Ychydig iawn, yn fyddiwyr. Rwy'n gwybod yn ystafell â'u gweld i'r cyfathau, mae'n gydig, mae'n fyddwch yn fyddwch. Mae'n dweud am y cyfathau, mae'n dweud yn y dyma. Mae'n fyddwch yn fyddwch yn fwyaf, mae'n fyddwch yn fyddwch yn fyddiwch. Mae'n gweithio'r gweithiau i'r gweithio sy'n dweud yn ddweud, a yw dda, ym mwyaf fel y sylaf, mae'n dweud â'r gweithio, mae'n dweud am yn ymgyrchol. Mae'r ychydig yn olygu i'r gwaith yn ymdill, a maen nhw'n i gael llunio yma yn ysgrifennid yma. Mae'n gilydd o'r ystafell yma, oherwydd mae'n gallu'n gwneud o'r llwyr yma, ac mae'n ofyn ystafell yma yn ystafell. Mae'n llwyr yma, mae'n gilydd o'r ystafell. Ystafell yma, mae'n gilydd. OK, thank you. Thanks, Deborah. Thanks to FDA and XTU for coming. So I'm an investigative journalist that helped. I investigated journalists for the last 16 years, and I have never seen a case like this. I have spent 13 years on this case, of course, not just on this case in other cases. 13 year on this case. Why so many years? First of all I have worked on the Wicklicks documents from the very beginning even before the collateral murder. It was 2008 when Wanoma sources stopped talking to me. She was from this. She was an Italian source. Lindsey was looking for a legal firm. She had seen something really important. I don't know what. I have never known what she is doing because she stopped talking to me. She was convinced she was under illegal interception.た i'r digon intercep rounds. Fi'n amddangos y gallwch chi i chi'n dweud, mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud felly oedd yn mynd yn dweud. Felly, rwy'n meddwl ychydig yn mynd i'r ddefnyddio bobl 14 yma, nad yw yn dweud y gweithio yma, ond y gweithio'r dweud yn y dyna'r dyn nhw'n gweithio'r dyn nhw. Mae'r ddych chi'n dweud i gael ddyn nhw'n gweithio'r dyn nhw'n dyn nhw'n gweithio'r dyn nhw'n gweithio'r dyn nhw? gyda'r cyfnod o'r cyfnodau, ac yn fawr i'r cyfnodau cyfnodau, ac mae'r gynhyrch cerddwyd yn fawr, mae'r cyfnodau yn fawr i'r gyrdd. Ond, ychydig yn ymgyrch, mae'r cyfnodau, ychydig yn ymgyrch, mae'r cyfnodau eisiau ymgyrch yn fawr, mae'r cyfnodau eisiau yn fawr i'r cyfnodau. A'i gyrdd i'r cyfnodau eisiau, mae'r llyfr yn ddod y cyfnod, bo'r llyfr yn ymddangos i'r llyfr yn y cyfnod ar y cyfnod yn cyfnod yn y gymryd. Yn ymdyn nhw, mae'n gweithio'n cyfnod a'r Ymdyn Ysgolethau, yn ymdyn nhw'n cyfnod ymdyn nhw. A yn 2008-2009, y ddyn nhw'n cyfnod ymdyn nhw'n cyfnod yn cyfnod ymdyn nhw'n cyfnod. Mae nifer o ran gweithio mewn cyffredig yn cyfrifoedd ar gyfer drosfyniaeth penderfynedig. Nid o enwedig y Famelig iawn ar y Washington posyn, mae'r ffordd erbyn iawn yn gwneud osfyniaeth, mae'n gweithio'r ffordd ar gyfer bydd ar gweithi, ond yn gweithio ar y ddyfodol mae gennych g father Nghael, ac cyfrifoedd yn gallu ei hunain. Hwyl llawer yn cyd-ddiolio pgp ac mae'r cyd-ddiolio'r cyd-diolio ar y cyd-ddiolio a srwmddiadau. Gwydddoedd gyd-ddiolio ac gyd-ddiolio'r cyd-ddiolio. Gyd-ddiolio'r cyd-ddiolio'r cyd-ddiolio ar gyfer hynny o gyd-ddiolio, sy'n gyffredin cael ei ddysgu'r cyd-ddiolio ac mae'r cyd-ddiolio'r cyd-ddiolio. I started looking at them, and I was deeply impressed by the Olympics' work. They were able to get documents that no other media organisation could get, like the one time amount which the ACNU tried to get using the Freedom of Information using the Freedom of Information requests, and they were unable to get it. But I was not just impressed because they were able to get these documents. Llywodraeth ychydig, oherwydd, ei bod yn dod o'r llin. Rwyf wedi cyfnod y ysgrifennol, y phantagone yn hyn i ddeudu i'r lleol i'w ddweud i'r gyfnod. Yn ymgyrch o'r ffordd o'r llin ymgyrch ymgyrch yn ei dweud i'r phantagone. Mae oedd gennym yn unig o'r llin o'r llin o'r lleol i'r lleol i'r lleol i'r lleol i'r lleol i'r lleol i'r llin o'r lleol i'r phantagone. Felly, rwyf wedi'i gweithio'r cyflogwyr a'r ffordd ar gyfer y 911, ond allwch yn cerddau i'r Llundig, i'r CAA, i'r Cyfnodysgol, i'r Gymraeg, i'r Fentagon. Mae'r ffordd ar gyfer cyfnodwyr. Felly, rwyf wedi gweithio'r cyflogwyr. Rwyf wedi'u gweithio'r cysylltau i'r cysylltu. Rwyf wedi gweithio'r cyflogwyr i'r cyflogwyr. Rwyf wedi gweithio'r cyflogwyr i'r cyflogwyr. Afganfolawn, Syracfolawn, ond y cyfweld sy'n… ...y'r tyflau'r fawr o documentau. Rydym yn bod sianethefyd y 7. Rydym yn bod nesaf am all dyma. Felly wrth gwrs, esbyty â'r hyn ymwneud, dyfodd y fwrdd angen i'r angen i Julian Assangell, bydd e'n athrym mhag, er mwyn am 28 ym 10. 2010. Yn y defnyddio, nid oeddwn i'n gweld ymwneud hyn yw'r aelod. Nid oeddwn i hyn ar gyfer y rhan, rydyn ni'n fydda'r fath o'r ymwneud hyn yn fath o'r rhan, ond rydyn ni'n ganddill yn ei gweld ymwneud hyn. Yn y cerdd, nid oeddwn i'n gweld ymwneud hyn ymwneud hynny, ddiwethaf yn bwysig, yna'n bwysig i'r gweithio. Felly, yn ei gweld y gweithio, yn ddyn nhw'n gweithio'r 5 gwaith... ac yn oedd ymlaen ydyn nhw yn meddwl yn methu. Nod yw'r dweud, nod yw'r meddwl yn meddwl yn meddwl, yn meddwl yn meddwl yn meddwl yn meddwl. Mae'n meddwl yn meddwl yn meddwl yn meddwl yn meddwl, yn ychydig yn meddwl yn meddwl yn meddwl yn meddwl. rydych chi'n gwneud i'r hyfforddi gyfrofiad repl y teimlo yn ysgrifennu'r llygwyr wedi gynhyrchu yn ysgrifennu. Felly ymweldio'r hyfforddi'r Gweithredeg yn ysgrifennu'r llygwyr, am adriodd dylog ar hyfforddi'r ysgrifennu di'n arweith y tair. Mae'r llygwyr emhoedd y dyma, yn ysgrifennu'r llygwyr yn ysgrifennu'r llygwyr, mae'n ei wneud ei ddweud eich perchfyfrion ar y maes. Ac rydw i'n fydd yn gweithio'r llygwyr, I decided I want to get access to the documentation about this case, because I want to understand what is going on, I want to understand why it cannot regain freedom, why it cannot, why it is in the embassy, why it lost its freedom, you know, and inside. So I use the only, it doesn't tell the prosecutor to tell me you should try to discover why the Swedish prosecutors at the time was under investigation for alleged rape and sexual molestation in Sweden, and now this hyper-file Italian prosecutor told me it doesn't make sense to me that these guys don't want to go to London to question him and to decide whether to charge him for rape or whether to dismiss the case. You should try to discover this. So I had, as anything Italian investigative journalist, I had no sources inside the Swedish prosecution. So my only hope was to file an F2I request in Sweden and try to get access to this case. From the Swedish prosecution, precisely the authority which I put in under investigation for alleged rape and sexual molestation. I could have never imagined that the Swedish prosecutor would have to find a person who was under investigation for alleged rape and sexual molestation. I could have never imagined that this work would have completely absurdly for the last seven years, because in the last seven years I have been fighting to get this documentation from Sweden, from the UK, from the US, from Australia, from Sweden. from Sweden, from the UK, from the US, from Australia, and all these four governments denied me access to this documentation. But even if they denied, they kept denying me this documentation and my FY law years, they still together with Jennifer Robinson is representing me in the UK. I had several law years to try to get this document from Australia, US, Sweden, UK, Sweden, US and Australia. Several law years to get this document. I have reconstructed the old case, including this trench warfare. I call this because it's a real trench warfare in my book. What we have discovered, even if they have used all their legal sources to deny me documents, what we have discovered is really important. We discovered that it was basically the UK authorities at the Crown Prosecution Service, which have put pressure, which have basically advised Swedish prosecutors to not to question Julian Assange-Longan, so they have contributed to create this legal and diplomatic of mine. At that time, the Crown Prosecution Service was headed by Keel Summer, the current leader of Labour. We discovered that in 2013, even the Swedish prosecutor realized that this legal strategy had no exit inside, so they wanted to brought me this tradition proceeding. But the UK authorities at the Crown Prosecution Service were not in favour of this. We discovered that they destroyed the documents. The crucial documents about the case, the Crown Prosecution Service. You might say, why is Crown Prosecution Service today relevant? Is it relevant? Because this is the very same agency, public authority in charge of expedition to the US. The very same authority, which was in charge of the Swedish tradition because Julian was under investigation in Sweden, but he was in Longwood. So the Swedish prosecutors needed the cooperation, the legal cooperation from the Crown Prosecution Service. This Crown Prosecution Service is the very same authority in charge of the US expedition in these days, and they destroyed crucial documents about the case. We discovered this, and as I can tell you the legal technicalities and facts, we discovered this in 2017. We discovered this because they said, the Crown Prosecution Service said, we gave you all the documents we had about Sweden. I checked and realized that it was definitely not true because there were no respondents about Sweden and between Sweden and the UK. With those crucial weeks, what Julian Assange was, for example, took refuge in the embassy and asked for asylum. It was impossible, but in those weeks the UK authorities and the Swedish authorities had not exchanged any communication. So I discovered these gaps, and when I realized these gaps through my lawyers, I asked the Crown Prosecution Service, it's not true that you provided the full documentation. Could you give us the full correspondence, and they said, we destroyed it. So they destroyed the crucial documents about the case, and we don't know what exactly they destroyed. They claim they don't know what they destroyed, which is quite unbelievable. A public authority destroyed documents about an important legal case, which is highly controversial, which is highly profiled, and they don't know what they destroyed, why, on whose instruction, how they have refused in the last five years, we have tried, with my lawyers, to appeal and appeal and appeal, they have refused for the last five years to provide any answer on what they destroyed, why, on whose instruction. We don't even know precisely this destruction happened after