The Rich Roll Podcast - How to Survive a Pandemic: Michael Greger, MD

Episode Date: July 13, 2020

A powerful primer on all matters pandemic pertinent, today Michael Greger, M.D., FACLM returns for his fourth appearance on the podcast to answer all your coronavirus queries and more. A graduate of Cornell University and Tufts University School of Medicine as well as a founding member and Fellow of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Dr. Greger is the nutrition science wizard behind NutritionFacts.org — the world’s most authoritative, non-profit, science-based public service destination for all things nutrition, health and disease prevention. His massively popular books, including How Not to Die, How Not To Diet, and their cookbook analogues, all became instant New York Times Best Sellers and crowned Dr. Greger a media darling, his excitable face popping up everywhere from The Dr. Oz Show to The Colbert Report. Less well known is the fact that, prior to his focus on nutrition, Dr. Greger had an entire career as an internationally-recognized expert on public health. A specialist in emerging infectious diseases, he's been sounding the pandemic alarm for over a decade. Back then, nobody was listening. Now they are. To wit, Dr. Greger's latest release, How To Survive A Pandemic, now available in audiobook and kindle with a paperback version hitting the shelves August 18, forms the basis of today's conversation. Today's exchange is hyper focused on the public and political health disaster that is the novel coronavirus. The even more deadly impending H7N9 bird flu. And the common thread between these and other zoonotic diseases: humanity's broken relationship with animals. In general terms, I seize the opportunity to ask Dr. Greger his expert opinion on all my (and perhaps your) lingering questions about what exactly is happening. Where it started. Where it's going. How we prevent future pandemics. And how we survive this one. And perhaps the most fundamental question of all, how can we stop the emergence of pandemics in the first place? The answer begins with the dismantling of our industrialized factory farming infrastructure. Not only are America’s factory farms vile for the animals and the workers that slaughter them, but they are essentially breeding grounds for future pandemics. This is a call for the eradication of these systems--a moral imperative if we want to preserve not only our environment but the long-term viability of our species. This is an important, alarming, and downright terrifying moment of truth. So pay attention. The visually inclined can watch it all go down on YouTube. And as always, the audio version streams wild and free on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. If you're new to the show and interested in exploring Dr. Greger's work in nutrition, jump back to RRP #7, #199, and #522. It’s scary out there folks, but Dr. G, ever the enthusiastic optimist, remains hopeful. That gives me hope. And hopefully gives you a little. hope too. In the meantime, be kind. Peace + Plants, Rich Roll

Over the last few decades, human pathogens have emerged at a rate unheard of in human history, mostly from animals. So, you know, HIV has been traced back to the butchering of primates in the bushmeat trade in Africa. Mad cow disease was because we turned, you know, cows into carnivores and cannibals. SARS and COVID-19 have been traced back to these exotic live animal markets. But, you know, our last pandemic, swine flu in 2009, arose not from some backwater wet market in Asia, but was largely made in the USA,

right here on industrial pig operations in the United States. So when we take thousands of animals and cram these filthy football field-sized sheds to lie beak to beak or snout to snout atop their own waste. It's just a breeding ground for disease, right? It's not just the sheer numbers and the overcrowding, the stress crippling their immune systems, the ammonia from the decomposing waste burning their lungs,

the lack of fresh air, lack of sunlight. Put all these factors together, what you have is kind of this super storm kind of environment for the emergence and spread of super strains of influenza. Tragically, we don't tend to shore up the levees until after disaster strikes. And the bottom line is it's not worth risking the lives of millions of people for the sake of cheaper chicken. This is the time. If you're ever going to start an exercise program or stress reduction or get your sleep schedule right or reduce stress or start eating healthy, this is the time. Let's take advantage for those of us who are privileged enough not to

have to be out on the front line to clean up our act and not only protect us against the current infectious disease threat, but from chronic disease threats in the future. We really have to accelerate the movement away from animal agriculture towards plant-based milks, plant-based meats, plant-based egg products. And so this message to better take care of ourselves and families has never been more poignant. That's Dr. Michael Greger, and this is The Rich Roll Podcast. The Rich Roll Podcast. Greetings, fellow sequestered earthlings of the coronavirus universe.

I remain Rich Roll. This is still my podcast. And you, my friends, are always welcome. Today, my good friend, Dr. Michael Greger returns for his fourth drop on the pod, the king of how not to books, books like How Not to Die, How Not to Diet, and also the man behind nutritionfacts.org is back, and he's got a new how to book for a refreshing change. It's called How to Survive a Pandemic, to be specific,

which I think just as easily could have been titled How to Be Very Timely and On Point. Given what we are all collectively enduring right now, I think this one is important. It's super instructive. It's powerful. And if there's anything certain in the known universe, given what Dr. Greger will soon inform you

about the relationship between animal food production and the advent of zoonotic disease, it's a conversation that will leave you highly motivated to once and for all put those animal products in the rear view. But how? How do I do it, Rich? I get that question a lot.

So to answer your prayer at scale, we created an easy-to-use digital platform that takes all the guesswork out of starting and, most importantly, sustaining a healthy plant-based diet. It's called the Plant Power Meal Planner. And what it does, essentially, is craft highly customized menus for you from our huge library of recipes, literally thousands of recipes. It also creates grocery lists to make shopping for ingredients hassle-free and even grocery delivery integration

in tons of metropolitan locations, which means everything you need to eat right just shows up at your doorstep. It's really an incredible, powerful tool. I'm really proud of it. And it's crazy affordable, just $1.90 a week. So listen to Dr. Greger. And when that's done, go to meals.richroll.com

to learn more and sign up. We're brought to you today by recovery.com. I've been in recovery for a long time. It's not hyperbolic to say that I owe everything good in my life to sobriety. And it all began with treatment and experience that I had that quite literally saved my life. And in the many years since, I've in turn helped many suffering addicts and their loved ones find treatment. And with that, I know all too well just how confusing and how overwhelming and how challenging it can be to find the right place and the right level of care. Especially because, unfortunately, not all treatment resources adhere to ethical practices.

It's a real problem. It's a real problem. A problem I'm now happy and proud to share has been solved by the people at recovery.com who created an online support portal designed to guide, to support, and empower you to find the ideal level of care providers to cover the full spectrum of behavioral health disorders, including substance use disorders, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, gambling addictions, and more. Navigating their site is simple. Search by insurance coverage, location, treatment type, you name it. Plus, you can read reviews from former patients to help you decide. Whether you're a busy exec, a parent of a struggling teen, or battling addiction yourself, I feel you. I empathize with you. I really do.

And they have treatment options for you. Life in recovery is wonderful, and recovery.com is your partner in starting that journey. When you or a loved one need help, go to recovery.com and take the first step towards recovery. To find the best treatment option for you or a loved one, again, go to recovery.com. Dr. Greger.

I feel like he was just on the show because he kind of was, but I just had to bring him right back for a powerful primer on all matters pandemic pertinent, because here's the thing. We all know the good Dr. G as a nutrition expert, but less well-known is the fact that before all of that, he basically had an entire career in public health specializing in infectious disease, including sounding the pandemic alarm. In fact, Dr. G wrote a whole book about this back in 2006,

but nobody was listening then, and now they are. So Michael dusted off that 2006 book. He got to work dialing it up to date with the latest science and put it into the world. It's called How to Survive a Pandemic. It's available as an audio book or on Kindle with a paperback version coming August 18th. So this podcast is basically my opportunity to ask all my personal coronavirus questions, questions you likely have as well about what exactly is happening,

how we got here, hint, it has something to do with human interaction with animals and animal agriculture, how we prevent things like this from happening in the future, like maybe start putting an end to factory farming, there's one idea, and what we need to know to be and stay safe. Like, what is the difference between COVID and a typical flu? How is it being transmitted specifically? And why do some people fall gravely ill while others experience only mild symptoms? What's the deal with herd immunity and what's it going to take to get there? How do we make sure our immune response is intact and healthy? What's the deal with all these different kinds of tests and when is it appropriate to get tested? Do I need to constantly disinfect everything like my groceries?

How important is hand washing? What exactly is the utility of masks and what kind of mask should we be wearing and when should we be wearing it? Perhaps the most fundamental question of all, how can we stop the emergence of pandemics in the first place? Again, let's look at our dysfunctional relationship with the animal kingdom. And a good place to start is the eradication of factory farms. And a good place to start is the eradication of factory farms. It's scary out there, but Dr. G, ever the enthusiastic optimist, is hopeful. That gives me hope and hopefully gives you a little hope as well. So here we go, round four with the great Michael Greger, MD. Back in the house.

Ready to rich and roll. So good to see you. I feel like I just saw you, but it was a little while ago. It wasn't that long ago. The world was very different. It's pandemic time. It's all out the window. What's super interesting about you is that we all know and love you as this nutrition specialist, expert, the man behind

nutritionfacts.org. But actually, you earlier in your career had this whole path in public health specializing in emerging infectious diseases. And you've been shouting from the mountaintops about pandemics for over a decade. So here we are. And suddenly that book that you wrote back in 2006 is more relevant than ever. You've got this new book out. So I can't wait to just roll up our sleeves and get into what exactly is going on right now. Well, yeah. I mean, the first half of my professional life was all emerging infectious diseases. In fact, I mean, that's most of my scientific publications. That's how I got on Oprah. That's how I got on, you know, all the, I mean, that was really,

and no one was listening, right? I mean, in fact, the whole public health community was warning people about the coming pandemic. No one listened. I was like, all right, you know, I'll, let me default to the leading cause of death every single year from 1919 to 2019 for the last 100 years, always realizing in the back of my mind, well, you know, the reason that heart disease wasn't the leading killer for the last 101 years is because in 1918 there was a pandemic flu. Right. And the next one's coming.

And when it comes, all right, then maybe when people listen, I'll be able to delve back. And that's how I was able to scramble to write a book in such a short time. It's because the research was done. It was just a matter of throwing together a few chapters on the current situation. Well, the first book was really focused on bird flu, right? Do you think if at that time people really perked up and paid attention that that would have shifted your whole career trajectory? You would have stayed in that field? No, I think so. Yeah.

I mean, because it's as critically important today as it was back then. The leading candidate, according to the CDC, of the next pandemic after COVID is a bird flu virus by the name of H7N9, which is 100 times deadlier than COVID-19. Is that the one with the 50% death rate? No, it only has a 40% mortality rate. So H5N1 was higher but has dwindled as H7N9 has taken to the forefront of a global spread. And so that's the leading candidate, although H5N1 still may be waiting in the wings of chickens, of course. H7N9 seems to be the most likely. And so instead of 1 in 250 people dying, 100 times deadlier, 40%. And so, you know, as devastating as COVID-19 has been to lives and livelihoods around

the world, you know, imagine a pandemic that, you know, that... Every other person perishes. Right. So, you know, 1918 had a 2% fatality rate. And so, yeah 1918 had a 2% fatality rate.

And so, yeah, but imagine a pandemic where billions are infected but 40% people are. And that was the last time a bird flu virus jumped directly to humans and triggered a pandemic. It caused the deadliest plague in history in the 1918 pandemic. And so it's just a matter of time. But the good news is there's something we can do about it. Just like closing down live animal markets and the wild animal trade will reduce the risk of future coronavirus pandemics, reforming the way we raise domestic animals for food may help forestall the next killer flu.

