Okay, we're live. Georgi Dinkov, Raymond Peat, thank you guys so much for joining us. Georgi,
go back to your question. I won't interfere. Go ahead.
Yeah, I want to, I mean, it's an expansion to what we've been discussing, but aside from
Otto Warburg, Szent-Györgyi, and I guess Ilya Prigogine, do you know of any other scientists
who got the Nobel Prize for actually humanistic work, for work that expanded knowledge and
science for the benefit of humanity, or does it seem to be mostly awarded for pathological
ideas these days?
Metchnikoff.
Metchnikoff, okay. But that seems to be like, you know, you can count these people on one
hand and they've been, you know, Nobel winners across a hundred years. So this means a very
small minority of good awards, the vast majority of them being mostly pathological discoveries.
Yeah, and Metchnikoff shared his with Paul Ehrlich, who represented the business monopoly,
chemical monopoly world.
Right. Are you familiar with the work of Luc Montagnier, the co-discoverer of HIV?
Yeah, I've followed it out in detail, but on and off since about 1980.
Have you noticed that he's become a pariah in the scientific community because he started
talking about HIV being not really as dangerous unless you have a bad lifestyle and, you know,
low metabolism, essentially. He's talking about curing autism with antibiotics, which
of course implicates serotonin. And this guy is now gone. He used to be the director of
the Pasteur Institute in Paris. And I think now he hides. He's in hiding. Used to be in
Africa, now he's in China, but nobody really knows where he is. And everybody says he's
insane.
Yeah. Much later, you know, when Peter Duesberg questioned, he sort of started the virus gene
connection in cancer and money began flowing from the government and the cancer research.
And then he said, "Wait a minute, I was mistaken there." Went on to other work, and as long
as he stayed out of the direct interfering with the funding of the nonsense oncogene
virus work, he continued his research. But then when he questioned whether the HIV retrovirus
caused AIDS, that was the last straw. Even the other professors at the university told
graduate students not to attend his seminars or courses, and NIH cut off funding. All of
the science organizations stopped inviting him because he would be a threat, the risk
of asking embarrassing questions. Have you heard Kary Mullis talk about Luc Montagnier
and Peter Duesberg?
No, no, I haven't.
He was sort of a hyperactive kid who went into science and didn't let his intelligence
be ruined by getting trained in science. And so he continued to look at evidence and ask
questions. And once he went up to Montagnier at a meeting and said he needed a reference,
he was writing a grant, said he needed a reference for this statement, "HIV is the probable cause
of AIDS." And Montagnier referred him to the declaration by the NIH that in fact it
is the cause. And Kary Mullis said, "Well, but there was no evidence mentioned there."
And so Montagnier said, "Well, recently someone showed that by treating a retrovirus in a
certain way you could get it to kill chimpanzees in a week after you inject it." And Mullis
pointed out that that has nothing to do with deficiency syndrome. And he said Montagnier
just walked away, no more questions.
Well, it's becoming too dangerous for him to speak, right?
Yeah, but then 30 years later, the science world turned away from him.
Have you seen some of his other work on bacteria and DNA emitting electromagnetic waves and
changing the structure of water?
Yeah, I haven't looked closely at how they pick up the signals and analyze it, but they
say that they're getting signals, sort of an echo in the water, which if people don't
have a challenge, you have to approximate the measuring system before you can say it
simply doesn't exist.
Yeah, he was actually able to replicate the HIV virus across two different containers
of serum. And the second one didn't have any, but it was in close proximity, didn't have
any trace of the virus. And he confirmed this with a PCR test. But if the second container
was in close proximity to the one that contained the virus, and both of them were in a resonating
field of the Schumann resonance frequency, which I think is between six and 10 Hertz,
the earth apparently emits it, then apparently after about 12 hours, he could actually prove
that the second container was able to fully replicate the virus if you give it the starting
materials, like if you give it like a RNA and the actual enzyme, I guess, DNA polymerase,
is that what it's called?
Yeah, that sort of thing has been around, I think it was in 1940, someone was adding
proteins to different types of cells and finding that the cell could replicate and that the
offspring would still contain that protein, and they would do it for several generations.
And one of these was showing that with extreme techniques for removing any contaminating
protein, that they would calculate the amount of protein coming out of the cell, and it
would be thousands of times greater than the amount of protein the cell had been exposed
to a foreign protein, and very clear evidence that on a single exposure, a human cell could
absorb and copy and produce unlimited quantities of a foreign protein, meaning that it had
not only copied DNA, it had translated the protein into RNA or DNA, and then used the
nucleic acid to produce endless quantities of that protein.
The amount after 100 generations or so, they said, would be thousands of tons of starting
material if it had been a matter of absorption and dilution.
Okay, here's a follow-up, fascinating question related to that.
We as bodies are essentially bigger replicas of these containers that Montagnier was using.
If two people, one of them HIV positive or carrying any other virus or pathogen, really
for that matter, are in close proximity for a sufficiently long period of time, and we
are all bathing in Schumann resonance all the time because that's what the earth emits
as electromagnetic frequency, wouldn't that imply that we could potentially replicate
the infection into a healthy person without any actual physical pathogen exchanging places?
So there's no need for direct infection?
I think it works the other way, that a healthy person is going to give the sick person a
boost to eradicate the problem.
I think that's how life has been working all along.
It's not just a little particle of new DNA that they created to make them immune to something
in the environment such as an antibiotic, to pass it on to other bacteria to replicate
and protect themselves.
Whether it requires passing a chunk of DNA or simply the information needed to make the
DNA protein, I think the protective healing effect is likely to be predominant unless
the whole system is so sick that it's on the way to dying as a whole.
So would you say it's a sort of an averaging effect?
So if you have more healthy organisms in a community, and then let's say you have five
organisms, three are healthy, two are sick, then on average you'll have like, I don't
know, three-fifths of a healthy person per person?
I mean, I know I'm simplifying it, but because I'm tying this to Kammerer's work on seriality
and how systems tend to approximate each other and imitate each other.
So the whole community tends toward like a similarity or an average of a sort.
So would you say that there will be like a slight decline in the health of the healthy
person and a boost in the sick one?
Or is it strictly a one directional thing where the healthy people are pulling the sick
towards health and it's just a matter of the number of the healthy people you have?
Yeah, I think there's sort of a ratchet on it in the direction of surviving healthy and
superior individuals.
And it requires a sickness of the whole community before you get regression.
So the reason I'm asking this is because I'm sure, and actually you've said in several
interviews that we should try to surround ourselves with healthy, positively minded
people and that certain people can be really toxic, which leads me to another question
I'll ask later on.
But so if a healthy person is more or less, I don't want to say immune, but if it's the
sick people that benefit, then there shouldn't be a danger really if we're surrounded by
sick negatively minded people.
Or is there another mechanism through which they can hurt our health?
I don't think so.
If you have, for example, a geographic area where sick people have accumulated because
of some cultural habits like drug use, then you can have such a sick environment that
it would take a big infusion of healthy people and there would be social, political conflict
between the people with the unhealthy culture.
