Hyperbaric oxygen, dietary supplements, urine therapy,

ozone therapy, metal chelation.

None of these have evidence to support their use

for any ailment.

I'm Dr. Andrea Love biomedical scientist.

I fact check false health claims.

Let's answer your questions from the internet.

This is more Pseudoscience Support.

[bright music]

Okay, first question.

@SentientNazgul wants to know, What's wrong with raw milk?

Godforbid it tastes better than store bought.

What's wrong with it?

Well, a lot of disease causing microorganisms,

pathogens like E. coli,

Campylobacter, brucella, and salmonella,

these are all bacteria

that can be found in milk or living in cows.

Before the pasteurized milk ordinance went

into effect in the early 1900s,

milk borne illnesses accounted

for about 38% of all foodborne illnesses.

Now that we pasteurize milk

and we don't consume raw milk,

that level has dropped to 1% of all foodborne illnesses.

70% of milk borne food outbreaks occurred in states

that had permission to sell raw milk.

So there's a reason that we pasteurize milk.

Now, proponents of raw milk claim that it tastes better

or preserves the nutrients better

or it improves your immune system

and there's just no science behind any of that.

You might think raw milk tastes better

because you're drinking milk

with a higher fat content compared to milk

that you're buying at the store.

But pasteurization, which is heating milk

to a temperature of 161 degrees Fahrenheit

for 15 seconds has no impact

on the nutrient quality of the milk.

It does, however, have a huge impact on killing all

of those disease causing microorganisms

that might be in your dairy.

@BobsBlog wants to know,

do artificial sweeteners actually give you cancer

is that like Gwyneth Paltrow level 'health' [beeps]?

Artificial sweeteners do not cause cancer.

Aspartame is actually made up of two amino acids

that are joined together, aspartic acid and phenylalanine.

So when you ingest aspartame, they split apart

and you use those amino acids

to make proteins like you would

with anything else you ingested.

Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than regular sugar,

so the amount that's needed

to sweeten a beverage is minuscule.

Based on extensive studies of aspartame,

we know that in order to have even a minimal risk

of harm, you'd have to drink up to 50 cans

of diet soda in a single day.

Now, I love my diet soda,

but I don't think it's physically possible

to even consume that much.

You'd be far more likely

to experience water toxicity from drinking

that amount of fluid than you would

by having toxicity from the aspartame.

@Stillsickofit says,

Remember that time Joe Rogan interviewed RFK Jr.

and said he believes vaccines cause autism?

I do. Yeah.

RFK Jr. has spread the myth that vaccines are linked

to autism for several decades

and it's a central feature of his organization,

Children's Health Defense.

That organization made over $23 million

in 2022 alone.

And in fact, recent investigative journalism has revealed

that RFK Jr. himself was being paid

over $20,000 a week as the chairman

for Children's Health Defense in 2023 alone.

The purported link to autism and vaccines has been debunked

and addressed over 20 plus years,

and there is no relationship.

The biggest predictor

for autism is having an immediate family member also

with autism, which suggests

that there's a strong genetic link.

The prevalsence of autism has increased,

but this is a function of diagnosis.

We have better, more appropriate diagnostic criteria

to recognize autism cases, whereas in decades past,

we were not capturing

and recognizing how prevalsent autism truly was.

@liza777777 wants to know,

Are GMOs / Synthetic foods / vaccines harmful?

There's a common perception that GMOs,

especially food crops are some unnatural thing

that we've altered in a way that's harmful.

But the reality is,

is that humans have been genetically modifying

and messing with nature since the dawn of time.

Most people don't know that the vegetables we know

to be cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, kohlrabi,

and cabbage are actually all genetically modified versions

of the wild mustard plant.

They're the same species.

Modern day GMOs allow us to do this in a faster

and more controlled way.

@chefbai_ says, Dove has the best smelling deodorant.

Bring on the aluminum & cancer causing parabens

because that shit smell good af.

So the good news is,

is that aluminum salt in antiperspirants

and parabens don't cause cancer,

so you can breathe a sigh of relief.

Parabens are a class of antimicrobials

and they're used to inhibit contamination

and inhibit the growth of bacteria

and fungi that would contaminate a product

that you're using repeatedly.

