Thomas Seyfried R call

thomas seyfried audio Tue, Jun 23, 2026 4:23PM 49:08

Speaker 1 00:35 how are you? Speaker 2 00:36 I'm very well, thank you. That's very happy to see you, Marta and Charlotte. Hi,

Speaker 1 00:44 what happened? What Speaker 2 00:47 happened to Jemima? She just moved on to different things, but she's still working hard, so she left at January February time. Yeah, so yeah. Well, Speaker 1 01:01 anyway yeah, listen, I have my train ticket down there for Sunday. You guys don't wait a minute, let me get my calendar here. I just got in a big soccer game in the town today, and everything is kind of screwed up. The English are playing. Speaker 3 01:22 Yeah, yes. Speaker 1 01:25 Today in my town, I live in Foxboro, where the English are playing. Wow, Speaker 4 01:32 today Speaker 1 01:35 it's today at 4o'clock hour time. So I, well, I go home at exactly 4o'clock so I can avoid that. The English word, I don't think they're as bad as the Scots that were here. They drank all the beer in Boston, and they went wild and made the news, and then they, they opened up, they made us assist, this Boston is a sister city of some town in Scotland for their wonderful all their, all their beer consumption, they

Speaker 5 02:14 made you recent, recently they made us city, Speaker 1 02:17 yes, with Scotland, with I saw, I don't know if it's Edinburgh or some other place over there, but any event, yeah, the English are known to be heavy drinkers as well. Speaker 2 02:31 The Scottish are known to be worse. Speaker 1 02:36 Well, they certainly put that in evidence, and we've got these Norwegians row in Viking ships. Speaker 6 02:46 Sorry, I Speaker 1 02:48 read this. We're getting them all, we're getting all colors and sizes coming through the town, except the Libyans, and so it's people that they don't drink much, oh. Speaker 2 03:02 party animals, they're not party animals. Well, the main thing that we would love to just kind of talk to you today about is, you know, the show well, so we don't need to kind of briefly there, and your episode last time did so fantastically that you kind of, you're the perfect dream guest, but we just wanted to touch base with you, mainly about your new study. I also just really quickly wanted to check, are you doing any other media or press before Gary this year?

Speaker 1 03:31 No, Speaker 2 03:32 fam. Okay, we're very pleased to hear that. And then we'll probably release - we're aiming to release kind of within a week of recording, so I know you mentioned that the study was being released around the end of June. Speaker 1 03:47 Well, let me tell you, I gave you the contact for the other journal that we have, Frontiers in Science lead article on the chart that we developed for managing chronic diseases and cancer worldwide, is they want to make a big splash out of that. I guess keeps getting pushed back. I now, I thought it was like July, mid-July, so they're going to ask you to hold off, maybe a little bit. We Speaker 7 04:25 probably can't hold too long, Speaker 8 04:30 but I don't know if I've been past the contact. I passed it, Speaker 1 04:34 I passed it, I could pass it again. They asked me to reach out to you folks, just coordinate stuff. Speaker 2 04:40 Yeah, if you could send that to me, then that would be really helpful.

Speaker 1 04:45 Yeah, Speaker 2 04:46 find it. And then I'll get, I'll reach out to them directly, like logistics things. I think Marta and Charlotte would love to just really dig into your work around such. Yeah, Speaker 1 05:00 well, don't forget, I have another big.. we just published a major paper on childhood brain cancer, as well. Just came out last week. Speaker 4 05:08 Yeah, this is Speaker 1 05:08 the most important thing for managing children. Hydrate glioma is the number one killer of children worldwide, of all the cancers. Brain cancer in kids is the worst, and you know, we got a big grant from UK Childhood Cancer some years ago. You know, they got pissed off because they gave the money to an American, but we actually, we actually did more than they ever could possibly do in doing this. So they gave us 400 almost 500,000 US dollars to work on this project, and we published, and we just now published the big paper using ketogenic metabolic therapy for delivering drugs to tumors with minimal to no toxicity with high therapeutic efficacy. This is exactly what you need in the clinics, and that work was supported largely by a British childhood cancer found in so, and then when we wanted the renewal, they said, "Oh, no, no, we made a mistake in the first place, give it to the money, but because they want to keep it in country, they want, because you guys are raising money for this stuff, and you know why, give it to an American, but I got the job done, and they're still screwing around over there, not knowing what the hell's going on, so, so we can, we can actually drop, make little kids alive longer, I can talk about that, because that's really just came out in a big journal cell reports medicine, so now the other, the other big study is the one is the one we're talking about is the is the glucose ketone index as a biomarker for managing chronic diseases and cancer. So this is another big thing that's going to come out, which is now in in the work they want to, they have press releases and they have all this other stuff associated with that, so between these two papers, you know, we're making a major headway. The problem is the world system doesn't recognize, nor do they want to recognize, this information is threatening to an entire industry. What's holding, what's holding

