So Dr. Peat, what do you think made cultures...
Okay, and we're live.
Hello, everybody.
Welcome.
We have Georgie and Mr. Raymond Peat on the line, and we are talking about Aristotle.
We were talking about forms matter, deep politics.
And so I'm not going to interrupt what we were talking about, but Georgie, go ahead.
Yeah, I was curious what Dr. Peat thinks made that specific parts of the world amenable
to such contradictory ideas, basically.
I mean, is it something in the way people saw the world in those different parts?
I mean, the way people saw reality in those different parts of the world?
Why would the Eastern Europe or like Eastern world be so amenable to change and so accepting
of change, while the Western world would be like, "Nope, we're firmly controlled.
That's the only theory that we accept is true."
Change must be happening everywhere.
Why would it take root in certain parts of the world and not others?
In the '50s, I was considering the Whorfian hypothesis that language, the structure of
language has evolved in remote history, that the structure of language contributes to that.
But I fairly quickly realized that cultural things such as the difference between Aristotle
and Plato in the available literature, when people were just barely starting to get literate.
The church was a force for literacy, and it happened that the Eastern Christian church
got the good Aristotle literature, and the West was influenced by Platonism.
So I still tend to think that there are slight differences from the structure of language.
There's a linguist at Stanford who is the contemporary Whorfian apologist.
I think that can be seen in the difference between English and German, for example, and
between, say, Chinese and Hindi.
Chinese has, through use, reduced the superstructure of grammatical form and depends greatly on
context.
I think that there's a noticeable difference between English and the older European languages
with more context dependence in English grammar.
Are you familiar with the ideas of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein?
Oh yeah.
The thing I liked about him was that he numbered his paragraphs instead of trying to make a
grand argument that progressed logically.
He simply made statements and numbered them because he believed that every statement implies
a metaphysical surrounding.
I had been studying Bertrand Russell and the linguistic philosophers who I saw as being
a way—not Russell, but the people who followed him and called themselves the language philosophers,
like John Wisdom.
I saw them as trying to sneak in the old Platonism entities, logical atomism, for example, which
was Russell's word for it.
Wittgenstein blew that up and showed somewhat a resonance with the old Leibniz, a universe
being implied in every statement or every event implying the surrounding context.
The thing that made the most impression on me is that he said there's no such thing
as private language.
There are no private thoughts that can all be expressed and there are no private fields,
as you said in many of your interviews.
Yeah, but when you try to work out the implications of "there is no private language," you're
always guessing statistically that you're understanding the other person.
If you can't remember for sure, your own language is consistent and testable.
When you look at the other person, you're just making a statistically sounder guess,
but there's no essential difference between shared language and the private language once
you realize that they all depend on memory and interpretation.
Okay.
Wow, that's pretty interesting.
That leads me to the next question.
You had a discussion with Daniel about Lenin, memory, and matter.
You said, "Well, Lenin said that knowledge is memory and it's coming from matter, but
it's not matter, right?
Matter is everything we don't know.
So what is knowledge then?
I mean, if it's not matter, what is knowledge?"
It's the physiological presence of matter and the info is the matter itself that hasn't
been incorporated into our perspective.
Okay.
So would you say that knowledge is simply the structure of matter that we incorporate
into ourselves?
Yeah.
It's living matter and it's always open to living a new phase and that openness to new
life is matter.
Okay.
Info is all we can say about matter.
Understood.
It's not denying the materiality.
It's saying that this is the living matter that is our consciousness and that's like
an internal fountain in effect.
It's always going on, going ahead, becoming something else.
And that's the nature of matter, that it's creating this constant flow of knowledge.
Okay.
So in another interview, I think again with Danny, you basically said that nothing is
stored, right?
Basically how we feel about our memories and knowledge in general depends largely on thyroid
function and metabolism in general.
So if knowledge isn't stored, I mean, where is it?
Like when we access a memory, so to speak, what does that process physiologically look
like?
It's some trace in our facial muscles, viscera, posture.
We work through a series of reinventions, finding these pictures, which are arrangements
of excitations.
We don't go straight to a picture, we work by inference and traces to reconstruct it.
And so every time we bring up the past, we're creating a new past.
Okay.
So basically, so when we're remembering, we're partially recreating the memory.
Yeah.
It's always newly experienced.
The idea that something is stored becomes part of that Platonist idea that it ends up
saying that atoms are timeless entities and can be accurately described only by changeless
units of logic.
You can't let change into the system if you're in that logical atomism range all the way
to Platonism.
Platonism is denying that an individual atom has a history, for example.
The memory as reconstruction is that we're like a whirlwind of consciousness, but the
shape of our individual whirlwind is always ongoing, but is moving ahead with some degree
of deduction from our previous states.
And looking back, it's like a reverse deduction to reconstruct that we must have experienced
that being where we are.
And probably one of those same conversations we were talking about, I was asking you some
philosophical questions and you said something like you have to start and end with being
an animal.
And I think you said something like an animal reality.
Can you talk about that a little bit, because I found that to be pretty interesting.
Yeah, where an animal experiencing nature around it or people is aware of its needs
and hopes and also any fears that it has.
It interprets particular objects or processes as either hopeful or fearsome, and otherwise
it's in the process of going through the present situation with the intention of finding
the realization of what it wants.
And people have, the culture has piled up belief and stories that complicate that so
that we don't see ourselves as surrounded by future and dangers, future possibilities
and threats.
And I think anytime you're going to get back on the track of realizing yourself, the larger
intention, the thing that religious people feel as some kind of overarching meaning for
the animal, the human, hopefully biologically amplified animal doing things that some animals
can't do.
By our energy amplification, we can have the animal intentionality encompassing future
possibilities on a transpersonal scale, seeing the need for the ecosystem and for the society,
for other individuals, even for different kinds of organisms, taking responsibility
in a straight line with yourself, feeling that you're responsible for all of the stuff
around you, that you see it all as hopeful moving towards the future and don't have
any of these cultural kinks that say, "I own this," or "I have to destroy this
to do this," and so on.
You try to picture overarching series of meanings so that everything can get into a better future.
Are you saying, sorry, are you saying that amplified rate of metabolism coexists with
a sense of solidarity with other humans or the Kropotkin mutual aid, assuming your basic
needs are met?
Yeah.
I see Kropotkin blending in with Vernadsky, Vernadsky saying that the flow of energy from
the sun into the earth is trying, the substance responding to that flow of energy is creating
a living structural system that is assimilating and accumulating the interactions of the different
levels of the ecosystem, permitting the optimizing the metabolism of the big animal developing
a big brain and doing the things that are appropriate, like animals tearing through
the jungle are improving the fertility of the system, not damaging it.
Like Alan Savory, his rough idea is compatible with Vernadsky, that the big animals are a
big part of the ecosystems that they develop in and they are pulling, helping to pull the
whole ecosystem forward.
Because there's such massive energy dissipating structures?
Yeah.
Okay.
So, on the being an animal in this world, are you referring to basically Pavlov's ideas
of the first and second signal system?
The first one being, first signal system being basically the animal raw perception of reality?
Yeah, I don't see it as being strictly second.
The first signal system, P.K.
Anokhin, who was a colleague younger than Pavlov, developed the picture of the consciousness
in this unified sense.
He called it the acceptor of action, which you can't really separate the orienting reflex
or the dominant concept from the acceptor of action.
It's the present state of the organism in pictorial space-filling model of the world.
The second signal system, in Pavlov's term, gets its structure by acting as names for
structures in this acceptor of action, like you have a little three-dimensional holographic
movie going on with your intentions cycling through this movie model of the world.
The words, the second signal system, attaches to each part of the model of the world, has
a naming relationship.
Marx or Engels referred to it as a name of a ghost.
The second signal system gets its structure exclusively from this pictorial model of the
world, the acceptor of action.
To me, the way I understood your book, at least, was that intuition was part of the
first signal system, and then this capacity for rigid, analytical, abstract thought felt
like it didn't even need images.
That was part of the second signal system.
And then the authoritarian mind and people with authoritarian tendencies tend to really
emphasize the second signal system, in other words, purely abstract thought without any
connection to reality, to the first signal system.
Yeah, I did.
When I was studying psychology at the university, I did a survey asking people how they dreamed,
as well as their waking thought processes.
And I found that there were people who didn't know what it was to dream in pictures.
