Politics & Science: Empiricism Vs Dogmatic Modeling
PODCAST | Ray Peat
null | Ray Peat
00:00:00 > JOHN BARKHAUSEN: The Following episode of Politics & Science features an interview with Dr. Raymond Peat, endocrinologist and physiologist, Eugene, Oregon. It was recorded on July 24, 2008. At that time, we were struggling with a – how shall I say – a not-very-well -functioning phone interface machine at WMRW-LP1 and so the sound is a little funky. I’ve put it through some sound modifying programs and it sounds a little echoey now, but the buzz is gone and I hope it's listenable. More information about Dr. Raymond Peat can be found at raypeat.com where you'll find many fascinating articles. And if you enjoy this show or didn't catch all of it and wanted to hear the rest, you can browse your way on a computer to radio4all.
00:01:02 > net. And once you get there, search for Politics &Science and you'll find a number of episodes ready to download to your computer to listen to at your convenience. Alright, and now to the interview itself. Raymond, can you hear me. RAY PEAT: Yeah. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Okay. Let me hang up the phone. Alright. Thanks for joining us again. Let’s see if I can get my knobs adjusted here correctly. Alright, you are on the air and we are speaking with Dr. Raymond Peat out in Eugene, Oregon. He is an endocrinologist and physiologist who has written a lot of books about health and nutrition and science and has a newsletter called Ray Peat’s Newsletter and you can find them on the Web at raypeat.com. Raymond, can you hear me? Oh good.
00:02:04 > Okay. I lost you for a minute. Just yesterday, we were doing a sound check and sort of picked up where we left off last week talking about fats – fats in our diet and the use of fats by humans over the years and also as animal feed. And yesterday, you were talking about cholesterol and you mentioned a fellow named Chris Masterjohn. And I thought, perhaps, one of the things you said yesterday that kind of shocked me was that, for years, we've heard that cholesterol is something you get from fat, from butter, from especially beef fat, any of those meats that are full of supposedly saturated fats and that's why we are being so poisoned by cholesterol. And it turns out that perhaps cholesterol isn't the bogeyman we always thought it was. It’s actually something we need to function. RAY PEAT: Yeah. But eating cholesterol –
00:03:06 > if you’re healthy, you have to eat a tremendous amount, like the experiment, where they had healthy – I think they were young men eat eggs until they could see an increase in blood cholesterol. It took 22 eggs before they saw a rise in the day’s cholesterol. And it does rise if you are very sick and can’t compensate. But in a practical situation where a person might want to raise their cholesterol, you can usually do it just by eating lots of fruit because, for several reasons, the minerals and sugar in the fruit give the liver the energy it needs to make adequate cholesterol. And they call it a U-shaped curve of mortality
00:04:08 > and you have an ideal of range of cholesterol for a given age and when you are below that range your mortality increases. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: What are those ranges then? RAY PEAT: The published – the people who talk about the curve usually put the bottom of the U around 160 to 180.But when you look at the figures, the bottom really varies with age, like one study looked at people in a nursing home situation and saw that the ones who have the highest cholesterol, I think in that in that group, those with 270 lived the longest. So you have to
00:05:10 > think about the relation of the cholesterol to the stress you are under and consider it an anti-stress hormone. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Yeah, my father recently was told that he has to start taking statins. And a lot of people are on statins. What’s your opinion? RAY PEAT: Years ago, they started seeing increased mortality as they used drugs to lower cholesterol. And there is one – I think it was Hungarian in the 1980s that showed a great increase in cancer mortality as they lowered cholesterol. And that somewhat accorded with Veterans Administration study in the 1960s. They stopped when they saw that people on the so-called heart protective low-fat diet were dying at
00:06:12 > a higher rate from cancer. But there is still some lingering data showing that the statins might increase total mortality, but the marketing is so intense that they manage to place articles convincing people how good it is. A recent book by Melody Petersen, I think the title is, Our Daily Meds, give us a lot of information about how the drug industry manipulates the culture, paying doctors well, writing articles for doctors and just getting them to sign their names and then publishing them in prestigious journals promoting their products that it gives a little bit
00:07:14 > of the inside information about how they're actually buying the medical literature. And Marcia Angell,seeing it from an editors’ viewpoint at the New England Journal of Medicine, emphasized that the editorial decisions can completely bias the results of a topic if people choose not to even submit their data because it doesn’t support the efficacy of a drug or the safety. A lot of studies will simply not get submitted. And then if the editors introduce more bias, you might have 50 studies showing a drug is harmful and useless, and one that gets published showing that its beneficial. Increasingly, Melody
