Ray Peat dissed by Dr. Tom Cowan on Patrick Timpone show

M

metabolizm

Guest
I have no faith in timpone getting anything done, he just babbles things and asks semi-relevant questions, leaving it pretty much up to the guest to answer in a way that makes the interview coherent to a listener. He's not a bad host but nowhere near a good one either.

He's completely out of his depth -- that's the problem.
He doesn't interrupt his guests, though. I'll give him that.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I have no faith in timpone getting anything done, he just babbles things and asks semi-relevant questions, leaving it pretty much up to the guest to answer in a way that makes the interview coherent to a listener. He's not a bad host but nowhere near a good one either.
He brings a variety of guests with different viewpoints. I've been able to take my pick from the litter, and some interviews are very much worth the while and allow me to wander off the beaten path, to my benefit. But there is a limit to the depth of the subject, as Patrick would stop the guest when it goes over his head. I think it's because Patrick knows his lister/viewership, and wants to keep his show entertaining as well as educational. And by entertaining I mean people are not flabbergasted and switch to another channel. He advertises products that are no different from most shows, basically silver bullet solutions that more knowledgeable listeners would not buy, but for those that do, the mind works wonders. Maybe one day there will be a product, or maybe there is already, I don't know.

The nice thing though with his approach is that he forces his guests to tweak their language so that the subject can become easier to grasp. He does a lot better job interviewing Ray rather than Andrew of Herb Doctors. He is on the same level as Jodelle Fit, which is already good But he doesn't go the distance as well as the host of Science and Politics, whose name escapes me.

But I think that on this recent interview with Cowan, he could have been more interrogative with Cowan when Cowan brushed off Ray's opinion. I think Pat knows Cowan brings a lot of listeners in, and he doesn't want to alienate him. In contrast to how he treats Mark Sircus, whom I think has no credibility, and whom I think, if I am the gauge, draws few listeners. I turned cold on Sircus when I bought some of his books, and found him to lack scholarship and he doesn't employ a lot of good references in his writing. At the same time, he keeps recommending duds such as magnesium chloride and magnesium bicarbonate (I am to find out from experience these substances have to be used with a good understanding of their pros and cons, but Sircus keeps it simple and the trade-off is ignorance on their proper use).

But it's probably not fair to be that harsh on Sircus. The problem is that in a radio show, you have to mince your words. You can't be too detailed as the audience generally have very short attention spans, as most people are these days. You can't be too detailed or you will lose them. So you make it simple, and you let the audience figure out the gotchas themselves, that is if they get around to figuring it out. Most don't, and they end up listening to this same "expert" that continually gives them incomplete information.

I'm detailed and I hope it's not to a fault. I used to work as a sales tech support with sales reps. I learned quickly they want a technical answer that is shorter than a crew cut. As in yes or a no. A lot of Patrick's audience may just be like that. Most of my siblings are. I know how that goes lol
 
Last edited:

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
The purpose of isolating a virus is not to prove that it exists, but to prove that it causes disease. If a virus is not isolated when introduced into a host, then it really can't be proven that it is causing disease when there are so many other things present that could be causing the disease. That's the whole point behind Koch's postulates which embodies the very essence of science. Virologists have to make all kinds of exceptions and violate the laws of good science in order to make their paradigm work. It's inferential science, which really isn't science.
 

achillea

Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
903
RP . But the evidence for even these small viruses even better than even things like the lochness monster and bigfoot and so on. There are pictures of them, but not everyone is convinced they exist. So viruses, the evidence is about a thousand times better than those other things. It’s good to be skeptical, because the evidence isn’t absolute as a lot of good chemical tests can achieve.