You have to look at the number of people supporting an unhealthy culture and the number of people
running around obediently wearing masks and behaving stupidly.
It reaches a point where it feels like it's bad for one's health.
Speaking of that, you know, I was last time we did this, I was in a smaller town called
Phichit and we came to Chiang Mai, which is like a bigger city in Thailand.
And to get to the good grocery store, you have to go into a mall.
And so you have to put a QR code.
Right now I think it's kind of voluntary, but you're expected to do it.
A QR code, wash your hands, which I don't do, get temperature checked, and then be screened
by a thermal scanner.
And that's just to get into the mall.
And then there's guards on, not like there's people watching people on from each level
of the mall.
And then to get into the grocery store, you're expected to also do a QR code and to write
your name down and to get temperature checked.
And so, yeah, it's definitely hitting a reality check point of just total insanity.
And then also I didn't wear my mask or I wore it and then took it off when I got into the
store and a woman chased me throughout the store to tell me to put it back on.
And so I could see how a non-crazy person might be okay with that, but it definitely
reduces, it makes me crazy.
And so it's hard to handle for sure.
Ray, you guys, both of you guys, DC is...
Sorry, go ahead, Ray.
What was the...
No question, just many statements.
But I was just... it was just a realization because the Phichit town was very small and
they didn't have these orders to do this kind of stuff.
And then coming to the bigger city was a realization of what life was going...
I guess the TSA-ification of daily tasks.
And the TSA is one situation where it makes my blood pressure go up through the roof.
And so that just sounds like a terrible life and fits into that killer austerity idea that
we've been talking about a lot.
Yeah.
Even when people are alone, walking down Freeline Street with no one within 200 feet, wearing
a mask in hot weather, obviously suffers.
I don't know, pitiful or something to see such terrible obedience.
Well, don't worry, Ray, because apparently the experts say that protests of up to 100
people are okay, but social outdoor gatherings of only up to 12 people.
And then...
I mean, it's...
Aren't they... is the population so dumbed...
This is an obvious showing of the hand or something because it's so absurd.
But what do you think the point of them even putting this stuff up, stuff out through the
news is?
It's so bizarre that they would... these would be talking points on the news.
Yeah, that thing about the 100 people allowed to protest, it shows that if people just ignore
them, they'll change their rules so that they seem to be in control.
And since you have a broad, broad view of these types of things, I did want to talk
about race a little bit.
What is your... over the course of your life, what is your general perception of how racial
tensions get stoked just in your experience?
I took a couple of into and through the Southern states, 1960 and 1964.
And even though I thought of myself as being a white person, I was for some reason seen
by the natives as at least as dangerous as a black person.
I'm not sure what it was, but I narrowly escaped getting killed a couple of times, once on
each trip.
And I stayed away after the second time for about 30 years.
But I saw it as just the worst sort of sadistic xenophobia.
I can see why black people would shuffle and say, "Yes, if I thought that would have saved
me, I might have tried that."
But something about my face or my manner made them want to kill me.
Can you go into that a little more?
Was it like, were you protesting or was it your friend group or what?
Yeah, go into that a little more.
That's really interesting.
They just targeted you for some unknown reason?
It must've been that I had an out-of-state driver's license and fat sideburns and probably
dressed in an unconventional way.
I'm not sure, but you could see the hatred emanating when I would stop at a gas station
or something.
I would love to see that picture of you with the fat sideburns.
Yeah, can we please see those?
I would pay to see that one actually.
On those trips, I talked to only one sane person in the whole South who was an Irishman,
a motel owner, immigrant from Ireland.
Somehow he was surviving there.
It was a general culture of total obedience to some mysterious standard of being.
Speaking of the, since we're already on the topic of racism, do you think these protests
that are going on right now are actually achieving anything?
Or do you think that similar in spirit to the MLK movement, because none of these people
has been killed yet, we kind of know that it's really just, not that they're, I mean,
they believe they're changing things, but really no fundamental change is really happening.
Because if it is, if these people are really putting a dent into the system, people will
start dying.
Yeah, they aren't really doing anything threatening to the system.
Getting city council people to say they'll defund the police.
What does that mean?
That the police will incorporate, privatize, and then be autonomous?
Somehow the whole system has to be broken up.
Crime has to be recognized when it's committed by police.
But the Nazis and Klansmen have infiltrated many of the police departments.
So there is organized racism and classism, wanting to kill homeless people as well as
black people.
In one of your interviews, you spoke about how the Occupy Wall Street movement could
have been the, really the real party for everybody, for the majority of the population, but it
got infiltrated and manipulated away from making any real demands.
And there were also snipers ready to take out the real leaders.
Have you seen something similar happening with the current Black Lives Matter movement?
Yeah, by avoiding the general class question, making it too narrow and things that won't
get real continuous support.
A lot of the people that voted for Trump had mistaken understanding about what class is
and what really threatens them.
And those people should be incorporated into a reform that eliminates crime in all directions,
but especially obliterates the organized crime of the police forces.
Can we jump back a little bit?
You're talking about the police being Klansmen and such.
Has anything shifted?
I would never stick up for police.
I've never met a police officer that I liked or had any positive experiences with them.
But was there any kind of change?
Because the dominant narrative right now is that white supremacists are the most...
This paper talking about white supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates
and contributes to COVID-19.
And then the basic ideas of a white privilege or white savior complex or white guilt or
white fragility and these terms just being so synonymous with activism nowadays, but
it's obviously some kind of overt racism.
And so again, I don't care about defending white people.
I could care less, but it just seems a little bit odd that that is the dominant narrative
that so-called, using air quotes, "white people" are responsible for all the problems that
we're seeing nowadays.
When Martin Luther King began emphasizing the problems of white people, almost immediately
that was when he got killed.
What made it a non-racial, but a class issue.
Well, I guess that's what I'm getting at.
I don't doubt that there's actual racism for sure, but how is that used to, I don't know,
occupy the minds of people in favor of not thinking about class and just somebody that
doesn't know what class is, how would you define that?
The simply not possessing property, not having the social power and privilege above the middle
income in the country.
People are able to think of going to college and buying a house and so on.
The lower half of the population realizes or should realize that they are in the lower
class, but they've been taught to call everyone down to about $15,000 a year income, middle
class.
So just turning the thought process to thinking about will it be possible to have those things,
to get the education you want and to be secure or will you always be struggling to rise socially?
What's happening now with the pandemic is clearly designed to destroy all of those people
who have thought of themselves as the middle class and some of the actual middle class
is going down.
As the unemployment rate goes up, lots of small and medium-sized businesses are failing.
If traditional cyclic unemployment was causing hundreds of thousands of deaths by suicide
and alcoholism and drugs, imagine what the destruction of all of these businesses and
jobs will do.
It will be killing millions of people.
We kind of touched upon this in the last show, but isn't this a bit of a playing with fire
on behalf of the powers that be?
At some point, a lot of people in this country are armed.
If you push them into a corner, there's no telling what they will do and there's largely
no controlling them.
