Name: 生物科学者だけど「誤った健康情報」について質問ある？PART2 | Tech Support | WIRED Japan
Uploaded: 2025-02-15T09:05:10.000Z
Duration: 37 min 43 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

hyperbaric oxygen, dietary supplements, urine therapy, ozone therapy, metal chelation.

None of these have evidence to support their use for any ailment.

I'm Dr. Andrea Love, biomedical scientist.

Let's answer your questions from the internet.

This is more pseudoscience support. ["Sugar Daddy"] Okay, first question.

AdSentient Nazgul wants to know, what's wrong with raw milk?

God forbid it tastes better than store-bought.

Well, a lot of disease-causing microorganisms.

Pathogens like E. coli, Campylobacter, Brucella, and Salmonella.

These are all bacteria that can be found in milk or living in cows.

Before the pasteurized milk ordinance went into effect in the early 1900s, milk-borne illnesses accounted for about 38% of all food-borne illnesses.

Now that we pasteurize milk and we don't consume raw milk, that level has dropped to 1% of all food-borne illnesses. 70% of milk-borne food outbreaks occurred in states that had permission to sell raw milk.

So there's a reason that we pasteurize milk.

Now, proponents of raw milk claim that it tastes better or preserves the nutrients better or it improves your immune system and there's just no science behind any of that.

You might think raw milk tastes better because you're drinking milk with a higher fat content compared to milk that you're buying at the store, but pasteurization, which is heating milk to a temperature of 161 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 seconds, has no impact on the nutrient quality of the milk.

It does, however, have a huge impact on killing all of those disease-causing microorganisms that might be in your dairy.

At Bob's Blog wants to know, do artificial sweeteners actually give you cancer?

Is that like Gwyneth Paltrow-level health?

Artificial sweeteners do not cause cancer.

Aspartame is actually made up of two amino acids that are joined together, aspartic acid and phenylalanine.

So when you ingest aspartame, they split apart and you use those amino acids to make proteins like you would with anything else you ingested.

Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than regular sugar, so the amount that's needed to sweeten a beverage is minuscule.

Based on extensive studies of aspartame, we know that in order to have even a minimal risk of harm, you'd have to drink up to 50 cans of diet soda in a single day.

Now, I love my diet soda, but I don't think it's physically possible to even consume that much.

You'd be far more likely to experience water toxicity from drinking that amount of fluid than you would by having toxicity from the aspartame.

At Still Sick of It says, remember that time Joe Rogan interviewed RFK Jr. and said he believes vaccines cause autism?

RFK Jr. has spread the myth that vaccines are linked to autism for several decades, and it's a central feature of his organization, Children's Health Defense.

That organization made over $23 million in 2022 alone, and in fact, recent investigative journalism has revealed that RFK Jr. himself was being paid over $20,000 a week as the chairman for Children's Health Defense in 2023 alone.

The purported link to autism and vaccines has been debunked and addressed over 20 plus years, and there is no relationship.

The biggest predictor for autism is having an immediate family member also with autism, which suggests that there's a strong genetic link.

The prevalence of autism has increased, but this is a function of diagnosis.

We have better, more appropriate diagnostic criteria to recognize autism cases, whereas in decades past, we were not capturing and recognizing how prevalent autism truly was.

At Liza777777 wants to know, are GMOs slash synthetic foods slash vaccines harmful?

There's a common perception that GMOs, especially food crops, are some unnatural thing that we've altered in a way that's harmful, but the reality is is that humans have been genetically modifying and messing with nature since the dawn of time.

Most people don't know that the vegetables we know to be cauliflower, broccoli, brussel sprouts, kohlrabi, and cabbage are actually all genetically modified versions of the wild mustard plant.

Modern-day GMOs allow us to do this in a faster and more controlled way.

At Chef Bi says, dove has the best smelling deodorant.

Bring on the aluminum and cancer-causing parabens because that shit smelled good AF.

So the good news is is that aluminum salts and antiperspirants and parabens don't cause cancer, so you can breathe a sigh of relief.

Parabens are a class of antimicrobials, and they're used to inhibit contamination and inhibit the growth of bacteria and fungi that would contaminate a product that you're using repeatedly, and they've been used in these products for over 100 years.

The levels at which you would be exposed to parabens are not posing any sort of harm.

It's why they've been asserted and reasserted as safe for use.