00:08:16 > Petersen shows how the drug industry is not only modifying the research that gets done and how the universities treat their research, but how the journals publish it and then finally how the doctors use it. So the system is pretty well soed up now. Anything relating to drug therapy, you just simply can't trust the Anglo-American literature. And increasingly it has spread into Italy, Chile, France and Japan as the industry has become influential in those countries. India and Russia were relatively outside the commercial pharmaceutical influence,
00:09:18 > but now they are moving in that direction too. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: So that’s an effect of globalization, I suppose, same corporate policies. RAY PEAT: Yeah. Still some of the more backward economies still do some real research. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: So, yeah, I’ve heard it said that we have one of the most effective propaganda systems in world history basically in this country at this time, with access to the media pretty much sown up by the corporations and alternative voices only heard on stations like ours, community stations, which there’s quite a few of them are in the country, but there is a lot of space in between them. So how's the media situation out in Oregon? RAY PEAT: Well, in my lifetime the Pacificastations have been the outstanding exceptions.
00:10:20 > But the University Public Radio Station about, I guess, 10 years, 15 years ago, it changed its format, so that students don’t have the access they used to and now it sounds like one of those big city furniture advertising classical music stations. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: That still used to be more of a community station. RAY PEAT: Yeah. It used to be a really good station, but the donors made it sound like one of those upper-class, nothing, but classic music stations. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Yeah. We have a pretty small range here, but we do have an affiliation with Pacifica and with other community stations around the country. So we’ve tried to network our programming and share it between ourselves. Well, getting back to cholesterol
00:11:22 > and there was a guy – you said – the last time you were on the air, you spoke about somebody named Chris Masterjohn. RAY PEAT: Yeah. I have read several of his articles that are very good. My only disagreement with him is that he persists and believe in essential fatty acids. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: I see. That’s something a lot of “alternative health people” believe in. In a nutshell, what is your view on the essential fatty acids just so everybody knows? RAY PEAT: Well, the first claim was that it was linoleic acid, then maybe linolenic was added, but already after the Burrs studies at the late 20s and early 30s, by the 1940s their disease was shown to be nothing but a vitamin B6 deficiency.
00:12:24 > And just about the same time, the agricultural researchers were showing that linolenic and linoleic acid were the causes of brain degeneration, testicular degeneration and infertility and muscle degeneration. And fish oils, about the same time, were causing Mink degenerative diseases and then the yellow fat disease was showing up in more and more animals as they were fed fish waste because of an excess of the polyunsaturated fats and fish fats. And so, the linoleic acid finally was recognized to be essential for cancer, but
00:13:26 > not at all essential for nutrition. And the publicity coming out that the original essential fatty acids were essential for cancer kind of discouraged the marketing in that direction and that's when it shifted to marketing fish oil as the new version of the essential fatty acids. And that’s where we are now at the – pretty much the peak of the fish oil promotion as the new fatty acids that are being recommended at higher intake levels to actually function as drugs to supposedly cure a lot of diseases. But, in fact, the old research, going back 40, 50 years, shows
00:14:28 > that it is simply a temporary suppression of inflammatory symptoms, while in the long run increasing the inflammatory degenerative processes. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: So the reason people have a subsiding of their symptoms, it’s just their immune system has been knocked down? RAY PEAT: David Horrobin, who was a big promoter of polyunsaturated fats and who died of brain cancer and was trying to treat himself with his own fats, he published work showing that fish oil is very immune suppressive. And others looking at why fish oil is anti-inflammatory found that it wasn’t the original long chain polyunsaturated fats that are found in the fish, but why they are processed
