Ray Peat Rodeo
A picture of Marcus Whybrow, creator of Ray Peat Rodeo From Marcus This is an audio interview to do with Ray Peat from 2016.
It's part of my effort to archive and augment Ray's complete works within this website, Ray Peat Rodeo. You can donate to the project on GitHub sponsors, cheers🥰.

Report Card

  • Content added
  • Content unverified
  • Speakers unidentified
  • Mentions incomplete
  • Issues incomplete
  • Notes incomplete
  • Timestamps incomplete

00:00 Hello everyone, I’m Danny Roddy of DannyRoddy.com and today I’m talking with painter, philosopher, biologist Raymond P. In this hour long episode we’ll talk about the passing of May Wan Ho, Vladimir Bernadsky, carbon dioxide, the NAD plus to NADH ratio, new and old hormones, thyroid brands, powering makes us coffee, and so much more. In addition to thanking Ray for talking with me today, I’d like to thank my patrons for making this show and all the content I produced possible. If you would like to become a patron, please go to patreon.com slash Danny Roddy. As always, please do your own research and come to your own conclusions and in the spirit of William Blake, the true method of knowledge is experiment. Without further ado, here’s the show. 01:09 Hello. Ray. Yeah, hi. Hey, how are you? Good. So for this show, I kind of like had a long list of questions I’ve kind of been thinking about for a while. And since a lot of people ask me of what you think about things, I wanted to clarify what you actually did think about them. So I had a bunch of, so I thought we’d start off with maybe talking about May Wan Ho. I just ran across a review of the rainbow and the worm about 15 years ago, I guess, whenever it came out. And did you think of her as an ally in kind of your fight against mainstream science? Oh, sure. That coherence thing is where I’ve been going since the 60s anyway. In her photos in the rainbow and the worm, had you ever seen anything like that? I feel like talking to people about kind of this idea of science is hard. But when you show them 02:14 those photos, they almost immediately think there’s more to the picture than kind of the materialist science we’ve been sold. Yeah, I think it was about 1958 or 55, maybe when I was in Mexico first, the square in Pot Squirrel, people had laid out the different fish they had caught. Two different kinds of them were transparent, sort of like green jello. And then I ate, they called them white fish. And I had some delicious fried transparent fish that were just like ordinary white fish when they were cooked, opaque bones, everything. But I was intrigued by how something with bones and blood and guts and everything hard and all of the standard organs, 03:17 how it could be perfectly transparent when it was uncooked. And that made me think about the light being sort of carried in channels to bypass the bones, effectively making bones and liver and everything disappear. And that could only happen if the organism was like a crystalline, liquid crystalline, like she talks about and you’ve also mentioned. Well, that got me interested in how water works all by itself. In around the same time, I was interested in electrical fields in organisms and water. And the idea of light conductivity in special ways inside a plasm connected to the idea that organisms are sensitive, 04:24 not only to electrical currents and fields, but to magnetic fields because we have our own electrical currents inside. And so a moving charge is sensitive to the magnetic environment. And the first person’s research that I studied in any depth was Yuri Holodov. And I went to Moscow in 68 to talk to him about his biomemetrics or magnetobiology approach. And through him, I then got interested in Madeleine Barnarty and her work on magnetobiology. She and her husband applied good physics to studying the dousing 05:31 phenomenon and found that organisms could detect extremely weak magnetic fields, for example, caused just by water oozing underground slow movement of slightly ionized water is enough for an organism like a person to detect. And trying to understand how that works, then I found Salko Trump’s book Psychical Physics was the title of that in 1945 or so it was published. And he reviewed the old literature on liquid crystals and argued that the cytoplasm is like liquid crystals. And you know how the computer monitors the screen operates on the principles that a weak electrical field will reorder the liquid crystal that the biology behind 06:42 that was before the industry technology application of it, using that as the argument to explain the extreme sensitivity to electrical fields and magnetic fields. Was that post your discovery of Vernadsky or pre? Were you interested in that magnetic biology because of your understanding of? No, I found Vernadsky after that. After? And how did that tie in perfectly with what you were interested in? Vernadsky? Yeah, sure. He just gave the bigger picture of how energy guides these intricate structures in the cells of organisms. He used Le Chatelier’s principle to show that when you disturb a system, it defines a new equilibrium by adjusting whatever needs adjusting just by 07:50 thinking in that context that the organism is responding to the available energy with the sun or volcanic energy as the source. He reasoned with that simple physical chemical principle that the complexity and intensity of energy flow both would tend towards a maximum. So he said that big trees develop under big energy flows, big brains, big brain mammals develop when there’s an opportunity for high energy flow. When you were talking about magnetism, that reminded me of when you said you thought that he was a, or did he call himself a geocosmic realist? Yeah, he had various composite names for what he was doing. 