Paused at 39:47.
Let me share with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today. What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant US retaliation to deter a Soviet attack,
that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies? I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may not be accomplished by the British. Their technologies, the high-flying hardware computer company which took a nosedive this year, may be bought out by the British firm Applied Computer Technologies. Space shuttle is very difficult to do, one would think. Can a kid or a normal person actually pull this off? Well, what I did when I designed this was I understood that problem.
It seems the sweep of technology has no limits. In San Francisco this week, the world's first robot bartender was unveiled. The robot can talk and take spoken orders and can mix 200 different drinks. But on the first test run, the robot knocked a glass off the bar and onto the floor and poured beer all over the counter. The robot's designer said there were still some bugs to be worked out. Thank you guys for joining us. Raymond Peat, Georgi Dinkov. Ray, how are you? How are things in Eugene, Oregon?
Very good. The usual cold, wet and dark winter. And Georgi, how are things in DC? Dark, but for different reasons. It's just the political climate is murkier than it was a week ago. We had some snow yesterday, but it's all melted by now. It's just cold and windy, but dry. I want to devolve into political things, but first I want to tackle Ray's newsletter. Ray, maybe giving us an elevator pitch and going through and talking about your newsletter, Body Temperature, Inflammation and Aging. I think that would be a great place to start.
Then we could swing into political things. Maybe give us your motivation for writing it. I've just been watching for many years people, doctors, like a totally psychotic woman. Her brother said, but isn't it significant that her eardrum temperature is only 96 degrees? And the doctor said, oh, but that's normal for these people. And about 40 years ago, a woman supposedly with dementia, she couldn't find her way home if she was let out of the house by herself. She mentioned that her temperature had been as low as 92 degrees.
And when she took a little progesterone and got her body warm, she returned to graduate school and got straight A's for a master's degree. So just warming up the brain five or six degrees, you can gain about 60 or 70 IQ points. And when I was working on physiology of hamster aging, I noticed that there were some changes that worked under the influence of either temperature or hormones. And estrogen, which lowers your temperature, happened to cause microtubules to appear. And progesterone, which actually raised the temperature, had the opposite effect on the microtubules.
And I started thinking about the effect of cold and hot water when the microtubules are sensitive to the structural temperature of the water, how much order there is in it. And there are lots of enzymes in our cells that are structurally sensitive to the temperature of the environment, for example, to the degree that as the temperature goes down, some enzymes are suddenly totally inactivated while others are activated. And so it isn't just a chemical reaction, but it's a shift in the structure according to the temperature of the water.
And so there's something about mammals and birds that they function very well if they live at or above 37 degrees Celsius, about 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Birds very often like a much, much higher temperature. But every organism has a specific range where its enzymes work, and the transition can be very sudden. And there's a system that has just been more recently discovered called the heat shock proteins. And it happens that estrogen receptors are closely tied into the heat shock proteins. And so what these proteins and estrogen are doing is trying to save the terribly stressed organism
that doesn't have the heat to keep working. It does something to lock the structure up and protect it structurally. And you can see that in the appearance and disappearance of microtubules and the activity of various enzymes. And anyway, that has been in the background of watching people when they take thyroid or need thyroid or warm up their brains by taking progesterone or eating more sugar and protein and so on. And so the fact that the national temperature, especially in the last 50 years,
has dropped about a degree Fahrenheit for men and somewhat less for young women, but for postmenopausal women their temperature has fallen about as much as men. And so the fact that women, young women, have a higher body temperature than the average man is an indicator of progesterone ruling their physiology enough to keep them working and avoiding some of the aging diseases that men get as long as they steal or are cycling and making progesterone. And so in this newsletter I just go through all of the things that have been known
relating to inflammation, aging, degeneration, and disease as it relates to failing to keep your temperature up where it should be. Silly question, but the microtubules, is that the same thing as the cytoskeleton of the cell? It's a big part of it. It's the big hollow ones that are involved in cell division and part of the system of movement. But there are several types of smaller intermediate and smaller filaments. Wasn't there a recent study showing that pregnenolone is one of the most effective stabilizers of the structure of the microtubules and cholesterol as well?
Cholesterol, pregnenolone, and progesterone. And we talked about it a while ago, Ray, the hardening and the suppleness of tissue or a cell and that being a big part about aging and energy. And unfortunately this was, I think it was an interview that never actually aired. But it was really interesting talking about energy having a softening effect and then the deprivation of energy having this hardening effect. And that's of course associated with fibrosis and calcification, correct? And cancer. There are several articles that are very interesting.
For example, once you know that a tumor hardens, these people will say that, for example, for telling whether breast cancer has spread to the lymph nodes, all you have to do is feel for the lymph nodes and see if they're abnormally hardened. If they're not hardened, they're not cancerous. And you see estrogen as one of the primary hardening aspects of aging and things like that. That's driving the hardening. - Anything that knocks the energy down. - And it's kind of odd, like the carbon dioxide and the generation of heat have totally been sidelined
as the effects of proper mitochondrial respiration. But people in the health world are so obsessed with mitochondria, but those two things are rarely ever talked about. Is that a little strange? - Very strange. That's part of what organizes my thinking, looking at the reason and the nature of the myths that people have created to support their way of life and their belief system. And mostly the giant corporations that run science and publication. The ignoring temperature in my newsletter, I talk about the basis that goes back to the idea
that Raymond Pearl, a professor at Johns Hopkins, promoted that if you live fast and warm, you'll use up all your heartbeats and burn all your permitted calories and have to die young. And so he advocated being very lazy and staying cool to live a long time. - Was he just stupid or was he supported by industry? Like is there a specific outcome for the rate of living theory? - He was immersed in the matrix of industry, so that was all part of it. But I think he had to be really pretty stupid.
You put up a picture of a hummingbird right below his picture, and you can see the difference in vitality and mentality between the two organisms. - His experiment was on seeds or something? It sounds, I mean, to me, a layman, it sounds really stupid. It just sounds really ridiculous of what his experiment was. - Once you get used to it, that's not at all unusual. For example, someone was just asking me about the telomere theory of aging and the idea that we have an inborn number of cell divisions,
which really derives straight from Pearl's idea that we have only so many heartbeats or so many calories that we can produce in a lifespan. For Hayflick, it was so many cell divisions that were allotted. And the first group of his papers that I read was in 1970. And I had to show them around to my friends because I couldn't believe that anyone could really say such stupid things. And his whole career, if you see it in terms of, for example, one paper, he kept one group of cells frozen in liquid nitrogen,
very cold for a year or two, and another he kept in the lab in the usual dish. And his conclusion was that being frozen at minus 70 degrees Celsius or whatever it was, cells don't age. - Well, sure. - Your orientation was shaped before this by Albert St. Georgi. So you were kind of reading the good stuff, and that's why these ideas seem so ridiculous to you when you were confronted with them? - Oh, yeah. But I had started reading the encyclopedias, which even the little Funk and Wagnalls had very good objective articles in it.