Well, that's a good place to start. You know, the very root cause of what's leading to these pandemics that, you know, ultimately are an inevitability. So let's start there. I mean, we're all kind of familiar with what triggered COVID with the pangolins. I guess that's the reigning theory of the moment as to how this began. But there's a larger issue at play here, which is the institutionalization of animal agriculture and how we're creating, you know, on a systemic basis,

the breeding ground for the next pandemic and the next pandemic and, next pandemic and perhaps much more virulent strains of virus that are going to be far more deadly. Over the last few decades, human pathogens have emerged at a rate unheard of in human history. And it's emerged from where? Mostly from animals. So, you know, HIV has been traced back to the butchering of primates and the bushmeat trade in Africa. Mad cow disease was because we turned, you know, cows into carnivores and cannibals.

SARS and COVID-19 have been traced back to these exotic live animal markets. But, you know, our last pandemic, swine flu in 2009, arose not from some backwater wet market in Asia, but was largely made in the USA right here on industrial pig operations in the United States. Now, thankfully, swine flu only killed about a half million people, but the next time we might not be so lucky. Well, it just came out last week, this new story about pigs in China and a couple slaughterhouse workers getting sick. Yeah. This is very alarming. So it's actually, yeah, it's actually a new mutation of that very swine flu virus,

this triple hybrid mutant, which contains genes from both human, pig, and avian flus that was new enough to the human immune system that was able to spread around the globe and is still with us to this day as a seasonal flu. But all it has to do is change enough to kind of overwhelm the preexisting immunity. But yeah, so we happen to pick the two species that are vulnerable to the virus, the only known virus on the planet capable of infecting billions of people within months of time, and that's influenza. And so most species actually don't get the flu, very few species. So it's pigs and it's birds. Birds. Chickens too, or chickens is something different? Chickens, yeah, no. So chickens emerges in waterfowl, but in fact, as a waterborne innocuous aquatic virus and only travels to the lungs when placed in a land-based bird, a terrestrial bird like chickens.

And how would a duck and a chicken ever get together? At live animal markets. It's a way to pack them both together. And once the virus finds itself in the guts of a chicken, it no longer has the luxury of easy waterborne spread, right? Chickens aren't paddling around in the pond. So it's a fecal-oral route in ducks and waterfowl as it existed for millions of years before we domesticated ducks. Once it finds a way into a chicken, it needs to mutate or die. It has to find a new way to travel. And it does that by changing to an airborne virus

that actually infects the lungs. And that makes it that much more risky for terrestrial mammals, such as ourselves. So, it goes into chickens as this harmless virus comes out as the flu. And what is it specifically about CAFO's animal agriculture that's fomenting this? Is it just the crowded conditions? Is it the way that they're immersed in their fecal matter? Is it the way that they're fed or treated? Like what are the contributing factors in that system? Yeah, all of the above.

So when we take thousands of animals and cram these filthy football field-sized sheds to lie beak to beak or snout to snout atop their own waste. It's just a breeding ground for disease, right? It's not just the sheer numbers and the overcrowding, but the, you know, the stress crippling their immune systems, the ammonia from the decomposing waste burning their lungs, the lack of fresh air, lack of sunlight, put all these factors together, what you have is kind of this super storm kind of environment for the emergence and spread of this perfect storm environment, for the emergence and spread of super strains of influenza. Tragically, we don't tend to shore up the levees until after disaster strikes. And the bottom line is it's not worth risking the lives of millions of people for the sake of cheaper chicken.

And I suspect that when you have so many of these animals in these types of conditions, that that then creates a situation in which you're kind of exacerbating the potential for mutation, right? Because if it's getting spread amongst that population, then there's an exponential amount of it. And so it's replicating more rapidly. It's like crowding a thousand pigs in an elevator, right? One of them sneezes. Like, what do you expect would happen? It's really the perfect, if you were a mad scientist and wanted to breed a deadly flu virus, this is exactly the kind of conditions where you do. In fact,

they actually do these so-called serial transmission studies in a lab where when you want to make a pathogen more deadly, more lethal, more virulent, what you do is you pass it from animal to animal. Normally, virulence is a control. There's kind of a balancing act, a teeter-totter between virulence and transmissibility. That's why in its natural state, influenza is completely harmless. Ducks never get sick. No waterfowl gets sick because a dead duck can't fly. That virus wants to get to the next lake. How does it do that? By completely being innocuous, harmless, no symptoms. The duck doesn't even know it has it and just multiplies in the intestinal wall and goes on. Okay. But only when forced into an environment where there's no cost to the virus to get virulent. I mean, the virus would like to get more virulent. The more virulent it is, the more it can produce titers of virus. You have a huge viral load, but it has to be really,

really quiet about it because it might not spread as far. But as soon as you remove that restriction, remove that constraint, when a virus can knock you like a two by four and still transmit to the other because you're so packed. Approximity. Right. Because even immobilized hosts can spread. When that happens, then there's no limit to how virulent the virus can get. And that's what we had in the trenches over World War I, which is where we think the 1918 virus emerged from the trenches. And basically, from the virus's standpoint, those same trench warfare conditions exist today in every industrial chicken shed, in every industrial egg operation, confined, crowded, stressed, but by

the billions, not just millions. That's fascinating. Yeah. I never thought about it in those terms. Normally, yes, the virus would not want the host to perish because then the virus perishes. But when there's a population of hundreds of thousands of these animals, what's one dead animal if it can jump to the next one and continue to populate. So there's an evolutionary advantage. There's a selection pressure to get even more violent, to kill the animal quicker, to make this violent hacking cough. And so it just ratchets up, but only in those kind of rare circumstances, either in the lab where you can literally dose an animal. You stick a needle down their throat, and then you can take

their lungs, and you grind them up in a blender, and you stick that needle down another animal. But you do that 10 times, and you can take a harmless virus turned into a lethal virus, kills 100% of the animals, because which virus is selected for when there's guaranteed transmission to the next one, the one that outcompetes the others, right? Otherwise, normally, it would, you know, if in the millions of years where influenza existed, naturally, if some crazy mutant strain came up that was more, it would instantly be selected against and die there with that animal because it's just not going to spread much farther.

But we just created this system to create virulent, particularly virulent pandemics. So we may always have pandemics, but there's a difference between a pandemic with a 0.4 case fatality rate, when 250 people die, and something like a so-called Category 5 pandemic, that's the CDC's – has a pandemic severity index similar to the hurricane severity index with Categories 1 through 5. And a Category 5 pandemic starts at 2% mortality. So there's only been one Category 5 pandemic in 1918. And that's just where Category 5 starts five pandemic in 1918. And that's, but that's just where category five starts at 2%. Wow. And so COVID's a two, right? No, COVID's 0.4. Oh, okay. But a category, what category is it in? So, oh, so, so that makes it a category one pandemic.

Right now we are in a category one pandemic, which is less – sorry, Category 2 pandemic, under 0.5. So we are Category 2 pandemic, and never before has there been flu viruses with a fatality rate on order of something like Ebola or untreated HIV. So we have the worst of both worlds, something like the common cold, a respiratory virus easily transmitted, infecting a significant percentage of the population within months and a virus with just unprecedented lethality with H5N1, H7N9 and 10 other bird flu viruses

that have emerged completely unknown in the last few decades ever since we started exporting our Tyson model of industrial poultry production to South Asia. It's terrifying. It's absolutely terrifying. What determines the jump to humans? How does that work? Because we hear about these wet markets in Asia, and that's really about one species to another species and then a subsequent

jump to humans. Right, right. And so, right, there's been three deadly coronavirus outbreaks, SARS, MERS, and COVID-19, and they all seem to have evolved, seem to involve this transitional species starting in bats, the reservoir species, just like for influenza, it's ducks and waterfowl, shorebirds, I think. But the virus is so far removed from something that can affect humans, there has never been a single reported kind of human clinical infection from a duck virus. I mean, all influenza viruses arrive from duck. There's one case of someone cleaning out a duck barn, got a little piece of straw in their eye, got a little conjunctivitis, a little pinkeye. It's the worst a duck virus has ever been able to do. Only through these land-based terrestrial birds like quail and chicken is the virus able to mutate into the flu, a respiratory pathogen that can affect humans and pigs and other kind of land-based mammals.

So in coronaviruses, bats are the original. And the reason why bats and ducks have these herd viruses is because they congregate in massive, in the huge herd. And some bat-roosting colonies can be half a million bats together. And only under those kind of circumstances can you get a viral pathogen able to infect large populations. Because normally, if there's just small colonies of various animals, everyone gets immune to the virus.

The virus dies. So you can't really have kind of a herd virus. But when you have these massive colonies of hundreds of thousands of ducks or bats, they can develop, they can start basically an infection on one side, go all the way to the other side of the population, and then this one loses immunity and can go back and forth and it can exist. So in bats we have these coronaviruses, but people aren't getting infected directly from bats.

They're an intermediate species, kind of halfway, between kind of the stepping stone species between bats and people. In the case of SARS, it was this cat-like creature called the civet cat raised in these live animal markets. In the case of MERS, the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome virus, it was camels. It was bats to camels to people. to camels, to people. In the case of COVID-19, leading candidate for the intermediate species is these pangolins, these scaly anteater type creatures.

Again, in these alive animal markets where you can get this kind of confluence of unusual species that you'd never really get together in nature and create these viruses with characteristics we haven't seen before. And what is the degree of difficulty for the virus that's being harbored in the chicken farms,

the pig farms, to jumping to humans? Like, what are we looking at in terms of, you know, we've had swine flus, et cetera. We've never seen a true pandemic emanate out of factory farming yet. I mean, you're painting a- 2009. So that-

2009 was our first factory farming pandemic. We just got lucky. That was a category. There is a narrative that that came out of China though, but did that actually come out of United States factory farms or what's the origin story there? So six out of 18.

So influenza virus has a segmented genome. There are eight genes. I mean, six out of the eight came from a tripleed genome. There are eight genes. Six out of the eight came from a triple mutant hybrid. This was a never-before-described bird-swine-human virus, a virus with genes from all three species. That arose in North America. In fact, the double hybrid first was discovered in this factory farm,

a gestation crate facility of pregnant pigs in Newton Grove, North Carolina. Very rapidly, this triple hybrid mutant spread throughout North America. And then we exported it to Mexico. We exported it around the world where it mixed with a Eurasian swine flu to create the pandemic virus. But six out of eight of the pandemic virus came, was birthed here in North America. Well, given that factory farming is essentially how most Americans are getting their food and the prospect that this is a breeding ground for future pandemics, what do we do? I mean, is there a solution

short of eradicating this entire system? You know, I wanna talk about Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren's new bill that they just proposed to eradicate. I'm not sure exactly what the details are, the Farm System Reform Act and what's packed into that, but, you know, what is the path forward? What is the solution to this? Knowing that we can't flick a switch and end factory farming overnight,

how do we get on, you know, the right side of history with this? So, well, it's important to realize that the public health community has been, has a consensus. So, the American Public Health Association, which is the largest and oldest association of public health professionals in the world, came out over a decade ago calling for moratorium on factory farms, no more factory farming. So the public health community has recognized the risk and has been shouting from the rooftops, and no one's been listening. So this is what the public health community understands to be the risk, not only for the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria,

but because of the threat of pandemic flu, both from poultry production and from pig production. And certainly, there are things we can do to reduce the risk. So, for example, there are studies showing that just providing straw bedding for pigs so they don't have the immunosuppressive stress of lying on bare concrete their whole lives. It significantly reduces swine flu transmission rates. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production came out specifically against these extreme confinement practices like the gestation crates for pregnant pigs, these kind of veal crate-like boxes where pregnant pigs are kept for months at a time. Specifically because of the human health risk of putting animals under these kind of conditions. Right.

