Vaccines & Immunity 2 - KMUD, 2014-07-18

Discussion in 'Audio Interview Transcripts' started by Giraffe, Feb 18, 2020.

  1. Giraffe

    Giraffe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,751
    I once copied this transcript from the LIGHT website that is no longer accessible. My notes say, that I did change something, but I actually don't remember if I verified it.

    -----

    Vaccines & Immunity 2 - KMUD, 2014-07-18


    transcribed by L-I-G-H-T, changed by Giraffe


    HD - Andrew Murray
    RP - Ray Peat


    HD: I guess I wanted just to open up the show again by what I read out last month on the part one of vaccinations, which was the 'first do no harm' tenet of medicine. The United States legal standard applied to vaccines defines them as – and this is how it’s defined – unavoidably unsafe products that are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. And the reason why vaccines are unsafe, or in other words, harmful is because they are made up of chemicals and other elements that are essentially poisonous to the body. We will get into some of those things later on in the show. Dr. Peat, thanks very much for joining us again. For those people who perhaps have never listened to this show or tuned in before now, would you just outline your academic and scientific background, so that people can understand where you’ve come from and where you are now.

    RP: In the 1950s and 1960s, I was mostly a student and teacher in the humanities, English literature and painting, for example, and other subjects. Then I decided to go to graduate school in biology and biochemistry, University of Oregon for PhD, because I had been interested in that for many years, but considered that the academic approach to it was pretty futile and misleading in 1950s and 60s. And since graduating in 1972, I have continued studying, trying to find what I consider the mainline of science in biology, which is very opposed to, in many ways, the mainstream medical thinking and the biology which is influenced by corporate financing. This mainstream or mainline of biological and chemical thinking that I’ve been following is more holistic and developmental, time oriented way of looking at organisms than the reductionist, abstract molecular approach that has become dominant. And that particularly relates to how the immune system works, but that isn’t an area that I have specialized in. I did teach a short course in immunology at medical students in Mexico, 1979. But since then, things have radically changed.

    HD: Okay. I think for the purpose of those people who perhaps have tuned into this evening’s show, I think what I wanted to start thex show with is something, I think, if most people listen carefully to the paragraph I am going to read out next will probably be fairly stunned because they probably never really thought about it. I think the generation – my generation perhaps born in the mid-60s and the children from there until now probably have very little awareness of what I'm going to read out next. And that's the fact that all infectious diseases were, in fact, in free fall decline before the introduction of vaccines. And this just doesn’t enter the consciousness of most people. It’s veiled by the fear and the mysticism surrounding disease and its apparent cure with polio and smallpox as examples in most people's consciousness as reasons for vaccines when, in fact, this is not the truth, starting, I guess, in the 1800s with massive overcrowding and open sewers and poor hygiene and poor nutrition. And this was largely responsible for the pandemics and the epidemics that ravaged Europe at the time. And when the reformations happened with socioeconomic factors improving with general hygiene, nutrition, the amount of time people were working and the kind of housing and living conditions people were in, the figures that I have – and there’s a book that is written by Suzanne Humphries.

    And that book is entitled 'Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and The Forgotten History'. Now, talk to Suzanne Humphries, who is actually – or was actually – still is a medical doctor, but she is not practicing medicine within the Medical Association. She was very much put off of what we call the mainstream medicine and you have already mentioned that, Dr. Peat, that the holistic approach that a lot of science will take to achieve a truth is largely avoided or covered up with continuing mistruths or misinformation, shall I say, that permeates the medical industry. So the book that she wrote basically after coming across a kidney damage that was initiated from influenza vaccines, and she was actually a nephrologist, so she basically looked at the British records from the best part that I can see, most of the records from 1750 or there abouts until the present date for about ten infectious diseases that were prevalent at the time, and those range from measles, smallpox, typhoid, whooping cough, diphtheria, polio, syphilis and malaria and the evidence that she found was that there was a dramatic decrease in the incidence of these diseases mostly around the early 1900s to the end of the Second World War. So why do you think the vaccines have become what they are now in people's minds and that I believe is that we can't do without them when, in fact, it was all virtually disappearing due to improved health and sanitary conditions.