00:15:30 > and hit the hot organs of a mammal, they breakdown. And it is the breakdown products, the aldehydes and free radicals, that are decomposed from the fish oils, which are actually the anti-inflammatory substances. So it’s the deterioration of the material that produces temporary relief, but it’s also those things which contribute to the serious long-range problems, such as brain damage and vascular damage and so on. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: And you were saying last week that the fish oil does have some good properties about it, has lots of vitamin A and D. RAY PEAT: Yeah. Depends on how it's made. But in its crude form, it does come with a lot of vitamin D and A. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: I see. So if there was some way to get those vitamins
00:16:32 > out without… RAY PEAT: Yeah. There have been a lot of products on the market extracted from fish liver oil in which they concentrate the vitamin D and A a lot, so that you could get your daily dose in a couple of drops of the oil. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: And some people are taking fish oil for anti-depression. I think they’re called the OmegaBriteor something, some such. RAY PEAT: Yeah. There have been studies even in the published literature, the ones I've seen were just about an equal number saying it isn’t effective as say it is effective. Same with using it as a supplement to baby food. there are studies that show that it retards eye and brain development, even though they don’t get discussed very much. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Is that the DHA? RAY PEAT: Yeah. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: And they have started adding that
00:17:34 > to baby food? RAY PEAT: Yeah. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Oh dear. How did we get on fish oil? Raymond, do you remember? RAY PEAT: Well, it’s being promoted as an essential. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: That’s right. Thank you. So flax seed oil, it’s gone out of fashion. I didn't realize that. And now, they are promoting mostly fish oil in the alternative medicine field. RAY PEAT: I think so, yeah. The literature in the 1980s just became overwhelming, showing that linoleic acid, in particular, is really the basic motor for pushing cancer excess and linolenic isn’t quite as bad. And so, flax isn’t as bad as some of the others. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: We are talking to Dr. Raymond Peat. If anybody would like to ask Dr. Peat a question, there is no other phone line here, but I can receive emails at
00:18:36 > info@wmrw. org. So that’s info@wmrw .org. So if essential oils are only essential for creating disease, how is it that they are so heavily promoted by the government? RAY PEAT: Several years ago, the FDA had a warning not to use more than, I think it was, 3 g a day of those long-chain unsaturated fats from fish oil. And I think they dropped that warning, at least it isn’t prominent like it used to be. And I think right from its very beginning, the FDA was captured by the food industry and then the drug industry and now they really are working primarily
00:19:38 > as a corporate defense system. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Yeah, it seems like they absorbed the liability for the corporations. If they approve it, then you can't sue the corporation. RAY PEAT: Yeah. The same thing as government protecting the nuclear industry by saying you can’t collect more than a certain amount of damages if you have reactor exploded in your neighborhood. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Right. So basically the oil industry is underwritten by the government. RAY PEAT: Yeah. The Public Health Service has a worse record than the FDA itself. The FDA interfaces with the consumers and tries to keep them happy. But at higher levels, the agencies of the government
00:20:40 > have been more defensive of the power structure and pretty much ignoring the consumer level, like in the years of the fallout from atmospheric bomb testing. The Public Health Service was destroying data and putting out false data about the safety of radiation. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Yeah. That is very telling of how the government can work at its worst. Maybe you could talk about radiation for a minute and how the government’s bias towards that has made it more widespread? RAY PEAT: Well, for 50 – I guess, 60 years I have been hearing from dentists and doctors that the dose we give you in examining you
00:21:42 > is very small and harmless. And then they reduce it ten -fold and they say exactly the same thing. And the words are the same in 1940, 1950, right down to the current. They claim they have digitalized machines. People think it’s just bits of information coming through their bodies. But it’s the same old x-rays. They’re exciting their selves. And even Linus Pauling took a less than adequate biological view. He was the one warning about the dangers, but he was looking only at the DNA damage. But the damage is much subtler than breaking strands
00:22:44 > of DNA. The excited electrons cause chemical and physiological changes that linger, completely distinct from the immediate reaction of radiation with the DNA. So that, for example, you can give a dose of radiation to cells in a dish and then add new cells that weren't exposed to radiation to that dish and the new cells will start mutating a day or more later from something emitted by the exposed cells. And that process lingers in the tissues and the blood serum and it’s called the bystander effect that you can demonstrate in a lab.
