TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @paulsaladinomd
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
New Study Links Wireless Headphones to Thyroid Issues https://t.co/easwipf9Xe
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and Speaker 2 discuss headphones and potential thyroid health concerns. They note they no longer wear Bluetooth and now prefer wired headphones; Speaker 0 says they use wired headphones plugged into the phone, and they are “just Amazon products. Nothing’s fancy, and they work just as well.” Speaker 1 expresses relief that Speaker 0 moved away from wireless, mentioning that they had shared information for years and kept sending content until Speaker 0 switched.
Speaker 2 introduces a shift in how people view wireless headphones. They acknowledge that wireless is convenient, but say it’s moving from outside the Overton window toward inside it. They reference a recent analysis (epidemiology) showing a strong or significant association between Bluetooth headphone use (AirPods, Beats, wireless) and an increased incidence of thyroid nodules, noting this applies to both men and women. They describe the thyroid as a master gland and explain that thyroid nodules can be precancerous. They emphasize proximity to a hormonally sensitive gland and RF EMF exposure from a device worn near the neck, asserting they can measure RF with a meter and that earbuds emit RF energy. They compare the RF exposure to that of microwaves, stating the measurement units are microwatts per meter squared and that the RF band of Bluetooth is essentially the same as that of a microwave. They describe the headphones as “a small microwave in your head” for hours a day and note that readings can be obtained by placing the RF meter near a microwave.
Speaker 1 agrees with caution, saying they won’t put a cell phone to their ear and questions why anyone would wear earbuds all day, feeling “spidery” about it. Speaker 0 reports returning to wired setups (Apple 1/1Point0) and values conversation without wireless interference, calling it nostalgic and safer long term. Speaker 1 discusses reasons for pushback: tradition, fashion, or fear of changing habits. They mention they once bought olive-colored Apple headphones as a fashion statement and acknowledge that appearance can distract from the health discussion.
Speaker 0 clarifies they aren’t “tin hat” about everything but notes that people who sounded alarms often get vindicated later. They prefer alternatives if there’s even a slight chance of risk. Speaker 1 shares a light parenting anecdote: their five-year-old confessed briefly wearing wired headphones for five minutes, illustrating the challenge of managing kids’ exposure. They reflect on broader concerns about kids, screen time, and technology exposure, referencing a recent guest’s emphasis on limiting screen time.
Speaker 0 ends with a Casino-like caution: if there’s a better alternative that works as well, why take the chance?
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Wanna talk about this new thing you've been discussing about headphones and thyroid issues. Years ago, we used to wear headphones on this show. We don't anymore. We used to I used to wear the Bluetooth things. Don't anymore.
I only wear wired headphones in now. I use, like, the thing we plug in the phone and you know?
Speaker 1: Thank God. You got him off that. Because you know what I do? I I told him all this information, like, two years ago, and he didn't listen, so I kept sending him your content. Well, my thing is, And then he like switched.
Speaker 0: My my big thing with all of this stuff, like, as I you know, I'm usually I don't wanna say I'm skeptic. I've been enlightened over the years. But I always say You're open? No. I'm open.
Speaker 1: You're open.
Speaker 0: But my whole thing is, like, if there's a product that works just as well and there is potentially no downside, then why not do that? So for me, it's like, I have these wired headphones. They're just Amazon products. Nothing's fancy, and they work just as well. So
Speaker 2: The convenience of wired headphones is undeni or wireless headphones is undeniable, but this is, again, the thing that was outside the Overton window, and now, it's kinda becoming in the Overton window. I saw other content about people moving away from the wireless headphones. But for the longest time, when I talked about AirPods or the, you know, the whatever, the super AirPods, the the headphones, people would really push back. And still, some people do. But the a recent analysis came out.
Again, this is just epidemiology, but there is a strong association or at least a significant association between these Bluetooth headphone use. So we're talking AirPods, Beats, whatever, wireless Anything with Bluetooth connection. Wireless headphones and increased incidence of thyroid nodules. So this is really important for both men and women. The thyroid is kind of your master gland or one of these master thermoregulatory glands in your body, and thyroid nodules can be precancerous.
And so this is interesting, and I think it deserves more research. We don't have the full story here, but it makes sense. Right? You have proximity. You know?
You have a very sensitive, hormonally active gland in your neck, and inches away from that, you are using a RF EMF, so radio frequency EMF emitting device, and and I can measure this. You know? I've done multiple pieces of content where you can put an RF meter. It's the kind of thing that looks really geeky, but you can get these meters, and you can see how much radio frequency EMF is coming off of these earbuds. And it's it's essentially like a small microwave in your head for how many hours a day?
Like, three, four, two, six. I see people walking around with them in the airports just all the time. But you can take, like basically, so the measurement of these AirPods or these these headphones is in microwatts per meter squared. You can measure the exact same thing out of your microwave. The RF band of a microwave is essentially the same as your cell phone, the same as these Bluetooth bands.
So it's a it's a small microwave in your head, and you can measure you can take this device and put it next to your microwave, and you'll get a huge reading. And it's not as much as a microwave, but it's it's it's in the same ballpark.
Speaker 1: I mean, I won't put the cell phone to my ear.
Speaker 2: You shouldn't.
Speaker 1: I so I just don't know why I would put these little buds in my ear all day long. It just feels it feels like my innately, I feel, like, spidery about it.
Speaker 0: No. I I've gone back to, like, Apple one point o, where you have the thing plugged in, and you have the wired headphones, you're talking in conversation that way, and I, to be honest, like, I like it. It feels nostalgic to me.
Speaker 2: It's it's I think it's probably it's definitely more prudent, and I think it's probably safer long term.
Speaker 1: I think the reason, though, that you get pushback is there's, one, a projection of people who have been doing it for so long that are maybe scared, or two, it's a fashion statement to wear, you know, green headphones from Apple. Like, I get it. Like, when those came out, I ran and got the olive ones, and it would they were so cute and adorable, and so you wanna, like, have this fashion statement, but it's almost like they distract you from what it actually is.
Speaker 0: Here's the thing. I'm not like a tin hat guy. You two definitely, like, are the tin hat people in
Speaker 2: this. I'm not gonna be sure.
Speaker 1: I'm fine with the tin hat.
Speaker 0: I'm I'm not But I will say That's
Speaker 1: Debbie MF ing it?
Speaker 0: I'm just kidding.
Speaker 2: I mean,
Speaker 0: it's box tin hat. Got half a tin hat on. I will just say, like, we've been living through the last few years where, like, people that are called crazy about sounding the alarm on some of these things get vindicated later. And so my whole thought process is, like, I just don't want to be the first line of testing. Right?
I don't want to be the first guy that tries that they again, people do what they want. But my thing is, like, if there's even a slight chance and there's an alternative that works just as well, but maybe it's not as quite as convenient, I'm gonna I'm just gonna do that.
Speaker 1: My daughter's so cute. She came home. She goes, mom, I need to confess something. She's five. I was like, what?
She's like, today, I wore headphones, but only for five minutes.
Speaker 0: She's terrified. Well, you I know, were they wired? And she's they're wired. I'm you're okay.
Speaker 1: You asked. You asked her if they're wired. I we've talked to her about it.
Speaker 0: No. But, you know, I mean, listen, I I think, we you just had Jonathan Hyde on the podcast. Just keep saying this because his big thing is kids, screen time, social media. He wants them off it.
Speaker 2: Scary.
Speaker 0: And, you know, it's something that we have to just be I think the first generation of parents that had children start to use a lot of these new technologies, they didn't know there was no awareness. They had nobody ahead of them that was able to teach them. That's a tough position to be in. And we had a woman on right before you saying, I wish less with that. She was just saying, should she look back and change anything?
Very successful. And I think it's the responsibility as you learn more as a parent to guard your kids against things that they don't know themselves. My whole thing is, remember that old scene in Casino back in the day? Like, maybe you know the market he's a good guy. He's like, oh, he's one of us.
And gets to the last guy. He's like, yeah, he's a good guy, but why take a chance? That's how I think about all this stuff. I'm like, why take a chance if there's a better alternative?
@ze_rusty - Rusty ⚡️: Solar Powered ☀️
@paulsaladinomd It came out last year
@ze_rusty - Rusty ⚡️: Solar Powered ☀️
Thyroid is super sensitive to radiation. This study from last year found that people who wore Bluetooth headsets for long hours every day were much more likely to develop Thyroid nodules. Researchers analysed 600 participants & used advanced statistical tools to reduce bias. Even after adjusting for age and other factors, Bluetooth use time still stood out as a strong risk. In fact, When they ranked all possible risk factors, Daily Bluetooth use & Age came out on top. The longer someone wore a Bluetooth headset each day, the higher their risk of developing nodules. In-ear & Neckband headsets, which sit closest to the thyroid, showed the STRONGEST links. This is clearly not about heating the tissues… Their AI model could predict Thyroid nodules with 95% accuracy.. that’s how strong the link with Bluetooth use was. Bluetooth runs on very low power, way too weak to cook anything. What the researchers point to instead are non-thermal effects. Oxidative stress, disruptions in cell signalling & long term stress on the thyroid’s delicate tissue Official safety limits for wireless devices only consider heating but this study shows there are biological effects happening at much lower levels
reSee.it AI Summary
A debate on diet and longevity: one side cites historical research finding no vegetarians among centenarians in Japan and a plant-forward, low-meat diet with seafood; another emphasizes soy’s prominence and disputes about veganism’s relevance to longevity. They clash over evidence from meta-analyses versus paleo-diet claims, with accusations of cherry-picking and misunderstandings, ending with a courteous exit.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Have you seen the historical research in Japan showing no vegetarians or vegans found among studied centenarian cohorts (PMID1407826, 9778956, 22253498) @bryan_johnson? Surely there are multiple factors at play here but the Japanese definitely do not fear meat. Would you consider adding ethically raised meat back to your diet? This could be an important experiment.
@bryan_johnson - Bryan Johnson
Japan has 81 centenarians per 100k people The U.S. is 24 per 100k What explains the difference?
@DailyLoud - Daily Loud
Japan sets new record with 100,000 active citizens that are 100 years old
@ogc2025 - Broly
@paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson japanese people might not be vegan but their animal products consumption is very low overall. their diet is plant-forward consisting of mostly legumes, vegetables, grains, seeds & nuts with low red meat consumption and the animal products consumed are mostly seafood.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
@ogc2025 @bryan_johnson Not what I've heard from Japanese folks.
@ogc2025 - Broly
@paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson i lived in japan and i know for a fact their diet is centered around plants and they follow the food pyramid perfectly. https://t.co/VJshCErwGU
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson Japan is 3rd in fish consumption per capita. Beaten only by French Polynesia and Micronesia. It's not soy.
@ogc2025 - Broly
@Vinsyli @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson one doesn't cancel the other. they eat as much soy as seafood. you lack critical thinking https://t.co/sppmnAjm1o
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson That's half of the fish consumption. But you put soy to the first place and in the same level like if fish and soy would be equal. They are not. Your third sentence is obviously projection.
@ogc2025 - Broly
@Vinsyli @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson they're not equal obviously. Soy is superior. it's categorized as a superfood which fish is not. and that's why japanese people make sure to include it everyday in their diet. https://t.co/NPexuSLEPJ
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson It doesn't matter how food are categorised unless you are a follower. Humans eat meat for millions years and they started to eat soy thousands years ago because they were starving. If you want good for your body, eat meat, if you want good for ecology and human selection eat soy
@ogc2025 - Broly
@Vinsyli @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson homonids ate plants before eating meat and the reason they ate meat is because of starvation lol. and humans ate legumes as long as they ate meat. Also Soy is one of the healthiest food you can eat, good for your body, muscles, health and ecology and the future of our planet. https://t.co/1p6PMnfHSc
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson Maybe homonids, but not hominids. Hominids are creatures with very different diets and honestly if you would adapt diet of chimpanzees, you would die from it very quickly.
@ogc2025 - Broly
@Vinsyli @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson keep convincing yourself. My grandparents are healthy and in their 90s and have been vegan for 40+ years , my parents for two decades.. same for me and my siblings, but surrre i will wait for that day to die
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson I'm happy for your family and for you. But there were people living even longer smoking cigarettes or eating raw meat. Does it mean we should do these things?
@ogc2025 - Broly
@Vinsyli @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson that’s true except there’s actual scientific evidence ( in the form of meta-analysis and controlled trials ) for smoking and red meat being harmful and a well planned balanced vegan diet being one of the healthiest diets for promote longevity and healthy aging.
@ogc2025 - Broly
@Vinsyli @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson is this some sort of evidence? Or is it proving something? we are in 2025. Prehistoric humans did not live longer than 30years on average. so this is a bad example. Come up with something else
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson Why would we thrive better on anything else than on what we biologically developed for millions of years?
@ogc2025 - Broly
@Vinsyli @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson false again. humans developed the ability to eat meat for survival, not for thriving. Also prehistoric humans never thrived, they were dying in their 30s. when we look at prehistoric human populations, studies show foragers were thriving the most (plants). you're brainwashed https://t.co/n43tmknqWL
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson Do you think they would live to their 90's if they would eat plants and soy?
@ogc2025 - Broly
@Vinsyli @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson they lived longer than meat-eaters that's for sure, but medical science was not advanced back then so living to their 90s was out of the question. but today we already have studies and evidence that a vegan diet promotes longevity.
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson This is just cherry picking. Human ancestors became scavengers long ago. They jumped down from trees to steal remains of bones and skulls of dangerous predators and could feed on the hearty marrow, brains and remnants of meat and entrails that feline predators could not get to.
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson They worked it out so far that they became super predators and hunted large herbivores with the help of ingenuity and cooperation. They used that amazing organ full of omega3, which they obtained abundantly by smashing skulls.
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson They drove a small herd of horses into a trap and had food for a week. If instead they had to collect small sour prehistoric apples with a few grams of carbohydrates, the question is whether they would have died sooner from digestive problems or malnutrition.
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson But then the large herbivores began to decline and humans had to start being content with smaller animals and it eventually drove to agriculture, which had the advantage of allowing food storage, which led to population growth, trade and specialization, and rapid development.
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson For the human species, the transition and processing of food was advantageous, but it was not healthy and natural. It wasn't that people ate meat because they had to, they ate it because it was the best source of nutrients.
@ogc2025 - Broly
@Vinsyli @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson they ate it because it was a nutrient dense food, not because it was healthy. for your info, nutritious does not equal healthy if it comes with many cons. the cons of meat outweigh the pros. you can get all those nutrients from a diversity of plants, without the bad side effects
@ogc2025 - Broly
@Vinsyli @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson on top of that and anti-disease components that no animal product has like fibers, antioxidants , polyphenols and more... we thrive on plants. that is a scientific fact every medical research is agreeing on. just move on already
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson Nutrient dense food is healthy. That's why smallest children choose fatty meat over broccoli. Their instincts are not broken yet by carbs. You don't need fibers, antioxidants, polyphenols and more if you are healthy. People used plants to heal themselves not to thrive on them.
@ogc2025 - Broly
@Vinsyli @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson so much scientifically and medically wrong information in your reply i don’t even want to engage with you anymore. your brain is rotten
@Vinsyli - Erv
@ogc2025 @paulsaladinomd @bryan_johnson It was good talk. Have a nice day and thrive.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Chick-fil-A Mac & Cheese contains banned ingredients?! https://t.co/kLos3yP6em
Video Transcript AI Summary
Chick Fil A mac and cheese contains banned ingredients like hydrogenated soybean oil, which is illegal in Europe and the US. Fast food companies use a margarine blend to include it. Eating high-quality, unprocessed foods is crucial for good health. Making better dietary choices can help heal and reverse many diseases. Doctors may not emphasize this, but diet plays a significant role in health. It's important to be aware of harmful ingredients in food and make informed choices.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Chick Fil A mac and cheese contains ingredients that are banned in Europe, and they're actually illegal in the United States. Fast food companies have figured out a way to get around these. This mac and cheese contains 67 ingredients. And of those 67 ingredients, it includes hydrogenated soybean oil, essentially a highly inflammatory oxidized trans fat that's banned in the United States. Fast food manufacturers like Chick Fil A have figured out they can get around this by putting it into this as a margarine blend.
I strongly believe that the quality of the foods that you eat is the single greatest determinant of your health. And that if you choose better quality, unprocessed foods that don't have banned, horrible ingredients like hydrogenated trans fat soybean oil, you will be healthier. That humans can heal themselves through diet, but you have to make better dietary choices. So many of the diseases that we suffer from as humans, I believe, are completely fixable and reversible. Doctors don't often tell us this, but if you make good quality choices in your food, I believe so many of these are healable with diet.
