This solo episode exposes the financial corruption behind mainstream nutrition guidelines, revealing how the sugar industry paid Harvard professors to falsify research, vilify animal fats, and promote carbohydrates. Listeners will understand how the 1977 McGovern Report, influenced by these conflicts of interest, triggered a dramatic dietary shift that has coincided with historic spikes in obesity and chronic disease. The processed food industry, which is fundamentally a plant-based food industry, profits by steering consumers away from meat and toward packaged, processed products.
The episode also builds a biological case against plant consumption, explaining that out of 400,000 plant species, only a few thousand are even made edible through cooking, soaking, or fermentation. This is presented as evidence that humans are not designed to thrive on plants. Dr. Anthony Chaffee draws a compelling parallel between plant toxins and chemotherapy agents, noting that medicinal use of a toxic compound only makes sense when treating a specific condition. Nutritional epidemiology's reliance on flawed tools like food frequency questionnaires and its failure to correct for healthy user bias are identified as key mechanisms by which misleading dietary research reaches the public.
Key Takeaways
- The sugar industry's payment of Harvard researchers to fraudulently blame saturated fat and red meat for disease was published in JAMA in 2016, confirming that foundational dietary guidelines were built on paid misinformation rather than honest science.
- Since the 1977 dietary shift away from animal fat, fruit consumption rose 30%, vegetable consumption rose 40%, seed oils and sugar each increased 3.5 times, and carbohydrates grew to 65-70% of total calories, correlating directly with the rise of modern chronic disease.
- Of the 400,000 plant species on Earth, most are toxic or lethal to humans in their raw state. The fact that thousands of edible plants require cooking, fermentation, or chemical soaking to reduce toxicity is biological evidence that the human body was not designed to thrive on a plant-based diet.
- Plant compounds promoted as health-protective (such as sulforaphane in broccoli) function as toxins and chemotherapy-like agents. Consuming them without a specific medical condition means absorbing harmful compounds with no targeted benefit, making routine high-plant diets a poor strategy for optimal health.
- How the Processed Food Industry Profits by Demonizing Meat and Pushing Plant-Based Diets
- Sugar Industry Bribery, the McGovern Report, and the Rise of Chronic Disease
- Why Plants Are Toxic: Defense Chemicals, Evolutionary Biology, and Cancer Risk
- Plant Toxins as Medicine vs. Everyday Nutrition: Chemotherapy, Broccoli, and Sulforaphane
- Corrupt Nutritional Research: Food Frequency Questionnaires, Healthy User Bias, and Fraudulent Studies
- Red Meat and Diabetes Risk: PURE Study vs. Harvard Epidemiology and Ketogenic Diet Evidence
This is an auto-generated transcript from YouTube and may contain errors or inaccuracies.