08:54 That’s a pretty cool title. Yeah, the cell code Trump called himself, I think, a biogeometeorologist. That segue is pretty well into the next issue. Last time we talked, we covered a lot of ground on pre-nutrition for women and then post-nutrition for women, which I’m going to get wrong again, but that was in 1975. From 73 to 75, I guess. And then you reissued it in 1993 and you wrote Generative Energy in 1994. Well, yeah, actually, I was writing on Generative Energy through the 80s. It accumulated mind and tissue was the first one I wrote, actually. And I gave it to a flaky publisher who lost all the references. And I think the chapter on Pavlov was lost too. So I had to rewrite that, but never bothered to fix the missing references because the books were all in different libraries. 10:00 We discussed some of the motivation behind nutrition for women. Was mind and tissue what you were truly interested in at the time versus some of the things? Yeah, that was my intense interest. And the nutrition for women was just practical things that some women friends told me would make a useful compilation. And then do you think Generative Energy was kind of a marriage of those two things or no? Well, yeah, I think it was probably Pernadsky that was the kernel for putting those together. I’m interested in how, because I search your older work for like carbon dioxide, and it seems, although you’re constantly talking about thyroid and the importance of thyroid, it seems that, and I could be wrong, that the emphasis on carbon dioxide might be a little less a couple of decades ago versus more now. And so I’m curious if things shifted or that you became more interested in carbon dioxide as time went on, maybe in like the 11:03 early 2000s. It was sometime in the late 90s, I think was. And what like spurred that interest? I think people asking me about Buteco, I had read Buteco’s some of his articles in I think 1969 or so, but I just didn’t really think very much of it, except it seemed valid. And I was interested at that time in several gases, the way nitrogen fixation by chickens and mammals and people from the atmosphere was what got me interested in Buteco. The Russians were using nitrogen in their space vehicles with oxygen, where the Americans were using helium. And there were some publications arguing that you should always breathe some helium along with your oxygen because of the fact that it can be fixed. Hemoglobin is apparently a nitrogen 12:10 fixing molecule in birds and mammals, as well as bacteria. And thinking about how the gases are metabolized, for example, how does a fish keep its swim bladder inflated? The idea of in effect pumping gases or pumping gases in or out. And the idea of the negative space between the lungs and the plural membrane, there’s in effect a vacuum there. The membranes are tightly in contact. But if you get a leak, your lungs collapse. If you punch a hole in the lung, the air goes out into that space and the lung shrivels up. And so something is pumping all of the gas, absolutely all of the gas out of that space between your chest and the lungs. That idea of creating a vacuum by somehow pulling the oxygen and nitrogen, most of the air 13:17 volume is nitrogen. So it’s easy to see that you can subtract the oxygen from that space, but that would leave nitrogen bubbles around your lungs. So something apparently is pulling the nitrogen out of that space constantly. And none of my professors would even talk about that issue. Anyway, that left me thinking about the metabolism of all of the gases and the idea that you can excrete salts. I was worried about the turtles that have salt glands on their nose or eyes to excrete excess sodium. And the membrane pump people were saying, see that proves that there are these marvelous little pumps that throw the ions out of the cells. 