Dr. Cinque vs. Dr. McDougall on blood sugar
- Created on Thursday, 24 February 2022 11:58
In this video, Dr. John McDougall says that after one of his high starch/low fat meals, blood sugar can rise as high as 150, and he says that it’s fine- not a problem.
He doesn’t think that such temporary spikes in blood sugar are the essence of diabetes. He says that they are normal and supposed to happen. After citing 150 as acceptable, he said that spikes of 200 or higher may need "medical attention" temporarily until enough weight loss occurs to correct it. He says that the cause of Type 2 diabetes is excess weight, and that he has a 100% cure rate because his patients, on his starch-based diet, lose weight. Then, he goes on to say that in a short while, as conditions improve within your body, your blood sugar hardly rises at all after meals. Hmm. But, isn’t he contradicting himself? If first he defends blood sugar spikes as being normal and physiological, as well as good and necessary, why does he then brag about them largely going away on his program? Are they good or are they bad? He needs to make up his mind.
I have never done post-prandial blood sugar testing on myself, so I don’t know how high my blood sugar goes after eating. I eat pretty large meals, and I assume that it rises substantially. But again, I’m just guessing. I checked online, and the figure most often cited as an acceptable spike is 140.
So, I don’t know how high mine goes, but it seems to me that more important than how high the spike goes is the rapidity at which it comes back down. And that’s because good health is all about maintaining homeostasis. When you consume food, you are nourishing yourself, but you are also disturbing the steady state within your body. So, your body gets to work to undo the disturbance. So, it sends the glucose to the liver and muscles where it’s converted into glycogen and stored there, thereby lowering the blood sugar back to its steady state. The quicker and more efficiently it does that, the healthier you are. Right?
And that’s why I would give more importance to the speed at which my body undoes the spike than the height of the spike because the height of the spike may be largely a function of how much I eat. In other words, if I were testing it, and I wanted to ensure that I get a good result, I could “cheat” just by not eating as much. But, that really wouldn't mean anything.
So, the bottom line is that both are important, but of the two, the duration of the spike and the speed at which it resolves is more important than how high it goes.
And consider the people who eat very low-carb meals. Dr. McDougall pointed out that even they experience some rise in their blood sugar after meals. And, even those who follow the Carnivore diet and eat only animal foods, which have zero carbs, assuming they don’t consume milk which has lactose, even they experience some rise in blood sugar. How? Apparently, gluconeogenesis happens very fast. Most of the amino acids that comprise proteins can be converted into glucose. The body clips off the amino group, which gets converted into urea and excreted, and the rest gets converted into glucose. Then, the glycerol in fats is very easily converted into glucose. Glycerol is basically half a glucose. The body just puts two of them together to make a glucose. So, it’s easy to see how blood sugar can rise even when you eat nothing but protein and fat. For multiple reasons, I think it’s very bad to do that, and one of them is that it cranks up all the gluconeogenic mechanisms in your body to the max. On such a diet, your body becomes a sugar-making machine. I’ve read about the “dawn effect” which refers to the rise in blood sugar that occurs early in the morning, shortly before rising. So, you’re lying in bed sound asleep, and your blood sugar starts rising, and the keto diet can make that worse, again, because you’ve honed your body to churn out sugar.
But, I don’t think Dr. McDougall is right to celebrate potatoes, corn, and rice, the way he does. I think nuts and beans are more valuable foods when it comes to diabetes management and prevention. Being higher in protein, they support muscle mass better, and maintaining good muscle mass is key because muscles are like sieves for blood sugar. It’s muscles that take sugar out of the blood and convert it into glycogen which is harmless. Glycogen does not react with proteins and cause glycation the way glucose does. And don’t get me wrong: I do eat potatoes because they are a whole natural food. But, I’m not a fanatic about it. If I had to choose between keeping nuts or potatoes in my diet- if I couldn’t have both- I would ditch the potatoes and keep the nuts. Of course, Dr. McDougall would do the opposite.
Do potatoes cause diabetes?
- Created on Tuesday, 15 February 2022 20:10
Dr. Michael Gregor made a video recently about potatoes increasing the risk of diabetes. In the study he reviewed, fruit didn’t increase the risk of diabetes, but potatoes did, a little. And that was true even when they looked at just boiled or baked potatoes and not French fries.
