Paused at 38:24.
Until the end of the show at 8 o'clock, you're invited to call in with any questions related or unrelated to this month's part 2 subject of vaccinations. Safety and efficacy are in question. Now the number here if you live in the area is 923 3911 or if you live outside the area, toll free number is 1-800-568-3723. Once again I'll be introducing Dr. Raymond Peat to the show in a moment to share his wisdom.
He's got some new information regarding some facts that have been shown from about 2002 through till now, some fairly recent revelations about parts of the vaccination process which are probably more questionable than ever. I guess I want to just open up the show again by what I read out last month on the part 1 of vaccinations which was the first do no harm tenant of medicine.
The United States legal standard applied to vaccines defines them as, and this is how it's defined, unavoidably unsafe products that are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. And the reason why vaccines are unsafe or in other words harmful is because they're made up of chemicals and other elements that are essentially poisonous to the body. We'll get into some of those things later on in the show. Dr. Peat, thanks so much for joining us again.
For those people who perhaps have never listened to the show or tuned in before now, would you just outline your academic and scientific background so that people can understand where you've come from and where you are now? In the 1950s and 60s I was mostly a student and teacher in the humanities, English lit and painting for example and other subjects.
Then I decided to go to graduate school in biology and biochemistry, University of Oregon for a PhD because I had been interested in that for many years but considered that the academic approach to it was pretty futile and misleading in the 1950s and 60s. Since graduating in 1972 I've continued studying, trying to find what I consider the main line of science in biology which is very opposed to in many ways the mainstream medical thinking and the biology which is influenced by corporate financing.
This main line of biological and chemical thinking that I've been following is more holistic and developmental, time oriented way of looking at organisms than the reductionist abstract molecular thinking. That's a more molecular approach that has become dominant and that particularly relates to how the immune system works but that isn't an area that I've specialized in. I did teach a short course in immunology to medical students in Mexico in 1979 but since then things have radically changed.
Okay, I think for the purpose of those people who perhaps have tuned in to this evening's show, I think what I wanted to start the show with is something I think if most people listen carefully to the paragraph I'm going to read out next will probably be fairly stunned because they probably never really thought about it.
I think the generation, my generation perhaps born in the mid 60s and the children from there until now probably have very little awareness of what I'm going to read out next and that's the fact that all infectious diseases were in fact in free fall decline before the introduction of vaccines. And this just doesn't enter the consciousness of most people, it's veiled by the fear and the mysticism surrounding disease and its apparent cure with polio and smallpox as examples in most people's consciousness as reasons for vaccines when in fact this is not the truth.
Starting I guess in the 1800s with massive overcrowding and open sewers and poor hygiene and poor nutrition, this is largely responsible for the pandemics and the epidemics that ravaged Europe at the time. When the reformations happened with socioeconomic factors improving with general hygiene, nutrition, the amount of time people were working and the kind of housing and living conditions people were in, the figures that I have and there's a book that's written by Susan Humphreys and that book is entitled Dissolving Illusions, Disease Vaccines in the Forgotten History.
Now Dr. Susan Humphreys is actually, well was, actually still is a medical doctor but she's not practicing medicine within the Medical Association. She was very much put off of the mainstream, we call it the mainstream medicine and you've already mentioned that Dr. Peat, that the holistic approach that a lot of science will take to achieve a truth is largely avoided or covered up with continuing mistruths or misinformation shall I say. That permeates the medical industry.
So the book that she wrote after, basically after coming across a kidney damage that was initiated from influenza vaccines and she was actually a nephrologist. She was a nephrologist for about 10 infectious diseases that were prevalent at the time and those ranged from measles, smallpox, typhoid, whooping cough, diphtheria, polio, syphilis and malaria and the evidence that she found was that there was a dramatic decrease in the incidence of these diseases mostly around the early 1900s to the end of the Second World War.
So why do you think the vaccines have become what they are now in people's minds and that I believe is that we can't do without them when in fact it was all virtually disappearing due to improved health and sanitary conditions. I think the medical attitude has been developed for more than 100 years. My parents and grandparents were born really before the medical indoctrination got underway in the United States and Europe.
In history there were people teaching doctors to vaccinate and indoctrinating the medical community with the idea but in my parents' generation they were pretty immune to it. They were forced to be vaccinated in the schools but it was only a somewhat later generation I think more or less coinciding with the American Medical Association taking over medicine and abolishing for about 60 or 70 years the natural approaches to medicine such as naturopathy. The drug treatment approach rather than the improving general health approach was part of that takeover of medicine.
