Paused at 0:00.
Welcome to the primitive initiative podcast. I'm fortunate enough to have Dr. Raymond Peat as my guest once again Today we will be talking about planned obsolescence particulate matter the green reset soil Wilhelm Reich Social structure digital versus analog reality morality and much much more. Enjoy the show Hello everyone, I have Dr. Peat with me once again Dr. Peat has a PhD in biology from the University of Oregon with specialization in physiology and has taught at several schools in the US and Mexico
He started his work with progesterone and related hormones in 1968 in papers in physiological chemistry and physics and in his dissertation he outlined his ideas regarding progesterone and the hormones closely related to it as protectors of the body structure and energy Against the harmful effects of estrogen radiation stress and a lack of oxygen his key idea being that energy and structure are Interdependent at every level. How are you doing? Dr. Peat? It's good to have you again Awesome. Great. If anybody wants Dr. Peat's information even more in depth in part one that we did
He goes really in depth gives a perfect explanation of his history and how he got here So I highly recommend checking that one out So Dr. Peat once again, I have a few questions for you and I just want you to go wherever you want with them I love to follow your trail of thought and it always reveals some amazing information All right Well, actually before we get to the questions I want to kind of ask how you're doing there last time we talked you had those fires and everything I heard on Patrick Timponi's
Radio show that they're pretty much cleared now, but but how are things otherwise? For a suitable future. I see. Okay. Well, that's good. That's good. I'm glad the rains are there and I Live in Minnesota. So we got some pretty good snow. I'm pretty pretty close to Canada so we usually get it first and it usually goes away last but Do you think the weather patterns are going to get more and more? resembling a mini ice age the solar experts have been predicting now for 80 years at least
It's tending to come back in style paying attention to the Sun cycles Deforestation of especially the Northwest of the United States and The world in general of burning off the force of the Amazon to grow soybeans All of that is destabilizing the climate the absence of great forests Just creates an up-and-down situation floods clouds Cold but not Everything going through an extreme because the forest we're modifying humidity and temperature Do you think the increased carbon dioxide is actually having a beneficial effect to counteract these things that are being caused by the deforestation
Helping to accelerate restoration of vegetation They're still cutting for us so fast that things are getting worse The growth of the forest during the summer the sunny season that the growing infotation absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so by autumn or the atmosphere there's quite a bit less carbon dioxide than there was in the spring During the winter Organisms and even the leafless trees As well as the conifer forests that still have their leaves during the winter all of these are putting out carbon dioxide into the atmosphere so by spring There's a biological
Production of higher carbon dioxide about five percent every year and Subtraction of it during the growth season The more carbon dioxide we have greater growth, and restoration there is during the summer months Does having more greenery actually have a cooling effect on the planet by reflecting back that infrared? Yeah Not as much as it is silence, but definitely a reflecting and cooling effect When I was working in Halapa I had been there 20 or 30 years earlier The town itself had been very comfortable all seasons of the year that the city square for example
was covered with huge old trees So the sunlight was reflected And beer was very moderate But when I was working there 20 years ago They had deforested the whole city for construction And as soon as the sun came up in the morning it became stiflingly hot I would wear just cotton pants cotton white shirt Had a morning class at the University But by the time I got to my class My shirt was soaked through with sweat Because of the extreme rise of temperature by nine o'clock in the morning
But if I walked to the outskirts of the town just a few blocks The surrounding forest jungle and coffee plantations and such suddenly there was a decrease of temperature of must have been 10 or 15 degrees perfectly comfortable Where there were still surrounding forests Yeah, oh, sorry go ahead No, even a small area you can feel it Something that happens within the space of just a block or two between a deforested and a forested area in the Midwest where they grow corn They've noticed that downwind from a city
the corn production is huge because of the heavier rain and lightning storms, which produce nitrogen fertilizer converting atmospheric nitrogen to soluble water soluble compounds So there's if you look at the corn production There's a roughly circular area downwind from the cities Wow, so that's really good to hear because then that's something that's happening even when soils are Compromised or or does that get compromised along the way because my understanding is that the soils Somewhat either toxic or there's all these pesticides that are mineral binders and stuff like that Yeah
Are now polluted they don't know how long it's going to last it's enduring Pollutant of the soil and water in there What is the composition of that again? tear gas Whatever they were using Detected this as a soil and water pollutant. I see it seems like with this global warming phenomenon That's being pushed everywhere that it I can't help but think that it's propaganda It just seems like more ways to control people and pull money out of their pockets but tend to agree on because the media of Time magazine and such things
We're talking about becoming ice age as recently as the late 70s and then Just a few months after the three-mile island nuclear accident happened and the public started realizing that nuclear power production was dangerous for the health Pentagon which uses the fuel to spend fuel from nuclear power reactors To make atomic bombs that they had Pentagon realized that the public sphere of nuclear reactors would be Endangering their ability to keep making atomic bombs And shortly after the accident they put out the first big pseudo scientific report of the coming planetary warming
And since then they've been pushing that doctrine Yeah, the hypocrisy also seems to be a big red flag. I mean a lot of these people propagating this stuff like political figures or celebrity figures have their own private jets and their own methods of consuming copious amounts of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide They really ignore what the pollution really consists of carcinogenic particles Polycytes like hydrocarbons for example and thioxins The real toxins are ignored for the one beneficial ingredient which is carbon dioxide but they talk about that because nuclear power they say produces no pollution
They say it produces no carbon dioxide, but naturally there's a lot of petroleum spent in mining and refining this stuff It's a very energy expensive fuel The amount of energy you get out of it probably Doesn't Seriously exceed the amount you put into it that the cost of mining it and preparing it The health care costs of the people who were poisoned in the process of mining and making it So the main benefit or profit for them is making weapons Yeah, okay. I always wondered why they would take such large ventures
You know and and commit to that or invest in that if there wasn't some major return, so that makes sense What? Do you think clean coal is a myth or does that do you think that actually exists? chemical processes to purify coal smoke So do you think that would be a better alternative to the nuclear situation we find ourselves in? If they couldn't get people to accept that then they could basically control the economy and what happens to people If you look at the crazy things that are being done with that energy
The transportation systems are designed for inefficiency the real transport of streetcars in the city and railroads, electric railroads, especially are non polluting and minimize the expensive energy for the amount of free coal just everywhere you look in the economy There's unnecessary expensive energy subsidizing the growth of corn to produce diesel alcohol It is actually it's criminal because of the absolute lack of justification that it consumes much more energy than you get out of it and pollutes in multiple ways Do you think that using regular food wastes to do that would be logical or?
Sewage, for example, is entirely wasted. Composting could not only produce methane for the uses where you need concentrated chemical energy but the process of bacterial action that ends up producing methane produces a lot of heat So if you properly recycle everything that people use the composts are sufficient to warm houses with a compost system near or in the basement of houses that would produce heat during the winter That's great. I mean, the more I look at our situation the more it seems inefficiency is pushed just for monetary gain
while masking it under the guise of efficiency and the way forward The economy has grown on the basis of advertising and the media has been controlling the culture The media powered by the advertising industry shows that even movies are getting a part of their subsidies by advertising products Schools have been integrated into the product promotion system by normalizing the irrational use of goods in general but everything on radio, television and newspapers the sales industries guide the public to consume what they want to sell None of the guidance comes from people actually seeking products
Good products that have been preferred by the public have been displaced every 10 or 20 years People find that their favorite products have disappeared from the world Things are generally designed intentionally to wear out or fail sooner so that more of them can be sold The man who got the Nobel Prize related to the studies in light The reason for his research at General Electric was to learn how to make a light bulb burn out predictably on schedule Urging light mirrors In the 1950s I had a light bulb that had been made around 1900
I used it for about 10 years and then during a move it was broken It had worked for decades without burning out That was a major technological advance to make bulbs burn out The latest, the compact fluorescent bulbs, they are a notorious trick on the public to convince them that they were a long lasting energy saving thing but they burned out so fast that they cost many times more than even a conventional General Electric tungsten bulb that gets itself engineered to burn out in a few months I think you're referring to that planned obsolescence, right?
