10 Year Old Explains The Truth About Where Money Comes From

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,173



Further reading:

Kumhof, Michael & Jakab, Zoltán. 2016. “The Truth about Banks". Finance and Development. IMF Publication (March 2016).

Zarlenga, Stephen A. 2014. “Presenting the American Monetary Reform Manual". Valatie, NY: American Monetary Institute.

Graeber, David. 2014. “The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it". The Guardian, 18 March 2014.

Bjerg, Ole. 2016. “Where does money come from?“ TEDxCopenhagen. 24 May 2016.

Grant, Victoria. “12 year old child reveals one of the best kept secrets in the world”. Public Banking Institute. 5 May 2013.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
5,538



Further reading:

Kumhof, Michael & Jakab, Zoltán. 2016. “The Truth about Banks". Finance and Development. IMF Publication (March 2016).

Zarlenga, Stephen A. 2014. “Presenting the American Monetary Reform Manual". Valatie, NY: American Monetary Institute.

Graeber, David. 2014. “The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it". The Guardian, 18 March 2014.

Bjerg, Ole. 2016. “Where does money come from?“ TEDxCopenhagen. 24 May 2016.

Grant, Victoria. “12 year old child reveals one of the best kept secrets in the world”. Public Banking Institute. 5 May 2013.

Pretty good, but she apparently misses one key point...... The banks don't really create money when you take out a loan, YOU did. The banks then conned you into "paying off" the "debt" that you owe, even though there was an even exchange in the first place.

This apparently works through GAAP, and the fact that Federal Reserve Notes (and also Bank of England notes) are nothing more than promissory notes. So when you gave the bank your application, what did you give them? A promissory note.

https://apollosolaris.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tomschauf-topsecretbankersmanual2003_ocr_v-1.pdf


However, she does do a better job than 99% of all so called economists. And she's only ten.
 

michael94

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,173
Pretty good, but she apparently misses one key point...... The banks don't really create money when you take out a loan, YOU did. The banks then conned you into "paying off" the "debt" that you owe, even though there was an even exchange in the first place.

This apparently works through GAAP, and the fact that Federal Reserve Notes (and also Bank of England notes) are nothing more than promissory notes. So when you gave the bank your application, what did you give them? A promissory note.

https://apollosolaris.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tomschauf-topsecretbankersmanual2003_ocr_v-1.pdf


However, she does do a better job than 99% of all so called economists. And she's only ten.
You are describing the double-ledger system ( i.e. even exchange in the first place but one side grows exponentially ) it is correct but a distinction without a difference.

It does not have to be complicated. The money we use exists as Demand Deposits/BankMoney ( the 97% the girl refers to in the video ). That is what anyone sees when they check their Bank Account online. The other 3% is cash and coins. The Federal Reserve doesn't make the money we use ( aside from ~3% as Cash ) but creates Reserves which Banks use to settle transactions. It is a split-circuit system.

The Private Banks make the money, we use their money. The borrower is what gives their money value ( Capital quality ). They ( the Banks ) are not lending from stored up wealth but actively deciding how money is allotted for economic activity. The Private Banks get all the benefit of deciding how new money comes into existence. Instead of money being used for productive activity it is often simply used for speculation and market rigging.

And there is always exponential debt attached to the money flowing into private hands. It is a form of slavery.

Governments at least have an interest in forgiving certain debts and any profits they make now belongs to a Government not a parasitic third party. There is a huge difference between Government being the headwater for Money creation and Private Banks deciding. The Government can also spend money into existence which does not involve any loans or debts.
 

Attachments

  • Split_Circuit_Banking.jpeg
    Split_Circuit_Banking.jpeg
    36.6 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,613
Location
USA / Europe
The Private Banks get all the benefit of deciding how new money comes into existence. Instead of money being used for productive activity it is often simply used for speculation and market rigging.

So, aside from new money being created by the bank when somebody takes a loan, can the bank decide to create money out of thin air without Capital Quality (borrower)? For say, speculating on the stock market? If this is allowed then I'd say the whole system is a scam as a bank can create money without any backing, which encourages absolutely reckless behavior, and when a bank's "bets" with this funny money do not pay off the bank is screwed, asks for bailouts, and then the taxpayer is screwed instead.
 

michael94

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,173
So, aside from new money being created by the bank when somebody takes a loan, can the bank decide to create money out of thin air without Capital Quality (borrower)? For say, speculating on the stock market? If this is allowed then I'd say the whole system is a scam as a bank can create money without any backing, which encourages absolutely reckless behavior, and when a bank's "bets" with this funny money do not pay off the bank is screwed, asks for bailouts, and then the taxpayer is screwed instead.