Several people fairly recently have pointed out that vaccines are really just a cheap way of controlling some infections when it's too expensive to give people good food and a clean environment. It's recognized that that will prevent the infectious diseases but that it's too expensive. I was going to be one of my questions to you was going to be that how did you feel about the argument that's been put forward that it is actually an economic situation rather than a holistic situation where if we had good clean food and it wasn't contaminated with GMOs
and it wasn't laboratory produced but was just good wholesome organic clean food and that's the way we did raise our crops and that's how people ate and people weren't brainwashed into believing that butter is bad for you or sugar is bad for you or that dairy products are bad for you but actually if people ate and were exposed to good wholesome nutrition there would automatically be an increase in people's general health. But that isn't really in the interest of industries producing supposedly necessary products for our ill health.
Last month I mentioned the World Health Organization study in Central America that showed that giving a little tiny bit of economic support such as clean water and a nutritious porridge supplement for pregnant women and children that that improved the health of the study village relative to one that had no intervention and the one that had the intervention with doctors and vaccines and standard medicine the health went down during the study period.
That actually said medicine is bad for you but even the cleaning up of the environment which the Rockefeller Foundation was a leader in trying to prevent hookworm infection for example and improving nutrition in schools. That was done because it was realized that sick undernourished mentally undeveloped people didn't make good workers. So there is a way of looking at cleaning up the environment and feeding people that it's good for the corporate economy too but it happens that it's even cheaper to use vaccines and more profitable.
Even if it wasn't necessary if the environment got clean enough and people were well fed it would still be very profitable to sell the chemical and vaccination approach to health.
Yeah, okay, I think a little bit later on we'll get into well I know well let's just mention it now the and this is in California too and have a good friend who's done quite a bit of research into vaccinations and I know that I think she's had shows here before now on the subject but that the increase in the other form of pertussis border teller parapertussis.
She was stating that the the regular a cellular pertussis vaccination is actually increased the border teller parapertussis colonization in children and that a lot of children who have this unknown etiological condition with fever and feeling unwellness but don't have this typical cough. That actually this is a border teller parapertussis colonization that's come around from vaccination and that the whooping cough vaccine is actually responsible for this in itself. Have you heard anything about border teller parapertussis? No, not at all. Okay, yeah, all right. Anyway, just thought I'd mentioned that because I think that was fairly relevant.
Okay, so I think if we want to carry on I think a main thrust of what we want to look at this evening is that there are there's lots of evidence and it's more about taking taking responsibility.
I won't say control because it's got some bad connotations but taking responsibility for your own self if you want to be as healthy as you possibly can and educating yourself and not just not just taking everything that comes from mainstream media as the truth and buying into it but being open minded enough to turn your head this way and that way to see the other see the other side of what's going on.
So I know last month we had a couple of callers one of which in particular and I could understand her feelings about this that she was saying that you know back in the 20s and there about some of her relatives had died from either smallpox or from measles even and actually, you know, this the death was a fairly serious fairly serious psychological thing that she was dealing with that her ancestors had died of this and how could we how could how could I bring up a show saying that?
Why was vaccination avoidable and you know in the light of her understanding that actually vaccination was the supposedly the main reason why everyone was healthier but I think from a overcrowding perspective definitely in the 1800s and later on until probably after the First World War maybe the 30s and 40s when things started improving radically there was a lot of infection and disease about but very much in the context of the pandemic.
Very much to say that I think each one of us individually are responsible for what happens to us we're not or we really shouldn't be even if some people think that they are just guinea pigs and they don't have any control they don't have any say we're very much in control of what someone else does to us or what we're prepared to put in our mouth and we're very much responsible for seeking out information and being aware of our surroundings.
Otherwise I think we are very much likely to die prematurely from something else that could be probably avoidable. In terms of the immune system and we'll get into the kind of vaccine theory and maybe discuss some parts of why the theory is pretty erroneous and could be leading to problems down the road.
I know last month you mentioned the fact that we are a conscious living stream or a stream of consciousness and basically from birth until death that stream is constantly evolving and is subject to being affected by the things that come into our environment come into our minds and our ears etc. So in terms of immunity in the body I know obviously that you're very you advocate thyroid hormone and general dietary advice that is on the anti-inflammatory side and use those examples physiologically to show and prove that these things are scientifically correct.