14:23 So on investigating that, I saw that there’s carbonic anhydrase in there. And just by changing the association of carbon dioxide with water, you affect its solubility. If the acid moves out of the cell, it for electric to maintain electric neutrality, it takes a positively charged ion with it. So every time carbonic acid, acid leaves the cell, so does some sodium. And then carbonic anhydrase, if needed, can liberate the carbon dioxide, this gas leaving just the sodium, which usually becomes sodium chloride or whatever other ions are available. You said that carbon dioxide is the context for all life processes. And I think it was, was it mitochondria and mortality? And that you said carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increasing can cause spontaneous the creation of mitochondria. Do you find that’s like a pivotal 15:29 thing for higher evolution was a increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Well, at the time, the carboniferous period geologically of the carbon dioxide was, I forget, 12%!o(MISSING)r something really intense in the atmosphere for those periods. And that really stimulated a great abundance of life. The way I see the ATP synthesis, I don’t think it’s anything fancier than the fact that if you write out the equation, you see H2O and phosphate becoming ATP and water become phosphate. If you subtract water from the equation, the phosphate turns into ATP. I don’t think I said that right. But anyway, 16:31 if you look at the equation and subtract water, it gives you ATP. And since carbonic anhydrase is in the mitochondria and closely associated with the formation of ATP, I think its purpose there is partly to turn the newly formed carbon dioxide into carbonic acid, which then leaves taking away water and creating ATP by dehydrating the phosphate. Speaking of carbon dioxide, to get in more in like applicable zone of like what we’re talking about, a lot of people are talking about ketogenesis, ketosis, diets, and things like that. And I think I read on, I think it was your reference that carbon dioxide was an NADH, it stimulated NADH oxidase. And that would be something, 17:33 besides supporting mitochondrial respiration in general, that would support the NAD plus to NADH ratio? Yeah, it’s, I think it’s the function, as in Gilbert Ling’s sense, an adsorbent that pulls electrons out of the system and makes a protein more actively acidic. I think it has that effect all through the cell. And one of the effects of that is to let the cell release any excess water, so it has an anti-swelling effect. And the retraction of the electrons by that cardinal adsorbent action on the proteins shifts the whole electronic state of the cell, making electrons starser. And that ends up shifting the ratio between NAD and NADH towards the oxidized NAD side. 18:36 While I was thinking about these processes of electrons in the cell, after reading Gilbert Ling, then I read some Ephraim Racker and Albert St. Georgie talking about electrons in cells. St. Georgie’s, one of his books was called Bioelectronics. He was trying to account for the electronic behavior of cells. And Ephraim Racker coined the phrase, nothing dehydrogenase. And St. Georgie, working in England in the 1920s, I think it was studied related things that there seems to be electrons or the equivalent of hydrogen from unidentified sources in living cells. Ephraim Racker removed all of the known fuel sources from cells, but his indicators of reductions kept getting reduced. And so he said that dehydrogenases were causing 19:39 these chemicals to be reduced, but without unknown source, it seemed to be an endless supply of electrons. So he called them the nothing dehydrogenases. And St. Georgie theorized that these were some of the mobile electrons in the cytoplasmic protein lipid systems and nucleic acid systems with some of his associates were showing semi-conductive properties for both nucleic acids and proteins based on this mobility of electrons. Normally protein, fat, and carbohydrate are the substrates for the electron flow. And you’re saying that because the electrons were in the cell without any substrates that led to St. Georgie thinking that there was like an electric conductivity to the cell that wasn’t previously thought before? Yeah, that they might be proteins of the cell might be catching electrons from the environment. And in the last 15 years, people are now talking about the transplasma membrane oxidases. Many 20:46 people are experimenting with these indicators of dehydrogenase activity. They turn red or purple when they get reduced. And using chemicals that don’t enter cells because they’re strongly electrically negatively charged, they show that oxygen is removing electrons from the cell, oxidizing NADH to NAD, taking electrons out and changing color without entering the cell. So they’re showing that cells don’t need mitochondria for oxidative metabolism. It can happen right at the surface of the cell. Someone designed cells lacking the gene necessary to make mitochondria and still the cell respired. That’s really interesting. In your receptors fields and therapies, 2014 New Zutter, I wanted to talk about the ketone body ratio. And I just realized that some people think that the NADH should be increased to NAD plus. And so do you think that’s where the confusion 21:48 about the ketone body ratio is? For example, I think in keto acids as medicine by Veach, who’s obviously a pretty smart guy, he says beta hydroxybutyrate as a substrate increases NADH relative to NAD plus. Yeah, that’s where I absolutely disagree. And it involves everything bioelectronics and electrode physiology and everything. But I think Gilbert Ling might be the only person who would agree with me on this. Oh, and Robert Becker, body electric, absolutely in agreement with him. But May Wan Ho in her article on cancer as a redox disease, I think was the title. In