Debunking the Cult of Animal Protein - with T. Colin Campbell, PhD

Hello, I'm uh Colin Campbell, and uh, I have some comments I'd like to share with you. Uh, I think uh, probably the most significant idea surrounding this, like, these these thoughts, has to do with human and planetary health. Uh, however, I'm going to suggest that the central piece of that discussion really has to do with our diet, the food we eat, which in turn is centered on dietary protein.

So, let me, for more background, share with you some other information. Namely, in the United States, uh, we consume the most, healthcare spending is the highest in the world, the healthcare spending per capita. Secondly, we use the most pharmaceuticals per capita. And it should also mention too, that the United States is the only country in the world who advertises on TV prescription drugs, and they do it big time. And one more thought to keep in mind: prescription drug use has side effects. It's a number four cause of death, but it's never listed that way. That is the background. Uh, and it turns out our life expectancy, one indicator of how well we're doing, but life expectancy is not especially, is not all that great. We're really quite far down the list among countries in the Western World, so to speak.

Now, when I talk about human and planetary health, I'm talking about, you know, lots of different issues that people concentrate on, usually each working in their own sort of silo, in a sense. Uh, personal health. But here's some of the factors that we can talk about, you know, one by one by one, as I've already mentioned, on the environment. Uh, we can talk about climate warming. The prejudice in it turns out again, we've got groups of people focused on just, let's say, one thing, as if, in fact, for these different problems, these have independent causes. I'm going to suggest no, we've got one overwriting cause. I'd say almost, I could say a single cause. It really has to do, as I already indicated, with the food that we eat.

Now, on a question concerning the food we eat, um, the best way to understand food from my perspective is to understand how it worsens the body and what kind of response we have from consuming that food. It's an extraordinary complex field. I, I cannot emphasize that enough. There's so much information and people are confused. I want to reduce these ideas down to the simplest form, something that people can actually use. Namely, this number one: consume plants, not animals. Plants, of course, have talked about vegetables, foods, whole grains, or forth. That's one thought. And that is the topic of what comes today, also my first and second lecture. Um, there's a second one that's also very important, and that's consume food as much as possible in the whole food form, whereby we're consuming most of the nutrients in the influence as at the same time. That's a topic for another day. I'm going to focus just here in these two, two commentaries on the consumption of plants, not animals.

Now, as you keep in mind, evidently, when we see data, especially observational data in human populations, comparing the consumption of animal food with some kind of disease outcome, we should keep in mind that as animal food consumption increases, the percentage of the diet plant food goes down. So when we see a relationship with animal protein also showing it in a little bit, that tends to reflect also a decrease in consumption of plant foods, which have a lot of wonderful antioxidants and other substances to prevent disease. You know, this is, uh, when I was growing up on the farm, this is what I sort of learned, and most people sort of accepted. This is almost the ideal of North and diet, quite frankly. Though we consume this food was without knowing it. It's almost unconscious, if you will. We consume it because we want to make sure we get enough protein. I'm going to argue that the protein in animal food, uh, basically is, is so prominent, we don't even hardly think we just take it for granted. It's so important. I'm going to call it the driver nutrient that drives dietary choice.

Now, having said that, I also should say this: dare to ask this question, and you're gone. I know that firsthand. Is one of the reasons I get pretty passionate about talking about this. So, what does all this idea mean about protein? We really wanted, we go all out to get it. And here's what we have. We have factory farms today, just producing on a massive scale, animal-based food, chickens, pigs, cattle. These are, these are cows being milked, probably in this rotisserie, if you will. It's really interesting. Those of us in the sort of plant-based immunity were talking about, uh, you know, more and more, and we're quite excited about more and more people talking about plant-based foods. But corner web and look at some of the conversations going on. The big conversation that's now going on that, as I see it, uh, primarily is how are we going to meet the demand for production of more animal food, presumably because it's so important. That's our state repairs today.

Now, ethical bash is a step or two, uh, to my own sort of intro into this field. Many years ago, um, in graduate school, I did a degree. I did my doctoral dissertation, in fact, on promoting the consumption of more animal protein more efficiently. And then after that, in my first academic academic position, we had a grant from the U.S. State Department there, this Virginia Tech University. We had a grant from the State Department that was intended to develop a model for working with malnourished children, feeding around their children. There again, the thought was these children were malnourished primarily because they weren't getting enough protein. So I'm schooled in this idea that the more protein, the better. However, I saw something in the children that didn't exactly square with that presumption, that bias, I should say. Namely, I was told by my medical colleagues one day in the Philippines, when we were there, that they were operating some children, four years of age and younger, for liver cancer. That is really odd. I went back to look at some of the nutritional data we had. Got the impression that the children were likely to get the liver cancer were the ones consuming the, what were the ones from the families consuming the most protein. Pretty odd. More protein, more calcium. Same makes sense to me. But in any case, this study then came out from India, now 54 years ago, where they were also suggesting that if these children were to consume more protein, they would have less liver cancer. Liver cancer is a big problem in Asia, by the way. So they did a little study with animals and they got these results. Animals given the higher levels of protein, 20% of total calories, um, compared to animals given the lower levels of five percent. Both of them, both groups were initiated with a carcinogen. So, as we say, in any case, the animals given higher levels of protein, they were the ones who got the cancer. Once given lower, those did not. Exactly at this, what they thought. This coincided with some of the impressions that I was getting with the children. So led to this, a really striking notion: increasing protein, increasing cancer. Sound crazy?