In terms of the immune system and what happens with vaccination would you just describe the kind of basic immune system what they call the innate immune system versus the kind of adaptive immune system and then we'll perhaps talk about how they actually vaccinate you and then obviously get into the adjuvants the aluminum and the other products that they put in these vaccines which are coming up as being responsible for various different things.
Currently the medical community especially is emphasizing the difference between the innate immune system which is they speak of it as the first barrier to infection and the adaptive system which learns to be specific. Specifically immune to invading organisms and it can be trained by exposing it to the organisms or a fraction of them put into a vaccine. The 1908 Nobel Prize was divided between two proponents of theories of immunity Paul Ehrlich and Ilya Metchnikoff. Metchnikoff was an embryologist who emphasized the role of phagocytes in destroying or isolating invading material and reconstituting a healthy organism.
Ehrlich was interested in the staining properties of cells and this made him of interest to the chemical companies. He showed that the chemicals which could stain organisms specifically could also react with equal specificity to pathogens. The idea of a magic bullet came from his approach to chemical specificity. Mercury and arsenic were early examples, later sulfur drugs that had some specificity to killing the pathogens. It was the context for almost all thinking about adaptive immunity and how that specificity could be evoked by vaccines.
Meanwhile, the developmental innate resistance that Metchnikoff talked about was ignored until Jamie Cunliffe and Pauli Matsinger in the 90s revived the idea around the concept of danger or damage to the tissue. This was analogous to when Metchnikoff stuck a splinter into a jellyfish and showed that it was engulfed by phagocytes wandering cells that could eat invading material and turn it to nutritious use. That was a complete rethinking of the specific chemical orientation of the adaptive immunity people.
Especially in the 60s and 70s with the idea of the clonal selection of randomly varied molecules in the immune system, the genes were simply churning out random possibilities and the exposure to molecules of the host organism or invading organisms. These would govern the selection or destruction of these randomly generated molecules. Linus Pauling had proposed an instruction theory of the antibodies in which the protein or RNA would wrap itself around, in a sense, the invading material and then compose a protein antibody that would represent the exposure to the shape.
So it didn't require either an infinite number of genes or a specific rapid mutation that could generate almost an infinite number of variable molecules. Since the 1990s, the danger theory has been incorporated into the mainstream of adaptive antibody centered immunity. But it pretty much limits itself to thinking of the innate system as first a barrier and second an amplifier of inflammation, which then simply shifts over to making the adaptive system run faster.
So they've accepted the innate immunity but in a very subordinate way, which is just kind of a first screen and then a booster to the system that they've been working out over the last century. How do you feel about the introduction to the adaptive system of fragments of, I don't know, core proteins or RNA that it kind of seems to be supposedly underpinning the science behind vaccines
and that the body is then preparing memory T-cells that will jump straight into the fore as soon as they come into contact with the organism in its entirety, as and when you come into contact with the bacteria or whatever the thing is you're being vaccinated for? Just by trial and error and empirical results, it's been known for generations that junk added to an antigen makes it produce more active antibodies.
And following that accidental learning, it was found that alum, an aluminum compound, is a good kind of junk that makes the peptide or the protein of the antigen here to be vaccinated with to make it more effective at forming antibodies. And that was just an observed fact without any theory at all to justify it. One theory was that the aluminum condensed the proteins or the clotted them and made a little ball of them that for some reason the immune system could deal with better than free-floating proteins.
But I think the last five or ten years, the tendency is now to see aluminum as an activator of the innate inflammatory process. So there's this growing awareness that it is creating a general inflammation, which then makes the specific response of the adaptive system more energetic. So in the background, it's recognized that the adjuvant is there probably for the purpose of creating a generalized inflammation in the organism.
And that's where the long-range view of doing no harm is being neglected because the embryological approach to the organism sees that what happens early in development is going to have permanent, lifelong effects on how the organism turns out. This is what you mentioned last month about the stream of consciousness, right? Yeah. So if you introduce an inflammatory state early in the life of a person, it's really a matter of waiting 20 or 30 or 40 years to see what the effects of that are going to be.
