This free program is paid for by the listeners of Redwood Community Radio.
If you're not already a member, please think of joining us. Thank you.
It is 7 o'clock and 57 degrees outside.
This is Redwood Community Radio, KMUD Garberville, 91.1 FM, KMUE Eureka Arcata, 88.3 FM, KLAI Laytonville, 90.3 FM, and FM translator K258BQ Shelter Cove, 99.5.
We're also live and archived on the web at kmud.org.
And as usual, the views and opinions expressed throughout the broadcast day are those of the speakers and not necessarily those of this station, its staff, or underwriters.
Time will be made available for opposing and other viewpoints. Thank you for joining us.
And support for KMUD comes in part from Golden Dragon Medicinal Syrup, an anti-inflammatory, anti-fungal, antibacterial, antioxidant medicine made without heat or ice.
Golden Dragon Medicinal Syrup is organic, edible, topical, cosmetic, and water-soluble.
Information is available at goldendragonmedicinalsyrup@gmail.com and by phone at 707-1569.
And here comes "Ask Your Herb Doctor."
[Music]
Whoops, that wasn't the right song, Q-Def.
Let's try this one.
[Music]
Well, thank you, Michael. Welcome to this month's "Ask Your Herb Doctor." My name's Andrew Murray.
My name's Sarah Johannison Murray.
For those of you who perhaps have never listened to our shows, which run every Thu, Friday of the month from 7 to 8 p.m.,
we're both licensed medical herbalists who trained in England and graduated there with a degree in herbal medicine.
We run a clinic in Garboville where we consult with clients about a wide range of conditions,
and we manufacture all our own certified organic herbal extracts,
which are either grown on our CCUF certified herb farm or which are sourced from other USA certified organic suppliers.
So you're listening to "Ask Your Herb Doctor" on KMUD Garboville, 91.1 FM, and from 7.30 until the end of the show at 8 o'clock,
you're invited to call in with any questions, either related or unrelated to this month's topic,
very pertinent topic here, the misunderstandings in the approach to cancer treatment.
Once again, we're very fortunate to introduce Dr. Raymond Peat onto the show,
who has just done some recent work on a newsletter, amongst other things, following his interests, anyway,
in the approach to health in general and specifically the misunderstandings in cancer treatment.
So hopefully Dr. Ray Peat will be going over some of those mistakes and helping us to understand some of the misunderstandings
that we've been led to believe are the way to go ahead.
In the light of President Nixon's 1971 address to fight the war on cancer,
we've probably made no real advances in cancer therapy, unlike other diseases,
and cancer is almost the number one killer now, very close to cardiovascular diseases.
So Dr. Raymond Peat, thank you for joining us.
Once again, for those people who perhaps have never heard your name and what it is you've done and what you still do,
would you just give people an outline of your academic background?
Oh, I studied biology about 40 years ago at the University of Oregon,
and since then I've been doing my newsletter and writing books and occasionally doing seminars for medical people, mainly.
And over the years I've been thinking about the medical culture and what makes it so wrong.
When I was in graduate school in, I think it was 1968 or '69, we had a seminar on cancer biology,
and my part of it was the nature of carcinogenesis.
Each person had a segment of a cancer issue, and my part was to explain what things are carcinogenic and how they work.
I listed 50 different types of things that are carcinogenic, including inert objects embedded in the tissues,
distilled water, and psychological stress. The professors were a little annoyed, well, greatly annoyed,
because their whole point in doing the seminar was to work out the ways that mutations are carcinogenic.
They wanted me to talk about the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and causing mutations.
That was just one very small section of what I covered in the carcinogen section.
Since then, those biologists were still fairly in harmony with the medical view of cancer,
but since then, with the cloning and stem cell research of the last 10 years,
biology has strongly turned away from that understanding of cancer.
Those professors have retired, and I don't know what they're teaching now,
but the active research in cancer is more in tune with the biology of stem cells rather than mutations.
Do you think that's a more accurate approach to understanding cancer?
Oh, yeah. It was when I did that seminar, but I was just gathering up stuff that was 30, 40 years old at that time,
but it was still outside the academic preferences.