Yes banks create new money for speculating on the stock market. Any time Banks make ANY payment it is new Money. Whether its a loan, buying property without a borrower, or paying their employees. We essentially use Bank IOUs as our main form of money if that makes sense. When you repay a loan this destroys money ( the Bank IOU ) but the interest is Bank profit.

( Full explanation but it is 6 parts )

The Banks can't create money without restrictions, but everything is in their favor:

1. Their obligations are not settled in full ( hence fractional reserve Banking )
2. Debt assets grow exponentially while obligations are static
3. Any losses are heavily socialized
4. They are able to direct markets by being the main headwater for Money allocation, whereas non-Banks are limited by Capital they actually have.
 

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,613
Location
USA / Europe
Yes banks create new money for speculating on the stock market. Any time Banks make ANY payment it is new Money. Whether its a loan, buying property, or paying their employees. We essentially use Bank IOUs as our main form of money, if that makes sense. When you repay a loan, this destroys money ( the Bank IOU ) but the interest is Bank profit.


The Banks can't create money without restrictions, but everything is in their favor:

1. Their obligations are not settled in full ( hence fractional reserve Banking )
2. Debt assets grow exponentially while obligations are static
3. Any losses are heavily socialized
4. They are able to direct markets by being the main headwater for Money allocation, whereas non-Banks are limited by Capital they actually have.

What are the restrictions, if any, on a bank "creating" say $1b to invest in this new and hot investment opportunity from a Nigerian prince...or an exotic financial derivative (about the same level of risk in both)? I know there is supposed to be some separation between investment and commercial banking divisions, but those have been retracted over the last 2-3 years so probably don't matter much. Are commercial banks allowed to create money out of thin air and then to use that money to invest in whatever scam they get sold on by a quant/hedge fund, or it is still only the investment banks that can do that?
 

michael94

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,173
What are the restrictions, if any, on a bank "creating" say $1b to invest in this new and hot investment opportunity from a Nigerian prince...or an exotic financial derivative (about the same level of risk in both)? I know there is supposed to be some separation between investment and commercial banking divisions, but those have been retracted over the last 2-3 years so probably don't matter much. Are commercial banks allowed to create money out of thin air and then to use that money to invest in whatever scam they get sold on by a quant/hedge fund, or it is still only the investment banks that can do that?

The restriction is that they need Central Bank ( FED ) Reserves to settle payments based on new money they create. But the amount of Reserves they need to settle the obligation of $1B invested in a new and hot investment opportunity is extremely fractional.

This is the sticking point and why someone might say Banks can't just do what they want. They use Reserves ( this is like Digital Cash that only Banks can use amongst themselves ) to settle payments, so someone might argue that Banks can only lend out what Reserves they have. They do not understand that the Banks only end up needing a small fraction of Reserves for every $1 they create for the non-Bank economy.

The UK has no had Reserve requirements for many years because of this. In the Eurozone it is like 2-3%. The United States was the last country to have a large reserve requirement ( 10% ) which went away near the beginning of Covid-19.

All actual Banks can create money like this, I'm not sure what you mean by Commercial Bank vs Investment Bank. If you have an account with the Central Bank/FED then you can create money with a fractional amount of Reserves like this. Only Banks have accounts with the Central Bank ( see image I posted above for a visual representation ).
 

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,613
Location
USA / Europe
The restriction is that they need Central Bank ( FED ) Reserves to settle payments based on new money they create. But the amount of Reserves they need to settle the obligation of $1B invested in a new and hot investment opportunity is extremely fractional.

This is the sticking point and why someone might say Banks can't just do what they want. They use Reserves ( this is like Digital Cash that only Banks can use amongst themselves ) to settle payments, so someone might argue that Banks can only lend out what Reserves they have. They do not understand that the Banks only end up needing a small fraction of Reserves for every $1 they create for the non-Bank economy.

The UK has no had Reserve requirements for many years because of this. In the Eurozone it is like 2-3%. The United States was the last country to have a large reserve requirement ( 10% ) which went away near the beginning of Covid-19.

All actual Banks can create money like this, I'm not sure what you mean by Commercial Bank vs Investment Bank. If you have an account with the Central Bank/FED then you can create money with a fractional amount of Reserves like this. Only Banks have accounts with the Central Bank ( see image I posted above for a visual representation ).