As I understand it Cowan states that if you take a sample from a sick person and centrifuge it , then take a certain layer of the centrifuge layers there are millions of pieces of RNA and DNA. Then they exclude millions indiscriminately if not somewhat indiscriminately and end up with still millions of pieces. Then they take a template of a genome sequence and put it in a computer and it tells the computer to find the pieces of the exude that has some of the sequencing in the same order as the template and if there is some then they have isolated a virus. He says it is like putting an exude of the alphabet in the sample and making a template of Moby **** and tell the computer that if there are certain words then it is the entire book. Put in Cinderella and it will be Cinderella.
Stefan Lanka and Cowan are now working together to prove virus does not exist, Stefan has the lab and expertise and we shall see. Actually Stefan and Cowan are doing an lecture on March 24 and Stefan is going to give a half hour talk on the history of the virus theory. It is on Dr Cowans subscribestar
If it is a germ theory then it must be a virus theory?
 

Grapelander

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,297
Location
Sonoma County
It was a recent episode where Ray explained that you do not always need to isolate a chemical to infer its structure. He noted that based on it's behavior you could get an idea. You see this in chemistry where a chemical is known to be in a plant etc. but is not isolated until years later.

So I think Timpone may have just quoted Peat out of context like that game of telephone.

Timpone, Peat and Cowen are all good people.
 

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,345
Location
HI
The purpose of isolating a virus is not to prove that it exists, but to prove that it causes disease. If a virus is not isolated when introduced into a host, then it really can't be proven that it is causing disease when there are so many other things present that could be causing the disease. That's the whole point behind Koch's postulates which embodies the very essence of science. Virologists have to make all kinds of exceptions and violate the laws of good science in order to make their paradigm work. It's inferential science, which really isn't science.
Right. The word "virus" means poison, it automatically titles the particle a negative thing... proof is needed when such a claim is made, and dare I say, context.

so to claim viruses don't exist might just be as "ridiculous" as the claim that all viruses are poison, just by the nature of the word itself. At least exosomes don't have a negative "connotation" and may be a more accurate way to describe these particles, which without complex life forms, can't seem to exist.

it's amazing how in almost every case context is left out of a situation in such a way that it fulfills someone's agenda
 

Dennis

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Messages
82
Peat lacks Cowan's ability to reduce to layman's language many complex topics, and I wish Ray could speak in less abstractions. But that is how great minds are sometimes.

Spot on. Most of us I suspect have great respect for Dr Peat so most of are reluctant to negatively comment on his articulation skills with respect to people like me. May be some people understand him perfectly, but I don't, everything can interpreted or misinterpreted under the broad umbrella of "context is everything".

In anycase as far as this subject goes I think that both Dr Cowan and Ray Peat actually agree on more things than disagree.
 

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,345
Location
HI
Spot on. Most of us I suspect have great respect for Dr Peat so most of are reluctant to negatively comment on his articulation skills with respect to people like me. May be some people understand him perfectly, but I don't, everything can interpreted or misinterpreted under the broad umbrella of "context is everything".

In anycase as far as this subject goes I think that both Dr Cowan and Ray Peat actually agree on more things than disagree.
Both are needed, as much as I respect Cowan and have read his material for years his interview explanations are quite bland. He may be able to precisely write a book but part of me feels he doesn’t trust himself to get as complex as Ray does in the midst of an interview. Meaning, his analogies get to be so frequent that they feel more like a coverup than an attempt to simplify. I like Rays thorough nature, with subjects as important as the ones Ray covers intricacies are the life blood of the topic. The host should help simplify to the audience not the guest IMO.
 

Sefton10

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2019
Messages
1,593
The host should help simplify to the audience not the guest IMO.
I think Timpone does that inadvertently sometimes, by playing the role of the useful idiot. His heart is in the right place but he'll often ask a ridiculous on non-sensical question that it will send Ray down a different path with his explanation than he otherwise might have. Notice Ray always humours it and never gets frustrated with him. I enjoy listening to them for that reason.
 

Jam

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
2,212
Age
52
Location
Piedmont
Last edited:

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,345
Location
HI
Exposing Tom Clowan for the clown (and probable psyop) he is. The Clowan bit starts around 49:00, but every other minute is well worth watching, as always.


View: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1564071132

I hope you haven't used this to dismiss what Cowan says as first, they don't even spell his name right, second they mock more than they say anything constructive because it's so beyond their understanding of biology (which is the point) and what's possible/ conjured.