But since then, because of the big changes in the gene industry, they've looked for natural events to parallel their genetic engineering.
They've had to be open to people like Barbara McClintock, who showed that stress mutates corn plants and so on.
So that opened up the whole issue of psychological factors in the development of cancer
and how stress affects immunity as well as cancer.
Given that the current or the background of the 40 years up to the current point in time
have yielded very little in the way of promising approaches to cancer treatment
and/or survival rates post-surgery or treatment,
and given that there's a fairly large opinion that there is a conspiracy theory against people actually recovering and getting better
and that actually it's a huge multi-billion dollar industry that really wants to not actually find a cure so much
as just come up with new treatments that can be patented and money can be made,
would you explain perhaps what it is about the current or the approaches up until now that have yielded such poor results
and why that direction was chosen as a, you know, like excise the tumor and radiate the tissue when I know that you put such a lot of emphasis
on the damage that radiation can cause and how negative that can be also to lowering a patient's energy,
which is very important in their long-term survival?
Yeah, for decades people in the alternative health business have been asking that question,
how is it that doctors can forbid these experimental treatments to themselves or their family members?
If something really exists as an alternative, they would not let their relatives die or themselves,
but it's such a deep cultural thing that they really believe it.
They're trained in medical school in sort of a boot camp atmosphere
where they don't have time to get philosophical about what they're learning,
but they're drilled with these ideas of genetic determinism.
And it was only less than 200 years ago that it was discovered that people are made out of cells.
And a few years after someone discovered that people and animals are made of cells,
they discovered that cancer is made of cells.
And then with Pasteur and so on, the germ theory of disease came up
and the atomic theory of chemistry and physics and so on.
And everything fit into this being explained by the subunits that things are made of.
Right, it's kind of a reductionist approach.
And that happened to fit the idea that a cancer is made of bad cells,
some kind of difference in the cell.
When genetics came up just 100 years ago,
genetics was used to explain what's different about the cancer cells.
They're a special kind of cell explained by a mutated gene which makes them completely alien to ourselves
because they're genetically different right from the start.
They're different.
So it's like a new being has come into existence with cancer.
And the old tradition all the way back to the Greeks was to cut a tumor off
or burn it off with a corrosive or with hot sticks or whatever.
And so that line of medicine was being taught to people
and then they fit the idea of the alien cell into that tradition of cutting something out.
And it was perfectly reinforcing.
It was something that is not part of us that has to be eliminated, otherwise it will kill us.
And at the same time, other people were studying metabolism and physiology
and trying to understand how an embryo turns into an adult
and seeing that there are fields governing the relationship of one cell to another in the developing embryo.
Like electromagnetic fields?
Well, including electrical gradients, but chemical fields, they didn't define the field.
They just saw that a thing had an influence on its environment.
And you would cut a piece of an embryo or even an adult animal
and then you could see a wave of cell division spread out over the next hours
and a ring around the entry.
As a kind of messenger system or just a reaction?
Well, some kind of a communication that the injured cells would send out something
that would cause the first one row of cells and then the next one to divide to replace the injured cell.
And this idea of embryological developing fields and injury fields, it was partly electrical.
The injured cells were found to produce a negative electrical charge
and that helps to organize molecules and it probably involves even light emission from cell to cell
as part of the field process.
And the idea of a cancer field was being demonstrated in the 1930s and '40s
along with this field idea of developmental biology.
And they would show that if you found, say, a definite cancer in a piece of the intestine,
if you examined circumference rings around the cancer itself,
you would find progressing away from that degrees of abnormality,
grading off to normal through inflammation and different degrees of deterioration
until finally it would be outright cancer at the center.
So the idea of a field and gradients of trouble were all the way through biology.
But as soon as the molecular revolution came about with a great push from the government
and the DNA doctrine started being used to explain everything,
they said that information comes only from the gene to the expressed individual cell.
The body is only a mortal product of the immortal reproducing genetic material.
So that when virologists demonstrated that there were reverse transcriptases
that made it possible to have an RNA virus, my professors wouldn't believe it
because they said information only comes from the gene and the organism is a passive product.
