[silence]
[music]
[silence]
[music]
How about silently spraying epheromones on top of them and have the local bees chase them?
One minute. Guys, welcome to the show. Guys, thank you so much for joining us today.
Ray Peat, Georgi Dinkov. Georgi, I interrupted you. Go ahead. What were you going to say?
No, I was saying instead of a stick, just silently spray them with like, because there's this odorless spray that they sell.
They're called bee pheromones. And you spray a few like a few sprays on their clothes.
And basically they will have every domesticated and wild bee and potentially hornets chasing after them no matter where they go.
Just for some context, I was asking Ray what he would do if, you know, if the pressure keeps tightening for vaccination.
I asked Ray what specifically he would do if somebody knocked at his door and what it would take for him to leave.
But yeah, I don't know what I feel like we haven't talked, you know, for a little while.
What you saw, the notion document that I sent you, is there any and we can go in any specific direction here.
You know, it doesn't matter. Is there any specific topic do you think is critical?
And, you know, we could fill the first, I don't know, 10, 15 minutes of the show with no nothing special.
I've still been thinking about the topic for the July newsletter.
I try to finish my thinking by around the end of the month for a newsletter.
And it's going to be something related to iron and calcification of tissues, stress and aging.
And these are themes that I got involved with more than 50 years ago.
But I see that there are just little glimmers of change and interest in the culture.
These are, again, timely topics. Age pigment and lipofuscin, for example.
For sure. I mean, that is something that's become more popular in the last year or two, just in general Internet land.
But even that's what you wrote about, you've been writing about for decades, you know, the inflammation, swelling, fibrosis, calcification.
You know, that seems to be incredibly misunderstood, you know, and so I wasn't sure if that was something worth addressing as well.
And that linked to the old newsletter, which I talked to you and said informed kind of this newest newsletter that you were thinking of.
Yeah, I see that. And I think it was 20 years ago that newsletter was concentrating on the connective tissue response to estrogen and stress.
And it talked a lot about the collagen surroundings of cells, which is one of the basic harms that stresses and estrogen activate.
And the people were really doing definitive research in the 30s, 40s and 50s.
And then that pretty much disappeared because it impinged on industrial profit motives.
The crude oil industry, the estrogen industry and various branches of the drug and medical industries.
So what's the typical medical view of fibrosis and how does your view differ?
I think the reason for all of the differences is that they're thinking in terms of the classical cell chemicals and enzymes enclosed in a barrier membrane and the signals as being reductionist signals.
So 50 or 60 years ago, someone named Schwartau, I think it was C-H-B-A-P-A was his name,
found that hypoxia and estrogen created the conditions to produce fibrosis by collagen synthesis.
And following his perceptions, I've tended to think in terms of global stresses and the functions where the standard medical thing is to think in terms of a concrete signal like an irritant or a pathogen that is creating the irritation and fibrosis.
And what really shaped my dissertation in 1970 to '72 was seeing that hypoxia, radiation, estrogen and excessive PUFA, all of these things created the same biochemical reactions.
On the cellular level, it was analogous to Han Selye's general adaptation syndrome on the level of the organism.
Here's the local adaptation syndrome on the level of cells and tissues.
On a more basic level, can we say that fibrosis is basically the connective tissue equivalent of the lipid pathway for getting rid of excess electrons, unpaired electrons?
Except it doesn't get rid of them. It's a bad solution. It gets rid of them in the sense of killing off that part of the organism, walling it off, detoxifying it, but cutting it off from function.
So it's like a dead storage for electrons, basically.
Yeah, separating the area of damage like a lizard throwing off its tail.
So would fatty acid synthesis precede fibrosis, basically? Would it be like a less suboptimal way of getting rid of these excess electrons?
Oh, yeah, I guess that's a more physiological way. You just blow up with fat instead of calcifying and cut off a part.
Right. So it seems like people gaining weight during middle age, it's a very common process.
And then fibrosis and deterioration and essentially losing muscle mass and getting saggy tissue and whatnot and skin looking like a cowhide.
That's basically seems to be the process that happens later on if metabolically things are not recovered.
Yeah, it's doing on the systemic, organic, whole organism level what the local fibrosis does.
It's preserving the organism at the expense of losing its functional tissue such as muscle, replacing it with fat.
And exactly the same processes are involved. Intense calcification will cut off an area, turn it to stone.
And the process of aging is very, very slow turning to stone.
It involves calcification but in a diffuse way that increases inflammation as it lowers function.
But the whole organism goes down more or less in a coordinated way rather than calcifying your ears or your pituitary or some particular tissue.
And the calcium initially gets there with the intent to help because the cells need it as an anti-inflammatory.
But if the cells are de-energized, then calcium starts to accumulate too much.
And then I guess under the influence of parathyroid hormone starts to form this, it starts to become part of the fibrotic tissue. Is that correct?
Yeah, the parathyroid hormone is working by amplifying the de-energized situation that starts it all.
And something I noticed in the 60s, it turns up over and over in the old microscope literature,
is that calcium deposits generally involve, when you're staining the tissue, if you use stains for iron,
you'll see an association of iron with all of these little calcium deposits.
And that's where it really gets interesting how the whole organism is organized to protect against calcification and excess iron, uncontrolled iron behavior.
But you get a diffused iron activity along with diffused calcification in a gradual slow aging.
Or in a local area, you get both of them very intensely involved in essentially killing off and protecting against that damaged tissue.
What's the signal in the organism that decides between killing off and separating a particular tissue or organ, or turning into a tumor?
Is there a threshold, or is it more or less a chance event?
Adolf Farberg talked about that.
He pointed out that there's always a progression from inflammation to fibrosis to calcification.
And then somewhere along that line, some cells manage to survive in a damaged condition.
The tumor is a revolt of certain cells in the area that's being isolated and killed off.
Those cells decide to survive.
And since the organism didn't have the resources to prevent the loss of that calcifying area,
they are also likely to lack what it is that the escaping cells need.
And so although they escaped, they don't have the support from the organism to continue functioning as part of the organism.
So they were just an alternative deterioration, alternative to the calcified tissue.