And so, you know, the animals need a little social distancing, frankly. They could use a little breathing room at this point. But if we really want to eliminate this threat, we really have to accelerate the movement away from animal agriculture towards plant-based milks, plant-based meats, plant-based egg products. And for those of you thinking that such a move is a pipe dream, Have you looked at a dairy case lately, right? Major U.S. dairy companies declaring bankruptcy because of crashing fluid milk sales, because of this preponderance of new consumer choices. And we're seeing that same kind of increase in consumer choices in the meat aisle as well. And ironically, who is leading this charge in innovating us out of this precarious situation? Tyson, Purdue, Smithfield, Hormel, JBS, the largest meat packers in the world, all right now have plant-based meat products out now. JBS, the largest meat packer in the world all right now have plant-based meat products out now.

JBS, the largest meat packer in the world, just came out with their own line of plant-based. You know, Smithfield is partnering with KFC in China to put plant-based chicken nuggets on the menu. I mean, these are – so this isn't like the Tofurkis for some vegetarian niche product, right? So this isn't like the Tofurkies for some vegetarian niche product, right? They are recognizing, particularly with the pressures on the source chain that this pandemic has shown, it's more profitable. It's less labor costs, less food safety issues. I mean, on down the risk of the externalities of business as usual, they see the writing on the wall and they're reorienting themselves as protein companies rather than meat companies. And so they're the ones that are really leading the charge in terms

of putting these products into the hands of kind of, you know, regular, you know, regular consumers. And now from a personal health standpoint, you know, it'd be better if they just ate some black beans, but from a pandemic threat standpoint, zero risk. Yeah, I think it's, it's imperative that these companies pivot and evolve. They're just responding to market pressure and consumer demand. They see that this is the direction that people are moving in. They understand that they're gonna quickly become antiquated unless they diversify their product line.

And it's working. And that's why they're doing it, right? We all hear about the Beyond Meats and the Impossible Foods, but it is interesting that these stalwart, gigantic conglomerates that have been around forever are also waking up to this reality and making these pivot shifts. The question is, are we going to do it fast enough? Well, I mean, the clock is ticking. I mean, that's why.

But if there... So, what we needed is some kind of kick in the pants, some kind of dress rehearsal, is some kind of kick in the pants, some kind of dress rehearsal, some kind of fire drill to wake us out of our complacency, right? And to really rethink the food system. And if, frankly, if this doesn't do it, right? I don't know if it is it. Well, but I mean, it- You would hope it would unite us. It would really take something like this, serious enough to really get people to rethink, wait a second, where did this come from?

What can we prevent future much potentially worse threats down the road? But now the idea of a pandemic is not some just, you know, something on policy papers and people have been yelling about in the scientific literature. Now it's real life. Yeah. And so and we can see what kind of viruses are in the pipeline and realize, look, even more innovative approaches. I mean, for those out there who are like, you can yank that pork chop from my cold dead hands is the cultivated meat revolution. The thought that, look, which Winston Churchill wrote in this 1932 Popular Mechanics article, we will escape the absurdity in 50 years of growing a whole chicken just to get a wing or a breast or whatever.

Well, now we're making real meat with animal cells, with muscle cells. Why make a skeleton? Why make all that stuff you're going to eat? And again, from a personal standpoint, right? Meat is meat. Certainly from a food safety standpoint, it'd be safer. I mean, you don't have to worry about intestinal pathogens like E. coli, salmonella, when you're making meat without intestines, right? You don't have to cook the crap out of the meat if there's no crap to begin with, right? And just like you don't have to worry about brewing up new respiratory viruses when you're making meat without the lungs, right?

respiratory viruses when you're making meat without the lungs, right? And so that's another route to escape us from this sort of Damocles dangling over us, which hopefully finally people will recognize. Yeah. Well, a year ago, the Booker Warren bill would have seemed preposterous, but here we are. The world is very different. People are paying attention to this in a new and different way. We all saw the news articles when the meat producers were putting out ads about, or there were articles coming out about the supply chain problems and the threat to the workers. And there was this sort of conversation around, should these people go back to work? Should they not? I was looking at videos of some of these slaughterhouse workers who are basically putting themselves in harm's way and frustrated that the meat packer employers were not enforcing some level of social distance or kind of health standards to protect its workforce. Like this is, you know, also about those workers

who are, you know, in peril as a result of this. And I think it is good that we are talking about these things. What, do you know what the Booker Warren bill is proposing? So it's proposing reforms like the elimination

of some extreme confinement practices, which would help. I mean, so anything, you know, reducing broiler stocking density, you know, in terms of meat type birds, I mean, and we can show in laboratory settings, you double the space per bird and you can dramatically drop influenza transmission rates in these birds. And so, I mean, look, you know, anything, all right, the situation is so dire. Anything is better than what's happening right now. Anything we can do. And this is the time to have this opportunity. And look, right now is the last,

at this point, the last thing we need to do is prop up the meat industry, even for the current pandemic. I mean, look at the comorbidities, the underlying health risk factors increasing one's risk of COVID-19 severity and death. Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, obesity, high blood pressure, all of which can be prevented, arrested, or even reversed with a healthy enough plant-based diet. I mean, look, you don't even have to be obese. Just being overweight at a BMI of 28 puts you at nearly six times the risk of a severe course of COVID-19. So that's being about 175 pounds of the average American height. Nearly six times the risk of a severe course. You know what the average BMI in the United States? 29. So being skinnier than the average American could still leave you with so much excess body fat that puts you at nearly six times the risk. Wow. And yet, so, you know, so this is the time to, you know, if you're ever going to start

an exercise program or stress reduction or get your sleep schedule right or, you know, reduce stress or start eating healthy, this is the time. Let's take advantage for those of us who are privileged enough not to have to be out on the front line to clean up our act and not only protect us against the current infectious disease threat, but from chronic disease threats in the future. I want to get into some of those practices, but before we do that, I want to talk about where we're at right now. We're looking at the potential of 100,000 new cases a day. You know, anybody who's looked at any of these graphs is seeing this, you know, spike upward. That's relatively, you know,

it's pretty alarming. Clearly, we've done a poor job at containing this. It's relatively, you know, it's pretty alarming. Clearly, we've done a poor job at containing this. It's been, you know, a political disaster, a public health disaster. What is your sense of where we're at, how we've handled this, and what we should be doing? Not just a poor job, but the poorest job. I mean the world over. So you look at – I mean you don't have to go dig up South Korea and Singapore and Australia and these countries. Look at Europe, for example. It's about the similar population as the US or Western Europe. And they got caught unawares just like everybody and had the spike but came back down.

They truly have a wave, right? We're talking about is there going to be a second wave. The first wave in the United States never went away. We're still in the first wave. And so if you look at the epidemic curves around the world, they go up, they come down. Even with comparable population sizes except the United States, which continues to rage on. But, you know, you look at, you know, Japan, where, you know, oh my God, they had 10 deaths.

Or, you know, Australia, 100 deaths. The milestone, they reached 100 deaths. And they say, yeah, they have 10 times smaller population. Yeah, but we have a thousand times more deaths. I mean, you know, um, and so when you hear, oh, South Korea, they're having problems again. Oh, they had two, you know, they had five cases somewhere. And I mean, um, and, uh, you know, my concern is not just these deep red States, you know, like Arizona and Florida, but look what's happening in California. And I think it's because California's never saw what New Yorkers saw. I mean, they never saw the hospitals overrun, right? Because we caught it early enough in California, the first state

to really take action, that it worked too good. And so people didn't see the hospitals overrun. People didn't see, you know, doctors having to make triage decisions as to who gets the ventilator and who doesn't. And so there was this complacency and this kind of black and white thinking, like we're just back to business, as opposed to still taking precautions, particularly for those who are elderly, particularly those with these underlying risk factors who are still at great risk. Right. And once the protests began, the floodgates opened, it's very hard to put that back in the risk. Right. And once the protests began, the floodgates opened, it's very hard to put that back in the bottle. Right. Although, you know, now that we're weeks out, thankfully, we did not see the uptick that was suspected by many. And we think it's because of being outdoors. So, in 1918, a lot of the transmission was actually driven by these

war bonds marches where they got people together during the pandemic to raise money for World War I and that was implicated in a lot of spread, so even outdoors. But now with the current virus, whatever the transmission, it really does seem the high risk is enclosed, indoor, poorly ventilated, crowded spaces for extended periods of time. That's where these so-called super spreader events are happening. That's where you can get, you know, 60% of people walking out of a bar and were later coming down infected. Whereas despite the crowded conditions outdoors, you have, once you're outside, you have the

ultimate ventilation, one little air current and you're, you know, any little respiratory droplets, um, or aerosol that gets, you know, that you, you breathe out, even if you're chanting, even if you're yelling, even if you're hacking because of tear gas. These are, I mean, these are conditions built for the virus. You, the, the, you know, all you need is a little breeze. And, uh, we did not see that kind of, uh, thankfully. All you need is a little breeze. And we did not see that kind of, thankfully. It seems that every week we're learning a little bit more and we're having to figure out, you know, how to dismiss what we thought was previously correct.

You know, we were disinfecting all our groceries and we don't do that anymore. And I thought, are we supposed to be doing that? Should we be doing that? Or am I just being lazy? You know, wearing masks, of course, is a given. But I think it would be helpful to just point people in the right direction in terms of, you know, just kind of piggybacking on what you just said.

What are the most effective things that we should be doing? What are some of the things that we're doing that perhaps we don't need to? I just don't know where that demarcation line is. There's a lot, and I'm trying to educate myself and I'm still confused. You know, I know that I need to wear masks. I've watched videos of where you can see how it impedes the expectoration of your breath. But, you know, if somebody's smoking a cigarette, you know, a hundred yards away from me, I can smell it. So if I'm smelling that, does that mean that if that person is infected that I'm potentially breathing that too? Like it's very confusing,

even for somebody who's actively trying to get to the best practices. Right, so right. Even the most conscientious among us are still having difficulty separating kind of the wee from the chav and knowing what do we know, what we really don't know. And so I think early on, when we really don't know. And so I think early on,

when we really didn't know the transmission characteristics of this virus, now all past pandemics have been influenza pandemics, and we know so much about influenza, it was easy for us to know, okay, we know exactly how it spread, we know exactly how to clamp it down, but this is a new virus. And so we really didn't know the transmission characteristics, and so something like the surface disinfection of anything coming into the house. I mean, I think early on that was a legitimate act because we just didn't know how much the so-called fomite transmission, the doorknobs and light switches and toilet flushes and gas pump handles.

We didn't know how much was contacting, you know, then touching our mucus membranes, eyes, nose, mouth before disinfecting our hands. Now we know that is not the primary means of transmission. And now that we've had enough time where people have been isolated in home and their only contact with the outside world was delivered groceries and delivered food, and we have not seen validated cases, even among people that aren't taking any special precautions. Okay, so now we can breathe a sigh of relief and we can take in this information and realize, okay, now we know what to prioritize in life in terms of reducing our risk.

