A Critical Report About Emeritus Professor Timothy Noakes
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A Critical Report About Emeritus Professor Timothy Noakes This report will hopefully not only serve as evidence but provide a much deeper explanation about the situation. To avoid defamation or libel (as there is absolutely no intention of such acts), this letter will be as evidence-based as possible and in the interest of public and online safety. It will also avoid directly labeling without any substantial evidence. In a world where addressing vaccine misinformation is critical and should be done without further delay, this report should be perceived as responsible communication on matters of public importance. What is written (e.g. vaccine safety and the impact of misinformation) is based partially on my interpretation of the literature available to the public, as well as directly from the evidence cited and or from the professional discussion about the evidence. An in-depth play by play of events throughout the years will be given. All screenshots were collected on January 2, 2020 and are freely accessible using Twitter’s “Advanced Search” feature. This report will try to answer certain questions such as: 1. “Has Tim Noakes shared or expressed controversial claims in the past? If so, is this still continuing?” 2. “Are these claims, retweets and re-publications based on truthful, accurate, up to date scientific information?” 3. “If not, could these claims and re-publications be misleading, harmful or even a public health threat? Moreover, what is the true impact of such information?” 4. “Do people defend Noakes’ misinformation? If so, how trustworthy are these defenses, and do they resemble or amplify the original misinformation?” 5. “Is there any relationship between the leaders of online misinformation and Noakes’ Twitter account via their shared followers?” 6. “If such misinformation and untruthful re-publications exist, are there rules and regulations already in place that discourage these acts?” All of this will tie into one central question: “Is There Evidence to Suggest That Tim Noakes Might Be Truly Anti-Vaccine?” Properly Rephrased: “Collectively, do Tim Noakes’ verbal and online language, social engagements, shared information, retweets, likes, and behaviors coincide with those who are opposed to or hesitant of vaccines?” This document will also try to follow closely to the World Health Organizations guiding principles on how to respond to vaccine misinformation and vocal vaccine deniers1: 1 CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Background – Non-Vaccine Topics ................................................................................................ 4 Background – Vaccines .................................................................................................................. 8 2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 8 2015 ........................................................................................................................................... 11 2016 ........................................................................................................................................... 12 2017 ........................................................................................................................................... 13 2018 ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Questionable Noakes Defender - Marika Sboros .......................................................................... 22 Cancer ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Vaccines .................................................................................................................................... 29 Current 2019 Events ..................................................................................................................... 39 Social Media’s True Impact .......................................................................................................... 65 Homogeneity of tactics, techniques and tropes ......................................................................... 65 Analysis of Tim Noakes’ Social Media .................................................................................... 73 Relevance and impact................................................................................................................ 79 Potential Rules & Regulations ...................................................................................................... 82 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 91 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 111 References ................................................................................................................................... 113 2 Introduction This is a separate issue from the original 4-year long nutrition trial with the HPCSA. The length of this past nutrition trial, it's coverage and negative impact on Noakes’ life adds further difficulty in writing this report and expressing its intent: that the 2014-2017 trial is a separate matter and the initial goal of writing this is not to amplify or continue the drama and personal attack that took place during the Low Carb High Fat Diet 2014-2017 trial. What is written is not an attempt to discredit the dietary advice given nor is it an attack on Noakes as a human being. Much criticism will be thrown at this report and some may think that this is connected to the previous trial, but that is not the case. What will be written is without preconceived opinions on that trial and thus does not compromise the intent or message of this report. Once again, what is written is with a non-malicious intent and should be perceived as in the interest of public health and online safety. Professor Timothy Noakes’ previous trial brings to light the fact that many aspects of nutritional and dietary debate have grey areas, but topics such as vaccinations do not have many. There is scientific consensus regarding safety, health effects, scheduling, etc., however, doubt about such topics is still spread through the online community and it is a matter of public, and worldwide, safety to lessen or remove misinformation. Noakes uses Twitter to educate himself, find new articles, share the information he has found and to “challenge conventional nutritional beliefs”.2 He also justifies “using Twitter because [he is] able to reach more people through the platform” – thus, it sounds like he uses his large social media following to his advantage, as many do. Writing about Noakes’ claims and statements is not out of the ordinary, with multiple blogs and posts from various professionals and members of the public doing so over the course of many years. In fact, quantifying and analyzing his tweets is also not a new task – as evident from a recent 2019 South African Masters Thesis dedicated to doing exactly this.2 Mr. Noakes has said in a December 2017 Tweet: “Let’s be certain of one thing: Vaccination is one of the true successes of modern medicine and has probably saved more lives than any other treatment in the history of medicine”, however, his behaviors on social media seem to go in the opposite direction. The argument could be made that in public health, actions speak louder than words. We will come back to this claim later. Overall, the general narrative given is that Noakes expresses anti-vaccine narratives and concerns over vaccine safety, however, “vaccine-safety concerns … may snowball into societal tragedies when the media and the public confuse association with causality and shun immunisation.”3 It is a health professional’s responsible duty to emphasize “to patients [and the public] that there is a strong consensus in the medical community that vaccinations are safe, and that most doctors agree that adults and children alike should receive all recommended vaccines.”4 The majority of what Tim Noakes has shared contradicts that duty and diminishes this consensus. 3 Background – Non-Vaccine Topics To begin, Timothy Noakes has promoted many topics in the past that some may believe are, to varying degrees, controversial. There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with some controversy, but many problems arise when someone endorses sources that promote untruthful, potentially dangerous information – as we will see in this report. Tim Noakes expresses that he does not wish to be controversial5, however, it becomes problematic when some of the topics are indeed controversial and in some cases, untrue. One example is while addressing the topic of cancer, he recommends The Truth about Cancer. This book, conspiracy website, and documentary series make erroneous untruthful claims about cancer treatments, chemotherapy etc. This website also has an entire section of vaccine hesitancy myths. ScienceBasedMedicine.org writers Harriet Hall, MD and surgical oncologist, David Gorski, MD, Ph.D., FACS, have detailed this misleading website and its creator.6,7 The fact that Noakes recommends this source is concerning. This is not the first time Noakes has highlighted the