And then we got the 1950 Britannica, and some of its articles are still the best on the subject available. The newer 1960s editions have gone somewhat stupid compared to the classics. From 1900 to the 1950s, the Britannica was a great source of orientation in science and culture. - Yes, Albert, I'm sorry, Albert St. Georgi was much later. Was there a counter, was Lamarck like the counter to this kind of rate of living theory, or you're talking about the Britannica? Was there an idea that was suppressed in favor of the rate of living theory?
- Yeah, it grew most directly out of August Weissman's wear and tear theory. The rate of living is just another version of Weissman's wear and tear. And the free radicals, Denham-Harman's theory of free radical aging, damage to the mitochondria, that's just more wear and tear theory. And part of the essence of Weissman's ideology was to destroy Lamarck and actual Darwinism to support the essentially idealistic, anti-evolutionary position of the, what's the first geneticist? The monk Mendel, Gregor Mendel. His position was simply derived from Catholic doctrine, that nothing essential changes.
Genes are immortal, and so the apparent changes that you see that are mistaken for evolution are just mixing immortal genes. For Weissman, the germline is immortal, and the body, the soma, is mortal. So Weissman was just rephrasing the Christian doctrine of Mendel. And so those were getting built into the authoritarian side of the medical and biological cultures. Meanwhile, there was the actual science going along at ground level with people like Jacques Loeb and Alexis Carroll, Otto Warburg and St. Georgi and so on.
Okay, so Otto Warburg, they would have been like the pro, they would have been the vitalists or the animists compared to the 1928 Raymond Pearl types. I'm trying to say, who were the pro-metabolic people in the '30s? Well, Warburg, obviously, and Frederick Koch. Frederick Koch inspired at least St. Georgi, and I don't think Warburg ever said anything about Koch, but his ideas were really kind of vitalistic or holistic, because he said the whole organism is the immune system, that the vitality of the whole thing isn't separable.
And that's what the mainline embryologists were seeing, that you can take part of an early embryo and isolate it, and it will produce a whole organism. So it's not an assemblage of parts. The ovum has an intention, and if you cut the dividing parts of the ovum into several pieces, each one can still fulfill its intention of becoming a whole organism. And that idea continued into field theories of all sorts in the '20s and '30s, and people recognizing Warburg's work, for example, saw that if you look at an area that's developing a cancer,
you can find at the center a perfect malignant bunch of cells, but surrounding that, the next adrening ring of cells will be pre-malignant, very degenerated, but not decisively cancerous, and revertible if you change their embryological position or their place in the organism. And surrounding that is less and less inflamed cells. So in the '30s, there was lots of evidence showing that cancer is a field process under some degree of control of the surrounding organism. And in psychology, Gestalt psychology was extending that whole thing,
thinking of the brain as similar to the organism, working in terms of holes, not wires and digital computable units, but as holes and images. That whole thing, the Second World War distracted from it, but there was a very deliberate killing off of it with several, both government and industry, trends to sell the idea that we are mechanisms, and to totally knock out of science history all of this holistic embryological field understanding of nature and the organism. Have you had any discussion with people in regards to the telomere theory,
proponents of the theory, and have you asked their opinion on how is it that if the rate of living is so important, if telomere length is so important, how come every attempt to inhibit telomerase seems to lead to cancer? There have been at least five or six companies. The enzyme telomerase, every time a company tries to come up with a drug to inhibit that enzyme to preserve the length on telomeres, that seems to invariably cause cancer in pretty much every animal model that they've tried.
I think it's just one of the organizing things that has to be whole to get a whole functioning organism. You can produce cancer in about a million different ways. I think that's just one of them. Right. What I'm trying to get at is that it seems that trying to manipulate the telomere length, or at least artificially keep it long, which is kind of like the corollary of that rate of living or the long telomere thing, every time they come up with a drug that tries to keep the telomeres artificially long,
they seem to be endangering some kind of a cancerous process. Or at least all of the drugs that they've developed so far, that seems to be the end result so far. They've been cancerous in the animal models that they've tried. I went through the arguments. It's been about 15 or 20 years, I think. But at that time, there was accumulating very clear evidence that some very old 90- or 100-year-old individuals had long telomeres, and some young people in their 20s and 30s had extremely short, worn-out-looking telomeres.
I think the correlation of it strictly with aging has been a biased sampling to fit the ideology. How do you think Richard Dawkins' ideas of the selfish gene grow out of Weissman's? Was he part of that group? I mean, he's not that old, but he seems to be sort of like the protege of Weissman, just living in modern times. He seems to be spitting out the same kind of nonsense. I think it's some kind of growing-up family personality development that happens.
Do you think maternal stress or having some sort of rough childhood leads people to develop such a twisted view of nature? He seems to be coming from a fairly well-off family, or at least a non-poor one. Oh, yeah. They identify with the interests of the royalty and ruling classes. The ideology is classical, ancient doctrine that the divine right of kings is something built into the universe. For example, meritocracy derives from the idea of an unchanging, un-evolving social order. Naturally, you can't have monkeys turning into people.
If you're going to have divine kings, everything arranged in a heavenly order, a great chain of being from angels to kings, all the way down to ordinary people and monkeys near the bottom. It's so deeply into our culture. Most professors don't want to acknowledge that that's where our history has come from. Bertrand Russell seems to have some of those views of doctrines, but I felt like by reading his works that he eventually realized that the ruling class is just trying to enslave everybody.
And while he still wrote and did work in service of them, I think every once in a while he spoke the truth. Do you have a similar impression of him? Oh, absolutely. He was as high in the ruling class as you can be in England without being royal. And so he grew up with that perfect, concrete view of logic and mentality. He wanted to show that our divine mentality and clear logic is identical with mathematics.
And then in middle age, he actually started thinking about it and said, well, we really don't know whether Leibniz might have been right, that everything is defined partly by where it is and what it's with. And if everything is part of one's being is where one is, then everything is constantly changing its essence. And so how can you have language and a perfect mathematical language if reality is actually context sensitive? If it makes a difference to the Earth, that the moon and the sun and Saturn and Mars are moving around in space,
could it affect the essence of the Earth that other things are related to it in space and time? And Russell just had that simple insight. How can you define things in isolation? Where do we have the evidence that there are timeless entities, which atoms are believed to be? And at first he was calling the units of his thinking logical atoms. But as he thought more about the Leibnizian possibilities of metaphysics and ontology, he realized that there is no evidence basis for having these abstract atomic views of logic.
So simply his ability being very intelligent, he was able to learn and actually think his way out of it. It sounds like maybe he was a radical empiricist later in life. Yeah, pretty much. He didn't talk about it because there was no place to talk effectively. I think the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein also had a big impression on him because he was one of his students. And Wittgenstein then asked Bertrand Russell to write the foreword to his magnum opus, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, as it was called.
