The Older Brother does a gut check

      56 Comments on The Older Brother does a gut check

Hi, Fatheads!

Anyone else notice there’s been an uptick in mainstream media reporting related to the gut microbiome?

It’s even crept into my local paper, which picked up an AP article relating how artificial sweeteners could possibly tie to diabetes via its effect on said gut:

A preliminary study done mostly in mice suggests that artificial sweeteners may set the stage for diabetes in some people.

The study authors said they can’t make dietary recommendations but that their results should inspire more research into the topic.

Basically, the study suggests that artificial sweeteners alter the makeup of normal, beneficial bacteria in the gut. That appears to hamper how the body handles sugar in the diet, a situation that can lead to developing diabetes.

The results, from researchers in Israel, were released Wednesday by the journal Nature.

How about that. Not that this is new — the whole Resistant Starch thing triggered a lot of interest around here in the gut — the “second brain,” as one researcher called it — awhile ago.

It had been on the radar for quite awhile. I remember seeing a year or two ago research talking about how there where over 150 distinct species of this microbiome community that lives on and inside us, but aren’t related to us — i.e., don’t have any of our DNA.  They have 100 times the number of genes we have, and weigh at least a couple of pounds. They drive all kinds of chemical and physiological processes in us, but have been largely unstudied.

Like I said, not new. What is new is that it’s news.

I didn’t think the general media would be reporting on this stuff for years. I mean, you’re just starting to see LCHF get regular respectable mentions, and now even saturated fat is getting better press, but that’s been a decades-long haul.

Within days of seeing the artificial sweetener/diabetes story,  I also saw a couple of other “gut” articles in Yahoo’s new links. One was from Forbes on the same idea, but this time specifically targeting diet sodas as culprits through the same mechanism of altering the gut balance. Then, another linking through to the Huffington Post(!) regarding food allergies:

Mice that were raised in a sterile environment or given antibiotics early in life lacked a common gut bacteria that appears to prevent food allergies, US researchers said Monday.

The bacterium, called Clostridia, appears to minimize the likelihood that rodents will become allergic to peanuts, and researchers would like to find out if it does the same in people.

In the meantime, they found that supplementing rodents with probiotics containing Clostridia later in life could reverse the allergy, according to the report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences…

The precise cause of food allergies is unknown, but some studies suggest that changes in diet, hygiene and use of antimicrobial soap and disinfecting products may lead to changes in the bacteria of the gastrointestinal tract that leave people more susceptible.

I’m not sure what I found more amazing; that the HuffPo would cover something accurately, or that I would read something they printed.

To be clear, many of these studies were looking at mice, and we know that is far from a “gold standard.” I didn’t perform Tom’s normal exercise of pulling up and dissecting the source articles.

First of all, that’s not in my wheelhouse. But mainly, I’m not interested specifically in the research, per se — it’s the fact that it’s seeped into the regular press, and is providing answers to some questions many people seem to be seeking better answers to. Like, “how come all of these kids seem to be allergic to everything these days?”

I also find it interesting in that these are reporting findings that aren’t in line with the current medical establishment zeitgeist. The reports indicate the answer may be in less medicine, less sterile environments, less industrial foodstuffs.

I really didn’t expect to see anything about the gut microbiome until Merk or Monsanto or someone figured out a way to patent a couple of them, then that’s all we’d hear about.

I think it’s possible that the things Tom talked about in his Vox Populi speech — why people just don’t believe the “experts” in medicine, nutrition, etc. and are looking to the “wisdom of crowds” — are starting to guide the questions that get asked, and the stories that get covered.  A couple of years ago, the only answer to food allergies was testing, avoiding, and a prescription. All of your reported options resided in the medical establishment, because those were the only people who got asked.

Now, it’s looking more like the press and regular folks are starting to clue in that there’s other options. Like, keep little Johnny away from the Pink Stuff unless it’s major, and let him go outside and eat some dirt.

Just your grandma told you. See, it was science after all.

….

Well, Tom should be wrapping up the big parts of the book by now so Chareva can start doing her part.  Sorry you got stuck with me for an extra week, but it should pay off in the end. The Wife and I are going down to their farm next week, so maybe I’ll get a sneak preview. At least I’ll get to try this “disc golf” thing.

Thanks for putting up with me. See you in the comments.

Cheers!

