Suppression of Cancer Treatments

00:00 If you have any questions for Politics and Science, you can direct them by email to politicsandscienceatmadriver.com. That’s politicsandscienceatmadriver.com. Politics and Science presents the viewpoints of its participants and does not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of any other person or organization. Hello and welcome to Politics and Science. I’m your host, John Barkasen. Today we feature an archive of my interview of Dr. Raymond Peat, Ph.D., recorded at WGDR circa 2001. In this show he discusses the remarkable story of Dr. Stefan Durevich in his cancer treatment known as Crobyazin. He also covers the heroic but ultimately fruitless efforts by Dr. Andrew C. Ivy, who was at the time one of America’s most prominent scientists. Dr. Ivy attempted to give this promising treatment the clinical testing that its positive findings warranted. 01:04 In case you’re interested in this subject, the meticulously written book that tells the story in detail is by Herbert Smith Bailey and is called K. Crobyazin, Key to Cancer. That’s spelled out at the end of the show. In this show, Dr. Peat also discusses the suppressed work of an earlier brilliant cancer researcher called Dr. William F. Koch, M.D. and Ph.D. in his successful cancer treatments. If you’re interested in Dr. Raymond Peat’s work, many of his writings are available at his website, raypeat, r-a-y-p-e-a-t dot com. And now, once again, here’s Dr. Raymond Peat. A.C. Ivy, these people all overlap for various reasons, partly because several of the alternative health, especially alternative cancer treatment people were working on essentially the same ideas. 02:12 And they were all attacked by the established forces that were working on different assumptions. What year was this? Oh, Koch started his work. I think one of his publications was 1911, another 1914, and by the 1920s, he had the clinic going in Cleveland. He was a professor of medicine and chemistry, and he was the first person to take seriously for biochemistry the work on free radicals of Moses Gomberg, who demonstrated that free radicals really exist. They aren’t just a hypothesis that exists only on paper, but Moses Gomberg showed that highly colored chemicals appear when you can get free radicals to separate in solution. 03:22 And the color is because the electron that is no longer paired is free enough that it absorbs light in the visible spectrum. And so that’s one of the simple ways to test an unpaired electron is that suddenly the solution goes dark. And even chemists didn’t take Gomberg seriously. In Russia, he was a major influence, but in the United States for probably 40 or 50 years free radical chemistry just couldn’t take off. The industrial chemist I think was Dupont himself, maybe not, but anyway it was the head of one of the early plastics companies, told William Koch that he had better be quiet about the idea of applying free radical chemistry in medicine 04:41 because people didn’t even understand it in organic or during chemistry and that they were going to say he was talking about fantasies if he talked about the free radical basis of biology. And it was around 1950s that the instrumentation became available to demonstrate that free radicals really did exist in living tissue. And what was the name of the scientist who ran for president in I think the Peace and Freedom Party in the 1970s? Very commoner. He was one of the first people to demonstrate free radicals existing in living tissues. I didn’t know that. When did the free radical theory start? 05:46 Well about 1905 I think, 1900 to 1905 was when Moses Gomberg was demonstrating them, but immediately Koch was putting it into theoretical thinking about what cells are doing. And he applied it to the concept of polymerization and blood clotting as his first thing and he knew that in healing a wound or a cancer blood clotting is one of the first things that happens and the clotting abnormalities are characteristic of cancer. And it turned out that for places like Dupont the polymerization was in fact a very important practical industrial principle using the free radical. 06:48 But Koch anticipated even industrial thinking within just a few years of starting to work on it. He was applying it theoretically and practically to devise both explanations for disease and therapies. And he seems like quite a brilliant man. Yeah, so quick to apply knowledge that was very clear and definite but other people couldn’t accept it because it just didn’t seem to fit the lowest standard that was common in chemistry and all branches of science and biology at that time. The free radical theory that must have come out of the atomic theory of electrons. 07:53 Yeah, ordinary chemistry on paper they would show an atom coming loose or an atom with other atoms attached to it coming loose from another group and taking one electron away where each atom had been contributing an electron to a pair that made a stable compound. And on paper they could take away a group with one electron and allow it to combine somewhere else but they just couldn’t believe that that could really exist in a watery solution for example. But how was this Gomberg first did it was with I think was triphenyl ethane. Anyway it had three large carbon rings attached to one tiny little molecule in the center. 