2020.10.31 : Danny Roddy #38 : In Defense Of Mexican Coke | The Authoritarian Metabolism | Etc


Dec 28, 2015
Very impressed with how well YouTube is making subs nowadays. I thought by downloading them, using some regex tricks, and putting in a good 3 hours, I would get this done... ;) Three days would be closer... :bigtears:

#38: In Defense of Mexican Coke | The Authoritarian Metabolism | Symbols of an Alien Sky | Astrology

RP = Ray Peat / GD = Georgi Dinkov / DR = Danny Roddy

DR: Georgie Dinkov, Mr. Raymond Peat. How are you guys? Thank you for joining us. Thank you everybody in the chat. Georgie, how are you?

GD: All right. Living a few blocks away from the White House, hoping DC will not get burned down in the next two weeks.

DR: And Ray, are you living life without a mask in Oregon?

RP: I haven't had a mask on for weeks. I got a face shield. I thought I was going to use it to go to the bank but the bank was no longer admitting even mask workers, so I didn't get a chance to try out my plastic face shield.

DR: Was that because of the dust and things or was that a requirement for the bank?

RP: No, the state governor said that you could wear a face shield instead of a mask and I was just going to see if the stores or banks actually would follow her orders because the bank seemed so crazily panicked. But I didn't get a chance to try them.

DR: That is okay. So you're opting to do that because of the negative health effects from a mask or just not enjoying wearing one of them?

RP: Yeah, just not wanting to wear a mask, and having a piece of plastic two inches in front of your face doesn't disturb anything.

DR: One of the crazy things in Mexico, the people that seem to be like the mask in the face shield and things like that, the most affected people seem to be the lowest, like socio-economic type of individuals — like the people cleaning the jardine are suffering so badly wearing a mask when it's extremely hot outside, and so in San Francisco they might not think it's a big deal to go to the shop and wear a mask or something, but you got to think about people that are suffering big time, you know?

RP: Yeah.

DR: Georgie, you have some questions just about life in general and then we can move on to talking about respiration and kind of going step by step in the last few live streams about just the stress system and all the work that Ray has done.

GD: Ray, I'm sure you've seen the news that they found water on the moon, and also they found phosphine on Venus and they've been used over the last like five or ten years, that they found vitamin B3 and glycine in outer space. So, especially when it comes to phosphine, the consensus — if we believe it — says that they don't know of any inorganic process that is capable of creating phosphine. All the processes on Earth seem to involve life. Do you think that suggests that maybe there may be life forms on Venus and other planets as well?

RP: Very possible, but I don't think they have a broad enough conception of what life is. I think there are probably life equivalents that have gone down a very different route from making organisms. I think of it as a basic reflex of being — of matter itself that is a starting point of life, and you can go off in an infinite number of directions, except as limited by those innate impulses intrinsic to matter. So I would not limit my possibilities to thinking that organisms had to have been the source.

GD: So what would be a good test for life? I mean, considering that scientific ideas about life are so limited.

RP: I think it has to be an inductive kind of perceptual reason; or watch something and see what happens.

GD: So if it basically displays pattern recognition qualities, that would classify as consciousness, basically?

RP: Yeah. Self-organizing and generating or order out of disorder.

GD: Right, but it's not at all limited to the physical manifestations that we're familiar with here on Earth, right?

RP: Right. I think you could imagine processes that are more like a layer of matter that keeps reorganizing itself in all directions but without separating off in the individual organisms. My picture of a solid substance is very similar to everything we think of as life, that in a metal you have the little magnetic domains, the crystal forming domains, the passage of time and energy through the metal. Like if the metal bends back and forth, these domains will interact and build up and form crack possibilities; and similar domains to the little magnetic domains that, for example, if you hammer a magnet it gradually loses magnetism unless it's in a magnetic field. But just hammering a piece of iron in the Earth's magnetic field, the iron will rearrange itself and form a big magnet because those little domains are constantly ready to respond to their environment. I think there are electric domains — even though the metal seems to be conducting as a whole or a unit — I think there are electronic domains on a small scale that define properties such as photoelectric properties, and all of these intrinsically, or organizing subunits of something that seems to be a mere mass of an element…; all of these have lifelike properties. So I would see granite, for example, as intending to become more alive.

GD: So if we can talk of any generic requirements for life, it would be some form of a self-directed, self-controlled autonomous electron flow?

RP: Yeah, exactly.

GD: Okay, but then again the shape — if we can say the shape — of that life form will be context specific. You'll be different depending on where you're looking at, right? Saturn would have a different life form, Venus would…

RP: Yeah, because each all of these things, like the iron you hammer in the Earth's field… it's taking on… its nature is developing in relation to its environment, and I think that's always happening. Everything, just on some level, knows where it is in the world — not only where, but when. So the awareness of process… everything really is not only needing to be defined in terms of everything in its momentary environment, but in the tendency of the environment to be changing in a certain direction.

GD: According to just this discussion we had, then all of these approaches that NASA has to finding life seem hopelessly obsolete? They're just looking for something that looks like bacteria no matter where they send their probes, so it's kind of stupid to do that?

RP: Yeah, exactly. They are ideologues as to what life is, and if you look at what they dogmatically believe a cell is, you have to say that the whole enterprise is stupid. Even as they try to understand bacteria on Earth, they're committed to impossible doctrines. So naturally, if they look for something that doesn't quite exist on Earth, they are likely to be missing everything interesting.

GD: What do you make out of the reports of the original Voyager probes that went to Mars in the 1970s? Apparently, initially was reported that they found organic life forms there, but then I guess the powers that be quickly decided that it was a mistake; the sensors weren'tproperly calibrated?

RP: Yeah, I think that happens all the time. The raw data everywhere is more […?] to official conclusion, like the Michelson-Morley experiment. The textbooks insist that they didn't find an aether drift, but it's very clear in their data and in the follow-up studies over the next 20 or 30 years it kept being confirmed. The establishment periodically subsidizes someone to shoot down the alternative interpretations, just because they're close to the actual recorded data, that isn't sufficient; they violate the paradigm and so have to be destroyed.

GD: Do you think the discovery of life outside of Earth may have a some sort of a politically destabilizing effect that may trigger a collapse of the current fake ideas, and that's maybe why even if they've been discovered, we haven't heard anything about them?

RP: Yeah, yeah… It's exactly the same sort of thing that led to Gilbert Ling being isolated and absolutely walled off from the whole scientific world.

DR: You mentioned Halton Arp a bunch of times. If what he found was taken seriously, that would lead to a reimagining of everything?

RP: Yeah. Frederick Soddy — the isotope guy — in his actual writings was a very interesting person who believed in continuing creation in empty space and exactly harmonizing with Halton Arp.

GD: So the continuous creation — in the electric universe theory lingo — would be the creation of charged particles out of neutrinos under the effects of the electrical force, is that right?

RP: Yeah. That's their idea but Halton Arp or Fred Soddy believed that cosmic rays represented newly created atoms. Halton Arp was seeing the red shifted clouds attached to an old looking galaxy. I think he was seeing the concentrated newly-formed matter, and Halton Arp was suggesting that the stray bits of it that didn't condense in a new redshifted galaxy… that we're seeing newly-created matter constantly streaming through the world.

GD: What would be the process that creates that new matter? Is that like the high intensity, the energetic intensity of a star?

