Yes, famous longevity doctor Peter Aia was in the Epstein files and yes, he did actually say is low carb and I go into J withdrawal when I don't see him, but there's a lot more. That's just two emails and there are over 1,700 PDFs mentioning Peter Aia in the Epstein files and together they paint a much bigger story. So, we need to look at how much did Peter actually know about Epstein. But the issues with Peter Aia started before the Epstein news because Peter's biggest health claim might be something he just made up. Dr. Aia will see you now. After my daughter was born, all I could think about was, I want to have as much time as possible on this planet with this baby. That's when he decided to become his own

first patient in longevity medicine. Let's dive into Peter's Epstein emails. July 12th, 2017, Peter's confirming in this email that he can meet Epstein the next day. Not that interesting, but according to Peter Aia's book, just the day before July 11th, 2017, was when Peter's wife rushed their one-month-old infant to the hospital because he had stopped breathing and his heart had stopped beating. His wife then stayed in the hospital for four days while pleading with Peter to come back home, but he said he couldn't because he was in New York with important work, which apparently included meeting Jeffrey Epstein. 5 years before this, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in 2008 of procuring a minor for prostitution.

It appears Peter first met Epste in 2015 through Evan, Epste's ex-girlfriend. Peter's feedback was he might literally be one of the most interesting people I've ever met. If I have one talent in life, it's being able to spot really smart people. I really do have uh I think a supernatural talent for figuring out who's smart. Yeah, I'm in the files for not going cuz Jeffrey Epstein was trying to meet with me. Aren't you glad? Yeah, but I would have never went anyway. It's like it's not even a possibility that I would have went, especially after I Googled him. I was like, what the [__] Here's another email he sent to Epste. I would really love to add 5 years or more

to your life, even if the only reason to do so is to have more sex. He also said, "You know, the biggest problem with becoming friends with you, the life you lead is so outrageous, and yet I can't tell a soul." Here's an email showing that Peter said at one of Epstein's apartments. Elsewhere, Peter asked Epste, "Are you on island?" Epste said, "Palm Beach." Peter asked, "What do you do when you're there?" Epstein said, "Guess." And then Peter said, "Besides that," Peter seemed quite interested in Epstein's infamous Little St. James Island that I need to visit the island sometime. Elsewhere, Peter said, "I miss you. Maybe I need to visit you on Palm Beach." Epste replied, "Good idea." In

an email between their assistants about a meeting in Vancouver, Epstein's assistant said, "I'm sure Epstein would love to see Peter as much as possible." They were very chummy. We don't have the context behind these, but there are plenty of emails like, "I have a little quote situation to seek your advice on." Or, "That was fun today, but too short or what a rough night. Oh my god." One time, Epste mentioned to Peter that the Secret Service was sniffing the house. This could have been a professional connection, but Peter also asked, "Can you reconnect me with so- and so woman?

We met at your place." 2 months after that email, Epstein took Peter Aia to a dinner party that included the president of Mongolia and Kathleen Rumler, the person Epstein called when the FBI arrested him. After the dinner party, at 3:40 a.m., Peter emailed Epstein saying how much of a good time he had and asking, "By the way, why wasn't so in town tonight?" referring to the same woman Peter met at Epstein's place. The point is, these guys were definitely bros. Speaking of connections, how did Peter meet his dear friend Kevin Spacy? In one email, Epstein told Peter he wanted to get him in front of the masters of the universe. Kind of makes you wonder how Peter affords multiple $300,000 watches.