I don't think that when banks create a new loan for say a new home buyer, that loan amount has to have a corresponding fractional reserve. AFAIK, it can be created completely on the fly without any backing in cases where the borrower say makes no downpayment. So, if I buy a fully financed house for say $1m, the bank creates that loan without having to put %10 of the loan's value on Reserve with the Fed. Or am I wrong on this?
 

michael94

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,173
I don't think that when banks create a new loan for say a new home buyer, that loan amount has to have a corresponding fractional reserve. AFAIK, it can be created completely on the fly without any backing in cases where the borrower say makes no downpayment. So, if I buy a fully financed house for say $1m, the bank creates that loan without having to put %10 of the loan's value on Reserve with the Fed. Or am I wrong on this?
When there was a Reserve requirement, they did not need to have the 10% necessarily "on hold" with the Fed they just needed to have it as a portion of all their obligations. Cash also applied to this requirement (remember, Fed Reserves are like digital cash). And I think Treasury Bonds but not sure about that.

Also, the Fed always accommodates the Banks by loaning new Reserves if they need it. The Fed is like the tail of the dog more than the head. So even if the Bank does not have the reserves for a $1B loan, they can have the Fed loan them new Reserves ( create it ). Access to Reserves is not the limiting factor but Capital Quality ( i.e. their debtors' ability to pay back loans ).

So if speculating $1B will allow the Banks to suck enough life energy out of the real economy, they are not limited at all.
 

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,613
Location
USA / Europe
Also, the Fed always accommodates the Banks by loaning new Reserves if they need it. The Fed is like the tail of the dog more than the head. So even if the Bank does not have the reserves for a $1B loan, they can have the Fed loan them new Reserves ( create it ). Access to Reserves is not the limiting factor but Capital Quality ( i.e. their debtors' ability to pay back loans ).

So if speculating $1B will allow the Banks to suck enough life energy out of the real economy, they are not limited at all.

Soooo...how is any of this sound economics?? To an outsider like me, this is ludicrous and a recipe for disaster no matter how much "real" economic growth occurs. It is worse than a casino where people are free to gamble with money that is not even their own and does not have to be repaid upon a loss.
 

michael94

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,173
Soooo...how is any of this sound economics?? To an outsider like me, this is ludicrous and a recipe for disaster no matter how much "real" economic growth occurs. It is worse than a casino where people are free to gamble with money that is not even their own and does not have to be repaid upon a loss.
It's not sound economics, it's highly efficient rent-seeking.
I recommend the reviews on this amazon page. You don't need to read the book necessarily but Joseph Huber is one of the few monetary reformers who understand the nature of the problem. Ill post his website also where he has the same information available

https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Money-Beyond-Reserve-Banking/dp/3319421735

Monetary System Analysis — sovereign money
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
5,538
I don't think that when banks create a new loan for say a new home buyer, that loan amount has to have a corresponding fractional reserve. AFAIK, it can be created completely on the fly without any backing in cases where the borrower say makes no downpayment. So, if I buy a fully financed house for say $1m, the bank creates that loan without having to put %10 of the loan's value on Reserve with the Fed. Or am I wrong on this?

Here's the thing...... the bank doesn't really "create" anything, and no one, in the current economy, really "buys" anything. There's not an equal exchange of value. What we are technically doing all the time is "discharging our debt." Banks, Governments, and other companies and organizations are "legal fictions," they don't really exist, and can't create anything. They are dead entities. We all pretend they do, because it makes life easier, but they don't produce anything. Only living souls can do that.

The video of the CPA and book by Tom Shauf I posted above show that, by law, all banks have to follow GAAP. Meaning that for every credit, there is a debit. It's a zero sum game.

Our current medium of exchange is Federal Reserve Notes, which is nothing more than a promissory note issued by a private bank. When you give the bank your mortgage application, it too is a promissory note, and they have to record it as a deposit, and have the two entries, debit and credit. Meaning there was an equal exchange at closing, your house was paid in full, and you (not the bank) created however much money (say, $546,387.63) that was the price of the house. Then the bank cons you into paying a "mortgage" that you already paid in full, plus interest, and then hopes that you never try and reclaim the initial deposit, as that is 100% profit to the bank. It's a neat trick.

Almost everyone thinks they are the debtor, and they act like it, but in reality, living people (men and women) are the creditors. Legal fictions have to use our credit, because our credit is potentially unlimited, and their credit is zero, and they can't ever produce anything, ever.