I'm a doctor and you have been lied to about vegetables being good for you. The processed food industry is a plant-based food industry and it profits by the trillions every single year by steering you away from eating our most biologically appropriate and nutritious food which is meat, especially highfat meat, and steering you down towards eating a plant-based diet. Because the processed food industry is a plant-based industry. And they know that if you stop eating meat and you switch over to plants, you're not just going to eat fresh quinoa salads. What you're going to do is you're going to make decisions like getting processed foods, ready-made meals, packaged garbage that they have a huge markup for and profit greatly from. The problem is it doesn't profit you or benefit you all that much. In fact, it can cause serious harm. And I'm writing an entire book about how chronic diseases are not diseases per se, but a combination of malnutrition and toxicity. So, a toxic buildup of a species inappropriate diet and a lack of species specific nutrition. Namely, too many plants and added chemicals, environmental toxins that are causing harm that we don't have the biology to adapt and take care of and not enough animal-based nutrients and vitamins, minerals, proteins, and fats that are essential to our life that we cannot do without. And replacing all that meat and animal fat with vegetables that we are not designed to contend with can lead to many of these chronic diseases. We actually have hard evidence about these processed food industries like the sugar industry that was caught paying professors from Harvard and elsewhere to lie and say that things like cholesterol, meat, and animal fat were harmful and to say that sugar was beneficial. This was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMAMA, in 2016. This is one of the preeminent medical journals in the world and they published the actual internal memos from the sugar industry back in the '60s detailing these facts. We also have other sources showing that they paid other people such as Anel Keys as well. But one of the professors that they bribed and paid to publish these fraudulent studies was a professor at Harvard who was later named head of the USDA. He was part of the McGovern report in 1977 where they vilified cholesterol saturated fat and meat and animal fat and said sugar is safe. Just replace all this animal fat with carbohydrates. And what happened since then? We become the fattest and sickest that we've ever been in human history. And it wasn't just junk food. We increase fruits and vegetables by 30 and 40% respectively. And we also increased seed oils and polyunsaturated fats by three and a half times. We increased high fructose corn syrup and other forms of sugar by three and a half times as well. and of course made carbohydrates the majority calories as much as 65 or even 70% total caloric intake where 50% of caloric intake prior to this was from saturated fat. So that's not just me saying this that is published in peer-reviewed journals and has been reported in multiple media outlets. The main reason I stopped eating plants was because of basic botney and biology though. My professor of cancer biology at the University of Washington in Seattle told me 26 years ago just how toxic plants, fruits, vegetables, grains, and all the seeds and legumes and beans that we eat as a normal mainstay of our diet and how harmful these are, how toxic they are to the human body and to health. We're told that they're extremely healthy, but actually they can be quite harmful and they can even be carcinogenic. Even the WHO says that red kidney beans, which are quite commonly eaten around the world, that if they're not cooked and treated properly, that as little as five red kidney beans uncooked, have actually put people in the hospital because of how toxic they are. I just want to let you guys know about an event I'll be at in Bosezeman, Montana for July 4th with Bella Steak and Buttergal that if you can make it will be a great time. So, there's going to be fireworks, a panel, and other sorts of events that you can take part in. And of course, we're all going to be there interacting and hanging out with people. And obviously, there's going to be a lot of meet, specifically from Macafferty Ranch right there in Montana. From what I've heard, it's absolutely fantastic. So, I'm really looking forward to that as well. There will be people such as myself, obviously, Bella, Dr. Baker, and my fiance L, and many others. So, if you're able to make it down, it would be great to see you there. And you can get your tickets at spg.events and hopefully see you there. So again, this is a well-known fact in biology and botney that plants defend themselves by making toxins. This is why out of the 400,000 plants in the world, most of them will kill you or make you extremely sick. There are very few examples from percentage-wise basis of plants that we can eat in their raw form. There's maybe a few hundred and we've increased that to a few thousand by fermentation, by cooking, by soaking them with chemicals and other sorts of industrial processes to bring down that toxic load and make these things more edible and nutritious. But this is proof positive that we are not designed to eat these plants because if we were then we would have the biological capacity and enzymes to do this naturally. We wouldn't have to cook it. We wouldn't have to soak it in lie and clay and ash and other sorts of chemicals or ferment it in order to reduce the toxicity to make this edible. We've made a lot of inedible, toxic, deadly plants edible by chemical treatment and other sort of techniques such as fermenting and cooking. If you get lost in the woods and you run out of food, you