Follow US:

Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Dr. Tim Noakes - Challenging Conventional Dietary Guidelines

Difficulty: 0

- So, I'm going to talk about my experiences over the last

seven years since I decided to change my mind

and I just have to correct one thing about, that Jeff

got wrong in his lecture this morning.

The golden era of ketone research starts with a paper

by Noakes, Koeslag and Sloan in 1980.


And here it is.


The famous forgotten study post exercise ketosis,

and this happened at a time when we were heavily

involved in carbohydrate loading

and, but the way we would load for marathons is

we would do three days of carbohydrate depletion where you

wouldn't need carbohydrates and you'd run as far as you

could and then for three days you'd carbohydrate load.

And my friend Johan Koeslag came to me

and he said, "I'm really interested in ketosis

'cause it's never been studied."

So I said, "Well my wife tells me, I smell terrible

in the carbohydrate depletion phase of this, maybe there's

something to do with carbohydrates and ketones,

and if you stop eating carbohydrates you get ketotic."

So we did some experiments

and the (mumbles) can move?

Sorry, am I pointing at that, there we go.

So I'm very proud because I was one of the subjects

and what we did was, for a day, sorry, we would carbohydrate

load, or we would do a low carbohydrate diet.

There's the low carbohydrate diet and we would run for two

hours on a treadmill, and then we got this fabulous ketosis

which we would then reverse if

we ate carbohydrates, that was the next study.

And when we had no exercise we didn't become ketotic

and we ate lots of carbohydrates and ran we didn't become

ketotic obviously everyone knows, but in those days we

didn't know actually, this was the first study of ketosis,

post exercise ketosis since the 1930s.

But what was really interesting was to find out why I

was not going to be so healthy in due course.

Because, when we looked at the insulin levels

and glucose levels, and remember there were two of us,

so it was me and my friend.

What we noticed was that on the, here

free fatty acids you'd expect they go up

when you're on the low carbohydrate diet etcetera.

But look at this glucose response, on the high carbohydrate

diet, we showed an abnormal response, which I didn't,

no one noticed that, but glucose shouldn't shoot up like

that on a high carbohydrate diet.

On the low carbohydrate diet it was bad

for the first hour but then it improved.

But look at the insulins.

This is on the low carbohydrate, insulin is reasonably low.

When we didn't do any exercise, look at it.

This person is profoundly insulin resistant,

and we didn't know what it was.

So I was profoundly insulin resistant at the age of 28,

despite being lean and running marathons and running 140

kilometers a week, about 70-80 miles a week.

I was profoundly insulin resistant, look at this,

after a day of no exercise and no food,

we didn't eat that day, look at this.

I'm startled by instance that are way too high.

Today it's much lower because I don't eat carbohydrates.

So I was, I was destined to develop type 2 diabetes,

but no one knew and no one picked it up.

So I use that as a good example and one thing, if you want

to do research, you know, people need to watch the glucose

response to exercise in people insulin resistant

and I think that's an early detector for insulin

resistance, it is you should monitor always glucose after

the end of a maximum test, exercise test.

It should be normal, if it's not, I suspect you're going to

have some insulin resistance, just a hypothesis.

So what happened next to me, next was as I said Tim

Noakes and friend have instant resistance hypertensive

anemia despite youth and marathon training.

It improved on the high fat diet, they must develop Type 2

diabetes with time if they continue eating a high

carbohydrate diet, so I continue to eat the high

carbohydrate diet for 33 years.

And the consequence was obvious.

So now we just go a little bit forward, next year.

This is the picture I graduated with a doctorate in

medicine and that's my mother and my father.

My father's just been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes

and he's put on a high carbohydrate diet

and ten years later he's dead from the disease.

And I watched him die and there's nothing worse

than dying from Type 2 diabetes.

He had strokes when he died, he could not speak to me.

He lost both his legs and this was a wonderful wonderful man

a very powerful, charismatic person and absolutely the icon

in my country, and I couldn't help him.

And so I carry that burden but I could not help him

and much of what I do is because I'm inspired by

what he gave to me and the fact that

I couldn't pay back to him.

So now, it turns out that I discover I've got Type 2

diabetes about seven years ago and I realized I got 10

years, 10 years or else I'm gonna be his position

and now seven years down the line I'm glad to report

that my diabetes is in remission or

in reversal whatever you choose.

