Paused at 0:00.
[Music] Hello and welcome to Primitive Initiative Podcast. Today our guest is Dr. Ray Peat. We'll be talking about his origins, Lamarck, novel events, radiation, plus some question and answers. Hello. Hello, Dr. Peat. This is Ozan. Yes, hi. How are you? Very good. Great. Well, it's an honor to speak to you, and you've just helped so many of my friends and family that this is going to be a great opportunity to get some of their questions answered and some of my questions answered. Initially, I just kind of wanted to start out
with you giving your history and background a little bit for those people who might be new to your work. A lot of the people who will be listening will be quite familiar. But just in case, I want them to kind of have an idea of who you are and how you came to be the person that you are. Okay. In my scenes, I was interested in painting, and in college I extended that interest to literature and got extremely very interested in literature as a way of understanding human consciousness and history.
And so, several years of working in painting directed my attention to the process of perception and empiricism, the process of understanding a subject so that you can represent not just like a snapshot, but the implications of a thing in its setting and literature was another way of getting that same kind of knowledge. And I was interested in the sciences, but this was in the late '40s and '50s. And at that time, science, biology, was in an extremely dogmatic condition. Historians of science don't represent what was going on very well. But after the Second World War,
there was basically a purge in the sciences. In 1947, for example, all of the remaining Lamarckian biology teachers in universities and high schools lost their jobs. Linus Pauling was involved because one of his students and friends worked at the Oregon State University teaching biology. And he was fired because he published a little statement confirming that there was scientific value in some of the Lamarckian studies. And as a result, Linus Pauling wouldn't have visited his alma mater for conferences or anything for more than 15 years after that event.
So it was something that really was in the culture, but it just didn't get into our history books as something that happened. But I recognized that biology had become totally dogmatic by the late '40s. And so even though that was a major part of my interest in understanding how perception works and how the organism interacts with the world and everything that does understanding history and intending new things and so on, I decided against studying biology academically because of that extreme dogmatism. So I found more empiricism in literature and painting.
And it happened that I began studying linguistics as an area that I thought could use scientific principles to get at everything that language does. And so I went to graduate school to work on a PhD in linguistics. And at the same time, I got a job at a college that assigned me to teach an introductory biology course intended for -- well, introductory physics intended for biology majors. And so that was relevant to my interest, but I was doing it at the same time as studying linguistics
and so thinking about how science can be applied to language in the mind and how physics is relevant to the study of biology. And seeing, at that time, a teaching job was 1959 to '60. And at that time, the world of physics had been also taken over by dogmatic people who denied that there were interactions, basically, between ionizing radiation and organisms. The atom bombs were being tested, and the government didn't want interference with bomb testing. And so they revised and classified and hid all of the relevant evidence
about the harm that X-rays and nuclear radiation from fallout thought it was actually doing. And so I thought that even in something that should require absolute empiricism, nuclear physics, that the science was being censored and shut down and redirected right around that time. A little later than that, John Gosman, who was a major apologist for the government, he was the pioneer in studying cholesterol and atherosclerosis, and he was involved in identifying nuclear isotopes. So he was an insider in both physics and medical biology. And he was the government's mouthpiece for saying that radiation,
we don't know that radiation will damage future generations or cause epidemics of cancer and dementia and so on. So we shouldn't interfere with bomb testing and similar arguments from being made. We don't know that X-ray pregnant women will cause leukemia in babies, so don't interfere with the useful X-ray procedures. So the precautionary principle was considered the greatest evil for science. All of those influences made me realize that education had to be freed from those pressures if the government says you can't teach or even consider Lamarckian biology or the dangers of radiation on the organism.
Then I decided that it would be possible to create a new kind of college in which teachers and students didn't depend on trustees and established institutions. So I went to Mexico and started a college basically for American students, but both Mexicans and Americans, students participated. And after doing that for several years and then I decided that I really needed access to laboratory equipment to proceed with my interests in both linguistics and other parts of biology because linguistics rests on brain function. Brain function rests on cell metabolism.
And so to advance, I decided that I would study for a biology degree, PhD, concentrating on brain research. So I enrolled at the University of Oregon in 1968 and immediately found that both cell biology was continuing down this dogmatic line of the idea that genes determine the organism that they are the brains of the cell. And the brain biology professors were the worst of the dogmatists. So I looked around and found the other end of the organism, the reproductive process starting from single cells
and forces involved in developing a full organism and brain from a single cell. So it was a way of looking at the whole picture of what I wanted to understand. And this happened that the least dogmatism in the whole science area happened to be in reproductive biology. It was a very low status area of the department. And so I did my dissertation on the metabolic oxidative changes occurring with aging in the reproductive system, especially the female system. And that put me in the position of knowing useful things about endocrine system
interacting with the environment, nutrition, and so on. And that led to doing nutritional counseling, which I've continued more or less for 50 years since then. That's amazing information. I think everything that you said is so applicable to today because there's so many forces putting roadblocks for people from going in the direction that they want to go with their research and their pursuit for truth. But I think, as you said, when there's a roadblock presented to you, you just got to find a different avenue to communicate what you want to communicate.