They said a dream was like listening to someone tell a story.
And those people were on a scale of creativity.
They would be absolute zero.
They followed verbal rules.
Somehow they could talk to people and seem to communicate in English.
They had no ability to think with any innovation.
It was only what could be said in a familiar way.
And when your acceptor of action is de-energized, it tends to disappear, leaving just these
solidified units of language.
You can't learn a language without having some fluidity in this model of the world.
But by the age of six or seven, people are often losing enough biological energy that
they start seeing reality in terms of only the cliches that they can say.
This might be semi off the topic, but where does personal responsibility, but also the
destruction of the individual from the culture, where does personal responsibility begin where
a person is born into a culture that basically sets them up for total failure?
We're going to talk about vaccines, but when I went home to Southern California, probably
a few years ago, my mom gave me a sheet of all the vaccines I got when I was a little
kid and it was like a ridiculous, I don't remember, it was like 20.
I know that's even worse now.
It just seems like, and I know you talked about with, what was his name, Guillermo,
but how the universe is expanding and growing, but our society is kind of declining at the
same time.
Yeah, you can see biological decline.
I looked at the birth weight of different nations and the head size, and for much of
the 19th and 20th century, birth weights and brain sizes were increasing steadily.
In 1980, several countries had an actual shrinkage of brain size or a growth in height with no
growth in brain from decade to decade.
So the cultural imposition really is literally shrinking people's brains now.
I just read a few days ago, like Generation Z has a pretty high suicide rate and doesn't
look good.
75% of them are actually, apparently have mental illness.
They meet the diagnostic criteria, as fake as it is, for at least one mental illness,
according to the American Psychiatric Association.
This is like the youngest generation that's just entering, not the workforce, but they're
in high school now.
I think that kind of information has to get through to the people who own and run the
world that their machine is breaking down.
If they really take their ownership seriously, that they want to keep their wealth, they'd
better start repairing the mechanism because the components are deteriorating too fast.
Are there any grassroots kind of movements that you think have potential for really changing
things?
Like how likely is it that something from the top is going to change everything, like
kind of the elite psychopath type of people?
I think it is most likely that it will be some disaster that forces it.
What was the Diane Fossier, the degrowth thing?
She thought like we would have to go through a primitive state or go back to a primitive
state?
I don't think it's possible to get back to any kind of a good primitive state, but I
think some kind of a big shock is going to have to happen before people, like people
fearing Elizabeth Warren's policy suggestions and simply ruling out people like that.
Both parties are committed to destroying the world.
So unless people start dismantling, preferably the Democratic Party, since there are still
people who remember that there used to be policies connected with the party, dismantling
that seems like a possible route to the future.
I wanted to backtrack a little bit on the verbal system.
I don't know, Dr. Peter, are you familiar with this sign/symptom/pathology in psychiatry?
They call it Logorare.
Basically, it's almost like it literally means verbal diarrhea.
And I stumbled upon it a few weeks ago, and when I looked into it, older studies show
that it's basically overwhelmingly connected to a number of psychiatric conditions that
are known to be driven by excess estrogen and serotonin.
And so my question is, do you think that this excessive verbalism, that essentially estrogen
and serotonin are partly mediating that?
And also, do you think that if somebody is in a culture that's excessively over-verbalized,
eventually it can lead to such pathologies itself?
Women in general produce many more words per minute than men on average.
Starting at the menstrual phase, when estrogen is highest, they can't stop talking.
And I think that involves a short circuit of the pictorial, space-filling thought and
directing the energy through these repetitive verbal patterns.
Very easy to make, not conforming to any practical use.
The thing about the acceptor of action, the pictorial model of the world, is that it's
always changing.
There's nothing repeated.
Anything you try to do twice, it's always different the second time.
The word consciousness, the estrogen-driven, lubricated word machine doesn't get any newness
admitted.
It's always repeating, tending to be cliched, and rehashing things that have already been
built into the system.
In one of your older interviews, you mentioned that you try to spend at least one day a week
not really uttering any words, or reading, and just painting and doing non-verbal activities.
You must be thinking that it's beneficial to do it if you're doing it on purpose.
I'm guessing my question is, do you think that excessive verbalization, when it's voluntary,
it can basically be detrimental?
Not if you keep your energy up.
When I had to teach 12 hours a week, different classes, after just two or three weeks, my
verbal fluency went up tremendously just because I was exercising that.
But I never repeated any idea twice through the whole series of lectures.
If you keep your energy up, you can verbalize fairly fluently, but always bending the message
a little so there's nothing repeated.
People always remark how, on KMUD, when Andrew asks you to introduce yourself, you'll change
it basically every single time.
Are you saying that's the result of keeping the energy up, or are you consciously trying
to recreate your history in all the things you've done?
I never have the same history twice.
A friend had a TV program, and she wanted to do some hour interviews.
She was an experienced TV person, so she would run through a trial program and then say she
wanted to do it again, but I would give different answers every time.
She finally gave up and realized that it was always going to be different answers.
But that's just the way I see the question.
The question never looks the same the second time.
Well, Karen told me probably five or more years ago, she's like, "Danny, something you
have to understand about Ray is when you try to put him in a box, he's going to immediately
want to get out."
So, that made a big...
Or won't even get out.
Yeah, exactly.
But I'm saying, is that a unique aspect of your personality, or do you think that's a
metabolic thing of trying to always stay in a creative mindset or something about your
history?
I first noticed it when I was, I think, three years old and helping my father with a repetitive
task.
I realized that every time I repeated the task, I was a new person.
And ever since then, I've never been able to have the illusion of doing something twice.
And that's then...
If that's the case, then don't you think that schools are really harmful because they emphasize
this routine at every step of the educational process, both the elementary schools, the
high schools, and the universities.
They really don't like you being different every single time.
Yeah, if a person let them be tortured constantly, but you just have to be quiet and let them
do their thing.
I feel like one of the worst parts about school was sitting down.
And now learning about restraint stress and things like that, that seems part of the...
I remember just feeling like it was torture sitting down for so long all day.
It's awful.
Yeah.
My only concern is that you once said that faint stupidity becomes real stupidity.
So I guess a person just has to be sitting there and hoping that they're not going to
be stuck in the educational system long enough to become an idiot like all the other people
being turned into slaves, mental slaves.
Yeah, people who did IQ tests on New York City, every year they gave the same students
more IQ tests and found that every year their IQ went down.
Wow.
Have you also seen the studies showing that the earlier a child starts school, basically
the dumber they will exit the whole educational system?
I hadn't seen that, but that would be the same principle.
I have two sisters and I don't think either of them watch this, but the one that didn't
go to college I can talk normally with.
And then the one that did go to college, we don't have very much in common.
So I've definitely seen that played out.
Ray, do you think the vaccinations, besides the food and the polyunsaturated fats, you
see that as a major kind of problem for society?
Yeah.
I mean, until fairly recently, I hadn't realized that kids are now getting 50 shots by the
time they grow up.
Robert Kennedy Jr. mentioned that until 1980, only 2.5%, I think, of kids, he said, had
allergies.
Starting in the 1980s, I think he said it was over half of the kids now have serious
allergies.
And if you want to create an allergy in an animal, you give it an injection.
Intramuscular is ideal to include some little thing like an egg protein or milk protein
or any of the various proteins that are in the culture media that they make vaccines
in.
So they are replicating animal allergy creation every time they give a shot.
There's no way to deny it sensibly.
I think on one of our conversations, you said the background for vaccines was related to
what, like the Rockefeller Foundation and trying to keep workers active.
But now, do you think they take on a different meaning nowadays?
Yeah, I think the money, tremendous money, billions of dollars, 50 billion a year, I
think it is profits, mostly profits from the sale of just vaccines.
I don't know if Dr. Peat has seen the news, but I was shocked to see CNN last week, putting
a headline news that basically said, "CDC is warning.
It's not a question of if, but when coronavirus will create a massive epidemic in the United
States."
And I thought to myself, why would a health agency issue such a statement?
And then why would a major news media publish it?
Isn't that like the exact opposite what a government should be doing?
Like scaring all of its citizens and not really providing any answers.
They're just saying it will be bad and be very afraid.
Yeah, but the CDC, I don't know what the average is, but over the last, I think at least 15
years, they say that the annual deaths produced by influenza, and I think they're all coronavirus
influenza, that's just the standard category that produces influenza.
