Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:04.000] Welcome to the Vodcast. I recently ran a poll on Twitter, [00:04.000 --> 00:08.000] MeWe, Getter, and Instagram asking what topic you'd like me to [00:08.000 --> 00:12.000] address next. One of the top picks was when MDs [00:12.000 --> 00:16.000] lie. [00:16.000 --> 00:20.000] The Dr. Reality Vodcast [00:20.000 --> 00:24.000] with Dave Champion. [00:24.000 --> 00:30.000] Let's [00:30.000 --> 00:34.000] start with this. MDs are human. They can be mistaken [00:34.000 --> 00:38.000] just like anyone else. So when we talk about the credibility of MDs or [00:38.000 --> 00:42.000] the lack thereof, we're not talking about making honest mistakes. We're talking about [00:42.000 --> 00:46.000] saying something while knowing it's false or saying something when it's [00:46.000 --> 00:50.000] the doctor's job, the doctor's duty to know it's false. [00:50.000 --> 00:54.000] An example of an honest mistake might be a nephrologist, a kidney doctor, [00:54.000 --> 00:58.000] making a remark on social media about a point of podiatry and getting it wrong [00:58.000 --> 01:02.000] because that's not his or her area of specialization. That's almost [01:02.000 --> 01:06.000] certainly an honest mistake, not an attempt to deceive. [01:06.000 --> 01:10.000] I just mentioned a nephrologist. If a nephrologist makes a false statement [01:10.000 --> 01:14.000] about kidney function or kidney disease, that's something entirely [01:14.000 --> 01:18.000] different. When that happens, it's either gross irresponsibility [01:18.000 --> 01:22.000] or outright deceit, and it's that we're here to discuss today. [01:22.000 --> 01:26.000] I don't trust doctors as far as I can throw them. [01:26.000 --> 01:30.000] I hold that view not only from comparing the things they say against the science [01:30.000 --> 01:34.000] on various issues, but also the countless bad calls or outright [01:34.000 --> 01:38.000] screw-ups they made in my life before I studied physiology and no longer [01:38.000 --> 01:42.000] have any use for doctors. Most doctors see their job as a great [01:42.000 --> 01:46.000] high-paying profession in which they are virtually always seen as the authority figure [01:46.000 --> 01:50.000] and sometimes even a hero. Doctors who operate from [01:50.000 --> 01:54.000] that paradigm usually aren't very proficient at their jobs because they know [01:54.000 --> 01:58.000] 99.9% of their patients will never know he or she is a [01:58.000 --> 02:02.000] poor performer. So why bust their asses to be top-notch [02:02.000 --> 02:06.000] when their patients won't know they're actually just mediocre or [02:06.000 --> 02:10.000] less? That said, there are doctors out there who see [02:10.000 --> 02:14.000] what they do as a calling and truly endeavor to do their very best for their patients. [02:14.000 --> 02:18.000] But even that healthier perspective doesn't guarantee they are skilled [02:18.000 --> 02:22.000] practitioners. Like any other field, very [02:22.000 --> 02:26.000] few doctors are excellent at what they do. [02:26.000 --> 02:30.000] In the pre-Internet era, doctors enjoyed being thought of much like gods [02:30.000 --> 02:34.000] who dealt with matters far above mere mortals. [02:34.000 --> 02:38.000] But of course, things are very different now. Today, people do their own research and [02:38.000 --> 02:42.000] can decide for themselves whether they're getting the straight scoop from a doctor. [02:42.000 --> 02:46.000] Whether the average person has the ability to effectively use the Internet to determine whether doctors [02:46.000 --> 02:50.000] are giving bad medical advice, misdiagnosing a patient's condition, providing [02:50.000 --> 02:54.000] improper treatment, prescribing inappropriate medications, etc., is a matter [02:54.000 --> 02:58.000] of some debate. What is not open for debate is everyone now [02:58.000 --> 03:02.000] has the technology at hand to fact-check [03:02.000 --> 03:06.000] doctors. I think it goes without saying that during the SARS-CoV-2 [03:06.000 --> 03:10.000] event, the public has lost a great deal of respect for and confidence [03:10.000 --> 03:14.000] in MDs. By my estimate, in that three-year period, [03:14.000 --> 03:18.000] the public lost more respect for MDs than in the entire [03:18.000 --> 03:22.000] rest of my life. And