So if somebody were to look at a solid tumor localized to an organ and analyze the tissue around it,
it should more look like concentric circles with the tumor in the center,
and then a layer around it, maybe calcification, and a layer further out, fibrosis,
and a layer further out, very inflamed, and a layer further out, be like basically glycolytic metabolism.
Is that something that's commonly found in tumors?
One of the common things is that a tumor itself will be turned off by calcification.
The body will wall it off and not let it go farther.
So calcification is basically a desperate attempt at walling off a metabolically deranged tissue.
Yeah, and it can do the same with invasive bacteria or parasites.
Is there a situation where this process is adaptive and should not be interfered with?
In other words, if you're lowering parathyroid hormone, is there a situation where the body says,
"No, I need that in order to wall that tumor off, and now you just lowered my parathyroid with calcium or like vitamin D,
so now I cannot get rid of that tumor"?
I think the better choice is to hope you can provide the energy and the vitamin D,
and suppress the anti-metabolic parathyroid hormone.
So this newsletter, obviously you implicate estrogen in the centrality of it all.
You mentioned also parathyroid hormone.
What other hormones are coordinating this low energy shift that's getting progressively worse as presumably the inflammation gets worse?
Prolactin is one of the next involved.
It involves serotonin and prolactin and aldosterone.
Eventually, growth hormone tends to be brought in as part of the failing tissue.
So like we talked about last time, the pituitary being roused in proportion to how bad the situation is.
Yeah, and serotonin generally activates too much pituitary activity.
And then the pituitary hormones intensify the inflammation.
First, they create intensified inflammation in the organ.
They're tuned to like gonadotropins create inflammation and eventually cancer.
The gonads, TSH, which activates the thyroid, eventually leads to all of these inflammatory hardening,
fibrotic processes and cancer of the thyroid gland.
So the pituitary hormones rouse the tissue, but without the resources to function, they lead to the same excitatory damage.
The prostaglandins and leukotrienes are also intimately involved, right?
If we consider them hormone-like lipids signaling?
Yeah, and since I don't believe in such a thing as essential fatty acids,
I see the whole doctrine of the ideology that has built up around the prostaglandins and other prostein,
the derivatives of arachidonic acid, I think shouldn't be there at all.
An Australian guy found the series of prostaglandin-like substances that are made from the mead acid,
omega-9 fatty acids, which we make if we aren't poisoned by external linoleic acid.
That series of N-3 and N-6 fats, we make basically singly.
The monounsaturated N-9 fatty acids produce that mead acid series of prostaglandin-like things.
This Australian, I think his name was Cleland, found that they are without exception,
that they're anti-inflammatory and constructive for all of the arachidonic acid derivatives end up being harmful.
I don't want to interrupt you, Gordie. Go ahead.
Let me see.
[Laughter]
I haven't got it. Go ahead.
I'm sure you've seen the studies, the older studies that essential fatty acid deficient rats heal their wounds without any scar.
Wouldn't that implicate PUFA as the cause of the scar formation and the fibrosis and everything else,
while the serotonin, prolactin, estrogen, etc., they're not innocent bystanders.
They're certainly contributing, but they're not the primary players here.
The derivatives of linoleic and arachidonic acid are amplifiers of the little bit of inflammation
that should trigger replication and repair.
If you had only the mead acid derivatives, they would take care of limiting the inflammation response.
As it is on our present environmental foods, instead the prostaglandins amplify the inflammation
and can't derange the healing process and make scar tissue or keloids or cancers.
Ray, something you're so good at is distilling the hormones down to their basic functions with a naming convention.
Estrogen, what did you call it, the hormone of new beginnings, or aldosterone, the brittleizing hormone.
What would you call serotonin, the pseudo-hibernation hormone, and then what would you call prolactin?
In fish, for example, it's a fluid regulating.
When a salmon comes from the ocean and confronts the absence of salt in the river water,
they have a kind of shock reaction, an estrogenic reaction, and put out a burst of prolactin,
which like parathyroid hormone, dissolves their bones and gives them an immediate old person humpback,
even though gravity doesn't bend their spine like it does in a human bending over with old age from osteoporosis.
The fish get an equivalent humpback as their skeletal deterioration is the prolactin,
which is handling this estrogenic excess of water, is at the same time pulling calcium out of their bones.
That happens under, for example, estrogen increases our water retention and imitates the condition of a salmon hitting fresh water.
The shock of that hypotonic condition turns on prolactin.
In terms of the whole fibrosis calcification, and first being an inflammatory process,
the prolactin is causing swelling under the direction of estrogen.
There's that like Striskov paper you quoted in one of your articles that said
one of the primary functions was to suppress oxygen consumption and lower the thyroid function.
It's maybe acting early on in the whole process from inflammation to fibrosis to calcification, or it's during the whole thing?
Yeah, like parathyroid hormone turns off oxidative energy production and shifts over to lactic acid production.
You get a substitution of protective carbon dioxide, which hardens the bone tissue and keeps soft tissue soft.
Instead, you get lactate, which softens the bone tissue and tends to calcify your arteries and other tissues.
Are estrogen and prolactin also involved in activating the stem cells in response to tissue injury?
And then carbon dioxide is supposed to kick in and differentiate them into normal organs,
but if that doesn't happen, then basically too many stem cells and you get cancer?
I think so.
Awesome. And then one thing we didn't touch on was the role of fibrin.
That seems like it kind of kicks things off and leaks out of the cell and causes havoc to other cells. Is that right?
Is it produced by the liver mostly?
Fibrinogen is produced in the liver.
Normally, there's a constant balance, a whole system of enzymes that produce fibrin and tend to form clots.
But this fibrin that is constantly being produced from the background of fibrinogen,
a very thin layer of it is normally deposited on the inside of capillaries,
giving them a little extra strength, like just a reinforcing film, and on the outside of red blood cells.
And one of the factors that governs the balance between this constant formation of a small amount of fibrin
and the constant breakdown thinning of that layer so it doesn't get too thick,
one of the main factors governing this balance is estrogen.
So a high estrogen person gradually gets thicker capillaries, linings, and thicker coating on the red blood cells,
making oxygen take longer to get out of the red cell and through the capillary into the tissue.
