Latest / The You Project / #2093 Health Advice: Who To Trust? - David Gillespie

Transcript

#2093 Health Advice: Who To Trust? - David Gillespie · The You Project

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Good Day team.
• 0:01
  Speaker 2: It's the two champions, it's the two standout superstars of
• 0:04
  Speaker 2: the U Project. And that doesn't include Tiff, even though
• 0:09
  Speaker 2: IF's editing this, so I feel like I could get
• 0:11
  Speaker 2: in trouble. Shout out to you anyway, Tiff, David, James Gillespie, Craig,
• 0:15
  Speaker 2: Anthony Harper. Here at your service, folks. So what I firstly,
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: hi mate? How are you good?
• 0:21
  Speaker 3: How are you?
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: How are you?
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: It's good. I'm going to sound like a little winger
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: for a moment, but it's not the worst wind. It's
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: forty four degrees in Melbourne, so we are pretty hot
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: as fires all over Victoria at the moment. What's the
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: temperature up there in the Sunshine State.
• 0:39
  Speaker 4: I think it's about thirty, but it was pretty hot yesterday.
• 0:42
  Speaker 4: It's like thirty eight or something yesterday. But yeah, when
• 0:47
  Speaker 4: I used to live in Victoria, I do remember not
• 0:49
  Speaker 4: liking that particular aspect of it is that most of
• 0:52
  Speaker 4: the time it's pretty nice, but when it gets hot,
• 0:56
  Speaker 4: it really gets off.
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's yeah.
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: Well the one days the predicted top well, it's still
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: going to get hotter. They reckon, it's going to get
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: forty six at about six o'clock, but the prediction was, well,
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: the forecast was forty seven.
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: I'm like, who does forty seven? Anyway, we're here.
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: As long as everyone's safe, and everyone's and all the
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: animals and forests are not getting burnt and devastated, that's
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: all we care about. So I sent your message before
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: and you went, I said, well, what are we talking about?
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: What have you written?
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: And you went, nothing, put on your thinking cap And
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: I went, you know what I'm doing. I'm getting AI
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: to put on its thinking cap. Oh no, so I
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: said to Chatters. So if this is terrible, everyone don't
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: blame me. It couldn't possibly be me. It's either David
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: or chat GPT. So you're welcome, I said to Chatters,
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: if you not me, because it always if I ask
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: it stuff, it'll put its itself in my place.
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: If you not me.
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: Were interviewing author, researcher and lawyer David Gillespie, what would
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: you ask him?
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: And then I don't know why.
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: It brought up sweet poison, like you've only ever done
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: one thing, like there's a few other there's some deviations,
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: but if I need to modified, I will.
• 2:10
  Speaker 3: Craig.
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: This is what he said to me.
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: He or she if I were interviewing David Gilespiotim for
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: questions that go beyond what he thinks and dig into
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: how he thinks, why he changed his mind, and where
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: people most misunderstand him. Here's how I'd structure it, origin,
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: story and epistemology. I'm like, thanks, chatters, subtitle how a
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: lawyer ends up waging war on sugar and big narratives.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: If these are ship will be in.
• 2:39
  Speaker 3: But we'll see how we go.
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: You were trained as a lawyer, not.
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: A nutritionist or a neuroscientist. How did that shape the
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: way you evaluate evidence compared to experts trained in those fields.
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: It's not a bad.
• 2:54
  Speaker 3: Well done chatters, Yeah, it's not bad. It's not bad.
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: Good chatters.
• 2:57
  Speaker 4: Well, I guess the important thing to know is that
• 3:01
  Speaker 4: I don't have a dog in the fight, and lawyers
• 3:05
  Speaker 4: rarely do.
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 3:06
  Speaker 4: There's that old saying, you know, if you represents yourself,
• 3:12
  Speaker 4: you've got an idiot as a client. And that's kind
• 3:19
  Speaker 4: of one of I think the most valuable things I
• 3:22
  Speaker 4: bring to anything I look at. And it's also why
• 3:26
  Speaker 4: I never really write about law. So I can't be
• 3:30
  Speaker 4: fired for anything I write because I'm not employed as
• 3:34
  Speaker 4: a dietitian or a psychologist or anything like that. I
• 3:39
  Speaker 4: don't have a dog in the fight. I'm coming to
• 3:42
  Speaker 4: the question and I'm saying, what does the evidence show us?
• 3:46
  Speaker 4: And I look at the evidence on both sides of
• 3:48
  Speaker 4: the argument and see what it says. And I think
• 3:53
  Speaker 4: that's the skill that I'm bringing to the table here,
• 3:56
  Speaker 4: which is that a so called expert in the area,
• 4:00
  Speaker 4: say in biothet x or nutrition or something, has a
• 4:04
  Speaker 4: dog in the fight. They have a job that and
• 4:09
  Speaker 4: them keeping their job usually means that they have to
• 4:14
  Speaker 4: stick with the consensus, the company line on this stuff.