But you have to know where the garbage is and not be fooled by things like this.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
These foods are making you hungrier… https://t.co/yeTMeqLKvA
Video Transcript AI Summary
By cutting out seed oils, processed sugars, and milled grains, you eliminate processed foods and improve health. In a study, one group ate unprocessed foods like beef and vegetables, while the other had processed foods like cookies. Both groups received the same calories and nutrients. Those on unprocessed foods ate 500 fewer calories daily and lost weight, while the processed food group consumed 500 more calories and gained weight. Processed foods are less filling and engineered to make you hungrier.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you simply eliminate seed oils, processed sugars, and processed milled grains and flours, you're essentially not eating any processed foods, and your health will improve. End of story. People realize how hard it is to do that because that's in everything. They took 2 groups of people. You'll love this one.
And they put them in a metabolic ward. They control everything these people eat. One group gets entirely unprocessed food, like like beef and vegetables and fruit, no processing. The other group gets processed food, cookies, cakes, whatever. They give both groups of people the same amount of calories on the tray, and they try to match the presented food for fiber, salt, sugar, caloric density.
So the presented food to these people is almost exactly the same. This is an ad lib study, which is the perfect recreation of what happens in the natural world. People could say, I'm still hungry. I want more, or I'm good. The people who had the unprocessed food ate about 500 calories less per day and lost £2 over 2 weeks.
The people who had the processed food ate 500 more calories per day and gained £2 over 2 weeks. So why are these people hungrier? We know that processed food is not as satiating as regular food. It makes you hungry. Because it's been engineered to do so.
It's been engineered to do so.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Animal-based vs vegetarian placenta 🤰 https://t.co/1PWjZAYnzQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two placentas compared: one from a vegetarian mom, the other from a meat-eater. Vegetarian placenta shows calcification, hard texture. Meat-eater placenta looks healthier. Evidence of diet's impact on health. Some say vegetarian placentas resemble smokers'. Animal foods, especially red meat, important for human diet. Plant-based advocates may struggle to argue after seeing these placentas.
Translation: Two placentas were compared, one from a vegetarian mother and the other from a meat-eater. The vegetarian placenta showed calcification and a hard texture, while the meat-eater placenta appeared healthier. This demonstrates the impact of diet on health, with some likening vegetarian placentas to those of smokers. Animal foods, particularly red meat, are crucial in the human diet. Plant-based advocates may find it challenging to argue for their diet after seeing these results.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 2 placentas side by side. This one was from a mom that was primarily vegetarian. This is called calcification. It's hard. There's a sand like, rock like consistency throughout the entire placenta.
And this was animal based. So she had lots of red meat, pasteurized age, raw milk. The difference between the 2, I mean, it's just obvious.
Speaker 1: The comparison between those two placentas is incredible. It's very rare that we get to compare side by side organs grown in the bodies of people eating 2 vastly different diets, but that to me is clear as day evidence of the power of a diet. And I've heard this from multiple midwives that some vegetarian women, their placentas look like the placentas of smokers. This is so interesting to me because what is a more clear indication of the power of animal foods, of meat and organs, especially red meat in the human diet, than the organ, the placenta that feeds a baby when it's growing. I don't know how any plant based advocate can look at those 2 placentas and argue for a plant based diet.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Here is why you need a better water filter 👇 https://t.co/fifY2CgZRy
Video Transcript AI Summary
I used to use a Brita water filter, but they are not effective. They only remove 12-14% of lead and arsenic, increase aluminum, and do not filter out fluoride, PFAs, or microplastics. Fluoride has been linked to lower IQ in kids. To improve water quality, use a reverse osmosis filter with sea salt for remineralization, despite being more expensive. Investing in your health is crucial, and drinking reverse osmosis water with sea salt is a healthier choice.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I used to use a Brita water filter to get my water and then I realized they're not really that good at all. In fact, they're pretty horrible. A recent study showed that a brittle water filter only gets out 12 14% of lead and arsenic. Those are heavy metals out of your water, and it increased the amount of aluminum in your water. That's not good.
Aluminum is associated with dementia in population studies. Furthermore, Brita water filters don't get out fluoride, a substance that's been associated with lower IQs in kids. When kids drink water with fluoride in it, they don't get out forever chemicals, PFAs. They don't get out microplastics. If you really want to filter your water and you should do that for better health, use a reverse osmosis filter with sea salt to remineralize the water.
That system is more expensive than a Brita pitcher. Yes. But your health is the best long term investment that you could ever make and you will definitely be healthier drinking reverse osmosis water with sea salt than getting water from this.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Beware of Wi-Fi routers… There is substantial research suggesting that these radiations are not benign for humans (PMID: 34617575, 30533171, 33917298).. Keeping your wifi router as far as possible from your bedroom and turning it off at night can certainly benefit your health https://t.co/59EYKg451Y
Video Transcript AI Summary
My Wi-Fi router emits harmful radiation, with levels reaching 2,500,000 microwatts per meter squared when turned on. This can cause cancer and neurological issues. To reduce exposure, stay at least 10 feet away from the router. At 20 feet away, levels drop to 1,000 microwatts per meter squared. The safe zone is below 10 microwatts per meter squared.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you have a Wi Fi router, you need to know how much radiation is coming off this thing. I'm here with Ryan, an electromagnetic engineer. We're gonna measure how much radiation is coming off my Wi Fi router. Why should I care about this? Why do I worry about WiFi radiation?
There's a whole range of studies starting to come out showing the dangers that we have enough exposure. They increase our risk of cancer. It's gonna cause neurological issues. Baseline, it's completely off. I mean, we're pretty much at 0.
It doesn't get much better than that. So it's off. Now I'm gonna turn it on and show you guys how much radiation is coming off this once it's turned on. Brian, what do you see? 2,500,000 microwatts per meter squared.
That is enough to thermally heat the tissue of your body. If we were to go 10 feet away, the exposure level does drop pretty good, 25,000 right there. The key with this is making sure that we're not close to this, like by the bed, by the crib, in your office, next to you. Let's move a little bit further and see. Here we are about 20 feet away or so, and we're down to a1000.
The goal would be to get this into the green where it says slight here. We wanted a 10 microwatts per meter square.
reSee.it AI Summary
Saturated fats are being wrongly blamed for health issues. The rise in cardiovascular disease and metabolic dysfunction can be linked to the introduction of seed oils in our diets. Numerous studies support the benefits of saturated fats for humans. It is advised to avoid seed oils and increase consumption of animal fats.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Saturated fats are NOT the problem! The rates of cardiovascular disease and metabolic dysfunction have skyrocketed since seed oils invaded in our diets… There are many studies suggesting that saturated fats are good for humans. (PMID: 30087348, 6538617, 9327759, 24740208) Avoid seed oils like the plague and eat MORE animal fats 🧈🥩
Video Transcript AI Summary
Americans primarily consumed animal fats 120-130 years ago with low rates of heart disease. In 1950, Ancel Keys' 7 countries study and Eisenhower's heart attack shifted focus to saturated fats being bad and polyunsaturated fats being good. The American Heart Association received a large donation from Procter and Gamble, who made Crisco, leading to promotion of polyunsaturated fats. Ads in the 1960s pushed for polyunsaturated oils like Mazola corn oil.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 120 years ago, a 130 years ago, all Americans ate were animal fats. And the rates of cardiovascular disease were a fraction of what they are today. Yeah. So anyone who wants to argue that animal fats are the cause of cardiovascular disease, got a really hard argument to make because there's a there's a natural experiment of many millions of Americans from 1900 or 18 75 showing very low rates of cardiovascular disease. Then something happened in 1950 with Ancel Keys, the 7 countries study.
Eisenhower had his heart attack. His cardiologist was Paul Dudley White, and the American Heart Association got a 1.7 $1,000,000 donation, the equivalent to $20,000,000 today from Procter and Gamble who made Crisco. And then the American Heart Association begins talking about how saturated fats are bad, polyunsaturated fats are good, and there are literally advertisements from the 19 sixties talking about how you should polyunsaturate your family. Is that Yes. Mazola corn oil.
reSee.it AI Summary
Drinking water from plastic bottles poses health risks due to exposure to microplastics, which can increase the chances of having a heart attack. Eliminating plastic from your life can lead to significant health improvements.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Still drinking water from plastic bottles? A recent study found that microplastics exposure increases the risks of having a heart attack. (PMID: 38446676) Drinking water from plastic bottles is the biggest source of microplastics. Get plastic out of your life and your health will improve significantly!
Video Transcript AI Summary
Drinking water from plastic bottles may increase heart attack risk due to microplastics found in neck plaque. Consuming 5 grams of microplastics weekly, equivalent to a credit card, is concerning. Plastic water bottles are a major source. Reduce exposure by avoiding bottled water. Microplastics impact health significantly, so be aware of them in food and the environment to improve well-being.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that drinking water out of plastic bottles could significantly increase your risk of a heart attack. In this study, researchers looked for microplastics in the plaque in these patients' necks called carotid plaques. And they found that the patients who had the most micro plastics in their neck arteries had a 4 and a half times increased risk of cardiovascular disease. A study looking at the actual amounts of microplastic consumption from Newcastle, Australia suggests that drinking bottled water and plastic could lead to the equivalent of 5 grams of microplastics per week. That's potentially a credit cards worth of plastic going into your body every week.
The biggest sources are your drinking water, especially water in plastic water bottles. None of us are going to have an easy time of completely eliminating our exposure to microplastics in our lives. But if you stop drinking water from plastic bottles, this will significantly reduce your and your family's exposure. Microplastics are not something we can ignore anymore. They're a significant contributor to poor health.
Know where they are in your foods and your environment and minimize them as much as possible. You will be healthier and feel better.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Eating fries is like smoking cigarettes! Don’t believe me? Read this study… Cooking with seed oils releases the same toxic chemicals found in cigarette smoke. (PMID: 30221162) The same study explains that cooking with saturated fats does not release these toxic compounds. https://t.co/3A1nNaiTY3
Video Transcript AI Summary
Eating McDonald's fries is like smoking 25 cigarettes due to toxic chemicals from seed oils used in frying. These oils produce cancer-associated chemicals when heated. Cooking fries in tallow is a healthier option as saturated fats do not create harmful byproducts. Next time you eat fast food fries, consider the cigarette-like health risks.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Eating this is like smoking a pack of these. A recent study found that the amount of toxic chemicals like acrolein and aldehydes in a large fry at McDonald's is equivalent to what you get from smoking 25 cigarettes. This is because the oils used in the frying of these french fries, seed oils like canola and soybean, are unstable when you heat them, and they sit in the McDonald's fryers, and that produces toxic chemicals, acrolein, alpha beta unsaturated aldehydes. All of these chemicals are associated with cancer just like this. If you wanna eat French fries, cook them in tallow.
The same study also explains that saturated fats, like those dominant in animal fats, do not oxidize, do not create the same toxic byproducts when you eat them. So the next time you go to eat McDonald's French fries or French fries from any of your favorite fast food place, think about the fact that you're basically smoking a pack of cigarettes.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
I have been experimenting with creatine… Recently, I came across some astonishing research on the benefits of creatine supplementation. (PMID: 33572884) This shouldn’t be an excuse to eat less meat. There are many unique nutrients in meat that we cannot get from supplements… https://t.co/JoZVjLxNJR
Video Transcript AI Summary
I found that creatine supplementation is incredibly beneficial for humans, especially for cognition, muscle recovery, exercise performance, and memory tasks. Even omnivores may not get enough creatine without supplementation. Studies show benefits for both young and older individuals. I personally take 5 grams of creatine daily and have noticed improvements in these areas.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When I dove back into the research with creatine, it's just incredibly overwhelming in a good way how beneficial this substance is for humans. If you don't know about creatine, we don't make enough of it to be optimal. Even those of us who are omnivores can benefit from creatine supplementation unless we are getting probably upwards of £2 of meat per day for men or 1 and a half plus pounds of meat per day for women. These studies consistently show benefits in terms of cognition even in people who are not aging or have cognitive decline, but certainly in people who have cognitive decline, creatine is beneficial for muscle recovery, for exercise performance, in terms of memory tasks, all sorts of things like this. I've started adding around 5 grams of creatine to my diet per day, and I noticed benefits in all of those areas.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Still wearing Apple AirPods?? Microwave radiations aren’t benign for humans, studies have shown this. (PMID: 33917298, 30533171, 24982785) Personally, I prefer wired earphones… https://t.co/lQeDploCM1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Wearing Apple AirPods exposes you to harmful microwave radiation. Studies show over 1500 research studies suggest this radiation is harmful. Using wired headphones with your phone on airplane mode reduces exposure to harmful EMFs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you wear Apple AirPods, you may be at risk of something even worse than looking totally cool. 250 scientists from over 40 countries have signed a petition to warn against radio wave radiation from wireless technology.
Speaker 1: Think about AirPods. You put these on your head, they communicate through your brain, and they are very clearly producing a significant amount of microwave electromagnetic field, EMF radiation. Look.
Speaker 0: Woah. Woah.
Speaker 1: I'm not you again. I've tested it. It's very clear. AirPods are producing a huge amount and you're wearing them for sometimes hours a day when you're at the gym. There is a solid amount of research, over 1500 studies, and the vast majority of that research suggests that this microwave radiation is harmful for your body.
There's also studies with human sperm showing that when they are exposed to these EMS, they have more DNA breaks and their motility is impaired. Look, there are easy solutions here. Wired headphones are going to significantly reduce the amount of EMFs, especially if your phone is on airplane mode and you are listening to prerecorded content while you are using them.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
In this video, I am responding to @BioLayne's criticism about seed oils. Here is what the science really says... https://t.co/fiH4jLP1lR
Video Transcript AI Summary
Seed oils, such as soybean and canola oil, have been a topic of debate regarding their impact on human health. In this video, the speaker responds to a fellow YouTuber's position that seed oils are neutral or beneficial for humans. The speaker presents studies that suggest seed oils may be harmful, including evidence of increased oxidized LDL, the presence of carcinogens in cooking oil fumes, and the negative effects of seed oils on insulin sensitivity. The speaker also critiques the use of meta-analyses that include flawed trials in supporting the idea that seed oils are benign. Overall, the speaker argues that the best-conducted trials indicate that seed oils are harmful for humans.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are sea oils harmful for humans? My friend, Lane Norton, and I recently went back and forth a bit on x Twitter about this topic, and Lane recently did a video on YouTube breaking down his position about seed oils and human health.
Speaker 1: We are back. We have what will undoubtedly be the most hated video in the history of my videos about seed oils. Are they harmful? Are they gonna kill you? What does the research say?
Speaker 0: Lane's position is that seed oils are neutral or beneficial to humans. And he listed many studies in that YouTube video that he did. And so in this video, I wanted to respond to Lane's position and offer some other studies suggesting different ways that seed oils might be harmful to humans. I'm going to try and make this one as succinct as possible. A full seed oils discussiondebate Will hopefully happen at some point in the future, but I don't think anyone wants to listen to 2 and a half hours of this.
So I'm going to try and keep this one High level. I'm gonna show studies to support my position in response to many of Lane's points. But hopefully, a full discussion will happen as I suggested today.
Speaker 1: But first, Before you hate it, like the video, subscribe to the channel and leave a comment. So
Speaker 0: let's start with the human randomized controlled trials. Layne has appropriately pointed out that these are probably the first thing to look at. I will disagree with Lane's position, which is that when you look at the human randomized controlled trials as a whole, They are neutral or beneficial in favor of seed oils. I think the tricky thing here is that we're looking at a couple of meta analyses, one by Hamley and one by Mozaffarian. And I'll show those meta analyses in a moment.
But also it's important to point out that Lane left out a meta analysis by Chris Ramsden, and the Reasons for that will be clear in a moment. Even looking at Hamley's meta analysis, there are some pretty important things that I think have been left out of this conversation regarding human randomized controlled trials in seed oils. High level. The point here is that in the majority of trials that show that seed oils are neutral or beneficial for humans in in terms of cardiovascular disease outcomes, heart disease, etc. A control group in these human randomized controlled trials is a group that was eating more saturated fat.
The experimental groups were often given some type of seed oil to have more polyunsaturated fats. And they were followed for varying amounts of time. There are 10 randomized controlled trials in humans. Let's go through all of them briefly. I have a whole thread on X about this if you want the full breakdown.
But I think in the end, you will understand my position, which is that there are only a A few trials done with seed oils in humans that should really even be considered here, because the majority of trials, like I said, have control groups that are Flawed, significantly higher amounts of trans fats or problems with randomization, as we'll see in the LA Veterans trials. So let's briefly talk about all ten Randomized controlled trials in humans, and then we'll go from there. So you can see that this is the meta analysis by Stephen Hamley, The effect of replacing saturated fat with mostly omega-six polyunsaturated fat on coronary heart disease, a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. This is one of the meta analyses that Lane cites. And even in this paper, as you can see, Hamley points out that in some of the diet heart trials, only the experimental group, The high omega 6 PUFA group received advice to avoid major sources of industrial trans fats, such as common lard and margarines, shortening, and or hydrogenated oils.
