On a personal note,

this is a picture of me
taken around the time that my grandmother

was diagnosed with end-stage heart
disease and sent home to die.

She already had so many bypass surgeries,

basically run out of plumbing,

confined to a wheel chair,
crushing chest pain.

Her life was over at age 65.

But then she heard about
this guy, Nathan Pritikin,

one of our early
lifestyle medicine pioneers,

and what happened next is actually
detailed in Pritikin's biography.

My grandma was one
of the "death's door" people.

Frances Greger, my grandmother,
arrived in a wheel chair.

Mrs. Greger had heart disease,
angina, claudication.

Her condition is so bad,

she could no longer walk
without great pain in her chest and legs.

Within three weeks, though,

she was not only out of her wheel chair,

she was walking 10 miles a day!

Here's a picture of my grandma
at her grandson's wedding,

15 years after doctors
abandoned her to die.

She was given a medical death sentence
at age 65, but thanks to a healthy diet,

She was able to enjoy another 31 years on
this planet until age 96 --

(Applause)

to enjoy her six grand kids including me.

That's why I went into medicine.

(Laughter)

Years later, when Dr. Dean Ornish published
his landmark lifestyle heart trial,

proving with something called
quantitative angiography,

that indeed heart disease could
be reversed, arteries opened up,

without drugs, without surgery,

just a plant-based diet
and lifestyle program,

I assumed this was going 
to be the game changer.

My family had seen it with their own eyes,
but here it was in black and white,

published in some of the most prestigious
medical journals in the world,

yet nothing happened.

I said, "wait a second."

If effectively the cure
to our number one killer

could get lost 
down some rabbit hole and ignored,

what else might there be in the medical
literature that could help my patients,

but just didn't have a corporate
budget driving its promotion?

Well, I made it
my life's mission to find out.

For those who are not familiar
with my work,

every year I read through

every issue of every English language
nutrition journal in the world

so busy folks like you don't have to.

(Laughter)

I then compile the most interesting,
ground breaking, and practical findings

in new videos and articles I upload daily
to my nonprofit site, NutritionFacts.org.

Everything on the website is free.

There are no ads
and no corporate sponsorships.

Strictly non-commercial.
Not selling anything.

Just put it up as a public
service, as a labor of love,

as a tribute to my grandmother.

New videos and articles every day on
the latest in evidence-based nutrition.

What a concept!

So where did Pritikin
get his evidence from?

A network of missionary hospitals
set up throughout sub-Saharan Africa

uncovered what may be one of the
most important medical advance --

according to one of our best
medical figures of the last century,

Dr. Dennis Burkit --

the fact that many of our major
and commonest diseases

were universally rare, like heart disease.

In the African population of Uganda,
for example,

coronary heart disease
was almost non-existent.

Wait a second,
our number one killer almost non-existent?

What were they eating?

(Laughter)

Well, they're eating
lots of vegetables and grains and greens,

and their protein almost
entirely from plant sources,

and they had the cholesterol
levels to prove it,

very similar to what one sees
in kind of a modern day plant eater.

You say, "Wait a second."

Maybe they were just dying early, never
lived long enough to get heart disease.

No. Here's age-matched heart attack
rates in Uganda versus St. Louis.

Out of 632 autopsies in Uganda,
only one myocardial infarction.

Out of 632 age and gender matched
autopsies in Missouri,

136 myocardial infarctions --

more than 100 times
the rate of our leading killer.

They were so blown away, went back,
did another 800 autopsies in Uganda.

Still just that one small healed infarct;
it wasn't even the cause of death.

Out of 1,427 patients, less than 1/1,000,

whereas here our disease is an epidemic.

Atherosclerosis, hardening of arteries,
is a disease that begins in childhood.

By age 10, nearly all the kids raised 
on the standard American diet

already have fatty streaks
building up inside of their arteries --

the first stage of the disease.

These streaks then
turn into plaques in our 20s,

get worse in our 30s,
an then can start killing us off.

In the heart, it's called a heart attack;

in the brain, the same disease
can cause a stroke.

So if there's anyone here today
older than age 10 --

(Laughter)

then the question isn't whether or not
to eat healthy to prevent heart disease;

it's whether you want to reverse
the heart disease you likely already have,

whether you know it or not.

But is that even possible?

When researchers took people
with heart disease,

put them on the plant-based diet

eaten by populations
that didn't get epidemic heart disease,

their hope was that we could
slow the disease down a bit,

maybe even stop it.

But instead something miraculous happened.