• 4:17
  Speaker 4: So if the consensus is fat makes you fat, then
• 4:21
  Speaker 4: those are the glasses they will have on when they
• 4:23
  Speaker 4: look at any of the evidence, Whereas I don't care.
• 4:28
  Speaker 4: I just want to know what the evidence says. And
• 4:33
  Speaker 4: if the evidence said fat makes you fat, then that's
• 4:35
  Speaker 4: what I would have said. And nobody would have probably
• 4:38
  Speaker 4: published a book written by me, because I would have
• 4:40
  Speaker 4: been saying the same thing as everybody else.
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: But I don't care about that either.
• 4:44
  Speaker 4: In the sense that, as you well know as a
• 4:47
  Speaker 4: fellow author, nobody gets rich writing books, and certainly nobody
• 4:51
  Speaker 4: gets rich writing books in Australia. Yes, So all I'm
• 4:58
  Speaker 4: doing is writing down in terms that people who are
• 5:03
  Speaker 4: not experts in the area like me, can understand what
• 5:07
  Speaker 4: the evidence actually says. And this is something probably the
• 5:11
  Speaker 4: only useful thing that lawyers are trained to do, which
• 5:15
  Speaker 4: is they are asked to understand the evidence in all
• 5:20
  Speaker 4: manner of disciplines. They have to understand the evidence in
• 5:24
  Speaker 4: a car accident, or the evidence in a bridge failure,
• 5:28
  Speaker 4: or the evidence in a construction litigation, or the evidence
• 5:34
  Speaker 4: you know, in whatever you name it. It's all different,
• 5:36
  Speaker 4: and they're trained in one of us. They do have
• 5:39
  Speaker 4: to understand the evidence and they have to be able
• 5:42
  Speaker 4: to clearly state what the evidence says. And even more
• 5:47
  Speaker 4: than that, and this is a side that most people
• 5:49
  Speaker 4: don't see in lawyers, is they have an obligation to
• 5:52
  Speaker 4: the court to present evidence to the court which contradicts
• 5:58
  Speaker 4: their case, obligation not to mislead the court. So if
• 6:02
  Speaker 4: there is evidence that they are aware of that contradicts
• 6:06
  Speaker 4: something they are saying to the court, they must point
• 6:09
  Speaker 4: it out. So I guess in that sense, I'm the
• 6:15
  Speaker 4: best possible person to look at the questions that I'm
• 6:18
  Speaker 4: writing about exactly because I'm not an expert in the area,
• 6:23
  Speaker 4: and I am trained in assessing evidence.
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: That is such a good answer, Tode. I hate paying
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: you a compliment, but it's very good. Like I think
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: also this because people firstly, you're possibly our most if
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: not popular, definitely in the top three, right. I mean
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: they are probably a couple of people who don't like you.
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: There are thousand who don't like me. Who cares, right,
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: But the thing about you is that you're not emotional
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: and you don't have you said, you don't have a
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: dog in the fight for me. You don't have any
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: financial incentive to lean one way or the like. Whatever
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: the data says, whatever, wherever the evidence goes. What a
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: but buck up fill in the blank. It just is
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: what it is. The next thing I want you to clarify,
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: which I know and you know the answer to clearly.
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: But when you say the evidence for this stuff, just clarify.
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: For our listeners who are not scientists or researchers or
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: gatherers of evidence in this sense, where do you get
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: your evidence? I'm guessing not YouTube or Instagram, No.
• 7:32
  Speaker 4: But mostly because those are media that people are using
• 7:36
  Speaker 4: to summarize evidence. Hopefully they're not really presenting the original
• 7:41
  Speaker 4: evidence because it would bore people rigid and no one
• 7:45
  Speaker 4: would watch their YouTube channel. Yes, So what I mean
• 7:50
  Speaker 4: by the evidence is I go to the source to
• 7:53
  Speaker 4: the best quality of evidence that is available. So if
• 7:58
  Speaker 4: I often, i'll see an artist call online and maybe
• 8:01
  Speaker 4: it is even on Instagram post. I'm not sure, you know,
• 8:03
  Speaker 4: but I'll see something that said that makes a claim.
• 8:06
  Speaker 4: Like I'll give you an example. I saw one today.
• 8:08
  Speaker 4: So there was an article I think was on Instagram.
