对话雷佩特谈雌激素·牛奶·钙等
<markdown>
在这一集中，雷皮博士介绍： ➡️雌激素疗法真的有助于预防心脏病吗？还是有其他方法可以帮助女性长寿，减少心脏病？ ➡️黄体酮对衰老和长寿的影响 ➡️雌激素对衰老、流产、癌症和其他疾病的影响 ➡️黄体酮中断的重要性。 ➡️雌激素行业的历史及其对医学院、医学期刊和医生的影响 ➡️雌激素对骨骼的影响 ➡️为什么老鼠从来都不是雌激素治疗研究的理想对象 ➡️铁对心脏病的影响 ➡️黄体酮对雌激素解毒的影响 ➡️雌激素对甲状腺的影响 ➡️雌激素对胆固醇的影响 ➡️雌激素对阿尔茨海默氏症的影响 ➡️雌激素对说话速度的影响 ➡️青春期提前对乳腺癌的影响 ➡️雌激素对潮热的影响 ➡️牛奶摄入，糖和骨质疏松症的关系 ➡️糖会影响钙的吸收 ➡️二氧化碳会影响骨钙 ➡️没有足够的膳食钙，VD对骨骼的影响 ➡️为什么身体组织会摄取过多的钙 ➡️糖尿病、乳酸和骨质流失 ➡️了解原因 2/3世界人口中有乳糖不耐症 ➡️牛奶不耐受的其他因素 ➡️动物凝乳酶与植物“凝乳酶” ➡️牛奶激素–需要担心吗？ ➡️牛奶脂肪和粉刺 ➡️牛奶对 IGF 的影响 ➡️牛奶外的其他钙源
链接 https://stevekirsch.substack.com
文字版：
</markdown>
Edit:2022.08.29<markdown>
Participant #1:
So all of the mechanisms suggest that estrogen imbalance relative to progesterone, is what is causing the hot flashes. The fact that you can stop a hot flash with estrogen is probably because estrogen activates cortisol and other stress hormones that block the metabolism of estrogen, and that has the potential to inhibit nitric oxide synthesis. Okay, but nitric oxide will increase estrogen, though. Don't they kind of all work together? So it's just that the overabundance can inhibit it. Can you kind of go over that one more time? It tends to be a vicious circle. But estrogen is one of the estrogen, and stress and hypoglycemia will all activate nitric oxide, and progesterone inhibits it partly by keeping a steady sugar metabolism, maintaining body temperature. A lower body temperature creates a vicious circle, including the production of more estrogen.
Participant #1:
Welcome to the Weight Loss for Women podcast, a place where we share everything you need to know about restoring your metabolism so you can eat more, train less, and lose weight in a healthy and sustainable way. I'm Katie Blinkfield, co founder of New Strength and Saturated, creator of probatabolic food supplements and seriously saturated skin care. And today I'm really excited to have Dr. Ray Pete and Kate Deering back on the podcast. So we've done quite a few podcasts with both of them, so I highly recommend you go back and listen to those. But today we wanted to get Ray back on to talk more about estrogen replacement therapy. And we also dive into some of the myths around milk and calcium. So if you're anything like I once was, you probably thought milk and dairy products caused inflammation and cancer, and I thought they were too high in sugar. So I cut them all out of my diet. And I was actually diagnosed with lactose intolerance at age twelve. So my mom put me on bloody soy milk and all those disgusting cheeses nondairy cheeses. But when I met Emma, I realized that I couldn't digest dairy because I had a stress digestive system. So once I improved that and improved all my metabolic markers, I was able to tolerate dairy again. And calcium has so many benefits and is needed by the body for so many different things, which we cover in this podcast. So it is jam packed with information. So I highly recommend you grab a pen and paper and take notes. And as always, please rate and review the podcast at the podcast episodes. If you've rated and reviewed it before, you can do it as many times as you like. And each month I actually pick a winner from those that share. So if you'd like to win a tub of saturated premium Collagen, all you need to do is take a screenshot of the review or the podcast episode and share it on Instagram Stories and tag me at Kittyblomfild. And like I said, each month I just pick a winner. Pick someone from those that have shared and they get a tub of saturated premium collagen. So, look, I hope you learn as much as I did in this episode. Let's get into it. Super excited to welcome back to the podcast Dr. Ray Pete and Kate Deering. Hi, guys. Welcome back. Hello, Miss Kitty. How are you today? All good? Yeah, all good here? Yeah, sure, too. Okay, great. So this is, I think, probably maybe the fifth time we've had Dr. Pete on the podcast. We've had Kate Deering on the podcast probably ten plus times. And the last podcast we had, there was quite a lot of questions around escalating replacement therapy, so we thought we'd start this podcast. Kate just wanted to ask Dr. Pete some questions around that, and then we wanted to dive into myths around calcium and milk. So, Kate, I'll hand over to you. Okay. So, yeah, a lot of what we talked about last time was certainly estrogen in the industry of estrogen, which went down a lot of trails of the estrogen replacement therapy, because obviously when women intermenopause, it seems to be somewhere that they're driven to because it can make them feel better. And so during the course of this, I was actually referred to a book, if people want to look it up, called Estrogen Matters by Dr. Avram blumming and Carol Tavris. And so I thought we would talk about some of the things that he says in there because he's certainly a pro estrogen therapy doctor. So in this book, he definitely