About Moi

About me? Who am I?

I’m supposedly the guy who says we can’t use nutrients from food and supplements. I’m the guy who states “we make our own nutrients”. I’m also that guy who says all that humans need to survive and thrive are water, sugar (whole foods based), and minerals (not mineral supplements, they are a danger to you). I am also that guy that shows you, in hyper detail, why most prescription drugs don’t work and how they instead do damage to the body. I, Oliver, is the guy who insists science, especially medical science, has got so much wrong over the years, decades, centuries.

Me going against the grain of so many common narratives is an uphill battle of the highest order. But a battle I am so excited about.

One of the best “science” books I ever read was recommended to me years ago by a friend - “A short history of nearly everything” by Bill Bryson. It is largely a long deep look at all the many science disciplines over the thousands of years - from Geology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, Biology and on and on - their origins and development over time, the many discoveries and advances etc.

Bryson of course touches on the health of humans, medical science and nutrition. At one point in the book he even randomly mentions that we make our own nutrients. On that particular subject he doesn’t say anything beyond that, no details, no nothing. I have those details.

The book also touches on the countless errors, mistakes and “oops” moments in the many fields of science. Most have been corrected, tweaked or some ideas and hypotheses scrapped altogether. Other mistakes, not so much. The one branch of science that seems to never correct itself but instead piles on to create a mountain of false narratives is Nutrition science.

Nutrition science, upon close inspection, is actually a brutally crude bastardization of physics, chemistry and biology. Those who are practitioners of “nutrition science” are not actual scientists, not chemists, not biologists. Meaning, they don’t really understand atoms, molecules, compounds etc, the actual stuff of food and nutrients. Nutritionists are, as another science writer put it, “alternative therapists who have somehow managed to brand themselves as men and women of science.”

Another great book is Lynn Margulis’ “Symbiotic Planet”. It was many decades ago when I was studying at the Darwin research Station in the Galapagos Islands that I was first introduced to her work. She was laughed at early on, literally, by her colleagues, peers etc. In 1998 she wrote Symbiotic Planet and the largess of the science community again threw shade at her... In truth, it was, at least in the 70 and 80s, wholly because she was a woman, ala Madame Marie Curie - existing ‘in a man’s world’...

And of course today, every scientist in the world, every biologist, chemist, doctor, every nutritionist, health guru/expert, etc, are speaking now to the hyper significance, the role that bacteria and other microbes play in all living creatures, and of course humans. Marie Curie also went on to win two Nobel prizes in two different science categories...

One other reason Lynn Margulis’ work on the role of gut flora was not well received, is because science in general is not quick to adapt to new findings, better understandings of physics, chemistry, biology etc. It goes beyond fact checking and peer review and as Bryson highlights “science, despite its monumental achievements, sometimes “drags its feet” through slow acceptance of new ideas, institutional stubbornness etc.”

Bryson is famously known for joking - The Three Stages of Acceptance for groundbreaking discoveries: “First people deny that it is true; then they deny that it is important; finally they credit the wrong person”.

Now, while I’m the first one to scream “SCIENCE IS NOT STATIC!!!” - none of this is to defend or protect me and what I bring to the table - because I am merely the messenger. I am simply presenting, speaking to and addressing the many new, more recent lab findings done by biologists and chemists the world over, in this 21st century.

I also compare the studies done today to those of yesteryear - including knowing the technology, the tools, instruments and apparati available to each era, each generation, of formal science study and lab work.

Many times I start there: What tools did a doctor or scientist have in the 1700s or even the 1940s, to see, learn and know what is going on inside the body, inside cells, inside cells in real time in living organisms, living humans?

That same question applies right now, 2026, what lab tools does a scientist have at their disposal that allows them to see in real time, in vivo, what is going on in a human being? Specifically, what is actually happening inside cells and among cells (intracellular dynamics)? What are the many molecules doing, how are they reacting to each other, working together, working against each other? How does the body react to exogenous molecules (proteins, amino acids, sugars, fats, poisons, toxins, vitamins, minerals etc.) once they are inside the realm of real time human body dynamics?

The answers might shock you: we know a lot more than we did 200 years ago, but we still know very little as to how the body truly works on a molecular and cellular level (in real time, in a living organism). Even as we have today the most expensive, high-end biochemistry lab equipment, such as advanced Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectrometers and high-resolution electron microscopes, which can cost between several hundred thousand to several million dollars per unit. These specialized instruments are essential for detailed molecular analysis, with specialized imaging systems often exceeding 1 to 2 million dollars. And still we can be in the dark for knowing about the insides of living organisms in real time.