And so I've been able to do it, it took me seven years of a

very low carbohydrate diet to do it

but I'm thankful to those people who put me on the

right path and the people who put me on the right path

were these guys, Eric Westman, Steve Finney and Jeff Volek.

And the story is, one day, the day our scent

of waterlogged to be published and send it to the editors.

I hadn't been running much and my brain told me you must get

up tomorrow morning and you must run and you must not stop

running for the rest of your life.

So I got up, and I ran and had a terrible run.

And I got a tiny hill outside my house and when I reached

the top of the hill which is tiny I thought I was at top of

the summit of Mount Everest, I felt so terrible.

So I went back and I opened my emails and there was an

advert for this book, I mean how was how probable is that to

happen, I was at the moment I needed help, the book was

being advertised and I was so angry, I was so angry when I

read it because I said this guy Atkins he's a crook

and a thief, and everything.

And these three people have sold out to him and they are

good scientists and that's a disgrace, I was saying,

I got in the car and drove to the local bookshop

and I had the last copy of the book and I picked it up

and in my anger tore it open and started reading it like

this and after two hours, I said oh my gosh I got it all

wrong, I said for 33 years I've been completely wrong.

And I said that's it, no more carbohydrates ever.

And I had my last low low carbohydrates that day

and converted to the diet immediately.

And the response from me was spectacular and as I said it's

seven years and my diabetes is in remission.

But this book was and is an astonishing book, I think that's

the best diet book I've ever read and he describes instant

resistance in great detail and all the symptoms you develop

and it's a book that really one needs to read.

So when I say they saved my life they did because 10

years later if I hadn't read this book, I would be on

insulin, I'd be weighing 240, 250 kilograms, I wouldn't be

able to do exercise and my brain would have gone

and other things would have gone.

So that's thank you guys, you're the start of

whatever else I might have achieved, I owe it to you.


So anyway, so I changed my diet and I knew there'd be a

backlash and this book is the second edition of this book

and in the interim, the first edition didn't do so well

so they say why don't you spice it up a bit so I said.

"Yeah I can write about the diet, you see."

So here it has high low carbohydrate high protein diet will

improve your life, that was the addition to the book

and immediately it's, it opened up a can of worms and

the cardiologist went for me immediately,

because I said you may be

statins on such a good idea, so they targeted me first.

And then, then I wrote this article because people were

writing to me and they were saying, prof, if my diabetes is

in remission or whatever and I took 127 of the stories

and I analyzed them, and I said, listen this is just

anecdotes but they're important, had four people described

they'd reverse they Type 2 diabetes this is 2013

and I thought my gosh that's really important wouldn't

my profession love it to be told that you can reverse

Type 2 diabetes, and there was one person one person lost

260 pounds in seven months.

Just by chance, it's not, the first week he lost three

kilogram, one week he lost 12 pounds in one week.

I mean, I don't know how it happened, anyway.

And I thought they would love it.

Do you know what, my university tried to get this paper

retracted because I didn't have ethical approval to

write these things about these people because

I didn't ask each of them for

ethical permission to, to include their information.

And I know, I never said it was hard science, I said a

randomized clinic controlled clinical trial is

urgently required to disprove the hypothesis that the

LCH of eating plan can reverse cases of Type 2 diabetes,

metabolic syndrome, and hypertension without formal therapy.

And now fortunately we had the verde health study,

but that's all I was saying and

they wanted to to stop the article.

The next thing we did was we wrote this book and this is a

really interesting guide study because this guy is a long

distance runner, and he and a friend were

running the length of the Wall of China.

And they got into Mongolia and they ran out of food

and they were really struggling and they spoke to the

Mongolians and this the Mongolian said there's only one

way you're going to finish this, you eat pork fat,

that's all, pork fat from now till the end and you'll be

fine, so they ate pork fat and everything was fantastic.


So they came back and they said we should write a book to

promote real, the real foods, a high fat diet for athletes.

And it took us five weeks, now normally takes me years to

write a book, we write this book in five weeks and we

published it and it just went ballistic in South Africa

and it sold many many copies and completely changed the

nature of the dietary debate in South Africa.

Now the public were asking, they were all

talking about this low fat low low carbohydrate diet

and we call it the Banting Diet in South Africa.

And unfortunately the dietitians responded in a negative

way, they didn't say embrace it, they said no it's all

wrong, you're going to die if you eat the diet.

