Paused at 1:10:05.
[SILENCE & MUSIC] and we're live thank you guys so much for bearing with us had slight technical difficulties, Ray Peat and Georgi Dinkov, our third episode thank you guys so much for joining me, thank you so much Ray, you know these episodes are really special so sincerely appreciate you joining us, how are you? Pretty good. So, we were just chatting about, you were talking about global warming or so-called climate change and things. That might be kind of an interesting place to start in talking about, I don't know, the
intersection between coronavirus, the elite, global climate, and like the quotes of like the Club of Rome talking about how we needed to find a common enemy to unite humanity and that the real enemy was man itself. Yeah, China is just a convenient propaganda object to justify, for example, they say they'll be testing new atomic bombs, more usable atomic bombs within a few months. But that's been the very long-term plan of the Pentagon justifying the invention of planetary warming through carbon dioxide.
Have to change the economy away from carbon energy to nuclear energy so they can have a constant supply of nuclear fuel to make bombs as simply a way to focus the attention of the world as long as they have nuclear bombs that are more and more usable. They experience the sense of power that's recognized by everyone. China is just the momentary focus of why they need the bombs. But after China is no longer a threat or rules the world, they'll still have to hang on to
their nuclear bombs just for their police power, even if it's only within this continent. They'll still have their nuclear deterrent. Do you see this ending in a real terrible way, like a war between the US and China or something like that? No, Russia and China are now getting close militarily as well as economically. So basically the US is lost on that basis. They wouldn't have a chance in a nuclear war. Putin told them that Russia won't allow another war to be fought on their territory. They've had three great wars that ruined the country each time.
He said it won't happen again. So they have demonstrated their weapons that can, at any invasion, they can eliminate the source of the invasion, either topically or systemically. So some people in the conspiracy sector think there's uniformity among these big empires, but how much are they trying to do the same thing? But you're saying they're radically opposed to each other. But for example, the things that China has done are really similar to what the US is doing right now in terms of controlling the citizenry.
But you're saying, are they just in a race to how fast they can get more control over the population? The US isn't very sympathetic with their concept. China is very focused on public health and education, and the US is always behind on public consciousness and education supported by good health. They're doing things that have massively ruined the public's health, which drags down the way they're performing intellectually and productively. They see that China, continuing as things are with a more or less even playing field, China is obviously imminently winning the game.
So they're trying to change the rules fast enough that they can get ahead. According to Eric Schmidt's description of the situation, a very detailed discussion of how artificial intelligence is to be used to preempt China's digitalization of the economy of the world. So why would the United States be stupidly destroying its own population, considering that they need that population to be as productive and as healthy as possible, even though it may be done without good intentions, just to make sure the slaves are healthy, so to speak. But it seems like that's not being done.
It's like it's the opposite. The population is being absolutely decimated educationally and nutritionally and health-wise. How does that help the empire? Or is the empire basically saying, "Oh, we don't care about the population. Our approach is we're just going to neutralize any competitive threat that comes through"? Yeah, that thing of automation and artificial intelligence has been such a deep part of them since the 1930s, that since then, they have considered public education as a drag on the system. It's just a waste of resources. Yeah. People were talking about it all through the '40s.
It was just a little over 50 years ago that it became a very open public policy that they were set on peonizing the whole United States, taking policy choices that would reduce income growth for nearly everyone in the country while concentrating it. Reaganism was simply one stage of this process in peonization. So here's another question. I mean, with all this military power, all these nuclear weapons, all this technology, if the empire really wanted to out-compete everybody else, why can't they just colonize the moon or Mars?
There's this endless, infinite universe out there, and all these resources and energy and equipment could have gone towards making the empire a galactic force or at least a solar system force. Instead, the efforts are focused here on attacking other people who are raising their head. Yeah, the thought of having a world of peons is such an emotional part of it. The ruling class hates the idea of competition from ordinary people. So choices way back were meant to degrade as many people as possible by lowering the
quality of schooling at all levels and nutrition, having diets scaled economically. I started that in the '30s, and in Los Angeles, I saw doctors are trained to do that. Grains, pasta, and beans as the economy diet, and then seafood and fruit and dairy foods for the privileged diet. So would it be fair to say that a psychopath is always seeking out conflict with other people even though that psychopath has the opportunity to colonize the solar system? They're saying, "Nope, there's no people there. There's nobody to enslave.
So we're going to focus our efforts here on Earth because there's other people we can torment and peonize." We're choosing that way because there's nothing out in the solar system. Nelson Rockefeller and Franklin Roosevelt had agreed, the two party leaders, on the post-war world. They were to develop first Latin America as part of our economic system, build them up as a consumer economy, and then Africa and Asia would come at later stages. But a Marshall Plan for the world was the idea to get the whole world up to speed so
that capitalism could continue as a growing, productive system. But the faction that took over with Truman, the Dulles faction, they were the elite haters of the public, and South Americans were less than the public. Have you heard the rumor that FDR was murdered? I think actually you mentioned this once in your interviews, right? Oh yeah. The Roosevelt family was convinced of it, Stalin was convinced of it, and anyone who knew what the Dulles, Alan Dulles, what he had been doing during the war was treason.
It came out that Stalin's spies told Roosevelt what Dulles had been doing, working for the Nazi army, and Roosevelt said, "Oh, that isn't possible, that would be treason." And it took a couple of weeks for the facts to come through his system, because it was held up by the German Dulles intelligence apparatus. It took a long time to ever reach anywhere in the United States, but meanwhile Roosevelt had died. Ray, do you think the different power elite factions, do you think they're on the same page about installing killer austerity in every way imaginable?
For example, Webster Tarpley in his book, The Obama, The Unauthorized Biography, says Soros is also associated with a series of projects designed to assault traditional moral values such as championing of legalized narcotics to be made freely available, inevitably to young people as well. And you mentioned the food system and just the culture in general. Do you think they're all generally on the same page about that? Yeah, the CIA financing itself by selling drugs in the big cities in the US, that has been documented over and over.
They were profiting in two ways, by destroying poor people in the US and financing their illegal operations with drug money. What was the name of the journalist that wrote about the crack epidemic being started by the CIA and he was found with two bullet holes in his head and three independent inquiries ruled that it was suicide? Web something? Yeah, sort of hard to shoot yourself twice in the head. Did you hear about the death of China's ambassador to Israel? No. Oh no, when did that happen? A couple of weeks ago.
China has been making big deals in technology with Israel and Pompeo visited Netanyahu trying to get him to stop the deals with China, but then suddenly China's ambassador, who had been the agent for building infrastructure and artificial intelligence businesses, he died in his sleep at the age of 57, just about a month after taking the office. It reminds me of the Iranian nuclear scientists who basically started mysteriously dying all over the world while giving talks. It happened maybe close to 10 years ago and then they found out it was Mossad agents using
fake British passports that were present at the same conferences. This assassination really implies that the US is inside the Mossad because it was absolutely against Israel's interests. That's actually a pretty interesting point. So it's okay. Okay, so I've heard the opposite, that Mossad has infiltrated the CIA, but you're saying it's the other way around? Probably both. They're the same agency. It's just different branches across the world, right? Yeah. Well, I mean, there was somebody who said that you've never criticized Israel before.
What is your, and I know that's not true, but what is your general take on that situation? That I've never criticized Israel? It was an internet comment, so don't take it with too much weight. No, I think it was in 1976, all of my Jewish friends, it seemed like most of my friends from all through the late 50s and 60s seemed to be Jews, but suddenly the attitude of, they were starting to confound Zionism with Jewishness, and suddenly if you criticized Zionism, which I was doing constantly, they were calling you anti-Semitic.
From the mid 70s, my criticism of Zionism has been very steady. So it turns out that internet commentator was wrong. So I have a question related to that. I mean, as I'm sure, Ray, you've noticed that if you try to seek out the truth and you hold opinions that are not very popular, you're probably going to be a little bit more alone than most other people. Would you say that that's the case? Just because you'll be so out there for many people, and even if they don't disagree with
you, they will think like, that's just too crazy for me to even consider, so I'm not going to associate with that person. Oh yeah. Look at Gilbert Ling and his students. As long as his graduate students supported the work they were doing, they couldn't get jobs. They were non-existent, and so those who wanted to continue in biology had to renounce him. They just weren't doing that anymore. So do you, in your social life, do you sometimes conceal your opinions because you don't want to, I don't know, drive away your friends?