And probably just about every hormone we have is contributing to that balance.
Estrogen has been studied as a regulator.
And just recently, people are starting to see the D-dimer breakdown fraction of fibrin
that indicates how much stress there is, or in the case of estrogen,
it indicates how excessive your estrogen is because you have the enzymes,
proteolytic enzymes breaking down the coating so it doesn't get too thick.
And that is seen to be happening in a stress disease or a viral disease like COVID-19.
And so just checking the blood for the D-dimer is a way of seeing how much stress your system is under.
So basically it's a biomarker for clotting.
I didn't hear that.
It's a biomarker. It's a reliable systemic biomarker for clotting.
Yeah, and the regulators, several of the regulators of iron, for example,
high ferritin and high hepsidin, which is sort of a blocker of iron uptake.
Both the ferritin and the hepsidin levels are increased in COVID,
and that goes with the defect in the red blood cell iron physiology.
Did you see the recent study that came out that said vitamin E, specifically alpha-tocopherol,
drastically inhibits viral repression, specifically for COVID-19, for SARS-CoV-2.
Just 10 micromole per liter concentration basically obliterated the virus.
So it's a very interesting study.
And I'm wondering, since vitamin E also has anti-clotting effect, anti-estrogenic effect,
potentially even anti-serotonin effect, it may have additional benefits if COVID-19 is mostly a clotting disease.
Yeah. Have you read the Schutt family's works?
Evans Schutt was one of the sons, the father and two sons.
He was working on blocking the anti-fertility effects of estrogen.
And one of the effects of estrogen was exaggerated clotting of the blood,
and vitamin E in protecting against all of the effects of estrogen.
They followed up and showed that it would accelerate the removal of established blood clots
and various circulatory diseases and protect the heart from forming new clots.
And it turns out that estrogen is a basic pro-inflammatory activator.
Vitamin E as a very essential anti-estrogen factor is also a very fundamental anti-inflammatory agent.
It works at several levels to prevent prostaglandin toxic effects.
Does every viral infection involve inflammation in one shape or form?
I think so.
So that's why aspirin, vitamin E, progesterone, things like that, aside from any direct antiviral effects,
they're simply stopping the inflammatory cascade, which is really what eventually kills people if the condition is really severe.
Yeah, basically, we wouldn't be bothered by viruses getting churned out and produced and eliminated.
It's the inflammation that some of them produce.
So is it fair to say that, I mean, since we already discussed that maybe the evolutionary purpose of viruses is horizontal gene transfer, more or less,
then the only reason we get these viral diseases is simply our suboptimal health state, not that the viruses are necessarily trying to kill us.
Yeah, it's the same with our exosomes, the particles that we make as part of our repair, maintenance and development processes,
the communication of genetic material and proteins and hormones between cells for regulation and development.
The viruses are almost identical to our own exosomes.
They're made by the same machinery, are roughly the same size and structure and so on.
So when you're in a weakened state where you are susceptible to viruses and get exaggeratedly sick from a cold virus like COVID,
you're also likely to be having poor reactions to your own exosomes and a sick cell can put out sickness-communicating exosomes.
So a tumor can produce tumors by sending bad exosomes around the body.
I think that's a way of thinking of why viruses vary in their harmfulness.
So as you mentioned before, during stress, cells start shedding their retroviruses into the bloodstream.
Are these retroviruses just a simple, harmless signaling mechanism or can they actually cause issues?
You know the main theory that HIV is causing AIDS. It's been disputed many times since it's a retrovirus, right?
I mean, it's not supposed to be harmful for us.
Do you think there's any situation where these exosomes, retroviruses released by the cell during stress can cause issues?
Yeah, in the case of cancer, for example.
Cancer cell is a profoundly stressed cell and it sends out crazy alarm signals as exosomes.
Speaking of coronavirus, I wanted to talk about David E. Martin, Ray, who you've mentioned a few times on your more recent interviews.
But first, I wanted to talk about your newsletter.
So the newsletter is available by email now. It's $28, which can be paid through PayPal at raypeatswithansnewsletter@gmail.com.
And so we were talking earlier about your new newsletter, which should come out somewhere around the end of August. Is that right?
Oh no, I'm hoping to get it written this coming week and quickly mailed, so hopefully before the 10th of August.
Oh, amazing. Okay. And then same deal with raypeatsnewsletter@gmail.com.
And they can email that address to order from PMS to menopause, progesterone and orthomolecular medicine, generative energy, my favorite, mind and tissue or nutrition for women. Is that also correct?
Right.
Perfect. And then I wanted to talk about Progest-E from Keenogen.
You can email Catherine to purchase Progest-E, keenogen@gmail.com.
And so something, you know, Ray, we talked about, maybe it's 2016.
I told you that I thought I was contributing to lots of my own problems by taking oral supplements.
And so since then, I've been much more partial to using topical, like oily substances on my skin.
So what do you think about using progesterone on your skin if somebody noticed that they had some kind of digestive irritation from it?
First of all, any vitamin E is, if it's pure, it's very viscous and has an unappealing taste.
And the viscosity going down your throat in a lot of people will trigger a retching reaction and can irritate just by its viscosity.
And so one solution is to mix it with butter or put it in your baked potato or whatever that prevents that concentrated oil reaction.
And that's a problem with lots of supplement people. People take their vitamins or minerals as tablets rather than as blended into their foods.
So apart from any impurities that are causing allergic reactions, just the fact of a pure chemical hitting your stomach can injure it to some extent.
But to lower the viscosity of the vitamin E so that it will go in your skin faster, you can add a little bit of olive oil on your skin first and then spread the viscous progesterone onto it.
And you don't want to mix it in the bottle because the extra olive oil tends to destabilize the solution.
But mixing it right on your skin, you'll get a much faster absorption.
Somewhere around 10% of it is likely to go into your body.
So it takes a bigger dose even on top of the accelerating olive oil.
One woman who had two rigid hands from arthritis, we experimented on her hands rubbing pure progesterone onto the back of one hand and adding some olive oil with progesterone to the other hand.