09:07 And the tendency of the benzene ring to repel because they were placed too close together and the whole group wasn’t very soluble in water. The force of the water and the closeness of these large groups if you diluted if you kept adding water to a solution of this compound as it got very highly dilute the color would suddenly change from clear to a deep purple. As you got it diluted enough the groups would be able to fall apart from each other and exist freely in solution. This anyone that knew homeopathy which a well educated doctor did in 1900 knew that the principle of homeopathy was that some compounds become chemically more reactive when they’re highly diluted. 10:25 And so it was natural for someone with a medical education to see the importance of this chemical principle but not many people who had studied homeopathy as well as classical medicine also studied chemistry which Coke did. And the first time I heard about Coke was I think 1943 or 44 people were circulating little mimeographed newsletters about the scandal of how he was being persecuted by the FBI and so on. And the history of his two trials it’s been written up and Coke himself told some of the stories and these stories have never been refuted. 11:28 They’re pretty well documented. He said that criminals who tried to kill him later were proven to be at that time agents of the FBI. And the public didn’t start hearing of mob FBI connections or CIA connections until the church committee in the 70s brought out the stuff but it was something that had been going on for a long time. Is that Pre-Hoover? Oh no. That was Hoover. Yeah Hoover was there for about 50 years. Yeah. Yeah he was quite a gangster. Yeah. So and why were they going after him at that point? Well his clinic was so successful in Cleveland that it was bringing a lot of attention to him even though he followed Dupont’s advice and maybe it wasn’t Dupont but anyway he followed this industrialist’s advice and didn’t explain the free radical basis. 12:44 He was just having objective results that brought a lot of attention to his clinic and he had tried to publish all of the details in the period 1917 to 1921. He submitted papers all over the world but the standard medical journals wouldn’t accept a free radical chemical explanation for any biological events. And so the government then was claiming that he had a secret method simply because he couldn’t get journals to publish it. They called it a secret quack method. But years later after I had studied Koch’s books thoroughly and I had also been studying Otto Warburg’s work and Albert St. Georgie’s work on cancer. 13:54 And I noticed dramatic parallels between the work St. Georgie was doing all the way through from the 30s when he got the Nobel Prize all the way down to the I think it was about 1973 or four when I wrote St. Georgie. I outlined over about two pages the amazing similarities between Koch’s work that he had described in his books done between 1910 and 1925 or so and what St. Georgie started doing in about 1932 and continued to the 1970s. And I outlined this amazing set of parallels and said is this just coincidence or were you influenced by W.F. Koch because in all of St. Georgie’s work I couldn’t find a single reference to W.F. Koch. 15:03 And he answered that he had the highest respect for the work of W.F. Koch which obviously meant that since he had never referred to it in print that he knew what had happened to Koch and he didn’t want it to happen to him. Maybe we could go back a little bit and talk about Koch’s cancer therapy and how he was persecuted. Who was he threatening at the time? Well I think it was the FDA itself that accused him of violating the law by selling something that they said couldn’t cure cancer and so they had analyzed and couldn’t detect anything in it. But the scenery. They had his cure analyzed. Yeah and they said it was distilled water and he made some in court according to his procedure and took this highly colored material and diluted it and it was so dilute that it looked like distilled water and he gave some of the sample and had them analyze it and they said it’s distilled water. 16:30 And so the jury could see that their own eyes had seen stuff go into it and the government was telling them it wasn’t there and so twice he was acquitted but he decided it was time to get out of the country with people trying to kill him and keeping him constantly in court instead of doing science. And so he spent the rest of his life after 1944 in Brazil. And does any remnants of his work still operating in Brazil? Yeah I guess about 15 years ago I talked to a very old man who had worked with him and I don’t think there’s probably anyone still living who was directly connected with him. Coke died I think about 1968. 17:31 And what was the distilled water solution? Well these people that worked with him said that it was done by judgement. He used a red hot platinum electrode and passed alcohol vapors not an electrode but a reactor. It was heated electrically to just the right color of red and then he passed a stream of alcohol vapor over that and at that temperature the alcohol polymerized into a water soluble chain of molecules which were unstable enough. That they would release the individual either carbon, oxygen, hydrogen group or a small chain of those carbon, oxygen groups into solution. 18:49 And that was his primary reagent. He also used benzoquinone at high dilution but that was just an easy to make lower potency thing. His primary reagent was this thing which required the judgement of knowing just how red your platinum reactor had to be. And so people who had seen him do it could repeat it and there were people in Brazil might still be there. I suppose there are labs that have passed the technique along. I haven’t heard from them for years though. And how did this effect, how was it in the anti-cancer therapy? One of his early publications had to do with the muscle spasms that typically follow removal of the thyroid gland and the parathyroids tend to be removed along with the thyroid if the surgeon doesn’t make a special effort. 