They would say you're going to be a Lamarckian if you say that we can have RNA viruses.
But since then this whole change in biology has happened,
and medicine is still stuck on the idea of the alien mutated clone of different cells.
So it's like the argument between Louis Pasteur and Antoine Bechamp.
Louis Pasteur was saying that it's the bug that is the problem,
and Antoine was saying no, it's the toire of the system,
the environment of the cell or the body that determines whether or not an animal or a human gets an infection with a bad bug.
Didn't they have that rival their entire life?
And then finally on Louis Pasteur's deathbed he admitted to Antoine that really he was right,
it was the toire of the body.
Yeah, but medicine didn't --
Agree.
-- acknowledge it.
Louis Pasteur had already done the damage.
Yeah, and by the time the DNA molecule became stylish,
medicine had just totally locked itself into that way of seeing things.
And at that same time, interestingly, 1950,
I think it was Reader's Digest where I saw the article about a man who was injecting cancer
into hundreds of prisoners in Ohio and hundreds of his patients at the cancer clinic in New York.
And he found that if he injected the cancer into a sick person,
it wouldn't be thrown off immediately the way it was in a healthy person.
And if he injected it into a person who already had cancer, it would sometimes persist as long as they lived.
And so he said there's something in the body that either favors cancer or resists it and destroys it.
Right.
But --
The healthy subjects would basically get on top of it straight away pretty much.
Yeah, that happened to basically be suppressed by the molecular biology that at that time didn't want to accept
that the body made the decision whether to let cancer grow or not.
Well, were they wanting just cancer to just be something that we have -- that our bodies had no control over?
It was just because of our defective genes.
Yeah, once one cell becomes mutated, the doctrine says that it produces a clone.
All of the offspring are going to be essentially that cell, which is no longer you.
And you have to destroy it or it will destroy you.
And when you actually look at cancers, they're very often polyclonal and full of even different numbers of chromosomes.
The inflammation field at its worst is cancerous.
Within the cancer, there are zones of bad and worse.
And as the cancer progresses, it gets more genetic deviations and chromosomes are falling apart and so on because it's under such stress.
But several people have analyzed the cancer more closely and have found that tissue can be perfectly normal and still functioning
and contain more than a thousand mutated genes.
And a typical cancer has hundreds, if not thousands, of mutated genes before it starts going bad.
And 40 years ago, people were demonstrating they had been storing bits of cancer tissue in deep freeze.
And when they would bring them out and thaw them to grow in culture, sometimes they would use a solvent like the MSO or dimethylformamide
or even some more biological things, butyrates and so on.
And they found that what had been cancer when they put it in the deep freeze,
if they brought it out and thawed it in the presence of one of these somewhat structuring solvents,
it would revert to a normal tissue and not be cancer anymore.
And around that time, someone took parts of tumors from two different colors of hamsters,
I think black and white or orange and black, so they could be distinguished.
But they were just tumors, and they isolated cells from each of the tumors and mixed them with cells from a normal embryo.
And the developing embryo would normalize what had been tumor cells,
and you would produce a perfectly normal hamster, black or red or whatever,
showing that it had some of its inheritance from a tumor,
which, given the right environment, was able to produce a perfectly normal hamster.
So that's disproving the genetic abnormality theory that cancers are a defective gene,
because if you can inject a cancer cell into a growing embryo --
Yeah.
You'd think it would be cancerous.
Yeah.
And Harry Rubin and Anna Soto and Carlos Sonenshine, I think his name is,
have been making that point that the organism really is, for most of the life of the cancer,
the organism is in control, and at some point, the organism loses control,
and that's when it becomes a functioning cancer.
Okay.
Before we carry on, let's just let people know what's happening.
You're listening to Ask Your Herb Doctor on KMED Galbraith 91.1 FM.
We've got Dr. Raymond Peat on the show with us,
and he's talking about the empirical approach to cancer
and how things are changing in the field of biology, thank goodness.
My name is Andrew Murray.
And my name is Sarah Johanneson Murray.