Speaker 9 07:19 them back there? What's the main thing holding them back? Money, like it holds everything back, for crying out. Let me, you're talking about a $25 trillion industry here. Speaker 1 07:29 Yeah, this cancer, this cancer, and even bigger with the chronic diseases. I mean, you're making billions and billions, trillions of dollars, actually, and you're coming along with a therapy that can manage all this stuff without toxicity. Now it's not, and it requires some personal effort on the part of the patient. At least it's a clear strategy, so you know, and most people know that they just don't want to say it, you know. And then your own BBC came after Stephen and me to help with those assholes, you know, I always have respects for them until they.. I publish these papers like I'm pulling the shit out of my ass. I'm publishing these papers in peer- reviewed scientific journals, credible. And then they come and say stuff like, "Oh, you're giving this information, and I even.. I even gave them back the papers, yeah, and they didn't even read them. I don't know who they pull out of that woodwork that make these statements, but this is the this is what we're dealing with. Yeah, okay, Speaker 9 08:29 yeah. And all Speaker 1 08:30 Steven is doing is getting people fired up all over the world about this stuff. He listens to me, and then we have a.. you guys should also.. I have a couple of other people you might want to interview that are even more as much volatile as I am, in a different way, in a different way that bring together a worldwide recognition of what's going on with this whole industry. Speaker 2 08:55 Yeah,

Speaker 1 08:56 I will give you the names of these people. They have actually, you know, when I do all this work, you know, I'm not only working on preclinical. We have clinics all around the world that are putting our stuff to the test, and, and that's why we're getting pancreatic and brain cancer, and all these people. But we have some women that are stage four that were given death sentences, and they're doing really, really well. You might want to, might, if you went to, if you don't see a powerful, I can say all this, because I published the papers, but, but when you talk to the people that actually embrace the what we're doing, and seeing how they, their attitude about being alive when they should be dead, that's also quite powerful. So, you interview a few of those people, and all of a sudden you're going to say, holy crap, this stuff actually does work, and you can live a lot longer. Do you have any? This is a.. this is up to you guys. Speaker 9 09:46 Do you have any particular patient case studies that come to mind as being particularly powerful? Speaker 1 09:51 Yeah, we have.. I have our group.. we have funding from the Elizabeth Ann Weathers Register Festival. Nation and we have a clinic in Turkey that is keeping, keeping these people alive when they, you know, and Robin, you can interview Robin, and there's another woman, both I, one is from, is one from England, oh no, one is from Italy, and one is from the United States, both were stage four breast cancer, and both use metabolic therapy at emerged in blue clinic, and both are doing really, really well. So, you got those, and then you got the brain cancer group from Brave Priest that are getting really good results. So, we're getting good results, but you see, the problem is there, well, they're a couple of people here, a couple of people there, this cancer, that cancer. Nobody wants to touch, touch this whole thing for doing a large clinical trial. Number one, nobody wants to step forward and pay for it. Who wants to pay for something that could pull the plug on your revenue source? That's Speaker 2 11:00 number one, and number

Speaker 1 11:02 two, we don't have enough trade people that like our group here at Boston College. We know what to do and how to do it, because I'm working with MDs and PhDs. We're writing all the, we write the protocols for all this, so we know how to do it. But if you go to a big hospital in London or someplace, those people have no clue. Speaker 2 11:20 So, so that's where we are. Just to rewind slightly, specifically to your glucose index, P code index study, you sent the abstract through, but could you just run through the key findings of the study and the key steps that you take? Okay, well, it Speaker 1 11:39 turns out, it turns out in a nutshell that cancer and all major chronic diseases are problems of the mitochondria within the cell. Okay, so and you know people have always been looking at everything else other than the mitochondria, so when you recognize that dementia, Alzheimer's disease, type two diabetes, coronary artery disease, and cancer, and some others. Some of these neuropsychiatric problems as well. They all have different, different types of mitochondrial problems. Many, many of the.. when you have mitochondrial damage, you can actually cells will die, like in the brain, so you lose neurons or the heart, or these others. But in cancer, you transform the cell into a rapidly growing, dysregulated cell. So, but all of them, in one way or another, link to mitochondrial dysfunction. So, here's the situation: a low glucose ketone index lowers blood sugar and elevates ketones, which is a super fuel, keeping mitochondria super healthy, reducing reactive oxygen species and preventing chronic disease and cancer, we developed a color-coded bioenergetic chart of mitochondrial health, so people now can link their blood glucose ketone index to a color-coded chart and knowing where they are with respect to their mitochondrial health. Now, of course, when you get cancer, whatever kind of cancer is all the same kind of a disease, they have mitochondrial dysfunction fueled by fermentation, glucose and glutamine fermentation. You lower that patient down into what we call the green zone. Okay, the green zone is where you're having that you can hammer the hell out of these tumor cells and manage these these conditions, but it ain't a cakewalk, and people always say, "Oh, wow, I can't wait to try it, let me see if I can get into the green zone. You're going to find out how tough it is getting into the green zone. This is why it falls on the shoulders of the individual, and once the individual can get down into these zones, then we bring in drugs and procedures to knock the crap out of these tumor cells in an untoxic way. Speaker 9 13:49 And how do you recommend patients get into the green zone, or does it, does it depend on the patient and what they're going through?