And what's the priority? Distance, distance, distance. That's really, I mean, there's this really overinflated reliance on masks that give us a false sense of security. Remember, the masks are not to protect us. The masks are to protect other people from us, right? It reduces those respiratory droplets that come over our mouth with conversational speech or just normal exhalation. And the thing about this virus,

as well as influenza, you may become contagious before you start showing symptoms. And so days after being exposed to this virus, you can feel perfectly fine, look perfectly fine and be exhaling virus with every breath. And that's why if you don't know who's infected and who's not, that's where the social distancing coming in. Without sufficient testing, you don't know who's infected, who's not infected. So you just have to try to keep everybody away from everyone else. That's what the social distancing measures were implemented for. And still the most important thing we can do to protect ourselves is, I mean, it's the good news. Like you cannot get the virus if the virus cannot get to you. And how do we get the virus? From

other people. So reducing as much as possible our contacts outside of our household. And if we have to have contacts outside of our household, it's for a shorter time in as well-ventilated areas as possible, particularly for those that are vulnerable or for those who come in contact with those who are vulnerable. And so there's gradations of risk. There's the riskiest behavior. There's the riskiest populations.

gradations of risk. There's the riskiest behavior. There's the riskiest populations. And then all the way down to, you know, maintaining essential social cohesion. But, I mean, you realize, you know, as bad as COVID-19 has been, right, we still, the grocery stores are still being restocked. We still have electricity. We still have clean drinking water. Doctors are still showing up to work. You have a pandemic with something like H7N9, H5N1, when case fatality rate is like literally a flip of a coin, whether or not you die from this virus, then you can imagine how much worse the situation could be. That's why it's so critical. Yeah, it would be straight up apocalyptic if that was going on right now. And you hear stories, like I just read a story the other day

about a super spreader event, a wedding in India. And I think 90 people contracted the virus as a result of attending that event. But there isn't some situation in which every worker at Ralph's is suddenly in the hospital, which is interesting. Like, I'm like, well, those people are kind of around people all day. They're wearing masks, but, you know, I haven't heard of any grocery workers, at least at scale, contracting the

disease. They're indoors, but I guess they're all wearing masks. So, we're still trying to understand what's behind the super spreading event. So some of them like this famous choral group where 80% of those got infected in one choral singing session. And you think, oh, well, not only are they indoors in one room, but they're spewing virus out into the air. And so that would make sense that that would be. And then you look at the meatpacking plants where it's so loud, you have to talk really loud, shout into people's ears and they're so packed tight. And it's chilly, which actually may play a role in enhancing viral stability. And the prisons are now becoming hotspots. Again, that just makes sense. And so we can explain a lot of these, but there may be characteristics of certain people

or certain strains of the virus that do in kind of whatever situation that would have been in could, you know, lead to mass infection. And imagine being the bride and groom of that, right? Inviting people, I mean, or any kind of function, right? We really need to think before we have that, right? Inviting people, I mean, or any kind of function, right? I mean, we really need to think before we have that, you know, before we bring over people to the house party. Yeah, yeah. And just, we should think, you know, God, what if we hurt one of our dearest friends, right? Or

family. So, you know, we just, this is the new normal. But Americans want what they want when they want it. I know. And this is the- We. But Americans want what they want when they want it. I know. And this is the – We're seeing a little evidence of that out there. But this is the wake-up call. I mean it's really – and it's not going away anytime soon. I mean I talk about in the book written months ago that there's no reason we should expect that this should go away in the summer. Other coronaviruses don't do it, blah, blah, blah.

And here it is continuing to rage on during the hot summer months. And so the only way to stop a pandemic is through herd immunity, having a certain portion of the populace immune to the virus. An infection can only burn through a population if there are enough susceptible individuals for viral sparks to jump from one person to the next. Immune individuals who can't get or transmit the virus act as firebreaks to slow the spread, or like control rods in a nuclear reaction to break the chains of transmission. Now, ideally, this herd immunity is achieved through mass vaccination, right? Vaccines are the way to use, like, fire to fight fire. You use the virus to fight the virus by generating the benefits of infection, immunity, without generating the risks with disease and death, right?

Without a vaccine, then herd immunity is only achieved the hard way, through mass infection. But looking at the characteristics of the virus we have now, we suspect herd immunity will be achieved when 60 or 70% of the population is infected. When there's that many people who are immune, this is assuming that we have some kind of at least short-term immunity, when 60 or 70% of the population is unable to get or transmit this virus, then the 30 to 40 percent who are completely susceptible are protected by everybody else and the virus stops.

The pandemic ends. And so the goal, particularly if you're older, particularly if you're sick, any of these underlying risk factors, you want to end up in that 30 to 40 percent, where at the end of all this, the pandemic is over and you never got infected. You never were at risk, right? I mean, that's the goal. And hopefully, we'll be able to get that through vaccines. But we need to realize, reality check, vaccines historically taken 11 years. That's the average and has a 94% failure rate, meaning 94% never made the market.

Now, this is a totally different situation. We have literally 150 candidate vaccines in the pipeline. So the whole world is jumping on this. So we should certainly see an accelerated timeline, but you have to test on enough people to ensure sufficient safety. And so we should not expect to have a Warhol vaccine for the general population till second half of next year. Second half of next year. Yeah, it's a long way off and herd immunity is a long way off. Short of that, what would have to happen? I mean, long haul. So we're about 5% to 8%.

5% to 8% of Americans have been infected so far. Now, unfortunately, some of the early data on immunity, it's possible that immunity to this virus may be short-lived. So we're seeing that a lot with coronaviruses. There's other coronaviruses for which you come back months later. So like common cold coronaviruses, 45 weeks. So 45 weeks of immunity and then you're just as susceptible again. So it's possible we get into a flu vaccine kind of scenario where you'd have to get vaccinated every year to maintain immunity to this virus. But some of the early data suggests that some of the people that got infected early may now start to become susceptible again based on the level of so-called neutralizing antibodies in their blood,

the ones that really target kind of the receptor mechanism of this virus. We have yet to test what's happening to their T cells. There's actually two memory immune systems in the body. The antibodies and the T cells both can retain memory of infectious exposure and give that lasting immunity. So far, we've tested antibodies, and they've been disappointing, mainly last weeks in terms of infection. So then herd immunity is much more difficult to achieve.

But we have yet to really see what's happening with these memory T cells. Maybe they will give us the – and that's what we saw with SARS. SARS antibody levels went down. They had some memory T's. Thankfully, we eradicated SARS from the planet. And how could we get rid of that deadly coronavirus? And we're having such problems with this one, because with that one, you only became infectious after you started showing symptoms. In fact, peak infectivity was 10 days after you started coughing. Cough fever 10 days later, you're spreading it. Oh, put up fever monitors in airports. Makes it a lot easier. You stop it. I mean, still, 8,000 people got infected and killed about 10%, killed about 800 people. But we could stop it.

We didn't know that we could have a coronavirus where we'd have the flu-like infectivity during incubation period, infectious before show symptoms. And that's why we're in this situation we're in today. Right. Well, it would seem important to be able to answer that question about whether we can contract it again, how long that immunity lasts. Critically important.

Right. Yes, for vaccines, for everything. So there was this talk of having an immunity passport, right, proving I have immunity. And of course the concern, if that gave you some kind of perks, you had better jobs or whatever, people would infect themselves. Like I have like Corona parties to, and then you could get the little immunity pathway. But if we really don't have

lasting immunity, if it only lasts for a few months, then what does it even mean to have gotten the virus if you can get it again a few months later. Yeah. We've been doing antibody testing here. And with regularity, people are disappointed to find out that they didn't have it. Everybody thinks, oh, in February, I was sick, so I probably had it. I woke up with the sniffles, one of these. Right, right. And it's possible that having an asymptomatic case, like you test positive but you never really – or you had the mild case symptoms, you actually may even get less immunity from that. Why is that? It really may take – because it kind of passed under your immune system radar and you just had – and that your body was able to squash it so quickly that your body didn't have to mount much of a response at all. Right, right, right.

And so it considers it such kind of a mild, I'm not going to worry about mounting this constant. Like right now, your bone marrow is pumping out anti-chickenpox antibodies right now and will for the rest of your life. If you had chickenpox as a child, as almost everybody has. And your body's wasting lots of energy every single day making chickenpox, making measles, making anti. And it's a lot. It generates a lot.

In fact, immune cells expend more energy than your heart cells, which are pumping every single day. These are huge. They're literally pumping out millions of antibodies every minute. It's just these little, you know, I mean, but that's because that was our, one of our primary threats to our existence on this planet historically throughout evolution were the infectious disease threats because bacteria and viruses multiply so much quicker than we do. Um, and so we had, uh, so it was this back and forth, um, you know, they'd get a little better. Our immune systems would, you know, catch up. Um, uh, but they've got a few billion year head start on us evolutionarily. And so that's why we use our brains to develop technology to be able to squash it. And vaccines are the technology

that allowed us to, for example, eliminate smallpox from the planet Earth. Literally hundreds of millions of people used to die because of a disease that is now gone from the face of the earth except in some biowarfare labs. And 1976, I think it's the last case ever thanks to vaccines. So anyone says – questions vaccines. That was probably the greatest public health victory of all time was the elimination of smallpox. There is no longer a disease and that was thanks to vaccination. And so we should hope and pray we have a safe and effective vaccine for this in the future. On the subject of herd immunity, what do you make of Sweden's strategy?

Well, you can ask what they made of it. And they now realize it was a mistake and have some of the highest infection death rates in Europe, in fact, around the world. And so they, but if we, like, we're looking at that at a discrete point on the timeline, two, three years from now, if we're still grappling with this in a material way, and they're not. I feel like, are we able to really evaluate the merits or demerits of that strategy right now? Well, even in the most infected, so even in Stockholm, which I think has the highest post-infection rates, they were still only at 25%. So they're raging now.

So they are still, now we're much farther from a herd immunity situation. But the point is to keep the disease and death at low enough rate until we achieve that, until that level of herd immunity is achieved. And that has to happen kind of across the board, unless you completely close off your borders like they were able to do very successfully in New Zealand. So if Trump called you up in the middle of this podcast and said, Gregor, I need you in the White House, tell me what to do. If you're in charge, if you're sitting in Fauci's situation right now,

what's the program? Well, first of all, I'd say, look, I'm in a rich role podcast. I got my priorities here. You gotta wait until we're done. Right, but, but, all right. But when I have a moment, well, it's really putting the experts back in charge. So, I mean, in any other circumstance, the CDC would have been leading this charge. I mean, they've been effectively silenced. Right. And the same thing with, I mean, you know, it's like the CDC can't even do-

Or Rand Paul told Fauci he was not being optimistic enough or muzzled him. I mean, and so when we don't have the experts in charge, I mean, this is, and this has not just happened in the US, it happened to a certain extent in Brazil, in UK, in a number of places where they can have this kind of, this kind of autocratic response instead of listening to the two experts who have been spent, you know, their lives doing this. And so there are good sources of information. I do want to put a plug in for the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Michael Osterholm has a weekly podcast. So is one of the sanest voices, been doing this work for 45 years. I remember when I was doing my work in this 20 years ago, I mean he was leading the charge way back then and was with HIV and on down the road. And so it's people like him and Fauci who have – they've spent their entire lives studying this. And so it's people like him and Fauci who have – they've spent their entire lives studying this. And so then to have pandemic preparedness, documents going back when I was writing about this and I was kind of late to the game 14 years ago or so. We had – I mean – but then we had all this – these plans and they just threw it out the window. I mean we just didn't follow what we needed to do. And they just threw it out the window.