For fun, look at the 26 things that are considered "Financial Institutions" under the US Code-

31 U.S. Code § 5312 - Definitions and application

Did you know that Travel Agencies are Financial Institutions? Or Telegraph companies? Or the Post Office?

When you include things like "Private Banker" and "an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers’ checks, checks, money orders, or similar instruments," well, that pretty much makes everyone and everything a financial institution. You have written a check once in your life and/or cashed one, haven't you?
 
Last edited:

ThinPicking

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
96
Pretty good, but she apparently misses one key point...... The banks don't really create money when you take out a loan, YOU did. The banks then conned you into "paying off" the "debt" that you owe, even though there was an even exchange in the first place.

This apparently works through GAAP, and the fact that Federal Reserve Notes (and also Bank of England notes) are nothing more than promissory notes. So when you gave the bank your application, what did you give them? A promissory note.

https://apollosolaris.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tomschauf-topsecretbankersmanual2003_ocr_v-1.pdf


However, she does do a better job than 99% of all so called economists. And she's only ten.
Thank you for correcting this.

PM's campaign material is disingenuous. Their premise false.
 

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
1,680
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
Soooo...how is any of this sound economics?? To an outsider like me, this is ludicrous and a recipe for disaster no matter how much "real" economic growth occurs. It is worse than a casino where people are free to gamble with money that is not even their own and does not have to be repaid upon a loss.
You are mixing up different topics. Money creation by banks is not an issue, assuming good regulations. What limits the bank money creation is bank capital. They can not take infinite risk. So they loan out to people who buy real estate, and make sure they get almost all of their money back even if things go wrong. The same calculations on risk, reward and liability should apply to other loans. Assume good regulations and you are starting a bank. You put in ten million of your own money into the bank, and this backs up the mortages you give out. In exchange for being a middle man, you take a cut and make a small profit for each loan. Meaning, Joe wants to buy a house and needs 150k. You see that he has the three Cs of Lending: Cash Flow, Collateral and Character. You know that you can get money from the Repo market for 1% and the Fed for a bit more. So you give him a loan for 2% per annum. (Fun fact: These numbers can be, and at least in Sweden sometimes are, negative. meaning you could get money for -2% per annum, and give it out for -1% per annum.)

Now, the FIRE sector these days is definitely predatory. After the Great Depression it was regulated and actually more or less served the economy. These days it is destroys value. This has to do with regulatory capture and centralized power.

They are engaged in looting:
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1993/06/1993b_bpea_akerlof_romer_hall_mankiw.pdf

In a more general way, Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu and Robinson explains that when power is centralized, the best way to make money and keep power is by robbing the underclass. This is what is happening to day. However, that makes for a weak and impoverished nation. That is why nations tend to become strong when power is widely dispersed, because the only way to make the masses who hold the power richer is to invest in things that enrich the nation.
 

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,613
Location
USA / Europe
Money creation by banks is not an issue, assuming good regulations. What limits the bank money creation is bank capital. They can not take infinite risk

If the events from 2008 and fall 2019 showed anything it is that the banks will take as much risk as they want since they know they will get bailed out. Real estate is a bubble but is a lot more legit than speculative operations on the market such as CDOs. If a bank can simply approach the fed and say "hey, give me $1b so I can gamble with CDOs" and the fed complies without much pushback/control, then this will eventually dwarf in size all other bank operations/assets, and the bank will be holding mostly "toxic assets". And that is exactly what we are seeing now (again). The CDO exposure of Western banks is $200+ trillion, which dwarfs any real estate or other legit operations they have. How is allowing banks to gamble (with free money and no restriction on size) on something proven to collapse or at least be with incalculable risk (or worse, fraudulently marketed as low risk) a sound regulatory or fiscal policy? Where is the regulation/limit on the bank's taking on risk you mentioned?
Wall Street’s Financial Crisis Preceded COVID-19: Chart and Timeline
Bombshell Report: Fed Is Aware that Big Banks Are Rigging their Stress Tests and Letting Them Get Away with It
Dodd-Frank Is 10 Years Old Today and the Fed Is Back to Bailing Out Wall Street
Federal Regulators Have Gutted Safety and Soundness Rules for the Biggest Wall Street Banks
 
Last edited:

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
1,680
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
If the events from 2008 and fall 2019 showed anything it is that the banks will take as much risk as they want since they know they will get bailed out. Real estate is a bubble but is a lot more legit than speculative operations on the market such as CDOs. If a bank can simply approach the fed and say "hey, give me $1b so I can gamble with CDOs" and the fed complies without much pushback/control, then this will eventually dwarf in size all other bank operations/assets, and the bank will be holding mostly "toxic assets". And that is exactly what we are seeing now (again). The CDO exposure of Western banks is $200+ trillion, which dwarfs any real estate or other legit operations they have. How is allowing banks to gamble (with free money and no restriction on size) on something proven to collapse or at least be with incalculable risk (or worse, fraudulently marketed as low risk) a sound regulatory or fiscal policy? Where is the regulation/limit on the bank's taking on risk you mentioned?
Wall Street’s Financial Crisis Preceded COVID-19: Chart and Timeline
Bombshell Report: Fed Is Aware that Big Banks Are Rigging their Stress Tests and Letting Them Get Away with It
Dodd-Frank Is 10 Years Old Today and the Fed Is Back to Bailing Out Wall Street
Federal Regulators Have Gutted Safety and Soundness Rules for the Biggest Wall Street Banks
I did state that the FIRE sector is predatory. However, this is an issue with centralised power and regulatory capture. In the same way as health industry is predatory.

You are barking at the wrong tree. Abolishing private banking and turning the system into a public utility is a viable policy position, postal banks over the world demonstrate that. However, banking that is kept small and regulated enough works.

The society is like anything else. It gets corrupted, and needs to be maintained. Medicine, banking, voting, court system, food system you name it. It doesn't mean those systems area inherently bad.

A proper regulation of the banks for decades made sure they could not play "heads I win, tails taxpayer loses".
 

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,613
Location
USA / Europe
The society is like anything else. It gets corrupted, and needs to be maintained. Medicine, banking, voting, court system, food system you name it. It doesn't mean those systems area inherently bad.

True, things get corrupted and need to be fixed. But there seems to be something in the system consistently interfering with attempts to fix it no matter who gets elected and put in a position of power over the banks. What do you propose as path to fixing those structural issues? I just don't see elections delivering much value on that despite decades of promises by more or less honest politicians.
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,257
You are describing the double-ledger system ( i.e. even exchange in the first place but one side grows exponentially ) it is correct but a distinction without a difference.
"Double-ledger system" means the same like "double-entry bookkeeping", doesn't it? There is nothing wrong with it. It's a neat way to organize the bookkeeping of your company, so you have all the information you need.
 

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
1,680
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
True, things get corrupted and need to be fixed. But there seems to be something in the system consistently interfering with attempts to fix it no matter who gets elected and put in a position of power over the banks. What do you propose as path to fixing those structural issues? I just don't see elections delivering much value on that despite decades of promises by more or less honest politicians.
I don't. I don't believe it is possible to make some immortal, eternal system that is forever perfect.

In life you muddle through. I did mention Why Nations Fail as a model I like. Peat is engaged in health partially because healthy people are generous, friendly and capable of making positive changes. Individually you can organise and speak the truth. You personally help people with their health and question the official story.

It seems like none of this matters. But it's not true, once upon a time genocide was accepted policy, torture was used to gain confessions and children were openly sold. Making things better is slow, and you never quite know what is going to work, in your own life or the society. So just take the next step.

With banking, the people need to organise and take power. Good regulation is not difficult, and it can be done in many ways. Having people organise, take power and actually want to make things better is hard
 

michael94

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,173
"Double-ledger system" means the same like "double-entry bookkeeping", doesn't it? There is nothing wrong with it. It's a neat way to organize the bookkeeping of your company, so you have all the information you need.
Yes.

5 reasons why there is something wrong with it.

1. Their obligations are not settled in full due to the two tier Banking system ( hence fractional reserve Banking )
2. Debt assets grow exponentially while obligations are static
3. Losses are heavily socialized
4. They are able to direct markets by being the main headwater for Money allocation, whereas non-Banks are limited by Capital they actually have.
5. Bank "credit" is insured by the Government and denoted as legal tender so it's Money and not just credit.