• 8:11
  Speaker 4: It's been doing the rounds. It says AI makes you dumber,
• 8:14
  Speaker 4: all right, and has The one I saw on Instagram
• 8:19
  Speaker 4: had a sort of a picture of a brain scan
• 8:21
  Speaker 4: of someone who had apparently been using AI next to
• 8:24
  Speaker 4: a picture of a brain scan of someone who hadn't
• 8:27
  Speaker 4: been using AI, and it was much more colorful, so
• 8:31
  Speaker 4: their brain was working better, apparently, and the other persons
• 8:33
  Speaker 4: were just a dull gray now, you know. And so
• 8:39
  Speaker 4: I thought, well, that sounds interesting. Is where is that
• 8:43
  Speaker 4: coming from and what is the evidence underneath it? And
• 8:47
  Speaker 4: so I went look. I went looking for what is
• 8:50
  Speaker 4: this based on? And it is based on a study
• 8:53
  Speaker 4: done by an American university I can't remember which one,
• 8:56
  Speaker 4: but quite a reputable one. The study was only about
• 8:59
  Speaker 4: forty p and it was that they found that in
• 9:07
  Speaker 4: some circumstances they were able to test in a variety
• 9:11
  Speaker 4: of ways and find that, for example, people had less
• 9:15
  Speaker 4: recall when they used an AI to write something than
• 9:17
  Speaker 4: if they wrote it themselves.
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: And I'm kind of.
• 9:21
  Speaker 4: Thinking, well, the yes, that seems to be logical. If
• 9:26
  Speaker 4: you didn't write it, you're probably not going to remember
• 9:28
  Speaker 4: what you didn't write, of.
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: Course, whereas it's such a fucking dumb like claim out
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: of that or that particular research design.
• 9:39
  Speaker 4: Yeah, and so sure I did look at something. It
• 9:45
  Speaker 4: got my attention initially in a popular media. But what
• 9:48
  Speaker 4: I just did there is what I tend to do
• 9:51
  Speaker 4: when I'm looking for research, which just keep drilling down
• 9:54
  Speaker 4: until you find the source and then make judgments about
• 9:57
  Speaker 4: the quality of that source.
• 9:59
  Speaker 3: So first of all, all.
• 10:00
  Speaker 4: You know handily journals are rated, so you can you
• 10:05
  Speaker 4: don't have to guess is this a reputable source of information?
• 10:09
  Speaker 4: They have ratings and you can decide, okay, well this
• 10:14
  Speaker 4: is not a particularly highly rated journal. So I'm already
• 10:18
  Speaker 4: a little bit cautious about whether this has been peer
• 10:20
  Speaker 4: reviewed or not. So the particular study I was talking
• 10:22
  Speaker 4: about there with AI not peer reviewed. So so straight
• 10:28
  Speaker 4: away you're thinking, but that doesn't mean throw it in
• 10:30
  Speaker 4: the bin. It just means start being really, really cautious
• 10:34
  Speaker 4: and questioning about anything that's being said and put your
• 10:38
  Speaker 4: critical thinking head on.
• 10:39
  Speaker 3: Okay, and.
• 10:43
  Speaker 4: So you apply that sort of logic to it, and
• 10:46
  Speaker 4: then you start looking at, well, who's paying for this study?
• 10:49
  Speaker 4: Do they have a vested interest in the outcome? All
• 10:52
  Speaker 4: those kinds of questions as you're looking at it, and
• 10:55
  Speaker 4: then if it withstands all of that, you start going
• 10:58
  Speaker 4: to look for other research, and well, what other This
• 11:01
  Speaker 4: can't possibly be the only person who's looked at this question.
• 11:04
  Speaker 3: It never is.
• 11:05
  Speaker 4: Thousands of studies are published every day. What do other
• 11:09
  Speaker 4: people say about this particular area, What is their contradictory evidence?
• 11:13
  Speaker 4: What does it say? And then I look at all
• 11:16
  Speaker 4: of that and I start to form a view as
• 11:19
  Speaker 4: to how reliable or otherwise what's being said is. And
• 11:24
  Speaker 4: then I might form a hypothesis about whether it's you know,
• 11:29
  Speaker 4: whether A plus B equals C, and then I'll start
• 11:33
  Speaker 4: trying to prove it wrong. So I'll start I'll start
• 11:36
  Speaker 4: looking for research that might prove that what I just
• 11:38
  Speaker 4: said A plus B equal C is wrong. And if
• 11:43
  Speaker 4: I can't find any despite my best efforts, then I
• 11:46
  Speaker 4: start to think, okay, well this is starting to stack
• 11:50
  Speaker 4: up logically. I can't find anything that says it's wrong.
• 11:52
  Speaker 4: Can I find things that suggest that elements of this
• 11:55
  Speaker 4: is right? Because you rarely ever find one that says
• 11:59
  Speaker 4: all of it together. You say, well, if A is
• 12:01
  Speaker 4: true and B is true, then C must be true.
• 12:04
  Speaker 4: And so what I'll just describe to you there is
• 12:07
  Speaker 4: kind of the process I go through over and over
• 12:10
  Speaker 4: and over again with everything I look at, and it's
• 12:17
  Speaker 4: an almost automatic thing that I do. And then every
• 12:20
  Speaker 4: now and then, one in one hundred times I might
• 12:24
  Speaker 4: find something that I think, you know, well, actually this
• 12:26
  Speaker 4: is just surprising. This is the opposite of what I
• 12:30
  Speaker 4: had believed and the opposite of what I think what
• 12:34
  Speaker 4: most people believe. And then I'm all right about it.