While in the other trials, the experimental group were provided with a lower amount of these foods compared to the control group. And he gives the references for all of these trials. We'll go through all of them in a moment. He has earlier meta analyses here, which he notes. Here's the Mozaffarian meta analysis, which will be hampered by the same issues we're talking about with this one.
Because again, when we exclude All of these trials in which the control group either received significantly higher amounts of trans fats, or only the experimental group was cautioned to avoid trans fats, we're left with 3 trials, which I'll talk about. Minnesota Coronary, Sydney Diet Heart and the Rose corn oil trial, 1965, 2 year follow-up, 80 patients with ischemic heart disease, 80 grams of olive oil versus 80 grams of corn oil per day. At 2 years, the proportion of patients remaining free of major cardiac events is greater in the control group, 75%, than for the 2 oil groups. Olive oil is 57%, Corn oil is 52%. So this rose corn oil trial showed that the control diet was better than corn oil or olive oil for freedom from major cardiac events.
Only the experimental group was instructed to avoid trans fats, but the control group still did better. The only real criticism of this trial is that it's only 80 patients. And if you look at this trial, the results did not reach statistical significance. The p value was between 0.05 and 0.1. So it was very close.
As the authors note in this trial, the chance that these results occurred by anything other than a real finding suggesting that polyunsaturated fats are harmful in Cardiovascular disease is less than 1 in 1,000. But a reasonable criticism of this trial is the p value was between 0.05 and 0.1. Again, Very unlikely this is anything but a finding that corn oil and olive oil are worse than the control group for cardiovascular disease. Oslo Diet Heart Study, 1958 to 1963, 5 year follow-up, 4 12 participants. A control group versus 76% of calories fat from soybean oil in the experimental group.
The problem with the Oslo Diet Heart Study is that the control group consumed 9.6% of their calories from trans fat. The experimental group was encouraged to eat more nuts, bruised vegetables, and to restrict their intake of refined grains and sugar. And again, remember, the control group is generally a higher saturated animal fat group, and the experimental group is soybean oil. So the soybean oil group had less trans fats. The control group had 9.6% of their calories from trans and the experimental group received more counseling.
This is a very poorly constructed trial. The Medical Research Council trial 1960 to 1967, 2 to 7 year follow-up. Again, the The problem with this one, only the experimental group was instructed to avoid margarines, cooking oil, cakes and biscuits. The control group likely consumed more trans fats. And this is a mixed intervention with both omega 3 and omega 6 for the experimental group.
LA Veterans Administration trial 1959 to 1968. 8 year follow-up, 8 46 subjects. This study has been talked about as perhaps the quote unquote best trial showing that seed oils are not harmful for humans. But there are major flaws with this trial. The ofatoforol vitamin E intake in the control group was 9.4 fold lower than the experimental group.
2.4 milligrams versus 22.6 milligrams. The control group also had a significantly greater number of heavy smokers and less non smokers. 70 subjects in the control group were heavy smokers compared to 45 in the experimental groups. That's a very poorly constructed trial. Anyone who says that LA veterans is showing that seed oils are neutral for humans.
Hasn't read the full study and doesn't understand the flaws of that trial. The Sydney Diet Heart Study 1966 to 1973. It's a 2 to 7 year follow-up, 4 58 men. The result of this trial was that increasing omega 6 polyunsaturated fats from safflower oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarines increased the rates of death from cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease and all cause mortality. Interestingly, Sydney Diet Heart Study has been criticized because the experimental group received a margarine that could have had trans fats in it rather than the control group.
So this is the reverse of what I was talking about the other studies. But it's important to note that trans fats consistently raise LDL cholesterol. And if you look at City Diet Heart Study, the experimental group's LDL cholesterol went down. So no one really knows how much trans fat intake the experimental group in the City Diet Heart Study got from something called miracle margarine. But if their LDL level is any indication, the experimental group got more polyunsaturated fats or less trans fats than the control group.
Regardless, I think that some people would say Sydney Diet Heart is not valid. I think there's a strong argument because of the lowering of the LDL in the experimental group that they did not receive a significant amount of trans fats. But Sydney Diet Heart remains a great study. The Minnesota Coronary Survey, I think is the best study we have regarding seed oils. 1968 to 1973, a 4.5 year follow-up.
9,057 participants. Interestingly, Ancel Keys was one of the original authors of this trial. His group hid the results for 16 years, possibly because the outcome was not what they expected. But no one knows why they didn't publish this. Eventually, Chris Ramsden found the results of the Minnesota Coronary Trial and the City Diet Heart Study in the basement of one of the relatives of the people that was also involved in these trials, and published both of these trials in the last 10 years.
The results of Minnesota Coronary Study, those eating higher polyentetrated fats had Worse cardiovascular outcomes than the control group. This study has potentially been criticized because the control group received both margarine and shortening as a source of saturated fat. But regardless, the control group still did better. Even if they got significantly more trans fats, the control group still did better in this study. The diet and reinfarction trial, 1983 to 1989, 2 year follow-up, 2,033 men with previous myocardial infarction.
Only the experimental group was instructed to avoid trans fats, while the control group lightly consumed significant amounts of trans fats. So again, Poorly constructed trial because the control group was likely consuming more trans fats. And this was a multifactorial intervention. The St. Thomas Atherosclerosis Regression Study, 1987 to 1991, 3 year follow-up, 90 men with coronary heart disease.
This is a multifactorial dietary intervention. The control group was estimated to consume 2% of calories from trans fats. The experimental group was instructed to avoid processed foods, cookies, pastry and cakes, and eat more fiber and whole plant foods. Overweight participants were on a low calorie diet. So again, the STARS trial is a poorly constructed trial.
There is more trans fats in the control group, and this is a multifactorial intervention. I know this is onerous, but it's Important that we go through every single one of these randomized controlled trials if I'm to respond to Lane's position that meta analyses show that seed oils Neutral or beneficial for cardiovascular outcomes. We're getting there. The National Diet Heart Study, 1962 to 1964, a 1 year follow-up, 2,032 males. And again, only the experimental group was instructed to avoid trans fat.
The control group was instructed to purchase filled foods with either animal fat or hydrogenated shortening. And I'm quoting there. This is from the study. The control group was instructed to purchase filled foods quote with Either animal fat or hydrogenated shortening quote. This means that the control group had significantly higher trans fat than the experimental group.
How anyone could consider the National Diet Heart Study to be valid is beyond me. The Finnish mental hospital study, 1959 to 1970 1 6 year follow-up, 6 76 subjects. There was significantly more trans fat in the control diets. There were 2 hospitals considered in this trial. Hospital K had 2% of trans fats in the control group versus 0 in the experimental group.
Hospital N, 0.6% trans fats versus 0.2 in the experimental group. There were also a number of confounding variables, including differences in baseline characteristics of age, BMI, smoking, blood pressure. And There was a cardiotoxic psychiatric medication, Thirytizine, used in the control group at higher rates and there was inadequate randomizations. So the Finnish mental hospital study, Horribly constructed trial. The Hautz Mueller diabetic angiopathy trial, 1973 to 1978, 5 year follow-up, 102 patients.
Only the experimental group instructed to avoid trans fat. The major source of fat for most of the participants in the control group was reported to be saturated margarines, leading to a substantially higher intake of trans fat in the control group. Remember, the control group is the group getting higher saturated fat, higher animal fats versus the experimental group in all of these studies getting more polyunsaturated fats in the form of seed oils. What's the takeaway here? Of these ten Human randomized controlled trials.
There are significant problems with at least 8 of them. I think you can make a reasonable argument to include sydney diet heart. But some people would say because of The miracle margin issue, you can include that one. But we're really left with the Minnesota Coronary Trial and Rose Corn Oil and the majority of the other ones having significantly more Trans fats in the control group, different counseling between the experimental groups and the control groups, multivariate interventions. So let's go back to Hamley's meta analysis and look at his forest plot.
So if you're not familiar with the forest plot, it's in a meta analysis where the author will show a risk ratio of multiple trials and do a overall cumulative risk ratio. So you can see here, This is the forest plot showing the pooled relative risk reduction and 95% confidence interval for the number of major CHD events, that is coronary heart disease events. In the forest plot, he includes the DART trial, which had significantly more trans fats in the control group. He includes the Minnesota Coronary Trial, like we talked about. He includes the Medical Research Council trial, which I talked about, having more trans fats in the control group.
He includes Roll's corn oil trial and he includes Cinni Diet Heart. And lo and behold, at the end, his summed risk ratio favors the control group. That actually suggests that the control group is having a better outcome than those people having more of the polyunsaturated fats. He's divided these into adequately controlled trials and inadequately controlled trials. Remember, this Hamley meta analysis is something that Lane cites in his position for seed oils being neutral or beneficial for humans.
Hamley also suggests these other trials were inadequately controlled, as we talked about. Finished mental hospital study, the Hautz Mueller diabetic angiopathy trial, the LA Veterans trial, the National Diet Heart Survey, also Diet Heart and the St. Thomas atherosclerosis. So all of those were inadequately controlled, according to Hamley. And you can see that Those trials make the polyunsaturated fats look better.
But we've talked about the major problems with all of those trials. They should be excluded from any analysis of adequately controlled trials as Hamley has done. So if we look at Hamley's forest plots, you can see he's divided these into adequately controlled trials and inadequately controlled trials. As we've noted, Finnish Mental Hospital, Hautz Mueller Diabetic Angiopathy, LA Veterans, National Diet Heart Survey, Oslo Diet Heart Study and the St. Thomas sclerosis study, all inadequately controlled trials according to Hamley.
Remember, this is a meta analysis that Lane cites in his position supporting the fact that seed oils are neutral or beneficial for humans. If you look at the adequately controlled trials, unfortunately, Hamley has gone on to include the diabetic angiopathy regression trial and the Medical Research Council trial, both of which we talked about as having major problems with the design of the trial because the control group was almost certainly consuming more saturated fats. Hamley does include Sydney Diet Heart Rose Corn Oil and Minnesota Coronary. And if you remove DART and MRCT, this Relative risk ratio is certainly going to be significantly in favor of control groups rather than people having polyunsaturated fats. This is the problem of meta analyses.
It's easy with meta analyses to get fooled unless you look at every single trial in detail because of these forest plots and the pooled risk ratios. The same thing happens again when we're looking at the number of total CHD events. And we can see adequately controlled trials, inadequately controlled trials. We've talked about why the inadequate controlled trials would be excluded. But I would argue that DART trial and the MRCT trial should also be excluded from these adequately controlled trials.
Again, changing this risk ratio to be significant and in favor of saturated fat rich diets, control diets rather than polyunsaturated fat rich diets. None of this is controversial. This is clearly stated by the authors. These are clear flaws in many of these trials, and yet they are included in Forest plots that are used to substantiate the narrative that seed oils are neutral or benign for you. Mozaffarian's meta analysis is even worse than this.
His forest plot includes many of the studies that Hamley considers to be inadequately controlled. And as many of you know, Mozaffarian, who is often cited by fact checkers as the expert on seed oils and says they are fine for humans is going to come up with a risk ratio on his forest plot that says that seed oils are Neutral or beneficial in terms of cardiovascular events. But I would argue that forest plot and that conclusion are foundationally flawed, because both of these authors include multiple trials that have significant flaws in the way that the groups were counseled. And they have control groups eating significantly more trans fat then experimental groups. So where does this leave us?
This leaves us with human randomized controlled data. I would argue strongly in favor of controlled diets, that is saturated fat rich diets versus seed oils. And I would say that if you really truly, carefully, honestly look at these Human randomized controlled trials of seed oils. You come away with the conclusion that in the best conducted trials, seed oils are clearly harmful for humans. Now in his video, Lane goes on to provide other lines of evidence by which seed oils may be beneficial or neutral for humans.
I will address all of those in a moment. Again, I Want to keep this video as succinct as possible. But it's difficult when we actually look at things in detail. Before I do that, I will briefly present Part of my case about why seed oils are harmful. Again, to fully dive into this, it's probably a 3 hour video.
But High level, there are multiple trials showing that more linoleic acid, this 18 carbon omega-six polyunsaturated fatty acid is consumed. There is an increased amount of oxidized LDL in humans, which makes sense because if you populate the membranes of your cells, your mitochondria and your membranes of your low density little protein cholesterol particles with more linoleic acid. That polyunsaturated fat is more susceptible to oxidation and potentially cleavage by Lp PLA2, Lipoprotein Associated Phospholipase A2, leading to an oxidized non esterified fatty acid and lysophosphatidylcholine in the LDL particle. We know that when there is a lot of lysophosphatidylcholine and LDL particles, they are transformed from minimally modified LDL to Oxidized LDL and that these oxidized non acerified fatty acids freed from the phospholipid by lipoprotein associated PLA2 are inflammatory at the level of the endothelium, etcetera. Again, this is very complex.
I could do a much longer video to go into this, but I will show a few studies corroborating the notion that more linoleic acid equals more oxidized LDL. In the past, Lane has argued that oxidized LDL arguments are Mechanistic. But I think that it is very difficult to find any universe in which something that increases oxidized LDL in humans is not going to lead to or associate with increased rates of cardiovascular disease. And that is not mechanistic. That is just increased rates of heart attack, stroke, vascular problems, etc.
So first study, you can see it here on the screen, effects of diets rich in monounsaturated fats on plasma lipoproteins, the Jerusalem Nutrition study. In the interest of time, I will just show the studies and And you guys can read the conclusions. If you disagree with my conclusions on these, please feel free to put in the comments. Next study, changes in dietary fat Intake altered plasma levels of oxidized low density lipoprotein and Lp. Strong increase in hydroxy fatty acids derived from linoleic acid in human low density Proteins of atherosclerotic patients and effects of oleate rich and linoleate rich diets on the susceptibility of low density protein to oxidative stress in mildly hypercholesterolemic subjects.
Furthermore, there is this trial replacing dairy fat with causes rapid improvement of hyperlipidemia. Again, the title is misleading. LDL goes down, LP goes up, which you can see here in table 3 of this paper. The p value is less than 0.05 showing statistically significant increase in Lp when people are given rapeseed oil, which is canola oil. Now Now for the sake of elaboration, Lp is an APO B containing lipoprotein that is different than an LDL.
It's often thought to be a mop or a sponge for oxidized phospholipids. And if you correct LDL levels for the amount of Lp in the LDL, you see a marked decline in the correlation, the association between LDL and cardiovascular disease. Again, for the sake of brevity, I will not go into detail on Lp, but it is associated Increased oxidized phospholipids consistently in studies in humans. Lastly, I will show this study, LDL fatty acids composition as a risk biomarker of cardiovascular disease. You You can read here in the results.
OX LDL was significantly higher in the CAD group. Polyunsaturated fatty acids and the polyunsaturated fatty acid to monounsaturated fatty acid ratio. Linoleic acid and arachidonic acid were significantly higher in the CAD group than the non So heart disease, more oxidized LDL, no surprise there, along with more linoleic acid in the LDL particles of people with coronary artery disease. Here in the conclusion, they say composition of LDL is related to atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease. High levels of arachidonic acid and linoleic acids could increased LDL oxidation and atherosclerotic plaques formation.
So that is the oxidized LDL being increased by Linoleic acid in the diet position. I also think it's important to point out that the breakdown products of linoleic acid are clearly increased with more linoleic acid in your diet. These are the Oxlams or Oxylipines. These are a series of compounds either derived from linoleic acid, the HODES, H O D Es, or the HEETS, H E T Es, from the downstream metabolite of linoleic acid known as arachidonic acid. But when you eat more linoleic acid, you have more of the hoades and the heats in your body.
The heats and the hoades are all associated with many bad things. 5 and 11, heats have been associated with obesity. 12 heat is associated with many negative things. 12 heat has also been associated with impairments in atherositosis, which is macrophages involved in the removal of apoptotic, that is dead necrotic tissue within plaques. And defects in epherocytosis are connected with progression of atherosclerosis.
So downstream metabolites of linoleic acid are increased when you eat more linoleic acid in seed oils. They are decreased when you have less linoleic acid from seed oils. And these metabolites are consistently across the board associated with multiple negative effects in humans. For the sake of brevity, I will just show a few studies here, but the literature on this is vast. 1st study, lowering dietary linoleic acid reduces bioactive oxidized linoleic acid metabolites in humans.
Again, feel free to read these guys. If you have any questions or rebuttals or concerns, please put it in the comments. But you can see here that Chris Ramsden did a study where he decreased the amount of linoleic acid in the diet for humans with headaches and the amount of ox lambs, including the HEETS and the hoads, was decreased. This is a study looking at the FADS1 genotype. Fatty acid desaturase, also known as Delta 5 Desaturase Genotype will influence your response to linoleic acid with those having the TT genotype having much worse reactions.
