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 2017.
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 Well, once again, welcome to this month’s Ask Your Abdoctor. My name’s Andrew Riney. My name’s Sarah Johanneson Murray. For those of you who perhaps have never listened to the show, they run every third Friday of the month from 7 to 8 p.m. We’re both licensed medical herbalists. We practice here in Northern California. We see a wide range of people and increasingly are consulting with people by telephone across the country. As usual, it’s become very popular and they’re almost indispensable because of the wealth of information and the alternative approach to the same subjects that we felt we knew at one point in time, but it’s certainly getting a reeducation. We’ll be joined by Dr. Raymond Ph.D., who spent the last 40 years in research, providing wealth of newsletters. He’s written several books. It’s probably more like 50 years now. 01:00 And he doesn’t sell anything, so that’s the kind of neat thing. He’s very altruistic and I know from just personally how much time he gives freely in terms of me asking him questions about various clients with getting his perspective and his insight onto it. And also, I’ve heard from hundreds of people from all over the country and all around the world, from people from Australia, from Europe, Canada, who have written to me and said that they either got responses from him or have consulted in the past with him and some people have talked about 20 or 30 years and they’ve been following what he’s been advocating, so I’m always very pleased to have him on the show. There is something new I wanted to make sure that people that are listening to the show tonight will take note of because the call-in number has changed. So I’m looking at this new temporary call-in number. 02:00 It used to be 9233911, but the temporary number here is now 7777. Well, you’ve got a 707 area code. Yeah, 707 area code. That’s if you’re in the area. 7775397. I still imagine there is a 1-800 number. They haven’t said anything about that changing and I’ll confirm that with the… Yeah, we think that’s probably still the same. That’s 1-800-568-3723. 1-800-568-3723. That’s 800-KMUD-RAD. So the regular number for people in the area, the 707 number again, and I’ll call this out again a bit later, is 7775397. So from 730 until the end of the show, 8 o’clock, you’re invited to call in with any questions related to this month’s subject of exploring the precautionary principle. And people are welcome to call in regarding the show, 03:01 or if they have other questions, Dr. Raymond Peake is always very keen to answer questions and he’s always got, he’s always has a remedy or an explanation, even for the strangest questions. So not that you should ask strange questions, or test him, but anyway. So I just want to open the show. I did a little bit of digging around this morning, knowing that the subject was going to be this phrase, precautionary principle. So the term cautionary or precautionary principle is not a new concept. It has its roots in antiquity and is the maxim supporting the heritage of herbal medicine, first to do no harm. The Hippocratic Oath, by which all practitioners of medicine still swear allegiance, is the same and its meaning remains unchanged. Though modern practices have swerved off the road and are far from on the straight and narrow path, leading to safe and effective medicines which we could all benefit from in this time of knowledge. 04:02 We know the Greek legend of Pandora and her box once opened and in the world it could never be put back in and the price to humanity was great. So I ask you the question, why does nature not come up with the best way forward and why do we seek to usurp it rather than learn from it and use it as a guide as we should? Some good scientists do no doubt, but we live in a world ruled by greed and power, especially over others and far from a universally altruistic state. GMOs, for example, are very contentious and it completely defies logic to have Chernobals and Fukushima’s all over the planet with waste, lasting millennia and weapons of truly mass destruction with us always. Pandora’s box was open for sure, but we are lured by the potential of virtually limitless clean energy by fusion reaction as we ask by the lies that the GMO scientists foster regarding feeding the starving planet’s population. The precautionary principle as applied to medicines 05:04 and foods can be seen in Europe where it is codified into law, but purposely not here in the US. This is up for discussion and whilst not a political show, the politics of nations with their attendant controlling vested interests and lobbyists most definitely are implicated in the lack thereof. Now the World Charter for Nature adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982 was the first international endorsement of the precautionary principle and the principle was implemented in an international treaty as early as 1987 at the Montreal Protocol and among other international treaties and declarations is reflected in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development signed the UN Conference on Environment and Development. Now the United States has opposed the use of the term principle because this term has special connotations in legal language due to the fact that the principle of law is a source of law. Now this