And they've been used in these products

for over a hundred years.

The levels at which you would be exposed

to parabens are not posing any sort of harm.

It's why they've been asserted

and reasserted as safe for use.

People have been led to believe

that parabens are linked to breast cancer

because there was a really terribly done study

in the Journal of Applied Toxicology

where they took breast tumor biopsies

that were stored in the freezer

and they detected minuscule levels.

We're talking parts per billion

of parabens in these breast tumor tissues.

And when they looked at their negative controls,

their blank values, levels of parabens detected

in those were actually higher than some

of the tissue samples, which actually suggests

that their instrumentation was contaminated.

So over here we have four different types of parabens,

ethylparaben and methylparaben bind 100,000 times

more weekly to estrogen receptors.

So one versus a hundred thousand

of your actual estrogen hormone estradiol

and butylparaben and propylparaben bind 10,000 times

more weekly, so 10 versus 100,000

versus your estradiol hormone.

So the likelihood of these paraben chemicals

actually outcompeting your estrogen hormones is near zero.

@RoboSox_ wants to know, Are probiotics BS or nah?

Unfortunately, they're more BS than they are, evidence.

Probiotics are a type of supplement

that contain live microorganisms,

but there's 40 trillion bacteria

that live in your GI tracts

and they make up hundreds of different species.

The problem with probiotic supplements is they usually

only contain one, two or a small handful

of species of bacteria.

The reason that they're in the probiotic supplement is not

because they've been identified to be beneficial

for your health, but they're relatively easy

to grow in large quantities

and so they end up in your supplement.

But there've been a lot of studies that have evalsuated

or assessed the ability of probiotic supplements

to improve health,

and unfortunately, there's really no data

to support their use.

The stomach is very acidic

and if a probiotic supplement doesn't have

what we call an enteric coating,

those bacteria are very likely going

to be killed by your stomach acids.

So there's no data to even show

that these supplements are even gonna make it

into your intestines where they need to be.

Prebiotic is another term that we often confuse

with probiotics, but prebiotic is really

just a fancy word for fiber.

So prebiotics are the food

that the bacteria in your gut are going to use

to do what they do.

While you might see supplements

that say they're filled with prebiotics,

it's really just saying they're containing different types

of fiber, and so you can get a lot of those health benefits

that we know we need from fiber just

by eating some fresh fruits and vegetables.

@wordsmatter wants to know,

Which pseudoscience has done the most harm?

I would have to say anti-vaccine misinformation.

It leads to the increased spread of infectious diseases,

which means that we have increased amounts of morbidity,

illness, and mortality death among populations

where those illnesses and deaths are preventable.

For example, anti-vaccine misinformation

about the measles mumps and rubella vaccine.

The MMR vaccine led to a spread and outbreak

in Samoa in 2019 that caused the death of 82 people.

Primarily children under five.

Vaccines are estimated to have saved over 150 million lives

in the last several decades.

They truly are one of the miracles of modern medicine.

@Reimerville wants to know,

My doctor advised against ozone therapy,

is it helping people?

No, it is not helping people.

Ozone chemically called O3 is a type of oxygen compound

that makes up parts of our atmosphere.

Proponents of ozone therapy claim

that it has a variety of health benefits.

They inhale it, they use it in enema form

and in some cases they will actually infuse it

through a transfusion of your blood.

Ozone has zero therapeutic benefits

and can be potentially very harmful,

especially if inhaled at very low doses.

Your doctor's absolutely right there is zero reason

for you to expose yourself to ozone.

@LoganHentz says, You don't detox from sweating.

You sweat water and salt not [beeps] toxins.

Doesn't make sense for said toxins to just dry

on your skin does it?

Absolutely. Sweating is for temperature regulation.

When you sweat, you secrete fluids, water,

and some salts, and when that dries,

it leads to a phenomenon called evaporative cooling,

which means that your body now cools down as a result

of taking that energy away.

The way that your body gets rid of toxins is

through your excretory organs, so your lungs, your liver,

your GI tract, and your kidneys.