Or do you pretty much say what you mean, and if they leave, then so be it? I've never been a big party attender, but I never went to a party before. I probably didn't offend most of the people there by talking about what I was interested in. Well, Ray, sometimes I feel like we've had a conversation and I've said something totally wrong, but you didn't necessarily immediately inject that I was wrong, and then I would find out three months or four months later that I in fact was really wrong.
I took that as maybe, and you do this, maybe, and again, my perception of maybe to all people, but Maslow has that quote where he says that, this is semi not related, but when he talks about letting somebody go through their pain and not telling them not to feel that way, so maybe that's a sign of respect that you don't just immediately correct somebody if they don't think exactly like you do? Oh, yeah. For a long time I've thought that that's a necessary thing everywhere, especially on any important political issue.
If you're in a movement, the Occupy Wall Street failed to do that. They insisted that everyone had to have the same opinion and they just stopped existing. If you have some things in common that you agree on, you have to respect the person for having all of those right ideas and forget about their mistakes or omissions. Before we launch off in a different direction, can you say what Zionism is and maybe why you disagree with it? Because that might be a new concept to some people listening to this.
Do you know about the protocols of the elders of Zion? Those principles are being freshly stated over and over again. It was an idea that was current at the end of the 19th century. After Israel was founded, leading rabbis there have repeatedly restated exactly what they have in mind, definitely not staying within the borders the UN, British Empire, and United States gave them. And then in the past few episodes and some of the other interviews you've done, you've been pro-Trump in this situation.
And I know things are very complex, but one of the main things that some people say against Trump is that he's in the pocket of Israel. And so how do you unpack that situation? The important thing is that from Truman down through Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, and Hillary Clinton, the main thrust of US intention was destruction of Russia first and then China second. And Trump was an interruption of that long, almost 70-year pattern. Good stuff. Go ahead. Yeah, I was going to say, so maybe it's more accurate to instead of Zionism to call it Bencunism.
I mean, at this point I think it includes a very diverse set of people that maybe the majority of them are associated with the Zionist movement, but I think at this point most of the mega rich people are either inadvertently or sometimes even forced to be part of this because their interests are aligned with the interests of the financial powers of the world. Yeah. He definitely is not against the ruling class, just different factions and processes within it. But I think the avoidance of nuclear annihilation, at least for eight years, has been a great achievement.
So there's a little bit of nuance here of what power elite that staves off total destruction. Yeah, the semi-conscious power elite that doesn't want the world to get incinerated. And do you see, I'm sure this is very complex, but like the Rockefellers and their eugenics kind of killer austerity plan, is that different from the Rothschilds' Third Temple Zionism plan? Or do they have compatibilities and incompatibilities? Yeah, I think they're compatible. But were the Rockefellers necessarily interested in Israel the way the Rothschilds are? No, not that I know of.
Either way, almost everyone ends up as disposable property. At what point do you think the old school, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, sort of established powers merged with the Zionist powers to create this global elite? Because I think you said in some of your interviews that it used to be those old, white, rich people, and then I guess sometime around the early 20th century started getting shifted heavily towards Zionism. But at this point, they seem merged, wouldn't you say? Yeah. We can move on after this, but Rupert Murdoch being an agent of the Rothschilds and buying
up all the media, do you think that was a big part of, I don't know, obviously that was key in controlling the opinions and thoughts of a lot of people that media take over? Oh yeah. The New York Times, too, is in harmony with Murdoch's. This is pretty related, but I think this was a message to Jahed. You said, "The reason I talk more about biology than politics is that various radical movements generally have inflexibilities that keep them apart."
And so that made me think of our current situation, like coronavirus is dying down and then immediately we have this death in Minnesota and that is propagated all over the media. When this kind of thing happens, not to dissect this specific event, but when this kind of thing happens, what is your thought process? Is it a conditioning type thing to move us in a certain direction? Accidents, personal, stupid murders will be taken advantage of to excite racial hostility, but I think there are enough accidental racist events happening that it's just a matter of
how the media presents them and who is there to either try to point out what should be done that you should immediately start fixing police forces rather than making it a matter of racial identity primarily and then postponing actual changes. I have a question about that. We said a few times that the rich have always used these racial tensions as an instrument to keep the public's attention away from the really pressing issues and forcing the poor to fight over crumbs while they're stealing everything.
But don't you think it's a little bit dangerous for them to be playing that game? One of these days, one of those racial incidents can lead to a revolution and in a revolution, everything gets destroyed, including the masters that are thinking they're in control. Why would somebody continuously use that dangerous fire that they set up in the living room while they're sitting in the bedroom thinking they're safe, but at some point might consume the entire house? They have atom bombs backing them up.
They've used Israel to train the police in military tactics so that they have all of the non-nuclear military weapons that they can use. If that fails to hold down a revolution and a whole part of the state decides to secede and become democratic, then they have the tactical nuclear weapons that can be used for crowd control. We've talked about this before. That's called the Samsonite plan or something? The Samson plan is Israel's plan, basically. At some point, Israel feels like they're starting to get overwhelmed by their enemies.
They're just going to launch their 400-plus, I don't know how many nuclear warheads. I think they even have a count that the US Department of Defense secretary, I think it was Roosevelt, who actually gave it away. Let's say about 400 nuclear warheads. Apparently, they're all pointed to major capitals and cities and economic centers of the world that these rockets can reach. Basically, Israel has said, "You will defend us," by you meaning the world community. If Israel is about to disappear from the map, we'll make sure that the world will disappear as well by nuking everything.
In the background, for most of the Cold War, they had their doomsday weapon or doomsday system. It was a nuclear bomb surrounded by tons and tons of plutonium to create a radiation cloud that would end the world. People like the famous conservative, Buckley, was making the explicit argument that people should prefer to die rather than let the Soviet Union govern the world or even survive. He said that God will sort us out if we're all dead. We win anyway, so better red than dead. That was put into the concrete doomsday system.
I just want to give an example to the people. I've talked to people about potentially the U.S. government using any kind of weapon that they deem necessary to quell dissent. Most of our friends are saying, "You're insane. The U.S. government will never do that." But apparently they already did. There was an incident in the mid-1980s in Philadelphia where the police bombed an entire block because there was one house that was housing this black militant group called MOVE. Yeah, a helicopter dropped bombs on the roof and burned the building up and killed everyone.
Same idea as in Waco. A tank with flamethrowers and sharpshooters were killing people trying to escape, so they intentionally burned the dissident Christians. Even though they were, I think, mostly white, they were totally dissenting, so they were fit to be murdered in mass. And, Ray, I think on the last, maybe the last episode, you talked about how, was it the FBI or the CIA that has infiltrated like every fringe movement? And of course, like a historical example of that is COINTELPRO. Expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize.
And that was like American Indian groups, Black Panther groups, and anti-Vietnam War groups. Yeah. Even more moderate groups are controlled. The whole New Left was a creation of the intelligence organizations. The Congress for Cultural Freedom was strictly CIA, but they created the whole idea of a New Left organization using supposedly progressive leftists. You know, the Trotsky movement, after Trotsky failed to take over Russia, he started working with the Nazis and the FBI and US intelligence organizations to create a takeover movement in Russia from within, which is standard policy.
They undoubtedly have it in China and Russia now, doing everything they can. What Georgie, I'd want to harp on as much as possible of people not believing how bad their government intelligence agencies could possibly be. You know, like Ray, we talked about Project Northwoods, which was kind of the mock bombing of a plane or sending a plane into, oh my God, I'm screwing this up, sending a plane into Cuba with like fake people on it. But also the CIA's strategy of tension during Operation Gladio.