Because when you look at the body as a whole, you can find multiple areas to say what you want to say. You don't have to look at it in the specialty model that we have today where you've got to go to the ear, nose, and throat if there's something wrong with your nose and throat. It's much better to look at it, like you mentioned, in a holistic approach, kind of the Lamarckian theory of evolution where you consider everything that surrounds the organism, and it seems like everything today is trying to go against,
or the current paradigm, even discussing how much impact the environment has on the development and performance of an organism. It's kind of frustrating. So in terms of that, how did you stay motivated throughout all of your ventures that you went through, seeing how much the truth bluntly was trying to be quieted out? How did you stay motivated? Because similar things are happening right now, and it seems like people are being kept under immense stress, somewhat intentionally, so that we can't be more productive, or at least it's harder to be more productive as a society.
Yeah, a lot of people are thinking that these are just new events, the horrible things that are happening, like the lockdown and basically the destruction of the world economy on the basis of a theory of a virus. I've been seeing it coming since the late '40s when I was aware of how the government was creating a fraudulent science. So it's something that I've really been dreading and trying to get people interested in over the years. In the late '60s, I was already saying that the basic process is turning the U.S. into a third world nation,
and that was a hard idea to communicate. But just the last year, millions of people are starting to realize when thousands and thousands of small businesses are being deliberately destroyed, just so that the monopolies and oligarchs can increase their wealth a hundredfold. Yes, it seems like they have hoarded all the resources to counteract any opposition and any movement from the ground up. They are bent on destroying it. So it's quite unfortunate that they have so many resources that they can utilize. And when people like yourself try to write articles about the truth
and do interviews, it doesn't get nearly as much recognition as it should because it has the power to change the world. Yes, the indoctrination has done its work. Yesterday, I heard a doctor talking on a video on Mercola's website, Lee Merritt, what's her name? She mentioned that a survey of the young generation, I think it was called the Millennial Generation, they asked how many of their generation they figured would die from the COVID pandemic. And the consensus was about 2%. And she pointed out that that is 10,000 times higher than the actual mortality rate
that the actual figures show. And everywhere, the newspapers, television, most of the websites are promoting the idea that something very unique happened, but her figures show that typically a serious influenza epidemic will kill such a tiny percent of the survivors that your likelihood of not being killed by an influenza epidemic are 99.99%, and she said the difference with the worst interpretation of the COVID epidemic is that your chances of surviving are one thousandth of a percent less than surviving a flu epidemic. So it's essentially identical risk to an ordinary, every year influenza season. Right.
It's interesting because the question gets brought up. Has this even been completely isolated? Does it meet all of Coke's postulates? Or is there something else happening? Is there some other substance that could be causing something out of the ordinary, even though the numbers don't really account for something out of the ordinary? Yeah, there was a tremendous campaign in 2019 to get old people to vaccinate with the influenza vaccine. And the saturation in the U.S. and Italy was especially high, huge campaigns especially among old people.
And I think it was eight or ten different studies, including a very big study done by the Pentagon, looked at the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in recent years. And the following year they saw that it did produce a fairly small decrease in influenza infections. But the people who were vaccinated for influenza had a much greater, on the order of tens of percent, thirty percent to sixty percent, greater risk of catching the coronavirus infection. So the campaign to vaccinate for influenza was a major factor in increasing coronavirus infections.
In previous years, several years previously, there had been small studies testing what was causing the wintertime respiratory hospitalizations. And they found roughly similar numbers, around ten to fifteen percent of the hospital pneumonia cases caused by influenza virus, a similar percent by a coronavirus. And the respiratory syncytial virus was a slightly higher percentage, I think. And about half of the cases, they couldn't find a viral or bacterial cause. So the general sickness and old age apparently were the greatest cause of the seasonal so-called flu problem.
Right. Do you think these viral phenomena, or at least their severity, would be decreased if vaccines weren't such a priority? Yeah, those studies, very consistent results, showed that just the influenza virus alone tremendously increased the risk of, in particular, the coronavirus, a similar respiratory infection. But it was undoubtedly a general infection, a defect upon the immune resistance that couldn't have been something limited to the coronavirus. But it was probably increasing your susceptibility to many other diseases, not just coronavirus.
It isn't just the influenza vaccination that's being pushed so heavily. That's probably the biggest one. But the shingles, the chickenpox vaccine, as the vaccination of children for chickenpox increased the hospitalization and even mortality from shingles. The virus in old people increased as if it looked like something more than a coincidence that there was probably a perversion of the chickenpox virus getting loose into the population. In Africa, the polio virus has definitely decreased the wild-type polio paralysis, but meanwhile it has created epidemics of the new strain of virus that got loose from the vaccine itself.
Yes, yep, I was reading upon that and all the conflicting information. First it was Bill Gates successfully eradicates it, and then later on they report on now the outbreak of the vaccine strain. And about 100 years ago, more than 100 years ago, people started noticing that the act of injecting vaccines in particular seemed to correspond to a paralysis developing later. And the appearance of paralytic polio happened in the 19th century, and the hypodermic needle wasn't intended until the early 19th century or late 18th century.