Or do you think they're firmly under control and they will never revolt or cause another
civil war or God knows what else?
The people causing their problems have tremendous security forces.
People like Fauci, you can't even get close to at a scientific meeting to ask a question.
They aren't subject to force of that sort.
They don't have anyone to shoot, despite how many guns they have.
They're infinitely outgunned.
So that sort of revolt is worse than useless.
Well, since it's already underway, do you expect sort of like a large-scale kind of
collapse here in the United States in the next few years?
I can't see how it can do anything but get worse until maybe if five or ten million people
would start rejecting orders and instructions, that might cause a movement that could save
the whole country, the whole world.
Do you think the declining population of the young has something to do with the fact that
people are so obedient and willing to follow orders?
I mean, I'm sure you've seen the news where they say there are studies that have come
out that say that now a 30-year-old person on average has the same health or bad health
as a person who is 60 years old.
So the young have become the old.
There's no chronological and biological age.
So they've basically completely diverged.
You can tell a person's biological age, in other words, health, by kind of asking them
how old they are.
These days, you're just as likely to find cancer in an 18-year-old as potentially in
a 40-year-old, right?
Do you see this as contributing to the problem?
Going in that direction, definitely.
The allergies and systemic inflammation is becoming the worst plague.
Young Americans are dying at a higher rate than most other countries from the coronavirus
because of the background of extreme vaccination, use of birth control and other estrogen, SSRI,
increasing serotonin exposure, all kinds of pro-inflammatory things make young people
in this country a lot more vulnerable to relatively harmless viruses like the corona.
There is a horrible video floating around of like an 8-year-old boy and his mom is holding
his hand and there's two nurses giving him multiple vaccine injections while he's like
screaming.
It's really one of the most disturbing things I've watched in a long time.
They only gave him like four or five vaccines, but I know that they need to get many, many,
many more.
But it was just a video that perfectly encapsulated that process.
One last question about race.
Ray, as a biologist, is racism just like a product of a low IQ individual?
Is there a biological imperative to seek out your own type of person?
No, I don't think it's biological.
Going into a pure indigenous population, sometimes I got off the road in Mexico and I would find
myself among oddly clothed indigenous people.
They didn't seem unfriendly, but they were definitely puzzled by having such a strange
person there.
I think it depends on their experience as a group.
If they haven't been robbed or attacked by foreigners, they just are curious and wonder
why you're so different.
But other groups will get together and organize some ways to get rid of you.
I think that's all cultural and based on their group experience and stereotypes that have
developed.
Speaking of, I want to finish up the topic of the collapse.
So what do you think is the end game here?
You said before it's a streamlined economy so there can be a better chance of competing
with China.
Is that what it's all about?
Just competing with the new empire?
Yeah, bringing the empire rapidly to absolute world control.
And China is the big, massive impediment to that.
So they see China prepared to do a better job of automating everything and increasing
efficiency.
So they want to hurt all of the economies and be the only ones who reach the automation
through artificial intelligence and use that along with some kind of fear to control people.
There might be something other than viruses, but viruses are currently doing the job.
They'll save us with vaccines.
If vaccines don't work, then they'll require everyone to take some kind of a drug, but
anything to get people obedient enough to take their treatment.
So do you think China jumped on this as an opportunity as well to even further streamline
and put its own population out of control?
Because they must be seeing through this charade for what it is, but they seem to be going
along with it at least partially as well.
Yeah, I think part of that is a matter of sophistication.
Very few people are talking about the germ warfare thing.
It briefly came out in February or March, each side accusing the other of deliberately
spreading it to weaken the other's economy.
But anyone who knows the actual history knows that the US has been in the business for the
whole 20th century basically.
And so China doesn't want to get in that competition, I suppose.
That's the only confusing thing for me.
I feel like the war tension with Russia has been being stoked for a long time.
And again, I could be just ignorant, but the China thing doesn't seem like they've been
pushing that as hard.
What was that?
Romney and Obama.
And Romney said Russia was the largest threat.
And Obama said the 1950s called and they wanted their foreign policy back or whatever.
But since the Hillary and Trump in 2016, there's been like a war drum for Russia.
But you're saying there's tension specifically between the US and China, but also the US
tends to or these search and think groups tends to praise China how they're handling
coronavirus and then implementing the changes they've made here.
And so maybe it's like more of a friendly competition or something.
Who would see it as friendly?
Again, from just my ignorant point of view, you're saying it's a tension between China
and the US of what's happening right now.
Like that's why all this stuff is happening to maintain the dominant empire.
Yeah.
China's population being so huge relative to the US and the US population is huge relative
to Russia.
The real drift of history is strongly in the direction of China.
Now that they've got an efficient economy and a unified government, the population is
almost a determinant of the outcome.
And so extraordinary measures are needed to change that trend of history.
And then one last question on this.
We might've talked about this the first time, but are things declining despite the elites
conspiring to do these things?
Like do the elites know that there is a bad time coming ahead, therefore coronavirus,
racial tension, et cetera, et cetera?
Or is it totally manufactured by them?
I heard that Bill Gates, his income has been a billion dollars a week during the lockdown.
No, I think it's exactly what they want.
Nothing hurts them.
So if the population is the determining factor, could all other things being equal in developed
economies like let's say China, Russia, and the United States, then wouldn't it make sense
for the United States as bad as it sounds to do something nefarious to, I don't know,
decimate China's population, but prop up its own instead of decimating its own population?
Or does the empire not really care about the United States as a country?
It's more like a transnational cabal that can really take a seat and can sort of...
The industry went to China and so most Americans are useless in the sense of producing profit
for the financial class.
And so they aren't going to lose anything if suddenly millions and millions of middle
class and lower class Americans start dying off.
Their income is going to accelerate for quite a while in proportion to the die off of masses
of Americans.
But, you know, if all the money went to China, in other words, to paraphrase, it's kind of
dangerous, don't you think?
The Chinese government can very quickly nationalize the businesses/profits of these powers that
be that just move their operations there.
China doesn't seem to play ball.
Yeah, that's why they don't want to go right to germ warfare because Americans own such
a big part of the Chinese economy.
It's international capital.
I see, okay.
So it really doesn't make sense to speak of countries anymore.
It's more like where is the current manufacturing and financial industry concentrated, where
it's deriving its profits from?
And currently it's not the United States.
Yeah, that was Trump's point.
The United States lost its essential power and has been living on money manipulation
since it exported its industry.
Can I read one quote from William H. Gates, his book, Showing Up for Life?
He says, "Every corner we've turned in the field of global health, we found that the
Rockefellers were already there and had been there for years.
When we committed to childhood immunization, we found ourselves building on the efforts
the Rockefeller Foundation had helped launch and fund in the 1980s, dot, dot, dot.
And we learned that such goals are not prizes claimed by the short-winded.
The Rockefellers stay with tough problems for generations."
And so this is just like we talk about, I think of you, Ray, as following in this tradition
of great scientists, you know, and William H. Gates and his son are following in the
great or the terrible shadow of these eugenicists.
