Paused at 1:06:02.
>> Hi, Ray. How are you? >> Hi. Very well. >> Great. Well, I appreciate you doing this today. I think it will be fun to share a conversation. I was hoping to approach the topic of the COVID "vaccine," talk about the question of is this COVID pandemic stuff ever going to go away, questioning the legitimacy of this mRNA injection for anyone, including otherwise energetic, healthy young people or pregnant mothers, and in general, what we can do to continue to mimic a youthful state and really grow away from this technocratic sway, which seems to be happening.
But before we do that, I kind of just -- I was curious. I wanted to ask you a question that was basically unrelated to any of that, and it was this. Ray, do you ever watch movies or do you have any favorite films or directors? >> Yeah, occasionally I watch movies on the Internet. I haven't been to a movie house for many years. >> Do you remember -- do you have any fond memories of going to see a movie that really made an impression on you?
>> Maybe a few times in my life, but nothing terribly important. >> Awesome. So nothing that you said really changed the course of your life in any dramatic way? >> No. >> Great. Well, let's get going with the topic, Ray. I appreciate you, again, like I said, and taking the time to do this. So the CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, according to a public announcement said, and this was in the last couple weeks, that, quote, "Adolescence between the ages of 12 to 15 can get the vaccine, and they should roll up their sleeves and do so."
She went on to say that the FDA and the CDC have done rigorous, she said, review of the data, and that it's definitely safe for 12 to 15-year-olds. She goes on to say, "It's important that kids get vaccinated because not only can they get sick themselves, but they can bring it home so that other people get vaccinated, or so that other people who are more vulnerable can get sick from them. And you should get vaccinated to protect yourself, you should get vaccinated to protect your family,
and you should get vaccinated to protect your friends and also your entire community." End quote. What are your thoughts about this? Several of the statements are contrary to the facts. They generally have admitted that the people who are vaccinated can still transmit the infection. It doesn't stop the transmission, and in that age group, since almost no one suffers from the actual viral infection, and there are definitely vaccine-related complications such as inflammation of the heart, which is extremely rare in young people, has been associated with the vaccine.
So there are lots of reasons for thinking that it's absolutely wrong to advocate a teenager vaccination. I work around young humans, and I'm hearing all kinds of reports of these young guys and girls going and getting vaccinated. And they're between the ages of 14 and 17, I would say. I heard a high-school-aged person the other day say, "Oh, I'm getting vaccinated later today, and I'm nervous about it." And I kind of overheard him, and I said, "Oh, are you getting it because you want to or because someone said you have to?"
And he responded that his dad said it's time, and he was just going to do it because his dad said, "You've got to do it." What does he say about situations like this? There are increasing numbers of situations where teenagers and even younger are recognized to have some control over their own lives. And parents don't have absolute legal control when it involves their health. And for an experimental vaccine to be imposed by a parent, I think that there is increasing legal support for the right of a teenager to oppose a parent's direction on that.
For a parent to insist on subjecting their child to an experimental treatment, it's essentially no different from a war criminal experimenting on his prisoners. When do you think it's a good time on a general level or kind of like for any decision for a young human to start advocating for him or herself and be really in charge of his or her own life? The personality generally matures earlier in girls than in boys by a couple of years.
And so around the ages of 12 to 14, there's pretty much development of judgment and adult responsibility developing, even though our culture tries to suppress it. Historically, it's been very natural for 12 to 14-year-olds to take on adult responsibilities. And we shouldn't limit that, right? I mean, that's not something we should shy away from giving our young people a chance to do, right? I think that's true.
Do you think that a young person should -- I mean, do you think we should be doing everything we can to allow the space for even younger than 12 years old for our 4-year-olds and our 5-year-olds and our 6-year-olds to be really learning to make their own decisions, to do their own research, and to explore on their own? I think that's the proper direction to move in. When I was first working in Mexico, I knew people who had kids of different ages.
And it was very interesting that a 3- or 4-year-old was often developing really interesting individualized personality traits were very self-controlled compared to American kids of the same age. I think just because of the expectation of their parents for them to be a member of the family at an early age. I think our culture has increasingly, in the last 150 years, tied to infantilize everyone, not just the kids, but extending to farther and farther into adulthood, taking away individual initiative and responsibility.