But if you read this study carefully, you will see that in both groups, Whether you have a CC or a TT for your FADS1 genotype at this risk allele RS 174550, you will have increased ox LAMs, increased oxidative products of linoleic acid metabolism with more linoleic acid in your diet. There was also a very clear study done in rodents showing that the more linoleic acid the rodents get, the more oxidative products of linoleic acid metabolism they have. Obesity is positively associated with arachidonic derived 5 and 11 Hydroxy, icosa, tetraenoic acid, that is heat, as I mentioned. This is perhaps the most significant study that I've seen recently that no one is talking about with regard to oxlams and atherosclerosis. 12 HEAT down regulates monocyte derived macrophage, Effrocytosis.
That's not a good thing. When you're down regulating macrophage, atherosclerosis, there's a clear tendency to worsen atherosclerosis, that is plaque progression in your arteries. It's also very clear that seed oils contain significant amounts of benzene. There are studies showing that seed oils, specifically Soybean oil contained 3 parts per million of Benzene. Seed oils also contain heavy metals, cadmium and lead, as well as antimony leaching from the plastic bottles.
Seed oils also contain phthalates in amounts that are 45 to 3 96 times those of bottled water. Phthalates are estrogen mimicking compounds that been associated in a dose dependent fashion with a smaller anagenital distance that is a taint size in male humans and decreased sexual pleasure in women. So getting more phthalates in your diet, no matter whether they're coming from bottled water or plastics or seed oils, is not a good thing. There's also literature suggesting that canola oil increases de novo lipogenesis. De novo lipogenesis is associated with everything bad.
Visceral adipose post tissue, high triglycerides, more insulin resistance, higher waist circumference, more incidence of cardiovascular disease. So More de novo lipogenesis from canola oil is a very bad thing. You can see that if you look at the fatty acid composition in this study right here.
Speaker 1: Now what about cancer? Overall, there doesn't seem to be much of an effect of replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats. If anything, there might be a slightly positive effect on cancer mortality by replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats. But It seems to be a really small effect.
Speaker 0: One of Lane's main critiques about the seed oil position is that there is no evidence that seed oils cause cancer. I agree that if you look at meta analyses of seed oils and cancer, the data can be very confusing and muddied. However, there is very clear data that the fumes from cooking oils, seed oils, are consistently associated with cancers. I mentioned that Benzene, which is a known carcinogen, is found in significant amounts, three Hearts4million. And there's a significant amount of literature from Asia to show that exposure to cooking fumes is associated with both cervical cancer and other cancers.
Environmental exposure to cooking oil fumes and cervical intraepithelial neoplasm. You can see if you read the abstract that those women who were exposed to cooking oil fumes without hoods had a dose response corresponding increase in cervical cancers. Here you can see characteristics of non methane hydrocarbons and benzene series emission commonly cooking oil fumes. These authors clearly show that soybean oil, peanut oil and a blend oil had significant amounts of Benzene, toluene and other aromatic compounds, which are associated with cancers when you cook with these oils. Furthermore, this is from an IARC monograph that is the International Association For Research on Cancer monograph.
In this IARC monograph on page 389, you will see they say they found a threefold increased risk for lung cancer with a moderate to high category of exposure greater than 150 total dish years. And an eightfold increased risk with the highest category greater than 200 total dish years of exposure to cooking fumes from high temperature frying. That is high temperature frying of seed oils with these aerosolized compounds that have been associated with both cervical cancers and lung cancers. So for anyone to say that there is no clear data that seed oils are associated with cancer, I would say yes, Yes, I can understand why you feel that way, but in terms of the fumes coming off the seed oils, there is a major concern here. And most people using seed oils are cooking with seed oils.
Lane points to a study in his position suggesting that saturated fat decreases flow mediated dilatation, which is perhaps an indicator of endothelial function. I think he is using these to suggest that polyunsaturated fats don't do this, and therefore they're benign or neutral for humans. But if you look at the literature more deeply for saturated fats or animal fats in humans, you find that there's really not consistent evidence that animal fats will lower flow mediated dilatation in humans. Consider this study looking at the assessment of vascular function in response to high fat and low fat ground beef consumption. They say here the high fat beef intervention improved low media dilatation relative to all our time points while lowering systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure.
Furthermore, we can note that high trans fat but not saturated fat beverages caused acute reduction in the postprandiovascular endothelial function, but not arterial stiffness in humans. Again, trans fats but not saturated fats affected endothelial function negatively in humans. So the the evidence regarding saturated fat and endothelial function I think is not there to suggest that polyunsaturated fats are so much better than saturated fats. There's actually not consistent evidence saturated fats are even negative for human endothelial function. One of the other positions Lane takes is that polyentetrated fats are better with regard to insulin sensitivity versus saturated fats.
And he offers a meta analysis looking at glucose insulin homeostasis. Now, when you look at the meta analysis in detail, some interesting things arise. So here is the meta analysis that Lane offers, the effects of saturated fat, polyantetrated fat, monounsaturated fat, and carbohydrates on glucose, insulin homeostasis. The The problem with meta analyses, as we saw earlier in this video, is that in order to really understand what's going on here, we really must look at every single trial in these meta analyses The authors are using to make a position. So this trial has over a 100 studies in it.
So what do we do? We look at every single trial. We're not gonna look at all 100 studies right now. But I will show you that if you look at the trials used in this meta analysis in which saturated fat was replaced by polyunsaturated fat, a disturbing trend emerges. Look at this.
In order to do this, we must go to the supplementary material. Look at Table S1. And when we have these dietary arms, I went through and looked at every single trial which had PUFA and SFA. As you can see here, I want to see trials in which polyunsaturated fat was compared directly to saturated fat. So there are over a 100 trials.
There are 102 randomized controlled trials in this meta analysis. But many of these trials compare Monounsaturated fat to polyunsaturated fat, or monounsaturated fat to polyunsaturated fat, or high carbohydrate to low carbohydrate. So I went through and looked at every single study that that had polyunsaturated fat to saturated fat. And what I found was that the majority of these trials, in fact, there was only one of these trials that didn't clearly have significant amounts of trans fats included in the saturated fat that was being used relative to polyunsaturated fat. So this is the problem with meta analyses.
We must go through and look at all of these trials in detail. It is not enough to simply Read the abstract and the conclusions of a meta analysis. So again, when we're looking at glucose insulin homeostasis, the meta analyses are foundationally flawed with every single trial except one showing significant amounts of trans fats included in the saturated fat arms relative to polyunsaturated fats. So we see this over and over and over in nutritional studies that saturated fat all saturated fats are not created equally. We know that trans fats are harmful for the endothelium, Harmful in terms of insulin resistance versus insulin sensitivity.
Replacing saturated fat that contains significant amounts of trans fats with polyunsaturated fat tells us nothing about replacing animal fast, hallow, butter or ghee with polyentatrated seed oils in terms of insulin resistance. So this type of a conclusion that Layne is drawing is fundamentally flawed because of problems with this meta analysis. But we must look at the details as we saw with the human randomized controlled trials of seed oils at the beginning of this video. The last thing I'll say with regard to polyunsaturated fats and insulin sensitivity is that this issue is complex. And long term insulin resistance is driven by dysfunction at the level of our fat cells, adipocytes.
I've done whole videos on this. High level, there is a defect in the ability of our adipocytes to divide. That is called hyperplasia versus GROW, which is hypertrophy. We know that Adipocytes of those who are insulin resistant, pathologically insulin resistant, cannot do this adipocyte division. The hyperplasia, they can only do hypertrophy.
These fat cells atrophy, they become necrotic. They become inflamed. They release lipo kinds and other inflammatory mediators. And that is really at the root of Pathological systemic insulin resistance. Now how these adipocytes get to that position is controversial.
My position is that increased amounts of linoleic acid and other Polyentetrated fats accumulate in adipocytes leading to this dysfunction long term. There is evidence that 4 HNE, 4 Hydroxynotanol, a breakdown product of, You guessed it. Linoleic acid will cause adipocytes to dysfunction and to behave pathologically just like they do in insulin resistance. As As you can see here in this paper, 4 hydroxynonenol causes impairment of human subcutaneous adipogenesis and induction of adipocyte insulin resistance. Again, this is a hypothesis.
This is not proven. But I think the conclusions here are pretty clear that a breakdown product of Linoleic acid 4 hydroxynotanol, that's where it comes from, is involved in the long term progression toward pathological insulin resistance. Now, I also believe that linoleic acid is potentially causing short term pathological insulin sensitivity, which we can see in this study, which Lane offers as a support for his position. But I think this study actually suggests the opposite. This is differential metabolic effects of saturated versus polyunsaturated fats in ketogenic diets.
Now remember that if you are on a ketogenic diet, that is physiologic insulin resistance. And what we see in this study is when people do ketogenic diets with polyunsaturated fats, they become insulin sensitive. That's not how human physiology is supposed to work. I believe this is indicative of pathological insulin sensitization by polyunsaturated fats. And we can clearly see that with ketogenic diets.
Again, when When you are on a ketogenic diet, you are supposed to become physiologically insulin resistant. Your muscles, other tissues of your body refuse glucose to spare it for the brain, testicles, adrenals, and other tissues that prefer glucose as a fuel. Now, if you give someone polyanteciparated fats in their ketogenic diet, they More insulin sensitive, and that is not how human physiology is supposed to work. You can see here insulin sensitivity goes up when people are using polyunsaturated fats on their ketogenic diet. That's not how it's supposed to go.
That's not how normal human physiology works. This is getting a little technical and it all deserves much more consideration. But I would suggest that even one of the papers Lane uses to suggest that seed oils improve insulin sensitivity is actually showing that they're doing something to mess with normal human metabolism that could long term lead to pathological insulin resistance at the level of the adipocyte. In summary, if we look at the human randomized controlled trials, The majority of them are foundationally flawed with significantly higher amounts of trans fats in the control groups, inadequate randomization, multi variable interventions in the best trials, Minnesota Coronary, Rose Corn Oil and potentially Sydney Diet Heart Study, which Hamley considers to be adequately controlled trials, all suggest that polyunsaturated fats are bad for cardiovascular outcomes. So if we're just looking at human randomized controlled trials, you have seed oils clearly being harmful for cardiovascular outcomes, other authors like Ramsden have come to the same conclusion in their meta analyses, meta analyses that Lane leaves out.
I've gone through other points in this video showing how I think seed oils are harmful for humans. Increased oxidized LDL, increased production of oxidative products of linoleic acid metabolism, Benzene, phthalates, heavy metals, cooking fumes related to cancer, etcetera. I've also discussed why I don't think arguments regarding flow mediated dilatation or where insulin sensitization for polyunsaturated fats hold any merit. So that is my response to Lane. I appreciate these conversations.
I think this is how we all learn. And I look forward to further in person conversations to flesh this all out, so that we can all understand what the healthiest way to live is.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
What is actually in a McDonald’s BigMac? Just the pickles have 10 ingredients
Video Transcript AI Summary
The McDonald's Big Mac contains more than just bread and beef. The bun has canola and soybean oil, along with sugar. The pickles have 10 ingredients, including potassium sorbate, polysorbate 80, and aluminum salts. The lettuce is plain, but the secret sauce has seed oils, canola oil, soybean oil, propylene glycol, high fructose corn syrup, and caramel color. There's another beef patty, more secret sauce, and a piece of American cheese that's not real cheese and contains microplastics. This is why many Americans are unhealthy. It's better to eat real food like meat, organs, fruit, honey, and raw dairy, and avoid ultra-processed food like the Big Mac.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What's in a McDonald's Big Mac? Let's find out. The bun, just bread. Right? No.
Because the bun contains both canola and soybean oil along with sugar. In the bun, the meat is actually a 100% beef. No fillers, so that's not bad. Pickles are just pickles. Right?
Nope. There's 10 ingredients in McDonald's pickles including potassium sorbate, polysorbate 80, and aluminum salts. None of those are good for humans. The lettuce is just lettuce. The secret sauce, not so secret.
Seed oils, canola oil, soybean oil, propylene glycol, high fructose corn syrup, and caramel color. Got another 100% beef patty, some more of that, seed oil propylene glycol secret sauce, and a piece of American cheese, which is not actually real cheese, full of microplastics. So that is what is in your Big Mac at McDonald's. Is it any wonder that so many Americans are fat, sick, and unhealthy? Eat real food, guys.
Meat, organs, fruit, honey, raw, dairy. Don't eat ultra processed food like this. All kinds of garbage in there is hiding, and it's not good for you.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
This podcast on raw milk was removed from YouTube for "medical misinformation". In this episode, I sat down with the founder of Raw Farm to talk about the incredibly protective effects of raw milk against asthma, allergies, respiratory tract infections, and even gut issues.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, Mark McAfee, owner of the largest raw dairy farm in the world, discusses the benefits of raw milk, particularly in the form of kefir, for gut health. Raw milk contains antibodies and immune system support found in colostrum, nourishing and protecting the gut. Despite FDA restrictions on claims about its healing properties, numerous studies support its benefits for gut health and immune function. The speakers also highlight the safety and cleanliness of raw milk, emphasizing its differences from commercially processed milk. They discuss the importance of state standards and regulations, as well as the positive impact of raw milk on conventional dairy farmers' livelihoods. The production of raw cheese and its unique qualities are also discussed. The video concludes by emphasizing the need for better education and understanding of raw milk's benefits in human nutrition.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've I've not seen any food that is as healing, and I mean that word sincerely, healing for the human gut as raw milk. In this week's podcast, I have the honor of sitting with Mark McAfee on his farm, The largest raw dairy farm in the world in the Central Valley of California. I spent 3 days at raw farm there and learned all about their process of raising cattle on grass, how they milk them, how they care for the cattle, how they ensure that milk is as clean as possible, How they double test the milk. They are really setting the standard for raw milk in this country, and I hope it is something that can be scaled. And Mark has done an incredible job of educating raw milk producers all over the United States and even abroad into how to do this safely.
As we talk about in this podcast, Raw milk, I think raw dairy in general, whether it's yogurt, kefir, butter, truly raw cheese or milks, colostrum, have incredibly valuable roles for humans, And I think they've basically been overlooked. This is essentially, as I say in the podcast, like returning to breastfeeding, which is how your gut was programmed in the 1st place. So all of us have been exposed to bad things in our environments, whether it's antibiotics, pesticides, foods which damage our guts. And I think it makes sense to me intuitively that returning to raw milk would be helpful for these things. And we see this over and over.
I was recently in Los Angeles doing a launch of a smoothie with Erewhon. You can find that at all the Erewhon stores In Los Angeles, the 1st animal based smoothie ever. It includes the Raw Farms kefir that we talk about in this podcast. And so many people came up to me and talked about how raw milk, which is illegal in 37 states, has benefited them. So I'm so happy to share Mark's story.
He has a wealth of information about raw milk, raw dairy, And it's benefits for humans. You guys will really enjoy this podcast, and I hope that it adds fuel to the fire of the benefits of raw milk for humans because so many people are benefiting from this. And it's something I'm becoming more and more passionate about. Make milk raw again. We're gonna make hats that say that.
Stay tuned for that. Onto the podcast. Mark, thanks for coming on the podcast. All the way, buddy. I think it's only appropriate that we start with cheers.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Food of the ages, what are we drinking? Kefir, raw milk kefir. Incredibly diverse, complete, whole food, fantastic for the gut. Cheers.
Speaker 0: Cheers. Where are we right now? Where's this, where's this a fear made.
Speaker 1: On this dirt right here.
Speaker 0: This dirt right here.
Speaker 1: This dirt right here. Not too far away, about 500 feet out till your cows are grazing on pastures, Sun sunshine. And that milk's milked every day, taken to our creamery, made into this product, and served to the people of California.
Speaker 0: I got to go to the creamer yesterday and see how this this kefir was made. And I saw how many how big is that vat, Josh? Yeah. 800 gallon vat of raw milk. I got to see the whole process of the cows on the grass here.
I was out there yesterday, Hanging out with the cows, they sat down. They came up to me and they were, like, licking me and biting my shirt. I got to see them move to the milking station. I want you to tell me about that. I know you've got a special milking barn that you designed.
And then I got to see the creamery where this was made, right, and the kefir, sort of the 800 gallon vat where it's heated to 76, like room temperature and then fermented. Yep. And then we're drinking this this this incredible food. Yeah. Just before we started the podcast, you told me this is like there's history with this.
Speaker 1: Yes. It goes back thousands and thousands of years. If you think about it, The Maasai, the Mongolians, Europeans, everybody around the world was milking cows, sheep, horses, Reindeer, camels, water buffalo. If you could find a mammal, You had grass and sunshine, you had food today. And so Ram al Kefir was a natural outgrowth of that because if you think about the container that the Person that was milking the cow or whatever animal, mammal, wasn't clean.
It had residues from the milk prior week. And those were the local cultures the dirt the bacteria from that local cultures and that milk that came out of that cow or whatever ant mammal went into that That, that vessel became cultured immediately and within a few hours, literally within 6 to 10 hours, it became a kefir. So kefir has a very long shelf life. It's Lowest low acid 3.8, 3.7 on pH scale. And it's extremely complex with all this diversity of bacteria and It lasts a long time without refrigeration because it's born of becoming warm after you melt the cow into this vessel with bacteria.