However, we need to look at the circumstances. People will eat fresh fruits all by themselves, but hardly anybody eats plain potatoes. Almost everyone dresses their potatoes with something, usually with butter, sour cream, grated cheese, bacon bits or rich gravies. And that’s what is affecting them- not just the potato. And, potatoes are eaten as part of a meal, and what do people eat with potatoes? Most commonly meat, as in meat and potatoes. So, is it right to blame the potato for the whole meal?
I didn’t examine that study, but it was epidemiological, meaning that it wasn’t a controlled setting where they were feeding people and controlling what they ate. And if they limited it to people who were eating plain potatoes and not eating them with anything else that could affect their diabetes risk, that would rule out practically everyone. They’d have no one to study.
So, Dr. Gregor, you need to learn to be more circumspect about these studies. In this case, we are talking about a potato, which is 80% water and very high in fiber and practically devoid of fat. Its also low in calories with a medium size potato having about 85 calories.
So, how could that food increase diabetes risk? We are talking about mature-onset diabetes, which is all about excess calories and excess body fat. The cells become resistant to insulin because they are already stuffed with calories (fat) and they don’t want any more. Plain potatoes do NOT make people fat. Every time a person has gone on a sole diet of potatoes, they have lost weight, including body fat.
Much is made of the glycemic index, and potatoes are reportedly high. Reportedly, potatoes digest and absorb more rapidly than fruits, and hence, they can spike your blood sugar more than fruit. That’s what we’re told. But, for whom is this relevant? If a person is diabetic, I can see how it’s relevant. But, that doesn’t mean that potatoes cause diabetes. Potatoes are a whole, natural, unrefined plant food that contain a broad array of nutrients. You couldn’t live on them exclusively forever, but you could live on them for a long time. I always buy the gold potatoes because they contain a lot of lutein which is so important for your eyes and also your arteries. I never buy the white russet potatoes that are so starchy.
But, the “glycemic index” issue is a red herring because, again, people don’t eat potatoes alone. They eat them with other foods, and it all gets mixed up in your stomach, and it’s the glycemic index of the whole mix that matters.
I’ve never done a glucose tolerance test on myself, where you take the fasting blood sugar, and then eat a full meal and see how high the blood sugar goes. They used to do it with special sugar drinks, but I think it would be more valuable to do it by having the person eat a typical meal for them. That’s how I would do it.
So, would a meal of mine that included potatoes cause more of a glucose spike than other meals? And keep in mind that it’s bound to spike some. But, if the person is healthy, it won’t spike as high and it won’t last as long.
But, if you don’t have excess body fat, and if your muscles are well toned, and you are used to doing vigorous physical activity, then that glucose is going to be funneled into the muscles for storage as glycogen so fast, that your blood sugar is going to come back down quickly.
It comes down to the basic concept of “homeostasis” and if you are healthy, your homeostatic mechanisms are well-honed, and you’ve got nothing to worry about from eating potatoes. And again, it’s the volume of sugar that matters, and at less than 100 calories each, how taxing can potatoes be?
Dr. Gregor came up with a gimmick that if you cook your potatoes and then chill them, that the cold raises the level of resistant starch in the potatoes, and hence, you won’t absorb as much of the carbs. But, I am not the least bit interested in doing that. To me, that is just paranoia. I eat my gold potatoes, and I usually mix avocado with them, which is very delicious. I don’t think there is anything unhealthy about it- not for me. And I am not going to practice a gimmick to fix a non-problem. This time, Dr. Gregor is being obsessively obsessive. You need to chill, brother.
The Sick Science of Virology exposed
- Created on Sunday, 13 February 2022 02:06
One of the effects that Covidism has had on me is to cause me to question not only the Covid narrative, but the narrative for other viral diseases as well. Maybe the whole concept is flawed.
I recalled how a boatload of Argentinian fishermen, before they set to sea, were all tested for Covid, and they tested negative. But when they returned some weeks later, some of them tested positive, and some of them were symptomatic.
So then, I began searching for similar cases, involving other viruses, such as the common cold virus, and I hit the jackpot.