And one of the operatives says, you were supposed to attack civilians, women, children, innocent people outside the political arena for one simple reason, to force Italian public to turn to the state to ask for greater security. And so people not knowing this stuff, that's just part of what they're doing. They're kind of indoctrinating people with these things that we're talking about that are historical fact being so-called conspiracy theory. I doubt that most Americans have paid any attention to the news that Syrian wheat crops
across the country are being firebombed by US helicopters, which is even during war, it's a war crime, but it's a crime against humanity. It's such a trivial thing. I haven't seen much talk about it. I have a question. I mean, it's related, but it's more general than that. Do you think that if evil triumphs and it basically has its way, do you think that evil is stable as a structure? Do you think at some point it will simply collapse because that's just not how nature works and it's almost like against physical laws?
Or do you think it will last indefinitely if it achieves complete control? Yeah, they always need the abject obedience in sufficient quantity to let them have servants and murderers, assassins, and so on. And at some point that dwindles, they get weakened by their use and their expendability makes them, I think, unsustainable. Do you think that that may be one reason behind the collapse of most empires? Because they all seem to follow a pretty similar script. There is a peak, right? And there is this long decline through which, of course, there is increase in authoritarianism,
police state, et cetera, et cetera. And eventually there is this rapid collapse. But this idea of evil triumphed and then it collapsed because it triumphed, that seems to be a repeating theme across history. Yeah, they keep increasing their power. The use of power is mainly to increase the power. And when you keep increasing the power, like the concentration of wealth, just the concentration of wealth is pretty soon going to mean that Amazon owns everything and everyone else is expendable. So you'll have one corporation and what will they do to increase their power?
The board of directors is going to start fighting for who has the most power. I see. Ray, I quoted, you responded to somebody in email and you said, "No, a person is never again the same after reacting to an aluminum adjuvant. The official figures of the US government show clearly that the epidemic of chronic diseases began with the massive increase of vaccination in 1989." And that created quite a... I don't go on Facebook very often, but I posted that on there and it riled a lot of people up.
So do you want to offer more information or context about that? Because this is a very real thing that's probably in the works or it has already been worked out and is probably coming pretty soon. What do you think people need to know about rolling up their sleeve and getting a vaccine from Gates et al.? The size of a baby's brain, especially in relation to its body length at birth, has been growing from early 20th century steadily down to the 1970s.
In some countries, it has actually in the 1980s begun shrinking and I think that's a pretty good worldwide indicator of the state of well-being and of deterioration. Are you familiar with the Flynn effect, which is the parallel increase in IQ all the way up until the mid-1970s and after that it's been basically in decline and there aren't even any trials, it's just declined? Do you know of Ernest Stern's study of the SAT scores? Yes, I've seen that and I've also seen the sperm counts and testosterone levels in males
have been precipitously declining since the 70s and they're matching perfectly that declining curve in IQ as well. Brain size in relation to body and IQ and probably several other indicators of general well-being have all stopped increasing and begun declining. I think you can see it even in body shape and facial shape. Some people pointed out, Ray, that you, I mean my limited experience of reading your stuff like some people have said and I agreed that I've never heard you say like a person
is never again the same and so is there something specifically really harmful about the aluminum? What is it about the aluminum adjuvant? No, anything you do, you're always in process. Heraclitus didn't miss anything. There is nothing that is ever constant and so if you ate chocolate rather than strawberry ice cream, you're never going to be the same again. That's what I thought. It was like shifting a trajectory of a person's life in just a different direction. Yeah, yeah and there are some things that shift the trajectory more seriously and more downward.
Radiation and stuff injected into your muscles or brain are especially harmful. The radiation is equivalent because it affects things at the deepest levels the same way injected materials do or inhaled or swallowed nanoparticles that go everywhere in the body which are just sitting there ready to make genes out of the RNA ready to translate it into not only DNA to make the spike protein to create an inflammatory reaction that will lead to immunity but DNA that can be incorporated into our genes so that our offspring will
continue making that spike protein and if we don't make enough of it to kill the person within the year before they start mass producing the vaccine, a very large portion of the volunteer subjects for this vaccine have had serious reactions. They call it a grade three serious reaction that might involve hospitalization. No one died so they went on but the incorporation of RNA will undoubtedly have effects that are going to be at least somewhat harmful, maybe progressively harmful all the way to killing the person.
In terms of transgenerational effects, I know you've mentioned this before related to the vaccines but which generation do you think would have it worst? Would it be like third, fourth, fifth or would it be even further down the line? It seems like the first generation that gets it gets harm but maybe it'll survive. Then the second generation it may get skipped but the third one seems to be really where the bomb explodes. I think it depends on what the individual confronts in each generation.
The number of genes specifying making a human being in our genome is somewhere around one to two percent of our DNA and around half of our DNA specifies retroviruses and each of those retroviruses is recognizable because it has a reverse transcriptase. These are probably when we're under stress, these are expressed to different degrees. When we're well fed and happy, we can take in something like the spike protein RNA, pack it away as a potential virus but keep it out of the way. Transgenic or epigenetic effects are under control but anything that creates a great
problem, our system opens up this vast library of genetic material, shakes out some stuff, produces exosomes from it which resemble viruses. We're constantly to the degree that we're under stress. Our cells are manufacturing exosomes just about the same size and structure of the coronaviruses and other viruses and these are used to adapt to whatever it is that's bothering us, aging or infection, poisoning, whatever that shakes up the organism arouses some degree of this library of reference DNA material and adding one bit to it might not come out for 20 generations
but it's still idiotic to put the most toxic protein, the spike protein, to put the RNA specifying that in our library of resources. Speaking of messing up with our DNA and transgenerational effects, people ask you multiple times about your opinion on GMO crops and I think you usually said that something along the lines of that, these artificial genes that are there could be highly allergenic but I haven't seen you say much in terms of whether this could have a transgenerational effect. Do you think it may? Oh sure. Everything has a transgenerational effect.
Are you familiar with the Epicyte gene that Monsanto patented? It's called EPICYT Epicyte gene. I don't know. I haven't heard of it. So apparently this is, I mean, it can be Googled but it is an artificially created gene for corn that specifically makes human males sterile. Now I have no idea why Monsanto would be interested in such a gene unless they really had an intention of using it but apparently there are genes in the plants that can actually cause direct sterility effects and no vaccine is needed.
So I've been thinking lately about how all of these efforts to conceal the labeling of the food in the United States and even in the entire Western world to prevent people from knowing whether they're eating genetically modified food or not. So if the powers that be want to do population control, it seems like they can do it through food as well. Yes. The everything in a vaccine practically is adequate to create allergies in a young person receiving it. And if you include the nucleic acid as this new vaccine is doing, well, the old vaccines
all have nucleic acids in them as dirt, egg or other animal tissue or embryo tissue that is used to grow the viruses for the vaccine. That always leaks proteins and nucleic acids from what they grow it in. So those are among the things that people are being made allergic to by injecting it into them. That's how you create an experimental allergy in animals and no one denies that it is in the composition of genes and so accounting for the 25 fold increase in young people's allergies.
And now that they're acknowledging that they're putting a nucleic acid in everyone who receives the vaccine is going to have to be labeled genetically modified organism. Speaking of protection from vaccines, I'm sure you've seen that most of the adjuvants that are in there, they target the endotoxin receptor TLR4 or one of the TLRs. So would it be pertinent to administer something if somebody, let's say somebody doesn't have a choice, is forced to be vaccinated, maybe they're in the military or work in the healthcare industry.
Do you think that blocking that receptor before getting that vaccine would confer some protective effects if the endotoxin? Everything anti-inflammatory that you do is going to tend to inhibit that. Everything you do that is stressful is going to sensitize it and that's happening with any vaccine. The inflammatory system arranged around the endotoxin inflammation system, everything you do risks activating that and that activates histamine, serotonin, and so on. Everything that's involved in the coronavirus disease, so-called, the real disease is just a very standardized stress disease.
That's why it overlaps so perfectly with sepsis or high altitude pulmonary edema, ARDS caused by trauma, everything that tends to kill you tends to create the same condition. Some people react badly to the coronavirus where 70% or so don't notice they have anything worse than maybe a sniffle. But there have been eight or ten studies that looked at the outcome of people who had been given the influenza shots and the huge campaign in Italy and the US last year to push influenza vaccine on old people.