I mean we just didn't follow what we needed to do. And I mean it's very difficult politically because if it doesn't – if you're not – if it doesn't look like you're overreacting, then you're not doing enough, frankly. I mean because we have the – it's the mathematics of exponential spread during a pandemic. And now in retrospect, we know, oh, when we had one case, we had 10,000. And when we had – and so you're always late to the game. But it always looks like you're, you're, you're, you're, you know, you know, chicken little because there's only a few cases, you know, why, I mean, you know, let's not, you know, let's not, you know, the, the impact of the economy as such. And this was a, certainly a new virus. I mean, so there's certain, for early missteps,

there's, you know, very few places around the world were ahead of the curve. And the ones that were, like Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, they had recently suffered deadly coronavirus outbreaks. So South Korea in 2015 had this MERS outbreak. Some businessman came back from the Middle East and started spreading. And so they had this testing and tracing

public health infrastructure intact. The other countries suffered recent SARS outbreaks, right? So they had experienced this firsthand on their soil. Their populace was ready. They understood the risks and were ready to do whatever the experts were told were necessary. And so they were able to jump ahead of the curve. And you get on this, you start these social distancing measures two days, three days early,

and you have this mathematical modeling suggesting you could literally, you know, prevent millions of cases in the long run if, you know, a week earlier you did this, a few days earlier you did this. And that's because once it spreads out of control, it's very hard to kind of put the lid back on. Right. I think that's what we're experiencing now. I mean the difference being that there wasn't that kind of popular will because the SARS and the MERS, like we knew about them. But they didn't really land on our shores in a meaningful way.

Right. In fact, SARS never did. So SARS hit Canada, never actually made it into the States. And so, right. So we didn't have that history. But we certainly had experts who spent their whole lives preparing for that situation. In fact, I was part of these – there were these governmental drills where we all got together. Oh, we have these sick chickens in Maryland and what's going to happen and what kind of decisions we have to make.

And there was all this kind of, you know, wartime game planning for, you know, you know, departments. And, but, you know, it just, it just went out the window. Went out. And so, okay. So early missteps, right. We, you can forgive around the world for countries that have not had a recent history. But then, right. But now even, even a few months ago, we were far enough in to realize the situation we were in and had to take it much more seriously. But there was this sense of, well, we just have to lock down for 10 days or we just have to do this and it's going to be very temporary. And all the scientists are looking at each other saying like, what world do you live in?

Right. But having said that- Well, the messaging is so confusing and it's not cohesive and there is no sense that there's a real plan. So we kind of did that for a while and then we kind of tiptoed out and then suddenly we're protesting in the streets and now we're like, well, cohesive manner what the steps are that we all have to get on board with in order to get on top of this. So I just feel like it's just going to run its course and people are going to do what they're going to do right now, short of some catastrophic spike that's going to get people to wake up again. Because getting them to go sequester in place after the many months of what we've been experiencing, I think is going to be very difficult. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, if you can, the fewer people you come in contact with, the further you can be away, and the more event... I mean, that's just... Now, having said that, if you are under the age 50, none of these comorbid conditions, the chances of you dying from this virus, one in a thousand, right?

I mean, we are talking about a, in the scheme of things, a wimpy virus. It's a Category 2 pandemic. But, you know, we should all be, you know, well-informed as to what's risky, what's not risky, what can we do to reduce our risk, should we have to come attack tech. And then the, you know, it's kind of— Well, setting aside the comorbidity factors, you know, if you're not obese, have high blood pressure, heart disease, et cetera, if you're not in a nursing home, you are in a much better position to combat this should you come into contact with it. But we've all heard the stories of young fit people who have either perished or gotten so tremendously ill that they're having trouble recovering. So let's talk a little bit about this narrative that it's just like the flu, or it's just a little bit

more serious than the flu. Like what is the difference between the flu, or it's just a little bit more serious than the flu. Like, what is the difference between the flu, like, as we kind of understand it as Americans versus the experience of contracting this disease and what happens to your body when you have it? Yeah. So, I mean, so for those in the public health community, even saying something is as bad as the flu as a way to minimize it doesn't, for infectious disease folks, flu is a scourge that kills tens of thousands of Americans every, you know, every year. And, you know, unfortunately the annual flu vaccine is not very effective, between 30 to 50% decreased risk, which is, hey, better than nothing. But, you know, we're unable to really put a lid on this virus.

It comes surging back every year. And it's one of the leading causes of death. That's why I have a chapter on it in How Not to Die because it's one of the leading causes of death of, you know, this low respiratory tract infections or pneumonia primarily caused by influenza. And so, but this is, but a bad flu year has a 0.1 case fatality rate, 1 in 1,000 people getting it, whereas for COVID-19, we're looking at 0.4 now, so at least four times worse. And, of course, it depends on what age group you fall in, but that's kind of all across the board. Unfortunately, here in the United States, even without taking obesity into account, over age 50, most Americans actually have some

comorbid condition, either high blood pressure or heart disease or diabetes. And so, yeah. And so, so, you know, all these, these lifestyle medicine pushes to enhance, you know, to, to increase our resistance against chronic disease sometime far in the future now is helping us right here now. And so, you know, this message to, you know, better take care of ourselves and families has never been more kind of poignant. There isn't enough discussion about what we can do to buttress our immunity or, you know,

make sure that our immune response is intact and healthy. And a corollary to that is also, I think there's this idea that we want our immune system to be as robust as possible, but is it possible that it can become too robust? Yeah, that's the irony here. So we have amazing studies showing the simple foods can boost one's immune function. So I have videos, nutritionfacts.org talking about randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials showing that, for example, broccoli sprouts can reduce viral loads for influenza, decrease virus-induced inflammation, boost antiviral natural killer cell activity, but this isn't the flu.

Unlike other common viruses, coronaviruses have not been shown to cause more severe disease in immunocompromised people, those with HIV, those on chemotherapy. more severe disease in immunocompromised people, those with HIV, those on chemotherapy, right? You think they're vulnerable to other infections, not to coronavirus infections, including COVID-19. You say, wait a second, how does that make any sense? Because it's your own immune system that's the primary driver of lung damage during infection. During the second week of infections, During the second week of infections, during the second week of symptomatic infection with COVID-19, the virus can trigger what's called a cytokine storm, which is like an autoimmune reaction where your body overreacts. And in attacking the virus, your lungs get caught in a crossfire. And in burning down the village in order to save it, we may not make it through that process. So while I'm certainly in favor of common sense, generalized advice to stay healthy, such as sufficient sleep and staying active and reducing stress, staying connected, albeit remotely with friends and family, eating healthy.

But I would not go out of your way to take a specific supplement or eat a specific food to boost some element of your immune system until we know more about this virus. Potentially, we could be doing more harm when we're well-intentioned and trying to do good. I've been hammering the broccoli sprouts and also vitamin D. We're hearing a lot about vitamin D. So, what are your thoughts on that? So, there are a number of vitamins and minerals that are critical for optimal immune function. Vitamin D is one of them, vitamin C, zinc, selenium. But there's no evidence to suggest that supra-normal levels have any benefit.

So you need sufficient for a functioning immune system. So all the studies that show, for example, zinc improves hard outcomes for disease. So you give zinc to children with pneumonia, significantly decrease mortality rates. Randomized placebo-controlled trials, zinc versus sugar pills to children with pneumonia, those given the zinc, significantly less likely to die. But where is every single one of these studies been done? Sub-Saharan Africa, Ecuador, places where there is micronutrient deficiencies. So if you find a deficient population not getting enough zinc, giving them zinc can bring them up to immune. But if you have someone with functioning immune system, would adding zinc do any good? If you're having enough, if you have enough vitamin C, have C, there's no evidence that having higher levels.

Having said that, vitamin D deficiency is rampant. Even in probably the shining example of this is there was a study of skateboarding teens in Hawaii. You just imagine them shirtless all day, Hawaii, right? And you just imagine them shirtless all day. And even they had these high rates. Why is that? Well, it's because we evolved running around naked in equatorial Africa, being baked in the sun all day long. And so if you want to know what normal vitamin D levels are, you measure people who work outside all day long. I mean, that's kind of a natural level of vitamin D. And so we were never meant to have these winters and inside and wear clothes and all these things that cut down on our natural vitamin D production. And so for people that don't get sufficient midday sun, particularly those with darker skins,

particularly those who are older, particularly those with more body fat, uh, may need to supplement with vitamin D. Um, and so I would recommend 2000 international units of vitamin D three a day for those who get insufficient sun. That's what I do because I'm inside all day. I got my D levels tested once, uh, before I supplemented and I had the D levels of an institutionalized elder, like these people who are like in nursing homes and literally never get outside. That was me in front of my laptop. Mr. Nutrition. Right. Stuck in an airplane. Right. I mean, I just never got outside. I got work to do. I got a book to write. What do you mean? And so, right. So in fact, 2000 was enough for me. So 2000 would get most people from the general level up to optimal level.

Right. But for me who got no son, I had to take even more. So, a couple questions on that. It's not about mega dosing. It's about just making sure that you're not deficient. But I think it's probably safe to presume that there's a good chance you are deficient because so many people are short of getting a blood test to determine that. If you are depleted or deficient, how long does it take to restore that balance? Does that happen quickly or does it take time? So rapidly that you can actually randomize people with infection to vitamin D while they have the infection and improve disease outcomes.

And so you increase their levels while they, I mean, so literally within the days, your immune system's like, come on people, we need some vitamin D right now. Um, uh, and, uh, so, right. So, so very rapidly, we're able to improve. And the same thing with these zinc studies, right? They gave them to kids, not before they got infected to see how they, if they got infected, how they do literally, they were already sick, gave them zinc. And then a few days later, they were already sick gave them zinc and then a few days later they were live or dead whether or not they took zinc um so uh and another problem with zinc is there isn't even a blood test so you couldn't get tested for zinc sufficiency if you want to but if you are so but if you're eating a nutrient-rich diet right which is where all

where all vitamins and minerals come from, with only two exceptions, which is from the ground. And so by eating them in plants, I mean, that's where we should get, ideally with the two exceptions of vitamin D, the sunshine vitamin, and vitamin B12, which is made by microorganisms, which blanket the earth. But we now chlorinate our water supply, don't get a lot of B12 in our water. Don't get a lot of cholera either. That's a good thing. We have a nice sanitary system. But again, because the way we live in our modern world,

like with vitamin D, because we live in a modern world, we have to make sure we get a regular, reliable source of vitamin B12. What other foods should we be mindful of making sure that we're getting that are nutrient-rich in the way that we want or need it, given what's happening?

So fruits, vegetables, legumes, the same litany, right? Beans, lentils, chickpeas, split peas, whole grains, nuts and seeds, herbs and spices, mushrooms, real food grows out of the ground, from fields, not factories. I mean, it's the, you know, it's the- Basic stuff. It's the basic stuff, right? This is where the nutrition comes from.

