Increasing Your Healthspan | Steven Fowkes, Biohacker – Part 1 of 3

0
1567

Welcome ladies and gentlemen. This is Greg Wientjes, with the Biohacker podcast.
The biohacker podcast brings you world class experts on longevity, biohacking, and health. Our goal is to give you clear things you can do to improve your healthspan and lifespan — so, you make it to 100 plus years old.
Today, we have Steve Fowkes, a friend from the Silicon Valley Health Institute and a longtime biohacker. This is part one of a series of three episodes with Steve.  Organic chemist and nanotechnologist, Fowkes, is a self described “incurable optimist” and interested in helping find solutions to many of humanity’s grand challenges. Some of those solutions start with just optimizing the brain you have with some simple vitamins and nutrients.

Transcript

Biohacker [00:00:00] Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. This is Greg Winchester with the Bio Hacker podcast. The Bio Hacker podcast brings you world class experts on longevity, bio hacking and health. Our goal is to give you clear things you can do to improve your health span in your lifespan so you can make it to 100 plus years old. Today we have Steve Folks, a friend from the Silicon Valley Health Institute and a longtime bio hacker. This is part two of a series of three episodes with Steve Organic Chemist and Nano Technologist. Folks is a self-described incurable optimist and interested in helping find solutions to many of humanity’s grand challenges. Some of those solutions start with just optimizing the brain you have with some simple vitamins and nutrients. We explore a knee injury I had recently and it gives me perspectives on how to heal faster. We also talk about a new refinement on the theory of how humanity evolved. One of the most important pieces that we got into later in the podcast is strategies on how to navigate the medical system in the US. It’s a fascinating episode with a truly brilliant human being. Please enjoy my conversation with Steve, folks.

Biohacker [00:01:12] For example, you get mercury poisoning. What are the best ways to buy the mercury poisoning? Tony Robbins, for example, recently got diagnosed, incidentally, three years ago, and it was really a problem for him. I think he did a bit of a collation therapy.

Steve Fowkes [00:01:25] That’s often a mistake. Mercury is not something that is until recently, we haven’t had a good solution to the mercury problem.

Steve Fowkes [00:01:35] Mercury is one of those things that the body detoxify is effectively in the deep tissues of the body, first of all, led and mercury and thallium and those kinds of compounds as third period toxic heavy metals. They live in your body deep down in your sub cellular levels, near your DNA, in your mitochondria, in the link within the cell body.

[00:02:04] So it’s hard to get at.

[00:02:05] It’s not even in the in the body of the cell, in the cytoplasm, within the organ. It’s within the organs. Oh, wow.

[00:02:11] So deep, deep the really, really deep. And that’s that’s not something that the medical profession is taught. It’s hard to get at. It’s hard to get at. And it’s hard to identify because, you know, when you look at blood, that’s a very superficial level.

[00:02:26] If you look at hair, well, that’s slightly lower. If you do red blood cells and white blood cells, while red blood cells don’t have nuclei and don’t have much in the way of organelles, white blood cells are very short lived. They’re they’re inflammatory. Lee activated. They’re they’re not a typical population like compared to, let’s say, your nervous system, not absorbing the heart or your liver, your lungs or your kidney.

[00:02:52] It’s the organs that really matter.

[00:02:55] So it’s very easy to to not be able to identify it. So if you go to Kaiser and you ask for a mercury test, they’ll take your urine or they’ll take your blood and they’ll tell you you don’t have mercury poisoning. And because there’s no mercury in your blood at the time. But the problem is, mercury doesn’t live in your blood.

[00:03:13] It’s in your brain. It’s in your brain.

[00:03:15] You don’t find it. So, you know, that test is fundamentally worthless.

[00:03:21] So what they’ve done alternative and and more, why is doctors and naturopaths and stuff and in and traditional ones will use collating agents that are helped pull the mercury out of the deep tissues so that it can be gotten rid of. Got got rid of by the liver by putting it into bile and get rid of get rid of it through the kidney by excreting it in urine. Have the liver potentially bind something up and and to dump it so that you’re you’re activating a detox mechanism to actually get rid of it instead of it is living down in your deep tissues. It’s actually exiting your body. And that’s the real art is how do you do that? Lead, for example, lives in our bones. And as we our bones turn over, as we dissolve out o bone and put in new bone, the lead comes out of our bones and goes through our bloodstream. And so you can you can actually do collation therapy and pull that out. And that’s fairly safe and reliable. But because your bones take, you know, a year or 10 years to turn over, you’re doing collation treatments for 10 years in a row. You know, let’s say you do it weekly for 10 years at a rare, really expensive. And you get stuck with needles all the time.

[00:04:42] And it’s really not have any effect. Well, no, it has an effect, but it’s not it’s not ideal. OK, I know some people are working on artificial kidney that would allow this kind of. Automatic excretion of mercury and and led and stuff like that on an ongoing basis where you could kind of add a feature to your normal kidney function of getting rid of things like this. But right now, lead is is not that difficult to deal with. Even though we have one hundred times more lead than our ancestors did, we know how to get rid of it. And the body putting the lid into our bones dramatically reduces lead toxicity to us experientially. Mercury is a different matter. It’s insidious and our natural detoxification mechanism is too excreted. And bile. Into the digestive system, and that may work when the levels of mercury being squeezed are incredibly low. But they’re not low anymore and the amount when the mercury goes into the bile, he gets excreted at the top end of the justice system. And it has to pass down all the way through your intestine and your colon before you excreted in your in your feces. And and during that time, it’s being acted on by microbes and it’s being converted from glue to thigh on bound mercury, which is safe for us to methyl mercury, which is safe for microbes and extremely toxic for us. And that methyl mercury is absorbed efficiently back into the bloodstream and it partitions into the fat tissue of the body, which means it goes into our brains. So the mercury that we’re getting rid of as ionic mercury is being then reabsorbed and recycled in a methyl mercury which goes into storage in our brains. It’s incredibly dysfunctional. And so now there’s a new compound that’s out. That’s that’s probably being obstructed by the FDA, although they would deny it, I’m sure. And probably have a reasonable case that they’re not actually hassling the company that’s developing it, even though they are. But because the company is recognizes this, they’ve gone overseas. And so they’re working on this collating agent that is also binds mercury in the liver and excreted in the bile. But it’s irreversible. In other words, once the mercury is bound and it’s going down the GI tract, it never gets converted into methyl mercury. Nice. So it essentially exit and it doesn’t, you know, normal popular key laning strategies that are used for mercury are damp. Yes. And DSA, which are intravenous or oral cleaning agents that make the mercury water soluble and comes out in your urine. And there’s a problem because, you know, our tissues are sensitive to mercury and the two most sensitive organs are your brain and your kidney. And so putting the mercury out through your kidney is risky. It’s not the ideal choice. And so what you what the what’s when vitamin found by the practice, not the practitioners, the the patients is that low and slow is the way to go or you take small doses of these over extended periods of time. And so you’re secreting mercury into your urine slowly and eventually you draw it down. You don’t overload the purification. That’s right. Well, the advantage of this new compound called a mirror mind is that it can you can do a year’s worth of of kidney related collation in a month with this through the fecal route, because there’s really no limit to how much mercury you can run out through your through your gut as long as you keep the microbes, can’t convert it. You know, the lining of the intestine is amazingly insensitive to mercury. And the mercury that’s bound by a mirror mind isn’t toxic much at all. It’s almost nontoxic. It’s almost like mercury cell inside, which has no systemic toxicity whatsoever. You can have massive quantities of mercury in your body if it’s bound to selenium. It doesn’t matter.

[00:09:17] So this new technique is sort of strengthening the exit pathway. That’s right. It can handle higher bandwidth like sort of depletion of the artery.

[00:09:27] And just because the FDA doesn’t like it and considers it unapproved new drug and all of that, it turns out that the marketplace has come back and is has now providing a mirror mine to people who buy it for research use, you know, as a as a research chemical. And I had it made in China and and I ordered some to have it shipped to the United States so people can get around the law to access this stuff. But because it’s only 10 years old, it’s a it’s a new technology that is recognizing the flaws in our current mercury handling systems and is attempting to find a solution to it. And I think has found a solution. But because only 10 years old, we’d really don’t know all the intricate details of how it’s working and how to optimize it.

[00:10:22] Very interesting, very interesting. Let’s see if there’s any really key questions we cover.

[00:10:31] I’ve got I’ve got a lot. Well, here’s a question. What biomarkers do you track regularly for yourself?

[00:10:38] Like for general health, I don’t track much at all regularly. I periodically look at insulin resistance and kidney function with annual tests and and, you know, things like that.

[00:10:52] And, you know, probably once a year I’ll do sequential urine, P.H. testing to look at my circadian rhythm as an alkaline basis of my circadian rhythm.

[00:11:03] But mainly I’m looking at mental performance issues, so I do self testing with appropriate sumption. So anytime I’m sitting down somewhere, I can close my eyes and take my finger and touch my nose with it and then recognize, OK, how close am I? How far am I? You know, when I think I’m one inch away from my nose, I open my eyes and I look and I see em. I align with my nose. And is my finger one inch away from my nose? Or is it a half an inch or two inches? You know, so I can track my appropriate steps in that sense of how my mind knows where my body is.

[00:11:45] It’s sort of a sense of diagnostic for you, too.

[00:11:47] That’s right. And that’s what the cops do when they pull you over for alcohol is they will have you stand there.

[00:11:55] And I’m going to close your eyes, walk a line. Touch your nose with your eyes closed, all of that kind of stuff. It’s all about proper reception. Alcohol interferes with that. Well, so does aging. So that’s a that’s an aspect of a fairly high level function that is fairly easily measurable at home without.

[00:12:17] An investment.

[00:12:21] I don’t do this on a regular basis, but I frequently recommend it to other people and that is online cognitive testing so you can go online to quantified mind dot com, you can go online to new mosque AECOM and you can play games with your computer that will measure things that have to do with decision making skills and complex decision making skills where if the picture of a giraffe.

[00:12:51] And the word giraffe match and the light is red. You lie. And if the light is green, you tell the truth. So that’s a complex decision making. You have to make two judgments of picture versus verbal connection. And and then either lie or tell the truth. So you have to make two judgments simultaneously to get it right. That kind of thing is paying a lot of attention to things like your prefrontal cortex, where you’re dealing with aspects of mentality that are probably the highest and most human aspects, the part of your brain that pays attention to what your brain is doing. But you can measure memory. You can do pattern recognition. And you can measure intelligence and and reaction, time, coordination, all kinds of aspects that have a connection to your health and your well-being.

[00:13:51] Along those lines. What’s the best way to strengthen the health of your mitochondria?

[00:13:56] Well, the first thing is to know whether or not they’re working well or not. And the second thing is to recognize that there’s two levels of maintenance.

[00:14:06] One is long term strategy, which involves a tough, edgy and short term strategy that might be considered mitochondrial nutrition or dietary composition. And then there is the in-between, which is all about adapting city and intermittency. That there’s a certain program that you can do to switch your mitochondria from sugar burning to fat burning and back to sugar burning and back to fat burning where you’re exercising their dependance on fuel. You’re making them agile so the mitochondria don’t care whether they’re burning sugar or fat. And the fat burning is a ketosis fabric. Well, it’s it’s technically called beta oxidation, which is what? Which is ketosis in all the cells of your body. Well, actually, you know, ketosis itself, technically is your liver doing wholesale burning of fat, beta oxidation and exporting it to the rest of your body. So technically, ketosis is that X that liver over doing beta oxidation. But it’s the same concept. It’s fat burning and fat burning has a distributed you know, every cell in your body has the capability of doing it well, 90 plus percent. And then you’ve got the the liver doing wholesale burning. And both of those involve mitochondria and both of them involve exercise for optimizing them.

[00:15:47] So you have exercise for your muscles, you have exercise for your ligaments and tendons for your connective tissue. You have exercise for your mind and your motor control systems for coordination, dexterity and that kind of thing. You learn to play golf. You learn to play tennis. All that is mental skills that are connected with it as part of exercise. But nobody thinks about exercise in terms of your biochemistry, your adaptability.

