06/30/2026
It’s not just modern medicine that is spreading false information and propaganda. Even your “good for you” supplements are lying to you in an effort to provoke an emotional response.
Take an ad for Heart and Soil organ supplement company that came across my feed today. I’m gonna break down the info they shared.
Keep in mind I think they have a great organ supplement, BUT THEY ARE LYING TO GET YOUR MONEY.
As someone who double majored in advertising AND has the unique position of understanding medicine and history, I feel qualified to be critical of their claims.
Their ad mixes some true historical facts, partially true claims, unsupported biological assertions, and marketing copy into a compelling narrative. It is a good example of a “Gish gallop” (presenting many claims at once, making it difficult to evaluate each individually.)
Here’s a breakdown.
1. “The Flexner Report eliminated natural medicine.”
Partly true, but highly misleading.
It is true that the 1910 Flexner Report profoundly changed American medical education.
The report criticized many medical schools for:
* poor scientific standards
* lack of laboratories
* inadequate clinical training
* low admission requirements
Many schools closed afterward.
However, it is not true that Flexner’s explicit goal was to eliminate nutrition or “food as medicine.”
What actually disappeared were many schools teaching:
* eclectic medicine
* homeopathy
* naturopathy
* proprietary for-profit medicine
Many deserved criticism because educational quality was genuinely poor.
The report also dramatically improved:
* anatomy
* physiology
* pathology
* microbiology
* surgical training
Without Flexner, modern medicine would likely have remained inconsistent and far less evidence-based.
2. “Rockefeller created pharmaceutical medicine.”
Mostly false.
Rockefeller donated enormous amounts of money to medical schools.
He funded:
* research
* universities
* hospitals
* public health
His wealth came from petroleum.
But there is little evidence that he orchestrated a conspiracy to suppress natural medicine for pharmaceutical profits.
Petroleum chemistry eventually became useful for manufacturing some drugs, dyes, solvents, and plastics.
That is very different from saying:
Rockefeller invented pharmaceuticals to replace nutrition.
Drug discovery was already occurring independently throughout Europe.
3. “Every culture ate organ meats.”
Mostly true.
This is one of the strongest parts.
Many traditional cultures prized:
* liver
* heart
* kidney
* marrow
* brain
* spleen
Examples include:
* Inuit
* Maasai
* Hadza
* many Native American tribes
* Europeans before industrialization
Organ meats are unquestionably nutrient dense.
4. “Your grandmother served liver every Sunday.”
Historically plausible.
Liver consumption was much higher in the early-mid 20th century.
Consumption declined for many reasons:
* changing tastes
* refrigeration
* industrial meat processing
* convenience foods
Not because doctors banned liver.
5. “Insulin came from pancreas.”
True.
The first insulin absolutely came from animal pancreas.
6. “Thyroid medicine came from thyroid.”
True.
Early thyroid replacement was dried thyroid gland.
Modern desiccated thyroid still exists.
7. “Modern immunology came from organotherapy.”
False.
Modern immunology developed from:
* vaccination
* microbiology
* antibody research
* cellular immunology
Organotherapy played only a very small role.
8. “Organotherapy was the foundation of modern medicine.”
False.
Organotherapy contributed to endocrinology.
It was never the foundation of all medicine.
Many organ extracts simply did not work.
Others worked spectacularly:
* thyroid
* insulin
* adrenal hormones
Researchers isolated the active molecules because crude organ extracts varied widely in potency and purity.
9. “You can’t patent organs.”
Mostly true.
Whole organs themselves generally cannot be patented.
Purified compounds can.
This is true across many areas of medicine.
10. “Drug companies threw away the rest of the organ.”
Oversimplified.
The reason purified hormones replaced whole organs was largely because they offered:
* consistent dosing
* predictable potency
* improved safety
* reduced contamination
Not simply because companies wanted patents.
11. “Peptide bioregulators survive digestion.”
Weak evidence. And most do not.