According to the results of these several studies, people who were vaccinated against influenza, according to their arguments, had somewhat less cases of influenza, maybe 45% protection, but they were as much as five or six times as likely to have other respiratory infection. So, just looking at those figures, you would say that the great vaccination campaign of old people, total of approaching 170 million in the US, I don't know how many in Italy, if you doubled or tripled or quadrupled the number of non-influenza respiratory diseases,
you would expect to have a much higher percentage of coronavirus infections, which is what we did see. So in principle, just taking a hefty dosage of aspirin about an hour before a forced vaccine would be a decent attempt to protect yourself? Yeah, very good, because all of these things, angiotensin activates, among other things, the prostaglandins. And if you stop the prostaglandin storm, you reduce all of the cytokine storm. But aspirin is just one of the protective things. The blockers of angiotensin itself, angiotensin receptor blockers, stop at its source, the cytokine storm, inflammatory storm.
And you might have heard that in Italy, one place, the mortality of men was four times, well, 82% of the deaths were men, 18% women. But one big study across the country found between three and four times as many men as women dying. And the only premenopausal women in more than 1,000 cases who died were radically abnormal and hormonal, other extreme metabolic problems. And several studies have documented in the US, it's maybe two and a half times as many dead men as women. But probably in the US, more women are supplementing estrogen.
And estrogen, well, it's reciprocal, estrogen increases angiotensin and angiotensin activates aromatase. And so women, especially after menopause, if they're taking extra estrogen, are equivalent to having lower progesterone. Even in old age, men have much lower progesterone than women, but their estrogen, an old man's estrogen is often the same as an old woman's. It's the progesterone that's extremely different. The other big natural difference that shows up in the figures is that high altitude mortality is about three to four fold lower in Bolivia, western China around Tibet, and other South
American countries, and looking at the high plateau states of Mexico, it was around three times as high in the low altitude states as in the central plateau states. And the only hormone difference that is extreme at very high altitude is progesterone, which increases adaptively and protectively. When you're able to adapt, you keep your carbon dioxide very high, and that goes with allopregnanolone and progesterone metabolites being elevated. To shift gears a little bit, I forget what article it was, but it was a James W. Prescott article, it's Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence in 1975.
And just a snippet from that, it's, "And the greatest threat comes from the nations which have most depriving environments for their children, which are most repressive of sexual affection and female sexuality." So that makes sense to me, but I'm also interested in kind of the things we've talked about before, kind of the sexualization of the culture and how that's kind of used as a weapon. And so where is the healthy middle ground between those two things? Between middle ground, between which things? Do you remember it?
It's the James W. Prescott article, it's called Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence. And then the only thing I didn't read off is in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, like a 1946 edition, he said, "As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends to compensatingly increase." And so that, I mean, just in my limited view, that kind of seems like what we're going through now, like just these ever growing series of sexual revolutions as our normal freedoms diminish over time.
And so, I don't know, maybe just your general thoughts of sexualization being used as a type of weapon against people. Prescott was a Reichian, and I would agree with the Reich that sexual freedom has been a fraud and a distortion of sexuality rather than a liberation. A deviancy, I would call it. The what? I would call it sexual deviancy instead of sexual freedom, wouldn't you? Yeah, yeah. The weirdness has been amplified and the actual free expression. The CIA, with Gloria Steinem, for example, as a CIA operative, creating a new view of
feminism rather than erotic free feminism. It was industrial-grade power feminism. And then you trace that back to Kinsey, and apparently he was supported by the Rockefellers and on the front page, or the cover of Time magazine, the CIA mouthpiece. Yeah, yeah. And you don't, do you think his science was very good? Yeah, I don't think science was really science. And the other kind of tag-along question to this is, in your email wiki, you said that high estrogen does sometimes cause insatiable sexual interest, partly because it increases adrenal androgens and partly by inhibiting satisfying orgasms.
And so I know in my experience, kind of my libido has fluctuated. Sometimes I'll think my libido is great or something, and then I'll take something that's obviously lowering stress and it will decrease. And in talking to people, that seems like sometimes a person will be disturbed because they'll perceive their libido as to be like awesome. But sometimes I suspect maybe it's the stress driving the libido. So is that something, can you clarify that statement or flush it out a little bit? Yeah, Wilhelm Reich called it the genitalization, the localization of the orgasm and losing
the whole organism's function of the orgasm. He saw the real orgasm as a cosmic thing in which your whole view of your partner and the universe is undergoing a change so that both of your personalities and position in the world change. The orgasm is a discovery rather than a sneeze in the loins. So basically sex is an art, is a form of art? I guess. What do you make of sexual obsession? There are movements online from no-fap to no masturbation, anti-porn.
So people are waking up to the, didn't Israel put porn in Palestine on the television or something to like, it's obviously, why is porn free on computers and stuff? Even when I was born in 1985, seeing a pornographic image was such a rarity even in my youth, but now it's just like everywhere. And so if somebody felt like they were really into that, what would be some things that they could do to detach, do you think? I think a good place to start would be to read some of Wilhelm Reich's writings.
He saw it as a very important political question that made him an anti-Nazi. Well if somebody's physiology was, so again I'd be curious on your opinion about this, but maybe like the low energy hypothyroid state, like the, I'm not trying to moralize masturbation or anything, but if somebody is attracted to that, maybe that's like a low energy activity and kind of an exciting thing to do when you're in such a low energy state. Does that make sense at all? Oh sure. It can be relaxing and break stress.
Exactly, like as an anti, it's like something a person can do similar to going buying alcohol or cigarettes, like there's a limited amount of things in the culture a person can do to try to dampen the stress response and that's one of the things. Yeah. Little kids often do it just to go to sleep, having fantasies and rubbing themselves and then going to sleep. It helps to relax. Yeah I wanted to say so, I mean because Danny mentioned that these movements to like try
to abstain from like from consuming pornographic material online, I was thinking of a similar but slightly divergent line. Like this is a way of self-medication of lowering cortisol similar to what an alcoholic would do or a drug addict would do. Maybe better to sort of try to search for the reasons why we're drawn to this excessive sexuality all the time and sort of try to remove the reasons instead of trying to abstain because I think the abstaining from one of the few things that brings relief, that can itself also be pathological, right? Oh sure. Yeah.
The obsessive trying to change your behavior as part of an obsessive attitude. I'm sure you've seen these programs, the so-called abstinence education which the Bush presidency heralded and tried to impose on every school in the country. I mean they failed spectacularly and at the time they said, "Oh it's because the American youth is so undisciplined." But there's probably a physiological reason behind it. Basically these people are doing these things because they feel a relief. So it's really counterproductive to go and tell them, "No, you shouldn't be abstaining.
You shouldn't be doing these things because it's immoral." It usually has a – it kind of like backfires. The public sometimes says, "You know what? I'm going to do this and I'm going to do more simply because the authority is telling me don't do it." Yeah, but the sense of a neurotic self is a very powerful barrier against accepting imposition of duty and authority. Just preserving that little private corner can save a person from whatever monstrous situation they're in. Do you see sexuality as a liberating force in nature?
Because the reason I'm asking this is because if you look at throughout history, every authoritarian society tried to brutally control sexuality. To this day, there are cultures out there that would kill you if you break certain sexual norms. Is it because sexuality is such a powerful force that it can quickly undermine the powers that be if it's left uncontrolled? Oh yeah. The authorities on why circumcision is so important recognized that it was to give an obedient, fearful attitude towards sex so that they recognized that you could be cut any time.
The political implications of sexuality, all the way from circumcision to Wilhelm Reich's politics, it's really worth investigating and thinking about how the personality goes through energy cycles. The energy cycles are cycles of consciousness and you're constantly inventing and discovering new things every time you have a satisfactory full cycle. And Ray, part of the function of estrogen, if it is related to an insatiable interest in sex, is that like a signal that the environment is bad and that the organism should try to reproduce as fast as possible? Is that somewhat related? Oh yeah.
