Paused at 0:00.
I don't think I've ever used progesterone itself in a study in humans. Going back to the 40s when progesterone was just barely becoming available, people were using it to treat cancer in humans, but it was just on an individual basis. And there have been quite a few publications using medroxyprogesterone and stuff which is not progesterone to treat kidney cancer and breast cancer and such. And it works somewhat, but it isn't progesterone and doesn't have all of the good properties of progesterone and has some of the bad properties.
So the best information is still from animal studies and even those pretty much faded out after lip shoots left the field in the 50s. I thought I remembered one with women who had cervical cancer where they were injecting progesterone. Oh yeah, that was... Was that medoxyprogesterone? It was just a few women. That was real progesterone, but it was only a few women and they were just... They had diagnosed them as being incurable and so they were willing to see what happened.
They were trying to cure it. And they had people, they photographed and felt the condition of the cervix at the start and then they injected what they thought were big doses. But they never mentioned that any of the women were anesthetized which happens when you give a big dose. So we don't really know how much the women were getting because they were injecting it in vegetable oil which is an unpredictable solvent. So if they weren't getting anesthetized to any extent that anyone noticed, they were hardly getting anything more than a physiological
dose but still during the course of the study, they saw a great improvement in the appearance and feeling and symptoms. The bleeding decreased, the lumpiness decreased and so on. It looked less like cancer after a few weeks of treatment. But since they didn't do the experiment intending to cure cancer, they went ahead and cut out the uteruses after a certain number of weeks had elapsed and concluded that progesterone had no promise as a treatment. The article is mostly interesting for the weird conclusion and then the article published right next
to that in the same book was about treating breast cancer with estrogen and as many of the patients got worse as got better with the estrogen and they concluded that this stuff has great promise. Those two articles published right against each other are most interesting for the degree of psychosis that goes unnoticed in medical science. And maybe in our society in general, it's funny, you were pointing out the dominance of the estrogen industry over the last couple of shows and I was thinking that's kind of
analogous to the dominance of estrogen in the sick person without the progesterone to oppose it and it seems like the same thing is happening in our society which indicates to me that there's something wrong. Yeah, this one study I think is still going on, I think his initials are D.G. Stein was the leader of this study giving progesterone within the first 24 hours after a catastrophic head injury and finding that the people survive when they get estrogen and recover remarkably well instead of just progressing to dead.
So it's very effective as you said for any kind of injury of stopping excitation? Yeah, it stops edema and excitation and deterioration of any tissue but especially noticeable in the brain because edema is deadly in the brain. And as Ray pointed out in the last few shows that it's not a money maker to put it simply, progesterone is not patentable. Perhaps you could, I mean you said they tried to alter the molecule some so they could patent it but those artificial progestins they call them actually have estrogenic effects. Yeah, either estrogenic or androgenic or in
some cases glucocorticoid effects and just recently I saw an article emphasizing the difference between the real progesterone and the midroxyprogesterone that was used in the Women's Health Initiative study and this person was sort of sounding annoyed that people were making the confusion but I don't know how influential that publication will be. And the midroxyprogesterone is actually what's called a progestin if you're taking hormone replacement therapy you think you're getting progesterone but you're probably just getting progestin. Yeah, it's similar enough to progesterone
that it turns off your own production of progesterone and the odd thing about real progesterone is that if you aren't producing enough of it and you take some, you produce more of it. It reinforces the system for its own production, just exactly the opposite of what these systems synthetic progestins do. I see. On the same subject of cancer, somebody brought up the point that Craig B. Thompson, President and CEO of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center has something on YouTube where he discusses new ways to think about cancer
and how cancer arises in humans and I'm going to accept this call here. He concludes that at the end that if you overfeed someone with fat you do not increase their rise of cancer at all. If you overfeed someone with carbohydrates you dramatically increase the cancer rate and protein is halfway in between and this person would like to hear your response to that. Oh, I haven't read it but I've seen a couple of other things that I think are equally crazy. Gary Tobes or Tobs has an article in Science
about a year ago saying basically the same thing which I think he got his idea from Dr. Lustig's video. But I have read lots of studies on the subject and going back almost 100, well 90 years anyway, I think the evidence is very clear that fat is the main, unsaturated fat is if not the only, it's at least by far the largest promoter of cancer not just in humans but everywhere they look. And the interesting thing about carbohydrate is that
the fats that we make out of carbohydrate when we eat an excess of it are anti-growth of cancer. They lower the amount of unsaturated fats circulating in our blood and they have a shift effect on the metabolism of cancer cells. They tend to restore oxidative metabolism and suppress aerobic glycolysis which is a characteristic cancer metabolism. So this guy, he might have some bit of evidence in mind but if he doesn't mention the 99% of the overwhelmingly opposing evidence there's something wrong with his presentation. He doesn't distinguish between fats, he just says fat and or carbohydrate.