People have been led to believe that parabens are linked to breast cancer because there was a really terribly done study in the Journal of Applied Toxicology where they took breast tumor biopsies that were stored in the freezer and they detected minuscule levels.

We're talking parts per billion of parabens in these breast tumor tissues.

And when they looked at their negative controls, their blank values, levels of parabens detected in those were actually higher than some of the tissue samples, which actually suggests that their instrumentation was contaminated.

So over here, we have four different types of parabens.

Ethylparaben and methylparaben bind 100,000 times more weakly to estrogen receptor.

So one versus 100,000 of your actual estrogen hormone estradiol.

And butylparaben and propylparaben bind 10,000 times more weakly.

So 10 versus 100,000 versus your estradiol hormone.

So the likelihood of these paraben chemicals actually out-competing your estrogen hormones is near zero.

Adrobosox wants to know, are probiotics BS or nah?

Unfortunately, they're more BS than they are evidence.

Probiotics are a type of supplement that contain live microorganisms.

But there's 40 trillion bacteria that live in your GI tract.

And they make up hundreds of different species.

The problem with probiotic supplements is they usually only contain one, two, or a small handful of species of bacteria.

The reason that they're in the probiotic supplement is not because they've been identified to be beneficial for your health, but they're relatively easy to grow in large quantities.

But there've been a lot of studies that have evaluated or assessed the ability of probiotic supplements to improve health.

And unfortunately, there's really no data to support their use.

And if a probiotic supplement doesn't have what we call an enteric coating, those bacteria are very likely going to be killed by your stomach acids.

So there's no data to even show that these supplements are even gonna make it into your intestines where they need to be.

Prebiotic is another term that we often confuse with probiotics, but prebiotic is really just a fancy word for fiber.

So prebiotics are the food that the bacteria in your gut are gonna use to do what they do.

While you might see supplements that say they're filled with prebiotics, it's really just saying they're containing different types of fiber.

And so you can get a lot of those health benefits that we know we need from fiber just by eating some fresh fruits and vegetables.

At Words Matter wants to know which pseudoscience has done the most harm.

I would have to say anti-vaccine misinformation.

It leads to the increased spread of infectious diseases, which means that we have increased amounts of morbidity, illness, and mortality, death among populations, where those illnesses and deaths are preventable.

For example, anti-vaccine misinformation about the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, the MMR vaccine, led to a spread, an outbreak in Samoa in 2019 that caused the death of 82 people, primarily children under five.

Vaccines are estimated to have saved over 150 million lives in the last several decades.

They truly are one of the miracles of modern medicine.

At Ramerville wants to know, my doctor advised against ozone therapy.

Ozone, chemically called O3, is a type of oxygen compound that makes up parts of our atmosphere.

Proponents of ozone therapy claim that it has a variety of health benefits.

They inhale it, they use it in enema form, and in some cases, they will actually infuse it through a transfusion of your blood.

Ozone has zero therapeutic benefits and can be potentially very harmful, especially if inhaled at very low doses.

There is zero reason for you to expose yourself to ozone.

At Logan Hentz says, you don't detox from sweating.

You sweat water and salt, not fucking toxins.

Doesn't make sense for said toxins to just dry on your skin, does it?

Absolutely, sweating is for temperature regulation.

When you sweat, you secrete fluids, water, and some salts, and when that dries, it leads to a phenomenon called evaporative cooling, which means that your body now cools down as a result of taking that energy away.

The way that your body gets rid of toxins is through your excretory organs, so your lungs, your liver, your GI tract, and your kidneys.

Those organ systems are working all the time to remove any toxins or any substances that your body just no longer needs anymore.

People like to tout saunas as a method to detox, but this is basically like accelerating your sweating process.

A lot of people feel better after a sauna because the heat and the environment lets them feel more relaxed, but it has nothing to do with removing toxins from your body.

At milk16478, what the fuck is alkaline water, bro?

Proponents of alkaline water and the alkaline diet believe that increasing the pH of your body or reducing the acidity of your body can improve health outcomes.

It can prevent cancer, it can reduce inflammation, but the reality is that you can't actually change the pH of your body.

字幕リスト動画再生

生物科学者だけど「誤った健康情報」について質問ある？PART2 | Tech Support | WIRED Japan

chronic

immune

context

evidence