Ray's View On Receptors?

Blossom

Moderator
Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
11,031
Location
Indiana USA
'MEDICINE' really needs to step up to the plate and start being a real science. I have no doubt that there is a lot of very valuable scientific work taking place all over the globe. It's ironic that as humans we have let the system that is most often used for our health be based on fraud and profit over true science.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
239
Blossom said:
'MEDICINE' really needs to step up to the plate and start being a real science. I have no doubt that there is a lot of very valuable scientific work taking place all over the globe. It's ironic that as humans we have let the system that is most often used for our health be based on fraud and profit over true science.

I agree, there seems to be a huge gap between biology and medicine, where important biological discoveries are ignored by medicine.

The contrast between molecular biology journals and medical journals is pretty strange. For example, there's endless medical articles discussing various strategic approaches to lowering cholesterol, which never even address the biological role of cholesterol or the potential adverse effects of lowering it. They seem to even ignore official warnings from the FDA and pharmaceutical industry about the adverse effects of lowering cholesterol:

FDA Expands Advice on Statin Risks: http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm293330.htm
 
J

j.

Guest
Peat's comment was that industry typically takes over the agencies set up to regulate them (note that the heads of the Treasury typically are former employees of Goldman Sachs, FDA employees are former employees of the vegetable oil industry). If companies can take over a government agency, it's much easier to take over a medical journal.

Link to the Peat article

The existence of the FDA and the various licensing laws I am sure help to prevent different ideas and approaches from being proposed. If you do, your product can simply not be approved or your license can be taken away. These agencies overall do nothing to help while they do a lot of damage.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
The biology of today is in my view a poisoned metaphor of what really happens, like Newtonian cosmology was. This of course can lead to fairly accurate summarizations and also predictions, but there will always be inherent incongruences which sooner or later (if the paradigm shift doesn't occur) collect unreal, ad hoc bits that are artificially inserted as an unnatural prolongation of a theory's life. Preferring this sedentary strategy where another would be available with some effort is not only noxious to progress, but dangerous under certain conditions such as our environment of guided scientific research.

I don't want to suggest we should cast everything out, but the awesome information that we find each day is heavily distorted by the dominant "mathematical" anti-metaphor (which is a reaction to their metaphor not working anymore) and so loses much value. This is passive-aggressive towards young and energetic ideas.

I am not against hyper-specialization where there is a natural mechanism to prevent unwarranted complexity (of success AND error) which we do not have in place. Instead, in place is a rejection of the value and beauty of the complex self-tuned systems of nature that brought the need for science in the first place. You cannot reason differently from the way the universe does, especially when trying to describe it.
When they say they found the gene that "causes" SLA, but it's only for 40% of 2% of the cases, you must ask yourself if the efficiency of the system really can be so uncoupled from its own world view. This is an excuse for close mindedness.

As Pollack explains well in his youtube video, you can be extra comfortable sitting on your own branched-out twig, but nobody will want to aknowledge when the whole branch is rotten.

P.S. The FDA lets drug companies use contractors to approve drugs (contractors that don't wanna be fired, one would imagine).
 

Capt Nirvana

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
108
Could someone tell me the vision of Ray Peat onto receptors? From my point of view, from reading through his articles, I can only come to the conclusion that Ray believes in receptors.
But not in the pharmaceutical drugs, because than a drug would have the complete same properties as the original subastance that actives receptors in the same way and thus same genes.

I think here's the problem, (I could be wrong in interpreting) but I often read "Ray doesn't believe in receptors"

Once again I think Ray actually does, but sees the complexity regarding the receptor theory. A few examples that come to my mind when I think about receptors and implying how I read Ray's work and what I know.

Receptors are though studying because:
- ednless amount of binding places and different angles at which a molecule can bind
- different concentrations and different affinities leading to unknown effects on receptors (activating or deactiating)
- different conformational changes caused by different substances (ligands), the previous automaticly leading to receptors that possible activate different/other genes than the orignal ligand does, or probably having a different binding capacity to a heterodimeric receptor, or different affinities to different genes (it's know to regulate).
- There's also different concentraties of receptors in different tissue and varying per person,
- and also pretty unknown how these proteins are actually regulated.
- things I forgot or didn't even think about.

For those who don't get it. Structure is Function, thus different structure is a different function, and the structure possibilities in biology are seemingly endless.
We're stuck with receptor *theory* thanks to men such as Paul Ehrich (1854-1915), John N. Langley (1852-1925), Archibald Vivian Hill (1886-1977), Alfred Joseph Clark (1885-1941), John Henry Gaddum (1900-1965), Everhardus Jacobus Ariens (1918-2002), etc. They *surely* know what they're talking about because they're on Wikipedia.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
Receptors and magic bullets. Fantastic fairy tales told by idiots. Now it’s accepted for personalized cancer treatments. Always Real Soon Now. Never happening. Peat mentions this in July 2018 newsletter.


The mechanistic drug ideology came to a head several years ago in refining the idea of cancer as a genetic disease, resulting in the scheme of “personalized,targeted, cancer therapy,” in which the unique genetic structure of a person’s cancer became the (extremely profitable) basis for choosing a “customized” chemotherapy for that “unique cancer.” A commercial-academic venture at Duke University was upset, starting in 2012, when the data showing the effectiveness of the method was found to have been falsified. One doctor was judged to have been completely responsible for the fraud, but the extreme slowness of the system to acknowledge that there was a problem has left its impression.

The idea of personalized, tumor-specific chemotherapy itself is fraudulent at a deeper level, since it’s based on an individuality based on mutated DNA, while it’s now recognized that epigenetic cellular individuality is an on-going process throughout the body, involv- ing continuous changes of the cytoplasm as well as the nucleus.
Meanwhile, the holistic, constitutional approach to cancer and other problems is constantly being attacked, in the effort to create a cultural landscape in which the only acceptable science is mechanistic, molecular, and genetic. Progesterone’s long history of anti-tumor effects has led to the discovery of various somewhat clever ways to deny those effects. They discovered that if they used a car- cinogenic-estrogenic-immunosuppressive sol- vent as the vehicle for administering progester- one by injection, they could sometimes overcome and reverse its anticancer effects.​
 

Capt Nirvana

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
108
He formed his views on PUFAs partly on studies that were done before he was born. In his writings, he makes very explicit his view that a lot of the 'research' that is done today really are PR releases for the drug companies, he used this exact analogy.
Some way before he was born. Articles in medical journals before the American Civil War showed how excess cod liver oil could cause Yellow Fat Disease, Brown Bowel Disease, Shrunken Heart Disease, etc., all examples of Cumulative Lipofuscinosis.
 

Frankdee20

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
3,772
Location
Sun Coast, USA
Is this stance on receptors implying the same thing for 5ht1a, 2a, d1, d2, etc. ?
 

Similar threads

M
Replies
0
Views
1K
member 6316
M
Back
Top Bottom