MDs have no one to blame [03:22.000 --> 03:26.000] but themselves for parroting to their patients whatever the establishment wanted [03:26.000 --> 03:30.000] them to say without regard to facts or science. In short, many doctors [03:30.000 --> 03:34.000] showed themselves to be pawns of the establishment rather than advocating for their patients. [03:34.000 --> 03:38.000] And when they knew the establishment was pushing non-factual [03:38.000 --> 03:42.000] propaganda on the public, few MDs had the courage to speak out. [03:42.000 --> 03:46.000] If we move away from SARS-CoV-2 and discuss more routine issues, do [03:46.000 --> 03:50.000] doctors fare any better? Sadly, no. They continue to use [03:50.000 --> 03:54.000] their title of MD to give the impression of credibility while promoting false [03:54.000 --> 03:58.000] establishment narratives, and they continue asserting things as true [03:58.000 --> 04:02.000] that have no basis in science. Before I give you some real-world examples, [04:02.000 --> 04:06.000] we should recall that at least in theory, we have entered into the era of [04:06.000 --> 04:10.000] evidence-based medicine. One of the most meaningful aspects [04:10.000 --> 04:14.000] of evidence-based medicine is its use in setting public health policy. [04:14.000 --> 04:18.000] In that aspect of evidence-based medicine, policymakers must [04:18.000 --> 04:22.000] determine whether a proposed policy is justified by scientific [04:22.000 --> 04:26.000] evidence. In 2020, 2021, and 2022, [04:26.000 --> 04:30.000] we witnessed that construct collapse. The policymakers [04:30.000 --> 04:34.000] in most jurisdictions were governors who, in the main, uncritically [04:34.000 --> 04:38.000] accepted whatever their state health directors told them to do and what their state health [04:38.000 --> 04:42.000] directors told them originated with the CDC. However much [04:42.000 --> 04:46.000] respect doctors lost during the SARS-CoV-2 event increased that [04:46.000 --> 04:50.000] exponentially when it comes to the public no longer seeing CDC as credible. [04:50.000 --> 04:54.000] Nevertheless, the CDC put information out to state health directors [04:54.000 --> 04:58.000] who then regurgitated that information to the governors, who then essentially did what [04:58.000 --> 05:02.000] they were told. There was no critical analysis of the narrative anywhere [05:02.000 --> 05:06.000] in that government information pipeline. Everyone just got in line and did as they [05:06.000 --> 05:10.000] were told. That is the exact opposite of evidence-based policy [05:10.000 --> 05:14.000] making. Does evidence-based medicine fare any better in the private [05:14.000 --> 05:18.000] sector? Let's examine that question by looking at a recent article appearing in the Huffington [05:18.000 --> 05:22.000] Post. The article purports to be about health. I have [05:22.000 --> 05:26.000] no idea where the author found MDs to say the things they said, but the lies [05:26.000 --> 05:30.000] and or ignorance is appalling. [05:30.000 --> 05:34.000] Dr. Eleanor Levin, a Stanford cardiologist, made the following [05:34.000 --> 05:36.000] statement, quote, [06:01.000 --> 06:05.000] Let's break her statement down and compare her claims [06:05.000 --> 06:08.000] with the facts. Her statement, [06:31.000 --> 06:33.000] Her statement, [06:33.000 --> 06:35.000] Her statement, [06:58.000 --> 07:01.000] Osteoporosis means losing bone density leading to bone [07:01.000 --> 07:05.000] fragility. Fact. There is not a single shred of scientific [07:05.000 --> 07:09.000] evidence that saturated fat has anything to do with osteoporosis. [07:09.000 --> 07:13.000] Not only is there no evidence saturated fat causes osteoporosis, [07:13.000 --> 07:17.000] but there aren't even any studies suggesting a correlation [07:17.000 --> 07:21.000] between saturated fat and osteoporosis. There is literally [07:21.000 --> 07:25.000] no scientific data that even discusses [07:25.000 --> 07:29.000] association between the two. Nothing. [07:29.000 --> 07:32.000] Zero. Her statement, [07:49.000 --> 07:52.000] There was never a shred of scientific evidence supporting that claim. [07:52.000 --> 07:55.000] That said, there was a ton of propaganda about it. [07:55.000 --> 07:59.000] Dr. Levin continues to promote that anti-science propaganda. [07:59.000 --> 08:01.000] Her