And the public didn't believe them

because the public was benefiting so much.

And so we call it the Banting diet.

Sorry, this is all it said, this is the the genius of this

book is this table the green foods, these are the green list

of foods and that's it, that's the genius of the book

as long as you eat these foods you'll live forever.

So and that's what we didn't promise, but that's what we

said and that's so easy if you've got your green list you

can, can do it and then the book was named after that,

we call the diet the Banting Diet after Mr. Banting, who

very kindly sent me these two pictures of himself.


And this is his, before the diet, and that's after the diet

and he lost about 40 pounds, as you can see and then wrote

this book which became very popular, so it was really

interesting in South Africa, the night before the book went

to the publishers, one of the authors, he changed LCHF

and he just put Banting, and that really gave it legs

because the Banting name now meant something,

and if you talked in South Africa,

we don't talk LCHF, it's the Banting Guide.

Okay so now what happens, so what happens is I now go

and speak to parliament and there's a picture of me handing

the Real Meal Revolution to the speaker of parliament.

And my university thinks this is the worst thing that's

ever happened to the university in its history, in its

100 year history to have Noakes promoting a diet to

the Parliament, and the four professors decide to write this

letter and they send it to the Cape Times,

so I wake up one morning warned that this letter

is going to appear in the Cape Times, which is our

major newspaper in the Cape Town, on the Monday morning.

And this is what it says.

"This has never happened before in the history of my

university, it is therefore a serious concern that

Professor Timothy Noakes, a colleague respected

for his research in sport science, is aggressively

promoting the diet as a revolution."

I'm not promoting the diet.

I wrote a book that South Africans promoted the book

for me, I did not need to promote it.

"Making outrageous unproven claims

about disease prevention."

I did not make any claims, all I said what these people

reported that they had reversed their Type 2 diabetes

or hypertension on the diet, I made no claim,

I said what they said.

"Maligning the integrity and credibility of peers who

criticize his diet for being evidence deficient and not

conforming to the tenets of good and responsible science."

I never said that, they were talking like that about

me, I never once criticized a colleague publicly, for that.

And then "this goes against the University of Cape

Town's commitment to academic freedom as

a prerequisite to fostering responsible and

respectful intellectual debate and free inquiry."

Now that is George Orwellian speech.


Yeah, I don't need to explain what I mean.

They were shutting down freedom of speech.

And it got worse.

"The UCD Faculty of Health Sciences the leading

research institute in Africa has a reputation for

research excellent to uphold."

Which I'd contributed to that, by the way.

"Above all our research must be socially responsible.

We have therefore taken the unusual step of distancing

ourselves from the proponents of this diet".

Now that has never happened to anyone at that

university in its long history.

So why would they choose me?

Now I didn't understand at the time that this is called

mobbing, academic mobbing.

And this article describes academic mobbing,

which is a horrendous event.

This lady committed suicide with her husband

when she was mobbed.

She's from a Canadian university.

She could not take it, the pressure of mobbing.

I could take it because I was no longer in the

university, I was retired.

But this is how they described mobbing.

And this is this is what it feels like,

if you're ever mobbed.

An impassioned collective campaign by co-workers to exclude,

punish and humiliate a targeted worker, initiated most often

by a person in position of power, of influence, it was

started by my Dean of the Faculty of Medicine.

Mobbing is a desperate urge to crush and eliminate the

target, the urge traveled through the workplace like a virus

infecting one person after another.

The target comes to be viewed as absolutely abhorrent with

no redeeming qualities outside the circle of acceptance

and respectability, deserving only of contempt.

As the campaign proceeds steadily larger range of hostile

ploys and communications comes to be seen as legitimate.

And that's what happened to me.

Anything they did after that was was justified, it

didn't matter how humiliating it was whatever they did.

And you know that it's a frightening book, when you read it,

article, when you read it, but to be exposed to this is

terrible and the worst thing is the people who are

closest to you have to prove to the mob that

they have distanced themselves, most from you.

So the people I've helped the most

were the ones who were the most horrid to me.

And just so just think of that.

I survived because of my wife and what the target of the

mobbing is, is firstly they isolate you, I was isolated

completely from my university and my faculty, including the

sports science institute, which I'd helped build

because they didn't support me either.

I had one person supporting me directly and it was my wife.