Okay, so if you live in this area, the number to call in from 7.30 to 8 p.m. for phone-ins is 923-3911,
or if you live outside the area, the toll-free number is 1-800-KMUD-RAD.
So, Dr. Peat, carry on with what you were saying about the environment
and how this is changing the way that modern biologists are looking at cancers.
And also, sorry, Dr. Peat, before you get started there, I don't want to interrupt you later,
but also what can we do to help create an environment in our body that will be preventing cancers
so that if they aren't just defective genes and there's nothing, it's completely outside of our control,
that's a bogus theory, then what can we do to help prevent cancers from thriving in our bodies?
Well, getting away from that idea that it's a random mutation,
the alternative is to realize that everything you're doing is either anti-carcinogenic or carcinogenic.
For example, if you avoid sunlight or put on sunscreens because you are afraid of getting skin cancer,
the avoidance of sun is very carcinogenic.
They just said in England, a report came out just the other month, I think January,
that the appearance of rickets is becoming more and more prevalent
because people are using sun factor 50 on their children in an attempt to protect them from skin cancers
and actually they're getting rickets again now.
So that was quite shocking news.
I know in England now the wave takes a little time to travel from the West Coast here in America over to England,
but they're all making sure that vitamin D and calcium are being consumed
and that people are encouraged to get healthy doses of sun.
Anyway, I didn't want to put that in too much.
Just for our listeners to understand that, rickets is a disease where your kid becomes knock-kneed.
A vitamin D deficiency.
Yes, sorry, a vitamin D deficiency where your knees are--basically it's a bone deformation
and your bones don't form properly and knock-kneed is kind of a common symptom of it.
Am I right in saying that?
It's a knock-kneed deformity?
It can go bow-legged too.
Right, both ways.
Anyway, I thought that was quite interesting, so I'm sorry to interrupt you.
Boys are more likely to be bow-legged and girls knock-kneed because of the thyroid influence causing the joint to deform in different directions.
That's interesting.
It isn't just the vitamin D. The penetrating light--for about 50 years now, people have been studying the effects of red light.
One of the--probably the basic effect of penetrating red light is to activate the respiratory enzyme.
The mitochondrial oxidase enzyme is restored by red light and it's pretty well destroyed just by 12 to 15 hours of darkness in rabbit experiments.
So the reason mortality goes up at the end of winter is because nights are longer in the winter.
With using lasers or incandescent lights or sunlight, it doesn't matter what kind of light you get that penetrates you,
red light will go all the way through your body without a terribly great intensity, but sunlight is very good.
Even intermittent exposure over a period of 12 to 15 hours of good bright light will pretty well restore the energy-producing enzymes in the mitochondrion.
And this enzyme is the crucial thing that makes a difference in cancer.
Harburg, 1929, demonstrated that cancer differs metabolically from healthy cells in being able to turn glucose into lactic acid,
even in the presence of oxygen, because something has gone wrong with the mitochondrion in its use of oxygen.
All that you have to do to create the metabolism is to knock out the cytochrome oxidase enzyme.
And that happens to be a very fragile enzyme that Harburg was studying.
He didn't finish the explanation of how it works, but he was the one that showed that cancer is a metabolic disease, not a genetic disease.
Everything that is carcinogenic happens to weaken the function of that crucial enzyme, so that the wrong kind of fat in the diet,
the wrong balance of estrogen to progesterone, a deficiency of thyroid hormone, or the wrong kind of radiation, ultraviolet or x-rays,
will destroy that as far as they can reach it.
Ultraviolet only affects the skin, so the sunlight is still unbalanced because the red light restores the enzyme that ultraviolet is destroying.
If you avoid sunburn, the sun is going to be a pure benefit.
So, especially this time of year when it's much easier to get more sun without burning,
are you talking about intermittent exposure, like you said, over a 12-hour period in a day?
Yeah, ideally, from animal experiments, this enzyme tends to get damaged just by eight hours of darkness.
So, we shouldn't be in total darkness for longer than it takes to sleep.
Another question is these low-energy light bulbs, those vary from incandescent bulbs?
Those little fluorescent things are going to cause an epidemic of cancer.
