Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:06.560] Welcome to the vodcast. In the past, I've presented information to you about fake science, [00:06.560 --> 00:10.720] science that has been bought and paid for by various industries or was purchased to [00:10.720 --> 00:15.600] promote a societal agenda. Despite acknowledgement of the problem by key players in the scientific [00:15.600 --> 00:20.960] community, the problem hasn't gotten better. It's getting significantly worse. [00:21.600 --> 00:26.960] Why am I bringing it to your attention today? Because the agenda of some of those purchasing [00:26.960 --> 00:33.120] the conclusions they want via fake science is that it will be used by legislators to obstruct [00:33.120 --> 00:36.720] your life, to prevent you from exercising your right to live as you see fit. [00:37.440 --> 00:42.240] In other words, the fake science will be used to diminish your personal liberty. [00:42.240 --> 01:04.320] Let's start with this. I define fake science as published studies, the conclusions of which are [01:04.320 --> 01:09.360] demonstrably false. In many cases, such as the ones I'm going to share with you today, [01:09.360 --> 01:14.720] it's relatively simple to disprove the study's findings if you have a brain. [01:14.720 --> 01:18.560] I think we can all agree that facts, data, and evidence shouldn't form our decisions [01:18.560 --> 01:23.760] rather than confirmation bias. Sadly, as you probably know, the vast majority of people [01:23.760 --> 01:29.120] read a media headline about a study and immediately accept the premise is true without viewing the [01:29.120 --> 01:34.880] study because what they saw in the headline feeds their confirmation bias. Without a shred [01:34.880 --> 01:39.600] of evidence, they've already decided something is true, so an article in the media with the [01:39.600 --> 01:45.200] headline that reinforces their confirmation bias is all they need to accept the article is true. [01:45.760 --> 01:52.880] The next level up, if I can call it that, are those who actually read the content of the media [01:52.880 --> 01:59.680] article but never look at the study report. The next level then is those who look at the study [02:00.400 --> 02:05.040] but only at its title. That's good enough for them, especially if the study title feeds their [02:06.000 --> 02:11.280] confirmation bias. From there, we have the folks who will read the study abstract [02:11.280 --> 02:15.760] but stop there because it says what they want to hear. Things like how the study was designed or [02:15.760 --> 02:20.480] what mechanisms were used to ascertain or analyze data are not important to them. What they read [02:20.480 --> 02:26.800] made them feel validated, so they got the part they wanted. There is a tiny percentage of people [02:26.800 --> 02:32.080] who will read the body of the study but have little or no understanding of what they're reading. [02:32.080 --> 02:36.720] Now, I applaud those folks for making the effort. Science has its own highly technical language and [02:36.720 --> 02:43.200] that can make it challenging to read the main body of studies. I'd guess somewhere in the range of [02:43.920 --> 02:48.960] one thousandth of one percent of the public reads a study report and has a full understanding of [02:48.960 --> 02:54.080] everything they're seeing. Because it's tough for a lay person to understand scientific jargon, [02:54.080 --> 02:58.480] the Cochrane collaboration, which is currently the platinum standard for reviewing scientific [02:58.480 --> 03:03.120] claims to test their validity, now provides a summary of their findings in plain English [03:03.120 --> 03:07.520] so the public can understand the conclusions even if they can't understand the scientific [03:07.520 --> 03:12.560] jargon in the study. As an aside, before I jump into the fake science involving published studies, [03:12.560 --> 03:20.240] I'd like to remind you that much of what you were told was science during 2020, 2021, and 2022 [03:20.960 --> 03:27.440] has since been proven false. In other words, the establishment put out a massive amount of fake [03:27.440 --> 03:33.520] science. I began calling them out on their fake science beginning in April of 2020 because I [03:33.520 --> 03:38.560] told my audience there was a difference between