The worse the situation is, like in the spring when there's a drought underway, grass like wheat will rush to come to a head and produce a seed. Maybe only a few little ones, but it will manage to survive the cycle by accelerating everything. The early puberty in girls in extremely stressed societies, nine or ten years old, while in traditional, calm, well-fed societies, especially with enough saturated fats like butter or coconut oil, as in parts of India, puberty would normally be around 17 or 18 years old
and the whole organism would have time to mature more thoroughly. In terms of healthy sexuality, would you say that it's better to have a robust sexual arousal response when stimulated, but not really having much of a libido response without stimulation versus this current craziness of somehow people have convinced themselves that having a high libido all the time, whether you're surrounded by a stimulating event or not, they don't care about this. Now the culture is saying being hypersexual is good, but to me it seems that being hypersexual is good only if the right stimulus is there.
If you're hypersexual all the time, then something's wrong, right? Yeah, it's irrational if you're excited by a shoe or a toad or something else. You wouldn't be very popular among common sexologists. They'll say, "Don't shame people's kinks, Ray. Some people like shoes." Switching gears a little bit, finasteride, Ray, I know we've talked about this in the past and in the quote I probably have sent to hundreds of people, I think you said in 2014, it was just a reply to somebody asking you what they should do having taken finasteride
and you said, "I think it probably started a chronic malfunction of your liver and intestine. A simple diet is probably good, small amounts of thyroid pregnenolone." Can we just kind of flush out the details of, one, my first question being like, if a person has to take finasteride, there's already a problem. And then two, how more difficult is the person's situation after they've taken the finasteride in your estimation? Well, first, no one has to take it. It's an irrational decision and it probably means you're already abjectly obedient to authority.
It's such an unfounded, basically an insane decision. And any information that you get is going to make a thoughtful person fear it. And it's a very powerful intervention in your steroid chemistry, which especially affects your brain. The brain is the biggest steroidogenic organ, probably next to the skin. But it's changing your chemistry and to get over it, you're going to have to push the system artificially, at least as hard in the opposite direction to try to bring it back into a functional state. So I want to, that's good stuff.
I want to talk more about that. When it does regrow hair, what do you think it's doing? Somehow shaking up the system, like creating an early false puberty, you can bring some parts of the system into function in isolation. And then do you think we know all the effects of what it is? Do you buy that it's just a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor or do you think it's doing a lot of other things? Oh, not really other things. But these 5-reductase, both alpha and beta reductases, the steroids are central to well-being,
progress of consciousness, the orgasm function itself, brain development at its foundation. I'm sure you'll like this. There was a study that I found recently which showed that even in snails, if you give them a finasteride or any other 5-alpha reductase inhibitor and they confirm that it's specific to the 5-alpha reductase, the snails no longer coil. So it completely disrupts their morphogenetic field and this effect persists for several generations. So apparently dihydrotestosterone or allopregnanolone, which they didn't test which one of the two because the finasteride inhibits just the enzyme that produces both of them, but
apparently one of these hormones is extremely important for the morphogenesis of even snails. We can only imagine what inhibiting this enzyme does to the brain and to the human morphogenesis field. Yeah, the coiling of the brain is much more complex than the snails coiling. Georgie touched on it a few episodes ago, but he suspected that when you said your liver and intestine, that dihydrotestosterone was important for intestinal function. Is that what you were thinking when you wrote this do you think? No, I just think of that category progesterone, dihydrotestosterone, all of the stabilizing
steroids as essential to holding our organism in its shape and determining its future shape, the way it coils and uncoils. Specific to the digestion, apparently the 5-alpha-reductase enzyme, the whole family is important for the synthesis of bile acids, which are steroid-like molecules. And if you inhibit the 5-alpha-reductase enzyme, you won't be producing the bile acids, which are crucial, obviously, for digestion. And another thing I found out is that also the 5-alpha-reductase family is responsible for turning cortisol into its reduced version, which is a lot less potent and actually in
some cases acts as an antagonist on the cortisol receptor. So it looks like it's a fairly systemic protective function that these enzymes have that doesn't even have to do much with sexuality. It's more like metabolism and digestion and stress. Yeah, that's why I always think of Heraclitus in connection to any seemingly simple biological issue. Nothing is simple, everything goes on forever and changes. One last thing on this and then we can move on if Georgie doesn't have any additional questions, but there's a huge culture around post-finasteride users and a lot of them will
say things like, "We need to find a cure." And so what is your thought on that? I've often suspected that... I'm involved. Well, the idea that you've taken finasteride, it's harmed you and then... Hello? Yes, can you hear me? Can you hear me, Georgie? Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah, we can hear you now. I'll just rephrase the question. The idea of the needing to find a cure, what is your point of view on that specifically? Because if you say it's very complicated and it started with your development and everything
in your life, I think that just isn't acceptable to a lot of people. The association with the crease in the earlobe and the altered cholesterol metabolism and everything, it says you've got to seriously back up and not look for a cure in the medical sense, but to back up and as radically redo your life as possible. Such things as, for example, going to a high altitude for six weeks at a time and eating a totally different diet, making sure that your calcium intake is very, very high compared to your phosphate intake.
The phosphate, for example, excess activates your parathyroid hormone, aldosterone, angiotensin, everything that destroys hair growth. Phosphate excess is very crucial for promoting. So doing everything, high altitude will increase the balance of progesterone and help to get the parathyroid hormone and aldosterone and angiotensin under control, but you have to think of it at that very fundamental level of getting your energy system revved up and turning off those toxic processes. The parathyroid hormone in itself is enough to knock out the hair follicle.
Do you think, what is the extent of the damage to the vascular system when a person starts losing hair? Like, how much of it is stopping the processes causing the hair loss and how much of it is attempting to reverse the damage that's already been done? I think the things they do are seldom helpful. Getting your spontaneous energy production high so that you're producing and retaining lots of carbon dioxide, energizing and renewing the follicle so that it selects and retains from your blood supply the trace minerals that it needs.
High energy is needed for that and the high energy is expressed through the balance of carbon dioxide and keeping calcium out of the cells by keeping your parathyroid hormone low, keeping aldosterone low by doing everything anti-inflammatory. Just one other question. You probably already answered it, but when somebody takes spironolactone or progesterone or ciproterone acetate, what do you see? You just mentioned a battery of different ways that it could improve things, but do you see progesterone heating or increasing the temperature of the brain or is there a
primary mechanism or something you see as it doing to restore hair growth? Progesterone is very closely connected to maintaining oxidative metabolism and higher body temperature at rest. But could you, like an area of balding scalp, is that proportionally colder over a longer period of time or is that too reductionist? Is what? Evolving over time? Like, is the balding area of scalp proportionally colder over a longer period of time or is that a little... Oh, that's because it's quiet relative to the other parts of the brain. It's your thought process.
It's stabilized, but still at a good high temperature. You can't think and plan if your frontal lobes are cool. It's just that it has to be cooler than all the rest of your brain and body. And progesterone is part of maintaining that coolness by keeping the activity focused rather than attending in the direction of excitotoxicity and inflammation. It quiets it so that it can think appropriately, but it does that against the background of high energy, high temperature, high carbon dioxide content.
So I could not be understanding, but are you saying like a desynchronization of the brain? I know you've said the frontal lobes are supposed to be cooler and they act like a dissipating heat structure, if I remember correctly, and then the inner parts of the brain are the hottest. And am I following at all? Yeah. The carelessness of the front part of the brain is just part of the fact that it's very hot, but by being uninsulated relatively, it can be cooler than the inside.
So one of the functions of the progesterone is to stabilize it so that it doesn't produce heat needlessly, but also to keep the temperature up so that the energy supply is there. The balance of carbon dioxide and lactic acid keep keeping the blocking hormones like parathyroid hormone low. And then when the tissue gets colder or the brain gets colder, what would be directly behind the frontal lobes? Is that the part that is directly affected? And then the tissue, it gets cooler, the protective steroids drop, as you said, the parathyroid
hormone prolactin rises, and then that increases the activation and mobilization of mast cells. Is that right at all? The whole organs, any cell, when it's happy and successful and has done its work properly, it maintains high energy, but quiescence. And the frontal lobe of the brain is just the highest energy organ or tissue, but also the most able to maintain a high degree of quiescence. So in a sense, balding could be viewed as a brain excitotoxicity problem? Is that what I'm hearing? You're not keeping the back part of your brain differentiated adequately from the front.