And in less than an hour, she could flex and have normal function in the hand that had the olive oil added to the progesterone.
It accelerates the absorption that fast.
I have another cool report about Progest-E.
One of your clients, female clients, who's been buying these bottles for her mom who has dementia, she's in her late 80s, and urinary incontinence.
And she emails me once in a while asking about why taking progesterone orally irritates her mom's stomach.
And we discussed several other methods.
And I suggested that she try a drop in each nostril.
And apparently that worked tremendously well.
And her mom is now back and taking care of herself.
And the urinary incontinence is gone.
And apparently she can get by just by using a single drop in each nostril, which makes the bottle last for months.
Do you have any qualms or misgivings about nasal administration of Progest-E?
With any oil in your nose, you have to be careful with the quantity because if it gets high enough that it can rain down into your lungs, oil in your lungs is something you absolutely want to avoid.
It's only one drop in each nostril.
She said that's plenty.
And it immediately puts her to sleep.
She sleeps through the night without waking up, without being her pants.
And apparently now both problems, dementia and incontinence, are gone just by one drop in each nostril.
Ray, can you critique my approach?
So for the last few years, I've been taking like an eighth of a teaspoon.
So that's like, what, 50 milligrams of progesterone and then whatever, how much I've mixed in with DHEA.
And I'm putting it from my knee to my ankle.
And I'll put the olive oil on first.
Do you think that's too much for an average-sized knee to ankle leg?
No, but that's about what I use.
And would you ever use more than one-eighth on one leg?
Oh, if I have a sore elbow or something, yeah, I'll put maybe a quarter of a teaspoon on it with some olive oil and cover it from shoulder to hand.
Get as much in as possible, as quickly as possible to get rid of the inflammation.
In order to improve the absorption, do you think it helps to like thoroughly clean the skin with rubbing alcohol before that?
After a bath, it really is good if you can soak your skin so that the top layer of skin comes off.
And then I know I've asked you before, it might have been on that 2016 Safe Supplements episode,
but with progesterone, like obviously if you were putting whatever the amount was, whatever teaspoon, half teaspoon or whatever,
that would be very sticky, right? But that doesn't mean you're wasting it.
If it's sticky, you would just be using more of it. Is that right?
Well, if it's noticeably sticky, it's going to go under your clothes and bedding, and it doesn't do any good on your clothes and bedding.
It ruins them.
If you rub it thoroughly, you won't see any stickiness or shininess left.
And that means a good proportion of it is far enough into your skin that it's getting into the blood.
Okay, interesting. I just do this every day. That's why I'm asking you so many questions about it.
But you don't need that much olive oil because you couldn't, if you use a lot of olive oil and the progesterone,
it'd be just like a shiny, slick type of skin, right?
Yeah, just two or three drops of olive oil for a leg is enough.
Okay, that's extremely good to know. Do you have any other questions, Roger, or we can move on?
Okay, so we have questions. We have some good questions that I thought would be interesting to bounce off of you.
Did you want to talk about David E. Martin? I thought, you know, what is there to say about all this stuff that's going on that hasn't been said?
And watching his videos, I thought were extremely interesting.
You know, his evidence, his hardcore evidence-based approach with the patents.
Is there anything that needs to be said about his work and what he's found?
Yeah, some people worry about his credentials and background and the fact that he wears several big rings.
And he seems to have studied oratory from Bob Hope and Jack Benny.
When you watch his delivery of profoundly disturbing information, he does a Bob Hope or Jack Benny pause.
He's extremely effective, but you just have to accept that he isn't a medical professor.
Well, it seems like he was like a double threat because he understood the law.
And then, I mean, everything I heard him, I only watched one or two videos of him, but everything he said, he seemed like he understood the science as well.
Yeah, obviously, it's extremely bright.
Yeah. And then in one of the, I don't know how to say the guy's name, the Reiner Fulmike,
but he, when they were talking in German and then he said he understood what they were saying, I was like, "Oh, this guy's pretty smart."
But yeah, and then in one of those videos, he was talking about a quote that Georgi and I talked about last week from Peter Daszak, you know, that, I mean, I know there are a lot of smoking guns in this, but do you know what quote I'm talking about?
He says, "We need to increase the public." I mean, that seems really like a smoking gun almost.
Yeah, if we get the media to hype the pandemic, the investor money will follow.
Those people, Ralph Berrick, the germ warfare virus designer, has commented on how much money they're going to get from this work.
So public money is the basic motivator as well as whatever evil germ warfare is involved.
And then towards the end of that quote, he says, "We need to use the hype to our advantage to get to the real issues."
And so, like, the real issues being what Eric Schmidt is talking about and what we talked about a little before we went live, the destruction of the legacy, so-called legacy systems and people's livelihoods and not wanting to compete and playing the empire game.
Yeah, what Eric Schmidt outlined in detail in 2019 was happening to a considerable extent already in 2020 with many billions of dollars lost by common people, working people and small businesses collapsing all across the country.
And all of that wealth being concentrated in Amazon and the drug companies, a few billionaires getting huge multiplications of their wealth while the traditional economics of people working and having their businesses was collapsing.
Exactly what Schmidt said had to be engineered for the US to get ahead of China by developing artificial intelligence to do the work rather than an ordinary human-based economy.
I have a question about China. I mean, yes, it does some good things for its people, but it seems like their system is not much different at its core. It's still the same thing. It's using people as assets without much care and worry about the individual person or allowing them the freedom to expand and live their lives meaningfully.
Yeah, they are just better capitalists than their opposition. They're using capital in a fairly arrogant way, but they're helping to eliminate poverty in China, and that will increase the productivity of their population.
So it's going to be profitable to the people invested in their industry. So it's not at all anti-capitalist. But the good thing about them is that they don't have hundreds of military bases around the world.
So they can pour these resources, at least for now, into their people until they decide otherwise maybe one day.
Yeah, but they have a history of several thousand years of not going abroad to enslave people.
And Ray, I apologize. I know we talked about this before we went live, but it might be worth mentioning just for everyone. So there's a quote. I think it came from an interaction with you with somebody from November 2020.