[00:16:12] And yet that is really what was important for our distant ancestors. You know, a hundred generations ago, not so distant, a thousand generations ago, much more distance. And, you know, maybe even looking at Homo erectus as a human precursor who did a lot of things that we do in terms of having our aquatic adaptations and using fire and cooking food, those kinds of things. But your mitochondria live based on various machinery parts. So there’s the Krebs cycle that we can identify where you input glucose residues into the system and it goes through the cycle of converting things and generating ATP and carbon dioxide, which then we breathe out into the world. OK. So, you know, that’s part of the mitochondrial efficiency and any one of those Krebs cycle intermediates could be limiting. We have all kinds of things doing inputs into those amino acids when they get burn input in various places. And there’s one place with something called Ox Aloe Acetate, which has some recent attention as a life extension agent and where carbon dioxide feeds into the system. So you take pyro of eight, which is half a glucose molecule. You add CO2 to it. It becomes low acetate and it feeds right into the Krebs cycle at a place that in modern humans may be actually one of the bottlenecks in the Krebs cycle. Within the Krebs cycle produces any H which goes to electron transport. And that’s where 90 percent of your ATP is produced is in the electron transport chain. And that requires a whole series of of of nutrition elements that are different from what’s what is involved in the Krebs cycle. And that’s also where light therapy comes in. It turns out that as humans in a wild environment, we have mitochondrial enhancement from from light. And specifically, red light and infrared near infrared light, almost red light. And those go into those mitochondrial complexes and improve the flux of electron flow through your mitochondria, which means more energy gets generated per unit time. So it’s got a way to raise metabolism. Now that we’re living indoors and now that we live it more northern latitudes, we have more weather and less sunlight, all kinds of potential issues come up for us in terms of energy.

[00:18:56] So that red light near infrared light sort of is is sort of sensed by the mitochondria and it’s causing sort of it to be energized to to sort of put a sense there’s no sensing system.

[00:19:10] But it is being absorbed and that the absorption of that energy is a adding to the electron energy that’s flowing through the system. So it’s like, you know, a kick in the butt for each of those electrons to have a little photon nudging it forward. Mm. To improve the flux of it. So normally the the electrons are going through the system based on redox potentials. So in going from complex one to coke you to Coke. Q there is, there is a gradient, it’s flowing down the gradient. So when you add a photon of energy you’re steepening that gradient and helping it flow is an analogy.

[00:19:51] You can make me visualize this.

[00:19:59] I think it would be flux and voltage in electronics that you’ve got voltage that is driving something.

[00:20:06] And if you have a of a.

[00:20:10] A very efficient circuit, the flow of electrons is minimal, it’s flowing with the current is very low, voltage is still high, but the current is very low. So what happens if you eat you, for example, increase the size of the wires so that more current can flow through the system. There’s still the same voltage, but you now have less resistance in it to that, and so you get a higher current flowing through it so your circuit can do more work. Mm hmm. I don’t know if that necessarily holds, but I’ll think about it sort of less. Less resistance. That’s right. There is a resistance in the mitochondrial system because it’s so efficient. I think it’s something like 70 percent of the energy involved in the oxygen. Hydrogen to oxygen come combining about 70 percent of it is captured. That’s incredibly efficient. Fuel cells are 40 percent luxury cars. Electricity can be 90 percent in water. Pumping up and down can be 90 percent. But an internal combustion engine is 10 percent efficient. So running 70 percent is remarkable.

[00:21:26] So in a way, if you had like a circuit and there’s an LCD like light LCD. Bye bye. Sort of adding this red light near infrared light to the system. It’s sort of analogies like making that LCD a little bit lighter, brighter by reducing resistance going on in the circuit.

[00:21:45] And if you think about it as an LCD that’s based on color, where it’s normally red at the lowest possible energy of light that it’s emitting, and if you put photons on it, it starts to go from red to orange, which a little bit more energetic. You can consider it that way, too. You know that you’re just pumping the system slightly and it’s important. I mean, one of the things that being a generalist has given me is an understanding of how other factors relate. So one of the things that all humans have to deal with is dark adaptation. This pumping of mitochondria is taking place all during the day when you’re exposed to light, but at nighttime the sun goes down. So how does our biology handle that? This is all of a sudden our mitochondria aren’t being flow enhanced. They’re now stagnant. The energy flowing through the mitochondria is now impaired because of the darkness. Well, what does the body do? Goes to sleep? Well, it does. It goes to sleep and your metabolic rate drops down. But it also drives the mitochondria with cortisol. So now we’re back to the chemical symbol of the thyroid adrenal hormone dynamic in terms of driving metabolism. So if you if your adrenal gland is compromised and can’t do that dark adaptation stress efficiently or your thyroid is low so that there’s a bigger job for your adrenal hormone to do at night. What happens when that system fails? And that’s a common thing. How many people wake up in the middle of the night because tomorrow could too much cortisol or not enough cortisol and their body, their adrenal gland switches from cortisol to adrenaline that it moves from, you know, the cortex and the medulla are separate, but they can act in concert. And so that crossover effect means you now of adrenaline in your system at night. Well, it keeps your energy up. It’s it’s super cortisol.

[00:23:51] But you wake up in the middle of the night and you’re anxious. You’re edgy, you’re nervous. You have a feeling of maybe impending doom. And you can’t go back to sleep. You don’t feel rested. And that’s because that dark adaptation that the stress of darkness has crashed your system, your mitochondria were bottoming out.

[00:24:18] The energy that they were producing was too low to sustain you. And your body is going, no, no, no, no, no. We have to fix this. And adrenaline adrenaline fixes it. But it leaves you sleep deprived. It leaves you dysfunctional. It it interferes with the healing that takes place at night, all these secondary things that manifest. And yet people are told by their doctors that, you know, you need to take Trazodone or you need to take benzodiazepines or what’s the new one driving under the influence of sleep driving and stuff.

[00:24:55] I’m blaming the Ambien. Yes. And so you have these this massive proportion of our population have this underlying mitochondrial problem that are taking a drug for it. They have no idea asking that kind of true root. That’s right.

[00:25:12] So that’s that’s the short term stuff, long term stuff is apoptosis, where you are deliberately metabolizing and recycling your senescent mitochondria, your mitochondria that have ceased to be functional, that you can actually get rid of them and replace them with functional mitochondria.

[00:25:29] And that in the old days cells. Yeah. So that holds the zombies, kill the zombie cells, even kill the zombie mitochondria.

[00:25:36] Let them drain energy from. That’s right. Healthy.

[00:25:39] That’s right. And don’t let them do energy improperly. That involves fasting. And, you know, in the old days we fasted because we had to you know, there was a lack of food. We had either too much food or not enough food. We didn’t have refrigerators. We didn’t have Safeway. You know, we didn’t have cupboards. So, you know, food was an active quest, had a deal. You had to deal with it. And so nowadays, you know, if you get hungry, you can go to a fast food place. You can go. You can have unlimited amounts of food in your in your cupboard. You can have long term food like starches and stuff that we didn’t have much of in those in that day and age. And you don’t have to kill anything if you want meat, protein. You can just go out and buy it.

[00:26:28] And the fasting strains as we could. Mitochondria kills off the zombie. Yes.

[00:26:33] And we don’t do that anymore because fasting is uncomfortable and because it was forced on us.

[00:26:40] We didn’t have to develop an instinct or a drive or a knowledge to do it. And so now that we have unlimited food, we have to impose fasting, intermittent fasting in order to reestablish a tough financial condition that we have. That’s right. So we’re mimicking nature by doing a toff, a G, and we’re mimicking nature by doing red and infra infrared LSD, photo therapy. And we can we no longer go out and watch the sunrise and we no longer go out and watch the sunset. Those are the times of the day when we’re exposed to the maximum red and infrared light to blue light ratio. We don’t do that anymore. Those are Zeit fibers. Those are time givers. That sunrise and sunset set our clocks and keep our clocks tuned. We’re not we have artificial light now. We’re indoors. We stay up till midnight Utah screens. We have alarm clocks to wake us up. We have computer screens, cell phones. We have, you know, fluorescent lights that are on. And so we’ve lost that connection to the environment in which we evolved.

[00:27:50] And we have the problems to prove it. Yes. Back to the mitochondria health.

[00:27:57] So remember, in the last couple of years, its people have had awareness that taking supplements of an 80 plus or and a D.H. are helpful for improving the mitochondria is energy production. Could you just briefly explain how that works and what audiences support?

[00:28:17] And it does and it doesn’t. I taken take any data and nothing happens. I may have done in many occasions and and I recently read did it. And at the age of 67 and I’m still any D.H. nonresponsive, at least as far as I can measure. But, you know, my late wife. She was it was like flipping a switch. It was like flipping a switch that she became more energized. And she has Parkinson’s disease running in her family. And probably 40 percent of people with Parkinson’s disease at any age are any age responders. So there’s you know, when you’re dealing with a credit cycle, there’s all of this stuff that cycling and where the limiting factor is in that cycle makes a difference into what you respond to. And if some part of that cycle is robust, you know, it goes to be goes to see, goes deep. Well. One of those is missing, is deficient. Then when you supplement it, you respond and your hope, the cycle speeds back up again. And so that’s the issue that you’re dealing with within ADHD and ADHD, like the wire that connects the mitochondrial Krebs cycle battery to the electron transport battery. It’s the wire that connects the output of one to the beginning of the other. And so in order for you to live as a warm blooded creature, you need to have double the voltage of just the Krebs battery or the electron transport battery. You need to have them both in series and and any DHS, the wire that connects them, that makes them in series.

[00:29:48] And it served the hardest produce compound. It’s difficult. It’s a later stage. It’s it’s.

[00:29:54] So if he gets a sensitive compound, it’s a complex molecule. It gets recycled again and again and again. And we don’t know a lot about how it changes with aging and how it the the ratio between an A.D. and any D.H. and any ATP and any DP H.

[00:30:13] All of that dynamic is still on the cutting edge of current science. So there’s a lot that we have yet to learn about it, but an ADHD is available even though the FDA is now going to criminalize it. They’re gonna make it a prescription drug. Yeah, that’s that’s that’s happening right now. About stock up or I don’t know. Well, no, you can’t because it has a limited lifespan and all. But I’m sure that there is gonna be some some degree of resistance to the process. But right now, it’s freely available. But if you take any D.H. and your energy goes up, then you know it’s deficient. Likewise, if you take carbon dioxide and your energy goes up or you take ox aloe acetate and your energy goes up or you take for America or suck cynic acid and it goes up or the dehydration is complexes in the in the Krebs cycle, would you be vitamin B1 and vitamin B2 and vitamin B 3 and like poke acid? These are all things that are operating in the Krebs cycle to keep the thing moving. And so if you take each one of those one at a time, you can see are they limiting or not? You know, it’s kind of like if you have a car and it’s not running well because the air filter is clogged, can you take that old air filter out, put a new one in, all of a sudden your car is like rejuvenated because there’s a limit. How much oxygen can go through a clogged air filter? Well, the same thing is true of the Krebs cycle. If you have a lack of oxy aloe acetate. The cycle can only run at the speed that’s facilitated by that limiting agent.

[00:31:56] But if you take it and you don’t see a response, doesn’t mean necessarily that the whole system’s working. But maybe you’re just not taking a high enough dose. So you need to do the loading study on yourself.

[00:32:04] Well, that’s true. But if you don’t respond at all, even at high doses, it means that you have no limiting. Yeah, it’s kind of like putting more oil in your car if you’re or if your car has enough oil to meet the mark for lubricating your engine. You don’t need more. And adding more doesn’t give you any benefit. Having the oil at the bottom end of the range or at the top end of the range. You have the same degree of lubrication. Mm hmm. Okay. Now, when you when they the the Krebs cycle outputs it through and a.d.h.d to the electron transport chain. Now you’ve got all those mitochondrial complexes that are fed by light and you have iron and sulfur complexes in there. You have CO Q10 as a transfer agent. You have. So there’s a different set of factors that can be involved in that. And likewise with Coke, you tell you take Coke, you 10 or you take P Q Q and you have an energy increase. Yes, you’re deficient. You were deficient. So the human body functionally has the same way of telling you that it’s good or not in the same way a car can tell you through its horsepower whether or not it’s got a clogged air filter or not or whether it has water in the gasoline or not. Or there’s a some varnish is in the carburetor jets that are in impairing fuel flow or your fuel pump just crapped out on you. I mean, different. So you can tell from the functionality of a car that something’s wrong and you can tell the same thing from the functionality of the human body. You just have to measure it so that you create a feedback loop that goes from your body’s communication methods into something your brain can understand.

[00:33:50] It has to go from functionality to a number. Or a color or something into your brain because you have a model in your head.

[00:34:01] That’s right. How the dynamics of the system are work.