credible science and fake science and showed [03:38.560 --> 03:44.320] them that much of what was being put out was fake science. Facebook took down my professional page [03:44.320 --> 03:48.720] and YouTube removed my channel. I bring that up because I never want the American people to [03:48.720 --> 03:55.520] forget who it was who were promoting fake science and thus endangering your welfare. [03:56.320 --> 04:01.280] I could literally go on for hours about fake science studies but today I'll just touch on [04:01.280 --> 04:08.160] two issues that have been featured in the news lately. One is that eating meat causes cancer [04:08.880 --> 04:15.040] and the other is eating meat causes type 2 diabetes. Let's begin with the claim that eating [04:15.040 --> 04:20.880] red meat causes cancer. A 2020 study, the link for which I'll put in the notes, [04:20.880 --> 04:26.160] makes the claim that researchers have proven a causal link between the consumption of red [04:26.160 --> 04:30.720] meat and cancer. Its assertion is based on an association between cancer and a substance [04:30.720 --> 04:38.240] called L-glyconeuromatic acid, more commonly referred to as NU-5GC. The story of NU-5G is [04:38.240 --> 04:42.240] very sciency so I'm not going to get into all of that. Instead, I'm going to give you the [04:42.240 --> 04:48.480] short and sweet of the claim. It goes like this. The human body can't produce NU-5GC because it [04:48.480 --> 04:54.000] lacks the enzyme necessary to do so. However, humans are one of the few mammals that don't [04:54.000 --> 05:02.400] produce NU-5GC. The mammalian animals whose meat we consume as food do produce NU-5GC and when we [05:02.400 --> 05:08.960] eat their flesh NU-5GC is absorbed by our bodies. The NU-5GC is then absorbed by our cells, goes [05:08.960 --> 05:13.280] through some steps within the cells, and then is placed on the surface of the cells as a glycan [05:13.280 --> 05:19.920] used by our innate immune system to identify friend from foe. Even though NU-5GC is foreign [05:19.920 --> 05:25.600] to the body, the cells put it on their surface because it is molecularly very similar to acylac [05:25.600 --> 05:35.280] acid our body does make called NU-5AC instead of GC. However, because NU-5GC is foreign, its appearance [05:35.280 --> 05:41.200] on the surface of the cell produces an antigenic response in the form of anti-NU-5GC immunoglobulins, [05:41.200 --> 05:45.920] more commonly known as antibodies. As far as we've gone to this point, there is no scientific [05:45.920 --> 05:51.200] dispute. Everyone is in agreement. However, from this point forward, what you'll be hearing is [05:51.200 --> 05:59.040] unsubstantiated theory. The claim that red meat causes cancer is based on anti-NU-5GC antibodies [05:59.040 --> 06:05.600] causing inflammation. Those who trump this theory refer to it as chronic inflammation and claim it [06:05.600 --> 06:11.040] drives cancer, colorectal cancer in particular. Earlier I said there is an association between [06:11.040 --> 06:16.800] NU-5GC and cancer. Let me explain that. On the surface of cancer cells, researchers find an [06:16.800 --> 06:23.200] unusually high number of NU-5GC glycans. This has led to some researchers asserting that the [06:23.200 --> 06:29.520] proliferation of NU-5GC glycans on the surface of those cells means the cells became cancerous [06:29.520 --> 06:36.320] because of the high level of NU-5GC glycans brought more antibodies to the cell, resulting [06:36.320 --> 06:41.520] in elevated inflammation, and the elevated inflammation caused the cell to become cancerous. [06:42.480 --> 06:48.400] But there's a critical hole in their theory, and science doesn't work that way. If there's a hole [06:48.400 --> 06:54.080] in what one is presenting, all you have is an unsubstantiated theory, not a scientifically [06:54.080 --> 07:00.320] proven fact. The critical hole is this. The researchers who claim the anti-NU-5GC antibodies [07:00.320 --> 07:07.040] cause cancer have never been able to find any healthy cells with elevated levels of NU-5GC [07:07.040 --> 07:13.840] glycans. For their theory to come anywhere close to being considered proven, they'd have to identify [07:13.840 --> 07:20.080] healthy cells with elevated levels of NU-5GC glycans and then observe those cells become [07:20.080 --> 07:27.520] cancerous. That process has never been observed. Having never observed that, it's just as likely [07:27.520 --> 07:33.280] that the proliferation of NU-5GC glycans didn't cause the cancer, but the cancer caused the [07:33.280 --> 07:40.160] proliferation of NU-5GC. In short, the claim that researchers have identified NU-5GC as the [07:40.160 --> 07:46.800] cause of cancer is fake science. Then we come to questions no study has addressed. [07:47.520 --> 07:54.320] NU-5GC, which is not produced by the human body, and NU-5AC, which is produced by the human body, [07:54.320 --> 08:00.240] are nearly identical, differing only by a single oxygen molecule. Is it possible that due to their [08:00.240 --> 08:06.560] almost identical chemical profile, the anti-NU-5GC antibodies aren't particularly aggressive? In [08:06.560 --> 08:12.080] other words, is it possible that the existence of such antibodies may not translate into [08:12.080 --> 08:17.840] inflammation at all, no less the chronic inflammation claimed by the fake science researchers? [08:18.720 --> 08:24.960] Then we have this. There is speculation that at one time, NU-5GC was produced in the human body. [08:25.840 --> 08:31.840] So what if the immune system's response isn't particularly robust because our bodies have a [08:31.840 --> 08:37.440] genetic memory of NU-5GC? Here's the definition of genetic memory. [08:38.080 --> 08:43.200] Genetic memory describes a variety of processes in biology and psychology by which [08:43.200 --> 08:48.400] genetic material confers a memory of an individual's or species' past history. [08:48.400 --> 08:53.280] It can refer to the genetic code of DNA, epigenetic changes to the genetic material, [08:53.280 --> 09:01.600] or the inheritance of instinct. As a side note, I don't find the idea that humans used to produce [09:01.600 --> 09:07.120] NU-5GC persuasive. I offer it only to illustrate there are a lot of questions [09:07.120 --> 09:12.880] researchers aren't asking about NU-5GC. Another question never considered is after [09:12.880 --> 09:19.920] millions of years of humans being preferential carnivores, is it possible NU-5GC in the human [09:19.920 --> 09:26.960] body derived from eating animal flesh provides a necessary or desirable human biological function? [09:26.960 --> 09:32.800] And anti-NU-5GC antibodies don't exist to eradicate a dangerous invader but merely to [09:32.800 --> 09:39.200] control the level of NU-5GC in the body. In other words, could it be at a certain level NU-5GC is [09:39.200 --> 09:44.080] beneficial but above that level is counterproductive so the body keeps the level in check? [09:44.720 --> 09:51.120] Another question never addressed is why do researchers assert the alleged cancer-causing [09:51.120 --> 09:57.520] effects of NU-5GC disproportionately affect the colon and rectum? I'll get to that in a minute. [09:58.400 --> 10:03.040] I posit to you that in the absence of these questions being asked, which of course means [10:03.040 --> 10:09.120] they haven't been answered, any claim that NU-5GC causes cancer is specious. It is fake science. [10:10.000 --> 10:16.720] So what's behind this fake science? Representing this unsubstantiated theory of scientifically [10:16.720 --> 10:22.480] proven fact promotes a political and cultural agenda we've all been aware of for quite some [10:22.480 --> 10:29.920] time now. That agenda is to get people to stop eating meat. Is there any evidence the claim that [10:29.920 --> 10:36.720] NU-5GC causes cancer isn't just unsubstantiated but flat out wrong? Why yes, yes there is. [10:37.520 --> 10:43.600] Let's start with ancient man. There is no evidence cancer existed in any meaningful quantity [10:43.680 --> 10:49.520] in ancient times. In fact, when the University of Manchester examined hundreds of Egyptian mummies, [10:49.520 --> 10:55.200] they found just one that had cancer. Allow me to quote from the university's findings. [10:55.840 --> 11:00.320] After discussing that there was almost no literary reference to cancer, the report stated quote, [11:01.280 --> 11:09.200] evidence proves that cancer was extremely rare in antiquity. The disease rate has risen [11:09.200 --> 11:14.880] massively since the industrial revolution, in particular childhood cancer, proving that the [11:14.880 --> 11:21.760] rise