that, I think she makes the common mistake of seeing cancer as not having enough electrons for I think that’s its essential problem. It has too many electrons in the form of too much NADH and all of the pairs of redox like too much lactic acid and 22:50 not enough pyruvic acid, everything that is in balance is shifted in cancer heavily towards the lactic acid side. And the hydroxybutyric acid is just one of those redox couples that can, if you get too much of it, shift you in the direction of cancer. One of the experiments that May Wan Ho’s article, cancer as a redox disease, she cited a study in which the charge on a tumor was reversed that they applied, I think she cited this article saying that they regressed the cancer by applying a negative field or it was measured as having a positive charge rather than a negative charge. But Robert Becker and my own measurements and many other people see a tumor or a cancer as an injury and inflammation and the traditional language for this kind of electric charge is called the injury potential. If you cut your skin or any tissue 23:51 that is damaged, it increases inflammation and lactic acid and so on. There is a strong shift to electric negativity and Gilbert Ling explained the so-called resting electric potential, which is highly negative in a healthy cell as a battery effect of the way you measure it traditionally is with a concentrated three molar, I think it is solution of potassium chloride. And he said that just this high concentration is enough to account for the potential. And when you measure a cancer cell, you get very little charge when you poke an electron in. But if you measure outside of the cancer cell, you have this negative field, that’s the injury potential. It’s the same as if you cut a healthy area and had an open wound, you would have a shift to the negative electrical charge. And one of my projects in graduate school was cell electrophoresis. There 24:54 was a guy at the University of Oregon Medical School in Portland doing it on a variety of cells. And so I built my own apparatus and put in cancer cells in one end of a little glass tube and a battery mild electric DC potential from one end of the glass tube to the other. And then with a microscope, you would look at the cancer cells in the tube as you turned on the electric field. And if the cell has a high surface negative charge, it moves quickly towards the positive pull. And if it’s almost neutral, it just sits there. And if it has a positive charge, it moves towards the negative pull. And I got very clear evidence that the cancer cells moved towards the positive pull. And other people with good apparatus, which I didn’t have, have measured highly malignant cancer cells, a moderately malignant and mildly malignant, non-metastasizing 25:58 cancer cells and found that the higher their surface negative charge, the more malignant the cancer is. You don’t measure it when you stick the electrode in because your reference electrode is no different. The inside is no different from the outside, where a healthy cell is oxidizing, subtracting electrons, creating a basically a positive, slightly acidic condition. And if you poke one electrode into it, you disturb that and you get a difference between the oxidizing region and the broken, not oxidizing region, which measures as a negative field. And there’s six years, so years of good biochemical background for why this happens. Dan Mazia, for a long time at University of California, Berkeley, and I think at the Stanford Marine Biology Station at Monterey, he, in the 50s, to understand the cell division process was staining 27:01 cells at different stages of growth. And he showed that the sulfhydryl groups, which are normally oxidized to a fair degree, causing proteins to stick to each other by covalent sulfur-sulfur bonds, which requires that the hydrogens be removed from sulfhydryl groups. The glutathione GSH, if you oxidize two of them, take the Hs away, you get GSSG, and proteins are rich in sulfhydryl groups. And so if you take away the hydrogens, they stick together. If you put the hydrogen back, reduce the proteins, they become separated at that point, change their structure and become more open and mobile. And Dan Mazia and associates were showing that there is a tremendous increase in the reduced condition of very intense staining of sulfhydryl groups that appears at the beginning of cell division and disappears when the cell division is completed. 