One of the ways they trick the experiment so it looks like they can improve their sales of fish fat or whatever is to give the most toxic fat as to the control animals and their test substance such as fish fat to the other animals and the fish fat happens to oxidize so quickly that it doesn't reach the cells in quantity as great as the seed oil does. And if they're feeding a comparison between fat and sugar for example, they'll make sure
to add the carcinogenic required amount of linoleic acid to the diet so that then the sugar all goes in the storage but the animal is still being exposed to the crucial carcinogenic amount of linoleic acid. I've looked at probably 150 articles that claim to have results of that sort and they're all, it's hard to imagine that they weren't designing it just to get the results they want. Well we should probably get back to that. In a minute we have a caller on the line. Gene are you there?
Oh yes, yes. Sorry I shiggled, I didn't listen before I called in. Hi, a couple of questions if it's okay. One I tried, I haven't eaten dairy food, much dairy food for many years and I've been trying your diet and I started drinking milk, whole raw milk and my sinuses got stuffed up again. Is there any? What happened? My sinuses got clogged up. Well I've I've always had that problem. I wouldn't necessarily recommend whole milk or raw milk unless you're familiar with the
particular cows and if you get a bad result from one dairy or one cow then try another one that feeds the cows something different. I've felt the difference myself just between local dairies and in a supermarket. There was one brand of milk that was always cheaper and tasted a little funny and I always got sick when I drank it and there are so many things that can go wrong. All milk except whole milk and maybe even that now but the government requires the addition of vitamin A and D to all of the commercial milk supplies
and those dairies don't like to tell how they add those vitamins but generally there is some diluent that the vitamins are carried in probably an emulsifier so that they don't stick to the sides of the vessels or float to the top. This milk was from a local organic raw dairy, raw milk, you know with the cream mixed in and I've had the same problem drinking or eating dairy from many different sources for many years. I seem to have the same response whether it's from store bought or right from the cow or whatever.
You get that from cottage cheese or cheese? Yes. Or from goat milk? I don't like goat milk. I don't like the taste of that. It's undoubtedly some kind of digestive problem but it's just a matter of experimenting. Different kinds of cheese, have you noticed an effect on your sinus symptoms? Yeah, usually once in a while it doesn't bother me but most of the time it does. I don't have any digestive problems, just sinus and my lungs get, I get mucus in my lungs as well or cough up mucus.
How the mucus gets there is that your intestine is being irritated and the irritation is either that you have bacteria growing on the food or the food itself contains allergens. And very often just by changing the dairy or the type of cheese or cooking it rather than eating it raw, you can find which things cause the mucus reaction but it isn't that the milk gets into your blood and causes mucus production in your head or lungs, it's a reaction from your intestine. Oh, okay.
Hey Gene, could you stand back from your microphone or talk a little softer? You're a little too loud. Okay, sure. I've been working with Lita Lee and she suggests that I drink cream instead of milk to solve the problem. Drink what kind? Cream rather than milk. I've never heard of anyone trying that but I would say try some homemade skimmed milk cottage cheese first. Okay. All right. Is that better, John? That's a little better. You can even back up more because you're coming, I think because you're so close it's very loud.
Okay. Well, thank you. My second question is I have a relative who's been diagnosed with chronic superficial gastritis and also inflamed duodenum. What would you suggest there? Have they been checked with an endoscopy for bacteria or exactly what the condition is? Yes, through a colonoscopy and also through the throat. And did they find that they had any bacterial problem growing up in the duodenum or stomach? I believe so but I'm not positive. He's had severe stomach pain for two or three years. It's been getting worse and lots of diarrhea.
It's good to check things like the thyroid but also to consider an elimination diet. There are so many foods, even natural fresh foods. You can rank them according to their likelihood to support bacterial growth. And then there are lots of food additives that are definitely anything with carrageenan, for example. It's causing a lot of cases of inflammation of the stomach, bowel, diarrhea, constipation. And carrageenan is showing up in an incredible number of foods, everything from organic whipping cream to squid patties. Okay, we'll check and work on that. Anything else Gene? Not at the moment.