is not simply due to people living longer. Close quote. Professor Rosalie David said quote, [11:21.760 --> 11:27.440] in industrialized societies cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death, [11:27.440 --> 11:34.720] but in ancient times it was extremely rare. There is nothing in the natural environment that can [11:34.720 --> 11:41.440] cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease down to pollution and changes to our diet and [11:41.440 --> 11:46.000] lifestyle. The important thing about our study is that it gives a historical perspective to this [11:46.000 --> 11:52.880] disease. We can make very clear statements on the cancer rates in societies because we have a full [11:52.880 --> 12:01.680] overview. We have looked at millennia, not 100 years, and have masses of data. Close quote. [12:02.160 --> 12:08.480] Did you catch the part about changes to our diet? In body science I show that ancient man's diet [12:08.480 --> 12:14.480] was almost exclusively animal flesh. So if the purveyors of fake science were right, [12:14.480 --> 12:21.760] then cancer would have been rampant in ancient society. Yet it wasn't. Now let's leap forward [12:21.760 --> 12:27.440] from ancient times to our current period. Worldwide there are millions of people eating [12:27.440 --> 12:31.280] carnivore style. In other words, there are millions of people who eat nothing but meat [12:31.280 --> 12:37.760] or overwhelmingly meat. If the purveyors of fake science were right, then we should see a significantly [12:37.760 --> 12:44.640] higher than average rate of cancer in the carnivore community. But just the opposite is true. It is [12:44.640 --> 12:49.760] damn near impossible to find anyone who has been eating carnivore for years who is diagnosed with [12:49.760 --> 12:55.440] cancer. The reason for that is the following. First, the blood glucose level of those eating [12:55.440 --> 13:01.360] carnivore style remains at or near baseline throughout the day because the 100 trillion [13:01.360 --> 13:06.880] cells of your body are not fueled by glucose but by fatty acids and to a lesser extent, [13:06.880 --> 13:14.240] ketones. Since cancer cells need glucose to exist, cells that have zero glucose is obviously a [13:14.240 --> 13:22.320] tremendous obstacle to getting cancer. Cells without a fuel source do not survive. So if cancer [13:22.320 --> 13:30.160] cells need glucose in the cells and there isn't any, cancer cells cannot exist. Second, [13:30.800 --> 13:36.400] cancer cells are anaerobic and use fermentation to elevate the production of something called NAD plus [13:36.400 --> 13:42.080] which is necessary for the cancer cells to proliferate. Fermentation is not possible [13:42.080 --> 13:49.680] without an abundance of sugar. Sugar in the human body is known as glucose. When it comes to fueling [13:49.680 --> 13:55.120] the 100 trillion cells of the human body, there are only two hemispheres. One is glucose in which [13:55.120 --> 14:01.840] the cellular mitochondria use glucose for fuel. The other is ketosis in which the mitochondria use [14:01.840 --> 14:09.120] fatty acids for fuel. The cells of a person living in glucose are chock full of glucose and when [14:09.120 --> 14:14.720] glucose levels in the cells fall, the person then feels hungry, eats again thus replenishing the [14:14.720 --> 14:21.520] glucose in the cells. If a person has been in ketosis for some period of time, the cells get to [14:21.520 --> 14:26.960] the point where they engage in something called glucose rejection which means they will not accept [14:26.960 --> 14:34.160] any glucose. Since glucose, sugar, is required by cancer cells for the fermentation process that [14:34.160 --> 14:41.440] take place within the cells, if the cells have no glucose inside them then no fermentation can occur. [14:41.440 --> 14:47.360] If fermentation can't take place, there is no replication and proliferation of cancerous cells. [14:48.000 --> 14:54.080] Since the very nature of cancer can be described as unchecked out-of-control cellular replication, [14:54.800 --> 15:02.320] if replication is not possible due to the lack of glucose in the cells, there is no cancer. Period. [15:03.120 --> 15:08.080] Remember I asked why researchers assert alleged cancer causing effects of new 5GC [15:08.080 --> 15:14.160] disproportionately affect the colon and rectum? The answer is they're covering up what's really [15:14.160 --> 15:20.320] causing colorectal cancer. Here's an excerpt from page 95 of Body Science, my book on human [15:20.320 --> 15:27.680] physiology and disease. Quote, a closing note on cancer in the 20th and 21st centuries, [15:27.680 --> 15:33.440] unrelated to the glucose insulin cycle. Researchers have known since the mid 70s that high consumption [15:33.440 --> 15:40.160] of polyunsaturated fats in the form of vegetable oil increased the odds of getting colon cancer [15:40.160 --> 15:48.080] 300% and all other forms of cancer by 200%. If the trajectory of the increase in colon and [15:48.080 --> 15:55.120] rectal cancer observed from 1975 to 2010 remains constant moving forward, researchers at the [15:55.120 --> 16:03.200] University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center tell us to expect a 90% increase in colon cancer and [16:03.200 --> 16:12.320] people ages 20 to 34 and a 124% increase in rectal cancer by 2030. Despite this, the U.S. [16:12.320 --> 16:16.400] government and the medical industry continue telling Americans to get their dietary fat from [16:17.520 --> 16:24.240] healthy sources such as vegetable oil. It's almost as if the government is the taxpayer funded [16:24.240 --> 16:31.760] marketing arm of the processed food industry. But that couldn't be true, right? Close quote. As you [16:31.760 --> 16:38.640] may be aware, vegetable oil doesn't come from vegetables at all. What is called vegetable oil [16:38.640 --> 16:44.400] on your grocery store shelf is, in reality, industrially extracted in a factory from nuts, [16:44.400 --> 16:50.080] seeds, and grains. The extraction of oil from nuts, seeds, and grains only became possible [16:50.080 --> 16:55.120] via industrial technology at the turn of the 20th century. Can you imagine any other product [16:55.120 --> 17:01.360] concerning which the FDA or the Federal Trade Commission would allow such a grotesquely misleading [17:01.360 --> 17:06.960] description? Why does the government allow oil from nuts, seeds, and grains to be marketed under [17:06.960 --> 17:12.160] the false and misleading name vegetable oil? Because allowing that false and misleading name [17:12.160 --> 17:17.200] supports the establishment narrative that processed foods created in factories aren't giving you [17:17.200 --> 17:25.360] cancer. Eating meat is giving you cancer. As an aside, Pfizer does not want you to know ketosis [17:25.360 --> 17:31.840] stops cancer because Pfizer's next big push to make hundreds of billions of dollars is a cancer [17:31.840 --> 17:38.880] drug. Now let's get back to new 5GC. I've eaten carnivore style for years now, so if the fake [17:38.880 --> 17:44.960] science prevails right, my inflammation marker should be pretty high, right? Let's see if that's [17:44.960 --> 17:51.840] true. A while back I had an SED blood test which measures inflammation in the body. For a male, [17:51.840 --> 17:59.200] you want to be below 22. The further one is below 22, the less inflammation in your body. Mine was [18:00.560 --> 18:06.880] 2. According to the fake science purveyors, I should have chronic inflammation from eating meat, [18:07.680 --> 18:11.840] but I don't, and neither do millions of other people who eat carnivore style. [18:12.400 --> 18:16.240] I'll share another fact with you. A few years ago, I had a coronary calcium scan [18:16.320 --> 18:23.040] and my score was zero. You do not get a score of zero when eating a diet that causes inflammation [18:23.040 --> 18:27.200] because inflammation is one of the primary drivers of cardiovascular disease. [18:27.840 --> 18:32.320] Let's talk briefly about the second area of fake science being put out recently. [18:32.320 --> 18:38.480] The claim that eating meat causes type 2 diabetes. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this one [18:38.480 --> 18:43.920] because it's just too idiotic. Instead, I'll simply return to looking at the carnivore community. [18:43.920 --> 18:47.520] If the purveyors of fake science are right, then the carnivore community should be [18:47.520 --> 18:56.400] rife with type 2 diabetes, right? But it's not. In fact, it's just the opposite. You can't find [18:56.400 --> 19:03.360] anyone who eats carnivore style who has type 2 diabetes. Not a single person. I think it obvious [19:03.360 --> 19:09.280] that when researchers say eating meat causes type 2 diabetes, yet in a community of millions of people [19:09.280 --> 19:14.880] who eat nothing but meat, you can't find a single case of type 2 diabetes. They're running [19:14.880 --> 19:20.800] a fake science scam on you. As you can see, it's not difficult to show these fake science claims [19:20.800 --> 19:26.640] are false. If you look at real science, it will disprove the fake science. If you read the fake [19:26.640 --> 19:32.320] science studies, you'll find giant holes in them. And of course, there is the common sense approach [19:32.320 --> 19:37.040] we use today, which is to look at a community that would have a prevalence of the disease, [19:37.040 --> 19:43.040] if the fake science were true, and find a complete absence of the disease as we have today. [19:43.760 --> 19:47.760] While we're on the subject of common sense, I'd like to share a true story that happened in the [19:47.760 --> 19:54.800] last week or so because it illustrates the lack of public common sense I often see. I want to share [19:54.800 --> 19:59.040] the story because if people can't apply the common sense we're about to discuss, then the establishment [19:59.040 --> 20:06.720] can fool the public about, well, anything. Here's the story. A fellow on social media claimed that [20:06.720 --> 20:14.960] if a person doesn't eat sugar, eventually that person will die. How easy is it to evaluate that [20:14.960 --> 20:20.800] claim? Pretty easy. Sugar is processed from various sources, mostly sugarcane and sugar beets. [20:21.680 --> 20:28.720] Since it is processed, we know sugar didn't always exist. You may have heard of a land mass [20:28.720 --> 20:37.040] known as Europe. Sugar didn't reach Europe until the 13th century, so if people die from not [20:37.040 --> 20:44.160] consuming sugar, Europe should have had a pre-13th century population of zero. [20:47.600 --> 20:54.960] Closer to home, I haven't consumed any sugar in more than five years, so I wonder when I'm going [20:54.960 --> 21:00.320] to die from lack of sugar. And of course, there are people who haven't eaten sugar in decades. [21:01.520 --> 21:06.640] I wonder when they're going to die from not eating sugar. In many cases, it really is just that easy [21:06.640 --> 21:12.240] to debunk not only the statements of random people on social media, but fake science reports as well. [21:13.040 --> 21:19.840] What purpose do these fake study reports serve? The most obvious purpose is propaganda in support [21:19.920 --> 21:26.240] of corrupt agendas. As we discussed at the outset, most people only read the article headline or the [21:26.240 --> 21:34.000] title of the study, so media stories featuring fake science can affect the views of millions of people. [21:35.200 --> 21:40.240] Yet there is a more insidious purpose for the onslaught of fake science we're seeing. [21:41.280 --> 21:47.200] These fake science studies build on one another like a pyramid, with the upper tiers being laid [21:47.200 --> 21:53.200] upon what has come before. In other words, the goal of the fake science purveyors is to get to [21:53.200 --> 21:58.480] the point where a person who wants to figure out how this scam was put together will have to read [21:58.480 --> 22:04.240] not only the current report, but also the numerous studies that are cited as the foundation upon which [22:04.240 --> 22:11.760] a current report relies. Since probably 99% of the public doesn't read more than the article headline [22:11.760 --> 22:18.480] or a study title, what are the odds they'll read four or five earlier studies offered as foundation [22:18.480 --> 22:26.400] for the current study? I'd say the odds are zero. Prior to everything being put on the internet, [22:26.400 --> 22:30.560] scientific research only appeared in printed journals that were read almost exclusively [22:30.560 --> 22:36.960] by other scientists who understood what they were reading. As such, fake science wasn't very [22:36.960 --> 22:42.320] prevalent. Today, with everything posted on the internet, the game has changed dramatically. [22:42.320 --> 22:48.000] Today, study reports are intended to influence the masses who have no clue what they're looking at. [22:48.880 --> 22:54.960] If a study is worthless garbage but the media headline parroting the claim of the study is [22:54.960 --> 23:01.440] seen by 20 million people, then it's considered a success in terms of why the garbage was put [23:01.440 --> 23:07.840] together in the first place. If the worthless garbage, the fake science, was only intended to [23:07.840 --> 23:13.200] affect the views of the public, that would be bad enough. But as I said in the intro, this fake [23:13.200 --> 23:19.120] science is being used to lay the foundation for future legislation. We just saw millions of [23:19.120 --> 23:24.640] Americans lose their right to make a crucial medical decision for themselves. Do you think [23:24.640 --> 23:29.520] your decision about what you'd care to eat is immune from the actions of agendized politicians? [23:30.480 --> 23:35.760] Just last week, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that any institution under the city's [23:35.760 --> 23:42.480] authority would be moving to a plant-based food regime. In that speech, he challenged the private [23:42.480 --> 23:49.280] sector to do the same. Do you think he and his ilk will stand by idly when the private sector [23:49.280 --> 23:55.600] ignores his agenda? The fake science he offered in support of his actions is that a plant-based diet [23:55.680 --> 24:00.640] is healthier for the individual and it will reduce man-made global warming, [24:00.640 --> 24:06.000] now euphemistically called climate change. On the opposite side of the country, the city of [24:06.000 --> 24:13.200] Berkeley, California enacted the same policy in June 2022. Would the courts uphold legislation [24:13.200 --> 24:18.880] restricting consumers from purchasing meat? I think the answer is clearly no, but that's not [24:18.880 --> 24:25.280] how it will be done. Fake science will be used to create legislation that interferes with the supply [24:25.280 --> 24:31.680] of meat, not restrict you from purchasing it. When we talk about interfering with the supply [24:31.680 --> 24:37.200] of meat, there's a reason Bill Gates has been buying up all the American farmland he can get [24:37.200 --> 24:43.440] his hands on. Fake science is nothing new. It's just accelerated significantly in the last couple [24:43.440 --> 24:50.880] of decades. Allow me to share with you an excerpt from Body Science. Quote, the most famous iceberg [24:50.880 --> 24:56.400] may be the one that sank the Titanic, but the iceberg of U.S. nutritional research fraud, [24:56.400 --> 25:02.320] of which so few are aware, has been consistently and quietly sinking the health of our nation [25:02.320 --> 25:09.360] by destroying the health of its citizens on a scale never before seen in human history. [25:09.360 --> 25:15.200] Private research organizations rely primarily on corporate funding. Sure, these days they are [25:15.200 --> 25:19.600] required to disclose their funding sources. Researchers must file conflict of interest [25:19.600 --> 25:25.280] statements, but virtually no one, most especially the American public, reads the statements or [25:25.280 --> 25:30.640] compares them to the research performed and the results reported. An area week goes by that I [25:30.640 --> 25:35.440] don't see at least one or more articles with headlines telling us about the latest and greatest [25:35.440 --> 25:41.840] nutritional research revelation. When I read the articles, which usually omit a link to a study, [25:42.720 --> 25:48.240] far more often than not the claims are utter nonsense. Even the most rudimentary knowledge [25:48.240 --> 25:54.560] of physiology debunks them in a hot second. Yet the American people, the vast majority of whom [25:54.560 --> 26:00.320] have no knowledge of physiology, are endlessly bombarded with stories about one nonsense study [26:00.320 --> 26:07.520] after another. Ironically, even the giant processed food conglomerates have to deal with a tsunami of [26:07.520 --> 26:14.080] false research claims. Those enterprises, who need solid science from which to develop their latest [26:14.080 --> 26:20.160] and greatest product, have found that in 43% of cases their in-house laboratories, which are the [26:20.160 --> 26:27.040] best money can buy, cannot replicate the results detailed in published scientific study reports. [26:27.680 --> 