We cannot underestimate the mental and emotional turbulence, which we have undergone, on an individual level and collectively, since the beginning of 2020. We have lost loved ones, an intrinsic familiarity of what it means to be human, momentum, and – to a great and unsettling degree – our trust in the medical fraternity and, of course, the giant that is Big Pharma. BizNews is preparing to launch a health section. If this seems unusual, with BizNews’ focus predominantly on the world of finance and business, know that we are approaching this new venture with the words of Socrates in mind: ‘The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.’ For this reason, as part of the health section, BizNews will be drawing knowledge from experts in their respective medical fields. One such expert is Professor Tim Noakes.
There is great virtue in someone who bears the capacity to admit they have been wrong. After fiercely defending his belief that a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet is better for your health than a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet, Noakes wrote a book called the Lore of Nutrition, exposing the medical and scientific code of silence that exists in the world of nutrition. In an in-depth interview with BizNews founder Alec Hogg in February, Noakes – SA’s globally respected sports and nutrition scientist – explained what motivated him to turn his back on the establishment.
Noakes is considered highly controversial simply because he asks questions. An absurd and counterintuitive judgement, considering that questioning is the primary vehicle of knowledge expansion. Noakes has changed the global direction of sports science and, despite being mercilessly attacked in his homeland by the authorities and sectors of the media because he questioned the popular narrative on diet (and Big Pharma), he is not backing down.
Below is an email exchange between two titans of industry in their respective fields: Professor Tim Noakes and Dirk van der Walt, the co-founder of WeBuyCars. It is a fascinating conversation focusing on the primary misconceptions around health and nutrition. For ease of reference, Van der Walt’s questions are in bold and Noakes’ answers follow thereafter.
This brings us to the critical reason for this article. At BizNews, our fundamental aim is to serve our community. With the launch of the health section, we need to know where our community stands with respect to certain key health issues, many of which are touched on in the exchange below.
Write to me at [email protected] to answer the questions posed in this article, provide any additional information regarding your respective stances relating to health issues as well as any and all questions/areas you would appreciate clarification on. As always, your contributions will be genuinely appreciated. – Nadya Swart
Does fat make you fat?
Great question. As you know it’s insulin and too much hunger (sugar addiction) that makes one fat. People have to understand the two metabolic states in which one can live: high or low insulin. If you choose a high-insulin state, you will develop problems in the long term.
True or false: “Reducing the amount of total fat intake … helps to prevent unhealthy weight gain.” – WHO
Obviously false. Because removing fat from the diet will put one in a high-insulin state. The high-insulin state equals breaking down glucose (glycolysis), storing fat (lipogenesis) and exporting fat into the abdominal organs – visceral obesity, which is the real killer.
True or false: A fatty and rich (?) diet clogs your arteries and gives you cholesterol.
False (as you know). It is diabetes that causes arterial clogging. The mechanism is direct damage to the linings of the arteries – induced by glucose and insulin (and other less common causes like sickle cell disease – the commonest cause of arterial damage). The sickle cells scrape the arterial linings and the treatment the body uses to correct the damage is to activate the blood clotting mechanisms. This explains how heart attacks really happen. Damage to the arterial lining by anything that scours the lining; then repair with formation of a blood clot with replacement of the arterial lining by new cells, which are derived from the bone marrow stem cells. Cholesterol has nothing to do with it.
True or false: Cholesterol is very bad for you.
We cannot live without cholesterol. The brain is made up mainly of cholesterol. The truth is that the cholesterol story is a foundation myth that has been disproved frequently. But because the medical profession – cardiologists especially – is captured by Big Pharma, it will continue to do what it is told; prescribe statins and don’t ask questions. I am currently writing an article explaining who developed this foundation myth and why it is utterly false. The series of articles I wrote for CrossFit, and which I would like to reproduce as a book, explain this in detail.
I am sure the outcome of such polls is going to infuriate and frustrate you because the audience may not be nearly as familiar with the topics of the Real Meal Revolution and Real Food on Trial as we may think. They may still largely view Tim Noakes as a stirrer and a person who seeks attention through controversy.
I agree. We definitely need to do something like this. I’m beyond worrying about what people think about me. I know what is the truth as does my wife. The rest need to wake up and discover the truth. Why would I be a stirrer looking for attention through controversy? Why am I so highly rated as a scientist if all I want is to seek attention? Why did I invest millions in the Noakes Foundation – and in my trial, yet more millions – if all I was interested in is stirring controversy? My trial proved I am correct and the rubbish the public is being fed is wrong and very harmful.
Why would my foundation invest so much money into producing the world’s first textbook of low carb medicine with close to 70 world leading experts contributing; andalso all the money we invest in the Eat Better South Africa campaign?
