The Noakes Trial: Verdict Today

April 21 2017 by in Professor Tim Noakes

After years in court and mountains of evidence, the verdict in the Twitter trial against Professor Noakes is finally expected today.

Here are some final thoughts from the Noakes Foundation:

To get real-time updates from the Noakes trial you can follow Marika Sboros on Twitter and the hashtag #NoakesTrial.

Earlier

The Twitter Hearing of Professor Noakes Is Almost Over

Professor Noakes About the Twitter Trial and Challenging Dogma

Big Food Vs. Professor Noakes: The Final Crusade

The Silencing of a Low-Carb Rebel

10 Comments

1
Dan
April 21 2017 2
NOT GUILTY! Excellent! But sadly it appears they focused more on the fact he wasn't acting in the capacity of a doctor when tweeting. What they should be saying is thank you for enlightening us, this information will change millions of lives... but no, they're trying to brush it under the carpet quietly.

Given that https://www.thenoakesfoundation.org/ is currently down due to lack of resources sounds like the news has been eagerly anticipated and is getting coverage!
2
Michael
April 21 2017 1
Outstanding, I didn't think it was going to turn out this way. Congrats to Professor Noakes. We should use the publicity of this case to enlighten as many people as possible to a healthier way of eating. The HPCSA and other dietitians will probably say that while Noakes wasn't unprofessional, he is still wrong. Unfortunately, the argument is not over, but this is a big step forward.
3
lowcarbdiabeticJan
April 21 2017 1
This is good news indeed, and congratulations to Prof Tim Noakes and his marvellous team.
We all need to keep spreading the good news of living the LCHF lifestyle.

All the best Jan
4
RT
April 29 2017
Claire Julsing-Strydom, the dietician who initially registered the complaint against Noakes, should be ashamed of herself for putting Noakes and his family through such a terrible and undeserved experience. Her official complaint included the assertion that Noakes' advice in the offending tweet was "not evidence-based," and that the public supposedly didn't have enough information to realize this.
Well, first of all, there is a mountain of evidence to support the validity of Noakes' advice to the breastfeeding mother, as the above graphic shows quite concisely. The evidence that Julsing-Strydom claims doesn't exist (except that it does). That alone shows that she was either lying or was simply ignorant of the nature and weight of this evidence. Either way, she is in my view abysmally lacking in any credibilty as a health care professional. Secondly, her view that the public "lacks information" is both condescending and delusional. Laypersons can and do become well-versed in how the scientific method works, and can assess what type of evidence best determines answers to scientific inquiries. Thanks to information technology (which, albeit, is a double-edged sword), we can more clearly see the gap between what the evidence actually says, and what "The Anointed" (as Tom Naughton calls them) claim it says. And with the guidance of real experts like Dr. Eenfeldt, Dr. Fung, et al (i.e. those who don't fall into the argument-from-authority trap), we are empowered to make truly informed desicions about our health and ignore the Claire Julsing-Strydoms of this world.
Perhaps I am being too harsh, but it makes me angry that, using the weight and authority of an official body behind her, she - with no justification whatsoever - not only put Prof. Noakes and his family through what must have been hell, but also attempted to officially silence truly evidence-based, beneficial nutrition advice that has, for example, helped people recover from type 2 diabetes and fatty liver; this is the precise opposite of giving people sound advice about nutrition. And for what? Perhaps because she and the organization she represents do not like having their perceived monopoly on nutrition advice challenged? In any case, such so-called experts are part of the problem, and deserve nothing but our contempt.
5
RT
April 29 2017
I would also add that the ADSA has shown itself to have absolutely zero credibility in having pursued such a case. They have stated publically that they have no personal gripe with Noakes. Personally, I don't believe them. The incredible lengths they went to over such a spurious complaint, the financial and emotional burden on Noakes and his wife; it's no exaggeration to say that Noakes was being literally persecuted by a self-interested group with no regard to whether their actions were truly justified. They have completely abused their authority, and people would do well to ignore their so-called expert advice.
6
Carol
May 3 2017
+ 1 ..... but don't forget the insidious influence of organizations like ILSI (international Life Sciences Institute- front organization for Coke and Big Food like substances). People like Claire are well intentioned but are probably unaware of how deeply their education has been influenced by sponsorship money.
7
Carol
May 3 2017
And dare I say...that goes for Doctors and Vets as well. Wake up guys. You've been lead by the nose for too long.!!!! Come over to the dark side. Ask some questions. Could Tim Noakes really be on to something???
8
RT
May 13 2017
She has a responsibility to be aware of it. People's lives are literally at stake. The people who wind up going blind or having their limbs cut off because they were convinced by these so-called experts that a simple dietary intervention could not reverse their type 2 diabetes, for example. If she didn't know about the actual weight of evidence in favor of LCHF as well as the influence of the food-like substance industry in promoting fake science, then she is guilty of incredibly sloppy and uncritical thinking, which is the exact opposite of what someone in a science-related field is supposed to do. If she did know, then she is willfully engaging in a blatant conflict of interest against the interests of the public. If non- health care professionals like Tom Naughton and Nina Teicholz can figure out that all this stuff is bogus, why can't someone who is supposedly professionally trained like Julsing-Strydom? If it's simply a matter of espousing an ill-conceived viewpoint, fine. We all have the right to express our views. But this was beyond that. It was a calculated effort to destroy Noakes' career and reputation, and in effect punish him for presenting a dissenting view. So in my view, Julsing-Strydom and every health care professional who participated in this witch hunt is a quack, period. I would also postulate that in the future, they will be ranked alongside Galileo's detractors in the Catholic Church and the 19th century doctors who scoffed at the idea of antiseptic surgey conditions as narrow-minded obstacles to the advancement of human knowledge.
9
RT
May 15 2017
HPCSA has appealed the not guilty verdict of Professor Noakes.
http://foodmed.net/2017/05/14/noakes-hpcsa-not-guilty-appeal/
10
Carol
May 18 2017
RT is right of course. This is madness. What can we do to help Prof Noakes ? He has been and continues to be an inspiration to so many.

The Noakes Trial: Verdict Today

Top videos with Professor Noakes

Earlier

10 Comments

Leave a reply Cancel reply