If you are not a Tucker fan, please don't let that keep you from watching this. I've been following them for awhile and their message is compelling. It's two hours long but time well spent.

Quote:

---

Casey Means was a Stanford-educated surgeon. Her brother Calley was a lobbyist for pharma and the food industry. Both quit their jobs in horror when they realized how many people were being killed by the systems they participated in. This is an amazing story.

---

Chapters:
0:00 Intro
0:54 Who Are Casey and Calley Means?
10:32 Seed Oils and the Lies of the Food Pyramid
22:20 Vaccines for Newborns
34:41 Why Is the Medical Industry Ignoring This?
44:38 The Spiritual Crisis
52:23 Chemicals Linked to Cancer and Early Puberty
1:00:13 Ozempic
1:15:35 The Birth Control Pill
1:30:12 The Rise of Dementia
1:36:27 Why Obamacare Is Harmful and How to Fix the Medical Industry
1:50:55 Infertility
2:05:21 Michelle Obama's Weaponization of Sugar in Schools
2:10:24 What Should We Be Eating?


Just a few notes, but this barely grazes the surface:

• US spends half amount on food but 3x on health care in Europe
• Incredible corruption in the USDA / FDA - members of panels are heavily subsidized with "consulting fees" by the food and pharma industries
• US Pharma companies are charging Americans as much as 10x the amount as they charge in Europe for the exact same drugs.
• Women are hitting puberty six years early than 1900, youngest of anywhere in the world, Avg age 10-13 now.
• Kids are spending less average time outside than prisoners now.
• Eating a credit card's worth of plastic a week.
• Dementia is now being called Diabetes Type 3 by many researchers.
• Michelle Obama partnered with a private equity company and is promoting a sugar water drink as "better than soda" for young kids.

" Women are hitting puberty six years early than 1900, youngest of anywhere in the world, Avg age 10-13 now."

Why? What kind of data did they have from 1900 to make that comparison now? Hitting puberty at the age of 16-19 only 100 years ago seems off.

BiggiesLX said:

---

" Women are hitting puberty six years early than 1900, youngest of anywhere in the world, Avg age 10-13 now."

Why? What kind of data did they have from 1900 to make that comparison now? Hitting puberty at the age of 16-19 only 100 years ago seems off.

---

I read some where many years ago that young girls are hitting puberty earlier because of estrogens in our food. Milk being one of the big culprits. My own daughter was 11. My wife, born in 71, was 14. Anecdotal, I know.

Yeah, I could buy 1-3 years, not 6. They would have some data going back that far. Basic stuff like this has been studied a long time. The data might not be as high of quality but it would be useable.

Info far as the rest, I am a big believer in good diet and exercise and being a healthy body fat and fitness level with good nutrition.
Far fewer medical issues and eliminated the need for many drug interventions or treatments with all sorts of side effects. That's not to say some drugs are not the answer sometimes but rather they are overused as a substitute for the consequences of poor lifestyle choices.

TXTransplant said:

---

AgNav93 said:

---

BiggiesLX said:

---

" Women are hitting puberty six years early than 1900, youngest of anywhere in the world, Avg age 10-13 now."

Why? What kind of data did they have from 1900 to make that comparison now? Hitting puberty at the age of 16-19 only 100 years ago seems off.

---

I read some where many years ago that young girls are hitting puberty earlier because of estrogens in our food. Milk being one of the big culprits. My own daughter was 11. My wife, born in 71, was 14. Anecdotal, I know.

---

It's not estrogen in food. It's obesity.

Obesity directly correlates with earlier onset of puberty in boys and girls.

Like most of the health issues facing Americans today, it's directly tied to over consumption of food.

---

Adipose tissue (fat) can increase the amounts of circulating estrogen. So yeah with such incredibly high obesity rates it makes sense that you'd have a lot of these consequences.

Is there a podcast of this?

BCG Disciple said:

---

Is there a podcast of this?