Now in modern day kefir, we're not able to make it that way, But we add in 12 additional cultures on top of the hundreds that are there already. So it's an incredibly nutritionally dense whole food. It's fantastic for the gut microbiome. Fantastic.
Speaker 0: Now I've heard people say to me, you know, when I grew up, I drank pasteurized milk exclusively, unfortunately. Sorry, mom and dad. We should we can talk about why. I'm so bummed about that. And when when pasteurized milk spoils, It smells bad.
Speaker 1: It putrefies. It putrefies. It doesn't have the commensial mutualistic diversity of good bacteria Which helped ferment the milk. It's got survivors from the killing process. And those survivors are pretty tough little buggers and they don't taste very good when they get old.
And so it's not intended to be consumed after it ferments. It doesn't ferment. It putrefies.
Speaker 0: It's really not intended to be consumed at all. I'm just killed. We talked about We both agree on that.
Speaker 1: I think we should talk about why pasteurization began. It really resolves a lot of questions in people's minds. When America was first settled, let's just talk about the American story, there were cows everywhere. Every other dairy every other farm had a dairy. It was 2 to 3 cows all over the place.
Farmers, 98% of the population. Well, that was in the 14, 15 well, 1500s going to the 1600s and then 1700s. But the earliest settlers always had a cow. In fact, the pilgrims all went back to Europe before the arrival of the first cows. It was really part of Jamestown.
It's part of foundation of America that we House, and we had milk and we had cheese and butter and cream and those kinds of things. But remember, we had green pastures, we had clean water, Lots of virgin soils, lots of space. Well, in the late 1800s, that changed because people started moving to the cities And they did it into their milk. They brought their cows with them. When they brought their cows into city there was no green grass, there was no clean water, no flushing toilets, Nothing to chill the milk.
No clear clean water to wash things with. And as a result, there was something called the milk problem From the 18 sixties to 18 nineties, people died left and right from raw milk in the downtown city areas. In the countryside, that milk was going to the Mayo Clinic to heal people. So he had 2 different kinds of milk, the natural clean stuff that was in natural conditions, conditions really mattered, or the filthy stuff being commercialized to feed people that were needing food in the cities. And they were eating brewers distillers grains and, it's just typhoid, tuberculosis, brucellosis.
I mean, It's disgusting. And so in 18/93, a guy by the name of Strauss brought in the parboiler from France, started cooking this stuff. He said, oh, miracle. We cook this stuff and fewer people die. Still had 10% of the people die because water quality was so terrible.
At the same time also, Doctor. Henry Coit, Who was a pediatrician in 18/93 who lost a child from consuming really tainted, ugly raw milk, said let's just clean up the milk because he saw virtue in clean raw milk. And they started certifying raw milk with the board of physicians who would go visit a farm in the countryside that had clean conditions and grass and sunshine and clean water. And that milk was literally going to Mayo Clinic. So there's been a diversity of these diverse paths of raw milk for 2 different intentions, One for the processor and one for people.
Speaker 0: That's incredible. I had no idea that raw milk was being used at the Mayo Clinic.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Doctor. Crew talked about that at length in his book.
Speaker 0: Really? Yeah.
Speaker 1: And do you know
Speaker 0: when it was being used to treat everything?
Speaker 1: I am under injunction by the FDA to not be able to say anything about curing or healing from raw milk, literally, personally under an injunction. Right. Because To say anything about raw milk that says it heals or cures is to create a new drug in America under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Which is really in my opinion a disservice to our country because to prevent disease is truly very, very important. To prevent disease through good nutrition.
Right. So there is a just a massive list of benefits of raw milk in PubMed that are mostly European studies coming out of Germany and In Netherlands by a bunch of researchers with whom I know and I met with many of them that talk about all kinds of wonderful things that Ramonk does in the gut as well as the immune system. And I really can't get into specifics. You can. I gave you all the PubMed stuff.
I can't have it come out of my mouth. But I'm telling you right now, we have reports all over the place all the time about how fantastic raw milk is to build your health. And those PubMed articles for anybody who wants to Google them, they can look at Yeah.
Speaker 0: We'll put a link in the show notes for this episode. It's the British Columbia Herd Share website, right? Yep. And that was where I found the best list of raw milk articles. There were a few that I was aware of before this podcast, and I've gotten turned on to raw milk in the last, I would say year, year and a half I was living in Costa Rica.
And for for a while there, I wasn't even drinking milk. And I've recently reincorporated raw milk In my diet in the last year or so, year and a half, and it's been goat milk, I've had some camel milk, and I've had some cow's milk. And I found it to be very enjoyable, very health promoting in myself. I just got back from Los Angeles. Well, we're we're at the farm.
We're at Rott Farm right now in California. And I'm previous to this, I was in Los Angeles at Erewhon doing a launch of the smoothie that I did a collab with Erewhon. And I there were I probably met 300 plus people in a day at these meet and greets. And I must have met 50 plus people who came up to me and told me that raw milk, you know, versus pasteurized milk, had significantly improved gut issues, whether it was Crohn's or IBD or eczema, their kids' issues. And that was really cool.
But then, you know, as as we've been hanging out here on the farm. And thank you for hosting me the last day and a half. It's been I've learned so much from you.
Speaker 1: It's been an honor.
Speaker 0: It's been really cool to see it all. I I was looking through a lot of these studies and I'd previously spoken about the Gabriella study, which is basically an observational study looking at kids who grow up on or off farms. Not just
Speaker 1: a few, we're talking thousands of children in the study in Europe.
Speaker 0: Yes. Thousands of children in that study who grow up on or off farms and have lower rates of asthma, eczema and hay fever allergies, and that is strongly associated with the consumption of raw milk. And that sort of finding, The lower incidence of asthma, eczema and allergies, which are all this kind of atopic spectrum, is consistently found in the literature. At that British Columbia Heartshare website, I found probably 10 plus references to that. And then you go deeper in the literature, there are interventional studies.
And I'm just rambling because
Speaker 1: I love this. Because I can
Speaker 0: say it. I can talk about it and I want the audience to know this evidence is out there. I don't mean to,
Speaker 1: to talk over you, but there
Speaker 0: there are there's there's An interventional study in humans, which is a 12 week study done with 24 people, where these people were living I think they were living on a farm and drinking raw milk every day. They looked at the microbiome of these people and they saw increased microbial diversity, which
Speaker 1: is generally associated with increased gut health, quote unquote. And decreased inflammation?
Speaker 0: Yes. And they saw increased levels of short chain fatty acids like valerate in the gut from one intervention, which was drinking raw milk. And then there are other studies suggesting that fermented milk products increase glucose tolerance or improve glucose tolerance. That's essentially saying that they improve diabetes or prediabetes by lessening insulin resistance. So the literature is vast.
And then there's multiple studies looking at very technical specific markers of T cell and immune function. They call it I think it's FOX OP3 or I can find the actual genetic, loci that they talk about, but They talk about T cell maturation being affected by raw milk and you think, okay, this is really I can say this, but this is the kind of thing that the FDA won't let a raw milk farmer say. It's a medical food.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 0: And but it doesn't even I think medical food is not even the right
Speaker 1: You know what? We can find a bit a bridge of peace here with the FDA.
Speaker 0: Do you
Speaker 1: know where it is? Is anybody having that what's the bridge of peace? The bridge of peace It's mammalian raw milk from humans.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Breastfeeding.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: They have a list that goes on and on. The USDA starts The food pyramid talk on their USDA recommended food guidelines by breastfeeding. Please breastfeed your babies. The benefits are fantastic. Well, guess what?
Humans are mammals. We are described, defined by the fact that we lactate and breastfeed our young. That's what mammalian means. Mammals means You lactate and you you you you burst your babies.
Speaker 0: Decreases my sicknesses and my child's sicknesses. Check out this review on our grass fed colostrum from hardened soil supplements, also known as immuno milk, something we talk about in this podcast. Jennifer says, this seriously helps. I take them when I feel like I'm coming down with something. And I have a 1 year old in day care that was getting sick constantly.
My 1 year old would come home with sniffles and I would take these and it significantly improved the amount of time that I was out sick. I definitely recommend this product. I've even started giving it to my 1 year old in a smaller dose, and it seems to have improved their health and decreased their incidence of sickness as well. As we talk about in this podcast with Mark, colostrum, which is the 1st milk from cows, there's plenty for the calves, but the extra is used to freeze dry into our grass Lead colostrum and hardened soil is an incredibly powerful supplement for humans even in moderate doses. There are peptides like colostridin, which have been shown to decrease respiratory illnesses in children and improve recovery from sickness.
And there are peptides in colostrum that can help with muscle recovery, Exercise, soreness, and overall immune function. So I think colostrum is gaining traction in the health space now and it should be because it's an incredibly powerful 1st food for mammals and humans definitely benefit from colostrum from cows. As we talk about in this podcast, there's a lot of overlap between mammalian milks and the benefits of those. So check out our grass fed colostrum at heart and soil.co. Our mission there is to help you reclaim your birthright to radical optimal health.
Speaker 1: Well, cows, goats, sheep, horses, camels, reindeer, all the other mammals, very, very similar In their Ramak structures to humans, very similar. So there's there's no argument whatsoever from FDA, USDA, World Health Organization, every physician in the world says breastfeed your babies. It's fantastic because it does all these wonderful things. Guess what? Take that rubber stamp it on other mammals' milk that comes to you.
Except for maybe a couple things like Specific antibodies that mom might give the baby, but everything else is very similar. So it's a bridge of peace, but at the same, it's a bridge of war. Because, boy, if you could make raw milk safe, which is what we do here at Raw Farm because we do all this advanced testing and wonderful things that Use FDA approved technologies that are rapid, cheap, inexpensive, and accurate to make sure you don't have pathogens in the mouth so the normal people that don't have A really robust immune system can drink it and thrive. And you get this one of so it's really at a weird place where I have to be where I can't really speak directly to it, but I can talk indirectly through breast Milk. And that's really a powerful thing.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, there's some kind of funny there's some kind of funny memes going around now on social media about humans drinking breast milk in adulthood. And, I don't know. Yeah, one of my friends kind of talks about that on their social media. I mean I've you know, It's an interesting thing.
I think if somebody handed me a glass of human breast milk, I would try.
Speaker 1: I'd do it in a second.
Speaker 0: I would try. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: When my kids were being breastfed, my wife and I were in the shower, I got sprayed all the time with milk. I tell you, I had some. It was delicious. Let me tell you. It was great.
Speaker 0: I think it's a nutrient for human. And I'm actually I'm kinda surprised that maybe the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be so excited about this. But I'm kind of surprised that there's no therapy for humans that's made from human breast milk. I think that would be a very powerful gut therapy. But thankfully, this is an interesting point You can't
Speaker 1: cut in breast milk though.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that's true. There's no money in it. There's no money in it.
Speaker 1: No money in it. But this is
Speaker 0: an interesting point because I think that when I talk to you about raw milk, their first question is, is it safe to drink? Why is it illegal? You addressed that a little bit and I thank you for telling that history, which is really kind of the genesis or the beginning of why it was pasteurized.
Speaker 1: So important. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And the other thing they say is, Why would I drink milk from a cow? And we're gonna address the first question even more later in this podcast because I've seen how you make this. Yeah. And I've seen I mean, yesterday I got to go down to the milking barn. And I got to see those cows going through the showers and and how their udders are cleaned multiple times.
I got to see how clean those udders are when they're milked. And I know all of your testing processes. I want to get into all of that safety stuff in a moment. Right. But let's let's dig in a little deeper about this, I guess homology between cow's milk and human milk.
Because I think the other response people have is, why would I drink milk from a cow? I'm a human. Cow's milk is for baby cows. But what I've seen in literature, like I just enumerated, is that there are so many studies that show benefits to drinking multiple other mammalian species' milks, camel milk. So I think there's support in the literature for drinking milk across species throughout the lifespan.
Speaker 1: I think there's a couple of things to touch on. And this really goes deep but it really goes directly into the subject matter. For the last 14 years I've attended the International Milk Genomics Consortium Conferences And these are conferences supported by dollars from dairy, my neighbors' dairies that pasteurize their milk to try to research milk and understand it more. Unfortunately I'm the only farmer that attends those meetings along with a 120, 130 PhDs at study milk. I'll be going to our to Ireland in about 6 weeks to attend my 14th and I'll be the only farmer there.
There may be one that sneaks in but I'll be the only farmer there listening and reporting back to Our Ramak producers are about the benefits of this. What's really really interesting if you dig deep into the science of the genomics of milk, you look at the history of mankind with domesticated animals, And then you look at the most recent information, which is powerful, about the human genome and the contribution of bacterial Material DNA to complete our genome? Think about your iPhone. It sits there really stupid without apps. That's the hardware.
It's the electricity, the format, the channels the electricity goes through. But without the software, it doesn't function or do anything for you. You have to get the app for it. Right? Well, the app for our bodies is bacterial diversity.
And so you look at the human genome you look at the work that Bonnie Dazler's done and MIT and Princeton and and the the Department of Energy when they looked at what we were genetically as humans. Yeah, we've got 23,000 genes from mom and dad that makes us look like you and I, but to complete our genome we've got billions of trillions of bacteria in And it's diversity that contribute at the cellular level, communicating, saying, hey, idiot, do this because you're stupid without me. So we are bacterial, We're bacteriosapiens, you know, we really, really are. Bacteriosapiens. And so we have to embrace bacteria.
The entire ecosystem of the world is Bathed in bacteria. It's the 1st food of life on earth. I mean, it's the 1st organism on life was was the archaebacteria, and still in our gut today, by the way. The archaebacteria is phenomenal. And so you really, really need to not get rid of bacteria, but embrace the good.
And this is not only good bacteria, but the food that feeds it. So if you look at that, why are cross species consumption of raw milk? Domestication of raw milk has contributed to our genome for 10 or 15000 years because we cohabitated so closely with these animals, but they're not foreign to us. They may be becoming more and more foreign because they're so separate now. For the last 100 years or so we've started to separate ourselves.
But for so long the genome of the 2 species or whatever species we were Co habitating in domesticated, you know, closeness we actually have so much of the genome shared with the animals around us Genetically as humans. So that's my answer to that is in fact we forget the fact that just a few generations ago we were starving And we needed food. And you know what? This is whole food. It was there.
We had an animal. We had sunshine and water and grass. We were good to go. That's my answer to that one.
Speaker 0: I love it. And I saw that when I was in Africa. You know, I went to live with, I went to spend time and hunt with the Hadza. And they're a hunter gatherer culture. And they they haven't done animal husbandry.
They don't have animals for milk.
Speaker 1: But their neighbors, the the Masai and
Speaker 0: the Dakota,
Speaker 1: I think it's the
Speaker 0: the toga, Excuse me. They have domesticated animals and they have goats and cows and they're always getting raw milk. The Messiah, famously known for drinking raw milk with blood, something that I've tried. It's it's really good. We haven't had any raw milk with blood on this trip, but maybe the next time we go to Africa.
But I I there is so much, Symbiotic, so much of a symbiotic relationship, so much of a parallel relationship between our historical humanness, our our evolution as humans and animals over the last 10000 to 15000 years. And then you mentioned archaea. I mean, that type of bacteria, I believe, is also in every cell in our body as a mitochondria.
Speaker 1: I don't know that, but I do know that in our gut microbiome, it is there. It's foundational. Yeah. And it was literally at the lineage, you look at the way our species And all the genealogy where it comes from, it comes from the core. It's the beginning.
And it's still in our bodies today. By the way, they're injured a little bit by antibiotics, so we gotta be careful with what we do The virus.
Speaker 0: I think we have to be very careful what
Speaker 1: we do with antibiotics. Resistance and stuff. Yeah. Because first form of life on Earth is bacteria, and it adjusts and overcomes challenges. Right?
You attack it. You may kill a bunch of them, but one's gonna survive. It's gonna be the super bacteria that no longer is killed by antibiotics. So we gotta be very cautious about what we kill because we're gonna have survivors that are super that aren't gonna be able to, you know, Be be killed. And we don't wanna kill bacteria.
We wanna support the good. This is
Speaker 0: such an important point and it kinda gets back to this germ theory and terrain theory, which is has been, I think, concepts that are misconstrued, but I'll I'll just briefly talk about my concept of this. It's the idea when I was in medical school, People, you know, the sort of medical paradigm was that there was a lot of fear around MRSA, Methicillin resistant staph aureus or Vancomycin resistant enterococcus. There was a lot of talk of superbugs and there was a lot of work in the hospital to keep things cleaner of these bugs. And I think that's fine. But generally those efforts were were mostly futile because bacteria are there no matter what we do.
And I I don't think Western medicine has really fully embraced the concept that you it's very difficult to get rid of bacteria. The way to balance things on the human skin or in our guts is not to get rid of bacteria, it's to support the ones that will out compete the bad.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 0: And that's the most important thing. It's really that's more of a terrain model. Yeah. With regard to virulent organisms, the idea that it's the health of the host that determines how susceptible we will be to a MRSA, to a VRE, I am a 100% sure that I was exposed to Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus in medical school and residency, but I never had a problem with it.