Speaker 1 13:57 Yes, absolutely. So the problem what I have is that when they call, when they cut, like a phone calls and emails, hundreds, 1000s of them, that they're already beat the crap from the, from the, they're already poisoned, irradiated, they're all, they're already near death, sometimes, and even in hospice, and they're asking me to save their lives now, and the answer is, when we get them up front, when they're first diagnosed. Oh my god, the results were spectacular. But then we're not getting rid of radiation and chemo or this other stuff, we're just using it as an end game. After the tumor is shrunken and small, the patient feels really good. You come in with a low dose chemo, kind of radiation or a new therapy or something, and you follow through with any survivors and move the patient forward. Everything is dance backwards in the whole entire cancer industry, whether it's the UK, anywhere in the world, they're doing everything in the wrong, the wrong order. So, what we do is we bring these patients, and we have, we have skilled people who know how to move them from a state of health ill. Health to state of health wellness. Let's put it this way, and then we debride the tumor slowly, and we monitor it. Now we have a quantitative monitor with the GKI, and then when the GKI stabilizes at a particular zone, then we know how to come in with the with the therapies to polish off the tumor. This is pretty. Don't forget, in the past the patient had no control over anything that was given to them. They would just sit there and be subjected to whatever toxic therapy, and they never questioned, never asked. They assumed that the people treating them had a clear understanding of the problem. They have no clue with it. They have no clue, they understand that's why we have so many people dying and poison and radiant, all this kind of horrible stuff. So now you're putting the power back into the patient, working with a knowledgeable caregiver to keep people alive, and you know we didn't want to wait. Chronic disease is bad, but it doesn't have the same dire impact on the soul as does a cancer diagnosis. You know, when you get a cancer diagnosis, you stage four breast cancer, brain cancer, colon, pancreatic. I mean, you already, you're already fearful of the treatments, you're fearful of dying within a relatively short period of time, maybe a year or two. We can extend these life, we can, we can. And then, of course, our great guy, Pablo Kelly, he passed away. Englishman from Devon, Devon, England, kept him 10 years with a glioblastoma. You, you know, you guys don't know about Pablo hero over there. Speaker 3 16:34 Wow,

Speaker 1 16:35 he was.. you guys got to know Pam O'Kelly was. He was from Devon, England. You know where that is? Yeah, yeah. so anyway, Pablo was a hard drinking, drug using guy who got his glioblastoma. Cathy contacted me in 2014 He wanted no radiation chemo. He's a very funny guy. When he was telling us, he had that dry British Uber, you know, he was, I mean, they drank his ass into the, they were going to put a, put his brain in his brain, and everything. You fought them off. Oh yeah, and he got to listen. He got married, had two children in the 10 years we kept him. He was given six months to live, and we kept them alive. 10 years, so we published this. We published the paper. It makes that like we don't, we have all the scientific evidence, why he's alive, why he was, he died from a, the fourth, the bulking surgery of a brain bleed, he never died from the tumor, he died from a brain bleed, anyway, he has a website, he was on the websites before he passed away, I don't know if it's still open or not, but he was telling everybody in the world what you know, what he did or what he didn't do to stay alive, and just avoided the standard of care, basically. So we have him, and we've got a bunch of others that are all coming through with this, and and it's going to change the whole thing. I mean, we have no, but the resistance of the system is just astonishing, that's the problem. Speaker 2 18:04 So, in a like ideal world, how? So, if you could, this is a tricky question, but if you could kind of redesign society to gear itself better to deal with cancer, what would the steps that you take be?