The whole economy has integrated that principle Aren't those light bulbs also full of mercury, some sort of mercury vapor? Oh yeah, the whole principle was some kind of a conspiracy between the industry and government that the government foisted them on the public I love how they're called the green option It just seems like the most complete backwards thing So talking about pollutants and stuff like that I know you have a really good article, I think it's called "Particles in Context" What does it mean for our food that so much of this is in the environment?
What's happening to the soil? What's happening to the food as a result of these pollutants? Particulate pollution? Anything that would end up falling on the soil I don't know which one would matter more if it's larger particles or smaller particles But I know that the soil has its own life cycle There's so many aspects to it from minerals getting converted to various forms and fungi and bacteria It just seems like a whole world and there's just so much going against it, it seems
Pesticides have spread everywhere, the ice in Antarctica, mother's milk contains all of the popular pesticides that are spread into the urine, put in food, the smoke from burning forests the fires that were created by mismanagement and deforestation Those pollutants have entered the soil under food Still there is asbestos in city dust from the break linings You can still find the particles in high traffic areas getting into the air, entering the lungs Weren't those all kinds of silica, even fine sand particles, those are carcinogenic and dust in general
When you have fluctuations, extreme dryness and winds, then you get dustier air That includes the chemical toxins that have settled smoke components, industrial waste and pesticides and natural silica dust, all of those particles are carcinogenic, and brain toxic liver and kidney toxic damage the search electory system So the weather destabilization is stirring up all of the pollutants So if somebody says "I love the environment, I want to stand up for protecting it" and they think the right way to go is to protest against carbon dioxide and do whatever the government tells them to
to help preserve the environment, what do you think they should really be doing if they want to be a person who is conscious of this? I start thinking about what, for example, the World Economic Forum is telling us we should do The reason Greta Thunberg became famous was that she was recruited by the World Economic Forum to basically campaign for their program for the future Green is a camouflage for these new industry forces that want to shift to atomic energy under the guise of green wash and shift everything to a digital controllable from above economy
If you look at the purposes and programs of the World Economic Forum, you can find out everything that we shouldn't be doing I like that, so use that information and follow the opposite Going back to soil, there's been some people who are very vocal about acid rain, sulfuric acid, nitric acid stuff like that falling from smokestacks and stuff like that But do you think, and the claim is, that this is in some way compromising the bacteria, which then make it so the minerals that are taken up into the plants
are no longer what they deem to be organic or carbon bonded For a lack of food, the plant has no option now but to take up these inorganic minerals Is there any reality to this? Yeah, I think there is some There was a thing about carbon dioxide a couple years ago I forget how far it was, but it was highly publicized It was another anti-CO2 idea, but CO2 dissolved in rain is actually one of the solvent-fertarian minerals from the natural mineral composition of the soil carrying it in solution into the roots of plants
Fungus and bacteria are involved but the atmospheric carbon dioxide carried into the soil is an actual important factor in providing food to the plants That's carbonic acid, right? Or is it something else? Okay, so then that would be kind of the same way that minerals end up in spring water and stuff like that, right? Would it be a big deal for inorganic minerals to end up in food if somebody has good thyroid function and their stomach acid is fine
They would still be able to utilize those minerals even if it's not in the ideal form, or what do you think about that? Oh, you know, some minerals, your stomach acid will do a good job on them But if they're not in organisms and get into your stomach, you have to worry about the toxic things that are associated with them For example, I don't think it's a good idea to eat clay or zeolite or any of the mineral products that are straight from the soil
There are lots of places selling what they call ancient minerals from seabed or lake beds Basically, it's just dirt full of all kinds of heavy metals They say contains 92 minerals, 92 elements, that just means basically dirt Yeah, I've seen one of those. One of the most famous is I believe it's called constant trace And they claim to be from I think the Great Salt Lake or something like that And I think they're in the chloride form, like majority magnesium chloride with I think sodium removed
So you wouldn't suggest that as like a water remineralizer or anything like that? No, if you get magnesium from seawater, the process of crystallizing it purifies it quite a bit And from some mineral springs, the minerals have been filtered and processed chemically So they're relatively pure, low content of cadmium, mercury, arsenic, uranium and so on But each plant or animal that the mineral passes through before you eat it, the safer it is Because if you eat one of those crude mineral products, your stomach is going to select a little bit
There will be a slight purification, but you'll absorb very dangerous amounts of heavy metals If it's a crude mineral, or if it has passed through even a simple fast-growing plant, there will be a great refining So that even isotopes of the same element are slightly refined by being processed through plants And if you have another layer of filtration, for example, a cow eating the plants, the flesh of the cow is going to have a safer balance of minerals than even the plant has
And the milk of the cow is another level of filtration, where the nutrients were purified before they constructed the cow But after the cow is constructed, then the nutrients are further purified as they form the milk, going into the bloodstream and being filtered through the mammary gland There are layers of purification, so all things being equal, milk is our cleanest food possible because of these layers of filtration Yeah, totally. I tell people that milk is my green juice because they like to say, "Oh, well, you don't eat any greens"
I'm like, "Well, I'd like to think that the cow does that work for me, and a lot of the same nutrients end up in the milk itself" When it comes to milk and its processing, Georgie Dinkoff, who you speak with, with Danny Roddy, he mentioned that the ultra-filtration of milk causes a considerable amount of the magnesium to be lost Do you think that's an issue? The ultra-pasteurization? He said filtration. Well, I don't know if that would be the same processing method?
