O:H header
Welcome to another addition of "In the News", where we look through some of the latest health headlines and give the Objective:Health take.

A whistleblower, or whistleblowers, have come forward from the committee for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans stating there are very problematic issues with the process of coming up with the guidelines every five years. Anyone paying attention will be thoroughly unsurprised by this news. We discuss the ramifications.

Also in the news, the New York State Bar Association has come up with some recommendations based on what has been learned from the COVID-19 fiasco. And what tops the list? Mandatory vaccinations, of course!

Join us for our discussion on these topics and more on this episode of Objective:Health.

And check us out on Brighteon!

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth

♥And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here.

Running Time: 00:46:09

Download: MP3 — 42.3 MB

Here's the transcript of the show:

Doug: Hello, and welcome to Objective Health. I am your host, Doug, and with me today is Elliot. We are just two bros doing a show today. Our usual ladies are not with us, but they will be back. Today, we are doing another episode of "In the News" where we look at the latest headlines in health. Lately, it has been nothing but Covid and a lot of our shows are somewhat loosely related to the whole Covid fiasco, but we thought we would also take a look at some of the other stuff going on. Other health news doesn't stop just because there is a fake pandemic going on.

To start things off, the Nutrition Coalition had an article up a couple of weeks ago and it said Member(s) of USDA Committee Blow Whistle on Serious Flaws in Dietary Guidelines Process. What the article covers is that there were several whistleblowers who are in on the dietary guidelines for Americans who have been blowing the whistle on the whole operation. The whole process by which they go through and make recommendations on what will be recommended for the American people is very problematic to say the least.

Some of the stuff that they are saying is that there is a lack of time to finish scientific reviews, reviews are deleted and added without public notice, there is lack of consistent standards across all the sub committees, and lack of time for the USDA to adopt reforms mandated by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

That is an interesting one because not too long ago in 2015 they mandated that they would have a peer review process by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. They had been beholden to no one for the whole time that they had been doing it, so they finally said "Okay, we are going to get an outside group to take a look at what we are doing and get recommendations." Now, they are saying "We don't have time to take any of those recommendations on board".

They also say that there is inconsistent evaluation of scientific evidence, exclusion of major bodies of evidence including almost all the studies on weight loss and virtually all studies on low carbohydrate diets. For us and anybody who is even moderately within the low carb community, you don't even have to say that. Anybody who has realised the value of a low carb diet recognises that the dietary guidelines really don't reflect any of the research that is going on there. There are studies coming out all the time that are showing the benefits of low carbohydrate eating regimens. That is completely ignored in the dietary guidelines. They don't say anything like that. They're still saying "cut your fat" you know? "Cut saturated fats, avoid meats" and all that kind of stuff.

Elliot: It's ironic. I think we were speaking about this a couple of months ago. We did a show and we were discussing the head of the American Diabetes Association actually came out and said that she herself follows a low carbohydrate/ketogenic diet. Yet, the international association does not recommend those guidelines. In fact, many of the people who follow the guidelines set by these massive international institutions end up getting worse, or they certainly don't improve their health condition.

Really, anyone who has adopted or who has looked into alternative methods to improve their health has come across low carbohydrate or reduced carbohydrate diets and the importance of eating animal fats. The head of this coalition is Nina Teicholz. She has authored a couple of books. The most well known is The Big Fat Surprise. For years, she has been lobbying and educating on the benefits of animal foods and how they have been demonised historically.

I think it is old news now. It is old news. It's something that we once knew and understood. There has been a lot of propaganda in the latter half of the 20th century, but now it's very much time to discard that. Anyone who looks into nutrition can see that. It seems like it's a very long and drawn out process when it doesn't need to be.

On their website, the coalition has got a pretty good overview of what is wrong with the science, and they offer the report for free. They also give some recommendations on how the science can be improved. They're talking about things like enhancing transparency with the public. They're looking at finding ways to try to improve the efficacy of the data that trials are getting, and they want to change the methods that scientists use. They have got lots of recommendations on how it can be done.