And that hasn't been done in any sense because they were so intent on their simplified molecular view. They talked about the antigen-presenting cells, which for many years were simply macrophages that caught the germ and then presented it to cells, which could then direct the response of the B cells, bone-derived cells, to make antibodies. But now with the new emphasis on the innate immune system as an inflammation amplifier, it's recognized that throughout our skin and mucous membranes, there are cells called dendritic cells, which are really the major antigen-presenting cells.
Many other cell types can do this, not just macrophages, but the massively present dendritic cells in the skin and mucous membranes are what will, in the normal exposure to germs, our skin, our mouth, our nose, lungs, these are where the germ exposure happens. So it's the dendritic cells mainly which capture the antigen and then present them to mostly the thymus cells, which then activate and instruct the production of antibodies and so on. But in the process of capturing and transferring the reaction to the abnormal or pathogenic protein,
it only works if some of the organism's own cell material, the compatibility factors, these are broken down and digested, the antigens are broken down and attached in fragments to the organism's own surface protein groups, compatibility groups. It's the combination of the invading peptides with the organism's own normal cell surface that the immunity is developed to. And this, in the extreme form of the danger or damage of Jamie Cunliffe, this is the real essence of the whole immune system. It's there to restore and maintain the structure of the organism.
It's not primarily designed to attack and invade. Oops, what's happened to Dr. Peat? Where's he gone? Dr. Peat? Yes, what was that? I didn't hear. I don't know. Everything went quiet. I think something might have got played around with in the studio. Oh, I thought there was a caller. Yeah, well, there are actually two callers on the line, so probably now is a good time. I'll pick up after we get off the air with whoever's calling in when they do, and we'll pick up the thread of what you were saying there.
But let's take this first caller. You're on the air, caller? Hi. Hi. Is that me? Yeah. And where are you from? Kansas City. Oh, hi. How are you doing? I'm doing good. My question was on what, Dr. Peat, what's your thoughts on L-glutamine? I've been reading about some people using it to heal stomach ulcers and to restore intestinal integrity. I think it should be pretty much limited to what's available in proteins of the diet,
partly because when an amino acid is manufactured in a pure chemical form, it's always going to have risky contaminants that aren't present in the whole natural protein. And secondly, a lot of people have talked about the glucose dependency of cancer cells, but actually glutamine is a favorite food for promoting cancer cell growth. And excess of any single amino acid can be harmful for various reasons, including simply overloading you with ammonia as they break down.
But it's one of the least harmful, so if you had a clean source of it, it would, in some cases, be beneficial, but I still think it's risky. Okay. What's the upper limit for glycine on that topic? Oh, I think a few grams per day divided into doses of half to one gram at a time, I think, would be safe. Okay. You also mentioned in some interviews about activated charcoal to help clean up the intestine if carrots and bamboo shoots weren't doing the job. How would you go about using activated charcoal?
First, you want to make sure that it's clean and hasn't been exposed to contaminants in the environment because it will capture things from the air that it's exposed to. But if you're sure you have a clean source, you can simply add it to a drink or to food. Like a tablespoon at a time? Is that sort of the dose? Yeah, it depends on what you're using it for. Okay. All right, then. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for calling us. Okay. We have a second caller on the air, so let's take this second caller.
Hi, and where are you from? Hello? Our engineers are a little -- okay, second caller, you're on the air, and where are you from? Hello? Hi, you're on the air. Where are you from? Oh, Indiana. Indiana. My question for Dr. Peat was about skin tags, and I was just wondering, basically, what's the underlying cause, and is there anything topically or otherwise that you could do to get rid of them? Sure. Okay, Dr. Peat.
I don't really know the underlying cause, but they become very common when a person approaches middle age, the age of 40 or 45, and that suggests that there might be a deficiency of the protective stabilizing hormones, and since the skin is a major hormone synthesizing organ, making sure that you have enough cholesterol and thyroid in your diet so that you can make a generous amount of the protective steroids I think would be helpful. Some people have used topical DHEAs dissolved in oil or progesterone dissolved in oil or even just pulverized, micropulverized pregnenolone on the skin,
and sometimes that will clear up a variety of growths on the skin, including skin tags. Okay. Another quick question. You guys have been talking an awful lot about inflammation, and I was just wondering how Dr. Peat felt about turmeric or ginger or any other kind of herbal thing that's supposed to reduce inflammation, supplementing with them or anything. Some people are allergic to those, so even though the research looks very good, especially for turmeric, you want to be very careful with any of those herbal things
because they have many other components which can trigger strong allergic reactions. Okay. Thanks a lot. Okay. Well, just for the sake of carrying on, there's another caller on the air. Let's take the next caller. Hi, caller. You're on the air, and where are you from? Hello? Hello. Oh, you were there. Hello. You're on the air. Hi, this is Ed. And where are you from? I'm from Laytonville. Okay, Laytonville. And I'm hoping to ask Dr. Peat. It sounds like there's a bit of a delay we've got going, so I'll try to ignore the radio.
