I’m disappointed, yet unsuprised to see more misinformation allowed to circulate from r/cfs.
This latest post on r/cfs is a “take-down” of my work that mixes a few fair observations with multiple concrete falsehoods, especially around money, incentives, and what I am, or am not, “selling”.
This response is a factual record that I invite you to audit. If you disagree with my work, critique it, but do it with primary sources, honesty and accurate claims.
I publish disease models, hypotheses, and an experimental protocol, plus tooling and education. I am not a clinician and I do not present myself as one. I do not provide diagnosis, prescriptions, or clinical case management.
1) The central accusation, “grifting”, is entirely false and defamatory.
The Reddit post alleges I “sell” a custom “Born Free Certified” multivitamin for $250–300/month.
Here are the facts:
a) I do not run patient-facing for-profit services, and I do not charge sick people for my time.
b) I do not accept money, referral fees, commissions, revenue share, gifts, paid advisory roles, or in-kind benefits from supplement companies, labs, clinics, or product ecosystems.
c) My disclosures page currently states “None”.
d) I have provided technical input to a compounding pharmacy to help formulate versions of a compounded multi-nutrient product. The point was practical – reduce pill burden, reduce formulation errors, and improve tolerability for people who cannot manage dozens of separate sublingual doses. I receive ZERO income, commissions, referral fees, or other financial upside from any product sales.
If someone wants to claim “grift”, they need to show an actual financial mechanism and simply put – there isn’t one.
2) The post also frames the compounded nutrients as if they are a required subscription product – they are not.
The protocol explicitly includes alternatives and alternative schedules that do not require compounded nutrients. The protocol also describes the compounded nutrients as being used instead of multiple separate vitamins and minerals, primarily for convenience and for bypassing standard oral absorption constraints described in the disease model and “anaemia of chronic inflammation” metabolism.
If you cannot, or do not want to, use compounded nutrients, you can follow the non-compounded pathways and alternatives.
3) The “affiliate kickback” claim is false
The post also claims: “Joshua has previously mentioned trying to get affiliate programs set up for these tests which would give him a monetary kickback.”
My published policy is the opposite: no affiliate links, no paid placements, no sponsored recommendations, and no money from labs, clinics, supplements, or product ecosystems. My disclosures are maintained publicly, including “none”.
Also, where the protocol contains product links, they are described as ordering links, not affiliate marketing links. One explicitly stated exception exists (Oxalobacter.com), described as a not-for-profit arrangement, and not as an affiliate scheme.
If someone has a timestamped quote where I proposed kickbacks, they should publish it. It doesn’t exist. This is an unsubstantiated and defamatory claim contradicted by my published policies and disclosures.
4) Point-by-point responses to specific claims in the Reddit post
Below I respond to the post’s core claims, using its own wording as the anchor.
Claim: “retired tech worker / fitness trainer”, “no formal medical or scientific training”
I am not a physician. I do not claim to be. My work should be judged on accuracy, transparency, and whether claims are labelled appropriately and corrected when wrong, not on whether I have institutional credential stamps. I’m currently training an expanding number of physicians and the goal is for patients to work with any of them to improve their health.
Claim: “No parts of his protocol have been evaluated in a clinical trial”
Correct. As stated in the title – it is an experimental, patient-led research protocol. I do not claim it is a completed, clinically-validated treatment guideline. That’s in the pipeline and you’re welcome to wait until this is completed.
Claim: “He claims… ‘PhD level’ knowledge”, “researchers evaluated his knowledge at an ‘undergraduate research project’ level”
The post provides no source for that “researchers evaluated…” claim. If someone has a primary source, publish it. Otherwise it is rhetoric. My Born Free work is publicly available and invites critique as part of the standard scientific process.
Claim: “The protocol… involves taking 50+ supplements per day”
The protocol is large because it is a structured knowledge base plus staged interventions, not a single mandatory daily list. There are staged steps, optional sections, and explicit alternative paths.
Claim: “Instead of including safety recommendations… ‘back-alley’ tips”
If someone believes a specific section is unsafe, name the exact section and the exact risk. I will review it and correct anything that is wrong or poorly framed. Broad insinuations are easy, whereas specifics are auditable.
Claim: “symptoms are either labelled as a ‘herx’… or blamed on the individual”
This is a strawman framing. The protocol discusses multiple failure modes, including (not exhaustive) intolerance, deficiency unmasking, contraindications, endogenous opioid withdrawal symptoms and pacing. If the post wants to argue “your die-off framing is wrong”, that is a substantive debate. It is not evidence of “grift”.
Claim: “brain retraining… claiming pathology… rooted in anxiety”
This grossly misrepresents what is written and is logically flawed. Discussing nervous system state, threat signalling, sympathetic overdrive, and behavioural conditioning is not the same as claiming ME/CFS is psychosomatic. If the post wants to contest any specific sentence, quote it with context and we can address it. If I was claiming the disease was psychological, what is the purpose of the biochemical pathway mapping or the purpose of the supplements, other interventions, etc.
I’m also a signatory on the letter against NICE guidelines, from 2021:
https://virology.ws/2021/09/15/trial-by-error-an-updated-letter-to-the-nice-chief-executive-about-the-unpublished-me-cfs-guideline/
Updated claim from OP in the comments: “It was literally announced an hour ago that Joshua is collaborating on a Born Free coaching program that costs each patient $3,600-$5,400.”
The announcement on X / Twitter was about the clinician education platform that is being built and did not indicate any information about how the platform is being funded. Once again, OP has fabricated a false narrative to suit their agenda of smearing my work. However, you will find more some details about the coming platform mentioned in my policies and ideology page, linked below.
My collaboration with RR around this new project is just that – an entirely new venture and non-profit entity, in collaboration with members of the RR team and others. As it stands, I have no financial interests in RR and RR has no financial interest in BF. I receive no financial gain from any of the regular coaching activity RR conducts, in the same way I receive no financial gains from doctors and other clinicians using my work. If in doubt – see my policies page.
5) Also, some context – for why I am responding here instead of on r/cfs:
I have been banned from participating in r/cfs for a number of years, so I cannot respond directly in-thread to any misinformation. My sin was for offering to discuss aspects of the work with someone in a DM.
Separately, r/cfs moderation choices can distort what readers see and what Google indexes. For example, in at least one highly visible r/cfs thread where a patient reported improvement and referenced a “specific protocol”, the poster states that links were edited out “per mod’s decision”, while a prominent comment asserts that Born Free is “a homemade protocol developed by fitness trainer… Joshua Leisk” and claims “no medical or scientific training”. That kind of asymmetry, removing primary links while leaving derogatory summaries, creates a biased public record.
Even from this current post, the bias continues. Here is just one example from someone who posted a genuine comment and had it removed for “brigading”.
6) If you want to criticise my work constructively
Do this and I will take you seriously:
– Link the exact page and exact passage you think is wrong.
– State the failure mode clearly, mechanistic error, wrong citation, missing contraindication, or overclaim.
– Provide sources.
Science is about repeatability and evolves with evidence. I correct errors and I would rather be publicly corrected than quietly wrong.
There were some honest questions and concerns raised in the comments about products and usage of them, which I’ll address in the protocol itself to help clarify specific aspects for all readers.
All the best,
Joshua
For more information –
Policy and incentive structure:
https://joshualeisk.com/policies-ethics-and-ideology/
Disclosures record:
https://joshualeisk.com/disclosures/
Born Free protocol index:
https://bornfree.life/2024/protocol/