If you raise your whole energy production, that whole syndrome of an earlobe crease and high cholesterol and so on, it almost always goes with the chronic low temperature. So since estrogen is such a powerful agent of decreasing core temperature, would you say that agents that inhibit the synthesis of estrogen or block its effects, that would be a more or less right approach for restoring hair growth? The exact function of estrogen is to block a cell from going into that quiescent state to force it to act immediately and intensely and lead to the reproductive processes, which
if you stay under the influence of estrogen, it will never go beyond the rapid multiplication and growth phase. You have to turn off that glycolytic type of metabolism and go to the oxidative, aiming towards quiescence. So speaking of quiescence, I have a question about the GABA system. Everyone is a GABA agonist and there are many other drugs on the market that act on the same system as agonists. Would you say it would be counterproductive to try to target that specific system because it would be too reductionist?
Let's say an overly excited cell, you give it a GABA agonist drug to calm it down, but that in theory, in principle, shouldn't work very well unless you also address the energetic deficiency, right? What deficiency? The energetic deficiency of the cell. Yeah, you can't have meaningful quiescence if you're simply exhausted. The Pavlovians had the idea of usually three energy states, the almost dead parabiotic state and the intermediate state of sort of frenzied activity doing its function on and off active contraction, relaxation and so on.
And then the high energy resting state in which it's simply quiescent but totally charged up and ready to work. These are good at getting into the high energy resting state and someone about to die tends to have parts of the brain and other tissues lapse into the parabiotic almost dead state just being quiet to save the last little bit of energy for surviving. So psychiatry more or less as a profession is wasting both its time and the time of its patients by administering all these GABA agonist drugs for all of these anxiety disorders and
all kinds of other psychiatric disorders that are really energetic in origin. Yeah, they can be useful for a day or two if you use them to get some rest so that you can build things up. But they overlap and are in a way probably synonymous with the so-called calcium channels, the excitotoxic NMDA receptors, the glutamate receptors, everything that stress and estrogen turn on, that whole system turns off. And progesterone, carbon dioxide, and all of the other good things suppress the excitotoxic and promote the GABA relaxing system. Between carbon dioxide and thyroid, go ahead, sorry.
Well you can pile up the nominal calcium channel blockers with carbonic anhydrase inhibitors and GABA receptors and so on. A pile of them will usually be more effective than one of them, but still you've got to work on the actual metabolism and get the blockers like enfatensin and aldosterone and parathyroid hormone out of the way. Speaking of the carbonic anhydrase, which do you think is more systemically beneficial, thyroid hormone or carbon dioxide? People who have looked for, among all known organisms, they could find lots of them that
can live without oxygen, but they couldn't find any single-celled organism that can live continuously without carbon dioxide. So it's the without which there is no life. So if there was a way to package carbon dioxide as a drug or a supplement and then you have thyroid as a supplement, I guess supplementing with carbon dioxide would be more systemic, less risky? Yeah, it will stop the stress and very often give you a chance to recover your own thyroid function.
A good diet, if you can adapt to 10,000 feet altitude and then get a good diet, your thyroid will usually recover. At 8,000 to 9,000 or 10,000 feet, everyone loses unnecessary fat, their thyroid starts working properly. Is there an equivalent, I'm sure you're familiar with Addison disease, which is adrenal failure, is there an equivalent disease for thyroid where the thyroid gland kind of completely fails as the adrenals? It used to be said to be killed by tuberculosis. That was 150 years ago when they believed that the thyroid gland enlargement at that
time they thought might be inert by an infection, but it was probably just an extreme accumulation of colloid from hypothyroidism. I don't know of any actual confirmed disease in which the thyroid fails in itself, but a lifetime, 30 or 40 years of supplementing too much iodine will increase fibrosis and eventually carcinogenesis in the thyroid by driving high TSH activates cell deterioration, fibrosis and inflammation. And so you basically can drive it to death and fibrosis, but anytime you stop it while there's still something alive, a few cells can regrow.
So just to summarize, so apparently supplementing with thyroid is not always necessary. If one can radically re-engineer their life, just as you mentioned, go and live at high altitude for let's say several months in a row, change their diet, completely eliminate stress, then at least in principle thyroid function should be recoverable even without thyroid supplementation. Yeah, and a fat person takes longer because they'll have pounds of polyunsaturated fats waiting there to come out and poison your thyroid. Speaking of thyroid, Ray, something people push back on a lot is in your TSH temperature,
pulse rate and other indicators in hypothyroidism 2006, you wrote, "Healthy, intelligent groups of people have been found to have average resting pulse rate of 85 per minute, while less healthy groups average close to 70 per minute." In my general experience of monitoring myself and talking to other people, that seems very true, but what were you specifically thinking of when you wrote that? Oh, particular studies in which they saw, looking at different populations, just the relation of blood circulation to brain function and the freedom from sickness and so on, the
higher temperature, a good resting temperature right around 37 Celsius goes with good brain function and general good health. A few weeks ago on Twitter, low-carb and keto people were trying to one-up each other by seeing who had the lowest pulse rate. So I think 40 was the winner. They were quoting articles saying that as your pulse rate went up, you all caused mortality increase. So what is your opinion on that? There have been a couple big propaganda studies five or ten years ago, some in Denmark.
If you look at them carefully, they're just basically propaganda for selling blood pressure drugs and things to regulate your heart rate and pressure. And last thing, this is an article, I forget when it was, but the quote is, "The normal heart rate for a newborn should be 140, reducing to 115 between six months and one year, 110 between one and two years, 103 between two and six, 95 age six to ten, and 85 between ten and 14 years." And that just reflects the lifelong decline of the metabolism. Is that right? Yeah.
The intelligence basically goes down with the metabolic rate. I had a chance to give the RAVEN matrix tests to some kids at different ages. And my niece, for example, when she was eight, scored the same raw score as a university math professor, but when she was in her teens, she scored exactly the same score and hadn't advanced a bit. And just being around kids, you can see that at eight or nine, they're as bright as they're ever going to be. And just some random questions, unless you have questions about that, Dorji.
One thing I am interested in is a half a grain dose versus a full grain. And you wrote to somebody in 2018 and you said, "If your diet lacks something such as selenium or vitamin D that's needed for thyroid to work, T4 can interfere with the effects of T3. If you take 25 or 50 micrograms in a single daily dose of T4, the liver will experience a momentary toxic overdose and over a period of a week or two will adapt to detoxification
enzymes to destroy it, with the result of the body will be extremely deficient in thyroid most of the day and with a short period of toxic excess." So I guess what I'm getting at is, is it always safer to dose a half a grain at a time versus a full grain because the more than 25 or 50 micrograms could be harmful to somebody? With the natural glandular material, if you take it with food, it isn't all going to be digested for hours. Some of it is going to travel down your intestine.
So with natural thyroid, you don't get such a bad effect as with a pure chemical. I experienced it myself taking 25 micrograms of T3 only in the morning and I don't remember how many weeks it was, but just a few weeks and my heart began pausing for seconds at a time around sunset every day and I found at sunset taking 5 or 10 micrograms and rubbing it on the roof of my mouth, within 10 or 15 seconds, my heart rhythm was going from pausing every 10 seconds to a restored perfect rhythm.
You know what, I think I just realized I've been reading this paragraph wrong for years. You're talking about T3 in this, you're not talking about T4. Is there an unsafe amount of T4 to take at a single time? I was thinking the 25 to 50 was T4, but you're obviously talking about T3. Yeah, T4 is more slowly metabolized anyway, so it's going to equilibrate into your tissues at its background level is so much higher than T3 that the effect is going to be a lot slower.
If you lack selenium and aren't converting it, then it does build up over the weeks and it reaches the point where it interferes with T3 and becomes antithyroid. So one last question about this. So if a person were using Cynoplus and they needed hypothetically two grains, would that be, and maybe the person's sensitive, or you're talking to a random person and you don't know how sensitive they are, would it be safer to talk about half a grain four times a day or would one grain twice a day be perfectly okay?