And Bertrand Russell wrote it and Wittgenstein absolutely hated it and said, "You think like a computer. This is not what this book is all about." And he had a falling out. And I think that's one of the things that Russell was devastated because he thought Wittgenstein was brilliant. And if this brilliant mind thinks that I'm dumb as a bag of rocks and I just don't get what logic and philosophy and life are all about, that I must change my… He said that that was the event that made him turn to politics and social moral philosophy.
He realized he wasn't smart enough, but he actually was intelligent enough to change his mind. I wanted to ask a question about carbon dioxide and temperature. I saw several studies performed in the '70s that were done in the United States, and they were giving people either vitamin B1 or acetylzolamide or the two together and also warming people up. And they were able to permanently cure severe psychiatric diseases that are nowadays still considered incurable. How is it possible that human trials like this could occur in the '70s and this knowledge is out there, widely available,
and these things cannot seem to be possible to happen now? You just cannot get funding. If you try to convince a funding body to give you money for vitamin B1 or acetylzolamide, I'm pretty sure they will laugh you out of the room. What was different back then? I mean, it was still a fairly authoritarian time, wasn't it? Yeah, and before that, some psychiatrists put some patients in the house with continuously elevated carbon dioxide, and all of their psychopathic conditions improved. And what that elevated CO2 does is to increase your metabolic rate and body temperature.
So there have been lots of workable therapies, but no one sells those things. You can't make a trillion dollars selling thiamine or carbon dioxide. But they were still done in the '70s, right? And it was fairly large in terms of how many people were involved. Those things seem to have completely died out and disappeared. So is this basically due to the fact that the pharma industry really took full control of academia over the last two, three decades? Oh, yeah. It's a continuing process. They're trying to finish it off now.
They're trying to even get the nuisance students and professors out of the universities and turn it over to a few, one or two corporations who will prepare the courses and sell the licenses to the students. Doesn't this new model also completely, well, not completely, but move us further away from experimentation towards abstract thinking? I mean, how would experiments be performed if all the universities are closed? Well, experiments have mostly been a nuisance to the business of science. You know, the journals just won't publish things that are anomalous seeming observations.
You know the fate of Halton Arp and his pictures of galaxies. They wouldn't let him use their telescope anymore because he saw things he shouldn't have. I have a few friends that have chemical degrees, graduate degrees in chemistry, and little by little chemistry seems to move entirely towards the so-called in silico modeling. Basically, they're just using computer models to design new molecules and predict the effects of those molecules in organisms.
So I'm guessing that has some sort of a validity, but it seems that chemistry is moving towards trying to replace almost entirely the process of experimentation with modeling in a computer. Yeah, it will rarely cause embarrassment for anyone. The computers aren't going to invent anything shockingly unexpected, but experiments actually are constantly doing that. Right, just for posterity, can we talk about the living fast, dying when, and the temperature in ROS and aging in general?
This is something I'll be perusing Twitter and I'll still see people talking about increasing the metabolism increases the reactive oxygen species, and so maybe just unpacking that a little bit. The ability to detoxify the free radicals increases when your metabolic rate is higher. Slowing your metabolic rate, you shift towards the reductive, anti-oxidative state, and you grossly slow down your ability to inactivate the free radicals that are produced. And then, just a slightly related topic, but calorie, reducing calorie, calorie deficit models, am I saying that right?
You pointed out in your Gender of Energy book that that could be from a multitude of different things, from PUFA restriction to heavy metal restriction. People online commonly talk about longevity and aging like they're the same thing, but they're not really the same, right? No, you can avoid the main things that kill old people and you can extend lifespan up to 90 or 100 or so, and that's what the genetic determinists emphasize.
They say that the process is essentially mechanical and it's all foreordained whether by some Hayflick principle or the necessary accumulation of free radical damage. But the experiments that show that the more saturated fat animals live at a higher temperature without damage and live much longer than animals of a similar weight with highly unsaturated membranes. So the hotter you are, the more you revise your fats away from unsaturation.
If you just grow soybeans, for example, in a hot, humid climate or in a northern climate where they usually grow them, they'll have more saturated fats when they grow in the more humid and warm climate. And if you have a pig in the north eating the usual corn and beans diet, it's going to have very unsaturated fat in the layer under it, close to its skin, because the skin is constantly living at a lower temperature.
But if you put a sweater on the pig so its skin doesn't get so chilled on the same diet, its subcutaneous fat will be much more saturated. So we adjust to keep the hot tissues from getting over-unsaturated and the breakdown largely in the mitochondria of polyunsaturated fats turns down the oxidation energy production and lets only the random kind of oxidative damage occur. Aren't the polyunsaturated fats, in contrast to the saturated ones, aren't the PUFAs also deactivating the uncoupling enzymes, the ones that raise temperature? Yeah, in general, the life-extending things do increase the uncoupling activity.
I've also seen several studies showing that lower temperature increases the activity of the enzyme aromatase. Have you seen anything in regards to that effect? Yeah, a Russian experimenter noticed that the temperature connection of both testicles and ovaries live considerably cooler than the core temperature of the body. And that's surprising in the case of ovaries because they're in the core of the body, but they have some kind of a cooling system that keeps their temperature lower. And so he chopped up bits of ovaries and implanted them under the ear skin of rabbits.
Their long ears in a cool climate are several degrees cooler than the rest of the body. And he found that they went into constant estrus and they had the ovaries living at that very low temperature. So they were overproducing estrogen, basically? Yeah. What do you think is the adaptive function of the chronic inflammation that seems to be happening under constant exposure to low temperature? Is it like a desperate attempt to raise temperature because the inflammation usually triggers some kind of a fever? I don't think I understand why it happens.
The proper response to injury doesn't involve inflammation, and so I think those are being used in a way that they weren't intended by the organism to be used. I think they function in a healthy environment, in a complete well-nourished environment with the right oxygen tension and so on. I think they function as regulators and don't really turn on that anti-biological kind of inflammation. So if a person's or if an organism's stores of fat were, let's say, 100% saturated, when they're exposed to cold, there wouldn't necessarily be an inflammatory response.
That fat will flood the bloodstream, but if saturated fats have an uncoupling effect, then basically that would serve the purpose of raising temperature, but in a positive manner, versus the PUFAs, when they flood the bloodstream when it's cold due to increased lipolysis, they will simply serve as a precursor to the inflammatory mediator. So it will still raise temperature, but in a very pathological and disadaptive way. Yeah, I think that's part of why injured fetuses inside the womb don't heal by forming a scar. They heal perfectly, just like a fragment of an embryo can complete itself.
A damaged part of a fetus can regenerate itself without forming a scar. I think that's because of the high temperature, steady temperature, and carbon dioxide and glucose meeting the needs, so that those very same peptides and such that cause inflammation in the worst situation are constructive, reparative, rather than causing the damage of inflammation. In terms of reactive oxygen species, do they have any positive function? I was under the impression that some of them participate in the oxidative destruction of things like serotonin. So it's good to have at least some level of those, right?