    RP: I think the medical attitude has been developed for more than 100 years. My parents and grandparents were born really before the medical indoctrination got underway in the United States and Europe. But the vaccine history, there were people teaching doctors to vaccinate and indoctrinating the medical community with the idea, but in my parents’ generation they were pretty immune to it. But they were forced vaccinated in the schools, but it was only a somewhat later generation, I think, more or less, coinciding with the American Medical Association taking over medicine and abolishing for about 60 or 70 years the natural approaches to medicine, such as naturopathy, and the drug treatment approach rather than the improving general health approach was part of that takeover of medicine. Several people fairly recently have pointed out that vaccines are really just a cheap way of controlling some infections when it's too expensive to give people good food and a clean environment. It’s recognized that that will prevent the infectious diseases, but that it’s too expensive.

    HD: How did you feel about the argument that’s been put forward that it’s actually an economic situation rather than – for want of a better word – a holistic situation where if we had good clean food and it wasn't contaminated with GMOs, and it wasn't laboratory produced, but was just good wholesome organic clean food, and that's the way we did raise our crops and that's how people ate, and people weren’t brainwashed into believing that butter is bad for you or sugar is bad for you or that dairy products are bad for you, but actually people if ate and were exposed to good wholesome nutrition, there would automatically be an increase in people's general health, but that isn't really in the interest of industries producing supposedly necessary products for our ill health.

    RP: Last month, I mentioned the World Health Organization study in Central America that showed that giving a little tiny bit of economic support, such as clean water and a nutritious porridge supplement for pregnant women and children, that that improved the health of the study village relative to one that had no intervention and one that had the intervention with doctors and vaccines and standard medicine. The health went down during the study period. That actually said medicine is bad for you. But even the cleaning up of the environment, which the Rockefeller Foundation was a leader in, trying to prevent hookworm infection, for example, and improving nutrition in schools, that was done because it was realized that sick, undernourished, mentally undeveloped people didn’t make good workers. So there is a way of looking at cleaning up the environment and feeding people that it's good for the corporate economy too. But it happens that it’s even cheaper to use a vaccine and more profitable, even if it wasn’t necessary, if the environment got clean enough and people were well fed, it would still be very profitable to sell the chemical and vaccination approach to health.

    HD: I have a good friend who has done quite a bit of research into vaccinations and I know that he’s had shows here before now on the subject. She was stating that the regular acellular pertussis vaccination has actually increased the Bordetella parapertussis colonization in children and that a lot of children who have this unknown etiological condition with fever and feeling unwellness, but don't have this typical cough that actually this is a Bordetella parapertussis colonization that has come around from vaccination, and that the whooping cough vaccine is actually responsible for this in itself. Have you heard anything about Bordetella parapertussis?

    RP: No, nothing at all.

    HD: Iin terms of immunity in the body, I know, obviously, that you are very – you advocate thyroid hormone and general dietary advice that is on the anti-inflammatory side and use those examples physiologically to show and prove that these things are scientifically correct. In terms of the immune system and what happens with vaccination, would you just describe the kind of basic immune system, what they call the innate immune system versus the kind of adaptive immune system? And then we’ll perhaps talk about how they actually vaccinate you and then, obviously, get into adjuvants, the aluminum and the other products that they put in these vaccines, which end coming up as being responsible for various different things.

    RP: Currently, the medical community, especially, is emphasizing the difference between the innate immune system, which is, they speak of it, as a first barrier to infection and the adaptive system which learns to be specifically immune to invading organisms and that it can be trained by exposing it to the organisms or a fraction of them put into a vaccine. The 1908 Nobel Prize was divided between two proponents of theories of immunity, Paul Ehrlich and Élie Metchnikoff. Metchnikoff was an embryologist, who emphasized the role of phagocytes in destroying or isolating invading material and reconstituting a healthy organism. Ehrlich was interested in the staining properties of cells, and this made him of interest to the chemical companies who– he showed that the chemicals which could stain organisms specifically could also react with equal specificity to pathogens and the idea of a magic bullet came from his approach to chemical specificity. Mercury and arsenic were early examples, later sulfur drugs, that had some specificity to killing the pathogens. But it was the context for almost all thinking about adaptive immunity, and how that specificity could be evoked by vaccines. And meanwhile, the developmental, innate resistance that Metchnikoff talked about was ignored until Jamie Cunliffe and Polly Matzinger in the 90s revived the idea around the concept that danger or damage to the tissue, analogous to when Metchnikoff stuck a splinter into a jellyfish and showed that it was engulfed by phagocytes, wandering cells that could eat invading material and turn it to nutritious use. That was a complete re-thinking of the specific chemical orientation of the adaptive immunity people, who had through the – especially in the 60s and 70s, with the idea of the clonal selection of randomly varied molecules in the immune system, the genes were simply turning out random possibilities, and the exposure to molecules of the host organism or invading organisms, these would govern the selection or destruction of these randomly generated molecules. Magnus Pauling had proposed an instruction theory of the antibodies in which the protein or RNA would wrap itself around in a sense the invading material and then compose a protein antibody that would represent the exposure to the shape, so it didn't require either an infinite number of genes or the specific rapid mutation that could generate almost an infinite number of variable molecules. Since the 1990s, the danger theory has been incorporated into the mainstream of adaptive antibody-centered immunity, but it pretty much limits itself to thinking of the innate system as first a barrier and, second, an amplifier of inflammation, which then simply shifts over to making the adaptive system run faster. So they have accepted the innate immunity, but in a very subordinate way, which is just kind of a first screen and then a booster to the system that they have been working out over the last century.