RP: Um, yeah… N.A. Kozyrev argued that it was the passage of time itself — that the asymmetry of being… that time is a property of matter getting richer and more in quantity, improving its complexity and mass even. No one ever really attempted to argue against his reasoning. There was simply the assumption, 106 years ago, that time must be symmetrical, that there must be the possibility of time going in the other direction, but it just doesn't make sense. There is a mathematical physics professor at the university of Oregon who believed he could explain the nuclear fission and lots of things in terms of particles coming from the future, coming backwards in time and hitting present things, but no one has rationally tried to deconstruct Kozyrev's view that matter is asymmetrical in the sense of always getting later, and that passage of time in asymmetry is adding information and energy to the universe constantly.

GD: In those original [Horace] Dudley papers about the neutrino sea, I think I remember him saying that he thought that the neutrinos were created inside stars? Do you remember the paragraph?

RP: Not that particular paragraph but that would overlap nicely with Kozyrev's time that Kozyrev said energy is being created in relation to the mass, and his predictions of planetary internal energy have been confirmed fairly recently, even in terms of the big gaseous planets. Everything is fitting his scheme of heat production internally in proportion to their mass. He worked it out for stellar energy in terms of mass but then applied it to the Earth's internal heat and was looking to test it in the dark of the moon when he saw red eruptions on the moon, and that has been confirmed repeatedly. But it was denied just because it violated the conservation of matter and energy at such a radical level.

GD: If matter is created constantly and energy increases proportionately, wouldn't that immediately violate the conservation of matter and also the second law of thermodynamics?

RP: Yeah, but he pointed out that was all deduced from christian beliefs about the creation of the universe.

GD: Understood. In one of your interviews with Danny you talked about Lenin and the idea of memory versus matter. You said — and that's what Lenin said apparently — that matter is nothing except what we can know and become, but we don't know where matter is coming from. Is that the ultimate unanswerable question: where is matter coming from?

RP: Yeah. I think all of these people have given a rational side of the answer, that neutrinos appearing according to the mass of the matter… that that and Kozyrev's projection of stellar energy in terms of mass, or cosmic rays being the earliest form of matter coming into existence with kinetic energy as part of their inheritance from the nature of matter… I think the process of knowing where matter comes from will involve getting a grasp on what the nature of a neutrino is and what electrons and protons and neutrons are, and all of their potentialities. I think a picture will emerge that has a more satisfying answer to "why is matter emitting energy and becoming greater in complexity and mass?"

GD: The physicist David Bohm thought that there's a creative principle in the universe and he was I guess repeating what Aristotle said as well. Do you think that creative principle is maybe what's responsible for this constant stream of matter into existence?

RP: Yep. That's just another way of talking about the same thing. The next development of man… A banker wrote a series of books on alternate views of physics; Lancelot Law Whyte. He was looking for that same principle that Bohm called the creative principle or that Kozyrev called time, and the empirical things that Halton Arp saw. I think they're all talking about exactly the same thing.

GD: When humans exercise *their* creative principles, such as paintings or creating music or doing any kind of any creative activity… Do you think we are doing something akin to creating energy, creating matter?

RP: Yeah, I think of consciousness as a sort of electronic gel inside the brain, that it has different properties according to the chemical and biological energy of the cells, but that consciousness is electronic in nature — like an excited cloud that is simply resting on the living substance and functioning to integrate the living substance, but it has its intrinsic rules of energy. When it's operating at a low energy, some people, for example, will never dream in anything but words or symbols. Others will only dream in monochromatic images. People who have had a very happy life, not too much stress, will have more satisfying full-sensory polytraumatic dreams and their thought processes will be similarly able to be relatively free-floating, so that you can imagine things kinesthetically and involving all of the sensory properties, informing images that make your thought processes tend to stay very close to empirical reality, but that we are helping the universe to generate the possibilities for the next step of substantial change; that the energy is reaching a point where it can guide the organism to make the decisions that will allow a richer biological life, further supporting the range of the mental creative qualities.

RP: Are you familiar with the sensory deprivation experiments that started out in the 60ies by the CIA where they put people into these completely soundproof and light proof rooms in complete darkness and silence, and within a few minutes people started to dream while awake?

RP: Yeah. Anyone can do it if they just pay attention. Many times I've asked people what they see when they close their eyes, and they usually say, "What do you mean? You don't see anything when your eyes are closed." But if you say, well don't you see black or red or something and lots of people will deny that they see blackness when they close their eyes.

GD: So would you say that this is an indication of basically the brain's constant need to create through dreams?

RP: Yeah. Once you start doing it, you see that there's stuff going on. It isn't just the color of your eyelids or darkness that you're seeing. You're looking into your brain and the brain is constantly playing around, producing all sorts of things. If you happen to notice something interesting pass by in your attention then you can direct your attention to it and it's like tuning in on a very rich TV. According to the way you tune you can get more and more information; sort of a hypertext of imagery.

DR: I'll put myself out there but I'll see like fractal patterns and like a big kind of circular objects that seem like electric sometimes passing by. And then I've noticed taking things like progesterone and thyroid seem to calm down the fractal patterns. Is that…

RP: Yeah, you can get a perfect blackness and if you are very calm and in the dream-ready state. The background should be able to quiet down into total blackness, a very impressive darkness that you don't necessarily notice at night or in a cave — it's the internal quietness of your retina and brain. But as soon as you are active in any sense, then you start seeing thoughts and dreams.

DR: I've noticed this since I was a little kid, but if I lay down and — I might be inducing harm — but kind of press on my eyes, it almost seems like a psychedelic type of show when I do that; does that make any sense? But then it will disappear when I stop pressing them, or if I open my eyes I won't be able to duplicate it. Then I'll have to wait till the next day to do the same thing. Am I making any sense?

RP: Sure. It's creating a stimulus inflow on your retina, and that activates your visual center of the brain. And those who are going back and forth all the time… Did I ever tell you the experiment that they did with chickens, putting electrodes at the back of their eyeballs, and showing them different images? When they showed them a checkerboard pattern, they would get a checkerboard pattern in the pickups on the back of the retina. When they took the eyeball out and were still measuring at the end of the optic nerve, it became totally quiet. The chickens weren't seeing anything and the electrodes didn't pick up anything. But they gave them LSD and started getting all kinds of complicated imagery at the outer end of the optic nerve. That shows that chickens at rest aren't projecting thoughts out into the world. But when you test a similar thing by putting an image onto a floating contact lens projector, so that the image becomes fixed on the retina — in just two or three seconds of complete fixation, [part?] of the image blanks out and there will be recurring flashes every five or ten seconds. First the image is perceived, then it disappears. Then there are waves where it comes back. If it's basically a random image, a squiggly line that quickly disappears and doesn't come back, you become blind to that random pattern. But if superimposed on that squiggly line, there is some familiar shape, like the letter b or number four, something that we're exposed to very frequently, all of the squiggly lines disappear but the retina stays sensitized and continues to see the images that are meaningful to the brain, indicating the brain is meaningfully re-energizing and sensitizing the retina. But ordinarily the retina is fatigued and stops seeing an immobile pattern of stimulation. It shows that people are constantly activating their retina from the brain with endodramic impulses.

GD: So basically the dreaming is during the day. External impulses are imprinting patterns on our retina and at night when the stimulus is no longer there, the brain basically goes into free creative mode in juxtaposing all of these images?