talks about that estrogen therapy has some good reasons to take it, especially for women there's good and bad. But one of his things, he says that estrogen therapy can help with heart disease. And so I thought Dr. Peep could maybe elaborate on some of these claims that the estrogen industry is saying about what it's doing to help benefit women. I have been writing newsletters on that topic, in particular many years ago, showing the contrary research that women do have a better outcome for heart health at the end of their lives. But progesterone is the heart protective factor. For decades, I've been saying that the research shows that estrogen increases, plotting many kinds of inflammation and other factors relating to Platformation, arterial spasms and so on. Progesterone has many life extending properties, especially against heart disease, but against all of the degenerative tissue processes demonstrated. First, Rabid studies showed very clearly that the higher their progesterone exposure relative to estrogen, the longer they lived and the younger all of their tissues were at a given age. And then that was supported by population studies in humans over the course of their life. For example, having more babies leaves their body more able to produce progesterone and regulate downward estrogen. So the facts are historically very clear against estrogen's protective effect, though you have to start out with the fact that beginning in after several years of research showing that Estherton caused infertility was in a border patient and had many dangerous properties, including blood clotting. This was established starting in the mid 1930s. And the carcinogenic effects were clearly shown in animal studies all through that period, culminating in a book by Alexander Lipschuz, for example, showing that estrogen was carcinogenic to every tissue in the body, not just breast, uterus, brain and so on, but lungs, kidneys, all the other organs, if it isn't interrupted regularly by progesterone. One of the main functions of progesterone is to knock out estrogen. Protects against stresses such as estrogen. So in 1942, the drug industry managed to convince the FDA that it was alright to use estrogen to treat menopause, including infertility symptoms exactly opposite of what the facts were showing. For several years, using their financial power, they convinced the FDA to approve it for all of these illogical uses. And they use that market power to finance research, to practically force the deeds of medical schools to oversee the research done in their schools, to make sure their medical school would keep getting generous financing for research purposes. And the same thing with journals. They let it be known that they were buying advertising that would enrich the journals. And if there weren't advertisements in the journals, the journals would sell them Reprints of their articles, sometimes for huge amounts of money, which were essentially bribes to the journals to publish things regardless of their truth. And that same power went directly to influencing doctors, giving them kickbacks for prescribing Estherton, and finally, to direct advertising to the public. So, starting right in 1942, the estrogen industry profoundly corrupted science, changed the whole nature of how the public thinks about it. And as people grew up in a culture in which Estherton was said to cure hundreds of different conditions, contrary to the facts, the people growing up in that generalized culture of estrogen worship, when they got to medical school, that was still their framework. And so when they found that doing research that would support the estrogen industry, that was all that was going to be financed, the background belief that was absorbed from the culture, just the socalled common knowledge that was reinforced by the knowledge that their career could thrive if they came up with results that favored the estrogen industry. And the result was that hundreds of diseases promoted by estrogen were, according to articles in medical journals, claimed to cure or prevent exactly that same disease caused. For example, it was widely known that estrogen caused abortions. But they found professors at Harvard who would say that it's a female hormone and people who are infertile must be less female. And so if you give them estrogen, it will make them more feminine and therefore fertile. So they using diethyl stilbastrol. They prescribed estrogen ultimately to millions of women, damaging their babies and their own health, causing generations of uterine cancer, various deformities, and so on. So the most outrageous falsehood about what estrogen does took years and years to be reversed. And in the first studies of estrogen in humans, they saw no benefit at all to the bones and skeleton. If anything, the estrogen was causing soft tissues