These policy challenges are compounded by the fact that the fossil fuel industry is blocking public transport initiatives that would otherwise have beneficial effects on health by promoting hiking and cycling and contributing to the development of anti-burden areas with their safety, comfort, beauty and public forum. While independent published documents, however scientifically credible they may be, can reach several hundred or thousands of people, basic medical products can reach a safe audience of several million people compared to them, despite the scientific or logical justification for their message. But in 2018, many of us saw not only badly done research, but also, in some cases, radical deviations from any attempt to present data and descriptions that could be considered “reasonable” by previous standards. In particular, in the context of nutrition, leading medical journals and the media monitoring their results have begun to spread open distortions in nutrition, ruthlessly ignoring science, logic, biomedical history and ethics. Of course, 2018 was not the first year in which “bad research” was published in medical journals and then reproduced in the echo chamber of the media, which has been regularly observed over the past 50 years, starting with the demonization of cholesterol in nutrition and the glorification of processed foods, including refined cereals and so-called vegetable oils. In American history, the first amendment to the U.S. founders never knew that the media would be privatized and centralized to such an extent that they could be controlled – not through direct government action, as the First Amendment said, but through political pressure on those media, i.e., by applying the First Amendment to freedom of expression and freedom of the press, the government had no obligation to prohibit anything, as it should only exert political and social pressure on those who disseminate information, such as bookstores, to As if false and fraudulent information isn’t enough, in early 2019 we are witnessing a shift from advertising to censorship, with U.S. politicians probably blocking information from bookstores and social networks on behalf of their pharmaceutical companies, which is not beneficial to the pharmaceutical paradigm. Various social media, film distributors and bookstores have decided to ban the discussion of iatrogenic side effects after taking various medicines, which means that millions of people do not have access to information that does not depend on direct pharmaceutical exposure. Unsurprisingly, the “medical community” publishes poorly conducted and selfish “research” on nutrition in order to reach the desired conclusion that nutrition is uncertain and inefficient, and that the lucrative market must be driven, of course, by the same “medical community” that has never received 15 minutes of therapeutic nutrition. Meanwhile, there is only one thing we can do to have an immediate positive effect – the exchange of accurate health and nutrition information – through resources that are not controlled by pharmaceutical interest groups – and this is our goal in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine and the International Society of Orthomolecular Medicine. The medical machine controls the media through major medical journals, medical news, and information and media sites such as television, magazines and newspapers. If it is impossible to openly discuss independent opinions and convincing conclusions on medical iatrogenic diseases, especially in the absence of an organized and effective post-market surveillance system, it will be so.