Six of 12 men wintering at an isolated Antarctic base sequentially developed symptoms and signs of a common cold after 17 weeks of complete isolation. Examination of specimens taken from the men in relation to the outbreak has not revealed a causative agent.
17 weeks? That’s 4 months! How could a person be infected with a cold virus for 4 months before it starts making them sick? That is not part of the narrative. The incubation period for a cold is said to be 24 to 72 hours.
If you want to read the whole article, you can. The gist of it is that they don’t know how this happened, but they’re sure it wasn’t an allergy, and they presume that one of the men must have harbored the virus for 4 months. They’re willing to think that because it’s checkmate if they don’t.
That interpretation is completely unsubstantiated and serves only to preserve the virus narrative. It’s only a supposition. What the bare facts really lead to is that one can get a cold without a virus. That’s what one who isn’t tethered to viral theory would think.
Claiming that a person harbored a cold virus for 4 months is a problem, especially since it’s 8x longer than the course of the disease (assuming that a cold lasts for 2 weeks). What was going on during those 4 months? Was the virus taking over cells? It had to, right? Because it can’t live independently, right? And the body had to marshal a defense against it, right? And what, the person didn’t notice? They had a war going on inside them, and they didn’t notice?
The old-time naturalists, such as Herbert Shelton, used to say that a cold was a cleansing process, a detox, a radical shake-up of the internal environment to restore normality. I have to wonder if there isn’t more truth to that than what we’ve been told. There are these vesicles that contain genetic material that all cells shed called exosomes, and they are practically indistinguishable from viruses. Dr. Andrew Kaufman says they are indistinguishable.
I suggest you watch Dr. Kaufman’s video about this, and I hope that, like me, you will keep your mind open and start to question the whole virus narrative- at its core.
At what point do you start questioning the narrative? Apparently, never.
- Created on Saturday, 12 February 2022 04:14
A woman who was double-vaccinated, boosted, and who wore a medical-grade mask to the max still came down with Covid. That should have caused her to question the whole Covid narrative.
You’ve heard of the religious folks who go out to the desert because they think God is sending a spaceship down to whisk them away before the Great Tribulation. Of course, the spaceship never shows up. But, does that shake their faith? Not at all. They come up with a reason why it didn’t happen and go on waiting. I don’t mean in the desert. They go home and back to their lives and jobs, because, you know, they have to eat. But, mentally, they’re still waiting.
You’ve heard the expression: to pound a square peg into a round hole. Well, that’s what has been going on repeatedly throughout this whole Covid affair.
Even though she lives in a small apartment in New York City with her husband and children, none of them caught it from her. But, Omicron is supposed to be 4X more transmissible than the original virus, which was much more transmissible than colds and flus. And one of her children is unvaccinated because of his young age. Yet, he didn’t get Covid from her. So why?
This woman is not a doctor, but it would mean nothing to me if she was.
She said that some people shed the virus more than others. Shed the virus? They have yet to find a whole Covid virus in anyone. They have yet to demonstrate the presence of whole, live Covid virus in the expired air of anyone. Even when they dig deep into a person’s nasal passages, they only come up with fragments of RNA. How can they talk about “virus shedding” when they have never proven that it occurs? They just assume that it does.
Then, she said that maybe her unvaccinated preschooler got the infection earlier but asymptomatically, and so he built up the antibodies, and that’s why he didn’t catch it from her. But, just because one can conceive of that, what reason is there to believe it? A hypothetical that is completely devoid of substance is just a flight of fancy, and that’s all that is.
And keep in mind that she admitted that she didn’t even try to isolate herself in their 800 square foot apartment.
If this woman wasn’t mentally debilitated by the tsunami of Covid spewings, she would have realized that the vaccine didn’t do jack shit for her. She would realize that the Covid tests are worthless, especially since millions of well people have tested positive. And when a well person tests positive, you don’t start by questioning whether they are really well; you start by questioning whether the test is valid.
It must have been a mild illness for her because she never said a word about her symptoms. Nothing. In all probability, she had a cold or flu, and probably a mild one, since she didn't complain about how bad it was. So, why didn’t her family catch it? No explanation is needed because we all know from common experience that that often happens. The only thing “Covid” about her experience is the test; that ridiculous, bogus test.