I think one of the biggest problems that we are up against is private funding and financial interests. I think that this is probably the biggest issue that these people who are lobbying for change are up against. We have to understand that there are major powers involved or who benefit from the current dietary guidelines, in fact that's the reason that they're there and these kinds of powers are people who are above the law. They are above scientific transparency, so to speak, and they really control things.

We're talking about the big, multinational corporations, big agriculture, even big pharma to some extent. There are many different areas of money making schemes which profit or benefit from people being in a state of chronic illness. I think that even though the faulty science is rightly criticized, I think it's going to be difficult to make any major changes where we currently are, but that's just my opinion.

Doug: I think that's probably true. It might be cynical, but I think it is also fairly realistic. You have very entrenched bodies that are self-interested. One of the things that really comes across in this whole whistleblower thing is that it seems like the actual committee for the dietary guidelines is more of a formality than anything else. They're rushing through. There's a lack of time to finish the scientific reviews. Reviews are added and deleted willy-nilly. There are no consistent standards. It really seems like you're on the board, they push a bunch of stuff at you and you sign off on it and there you go, you've got the dietary guidelines.

The decision making that goes on for what actual science is looked at and what isn't, I would imagine - I don't know for sure - is very heavily influenced by who is giving them money. That is essentially the food processors. So if the science is pointing to low carbohydrate diets being good for health, for weight loss and all these sorts of things, then the makers of processed food, which is overwhelmingly not low carbohydrate diet friendly - loaded with carbs, sugar, all that kind of stuff - obviously they're not going to want to see that reflected in the dietary guidelines. They want people eating their food, their breakfast cereals, their chips, their snacks, their cakes and chocolate bars.

So it's not really surprising that that is what you are seeing reflected in these guidelines. They'll be politically correct about it and they'll put limitations on things. "Only get 10% of your calories from sugar" or something like that. But realistically, the 'My Plate' does not reflect a healthy diet, it's as simple as that.

Elliot: No, it doesn't. It doesn't take a nutritional scientist or a doctor to see that. It's fairly obvious. It seems that this kind of problem is applicable to many aspects of science, especially medicine and health. As I was saying before, if you read scientific research papers published in the 1930's or 1940's, even the 1950's to some extent, you see how research scientists and doctors seemed very open-minded about many things.

It's kind of off topic, but I have been doing a lot of research into the old studies that were done using high dose vitamins and there were doctors in the 1930's who were reporting excellent results from using very high doses of certain vitamins which are dirt cheap. They were using these for all kinds of conditions, for instance multiple sclerosis and Parkinsons, with excellent results.

Then, there comes a point in the scientific literature where you realise the research completely drops off. It just disappears into researching these nutrients and then a lot of the research into pharmaceutical medications becomes more prominent. That reflects this funding when science was drawn away from actually finding out the truth, towards how it can promote a narrative or provide evidence to support the selling of a product. In this case it could be pharmaceuticals, in another - the case that we are talking about - is selling a nutrient-depleted diet which is highly profitable, but which is causing people in the Western world and internationally, severe health problems.

Doug: When was it that you saw the change in the science? Was there a year or a time period that you noticed that it started changing?

Elliot: It's difficult to say. It seems to be around the 1940's and 1950's. Up until then you had doctors who were reporting things which would be considered heresy today. I'm not sure when financial interests started playing a larger role in scientific funding but it was definitely around that time period that you saw science shift towards pharmaceutical based medicine. It was in the 50's when you had Ancel Keys coming out with his war against fat. It seemed to coincide with one another. It was almost like health scientists were hijacked.

Doug: That's interesting. There was another article that relates to this by Jeff Volek in The Hill: Nutrition Policy Must be at the Centre of the Conversation. He's not referring to any whistleblowers or anything like that but he makes a very good point that one of the things that has come up from this whole Covid thing is that it became readily apparent fairly early on that people who had underlying conditions were much more vulnerable to this virus, especially people who had obesity, type 2 diabetes and the like; metabolic syndrome essentially.

His argument is more or less, "Come on guys! Let's do something about this. We have a significant amount of science that is showing us that if you are following a low carbohydrate diet, then all of those conditions are helped immensely. Yet, our dietary guidelines are still pushing a diet that is high in carbohydrates."