The Older Brother


If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
Share

56 thoughts on “The Older Brother does a gut check

  1. Justin

    “how come all of these kids seem to be allergic to everything these days?”

    Every time I overhear something like this, or something like “kids these days are fatter than we were because we went outside and played”, I start screaming inside my head. Ignorant statements about how weak the next generation is aren’t helping anybody.

    Reply
  2. Boundless

    Ordered your uBiome kit yet? (23andme for the gut)

    Also look into what’s being learned from studying the Hazda (and at least one of the researchers is experimenting on himself as well).
    http://humanfoodproject.com/rebecoming-human-happened-day-replaced-99-genes-body-hunter-gatherer/

    We really have no flippin’ idea what an ideal gut biome is for modern humans yet. It’s pretty safe to say that what most of the world has is substantially suboptimal.

    The Clostridia thing is interesting. Almost no commercial probiotics contain any Clostridia (Bifilac has Clostridium Butyricum), probably because many of them (C. difficile, C. perfringens, C. tetani, and helicobacter) are presently considered serious pathogens.

    Reply
  3. Kristin

    I’ve noticed the same thing about the sudden exposure of the gut biome discussion. And I also have attributed the speed to online sharing of information. When LCHF starting hitting the mainstream recently I was pleased but also skeptical. I know that the ‘anointed’ as Tom terms them will try to shout this down as a fad. With this new coverage I now begin to wonder if it really is true that they have lost control of the conversation and barring censorship of the Internet they will not get it back.

    I have a friend with severe food allergies that are getting worse every year both in terms of number of foods and severity of reaction. I tried talking to her about GAPS and she basically screamed at me about quackery and how leaky gut is ridiculous. I was so shocked (this being not normal for her) that I dropped it and never said another word. She is now trying to lose weight by severe calorie restriction such that she is hungry all the time. I just have to watch this in tortured silence.

    Reply
    1. The Older Brother

      It wasn’t mentioned in the articles I read. The big 3 were included — saccharin (Sweet ‘N Low), sucralose (Splenda), and aspartame (NutraSweet). Stevia, although a sweetener, isn’t artificial. Hopefully, our gut would be acquainted with it, but I’ve not been a real fan.

      The Older Brother

      Reply
      1. Justin

        I still feel like we didn’t get the whole story from the researchers. When the time came to run a small-scale human study on volunteers to attempt to produce the same results, are we to believe that they only tested saccharine, the one that’s really not in anything anymore? It’s more likely that it was the only one that they were able to reproduce the results in humans with.

        Reply
      1. Dave

        Sugar is natural, not artificial, as it is a direct extract from a plant. 😉

        Seriously, though, considering the “crap-in-a-bag” that constitutes the diet of lab mice, I can’t say that any studies involving “artificial” sweeteners are really meaningful for humans any more than T Colin Campbell’s experiments involving casein are for relevant for humans.

        More to the point, though, is the way the public reads the news media. Most people get the idea that they need a healthy gut but have no idea how or why that is achieved. So, they read an article saying that “artificial” sweeteners are bad for gut health (in mice fed “crap-in-a-bag”). They then return to drinking beverages containing sugar/HFCS because it’s “real.” $ugar & Corn syrup sales take back market shares…

        Reply
  4. Justin

    “how come all of these kids seem to be allergic to everything these days?”

    Every time I overhear something like this, or something like “kids these days are fatter than we were because we went outside and played”, I start screaming inside my head. Ignorant statements about how weak the next generation is aren’t helping anybody.

    Reply
  5. Boundless

    Ordered your uBiome kit yet? (23andme for the gut)

    Also look into what’s being learned from studying the Hazda (and at least one of the researchers is experimenting on himself as well).
    http://humanfoodproject.com/rebecoming-human-happened-day-replaced-99-genes-body-hunter-gatherer/

    We really have no flippin’ idea what an ideal gut biome is for modern humans yet. It’s pretty safe to say that what most of the world has is substantially suboptimal.

    The Clostridia thing is interesting. Almost no commercial probiotics contain any Clostridia (Bifilac has Clostridium Butyricum), probably because many of them (C. difficile, C. perfringens, C. tetani, and helicobacter) are presently considered serious pathogens.