is the legal status of the precautionary principle in the European Union 06:05 and it has informed much EU policy including areas beyond environmental policy down to general product safety, the use of additives for use in animal nutrition, the incineration of waste and the regulation of genetically modified organisms. And another point as I have mentioned the nuclear industry is Chris Busby’s article which we’ll get into later and the invocation in Europe of the Eurotom Suicide Clause. So without much further ado, Dr. Pete, are you with us? Yep. Thanks so much for joining us again. We do appreciate your giving your time. So getting into the precautionary principle and I know we have covered, you know, the concept, the Hippocratic Oath, first you know how medical fraud, et cetera. But what is it we wanted to bring out here with the precautionary principle given that it’s law in Europe and it’s not here and let’s go and start this discussion by opening up with where you are most intimately concerned 07:11 with this for the good of change. Just after I got out of graduate school and was doing consulting and practical projects, people were talking about whether natural remedies were any better than pharmaceutical, chemical remedies. And that started me thinking about what the difference really is. And a substance such as progesterone, I think is a good illustration. Just yesterday someone asked me, told me the story of his wife being prescribed a new synthetic progestin. I looked up some articles on it and they described it as being designed to resemble as closely as possible the natural molecule progesterone. 08:15 And a couple other molecules in the last 10 years or so have claimed that they are closer than any of the other synthetic progestins to natural progesterone. And that is very interesting that progesterone has existed in animals since animals began. And these other substances in the case of this recent one, it has existed in the universe only for 10 years. And so we pretty well know that natural progesterone is safe because it has been doing its thing in organisms forever. This new one, if it has a group on it, a cyanide group that never was attached 09:18 to a natural steroid molecule. So it’s undoubtedly doing many things that natural progesterone doesn’t do. But how soon will we know what the ultimate side effects of this historically unique intervention in the organism, what will they be 100 years from now in the descendants of the people who are being treated with it now? And why did they put the cyanide on there? Is that to make it a patentable medicine? That’s part of it. Yeah, they are making things as close to progesterone as they can, but they can’t patent progesterone. So they have something as close to it as they can get. But the actual natural substance is cheap and the drug companies aren’t interested in promoting something with very little profit because everyone can compete. 10:21 When you use herbal remedies, even if there is one specific active agent that you’re looking for, like in a fox glove, the digit talus type effect, you’re not only going to have supporting surrounding metabolites that are acting somewhat like drugs, but you know that that natural form of the molecule has existed in plant cells since the plant became what it is. And the fact is that the structure and the biochemistry of plant and animal cells is very similar. We have the same basic types of enzymes 11:25 and energy producing reactions. Photosynthesis is the main difference between plants and animals. And movement, animals have specialized movement systems, but for the basic chemistry, plants are very parallel to animals. And so we know that those molecules are compatible with at least many kinds of life. Where if you invent a molecule, it might seem very similar, but you really can’t know until you have tried it for the whole lifetime of a particular organism. And in the case of diethylstilbestrol, DES, it was introduced as an estrogen to treat menopause and to improve pregnancy. 12:28 It was called the female hormone. And so the argument was that if you were having trouble carrying a pregnancy, that was because something was defective in your femaleness. So they gave you more of the female hormone. And there were already many things known about the harm of the molecule at that time. But it was given to millions of women. And 20 or 30 years later, they were seeing that the children, both male and female, and even the grandchildren apparently, have been injured by their mother’s use of this synthetic estrogen. So that shows that the, a development of sickness, which in the case of cancer, 13:28 an individual might not show the fact that they’ve got cancer from an exposure to a chemical, might be 40 years after the exposure. So with a six month animal study, you aren’t going to have a clue to whether it might cause cancer in the old age of the person who uses it, or even in their children or grandchildren. And now in the last 15 or 20 years, the idea of epigenetic change has been accepted. And what you do to one individual is now recognized to have the effect several generations into the future. And one of those common effects, which is now recognized as a type of epigenetic change or damage, 14:29 is called genomic instability, where even the DNA, which might not be mutated in the first day or week or year of exposure, but the genome itself