So I came back home to my laboratory at the Virginia Tech and got some money from the NIH, a grant that continued to the next 27 years ago. Well, we had a chance to really ask that question: Is it possible that animal protein could increase cancer? And I could just show you a ton of studies, but I'm going to just focus on one for to to, because it really convinced me that there's something here. I mean, I was inclined to really doubt this, but we did this. I want to show you what we did. This is the growth of in animals, experimental rats. This is the growth of cancer over the first 12 weeks. For 12 weeks, animals fed 20% protein, with the Indian workers did, and you can see it's one brother. Well, animals given five percent did not. Let me write there. It was affirmation, and as I said, what the Indian workers have done, if you will. But then we did something more that was really striking. I wanted to see what would happen if we switched the dice during that 12-week period, 20 to five, factor 20 back to five, and vice versa. This is just one representation of that. And what results breaking? We could control cancer development simply by adjusting this nutrient intake, suggesting that nutrition might be important in controlling whether or not cancer works or not. Was really quite dramatic. We did this kind of study in many different ways, and I can tell you, it's there, it's true. So it suggested a rather grand idea, uh, at that time, now supported, I think, by more information, namely, a nutrition rather than genes controls cancer development. What a revelation that was. Turned out is that not only that the protein we were using was animal-based, it was small things. It was protein of cow's milk. It was born of Levine milking cows. And and here casein was the one that was turning the cancer on. A little bit later, we tried to see what not so plant proteins like soy, and we could do that. Didn't infuse experiments on that. Different students were involved in it. And sodium protein does not increase cancer development, even when fed at the 20% level. So it really puts a finger pointer at the finger right at animal protein as being the problem turning into cancer. That being said, it also seemed to apply to other animal proteins in general. You know, getting more into that in my second commentary. But in any case, if animal proteins cause cancer, the notion occurred to me, this is back in the 1980s. The notion occurred to me that maybe this might apply to other diseases as well. And similarly, fatty plant foods, particular fruits, is in this case, that might tend to prevent that. So with that in mind, uh, still not totally convinced that this animal protein affects what's real. Uh, I wanted to know what the mechanism was. I spent the first 10, 12 years of my career actually formally in, as a professional in the pharmacology community. You know, all about drugs and how to use drugs and stuff like that. So I'm very conscious was at that time of what drugs can do. And here's, here's the thought. We tend to have in research of this kind, if we see something we don't like, animal protein causes cancer, maybe we could find a mechanism for that effect that would lend itself to the development of a drug to block it. There's something like statins being used about, you know, the the enzyme mechanism that is associated with heart disease. So that was the thought. Maybe we could find the mechanism. So we set about looking for mechanisms. These studies went over a period, went on over a period, at least 10, 12 years or so. And I kept looking for the mechanism, the mechanism that might account for this. And and making those kind of studies, we tended to, in experimental cancer research, we tended to think of cancerous then composed of three stages. The first stage is initiation. That's when the cancer is forming from a mutation of mutated genes. Secondly, we talk about a stage that takes a much longer period of time for promotion. That's when the new cancer cells was formed, then are divided and divided, dividing and growing into tumors. Well, and then the third stage is when the cancer is breaking away from this tissue of origin and going someplace else. We call it metastasis, and that is called progression. So with that in mind, I wanted to say, you know, what is the mechanism? So we started out early, at the simplest level, looking for a mechanism in the first stage. Um, and that, and then we started finding these mechanisms. Usually, one mechanism multiplied the entire doctoral dissertation of the student, because there's a lot of work doing these kind of things. In any case, without a number of mechanisms that seem to be involved in initiation, initiating the cancer, the high protein diet could increase the rate of entry into of the carcinogens into the cell. Oh, that's pretty important. When a course, sentences get inside themselves, they are metabolized by a mixed function oxidase enzyme system and methyl. And what we found there was that, and by the way, it's metabolized to produce a product that's very reactive, that then binds to the DNA of genes. That's what indications occur. What we found was that the high animal protein consumption increased the amount of enzyme being synthesized. It increases the structure so it became more accurate. And then in turn, it increased the binding of the product, that really reactive product of the imitation. It increased the product to the DNA, which was the beginning of limitation. But then we have a, incidentally, a repair mechanism that keeps that under control, if you will. It's working all the time in our bodies. It's called DNA repair. What we found there was that high protein diet actually turned it off. I mean, the thing that's been protecting us, the high protein does turn it off. So there's a bunch of mechanisms in that first stage. I'm getting a little bit frustrated, maybe I'm not sure what we're, what we're looking at here. By this time, so we turned our attention to the second stage. Now, the second stage, you'll notice I put arrows, reversible arrows, as a result of the research that we were doing, turning cancer involved. Um, and so in the second stage, we started looking for mechanisms again. We found a bunch of mechanisms. Uh, one here in yellow, that was a good one, that's called natural killer cell activity. No, these are done, by the way, it's about 25, 30 years ago. Natural killer cells now are the topic of discussion these days for trying to figure out a drug that enhances their activity. But in any case, we found that the high protein diet decreased natural killer cells, the good stuff, and increased the rate at which cells divide. It increased the ability of the, of the, uh, the protein increased the ability to approach the form very reactive compounds called ocean radicals, caution pre-reactive oxygen species, something I can say. It also did some of the increased the production of hormone and altered calories. So we here we had all these mechanisms just kept popping up. Every time that, and I said this was going over a period, at least 10, 12, even even longer, I guess, for doing this kind of research. So in a summary, we found that eight of these mechanisms, uh, increased cancer, and two of them that were good, and they were turned off. So we got 10 mechanisms. Wow. All 10 worked in the unison to increase cancer. That was the thought that I found really quite remarkable. It's not about one mechanism. All of a sudden, I started losing my interest in the idea that there was one mechanism that might lend itself to, let's say, pharmacologic treatment. Instead, there's nutrition was just everything was just going wrong at the same time. We, we've worked on 10. I could probably put up another couple here that we had information on. I'm sure now is far more than that. But the point is, the high protein diet just changed all these mechanisms almost simultaneously to do the same thing in unison. So as far as drug intervention is concerned, forget it. That's not the way to solve the problem. It'll bring to your attention the use of statins, for example, that's been invented, created billions of dollars of profit, that are being used supposedly to control heart disease. Doesn't work that way. Not like that does. So which mechanism, which drug? That was a dead end street. Yeah. I know. I want to just tell you one more story in this first presentation that kind of fit in pretty well with what I was learning about all these mechanisms of working together as animal protein that was doing it, not plant protein. Recently, I had a chance to go back into the literature and look at, let's say, some researchers that may have compared animal protein intake against some disease and found quite a few cure or something. Here's a plot of a researcher some years ago who found that increasing among, you know, these are different countries, okay? United States is right there. You can see among different countries, you can see as daily animal protein consumption goes up, renal cancer goes up. Renal cancer incidence, that's kidney cancer. Uh, I drew that line there myself. Um, and it turns out that it was a, according to an algorithm characteristics or conditions, if you will. Um, in any case, what we see here is is almost a straight-line relationship, really impressive. In other words, decrease in animal protection consumption brings to kidney cancer risk down to just above zero. Here's another one. Here's a paper published in 1959 by a member of a Jolliff, an older man at the time when I was a registered. I, I actually met him. And he, what he showed was that increasing protein consumption for different countries, so just by numbers here, increasing protein increased heart disease deaths. Again, I draw the line through there. And what I get is this, just like that. Here's another one. It's more recent times. Here's a relationship between non-fat milk consumption and prostate cancer. Wow. That line just come right down closer to the zero. There you have it right there. And so it looks like not that milk, skim milk, if you will, is better than whole milk. That's what that suggests. We did that on the farm, by the way. Uh, when it first came out about fat, we were basically central fusion or melting, making skim milk. But that's set that aside. Non-fat milk, increasing non-fat skim milk, the good stuff. A lot of people thought it's associated with prostate cancer. Wow. Here's one. My good friend from the University of Western Ontario in Canada, Ken Carroll, did this. He got a bunch of countries and he was looking at the risk to the dietary infection on the breast cancer or mortality for different watches of countries. And he concluded that as total fat increases, I've come to that ammonia, the the risk of drug breast cancer went up. But more particularly, it was a saturated fat common in animal foods. That's where the line really occurred. Very impressive, once again. The lines from weight down through almost there, if you will. There's another one. This is reversing the axis. The the cholesterol, the dietary things on the y-axis in this case. But what it shows is that again, heart disease risk is increased for these different countries. There's the U.S. way up here. Any priest with all these countries has cholesterol intake goes up. Now, cholesterol comes from animal food only, right? So we've got now cholesterol, calcium, heart disease. It looks like, um, here's one for meat consumption and colon cancer. Still another research group. Here's one for uterine cancer and total fat. It's like total fat, then it tend to reflects, uh, animal food consumption, by the way, for different countries. And finally, this impression appearance, namely, all these different things, whether it's meat intake or whether it's total fat intake or stem milk or cholesterol, whatever. These are animal protein circuits. Now, that's a really important part to make, because the researchers who focus on each one of these individual things, that in turn tended to generate a lot of interest in that one thing. And a lot of researchers done, you know, something's wrong with, let's say, saturated fat. Something's wrong with some names. What's kind of meat? You know, or I mean, that focus on one thing at a time, just just export it into further questions as to what's special about that particular kind of flu or Newton. So I call them animal protein surgery. It's all shown the same thing. So what's common to them? What's Karma job is the protein is animal protein. So on that question, by the way, uh, my friend Tantaro was, he was looking at the saturated fat versus breast cancer thing. He also had information on the conceptual plant protein. He didn't call it plant protein, to call it unsaturated fat. But there's no relationship. No relationship. So this team, this these linear regressions seem to be, uh, basically for animal food, not plant for animal protein in particular. So let me leave that with you for the moment. Um, and, uh, just remind us that what, what an attempted to show here, we have big, big problems. And those big problems, I wanted to suggest, really come back to, and we'll talk about this in the next presentation, come back to the food we eat. And the food we eat, it causes the problems, is characterized by the fascination that we have for animal protein. Thank you.