statement, [08:08.000 --> 08:11.000] Fact. While the liver does remove toxins from the blood, which is [08:11.000 --> 08:15.000] one of its primary functions, the liver does not store toxins. [08:15.000 --> 08:18.000] The liver does one of two things with toxins it clears from the blood. [08:18.000 --> 08:22.000] Some are converted, synthesized via enzymatic action, [08:22.000 --> 08:26.000] into other substances the body needs. What cannot be converted is [08:26.000 --> 08:30.000] excreted in your urine and feces. In other words, Dr. Levin's claim [08:30.000 --> 08:34.000] that the toxins are, quote, typically just sitting there, is [08:34.000 --> 08:38.000] 100% false. Her statement, [08:45.000 --> 08:49.000] That's propaganda intended to make people believe all that preceded [08:49.000 --> 08:53.000] This final sentence is true because she's a cardiologist. But of course, [08:53.000 --> 08:57.000] as I just shared with you, every one of her statements is either false or [08:57.000 --> 09:01.000] misleading. What I don't know is whether Dr. Levin is speaking from [09:01.000 --> 09:05.000] a disturbing level of ignorance or is knowingly lying to [09:05.000 --> 09:09.000] promote an agenda. If her statements are from ignorance, obviously no one should [09:09.000 --> 09:13.000] ever choose her as their cardiologist. If she's lying to further some agenda, [09:13.000 --> 09:17.000] who wants a cardiologist, or any doctor for that matter, who [09:17.000 --> 09:21.000] intentionally makes false anti-science statements. [09:21.000 --> 09:25.000] The next eminent physician from whom we'll hear is Dr. Elizabeth [09:25.000 --> 09:29.000] Clotis, a cardiologist based in Minneapolis. She says she avoids [09:29.000 --> 09:33.000] breakfast sausages at all costs, quote, [09:40.000 --> 09:44.000] Clotis noted that all processed meats, including sausage, ham, and bacon, have been classified [09:44.000 --> 09:48.000] as carcinogens by the World Health Organization. So, [09:48.000 --> 09:52.000] how to reclaim stand-up to science. [09:52.000 --> 09:56.000] Her statement was breakfast sausages, quote, [09:58.000 --> 10:02.000] Fact. While that statement isn't as off-the-chart ridiculous as [10:02.000 --> 10:06.000] Levin's remarks, it is misleading. While it was accepted [10:06.000 --> 10:10.000] medical dogma for decades that sodium increases blood pressure significantly [10:10.000 --> 10:14.000] and dangerously, modern scientific studies show that high sodium [10:14.000 --> 10:18.000] intake has a trivial effect on blood pressure, and even then [10:18.000 --> 10:22.000] only in some people. By trivial, I mean just a few millimeters [10:22.000 --> 10:26.000] on your blood pressure measurement. As an example, if a person's blood pressure [10:26.000 --> 10:30.000] was 120 over 80, and then the person increased his sodium [10:30.000 --> 10:34.000] intake considerably, the number would only increase to the range of about 124 [10:34.000 --> 10:38.000] over 82. That increase is nowhere near what it was said to be in the late [10:38.000 --> 10:42.000] 20th century, but just like the false narrative that saturated fat causes [10:42.000 --> 10:46.000] heart disease continues to be spread despite science now [10:46.000 --> 10:50.000] knowing it isn't factual, certain false dogmas are tough to kill. [10:50.000 --> 10:54.000] Sodium causing a significant problematic increase in blood pressure [10:54.000 --> 10:58.000] is one of them. I will also remark that sodium is essential to numerous functions [10:58.000 --> 11:02.000] in the body, and a lack of sodium is far more concerning than consuming a good [11:02.000 --> 11:06.000] deal of it. In summation, her statement isn't blatantly false, [11:06.000 --> 11:10.000] but it's misleading because it doesn't include as context the facts I just shared [11:10.000 --> 11:14.000] with you, instead relying on people believing and feeding into the now [11:14.000 --> 11:18.000] debunked notion that to be healthy people need to cut back on sodium. [11:18.000 --> 11:22.000] Her next statement is that saturated fat raises cholesterol. [11:22.000 --> 11:26.000] During the SARS-CoV-2 event, I talked a lot about the fact that things [11:26.000 --> 11:30.000] claimed to be science could not be and should not be considered [11:30.000 --> 11:34.000] valid or factual if the same or similar fact