MAFIA MOMENTS: The Flexner Report, C40 Cities, and Meat Taxes with J Gulinello
Download MP3Alright, guys. Welcome back to another episode of the Meat Mafia podcast. This is a Meat Mafia moments. This is when we go back in time throughout the history of the podcast and bring you the best episodes, clips from the best episodes that that we've ever done. In today's episode, I'm really excited to share because I truly believe that this is this is kinda like the manifesto for the Meat Mafia, what's talked about in this 27 minute clip.
Speaker 1:And it's with our good friend, Jay Golinello, who has done a ton of research on food history and what's happening behind the scenes to change and alter what we believe to be food and how we actually think about food. And there's really a lot of political interest involved with this, and that's what Jay gets into. So, we're gonna talk about Rockefeller, the Flexner Report. We're gonna talk, good amount about c 40 cities, which is a growing concern, and I hope you guys do your own research on that. Yeah.
Speaker 1:This is a phenomenal podcast, and Jay is just a wealth of knowledge. So without further ado, Jay Gulonella.
Speaker 2:Have you done any, digging on, like, the Flexner report and how that impacted western medicine? And Sure. The reason why I'm saying that is we started off just writing informational threads on nutrition, kind of telling some of these stories similar to what you do about, like, why the food system is the way that it is. And I remember stumbling upon, like, Rockefeller and Carnegie's impact in creating the Flexner report. Yeah.
Speaker 2:And if you're comfortable with it, if you wanna talk through that, that is a fascinating story.
Speaker 3:Yeah. I mean, essentially, you're talking about the homogenization of all medical schools and the complete destruction of the empirics, the homeopaths, you know, everything that was thought to be alternative even though when you think about it, the current model of the petrochemical, you know, that current model of practice is actually the experiment because that's only really been around for a little over a 100 years. When the rest of these modalities and and so, again, what I'm trying to say is I think we should we should be combining everything. I think there's a place for everything. Like trauma care, I mean, there's no better place or time that I would rather live, you know, than right here at this time if I was ever in a catastrophic accident and and Western medicine had to put me back together.
Speaker 2:A 100%.
Speaker 3:No other time. They are brilliant at that. I have a friend who's an ER nurse, and the things that she tells me that she's able to do, because of her training and because of the advancements in medicine, I would never wanna give that up. Yes. But and it's a big but, is that there's a whole other side.
Speaker 3:We talked about prevention. And a lot of that stuff because of the Flexner report, which essentially closed I don't know I don't wanna say 2 thirds, but it was a it was a large portion of medical schools because they didn't meet this sort of standard, this Rockefeller Medicine standard, which was we're gonna use chemicals to manage symptoms. Mhmm. But back at that time, you know, people had a choice whether whether they wanted to go with sort of allopathic medicine or or sort of empirical medicine and and work with the empirics. And most people didn't wanna deal with allopathic medicine because the side effects were so terrible.
Speaker 3:And so, again, I'm all about choice. You know, people that that follow me and that read the the work. I I I only wanna present information and then say, listen. Make your own choice.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:With nutrition, with medicine, with everything. Informed consent, informed consent, informed consent. Mhmm. As long as people have that, then I'm then I'm truly happy with whatever choice they make. I I you know, because I figure, eventually, people will get there.
Speaker 3:The free the true free market will decide. But that's what the Flexner Report did was essentially. If you read the Flexner report, it's very interesting. Abraham Flexner had a serious bias going in. And when you're paid by the Rockefellers and the Carnegies to, you know you're you're gonna the outcome that you get is not surprising when you're paid by the entities that want a certain outcome.
Speaker 3:That's just human nature. Yeah. That report was not gonna come out and say everything's fine. A 100%. You know, it was never gonna happen.
Speaker 3:So, you know, we I think again, and nothing is all one way. Nothing is all bad or all good. I mean, it certainly did help establish some sort of, level of, you know, credential for for, you know, medical institutions and universities, but it also completely abolished almost. And in fact, it was sort of responsible for the whole quack term. Right?