Right, so basically the red light is coming from incandescent bulbs only and sunlight.
Yeah, and the incandescent bulbs have to be several hundred watts to really be protective.
So, I know you've recommended for people that have office jobs to have 250 to 300 watts of light from an incandescent bulb shining over their workstation,
but how much of their skin would you recommend that they have exposed to that 300 watts?
As much as possible, but for people with brain disease and motor neuron disease and such,
just shining it on their neck and head and back if possible, that's the crucial thing.
But getting the whole body exposed is really the best thing,
because even though your feet, parts covered up with clothes, aren't going to be exposed,
you're sending remedial signals through your nervous system that help to stabilize those enzymes and cells that aren't getting the direct light exposure.
But ideally, we should have light exposure all over.
Right, so bald men with short hair are going to get more if they work in an office than a woman with long hair covering her neck, basically.
So, the more skin exposure, the better.
Okay, so in terms of inflammation, we all hear and I think we all pretty much understand that inflammation is not a good thing.
The body does everything it can to keep inflammation down.
Given that inflammation, not necessarily be understood in terms of heat inflammation, but irritation that just causes an inflammation,
that inflammation is a very important part of cancer progression, isn't it?
Yeah, everything that is stressful promotes inflammation.
Right.
Even things like hives.
Okay.
Some people get hives just from getting cold or from exercising or from not eating soon enough.
Just dropping your blood sugar works the same as cutting off the oxygen supply.
It keeps that crucial oxidative enzyme from getting the energy from the glucose and the carbon dioxide which should be produced from burning the carbohydrate.
And in the absence of sugar, oxygen, or carbon dioxide, that enzyme is going to fail and that causes the cell to produce lactic acid defensively.
The lactic acid then triggers chain reactions, causes fat to break down, and if you have eaten unsaturated fats, that's going to produce the prostaglandins
which cause chain reactions of more inflammation, more lactic acid production.
One thing leads to another, but basically it's keeping your energy up so that you can oxidize, respire to produce energy efficiently.
So frequent meals, small frequent meals will help to prevent that chain reaction of inflammation.
We do have a caller on the line, so let's take this first caller.
Actually, I'm asking the question for them because it was simple and combined with another one, which is,
what about red LEDs, tanning beds, and far infrared saunas?
Red LEDs are demonstrated to reverse many of the changes of cancer.
They're being used to treat cancer experimentally, but lasers, incandescent light, and sunlight, as well as LEDs, activate that enzyme very efficiently.
Most of the work has been done with the 630, I think it is, helium neon laser frequency or the LEDs in that range, but between 600 and 700 nanometers wavelength,
the light is restorative to that.
So how about a far infrared sauna?
There is some benefit from some of the, mostly around 700 to 800 nanometer wavelength, but just the heat is beneficial,
but the really specific restoration of that crucial enzyme happens in the far red or from orange to red spectrum.
So the far infrared is too far.
And then a tanning bed would be just pure ultraviolet with no beneficial and therefore harmful, correctly?
Well, yeah, basically you're getting your vitamin D, but without the protective red and orange light,
they're going to have a slight immune suppressive effect.
Because your white blood cells run through your skin, they're subject to a slight sunburn themselves.
So until you get so tanned that your white blood cells aren't exposed to ultraviolet, it's better to get your suntan in the real sunlight.
Okay, you're listening to Ask Your Hub Doctor, KMED Galbraithville, 91.1 FM.
And from now until 8 o'clock, you're invited to call in with any questions, either related or unrelated to this month's topic of the approach
and the misunderstandings in the approach to cancer.
So Dr. Raymond Peat's joining us and we're live.
So Dr. Peat, getting back to excitation, cell excitation and cancer.
We normally look at an excited state of a cell to be a beneficial state, correct?
Well, I mean energetically, sorry.
The energized cell is really relaxed.
If you imagine your muscles that are ready to work, they're soft and flexible and have energy reserves so that you can do a lot of work with them.
But if you work to fatigue, they swell up and start tending to cramp.
That's because the presence of adequate energy relaxes nerves and muscles and other cells.