Kirstarmer, or later, and why. In Sweden, when I tried to get the same documentation from Sweden, they said, these documents do not exist. And we said, with my Swedish lawyer, what are you saying? The Crown Prosecution Service stated that these documents exist before a judge, do you think they are lying to the judge? And they said, these documents do not exist. Then they changed and said, maybe these documents are no longer available. So, with my Swedish lawyer, we have the court, the kamarachten, which is a Swedish administrative court of appeal, where you cannot appeal an FY case. And we asked the kamarachten to ask the Swedish authorities to clarify why these documents are not available to them. And they refused. They said, these documents maybe do not exist, maybe they are destroyed, so maybe even Sweden destroyed key documents out of this case. When we went to the parliamentary, Swedish parliamentary ombudsman, trying to investigate these documents, whether they have destroyed them, the Swedish parliamentary ombudsman refused to open an investigation and refused to provide any explanation on whether these documents have been destroyed, whether these documents have been removed from any archive and they cannot find it. Sorry if I interrupt you, but it is very clear that you've had a huge pushback when you were trying to find the documents. But if I can ask you just to give us an idea, so this book reconstructs the pushback, but also reconstructs what you have found, right? Because you have not been able to access some documents, as you just explained, but what has made you then jump from that conclusion? You could not get the documents you need, and therefore there is a secret power at work. What made you go on to create this book? And what did you do with it? Actually, the book is about the whole case, because I have worked on all the documents, even from the very beginning, so I wanted to make people realise why Netflix is a unique media organisation. In the sense that many newspapers and media organisations publish secret documents, classified documents. This is what national security correspondents do all around the world from the Washington Post to the New York Times. What is unique about Netflix is that they haven't just published some classified documents or they just don't publish many classified documents. They have opened a game for what I call the secret power, the highest level of power, the power where diplomacy, state authorities, secret services move. And this secret power is very upset at journalists at Netflix.  Absolutely. And not just him, even the Netflix journalists, we discovered even information about involvement of British secret services, presumably MI5, in the investigation of three Netflix journalists, four men of current Netflix journalists. Sarah Harrison, Joseph Farrow and Christine Rassan, who is the co-editing editor. So the case is not just about Julian Assange, of course it is about him, because he has been literally destroyed, but it's not just about him.  Whatever you think about Julian or Netflix, they unleash a revolution. And so the secret power, what I call the secret power, which is not a conspiratorial entity, you know, is the state authority, which uses secrecy, not to protect citizens. They use secrecy to protect state criminality, and to get impunity for these state crimes. And they reconstruct their whole revelation, providing these evidence of state criminality. And they have gambler logs to gambler logs to the cables in Guartano, and they construct the full revelations.  I don't want to end up like him. You know, that is precisely what I was going to ask you. Do you think that there is therefore, or rating self-censorship by other journalists who are thinking twice or three times? I think so. I think so. I really wonder who will publish the next collateral murder or the next cable bit. The next cable bit, because you realize that your life is finished. You have to find an embassy, and then you end up in bloodmage. So you see the criminals who sleep peacefully in their beds with their children, where Stella and Gabrielle and Matt cannot see their father sleeping in their bed. So how a journalist can be encouraged to publish his life is destroyed. And this secret power, have you found that it's more one of these states? Is it more UK? Is it more US? Is it Sweden? Is it Australia? Is it widespread? Where is this secret power exactly? Which ones did you find out? Yeah, of course it is. US, UK, given the special relationship and the intelligence relations. That is so Sweden, Australia and the Allies. And of course, this is not just about the US.  You know, I don't believe that the secret power, you know, is ferocious just in US or UK. He would have been killed. I've done this in US, in China or Russia. However, you don't have to believe that this is less brutal. Because at the end of the day, you can bring a journalist dead, sending killers or bringing him on the brink of suicide as they have done. So this is more subtle what they have done to do that. They didn't send killers to kill him, like in Russia or China or North Korea. But at the end of the day, they have destroyed him. And we hope that we can get him out of that much. But we're not sure whether he's killed and whether he, in which conditions, he will come out. So what I want is that people realize that it's not safe not filling out democracies to expose state criminality at the highest level. Because they pay the price you have to pay. It's so high. They got the best hands of his life. They destroyed his health. They destroyed his freedom. And even if he comes out alive, I don't know whether he will be the same to an as I was after such destruction. So I want to tell you that, of course, in Russia it would be worse. In China it would be definitely worse. In North Korea it would be worse.  Because this is happening in Europe. This is happening in our democracies. And in our democracies you have to pay an unbearable price. And that's why it motivated me to work 13 years on this case. I want to help with my journalism to create a society in which you can reveal war crimes, you can reveal culture, and you can be safe. You don't have to ask for asylum to Russia, which is a scandal. I do happen at the end of the Cold War where people, dissidents, Russian dissidents were asking for asylum to Western democracy. Today we have no been asking for asylum to Russia. It's a complete scandal. It's an absolute scandal. I want to create a society where you can reveal war crimes, torture, mass surveillance.  You don't have to spend your life in Belmash. You don't have to ask for asylum to Russia. It must be possible. This is the difference between democracy and dictatorship. In them, in dictatorships you can do it. You cannot do it.  They can be killers. So I'm going to ask Kenya. She was killed in a democracy mass impossible. So unless we start or we put public pressure on the students, can we change this situation?  Thank you, Stefania. I think that will be a really, really powerful starting. I think I want to open to questions as soon as possible. But first I want to get you and to talk to us a little bit about the level of intrusion. There is a lot of interest at the moment in this case and in particular in this country. You have worked for many, many years at the Guardian. You probably know Julian Assange in your work. Why is it that this country, and of course the US, don't seem to have much interest at the moment in this case? Or in fact, ever? I can give a clear answer to that. The indifference in Britain and America is puzzled to me. The Assange case, as Stefania was saying, creates a terrible precedent for investigative journals that can have a thrilling effect on future investigations. And I assume that that's why the Americas will keep the prosecute Assange, not because of any wrongdoing involved in cable games or the Afghan war walks, but simply as a precedent for any future national security breaches. The indifference in Britain, a little bit of what I can understand. When he was working on the cable gates, he fell out with some Guardian staff and the relationships were pretty fraught and he fell out with other journalists too. So it was that personal element. Then came the Swedish, their likes, the rape charges. It was rough at that point. The allegations, that's from the British press, decided that they'd have to do anything more. But even though all that's been seen as something dropped, that indifference persists. You get occasional peace, maybe an editorial in the Guardian saying that this is a terrible precedent and extradition should be resisted, but on the whole we hear very little. And in America, I spoke to a very liberal lawyer in America and said, look, what do you think about Assange? He says, don't even mention it. And that's because of the WikiLeaks involvement with Hillary Clinton. So there's all these elements, but given the danger of a risk to investigative journalism, it's just wrong that Sunday a journalist and a publisher like Jo and Assange should be facing extradition to America. But with what Stefania says that she hasn't covered, and I'm sure with your help with Zell and all the FOI requests, the fact that there is such resistance here to look at what is happening is almost scandalous. I'd just like to say I'm pleased that Stefania has invited me to this panel and she's been a friend for a number of years as a journalist colleague. This is a terrific narrative of WikiLeaks. Followers of chronologically, she spoke to posted insiders, she said she's been involved in all the big cases. So it's a good read if you want to understand the background of it. On the specifics, the case that Stefania mentions about the missing emails from the Crown Prosecution Service, Stefania gave that to me as a calling for the Guardian on Bocock. We did a slash from the Guardian out of it. It was all Stefania's work. So I wouldn't pay credit. She's incredibly persistent. She pays a lot of this FOI work out of her own pocket. She's suffered as a consequence of pursuing this relentlessly. It's almost embarrassing that this is an Italian journalist rather than a British one pursuing this through the FOI. Just a final point, aren't you? The reason that these missing emails from the Crown Prosecution Service and Sweden matters is because the Crown Prosecution Service said we destroyed these because the lawyer or the