can't just eat any random plant because most of them will make you very sick or could even kill you. And just because something doesn't kill you on the spot doesn't mean it doesn't have any toxins in it. We eat grapes and avocados without cooking them, but if you feed those to a cat or a dog, that can actually kill them. So there are toxins in there. There are things that are harmful. It's just that we have a bit more defenses to some of those toxins. We come from an herbiviverous past, but that was 10 million years ago. And since then, we were more omnivorous. And then in the last 2,000 years, we became more carnivorous and actually apex predators, top of the food chain. But in evolution and biology, you don't lose a trait and a capacity to do something unless it confers a benefit to survival. So being able to detoxify some plants can be a survival benefit. So when people were not able to get meat, they were still able to survive on some plants. So you're not going to lose that trait. We're not going to lose the ability to be able to eat some plants. But the problem is is that plants keep evolving as well. So there's this evolution in arms race with plants becoming more and more toxic, animals becoming more and more able to defend against those toxins and break them down. Problem is we left that arms race about 2 million years ago and the plants kept getting more toxic. So while we have some defenses, we don't have all the defenses that we need to benefit from a plant-based diet. And we certainly won't get all the nutrients we need just from eating plants as well. We have to get meat if we want optimal nutrition. So if you think about it, all living things have a defense. Animals, plants, down to single-c cellled organisms, everything can defend itself from other things because everything is trying to eat everything else basically or take advantage of the resources and nutrients that other creatures and individuals want instead. So we have classified, categorized, and even named nearly 1 million different defensive chemicals that plants use in order to protect themselves and kill and injure animals that are trying to eat them. So then the argument is well people use plants as medicine and that's very true and that's very important and useful because some of these toxins can be used as medicines because medicines are generally a toxin that under certain circumstances confer more benefit than harm. So you think about antibiotics or you think about chemotherapy agents. If you have that infection where you're going to get very sick or you may even die without any sort of help, those antibiotics can save your life. But if you don't have an infection and you take antibiotics, then you're just going to get the side effects. You're just going to get the unwanted effects like destroying your microbiome and having other sorts of issues with your body that you don't want and you're getting none of the benefit. So the costbenefit analysis is completely skewed in the cost side of things. And what about chemotherapy? We have a lot of these plant toxins like extracted from u trees which are extremely toxic in general. And we found that some of these toxins can be helpful for certain cancers. But that's the whole point is that chemotherapy is extremely toxic not only to the cancer but to your body. And so these are very harmful compounds in the plant. And we're just hoping that it kills the cancer before it kills you. And so if you don't have cancer, why would the in the world would you ever take chemotherapy? say, "Well, mushrooms have anti-vef and this can be good against cancer or sulfurophane and broccoli." That can be good against cancer. If you don't have cancer, it is insane to take chemotherapy. And you also don't just take random chemotherapy for random cancers. You take specific chemotherapy for specific cancers in specific doses. You don't just eat a ton of broccoli because it has some chemo in it. So, using different plants medically, if you're sick and you have that issue, can be very helpful. or even extract out the specific ingredient in that plant that is going to help you as an antibiotic, etc. So, that could be helpful. But from a pure nutrition standpoint and optimal health, you should really avoid plants and their toxins and the harmful compounds that come with them and are sprayed on them because a lot of these harmful compounds that get sprayed on these plants don't get washed off. They don't degrade and they don't go away. And it's very difficult to wash them off of these produce items as well. So one of the reasons that we think that vegetables are not only safe but good for you is because the processed food industries and various universities paid by the processed food industries such as Harvard and Stanford use fake data to mislead the public. This is a lie of omission and a lie of statistics. So there are three kinds of lies. There are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics. And so these are lies of statistics where they manipulate data and make it look one way when really it's another. Or they might use very mechanistically poor study design and things like that that cannot answer the question that they are claiming to answer. So they use things like food frequency questionnaires which are inherently flawed and inaccurate because they're asking people literally they're asking people to try to remember every meal that they've had in the last 2 years or even 4 years as if that's possible and then they say oh this has been validated nutrition every 2 to four years. That's that's the language that they use to mislead you where in fact what they're doing is they're giving you surveys saying hey try to remember every meal that you've had in the last 2 years. How