As great as these tools of the science trade are, they are limited. These machines, some as large as an automobile, can’t go inside your body. They can “only” take out, extract, parts of your body, samples (stool, urine, tissue, plasma, cells, sperm, eggs, skin, hair etc.) and study them in a room, a space separate, apart from your body. And that is a huge issue, a huge difference, and to me, a ginormous problem. The largess of society, the layfolk, even doctors and some scientists do not realize that a lab is a hyper controlled, finite and sterile environment.

Not so with a live organism. The human living body is an infinitely more complex environment, and not sterile.

Science, old and new, only thinks it knows what is happening when food for example, the millions of molecules that comprise the things we eat and drink enter the body. We actually only have a relatively crude understanding of digestion and assimilation of things that enter the body. And in truth/fact - what we do know, is not pretty - as in everything that enters the body gets destroyed by the body.

Here is where you have two different science camps. One camp insists that there is such order to how food is treated once inside the body, proteins and amino acids go to muscles, vitamins go to wherever this camp says they go, and all is fine and dandy

The other camp, also chemists and biologists, know and tell a different story: the human body, all living organisms for that matter, is one lean mean exogenous molecule destroying machine. Nothing remains intact, molecules (vitamins, proteins, amino acids, fats etc.), all are demolished and escorted out as waste.

This camp, and I, see and know it as the great battle between exogenous entities and the body’s defense mechanisms against foreign, alien matter (including so much of what we eat and drink). This also speaks to drugs, prescription, street, over the counter etc., how they are dealt with once inside the human organism that is designed to keep stuff from harming it - aka immune system dynamics.

Any good understanding of first pass kinetics, Pharmacokinetics etc. which I will get into in my articles, will reveal an entirely different reality than those who wish to sell you nutrients via food and supplements.

Many see my writings as blasphemous. When I state that so much of nutrition science today is based on assumptions of yesteryear (proteins and amino acids studies in the 1940s, vitamin studies of the 1970s (Linus Pauling), I am met with all manner of scorn, even hate and anger. But they all clam up when I ask them to show me a video of a protein say, entering the body, then that protein opening up and releasing all the amino acids, then those AAs on their own, find or are found by cells, enter the cells (breaching the membrane) and become proteins again and fit in to the matrix and perform like the many proteins we assume we know perform.

They can’t produce that video. And by video I mean actual footage. Not animation, not Computer generated images, not even Claymation... That footage doesn’t exist - because all the expensive equipment in the world still can provide us with this video. And I remind you, all of these nutrition narratives, how food works in our bodies, from Vitamin C to proteins, fats and amino acids etc., all were born in past eras - when we had five dollar microscopes.

It was, is, so much conjecture that carried the day, and still does today sadly. It was and is extrapolations on degrees of plausibility. That is not exact science ladies and gentlemen. Marketing claims like “Evidence based” and “Backed by science” work to provide comfort to the masses who are not savvy about science. “Clinically proven” and “lab tested” is not exact science. It is lab science only. “It stands to reason” (extrapolations on degrees of plausibility) is how so much pharmacology is done - meaning, in the lab, under the microscope, in that uber controlled environment, we see X happening, so it ‘stands to reason’ that inside a living organism, the same dynamics will happen.

And that is incorrect. Compared to a lab, inside any living organism is an infinitely more complex environment, one that is still not even remotely fully understood.

For nutrition and food science, what works in the lab will not work in our bodies. Science can tell us vitamin C does so many amazing things, and we can’t live without it. This is true. But science forgets to tell you that one of the most fragile molecules in the universe is ascorbic acid and that so many things destroy it, including decay of plant or animal, exposure to light, heat (cooking), oxygen, and the many enzymes in the body including digestive enzymes. Even in a lab, Vitamin C, the whole of vitamin C which includes its many co-factors, doesn’t hold up, remain an intact molecule, when exposed to the things I just listed.

I challenge any lab person to provide footage of exogenous vitamin C remaining intact as it enters the mouth and gets digested. Or, in lieu of a live video, I will accept screenshots, stills, of the various stages of travel for this molecule, C6 H8 O6, to see if it remains intact, goes where science thinks it goes, and does what science assumes and claims it does...

So, how do we get our vitamin C if it doesn’t travel well, doesn’t transfer well, from the orange or Kiwi say to our body? The short answer, it doesn’t travel at all, we make it ourselves. The semi long answer, our body, with the help of gut flora, synthesizes all the vitamin C we need in our liver and or kidneys on a need to have and use basis, around the clock - this for all nutrients except water, sugar and minerals. The theory of a missing or dormant GULO Gene was also poor science study of old.

