and better for you.

You might not even need supplements if your diet is good.

That said, the best thing you can do is:

Get comprehensive blood testing.

You can get a blood test that will tell you every nutrient you are deficient in or need to more of.

You can get these through your doctor, or a company I did video for a few years back for called WellnessFX (not affiliate).

For around $200, they will give you a report with everything you are deficient in and set up a phone consultation where someone walks you through what you need to get more of in your diet.

This way you’ll know what you need to supplement and why. (Plus, you won’t waste money on supplements you don’t need.)

The Two Supplements You Probably Need

If you can’t afford a blood test, these are the two best places to start:

Vitamin D – Almost everyone is Vitamin D deficient because Vitamin D only comes from the sun.

If you spend all day indoors or live in a part of the country where it’s cloudy (like the entire Bay Area) or it’s winter and there is not much sunlight… you might need more vitamin D.

Basically, if you aren’t out in the noon-day sun on a regular basis, you might be vitamin D low.

Vitamin D affects mood, testosterone, and a bunch of other things. If you get “low energy” or depressed during the winter, it’s probably vitamin D deficiency.

Greens Supplement – A comprehensive greens supplement is the best thing you can add. I use Green Vibrance, but there are many like it.

These supplements have extracts of all the major greens. Instead of adding vitamin A, they just use spinach extract, which is high in vitamin A.

Drinking this is like taking a pile of extra greens each day.

If you get Vitamin D and a greens supplement, it’ll probably cost you $80 every three months, and cover most things. Best bang for your buck in supplementing.

Supplementing For Specific Goals

But wait – don’t I have a bunch of supplements in my cabinet? Am I deficient in a lot of things?

The other reason to supplement is to reach specific goals or challenges.

For example, if you have trouble sleeping, try adding magnesium before bed. If you are depressed, many people have found HTP5 helpful. If you want to concentrate, there are a range of nootropics.

Don’t even get me started on testosterone supplements. Too many to count.

Here, we go beyond this intro guide. If you want to supplement for specific problems, you’re getting into deeper territory you’ll need another guide for.

But if you’re looking to start… try these:

Summary

• Get comprehensive blood testing
• Vitamin D
• Greens supplement

What would you say if during the COVID-19 pandemic there was an organization messaging person after person on social media to tell them that there was no human-to-human transmission of coronavirus?

What if this group was also telling people not to use interventions that worked, like masks, and encouraged interventions that would increase virus transmission?

Would you say this group should be publicly shamed? Banned from social media? Shut-down by the government? Or simply ignored and not trusted in the future?

Do you have an answer?

Good. Hold that answer in mind, because unfortunately there was a group doing all of these things. Not only have they not acknowledged their error, but they are now demanding censorship power over social media in order to silence voices that contradict them.

I’m talking of course about the medical establishment.

Here is what the medical establishment did during the COVID-19 pandemic:

Denying Human-To-Human Transmission

In the earliest days of the COVID-19, the World Health Organization wrote that there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus.”

Not only did WHO say there was “no-human-to-human transmission,” but they replied to person after person on social media telling them that there was no transmission.

 

Of course, there is human-to-human transmission of coronavirus. It spreads so easily that many governments put entire cities and states in quarantine to prevent transmission.

Denying Masks Work

The US surgeon told people to “STOP BUYING MASKS” because “they are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching #Coronavirus.”

Studies show that an 80% mask usage rate “essentially eliminated the influenza outbreak.”
(Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30229968/ )

Mask-wearing countries have done the best during the COVID-19 outbreak.

The evidence is clear: masks work.

The US Surgeon General further complicated their statement by suggesting that masks somehow work for healthcare professionals, but not the general public.

The medical establishment was not prepared, did not have masks, and was not able to get masks.

Rather than admitting they were not prepared, the medical establishment lied to the public about what would keep them safe in order to protect their own interests.

EDIT: Since publishing this, WHO has also engaged in mask-denialism.

 

Increasing Transmission

US Surgeon general also told people to “get your #FluShot.”

The flu vaccine has been found to increase susceptibility to coronavirus.
(Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31607599/)

In other words, the US Surgeon General promoted an intervention to reduce the spread of coronavirus that increased the transmission of COVID-19.

Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, the medical establishment lead a campaign against any who questioned vaccines. Major tech companies banned anti-vaccine media and organizations from their platforms. One doctor even suggested anti-vaccine organizations should be labeled as hate groups.

After removing any group that would question vaccine safety, the medical establishment promoted a vaccine that might have increased COVID-19 transmission.