situation [11:34.000 --> 11:38.000] leads to disparate outcomes. That's the case here. [11:38.000 --> 11:42.000] When some people increase their saturated fat intake, their cholesterol numbers increase [11:42.000 --> 11:46.000] while in others it decreases. Dr. Clotus also conveniently [11:46.000 --> 11:50.000] fails to distinguish between the different types of cholesterol. [11:50.000 --> 11:54.000] You've likely heard LDL referred to as bad cholesterol [11:54.000 --> 11:58.000] and HDL referred to as good cholesterol. Increasing saturated [11:58.000 --> 12:02.000] fat virtually always increases HDL, the good cholesterol. [12:02.000 --> 12:06.000] Odd that she just happened to leave out that important distinction. [12:06.000 --> 12:10.000] It's almost like she's tailoring what she says to promote an agenda. [12:10.000 --> 12:14.000] Then she says, processed meats, including sausage, ham, and bacon, [12:14.000 --> 12:18.000] have been classified as carcinogens by the World Health Organizations. [12:18.000 --> 12:22.000] Platforms like Facebook and YouTube have a policy that people cannot contradict [12:22.000 --> 12:26.000] the World Health Organization. I don't know whether that applies only to SARS-CoV-2, [12:26.000 --> 12:30.000] COVID-19, and the vaccines, or whether these platforms have extended [12:30.000 --> 12:34.000] it to include anything and everything the World Health Organization says. [12:34.000 --> 12:38.000] In case people want to share this video on platforms that engage in censorship, [12:38.000 --> 12:42.000] I'll simply respond to the claim that items such as sausage and pepperoni [12:42.000 --> 12:46.000] are carcinogenic by asking you how much you trust [12:46.000 --> 12:50.000] the World Health Organization. And I'll leave it there. [12:50.000 --> 12:54.000] The next statement is by Dr. Leonard Lilly, chief of cardiology at [12:54.000 --> 12:58.000] Brigham and Woman Faulkner Hospital and pertains to eating [12:58.000 --> 13:02.000] steak. Dr. Lilly says, quote, [13:18.000 --> 13:22.000] This is a good time to draw your attention to the phrase [13:22.000 --> 13:26.000] associated with. When you see that in media articles, you know a scam is being [13:26.000 --> 13:30.000] run on you. As an example, many forms of snack foods are high in [13:30.000 --> 13:34.000] saturated fat, but they're also high in high-glycemic carbohydrates. [13:34.000 --> 13:38.000] In other words, you've got two macronutrients [13:38.000 --> 13:42.000] existing in the same food, but only one is being [13:42.000 --> 13:46.000] associated with cardiovascular disease, cancer, [13:46.000 --> 13:50.000] and diabetes. And in fact, it's the wrong one. [13:50.000 --> 13:54.000] How do we know it's the wrong one? Leaving science aside for a [13:54.000 --> 13:58.000] moment. We know that because millions of people are eating carnivore [13:58.000 --> 14:02.000] style, which means eating nothing but meat, and they aren't getting cardiovascular [14:02.000 --> 14:06.000] disease or cancer. So who is getting cardiovascular [14:06.000 --> 14:10.000] disease, cancer, and diabetes? People who eat a lot [14:10.000 --> 14:14.000] of carbohydrates and especially those who eat a lot of high-glycemic [14:14.000 --> 14:18.000] carbs. I want to take special note of Dr. Lilly's claim that [14:18.000 --> 14:22.000] saturated fat is associated with diabetes. [14:22.000 --> 14:26.000] Given that type 2 diabetes is exploding in our nation, I find Dr. Lilly's [14:26.000 --> 14:30.000] misrepresentation grotesque, and I'm going to prove its [14:30.000 --> 14:34.000] faults right now. The number one source of saturated fat on [14:34.000 --> 14:38.000] earth is animal meat. Meat has no carbohydrates, [14:38.000 --> 14:42.000] so carnivores get all the saturated fat [14:42.000 --> 14:46.000] with no carbs. There are 8 billion people [14:46.000 --> 14:50.000] on the planet. If we say that one-tenth of 1% eat carnivore, [14:50.000 --> 14:54.000] that's 8 million people. If it was true that saturated fat [14:54.000 --> 14:58.000] causes diabetes, then we'd expect a lot of type 2 diabetes in the carnivore [14:58.000 --> 15:02.000] community. But that's not what we find. In fact, [15:02.000 --> 15:06.000] we find just the opposite. Of the 8 million people who are consuming [15:06.000 --> 15:10.000] the highest levels of saturated fat, abs and