00:23:46 > Cells that weren't exposed start behaving as if they were exposed by contact with the damaged cells. And people exposed from the Hiroshima bomb have been studied 60 years later and they still showed essentially excited electronic states in their tissues. And the same with people, I guess, about 20 years after the Chernobyl exposure, their serum is still toxic. It can be removed from their blood and added to healthy cells and the healthy cells begin mutating. So it’s the bystander effect which lingers and might continue causing mutations, but it’s a completely separate process from mutation. So the
00:24:48 > safety assumptions were based on the model of how a beam of radiation will effect a molecule. And so, it was worked out in terms of direct interaction between a molecule and radiation. But in the organism, that simply isn’t how it works. And the Russians, way back in the 60s, were showing that where the western paradigm was that if you irradiated an animal's brain, it would go into esterase, causing – supposedly something was altered in the pituitary, causing the ovaries to produce more estrogen. The Russians did a control experiment in which they irradiated
00:25:50 > the animal’s foot instead of its brain and it went into esterase. And so, they called them some kind of radiation toxin that was emitted by the exposed tissue, but it’s the same thing that happens in the bystander effect. It’s some physiological biochemical change that is started by the radiation, but then spreads and continues and the increased estrogen happens to imitate these processes started by the radiation, so there are probably many levels from the single cell which emits the bystander acting substances to the whole organism in which estrogen becomes one of the bystander activating substances. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: So you are saying
00:26:52 > a little bit of radiation causes this cascading effect throughout. RAY PEAT: Yeah JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Throughout [inaudible]. RAY PEAT: Two or three years ago, in Seattle, they were using low level, fancy, latest, well calibrated x-ray equipment and covering the patients with lead aprons and so on. And they found that a full set of dental x-rays, if the woman was pregnant at the time, even though her body was shielded thoroughly, her baby turned out underweight showing that basically the same effect as taking a dose of estrogen while pregnant. It spreads a stress influence that malnourishes the developing fetus and causes its brain to develop less fully than
00:27:54 > an unexposed fetus. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Now, the method you use to describe how the government assess the dangers of radiation poisoning, where they just sort of had a hypothetical theory that one molecule being affected by ionizing radiation, but they didn't take into account the living being. I think you’ve said before that that's common in how scientists conducted in the West. They do a lot of experiments in test tubes basically. RAY PEAT: Yeah. And worse than that, rather than – if you look through PubMed, you see lots of abstract described as in vitro, but now they have the concept in silico. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: What does that mean? RAY PEAT: It means that they didn't have anything living at all, it was all done in a computer. But people read the article and they are used
00:28:56 > to seeing in vitro and they think real cells were involved, but in silico means in the computer. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: I have never heard of that before, in silico. So what's wrong with that, Ray? What’s wrong with doing – I guess, that’s modelling basically, isn’t it? RAY PEAT: Yeah. It’s like the medieval arguments about angels, how much pore space does an angel need to dance and how many can get on the head of a pin. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: You mean, it’s meaningless, unless it's… RAY PEAT: Yeah, worse than meaningless. It is a way of amplifying your favorite hypothesis or assumption. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: It will actually promote some absolutely wrong theory if you do your modelling, right? RAY PEAT: Yeah.
