Episode One Supplemental： Dr. Ray Peat [H0oWFJFO1gU].vtt

WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.000
 On the Back of a Tiger, Episode 1, Deep Dive.

00:00:04.000 --> 00:00:08.000
 [Music]

00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:10.000
 Hello.

00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:13.000
 Hi Ray, it's Brad and Jeremy.

00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:15.000
 Hi.

00:00:15.000 --> 00:00:16.000
 How are you?

00:00:16.000 --> 00:00:18.000
 Very good.

00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:25.000
 Yeah, so we were just wondering if you could generally describe the association induction hypothesis

00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:32.000
 in the most basic way and why it's so important.

00:00:32.000 --> 00:00:42.000
 Association refers to the relation between two charged particles,

00:00:42.000 --> 00:00:49.000
 two electric negative and positive particles,

00:00:49.000 --> 00:01:00.000
 when you dissolve sodium chloride in water, they dissociate more completely the more highly diluted they are.

00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:06.000
 So when they're concentrated, they tend to get pushed into association more often.

00:01:06.000 --> 00:01:16.000
 And the idea of the association in the cell is that you have proteins very close to each other

00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:23.000
 with lots of charges, predominantly negative charges.

00:01:23.000 --> 00:01:36.000
 And so they're held in a relatively stable relationship to each other, although everything is liquid.

00:01:36.000 --> 00:01:46.000
 And being concentrated negative charges, it's the opposite of a diluted solution,

00:01:46.000 --> 00:01:55.000
 and so you automatically have a high degree of association between charged particles, oppositely charged.

00:01:55.000 --> 00:02:03.000
 So just the fact that you have a substance with an intrinsically high negative charge

00:02:03.000 --> 00:02:12.000
 means that you're going to pull positively charged particles out of the surrounding environment.

00:02:12.000 --> 00:02:23.000
 And it works just as well for clay or water softening gel or hair.

00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:36.000
 Lots of conventional biologists have simply preferred to be ignorant about the physics of solid substances

00:02:36.000 --> 00:02:41.000
 such as clay, water softeners, and hair.

00:02:41.000 --> 00:03:01.000
 But if you thoroughly wash a substance such as hair and then dip it into serum or a solution containing both sodium and potassium ions, for example,

00:03:01.000 --> 00:03:13.000
 the hair will selectively take up potassium ions out of the solution, relatively excluding sodium ions.

00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:25.000
 And that's something that the mainstream biologists for several decades have simply not wanted to look at.

00:03:25.000 --> 00:03:35.000
 They say that there's a semi-permeable barrier doing that, letting in one kind of ion,

00:03:35.000 --> 00:03:49.000
 preferably the potassium which has a lower surface of water, attached to water molecules.

00:03:49.000 --> 00:04:04.000
 And that whole idea of a semi-permeable barrier membrane has been discredited for now about 80 years,

00:04:04.000 --> 00:04:09.000
 thoroughly and repeatedly, but they just won't give it up.

00:04:09.000 --> 00:04:22.000
 They insist that there are little motors at the surface accounting for the unequal distribution.

00:04:22.000 --> 00:04:32.000
 Long ago, Gilbert Lane showed that if you block the energy systems of a cell,

00:04:32.000 --> 00:04:42.000
 it's still just like hair being completely dead will selectively associate potassium.

00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:55.000
 Lane demonstrated that in the state where the cell is predominantly associated with potassium,

00:04:55.000 --> 00:05:07.000
 using isotopes, he showed that sodium is constantly entering the cell but being excluded.

00:05:07.000 --> 00:05:12.000
 It goes in, but it goes out even faster.

00:05:12.000 --> 00:05:19.000
 So it's analogous to the solubility of something.

00:05:19.000 --> 00:05:31.000
 A.S. Troshin, about the time Lane was working on history, was working on the idea of different solubilities

00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:35.000
 governing the properties of cells.