many times have you had chicken wings per week on average for the last 2 years? How would you ever answer that accurately? And then they take that data and then they manipulate it into other sorts of directions that fit their purposes and their ideology. A lot of these researchers are vegans or vegan proponents and they typically have very strong ties to the processed food and drug industry that pays not only them but pays for their research to be done as well. So, this is knowingly dishonest and you can't just trust something just because it's been published in a journal, even in a peer-reviewed journal, unfortunately, because a lot of these same people are on the peer-review committee. Dr. Richard Horton, who is a longtime editor-inchief of the Lancet, one of the top medical journals in the world, has said this plainly that over half of the published literature in the top journals like his journal, are not only false but fraudulent and intentionally so in order to push a narrative or push a product that makes these companies billions if not trillions of dollars a year. And Dr. Horton is not the only one. There's editors from the New England Journal of Medicine, from Stanford, from elsewhere who have basically called this out that this is a very dark day for the scientific literature as a whole. So, nutritional epidemiology is one of the worst because it follows these poor study designs like food frequency questionnaires and doesn't account for confounding factors such as healthy user bias. So, you have people that eat more fruits and vegetables and they say, "Wow, they do a little bit better than other people." But is that because they're only isolating fruits and vegetables or are they not smoking as much and they're not drinking? They're getting out and exercising. They have a higher socioeconomic class and all these other sorts of things that can all be associated with health benefits. And so they can take this data and easily manipulate it into pushing any sort of narrative they want. Which is why you see things like from Harvard that says that red meat has an 18% increased risk association with diabetes. And yet there are randomized control trials in human data showing that high-fat meat-based ketogenic diets that eat a lot of red meat, if not predominantly red meat, have actually reversed type 2 diabetes. So this is the kind of nonsense that's out there, but because there's a product behind it. There's processed food, there's pharmaceuticals. Those garbage studies get put in the media because they pay to put them in the media. And then those studies like from Verta Health showing that you can actually reverse type 2 diabetes by doing a ketogenic diet that gets no headlines or press because they didn't pay to get headlines and press. And also there are a lot of drug companies and processed food companies that are the main sponsors of different media outlets. And so if something comes through that's going to affect their bottom line they don't want to see, they absolutely will put pressure on the news outlet to not report on it so that they can defend their product. So again, this is dishonest behavior. There are even other studies like those from the pure study from McMaster University where they even use the same study design like the food frequency questionnaires, but they didn't look at it in a biased dishonest sort of way. And they actually didn't find any increased risk association with meat in any sort of negative health outcome. And in fact, they found a protective effect with higher meat consumption and cancer. So people that ate more meat were slightly protected against cancer at least in that study and we see that in other better studies all the time that eating meat and especially unprocessed red meat in over 800 studies looked at showed little to no evidence that there was any sort of increased risk association. And the ones that did show a very minor increase in risk association were in the words of the authors at University of Washington in Seattle junk studies and lazy science. So these were the poor studies that maybe had a bad study design, didn't correct for confounding factors, and had very weak, minimal, at best associations. And again, so many others show no association or even a protective effect. So, if you want more on this and a deep dive into the corruption of our nutritional and medical guidelines and all the different institutions that are involved in this, look for my book coming out later this year that has a whole chapter on this as well as so many more hard facts and data telling you exactly what's beneficial to eat and what's going to cause harm. You can also get a deep dive into that on my lecture on YouTube called our nutritional medical guidelines are corrupt. You can find that on my medical channel for a deeper dive into all that. Thanks guys. See you next time. Hey everybody. As you know, I don't usually take sponsors, but I've been working with Carnivore Bar for a while because they genuinely care about quality and the carnivore movement. Obviously, Whole Food is always best just making your meat at home and taking it with you. But if you are traveling, camping, hiking, or at the airport, or just need something on the go, these are really great. They have the traditional carnivore bar, but now they have the new everyday bar, which is smaller, but it's also a lot cheaper. It uses grain finished beef meat. However, it also uses grass-finish tallow. You get all the omega-3s and vitamins that you would want from grass-finish cows. And of course, if you still want the full Cadillac carnivore bar, they still have the grass-fed finish versions as well that you can get. So check out the link below and use code Anthony for 10% off. Thanks everyone.