But, I think you should read this because every thought that came out of her head was a delusion, and she is no different from the people waiting in the desert for the space ship.
CDC admits that the vaccine killed a woman
- Created on Thursday, 10 February 2022 05:58
A 68 year old Kansas woman went into anaphylaxis soon after getting her first shot of the Moderna vaccine. She was rushed to the hospital, but she died the next morning. That was last March, and they are just now releasing the autopsy results which show that the vaccine definitely killed her. Why did it take them a year to release it?
And if you read the article, you’ll see that the CDC admits that there have been other vaccine-related deaths from anaphylaxis, and that that the Covid vaccine has killed at least 9 people from thrombocytopenia. Keep in mind that many thousands of vaccine-related deaths have been reported, but the CDC rejects most of them as coincidences. But, when a person is stable and not dying, and they get the shot, and soon thereafter they fall ill, and then they die, that is way too strong an association to dismiss as coincidence.
And, I consider it a very monstrous thing that they keep pushing a vaccine that they know has killed people. And I am very well aware of how they rationalize it in their piddly little minds. They think it’s a numbers game, that since so many more will die if the population isn’t vaccinated that it’s “worth it” to sacrifice a few to save the many.
Except: those few aren’t their lives to sacrifice. The only life they have a right to sacrifice is their own. And let’s look at the facts: they admit that the vaccine does not prevent Covid infection; nor does it prevent the spread of the disease. The only benefit that they even claim for the vaccine any more is that it reduces the severity of the illness if you get it. And don’t think for one second that I accept that because I don’t. And why should I when I’ve heard of so many cases of vaccinated people who have died of Covid? Dying is the most severe outcome there is, right? And if that can happen to the vaccinated, not extremely rarely, but quite often and widely, what benefit is there left to cling to? Answer: so pitifully little, it might as well be nothing. And I believe it is nothing. I believe that the vaccine is only doing harm.
Look: if the vaccine can’t stop the virus from the onset, why assume that it can stop the virus later? Remember: supposedly, the vaccine arms you with the antibodies IN ADVANCE. So, If you have the antibodies in advance, why should you get sick at all? I’m sure that if put on the spot, they’d be able to come up with some glib talking point about that. But, that’s my point: that glib talking points is all they have. And they have an army of “experts” who spew those glib talking points, day in and day out.
But, the point is that to pressure people to take the vaccine and even mandate it when they know that it has killed people shows you that they place no value on individual human lives. If you have to die from the vaccine, and if others after you have to die from it, they don’t care. They may say that that it’s too bad, but believe me, they’re not feeling bad. They are not losing a wink of sleep over that Kansas woman. That rolls off them like water off a duck’s back.
The son of the Kansas woman says that he’s going to sue. I wonder if he knows that he can’t sue Moderna. They are immune. They have no liability. All he can do is sue the federal government. And the federal government will just print up some more money, because that’s how they get money, and they’ll give it to him. And they’ll print up some more for others like him. And the vaccination campaign will just go on. It won’t miss a beat. It won’t even slow down.
The first rule of Medicine is supposed to be: do no harm. But, that’s a joke because most of what Medicine does is harm, and all that they do with vaccines is harm.
And don’t kid yourself: this isn’t going away. There will always be a new outbreak or a new variant or a new virus. I’m not saying you can’t have good days, and I think you should let yourself have good days whenever you can. But, we are no more going back to life as it was before Covid than we are to passbook savings accounts that pay 5% interest.
The Truth about Ketosis
- Created on Wednesday, 09 February 2022 06:14
I know it's a high aspiration of many people to try to spend their whole lives in a perennial state of ketosis, but I think it's ill-advised.
You know how the body has two states of being: wakefulness and sleep. And the ideal situation is if they are sharply defined, where, when you’re awake, you’re wide awake and sharply focused, and when you’re asleep, you’re out like a light and dead to the world. The more time you spend in that deep, stage 4 sleep, where you’re not even dreaming, the better. That’s what really recharges your battery.
And you want that switch between the two states to work efficiently too, where you fall asleep quickly at night, and when you awake in the morning, you come around quickly and don’t require stimulants like coffee to get going.
