Apparently there's a lot of heat between Dr. Mike and Berg. I consider them to be on opposite ends of a spectrum. One side thinks institutional medicine has the only answers. The other side agrees with anything it can hype and get youtube content out of.
Two wolves in sheep's clothing that only need to point to the evidence of the other one being a wolf to convince you they are a friend. I think both Dr. Mike and Berg are not the furthest on their ends of the spectrum so both can have useful information, but both are just far enough on their respective spectrums for me to not give either blind trust.
There are a lot who would consider him eye candy. I guess in some ways I don't trust anyone anymore. I trust mortality studies. I'm obsessed with them. It's the only apples to apples you can get. We don't have enough of them. We should move at least 20% of our research into longitudinal studies of behavior and mortality. We should have started that at a massive scale 50 years ago.
Log in
Apparently there's a lot of heat between Dr. Mike and Berg. I consider them to be on opposite ends of a spectrum. One side thinks institutional medicine has the only answers. The other side agrees with anything it can hype and get youtube content out of.
Two wolves in sheep's clothing that only need to point to the evidence of the other one being a wolf to convince you they are a friend. I think both Dr. Mike and Berg are not the furthest on their ends of the spectrum so both can have useful information, but both are just far enough on their respective spectrums for me to not give either blind trust.
This is the first I'm hearing of Dr. Mike. He seems like a good candidate for s/Eyecandy.
I think the only celebrity doctor I fully trust (like at least 90%) is Rhonda Patrick. Peter Attia is up there too.
The default human being is a straight white male so only women are meant to be posted to /c/eyecandy prove me wrong.
There are a lot who would consider him eye candy. I guess in some ways I don't trust anyone anymore. I trust mortality studies. I'm obsessed with them. It's the only apples to apples you can get. We don't have enough of them. We should move at least 20% of our research into longitudinal studies of behavior and mortality. We should have started that at a massive scale 50 years ago.
"Dr. Thomas Seyfried: Discover the metabolic approach to cancer. With Lisa Fischer"
Cancer is a the result of cells generating energy via fermentation of sugars. It's a metabolic issue, and it's reversable.
Assuming, it's not ignored and you didn't take the chemical "medicinal" poisons.
Here's a link to the channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoH1mjJGwV0
The caveat to this; some "cancers" are actually parasitic infections. Dietary adjustments may not kill parasitic infections.
Fasting helps with both circumstances. But the necrosis of parasites can make a person ill.
Die young. You're very unlikely to get cancer if you die young enough.