Who Should You Trust

When I shared an early pitch of this article with a friend, he replied that it would not be a good idea to suggest that people are better off looking up information on the internet than trusting the advice of medical experts.

Yet that’s the problem: In the early days of COVID-19, you would have been safer following the advice of bloggers than medical organizations.

In the early days of COVID-19, the medical establishment told people: Coronavirus is not transmitted between humans. You don’t need masks. Don’t prepare.

In the early days of COVID-19, independent online voices said: Coronavirus could disrupt business as usual. Prepare by buying whatever supplies you need now and limiting your exposure.

The medical establishment could not even get masks for themselves in many cases. They were willing to lie to the public to cover for their own lack of preparedness and act against your interests for their own.

There is a line in the film No Country for Old Men where Anton Chigurh asks a character who is about to die: “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”

Similarly, we must ask those saying we should “trust the experts”: if trusting the “experts” brought you to this, of what use were the experts?

Censorship Will Cost Lives

Now, medical organizations are seeking power to censor social media. Twitter has said they will censor content that denies “expert guidance.”

Had this rule been in effect during the beginning of COVID-19, all of the independent voices contradicting WHO, warning that there was human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 would have been censored.

Of course, twitter will not apply this rule universally. Chinese propagandists can still post whatever they want about the virus, and WHO will not be penalized for spreading false information.

The medical establishment claims that members of the public are not capable of understanding medical issues, and will spread misinformation if allowed to have an open conversation.

COVID-19 shows that members of the public understood the pandemic and were better prepared for it than medical organizations. It was the medical establishment that spread misinformation.

If this censorship had been in place prior to COVID-19, more people would have died. I was prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic in February due to the work of independent sources like Mike Cernovich and Balaji Srinivasan. Those who followed “expert guidance” were not.

Credentialism Kills

In the years prior to COVID-19, I made a documentary on circumcision.

When presented with evidence that circumcision was harmful, some doctors would sneer “your google search does not replace my medical degree!”

This is the argument of credentialism. Credentialism is the belief that only those with academic credentials or positions of authority in establishment organizations can have valid opinions on public issues.

Now, the medical establishment is the same argument of credentialism to censor social medial. They want a world in which the only viewpoints heard are those validated by their organizations.

Credentialism is a death cult. Those who support censoring social media or preventing those without credentials from questioning medical issues, support an ideology that will cause people to die, because that is what would happen if independent voices had not been allowed to question the early consensus of the medical establishment on COVID-19.

I know that members of the medical establishment, including those from the organizations that mislead the public about COVID-19, might attack me for writing this. They will say you should not listen to me because I do not have their credentials.

Yet that is the issue: If a person with no credentials could see this issue clearer than them and was better prepared than their organizations, of what use were their credentials?

What that argument points to is that we must open all issues to those without credentials, and evaluate each point of view based on the evidence rather than an appeal to authority. We must keep all debates censorship-free because if we don’t it could cost people their lives.

Consequences For The Establishment

There must be consequences for the medical establishment.

Flip the situation. Suppose a group of Facebook moms told people that coronavirus could not be transmitted between humans, masks don’t work, and encouraged interventions that increased virus transmission.

How would the medical establishment treat them?

Shouldn’t we at least hold the medical establishment to the same standard as Facebook moms? If anything, we should hold them to a higher standard, because they have greater power and influence.

Right now, the medical establishment is trying to pretend like they did not mislead the public during COVID-19 and make this crisis worse.

If any other person or organization did what the medical establishment did, they would bring it up in every future article written about them. “WHO, an organization that told people coronavirus could not be transmitted between humans, said…”

There will not be consequences for the medical establishment unless we do the same. The medical establishment deserves to be held to the same standard they hold others to. People’s lives depend on it.

Brendon Marotta is the director of American Circumcision. He has no academic credentials, but many of the people who appear in his film and have praised his work do.

---

Please share this article anywhere you see credentialism.

Originally published on BrendonMarotta.com. You have my permission to repost it on your website or blog as long as you link back to the original.

Since many of our friends only know one of us, my fiance and I each wrote something on what we love about the other. Enjoy.

Read More: I Proposed To My Girlfriend

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a classic game theory question that goes like this:

You and your criminal partner are captured by the police.

You are put in separate interrogation rooms with no way to communicate with each other.

The police tell you that they have enough evidence to convict you each for one year in prison.

If you defect and tell the police your partner committed the crime, you will get no prison time and your partner will get three years.

However, your partner is getting the same speech. If he defects and says you did it, you will get three years and he will get none.