official involved is retiring. When an official retired, we destroyed all the emails. This wasn't a run-of-the-mill case. This is a hard profile case. The idea that the Crown Prosecution Service would destroy these emails and that you can't get the corresponding emails from Sweden, something stinks here. So it's not going to go away. People will keep at it to try and get an answer. The idea that these emails can just disappear into the earth and no one knows about it. So I think that's for the stories going next. Before we open just a quick one from you yourself, have you ever met a similar case in your career as a lawyer? Have you ever seen such resistance to releasing any documents? What is your take as a lawyer on this? Yes, thank you very much. I'll say three things about what both Stefania and Hugh have said, just to clarify. I've worked on the Etholite cases, three main cases that Stefania has brought here in the United Kingdom. I've not ever worked on the Assange exhibition matters, so I can't really help you with that. I have seen cases where the United Kingdom public authorities have found it difficult to release information, and it's an open question, I think, although there's been some improvement, but it's an open question about whether our institution of RFLI legislation in 2000 did what it said it should do, i.e. lead to an idea of openness on the part of public authorities. I think we're still working on that. I'd like to say three things just to clarify about what's been said. First, about the nature of Stefania's FOI work. Second, about the CPS emails. And third, about what British journalism has been doing on this point. First, Stefania's FOI requests. She's made a number, I've worked on two cases to do with the CPS and one to do with the Metropolitan Police Service. In all instances, although Stefania, because she sees a bigger picture, takes the view that she hasn't really achieved very much in terms of release of those FOI requests, she has in fact obtained material. So she has obtained material in correspondence between the Crime Prosecution Service and the Swedish Prosecution Authority, and that's what gave rise to the questions that still have to be answered, including emails being deleted. Second, she obtained a statement from the Metropolitan Police that they held correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice about the three named Wicked Externals, i.e. Christopher Crapins and Joseph Fowler and Sarah Harrison. Nothing has been released about that, I don't want to say something about that in a second, but she obtained the acceptance that that correspondence was held, which means that there was involvement. And she has obtained the way in which the authorities have then responded to providing the substantive information. So, something has been achieved. I think kept, I think had, because our connection has secured well, I'll get that. Then, second, on the Crime Prosecution Service emails. There were some emails that were released relating to the main individual in the Crime Prosecution Service who had oversight of the Assange Exhibition matter. But it was clear that there was missing emails and then it was released to us that those emails had been deleted. Secondly, in 2017-18, the Crime Prosecution Service said they deleted it according to their attention policy. They provided us with attention policy. The retention policy said that you should retain emails for five years from the last date of important correspondence. Later on, when we challenged again in relation to the deletion, they said no, they were deleted three months after the individual retired and then they came and that was the correct deletion policy. So our appeal, which will be held next year, will be exploring why that narrative changed. Second, we asked for information about the deletion logs and about any information about why the information was deleted and we asked for technical information and that said it also held. So we're asking for some clarification on that. There has been nothing that has been released to us and I should clarify this that has ever indicated that Kirsten had any knowledge or involvement in this matter. Third, in relation to what they did, they used to provide the explanation of who. And we don't know whether Kirsten's new wedding was involved with the law. And then third, in relation to the Metropolitan Police Service FYI request. Once it became clear that information was held in relation to these journalists, the Metropolitan Police refused to provide. And they relied on the terrorism exemption, on the national security exemption and on the crime exemption. And the National Union of Journalists in this country and in other countries, but in this country in particular, when it became aware that the terrorism exemption was being relied on, to withhold information about the Metropolitan Police potentially investigating journalists for their journalism became involved in the FAI appeal. And they put forward a written statement, which I can provide if you're interested, about the chilling effect that that has on proper journalism and about how national security journalism is not terrorism and journalists must be permitted to investigate national security matters without being subject to the rules that are in place to protect against terrorism. Thank you very much for that, very clear. So it's now over to all of you. If you want to just raise your hand if you've got a question and remind us, leave work with and go with the question if you shall. Sorry. All right, I have some consulting news. You made some freedom of information requests to the American administrative tribunal, which were refused, understand? You said what you were looking for there. I understand you made some requests to the American administrative, sorry, the Australian administrative tribunal that were refused. Is that right? I'm not sure I understand the question. So what Australian materials will you see playing for the Australian authorities? Australian authorities refuse saying that the release of these documents would damage Australian relationship, foreign relationship or would compromise information given to Australian authorities, precisely to the foreign ministry on a confidential base. So they refuse to provide important things with it. I was looking for, that's the interesting thing. I was looking for the correspondence between the Australian foreign ministry and the US State Department and the UK foreign office. And they refuse saying we cannot release the, so they have important correspondence because for example, immediately they consulted with the US authorities, precisely in those months after the bold set of publication which made this CIA furious, they consulted with the US authorities. But they refuse to provide on the basis that these correspondence if release would destroy the foreign relationship. Thank you very much. Is that good enough excuse to not to release information? So I'm not familiar with the internet of Australian FOI law, but I know that it is similar to our FOI. And there is an exemption which allows the public authority to refuse to provide the information if it will demonstrably harm diplomatic relationships. But there has to be evidence that the harm will be at the diplomatic level. So for example, in the first Crown Prosecution Service matter, there's finally looking for the information held between the CPS and the SBA, the CPS and the Ecuadorian Embassy and the CPS and the US authorities. There was some initial reliance on this diplomatic exemption. But because we challenged it, that was withdrawn because there was no evidence for that information about an impact at the diplomatic level on those sorts of relationships. It may be different if the correspondence is actually at the diplomatic level, but I don't know whether that was the case. Yes, the Australian authorities didn't provide any rationale, any evidence that if release this correspondence would damage their foreign relationships. And when I ask to my Australian FOI lawyers, do we need evidence because in UK to use this exemption, the foreign office has to provide and the Crown Prosecution Service have to provide evidence. My lawyers told me now this is an absolute exemption, so they don't have to provide any evidence. Catherine. Catherine English from Benra. Catherine. Catherine English from the Swiss radio. I heard about Jessie many, she got a grace from her President Obama. Does that mean that President Obama is not popular in secret power? Is there a difference between the president and the United States? Do you want to do it by me? I've been working for a while and I was there during Chelsea Manning and Obama, but I can't give you the answer. I'm assuming it was done in compassionate grounds. There is some suggestion that Obama might also give a pardon to it, but the intelligence agencies certainly thought that. I assume they would probably do the same in the case of Assange, unless it was compassionate grounds again. But does that mean that they see Assange as a bigger threat than Chelsea's Manning? How can it explain the difference of treatment?  