    Reply
    1. Chuck

      He believes aspartame is ok because it has been okayed by many agencies, so that means it’s safe, even though many people have bad effects from it. They also ok an industrial byproduct of the aluminum and fertilizer industries, that is purchased from China now, to be added to your water, dental products and apparently is also added to some junk foods. Yup industrial waste that used to go out the smoke stack, now they sell it and put it in everything and tell you it’s good for you.

      http://www.lovethetruth.com/truth_about_fluoride.htm

      Reply
  6. Jennifer Snow

    I’m not surprised that the artificial sweetener thing gets more and easier mention than a lot of other nutritional stuff. There’s been a large anti-artificial-sweetener movement pretty much since the stuff was first introduced. Anything that confirms this viewpoint is going to get spread far and wide.

    Reply
    1. The Older Brother

      Good point. What I was intrigued with was how quickly the idea of the gut microbiome seems to be entering the mainstream. I was expecting another 5 or 10 years of “that look” from people when you mention probiotics or gut bugs. You know, like when you say “we need fat to be healthy.”

      Cheers

      Reply
      1. Nads

        I even gave an inservice education to my allied health colleagues on The Power of Poo (gut flora association with disease) and had a pretty good reception! It was very evidence based though. I just wanted to change their thinking a bit, and start opening their minds. I think I may be known as the poo physio now though 🙁

        Reply
      2. Jennifer Snow

        It may also be that there’s a fairly large percentage of the population that isn’t obviously and immediately devastated by the modern carbo diet–people who can stay thin on heavy carbs. They just flat out don’t buy it when you tell them that you can’t drop 200 lbs. by walking around the block every day. But pretty much everyone, thin or fat, runs across gut problems, so they can relate to it.

        Reply
        1. Walter Bushell

          Remember a good % of the thin people are actually fatties. Dr. Lustig says 40%. Hmm, that means that there are more thin fatties that fatty fatties.

          The fatty fatties spend years following the establishment line before getting the truth, if they ever do, and the thin fatties can consendentaly look down on the fatty fatties and probably very few can ever obtain a clueon[1].

          [1] The smallest carrier of correct knowledge. Antiparticle is the bogon, the carrier of bogosity.

          Reply
    1. Pat

      The leading cause of distress in lab mice (and rats) is *male* scientists! Jeffrey Mogil at McGill University (Neuroscience) studied this and found that mice stressed out when men, but not women, were in the room. It is part of a general stress response to unknown males – they have the same response to clothing worn by men, and bedding used by males of other species.

      Isn’t science interesting? Especially when people find interesting topics to check out.

      Reply
      1. Walter Bushell

        Of course, this invalidates a whole raft of rodent studies.

        A great resource is a series of lectures “Human Behavioral Biology” from Stanford University with Sapolsky and grad students available on itunes and the Youtube– free. This give a good view of how science gets things completely wrong, for example, the Refrigerator Mother theory of schizophrenia, lobotomies, and Amygdala removal.

        And, of course, it gives a lot of knowledge about the roots of human behavior.

        Reply
  7. Bret

    I think it’s possible that the things Tom talked about in his Vox Populi speech — why people just don’t believe the “experts” in medicine, nutrition, etc. and are looking to the “wisdom of crowds” — are starting to guide the questions that get asked, and the stories that get covered. […] All of your reported options resided in the medical establishment, because those were the only people who got asked.

    God bless the internet and the innumerable blogs out there (and right here) that have forced a sea change in the paradigm of information sources.

    Big News now has to compete for eyeballs and eardrums — that whole capitalism thing — and they are not happy about it.

    Reply
    1. Bret

      Oh, and the colossal medical bureaucracies are also being exposed to this inconvenient and strange competition thing, and they’re just as unhappy as the journalists.

      Reply
  8. Kristin

    I’ve noticed the same thing about the sudden exposure of the gut biome discussion. And I also have attributed the speed to online sharing of information. When LCHF starting hitting the mainstream recently I was pleased but also skeptical. I know that the ‘anointed’ as Tom terms them will try to shout this down as a fad. With this new coverage I now begin to wonder if it really is true that they have lost control of the conversation and barring censorship of the Internet they will not get it back.

    I have a friend with severe food allergies that are getting worse every year both in terms of number of foods and severity of reaction. I tried talking to her about GAPS and she basically screamed at me about quackery and how leaky gut is ridiculous. I was so shocked (this being not normal for her) that I dropped it and never said another word. She is now trying to lose weight by severe calorie restriction such that she is hungry all the time. I just have to watch this in tortured silence.