Speaker 1 18:17 Well, first of all, you have to have science, some level of scientific literacy. There's no question about that. The world is mostly scientifically illiterate. Let's be honest, I don't care what country you live in. These poor folks, when it comes to cancer and things like that, they really have no clue. They just rely on the things, so you know, once you understand the intricacy of the biology and biochemistry of the disease, you really know what to do and how to do it. That's why we wrote these very comprehensive treatment protocols. We published the papers on what, how it starts, how it progresses, what you need to do to manage it, because we understand the science. The problem is this understanding is not part of the training of oncologists anywhere in the world, they don't receive this training, they receive how to treat people with toxic poisons to the point where they don't kill the patient. It's not based on our clear understanding of what the nature of the problem is. So, when you have, when you have these hospitals, and they're always very distinguished hospitals, I don't care if they're in London or New York or anywhere, they all talk the same talk, they all do the same thing, and they all get dead patients, mostly. And if the people do survive, they're brutalized, they have all kinds of collateral damage, they end up dying shorter from some of the collateral problems from the treatments. We can eliminate most of that, the problem, the biggest problem, though, is when people realize what it involves, they get defensive, and this is part of history, whenever you have a paradigm shift of this magnitude, there's always a resistance to the. Kinds of usually huge resistance. Are you kidding me? So we knew that we're making this paradigm change with this resistance. Speaker 9 20:07 I know you've mentioned the use of anti-parasitic drugs before as part of the process. Is there resistance against that too?

Speaker 1 20:16 Yeah, well, the parasite, we, you know, I have papers. When you're a biologist, you know how to read biological information, and it turns out the parasites and the cancer cells use a common metabolic pathway to stay alive. So I said, and people knew that some of these parasite medications work really well against cancer. The problem is nobody knew the mechanism, how these, why these parasite drugs work against cancer, and we showed that the cancer and the parasites use a common pathway within the mitochondria itself. It's a fermentation mechanism inside the mitochondria that these organelles that produce most of their energy through oxidative phosphorylation can also ferment, and this is like a blockbuster thing. And when you're going to talk to people about it, they have no clue what you're talking about. They don't even understand what mitochondrial fermentation actually means, but the parasites been doing that for beyond hundreds of millions of years. The parasites are doing this, so but that's only one part. You see, when you put the patient into a state of nutritional ketosis using a GKR in the green zone, then you come in with the parasite medications, and some of these other treatments, and together it's a synergistic blast of the ability of these tumor cells to survive, and they can't handle it. So you take very aggressive cancer, and you make an indolent, and then you come in later on with small doses of chemo, low dose, not enough to lose hair or have these traumatic collateral damage, and then you may move the patient through, so, so we use parasite medications like embed is all benzoysol. I haven't checked ivermectin yet, because I didn't do the experiments, but I know a lot of people talking about that. I just don't speak about that, because I don't really talk about stuff that I've done, the research next door in my lab, right here. There's a bunch of people out there right now doing all these research that I'm speaking about. So, I don't talk about stuff unless I've got the data to support it. Speaker 9 22:11 Yeah. And other specific foods that you recommend to get into nutritional ketosis, or is it too complicated to answer that?

Speaker 1 22:18 Well, it's hard, it's individual. What you guys might use might be something very different than what somebody in Africa might use. You know, it's whatever their whatever diet is balanced in micro and macronutrients that can bring you into a low glucose detail index with the finger prick. Now, the finger prick is another thing that a lot of people don't like to do a lot of diabetics, for example, have to take a drop of blood from the tip of their finger and know what their blood sugar levels are, so they either too high bring them down or too low bring them up, and but don't forget we use that same drop of blood to get the glucose, but at the same time the keto mojo, this this thing here, you can get the ketone now. The ketone beta hydroxybutyrate is the super fuel, so when blood sugar goes down, you have to replace that with another fuel, which is ketone bodies, and they come up and they make the rest of your cells in the body super, super healthy, so you're, you're making them resistance, they're very energetic, energy efficiency at the max, and we have the bioenergetic support for that. So actually, we have another paper that was just accepted in a big journal describing the bioenergetics of open, but this is going to go up in the head of just about everybody, but that's okay, you know, we have the science to support everything that I'm saying. Yeah, publish the top journals. So I was Speaker 2 23:55 just gonna say one thing, just to note that Steve will do throughout the interview is even though he's spoken to you before, he'll be going into it, but the attitude of, like, someone hasn't yet watched your videos or something, or anything like that. So he'll ask you questions at the start, just to kind of prompt you to sell yourself in the best way possible, like he did last time, but then he'll ask a question, like why should someone in my hypothesis, I like why she's just what, who's just tuned in, listen for two hours, and like, why you're the most credible person to speak to this, even though he knows it, so he'll do to define everything again, even though you've done it already before the show. Speaker 1 24:36 Oh, yeah, listen, you guys screwed up last time with the fact fact check thing, so you got the wrong date. I gave you the brand new date from American Cancer Society. You gave me an old date, and you said, "Oh, I'll fabricate how many dead people. Somebody, somebody put that in one of the comments. So, okay, make sure that with 2026 you get the 2026 data from the American. In Cancer Society, yeah, Speaker 2 25:01 we will,

Speaker 1 25:02 yeah, and you find out it's a big jump from 2025 to 2026 Speaker 2 25:07 Again, we will definitely make sure that, Speaker 1 25:09 yeah, so I reached out to some of you guys, they said, "Hey, make sure your facts are right. Speaker 10 25:19 Sorry, Marta jumped in there. Speaker 9 25:21 No, and I was actually going to ask you this, potentially as a dumb question, but why aren't more people using a glut of glucose ketone in an index? Speaker 1 25:30 Well, I don't think they know about it. I think it's one of these things. Don't forget the paper is not out yet. The big, that's why we're that's why they're planning this huge publicity campaign for the paper, which is the first. It's actually the title is the glucose key that index a biomarker for managing chronic diseases and cancer. So the world has not yet heard about it. So that's why me giving a little, and the other thing too. You guys, you gave me the, you gave the wrong book on your, on your Stephen State. You gave a bullshit book that I didn't write. This is the book I wrote. Make sure you understand that, okay? The one you guys used in your pre- weblisted people, you know, people are taking what I'm telling you, synthesizing it, using AI to write these, these books with my name on it, saying I wrote the book, and I did not write the book. Okay, okay. So, make sure I'll bring this book. Make sure he knows this is your.. I wrote this. This is very comprehensive. It's all based on hard evidence. Those other books that people have put my name on, so you can't believe they take my face and they put different words in my mouth, pushing, pushing bullshit. Do you know Dr. Robert Lustig? Yeah, I know him. Yeah, he was saying exactly the things we're happening to him for blows as well, but they're like companies are basically just making false

Speaker 3 26:59 sales advertising. Well, they usually hold my Speaker 1 27:01 face and image, and then have me with not my own voice, some other voice coming up, selling something. You know, it's really sad, but that's okay. I realize this is happening worldwide now with the AI generations and all this kind of stuff, but the issue, of course, is on your program I can just, you know, get the anticipation for the full publication, and I don't know if I can show the chart. I've got to check with the journal. I prefer to do it, because I don't, you know, me, I don't really care about anything, but if you want to see this beautiful chart, let me show you the chart. This is the chart of your health, that what's going to happen. I don't know if you can see, so this is a chart for where the heat, where your GKI falls. So here's your, here's your glucose ketone index here, and people measure that with their blood, and then they immediately know what zone they're in. Wow, these zones are supported by bioenergetics of knowing the metabolism of ketone bodies. So, actually, you're looking at the at the bioenergetics of your own body. So now listen. Most Americans are living in the red zone. Okay, this is zoned for risk for cancer, diabetes, all these chronic diseases in the red zone. I think the English are living in that zone too. Maybe the Speaker 9 28:35 statistics on chronic disease are absolutely crazy. Yeah, Speaker 1 28:40 so what now? Don't forget our Paleolithic ancestors. They were living in the yellow and mostly in the yellow zone, so which is the zone of that's why our ancestors never had these chronic diseases. They died from infections and injuries, they weren't dying from cardiovascular disease and cancer and dementia and all this stuff that they never could get into the zones to put them at risk for those kinds of, they didn't have antibiotics or orthopedic surgeons, so you're going to be really suffering if you have these kinds of things, but they're not now, don't forget, I'll tell, I always say that they were living in those zones by circumstance, not by choice, if you gave these Neanderthal people, you know, the stuff that we, they kill each other for this stuff. I mean, let's be honest, you know, cream pies and all this kind of stuff. They Speaker 11 29:31 wouldn't want to stay in the green zone very long.

Speaker 12 29:35 Let's be Speaker 9 29:37 honest. No, it's all fascinating. I think we also wanted to touch on your 2025 paper, the Warburg hypothesis. I might have pronounced that wrong. Speaker 1 29:46 Yeah, that tells us, that tells the world what we know, that tells us in no uncertain terms what we know, and Warburg was, of course, the first guy to do this on. The second one, but Warburg, I filled in the gaps where he was, and it wasn't because he just didn't have the research that we have. He also made some mistakes that I corrected, so, but you know, and people misinterpret Warburg all the time. I'm writing a big paper right now. The Warburg effect is not the Warburg hypothesis, so people, the whole field is screwed up. They don't, I tell you, they don't read the scientific literature. You think all these swell guys at these top hospitals, they're not reading the scientific literature. They do what people tell them to do. They're like robots, and they have big names and big salaries and big cars and houses, but they're like robots. They don't read it or understand the scientific literature. It's scary. It's scary, you know. So, so, yeah. I wrote that paper, and this new big one that's going to be coming out on this on the substrate levels, us correlations. We jammed it down their throat, young ladies. We take in the science and we jam it down their throat. I let them choke on it, right? It's going to come out. It's definitely going to come out. Are they going to want to read our papers? Don't forget, our papers get tremendous views, massive numbers of views. So, people are reading it, but they don't want to talk about it, because it's too controversial. Speaker 9 31:14 Yeah, and this also might be a dumb question, but obviously in that paper you talk about glutamine and its role in the fermentation process. Are there any natural ways I know you can't do it through diet to reduce glutamine levels in the body?