All right, Ray, hang on just a sec, Gene. Is there any use in sneaking up on the milk consumption, just doing a little bit at a time? If a person thinks they might have a problem digesting the lactose or any food that's chemically different than if you drink two or three ounces at a meal, that exposes the intestine to the new chemical. And in a week or two or at most a month or two, the enzymes usually will express themselves even though they might have been gone for years. You can usually induce them
in a few weeks by these small samples, just a half a glass at a time. So there's not enough to feed the bacteria significantly, but enough to sort of tickle the enzyme system into getting active. I actually started with just a couple of ounces a day. And as soon as I did, I had that response. All right. And what about, were you going to ask about the enzymes, Gene? We talked about that on Monday. Was that something? Oh, yeah. As I said, I've been working with Lita Lee. I guess you know her, Ray? Yes.
And she has recommended I take a number of enzyme supplements. Are you familiar with those? Yeah, but I'm very cautious with any kind of a pill-shaped supplement. Me too. In the process, there are so many allergens that can enter. So anything that especially involves microorganisms, you want to be very cautious. A couple of people have told me that when they took the pure pre-amino acids that they got incredibly sick. And you have to be really cautious and maybe take a half a tablet as a trial and wait three days or
so just to make sure you handle it. The same with any supplement. Vitamin C supplements can cause terrible problems for people. I've seen people who had terrible sinus symptoms for years and years. And when I just suggested they lay off their vitamin supplements for a week, they didn't ever have a runny nose again. Not too much of a testimonial for vitamins. Yeah, for a while, I was counseling at an alternative health place in Eugene where allergies in the summer because of the grass fields around Eugene, allergies were a big problem.
And for a couple of years, I had a reputation for curing everyone's allergies by getting them to stop their vitamins. Are you familiar with Lyme disease and any connection with that and thyroid? Yeah, hypothyroidism is often misdiagnosed as Lyme disease. Candida is the other thing that is commonly, if you can't find the cause, then Lyme disease and Candida are the first suspects, but usually it's just hypothyroidism. What if you test positive for Lyme? Well lots of people do. There's some overlap with other, we all tend to be exposed to spirochetes
and there's overlap with other spirochetes. And a course of antibiotics for a week or two is a way to eliminate it. Lyme disease can be eradicated just as syphilis would be for example. But by avoiding looking for other causes such as hypothyroidism, some doctors make a good business out of the Lyme treatments for sure. I've been working with a naturopathic doctor who recommends antibiotics for the initial onset of Lyme, but then mostly herbs. And what he says, I guess a number of people say,
is that the antibiotics force the spirochete to create a hard shell around themselves and they go into the shell which is why the symptoms desist after antibiotics. But then over time the spirochetes break out of the shell and migrate around your body, especially in joints and stuff which is why people experience joint pain years after the initial onset of Lyme. Well if they haven't eliminated an endocrine problem, what I see is that the hypothyroid people with low immune function also get the whole range of symptoms that are blamed on
that such as arthritis. And if you can cure the disease by correcting the thyroid, it's a lot easier. About 40 or 45 years ago a friend of mine had an accident working on his house and the stress of it apparently brought on severe arthritis and he went to his doctor who examined him and didn't prescribe cortisone for his arthritis, he prescribed thyroid, armor thyroid supplement because he saw he was hypothyroid. And my friend was really annoyed, went home grumbling. The doctor had fixed something that he thought wasn't broke
and in a week or two of taking the thyroid his arthritis disappeared and never came back. But not many doctors are aware of connections such as injury, stress, arthritis, hypothyroidism and most doctors would prescribe at best cortisone to treat the symptoms. But I think a lot of the Lyme doctors are doing a similar thing, making a simple problem complex. Ray, is it possible that the bite from the tick triggers some anti-thyroid response? Well probably low thyroid people have a bigger inflammatory response and probably are more
likely to fail to throw off the infection. So if you have the diagnosis it's good to take recourse of antibiotics but antibiotics, a good combination of antibiotics is well established as a cure. I see. You have another question Gene? You're starting to break up again. Oh, how is it now? Is it still terrible? It's hurtly. Okay, let's see if it corrects itself in a minute. Gene, whenever you move around there's a huge amount of noise too on the radio. I can't understand what you're saying.