Okay, back again, uh, for the second half of this commentary. Uh, and before getting into the comments here, uh, let me just briefly just highlight a couple of points. I was tempted to make in the first part, a few, a few points that we might consider so far. Um, first, um, as I mentioned, I'm really addressing a an issue having to do with multiple problems having to do with human health or human and planetary health, and suggesting, in fact, to working toward the idea that there's one main cause, the possible one main solution to solving this very complicated set of problems. And I'm suggesting too, as she already heard from the first commentary, I'm suggesting that it's our fascination, or long-time fascination, with high-quality animal protein. You know, a lot of people think protein is just in animals. It's not quite. But at least it's high-quality. Fascination with high-quality animal protein, and I'm going to say that this is the main driver of food production and food shorts for well over a century. And I want to talk about that, the consequences of that fascination. Example of protein. If the world, I want to talk a little bit about the origin, the consequences of this fascination. On the origin, I want to go back to Mulder in 1839, a Dutch chemist who discovered protein. Well, he was, he had, he was doing a dog experiment, actually. And the dog was eating meat, and he realized that the dog had to have some meat or would die or suffer problems. And so he said, he's a chemist, he set out to try to find in there or something in there they might be able to isolate. He found a compound, a material, had to give it a name. He gave it a name after the Greek word proteos, which means our prime importance. So, in a sense, the word protein is initial baptism was pretty striking: prime importance. Okay, why did you do that? Why did you do that? I, that's a whole couple of elections in itself, by the way. The history is really fascinating. But anyhow, that's what he did. There was a belief at that time among some folks that eating animals was just where we get good food from and good health. But then in college, if there's a younger colleague at the time, uh, Joseph on Libby, he took it up, and he causes the protein with the stuff of life itself. Pretty auspicious statement. Suggested protein is stuff of life itself. Prime importance. A motor, I mean, by David, by the way, was the, you know, really a giant in the scientific research in this area. He was a legend who had had the most students ever of any manufacturing member or, as you can say, teacher. He was the founder of organic chemistries, currently. He also organized the ideas around the notion that we could actually use chemicals to feed the plants and make them growth after. So he's credited with, or originated the concept, agricultural chemistry. More importantly, from my perspective, he's predator with an emphasis, give it to scientific materialism. Such a materialism, when you think about complicated things in really discrete units and discrete events, discrete times. When you think about it that way, you know, material things, that's exactly what is the basis for the opportunity for developing it into a business. It's a pretty important guy.