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it such a good process.
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: I didn't even know until I started my PhD that
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: there were generally there's like Q one through to Q
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: four or Tier one to tier four papers which you
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: know about. And just to give our listeners an idea,
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: like to get accepted and published in a Tier one
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: academic journal.
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: It depends on the journal.
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: They vary, but some of them take less than two
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: percent of the papers that get submitted, and these are
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: all obviously peer reviewed, and then down to Q four
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: so the lowest level, which is where they're often not
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: peer reviewed, and the way that they get published is
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: by the authors paying for it to be published.
• 13:23
  Speaker 3: Yes, you know play Yeah, so it's like oh.
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: And then when you so it's and people don't know that,
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: not that that's an insult.
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: People aren't expected to know that.
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: So when you go, oh, this was published in a
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: scientific journal that could be analogous to the fucking Woman's
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: Day or new Idea like it to be. Yeah, that's
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: that's cool, but let's wish what was what was the journal?
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: And some on. But even with your forty people.
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: Research, you go, so, there's eight billion people in the
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: world and we've done some research with forty it's that's
• 13:55
  Speaker 2: not necessarily going to extrapolate or you know, and the other.
• 13:59
  Speaker 4: Thing there's a problem with that than just this. I mean,
• 14:02
  Speaker 4: small research can give you interesting insights that you might
• 14:07
  Speaker 4: not other have seen, particularly when it's done in humans.
• 14:11
  Speaker 4: So but then you start to look at, well, what
• 14:13
  Speaker 4: exactly did they do? And if it becomes you look
• 14:19
  Speaker 4: at it and you think, well, yeah, well that's kind
• 14:22
  Speaker 4: of obvious, you know, And what are they proving by
• 14:26
  Speaker 4: by showing that people who didn't write things don't know
• 14:29
  Speaker 4: what they didn't write, you know, I guess they are.
• 14:33
  Speaker 3: Proving that those people didn't think much.
• 14:36
  Speaker 5: But so what yes, yeah, well I think also there
• 14:43
  Speaker 5: are so many things that I never thought about until
• 14:45
  Speaker 5: I started this journey, but like the quality of the participants,
• 14:50
  Speaker 5: or the demographic.
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: Or the age, or the buppa bappa bar fill in
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: the blank. Right.
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: So with I ran a few projects and in one
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: of my projects, I had two hundred and ninety nine
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: people and pretty much it was a bit skewed, but
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: not a lot. It was like one hundred and forty students,
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: so undergrad psychologist students, and the other group was general public.
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: So you don't think about the limitations, and you don't
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: think about, like when I explain to people, like good
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: data and bad data. So this is true because most
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: or many many research papers use students as their participants
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: because they're so accessible and easy to motivate to do
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: the research. But so the problem in inverted commas with
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: some of my research is that I had one hundred
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: and sixty odd general public who wanted to be there.
• 15:48
  Speaker 2: They chose to be there. They're interested in the research,
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: interested in the topic. They potentially follow me on social media.
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: They were motivated by the fact that I was doing
• 15:57
  Speaker 2: a public workshop at the end, which they paid zi
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: zo four. How many came because of that, I'm not sure,
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: but anyway, the average time, give or take, and this
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: is this is written in in the paper, like you
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: have to write what the limitations and what problems and
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: you know, like in terms of the design, what did
• 16:17
  Speaker 2: you fuck up?
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: What would you do different?
• 16:20
  Speaker 2: So the paper to answer all these questionnaires like paper
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: questionnaires with a pen and paper took if you did
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: it properly, about fifty minutes. And so the general public,
• 16:31
  Speaker 2: it took all of them somewhere in the forty to
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: sixty minute range.
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: And then I won't.
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: Even say how many, but a lot of the students
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: were getting through in under fifteen minutes. And the reason,
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: the main reason is because they were motivated to be
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: there because they were getting academic credits, you know, and
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: so you go, oh, so you have a ranging quality
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: of data. And then then you've got to try and
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: figure out which you literally remove some of the data
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: because some of them didn't even finish the thing properly,
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: so you just take that out. But yeah, there's a
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: huge range of variables. Another thing that is a red
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: flag for me is when you see some kind of
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: pseudoscience that says, oh, fifty percent of people respond this
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: way if they do that, or they see an improvement
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: in that if they take this, and you're like, fifty percent,
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: what are the chances that's thirty percent of the population,
• 17:33
  Speaker 2: Like it's always an exact number, but in real research,
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: it's almost never an exact number.
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: Like never I didn't have any.
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: Completely you know, like fifty or sixty or it's always
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: like thirty seven point four or whatever it was. So yeah,
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: and that's that's what you don't realize until you kind
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: of open that door and try to understand how it
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: works well.
