PBS Abandons Fair and Balanced Journalism

By Dr. Mercola

PBS' Frontline recently did a hit piece on the supplement industry (see above video if you haven't already), and your response to them about my Frontline article had a dramatic impact. You clearly have made a difference by pointing out their glaring bias!

PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler — whose job it is to review criticism from viewers and "ensure that PBS upholds its own standards of editorial integrity" — received dozens of emails, plus a number of phone calls.

In his words: "All of them were critical, some sharply."

On February 5, Getler published a long, detailed review of the critique received, Frontline's responses, and his own findings. If you have the time it would be worth reading Getler's article, as you can see how many people felt this was a shoddy piece of journalism.¹

While I extend my gratitude to Getler for his common sense admission that vitamin supplements do not pose "a public health calamity" as the show unfairly insinuated, I simply must set the record straight yet again, on the issue of regulation, since he and PBS continue to portray a seriously distorted and inaccurate narrative.

Dietary Supplements Are Fully Regulated by FDA Under DSHEA

While supplements are not regulated as drugs, they are fully regulated under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). As the name reveals, supplements have been subject to their own specific set of regulations since 1994. As stated on the FDA's website:²

"FDA regulates both finished dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients ... Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA):

• Manufacturers and distributors of dietary supplements and dietary ingredients are prohibited from marketing products that are adulterated or misbranded.

That means that these firms are responsible for evaluating the safety and labeling of their products before marketing to ensure that they meet all the requirements of DSHEA and FDA regulations.

• FDA is responsible for taking action against any adulterated or misbranded dietary supplement product after it reaches the market."

Which part of "FDA regulates both finished dietary supplements products and dietary ingredients" is confusing enough for anyone to conclude that regulation is absent, missing, or otherwise nonexistent?

More to the point, how can any competent investigative journalist make such a blunder as to misrepresent supplements as unregulated when the law has been in force for more than two decades? Is it ignorance? Is it negligence? Or is it agenda-driven obscuration?

Pre-Marketing FDA Review of Supplements Versus Drugs

Getler reiterates a quote by the acting FDA commissioner, who during the PBS program said that the FDA "does not do any review of dietary supplements before they come onto the market."

While this is true, appropriate context is needed. The implication is that, were supplements regulated as drugs, they would undergo FDA review prior to marketing and would therefore be safer.

On the face of it, that seems to make sense, but the reason why this logic is fatally flawed is that the FDA's pre-market review for drugs simply involves reviewing the manufacturers own tests.

The FDA does not perform ANY — yes, you read that correctly, ANY — independent testing to verify the manufacturer's results before approving a drug. They merely rely on the submissions of an industry that has consistently and repeatedly been found guilty of nefarious behavior in this area.

The classic example is Merck withholding studies they performed on Vioxx prior to its release that the drug had cardiac toxicity. They voluntarily removed the drug about five years after its FDA approval, but not before the drug killed 60,000 people.

Contrary to Popular Belief the FDA Does NOT Independently Evaluate Drugs

Contrary to what Getler and PBS would have you and the public believe — the idea that the FDA does independent objective premarket evaluations — the "FDA does not develop or test products; FDA experts review the results of laboratory, animal, and human clinical testing done by manufacturers" only.³

The lack of independent verification of drug companies' claims is a major problem, as fudging and manipulating research has become commonplace. Investigations have shown that most of the scientific misconduct occurs in the drug literature (compared to general biomedical literature).

Nearly 75 percent of retracted drug studies are attributed to scientific misconduct such as data falsification and fabrication. Imagine the potential for tragedy when a drug is based largely on pure fantasy or wishful thinking!

Vioxx and Avandia are but two examples of exceptionally dangerous drugs making it through the FDA's review process. Between them, these two drugs are responsible for more than 143,000 deaths.

So exactly how would the FDA's review of manufacturers' studies make nutritional supplements any safer than they already are?