So now, let me turn to this question concerning what is perfect quality. I said, you know, people, we tend to think the protein that's quality, and the quality protein, high-quality protein is in animal foods. I mean, for many years, for a lot of people, thought protein only came from animal foods. Benship was learned in the late 1800s, early 1900s, finds that protein too. Yeah, over over that's not high quality. Let me go explore that story through that story with it. High quality, a really important concept. People don't necessarily, they haven't put it in their minds. They don't necessarily, you know, think about it on a daily basis. That's great to say. It's really almost an unconscious, subconscious kind of motion. But high quality means in a laboratory means more dietary protein in a test period, more dietary protein being retained by the body in a set period of time, except it's kind of certain conditions. And that in turn relates to a concept we call biological value. That actually is what I really redid on myself in my inductive dissertation in years ago. This whole concept of, you know, trying to find a protein that has the highest biological value or quality. Animal proteins, by the way, and I can't get into all the details here, but it's convincingly. I'll show you this. Animal proteins retain more of the protein they consume, okay? That's referred to as high quality. Plant proteins, no reason as much, they're low quality. So animal proteins are high quality, plant proteins are for low carbons. Everybody was quality, right? Well, that kind of equipment or consciousness. And, uh, so if you really want to get real protein, eat animal protein. If you don't want to do that, then create the plant proteins in such a way that you get high quality. Okay, that's been with us forever. So this origin of the concept of high quality, uh, actually arose formally from a professor at the University of Illinois, H.H. Mitchell, published in 1924. And he is titled a message for determine the biological value of protein, high quality. Well, so it means more protein being retained. Well, for what purpose? Well, it actually related more protein is being retained by a given amount of protein, the bachelor rate of body weight gain, right? So it looked good, growth, go animals faster, Bradley Sperma showed that Pegasus and so forth. That in turn, you know, speeding up growths obviously means more profit for the livestock-based agriculture. Good deal. So you want to stick to protein as high quality. Whoops. But there's a problem with that thought. It's been around for ever. It's in our consciousness. We don't think about it. The public never thinks about it, quite frankly, that way. But they just know whose protein. It turns out in a more recent times, and not so just reasons, there's a couple of cases here, quite a long time ago. It turns out that the more protein being retained also does some other things. Look, the higher the retention, it increases growth hormone. We showed that no rats. It increases blood cholesterol, blood estrogen levels. That's a female hormone, circulating hormone. That relation turned to breast cancer earlier. Asian men are more more urine tests and so forth. So higher protein than retained means more growth hormone, more estrogen. It also turns on the production of so-called free radicals. Those are dangerous little things. They can be useful. They said your body, the body has a way of using those things. But when we increase the production free radicals filter Skelter, they actually speed up aging. They speed up cancer. Hyper, this hot. More protein retention also increases the production of potassium mutations. I showed that in the last civil wrong research. And a decrease in so-called natural killer cells, T cells, and a decrease in DNA repair. The two goods actually have for bone force. Uh, the high protein does that. All of these things here, you know, high protein, protein, I'm talking about high protein, more retention, it increases cancer. But all these different mechanisms, is that high quality? We're also increasing this an old story here. The the high quality proteins associate increases your own cholesterol. That was first seen in 1906. And it was summarized in in the first in 1923 by a group at University of Michigan. And then again in 1926. And it turns out that the real cause of increasing cholesterol and the heart disease that comes along with it is protein. It's animal protein. So that increases our disease, okay? Incidentally, that was summarized in 1926, as I just said, 23, 26. That's the time when Mitchell came along in Illinois. They said that, oh, wait a minute, more retained, the better growth rate. That's what's stuck with it with us over time. Uh, the high protein diets and most other things too. It increases blood sugar. All we need to say about that is that, you know, diabetics are on high sugar problems. If they were to go on a low protein diet, however, protein, the sugar drops. Okay, A1C, another indicator of course, of not very diabetic risk. So here we have all these things going on related to retaining more protein, retain more protein, one more from animal protein, animal protein, retaining more protein, more of the nitrogen increases cancer, increases heart disease, which inspirational diabetes. Is that high quality? Is that what we mean by high quality? It's still with us in our consciousness that we have to eat the animal protein to get the high quality. And even companies like Impossible Burger and others are trying to create, you know, a so-called plant protein. But in the with the mindset that they wanted like a high quality, high quality for it. So I'm arrangement is this really serious question here about what high quality remains. Okay, enough said. This, I want to turn your attention now to what does this mean in terms of policy development calls it? Well, I'm going to show you just a line here showing you the different amounts of protein being consumed, if you will, at different levels. This is, these are percent of total calories. There's like five to six percent of protein, uh, five to six percent of total calories, nine to ten, eleven. As you can see, what am I going to be showing here? First off, the minimum amount of protein that we need. And this was first learned more or less developed officially in the early 1940s. The minimum amount of protein we need is about five to six percent of tenants. That's all. But that, uh, experimental result, uh, was then increased by a couple of standard deviations to make sure everybody in the protein and so that's what gave rise to the recommended dietary allowance, okay? RDA, that's the one everybody looks at, thinks about it. They think about any of this. That's not the minimum amount we need, by the way. The minimum that is here. This is the recommended level. This is not for everybody, basically. Um, however, in spite of those numbers, uh, over the years, we've been consuming as a society, at least in the United States, in other Western countries too, but you just the United States, we consume protein right during this