They have been saying, I think it ranges from 9 million deaths per year in the United States
to a high of 57 million deaths from influenza per year.
That's worldwide?
Now they expect us to get excited when a dozen people die.
I was trying to think of all the swine flu, SARS, bird flu, Zika virus, is the difference
between all these things.
It seems like, I was talking about it with Georgie before I got on the phone with you,
Ray.
I have a Twitter application on my phone.
So when I do turn on my phone, the application of Twitter, there is a new huge bar on the
screen just updating me on coronavirus.
But I've never, the application has changed to give me updates that I've never asked for
on coronavirus.
And it just seems like the marketing campaign is palpable, very, very strong.
Yeah, and the World Health Organization is sharing in the corruption, conflicts of interest.
So you can't trust any of the big organizations because they manage to profit in some way
from the huge amount of wealth that's being directed through the vaccines.
I have a question about viral resilience in general.
I was reading some older studies and they were all showing that basically the more hydrophilic
the cell is, the greater its susceptibility to a viral infection.
And then I thought, okay, so doesn't that suggest that the presence of polyunsaturated
fats in the blood would increase susceptibility to the virus?
And unsurprisingly or surprisingly, there are quite a few studies published before the
1950s that made that exact same claim, that if you have high levels of unsaturated fats
in the blood, they will increase the affinity of the cell for water and also for these viral
particles.
But if the level of free fatty acids in the blood are low, then cells were extremely resilient
to even lethal viruses like the rabies.
Yeah, that whole subject, polyunsaturated fats, it's worse than any organized crime
campaign.
Estrogen and polyunsaturated fats are gigantic criminal businesses and the omega-3 fats are
especially powerful in immune suppression, but they market that as being anti-inflammatory.
Right.
So my question was like basically, wouldn't something as simple as taking some aspirin
and niacinamide essentially greatly reduce the risk of catching any viral infection?
Yeah, I think so.
And aspirin happens to be an antiviral agent in itself, antibacterial and antiviral.
And there was a study, I think around Washington, DC, that tested it on AIDS patients, just
big doses of aspirin and it was working, but no one was interested.
I actually met, I live in DC and I met one of the people who were involved in the study
and he refuses to talk about it.
Basically the statement was, the question is too political.
And I said, "Well, I've seen the study.
You guys claim that it was terminated because there was a rise in the levels of the liver
enzymes in the aspirin group."
And he said, "Yeah, that was the official story, but that's not why it was stopped."
And when I asked why it was stopped, he said, "It's way above my pay grade."
I mean, meaning mine, not his.
Ray, one of the papers you had cited in one of your articles, the Persaud paper, and they
say, "It is perhaps surprising that essential lipids that are supposed to be so good for
health are so potent at killing cells."
So yeah, just supporting what you're talking about.
And then you on your HIV article were referencing papers that those people had high levels of
PUFA in their blood.
And it's something I had never even heard of anywhere else.
Yeah, immunodeficiency is a big thing apart from any virus.
Sepsis has been growing along with other degenerative diseases, but young people never used to get
sepsis practically.
But now sepsis is affecting younger and younger people in bigger numbers.
And I think it's largely the stress cumulative effects on PUFA.
Well, something that's popular among my group of friends is the idea of herd immunity.
Do you want to speak about that?
I think that's why people are scared.
And my freedom-loving friends, the best of them would still want other people to forcefully
get vaccinations because they fear for their own safety.
And so do you want to maybe speak if you know where that idea stemmed from and then how
it does not fit into your biological and physiological picture?
It sounds very much like a Nazi program.
It doesn't have any convincing weight for me.
It just makes me fear the people that say we're a herd that has to be treated one way
or another.
Have you seen any of that movie Vaxxed?
They talk about the military vaccinating people and creating Gulf War syndrome with the anthrax
vaccine.
Well, I hadn't read that specifically, but Diana Dutton wrote a book called Worse Than
Disease where she kind of details the swine flu.
And it was kind of similar to what you said earlier about coronavirus.
Like the problem didn't kill very many people, but the vaccine caused tons of problems.
Yeah, one guy was routed out of bed to go on a forced march and collapsed while marching
and died shortly after, and he was diagnosed as having swine flu.
He was the only death acknowledged by the head of the CDC from swine flu.
But I forget the exact number, but there were thousands of paralytic reactions, and I think
it was around 300 deaths from the vaccine.
So hundreds of times worse than the disease.
You say in your newsletter, if a vaccine hasn't produced swelling, fever, anaphylaxis, shock,
paralysis, or death, within two months, it is safe.
Or the public health view, it seems to be that if a vaccine hasn't produced swelling,
which is just crazy.
Yeah, I wanted to mention something about HIV.
Dr. Peat may have seen that study.
I think it came out around 2014.
Of course, it didn't hit mainstream media, but it showed that, at least the authors claimed
that you cannot develop AIDS if you're HIV positive.
So you cannot develop AIDS unless there's high levels of endotoxin in your blood.
And then there was a subsequent study, I think in 2018, which showed that the single most
reliable predictor of death of all-cause mortality in HIV positive people was this level of this
protein called soluble CD14.
It's abbreviated SCD14, and that is the most reliable biomarker of endotoxin levels in
the blood.
And for some reason, I never see virologists talk about the role of endotoxin in viral
disease and multi-organ failure and in septic shock.
Well, in reality, it seems like all of these things are directly caused by endotoxin.
Yeah, I'm inclined to think that even cancer is largely an endotoxin problem.
Chronic year after year of bad food irritating the intestine, causing increased histamine
and serotonin and estrogen, but a constant stream of endotoxin flowing through the system,
shaking up chromosomes, creating inflammation, fatiguing the repair systems.
Finally, when the repair systems are down to a certain extent, the cancers that are
constantly popping up stop being removed.
And so if you don't die of acute sepsis, then heart disease and cancer, I think, are the
result of chronic exposure to the endotoxin.
So would you say the specific organ or tissue where the cancer appears, the apparently localized
nature, even though we know it's a systemic problem, the apparently localized nature is
simply because that particular organ or tissue was the most energetically compromised.
That's why it took a hold there.
Yeah.
When I've mentioned the idea of systemic disease to cancer doctors or patients, they really
have a hard time, just can't grasp.
They've been so indoctrinated with the idea that it's a clone that develops one single
mutant cell develops into the clone.
And so it's by definition the most localized thing conceivable.
It's platonically localized.
But way back 80 or 90 years, people have been seeing precancerous gradations surrounding
any tumor.
If you look at all of the signs of stem cell signals, all of the inflammatory cytokines,
disturbed chromosome balance, all of those things are increased in a gradient.
The field concept of cancer goes way back 200 years almost, but it just hasn't been
acceptable because of this platonistic genetic determinism, clonal descent of each tumor.
Have you seen the study that came out in 2015?
Basically made huge waves across the oncology community, if there is such a thing.
And it basically said for over a hundred years, we've been wrong.
We've been calling it the Warburg effect, but now it seems that the effect is the cause
as well.
In other words, metabolic disturbances and specifically lactic acid precede the genomic
abnormalities that are seen in cancer cells and actually the cause of them, not the other
way around.
Yeah.
Lactic acid creates a reduced state, shift the balance towards increased sulfhydryl,
NADH ratio to NAD, and all of the electronic and energetic properties of cancer are initiated
just by putting a lot of lactic acid into the system.
Yeah.
I was just, I saw, I mean, it was posted on one of the biggest social media sites and
you could see doctors chiming in and some of them being panicky and saying, "Oh my
God, if this is true, it means in my practice as an oncologist, I've been killing people."
And others are saying, "Well, it's too early.
Let's see genetics.
We haven't heard the last of genetics yet.
Let's give genetics a chance.
Maybe we'll find a way to treat it genetically."
But overall the mood was, well, it was pessimistic for the oncologist, but the general public
that was reading this thread and responding seemed to be pretty ecstatic because people
immediately caught on the fact that if cancer is metabolic and it's this continuous field,
then it can probably be reversed.
You don't need to subject yourself to this torture that your oncologist is giving you
and likely killing you.
There are other ways.
And the doctors were heavily arguing against it in that same thread saying, "No, people,
if you choose the metabolic route, you'll be killing yourselves.
You're signing your death warrants.
