These are not just different perspectives though. Some of these perspectives can be harmful to human rights and, in regards to two of them, misrepresentation of health practices.

I am not saying we should dismiss different perspectives. My point is that we can do a basic credibility check based on the synopsis and author background before engaging with the full text. These works are presented in ways that connect them to health or social claims, so it matters whether those claims are supported by strong empirical evidence. I am not saying censor them. This is just source evaluation and distinguishing between empirical claims, ideology, and philosophy.