The dietary guidelines are not reflecting the science, it's as simple as that. When you combine that with the Nutrition Coalition article which is talking about what this whistle blower was saying then it's no wonder. They're leaving huge chunks of the science out to essentially keep on putting out the same dietary guidelines every five years. They are not really making significant changes. There are a few tweaks here and there "We changed the amount of salt that you are allowed" which is kind of a nothing-recommendation anyway. But realistically, overall it's still promoting the same foods over and over and over again. Things are just getting worse.

In a different article he does get into how much obesity is costing the US yearly. It's nearly $150 billion for obesity-related medical costs and insurance. Diabetes is even worse. It's $327 billion. It's a total shit-show. Anybody who knows anything about health recognises that diet plays a huge role in health, and whether or not you can get acute diseases. It's not necessarily just the chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. But you're actually much more susceptible to acute diseases like Covid-19 if you aren't healthy, if you don't have an underlying baseline of health. The dietary guidelines are not helping with that at all.

Elliot: Of course not, and it's like any other health condition. If your body is not healthy - it's so silly that this needs to be spelled out. It's crazy that you have a guy having to write a very comprehensive article just to explain such a basic concept - if your body is not working as it should be because you're not feeding it the right things, then the immune system doesn't work as it should. The way the immune system works - which is part of the body, it's not separate, it's part of the body - is fundamentally determined by your overall state of health. Your immune system uses things like nutrients to function properly. If you do not have enough nutrients then the immune system does not work properly.

If you have chronic inflammation then that will change the immune system; if you have metabolic problems all of these things tie in together to reduce your immune system. If you have a reduced immune system you are more likely to get an infection and you are more likely to die of an infection. It's simple. That's not a hard concept to understand. I really don't think it's surprising in any way that the people who are susceptible to Covid are the people with multiple underlying health conditions, including metabolic syndrome-insulin resistance because these things fundamentally disrupt the immune system.

How do you address that? It's not by a vaccine, as we are going to see in a minute. That's certainly not the way that you address that. That does not address the underlying cause which is the faulty immune system. It angers me sometimes. [Laughter]

Doug: I can understand that. As obvious as it is to us, I do actually think that to your average person it might not be so obvious. They don't necessarily make a connection between the fact that they are eating junk and they are getting sick more often. Even when I talk to people who have nothing to do with health and don't understand health at all it's like this concept isn't obvious to them. They'll tie it to weight loss; what you're eating is directly related to your weight. They can understand that.

But when they say "I'm really run down and I'm getting every cold that's coming along" and you say "what's your diet like?" and they say "diet? What does that have to do with anything?" It seems like it should be obvious, but I think that to the average person maybe it's not.

Elliot: I think society in general would do well if we had mandatory training on how the immune system works, mandatory education in schools. "This is how your immune system works and this is how you improve your immune system. This is how you improve your health."

The problem is, it ties back to what we were saying before, that science was co opted. Medicine and health was taken away from a holistic view that what you put in your body and how you live your life affects your health, and towards a pharmaceutical based view which is characterised by the idea that if you have a certain health condition you pop this pill for it, or you take this cream, or you have this nasal spray. You use a drug and you don't try to address the cause of why your body has that condition; you just take a drug.

I think you're right in that most people don't make the connection, but when you do eventually make the connection it seems so obvious because it actually is. It's something that our ancestors knew for time immemorial. We've just been manipulated on a mass scale to lose faith in our bodies and lose faith in nature.

Doug: That's true. Well,...

Elliot: Talking about vaccines?

Doug: Yeah, speaking of vaccines. [laughter]

Elliot: And pharmaceutical companies?

Doug: Yes, pharmaceutical companies. Let's go from the food processing companies to the pharmaceutical companies. The New York State Bar Association's Health Law Section Report Calls for Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccination, amongst other things. We are really just focusing on that.

It's basically just an article, more a press release actually, from The New York State Bar Association which put out some kind of report and some of the stuff they are talking about there is about allocating ventilators and personal protective equipment. It's basically recommendations of things that they've learned from the pandemic/plandemic, whatever you want to call it.