00:05:35.000 --> 00:05:44.000
 And he showed that, for example, he could demonstrate that cells are not osmometers,

00:05:44.000 --> 00:05:56.000
 which if there's a semi-permeable membrane, they have to behave as an osmometer, like an egg membrane.

00:05:56.000 --> 00:06:04.000
 It's a very thick substance compared to the idea of a cell membrane,

00:06:04.000 --> 00:06:11.000
 but you do a dialysis membrane, for example, made from an intestine.

00:06:11.000 --> 00:06:18.000
 It's not at all analogous to the hypothetical cell membrane.

00:06:18.000 --> 00:06:28.000
 And Troshin demonstrated that urea, for example, will change the water content of a cell,

00:06:28.000 --> 00:06:31.000
 but it is free to enter the cell.

00:06:31.000 --> 00:06:41.000
 So it isn't pulling water out as an osmotic effect, but it enters the cell freely

00:06:41.000 --> 00:06:53.000
 and simply changes the properties of the protein system so that less water is bound by the cell proteins.

00:06:53.000 --> 00:07:00.000
 So for the follow-up, or one follow-up, is why does any of this matter?

00:07:00.000 --> 00:07:07.000
 Why does it matter that the membrane pumps and channels theory may be incorrect

00:07:07.000 --> 00:07:11.000
 and that Gilbert's theory or something like it may be more correct?

00:07:11.000 --> 00:07:13.000
 How does that sort of impact?

00:07:13.000 --> 00:07:23.000
 Well, the induction part of the hypothesis is that everything that sticks to the protein

00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:32.000
 affects the electrical properties of the protein, and that applies literally to everything,

00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:36.000
 other ions, hormones, metabolites, and so on.

00:07:36.000 --> 00:07:44.000
 Carbon dioxide is an acid which affects the acidity of the protein,

00:07:44.000 --> 00:07:51.000
 and so affects its potassium/sodium affinity.

00:07:51.000 --> 00:08:06.000
 Once you see that the system as a cooperative organized system is acting as a different phase,

00:08:06.000 --> 00:08:15.000
 the whole substance of a cell is a coordinated cooperative phase system,

00:08:15.000 --> 00:08:21.000
 and everything you do to that phase is going to change its properties.

00:08:21.000 --> 00:08:34.000
 The basic assumption of the foolish membrane hypothesis is that cells are controlled

00:08:34.000 --> 00:08:42.000
 by that semi-permeable or pumping property of the surface membrane

00:08:42.000 --> 00:08:52.000
 because the ions are equally randomly distributed on either side of the membrane,

00:08:52.000 --> 00:08:58.000
 so you need something to account for why they are non-randomly distributed.

00:08:58.000 --> 00:09:05.000
 Atrocin saw it as a simple matter of solubility,

00:09:05.000 --> 00:09:17.000
 but the association induction shows that specifically the ions are governed by the electrical properties

00:09:17.000 --> 00:09:22.000
 of the proteins which are influenced by everything.

00:09:22.000 --> 00:09:35.000
 Basically, all of the mistaken medical treatments are the result of bad reasoning

00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:42.000
 from the doctrine of a random solution on the inside of the cell.

00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:56.000
 Randomness is essential to the working of the equations that are used to explain cell potential and ionic distribution.

00:09:56.000 --> 00:10:03.000
 One of my professors, for example, Sidney Bernhardt,

00:10:03.000 --> 00:10:11.000
 spent his whole career and a few years after I left graduate school,

00:10:11.000 --> 00:10:16.000
 he pretty much finished what he had been working on,

00:10:16.000 --> 00:10:28.000
 showing that even the glycolytic mechanism of converting glucose to pyruvic acid or lactic acid,

00:10:28.000 --> 00:10:35.000
 he showed that just by careful measurement of the substrate and the proteins,

00:10:35.000 --> 00:10:41.000
 he showed that the assumption of randomness,

00:10:41.000 --> 00:10:49.000
 which is the basis for all of the standard enzyme substrate interactions,

00:10:49.000 --> 00:10:53.000
 they are all based on statistical randomness.