Well, likewise, you could say that there are two metabolic states of the body: the state of eating, and the state of fasting, and fasting is marked by ketosis. So, ketosis goes with fasting; not with eating.
Ketones are compounds that result from the breakdown of fat, and they can be burned as an energy source by the body. But, it's mainly the brain that need ketones. Although glucose is the prime energy source when a person is eating, the body doesn’t store much of it. It stores glycogen in the liver and muscles, but it gets used up pretty fast. After that, the body can keep making glucose from glucogenic amino acids (and most of the amino acids are glucogenic) but it doesn’t want to. And that’s because it would be like burning the furniture. During fasting, the body tries to limit its protein losses to the minimum. It has to break down some protein to derive amino acids for vital functions, but it doesn’t want to burn protein as fuel. Hence, it turns to fat.
The muscles can burn fatty acids directly, and the heart is especially good at it. It's called beta oxidation, and the way it works is that triglycerides are broken down into their constituent fatty acids; then these fatty acids are converted to acyl-Coenzyme A, and then, two carbon atoms at a time, acyl-Coenzyme A is reduced to another substance called acetyl Coennzyme A, and that liberates chemical energy. But, the brain can't do this beta oxidation, hence it cannot burn fatty acids directly. However, it can burn ketones. And that's what makes ketone production so essential during fasting- so that your brain has an alternative fuel to glucose. But, it is a mistake to think that a person has to be in a state of ketosis to burn fat and lose weight. That is a myth.
Another time besides fasting that the body may enter a state of ketosis is during acute illness. Let’s face it: when people have fever and malaise and the other discomforts, such as when they have the flu, they don’t have much appetite, and they may not have any. Of course, many people will force themselves to eat “to keep up their strength.” But, even if they do, they usually don’t eat much, and their body may reject it anyway, hence, they will often enter a state of ketosis.
So, acute illness and fasting are when ketosis normally occurs. When a person goes beyond fasting into starvation, then vital proteins are lost, and there is a rise in nitrogen excretion. And that, of course, is pathological, and no one should take fasting that far unless they are trying to end their life.
But, the point is that the body is programmed to oscillate between the two states of eating and fasting. Remember that in the modern world, food is plentiful all the time, but in wild Nature, animals may have to fast frequently. Lions go days at a time without food. Then finally, they make a kill and gorge themselves. The same is true for polar bears. And polar bears build dens out of snow to secure shelter during the harshest part of the winter where they don’t eat at all. Females will give birth in those dens and then nurse their offspring there, all without eating. There are many examples of protracted fasting among wild animals. Even primordial humans had an inconsistent, unreliable food supply that made fasting a common occurrence.
Fasting requires adaptations, and going back to eating does too. There is a metabolic switching involved, and it hinges on blood sugar and ketones. So, as blood sugar drops, that triggers the production of ketones and the other adaptations to fasting, such as, a physiological dehydration. And then when you come off the fast, the consumption of carbohydrate stems the production of ketones and triggers the adaptations that coinside with eating.
Just as with your sleep/wake cycle, in which you don’t want to dwell for very long in the nether region between wakefulness and sleep, likewise concerning eating and fasting, you don’t want to dwell for very long between the two- let alone dwell there permanently.
So, the people who think you should stay in a state of ketosis all the time are idiots. It is simply abnormal to be in ketosis when you are eating. You should not aspire to do it.
A very important video by Dr. Samantha Bailey
- Created on Sunday, 06 February 2022 12:52
Dr. Bailey, who goes by “Dr. Sam” is a medical doctor in New Zealand, and she blogs about Covid and other things. It’s apparent that she is very involved in “lifestyle medicine” as the core of her practice and with an emphasis on eating fresh fruits and vegetables of the highest quality, and other sound health practices. In other words, she is one of us. And I will add that she looks very healthy.
I have been following her since before Covid, but I think it’s fair to say that she has become one of the leading and most vocal doctors in the world against the Covid narrative, and she has connected with other leading doctors in the movement, such as Dr. Andrew Kaufman in the U.S. and Dr. Stefan Lanka in Germany, to name two. There are many others.
But, in this latest video of hers, Dr. Sam tackles head-on on the explanation of what is really going on if the SARS Covid-19 virus is an invented fiction. I am providing the link to that, but I would like to make a few comments of my own first.