    Reply
    1. Nads

      It seems to me Kristin, those who most need help are the most resistant/addicted. Most of the people I know who have made lasting changes are the ones who have been healthier to start with.

      Reply
    1. The Older Brother Post author

      It wasn’t mentioned in the articles I read. The big 3 were included — saccharin (Sweet ‘N Low), sucralose (Splenda), and aspartame (NutraSweet). Stevia, although a sweetener, isn’t artificial. Hopefully, our gut would be acquainted with it, but I’ve not been a real fan.

      The Older Brother

      Reply
      1. Justin

        I still feel like we didn’t get the whole story from the researchers. When the time came to run a small-scale human study on volunteers to attempt to produce the same results, are we to believe that they only tested saccharine, the one that’s really not in anything anymore? It’s more likely that it was the only one that they were able to reproduce the results in humans with.

        Reply
        1. The Older Brother Post author

          Again, I was more interested in the fact that the idea of the gut microbiome jumping into mainstream news coverage so far ahead of the normal “experts say” curve than the merits of any particular study.

          I’m sure you wouldn’t make an argument that the normal drumbeat of media reports about studies purporting to support Alzheimer’s drugs, “it’s all about the calories” studies, “fat bad, whole grains good” studies, etc,. are based on anything more substantial?

          I don’t think journalists suddenly woke up imbued with “Science for Smart People” standards. Of interest is that they’re directing the same level of inquiry, abysmal or not, into areas of health and medicine where Big Pharma/Big Medicine isn’t doing the steering.

          Cheers

          Reply
      1. Dave

        Sugar is natural, not artificial, as it is a direct extract from a plant. 😉

        Seriously, though, considering the “crap-in-a-bag” that constitutes the diet of lab mice, I can’t say that any studies involving “artificial” sweeteners are really meaningful for humans any more than T Colin Campbell’s experiments involving casein are for relevant for humans.

        More to the point, though, is the way the public reads the news media. Most people get the idea that they need a healthy gut but have no idea how or why that is achieved. So, they read an article saying that “artificial” sweeteners are bad for gut health (in mice fed “crap-in-a-bag”). They then return to drinking beverages containing sugar/HFCS because it’s “real.” $ugar & Corn syrup sales take back market shares…

        Reply
        1. The Older Brother Post author

          Or not.

          It is possible that it’s sinking in to the public’s consciousness that all crap — processed foods, artificial sweeteners, added sugar, HFCS, etc.are indeed not good things. The gut connection helps explain why the “calorie-is-a-calorie” or “lab food is the same as real food” arguments fall down in real life.

          The Older Brother

          Reply
  9. Jennifer Snow

    I’m not surprised that the artificial sweetener thing gets more and easier mention than a lot of other nutritional stuff. There’s been a large anti-artificial-sweetener movement pretty much since the stuff was first introduced. Anything that confirms this viewpoint is going to get spread far and wide.

    Reply
    1. The Older Brother Post author

      Good point. What I was intrigued with was how quickly the idea of the gut microbiome seems to be entering the mainstream. I was expecting another 5 or 10 years of “that look” from people when you mention probiotics or gut bugs. You know, like when you say “we need fat to be healthy.”

      Cheers

      Reply
      1. Nads

        I even gave an inservice education to my allied health colleagues on The Power of Poo (gut flora association with disease) and had a pretty good reception! It was very evidence based though. I just wanted to change their thinking a bit, and start opening their minds. I think I may be known as the poo physio now though 🙁

        Reply
      2. Jennifer Snow

        It may also be that there’s a fairly large percentage of the population that isn’t obviously and immediately devastated by the modern carbo diet–people who can stay thin on heavy carbs. They just flat out don’t buy it when you tell them that you can’t drop 200 lbs. by walking around the block every day. But pretty much everyone, thin or fat, runs across gut problems, so they can relate to it.

        Reply
        1. Walter Bushell

          Remember a good % of the thin people are actually fatties. Dr. Lustig says 40%. Hmm, that means that there are more thin fatties that fatty fatties.

          The fatty fatties spend years following the establishment line before getting the truth, if they ever do, and the thin fatties can consendentaly look down on the fatty fatties and probably very few can ever obtain a clueon[1].

          [1] The smallest carrier of correct knowledge. Antiparticle is the bogon, the carrier of bogosity.