carbs, [15:10.000 --> 15:14.000] there isn't a single person with type 2 diabetes. Why is that? [15:14.000 --> 15:18.000] Because in the absence of carbohydrates, it is [15:18.000 --> 15:22.000] physiologically impossible to get type 2 diabetes. [15:22.000 --> 15:26.000] Dr. Lilly is knowingly, willfully and intentionally lying [15:26.000 --> 15:30.000] to people in an attempt to get them to believe diabetes is caused by saturated fat [15:30.000 --> 15:34.000] when he knows damn well it's caused by carbs. The HuffPo [15:34.000 --> 15:38.000] article goes on and on with such claims, and I'm not going to waste your time with more [15:38.000 --> 15:42.000] of the same lies and misrepresentations. I will, however, ask you [15:42.000 --> 15:46.000] if you detected a theme in the lies and misrepresentations of the three [15:46.000 --> 15:50.000] biologists. If you perceived they were sacrificing science [15:50.000 --> 15:54.000] upon the altar of an agenda, you'd be right. And that agenda [15:54.000 --> 15:58.000] is to convince people to stop eating meat by telling them it's dangerous to their health. [15:58.000 --> 16:02.000] But, do you know who are the healthiest people [16:02.000 --> 16:06.000] on the planet? It's carnivores. Eating [16:06.000 --> 16:10.000] carnivore puts you into ketosis, and it is quite literally [16:10.000 --> 16:14.000] a physiological impossibility to be in [16:14.000 --> 16:18.000] ketosis and get or continue to have obesity, insulin resistance, [16:18.000 --> 16:22.000] type 2 diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory diseases, cardiovascular disease, [16:22.000 --> 16:26.000] or heart disease. Diseases like Alzheimer's can be prevented by [16:26.000 --> 16:30.000] living in ketosis, and when caught in the early stages, Alzheimer's can be corrected [16:30.000 --> 16:34.000] by ketosis. As I close on these three [16:34.000 --> 16:38.000] doctors, I want to point out that I can cure patients of heart disease [16:38.000 --> 16:42.000] and cardiovascular disease, but they can't, nor do they. [16:42.000 --> 16:46.000] Nor do they want to. Should I point out that if they actually [16:46.000 --> 16:50.000] cured their patients of heart disease and cardiovascular disease, they'd be out of [16:50.000 --> 16:54.000] business? The takeaway from what we've just discussed is doctors will lie [16:54.000 --> 16:58.000] and intentionally mislead to push an agenda, just like lots of other people [16:58.000 --> 17:02.000] in society. If you believe they don't lie because they're doctors, [17:02.000 --> 17:06.000] you're in for a rude awakening, likely at the [17:06.000 --> 17:10.000] expense of your own health. Before I move on, please [17:10.000 --> 17:14.000] subscribe to the channel, like this video, and share the hell out of it. [17:14.000 --> 17:18.000] Thus far, what we've discussed is doctors speaking [17:18.000 --> 17:22.000] to the press, but what about doctors who make their views known in less formal [17:22.000 --> 17:26.000] circumstances, such as on social media? Are they any more credible [17:26.000 --> 17:30.000] there than when speaking to the press? Since going into ketosis [17:30.000 --> 17:34.000] five years ago, Jen and I drank primarily water and PowerAid Zero. [17:34.000 --> 17:38.000] I recently mentioned that in a tweet. I was stunned [17:38.000 --> 17:42.000] at the criticism it engendered. I was unsurprised [17:42.000 --> 17:46.000] that not a single argument people offered as to why no one should drink Zero was [17:46.000 --> 17:50.000] scientifically factual. Not one. [17:50.000 --> 17:54.000] However, because this presentation is about doctors, I'll only focus on the response [17:54.000 --> 17:58.000] of an MD. Because this doctor follows me on Twitter, I'm not going to [17:58.000 --> 18:02.000] use her name. I hope she'll continue to follow me and [18:02.000 --> 18:06.000] correct her errors. The first criticism from the MD was that I shouldn't be [18:06.000 --> 18:10.000] drinking Zero because aspartame is unhealthy. [18:10.000 --> 18:14.000] Are you ready? Zero [18:14.000 --> 18:18.000] doesn't contain aspartame. That's some damn fine doctoring [18:18.000 --> 18:22.000] right there. Her second claim was, quote, [18:22.000 --> 18:26.000] food dyes actually inhibit digestive enzymes from working as they should. Close quote. [18:26.000 --> 18:30.000] Since