00:30:00 > JOHN BARKHAUSEN: So in studying science, I think a lot of people are a little bit confused that we just figure it’s empirical and they are testing theories all the time and, of course, the best theory will end up on top because it will get the most positive results. How come that isn’t the way it works? RAY PEAT: Lots of reasons, but probably the basic thing is that it’s all filtered through the culture and the system of assumption. And the assumptions, if you look at different cultures, the whole background of philosophy and religion influences what you think can be taken
00:31:02 > seriously as an assumption. And because in the medieval times people believed in alchemy and the influence of the planet and astrology, the ordinary chemists and physiologists think it is absurd to consider the phase of the moon when you’re doing a chemical or biological study, but several people have looked at lab results done over a period of time and have seen that the phase of the moon does influence many experiments in lab. And for example, I worked in the hamster lab at the university where the indoor temperature was kept constant and
00:32:04 > the light was artificially controlled, so a person would not have any cues indoors whether it was winter or summer, but somehow the hamsters knew what was going on outside the walls because their thymuses would atrophy in the winter season and come back in the spring, just like they do when they are exposed to changing day length. And that was investigated. Professor Brown in Indiana did many tests with potatoes, oysters and flowering plants and he had noticed that his experiments varied with the moon and
00:33:06 > he got some oysters from the East Coast and studied their metabolism in Indiana. And if it had been genetically determined the way the paradigm said it must be because hamsters can’t know when it is winter if you're controlling their lifecycles or it must be some kind of a genetically operated clock in their brains. Brown took his oysters to Indiana and they were still metabolically cycling as if the tides were coming into Indiana. And he did the same thing with potatoes, which aren’t susceptible to tides, and so no one knew about monthly cycles in potatoes. But he saw a similar metabolic
00:34:08 > moon cycle in potato metabolism and flowering plants that– he saw that he could take one of these plants that opens its petals at dawn and closes them at sunset, taking it indoors, they still kept up the same cycle. And so, he took it into a big building where there were no cues from the outside apparently reached and they still did it. So he took his plants into a mine shaft and they kept cycling until they got down. I forget – I think it was hundreds of feet below the surface. The plant finally didn't receive the cue and no longer cycled. So he demonstrated that something lunar or planetary influence
00:35:10 > was able to penetrate hundreds of feet of shielding and his plant showed that, when properly shielded, they no longer cycled disproving the idea that it’s a genetic clock. And other people were able to train plants to move their leaves at different times of day by giving them cues that overrode the environmental cues, again disproving that it is all controlled by an abstract genetic clock. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: I see. So you're saying that genetics is a dogma that’s been pretty much accepted by the cultures as the…? RAY PEAT: Yeah. It really is primarily a kind of religious belief that –
00:36:12 > remember the Lamarck- Cuvier controversy. The person who took over the museum that Lamarck had been the director of for years, when Lamarck was doing his work showing the inheritance of acquired traits the man that took over was a Christian catastrophist who basically said there was no evolution that was accounted forby a flood destroying the ancient species and so on. So, in history, the genetics has an anti-environmental approach with strictly biblical orientation against whatever the Lamarckian
00:37:14 > environmentalist orientation was. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Yeah. I always thought that genetic orientation always is very convenient for liability in terms of anybody causing environmental damage, whether it could be to your own body in terms of pollution or to the environment, in general. They can always – if you can’t directly link them in a simple cause-and-effect, they can always just say it’s genetics. RAY PEAT: It has been very convenient for the medical profession for the last 50 or 60 years. It’s either genetic or it’s a virus and there is nothing you can do to expect the cure. And especially, with cancer, the government was very influential in reinforcing that interpretation and that’s closely related to military
00:38:16 > medical research. The germ warfare people were getting government subsidies and they were inclined to the it's-your-own-fault -for-having-bad-genes theory and much of the research was done to say that the military didn’t cause the problems. The environmentalism in cancer research simply couldn’t get funding after about 1945. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Is that right? Not since 1945? It’s all been genetic? RAY PEAT: A little bit was persisting into the early 50s, but it’s