I don't know why anyone would put it through an ultra-filter. I think it must meant ultra-pasteurization. Pasteurizing does precipitate a small amount of mineral, and the heavier the pasteurization, the more of the mineral would be deposited on the machinery Would they end up in the milk as carbonates or oxides or something like that? No, just whatever sticks to the machinery that you get is calcium, magnesium, film forming on the heating machinery, and that small amount is lost from the milk
I see. Yeah, I have seen the word filtration written on some of the milk here in the grocery store, so I don't know why they would filter it. Maybe it's because some things end up in the milk and they have to filter it out after processing Possibly some people are afraid of the cell content of milk, that there are actual living cells in living milk, and those are killed in ordinary pasteurization
But they would still be floating around in the milk, and if people don't like the idea of dead cells floating around for some reason, maybe they think filtering out the cells is an improvement But naturally that would take selective higher amount of magnesium than calcium, because cells do concentrate magnesium. It's a very small amount Oh, interesting. So you're saying that the bacteria or the organisms killed have magnesium inside of the cell, and when that's filtered, that can cause some minute decrease in magnesium levels
Yeah, there are quite a few cow cells in the milk naturally, not just bacteria, but also cells of the cow Oh, okay, wow, I never considered that, that's great. Talking about milk and milk products, I eat a decent amount of Greek yogurt, it's strained, has less lactic acid, I think I've seen you suggest that at some point But there's also been some debate as to whether the bacteria in these fermentation processes actually makes it down into the gut, or just gets killed in the stomach acid
Is that something that we should be concerned about, or is yogurt and its bacteria content in terms of like Oh yeah, it sounds that even if all of the bacteria in living yogurt, if all of them are killed by the acid, which is usually the case, the dead bacteria are still having an anti-inflammatory effect in your intestine The substance of the bacterial skeleton, it contains things with an anti-inflammatory effect, so that the bacteria itself, even dead, it's maybe even better than living bacteria that could produce lactic acid in your intestine
Because too much lactic acid in your intestine puts your burden on your liver And bacteria produce racemic, randomized lactic acid molecule, which is in the long run much more toxic, even than the proper kind of lactate that we make ourselves The kind we make ourselves is a signal that can have very harmful effects if it gets out of control If you take too much of even the natural form of the lactate, it will still put a burden on your liver and consume stored lactic acid, so it can give you low blood sugar
But the bacterial form of lactate is metabolized similarly to glycerin And part of the damage produced by stress is the glycerin molecule that forms triglycerides, when you liberate free fatty acids, you also liberate the glycerin molecule And bacterial racemic, lactic acid, and glycerin are metabolized, producing a methyl glyoxal, which is a very toxic, age accelerating compound A very reactive, molecule damaging form of lactic acid derivative So we could avoid that by avoiding the improper oxidation of fuel? Yeah, avoiding formation of a significant amount of bacterial lactic acid in your intestine
I see. So when it comes to yogurt, it's not so much the bacteria in there, but the lactic acid byproduct that would cause the issues Yeah, so if you don't feed it with a high starch diet, for example, if you're slow to digest food yourself, then it feeds bacteria, and hard to digest starches are major sources of fuel for bacteria And several of their metabolic breakdown products of the starches are toxic enough to produce emotional behavioral problems in test animals, undoubtedly the same in humans
There's a lot of people right now using resistant starch or even raw starch to help feed what they claim to be the supportive bacteria in the colon And if you look at the studies, the behavioral effects are mediated through the increase of serotonin effects in the brain And the behavioral effects include fear and regression both in the animal test and the fiber which is digestible by bacteria that resist digestion by our enzymes Those are the starches or starch-like molecules that cause those toxic byproducts
These people report having relief from psoriasis-like symptoms, and I know you said that polyunsaturated fats can also have a temporary anti-inflammatory response with long-term harm Do you think something like that is happening from the serotonin? Is there any possible way that it's being anti-inflammatory temporarily? I'm going back to purification of substances and toxicity. I'm a fan of distilled water. I have a VOC vent and a carbon filter afterwards to get possibly some of the VOCs
I saw your quote that you were saying that distilled water is generally fine to drink. It's just some of the bad things attributed to it is because with areas of high rainfall, it dilutes the minerals to where maybe the plants aren't as nutritious and they have more cloud cover So they probably have lower vitamin D levels. Do you still agree with that statement?
It's best to get a large part of your water needs through your foods such as milk and fruit juice. If you're in a hot climate and have to drink water, distilled water is fine as long as your diet contains minerals When it comes to spring water, I know a lot of people drink spring water and well water. Because of this acid rain, do you think it's more dangerous to drink those because of the excess leaching of minerals and other things that might be leaching?
I think it's important to look at the mineral analysis of every type of spring water that you consider using regularly Is there a disadvantage to having high hardness in the water or high mineral count? Arsenic and cadmium are the two most dangerous minerals What if it's a majority of calcium and magnesium and that kind of makes up the hardness? Would that be helpful? To some extent, you cannot compete against the toxins by having a lot of the safer ones. For example, if you have a high sink intake that protects you somewhat against cadmium pollution
and calcium that protects against strontium and lead, for example I think the Hanza people have the Hanza water, which looks like milk. It's so rich in minerals that the water looks milky. They claim to drink that and attribute that to their good health I think that's supposed to be extremely high in magnesium Let's see. That's good to know. Do you know, speaking of water, that seems to be a natural form of magnetic, I don't know if I'd call it pollution
but a magnetic phenomenon, the geopathic stress, and there seems to be some tests that they did in Germany that showed that just moving people's beds could either help prevent their cancer or reverse it Do you think there's these phenomenon under the earth that are affecting people? Yeah, there are some places that have definitely odd fields, deposits under the earth, but I think the idea of it being a general planetary problem I doubt that. I think it's just a few special areas
Wilhelm Reich seemed to do some research in these fields and he claimed to have created cloudbusters and talked about organ energy and organ accumulators Do you have any insights on him and his work? Yeah, I've read all of his things, and the matter of his writing in general, I started reading him in the '50s when he was in prison, in fact and my psychology professor didn't mention that even though we were comparing Reich and Freud's underwritings, oddly my professor seemed to be totally unaware of him
He was currently in prison, but from that time on I read I think all of his books and since he had generally the right picture of how organisms work, he borrowed many of his best ideas but I think he also had some very mistaken ideas about the nature of radiation, for example Do you mind going into that a little bit? For example, one of his paintings illustrated light around a glowing object and he didn't realize that this halo effect that people see around an object occurs in the eye
He believed there was something actually occurring around the object, but by changing the properties of your eye, you change that glow effect So he was very ignorant of things like objects I see, so you thought people had this visible aura around them Yeah, it didn't separate what happens in your perception apparatus from what is out there in space Do you think these cloud busters that he used to help promote rainfall and stuff were legitimate? I don't discount the possibilities that they could work, but I don't think the principles he used to explain them were valid
Why do you think was the main reason that they ended up putting him in jail? Oh, definitely, his writings against fascism, that the FDA was a persecutor of the Food and Drug Administration and they said he was selling a cancer-treating device, and anyone who combines a political, anti-fascist message with questioning of the cancer pharmaceutical establishment that basically condemns themselves I see. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, especially today, you get to see all that playing out in front of you The FDA had all of his books burned