    HD: How do you feel about the introduction to the adaptive system of fragments of – I don’t know – core proteins or RNA that – it kind of seems to be supposedly underpinning the science behind vaccines, and that the body is then preparing memory T-cells that will jump straight into the fore as soon as they come into contact with the organism in its entirety as and when you come into contact with the bacteria or whatever the thing is you’re being vaccinated for.

    RP: Just by trial and error and empirical results, it’s been known for generations that junk added to an antigen makes it produce more active antibodies. And following that accidental learning, it was found that alum, an aluminum compound, is a good kind of junk that makes the peptide or the protein of the antigen here to be vaccinated with to make it more effective at forming antibodies. And that was just an observed fact without any theory at all to justify. One theory was that the aluminum condensed the protein, sort of flatted them and made a little ball of them that, for some reason, the immune system could deal with better than free-floating proteins. But I think last five or ten years, the tendency is now to see aluminum as an activator of the innate inflammatory process. So there is this growing awareness that it is creating a general inflammation, which then makes the specific response of the adaptive system more energetic. So in the background, it’s recognized that the adjuvant is there probably for the purpose of creating a generalized inflammation in the organism. And that’s where the long-range view of doing no harm is being neglected because the embryological approach to the organism sees that what happens early in development is going to have permanent lifelong effects on how the organism turns out.

    HD: Alright. This was what you mentioned last month about the stream of consciousness, right?

    RP: Yes. So if you introduce an inflammatory state early in the life of a person, it’s really a matter of waiting 20 or 30 or 40 years to see what the effects of that are going to be. And that hasn’t been done in any sense because they were so intent on their simplified molecular view. They talked about the antigen presenting cells, which for many years were simply macrophages that caught the germ and then presented it to cells which could then direct the response of the B cells, bone-derived cells, to make antibodies. But now with the new emphasis on the innate immune system as an inflammation amplifier, it’s recognized that, throughout our skin and mucus membranes, there are cells called dendritic cells which are – they’re really the major antigen presenting cells. Many other cell types can do this, not just macrophages, but the massively present dendritic cells in the skin and mucus membranes are what will, in the normal exposure to germs, our skin, our mouth, our nose, lungs, these are where the germ exposure happens. And so, it’s the dendritic cells mainly which capture the antigen and then present them to mostly the thymus cells, which then activate and instruct the production of antibodies and so on. But in the process of capturing and transferring the reaction to the abnormal or pathogenic protein, it only works if some of the organisms own the cell material, the compatibility factors.

    HD: They may seize.

    RP: Yes. These are broken down and digested into the– the antigens are broken down and attached in fragments to the organism’s own surface proteins groups, compatibility groups. And it’s the combination of invading peptides with the organism’s own normal cell surface that the immunity is developed to. And this, in the extreme form of the danger or damage theory of Jamie Cunliffe, this is the real essence of the whole immune system, but it’s there to restore and maintain the structure of the organism. It’s not primarily designed to attack invaders.

    HD: Alright. Oops, what’s happened to Dr. Peat? Where’s he gone? Dr. Peat, you still…

    RP: Yes, what was that? I didn’t…

    HD: I don’t know. Everything went quiet. I think something might have got played around within the studio.

    RP: I thought it was a caller.

    HD: Yeah. There are actually two callers on the line. So probably now is a good time. I will pick up after we get off the air with whoever is calling in when they do and we’ll pick up what you – the thread of what you were saying there. But let’s take this first caller. You are on the air, caller.

    Caller: Dr. Peat, what’s your thoughts on L-glutamine. I’ve been reading about some people using it to heal stomach ulcers and to restore intestinal integrity.