span here. The black wire just the intake rings integrations. And what is that? The extra protein that we're getting over above what we really need. The extra protein we get, it's 75 to 80 percent of that comes from Hamilton. So we have diets on average in this country, this rich in animal food, high quality, and we actually consume as much as we can get, way over what we need. Okay. Now, I want to show you the real problem here. We don't think of it. That range of protein consumption that we're consuming from mostly animal protein, I'm going to superimpose those lines I showed you in the earlier presentation of the risk of disease that occurs, you know, by increasing protein consumption. During this range here, mostly from animal foods, we can expect to see an increase, just like that, in chronic disease risks. There it is. Pretty plain straightforward, quite simple. And I might point out, by the way, that we only need 9, 10% protein or so like that. That's enough. You know, whole food plant-based diets provide all the protein we need at the right time. It's the right time. We do not. There's no basis, no basis for consuming animal food in order to get that so-called high quality protein. That's nonsense. Uh, and by the way, hopefully plant-based stage, yes, they they're as low as eight by ten percent protein, maybe in some cases, if you just eat potatoes. So for example, but in reality, these are plant-based diets can go up to 15, even close 20 percent. Get a lot of views and things like that. No problem because now you consuming whole food. The protein is going to perform. It don't do the same thing. You're going to do all these things working too. And that's just subject for another time. But in any case, whole food plant-based protein is enough. And so what happened in 2002, by the way? Dietary guidelines, uh, in the United States are updated every five years. With a committee, usually it's the amount of protein needed in other nutrients needed are framed by the national academic science. And then that's passed off to the doctor to the USA doctor guidelines. And so this, what I'm showing you here right now, in in 2002, a decision was made by the committee that determines how much nutrients you should have. They want to sit an upper limit for nutrient intake, upper safe limit for protein. They said that's 35%. We can't even get up to that. Here's where I see that line right there. We can't even get it to 35, quite frankly. It's very, very difficult. What this, this was an invitation to consume as much high-quality protein, animal-based, as you can stuff in yourself. Really. That, that was an insane recommendation. But it made it into the press. It was adopted, you know, for school lunch programs and everything else. You don't eat as much protein, it's all good for you. And so I call that the, the activity of the mob power. I know there's a couple of committees here involved in the chairman of also the important intimidation wants to set the number first place, as well as the one that sort of directed the doctor guidelines to frame it for the public. It was the same person. That's the person I know very well. Um, and he has tied into the animal food industry daytime. Sorry to ask the question, why 35 when 10 is enough? At least get down the one one, especially was provided the whole food by this diet. Then I have to show you this in my estimation. This act, and it wasn't by the committee, it was legislative by the committee, but actually it was the news release that was made after the committee that finished its work. But in any case, that 35 figure has now prepped into regulations and guidelines across our country for all sorts of different programs. So it has had major consequences, and people don't even know it. But what it is, is an invitation, an invitation to consume as much questions you need. Besides, it's the most important work. It's the most important nutrient. Probability we can soon get it from animals that we can guess what the funny support for that first activity for that 35 figure is listed here. They have to listen the Dan Institute. Is I think close to the most influential, uh, industry in the world for the dairy industry. International Life Sciences Institute. That's an organization that represents the food industry, for the most part. Corporate donors funds. These are people wanting to throw in some money and not just not want to have the name associated with it. Got vitamin companies here. I mean, drug companies, Lee Johnson, Roche, M&Mowers. Well, I threw another one in here too. Academic Charlotte's. These are folks who did this. I've been working under sort of this kind of influence, and they came up, and it has to be people who people think are very serious about science. Now, let me go beyond that. So in the current day, just just to be quickly, we are still emphasizing because sometimes consumption as much protein as possible and make it a high quality. That is the scientific basis, so-called scientific basis for making sure we eat enough animal food in this story. Okay. And let's say I want to share another perspective that I think is important. When, uh, my younger son Tom and I were doing The China Study, at that time, I went back and I mean, I was really quite amazed at how sound was this information about a whole food plant-based diet, if you will. Uh, and I wanted to go back and look to see if researchers prior to that time, that was about 2002, 2003. I wanted to see if there was any research in the literature that of others that may have suggested something similar. And I found information for all of these events here, these diseases that, uh, basically you could be interpreted their partial results, but it could be interpreted that it supports the idea whole food type as diet prevents, certainly stops or growth or cures all. Really quite amazing. And this is all based on peer-reviewed research on this. So it's a bunch of different diseases. Now, the individual researchers at that time didn't, I use the term whole foods diet, obviously, but they were actually getting some results that could be interpreted in the context of modern information, in the context that they were really showing more evidence for the use of whole food plantation, I had preventing suspending internal diseases. So I just want to, so highlight a couple of these are conclusions here over here. Whole Foods diet is moad. It's very fast. Most people know this here. If you got people with heart disease, especially diabetes, swim on this diet, you can start to see results in 24 to 30, age 36 hours, certainly within a few days. It's amazing. And moreover, there's another feature of this, uh, dietary thing that's really important, I think, and that is that, uh, with the reversal of heart disease, and in our case, in the laboratory, reversal cancer, that idea of reversing things is amazing treatment. In other words, people who have the disease go on this, which that's why we see the amazing results we do, without side effects, with outside of this. My organizations are missing. It seems like me to me from this list. We've