In an earlier post I discussed education as a public health strategy. In that post I levelled some criticisms against health associations, particularly that they should revise some of their content and offer more detail, depth and complexity than the bare minimum to sufficiently inform and empower the early majority.
I care about health associations because they strongly influence health policy and what the public thinks on health. And I think they should. The purpose of health associations is for a large number of experts to come together and arrive, and arrive at a consensus and publish their collective ideas in a centralised place. As a result, statistically speaking, the average person is more likely to find information from health associations and this information is more likely to be accurate.
However, the rise of the Internet has resulted in increasingly more information that is decentralised, crowd-sourced, and diverse than ever before, the opposite form of information from health associations. Much of this kind of information is likely to be of a lower quality than the former, but due to the great diversity of ideas in the latter, some of those ideas may be better. The hope is that this crowd-sourced information undergoes a process akin to evolution wherein in the free marketplace of ideas, good ideas are generally promoted and bad ideas are generally discarded, and that the average person is able to discern this
This dichotomy was described by Tom Naughton as the vision of the anointed vs the wisdom of crowds (also see his four part series on the anointed and free speech regarding the call for retraction by the ironically named Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) on Nina Teicholz's BMJ article criticising the dietary guidelines) And health associations, much like the 'anointed' that Thomas Sowell discusses in his book, are generally pretty dismissive of ideas that challenge their consensus, particularly when coming from non-experts. Perhaps more importantly, there are few notable instances where health associations have attempted to censor people who promote opposing ideas:
Tim Noakes is a highly regarded South African emeritus professor in exercise science and recent advocate for LCHF diets. After providing rather general and unindivdualised advice on Twitter, the dietitian Claire Strydom, president of the Association for Dietetics in South Africa, said it was “Dangerous to wean an infant onto #LCHF diet” (evidence for that claim?) and reported Tim Noakes to the Health Professional Council of South Africa (HPCSA) for unprofessional conduct , which lead to the HPCSA setting up a hearing. Tim Noakes doesn’t practice medicine, so could easily give up his license, but wanted to put both conventional dietary advice on trial and defend LCHF. If you want to learn more about the Tim Noakes trial I would highly recommend Marika Sboros’ coverage of the trial and the following article. Meanwhile, veganism actually has a history of failure to thrive and (rare) child deaths , but you don’t hear about people promoting veganism in children being taken to court
Gary Fettke is an Australian orthopedic surgeon who had been advising his diabetic patients to eat a LCHF diet until a complaint led to an investigation by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), where APHRA found he was not qualified to give nutritional advice and told him to stop doing so. The case led to senate inquiry into the AHPRA (see link)      
Jennifer Elliot is an Australian dietician who was giving advising people with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes to eat a LCHF diet. When an anonymous complaint was lodged with the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) the DAA deregistered her and then her employer fired her and stated that “Nutritional advice to clients must not include a low carbohydrate diet. Jennifer will be advised on the information that she may provide to clients…”  . If dieticians are told what advice to give, then what’s the point, is their function just a meal plan generator?
Steve Cooksey was a type 2 diabetic who decided to manage/treat his condition with a low carb Paleo diet. He started a blog, which included dietary advice in an advice column that the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition deemed was illegal (giving dietary advice without a licence). Steve Cooksey and the Institute for Justice, filed a free speech lawsuit against the board . Fortunately, the case was successful 
Even if you disagree with some or all their ideas you should still defend their right to express them both on principle and in self-interest (taking away one person’s rights sets a precedent to take away everyone’s). When someone aims to censor speech, they are communicating that they aren’t interested in having a conversation or that they are in the pursuit of truth.
There are a perhaps two broad motivations for censorship. The first is a concern that they won’t win in the free marketplace of ideas and so resort to censorship to protect the public from ‘dangerous’ ideas. However, this motivation is based on a patronising belief that the public is too stupid to hear both sides of an argument and come to the right conclusion. In addition, it may reveal some anxiety in how well they can express their ideas, how convinced they are of them and how convincing the ideas are to others. You may be able to draw a parallel here between the political correct authoritarianism, which aims to censor ‘hate speech’ (which these days basically means anything someone finds offensive) and is associated with low verbal cognitive ability, high interpersonal disgust sensitivity, mood or anxiety disorder, and intolerance of nuance and the unknown . As an unintended consequence, the act of censorship signals to others that they have something to hide or that their arguments are weak, and so the idea they are trying to censor gains more visibility and credibility than otherwise (the Streisand effect)
Secondly, the individual or organisation doing the censorship may have a conflict of interest. Dietetic associations are particularly suspect here. They function more like a trade union in that their primary function to benefit dieticians collectively rather than the health of the public . They have an incentive to pass anti-competition laws to give them have a monopoly over dietary advice (Steve Cooksey’s case + other evidence ). Also, dietetic associations receive sponsorship from the food industry (see ‘And Now a Word From Our Sponsors’ US  and Australia  + the conflicts of interest in the Tim Noakes trial ), and the food industry also employs many individual dieticians. Finally, and this applies to many organisations, they have an incentive to shut down opposing ideas so that the public perceives them to be the ultimate gate-keepers of knowledge, and that acknowledging other ideas or previous errors will cede the monopoly and make them appear less relevant, rather than more honest
With the internet providing increasingly more diverse ideas and information, the increasing partisan bias of the media and the rise of fake news, the solution cannot be to silence everyone you disagree with, as this will be both logistically challenging and counterproductive. Instead the solution must be to teach people how to think, not what to think. And instead of presenting an uninspiring version of conventional wisdom and dismissing/censoring opposing ideas, I would like to see health associations hosting debates similar to the Sugar and the State debate hosted by the Cato Institute The Protein Debate hosted by the Performance Menu