You should stay with a traditional therapist because until we know more."
Did you ever read Max Gerson's book?
I think it's called 59 Cases.
He, coffee enemas were one of his staples.
He generally gave people thyroid and tried to get their metabolism towards oxidative
energy production.
But cleaning the intestine was probably his single most effective thing.
Even if he sometimes had an old person who was very debilitated, he would sometimes give
them a coffee enema every hour around the clock.
Get them out of bed to wash their intestine again.
He actually cured numerous advanced cases of cancer documented with photographs.
I think chronically keeping the endotoxin down gives the recuperative system a great
chance.
So that would explain largely why recent studies with the tetracycline and the biotics, especially
doxycycline, are reporting such remarkable effects.
Yeah.
In 1965, which was the first time, some doctor sent me an argument that he was curing cancer
with antibiotics.
I didn't at that time think of it in terms of cutting out the endotoxin, but people have
been doing it repeatedly over several decades.
I have to send you a press release from Harvard University, I think it's from early '90s.
It's about a lady that ran a cancer lab there.
The news article was a popular press article.
It said, "Doctor Johnson is capable of curing mice of lethal leukemia every time she wants
to."
How does she do that?
By giving them tetracycline.
Then immediately the question is, "Why can't this be done in people?"
She said, "Because it's not FDA approved."
I thought to myself, "What a stupid excuse.
What is the antibiotic going to do to these terminally ill people?
What, kill them?"
I mean, they're dying anyways.
Why not try something that's already approved for usage in people and it's known to be relatively
safe?
Why do we have to wait on the bureaucracy to give us approval to live?
Why can't this be tried by good natured doctors?
I've known doctors who were declared imminently dying in hospital and they wanted to try something
on their own.
The supervising doctors took their stuff away from them, wouldn't let experiment, even though
they were said to have only 48 hours left to live, they couldn't experiment on themselves.
Yeah, I remember there was a neurologist who got a neuroglial dystoma and he started injecting
himself with some kind of a virus or bacteria to give himself fever because he read that
fever sometimes cured cancer.
He was immediately declared mentally unfit.
They basically committed this doctor who used to work in this hospital, they locked him
up in his own hospital and let him, he died like a few weeks later.
There have been a couple of studies in which people, they accidentally noticed that women
who were given an antibiotic course, among other things, they recovered from their headaches,
but they did blood tests and found that before the antibiotic, they had high estrogen and
cortisol and low progesterone and after the course of antibiotics, their progesterone
went up and both cortisol and the estrogen went down, both of which would favor recovery
from cancer.
The cortisol is weakening your immune processes, for example, and estrogen is stimulating the
cell growth.
In rats, same thing was observed.
A course of antibiotics lowers cortisol and estrogen and increases progesterone and so
the coffee enema or the antibiotic or a high fiber diet, all of those things are actually
remedying your hormone situation.
Did you know that cortisol is given to pretty much any cancer patients as kind of like a
standard treatment?
Along with morphine.
And morphine, yes.
And morphine increases histamine release.
Histamine is a powerful tumor promoter, so they usually adjust the dose so that they're
dead before they notice that the tumor has grown faster.
I just never cease to amaze me.
The explanation of the doctors, because I used to work in a medical field, was that
well, the patient has inflammation in edema and we need to reduce it with a cortisol and
I thought, "Aren't there other safer anti-inflammatory methods?"
Because even as ignorant as some doctors are, some of them do know that cortisol does not
seem to be helping the tumor patients.
They're almost using it because by definition, that's the powerful anti-inflammatory they
have on file and they have to use it.
Ray, would you put Paul Ehrlich in the pantheon of people that have ruined science?
So Weissman, Paul Ehrlich.
And Ehrlich was the same guy that did the estrogen receptor stuff, is that right?
He popularized the whole idea of lock and key receptor specificity.
That whole receptor idea is perfect for selling chemicals.
Every chemical can have a receptor and so it's perfect for the chemical industry.
And the holistic, ongoing whirlwind picture of the organism where, for example, a large
dose of a chemical can have an opposite effect of a small dose.
Those contradictory anti-receptor pictures are no good for the chemical industry.
I have a question about the whole receptor thing.
I'm sure you've probably noticed this yourself, but I looked at all of the hormones that are
currently known and then I also looked at the receptor and the receptor structure.
There is a significant overlap in terms of the amino acid sequence and the structure
of the various receptors.
So even though, let's say, a pharmaceutical company may claim that they've developed this
extremely selective, say, estrogen agonist, if you go back and look at the other studies
done by other groups, you'll see invariably that the substance that they claim is extremely
selective is invariably acting on other receptors as well.
So my question is, is it even possible to develop a truly selective receptor compound
given that the various receptors have so much overlap?
No, I don't think so.
The whole idea of receptors derives from Ehrlich and I think it's right down to its foundation,
Karep.
Szent-Györgyi reviewed in one of his books ideas that Pavlov was familiar with around the turn
of the century.
The idea that the dose determines the effect, like a small amount of caffeine is sedative,
a large amount is stimulating, and even larger amount is narcotic.
And the dose of a sedative, a small dose will be a stimulant, a larger dose a sedative.
And the typical curve has been tested on hundreds of different substances and it consistently
contradicts the idea of a specific receptor doing a specific thing.
The only way you can imagine that three-phase curve working is if you think of the cell
as substance or characteristic qualities and substance.
You have to think as something which can move from one phase to another, potentially a series
of phase, each phase having a characteristic behavior.
So the differentiation occurs in the cytoplasm as a whole and that state of the cytoplasm
evokes the expression or stabilizes the expression of the genes that are appropriate for that
state.
And by thinking in terms of physical states, you can visualize the quantity as reaching
a threshold of cooperative phase transition happens when many things work in the same
direction.
So basically the whole idea of using one substance that will work in only one particular way,
it's hopeless.
I mean, basically the organism doesn't work like that.
You can create the illusion that it does by setting conditions just exactly right and
then you can get the apparent specific interaction and reaction, but it's a purely artificial
setup.
Have you seen the recent news about the resurgence of estrogen, of hormone replacement therapy
with estrogen in menopausal women?
They're trying to kind of put down all the findings of the Women's Health Initiative
study and try to reintroduce estrogen as therapy.
Yeah, in 1973 or '74, I saw a resurgence and about every five or ten years, the actual
science makes a little headway.
The big headway was the Women's Health Initiative and within five years, the people at Stanford
were instrumental in explaining why estrogen didn't really cause cancer, strokes, heart
attacks and so on and their favorite explanation is it's really progesterone.
And originally, estrogen was recognized as doing certain things to the organism and they
identified the estrogen receptor as a major way that it does that even though hypoxia
in the absence of estrogen will cause the receptor to behave the same.
Estrogen creates hypoxia and activates the estrogen.
Hypoxia alone will do it if something else creates it.
When they needed to explain away that estrogen does everything that it does, they discovered
the estrogen receptor beta and it turns out that almost everything that estrogen doesn't
do, the beta does, it stops growth, stops all of the characteristic estrogen behaviors
and pretty much parallels the actions of progesterone and progesterone now is divided into an A
and B receptor.
The A receptor is activated by estrogen and it activates the progesterone B but they're
just thinking wildly of ways that they can say that progesterone is responsible for all
of the bad stuff that has been blamed on estrogen.
I emailed one of the authors of one of the big papers that's now calling for reintroduction
of estrogen as therapy for women and I said, "How can we ignore all this science?
I mean that's pretty much indisputable that estrogen is carcinogenic."
There is actually a page posted on the website of the National Institutes of Health which
officially defines and declares estrogen as a carcinogen and a mutagen and I said, "Well,
your own organization," I think basically that person either used to work or works at
NIH, I said, "Your own organization says that estrogen is this dangerous chemical."
He said, "Well, estrogen has non-genomic effects that are actually beneficial and if
we give it at lower dosages, it acts as a powerful antioxidant that will remove the
need for people to take vitamin E and C and it will give them all the benefit for heart
protection without actually having the carcinogenic effects."
Are you still there, Georgie?
Oh no, did we lose Ray?
Maybe we did.
Okay.
Seems like he's there.
Maybe let me hang up, call him back.
Okay, Ray, you're not there, right?
Okay, I'm going to hang up, call him back.
These things happen.
I was afraid you were frozen too.
I was like, "I'm going to really..."