It's a horrible story, I remember reading it and watching it Do you think magnetic therapy has any merit to it? I know people try to use magnets to bring blood flow to regions of their body Do you know anything about magnetic therapy? Yeah, I wrote a book about it, and politics got involved I forget what the guy's name was that agreed to publish it, and then I think he and his partner decided not to publish it But I had reviewed the studies of biological sensitivity
And I had in fact gone to Moscow to talk to Yuri Holodov, who was studying the effects of weak magnetic fields on brain and bone adult cells, and that was before I started studying reproductive physiology So I was oriented through the bio magnetism ideas in my approach to how to look at biological energy, especially in the reproductive system and brain The very weak fields do influence our nerves and hormone-producing cells very strongly
Do you have any, well first of all do you plan on releasing any of that information as a book still, or as an article? No, I think there's enough already in print, I was just bringing some of it together Do you have anything that you personally use or recommend for somebody who might be looking to utilize that technology? No, I never came up with anything that I thought was useful In one of my first research projects in the lab at the university, I was studying the latent latency in nerve stimulation and reaction of crab nerves
And I found that putting a strong permanent magnet near the nerve increased its latency or stabilized it And right around that same time at NASA, they were finding that putting a strong permanent field perpendicular to the base of the brain At the upper part of the neck, that they could affect consciousness, effectively slowing down or blocking the communication between the brain and the spinal cord Even though you can see the effects and potential harm, so far I haven't seen anything that was convincingly therapeutic That's why I lost interest in publishing it
So people sometimes report relief of arthritis type symptoms by, well I know copper isn't necessarily, it's not magnetic, but from copper, wearing copper and also magnets What do you think? Wearing copper, definitely copper is absorbable through the skin For example, just painted some copper sulfate onto an animal's skin and then taken a blood sample and found that it had high copper content of the blood So if you wear a bracelet for example and it turns your skin green, that means you're absorbing copper
And copper is needed for respiratory energy and for forming the elastin molecule that makes your tissues resilient, blood vessels, stretchiness and so on So wearing copper is absorbable through the skin? Definitely. Are there any other things that might be? I know I wear silver jewelry, is that having any benefit or disadvantage? But wearing it on the skin as a ring or a necklace should be fine, or is it potentially toxic? It's something I avoid for myself, but I don't think it's enough to worry about
A lot of people started using colloidal silver or ionic silver during this time, well I don't really agree with the premise of it, but what do you think about using that short term? Oh, maybe for something like disinfecting a swimming pool, where copper used to be the thing People didn't need chlorine in their pool, so they just put a little copper sulfate in the water And that was good for your skin, as well as keeping the organisms down
Silver can do the same disinfecting job, but colloidal silver I don't think is safe except in the very smallest occasional amounts I make my own, but I use it only externally, and I found it to be of great relief when I mix it with a pregnenolone cream and put it on burns Or I had wild parsnip which caused chemical burns from phytophotodermatitis, and I also found that that really helped the silver mixed with the pregnenolone It definitely protects against injection
Do you think it's doing something to relieve the burn? Because it was like a night and day difference for me when I put on the silver I don't know about that It was funny because I told my father-in-law that I had been doing that, and he said yes, I also have a conventionally produced at the pharmacy's silver cream that he would use for burns And I didn't even know that existed I think it's standard explanation is that it's anti-infective Okay, maybe I had a small infection going on
Going back to magnetism and EMF, I observed some of our pets in various homes, like cats, that will go and sleep close to the wifi router That kind of makes me curious, do these animals not understand this threat? Can they not perceive this threat? Do they not have some better senses than us? Yeah, I've noticed, for example, our cat always cringed when we turned on the induction hot plate And looked at it like it was an alien invader, gave it a white bird
I've also noticed that ants sometimes congregate around an electrical outlet, even when it can't be a source of warmth, there's something there attractive Interesting Yeah, I definitely believe in the negative effects of EMF, but it was always strange to me how sometimes animals would be attracted to it Maybe they're getting addicted to it or something, I don't know Okay, well, that's good to know about magnetic therapy, I've been really curious about that
I kind of wanted to ask you, with everything going on right now, what is your definition or view of the way society should run I know this is a big question, but a lot of people are trying to propose their own, of course we have the left and the right But how do you think society should be ruled, or should there even be a ruler, should we be small communities, and how far does authoritarianism either go or don't go It doesn't go
Authoritarianism has been on the rampage for over 100 years, it's multiplying insanely, if you read a significant amount of Klaus Schwab's writings, the founder of the World Economic Forum You can see that he's basically totally deranged with a worship of power that can come from artificial intelligence And the left-right opposition has pretty much lost its meaning because of this takeover of the language by the insane authoritarians The whole digital culture, it's their dream scheme to enslave people, get them involved and committed to the very basis for thinking about the future
You have to back up and realize that the quantization of reality, the digitalization of our culture, in every sense, the attitude towards communication and information You have to back up, and for example, I think in information theory, the last evidence of good biological thinking was in the founder of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener He had this parallel in Russia, in the Pavlovian tradition And P.K. and Mokan created the same ideas that Norbert Wiener did, and about how control processes work
Norbert Wiener saw a reality in analog terms, and pointed out that people were in control at every stage of a cybernetic system as long as it was thought out in analog terms Anivar Push was singing along the same lines, but he became a government official and began combining digital processes with his analog computing systems And Norbert Wiener's approach by the early 1950s had been cut out of the culture by the force of government grants and pressures against that way of thinking
So that the government, in obedience to these financial powers, created the belief that reality is digital and quantized And once you're committed to that view, then the whole Google technocracy system, that reasoning seems to make sense But once you realize that it's an ideological propaganda imposition, write a key, the brain process of how we describe reality and our understanding of reality You have to back up and try to start thinking as an animal, and then you see the polarity is between life processes and industry-controlled information processes
And once you accept their terms, you're under their control They simply own all of the systems. Google, all of the technology, Wikipedia, social media, all of these are being censored and controlled from the top down So you have to back up and start thinking in terms of living organisms who live in connection with and on the basis of the Earth processes And so you have to start thinking of life processes depending on ecosystems and the Earth, not on information systems
And in that situation, you see that what used to be the right-wing corporate aligned system and the left-wing common worker interest Every living being now has to be thought of as a member of life process with what used to be the right-wing as a taking of the simple role of manipulator and attempt to control the world So just to summarize, just so I know that I got this somewhat right, so you're saying there is basically a parallel reality that has been formed by these technocratic authoritarians
And they've kind of hijacked our more natural instincts and just our zest for life and being as communities just like animals are And they've presented this quantized view of reality that we have all started succumbing to and therefore everyone's vision is now at the same place And they, for example, are calling the Democratic Party the left-wingers. They're humanistic people in both parties, but they don't subscribe to the fascist rules The leadership of both Republican and Democratic parties are subscribed to the rules of fascism, the digital culture explanation
I see. Okay, that makes sense. So let's say people want to eject out of this reality and I guess some have to be somewhat plugged in to rescue the others But what would be a new paradigm that we could set up? Would we just go back to living as smaller communities and trading, coming up with our own monetary system being as self-reliant as possible? Would that be the way forward out of this fabricated reality?