• 17:58
  Speaker 4: Data transparency is one of the are big problems in
• 18:01
  Speaker 4: research is that good papers make their data available so
• 18:06
  Speaker 4: that any other research can go in and use their
• 18:09
  Speaker 4: data to see if they get the same results.
• 18:13
  Speaker 3: And that's one of the big problems.
• 18:14
  Speaker 4: And we talked about this briefly before when I think
• 18:16
  Speaker 4: we talked about STATN research is STATIN research is almost
• 18:20
  Speaker 4: exclusively controlled by consortium funded by the drug companies that
• 18:24
  Speaker 4: make statins, and all of that research is published without
• 18:30
  Speaker 4: access to the original data. In fact, it's explicitly and
• 18:34
  Speaker 4: on purpose kept secret from any other researcher. So you
• 18:40
  Speaker 4: will never ever see papers that contradict the results of
• 18:45
  Speaker 4: STATIN papers because no one else can see the data,
• 18:48
  Speaker 4: which means you can't tell who did they eliminate and why,
• 18:52
  Speaker 4: what exactly did they do to the data set to
• 18:56
  Speaker 4: get this result, what did they manipulate about it? And
• 18:58
  Speaker 4: we know some of the things that they do, so
• 19:00
  Speaker 4: there's a peculiar way that they count whether or not
• 19:03
  Speaker 4: someone persisted with the drug or not, which is quite
• 19:07
  Speaker 4: unusual in that kind of research. And that's just one
• 19:11
  Speaker 4: example where data matters. And here's another one which is
• 19:14
  Speaker 4: really important. There was a massive study in the United
• 19:17
  Speaker 4: States called the Minnesota County Experiment in I think it
• 19:23
  Speaker 4: was done in the nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies,
• 19:26
  Speaker 4: and in that what they were trying to prove was
• 19:30
  Speaker 4: that if you took people off the traditional American diet
• 19:34
  Speaker 4: at that time, which was heavy and saturated fat and
• 19:37
  Speaker 4: replace the saturated fat with margarines and seed oils, you
• 19:42
  Speaker 4: would reduce the incidents of heart attacks. Now, the study
• 19:45
  Speaker 4: cost an absolute fortune because unlike the study we're talking
• 19:49
  Speaker 4: about before with about forty people in it, this one
• 19:51
  Speaker 4: had I think almost one hundred thousand people involved and
• 19:55
  Speaker 4: it ran for the better part of a decade. So
• 19:59
  Speaker 4: this thing was massive and hugely expensive and funded by
• 20:03
  Speaker 4: the American government. And it proved nothing in the sense
• 20:10
  Speaker 4: that it didn't prove the hypothesis, which is that there'd
• 20:14
  Speaker 4: be less heart attacks and the people eating margarine, and
• 20:17
  Speaker 4: so they published nothing. So they ran that study and
• 20:24
  Speaker 4: produced a paper at the end of it, which was meaningless.
• 20:28
  Speaker 4: They didn't produce a paper because I presume they had to,
• 20:31
  Speaker 4: but it was meaningless. And recently, I say recently in
• 20:36
  Speaker 4: the last decade, the National Institutes of Health in the
• 20:39
  Speaker 4: US had access to the original data. So they went
• 20:44
  Speaker 4: back looked at the data and said, well, it didn't
• 20:46
  Speaker 4: prove the hypothesis, but did it prove anything else? Because
• 20:49
  Speaker 4: it's a really important and useful data sets. You should
• 20:52
  Speaker 4: make such a huge number of humans and have this effect,
• 20:58
  Speaker 4: Did it prove anything?
• 20:59
  Speaker 3: And what they found is.
• 21:00
  Speaker 4: That it didn't. Actually, the people who were on the
• 21:05
  Speaker 4: traditional diet had better heart disease outcomes than the people
• 21:09
  Speaker 4: whose diet was changed, and the worse than that. The
• 21:14
  Speaker 4: all cause mortality was much higher in the changed group.
• 21:19
  Speaker 4: So reducing people's cholesterol, which was the aim, actually got
• 21:26
  Speaker 4: worse outcomes, not just from heart disease but from everything.
• 21:30
  Speaker 4: Now everything is usually code for cancer, so there were
• 21:35
  Speaker 4: more people dying of cancer, more people are dying of
• 21:38
  Speaker 4: heart disease. When they re looked at the data, and
• 21:43
  Speaker 4: that was the research that got published by the National
• 21:47
  Speaker 4: Institutes of Health about a decade ago.
• 21:49
  Speaker 3: Now that's pretty big news, I would have thought.
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: I mean, you think about.
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: In reality, what they've done to those people by making
• 21:59
  Speaker 2: the meat this alted diet, which was allegedly better and
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: healthy and produce better health outcomes, was they overall increased
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: morbidity and mortality.
• 22:09
  Speaker 3: So it was bad.
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: It was literally bad for people, but they buried that.
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: I mean, look about talk about fucking unethical, if not evil.