Speaker 3:Everybody who didn't practice Rockefeller style medicine was considered quack. And that's wrong. That's just wrong. Mhmm. And I think we're suffering.
Speaker 3:I think now it's taken a long time for us to really understand just how poor that paradigm is. And I think now we're starting to realize it. I mean, the last 3 years, we've seen what happens when you squash dissent, and you just have one way of practicing. And, bad things happen. Bad things happen.
Speaker 3:So
Speaker 2:And our health is a reflection of that. And I think the backstory. Right? So Rockefeller owned Standard Oil, biggest oil conglomerate the world has ever seen. They realized to your point that you could take these petrochemicals and actually turn them into synthetic pills, supplements, vitamins, things like that.
Speaker 2:And him and Carnegie essentially funded this Flexner report, which is gonna be the benchmark and gold standard for all medicine moving forward. So to your point, all these allopathic practices were deemed as quacks versus everything that kinda fit this pharmacological source of medicine was deemed as, like, the gold standard. Yes. And to what you're saying, I think part of the issue that the alternative health community makes is that they view it as a very binary thing where it's, like, all in on preventative alternative medicine. Right.
Speaker 2:No space for pharmacology. And what you're saying is, like, no. Both of those things have a very distinct place, but it's a blend of both of those things together, which is so important.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:It's not one or the other.
Speaker 3:Right. It's like, to me, the, the terrain versus germ theory debate. Yeah. Right? I I see a Venn diagram, a a perfect intersection of the 2.
Speaker 3:But there are some people that only want it to be one way, and there are other people that only want it to be the other way. And I don't know why that is. You know, I'm always looking to find you know, I I I tell people all the time. I don't I don't wanna be right. You know, I'm just I'm just looking for the truth.
Speaker 3:I don't care to be, you know, the first or, you know, I I just I just want the truth, whatever it is. And and on that path, sometimes it's a very winding road, you know. So sometimes I have to go down a whole rabbit hole to figure out I was wrong about something. But the thing about admitting that you're wrong about something is that now you know that you really don't have to, you know, consider that anymore. You you you you've you've exhausted that possibility.
Speaker 3:So with terrain theory, I always think, okay. So what we wanna do is through nutrition and lifestyle, we wanna support the organism, if it's a human, you know, as best as possible, get the immune system robust. We can impact the immune system. I mean, nutrient deficiencies have a major impact on the immune system. So that is terrain theory.
Speaker 3:Yes. If you and all your friends go out to dinner and you all have the same meal and one person goes home and gets food poisoning I mean, I've had that experience before where we all have the same food, but only one person gets food poisoning. That's terrain theory. Mhmm. You know?
Speaker 3:So why there's only 1 or the other is beyond me. I don't think it has to be that way. But I think that but I think that, in my opinion, we need to the pharmaceutical model needs to find its place because it has completely overtaken everything else to the point where I know doctors who say nutrition doesn't matter, which is mind boggling. Because, again, when I when I drill down on that and ask them about simple biochemistry, they don't they don't know. They don't understand.
Speaker 3:So to say that nutrition doesn't matter while simultaneously not understanding the biochemistry of human metabolism, that's a huge knowledge gap. Yeah. And so that's where I'm always trying to fill in the gap. Right? So with doctors, I talk about more detailed biochemistry stuff.
Speaker 3:And with the public, I'll give them a little bit of that, but I also try to go, you know, the history of the food pyramid and, you know, the history of the dietary guidelines. And you know that it wasn't really all that evidence based, and it's a very sordid past going all the way back to the 7th day Adventist Church. It's a weird soap opera.
Speaker 2:No one knows about this either.
Speaker 3:You gotta you gotta know history so you can understand how we got here. You know? So I think that's really important.
Speaker 2:Yeah. The interesting thing when I was listening to your your 20 minute talk, you know, we'll we'll call it the war on food because I know you did a longer talk that same trip. It's so easy to hear the things you're saying about the 7th the 7th day Adventist Church and be like, oh, this guy is just a conspiracy theorist. Yet if you actually do your homework and go back, it's actually what happened. John Harvey Kellogg's, he was a protege of what what was her name, Helen?
