A (136:55)
Are. If you go back. So if you go back to 1984, when we saw that Time magazine picture, the other thing that was going on politically and scientifically in 1984 was the NIH Consensus Conference that said that they had proven Time magazine cover was a reaction to the NIH consensus conference where they said, we as the scientific community now certify that we are in consensus that cholesterol is the cause of heart disease. And that's why Time magazine ran with that cover, was Fauci running the NIH back then Fauci, because that's when the AIDS crisis started. So Fauci was not running this, but that was I think possibly also the year that Fauci took over at niaid. Oh, okay. Yeah, it's, you know, it's sidebar, but there's a very interesting study that looked at the average age of principal investigators of studies. Principal investigator means like the guy who ran the lab. And so since 1984, the average age of an NIH funded principal investigator has gone up by one year per year. And so that looks like the one group took over the money in 1984 and then they've just been giving themselves grants ever since. And now they're really old. That's what that looks like. But anyway, so yes, I think, I believe you can fact check me on this, but I believe Fauci took over niaid where he got, where he became very in control of a lot of NIH money in that same year. So it's really weird the way these years work out. Like 1913, you got Federal Reserve, you got World War I, you've got all these changes to the structure of the government. They picked this year out of history and there's always these big, massive, big things all happening in different areas. But anyway, so there was something in the air in 1984. Maybe it was self fulfilling prophecy from Orwell. But Anyway, so the CS. Okay, so the chair of the NIH consensus conference in 1984 was Daniel Steinberg. Daniel Steinberg passed away a few years ago, but he was kind of. There were three big names that came out of that conference and Steinberg was one of them. And the others were Brown and Goldstein, who won the Nobel Prize in 1985. The next year for. You can see how they hooked up their Nobel prize. So they. 1985, they got the Nobel Prize for discovering the LDL receptor, which is the thing that brings cholesterol from your blood into your cells. And all the drugs that work on this are targeting that receptor. So that became the springboard for all the drugs that people are on for cardiovascular disease now. So this is kind of funny that the Nobel Prize was, it was probably in the Fix in 1984. That was the other thing they were working on because there's no way that would have happened if the 1984 consensus conference didn't happen. But the point I want to make is that Daniel Stein, Feinberg agrees with me. I didn't come up with this idea myself. I mean, he's dead now. But for Decades. He was one of the people who believed that because it was his lab that discovered that the PUFAs, which are seed oil fats, have to become damaged on the outer membrane of the LDL particle for it to get taken up by the immune system. That was his discovery. And he's the guy that chaired the conference that led to the Time magazine cover. So I'm not pulling this out of my ass. I'm pulling this out of my having read Daniel Steinberg's papers. And so he was. This is how olive oil became the darling of the Mediterranean diet. Which is. So the Mediterranean diet is kind of funny because it's not that it's very loosely based on what they eat in the Mediterranean. And it's really just kind of like a branding thing where they said, like, okay, well, this diet is good enough for us to say, eat this, this, this and this. And we're going to call it Mediterranean. But anyway, so what happened was, after the LA Veterans Administration Hospital study showed in 1960, well, actually, they published it a few years later. So somewhere in the early 70s, it's kind of looking like seed oils cause cancer. And so they're looking at that, and they're like, well, maybe corn oil is not the best. And they're like, well, we already told people to eat the corn oil because they can't eat the saturated fat. So we can't tell them, go back to the butter, so what are we going to tell them to eat? And they were like, well, olive oil is a nice balance. It's kind of in between the two. It's not saturated fat, but it's probably not going to cause cancer. Like, we're worried about this. And so olive oil is kind of born out of that. And Steinberg's perspective on promoting olive oil as being good for heart disease was. Steinberg is saying, I'm worried that the real problem with these lipoproteins in the blood causing the plaque is actually the seed oils that we're telling people to eat. And so, yeah, we can use cholesterol as a marker for that, but I don't know that I want to be telling people to eat corn oil. So what am I going to tell them to eat? Because I'm going to have egg on my face, pun intended, if I tell them to go back to eating eggs and butter. So olive oil is this happy middle ground where maybe we can consume a lot of. We can consume olive oil to our heart's content, and it's not going to create the tissue damage that Drives the plaque, but it's also not going to ramp up the cholesterol. And so we can just navigate the middle that way. And the reason that no one appreciates this is because. Because medicine thinks in binaries. So I have this saying. All medical diagnoses are false, but some are useful. And I take this from staying in statistics, which is all models are false, but some are useful. And what that is is an appreciation that once you impose a model on the data, you're now biasing it towards the way you think about it. And so it's a reality distortion filter to make the data more usable. So if I can use the model to try to predict something and I see it's true, I might leave details behind, but I'm focusing on the things that help me make those decisions. So a medical diagnosis is a hypothesis that the patient will respond to the treatment that they're given. And you test that hypothesis by giving the patient that treatment, and then you see if they get better. And if they don't get better, you take them off the treatment. That's why some things, people just stay on the drug they're put on. But look at how they treat depression or epilepsy. Epilepsy, they just put them on one benzone. It doesn't work. They put them on the next one. They keep rotating until they find one that stops the seizures, depression. They put people on one antidepressant. Oh, it didn't work. We'll put them on the next one. They just rotate through it because they're. They're just looking at it like they have a model that predicts their hypothesis, that they'll respond. They didn't. So they switched them onto the next approach. So because medicine cares about triaging decisions about what to do for treatment, they say, I only need a model that helps me do that. And I can ignore all the other details, but what happens is you leave these historical threads behind. Like the fact that the chair of the conference that proved to put in your magazine that everyone had to change their diet because of the concept that they said was proven. That is now the basis for the drugs that I'm gonna prescribe you. The fact that he had these, you know, that he also showed that it was seed oils in the membrane of the LDL particle that drive the plaque. Doesn't matter, because that doesn't change whether I'm gonna give you a statin, you know, and so. And so if it doesn't change how I'm going to treat you, it doesn't matter. Which means that I could ignore it if someone asked me what you should eat. But the problem was, when they did the randomized controlled trials with the seed oils, they were like, oh, it doubled the atherosclerotic plaque. What do we do, put it in the box in the basement? And so there's all this like. Well, yes, those details are true, but. But, Master John, get out of my hair. I don't want to, but I don't. I can't handle the truth, you know? Right, right.