Billionaire patients who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars and how much does it cost? It is a six-f figureure program. It's a big range. much closer to 100,000 than 500,000. That's a lot of money. Look, there's nothing wrong with making money, but there's promoting something you really believe in, like Brown News, the sponsor of this video, which I'll talk more about later, and then there's making tons of cash thanks to Jeffrey Epstein's wealthy connections. Blindly ambitious, right? They're willing to like put aside all the possibilities of what could be awful about these people and get together with them without any even a cursory Google search. And it's really

quite unfortunate that he was exchanging emails with the subject line, "Got a fresh shipment." But Peter does say that in this email, the redacted photos were Peter's picture of bottles of metformin and Epstein's picture of an adult woman. To be clear, this is not to accuse Peter of any wrongdoing himself. Peteria claimed in his apology tweet from February 3rd that he never visited Epstein's island or ranch. Now, that might be true, but he certainly wanted to go to the ranch. A plane ticket was booked for Peter to go to Jeffrey's ranch on August 18th, 2015, but the trip got cancelled because Epstein was busy. Peter also claimed that he was repulsed and nauseated with the contents of the November 2018 Miami Herald article on

Epste that clearly revealed his depraved crimes. But Peter stayed in touch with Epstein for at least another four months. On December 4th, 2018, Peter asked Epstein, "What is fallout from recent story?" Epstein said, "Same as usual, just tougher." Peter asked legally any change? Epstein said zero. 3 months later, February 23rd, 2019, Peter was still in touch, emailing Epstein with a subject line, "Where are you these days?" Now, claims he was only in touch with Epstein after the article came out so he could get Epstein to be accountable for his actions. The vast majority of the emails, by the way, was Peter and Epstein scheduling meetings and phone calls. In any case, they talked a lot and were frequently trying

to link up whenever they were both in New York. Okay. But what people come to Peter Aia for is ways to improve their health. So is this really relevant to his science communication or health information? Well, we need to investigate some of his health claims because some of them are really dramatic. And I'd say that the thing that leads to overstepping with the science is the same thing that gets people on the Epstein files. Overconfidence. Second thing that we've noticed about the emails is how cavalier the elite are. Jeffrey Epstein, he was using Gmail in order to make all these sensitive communications. There's absolutely no operational security. Um, he didn't

really care because he believed he was untouchable. They think that they're above everyone else. And that's that's how the elite think and behave. Let's start with what Peter says in his book is quote perhaps the single most powerful marker for longevity. V2 max. Your V2 max. The single greatest predictor of lifespan. Your V2 max is more strongly correlated with your lifespan than any other metric. The question is where exactly did he get this idea? So V2 max measures the maximum rate of oxygen your body can use during intense exercise. And I never really doubted Peter Aia's claims about

it. But then I saw this episode of Joe Rogan. Here's Chris Master John, PhD. Hey, do you know what athletes live the longest from the pro from the pros? Let me guess. Baseball. In the male athletes, you had gymnasts and pole vultters with eight years on the population. Assuma wrestlers are 10 years below. Cyclists only have two years on the general population. So, first of all, a lot of people in the longevity space are taking most of their information about how they should train for longevity from people who specialize in cycling. So, yeah, I'm not going to name names. After seeing this, I reached out to Chris about this and he shared an

article with me he wrote six months ago. Let me find the quote. You said, "None of the studies used to make this claim have measured V2 max. In fact, they don't even claim to have predicted V2 max." That was like, you know, where did this happen? what happened in this certain leading longevity uh experts blog post where they where this person literally took a table that um that had different labels on it from the paper and then just wrote V2 max over it for the blog post because I think in their mind they were

simplifying the point that they were trying to get across but what you don't realize is that if you go back to that paper the table the literally the copy to paste a table doesn't say anything about V2 max. I mean some of the most of the studies that are cited for this you can keyword search the paper. It doesn't say anything about oxygen in it. By the way that V2 max table it made for his blog post is in his book and it was on the 60 Minutes episode about him V2 max and he brings it up on podcasts and everybody should know their V2 max. I really think everybody should. So it's the measure of how much oxygen you're inhaling and exhaling or No. Yeah. It's the difference between how much you inhale and exhale. Put this

mask on your face. There's a little oxygen sensor. To be clear, in this paper, they were not strapping something to the people's faces to measure oxygen. They were just on a treadmill. Cuz by the way, the other thing that article says is you might want to once a year spend $200 at an exercise science lab so you can have it measured. But it's free to actually do the thing the studies measured. All you need is a treadmill, right? Okay. But how much should we be focusing on measuring and improving our V2 max? I can't emphasize enough that V2 max cannot be reached by the average person in the population. And it is one of the most ridiculous parameters to try to improve because