So it became a popular medical tool to inject stuff, and during the 19th century, epidemics of paralytic polio started being reported. And then around 1915 to 1920, people were in a very organized way. They were seeing that a campaign of vaccination or other intrexions, intramuscular infections, were followed by the polio epidemics. And over and over that was being reported. And specifically, people were noticing that when the kids were infected in the hip or thigh with the vaccine, the paralysis in that particular limb would be the main feature of the epidemic
if they were infected into the shoulder, armed paralysis would be the main paralytic effect. And that was called the -- I forget how to word term, but it was recognized as a polio vaccine paralysis effect, and that was seriously in the scientific literature up until the early 1950s. And it was still showing a definite correspondence that the particular armored leg that got the injection was the most likely to be paralyzed. And studies in mice showed exactly the same thing. Intramuscular injection caused local inflammation. Every vaccine creates something like a temporary lymph node to develop.
The irritation attracts white blood cells, and the nerves monitoring the muscle inflammation transmit up the nerve fiber particles, including any virus that happens to be in that inflamed area to the brain, and white blood cells migrate to the brain from that inflamed area. And in the mice, they could demonstrate that the reason that limb in particular became paralyzed was because the inflammatory factors had caused brain damage.
But that -- the effect of a polio vaccination causing paralytic polio, even though it was confirmed in animals as well as human studies, the propaganda to sell the polio vaccine is a successful preventing factor of the polio epidemics. That was solved with the Salk and Sabin vaccines, but contemporary experience in Africa is showing exactly the same effect of paralytic polio developing in the armored leg where the injection was given.
And if you look at the actual numbers of cases of paralysis in the United States following the successful elimination of polio myelitis by the vaccine, there was no decrease in paralytic disease, but they renamed it. Kiaenbare's syndrome, for example, and the swine flu vaccine created hundreds of cases of paralysis, but they renamed it Kiaenbare's syndrome rather than polio. Yeah. I don't know if you're familiar with Thomas Cowan, but he wrote a book called The Changing Nature of, I believe, Childhood Illness.
And in there, he talks about some of the advantages of getting these common measles-type childhood illnesses, chickenpox, and the benefits that they can have later on, on the prevention of cancers, multiple cancers. And, of course, in a well-nourished environment, and parents who know how to take care of their children, look after them while they're sick, it seems as though there's a benefit to these childhood illnesses. Yeah, activating the immune system in a normal way, and when you catch a virus in the way that the organism usually catches it, the immune system can organize itself properly.
But being injected into the center of a muscle is definitely not anything the immune system ever historically experienced. It was always catching infections from something you ate or inhaled or got scratched into your skin, and if you rub a material into the skin, that's a safe way to administer a vaccine. In the 18th century, one person somehow devised the method of giving smallpox material, intradermally, carefully, putting it in the skin, not under the skin, and had 100% success and no sickness involved.
And a few practitioners have continued advocating intradermal or friction vaccination as the most biologically effective. Would that require an adjuvant, or would it? No, no. The rubbing itself, the irritation of rubbing it in is enough of an adjuvant. I see. Once again, referring back to that book, The Changing Nature of Childhood Illness, he talks about these dens and areas where mothers would intentionally have their children get the measles or whatever it be so that they can get over it at a young age.
Do you suppose this was an actual virus that these kids were transmitting to one another, or is it something endogenous, some sort of signaling, like exosomes, let's say? Well, when I was in graduate school and the DNA mania was at its peak, I asked a few people around the department how they thought viruses originated. And no one would even talk about it. It was just a completely taboo subject because viruses are very complex systems that can only live within a nucleated cell of a much more highly involved organism.
So the explanation for how they came into existence, no one would talk about it in 1968 to '70. But in the '60s, a Korean wrote several papers on his observations with a particular blue stain and a good microscope. He could show that there were particles circulating in the system that was parallel to the lymphatic system, no blood cells in it, but apparently capillary-like vessels in which these microscopic particles circulated. And he showed that they contained nucleic acids and proteins.
And he called this the third circulatory system and proposed that it was involved in healing, communicating between cells. And that book was translated into English in the 1960s and circulated among Oriental medical doctors specializing in acupuncture. They believed that they were helping to redirect the flow of these internal repair particles. And it was only almost 50 years later that someone using electron microscopes decided to look in the blood plasma itself in the background
of what they had considered just random dirt or dust. And if they looked at it with a good electron microscope, they found that they were highly organized microvesicles, which came to be called exosomes. And now in the last 10 years, there's a huge amount of study going on. This is one of the great new excitements in biology, the discovery that a stressed tissue emits large amounts of these exosomes containing genetic information, DNA and RNA and proteins.
And that they communicate so that an injured lung cell emits particles that are picked up by the bone marrow cells. And the bone marrow cells respond by making essentially white blood cells that will hone in on the injured area of the lung carrying the necessary repair or healing information. And these vesicles have been proven to be taken up by the gametes in the gonads, which is reminiscent of how Charles Darwin believed the inheritance of acquired characteristics that has been censored out of Darwinism.
People believe that Lamarck was right and that the tissue cells of the body, he said, emitted chemicals that contained heritable information that was sent to the gametes to be cast on so that the experience of the developed organism wouldn't be lost. These exosomes produced by stressed cells typically have the size and structural features of a virus, such as the coronavirus. Very similar particle manufactured inside the cell by the same protein systems and emitted in the same way into the bloodstream.