Speaker 1: If you take it to the next level, How do you encourage good bacteria?
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: You feed them properly. Food feeds good bacteria. Bad foods feed bad bacteria. And the competitive balance between them is based on whole food nutrition. If you start throwing in things with preservatives, GMO with Roundup ready stuff that's a Toxic antibiotic.
Sterile foods that don't contribute. Antibiotics for sure. So long shelf life is the opposite of what you need for gut life. And our industrial paradigm is made that basically cheap booze, long shelf life. We're the MRE type.
Yeah. You know? That's not what we want. We don't need, We don't want, we shouldn't have in our bodies not having the right inoculum of good bacteria and not having the food to feed the good bacteria And then suppressing good bacteria by encouraging the growth of bad bacteria. And that's done by these behaviors we have which is sugar, high levels of sugar screw up the gut with yeast Formation and so on and so forth.
And then, you know, the food that we have, the whole food nutrition actually supports good bacteria. That's the way you encourage that population to balance.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I love that. There's so much information in food that I think is far beyond our comprehension. Nutritional science and Western medicine in general wants to be reductionist.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And we just want to look at a food like this, like a raw milk fermented kefir and think, I can I can be reductionist? I can pull the good things out of this. And I think that is such a misguided perspective because when I look at this, I see nearly infinite complexity.
Speaker 1: It is infinite. It's infinite. You've defined infinite with raw milk.
Speaker 0: And especially with kefir. I mean, it's nearly infinite complexity. You would need, you know, machine learning models to understand the complexity of the human gut. When there's 40 to 60% dark matter in the gut, meaning that we don't even understand what 40 to 60% of that species in the gut are doing. And then you look at a food like this that is natural, quote unquote, yes, this is information that is so evolutionarily consistent for humans.
And I'll just add this, that in talking to all of these people and what I've seen working with, you know, raw milk and being interested in the last year, they this is gonna sound, I think, overly simplified, but it's it's entirely true. I've I've not seen any food that is as healing and I mean that word sincerely healing for the human gut as raw milk. But let's
Speaker 1: let's let's really drive on that. Healing for. That means there was damage before. You're Resurrecting, recovering, healing, making things better. What is the role of raw milk?
It's the first fruit of life. A baby's born without A digestive tract that's fully formed. Doesn't make its own enzymes. Doesn't have bacterial diversity. The the mucosal lining is not there.
What creates it?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: What is the worker bees? What's the what's the stuff that goes in there to make that happen? Colostrum, Breast milk. Those are raw milks. The infinite matrix of life.
And that's why it's so healing is because that's what built it to start with. That's such an important thing that people need to understand. If you understand the beginning of life, you understand what builds it and and reinforces it, protects it, nourishes it, and directs it, You really understand what can correct it later and help redirect it back into the normal course when it's screwed up. I tell you that's so important to understand, birthing, c section, breastfeeding, Vaginal birth, health of mom, health of the dad, hisses hugs all that biosphere stuff around the baby, bathing, not bathing, vaccination all that stuff And the impacts on it, so critical to understanding how you recover later when you've got things messed up because that's how you built it to begin with.
Speaker 0: I mean, I wonder in some ways if, You know, we go through lives, like you said. We get colostrum from our moms. The the baby calves get colostrum from the cows here. And we got to see some of the baby calves, you know. We saw the the pregnant cow mothers who were gonna give birth in the next week or so over there.
And we got to see a few baby calves. They got to see the calves milking with the colostrum. But and and then at some point in our lives, our guts almost invariably get messed up. I mean, we all I don't think many of us get through completely safely. I took antibiotics as an as an adult, as a child.
In in some ways I think that maybe maybe raw milk from mammals, whether it's cows or goats or horses or, you know, who knows, is a return to breastfeeding for us, you know. This it makes sense, just philosophically I'm just kind of exploring this. If you return to that first food, it would make sense intuitively that this would be a great way to heal your gut. Can we talk a little bit about colostrum?
Speaker 1: I think you're absolutely right on with that, Doc. Doc, you just nailed it in terms of really returning to the foundational food that Started your gut to begin with. Right. Why not go back to the building blocks that started it all?
Speaker 0: Right. And I've seen that I've seen that anecdotally. An anecdote is valuable. It's not a double blind research, You know, blinded, you know, randomized controlled trial, but I've seen it. I've seen people come up to me so many times and say they had small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, dysbiosis of some sort, and and raw milk was really the thing.
Because I have seen people run round and round, Mark, trying to fix SIBO. And they do herbal antibiotics. They do over the counter probiotics, which are not as complex as this in any way, shape, There's no
Speaker 1: food to feed the probiotic in the in the over counter.
Speaker 0: And and I mean and the complexity of this is infinitely, you know, greater. And then they return to raw milk and they and they say, I'm pretty sure it was the raw milk that that was the thing that ultimately fixed their small intestinal bacteria.
Speaker 1: Raw milk according to the International Milk Genomics People. Raw milk does 3 things, Protects, nourishes, and directs. When the baby has left the mama's, belly in the birth Berken Allan, the umbilical cord is cut. There's no longer direct connection to mom but the milk from the breast continues that connection through All kinds of interesting things, protecting, nourishing, and directing. Really powerful.
It's no longer it's not like the baby's separate. It's very much A couplet to the mom but it's connected to the breast and what's going on and it's a two way relationship where the baby expresses a saliva onto the to the nipple, the nipple In in the in the the canal and in the in the breast actually says that baby needs antibodies to this particular bacteria which it's having a little tough time with. Creates antibodies in the mom, Expresses it in the milk to the baby, so it goes back and forth. Wow. And so protection, direction, nutrition, all those things, Pretty powerful.
And if you wanna correct something later in life where you got things messed up, go back to that. Yeah. It's really a powerful thing. And kefir is that plus so much more because the bacterial populations are just huge versus fairly low populations coming from Ramak, from mom.
Speaker 0: I want to talk about the kefir in a moment, but let's talk about colostrum because that's the first one.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right? So what is colostrum? It's not milk. It does not.
Milk comes from the lacteal gland, inside of the mammal. Lacteal glands lactate. They create milk. Colostrum is before that. It's actually a collection of the antibodies in the serums from blood that circulates to the body that then collects.
And there's always so much that's made and it's expressed out through the breast. It looks like it might be milk, but it's kind of whitish yellow, sticky, The creamy, fatty material that's coming from the blood system of mom. And that transfers the antibodies and the immune system to the baby that doesn't have one yet, Or has very little. And as a result, that first is so important because the leaky gut in the newborn seals up, just like calves. And so you absorb that, it gets right in the bloodstream and then the milk comes in and you start establishing the microbiome and you actually have the immune system proper which is the gut.
80% of the immune system's in the gut. That's the largest immune system organ in the body is the gut. Right? Yes.
Speaker 0: And how long does the colostrum last? At least in cow?
Speaker 1: Just a few days.
Speaker 0: A few days.
Speaker 1: 4 to 6, 7 days. You'll start high volume of it and then it becomes less and less. Mhmm. And you see just a little bit of it, 5 or Stays. Mhmm.
Speaker 0: And then the milk comes And
Speaker 1: then milk comes on hard. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Now if people are curious about this, and this goes back to what we were saying previously about the benefits of raw milk across species. There are peptides in bovine colostrum. One of them is called colostridin, And peptides are small protein molecules less than 50 amino acids Yeah. That have been studied in all sorts of conditions and found to be beneficial for humans. I know of 1 study specifically looking at Alzheimer's disease and the benefits of colostrinin from colostrinin and Alzheimer's disease and, you know, I guess the decline of mental capacities in humans.
There are many other studies, I think there are hundreds if not over one Thousand studies on colostrum from cows being beneficial in humans at the level of the immune system, at the level of respiratory tract infections, which is something that raw milk has also been shown that, probably Yeah. In in kids, at the level of the gut microbiome, at the level of, you said, leaky gut at the level of gut damage. So Colostrum, very beneficial for humans, from cows or other animals. And then the raw milk is also beneficial. So it's really it's just a really incredible food.
So why don't you just describe what happens here on the farm? So this is apparently we are in a Guinness Book of World Records location here. I've heard, I believe this is the largest raw farm on the planet.
Speaker 1: This is the largest raw milk dairy in the world on mother nature's earth, Right here and it was formed 23 years ago, as an outgrowth of my paramedic experience. It's, you know, being a paramedic can be a pretty intense kind of thing. You're seeing people the worst times of their lives dialing 911 saying help me, I'm gonna die, right? And you can see the diversity of emergencies asthma, allergies, gut problems, cardiac arrest, drowning, shooting, stabbings, rape, you name it We saw it in 17 years about 15,000 paramedic calls. So I was kind of emotionally exhausted after that and that was 23 years ago.
I'm 62 now But from when I was 21 years old, first certified as a paramedic all the way through 36, 37, I practiced as a paramedic, I taught paramedic medicine. So from that experience, I learned that it's really important to get down a knee and touch people and say, you're gonna be okay. I'm here to help you.
Speaker 0: You know
Speaker 1: what I mean? And touch people. Well, I didn't lose that as a farmer when my I retired and my grandparents had a 1,000 acres of ground out here and said, it's yours, and they passed away. And my brothers didn't wanna farm. I said, you know what?
I wanna touch people with our food.
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 1: And I I I wanna I don't wanna be serving a processor. I wanna serve people. And I didn't know what I was gonna do but I knew I needed to do that. And I started visiting farmers markets, started listening to people and I did not know that Altadena, That big big dairy in Los Angeles had just sold the Dean's Food, the Swissa, and they produced Ramak for 40 years. And I did not know that in 1999, they had actually closed their doors in in serving raw milk.
So there was a big vacuum created Yeah. That people in LA wanted their raw milk and they were the Certified raw milk from 18/93 that doctor, Coit had done, they were the last certified dairy in the world to operate. So here I come, I'm born As a dairy farming operation into that vacuum and I just had to listen and I the people were saying we want your milk raw I said tell me why. And I started listening, I started researching. And, we started we started doing that.
And my wife and I initially packed up a bunch of I just checked the back of our Suburban, drove to LA, went to a little place called The Garage with James Stewart in Venice Beach. And we drove into that, That little alley in the back streets of Venice Beach in LA and the garage was open and there was a 100 people standing there saying, thank you, thank you for coming. And I couldn't even get out of the car and people were grabbing milk and putting 10 and $20 bills in the car and just saying thank you come back next week. And they told me all these wonderful things that they need to rama for in their lives that they'd missed for 6 months because Altadena was gone. And I looked at my wife and I said, We've got to do something about this.
What the heck is all this about? And it was a awakening. So on the 3 hour drive back home, I contacted my son. I said, let's build a small kurimos, get a permit. Let's get going.
And we actually were in Whole Foods in 90 days. 90 days? 90 days. They said, how fast can you drive down here? We need that product in our stores now.
People are crying for
Speaker 0: it. Wow.
Speaker 1: That's how fast it was. We started distributing and, a $1,000,000 market the 1st year and it's one of those things where serving people, serving humanity and listening to humanity Is a super purpose filled kind of thing and it it really begets goodness. And that is really what we do here is we serve humanity And we also share what we've learned in raw milk, the technologies and practices and standards through the raw milk institute. We've trained farmers, thousands of farmers nationally and internationally in Canada, Europe, all over the place with these standards so that other people can, you know, have it. It's not just selfishly for us, but it's everybody can share in this.
So it's really been An act of purpose, passion, it's exciting. It's good to see the next generation excited about it, taking over and do things. But I'll tell you what, The most reinforcing thing I get is feedback from people that say this is right on. I love it.
Speaker 0: So cool. I mean, It's almost it's moving to hear you talk about that.
Speaker 1: It's moving to me. It's hard to talk sometimes. I get emotionally upset by it.
Speaker 0: I just I think that the the desire and the response you get from people is clear evidence and validation of the benefit of this food for humans. 100%. And when I think about that in contradistinction to the way that raw milk is characterized in
Speaker 1: the mainstream. Well, let's give credit to that for a second. Remember that divergent road? Right. RamUp for people, RamUp for the processor.
There's a whole set of standards over here set up for processor standards. They never test for pathogens. In fact, 25 to 35% of Tim, the PubMed says that milk has pathogens. So when the FDA says don't drink that milk, they're saying that milk. They're not acknowledging our milk.
And they're correct. You probably wouldn't want to if you have a weakened immune system. I agree with them on that. But I hope that in the next few years the FDA will start to acknowledge State of California standards and other states to produce, Robert. The standard for human consumption because the data is very clear.
PubMed data shows That it's remarkably safe. We don't find pathogens in it because we don't ever commingle it with my neighbor's milk. It's my milk I take personal responsibility. You've seen the The kinds of practices in the Utter, clean udder, healthy cows, rapid chilling, those kinds of practices result in very, very low risk milk. Safe milk.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And so that's the story. But unfortunately, the one that's echoed in the echo chamber, the one that's politically expedient, the one that preserved The, the the the retail market shelf and the processor's interest is that milk that's dirty. And we're not talking about that milk. We're talking about the milk that's really clean, Intact, fully, all the proteins and enzymes and bacteria and everything, an intact unprocessed whole directly from cows that are healthy. So it's it's that's the story.
It's like, what standards are you talking about?
Speaker 0: Exactly. Completely different products. Totally. We drove by so we went to the creamery yesterday. And on the
Speaker 1: way back, we drove by a, I don't know if
Speaker 0: I would say mainstream, quote unquote Yeah. Virtual dairy. Conventional dairy farm. And it looked nothing like this. We'll we'll put some b roll in here.
But you know, I look out, I see green grass. I want you to talk about the milking barn.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: But it was all dirt.
Speaker 1: I don't think those cows are fed any grass, maybe a little hay. And my I was told that they're they're pretty much milked by robots. Well, they are. In fact, my neighbor down the street here has a a beautiful robotic milking machine. And it's fantastic.
It's it's it's a state of the art fantastic thing. It's not good. It's not bad. What it is, it's different. It serves a different process.
It serves a different master. It gets paid differently. They don't have people coming to visit them saying, I want your milk raw. They have, maybe a science student that might come and say, how'd that robot work? But they don't have People coming in saying I wanna see where milk comes from that I feed my children with emotion in their faces about how compelled they are.
So really, I'm the vice president of the California Dairy Campaign and I'm the only raw guy in the room. There's a couple organic guys, but most of them are all conventional. And they suffer. They work their butts off For low milk prices and these loose standards. And it's a hell of a problem they're having because as hard as they work, They still can't catch up.
Where we're able to set our own milk prices because we add innate value to the milk because of the care, Consideration, the testing, the conditions for our cows, brings value to the farmer and the consumer. Think about this for a second. One of the world one of the nation's highest suicide rates. Now you're a psychiatrist. Think about this for a second.
You're on the farm. You don't ever see anybody. The The only people you see are bill collectors. Your balance in your checking account is rarely above 0, sometimes under, most of the time under. Bankruptcies, very high rate.
You're the generation that's gonna fail because your grandparents suffered through it and your parents did. And you're a guy that's gonna not make it. And you never get anybody that comes says hi or thank you. You can't set your milk prices. You're on a roller coaster from hell on this this milk price thing Versus the farmer that has sustainable pay, hug and kiss from moms that come and say, thank you So much do more of what you're doing, you're fantastic.
Connect 2 of my kids. Entirely different psychological, emotional perspective. Super high suicide rates and bankruptcies Versus sustainable, thriving, happy. And that's just not my story. That's the story of every raw milk producer I know in North America.
So it's a paradigm of goodness. It really, really is. Raw goodness for the farmer and the consumer.
Speaker 0: I mean, yeah. I mean, your farm, other farms that are eating raw milk, these are these are this is like a spiritual experience for me. Yeah. I mean, this is creating this is creating life giving food for humans in a way that's that's very unique because, You know, I was thinking about this yesterday as we were on the farm recording some content. Raw milk cannot be sold in stores in 37 states?
Speaker 1: Something like that, yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. There's only 13 states. I mean, This is a food that is clearly beneficial for humans. There are so many studies to show this. And that can be produced, and you are really the innovator here.
I'm sure there are other raw farms that do it well, but, you know, I've seen yours and I think it's fair of me to say that what you're doing here sets the standard for cleanliness, and and safety with regard to raw milk. And so you and other raw farms that maybe you even spoken to or taught are showing that it can be done safely. Correct? And yet, the majority of places in the United States, humans do not have access to this food Or they need to go to a farm, which is inconvenient for them.
Speaker 1: They can't just get
Speaker 0: it in store. Or they need to know somewhere. Or they need to jump through all sorts of hoops or some places you can't get it at all, because of these sort of anachronisms from over a 100 years ago in terms of safety.