Yeah, yeah. Direct, avoiding money where possible, but using direct money, avoiding banks and the various electronic money systems, direct interactions on all levels as far as possible And working our way out of these increasingly artificial intelligence-controlled systems I think we should even avoid, wherever possible, doing business over the internet When you call a corporation, increasingly we're being put on hold and then answered by someone who doesn't know what they're doing Nothing seems to be directly operated by living intelligent beings anymore. Everything is operated by blind algorithms, control systems
It seems that for their fabricated reality to go on, they really need this 5G to take off Yeah, that's the catalyst for the last stage, or the death phase of the culture Scary stuff, yeah. I'm really trying to inform people about the dangers of that at least I'm trying to find some avenue to get through to people with and hopefully they can connect the dots themselves Believe it or not, even telling people about the planned obsolescence of items somewhat wakes them up
So, in terms of morality, because morality is going to come into the equation, I believe, at some point, even if we become these independent individuals who work in communities Where do you think the basis of morality comes from, or where should it come from? What is the criteria that we can judge morality by? In my teens, I read a cozier of the anarchist who was a biologist He demonstrated cooperation rather than competition was the basic rule in the whole world of organisms Cooperation comes first, and competition is a minor factor in biological reality
And I think that really is where our morality comes from On the internet, you can find examples of squirrels or other organisms acting with altruism between heroic things to save their fellow organisms And that's, when I say, referring to a biological manner of thinking The analog reality is also the moral reality, a world of Christian ideals are basically biologically affirming principles of concern for others All of the great moralities and religious systems are biologically logical systems Capitalism invented the idea of survival of the fittest, and competition for improvement, and meritocracy, and so on
And that's actually what they mean, money-based merit, the Trump mentality basically Human values is kind of in billions or billions of dollars Yeah, I personally am a believer in the Abrahamic religions, and that's partially what had woken me up in what you just said to the more analog, biologically compatible view of what life is But what do you think was the origin of this spirituality, these morals that came about for people
Is it indicative of a greater being that gave this to us, almost like he knew that this was appropriate, or do you think it was created by the needs of the people by themselves Because they saw a need for some altruistic belief system Yeah, you can see it operating like Kropotkin did, if you study communities of living organisms at every level, you can see cooperation Fish, birds, small mammals, big mammals, all living beings show these properties And I think it's a universal principle that exists in atoms
The digital culture has taught us that every atom of an element is the same as every other atom It has no history, it's simply an irreducible unit But if you look from the analog point of view, another researcher who reached cosmic ideas by studying the soil and chemistry, Bernanski He described an organism as a foral wind of atoms And if you view it that way, each atom has its place in the foral wind And so each atom has a history And this atom doesn't have the same history as the other atom
And old chemistry classes used to speak of nascent oxygen, newly formed oxygen And its chemical reactivity as being radically different from old oxygen And that has been discarded from the textbooks because it didn't go with the digital thinking in which every atom is simply out of time An immortal being, except when nuclear fission happens, and that is not anything intrinsic to the being, but simply a numerical mystery So I think ultimately the ability of each atom to resonate and relate to its surroundings in a unique way depending on where in the foral wind it is
Bertrand Russell, who did a lot for the digital way of doing logic, recognized that we have a basic choice of seeing whether every bit of the world at every atom or every person or organism is definable in relation to its surroundings, where it is in the foral wind of life Every moment is different because of its surroundings And your history is changing constantly as you add new things to your history So every being is unique in its time and place
And you can see that as a resonance of its being, which is taking its definition from its surroundings And you have actual, for example, electronic affinity is different depending on what other atoms or beings are in its neighborhood If you connect a string of carbon atoms, each atom has a different reactivity electronically depending on where in the chain it is And if you add an oxygen to the chain, that changes the reactivity of carbons farther down the line
And if you introduce a carbon dioxide molecule into the vicinity, that suddenly affects the reactivity of all of the electron groups and properties of every atom in its vicinity So that kind of electronic interaction, affinity and attraction or repulsion, that resonance or energetic interaction with its surroundings That gives a shaping influence, a personality and individuality to every part of existence So starting from atoms and molecules and working your way up, you see that these interactive, essentially cooperative processes are universal They're the basic rule of construction of the world
That's great, sounds very purposeful, I think that's a good way to describe that I just want to take a quick break, remind people that they're listening to the Primitive Initiative Podcast And I have Dr. Ray Peat here with me as my guest You can find his articles on www.raypeat.com, you can also sign up for his bimonthly newsletter at [email protected] And you can also request his books from there in digital format So Dr. Peat, that was an amazing summary of that, so would you say then that those things kind of operate similarly to the bystander effect
Where it's like just being in things vicinity, they don't have to be touching, they can just be around each other And there's this large influence over every organism, even if they're not close In the 1930s, in the early 1940s, everyone in biology recognized the bystander effect in different forms They called it the field, the developmental field, for example And psychologists, physicists, tumor researchers recognized that there was a cancer field That there were creations in the organism surrounding the cancer But the digital people wiped that out entirely
The Gestalt psychology disappeared in the 50s, the field thinking in embryology and developmental biology in general, especially in the understanding of cancer Cancer became a digital event, a specific mutation in a specific gene or multiple genes Making a single cell absolutely unique and different and cancerous But the neighboring cell had nothing to do with it because it was an intrinsic event in the DNA only That became an insane dogma that led to the insane war on cancer
Based on the idea of a mutant gene or in the absence of an intrinsic gene that then became a virus And for ten years they insisted that there was either an oncogene or an oncogenic virus integrated into the genes It had to be on the genetic level because that's where digital reality exists for these people And they insisted that the genes controlled the cell and therefore the organism And that's where their digital reality impinged on and destroyed science
That the idea that a gene controls the organism was the same basic idea that Klaus Schwab has now That artificial intelligence will control the world life process So speaking of these analog and digital realities, certain creationists dismiss evolution completely And certain evolution proponents dismiss creationism completely Where do you view their conjoining points? Do they have some similar ground that they can agree on somewhere? William Jennings Bryan, the presidential candidate who was humiliated in the Scopes trial He was a creationist and a Bible literalist who they made fun of in the trial
He was actually anti-eugenics. He was talking about the evil that these people were doing That genes control everything and therefore there's a hierarchy of beings English aristocracy down to apes, and everyone had their place in between And four people were just above apes, for example And William Jennings Bryan was defending humanity and life itself against this fascist eugenics doctrine But he really did because he tried to explain everything in strictly biblical terms But he was basically on the right side So in the graduate school, all of my professors were extreme genetics apologists
And that is essentially committed to a eugenics understanding of reality, which led quite a few of them The outstanding personalities in the Molecular Biology Institute, for example were admirers or worshippers of Conrad Lorenz, who was the ideological expert who pleased the explicit details of eugenics for Hitler, and Conrad Lorenz won the Nobel Prize in training Hitler's doctrine to the very end of his principles of eugenics and determinism of all life processes So in terms of everything, I believe they think most of the things that are happening genetically are random
But then they also say that the environment has a part in it So are they contradicting themselves, or what are they trying to do? They've been forced by reality to say, "Well, yes, there is an environment, and yes, maybe we're forced to say that it has an effect on us But in fairly recent times, I've talked to lots of doctors and professors who said, for example, that the health of a pregnant woman has no effect whatsoever on her baby's outcome Absolutely contradicting the human experience as well as all of the animal research
The developing brain is absolutely shaped by others' health and experiences And so that principle is still being applied by doctors who insist on vaccinating their pregnant patients during pregnancy A criminal act which is officially confirmed by World Health Organization and CDC I think they were even calling for testing the COVID vaccine on pregnant women Yeah, that's a crime against humanity, they even proposed it Almost, if they hadn't been paying attention to this up until then No, right down in the last week, it makes a difference
The brain should be developing new brain cells the whole last trimester But in fact, there are more brain cells than the average baby that six months of development than at birth because they just aren't getting enough sugar and protein and progesterone to support the growth and maturation of these cells So the potential cortical cells that should be complexifying the cortex of the brain, they're dying out during the last trimester when they shouldn't be maturing So it's almost never too late to get proper nutrition
Yeah, even at birth, if the baby is premature and you make sure they get breast milk and a progesterone supplement through the skin, for example, or through the mother if the mother makes sure her progesterone is good then her breast milk will sustain the baby's premature brain development Is it true that babies are born deficient in vitamin D, or is that because mothers are highly deficient? The mothers are deficient. They have taken the saying that babies are born deficient in polyunsaturated fatty acids
because they have their own Omega-9 series of polyunsaturated fatty acids. Those are the ones naturally made to sustain proper brain function As soon as you start eating environmental pollutants such as fish oil or flaxseed oil, those start getting incorporated into the brain And since old people have brains full of fish oil, they say that the babies are lacking those as a deficiency But I think we should take the newborn brain in the healthy baby as an example of how the brain should continue developing
When they have supplemented human patients with highly polyunsaturated fatty acids, they were arguing that this should improve learning and brain development What they found was that the babies were undersized naturally, restricting their overall growth. It was restricting their brain growth So that has been demonstrated not only in rats and dogs, but actually in French human beings Adding poofa during pregnancy retards brain development So supplementing with these highly unsaturated fatty acids, does the mother not oxidize those herself and it doesn't damage the babies?