becomes destabilized even in subsequent generations, so that there are mutations being created in later generations from an early exposure. Estrogen and ionizing radiation have many overlapping similarities. You can get a synergy between a certain dose of radiation and a certain dose of energy of estrogen, which is more than additive. It’s like adding extra radiation to an x-ray 15:34 if you have an exposure already to estrogen. So it’s like a potentiating effect. Yeah, so let me just expand this concept of the precautionary principle. So just for people that are listening, I hadn’t actually, I must admit, I hadn’t actually heard of this specific principle and didn’t recognize that actually it was a point in law written into law in the European Union, so that what it seeks to do and correct me if I’m wrong, it seeks to bring a real legal action into play against malfeasant activities perpetrated by different companies who would bring a product to market and subsequently harm people because they either didn’t do enough testing or they covered up the testing and will get into the fraud side of medicine, 16:35 which is fairly well known in terms of how prevalent it is, but that this law there actually protects, well, I guess it protects people that have been hurt and injured and or the covers the cost of environmental cleanup. And I did notice that a lot of it initially was aimed at environmental effects, a degradative effects of whatever substance that was leaked into the environment, polluted rivers, et cetera, et cetera. So initially there was a lot of environmental things and I think the Earth Summit, et cetera, was the forbearer of what later became not through lack of being initiated in the beginning, but from a rollover effect, became things to involve medicines, food safety, very many different things that you would come into contact with as an organism yourself and maybe not be directly responsible for, but were exposed to it from the companies producing it, 17:37 so that there is a direct recourse in law. But the American, and I’m not saying this is wrong and I’m really not saying one is better than the other, but what I’d like you to bring out later is the benefit of the obvious results of careful testing, careful planning, true scientific evaluation of the facts, not covering up any skewed results to put your product in a bad light, but being totally honest and I think this is where all of the concept of fraud and damage and claims and insurance and all the things that put up the cost of everything to everybody because it’s all additive in its own right, it’s really just down to dishonesty at the heart of it all, if I think if you look at why these things happen and why GlaxoSmithKline pay out 36 billion in reparations for drugs and that’s just one of them 18:40 and I think about things like Vioxx and other companies that have produced drugs that have been shown to give sudden death or they give people dementia or whatever it is, you know, it’s a harmful effect and so the whole tenet of first do no harm, it’s gotta be the most important thing and that really goes hand in hand with being totally honest and being scientific about what you’re doing so that you’re open to scrutiny, it’s thrown out there, it’s peer reviewed, et cetera and the results are what the results are and you move forward and that’s how real progress is made. I’m not saying that a lot of times things can be born out of mistakes and turn out to produce better things but in terms of the precautionary principle and European law covering that and we’ll get into the, you mentioned earlier that this character, Busby, Chris Busby in England, he’s basically bringing this, what they call the Euratom Suicide Clause 19:41 and we’ll bring out here a little bit later on just how many more deaths have now been attributed to radioactive waste either from Sellafield in England, radioactive material being incinerated and dumped into the oceans, washed up on the shores, big leukemia incidences, whether it’s Chernobyl and all the people dying there with thyroid cancer, whether it’s in Japan from Nagasaki and Hiroshima and how that all brought out what the effects of radiation were and the American government definitely downplayed it so they could maintain research but what he said now, and again we’ll get into this a bit later on, but he said that ultimately it’s almost 150 times the relative risk that was given in the publication that showed this so that it was more like 90,000 people a year dying as a direct result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki annually, it’s not like a one time thing, it’s an annual event 20:43 and it’s ultimately, it’s completely out corporate manslaughter and so he wants to try and through the European court ultimately bring around the end of radioactive waste being dumped and whole nuclear power stations being a thing of the past and in a nuclear energy being a thing of the past so. I just wanted to get back to the medicines, Dr. Wheaton, you mentioned if some of these drugs are causing genetic problems and cancers 40 years later and then in the grandchildren of mothers who took synthetic estrogen type drugs while pregnant, how can drug companies test these products safely? I mean, would they have seen some problems within a reasonable amount of time in animal studies? Yeah, by the 1930s of years before the estrogens came on the pharmaceutical market, they were already identified as very potent carcinogens and promoters of brain defects, movement disorders, 21:52 personality changes, inflammation of practically all tissue, cancer development in every organ of the body, not just the breast and uterus, but brain, kidney, lung, bowel, all types of cancer were already known at the time that these came on the market and that they were abortifacient. Estrogen was clearly identified before 1940 as a powerful birth control or actually early abortifacient and despite that, it was sold for almost 20 years to prevent miscarriage, exactly the opposite of what it was known to actually do. So the fraud was the driving force behind the whole estrogen replacement therapy, so-called. 