Speaker 1: A short little story I think tells it all. Iowa, We at Raw Milk Institute trained a farmer there, her name is Esther. Wonderful young gal who developed a raw milk farm and selling through cow shares Raw milk in Iowa is completely illegal. Mhmm.
Speaker 0: But she
Speaker 1: was having a cow share, which means that she boards animals and she does gets paid for compensated for doing the work to support the animals. People come get their milk from their own cow. Anyway, she was frustrated by that. She got a hold of the legislature, and she started working hard last year. And she got the bill a bill to to change the law.
So now Ramulk is legal in Iowa. Okay. What happened in Iowa was very interesting. The Ag Extension was asked to do supportive work to train the farmers. And they asked me to put together a slide deck to explain the new standards because they used Raw Milk Institute standards in Iowa which could really be awesome to have safe, clean raw milk.
They had been getting a lot of phone calls from farmers saying my milk prices are low and I could make more money on raw milk. I was scared to death at saying no this is not the same practices we have trained the farmers. The AccuSign she got reached out to me and I had a really good talk with them. They said we're gonna bring you in as an expert to train these farmers on how to do raw milk properly. I presented my slide deck to them, about 20 slides, they said there's no way you can give those slide decks, we can't support that.
We can't give any nutritional benefits to Ramak. We can't even even though it's all PubMed, we can't compare Ramak for pasteurization to Ramak no no. They canceled the presentation I was supposed to speak at because of the fact that it was so disruptive that the paradigm shift that had been voted in in their legislature When it came to the real grassroots of the market jealousy of the processors that didn't want to see the farmers well trained, one of the things that shocked me the most was We would never want the farmers to have their own on farm lab and we, all of our the raw McDonoughman, most of them have an on farm lab to check to see how clean their milk is to know all the time what's going on. They didn't want to have their farmers so enlightened and empowered. So, there's a lot of learning that needs to take place and we're continuing to work with the Ag extension there but the bottom line is it's real.
The fact that The paradigm that's been indoctrinated has political inertia behind it and protectionism and all kinds of stuff and Unfortunately, the farmers are suffering and the consumers are suffering. In our situation, the farmers aren't suffering. They're thriving and the consumers are doing extremely well. So we've got a lot of work to do.
Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah. Now, do you have an engineering background? I mean, I walk around this farm and your daughter was showing me the farm. There are so many things on this farm that you have innovated. Yep.
I mean, there's there's a machine over there that you built
Speaker 1: that Well, my 1st job out of high school, I was I was a commercial welder in a mine.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: So I have a shade tree mechanic of so sorts and I I built I built this hanger. I built this this door we're sitting at. This all this welding here, all this engineering has to be. So I just reverse engineer everything I see. I just build it a little stronger because I don't want I don't know the numbers, so I just build everything twice as big and it's all good.
Speaker 0: And this milk barn, this is this is the only milk barn
Speaker 1: I didn't build that, but I designed it.
Speaker 0: But you designed this. So tell people about the milk barn because this, I think, is It's kind of the beginning of the intentionality of the process here at Raw Farm. And I think this I mean, based on what I've seen, that's That's a key component of how this milk here is so special and clean.
Speaker 1: It's not perfect but it's darn good.
Speaker 0: Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: There's more improvements we'll make in the future but it works really, really well. We operated another barn for 17 years here and it didn't really do a good job of it was more of a conventional type barn it had some other issues but, We designed after 17 years the optimal kinds of conditions we needed for the cows to be in to have the optimal kind of milk, to have clean the cows, Super rapidly, super cold milk and store it well and with lots of hot water and everything else. So this came as a result of 17 years of Exhaustive work we did milking cows here and serving the raw milk consumers and doing the testing and everything. We took all that, made it to a long list of things we wanted to do better, Engineered it and built it and we did not build that barn. I had it built by a commercial.
But at the same time it's fully permitted and everything. We were the ones that sat around for a year and a half, 2 years to design it to make it had all the elements. It has a couple showers. It has a automatic shower which showers the cows, which they love here in California because it's so hot.
Speaker 0: From the bottom. Yeah. It rinses
Speaker 1: down there. And as a result, guess what? We don't have any belly flies on our cows because the worms can't the the, what do you call it? The eggs can't, implant and read in the belly of the cows. So they've got that to stay in the clean.
That's not terribly unique. Other farms have that too. But then we have a 2nd area where the cows can stand next to physically look at them and wash them again if there's any manure anywhere near them right before they get milked. So there's a parlor, it's a pre parlor and then they go into the proper parlor, which is actually very clean at that time, Where they have their udders completely prepared and dried and make sure that they're ready to go, which is done literally. We're milking 10 hours a day, twice a day, so 20 hours a day We're milking those cows out there but they come in in batches of 200 at a time so we're not milking all 900 at a time.
We're producing close to 50,000 gallons of milk a week and More than 50% of that's going into a bottle the rest of it's made in buttercream, cheese, kefir and other products are all raw always and being served in over 500 stores throughout California and Thousand stores nationally in our cheese. Although, unfortunately, we're not able to get enough cheese out because they're always running out of cheese because everybody likes our truly raw cheese. It's not fake raw. This is actually raw cheese.
Speaker 0: I wanna talk about that. So, yeah, let's talk about truly raw cheese. So I got to see well, first of all, I wanna say that I got to see the milking process. And I got to milk those cows by hand yesterday and see how clean their udders are. And I got of the things that was interesting that Kaylee, your daughter, was showing me on the tour was that when they're cleaning the udders of these cows, the the milk men, the guys over there who are super cool and nice, they have individual rags for every single cow, right?
And so they're cleaning 1 cow's udders, they have a rag,
Speaker 1: they have another rag for
Speaker 0: the next cow. There's so much intentionality around the process there. And then all of that milk is collected and put into these stainless steel tanks, which I think are 6,000 gallon tanks. And And if I'm understanding the process correctly, it's held there for
Speaker 1: a day while it's tested. That's a batch. That's a batch. And that's testing. So it's tested there.
It receives a A born on date and has a certificate of analysis that knows what's in that particular 6,000 gallons a month. It becomes a batch. It's identified as pathogen free.
Speaker 0: Because and you said it's tested. There is this representative sample you're telling me about where there is a 2 minutes process where you are drawing milk out of that 6,000 gallons as it is being circulated. Exactly.
Speaker 1: And as it is being circulated, it allows a little bit of milk from all over the tank Right.
Speaker 0: To get into your test tube. And then you're looking for levels of coliforms, levels of bacteria, levels of harmful bacteria, levels of Coliforms
Speaker 1: aren't hand, harmful, but what they are is indicators Right. Of perhaps Some unsanitary condition. All of them by themselves are fine.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But they're an indicator that maybe something's not clean or some biofilm or something. So we watch that. That's kind of the Watching for the haystack conditions which might indicate there's a needle in the haystack, that's what the coliforms are. The needles of the haystack are the pathogens. Right.
And so we test for pathogens as well on each Gotcha. So you got pathogens and conditions double checked every time. And then it goes after it's been after a day there where it's kind of waiting to
Speaker 0: get the representative results back, It's clean, it goes to the creamery and then cheese is made one of the things.
Speaker 1: Yes, and I will say that we are pioneering and, it will be something that's, available to other Ramak producers as well, but we are the pioneer leader on this. To that that 8 to 24 hour period Will be shrunk to 3 hours in the next 6 months. Wow. The path the rapidness of approved testing for pathogens is on a rapid scale right now to change. It's less expensive, it's more accurate, and it's quicker.
So the speed of technology is helping us.
Speaker 0: That's great. And I wanna back up one moment because you told me something that I thought was amazing. That when the milk comes out of the cow's udder, just like when the milk comes out of a mom's breast, it's body temperature.
Speaker 1: Has to be.
Speaker 0: 99 degrees. It's not refrigerated to the breast. No. Mom would be very upset. Yeah.
It would
Speaker 1: not be good. And then within 2 minutes of leaving that udder, it has chilled to 37 degrees. 99 degrees Down to the mid thirties. Mid thirties. We're targeting 35 or so.
Within 2 minutes. So super clean, super quick, super cold. And that's what gives you that 21 day shelf life and it also does other things if for some weird reason and I haven't seen it happen but if it was to happen That a pathogen was to escape and get into that milk. We do know that that Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. Coli, those 3 pathogens die off In cold over 14 days.
They die off by 1 to 2 logs, 101, 102, over 14 days. They don't grow. Right? So cold chilling is actually a critical control. And that's why we always say, keep it cold, keep it cold.
If you don't want to keep it cold, fine, acidify it. Right. But the bottom line is we are pathogen free to begin with. But this is just another layer of safety as well just knowing the physiology what happens with, you know, Bacteria double their count every 22 minutes at body temperature.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So I mean they are gonna become cheaper like quick. Right. Double double double double double every 22 minutes At 80, 90 degrees. So that's why we keep it really cold where it basically puts it to sleep puts the bacteria to sleep. You still have the diversity of beneficial bacteria
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: At low levels and that's why it's fresh milk for For several weeks.
Speaker 0: And it was interesting to me that there you were telling me there are over 700 species of bacteria that are beneficial. This is like I mean, I've never seen a There's no comparison between a probiotic capsule on the shelf and a raw milk product like this. No.
Speaker 1: But there are over 700 species of bacteria in a raw milk. I will say, this Particular bottle, I have no idea what the diversity is. But I do know this, when you sample this bottle and every other bottle, the average is about 700 different kinds of bacteria over time You find it in a bottle of milk. And that's similar. It's wild.
Right. It's it's not in fact, Doctor. Bruce German, we must re wild our gut. Right. Not my quote, Doctor.
Bruce German, who I very much respect from the International Hemph Genomics Consortium at UC Davis. We must rewild our gut he means Bring on the diversity of bacteria. Occuply all the spaces with beneficial bacteria or those that are supposed to be there. Maybe they're not done the Pseudomonas may not be terribly beneficial but they are Occupiers of the gut that play a wonderful role. And so do that and then feed them well.
Now you don't have any spaces for bad bacteria. Right?
Speaker 0: Or if you do it at very,
Speaker 1: very low levels and you dominate by goodness.
Speaker 0: That's what we talked about earlier.
Speaker 1: The fact
Speaker 0: that you have to not get rid of the bacteria. You have to crowd them out with a good one.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Exactly.
Speaker 0: That's an important piece. So within 2 minutes it's cold, it's tested, it's brought to the creamery and then the cheese is made, the kefir is made. Let's Not cheese because this was educational to me. I've been to the grocery stores and in my social media, I've talked about the fact that raw cheese is great because Raw cheese is available in most states,
Speaker 1: or at least It's legal in America.
Speaker 0: Cheese that says raw on the label. But tell me about raw cheese and what real raw cheese is.
Speaker 1: When we started making raw cheeses, cheeses back in 2000, 2001, We want it to be a raw product. We want it to be live. We want it to have these benefits of raw milk. And it's interesting because We realized the more research we did was raw was not defined by law. Pasteurization was but raw was not.
Now in Canada they do something called Thermalize which defines it a little bit more clearly but in the United States we don't have that. So if you don't own a pasteurizer license Which is a permit you have to get and be trained to actually own. And that pasteurization process is certified. If you don't own that, you don't have that, you're not expected for it, you can do whatever you want with the milk and it's not pasteurized. Even the milk was brought up above the temperature of pasteurization, it's still raw because it ain't pasteurized because that's a certified process.
So you got all these guys going out there buying cheap milk and because the market is hot for raw, we're gonna cook it a little bit because they have to because the cheap Milk has very high levels of bacteria and pathogens and all kinds of stuff. They've got to bring it up pretty high because the cultures they add won't work. Right. It's that they're displaced. They're out competed by the junk that's in the garbage milk.
We use super clean raw milk to make our cheese. The cultures work fantastically. We don't It's healing. But when you've got these guys saying, I want to make more money, I call it raw. They may take that milk to 140 degrees, 150 degrees, 160 And call it raw because it's not defined.
And that's not truly raw. We make a truly raw cheese, which is exceptional because we're using the kind of milk for human consumption, paphane free, delicious, Very clean, Ramon, with the addition of cultures to make cheddar cheeses and other things, and that's quite a paradigm shift. So it's truly rot, never been above a 100 degrees body temperature in its life of being made. So all the enzymes are there, the proteins are there, Bioavailability, everything is there just like Mother Nature's blueprint.
Speaker 0: And if I call other producers and say and say, what is your vat temperature? Because I saw the vat. I saw the cheese river at the creamery. It reminds me of, like, Willy Wonka type of stuff. Right?
It's really pretty cool. And I got to I got to taste curds that were made from that cheese. And and that that bat never goes above a 100 ish degrees Fahrenheit. So if I call other producers and ask, What is your VAT from Pottery Barnyard Ra Cheese? They won't tell me.
Speaker 1: Well, here's the first thing. How do you call that other producer?
Speaker 0: I don't even know.
Speaker 1: How would you get the number
Speaker 0: Yeah. If you talk
Speaker 1: to the guy, if you call the 1 eight hundred number, you're gonna get some secretary that says, I don't know or I don't know how to get that or that's located in another state or god knows what. If you could get hold of the cheese maker and say, what's your bad temperature? And they call it raw, but they hang up on you, you know they've got a problem. And I've had that happen to me, like I don't want to talk to you because they're cooking their milk. Or they're very proud of it like we are and they say we make a truly raw cheese or they'll use some other definition And we make there's some fantastic cheese makers in Oregon that do that.
Right. So we're not the only ones in the world. We are the only ones I'm aware of that use raw milk for human consumption in our cheese making. There are other, cheesemakers that do it do it truly raw, but you gotta dig for them and find them because they're not as common as you think.
Speaker 0: And on your packaging, I think it says, you know, ever heated above A 102. A 102 degrees. Yeah. That's really interesting. And so what's fascinating about this conversation, it kind of circles back to what we were talking about earlier, is that The some of the benefits, at least in the whey protein, appear to be lost when you heat it about 147 148,
Speaker 1: 5, yeah.
Speaker 0: Degrees Fahrenheit. And that to me is very interesting. There are so many other benefits in raw milk beyond the whey protein, but just that benefit of whey protein, which looks to be perhaps one of the factors associated with lower rates of asthma, eczema, allergy in kids who grew up drinking raw milk on or off farms, that is lost in 147. So if you're thinking that you're eating a raw cheese or giving a raw cheese to your kids, and that's a good thing, and that VAT has gone above 147, you've lost that benefit. Which is why it's so important to have better truth in labeling in these cases.
Speaker 1: And the other thing, It's really interesting to note that raw white protein is mandated to be pasteurized in America.
Speaker 0: Really.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, it's a travesty because you're losing such an incredibly valuable component. That's Mother Nature's gift To control our allergies, it's really something. There's another thing also, Doctor. JP Lal has talked about the French Paradox effect And cheeses in Europe or in mostly in in in France having the Alkylene Phosphatase enzyme present. And the Alkylene Phosphatase is a very powerful Anti inflammatory enzyme.
Well, interesting thing about that is the test for effective pasteurization is the total annihilation
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Of alkaline phosphatase. Right. So we You can see the darkness of this in terms of the benefits being destroyed by our prospects.
Speaker 0: Yes, yes. So one of the other things that I think is amazing about raw milk and on the YouTube video we're gonna put this picture up, is that and this is just anecdotal but people have done experiments with mold. I mean, your daughter showed me a video that you posted on your social media of you you were digging out back here for a renovation to your house and you found a container of butter.
Speaker 1: My dog had buried it, Oh, was it 12 years ago? I I how many years? It was, like, forever ago. Yeah. It was a previous label and the date code was barely discernible.
It's, like, many, many years ago.
Speaker 0: Is it okay if we put a little bit of that into this video? So we'll we'll we'll put a little bit of that into
Speaker 1: this video so people can
Speaker 0: see it. But, you know, you you pull this this butter, which is probably 10 plus butter tub. 10 years
Speaker 1: old. Yep.
Speaker 0: And it wasn't moldy.
Speaker 1: You opened it and it wasn't moldy. No. And you tasted it. It actually had a scent that was Slightly sweet. It had gone through some kind of a preserving process which I don't understand completely, but it was butter which is mostly fat.
Right. And it had been in the ground, a foot underground. Right. A dog had buried it and I ate some and I didn't die.
Speaker 0: Did you feel anything bad?
Speaker 1: No, I didn't eat the whole thing but some of it was like, Wow, that's pretty cool. Nature has a way of preserving itself In natural forms that we really can't wrap our brain around.
Speaker 0: And there's another there's a picture online of someone who did an experiment again, not a controlled experiment but pretty interesting. And he had raw milk And he had pasteurized milk and he had a couple 3 or 4 different he had probably 5 different jars.
Speaker 1: Yep. And I forget how old they were.
Speaker 0: Do you guys remember how old those jars were in that photograph? Maybe 4 or 5 months old. And you can see the top of the jars. And every single jar of that pasteurized milk is moldy. Correct.