It's frustrating because I'm not going to sit here and explain everything they got wrong in that video, I attended that conference and Cowan is leaving out details not because he "has no evidence" but because he wants people to see for themselves at the conference the very interesting experiments carried out by the presenters who provided all methods they used, and yes they had specific names, unlike that troll on the right hand of the screen ad hominem attacks him for.

you clearly have not looked into Cowan or the many people who agree with him and many of these subjects deeply, including Peat!

Peat questioned and criticized the method in which cells are observed many times and has said that the membrane, pump, receptor theory is highly reductionist and lacking (way before Cowan), Peat also reinforces much else of what Cowan says in respect to light, energy and the living environment on the state of the organism. There is even an interview, I can try to pull it up, where he questions the organelles in general! I believe it's on a ATHD KMUD interview.

Any leap Cowan makes he states and lets you know he's making a leap, I watch his weekly videos on bitchute (because context matters..), these bozos isolated one video that's not even his own, it's an interview and injected their own assumptions into it, as if there is no other basis for questioning the topics Cowan covers. He is summarizing, not writing a paper, if you go through the many threads I and others have started in this topic you will see an immense amount of evidence for fraud that is virology, take the time to review before sharing a cringy smear campaign.



 
Last edited:

Jam

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
2,212
Age
52
Location
Piedmont
I'm sorry, but Ray Peat definitely does not agree with Cowan that viruses don't exist, or that bacteria don't cause disease,

There is no doubt that virology has been abused and used in a fraudulent manner. But believing that viruses don't exist or that bacteria don't cause disease is the same as believing that HIV causes AIDS or that antibodies are a correlate for immunity, or that the jabs will save us all from dying from COVID. Pure and utter bull****.
 
OP
B

Blaze

Guest
I'm sorry, but Ray Peat definitely does not agree with Cowan that viruses don't exist, or that bacteria don't cause disease,

There is no doubt that virology has been abused and used in a fraudulent manner. But believing that viruses don't exist or that bacteria don't cause disease is the same as believing that HIV causes AIDS or that antibodies are a correlate for immunity, or that the jabs will save us all from dying from COVID. Pure and utter bull****.
Agreed, nothing against Cowen , whom I actually like and respect and love listening to, but he is simply wrong on the viruses do not exist science. Obviously he relies on the small size of a virus and the difficulty measuring these particles due to their extremely miniscule size. All of Cowen's opinions are based on his stating that there is a lack of evidence that they even exist at all based on the supposed impossibility to detect or scientifically measure these tiny viruses. Ray is correct in my humble opinion not Cowen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elie

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
815
Where do viruses come from? out of thin air?
No, from Cowen, Lanka and others I have come to understand viruses as packets of genetic information, possibly a way to communicate within and between organisms, that come out of cellular organisms (incl. humans).
So the idea that these are exosomes fits the bill (plus the scale fits).

Perhaps the purpose of their genetic material fusing with cell's genes is for the purpose of helping to adapt to a particular stressor.

In the winter time, examples of stressors include pollution (due to drier air), reduced light, reduced vitamin C, colder temperatures.
That is when most people get "respiratory" infections.
 

Jam

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
2,212
Age
52
Location
Piedmont
Where do viruses come from? out of thin air?
No, from Cowen, Lanka and others I have come to understand viruses as packets of genetic information, possibly a way to communicate within and between organisms, that come out of cellular organisms (incl. humans).
So the idea that these are exosomes fits the bill (plus the scale fits).

Perhaps the purpose of their genetic material fusing with cell's genes is for the purpose of helping to adapt to a particular stressor.

In the winter time, examples of stressors include pollution (due to drier air), reduced light, reduced vitamin C, colder temperatures.
That is when most people get "respiratory" infections.
What cannot be generated "out of thin air" (as you say) inside human cells is DNA (or RNA) that is completely foreign to the human genome, such as that present in viruses or bacteria. An exosome that contains foreign DNA is called a virus. Retroviruses, however, are where the abuse of virology for power, control, and wealth started.