Over the years, many people have presented me with studies that disprove all I speak to. They have provided me with one link after another of legitimate science studies, published peer reviewed papers - Elsevier’s best scientists. As one person confidently put it when he presented me with a Meta study showing how dietary proteins make muscles big and strong... “This is what you must contend with Oliver!”

I then proceeded to assist him in how to truly read a “Peer reviewed published science paper”: First of all, don’t be fooled or impressed with the word meta - it simply means many people, different labs, studied the same things and came up with the same or similar results - as if there is strength in numbers (1000 scientists say it is so, so it must be so).

So, let’s talk about the results - When you read these studies, the first paragraph or “abstract” will tell you not what the headline or title of the study might imply - “dietary proteins make your muscles grow”. What the first paragraph or abstract actually says is “Maybe” or “Might” or “the evidence suggests” - or “dietary proteins may enhance gains”.

These are the red flags, the use of these specific words should inform you that this META analysis is NOT, repeat not, definitive proof or any kind of proof for that matter. And then, all of these published articles, be they vitamins, proteins, Amino acids etc, as the article is concluding - it ends with “more work, more studies need to be done…”. This is how they trick you. Most people look at the headline, the topic of the article, and think they are actually saying it’s a fact that dietary or supplementary proteins enhance and increase muscle mass, or muscle strength or whatever they want to claim.

They’re not saying that at all - once you read deep into the article. And “more work to be done” is something they have said for decades, and will continue to say going forward. Saying more work (research) needs to be done does three things, gives the consumer hope and promise, which allows the marketer and seller to sell you foods and supplements - and it keeps labs funded doing these crap studies…

And why do I say crap? Well, aside from knowing that exogenous entities get destroyed upon entering the body - all these “independant” and or private labs that do these types of studies have to word things as such - as I showed you. While they enjoy the funding, the “research dollars”, money that keeps a lab afloat, they cannot actually commit to, say, in writing, that some protein or vitamin rich food or supplement actually does what those funding the study want them to say - that is the agreement going in, spoken or not spoken...

And yes, these studies are indeed funded by Pharmaceutical companies (who make supplements) and food companies - most likely beef, eggs, dairy, fish, soy etc. (the high protein foods). The same for vitamin supplements and foods high in vitamins.

It also doesn’t hurt that dietary supplements do not require FDA approval for safety and efficacy before they are marketed.

You should also realize, the world of “peer reviewed published papers” is a sham, a mockery, a travesty and a money grab. And there are plenty of articles not written by me that speak to the skullduggery that exists in the peer review world. And these shenanigans are not new, they even predate the Edison/Tesla wars…

***************

The bulk of my research and writing has been about connecting many dots - this all happened by accident initially and then it developed to full on detective work as regards the many science claims about what the body can and can’t do. I have, with great effort, 35 years of science research, connected some dots that many in science didn’t even know needed to be connected.

With nutrition science, two key dots rarely get connected: Science and reality. Throughout my writing you will often see me say “science must mesh with reality”. As in, don’t tell me that science insists a certain nutrient is essential and I need it daily or else I’ll be sick or worse - when tens of thousands, if not millions of people do long, extended water fasts, for days, weeks, even months - and are fine.

Don’t sell me a daily multivitamin. Don’t sell me on any idea that daily dietary or supplementary proteins and amino acids are essential for optimal health and performance - when so many go for weeks with just water in their bodies. I know for a fact that the healthiest people on earth are those who fast. I know that the less you put into your body, the better off your body actually is.

I get it all seems counterintuitive - but when you learn, as I will show you in my articles, it’s only counter to the many science assumptions (false assumptions) laid forth over the past decades and centuries.

With me, this is not some “Tenth man rule” (if 9 people agree on something the 10th person must disagree to create balance, to allow for better fleshing out and vetting of truths and facts), nor me being a Devils advocate going against the grain of seemingly all nutrition narratives, just to be that guy, your garden variety contrarian. No, I simply know the true nature of molecules. Understand the molecule, you’ll understand the truth.

The articles I write, are all to be in an upcoming book - one that has so far taken 12 years to complete (such is the nature of research for a project of this scope). I am very excited to share with you so many things about the true physics, chemistry and biology of humans and food, humans and drugs/supplements and anything I touched on in this reading and a whole lot more. Please feel free to ask questions. Feel free to debate and have a discussion with me. It is that back and forth that has been the backbone of my research. Hearing from layfolk and scientists alike informs me brilliantly, keeps me sharp and on my toes.

I am not an expert. Never be an expert, always be a student. School is never closed.

Take care of yourself, take care of yourself and someone else.

Oliver