Legally Prescribed Drugs Kill Hundreds of Thousands Annually

When taken as prescribed, drugs of any category kill more than 106,000 people per year, and 2 million Americans become seriously ill every year because of toxic reactions to drugs.⁴

So the notion that regulating supplements as drugs would make them safer is not based in reality. Current drug regulations allow very dangerous drugs to be marketed, and action is only taken AFTER problems become apparent and severe.

Tens of thousands need to die before a drug is finally removed from the market. It should be a great comfort to everyone to know that the FDA does not drag its feet when it comes to taking dangerous supplements off the market though.

Ephedra-containing diet pills, for example, were removed⁵ in 2004 after being linked to 155 deaths⁶ from overdosing. Avandia alone — taken as prescribed — killed 83,000 between 2001 and 2007.

The idea that supplements are harmful is not supported by the data. Quite the contrary, yet investigative journalists, like Frontline and CBC, consistently fail to mention statistics that put things into proper perspective. For example, a 2012 report⁷ by the U.K.-based Alliance for Natural Health International showed that adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs are 62,000 times more likely to kill you than food supplements.

According to the annual report^8,9 from the American Association of Poison Control Centers, there were zero deaths from vitamins, minerals, or any other dietary supplement in 2014. Meanwhile, Tylenol is linked to about 500 deaths annually. The idea that supplements should be regulated as drugs is rooted in financial interests. The supplement industry impinges on drug industry profits, and that's the only rationale for this campaign to impose drug regulations on supplements.

Supplements Are the Safest Category of Consumable Products — Even Safer Than Food

Supplements are the most regulated food. They ARE NOT drugs. Supplements are consumed by the majority of Americans and Canadians, and statistically, it's quite clear they are by far the safest consumable product there is, and least likely to hurt or kill you.

In fact, most junk food is FORTIFIED with vitamins.  Modern agriculture has favored yield over nutrition, causing poor soil conditions, disease outbreaks, and a less nutrient-dense food supply.   If one is to avoid vitamin fortified junk foods, doesn't it make sense to eat real food and intelligently use supplements to create a balanced diet?

Food sickens 48 million Americans each year; 128,000 of them severely enough to require hospitalization, and 3,000 die from food poisoning - and tens of thousands die from antibiotic resistant infections that are primarily caused by our CAFO produced meats.¹⁰

Meanwhile, there were 3,249 adverse event reports for dietary supplements¹¹ in 2012. The No.1 adverse event from supplements was choking, primarily in the elderly. Unsupervised children swallowing pills and heart palpitations due to the ingestion of too many diet pills, libido enhancing supplements, and energy drinks were also among the top problems reported. Again there were no deaths.

Choking is hardly an adverse effect warranting increased regulation, as it is a hazard that goes along with swallowing any food, drug or supplement. As for experiencing side effects from taking too many pills, let me remind you that prescription painkillers are the No. 1 cause of overdose deaths in the U.S., killing approximately 16,600 people each year.

Yes, people don't always follow dosing instructions, but when it comes to supplements, it's exceptionally rare to incur serious, permanent harm or death when taking too much. If any value is given to statistics, supplements set the bar for safety that all other consumable products, including drugs, should be measured by.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Supplements Are Also Regulated by the FTC

Supplements are also regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).¹² This agency regulates the advertising of supplements, but it has a close working relationship with the FDA. Aspects of advertising covered by this regulation include but are not limited to:

• Express and implied claims
• Clear and prominent disclosures
• Amount, type, and quality of evidence, and the relevance of the evidence to the specific claim
• Claims based on traditional use
• Use of DSHEA disclaimer

As explained on the FTC's website, it "enforces laws outlawing 'unfair or deceptive acts or practices' to ensure that consumers get accurate information about dietary supplements so that they can make informed decisions about these products." Any and all advertising "must be truthful, not misleading, and substantiated."