Speaker 2:Gold White. And she had a vision from God, right, that she shouldn't eat meat?
Speaker 3:Yeah. The the this is a super long story, so I won't go through the whole thing, but she was a cofounder of the 7 day Adventist. When she was 9 years old, she got hit in the head with a rock. She was unconscious for weeks. And when she woke up, she said that she was having visions of God.
Speaker 3:And God told her that in order for her flock to, attain the the rights to heaven, that they should avoid eating animal flesh. And and also they should avoid things like wigs, corsets, and tight dresses. Just throwing that out there. And, so and her protege was a young 12 year old John Harvey Kellogg. Very impressionable.
Speaker 3:So he was writing for the church bulletin and but he was such a he was such a brilliant guy. He really was, that he ended up going to medical school. And this and Ellen Gould White and her family in the 7th day Adventist helped fund some of that. But he carried all of that that with him. And he really believed that diet was the cure for what he called sinful behavior.
Speaker 3:So, again, religious beliefs. You can have whatever you want. But when you start to enforce policy on the entire population based on someone's visions, which which a lot of medical experts now think was essentially, she was suffering from epilepsy, It becomes problematic, and we have to take a step back and just say, are we sure that this is all evidence based? And then you can go fur further from there. One of John Harvey Kellogg's proteges was Lena Cooper, who went on She was a a nurse at the Battle Creek Sanitarium, which was the place that he ran that that was a sort of mecca for, wealthy industrialists and politicians.
Speaker 3:So that's how he started to gain a political foothold. Leonard Cooper went on to found the American Dietetics Association. So now you see a direct line from Ellen Gould White, John Hervey Kellogg, Leonard Cooper in the American Diet Dietetics Association, which is now why they all everything they want is plant based. And then if you move over from, to a more modern nutritionist, Nathan Pritikin. Mhmm.
Speaker 3:Be most people know his name, the Pritikin Diet. He was a big fan of Alan Goldwhite, and he said he thought he said something really funny. I read an interview with him where he said, she must have been divinely inspired because she had so much knowledge of nutrition, yet she had no training at all. And I thought, yeah. Either that or she was wrong.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Right? Yeah. But, again, his preexisting beliefs were vegetarian, low fat, low salt diets. And one of the people who was a big fan of his was senator George McGovern.
Speaker 3:He used to offend, offend. He used to attend Pritikin's diet camps. He dropped out early because who wants to eat a low fat, low salt, no, you know, diet? I mean, it sounds terrible. So, but they were such good friends that George McGovern, who was the head of the senate committee on nutrition and human needs in the 19 seventies who were addressing the dietary guidelines for Americans, he had Nathan Pritikin come and speak before the committee.
Speaker 3:They were such good friends that he gave Pritikin's eulogy in 1985.
Speaker 2:He gave the eulogy in 19.
Speaker 3:Friends. Wow. And despite people's belief, they took 2 days of testimony on nutrition in the summer of 1976. And after that, one of, one of McGovern's aids was charged with writing up the dietary guidelines. Now there was a ton of protests.
Speaker 3:In fact, there there were some great exchanges. You can even find them on YouTube. Exchanges between doctors and the senators who were running this committee. And they said, listen. We don't have the evidence to to to support making these dramatic this is the first time the government is about to make these dramatic changes to the, you know, to the public and say, hey.
Speaker 3:We're gonna we're gonna change everything about nutrition. And they were you know, they and they said, you know, we plead with you to not make these recommendations right now until all the evidence is in. And McGovern actually said, the senator doesn't have the luxury that the research scientist does of waiting for all the evidence to come in before making decisions, essentially. Yeah.
Speaker 2:They said they don't have the privilege of waiting.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And you would think, oh, maybe this would take weeks, months, even years for such an important recommendation. Yeah. 48 hours.