20:07 Even though that was used as the explanation for why thyroid surgery causes these muscle spasms, even the most careful surgeon who takes out the thyroid even when he leaves the parathyroids is typical for the patient to suffer these spasms. Anyway, Koch experimented with the removal of just the parathyroid glands and found that if you give any salt, electrolyte such as potassium, sodium, magnesium or calcium, if you give it generously you prevent the spasms. And he was arguing that the parathyroid gland was involved in detoxifying compounds that derived from ammonia, guanidine and methyl guanidine and that these chemicals are poisonous and known to cause seizures and muscle spasms. 21:27 And he could demonstrate that he was causing those to be passed off in the urine by increasing the salt intake. And that was published I think in 1917, but then A.J. Carlson, a very powerful professor at the University of Chicago and his group decided that one hormone has only one action and that they basically proclaimed that the parathyroid hormone has the action of mobilizing calcium and that in a calcium deficiency you get the spasms. But there are just terrible problems with that, the whole setup, because their description of what’s happening to calcium turned out to be without foundation. It was all a hypothetical theory that attempted to describe this hormone in terms of one singular action on calcium and that one turns out not to be the way they thought it was. 22:47 And still no one has reverted to consider Coke explanation. But anyway, Coke explained the toxicity of these compounds as they’re similar to what ammonia does. But the amino or ammonia group occurs in many chemicals that produce seizures and spasms and overstimulation. We now call it excitotoxicity and the ammonia and serotonin, just a tremendous range of amino compounds have this action. And the carbonyl group that was the essence of Coke’s treatment, whether the carbonyl was in his polymer that he made on his platinum reactor, 23:52 or whether it was the carbonyl that was part of the benzoquinone molecule, it was this which Coke explained as drawing electrons to itself away from the electron donors of the ammonia compounds. And during this time, not only was free radical chemistry an underground current, but the acid theory of Gilbert Lewis, this was happening at the same time. Lewis was a professor and chemist of, I think his theory came out in 1914 and it was a general theory of acidity and alkalinity in terms of electron withdrawal or donation. 24:54 And it was exactly compatible with Coke’s oxidation reduction explanation of how his catalyst worked. But again, the Lewis theory, which was totally general as a description of acids and bases, couldn’t take on people brought out the Brunsted-Lowry theory of acids, which is what everyone now teaches, that acid is a hydrogen ion donor, pH is a description of the concentration of hydrogen ions. And even though it’s not a general theory because there are acids which contain no protons, no hydrogen ions, this is the standard theory of acids and bases. 25:57 So Lewis’s theory of acidity, which was true and general, was displaced by basically erroneous theory, which is now everyone’s chemical textbook description of what an acid is. You’re still saying it today. Yeah, and just totally ignoring the implications of Gilbert Lewis’s good theory and especially the implications it has for biology and medicine and biochemistry. St. Georgie was essentially, he was looking for evidence of Coke’s high energy promoter of oxidation as an electron acceptor in physiology. 26:59 Coke had postulated that benzoquinone was useful because there was a quinone molecule in the cell that this was a close imitation of and would therefore activate. And it wasn’t until 1950 or so that it was discovered that there in fact is an essential oxidizing quinone in the cell, in the mitochondrion, and it’s so ubiquitous that it’s called ubiquinone. But at the time Coke was saying this analytical chemistry wasn’t refined to the point that it could go beyond his theory which had therapeutic results and so they said it couldn’t have therapeutic results because it isn’t there. But St. Georgie appreciated the logic and so he was working on the respiratory chemistry and in the process accidentally discovered things like big parts of the Krebs cycle of the mitochondria and ascorbic acid and so on, but this was really in the process of working on respiration itself. 28:29 Is this what he received the Nobel Prize for? Yeah, for his discoveries that led to the Krebs cycle and ascorbic acid and so on, respiration, muscle studies too. The muscle action was another one of Krebs things, you know, the methyl guanidine causing muscle contraction by donating electrons to a system that should have the electrons withdrawn by the oxidative catalyst. And this became clearer and clearer in St. Georgie’s work why he was working both on muscle contraction and oxidative metabolism. At the time it seemed like he was working on two separate lines but Coke is the explanation of St. Georgie’s whole career basically because he later became explicit in showing why the donation of electrons to muscles causes them to contract. 