So there are people who argue that the origin of viruses is really just getting the wrong exosomes at the wrong time and place where there are healing repair factors within a person's or organism's own body. If they escape and are taken up under the wrong conditions, then they can create a disease that under normal conditions, they are available as repair and healing factor. So the close association of organisms by that view can share healing information across organisms rather than sharing sickness information in form of viruses.
The healing information would be transmitted exactly the same through error or direct physical contact, but they would be useful under the right circumstances, which would mean good nutrition and, in general, low stress conditions. Sure. Do you have any thoughts on what happened to the Native Americans when they were exposed to these type of suppose it pathogens, why they were so susceptible to things like smallpox, or is there some sort of propaganda going on there?
Oh, I think there probably was a greater susceptibility because of their isolation from other populations for something like 10,000, maybe 40,000 years on the continent. That might have created a special sensitivity. I see. So this enrichment of the environment, not only with good air, good water, and good food, but also diversity and social interaction seems like an important thing. Yeah. And the change was made by environmental enrichment. That's an area that is now being better studied in animals.
The structure and function of the brain and the immune system are especially sensitive to the quality of the environment, where research had been done on rats, kept in boxes, horrible, stressful persons. The difference between a rat in a box versus a rat with playgrounds and friends and attempts to have privacy as well as socialization, a tremendous difference. The brain is bigger. They're more intelligent, resistant to all sorts of stresses. Obviously, that applies to humans.
Yeah. Well, I just want to take this opportunity real quick, since we're talking about viruses and coronavirus, to say that you have a great newsletter. A lot of them are for free on RayPeat.com. And people can also sign up on [email protected], correct? And there they will get bimonthly newsletters from you and amazing content like the novel flu, the one that you had sent out previously was just great. And it summarizes a lot of what we talk about now and some things that we haven't covered, but I highly encourage people to sign up for that.
And also, peruse through not only Ray's articles, but also his books that can, I believe, also be purchased through [email protected]. Talking about the environment, I kind of want to get into a topic that is going along with a lot of what's happening right now. And that's the increasing level of electromagnetic pollution, not only from radio frequencies, but also magnetic and electric fields. It seems like we're increasingly being bombarded, and I just don't see any way in which the body cannot respond to such an altered environment.
In your opinion, or in your research, do you see a great cause for concern with the ever increasing electrical pollution around us? Yeah, there is a very important book by Robert Becker, The Body Electric, that shows the effects in healing or sickness of very weak fields. And that was some of my early research, starting in 1968. I went to Moscow to talk to Yuri Holodov, who had published some articles on the extreme sensitivity of the brain and the reproductive system to magnetic fields.
And he directed me to some existing research, and I did a few experiments. But Robert Becker spent several years doing very detailed research on regeneration, for example, under the influence of weak fields. It's very powerful. We are electrical organisms, as well as radiant organisms. In the 1920s and '30s, there was good research showing ultraviolet emissions stimulating and directing growth. And at that time, the research mostly was being done with onion, root-tipped cells. And they demonstrated that a glass that blocked ultraviolet prevented the stimulating effect of one cell on another across the glass.
But if it was transparent to ultraviolet light of particular frequencies, the cell division on one side of the glass stimulated a wave of cell division on the other side. That was part of the empirical biology that was suppressed almost perfectly for 70 years. And just recently, several people are bringing back exactly, confirming, but using new technology of sensitive detectors in which they can use a machine to detect exactly which frequency is being emitted by one cell to influence surrounding cells.
There's a website, Gunther Alprecht-Tuller Cell Intelligence, in which she has some pictures showing infrared emissions that can communicate to cells with an external beam of infrared light. But the most interesting research, I think, is in the ultraviolet wavelengths. So do you think that we can use light, like red light, to be able to mitigate some of the effects of these non-native fields? Yeah, red light is an essential factor for our environment, experiments with plants, which obviously are well-adaptive to living in sunlight.
Looking at their mitochondria, they filtered out the red light and let the rest of the spectrum through and found that the mitochondria were damaged by the two wavelengths and higher frequencies, blue to ultraviolet, damaged the mitochondria. But when they left the light, the full spectrum, including the red wavelengths, there was no damage, showing, in effect, that whatever harm was done by blue and UV was undone or blocked by the red light.
And following up with instrument studies, people demonstrated that if you put a bit of seed tissue, a very stable tissue, in direct sunlight and then put it in an electron spin resonance apparatus, which detects excited electrons, the machine will show that the electrons stay in an excited state for hours. The same thing happens with inert tissue, like hair. Hair stores excitation in the melanin. The plant tissue was storing it probably in some enzyme systems, but the machine would show continuing electronic excitation fading away over many hours.
But if they, in the dark chamber of the machine, if they briefly exposed that excited tissue to red light, the excitation disappeared immediately. It was essentially quenching excited, reactive electrons, taking them out of the excited, possibly toxic state, and experiments on whole organisms used a killing dose of gamma rays on frogs. They would determine what dose caused the frog to develop radiation sickness, and if the frog was exposed to that killing dose, and within the first hour, if it was given a good solid dose of red light, it experienced no harm.
It didn't die of radiation sickness. So that was done in the 1980s, and despite that clear evidence that radiation is creating a state of the excited electrons which proceed to do the damage, that indirect or lingering effect of radiation couldn't make it through the dogma of the paradigm. The dogma was that the ionizing radiation breaks in an instantaneous reaction, the PNA causing an interference with the cell's control system, totally made up, arbitrary, meaningless doctrine. And finally now, more than 40 years later, the concept of bystander effect has been established.