And you guys had a few back and forths, and one of them was, "Since RNA vaccines haven't been used before, there's no way of telling in detail, but there's no doubt that general immunity will be seriously damaged.
Looking at the dismal results of vaccination campaigns so far, I think it could reduce world population by 80 or 90 percent."
And so I posted that, and I thought it sounded like some people were saying it might have even been fake. And so is there anything to clarify with that?
It could reduce the population. It could annihilate every last human being. It could kill off elephants and wombats as well. But we just don't know how deadly it's going to be. It's already killed 18,000 people in Europe, something like 10,000 in the U.S.
They keep changing the numbers from 6,000 to 12,000 and back to 6,000 at the CDC. Anyway, it's verified that it is killing thousands, but the biology of it indicates that it could keep killing not just the acute first days and weeks and months, but that damaged the immune system.
It's fairly likely to accelerate all of the inflammatory aging processes, and there are even the mechanisms. For example, the vaccine is known to concentrate in the ovaries, and if it transmits that ability to produce spike protein to the next generation,
then the weakening of the biology of the offspring could mean that the longevity of that generation is drastically reduced. And so over a period of a few generations, what they're doing now, you can't foresee that it isn't going to kill off the majority of the species.
Did you see the study about the women who took the vaccine in the first or second trimester had 88, more than 88 percent of spontaneous abortions?
No, I didn't see that, but the World Health Organization for years has been advocating giving flu vaccine to pregnant women, and the vaccine has adjuvants intended to create systemic inflammation, and it's firmly established in animals and humans that inflammation during pregnancy causes damage to the fetus,
all degrees of damage, brain damage and shape of the organs and so on. So what they've been doing in pregnancy is a large scale crime. Now for them to do this experimental treatment on pregnant women is just hard to believe.
As far as the vaccines, I know the mRNA vaccine can get incorporated into our DNA, and there's even a study that came out demonstrating that it's possible. What about the DNA vector vaccines like AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson? Is the damage, is the risk to them mostly related to the inflammatory state that they cause for a few months while that foreign DNA is in the body?
Yeah, what form is their DNA? Is it in a different virus or a constructed virus?
I think they're basically taking, I mean, the mRNA vaccine has a synthetic portion of the spike protein, right? Synthetically created. And the DNA vaccines, the vector vaccines, I think they have, again, a synthetic version of a spike protein different from the RNA vaccine, but it's encapsulated into a chimpanzee adenovirus, and that's what they're using it to get it inside of the cell.
So I know there's horizontal gene transfer, so there's still the potential for this getting to be incorporated in our tissues, but probably less so than the mRNA, right?
Well, if the RNA gets into the cell, the same thing can happen to it.
Okay, so it doesn't matter that it's a vector vaccine, it's still that foreign protein that it carries, that piece of spike protein, it can still get incorporated?
Last thing before we move on to questions here, and I feel like you can't state your hypothesis enough, you know, because so many people are getting into your work. But anyways, I posted something from your 1994 Generative Energy book, and it was "More life and more energy can solve many of the basic problems of life."
And then I put Albert Szent-Györgyi's quote, it's like an abridged quote, but "The more life does, the more life it is." Dot dot dot. "Life supports life. Function builds structure, and structure produces function." Dot dot dot.
And I, again, you know, it's the core to a lot of things you're talking about. Is there anything more to say about that that hasn't been said?
Yeah, in one of his simple experiments on rabbits, he showed that progesterone allows the heart muscle, and by implication, other smooth muscles, allows the heart muscle to build structure.
So the function, the more the heart functions, the better the structure is, permitting a more adequate pumping action.
Seeing a concrete version of what you just quoted from him, that progesterone facilitates that energy and function, builds structure, and structure enables better function.
I love it. Thanks for that. And then, Georgi, unless you have another question, we'll just move on to these questions that I pulled.
It's more of a, I mean, it's an article that I saw that came out this week. It's related to Einstein and, I guess, another house of cards collapsing.
As Ray, you know, Einstein said, he replaced the ether with the space-time continuum, and he said, "We don't need the ether. This space-time continuum can do everything that the ether could do."
And basically, it has no properties. And now they just came out with a proof that electromagnetism is a basic property of space-time, which means that, I guess, Einstein was not proven wrong, but that the idea of this abstract, empty space that somehow is devoid of properties,
and I think that kind of gave the impetus to the development of a lot of abstract reductionist theories in the 20th century, that seems to be now on its way out.
Yeah, and you know, the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't show a null effect. It showed something like a 20% drag effect of the ether.
And then, I think it was Morley and Mitchell, I think, did the follow-up work for many years, over and over, doing the original experiment, but in more and more refined ways, in basements and on higher mountains and so on, showing that the earth does drag an ether with it, affecting the velocity of light according to the direction the earth is moving.
And I think there's one that NASA commissioned in the '80s, which for some reason is not getting much publication. Well, maybe because it confirmed the ether again. It's by a physicist, I think his name is Silverlight. I don't know if you've heard of him.
But he was a staff NASA physicist, and apparently the guy that they went to when they wanted to debunk really controversial claims, and he confirmed the ether again, and NASA got really angry and said that the reason for his results was abnormal temperature in the room where he was conducting the experiments.
Yeah, and those follow-ups to the Michelson-Morley experiment, carefully controlled for temperature, because that had been brought out as a defense of the space-time thing. And they absolutely showed that the temperature wasn't involved.
Ray, have you ever heard that NASA stands for not a space agency? I heard somebody said they say that in the CIA, but whatever. Okay, so here are some questions. Some of these are pretty heavy, and so feel free to talk about as much or as little about any of these as you want.
Georgi, were you going to say something? No. Okay, I thought you were going to point with your hand. Okay, this one's from Green, and they say, "He has many nutritional, physiological tools to improve metabolism. What kind of personality changes can be made? What is a healthy way to look at the world, or what is an unhealthy way to look at the world?"
I think it's important to get pleasure from looking at the world. Intrinsically, the process of being involved and learning from the world gives pleasure. Insight is pleasurable. And the attitude towards the world, that it's a place to be dutiful and do your work, that is a less healthy approach to reality.