Of course, snuck in there is the idea and encouragement for mandatory vaccinations. Once a vaccine comes out, everybody has got to get it. This is just The New York State Bar Association, but this idea is gaining global acceptance/promotion. Everybody is talking about this. They've got everybody so scared that the second a vaccine is out not only are they going to go and get it but they are going to go and insist that everybody else get it as well. What do you think about that Elliot?

Elliot: Where to start? It's disturbing because it's not just them calling for something like this. It seems to be on the cards, there are many different sources who are pushing for a mandatory vaccine and who are frothing at the mouth at the idea of a vaccine coming out shortly. There are lots of reasons why it's dangerous. First of all, it has not been done in history. This is the first time that this will have been done - mandatory vaccination for everyone. Would this include religious exemption? Or would this be against religious exemption?

Doug: There is a lawyer whose name escapes me right now, but a about a month ago he put out a statement that said that religious exemption is nonsense and all these things are stupid and that the American government has the right to stick a needle in your arm by gunpoint. Which, of course, had people freaking out about that statement.

It's interesting because all the people who are arguing for it always seem to bring up this case from 1905. The US Supreme Court presented with Jacobson vs Massachusetts which was a state-enforced smallpox vaccination. I think he was a preacher or a minister or something along those lines, and he didn't want to get the smallpox vaccination. They made him pay a fine for not getting it.

The point is that it isn't really a precedent-setting case. It was back in 1905 for one thing, just because the Supreme Court made somebody do it once and even though it's a precedent they have been wrong before. They always tend to bring up this case even though it doesn't really relate. He said "I don't want to get the vaccine" and their response was "Okay, you have to pay a $5 fine every week." He was like "fine". That was it. It isn't really a precedent for mandatory vaccination. They are stating that it is and they do have the right to force vaccinations on people, which is nonsense.

Elliot: It's wrong on so many levels. You can look at it from multiple perspectives and one is the health perspective. There are well established vaccine side effects of almost every vaccine. I'm pretty sure that the vaccination rate for any given vaccine is nowhere near 100%. I can't remember exactly what the percentage is, but for any given vaccine I think the levels are somewhere around 50% or 40%. It's a lot less than you'd think it was for certain vaccines.

You have standard vaccines that are given to young children, but then with the adult vaccines like the boosters, a lot of people who don't get those. Even with those, you get thousands of vaccine related side effects, people being injured by vaccines.

There is a company who is really heavily into research at the moment, I think they are called Moderna, and I think that they have got a couple of trials running and one of those is for an MRNA vaccine which is the first of its kind. Animal research has not shown good results. The type of vaccine that they are using is essentially genetic modification. It contains messenger RNA which is the first of its kind and could potentially have lots of problems.

It usually takes a couple of years to get a vaccine tested because you have to go through multiple different processes such as petri dish data, animal data, long-term trials and human trials if the long-term animal trials have passed. Then, you have other kinds of safety testing just to push a vaccine through. A lot of the time there is corruption involved there and there are vaccines which are pushed through which aren't safe. But just assuming that that whole process is valid, then we would be waiting at least a year or a couple of years to get a safe vaccine.

Doug: Or longer.

Elliot: Whereas, with these individuals who are pushing for this mandatory vaccination it's almost like when you hear them speak or when you read their words it's like they don't care about that stuff. They want a vaccine and they want it now! The problem is that there is a great potential that this vaccine, if it is mandatory, will cause a lot of side effects and be highly detrimental to people's health, particularly the people who are already compromised. If someone's healthy then they might not have a problem. But if we are looking at forced mandatory vaccination then that means you are vaccinating a bunch of people who might not ordinarily be vaccinated because they are concerned for their health.

There is a large community of people who are interested in improving their health: people with chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and lyme disease. All of these different people who do their best to support their health in a variety of ways. They might take nutritional supplements, or they might follow special diets and have made very good progress, but these people are fundamentally susceptible to the effects of something like this kind of vaccine.

If you mandate that, you are putting so many people at risk. Just on the health front, I think that it would be disastrous, personally. Talk about medical tyranny, right?