RP: Uh huh.

GD: Does it project them back to the retina? Is that why we see them when we're dreaming?

RP: Not necessarily. The LSD type dream tends to be like perceiving luminosity in space, but it can concentrate on the retina, and you can tell the difference. Salvador Dali was very good at that kind of introspection. He called the brain dependent… eye-independent imagery…; he called it "Camembert"[cheese] for its continuity and lack of granularity. And he called the seeing that involves the retina "caviar," because it's broken up into nervous units.

GD: Didn't he change his views on cautiousness though later in his life? He turned really rigid in regards to what he thought cautiousness was? Salvador Dali, I think, started his career by basically saying that consciousness is very fluid very continuous and then towards the end of his life he thought it was very discreet.

RP: Probably, yeah. He fell into the fascist DNA mentalities. He got rich by doing it.

GD: Do you think serotonin and melatonin are necessary for dreaming?

RP: I don't know… :(

GD: Okay, because some of the dreaming effects of LSD, mainstream science claims that they're due to stimulation of one of the serotonin receptors but there are other chemicals — for example, cyproheptadine is used since it's a pure serotonin blocker — it's used to calm down the nightmares of people with post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] but it doesn't eliminate their dreams.

RP: Yeah. My first experiences with ciproheptadine were to improve my breathing at night and over the first two or three nights I was getting a good sleep because of the relieved bronchitis, but after about five nights I started having weirdly intense dreams that I think was the changing balance of serotonin and histamine. So I stopped taking it for a while. When I returned to taking it, I found that I had become about 10 times more sensitive to it. It did something building up so that I didn't need it after about five days — but in the process it let loose something in the dream apparatus that made them disturbingly random and intense.

GD: Do you think the nightmares seen in people with severe trauma is basically maybe some kind of a defense mechanism of the body? Because since these people have very highly elevated serotonin, the body synthesizes more melatonin to lower the levels of serotonin and the excess melatonin causes these nightmares. Because melatonin is known in high doses to cause really disturbing and bizarre dreams.

RP: Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

DR: I was going to ask Ray about the Symbols of an Alien Sky. Ray, I know you're not an expert on it and David Talbot and Wallace Walt Thornhill, I'm assuming are some of the people that originated this idea; but I did want to ask in a Vernadskian sense if what they're talking about, and then Saturn and Venus and Mars created some kind of amazing electrical confirmation thousands of years ago, and it blocked out our sun, how would that have changed evolution in us if we didn't have the heat source of the sun radiating down on the planet?

RP: *And* the changing magnetic fields, I think. Our brain development is very susceptible to the weak magnetic fields of the Earth, and those are changed by events on the sun. Velikovsky and several other people have theorized that it was these solar system events that created the great religious myths, stories of the flood, and so on, being actual historical memory of interactions of spark passing between Venus and Earth, for example.

DR: They call it The Great Period. I could be not understanding but in the Vernadskian sense the sun is like essential to the evolution and the complexifying nature of throwing energy into a system. Would Saturn be that, or Venus? Would that have taken the role of our sun? And besides the magnetic fields, the heat being thrown at the Earth, could that have led to some superior evolution of humans and interactions and things?

RP: Have you ever read the guy that intended to debunk astrology and ended up confirming that he could see effects of the five nearby planets? Not Mercury but the big, biggest and closest planets showed an influence on personalities according to their birth time. Michel Gauquelin [The Cosmic Clocks: From Astrology to a Modern Science (1967)] was the French guy who wanted to debunk it.

DR: So those planets being in very close proximity would have changed everything?

RP: Yeah. Our time, the actual passage of time and intensity of chemical reactions, everything influenced by gravitational fields, the concentration of neutrinos…; that was Horace Dudley's idea that could explain the Michaelson-Morley aether drag, that if neutrinos have a taste for associating with mass, then they tend to form a gradient getting more concentrated towards the center of the Earth and dropping off at high altitudes. So when Miller took his apparatus up either to higher mountains or put it into holes in the ground — deep basements — he found less drag at high altitude and more drag in the basements, consistent with Dudley's idea that the neutrino sea constitutes the luminiferous aether that used to be in the textbooks.

DR: If their hypothesis is right, this seems like the most important thing ever imaginable? Is that overstating things? It could explain so much about human history. It just seems like it's so central to understanding everything.

RP: Yeah. I exchanged a few letters with Horace Dudley and asked his opinion on what he thought about crystal domains being a resonance, keys, resonance of factors for neutrinos, and the crystal and nature of the Earth would be the crystals that they were attracted to as well as the mass. He agreed that that seemed reasonable but he hadn't mentioned it himself. But I ran across a clipping by a physicist who had put radioactive carbon isotopes in fatty acid, incorporated into fatty acids, and showed that in the test tube they produced the perfect normal random nuclear decay, which is the principle that everything… — nuclear power reactors are based on the absolute randomness of decay — but when he put a drop of this, it let it form a monolayer on aluminum foil. He then recorded non-random decay, showing that something as a force as weak as the crystalline like surface of a metal would allow some energy to store up and then hit the atoms in a non-random intermittent fashion. It corresponded with Dudley. He said that crystalline interaction with neutrinos seemed reasonable but he hadn't talked about it, but he was warning that we don't know enough about the factors that cause nuclear decay. And in the ignorance of what actually is causing the nuclear decay, being interaction with neutrino sea, he warned that nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors might not obey their assumption of random nuclear disintegration. I went to look up Anderson's article — the physics guy who put the fatty acid oil on aluminum — and I found that Anderson had published his article in the very week in the same journal in which Ddudley was warning against the dangers of non-random fission and nuclear reactors. Neither of them was aware of the other but both came up to a similar conclusion that nuclear disintegration is not a random event.

GD: Have you seen the news over the last two or three years, that they found that the intensity of the sun's magnetic field influences the apparent randomness of the radioactive decay?

RP: I hadn't heard that but that's the same idea that weak forces in the environment are not trivial or are not absolutely irrelevant to nuclear decay just because of the high energy it takes for a physics person to cause fission. Nature undoubtedly has many alternative routes to creating disintegration.

GD: So they didn't they didn't warn about spontaneous going off of nukes and reactors but they did raise an issue with the reliance of biology and archaeology on dating archaeological artifacts by using the carbon 14 dating that's not reliable?

RP: Anderson in particular got involved in that. And that whole thing… The creationist people were also challenging carbon dating and so that was a further problem for Anderson's reputation. He was talking about things that the creationists were interested in too.

GD: Are you familiar with the natural nuclear reactor that exists in Gabon in Africa?

RP: No…?

GD: The archaeologists found that there's been a nuclear reactor that apparently, if we believe that carbon dating has been going off, it's been sitting there and periodically creating many nuclear explosions every couple of hundred years, and they think it's at least a hundred thousand years old, if not more. And *they* were kind of worried, in the article that I read, that if this nuclear reactor is capable of spontaneously going off, what does that mean for our man-made nuclear reactors? It was a pretty interesting article. If you google "Gabon nuclear reactor," the wikipedia page will come up immediately.

RP: [irony on] That sort of thing must be suppressed. It will destroy all of the existing assumptions of physics.

GD: Do you think that's one of the major reasons not to pursue nuclear power? That despite the assurances we're getting, the trail of evidence that we have — like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima — show that these things tend to end badly, no matter how controlled they are?