to bind calcium, not the bones. So they did animal studies. The first research animal they used was the Beagle dog. And it happened that eserton very distinctly damaged and weakened their bones. Apparently, people understanding that nocturnal rodents react almost oppositely to steroid hormones to human beings. They settled on rats as their proof that estrogen would prevent or cure osteoporosis. Again, the history of it is based on obvious fraud and the same with heart disease, for example. They were so convinced, convinced the regulators that estrogen with white women didn't have so much heart disease, but they started giving estrogen to men. And it didn't take long before the men were having more heart problems, heart attacks in particular? Yeah, I think that is an assumption with kind of go over a little bit about heart disease and women. And I think it's believed that since women have estrogen because they do have less heart disease, pre menopausal. And I've always heard it's usually because women have a cycle and they have a way of dumping out iron. And would you say that might be the reason why women have less heart disease? It's just because they can get rid of things, toxic metals like iron, definitely. When they stop menstruating, their iron level goes up sharply. But progesterone does many other things Besides allow menstruation. The first missed menstruation, the beginning of menopause. When you measure the hormones, estrogen hasn't changed at all and won't for a few months. But estrogen is what fails when menstruation stops again, another evidence that progesterone is a protective factor. And in the absence of progesterone, beginning with menopause, you have unopposed estrogen for the first few months around the age of 38 is generally the peak of estrogen production. And then shortly after that, you get progressive failure of progesterone production. So the unopposed estrogen is astronomically high in that period from age 38 up until menopause, whenever that is right. And when you would say unopposed, because it seems that a lot of women during that age will get their hormones check and they'll come back and say, well, my estradiol is low. So they're being told to get on estrogen therapy even before Esther Dial is an oil loving substance. And the way that it's eliminated is to add either sulfuric acid or gluconic acid to the estrogen molecule that makes it water soluble. So it's circulating in the blood. When it's being eliminated from the body, progesterone in at least half a dozen ways activates and inactivates the enzymes regulating the attachment of the acid or the removal of the acid. So in the absence of progesterone, the soluble form of estrogen circulating the blood is decrease. But that means the oil soluble form stays within cells and within cells it activates various things, including aromatase. So in the absence of progesterone, you're increasing aromatase and you're blocking the enzymes that excrete it. So as it falls, the level falls in the blood. The actual intracellular form is increasing. Okay. So kind of to summarize that when you release progesterone, certainly during your cycle, that's also going to increase the estrogen in the blood because it's there to be excreted. So no progesterone. There's always going to be less estrogen in the blood because the progesterone is needed to activate estrogen to release. Is that correct? Right. Okay. And something I've also heard, too, about women that have been on estrogen therapy. And I think this is another theory, is when they're on and they get off estrogen therapy, they're told, well, your cholesterol levels have elevated. And so they're like, well, and then they're being told, well, because estrogen is protective for your heart, can estrogen have an effect on the liver that would affect cholesterol numbers? Because obviously, just because your cholesterol is up or down doesn't mean technically that you have any more chances of heart disease. Yeah. The reason women have about ten times higher incidence of thyroid deficiency and rheumatoid autoimmune diseases is because estrogen knocks out the detoxifying process in the liver that removes estrogen. So the more estrogen circulating and produce, the more your liver suffers. Your thyroid is suppressed and the liver slows down all of its metabolism, especially the glucose and the sulfur transferase enzymes that would detoxify estrogen. So the defensive processes produce more progesterone. But if your thyroid is less active because of the estrogen blockage, then you're needing something to increase the protective progesterone. And it happens that if you can increase cholesterol in circulation, it directly supports the production of steroids in the brain as well as in the ovaries and adrenals. So rising cholesterol compensates for excess estrogen and the resulting