Speaker 3:Yeah. 48 hours worth of worth of debate. And then and then after that, Nick Modern was the was the essentially, the journalist who put together the had to write out the guidelines, but he wasn't a he wasn't a scientist. So he went and found Mark Hegstedt, who was a Harvard nutritionist, to actually help him with the science. And just a side note, Mark Hegstedt also happened to be one of the nutritionists at Harvard that was paid off by the sugar industry to blame dietary fat for heart disease.
Speaker 3:Mhmm. So that's just an interesting side note that he was part of the actual construction of the guidelines. And then later on, the food pyramid came out. Louise Light was a nutritionist who was actually charged with taking those dietary guidelines and essentially putting them into a shape, you know, so that they were easy to follow. And when she and her nutritionist colleagues put it together and they handed it back to the politicians, she was horrified with the results because she said she actually said that this is gonna create an epidemic of of of obesity and type 2 diabetes if we if we do this because they essentially did things like putting all the grains in the bottom of the pyramid, and they just made this intensely high carbohydrate diet.
Speaker 3:And she said that's not that's not the pyramid that we handed the politicians. But the industry has a very powerful lobby. They got involved and everybody made concessions to the industry to try to and this is what we've got. So so we've got a food pyramid that doesn't really necessarily even resemble the evidence at the time. It was just something rushed.
Speaker 3:You know, that that senate committee was actually originally tasked with, undernutrition, malnutrition in the United States. But because in the seventies, essentially, that had been eradicated, they said, well, before we go out of business, we might as well do something in nutrition. That was literally the the sentiment of I mean, I can read you quotes of some of these people. They said, we're gonna go down in history. Yeah.
Speaker 3:You did.
Speaker 2:You are.
Speaker 3:Not in
Speaker 2:the right way.
Speaker 3:Right. Yeah. So, I mean, these these historical facts, you can find them in in the medical literature. You can read them for yourself. You know, I I use the term conspiracy theory, you know, proudly because that's also you know, people don't realize that the the initials for conspiracy theory are CT, which is also the same initials for critical thinker.
Speaker 3:Mhmm. You know? And and that's really important to me because to dismiss something as a conspiracy is to sort of eliminate thought. Mhmm. That's what I think it does.
Speaker 3:That term was essentially used to do that. It was actually used originally for the Kennedy assassination, to eliminate thought. Well, we don't want anybody to think for themselves. We'll just tell you what the what the answers are. And, you know, and we've been struggling now with with this chronic disease rate ever since.
Speaker 3:So as I said at the beginning of this, it's not that you can say the dietary guidelines are causal necessarily, but they certainly didn't help, and I believe they are partially to blame. And then we have all the foods that were added to the food supply and seed oils and things like this. And, but those low fat dietary guidelines created a whole cottage industry of of food manufacturers now manufacturing their foods to be low fat. Mhmm. And adding all these other things to to sort of make them fit this set of guidelines that were never evidence based.
Speaker 3:But, you know, now you've got schools saying that you've got you've got Cheetos that are school approved because they fit these dietary guidelines. I just read a story on this the other day. Cheetos are school approved Cheetos. By the USDA.
Speaker 2:But you can't legally sell whole pasteurized milk No. In a school? No. But you can get Lunchables as a lunch option. It's gonna be right a 100000 public schools or something like that.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. Rolled out as an actual option.
Speaker 3:I believe so. Yeah. And New York is really, really bad for that. They they just have really they're they're I know Nina Teicholz has done a lot of work on this and, but it's everywhere. And I think that has something to do with the c forty cities, New York being one of them, but there's just this top down control.
Speaker 3:Remind me at the end of this, I would love to read you 2 quotes. 1 by Thomas Jefferson and 1 by one of the dietary guideline committee members. Just to just to illustrate Absolutely. How where we what the original intent of government and health was and then what we've normalized, yeah, to today. But but yeah.
Speaker 3:So so there's this, element of top down control that I'm fighting against because, again, I I just want people to have options, but it doesn't seem like the government is even interested in having people have options. It's just this is the way it is. But yet you can go into California, California supermarket, and you can buy raw milk.