Yeah, turn the radio off. I'm hoping to speak to or have Dr. Peat speak to poor memory and focus. Okay. And I know Dr. Peat talked about some students that were having difficulty in topics being taught, and I'm just hoping to have that teased out a bit further. Low energy, memory, focus, ADHD, so perhaps you could speak a bit to that. Sure. Okay, Dr. Peat. Having an adequate amount of protein in your diet is an essential first thing. And for the average-sized person between the ages of 20 and 60, anyway,
around 100 grams of good protein per day optimizes everything else being equal, optimizes your mental functioning. But there was a study of pilots done by the Pentagon in which high-fat diet was the best for their attention and avoidance of accidents in interpreting information. And thiamine, vitamin B1, is used to produce energy from glucose, and it can make a tremendous difference. If you've been at all deficient in it, it's just spectacular what a supplement of 10 milligrams or more of B1 can do for your mental focus and clarity.
And if it isn't strictly a simple nutritional problem, it's often low temperature of the brain. If your brain is only 94 or 95 degrees Fahrenheit, it just isn't going to function very well in any sense. There were studies in which the brain temperature was raised just by heating the head on the outside, and they found that memory, quickness of response, clarity of reasoning all increased as the temperature went up, even over 99 degrees. I think it was around 101 where the mental capacity was still increasing. Incredible.
I'm not sure how one would know if their brain is at an optimum temperature. Eardrum thermometers are the closest way to judge your brain temperature. The immediate way. The amount of mental activity you're doing can affect the eardrum temperature on different sites differently. And to correct that, I mean, even wearing a beanie, would that help raise the temperature, or is that a little too exterior? How would one go about that? It can help. People who have a low body temperature in general sometimes have insomnia because of the stress it causes,
and they find they can sleep better just putting on warm socks and a warm cap. I think wearing a warm cap if your head tends to run at a low temperature is likely to help. But things in the diet that keep your brain temperature up besides protein include salt and sugar, and the steroids, pregnenolone, DHEA, and progesterone all help to maintain your proper body temperature. You've mentioned supplements. I often wonder how well they're being assimilated, and I know one would prefer to get them through food,
but you don't see too much of a problem of buying supplements. I don't know if they can be overdone as well. An example, protein, I have in the past, for example, had taken amino acid and protein supplements, but how much, you said, I believe 100 milligrams of protein, what would that be equal to? Perhaps eggs. Or beef or chicken. Quickly. Not to take too much of your time. 100 grams of protein per day for even smallish to medium-sized people in a military study is optimizing their ability to work mentally. Right.
So I can actually look around and kind of tease out what that would actually equal to as far as portions. Yeah, you know, I've definitely suffered from poor memory and focus both immediate and sort of extrapolating that into sort of a long-term perception of future and all that. That's sort of the ADHD type of stuff. And it definitely gets tiresome. So many little further bits you might have towards that end. I don't know how much perhaps -- I don't know if you can equate that to maybe early brain damage
or maybe exposure to inflammation that you speak of, or perhaps just even a characteristic of maybe just various types in the species that have a certain function within the species, a certain type of job that might be -- you know, one might do well in one thing. It might not go so well with a modern lifestyle. But anyway, just maybe any further thoughts with attention deficit and that sort of thing. I'll get off the air. But much gratitude to you both, and I always look forward to the show every month. So thank you very much.
Thank you. An example of how to get 100 grams of protein would be just three quarts of milk all by itself would provide just about the right amount. But you could also get it from 15 eggs or a combination of a quart and a half of milk and a few eggs and some cheese. But you can't depend on the protein in nuts and beans, for example, because their digestibility and quality isn't equal to the animal protein such as milk, cheese, and eggs. Okay. I think we do have another caller on the air.