Yeah, and I know you talked once or you spoke to your memories of being in a mixed-aged kind of learning environment with humans of all different ages and different grades. Can you speak a little bit more to the value of that as being appropriate for any young human? Yeah, I went to a country school where we had eight grades in one room, only two or three kids in each grade level. And so everyone could hear what everyone else was doing, and the graded quality of knowledge sort of disappears.
You, a first grader, might not be able to do mental math very well because they haven't learned their multiplication tables, for example. But essentially, everyone sees how knowledge works and how people work with it, and that's the way knowledge is in reality. Years ago in graduate school, when there was some unrest and students were demanding more respect from university, one of the sort of authoritarian graduate students said they can't expect respect from the professors. You have to start from the bottom up.
If you're learning a language, you have to learn the alphabet before you can learn grammar. That just sort of capitalized the idiocy of that whole idea that you have to have packages of learning put together to pile up to equal the whole knowledge of an adult. When you learn a language, obviously you don't learn the alphabet. You learn to speak first, and a kid learns to speak fluently like a native in just a few years, learning thousands of words.
Then they can become literate and learn the alphabet, but the real nature of learning is, in effect, to start at the top and then work down to the details. That's really cool. On kind of a similar note to one of the things you touched on, I've been hearing a lot of teachers just in the last couple of years who say things like, the kids aren't doing what I tell them to do, and they're acting unruly, they're defying. In my head a lot of times, I think, well, they're probably just bored.
Do you think with the kind of authoritative type of approach, like students just get, one, they don't appreciate that, and two, they're just bored out of their minds because they're not able to explore on their own kind of interest level. Is that probably true? Yeah, there is a sense of what's going on at the whole enterprise of schooling. The essence of it becomes a submission and a prolonged, boring, stressful submission, and that's the taste of the whole thing.
For example, in the case of learning a language, I never took a language class, and when I got to Mexico when I was 18, I just listened to people, and the spoken sound and meaning gradually build up the way a kid learns a language. And I knew at the time there were Spanish teachers coming to Mexico to improve their conversational ability, and within two or three months of just walking around Mexico City talking to people as an infant, in fact,
I was able to understand and interact with local people better than these high school teachers, many of whom couldn't understand a word of spoken Spanish. Wow, do you think that's kind of taking that generally? That's why someone becomes a great baseball player, a great musician, or a great artist, because they're simply – they absorb themselves in the highest level of those things, and they watch people who are at the highest level, and they're around people who are at the highest level, and they really start at that end of it.
They really do start at the top by getting what it is that's great about a great musician, and starting at that point, then they recognize the parts as they come to them. The parts make sense. Only a few grasp the whole point of it all, and if you don't see education in terms of the sense of everything and what you're doing in the world and feeling that you're a part of what's going on in the world, then learning the parts will never add up to the meaningful, valuable whole.
So the context really is, it really does matter. Yeah. For example, a person who learns to play the violin has no trouble adapting to a viola or a cello, even though the fingers absolutely don't go in any of those stages. Any of the little detailed motions that you would do on a violin, but it's a picture of the whole, as you can go straight from a violin to a cello with just minor adjustments like building up your hand strength and such.
That's really interesting. Just as you're saying some of these things, I think of people who I know who are, for example, great landscape artists or gardeners or athletes. It's often the case that they grew up in an environment where their mom or their dad was – they were just with their mom or dad all day in that craft and just were immersed in that field of behavior.
Yeah, I think that's what was making the little Mexican kids seem so whole and properly developed, was that they saw how the adults did things, that they were closer to the productive daily activities. That's cool. So in Mexico, they don't separate the kids from the adult activities, like, for example, in the kitchen or in the yard, like the kids are doing everything the parents are doing? It's getting more advanced economic style, but 50 years ago, it was definitely more like that.
That's great. I don't mean to be kind of a downer, but I want to get back to some of the COVID stuff a little bit. I heard a story in the last couple of weeks that I thought was – I'll just kind of share it and see what you think. But an eight-month-old from Baldwinville, New York – I don't know if you heard about this, but apparently received the second of two doses of the Pfizer COVID shot.