hypothyroidism. If you isolate an ovary, measure how much progesterone is coming out of the ovary, and then you increase the cholesterol circulating in the blood, you directly increase the production of pro chastol. There's a way to misinterpret everything. That's what I'm always finding. So you're saying that if you get on estrogen because like I said, people say when they get off estrogen therapy, my cholesterol levels elevated. And you're saying that is happening because maybe of the damage to the liver, or am I getting that the opposite? Well, the liver and intestine are major sources that every cell can make cholesterol. So when you're under stress of any sort, you'll increase your cholesterol production, potentially increasing for Chasterone. So would it make sense that taking estrogen therapy would elevate cholesterol or lower cholesterol? They saw that for years with birth control pills. That was the only acknowledged effect of estrogen, that it was lower in cholesterol levels. No, that would increase them. Oh, that it would increase them. Okay, so birth control would. So you're saying that estrogen will elevate cholesterol levels? Yeah, that's one of its potentially fixed. Okay, so I actually knew someone that said she got off of her estrogen therapy and then her cholesterol elevated, and her explanation from her doctor was, well, estrogen is protective to your heart, meaning they were saying, so it has this effect, and that's why her cholesterol elevated post getting off the estrogen therapy. So I don't know if there was another mechanism going on there, but that was something that I have heard anecdotally is there any explanation for that?
Participant #1:
Hello? Was that a question? Yeah, there was a question. Would there ever be a reason where estrogen therapy would have a cholesterol lowering effect?
Participant #1:
I'm sure there are situations where that can happen. Okay. Not normally. If you poison the liver adequately, it can't make okay poofa, for example, very, very high level of proof will lower your ability to make cholesterol. Yes. And the same person had a lot of stress going on at this period of time, too. So that could have just been another variable that created the elevation and cholesterol. So can we just say a little bit about obviously, there's lots of talk that being on estrogen therapy can be protective against Alzheimer's. It can be helpful for the brain, which I always have assumed that would be the opposite. Can you explain maybe why they're getting some of these results, that people on estrogen therapy have less chances of Alzheimer's? All through the 1990s, the data came out clearly showing that women have two or three times the incidence of Alzheimer's disease. And naturally the doctor said, oh, that's because they're deficient in the estrogen. But after the Women's Health Initiative showed that in this huge number of people in the research, dementia and Alzheimer's disease were clearly elevated when they took estrogen. So that very strongly suggests that a woman's history of estrogen exposure is why women have about three times as much risk of Alzheimer's disease. And doesn't estrogen have an effect, like immediately on the brain? Because some people will say, I take my estrogen, there my estrogen, and I can feel like my brain is working better. So doesn't it have a slight excitatory effect on the brain? It is excitatory. Kathleen adulton in the 1940s and 50s, was doing good studies on treating her patients for premature birth, toxinia and especially premenstrual syndrome by giving them progesterone. One of the main things she saw was that in the progesterone deficiency, anytime they were experiencing a progesterone deficiency, their ability to pass a test in school was severely impaired. And there have been studies of why women speak faster, use more words per minute than men, and estrogen will accelerate the verbalization of women. The number of words per minute simply is faster. In general, in women, that's the excitatory effect. But when you compare the information transmitted by fast talkers and slow talkers, the information per word is much higher. In the slow talkers, they allow the context and more complex significance to accumulate as they formulate their sentences. But if you talk very fast, you're talking mostly in cliches, not letting the information come through in an enriched form. So essentially what you're saying is estrogen on the brain is like cocaine on the brain, very similar. And in animal studies, in the example, they would train an animal so that every trial over a period of an hour maybe would get better and better and finally reach 100% performance. If they would give a little extra estrogen to the animal, it erased their learning. There was no gain from experience because the estrogen was simply erasing memory.