Those organ systems are working all the time

to remove any toxins or any substances

that your body just no longer needs anymore.

People like to tout saunas as a method to detox,

but this is basically like accelerating your

sweating process.

A lot of people feel better after a sauna because the heat

and the environment lets them feel more relaxed,

but it has nothing to do

with removing toxins from your body.

@milk16478, What the [beeps] is alkaline water bro

you've been drinking bleach or something?

Proponents of alkaline water

and the alkaline diet believe that increasing the pH

of your body or reducing the acidity

of your body can improve health outcomes.

It can prevent cancer, it can reduce inflammation,

but the reality is that you can't actually change the pH

of your body.

Your blood pH is very tightly regulated

at around a pH of 7.4,

and if you could change it, it would be life threatening

and we can't change it

because we have buffer systems

that maintain balance in our bodies,

and there have been a lot of studies that have tried

to show a benefit, but there just isn't.

The same goes for those at home water ionizer equipment

that you can pay $5,000 for

that is just adding extra minerals to your water,

which is basically what alkaline water is.

So things like potassium hydroxide,

magnesium sulfate, calcium chloride.

These are chemicals that increase the pH of water

to a pH of eight or nine or so on.

These substances are not offering any health benefits,

and as soon as you drink this alkaline water,

that higher pH is gonna be neutralized

by the acid in your stomach.

@neesa_ondrea asks, If the moon affects how the tide rolls

in and affects dementia Alzheimer's patients...

Then why can't the stars affect human behavior

and influence certain traits??

This is a confusion of a phenomenon called sundowning,

which is a situation in which dementia patients,

including Alzheimer's patients, have worsening symptoms

as the day progresses.

Now, there's a few theories as to why this occurs,

and some of it has to do with just the progression

of the disease itself,

but also the confusion that these patients are living

with the irritability grows as the day progresses,

so they may appear to have worse symptoms

as the day goes on, but it has nothing to do

with the sun setting or the moon cycle.

It's simply just that's later in the day.

Unfortunately, there's no evidence to suggest that the stars

and astrology has any impact on human traits and behaviors,

and it's a long held arm of pseudoscience.

@jay_snowdon wants to know,

Why are supplements pretty much unregulated?

Yet we strictly test the safety

and efficacy of real medicine.

Ah, yeah. You can thank the politicians

and the legislators of our US Congress.

In 1994 they passed in a bipartisan effort,

the 1994 Dietarily Supplement Health and Education Act.

Many senators have financial motives

to pass this law,

particularly Democratic Senator Tom Harkin

and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch.

Both of them received extensive amounts

of lobbying money from dietary supplement companies

in order to push this legislation through.

What this did was it removed the oversight

that the FDA had on dietary supplements.

As a result, that industry has grown exponentially

and nearly all supplements on the shelves today lack

evidence to support their use.

Some examples would include a lot of your greens powders,

things like AG1 and other dietary supplements,

laming to give you your servings of fruits and vegetables,

but when actually analyzing the composition of them,

often they don't contain measurable amounts

of those products and worse, many contain substances

that are not disclosed.

@mojopono wants to know,

Is it true that #sugar in foods 'feeds' #cancer?

There's no clinical evidence that eating sugar,

avoiding sugar or anything related

to sugar has an impact in preventing or curing cancer.

This misconception stems from the fact that we use a type

of imaging called PET scan.

So on a CT scan you might detect a structure,

but on a PET scan we use a radioactive labeled sugar

that's taken up by your body

and it lights up in regions

where cells in your body are metabolizing

that sugar more quickly

because cancer cells do have faster metabolic activity

because they're growing very quickly.

Unfortunately, this has been misinterpreted to lead people

to believe that sugar itself is causing cancer

when it's just a feature of certain cancer types.

Cancer cells will consume glucose at a faster rate

because they need to take that glucose

and make new cell components

because those tumors are growing very quickly.

So it's not the sugar that's feeding

or causing cancer, it's a function of

how cancer cells are using sugar that's available.

@bubblegumonarch says,

I knew receipt paper was thermal activated

but I didn't know that that coating is like toxic bpa

what ??? I handle that [beeps] all day every day.