00:39:18 > pretty much the – at the end of the Second World War that the whole school of biology simply was de funded and put out of existence. The idea that embryos develop according to a field – developmental field and gradient, that was the dominant theory, along with the idea that cancer is a metabolic physiological field distortion. So embryology and cancer were related to these metabolic and pattern- based ideas. The genetics and militaristic approach simply cut those off and the best research
00:40:20 > was done through the 30s and the war itself interrupted a lot of research. But when the government came out of the war having funded the Manhattan project, that sort of money was then directed into germ warfare research and that gradually shifted to so-called cancer research. The Fort Detrick Germ Warfare Lab simply changed its name, while not doing very different research when it shifted over to the war against cancer. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: So these cultural beliefs that seem to be directing research and taking some theories for the truth and rejecting other theories regardless of the empirical evidence, they basically are also
00:41:22 > responsible for the misinformation we’ve heard about cholesterol? RAY PEAT: Yeah. In different ways. They talk about genetically determined tendencies towards high cholesterol that you can see in the form of cholesterol receptors. And the whole idea of receptor is a genetic and pharmacological idea. It is very much like the ads you see on TV where a drug zooms around in your body and goes right to the place where it’s needed. The receptor idea is like a switch that turns on the gene and there are molecules that drugs and substances
00:42:24 > stick to. And those, if they have any involvement in physiology, those are called the receptor. But that is promoted as a genetically determined thing. And so, one drug company was collecting genes from a village in the Mediterranean area where people didn’t have heart disease and trying to promote a gene change as a drug product. But the environmental influences simply weren’t of interest because if you can identify a problem as a permanent genetic feature of the patient and then work on that gene receptor with a drug, then you got a product. But
00:43:26 > the cholesterol receptors are regulated by hormones such as the thyroid. And so if a person doesn't have enough of the receptors, so-called, that takes cholesterol out of your blood, you can take thyroid and increase the amount of that receptor. But that doesn’t please anyone, but the thyroid industry. And they haven’t really taken advantage of it. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: And the thyroid industry, I know a lot of people – sort of harping around here, but I know a lot of people who do take thyroid and that’s – there is several products on the market. There’s Synthroid. There’s Cytomel. There’s Cynoplus. All of these are sort of aimed at the thyroid hormone which basically get your thyroid jump started a bit. RAY PEAT: Yeah. In the
00:44:28 > 1930s,the main product was made by the Armour Meat Company, which became the Armour Pharmaceutical Company, because they had a lot of beef and pork thyroids that they didn't know what to do with, so they would sell those or the ovaries or adrenals. Whatever wasn’t popular as meat, they would dehydrate and sell it as a drug product. And in the 30s that was the standard treatment. And the symptoms of hypothyroidism were identified. And when they would give them the Armour Thyroid containing both T4 and T3, the symptoms would be alleviated. But after the war, a company came on the market with purified thyroxine, which is only
00:45:30 > a fraction of the fraction of the Armour Thyroid. The thyroid contains a protein which you digest and then it liberates the two thyroid substances, T4 and T3. But T4 is released by the gland about four times as much as the active T3. And the liver then – when conditions are right, when the environment is right, the liver completes the activation, so that most of your thyroid function is really coming from the liver, which the liver is an interface with the environment. So when your nutrition calls for it, then your liver produces 70% or 80% of the active thyroid hormone. But after the war, the drug company had
00:46:32 > an interest in promoting a product, and so they said the main substance and the easiest to make was thyroxine. And they gave it to 25-year -old male medical students, very healthy people, and said it works just like real thyroid in these healthy young men. But they didn’t test it in sick people or in women. Woman’s livers are much less active than men because of the effect of estrogen. A certain amount of alcohol takes longer for a woman to eliminate from the body than in a man. So the liver, in general, is less active in females. But the drug product thyroxine was sold across the board even though it had only been tested
00:47:34 > in young men and it was more than ten years later that the real active hormone, T3, came on the market. It wasn’t even know at the time that the thyroid supplement was being marketed as thyroxine. And the tests that determined whether you are hypothyroid or not disregarded all of the symptoms that had been associated with hypothyroidism upX until about 1945.And the tests at first measured only the iodine bound to protein, which has very little to do with your thyroid function. And according to those tests, the thyroxine product would raise your protein