Everything should be more or less spontaneous and fun and intrinsically motivating to continue in that direction.
I have a question about this. If attitude is largely the result of what the world and the environment allows our health to be, shouldn't we be not forcing a particular attitude? If the environment is crappy and oppressing us, isn't it normal to feel down? Isn't it abnormal to try to force ourselves into positive thinking in such situations?
Well, not force, but to find the route to get to the different state where you aren't being oppressed by the world.
Okay. The reason I'm bringing this up is because I'm sure you've seen when they get these terminally ill patients, they're trying to improve their suffering by doing humor as a therapy. And I always thought, "What a bizarre situation. Here are these people dying from cancer, some of them children, and then there's this clown, literally a clown, in addition to the other clowns in white coats, trying to make them crack a smile."
And you can see that they're suffering, they're struggling to smile, and they don't want to be entertained. It's not entertaining, they're in pain. So in situations like that, it's more natural. I don't know. I guess you can find other ways to improve their lives instead of forcing them to be happy. That would be pathological, right?
Great stuff. I had another follow-up question that I don't remember what it was.
Anyways, okay. So this one's from MGAthlete. They say, "Ray has mentioned process theology before. Can you ask to expand on how he has arrived at that and his experience with religion/church in his life?"
Well, my experience of the world right from the beginning was that it was a process that I was involved in, the nature of my being and the nature of other beings. Everything was obviously an ongoing process in which all of the entities were actually processes, rather than having any fixed points of reference.
Other than as part of a general picture that you're putting together. And then reading William Blake when I was 18, I saw that his orientation was essentially similar.
And then Alfred North Whitehead, right around the same time, went into details and he gave that name "process and reality," which that orientation is now called either "process philosophy" or "process theology."
And it's in place of all of the theological apparatus. It sees universe as processes at every point.
And that view, is it heretical in a biblical sense? Or is there things that point towards that? How did Griffin arrive at that? How do you still be religious and believe the Bible with that? I'm not saying you do that, but it seems disconnected from the Bible that I'm aware of.
Yeah, Griffin, he was in a Bible school a couple blocks from the University of Oregon when I was in graduate school there. And he studied his way out of fundamentalism and found his way to that same viewpoint by studying Whitehead.
And just to be completely clear, when somebody asked you this, you said, "My view is closest to process theology." It wasn't process theology per se, correct?
No, I could call it Blakeian consciousness easily.
Isn't that similar in outlook to phenomenology? Basically that life is a consciousness with interaction with the world around it?
Yeah, and it depends on your definition of phenomenology. Husserl himself sketched it out as something that sounded just right to be aware of your awareness and essentially to feel yourself as a process within processes.
But then Husserl, for some reason, tried to reduce it to platonic reductionism. Very weird.
He became idealistic. Have you noticed that when your metabolism is at its best, you basically tend to, I don't know if it happens to you, but it happens to be, you tend to suspend judgment in regards to the events that you experience?
Yeah, because your thoughts are best when they extend and incorporate a large span of time. Only by suspending judgment can you fill up your consciousness with what it takes to support that perception and understand it.
Love that. Okay, this next question is from Phil Greaves. He says, "What does Ray think of Marx's scientific method and social revolution?"
Several Christians and capitalists have said Marx's science was very useful. For example, Nelson Rockefeller said he understood Marx as well as the leftist reporters he was talking to, but he used Marx's ideas to increase his power and wealth.
That's the nature of a science. Anyone can use it to do what they want to for good or bad purposes.
But where Marx got his ethical orientation was right out of Christianity. Christian communism and Christian socialism had been going on almost 2,000 years when Marx created a scientific understanding of why society is built the way it is.
But the way you use that scientific understanding, Rockefeller knew it could be good for him to understand society that way.
The thing I feel like we will get comments down below. I feel like people are going to say all this stuff is because of Marx. So what would you say to that?
All this stuff is what?
All this COVID stuff, like making people…
The BLM, Black Lives Matter, the riots, everything is driven by Marxist ideology.
Everything is Marxism and they're imposing it on us. What would your response be to that?
I don't see any connection at all. You could say it's the Rockefeller world controlling class, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers and World Economic Forum.
They might understand Marx and use Marx, but Marx had the ethics that you should not kill off billions of people.
Great stuff. And then have you ever heard that the Club of Rome, like the World Economic Forum is like an extension of Club of Rome? Have you ever heard that before?
Extension of what?
A Club of Rome, those people that…
Oh, Club of Rome. I think the same people were involved, definitely the same class purposes.
Yeah, nice. I thought that made the old elite history and the new stuff make a little bit more sense when somebody suggested that.
Thanks for that, Ray. Okay, so, and I won't keep you longer. We'll go another 25 minutes or so.
And I sincerely appreciate it, Ray, coming on here. It's always really special when you do that.
And Georgi Dinkov, my partner in crime, thank you so much. And thank you everybody for listening.
These are always so fun to do and we have such an amazing audience and you guys all make that possible.
So sincere appreciation on my part.
Okay, so this next question is from Michael and he says, "How much," he has a bunch of questions, but I picked the, "How much does intuitive thinking coincide with intellectual processing and why does intuition at times seemingly lead us to poor choices?"
Well, analysis and reasoning can lead to horrible outcomes. Intuition, the way it's different from simple reasoning, is that instead of starting with postulates and leading to logical conclusions, you're always open.
When you change your postulates, you have a flexible, open view of the world. That's an extreme, that's the process view of the world where you don't, you aren't committed to a formal, defined set of logical statements.
And you're constantly refining your hypothesis about the world. So it's open to change or the rational approach to the world.
You have to get someone to write new algorithms for you and the organism is absolutely not a bunch of algorithms. It's a process that is constantly revising itself.
Do you think one of the reasons for intuition leading sometimes to bad outcomes is because some people live in a world that's been deliberately engineered to disfavor such approach to life?
Yeah, it's trying to implant its doctrines and ways of reasoning.
And Ray, you maintain that, I don't know how to say this, but a pure type of intuition, an animal intuition, is altruistic in nature?
Yeah, that's one of the properties of either liberation theology or process theology or Marx's approach to understanding Marxism.
