Dr. Layne Norton

And I mean, honestly, people who don't have a research background, it's hard to unpack this stuff. So What I would say is you have to be very careful with people who cite studies. And one of the things I'll say, too, is there's nothing more dangerous than somebody who's read a biochemistry book because they're going to see pathway, biochemical pathway. There must be an outcome.

So outcomes are what we really care about at the end of the day. And when I say outcomes, gaining muscle mass, losing fat mass, Risk of cardiovascular disease, insulin sensitivity, cancer. But these are hard outcomes, right? And those outcomes are the summation of dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of biochemical pathways all summing up to an outcome.

So outcomes are what we really care about at the end of the day. And when I say outcomes, gaining muscle mass, losing fat mass, Risk of cardiovascular disease, insulin sensitivity, cancer. But these are hard outcomes, right? And those outcomes are the summation of dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of biochemical pathways all summing up to an outcome.

So outcomes are what we really care about at the end of the day. And when I say outcomes, gaining muscle mass, losing fat mass, Risk of cardiovascular disease, insulin sensitivity, cancer. But these are hard outcomes, right? And those outcomes are the summation of dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of biochemical pathways all summing up to an outcome.

And just because something has a biochemical pathway doesn't mean it will create an outcome. But if there's an outcome, there's absolutely a mechanism to explain it. Now, let me give you an example of why this stuff can be so complicated and why it's so easy for people to, if you want to create a narrative, you can always find a study to create a narrative.

And just because something has a biochemical pathway doesn't mean it will create an outcome. But if there's an outcome, there's absolutely a mechanism to explain it. Now, let me give you an example of why this stuff can be so complicated and why it's so easy for people to, if you want to create a narrative, you can always find a study to create a narrative.

And just because something has a biochemical pathway doesn't mean it will create an outcome. But if there's an outcome, there's absolutely a mechanism to explain it. Now, let me give you an example of why this stuff can be so complicated and why it's so easy for people to, if you want to create a narrative, you can always find a study to create a narrative.

Aspirin, we would agree, is an anticoagulant. There's a reason they give it to patients who are at risk for heart disease or a heart attack. It's because it reduces blood clots, reduces coagulation. It also activates procoagulant pathways. But the overall outcome is anticoagulation.

Aspirin, we would agree, is an anticoagulant. There's a reason they give it to patients who are at risk for heart disease or a heart attack. It's because it reduces blood clots, reduces coagulation. It also activates procoagulant pathways. But the overall outcome is anticoagulation.

Aspirin, we would agree, is an anticoagulant. There's a reason they give it to patients who are at risk for heart disease or a heart attack. It's because it reduces blood clots, reduces coagulation. It also activates procoagulant pathways. But the overall outcome is anticoagulation.

But if I wanted to create a narrative that aspirin was bad for blood clots, I could say, well, look at these biochemical pathways it activates. And you see this, like, for example, I could create a narrative that smoking is not bad for you, okay? I remember reading a meta-analysis of the effect of smoking on the risk of adenocarcinoma, right?

But if I wanted to create a narrative that aspirin was bad for blood clots, I could say, well, look at these biochemical pathways it activates. And you see this, like, for example, I could create a narrative that smoking is not bad for you, okay? I remember reading a meta-analysis of the effect of smoking on the risk of adenocarcinoma, right?

But if I wanted to create a narrative that aspirin was bad for blood clots, I could say, well, look at these biochemical pathways it activates. And you see this, like, for example, I could create a narrative that smoking is not bad for you, okay? I remember reading a meta-analysis of the effect of smoking on the risk of adenocarcinoma, right?

And there's a forest plot with probably about 50 studies. And most of those studies are to the very far right of the line, which is increases risk. And I think the overall effect was like 300% or 400% increased risk of adenocarcinoma. But there were two studies that were to the left of the line, not by much, and it wasn't statistically significant.

And there's a forest plot with probably about 50 studies. And most of those studies are to the very far right of the line, which is increases risk. And I think the overall effect was like 300% or 400% increased risk of adenocarcinoma. But there were two studies that were to the left of the line, not by much, and it wasn't statistically significant.

And there's a forest plot with probably about 50 studies. And most of those studies are to the very far right of the line, which is increases risk. And I think the overall effect was like 300% or 400% increased risk of adenocarcinoma. But there were two studies that were to the left of the line, not by much, and it wasn't statistically significant.

But I could say, hey, look, I could cite these two studies, PMID. You know, they showed no increased risk of adenocarcinoma and actually might be slightly protective. And by the way, did you know that smoking decreases the risk of Parkinson's by 30 to 40 percent? And by the way, that's very consistent in literature.

But I could say, hey, look, I could cite these two studies, PMID. You know, they showed no increased risk of adenocarcinoma and actually might be slightly protective. And by the way, did you know that smoking decreases the risk of Parkinson's by 30 to 40 percent? And by the way, that's very consistent in literature.

But I could say, hey, look, I could cite these two studies, PMID. You know, they showed no increased risk of adenocarcinoma and actually might be slightly protective. And by the way, did you know that smoking decreases the risk of Parkinson's by 30 to 40 percent? And by the way, that's very consistent in literature.

So I can start creating this narrative that smoking, but we know smoking is not good for you. It's not good for you. It raises the risk of lung cancer, all different kinds of cancers, cardiovascular disease, massive increase in risk, right? But I could thread the needle of science using these cherry-picked studies. And so what I'll tell people is if I go into a topic, if I go into something,