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: Imagine knowing that this is actually bad for people, but then,
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: because of your ego or your commitment to some kind
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: of authority or financial backing or whatever, you hide that
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: actual evidence.
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: Of what you know to be true for whatever range
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: of reasons, like so immoral.
• 22:42
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's sorry. I don't want to mislead people.
• 22:46
  Speaker 4: So just while you were rabbiting on there probably saying
• 22:49
  Speaker 4: really important, I actually looked up the study and I
• 22:53
  Speaker 4: want to be really accurate with some of the things
• 22:55
  Speaker 4: that I just said to you there. So it wasn't
• 22:57
  Speaker 4: one hundred thousand. The cohort was nine douns four hundred
• 23:00
  Speaker 4: and twenty three women and men age twenty to ninety seven,
• 23:04
  Speaker 4: so it was just short of ten thousand. And what
• 23:08
  Speaker 4: they were measuring was the cholesterol and the exposure. So
• 23:15
  Speaker 4: they had serum, they had cholesterol lowering diet that replaced
• 23:19
  Speaker 4: saturated fat with corn oil and corn oil's polyunsaturated margarine,
• 23:25
  Speaker 4: and the control diet was the normal American die at
• 23:30
  Speaker 4: the time, which was high in animal fats and butter
• 23:33
  Speaker 4: and so on. So they then looked at, okay, well
• 23:37
  Speaker 4: what happened when you reanalyze that data, and they found
• 23:44
  Speaker 4: there was a twenty two percent higher risk of death
• 23:49
  Speaker 4: for every thirty milligrams per deesci let, or the more
• 23:52
  Speaker 4: common measure for Australia's point seven million miles for later
• 23:55
  Speaker 4: reduction in cholesterol. So you had a twenty two percent
• 23:59
  Speaker 4: in increase in death for every zero point seven to
• 24:03
  Speaker 4: eight reduction in cholesterol.
• 24:07
  Speaker 3: So that's pretty nasty.
• 24:10
  Speaker 4: So the people who were being fed the experimental diet,
• 24:16
  Speaker 4: the margarine, were much more likely to die.
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: That's exactly what I said when you alleged that I
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: was rabbiting on.
• 24:27
  Speaker 4: And then there was the all cause increase as well.
• 24:30
  Speaker 4: So the the thing about that is there, at least
• 24:38
  Speaker 4: we could get even if every even if the health
• 24:41
  Speaker 4: authorities have completely ignored that, which they have, at least
• 24:48
  Speaker 4: it was possible to do that analysis. And by going
• 24:52
  Speaker 4: back to that sort start. By the way, anyone who
• 24:54
  Speaker 4: wants to read this, it's in the British Medical Journal
• 24:57
  Speaker 4: in twenty and sixteen and it's by a research at
• 25:01
  Speaker 4: the National Institute of Health. Lead researcher is Chris Ramsden,
• 25:08
  Speaker 4: so that also everyone.
• 25:11
  Speaker 2: Just in case you're wondering, there's a bunch of academic
• 25:14
  Speaker 2: search engines, but probably the easiest one.
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: Is just Google scholar. So if you just go into
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: Google and literally type in Google.
• 25:21
  Speaker 2: Scholar, it'll bring that up and it's free and got
• 25:24
  Speaker 2: It's not quite as good as some of the youbut ones,
• 25:27
  Speaker 2: but it's pretty good, so start there.
• 25:29
  Speaker 4: Well, and this one you can have the full text
• 25:30
  Speaker 4: of because it's in the BMJ and it's open access.
• 25:33
  Speaker 4: So for anyone in your audience who's saying, oh, that
• 25:36
  Speaker 4: can't be true, you can't possibly it can't possibly be
• 25:38
  Speaker 4: true that a cholesterol lowering diet actually increases your risk
• 25:41
  Speaker 4: of heart disease, well there you go.
• 25:44
  Speaker 3: It is. It's well documented. The data has.
• 25:48
  Speaker 4: Been there for decades, ignored for decades because it contradicted
• 25:53
  Speaker 4: the mainstream message. Ramsden looked at it again and said, well, actually,
• 25:58
  Speaker 4: this data says the opposite. It says you're in you're
• 26:02
  Speaker 4: in big trouble if you do what the health experts
• 26:04
  Speaker 4: tell you to do. And still the health advice was
• 26:08
  Speaker 4: totally resistant to that information. And that's what we're fighting
• 26:13
  Speaker 4: against is you have a consensus and the average doctor
• 26:18
  Speaker 4: today in Australia would still say to you, oh, oh
• 26:20
  Speaker 4: you should be you know, you should be eating margarines
• 26:22
  Speaker 4: and lowering your cholesterol. And yet the evidence, very very
• 26:27
  Speaker 4: high quality evidence, says that's nonsense.