Doug: Yeah, absolutely!

Elliot: It's meant to be a free country, you're meant to have free choice in the USA. That could lead to increasing controls further on down the line as well.

Doug: It's a fundamental human rights issue. Any time you say there is a mandated medical treatment it is essentially stepping in and saying "You do not have the right to decide how you want to take care of your health. You don't have the right to determine what medical procedures you undergo."

There are instances where people are subjected to medical treatments without their consent, one of them being water fluoridation. That is a medical treatment. If you're just dumping fluoride into the water of a community then that community has not consented to that medical treatment. The same thing could be said for mandatory vaccination, it's the exact same thing.

Fundamentally, it is an abridgement of people's rights as human beings to say "I have the right to freely determine what medical procedure I want to undergo". It's so stupid at a very fundamental level. If you are a vaccinated person and your vaccine works, like everybody says that it works, then how is me not being vaccinated a problem?

Elliot: That's what it comes down to.

Doug: Then they get into all this stuff about herd immunity. If there are vulnerable people in the population who can't get the vaccine - which is interesting because then that shows that there are potentially negative effects from the vaccine which they usually deny completely - but if there are people who can't get the vaccine and they need to be protected from herd immunity, then you need to protect those people. That's the way I see it.

That doesn't mean that I have to get your vaccination because somebody out there might be vulnerable and by me not getting the vaccination we are not going to reach herd immunity. I have a different perspective on things, I would rather reach natural herd immunity. I would rather be exposed to the virus in a natural setting and let my immune system deal with it. I'm off on a bit of a tangent here.

Elliot: We've spoken about this argument so many times on this show before, I swear. It's been five years of going over it. It's a very basic concept that if you have 5% of people who don't want the vaccine then let it be up to them if they want to expose themselves of the potential of coming into contact with the virus.

In fact if the vaccine is said to work as well as they say it does, then those 95% should be safe. They're not going to get it. If the vaccine stops their body from getting the virus then surely it's only the 5% who are going to be susceptible to the virus. I'm pretty sure that us in the 5% would be more than happy to face the virus rather than have the vaccine, thank you very much.

Again, for the authoritarians who are making these decisions it's almost like a threat. They don't even necessarily need to believe that the vaccine is that essential. I think many of the authoritarians in power just want to exert power and control over people. To think that someone is not following their guidelines or that someone is not doing as they're told makes them want to put people in their place.

I think that is what a lot of this comes down to as well. They want complete conformity. Many of them are power hungry. Of course, there is the medical argument if you do buy into the whole idea of vaccines but it's just another way to gradually strip away people's freedoms and implement more controls in as many ways as possible.

Again, once set that precedent for mandatory vaccination and people accept that then who's to say that they cannot implement mandatory lobotomy for people who are disagreeable in some way, to the system? We are probably familiar with Brave New World, and the totalitarian regime in the future where they can come into your house and strip you don't and lock you up in a cell and then insist that you take whatever medication that destroys your brain because you have a political opinion that is...

Doug: Incorrect.

Elliot: ...incorrect, exactly. It's wrong on so many fronts, it really is.

Doug: You were talking about the authoritarians in power and I think it's also that the authoritarians in the general populace are threatened whenever you are making a decision that goes against the decision that they've made. I've noticed that especially when I would talk about my diet to people who are not into the idea of changing their diet at all. They get threatened by it.

How does what I'm eating have anything to do with you? They'll start arguing and challenging you and being put off by the fact that you don't eat bread. "What do you mean you don't eat bread?!" In some cases they will get hostile. What I determined is that these people are basically just threatened because you have made a decision different from their decision and that forces them to question their own decision, or that it is somehow insulting to them because you are suggesting that they have made the wrong decision.

I think the same thing applies to the vaccine thing. "I have decided to blindly follow the authorities and get the vaccination and why aren't you doing the same thing?" That is a threat because it's something that they don't want to have to question and suddenly by you existing you are forcing them to question that decision.

Elliot: Very much so. It's almost like it's such a threat to their worldview that it could shatter at any one given time and they need to shut you out and shut you down so that they can continue with their nice, well placed view of reality where everything fits together.