To a great extent, they break down before getting into the blood circulation and reaching the baby But to the extent that there is excess taken in, some of it will reach the baby's brain The baby is being harmed, but maybe the mother is being harmed even more Talking about vitamin D, there's been a large surge concerning vitamin D and how it's toxic and never to be taken And it displaces and imbalances many nutrients including magnesium and vitamin A
I know there's some truth to that, if you overdo anything, you can cause differing levels in other nutrients But could you kind of help offer clarity? What's being said is that you only need the active form Or not only, but that's what you'd be trying to increase And by taking vitamin D supplements, you are increasing your storage form and that doesn't say anything Who is saying that? I've been hearing that someone is terribly confused His name is Morley Robbins What was the last name? Morley Robbins, R-O-B-B-I-N-S
He actually shares a lot of the same sentiments as you when it comes to liking copper and reducing iron and talking about iron toxicity But he's very against vitamin D saying that it reduces vitamin A and therefore copper availability and ceruloplasmin and all of these downstream things All of that is horribly confused, there are places on the internet now I just flat out say, "Kelsey trial is vitamin D" The official terminology is that "Kelsey trial is activated vitamin D"
But "Kelsey dial" is a beneficial form, not a storied form, it's the active form that acts as a neurosteroid, for example It affects physiology, the function, as well as the expression of genes in the brain and other tissues The way a storied hormone, a DHEA or a pragmatic one, modifies the tissue It might not be active in the sense of having been converted by the kidney But that process, the "Kelsey trial", that's the form that when they use it, topically, for example, on the cornea It indeed damages the healing process
If you take it internally, it intensifies calcification of blood vessels and kidneys It's the toxic, dangerous vitamin D You don't undertake activated vitamin D, that is properly thought of as the dangerous last stage of vitamin D handling Which is increased in proportion to your vitamin D deficiency When you're not getting enough calcium and/or vitamin D from sunlight or diet and a rich source of calcium in the diet relative to phosphate, your parathyroid hormone increases And in the process, it increases a lot of degenerative processes
It causes the removal of calcium from your bones, the increase of calcium in your arteries and other soft tissues And it increases the activation of vitamin D So the active form, so-called, is chemically 1,25-dihydroxycholicalciferol The good kind is either cholicalciferol, which is formed by the action of sunlight cholesterol, or the liver-modified 25-hydroxycholicalciferol That is the kind we take, that's the kind that increases when we take cholicalciferol It's activated in the liver and becomes the beneficial, protective, immune-supportive, anti-inflammatory, anti-fibrotic vitamin D The 1,25-dihydroxycholicalciferol is the form that causes degenerative disease, aging, and calcification of tissues
Sounds a lot like what parathyroid hormone would do Exactly, it parallels the actions of parathyroid hormone and stress, it's increased under the influence of stress and vitamin D deficiency He also argues that what's going on is that it's actually a magnesium deficiency Now I'm not arguing that magnesium isn't needed, of course it is, but he's saying that people should not take vitamin D and should just take magnesium to help all conversions, ultimately ending at calcitriol I don't think magnesium helps, I think it hinders if anything, the conversion to calcitriol Does it have a role?
There's been one who really sorted this out, their study of Closol, the anti-aging protein, K-L-O-T-H-O It's strongly a regulator of calcium preventing the calcium degenerative cell death process that happens in aging So if you're deficient in Closol, your tissues prematurely calcify and increase phosphates in the diet It acts like a Closol deficiency and increased calcium, which leads Closol to keep your parathyroid hormone under control And Closol is in a tight control process with the active vitamin D or 1,25-dihydroxy I think I've heard you talk about Dr. Michael Hollick before in his research on vitamin D
He mentioned that they actually came up with a 1,25-D product for people with kidney failure In that circumstance, would it be necessary or no? I doubt that, I think it's a major factor that is developed in relation to kidney failure Oh, okay, because he said he was trying to get their vitamin D up with 25, or giving them colocalciferol But ended up having to synthesize 1,25 and give it to them It was in one of his power points or slides
I haven't seen that, but most of the people who write in power points seem to lose touch with their reality I don't have too much contact with their computer But you do agree with some of the things that Michael Hollick does say, right? Yeah, most of the things he says are very good Okay, sounds good. Well, thank you for clarifying that There's just been a lot of information coming out, according to that And I'd always listened to your suggestions on it, especially with the Clotho gene
Which I always found to be very interesting and watched several things on that myself to try to understand it better So I live in Minnesota, so we have winter for a long time, and it's very dark So if somebody got enough sun during the short 3-4 month summer where the sun's angle is appropriate Would they need to supplement vitamin D throughout the winter, or no? I think so Okay, so it's something that you think should be supplemented year-round unless you live in the tropics or something?
If you don't work outdoors, or if you're a lifeguard or something, spending 8 hours at the beach Then you might have 2 or 3 times the normal amount of vitamin D in your blood 130 nanograms remotely, I think, is typical for a summer lifeguard But people who work in sheltered areas, even in the summer, they're going to have a relative vitamin D deficiency Okay, wow, so you're saying that measuring your 25D would be the way to go to figure out whether you need supplementation
Yeah, if you want to find out how sick you are, then you can make sure the 125-dihydroxy, that goes up when you're desperately sick So you and I talked about the novel virus last interview, and there's been a lot of reports coming out that vitamin D is helping people with this supposed illness Or any illness, and we kind of talked about whether this thing is actually a virus or these exosomes that we talk about But either way, something does make the individual sick
So these things benefiting that individual, is that just because it's reinforcing the whole organism to operate the way it should? Yeah, vitamin D and all of the anti-inflammatory processes are making our energy production more efficient And that makes our surfaces more resistant to attack by foreign organisms or chemicals Everything that improves energy tightens up our cellular structure and makes it resistant to damage The immune system is really a healthy living process. Every cell that is producing energy and consuming oxygen, producing carbon dioxide, is part of our immune system
The antibody-producing cells are another late stage, not the immune system at all But they're part of a clean-up process after injury has occurred The antibodies help to identify damaged tissue, and in the process, if a microorganism is associated with the damaged tissue, the antibodies will attach themselves to the microorganism And get rid of it, too, that their basic function is to clean up any damaged tissue So there's something that appears on the scene in response to injury
And if you can keep your vitality so high that you don't get injured, then you don't beat the antibodies You have full immunity at the basic level Would it be far-fetched to say that somebody who's operating at a high level of metabolism and vitality would almost never feel symptoms of anything? Right, and there are always, even in plagues, well-fed generally, well-chaired for people There are always people who are not only resistant to the plague, but don't develop antibodies to it That's because their basic resistance is so high
So the immune system, the so-called immune system and its activation is actually, and if you can feel that, it's probably a good indication that something might not be completely right in your body Yeah, the weaker your system is, the more damage occurs with less cause And so the more likely it is to get triggered to produce lots of antibodies High estrogen people overproduce antibodies because their basic cellular resistance is lower And that's why the higher your estrogen is in relation to stabilizing hormones, the more likely you are to develop the autoimmune diseases
And, in other words, all of your tissues are tending to deteriorate, and the last ditch attempt of your body to save itself is to overproduce these antibodies, which are part of the system intended to remove damaged tissues Talking about the immune system and the vaccination propaganda that's going around, do you think that we're going to suffer some major consequences from people being vaccinated for illnesses where antibodies or some form of defense was transferred from the mother to the child or to the baby?