Because I never move and never see anything.
I was going to be like, "Oh man, I have a serious problem if everything just froze.
That would be really not good."
I think I finally bored Ray to death and he's like, "I'm done with this.
You guys keep talking."
Okay, let me...
Unable to add participant is unavailable.
Is it busy?
Does that mean it's giving business signal or something?
Maybe.
I wonder if he's trying to call back the number, which would, I think, be impossible.
I don't know.
We'll see.
Okay, everybody, thank you so much.
I think we have like 250 people.
This is obviously the most people we've ever had on here, so that is heartwarming.
I never wanted to get Ray on until I felt real comfortable with the mechanics of the
live stream stuff.
So, I feel more comfortable with it.
I'm happy to have this happen.
It's everything I ever dreamed of.
Thanks Georgie and massive thanks to Ray.
Let me call him back again.
I wonder if there's a time limit on the show.
Ray, you're back.
Okay.
We lost you for a second.
I didn't hear when it went dead.
I don't know either, Georgie.
Do you remember when we lost Ray?
It was kind of like a strange...
I thought my whole computer froze, but it didn't.
No, I was talking about the reintroduction of estrogen.
I was talking to one of the authors of a big study that came out this year and I emailed
him and I said, "How can you argue that estrogen is good considering that your own organization,
I think that person works for the NIH, has a webpage which says estrogen is a carcinogen
and a mutagen.
So, why would you argue that estrogen needs to be reintroduced and given to women?"
And he said, "Estrogen has non-genomic effects that don't involve the estrogen receptor and
acts as a powerful antioxidant.
So, if we give it to women in the right dosage, they will obviate the need for them to take
massive doses of vitamin E and C and it will provide them with this benefit of cardiovascular
protection and everything that these great antioxidants do."
So, I said, "So, how can you prevent estrogen from activating these receptors that you know
are causing cancer?"
And he basically said, "It's the dosage that makes the poison."
So, they're thinking that lower dose estrogen, it's going to be beneficial.
And I remember you said in several of these letters that a continuous uninterrupted exposure
to a low dose of estrogen is probably more harmful than getting estrogen spikes like
every few days or every few weeks.
Yeah, that was Alexander Lipschutz from about 1938 through the 1940s.
He did many animal experiments showing that even very small doses of estrogen, unless
they were interrupted with progesterone, were carcinogenic not just to the uterus and breast
but to the lungs, kidneys, brain, every organ would eventually develop estrogen-induced
cancer.
Well, if estrogen is, I mean, if cancer is a state of chronic reductive stress and estrogen
is a powerful reductant itself, doesn't that almost guarantee that estrogen will at the
very least contribute to an already established cancer?
Yeah, I don't know of any case where it doesn't.
To change gears a little bit, Ray, I feel like you're getting more popular on YouTube
and Twitter and things and people say all sorts of things about why you do what you
do.
And so, maybe we could just take a second to say like, why do you do what you do?
Just from your own words because so many people just basically make up things.
And so, I was just curious about your position on that.
Part of my understanding of what I'm doing here in the world, checking ideas and looking
for new perspectives, checking what people believe and trying to avoid the bad interpretations
that lead to bad actions and results.
It's always part of the same process of looking for something to do.
And maybe just an elevator pitch of your general hypothesis, like what you say on the front
of your webpage, the idea that energy and structure are interdependent at every level.
I made a video about this not fairly recently, but it's like, because the nutrition world
is so stuck on different diets, obviously this whole conversation is about how complex
everything is, but your work gets reduced down to kind of a caricature of like you drink
two gallons of milk and two gallons of orange juice and a bag of sugar and then you're doing
your "Ray Peat Diet".
So, what is your perspective of what maintains health and then what is the differentiator
into the state of sickness?
There are two simple choices.
One that the genes have been laid out, have created a blueprint for creating the structures
and all the energy has to do is help to roll those out and once they're in place, just
to keep them running.
Like, that orientation leads to the idea that the less you live, the longer you will live.
The idea that you're going to burn up your, the whole apparatus will wear out the faster
you use it.
That all comes from the reductionist idea of a machine laid out in genetic blueprints.
It's a machine powered by a Rube Goldberg system, which is 20th century science.
And the other picture is the developmental picture that energy flowing from the sun through
the atmosphere is creating structures that the flow of energy itself generates structures
and the faster the energy flows, the more complex the structure becomes and the more
energy is saved in the system in the form of complexity of structure and the efficiency
increases, but the waste is part of what is powering it.
You don't have to think in terms of the efficiency of the system because the energy flowing through
the system, even though the oxidative apparatus is getting more efficient, you're building
a bigger system faster than the complexity and efficiency accumulates.
So it's the speed with which you can waste the energy while responding to it, building
your complexity that is holding up the whole structure.
And it's simply a picture of an ecosystem responding physically to energy.
It doesn't violate any of the known physical laws.
It uses them in more intelligent ways than the Rube Goldberg science of membranes, genes,
and so on.
And then you feel like you're following it, like this is not some idea that you cooked
up on your own.
Like you feel like you're following in a tradition of people like Szent-Györgyi, like Otto Warburg,
like Koch and others?
Yeah.
And even earlier, J.C.
Bose was one of my first inspirations.
I have a question.
Do you think that this openness to new ideas that these people had, it was sort of enabled
by their relatively faster metabolism?
And or do you think it was more or less childhood experiences that set them to be that way,
to be open to new opportunities and to actually actively seek them out?
I think a good intrauterine environment is a tremendous part of it.
You can, like Katharina Dalton's patients, the older kids, her patients had 95 average
IQ.
And just by treating the mothers with progesterone, her patients' kids had something like 135
average IQ.
The same mother, but better nourishment in utero.
And that kind of a head start gives you a lot of energy for absorbing shocks from the
oppressive environment.
Okay.
A question related to that, to expand a little bit on that, is, as I'm sure you're familiar,
sick people and sick animals tend to sort of retreat, avoid the real world and really
limit their spectrum of activity.
Some of them may even stop eating and basically they just want to keep to themselves and be
left alone.
Considering the fact that novelty and new experiences and being stimulated in the proper
way is so very therapeutic, do you think these sick organisms are making a pathological choice
that's not good for them based on their already poor health?
Or do you think it's actually a choice that at least in the short term, it's good for
them?
Basically, they don't have the energy to meet the demands of the world.
So they're retreating and hoping that they'll recover and then they'll come back.
Yeah.
Usually there's something specific that has happened.
They've eaten something or caught an infection, got poisoned and retreat and let the body
repair itself.
Paracelsus was one of the first people to put it into practice where he put his pharmacological
preparation on the sword that caused the wound and spared the patient the medication and
discovered that patients recovered much better without the medication.
Every time there's been an opportunity to compare medicated people with unmedicated,
the ones without medicine are much healthier.
So like animals, we could just take a week or two to retreat and maybe have a milkshake
now and then.
People would be much healthier, more likely to survive to old age.
So I guess initially it would be beneficial to retreat because you want to recover your
energetic resources, but do you think that over time if this becomes a chronic sort of
isolation self-imposed, that over time it actually becomes pathological, it starts to
hurt health because you've retreated so much from the world?
Yeah, there are people who do that, but they need new opportunities as well.
The culture isn't rushing to give them healthy, new, interesting opportunities.
In many cases, actually, they retreated because their doctor told them to.
It's, you know, they say, "Stay in your room until I call you and tell you it's okay to
get out."
To bring it back to politics a little bit, like, Ray, you think there's a way forward
with the kind of the system that we have at the moment?
Like you see glimmers of hope.
Like I remember when you were talking to Gavin for that interview on politics when Trump
had just been elected, like it seemed like, okay, this is different.
But then over time, he seems to have been absorbed into the same kind of stereotypical
problems of endless war and things like that.
But you do see a glimmer of hope in that whole system?
Do you know who Ann Coulter is?
I think of her as personification of Gooney reactionary philosophy.
But weirdly, she has made some of the most insightful comments about what's going on
now.
For example, comparing Bernie and Trump, she pointed out that the very things that
he campaigned on but didn't exactly fulfill, keeping us out of war, taxing the untaxed
corporations like Amazon and the banks, and stopping immigration.
Bernie has identical policies to what people were perceiving as Trump's campaign promises.
And she says that he is Trump's real threat.