And so people think or are trained to think that there's no patterns to any of this and
that it's all random and that, yeah, you shouldn't investigate these things.
Yeah.
Someone sent me a letter they had from some government official denouncing the people
who asked questions and suggested fraud.
They said that, "You aren't experts.
We aren't experts.
We have to listen to the expert opinion."
But the trouble is, who picks those experts?
Mindless crooks are defined as top scientists by the financial world.
We can move on to health stuff after this.
I did get many requests for us to talk about like the esoteric part of the elite.
And so I have on screen here the Jacob Rothschild with that, the Marina Abramovich women.
And so there's clearly some element of mysticism or like Luciferianism or religious context
for a lot of the things the elites do.
And I asked you a long time ago and you said it was more of like a window dressing thing.
But more of a window dressing?
Oh, yeah.
I think they're real philosophy.
It's worse than any of the Christian heresies or demonisms and such.
I think it's the belief that they can encode reality and that reality is computable and
controllable, basically by defining it as a quantized, digitizable something.
In other words, an absolute mentalism or idealism far beyond these little cultish ideas.
And it's a seeing of reality as lacking everything that you feel as a living part of experience.
The thing that animals and kids feel, the intrinsic fluidity of being, they believe
or assert that it is all absolutely at base, nothing but symbols and digitizable symbols.
So everything reduces to isolated quanta of existence and these ultimately are explainable
only by randomness.
So in other words, reality is fully computable, right?
Absolutely.
It started being the explicit language in the 1930s and by the 1950s it had become such
a religion that people like Norbert Wiener and Vannevar Bush, who believed in an analog
approach to cybernetics and reality in which all of the in-betweens exist and are meaningful
and controllable, not just definable quantized units.
Wiener and Bush were just written out of science.
Wiener was ostracized at MIT pretty much the way Peter Duesberg has been at California.
And meanwhile Chomsky represented the vanguard of this mentalistic, Konrad Lorenzian fascist
view of reality, claiming that you don't need an experience of language.
It could all be dealt with objectively as particles ultimately connected to genes which
are similar quantized units and you can't experience them, you can infer them.
So everything is abstract inference from symbols to symbols, eliminating all continuity and
ultimately meaning.
Chomsky was working for the Pentagon, basically financed by them, creating language schemes
that would work to give organization and instructions to troops through computers while he was posing
as an anti-imperialist, anti-militarist.
He was socializing with top people in the Pentagon, even supported a Pentagon guy as
Chancellor of MIT.
And Norbert Wiener was going into obscurity because of supporting a holistic view of cybernetics
and reality.
So do you think that some of the reasons behind this push to really restrict life and what
people are allowed to do and how they're allowed to behave and really the way their consciousness
functions, some of the reasons behind that push is because I guess they quickly realized
that computers are really powerless at emulating intelligence in its full richness and fluidity.
So they said, well, guess what?
We're just going to make people behave like computers and it will be a lot more easier
to emulate them and we're going to call it a success because the computer will be able
to emulate the human, but the human is no longer a human.
It's acting like a computer.
Exactly right.
It's all authoritarianism put into an ideology of idealism.
I just want to point out that they're standing in front of Sir Thomas Lawrence, Satan summoning
his legions.
And I thought I looked at it and it looked, I didn't know who the painting was and it
looked a little like William Blake to me and then I realized it of course wasn't in Blake's
Satan calling up his legions by Blake is about a thousand times better.
But yeah, and then we don't have to dwell on it, but the Gates implantable quantum dot
micro needle uses an enzyme called a luciferase.
And so do you think this is like a way of more of a way of control?
Like didn't Michael Aquino like the temple of set and the temple of Satan.
And so that might, if you tell a person the elite, their doctrine is to do whatever you
feel like, that's a perfect way to get people on really compromising situations.
Just the fact you can get them to submit to the treatment, everything is over then if
they submit to it, there's no need to even use the technology because they're already
victimized.
I have a question about William Blake.
In one of your articles, you said that you were teaching some students, all of you, the
class was reading the poem and then you were asking them what they thought Blake meant
and they all gave you like really bizarre answers that you thought were like, because
they were damaged by the school system and they couldn't really see what Blake really
meant.
Do you remember that occurrence and what the discussion was about?
No, I don't remember the conversation.
Lots of published critics have superficially, Blake used language.
He ironically used the language of the angels by whom he meant satanic powers, but he called
it the angels inverting things.
And a lot of critics have totally misunderstood what he was saying, totally blind to the meaning
of what he was saying and thought he was on the side of the angels who he was describing
as satanic sadists.
So what do you think he meant?
There's a famous quote, what is it?
The fox provides for himself, but God provides for the lion.
That's a very famous quote.
What do you think he is referring to?
Is it an allegory of some sort?
Was it what?
Is it an allegory of some sort, an analogy?
No, no, just the reality is variable.
The lion is governed by appetite and the fox uses cleverness.
The lion is physically more powerful than the fox.
It might have been slightly allegorical, but he didn't have anything against foxes or cleverness.
But he did say that trickery and imposed meanings were used to enslave people.
Horses of instruction was another thing, that horses are enslaved and learn their lessons,
and that's analogous to people who are obedient and do their jobs.
Many mainstream critics seem to portray Blake as a religious fanatic, but my understanding
of him is that he was actually highly critical of traditional Christianity.
He thought that that's an image of the demons, the church and all of its structure and all
the rules that it creates.
Does that ring a bell as a true statement?
Yeah, that's his ironic language.
It was the whole meaning of much of what he wrote.
If you don't see that the angels are Satan in the sense of evil and that the devils are
the oppressed who have the potential to rebel and save some lives, like the clod and the
pebble.
The clod was a person who obediently accepts that God is in heaven and everything is okay,
and the clod gets trampled all day.
The pebble, who is tough and resistant, takes care of himself and doesn't fall for the orders
and instructions and enslavement.
So in other words, if there is truth, we will have to discover it ourselves, not to be told
by some third party, be that God or whoever else is in a position of power.
Yeah, if you have some of the pebble's toughness, you can get through the oppression.
But currently we aren't seeing many visible pebbles in the country.
That's why I thought it's kind of sad because we need pebbles in order to, the toughness
of the pebble in order to get through these trying times.
But at the same time, it seems that the health of the younger generations has been so compromised.
Things are not really looking up very good right now.
I mean, there are not many pebbles, like you said.
Speaking of variable reality, I have a question here about LSD and hallucinations.
And they say, is there a relationship between hallucinations and serotonin?
And just kind of add on to that, are the hallucinations separate from the drug's effects on the serotonin
system?
And so what are your thoughts on that, Ray?
The accumulating evidence for the first 15 or so years was very clear that LSD was a
simple anti-serotonin action.
That serotonin in overdose can make you crazy and hallucinate, but it's a misery experience,
not an enlightenment experience.
And the small amounts of LSD that will oppose serotonin on blood vessels and smooth muscles,
all of the visible systems of the body, LSD is protective against serotonin.