00:48:36 > -bound iodine, and so that was compatible with marketing the synthetic drug. But after about 20 years, they saw that the protein-bound iodine test had almost nothing to do with your thyroid function. If you ate seaweed, you would get a lot of protein -bound iodine, but your thyroid function would go down. And so, they started looking for new ways to test the thyroid, but they had established over those 20 years that instead of half of the population benefitting from thyroid, the tests suggested that only 5% of the people would benefit from thyroid. So whatever new test came on the market, the assumption had been established in the culture that only about 5% would need thyroid. And so, any new
00:49:38 > test has been standardized to that paradigm of looking at a percentage of the population rather than whether the substance cured symptoms. And so, now they are treating the thyroid stimulating hormone level and disregarding the actual effect of the hormone on the person’s self and physiology. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: So they’re basically treating the – one of the markers instead of the actual symptoms. RAY PEAT: Yeah. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Yeah. That seems to happen a lot in medicine. They start mistaking the marker for the actual problem. RAY PEAT: Yeah. And they call it a subclinical and don’t even make it explicit what they mean by clinical. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: The AIDS test, I think, is something like that, isn’t it?
00:50:40 > RAY PEAT: Yeah. There have been several traditional drugs that alleviate symptoms, but those tend to be suppressed or forgotten, but the so-called virus has attracted very little attention. What they are doing now is using a lab process to amplify a substance that relates to the virus. It isn’t the actual virus, but they call it the viral load, but it’s something they create in the laboratory, and meanwhile they ignore the
00:51:42 > use or consider them simply additional therapies that could be added to the valuable and profitable drugs that they use to treat the AIDS people. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: I was going to talk to you about the Chris Masterjohn’s experience in cholesterol today, but maybe we’ll save that for another day. You were going to say something else about the AIDS drugs, Ray? RAY PEAT: There are a couple very good books. One is Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter Duesberg and the other one is by Harvey Bialy about Peter Duesberg and the virus and disease. And I have been following it now for, I guess, 20 years and the
00:52:44 > establishment people just don't want to talk about it. They won’t let these people publish responses to articles in the major journals. So the average doctor reading it thinks they have no answer, but it is just that the editors don’t want to hear their answer and the mainline of virus theory of AIDS people have never answered the criticisms of Peter Duesberg, who basically says the virus is harmless. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: And that begs the question, what's causing the harm? RAY PEAT: Yeah. He thinks it’s a drug. I'm inclined to the idea that it’s the interaction of drugs, polyunsaturated fats, radiation exposure and other toxins in the environment. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: So that would be another case of an environmental problem that’s…
00:53:46 > RAY PEAT: Yeah. When you graft the incidence over the last 60 years of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, it’s a straight progressive increase since the bomb tests began after the Second World War. And there was no sudden jump at the time AIDS became official as a disease. It’s a steady increase going back 60 years. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: That’s very interesting. Well, we are just about out of time. We’ve been talking to Dr. Raymond Peat from Eugene, Oregon. He is a physiologist and an endocrinologist and puts out a newsletter called Ray Peat’s Newsletter and you can find him on the Web at raypeat.com where you have a lot of excellent articles. You’re getting more and more articles up there, I have noticed too. RAY PEAT: I have another 10 to 15 that will go up in a couple of weeks, I hope. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Great. Well, they’re
very interesting. And even if you don't necessarily agree with everything that’s said there, plenty of food for thought and a lot of medical history and scientific history that I certainly have never heard about before. So I find it all fascinating. Thanks, Ray, for your work. RAY PEAT: Okay. Thanks. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: And we’ll talk to you soon. RAY PEAT: Bye. JOHN BARKHAUSEN: Bye, bye. And that concludes today's broadcast of Politics & Science. I hope you enjoyed it. Other Politics &science shows can be found at radio4all.net. And once you get there, type in Politics &Science. I have been your host today, John Barkhausen, and please tune it again next week for another edition of Politics & Science.