As soon as people stopped
eating artery-clogging diets,

their bodies were able to dissolve
some of the plaque away,

opening arteries, only without drugs,
without surgery,

suggesting the bodies
wanted to be healthy all along,

but weren't never given the chance.

That remarkable improvement in blood
flow to the heart muscle itself

was after just three weeks
of plant-based nutrition.

The human body is a self-healing machine,

unless you're sticking it
with a fork three times a day.

Now sure, you can use moderation 
and hit yourself with a smaller hammer --

(Laughter)

but why beat yourself up at all?

This is nothing new.

American Heart Journal, 1977,
cases like Mr. F.W. here.

His heart disease was so bad,

that he couldn't even
make it to the mail box.

He started eating healthier,
and a few months later,

he was climbing mountains, with no pain.

All right?

(Laughter)

Now there are these fancy new classes
of anti-angina drugs on the market now.

They cost thousands of dollars a year,

but at the highest dose, may be able
to extend exercise duration

as long as 33.5 seconds.

(Laughter)

It doesn't look like those
choosing the drugs

are going to be climbing
mountains anytime soon.

(Laughter)

Plant-based diets aren't just
safer and cheaper.

They can work better since you're treating
the underlying cause of the disease.

Normally I'd go on to cancer and talk
about the other 15 leading causes of death,

talk about how diet may playing a role
in preventing, arresting, and reversing

each of our top 15 killers, but
what more do you need to know?

There's only one diet ever been proven
to reverse heart disease

in the majority of patients:
a plant-based diet.

So any time someone tries to sell you
on some new diet, do me a favor,

Ask them one simple question.

"Has this diet been proven
to reverse heart disease,

the number one reason
me and my loved ones will die?"

I mean, if the answer is, "No,"
why would you even consider it?

If that's all a plant-based diet could do,

reverse the number one killer
of men and women,

shouldn't that kind of be default
diet until proven otherwise?

The fact it can also be useful
to prevent, arrest, and reverse

other top killers like
type II diabetes and hypertension

would seem to make the case for
plant-based eating simply overwhelming.

Most deaths in the United States 
are preventable

and related to nutrition.

According to the Global Burden
of Disease study,

the largest study of human
disease risk factors in history,

funded by the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,

the number one cause of death in
these United States: it's our diet.

The number one cause of disability
in the United States: it's our diet.

Now bumping tobacco smoking to number two,

cigarettes now only kill about a half
a million Americans every year,

whereas our diet kills hundreds
of thousands more.

So if most deaths are preventable,
related to nutrition,

then obviously nutrition
is the number one thing

taught in medical school, right?

(Laughter)

I mean, I mean, obviously
it's the number one thing

your doctor talks to you about
every single visit, right?

How could there be this disconnect

between the science
and the practice of medicine?

Let's do a thought experiment.

Imagine yourself a smoker
back in the 1950s.

(Laughter)

Back in the 1950s the average
per capita cigarette consumption

was 4,000 cigarettes a year,

meaning the average person walking around
smoked half a pack a day, on average.

The media was telling people to smoke.

Famous athletes agreed, even Santa Claus
wanted you to smoke.

(Laughter)

I mean, look.

You want to keep fit and stay slender?

So, make sure to smoke 
and eat lots of hot dogs to stay trim,

and lots of sugar to stay slim and trim.

A lot better than that apple there.
I mean, sheesh, right?

"Though apples do connote
goodness and freshness,"

reads one internal tobacco industry memo,

bringing up "many possibilities
for youth-oriented cigarettes."

They wanted to make apple-flavored
cigarettes for kids. Shameless.

"For digestion's sake, you smoke."

No curative powers
claimed by Philip Morris,

but hey, better to be safe
than sorry and smoke.

"Blow in her face and she'll
follow you anywhere!"

(Laughter)

"No woman ever says no."

They're "so round, so firm,
so fully packed."

(Laughter)

After all, John Wayne smoked them
until he got lung cancer and died.

You know, back then 
even the paleo folks were smoking.

(Laughter)

And so were the doctors.

Now this is not to say there wasn't
controversy within the medical profession.

Sure, you know, some doctors smoked
Camels, but others preferred Lucky's,

so there was a little disagreement there.

The leader of the US Senate agreed,

who would want
to give their throat a break?

"Not a single case of throat irritation."

How could there be when "cigarettes
are just as pure as the water you drink."

Maybe up in Flint, Michigan.

(Laughter)

But don't worry, if you do get irritated,

your doctor can just write you
a prescription for cigarettes.