Participant #1:
Okay. So that's good to know that it's not sugar that we should equate to cocaine. It is estrogen more likely creating that excitatory manner. So another interesting part. Yeah. Cocaine increases all of the stress processes, blocking good nerve function. Glucose is one of the protected things against stress necessary for good relaxed brain functioning. There we have it. One thing that I noticed in this book is I went through all the references and the resources and the things that they said is that a lot of the studies were anywhere from four to ten years. When they talk about maybe some of these benefits or that they found that taking estrogen therapy didn't increase some sorts of cancer. And I know you've always said that it can take a lot longer. If someone taking estrogen therapy for decades, could it take a lot time for them really to see the negative effects of their estrogen therapy? Yeah. It's pretty similar to the effects of radiation. If you look at a woman's peak estrogen production around age 38, 20 years later, a little more than about 20 years, you see the age specific rate of breast cancer takes a sudden increase in the late fifty s, twenty years later. And if you look at the effect of an early puberty and in the US, puberty is starting as early as age. The younger age of puberty is decreasing the youngest age specific breast cancer rate. Now, women in their twenty s and thirty s have had a recent sharp rise in breast cancer risk and occurrence. And if you look at 50 years, for example, after that peak, at the age of 38, the absolute highest age specific cancer mortality is around age 85 to 89. So it takes in that case from 20 to 50 years for the estrogen to have full effect. Pretty much the same with radiation. Wow. Interesting. So I think it's just good when even looking at some of the research, when we look at estrogen therapy, I feel like after the Women's Health Initiative, because they did show at that point in time that HRT was creating a somewhat increase in breast cancer in women. Obviously, that's where they stopped it. But since then, it seems that they've been fighting that. And a lot of researchers, even the professors at Stanford who were involved in designing the WH size study, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars of the public money when the results came out, even though they had participated in designing the study, it didn't suit their expectations, and so they rejected it, said there must be something wrong, even though they approved to the study in advance. And the Stanford people were just the most outrageous cases. But the whole medical profession was under the financing of the estrogen industry they were churning out, especially in the when the actual science was putting the industry at risk by showing what Estherton is actually doing, the industry got busy and placed phony articles in the most influential journals through the. So everywhere you looked, there was an article saying that estrogen therapy prevented osteoporosis, dementia, heart disease. Another one. Yeah. And extended longevity. Yes. 2014 paper published in Archives of Internal Medicine. They said estrogen therapy improves the quality of life. Women didn't like to have hot flashes, but unfortunately, it shortened their longevity. So there were studies looking at the actual facts that didn't suit the established view of the medical profession. So the professors and doctors and Journal Editors all hated the outcome of the Women's Health Initiative. But there were hundreds of times bigger database for that study. They prefer the publications with maybe 100 or 200 cases and so on. Right. Just before the Women's Health Initiative, since the National Cancer Institute had been keeping data on almost half of the total United States population called the Sear Study, the surveillance epidemiology. And the end result is what it should for. But, for example, their data covered 350,000 cases of breast cancer. And then you have the one like the recent Japanese study of 164 cases. And people like Blooming and Tavis go with the results based on 164 cases in Japan rather than 3500 cases in the US, which strongly supported even more so than the Women's Health Initiative. The design of the Whi helped you make it look like there was less risk than the actual National Cancer Institute data. So that's an interesting place to look. I haven't even heard of that in the Sears study. Probably the biggest, most obvious disprove of people like
Participant #1:
mentioned is that in 2002, when the data from the study were published, there's a tremendous drop off in use filling prescriptions for estrogen and even fewer doctors writing prescriptions. And the sales by wife of Premarine dropped so sharply in just one year, it was almost a billion dollars of sales loss. And that continued over several years. And when they were using much less estrogen, there was a historically huge decrease in mortality from breast cancer starting almost immediately. And the immediate results are going to be amplified 20, 30, 40 years later. But in the first few years, it was already evident about a 10% decrease in breast cancer. And that amounts to thousands of women not dying from breast cancer because they stopped taking their hormone replacement. Yeah, I think that's definitely some data showing that it definitely had an effect. One thing I wanted to kind of go back on real quick because obviously a lot of women take hormone replacement because they have horrible hot flashes, and it obviously works. They can take it and they're hot flashes. Can you explain maybe the mechanism of why estrogen helps to get rid of hot flashes?