    RP: I think it should be pretty much limited to what’s available in proteins of the diet, partly because when an amino acid is manufactured in a pure chemical form, it's always going to have risky contaminants that aren’t present in the whole natural protein. And, secondly, a lot of people have talked about the glucose dependency of cancer cells, but actually glutamine is a favorite food for promoting cancer cell growth. And an excess of any single amino acid can be harmful for various reasons, including simply overloading you with ammonia as they breakdown. But it's one of the least harmful. So if you had a clean source of it, it would, in some cases, be beneficial, but I still think it’s risky.

    Caller: Okay. What's the upper limit of glycine on that topic?

    RP: Oh, I think a few grams per day divided into doses of 0.5 to 1 g at a time, I think, would be safe.

    Caller: Okay. You also mentioned in some interviews about activated charcoal to help clean up the intestine if carrots and bamboo shoots weren’t doing the job. How would you go about using activated charcoal?

    RP: First, you want to make sure that it's clean and hasn't been exposed to contaminants in the environment because it will capture things from the air that it’s exposed to. But if you’re sure you have a clean source, you can simply add it to a drink or to food.

    Caller: Like a tablespoon at a time, is that sort of the dose?

    RP: Yes. It depends on what you’re using it for.

    Caller: Okay. All right then. Thank you.

    HD: Okay. Thank you for your call, listener. Okay. We have a second caller on the air. So let’s take the second caller.

    Caller: My question for Dr. Peat was about skin tags. And I was just wondering, basically, what’s the underlying cause. And is there anything topically or otherwise that you could do to get rid of them?

    HD: Sure. Okay, Dr. Peat?

    RP: I don't really know the underlying cause, but they become very common when a person approaches middle age, the age of 40 or 45. And that suggests that there might be a deficiency of the protective, stabilizing hormones. And since the skin is a major hormone synthesizing organ, making sure that you have enough cholesterol and thyroid in your diet, so that you can make a generous amount of the protective steroids, I think, would be helpful. Some people have used topical DHEAs dissolved in oil or progesterone dissolved in oil or even just pulverized – micro-pulverized pregnenolone on skin. And sometimes that will clear up a variety of growths on the skin, including skin tags.

    Caller: Okay. Another quick question, you guys have been talking an awful lot about inflammation. And I was just wondering how Dr. Peat felt about turmeric or ginger or any other kind of like herbal thing that’s supposed to reduce inflammation, supplementing with them or anything.

    RP: Some people are allergic to those. So even though the research looks very good, especially for turmeric, you want to be very careful with any of those herbal things because they have many other components which can trigger strong allergic reactions.

    Caller: Okay, thanks a lot.

    HD: Well, just for the sake of carrying on, there’s another caller on the air. Let’s take the next caller. Hi, caller. You’re on the air.

    Caller: I am hoping to speak to – or have Dr. Peat speak to poor memory and focus.

    HD: Okay.

    Caller: And I know Dr. Peat talked about these students that were having difficulty in topics being taught and I am just hoping to have that – seize that a bit further, low energy, memory, focus, ADHD, so perhaps you could speak a bit to that.

    HD: Sure. Okay, Dr. Peat.

    RP: Having an adequate amount of protein in your diet is an essential first thing. And for the average sized person, between the ages of 20 and 60 anyway, around 100 g of good protein per day optimizes – everything else being equal, optimizes your mental functioning. But there is a study of pilots done by the Pentagon, in which high fat diet was best for the attention and avoidance of accidents in interpreting information. And thiamine – vitamin B1 - is used to produce energy from glucose. And it can make a tremendous difference if you’ve been at all deficient in it. It’s just spectacular what a supplement of 10 mg or more of B1 can do for your mental focus and clarity. And if it isn’t strictly a simple nutritional problem, it’s often low temperature of the brain. If your brain is only 94 and 95 °F, it just isn’t going to function very well in any sense. There were studies in which the brain temperature was raised just by heating the head on the outside, and they found that memory, quickness of response, clarity of reasoning: all increased as the temperature went up even over 99 degrees. I think it was around 101 where the mental capacity was still increasing.

    Caller: Incredible. So you could – I am not sure how one would know if their brain is at an optimum temperature.

    RP: The ear drum.

    Caller: Definitely – go ahead.

    RP: The ear drum thermometers are the closest way to judge your brain temperature intermediately. The type of mental activity you are doing can affect the eardrum temperature on different sides differently.