Some level of which? Of reactive oxygen species. Oh, locally produced, yeah. The amino oxidase, I think that's the enzyme in the lungs and a few other places that destroys serotonin. Right. So, but I guess the medical industry, when they say reactive oxygen species, from what I understand is they tend to accumulate or form when there's actually a blockage of metabolism. There was a recent study which showed that administering chemicals that block any of the electron transport chain complexes drastically increased the production of reactive oxygen species. So it's low metabolism that causes ROS, not high.
Right. You mentioned Broda Barnes in your newsletter, and I feel like I send people quotes from Hypothyroidism, the unsuspecting illness, like multiple times per day. When did you learn about him? And then was that the reason, was he kind of the inspiration for the first time you yourself took thyroid? His books came out, I think, early 1970s. And I didn't connect him specifically. I had been thinking about it for years, but since I had a much above normal metabolic rate, I had to learn other things before I was willing to experiment with thyroid.
Because I was, for example, on a BMR machine where you breathe oxygen while lying at rest. The machine is set up so that you're supposed to, in the couple of minutes during the test, you're expected to breathe somewhere between a third and two-thirds of the can that contains the oxygen that you're measuring. And during the time of the test, before the test was over, I had used up the oxygen. So it was looked from the slope of the line like it was about three times the normal rate.
And I was aware of that for just about nine or ten years before I finally convinced myself to try taking thyroid. And when I did, within a few days, my rate of metabolism had come down to approximately normal. You've mentioned this a few times. It's always been slightly confusing to me. Do you think your high natural, high rate of metabolism was from stress and taking the thyroid lowered it?
Since then, I've known a few men in their 20s to early 40s with a similar thing. They would weigh maybe 140 pounds and be 5'8" or 10" or so. And no matter how much they ate, they couldn't gain any weight. And from my own experience, I suggested they try thyroid, and every one of them immediately started building muscle and growing. My interpretation was, after I read Jerry Ikawa's book on magnesium, he had some information in it about the mechanism by which the body retains magnesium.
And it's held inside the cells largely as a complex with ATP. Magnesium ATP is in effect a compound. And when you have more ADP, the de-energized form, that associates with calcium. And so as your energy level goes down, your cells pick up calcium and lose magnesium. And if you lose magnesium, you get cramping and inability to relax fully. And so the cell sits there spending energy just making ATP so that it can hang on to magnesium, which tends to get lost.
And supplementing magnesium to a hypothyroid person will typically relieve their symptoms for a very short time, maybe just a few hours. And if you measure it, the amount you put in and the amount that comes out in your urine a few hours later, they've lost all of the magnesium you put in them. If you give them quick acting T3 and magnesium and then check their urine at the same time later, they haven't lost their magnesium. It's just like a switch letting your cells retain the magnesium.
Just for my own interest, when you first took thyroid, you said it lowered your basal metabolic rate. But did that also accompanied by a resolution of maybe some type of symptoms that you noticed as well or no? Oh, yeah. When I lectured someone, I asked why I wasn't fidgeting the way I always did before. And I slept much more easily without being wakened by any little environmental noise. I was going into a deeper sleep. So those were very sudden changes that went with the metabolic rate.
So in terms of the measure of the metabolic rate, that machine measures the metabolic rate, but it doesn't measure your rate of carbon dioxide production. So in order to find out if your basal metabolic rate is high and also in a good way, you also have to measure how much carbon dioxide you expire, right? That's what matters, the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of oxygen consumed. It should be very close to the same.
Right. And if somebody has a very high rate of oxygen consumption but low rate of carbon dioxide production, that means they're running on the stress metabolism. They're getting ransomed quickly. Okay. So that's basically adrenaline and cortisol driving their metabolic rate. Maybe we could touch on PUFA and hibernation. Ray, are you familiar with Chris Knob? He seems to have read your articles. He's talking about cardiolipin and cytochrome C oxidase.
So I don't know if you've communicated with him at all, but he seems to be saying a lot of the things you've been saying for a very long time. What's the last name? Knob, K-N-O-B-B-E. He has a video on YouTube called the PUFA Apocalypse, I think. Nope, I haven't heard of him. I think he's familiar with your work. But anyways, just the general, you know, your biological view of PUFA and hibernation.
And you had quoted articles in your newest newsletter, but also the ones that I had read a few of them by Geiser, first name F. And again, I'm always astounded when I read these articles and they just perfectly align with what you're talking about. Yeah, they've known that for a long time, that animals eat unsaturated fats in the fall when the nuts are ready. And their bodies become much more polyunsaturated and then they go to sleep or don't really go to sleep. They go into a torpor.
And the typical hibernator who gets very torpid and cold, they usually have to wake up two or three times from the torpor to go to sleep. Because they actually need real sleep for brain maintenance and repair. And when we go into hibernation, we just get a cold brain and get sick when we go into our pseudo hibernation phase. Yeah, the deep sleep needs a good warm temperature, right up 98 plus something to sleep into the deep sleep. That's all I had about the news. Georgie, any other questions before we go into conspiracy stuff?
I think there were a few studies recently done that show that hibernating animals refuse to eat nuts and the seeds if they're given during the hot months in the spring and the summer. So this whole premise that, "Oh, look at all these animals that are thriving on nuts and seeds that are filled with PUFA." No, they actually seem to be eating them at very specific times of year. They refuse to eat them when they're actually fully active and running around and mating. They only eat them when they're about to go into torpor. They're very sensible.
Okay. I shouldn't even call it conspiracy. It's just the news because it's so in your face with what's going on. Ray, are you surprised at the lack of coordination between the messaging behind the vaccine? It seems so incoherent that I know people that, again, aren't into these alternative theories or trying to figure out what's going on, that they're confused by what's happening. Like, you still need to wear a mask if you get a vaccine. It doesn't protect you from the virus, they say. It doesn't seem like they're coordinated with what they're talking about.
Yeah. This is someone who's assuming that there is something sensible going on. Yeah. Yes. If you pay close attention to the experts, especially the government-connected experts, I haven't seen anyone who is either both informed and honest. A lot of them, I think, are both ignorant and not caring about the honesty of it. Did you see the... Everything they talk about, like describing COVID as a new, uniquely bad disease, I've heard probably 15 or 20 people who are supposedly experts say that they named the various features.
But everything they say is unique about it was an outstanding feature of influenza, and supposedly they're respiratory experts. So how can they say that because something has exactly the same side effects that influenza had, that it's some uniquely new and bad condition? Everything you look at, they wouldn't be embarrassing themselves if they had the sense. Because this is so sloppy, is there any way to entertain the idea that, again, people are seeing people having allergies and all these bad reactions to the vaccine?