And the stress experience, unavoidable stress poisons you with serotonin, increases your
tendency to be obedient, to want to be controlled from the outside.
And a little bit of LSD by blocking the serotonin can open a person up, get them out of this
digitized world.
There are some interviews with Kary Mullis in which he suggests that his LSD experience
helped him break out of the insane science world and see the actual complexity.
Even looking at any sort of scientific situation, if you don't start out recognizing and assuming
the infinite complexity of things, you're going to fall for all kinds of arguments.
All of the mechanisms of science start seeming plausible to the degree that you accept the
basic idea that the world is reducible to digitized symbols.
And when you see it's a continuous, infinitely complex thing, then you can actually start
looking at the data as objective data, tremendously complex at every point.
And every point needs to be pointed in the argument.
And almost 100% of the so-called scientific literature advances without examining the
meaning of almost any of their words.
They pile one word and one mechanism on top of the other to arrive at some predetermined
goal.
And they say that's the result of their scientific investigation.
It's all essentially a kind of authoritarian religious blather.
I feel like a first-year philosophy student asking you this, but if the culture tends
to increase serotonin and serotonin influences the visual perception, are things maybe at
a certain level, when somebody takes LSD, are the things they're seeing more real than
what a person might see day to day?
Does that make any sense?
Very often they are.
It was the drug industry that caught on to the idea of promoting serotonin and tryptophan,
and they wanted to get rid of that LSD idea.
So they said that if LSD makes you insane, it's because it's blocked your serotonin,
so you have to increase your serotonin to make your mind work, emotions work properly.
But it was driven by the drug industry.
And serotonin is really primarily a stress emergency signal and hormone.
But if a person takes a large, I don't know what a large, maybe 100 micrograms of LSD
or something, and they see the world as looking like an abstract painting, is there a way
– and again, correct me if I'm wrong – but if that is more real than what I am currently
seeing right now, is there a way to mimic that to some extent, or is that just not possible
given the environment we live in?
A lot of that is the overdose effect.
In someone like Kary Mullis, they come back from it and realize how flexible the knowing
process is.
But just coffee and good health and good experience will duplicate just about everything up to
that.
I think the most important thing that the expanded consciousness does is to realize
that consciousness extends through both time and space, that you're present in the oncoming
future as well as the recent and more distant past.
The digital civilization doesn't want people to experience themselves in that way.
When you're doing that, when you're experiencing yourself extending through time and space,
you see a person's arguments and how they're mounting their argument and usually mounting
it on fraudulent assumptions and concepts.
It helps you ask the right questions, if possible, and not knock their phony structure apart.
Two questions, one related to LSD and one to consciousness.
What do you say to people who would bring up studies that show that selective serotonin
antagonists such as cyproheptadine and ketanserine can both prevent the hallucination trip from
an LSD and actually can also stop one that is already in progress?
Wouldn't that give credence to the idea that the trip from LSD is somehow connected to
the serotonin system?
I think some of the hallucination experiences come from the overdose effect of LSD starting
to act like ergot and serotonin and constricting blood vessels in the brain, shutting off energy
production and leading to distortion of perception rather than opening and amplification.
I see, but the hallucinations are really not necessary for the positive effect of the drug
to occur.
They're just more of a side effect.
Not at all.
They're a harmful side effect.
Well, many people, that's quite a revelation because many people who use LSD, I think a
significant majority of them, I would dare say, are probably using it specifically for
the trip.
They think it's what gives them this religious experience of feeling oneness with the world
and the ego dissolution.
But if I'm hearing it correctly, this is just a side effect.
They're actually the real benefits of the drug for the opposition to serotonin and even
much lower dosages would be sufficient.
There's no need to go on a trip to have this benefit.
Yeah, the range of 10 to 20 micrograms is adequate for expanding consciousness.
I see.
So, question related to consciousness.
You said that people need to understand that consciousness extends both in space and in
time.
So, would it be a useful analogy to basically imagine consciousness as, let's say, if reality
is a lake or like a body of water and we throw a stone in it, so then you have these concentric
rings of waves.
So, would it be a correct analogy to say that consciousness is the totality of those waves,
not just the place where the stone dropped?
So it's the waves that you've been making in the past and also in the future that are
converging in that central point, but the consciousness is really the totality of all
of those waves that are in the lake.
Yeah.
So, the consciousness isn't in your head.
It's never in your head if you're conscious.
Can you touch on that a little bit more?
You should not.
I think a lot of people describe like they're thinking there's like a frontal sensation
of, I don't know, presence or being, but you're saying that is not what you necessarily want
to feel or you're saying something different?
Well, feeling, feeling being is a very complex, always changing thing.
That's what one wants to do.
That actually reminded me of something else I did want to talk to you about.
I think maybe in nutrition for women, you were talking about feelings in your stomach
associated with happiness and things like maybe you call it your smile energy or something.
How much in our present environment are we cut off from these types of things and given
the specific food supply?
Do you think maybe the real human condition is much more complex than maybe what a person
experiences day to day and right now?
Yeah, your body as it approaches other beings, these feelings from your heart and solar plexus
especially, you feel a connection, the sort of thing maybe Luc Montagnier was experiencing
that when he thought of how particles interact.
But I think those are actual radiation-like experiences or processes in your organism
that are actually interacting.
When you feel that you're interacting through those nerve centers in your body, I think
you are in reality interacting.
There have been lots of experiments showing that sort of thing and that's a very functional
part of consciousness that is easily cut off.
The frown of an authority figure will cause your solar plexus or heart plexus to shrink
and wither into itself and cut you off from others.
The thing of wearing a mask and having spatial distance among other things that's making
you have a sense of withered biological interaction.
So a geometrical spacing of people through a park or building, just a horrible parody
of the digitized reality that they're imposing.
So when two people are feeling, when they say, "Oh, I'm vibing with that person,"
you're saying that there is actually a very, very objective physical process underlying
that feeling that both experience?
Yeah.
Okay.
Is it based on digestion or is it based on their consciousness somehow resonating?
Or is it, I guess, two sides of the same coin?
I think it's a physical resonance of those nerve nodes or plexuses in the body.
They are like semi-autonomous nodules.
Each one can interact in its own way, but the whole interaction of the organism comes
if you have responsive organisms and aren't interfered with by the threat of authoritarian
opinion.
Speaking of resonance, I'm sure, not sure I'm up, you've mentioned Rupert Sheldrake's
idea several times.
He talks about the morphic resonance fields and reality being essentially a superfield
composed of many subfields, consciousness being one of them.
What are these fields composed of?
Is it like ripples in the neutrino sea?
Is that what the underlying medium is?
Yeah.
Why Horace Dudley's work intrigued me.
I had been reading Andrija Puharich's things on the magic mushrooms and his organ accumulator
experiments and so on.
Puharich was believing that the autonomic nervous system was creating a vortex in some
kind of an ether that would, in a particular state, it would draw in contact with others
regardless of distance.
Michael Persinger sees it in terms of electromagnetic waves, but I prefer the Horace Dudley idea
that the neutrino sea is fundamental.