29:43 And another theory besides the proton theory of acids, another theory that just becomes an obstacle to understanding is the membrane theory of cell function which explains cell electricity in terms of ions and protons. And St. Georgie was working on the direct involvement of electrons and respiration as the primary thing that regulates those electrons. And in consciousness for example, consciousness disappears instantly when oxygen is no longer available to accept electrons before there’s any detectable change in cellular energy level. And St. Georgie was focusing on these things that really work, really explain cell physiology and basically ignoring the silliness about protons and cell membranes and so on. 30:55 And one of St. Georgie’s experiments involved adding electron donor chemicals and electron acceptor chemicals to a living muscle. And if the donor and acceptor were related to each other in terms of their oxidation potential, the muscle would contract in their presence. But if these two groups were not tuned to each other, the muscle wouldn’t react. And this was about as close as you can imagine coming to verifying what Koch was saying about the electron acceptor and donor, the donating an electron to a muscle system or any cellular system causes it to go into the active state and the high energy oxidant causes it to stabilize. 32:08 And go into a resting state and for all of these people, Warburg, Koch and St. Georgie, cancer and allergy and muscle spasms and seizures were all examples of the activated state in which there are excess electrons. And oxidation was the basic answer to restoring the cell to its stable resting state. This puts the cancer problem in a different evolutionary light. People were seeing cell division as the basic state of any cell that at a point in evolution oxidative respiration came in and made it possible for cells to stop dividing long enough to form part of a functioning multicellular organism. 33:23 The reversion of the cancer became simply interference with the ability to respire on the cellular level. So the problem with cancer and spasms and seizures is that your cells are just not getting the oxygen. Or can’t use it. Warburg’s definition of cancer metabolically was that its aerobic glycolysis, ordinarily glycolysis, is a process similar to fermentation in which sugar is used very wastefully. And it happens in the absence of oxygen because oxygen metabolism is very efficient and glycolysis happens normally only when there’s no oxygen because it’s so inefficient. And when you block the oxygen apparatus or the supply, you get intense glycolysis. 34:27 And so if it’s the apparatus rather than the supply which is blocked, this is what happens in disease. And so this is aerobic glycolysis versus anaerobic. Anaerobic is the normal glycolysis. Aerobic glycolysis is evidence that the respiring organ isn’t working right. And so all these people were on this different track of looking for the causes of disease and cancer. Why do you think they were so shunned by the powers that be, the medical people at the time? Well, in the case of Koch, I think the way Koch tells the story is just that they couldn’t understand. And he actually makes sort of almost a case for rational behavior on the part of the government and the medical associations. 35:33 Just in terms of their being badly educated, badly motivated authoritarian people, they simply couldn’t see and didn’t want to learn what these people were saying. My professors all the way through college and graduate school treated Otto Warburg’s work as a strange, quaint idea of this very famous, powerful German, even though he’d got the Nobel prizes and is recognized as solving both ends of the essential oxidative cellular mechanism. His applying that to cancer, which he did very early, was simply put down as a character flaw in this otherwise great scientist. 36:41 I can see maybe they wouldn’t understand and maybe they shunned him, but to try to kill Dr. Koch actually shows that they were threatened by him. Yeah, I think the way to understand it really, even though Koch does tell the story in his book, I think the best way to get insight is to read Herbert Bailey’s book about probiotism, because here they were contemporaries. Andrew Ivy was one of the biggest establishment doctors in the country. Founder of several medical associations and vice president and head of the medical school at the University of Illinois. He was chosen to help found the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda and ran it for a year during the Second World War. 37:54 And the board of the American Medical Association, which he had belonged to, chose him as America’s representative to the Nuremberg trials to testify on universal medical ethics. He was simply one of the biggest of shots in American medicine. And when this Yugoslav doctor who had a cancer treatment, he thought, came to the United States, he quickly found out who the big shot was in medicine and took his idea to Andrew Ivy, who was an intelligent person and had been thinking along the lines that cancer is the loss of some restraining process. He, I don’t think was quite up to the speed of co-consent Georgie, 38:58 but he understood the thinking that was fairly common at that time, that there might just be a lack of a restraint that allows cells to start dividing. And this line of thinking has been demonstrated over and over. For example, many people don’t think about why our liver is as big as it is and no bigger when it has such a capacity for producing new cells. If you cut off half an animal’s liver, it’ll regrow the liver to the right size. And if you join two rats together in their circulation and remove the liver of one rat, the liver of the second rat grows to be twice its normal size so it can handle the circulation of both animals. And this is a well-documented theory that these chemicals of restraint were called calones, 40:06 V-H-A-L-O-N-E, meaning a restraining influence. And it can be demonstrated in the cornea and in the skin and any organ that is able to divide. If you take an extract of that and add it to the growing culture, the cell division stops. So it’s specific to each tissue so that the organism knows how much of a given tissue or organ it should have, and when that amount of cologne is produced, the cell division stops. And so the absence of that has been considered an obvious influence in abnormal tumor production. And people were, at that time, many people were working on tissue extracts trying to get that sort of stuff in a form that would be general enough to apply to a tumor of different tissues. 