• 26:31
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm just writing down the topic of tonight's you
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: just gave it to me. Thanks, health advice, Who to trust? Hey,
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: you know it's hilarious. Is there's I don't know seven
• 26:43
  Speaker 2: a questions or something that chatters? Yeah, we're currently on
• 26:47
  Speaker 2: number one, but I'm going to tell you something funny.
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: At the end. I've got one more question for you,
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: which is a great question. Probably won't be as good
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: as chatters, of course. At the end, Chatter says.
• 26:59
  Speaker 2: If you want, I can one sharpen these into more
• 27:03
  Speaker 2: provocative and confrontational versions like really, two rewrite them in
• 27:10
  Speaker 2: full you project conversational tone, or three add neuro behavior,
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: change angles to align with your metaperception work. And then
• 27:19
  Speaker 2: it goes just tell me the vibe.
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: So funny. All right, So let's wind up.
• 27:25
  Speaker 2: But I want to wind up with this could take
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: you thirty seconds or five minutes or ten, it doesn't matter.
• 27:31
  Speaker 2: So some people are listening to this going that's interesting,
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: that's fascinating. I'm fucking terrified. But how do I know
• 27:39
  Speaker 2: who to trust?
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: Like? That's what? Like? Who do I listen to? Who
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: do I not listen to?
• 27:45
  Speaker 2: And I know that's not an arbitrary answer, but how
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: do I know who or what to trust with this stuff?
• 27:53
  Speaker 2: That's literally going to impact everything from my healthpan to
• 27:57
  Speaker 2: my lifespan.
• 27:58
  Speaker 4: Do you know it's a lot of easier these days
• 28:01
  Speaker 4: now that we have access to AI in this sense,
• 28:04
  Speaker 4: my answer to that has always been only trust people
• 28:07
  Speaker 4: who can point, you know, who can put a footnote
• 28:11
  Speaker 4: after every fact they state. Lawyers and law students are
• 28:15
  Speaker 4: trained with this. We're trained that our opinion is valueless,
• 28:19
  Speaker 4: our opinion is nonsense. Our opinion doesn't matter to a court.
• 28:24
  Speaker 4: All that matters to a court is the evidence. And
• 28:27
  Speaker 4: so we are trained that whenever we state anything the
• 28:30
  Speaker 4: sun is shining, then we should put a little number
• 28:34
  Speaker 4: after that, and you know, put a reference that tells
• 28:37
  Speaker 4: where we got that information from. So and the reason
• 28:41
  Speaker 4: the courts require us to do that is so that
• 28:43
  Speaker 4: if they don't believe us for whatever reason, or have
• 28:47
  Speaker 4: cause to investigate further, they can dig themselves. They can
• 28:51
  Speaker 4: go and see look at the footnote and see if
• 28:53
  Speaker 4: they agree with the evidence that the sun is shining.
• 28:56
  Speaker 4: And anyone who does that, who is trained to do that,
• 29:02
  Speaker 4: is always saying to the reader, don't trust me. You
• 29:05
  Speaker 4: don't have to trust me. I'm not requiring you to
• 29:08
  Speaker 4: trust me if you don't think I'm what I'm saying
• 29:12
  Speaker 4: is true, then read the evidence that I'm basing this
• 29:14
  Speaker 4: statement on, which is why every single book I've ever
• 29:17
  Speaker 4: written comes with a complete index of the studies I
• 29:21
  Speaker 4: am relying on, and they are all footnoted.
• 29:24
  Speaker 3: So you don't have to trust me.
• 29:28
  Speaker 4: If you think what I'm saying is bs, go to
• 29:32
  Speaker 4: the source that I say I'm getting it from, Shove
• 29:36
  Speaker 4: that into an AI and say does this say that?
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: Yes? Yes?
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: And also the thing about you is that you are
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: the last person to try to shove an opinion down
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: someone's throat or an ideas well.
• 29:54
  Speaker 3: I'm not entitled.
• 29:55
  Speaker 4: I'm not entitled to an opinion because I'm not an expert.
• 30:00
  Speaker 4: The problem with experts, though, is that they give opinions
• 30:04
  Speaker 4: that are not necessarily evidence based, but are leaps based
• 30:09
  Speaker 4: on they know A and D, so B and C
• 30:13
  Speaker 4: is probably true because they've never had to investigate it.
• 30:17
  Speaker 4: They've never had to satisfy themselves that it is in
• 30:20
  Speaker 4: fact true. And I don't get to do that because
• 30:25
  Speaker 4: I'm not an expert. I don't get to make statements
• 30:29
  Speaker 4: about diet without verifying that the statement has evidence behind it,
• 30:34
  Speaker 4: whereas an expert will happily do that based on Oh,
• 30:37
  Speaker 4: I've heard people say this, yeah.
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: And it's so like, there's probably you're not all over
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: this because you don't follow probably a lot of the
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: people I follow, but or who come.
• 30:49
  Speaker 3: Across my I don't follow you, Craig, but you.
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: Know you don't need to. There's nothing new.