So let's take this next caller. Hi, you're on the air. Where are you from? Yeah, still trying to listen to you guys on the radio and talk to you on the phone. I know. Not so easy. You know, there's a lag. I didn't want to miss what you were talking about. Oops. Let's see. I'm from Crescent City. A couple things. I just want to mention you were talking about covering your head when you're sleeping. I find it really helps to sleep if I cover my head with a towel or a shirt or something like that.
It helps a lot. My question was about galanga or galangal. First of all, I wanted to know, is galanga and galangal the same thing? Yeah, galanga is, I think, the thing you're talking about. They're both the same herb. It looks like a ginger, right? Yeah, it's an Ayurvedic Indian herb. Sometimes they call it galangal. Sometimes they call it galangal. I'm trying to get that straight. Galangal is used in Thai foods a lot, and it looks like ginger. Apparently, from some movie I was watching, it's used as a treatment for some skin cancers.
Apparently, with some other herbs, it breaks down the membrane that protects the cancers from your immune system. So that's interesting. So I'm trying to figure out if it's the same thing. And then I was also wondering if you know anything about growing it. I mean, I've tried, and I wasn't successful. I noticed that they were actually selling it at the co-op in Arcata recently. And I'm just wondering if you know anything about growing it, anything about its medicinal uses. You know, I've never actually used it.
But, yeah, you're correct in saying that it's a member of the ginger family. And as such, it's going to be temperate, well, more tropical environments, so Hawaii probably and Indonesia. I don't know you'd have any success growing it in Crescent City unless you had a good hothouse and you were able to keep it. Yeah, I tried it in a greenhouse, but it didn't come up. And I don't know whether maybe it was just the wrong time of year or it had been frozen or what had happened. So you haven't tried growing it. No, I haven't.
But because it's a member of the ginger family, I wouldn't expect to grow it in a northern latitude very successfully. And do you guys know anything about it? Is it medicinal? You know, I've never used it. I'm sorry to say that it is an herb, but there's lots and lots of them. And it's not something I've used. I've used lots of ginger, obviously, but, you know, it's not one of the plants that I've used in alternative medicine. Thank you very much. I'm sorry. I can be of no help for you that. Okay.
We do have another caller on the air, so let's take this next caller. Hi, you're on the air. Where are you from? You were on the air. Hello. Hi, you're on the air. Where are you from? Okay. Is that me? It is. I recognize you. Hello. Okay. Hi. Am I on now? Yeah, you're on the air. Go ahead. Okay. I've got a couple of quick questions. I'm from Phillipsville, by the way. Number one, I've heard a lot about L-arginine, that that's good for you.
Can you quickly tell me what that does and if it is good for you? It is the precursor to two very important substances. One is the energy reserve that backs up ATP, creatine phosphate, but the other one is nitric oxide. Very often if you simply supplement arginine, you're going to boost nitric oxide, which turns off your ability to produce energy. Oh. Which is- So by itself it's not that good? No. The L-arginine? No. What was that? So you're saying that L-arginine by itself is not that good. You have to use it with this oxide stuff?
Yeah, I think it's fairly predictably a risk. Oh. Now the other thing is vitamin D3, I'm not sure what the difference is between vitamin D3 or any other number, but that's what I was advised to take because I have low vitamin D. Is 5,000 units a day a proper dose? I think that's currently believed to be correct for the average person in the northern- So it's not too much? I've never heard of it being too much. Okay, because on the bar it says to take it every other day, and I found that a little odd.
So you think it's better to take it every day? Yeah, many people are doing that, and I think the most informed people on the subject say that it's perfectly harmless and will usually be an adequate amount where they officially recommended a few hundred units per day. It definitely is inadequate for most people. Yeah, and the other thing is sugar. Now you say sugar is good for you, but haven't I heard you say before that you mean sugar from fruit and not refined sugar?
Occasionally, if the rest of your diet is good, refined sugar can be very helpful. Honey, for example, provides basically the same as refined sugar with a few extra chemicals that can be helpful. Why is sugar helpful? I heard that too much can overact your insulin and cause you to gain too much weight. Yeah, if you eat too much and you're not getting generally good backup nutrition. I recommend it only for therapeutic-specific uses. Generally, getting your sugar from fruit is the best because of the minerals and other nutrients with it.