And his parents – he gets his name with Enzo. Enzo's parents, it says Mike and Marissa, they're both doctors, apparently. They said, "We both feel it's important to end this pandemic in the quickest and safest way to vaccinate our way out of it." And I guess he's the youngest recorded in the world right now to receive the COVID injection. What are your thoughts on something like that? The parents basically are idiots in a comprehensive way. They obviously can't understand that all of the immune system works and what this so-called vaccine is.
A vaccine always had a bad understanding of what immunity is, but the traditional oldest vaccines were kind of based empirically. Like they would take pus from first smallpox case later from a cowpox case, but they would rub the actual pus, create some abrasion on the skin, or even scratch the skin to get the pus into the skin. And that was creating – it was activating many different things, but the antibodies were responding to many, many different antigens in the material that was infectious or potentially infectious.
And that broad range of antigen antibody reactions, even though it was mainly on the level of antibodies, still was a broad spectrum type of antibody. Several of these nucleic acid, either RNA or DNA vaccines, are ignoring the antigens on the capsule of the vaccine, the various structural things that make the virus act like a virus that we could have antibodies to that would stop the virus at many levels with different kinds of antibodies.
But with this RNA approach, they intend to create within your own body the worst component of the virus, ignoring all of the typical virus components that would stop the infection of a real virus. But they induce the ability to produce the essentially toxic component of the COVID virus, the spike protein. And that is – the vaccine is teaching you potentially to become – to produce antibodies to knock out the spike protein, which is defensive. But meantime, you're producing and developing the ability potentially to keep endlessly producing more of the spike protein.
And even if you keep producing antibodies against that, there's a constant – not only a distortion of your antibody-producing system, but a constant action of the spike protein, which is to knock out our defensive angiotensin enzyme. The H2 enzyme is knocked out by both the virus and the vaccine. And if you have the RNA or even worse, the DNA to produce the RNA that produces the spike protein, that's going to be potentially a pro-inflammatory drag on your system for the rest of your life if it gets integrated into either replicating cells or long-lived cells,
such as nerves or even gonadal cells. Once it becomes a part of your genetic makeup, then what it's going to do is rather than produce the cytokine storm that can kill a person if their immune system is weak, rather than that acute sudden onset of the deadly processes, it will activate those gradually, progressively, steadily, creating mild and increasing chronic inflammation, joint disease, autoimmune diseases.
In general, the conditions that develop with the inflammation of aging, and ultimately, the endotensin is carcinogenic, so that if you keep producing the spike proteins, it knocks out your ability to destroy endotensin and you're creating increased tendency as to rapid aging and cancer and heart disease. So that is the whole idea. Anyone who either understood virology or the immune system, as recently as a couple of years ago, had to have bad intentions, I think, to go right to human use. This is the most potentially deadly type of gene treatment.
So if they knew what was going on, then it's totally fraudulent, and otherwise, is it possible that there's just been such a brainwashing that they've been taught something different? Yeah. When you hear Fauci talk, it's hard to tell whether he has resisted learning anything since he was indoctrinated 55 years ago in medical school, or whether he's deliberately falsifying information. If he isn't deliberately just making up a cover story, then he has to simply have a dead intellect to be acting like a robot following something he was indoctrinated with in school.
But Michael Yeadon, in one of his later interviews, has said he can't, as an insider in the vaccine industry for years, being a vice president, advisor. His latest conclusion is that it's impossible that these people were either that stupid or that ignorant. The only thing he can say is that they have bad intentions. And if part of that, just the money, just this crazy amount of money that they get through this?
Yeah. At the same time that they're getting approximately a trillion dollars, they're following the plan of the people who want to rearrange the whole world economy with a smaller population and a more subservient surviving mass, organized in a more business-like and exploitable manner. So with regard to the depopulation possibility and just like this, what you're talking about with the mRNA injections and the possibility that just help in general will decline so greatly, and is our fertility levels possibly going to drop to never before seen levels?
I've heard accounts of that, or I've seen studies, or I've seen people post things that suggest that. Is that part of that? The discussion was brought up primarily by someone who noticed that the protein that makes the development of the placenta possible has antigens that overlap with things in the vaccine. They said that if we develop antibodies to these vaccine antigens, then it's probable that we will also have antibodies that are interfering with this particular protein that makes the syncytial placenta possible.