And the focus is to break you from your wife because then

you're finished and if we had broken I probably would have

committed suicide, but we were too strong for them.

And she is the reason that I survived and we fought it,

we decided we're going to fight this thing whatever

happens and we're going to come out on top in the end.

And fortunately that's what happened.

So then what happened was, I get charged for unprofessional

conduct and then in the middle of my testimony,

this is what the newspaper said.

So I said today has great value etcetera in science.

So, it all circulates on my Twitter account and so if you

don't follow me you might want to know why do I use Twitter

and why do I think it's such an important social media.

And firstly, I use it for information sharing.

It is the easiest and best way to share information.

My own personal education I probably photocopy or print out

three or five new articles a day, from what I pick up

and I mean it's just it's overwhelming all of the

information and that's one of the problem because there's

so much information on this diet, coming through, that it's

difficult to know what you should be talking about.

And then I also use it, and I'm for challenging conventional

dietary guidelines, I like to promote the science supporting

the medical benefits of the low carbohydrate Banting

lifestyle and to highlight the failings of the current

pharmacological model of chronic disease management.

So that's that's why I'm on Twitter.

So what happened was that on February 3, 2014,

Pippa Leenstra tweeted this.

And so she's a mother, she, her husband has read The Real

Meal Revolution and is doing a low carb diet and she asked,

"Is low carb high fat eating okay for breastfeeding moms

worried about all the dairy

and cauliflower wind for babies",

Question mark, question mark.

And she writes to two people, not me and it's not

Dr. Noakes its professor and on my Twitter handle it does

not say I'm a medical doctor, it says I'm a scientist.

And she asked a question of two of, it's this plural

that critically important mums and babies,

that's critical to the whole defense.

And so here's my answer.

Baby doesn't eat the dairy and cauliflower.

That's a statement of fact just very healthy high fat

breast milk so I'm promoting breastfeeding and then I make

the error and these seven words are the problem.

Key is to ween, I could even,

know how to spell weening, baby onto LCHF.

And that was a seven word tweet that became the most

expensive tweet in the history of tweet-dom.


So said, within nine hours, this lady, who happens to be

the head of the Association For Dietitians in South

Africa, complains to the health professional Councils,

I'm registered with the health professional council

because I'm a doctor.

And so she writes to them and she says, "To whom it may

concern I would like to file a complaint against Noakes.

He is giving incorrect medical blah blah on Twitter,

that is not evidence based.

I have atest the tweet where Professor Noakes advise

breastfeeding mother to wean her baby onto low carbohydrate

high fat diet, I urge the HPCSA to please take urgent

actions against this type of misconduct as Professor Noakes

is a celebrity and they don't, the public doesn't have the

knowledge to understand that the information he is

advocating is not evidence based.

It's dangerous to give this advice, for instance, for

infant and could potentially be life threatening.

I await your response."

So a few days later I receive a letter from the health

professional council saying this is the complaint and you

have to defend it, so I laugh because she didn't give any

evidence, there's no evidence here about what I said was

dangerous, where's the evidence?

You can't make a charge without providing evidence and

I wrote a long letter and I thought it would be the end of

it, but then I began to realize things were

taking off behind the scenes.

So eventually, I get charged and this is the charge the

biomedical ethical issue, I acted disgracefully because I

abused the doctor patient relationship by offering medical

advice on social media to a patient and her infant without

first examining the healthy infant.

So that's the charge.

And also that the medical advice I preferred was not

only wrong, it was unconventional not evidence based,

but it is also dangerous, even there were there was never

any evidence or claim of harm.

So the problem that they faced was that, this is the way

they used a circular argument providing medical

information on Twitter represents disgraceful conduct

because it's not possible to examine the patient on

Twitter, but if it's not possible to

examine the patient on Twitter then it's not possible to

have a doctor patient relationship on Twitter.


And the argument went round

and round and round as I'll show.

So four years later, during the appeal which we had

earlier this year, the HBCSA finally dropped any

pretense that a doctor patient relationship existed.

They realized they'd lost that case, so what did they say,

they now argue that the weaning advice was dangerous to

millions and billions of Twitter followers.

And so now he's been charged with killing millions of

people and giving them the wrong advice on Twitter.


So what next happens is it so when you charged,

it goes to a preliminary committee and

these geniuses were the guys who are going to decide

whether they should charge me or not.