And the polls, almost all of the polls are showing Bernie beating Trump by several points,
percentage points.
And most people in the public media, especially the Democrats, don't want to talk about that
possibility.
They think that the same people who saw a possibility in Trump avoiding war and taxing
the giant corporations, that's what they see in Bernie.
And so if he could run against Trump, then other realistic things then would be at issue.
Maybe Ann Coulter is espousing some of those, you introduced me to the term, but paleo-conservative
a little bit, some of those ideas?
Yeah, I don't know what really went through Ann Coulter's mind, but it was more perceptive
than I've seen any of the Democrat liberals doing.
Yeah, the paleo-conservatives are very consistent on avoiding war, but some of their policies
are really dopey.
Well, not to get too deep into a rabbit hole on this, but things like immigration and things,
I know there was, I forget the author, but it was like a book called Weapons of Mass
Migration.
And so this is not a topic I spend lots of time thinking about, but those types of things
to kind of influence the culture.
And I know the paleo-conservatives are against that, but again, I'm like reading Bucky Fuller
and him saying that there shouldn't be borders and things like that.
I agree with that type of view, but I'm also, I don't know, I'm torn between these different
points of view of migration and things.
And also being in a, living in different countries, it's not very easy to stay anywhere else aside
from Mexico or America.
Yeah, Bucky Fowler would say that the corollary is that you stop creating horror experiences
at home, like imposing a fascist on Honduras, where the elected president was improving,
he just wanted to raise the minimum wage and barely improve things, but definitely improving.
He was kicked out, Hillary Clinton oversaw putting a fascist in, and all of the progressive
labor people trying to get a minimum wage, they're being murdered, environmentalists
are being murdered.
And so obviously it's an improvement for them to try to get in the United States, but simply
stopping the oppression of third world countries would stop the immigration, improve conditions.
Hondurans would rather live in Honduras with a better standard of living than going to
the US and looking for work.
Erdogan and Turkey is following the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, allying with Al-Qaeda
and ending up creating more refugees and trying to send them to Europe to force Europe to
send an army in to give Syria to him.
If you simply stop supporting the murder and the oppression in places like Turkey and Honduras,
you would stop the immigration problem.
And that's from the imperialist US war machine.
Yeah.
I think it's more than the US involved here.
I think there are a number of imperialists in this world that are acting in concert with
the United States and often actually spearheading the war in certain places of the world, even
more than the United States.
I mean, Russia and Turkey, just as you said, Dr. Pied, and France and Germany, they all
have competing interests in the Middle East.
Israel, of course, Saudi Arabia, Iran.
So the United States gets a lot of the blame being the largest empire of them all, but
I think plenty of other countries that are at least as evil, and in this specific case,
probably even more so than the United States.
Just the number of soldiers maintained in other people's countries, the US is by far
the leader.
Yeah.
So I have a question for you.
I mean, given everything that we've talked about so far, and politicians getting elected
and then getting mired in the very swamp that they pledged to drain, and I've read history,
maybe definitely not as extensively as you, but I don't know of a single case of an empire
that got reformed.
Do you think that this empire or any empire can be reformed?
All I saw in history was empires either expanding, reaching their peak, and then either sort
of like gently fading into oblivion or collapsing almost overnight.
I never saw a case of a peaceful, semi-peaceful, or even constructive reform of an empire.
Yeah, I think theoretically, had that in mind, controlled collapse of the empire, withdrawing
the army more or less quickly, but the imperialists in the military, for example, don't want to
lose their power.
If Bernie could actually run against him, I think between them, they would possibly
recruit more supporters for bringing the empire down fairly quickly.
And what would that entail in your view, bringing down the empire?
Would it be simply end of the world wars that the military machine has started, or do you
mean a more radical social change at home?
If you freed up the Pentagon budget, for example, 90% of it putting the US on a scale with other
big countries, that amount of money removed from military destruction could far more than
finance any kind of Bernie Sanders programs, free college, health care for everyone, good
education, health care.
I just don't see the powers that be relinquishing that war machine, because that is the source
of their power.
And whoever gets elected, in my view, will be either undermined politically, or maybe
even worse.
Maybe this country has already seen an assassination of a president, and apparently, if you believe
other historical sources, attempted assassinations on other presidents that weren't playing ball.
I read the JFK, the unspeakable.
That gives a very close view of how Kennedy was backing off from the empire, and they
didn't want him to back off.
I think even Trump realizes that same mechanism being in action, and he has his own secret
service, for example.
The secret service pretty obviously was involved in killing Kennedy, and Trump knew enough
to have his own private security rather than the secret service.
So I didn't know that much about Trump leading up to the election, but his bailout from some
Rothschild family member, and then his close association with Sheldon Adelson, were there
clues that he was not going to follow through with what he was talking about?
Because he seems to be totally co-opted, and again, like you said, he's not doing the things
that he originally promised to do.
Yeah, he has repeatedly tried to sign the agreement with the Taliban.
Pompeo keeps sabotaging it, but Trump keeps going back and trying to keep the withdrawal
on schedule.
So I think more than anyone else in the government, he is making efforts to shut down the war
system.
And then how does somebody like Pompeo rise to power?
The guy is a total, like, total nut.
I just listen to some of his speaking, and it's just, I know it's nothing new, but it's
like shocking to even hear him talk about his kind of machinations and things about
what's going to happen in the future.
The Armageddon crowd was in Reagan's government too.
The Interior Minister said, "The end is near.
Let's mine it all.
Get it before the end."
Well, that really seems to be the premise they're all operating on, is that the end
is coming soon and nothing matters.
So that's why maybe that validates endless war and things like that.
That's literally true of a lot of those people like Pompeo.
Yeah, I wanted to tie in health and the collapse of the empire.
I mean, barring any kind of unpredictable collapse that the powers that be inflict on
themselves, if we want the reform, so to speak, or the control collapse to come from the people,
many of them, if not most, are in such a compromised state of health that they actually fear and
often actively oppose change.
At least that's my personal impression.
Don't you think this needs to be improved before some radical social change can actually
take hold?
Yeah, that's why I emphasize biology and health thinking to get people to realize that
they're dying on this path and that they have to change something radically.
To simply save their own health, they've got to change the system, which is pumping.
It isn't carbon dioxide.
It's a thousand different toxins being pumped into the atmosphere and food supply that is
killing people, vaccines and fake foods.
I think the movie Vaxxed and the various movements against genetically modified food and so on,
that's a wedge that people can start to see their own survival and their children depending
on bringing this industrial system to some kind of safe conclusion.
Okay.
In one of your first interviews with Danny, both of you were talking about panic and organizing
the panic.
That actually might have been carried.
Oh yeah.
But I think Dr. Peter opined on that as well.
So let's say the average person on the street, you give them all this information, they say,
"Okay, I see it in my own life.
I believe you.
I do understand that the system is killing me and I'm shaking with anxiety because I
don't know what to do."
What would be your response to a person like that?
Where do they start?
I think organizing, and that's exactly where the power system exists, is any impulse towards
organization gets interrupted.
All kinds of interruptions, firing them from their jobs so they don't have access to the
same resources.
New ways of organizing have to develop.
So do you think that the cultural push in the Western world towards extreme individualism
is a thinly veiled attempt at basically implementing this isolation so that people don't trust
each other and refuse to organize?
Yeah.
That's at the heart of preventing organization.
In the 1930s, there was a religious movement called moral rearmament.
That organization still exists, but it was a Christian movement with branches still in
this country and in Europe, religious reasons why you should destroy unions.
But it applies to any kind of social progress, making change that impinges on the corporations
and banks.
Right.
But at the same time, organized religion is probably a prime example of organization,
of getting people into groups and getting them to act upon a common goal.
So it could go either way, right?
If it's in the right hands, organization can be very powerful and impetus for change.
But if it gets compromised from within by agents of the powers that be and whatnot,
then people can be duped into sort of, they think they're working towards the common good,
but in reality, they're just maintaining the status quo.
The CIA and the FBI are several stages ahead of everyone organizing.
Anything you think of, they've got it covered.
Like Occupy Wall Street, they put organizers in who helped to prevent any constructive
organizational outcome, but they had snipers on the roof ready to kill the leaders if anyone
organized something that actually led to action.
Okay.
So what would be, I mean, I'm trying to, I guess, because regular people are aware of
that as well, many of them.