Exosomes are nothing new and well documented in the literature.
 
Last edited:

Jam

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
2,212
Age
52
Location
Piedmont
PS. And please don't pull out the "they haven't been able to 'isolate' viruses" or the Koch's Postulates (which was designed for bacteria) excuses, because by using the same (flawed) criteria, they haven't been able to "isolate" exosomes either, so you either accept both, or none. Not just the one that conveniently fits your narrative.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
What cannot be generated "out of thin air" (as you say) inside human cells is DNA (or RNA) that is completely foreign to the human genome, such as that present in viruses or bacteria. An exosome that contains foreign DNA is called a virus. Retroviruses, however, are where the abuse of virology for power, control, and wealth started.

Exosomes are nothing new and well documented in the literature.
It doesn't have to be generated "out of thin air." It could be generated by other microflora found in the human sample (including bacteria), the added fetal bovine serum, or the monkey kidney cells that they use in so called "isolation" experiments. Since they rarely bother to isolate and purify viruses, but they do claim to sequence their DNA, how do we know what, exactly, was sequenced?

PS. And please don't pull out the "they haven't been able to 'isolate' viruses" or the Koch's Postulates (which was designed for bacteria) excuses, because by using the same (flawed) criteria, they haven't been able to "isolate" exosomes either, so you either accept both, or none. Not just the one that conveniently fits your narrative.
I can totally accept both. The EM they show in relation to the "Novel Corona Virus," for example, shows plenty of cellular debris. I think it's quite likely what is shown in image "D" is simply a fragment of the cell after the digestive enzyme trypsin was added to the solution.

nihpp-2020.03.02.972935-f0001.jpg
 

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,345
Location
HI
PS. And please don't pull out the "they haven't been able to 'isolate' viruses" or the Koch's Postulates (which was designed for bacteria) excuses, because by using the same (flawed) criteria, they haven't been able to "isolate" exosomes either, so you either accept both, or none. Not just the one that conveniently fits your narrative.
Are the people who are triggered by the non existence of viruses really all the same? You all keep asking the same questions and repeating yourself, then you fail to look into it any deeper and continue to make assumptions. I'm not going to rewrite what's already properly written, go answer your own common, obvious (and emotional) questions here Debunking the Nonsense then we can talk about specifics.
 

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,345
Location
HI
I'm sorry, but Ray Peat definitely does not agree with Cowan that viruses don't exist, or that bacteria don't cause disease,

There is no doubt that virology has been abused and used in a fraudulent manner. But believing that viruses don't exist or that bacteria don't cause disease is the same as believing that HIV causes AIDS or that antibodies are a correlate for immunity, or that the jabs will save us all from dying from COVID. Pure and utter bull****.
The word Virus, is a real Virus, aka a poison, by the literal definition. A virus, in order to be a poison, needs to be such every time and Ray does not agree with that definition of the word and ironically neither does allopathic medicine. Why? They recognize so called beneficial retroviruses and the supposed immense number of viruses we bathe in on a second by second basis with no pathology.

Thinking that Koch's postulates are only for bacteria is to flush your intelligence down the toilet ( like believing the new post CONVID definition of "vaccine" or "herd immunity") , which is what Rivers did, just to be able to say viruses cause disease without actually having to prove it.
Watch the below presentation on Rivers postulates.


View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/L6aJ1hnZedOn/
 

Elie

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
815
PS. And please don't pull out the "they haven't been able to 'isolate' viruses" or the Koch's Postulates (which was designed for bacteria) excuses, because by using the same (flawed) criteria, they haven't been able to "isolate" exosomes either, so you either accept both, or none. Not just the one that conveniently fits your narrative.
I agree with you on the first statement, but It seems to me that that the images of exosomes are much "cleaner" than the SARS Cov 2 images. I haven't looked into it but I imagine genome extraction experiments (our of exosomes) have been done
1660779663835.png


 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom