Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
Summary
Core Theme
This content is a highly critical and opinionated rebuttal to a video that questions the healthiness of meat consumption. The speaker argues that mainstream nutritional science, particularly regarding meat, is flawed, based on weak associations rather than rigorous scientific experiments, and potentially driven by bias or external influence.
Hello guys. I'm in a hotel and I'm not
feeling too well at all. Actually, not
at all. I've been drinking this sugar
water with electrolytes.
I've been drinking pasteurized milk
Yes. Yes. That's what I've been doing.
And I'm here for a wedding.
Yes. Okay. Okay. Enough. Enough yapping
and depression. Um, let's get into this
video. Uh, today we're looking at Is
meat bad for you? And that's I just was
letting you guys know that's why the
setup is like dog [ __ ] and such. Uh,
today we're looking at is meat bad for
you? Is meat unhealthy? Kurtskazok. Um,
let's do it.
>> When our vegetarian ancestors started
eating meat around 2 million years ago,
it wasn't just
>> from what we know, more like 4.5 million actually.
actually.
>> Because animals taste great. It was pure
necessity. Climate change made many of
the plants our ancestors relied on less
available and meat bridged that gap.
>> I'm glad um the narrator here was alive
2 million years ago to make those
statements. This climate change made
this happen.
It's like a lot of confidence
considering there's no proof that
actually happened. That's a theory,
complete theory. But yes,
>> from the discovery of fire at the
latest, meat became a staple of the
human diet. But over
dairy, meat. A burger is very plant-based.
plant-based.
>> The last few years, eating meat has
increasingly been associated with health
risks like heart disease, certain
cancers, and an early death.
>> Let's let's listen to that again.
But over the last few years, eating meat
has increasingly been associated with
health risks like heart disease, certain
cancers, and an early death.
>> Associated with Okay, so
and and
ice cream sales are heavily associated
with sunburn. Like, it's so associated.
It's insane. Really, I think the ice
cream sales are causing the sunburn.
the size of uh your shoe size is is
heavily associated with how well you can
read, your reading ability. Maybe we
should just start genetically modifying
humans to have larger feet and then
they'll all be better at reading. Oh,
wait. It's an association. And I think
you guys get why that's associated obviously.
obviously.
Okay. None of these associations can
inform on risk because they're not cause
and effect scientific experiments. their
associations and they're also
fabricated after they're collected with
I mean what else is there to say? So false.
false.
>> So how unhealthy is meat really?
>> How unhealthy is meat? That's an insane
disposition implying that meat is
unhealthy to any extent. It should be
how healthy is meat. Wow. This video is
off to a bad start. Wow.
It's great. And I'm sitting in my little
shitty hotel and now I'm just going to
get rage baited by this video. Great.
Good. My life is really good.
>> In this video, we'll only talk about
meat. Dairy products deserve a video of
their own. >> H
>> H
>> biologically, we need
>> I'm glad you had to mention that even
though the title was clearly about meat.
That was extremely necessary. Good
>> to eat for three reasons. For energy, to
acquire materials.
>> I like how the person's looking at the
broccoli like they don't want to eat it.
I wonder why.
>> To fabricate ourselves and to get
special molecules that our bodies can't
make themselves. >> True.
>> True.
>> The energy and most of the materials
come from the three macronutrients,
fats, carbohydrates, and protein.
>> Sorry, you can't call carbohydrates a
macronutrient because they're not
essential and they're not required and
they're not even nutritious. They're
actually harmful uh in almost every context.
context.
So, no, there's only two macronutrients.
Proteins are the most important resource
for repairing and replenishing our cells
structures. The special molecules are a
large variety of vitamins and minerals
we need to drive metabolic processes.
Meat provides us with most of these
things or
>> it contains all essential amino acids
our body needs and a lot of minerals
like iron, zinc and essential vitamins
some of which are barely found in plants
like vitamin B12. You can just say some
of which are not found in plants like
vitamin A, D3, K2
unless you ferment them, but that's not
the plant itself having them. That's the bacteria.
bacteria.
Uh the active form of B6, B12, creatine,
carnotine, torine. None of those things
are found in plants. There's many many
things around 16 identified compounds
that are either essential or beneficial
are only found in animal products, not
any plants. And every single nutrient
you need is in meat and the and the fat.
Only one essential nutrient is missing
in most of the meat we consume. Vitamin C.
C.
>> False. It's in all meat.
>> It appears in almost all plants and
supports our immune system as well as
the development of connective tissues. After
After
>> connective tissues, hydrayzeed protein,
collagen. If only meat had hydrayzeed
protein and collagen and some vitamin C.
Oh, wait. It does. Yes, you don't need
plants for that. for a few months
without it, you'd get scurvy.
>> This is really hilarious. If you
actually look into the history of
scurvy, they actually would get scur
pirates would get scurvy when they ran
out of meat and they started eating the
cornbread and the cornmeal that they
brought. Uh even the dried meats would
typically even cure scurvy. The Mongols
used to use horse meat to cure scurvy.
Even dried horse meat, of course, it
wasn't cooked, but it was just dried. Okay.
Yeah, that there it is. You have
carnivores. You have the Inuit the Inuit
people. They didn't eat anything but
meat. They didn't have scurvy. You have
people who have been on the carnivore
diet for, you know, there's people case
studies of 40 years. They don't have
scurvy. Scurvy develops in a few weeks.
I've myself had periods of only eating
meat for months. Where was my scurvy? My
skin actually looked the best it ever
had. You have this glow. You can get
this glow. M
>> but meat has another big advantage. Its
high bioavailability.
Some of the nutrients in meat are broken
down faster and available quicker than
those from plants. Spinach, for example,
contains more iron than meat, but it's
absorbed much slower and the body needs more.
more.
>> It's not hem iron, which is only in meat.
meat.
>> Energy to digest it. Several health benefit.
benefit.
>> Also, spinach is full of oxalates, which
are these little they form these little
crystals in your body. They can build up
in your eyes, your brain, your thyroid.
You know, 85% of adults 30 or older have
oxalates found in their thyroid. These
oxalates can kill your mitochondria,
disrupt your cellular function on a
microscopic level. The small oxalate
crystals, they're extremely toxic and
poisonous. You should never eat leafy
greens. Not one, not one gram of leafy
greens ever. It's oxalates will people
come around to this. They are a modern
poison that is in a lot of our food.
Sally Norton said a lot of work on this.
They're extremely poisonous and you
should avoid them. Truly,
they're mostly known just for the kidney
stones, which yes, those are bad. Those
did put Liam Hemsworth in the hospital
from eating too much spinach. Too much
being any more than zero grams obviously
in the optimal human diet, but they have
a lot of other causes. They can cause
blindness by actually binding um into
your in your pupils, your iris. uh the
the wiring of your eyes, literally the
oxalates combined to it cause you to be
blind. Complete [ __ ] garbage
poisonous food.
>> Have also been observed in communities
that rely solely on meat. The Inuit, for
example, are able to survive in extreme
climate conditions on a purely
meat-based diet if nec.
>> Raw meat. So, call it out.
>> Necessary since they consume the whole
animal, including the organs, they get
every single nutrient they need,
including vitamin C. Yep. You get it in
muscle meat, too, though. You don't need
organs in the diet.
>> So, meat itself is definitely not
dangerous for us, but it's health
effects vary depending on how it's
prepared and what animal it comes from.
>> When talking about meat in the Western
world, we generally mean muscle tissues
that have a high nutrient density, but
also lack some of the vitamins that make
>> false that they have vitamin C. Every
analysis proves this. Come on, guys.
Come on. How big of a company is this?
Do you guys not have proof readers?
About a a pound of uh even the skeletal
muscle meat has, you know, 2 milligrams
of vitamin C. That may sound low, but
when you don't have glucose in the diet,
again, the glute for transporter is wide
open. You have lots of hydrayzeed
proteins and collagen in the diet, which
is mostly what vitamin C is for. When
you're eating only meat, you don't
really even need vitamin C. Also, your
glutathione is upregulated, which helps
recycle vitamin C. everything perfectly
works out where if you only eat meat,
you barely even need any vitamin C at
all. And this is proven through our case
studies of people like Anthony Schaffe,
Ken Barry, Sean Baker only eating meat
for up to 10 years and not having any
issues with vitamin C. So, it's already proven.
proven.
>> It possible to survive on meat alone.
>> Everyone Everyone can do it, man. It's
already proven. There's never been a
single person on the carnivore diet who
got scurvy. Like, this would be a
widespread reported thing if it
happened. It just doesn't happen. Even
the cooked muscle meat, much less the
raw. If you're doing raw meat,
especially with raw liver, you will
never run into a vitamin C issue. 100%
no. As the Inuit did it,
>> the most healthy animals to eat are
probably fish.
>> Probably. Oh, so probably not is also a
possibility. So, what was the point of
saying it?
>> Fish contains polyunsaturated fatty
acids like omega-3, which may lower the
risk of cardiovascular diseases. And
>> they may
Let's just listen to this whole sentence
again. What a [ __ ] joke.
>> Some of the vitamins that make it
possible to survive on meat alone.
>> The most healthy animals to eat are
probably fish.
>> Probably. Okay, so shut the [ __ ] up. No
point in saying that.
>> Fish contains polyunsaturated fatty
acids like omega-3 which may lower the risk.
risk.
>> Which may lower the risk. No, you can't
report on risk. We don't have any
experiments on humans. So, no
>> of cardiovascular diseases and
>> no you you can't. Well, okay. They may I
may find a million dollars on my bed
when I get home. Hm. I may I may not. It
wasn't really worth saying, was it?
>> Anti-inflammatory immune functions
>> though. He's right. Uh the omega-3s
really do repair your mitochondria, EPA
and DHA. They are very good for you. But
um saying it may do X to your risk
completely religion. just nothing based
in science whatsoever.
>> As part of a balanced diet, fish
>> uh you'd have to first prove a balanced
diet's optimal. Sorry, you have no proof
for that.
>> Can be eaten regularly without worries.
>> Eating fish comes with its own bag of
though, like over fishing and the
destruction of the oceans. We'll talk.
>> Oh, that's your issue? No, we don't care
about that. We care about the the heavy
metals that the fish have in them from
the ocean, the pollution. And again,
they're normally canned, which even adds
more metals.
>> About that in another video.
>> Oh, good.
>> Also, second is the most popular meat,
chicken. It's regarded as the meat with
the fewest health risks.
>> Oh, okay. That's an opinion. Let's pull
up the uh evidence hierarchy that
everyone puts so much value on. Where do
opinions fall?
Oh, the very bottom. Let's listen to
that again. most popular meat, chicken.
It's regarded as the meat with the
fewest health risks.
>> Okay, I'm going to regard Okay, so
that's their opinion. I'm going to
regard something. I think human meat is
the best meat. H, that's my regard.
Okay, there's my opinion. See how it
doesn't mean anything? Okay, cool.
>> The only negative health effect in your
tree is a bit controversial. Fat. Its
high content of saturated fat is associated.
associated.
>> It's like 30% saturated fat. That's
hilarious. You guys think the saturated
fat is the issue in chickens? Maybe it's
the, you know, the high linoleic acid
content in chickens which easily oxidizes.
oxidizes. H,
H,
especially when cooked turns into trans fats.
fats.
H, that could be an issue. No, the
saturated fat, the cholesterol, which
has never been proven because we don't
do experiments on humans. We only do
associations and then we skew the
results after we don't like what we
observe because that's science in 2025.
I see.
>> With a higher cholesterol level and
cardiovascular disease.
>> Well, let me just listen to this garbage again.
again.
>> Of poultry is a bit controversial. Fat.
>> It high content of saturated fats is
associated with a
>> Oh, it's associated. Okay, you can shut
the [ __ ] up then. Okay, so that's not
science. All right, clear. So, it may do
this, it may not. Okay, so it's not
science. There you are.
>> Higher cholesterol level and
cardiovascular disease.
>> That's associations, too. Who cares?
>> But this idea has also been criticized
by a large number of scientists.
>> If the idea can be criticized, then that
means it hasn't been proven. Because if
it was proven, then there would be no
room left for debate. We wouldn't have
the debate. If anything in human
nutrition science was proven, if it was
proven, then there wouldn't be a debate
because it's not proven. Exactly.
arguing high cholesterol levels might be
inherited and not caused by nutrition.
>> Oh, really? It might be genetic. Wait,
your cholesterol might be genetically
dependent, which has been shaped by
millions of years of evolution and
negative and positive selection
pressures to have a certain amount of
cholesterol that we probably shouldn't
mess with if our genes are determining
it given we give our body proper
nutrition. H, that's something to think
about. So, in general, if you want meat
and are concerned about your health, go
for chicken.
>> Oh, wait. But you just made an assertion
implying that meat is bad for your
health based on associative data, not
experimental cause and effect data. So,
you can't underpin that assertion.
False. What are you What are you doing?
What are you guys doing? How many
millions of views is this video getting
of blatant misinformation?
Wow, this is despicable. You guys are
[ __ ] retards over there, aren't you?
I'm pretty sure these guys are sponsored
by like Bill Gates and [ __ ] So, I think
this is just blatant propaganda, I'm
pretty sure. But
>> if you want meat and are concerned about
your health, go for chicken.
>> But it has far less nutrition than red
meat. It's not what we're biologically
adapted to eat, which is red meat, mammoths,
mammoths,
megapana. That's what we're The stable
isotopes already proved that's what
we've been eating for millions of years.
in our enamel, our collagen, our amino
acids that already prove has proven what
we eat.
Why would a little bird that we never
had access to until very recently be
better than our what we're adapted to eating?
eating?
The burden of proof would be on you. And
oh, your proof is associations between
saturated animal fat and cholesterol.
And then your associations between
cholesterol and aththeroscerosis
which is in western people which are sick
sick
with their rand cycle chronically
upregulated and chronic systemic
inflammation which actually is what
drives aththeroscerosis
and then you associate high LDL
cholesterol which doesn't even exist.
It this is such a mess of [ __ ] a pile of
[ __ ] it's impossible to even explain. Wow.
Wow.
>> Things start to get problematic with
high intakes of red meat like beef, ve,
pork, lamb, horse, and
>> that's plant-based, isn't it?
>> A recently published study recommends,
for example, a maximum of 23 g of red
meat per day.
>> Oh, that's their recommend. That's their
opinion. Okay. My opinion is I think you
should suck three dicks a day. That's my
opinion. Curtis Kock, how about you go
do it because we care about opinions,
right? That's my opinion. Go do it now.
study recommends, for example, a maximum
of 23 grams of red meat per day, which
>> well, that's insanely [ __ ] isn't
it? And who the [ __ ] cares about their opinion?
opinion?
>> Is a very small steak per week.
>> However, large scale
>> millions of years of negative and
positive selection pressures that shaped
our species to need specific nutrition,
which is only found in meat, or their
opinion? H, I'll go with their opinion.
Would these [ __ ] idiots go back in
time to people hunting mammoths and say,
"Wait guys, you only want to take a
little bite of the mammoth because
that's our recommendation for saturated
fat in this day." Like, [ __ ] so stupid.
stupid.
>> Analysis studies have shown that eating
100 g of red meat every day increases
the relative risk of diabetes by 19%.
>> Well, relative risk, that's already
[ __ ] nothing. And secondly, sorry,
you can't report on risk. It's a cause
and effect term. You don't you didn't do
an experiment. You made observations
based on self-reported data and then you
skew the data with regression analysis
which is not accurate fully. So, it's a
joke. Sorry.
>> Of strokes by 11%.
>> Oh, wow. That's a lot.
>> Cancer by 17%.
>> Holy [ __ ] This is so [ __ ]
>> This sounds alarming.
>> No, it doesn't actually. Anyone with a
[ __ ] brain knows to not pay that one
second of attention. It's complete
theology. It's not science. Wow. This
video is rage baiting me. Wow, you guys
are extremely stupid.
>> Have a look at how these studies were conducted.
conducted.
>> Yes, let's
>> because this brings us to the second big
problem when trying to answer the
question of whether meat is unhealthy or
not. Most studies that linked health
risks to eating red meat were case
control studies, which means taking a
group of people with a disease and
classifying them by their eating habits.
The more red
>> How do we know their eating habits? Oh,
they self-reported it. What did you eat
for the last few years for breakfast,
lunch, and dinner? Hm. Most people can't
really even recall what they had for
breakfast even a few weeks ago. What did
you have for breakfast uh two and a half
weeks ago on that morning? Uh I'm an
average American. I I have no B12 in my
brain. I can't even [ __ ] think to
begin with. But yes, I'll accurately lay
out what I've been eating the last few
years. It's an absolute sick joke.
Okay, it's self-reported data, so it's
not observed. So, it's already not
scientific. Then you draw associations
which are not scientific.
Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. This is rage baiting
me more than I anticipated. This is a
complete [ __ ] joke.
>> If they consume, the more likely they
were to contract certain diseases.
>> Yes. The more likely based on the
self-reported data in those people. So,
you cannot extrapolate that to informing
on any individual's risk based on their
behaviors relating to what these people
self-reported to do.
[ __ ] obviously
>> the problem is that it's very hard to
eliminate other factors.
>> Yes, confounding variables which then
you try to fabricate to match what you
want them to be typically
like the Aventus meat study which is a
sick joke as well which is just like this.
this.
>> People who eat less meat tend to live a
healthier lifestyle in general.
>> Wow. So these things aren't controlled
for. Therefore it is not science. In
science, you control for all variables
but what you're testing before the
experiment. Then you conduct the
experiment and scientists observe.
There you are. You don't do this. This
is not science. This is this is why
actual scientists look at nutrition
science as a little joke. This is all a
little joke. This is fat neck beards
sponsored by big pharma sitting behind
their computers drawing associations
based on cohorts of self-reported data.
It's not [ __ ] science.
And you [ __ ] idiots are reporting on
it, recommending people.
If you want to be healthy, you should
limit your Why are you guys even making
assertions? You're not a You have no
qualifications to do that anyway.
>> More vegetables and fruit and are less
likely to smoke and drink alcohol. Yes,
>> most studies try to eliminate these factors.
factors.
>> That's called fabricating data. That's
not science. Okay. So, they observe
something, then they say, "Hm, well, now
we need to change what we see to try to
guess for what they did." Wow, this is
you guys. So, you're aware of it. Wow,
you guys are [ __ ] dumb.
>> But it's extremely hard to make
definitive statements.
>> Things get worse when we look at pro.
>> So, you just went over how all the
studies you just referenced are complete
dog [ __ ] Moving on. Now you're just
going to move on. Wow.
>> Processed meat though. Processing meat
means adding certain chemicals by
curing, smoking, salting, or fermenting.
Or in other words, making it delicious.
Bacon, ham, salami.
>> Is that plying meat already isn't delicious?
delicious?
>> Sausages and hot dogs contain chemicals
that are harmful for us. Like
>> Oh, okay. Your assertion was they are
harmful. Let's see what um science you
have to support that assertion. Let's
see. nitrates and nitrites that can
damage the DNA in our digestive system
and lead to cancer. >> Wow,
>> Wow,
that's some strong assertions.
>> The WH reviewed 800 studies over 20
years and concluded that processed meat
is strongly linked to an increased risk.
>> Oh, it's linked. Okay, shut the [ __ ] up.
Okay, you're done. Of
>> colurectal cancer.
>> Nope, not risk. Incidents and those
observed cohorts based on that
self-reported data. Not risk. Sorry.
God, you guys are stupid.
>> Wow. They reviewed Okay, so they
reviewed 800 pieces of dog [ __ ] and then
they put it into one big piece of dog
[ __ ] Then they extrapolated and tried
to inform on the population's risk when
it's actually just the incidence of
those pieces of dog [ __ ] Nice science.
science.
>> Each extra 50 g of processed meat per
day increases your relative risk of cancer.
cancer.
>> Nope, can't report on that still, dumbass,
dumbass,
>> by 18%. Nope. Can't report on that.
Sorry. Try again. Run some science
scientific experiments. Put some pe lock
some people in some labs for decades on
large scale and then make dietary
interventions controlling for all of
other variables and then publish that
paper. Then maybe you'd have something
to say, wouldn't you? But you haven't
done that, have you? No.
>> When it comes to cancer risk, processed
meat is now in the same category as
plutonium asbestos.
>> And that's someone's opinion. Okay. So,
let's use our [ __ ] brain. Would some
mild processing to meat be the same as
plutonium in terms of how your overall
health? Let's just think cuz we have no
science on this. We can't do scientific
experiments on humans. So, let's think.
Plutonium in your body or bacon in your
body. Hm.
And smoking. Hm. The WHO highlights that
its research is only about the question
of whether or not something causes
cancer and not to what extent. But
processed meat may also significantly
increase the
>> may. Okay. So, it may not. So, you can
shut the [ __ ] up, can't you? Let's
listen to that again.
>> And not to what extent.
>> But processed meat may also
significantly increase the chance of
suffering from diabetes.
>> Oh, it may. He had diabet Wow, you're
[ __ ] stupid. Wow. I may find $1,000
when I get home. I may not. Well, was
that worth saying then? Was it? No, it's
not. Diabetes is chronically elevated
blood glucose.
And so, it's not a risk dependent thing.
It's so [ __ ] stupid to try to
quantify it this way. If you don't, it's
assuming type two. If you don't eat
carbs, it is impossible to have type 2 diabetes.
diabetes. Fact.
Fact.
So yes, the carbohydrate-free food
which that's only how di diabetes is
identified and diagnosed as chronically
elevated blood glucose. That and that alone.
alone.
So yes, eating the thing without sugar
is going to increase your risk. Maybe
it's because the the incidence was
higher in these mixed western
populations because they're eating lots
of sugars and fats together. And then
yes, when you eat more fats with sugars
and fats together, it does cause issues.
Hm. But let's just get rid of all that
nuance and then just Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.
>> Strokes and coronary hearts.
>> Wow. A 13% relative risk. Wow. This is
not science, bro. Damn. This is actually
infuriating. 14 million people saw this
[ __ ] dog [ __ ] video with no
scientific discipline. You guys are
[ __ ] retards and you should be ashamed.
ashamed.
>> Is it also makes a difference what sort
of life our meat lived when it was still
part of a living being.
>> You don't say. It's common to feed large
amounts of antibiotics to livestock in
order to prevent diseases which can
spread antibiotic resistance.
>> The issue The issue is the antibiotic
resistance, not the fact that the cow is
getting the antibiotics in its system.
That is hilarious. Wow.
>> Bind a high consumption of both red and
processed meat could increase your chance
chance
>> could so shut the [ __ ] up
>> of premature death by up to 29%.
This means if your chance
>> it could so it could not. It could not.
Why don't you just restate the thing and
say eating a lot of red meat could not
increase your chance of pre premature
death. It could not as well. Wow.
Wow.
What a sick joke of a channel. You guys
are You have no scientific discipline.
I'm a random 20-year-old in a [ __ ]
hotel and I know more than y'all. Y'all
are pathetic. of dying is 3% this year.
It's now 4%.
This might not sound like a lot, but you
can't inform on any individual's risk
until you've done a scientific
experiment which controls for all other
variables before conducting the
experiment. Sorry, you haven't done
that. That's not so what you've done is
not science. Therefore, you cannot make
a cause and effect claim. Sorry, try again.
again.
>> Percentages have a huge impact on
societies of millions. They also seem
harmless until they affect you. To blame
meat alone for bad health would be
wrong, though. There is no evidence that
the very essence of meat has any
negative effect beyond its high fat
content. Nope. You don't have any
evidence for that either, dumbass. You
almost had it right. Yes. So, you
understand everything.
I don't know what carbs is even doing
here. Maybe you maybe you dumb asses
just threw random icons on screen
because you don't even know what the
[ __ ] you're talking about.
H good. Makes sense. Yeah. the fats. You
still don't have evidence. You have
associations, dumbass. And by the way,
let's look at the RC the recent keto RCT
where people ate very low or no
carbohydrates. They tracked their plaque
progression of these people with high
LDL, which is arbitrary, but according
to, you know, the mainstream
establishment, they had 190 LDL or more
over 5 years. They tracked the keto
people, their plaque progression, it was
no different than the cohort. And the
only predictor of future plaque
progression was past plaque progression.
not LDL. H, how about that association?
It's almost like high LDL
being an issue or a predictor of any
issue is dependent on the metabolic
context of said person. Hm. Almost like
we can't extrapolate having high LDL in
a western population to those on a
carnivore diet or a high meat diet with
low carbohydrate and low processed
foods. Maybe your associations aren't
[ __ ] experimental and don't report on
anything whatsoever. Oh, wait. I'm
saying maybe, but it's a [ __ ] fact,
isn't it? You guys are completely stupid.
stupid.
>> And even this point is highly contentious.
contentious.
>> Ah, so it's not proven. So why the [ __ ]
are you even bringing it up then? Wow. I
Yeah, I'm very angry at this video. It's
one of the worst videos I've ever seen.
>> Just like with many other pleasures in
life, sometimes too much of a good thing
is harmful. Most public health agencies
suggest cutting meat consumption.
>> So their opinion, okay, so we don't need
to give a [ __ ] about that either. Thank
you. to 500 grams a week. While studies
suggest cutting down processed meat as
much as possible. >> Suggest
>> Suggest
studies suggest the studies have an
opinion. No. Someone interpreting the
dog [ __ ] data then formed an opinion.
Again, another issue with your shitty script.
script.
>> So, if you feast on meat no more than
once or twice a week, you should be good.
good.
>> Thank you for that opinion. That's
completely unfounded by any science
whatsoever. We are biologically adapted
to eating a lot of saturated fat. It has
essential nutrients. It is an essential
nutrient. Has vitamin A, D, E, K2.
Meat has, you know, DHA, EPA, which we
are very deficient in this society. We
are very deficient in vitamin K2 in this
society as well.
It has meat has every nutrient. The
Inuit thrived by only eating raw meat.
As you already pointed out,
the [ __ ] like so, so we know how
nutritious it is. It puts you in a
perfect metabolic state. It's what we
know we've been eating based on the
collagen, enamel, amino acid isotopes
for millions of years. We're adapted
eating. We're monogastric. We have an
acidic pH, etc., etc., etc. Everything
about it is perfect. But then we made
some associations of meat intake in the
western diet, which is in unhealthy
metabolically unhealthy individuals.
Then we extrapolated that to everyone.
That's what happened basically.
That's what happened with nutrition
science, which is not science by definition.
definition. H
H
>> for most people, this already means a
drastic change in their diets, though.
The average American consumes around
almost 1,600 g of meat a week. The
average German 1,100 g a week.
>> Well, you guys fell off.
>> And many of us eat much, much more.
>> Yeah, I probably eat [ __ ] 4,000. If
you're not really sure, make a small
note whenever you eat meat for a week or two.
two.
>> You'll be surprised how much it really is.
is.
>> So, most
>> Yes. Cuz every animal has to use their
smartphone app to gauge how much of the
natural diet they should eat. [ __ ]
[ __ ] man.
>> Watching this video would benefit from
cutting down on meat. >> Whoa.
>> Whoa.
>> So, most people watching this video
would benefit from cutting down on meat.
>> So, you just made that assertion and you
have no science to underpin that claim.
You guys should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.
yourselves.
Complete [ __ ] jokes you are.
>> Aside from health concerns, there's
still the fact that the meat industry is
one of the largest contributors to
climate change and has reached a scale
where it's impossible to deliver
millions of tons of meat and still treat
animals with dignity. We've already
discussed that in detail in another video.
video.
>> Have to check that out. In moderation,
meat is not unhealthy, and you don't
need to become vegetarian overnight to
have a real impact on your health and
the planet. But your lifestyle choices
do matter for yourself and for
>> Are they implying this is good veganism?
Didn't you guys already admit that
plants don't have certain nutrients that
you need that are only in meat?
>> Nice consistency. One of the worst
videos I've I've ever seen in my entire
life. They have no understanding of
science. I mean, yeah, this is like
literal propaganda. Like, this is
actually just like those studies which
aren't scientific by definition as they
don't. Yeah. Blah blah. You get it? Just
like those are paid for, this video is
paid for 100%. I mean, this is a pretty
good production value in terms of like
animation and such. Got I think it got
14 million views. This video is bought
and paid for. I think these guys are
sponsored by like Bill Gates, I believe,
who's a misanthropo missanthrop and a uh
complete [ __ ] So, that's a big issue.
Wow. Holy [ __ ] I've never seen so much
lack of scientific discipline and
misinformation by such a big corporation
or Well, that's not that surprising, but
seriously, I mean I mean, wow, you guys
spent how much on this video and and you
made this many critical errors? The only
way you can make this many errors is if
you had a bias and an intention with
this video to be anti-meat. It's the
only way. Good thing is people nowadays
are not so stupid where people are
waking up to eating more meat. Um the
whole vegetarian vegan [ __ ] that's kind
of dying. Like no one like that shit's
pretty done. It's pretty dead now. Even
normies know that's pretty unhealthy at
this point. And uh yeah, and and meat
tastes so good, people won't ever give
it up, I think, which is good because
they're trusting their themselves, their
cravings. They need meat. Um which is
why so many vegans relapse. You just
can't avoid meat. Um you just can't it's
a ticking time bomb. 5 to seven years of
veganism is normally when you start
seeing the the huge detriments. And and
coincidentally, that's about when your
your iron reserves go out, your hem iron
completely, the last of it depletes. And
that's when you could start having super
big issues on veganism. Even
vegetarianism is not that uh sustainable
unless you're eating a ton of eggs and
milk. If you have a lot of raw milk and
raw eggs, I think you could live the
rest of your life as a vegetarian
for sure. Actually, you could probably
be healthier than a lot of
omnivores if you were to eat a lot of
milk and eggs that are raw on a
vegetarian diet. You'd be low in iron.
be anemic most likely, but aside from
that, yes.
Wow. Despicable. Despicable company.
Despicable video. Despicable lack of
understanding of of science, man.
Seriously, I'm just a random
20-year-old. I know more than you guys.
What's wrong with you guys? You made so
many assertions that you underpinned
with associative
dog [ __ ] data. Pieces of [ __ ]
We we get a ton of people. They
self-report what they eat.
We draw correlations. We observe it. And
then we change it. Then we change it again.
again.
We fabricate the data again.
It's not science.
If you guys want to do science, you must
control for all the variables, but what
you're testing for before you do the
experiment, do the experiment and we'd
actually have an answer. Of course, the
ethics committee does not permit this,
but this would actually settle these
debates, which is why throughout this
entire video, they kept saying may,
could, probably. Well, if you are
[ __ ] saying may, could, and probably,
then you then should not make a stone
cold assertion that you should reduce
your meat intake,
then you you should have said you may
want to. you probably should. But no,
then you guys say you should make it
[ __ ] consistent. If all of your
evidence is dog [ __ ] like may and
probably, then don't make an assertion
with definitive with definitive tone and
and and verbage. It's completely
inconsistent and [ __ ] You guys
should be ashamed of yourselves.
Everyone watching this [ __ ] understand
how dog [ __ ] these studies are. Look
into it. They are not science by
definition. And eat more meat. It's what
you're adapted to eat. It has every
nutrient you need for your own [ __ ]
sake. I don't give a [ __ ] You can do
what you want. You don't have to buy
anything from me. I'm telling you for
free right now. You should eat more
meats. Specifically, ruminate meat like
elk, beef, cook it as little as possible
in my opinion. It's my opinion. I see
more long-term success. It seems like
the people who do cook their meat rare
or eat it raw. I do see more in my this
is completely my opinion. and I see more
long-term success and better outcomes.
Think about that. There are still people
who do eat their meat well done and do
thrive, but some people it seems they
may run into like a folate issue and a
vitamin C potential issue when they eat
only cooked meat. This is all up in the
air. That's just what I've observed. So,
with that said, uh piece of [ __ ] video.
[ __ ] rage bait dog [ __ ] piece of
[ __ ] [ __ ] video. Uh thank you guys
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