BPA or bisphenol A is a chemical that's used primarily

to help manufacture plastics.

In thermal receipt paper it's used as a coating

to facilitate that printing.

There's a concern

that this chemical may be implicated in endocrine disruption

or interfering with your hormones.

There've been some studies that suggest cashiers

or other customer service people who handle lots

of receipts over a working shift may be exposed

to high levels of BPA.

But that particular study used an estimate value

in a modeling equation that was orders

of magnitude higher than

what any other data set would suggest.

So they're skewing their data to overestimate

how much BPA someone would be in contact with.

BPA is the same chemical when people express concern

about microwaving certain types of plastic

and just as is true with the receipt handling,

the amount of BPA that might be in the food products

that you microwave is going to be orders

of magnitude lower than what you would actually need

to be exposed to in order to see some sort

of impact on your hormones.

And on top of that, BPA is rapidly metabolized by your liver

and excreted so you don't have

to worry about it accumulating in your body.

@BrettNA70273495 asks, Question for you Andrea

if you don't mind?

What common household chemical would you say you are

definitely worth avoiding?

I know I probably eat too much Teflon

but still buy non-stick cookware.

For me personally, there isn't one thing

that I have in my house

that I would say I need to get rid of,

but there are certain considerations.

Say if you live in an older home

and you might have some antiquated plumbing,

you might wanna get that looked at

to see if there's high levels of things like lead

or if you have an old building

that maybe has asbestos in the walls or the countertops.

Since you mentioned Teflon, that's an interesting topic

because it's gotten a lot of attention in recent months.

Teflon chemically is part of the class

of chemicals called PFAS.

Now PFAS incorporate thousands of different chemicals

and Teflon chemically called PTFE is a very long

chemical and it's very stable.

And so the likelihood

of you actually experiencing harm from being exposed

to Teflon by using non-stick cookware is actually very low.

When people are stressing about these exposures to chemicals

that generally don't have a big impact on their health,

we should be redirecting our focus

to things like healthy lifestyle habits,

getting good quality sleep, eating a diverse diet,

and staying up to date

with your preventative health screenings,

which really are the things

that can impact your health.

@UncouthPrimate wants to know,

There's an emerging trend

of people claiming that sunscreen is more harmful than good.

Any thoughts?

Let's clear up a few things.

So the reason that sun exposure is a risk factor

for cancer is because there are two main types

of ultraviolet radiation, UVA and UVB

and these ultraviolet radiation energy

essentially penetrates your skin.

That energy is then transferred to molecules in your cells,

which can cause DNA damage and mutations,

and those mutations can ultimately lead

to cancer the more you're exposed to it.

By taking a sunscreen

and putting some of it on your skin,

the molecules of chemicals in the sunscreen now absorb

that energy and convert that to heat.

As a result, those ultraviolet rays don't get

into those deeper layers of your skin.

They're absorbed right by the sunscreen,

and so your cells don't experience the damage.

So people are saying that chemicals

that you might find in sunscreens,

particularly your organic filters

like avobenzone are causing cancer

and so it's causing more harm than doing good

and preventing sun exposure.

But these chemicals have been extensively studied

for safety.

There's no clinical evidence that they're linked

to cancer in any way.

@daddypinx asks, wait, what do you mean there's arsenic

and lead in tampons in the us?? i hate it here.

The good news is that this is blown wildly

out of proportion.

So there was a recent study that went viral

and really, really scared a lot of people,

but for no good reason.

So this study took 20 individual tampons

and they took the fabric

and they digested it with high temperatures, 350 Fahrenheit

and an acid extremely concentrated to digest the fabric.

And from there they used analytical chemistry equipment

to look at the levels of different trace impurities,

arsenic, cadmium, lead, and so on,

and they found very, very small quantities,

we're talking parts per billion.

And for context, one part per billion is equivalent

to one second of time in 31.7 years.

But I think we can all agree that 350 degrees Fahrenheit

and a pH of one is not the environment of a vagina.

For context, a vagina is about 99 degrees Fahrenheit

and a pH of 4.5.

So not only did this study actually show

that you're going to be exposed to any of this,

but the levels that they were detecting

in the tampons are orders

of magnitude lower than other things like tea leaves

and water and cannabis.