So the intelligence agencies will do whatever they can to try to sway the whistleblowers. If you give something like Chelsea Manning and then the compassionate grounds, you leave that aside. But WikiLeaks was seen as actively seeking secret documents. That's what was scared of organisations like WikiLeaks. So you can see the level of documentation that we saw on Cairo Gates. I've got Warlocks in Iraq, Warlocks. They were secret documents. So if Assange ends up, as he probably will, back in the States, then he's facing anything from decades in jail. He'll be trying on in the SP and I've act and could be anything from 20 to over 100 years. It was stolen that the category of secret documents is way above what was revealed by WikiLeaks. So in case it was stolen, the chance of a partner or compassion, if he ends up back in America, then he'll be totally hammered. He's looking at the lifetime in jail. Radio. Just to get it clearer. Sorry, I'm Christine Heuer. I'm working for a German National Public Radio. Just to understand that. I got why you got suspicious and I understand why your conclusion is plausible. Still, do you have any positive proof of your thesis? Which thesis? Because I think that there's a secret power that wants to kill Julian Assange. Of course. The evidence is what has happened in the last three years. He has never known freedom again. I understood you will never be doing it and they have destroyed it, so please destroy it. If you read the psychiatric assessment, the doctor's assessment, you realize how devastating the impact has been. So I mean the evidence is under our eyes. We just have to put things together and it's very easy to connect the dots. It's not that they want to destroy. They have destroyed him. They have destroyed him. They have destroyed Charles Melny. She spent eight years in prison. She tried to commit suicide three times and probably Obama commuted their sentence because if she had succeeded in killing herself, the impact on Obama legacy would have been pretty bad. I think it was something... There are differences between presidents. Obama didn't charge Julian from the charging, so there are differences. But when it comes to national security, what they say is national security, they are all very serious. This is not national security. If you read my books, you realize that the revelations are nothing about national security. These are about state reality. These are about the CIA coming to Milan and kidnapping a man in the middle of the day, as if it was children, you know. And they use secrecy to bring impunity to the CIA. And only thanks to the WikiLeaks documents we got information because our prosecutors were fantastic. They immediately got final sentences for the CIA people. But the CIA people didn't spend a day in prison. And we couldn't imagine, of course, the pressure from the US authorities on the Italian politicians not to extract the CIA people and put them in jail. But only thanks to the WikiLeaks documents we got evidence of this pressure, we got the full correspondence. So they protected this correspondence in the US department's cables using national security. This is not national security. This is protecting state criminality and to get impunity for the state authorities which are involved in these serious crimes. So they are using national security as a shield for the criminality. And that's why we think it's so important because we have a country, Italy's a country where we have horrible massacres due to the strategy of tension, a train blowing up. And the family still comes to me and we never have these WikiLeaks releases. Please look at the database if you find something. Because even if our wonderful prosecutors are investigating, even if the judges are investigating their excellent work, we still don't have it. So since the years after they look for the truth and they cannot get it, whereas when WikiLeaks came out we got these evidence in the documents. That's why they are so upset, so mad at Julia and WikiLeaks. They are so mad because they cannot shield their state criminality efficiently as they have done for them. I just wanted to follow up to my colleague. And I think also maybe what you meant as well is are you looking for a particular smoking gun in these documents that have not been released? Because I'm going to say the evidence is under our eyes that you are joining dots without proof that the secret power A exists, B wanted to kill a subject or destroy him. You can say, of course it's obvious, but between saying it's obvious and this research for documents you must be looking for something. What is it? So first of all the secret power absolutely exists and we have evidence any day. Because as I said in the case of Disneyland Paris, it was came after one of the famous CIA rendition. It was done by the CIA and it was done in the middle of the day. And even if our prosecutors named all of them and got final sentences, they never spent a day in prison. They sleep in their bed peacefully when a Stella and her children can only be seen doing an assignment very much. So you realize that this level of power is untouchable. You can have the best prosecutors, you can have the best judges, the most independent judges, but they are untouchable. They haven't spent a single day in prison. No one touches them. So this power is about the smoking gun. The reason why they don't, they don't want to realize this documentation is precisely because there is a smoking gun. And some bits of this smoking gun we got it as a spell told it. You know, the pressure on the Swedish prosecutors which basically have created this code mind, the legal and diplomatic code mind which have kept Julian Assange trapped in London since 2010. Is that, is it this beautiful, if you read these documents by the CIA which we had obtained after years of litigation, is that, you know, they were done because these people stick right these documents, that they will never be released. They, they haven't realized that we are in the four FY ages. You know, and these documents might be released on the four FY. So they seem to downpicks the documents. That's why they don't want to release documents because these documents do contain the smoking gun. The political pressure to keep Julian in London, the political pressure to influence the Swedish case, because as I said, it didn't make sense. I have worked on many crimes, many, I have seen prosecutors, you know, investigating criminal cases and I have never seen criminal cases like that. That's what made me to ask the FY documents to Sweden. So these documents are very mild. That's why they all precisely because they contain the smoking gun. There was a question down there. Do you still have one? Yes, these documents are a legal case of how to hold in society and social stories. First of all, I'd like to congratulate Stephanie on her action in the maximum and the most critical book. I enjoyed reading it. I have a couple of questions for Julian and Esel. My questions are, Governments are now classifying criminal non-reparation acts and using the classification process to hide criminality. They are renaming journalism as espionage and spying on journalists by calling them non-state hostile attendance agencies. And then they are destroying evidence for accountability like the Freedom of Information Act, as Stephanie has explained. What, as a journalist, as a lawyer, what do you see as the kind of response that the journalists in legal communities can make in respect of this, because it feels like it's a losing battle, especially when, for example, you say it's down, but we have no evidence against that. And obviously at the head of the TVP and at the head of the CBS, we expect he's not counting paper clips. He's aware of the most important case around his space. But there is no evidence in the public domain, as you rightly say. So could you tell us a little bit more about how to derive accountability at this time? Can I start? It's the case that it is difficult when making a Freedom of Information request, because what recognises there will be reliance on exemptions, it will take a long time, it is not a quick process. But my experience has taught me with a number of times that actually you never know what will shape you. And it is always worthwhile making the request, following up the request, making me feel to the Information Commissioner and appealing to the public going before my last. Because at each stage, and this is what happened with Spanish requests, at each stage something shakes me, and that is incredibly worthwhile. So although it may not be what it was hoped, i.e. a very significant and open culture of provisional information, the Freedom of Information regime is still working to bring things out into the public domain, even though it takes much longer than it should, and is a more difficult process. So I say stick with it, because things will come even though you don't expect them to. Sorry. Oh sorry. She's good online, thank you very much. Since the right war logs, after war logs, Cablegate, Snowton, we've seen increasing in conflated journalism and espionage. I think it was 2015 and 2016, the US passed legislation putting an end to mass surveillance of telephone, but not females or anything else. I mean that was a positive step in Britain, since WikiLeaks and Snowton, we've gone the other way. It's become increasingly more oppressive. The supers chapter that became law, I can't remember 2015, 2016, that all I did was legalise what the legalities that had been practicing beforehand, and since then legislation has been proposed to bring through just now, removing the public interest argument, treating journalists and spies as the same. Just one personal example, after Snowton I was put on the watch list and things, which I don't mind, that was pretty minor, but the Met Office launched an investigation into the journalists involved in Snowton under a kind of terrorism legislation. I don't mind if they launched an investigation, but there's no way it was a terrorist act. So I've got a bit totally pessimistic about where the legislation is going. It is also very disquieting work we experienced. We experienced kind of interrogation yet for others experienced scheduled 7, like Miranda experienced scheduled 7. Well, it's basically anti-terrorism legislation. And then playing Greenwood's partner, David Miranda, he throws under the terrorism legislation. And we experienced also special checks at the airport. We were spied, my fonts were off and screwed inside the embassy secretly. Fortunately, we got evidence because people who did this, presumably, on the CIA, they have two pictures. So, however, we got pictures and videos of these spy activities. So we identified another colleagues and, of course, Julian Assange, and then Felix Julian's, we filed criminal complaints in order to have an investigation on these spy activities. This is the kind of things you'd expect in a terrorist state, this kind of spy activities against journalists. But it happened here, in London, in the heart of Europe. So all these facts and all the use of national security anti-terrorism laws in this investigation depict a very sinister, very, you know, it should be of serious concern. This is not happening in Russia, this is not happening in China, this is happening here, now. Unless we wake up and stop this extradition and we stop and we assert the importance of journalism, investigating state criminalism at the highest level, it will be very bad for our journalism, for the right of the public to know, because this is not just about us. This is about the right of the public to know state criminalism at the highest level. As I said, it's not a conspiracy. Secret power, you can call it the national security statement, you can call it as you want. I call it secret power because it uses secrecy to protect state criminality, not to protect the security of citizens. This is really, really important to understand. They use secrecy classified documents to protect CIA kidnapping a person in the middle of the day in Milan. Kidnapping a person in a German citizen, Hal Adel Masry. They use secrecy for nothing, which has nothing to do with protecting citizens, of course. Juan, do you have a question? Yeah, Juan has an answer later. I just want to add to your question.  