RP: Yeah. If you're familiar with a variety of physics professors you can get an idea of how rigidly dogmatic they are about their assumptions. When there was evidence of cold fusion, for example, that they practically foamed at the mouth and saying, "What an awful thing that was to propose a cold fusion." It just caused their brains to undergo spontaneous reactions.

GD: They did ruin the careers of those three original scientists that proposed in the 70s, if I'm not mistaken?

RP: Yeah. Dudley warned me not to talk about any of these things if I was not financially independent. He said he retired from the navy and had a pension he could live on, so he could dare to talk about such things.

GD: Do you think that there have been civilizations on Earth that have been more… let's call it knowledge advanced — I don't like the word technology and science — but that they've been more in tune with nature and being capable of feats such as building the pyramids in Egypt or like the ones in Mexico and what not; because those don't seem to be possible even with modern technology?

RP: Yeah. There is intelligence popping up everywhere. My favorite old civilization is the one that made those giant round heads in Mexico. They were so intelligently designed and sculpted that they weren't archaic looking anatomically, like the Egyptian sculptures.

GD: Were those the Aztecs?

RP: No, they were Olmecs I think they associate them with.

GD: The reason I'm asking is because there are examples all over the world of artifacts that don't seem to be possible. In Florida there's a guy who was an immigrant to the U.S. — I think he came originally from Latvia? — and he single-handedly built this castle using limestone blocks, I think each one of them was like 10 tons. And in the early 20th century there was just no technology that would allow this person to build that. Of course there are many myths about this. What do you think could be the explanation? His own writings are very cryptic and he claimed that he discovered there is a nature of magnetism that is unlike anything that the official science books are saying, so he was capable of levitating these stones and moving them around. Do you think there's any possible truth to that? Or do you think it's completely bogus?

RP: No. I'm open to all kinds of alternative interpretations.

GD: Do you think if humanity is allowed to develop spontaneously without any authoritarian influence, we would be able to resolve most of our pressing problems pretty quickly?

RP: Yeah. As soon as an interesting idea pops up in a university or corporation, it's likely to be destroyed before the person can talk to a reasonable number of informed people. So if you stopped shooting down all of the interesting alternative ideas, things would necessarily multiply realistic possibilities exponentially.

GD: You were born in the 30s. Do you remember even during childhood a time when, let's say in the U.S. or at least the western world, it was a freer time?

RP: Oh yeah. Old people at the time were always talking about how awful things are getting, but just from the late 30s to the late 40s I saw a horrible increase in authoritarianism. The 1950s is when it really took off with full government support to cleanse the high schools and universities of descending thinking in physics, biology, politics.

GD: You think that maybe a natural factor may have contributed to that, such as changes in solar activity, or maybe even intergalactic changes that would contribute to this increase in evil over the last hundred years?

RP: No. I think it's the accumulation of power in the ruling class. I think we can see all of the links, like Hitler accumulated power from American, British and French banking institutions. And the defeat of Germany was really the universalization of the structure of evil he had constructed. His intelligence apparatus was taken over by the CIA, so Hitler himself lost but the project continued. The same bankers that created Hitler collaborated with the CIA to continue the project; that's why there was such a burst of evil in the year that the CIA was born. That was when Lamarckism was rooted out of all of the schools of the United States.

GD: Do you see power as a concept, as something akin to glycolysis, and intelligence something akin to oxidative phosphorylation? So power is a very effective but very brutal way to do things but at the cost of basically completely destroying intelligence.

RP: Yeah, energetically it's like cancer. It runs very fast but very stupidly.

GD: So in a very inhospitable environment it's indispensable to survival but that's about it. It doesn't really have any other evolutionary usage?

RP: Yeah. Have you seen the article about Klaus Schwab, starting with his being born in 1938 in Germany, and having assimilated in his formative first seven years the ethos of Nazism? All of his talking points are a continuation of Hitlerism; same way that Conrad Lorentz with his genetic determinism was amplified with the defeat of Germany rather than suppressed. So all of the eugenics people came into a world that was designed around all of the principles of gene determinism or eugenics.

DR: Watching one of James Corbett's videos, he said the World Economic Forum was kind of making a power move among the elite people, maybe to establish dominance? Like even more than the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral commissions and the CFR type of people. And they're apparently extremely organized. Do you think there's any truth to that?

RP: Yeah. I think the World Economic Forum has taken over right along with the CIA and the top biggest banks. I think the Gates Foundation is one of their tools, but I think that the brain of the system is between the World Economic Forum and the CIA.

DR: Because I just don't remember hearing about Klaus very much through all the so-called conspiracy channels…

RP: No. He was very open for the last five or six years. He's been saying all of these horrible things: we need more genetically modified organisms [GMO] to completely take over the food economy. Everything has to be made artificial.

DR: Where does Eric Schmidt sit in that? Is he just a idea person and the World Economic Forum has taken a hold of his specific thoughts?

RP: Yeah, I think he's on the level of the Gates Foundation. He's a tool of the American digital community.

DR: We've said it multiple times, but this whole thing is so the elite will never be challenged again? They will dog tag everyone and then their power will be set; or I'm sure they think forever?

RP: Yeah.

GD: Is there anybody who is warning the elite? There must be other people that have made the parallel, if not with glycolysis in cancer, at least to the fact that after power concentration passes, certain threshold empires tend to collapse. I mean, the empires must be aware of that, or at least historically they must have seen what's happening after you become really too powerful. There's no one else left to fight and that's what seems to trigger sometimes the collapse of the empires. Is there anybody warning the current empire, saying, "Look, we do need a little bit of intelligence. We shouldn't be crushing every last living free spirit around the world because that will be the end of us as well!"…?

RP: No, I don't think they see that.

DR: It's funny Bill Gates is saying we need to vaccinate seven billion people, but isn't there like 7.8 or 7.5 billion people?

GD: He's not including himself in that number. That's why.

DR: Is there any more to say about what's happened in a month, Ray? All the secret contracts and the operation warp speed being apparently largely a military operation?

RP: No. The lawyers who are getting organized to sue governments and demand release of the information that they based their shutdown on… If the courts have any autonomous function, that's going to be continuing to get more interesting.

DR: You sent me that video, "Crimes Against Humanity" by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and [...] right now it was taken off YouTube, so that's very encouraging, the censorship that we're now dealing with. Do you think there's some kind of inroad to change through the law system?

RP: Yeah! It's a win in court. It's going to get some attention. Like, was it Minnesota [no, Michigan] where they got a court decision against the governor and had the policy annulled?

DR: There's a funny meme going around. It's like the founding fathers of the constitution and it says: Just in case anybody needs to know, all of this doesn't matter in case there's a virus. So it's like all these constitutional rights just vanish instantaneously when the WHO declares a pandemic apparently. Very, very interesting.

GD: I wanted to raise a point about the vaccines and the military being involved. I don't know if you're aware, but there is a federal law which basically mandates that the National Health Service — which is actually technically part of the military — is always involved in any vaccine trial. Sometimes their involvement is classified. Do you know anything about that?

RP: That's true that they are a branch of the military establishment. Their only difference is that they aren't weapons users. They have to get someone from another branch of the government if they want to have weapons when they visit you.