And if you are deficient in the production of energy because your mitochondrial enzyme is impaired
or because your thyroid is low and not activating that enzyme system,
it doesn't take much stress to de-energize the cell.
And just like your muscle that you overwork, the cell that has had more stimulation than it can meet with its energy production,
that cell is going to swell up just like a tired muscle.
And in that state, it's releasing lactic acid and histamine and prostaglandins.
And in the case of an overworked muscle, it's usually just that your muscle is sore for a couple of days.
But if you're chronically low energy, not getting enough light, exposed to things that are impairing the respiratory enzymes,
then you're going to be susceptible to, in various tissues, a breast or uterus or liver or kidney or brain that is experiencing hormonal or nervous or other stimulus.
Mild chemical toxins, for example, will stimulate and excite cells.
And if you're near that threshold where your cell is barely producing enough energy to return to its relaxed state,
it's going to shift over to glycolysis and produce lactic acid.
And the lactic acid then sets off chain reactions that make the swelling worse.
So is that basically how you would describe a seizure and someone having a seizure as well?
Yeah.
The cell's over excited, it's too excited?
Yeah, and it can't relax. A cramp is the same thing.
Right. So a truly energetic cell is a perfectly relaxed cell.
Yeah. And a lot of people, if they tend to have seizures, they're more likely to have seizures at night
and more likely to get cramps at night because in the darkness, our respiratory enzymes are gradually being impaired.
And so we're closer to the threshold where excitation can't be turned off by producing energy.
Okay. Moving on to perhaps a controversial point, I think that most people don't understand correctly,
but looking at a cancer directly, if somebody gets a diagnosis of cancer
and they haven't actually had any surgical intervention, but they've been visualized as having a tumor somewhere,
what's your understanding of the rationale that cutting into or around that area or biopsying is actually pretty dangerous?
Well, just the evidence.
Yeah.
It's very seldom been looked at, but a professor at the University of California about 60 years ago
compared people who declined medical treatment and those who got the best available
and they lived longer if they declined the treatment.
And there have been a few other little studies like that.
There's a website, a man named Gershom Zajacek, Z-A-J-I-C-E-K,
who gives some of the evidence for how cutting out a tumor activates metastases that had been sitting harmlessly.
And there's quite a lot of evidence for that.
Even some doctors, you can find people on the Internet, professors who are acknowledging that cutting out a tumor
very often causes metastatic growths to spring up.
And there have been published studies on that showing that people get recurrences much sooner if they have surgery than if they don't.
Okay. We do have another caller on the line, so let's take this next caller. You're on the air.
Hello.
I'll follow up on that last. How about the cutting out of polyps during routine colonoscopies?
Do you have comments that you care to make about that? And I'll take my answer off the air.
Thank you so very much.
Thank you for your call.
I think that's pretty harmless.
In fact, I think polyps, if you didn't look for them, I think they would fall off by themselves.
And so I think cutting them off the body doesn't really notice that much has happened because they aren't deeply entrenched.
They're ready to fall off all by themselves.
And what about the cutting off of moles?
That's one of the things that's well established to cause others to pop up.
Zajacic talks about that on his website.
Would you just, I think most people that are listening now would probably want to be scribbling down this name again.
So I know it's pretty ethnic European or whatever, but would you spell the name out again?
Yeah, the last name is Z-A-J-I-C-E-K.
Okay.
The initial is G.
Okay, good.
So people can go and check him out on the internet and Google search him.
Okay, so intervention in terms of what you're saying so far, that the body itself, when it is energy depleted,
either from poor diet or radiation exposure or environmental damage, toxins in pesticides
or just poor air quality or living in buildings that don't have access to fresh air and sunlight.
It's all a way of dragging the organism's energy down to a point where the body can lose the battle against things
that are slowly being incorrectly formed but normally get dealt with.
And in the presence of enough metabolic energy, that kind of thing doesn't ever allow itself to become overwhelmed.
Yeah, and I think the idea of the bystander effect that they've been seeing in vitro studies with cancer cells,
for 50 years they believed that radiation caused cancer because it mutated the gene by radiation hitting DNA and breaking it.