I know that isn't factual, I challenged her [18:30.000 --> 18:34.000] to support her claim with scientific studies. Did I get any? [18:34.000 --> 18:38.000] No, of course not. What I got was this, quote, [18:38.000 --> 18:42.000] in my world of functional medicine and root causes, with a major focus on gut health, [18:42.000 --> 18:46.000] food dyes do interfere with enzyme activities. Close quote. [18:46.000 --> 18:50.000] The only message I can take from that [18:50.000 --> 18:54.000] reply is she's saying that in functional medicine an MD is free to [18:54.000 --> 18:58.000] say shit that isn't supported by science. I wonder how her patients would [18:58.000 --> 19:02.000] feel if they knew her approach is because I say so [19:02.000 --> 19:06.000] without regard to what science tells us. I should also point out [19:06.000 --> 19:10.000] that food dyes have been researched repeatedly over decades and the outcome has [19:10.000 --> 19:14.000] always been the same. They do not harm you, including that they do not inhibit [19:14.000 --> 19:18.000] digestive enzyme function. Well, that's [19:18.000 --> 19:22.000] not completely true. There are two natural [19:22.000 --> 19:26.000] food dyes, which are rarely used these days, that do somewhat [19:26.000 --> 19:30.000] inhibit the actions of just two digestive enzymes. But guess what? [19:30.000 --> 19:34.000] Just like aspartame, those natural food dyes aren't in [19:34.000 --> 19:38.000] power eight zero. Again, impressive doctor skills. [19:38.000 --> 19:42.000] The other thing many of these doctors ignore when pontificating on [19:42.000 --> 19:46.000] whatever floats their boat is something called acceptable daily intake or [19:46.000 --> 19:50.000] ADI. The principle here is that anything in overabundance [19:50.000 --> 19:54.000] is harmful, even water. As a result, when considering whether a food additive [19:54.000 --> 19:58.000] is safe or unsafe, how much is being consumed is a necessary [19:58.000 --> 20:02.000] part of the equation. Yet MDs with an agenda or a pet [20:02.000 --> 20:06.000] issue never mention ADI. Here's the definition of [20:06.000 --> 20:10.000] ADI. Quote, acceptable daily intake is the maximum amount of a chemical [20:10.000 --> 20:14.000] that can be ingested daily over a lifetime with no appreciable health risk [20:14.000 --> 20:18.000] and is based on the highest intake that does not give rise to [20:18.000 --> 20:22.000] observable adverse effects. Close quote. If you heard the word [20:22.000 --> 20:26.000] chemical and immediately imagined it means substances produced in a lab or factory, that's [20:26.000 --> 20:30.000] not accurate. The definition I just shared with you is a scientific definition. [20:30.000 --> 20:34.000] In science, everything on the planet that has mass [20:34.000 --> 20:38.000] is a chemical. ADI is qualified rather easily. [20:38.000 --> 20:42.000] Under a certain quantity does not produce any identifiable health concerns [20:42.000 --> 20:46.000] and over that amount has been scientifically shown to manifest unhealthy [20:46.000 --> 20:50.000] effects in some people. Pretty simple stuff. [20:50.000 --> 20:54.000] Not long ago I was having a discussion with someone on social media about a food [20:54.000 --> 20:58.000] additive. I don't now recall which additive we were discussing [20:58.000 --> 21:02.000] but she asserted it's unhealthy. I pointed out that considering the average [21:02.000 --> 21:06.000] amount consumed in the US, the ordinary American would have to increase consumption [21:06.000 --> 21:10.000] of that additive by a factor of 16 [21:10.000 --> 21:14.000] hundred in order to reach the established ADI level. I [21:14.000 --> 21:18.000] said it to her in the same neutral manner I just shared it with you. No judgment [21:18.000 --> 21:22.000] just data. She unfriended me or whatever the term is on the platform [21:22.000 --> 21:26.000] where that conversation took place. While that woman was not an MD [21:26.000 --> 21:30.000] I brought it up to point out that the MD who claimed food dyes inhibit digestive [21:30.000 --> 21:34.000] enzyme actions also didn't raise the issue of ADI, which again [21:34.000 --> 21:38.000] is an essential part of the equation when discussing whether any [21:38.000 --> 21:42.000] additive is safe or unhealthy. Let's consider brilliant [21:42.000 --> 21:46.000] blue food dye, also known as blue number one, which is one of the most common [21:46.000 --> 21:50.000] food dyes in the world. The ADI for blue is [21:50.000 --> 21:54.000] 12.5 milligrams a day for every kilogram of body weight. [21:54.000 --> 21:58.000] That means at my weight I'd have to consume 1212 [21:58.000 --> 22:02.000] milligrams of brilliant blue to reach the ADI limit. [22:02.000 --> 22:06.000] There are four milligrams of blue number one in a 28 ounce bottle of Powerade [22:06.000 --> 22:10.000] zero mixed berry, which is the flavor I prefer. That means [22:10.000 --> 22:14.000] I'd have to drink 303 [22:14.000 --> 22:18.000] 28 ounce bottles of mixed berry zero a day [22:18.000 --> 22:22.000] to reach the ADI limit. There are two takeaways [22:22.000 --> 22:26.000] from the ADI issue. First, the difference between the few bottles of zero [22:26.000 --> 22:30.000] I drink in a day and the 303 needed to reach the ADI [22:30.000 --> 22:34.000] level for blue number one highlights the significance, the necessity [22:34.000 --> 22:38.000] of taking this science into consideration when discussing such [22:38.000 --> 22:42.000] matters. Second, people with an agenda never bring ADI [22:42.000 --> 22:46.000] into the discussion. There's a reason for that. If they did, in the vast [22:46.000 --> 22:50.000] majority of cases they wouldn't be able to push their agenda. When we look [22:50.000 --> 22:54.000] at the entirety of this presentation, the statements made by the MDs [22:54.000 --> 22:58.000] and the things they should have said if they wanted to be professional and credible, but didn't, [22:58.000 --> 23:02.000] it's clear that when science and their agenda conflict, it's science [23:02.000 --> 23:06.000] they kick to the curb. Their agenda is more important to them than is science. [23:06.000 --> 23:10.000] Of course, the four doctors we discussed today don't represent the entire MD community. [23:10.000 --> 23:14.000] What's concerning is that in all four cases we looked at today, all of [23:14.000 --> 23:18.000] them use their status as medical doctors to attempt to convince people [23:18.000 --> 23:22.000] what they were saying was scientifically valid when in fact they were just promoting a [23:22.000 --> 23:26.000] non-factual personal agenda. Using their status as MDs [23:26.000 --> 23:30.000] to convince people that falsehoods are truth, [23:30.000 --> 23:34.000] that's pretty despicable. Here's the real concern. [23:34.000 --> 23:38.000] If you were sitting in an exam room or in a hospital [23:38.000 --> 23:42.000] and a doctor told you something that was false or intended to mislead you, [23:42.000 --> 23:46.000] how would you know? I'd know because physiology is my bag, [23:46.000 --> 23:50.000] but how would you know? These ass hats are coming [23:50.000 --> 23:54.000] up with an agenda and then they're mutilating science in order [23:54.000 --> 23:58.000] to assert it's supporting their agenda. I handle my [23:58.000 --> 24:02.000] business in the exact opposite way. When I begin researching a matter, I have no [24:02.000 --> 24:06.000] fixed position. As I examine the scientific evidence, I let [24:06.000 --> 24:10.000] science inform my position. And that is exactly what I [24:10.000 --> 24:14.000] did when I wrote body science. The reason I bring up body science is [24:14.000 --> 24:18.000] reading it and applying what you learn from it is the single best way to ensure [24:18.000 --> 24:22.000] you never need a medical doctor again concerning illness and disease. [24:22.000 --> 24:26.000] Since the vast majority of people are ill-equipped to know whether [24:26.000 --> 24:30.000] a doctor is speaking truth or pushing an agenda or just plain [24:30.000 --> 24:34.000] mistaken, I'd suggest the best way to deal with that situation is to not [24:34.000 --> 24:38.000] need a doctor ever again. Problem solved. Body [24:38.000 --> 24:42.000] science does that for you. The reason I wrote body science was [24:42.000 --> 24:46.000] because the propaganda put out by the kind of people we've discussed today has [24:46.000 --> 24:50.000] been winning the information war. In other words, [24:50.000 --> 24:54.000] disinformation about physiology and health generally has been [24:54.000 --> 24:58.000] winning by a long shot. [24:58.000 --> 25:02.000] What is the