[00:34:03] Yes. So if you do measure P.H., you’ve got a number. If you measure if you’re doing strength and stamina measurements, you’re at the gym, you’re working out, you can do more lifts. You have a number if you’re doing biofeedback, let’s say heart rate variability, biofeedback. If you’re if you’re if you have good heart rate variability, you’ve got green. If it’s marginal, it’s yellow. And if it’s bad, it’s red. You know that red green, you know, color scheme that we use for lights for traffic control becomes the input into your brain. No. Oh, what I’m doing is good or oh, what I’m doing isn’t working.

[00:34:40] Mm hmm. Quick break. Let’s resume. Awesome.

[00:34:44] So I wanted to ask you about beach tea. I like your story with that. That was her first book. And that was like, what? How did you discover the beach tea? And why is BHP useful? A lot of people don’t know about it. And then. And what led you to write the write that book?

[00:35:03] Well, the initial research that was done, I got a heads up from Durk Pearson and Sandy Shore way back, you know, in the.

[00:35:17] I know sometime in the 70s I have vague memories about exactly when that happened, I know it was before I started vitamin research products. So that was 79. So it must have been potentially years earlier than that. And they were putting out a newsletter and, you know, I had several meetings with them and so they told me about BHP. And so I looked it up and started studying it. And it was a I think it was 1974 through 79 or something like that, when all the primary research on it as an antiviral was being done. And all of those references are in the BHP book date back to that time period. And basically the researchers were finding that lipid envelope viruses were neutralized by the BHP. And there was some degree of confusion in the early days about how that was happening. And there was a membrane stripping hypothesis that was put forth that BHP was soaking into the fat of the virus capsule and detaching proteins and or disintegrating the virus, having it fall apart. And that turned out to be an artifact of the there. BHP delivery method, which was to dissolve the BHP and alcohol and then mix it with the viral cultures. So that wasn’t really the mechanism. Well, it was working now and there would be micro crystal information when you did you know that at the time when you wrote the book?

[00:36:59] No, because because I thought I had read and yes, that theory. So that was it. That’s right. Yeah.

[00:37:05] But that that there was that question that had been raised. But I can’t remember whether or not we that certainly was part of our early explanation about the envelope stripping. And even at lower doses, there were certain proteins that were detached.

[00:37:22] But the entire very on disruption wasn’t wasn’t.

[00:37:32] Wasn’t the mechanism, but certainly there was surfactant effects from the B T where it could interfere with the relationship between the lipids and the proteins.

[00:37:44] Tell me again, how is that working? I actually don’t understand the mechanism because I thought it was that membrane. No, it’s not bloop absorption. Yes, integration.

[00:37:52] And it isn’t. You can have certain parts of the virus that are destabilised by BHP just because it’s something that dissolves into the fat. And if that protein is a binding protein that allows the virus to infect tissue. If that protein falls off, the virus becomes noninfectious. So that’s a mechanism that may be viable and may need to be studied for a whole variety of different viruses, because the viruses do have mechanisms where something on the outside of the virus recognizes a target cell to two to merge with it. And that would be the binding protein, and that’s on the outside, it’s always on the outside of the virus. But all the other structures in the virus are buried in this lipid layer that protects them from the immune system. Recognizing what it is, they look like a fat globules. And so the immune surveillance of protein based viruses gets thwarted by the fat layer and BFC dissolves into that fat layer.

[00:39:10] But its broadest role as an antiviral is probably has nothing to do with that property of it has to do with the fact that it’s affecting the metabolic environment of the organism, that it’s that it’s exposed to. And BHP is a cattle Bolick throwback acidifying agent, according to the model of AVC Emanuel or V.C., in my opinion, was the brightest medical mind of the last century. And he he just did amazing things and had this the same kind of systems level understanding of biology and its influence and chemistry of anybody at the time. And so when I asked him about it, I you know, when I was meeting with reviews, he when I was doing my volunteer work for the it’s underground and he came from New York to California, and I had a chance to sit down with him for two hours. And I also interviewed him. And I’m the only one. In the in the world that has an audio recording, a video audio recording of his of that interview with him that I did. There were two copies made, one on VHS and went on. Was it si si tape or something like C format? Metal tape.

[00:40:36] And I have this because the the VHS one got sent to the AIDS commission, U.S. AIDS Commission and the governor, I’m sure it disappeared. I have the other recording that. Has now been preserved. But in any case, I when I talked him about it, I asked him about BHP, specifically whether he had tested it and whether it was it. Arabic, carbolic, acidifying. And he said, yes, definitely. And so it turns out that that’s what causes it to be antiviral.

[00:41:09] So there’s a whole variety of drugs, nutrients, chemicals, minerals that have antiviral properties, and they’re all Cata Bolick, Arabic, acidifying according to revise his model, every single one of them.

[00:41:27] And that so the antiviral compounds map into that classification. And when you take things in that classification and you do studies of whether or not they’ve been associated with antiviral properties, you find most of them have been. So when I when I looked at vitamin A, I found that it’s now a treatment of choice for dealing with kids that are dying of measles. And they give him vitamin a massive dose of vitamin A. That in the United States you’d probably lose your medical license if you did it. And they get the. They drop the death rate of those kids from, you know, 60, 70 percent to zero. Mm hmm. I think they had one kid die. So and you look at selenium, massive data on it as an antiviral. You look at Roebuck therapies. Oxygen. Ozone. Hydrogen peroxide. Ultraviolet blood irradiation. All of those kinds of Arabic therapies. Every one of them has been applied to viral diseases. Sulfur compound.

[00:42:42] It’s changing the environment so the virus can thrive. That’s right. Cattle, bolick, acidifying Arabic. Yes, environment.

[00:42:51] Yeah. And I use that hyphenated terminology because Kata Bolick means something different in modern English scientific English as it does from revises old time English. And he had terms like this claro biotic and homo trophic and things like that, that we’re all derived from concepts of metabolic issues from, you know, turn of the century European science, you know, in, you know, 1890 to 1910, those kinds of terms were used in in European science. But there’s not really none of that language has persisted and the terms have been co-opted. So anabolic and cattle bollock has been co-opted, acidifying and alkaline izing has become a hydrogen ion measured measurement rather than a metabolic assessment. And aerobics and anaerobic would have to do with redox potential issues. And so when he was studying these things, he was looking at basic chemistry like acids and Alda hides, which are electron deficient and tend to be oxidizing agents and that they behaved as anaerobic, carbolic, antiviral.

[00:44:14] You know, kind of compound and that Amin’s and alcohols were electron rich and they were pro viral. You know, anabolic alkaline rising and anaerobic agents.

[00:44:27] So he built this whole system of looking at things in the world according to this continuum. That was, you know, brilliant. And when you when you take that list of things that he has on one side and that list of things he has on the other side, and you map it on to classic macrobiotic theory, which was eastern, not Western and not scientific, it was observational and it was developed as a kind of cultural science. There’s an 85 percent agreement between those two lists. So they you know, that basically East meets West.

[00:45:12] So that’s that insight was what changed my mind about being cheats mechanism, that BHP didn’t have a particular structural requirement that it could adversely affect the virus, that it just creates an environment that is antagonistic to the virus that the virus doesn’t like and doesn’t replicate.

[00:45:33] And it goes dormant.

[00:45:38] That’s why it has this generalized property of things like sort of all owned by all lipid iPhone viruses.

[00:45:45] Yeah, yeah.

[00:45:47] And then the question for those people that don’t know why beach tea is useful, like basically it has antiviral properties to fight, for example, herpes or. Or what what are the kind of illness?

[00:46:02] Herpes. CMB cytomegalovirus. EPSTEIN Barr. Virus mono. Influenza. Big one. It would also include or include things like hepatitis and Ebola and Zika virus.

[00:46:21] And and you know, the really exotic and scary ones are envelopes. Viruses, non on viruses would be the common cold and polio.

[00:46:37] So it helps with the common cold to, you know, influenza, not the common cold.

[00:46:43] Influenza influenza is lipid envelope and the cold is non. And you can have vaccines to non lipid envelope viruses. But lipid gamble viruses, it’s very difficult to develop a vaccine because the amount of protein on the surface of the virus is so minimal. And that’s what a vaccine is designed to do, is to stimulate an immune system, reaction to a particular protein surface and identify and to identify and target it. And once it bombs onto that, then the that antibody triggers the immune system to recognize that antigen and make, you know, huge numbers of cells, clone the cells that then express the go after that antibody, that express the antibody in large quantities and that will go after it and eat anything that antibody is attached to.

[00:47:37] Those are the envelope viruses like influenza. Well, it doesn’t matter that the immune system goes after anything. Bacteria aren’t in envelope, but they are proteins. And if you develop, if you want, have a vaccine to polio or a vaccine to.

[00:47:54] Tetanus. Would be a good example. You have proteins exposed. It’s easy to make a vaccine for it.

[00:48:03] So that’s what when I get vaccinated, that’s typically the vaccine that I asked for his tetanus. I’m doing construction all the time. And if I get scraped by a rusty nail or stabbed by something that’s, you know, deep anaerobic environment like you get from rust, then I I want a tetanus vaccine. Because if I have tetanus, by the time I know that I’ve got tetanus, it’s too late to do vaccine and it’s drastic therapy.

[00:48:31] So.

[00:48:33] So they’re good vaccines and bad vaccines. And there is good uses of vaccines and bad uses of vaccines. And that’s an entirely separate question. Mm hmm. The way it’s currently done is public health policy compulsively is a bad use of virus of vaccines. But I think that, you know, chicken pox and and measles, mumps, those kinds of diseases should be deliberate.

[00:48:58] We should deliberately go through those and suffer them as children to develop immunity to it. And that the the dangers of doing doing it that way are actually less and more easily managed than trying to use vaccines to do it. Mm hmm. Vaccines aren’t as effective and they pose the same order of risk to people. And once that risk is manifesting, it’s almost impossible to do anything against it. Whereas if somebody has, you know, is has a serious case of measles where it’s becomes life threatening, we can we know how to shut it down. Even if public health officials don’t.

[00:49:43] It’s kind of like forest fire management. You need to let the forests burn a little bit to get that debris out. Then the trees are stronger after the. That’s right.

[00:49:54] Yeah. So when you have if you have polio, you have twice the antigen immunity to it. Then if you get a polio vaccine and the same thing with measles vaccine and mumps and rubella, all of those and vaccine derived immunities are much more transitory and less deep. And that means that in older ages, you then become susceptible to a reemergence of that where you don’t.

[00:50:25] If you caught the disease, if you had chickenpox, you don’t catch it later. Your immunity lasts for your entire lifetime. And the vast majority of people.

[00:50:35] Well, that’s interesting. So in some cases, it’s better allow yourself to get it. You get these some of these illnesses, but kind of manage the severity of the illness so that your body can generate its protective defense mechanisms, which will persist.

[00:50:51] Yeah. If anybody wants to look that up, I suggest post polio syndrome is a good keyword search to look at. So people who caught polio basically don’t have post polio syndrome and people who were vaccinated do.

[00:51:07] Mm. Interesting.

[00:51:12] And then back on the beach, t the what was the reason that you wrote the book?

[00:51:17] Well, the reason I wrote the book was because I couldn’t write it while I was working for the company. So I was a principal in a company that was selling BHP. And people were using it to treat their herpes and sending me anecdotes. So I was hearing from all these people were saying, yeah. Cured my herpes, cured my herpes. And oh, by the way, my skin looks better than it’s looked in decades. Oh, yeah. And it did this and it did that. And and, you know, so I was buried in these stories.

[00:51:48] And so when I left the company, I’m now no longer constrained from commercial speech. I no longer have any vested interest in the company. Now, I could write a book about it and explain it all without violating FDA commercial speech regulations. So the FDA has long said that commercial speech is not free. And the Supreme Court has disagreed with them. And the circuit court has disagreed with them, saying that it’s not as free. But it still is free. It’s still is protected by the First Amendment and that the government has to show a compelling reason why it should be constrained. And the FDA has never done that. They’ve never been able to articulate clear reasons why commercial speech needs to be constrained in the way that they do it. And so they’re technically operating outside of the constraints of the judicial system. The circuit court has nailed them multiple times for having overstretched their boundaries. And but there’s they just they’re just now doing it again this year. They’ve just reintroduced a new campaign of constraint, of freedom, of speech for commercial speech. And any D.H. and nicotine, a microbicide. Those are about to disappear.

[00:53:21] It’s terrible, terrible. Yeah, yeah.

[00:53:24] Just as awareness starting to happen.

[00:53:26] Mm hmm. Yeah.