GD: Right. I was reading a few blogs and apparently a lot of this is classified, but the reason they're involved is — officially at least — because of that vaccine injury program that the health and human services runs? So the military says, "Look, we need to be involved as well," and the NHS is apparently mostly involved with reviewing the claims and determining if there's any national security threat to any of that. So that's the official reasoning, but there have been some declassified documents that suggest that the military is actively looking at every vaccine trial and trying to glean information if this could become like another bioweapon. So they're getting access to all the medical records, to everything that happens in that vaccine trial and sometimes — of course this is all in the area of speculation — even if a vaccine is known to be dangerous and ineffective, the military will push for it to be released because they would think it can become an effective weapon in the future if it's only slightly modified, so they can turn it against a foreign country.

RP: Yeah. Throughout history of the 20th century they've been operating a biological weapons establishment, researching it and it periodically becomes public. I think the reason the news around 2015 started coming out of how sloppy they were, thousands of potentially dangerous leaks of engineered viruses that were designed to be specifically infective to humans and more toxic symptoms produced than the wild virus… This information had been leaking out slowly, but about five years ago they started letting out more publicity about how dangerous this program was, and that led to the moratorium which led to [Anthony] Fauci taking some of the programs outside the country, to China, for example. But there are germ warfare labs operated by the U.S. in several countries of Europe and Africa as well as China, so they're outside the U.S. jurisdiction. But I think that the fact that we got so many leaks appearing suddenly was specifically part of the program. The Rockefeller Foundation, Gates Foundation, and World Economic Forum were working on this planned creation of a panic, and as part of getting the public to panic it's a very effective to let information leak out that these "super dangerous" engineered viruses might have been leaking all along for several years. So they were basically sending a message to China that they might actually be ready to return to biological warfare against China with one of these "super dangerous" viruses.

GD: Why would China allow…

RP: Well, China already in the Korean war had experience with American attempts at biological warfare. Wilford Burchett was the journalist who was following that and interviewing the people in China and Korea who had experienced the drops of the various organisms. So I think it was sending a message to China to help to create the environment for declaring the pandemic. They knew they were going to declare a pandemic years in advance, and it helped to give it realism by having these press releases.

GD: Why would China even agree to have a U.S. led laboratory or even work in tandem with the U.S. to create these viruses, considering that some of them very likely may be turned against China, like maybe used in a future attack against China?

RP: I think they were hoping that they would have more knowledge of what the threat was if they were actually participating in it.

GD: So it's a form of like voluntary economic espionage? China said, "Keep your enemies closer," right? Get the U.S. on our territory to do that work and we can learn what they're doing and potentially be ready to protect ourselves, and also maybe develop even something better?

RP: Yeah. But I doubt that they realized that... These plans had been going on for years to create the pandemic or to declare the pandemic. They took all the necessary precautions in case it *was* a dangerous germ warfare agent, but then within just two or three months, right in Wuhan, they were celebrating holidays in gigantic public assemblies. There's a picture on the internet of hundreds and hundreds of people crammed into a giant swimming pool! Right at the peak of the pandemic fear in the U.S., these people were a thousand or so together, standing two or three feet apart.

GD: Do you think China first of all realized that this virus is not what the propaganda is trying to make it out to be? Is that why you think China reopened? They realize it's a false flag?

RP: Yeah. I think they realized the threat was gone about May and they reopened everything.

GD: How do you think a significant portion of the U.S. public and a significant portion of Europe, the western world in general, how can they look at China being fully reopened in several other countries as well and still believe that we need to go into a lockdown and there's a surge here and all these masks and all these other measures are necessary, considering the Chinese are having the times of their lives right now?

RP: I think they're just so confident that they've done a thorough brainwashing job controlling the media now for 70–77 years of total control.

GD: I've never seen I haven't seen a single article in the popular press that said hey look china is fully open how come they're open and we're not this is this has never been brought up to my knowledge in any of the major newspapers in the U.S. or western Europe.

RP: Yeah, they can get away with saying that everything coming out of China is fake because they're a communist country. Even though they're nominally communist they're the world's biggest capitalist economy.

GD: Speaking of the vaccine, did you see the news that every three out of four phase three trial vaccines had a serious adverse event? In two of them, people died and the third one was transverse myelitis, which is the media's euphemism for polio. So I thought like, "Oh how convenient. Maybe the reason they don't want to call it polio is because then people start asking the question of 'Was the polio epidemic in the 50s maybe caused by one of these engineered vaccines gone rogue?'"

RP: Yeah. Have you seen the figures showing that the very year the vaccine came out and the polio incidence of cases suddenly dropped off? The other things, such as myelitis and Guillain-Barré syndrome… Other types of very similar paralytic diseases skyrocketed back up to the level that had been seen in polio epidemics.

GD: So the same thing as with the flu? The flu cases have disappeared today but the Covid ones are spiking.

RP: Yeah, one thing disappears when they rename it something else.

GD: What do you think is causing the polio? Do you think it's a viral disease or do you think it's just a toxicity symptom in a severely hypothyroid person?

RP: Starting early in the 20th century, people were noticing that polio epidemics appeared first in history in the countries in which the medical profession decided to become up to date and do things that verbalists weren't allowed to do, by injecting all of their drugs. The hypodermic needle had been invented just like 10 or 20 years before the first polio epidemic, and doctors started injecting all sorts of drugs. People started noticing that the paralytic polio cases… practically all of them had previously been injected with something; if not a vaccine, other drugs. All through the early part of the 20th century it was actively discussed that the facts showed that the arm or the leg which was paralyzed happened to be the arm or leg in which some injection had taken place; usually a vaccine, but any injection can be associated with paralysis in that particular limb. By 1950 that was being seriously investigated. In Africa it is now pretty well recognized that the paralyzed limb is the one in which the child had the polio vaccine injection.

GD: Have you seen the case studies on PubMed?

RP: And animal experiments showed that injecting an irritant into the muscle sends signals to the brain, indicating inflammation and damage. They could create a paralytic localization according to where they injected something. So animal experiments confirmed the observations in humans.

GD: Have you seen the published case studies on PubMed showing that the compromised gut barrier can cause GBS and many of these paralytic states that we're seeing also with vaccines? What I'm getting at is that endotoxin apparently on endotoxin overload can temporarily trigger such paralysis in limbs, and sometimes even mimic the symptoms of stroke. If I'm not mistaken, for a long time endotoxin, aka lipopolysaccharide, was used as an adjuvant in the vaccines. Do you know if it's still used?

RP: Only accidentally. It's in a lot of the vaccines silently. They don't list it as an ingredient naturally, but it's there because of the general contamination of the cultural medium.

GD: The aluminum that has replaced the lipopolysaccharide as an adjuvant, do you think it can trigger some of the same paralytic symptoms?

RP: Yeah. It's a very powerful. Some of the aluminum shows up in the brain. An English professor [Prof. Christopher Exley?] has done a lot of research on that and produced very consistent, convincing results that the aluminum is reaching the brain and causing a variety of symptoms.

GD: So don't get the vaccine, right? Because it's definitely going to have at least aluminum in it?

RP: Yeah, and I think a lot of them do have the endotoxin.