consequence of the disinformation winning the war? That consequence [25:02.000 --> 25:06.000] is that Americans, as a community, are the most ill people in [25:06.000 --> 25:10.000] all of human history. Think about that. [25:10.000 --> 25:14.000] We can send ships into space. We can build super computers. We're on the [25:14.000 --> 25:18.000] cusp of being able to grow human organs in a lab. In our hand, [25:18.000 --> 25:22.000] we hold a device that allows us to access all the world's knowledge. [25:22.000 --> 25:26.000] Yet somehow, we're the sickest people on the planet [25:26.000 --> 25:30.000] and sicker than any society in all of history. [25:30.000 --> 25:34.000] Do you think that's a coincidence? It's not. It's by [25:34.000 --> 25:38.000] design. It's the result of a massive 60-year disinformation [25:38.000 --> 25:42.000] campaign intended to profit trillion-dollar industries at [25:42.000 --> 25:46.000] your expense. Does that sound like a kooky claim? If [25:46.000 --> 25:50.000] so, you need to read body science. While body science is a book about human [25:50.000 --> 25:54.000] physiology presented in a way everyone can understand, in order for [25:54.000 --> 25:58.000] readers to understand why the science of physiology they discover in body [25:58.000 --> 26:02.000] science is so dramatically at odds with what they've been told their entire [26:02.000 --> 26:06.000] life, I had to include the history of the disinformation campaign, [26:06.000 --> 26:10.000] including naming many of the conspirators. Once readers [26:10.000 --> 26:14.000] see what these people have done and why, they can mentally [26:14.000 --> 26:18.000] let go of the falsehoods they've believed for a long time. [26:18.000 --> 26:22.000] Once you've let go of the lies, you're then able to recognize the truth [26:22.000 --> 26:26.000] about human physiology. As with all my works, in body [26:26.000 --> 26:30.000] science, I tell the reader to not blindly believe what they discover, but [26:30.000 --> 26:34.000] use it as a springboard to do their own research, which in turn will verify [26:34.000 --> 26:38.000] for them everything in body science is factual. Knowing the [26:38.000 --> 26:42.000] disinformation has been winning the war for 60 years and continues to [26:42.000 --> 26:46.000] do so. What could I do to change that? I'm just a [26:46.000 --> 26:50.000] physiologist who wants people to know the truth about human physiology and with that knowledge, [26:50.000 --> 26:54.000] leave the poisonous scam behind and get incredibly healthy. The media [26:54.000 --> 26:58.000] is a huge part of the success of disinformation. [26:58.000 --> 27:02.000] So while people like Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky can make a phone call and by [27:02.000 --> 27:06.000] the end of the day be seen and heard by millions of people, I can't. [27:06.000 --> 27:10.000] If you want to leave the scam and its resulting illness [27:10.000 --> 27:14.000] behind, you'll need to read body science. You can get body [27:14.000 --> 27:18.000] science at DrReality.News, DRReality.News, [27:18.000 --> 27:22.000] I'll put the link down in the notes. While you're there, check out Income Tax [27:22.000 --> 27:26.000] Shattering the Mist, which lays out the mountains [27:26.000 --> 27:30.000] of indisputable evidence that Congress has never imposed the income tax on ordinary [27:30.000 --> 27:34.000] working Americans. That government scam also relies [27:34.000 --> 27:38.000] on a decades old massive disinformation campaign to get you [27:38.000 --> 27:42.000] to believe a lie is truth. Body science [27:42.000 --> 27:46.000] shows you how they're kneecapping your health, while income tax shattering the mist shows [27:46.000 --> 27:50.000] you how they're kneecapping your wealth. And both books give you 100% [27:50.000 --> 27:54.000] of the information you need to end this scam in your own life [27:54.000 --> 27:58.000] if you choose to do so. I provide the facts, data, and evidence [27:58.000 --> 28:02.000] you make the choice. Also, by purchasing body science and [28:02.000 --> 28:06.000] or income tax shattering the mist, you help me to continue to be here for you [28:06.000 --> 28:10.000] with these thought provoking presentations. Thanks for being here and please [28:10.000 --> 28:14.000] remember to share the video. Take care.