28:06 And St. Georgie was working on cells like muscles and nerves through the 40s and 50s, and showing some very analogous things in his theory of muscle contraction was that it was powered electronically by the conduction of electrons through these semiconducting proteins. And just by action in connection with estrogen metabolism and quinone physiology or biochemistry that got St. Georgie started on this, I was working along the estrogen side of the system in which estrogen shifts away from quinone oxidative physiology to a reductive physiology. And in extracting stuff from liver, I was looking for uberquinone related things, and I found that vitamin E in a very pure form with its more or less neutral sort of amber pale color and uberquinone or other quinones with their orange color. When I combined them, 29:09 they turned instantly inky black. If you’ve deluded that it was a sort of a greenish black, and when I put dots of this black combination of the quinone and vitamin E on paper chromatography and passed a solvent up the paper, the vitamin E and the quinone moved at different speeds, and so they separated. It wasn’t a covalent bond that was causing this color change. The solvent pulled the vitamin E right away from the quinone, restoring the pale color of the original material. That’s called a donor acceptor bond in which an electron momentarily leaves the vitamin E and moves over for a very short time to the quinone, but then snaps back because the vitamin E has developed a positive charge in the absence, and you get an oscillation of the electron which acts like a system of double bonds within most pigment molecules. That oscillating electron 30:14 is strong enough to have a slight binding influence. It’s much weaker than a covalent bond because the electron isn’t really taken up stably by the quinone. Saint George used a variety of these donors and acceptors. In my pair, it was ubiquinone and vitamin E, but he found many substances if they were close enough to each other in their electronegativity. They could form this kind of a colored bond, and he wondered why the liver is dark purple, blackish purple colored, when there’s, if you try to extract anything colored from the liver, grinding it up in alcohol, you immediately get a white, white salad material with a slight tint from things like vitamin A and ubiquinone, but he would say, here’s the living liver in a very dark, intensely pigment-like condition. When you kill it, it’s immediately colorless, and he was suggesting that it’s a donor 31:18 acceptor relationship between something and the protein, or maybe the donor and acceptor at different points on the protein with the electron moving along the protein and being able to accept light and create the darkening effect, and he found that if he put in one of his, for example, a donor in a muscle preparation, nothing would happen. If he put in the acceptor substance in the muscle preparation, nothing happened. If he put in very unrelated electronegativities, nothing happened, but if he put in a donor and acceptor pair with just the right relationship to each other, the muscle contracted, and that was his argument that the muscle contraction is essentially an electronic process, and that the living state, such as in the liver, involves this type of conductivity and light absorbing property, but without contraction in the case of the liver. You wrote somewhere that a group was using the estrogen myth to verify the nitric oxide myth, 32:26 then to verify the serotonin myth, and they were using like a series of myths to substantiate their claims, and that’s what it sounds like, the NADH, NAD, the whole thing would go off the rails if you thought that the NADH should be higher than NAD+, and then the whole view would be skewed. Yeah, and it extends all the way to if the cancer cell and the nerve cell have this deficit or excess of electrons, then you’re making a statement about how your electrometer is working, and even about how your redox measurement and pH measuring meters are working. It involves a misinterpretation all along the line. The electrode is misunderstood, the relationship between pH and redox is misunderstood, so it’s really, I tried making the argument a couple of times to professors, and for example, I said if the pH meter is working by protons, hydrogen ions, in fact diffusing 33:33 through the desoblast you call a membrane, why does it work when you fill it with mercury atoms? And they really like that? Being challenged? Well, like St. Georgie wasn’t, I mean, I wasn’t around, but like, he wasn’t a fringe character saying these things, and it sounds like he was getting a lot of things right. Why wasn’t he taken seriously at the time? Was his work not conducive to making products? Yeah, the commercial level of science just couldn’t do anything with him, and pretty much the same with Warburg, and I don’t think Warburg really paid enough attention to St. Georgie. He was a more practical concrete person than St. Georgie, but I think St. Georgie was really on the right track. Everything that he proposed practically was validated 30 or 40 years later. I think in his book, The Living State, he said that nature never gets rid of anything and only 34:34 builds on top of it. In an old interview, you said that serotonin might be a very old hormone, and then yesterday I was reading that prolactin also was thought to be a pretty old hormone, and I was pretty intrigued when you said that originally about serotonin. Do you think of the hormones as having a layered effect in evolution? Oh, yeah, and that’s the problem with therapies. They forget that when they fix one layer, the organism can go wrong above and below it in many other ways. If they’re thinking in molecule acting locally on a receptor, they’re forgetting the whole big picture of this electric state, an excess of electrons, for example, will