It's the subquantic medium.
So do you think Kammerer's work on seriality touches upon that even though he viewed it
more abstractly?
In other words, these waves of similar events that we're seeing, they're just a physical
manifestation of those fields, of overlapping fields that Sheldrake is talking about?
Who is talking about?
Sheldrake.
So the serial events, the synchronicity that Carl Jung spoke about and Kammerer actually
tried to define more scientifically, they were both essentially talking about the same
overlapping fields that Sheldrake sort of defined 100 years later more accurately.
Yeah, I think Sheldrake sometimes lapses over into a slight idealism rather than something
substantial like electromagnetic fields and neutrino sea under the fields.
Okay, so I've read some of Sheldrake's work and he talks about how a specific group of
people have a collective memory because of their similarity, whether that's physiological
or cultural or whatnot.
So let's say if a person of that, a member of that group learns something, then the rest
of the members, if they try to learn the same thing, would be easier because they will be
drawing on that sort of like field that the person has created with their own consciousness.
Why would this be limited to a specific culture or a group of people?
Why wouldn't it be a universal field that everybody contributes to?
I think it's partly the interactions that has a tuning effect.
People are embedded in the authoritarian culture which has a suppressive dividing effect and
small groups can create a somewhat private culture that gives them some freedom from
the big authoritarian process and the authoritarian larger culture, American, European, the historic
things that have gone on for thousands of years, having some common properties, assumptions,
those things suppress the biological connectedness.
But when you have a geographical interaction, I think that just like the health interactions,
when you have a certain visible people around you, that lets you tune into each other and
momentarily forget the outside interferences.
I'm sure you're familiar with the ideas of Native Americans about every person having
a totem, like a guardian animal.
But they also, apparently their culture also has this, what do you call it, myth or not,
doesn't matter, but the idea that you can actually draw on the experience of any animal
that basically that your group has associated in the past with.
So you can essentially learn, you can teach yourself to behave like a bear, live like
a bear and even see the world like a bear.
You think the lack of restrictions in those cultures are what allowing people to draw
from the collective consciousness that includes both animals and people?
Oh yeah, I think our real society includes our animal neighbors as well as our human
neighbors, often more if the animals, the birds for example, birds seem very aware when
someone is different from the pack.
They sort of hang around and wonder what's happening.
So doesn't that give a little bit of credibility to the argument that vegans would say, "Well,
we don't eat meat because we don't want to eat sentient beings."
Of course, it's a little bit duplicitous because plants are also sentient beings, so you have
to be eating something at some point.
Don't you think that the moral argument of not wanting to eat animals, doesn't that give
it a little bit of credibility because those are essentially human, they're not human,
but they're beings like us?
Of course.
When you look at food cosmically, looking at the nature of cosmic energy produced by
fusion, presumably, or whatever it is that makes solar stellar energy flowing through
substances, the process of nutrition, you should see it in that cosmic dimension.
It happens that the safest nutrition for long life and clear consciousness, unstressed consciousness,
happens to be fruit and milk.
The milk purifies nutrients and rebalances them in an anti-stress way.
With a selection of fruits, the fruit is designed to nourish its seeds or to feed an animal
that will distribute the seeds, so the seeds would be unethical to eat and the body of
the fruit would be an absolute positive thing in the cosmic flow of energy.
What about eggs?
Would eggs be okay in that framework of thought?
Less ideal, but still no sentient process has developed.
That reminds me of, I think somebody wrote you a long time ago, and I think they were
contemplating suicide or something, and you wrote them something to the effect of, "You
have to realize there's lots of intelligence left in the world.
It's just not human intelligence."
Something to that effect.
Okay, let's take a mild break here, guys.
We have, I don't know how many people are watching this at the moment, but give this
episode a like.
Huge thank you to Ray, huge thank you to Georgi.
These episodes are always super special, so I appreciate it.
Ray, can you just let everybody know how to order your newsletter?
Oh, email raypeatnewsletter@gmail.com.
And then I just got the novel flu one a few weeks ago, and so yeah, you're sending those
out via email.
I get that question all the time.
Unless you had any more big questions, I guess we could go through some logistical supplement
food-related questions, Georgi.
You mean the questions about PUFA and lipofuscin?
Yeah.
So, Ray, I don't know.
I think there's a secondhand quote from somebody else, but maybe you said something to the
effect of, "By the time a person is 30, they have enough PUFA to last a lifetime."
One, is that accurate?
And then two, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things?
It's even more important to keep the total polyunsaturated fat pretty low, right?
I don't think I understood the question.
I guess, so, okay, just this statement.
By the time a person is 30, they have as much polyunsaturated fat in their tissue to last
a lifetime.
So, it's...
That seems to presume that there's some use for polyunsaturated fat.
I see them as harmful right from the start.
Well-fed, healthy mother, when they analyze a newborn's brain, the conventional science
says they're all born with a PUFA deficiency, an essential fatty acid deficiency.
No, that's the healthy, very high metabolizing brain that has been protected against PUFA
by the placenta.
But as soon as breath-feeding stops or if they start using a formula that has added
PUFA, the brain starts assimilating it, forming esters of cholesterol that accumulate, ultimately
causing atherosclerosis, but accumulating in the brain and other tissues, slowing metabolism
so that constantly, as exactly as the cholesterol ester content of PUFA increases, the metabolic
rate decreases.
And that, it simply, by the age of 30 or 40, it's reaching the point that it is causing
aging symptoms to set in, and it progresses with the onset of a cold brain, Alzheimer's
disease and dementia.
The cholesterol ester content of the brain is becoming extreme and blocking metabolism
progressively.
You're right.
It's like a positive thing, I have the question, but I appreciate your answer.
That makes sense.
I have a question.
So let's say somebody's, I read a study that said that when you're eating a combination
of fats, the saturated fat gets preferentially oxidized while the PUFA gets preferentially
stored in the fatty tissue.
Doesn't that sort of imply that it would be really, really difficult to change your fatty
acid composition through diet?
Because every time, unless you're eating almost 100% saturated fat diet...
Under stress, the PUFA comes out preferentially and it increases in the fat cells with aging,
but that just means that when you're under stress and you're releasing free fatty acids,
they become more toxic the older you get because you have more of them in the system.
But they're also in the phospholipids and cholesterol esters, not just in the storage
fats.
In terms of displacing that PUFA or increasing the ratio of saturated fat to PUFA in the
tissues, I think there seems to be more, I don't want to call it more optimal, but the
longer chain saturated fatty acids like palmitic acid, stearic acid, anything over the carbon
chain length of 14 seems to be better because these get preferentially absorbed through
the lymphatic system and they can get to the tissues, while the shorter chain fatty acids
like those found in coconut oil seem to be quickly picked up by the portal vein system
and get into the liver and the liver oxidizes it.
So if somebody wants to change their tissue composition, they need to be eating longer
chain saturated fatty acids.
Am I reading this right?
Yeah, there are quite a few studies showing a longer life in proportion to the percentage
of highly saturated, completely saturated fats and inverse cancer incidence.