---

If you're talking about the interview with Calley and Casey, yes - it's in the OP. Youtube video of them on Tucker Carlson's show. And if you don't like Tucker, don't worry - he barely gets a word in edgewise.

I really recommend everyone watch it. The cover a wide-ranging variety of topics.

Podcast as in not video.

BCG Disciple said:

---

Podcast as in not video.

---

You can listen to it here on his website:
https://tuckercarlson.com/listen

If you're just wanting to listen on your phone etc you can just go there and listen in your mobile browser. I'm not sure if he posts them to Spotify etc.

KidDoc said:

---

You are really arguing that soda, twinkies, and doritos have nutritional value? Nobody needs that crud to live.

It is very simple. If a food is taxed you should not be able to buy it with food stamps. In Texas at least fresh food is not taxed but packaged food is. Boom easy fix.

I'm sure nutritional thresholds would be very easy to establish for a sin tax. Both in saturated fat, carb vs protein ratios, etc.

---

Sure, it might be easy, but you'd be hard pressed to find two people who AGREE on the thresholds. That's my point. What is "healthy" for you or for me may or may not be a good choice for someone else.

Just look at the "health and fitness" influencers that are out there - you have some saying that vegetables are toxic! Others insist fruit is bad for you. Then you've got the anti-dairy crowd. And there is the anti-meat crowd.

All of this masks the real issue, which is too many CALORIES.

People cannot be legislated (or taxed, for that matter) into making better choices about their health and what to eat. Just like you cannot legislate away drug and alcohol use or pornography.

TXTransplant said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

You are really arguing that soda, twinkies, and doritos have nutritional value? Nobody needs that crud to live.

It is very simple. If a food is taxed you should not be able to buy it with food stamps. In Texas at least fresh food is not taxed but packaged food is. Boom easy fix.

I'm sure nutritional thresholds would be very easy to establish for a sin tax. Both in saturated fat, carb vs protein ratios, etc.

---

Sure, it might be easy, but you'd be hard pressed to find two people who AGREE on the thresholds. That's my point. What is "healthy" for you or for me may or may not be a good choice for someone else.

Just look at the "health and fitness" influencers that are out there - you have some saying that vegetables are toxic! Others insist fruit is bad for you. Then you've got the anti-dairy crowd. And all of this masks the real issue, which is too many CALORIES.

People cannot be legislated (or taxed, for that matter) into making better choices about their health and what to eat. Just like you cannot legislate away drug and alcohol use or pornography.

---

The real world data disagrees with your final statement, at least with regards to poor communities and soda.

Do soda taxes work? | Berkeley Public Health

The rest of your points are true, it would be contentious. But doing nothing as a society is not working. We are literally drowning in obesity related illness and it is getting much worse.

Type 2 DM in kids under 18 is up an astonishing amount. These kids tend to have very aggressive disease as well.

From https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/php/data-research/index.html


From your argument the answer as a society is just to say oh well too bad people make bad choices every day(which is very true). I don't think our health care system can tolerate the sky rocketing levels of obesity in young people over decades.

I'll also point out that for a tax to be effective, it has to make something prohibitively expensive. Junk foods are cheap - often cheaper than "healthy" foods. A tax would probably have to double or triple the cost for people to even consider not buying something. And I don't think even that would be a deterrent. Just look at fast food - in many cases, it's significantly more expensive to eat out rather than eat at home, but it's still cheap enough that the extra cost isn't a deterrent.

The link to the soda tax in California is interesting, but I'm not sure that result would extrapolate to other areas of the US. I'm also always skeptical of survey results, and I think the impact might be overstated. In the grand scheme of things $1.5 million in taxes really isn't all that much. The population is about 120k, so that's only about $12.50 per person. That's, what, 6 or 7 less sodas a year per person? Not really much, if someone is drinking enough of them to be overweight.

I don't think we should just sit back and say "oh well", but I do think that in an attempt to destigmatize obesity, we have stopped teaching people how dangerous it is. And part of the problem is, as long as you are young, you don't always experience negative effects. The health problems really come in your 50s and beyond, after decades of abusing your body.