the average person trying to improve it would never be able to reach it. What these studies measured is performance on a progressively more difficult treadmill usually or cycling sometimes exercise. they either get faster or they get uh higher in incline or both to just get harder and harder the longer you do it. And so the longer you last on that is what's predictive of longevity. And a lot of confusion has been made by confusing this with V2 max because it implies that all these people are giving up when they can't transfer oxygen any more oxygen to their muscle. But when you take general population people who are not young and who are not elite athletes, they can't reach their

V2 max. If you look at studies where they looked at like, okay, why did the people give up? They give up for every reason except that they reached V2 max. Like a lot of them give up because they're having heart palpitations. You know, they're give they're giving up because uh they got leg pain. They're giving up because they can't handle it anymore or they think they're going to throw up. They're never hitting V2 max. It's the difference between someone who's who's like, "Okay, do this set until you're two reps from failure.

Okay, good." and someone who's who's screaming at you, THREE MORE, THREE MORE, YOU KNOW, and you really need to try hard in order to motivate the people in the study to actually try their hardest. We don't have a single metric of humans that we can measure that better predicts how long they will live than how high their V2 max is. The most important part of that is that it loses sight of the breadth of how your training should be designed for longevity. There was a study last year that showed that gymnasts and pole vters have eight years on the general population for lifespan. That's a testament to the breadth of what you should be able to functionally be able to do for longevity.

Exercise. He aims for about 10 hours a week. Increasing your V2 max is healthy, but you only have so much time to work on your longevity. If someone tells you V2 max is the greatest predictor of lifespan, then you could get sucked into spending hours doing one repetitive motion instead of diversifying your training and engaging your whole body and challenging your balance, coordination, rotation, and so on. Now, this isn't the only time Peter has talked about studies while conveniently leaving important details out. Some of the most popular drugs in the country are statins taken by about 25 million Americans to lower cholesterol and reduce heart disease.

Dr. Peter Ratia is hiding something. It's this graph. Torvvisatin, the most profitable drug in history, grossing over $150 billion, slashes levels of GLP-1 in a human controlled trial alongside worsening glycemic markers and insulin resistance. Okay, so what happened here is that this big paper in cell metabolism comes out and no one's talking about it. And then two years later, Dr. Nick Norwitch starts talking about it. And then just two weeks after that, then Peter Aia makes a newsletter about it. People were commenting that, "Hey, Nick, Peter's responding to you." I asked, "Was I named in the letter?" I was like, "No, but it's obviously you." Peter, in what appears to be a response letter to me, attempted to discredit this study,

but the only graph of true and obvious relevance, he ignored it completely. Peter in his letter, his whole letter is trying to respond to basically debunk the importance of this human control trial. There's one graph of relevance. You can show it. An 8-year-old can tell you what's going on. There's a big red line. It go down. You read a whole long dissertation trying to debunk it and then you take the figure in which that graph is embedded and clip it out. It wasn't like he didn't show figure one. He showed figure 1 minus figure 1h really panel that is the most relevant which it's hard to think that's not intentional. So what's going on here is that statins screw up the gut which reduces GLP1

levels which increases your risk for diabetes. This will actually become relevant later when we go back to the Epstein emails. We'll also talk about how Oreo cookies can work better than statins. We can't keep blaming our overweight and diabetic patients like I did. Most of them actually want to do the right thing, but they have to know what that is. I wish I could speak with that woman again. You didn't need my judgment and my contempt. [snorts] Try to identify people out there who are talking about things in a nuanced way, and you're generally going to be closer to the direction of reality. Like literally do a 100 push-ups and then get up and then you can type your stupid

comment about my AirPods. No evidence whatsoever that Bluetooth headphones are causing any health damage. Wow, Peter is very confident here. Now, I get a little suspicious when people make confident, definitive health statements like no evidence whatsoever. And this is coming from a guy who actually scolded his podcast guest for using the word prove in a colloquial way. Want to prove that right or wrong? Well, first of all, you'll never prove anything in science. So, let's be really clear on our lingo. Okay. No, no, it's very important. It's important. No, no, it's important for your listeners to understand that.