Okay, let me, I'm going to reconnect the call and we'll start over. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yep. All right, you're listening to WMRW, LP Warren. This is a special wacky fundraiser show with Dr. Raymond Peat. Ray's not wacky but the technology is I'm using Skype to try to do a call and show and it's our fundraiser so if you'd like to contribute to WMRW you can go to WMRW.org and click on the pig. Hi. Hey, we're back. Okay. Gene, are you still there? No, we lost Gene too. So the phone line is open again and I
should repeat it. It's 802-526-2326, 802-526-2326. If you have a computer with Skype in it and you're sitting in front of it you can also Skype John Barkhausen and we should probably open the line up for some other people. Oh, Gene's back. Hey, Gene. Yes. Do you have another question we should probably see if somebody else wants to get into? Sure. Try someone else and if they don't I'll come back with another one. Okay. Great. Is the streaming working all right? It is now, yeah.
Okay, great. All right. Well, we'll talk to you probably in a little bit. Should I stay on or? It's better for the noise level to not be on because every little noise in the background distracts. So I can listen on the radio and then call in if no one else is listening? Yeah, that'd be great. Okay, thanks. Okay, thanks. So you think Lyme Ray has an initial infection that can be affected by antibiotics but most likely it's not the cause of the tiredness and somehow it's triggered hypothyroidism. So we lost Ray again. On hold. Hello?
This is WMRWLP Warren with a series of mess ups. Calling back Dr. Raymond Peat who's a PhD in biology and has done extensive research. Hi. Hey, Ray. Yeah. One more time. This could get old. So I was just asking. So you really think Lyme disease is just a thyroid problem that's triggered by the immune? Well, no, not the disease but the diagnosis. I would say 80 or 90 percent of the people that I've talked to have been the doctors who specialize in diagnosing it and treating it chronically.
I see. And have you had luck treating people for Lyme? Yeah, well, no, but they get well and forget about the Lyme diagnosis. I get you. So you give them nutritional advice. Yeah. Yeah. And I think And the power of undigested food is very underestimated. Can you explain that? Well, overcooking food like people used to do 100 years ago, it's much better for the digestion because we aren't designed to eat undercooked or raw vegetable matter. Bacteria can eat it. And if someone happens to have just the right mix of bacteria, their bacteria
can eat their vegetables secondarily and release some of the nutrients. But if you get the wrong bacteria, then they produce toxins rather than nutrients. And that's the endotoxin problem that you've referred to. Yeah. Which basically poisons your system and taxes your liver. Yeah. Endotoxin and many other things. Allergens released from the specific plant material as well as bacterial toxins. I don't know if we discussed this on the air before, but it's always amazed me that you talk about endotoxin all the time. If you look it up on the Internet, there's a lot
of information about it. It's a real thing. It actually causes severe problems and that seems to be well recognized. But I've talked to several doctors, internists about it, smart people. They've never ever heard of it. I guess they forgot that section in medical school during a generation or two. But in the 19th century, the intestine was a big focus of Anglo-American medicine and some other European varieties, but especially the English and Americans were very interested in what the intestine does to the whole system. The brain, intestine, symptoms, interactions,
and the other organs as they're influenced by the intestine. That was still pretty big up until 1920 and there was a campaign against it. Walter C. Alvarez, a newspaper enteologist, helped to suppress the intestine culture in popular medicine. For example, there was a belief that migraines or headaches in general were produced by toxins absorbed from the intestine and he was of the new school that didn't want to think about the intestine so much even though he was a gastroenterologist. So he stuffed wads of cotton into his medical
students' rectums and reported that the next morning a certain proportion of them had headaches caused just by the pressure in the rectum. He said, "So you see, headaches are caused by pressure, not by toxins." But he didn't put any toxins in his students' intestines so he didn't disprove the idea, but it was just a little propaganda bit. The other people, Russians for example, studied in more detail that in fact toxins, nutrition, and pressure interact very meaningfully. In an experimental animal, for example, they would put a balloon
in the intestine and blow it up and nothing would happen. The animal would keep functioning, but if they gave the animal hypoglycemia and then blew up the intestine, unpredictable things would happen all through the rabbit. It would have hormonal and neurological reactions triggered just by that pressure of blowing up a balloon in the intestine. It could cause seizures or wheezing or all kinds of widespread reactions. And that's when you have low blood sugar, that's when it's particularly dangerous to have blockages? Yeah, and French and Canadian researchers, instead of using pressure, they combined allergens.
They would feed a bit of walnut to an animal and it would maybe sneeze from the allergens in it. Then they would give it moderate hypoglycemia and feed it the same thing and it would die in shock. And then if they would give another bunch of animals slight hyperglycemia by infusing some glucose and feed them the same walnut or whatever, they wouldn't even sniffle. Wow, so that goes along with what you said that sugar or glucose is protective, so it's very important to keep your blood sugar up.