Do you ever get tired of talking about this stuff? Oh my God, well, I mean, but it's even more relevant now. And if people are going to start eating healthy now because they don't want to die from the virus and my secret plan is for them not to get breast cancer in 10 years and not to die of a heart attack, look, whatever it takes for them, right? I would appeal to vanity, tell people it helps with acne. I mean, anything to get people to eat healthy because I know it's going to save their lives later on. And so maybe this will have the side benefit of starting some healthy habits. They're going to stick with them. And thanks to the pandemic, are not going to, you know, croak in 10 years from a stroke.

What about viral load? We hear a lot about viral load, right? You touched on it a little bit ago that, you know, we want to avoid these, you know, indoor kind of hotspot settings where we're in close proximity to each other. But I'm not sure I fully understand. The idea is that you could potentially come into contact with the virus, but if it's in a passing way, if it's not in one of those cloistered kind of settings, that perhaps you're not going to contract the disease. cloistered kind of settings that perhaps you're not going to contract the disease. That's your smoker 50 foot away.

Right. We have this sense that one viral particle, we get exposed to the virus and all of a sudden we get infected. And you must realize that even if someone with active tuberculosis coughs in your face, the chances of you getting tuberculosis is like 1 in 200. Really? Because you have an immune system. Now, if you have HIV or some, you're impaired, that's what our immune system is for. We were built to fight off invaders, right?

And so only under certain circumstances when we have sufficient, that's called the viral load, when there's sufficient, and so you can pick a pathogen and there's an average viral load for E. coli bacteria. One E. coli bacteria, the odds of that's going to trigger infection, even though they multiply like crazy, or one salmonella. No, you need a sufficient dose. That's why, like pasteurization, that's not about sterilizing milk. Cooking is not about sterilizing the meat. It's about reducing the number

of infections so that it's below the infectious load. And so when it comes to respiratory pathogen, it's not that you have to prevent yourself from breathing in one particle. It's you have to reach a sufficient number of infectious particles. And whether that's 1,000, whether that's 10,000, we unfortunately don't know yet with COVID-19, but we do know it for other respiratory pathogens. And you can, I mean, you could dose it out. And how do you do it? Well, they do studies with influenza, the young, healthy people that are really low likelihood of suffering, and they literally drip it in their nose. So they drip a thousand in the nose to see how many percentage of a hundred people dripped a thousand in their nose. They drip 10,000, right? And then you can find out

exactly how much. So we don't have that data yet because we have a new virus. But we always know that, I mean, otherwise, the disease will spread even more rapid than it is. So it is intensity of exposure plus duration of exposure. So everyone's freaked out about elevators, right? But how long are you in that elevator, right? So if you have someone in your home who is infected and you have a studio apartment and they're not in their own room and they're hacking away and, yes, they have a cloth face covering and we're trying to wipe down all the doorknobs and we have the windows open and the exhaust fan on the stove going and in the bathroom going, you have an air purifier. And like you were trying to do the best to maintain ventilation, you're living with that

virus for a long period of time. And that puts you at extremely high risk. It's these crowded settings. And in fact, now we have these beautiful studies where we've traced everyone back to one of these restaurant events and they have the little map of all the tables, all the people at all the tables. And here was the index case. And everybody over here got it. No one, even sitting next to them over here, got it. Why? Because the airflow was going this way. Here's the air vent.

Here's the air vent. Everybody got it this way. And the person sitting three feet away, the other hand didn't get it. And it's because these little tiny, these are like little dust motes that you see when the sun's rays come in. They just kind of float around. But one little teeny breath would just, you know, blow them to one end of the room or the other. But it's just being in this cloud of little dust motes. Breathe in one.

Breathe in two. breathe in three. And so when you look at these contact tracing apps and contact tracing protocols, they're asking who have you been close to, that's the intensity, under six feet, and for more than 15 minutes? Who have you been close to? So is less than 15 minutes?

Is that random or is that calculated? Like is there a scientific basis for the 15-minute window? Not scientific basis for COVID-19 because we don't know. We don't know the parameters yet. So, that's based on other respiratory pathogens. So, basically, all this modeling has to do, we have other respiratory pathogens. We have common cold viruses. We have influenza viruses.

And so, we have other data from viruses we think transmit very similarly based on the data we have so far. So based on that, you know, we're not even going to call on the phone someone you spoke with directly face-to-face for 10 minutes two days ago. And now you're in the hospital. They aren't even – the likelihood that they're – They need to meet a 15-minute threshold. So 15 minutes, and they had to be close. So 15 minutes, you spent all hours, but you were outside on a porch

with someone who was eight feet away from you? Not even gonna call them. Then what about, well, look, we're seeing a clamp down now on indoor dining. A lot of restaurants in California, at least, they're closing. Some have opened, they're closing back down. There's, you know, every state's different.

But airplanes seem like a bad idea. Recycled air, we're seeing these airlines announce that, you know, they're not going to restrict their seating. You just were on a plane. I mean, that just seems like the worst idea. So, there's, it's safer than being in a similarly confined space just because of the – they're actually HEPA-filtered through the air system. So you actually should have those – you can imagine being in a plane not wanting that recycled air in your face. No, that's exactly what you want in your face. You should open all three of those nozzles if you're not sitting next to someone, point them all towards you. You have this wave of air pushing past your nose for someone, someone walks down the hall. Does that air, is that air recycled though? That is completely recycled.

So somebody in the back is coughing and it gets through. There's through epifilter, which is not a perfect filter, but it does filter out the majority of the type of droplets we think are carrying this virus. And so you have this semi purified air as a buffer blowing everything else away, pushing everything else away. Now that is not a, I would not consider that a low risk scenario. Um, but look, when you gonna be on the rich roll podcast, you take, you run the cost benefit. You showed up, man. I appreciate that, taking that risk. What about masks, okay? So you go out in the world,

you see all variety of masks from the guy who's got the bandana around his neck, covering his mouth, but not his nose. You've got cloth masks like this. You've got the N95s. How important is it to have a high-quality mask? What should we be thinking about when we're making that decision about what kind of mask? So, the only mask actually designed to protect the user, the wearer, are these N95 masks, which were specifically designed for that purpose.

They filter the air. They filter the air coming in. And so that is what's being recommended for medical personnel. But those, that's not something you just, you know, it has to be something that has to be fitted to your face. Actually go through a fitting process in the hospital to make sure you have the right size for your face. You can't even have a day of beard growth. So everybody with any facial hair covering that area is completely, I mean, it breaks the seal. This is meant to be an airtight seal and the material

has this electrostatic charge that traps these microscopic little floating particles, such that you can wear it with someone coughing active TB germs and been very effective for COVID-19. Now, of course, you can infect yourself taking it on and off and, you know, you can, you can, there can be an inadequate seal for whatever reason. You really shouldn't use it. It's meant to be disposable. Now we don't have enough even for medical professionals. And so they have to reuse the masks and we don't have enough, even for medical professionals. And so they have to reuse the masks. And we don't have enough data to show how many times you can reuse it and how soggy you can get and what kind of protection still exists. And can you reuse it after you decontaminate it?

On and on and on. And that's why. So no one is recommending N95 masks for the public, not because they don't work, but because we don't have enough to go around. Now, that's not our fault, right? That is a failure of the national stockpile. We should have had N95s for all medical professionals, as have other countries. In fact, other countries have provided surgical masks for their entire populace for free.

And so now surgical masks are meant to protect others from the wear. So that's why surgeons wear them. So they're not breathing germs into an open surgical wound. That's at least the theory. Although there's only been two randomized controlled trials and there's actually no drop in infectious rates during surgery, surgeons wearing masks versus not wearing masks. Oh, wow. So even surgical masks are of questionable utility for cutting down on disease transmission. And the cloth face coverings, there's no data to suggest that they're useful.

Certainly during 1918, they were found not to be successful. So my concern is this false sense of security. The critical factor of getting infected is distance, distance, distance, like the time and distance. And so if you feel invulnerable or you feel lower risk because you have a mask on and you would go places you would not normally go, or you would stay longer or be closer to people than you normally would, that's how a mask could actually increase your risk of infection. Indirect ways it could decrease risk of infection, the people who really need to be using like the surgical masks, the claustrophage, are people who are actively hacking, coughing, actively symptomatic. They're, I mean, they are spewing out virus like crazy. They really need to be wearing masks. If you go outside, no one's wearing a mask and you know

you're infected and you have a fever and you're coughing, but you need to go to the drugstore. You live alone. You need to go outside and no one else is wearing a mask. The social costs of, no one, you know, of putting on a mask and flagging, I'm infected, you can imagine how people might not do that. Whereas if by law or by decree or by social contract, everyone's wearing a mask, you are more likely being symptomatic to wear a mask and protect others. And so that's a way how masks could really help even if it doesn't necessarily cut much down on the asymptomatic transmission which is what we're hoping we're hoping that those tiny little respiratory droplets that we spew out of our mouth during normal conversational speak we're

going to trap some of those with a cloth face covering do we have data showing that's the case we do not and so when the cdc came out and said we changed our minds that's the case? We do not. And so when the CDC came out and said, we changed our minds based on the new data or based on the latest science, we are going to recommend everyone wear cloth face coverings. And you say, well, you go to the CDC website. What's this new science? They cite the National Institute of Medicine.

And you go there and say, what did they do? And they came out and said masks are probably a good idea based on what data, but they're very clear saying we have no data showing that they actually work. Theoretically, it could cut down on some of this transmission. Again, not helping the wearer, but helping other people from the wearer if they're infected and not even knowing it. But my biggest concern, false sense of security, I have something over my face so I can go to the grocery store

twice as many times as I did before, and I don't have to exactly stay as far away from other people as I, you know. That's how masks can be a problem. Yeah, I think of it much like it's basically a tool for social distancing. Like it's sort of buying you a foot or two, right? Like instead of making sure that I'm, you know, six feet apart, maybe I can be five feet apart. But it's not doing anything more than that. Is that?

Or you could imagine it working even better. The presence of masks reminding people, you're during a pandemic. It looks weird walking around like cashiers, people are on the street. It's amazing how quickly we normalize to it. Now I just, yeah, I think it's normal. Right. I mean, it's funny when you look at these 19... So I was at the National Archives when I was writing the book and doing talks about it and going through and seeing all the, you know, major baseball, you know, back in the 1918, everyone's wearing masks and the spectators, it just looks so weird to have people with, you know, billy clubs and masks on. But now, right, it's amazing how quickly, but if it reminds you, for example, wearing, wearing gloves on your hands. And the reason to say, well, there's no point in wearing gloves

on your hands in public because you can just as easily rub your eye with your gloves as with your hands. And so you have to wash your hands, gloved or not. But if having bright pink gloves on your hands as you go up to rub your – I mean if that reminds you and you just look down and it feels weird and it's awkward and everyone is looking at you because you've got bright pink. If that keeps you mindful of the position of your hands, that could be a good thing. That could cut down on rates of it just because you're not – it's not business as usual. If masks make it not business as usual, I mean it's just a little – it's a constant reminder. Oh, maybe I should be a little more careful in this situation or not go somewhere. Then that could help.

Testing, testing, testing be a little more careful in this situation or not go somewhere, then that could help. Testing, testing, testing. We need more testing. Testing is the way that we're going to get on top of this. When should we get tested? What kind of test should we take? There's all kinds of tests out there. What are these tests telling us about how we're responding to this problem, right?