Fair enough. Nothing proved. No evidence whatsoever. Now, I'm not going to try and convince you to immediately switch to wired headphones, but can you really say zero evidence? It only took me a second to find this observational study in humans finding longer daily usage durations of Bluetooth headsets were strongly linked to an increased risk of developing lumps in the thyroid. Then there's many animal experiments suggesting that 2.4 GHz EMFs which come from Bluetooth may damage things like the DNA, the inner ear, the heart, and the testicles. These studies have their limitations, but it is some evidence that should generate just a little bit of curiosity.

We're just uh cutting people's earphones and then giving them AirPod Pros. This overconfident, dismissive attitude reminds me of a close-minded doctor rolling their eyes whenever you just have a couple questions. As medical professionals, we've shed our excess mental baggage and cured ourselves of new idea resistance to go back to our original ideals. open minds, the courage to throw out yesterday's ideas when they don't appear to be working, and the understanding that scientific truth isn't final. That path will be better for our patients and better for science. Peter's disdain for people he doesn't agree with eventually seeps out.

Seed oils at modest quantities, probably not harmful. Here, he was supposed to host a seed oil debate, but the prosec couldn't make it. So he said he would make their argument for them and only talk to the anti-seed oil side. I'm simply the judge and not the jury. And ultimately the jury decides and they're going to also decide if I can be a fair judge. Even after saying that at the end he couldn't help but express how dumb he thinks this is. My lack of enthusiasm around this topic is probably palpable. Um if you are a restaurant tour and you're listening to this, please take the no seed oils used

off your menu. It just it insults me and it insults Okay, let's go back to the Epson emails. Epstein had some weird health problems like his testosterone was crazy low. It was 150 at one point. Apparently, he had this problem for about 15 years. Now, Peter's goal was to help him live longer so he could have more sex. Which brings us back to the most profitable drug in history that Dr. Noritz was talking about, Lipur, a cholesterol-lowering drug, a statin. Epstein seemed to be skeptical that these drugs might do more harm than good, probably after he received this article from his brother talking about how statins increase the risk of diabetes. Some of the most popular drugs in the country are statins taken by

about 25 million Americans. Many patients say the side effects are just too painful. Now, for the first time, doctors say there's proof that those patients are right. Muscle pain, weakness, and cramping, reported by 5 to 20% of patients. We still don't have much research on the side effects of Jeffrey Epstein withdrawals, but we do have some on statins. Epstein seemed reluctant to take a statin and asked Peter about the increased diabetes risk. He even seemed to be making fun of Peter at one point, calling him statin taker. Now, Peter Atia is very pro- cholesterol-lowering drugs. He is very aggressive about lowering cholesterol. He suggested it

would be beneficial for people to already start lowering their cholesterol from their 20s. LDL is causally related. LDL cholesterol or APOB causally related to atherosclerosis. The disease can't really develop until APOB reaches a certain threshold. And that's the threshold that most of us get to by the time we're, you know, sort of in our teens. If you took everybody in their 20s and reduced them to a level of that of a child, you'd make ASCBD an orphan disease. And basically what it comes down to is you want apo to be as close to the level as it was when you were born. If your objective is to not die from heart disease and only to die with it, then you want apo as low as possible. April

2022, he said, "The earlier you start and the lower you go, the more you can make that number approximate zero." Peter said that. Yeah. And yeah. I mean, I would agree. I'd also say that, you know, if you get a total callectomy, the chance that you get colon cancer is incredibly low. Okay. Like, and I have a history of inflammatory bowel disease. have not gotten a total callectomy for a reason, right? It's like not h not getting Alzheimer's because you've removed your part. It's an extreme example, but like it's true.