The Carmen mother cell is one of the pioneers of this bystander radiation research showing that something excited by the ionizing radiation not only persists in the irradiated cell, but leaks out into the environment and spreads, causing exactly the same kind of damage, including breaks in the DNA, supposedly the direct effect of radiation, but the factors that leak out from the excited cell create exactly the same kind of radiation sickness in surrounding cells. And just the water that the irradiated organism is in will transmit those effects. One of the agents is the free radical nitric oxide.
I'm going to give you two questions here. It's going to be on the same topic. So if someone, let's say, and I know you usually advise against x-rays for dental procedures, whatever it may be, but let's say somebody was in a tough spot and they found themselves having to do that. Would they want to bathe in red light before or after? Definitely after, getting into the sunlight and/or any bright light that's switching in the red wavelength. As soon as possible, right?
Yeah. And these excited states, it happens that hard tissues are very good dose meters for radiation. You can look at someone's teeth in the pelvic and find out how many dental x-rays they have as kids and teenagers, because those excited electrons are trapped in the crystalline material. And heating to a high temperature will release them from the traps, but otherwise they stay trapped in the hard material. And testing for the emission of photons showing that the cells are in an excited, stressed condition.
30 years after Chernobyl exposure, and I think it was 65 years after Hiroshima exposure, blood tests looking for these excited emissions, photons from the blood cells could distinguish the people who had been exposed in Chernobyl or Hiroshima all those years later. And any things will help to reduce that lingering excitement and inflammatory effect, but red light is one of the established factors.
Do you see any benefit from a lot of these Shuman frequency or amplifying the Earth's own magnetic field type of devices? Some of them are very expensive for whatever reason, and some of them are very cheap. Do you see a benefit in having one of those going in your home? I don't think so. The fields are so weak and so complex. The main problem is that those are drowned out by the incredible level of radiant noise created by industry.
So if somebody was living in a high rise and had Wi-Fi routers and whatever you can imagine surrounding them, what would be their best bet in mitigating that besides moving? I think insulation from the technology emissions is the first thing, and getting out into a natural environment 100 miles from a phone tower, if possible, and just sitting around sleeping on the ground. All those things will let your body start resonating with the Earth and cosmos.
Sure. I tend to say that to people. Instead of spending thousands of dollars on some device that claims to puncture through all of the noise, just find your favorite spot far away. Just sit there and be mindful for a little bit. In some of my early lab experiments with trying to measure bioelectric fields, I would hook up my detectors, and it was very hard not to get rock music coming in through the detectors. Nearby radio stations would just absolutely take over all of the normal fields of the organism.
I've heard of some people benefiting from a bed canopy, some sort of metal Faraday cage that also includes the bottom of the bed. So you're almost in a complete Faraday cage. Do you see any harm? Having that grounded gives it a chance to resonate with the Earth. Would it be harmful to plug that into a high-rise ground?
If you could trust that the connection to ground was actual isolated connection to ground, but I'm afraid it would be running parallel to so many other active 60-cycle fields and such that I don't think you'd have a valid grounding effect. Then in that scenario, would it be better not to ground it and just let it ride on the exterior? That would be my first guess.
There is a neurosurgeon, maybe you've heard about him, his name is Jack Cruz, and he's very into mitigating blue light and non-native EMF. He talks about a phenomenon that he calls jump conduction, basically things like 5G jumping onto metal conductive surfaces, even necklaces or something in your pocket. Do you see that as a possibility to causing damage to the organism or possibly even starting fires? No, not much. Speaking of fires, how are you over there in Oregon? Have you been dealing okay with the fires around you?
Yeah, this morning we were without power for 15 hours. Yesterday the sun looked like a marifino cherry, extremely dirty air, visibility of about a block, and the whole Jackson County is on alert for possible evacuation right in the cities. Ashland and surrounding towns around Salem and very close to Portland, fires are causing evacuations.
Well, we all hope that you stay safe out there, Dr. Peat. Do you see any evidence that this could be instigated or do you see it as a natural phenomenon? Like geoengineering seems to be on the mouths of many people right now and manipulation of natural phenomenon. Do you see that as a possibility? Oh, that's primary in my attention. One major factor is that the terrible changes that they've made by damming the rivers, sending California mountain water to the cities to water lawns, cutting down the redwoods,
and deforesting the majority of Oregon and Northern California, that they're creating a perpetual, self-sustaining, dehydrated climate system because the great forests were part of what would cool the area, keeping the hot winds out of the area by keeping cooler, dense air sitting there, letting the ocean air in as the water evaporated, accelerating the normal planetary drift from the climate. Now, a barrier has been created along the west coast, blocking the normal cooling effect of the ocean and turning off the water supply.
And then there used to be a good system of forest lookouts, but after cutting down so many of the forests, they shut down all of the mountain top lookouts that I knew of were abolished. So within two or three minutes of a lightning strike starting a fire in the 1950s, everyone would know about it.
I was working in a blister rust crew in the woods, and we would get a notice where a fire had been spotted, and we would rush there to see who could get to the fire to put it out before the smoke jumpers had came in. But the ability to stop lightning strike fires was very great in the '50s. The smoke jumpers would be right on it and sniff it out before it covered more than 200 square feet.