If you both defect, you’ll both get two years, because they have testimony from each of you against the other.

A chart of the outcomes would look like this:

Do you cooperate or defect?

The Dilemma In Society

Before you answer, let’s look at some examples in society.

Say you and your community share a park.

If you all pick up your trash, the park looks nice.

If you don’t pick up your trash, you do less work, but everyone else has to pick up your trash for you.

If you pick up your trash, but everyone else doesn’t, you have to do extra work or the park still looks trashy.

If no one picks up trash, the park turns into a dump.

Many social taboos develop around a prisoner’s dilemma, where one persons actions do not matter except in the aggregate. The same dilemma could be used for recycling, reducing your environmental impact, lying etc.

The way society usually handles such prisoner’s dilemma is to create a penalty for defecting. In the case of littering, there is a social taboo and also often a fine. While it might be worth it for one person to litter, it isn’t worth the shame and ticket.

Here is another:

If neither of our countries build nuclear weapons, we are safe.

If my country builds nukes, we can dominate you.

If your country builds nukes, you can dominate us.

If we both build nukes, we are in a nuclear arms race and neither are safe.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma was used to understand the Cold War. Because neither side could trust the other to disarm, both stockpiled nukes, which made each side feel unsafe.

The Dilemma In Politics

The Prisoner’s Dilemma can also be applied to politics.

Here is an example:

If each of us focuses on the issues, we have a civil debate.

If my side smears yours with fake labels and attacks, we win.

If your side smears mine with fake labels and attacks, you win.

If we both smear the other with fake labels and attacks, we spend all our time fighting and never discuss the issues.

Does this sound like modern politics?

How would you respond to such a situation?

Winning The Prisoner’s Dilemma

So what is the winning move?

First, the game changes if you’re playing more than one round.

In a one round game, from a pure game theory perspective, you should almost always defect.

However, most people don’t do that. Studies of the Prisoner’s Dilemma show that people cooperate far more than what a pure “trying to win” strategy would predict. This shows that people are naturally cooperative, and a good sign for us.

Plus, if you’re doing more than one round, it’s the right strategy.

If you and someone else are doing ten rounds of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, and you defect the first round, you can bet they’ll get you back by defecting the other nine, because you’ve broken their trust.

In a long game, there are only two times to defect: When you think your opponent will always defect or when you think your opponent will never defect.

If your opponent will defect every round, you need to take your score from three years to two and do the best you can.

If your opponent will always cooperate, then they are a doormat and you can walk all over them. (This is why very kind people sometimes get “screwed” in ways that seem unfair.)

It also means to correct strategy is to co-operate until people cross your boundaries.

Computers playing the game have found “tit for tat” to be a winning strategy – meaning that you co-operate the first round, and then do whatever your opponent did last round back to them.

Challenges of The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Of course, we are not computers. Sometimes our perception is not accurate.

If you’ve been told your opponent is absolutely evil, you might think they’ll never co-operate, and start defecting when they have actually been very co-operative.

If you have trauma, you might perceive your opponent as defecting based on your trigger, when they aren’t.

If you’ve been conditioned by abusive relationships not to have boundaries, you might co-operate with people who are clearly taking advantage of you.

In the real world, The Prisoner’s Dilemma is not as simple. It is a game of trust, and trust is frequently broken, especially in relationship with opponents.

The biggest challenge of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is:

People do not realize that they are in relationship with their opponents.

In the model of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, no one has more power over someone than their opponents.

Say your political party believes the other side is full of evil racist bigots (i.e. they will defect). You start smearing them with that label (you defect). At first they co-operate by saying “no, we are not” and take actions to demonstrate that.

However, you think this is just a ploy for votes, and continue the smear. On a long enough timeline, they will have to defect. This might mean using the same smears back, or not policing rhetoric that is offensive, but will get them votes. After all, if you’re going to call them names no matter what, why co-operate?

Is that immoral? Maybe. But this is politics. Do you expect people to do the moral thing when it goes against their interests and will cause them to lose?

Of course, if they start being actually offensive, this will accelerate the game. The other side will have to defect harder, by increasing their rhetoric. This doesn’t lead to a good place.

The way to decelerate this game is to acknowledge co-operation on the other side. If you defect, and the other person responds by co-operating, acknowledge it even if it is not the full co-operation you might want.

Whatever your issue is, if there are two sides to it then the Prisoner’s Dilemma has implications. Are you co-operating or defecting? Are they?

Read More: What Inspired My Course On Crowdfunding Dream Projects