Well, Mike Pompeo, and even Trump are asking for plans to assassinate him, plans to kidnap him. So, I mean, the secret power is absolutely there. You just have to really just scratch the surface. But I had a question for ourselves on the FY of Kristen Stennan Joseph. We know the Met Police was in contact with the DOJ about these three individuals on terrorism, national security and criminal act. What can be said from that word? Was the Met Police investigating them or spying on them on behalf of the DOJ? There's no charges for them in the United States or at least no charges that have been opened. These were two British journalists, a European journalist, and there's terribly scary acts of terrorism and national security acts for their work. I mean, can it be said that the Met Police was investigating them or spying on them on behalf of the foreign government? We don't know because the documents we are releasing. So, let me be absolutely clear. We do not know the content of any of the correspondence between the Metropolitan Police and the US State Department. All that we know is that when the Metropolitan Police resisted releasing that information, they relied on the exemption connected with terrorism and the exemption connected with national security. And indeed, it was the national security exemption that became the focus of the appeal and was the basis on which the Metropolitan Police was successful in the first year tribunal, in resisting release of those documents. But that is all we know. We have no idea what's in the documents and it seems that never will. And what part of the national security exemption was, I mean, why are they relying on that? You have put your finger on the great conundrum of freedom of information. So, the Metropolitan Police had to explain to the information commissioner and then to the first year tribunal why they were relying on the national security exemption. As the appellant and the requester, what Safania was told was minimal because, as it goes, if the full explanation was provided to her about why they were relying on national security, it would expose information about what was held and that was the whole point of it being resisted or being withheld. So, it's very difficult for us to understand the evidence behind why the national security exemption was relied on and why it was accepted. All we know is that there is evidence and it was provided to the tribunal and that they found that it made out the case for the Metropolitan Police, but we can know nothing further. All we can, though, know is that the documents exist. And the counterterrorism centre is involved? Yes, so the evidence that was provided by the Metropolitan Police was provided on behalf of the counterterrorism part of the Metropolitan Police and they relied on the fact that the counterterrorism officers and the secret services are very integrated and they work a lot together. As a basis, although we don't know the full explanation, but as a basis for why national security was involved. So, we're coming to the end of the session. If you have any question that is burning, please put your hand up and I do. So, Safania, like me, you're Italian. We can say a lot of things about Julian Assange, but he's not. He's being, you know, maybe persecuted is a strong word, but from all the free space. What is it that keeps you so attached to this case and who helps you with the investment needed to have all these lawyers and to fight all these fights? Thank you for this question. So, first of all, I'm absolutely determined to win this case. It's clear where I stand. I want to win this case. Now, first of all, for Julian Assange and his journalism as a matter of solidarity, because I have published the very same documents for over a decade and I was never arrested, I was never put in prison. So, I'm now generally set that I'm free, I'm safe, whereas he has basically lost over a decade of his life and probably he will end up in prison for life.  You don't do it. You try to ask for help. You try to mobilise people to help you to save him. You don't abandon a colleague. It's a matter of human decency before the ethical stance. It's a matter of human decency. In addition, I'm absolutely convinced that this case is crucial, because if in all democracies and state authorities can destroy a journalist for revealing war crimes and torture, well, we are no longer a democracy. So, it doesn't matter that they didn't send killers to kill Julian Assange. As a matter of fact, they are killing him. So, it's not that they will kill, they will destroy. They have already done it. So, I cannot accept that in all democracies they can do this. If we look at our society, it has changed a lot. Look at the women's rights. It has changed because passionate people, journalists, intellectuals, filmmakers, activists, have imposed a change. Our society was much more brutal in retrospect. We didn't have women's rights. We didn't have a lot of rights. And we got them. Not as a miracle, but because people struggled to get them. So, I want to struggle to create a society in which you can believe war crimes and you are safe. You are because peacefully you're bad, nothing very much. So, I'm very determined. Especially as a country, our country has a dark history. Much of our country is in the dark. We are country, right? We are the secret power of the act, which impunially, you know, we have these massacres during this time of tension. We still have families coming to us asking, could you please hand it to us? Could you please get some kind of information? They don't accept the rules. It's a human rights to have a closure. Mr Banya, in terms of the investment needed for you to keep going? It's a big, it's very complex because I had to be a manifesto. You have to lie, I was working for like a publican, a major inspector. So, I think it was possible. I worked for like a publican in this case and I was supported by a manifesto. But then they stopped. The second point stopped. I don't know why, the Victorian line changed a lot and things started going badly, very badly in 2017. We later discovered that the CIA was, in those days, the CIA was furious and I always asked myself whether there was a pressure on editors, whether I didn't. In any case, minus I left my newspaper and it has been really hard because I wanted to keep doing this work, of course not just this work or my usual journalistic work, but especially this work. I care a lot about this work. And I joined another newspaper in fact, a quotidiana, I was forced to get another newspaper. And to support this work has been very, very hard. Initially I paid myself for the legal fees, but at a certain point I could not support the legal costs. So, I asked for a grant for investigative journalism and I got some of these legal costs covered. Not my work, but just the legal fees. Who has a grant? Grant is the Logan Foundation, a U.S. Foundation, which basically supports hard work, investigative journalism, important investigative journalism. So, I was very lucky and in the U.S. I found a good lawyer working completely for Bono because the legal fees in the U.S. are now something around $100,000 to get it. I tried to get the lease and the U.S. government, the U.S. State Department, I sued this U.S. State Department. By the way, I got some full documents which contain some important information like the behind the scene meeting with the New York Times, the Guardian, comments by Alec Ross, who was a senior adviser for Hila the Clinton Innovation, and he was really upset because half of the posts considered to be a hero. So Alec Ross was really upset about this, but I only got full documents from the U.S. and I have been investigating the State Department for the last two years and every month they give me something like, from 20 to 100 pages, completely redacted, completely wired. So, you know, they give me all these completely redacted. For the last two years, every month they give me completely redacted stuff. Now that the costs in the U.S. are reaching over $100,000, so it's fortunately found a lofher which is willing to work for Bono. They have also worked for the Washington Post. They have worked on the lease of the Afghan takers. This is also important that you have to be able to find lawyers who are passionate like Stell, Jennifer, the Australian lawyers, the U.S. lawyers who are willing to work at reduced fees or fees for Bono. Because, otherwise, I cannot ask my editor $100,000. They say, oh, we cannot do it. I mean, they simply cannot do it, you know. Okay, thank you so much for this. It's quite heroic what you're doing so fine here. And thank you very much, you and Anderson, for being with us and Stella, for arriving and hearing about all that from the back. Thank you all for coming today and please take a copy of the book before you leave. It's not heroic. I think this is what Germany should be. I mean, I think it should be of inner Germanism. It's not just pretty news, as Pulitzer said. You know, it's not just merely pretty news. We cannot accept that our Germans who have been working and spent 12 years in these conditions, and no one tried to find the truth. I mean, is that Germanism? You know, we have to work on this case.


At those state governor or guard when Obaseki says the state, refinery and petrochemicals will commence operation before the end of August. Obaseki revealed this after inspecting the refinery located in Ologbo-Igwo-Woha-Lokho government area and developed by AIPCC. Sp. Edward Newsman Obaseki noted that work on the plant hub moved to such a great speed in spite of disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. He explained that the Department of Petroleum Resources, DPR, had conducted its pre-inaguration assessment and certified the refinery okay.