And so now, several things have overlapped, but there are probably even forces wanting to start more fires, especially overlapping with the coronavirus. It fits into their plan of destroying the old economies so that the oligarch, a monopoly economy, can have free reign. Yeah, it's amazing the amount of assaults they're hitting people with at the same time. Do you see any evidence for aerosol spraying? Around the start of the so-called pandemic, I noticed a very decreased amount of streaks in the sky with fluffy clouds like I was used to when I was a child.
And as the last couple months approached, I saw an increase of these streaks in the sky with strange weather phenomena almost predictably overcast after a certain amount of these streaks. And I live in a very small town in northern Minnesota, and the airport here is limited in the flights that they use. So I'm kind of wondering, is there really something nefarious going on, or are these just natural phenomena from planes? Oh, every time there's a leak or a declassification, it turns out that there have been nefarious things going on.
So I think it's sort of gullible of people to assume that there's nothing nefarious going on. But it's just good to keep your mind open to watch what's happening and try to make the best interpretation of it. Yeah, I agree. After a certain point, people have to start using their own judgment, their own common sense, instead of being told what to do or from the supposed nanny state.
Yeah, natural phenomena can be very surprisingly complex, but it's always good to keep in mind that the government and the corporations have been experimenting on the public and on the weather, continuing dependent on as many weather control projects going all the time. Do you see this all as a part of the agenda to, as you mentioned earlier, make the US into resembling a third-old country, and what would be the advantage of that to the wealthy class? Because all of these middle-class people in trying normal, comfortable living, they aren't necessary. They're consuming resources.
And as this middle class has been destroyed over the last six months, the billionaires' wealth has increased by trillions of dollars. I've heard recently that Bill Gates' fortune, which had been going up very fast, reached a point of increasing by a billion dollars a day. Yeah, it's quite unbelievable. What would be your best advice to the middle working class? I know a lot of people are looking into moving out into getting some farmland and starting their own food operations and just becoming more self-sustaining. Do you see hope in such an avenue?
Yeah, to the extent that it's possible to get control of parcels of farmland that are completely under the power of the giant corporations, but to the extent that you can get some farmable land that's going to be necessary to assure a food supply. The corporations aren't all interested in maintaining continuous access to food at good price, and small farms and groups getting together to pool their resources so that they can do things on a scale that only the corporations have been able to do.
Instead of small farmers competing against each other, they have to start competing against the giant corporations and cooperating with each other. Yeah, the options seem to be dwindling. It seems like they're either going to have people coming and making the cities even bigger and more crowded, and then on the opposite end, people are going to be going out and buying property. And that middle part that we see right now, the so-called suburbs, doesn't seem like they might last. Yeah, that's planned elimination of the nuisance of a middle class and small business.
That was written up as part of the plan for the world, going back more than 10 years. The Rockefeller Foundation report in 2010 outlined four scenarios, all of them seeing artificial intelligence as the only solution to make that efficient. They had to quickly basically destroy the middle class to put the artificial intelligence immediately to work serving the monopolies. So do you see yourself continuing to live in the United States, or do you see yourself moving elsewhere?
Mexico has always seemed like a place of understanding and reasonable behavior. I first went there in 1955 and went back every three years as long as possible. And it's under the present situation. It's seeming even more desirable despite the fact that it's under more intense pressure from neoliberalism. It seems to be quite a global phenomenon, unfortunately. Dr. Peat, I have a few more questions for you. How are you doing on time? Okay.
So we talked about hair when we were talking about red light and stuff like that. And I had heard you mention in previous interviews how even hair, when it's not attached to your head or considered alive, I guess, even though it would be possibly considered dead. But you're saying that it still has selective uptake in its minerals, for example, like potassium and magnesium. That's accurate, right? Yeah. That selective ion affinity is a property of the substance. It doesn't take energy to maintain it, even though the living cell maintains a higher gradient.
The cell substance itself is what's responsible. And the energy is used to put that substance into its best condition for establishing those gradients. So then would it be safe to assume that the rest of the body, since it's alive and made up of cells, would be able to do the same thing? Because I've seen some mixed research on transdermal application of nutrients or minerals like, let's say, magnesium sulfate footpaths. So would the body be able to selectively uptake things transdermally in an effective manner?
Not very well. The skin has a barrier to water and water-soluble things. So you have to soak a very long time. When you've been in the ocean for two or three hours, your fingers start getting wrinkled. That's showing that the barrier function is starting to be weakened. At that point, you do absorb a little bit of magnesium. So a long soaking bath with some baking soda, the carbon dioxide of the baking soda facilitates the absorption of ions like magnesium. And would temperature also matter then?
In a comfortable temperature, yeah, so that you can stand it without too much stress. If it's around 90 degrees, then you can comfortably stay in the water long enough to soak up some of the ions. And the heat would assist in that? What would? The heat? A little bit, yeah. Okay, I see. That was just something that I wanted to ask you because I wanted to see how applicable it was from the hair to the rest of the body. But it makes sense that the skin has that barrier that can kind of go against that.