None of this generally applies to a normal company with some exceptions in the case of point #3 when there are bailouts of large companies.
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
OccamzRazer Peat + Old School Bodybuilding? An Experimental Quest Logs 254
M Best way to eat peaty at 17 years old? Diet 46
Lambivore 17 Years Old And Eating Like This, Is it Good? Ask For Help or Advice 16
charlie Moderna begins COVID-19 vaccine trial on babies 6 months old, children up to 12 Vaccines 9
P 55 year-old looks like 25 Miscellaneous Health Discussions 19
Drareg White Baby’s are racist at 3 months old! Scientific Studies 12
M My old HTMA results. Anybody knows how to read this? Ask For Help or Advice 14
Atma 81 Year Old Woman Ate Fruit and Milk Diet for 27 Years Milk 58
A I' m a 18 year old guy with big problems Ask For Help or Advice 59
Alex Jaramillo “Augie” the 20 year old golden retriever Animals 26
A PUFA (omega-7 Unsaturated Fatty Acids) Cause Of 'old People Smell' Polyunsaturated Fats, Seed Oils 3
haidut The Fed - The Old Economy, As We Know It, Is Probably Gone Society 23
A Feel Like An Old Man At 22 Metabolism 5
E Help With Energy For 17 A Year Old Ask For Help or Advice 9
C Ulcers, H. Pylori, Malnutrition, & Plain Old Stress Digestion 57
Candy Help With My 10 Year Old! Diet 24
haidut Simply Diluting "old Blood" Has The Same Anti-aging Effects As Parabiosis Scientific Studies 43
A Healthy & Slim 23yr Old Female Looking For Longevity Ask For Help or Advice 11
md_a 16-Year-Old Boy Allegedly Forced By County Officials To Take Estrogen As Behavi Articles & Scientific Studies 9
H Is It Safe To Give A 4 Year Old Girl Progesterone? Email Advice 55
YSLattB Skinny 18 Year Old Guy Male Issues 13
M Any Chance To Get A 88 Year Old Woman More Active Again? Ask For Help or Advice 19
TacoVampire 45yrs Old And Needing More Light To See And Can't See Well At Night Eyes, Ears, Nose and Headaches/Migraines 20
L Old Spice Thickening System Hair & Nails 9
md_a Ray Peat - An Old Email Regarding Estrogens Articles & Newsletters 0
tankasnowgod 75 Year Old Severely Mauled By Tiger Dies Of "Corona Virus." Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 7
M Doctors Using Vitamin Therapy On Covid-19 With 100% Cure Rate On Old People Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 3
Y 15 Year Old Pentagon Video Discussing Engineering Vaccines To Control Humans Ask For Help or Advice 5
SOMO Social Distancing Kills An 86 Year Old Woman Society 6
YamnayaMommy 14-month-old With Fever (104’F) Ask For Help or Advice 33
Y Why Did A Healthy 16 Year Old Die From Covid Ask For Help or Advice 109
michael94 Old Copper Penny For Zinc/Copper ? Additives, Cookware, Eating Out, Spices 12
N Need Help! 3 Years Old - Trombocytopenia Ask For Help or Advice 10
haidut Low-dose (but Not High) Niacinamide Reverses Reproductive Decline In Old Females Scientific Studies 6
cinderella An Interesting Case Study Of A 49 Year Old Woman Thyroid and Hormones 0
poilochio Why Would A 17 Year Old Female Have Elevated Testosterone Blood Work, Labs 3
poilochio Need Some Advice On Lab Of A 17 Year Old Female Blood Work, Labs 0
cinderella She Doesn't Look 101 Years Old Health 30
B 18 Month Old Vegan Baby Dies Of Malnutrition Breaking News 87
B 20 Year Old Male - Diffuse Thinning - Blood Work Blood Work, Labs 23
Mito BLACK Lungs Of 52-year-old Chain Smoker Who Puffed A Pack A Day For 30 Years The Ray Peat Forum Lounge 3
Tristan Loscha NEW CAFETERIA DIET IS THE OLD SAD DIET Scientific Studies 0
L T3 Doesn’t Improve Learning In Old Mice Scientific Studies 5
haidut Poverty Makes People Dumb And Prematurely Old Scientific Studies 56
Mito 95-year-old Twins Credit Guinness, 'no Sex' To Longevity The Ray Peat Forum Lounge 7
haidut Niacinamide May Restore Female Fertility In Old Age Scientific Studies 17
ecstatichamster New Study Finds Old People Are Liars Scientific Studies 9
ecstatichamster The Cure To Old Age - Dr. Peat September 1995 Science 122
M Progesterone For Small Wounds In Three Year Old Boy Hormones 1
D 80 Years Old W/BP Of 118/40 Heart, Heart Rate, Blood Pressure 8

Similar threads

Top