November 18, 2025
Dr. JamesLyons-Weiler opens by acknowledging the physicians present as “ethicaldoctors”—people who treat patients instead of following scripted protocols. Heexplains how science has been slowly taken over by politics, money, andindustry influence. Research, once driven by curiosity and truth, is now oftenshaped by what benefits large institutions. That’s why he argues for MAHA: aresearch model focused on prevention, mechanism, whole-person health,transparency, and data that anyone can actually verify.
He highlights howthe system uses the phrase evidence-based medicine as a shield, even thoughpublication bias, selective retraction, and manipulated study design oftendistort the evidence itself. Many study types—case reports, case series,observational studies, retrospective reviews—are unfairly dismissed, eventhough they reveal patterns doctors see every day. He emphasizes thatassociation studies are not “flawed”; they simply answer a different questionthan randomized trials. The real flaw is pretending they are useless.
Dr. Lyons-Weilerwalks through different study designs in simple terms:
Case reports: whena single patient shows something noteworthy.
Case series: whenseveral patients show the same pattern.
Cross-sectionalstudies: one-time snapshots at a single point.
Case-controlstudies: starting with an outcome and looking backward.
Cohort studies:following exposed vs. unexposed groups over time.
Pragmatic trials:comparing real-world protocols, even when no drug is involved.
He stresses thatdoctors do not need a pharmaceutical company to get started. Even multi-steptreatment protocols can be formally studied and taken through FDA pathways ifclinicians document them properly and involve an IRB early.
Reviews andmeta-analyses are supposed to summarize the science, but he warns that they,too, can be biased. Retractions are often used to remove studies that challengepowerful interests, which then shapes what systematic reviews “see.” To counterthis, he supports publishing mini reviews—short, focused articles thathighlight neglected or suppressed scientific findings. He also encouragesjournals that allow debate instead of deleting papers over disagreements.
One of hisstrongest points is the value of machine learning. Instead of arguing aboutp-values and associations, prediction models can show whether certain exposuresreliably predict outcomes. He gives an example where the best predictor ofdiabetes progression was simply how often the hospital reimbursed a patient forparking. It didn’t cause the disease—but it captured a real pattern thatmattered. Prediction science, he says, gets us closer to real-world truth thanoutdated statistical arguments.
Toward the end, heexplains how standard NIH study sections block integrative or MAHA-friendlyresearch. That’s why he is now helping HHS write funding announcements fromscratch, aligned with integrative priorities. Clinicians can propose researchideas, and he can help shape formal requests for proposals—turning the fundingsystem toward ethical, transparent science instead of industry-driven agendas.
Dr. Lyons-Weilerends with a message: doctors cannot wait for institutions to fix themselves.They need to publish cases, propose studies, participate in policy, write whitepapers, and demand open data. Honest science will only survive if ethicalphysicians take part in building it.
In his words, “Scienceneeds you.”