When speaking of the origin of the universe, I'm going to kind of take it big here. I heard you, I hear you talking about order and energy being essentially united in matter. So I'm wondering, do you have any theories as to where this blueprint came from or the origin story? Why things have to be the way they are? Why do they operate the way that they do? No. My basic feeling is that the blueprint is being revised moment by moment, that the general purpose even doesn't finish yet.
It's in process. Everything is being renewed, but that renewal includes determining where we're going, how it's going to turn out. Okay, so you don't see a, and I know you have talked upon this predetermined order and how that's not so much what you agree with in the past, but you see it as an ever evolving thing that requires energy, but then renews its own origin or its own blueprint. Yeah.
I'm just going to go over some more questions here. One is about amino acids. Some people find it a little difficult to get enough protein without drinking copious amounts of milk, which I know is favorable for the calcium and the good ratio of macros in there with the fat and the protein and the carbs. So in terms of daily protein intake, is it a must that people aim to get around 90 or so grams, or can they, on certain days, consume less? Does the body have efficiency in recycling amino acids?
Yeah, the 90 to 100 grams per day was a military funded study looking at both male and female army workers and found that 100 grams or more supported the efficient work. And general good health, but that was looking at everything, being a soldier was part of the pre-condition and eating up a basically standard diet was part of the pre-condition. So if you look at a person who isn't under stress and who is doing many things right, minimizing stress, including the type of protein, for example, too much cysteine, methionine, and tryptophane will create excitatory damage.
Nerve damage, immune system damage, and so on. So minimizing those potential stress-inducing amino acids will tremendously reduce the amount of protein you need for maintenance. And no one has really identified what those ideal minimum amounts are, but probably way down around 30 grams, everything is ideal because we're constantly making hair and skin and lining cells of the intestine. And everything is being renewed, and some of the renewal of protein is lost in the process.
So it probably can't get below around 30 grams a day, even optimizing everything. But those studies have barely been ended up how to optimally reduce the stress. It's probably why a calorie restriction is effective in extending life, because in the process of cutting calories, they've always been reducing the intake of polyunsaturated fats, heavy metals, and these excitatory amino acids.
So if I understood you correctly, someone who is looking to get around 90 grams of protein but tries to meet that with red meat, which can have those inflammatory amino acids and high amount of phosphate, might actually be doing themselves a disservice. Yeah, I'm sure that is not an ideal source of protein. The next question I have here is about probiotics and bacteria and the flora that is talked about very often these days.
And one of the details that I want to get straight is you talk about the benefit of having a relatively sterile small intestine. But how far does that go for other areas of the body? For example, we know that certain areas of the body have a different pH. And how about for the microbial balance, like the vaginal or any other part of the body? Should those have a diversity of beneficial bacteria, or how much should we aim for sterility in parts of the body?
Oh, if the body is working well for itself, it will not be either supplying food for potential pathogens, and it won't be harmful for those pathogens. So, for example, a study in Canada found that the cows with mastitis, they identified the bacteria, and a treatment that improved the cows' metabolism increased essentially its thyroid function, cured the mastitis, but the total bacterial count in the other was even higher in the healthy other.
So the organism guides the growth of pathogens when it's in a sick state, and it will redirect the growth of bacteria to things that are symbiotic and not harmful. So it doesn't matter that bacteria are there if they're quiet. You don't want them eating either your nutrients or part of your tissues. Do you think there can be beneficial probiotics that people can take, even though their main problem is probably something to do with a lowered metabolic state?
I haven't run across any that are reliably helpful. The lactobacteria can become pathogens. It all depends on the health of the organism. Would you say then somebody who has issues, intestinally, would be better suited for either an herbal or a pharmaceutical antibiotic? Yeah, there are some bacteria that have such an effective antibiotic secretion of subcalus and lichenic formus as enter the two most effective antibiotics. And those don't require colonization because they can just be taken as an antibiotic.
Some herbal antibiotics are safe, or a weak dose of one of the fungal or bacterial antibiotics that's produced pharmaceutical. Those can be helpful to suppress the consumption. That's great to know. One more question here. So hair on one side of the body, do you have any idea why that might happen, to have more hair on one side of the body as opposed to the other? There are known stress-induced asymmetries, and one of the factors in responding to stress is the endorphin system.
And there are various types of endorphin which act preferentially on one side or the other, and it intensifiers or suppress the activity on that side. And there have only been maybe a dozen studies on how that works, but it's clear that they are involved in asymmetries, and reducing the stress is probably the only presently known way to rebalance the brain or the immune system or other systems.
I see. Okay. That's kind of an interesting one. So let's see here. Should sleep and diet be modified according to season, and how adaptable are humans in moving to cold climates versus, let's say, tropical or hot climates? I think the adaptation really should be mainly having a warm house and warm clothes if you're going to live in the cold climate. If your thyroid function is good, it should be good in a warm climate or cold climate.
I found that moving to a planet that's too hot and humid has suppressed my thyroid, and so a moderate climate or a controlled warm situation in a cold region and season is the best for the hormones. But if you don't have air conditioning in a very hot, humid, tropical condition, your thyroid is probably going to suffer. Okay. I see. In terms of animals and their hibernation being induced by things like PUFA, what would happen to a human who is eating to fuel their metabolism and they get into a famine condition?