Speaker 2:Makes no sense. Right. So in California yeah.
Speaker 3:So so so in other words right. So it's not a Democrat Republican thing. Yeah. But what's interesting is that you would think if raw milk was so dangerous, yet I can go into a supermarket in California and buy raw milk, you should be seeing, you know, people dropping dead in aisle 4 all the time in in California, but it doesn't happen like that. So so what's the problem with that over here?
Speaker 3:Again, why can't we give people the choice? That's all I'm advocating for. I just want I just want the choice.
Speaker 2:Yeah. As you've said many times, look, if you wanna go plant based or vegetarian, it's your prerogative. It's your right to be able to do that. If I wanna eat meat because I'm trying to live the best possible life, I should be able to have access to that animal protein. And to your point, I think it would be great to dig in the c forty because now it seems like, you know, if you live in certain cities, are you even gonna have that choice to be able to buy red meat animal products in the next 10 years?
Speaker 3:Right. And, I mean, to your last point, you are patient n of 1. Right? You you ate an animal based diet and cured a disease that was that was told to you that was incurable. Yes.
Speaker 3:I mean, how how can anybody argue with that? It's it's unfathomable to me. And and I've seen this too. You know, at the hospital, I had people reversing their type 2 diabetes, and I didn't have anything but nutrition, lifestyle, and then I could recommend supplements. Mhmm.
Speaker 3:And I had people drop their a one c down from 12% into the nondiabetic range, you know, to 5% just with lifestyle changes. And doctors remain completely uncurious about how that, you know, to your point before. So these out of one experience are very important. So I think and I tell people all the time, just do the experiment on yourself. Mhmm.
Speaker 3:What what do you have to lose? Yeah.
Speaker 2:I mean,
Speaker 3:you can eat Twinkies for 30 days. You can certainly eat red meat for 30 days. And see what happens. Right. What's the worst thing that could happen?
Speaker 2:And that's the beautiful thing about this open sourcing of information, which gives me hope for the future is, like, now there's such amazing access where people are coming out of the woodwork and they're sharing their testimonials and their stories. So the average person that's like, oh, well, I've suffered from, you know, psoriasis for 10 years, but this girl is saying that she ate an all meat diet. She cured her psoriasis. If she can't do it, why can't I I can do it myself. It almost, like, gives you that power of belief that we've never really had before.
Speaker 2:It's why anecdote is so powerful, but
Speaker 3:I
Speaker 2:guess that's a lot of the pushback too is, oh, it's not a peer reviewed study. It's just anecdotal evidence that you're providing.
Speaker 3:But that's where science starts. Right? With a hypothesis. That's where that's the first step of the scientific method. Yeah.
Speaker 3:So it doesn't even that doesn't even hold water, you know. And, there there's and I think a lot of people just have this preconceived notion because of there's a concept I recently came across called semantic satiation where you take this phrase and you repeat it often enough. And again, we've all experienced this over the last 3 years. You take this phrase and you repeat it often enough that it actually loses meaning to the point where now the meaning can become malleable. So saturated fat and cholesterol, people automatically have this predetermined reaction to it.
Speaker 3:Oh, causes heart disease. Oh, it's terrible, you know, terrible for you. But then when I tell people that cholesterol is so important to the brain, that the brain makes its own cholesterol. Mhmm. Well, cholesterol is 30% of your cell membrane structure, which dictates function.
Speaker 3:Is cholesterol are are you are you sure that you should have your cholesterol at 0? I know cardiologist who have said that cholesterol should be 0. And I'm like, you understand that that no no cholesterol, no life. That's incompatible with life. Mhmm.
Speaker 3:But but the dietary dogma around cholesterol and saturated fat is so deep Mhmm. That I think people when when you say, well, I ate an all meat diet and and, you know, cured this, they think, well, there has to be some other mechanism. It can't it can't be that because meat is full of, you know, fat and cholesterol. Mhmm. So it's just that's just another whole I I do approach things from a psychological element too because I understand that people come to me with a life long programming that I have to unwind.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:Because it's so hard to do.