Early on in this “pandemic” I was fortunate to meet the Canadian researcher David Crowe, who has since passed away and not from Covid. I think it’s fair to say that back then, in 2020, he did the most to rale against the use of the PCR test for Covid. He repeatedly said that “it’s not a binary test,” that anyone can test positive for Covid if you cycle it enough times. That was the first thing that alarmed me about the narrative.
But, the second thing that alarmed me was the way they claimed that even people who are totally asymptomatic, if they test positive for Covid, that they are sick, and just as sick as the people who are symptomatic- they just don’t know it. For example, they got this young female doctor, who I seem to recall was from Lubbock, Texas, to claim that, from x-rays she’s seen, that people who have Covid but without symptoms, that their lung x-rays look just as bad as those who are clinically sick and even hospitalized.
But, it makes no sense to think that there is no correlation between the presence and severity of symptoms and the clinical findings on a chest x-ray. In other words, if there is a lot of pathology in the lungs, how could it exist without producing any symptoms?
And it’s important for me to stress that we are talking about no symptoms at all. For instance, on the day that Senator Rand Paul had his PCR test for Covid (which was positive) he went to the Senate gym and did a weightlifting workout, followed by a swim. You can't tell me his lungs were riddled with disease when he did that. As far as I know, he never got sick. So, did he have a disease, or was it a false positive test result? Even though Medicine acknowledges the existence of false-positive test results for other things, they don’t acknowledge it for Covid- even though Covid has had the highest percentage of apparent false positive test results of any known condition.
So, what I am suggesting to you is that this claim that the lungs of asymptomatic Covid people look as bad as severely ill Covid patients and worse than two pack a day smokers (which is another claim), is nothing but a lip-flap. In other words, it’s a lie.
In her video, Dr. Sam makes the astute observation that there is only one criterion for the diagnosis of Covid, and that is, a positive PCR test. That is considered the most reliable test, often called the “gold standard” (and it makes me want to barf when I hear that). It does not test for a virus. It tests for little snippets of RNA about which they make two claims, both of which are unsubstantiated. And they are that they claim to know that those snippets are from the Covid-19 virus, and that they are the signature of the virus, that no other living thing, large or small, has. or could have, those sequences.
But why, if the virus exists, can’t they find a whole one? Why is it always snippets? If whole viruses are coming out in the expired air of the infected- and they absolutely have to claim that, since millions of people test positive who haven’t been around anyone who was coughing or sneezing- then why can’t whole viruses be found in their deep exudates?
They really can’t find a whole virus. And their claim to isolate the virus is based entirely on a presumption- the presumption that if adding a person’s exudate to a cell culture- along with a bunch of other things that are toxic- if that causes the cell culture to decline or die, then the virus must have done it. That is not isolation! It’s just a presumption!
But, what makes this video by Dr. Sam so valuable is that she dives into explaining what is really going on with the excess deaths, because no one doubts that a lot of people have died. But, what did they die of?
Dr. Sam explains that the vast majority of Covid deaths have been in the old- and not just the old, but the old with chronic co-morbid conditions- and I mean things that can kill you. But, she also says that doctors have done things to hasten these deaths, and she gave the example of dosing old people, diagnosed with Covid, with the benzodiazepine drug Midazolam, which is dangerous to give to old people. You’ll see that she points out that mortality rates vary a lot, that in some European countries there has been no increased mortality during this pandemic, and in others just a slight rise in total mortality. But, in the UK they have had a significant rise in overall morality. But, is it from the virus or from what they’re doing, such as administering Midazolam wily nily?
She didn’t bring it up this time, but I will mention again that they have undoubtedly killed hundreds of thousands, and probably more, with the ventilators. That they would continue administering something that was resulting in death in 97% of the people getting it- that is effffin’ murder. If you don’t know to stop doing something that results in death almost 100% of the time, then something the f__K is wrong with you.
Dr. Sam says that most of the symptomatic cases of Covid (and there are millions of asymptomatic cases that are just test results) are people who have colds and flus. And these people would be much better off if they just stayed home. Instead of panicking and going to the hospital, just stay home. And there is absolutely no distinguishing, pathognomonic feature of Covid. Loss of taste and smell? Forget about it because you can easily get that from the regular flu or even a cold if it’s a bad one. There is absolutely nothing that you can point to. What makes it Covid is that God-awful mucus test and nothing else.