But after 4 or 5 months and somebody can fact check me on that number
Speaker 1: the raw milk was not moldy.
Speaker 0: That it is preventing the growth of mold. And this is exactly what we're talking about, that
Speaker 1: a fungal colony cannot grow in a raw milk product because
Speaker 0: of all the other things in there that are preventing its growth. That is a miracle in nature in my mind.
Speaker 1: Remember, nourishes, directs, and protects. Protects. You know, babies, if They were susceptible to every little thing that came along, they'd all be dead. Right. So there's an incredible matrix of this cornucopia of life that's infinite, That it's only born by the generational pressures of only the best survives and the bad dies off.
Over God knows pick your number a 100000, 200000, a 1000000 years of evolution that optimized mammalian first food of life and that's lost on modern science. On the marketing side, I don't think it's lost on the actual researchers. I think the researchers actually really appreciate that. In fact, I was in Sydney, Australia a few years back in the International Genomics Consortium and doctor German said, I want all you guys you guys are socially kind of Not talking to each other. Get together.
Get together and talk to each other. So I wasn't a researcher. I was just the farmer in the room. I went up to several researchers, Went up to 1 and I said, hey, tell me where you're covered from, what's going on? What brought you down to Sydney?
And one was from, Iowa, another was from Utah, another was from Texas and one was from California. And I checked I I went and picked on the young females. Kind of fun. And, I said, I'm here to do this. I said, great.
I said, what kind of milk do you drink? Don't tell anybody I drink raw milk. All 4 people said that, but they would never speak of it. They knew better. They knew what they were doing.
They knew the technology. They knew the science, but they'd lose the grant that they spoke of it. And I tell you, that is so disruptive because How we supposed as a as a population, as a as a culture, the people, supposed to do better if we don't know better. Yeah. So you have great science and it's kept down Because of some other stupid interest that wants to make money.
Speaker 0: Yeah. This happens all the time. It's horrible. It happens all the time.
Speaker 1: We can only do better if we know better. That's why we we say this is an important week. We don't sell Ramak, we teach Ramak. Why would anybody ever wanna buy Ramak if they didn't know what it was or what
Speaker 0: it was about? So I I
Speaker 1: I didn't even talk about selling Ramach. I just teach the immune system. I talk about first fruit of life. I talk about what Ramach does for babies, what Ramach is. You make your own choice.
You do what you wanna do.
Speaker 0: And I think if people try different types of milk, they'll see the difference.
Speaker 1: Well, the number one thing the number one thing when we poll our customers, Why do you drink guammo? Number 1, it's delicious. Number 1, it tastes really good.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, I said this in the introduction of the podcast, but There is no financial incentive here for me. I'm not you're not, you know, you're not paying me to do this podcast. There's I'm doing this because I believe in raw milk and because I wanted to showcase what you guys are Doing here in your information.
So this there's no there's no financial
Speaker 1: I saw you pouring over for the last 36 hours PubMed articles. Pouring over them as an MD or a supervisor to practice in California, doing what MDs do. That is going to the most rigorous archive on earth, which is PubMed, looking at peer reviewed articles, looking at the data and saying, Can I support an opinion by this? I saw you do that. So high five and respect to you because I love doing that myself.
But to see someone else sharing that joy of, wow, what I believe is supported by straight Straight up, hard science is fantastic, so good job.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I mean, I a lot of what I believe is sort of based in an evolutionary ancestral perspective. And then it's, it's interesting to me and encouraging when I can consistently find science that supports those perspectives because it makes it it just makes me think, okay It
Speaker 1: validates you.
Speaker 0: It validates it. And I think it also helps me think about a better way to communicate it to people. Because I think that in the health space, it's very confusing for a health consumer, quote unquote. I've seen people comment that on my YouTube videos, on My Instagram because they'll send me something from a plant based vegan website, which directly contradicts what I say. Something that says, Meat acidifies the kidneys and is bad for your body or whatever.
Cow's milk is inflammatory and what you know, and I think, Okay, I understand why consumers are confused. There's a lot of conflicting information out there. But what my hope is that I can give people some evidence to support the ideas that I'm sharing with them and help make them curious enough to do their own research. But also give them a framework and share with them the framework that I use to think about these things, which is that the things that we've done historically, evolutionarily as humans, and this is blending medicine with anthropology and archaeology, are probably good for us as humans. Or we wouldn't be here today.
Yeah. And consistently, when we vary from those things and that variance might be over the last 3000 years or 2000 years or the last 100 years of pasteurizing milk we get sick. And so for me, that's So simple. It it doesn't need to be complex. I don't think health I don't think medicine needs to be complex.
It's just think about I think about, and I would encourage people to think if they believe this paradigm holds true for them. Think about what humans did 2030, 4000 years ago, which is why it was so valuable for me to go visit the Hadza because they're really the best time capsule we have that I've ever seen. It's not a perfect time capsule, but it's pretty darn good. And when you look at that and when you think about what humans did 30,000 years ago intuitively, it doesn't take much to realize, Oh, we would have eaten meat. We would have hunted.
We would have eaten the whole animal. The eyeballs, the pancreas, the adrenals, the testicles, the heart, the liver, would have eaten the meat, we would have eaten the brain, we would have had raw milk. The American
Speaker 1: Indians did that. First thing they did with eating organs. We would have had raw milk if
Speaker 0: we were smart enough to domesticate the animals. When fruit was in season, you bet we were eating a piece of fruit that was colorful and sweet. If we could find a beehive, we were eating honey. And I think that's a pretty good framework for people, just without any need to look at literature, the intuition there is is aligned, I think, for me. And so it's really cool when there is evidence to support that.
Of course, People would say, oh, there's evidence that goes against that, and that's where I think the nuance in sight of studies comes in and we can think about which studies are valid and which are not. And That gets a little technical for people, but there's a lot of evidence to support that way of life with raw milk being at the center of it and I think so valuable for the gut.
Speaker 1: I think one of the things that you can remind those that are just into vegetables in a strict vegan environment is that Raw fats and breast milk come from vegan moms. And that's there for a reason. That all of us have that raw fat to build the brain. Right. To the building blocks of life are all in there.
The elements are there. The fats, the proteins, those are animal proteins. Those are not vegetable proteins. Those are not vegetable fats. Those are animal proteins that come from breast milk.
As the perfected optimal first food of life That for the 1st year can be used exclusively without anything else to build a brain that works and nervous system works, Swan cells that are, you know, insulating nerves and all the things that are supposed to happen. Remember that serotonin and dopamine are synthesized to the gut and they go to the brain, you know, gut brain axis, gut lung axis all these things. And the strict vegans Some don't do very well. They have a hard time and we have a lot of people that recovered from strictly being on vegetables and gone and added fats And and and animal meats and and they rejoice. Yeah.
I saw this. They feel so much better. They rejoice. The kids do better. Everybody's happier.
I agree. They're happy? Why? Serotonin's being made. Dopamine's being made.
Their guts work and and the fats are there. I mean, It's the model of life. It's the blueprints of life.
Speaker 0: I heard this as much as I heard that raw milk was beneficial for the gut at these Erewhon meet and greets, I heard from a number of vegans who were feeling so much better when they included animal foods in their diet.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: And, you know, it's it's really it's really incredible and really striking. And, you know, one of the things I'm most proud of that that this company that I found, Heart and Soil, that makes the desiccated organs, was we made this documentary about about the value of animal foods in pregnancy. And so that's called Nourish. It's on YouTube. People can go watch that.
But it's so striking to see how different a placenta looks between a vegetarian or vegan mom and a mom who eats animal base with meat and organs and raw dairy. And and I mean, if you talk to any midwife, they'll tell you there's a difference in the health of the placenta. And sadly, that probably is reflected in the way that babies have been nourished. And You make such an interesting point that even a vegan mom is going to make animal proteins for her baby. Yes.
Yes. And so thank God thank God that a baby born to a vegan mother is not vegan.
Speaker 1: Please nurse your babies.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's not vegan while they're getting breastfed. No. And then sadly may become vegan if they don't give that that child animal food.
Speaker 1: Well, we've seen parents in jail for giving vegan foods to children because of the brain damage that
Speaker 0: occurs. And there's kids that have not
Speaker 1: to add back because the kids that
Speaker 0: have died. I mean, yes, that it's not good for mom and that mom's nutrition is depleted if they don't have animal foods and so it's it's there's no question in my mind regarding that. I want to wrap up the podcast in a moment, but I want you to
Speaker 1: tell me about milk fats and the milk fat globule and the benefits of butter. 60% of the bioactive components, those are the active enzymes, the wonderful things that are alive in milk, Are carried on the fat globule. 60%. This doesn't come from my mouth, this is Doctor. Bruce German, last year's IMGC.
He knows, he's the guy who researches the genomics and and all the lipidomics and proteomics and everything in milk and has all the researchers that work with him at UC Davis. And there's other researchers around the world who say the same thing. So what's that say about skim milk? Not much, The fat is where it's at. The gut is the largest immune system organ in the body.
If you think about milk we're running you can see the butter fat line right there running about 4% butter fat in that milk right there 4%. It can go 5% sometimes during the year, especially in the spring. That's what's carrying the bioactive elements is that butter fat, 60% of it. Yes, there's some in the other point, but 60%. Creamed, 40% butterfat.
So a tremendous load of bioactives, which are healing anti inflammatory fantastic for the gut and brain, are being carried on 40% in cream. That's why cream is crazy. Good. Makes you feel good and it tastes delicious. Butter fat, our butter has 85 to 87% butter fat.
The bioactive elements are through the roof. So butter is incredibly nourishing for the brain, nourishing for the gut, nutric acid's created in the lower gut. All those things are really obiturate. So you can see that the fat is where it's at. It really, really is.
And raw milk obviously has 4, cream has 40 and butterfat has 40, 70 what? 87%. So it's that's where it's at. Eat more butter. Eat more good butter.
Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Eat more raw butter. And you know, We I saw the raw cream at the creamery yesterday and we're going to go to the creamery after this podcast and I'm gonna get to see the butter being churned. And I can't wait because it's just, I think that when I grew up, my dad was a doctor, my mom's a nurse. We had 2% maybe on it. We were splurging.
Most of the time I had skin milk growing up. Just my anecdote, I had asthma, I had eczema, I had allergies. I don't have any By
Speaker 1: the way, I didn't say that, the good doctor did. Thanks for just fun.
Speaker 0: I had I had all those things as a kid. I don't have that stuff anymore, you know. I think getting rid of vegetables helped a lot with that, but certainly raw milk has helped in my life as well in massive, massive ways. So I just I'm so excited that we can begin to talk about this.
Speaker 1: 13 children a day die in America, right here in America, from asthma. On proper Western medicine care. Right. With EpiPens and inhalers and corticosteroids and all the other good garbage. Let me tell you, wouldn't that be a beautiful thing to have farmers thrive and children no longer die?
Wouldn't that beautiful?
Speaker 0: I think that's what we're all working for.
Speaker 1: That's the paradigm. In 1961, 6% of our GMP was on medical care. Now it's exceeding twenty. We're going the wrong way quick. We don't have enough nurses to keep us in hospitals.
We can't afford this. We have to start preventing. It's farmers over pharmacies. It's prevention. Yes, we need modern medicine.
Yes, we need all these fancy drugs and surgeries. You get shot, you wanna have a great trauma surgeon, you know. The Washington Medicine is fantastic, but it has a place.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And it's after we've nourished our country through good, whole food nutrition.
Speaker 0: Man, you're doing God's work.
Speaker 1: You are too, my friend. You are too. I appreciate you so much.
Speaker 0: I appreciate what you're doing at the farm.
Speaker 1: I feel the same.
Speaker 0: I think that, like, this is, I mean, you know, I grew up going to church and I feel like this place is a temple, you know. This is like It's
Speaker 1: blessed by a lot of people that Appreciate it and support it.
Speaker 0: This is a, I mean, this is a healing place for humans, you know. In some religions, they go to Mecca. In some religions, they go to Jerusalem. You know, in in, you know, in my current religion, I come to farms like this and this is this is a special place. So thank
Speaker 1: you for doing this. It's it's it's hallowed ground
Speaker 0: in such a way. It really is man, this really is. Thank you for doing this really special work. I appreciate you so much.
Speaker 1: Well thank you for your work, buddy. Man, thank you so much. Alright.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Spinach Oats Almond butter Seed oils These “health” foods contain compounds that have been shown to worsen joint pain and arthritis… See the research below
Video Transcript AI Summary
Certain foods can worsen joint pain and arthritis. Spinach and almond butter contain oxalates that can deposit in soft tissues and joints, causing pain. Oats contain phytic acid, which can chelate minerals necessary for healthy joints. The main culprit is seed oils, as their breakdown products, particularly linoleic acid, are linked to inflammatory arthropathies like rheumatoid arthritis. If you're experiencing joint issues, it's advisable to eliminate these foods from your diet.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are these healthy foods worsening your joint pain? All of these foods contain compounds that are clearly linked to worsening of arthritis, joint pain, and damage to your joints. If you can't do movements like a deep squat, then your joints probably aren't as healthy as they should be. Spinach and almond butter contain oxalates. Those oxalates can also deposit in your soft tissues and in your joints causing pain and arthritis.
Oats contain all sorts of problematic compounds humans. And oats contain phytic acid, a large molecule that chelates minerals like magnesium, zinc and iron, all of which are critical for proper and healthy joints. The real bad guy are seed oils. The breakdown products of seed oils connected with linoleic acid are clearly linked to inflammatory arthropathies like rheumatoid arthritis. And if you're eating any of these foods, you probably want to remove them from your diet.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Another plant-based SCAM. Vegan buttery spread?!? Are you kidding me? & of course the 2nd and 3rd ingredients are seed oils... Animal fats are treasure and raw butter is a superfood.
Video Transcript AI Summary
This video criticizes vegan buttery spreads as an unhealthy alternative to real butter. The speaker highlights the nutritional benefits of butter, such as fatty acids that promote optimal health, mitochondrial health, weight loss, and satiety. They express disbelief at the use of seed oils and fava bean protein in vegan spreads, stating that they are not good for humans. The speaker suggests that vegans may miss the taste and nutrition of butter, but encourages them to opt for real butter instead.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm like almost speechless of this one. You got a vegan buttery spread. It's a butter alternative. Wait. What is actually better than butter?
Butter is freaking delicious. Full of good fatty acids for humans like stearic acid, a long chain saturated fatty acid that we know is essential for optimal health, Encourages mitochondrial health, probably helps with weight loss and satiety. But, no, let's eat a vegan buttery spread with seed oils, Sunflower and canola oil as the main ingredients and fava bean protein in your buttery spread? Come on, guys. Vegan buttery spread isn't good for humans at all.
But I think the vegans probably miss the butter and they want the nutrition from there, So they'll try and eat this, but I'm hoping this video will inspire some of them to just eat some real butter.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
These nutrients hold the KEY to LONGEVITY: Taurine Creatine Anserine Carnosine Carnitine Vitamin B12 and K2 There is only one food that contains all these nutrients. Which is it?
reSee.it AI Summary
Glyphosate, a harmful chemical, is sprayed on oatmeal, including organic ones. However, organic oats still contain heavy metals, phytic acid, mycotoxins, and saponins. Their micronutrient profile is weak compared to other carb sources. Fruits and honey, rich in bioavailable vitamins and minerals, are better alternatives for a healthy breakfast.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Glyphosate is so harmful for humans. And it’s sprayed all over your oatmeal… Organic oats aren’t that much better… see the threads⤵️ https://t.co/iXBfnTbVwW
Video Transcript AI Summary
This oatmeal contains glyphosate, a weed killer associated with cancer. Monsanto, the producer of glyphosate, settled over 100,000 lawsuits totaling $11 billion for cancer connections. Glyphosate is also linked to infertility, autoimmunity, and potential gut damage. Avoid consuming significant amounts of pesticides like glyphosate found in Quaker oatmeal. Overall, oatmeal is not recommended in the diet.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This oatmeal contains significant amounts of glyphosate, a weed killer, which is strongly associated with cancer. Monsanto, the producer of glyphosate or Roundup, has now settled over 100,000 lawsuits totaling $11,000,000,000 for cancer connections with glyphosate, a pesticide, a weed killer found in significant amounts in Quaker oatmeal. All of these products contaminated with glyphosate. Glyphosate is also implicated in infertility, autoimmunity, potential gut damage. You do not want To be eating significant amounts of pesticides like glyphosate, oatmeal in general, I think is bullshit, but here's one more reason to avoid this kind of oatmeal in your diet completely.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Organic oatmeal isn’t that much better… oats still contain heavy metals, phytic acid, mycotoxins, and saponins. The micronutrient profile of oats is also very weak compared to other sources of carbohydrates.
@paulsaladinomd - Paul Saladino, MD
Fruits and honey are a way better source of carbohydrates for breakfast. They are high in bioavailable vitamins and minerals without any of the harmful compounds found in oats.