DR: Speaking of vaccines and the polarization in our society, maybe a good segue, like the physiology of being offended… and as I was exploring that question, I think right you initially referenced it in one of your articles — the Paul Andrews paper — is serotonin in an upper and or downer and he says in summary the melancholic brain appears to be reconfiguring to learn solutions to complex problems the processes involved in this learning appear to be so energetically expensive that growth and reproduction are down regulated. We argue that the process involved in making these trade-offs are coordinated by serotonin."
And so vaccines and conversations about Stalin, like a lot of things that seriously rile people up, is there a certain physiology with kind of this intense anger of what is happening when somebody is kind of violently reacting to an idea that they don't?

RP: It does activate especially serotonin, probably histamine too. And that undoubtedly is increasing their intestinal permeability, vascular permeability all through the system. I sort of hoped that some of my comments about Lysenko maybe were causing strokes in some of the fanatics [Laughter].

DR: Is it because the culture gives so few resources to find meaning, and so people integrate these ideas with within themselves, and then, if they encounter something that doesn't fit it, causes some kind of intense physiological reaction?

RP: Oh yeah. It's like slandering their mother. Same sort of reaction at blind fury.

DR: Then you said it on one of our older podcasts, but if you don't feel good, you're aging, or you're degenerating. That might be kind of obvious, but I thought that was important to emphasize, like if you're not in the euphoric state, there's something wrong.

RP: Yeah.

GD: Have you seen the studies that they've also done on animals that mitochondrial dysfunction, in other words, low metabolism, basically ensures that the animal will assume a subordinate status while at the same time becoming extremely aggressive to anything that it dislikes in its environment? So basically it's the symptom of low energy that maybe because the animal feels that any change any novelty it cannot really cope with, it cannot really incorporate into its worldview, and that's why it's becoming aggressive, but it comes down to essentially mitochondrial dysfunction.

RP: And the typical authoritarian personality: subservient to power but vicious towards underlings.

GD: Yep, that's exactly what those studies found, that it was the most vicious animals, so there was an alpha rat that they created artificially. That's the other thing: those studies were interesting because they showed that this whole thing about the alpha male is actually an almost entirely artificial concept; it only occurs when you place animals in a situation where they have to fight for food for survival. As long as you provide them with ample food, then the structure becomes much more egalitarian, even in species where they claim there's always an alpha person.

RP: Yeah. Had we talked about James Prescott's old article in the bulletin of the atomic scientists on Pleasure and the Origins of Violence? He looked at... I think it was 80-some anthropological studies. He was working in one of the NIH branches as a psychologist, and he saw that it was an invariable pattern, that an authoritarian culture in which males were very high in the hierarchy, women and children were mistreated and low in the hierarchy. There was always some kind of bodily mutilation, it could be scarring or distortion of the ears or lips or circumcision, but these features hierarchy, cruelty, and mutilation went with a warlike policy. Long before Prescott published this article, which got him fired, an Oxford professor had looked at the earlier literature and came up with exactly the same conclusions, but he said sexual repression was necessary to create culture. He said all of these things... the energetic society that created an empire by making war against weaker powers… this required sexual repression. So he had exactly the same conclusion, but he, being an English professor in Oxford, concluded that was the good stuff: empire and dominance and hierarchy.

DR: I think he advocated for like Japanese style bathrooms and kind of a more liberal view towards nakedness and things. I thought that was interesting, and when that was distorted like you just said, there were all sorts of weird things that would develop.

RP: Yeah. The guy that did the play at Harvard and got fired for it, was called anti-semitic because he argued that circumcision was a power institution to make sex unsatisfying for the men, and to make them authoritarian personalities.

GD: And also to induce this feeling of subordination from a very early age, right?

RP: Yeah, that you were subject to mutilation.

GD: Yeah. Some of your most precious organs, which I guess in an impressionable little child will be even more traumatic.

RP: Yeah.

GD: Do you think that the opposite could also be used to militarize the culture? In other words, the encouragement of extreme sexual promiscuity?

RP: Yeah. I think so. You know Wilhelm Reich made that argument that denaturing sex was behind the commercialization of sex, taking the love out of it made it mechanical and basically biologically unsatisfying.

GD: So it's akin to the mutilation of the circumcision but mentally?

RP: Yeah.

GD: Do you see some of that in our culture these days? Because I certainly do.

RP: Yeah. The FDA burned all of Reich's books, including the Mass Psychology of Fascism, which he said was based on sexual control. They were burned as "medical devices."

DR: It's kind of in the same vein, but to somebody you said the use of non-communicative jargon can be an indication of a personality disorder? And I think I know who you were talking about. That is so common in the health world and the authoritarian world. Is that a form of protection from the self or something?

RP: Yeah. They would be embarrassed to admit their total ignorance of a particular thing and so they babble out some words that are completely idiotic, but they assume that no one is going to understand what stupid thing they just said; because it was based on latin words.

DR: Like the Dunning-Kruger effect. One, do you buy into that concept? And then, if that's a valid concept, there's certainly some kind of physiology associated with it, correct?

RP: Yeah. Authoritarianism is why doctors don't have to think about what they're doing.

DR: And high serotonin being associated with that?

RP: Yeah. And the real doctors who think about what they're doing are dropping out of the profession because the extent to which it's being taken over by the powers, wanting to make everything an algorithm so that… Like [governor Andrew] Cuomo in New York wants to digitize medicine, do away with personal contact with your doctor.

DR: Even the sick high serotonin person, when they do defect from kind of the status quo, what exactly is happening physiologically? Is there some kind of break or like you've called it, something like navigating the orienting reflex or something? Is that for a moment activated based on like discordant information? What do you think is happening there?

RP: Yeah. When the orienting reflex kicks in, you're redesigning your whole organism to some extent, and so it can be a turning point in your life.

DR: I'm hesitant to say it's random. What initiates that, especially for a person that has so much to lose?

RP: I really don't know… :D

DR: Just some kind of life experience or a story that no longer makes any sense, right?

RP: Yeah.

GD: Do you know approximately when the replacement of incandescent light bulbs in hospitals happened? And do you think that may have coincided a little bit with the increase of authoritarianism and psychopatty among the medical profession... just being exposed to blue light like 24/7?

RP: People started talking about it already in the 50s. John Ott who created the Ott light, the full spectrum light, emphasized that all of the wavelengths falling not only on your skin, but getting into your eye, that the full spectrum light can restore lots of degenerative problems. Arthritis was his first experience with it, and all of that was going on already in the 1950s when fluorescent lights became popular.

GD: But that thought seems to have been long lost. There was an article, maybe three years ago, that said fluorescent lights may give you a headache, but that's about it. I mean, all these ideas of them being much more dangerous seem to be forgotten?

RP: Yeah. Some of Ott's experiments showed that weak x-rays were being produced at the ends of the tubes and that was part of the toxic effect. Lead foil around the ends of the tubes, he found, made them less toxic.

GD: I think also the plastic which has become utterly pervasive in our lives, but especially in hospitals. There was a study two years ago that showed that simply peeling off Scotch tape, produced by the company 3m — but they said it could be anyone — produced full-blown x-rays. They were able to take a picture of the finger of one of the researchers, against a photosensitive film, by just peeling off Scotch tape against that finger of the person. They opined that if you create a sufficient charge in any plastic object and then create a discharge, then you can basically create x-rays on demand. They're relatively weak, but still very dangerous. I keep thinking that when me and my wife were going to the hospital, just to get examined for the baby with ultrasound, the x-ray technicians kept getting these static shocks off of the equipment all the time. And at the time I didn't know that they were maybe potentially creating x-rays, but it seems to be a pretty common thing in the hospital. Plastics are everywhere and static electricity gets discharged all the time. Do you think that may play a role as well?