26:34.640] Think about that. We're heading towards half of all claimed research results being either fraudulent [26:34.640 --> 26:41.280] or the result of an aptitude. Close quote. The problem is worse today than when I wrote those [26:41.280 --> 26:46.960] words. In terms of the health of the American people, industry-funded fake science began in [26:46.960 --> 26:54.000] earnest in the late 1950s. Fake science was, it is, the cornerstone of the U.S. government's [26:54.000 --> 27:00.560] nutritional disinformation campaign that began in 1980 and continues to this very day. It is [27:00.560 --> 27:08.400] no accident that from 1980 forward, chronic disease exploded in the United States and with that an [27:08.400 --> 27:14.800] unprecedented expansion of big med and big pharma. Virtually everything you've been told [27:14.800 --> 27:20.960] about nutrition and human physiology in the last 50 years has been wrong and it hasn't been a mistake. [27:21.840 --> 27:26.560] The American people have been intentionally misled in order to make them ill, in order to [27:26.560 --> 27:31.440] generate massive profits for trillion-dollar industries. That may be hard for some people [27:31.440 --> 27:38.000] to swallow, but it is nevertheless true. When I discover something I've been told is false, [27:38.400 --> 27:42.960] especially by the government, I cannot rest until I have uncovered the truth. [27:43.920 --> 27:48.080] Seeing the grotesque falsehoods put out by industry and government concerning nutritional [27:48.080 --> 27:54.960] physiology, which is obediently parroted by the media, is what motivated me to write body science. [27:55.680 --> 28:01.520] I can't compete with industry, government, or the media when it comes to getting a message out, [28:01.520 --> 28:06.880] but I can get the truth out to you. Body science shows you the government's lies, [28:07.600 --> 28:14.000] then shows what real science tells us, and then provides a path to becoming incredibly healthy, [28:15.040 --> 28:20.560] just like your ancestors were. Despite the fact that at its core, body science is a physiology [28:20.560 --> 28:27.920] book, science jargon is kept to a minimum and every point is explained in plain English. In other [28:27.920 --> 28:36.480] words, the science is presented in a way everyone can understand. To reset your brain from the lies [28:36.480 --> 28:42.400] to truth concerning nutritional physiology, read body science. It has never gotten less [28:42.400 --> 28:50.800] than five out of five stars in reader reviews. You can get your copy at drreality.news. The link [28:50.800 --> 28:56.240] is in the notes. While you're there, check out what readers have said about income tax shattering [28:56.240 --> 29:02.800] the miss, which provides a mountain of irrefutable evidence that Congress has never imposed the income [29:02.800 --> 29:08.960] tax on the ordinary working American like you. In other words, if you've been paying income tax, [29:08.960 --> 29:14.800] you're the victim of the largest financial crime in history that's being perpetrated against the [29:14.800 --> 29:19.680] American people by the federal government. When I suggest you check out the reader comments, [29:20.240 --> 29:24.640] that's because in the 13 years income tax shattering this has been on the market, [29:24.640 --> 29:31.040] it has never received less than a four-star rating, with most being five stars. Here's an example. [29:31.040 --> 29:36.480] Alastair said, as a person going on my 11th year of leaving the income tax scam, I highly encourage [29:36.480 --> 29:41.200] everyone to read income tax shattering the miss. Don't you owe it to yourself to learn the truth, [29:41.200 --> 29:46.880] to quit being duped? Can never thank you enough for bestowing financial liberty upon me, Dave. [29:48.560 --> 29:53.440] So click the link in the notes to get body science and or income tax shattering the miss. [29:53.440 --> 30:00.160] They will be two of the most fascinating books you've ever read. My word to you on that. Also, [30:00.160 --> 30:04.960] by purchasing income tax shattering the miss and or body science, you help me to continue to be [30:04.960 --> 30:10.480] here for you with these thought-provoking presentations. Please share this vodcast [30:10.480 --> 30:20.000] and thanks for being here. Take care.