Given the fact that supplements are regulated both by the FDA under DSHEA, and the FTC, it is wildly irrational to state that supplements are unregulated unless one is lying. Frontline and CBC are not saying supplements could be regulated better. They imply supplements are marketed like Snake Oil and Magic Unicorn pills in some Wild West era of lawlessness!

In addition to the FDA regulating both ingredients and final products, supplements must also follow Current Good Manufacturing Processes (CGMP),¹³ which also falls under FDA jurisdiction.

It appears it's up to informed readers and viewers to educate journalists (and health professionals) of their error, and to set the record straight whenever this fallacy is presented as fact. So, if you ever see supplements presented as "unregulated" again, I hope you step up to the plate and let them know that misrepresenting LAW is simply not acceptable by any journalistic standard.

Deceptions occur in all categories of commerce, and the supplement industry is no exception. But, when the government has to choose where it applies its limited resources for enforcement - shouldn't it start where you find the highest body counts? That would be the logical priority, but not when you have the best government money can buy. If the policies don't favor Big Pharma, Big Bank, Big Ag, Big Oil, Big Military, you can bet those resources will be applied elsewhere.

If you want to avoid unsafe supplements, the best way to do so is to stay away from the 'gas station' varieties. Those categories are typically focused on weight-loss, sexual performance, muscle growth & energy boosters. These categories have a history of being illegally spiked with pharmaceutical ingredients, so please think twice before purchasing these substances.

Do You Believe the Media Is Providing You With Fair and Balanced Journalism?

Frontline responded to the critique in my first article, saying:¹⁴ "The overarching allegation is that FRONTLINE, the CBC and The New York Times are all doing the bidding of nefarious forces — Big Pharma, Big Food, or some other hidden power pulling our strings. What nonsense." Is it really nonsense to believe the media is manipulated by financial contributors with very big pocketbooks?

"FRONTLINE was not involved in any aspect of the selection or placement of these spots, which were sold by PBS and run across PBS.org through automated process. (Further, to be clear, FRONTLINE does not have any sponsorship from a pharmaceutical company, as some viewers erroneously alleged.)," Frontline writes.

As I pointed out in my first article, the sponsor list for PBS^15,16,17 includes drug companies, junk food companies, and pesticide producers. Are we really to believe that PBS is just the middle-man, accepting funds from all of these industries, yet have NO influence over the programming? Just how much money is PBS getting from these companies?

If they want to disguise themselves as the "Public" Broadcasting Company, they should prominently disclose their corporate funders when they provide reports that have clear conflicts of interest. Moreover, while initially I did not delve into Frontline-specific sponsors, since Frontline wants to make it "clear" that they do not have any pharmaceutical sponsorship, I will address it now.

Frontline Sponsors Include Several Foundations With Drug Ties

Frontline is produced by WGBH Boston and is broadcast nationwide on PBS. Information about Frontline, including its sponsors, can be found in WGBH's Sharing The Vision member's guide, and on Frontline's FAQ page. Frontline is funded through support of PBS viewers and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They also receive "major" funding from:

More Frontline Funders With Drug and Vaccine Ties

Frontline also receives funding from:

• The Park Foundation:²⁶ "a longstanding series funder." In 2004, the Park Foundation also funded the Pan American Health Organization book project: "Vaccines: Preventing Diseases and Protecting Health."
• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has funded Frontline in the past, especially "major funding" for the 2010 to 2011 broadcast season.²⁷ In 2014, Gates was taken to task for its massive funding of NPR, Frontline, PBS NewsHour and Teaching Channel.²⁸ Questions were raised as to whether impartial reporting was really possible in light of Gates' massive influence. In 2012, Frontline again announced that it is partially funded by the Gates Foundation.²⁹
• The Tow Foundation,³⁰ which co-funded a joint three-year fellowship program between Frontline and Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.³¹ Columbia University receives a lot of money for drug research. The Tow Foundation was recently recognized by Inside Philanthropy for making "very large contributions" to various "pet projects of the TOW family," including medical research.³²

All of these groups have links, both major and minor, to drug companies and vaccine research and support. So how can Frontline claim non-biased, non-slanted, independent journalism when their bread is being buttered by a list of foundations that have a history of funding and supporting the drug paradigm?