RP: Oh, sure. The people have devised various ways to stop that effect in plastic, but I don't know how well applied they are.

GD: Do you think the plastic may also I mean the so I guess the endocrine disrupting effect also plays a role in the in the pathologizing of the hospital environment?

RP: Yeah, a lot of the plastics are still emitting toxic chemicals too.

RP: Is there any type of safe plastic in your opinion or are they all capable of essentially discharging estrogenic thyroid inhibiting substances?

RP: I don't know anything toxic about the polyethylene type plastic.

DR: Maybe we could talk about Mexican Coke. Since living here I've noticed that children and adults are frequently carrying the leader bottles of Coke all the time, and I think it tastes completely different, like the Mexican Coke versus anywhere else I've had it. But I think I wanted to talk about this because eight years ago I think you were talking to somebody on a podcast and they asked you, like, "Oh, what did you eat yesterday?," and you're like, "Oh, a steak and some coffee, and some milk, and a Coke," and to my 2012 or 2011 brain, that like exploded it, because that was such a non-traditional item in a so-called health person's nutrition. And so I don't know if talking about it would yield some other insights and might open up other people to why something like Mexican Coke would be useful in our current situation of horrendous environment. So do you feel like defending Mexican Coke, or what is your thought on that?

RP: I think sucrose has great virtues therapeutically. I've heard stories about fatally, apparently injured animals, and people who are in the hospital with hopeless symptoms being given a mouthful. In the case of an animal in shock, they would pour a mouthful of honey in its mouth and hold its mouth shut, and in a few minutes the animal would be up and not dying at all. And that has happened to dogs and sheep, and ducks and all sorts of animals as well as patients who were in the hospital in a hopeless condition. Someone slipped on a jar of honey and gave them a tablespoon of it and the symptoms disappeared. Dozens and dozens of stories like that convinced me that in an emergency of almost any sort, a good big dose of sucrose is very important. But if you compare just coffee with added sucrose, I don't think you get quite the effects you do with that Mexican Coke. I think the coca leaf extractives are really biologically active, doing something very different from the caffeine content.

DR: I have an article here. It says Coke dropped cocaine from its recipe around 1900, but the secret formula is…

RP: Yeah, that they extract the cocaine from the cocoa leaf but sell the remaining stuff to Coca-Cola!

DR: Just to reiterate: the coca leaf extract has medicinal, anti-inflammatory or anti-stress properties, and then you said you've seen like a mineral analysis, and so there's some nutrition as well to the Coke?

RP: When they compared Pepsi to Coke, Pepsi was high in sodium, so that in Indochina it was recommended for babies with diarrhea as a sterile source of sodium and sugar. But Coke didn't have nearly that much sodium, but it was very high in potassium, and the plant extractives are the only logical source for potassium.

DR: And then the chemical for methyl limited diazole, that's like brown, similar to the brown in coffee. Is there any harm to that substance?

RP: Probably is some harm in it, but it's offset by the other values.

GD: Do you think there may be some psychoactive substances in coca leaf outside of the cocaine? Because it's rarely only one alkaloid, or like whatever chemical is there that's just producing all of the effects that you...

RP: Yeah. They know there are several consumers of cocaine that are biologically active, but they just don't want to talk about it because they might be ordered to take those out too, and then no one would buy the product.

GD: What do you think are the main dangers of cocaine? Is it similar to LSD, like in higher dosages becoming serotonergic?

RP: Yeah, it is such a powerful stimulant. It can make things run at such a high intensity that it destroys the system.

GD: But its main stimulant effect, do you think it's happening through the dopamine system or by stimulating metabolism?

RP: Oh, it somewhat stimulates metabolism, but it activates the expenditure of energy so fast; that's where you can get ahead of the metabolic support system and get sick from taking too much, too often.

GD: Is that why cocaine was used as a weight loss drug by housewives back in the early 1900s?

RP: Probably. It does run the system at a high speed, and it is likely to give you vitamin deficiencies and mineral deficiencies for that reason.

GD: Similar to dinitrophenol, basically?

RP: Yeah.

DR: Just because we'll probably get comments on it… Like a fresh fruit juice or guava or orange or whatever would be preferable to Coke. What is your point of view of kind of the puritanical nutritionism of some groups online? Like these people that are so obsessed with nutrients, like, obviously those are important, but with them not implementing things like carbon dioxide, they're not really getting the full picture. But what do you think about that?

RP: The full picture is the whole thing. If you have all of the nutrients, but an imbalance between fats and sugars, for example, you're working on destroying your mitochondria.

DR: And then the individual sleeping next to the router, full of the polyunsaturated fats [PUFA], they might be tempted to say a Mexican Coke is harmful, when in their specific situation it might be the most therapeutic thing they could immediately gravitate?

RP: Yeah, the fat people are quick to jump in and say, "Eat polyunsaturated fats and cut down your sugar intake," but that's the worst advice ever given. It's causing a chromosomal injury and millions of kids to have parents that have grown up on a high PUFA anti-thyroid situation.

GD: I have a question about Pepsi because, since you mentioned it — and it happens to be on the WHO's list of approved oral rehydration therapies — I think that's why you mentioned that in babies in Asia it's approved, or in Africa it's approved as a treatment for diarrhea, since they're losing a lot of electrolytes, is that right?

RP: Right.

GD: Is there any benefit to Pepsi, similar to the coca leaf? Or is that unique to the Coke product?

RP: From the very low potassium content in the analysis I've seen, I would guess it doesn't really have a real significant amount of leaf extractives.

GD: It's essentially just sugar with water and caffeine?

RP: Yeah. Sort of what it tastes like too. ;)

DR: I want to ask you about this quote, and again this was kind of part of my intro to you. You said in 2011, when people supplement thyroid liver once or twice a week, their acne and dandruff and many other problems usually clear up very quickly, and so I want to emphasize that just because of the kind of simple simplicity of implementation — and I don't know if you want to talk about that at all — but I thought increasing the metabolic rate while improving the nutrition was kind of like an elegant approach to trying to solve a maybe a complex health situation, but doing both of those same things, people seem to be resistant to either improving the nutrition or taking thyroid, or thinking thyroid is very dangerous, or not liking the taste of liver and trying to avoid it and things...

RP: Yeah. You can make up for the absence of liver, but it takes a lot of attention to do it because it's such a rich source of many of the luxury nutrients. Vitamin A is hard to get enough of in the active animal source of retinol. They're pushing carotene which is a powerfully anti-thyroid, anti-progesterone agent. So if you try to meet your vitamin A requirements with carrot juice, for example, you're very likely to get all kinds of metabolic problems, including hormonal deficiencies.

GD: And lung cancer, which they found out recently. Beta-carotene from carrot juice or from supplements seems to be drastically increasing the risk of lung cancer.

RP: Yeah. Many other bad things too.

GD: A few times you said that the Cynoplus tablet is two and a half grains, but I thought it was always three grains. Am I missing something?