Now, what they're meant to do, is that they collect the

information and then they send, they've got all this

information they send it to me, I respond, and then they

call me and I'm must present to them.

I was never given that, and that is the South African

Constitution says that has to happen.

This lady is the Head of Ethics at one of the

major South African universities.

She broke all ethical rules for a number of things that

she did, but she did not give me the

right to hear the charge they made against me

which is against the Constitution of South Africa.

Then they started, this guy, who I've known since I was this

high, he decides he is going to make sure I get charged

and he's gonna sort out all the expert witnesses, now that's

not his job, he must just decide whether to charge me

or not, so anyway the question was what did they know about

Twitter, and the answer was nothing.

None of them had ever had any interest in Twitter.

And so that was.

So anyway, they then decided on the basis of me not

being allowed to defend myself that they were going to

charge me and the charge went forward.

So here are the problems that they faced.

The first one is I answered a wee question.

And the thing about a wee question is, which means I was

providing general medical information, not medical

advice, I'm just giving medical information.

For example, medical information, if you got up

and asked me doc, Professor Noakes, is it right for runners

to stretch before they go training in the mornings.

That's medical information, it's not medical advice.

If I lost the case, none of you would ever be able to

answer that question in public again.

Because you would be giving so-called medical advice

not medical information and you'd have to examine every

patient before you gave that advice.

Yeah yeah.

And hence that could not be a doctor patient relationship.

There was no doctor patient relationship,

we proved that in many ways.

So here was the opinion of a South African, who was

President of the South African Medical Association,

he made a very very obvious point.

Today, all medical advice artists are ubiquitous all across

the globe by both print and electronic media.

But it's never been suggested that Dr. Oz

has a doctor patient relationship with his hearers


Et cetera, now see if I'd lost the case, poor old

Dr. Oz could not appear anymore,

technically, at least in South Africa.

And you would not be able to give a public lecture

and you wouldn't be able to write a book because that

would be giving medical advice and the only way you

could do it, you'd have to examine everyone who reads your

book and then you can give them the advice.


So why was I treated differently?

And is it to set an historical precedent and I don't know.

All I can tell you is that industry was strongly

involved in the case against me.

And you can probably guess which industries they were.

So there was no Dr Price, the information I provided is

entirely compatible with the South African and international

guidelines for complementary feeding, weaning of children.

This is astonishing, what I said was

absolutely gold standard, right advice.

So let's look at that.

Here's complementary feeding, a critical window, this is in

the South African Medical Journal written by all the top

experts in South Africa and what do they say.

Provide a variety of foods, meat, poultry, fish and eggs

should be eaten daily or as often as possible.

That's that's what I said.

So then we go on the Association For Dietitians of South

Africa, which was also part of the charge against me,

what are their guidelines?

Foods from animals should be eaten daily or as often as

possible to meet protein and iron needs.

Okay so, and then the best was this lady,

because she was the expert witness for the prosecution.

They used all her evidence to charge me and the best

moments, I may introduce Rocky Ramdass to you in a second

or two, and say when she came to give the expert witness,

by the way, Rocky, well I'll show you now.

But we just had such a fabulous relationship.

He once cross-examined me and I was in five minutes I

couldn't speak anymore, but she came up and so he asked

her, so Professor Foster what's your training.

Now I have a BSE in home economics and an PhD in physiology.

So why does that qualify you as a dietitian.

Have you ever treated anyone with diet for dieting?

No no no, etcetera.

Got worse than that because you also gave evidence on

ethics is that what training you have ethics, nothing.

Have you ever research a low carbohydrate diet, no.

Have you ever prescribed the diet for anyone, no.

So he said well what are you doing here, then.


There was the first five minutes and she'd never been

cross-examined in her life by any student or anyone.

And it was, she said things to me

afterwards which I can't even repeat.


So what did she say, from six months of age give your child

meat chicken fish or eggs everyday or as often as possible.

So she didn't know what her guidelines were, either.

Okay, so there we go, there's Professor Foster.

And this is this is our guidelines, meat, poultry, game

all eggs and offer all seafood and they're all the

vegetables, that's it, that's the Real Me Revolution diet

for weaning of children.

So the third one was, no one suffered any harm,

Mrs. Leenstra did not follow the advice nor did she lay the

complaint, which is astonishing, the first time

someone is charged and the person

who lays the complaint doesn't suffer harm and isn't present

And so she very kindly wrote to the newspapers.