There is no symptom that is the defining symptom of Covid; yet, any symptom can be Covid. In other words, if you have Symptom X and a positive Covid PCR test, then Medicine is entirely willing to claim that your Symptom X was caused by Covid and is a symptom of Covid. Covid is ANYTHING that can be linked to a positive PCR test. The virus does this. The virus does that. The virus goes here. The virus goes there. And that is some sick shit they are spewing.
So, please watch and listen to brave Dr. Sam. I can just imagine the hassles she gets from the New Zealand medical establishment.
Dr. John McDougall on Coffee
- Created on Saturday, 05 February 2022 13:01
His video is worth watching because Dr. McDougall made some interesting points about coffee. But first, I have to make a disclaimer. Dr. McDougall is a radical low-fat advocate. Even raw nuts and seeds and avocadoes, he treats like poison. That may be a little exaggerated, but he’s got a bad attitude towards them, for sure. He argues that because peasant societies all over the world eat starch-based diets (and he exaggerates the extent that they do) that Man is a starch eater.
But, when people started to rely on agriculture, they needed crops that could provide food within one growing season. It may take 8 years for a pecan tree to start producing- and that’s if you plant a tree. If you just plant a pecan, it may take 10 years- or more.
I’m not against eating starches, and I eat them. But, I still think of them as makeshift foods, and especially grains, which are grass seeds. The fact is that humans are highly sensitized to and drawn to eating fats. When some primordial man came upon a pistachio tree for the first time, he probably thought he died and went to Heaven. And I guarantee you he ate those nuts with no concern about fat being bad.
And how can fat be bad when human breast milk has more fat than cow’s milk? So, the whole idea that “Starch: good/Fat: bad” is nonsense to me.
Dr. McDougall is mostly wary of coffee, although it sounds like he does drink it some. He talked about it waking you up in the morning and getting you thinking clearly, but that’s bull shit. You shouldn’t need it. Kids don’t need it, so why should you? I don’t need it.
But, he talked about the excess acid production from it and the stimulant effect. He mentioned the tremors. He should have also mentioned that coffee can cause cardiac arrythmias. I’ve seen that more than a few times. I drank coffee some back in college, but I haven’t drunk it since then.
He scoffed at the idea that coffee helps prevent cancer and heart disease. He said people love to hear good things about their bad habits, which is true. He could have mentioned that it’s supposed to be due to the antioxidants that coffee is high in. But, all legumes are high in antioxidants, and you can just eat them. You don’t need to drink coffee.
Dr. Bruce Ames, who was the head of Biochemistry at Berkeley, who is still alive at the age of 93, has pointed out that coffee is burnt; it is charred; which means that it has toxic hydrocarbons, the-products of burning, which are, in fact, carcinogenic.
Dr. McDougall said that coffee raises cholesterol, but if it’s made with a paper filter, it does so less. He should have pointed out that coffee raises blood sugar. It stimulates the liver to release glucose through gluconeogenesis. And that makes sense because it’s like adrenaline, and adrenaline does that. I’m not referring to the sugar people add to coffee, which is more yet.
I think of caffeine as the kid brother of cocaine. You may know that in South America, they chew on coca leaves to get a buzz, and it’s not as bad as taking refined cocaine. It’s probably not as bad as drinking coffee.
But, the bottom line for me is that Herbert Shelton was right, that stimulants do not provide or increase energy, they just cause you to expend it. You can’t actually increase your energy by drinking coffee. If you are tired and you drink coffee, it’s going to make you more tired- in the long run. Temporarily, you may get a lift from it, but it’s phony. As soon as that short-term effect wears off, you’re going to feel more tired than ever. And that’s the real and lasting effect.
So, it’s a bad road to go down. I’ve known a lot of people who can’t function in the morning without coffee. They literally can’t do a damn thing until they get some coffee into themselves. And that is a dire state to be in.
So, I don’t drink coffee, and I urge people to get the hell off of it. But, here is Dr. McDougall’s video about it.