I was just going to say on the topic of people responding negatively to a vaccine, there was a bizarre story that came out a couple of weeks ago. There was an article published on a website called statnews which was really just bizarre. It was expected because they had been doing human trials for the Covid-19 vaccine. I think we did speak about it a couple of weeks ago when they announced it. They have been doing human trials and there were 45 people who were in the phase one clinical trial and out of the 45 people it was identified that four participants experienced what is called a grade 3 adverse event. A grade 3 adverse event is a side effect that is severe enough to warrant immediate medical treatment. It's not necessarily life threatening immediately, but it does need immediate medical treatment. One of the guys who had had the severe reaction to the vaccine had given an interview for the website, so he had spoken about the vaccine. After he was given the vaccine, within 12 hours he developed a fever of more than 103 degrees and had to seek out medical attention. He had gone to an urgent care facility and he had been released and he then fainted when he got home as well.

Apparently, he recovered within a day, but it was a pretty severe side effect. He was giving this interview about having the side effect and although it caused a severe reaction in him, he still said that he supported the vaccine and thought that it was a great thing and that he didn't regret having it.

Doug: Even though he said it was the sickest he has ever been. He said that he didn't regret it and he hopes that his story doesn't dissuade other people from getting the vaccine. Three people out of a study of 45 means that you have a 1 in 15 chance of having a grade 3 reaction.

Elliot: It was four people.

Doug: Four people, so it's even greater than that then.

Elliot: It's like 1 in 12.

Doug: Yes, about that. Considering the chances of you having an asymptomatic reaction to actual Covid being around 80%, I think I'll take my chances with the actual Covid. I don't need that vaccine thanks very much.

Elliot: The dangerous thing about this is that the guy had such a severe reaction almost immediately, but that does not mean that there are not long term side effects.

Doug: Exactly.

Elliot: I don't have the statistics right in my head, but RFK Jr. has spoken about the animal research done on these types of vaccines and there was one trying to find a way to address the Coronavirus in the past and find a Coronavirus vaccine. I think we have spoken about this one on the show where these mice developed immunity to the vaccine and had no immediate reactions, but then when they were re-exposed to the wild virus, within a couple of weeks, a large portion of them died. I think all of them might have died. These animals were fine after having the vaccine. It was only when they were re-exposed to the wild virus that they had the side effects.

Just because he's okay at the minute doesn't mean that he's going to be okay long term. He could develop all kinds of side effects, who knows? Considering someone in his age range, the guy can't be any more than 30 or 35?

Doug: It says in there I think.

Elliot: He's 29.

Doug: Twenty-nine, yeah. I thought he was quite young.

Elliot: The chances of him getting Coronavirus and then the chances of him actually dying from Coronavirus are so miniscule, small. Why on earth would you put your body through a vaccine to prevent a virus which is practically non-existent in your age range? It's just bizarre.

Doug: I think that he is a young idealist who has drunk the kool aid. Essentially, he sounds like a cult member, one of those cult members who is in a cult and they are doing obvious damage to the person and yet they are still saying "It's great here, I love it. It's fantastic." He has completely signed up for the whole narrative, 100% and he probably thinks that he is doing good, that he is helping humanity in some way. He thinks he's a hero. The guy is super naive, what can you say? [laughter]

Elliot: That is definitely a word for it.

Doug: Is there anything else to say? We talked a lot on both those topics, we did have a third thing to talk about today but I think we are running short on time. We are actually over our time. Elliot, did you have anything else to say about the Covid mandatory vaccination?

Elliot: I won't be getting it.

Doug: Nor will I. Especially if Bill Gates is behind it. People can go back and watch our Bill Gates show to see what I mean by that if you don't know what I mean by that. I don't trust that guy as far as I could throw him.

Thanks everybody for joining us, be sure to "like" and subscribe if you are so inclined to do so. We will be back with another show next week and we will see you then. Thanks to Elliot and to Damian in the background, who I forgot to introduce. Damian has been with us the whole time.

Damian: Hello.

Doug: Alright guys. See you next time.