Do you think it's being rushed so quickly that it's possible that it scares an even larger portion of the people that, even if that did happen, it'd just be a little bump in the road and they're still going to push forward with their agenda no matter what? We should hope that it's going to scare a lot of people. Did you read the Pfizer publication that came out, I think, Monday? Maybe. New England Journal of Medicine, the chief editor, who is not a virologist, wrote an editorial to go with Pfizer's statement.
And he not only wrote the editorial saying what a triumph this information is, but he was on the FDA committee that voted for it. And his magazine gets huge amounts of advertising from Pfizer. So it's all an inside deal. And if you go through what Pfizer actually said, they didn't say a peep about the nature of the population and who was excluded from the tests.
But when two English nurses on the first day developed anaphylaxis, after that happened, someone asked them, ask Pfizer, and they said, well, allergy was one of the groups that was excluded from testing. So now they tell us. And they also excluded old people, apparently. But the first people who are going to get the actual vaccine are said to be the people in long-term care homes, the frail and old, exactly the people that vaccines usually don't work very well with, but who might be most susceptible to dying very soon from getting any inflammation that it produces.
And the editor in chief, Eric Rubin, who said it was a triumph on a radio interview, he said he was glad that his young, healthy patients weren't in line to receive the virus now, the vaccine now for a few months, so that they would be able to see what its effects are on frail old people. Laughing because it's crazy. It's hard to imagine anyone who could say that, but I think you can find it on the Internet. The guy who was praising it, saying that better for his healthy people not to risk it.
Dr. Kelly Moore, associate director of the Immunization Action Coalition, says don't be surprised when older people are dying within a day or two of their vaccination, who are residents in long-term care facilities. And this Reddit commenter was saying they've been saying for months that if you go outside without a mask, you're the devil, but they're going to be killing people in old folks' homes. And that's just part of the vaccination. It doesn't make any sense.
When it came out that they had excluded allergic people from the test for their safety, an official at the FDA said there are 1.6 million allergic people in the United States who might suffer anaphylaxis from a vaccination. 1.6 million is a lot of people. We can't afford not to vaccinate that large number of people. So naturally, they will be required to risk anaphylaxis. So, I mean, there was also the issue of like the trial design. They use the PCR test to assign, to basically determine that the trial participants have not had COVID in the past.
But if you look at the PCR test, it has a notoriously high false negative rate, at best 20%, and sometimes as bad as 100%. So there is no guarantee that these people that were already in the, you know, that they were admitted to the trial, that they weren't already having like, that they didn't already have the COVID and had antibodies and natural immunity. So Pfizer could have easily designed the group, the one that looked better to be the ones that already had it, right? The ones that already have an immunity.
And also, I think they didn't control for any prior vaccinations. And I think you mentioned in several interviews that having the influenza vaccine increased your chance of getting COVID. So that wasn't controlled for either. So it was a very poorly designed trial to start with. So I'm surprised they're able to draw any statistically significant conclusions whatsoever. Yeah, I think it was someone at Pfizer that said that, well, the experimental period goes on for two years. So we won't know how safe it is for until the end of the two years.
But they also, I think the actual trial stopped following people up after the second month, right? Or something like that. And they declared it safe if nothing happened within the first two months of receiving the last dose. Yeah, but even ordinary traditional vaccines, supposedly they had to be followed up for up to two years. And now with this nucleic acid content of the vaccine, logically you would think maybe they should follow them up for two or three generations.
Doesn't the emergency use authorization basically say that all the FDA is saying is not that this is safe, not that this is effective, but it leaves it as a decision between a doctor and a patient, and FDA saying this basically passes just some very basic criteria of what a drug should be. But the ultimate result is not a recommendation. It's leaving it to the patient and the doctor to decide. But that's not what we're hearing on TV. Yeah, the insiders somewhat sensibly to each other about actual dangers,
but the very same person talking on television tells a totally different story. So clearly they're crooks and careless about the public health. Are there any publications demonstrating incorporation of mRNA material into our DNA after, let's say, injecting it? It doesn't have to be a vaccine, but any sort of trial that injected foreign RNA and found it incorporated into the DNA of the organism? Yeah, for years there's been a lab in Germany, Walter Dorfler, who has been demonstrating the incorporation of foreign DNA just from regular exposures.
But now we have the intramuscular injection, which is a much easier way to get it in. It's expecting the cells to take it up. And once it's in the cell, we have the reverse transcriptase enzymes. I just saw a recent publication validating the fact that we do have the reverse transcriptase enzymes that can turn viral RNA into DNA, which can then be integrated into our genome. I was going to ask you about fertility and syn... how do you say it, George? Syn... Syncytin. Syncytin.
But that just reminded me of something you had said previously, that we're being prepared to activate our renin-aldosterone, angiotensin-aldosterone system, and that's the opposite of progesterone. So just on that fact alone, this would be an anti-fertility vaccine. Does that make sense? There's one personality of, I think it's the spike protein and the syncytial protein or enzyme that forms the placenta. They're structurally very similar. And until that's disposed of, I don't know why anyone shouldn't just stop until they do some actual experiments and see whether it's so or not.
But yeah, and I don't want you to speculate or anything, but that could be the reason this vaccine, this could be on purpose. That's a possibility, right? Oh, yeah. When you see the horrible things they do openly and have their face on the camera saying it, then if they can do such horrible things as that, then I don't know why you should suppose they wouldn't do the ordinary conspiratorial kind of anti-human activities.
You said several times that when we're exposed to chronic stress, then all of this retroviral material that's in our genome starts to shed into the bloodstream. And this seems to be driven by inflammation as well. And since this vaccine has this highly pro-inflammatory protein, do you think there's a risk of us causing something similar, sort of like an AIDS-type syndrome appearing? Yeah, just from dumping lots of new, unfamiliar stuff. The more of it that comes out at once, the more confusion it can cause in your metabolism and immune reactions.
Outside of the COVID-19 vaccine, are there any other mRNA vaccines you're aware of that are in widespread use? That are what? That are in widespread use, aside from this one? No, the only nucleic acid intentionally included was this one. But things like the Simian virus 40 tumor producer, they knew it was there when all of the world-famous vaccine people were talking. And one of them said, "Oh, well, good. The Russians are using it now. Maybe it'll get rid of some Russians."
Wow. So if the SV40 is producing, the vaccines containing SV40 are tumorigenic, why wouldn't this be as well? That other one was fairly quickly tested in animals and shown to be. No one is testing this stuff in that way. It would take a little bit of honest curiosity before they would bother testing it. But there seems to be a similar potential, right? So we talked about it last week, but there's an emergency authorization act for first-line workers and things like that, and older people.
But when do you think the, what did you say, proverbial crap hits the fans, Georgie, last time? That's going to happen in April when they do this mass vaccination campaign. It seems, again, so sloppy right now. But when do you think, again, I don't speculate if you don't want to, but what do you think? They'll tighten things up and just normal people will start getting this vaccine. What do you think is going to happen then, Ray? I'm hoping that there will be a big reaction against it.