So we don’t have to, but maybe we could get an idea of where the audience is on these matters?
No question. We must do it. Then we can begin to answer the false perceptions the audience may have.
Inevitably some people are going to say: so if I can’t trust the doctors, if I can’t trust the science, then who can you trust? And they will turn around and just shrug and say: no, I have this and that professor, my doctor trusts them. We have to trust in the integrity of the medical community at large, the majority of the world’s medical universities can’t be wrong! Who do you trust when you go for a diagnosis, who is going to do your open-heart surgery? Based on whose recommendations/standards?
Great perception. See the problem is that it’s not the doctors the public is trusting. It is Big Pharma. And Big Pharma is the mafia and organised crime. Read the books and articles by Dr Peter Goetzsche; a very brave genius who lays it out as it really is. He was once in Big Pharma but his conscience got to him.
Maybe we should start with penetrating and defining questions, so we can all start from the same point of reference and be on the same page before we pull away and start the take-off run and get airborne with our issues at hand. We may ask the sort of questions that would show the need for finding true answers.
(I often see how people give one another directions on how to get to where they need to be, but they don’t establish a common point and direction of departure. They just assume you are coming from Johannesburg, which is true, but you have turned around and are approaching Pretoria now from Warmbaths side … so, when you get to the Engen Garage, you go left.)
Brilliant analogy. I emphasise in all my teaching that you cannot interpret data without a model to interpret those data. Thus the key in argument is always to work out the model your opponent is using to draw his or her conclusions. Because all reality is model dependent. So, you’re absolutely correct. We need to find out what model the audience has. And then we gently drop a few atom bombs on those models. With these, it becomes easier for the audience to realise how it has been manipulated and misled by the psychopaths in Big Pharma and in big medicine (and in big vaccine).
At best, if we were to do a critical analysis of what we accomplished, we are sure to be disappointed we managed to move the centre of gravity of the audience only marginally. We would not be able to measure it in any case if we do not establish a well-defined point of departure, or some benchmark where most people are at; what their mindspace is, where they are at.
Lovely. If you don’t measure it, you cannot manage it (as you proved in your business).
I think most people are just so overwhelmed and close to burnout that they are focusing on survival, getting back on track after Covid-19, trying to re-establish social life, getting out a bit and enjoying life again. I think they probably would have a low tolerance for controversy after the pandemic.
Yes, and their diets are making everything worse. We need to make that point and perhaps introduce a Great Dietary Reset for overcoming the negative consequences of the fakedemic. Although we won’t go into why the fakedemic is just that.
Fast foods and comfort foods – why are they not so good for you?
Highly addictive. We need to promote the idea that food is not about entertainment. It’s about providing the body with the optimum nutrition that it requires to operate to the best of its potential.
What does it mean that you cannot outrun a bad diet?
You cannot outrun the effects of being in a high-insulin metabolic state.
Should I eliminate all carbs?
Definitely if you have visceral obesity or any of the signs of metabolic dysfunction.
True or false: Tim Noakes is all about a protein (only) diet.
No! It’s not possible to live on a protein-only diet.
True or false: Tim Noakes is all about losing weight.
No. It is about getting blood insulin concentrations down. And the consequences of achieving that.
True or false: Animal protein is really not a desirable first choice to source protein.
False, it is. We can discuss the problem of plant proteins and the global move to have people believe real food is harmful to the planet and only plant-based foods are good for humans and the planet.
I think it has a lot to do with the preconceived/programmed idea that disease/sickness is a given environmental hazard. – It is not, it is the result of disturbances in the harmony of a greater environment that were previously in balance and attuned to its environment.
Yes, indeed. As Louis Pasteur (one of the greatest medical plagiarists and frauds!) allegedly said on his deathbed: “It’s not the germ; it’s the terrain.” https://www.prestigewellnessinstitute.com/blog/its-the-terrain
Our bodies are part of a greater natural complex system where it is all about metabolic balance.
If we were to focus on metabolic health and cellular health, i.e. like methacondrial health or microbiota, we would soon see that if we fix the greater environment of food choices, people would start getting healthier from all sorts of unexpected co-morbidities.
Yes, this is the opposite of the current allopathic medical model that starts with Pasteur and is institutionalised in the US by Rockefeller and his funded study, the‘1910 Flexner Report’ that outlawed any form of medical training in the US other than the ‘scientific’ model that we currently practise.
Read Also:
Why NHI would be a nightmare – a rational case against universal healthcare in SA
South Africans tolerate regulatory overreach at our own peril – Vegter on new health regulations
Long Covid is very real – with insight from The Wall Street Journal