But apart from that specific, very directed antibody placenta attack, there's a general thing that angiotensin creates inflammation, and part of that basic pro-inflammatory effect of angiotensin is to turn on estrogen production and interfere with progesterone production, and an overdrive of the aromatase-making estrogen is essentially where the idea of the birth control pill came from. My dissertation advisor, Arnold Soderwald, was one of the early people working on how very slight estrogen excess early in pregnancy is all it takes to end the pregnancy.
The farther the pregnancy goes, the bigger it goes if estrogen needed to kill the placenta to kill the embryo or fetus. But at the very beginning, just moderate excess of estrogen is enough to stop the pregnancy. And since we know that the vaccine damages our defense against angiotensin, and we know that angiotensin activates estrogen and many other pro-inflammatory agents that will interfere with pregnancy, then it's a certainty that the inflammation caused by the vaccine or the infection is going to affect your fertility.
And combined with -- I've heard from someone who spends a great deal of their time in the birth world working with families, working with women who are either pregnant or wanting to be pregnant or close pregnancy, and apparently they're pushing for more pregnant women to get the mRNA injection now, and they're telling them apparently that they're more prone to getting COVID because the immune system is compromised or something like that. One of the first things they noticed in New York hospitals at the height of the death episodes last winter and spring,
they noticed that women who were in the hospital to have babies were remarkably safe. People in the hospital with other conditions were developing at a high risk of getting serious COVID infection, the pregnant women in late-stage pregnancy were almost perfectly immune, and that -- and the fact that women have a much lower mortality, 50 or 60 percent lower than men overall mortality until old age. But young women, cycling women who are still making progesterone and have their opposition hormone keeping estrogen under control,
these women, like the pregnant women, are very strongly protected against the COVID virus itself. And that led one group to experiment giving -- I think the first study was giving just men a subcutaneous injection of progesterone at the first signs of a COVID infection. And I haven't heard how that experiment turned out, but it was a very reasonable supposition that progesterone was the main factor since when a woman stopped cycling, they stopped making progesterone long before they stopped making estrogen.
And in fact, in the absence of progesterone after menopause, the progesterone has been at about 10 different enzyme systems progesterone has been protecting against estrogen. In the absence of that, all of these enzymes tend to work the other way in proportion to how much stress you're under so that if the menopause symptoms are related to stress, the aromatase begins appearing not just in fat cells, but in skin cells, heart cells, liver cells, uterine cells, breast cells,
and that intracellular production all through your body, muscle cells are a major source of aromatase produce estrogen after menopause when the progesterone is no longer suppressing it. All of these tissues are internally producing estrogen and the enzyme systems that normally should be inactivating that locally produced estrogen for preparing it for excretion in the urine or bile. So those enzymes' activity is changed in the absence of progesterone so that now those systems intensify instead of part of the estrogen being inactive estrogen,
the balance shifts towards the powerful estradiol, and instead of being sulfated or glucuronidated to inactivate it for excretion, any that your liver has already inactivated, is reactivated by cutting off the sulfate at the glucuronic acid and restoring the full active estrogen. All of this because of the loss of progesterone and the increase of stress after menopause. So the fact that women are -- the difference between menstruating women and menopausal women is great. Women after menopause become similar to men in their susceptibility to the dangerous COVID infections.
And in old age, I think women are even slightly more at risk than a very old man of the same category. Interesting. So in light of some of the things you just said, the advice for pregnant women in the beginning of the COVID vaccine just being fought out wrong. So apart from the fact that it has all of these unique properties and is only experimental, the established history of vaccinating women for anything during pregnancy, it influences vaccination during pregnancy.
The CDC had the statement posted that although they recognized that the inflammation produced by the adjuvant in a vaccine such as influenza vaccine, although this inflammation damages the developing embryo and fetus, they still advocate vaccination during pregnancy. But the literature is very clear that inflammation during pregnancy, including the inflammation from a vaccination, damages the fetus's brain, and autism is one of the outcomes of an inflammatory disrupted pregnancy. So the whole system denying that vaccination has anything to do with autism, if you're just limited to looking at women who were vaccinated during pregnancy,
has very little to do with whether there's mercury in it, the aluminum adjuvant or a lipid adjuvant, no matter what the inflammation promoter is. It's the inflammation itself which is essential to a vaccine that is disruptive to the development of the embryo, especially its brain and immune system. Okay, that's great because I was going to ask you about the young human developing inside the lung. And so with the mRNA injection, these have a lipid, right, adjuvant? Yeah, I looked up the name of the lipid. It takes about a line of print to describe it.