activate hormones at all of these levels, the oldest and the newest in a coordinated way, and so for conventional drug therapy for 35:37 any disease, including cancer, becomes infinitely complicated. The fact that the organism is coherent in May-One-Ho’s sense makes the therapy basically possibly coherent and very simple, something like changing the environment in a coherent and appropriate direction, rather than trying to, in a reductionist way, act on parts of the organism. If you change the polar outside conditions, the Bernadsky energy source and sink, then you’re giving the organism a better opportunity to refine and maintain its coherence. Do you look at the growth hormones and the ones that inhibit oxidative metabolism as the oldest, and then the ones that promote differentiation and oxidative metabolism as newer? Yeah, and I think the hormones are all of them, in a sense, they’re used on an ad hoc basis, whatever the organism has at hand it will use. So I think the healthy 36:38 organism in the healthy environment, in the Bernadsky sense, something that’s making good energy available, in that condition you’d hardly need your hormones. The flow of energy is the whole thing, and the way you use the energy, the proper application of your differentiated state, that has all of the functions that the hormones can be used for, and since the hormones all have some harmful side effects, like when the pituitary was removed from animals, they lived several times longer, showing that largely their reproductive related hormones were responsible for aging, and if you can use the flow of energy as the organizing principle, then the movement of electrons forming water, and of oxygen, and of fuel, such as sugars forming carbon dioxide, then the flow of carbon dioxide and water will be having the differentiating, structuring hormone-like 37:39 action. I think Karen asked you maybe a while ago in one of the 10 questions. It was something like, do you see, is there like a necessity to aging, and you replied that you hadn’t seen any evidence of that? Is this kind of the Alexis Carroll, the heart mitochondria, or the cells that just kept thumping until his lab closed down? Is that kind of along the same lines of what you’re talking about? Yeah, I think it’s our particular environment, more specifically the temperature and oxygen pressure of our environment. The temperature makes many of the organisms produce unsaturated fat, but our brain development to use the energy that’s available doesn’t like polyunsaturated fats. They oxidize and antagonize oxygen. They’re contrary to the flow of energy from sugar to carbon dioxide. So in this environment with relatively high oxygen pressure and very unstable fats, the process of living has a kind of negative hormonal influence. It’s giving us 38:44 signals to take emergency measures, and those emergency measures don’t let us realize the proper Vernadskyan organism. Do you think there’s like a time in a person’s life that represents kind of that ideal metabolic state, or do you think in our past that metabolic state was realized versus this stress-ridden culture of stress and adaptive hormones? People have observed that newborn humans and cows, the newborn calf, has an essentially saturated fat brain. People have said this is dreadful that babies are born with an essential fatty acid deficiency in their brain, but it happens that when you increase the unsaturated fats in a pregnant animal or human, the brain is smaller and less functional at birth. And in the healthy situation where you’re born with a saturated tissue, as you eat these environmental fats, they are constantly slowing 39:46 your metabolism, constantly having an estrogen-like effect, tending to reduce the differentiated cell turn everything into a sort of a fibrous lump eventually. The ideal state would be something that could be foreseen from maybe an early fetus if you could keep the environment providing energy and carbon dioxide and just the right amount of oxygen, but with fuels that weren’t contaminated with unsaturated fats and heavy metals. Then we could see what the proper trajectory is for a mammal like people. I wanted to switch gears into, and let me know if you have to go, and you can bail out at any time. I had like a couple questions about antibiotics, thyroid brands, and yeah. But I wanted to ask you, a lot of people are super interested in your take on antibiotics, just like generally the macrolides, the tetracyclines, and penicillin VK, and then 40:49 is gas or diarrhea, like how do you even know that you might benefit from an antibiotic? Experimenting is as good. I was prejudiced against medicine, and so I was reluctant to ever use such things, but once I was sick and the landlady gave me something, and I had this characteristic penicillin odor in my mouth and nose, and it went with a kind of euphoria, and I’ve always noticed that just about the time I can smell penicillin on my breath, there is this euphoric sense of well-being, and I think that means that before that I was always in a slight state of stress and emergency from the whatever bacteria were producing irritants and toxins, and just as