Canada's state broadcaster, the CBC, recently targeted Dr. Dayan Goodenowe, a Saskatchewan-born neurochemist with over 30 years of experience, accusing his Moose Jaw-based Restorative Health Center of exploiting ALS patients with unproven therapies. Dr. Goodenowe, a PhD holder known for pioneering prodrome diagnostics and plasmalogen replacement therapy, disputes these claims, alleging the CBC relied on unreliable sources to uphold an increasingly stagnating medical status quo.

Goodenowe’s center offers programs for neurological conditions, emphasizing patient empowerment through self-directed research and peer-reviewed therapies like plasmalogen replacement. His network includes 3,000 doctors and 10,000 clients globally, using supplements and nutrition to restore health at the cellular level.

Though his treatment is costly, Dr. Goodenowe points out that so are conventional ALS drugs, the true burden of which is hidden under Canada’s "free" socialist healthcare system, which he says offers minimal benefit and no diversity in options for patients given a roughly three-year prognosis. His approach also tracks progress with objective measures like MRIs and blood work. "People should have access to medical and nutritional information to make informed decisions," he said. "It’s a human right."

The CBC's report, which Goodenowe claims was pre-planned, highlighted a few dissatisfied clients while ignoring success stories, such as patients regaining breathing or speaking abilities. One patient, Lisa, reportedly recovered eyesight after 30 years of legal blindness. Goodenowe accuses the CBC of journalistic malfeasance, noting that their main sources were unverified and suspects that the reporter, Geoff Leo, tried to evade transparency by sending a media request via LinkedIn. He says that the CBC's articles and videos misrepresent his work, despite his efforts to ensure transparency by requesting a video interview, granting multiple interviews, and providing open access to his clinic.

The Saskatchewan NDP and ALS Society have teamed up with the CBC to push this narrative that Dr. Goodenowe is exploiting ALS patients, calling for an investigation into Goodenowe’s private clinic. This push coincided with the ALS Society’s complaints about declining Ice Bucket Challenge funds, suggesting a motive to discredit Goodenowe and secure government support. However, Saskatchewan’s Health Minister has stated the province has no jurisdiction over the private facility, which has operated legally for years.

Goodenowe likens his clinic to a "gym for cellular health," emphasizing it does not replace traditional medical care. "Clients already have doctors and diagnoses," he said. "We provide research and tools to improve quality of life, not cures."

Meanwhile, he does criticize the ALS Society’s approach, which he says offers little hope beyond drugs like Riluzole and Radicava, leaving patients with a three-to-five-year prognosis and minimal agency.

Timothy Caulfield, a University of Alberta law professor funded with millions in taxpayer dollars to combat supposed ‘misinformation’ and enforce government narratives, labelled Goodenowe’s therapies “scientifically questionable.”

Goodenowe calls this hypocritical, noting Caulfield provides medical advice without training while accusing Goodenowe of posing as a doctor. “I’m a research scientist, not a physician,” Goodenowe clarified. “My job is to bring advanced technology to doctors.”

Overall, Goodenowe aims to reduce healthcare burdens by improving community health, potentially lowering neurological afflictions through prevention and early therapeutic intervention. However, his costly treatments stand in contrast to Canada’s publicly funded “free” healthcare system.

The CBC, NDP, and ALS Society’s coordinated efforts appear to defend a stagnating system, dismissing innovation and patient choice.

Dr. Goodenowe’s approach, though not without flaws as is common among pioneers, challenges the status quo by advocating for diverse treatment options.

And what Canada could use a lot more of is innovative thinking that empowers patients and fosters open dialogue about alternatives, rather than rigid adherence to a struggling system that stifles progress and limits patient choice.