Yeah, one tablet of Cynoplus is like a little over two grains of armor and one tablet I think has 30 micrograms of T3 and so if you take that on an empty stomach and absorb it quickly, it's going to have that upsetting effect and your liver is going to eventually give you a low T3 effect. But the one grain at a time, 10 micrograms of T3 and 40 micrograms of T4, is that risky to take at one time? Not with food. Food is going to slow it out.
And last question, would you chew it or just swallow the pill whole? If you need, like I wanted my heart to not stop for three seconds at a time and so I chewed it up and got the almost instantaneous effect. If you're having terrible insomnia, chewing up 10 micrograms can put you to sleep in a few minutes. People with agonizing breast pain have chewed up 10 micrograms and found the pain was absolutely stopped in 10 or 15 minutes. I have a question about supplementing with thyroid.
Considering the fact that fatty acids, especially PUFA, interfere with both the transport and the uptake and the effects of thyroid hormone in the cell, would it be pertinent to try to lower the fatty acids around the time somebody is taking thyroid? Like take it with niacinamide and/or aspirin or any other measure that lowers free fatty acids? It's always good to keep the free fatty acids low. But it wouldn't have any kind of synergistic effect to do that when you're taking thyroid? In other words, to get more use of the thyroid you're already ingesting.
Would it help to in this specific case? In the case of glandular thyroid, the unsaturated fats are even blocking the breakdown in your stomach and the further metabolism in your body is being blocked at all different points by polyunsaturated fatty acids. Oh wow, so you won't even break down the thyroglobulin in the stomach when you're taking the glandular? Some of the food technology people have reasoned that the reason for polyunsaturated fats in so many seeds is to block mammalian stomach enzymes to make the seed unnutritious so they
all stop eating it because it blocks the proteolytic enzymes. Ray, I know it's getting pretty late so I'm conscious of the time and I'll let you go. The last question I had for you was do you have a strong opinion about what's going on in Antarctica? This has been a mild fascination of mine and I watched a pretty good video about it and they threw out a bunch of things from magnetic anomalies to weather experiments to a source of uranium and a bunch of old newspapers describing snow-free land on Antarctica and things like that.
Have you studied the topic? Do you have a strong opinion about it? No, not a bit. Have you seen the news recently about the neutrinos, the high-energy neutrinos they found in that detector in Antarctica and they're saying these particles should not exist, something's wrong with the standard model, but nobody's saying the obvious which may be that the earth is creating new matter and that's the reason why these high-energy neutrinos are there. Are they coming in a certain direction out of the earth or falling?
Yes, and they're saying they're coming out of the earth and of course the main theory is like well, clearly the assumption is they're not coming from the earth, in other words the earth is not the source so if they're coming from the outer space, how the hell are they going through the entire earth and are coming out of the South Pole but we're not detecting them at the North Pole and nobody's saying the obvious which is maybe they originated from the earth.
I just thought it's been boggling the scientific minds for the last three or four years, it hits the news every once in a while. I don't know if you've seen it on the news or not. No, that would be very important if the earth is emitting them. Do you know the neutrino sea theory? Dudley? The one from Dudley? Of course, Dudley, yeah. I read one paper, I was only able to find one thing in a PDF file online and it's basically
saying that the stars are creating this stream of neutrinos and they're the source of all matter and I think the Electric Universe Theory folks have been confirming that and saying yes the electric force acts upon the neutrinos and when they split they form these cosmic rays and all new matter that we're seeing around us. That was just I think a minor part. His general thing was that the universe is pervaded by a neutrino sea which possibly has a dielectric effect and for that reason neutrinos naturally associate with charged
matter, all matter being charged, so the concentration of neutrinos increases in proportion to matter and it fits with the Hindu guys' theory of gravity as a dielectric phenomenon with the neutrino sea being the dielectric which associates with matter. I happened to look up another paper that a professor had mentioned by a physicist named Anderson in which the presence of a monolayer of a radioactive material on a crystalline material, in this case a radioactive vegetable oil on aluminum foil, he showed that the supposedly
stochastic nuclear decay was nonrandom when the oil was spread out in a monolayer and that paper was published in the same journal of the Italian physics journal in which Dudley published his neutrino sea argument predicting that crystalline matter would act as a beam, a focuser of this neutrino sea which associates as a dielectric but it would be altered in the presence of crystalline matter in which the charges are arranged in an orderly way and he predicted that the crystal structure could regulate nuclear decay and warned that
the state of nuclear fuel in reactors or weapons could govern the spontaneous fission and make it unpredictable so his article was a warning but Anderson's article neither of them knew about the other but the experimental evidence happened to be published at the same time the theory was. So basically nuclear weapons are incurrently unstable, they may self-combust, well not self-combust but self-ignite? Yeah, and so if there's for example uranium ore at the South Pole this could be the equivalent of the reactive stuff being focused, focusing the neutrinos and so it could be another confirmation
of Dudley and Anderson. In one of your interviews you talked about the piece of matter existing through time would convert this neutrino stream into energy and you called it a neg entropy, can you expand a little bit on that? Is that how basically matter is sustained as a stable substance by through this neutrino sea that's passing through it? Yeah, that was Dudley's view that it was participating in the mere mass attracting the neutrinos which affect such things as nuclear decay that the mass is acting on itself
through the neutrino sea in such things as generating order. What do you think Kozyrev was measuring when he was doing his experiments with what he called processes that emit or absorb time? What do you think he was measuring in those experiments? Basically just energy and when energy appears unaccountably he did calculations to show why the passage of time is always adding a certain amount of energy to the system which would involve Dudley's neutrino sea but Kozyrev called it time. But empirically he started his theory to predict the source of stellar energy and scaling the
mass of a star down, the mass of the sun corresponded according to his astronomical measurements to all of the stars he was looking at and so he looked at the planets and finally the dark side of the moon as the smallest accessible planet and aiming his spectroscopic telescope on the dark of the moon with a photographic plate in it he photographed red spots periodically in the volcanic areas of the moon. Volcanic eruptions were recorded and American astronomers said he was just a drunk Russian, there can't be volcanic action on the moon.
But most recently there's an anomalous heat emission from I think it's next to the last gaseous planet and this very recent new data about the heat coming out of this planet fits his predictions according to the mass all the planets except Venus are emitting the same energy in relation to mass as the moon and the sun and stars. Two more questions related to that, are you aware of any follow-up work after Dudley's publications? Anybody who took this up and developed it further? Nope. Nope, okay.
And if we assume that the neutrino sea is also synonymous for that electrically charged ether or not electrically charged but ether with electrical properties, I'm sure you're familiar with the ether drift experiments which some people say were falsified. Yeah, it's exactly if the neutrino sea is the ether and it's attracted simply as a dielectric very very light gas then you would have some drift, some carries some of it along with some of it slips through. So Dudley exactly calculated things that were consistent with the measurements.
There was a physicist who apparently repeated the experiment to detect the ether in the 80s. He worked for Caltech and NASA. I'm blanking on his name, I think his last name was either Silver or Silverstein. Long story short, he found that the earth has basically a drift, it's basically moving preferentially in space towards the Sagittarius constellation. So he not only said that the ether probably exists but also that its flow seems to have a preferential direction. Would you have any opinion on why that direction may exist and is there anything special towards
the ether moving preferentially in a certain direction? Well like the electric universe, the universe is a thing and it must obey any laws of physics that are valid and so that's just another unexplored part of the universe. So maybe there's more matter there and the neutrinos are drawn towards that part of the universe? Yeah, the universe is doing something we haven't found out yet. What do you think black holes are? Aside from them being a completely fake object that astronomy is trying to convince us are
breaking the laws of physics, do you think they're just special regions of space attracting neutrinos somehow? Yeah, I think mostly they're something designed to fit the paradigm. Have you read Seeing Red? Halton Arp? Yeah, Halton Arp. His observations didn't at all fit with the Big Bang explanation of redshift and redshift goes with the neutrino sea and electric universe and so on. So they wouldn't let him use the telescope anymore. Speaking of the electric universe, Ray, do you have an opinion on what's it called, the movie they made?