          Reply
  10. Bret

    I think it’s possible that the things Tom talked about in his Vox Populi speech — why people just don’t believe the “experts” in medicine, nutrition, etc. and are looking to the “wisdom of crowds” — are starting to guide the questions that get asked, and the stories that get covered. […] All of your reported options resided in the medical establishment, because those were the only people who got asked.

    God bless the internet and the innumerable blogs out there (and right here) that have forced a sea change in the paradigm of information sources.

    Big News now has to compete for eyeballs and eardrums — that whole capitalism thing — and they are not happy about it.

    Reply
    1. Bret

      Oh, and the colossal medical bureaucracies are also being exposed to this inconvenient and strange competition thing, and they’re just as unhappy as the journalists.

      Reply
      1. The Older Brother Post author

        That’s even better.

        I also seem to have noticed something along the lines of a slightly panicked reflex when medical people get pushback on statins or cholesterol now. The look used to be condescending. I think they’re starting to get that they’re on the losing side of history, and that more of the general public is starting to recognize that they aren’t gods.

        Cheers

        Reply
        1. Bret

          Indeed, a slice of humble pie can go a long way toward curing the arrogance of ‘the anointed.’

          This reminds me of the nurse practitioner revolution, which doctors fought against with every bit of bureaucratic firepower they could muster. How dare those nurses, mere mortals, sell their skills and knowledge to willing customers?

          I respect and admire most doctors I have ever met. But nice people or not, they are riding the government gravy train of excessive licensing laws and other anti-competition crony capitalist bull****. That causes the rest of us to suffer (in one way or another), and it has to go.

          Reply
    1. The Older Brother

      Interesting. I don’t imagine Pfizer or Novartis are chipping in a couple of million to explore this idea.

      The Older Brother

      Reply
    1. The Older Brother Post author

      Interesting. I don’t imagine Pfizer or Novartis are chipping in a couple of million to explore this idea.

      The Older Brother

      Reply
  11. Linda

    I’m with you fredt!! The leading cause of distress in mice is scientists! As for noticing more attention in the media related to the gut microbiome, I certainly have. And of course, commercials are now circling their wagons, so to speak. Not quite there, but just touching on it. Sigh…

    Okay, I have to comment on the saccharin taboo. In my family and I am 67 years old, growing up, we had what was called then several insulin dependent (Type I) diabetics. As a result, my mother totally quit buying sugar, cookies, puddings, etc. and our iced tea we had at nearly every meal was sweetened with just a bit of saccharin (the little white pills, then.) My father refused to drink unsweetened anything. I grew up with saccharin. As a result, I have had some saccharin every day of my life, since young childhood. It is, of course what tastes right to me, having been brought up on it. But I do think that some of the so-called research into artificial sweeteners will later possibly show up as bad science.

    Okay, on to what happened with saccharin. I haven’t kept up with all the research with sweeteners, but the fact of the matter is that the very first BIG “so-called” research about saccharin revealed that rats had been given 400 times the amount of saccharin that would have been recommended for body size. HELL0?? If I ate 400 of my beloved boiled eggs I eat for snacks, I dare say, it wouldn’t be good for me! And yes, the leading cause of distress in mice and rats is scientists, and sometimes “bad” scientists!

    I don’t consume as much of the pink stuff as I used to, having become more accustomed to things less sweet, but I do think the whole thing is a little blown out of proportion.

    Reply
    1. The Older Brother

      OF course the dose makes the poison, which is one of the biggest flaws in a lot of so-called science. I remember saccharin having something of a jihad waged against it, with the same level of honesty as the all of the second-hand smoke “research.” (i.e., “What do you mean we didn’t get the results we wanted? Again!?! What are we paying you for? — now go back and adjust the damned parameters until you prove it’s killing people.”)

      Reading the write-ups, this seemed more relevant. According to one story,

      “The rodents were fed water into which three commonly used sweeteners were dissolved, in amounts that fell within U.S. Food & Drug Administration guidelines for daily consumption. In other words, the mice weren’t stuffed with the gook.”

      In another part of the experiment, they had people consume large doses of the sweetener for a period of time, who then manifested higher blood sugar. They then did fecal transplants to mice, who then developed high blood sugar. Which, if you’re interested in good science, begs the question — how did the mouse felt about that? …

      “Wait, you crammmed what up my what!?! Ewwwww. Couldn’t you just give me cancer or something?”