It's that you have to recognize that there is a reality to good and justice and evil and injustice. The nature of the world is that we are able to appreciate those differences.
Where the artificial intelligence type of rationalism makes no difference between good and bad, better and worse.
And not to beat a dead horse here, but that natural altruism or good nature, can that be overridden by lack of basic needs, do you think?
Yeah, by injuring the person or the animal.
Yeah, you've seen that study with the locust and the grasshopper, right? Where basically they simply injecting a grasshopper with a little bit of serotonin turns them, you know, they're usually they're gregarious, they're playful, they're curious, they're altruistic.
You inject a little bit of serotonin and then turn into cannibalistic homicidal beasts that devour everything on their path, including each other.
Thanks for that, you two. Appreciate it. Okay, I skipped over this one accidentally. This Macaroni Delta says, "Is the desire for revenge always serotonergic or can it have a place in a healthy person's psychology?"
Yeah, I think if you've been slightly injured, you have to process the damage that has been done. And at least mentally, you can think of getting revenge as restoring your wholeness.
It's a mental process of understanding why a person would injure you and incorporating that. You can have thoughts of revenge as part of the process of how to interpret that and go on without actually having to do destructive retaliatory things.
There was a study with prisoners of war in Vietnam and they found out that the ones who psychiatrically/psychologically did the best were the ones who fantasized about either escape or getting back at their captors but without acting upon it because the ones that did act upon it either got killed or for some reason, even when they were liberated or managed to escape, they did not do well health-wise.
They ended up with a post-traumatic stress disorder or something else, but the ones that didn't revenge but had vivid imagery of how they're going to pay back to their captors or escape, they seemed to do okay.
Yeah, that kind of mental imagery is part of a healing process, I think, activating your creative ability in a bad situation. It can involve some bad images, but when you do it, you can reconstruct yourself as a constructive, ongoing person with responsibility for improving things.
And it tends to happen when the person is isolated, right? Because normally they will talk to other people and process their trauma through others. But if you're in a prisoner camp, you don't have much opportunity to do that, so you're essentially replacing that with these vivid mental images.
This actually ties in with the process theology, right? Because in your Blake newsletter, you say the desire for vengeance comes with a delusive commitment to the world of memory. Virginity is constantly renewed in the world of the imaginative life.
While Blake said that you can't forgive someone until they stop hurting you, the desire to be forgiven indicates that there's an opportunity to resolve the problem.
Also, I think I detected what you said, if you understand the pathological nature of the person that's hurting you, does that alleviate the frustration of "why are they doing this?"
Yeah. Once, a cop was extremely unjust, and I thought intensely about that, and what a miserable person he was. But then, in the process of mulling it over for a few hours, I was able to put him in the context and see him as a victim who suffered.
Suffered from various pressures that caused him to become such a miserable thing.
Didn't Mark say that even if you take a serial killer and then you start digging through their life, especially as a child, you'll quickly go from very mad to very sad in regards to their persona?
So instead of hating them, you'll be like, "Wow, it makes total sense that a person would act that way."
Yeah, there are cases where a very bad cop or criminal has got out of that situation and sought forgiveness and realized what he had been doing and changed.
So that's a very Christian ethic, right? As long as you're willing to ask for forgiveness and willing to work to improve your life, then God will grant you forgiveness.
Yeah, and it's basically a good biological reflex. Healthy biology.
Would you agree with Alice Miller when she says, "Contempt is the weapon of the weak, and defense against one's own despised and unwanted feelings?"
Sounds right.
Yeah? And I think you replied to somebody about the development of these types of authoritarian automatons, and you suggested reading Alice Miller and Wilhelm Reich on how those people develop.
Great stuff. Go ahead.
No.
I have a related question. The theme of love is a very central theme in Christianity and many religions, if not all of them.
And many people intuitively feel that being in a relationship, in an intensely loving relationship on both sides, is extremely therapeutic and gives tremendous meaning to life.
What is the physiological underpinning to that, do you think?
Well, it was already incorporated at the time of Christianity. A few chapters in the Bible talk about that.
Reich, in his book "The Murder of Christ," quotes a lot from the Bible and creates a very different orientation from what you hear in a lot of sermons, a very biological, very Christian and ethical approach toward the world.
Right, but when somebody is in love or feels loved and accepted, do you think that the underlying mechanism is basically you're completely stress-free because the world, through this other human being, accepts you for who you are?
You don't need to pretend and do crazy things in order to be accepted.
Yeah, the primitive Christianity was historically, for a couple hundred years, that seemed to be the central theme. Love thy neighbor in a practical way.
Great stuff. You know, we won't go too much longer here. I'll let you go very soon, Reich. I sincerely appreciate it.
This one's from Mac, and they say, "Hi, Danny. I would love to hear more about how the mind affects biological processes, processes, however you say that, along the lines of mind and tissue.
I know you have spoken before about how a stimulating life encourages positive biological processes/processes, however you say that."
You know what I think they're talking about is when you said in "Mind and Tissue," when you go outside to an interesting place and the brain starts consuming tons of glucose and it's very stimulating? That's what reminded me of when I read this.
The way we think about the body and its organs, we've been indoctrinated to think in terms of substance and energy as different things.
Energy is what pushes matter around in space, but it isn't a factual description of matter and energy.
The body we experience is a unitary process, so the organs and tissues and cells and conscious experience are really all one substantial phenomenon.
Great stuff.
One substance in which energy is moving you as a whole. You don't have to think about the way your life is specifically working on cells and organs.
Great stuff.
I have a question about routine versus interest in life.
If you're doing something repetitive, wouldn't that give a signal to the cells in the brain that they don't need to produce as much energy through oxidative phosphorylation because it's the same thing every single time?
Eventually, they're kind of like traveling down their oxidative phosphorylation and may get rid of it altogether if all you're doing is the same thing over and over again.
Yeah.
You can't really do anything twice.
Like Heraclitus said, you're always changing.
If you're trapped in that kind of repetitive behavior, you either have to escape or go to sleep.
People tend to put themselves to sleep rather than escaping from pointless work.