    Caller: And to correct that? Wearing a beam, would that help to raise the temperature or is that a little too exterior? How would one go about that?

    RP: It can help. People who have a low body temperature in general sometimes have insomnia because of the stress it causes and they find they can sleep better just putting on warm socks and a warm cap. And I think wearing a warm cap, if your head tends to run at a low temperature, is likely to help. But things in the diet that keep your brain temperature up, besides protein, include salt and sugar and the steroids – pregnenolone, DHEA and progesterone – all help to maintain your proper body temperature.

    Caller: You’ve mentioned supplements. I often wonder how well they’re being assimilated. And I know – one would prefer to get them through food. But you don’t see too much of a problem of buying supplements. I don’t know if they can be overdone as well. But an example is protein. I have, in the past, for example, had taken amino acid and protein supplements. But how much you said, I believe, a 100 mg of protein, or would that be equal to [inaudible] or beef or chicken quickly. Not to take too much of your time.

    RP: 100 g of protein per day for even smallish to medium-sized people, in a military study, optimizing their ability to work mentally.

    Caller: Alright. So I can actually look around and kind of tease out what that would actually equal to as far as portions. Yeah, I have definitely suffered from poor memory and focus, both immediate and sort of extrapolating that into sort of a long-term perception of future and all that. That’s sort of ADHD type of stuff. And it definitely gets tiresome. So any little further bits you might have towards that end? I don't know how much perhaps – I don’t know if you can equate that to maybe early brain damage or maybe exposure to inflammation that you speak of or perhaps just even a characteristic of maybe just various types in the species that have a certain function within the species, certain type of job that might be – one might do well in one thing and might not go so well with the modern lifestyle. But, anyway, just maybe any further thoughts with attention deficit and that sort of thing. I will get off the air, but much gratitude to you both, and I would look forward to the show every month. So thank you very much.

    HD: Thank you for the call.

    RP: An example of how to get 100 g of protein would be just 3 quarts of milk all by itself would provide just about the right amount. But you could also get it from 15 eggs or a combination of a quart and a half of milk and a few eggs and some cheese. But you can't depend on the protein in nuts and beans, for example, because their digestibility and quality isn’t equal to the animal proteins, such as milk, cheese and eggs.

    HD: Okay. I think we do have another caller on the air. So let’s take this next caller. You are on the air.

    Caller: A couple of things. I just want to mention – you were talking about covering your head when you're sleeping. I find it really helps to sleep if I cover my head with a towel or a shirt or something like that. It helps a lot. My question was about a galanga or galangal. First of all, I wanted to know, is galanga and galangal the same thing?

    HD: Yes. Galanga is, I think, the same – I think the thing you are talking about.

    Caller: They are both the same herb. It looks like a ginger, right?

    HD: Yes. It’s an Ayurvedic – Indian herb.

    Caller: Galangal is used in Thai foods a lot. And it looks like ginger. And apparently, from some movie I was watching, its use as a treatment for some skin cancers, apparently with some other herbs, breaks down the membrane that protects the cancers from your immune system. [...] Do you guys know anything about it as a medicinal?

    HD: I’ve never used it. I am sorry to say that. It is an herb, but there’s lots and lots of them. And it’s not something I have used. I’ve used lots of ginger, obviously, but it is not one of the plants that I have used in alternative medicine.

    Caller: Thank you very much.

    HD: I am sorry. I couldn’t be of no help for you there. Okay. We do have another caller on the air, so let’s take this next caller. Hi. You’re on the air.

    Caller: Okay. I’ve got a couple of quick questions. I'm from [inaudible] by the way. Number one, I’d like to – I’ve heard a lot about L-arginine that that’s good for you. Can you quickly tell me what that does and if it is good for you?

    RP: It is a precursor to two very important substances. One is the energy reserve that backs up ATP, creatine phosphate, but the other one is nitric oxide. And very often, if you simply supplement arginine, you are going to boost nitric oxide, which turns off your ability to produce energy.

    Caller: Oh. So by itself, it’s not that good, the L-arginine?

    HD: No.

    RP: What was that?

    Caller: So you’re saying that L-arginine by itself is not that good. You have to use with this oxidized stuff?

    RP: Yes. I think it is fairly predictably a risk.

    Caller: Oh. Now, the other thing is vitamin D3, I am not sure what the difference is between vitamin D3 or any other number, but that’s what I was advised to take because I have low vitamin D is 5000 units a day, a proper dose.