Is that being compromised to where these children are going to get sick at weird times throughout their life instead of the normal times for measles and stuff like that? I think we're already seeing it starting about 30 years ago. Kids started developing autoimmune and allergic diseases at a much higher rate. It's an epidemic now, and I think it corresponded greatly to the crazy campaign in the 1970s to vaccinate more and more people.
Okay, so these mothers aren't transferring the information that they need to be transferring because they're getting vaccinated? Is that a good way to look at it or no? Yeah, or are they transmitting defective information, harmful inflammatory signals? Okay, I see. One more question here, kind of along the lines of vitamin D. Because we're going to exit daylight savings pretty soon and it's going to get dark relatively fast, do you think there would be a benefit in extending the light, almost mimicking summertime light in the winter? If somebody decides to stay up?
Yes, I've been advocating that for a long time. Just visible light has a very strong biological effect, but visible light plus vitamin D is the very best. And I use red lights or the heating lamps that have the red tint over them? Yeah, the red is the most anti-inflammatory component of visible light. Okay, so my question was then that that wouldn't be harmful because part of me thought maybe I'm filtering the light too much and my body's still perceiving darkness somewhat so it might be having a stress response as opposed to the clear bulbs.
Well, it's the heating lamps, the 250 watt, but when it has that red filter it has a red tint which then diminishes the amount of light. Yeah, that's just taking some of the useful white light out. It isn't adding any red to have the red glass of both. So that doesn't start to produce any stress hormones by filtering that light then? Only in the sense of absent brightness. Brightness itself helps to keep your alertness up.
So if you're getting enough brightness with only the red light, like sitting in a darkened room with only red light, it tends to slow down and lack stimulation. Okay, so you could have red lights, you just want the light intensity to be enough where your body perceives the light. Yeah, so that you feel alert and stimulated by the brightness. Okay, that's good to know, yeah. Or else if you didn't want to do that then the best thing would be to just go to sleep right when it gets dark pretty much, right? Yeah.
Okay, that would help to mitigate some of the stress of darkness. How are you doing on time? I just have about one question left for you. Okay, I was having a back and forth with Chris Masterjohn. I know that you're familiar with him. And I was kind of quoting some of your research and Gilbert Ling and Gerald Pollock and we were having a back and forth about the necessity of the essential fatty acids when it comes to the cell membranes or the so-called cell membranes.
And he said that Ling never argued that the cell doesn't have a membrane and I said I know I was just more so implying that if these pumps are flawed and the energy isn't being produced enough in order to sustain these pumps, then there should be other things to look into, like the supposed membranes and receptors and channels. So can you offer some clarity on the membrane of a cell and does that exist? Are there any lipids there?
If you look at the history of actual tests for whether there is a cell membrane, there are lots of publications, for example, showing that some cells don't contain enough phospholipids to cover the surface of the cell. And so it has to be something other than the phospholipids they've settled on. If you read all of the publications through the 1940s and '50s, it looks like just another propaganda thing built up to support the possibility that there is a membrane barrier with pumps, but the whole idea of a barrier.
That's where the need for a phospholipid bilayer came from. Gilbert Lang showed that there is no such barrier. His isotope experiment shows that the minerals are freely moving back and forth at no barrier at all to their movement. So the very reason that it was postulated was a misunderstanding. But then when you look at the way they tried to present empirical evidence for such an unnecessary barrier, you see that old medical textbooks, if you had an ulcer, a burn, for example, that wasn't healing,
they proposed different ways to seal it up so you wouldn't leak fluids through the ulcerated burn, and one method was to create a false membrane on the ulcer. And the way they did that was with heavy metal, particularly heavy metal, I can't think of right now, but it's used to sustain membranes. I can tell you later, but it's the heavy metal that they used to create false membranes. They began testing when they had access to electron microscopes that could see very fine structures.
They couldn't visualize any structure at all on the surface of cells that could correspond to a barrier membrane. And finally someone decided to osmic acid, osmium tetroxide, as a compound that creates false membranes. But when they couldn't demonstrate a microscopic structure at the surface of cells, someone decided to treat the cells with osmic acid. And they, in fact, created a false membrane on the surface. And their first sustaining of the cell membrane, it was 400 angstroms thick, and over the decades, as they changed their rules about what such a barrier might do,
and where the pumps might be, the theoretical membrane kept getting thinner and thinner. And so they used different methods to make the stain produce a thinner and thinner membrane. Until finally they got down to present very thin two layers of phospholipid with the acidic ends separated by the two layers of the carbon chains of fatty acids. And their present staining with osmic acid produces two black layers separated by clear space. And it's known that osmic acid has methylity for proteins and fats, but it, being an acid, it's repelled by acidic groups.
And the picture they present corresponds to the acidic heads of the phospholipids separated by the appropriate distance. But these heads, the hypothetical heads of the phospholipids, are black because they are binding osmic acid. And acid head groups are specifically brought with the unstained, and the single layer of fatty acid chains between those two layers would be stained black. So you'd see a single fat layer stained by osmic tetroxide. So the very stain that they had decided would demonstrate their barrier membrane where the pumps operate turns out to be totally illogical.
And at that point they just don't want to talk anymore. So the phospholipid is there though, or membrane is there, or it's just being stained? Well, the osmium definitely can't be representing the structures that they show on the internet and in textbooks, because the black lines are separated by the appropriate distance of two layers of fatty acids. But osmic acid would stain a single layer of such a fat.
So I think my interpretation is as good as any that at any phase change, the cell being a living phase of substance surrounded by a more or less amorphous extracellular material, you have a phase difference where the water structure is ordered inside in a different way than outside. And where you have a phase difference, you get an electrical double layer, and you can stain an electrical double layer at any ionized particle near a surface where there's a phase change between one substance and another with different electrical properties.
You will have an electrical double layer, and if you have a visualizable ionic material, that will distribute itself representing an electrical double layer, which any simple oil suspended in water, for example, that there will be an electrical double layer at the surface. So I think what we're seeing is simply a phase bound to the electrical double layer, which is stainable with any ionized particle. Do you think this cell would be non-visible if it wasn't for the staining? Would it just mix in with the rest of the fluids? Would you not be able to see it?
Oh, yeah, the electron microscope showed that they had many different stains, and the different phase properties always concentrated any visualizable substance differently. Without a stain, you would see a different texture inside and outside the cell, and any electron opaque material would distribute itself differently. So you see different arrangements, but the osmium staining or sulfur staining or any of the things that are visible to an electron microscope, if you deprive a cell of oxygen, you see it becoming more and more stainable to these positively ionized metal particles.
The positive charge of silver, for example, will gradually increase in a gray diffused manner, increasing in proportion to the oxygen deprivation of the tissue, so that you're increasing the electron richness of the protein substance of the cytoplasm. And in that condition, you'll be repelling acidic compounds, so the staining would be reduced by oxygen deprivation for acids and increased for alkaline things such as heavy metals.