soon as those stopped producing the toxins, I would have this very pleasant euphoric sensation. I’ve noticed exactly what, I think you wrote an email to somebody that you had the sensation, and then I forget my first few experiences. I was watching for that as I was 41:52 taking the penicillin, and it happened, and I was pretty intrigued by it. One of the things that I’m interested in that I probably should explore more, but I couldn’t find any specific information, but maybe in the past, I don’t know if you feel the same way now, but you suggested two to four days of using penicillin versus a longer dose of that. Was that something you had figured out, or what was the rationale behind that? I think it was eating the sandwich and mangoes in Mexico. I got a very bad intestinal condition and abscess on my jaw, and I realized there was a very quick connection between intestinal inflammation and oral health. Later, I knew a dentist at some of the conferences or the molecular meetings and such, Earl Clary, who no one seemed to pay any attention to it. He gave presentations on various things, but he said that he had stopped his very profitable practice treating periodontal disease with 42:58 surgery. He said, now he just gives them a laxity, and he doesn’t have to do periodontal surgery. So if the bowels aren’t right in your teeth, or something’s wrong with your teeth, that could be a big indicator? Yeah, and for something, if you have a big intestinal mass of putrid material that can take two or three days before moderate dose of penicillin can kill that off. I get this question every day. Do you have any confidence in other current thyroid brands because Sinoplus and Sinomel are not being sold anymore? I know you don’t want to endorse any specific product, but is there anything out right now that you think is maybe a good substitute? For a while in Mexico, when I wasn’t able to get Sinoplus or Sinomel, I found other brands that were regularly sold there. One was Proloid S, and Proloid used to be the concentrated fibroblabulin, the colloid material without the rest of the plant, but it was at least as good as 44:05 the old Armour product. But then like Armour created their fibrolar as a synthetic equivalent, Proloid created Proloid S, and I think that’s still available at least somewhere in the world. And Novoterel is another of the synthetic imitations, except it has a 5 to 1 ratio of T4 to T3 instead of the more ideal 4 to 1 or 3 to 1. Do you know any replacement for Sinomel? Like T3 Pro is mentioned frequently? That’s the Saudi company, a profound pharmaceutical, I think. Maybe, I’m not sure. I think that’s what I used for about a week, and it did feel pretty normal to me, so I would guess that it’s what they advertise it to be. Synthetic versus desiccated, you would expect the desiccated like a WP thyroid to work much slower than the synthetic version, if it was a good synthetic. A little slower. A little slower, but it’s not a big deal. Two or three hours to digest. 45:07 Can you explain how you make your coffee, because a lot of people are extremely interested? Really, whatever is convenient, but usually filling a paper filter, sometimes a coffee sock, but currently the little paper cones. When the water is getting hot, I start and moisten the coffee without really getting it very hot. Then, as the water gets hotter and hotter, I keep adding. The first coffee that drips through is cool and very mild tasting, very little caffeine in it, but it doesn’t evaporate or degrade some of the delicate aldehydes type flavor molecules. Supposedly, they’re the most antioxidant part, and they’re destroyed if you put the boiling water directly onto the grounds. So, I like to get some of the mild low temperature extract for flavor and then put a little of the fully boiling water at the very end to get all the caffeine. 46:09 So, you do boil it at the end? Yeah, just the last half cup or so of water. At what point is the magnesium most readily available? Like, what temperature? I think it comes out all along the way. I think it’s loose, so you get it. Even if you soak it and make cold coffee, you’re getting magnesium and the so-called antioxidants. And what would be a ratio for strong coffee, like the grounds versus water, for you? I’ve never weighed it, but a pound of coffee doesn’t last very long. That’s obviously like a big thing to your approach, right? Because, I mean, you often say you’re drinking five cups of coffee. Like, to me, that’s always demonstrated that you were very pro food and were trying to get the most out of the normal easily accessible foods versus some complicated regimen of tons of pills. Yeah, partly it’s because all of the manufacturing processes, the industry has gone towards profit 47:14 and cheapness and vitamin E is no longer anything like it was 70 or 80 years ago. The stuff I used in the lab that reacted with the ubiquinone to produce the black color, I tried that with various more recent types of vitamin E and didn’t work. So, we know that they’re taking out different fractions from the vitamin E and the wax like highly saturated fatty acids. I think a big part of why the old vitamin E in the 1930s and 40s, why it was so much more therapeutic than the more recent vitamin E studies that show it’s really nothing but an antioxidant that doesn’t have any of those extremely therapeutic effects that it did 60 years ago. Do you use Folgers coffee? Is that what you like? No, there’s a guy in town who scorches his own beans and it’s just whatever he has that tastes good. So, you’re not looking for anything specific or how they’re grown or anything? 