    RP: I think that’s currently believed to be correct for the average person in the Northern…

    Caller: So it is not too much?

    RP: I have never heard of it being too much.

    Caller: Okay. On the bottle, it says take it every other day. And I found that a little odd. So you think it is better to take it every day.

    RP: Many people are doing that. And I think the most informed people on the subject say that it’s perfectly harmless and will usually be an adequate amount where the officially recommended few hundred units per day definitely is inadequate for most people.

    Caller: And the other thing is sugar. Now, you say sugar is good for you, but haven’t I heard you say before that you mean sugar from fruits and not refined sugar?

    RP: Occasionally, if the rest of your diet is good, refined sugar can be very helpful. Honey, for example, provides basically the same as refined sugar with a few extra chemicals that can be helpful.

    Caller: Why is sugar helpful? I heard that too much can overact your insulin and cause you to gain too much weight.

    RP: Yes. If you eat too much and are not getting generally good backup nutrition. I recommend it only for therapeutic specific uses. Generally getting your sugar from fruit is the best because of the minerals and other nutrients with it.

    Caller: Well, that sounds right. But, yah, I think that sometimes it might be a bit misleading when you say,‘ oh, sugar is good for you,’ and people are going to think,‘all right, go out and eat donuts and ice cream and that’s fine.’ And I think basically you mean fruit.

    RP: Yes.

    Caller: Okay. Alright, thank you.

    HD: Yeah. I just wanted to say about vitamin D that having seen quite a lot of people’s blood work come back from their test for vitamin D that the reference limit has actually increased in the last year. Most people are low. Most people do not even really reach the therapeutically recognized level of adequate vitamin D. And so, yeah, 5,000 units a day would not seem excessive. Were you going to say something, Dr. Peat? I didn’t want to cut you off.

    RP: I was talking about seeing the innate immune system as a source of inflammation and the barrier function. And something to simply turn on the adaptive immune system that the medical world is thinking about. But I think the inflammatory function is, to some extent, a malfunction of the innate immune system. And it’s when the irritation or damage has not been repaired quickly enough that you see a noticeable inflammation. I think the innate system really is a repair system. And the signals that it sends out which can become inflammatory, I think, are calling in repair cells to repair the damage. And its ideal function shouldn’t reach the stage of inflammation, and it shouldn’t activate the adaptive system strongly. That’s why I see it as the proper line of development, thinking of the organism in the long-range lifelong pattern of development. You don't want to overburden your system and misdirect it by causing repeated inflammation. And an example of why I think it is not primarily a system of producing inflammation is that pregnenolone has been discovered to turn off the immune cells that are activated by, for example, an injury or a parasite or bacteria getting into your skin or mucus membrane. The cells should produce the reaction and call in repair processes, and then they should switch over to producing pregnenolone to stabilize cells and stop the inflammation.

    HD: Interesting. Well, we actually have two more callers, but I don’t think we are going to get a chance to. I think if this caller can be very quick and your response, Dr. Peat, without cutting you short can be equally quick, then perhaps we can take it.

    Caller: My question was about the ketosis concept. I'm curious about ketosis.

    HD: Ketosis.

    Caller: And it’s actually the best idea to eat mostly fat and a little bit of greens, but not grains and no sugar I’ve heard.

    RP: No, I think it activates the stress system if you’re having to produce the ketones yourself.

    Caller: That’s not good? Are you supposed to eat grains?

    RP: If you have some in your diet, precursors that are partly formed already ketones, those are great and are equivalent to sugar, only better.

    Caller: I'm not following here.

    RP: Well, if you have to turn on the process of making them, it means you aren’t getting enough sugar in your diet, enough glucose or fructose.

    Caller: Where do I find this information because everywhere I look it says the opposite.

    RP: Well, you turn on cortisol production when you don’t have enough sugar. And the cortisol has chronic harmful effect, developmental effects that…

    Caller: So you need sugar? Like fruit or from honey or…?

    RP: A fraction of the diet...

    Caller: How much sugar do you need?

    RP: …like milk. Milk has a fraction of sugar, about equal to the amount of protein.

    Caller: Is there any literature that can back up what you’re saying?

    RP: There are articles on my website.

    Caller: All right. Bye-bye.

    HD: Yeah. Thanks for your call. We better call this the end of the evening. And, Dr. Peat, let me give people a chance to reach your website and find out more of what you have there freely available. Thanks, again, for joining us.

    RP: Okay, thank you.
     
Loading...