Speaker 1 31:28 Yeah, not really, because the level of glutamine is so far above what the cancer cells need. Don't forget that's a life-saving metabolite itself. When you have a heart attack, and you, you, you have no oxygen, the glutamine is fermented in the mitochondria, as long, and that's the reason why you stay alive. So, so you know we're targeting glutamine with that, with, with parasite medication. Yeah, and so, but for a cancer patient, that's that's what we need to do, and don't forget we're going to open up a whole new field of glutamine targeting drugs that will be coming out once people realize what we're talking about, so it's not all there yet. We have the framework, and we have the concepts, and we have the protocols, but there's no major approach anywhere on the planet with incorporating this as a, as, as the new strategy for managing cancer, only because of the, of the institutional inertia that's already in place for all the major, major societies, and I, when I go around the world, and I talk to people in Japan and China, England, Germany, India, Africa. They all do the exact same treatment protocol. It's like they're all brainwashed into doing this one standardized treatment, and they can't seem to think outside the box. And then when you tell them that, they get really upset and angry. And then, when you tell people, the people come in and tell them, ask the people, why are you not doing metabolic therapy? They get angry and throw them out of the office. So, it's, it's really, and if the people come out and say I'm wrong, show me the evidence where I'm wrong. Nobody, they just said, "Oh, he's he doesn't know this, and that I said, "The evidence, I'll be happy to look at it. Speaker 2 33:27 Is there anything that we can add to the interview our side to proactively prevent people saying things like that? Speaker 1 33:36 No, I don't think you're going to be, you're as Stephen is under attack too. I mean, you saw what they did there, I mean, because of what I say or what others say. Speaker 2 33:44 Does it help if we does it help if we reference, like, pro?

Speaker 1 33:50 I know, I tell you what, there's a guy, Casey Padlet, from Miami. Casey was kind of a skeptic, an MD about my stuff, and he went on that he did a YouTube, I could send it to you, where he, where he looked at what people were saying against me, and then he pulled up the papers that we wrote, and he re-evaluated their data. This was a science. This is a really interesting scientific discussion. He pulled up their papers from their publications and showed how what they said, their own data did not even support what they said. Speaker 2 34:28 Yeah,

Speaker 1 34:30 and he took my words and our data, and then showed that our data were done correctly with the right controls, where the people that were arguing against ourselves. This is really getting into the butt of the science. I can tell you right now, most people on the street would have no clue what he was doing, but he was actually validating what our papers were showing, and showing how other people publishing in top journals like Science and Nature were actually making mistakes. Us on the data that they were collecting, so very few people would go to that depth, and he, I'll send you the link to his to his YouTube, so you can see how he methodically went through attacks against our research based on others' research that actually was done incorrectly, so, so, so, this is, we're at, we're at a depth that only a few people on the planet can really understand, and don't forget our collaborators are all leaders of the field. We're actually doing the research ourselves, and we're collaborating with people that are leaders in the field that work in this area. The problem, people say, "Well, how come you're not getting the attention, because everybody thinks cash is a genetic disease, and they're coming on, and the television advertisements - you guys have no clue what's going on in the United States. How they blast and tell everybody every night on the evening news about how wonderful cancer research is, and how many cures they have, and all this bullshit. We never, we never use the term cure ever, so we only say management, successful non-toxic management. We never say we can cure cancer or chronic disease. We just say we have a strategy for managing these diseases without toxicity, and you can live a lot longer with a higher quality of life. And that's a more powerful statement to say we have a cure. Nobody knows, God can't cure cancer, for Christ's sake. And you're going to come around, so you're going to cure cancer. No, no, no, no. We have to be very cautious on how we use certain terminologies, so we don't want people to say Sebring says he can cure no, no, no, no. I never said that. So, and they also blew that thing out to Steven about glucose causing cancer or mutagens or something, that's all bullshit too. I never said that. So, we, we know, we know how to, how to, how someone were to give me a really good piece of evidence that I have not seen or understood, that would be really phenomenal, because I have seen almost everything, and we call that a blind side. If you're hit with a piece of evidence, strong evidence that goes against what you're saying, and you have not thought about that, or you did not understand that. That's called a blind side. You hit with something you didn't know about, somebody else knew. We have not yet been blindsided. Okay, so because we think about that's all we do, young ladies, we think about this shit all the time. I live, eat, and sleep, drink this stuff, right? Speaker 2 37:19 You can could say, you say you've never been blindsided by anything on this.