41:15 And some people would extract tumors. One of the main lines of thinking was to extract it from urine or from the kidney or from the liver, something that had a general regulatory function. St. Georgie was extracting it from human urine and he called it retin versus promine, promine being the amino promoter of growth and retin being the restraining influence. And these, for example, Leon L. Strong, who developed the mice colonies that are in common use, he developed strains that 100%!o(MISSING)f them will get breast cancer. And with using extracts of liver, Leon L. Strong showed that he could not only cure the cancer of the individual, 42:20 but even that individual’s descendants for several generations would be free of cancer. So he was demonstrating hereditary imprinting as well as the cologne principle of tissue extract. So he was getting the cologne straight from the liver? Yeah, he had a time when he was using shark liver, but I talked to him and he said that he thought that any kind of liver would have the active material. And I experimented with beef liver and so on. And you get a lot of the substances that are similar to what Coke was working with in the kind of extract that you do. Anyway, Andrew Ivy knew about this other line of research. 43:22 And so when the Yugoslav doctor said that he had vaccinated horses with an organism that causes tumors, and produced a tumor and then extracted the blood of the horses, let the blood clot, and then extracted it the way these other people were doing liver and blood and urine and so on, the technique I learned from Leonel Strong was to use absolute ethanol, grind up the liver and into a fine powder in the absolute ethanol, and then evaporate the alcohol from the material you’ve extracted and then re-suspend it in water. That was exactly the technique that Ivy learned from the Duravix, 44:26 and it was a standard technique for getting things that are slightly oil soluble and slightly water soluble. It forms a sort of emulsion when you take it up in the water. And the Duravix got his attention because he knew that it was, in principle, biologically reasonable. And so he immediately was interested in testing it, and he took patients whose doctors said they had only about one or two months life expectancy because they were so seriously sick with cancer. And in these people who were on their last legs, he saw dramatic results. And at that point he wasn’t looking for a cure, 45:32 and he was using very tiny doses like 10 micrograms per patient, but one injection would cause a very high proportion of the patients to have dramatic improvement. And he reported this after just about two years of tests in which a lot of the patients did end up dying, but the responses to one or two injections were so amazing that Ivy said this stuff has to be studied in better ways as there have to be double blind studies and so on. And this book by Herbert Bailey documents in just the most horrifying way the ways in which the power structure started acting. 46:39 One after the other Andrew Ivy’s positions were taken away from him. He was fired from his vice presidency, and then his professorship, he was kicked out of even the scientific organizations that he had founded. One after the other they would threaten him and say, you’ll be punished if you don’t give it to us. And he would say, no, it should be tested publicly. And he would lose another job. And he went from being at the very top of American medicine to being basically a community college teacher for the rest of his life. As late as 1964, he was interviewed and asked if he didn’t regret having stuck by his insistence that the stuff should be tested. And he said, no, he still thought it should be tested. 47:45 Good for him. Well, and that’s just because he wanted to test it. He wasn’t saying it was the cure or anything. No. Well, it makes you wonder what the motives are. Well, the book, a good place to start, even before reading the book, is to look at the congressional record from the 88th Congress and the material that Illinois Senator Paul Douglas introduced into the congressional record. There’s sworn testimony and a very ordered presentation in a compact forum documenting the things that Bailey says in the book. And among those are naming people of two big drug companies and the treasurer of the American Medical Association 48:49 as offering him as much as $2.5 million, offering the durovix, a $2.5 million for the rights to the chemical. And they refused and the offers are still existing documents of the offers and basically a conspiracy. And he said it in print and over and over, like the senator in the congressional record said, if this wasn’t true, why aren’t these chemical companies and the AMA officials and the AMA itself and the journal of the AMA, why aren’t they suing for slander? Because these are such horrible things that are said about them that they engaged in a criminal