She'd never and I've apologized in Afrikaans, but this means

she didn't give a damn, if you might excuse me


She says the Noakes case, I don't give a damn.

That was her and her son who was not put on the Banting

diet and he looks okay but probably

would look a bit better if he'd been weaned on.


And in the end, we proved that the complaint was laid as

part of a collusion between ADSA and the health professional

council with a purpose to silence me, that is denying me my

constitutional right of freedom of speech because

before I'd even sent the tweet, the head of ADSA was

talking to the health professional council

to try to shut me up, so we discovered these,

this was an incriminating email.

This was the lady who led the charge, she's President of

the Association for Dietetics in South Africa

and she writes to this lady who serves on the health

professional council as a representative for nutrition

and dietetics in South Africa.

This is before I've tweeted

and she says, "Tim Noakes impact on the dietetics

profession, here are other examples of what other people are

writing about dieticians to the negative attention

we're getting from Tim Noakes", there was no negative

attention, I was just, wrote a book that's all.

The article below tax dietician but it's written by someone

else and it was a very stinging article which had made her

very unhappy and etcetera etcetera.

And it goes on before the trial even happens.

So the trial begins, sorry, I think the battery is running

out here, I think the battery's died.

There we go, okay.

So this is now a year before the trial starts,

a year before the trial starts, she writes,

"We've had a meeting with the senior legal person at the

HPCSA and he says we've got a plan for Dr Noakes."

This is a year before the trial begins,

so that was the collusion and then,

so then she writes back a few days later, oh sorry,

a few hours later.

I think the battery is really struggling, there we go.

"And thank you for your email, this is now the fourth before

the trial begins, a year before the trial begins,

I just feel that the process takes very long and the damage

gets worse and worse, dieticians contact me daily, I feel

that I don't have support from the HBCSA, I'm glad it's been

discussed, can you possibly give me an indication of what

the timelines are when we can expect action taken."

Thanks so much.

So that was it, so it was a it was a setup which had nothing

to do with the tweet, it had, the fact that the dietetics,

the dietitians were unhappy with what was happening.

So in the end the trial lasted more than four years

and cost an estimated one million dollars

for all parties, perhaps its great legacy

will have to have brought the LCHF diet

to an even larger global audience.

So I must finalize by thanking a couple of people this

is my team at three guys here just absolutely.

Mike van der Nest and Rocky Ramdass,

who gave their time me for free, they gave me probably

at least a million dollars free cover.


And they're two of the most eloquent,

the best lawyers in South Africa.

And Mike phoned me and he said "Tim, it's a witch hunt,

I'm gonna defend you."

And Rocky, I'll show you in a second, so here's Rocky

and myself, and we had four great years together

and we now brothers and here we are sitting at the trial

and we were, we would present the evidence and we'd been

through it and, you know, he literally read the transcripts

I think five times he was just a meticulous man and just I

can't thank you enough and he's a Hindu.

And this is a verdict definition of a man of God, softer

than the flower where kindness is concerned and you could

see the kindness in his face, stronger than the thunder

where principles are at stake and that was that,

he nailed those, the poor old

prosecution witnesses got nailed.

Now why is he called Rocky?

Well there's a guy called Rocky Balboa, you may remember.

And Rocky was one of the anti-apartheid activists in

South Africa and in the 1980s. he led a lot of the

anti-apartheid activism at his university.

And so we always had this little card just to remind us,

from Rocky, let me tell you something you already know,

the world ain't all sunshine and rainbows.

It's all very, it's a very mean and nasty place

and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to

your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it

you me or nobody is going to hit as hard as life

but it ain't about how hard you hit, it's about how hard you

can get hit and keep moving forward, how much you can take

and keep moving forward, that's how winning is done.

And that was our relationship and he also taught me the

Hindu, much about the Hindu religion.

And if I'm born again I want to be born a Hindu.


And he told me about Ganesh and Ganesh is the God of

removing obstructions and we would pray to

Ganesh everyday at the start of the trial.


To remove the obstructions for that day.

And then, the famous group came Nina Teicholz, whom you'll

know, who is right here in the front.

These are my three expert witnesses, so can we get back.

Sorry something's effing now.

I've obviously pressed, there we go.

So I had three expert witnesses I gave nine days test.

The Description of Dr. Tim Noakes - Challenging Conventional Dietary Guidelines