So they seem to have a choice between taking the risk at organizing and participating in
a group and then this group being undermined and they're working now, they're working in
favor of the empire versus avoiding participation in a bad activity, which you have also spoken
in favor of in the past, but then not really having enough power to enact change because
they're on their own.
Where is the, is there a middle ground or would it depend every single time on the situation?
I think it will change as cultural ideas evolve.
But I think the first thing is to just start lots of organizations, two or three people
in a group deciding on possible courses of action and creating networks of just little
personal interaction groups, but linking them up and being aware that the organizations
have to stay flexible in terms of basically about a million little groups with openness
to interact with other groups on different levels.
So basically create a large number of smaller organizations that will be much harder to
subvert just because the FBI doesn't have that manpower, that much manpower.
Yeah.
They've had, I don't know, maybe a million people attending to breaking up organizations.
But if you have 2 million little groups developing, it will overwhelm their manpower advantage.
Like the communists used to say that for every actual communist party member, there were
two or three FBI agents.
Yeah, I think that's what it sounds about, right?
Well, it seems like the FBI's ability and the CIA's ability to infiltrate movements
is like co-Intel Pro and I don't know, Ruby Ridge and like promoting domestic terror and
stuff or getting people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do.
Like what was that famous quote that like the FBI is behind most terrorist attacks in
the US or something like that?
Yeah, that has been documented over and over.
The people throwing rocks in demonstrations are usually local police or FBI.
What was it?
The Ferguson rap?
I'm not quite thinking of the right place, but there were provocateurs like breaking
windows and they were flown in on planes to go like cause havoc during peaceful protests
and stuff.
So yeah.
Yeah.
And like in the Ukraine, there were snipers shooting both sides.
And then people are so politically charged that they can't kind of see the forest for
the trees.
And then it's like this bad ideology on top of the corruption and the infiltration of
both sides.
I want to talk a little bit about consciousness.
Let's finish politics.
Let's talk about consciousness.
So we're up to about two hours.
And so Ray, I don't want to keep you all day.
Let's kind of end on consciousness.
And we have like 250 people listening right now.
So Ray, Georgie, thank you so much for making this possible.
Obviously a special live stream.
So yeah, go for it, Georgie.
Yeah.
In one of your books, actually, I think it was the Mind and Tissue where you said that
consciousness at its very basis is the orienting reflex, right?
So my question relates to physiologically, what does that look like?
Because there have been a number of studies coming out recently that are saying that medicine
and neurology have been looking at consciousness the wrong way.
They're calling it the heart problem of consciousness because by analyzing the brain and all of
the interactions of the neurons, they can't possibly explain the richness of personal
experience and they call this thing qualia.
And now they're proposing that maybe it's consciousness that's fundamental and it's
a property of matter.
It just varies in terms of its complexity depending on the object or the piece of matter
that we're actually observing.
So there's an ancient Hindu proverb which says that the spirit of God sleeps in stone,
dreams in animals, and awakens in man.
So my question is, how do you see that statement that consciousness is potentially a very basic
property of matter and it's the complexity of the structure of this matter that determines
how high level of this consciousness would be?
Does that sound about right?
Yeah, exactly.
I formulated it that way in 1957, I think was the first time I said consciousness is
the organized flow of energy through matter, but I have revised it to think of consciousness
as a substance in itself.
Since substances are defined empirically, matter is defined empirically as we experience
it.
So I think it's proper to think of consciousness as a substance.
For example, the donor-acceptor molecules contributing an electron flowing through muscle
causes it to contract.
I think that same donor-acceptor relationship activates a constant oscillation of excited
electrons through the neurons and between the neurons even, that it's a substance analogous
to the conductive electron bands in metal, but the electrons are existing on the soft
cytoplasmic material.
When the energy is properly activated by the oxidative acceptor function, raising electrons,
creating holes basically for electrons to flow through the properly oxidized substance,
it's like having a fire get wet when you have too many electrons.
It fills the holes and prevents the luminous function.
The perfume guy, I can't think of his name right now.
Tonini?
Was it Tonini or no?
No, a contemporary guy who was given...
Yeah, anyway, he sees odors as being resonant of the molecule, not the shape of the molecule,
but the electronic ability to resonate.
And that is going back to P.K.
Anokin, for example.
I think he saw his acceptor of action consciousness model as existing as an excited electron substance
which follows the rules of Gestalt psychology, actually space-filling material of electron
plasma, actually being what we experience, the light that we experience as red, white,
blue, green, and so on.
I think there is actually that frequency resonating in our brain tissue.
An odor, I believe the actual chemical pattern of that odor is what we experience.
The consciousness of smelling a chemical, that structure exists in space.
Each of the senses, I think, involves a certain frequency or energy level of the electrons
so that touch has a limited spatial ability.
The vision is the one that tends to be coherent at forming complexly coherent structures of
meaning.
So if I understand it correctly, as a result of metabolism, there is a directed electron
flow from food to oxygen, right?
And that donor-acceptor relationship causes the molecules in the cells to vibrate.
And if they vibrate at the same frequency, I'm guessing a certain amount of, like a minimum,
I guess a base number of neurons, if they vibrate at the same frequency, that creates
a resonance field, which is, I guess, the basis of consciousness.
And the qualia...
In one of his books, P.K.
Anokin goes through a series of articles showing that the mechanical behavior of the auditory
nerve, for example, can't carry the information that we actually experience flowing in on
the auditory nerve.
He has various arguments showing that much more information is carried per second than
nerve firing could possibly account for.
So it isn't information, it's actually the substance that we are experiencing.
So given the infinite richness of experience and the infinite richness of qualia, wouldn't
that imply that the brain cells would be capable of resonating in almost any frequency in order
to reproduce that infinite richness of reality?
I know that the frequencies have to be tuned very exactly.
And something like the psychedelics can, in effect, create new, more extensive pathways.
But I think the frequencies are all the same.
It's just lubricating new connections that become richer.
So you're saying potentially the same frequency could create the experience of the color green,
and then a different type of resonance, but with the same frequency, could create the
experience of listening to Mozart or something like that?
Yeah, the green comes in all degrees of saturation, mere green or psychedelic, full spectrum green
with meaning.
It resonates over into the feeling of religious meaning or the intensity of the meaning.
It isn't just one frequency, one meaning.
It's the intensity and saturation of that particular frequency.
And then the architectural structures built on those, so you could perceive Mozart or
Beethoven almost at the level of descriptive, rational listening, or you could have a full
energy flow, like a hi-fi consciousness where everything, all of the senses are resonating
full intensity.
So basically the range of frequencies that the brain is capable of producing is limited,
but their combination is infinite.
So that's what...
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
According to En-Okon, the auditory frequencies are...
We're actually transmitting the full range of frequencies and a young person can actually
experience all the way up to 35 or 40,000 cycles per second, like a porpoise.
And those are actually tuned processes of the electrons resonating at those actual frequencies
and the frequencies of nerve firing are nothing really related to consciousness.
They are like the infrastructure of maintaining energy production and substance distribution,
but the experience is floating over the infrastructure.
So speaking of resonance, and I'm sure you're familiar with the publications of Rupert Sheldrake,
I think is his name, about the morphogenetic fields and how we are essentially tapping
into the same pool of knowledge and any single person learning enriches that pool of knowledge
and then any other person could actually tap into that and sort of get access to that new
knowledge.
So...
He's in this morphogenic tradition going all the way to Goethe and earlier, but it's the
actual living side of science, not the abstract militarist, Platonist side of science.
So if two people are resonating, so to speak, if their consciousness are resonating and
almost merging in a sense, is there a limit to the distance that these people can be separated
with in order for this to occur?
Or is this like a global universal phenomenon, no matter where these consciousness capable
pieces of matter are?
Bucharach, did you ever read any of his books?
Adria Bucharach?
I haven't.
He, I think, makes a satisfactory case for the whole Earth resonance.
I think that the communication can probably be carried on like a carrier wave on the Earth's
resonance frequencies, modulating.
I think each brain can modulate that carrier wave of the Earth's electromagnetic field.
So the Schumann resonant frequencies could potentially be those carrier waves that allow
for the unification of consciousness of organisms on Earth?
Yeah.
The Canadian psychologist who invented the God helmet, an electronic helmet that stimulated
the brain so that people had religious experiences.
