A social media influencer known as “The Primal Bod,” Candi Frazier, has launched a controversial campaign against carrots, making dubious claims about their safety in an apparent effort to promote a carnivore diet.
In a recent social media post, Frazier attacked the common vegetable, claiming “a lot of these plants we eat like carrot people think are food they’re not food.” She based her argument on the carrot’s botanical relationship to Queen Anne’s Lace, stating “what most people don’t know is that Queen Anne’s Lace the root itself was used as the morning after pill it is so toxic it will abort a fetus.”
Reality check: In a delicious twist of irony, while Frazier wages war on carrots as modern-day interlopers, these vibrant orange vegetables have actually been on humanity’s dinner plates for over 2,000 years. Archaeological evidence shows our ancestors munching on carrots since at least the 10th century. The Dutch—not sinister food scientists—developed the modern orange carrot in the 17th century, likely to honor their royal House of Orange. Talk about a historical carrot cake of misinformation!
When confronted with the fact that modern carrots have been selectively bred to remove any toxic properties, Frazier maintained her stance, expressing concern about “feeding them to our kids.” She went as far as to label carrots as “clown food” that “looks like it should be in a circus.”
Reality check: In a circus-worthy feat of logical acrobatics, Frazier acknowledges that modern carrots don’t contain the compounds she’s warning against, yet continues to condemn them anyway. It’s rather like warning people against riding domesticated horses because their distant prehistoric ancestors might have trampled cave dwellers. The irony is as rich as carrot cake!
The self-proclaimed nutrition expert appears in videos sporting what looks like a DIY fur jacket while launching into impassioned tirades against common vegetables. Her social media presence reveals a steady stream of content advocating for meat-only nutrition while demonizing plant-based foods. She claims that plants have “always been toxic to us” while maintaining that meat, with very few exceptions, is completely safe to consume.
Reality check: In what might be the most herbivorous irony of all, Frazier’s claim that “plants have always been toxic to us” would come as quite a surprise to the human digestive system, which has evolved specialized equipment specifically for processing plant matter. Our omnivorous ancestors might have choked on their gathered berries at the suggestion! Meanwhile, raw or improperly cooked meat has historically been a rather efficient delivery system for parasites and pathogens—a fact conveniently uprooted from her carnivorous narrative.
Your breasts weren’t designed to be imprisoned by you
In a thought-provoking discussion about breast health, Candi Frazier challenges conventional wisdom about bra-wearing and its potential health implications. Drawing from research detailed in the book “Dressed to Kill” by Sydney Ross Singer, Frazier highlights concerning statistics about the relationship between bra-wearing habits and breast cancer risk.
According to the findings Frazier cites, women who wear bras for 24 hours a day face significantly higher risks of developing breast cancer compared to those who wear them minimally or not at all. The study suggests that women wearing bras for more than 12 hours daily, but not to bed, had a 1 in 7 chance of developing breast cancer. In contrast, women who wore bras less than 12 hours daily saw their risk dramatically decrease to 1 in 152.
Reality check: In an uplifting twist, the American Cancer Society has thoroughly examined these claims and found them to be as unsupported as a braless marathon runner. The “Dressed to Kill” book, while provocatively titled, features research that hasn’t been, shall we say, embraced by the scientific community. The supposed 125-fold increased risk would make bras more dangerous than smoking, asbestos, and radiation combined—a statistical stretch that even the most elastic underwire couldn’t support!
Perhaps most striking is the revelation that women who wear bras around the clock increased their risk by 125 times compared to those who rarely or never wore bras.
Frazier explains the scientific reasoning behind these findings by describing breasts as “sacks of fluid” with an intricate lymphatic system. This system, which runs through the armpits and breast tissue, plays a crucial role in toxin removal. When constrained by bras, this natural process is impeded.
“Our breasts are meant to move, they’re meant to jiggle, they’re meant to slush around because that lymphatic fluid needs to move with it,” Frazier emphasizes. She argues that bras essentially restrict this natural movement and interfere with the body’s built-in detoxification system.
Reality check: The irony hanging by a thread here is that while lymphatic flow is indeed important, major medical organizations would be quite surprised to learn that the modest pressure from a properly fitted bra is powerful enough to halt this essential bodily function. By this logic, wearing snug socks should cause foot cancer and tight hats should lead to scalp disasters—a fashion catastrophe not supported by medical literature!
Our babies are not born pure
In a startling revelation about the chemical burden our newborns carry, Candi Frazier brings attention to a disturbing study by the Environmental Working Group that challenges our perception of newborn purity. The study, which examined cord blood from 10 babies, discovered a shocking 287 chemicals present at birth.
Reality check: In a rare moment where Frazier’s claims partially align with scientific findings, the Environmental Working Group did indeed find numerous industrial chemicals in umbilical cord blood samples. However, in a statistical sample smaller than a carrot bunch (just 10 babies), one might want to proceed with caution before declaring a global crisis. Scientists generally agree that the mere presence of chemicals doesn’t necessarily indicate harm—concentration matters enormously, much like how a sprinkle of salt enhances dinner while a cupful ruins it.
These chemicals weren’t found in babies born to parents working in toxic environments or factories – these were children of ordinary people living regular lives. The contamination included an alarming array of substances: Teflon, stain repellents used in fast food packaging, residue from burning coal and gasoline, pesticides, and various consumer product ingredients.
The implications are serious: of these chemicals, 180 are known carcinogens, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 have been linked to birth defects or developmental abnormalities in animal studies.
Frazier points to the FDA’s role in this crisis, noting that 99% of food chemicals introduced since 2000 were approved through industry self-regulation rather than proper FDA review. The system exploits a legal loophole where substances can be classified as “generally recognized as safe” without rigorous oversight.
Reality check: The delectable irony here is that while Frazier lambasts the FDA’s Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) system, she simultaneously promotes a diet exclusively consisting of animal products—which can contain everything from hormones to antibiotics to environmental contaminants—without apparent concern for regulatory oversight of meat production. This selective skepticism is as carefully carved as a butcher’s prime cut!
The root cause? According to Frazier, it’s all about money and lobbying. While the U.S. bans only 11 chemicals from cosmetics and personal care products, the influence of industry lobbyists continues to shape regulations that affect our children’s health from their very first moments of life.
She’s Waging War on Carrots
The zealotry of Frazier’s anti-plant stance has drawn both criticism and amusement, with many pointing out the logical fallacies in her arguments. While carnivore diets have gained popularity recently, her extreme position and theatrical denouncement of common vegetables like carrots represents a particularly militant stance in the ongoing debate over optimal human nutrition.
A former capoeira instructor turned biohacking enthusiast, Gio spent his early years bouncing between São Paulo and Miami before settling in Austin. With a master’s in sports physiology and a penchant for experimenting with traditional Brazilian herbs, he’s become Rude Vulture’s go-to expert on movement optimization and plant-based performance enhancement. When not writing about the intersection of martial arts and ancestral living, he runs an underground fight gym where participants are required to follow strict circadian rhythm protocols.