48:15 Oh, yeah. It varies. Panamanian coffee is the worst. Awesome, Ray. I don’t know if you have to go, but I could keep talking to you. I wanted to talk about, I’m sad, we didn’t really get to your newsletter, but if you want to talk about it, I’d love to talk about it, but if you have to go, I understand. But I was just going to ask you what you were working on next and if you wanted to talk about your newsletter. Oh, well, the next newsletter, I think I’ll write about cancer and probably some of this electronic stuff. The cancer industry, I think, is starting to realize some of the problems. There are people still saying, no, it’s still the way it always was, but I think it was last week in JAMA, there was an article on questioning whether so much emphasis on breast mammograms was really productive and the prostate doctors in the 90s, someone did a survey and asked these specialists, urologists, what they would do if they had prostate cancer themselves. 49:18 And a majority of them said they wouldn’t do anything. And there have been other parallel studies, but before that came out, quite a few doctors started letting their patients avoid surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy for the prostate cancer. Before that, in the 80s, the prostate specific antigen was just being researched. And at that time, the mortality, I think it was 20 per 100,000 population per year. Then they discovered the PSA and told everyone to have that measured and they found lots of people with very high PSA and told them to have biopsies. And so suddenly the diagnostic rate for prostate cancer surged hugely, but that isn’t the important thing. 1992, the death rate from prostate cancer in just about 10 years increased 50%!t(MISSING)o 30 per 100,000. So the more 50:24 diagnosis and treatment in that situation really very clearly showed that the more medicine you have, the more deaths you have. And John Goffman, the radiation specialist, he did nationwide statistical studies and showed that breast cancer and heart disease correspond very closely to the access to medicine. So that with the rich area around Merian in California, I think it was at that time the highest cancer mortality in the US. West Virginia was the lowest. What was it? Harding Jones that went around the world and thought that if you just did nothing, you’d live a longer and healthier life? Yeah. And currently Gershom Zeitschak, G-A-J-I-C-E-K is saying something very similar. He has suggested that the tumor itself might be an ad hoc organ trying to defend the body against what whatever is the problem. For example, he showed studies where when a mole or a melanoma 51:26 was removed, suddenly they popped up all over the body. And knowing that sort of study a couple of times, doctors told me that I definitely had to have a biopsy of a big ugly mole. And I happened to be experimenting with DHEA at one time just after a doctor had mentioned that. And just two or three days after I had been fooling around with some DHEA, the moles swelled up like a maraschino cherry and basically ate itself up. And so every time after that, when I would get a diagnosable melanoma, big, ugly, huge, one thing was as big as a jumble olive in front of my ear. And each time I got one of those, I would just put a little bit of either progesterone or DHEA and vitamin E on the skin near it, not touching it with it. But within a few days, those things would sometimes within hours, they would radically change. For example, a color would change from spotty blue and white to a nice tan color or the big black thing would 52:31 start shrinking and always anywhere from one day to disappearing to two weeks. The biggest, the one like a jumble olive took almost two weeks, but the last little bit of it was like a gray-green little dry mushroom which fell off leaving no scar. That’s it for me, Ray. Thank you. Did you want to say anything else before I let you go? Ray, thank you so much. It’s a total pleasure. Thank you. Have a great rest of your day and I’ll talk to you soon. Okay, very good. Thank you. Okay, bye Ray. That’s going to conclude this week’s episode. I’d like to thank Ray again for talking with me today along with my patrons for their support of the show and all the content I produce. If you enjoyed that episode, please hit that like button on YouTube or if you’re listening elsewhere, just share it with a friend. Also, please leave any comments or criticisms in the comments section and I’ll try to get to them as well. Thank you so much for listening. We have 53:33 an amazing listenership and I appreciate just everybody listening and giving me positive feedback about it. So thanks again. I’ll talk to you guys soon. Take care.

More Interviews