Like, I think, like, oh, testing, testing, testing. I've gotten an antibody test a couple times. I've been negative. I haven't had the full swab test. You know, do you wait until you're symptomatic? Like, when is the appropriate time to explore that? And I don't know, go. Yeah, so testing, testing, testing only makes sense

if it depends what you're going to do with those results. And so testing is critical to know what's happening with the virus. And without that information, then you're flying blind. So you want to know if some kind of stay-at-home order actually helped or not. You want to know, be able to trade. With these protests, would that lead to a big spike or not? It's still so early on we're gathering data, we're gathering intel on our enemy. And so without testing, we're completely flying blind. And we just don't know how far are we away from herd immunity? What's

helping? What's not helping? What are those super spreader events? How can we avoid those? What kind of, you know, occupations, what kind of restaurants are good, bad? You know, we don't know that if we don't have a sufficient test. And so we have been, and so the countries that have done the best, so South Korea, for example, they were ramping up to test literally within 10 days. They were doing thousands of tests a day. We weren't testing at all at that point. And it's interesting. They actually had that, we had our first cases on the same day, South Korea and the U.S. And you look at our curves, I mean it's completely different.

They basically vanquished it and we're still raging on. So what are you going to do with that testing? And so basic – what's called seroprevalence testing, you just want to know – you want to do random sampling as part of an experimental setup in various areas of the country on a consistent basis to know what's happening with the virus where. And so we can gauge that against our hospital capacity, how many ventilators we have in that county, how many ICU beds. And then we can make these decisions. Do we open? Do we close? When should we be pumping the brakes on this kind of socialist think?

Obviously, we want as little as possible. We want to be able to have as much freedom of movement and continue the vitality of the country as much as possible until – unless we're going to start running out of beds, right? Until – I mean that's the whole point of flattening the curve. You're not necessarily reducing the number of people that are going to die or going to get sick. You're spreading them out. You're just – we know of people that are going to die or going to get sick. You're spreading them out. You're just, we know this many people are going to die, but if they all die, but if they all come in the hospital this week, then more are going to die than if they come out over the next 10 weeks.

Now, it's possible if we slow it to the extent that we hit a vaccine, aha, that's the game changer. So if we can slow things down enough. Then that slowing, flattening the curve strategy, then does indeed result in fewer deaths overall because, ah, then we finally have a method to stop the virus without getting people infected. And so there's certainly a place for testing in terms of individual testing. Right now, there isn't sufficient tests available. and this goes back to having enough swabs, enough reagents. And now we're dealing with this with a future vaccine.

We don't have enough glass vials in the world to even put the vaccines in. So then if you're going to use one – if you're going to stick needles into one vial instead of having single-use vials, and you have to add preservatives. That's another safety issue. I mean, so basic—and, of course, the public health community has been shouting about this forever. I have this in my book 14 years ago. The supply chains are not sufficient to have enough masks, to have enough PPE, to have enough of the basics we need. So that's what we're running into the testing. And so it's like masks. What are the best masks?

Oh, N95s. So shouldn't everyone have an N95? No, we can't because we need them for the frontline workers. Even surgical masks, which are better than cloth masks, we're telling people not to use those because we don't have enough for the medical workers. And so that's why DIY, make it at home with a sweatshirt, even though we don't have data showing that's necessarily as effective as people think it is. So same with testing. What would we like? We want weekly testing for everyone in the country, right? But we don't have that capacity. So who should get tested? It is people that are coming in contact with vulnerable individuals.

That is the highest. So people working in a nursing home, we want that staff tested because one case in that just can explode, right? Right. So people in, you know, prisons that haven't already been overrun like San Quentin, you know, it's kind of at that point, it's almost too late. What we're seeing in some of these, but it's those kind of high-risk scenarios. These are the people we want regularly tested so we can pull them out of circulation. It's ironic.

It actually goes back to the porn industry and HIV. That's how the porn industries work. There was a deadly virus and there was – yet there was an industry where you had to continually put yourself at risk to be in the industry. So what did they do? They instituted a mandatory testing. I forget exactly how frequently you need to get tested. And you could not work unless you come back with a negative test. And you would be out of work until then.

And they figured out the interval, right? I think it was every two weeks or 10 days or something like that. So they had whatever it was. And so they could constantly – and so that's what we need. And so that's actually – We should let the porn industry be the – they're always out front with these technological breakthroughs. The whole concept of testing and tracing actually came from the STD world. I mean that's what you know.

You have a case of gonorrhea. We need to find everyone you slept with recently and we need to honestly call them on the phone and say someone you've been with recently had gonorrhea. You need to go get tested. So you don't then spread it to everybody else. That's the concept of testing and tracing. It's so much more difficult now with this respiratory virus, because it's spread so much quicker. And so you can imagine how many people have you, you know, had this kind of 15 minute window in close proximity in the last, and you're like, well, I just went to this wedding, right? And then all of a sudden, you can imagine how all of a sudden one wedding just makes this explosive number of contacts. Whereas if you have been trying to distance as much as possible,

as far as possible from as many people as possible, it's like, who have you been with? Ah, there's just been one, you know, one or two. We could contact those people. And we could imagine how you can. But yeah, even, I mean, we would need 100,000 workers. And the problem is, and then you call people up. And you say, someone you've come in contact with in the last few days has tested positive. So you should quarantine for 14 days. Who wants to get that phone call? Right? Okay, you get that phone call.

What are you going to do with that information? Are you really going to do it? You're going to all of a sudden, it's not no fault of your own. You're going on your own business. Someone tells you, and now you've got to lose two weeks of work. Well, obviously you should be compensated for those two weeks of work. I mean, there's ways you can make it easier, but you can imagine even in the best case scenario where it all works, we're all testing people. You can still imagine how difficult it is to kind of put the rabbit back in the hat. What about some of these non-vaccine drug protocols that we're hearing about? I just read

that the USA acquired the entire stock of remdesivir. What's going on with all of this? Yeah. Well, I mean, that's, yeah. I mean, that's the U.S. healthcare system, right? So, yeah, so this company comes out with this drug. There's no drug cocktail to date that in peer-reviewed studies is actually shown to decrease mortality. I mean, that should be the standard. I mean, so what remdesivir is shown to do is decrease the number of days in the hospital. So the number of days that you're sick. And look, if you're sick with this virus, sure, give me something that cuts a couple of days, but does it actually help people live through this virus? I mean, that should be kind

of the gold standard. Treat like one aspect, like alleviate some of the symptoms of the disease? That would be great, but it seems to be slowing the virus down such that your immune system can get a – I see. And similarly, there's a drug called oseltamivir or Tamiflu for influenza. It does a very similar thing. It does not actually decrease mortality from influenza but may shave a day or two off of hospitalization of a severe course. So they still give the drug. But whether or not the government should be spending – giving billions of dollars to Big Pharma to buy these drugs.

So they're selling the remdesivir for $3,000. Of course. But if it's not actually showing to saving lives, couldn't that $1.5 billion be spent in a way where we could, you know. And so there's, you know, I mean, we just need to, I mean, it's possible that before a vaccine, we will have an effective treatment, by effective treatment, when we actually reduces the risk of death. We do not have that yet. We do have a decreasing number of – even though we have an increasing number of cases in the US, deaths have gone down and flattened. And largely that's because younger people are becoming affected now.

As soon as the kind of relaxation, social distancing, people getting in bars and younger populations are getting – so the cases are scouring. But mortality is still staying relatively low. And in large part, that's because younger populations are getting affected. What are some of the wrongheaded kind of ideas that you see percolating around? Like in the news cycle, you read, oh, you know, we should do this, we should do that. And you just think, why are, you know, this is not right. Like, all we need to do is this. Like, I'm trying to give people, you know, just some really tacit advice that can alleviate some of the confusion. I mean, look, in the nutrition space,

It alleviates some of the confusion. I mean, look, in the nutrition space, we know of just the crazy ideological frenzy by which people attached onto crazy ideas, right, and defend them at all costs and the confirmation bias. But I have never seen the kind of crazy that I've seen in response. So now I have a whole series of COVID-19 videos. I kind of switched the research team to be working on – so we have like a series of COVID-19 videos. I kind of switched the research team to be working on the – so we have like a series of 17 videos or something. And the response – now I put up a video saying broccoli is good. I get the trolls come out. I mean, you know, it does not take much.

But – It's at a whole new level now, my friend, because you hit a nerve with this. Right. So I am a China operative one moment and you know, whatever. Yeah. Yeah. The Bill Gates 5G, you know, Soros axis of, you know, Illuminati. And that, and I think a lot of that comes from just this terrible crisis communication at the highest level. I mean, yeah, I mean, you, I mean, the worst thing you do. Or a concerted effort to weaponize misinformation and create division because this is something that should not be politicized, and it's been unbelievably politicized.

To a level that I think surprises everybody. I mean, that's kind of a consistent message. So not much surprised the public health community, who the whole time could write just a big, carry a big, I told you so sign all day long, every day. But that's something that really has surprised. And look, there's always been scapegoating. So, you know, the so-called Spanish flu of 1918, the only reason they called it the Spanish flu, was because that was a neutral country. And so it was the only one that wasn't censoring the news.

And so everyone else, the U.S. was like, we don't have any flu. You know, and the Germans were, we don't have any flu. And the Germans were, we don't have any flu. So, I mean, they just got out. But, of course, in Spain they call it the French flu. And there's always scapegoating of Jews during horrible epidemics. There's always been this kind of nasty, something about crises like this that kind of bring out the worst in people as well as the best of people. But yeah,

but this, this is certainly at a level under, and so that just makes it even more important to get information from, you know, decent sources. And I think we have this, there's this like, well,

look, you do your research. I'll do my research kind of thing. Like, like, like as if like, what exactly is your research? Like you do your Google search. Says the guy in his mom's basement to the guy who spent his entire

life studying this. Exactly. Right. I mean, so this really shows the, you know, look, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm as opposed to, as anyone, this kind of, I told you so because I'm an authority. I mean, we've seen where that has gotten us in trouble, but we should, when someone says I'm an authority, you say, show me your sources. Like you weren't born with this information. How did you come across this? And, and argue to me why this really is the best. And any expert worth their salt should be able to say, this is how I arrived. Here's the data. Here's the science that shows that this is the right course of action. But I mean, that should be for whether you're talking about nutrition, whether you're talking, show me the data. Where did you get this from? Did you get

it from your tinfoil hat friend? Someone told you at the gym or some checkout on a magazine telling you this? Or did it actually have some basis? I mean, if there's any decision to be made based on science, based on the best available balance of evidence, it's something that affects the health and wellbeing of yourself and your family. I mean, that, I mean, that should have a different bar of evidence than an Amazon review for a new toaster. Like, I mean, that's like, in that case, opinions of total strangers could be useful for you. Oh, you liked it because, oh, okay, thank you, right? But we've gotten to this culture of just like, oh, random strangers have ideas that are useful to me and somehow translated that into – Well, yeah, we've arrived at this moment where for whatever reason we've developed this profound distrust of experts.