Tampons are made outta cotton and cotton is a plant.

And when plants grow in the environment,

they pick up elements and substances that are in the soil

and in the air and in the water,

and that's where lead, arson, cadmium,

these are all elements, right?

They're part of our earth's crust.

So you don't need to freak out about your tampons

or throw them away,

but you also have to realize that this is something

that is universal to all plants,

including ones that you eat on a daily basis.

@AlBowers1 asks, Which vaccines contain mercury?

None of the vaccines contain mercury.

There's a preservative that's used to prevent contamination

of vaccines with things like bacteria and fungi.

That is called thimerosal.

And thimerosal is a salt

of a different compound called ethylmercury.

Now, ethylmercury is not mercury,

it's a compound that contains a mercury ion.

This was conflated to suggest

that vaccines contained mercury.

It's also further confusing because there's a different type

of a mercury compound called methylmercury.

That's the one that we're warned about eating too much fish

like tuna because the methylmercury is found everywhere

and that can accumulate in our bodies.

But to illustrate this,

I wanna talk about two different types of alcohol.

So we have rubbing alcohol here, which is isopropyl alcohol,

and we have champagne, which is ethanol.

We know that ethanol is safe at relatively low doses

and many people enjoy a drink or two,

but nobody's gonna drink a bottle of rubbing alcohol

because we know that that would be toxic.

The same is true for methylmercury versus ethylmercury.

One of them can be harmful at a relatively low dose

and the other one can be safe at a relatively low dose.

So thimerosal was used in several vaccines

to prevent contamination, but thimerosal is not mercury.

However, because of misunderstanding

about this chemical difference,

most vaccines ended up removing the thimerosal outright.

The only vaccines in the US

that even have thimerosal now are multi-dose flu vaccines,

and those account for less than 7%

of all flu vaccines being administered.

@hellohcourtney asks,

Anyone here of any alternative cancer treatments

that work?

There's a belief that scientists

and healthcare providers are hiding natural treatments

for a variety of diseases including cancer.

But you might be surprised to know

that we actually often harness nature

and improve upon it using science.

Today we have many different pharmaceuticals

that target cancer

that are actually derived from natural chemicals,

and we tweak them to improve their safety,

their efficacy, or reduce side effects.

For example, a chemical called Podophyllotoxin,

natural chemical derived from the mayapple plant is used

in pharmaceuticals or in medical treatments,

but we've also altered it chemically

to create a chemical called etoposide.

It's better able to treat more cancer types

and it has reduced side effects compared

to the natural version.

Another example would be something like Paclitaxel,

a natural chemical from the yew tree,

and we've altered it chemically

to create a compound called docetaxel.

Docetaxel is often used

to treat certain cancers like breast cancer,

prostate cancer, non-small cell lung carcinoma,

and certain types of head and neck cancer.

And this is not something that's unique

to cancer treatments either.

Aspirin, which chemically is called acetylsalicylic acid,

is actually derived from a chemical found in willow bark.

Unfortunately, people who opt for unproven treatments

for cancer have increased risk of poor outcomes.

When you look at breast cancer survival,

breast cancer patients

that forego proven treatments have a 5.7 times increased

risk of death compared to patients

that use proven treatments.

@JasonQ295178 wants to know,

Why are cancer rates in young people skyrocketing?

The good news is cancer rates

in young people are not skyrocketing.

Unfortunately, there've been a lot of headlines

that have said things to that effect,

but this really requires context.

Most of the risk factors for cancers are things

that you actually can't control

and they relate to your genetics,

but there are some that are impacted

by modifiable risk factors.

And so for many of these cancer rates are

actually declining.

We're also seeing declines in cancer rates

for lung cancer because of public health measures

and smoking cessation education campaigns.

We've seen a lot of headlines that have said

that colorectal cancer is increasing 1% year over year

in people under 50,

but that is actually not the correct way to look at it.

So to illustrate this,

these are the colorectal cancer rates

in the US by age group.

And so colorectal cancer is the most common

in older individuals compared to younger individuals,

which is the case for nearly all cancers.