22:56 It started with the knowledge that it was, in many cases, doing exactly the opposite of what they were selling it to do. But what do you think about new drugs that they might not have that knowledge? I mean, do you think there’s ways to safely test them? I mean, yeah, often they still currently have the knowledge and hide it, don’t want to look for it. If someone suspects that it might have a certain kind of effect, they will carefully avoid in their applications for approval. They will avoid discussion of the mechanisms that could cause it to be harmful. The whole DNA revolution, it happens that there were changes in the way people were thinking about the nature of science at the same time that the biology was being shifted over 24:01 to a study of the DNA molecule, rather than actual, the facts of inheritance. And I see it as a coordinated effort sponsored by the government to support industry in its ability to evade responsibility. If you just look at ordinary liability. Look at vaccines. Yeah, the ordinary liability principles in law would make it impossible for many of these industries to function. The insurance needed for a nuclear plant would be prohibitive. The insurance needed for vaccines and for many drugs. Well, they’re indemnified, aren’t they, for vaccines? 25:02 They’re legally indemnified and held unblameable. He’s saying that because the insurance would be so great. They’re just, they get off without having to get any insurance. Yeah, and even without putting this explicitly into the law as indemnification beforehand of the insurance cleanup projects of the great chemical contaminants around the country. These are being done at public taxpayer expense rather than holding the profiting corporations responsible for the full cost of clean up. Wow, so it’s a win-win situation for the offending corporations and a lose-lose for the taxpayers and the general population. Yeah. Great. We’re listening to ask your app Dr. K.M.U.D. Garberville, 91.1 FM from 7.30 to the end of the show. Callers are welcome to call in any questions, either related to this or unrelated to this non-subject of the precautionary principle. 26:02 There’s a number in the 707 area that’s changed and it’s 707-777-5397. If you’re on the web and you’re listening and you’re in different countries, like you’ve had people phone you from Australia and… Well, actually they’ll have to call us. It’s a seven number. Okay. There is an 800 number and I think some people have tried the Skype number, but I’m not too sure if that is available. But anyway, there’s an 800 number, it’s 800-568-3723. And obviously the show can be downloaded any time after the end of the show for people that are in, you know, different countries or different time zones and they want to hear the full content of the show. So, Dr. Pete, where are we going? Sort of thinking the last things we were talking about in terms of indemnification of these corporations basically being protected by the government and the government being bought out by lobbyists. I think that’s a very important point that adds to the fact that America did not sign on to this precautionary principle. 27:06 Yeah, the government not only is working for the corporations in their immediate liabilities, protecting them, but if you go back to the late 1930s, again, in the 1940s, even the very nature of the way science is done and the philosophy of science, of what explains the goodness of science, the government has intervened in ways that support this irresponsibility of the corporations. If you look at ancient science from Aristotle’s time on down to about the 19th century, you see that cause and effect were central ideas and around the middle of the last century, 28:08 people started saying that with the quantum physics ideas, they were starting to question whether a cause and effect is a real thing. And that’s very nice for the political corporation. But there are people now, foundations and lawyers hired by corporations going around the country, denying the common sense idea of cause and effect and saying that if you claim that this is dangerous, that the thing that we’re selling you, you have to prove absolutely that you are being harmed by it or killed by it or whatever. Now you’re saying this is the get out clause that America has in terms of its policy. Yeah, that’s putting all the responsibility on the consumer for the victim. 29:09 And then you have to have enough money and enough time and manpower to fight it. Let me just hold that thought one second, Dr. Peter. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but we did get somebody calling in. So let’s take this call and see where we’re going with this call. Where are you from calling? What’s your question? Hi, my name is Jeremy. I’m calling from Atlanta. Atlanta, Georgia? Yes, sir. Cool. What’s your question, Jeremy? Well, I had a question a little off topic for Dr. Pete. It’s about progesterone and my wife. We’ve been poof-free for about two years now, and we’ve been trying to kind of overcome her estrogen dominance. She’s 32 and she’s been struggling with estrogen dominance ever since she was probably about eight when she hit puberty. She’s had really inconsistent periods and all that. Her waking hemp in the morning had been at 94.9 and just removing the puberty, we were able to get it up to 97.1. And then back in June, we started doing progesterone 30:12 with that and we were following Dr. Lee’s progesterone therapy and doing about 100 milligrams a day. And it actually started her cycles up. She was not having cycles at all. And they were very erratic. And then they kind of stabilized into a very short two week cycle. And she was very consistent, but had a lot of PMS symptoms still. They started doing more research on it and found out that someone were doing like 700 milligrams a day or more. So they were using their symptoms to die to the dose. So we started doing the same thing, using a 10%!t(MISSING)opical cream. And she’s currently taking 900 milligrams per day, which we broke up into three 300 milligram doses. This is topical. She’s doing it at each meal and she’s been doing that since October. And that’s topical? It’s topical, yeah. And are you cycling at two weeks on two weeks off? No, because she’s still continuing her two week cycle. So she hasn’t even been having any sort of, 31:13 well, until the past month, when the two week cycle starts, she actually won’t, the flow never begins. She’ll spot for three or four days and then it stops. And so it’s like something is starting to tip with it. But I was concerned because that seems like an incredibly high dose. We’ve also been doing thyroid as well. She’s been doing, we’ve been doing desiccated beef thyroid. She’d been doing 40 milligram tablets. And we had slowly ramped up to the point where we are now where she’s doing one an hour for 12 hours out of the day. 140 milligram, 140 milligram desiccated thyroid tablet, you’re saying? That’s quite a bit. Dr. P, what do you think about this two week cycle and what do you think about that amount of thyroid glandular? Oh, and topical progesterone. Yeah, depending on what the vehicle is, sometimes only a very tiny fraction, 32:13 five percent or less sometimes of the progesterone used topically is actually getting into the body. So it’s really important to check, have a blood test once in a while. And the liver is always regulating the hormones. And when you are using progesterone all month, the liver develops over the first two weeks, the ability to excrete it quickly. And so the following week, you’re excreting it almost as fast as you can put it in. And the natural cycle has the rest of two weeks where the liver resets itself so that a small amount being produced or absorbed will have a full effect. And then after about two weeks, 33:15 the liver will start excreting it faster so its effect is reduced. So that’s why we recommend that you take an internal progesterone like the progeste that you can find on the internet and then cycle it from full moon to new moon and then stop from new moon to full moon. And then hopefully you’ll get into a cycle where you’re ovulating at the full moon. That’s when you start your progeste and then you take that until new moon which then you should have a period. The thyroid products are extremely variable. It’s important to watch for changes in your temperature and pulse rate and many other indicators like the color of lips and warmth of the fingers, the quality of sleep and digestion. And usually low thyroid, high estrogen, people have digestive problems 34:19 the estrogen tends to recycle when your thyroid is low. It’s reabsorbed after being excreted into the intestine by the liver. It’s reabsorbed and keeps the level high even when you aren’t producing it. And so fiber in the diet, a raw carrot every day, sometimes is enough to get the estrogen down to the point that the cycles aren’t normalized. And especially the combination of a daily raw carrot and thyroid enough to keep your pulse and temperature up. And if you want a temperature and pulse chart so you can chart it out and see what you’re getting up to with your temperatures and pulses 15 to 90 minutes after eating breakfast and lunch, you can email us and we’ll gladly send that to you so that you can have a look at it and it has the normal values of what you should be reaching because 97.1 is an okay waking temperature but after you eat you should go up to at least 98.2 35:21 to 98.6 or 99. Yeah, she’s been hitting 97.9, 98 after eating and her temperature has been slowly, her waking temperature has been slowly rising. She actually hit 97.5 this morning. So it seems like everything’s moving in a positive direction. We are doing the raw carrot every day as well. It would have been for about three months. And that’s why I was just concerned because I know I’ve heard you talk about much lower doses of these things causing effects. And I was just worried that we’re doing this really high dosing and it does seem to be working. There’s no negative side effects but it certainly seems like