He suggests that we're tapping into the planetary carrier wave.
Okay.
So since we're on the sort of like resonance of consciousness and distance, as you've written
many times about David Bohm, and I'm a great fan of his work and writings, he was writing
that it's actually a universal consciousness that we're all part of, and that there is
a guiding pilot wave/carrier wave of which all of us are minor offshoots.
I didn't hear who you said.
David Bohm, the quantum physicist.
And he was basically saying that there's two kinds of order, the implicate order and the
explicate order, and then the explicate order arises out of the infinite implicate order
in a creative manner.
And we've talked about this process of constant creation of both matter and meaning and knowledge.
How do we participate in this creative process?
Because do we also create matter ourselves?
I mean, I know the Earth does, the stars do, right?
And probably the ethereal medium of the universe itself does, but how do we participate in
that creative process?
I don't know.
David Bohm was of the opinion that we are integral to the creative process of the universe,
but unfortunately he didn't elaborate how.
Yeah, I intuit that that's true, but I don't know how either.
I think it is most closely connected to this electronic jelly substance of consciousness
or whatever is flowing through any substance according to its structure.
But N. A. Kozirev noticed that entities in the universe, stars, planets, moons, and so
on, were emitting energy in proportion to their mass, and he believed that the passage
of time was a source of energy.
That simply says that energy comes out of the system, whatever matter is.
But he didn't have all of the planets' mass accurately connected to what was known about
their emission of heat.
But just in recent years, that was about 60 years ago he wrote that, but just in recent
years the satellites have measured the emission of the outer big planets and found that there
is an anomalous energy that corresponds to the mass rather than their position from the
sun.
So it's a big confirmation of Kozirev's idea that the mere passage of time and any
mass is going to be emitting energy.
So it's like we're all a fountain of energy of some sort.
So a question on Kozirev and stars, because actually that was one of my, that was the
top question I was going to ask you tonight and you brought it up yourself.
As you know, he did a lot of experiments on measuring and creating time based on different
processes.
So dissipating process that basically emit heat, he said that they produce time and that
other processes that are sort of, you know, dropping in temperature, they can actually
accept time, they can absorb time.
So what do you think time is in terms of a physical entity?
My best guess is that Forrest Dudley was right and he described it as the neutrino sea.
At that time neutrinos were thought to have no energy, but he proposed that they do have
energy and that they associate with matter according to its mass and that nuclear, so-called
nuclear energy is converting in conventional thinking, converting mass to energy or in
this view, it's simply being through time, passing through time as a mass that allows
these neutrinos to interact.
And crystals, Forrest Dudley suggested that the crystalline structure of matter was in
some way in charge of how the neutrinos resonate, that there's a space-filling resonance of
neutrinos corresponding to the orderly arrangement of crystals that he suggested could cause
nuclear reactions to occur unpredicted.
And simultaneously with his proposing that theory, an experimental physicist named Anderson
observed that a monolayer of carbon isotopes on aluminum foil had a non-random nuclear
decay.
Dudley had predicted that sort of thing, that an orderly arrangement of matter such as a
surface would interact with the neutrino sea in a way that would draw on the energy of
the nucleus.
But anyway, my inference from those two bits of data is that the brain, this structure
of donor-acceptor activated gel of electrons.
My idea is that this structure of the brain is like the surface of the aluminum foil,
able to tap into the energy of the neutrino sea, and this is where the introduction of
novelty as well as energy comes from.
Understood.
I read an interpretation of Aristotle recently that said that, it was by a quantum physicist,
and he said that everybody has struggled with the definition of time, of what time is and
how it relates to us.
And apparently Aristotle got pretty close.
He said in one of his writings, apparently, I haven't seen the actual one, but he said
that time is simply the amount of potentiality that has converted to actuality for any given
system.
Does that sound about right?
Sounds right.
Okay, and last question related to consciousness.
If the stars are perhaps the most intense entities with the most intense metabolism,
for lack of a better word, would you say that they possess a type of consciousness, perhaps
even higher than ours?
I would think a galaxy, the streaming shape-creating forces of galaxies are probably conscious.
There's no more streaming energy through matter than a galaxy in action.
But I think our brains are rivaling the galaxies for the complexity of activated substance
that we're trying to imitate the galaxy energy with actual physical creation of substance
at the edge of the process.
That's remarkable.
I don't know if you know, but Aristotle said that in his classification, there were very
few pure actualities.
And he said that humans, galaxies, stars, and I think he mentioned one other thing,
cosmological, I'm forgetting what it is, but in his view, those were the only actualities.
So he was placing them at the same level, I'm guessing, in terms of development as you
are.
Yeah, that sounds right.
Okay.
I don't have any other questions.
Speaking of, this is neither here nor there, but have you guys, there's like a special
type of camera that's fairly new that can accurately zoom in on stars and planets.
And the footage these people are taking of the stars and planets looks literally like
nothing I've ever seen before, but they look like big balls of kind of multicolored energy.
Like that's how I would describe it.
Ray, are you familiar with that at all?
No.
I'll forward you with them.
But it's like, it's a lot of the flat earth people use it to say that NASA is lying about
everything.
But I think it's just interesting that we're actually like, just random people are able
to take a really interesting video of stars.
Okay.
So I guess we'll end it there.
Let me just read.
So Ray, I don't know if you know how it works, but people do super chats and a big group
of people have accumulated $794.
So whatever YouTube takes of that, I will forward to you, Ray.
And I appreciate you being on here and let me just read.
We won't be able to get to people's questions because that would, we would be on here for
hours.
And so Oscar Gomez, Oscar Gomez, TC, Intelligent Evolution, Anna Tanska, Intelligent Evolution,
Christina Tomaj, Matthew Riley, Matthew Riley again, Ruth Cazzo, Kirk333, Zuburg, Kirk333
again, Chris H, Harrison Ben, Gene, Philippe, Gro, KindSign, butchering that name, Matthew
Riley, Harry Burgos, Harrison Ben, Harrison Ben again, Francis Bacon Cheeseburger, Harrison
Ben, Sandy, Miss T, Roger Chair, HT, New Health, Michael, Veronica Ayala, New Health, Veronica
Ayala again, Yanny Matraskastas, Elliot Cactus, Elliot Cactus again, Huge Ray Peat Fan, Huge
Ray Peat Fan again, Milk and Honey, Milk and Honey again, Milk and Honey, multiple super
chats from Milk and Honey.
Thank you for that.
Monty did multiple super chats.
Thank you for that.
Gio, thank you for that.
Turkish Postman, I think we just got one more, DBO514.
Thank you guys so much.
I apologize for not being able to read your questions.
Georgie and I can like devote an entire episode to trying to answer these questions.
Any parting words, Ray?
Can you tell people how to obtain your newsletter?
You can email raypeatsnewsletter@gmail.com and see if you can have people come up with
ideas and create new organizations.
I love it.
So, and then Georgie, any parting words?
A question for Dr. Peat in terms of ideas for scientific studies that he thinks are
worth replicating.
I mean, I haven't mentioned it.
I mentioned in previous podcasts with Danny, but I'm privileged enough to start being able
to make my own studies and I was thinking of doing one on essential fatty acid depletion
and trying to prove that all of the, because there's only one by the Burrs in the 1930s.
So, I'm trying to prove that really all of these symptoms of fatty acid, essential fatty
acid deficiencies that they were seeing were just deficiencies of specific nutrients and
maybe insufficient amount of calories and things like that.
Anything else, any other seminal idea that you think is really currently being twisted
and poisoning the scientific and the medical world that we can try and test and sort of
show the exact opposite?
If I think of something, I'll contact you.
Okay.
Understood.
Thank you.
Awesome.
Ray, stay on the line.
I'm going to kind of wrap things up.
Guys, thank you so much.
Like 250 people in the chat right now.
Guys, sincerely appreciate it.
Thank you so much to Ray for making this possible and just being an endless inspiration and
such a humble guy.
And I'm sure I don't, I can't speak for only for myself, but changing so many people's
lives.
Thank you so much to Gorgie for doing the show with me so often.
And this was just a special live stream.
So thank you guys so much for making this possible.
Ray, stay on the line.
We'll talk to you after.
And I'm going to wrap things up here.
Everybody, thank you so much.
We'll see you guys.
I'll see you next week, I think with Tim.
Okay, guys, take care.