Cancers are by and large a disease of aging.

So the rate of cancer,

these are number of cases per 100,000 people.

In individuals for age 40 to 49,

there's a rate of 37 cases per a hundred thousand people.

So an increase in 1% means we've gone from 37 cases

to 37.37 cases per a hundred thousand people.

And when you look at the fact that there are

about 150,000 colorectal cancer cases diagnosed every year,

that means that we're seeing a few hundred total more cases

in people under 50.

Previously, colonoscopy was recommended for individuals 50

and above, but it's actually been reduced

to individuals 45 and above.

So rates are a function of the ability to detect cancers.

So if we're screening more people

within those younger age groups,

we're also going to find more cancers.

@HarrisonHSmith says,

When you see 'Citric Acid' on an ingredients list,

did you know that you're eating an extract

of Black Mold patented by Pfizer?

So this is not true,

but it underscores misinformation about

how we manufacture citric acid.

Citric acid is used in foods to give it a sour taste,

so it's used in candies, but it's also used in seasonings

and spices, pickles, ketchups, vinegars, mustard.

It gives everything that nice little sour flavor.

Every organism creates citric acid as part

of their basic metabolic process.

That's why in the cell respiration pathway

we have the citric acid cycle.

So we harnessed this fundamental principle of all organisms

and we use a specific species

of fungi called aspergillus niger.

We grow up mold in really large containers

and we give them molasses,

and as they're metabolizing the molasses,

they're producing citric acid during the citric acid cycle,

and so we harvest that citric acid from the liquid

that the mold is growing in and there's no mold in it.

Aspergillus niger is technically a black mold

because it produces a pigment

that gives it a black coloring,

but the color of a mold has no bearing

on whether it's a harmful organism or not.

And there's lots of black molds that exist,

including many that we eat in foods every single day.

Tofu or soy sauce or koji.

These are all produced using black molds.

@AGHuff wants to know, Does chronic Lyme disease exist?

This is a very controversial topic,

and unfortunately, Lyme disease has actually been plagued

with controversy since it was first identified in the 1980s.

Lyme disease is an acute infection

by bacteria called Borrelia burgdorfer

that are deposited into your skin through the bite

of certain species of ticks that are infected with it.

So when you get Lyme disease, you take antibiotics such

as doxycycline, which will eliminate the bacteria

and clear the infection.

The phrase chronic Lyme disease is used in two contexts.

The first refers to symptoms

that may persist in a small proportion of people

after you finish that antibiotic treatment.

This is correctly termed post-treatment

Lyme disease syndrome,

and it occurs in about three to 5% of people

with legitimate Lyme disease.

And this has to do with the fact

that the bacteria may have caused some direct tissue damage

and your immune system takes some time to return

to baseline, so you may have some symptoms

for a period of time.

This is not unique to Lyme disease either.

Nearly every infection that we know of,

there's a small proportion of people

that may have lingering symptoms

after the infection is gone.

Context two refers to a persistent infection

that is ongoing and is long term.

There are many organizations

that promote this unfounded theory,

and what they do is they recommend

and prescribe treatments that have no evidence

and are potentially harmful,

including long-term courses of antibiotics.

Now, clinical trials have demonstrated

that there's no therapeutic benefit

of extending antibiotic treatment

for this bacterial infection,

yet people still prescribe these

and this can lead to serious consequences like sepsis

and opportunistic infections

because you're taking antibiotics for too long.

They also promote a variety

of unproven wellness interventions,

things like colloidal silver, bee venom therapy,

urine therapy, enemas, herbal supplements,

hormone treatments, metal chelation,

and a variety of other interventions.

Not only do these things have no evidence to support them

for any ailment, they certainly don't have evidence

to support them for the treatment of a persistent infection

that does not exist.

This is why scientific expert agencies

like the CDC have revised their phrasing

to discourage the use of the term chronic Lyme disease.

@lods63 wants to know,

What are your thoughts on Leaky Gut?

Is it real? If so, what is the best way to address it?

So leaky gut sometimes called increased intestinal

permeability is a diagnosis that is promoted by a lot

of wellness influencers.

Like all pseudoscience diagnoses has a little bit

of truth behind it.