And I looked at that particular lipid that they -- in the ingredients they describe it as a carrier lipid needed to get the RNA in the cells, which in itself is live. DNA and RNA enter cells freely in the naked condition. They don't need a lipid carrier. So that's a misleading concept in itself. But the ingredient is described as a carrier, not as an adjuvant. But when you look up on Google, that specific lipid, it has been on the market as an adjuvant for vaccines.
So if you take the actual historical proper name and function of that lipid, it would be called an adjuvant. But nominally, according to the government and vaccine companies, these vaccines contain a lipid carrier, but no adjuvant. That's a falsification that I haven't heard anyone talking about. That's very interesting. So, Ray, like several minutes ago, you mentioned that for this virus or any virus that -- some other virus that might be dangerous.
It seemed like you were saying, and I interpreted you as saying, that there could be a vaccine or a vaccine process that's totally legitimate and safe. But that's certainly not what's happening. Can you talk a little bit more about that? What would be that thing? Yeah. Way back in the 18th century, there were people vaccinating successfully with smallpox. The interdermal introduction of a weakened or stressed agent that the scans would pass would be put aside and stored for a while before putting it into the skin.
So, it was -- even though they didn't have the concept of a virus agent, they knew they were stressing or weakening the sickness-producing agent and then introducing it right into the skin where the pox would show its reaction in the person with the disease. And that was intuitively using our basic, complete immune system, activating it through a normal route such as by skin contact, and it turns out that our immune system has similar normal routes of reaction and control in our respiratory system.
And in our intestine, there are surface receptors for strange materials, white blood cells that sample what is coming down the digestive tract and activating the immune system similar to what you inhale or what gets scratched into your skin. And those activate many, many different levels of resistance, not just antibodies. And the more deteriorated or aged or stressed a person is, the weaker those basic resistance factors are, and they are compensated by exaggerated production of antibodies.
And that exaggerated production of specific antibodies is behind the so-called autoimmune diseases, or B cells get overstimulated while the rest of the so-called immune system deteriorates under the effects of stress, estrogen, and other age-like factors. So why is it, Ray, do you think that we're not doing something more like, you know, in current times, like the process you described with natural immunity? Well, it took many years before the government health agencies could get coordinated to use the vaccine for smallpox in an organized way.
The use of it was to vaccinate people who were imminently exposed to the disease. So when they got organized, when there would be a disease outbreak, they would send vaccinators to the area to form a ring around the infected area and vaccinate the people who were very likely to come in contact with the infection. And in a very short time, they had pounced on each of these outbreaks and brought it to an end and eliminated the vaccine, the smallpox virus from the world.
So it was extremely economical, and it knocked out sales of the smallpox vaccine naturally, and it saved the world a huge amount of money. But obviously, no big company was motivated to stop selling vaccines, and the polio vaccine, I think, is a really informative history. In history, paralytic polio really appeared after the middle of the 19th century. We began to have paralytic polio outbreaks and epidemics every few years. And it happens that doctors never had access to hypodermic needles for injections until the early 19th century.
And while any old grandmother or witch doctor or whatever could prescribe oral medicines and so on, only a doctor had access to the injection needles. And so scientific medicine really loved the idea of injecting drugs. Only an intravenous or subcutaneous injection of a drug would really be scientifically appropriate medicine rather than just eating it. They claimed that it was inactivated by your digestive system and so on. In the case of progesterone, probably everyone has heard the story that progesterone is destroyed by the stomach acid, and so it has to be infected.
That was the story for 50 or 60 years until people actually had tried to eat any some and found that it worked better than injecting it. But in the case of polio epidemics, people very early, more than 100 years ago, started noticing that the paralytic cases corresponded to mass injections, not only vaccinations, but injections of various drugs or hormones. And that oscillated in the medical literature for about 45 years when I was a kid was still in the news. Ordinary people heard about the connection of paralytic polio with injections.