      … The thing is, if you’re 67, the rest of your diet while you were consuming those small doses of saccharine was probably benign to wonderful in terms of mitigating any issues with your gut bacteria, particularly if it was a diet overall built around addressing diabetes.

      I now realize I mixed a metaphor with my reference to Pink Stuff. It’s obvious now that it would be construed as the ubiquitous Sweet n’ Low, but my intended reference was to the automatic bottle of whatever-cillin antibiotics that came with the obligatory semi-annual visits to the doctor’s office for the ear infections it seems all kids get between the ages 2-6.

      Cheers

      Reply
  12. Linda

    I’m with you fredt!! The leading cause of distress in mice is scientists! As for noticing more attention in the media related to the gut microbiome, I certainly have. And of course, commercials are now circling their wagons, so to speak. Not quite there, but just touching on it. Sigh…

    Okay, I have to comment on the saccharin taboo. In my family and I am 67 years old, growing up, we had what was called then several insulin dependent (Type I) diabetics. As a result, my mother totally quit buying sugar, cookies, puddings, etc. and our iced tea we had at nearly every meal was sweetened with just a bit of saccharin (the little white pills, then.) My father refused to drink unsweetened anything. I grew up with saccharin. As a result, I have had some saccharin every day of my life, since young childhood. It is, of course what tastes right to me, having been brought up on it. But I do think that some of the so-called research into artificial sweeteners will later possibly show up as bad science.

    Okay, on to what happened with saccharin. I haven’t kept up with all the research with sweeteners, but the fact of the matter is that the very first BIG “so-called” research about saccharin revealed that rats had been given 400 times the amount of saccharin that would have been recommended for body size. HELL0?? If I ate 400 of my beloved boiled eggs I eat for snacks, I dare say, it wouldn’t be good for me! And yes, the leading cause of distress in mice and rats is scientists, and sometimes “bad” scientists!

    I don’t consume as much of the pink stuff as I used to, having become more accustomed to things less sweet, but I do think the whole thing is a little blown out of proportion.

    Reply
    1. The Older Brother Post author

      OF course the dose makes the poison, which is one of the biggest flaws in a lot of so-called science. I remember saccharin having something of a jihad waged against it, with the same level of honesty as the all of the second-hand smoke “research.” (i.e., “What do you mean we didn’t get the results we wanted? Again!?! What are we paying you for? — now go back and adjust the damned parameters until you prove it’s killing people.”)

      Reading the write-ups, this seemed more relevant. According to one story,

      “The rodents were fed water into which three commonly used sweeteners were dissolved, in amounts that fell within U.S. Food & Drug Administration guidelines for daily consumption. In other words, the mice weren’t stuffed with the gook.”

      In another part of the experiment, they had people consume large doses of the sweetener for a period of time, who then manifested higher blood sugar. They then did fecal transplants to mice, who then developed high blood sugar. Which, if you’re interested in good science, begs the question — how did the mouse felt about that? …

      “Wait, you crammmed what up my what!?! Ewwwww. Couldn’t you just give me cancer or something?”

      … The thing is, if you’re 67, the rest of your diet while you were consuming those small doses of saccharine was probably benign to wonderful in terms of mitigating any issues with your gut bacteria, particularly if it was a diet overall built around addressing diabetes.

      I now realize I mixed a metaphor with my reference to Pink Stuff. It’s obvious now that it would be construed as the ubiquitous Sweet n’ Low, but my intended reference was to the automatic bottle of whatever-cillin antibiotics that came with the obligatory semi-annual visits to the doctor’s office for the ear infections it seems all kids get between the ages 2-6.

      Cheers

      Reply
      1. gallier2

        for the ear infections it seems all kids get between the ages 2-6.

        My 3 children had none of that (ok for the third it’s still possible as she’s 4 but unlikely). I know several other peoples children who indeed have ear infections all the time.
        The commonality of their mothers are that they are very “health” aware, this means they have bought the bad is fat, 5 veggies/fruit a day, cereals and anti-meat claptrap.

        Reply
  13. Nads

    The media just parrots what the abstract conclusions say, so I reckon we have more scientists on board, doing the hard research, plus not just spouting the usual conclusions, but actually being able to say what was found.

    Reply
  14. Nads

    The media just parrots what the abstract conclusions say, so I reckon we have more scientists on board, doing the hard research, plus not just spouting the usual conclusions, but actually being able to say what was found.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.