Are you saying that the tendency to doze off and fall asleep when you're doing something boring, that's a normal physiological reaction to escape the energetic stress that this activity is causing?
I think so.
Okay. That's very interesting.
Would it be therapeutic if somebody's stuck at a job?
I know the best thing is to leave, right?
But if somebody's stuck at a job that they consider repetitive or routine or generally unfulfilling, would it be therapeutic to remind ourselves of what Heraclitus said?
You may think you're doing the exact same thing, but it's really not.
Every moment of your life is different from one second to the other.
Yeah. That's the process that should be happening.
I have to say, when I worked at Apple Retail, every moment seemed exactly the same, unfortunately, Georgi.
I don't know about that.
Okay. Awesome.
Two more here, and then we'll let you—I think Georgi has a question as well, and then we'll let you go here.
Okay, this one's about a tortured dog.
They say, "My dog was brutally tortured before I adopted him." S-R-A, I think it's satanic ritualistic abuse, I believe.
"How can I help him reset this trauma and live a normal life? After two years, he is still unable to relax or play."
I think lots of personal interaction, perceiving what he's experiencing, and giving him rubdowns and body pleasure, good massages,
rubbing his head and neck and ears a lot while paying close attention, trying to draw out little bits of pleasure that are there.
Amazing. Okay, we'll end with this last one. I don't know if you even understand this one.
He says, "What are Ray's thoughts on planes of existence beyond our physical world, such as the etheric and astral planes?
And if possible, how would your definition of energy coincide with this cosmological view?
If pure energy is the primordial essence of creation, is it confined solely to the physical world, or does it emerge elsewhere?"
I don't think there is any elsewhere. And part of those categories derive from thinking about matter as inert substance.
If you have a very metaphysical idea about what matter is, then you have to have an idea of what animates matter,
and so you get involved in separate energy and planes and so on. But there are all different levels of subtle interactions.
It isn't just the powerful energy that runs through us metabolically to maintain our structure,
but given that complex structure, our sensitivities increase in proportion to how well-structured we are.
And insects and probably dogs, for example, can detect at a distance a single vibrating molecule.
For example, a pheromone molecule can be at a distance and very spread out, but the infrared oscillations emitted by the molecule just sitting there
are strong enough to be sensed by insects. So the environment is constantly offering us information about itself,
and those levels of subtle energy interactions depend on our sensitivity to them.
And by tuning in, you can find out that our world is full of lots of information and messages that are ignored if you believe in inert matter and separate energy and so on.
Doesn't the idea of having a reality beyond this one ultimately lead to either one of these two paradoxes?
Either what the Church calls "creatio ex nihilo," which is something was created out of nothing, which to me is absurd,
or an infinite regression, which they call "reductio ad absurdum."
So as soon as you start talking about a world beyond this world, ultimately you'll end up in one of those two, with one of those two explanations.
And both of them are, to me, sound absurd, sound senseless.
Yeah, I think that line of reasoning is because we have been taught a certain doctrine about reasoning,
of Rene Descartes' idea of inert matter and consciousness, activating it and so on,
putting dualism or worse into the very definitions that you're working with.
You have to start looking at language as something that you can work with.
You don't have to accept what people tell you. It is built into reality of language.
So if we had higher rates of metabolism and we paid attention more, we could talk to Aphrodite the cat like you did?
I think everyone is open to that sort of communication.
It's just that the animals are always willing, but people live in their dream world of word consciousness.
Why do you think the second signal system evolved, Ray? I mean, it seems to be a largely pathological development in evolution.
I think it has practicality to make remote things something you can talk about,
rather than having to stay with the surrounding immediate reality that animals and people can talk about.
And maybe potentially pass down through the generations, like abstract information?
Yeah, remote in time or space.
Okay. But invariably, if it gets pushed to the extreme, it becomes quickly pathological, right?
Too much analytical thought, too much deductionism.
Very easily pathological.
Inferring people from about the age of five or six on participates in flowing mental perceptions.
Is there an easy or at least quick way to gauge in a particular society or country,
like how much of each system is at play on average in their population?
I mean, some countries have the stereotype of being extremely logical and analytical,
and others being primitive brutes, which to me is a euphemism for they're probably first signal people.
Yeah, I tried to do that when I was studying linguistics 60 years ago.
I tried to identify those traits of national identity and language differences.
So is it something that can be gleaned through from the language that a specific country or group of people uses?
I think so. I think the countries that have lost their grammar to some extent
have opened up their ability to receive messages in a more realistic and biological way.
So you're saying cultures with fewer grammatical rules in their language tend to be more open-minded?
I think so. That was what I was starting my linguistics thesis on.
In the economics world, they're saying that you can measure a country's freedom by the sheer number of laws it has on the books.
Do you think that's a good surrogate too? Basically, the more laws, the less free a country is?
Yeah, that's a reflection of how many laws are built into your language.
You don't have to have a written language, but that helps to turn it into a distracting country.
If you have a language that is more fluid, flexible, that lets you have better perceptions.
I'm going to close the show, Georgi. Do you have one more question?
No, I'm fine.
raypeatsnewsletter@gmail.com is available by email now. It's $28 US, which can be paid through PayPal at raypeats@gmail.com.
You can email the same newsletter to buy all of Ray's books in digital copy.
Can they get those in print as well?
Some of them are still in print.
Amazing. Progeste from Keenogen emailed Catherine. She just shipped me 12 bottles. She packages it extremely nicely.
Ray, is that film over the progesterone to protect it during the shipping process?
Yeah, to keep out maybe even x-rays to some extent.
That's what I figured. That's amazing that she does that.
Each bottle of Progeste contains 3,400 milligrams of progesterone.
Ray, thank you so much. Stay on the line. We'll chat. We'll let you go. Thank you again.
We have an amazing listenership. Sincerely appreciate these things. These things are so fun to do.
Georgi Dinkov, thank you so much for being my partner in crime.
And again, thank you, Ray, for all your work and everything you do. Sincerely appreciate it.
Have a safe weekend.
We'll talk to you guys soon.
OK, peace out, bye.
Okay. Peace out. Bye.