Like It or Not, PBS, Frontline and CBC Are Bedfellows in This Debacle

Moreover, no matter how "accidental" or "random" the junk food ad featuring Cheez-Its (made with vitamin enriched flour) and Dr. Pepper (soda is a major cause of our obesity epidemic) right before the show might have been, the show featured a food ad that is harmful to health. And I don't think it's "nonsense" to point out just how hypocritical that came across.³³ The effect was quite striking!

It's impossible to view it without getting the idea that Cheez-Its and soda are good, while supplements are bad. And I question whether that combination was entirely accidental.

Frontline also complained that it was "unfair" to link their show to the CBC's shoddy hit piece on supplements, calling it an "attempt to tarnish our work by erroneously linking it to an entirely different program at the CBC." Any rational viewer will clearly see this link is not in error. PBS partnered with CBC to create this Frontline program.

All three are linked through this partnership. Frontline wants you to believe it is an independent agent, with no financial ties to anyone, not even PBS. This simply fails to line up with reality, especially when the program fails to prominently disclose its funding sources. This atrocious lack of transparency leaves no other rational conclusion other than it's a massive conflict of interest that endangers the "public" while accepting money from some of the worst multinational corporations on the planet.

You CAN Make a Difference! Write Your Local PBS Station Now

Since PBS is a public broadcasting station, they should publicly disclose their financing. PBS and Frontline, which have had an exemplary track record of providing fair and balanced reporting in the past, utterly failed to do so in this instance. For some reason, they partnered with CBC, which for the past year has been running an organized campaign against supplements, and this bias was clearly revealed in this "Supplements and Safety" episode.

This kind of biased (and inaccurate) reporting is unacceptable. If you agree, I urge you to write your local PBS station with a strong message of your dissatisfaction with their programming and clear collusion with industry.

You can also contact PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler, whose job it is to perform independent reviews of PBS programming to ensure it stands up to journalistic standards and integrity. You can contact him by clicking the "Send an E-mail" on the PBS Ombudsman's webpage, or call him at (703)-739-5290.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Following are some suggested talking points:

• Any and all potential conflicts of interest of experts interviewed should be disclosed
• PBS corporate funding for programming should be publicly disclosed
• Supplements cannot be accurately portrayed as "unregulated," since they are regulated by the FDA under DSHEA, the FTC, and Current Best Manufacturing Processes. This is grossly negligent and endangers the public into further vitamin deficiencies (at least two out of every three people are deficient in vitamin D alone)

CBD Now Considered an Unapproved New Drug

The drug industry wants supplements to be regulated as drugs, and this is why such efforts are put into making you think the supplement industry is unregulated, even though it's not true. Here's an interesting example of what happens when a simple plant extract becomes a drug.

According to the FDA, once a drug company files an Investigational New Drug (IND) application³⁴ for a supplement, it suddenly becomes a drug, and no one can market it as a supplement going forward — unless the substance has a history of being marketed as a supplement that precedes the IND. In the case of cannabidiol (CBD), the FDA claims a drug company was first on the scene.

British drug company GW Pharmaceuticals gained IND status on a CBD product in 2007, and eight CBD supplement manufacturers were recently issued warning letters^35,36 from the FDA for marketing "unapproved new drugs."

CBD shows massive potential in the treatment of seizures, and you can be assured the price difference to families for the same product — a CBD supplement versus a CBD drug — will be exorbitant. It's going to be a boondoggle for big pharma that might even make Martin Shrekli³⁷ proud!

PBS Takes Hatchet to Omega-3 Supplements

As I mentioned in my first article, fish oil received a particularly unfair and unbalanced review in Frontline's program. They claimed virtually no gold-standard clinical studies have shown a benefit to taking fish oil supplements, and that the science doesn't support the use of omega-3 for cardiovascular health. These claims are so contrary to the peer reviewed scientific literature; it boggles the mind to imagine how they could have accidentally gotten it so wrong.