Speaker 2:It's so hard. There's people I remember when I first went carnivore looking at the rib eye that I was gonna eat, and I actually thought, is this gonna kill me by eating this over and over again? Yet it was literally the key that unlocked my health and, you know, transform me, and now it's why we're doing the show and building a business. It's chain and it's, like, it's all from making that one simple change. But what you also said, Jay, it's really interesting.
Speaker 2:You you've almost seen this, like, progression of pushback from the other side where it's, like, maybe, like, 20, 30 years ago when the Atkins diet was starting to get popularized, which is really just another version of low carb. It was, oh, you know, nutritionally, it's gonna cause heart disease. It's gonna jack up your LDL cholesterol. We've been disproving all that. Then the other side shifts to the environmental arguments.
Speaker 2:Regenerative agriculture disproves all that. And now it's like, no pool. Maybe the next thing is, like, suppression c 40 cities. It's been this, like, interesting progression from, like, nutrition to environment to, like, okay. Now we're just gonna suppress these things.
Speaker 3:Well, this is the moving of the goalpost. You're right. When they couldn't curb meat eating, although again, from the seventies in the in the sort of eighties in the institution of the dietary guidelines, red meat consumption has declined. But a dietary guidelines, red meat consumption has declined, but apparently not enough for some people. Yeah.
Speaker 3:And when they can't scare you with your own health because why? Because when you continue to eat red meat and you don't have health problems, you're not gonna believe that it's bad for you. Mhmm. So then they move to another argument. Well, it's bad for the environment.
Speaker 3:And, you know, we could go I mean, we could go down a whole rabbit hole. In fact, I I'm I'm in the process of writing part 2 of a of a long substack on the on meat and the environmental impact and just the general greenhouse gas concept as well. To because believe it or not, two papers are just published in 2017 and 18 in Nature. Not just published. It's 5, 6 years ago.
Speaker 3:They actually show the Earth over the last century has gotten 31% greener.
Speaker 2:Wow. 31 percent greener.
Speaker 3:Yeah. So the and and this article will be all cited. You can go to my subs tech and read it. I've been excited just writing it because now it's giving me ammo when when people come to me and say you know, because I usually use the argument that, well, according to EPA's own data, agriculture only takes up only contributes 9.4% of of greenhouse gas emissions. So if you're concerned about greenhouse gas, it's only 9.4%.
Speaker 3:And of that 9.4%, 50% is crop, only 44% is animal. So crop agriculture is actually contributing more to greenhouse gases. The the remaining is, fuel combustion. But so that argument doesn't even hold water. And then if you take and and check this out.
Speaker 3:JAMA 2019, there was a paper published that said if you took the health sectors of the US, Canada, England, and Australia, they commit a combined 748,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually. And if you took those health sectors of just those nations, they would they would rank 7th in the world in greenhouse gas emissions. So in other words, greenhouse gas emissions coming from industry and the health care industry specifically are a much bigger problem than animal agriculture. So I would say if you actually wanna curb greenhouse gas emissions, we need to be a healthier population. And how do we do that?
Speaker 3:We eat meat. So Interesting. So that's how I usually approach it, but now I'm actually starting to see, the evidence come out about the greening at Sub Saharan Africa over the last 30 years has become 8% greener. Mhmm. I thought that was a good thing.
Speaker 3:Isn't that the whole environmental movement? Yeah. Right? So when you start to look at the actual published literature, you're like, wow. So these people aren't even telling you the truth about that.
Speaker 3:Mhmm. But but I know you wanna get to see 40 cities, but I just wanted to throw that out there because if people are interested, that's coming, and it's it's so fascinating.
Speaker 2:So this will be part 2 of the Substack article?
Speaker 3:So I haven't even released part 1 yet because I just finished part 1, and I'm working on part 2 right now. It was too much information to keep. You know, I I try I try to keep them to, like, around a 1000 words because, you know, I know people are busy. Yeah. But so the c forty cities, essentially, that's a collection of of mayors from around the world who are trying to get their cities onto this platform where they're gonna make this whole sustainable, equitable future for everybody kind of thing.
Speaker 3:You know? Again, semantic satiation. Those words start to lose meaning when you just throw them around all the time. Exactly. As shit when they come.
Speaker 3:Yeah. That's what I had to call. Yeah. It's a good one. I like that.
Speaker 3:And they're into all kinds of sectors. They're into not just food, but, aviation, construction, clothing, electronics. You know? So, you know, your your home appliances, you know, I always make the joke. Like, you know, what if one day you've eaten too much meat and all of a sudden your refrigerator won't open?
Speaker 3:You know? I mean but but but these are the areas that they're involved in. And if you look on their website, I think it's c40cities.org. There's not a lot of literature out there aside from their website. So take it with a grain of salt because they're promoting it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Speaker 2:Of course.
Speaker 3:But that tracks with New York where we are now and mayor Adams wanting to track, meat and dairy purchases. And so that concerns me because the c forty cities is using the Eat Lancet model, and I think that allots 10 ounces of meat per week, which breaks down to about 1.5 ounces per day. So, I mean, I certainly more than 1.5 ounces per day. Mhmm. So what if one day I go in and my meat purchases are being tracked and I wanna use my credit card to, you know, to buy a a rib eye and my credit card has declined because I've allotted I've gone past my carbon allotment for the week, the day, however they're gonna track it.
Speaker 3:Mhmm. I mean, that's being tracked right now. And and I just don't under I I don't think people understand that our data is so valuable. Right? That's why they always say if the product is free, you are the, the product.
Speaker 3:You know? And so that is very important, and that's why I've started to switch to, purchasing a lot of food with cash. So these these, you know, because not because I'm I'm a conspiracy theorist, but because I know they're tracking purchases.
Speaker 2:It's not a conspiracy
Speaker 3:theorist. They
Speaker 2:are literally yeah. Yeah, tracking.
Speaker 3:Front page of The New York Post. You know, mayor Adams is is touting that he wants to track these food purchases. And and I would I would love to have a sit down with him and ask him, where are you getting your information? Are you aware of this? Are you aware of that?
Speaker 3:I mean, look. Let's face it. I just told you that the dietary guidelines were not evidence based back in the seventies. The politicians have no idea what they're doing. Mhmm.
Speaker 3:They're doing the best they can. Some of them have good intentions. Some of them have bad intentions, but they are are ill equipped. They don't have the evidence. And so, you know, I just want the other side of the argument to be presented.
Speaker 3:I mean, who does mayor Adams have himself surrounded with? I don't know. Maybe it's a bunch of ideologues. Maybe he's being controlled from the top down. I don't know.
Speaker 3:Mhmm. But all I know is that curbing meat and dairy intake now these are some of the most nutrient dense foods in the planet. So if you're really worried about population health, by by removing access to these nutrient dense foods, you might actually be hurting the middle to lower class population by not giving them access to the most nutritious foods possible, like eggs, like dairy, like milk and meat. Mhmm. And and, you know, if you really wanna go back, you know, this is a little bit a little bit off topic, but but still on topic, I think.
Speaker 3:I always go back to, do we ever know what to eat before dietary guidelines? Well, I'll say yes. Eby McCollum was an American biochemist, and he coined the term protective foods. And so he had a list of protective foods that he said, if we just eat these, we'll be fine. And they were meat, fish, milk, eggs, leafy greens, and fruit.
Speaker 3:Mhmm. Now and in his time, this is early 19 100. He's talking about raw milk. So it's not pasteurized. So I would I would amend that maybe today to say raw dairy, like kefir, yogurt, things like that.
Speaker 3:But imagine if people just ate from that list, meat, fish, milk, eggs, leafy greens, and fruit.
Speaker 2:That was money
Speaker 3:would
Speaker 2:we save
Creators and Guests