Speaker 1 37:26 I have not been blindsided by anything yet. Okay, something that comes along and says that challenges, because that's what Casey Powell was doing with things that were blindside, and then he found out that the experiments were not done correctly. That's another thing they say. Oh, yeah, cancers can use ketone bodies and fatty acids, and he's wrong. Seems like he's wrong. Oh, yeah. Well, why don't you? Well, look at Steve. Oh, you always have glucose and glutamine in the media, and the other two. So, when you give fatty acids, it makes the glucose and glutamine used even more by the tumor cell. So, so you can't grow tumor cells and fatty acids without glucose and glutamine. Yeah, so, so you won't couple the mitochondria with fatty acids, forcing them into a greater fermentation metabolism, making the naive person think that fatty acids are dysregulated growth. So, so, yeah, we thought about all this, and we even went down, we can actually show we, and most of this stuff was done by really world leaders, they just haven't been able to interpret their data accurately, or in a bigger global context. So, I fall back on what super, super guys have done. People have really done careful research, they just haven't been able to connect the dots like we have. And then we test them, and we work with them. When you, when you want to know if you know what you're talking about, like these women and these pancreatic cancer, brain cancer patients that are living far longer than they should. That means you know what the hell you're talking about. You wouldn't get these results if you didn't know what you were talking about. Speaker 9 38:50 Yeah, Speaker 1 38:50 so that's why we know we're pretty right. We're pretty correct about this. Speaker 9 38:56 Yeah, I mean it's, it's fascinating. It's so, so interesting. And when you obviously connected the dots on a lot of things through your studies, but is there anything still that you're kind of keen or excited to work on and figure out, or that you're still working on?

Speaker 1 39:13 Well, we're still working on some of the molecular mechanisms by which ketones work in a bioenergetic sense, but I think the more important issue is discovering new drugs that can target glutamine, and you know, whenever, and this is another terrible thing of the immorality of the field, when they have a drug, they use the drug as a singular agent and treat the people with or without the drug, and get some results, but cancer, you have to use more, you have to use a diet and combinations of drugs to really get the right results, and the insufficients will not do that, so you're locked into a stand, you're locked into it, what they call treatment protocols that are based on what. Pharmaceutical companies think should be done, and that's not the way to do it. You have drugs and diets that work together synergistically to target the two fuels, so they will target a glucose pathway by itself with no ketones, they'll target a glutamine pathway by itself with no targeted glucose or elevated ketones. They never do with the full package, and the full package is getting yourself into a low GKI, and then coming along with the simultaneous targeting of glucose and gluten, while you're in nutritional ketosis, and that's one thing that pharmaceutical companies will not and have not done, nor will they ever want to do that, because what happens then it changes the whole way the whole health field has to be, Speaker 9 40:41 do are you hopeful that they maybe one day would want to do that, or is it just a Speaker 1 40:46 well, that's where entrepreneurial, that the new entrepreneurs will have to be emerging from this, from the dust, because everybody wants to make a buck, you know, our, as long as we can get money for our research is all we care about, you know. We're not.. I'm not interested personally in making $100 million or any of this kind of stuff. The goal, the goal is just to save lives, and that's reward enough as it is. But, but we have other people that will.. new industries will branch out from from this, and we're not getting rid of all of the standards of care anyway, we're just using them in a different way. We're coming in with them as a final and end game approach rather than a frontal assault, so, so, so, the system will gradually drift into the new realization that this is a metabolic problem, and that both chronic diseases and cancer can be managed effectively, is done correct. So, you need re-education of the physicians, you need to refocus on the really important issues. So, so that's what the outcome will be. How long it will take, I have, I don't know, because the system is digging their heels in, and they want to protect themselves and their institutions, you know. You have a lot of famous people who got Nobel prizes and all kinds of things for an incorrect theory, and they're not going to roll over and play dead anytime soon. Say, oh, my bad, I'm sorry I made this terrible mistake. Speaker 9 42:19 Yeah, well, wasn't Walberg nominated and never got one at a Nobel Prize.