had virus. We've had viral diseases. We all know them. These are VA's, business, hepatitis, so forth. Common cause of flu, or some of them. They come all the time. We've had viruses here, viruses here on Earth before we were. And that that interplay between viruses and, uh, not nearly enamels and plants through this kind of a competition. And some have called this, in a sense, an engine of evolution. But in the case, I am, I'm going to suggest something here about this by organizations. I bring it up at this time because we got a virus. It's been circulated amongst us and causing a lot of problems or discussion. And I'm going to also tell you too, that in The China Study, that we did in 1983, it was repeated in 1989. So, even bigger than one in 1983. And the second one included Taiwan as well as manual China. But in any case, we collected some information on total about 9,800 people, adults. We'll share that with them on a virus. We, we looked at the relationship. We looked at a viral disease in China, the most important viral disease in the world, as Hepatitis B virus. It causes liver cancer, liver cancer. And I'm just kind of scheming this out, in a sense, posing a question. Do does what we learned here about this? I'll show you in a moment, because it pretend anything, maybe for the covert thing. But anyways, let's start with that for a moment. Schematically, here's a way of virus works. Viruses out there in the answer. I mean, antigen is the active Liberace, if you will. It circulates out the community, symbolize water, air, whatever. It comes in into the human body. Okay? When it comes into human body, it's awesome. Once you're just a dirty work. Most importantly, viruses usually get, they use the human body to replicate themselves. It's a good home for them. But in any case, it invades the human body. Now, we're positive. His virus is detected in our body. Now we're called a case. We're called a positive effects. Okay? It sits there, you know, virus system, so far, no problems, no symptoms. Okay? The virus, in theory, can travel one of two ways. Either it stays active, hangs around, it can cause this damage, like in our case for the liver cancer. That's what, that's the symptoms of look. That's death. Virus being expressed, causing death. That's one way. The other way is maybe the body reacts to head, don't like it. And so it starts forming antibodies. So it's there's this, uh, fork in the road here. The virus is sitting there. What's it going to do? It's going to cause this problems, or is our body going to fight back and form the antibodies? Pretty simple. Uh, this, as I say, this is a data reflected in 1989 in China. Um, it turns out that we had in that study, as we had in the earlier, we had a lot of lots of nutritional information to characterize these different steps in the pathway. We had nutrition information to, uh, to show us, you know, what was associated with the formation antibodies, what was associated with the production of, you know, taste test cases, if you will, as well as liver cancer. That liver cancer thing, as I say, to emphasize once again, it kills around 800,000 people a year worldwide. It's been going on for decades. It's a pretty serious cancer. If I want to say, let me tell you, it comes from our China Study. Okay, there's a reference. Is the publication? So now I want to show you something about this B virus that I find really passionate. 1989, 8,000 people in the Sun. Once again, I'm showing your scam ears, like I did before, more or less. The body, the information is out there. And I mean, if the virus is out there, comes in and remains as an active virus, I'm sorry, commotion here, so sorry about that. So the, the viruses out there, it comes in, it's an active virus. Now it's called an antigen. That's what folks around the body. When we test positive, as I said before, in the case of, of, uh, Hepatitis B virus, if it's going to do its damage, it's going to cause liver cancer deaths. That's unfortunately cause a decimal world. I should tell you that's what it's pretty common in Africa and Asia, that that kind of virus. But in any case, so we got the virus to come over here. We had data and all this sort of thing. It turns out that we learned from our information that animal food, people consuming animal food, and World tried, and was a small amount, on average, only 10 percent, more or less what we do in the West, anyhow. People consuming animal food, they were the ones with the active virus. They got infected. The virus, the virus called the cancer, highly correlated with those two. Also, at the same time, we learned from laboratory studies that the people consuming a little more animal food, uh, they likely saw a decrease in their natural killer cells. And I say likely because we, we did a study in some companion experimental animal studies in the lab. Painting animals that actually right in this case, mice, did give rise to liver cancer. They're called transgenic mice. They got the gene woman liver cancer. Feed them higher levels of animal protein, they get to cancer. The lower levels, they don't dream. Very remarkable. And it came in the more animal protein decreased natural killer cells. Wow. Compromised, just like I was explained before. Plant food, on the other hand, a North China Study, as people increase their consumptive plant food, they were the ones, they had, they were the ones who formed antibodies. They did not get the liver cancer. So here's the, here's a fork in the road. Age of animal food dies, get little kids, all kinds of mechanisms go. That's explanation. In contrast, let's say it's more plants. In other words, supporting immune system, really quite stark. And I must tell you that the data we had at this point, they were correlations. And people like to say, oh, correlation don't mean Equalization. This is nonsense. In this particular case, that kind of criticism is one as for the expectation of the hypothesis that only a single agent is going to cause a single outcome. That's fair enough. But I'm not talking about in this case. So for those who think otherwise, stop and think about this. We had 11 risk factor correlations associated with the presence or the absence of food, plant food or animal food. It turned out, and I'm only using the, the correlations that Ohio had a significant and 11 of them. It turns out those correlations all converged into the same outcome that I'm describing here. Animal food causes liver cancer and death. Plant food and activates the virus to form antibodies. That was published in a paper that I published in February 20, 2021, just a year ago. Has some trouble getting there because I had labeled this, hey, we're maybe we can think about this reporter virus. Two generals, two top generals would not even review it. The first time in my life this has ever happened. I've had hundreds of journals. They were not even review it because I suggesting the possibility we may have an answer here for controlling the phenomenon. Wouldn't even review it. It did get published eventually in the EC of General Nutrition of the European Commission.