You can find lots of articles on it. And in the 1950s, it was reaching a peak, and it finally led to studies in animals for decades. People were noticing that not only was the epidemic itself associated with prior injections of anything, but that the particular limb that was most affected by the polio paralysis was usually the limb in which the injection had been made. And animal experiments demonstrated that if you inject a polio or other particle intramuscularly,
the assons, reverse axonal transport of particles is always going on, and they found that the antigen or the adjuvant was carried from the injection site in a muscle up the nerve to the brain and affected the brain's reaction to the virus created in these animal experiments exactly the same association with the front or back, left or right leg, where the injection was, would be where the paralysis occurred most often.
Currently, the last five or 10 years in Africa, people have been reporting exactly the same phenomenon, that the arm or leg within polio vaccine was injected as the part that's most likely to be paralyzed. Ray, why do you think we persist in making such grave mistakes in the name of "science"? In the case of the polio vaccine, it was essentially to sell the product. If you look at the cases of paralysis through the 1940s and '50s and '60s and '70s, officially polio was basically wiped out very shortly after the introduction of the polio vaccine.
But when you look at the actual global picture of health and paralysis, what you see happening is that other types of paralysis appeared and exactly offset the disappearance of so-called polio-dependent paralysis. So what they were doing was renaming a paralytic condition, Guillain-Barre, or some specific name for a type of paralysis. They were simply renaming a paralysis that had been classified as polio, and so polio was officially cured by the vaccine. We're seeing the same thing in relation to COVID.
To get the, I think it was the first or second week of April of 2020, the sudden tremendous increase in death rates from COVID infection in the second week of April. That exact week, the mortality from influenza caused pneumonia dropped off just as spectacularly as the COVID death rates increased. And studies of the fate of the influenza caused pneumonia since the arrival of COVID have seen essentially a disappearance of influenza from the world. So it just sounds like a reclassification.
A re-reaining of death and the falsification around influenza, mortality, and pneumonia that had been gradually exposed for several years preceding this. Go ahead, Rick. Do you think it related to the depopulation possibility and just kind of positing this, kind of just thinking out loud about this? Like, it seems to me that if the powers wanted to depopulate in a drastic way and turn everyone into submissive robots who were controllable and you could tell them what to do, like, that doesn't sound fun at all. It doesn't sound like a great way to live at all.
Why would anyone want to do that? My sound went dead for a while. I missed a whole series of comments. Oh, okay. No problem. No, I was kind of bringing it back to the idea that there could be a depopulation facility going on. And my question was, I was just kind of reflecting on that. Like, if you're someone who wants to depopulate the world and turn everyone into robots, like, it just sounds like a really not fun way to be with anybody in the world.
Why would anyone want other people to be programmable and where you could tell them what to do? That doesn't sound fun at all to live like that. What's causing that? Like, what kind of a human wants to do that? The ruling class, basically, people like Flob, Flob, I guess his name is, founder and head of the World Economic Forum, has been verbalizing all of this that people really don't want to own anything or have responsibility for anything. They just want to rent things and have a salary and be happy.
And he is just amplifying some of the very crazy projections that the population, conscious people have been talking about for more than 20 years. The Rockefeller Foundation, over 10 years ago, put out various scenarios of the future. And they also said that if we didn't turn everything over to artificial intelligence, which would be owned and controlled by the giant monopoly corporations, if we didn't one way or another reach that electronic control of our everyday life, that it would end up in the worst sort of degenerated death scene.
So they've, for decades, been projecting this artificial intelligence controlled by the very few in the ruling class corporations as the only viable outcome of the history of the world. Is there a ruling class physiology that gets spread through the generations of the ruling class that's kind of openly responsible for this? Yeah, they basically have been culturally deprived for generations, and like the Bush family, the grandfather Bush was a part of the scheme that supported Hitlerism.
The father Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, was a more degenerated version of the same thing, absolutely authoritarian, and such things as CIA assassinations were routine. For him and his father, and as a third generation, someone like George Bush or his brothers, there's a product of a horrible kind of family upbringing and education at places like Yale that simply prepare them for power, exercising power, not for reason or criticism or understanding.