00:10:53.000 --> 00:11:00.000
 He showed that there is no possible room for application of those equations

00:11:00.000 --> 00:11:09.000
 because the substrate is about at the same concentration as the enzyme,

00:11:09.000 --> 00:11:13.000
 basically one substrate molecule per one enzyme.

00:11:13.000 --> 00:11:21.000
 So the substrate has to be essentially handled directly from one protein to another

00:11:21.000 --> 00:11:24.000
 rather than randomly diffusing.

00:11:24.000 --> 00:11:31.000
 So all of the equations, assuming random diffusion, are irrelevant to biochemistry.

00:11:31.000 --> 00:11:36.000
 That part seems really important, sort of culturally.

00:11:36.000 --> 00:11:40.000
 Could you talk to us a little bit more about what it means, basically,

00:11:40.000 --> 00:11:44.000
 to build everything on top of the wrong assumptions?

00:11:44.000 --> 00:11:55.000
 Yeah, everything. When I talk to cardiologists or pulmonologists or any of the specialties,

00:11:55.000 --> 00:12:07.000
 they build important therapeutic approaches on that assumption of standard explanation of how enzymes work,

00:12:07.000 --> 00:12:11.000
 how hormones act on cells and so on.

00:12:11.000 --> 00:12:21.000
 If you follow their reasoning, you can connect the membrane theory

00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:28.000
 and the randomness theory to specific mistakes they make in their treatment.

00:12:28.000 --> 00:12:43.000
 For example, most thyroid doctors think of thyroid hormone as increasing excitability

00:12:43.000 --> 00:12:46.000
 rather than decreasing excitability of cells.

00:12:46.000 --> 00:12:58.000
 And carbon dioxide metabolism in cells is usually 180 degrees misinterpreted

00:12:58.000 --> 00:13:09.000
 because they think of the equations of bicarbonate rather than the intrinsically acidic

00:13:09.000 --> 00:13:16.000
 modifying effects of the carbon dioxide itself acting on the cell structure.

00:13:16.000 --> 00:13:23.000
 Could we do a thought experiment as if, let's say, we're now living in a world

00:13:23.000 --> 00:13:32.000
 where doctors and scientists, biochemists, have decided to accept the AIH,

00:13:32.000 --> 00:13:34.000
 or at least that as a starting point?

00:13:34.000 --> 00:13:38.000
 How would you see that changing how medicine or research is done?

00:13:38.000 --> 00:13:48.000
 They would start realizing that right at the center of cell structure and function,

00:13:48.000 --> 00:14:00.000
 the energy process consisting of the production of carbon dioxide from fuel and oxygen,

00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:09.000
 that is the essential acidifying process that governs the structure of the cell,

00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:14.000
 the potassium favoring properties of the cytoplasm,

00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:24.000
 and therefore the structure of the cytoplasm and the readiness to work and be stimulated.

00:14:24.000 --> 00:14:36.000
 So it leads to, for example, seeing interpreting mania as a deficiency of cellular energy.

00:14:36.000 --> 00:14:41.000
 Epilepsy is a deficiency of cellular energy.

00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:51.000
 When things are overactive, it's because they don't have the energizing structural effects

00:14:51.000 --> 00:14:56.000
 of oxidative metabolism all the way to carbon dioxide.

00:14:56.000 --> 00:15:07.000
 So muscle cramps, hardening of the heart muscle, losing contractive force,

00:15:07.000 --> 00:15:18.000
 nerve symptoms, a great variety of nerve symptoms, kidney malfunction,

00:15:18.000 --> 00:15:30.000
 every system you look at, the approach to treating it comes down to optimizing the energy

00:15:30.000 --> 00:15:37.000
 which regulates the pH ion selectivity and fuel selectivity.

00:15:37.000 --> 00:15:42.000
 Do you think that it would also, continuing this thought experiment,

00:15:42.000 --> 00:15:50.000
 how would it trickle down scientists sort of using or considering the AIH as the hypothesis

00:15:50.000 --> 00:15:55.000
 to pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical industry drugs?