What's happening you want to get in the video? We're making a surf video. Oh, not really The only thing you're missing is a surf. No, we're gonna get it Okay


Thank you. Today, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to tackle a highly controversial subject that has plagued me personally as a researcher now for the last 11 years, 4 months, 24 days, and this morning and right up through this afternoon. And this is a subject regarding what my title shows here. So the question is this, are overweight, obesity and diabetes driven primarily by sugars, carbohydrates, vegetable oils or some combination of all three? That's the question that I want to try to get at today. And at the end of this, I want all of your feedback because I value your opinions.  We were advised, we were admonished by the American government to go low fat via the US dietary guidelines of 1980. And most of us complied with that. The evidence shows that it obviously did not work, right? And however, over the last 20 years, there's been an increasingly greater interest in low carbohydrate diets. I would say almost to the point of an obsession in at least in some circles. And it's become fashionable to blame sugar for almost everything. But is this justified? Is this valid? Does the real world evidence support this? That's what I want to know. Now, I don't really care what the answers are. It doesn't really matter to me. I have no bias, essentially, or no agenda anyway. And I'm just searching for the truth, probably like you. And so that's what I hope to achieve today. So we're going to start here with five diets that I'll review and review these in more detail before. But let's talk about this quickly to introduce this. So the Japanese diet up through 1960, 80% carbohydrates. That was almost exclusively white rice. They were fantastically healthy people. The Okinawan diet, a subset of the Japanese, 85% carbohydrate. That was almost exclusively sweet potatoes, which they'd been consuming for hundreds of years. They were fantastically healthy up until that time, around 1960. The Papua New Guineans of Tuka Senta, studied by Senate and White back in the 1960s and 70s. One of the longest studies ever completed of subsistence agriculturists. Their diet, over 90% sweet potato, 94.6% carbohydrate. Yet they were very, very healthy people, at least by Western standards. The Maasai of Kenyan Tanzania consumed a diet almost exclusively of milk, meat and blood, 17% carbohydrate, 66% animal fat. That's about 40 to 46% saturated fat. They were fantastically healthy. And then the Tochilauns, 24% carbohydrate diet. That's 50% saturated fat. Their diet was primarily coconut, fish, starchy tubers, and fruit. So they consumed around 56 or 60% of their diet as coconut. So that's 50% saturated fat. And yet they're fantastically healthy. So you can see we have macronutrient ratios all over the board. And yet these people, all of these populations fantastically healthy. But what do they all have in common? And of course, the answer is they all eliminate or have no high Pufa, highly polyunsaturated fatty acid vegetable oils, right? So I'm going to start here. This is my hypothesis for today. Vegetable oils are the primary drivers of obesity and diabetes. And as a corollary, non-processed carbohydrates play no role in obesity, metabolic disease or diabetes. Let's see if these seem to hold true. What about sugar? Is it the villain in obesity and diabetes that's been made out to be? I'm going to submit to you at this point. I'll just say I don't know. Let's leave that open, open-ended, and just see where the evidence takes us, all right? Now, just for a couple of moments here, I want to discuss observational versus randomized controlled clinical trials because I have, as you can see, I rely heavily on population studies. And I think they're extraordinarily valuable. Here's a quick couple of reasons why. First of all, this question, are randomized controlled trials even applicable to diet and chronic disease? So with chronic disease, we're talking about diseases like heart disease, strokes, many cancers, all Alzheimer's disease, age-related macular degeneration, on and on. These are obviously conditions that take decades to develop, right? How long have we controlled diets, right? Typically, if we completely control a diet, it's been done only for a few months because those people have to go into a metabolic ward in a hospital setting. They're prisoners of the ward because if they, you have to track everything that they consume, everything has to be properly prepared and measured. If they leave the ward, they might go to McDonald's, eat a hamburger, French fries, and drink a Coke, and now your study is falsified. So anyway, here's the contemporary thinking, though, on proving causality. So we make observations out in the field, out in nature, and we try to understand biological mechanisms. And from that, here's what people say is, we generate hypotheses, right? And then from there, we move to a randomized controlled clinical trial. And finally, then, from that, we can draw causal inference. And it says, though, we can't draw causal inference without an RCT, a randomized trial, right? So can we skip the randomized controlled trial ever and derive conclusions? I assure you we can. For example, can we assume that being shot in the chest with a high-powered rifle is dangerous to your health? We don't have a randomized controlled trial, right?  This is a model. Nobody up in arms. All right. How about this? Could we assume being struck by lightning is dangerous to your health? Once again, no randomized controlled trial. But the reality, ladies and gentlemen, is, of course, we observe effects in nature and draw conclusions about causality. We infer causality constantly, all right? This is what's nature's laboratory. How about smoking? Do we have a randomized controlled trial here to prove smoking causes lung cancer? Did we ever take 1,015-year-old children, randomized 500 of them to smoke and the other 500 not to smoke and follow them for 50 years and determine that the smokers, one out of 10 of them developed cancer? No, of course we didn't. And it'd be unethical to do so, right? So how did we determine this? Well, Luther K. Terry, Surgeon General back in 1964, warned against cigarette smoking based on this. Average smokers had a nine to 10-fold increased risk of cancer and heavy smokers a 20-fold risk. Again, but no randomized controlled trial, right? And later, this is what they said on the basis of Hill's criteria, Bradford Hill's criteria for judging causality. They concluded randomized controlled clinical trials were not necessary to assert that tobacco causes an array of negative outcomes, right? Including lung cancer and death. So this is the Bradford Hill criteria for judging causality and we will come back to this, but these are considered the gold standard for assessing causal inference in medicine. All right. So back to the gist of this. So these are the oils that I've pegged as the worst of the worst, right here. And I won't name these, but I say these are poisons. These are chronic metabolic biological poisons. And the reason that they are is they're very high in omega-6, as you know. And when omega-6 is greater than about 2% of calories, that drives a physiological, pathophysiological environment that is pro-oxidative, pro-inflammatory, toxic, and nutrient-efficient. And to put these together, you develop metabolic disease and physical degeneration. That's all I'm going to say about pathophysiology today. We're going to move right into evidence. So here we're going to talk about the United States and this is what I would call our nutrition experiment in nature's laboratory. All right. This is the first slide, first graph, and you see here this is obesity versus vegetable oils from the 19th century all the way to 2018. And you see back here on your far left, obesity at 1.2%. Now that's Scott Allen Carson's work that assessed obesity in men in prisons age 18 to 80. All right. That's what the obesity was in the 19th century. But vegetable oils were about one gram a day. All right. How about, moved up to 1961. Now obesity had risen 11-fold. It's at 13.4%, right. But look at it. It's in correlation to the vegetable oils, right. And finally, clear back up here the upper left. Obesity 42.5% in 2018. Again, in striking correlation to the vegetable oils, right, which are now 80 grams a day. So we went from zero to 80 grams a day, right, while obesity went from 1.2% to 42.5%. So let's look at sugar. So here we see sugar in the green and obesity in the red. All right. Let's go back here to the 19th century, 1890 obesity, 1.2%, right. Scott Allen Carson's work. Where was sugar? Sugar is already 211 calories a day. 10.8% of calories. Now this is higher already than the World Health Organization's recommendations for sugars today. And yet we had almost no obesity. And as you'll see, almost no diabetes. All right. Move up here to 1907. Sugar now exceeds 300 calories a day. 15% of calories. You have to realize total caloric consumption was only about 1,955 calories a day using NHANES 1971 data. All right. So, but again, 300 calories a day of sugar, but obesity still probably around 1%. We don't know exactly. All right. Let's jump up here to 1930. Now this is interpolated data. That's why I have approximately there. It's based on Excel creating interpolated data because the next actual data point will be 1961. So that's the estimate. All right. Where's the sugar consumption in 1930? 499 calories a day. 25% of sugar consumption. A fourth of the diet is sugar. And look how fantastically healthy we all, everybody here knows that we were very healthy then, right? Now I want you to notice the sugar drops over the next 30 years to 1961 right there. But obesity continues to climb. We've got a negative correlation. All right. Now jump up here all the way to 2018 when obesity is 42.5%. Where's the sugar? 526 calories a day. All right. 24% of calories in 2016. So those are 2016 versus 2018 there. But notice the sugar is only 27 calories a day higher in 2016 than it was in 1930, right? And as a percentage it's a hair lower. It's 1% lower. All right. So we have a very strong disconnect and very poor correlation between sugar and obesity. Let's put the two of these together. And I'll just highlight here. So here we see obesity shows a striking correlation to vegetable oils. But almost no correlation at all. Even negative correlations to sugar. And we're going to come back to that. All right. Okay. So now we're moving down the time frame that we're looking at. We're looking at 1961 to 2018. All right. So here's obesity in 1961. 