And do you remember the old vitamin E people were finding that the crude vitamin E had
a stamina increasing effect, but it turned out when they refined it a little more, it
was the very long chain saturated fats that were providing the protective athletic endurance
and stamina increasing effect of wasn't the vitamin E, but the waxy material associated
with it.
And since refining vitamin E has eliminated those waxy, highly saturated long chain fats,
the studies of vitamin E are no longer so positive.
Yeah, you mean the policosanols, the ones that the Cubans are running studies with for
cardiovascular disease?
Yeah.
So yeah, I remember, yeah.
Those studies seem to abruptly stop around the late forties, the ones that talked about
the wheat germ oil, the stamina effect of wheat germ oil, and then they purified it.
They found out it's the long chain fats, the fatty acid alcohols.
And then the Cubans started doing some research with those.
And I feel like as soon as the Cubans picked up on that, because they're extracting them
from sugar cane, then a whole slew of studies came out in the United States and actually
in the general Western medical press saying, this is a complete scam.
These things do not work.
This is communist science.
You know, but it seems like this is so strange because the original science happened in the
United States.
It was just before the 1950s.
Yeah.
Science is all about marketing.
You just shouldn't believe 98% of the things published as science.
Everything except some cosmology and some physics, everything else tends to be marketing.
Okay.
So would you say that these extremely long chain fatty acids, like the policosanols
are actually better at displacing the PUFA in the tissues?
I think so.
Okay.
Do you have like a recommendation of someone, because they actually, they sell this, assuming
someone can get it as a pure powder or supplement.
Most of the Cuban studies say just 10 to 20 milligrams a day is enough.
And that seems to be what all those studies with the unrefined vitamin E, that seems to
be what a daily intake would provide.
Do you have any recommendation on specific dosages?
I think that's about the right quantity.
Okay.
Understood.
Ray, the ketone gut?
Well, related to the lipofuscin, but I guess you can ask about the ketone.
I just wanted to go over the ketone body ratio again, because I think that is, I think the
very dominant alt paradigm right now is keto, fasting, low carb, carnivore diets.
And some of the big proponents in that camp and camps similar, they talk about that fasting
and ketosis increase NAD relative to NADH.
And given the ketone body ratio, it seems like, and they'll quote these two papers,
I should have wrote them down, but that seems impossible given the limited amount of investigation
I've done on the ketone body ratio.
It's like so clear that any gut...
All of the best biochemists that I know of showed that diabetes and fasting caused extreme
reduction of NADH rather than NAD, a shift towards the cancer physiology.
Is that happening in every system equally?
Like do different systems compensate when the stress first starts to appear or something?
I think very bad biochemical technique always messes up the reduction balance analysis.
Glutathione and NADH are so sensitive to conditions that I think in the last 30 years or so, most
of the work published is doctrine rather than fact.
I have a little bit of clarification on that.
I think most of these papers are measuring the NAD to the NADH ratio in the cytosol.
And in the cancer cell, you actually, in the diabetic cell, the NAD to the NADH ratio in
the cytosol of these sick cells is actually very high because those cells are using pyruvate
as an emergency oxidant and they're generating lactate.
But the mitochondrial ratio of NAD to the NADH is actually very low in cancer, diabetes
and fasting.
So I would like to see those papers, where did they measure that ratio?
Because even the Wikipedia page on the Randle cycle talks about fatty acid oxidation dramatically
shifting the redox balance towards reduction in the mitochondria.
So that seems to be already sort of like commonly accepted knowledge.
And some of the ketones so-called are not ketones.
The beta-hydroxybutyrate, they call that a ketone body, but it's not a ketone.
And it shifts cell balance the same way lactic acid does.
It's a reductant.
And I know you've gone over this a hundred thousand times, but when somebody does benefit
from a ketosis style of diet, you hypothesize maybe that it's disinfecting their intestine
possibly to some way and maybe they're changing their food, just better quality in general.
Yeah.
Someone who has been eating pasta and sweet potatoes and so on, if they shift to a meat
and egg and cheese diet, their intestine is going to be very happy.
And for a couple of years, they all feel great.
Exactly.
And just to piggyback on that, the parathyroid calcium to phosphorus, that's a moment to
moment thing, correct?
Like if you eat a meal that is higher in phosphorus, that could turn on your parathyroid hormone
for the next few hours.
Is that right?
I think so.
And it's a very good indicator of stress.
And the whole system that turns on aldosterone, angiotensin, renin, aldosterone, that's behind
the process of increasing your parathyroid hormone.
And so many kinds of stress will do it, but it happens that high phosphate is very closely
connected calcium and vitamin D are connected in the other way, protecting against all of
those pro-inflammatory anti-metabolic things.
So a high calcium diet with vitamin D seems to energize your thyroid function because
it's getting you out of that parathyroid hormone, aldosterone, angiotensin, inflammatory reductive
state.
And you know, vitamin D, I'm sure you're aware there are plenty of studies that try to portray
in a bad light.
And some of the older studies show that if you administer high doses of vitamin D, even
in the absence of increased calcium intake in the diet, apparently it can cause soft
tissue calcification.
Do you think there's any truth to those studies or do you think vitamin D needs a cofactor
to make it work more safely, like maybe vitamin K?
A lot of them are confusing 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol with the 25-hydroxy and the literature is
dominated by that confusion.
And if you start with Klotho, the anti-aging protein, you'll see that 25-hydroxy supports
Klotho and 1,25, the so-called active vitamin D, knocks down Klotho and raises parathyroid
hormone and angiotensin.
All of the toxi-degenerative things is done by the activated vitamin D and there's a very
massive confusion on that.
I'm talking about active vitamin D as if it's the relevant thing rather than being evidence
of extreme stress and sickness.
But the 25-hydroxy in the body, I think in the kidney or in the liver, it gets converted
into 1,25-dihydroxy, right?
So wouldn't taking a precursor like that raise the risk?
No, no.
It lowers it in fact.
Oh, wow.
So if you put calcium where it belongs, it will, eating calcium and vitamin D will lower
parathyroid hormone and lower inflammation and raise Klotho and pretty much turn off
the activation in the kidneys, which happens in end-stage kidney disease, for example.
Okay.
The activation goes wild and kills a person.
What about the potential risk for hypercalcemia with high doses of vitamin D?
Do you think that's still tied to that confusion about calcitriol versus cholecalciferol?
I think so.
The studies I've seen with very big doses of 25-hydroxy show no harm at all up to a
million units or something for an extended period.
Just a clarification, I know you've also talked about this before, but cortisol is
made from progesterone but doesn't increase it.
And so when people look at those steroid synthesis charts, I think it's very confusing.
And so is there an easy way of a layman grappling with the fact that when you take progesterone,
it's not going to increase your cortisol levels?
Yes.
Think of the connections as being like a rope.
If there's a deficiency, there's weight on the rope, it'll pull the precursor along.
No matter how much pressure you put on your end of the rope, you can't push the other
end of the rope.