But in the last 10 or 12 years, they've noticed that if you irradiate cells in a dish and then take those cells out
and put new cells in the dish, the new cells mutate.
Or if you mutate one cell with a beam of radiation, it sends out substances like serotonin and nitric oxide and carbon monoxide.
Just the same way the fish did the same thing.
Yeah, that will mutate other cells.
And in your body, that same thing happens.
You don't have to mutate a cell by a gene by hitting it with radiation.
You just have to stress it with these substances that are emitted so that your whole body is experiencing bystander effects
going in all directions.
A study in Seattle found that a set of dental x-rays would cause a pregnant woman to have an underdeveloped baby,
even if they shielded her abdomen with heavy lead aprons.
It was the bystander effect from what was happening to her face and brain from the dental x-rays poisoning everything else in her body.
We do have another caller on the line, Dr. Peat.
So let's see this. Let's hear this next caller.
Actually, he was shy. So I'm asking, what about Taxol?
I don't know what.
Talk about Taxol, please.
I think it has some anti-inflammatory effects, which I think probably account for the good it does.
But there are some less toxic things that I think do more good.
So Taxol is from the yew tree.
Yeah.
It's a compound from the yew tree.
I think there are probably about a thousand herbal compounds, anti-inflammatory things.
Could you comment on the Essiac formula?
I don't know it specifically, but I'm sure it has some of those same anti-inflammatory effects.
Yeah. It also has a lot of liver herbs in it, so that helps your liver clear excess hormones,
like you mentioned, if you have an imbalance between estrogen and progesterone.
I'm imagining that due to the improved liver function, you'd be clearing more waste from the system and excess hormones.
Let's not ignore the estrogen, which you've also implicated as a big cause of inflammation.
And just coming back to inflammation, and it always comes back to inflammation,
that that is the major cause of any mutation arising.
Yeah. I mentioned that the crucial respiratory enzyme is protected by progesterone and inactivated by estrogen.
But one of the oldest bystander effects known, at least 50 years ago,
they discovered that if you irradiate any part of an animal, it'll go into heat as if it had been given a shot of estrogen.
It can be its foot or its head or any part, but the bystander substances spread out,
and any inflammation activates the aromatase enzyme, which makes estrogen.
So in studies of monkeys trying to measure the output of estrogen from its ovaries,
they found that its arms were producing at least as much estrogen as the ovaries.
Wow. Amazing.
So a person isn't protected against estrogen just because they have menopause or have had ovaries removed.
Every part of your body that's irritated or stressed or depleted of energy is going to become an estrogen factory.
And that's in men and women. But we do have another caller here.
Actually, another shy person.
So assuming you were going through chemo and radiation and you were excreting those from your body,
what danger is that to people around you?
They're starting to recommend that people who are taking radioactive iodine as a thyroid treatment not fly or ride on buses
because they're irradiating people around them.
Goodness. Wow.
So what about like if someone's having radiation for lymphoma?
If you get it at the factory, it's not going to hurt anyone else. It's just going to hurt you.
It would just have to be like the radioactive iodine that people might take.
They actually have that in their system and they're radioactive.
Yeah.
Okay.
Do you have any comments to make on metastases of cancer that haven't been surgically intervened with
and how that metastasis would occur?
Oh, well, they're great for business because now they're saying that maybe breast cancer starts in utero.
First they were saying if you cut off the breasts when a woman is 20, she can't get breast cancer.
True. But now they're saying that maybe that's even too late for some cases that it might have really started in infancy or before.
Wow.
And so the idea of metastatic little aliens, it's a tremendous business because you can never prove they aren't there.
And if you injure a person enough, you're going to find some even if they weren't there.
Wasn't there a study done that showed like over 90% of people that were over the age of 50, correct me if I'm wrong, Karen.
100%.
100% of people over the age of 50 that died in accidents or had autopsies done, they all had some form of abdominal cancer?
Yeah, that was what Harry Rubin was told by a pathologist friend of his.
But since then there have been a couple of similar studies that even looking at people over 35, they find a very high percentage of them.
If you look at just two or three organs, breast, uterus, prostate, very likely to find cancer in a high percentage.