The Frontline program featured Adam Ismail, Executive Director of The Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s (GOED)³⁸ — an association of omega-3 manufacturers and marketers, which also sets quality and ethical standards — and R. Preston Mason, Ph.D., an advocate and promoter of Vascepa, a pharmaceutical grade omega-3.

On the company's website,³⁹ they now promote Vascepa (a 96 percent pure EPA derived from fish oil) with the headline: "As Seen on PBS' Frontline." They're using this segment to further propaganda, and Mason's financial relationship with Vascepa was not even disclosed on the program.

There were many that commented in my original Frontline article, questioning my decision to refuse being interviewed by PBS. Well, let me tell you why. Ostensibly, participating seemed like a no-brainer — until I was tipped off by an insider that the PBS piece was a hatchet job. Which means they would interview me for a few hours so they could use a 10-second soundbite that would support their preconceived views.

My quote would be accurate, but taken out of context it would not convey my true statements. They were simply NOT on a mission to find the truth; they had an agenda to destroy the supplement industry and I refused to be a part of that process.

Why Did PBS Choose to Report but One Side of the Science?

Concurrent with the airing of Frontline's program, Ismail published a commentary⁴⁰ titled "What Frontline Didn't Say About Omega-3s," noting that his review of the clear and strong scientific support for omega-3 — especially as it pertains to heart health — was cut out, (just as they would have done to me had I accepted their invitation).

For a list of 400 such studies, see this PubMed compilation.⁴¹ His appeal for a more fair and balanced review were also ignored. Left in were Mason's take on the subject, which was less than favorable for standard fish oil supplements.

Ismail is currently going through and reviewing ALL the research ever published on omega-3, so he's definitely a great source of information on this subject. So far, he's worked his way through years 2010 through 2015. Between 2010 and 2012 alone, 508 human clinical trials supported the use of omega-3; 186 of those studies were "gold-standard," meaning they were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled.

In the past six years, 1,166 clinical trials concluded omega-3 benefits health. A mere 257 trials failed to detect a health benefit. This means 82 percent of all published omega-3 trials were positive, yet PBS chose to ignore the weighty evidence of these studies, and focused instead on a selected handful that failed to detect a cardiovascular benefit.

CBC and PBS Endanger Public Health

When 80 percent of the evidence shows omega-3's benefit health, yet you claim the evidence shows no benefit, you have not upheld journalistic integrity. In this particular case, with regards to fish oil supplements, this reprehensible failure amounts to endangering public health.

According to research⁴² published in 2014, Americans are not meeting the recommended intake of omega-3, and "as omega-3 fatty acids are deemed important from authoritative bodies, supplementation in addition to food sources may need to be considered," the authors note.

Other research published in 2014 warns that 10 percent of pregnant women in Canada are deficient in omega-3, thereby putting the health of their child at risk. So, why exactly are PBS and CBC⁴³ promoting the notion that omega-3 supplements are useless at best and harmful at worst? They're media companies, not health experts.

Their job is to report facts, and when presenting views and opinions, to do so in a fair and balanced way. Yet that's not what they're doing. So what ARE they doing? Barring absolute ineptitude, the only alternative left is to conclude that they're promulgating an agenda at the behest of some very specific interest groups. Pharmaceutical companies are decidedly on that list.

Pot, Meet Kettle

Frontline's piece tried to tread the fine line of disparaging fish oil supplements while simultaneously presenting pharmaceutical grade omega-3 in a positive light (which is far more concentrated, and should therefore according to PBS' own logic make them more dangerous, not less). Preston Mason, Ph.D. responded to critics saying:⁴⁴

"The fish oil supplement industry should spend more of their time and money making a quality product rather than attacking scientists and independent journalists. A review of their expenditures would show an alarming disproportion of funds going to marketing rather than research."