13% on your lower left here. And you can see it climbs all the way to 42.4% by 2018 as you saw before. Look at the correlation to the vegetable oils in the blue. But here is, I'm going to highlight that is the sugar. Look how little it changes. So what are the numbers? So during this period, 1961 to 2018, sugar is up 14%. Vegetable oil is up 230%. That's 3.3 fold. Right. And so again, striking correlation to vegetable oils. But very little correlation to sugar here. So now this is, we're narrowing down the window of evaluation further. This is 1999 to 2018. And you can see obesity here. 1999 is now 30.5% climbs all the way to 42.4% in 2018. All right. But notice, there's the trend for sugar. It's going down. So while sugar declines, after 2004, obesity escalates. In fact, it's got the highest escalation. All right. Here's severe obesity between 1999 and 2018. And you see that severe obesity in 1999, 4.7%, it doubles to 9.2% by 2018. Here's the sugar consumption trend. Right. It's on the decline. So during this period, sugar is down 8%. Vegetable oil is up 30%. And severe obesity doubles. All right. So you say, well, is it the carbohydrates? Well, we've got that data too. So take a look here. And I'm going to highlight this. This is the arrow right in the middle. You see where carbohydrates begin to decline, 1997. You see that carbohydrates decline from 1997 through 2013, while obesity elevates from approximately, right here, 29% to 38%. Here again, we have a negative correlation. So we have sugar going down, carbohydrates going down, obesity climbing, right? You say, well, but it's the calories. So we have that too. Now, take a look. If we go back here to the 19th century on your far left here in the red, you remember obesity was 1.2%. It climbed to 13.4%, I believe it was, by 1961, right? Obesity rose 11 fold, right? But look at the calories and the carbohydrates both on the decline during that period. All right. Now, move forward here on the far right to 2002. You see total calories and carbohydrates again, both declining after 2002, right here in the U.S., while obesity has its highest trend upward, right? Okay. So this is what happened. This is the metamorphosis that the average man went through over the past 150 years. So in 1870, Scott Allen Carson's work again showed us that the average body mass index for a man in the U.S. was 23.2, anyway to 148 pounds. By 2016, the average man has a body mass index of 29.3. In case you don't know, body mass index above 30 is obese. So the average male, average adult male in the U.S. now is almost obese, right? Anyways, 198 pounds. I apologize to the ladies. There was no data on women in the 19th century for this because the data is all taken from prisoners and they're almost all men. All right. So here's what happened. Between 1870 and 2016, the average man became 50 pounds heavier. 50 pounds. Why? Well, here's what I'd say. In 1870, the average man we know consumed about one gram of vegetable oils per day on average. 2016, the average man consumed 80 grams of vegetable oils per day on average. An 80-fold increase in vegetable oils. Okay. So let's move on to diabetes. So this is diabetes prevalence in the U.S. 2.8 per 100,000 in the year 1890. How do I know this? This man, Sir William Oster, probably one of the most famous physicians in the past 200 years, one of the founding partners of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. This is his textbook pictured right next to him. This is my copy published 1893, Principles and Practice of Medicine. Here's what he said. In comparison with European countries, diabetes is a rare disease in America. The last census, which would be 1890, gave only 2.8 per 100,000 population against a ratio of from 5 to 9 in the former. Among 35,000 patients under treatment at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in dispensary, there were only 10 cases of diabetes. That's in 35,000 patients in their records. This proves how rare it was. So if you do the ratios, there were 63.1 million Americans in the U.S. in 1890. That means they had about 1,764 diabetics in the entire country, enough to fill a very small town like that red dot in Kansas, for example. Where are we today? This is how many diabetics we have in the U.S. today. 13%. What are those numbers? 34.1 million diabetics and climbing. That's what it is, 13% of the adults. This is an increase of 4,643 fold over a period of 126 years. If diabetes had doubled, that should be statistically significant. It went up 4,643 fold. Currently, over 51% of Americans are either pre-diabetic or diabetic, and only 6.8% of Americans as of 2018 now have optimal cardiometabolic health. What is it that is so ubiquitous in our food supply that only about 7% of us remain cardiometabolically healthy? You know what the answer is. Let's get to the data, because this will show you in case you don't believe it. Here's diabetes, 1890.0028%. That's the 2.8 per 100,000 that Osler gave us. Where was the sugar? You've seen it before, 211 calories a day, 10.8% of calories. Again, I already have issues with sugar being the driver here, because you know a lot of the people had to be consuming twice that much sugar, and maybe the other half consuming none, just for example. Yet we have an extraordinarily rare prevalence of diabetes. The next known data is from the equivalent of the NHANE study in 1935, 0.37%. It's here in the middle on the bottom. That's the obesity, I'm sorry, the diabetes prevalence at that time. Where was the sugar? At that year, sugar consumption 440 calories a day, 22.5% of calories coming from sugar, and diabetes affected, here's the number, 1 in 270 people. Pretty unusual, right? Let's jump over here to 2016. Sugar again, you've seen this before, 526 calories a day. Now compared to the 1935 number, that's up 86 calories, and sugar is 24% of calories, so it's up 1.5%. But how many diabetics do we have? 13%. Now instead of 1 in 270 diabetics like we had in 1935, there's 1 in 8. Let's look at this a different way. Here's the diabetes, 0.37% in 1935. Here's the sugar consumption as an absolute percentage of energy. Their energy consumption was a bit lower, a few hundred calories lower, but it's 22.5% of energy. Here's the diabetes prevalence in 2016, and there's the sugar consumption 24%. So here's the conclusion. As an absolute percentage, the sugar consumption is up 1.5% from 1935, and yet diabetes climbs 35-fold, 3,400% increase. Now this makes no sense whatsoever to me, no logical sense to blame sugar for diabetes. Let's look at this one more way in case that doesn't really make sense. So we see sugar here as an absolute percentage increase between 1935 and 2016. I'll bring this arrow up real slow. It went up 1.5%, but here in the blue there, that's the increase in vegetable oils during that same period, 1935 to 2016. It went up 21.5%. So in other words, more than a fifth of the diet was replaced between 1935 and 2016 with vegetable oils, more than a fifth of every plate of food. And what happened to the diabetes? Up 3,400%. Let's jump a little farther forward. This is 1991 to 2016. We're looking at diabetes in the U.S. still, and here's the diabetic prevalence, 2.97% in 1991, climbs all the way to 13% as you've seen before, but again, look at the trend line with sugar. It's on the way down. We have a negative correlation once again. But look at the striking correlation with vegetable oils, which are almost always going up. All right. So there in the blue is the trend line for vegetable oils. Okay. So let's talk about the United Kingdom. This is their nutrition experiment. And you see sugar in the green there at the top. And we'll highlight here that in 1961, their sugar begins to drop. Vegetable oils, you can see, I'll bring that up in a minute. So vegetable oils you can see climbing since the 1960s in the blue there. Right below that is the Linnolake acid, Omega-6 Linnolake acid in the body fat. You can see it climbs in parallel with the vegetable oils, which it always does. That's where they come from. Right? Then we see obesity 7% in 1980, climbs all the way to 28% by 2019. And then you see diabetes 2.5% in 1994, climbs to 7.5% by 2019. Right? So you see LA in the body fat and obesity and diabetes all in parallel with the vegetable oils. Right? While the sugar is on the decline. Right? So let's make this a little easier to see. So one of my colleagues just created trend lines for this. So this is what happened during this period. Sugar is declined to 28%. Vegetable oils doubled. Linnolake acid in the body fat more than doubled. Obesity quadrupled. Diabetes tripled. Right? All while sugar is on the decline. Okay. Let's move on to Australia. This is their nutrition experiment. Take a look. So the first thing you see in the top again with the sugar in the green is a near steady decline in sugar after 1961. Right? It's not a huge decline, but it's a decline. You see vegetable oils on the incline as almost always. Right? Here's the obesity 9% in 1980 climbs all the way to 31.3% by 2018. So it more than triples and you see the diabetes in the purple and the chronic disease in the black. Those are short lines because that's all the data points that they had. Right? But you can see sugar is on the decline while obesity skyrockets. Right? But what's it in? You can see what it's rising with. Now I'm just going to highlight here in your upper left. Sugar consumption here is higher in 1961 in Australia than it was in the United States in 2016. Yet look how low their obesity probably was. I mean, that was 1961, but their obesity in 1980 was only 9%. I say only, but still compared to where most Westernized countries are. All right. Let's move on. You say, well, maybe it's the carbohydrates. Well, here's the carbohydrates in Australia. And you can see that the carbs decline after 1970. Right? Now they go down over those several decades. There are a couple of hundred calories a day, but once again, as the vegetable oils incline in the blue, and again, you see the obesity climb markedly from 9% to 31.3% in near perfect lockstep correlation with the vegetable oils. Okay. Let's look at Israel. Now, Israel is unique because they've had extreme high vegetable oil consumption for a long time as a percentage of their total fat. So take a look at vegetable oil in the blue there at the top. And then I'm going to bounce right down here to their diabetes and we'll come back to sugar in just a moment. Here's their diabetes in 1996, 3.4%. This is where it climbs to by 2019, 9.7% in the black there. But notice that the sugar took a steep decline. So while the diabetes was going way up, their sugar was on the decline. And if you look at the very bottom, you can see how low their added animal fats and butter and ghee, they have almost none. Those total around 6% or 7% total in their diet. All the rest is coming from vegetable oils. All right. This is China. All right. And so you'll notice like almost all countries, look at their vegetable oil in the blue, climbing since 1961 steadily. And then you see the sugar down below that. We'll come back to that in a moment. Let's get right to the overweight and obesity. This combined overweight and obesity, 15.3% in 1991, climbs all the way to 42% by 2015. All right. So a market increase. All right. Now, this is not a talk about cancer, but I'm going to mention very quickly here that cancer elevated threefold during that same time, cancer incidents. All right. Here's what I want to bring your attention to. It's hard to see these when you go quickly, but if you look at the far left, y-axis, you'll see the kilocalories per capita per day. You see how low the sugar consumption was. 60 to 80 calories a day in recent decades. That's 2.5% of their consumption. All right. 