[00:53:29] And so, you know, I don’t necessarily look at that as a as a bad thing because typically when the FDA does this kind of thing, people react. And when people react there, people usually very complacent until they get pissed off and then they get very, very vocal and active. And that backlash against the FDA. Back in 1994, as was a serious constraint to the FDA, has power and resulted in more freedom in the United States than had ever existed to that time.

[00:54:03] That whole transition from 1992 when people really got pissed off, maybe in 1990 and 1994, when the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act was passed, there was a massive polarization, but that the industry support for that doesn’t exist anymore. It was mainly mom and pop health food stores that mobilized that entire effort. You know, I helped with that with the writing of Stop the FDA. That book. But the the groundswell was already there. And so the book merely objectified. It mirrored. Mirrored myriad. Yes. The movement. And so people will be pissed when the FDA, you know, succeeds in taking about 30 or 40 different things off the market. If assuming that they do, people will get pissed and because they’re there, baby boomers now and that the FDA is undermining the dietary supplement or street dealing with longevity, the backlash will be more severe than the FDA, I think anticipates because baby boomers are now in positions of power throughout the system. The governmental system.

[00:55:20] So when you wrote the book on Beach T, you were free because you had left the company, so you no longer had the constraint from the FDA. Commercial free speech. And so you felt it was time to share those stories of beach tea with help.

[00:55:34] And that’s what John and I did. We wrote that book and we published it. And then several years later, I wrote to Beachy Toxicology Report, which was about the deep science underneath BHP. What did we know about specific toxicities and and how it affected different species differently and the research that was involved in its radiation protection properties? You know, so in some situations you give BHP and there and the radiation damage. We’ve mitigated in other situations. It made it worse.

[00:56:07] And what was the dynamic behind that and how you could take even higher doses of BHP and how to use BHP topically and additional viruses other than herpes? That would be used with it. Wider applications, wider applications. And. And then at some point after I think I did maybe six or seven editions of the tox report, I merged the books together and stopped selling the books. So I started giving the book away and I started the real PDR. That’s right. The Free PD f and I put one page in there saying, you know, send me money if you appreciate this book, send me money. And if you don’t have money to send me, give the book to somebody, then, you know, spread the word and end it. So it turns out that I make just as much money off of it as a freeway or giving it away as I did selling books. You know, that book’s just inherently are cost prohibitive because you have inventory and you have shipping and you have postage and you have, you know, packaging and all that kind of starves and the margin goes way, way down. And if you just ask people for money, you know, the book sold for five bucks and we just ask people for money. One out of 20, we’ll send you 10 bucks and one out of 100 will send you 100 bucks and this kind of thing. And so you don’t have any of that overhead. You don’t have any inventory. And you can update the book anytime you want. Mm hmm. So it’s probably been three, three or four years now since I’ve updated it. But on average, I did it every two to three years since I put the book together. So now it has information about Ebola, for example. It didn’t before and it has information about more information about influenza.

[00:58:09] When a study, human study was done on influenza, it would be H to so many people die of influenza.

[00:58:14] It’s so common in the U.S.. Yeah, nobody knows about it.

[00:58:17] We actually suffer as you and your readers know.

[00:58:23] Yeah. So that’s the one of the the main issues with the Internet that’s changed the world is that information is no longer so compartmentalized.

[00:58:38] Uh.

[00:58:41] It’s in some ways, but in other ways it’s like the network effects within social media and politics.

[00:58:48] Yeah, well, that’s true. And also, you know, terms of dilution of information. Yeah. You know, you the guy versus noise, that signal versus noise. Ninety percent of the stuff on the Internet is just crap. Yeah. And 10 percent of. And of the 10 percent.

[00:59:03] That’s not crap. 10, 10 percent of that is good.

[00:59:07] Yeah. My kind of strategy is to just identify people that have high credibility and trust and then try out some of their ideas. And if it seems to work, then I say, OK, this person knows what they’re doing and then then focusing on their reputation based qualification on things.

[00:59:24] And that’s what I think is missing from things like Wikipedia is that they they do they follow a censorship model of information quality, which is horrible in situations where politics influences information like in talking about, let’s say, vaccines and nutrients and alternative medicine. Wikipedia really sucks in talking about science and and physics and biochemistry and toxicology. It’s it’s really good.

[01:00:02] Mm hmm.

[01:00:04] Yeah. Because the authors aren’t identified. You have no idea their credibility or authority.

[01:00:09] And it’s it’s more consensus or sense. It’s consensus. Yeah, it’s sometimes consensus. Censorship. Yeah.

[01:00:16] But sometimes you you get sort of the correct breakthrough idea is when you have one guy who’s disagreeing out there and he he believes something that everybody else thinks is wrong.

[01:00:28] And they pooh pooh it and they ostracize it and they delete it. And when the the welfare of the customers and the humans at large is to consider divergent opinions and disagreements and how the dynamic of evidence is changing over time.

[01:00:51] So when I was talking about the aquatic theory, you know, after two generations, it’s now becoming accepted, even though it’s still hotly contested because of academe, academia and but the the war is over. There’s now not only is the preponderance of evidence like ninety nine percent on the side of the aquatic theory, but there’s now fossil evidence that has validated it. That was predicted. So it’s actually gone through that scientific prediction and validation model, which is one of the ways it was criticized originally, is that it’s an untestable hypothesis. And it turns out that wasn’t the case. And when it was tested, it survive, it survived. And every other theory has been falsified. So it’s the only one that’s left to. Not only has it been validated, but it’s the only theory that hasn’t been falsified.

[01:01:49] The aquatic theory of man. So that’s that’s a theory about how we evolved. And it’s sort of like we’re like whales or otters in some sense. Yeah. How exactly is that working?

[01:01:59] You know, we lived on the edges of inland seas and lakes that humans. That’s where humans evolved from our predecessors. Is that kind of swampy, like coastal environments? Yeah. Yeah, building. Well, otters actually spend huge amounts of their time in the water and humans don’t. So we are association with water is less pronounced than other aquatic mammals, but it’s more like, let’s say pigs which have subcutaneous fat and aquatic heritage. But very few pigs live in water. Yeah, they’re just going to mud and roll around. Well, that too. But it’s but so that Elaine Morgan’s theory, which I agree with is about one of the things about human babies is that they know how to not breathe once they’re born.

[01:02:50] They know how to swim and they know how to not breathe underwater. Three months later, they’ll drowned. Put him in water. But if you write when they’re born and, you know, for weeks afterwards, you put an infant in water and it won’t drown, it will hold its breath in the water. And so that whole idea of aquatic birth, which is now resurging as a method of childbirth, is going back to that aquatic theory, an aquatic basis of it.

[01:03:18] And and so the the the the driving force, I think, for humans was the issue of food and childbirth.

[01:03:27] When you go neonatal, you know that the preservation of of an infantile processes and you keep humans more childlike longer and longer in life, you slow down the development process so that the brain stay more plastic and learning ability stays higher. The development process is slowed down.

[01:03:50] And that means that babies get bigger and bigger and bigger before they’re born and that they had to be born more and more premature. And that means that during childbirth, humans were incredibly naked and and susceptible to predators.

[01:04:09] And so I think that that’s why women have all the features of aquatic mammals more than men do, is because that’s where children were born when women got pregnant. And then in the lake. They were born in the in this in the lake. And that’s where children came out. And that was the safest place to be because predators couldn’t handle the deeper water, waist high water and this kind of thing. And that it was it was facilitated by midwives and stuff in the water. And it just so happens that that that female adaptations to that meant that all the food on the shores was exploited by women. So women dived for abalone and clams and and mussels and oysters and those kinds of foods, shellfish. The women would die for those where they were out there in the water. So they lived in the at the edge of these inland lakes and in oceans, seas.

[01:05:14] And and they spent a lot more time in the water than men did. So women have walrus and hunt. That’s right. Men would do that and even gathering and and stuff.

[01:05:25] But does men are just not in modern cultures. Men don’t do that, even though the records that have been set by free diving are set by men. But women are amazingly effective at it and in. In China and Korea and Japan, the peoples that live on the ocean and dove for their protein and livelihood. Those divers are all women.

[01:06:00] And interestingly enough, if you talk about women as athletes, women do very well as athletes and they may do it longer than men do. But the peak for women is about, you know, maybe 25 years of age, 30 years of age, which is very similar to a lot of male sports. Well, with female divers, they dove into their 80s and 90s.

[01:06:27] It’s a skill you want to keep up because you need to get food.

[01:06:30] Well, no, they they’re just good at it.

[01:06:32] And they don’t lose their effectiveness that that 70 year old female divers are as good as 20 year old female female divers in terms of their range and their breath hold times in their, you know, their ability to slow down their hearts. The diving reflex, all those kinds of things are is as strong in a 70 year old woman as they are in a 20 year old woman.

[01:06:54] Mm hmm.

[01:06:56] That’s amazing. And by diving, we mean like the people are in a lake and then there’s like little little shoal fisher. This is kind of out of my normal life experience diving. And then they they hold their breath and they swim and they grab the shell thing and bring in a pool of artifice and eat it.

[01:07:16] Or they take it in and cook it. Yeah. But but how how deep can you go? Well, the human record for free diving without a scuba gear and without weights and air bladders to assist in going down fast and rising fast is now one hundred meters.

[01:07:41] Holy cow. That’s three hundred and fifteen feet in a free dove. That took about four minutes and 15 seconds for this guy to do this. And I think it’s now. Now. One hundred and ten meters or something like that is the current record or something like that. But it’s it’s brig and deep. And the lungs are like 10 percent the size when they’re compressed at that pressure, like 10 percent decides that they are on the surface. And and the heart rate goes down to less than 20 beats per minute from the diving reflex.

[01:08:16] And only aquatic mammals have a diving reflex where their heart slows down that pressure. And humans have it in spades. It’s very advanced property.

[01:08:30] That is odd. And the prediction was, is that this would be found in our ancestors, in the in the skeletal remains of fossilized remains of our ancestors bones.

[01:08:43] And it turns out that when you dove frequently in cold water, there is a growth of bone on the inside of the ear canal that that shrinks the ear canal down.

[01:08:55] And this can be identified and swimmers and by, you know, physiology and how does the cold does that? And then cold water exposure causes their canal to dial down through bone growth. And this has now been found in multiple human hominid ancestors going back through time, back to even, I think 300 thousand years ago.

[01:09:20] Is that adaptive? Somehow they can handle going deeper.

[01:09:23] Yes. With that property. Yeah. And that was predicted and then identified and in. And it’s not just some human remains. It’s the majority of human remains.

[01:09:38] Show this adaptation. And that’s not just, you know.

[01:09:46] Homo sapiens, but also going back to previous Homo erectus and other precursors to humans. They show the same diving issue. So this has been a prolonged influence for man’s evolution. And I think it’s now the only theory that explains why we’re so unique among the primates.

[01:10:08] Mm hmm, mm hmm. Well, that is fascinating. Well, what were you saying about the context of like an idea coming out? And it’s it’s sort of like a contradictory idea.

[01:10:19] Would Heresy. Heresy. Yeah. The religious term is heresy and scientific heresy is alive and well and always has been. And in my opinion, always will be. Even though scientists bristle whenever you suggest that there’s heresy in science.

[01:10:35] Definitely. Yeah. And that’s why things like Wikipedia are not the best channel to get those types of stories out there, but correct ideas.

[01:10:44] Right. And because awareness, until they’re verified is correct by a majority of people, they’re not allowed onto Wikipedia.

[01:10:51] And and even though, for example, Elaine Morgan’s ideas about aquatic ape and all. And now it’s called the waterside hypothesis. They’re correct. It’s still not taught in schools and it’s still hotly contested by young, young anthropology students. It’s still contested and still denied hotly because of the fact that they’re going into a field where all the gods still downplay it. So this is a revolution that hasn’t quite finished yet. The old studio origins for you. That’s right. Yeah. The old people still have to die before the new the new people will give up on it. But now there are people who are making their careers up on validating their aquatic hypothesis, the aquatic ape hypothesis. They’re now making their careers on it and doing very well, whereas 20 years ago they couldn’t do that. They would have been completely ostracized and nobody would have funded them. Now they’re being funded. And now you have proponents of this who are professors and full professors and professors with tenure in various academic institutions.