Talk about a pot calling the kettle black. Research^45,46 has shown the U.S. drug industry spends nearly TWICE the amount of money on promotion as it does on research and development. That's why we can barely see through the cloud of drug advertisements filling our TV screens before, during, and after each and every program — including major news shows.

According to the authors: "The study's findings support the position that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven and challenges the perception of a research-driven, life-saving, pharmaceutical industry."

Canadian Broadcast Corp (CBC) News Retracts False Report on Supplements

Not only did CBC News seriously botch this supplement report but they also produced a hit piece against supplements last year that was even more reprehensible. It was so riddled with false accusations they had to retract the entire program. You can view their formal apology and retraction in the above video.

It's worth noting that even though the "exposed" companies vigorously protested and disputed the initial test results, CBC "felt confident enough" to go ahead with the program anyway. Had it not been for the fact that the companies continued to hound CBC insisting their results were inaccurate, they never would have retested the products or been forced to retract the story.

Had they been sincerely seeking the truth and providing fair and responsible journalism, they would have retested the products before putting out a false story. Their shoddy journalism undoubtedly harmed the reputation of the companies they targeted. You can be strongly assured that most people who saw their initial hit piece did not see their subsequent retraction, which is why I want to bring attention to it here.

Why Is CBC News Pulling Reports Supporting Vitamin D?

But wait, there's more. The CBC also appears to be engaged in a new but now ongoing effort to thwart the popularity of vitamin D supplements. In years past, they've written a number of reports on the benefits of vitamin D; now these articles are being removed from their website. You have to use a history search engine like WayBack to find them.

Gone are articles like "'Epidemic' of Vitamin D Deficiency: MUHC study,"⁴⁷ "Vitamin D and You,"⁴⁸ and "Boning Up On the Sunshine Vitamin,"⁴⁹ in which readers are informed that the Canadian Cancer Society recommends taking 1,000 IUs of vitamin D daily. Both of these articles were originally published in 2010.

In their stead, we find newer articles like "Vitamin D No Magic Bullet, Review Concludes: Alarm bells should ring over failure of vitamin D supplements to hold up in gold-standard trials."⁵⁰

Canadians at Great Risk of Vitamin D Deficiency

According to Statistics Canada,⁵¹ its most comprehensive survey of vitamin D levels among Canadians found widespread vitamin D deficiency:

"The survey ... found that two-thirds of the population has vitamin D levels below the amounts research is associating with reduced risk of chronic diseases such as cancer, while 1 in 10, or more than 3 million people, have such low readings that they don't have enough for good bone health. About 4 percent have so little that they're at risk for rickets, a debilitating childhood bone disease ...

Statscan deemed readings of 75 nanomoles/litre [nmol/L, equal to 30 ng/ml] or more as optimal, based on research showing people with amounts below this threshold appear to be at increased risk for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, heart disease and multiple sclerosis, among other ailments ... The average white person had 71 nmol/L [28.4 ng/ml], modestly under the purported optimum threshold, while non-whites were far lower, at 52 nmol/L [20.8 ng/ml] ..."

As with omega-3, the research is overwhelmingly clear, with tens of thousands of studies⁵² showing that vitamin D is critical for optimal health. There's simply no dispute about this anymore. And scince it's difficult for Canadians to get sufficient amounts of sun exposure, which is the ideal way to optimize your vitamin D levels, supplementation is an important alternative.

So, why is CBC News now promoting the idea that vitamin D supplements are useless, or worse? By doing so, they are endangering the health of Canadians.

There's No Free Lunch

Media companies, just like political candidates,⁵³ claim the money they receive has no bearing on their policies and stories that are published. These companies are just randomly giving out money because they have so much of it, and there are no strings attached. Please. Anyone still suffering under the delusion that we have a free, fair, and balanced media, listen to my interview with award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson.