And that's highly problematic in terms of seeing our way forward as a society. Not just experts in science, but experts across the board and a wide variety of disciplines. In their defense, in the defense of that, is experts have done a terrible job. I mean, so the corporate world-

Well, this is a shit show. So we're giving people plenty of reason to distrust the experts. Right. And historically, I mean, it was the tobacco industry that weaponized, first weaponized science. And it is the tobacco industry textbook that has been used by every corporate entity from then on, whether you're talking about the sugar industry, whether you're talking, it's all about, they realize that policy is being made based on the science. And so you control the science, you control the math. And so there was the Tobacco Research Institute. They funded millions of dollars, paid off the AMA. And so when the AMA says smoking moderation is good for you on balance, not just neutral, but actually smoking is good for you,

most doctors smoked. So, and now we say, trust the experts, right? I mean, you understand why, wait a second, the experts were saying that Coca-Cola was good for me. And that's because of the corporate takeover over science, evidence-based medicine, et cetera, et cetera. And so there is good reason to be skeptical when these decisions are made where there's industry stakes by the billions. So something like, should we get mammograms? Okay, that should seem like a simple question of the science. When there's a billion-dollar industry, then you need to not just take the expert's word for it, but really dig into the signs, right? If it's a question where there really is no, you know, climate change,

when there's a billion dollar industry on one side of the issue, you always have to question until you see what the best available balance of evidence is. And so the industry, so you can see how that skepticism of big pharma completely based in, I mean, we've been screwed over by big pharma over and over. So, in fact, the Tamiflu fiasco. Who stands to benefit? In 2006, in my book on pandemic preparedness and Preppers way back then, I talked about the wonders of this drug Tamiflu. And now you should, you know, talk to your doctor about getting you a prescription of this drug because there were 11 randomized controlled trials that showed that it significantly decreased mortality and morbidity.

It saved lives from the flu. And so the science in the peer-reviewed literature was absolutely dead on clear. Roche, one of the biggest drug companies in the world, had, they of course funded them, all 11 studies, but that's what drug companies do. Kind of the only industry we put in charge of their own self-regulation. But I mean, but this wasn't some fly-by-night company. This was, you know, a company that's been around. Okay. And so then, so here I am writing the update, right? For how to survive a pandemic. So I'm looking at the Tamflu chapters. Oh, what's been happening in Tamflu lately, right? In 2009, with swine flu, a group of scientists, Cochrane Collaboration, kind of the gold standard evidence based medicine. Well, let's review what's happening in town flu because with swine flu,

there were – governments were making billions of dollars of purchases of this drug for their national stockpiles. And some pediatrician in Japan said – just said, oh, there's these 11 trials. Can we see the data, please? And went to Roche and said, let's see the data of the 11 trials. If you say there's 11 trials, they all show that reducing – and Roche refused to give them the data. It's like, whoa, wait a second. Now at the time, way back when it was still early and we just believed them. Okay. But now when they were making big purchases, okay. And they knew every moment they could delay

releasing the data, they could get billions more in sales every year. They released billions more in sales. And it took them years. And so it was only, I think, until 2014, until they finally were forced from national pressure, international pressures, the scientific community to release the data. And guess what? It showed the opposite. Zero benefit in terms of mortality. But they had made this calculus. They were going to bring in so many billions of dollars that they were going to just flat out lie to the governments of the world and say they had this pandemic, this drug that was going to save people from pandemic flu and just raked in billions. And they knew it was based on a total lie.

And it was this one little pediatrician who was like, can we just see the data? And that's what started it all. We finally know it was a sham. And it works like this little pediatrician who's like, can we just see the data? Just like, and that's what started it all. We finally know it was a sham. And it works like this remdesivir. It shortens the period, but it doesn't actually result in more in lives saved. And so now it's referred to as the Tamiflu flu fiasco. That was modern day, big pharma, pandemic drug, screwing the populace, screwing taxpayers,

screwing governments the world over. And so you say, I don't believe Big Pharma. I'm skeptical about vaccines. That's a legitimate place to be coming from. Right. We want the skepticism, but the skepticism shouldn't be, I'm not going to let Bill Gates, you know, whatever Bill Gates is doing. But it should be. It just makes it hard.

You don't know who to trust. I want to see the data. So you know, third party. You, Dr. Greger, are mired in the data. The average person is scrolling through their Twitter feed just trying to make sense of the world. Right. You mentioned Osterholm.

Yeah. Like who are the people that we can, you know, safely pay attention to and feel confident that we're getting the right message? Who are those people in science and who are those people in the media who are delivering this information? Like who is the measured person where we can turn on the television and not have to be, you know, cocking our head every time they say something and just have some level of confidence that we're getting the truth. Yeah. So there's actually been a number of journalists that have been really stellar when it comes

to this. And so Stat News is probably the source. So that's the source I go to. Stat News? So Stat News, S-T-A-T News, is kind of a medical news source that has prided itself on having really evidence-based balanced analysis. So they've probably done the best work, not saying everything they've put out is right on the message, but they've really done some of the best reporting to date. is right on the message. But they've really done some of the best reporting to date.

And in terms of scientific entities, SIDRAP, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health has a website, puts out some excellent information. And so in this way, you don't have to, even me, look, even I, so right now there are 800 articles And so in this way, you don't have to even look even. So right now there are 800 articles in the peer reviewed scientific literature coming out every day, 800 every day. And that's not talking about preprints, all the stuff in the pipeline just being published every day.

So even I can't stay on top of that. on this kind of collective group effort of let's all go through these 800 papers every day and really pick out what's going to be kind of changing in terms of practicality. What is this new information that's reliable? And that's where these important expert sources. And the CDC, despite some flubs early on with testing and despite the kind of wishy-washy mask recommendation, has put out some consistent good work as well. Is there anybody just in mainstream media? Like I feel like Sanjay Gupta has been pretty measured in how he's communicating around this.

I mean, who do you think is? Yeah, so I have not been following the mainstream, who's in the mainstream. You're just deep in the journals. Right, in the journals and in the scientists. And so, right, unfortunately now there are people with PhDs and MDs at the end of their name, and they think all of a sudden that they're infectious disease experts or, um you know aerosol um experts or you know occupational safety I mean there are people who spend their whole lives figuring out transmission of disease and just because you have an MD doesn't mean you're an expert in this at all and they just keep spouting nonsense about all sorts of things

and put out mathematical models that you know they're computer scientists um and they suggest that their modeling says do this as opposed to this, where they really don't have expertise in that particular area. So even just trust the experts. I mean, it's not just by credentials. What does that even mean? Right. But it's people, but there are career scientists that this is what they've done their entire lives, like Osterholm, and they've been through it all.

And there are a few that have this past record of not taking the easy road, and they've been through it all, right? And they've, and, you know, there are a few that have this past record of not taking the easy road, of not just going along with everyone. So for example, Osterholm is famous for coming out and questioning the efficacy of flu vaccines. And so until like 2011, they did this very influential landmark paper in the Lancet

saying that, you know, we tout the flu vaccine, but it's actually based on kind of crappy testing, such that if you actually use better testing, it really only works, you know, 30%, 50% of the time in terms of decreasing risk, 30%, 50%. Now, still in favor of flu vaccines. He gets it every year. But, you know, we need better flu vaccines.

We need to communicate to the public what the truth is and we need to do better. And we just keep convincing ourselves we're actually doing better than we are. You know, that was incredibly controversial at the time. And now it's just understood and it's kind of part of the thing. But, I mean, we can look back in history of those who are mavericks and really stuck to the science against the political winds

and you can always go to know they're not going to give you the comfortable message. They're not going to give you the message. They're not going to give you a message that they have more certainty that there really is. And they're going to say they don't know. That's always a good signal. That's a good, I don't know. I'm not an expert in this, but let me, you know, point you in the direction of an expert in this. Yeah. I mean, and this is the time, right? If there's any other issues, any less important, but this is the time we really need the best information.

And it's really, even for me, for us presumably, but I mean, we know the craziness on the internet, but it has reached a level. And it's a life and death issue. It is a whole new thing. Like, oh, I was with you, Dr. Greger, but now you are one of the lizard people who's going to, you know. Well, it's a function of this intersecting with a lot of other issues that's tapping into, you know, a repressed rage that's just underneath the surface. Like we've all seen the videos of people,

you know, losing it in Target or, you know, Trader Joe's on the whole mask thing and how the mask thing has been politicized. And it's concerning, you know, because this shouldn't be a political issue. We should all be on the same page in terms of how we're navigating this. This is the common interest of our society.

To be kind, right? I mean this is the time to just be extra kind and extra and to realize – I mean this should wake us up to the plight of our essential workers who have basically been the bottom of our society and ignored. And even now ignored. Are they getting hazard pay for being the ones that are disabling? Well, this is the bigger conversation about how we're structured. When we realize that our essential workers are these people who are getting paid less than everybody else to perform these things that are required to keep the gears of our society moving, we need to reform how we're treating these people. So this could be the, I mean, so we can use this as an example. This is the opportunity, although, yeah, but it's, yeah, it's bringing the best and worst. And I'm afraid at this point, the worst is overtaking. There were

some beautiful bests at the beginning, the clapping for the healthcare workers and all this- The singing. Oh, but now they end, yeah. There's a half-life on that stuff. But I remain optimistic and we're going to land this plane. I think, listen, get your sleep, eat your veggies, make sure you're getting enough vitamin D, B12, whatever it is. What else? What are the simple things? Like, wear your mask in public.

Wear your mask in public. Sign of respect, right? Because I am keeping you safe. That's what the mask says. I care about you. And if there's one thing we need right now in society is more messages, I care about my fellow human being. That's a good place to end it, I think.

I love you, my friend. Thank you so much. Come back anytime. I think we should do a check-in every six months or so. All right, I don't have to come out with a new book. Just, all right. Well, at the rate that you're cranking these books out, you're gonna be back here in the next month.

Yeah, yeah, that's right. The book is called How to Survive a Pandemic. It's out now in audio book and in e-book, right? Hardcover's coming out when,

in the fall? August 16th. Oh, no, August 16th. Okay, cool. Yeah.

Soon. Amazing, man. So, pick it up, Amazon. Oh, it's on your,

is it, you get it either Amazon or on your website? Amazon, any online retailer. Cool. Thank you. All right.

Peace. Blast. How'd you guys like that blast? Are you feeling okay? How is the noodle doing? That was a lot. Things are heavy right now. Please make sure you're taking good care of yourself

and those you love. I hope Dr. Greger's wisdom was helpful and will help guide you more effectively through all of this. And meanwhile, try to be nice out there. Kindness is key. Let Dr. Greger know how this one landed for you. You can find him on Instagram at MichaelGregorMD

and at nutrition underscore facts on Twitter. Check out his new book, How to Survive a Pandemic on Audible and Kindle. And of course, links to everything we discussed today can be found in the show notes on the episode page at richroll.com. If you'd like to support the work we do here on the show, subscribe, rate, and comment on it

on Apple Podcasts, on YouTube, and Spotify. Share the show or your favorite episode or this episode with friends or on social media. And you can support us on Patreon at richroll.com forward slash donate. I appreciate my team who works very hard to put the show on every week. Jason Camiolo for audio engineering, production,

show notes and interstitial music. Blake Curtis for videoing today's podcast. Jessica Miranda for graphics. DK for advertiser relationships and theme music by Tyler Pyatt, Trapper Pyatt, and Hari Mathis. Thanks for the love, you guys. See you back here next week

with another mind-blowing episode. I'm not gonna let the secret out, but it's a good one. Until then, be kind, be nice, peace, plants, namaste, wear a mask. Thanks for watching!