there should have been more substantial improvement in that period of time. I do find there’s a very wide range of dose that people report back saying they use this much, they use that much. It does happen even with herbs. Well, especially with things like cascara 36:23 in terms of how much it takes to elicit an easy bowel movement. And there are plenty of other herbs out there that some people quite easily consume 15 mil a day and other people don’t need anywhere near as much to get the same response. Things like valerian for sleep. It really wakes some people up. So it is very variable physiologically of how people react to things. Dr. Pete, what do you think about the 40 milligrams of desiccated every hour? What would the total be in the 24 hour period? I think it’s at 12 hours, once an hour for 12 hours. So, see. 480 mil a day. I’ve known people who needed that much of even armor thyroid. What’s that, about like six grains? Yeah, that’s like a five grain tablet of armor. And even veterinarians would routinely prescribe 37:26 that much for a cocker spaniel that weighed 30 pounds. And I’ve known people who needed one or two of those regularly. So it isn’t unheard of to need that much, but it’s important to watch for the signs. Yeah, and also too, products can be different. 40 milligrams of this beef glandular could be very different than 40 milligrams of armor thyroid. Gotcha. So you’re saying the signs to be looking for, I mean, what we did to define the dosing level was basically we had been ramping it up until she began to get nauseous from taking it. And then we backed it back down from there. And that’s where we settled. Yeah, that’s kind of unusual. Everything else seems to be fine. I mean, she’s not having any negative side effects at all. Everything functions, she feels healthy. Well, I know the things that Dr. Pete always points out that our symptoms of overdosing over consumption will be things like sweating with very minimal exercise, 38:29 breathlessness with minimal exercise. Excessive appetite, overheating during strenuous exercise. Well, not strenuous even, but just… And a pulse over 100. You haven’t mentioned what her pulse is. It’s been in the mid 80s most of the time. Yeah, well, you never know. Here’s the other thing with glandulars is it’s such a variable product like Dr. Pete says. I think you could take a dozen different glandular extracts and find different amounts within the same milligram dose of a glandular. So that’s, I think, in some part, a reason to advocate synthetics just because they are very finely measured. So an arm or thyroid might be a better solution then? Well, armor should be quantified. Yeah, there should be a spec sheet that comes with it that will tell you that there are this many micrograms of T3 and T4 and what that ratio would be if there should be an ideal ratio. Okay, great, well, we’ll give those things a shot. 39:31 I really appreciate the show. Thank you guys so much. Yeah, you’re welcome. Thanks for your call. And Dr. Pete, thank you. You’ve really changed our lives and I really appreciate it, so thank you. Thank you for your call. One more thing for that. Listener is, you know, if she was gonna start taking the progesty internally, she’d probably want to start with like an eighth of a teaspoon once a day and then maybe go up to twice a day. And an eighth of a teaspoon of progesty has 50 milligrams of progesterone in it. But you know you absorb it pretty much. But you, yeah, and if you keep it in your mouth. And the cycling is very important. Yeah. Two weeks off every month. There you go. That should help her use it lower dose more effectively. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, you’re welcome. Okay, so we have another caller on the air. So call away from, what’s your question? Hi, I’m from the San Francisco Bay Area. Hey, what’s your question? And I have two questions. One, what can a man do to reverse male pattern baldness? And then two, how can someone heal or improve a lower back herniated disc? 40:32 Dr. P, male pattern baldness is the first question. It’s often associated with low thyroid function. And so for your general health, you should look at the whole picture of your cholesterol and body temperature, energy, need, calories required and so on. And specifically for the health of the scalp, there are a few simple things. Caffeine, for example, is a good stimulant of hair follicle, hair production, rate of growth and so on. You don’t want to put coffee on your head, but you can dissolve purified caffeine in rubbing alcohol, for example. And DHEA is another natural hormone 41:37 that sometimes activates hair follicle function. And for a connective tissue and especially the discs, the DHEA and thyroid, again, are crucial things. If the thyroid function is low, all of the connective tissues tend to be waterlogged and somewhat soft and lacking resistance and elasticity. And DHEA is sometimes just normalizing your serum level of DHEA, which might only take five milligrams a day. That can have very quick dramatic effects on connective tissues, ligaments, tendons, discs, knee cartilage and so on. You must be careful with DHEA because it can raise your estradiol levels. 