One of the primary reasons why investigative journalism has essentially vanished from mainstream news channels is because of commercial and corporate influences. Media outlets grew to accept commercialization as part of the news process, and PBS has fallen right into that trap too. As soon as you take corporate sponsors, you become beholden to some degree or another.

Sponsors don't want you to speak ill of their industry. Sponsors also don't want you to laud the competition.

"When you know you have a sponsor and you know it's important to the corporation, are you really going to offend the sponsor by going after stories that they don't like?" Sharyl says. "But I do think it's more overt than that sometimes. The sponsors explicitly complain and argue at the corporate level that certain stories and topics shouldn't be done ... Additionally, there are political factors ... That can change the whole tone of the reporting."

The Emperor Has No Clothes

There's this fairytale notion that money has no influence over people, researchers, politicians, organizations, or the media. But you must also have heard the Golden Rule that "those with the gold (money) make the rules."

Even the PBS Ombudsman reveals his naiveté when he states there's no pharma influence because drug companies own some pretty big supplement companies. By buying up supplement companies, drug companies eliminate competition and create barriers of entry. While making sure to point out the relevance that I sell supplements in response to my original article, he would not admit the error of not disclosing the pharmaceutical money trail to their 'experts'.

The drug industry absolutely wants to see supplements regulated as drugs, and they are in the best position to make that happen. And if they own supplement companies, they can then increase their prices into the Martin Shkreli range for the same products. That is the name of the game, and the source of influence driving the negative supplement campaign forward.

It's a sad fact that journalistic integrity has virtually disappeared in the conventional media, and now nearly all stories have a hidden agenda to promote.

Do You Believe in Magic?

Frontline very favorably positioned Dr. Paul Offit in their supplement hit piece. Why did they not disclose the fact that Offit has been paid tens of millions by Merck — one of PBS's sponsors? Offit is a staunch anti-natural-anything propagandist, writing articles and books assailing people's right to nutrition and a non-toxic life. As most of this ilk, he's not afraid to call people names and bend the facts 'til they break.

Let's play connect the dots. Offit authored a book called, "Do You Believe in Magic? The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine." Offit is also featured in Frontline's program, produced through a partnership between PBS and CBC. Take a look at the CBC's run of ridiculous hit pieces against supplements. Notice a pattern? The words "Magic" or "Magic Pills" feature in all of them.

So here we have Merck funding PBS and Offit; PBS partners with CBC producing a program featuring Offit, and CBC publishing a long list of anti-supplement articles all featuring "Magic" in the headlines — Offit's "brand word." And we're to understand that NONE of this is in any way related. PBS and CBC are seriously insulting your intelligence. Tell them what you really think of their abandonment of fair and balanced journalism.

Take Action: Write Your Local PBS Station Now

You can make a difference. I implore you to write your local PBS station with a strong message of your dissatisfaction with their programming and clear collusion with industry. I personally will never donate another penny to them unless they admit to the severe bias, lack of disclosure in this piece, and take adequate corrective action that properly represents both sides of the supplement debate.

If you also chose to remove any funding from PBS, it's imperative you write them and let them know why - and demand PBS reveal all corporate sponsorships and advertising money. After all, they are disguising themselves as "Public" Broadcasting.

I can confidently assure you that they will listen. As you can see by their last response, PBS does listen and your letters may help them find their way back to respectable journalism.

You can also contact PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler, whose job it is to perform independent reviews of PBS programming to ensure it stands up to journalistic standards and integrity. You can contact him by clicking the "Send an E-mail" on the PBS Ombudsman's webpage, or call him at 703-739-5290.

Following are some suggested talking points:

• Any and all potential conflicts of interest of experts interviewed should be disclosed
• PBS corporate funding for programming should be publicly disclosed
• Accuracy and context of the regulatory status of supplements should have been provided. Supplements cannot be accurately portrayed as "unregulated," since they are regulated by the FDA under DSHEA, the FTC, and Current Best Manufacturing Processes