RP: It depends on what your definition of a grain is. The FDA decreed that a glandular thyroid has a certain composition, but they apparently haven't bothered measuring the differences whether it's pork or beef; and where the animal grew up affects very strongly the composition of the hormone value of the glandular thyroid. So just by decree again, about 50 years ago they said that a hundred micrograms of t4 is equivalent to 25 micrograms of t3, and also by decree, they said that glandular thyroid usually has 3.1 parts of t4, when it's digested, to each part of t3. But all of those things are variable according to the particular mineral. So the most important thing to realize is that ratio of a hundred micrograms to one microgram of t4 to t3 to 25 micrograms of t3. That ratio is imaginary. An ideal male medical student maybe would get results like that, but in the average 35-year-old female, there's no such equivalence at all. A hundred micrograms of t4 very often has anti-thyroid effects in a middle-aged female, and so t3 has much more value than four times the value of t4.

DR: But like a third of a Cynoplus tablet — I think that weighs out to like 53 milligrams — you're not objecting to calling that a grain, right? You're just saying it's very complex, the history of what a grain is, and what a grain isn't?

RP: Yeah.

GD: I thought a grain was just a measurement of weight, and then when the FDA got involved in defining how thyroid should look like, the natural desiccated thyroid, they tried to kind of force the multitude of variations of natural thyroid into the definition of 65 milligrams?

RP: Yeah. At the beginning of the 20th century they were still using raw thyroid — or cooked — but wet thyroid tissue. And so they talked about the therapeutic dose as being one or two or three or four grains; the grain being a weight measure, 62 and a half I think it is, milligrams. When the Armour company and a couple of other smaller companies began dehydrating the product, taking out the 65 or 70 percent water. That meant that the defatted gland was three or four times as effective as the wet gland, simply because of the absence of water. So they added lactose to make up for the water weight, so that their product… Doctors who were familiar with the wet gland prescription in terms of grains of wet fresh gland, they could go directly to a certain weight grain of the dehydrated product, because the added lactose brought up the weight, so the potency per weight was identical to the fresh gland. But during its development, Armour was constantly mixing their different batches, recognizing that one particular batch of dehydrated defatted gland would have very different potencies, so they would mix them until they could get a product that had the expected potency of fresh gland on mice. All of the batches were standardized for decades, testing them on mice. So there was no rigid formula; it was a matter of mixing until they got the right effect. That all went away in the 90s when Armour went out of the thyroid business, and the FDA took over by proclaiming the content. And so people came to think that the glandular thyroid actually contained t4 and t3. It doesn't contain those until it's broken down and digested. Your digestive system is where the t3 and t4 are formed. So it's misleading to describe the hormonal content at all of an untested glandular preparation.

DR: So just talking about t3 and t4 in micrograms is a lot simpler than the erroneous measurement of grains?

RP: Yeah, and the Cynoplus is very consistent in how many micrograms of each they put on each tablet.

GD: I keep getting emails, maybe like once a week, and they're usually from people that are unhappy about our stance on vaccines. They keep saying, "Okay, we get the point. Vaccines are dangerous." They get all these things that can damage your health, and they're likely not even effective because a well-functioning metabolism in a healthy cell should be capable of defending itself against the virus infecting it and starting to replicate. Then they say, "Well, what about the really deadly viruses that are guaranteed to kill people unless these people get vaccinated?" And they keep bringing up their rabies vaccine or the rabies virus. What would you say to that? Why does it seem that a rabies virus would kill anybody, including a healthy person with 100% lethality, unless they get vaccinated?

RP: How do they know that? :rolleyes:

GD: I don't know :wacky: I guess what they don't take into account is how many healthy people got bitten and infected with rabies virus but survived, right?

RP: Yeah, but lots of people have been bitten by a rabid dog and weren't where they could get treatment, or maybe took an herb and were fine. I've known several people who were bitten by an officially tested rabid dog and took a cactus potion or some herb and didn't get rabies, so they were convinced that the herb was curative. I think it was just their natural tendency not to contract rabies.

GD: Is there any feature of viruses that would make them more or less lethal, depending on which system they tend to attack?

RP: I suppose there would be a difference between chickenpox and smallpox. The nature of the sore it produces and herpes, for example, they just have the type of cell they favor to live in or reproduce in, but some people are innately immune to those, even though they don't have antibodies against them. Their whole system just isn't compatible with the properties of the virus.

GD: So I guess, if the virus — like the herpes virus — tends to attack the nervous system, there's more potential for a more serious outcome, all other things being equal?

RP: Yeah. But the better a person's health is, the less they notice having contracted herpes.

GD: So in your view there's nothing really special about the rabies virus? It's just more fear-mongering, saying, "Get yourself vaccinated right now!"

RP: Yeah. There haven't been any studies really, that are relevant to human susceptibility.

GD: Re. pregnenolone. Many companies claim they have 99.9% pure pregnenolone, but some people report that they get bad side effects of it. The emails that I got from you seem to indicate that you don't think it's ever the actual pregnenolone that's causing this; it's some kind of a contamination that's in the pregnenolone. Do you have any specific things in mind in terms of contaminants that may cause such reactions, considering that the pregnenolone has been shown to be of such high purity?

RP: Yeah, that one part per thousand or less, if it's something very active, like an estrogenic fragment of a steroid, it takes only a few micrograms of estrogenic substance to cause symptoms — like sore breasts or uterine spasms or cramps. I started having bad reactions to everything except the old Syntex product, the ones who were the first steroid producers, and developed… The very rigid German chemists in charge made sure everything was done punctiliously. Other products that came on the market, some of them even smelled different, but all of them had a very high chemical purity test. But I started having bad reactions, intestinal inflammation reactions to it, so I pretty much stopped using it about 20 years ago.

GD: Do you think it's possible that even a pure pregnenolone, just by sitting in a bag it may tend to disintegrate over time into some estrogenic substances? Because there are studies showing that bacteria in air can metabolize pregnenolone into various estrogens. Yeast can do that too.

RP: Very possible.

GD: What would be a good storage? Just put it in a freezer and keep it at as low temperature as possible?

RP: Yeah. If you have it from a source and have tested it on oneself and friends, and can take a teaspoonful of it with no adverse effects at all for two or three days, then you're pretty sure it's the real stuff.

GD: Maybe a good test for additional tests of pregnenolone — in addition to the certificate of analysis which only tests purity, heavy metals, and presence of bacteria — maybe also test for some of the well-known estrogenic metabolites?

RP: I think so.

GD: Yeah, that's actually a good idea. There aren't that many — at least that I know — so a lab should be able to test, even if they're in microgram quantities.
Last edited:


Jan 9, 2019
Thank you for doing this.


Sep 22, 2013
Big thanks for doing this!


Dec 28, 2015
Thanks for the appreciation, guys!
Big TY from me to all other transcribers too!
The classic RP “yeah”
Yeah :happy: So much so, that if I ever do this again, I will Search and Replace "Yeah" with "RP: Yeah." That should take care of 90% of the reformatting for Ray... :p:


Sep 24, 2016
Thanks for transcribing. Great interview.
Peat highly political here. Increasingly so recently. And a tendency here on RPF too.
Also the comparisons of biological and societal/political patterns.


Sep 24, 2016
Does anyone have the reference to chicken experiments with measuring response of the retina?


Mar 6, 2018
Thanks a lot for this, you are the man.
I love Ray to pieces, but the stuttering and the bad audio make it very hard to follow the conversation.
Ray Peat Inspired Cosmetics

Similar threads