00:15:55.000 --> 00:16:01.000
 Would those be different and how research is done on them be different in treating some chronic diseases?

00:16:01.000 --> 00:16:08.000
 The drug research industry is so far unrelated to reality

00:16:08.000 --> 00:16:15.000
 that many other things could abolish essentially our whole drug industry

00:16:15.000 --> 00:16:23.000
 because it's corrupt and based on nothing but selling substitute products

00:16:23.000 --> 00:16:33.000
 for basically old herbal and biological drugs that were available 100 years ago

00:16:33.000 --> 00:16:40.000
 could substitute for our multi-billion or trillion dollar drug industry.

00:16:40.000 --> 00:16:47.000
 Do you think considering the AIH or taking it seriously could affect some chronic diseases,

00:16:47.000 --> 00:16:52.000
 people suffering with them like Alzheimer's or cancer or heart disease?

00:16:52.000 --> 00:17:01.000
 Yeah, exactly the same as epilepsy, heart disease, kidney disease, lung disease and so on.

00:17:01.000 --> 00:17:07.000
 Gilbert Ling, one of his articles or books several years ago was

00:17:07.000 --> 00:17:13.000
 "Cancer won't be solved along the present line of thinking."

00:17:13.000 --> 00:17:19.000
 If you don't know Gilbert Ling's work thoroughly,

00:17:19.000 --> 00:17:26.000
 it's hard to understand the idiocy behind contemporary

00:17:26.000 --> 00:17:32.000
 last 80 years of biological and medical thinking.

00:17:32.000 --> 00:17:39.000
 It's a type of insanity that is reinforced by the culture,

00:17:39.000 --> 00:17:42.000
 the fact that it can make vast profits.

00:17:42.000 --> 00:17:47.000
 And then another smaller important piece to me seems that

00:17:47.000 --> 00:17:54.000
 you get a different understanding of how life works that at the smallest level

00:17:54.000 --> 00:18:00.000
 all you really need is the association of water and proteins?

00:18:00.000 --> 00:18:10.000
 And fuel, oxygen and sugar are the equivalent.

00:18:10.000 --> 00:18:20.000
 And Sidney Fox's demonstration that hot amino acids put on a hot rock

00:18:20.000 --> 00:18:25.000
 will spontaneously polymerize into protein-like molecules.

00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:32.000
 Randomness doesn't occur anywhere in the origin of life.

00:18:32.000 --> 00:18:41.000
 The whole assumption of randomness associated with the Darwinian approach.

00:18:41.000 --> 00:18:49.000
 Sidney Fox showed that a random mixture of amino acids polymerizes spontaneously

00:18:49.000 --> 00:18:52.000
 into protein-like elongated molecules.

00:18:52.000 --> 00:18:58.000
 But if you put water on that hot protoprotein substance,

00:18:58.000 --> 00:19:08.000
 it produces very symmetrical cell-like particles about the size of a big bacterium

00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:15.000
 spontaneously forming these spheres, microspheres.

00:19:15.000 --> 00:19:23.000
 And these spontaneously formed proteins have enzyme-like functions.

00:19:23.000 --> 00:19:29.000
 And he showed that precursors of the nucleic acids could be polymerized

00:19:29.000 --> 00:19:33.000
 by these spontaneously formed amino acids.

00:19:33.000 --> 00:19:41.000
 It's just a chemical, physical way of showing that the assumption of randomness

00:19:41.000 --> 00:19:48.000
 is basically a crazy religious doctrine that was built in 200 years ago

00:19:48.000 --> 00:19:56.000
 in the conventional science thinking for religious reasons such as the Big Bang.

00:19:56.000 --> 00:20:01.000
 They had a creation theory and so they fitted their physics to it.

00:20:01.000 --> 00:20:10.000
 Thermodynamic thinking likewise was fitted to associate the idea

00:20:10.000 --> 00:20:17.000
 that God created a universe and that it has been running down ever since,

00:20:17.000 --> 00:20:26.000
 tending toward entropy with no basis other than religious assumptions.