42:39 So you might want to have blood checks to make sure that your estradiol progesterone ratio is good in women and then your testosterone and estrogen ratio is okay for men. Yeah, you want to use, I think the important thing with DHEA is to make sure that the thyroid function is adequate enough because otherwise then that conversion to estradiol can occur more likely. That’s correct, isn’t it, Dr. Pete? Yep. Yeah. Okay, well, thank you so much. Yeah, thank you for your call. Okay, so number, if you live in the area, 707 number has changed, it’s 777-5397 and there’s an 800 number, if you’re not local, that’s 800-568-3723. So anyway, to carry on with the precautionary principle subject of tonight, and I think we’re going to have to carry this on next week because I’ve got lots of other questions here I’d like to ask you, Dr. Pete. Me next month. I don’t think we’re going to get a chance this evening, but anyway, it’s all good. In terms of the cause and effect and what has been turned around, 43:39 if like in this country, whereby the owner is put on the consumer, as it were, to suffer the consequences and then bring to law or bring to court a, you know, a pursuable case, what do you think could be done that more closely models a European perspective in law perspective in law codifying this precautionary principles without stifling innovation. I think I was here, and I’m not against it. I’m just trying to bring out a balanced perspective here that in this country, and I love America, God bless America, I really do love it, there is an option, an opportunity, a chance, and innovation in this country I think is probably world-leading. I know there’s very brilliant people in China, there’s brilliant people in most of Asia. In India. In India, absolutely. There’s been many, many peoples in the world all over. They’re brilliant people, and they’re brilliant Russians. They’re just brilliant people 44:42 all over in many different cultures and countries, but in America there is this kind of spirit of entrepreneurship and groundbreaking innovation, and I always hear the argument, well, that’s going to get stifled. If we put too many restrictions on, you know, say drug development, that doesn’t bring a product to market, and it costs all these billions of dollars, and you know, we’re going to stop people from getting involved in this kind of thing. What do we, and I know it’s not the case, but I just want to bring out what you’re trying to bring up in terms of, so this is why not. So what have you got to say about the potential of stifling innovation with legislation like European legislation, which tends to be mindlessly bureaucratic? How does that get avoided, but still have the safety that we would all want to demand from a product as consumers? If the government would just stop stifling the exchange of information, that would, I think would reduce the need for legislative power and enforcement. 45:55 For example, when a product, a drug, comes on the market with FDA approval, the FDA should make public all of the information that the drug company had, at least, but they let the drug company keep secrets as business secrets that very often relate to the safety of the product. So the FDA tends to conspire to keep information away from the public, that the public should have complete access to if the government is going to say this is an approved thing that has the government support. Okay, because I think I’ll bring out a little bit later if we have the time, because we do have a caller, but if we have time, we’ll get into this vibrational piece of work by this Chuck Cris Busby in England and what he hopes to bring to pass 46:59 called the Euro Tom Suicide Clause, where he’s basically going to use the same legislation that Europeans have to bring into law the precautionary principle and apply it to nuclear power stations, and they are going to fall flat on their face with this one, because there’s nowhere they can defend it. Okay, so we have a caller on the air, but let’s take this caller. Call away from, and what’s your question? I’m actually from Pepperwood, so I live locally. Yeah, okay, what’s your question? My question is, I have reached the age of 60, and a colonoscopy is in my, is what everyone tells me I need to have, even though I’m not having any digestive problems, it seems like something that, you know, is a test that you’re supposed to have, and I’m just not sure I was wondering what you all thought about that. Dr. Pete, colonoscopy, impossible revealing carcinoma in the bowel? 47:59 And or possible complications, what would you advise, Dr. Pete? Right, it’s just, you know, it seems like a routine thing when you reach a certain age, they want you to have it now, and it seems, you know, like it is, I mean, I know they’ve done thousands of them, and, but it seems it is another thing that’s invasive, and if your body’s not experiencing any problems, I’m wondering, can you hold off, or is this something that is important? I mean, I know you want to prevent colon cancer, but I’m just concerned about, you know, complications of surgery, what not. My position is pretty extreme, and I urge people to learn as much as they can, but 49:00 on colonoscopy, if there’s no radiation involved, it’s just a matter of the mechanics of it, and possibly the toxic effects of any sedative or anesthetic that they might use. But when you relate it to the commonly done CAT scans and various X-ray exams, I would put it on the potentially justified medical procedure, while I would exclude almost always the CAT scans and radiation exams. The basic argument is that they