Things you need to do to get your LDL below 30 are not benign that apple be lowering therapies, they do carry risk. Take statins, they can increase blood sugar, HB1C, cause, and I use that word intentionally, insulin resistance, reduce deplete GLP-1 hormone levels, and impair mitochondrial function. In this video, Peter uses his point about causality and an analogy about cigarettes and lung cancer to say that young people should probably be taking cholesterol-lowering drugs. There is no ambiguity that APOB is causally related to atherosclerosis. If your objective is to not die from heart disease, then you want APOB as low as possible. Given that we know cigarettes are causally related to this, how about

you never start smoking and the minute you do, we pull the cigarette out of your mouth. Except not putting a toxin in your body isn't really comparable to taking a drug. In his own blog, he quoted himself and then put hyphen Peteria. He said, "I just don't see a reason to have an APO ever north of 60 mg per deciliter Peter." Do you think that's too aggressive? I do. I think it's a slight of hand. And what I mean by that is [snorts] he's putting the burden of proof on the reader to say, "Well, let me prove to you that it's bad to treat to below 60." When the burden of proof should be on him to say, "Hey, in all cases, you should treat below 60." You tell me you want to live to be 100, you're going to need to keep

your APO below 30 milligs per deciliter. The simple reality is studies can be really expensive and doing multiple different studies specifically designed to identify who exactly from all the unique humans on the planet gets a net benefit from a drug and who doesn't would identify which customers you should lose. The bias in medicine always tends to be towards really highlighting the benefits and then really downplaying the risks and that's inappropriate. That doesn't that's not in the best interests of patients. And I do think scientific communicators, including Peter, because he's primarily a content creator, like it or not, um it's his job to highlight and then articulate and explain the consequence. And I'm sure he'd have a rebuttal to that.

And if he wants to get me on a live cast and present his rebuttal, and we can have a back and forth and fine. Now, wait up. We need to talk about Peter's favorite word. Most of the day, on some level, I sit around thinking about causality. Causality is an obsession of mine. LDL is causally related. LDL cholesterol or APOB causally related to atherosclerosis. There's a lot of posturing in medicine and academia and things that sound intellectually rigorous like oh this is causal. Let me tell you why it's causal. But it actually doesn't get to the deeper layer like well okay what is the

importance of causality really in this context? LDL is causal cuz you can't dispute that. I mean, not if you understand mathematics and science. If you think about this for a second, it's not nearly the mic drop that Peter makes it seem like. Imagine you want to reduce the risk that Tom Hanks would start a fire in your house. Well, oxygen, sticks, Tom Hanks, and his weird desire to start a fire would all be cause of the fire. Should you reduce the oxygen in the house as low as possible? It would be harder for a fire to start, but you'd suffocate. Should you remove all the sticks? Well, it would probably be best to just work on Tom Hanks mental health to fix his pyromania. Focusing so

much on causality could be an example of what Peter calls majoring in the minor and minoring in the major. Majoring in the minor and minoring with the major. We're majoring in the minor and minoring in the major. Major in the minor and minor in the major. Majoring in the minor and minoring in the major. Majoring in the minor, minoring in the major. Causality. Causality is not the same as importance. Often targeting a causal factor has consequences far beyond reducing the risk of the primary undesired outcome. In this case, heart attacks and atherosclerosis. Applebe lowering therapies, they do carry risk. Now, the

issues with Peter's very rigid stance on cholesterol-lowering is a longer story. So, if you want to check out the nuances of this story, go check out Dr. Nick Norwood's channel. Try to identify people out there who are talking about things in a nuanced way. Okay, so let's move on to the next story to our original ideals, open minds, and the understanding that scientific truth isn't final. When I watched this talk more than 10 years ago, I was really impressed with Peter. It was refreshing to hear this from such an intellectually honest doctor, which is why I was so confused later in 2018 when Peter Aia was being possibly the most arrogant I had ever seen someone be to

their podcast guests, at least on a podcast about science and health. I mean, not even close. No, no, no. This isn't like we can disagree on things that are nebulous. This is not nebulous, Dave. You've got to spend more time with lipid people. Okay? You really do. You are not dealing with your peers at this. You have to go. So, let me tell you this story because it really illustrates how overconfidence and arrogance prevents scientific exploration because existing financial incentives shape what kind of studies get funded. In 2018 in Houston, Texas, I interviewed Dave Feldman, who is now very famous in the health space thanks to his very unique work on cholesterol.

Dave developed a model, a kind of understanding of what exactly cholesterol is doing in the body and why it's doing that. And he told me about his running interesting experiments to test his theory, like taking his LDL bad cholesterol from an insanely high 296 all the way down to 83 in just 6 days by eating a ton of white bread and baloney. The average doctor wants LDL cholesterol to be under 100. So Dave basically brought his LDL levels down from red alert to what's considered healthy with a garbage diet. Six years later, Dr. Norman went a step further and gave even more credibility to Dave's model. Also did the famous Oreo versus Staten. So Oreo 16 days statins for 6 weeks by showing in a personal experiment that he could lower his LDL cholesterol from

all the way down to 111 with a bunch of Oreo cookies. With statins, he was only able to lower his LDL cholesterol from 421 down to 284. A couple days after meeting Dave, I was excited to see him on Peter Aia's podcast. I had always been really interested in Peter after reading about him in Tim Ferrris's The 4Hour Body. But the podcast started with something I've never seen before. Peter edited in an 8-minute intro where he laid out all the reasons he disagreed with the podcast guest before the podcast even started. basically saying, "You guys don't really need to listen to this." But I still listen to it and I remember it was really frustrating because Peter interrupted Dave so many times.

Absent any inflammation or anything else along those Nobody's saying that. Nobody reasonable is saying that. So again, listen to what I said, right? Peter even derailed the conversation at one point by interrupting Dave with a correction that was completely wrong. Well, if you got defective LDL receptors, there's no receptors on the endthelial cell. The other day, I went back to the transcript and just counted up all the hyphens that they put for when Dave couldn't finish his sentence. Peter interrupted him 66 times. And then Peter went on to complain that Dave wasn't explaining his model well. But if my energy model is right, it

would suggest as to why the answer of David, you haven't even described it correctly to me today. Right. I mean, I guess it depends how liberal we want to be with the term model, right? I kept seeing over and over again that there [clears throat] just was a lack of analyses in the field of lipidology looking at metabolically healthy people with high LDL. Let me try and explain it really simply. Most of the research showing LDL cholesterol is bad and so we should lower it to make people live longer is based on people who are metabolically unhealthy. Dave's idea was maybe we could go back to the data and

look for markers of good metabolic health and see what happens to those people when they have high LDL. Dave figured two good indicators of metabolic health would be high HDL good cholesterol and low triglycerides. So the question becomes, do these people die early from high LDL bad cholesterol? Peter said that Dave's investigation was brain damage. Wow, we are so far beyond that in the lipid world at this point. Like, if you're going to go through this brain damage make it for something worthwhile and that the people asking questions about cholesterol, my advice is sit down, shut up for a minute, and pay attention. Okay, come on. That was a long time ago. But today, Peter's aggressive stance on cholesterol hasn't changed, and

Dave's model is apparently still on his mind because here he is rolling his eyes while he makes a hint at it. regardless of how high their HDL is and how low their triglycerides are and all the other things that people in this camp want to talk about. The reason I highlight this is because having such disdain for other people's ideas that you can't even have a proper conversation is the opposite of open-mindedness and hinders scientific progress. To go back to our original ideals, open minds, scientific truth isn't final but constantly evolving. [snorts] So, what became of Dave Feldman and his crazy lipid energy model? In 2019, the year after Dave had that podcast with Peter Atia, he got a hold of some data that supported the exact idea he

was trying to explain to Peter. The data suggested that metabolically healthy people actually live longer with higher LDL bad cholesterol. Thanks to Dave's weird ideas about cholesterol, he's now published eight peer-reviewed papers. And Dr. Nick Norwitz, who Dave works with very closely, has already published 54 papers before the age of 30 and already has a higher scientific impact score than Thomas Daypring, which is Peter Aia's go-to expert on cholesterol. Tom Despring um did gave us an internal presentation that was so incredible. And Dr. Noritz is 50 years younger than Daypring. Dave Feldman, in fact, is actually on a published paper with Peter's former head of research. By the

way, Peter Aia basically challenged Dave Feldman to crowdfund the money to investigate if his idea had any weight. And that's pretty much exactly what Dave did. Got the low carb community to fund you. If they want to know the answer, cuz I don't think they do. If I'm going to be brutally honest, I think the worst of that crowd just want their confirmation bias. Dave built a foundation to crowdfund the very important keto CTA study, which is tracking people with sky-high bad cholesterol on a keto diet, but are also metabolically healthy.

Everyone is impatiently waiting for all the data to come out because it could completely change how people think about cholesterol. Now, Dave and his foundation had to raise about $350,000 to fund the study. About as much as one of Peter's watches. Because if you think about it, there's not really a financial incentive to generate any data that could go against the conventional understanding of cholesterol and the way we treat it with cholesterol-lowering drugs. that overconfidence is preventing scientific exploration and people aren't acknowledging the financial incentive structures that are generating the data that they're basing their confidence on.

You had to personally create a foundation and raise $350,000 just to answer these questions that probably other people should have asked by now. C can you comment on that? I mean, you summed it up pretty well. Frankly, if our research does provide data suggesting people with very high levels of LDL in this population may not have that association between their LDL levels and the plaque development, frankly, that's only going to lose money for a different interest. In 2024, the KetoCa study Dave crowdfunded generated more data supporting his idea. metabolically healthy people on a keto diet with sky high LDL didn't develop more plaque in

their heart but it's been crickets from Peter Aia and I've corresponded with Peter around this we had a journal of clinical lipidology editorial that I was writing via Peter's head of research at the time Bob Kaplan and asked Peter to join just because I'm like look this is an olive branch I want us to have a cordial dialogue because my objective is just forwarding the research he declined saying that there are people quote far more reliable or far more reputable. Peter saying like he's not a reliable resource to talk about this. They use this massive platform. Why have we not even had this conversation? Look, experts get podcast debate requests on every single little topic all the time.

I'm not saying they would have to even respond to those. They wouldn't have time to do anything else. But I think you'd agree this is a unique situation. Peter directly challenged someone on a topic he's so adamant about and then the person went and took the $350,000 challenge headon, but Peter stays completely silent. All the while, he maintains his same extra high confidence talking points on this topic. This Peter Aia discussion highlights how important it is to pay attention to nuance and not just to take the word of whoever makes the claims with maximum confidence. This isn't too different from the news

nowadays. We rarely get the full nuance. It seems like every piece of news that we come across has some sort of spin depending on who's delivering it. This is exactly the problem the website and app Ground News was built to solve. Every day, Ground News organizes thousands of news articles from across the world by story with a visual breakdown of reporting bias, reliability, and ownership so you can separate facts from spin. For example, 310 outlets cover the Trump administration's release of new dietary guidelines. and you'll immediately notice that you can conveniently see how totally different points are being highlighted. The left-leaning Vox claims that the new food pyramid is lying to you. But the right-leaning

Daily Signal says these guidelines are exactly what we've needed for years. Meanwhile, Forbes in the center highlights that the idea of alcohol providing some health benefits is just not true. Thanks to the bird's eyee view that Brown News provides, it's easy to get the full picture rather than being influenced by one outlet spin. Ground News even has a blind spot feed that highlights the stories that are being completely missed by the left or right. So, at a glance, you can see how much of the coverage is coming from the left, how much is from the right, and how much is from the center. Scan this QR code or go to ground.news/wil to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan so you can see the full picture. Again, it's ground.news/wil.