Journal, so it's out there. Incidentally, I put an X-ray here to remind myself. Do you know when that, when, uh, the, the, the coronavirus first was being told to the Americans? Objectives, as I say, around January, February, so of 2020, two years ago. But when I was first being told, all they kept talking about was the number of cases, as if they mean death. They don't, by the way. But they call it, it was almost like stirring up some fear. Uh, they were talking about this, and they weren't talking about animal foods, this virus, and, and that for the COVID virus, for example, and causing deaths and different kinds of deaths. Never talked about the, about nutrition. But all they talked about was this going in that race, the process of death, how many deaths we're going to have, and, you know, etc., etc. They just almost, attention. They've made no comment whatsoever, never have in the last three years, of the nutrition having anything to do with what the virus might do to people who have a good immune system obtained from people who are primarily consuming plant-based foods. It's that simple. Just actually had they had they talked about this in principle, you know, planners of the corporate argument, of course, uh, we could have had a very different scenario.

I do believe now. Let me summarize just a little bit more on this, uh, idea about, uh, the COVID virus thing. Individuals most acceptable to probabilities, okay, more sustainable, they're over 60 years of age, and most of them have what is called co-morbid conditions. They, they have a degenerative, they've been diagnosed with either heart disease, diabetes, cancer, whatever they've been diagnosed with with some kind of disease of aging. And, and I would suggest that about 90, figures I am familiar with, 90 to 95% of those deaths in COVID-19 are occurring in people over the years of 60. I think it's a fair statement, over the years of 60, and among people who have already been diagnosed with one of these diseases. Accessible, those are the ones who really have suffered the worst. Came out a little bit here. So here are the people I'm talking about, the people with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and so forth, right? They are the ones that are the victims of the serious consequences of COVID, of COVID infection. Yes, included that oftentimes, usually dying of the disease they have at that time. But nonetheless, this, this group here are the ones that are the victims of the, of this particular disease or disease severity, at least.