Well, that sounds right, but yeah, I think that sometimes it might be misleading when you say, "Oh, sugar is good for you," and people are going to think, "Oh, I can go out and eat donuts and ice cream and that's fine," and I think basically you mean fruit. Yeah. Okay. All right, thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to say about vitamin D that having seen quite a lot of people's blood work come back from their test for vitamin D, that the reference limit has actually increased in the last year. Most people are low.
Most people do not even really reach the therapeutically recognized level for adequate vitamin D, and so, yeah, 5,000 units a day would not seem excessive. Okay, so we've got seven minutes here if anybody wants to call in. The number is 707-923-3911 if you're in the area or if you're outside the area, the toll-free number is 1-800-KMUD-RAD. Were you going to say something, Dr. Peake? I didn't want to cut you off.
I was talking about seeing the innate immune system as a source of inflammation and a barrier function and something to simply turn on the adaptive immune system that the medical world is thinking about, but I think the inflammatory function is to some extent a malfunction of the innate immune system, and it's when the irritation or damage has not been repaired quickly enough that you see a noticeable inflammation. I think the innate system really is a repair system,
and the signals that it sends out which can become inflammatory I think are calling in repair cells to repair the damage, and that its ideal function shouldn't reach the stage of inflammation, and it shouldn't activate the adaptive system strongly. That's what I see as the proper line of development, thinking of the organism in the long-range, lifelong pattern of development. You don't want to overburden your system and misdirect it by causing repeated inflammation.
An example of why I think it is not primarily a system of producing inflammation is that pregnenolone has been discovered to turn off the immune cells that are activated by, for example, an injury or a parasite or bacteria getting into your skin or mucous membrane. The cells should produce their reaction and call in repair processes, and then they should switch over to producing pregnenolone to stabilize cells and stop the inflammation. Interesting. Well, we actually have two more callers, but I don't think we're going to get a chance to.
I think if this next caller can be very quick, and your response, Dr. Peake, without cutting you short, can be equally quick, then perhaps we can take it. Hi, you're on the air. Where are you from? Did you guys put me off? No, no, no. You go ahead. Where are you from? I can't hear you. I'm from McKinleyville. Okay, yeah. Go ahead with your question, but make it quick. Is there a reason why I can't hear you now? Something messed up. Oh. Can you hear me now? Hello?
Turn off the radio. There's an eight-second delay on the radio. Turn off the radio. Oh, I don't have a radio near me. Okay. Can you hear me? I can hear you now. Okay. Well, if you could be quick asking your question, that works. My question was about the ketosis concept. Okay. I was curious about ketosis. Ketosis. And if it's actually the best idea to eat mostly fat and a little bit of greens with no grains and no sugar, I've heard. No, I think it activates the stress system if you're having to produce the ketones yourself.
Oh, that's not good? You're supposed to eat grains? If you have them in your diet, precursors that are partly formed already ketones, those are great and are equivalent to sugar, only better. I'm not following you. Well, if you have to turn on the process of making them, it means you aren't getting enough sugar in your diet, enough glucose or protein. Where do I find this information? Because everywhere I look, it's the opposite. Well, you turn on cortisol production when you don't have enough sugar, and the cortisol has chronic harmful effects, developmental effects.
So you need sugar, huh? Like fruit or from honey? No, milk has a fraction of sugar about equal to the amount of protein. Is there any literature that can back up what you're saying? There are articles on my website. All right, bye-bye. Yeah, thanks for your call. We better call this the end of the evening. And Dr. Peat, let me give people a chance to reach your website and find out more of what you have there freely available. Thanks again for joining us. Thank you.
Okay, so you've been listening to Ask Your Ab Doctor on KMEDGalaxy491.1FM. The third Friday of every month, we're very pleased to have Dr. Brim and Peat to share his wisdom and a very alternative way of looking at what we've all been led to believe is the way things are. So his website is www.rayPeat.com. He has lots of articles, fully referenced. They're all free. Some of them are very scientific in their own right, so be prepared for some re-reading and looking through a dictionary maybe to find some of the concepts that he's talking about.
But anyway, very well worth reading and it's fully referenced. So none of it's just his fancy or his idea. It's all very much fully referenced scientific material that's coming out of some pretty new research. Okay, so until the third Friday of next month, my name's Andrew Murray. And if you want to find out more about us, there's an 800 number or 888 number, beg your pardon, which is 1-888-WBM-ERB anytime. If you want to contact us through business hours 9 to 5, use that number. That'll be just fine. Okay, thanks so much for your time.