[01:12:08] They’re free to speak out about it. And as a result, that is swinging the pivot of scientific heresy so that it’s now becoming adopted. And I’ve seen this during my life that I read Elaine Morgan’s book back when I was in college. And I said, you know, this this totally explains all the weird stuff that you know. Otherwise, there isn’t a good explanation, too. And every time I would hear the male anthropologists trying to explain this stuff, it was always so blatantly contrived and self-serving and egotistical about the the the primacy of the male gender.

[01:12:53] Well, yeah. What is what is sort of the opposite of this aquatic theory that that was predominant before?

[01:12:59] What was the Savannah hypothesis was like it Africans of African savanna chasing that cheetahs or that humans moved from the forest out onto the grasslands and therefore they had to stand up? Oh, yeah.

[01:13:12] But now it’s been shown through historical records and sampling and stuff that that humans evolved all this long before the grasslands.

[01:13:25] They had to stand up in the sort of the shallow lakes to give birth and things like that.

[01:13:32] And it turns out that all the other apes that do go into the water for special circumstances, when they go into the water, they do bipedal ism.

[01:13:44] So when a chimpanzee goes into the water to collect something in the water, they’re standing there standing up.

[01:13:52] Well, you’re you’re better off standing up in the water so you don’t drown. Right. That would be on off.

[01:13:56] Well, that’s also why we have a hooded nose. We’re one of the few apes that has a hooded nose. There’s one other water ape that does have a hooded nose that swims in the water. But this prevents us from water flowing back into the sinuses. When we go under the water, it allows us to keep our sinuses filled with the air when we’re under water. So that’s another aspect of things that there’s no difference between males and females regarding a hooded nose, but different diet better. That’s right. And it’s it is goes way back in time.

[01:14:35] And you can dove better. You can get food better. You can feed your family better.

[01:14:38] The trait is persisting among the generations.

[01:14:44] Well, that’s cool. I like it. This is the first time I’ve heard this. And it reminds me also of the vitamin C debate. I remember in the 70s and 80s, Linus Pauling was sort of the heretic, right? That’s right. And he began to Nobel Prizes and yet he was a heretic and shut out. But then now it’s starting to become accepted. Actually, the vitamin C thing was what kind of keep me in on you that to make me want to learn more from you because you were aware of Linus. Falling my infancy and I was already kind of a believer.

[01:15:10] Made me think that you you were able to identify ideas that were correct, but not a lot of what people believed. That made me want to sort of learn more.

[01:15:20] And that’s always been kind of my.

[01:15:24] My orientation towards knowledge is, you know, a kind of prejudice against dogma against.

[01:15:37] Consensus.

[01:15:39] Well, not even consensus, truth. It was more of convenient explanations. You know, like, you know. Yeah. God created the Earth with the fossils in place. Yeah. You know, that kind of idea of which would be kind of an A.I.. What is the Ockham’s Razor? You know that the simplest explanation is usually correct and that if you were to say, you know, yeah, this hole in the ground is caused by a meteor or this whole other ground is caused by a meteor that was guided by extraterrestrials. You know, why add the extra terrestrial thing when it’s not necessary to the theory, that kind of thing where something is contrived. And so, you know, when they said that, you know, man needed to stand up in order to survey for predators and prey. You know, that’s okay. That makes sense. It does.

[01:16:36] But when you look at the history of the areas and all, it turns out that man evolved in the forest and did evolve on the savanna, that the whole idea that that the savanna was what was there. That’s what’s there now. You know, and that’s what’s in the Jason areas that is there now. But at the time when men evolved, it wasn’t that way at all. It was forest. So how did upright posture evolve? When somebody is in a forest and none of the other apes that have ever lived in forests, it’s as evolved.

[01:17:08] So Africa was different back that hundred thousand years ago? That’s right. It was forest was it was it’s like six million years ago that we.

[01:17:17] Well, the diversion the diversion was between, I think, four in six million years ago in terms of apes. But human evolution is measured in a hundred thousand year chunks, whether it’s one hundred thousand two hundred thousand three hundred fifty thousand. Those are the kinds of timeframes when you’re dealing with other species of humans. And so you can say that pretty much all of human evolution or evolution has happened in the last two million years and most of it in the last one million years.

[01:17:49] And up until one hundred thousand years ago, we were in Africa in that environment and it was forests. The climate was different at the time, wasn’t so mean that it isn’t there.

[01:18:00] And so we have a swamp land valley area in aquatic area in Botswana, north of Botswana. We have the Rift Valley.

[01:18:11] It follows the Rift Valley up through Ethiopia. And so it appears that many of them. And that migration pathways for humans that that have been documented based on DNA testing, DNA analysis show that humans spread along these aquatic pathways pathways and along coastal lines.

[01:18:32] Mm. Yes. That’s that makes sense.

[01:18:40] Let’s see. So, uh, who are your heroes?

[01:18:53] Well, it’s hard to say. I mean.

[01:18:59] I think anybody who speaks up against authority and against conventionality.

[01:19:07] They’re a hero like Linus Pauling, even though he was a deeply flawed human being. Or Albert Einstein, even though he made some serious mistakes and engaged in character assassination and Linus Pauling, who didn’t see certain things when they were right in front of his nose.

[01:19:33] You know that they’re flawed heroes, but that doesn’t make them non heroes.

[01:19:40] Emanuel, obviously, you know, does. You know, I consider the brightest medical mind of the last century.

[01:19:47] But he was.

[01:19:53] Unable to communicate his ideas effectively.

[01:20:03] Even looking at somebody like Thomas Jefferson.

[01:20:07] Who?

[01:20:10] From a political perspective, wrote probably one of the most beautiful political polemics of the time, the Declaration of Independence. He owned slaves and and had a lot of.

[01:20:27] Sexist views of things. So it’s hard to say. But I can look back and see how mankind is advanced in fits and spurts.

[01:20:46] Based on the opposition to conventionality, the whole idea of doctors washing their hands before giving birth. I mean, we look back at that and think, how could people be so stupid to believe that? And yet the man who question that was vilified, vilified and driven into insanity, insanity and end poverty.

[01:21:19] And so, you know, on some level, that gives me a profound sense of contempt for the power brokers, the people who have something brilliant that they do in their life, and then settle into a role of denial for anybody who disagrees with him, that there is a certain cowardice in that kind of position. He has somebody one of the one of the groups in and in the UK went on this massive campaign.

[01:21:57] They said and everybody said was scientifically based that obesity was a choice and was associated with all of this social downside and cost and stuff like that. And so they were making.

[01:22:11] They were they were doing, in a sense, shaming campaign against people who were obese. And they said, oh, it’s not a shaming campaign because it’s scientifically based. And I went in and ripped to shreds and, you know, posted this thing online saying, you know, this belief that they have that this is scientific basis is a delusion and that it is a shaming, shaming campaign.

[01:22:41] And these people should be ashamed of themselves for allowing themselves to participate in such a thing, because obesity and insulin resistance are not connected.

[01:22:53] I mean, there are associated, but they’re not connected. So 25 percent of people who are obese don’t have the risks that they’re talking about at all.

[01:23:02] They’re healthy, obese, no insulin resistance at all. And of people who are not obese. Twenty five percent of them do have these risks without the obesity. So not shaming them for being insulin resistant and shaming the people who are not insulin or obese, but not insulin resistant. That’s all entirely prejudicial.

[01:23:26] So I wrote this up and posted it online. You know.

[01:23:29] And that, you know, I think some people who were connected with that organization, who may be connected to political issues and stuff, might not do that because they’re afraid of retaliation.

[01:23:46] That because I live my life in obscurity and I don’t have a medical license. I’m a scientist, but I’m not.

[01:23:54] You know.

[01:23:56] Institutionally accredited in some way I can get away with doing that kind of stuff.

[01:24:06] You’re not subject to the pressures of sort of a structured environment. That’s right.

[01:24:12] For my peer career advancement, my peers are those people who wanted to solve the problem. They want to solve a problem and they want to. They want to find out what things are happening.

[01:24:22] And they don’t give a shit about orthodoxy. And some academics ego position that, you know, males are the driving force of mankind and females are only coming along for the ride to bear children.

[01:24:40] You know, idiocy of the highest order, but because it’s all promulgated by a group of men who congratulate each other for their brilliance. It perpetuates the trying to rationalize and justify why they’re in this position of power already and should be persisting. And the whole idea of, you know. And also because genetic heritage is entirely female. And, you know, men have some you know, they don’t even like to talk about that, that there’s a part of genetics where men are lesser than women. Right. Because mitochondrial inheritance is entirely female. Yes.

[01:25:24] And so, you know, that that aspect there there are now men who are disputing DNA based assessments of human heritage on the basis of issues that like that, that it’s not an ideal thing because it changes too fast and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[01:25:45] And it’s just women and therefore it’s missing all the men. And therefore, you know, it should be done with with full DNA and not mitochondrial DNA.

[01:25:55] It’s all I think, based on this idea that, you know, men are superior and therefore anything that takes away from the male ego image of the world is wrong, threatening to them.

[01:26:13] It’s threatening it’s wrong that this is you know, that it’s a delusion on the part of the people, because obviously men are superior. And when you look at the the statistical data, you find that that’s true.

[01:26:29] I mean, this is highly sexist and highly political. But when you look at all the people who are considered, you know, the most gifted in society, you find that the vast majority of them are men. It’s it’s way more than 50 percent.

[01:26:44] And and, you know, before women jump on my case about this, I would have to say also point out that of all the idiots in the world, the morons, the idiots, the the scum of the earth, way more than 50 percent of those are men.

[01:27:01] Hi, Drew is better.

[01:27:03] And that’s because the that the the genetic pressures on women are way more severe. Women evolution, female evolution has driven. They’re the species for so long that male survival is no longer important.

[01:27:21] It’s an accident of the issue. And if you’re if you’re going to experiment with a genetic trait that is potentially dangerous, then you want to do that in men, because if they die, it doesn’t matter. Species goes on.

[01:27:35] You don’t want to mess with women because that’s the core survival of our species and has been for so long that, you know, if you’re gonna have a risk that’s going to result in one genius for every 10 idiots that are created by gestation, then then that may be a survival value because the that one man that writes, you know, some masterpiece or has some insight into wisdom that plays out very nicely and doesn’t affect the species.

[01:28:08] Those because those ten, that contribution can be made. But there are a lot of risks associated. That’s right. And if you if you experiment with men because they’re pawns in the chess game, evolutionary chess game, they’re bonds, but then women are at the kind of the core to their they’re driving the evolution of our species and they’re the ones who show the most advanced traits of our species.

[01:28:40] And and, you know, that’s both a gift and a curse.

[01:28:48] You know, at the same time, like most things in life, you know, there’s a pro and there’s a con to every side. And for every gift that you might be given, you can have a foible or ten foibles. But that doesn’t negate the gift. So I look at, you know, my life as being, you know, really great that I’m male and that I have, you know, an artistic side and an intellectual side and enough of a verbal side to get by that I feel fulfilled. And then I feel happy. And and I’m excited that I wake up in the morning and when am I going to do today and the 10 or 20 projects that I’m involved with at any given point in time.

[01:29:26] Which one do I get to do today? There’s that kind of waking up for Christmas part of it that kids have and they wake up for Christmas like, oh, wow, Christmas presents and all this excitement.

[01:29:37] And I have that. Oh no, not that much. And not that exaggerated, but I have that every day when I wake up in terms of people that I love, in terms of that quite the questions that I’ve asked that haven’t answered yet in terms of what I’m going to do with a paint brush today or what I want to do in the garden, you know, what’s blooming and what’s not blooming and you know.

[01:30:03] All of that.

[01:30:07] It’s a multi dimensional reward system. It’s. Castings one is bred upon a large number of waters.

[01:30:28] Change the subject a little bit. Change it a lot. What are your views on how technology is evolving and being applied to human health in, for example, brain machine interfaces or nanotechnology to anyone translate feminism? Yeah. Helping her health. Help us keep healthy from the inside. Well, what is your your vision of of of legacy? Where do you go? Where’s that. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[01:31:00] Well it’s the. It’s it right now we’re we’re transitioning from the age of the computer to the age of the sensor and that has profound implications even though the sensor side of it is still primitive.

[01:31:15] What see what we’ve seen with computers is, is that you know, would you hold in your hand now and your cell phone used to take up an entire house in size during my lifetime.

[01:31:30] Yes.

[01:31:32] Well, you know. Yeah, I mean, that’s that’s like, you know, so many orders of magnitude improvement in functionality and value that it’s hard to really grasp it for most people and even people who have imagination, it’s hard to grasp it.