00:20:26.000 --> 00:20:33.000
 The alternative, it isn't necessarily an anti-Christian idea,

00:20:33.000 --> 00:20:36.000
 but it's associated with Hinduism,

00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:41.000
 is that the universe is alive and maybe growing

00:20:41.000 --> 00:20:50.000
 and that randomness in the universe tends to be decreasing rather than increasing, if anything.

00:20:50.000 --> 00:20:53.000
 Let's talk in terms of metaphors or analogy.

00:20:53.000 --> 00:21:01.000
 I liked how you said the pumps and channels is like there being motors or engines

00:21:01.000 --> 00:21:06.000
 on the surface of the cell or another something that Pollock had said,

00:21:06.000 --> 00:21:12.000
 pumps and channels, it's sort of like doggy doors that only let in certain size dogs.

00:21:12.000 --> 00:21:14.000
 What would be an analogy?

00:21:14.000 --> 00:21:19.000
 And they have to have an attendant to push the wrong dogs out.

00:21:19.000 --> 00:21:26.000
 Right. What would be an analogy for the AIH in that sense then?

00:21:26.000 --> 00:21:37.000
 Say you have a thermostat and food growing inside the house.

00:21:37.000 --> 00:21:46.000
 If you have the right kind of temperature and food, the right dog will come in,

00:21:46.000 --> 00:21:54.000
 a dog that can't digest beans, for example, might be excluded

00:21:54.000 --> 00:21:58.000
 if you're only growing beans in the house.

00:21:58.000 --> 00:22:06.000
 It's a matter of affinity, not selectivity in the sense of a doggy door.

00:22:06.000 --> 00:22:11.000
 Yeah, I like that. And then sort of going from there, and this might be a hard task,

00:22:11.000 --> 00:22:14.000
 but in just like a couple sentences,

00:22:14.000 --> 00:22:22.000
 could you say how the AIH differs from the pumps and channels theory?

00:22:22.000 --> 00:22:39.000
 If you look at nature, hair, clay, anything that is a selective iron preferring substance,

00:22:39.000 --> 00:22:44.000
 you simply see that that's a natural property of nature.

00:22:44.000 --> 00:22:52.000
 For example, soil prefers to associate with potassium,

00:22:52.000 --> 00:22:56.000
 and the sodium washes out and gets into the ocean.

00:22:56.000 --> 00:23:03.000
 So if you wonder why soil contains potassium and the ocean is full of sodium,

00:23:03.000 --> 00:23:12.000
 you have to start thinking why is a cell full of potassium and the serum full of sodium?

00:23:12.000 --> 00:23:20.000
 It's simply a physical preference, the structure and electrical properties of the solid matter.

00:23:20.000 --> 00:23:31.000
 The solidity being anchored in space governs the tendency to associate more fully.

00:23:31.000 --> 00:23:40.000
 Dilution changes the tendency to associate and dissociate things.

00:23:40.000 --> 00:23:51.000
 Given a solid matrix of potassium throughout the world,

00:23:51.000 --> 00:23:57.000
 soil tends to prefer to associate with potassium.

00:23:57.000 --> 00:24:00.000
 How did you first hear of the AIH?

00:24:00.000 --> 00:24:05.000
 What were you doing research-wise or scientifically?

00:24:05.000 --> 00:24:08.000
 I had just enrolled in graduate school,

00:24:08.000 --> 00:24:13.000
 and I was taking my first course in nerve biology.

00:24:13.000 --> 00:24:20.000
 As the lectures went on, by about the fourth week,

00:24:20.000 --> 00:24:26.000
 I decided that the professor giving the standard line was a crackpot.

00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:33.000
 He would refer us to papers in the 50s, 40s, and 30s.

00:24:33.000 --> 00:24:45.000
 Each time he referred us to a paper that he said was the origin of the thinking that he was expounding on,

00:24:45.000 --> 00:24:52.000
 I would look through the journal and see what people were saying at the same time.