• 30:55
  Speaker 4: I must have followed you somewhere, because I do every
• 30:58
  Speaker 4: now and then see your inspiration quotes come up somewhere
• 31:01
  Speaker 4: or other.
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: Oh well, at least you call them that. Thank you.
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: I'm surprised you didn't say self help dogshit.
• 31:08
  Speaker 3: No, Chatters is doing a great job for you.
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: What was I going to say?
• 31:16
  Speaker 3: Oh?
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a whole bunch of influencers and quite literally
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: legitimately qualified and shudo qualified people who making all of
• 31:26
  Speaker 2: these claims about all of these things, and invariably, when
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: you get through it, they're actually selling a supplement or
• 31:34
  Speaker 2: a product or a program or are something that this
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: whole kind of spiel up front is meant to be. Oh,
• 31:43
  Speaker 2: here's just some information that might help you. And then
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: you get through and it's like, by the way, I've
• 31:48
  Speaker 2: got this range of supplements and it's all this, and
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: that's all that, and it doesn't.
• 31:52
  Speaker 4: That doesn't automatically mean that what they're saying is not true.
• 31:58
  Speaker 4: It just means be careful because this person has other motivations.
• 32:04
  Speaker 4: But it might be the case that the person has
• 32:07
  Speaker 4: in fact done the research, has looked to be evidence
• 32:10
  Speaker 4: and has come to the conclusion that the only possible
• 32:13
  Speaker 4: way that you can achieve this outcome is by buying
• 32:16
  Speaker 4: this supplement, and they believe in it so much that
• 32:19
  Speaker 4: they've invested their life's fortune, you know, life savings into
• 32:23
  Speaker 4: you know, sending it out there.
• 32:25
  Speaker 3: That might be the case. It probably isn't, but it
• 32:29
  Speaker 3: might be.
• 32:30
  Speaker 4: And and you shouldn't automatically discount something just because someone
• 32:36
  Speaker 4: stands to make money out of what they're saying. It
• 32:38
  Speaker 4: just means you have to be much more careful. Yeah,
• 32:44
  Speaker 4: I agree, you're making a fortune out of our conversation.
• 32:49
  Speaker 2: So you know, I'm just sitting on a pile of
• 32:53
  Speaker 2: cash as we speak, actually chafing my ass.
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: I should put some pants on.
• 33:00
  Speaker 4: Yeah, And so you have to be careful about what
• 33:02
  Speaker 4: Craig tells us because you know, you know, you'll know
• 33:05
  Speaker 4: that money he could be covering what he says, he
• 33:08
  Speaker 4: could he could be only presenting me because he's actually
• 33:11
  Speaker 4: you know, he's he's part of I don't know, big
• 33:14
  Speaker 4: meat or something and try to encourage you to to
• 33:18
  Speaker 4: eat eat more.
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: Beef, fat beef. Tellow that's exactly it.
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't even trust me, and I am me,
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: so definitely trust me. Do you want to plug anything
• 33:31
  Speaker 2: or point anyone in a direction today? You never normally
• 33:34
  Speaker 2: do that.
• 33:34
  Speaker 3: But don't.
• 33:35
  Speaker 4: Well, I haven't even got an article to point for
• 33:37
  Speaker 4: people to just as always. You know, if you keep
• 33:40
  Speaker 4: an eye on my sub stack, which you can get
• 33:42
  Speaker 4: to from my website, which is David Gillespie dot org,
• 33:47
  Speaker 4: then you know I'll probably try and put out an
• 33:50
  Speaker 4: article tomorrow.
• 33:51
  Speaker 3: Don't ask me what it's about.
• 33:52
  Speaker 4: I haven't thought about it yet, although I was interested
• 33:54
  Speaker 4: in something that caught my eye this morning about them
• 33:57
  Speaker 4: someone suggesting that, you know, it should be compulsory for
• 34:00
  Speaker 4: children to be slathered in sunscreen at school, and since
• 34:03
  Speaker 4: I think most sunscreen is a toxic I might write
• 34:07
  Speaker 4: about that.
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: You definitely should do that.
• 34:10
  Speaker 2: You could you could write another article one day about
• 34:14
  Speaker 2: no that's going to say who to trust and why?
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: But I feel like that could that could not work out.
• 34:21
  Speaker 3: Well.
• 34:22
  Speaker 4: The short answer to that is trust anyone who can
• 34:24
  Speaker 4: show you where they're getting their information from so that
• 34:27
  Speaker 4: you can go check it out yourself. You want someone
• 34:30
  Speaker 4: who says, I don't want you to believe me, because
• 34:33
  Speaker 4: you don't have to. You can just go and look
• 34:35
  Speaker 4: at it yourself.
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: Somebody who's not doing any arm twisting. Mate.
• 34:42
  Speaker 2: I will say goodbye off here, but as always, appreciate
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: you thanks for being on the show.
• 34:46
  Speaker 3: Talk to you, Seah.