conspiracy to control something 49:52 that they thought apparently was of tremendous economic value. And one of the most convincing things is that they refused to comment even on why they wouldn’t sue for slander or libel. Are you familiar with Dr. Samuel Epstein? Oh yeah, he’s one of the still living good guys. Yeah, I get to see his website. He’s very critical of the American Cancer Society and basically feels they’re doing nothing on the prevention front. He feels that many chemicals that are being released into the environment by industry and pharmaceuticals are causing cancer and mammograms. He feels that mammograms actually are not only not useful, but they actually can spread cancer. Yeah, John Goffman, his whole book on the prevention of breast cancer 50:59 is posted on the internet and Goffman, G-O-F-M-A-M. He was one of the Atomic Energy Commission’s defenders of radiation in the 50s. That was how I came across him. Linus Polling was the only scientist saying that radiation is bad for you. Everyone else supported by the government, including John Goffman who was medical officer for the Lawrence lab. He discovered an isotope and so on. He was a very top figure in both medical physics, basically, but in physics itself. So he was put out as the defender of the safety of radiation, but in the 60s he started thinking about what he was saying. 52:01 He explained how his conversion happened. He simply started thinking about what words he was saying publicly and realized that they were crazy. He had an epiphany. He says that three-quarters of breast cancers are caused by radiation, primarily medical radiation. I was reading something that you said that bone density scans are basically x-rays. I had never known that. I have friends who are going in for bone density scans. The terrible thing is that they’re going to recommend that you do it anyway because you’re old and old people have thinning bones. So why do they bother finding out how thin your bones are? Especially when ultrasound technology exists that is more meaningful, it will actually tell you the strength of your bones, not just how dense they are. 53:06 In the Journal of the American Medical Association itself, someone published a little graph showing tremendous inaccuracy of the bone scan because of differences in fat and water in the tissues. Some people have a lot of fat in their bone marrow and others have very little fat, but a lot of fluid. Estrogen, for example, affects the distribution of fat and fluid in your body. This technique, one of the reasons the bone scan is popular is that estrogen seems to increase bone density, where all through the early 60s and 70s, all of the evidence showed when you grind up the bones, they’re not made more dense by estrogen. 54:10 Estrogen causes calcium retention, not no increase of bone density, but the X-ray technique used now for scanning sometimes does give an apparent increase in bone density, but this publication shows that the fat-water artifact, which can be influenced by estrogen, could explain any apparent benefit. Since the ultrasound measures the strength as well as the density, there are just many overwhelming arguments like no one should ever have a bone scan, and besides being harmless and meaningful and accurate, the ultrasound happens to stimulate bone growth, where X-rays accelerate bone loss. Every time you get a bone scan, your bones are going to go away a little faster, 55:15 just for the X-rays. So that applies to the X-rays and the teeth too? Yeah, and the X-rays bounce off your teeth and jaw bones, accelerate the atrophy of your jaw bone, but the bouncing rays go into your brain, and they know that the dental X-rays cause thyroid cancer and eye cancer, cancer of the eyeball, and if they’re bouncing to that extent, obviously they’re going through the brain, and the brain is the most sensitive of all tissues to radiation, and so a great way to produce Alzheimer’s disease ought to be to have lots of dental X-rays. Wow, that gives me another reason to be not so happy about going to the dentist. Do you think they could use ultrasound on your teeth? Yeah, there are instruments already existing that give very fine resolution. 56:19 All you need is a transducer that you can put in your mouth, and if someone has made those, and you can produce very fine resolution pictures of any structure you want to. Wow, so all you dentists out there that are listening take note. Maybe you should say where to get Herbert Bailey’s book or what the name of it is. It’s probably out of print, isn’t it? Maybe one of them is in print, but you can find them somewhere. Old bookstores would be where I would look for libraries. The pressure caused the first publisher to fold up within a year, and book reviews were canceled, and positive reviews were canceled while negative dishonest reviews were published. So, it is a popular book to publish or republish, 57:26 but it’s probably going to be hard to find. I see, but the name of it was by Herbert Bailey, and the book was called Krebizen? Yeah, one was K-Krebizen, a key to cancer, something like that. The title is clear enough. It’s K-R-E-B-I-O-Z-E-N. I-O-Z-E-N, okay. Thanks for listening to Politics and Science today. If you want to find out more about Raymond Pete, you can go to his website, reypeat-r-a-y-p-e-a-t dot com. If you have any questions for Politics and Science, contact them by email to politicsandscience at madriver.com. That’s politicsandscience at madriver.com. Politics and Science presents the viewpoints of its participants and does not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of any other person or organization.