00:24:52.000 --> 00:24:59.000
 I realized that most of the other articles sounded better than the ones he was referring to us.

00:24:59.000 --> 00:25:07.000
 As weeks went by, I read more and more about the history.

00:25:07.000 --> 00:25:16.000
 Looking at the articles he would refer to, I would read the whole rest of the journal.

00:25:16.000 --> 00:25:27.000
 I started seeing Gilbert Lange's work around 1950 and on.

00:25:27.000 --> 00:25:38.000
 I realized that he was solving all of the problems that were evident in what was being taught in 1968.

00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:46.000
 So I wrote to him and outlined the problems that he had obviously solved.

00:25:46.000 --> 00:25:54.000
 I said, "How is this? These people are going on about this membrane regulation."

00:25:54.000 --> 00:26:04.000
 His answer was, "You just don't understand science. Science is about money and prestige and power.

00:26:04.000 --> 00:26:09.000
 It has nothing to do with understanding reality accurately."

00:26:09.000 --> 00:26:19.000
 Would you say that without adjusting our understanding of the basic model that we'll kind of be at a standstill?

00:26:19.000 --> 00:26:27.000
 Yes. They'll never get any further. Just more and more drugs and techniques.

00:26:27.000 --> 00:26:39.000
 But never any progress against preventing and curing heart disease, kidney disease, lung disease, brain disease, and so on.

00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:48.000
 Why does it seem like Gilbert has been the only one who has offered this complete alternate model of the cell?

00:26:48.000 --> 00:26:51.000
 It seems like he's just this lone voice in the wilderness.

00:26:51.000 --> 00:26:57.000
 And now that he's passed on, will this all be forgotten?

00:26:57.000 --> 00:27:08.000
 Oh, no. All along there have been people who were just less diligent and energetic in doing the work.

00:27:08.000 --> 00:27:17.000
 Trotian, his basic book on sorption, is something everyone should read.

00:27:17.000 --> 00:27:22.000
 It will revolutionize your thinking as much as Gilbert Ling's.

00:27:22.000 --> 00:27:37.000
 It just happens that Ling covered all of the essential arguments that the membrane people have offered their bad solutions to

00:27:37.000 --> 00:27:40.000
 and does it in a very elegant way.

00:27:40.000 --> 00:27:49.000
 Besides that one letter that you wrote to him and that you got a reply from, did you two ever chat or exchange more letters or chat on the phone?

00:27:49.000 --> 00:27:57.000
 Yeah, I wrote to him a couple of times and talked to him once at a meeting in New York.

00:27:57.000 --> 00:28:05.000
 I noticed he, I think it was in the 90s, I asked him a question about carbon dioxide.

00:28:05.000 --> 00:28:19.000
 And he said, "I have untraded your letters," as if it had been a regular thing, but he kept a good file of who had written to him, obviously.

00:28:19.000 --> 00:28:26.000
 Is there a chance that Gilbert's wrong and the AIH is wrong or some parts of it?

00:28:26.000 --> 00:28:43.000
 Well, in the 1970s I wrote him and asked him if he didn't think that Michael Polanyi's adsorption isotherm would be more appropriate for explaining cells

00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:53.000
 than the sort of elaborate London Langmuir theory I think he was using.

00:28:53.000 --> 00:28:57.000
 And he said, "No, this one works all right."

00:28:57.000 --> 00:29:17.000
 But if I was starting out where he started, I would have used Polanyi's isotherm because it gives an image of a long-range potential

00:29:17.000 --> 00:29:32.000
 that he takes a lot of math to arrive at where Polanyi's isotherm would give you a sketchy approach to it right from the start.

00:29:32.000 --> 00:29:48.000
 Yeah, one thing that we have noticed in this journey is that, I don't know if it's the way that Gilbert breaks things down or if it's just that the hypothesis is so complicated,

00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:56.000
 but it seems like he hasn't done a great job of communicating it to people, especially lay people.

00:29:56.000 --> 00:29:59.000
 The membrane theory is so easy for lay people to understand.

00:29:59.000 --> 00:30:04.000
 I don't think it is easy for anyone to understand.

00:30:04.000 --> 00:30:19.000
 There are only a few membranes that will make it work that resemble in any way the hypothetical membrane.

00:30:19.000 --> 00:30:38.000
 The phospholipid bilayer membrane, all kinds of facts contradict it so intuitively it's impossible to have any substance to it and conceive it.

00:30:38.000 --> 00:30:46.000
 The way it stains indicates that it can't possibly be what the hypothesis says it is.

00:30:46.000 --> 00:30:53.000
 Nothing supports it except their assertion that it's there doing something.

00:30:53.000 --> 00:31:06.000
 Do you feel though that, was it a sort of failure on Gilbert's part of communicating or writing about his theory that, you know, so many people just sort of couldn't get through it or understand it?

00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:17.000
 No, I didn't think it was at all hard to see what he was doing.

00:31:17.000 --> 00:31:41.000
 I didn't have any background in school biology at all when I started, but since I didn't have that background, it was immediately obvious that the whole membrane pump thing was phony and impossible to believe.

00:31:41.000 --> 00:32:00.000
 It's only this sort of religious background of assumptions, it's all built on assumptions that are dogmatically proclaimed.

00:32:00.000 --> 00:32:15.000
 The random selection of genes, for example, in Darwinism, totally counter-empirical. It's all a religious set of assumptions.

00:32:15.000 --> 00:32:37.000
 One thing I wanted to ask was, because I know that you keep up with a lot of different spheres of research that are going on and new studies that are coming out, have you noticed that any AIH-like theories or experiments have been going on that are getting some more mainstream traction or anything you've seen that you're sort of hopeful about?

00:32:37.000 --> 00:32:57.000
 A guy in Germany at Ulm University, Andre Sommer, S-O-M-M-E-R, is doing the organized water in cells approach.

00:32:57.000 --> 00:33:14.000
 At MIT in physics, Jeremy England is taking the approach that order builds itself spontaneously given the flow of energy.

00:33:14.000 --> 00:33:36.000
 That approach is basically denying this 200 year long assumption that matter is an inert, randomly moving something.

00:33:36.000 --> 00:33:49.000
 The idea that order is intrinsic to matter is a big assumption that has to be changed.

00:33:49.000 --> 00:34:08.000
 The idea that an atom is identical at all points of time and everywhere in every context is a purely platonic, idealist doctrine with no evidence whatsoever.

00:34:08.000 --> 00:34:27.000
 It is saying that the elements of matter are nothing but a mathematical, changeless thing until they change.

00:34:27.000 --> 00:34:48.000
 This change is only described by a randomness describing statistical approach. Even Leibniz would have a better grasp of reality in seeing that everything depends on its relationship to other things.

00:34:48.000 --> 00:35:05.000
 Every atom is slightly different depending on where and when it is. The inductive effect says that every atom is sensitive to its surroundings.

00:35:05.000 --> 00:35:25.000
 Once you have the membrane assumption that things move randomly inside of cells, even Leibniz's recognition would tear down the whole approach.

00:35:25.000 --> 00:35:35.000
 Do you have any hope whatsoever that something like the AIH or the AIH will eventually one day be taken seriously?

00:35:35.000 --> 00:36:04.000
 Yes, if the next election for example could theoretically overthrow the whole drug medical establishment and establish by legislation the insistence on being empirical and rational in everything done in research.

00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:07.000
 Who do you think would do that?

00:36:07.000 --> 00:36:34.000
 Theoretically, Bernie Sanders could look at all of this criminal waste of resources on phony medical approaches, phony military approaches. There would be roughly $20 trillion a year left to do something intelligent.

00:36:34.000 --> 00:36:37.000
 Right, that would be amazing.

00:36:37.000 --> 00:36:39.000
 Well thank you so much Ray.

00:36:39.000 --> 00:36:40.000
 Yeah, we really appreciate your time.