So there are certain legitimate gastrointestinal diseases

like celiac disease

or ulcerative colitis where the pathology

of the disease causes disruptions in

how your intestines function.

But wellness influencers have extrapolated that

to tell people that your intestines

just broadly become permeable

and allow undigested food particles, toxins,

and bacteria to get into your bloodstream

and cause a really laundry list of symptoms.

Everything from GI upset to brain fog and hair loss

and weird food cravings.

There's no evidence to support this diagnosis

and there's no evidence to support any of the tests

and the treatments that these wellness influencers promote.

This is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

They create a medical condition that they can sell a test

for and then they can sell you the treatment for.

Don't fall for it.

@travelingenes says, Hey James Quincy,

As the CEO of @cocacola, did you allow your own children

to grow up drinking Coca-Cola?

Or is your preference

that only other people's kids be exposed

to high fructose corn syrup, which is harmful effects

on the liver mirroring alcohol consumption?

So high fructose corn syrup is very poorly understood.

So what we do is we take the glucose

that's normally 100% of corn syrup

and we take an enzyme called glucose isomerase

and we convert about 50% of it

to the other simple sugar fructose.

So now you have in high fructose corn syrup,

a mixture of about 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

I bet you didn't know,

but that ratio of glucose to fructose is almost identical

to the ratio of glucose to fructose in honey

and the ratio of glucose to fructose

in table sugar or cane sugar.

High fructose corns syrup is not any worse than honey

or any worse than sucrose or table sugar.

These are all just sugars.

Your body views them and digests them

and processes them essentially the same way.

Your body needs sugars for optimal function,

but anything in excess, including sugar,

can be harmful at a high enough dose.

@je_suis_belle1 asks, Why r people refusing to go

through body scanners at the airport cause of radiation?!?

Dammit don't u have a cell phones?!!

Cell phoness use radio frequency radiation

and body scanners

at the airport use millimeter wave radiation.

Now when we're talking about radiation,

radiation it all refers to different types of energy.

The type of radiation that body scanners

and cell phoness use are down in the radio frequency range.

These types of radiation waves are very long

and have very low energy,

which means that they're non-ionizing.

So when they interact with your body,

they're not able to actually cause any damage

to your cells or your tissues.

Cell phoness and body scanners don't contain types

of radiation that are going to cause you harm.

A lot of people confuse

or are scared of the phrase radiation

because we know that there are certain types of radiation,

high energy radiation like gamma radiation

that can be ionizing.

These are high energy, they can cause damage,

but your radio frequency

and your body scan radiation is very low energy.

@suratybal wants to know,

are underwire bra is still suspect as a cause

for breast cancer?

Definitely not.

Scientific experts have actually never suspected

that underwires are a cause for breast cancer.

The logic is that something tight around the lymph nodes

and the breast tissue was leading to toxin accumulation,

which was then causing breast cancer.

There's no scientific plausibility to this

and it ignores basic concepts of physiology

and how compounds and toxins and our lymphatic

and cardiovascular or blood system actually works.

Now, if you don't wanna wear a bra,

do you but don't omit wearing a bra

because you've been told that it causes cancer.

@LoriSmith1962 says, Carnivore diet is healthier

for humans and better

for the environment than being a vegan.

So this is just objectively false.

The carnivore diet is based on the premise

that you should only be consuming animal products.

That includes meat, animal fats and eggs,

and this diet omits food groups

and nutrients that we know are critical

for health, including fiber.

Carnivore diet is nearly devoid of fiber,

and fiber is essential for proper GI function.

It's also critical to help regulate levels of blood lipids,

and it's also really important

for your overall immune system health.

If you are adhering to a diet that doesn't have fiber

and doesn't have things like fruits

and vegetables, you're running the risk

of severe nutrient deficiency

and adverse health effects,

including increased risk of GI issues,

certain types of cancers and cardiovascular issues.

So those are all the questions for today.

Remember, false health information travels six times faster

than credible facts usually because it's scaring you

and exacerbating your health fears.

We all can play a role in helping to combat

and fact check health disinformation.

Thanks for watching Pseudoscience Support.