Would there be a benefit when there isn't enough food to utilize PUFA or no? The body is going to go into that sharper condition, but it goes more quickly if the mobilized fat is polyunsaturated. But any time you're under stress, you mobilize free fatty acids from your tissues, and those free fatty acids always interfere with oxidative energy production. So stress almost instantly, once the free fatty acids increase, your metabolic rate goes down, and so fasting reaches the point of depleting your stored glycogen that starts pulling out the free fatty acids,
and that turns your metabolic rate down, puts you in a sharper, so you don't lose weight very fast. I see. You talk about the negative genetic changes that might happen from environmentally induced, let's say, signals, as opposed to the neo-Darwinist rhetoric, more so the Lamarckian evolutionary theory, the environment can cause these changes. Do you think that a single generation is enough to reverse these negative genetic expressions or changes?
If they have developed over several generations, they can be fairly extreme. And if you start during pregnancy, yes, you can make up for generations of stress and suppression. Like Catherina Dalton's observations, her clients previously, their babies averaged 90 IQ for her particular population in England, looking at the older children of these women. And then when she gave them adequate progesterone to stop their symptoms, years later someone said, "It's interesting that your patients have such superior children."
And she thought that was unlikely. So she did the study and found that they did have something like 30-plant IQ advantage just for getting progesterone support during pregnancy. That's great to hear that people can do things about that, because the scary part is that it seems the authoritarians and the people who make these food and chemical decisions on our behalf are basically inducing the type of damage that they say is the truth, which is genetic fate.
Yeah, it was – when I was in graduate school and even decades after the standard doctrine in the medical world and genetic theory world was that toxemia of pregnancy, the basic, most popular theory was that it was either the inferior of the mother or the genetic inferiority of the fetus poisoning the mother's metabolism. And so there was nothing you could do during pregnancy that would either prevent toxemia of pregnancy or improve the quality of the baby.
But animal studies for starting in the '50s and before were showing a tremendous effect of changing the diet during pregnancy, adding simply glucose, for example, caused a much bigger brain, more intelligent animal – rats and chickens, for example – developed bigger brains. And the doctrine of meritocracy, the whole neoliberal conspiracy of basing politics on the idea of genetic merit absolutely phony science all the way from top to bottom, that the idea that the bad genes caused the toxemia of the inferior baby was used as an excuse not for improving their diet.
But if anything, it helps them to mystery on the board so they don't reproduce themselves, where simply adding salts to the diet had a tremendous effect on reducing the incidence of toxemia. Salt and sugar and protein and percustrone made the difference of more or less 30 IQ points. This whole doctrine of meritocracy precedes all of the genetic arguments that support it. Science was picked and built up to support the argument. It wasn't that the argument was derived from the science, but the opposite.
Would these environmentally induced genetic changes or genetically modified foods or now mosquitoes be rejected by nature eventually if the threat and the tampering cease to exist? That's hard to predict, but the organism itself tends to throw it off. It's like cancer cells, the typical cancer cell. It has very short lives and it would lead to the disappearance of tumors except that the dying cell leaves a residue and so the repair cells are damaged.
The same thing that caused the cancer if you don't change the problem that led to the first detective cells is going to continue. Any time you introduce a genetic change, it's very likely that the way cancer cells deteriorate, you're very likely to shorten the survival possibilities of that organism. A couple more here. When it comes to objectivity and subjectivity concerning quantum theories that are going around, do you see this as an attempt to say that anything and everything could happen so there really isn't any right answers and everything is subjective?
Germany, at the time, quantum theory was invented. That was metaphysical preference because of the conditions of Germany, severe social economic stress that they were basically saying, "We're above it. All it isn't really happening." That rhetoric would then allow any authoritarian to say that you're wrong no matter what. The concept of everything is random was a 19th century version. Change is only random and not like Darwin and Lamarck said that it's guided by biological value. Change is only random was required as a logical basis for meritocracy.
Let's see. I think there's one more that I want to hear. Have you heard of cell-free mitochondria? Mitochondria found not inside of the cell. Do you think that that is a product of the life cycle of the red blood cell emitting its organelles or ejecting its organelles? I suspect that they are seeing a particular kind of exosome. Mitochondria have been extracted and injected in the cells giving them new vitality. I would imagine that one of the repair processes of the natural exosome system would be to send some supplementary mitochondria to the sick area.
This is something that you propose the body it's doing by having cell-free mitochondria circulate? I think that would be a very likely function of some of the exosomes. I hear your criticism of the cells being observed out of their natural environment a lot and I agree that once you take something out of its functional zone, you can't expect it to function the way that it does in the organism. In reference to that, do you see any value in dark field microscopy? No, not much.
You think that's still a rather superfluous way of looking at the cell once again out of its normal environment? Yes, very severely at normal conditions. I see. Yeah, it seems like a lot of people are using those to diagnose things. All right, well, Dr. Peat, I've had you for about a little over an hour and a half now and it's been great, such great information. I'm sure everyone's going to be very excited to hear all this.
Once again, if there's anything else that you want to share with people, I think we already shared your email that they can reach you at and the newsletter and your paid and unpaid content. Is there anything else you'd like to add? No. Great. Well, thank you so much. And hopefully we can have you back again. I'm sure I can have another slew of questions if you're willing to do that at some point. Okay. All right. Thank you. You have a good rest of your day and take care. Okay, thanks. Bye-bye. initiative.com.