Yeah, I think the particular researcher who did that was named Adam Kiewicz and it was published in a book by Yasmin, K-A-S-M-I-N, Kytan Yasmin. Why was Alvarez so opposed to the research that was done in the 1800s? I have a book of his and he seems like a very reasonable fellow. Yeah, he was very entertaining and intelligent, but he was just a modern that wanted to get away from the old-fashioned country doctor who cured everything with laxative. I see. As long as we're on the subject of digestion, how important is it that people
have regular bowel movements? I think like the person who popularized fiber 40, 50 years ago in the U.S. was studying the African relative freedom from bowel problems, cancer, and he saw that they typically would have three bowel movements a day and that they ate lots of potatoes and that it was the fiber in the potato stimulating the intestine that seemed to protect their bowel. So he published things about the benefits of fiber and the cereal industry in the U.S. Started selling oat bran as the preventive of colon cancer, which caught on in the 70s,
but then in the 80s, some Australians tested oat bran diets on animals and found that it promoted increased the incidence of bowel cancer, apparently by the nature of the breakdown product. Yeah, I don't think that knowledge has ever gotten around. Not very well. But in general, fiber does clean the intestine and keeping it moving lowers the estrogen reabsorption. The bile puts out, tries to get rid of toxic materials including estrogen and if you don't have a regular movement through the intestine, a lot of that gets recycled, reabsorbed, and raises your general exposure to toxins including
estrogen. All right, well that's a good answer. I better get to some of the questions that have come in by email. I keep thinking we have so much time because it's a two hour show, but if we have any more mess ups with the phone system, it may be a short show. So let me get to these questions. There's one here from Keenan asking, "What do you think of medicinal marijuana and its relationship to cancer and AIDS? Is it efficacious?"
Well it helps with the nausea if a person is having symptoms and can control the symptoms with it. It's very effective for many people. And the tea, when I was 10, the doctor gave me a bag, didn't say what it was, but prescribed a cup of tea every day. And years later, I recognized the taste of it as marijuana. It was supposed to prevent my headaches, but it didn't do anything noticeable for me. It used to be prescribed a lot as a tea, and
I think it's a lot safer that way than smoking it because the smoke itself is carcinogenic and estrogenic. And the various chemicals in the leaf are themselves slightly estrogenic or anti-androgenic. So I think that's probably the main concern for someone who's using it regularly. But I think there are other probably healthier solutions for nausea. The anti-serotonin drugs and simply increasing the blood sugar, salt and sugar, very often help with nausea. Okay, well thanks. We have another caller on the line. Roger, are you there? Yeah, hi. Hi, this is Ray Peat on the line with you.
Hi, Dr. Peat. Thank you for taking my call. My question centers around omega-3 fatty acids. A couple years ago, I came across a supplement of whole fish oil, of salmon fish oil that contained omega-3s, and it was touted as being a great supplement to help arthritis and lower triglyceride levels and that kind of thing. And then I read your research which sort of contradicted all of these things that I was hoping that fish oil would do, like save my great antioxidant and reverse my aging process probably about 20 years. But I was wondering
if you could elaborate on what you found and explain what you think the dangers are of taking supplements of fish oil. Because I've been seeing that these fatty acids, the omega-3s are showing up in all kinds of organic products like organic milk and baby formula. And it seems kind of dangerous to me if there is a problem with the supplement. Yeah, someone two or three years ago analyzed the baby formulas and found that the great bulk of the omega-3 that had been added to it had broken down and was probably in a toxic
form. So their worst feature is that they break down and oxidize very fast. And a couple of researchers have looked for them in the blood at the time that they are having their anti-inflammatory actions and found that they had already broken down just between the mouth and the bloodstream. They broke down into completely new chemicals which were what accounted for their anti-inflammatory effect. But those same breakdown products are what in the long run suppress the whole immune system and have a lot of other toxic effects. So the short
range anti-inflammatory effect I see is analogous to the anti-inflammatory treatments I used to give with x-ray or other radiation. Yeah, what would some of those other, the other effects, negative effects be other than? Well the whole immune system gets turned down so that it doesn't produce the inflammation that's bothering you. But in the long run that makes you susceptible to all kinds of infections and I think in the long run it increases the risk of cancer and all of the age-related degenerative processes.