I also think the way we have treated type 2 diabetes has exacerbated the problem. For decades, people were allowed to believe they could eat whatever they want and then just take their insulin. They had no incentive to improve their diet or lose weight - they just needed to take their insulin.

We have stopped telling people how obesity raises your risk for almost all types of diseases (not just heart disease) - cancer, kidney disease, liver disease, etc, and it increases your risk of dying from communicable diseases (see Covid).

I agree our heath care system can't tolerate it. But to see significant change, you have to get people to understand that both obesity and diabetes are a serious health problem (I would even use the term disease) that they need to address. Collectively (society, medicine, public health) we aren't doing that anymore.

I know you are a doctor, and you have my utmost respect. I know it cannot be easy to treat people who do not (or maybe cannot) help themselves. My BF and I talk about this all the time. Your goal is to save lives. If saving someone's life means giving them insulin (even if they don't change their eating habits), that's the right thing to do. It must be exhausting and overwhelming for you to see how bad this problem has gotten.

I personally would rather see people take GLP-1 drugs (under the guidance of a good nutritionist and trainer) than see a tax on certain foods. The goal should be to get people to want to be healthier by consuming fewer calories, not making food choices based on how much something costs.

my solution. If a food has just 1 ingredient in it, you can get it on food stamps and it isn't taxed.

That's not the solution you think it is and would exclude a lot of foods:

Plain milk (vitamin D added), plain yogurt (pectin, vitamin D, and live cultures), cheese (milk, salt, and enzymes), raw chicken (some has water added), a lot of canned fruits and vegetables (water and/or salt added), deli meats (most have water and/or seasoning), canned tuna (water), and even some uncooked plain rice (it has niacin, iron, folic acid, and thiamine added), as well as flour (has many of the same additives as rice and sometimes two different types of flour). Heck, even salt has iodine and/or an anti-caking agent added.

When was the last time we had an actual cure for a sickness? Medicines these days seem like they are focused on treating the symptoms instead of the root cause.

I see no problem excluding any of those, maybe whole milk with D being the exception.
You don't need chicken with water added. You don't need canned green beans with added salt. You don't need deli meat with all the added crap.
I'm not saying you can't buy any of it. But if we are going to promote stuff for people to buy on food stamps and reduce obesity, and you want one simple guide line, there it is.

Philip J Fry said:

---

When was the last time we had an actual cure for a sickness? Medicines these days seem like they are focused on treating the symptoms instead of the root cause.

---

Ever heard of antibiotics?

Many people need treatment for mental health conditions and many of them improve with time and can discontinue treatment. Most of the medications you are talking about are to treat long term illness brought on by lifestyle choices + genetics.

That doesn't count autoimmune diseases. We have never been able to cure those sadly.

KidDoc said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

When was the last time we had an actual cure for a sickness? Medicines these days seem like they are focused on treating the symptoms instead of the root cause.

---

Ever heard of antibiotics?

Many people need treatment for mental health conditions and many of them improve with time and can discontinue treatment. Most of the medications you are talking about are to treat long term illness brought on by lifestyle choices + genetics.

That doesn't count autoimmune diseases. We have never been able to cure those sadly.

---

I would also argue that a lot of the health problems people have today are caused by unhealthy lifestyle and obesity. Unless people change their life, then all doctors can do is treat the symptoms.

You do realize that salt is added as a food preservative, and not just to make foods taste better, right?

And things like rice and flour are fortified to provide extra nutrients (that arguably most people are no longer deficient in, but good luck finding versions without that added).

The least expensive versions of these items are also likely to have the additives (ie, the cheaper brands of raw chicken at HEB have water, broth, carrageenan, and/or salt added). It's typically the "organic" brands (that cost sometimes 2-3x more per lb) that don't have any additives. Makes zero sense to tell someone on food stamps to buy organic.