So do you really see this push to inject as many people as possible if the mRNA is closely tied with kind of the depopulation aim eventually at the end of the technocratic turn everything into kind of a cyborg culture as kind of all being connected? Yeah, I don't see any very plausible alternatives to explain the outrageous behavior of governments that have been – about half of the governments of the world have been integrated into this huge conspiracy.
And the only way to properly understand such an organized insane behavior is that there is a purpose behind it. Got it. And it does seem like that there's more and more people saying, like, no, I won't do that, and they've even reported lately that the number of people that are getting this "vaccine" are kind of leveling off or plateauing. But it also seems to me that the propaganda and the money being thrown at trying to convince people to get the injection is also increasing at the same level.
I mean, do you think that there's almost a worry that there's more and more people who are saying no, and they're just going to throw all their resources at continuing to try to make it happen? Yeah, you can see them recruiting famous people to try to make it more popular and inventing stories that will have propaganda influence such as saying, look, we're making progress. The epidemic is coming to a close. We can show that because now fewer people are testing positive for the infection following the vaccinations, but they have openly instructed people.
Previously, the CDC ordered the testers to run more than 30 cycles of the PCR reaction, which, according to the very people who intended and designed the PCR process, they said false positives is meaningless if you run it. The more cycles you run, the more cases you detect, but the less meaning there is. So now that the vaccine is in place, they are actually ordering people to do 25 cycles testing with the – it will be a more factual, valid test, but it will find many fewer cases because it won't be treating the false positives.
So they're right at the scientific level. They're building in statistics to support their argument, see if the vaccine is working will save you, just come and get your vaccine. Interesting. But if they had been running the test that way from the very beginning, then there would have been evidence that there was never anything going on. There never would have been a pandemic because it was a pandemic of tests. Wow. Great, Ray. This was great. I really appreciate being able to share time with you.
One thing I wanted to ask you about is it seems possible to me that the lockdowns and the fear and the isolation that many people have felt with degrading environment from any lack of nutrients from good foods and so on and so forth, that there's like a post-traumatic stress disorder among people maybe that could be acting as like a contagion, as in like a collective trauma. And Georgi Dinkov, he posted a study I heard about recently that revealed this is something that has been shown to happen.
And so what are your thoughts about this possibility that there's like this kind of contagion of traumatic stress that's being kind of spread throughout among people? Yes, the government and schools have been doing their best to instill that attitude of helplessness in the population. And they know that fear, hatred, anxiety, all of the intense emotions can be used to make people behave like lemmings. He mentioned, Georgi, that he mentioned a study showing pregnant alone as a potent agent to help limit this kind of infectiousness of traumatic experience and controllability.
So pregnant alone seems like a pretty ass along with progesterone. Yeah, both progesterone and pregnant alone stop the exaggerated stress reaction. They block overproduction of ACTH and so lower all of the related pituitary and other stress hormones and so improve your clear thinking ability. Would one want to like synergize pregnant alone with like certain foods or anything like that? Basically, complete good nutrition, low in inflammatory foods, keeping polyunsaturated fats and hard to digest starches and oils, keeping those lower completely out of the diet and keeping a generous amount of the anti-inflammatory nutrients, calcium, vitamin D,
and sugar or digestible carbohydrates are some of our most powerful anti-inflammatory and stability-promoting foods. Okay, so solid nutrition to go along with these things. Would progesterone and/or pregnant alone ever be either safe or applicable for like a young human? Would you say before the age of 10 or in the adolescent years? Yeah, the only thing is a boy doesn't want to take large amounts of progesterone for a long time because it blocks the action of testosterone if you take a large amount for a long time. Okay, got it. That makes sense.
Ray, you've been super active, it seems like, lately with tons of great interviews, and you're just doing so much work, and I know that everyone who is fortunate enough to listen to you just loves it and are real appreciative. I had a question to that point because we hear so much of what you're giving us, and I love it. Are we -- is there anything we're not talking about that you think we ought to be talking about, or have you not been asked something that you think would be really good thought material?