Would the imagery change depending on the state of the cell, and if you're oxidizing or fermenting your fuel, would that, because then the concentration of CO2 is changing and so is lactate and ammonia? Every different substance causes some structural changes, as well as stainability changes. Just for fun, once I tried fixing a cell for the electron microscope with an acid, I forget the name of it, but it was, I think, a 6 or 8 carbon dicarbic cell, like acid chain with acid group on each end.
And when I stained with that, I found the appearance of membranes all the way through the cell. So it looked like an onion, if you slice an onion, you see these layer after layer of substance, a slight distinction between the layers. Do you know what may have caused that? Yeah, I think that the toxic effect, these dicarbic cell-like acids were hardening the protein, but as it was absorbed, it would reorganize a layer, and as it went deeper, the cytoplasm was reacting.
Sequentially, sort of the resistance to being hardened of the cytoplasm would go in waves, so it's sort of a functional wave that passes through the cell causing a frozen wave effect. Okay. From your descriptions and your articles and your interviews, I've come to understand the cell's ability and its affinity for certain minerals over others and carbon dioxide having a major role in that. But when it comes to the so-called receptors, how can we make sense of these receptors and how drugs function and how even VDR, vitamin D receptor, what are these receptors really?
They are proteins, natural proteins, but you keep identifying new things that count as receptors. It just depends on how you're looking. First crude glands with a stainable substance, for example, will identify a certain number of proteins throughout the cell, maybe on the surface or in the nucleus or randomly distributed. If you change the nature of the molecule a little bit, then you will start turning up things with a lower affinity.
You can eventually separate all of the proteins of the cell as having more or less affinity for any particular substance, anything you consider that can be dissolved into the cell is going to have greater or less affinity for any particular protein. The proteins that have the most affinity are the most sensitive point of the cell in responding, but I think the proper way is to think of it as a leverage point.
It doesn't deny that the particular molecule is affecting many places that you haven't identified, but the most responsive places are called the receptor, but they are simply a point that is more sensitive than others. If you created an organism lacking that particular receptor, the hormone will still have most of its effects, estrogen effects, are very independent of a particular receptor. So it kind of sounds like a mechanistic way of describing it, kind of like a key in a lock instead of recognizing the complexities around it.
It took 20 years or so before people were recognizing that estrogen and progesterone, other hormones, could have what they call the cytoplasmic or membrane activity, attending for the fact that estrogen will within two or three minutes of exposing a cell to it. The enzyme activities all through the cell are changing, but the receptor hasn't had time to go anywhere in the cell. For 20 years, they were insisting that estrogen acted on the genes through its receptor, and that the receptor had to travel in and act on the gene, which would then cause the changes.
Meanwhile, people who were looking at other effects, electrical reactions, or water uptake, or activation of fats emphasizing enzymes and so on, all of this happens within seconds or minutes of exposure. But the genetic doctrine took a good 20 years to get them to change their terminology, and now they say, "Well, there's the genetic effect and the membrane effect, or the cytoplasmic action of hormones." If you look for any hormone, you'll see a cytoplasmic or so-called membrane effect that happens long before any genetic thing could be activated.
Wow. So when somebody says, "Oh, my disease is purely genetic," do you think there is any genetic malfunction or mutation that's independent of its environment? No. Yeah. It's very interesting. They make it seem like it's just a period out of thin air for no reason. Yeah. That was very convenient for medicine. When viruses were discovered, they were popular. A person would come in with something the doctor didn't understand, and he would say, "Well, that's a virus. We'll give you an antibiotic."
When the virus story didn't work, they always had the genes. It's basically your fault. It's something you inherited. Yeah. I wonder how they can justify its presence now, its increased presence now and not in the past. But then again, they say things like, "Well, we have better technology now, and we didn't know about things and diagnosis," blah, blah, blah. You know, diabetes used to be a genetic disease, but in Israel, with the big immigration changes, it turned out that the European diet, people would come in, in the population, absolutely free of diabetes.
As soon as they start eating European-style food, their genetic potential for diabetes was suddenly realized. Yeah. I have Somalian friends here in Minnesota, and they say, "Oh, whenever grandpa's diabetes acts up, we just send him back to Africa, and he comes back fine." So, one last clarification on the cells. What are these channels? What is your interpretation of the channels?
Oh, the patch clamp. They would stick a membrane in and pull it out with something stuck on the end, which they said was a membrane, and then they could just have their membrane, no organism or cell involved. But they could give the properties of the electronic behavior of the cell, supposedly by the electronic behavior of whatever was stuck on their microelectrode.
And that is where the single-channel electric properties of the cell originated, and someone decided to break off the very tip of this so-called membrane that they were studying and look at it under an electron microscope. And they just saw a blob of ordinary cytoplasm. No membrane-like structure was visible at all. And then someone decided to, if it was just an amorphous bit of cytoplasm, they decided to try amorphous bits of other polymeric jellies.
And with a great variety of different polymeric substances made into a group that was electronically conducted by having water solubility, they put it in a microelectrode the same way the cell had been treated, and then they did their electronic setup and got the same single-channel electrical activity. You get the channel conduction equivalent to a single impulse of a nerve. You get it with all kinds of different polymer jellies, nothing resembling a cell material.
Would it be fair to say that the cell almost resembles a ball of jello, matrix proteins, and nothing's floating around in there like a bag of water, right? You know, it's that the polymer experiences an electrical field by reorganizing itself. I took an egg and stuck two electrodes in it and put it on a hysteresis device that measures the resistance with increasing voltage versus decreasing voltage. And the pure egg white showed an extreme learning effect.
And if you take a gob of that albumen, that sort of thing was what they did. Their channel experiment with the field itself creates an organization and creates a conductivity which discharging then causes a reorganization. It creates a build-up of a new organ and so it quantizes the behavior just by the changing field and discharge effects. So you create a functional channel just by the way you set up the measurement of it.
Dr. Peat, do you have any recommendations for people like me who are curious of cell physiology and what you deem to be a more accurate version of it? Is there any resources or textbooks that you can direct us to besides your own resources, of course? The University Library used to have lots of good resources but they've become less and less accessible. They've created filters using digitization to make things less accessible.
Yeah, paywalls and stuff. I think I remember you saying in a KMUD Ask the Herb Doctor's radio show that you moved to Oregon because you wanted to be close to the library. Do you still utilize the library and go to the library? No, I was working in the library when our old librarian was about to retire and she was installing some of the new digital stuff. And she saw me working with biological abstracts, the paper version. There were hundreds and hundreds of volumes of those and they were very useful and chemical abstracts.
She asked me to check some particular subjects so she could compare the digital version with the paper version. And just in an hour or so I found several examples that had been deleted. Censored, the digital version wasn't the complete representation of the paper volumes. Wow, that's so disappointing to hear. This is why I value people like you so much who have retained this information and is sound enough to recall it and help inform the rest of us who are maybe half your age or even less like me.
And I really want to know this stuff going forward. We can't lose this stuff or people like you. It's too important. Dr. Peat, I'd like to thank you so much for being here for this long. I hope I didn't keep you too long. You gave some amazing information and we had a great response for our first show. People loved it and hopefully they'll gain a lot from this too. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you. You have a good night.
Subscribe, follow, and share. If you'd like to find out ways to support us and for show notes, resources, and timestamps, please head on over to primitiveinitiative.com.