This is where the article departs from mainstream evidence.
Most dietary peptides are broken down into:
* amino acids
* very small peptides
Some bioactive peptides do survive partially.
Examples include peptides from:
* milk
* collagen
* soy
But the claim that organ-derived peptides routinely survive digestion intact, enter the bloodstream, home specifically to the matching organ, enter the nucleus, and regulate DNA expression in humans is not established.
12. “Peptides home to their matching organ.”
No convincing human evidence.
This is a major leap.
No robust human evidence shows that a specific organ peptide just wanders its way back to its “mother ship”:
This remains speculative.
13. “Russian peptide research proves it.”
Mixed.
The St. Petersburg Institute has published decades of work on peptide bioregulators.
However:
Many studies:
* were small
* lacked placebo controls
* have not been independently replicated
* were published in journals with limited international visibility
That does not automatically invalidate the research, but it means the findings should be interpreted cautiously.
14. “Cooking destroys all important peptides.”
Exaggerated.
Heat certainly denatures many proteins and peptides.
However:
Humans have cooked meat for hundreds of thousands of years.
There is no evidence that cooked organ meats lose all biological value.
Cooking preserves much of their:
* vitamin A
* B12
* copper
* iron
* folate
Some nutrients decrease, but many remain abundant.
15. “Freeze drying preserves everything.”
False.
Freeze drying preserves nutrients well.
It does not preserve “every peptide, enzyme, and growth factor.”
Some degradation still occurs.
16. “Heart & Soil reproduces ancestral nutrition.”
Marketing.
Heart & Soil is essentially selling freeze-dried organ meat.
It may be a convenient way to consume organs.
Whether it reproduces every benefit of eating fresh organs has not been demonstrated.
17. “People stopped eating organs because of the Flexner Report.”
Unsupported.
Organ consumption declined because of many factors:
* rising incomes
* changing food preferences
* industrial meat production
* convenience foods
* supermarket culture
* reduced home butchering
There is little evidence Flexner directly caused Americans to stop eating liver.
18. “Doctors aren’t taught this because of Rockefeller.”
False.
Medical schools do teach:
* nutrition
* endocrinology
* metabolism
* vitamins
* physiology
The amount of nutrition education is often criticized as insufficient, but not because of a Rockefeller conspiracy.
What the article gets right
* Organ meats are among the most nutrient-dense foods available.
* Early thyroid therapy came from thyroid glands.
* Insulin was originally extracted from animal pancreas.
* Traditional cultures often valued organs highly.
* The Flexner Report fundamentally reshaped U.S. medical education.
* Modern medicine arguably underemphasizes nutrition compared with pharmacology.
What it overstates or gets wrong
* It portrays Flexner as a coordinated conspiracy to eliminate natural healing.
* It exaggerates Rockefeller’s role in directing medical education for pharmaceutical profits.
* It overstates the evidence for organ-derived peptide bioregulators in humans.
* It claims organ-specific peptide targeting and DNA regulation without convincing human evidence.
* It attributes the decline in organ meat consumption primarily to medical education, despite many social and economic explanations.
* It relies heavily on testimonials, which are among the weakest forms of scientific evidence.
Overall assessment
As history, I’d rate it 3/10. It contains genuine historical events but connects them with causal claims that are not well supported.
As nutrition, I’d rate it 7/10 for highlighting that organ meats are exceptionally nutrient-dense and have been important foods in many traditional diets.
As molecular biology, I’d rate it 2/10. The claims about orally consumed organ peptides surviving digestion, selectively traveling to the corresponding human organ, entering the nucleus, and switching on organ-specific genes are not supported by strong human evidence.
As advertising, it’s highly effective. The narrative builds from selective history and plausible facts to increasingly speculative biology, then culminates in a product pitch. That’s a common persuasive structure: establish trust with truths, extend into uncertain claims, and end with a solution the advertiser sells.
This is marketing pure and simple.