I'm curious about that. No, pretty much I think you're hitting the real crucial issues. Okay, yeah, cool. So there's nothing that you think about at night that you secretly wish that could be expressed to more people that it's not? Well, I would urge more people to stand up against the corporations, the educational system, the government itself. Several people have told me that when they were told that they would lose their job in a hospital or a university
or a public school if they didn't get vaccinated, they just said, "What is your legal basis for doing that, and why isn't it a crime against humanity to enforce the use of an experimental treatment?" And all of these people have said that their employer acknowledged that there was no legal basis and they didn't need the vaccine. And that's true, right? I mean, I was reading recently, I think the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the AAPF put out some stuff,
and the Children's Health Defense all put out, similar to what you just said, that really there's no -- you can't legally be required to take an experimental vaccine or do anything related to this experimental stuff. Yeah, and so it's good that more and more lawyers are getting involved in going after the criminal behavior of the state and federal health departments. Yeah, I think so, too. In regards to young humans again, Ray, what do you think some of the best things we can do to model or guide young humans to play away from the harmful programming?
The programming does seem to be just so pervasive and strong. How do you think the best ways to model this for young humans so that we can not keep them away, because I think exposure might be part of it, but what are your thoughts on that? Oh, I think spontaneously created group situations, whatever you call them, schools. The word has been tainted, but learning, experiencing cooperative organizations, I think kids should be given the opportunity to form and come in contact with alternative groups that are working on alternative futures.
With regard to this need for humans to connect, because I think that it sounds like you're speaking in part to that. We need to be around other people and discuss things, have conversations, be critical, explore different possibilities. Do you think some of the masking and -- do you think that's really going to have a negative impact as far as so many kids growing up these last few years around others who are social distancing and masks and all that stuff? What kind of effect do you think that has?
I think it's also having the effect of opening, especially kids, opening their awareness to the absolute craziness of the way the system is being operated. You see people unable to justify their doing it, destroying the economy, putting people out of work, going around wearing masks, even running outside in isolated areas wearing a mask. It's impossible to see so many people behaving so insanely without starting to really reorganize your thinking and realize that we have to think of better futures for individuals and groups and ecosystems for the outcome of the whole world.
Yeah, I've seen too many pictures even of newborns who are on their mother's chest. Thankfully, some of the pictures are still on their mother's chest after birth, and the mother is forced to be wearing a mask. The newborn can't even be in that experience with a mom smiling face in her face, though. So many hospitals are requiring the mask and stuff. It just seems so crazy to me. Yeah, I think this is also an opportunity for de-medicalizing our culture, realizing that hospitals and medicine in general is a major cause of death and disability.
Just starting to look at the figures, things that Ivan Village was talking about 50 or 60 or 70 years ago, we need to be de-schooling, de-medicalizing, de-corporatizing the culture. You don't have to reduce the population. You need to reduce the imposed organization, which is what's making so many people so miserable. I like that. You're speaking to people's ability for us to find happiness still. Would Ivan Village's writing be some of your, like, encouraged reading for a young human? Well, for everyone has to read them. Awesome.
I think didn't Hippocrates once say you're a fool if you're not your own doctor or something to that effect? Yeah. Awesome. Well, Greg, thank you. I kind of want to round it out. I really appreciate your time. I just want to end with a few things that I think would kind of generally encapsulate some of our conversation. And I want to kind of speak to this fundamental humanness, like we're going in a direction that seems like we're going away from what it means to be fundamentally human.
So what in your eyes if you could put some bullet points together, like what does that mean to be fundamentally human to you? Very similar to being fundamentally a mammal or a worm-blooded animal or an animal. Similar things apply. I've watched ants, among other animals, and the dominant story about ants are that they lack individuality. But if you really watch an ant, they are at least as individualized as people. They have a full range of emotions. You can see them having insights, inventing things. All animals have what we call the human properties.
So all we have to do is stop being less of an insane machine and become more spontaneously like our nature, more human, more animal, less obedient, more infecting. And see perhaps that we're all just unique manifestations of life itself, right? You know, finding out what life is about, life is about finding out what it's about. That's cool. Ray, what's for dinner tonight for you? I don't know yet. Okay, well, I hope you have a good evening. And again, Ray, this has been a pleasure.
I know a lot of people will really appreciate this, and I appreciate your energy and your time and your research and your experience and everything. So thank you so much. Okay, thank you. Okay. Bye. Bye. [BLANK_AUDIO]