find a certain amount of polyps that are precancerous or even 50:05 have definite cancer in them that can be removed. I would just suggest that that no one really knows the natural history of a polyp, because you would have to have colonoscopy every month or so for years to watch the actual development of an individual polyp, and I suspect that many polyps, the same way that many skin melanomas, have simply fall off and go away without even being noticed. So there’s a certain ambiguity in the science that’s used to justify them. In the few areas of the world where almost no one dies of intestinal rectal cancer, 51:09 the colonoscopy is not done, so it happens that there’s a close correlation between doing colonoscopies and having colon cancer. The other thing I’d like to bring out, Dr. Pete, to remind me for interrupting, but anybody over the age of 50 pretty much will be found to have some carcinoma somewhere in the body on autopsy, correct? Yeah, and it’s been known for, since at least the 1940s, I think it was in JAMA, someone published pictures of a biopsy made of various types of superficial injury, cuts or stab wounds and such, and showed that all of the features used to diagnose cancer in a pathological study, all of these features can be found in an ordinary 52:14 healing wound. So right from the 1940s, the documentation by biopsy slides and examined by skilled pathologists, all of that has been put into question since all of those features, abnormal cell arrangement, abnormal cell structure and so on, can be found in any healing wound. So if they had mixed up the slides and had someone’s biopsy from a healing wound with someone’s cancer, cancerous polyp, they’d see the same thing and misdiagnose someone with a healing wound with cancer. Is that what you’re saying basically? Well, it implies that if you don’t follow that particular tumor or thing that you biopsied, if you cut it out and study it, you don’t know whether it was in the process of healing or of not healing. And so I think the 53:17 rational approach is to do what you can that promotes healing rather than doing a biopsy. When you say that, Dr. Pete, then you mean to eat the right foods for your colon and your basic digestive tract health. Is that what I’m hearing you say? The areas where they don’t get colon cancer in effect are areas of Africa where they eat a high fiber diet. Milk and fiber are very protective of the colon. Well, I won’t take all of your time. Thank you so much. That is really very helpful for me. Thank you for your call, caller. Dr. Pete, I know we only have about four minutes left before we have to wrap up the top of the hour with contact information, etc. But I did want you just to, 54:18 and this is off the fly, but I know you’re going to be able to answer it. I wanted you just to reiterate the rationale behind pigments and skin melanosis, pigments that are formed in the skin, whether they be benign precancerous or cancerous, and how that effect of that cell change can be mitigated with progesterone, given that the estrogenic stimulation with that area can certainly be a trigger for carcinoma. The tanning process is probably related to the formation of moles and melanomas, the injury done to the cell by ultraviolet light. You can create tanning by practically any kind of injury to the skin, not just ultraviolet light, but it’s a reaction to injury. And so when cells are being injured, for example, by a 55:27 progesterone deficiency, stressed by stimulator substances such as estrogen or some of the nerve transmitter chemicals, the stress reaction creates a pigment as a defense because the pigment is a free radical scavenger. And as long as you’re producing the pigment, it’s defending itself against the free radicals. So I think of moles as a defensive reaction. A famous Israeli researcher, Gershom Zycek, has reviewed the evidence on melanoma surgery. He says it’s very common for when you remove one confirmed melanoma, often new ones will 56:34 pop up almost immediately after the removal. And he suggests that the presence of one is sending out signals that suppress the formation of new ones. Okay, because there’s definitely a bystander effect as well with cancers and there’s definitely the well-documented risk of spread and or alarm signals being spread that would then propagate that same reproduction. Anyway, Dr. Pete, thank you so much for your time. We’re coming up to a couple of minutes, so let me just, the lights are buzzing, of course. Well, was there anything else you wanted to say, Dr. Pete, before we close out the show? No, just that the bystander effect is a vastly under-investigated subject. It relates to radiation, estrogen, any kind of injury spreading everywhere in the body. It’s in the field of quantum mechanics, right? 57:37 All right, thanks so much for your time, Dr. Pete. Thank you, Dr. Pete. Okay, thanks. Okay, so thanks for those people that have called in, for those people that have listened and tried to call at the end of the show here. I’m sorry we didn’t get to the phone. There is a possibility here, if you want to email, you can email either me or Sarah. You can go ahead and email me, Andrew, at WesternBetanicalMedicine.com, if you have any questions that you didn’t get a chance to ask, perhaps. Okay, so for those people that heard Dr. Pete and want to find out more about him, www.reypeat, r-a-y-p-e-a-t dot com.

More Interviews