[01:31:47] And we’re gonna go through that same revolution with sensors. So sensors maybe now being miniature eyes to the micrometer level. And but at some point they’ll become sub micrometer and they’ll get down to the nanoscale and they’ll get so cheap that, you know, you’ll be able to buy thousands of them for a scent. And some of them won’t. But much of this technology, the stuff that I’m working on in terms organic self assembling systems will point to that kind of thing where you can make a sensor and some kind of a functional unit that is smaller than an enzyme is in biology. And maybe. Tend to a hundred times smaller than an enzyme. So what we will do is I give you an instance. Well, that you can build the equivalent of a living system. That’s ten times denser than what biology can do. And that’s not dependent upon water and electrolytes and salts and acid and alkaline balance and things like that, that you can build machines that can act as sensors and devices in vacuum.

[01:33:06] And at temperatures inside of a car combustion engine, internal combustion engine and the environment in that will operate in ice buried in the Antarctic or out in space. Yeah, radiation measurements. That’s right. So we have radiation technology. We have radiation proof technology now that we know how to build something that would be immune to impulses and cosmic radiation. And, you know, that kind of adverse impact that’s present on silicon chips. We know how to build that stuff. We’re not building it yet, but we know how to build it. But the revolution in biology will happen when we start applying all the sensor technology to human beings. So the gold standard now is annual physicals. You go to your doctor. They draw some blood. They measure some things. And that’s it. You’re done. We ask you, how you doing? How are you doing? Yes. And you’re done. And so that gives you a data point once a year where you’re seeing or something is weird in data that doesn’t drift. That’s not mobile. The problem is, is that we are mobile. We are drifting, we are rhythmic beings and our physiology fluctuates all the time.

[01:34:32] It’s, you know, day, night cycle every day and every night we go through a fluctuation. None of that is part of the annual assessment. We have short term responses to things like cortisol and adrenal ism and and getting cut off on the freeway and, you know, cognitive issues and how we perform and relating to loss of mind and mental capacities as we get older and approach maybe demented states and stuff like that. None of that is assessed by your annual assessment.

[01:35:11] Yeah, it’s like the aspirin when he was suffering from the mold poisoning. He would go to the doctor and they would see different symptoms. Yeah, things around. But they they weren’t with him in the house that didn’t have some kind of mold sensor detecting going on. And there was no blood tests that he could take but go to the doctor where they could pick it up.

[01:35:30] So, you know, there were but they’re not part of that annual physical. So the technology existed to to analyze, Michael. Toxins at that point in time. Mm hmm. So it wasn’t beyond the science. It was beyond the application of the science. Right. To biology and to wellness and stuff like that.

[01:35:51] So what’s going to happen is that as that technology has gotten cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, you know, monoclonal antibody technology and cost barrier and try and rapid throughput drug screening processes have improved, you know, drug analysis and qualification standards by like five orders of magnitude.

[01:36:12] Mm hmm. All this kind of stuff is cascading towards the point at which we will have 24/7, 365 monitoring of not only static features of health, but dynamic features of health, and that this will all be processed in real time to give you feedback signals about when things deviate.

[01:36:36] Mm hmm. It’s just like DNA. I think David Sinclair was talking about this where it’s it’s interesting not only to lake sequence or your DNA, the sort of unchanging sort of instruction book for your body, but epic epigenetics of how the DNA is being expressed.

[01:36:50] And we’re not expecting an unexpressed yes and not changes based on your environment in which you’re exposed to. So it’s.

[01:37:00] And we’re also, on some level prisoners of aging because, you know, there’s all kinds of people out there talk about, you know, errors, errors and damn cumulative damage models about things like Aubrey is really up on that stuff. But there is a programing aspect of aging that is the result of the developmental process that takes us from a single cell to an adult capable of reproducing. And that process at maturity does not stop. It continues. So there’s a there’s good evidence that aging is a residual of development and that because development is non-negotiable. Aging is also non-negotiable.

[01:37:51] And I don’t believe it’s non negotiable, but I do believe it’s a deeper problem than has been considered by just the damage repair model for aging. But the implication of being able to identify what that program is and identifying what one can do to then alter it. Right. Maybe through crisper or some kind of or through, for example, replacing DNA or replacing mitochondria.

[01:38:27] Or replacing sensitive organs like the dopamine or jack nervous system or the kidney rejuvenation through stem cell therapy. Well, there’s that, too. And the question of whether or not exorcisms which are excreted by stem cells can be used to create a young environment to rejuvenate all the cells of the body. But it’s also, you know, how do you recognize senescent stem cells? And I think that if you were to build a nanobot, they could go in and sample cells that could actually pass into a cell and sample it that you’d be able to with maybe 10 or 100 biochemical tests to tell whether that cell is senescent or not. Also that I think that one of the processes of development that is chaotic, for example, like the development of the central nervous system, where you have a region of the brain during development that will send out both broadcast neurons across the brain and they head off in a particular direction to make connections.

[01:39:41] But nine out of 10 of them don’t make the right connections.

[01:39:45] Or 50 percent of them make the right connections and the other 50 percent don’t. So as this broadcast is taking place, it is significantly chaotic. But these these neurons cross an immense diff distances in terms of our physical idea of construction. It’s kind of like sending and building a road from here to Nick Burton, Nebraska, or something like those long range neurons called Gilly or no, no. Glial cells are small. These would be neurons, actual neurons, neurons that are composed of axons and dendrites. And so these axons will will go across the brain towards a target that may be chemical. So that’s like, okay, where a dopamine seeking thinks sniffing, sniffing along and growing towards a signal that’s diffusing across the space. And when they get to the far end, it’s the bind. They. They make connections and build synapses and stuff. And then they send a signal back along the neuron saying, we made it. Yeah. Or whoops, I whoops. I didn’t make the wrong way. Yeah. Somebody else. And then those neurons that didn’t make it invalid, they die.

[01:40:57] And the nutrients that are involved get absorbed by the cells that connected that use those nutrients to branch further and make further connections. So the nervous system develops in a kind of broadcast method that involves subsequent pruning to to optimize it. And we don’t have that kind of technology now for rebuilding the central nervous system. Once that broadcast is taking place, it’s over. We can rejuvenate the cells and we can support the cells and all. But in terms of sending out new neurons and having them across the entire brain and reconnect and rebuild pathways, it’s a thing we don’t have that’s like a fixed hardware. It’s right. It’s kind of like once you’ve grown a heart, you can’t grow another one. That could change. We could figure out how to do that. We could figure out how to strengthen Searle. Certain neural pathways by having a new technology instead of following a a diffusing chemical attracted like moving towards the light. We could have a follow the existing neuron guidance instead. And so we have a new guidance mechanism that is able to put neural parallel neurons in play, more efficient way more efficient pathway to the destination.

[01:42:18] That’s right. So to strengthen that pathway.

[01:42:21] And that we could then, you know, develop those kinds of technologies so that in a sense, we’re not the given way of development isn’t the only way of development.

[01:42:34] We can now cluj it by saying this part of development we’re going to keep and we’re going to exploit it by putting a new control mechanism in place. And evolution has done that.

[01:42:48] So we have two different tryptophan metabolizing systems that are based on the same enzyme. So at one point in the distant past, there was one tryptophan catalyzing enzyme and then through some genetic issue there were two. And the second one was moved in in the in the genome to some different place where it had a different control loop. Now you have two different enzymes that do the exact same job under different control loops. So it’s a minor evolutionary change, but from a functional point of view, it’s like wiring in a new control circuit.

[01:43:24] And and so upgrading the bandwidth of your Internet from well, it’s actually to fiber optic. It’s it’s duplicating it. But because it’s a different control loop, each now system is now independently of solvable.

[01:43:41] So what happens is that we now have those two systems, one of which for tryptophan lives in the liver and is always active and just goes up and down depending upon what you eat. And the other one is peripheral in the body and it’s only activated during inflammation.

[01:44:00] So we have a non inflammatory activated system and an inflammatory activated system in parallel where the.

[01:44:08] You know, creationist evolutionary side would say that’s way too complicated to have evolved spontaneously.

[01:44:16] But, you know, like, they look at the eyeball and say there’s no way the eyeball could have evolved. You know, it’s funny, it’s way too complicated. And but it’s it’s just not true that this is the way in which evolution works.

[01:44:30] And by very simple mechanisms, very complex things can take place.

[01:44:36] And, you know, in the evolution of fish to amphibians, the gene that grew fins. Right. That that that gene operates twice. It turns on and grows. The fin turns off and that turns on and the fin grows fingers. Interesting. And so that kind of thing. It’s the same gene. It’s just being used twice instead of once. That’s a tiny little change. But in terms of how it manifests dramatic change. So there’s a lot of, you know, counterintuitive stuff that’s going on in the world. And this is going to happen with.

[01:45:24] Aging and health care that we’re going to be able to look at things that we take for granted now and that we’re going to see the subtleties and we’ll be able to refine it and create feedback loops where you recognize a disease process as engaged years before it actually manifests. And, you know. And then the device itself, when it’s hard, tell you. Yeah, let’s stop doing this or, you know, this is happening and you can either choose to ignore it or not.

[01:45:55] Yeah. Early detection of early detection, aging Adams and relatively simple solutions to things. So if you have an injury and your body is now unbalanced and it goes into compensation, so you’re your late, you had a broken bone. Now this leg is shorter than that leg. So now you lean and your hip tilts and to correct and then your spine tilts to correct for the hip tilt and then your neck tilts to correct and your head tilts to correct for the spine tilt. So you have this ripple of effects that is happening from a cause that is normally considered trivial, but it will be recognized that it’s not trivial and they’ll be able to fix it before all of these compensations take place, or they’ll be able to recognize it because they’ll see the compensations taking place and work it backwards to what the underlying causes.

[01:46:49] It’s like putting out the forest fire when it’s still small. It’s a fire. That’s right. Squish it with the extinguisher rather than having it bring in.

[01:46:57] Yeah. And then people these kinds of system level changes when we move from individual owned and individually piloted cars to auto drive cars. Now the demand for cars goes down by an order of magnitude. And if you have a sequence of auto drive cars in a row, they can link up with each other and drive at full speed with no space between the cars. Right. Much more dense. So you have double or quadruple the driving density in that you would have before. And if the number of cars on the road goes down by 50 percent in each car is now 50 percent more efficient. The aim might actually be able to have rush hour traffic that’s moving faster than regular traffic instead of slower. So during rush hour, we have roughly half or a quarter or a tenth the number of cars going by any given point per minute.

[01:47:55] So the efficiency of transportation during the highest demand times crashes. And this is a perfect example of bureaucratic resource management.

[01:48:09] You know you know, you start off with one person. You put two people together to think about something. You may enhance it. But when you start adding three in four and five people and you get up to a committee of six and a committee of 12 and a committee of 24, you have a multi legged creature with no brain. And so you have a resource, a limited resource like the roads.

[01:48:29] And that is actually being grossly mismanaged because of a whole series of cultural parameters that are not where you can’t bring technological solutions to or even social solutions to. Because, for example, the right to drive on the roads is a right instead of a privilege or because the cost.

[01:49:00] Nobody should be forced to pay for the auto linked system that would allow their car to link to the cars in front of it and behind it so that they could become part of one of these massive, you know, car to car to car linkages like a train. And to make that whole process efficient or saying that, you know, you have to be able to link into that to use the fast lane. In the fast lane always goes at, you know, 70 miles an hour, even during rush hour and at anytime you want to insert a car into it, the car separate by changing one mile per hour until there’s space and other car slides in and then it’s cruising along. And that when when it’s time for a car to get out of that lane, a certain signal happens and the cars are required to yield to let that car exit that lane and then merge over to get off the freeway.

[01:49:49] There’s all kinds of ways and that could be done that aren’t being done for reasons of politics or perception or whatever.

[01:50:00] All right. So. Hoo! Or what do you turn to when you personally have a medical health problem or want to improve something?