We were talking yesterday that putting the nurses and doctors in the front line, even ahead of the long-term care patients as expendables, remembering what Eric Schmidt and Klaus Schwab have been predicting, we aren't going to need doctors or teachers anymore. So they're good experimental material for a first run of the virus, because we're going to have digital medicine along with digital education. So it really doesn't matter to them if they lose lots of doctors.
And especially it's going to save money for the insurance companies if they lose about half of the old people in the retirement homes. It should really start waves of thinking and reaction and criticism going through the general population. Do you think Schmidt and Klaus have an army of doctor robots and teacher robots ready to take over? I mean, Schmidt's attempts to apply AI to the medical field and IBM's most notably failed miserably. So their diagnostic AI system, I think it was Watson they called it, right? They applied it to medicine. It flopped.
I mean, even the mainstream press was grilled pretty hard and said that AI is nowhere near what we've been told it is. So I can't even begin to imagine how much more difficult the teaching process would be to emulate in a machine. So they're saying doctors and teachers are expendable, but do they even have anything right now ready to replace them? Or is this just like projections and conjectures? I think they are hoping to have continuing crisis. And if there's a die off of doctors and nurses, that's in itself a self-supporting crisis.
You hardly need a pandemic if you have lots of doctors becoming rheumatic, autoimmune diseases, disabled in various ways. That becomes another major crisis for them to work on over the next couple of years. So if you cause a shortage in these professions, then people will be willing to accept any alternative and Schmidt will conveniently say, "Oh, here is this doctor robot which you can try in the meantime until we replenish the ranks." In a crisis, they will approve any kind of remote control surgery machine or remote control computer doctoring machine.
And of course receive full immunity, right? Just as Pfizer did for the vaccine in the UK. Full immunity no matter what happens. That's so twisted, especially since these people, most of them will be advocating for their own death. So it's only from the mind of an oligarch, I guess. Yeah, that's insane. Okay, anything else? I feel like there's a historical episode because this stuff is all happening. Ray, can you even think about in your history on this planet of anything as crazy as this happening? Does this top the list? Yeah, I think it does.
So even World War II and the propaganda associated with it doesn't cut it, doesn't take first place compared to that? No, the Korean War was really a highlight of how they could be committing genocide, destroying more of a single country than they've ever destroyed before. Practicing germ biological warfare and using the bomb dropping. They bombed every city until there was nothing and even Douglas MacArthur vomited when he saw what they had done to the country. Americans at home didn't know anything was going on.
When do you think the powers that be realized that crisis serves them very well and they started actively, purposefully working and probably even setting up teams that come up with future crisis? Was that around the Korean War or the Vietnam War? I think they were just going back 10 years. The Rockefeller Foundation had people working on it, but I imagine organized efforts were in the various foundations long before that.
Do you know anything about the Phoenix program in Vietnam? The author Douglas Valentine makes the case that a lot of what happened after 9/11 was directly from what the CIA learned during the Phoenix program of documenting all the people they had killed and tortured and things. The Indonesia episode, American social science, people like the Obamas were helping it along doing social research to help to form lists of the million people they needed to exterminate and dump into the rivers.
That sort of thing has been both academic and governmental in a very organized form using anthropologists and sociologists and various kinds of cultural researchers to help to organize assassination campaigns on an industrial scale. Most Americans would have never guessed that it was going to be eventually turned on them though like we're experiencing now. Oh no, oh no. Okay, unless, George, you have other questions. I have like a list of questions I've been wanting to ask you for multiple streams, but George, if you have some, go for it. Are you familiar with the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski?
Yeah, yeah. Have you read his Unabomber manifesto or at least the ideas there? I kind of liked it. Nice environmental sentiment. Right. He seemed to be pretty worried and condemned technocracy, at least from what I understand from it. Do you think he got that sort of ideas while he was tortured at Harvard under the MKUltra experiment or do you think he had more inside knowledge? No, I don't know anything on the inside of that.
Okay. But it seems that for a person who was, you know, all it took for him to be, I guess, subjected to these psychological torture experiments and he developed a very strong hatred for the technocratic process. And that's, you know, he wrote that Unabomber manifesto. And, you know, if you read it, it's basically, it's an indictment of the system that is currently controlling us. And I'm surprised he hasn't seen more publicity. I remember when I first came to the United States in '97, a few major newspapers published it and he was universally condemned by everybody.
Despite some people trying to say, look, this guy has some good ideas. We're not headed in a good direction. But it was only a few voices in general. It was universally condemned. Yeah, it was too bad he had the publicity that he did because anyone looking at the inside of things should come up with conclusions like that, that technology is a dead end as it's going.
Norbert Wiener was warning of that in the early '50s. And so he refused grants related to mass murder. And so he was ridiculed at MIT for not accepting the war culture. But his human use of human beings was a very interesting book. And he saw it as deep as the divide between digital control and analog control.
You're much less likely to go off into insane futures if you are thinking in terms of analogs and making everything immediately apparent to how you regulate it and what it's going to do, where the whole process becomes invisible when it's digital. Right. So basically the analog computation is a physical process. It's analogous to the human brain, while digital is arbitrary and it's just somebody's crazy definition. Yeah, you can't possibly have any moral judgments in the digital world. And that was Norbert Wiener's whole thing that people might consider acting like human beings.
Do you think there's an optimal level of technological development that helps civilization beyond which it starts to become detrimental? If yes, is there a way to gauge it/measure it? Or does it always change and it needs to be re-evaluated on an ongoing basis? Somewhere very close to the middle of the 20th century, we had everything a person could conceivably need and we could have gone on researching and developing things safely from that point. It was the computer world and the CIA getting together around 1940s and 50s that put it on the death path.
So it's not a coincidence that they say the world peaked in the mid-20th century? Yeah, there was still the field approach to looking at organisms. And Norbert Wiener and a couple of others in the government still, who had the analog view, the real world view of how we should understand things. But they were just deliberately covered up, quieted. Are you guys still there? Yeah, you there? I was going to ask you, speaking of digital, what is your take on Bitcoin? People ask me that fairly often.
I don't really know what it is. People have often offered to give me some, but I wouldn't know what to do with it. It's what the Federal Reserve will turn our regular money into in the near future. Yeah, I know something bad like that will happen, but I don't care to understand it. And then we talked about it maybe a little bit last time, but Klaus Schwab saying there's going to be a giant cyber attack and then it will bring down power and internet and things like that.
That seems like a pretty convenient way to immediately censor everyone. Like instead of censoring people on Twitter or Facebook individually, if they really need to do something big, that seems like sending everybody back to the Stone Age would really fit the bill. And obviously I believe Klaus, he apparently knows that there's going to be a big cyber attack coming up. Yeah, that's pretty much on schedule, I think. But if the power is off, how are they going to brainwash the populace, right? They still need to be able to broadcast their poison.