4 to 5 teaspoons of sugar a day. And I'll bring up another high pop up over here. China's sugar consumption is the eighth lowest in the world. All right. So why is there overweight obesity going through the roof, right? And their cancer going through the roof. All right. It's related to the vegetable oils. All right. Let's look at New Zealand. And you're going to see here that New Zealand's very interesting. The reason I brought this one in is because they have extreme high sugar consumption. You can see since 1961, they were bouncing between 450 to 500 calories a day. And then in more recent decades, you can see they climbed above 500 calories a day. All right. But I want you to look over here. Look at their vegetable oils, how low they were in 1961. Now, they didn't have their first obesity study till 1977, which I'll highlight right here, was 10%. All right. And then, look where obesity climbed to in New Zealand, which is a lot of the Maori Pacific Islanders, 50%. 50%. But look, it's in lockstep correlation to the vegetable oils. Now, all of the Pacific Islanders are exquisitely genetically susceptible to seed oils and to processed foods in general, but particularly to the seed oils. They have extraordinarily high rates of obesity. They have all the top nations in the world. If you look at all countries, all the top nations in terms of obesity are in the Pacific Islands. All right. Okay. This is Japan, the quintessential nation I've always said to illustrate all these points. First, let's go through their food consumption data. So you're going to see here that here's the total calories. And these numbers on your left are going to range between 1958 and 1961, okay, just to make that clear. So here's their total calories around 1960, 2837. They dropped by 2009 to 1850. Calories went down about almost a third, right, around a third. Carbohydrates, when they were fantastically healthy in 1960, 84%, all right, dropped down to 56%. Here is their sugar consumption around 1961. 196 calories jumped up to 384 calories peak in 1989. I'm not giving you all the data points just to make this simpler, okay. And then it comes back down to 282 calories by 2010. On your lower right, I'll give you a pop-up here that their sugar dropped 27% between 1989 and 2010.   And then their saturated fat, lower right, only 7%, the lowest in the developed world, all right. But here's the critical numbers, the vegetable oils in the blue. And I highlight the numbers in red, 81 calories in 1961, nine grams, that was tolerable. That's where the US was in about 1908, all right. Where did their vegetable oils get to? 351 calories per day by 2010. Let's see what happens to them, all right. So here's obesity in men, all right. And you're going to see here right in the middle. So in the red, you see obesity climbed from 16% in the late 1970s up to 31.2% by 2009. So it doubles, right. Again, while calories, carbohydrates, and sugars are all on the decline, obesity doubles in men, all right. So this is diabetes in the red curve, all right. Look how low their diabetes was, 1954, 54.02%. That's 2% per 10,000, all right. Extremely low. Where does it get to? 6.9% by 2009. Look at that in lockstep correlation to the vegetable oils. Once again, that's what their diabetes does, while the calories, carbohydrates, and sugars all decline, all right. Diabetes up 345 fold between 1954 and 2007. Okay. Very quickly, like I said, this is about obesity and diabetes, but I can't pass up just showing you that their breast cancer went up five fold along with the vegetable oil between 1975 and 1999. And their age-related macular degeneration, leading cause of blindness in people over the age of 60, went up 82 fold in relation to their vegetable oils. Moving on. So what's driving all this? It's right here, their dietary omega 6 coming from the vegetable oils. Look where it was over here on your lower left, 1% of their calories. As I've said many times, omega 6 needs to be under 2% to be ancestral. This is where they were, 1%. This is exactly where Americans were in 1865 before we ever consumed vegetable oils. Where does their omega 6 get to on your far upper right? 7.8%. Look at that. Again, I hate to keep using this term, but in lockstep correlation to their vegetable oil consumption. So let's look at the whole world. All right. So this is our data. Soon to be published, if you look on the far lower left, this is where total vegetable oil consumption was globally. Now, it never would have reached zero, but it approaches zero grams per person per day in 1865 worldwide. Look where it gets to in your far upper right, 65.4 grams a day per person, right? Okay. That's a near infinite increase in vegetable oils since 1865 globally. What does that do to us? If you look at the red curve, this is what we estimate happened to chronic disease, right? A near infinite increase in chronic disease. All right. Let's look at, this is again globally, this is obesity in men versus vegetable oils and sugar. And here's where obesity was in 1975, 3.2% on your lower left climbs all the way in the red curve there to 10.8%. So more than triples, but oops, let me go back here. Sorry about that. But while the sugar is virtually flat, flat. So the sugar is up 5% during this period. Vegetable oil is up 85%. That's almost a doubling and the obesity rises 3.4 fold. Here's obesity in women. You can see that it is in lockstep correlation to the vegetable oils already, 6.4% in 1975 all the way to 14.9% by 2014 while the sugars are virtually flat. You say, well, what about carbohydrate? Well, let's look at the BMI versus that because you've already seen the obesity. So here's the BMI 21.7 in men in 1975 climbs all the way to 24.2% by 2014, right? And look at that near perfect correlation with vegetable oils while the carbohydrates slightly declined. Now, the carbohydrates only went down 1.5% there, but they did slightly go down. Again, this is all global data. Let's average weight gain for men here, 18 pounds. Let's look at women. So here's the BMI in women, 22.1%. In 1975 climbs all the way to 24.4% by 2014, again, while the carbohydrates are flat. So average weight gain for women here, 14 pounds. All right, here's diabetes in men globally. You can see it was 4.3% in 1970 or 1980, climbs all the way to 9%. It more than doubles. All right, again, while the sugar is flat. Let's look at women. So 4% diabetes in 1980, lower left here. All right, all the way to 7.9%. It doubles again while the sugar is virtually flat. And flat sugars are down 1.7% there. So anyway, vegetable oils are killing us, and they're hidden everywhere. This junky plate of processed food loaded with vegetable oils, these kinds of fast foods, I estimate this contains 75 grams of omega-6. That's the best job I could do to estimate that. Optimal is 2.2 to 5 grams a day. All right, that's what you should be getting. So that means the omega-6 in all of this this assortment of processed foods is enough to serve you. It should serve you over 15 to 30 days. So take this, contrast this, the omega-6 in all of this food, in these plates, I tried to add all this up. Now, this is ancestrally raised, ancestrally prepared food. This is 3.5 grams of omega-6 versus the roughly 75 grams in the previous image. Now, again, this has to be ancestrally raised, ancestrally prepared. So let's wrap up here. So obesity and diabetes have escalated in direct proportion to seed oil consumption with little or no relationship to sugar consumption. Obesity and diabetes have also escalated while sugar, carbohydrates, and even total calories have all declined. We've seen it repeatedly, and this is that there's more it could give you if we had more time. So vegetable oils are the primary drivers of obesity and diabetes. I don't have any question in my mind about this whatsoever. Vegetable oils and high omega-6 diets account for, I would submit to you 90% of obesity and around 99.7% of diabetes. I know that's a very bold claim, but this is what all the evidence leads me to believe. All right? A warning, however. So corn and soy-fed pork and chicken plus nuts and seeds all contribute to high omega-6 diet, so they're devils in the details. You have to understand this. I will submit, non-processed carbohydrates play no role in obesity, metabolic disease, or diabetes whatsoever. Non-processed carbohydrates, that is. All right? Is sugar the villain? It's been made out to be. I would say this. Sugar plays only a minor role in obesity. And the primary problem with sugar, it runs with seed oils in processed foods, so it has a lot of guilt by association. Now, I'll get to this. I'm not defending sugar here, all right? I'm getting to that. So sugar is obviously a processed nutrient-deficient food, but will contribute to nutrient deficiencies if the amount is enough, and it will lead to physical degenerative diseases or further contribute to those, just as Weston Price showed us in the 1930s and 1940s. Nobody knows that better than myself. All right. So what about diabetes? So sugar plays, again, little or no role in diabetes. Diabetes and metabolic disease are diseases of seed oil and high omega-6 consumption, period, at least in my mind. All right? All right. So have we met the Bradford Hill criteria to prove, I'll use this in single quotes, okay, to prove causality with regard to obesity and diabetes? Well, let's go through these very quickly. Strength of the evidence. You've seen a 35-fold increase in obesity, a 4,643-fold increase in diabetes prevalence since 1890. I'll call that a check. Consistency of the evidence. We've got evidence that the individual population after population studies, global level, that's a check. Is this plausible? Yes. I've laid out the biological mechanisms, and it's pro-oxidative, pro-inflammatory, toxic, and nutrient deficient. Check. Temporal relationship. The exposure always precedes the effect. So you get the oils and then the disease, that's a check. Dose response relationship. You've seen it here over and over. Increased exposure, more oils, more disease. Specificity. This is not exactly the way that Bradford Hill thought of it because he thought of one cause, one effect. And in this scenario, it's that vegetable oils are poisons. They poison all of our systems. So you have numerous myriad effects and myriad chronic disease. I'm going to call that a check. Do we have experimental evidence? You bet we do. And I've reviewed that before. We've got human and animal data. That's a check. And there's plenty of analogous evidence. For example, the highly toxic, heavy metals like arsenic drive the pro-oxidative effects and cause similar diseases. That's a check. I believe we've met the Bradford Hill criteria to prove, use that term in quotes, causality here. Our motto is seed oil free is the key to being disease free. I do have a book coming out here in the next few months on this subject. 100% of royalties will benefit ancestral health foundation and cure AMD foundation or non-profit organizations. And it has, for example, evidence like this, that vegetable oils, we believe, have driven more than a billion deaths just since 1990.  So I want to thank Dr. Aaron Blaisdale, all the organizers of the ancestral health society. And I want to thank all of you. It's been an honor and a pleasure. Thank you.