Implement the one ingredient rule and you will exclude most things at the grocery from being eligible for food stamps. If the goal is to eliminate food stamp usage, then that's a great idea. But it won't help with obesity (unless people just don't eat).

Yeah. Autoimmune is what I have personal history with. There's so many different varieties of them out there that seem related, but currently the only treatments simply damage the immune system enough to keep the flare ups down. It's a highly frustrating experience to watch a loved one go through.

I have no problem with certain junk foods being restricted from food stamps. That's not currently the case, but I have no issue with it. I do oppose taxes on foods

With that said, your logic is flawed. If you so severely restrict what people who are on food stamps can buy, they will just use their money to but the cheapest food possible - which is typically processed food.

If you're on food stamps, you should be buying canned green beans vs fresh because canned are a heck of a lot cheaper (whether they have salt or not). But canned green beans are going to have water, which doesn't fit with your "one ingredient" model.

There are plenty of "healthy" foods with more than one ingredient, and there are "unhealthy" foods with one ingredient.

Based on your logic, it would be better for someone to buy a bottle of vegetable oil (because it's only one ingredient) than chicken breast, just because the chicken happens to have water added. That's just dumb and doesn't address the problem.

Philip J Fry said:

---

When was the last time we had an actual cure for a sickness? Medicines these days seem like they are focused on treating the symptoms instead of the root cause.

---

Is this for real?

- Mechanical thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion strokes.
- Hep C antivirals
- Immuno-oncology advancements
- CAR-T therapy for certain cancers
- TAVR for aortic stenosis
- CRISPR based therapies for genetic conditions like sickle cell disease
- Anti-VEGF for retinal disease
- HPV vaccine for cervical cancers

Most of these are within the last decade.

Where my logic stands up is if you have a cut and dry rule like 1 ingredient, you make it really hard for a food lobby to get in and start changing definitions and influencing the FDA. If you have my rule, you don't have the government promoting obesity. If a person on food stamps doesn't want to use it for fresh fruits and vegetables and chooses to buy pop tarts paying their own money, more power to them. If they want to buy vegetable oil and drink a cup of that for dinner, good luck. At least the tax payers aren't backing that behavior.

Your plan will open up room for lobbies to come in and end up making ketchup a vegetable in a healthy school lunch. Dominoes Pizza is a weekly healthy choice at my daughter's school. That comes from the influence that the food industry has on the government.

I only watched the Alzheimer's portion of the video since it seemed like it would be a good litmus test for the rest of it. From that brief segment, this seems to be two people trying to sell a product by making definitive claims about how our diet is linked to all of these problems that doctors will never tell you about, but if you buy our one simple product you can educate yourself you'll be able to protect yourself. Do diet and exercise play a role? Almost certainly. However, it's kind of difficult to determine how much of a role they play in relation to genetic and environmental factors as well. I can't imagine that diet/exercise is really going to make much of a difference in people with certain genetic mutations (ApoE4 homozygotes, PSEN1, etc).

Also, please don't misunderstand me, eating healthy and getting regular exercise are key things that will improve your health in multiple different domains; however, these people provide an overly simplistic view of things. In my experience, the "simple" recommendations that they give aren't as easy as they sound. In residency, I had to essentially function as a PCP for a panel of patients for a year in a pretty undeserved area. I could provide education about the risks of hypertension, diabetes, poor diet, medication nonadherence, etc until I was blue in the face but when people are worried about how they're going to pay their rent, how are they going to afford their medication, how they're going to be able to go to their medical appointments because they can't take time off of their hourly job because they won't be able to afford food, how are they going to walk around the block when I'm worried about getting mugged or harassed (you get the idea at this point) then things like healthy meal choices and exercise kind of take a back seat to much more immediate problems (compared to the long-term, insidious effects of diet/exercise choices).

BQ2001 said:

---

my solution. If a food has just 1 ingredient in it, you can get it on food stamps and it isn't taxed.

---

Pure cane sugar here I come!