Oh yeah, I think they'll just wipe out the things that they don't want and bring it back up purified. So do you think, George, you and I were talking about this before we went live, but they're rolling out the vaccine stuff now. And so it would be maybe, I'm not a crazy, insane oligarch, but it would be maybe weird to shut everything down in the middle of that. So maybe that's a year away or two years away or three years away, maybe in the next 10 years or so.
Oh, no. Anytime things need to be shaken up, I think they have a repertoire of tricks they can pull out in an opportune way. So in terms of money, if all fiat currency, actually fiat or not, if all currency derives its value from the people, and if the elite is basically waging wars against humanity and trying to kill as many people as they want, basically, isn't that undermining their own wealth in a certain way? I mean, the wealth starts to become an arbitrary definition, just like a computer program.
They get to assign it whatever wealth number they want, but that doesn't mean it's going to have any value, right? I mean, China can tomorrow say, "We don't want your US dollars because they have no real value. You've been telling us they have so much value, but they don't." It's whatever we decide the US dollar has value, and we don't care about your definition. Doesn't that whole process of waging war against humanity undermine even the interests of the elite in a sense?
I think they figure that they're going to integrate China, and everyone get them just as thoroughly controlled as the American population. And the behavior, once it's under control, then they can figure out how to make it do exactly what they want over the long run. So in a strange way, China is like an obstacle in their course, and we should be grateful that it's still there? I think so. It's really probably the main obstacle to everything being finished off in just a matter of months.
China has the vitality of lots and lots of intelligent, well-educated people developing economic power. So I don't think it's going to be very easy to eliminate them from their program. Do you think Russia has already been subjugated, or they're still trying to put up a fight? As long as Putin is in, I think they have such a literate population that that will give them momentum for a couple generations. Just people who read, who really think about politics rather than just consuming it.
So you're saying it's not necessarily natural resources, it's how awake or at least how willing to perceive the population of a country. That's really the main obstacle to the empire? I think so. They can end up poisoning masses, but short of that, the consciousness of the population is going to endlessly resourcefulness. I think we'll keep coming out in places they don't want to. Like Iran is getting out fronted the worst of the sanctions. So now they're giving the US ultimatums. They have to restore the nuclear agreement within 60 days.
So basically you're saying that there are several countries getting back on their feet and saying, "We're not done yet." Once a country gets it into their mind that they want to be outside of the empire, I think it's going to be very hard to keep going ahead with the Great Reset. So the more countries break out of the empire to establish world control. Several years ago, somebody asked you if you had to leave the United States, what country would you go to?
I think you said something along the lines of the western parts of Latin America are the places where civilization has its best chance to escape or to survive. But you never mentioned countries like Russia or Iran or even other countries. Is there a reason why you think western parts of Latin America somehow have more chance of preserving freedom and civilization? In Russia, it's the weather and the scenery. You don't like them? Yeah, flat land and long winters.
And along the western edge of the country, you have the clean air coming off the Pacific combined with sunny days and high altitude. You have a very ideal region. So the Andes Mountains basically, countries that span the Andes. Okay, Ray, I'm just going to run through some things. So feel free to talk as long or as little about any of this. Copper is very... people are talking about copper a lot these days. And I know that you've done a lot of work on that subject in your "Generative Energy" book.
You said, "I think chronic loss of copper accounts for the obvious features of aging..." And I know you've said in your articles, probably on interviews as well, that thyroid was needed to absorb copper. And then apparently, and correct me if I'm wrong, DHEA has a relationship with copper. And obviously thyroid. Is there any way to weave a narrative through any of that? No, not right now anyway. There's a book by, I think, A.E. Needham, not the famous Joseph Needham, but a very good book on the nature of the materials involved in organisms.
Basically, it's sort of a portrait of all of the biological elements in particular. And I think it's good to read a book like that that gives you a personal feeling about copper. Encyclopedia Britannica, I've noticed that each of several of my volumes spanning about 50 years, each one has a very unique, very important article that the other issues don't have. And if you look at each of the biological substances, sulfur, for example, zinc, each element, I think you should try to get a personal feeling about what its properties are and its potentials.
Is there an internal metabolite that copper associates with similar to how magnesium associates with ATP? Nothing occurs to me. It's in competition with iron and molybdenum and in several ways cooperates closely with zinc. And it's kind of a polar pair with selenium, a reductant and a powerful oxidant. So from what I understand, copper is retained in proportion to the protein seruloplasmin. Are there any things that, do you know of things that increase the production of that protein? Oh, stress and estrogen increase it. So you don't want too much of it.
And any heavy metal in excess will cause you to overproduce metallothionine, which will fairly indiscriminately deplete your tissues of heavy metals. So that's one of the things that heavy metal poisoning does is to sort of clean out other heavy metals along with it. And then last question on this, but is copper absorbed in relation to the activity of cytochrome C oxidase? Therefore, if a person's low thyroid, they're not going to need to retain much copper? I think that's true. The same way thyroid pulls magnesium into cells by creating its mate,
I think the modifying the cell structure is what pulls and retains copper in. How would one gauge their copper needs? Is there any sort of sign/symptom that can be used to ascertain whether somebody needs to eat extra liver or they have plenty of copper, they don't need to eat liver, etc.? A good oxidative function and definite evidence that something's going wrong with your copper is if you're losing pigment in hair or skin or any tissue that should be pigmented. Great stuff, and we can put a bow on this, but your copper requirement increases during infection.
Do you think that's true, Ray? I think so. The body wants to get rid of iron or hide it, and iron is like the evil cousin of copper. Copper comes in therapeutically. Thanks for that, Ray. I appreciate it. Moving on, lidocaine. I think you were talking to Emma, and maybe you said... Ray, I think we've talked about this a while ago, but it was just a conversation on the phone. I think it's interesting that you mentioned it prevents mast cell degranulation. It's nerve-protective, anti-stress, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-arrhythmia, memory-improving, anti-cancer.
Then you put it in the classification of pregnenolone, aspirin, sugar, DHEA, progesterone, thyroid hormone. Anything that you say is very safe is very interesting to me. Well, one, have any of your thoughts changed about lidocaine? Maybe, and I'm conscious of time, but maybe an elevator pitch of just what is so useful about lidocaine. Oh, it has analgesic effects. It can be used systemically as anesthetic or analgesic, and it has anti-tumor and anti-inflammatory effects. Basically, anything which is anti-inflammatory should be checked out in more detail. It turns out that it is safe in those amounts.
You don't want to use the anesthetic high concentration of 2% or something. That will kill everything it touches. But like a periodic systemic dose of 50 or 100 milligrams is probably therapeutic for cancer and arthritis and a lot of the degenerative things. And just general anti-aging or anti-stress, you think it's valuable as well? Oh, it isn't something I would use for those purposes because carbon dioxide has such a perfect spectrum all the way up to analgesia. In Eugene, do you use carbon dioxide, like just writing or anything? Do you use tanks or anything like that?