So why do, what causes these people? They're such a, I mean, I know what their latest number is. There's something like 75 to 80%, depending on which age break we're talking about, are now only diagnosed with one of these diseases, the heart disease or hypertension or diet, whatever. That 70 to 75%. Where's that come from? Poor nutrition, eating their own food, by protein diets, high animal protein diets. That's what they're doing. You get this. So now they're, they're now they are the victims. They're the seed bed for the virus that haven't swung in vague. And they have the problem is that actually could prevent these people from southernmost diseases. That's for starters. That, that's pretty well established. I think you would agree. As I say, about 90, 95% of these people who die have these conditions here. The whole point of my Messiah from our study in the virus of China also does something else. It turns out that hopefully, by this diet, really acts to build an immune system, actually build the immune system that prevents the virus from getting a grip on us and doing this dirt work. So the whole foods that is reducing the potential victims, as well as for those who may suffer the consequences of an infection, prevented them from going on to itself in the disease.

So here's my statement. Whole food plant-based diet, uh, relates just as it did before to a decrease, possibly in, um, maybe in the COVID cases. I'm just offering as a hypothesis. I think it's reasonable. It turns out that our, we published a paper in February 2021. Uh, then there was another paper in that June, another September, two other groups who actually came up with some information like somewhere a little bit approximation of the food intake. But nonetheless, here's what they learned. One of them did, at least. And then they bought it. Actually, that people could seem in more plant-based foods, they called it even including people pescetarian diets. This morning consumed to fish. These ladies were focused on people consuming their general whey plant-based foods that I think you would agree kind of a rough approximation of what they did. It, but they're approaching that idea. They saw a 73% decrease in the first paper and probably close to an 80% the second one.

So for my way of looking at things, and here's the reference for those two papers, my, my, uh, experience with this whole question of nutrition is that the, the system within which we live in wrongful supported by an agriculture industry that produces the wrong food. We get sick. Most of us suffer these consequences of eating that kind of food. Okay, that's okay because we've got drugs over here to take care of us. Destiny, the tender too, why the industry? Okay, so each one will get checked. We'll take care of ourselves with drugs. I think that Russia, I think I don't think I'm overstating indication. I think people will know that go look at the data, don't finish data for yourself, that we're relying on a system, but they did the wrong food, primarily focused on our worship of protein, animal protein in particular. That's what we're doing. And the authorities are making almost no comment, none about to possibly, hey, we can maybe do something different? Maybe we could eat the right food? It makes quite a bit of difference.

So I'm talking about whole foods nutrition, and this is a subject for another series of lectures. I'm not mentioning here, but whole foods nutrition is not about individual nutrients being consumed. It's not. There's multiple nutrients acting together through each of which has multiple mechanisms producing a wise, wide spectrum of potential disease outcomes, including on at the same time, multiple health improvements. I summarize all that enormous complexity into something simple. Two ideas. Keep the food sort of whole, as I say, that's delicious. Another time, they can plant-based. Make a plant-based. I haven't even talked about the value of what plants have, but at least they're avoiding the consumptive animals. That was told first, uh, in a book that buys Douglas son, Tom, uh, Walter with me, The China Study. And Tom himself is going off after that experience, became a physician himself, who's now is involved in some of this research that had a major medical school. Um, and so in any case, it was made us into a second edition of this color here. At that time, was it said it was two million copies sold? Uh, that was just 2016. Extrapolated, uh, it was estimated that there's somewhere around 3 million copies now have been sold. Um, I'm not, I just was informed just recently that that number may not be quite right. But whatever it is, it's a pretty big number. It has been translated to 54 languages. It's going around. And what I'm not telling that to weigh the flag on The China Study, I'm telling because when I wrote this study, I did not under this book. I was not aware of that time in the to publisher sort of informed us that would not likely sell, do not like to sell or tell them the story the right way. We're talking about all of science and references and we just, we're still five, ten thousand. We were doing good. Well, in this, the moment, what this tells me is that this idea, so well hidden, should I say for so long, people are discovering what this can do, and it's exploding. The time has come to take a serious look at nutrition. What it can do, nutrition that is powered by the consults of plant-based foods, Moses much as possible in the whole food form.

And then there's one more study I've done. This my grandson, uh, Nelson diesel graduates, you know, in the literature from University of North Carolina, did a marvelous element, helped him, helped me on that as well. Uh, discussion here, the future of literature. So I think we have a future. Do we have a future if we just just decide just to look, just the future of just taking nutrition seriously, translated simply for the public? All they need to do is there's two things. The perhaps try to make them all in the store, produce plants in the agriculture section, food sustainability, just just work on that. If we just did that, we would, we don't need to learn about all the other details that confused the devil analysts. Just focus on a couple of simple ideas, and we got it. Looked okay.