It's called Symbols of an Alien Sky where they think the planets used to be in a different conformation. Does that make sense to you at all? For everything is changing. But specifically they're saying those conformations explain a lot of history. Would you take it that far? Do you think that is a reasonable explanation? Yeah. Oh, nice. Georgie, have you seen it? It's an excellent documentary. It's really fascinating. What was the debate by an astronomer? Was it Vernadsky who had a huge argument with the astronomical community who said that the
Earth has experienced a lot of cataclysms in recent history? Velikovsky, I think. Velikovsky, yes. So maybe that's what he was referring to. Maybe because of that different configuration, the cataclysms on Earth are what all these big religions are talking about. Yeah. I've read him and I think his arguments are plausible. That's everything. You know what? The one last thing we didn't touch on that I put in the title and then we'll read the Super Chats and I'll let you go, Ray. Do you want to just talk about DHT? What is your general rundown of that?
Because I think you've described it in email, but I can't think of an interview where you've ever really talked about it. I'm sure you have. But what is your general thought on dihydrotestosterone? In general, things like that are not to be messed with unless you have a very specific knowledge of a deficiency because if you take a little too much, any of those defining feature-creating hormones can change the whole system in an unpredictable way. I would suggest first getting a good picture of what the problem is. There are usually more ways to fix it.
Correcting thyroid vitamin D and DHEA and pregnenolone will usually bring your DHT up to where it should be. In something like breast cancer or prostate cancer, it's one of the things that can give a big push to the system if you're wanting to interrupt the process. In health, sickness and disease, do you see it ever being warranted to supplement with DHT directly? I know you said you should always correct the upstream things first, but do you see DHT like a progesterone maybe for males or is it not that simple? No.
Pregnenolone is the first thing and then DHEA if you need a more androgenic thing. Androgen will push your neurosteroids, the crucial regulating things that you don't want to throw out of balance and with a strong androgen like DHT, that would be one big risk that you could throw off your neurosteroids. Can you dive into that a little bit more? How would that work? If you have a definite problem that you want to fix, osteoporosis or cancer for example, then you can use it to the effect and you'll see the effect.
Doses for that for the people that do need it? One milligram. One milligram daily dissolved in tocopherol say or like taken with fat? Uh-huh. Okay. Well, Ray, you do have that quote about testosterone and you say it's essential to have everything else in place, thyroid, calcium, magnesium, protein, vitamin D, vitamin E, pregnenolone, DHEA, then one milligram per day can have a very strong effects and a person could spend five years optimizing those things. So do you have a similar point of view with DHT?
You just need to put a bunch of things in place before kind of even thinking about experimenting with it? Yeah. The DHT, you don't have to worry quite as much as you do with testosterone, but if you're very sparing with the testosterone, even DHEA can feminize a man. If he takes 25 milligrams a day and almost every day I hear someone taking injections of 30 or 50 milligrams of testosterone per week, which is several times what a teenage boy would be making.
And so it's all going to be going towards estrogen and doing more harm than good. Yeah. I know Georgie and I have talked about this many times that that is such a common therapy of like gigantic doses of testosterone. And so I'm glad you touched on it. Georgie, do you have anything else before we move on to super chats and we end this whole thing? Yeah, I guess, I mean, my last question would relate to DHEA. Do you have an opinion of why the endocrinological industry came up with these insane daily recommendations?
I mean, I know personally an endocrinologist and they think that 25 milligrams of DHEA daily is a minuscule dosage, despite the many studies showing that anything over 10 or 15 milligrams daily reliably increases estrogen. They just keep saying no, 25 milligrams. You'll see studies even titled saying low dose DHEA administration does X. And you look at the study and they use 25, 50 milligrams and they're calling it a low dose. Well, if you find out what endocrinologists and pulmonologists, et cetera, are actually reading, it's pitiful. They simply don't know anything about their field.
But you think that they can at least do the, this just a mechanical work of calculating what would be a physiological dose of DHEA? Can they drop to that level of stupidity, not even being able to calculate that? Yeah, it's a whole attitude of applying intelligence to physiology or anything in the world. They are trained in an authoritarian system of obedience. And it's very hard to talk intelligence to someone with that 10 or 20 years of training in that direction.
Have you ever met a doctor who managed to get shaken out of this zombified dream somehow? Oh yeah. Patients who did something like an allergy specialist who was making huge amounts, $400 an hour or something, desensitizing people to allergen, to whatever they were allergic to by injecting a little bit of the allergen. And they kept coming back every week needing to be desensitized again. And he found out that giving them some T3 and magnesium at the same time, they retained the magnesium under the influence of T3 and never came back.
In a week he cured all his patients and went into another business. So what would trigger an allergy specialist to even consider T3 and magnesium? Were they somehow inspired by you or did they read something? Okay. Yeah, we were talking about it. Okay, Georgie, go ahead. No, that's it. That's it. I don't have anything. Okay, I'll run through these super chats. You guys, I'd love to get through all these questions, but we would just be on here for hours.
And so obviously for these to Ray, Ray, you got my last Ford from the AdSense from Google, right? Oh, yeah. Okay. Okay. That was everybody here. So you guys are making this happen. Appreciate it. Thank you so much. Matthew Riley, thank you for 999. Mateo White, White shirts for 20 pesos. Thank you. This one, I'm going to break my rule and read it because it seems particularly important. It's from tone for $10. And he says, my cousin was shot and left paralyzed waist down, but showing signs that he can fully recover.
Any thoughts on wound induced paralysis from a bioenergetic point of view, studying T3, T4, progesterone, CO2, and aspirin at the moment. Ray, what do you think about that? Nerve recovery, progesterone and pregnenolone and vitamin D and thyroid and carbon dioxide are central things. So just the things he was studying already. So that's great. Jonas for a hundred of some currency. I'm not sure. Thank you so much. Janet, thank you so much for $50 wealth. Diana or Bella Glynn for 24.99. Oh, Janet says, thank you so much for doing these chats.
Diana says, thank you all for sharing your knowledge. Thank you, Diana. Christina Tomaj for 24.99. Thank you so much. Primitive initiative for 999. Thank you so much. He says, thank you for taking the time to do these lives. Danny, Georgie and Ray, Harry Burgos for $25. No message. Thank you so much, Harry. Machel, I won't even try to pronounce your last name for $20. Thank you so much, Machel. And then we have an extra second. I'm just going to read this last super chat and then we'll, we'll farewell out of here.
But Vicky says, I guess it wouldn't really be fair if I, okay. Okay. I'm just going to end it there. Vicky, forward me your question. I'll try to answer to the best of my ability for 4.99. Thank you so much, Vicky. Okay. Ray, any parting words on the general state of things? What are you working on right now? Your life in general? A newsletter on the epidemic or the pandemic and concrete things that can be done and some basic ideas on how to think about viruses and reasons to avoid vaccines in particular.
And you sent me a kind of a rough draft of that. When do you think that will be ready? Oh, a few days. That was the first page changed already. And then Georgie, any parting words? I guess one last question, Ray, if you had to leave the empire, what for you would be the breaking point? What signs in the environment would you say would be a pretty decent indication that it's time to pack up and go somewhere else? Oh, when they interrupt my food and drugs, if they turn off my thyroid, Cynomel, the
Cynoplus and start changing the food supply, then it's necessary to leave. What about forced vaccinations? Would that be a good sign? Oh, sure. All right. I'm so sorry. Ray, how do you think that will be implemented? Like, how do you what what is the because so many people seem resistant to it. Do you think working for these corporations, obviously, but what about the normal person? How do you think they'll incentivize a vaccine besides using fear? Well, even even normal doctors are starting to refuse vaccines for their kids.
And so the the normal American is still absolutely subservient to the stupid things their doctors do to them. That whole thing has to change. The vaccines might be a catalyst for people throwing off the whole crazy authoritarian medical system. Great stuff, Ray. You know, infinite appreciation for you joining us. Sincerely appreciate it. These are special episodes to me. And so thank you for joining us and just sharing your wisdom with us. And thank you, Georgie, for being my partner and helping me do this because I couldn't do this without you.
Thank you, everybody listening and watching. Ray, I'll send you an email and we'll try to set up another one of these if you're available. And just thank you so much. Sincerely appreciate it. Everybody have a great, safe Friday evening. And we'll see you guys some other time. Take care.