[01:50:10] Well, first of all, my medical team is not monitoring me on a regular basis. So I don’t have a doctor. I have a team of doctors that are all over the place. And I’m perfectly willing to add a new Dr.. When I have a problem that I don’t understand and some other special doesn’t understand. Yeah. You know, they’re in a different place of the world. Richard KENYON, for example, was an expert on blood coagulation issues and the balance of clotting and anti clotting agents. And he he really understood the clotting cascade. He was able to help me with my quake along with the amazingly effective. But for something dealing with, let’s say, metabolic balance, I wouldn’t go to him at all because he doesn’t understand it. And the factors that influence metabolic balance and clotting interaction, clotting things interact with each other in a way that he would not necessarily understand. He’d be able to measure it, but he wouldn’t be able to predict it in advance. So I look at doctors as in a sense, specialist in particular situations where they have a gift and a strength that if your issue relates to what they know and what they’re good at, is there the person to see. But in general, when you’re dealing with certain things like, let’s say, mercury toxicity or you’re dealing with auto immune disease or stuff like that, that there may not be somebody that would be the definitive person to go to. But I would go to somebody like, let’s say, Susan Blum in New York City and say, assuming that she’s still there, you know, I’m, you know, got this autoimmune issue that I’d like to deal with. And you’re a foremost, you know, expert in and understanding these kinds of mechanisms. And I’d like to add to that this particular issue that I have with my health that you may not know about, but I’d like to build that into the equation so that that gets considered and have them work with me on a personal basis where they understand that what they know is not all of the picture that needs to be known, but they’re willing to donate their expertise and wisdom to the challenge at hand.

[01:52:37] So you’ll identify specialists maybe through reading or. Yes, famous speakers. And then then you’ll you’ll say, okay, I have something to learn from this person on this topic and then contact them directly and say, would you please give me 20 minutes of talk or would you take me on as a client?

[01:52:57] Mm hmm. Yeah. And some of the best doctors will have waiting lists.

[01:53:04] And some doctors, on the other hand, the ideal doctor in some situations like I work with clients relating to Alzheimer’s, a reversal and my criteria for a doctor to support that isn’t somebody who knows what I know.

[01:53:22] Because I know it. And that’s enough, so.

[01:53:26] But there’s, you know, there’s X knowledge access in terms of testing systems. So if you want to do. Somebody has a micro toxin sensitivity and you want to do a screening for glial toxin and okra toxin.

[01:53:43] And I might not know what the state of the art for that testing is. So I might want them to provide that kind of expertise. But the most important thing that they can provide is just the professional support of the client regarding prescribing tests and prescribing medications.

[01:54:07] And you know, that medicalized part of the therapy that has to be done. So if somebody has him or comatose or subclinical him, a comatose his, it wouldn’t be recognized as is the standard of care that they would be willing to write a prescription for aggressive bloodletting where you could have some phlebotomist under a prescription, take a cup of blood from that person every week.

[01:54:37] To draw down their iron reserves and reverse any kind of iron toxicity syndrome that they might be experiencing. And that willingness to do that, to go that extra mile, to do something that’s not standard. That’s what I consider the most valuable thing that they can offer. And so the ideas in a bio hacking environment, there’s certain things that you can’t do, like drawing your own blood. Now, there are people who do that, you know. But I don’t know how to do that. And I would never expect somebody else to do it. So that means you need a phlebotomist to come in and do the needle stick to draw the blood. And so the question is, how do you incorporate that into a bio hacking program where you want to find out somebody is fair, attendance is high and their saturation is high. So they don’t have they might be leaking iron. How do you find out if they are leaking iron when a direct test isn’t available? Well, that is you draw down their iron and you see is there a clinical improvement? And so the question is, would a doctor do that where it’s blatantly experimental, more than just random trial of drugs, which is also experimental, but it’s beyond that because you’re actually investigating a situation by doing a procedure that has no.

[01:55:58] Assurance of being therapeutic.

[01:56:02] At the time of its prescription. Which could get them in trouble? They could be. Yes.

[01:56:09] And so that’s the kind of thing that I can run into where, you know, I can look at somebody whose medical records and say this hasn’t been considered and this hasn’t been considered. And here’s a finding where they found something, but they didn’t follow up on it. And here’s something that they’re saying that you should do. That’s not like take a statin, for example. Anybody with dementia taking a statin is just a disaster waiting to happen. Statins are demented genes and it’s now becoming recognized that they are way more potentially harmful than beneficial. Why didn’t they cause dementia? They caused dementia. And it may not be in everybody, but part of it is to the cook you tend mechanism. But other parts are through the cholesterol mechanism. Turns out cholesterol is protective for neurodegenerative conditions and that having a cholesterol above 200 is a good thing for you for mental and brain conditions, pathologies, protective neural protective properties.

[01:57:20] In essence, the whole idea that cholesterol is not involved in cardiovascular disease to the extent that it’s believed. I think that everybody should take pause. The whole idea that lowering cholesterol to give you a heart disease benefit is largely mythical and a delusion on the part of therapists. And therefore, one should not take a statin unless one has a very clear mandate that one of the side effects of the drug is what you want is a therapy like its antioxidant properties. But part of the wisdom of being as old as I am is that I’ve seen situations where the mythology of the time passes and what is recognized as a smart decision becomes at some point recognized as a stupid decision.

[01:58:16] You know, the use of. Statins is making that transition now well, but so is the use of fish oil.

[01:58:27] Oh, so it used to be the case that fish oil was considered the cure for everything and that it would be generally helpful for people to take fish oil regardless of their health condition, as if it was a vitamins like a preventative as a preventive. Yeah. And it’s not the case. And there there’s a big downside to fish oil. And to vegetable oil. Regarding cancer, that is deeply under appreciated. So while the the prudent diet looking at substituting vegetable oils for butter and animal fat has been largely discredited. One of the findings in that discrediting which didn’t receive the kinds of notoriety that the earlier stuff. Promoting the diet did was the fact that as one aged that the cancer effect amplified. And so we know that cancer goes up strongly with age. But what wasn’t appreciated is that the the vegetable oil was a cancer risk and the risk wasn’t seen in the early analysis of the data. Because the patients were too young. The cohort was young instead of old. But as the population ages over 20 and 30 years and 40 years, you start to get up into the 70s and 80s and 90s.

[01:59:54] All of a sudden you see a cancer risk that’s eight times higher when at best the the cardiovascular protection effect is, you know, a fraction of, let’s say. 50 percent or 20 percent or 10 percent or 5 percent of risk reduction. Well, and maybe no read risk reduction at all. Ouch. Big time. So.

[02:00:22] So you don’t you don’t take official I don’t take fish oil, but I’m not against it. I just think that if it’s something that I would do, that I would do it once a week, take one small capsule of fish oil or gas or krill oil, something that’s well protected. I would buy it in bottles of 30 so that it would it would it would stay fresh and I would test it every time I took it. I’d poke it with a needle. Squeeze out a drop. Taste it and then swallow it because I’m taking once a week. That means the bottle is gonna be in the refrigerator for six months. So I don’t want to be consuming any kind of rancid oil, and I would up my dose of BHP at the same time that I take more fish oil. So BHP protects lipids and fish oil is a lipid and it’s highly peroxide, sizable. But even to double bonds are not conjugated, but separated by an insulating carbon atom dramatically increases approximation risk mono and saturate is slightly risky and maybe more clearly beneficial and saturated as fine. It doesn’t have any approximation risk, but when you get to two double bonds, the risk starts. You go to three. It’s now twice as high. You go to four. It’s now 50 percent higher again. And so when you get up to six, five, six and double bonds, you’re really talking about something that is oxidative, as sensitive as it can be. So this kind of evolution of ideas gives me an intrinsic suspicion that certain ideas that people have are bad ideas. Knowing the redux chemistry that’s involved in vaccination tells me that doing extensive vaccination of infants is bad and that doing unnecessary vaccinations of people with a compromised and absent events system is bad. And that’s exactly what’s happening now in our current population, is that infants receive. I think it’s like 24 vaccines before. They’re two years of age. And that’s never been done in the history of mankind before. And yet that’s considered wise by your public health people. It just things like that just don’t make any sense to me that not only would they do this without studying it, but they would consider it ethical to promote it as a good idea. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever.

[02:03:09] And it’s bad because the body gets beaten down by all those different there, there oxidative insults, they’re redox insults, they challenge your glue to thigh bone every time you get a vaccination, when you stack vaccinations and you hit the Luna’s high on system many times in a row, there’s the danger it’s going to collapse if it collapses.

[02:03:31] And a newborn infant, you get sudden infant death syndrome. If it collapses in a child, you get autism. If it collapses in an older person, you get Alzheimer’s disease. So I think people think that these things have nothing to do with each other, but they have a common mechanism that it’s all about glue to thigh bone and the defense of glue to thigh bone and the master, the master antioxidant, the master redox controller. This is what sets the redux potential of the body. So anytime you put in an oxidizing influence, it the glue to town is like the sponge that’s to soak it up. So how much volume of water are you putting in for any given sized sponge? It’s overloading the system. If it overloads the sponge, you have catastrophic problems. Now, ninety nine percent of the sponges out there are fully capable of handling the amount of liquid in a vaccination. So it’s not a problem for the vast majority of people. But when you start attacking newborn infants, sponges and, you know, 1 year old and 2 year old infants, you know, sponges, when that’s never been done before, it strikes me as being careless, reckless.

[02:04:59] That’s a perfect word for reckless and. But by age 2, there’s a certain transition that happens during aging from birth to age 2. There’s it’s a it’s basically a brain pruning process, a brain rejuvenation. And and and pruning process where all of the brain development that couldn’t happen in utero happens because we have to be born early to be born at all. We’re born premature because our entire development is slowed down by the human adaptation of enhancing childhood qualities and learning abilities to promote a bigger and better and wiser brain. So, you know, during that first two years of life, when the brain is developing, risking the antioxidant, challenging the sponge, it’s defending the brain. You’re talking about disrupting, disrupting the developmental process for brains that have the resources it needs to develop. Well, it stops if you have a collapse and you have inflammation. There’s no more pruning of the brain or the brain over prunes itself because the pruning process goes out of control.

[02:06:14] And that’s what happens in Down syndrome. That’s why Down syndrome children, if they’re not treated, grow up with retardation and mental deficits is because they’re oxidative system is being challenged by hydrogen peroxide, which is something that normally is mitigated by gluten iron. So they have two little super oxide and too much hydrogen peroxide and that means their brain over prunes itself. Well, when you vaccinate it infant, you’re challenging their system in a different way instead of adding an accident. You’re challenging the sponge or you’re you’re challenging the glue to tie on. And that’s before the immune system is fully developed as well. So I think that kids shouldn’t be vaccinated until they’re 2 years of age from age 2, when brain pruning stops until age 7, when the adrenal gland matures and kicks into gear.

[02:07:23] It’s called and Janaki. There’s a phase of development where there’s very, very rapid growth. And then at age 7, the adrenaline kicks in and the body starts to execute a new program that goes all the way up through puberty and then sex hormones kick in. And then from puberty to maybe age 20, I don’t think there’s a stop for that kind of process. The brain restructures itself again and the body restructures its chemistry again. So each time that happens, different kinds of risks and benefits show up.

[02:08:01] So, you know, this is these kinds of things are just not research, you’re not given the kind of respect they deserve.

[02:08:12] Yeah, but once we’ve wired people, once people are wearing measurable technologies and we can see, you know, changes in urine, surface tension dynamically and for themselves is that this will become the data will be there, that anybody who’s got a search and not a search engine analysis engine is going to see these patterns.

[02:08:33] They’re going to see that at 87, 7, everything changes. And at age 2, everything changes and age puberty, at puberty, everything changes. And they’ll be able describe where those changes happen in terms of health monitoring points of observation and measurement.

[02:08:52] Amazing. Let’s see.

[02:08:56] We’ll wrap it up pretty soon. Um, but just to, uh, kind of summarize what you said about who you turn to or what you turn to when you have a medical health problem, it’s, um, it’s it’s either specialists, the people that write books that you believe have knowledge that you need or access those specialist specialist doctors can do diagnostic tests for you.

[02:09:23] Well, some of them are not even doctors. Tom Neufeld, for example, I consider a colleague. He is not a medical professional at all. Yeah. But I’d run anything past him.

[02:09:35] Yes.

[02:09:36] And then also sometimes you just have to research for yourself and turn to a specific person to get an understanding like what’s going on.

[02:09:45] Well, I would always do that even in parallel with going to a particular person. The problem with me and my quick allopathic and going to Dr. KENYON was that because of my short term memory, my memory consolidation was I was sabotaged.

[02:10:03] I didn’t have a strategic long term ability to handle it myself. I needed to have somebody on the outside do that for me. I could make decisions about things. I can analyze things. But I couldn’t remember what happened earlier. And I couldn’t use that earlier knowledge to try to make decisions for later. So I had to resort to having my wife help me with those things. And Dr. Cooney, in handling the medical side of things. And it was way more expensive than it would have been otherwise, because, for example, a quack allopathic test at the time cost six hundred dollars. I think it’s now below 500. But it’s it’s a comprehensive look at all the different clotting effects that go on in blood from prior to clotting through clotting and all of my clotting parameters. You know, classic client product claimants were textbook perfect. KENYON said that he had never seen data so nice a line entered, but my pre clotting changes were just totally screwed to hell. And and I had very, very thick blood, all of my fiber and was was traumatized. And so my blood viscosity was just through the roof.