Do you think it would be important to continue to monitor people, mothers, nurses, all of us who are using these omega supplements to see if we have the effect? A few people are doing that and warning about their increased use. It seems like a very bad idea to put it in powdered baby food because the time and oxygen exposure before it's eaten it just does a terrific job of degrading those fats because they're so unstable. Yeah, what should we look for as a symptom that this is a problem? More infections, more colds?
More infections would be the first thing. I've seen that in experimental animals and there have been some studies in people in which their immune systems were relatively inert against various organisms. With the anti-inflammatory x-ray treatments that they used in the 40s so enthusiastically it took from 10 to 15 years before they saw the harmful effects of them. What can we do as consumers to alert or to get other doctors such as yourself to maybe conduct additional research that supports your theories? I have called various manufacturers
of the product and milk companies who are using the product and they assured me that everything was completely fine. Yeah, it's the same with the additives they're putting in so many products like the fumed silica, silicon dioxide that you see in vitamin pills and drugs and even foods and titanium dioxide and so on. These things are proven risky at best but you talk to the companies that use them and they don't want to think about it. They won't respond to sending them an article indicating that they somehow selectively misread the research incriminating the material.
It's hard to counter someone's occupational commitment to something that isn't helpful. And Ray, maybe you can explain why it's come about that, I mean I don't know if there's a short answer to this, but why it's come about that most of society in scientific culture is invested in these products that actually, although they might help inflammation in the short run, cause cancer in the long run. How did we get here? The whole idea of science has been shaped by commerce and the military. The people who
have something very powerful to gain from using science in a certain way, supported being used that way. The people who are trying to be objective don't have any ulterior motives and that means they don't have a source of funding. Like there are minority views in science about issues like this and my understanding is they just can't get published. Have you looked at some of the controversies in other fields of science such as Halton Arp and his quasar astronomy? No. He was successful in his career as long as he published his pictures in his atlas of
odd galaxies, as long as he just said, "Here's odd stuff I've been finding." But when he pointed out some very orderly things that related the red shift of quasars to the red shift of galaxies that they were clearly part of, they said, "You can't use our telescopes anymore." Even though he was funded by taxpayers' money, they wouldn't let him use the public telescopes. I guess what I've become aware of during the show is that there are scientific dynasties just like there are dynasties in other fields in commerce and people get to the top of their
career and obviously I think it's just human nature. They feel like their own reputation and status is on the line if their theory ends up being proven not to be true. Yeah, there's a little, maybe a one or two minute video, a bit of Halton Arp talking about his experiences and actually quotes some of the things that happened to him on his way out of the profession, very ridiculous things that the top people in the field said and did. This sounds like it would be ripe for the Science Channel to do a documentary on some
of these contradictive things. But thank you very much. I'm going to hang up and listen to you guys on the air. Okay, thanks for calling, Raj. And I'm contemplating having dinner and then going to the bathroom after that. Thank you for telling us. Good night. Good night, Raj. All right, the phone line is open 802-526-2326, 802-526-2326, or if you have Skype on your computer you can Skype John Barkhausen, all one word. Have you ever seen the article, Ray, called, I think it's called Against the Tide and it's
about minority views in science and the experience of several scientists. We have another caller coming in. I'm going to take that. All right, you're on the air. Hi, this is Justin. I was wondering if Ray could elaborate on any misconceptions you thought science might have in its view of the immune system. All right, thanks, Justin. Let me just say before you start, Ray, good night. I just got to say this is WMRWLP Warren. Okay, sorry. That was about the immune system? Yeah, any, Justin, you still there? Yes, I'm here. Can you repeat that again?
Any misunderstandings you think science might have in the way it views the functions or the interactions of the immune system? Yeah, I think the best answer to that is to look at the articles by Polly Matzinger and Jamie Cunliffe, or Cunliffe, C-U-N-L-I-F-F-E, and Polly Matzinger. They, I think, are inspired by the thinking of Ilya Metchnikoff, who was contemporary with Ehrlich, the magic bullet drug person. The German view of the immune system is the one that was profitable to the chemical drug industry, looking for a magic bullet that would kill each kind of germ,
and then by extension, applying it to the cancer, looking for chemicals that would kill cancer cells and not human non-cancer cells. But Metchnikoff took a totally different approach to the immune system, the developmental, nutritional, morphogenic approach, and that didn't find any commercial sponsors, and it was the French-Russian orientation that actually was the biological orientation rather than the industrial. And so the place where his ideas are well summed up, the alternative idea of the immune system, it is in the United States.