But by the age of 50, everyone can have it diagnosed.
So I think that means be careful about getting a diagnosis.
Dentists a couple of times when I was about 30 or so told me with a very grave expression that I had a precancerous leukoplakia
and I should have it biopsied.
But since I had already experienced that lumpy development inside my cheeks whenever I was deficient in vitamin A,
instead of going to a cancer specialist and having a biopsy, I took vitamin A.
Each time a dentist told me that, I cured it in a week.
And then since I knew that leukoplakia of the cervix is biologically almost indistinguishable from leukoplakia inside the cheek,
I told women who had the --
Abnormal pap snares.
And biopsies showing so-called carcinoma in situ.
I told them about that and they tried applying vitamin A topically and such.
And I kept track of three dozen women who had that experience.
All of them told their doctors when they went back two or three months later with no evidence of abnormality.
Doctor lost out.
Good hysterectomy.
But the doctors in every case didn't want to know what they had done.
Wow.
Okay, so you've mentioned vitamin A before, haven't you, for cervical --
well, people when they get told they have cervical dysplasia.
The sources of vitamin A are eggs and liver.
I mean, there is beta carotene, but that then relies on a conversion.
And that conversion, Dr. Peat, you're saying is not very efficient between beta carotene and vitamin A?
Yeah, if you're deficient in either thyroid hormone or vitamin B12, you don't convert it.
From beta carotene into?
Into vitamin A.
Okay, well, I know we've got three minutes left, so we're getting close to the top of the hour.
And we need to make sure that we're done by 8 o'clock.
So let's spend the next couple of minutes just letting people know a little bit more about you, Dr. Peat,
and how you can be contacted.
I know that you've in the past always been willing to let people know that your website exists and that they can visit that.
There's lots of articles that are fully referenced,
lots of kind of brain-stretching articles that help you think about things that we've been brainwashed into believing are happening one way,
and see them in a different way.
It's always a very good exercise to see more than one side of any particular argument.
So Dr. Peat's website is raypeat.com, R-A-Y-P-E-A-T.com.
And he's also just said that we can give out his e-mail address, folks.
So people would like to contact Ray Peat.
They have the option to the first time in, oh, two and a half or three years.
Well, you could contact him through his contact page on his website.
No, I took that off because I was getting too many book orders.
Okay, good.
Okay, well, listen, folks.
It's supposed to be good.
Dr. Raymond Peat's e-mail address, if you want to shoot him any questions, it's R-A-Y-P-E-A-T@gmail.com.
So raypeat@gmail.com.
Good luck, Dr. Peat.
Okay.
You're probably going to get lots of people contacting you.
If you live inside -- gosh, what are you pointing that for?
Okay.
Anyway, so we've got two minutes to go before the end of the show.
We're very nearly there.
So we can be reached toll-free on 1-888-WBM-ERB for any other questions during normal business hours, Monday through Friday.
Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Peat, and sharing your wisdom.
People can go visit his site, raypeat.com.
And his e-mail address is raypeat@gmail.com.
So until next month.
Until March 16th.
Thank you for listening.
Good night.
[END]
And support for KMUT comes in part from Golden Dragon Medicinal Syrup,
an anti-inflammatory, anti-fungal, antibacterial, antioxidant medicine made without heat or ice.
Golden Dragon Medicinal Syrup is organic, edible, topical, cosmetic, and water-soluble.
Information is available at goldendragonmedicinalsyrup@gmail.com and by phone at 707-223-1569.
It's 759 and 56 degrees outside.
You're listening to Redwood Community Radio, KMUD Garberville, 91.1 FM, KMUE Eureka Arcata, 88.3 FM,
KLAI Laytonville, 90.3 FM, and FM Translator K258BQ Shelter Cove, 99.5, live and archived on the web at kma.org.
Get ready to get funked up with Cousin Mark coming up right now.
[MUSIC]
Please remember that this program is supported by the listener members of Redwood Community Radio.
If you like what you hear, please consider becoming a member of KMUD or renewing if you've already joined.
A regular yearly membership is $50, but we accept any amount.
Help us keep free speech alive.