[02:11:28] So my blood couldn’t irrigate my brain. It couldn’t irrigate anything. It kind of clogged up. It got clogged up as like molasses in January. You know, you have a flow system that works fine in June, but in January, it’s it’s like, you know, moving like, you know, like nothing.

[02:11:44] And when I took natto kind eyes, the problem went away in two days. Mm hmm. Just bam, it’s gone.

[02:11:53] Then did it thin my blood out? It reverse that Plimer ization of the soluble fiber and monitor and the cost of the of the natto at that natto kinase at that point in time was 40 bucks. But I paid six hundred for the test for quite lofty. I could have paid 40 bucks for the natto and taken it, had it go away, and I would have had my diagnosis for 40 bucks instead of six hundred plus medical costs on top of that. Well, the same kind of thing. You can have now. Why? Why would you do that? Now that we know that NATO is everywhere and I didn’t have to import it from Japan, you can buy it at your local store and it’s nine ninety five instead of 40 bucks. Why spend 600 bucks on a test when you can take natto for a week and get the same answer? So you spent six hundred bucks and you get an answer in three weeks versus taking natto at nineteen ninety five or nine ninety five and getting an answer in one week. Mm hmm. So this is part of what will be the benefits of instrumentation is that if you can look at things like blood, coagulation, blood, viscosity in real time, you’ll know every time you go into your bedroom that has black mold, your blood thickens up, you’ll get that data daily instead of over 10, 20 years.

[02:13:17] Awesome.

[02:13:19] Well, let’s. It’s kind of close, this asshole.

[02:13:23] Also want to ask you about sort of the community, like being around other people that are interested in life extension, like the Silicon Valley Health Institute. What what’s been that kind of the role of community and the importance of it for your life?

[02:13:40] Uncertain levels.

[02:13:41] There are certain people like, you know, Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute, who has in a sense inspired me and a lot of ways and where I can point to milestones and in process where she was involved and calm new effort colleague who has played a huge role in many aspects of my education. But in terms of the Smart Life Forum itself, the main benefit has been feedback from people about what’s working, what’s not working for them, and being exposed to new ideas that like, you know, reading science news or New Scientist store, you know, the the blog that Aubrey de Gray puts out on aging. Reading those kinds of things where you’re getting exposed to new ideas or going to an anti aging conference or trans tech conference or. But those aren’t really transformative. That’s just improving.

[02:14:53] Awareness of people self experimenting and of what’s coming and seeing trends.

[02:15:06] So.

[02:15:10] There have been figures like Count Pottinger. And Linus Pauling and Raph and Robinson. Who? Have done things that have been courageous and that have had an impact on me. And then there have been people like. Looking at the value of homocysteine in predicting pathology or the proto Barnes writing about thyroid issues and how the medical system lost its way and why or. The book on Dilantin by. Dreyfuss, where somebody has gone out of their way to circumvent a system and had a big influence. Elaine Morgan writing about the dissent of woman. Just directly put it in the face of the male chauvinist out there that it’s not about the macho hunter. Sorry, guys, that’s your delusion. And if you want to believe it, that’s fine. But it’s about women and the. The evolutionary selection pressures for women that have made us what we are and have given rise to our civilization. That those kinds of things have had the most impact on me. Intellectually, spiritually, and in terms of.

[02:16:46] Giving me a basis for trusting my intuition.

[02:16:52] So I think I’ve got a relatively good bullshit sensor, I say bovine soil enhancement sensor, you know, to be politically correct, but that when when when I’m reading literature on something new, it’s not hard for me to.

[02:17:12] Read the hype that’s blended into what I’m reading.

[02:17:16] For the bias that’s blended into what I’m reading, so when I’m reading about cosmology and dark energy and dark matter, I recognize that it’s possible and I think even likely that those things don’t exist. That this is the delusion of the age, like fish oil is a delusion of the age for nutrition. This is a delusion of the age for cosmologists like Vilest Agen or the ether was is ether. Yeah, that was for physicists. You know, 150 years ago, this kind of thing that humans go through, this kind of of search for solutions and when confronted with a mathematical paradox. Oh, you know, if gravity works this way, we know gravity works this way, and if it does, gravity does work this way, then galaxies can’t exist and they would fly apart. You know, therefore there must be and therefore there must be a dark matter. You know, that kind of logic. I recognize that as as being fraught with. Potential disaster that this is more of an illusion? No. An aversion to mathematical impossibility. You know that they’re there. Their math, their view of the way in which the world works needs to be revised. And rather than revise that, they’re willing to invent something else to compensate for it. So it’s kind of like, how would you deal with relativity if you’re a Newtonian physicist and you believe that everything works in, you know, by normal gravity matter. You extrapolate down to the nanoscale or up to the universal scale and all of a sudden you find deviations. Would you invoke God and angels and to explain to explain it or Maxwell’s demon to explain it? Or would you change your math and go to going from Newtonian math to relativistic math is the same kind of jump as to look at gravity as an influence that is highly variable over time and space. And that dark matter doesn’t actually exist. And so those are the kinds of things that I have planted in my subconscious when I hear somebody talk about dark matter. I immediately go, you know, danger. Danger. Will Robinson You know that this is a hypothesis, even when it’s stated in articles as fact, that we know that dark matter has to exist. We haven’t found it yet, but we know it has to exist. And no matter how long we look for it and don’t find it, we still believe that it exists until somebody who’s one of the gods says, well, maybe we’re wrong and we need to look in a different direction.

[02:20:17] So human start is it stops short of the search for new knowledge, it stops the curiosity process in some ways because it’s an explanation.

[02:20:27] And if if if you were more receptive and open the other pathways, we would could, could have gotten to the more true solution faster.

[02:20:39] Yeah. And.

[02:20:42] So the question is, you know, what does it serve? Well, it gives us an explanation. And we always like explanations, especially if you’re a rational, dominant person, just feel certainty about or understanding the world. It stops us from feeling uncomfortable. Yeah, yeah. But you’re talking about, you know, missing 80 percent of the matter of the universe.

[02:21:02] You’re talking about orders of magnitude discrepancy. When I was taught evolutionary theory, the theory and the rate of evolution predicted by theory and actual evolution that was known from the fossil record decent disagreed by I think it was ten billion times.

[02:21:24] Well, so seven orders of magnitude. Because what we saw is empirically that evolution is happening faster. That’s right. What should have been predicted by a single mutation? Yeah.

[02:21:37] So the idea of single mutations accumulating and giving advantage, it was just wrong. And it was taught as fact. And all the creationists have said it’s bullshit. They were right. But because scientists knew or believed, it’s probably a better word that evolution was real and it was happening. And I believe that that was true and still do. And you know, to this day, it was a deficiency in their understanding of the mechanism rather than the randomness. It was. It wasn’t random at all. You have and that’s like, you know, having a textbook and changing single letters. And expecting to create more meaning. Mm hmm.

[02:22:21] Well, it doesn’t work that way. But if you change words and you change sentences and you change paragraphs and you change chapters. Now it’s a different game, right?

[02:22:35] Right. Well, what is actually this is the first time I’ve kind of heard that’s what is the explanation there?

[02:22:42] Well, you have you have DNA swapping going on. So this whole idea that trip to Van Oxidize could be cloned and evolve into. In the meantime, oxygen aids.

[02:22:57] It doesn’t have to happen by random mutations. You have the entire gene swapping in the chromosome being duplicated and moving as an entire functional unit to a different control circuit.

[02:23:11] So it’s like cut and paste.

[02:23:15] So it’s not individual like base pairs mutating. It’s not at all. Yes, chunks, its chunks of Code Pink swapped out here are saying a word.

[02:23:23] The word random were not random letter. That’s right. And and and DNA does that naturally crossing over protocols and viruses do that, swapping things in and out.

[02:23:35] So there’s kind of randomness going on, but it’s on a higher level.

[02:23:38] Word level has meaning and function swapping words and paragraphs and sentences and paragraphs and stuff. That’s all still random. But it’s not like he’s something more meaningful. You usually have instant meanings. And still in it, you’ve still hit them. The unit doesn’t have to become dysfunctional before it becomes re functional. So normally when you change a single mutation, you interfere with that enzyme. And so to make something totally new, it it looks like you have to make a thousand changes that are dysfunctional before you finally get to something that becomes functional in a different way. And it doesn’t make any sense and it never did. But that was still what was being taught.

[02:24:22] Yeah, I remember that being taught that. Yeah, I didn’t. I had never heard this idea of randomness, you the functional unit.

[02:24:28] But when you talk about, you know, a a a billion fold error in terms of predictability, normally that would be considered evidence of falsify ability. Right. Yeah. Normally brilliant maneuvers. But it wasn’t. And. And so, you know, it’s in my opinion, it’s not a mystery why people don’t trust scientists. If scientists are willing to in public health, people are willing to push up a theory that’s off by a factor of a billion as fact in public schools and mandate that speed learn. It’s no wonder that people vote for Trump. You know that that’s that’s a level of untrustworthiness that’s beyond mere stupidity because they’re so fixated on that dogma.

[02:25:22] Kind of. That’s right. And failing to accept these kind of extreme consequences. Yeah, but it doesn’t match up with the actual empirical reality of how evolution took place.

[02:25:33] Yeah, but in the intervening years of my life, from when I was in high school where we were, the single mutation cumulative mutation model was was taught to me. In that intervening time, we’ve now discovered viral swapping mechanisms and crossover mechanisms and and chromosomal aberration mechanisms and stuff where the discrepancy between the predicted, you know, rate of evolution and the actual evolution that we’ve seen is only off by maybe a factor of 10 now. So going from a billion error to only a factor of 10. Yeah. Now we got something. Now we got something. Yeah. And and and so it wasn’t like they were wrong to say that evolution was correct. But I think that they made an error in judgment about forcing its teaching still incomplete.

[02:26:32] That alienated people. You knew that this was bullshit or even just believed that it was bullshit. And that’s what that’s the problem that we have with scientists, is that they put forth things, they say this is a fact, this is a fact, this is a fact when it’s not. And they make no decisions for other people based on that where they don’t have their consent. And so they alienate people on a regular basis. I mean, I’ve reviewed crony capitalism as a as a flawed system. You know, looking at special interest group influences. But I see the same thing in crony science where all kinds of things that deserve to be researched don’t get research like the aquatic theory of human development just suppressed in our systems. And. All this money goes to the people who are supporting the noble hunter models. And that ends up being a waste, a complete waste of resources. And I see that happening all the time. And it seems to be getting worse. And so the fact that Trump has been elected to me is merely a warning sign to all those people who are doing this program, that they’re making a mistake, they’re misjudging the situation, they’re alienating people and turning them into concrete and preventing them from, you know, acquiescing to things. So they have to resist it because it’s wrong and they’re not willing to take any responsibility for what it is that they’ve done.

[02:28:12] Well, good. Now that’s way out there, right? Yeah, that sounds like heresy to me. But that’s that’s the problem that I have.

[02:28:21] You know, these people who are talking about obesity and cancer risk, for example, who misidentified that obesity isn’t the cause of the cancer risk, it’s insulin resistance. That’s the kind of serve as scientific arrogance that we’re faced with. My bet is those people who did that campaign still believe ninety nine percent of them still believe they did the right thing and that given an opportunity, they do it all again.

[02:28:54] Well, good. I’ll let you rest. Steve, thank you so much for your time. This has been great. How much is the setup here?

[02:29:01] Uh oh. This is only three hundred dollars and that makes only a hundred bucks. So like 500 bucks.

[02:29:07] And that’s kind of nice. They have the two two microphones adjustable and you can get it. And you can. You can do. You can do six.

[02:29:15] Yeah. You could do three or five. Six of them. Yeah. One, two, three, four, four. And then you can do one up here. It looks like you have six scales.

[02:29:24] Oh yeah. Wonder. Actually I haven’t learned fully how to use this. Maybe there’s more. Well this is one two, three, four, five. I wonder.

[02:29:35] Oh, maybe this one has to like left and right. I think I think that may be the case. Yeah, that’s right. Stereo. That’s it. That’s it.

[02:29:44] Well, d. Well, thank you so much. You’re welcome.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.