Speaker 1 42:23 Oh, no, no, Warburg got it. He actually made a discovery of cytochrome c oxidase as the respiratory enzyme, and he, in 1931 he received that. And then, of course, Hitler prevented him from getting Nobel prizes for his work on cancer, and it was a fascinating, a fascinating guy. I mean, they didn't guess him because he was half Jewish. There's a Michelin name for half Jewish. The Germans had a name for this, and they wanted to gas Warburg with everybody else, but Hitler knew that that Warburg, because if anyone's going to manage cancer on the planet, and who's going to be out at Warburg, Hitler knew that. So he made sure that no one, no one would be killing Hitler for his being half Jew, and, and you know, even that idiot Himmler, if you know these Nazi guys from the Nazi, remember this guy Himmler, he, he was surprised, he couldn't understand why cancer was so low in the concentration camps against and so high in the German population. Well, you can't get cancer if you have star goals. He wasn't able to put the glucose, you need glucose to drive the tumor. If your glucose is like minimal, that cancer cell ain't going to grow. So it was said at the end of the war, he said we should have to do a big, a big analysis. Why the, why the folks in the concentration camps, cancer is not existent. Well, we figured that out. We don't know. Speaker 9 43:55 I'm, I'm conscious of your time. I don't want to overrun, but I was just wondering if I could ask one more question, if possible, about AI and cancer, and just like the increasing role of AI in cancer, and what your thoughts are on that.

Speaker 1 44:10 Well, I think I think we can use AI as a tool to better understand. I use it all the time, you know. I ask the questions about certain biochemical processes, and it will flare up a whole bunch of research articles. In other words, the library comes directly to you through AI. The only thing that we know when you're really on top of it is AI correct or not. And sometimes you have to ask a series of the question in different ways to see whether AI comes back at you with a consistent correct answer, knowing the scientific literature, and they stumble over themselves, because if you ask AI, is cancer a genetic disease, they'll say, "Oh, yes, cancer is a genetic disease, and then if you ask it, "Is cancer a mitochondrial metabolic disease? Oh, yes. Cancer is a mitochondria metabolic. Well, it can't be both. So, so, and then you have to figure out why, but you know when you start looking at it, the new, the new movement is called cancer is a, is a mitochondrial metabolic disease, and the new theory that of that starts here at Boston College, which is really just a stepping stone from what Otto worker originally did. So our lab here at BC is the is the focal point of the paradigm change, and we publish our paper in big top journals. It just takes a long time in the sciences for people to accept the new reality, and this is I give my lectures when I go back to the geocentric, heliocentric theory of the organization of the solar system, and how the Catholic Church was vehemently against that, and then we talk about the, you know, the germ theory, Louis Pasteur, and how the French aristocracy were extremely against that, and then we talked about the Darwin Wallace theory of evolution, and there's still people don't care, except that's the basis for understanding all what I'm talking about, so these theories that are massively changing are not ever, ever accepted with open arms. There's a tremendous institutional resistance, societal resistance to these kinds of changes. The thing we have going for us with cancer is that people want to live, and you have, and you're not - these are not just esoteric academic questions. This is a life and death issue, and therefore you have the people behind you, whereas the institutions are now being under attack. So, how long will that take? And that's why people like Steve and Barth and I do with these other.. I did a Russian one not long ago, a few weeks ago, they want to translate all our stuff into some soap to Russian language, so, but anyway, I've got these podcasts doing all the time, and people are starting to hear about it. People are starting to realize this is something that's real, actionable, and I want, and they want to know about, I want to, they have to be scientifically literate. They need to have some level of scientific literacy, and this is a power to the people. Once you understand the concepts, I try to bring it down so the guy on the street can understand it. If you want me to go to the depths of bioenergetics, I can do that as well, but I know very few people are going to really understand that. So, why talk about stuff that you saw, the comments, many of the comments on the previous one I did with him. A lot of people did understand what I was talking about. A lot of people said it was too long, you know. They had these, you know, yeah, every everybody today, your age group, everything, everything wants like within five minutes. I got have all the take-home message that can't, that can't happen in big issues like this, Speaker 9 48:02 yeah, yeah, no, but it was definitely broken down clearly, the sanitation process and everything, so yeah, it's really interesting. Thank you, thank you very much. That was really, really helpful. I think we've covered a lot, a lot of your studies as well, which will be, yeah, yeah, very excited.

Speaker 1 48:22 So, listen, I'm going to be down Sunday evening, and then I stay overnight. I haven't made a hotel thing. Where is this interview? Is it in Manhattan? Speaker 2 48:34 It's in Manhattan this time. Speaker 1 48:36 Oh, I didn't have to go to that Brooklyn place, New York, and I said, 'Okay, I got to New York, and all of a sudden I were carted off to some warehouse in Brooklyn. I didn't see you, I just saw Jemima there. Speaker 13 48:55 Yeah, and unfortunately I'm not able to go this time either, but Marta is going. I will be Speaker 1 49:01 there. Yeah, Speaker 9 49:02 I will be there.