This is in the Journal
of the American Medical Association.

So when the AMA is saying smoking,
on balance, is good for you;

when the American Medical
Association is saying that,

where could you turn back then
if you just wanted the facts?

What's the new data advanced by science?

Well, she was too tired for fun,
and "then she smoked a Camel."

(Laughter)

Babe Ruth spoke of proof-positive
medical science,

that is when he still could speak
before he died of throat cancer.

You know, if by some miracle back then
there was a SmokingFacts.org website

that could deliver the science directly,

bypassing commercially
corruptible institutional filters,

you would have known of studies like this.

This is an Adventist study
out of California and published in 1958,

showing that non-smokers had at least 90%
less lung cancer than smokers, right?

But this wasn't the first.

When famed surgeon Michael DeBakey
was asked why studies back in the '30s

linking lung cancer and
smoking were simply ignored,

he had to remind people
what it was like back then.

We were a smoking society.
It was everywhere.

It was in the movies, airplanes;

medical meetings
were one heavy haze of smoke.

Smoking was, in a word, normal.

OK. So back to our thought experiment.

If you're a smoker in the '50s
in the know, what do you do?

I mean with access to the science,

you realize the best available
balance of evidence

suggests your smoking habit—
not so good for you.

So do you change or do you wait?

If you wait until your doc says, between
puffs, to quit, you'd have cancer by then.

If you wait until the powers
that be officially recognize it,

like the Surgeon General did in the
subsequent decade,

you'd be dead by then.

It took more than 7,000 studies
and the deaths of countless smokers

before the first Surgeon General's report
against smoking came out.

You'd think maybe after
the first 6,000 studies,

could give people
a little heads up or something?

Powerful industry.

Maybe we should have stopped
smoking after the 700th study, like this.

As a smoker in the '50s, one on hand,
you had society, the government,

the medical profession itself
telling you to smoke.

And on the other hand,
all you had was the science,

if you're even aware of studies like this.

All right, let's fast forward 55 years.

There's a new
Adventist study out of California

warning Americans about something else
they may be putting in their mouths.

Of course, it's not just one study;
put all the studies together.

The mortality from all causes together,
many of our dreaded diseases,

significantly lower among those eating
more plant-based diets.

So, instead of someone going along
with America's smoking habits in the '50s,

imagine you or someone you know going
along with America's eating habits today.

What would you do?

With access to the science, you realize
the best available balance of evidence

suggests your eating habits
are not so good.

So do you change, or do you wait?

If you wait until your doctor tells you,
between bites, to change,

it'll be too late.

In fact even after
the Surgeon General's report came out,

the American Medical Association
went on record refusing to endorse it.

Why? Could it have been because they
were just handed the $10 million check

from the tobacco industry?
Maybe.

(Laughter)

We know why the tobacco
industry was sucking up,

why the AMA was sucking up
to the tobacco industry,

but why weren't more and more
individual doctors speaking up?

There were a few gallant souls
ahead of their time,

speaking up against
industries killing millions,

but why not more?

Maybe it's because the majority
of physicians themselves

smoked cigarettes.

Just like most physicians
today continue to eat foods

that are contributing to our
epidemics of dietary disease.

What was the AMA's rallying cry back then?

Everything in moderation.

Extensive scientific studies have proven
smoking in moderation, oh, that's fine.

Sound familiar?

The food industry used
the same tobacco industry tactics,

twisting the science, misinformation.

The same scientists were hired,

paid to downplay the risks 
of cigarettes and toxic chemicals,

are the same paid for by the
National Confectioners Association

to downplay the risks of candy,

and the same paid for by the meat
industry to downplay the risks of meat,

whereas animal foods and processed foods,

you're killing off at least
14 million people every year.

So those of us involved in this kind
of evidence-based nutrition revolution,

we're talking about 14 million lives
in the balance.

Maybe, plant-based nutrition

should be considered as the nutritional
equivalent of quitting smoking,

but how long do we have to wait

before the CDC says don't wait
for open heart surgery;

to start eating healthier as well.

Until the system changes,

we need to take personal responsibility
for our health, for our family's health.

We can't wait until society
catches up to the science again

because it's a matter of life and death.

A few years ago

Dr. Kim Williams became President
of the American College of Cardiology.

He was asked in an interview

why he follows the same diet he recommends
to all of his patients,

a strictly plant-based diet.

"I don't mind dying,"
Dr. Williams replied.

"I just don't want it to be my own fault."

(Laughter)

Thank you.

(Applause)