Yeah, I have a tank sitting right beside me. I've always wanted to ask you that. I don't know why. Georgie, did you have a question? Speaking of lidocaine, in doctors and dentist offices, if somebody cannot be treated with lidocaine, they use a substitute called eugenol. And it seems to have many of the same effects. Yeah, eugenol is very pleasant smelling and you can make fillings out of it too. Mix it with zinc oxide and make some non-toxic filling that if it's properly done, it can last for a year or two.
Have you seen some of the studies with eugenol? It's also analgesic, it's got anti-tumor effects, it's anti-estrogenic apparently, things like that. And it seems to overlap some of its effects with lidocaine. Yeah, and you get it in clove candy and pumpkin pie and lots of places. It's a familiar chemical to our bodies. Do you think a similar dosage range, like 50 to 100 milligrams, would be systemically, somebody who wants to take it internally? It would be safe to experiment with. I don't know what uses it might turn out to have. Can you try it yourself?
Lots of different ways of practicing making fillings out of it and using it for anesthetic and preservative. You don't want everything to smell like cloves, but it's a good preservative for drying fruit, for example. Would it be a good thing to try to at least stop the progression of cavities? It seems to have a powerful antiseptic effect, too. Yeah, that's why I think the filling material is nice. Okay, thank you. Just three more questions, Ray. Thank you so much. Appreciate your time. Getting rid of citric acid in canned fruits.
You know how dire the fruit situation is. If people have access to longans or lychees or whatever, is there a way to mitigate the harm of the citric acid in those canned fruits? I don't think so. Citric acid is made in the citric acid cycle, and so people think of it as harmless, but everything should be in the right place. Coming in from outside the cell through the cytoplasm to get to the mitochondrion isn't really a safe thing. There are suspicions that it might be carcinogenic to constantly consume a large amount of it.
So it wouldn't be worth it, the potential risk from citric acid? Well, just keeping the intake low, using that fruit only as needed. Good stuff. I'm sure you've probably gone over this question 100,000 times, but what function is starch having in the low thyroid person? It's very common to hear, "Oh, I can never, ever give up starch. It has such an essential function." "Quenching my appetite and living without it seems impossible." I know I used to feel that way, but I don't feel that way anymore.
Is it a possible low thyroid, under-functioning liver, and maybe the use of starch with fat is slowing down the--? Yeah, just probably as a guilt-free way of eating sugar. Sugar or starch can make you feel really good because it lowers stress and keeps you going. But you have to not forget to take all your nutrients with it. But I guess what I'm saying is, for a hypothyroid person, starch would be having some-- like the gravitating towards starch, might that be alleviated by supplementing thyroid, do you think? Oh, immediately, yeah.
I was a huge candy consumer, and a couple of days after I took thyroid, same with coffee, I didn't have any craving for sugar or starchy foods or even coffee for a spring in the morning. The thyroid regulates your blood sugar, so you're more likely to think of ham and eggs or something rather than potatoes and toast. And then, last question for me, what are the giant doses of vitamin K doing that the lower doses wouldn't do?
I know there was-- I didn't put it in front of me, but there was an article talking about PUFA interfering with vitamin K-dependent processes, or processes, however you say it. Is that what the giant 40, 50 milligram doses are doing? Are they opposing the PUFA that's in the tissues, and that's why they're useful? I think it's working as an extension of or amplifier of coenzyme Q10. It associates with that and helps feed energy into the mitochondria. And you've mentioned for, I think, cancer and also hypertension,
would you assume that larger doses, if a person could afford it because it's such an expensive vitamin, would that just be useful for any degenerative health problem, do you think? The Russians tested it on both cancer and brain problems, and in the '50s, I think, published positive articles on it, but there hasn't been much done. And I've known people-- the first one was a guy who had pressure of 240 over 70, a tremendous gap between diastolic and systolic, and he took one or two droppers full, probably more than 50 drops per day,
and in just a few days, his pressure was down to 140 over 70 and stayed there now for years. That was my last question. Ray, what are you working on right now? I just started today thinking that I will pull out some more ideas from the temperature thing. The idea of the connection between heat shock proteins, estrogen receptor, and the process of disorder and reestablishing order, and where heat shock and estrogen work in that system. And can you let everybody know how to obtain your newsletter? [email protected].
And then the same thing for your books, which they are now available digitally, correct? Yeah. Awesome. Georgie, did you have something to say? I think I just wanted to mention that I think vitamin K, other possible effects that may be causing this-- possible mechanism may be causing this perceived benefit is it tends to be strongly anti-estrogenic in higher doses, and also I think it--what was it? It's converts--it increases the conversion of cholesterol into all of the downstream steroids. There are several studies showing that very old rats,
when you give them the equivalent of about the human dose of about 100 milligrams, they immediately get the testosterone of younger rats, the equivalent of 20-year-old rats. So for an aging male, I think that may also be one of the reasons why they're feeling perked up and feeling good on vitamin K. And another recent study found that vitamin K is also an inhibitor of the enzyme monoamine oxidase type B. So they compared it to the anti-aging drug Selagiline, I think is the one Ray mentioned a few times.
So that may also be another way that vitamin K is producing these benefits. Very interesting. I was going to let you go, but let me read these donations first. Bob for five pounds, thank you so much, Bob. Marcello for $50, thank you so much, Marcello. Michelle for another $50, thank you so much, Michelle. David for $20. Marlon for $50. Holy smokes, wow, guys. Carlos for $49.99. Wow. And that was it. So I will forward those to Ray. Ray, thank you so much.
You know, it's always special having you on the show, especially in these insane, weird times. Georgie, thank you for being with us. Any parting words I'm going to ask you anyways, Ray? Nothing. Okay, thank you again. Georgie, any parting words? As usual, stay sane. I appreciate it. Thank you, everybody, for watching the show. We have an amazing audience. Feel very fortunate to be able to do this and bring it all together. And a special thanks to Ray for taking the time to do this. So sincerely appreciate it. Have a safe weekend, everybody.
We'll talk to you guys soon. Take care. Goodbye. Let me share with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today. What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack?
That we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies? That formidable technical tench won the accomplished by the British. Computer technologies, the high-flying hardware computer company which took a nosedive this year, may be bought out by the British firm Applied Computer Technologies. The space shuttle is very difficult to do, one would think. Can a kid or a normal person actually pull this off? Well, what I did when I designed this was I understood that problem. It seems the sweep of technology has no limits.
In San Francisco this week, the world's first robot bartender was unveiled. The robot can talk and take spoken orders and can mix 200 different drinks. But on the first test run, the robot knocked a glass off the bar and onto the floor and poured beer. The designer said there were still some bugs to be worked out. Siamese nuclear weapons, Soviet system with our own station with our own taking an important instant U.S. retaliation. N-N-Nuclear war.