Those charts have to be thought of holistically and there's no pushing allowed, it's all
pulling.
That's interesting.
And then last question for me, the progesterone DHEA ratio.
And so you and I, I don't know, maybe two years ago or something, I was asking you about
an amount of DHEA to use with a progesterone specifically for male and we had a back and
forth.
But you don't think that they have to be used in some specific ratio all the time?
That was, I don't know, you want to talk?
Yeah.
If someone is going to blindly use it, it would be a good idea just to have a ballpark
somewhere in the ratio that you can't poison yourself with DHEA and you can't suppress
your nervous system so much that you don't make any.
But a lot of people find that they increase their DHEA and testosterone just by taking
progesterone because progesterone turns off aromatase, for example.
Aromatase tends to waste DHEA and testosterone by grinding it through the estrogen process.
So wouldn't basically this be a statement in favor of using DHEA with some progesterone
to lower the risk of it converting into estrogen in a, let's say, hypothyroid person?
No, if you don't have any DHEA being produced, it's good to have some in your body.
So it's very often helpful all the way up for a very old person at 10 or 12 milligrams
per day backed up with progesterone can be curative, can bring back tissue, connective
tissue strength and so on.
Both progesterone and DHEA in a really old person can have very powerful restorative
effects but in a younger person, often the body doesn't have any problem making DHEA
and the progesterone will just help activate the thyroid and reduce the aromatase and inflammatory
processes.
Well, I guess my question was if someone were to take DHEA, it would be safer if they combine
it with progesterone, wouldn't you say so?
Yeah, because so many people take more DHEA than they really can use in the proper ways
and so a 30-year-old taking 10 milligrams is very likely to be producing too much estrogen
from it if they happen to be slightly hypothyroid or deficient in vitamin D or under stress
of some sort.
Okay.
I have a question about pregnenolone.
In one of your articles in several interviews, you mentioned an old study where they fed
rats the human equivalent of a cup a day and I've been trying to find that study and you
said that pregnenolone essentially lowered their cortisol back to normal.
Do you remember what year that study was or where it was published or where you saw it
because I couldn't find it?
Yeah, I saw it in a book published I think 1950 edited by Abraham White.
Okay.
I mean, Ray, getting some of your references is like an investigation of many months.
I know you provide a significant amount but sometimes you'll mention something and it
will literally take me like a year to find eventually.
Without Sci-Hub, I wouldn't be able to find anything.
Are you familiar with that, Ray?
Without what?
Sci-Hub, S-C-I-H-U-B, basically the pirate website to download articles.
Oh, okay.
Well, anyways, that's like a huge boon to I think anybody with an active interest in
this field but yeah, anyways, it's very fun tracking down some of the things you mentioned,
finding them in old books and such.
Let me read through these super chats and then we can wrap this up.
Linda Bell for $5, thank you so much.
She says good evening.
Lisa Ferraro for $9.99.
Thank you, Lisa.
Linda, Lisa says, I love these conversations between Ray, Georgi, and Danny.
Thank you guys.
Please keep having them.
Thanks for that, Lisa.
Pure Therapy for $4.99 and he has a dancing GIF emoji.
Thanks for that, Pure Therapy.
Tone, we won't be able to get to questions here because I'd feel bad because we never
answer questions on here.
For $20 though, thank you, Tone.
Sincerely appreciate it.
Harry Burgos for $25.
Thank you, Harry.
And Machel for $50.
Wow, that's a lot.
And he says, let's not be trodden with cattle's feet, go pebbles.
Thank you for that, Machel.
I sincerely appreciate it.
And I'll forward these directly to Ray.
Georgi, you have any final questions for Ray?
One last question on lipofuscin.
Yes.
Go for it.
So we talked about PUFA accumulation with age and let's say like eating longer chain
saturated fatty acids can over time displace it.
But would that take care of lipofuscin, Ray?
Because my impression from the studies that I've been reading is that once it forms inside
the cell, you'll have to take some kind of a solvent.
And there's some studies on potentially vitamin E or even alcohol.
Drinking alcohol can potentially help with that.
Yeah, that was interesting.
They were in nerve cells, they were studying vitamin E's ability to disintegrate lipofuscin
and they were dissolving the vitamin E in ethanol.
So they tested plain ethanol and it worked just almost as well as the vitamin E with
ethanol.
And that got me interested in its antioxidant action.
It takes something like a teaspoonful of ethanol per day to have a very powerful antioxidant
effect.
I learned that in physics and some very sensitive engineering where they are using transistors
and such need to be free radicals.
Just a tiny amount of ethanol vapor is a powerful anti-free radical agent.
So would those be the safest things for potentially dissolving lipofuscin until more is known?
I mean, a tiny bit of ethanol, maybe like one drink a day?
Years ago I saw people who had a fried appearance from so much age pigment and taking progesterone
within a few weeks their skin looked restored and normal.
So I think if you turn off estrogen very efficiently, you stop making it and your body can clear
it up.
That person that I first saw it happen was in her 40s and I think there's still enough
good thyroid metabolism going that progesterone could be the catalyst suppressing estrogen
and shifting the balance away from formation towards elimination.
Understood.
One final question.
What is your general opinion of the steroidal, and I emphasize steroidal, aromatase inhibitors?
Do they have any place in any kind of like a compromised health condition or do you think
progesterone can offer everything they could and do that more safely?
They have side effects and I don't think there's been a great effort to explore why those side
effects happen.
And so I think maybe in 20 years more will be known, but I think they're good to avoid
and use any of the known very effective anti-aromatase.
Even the angiotensin receptor blockers are pretty effective.
Lots of things inhibit aromatase, anything that stops the basic inflammatory oxygen deprivation
process.
Okay.
Final question.
In one of your recent emails with a person, they forwarded to me, you spoke about eugenol
and of its potentially, it's like a great spectrum of beneficial effects.
And I looked at the molecule and it reminds me a lot of dopamine.
Do you think eugenol has some of those effects on the nervous system, kind of pro-dopamine,
anti-serotonin?
Oh, I don't know.
There are some good effects seen with it, but I haven't used enough to really have an
opinion.
Okay.
All right.
That's it.
I don't have anything else.
Ray, what are you working on right now?
I'm thinking about how education is going to be affected by the takeover lockdown mentality
with people like Governor Cuomo putting Eric Schmidt to work at converting from real education
to digital education.
I think some thought needs to be given to how actual real living education might be
protected against this authoritarian pseudo using digital systems to apply indoctrination
and call it education.
There were a few requests for us to talk about Jonathan Taylor Gatta.
I'm sorry, I screwed up the name.
But maybe we can save that for next time because that is a huge topic.
So I'm glad you brought it up.
Ray, do you have any parting words for everybody?
I think 150 or so people are listening right now.
Nope.
Awesome.
Ray, thank you so much.
These are always fun to do.
Georgi Dinkov, thank you so much.
And we'll be back next month.
Thank you guys for watching.
I have an amazing audience.
We're very fortunate.
So thank you guys so much and have a safe weekend and we'll talk to you soon.