Participant #1:
Blood sugar and nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is what lowers your body temperature during a hot flash by letting the heat come to the surface and nitric oxide. It happens that estrogen is a great activator of nitric oxide, but a falling blood glucose or ability to use the glucose will increase your nitric oxide and cause a hot flash. So things that interfere with glucose use are going to increase your hot flashes. And you can clearly stop night sweats and hot flashes by just taking something like a concentrated slurry of cornstarch. Some way of keeping your blood sugar up steadily will stop the hot flashes. Progesterone is the normal way to turn off nitric oxide. Keep your body temperature higher while estrogen causes you to lower your temperature. The natural tendency of estrogen to increase nitrogen oxide leads to the vasodilation and reducing body temperature. So people using estrogen have a lower body temperature. People using progesterone have a higher body temperature. When your progesterone fails, the acidilation lets the blood circulate to the surface, so you feel flesh, sweaty, and hot as your temperature falls. So all of the mechanisms suggest that estrogen, imbalance relative to progesterone, is what is causing the hot flashes. The fact that you can stop a hot flash with estrogen is probably because estrogen activates cortisol and other stress hormones that block the metabolism of estrogen, and that has the potential to inhibit nitric oxide synthesis.
Participant #1:
Oxide will increase estrogen, though. Don't they kind of all work together? So it's just that the overabundance can inhibit it. Can you kind of go over that one more time? It tends to be a vicious circle, but estrogen is one of the estrogen and stress and hypoglycemia will all activate nitric oxide. And progesterone inhibits it partly by keeping a steady sugar metabolism, maintaining body temperature. But a lower body temperature creates a vicious circle, including the production of more estrogen. Right. But you would think that would actually increase the hot flash, not decrease it. Yeah. The known mechanisms of acid dilation are strongly in that direction, but you can override those things by surges of stress hormones. Adrenaline shrink sugar blood vessels. Serotonin shrink the blood vessels as well as reducing heat production. So the stress hormones activated by an overdose, gigantic overdose of estrogen turning on adrenaline, cortisol, and serotonin, that can block the nitric oxide effects on the blood vessels. Okay, so essentially I think that anybody is on estrogen therapy. I think it's probably important to check your body temperature and pulse and see how your body is actually regulating to see if you're actually getting a proper response from the hormones you're taking. Yeah. And looking at the research of the role of carbohydrate, just taking a big bowl of oatmeal before bedtime, for example, will help to keep your blood sugar up longer and prevent eye sweats and hot flashes. Yeah. And I know you've always said and I've seen it work with women, that some of the best mechanisms for really helping with hot flashes without estrogen or egg, regulating your blood sugar, utilizing a high carbohydrate drink or food and that can help. And also using progesterone is always both really effective for helping with hot flashes. Is there anything else that you can think of that would help with hot flashes? Yeah. Watching your thyroid function closely, without that, your estrogen progesterone balance goes wrong. Right. So then that would be also then supporting your detoxification methods, because obviously as women get older, there's going to be an imbalance of the estrogen progesterone and then just detoxifying that excess estrogen supporting the thyroid function. There are things like getting enough calcium and vitamin D in your diet to keep your metabolic rate up in the same direction as the thyroid function, which is just the perfect part of just to kind of streamline into our next topic, which we are going to talk about dairy and milk and calcium and how it's all very important to us because obviously dairy is important to our bone health and it obviously plays a role in us preventing from osteoporosis. Can you kind of talk about because obviously people go back and forth with milk and dairy and you hear these studies where, hey, if they have more dairy, they actually have increases chances of osteoporosis. Can you maybe explain why that could happen and the importance of milk in bone health? If you select your data very well, look at certain countries, you can find populations that have that particular correlation, but not if you look at everything else they're doing. Anti milk cult has many dimensions. Some of it is just outright neurotic fear. For example, they think there's something unnatural about breastfeeding in itself and to drink cow's milk
Participant #1:
against God's plan and all sorts of things. But I think there's something Freudian and psychiatric behind much of the antimilk cult. When you look at animal experiments, milk and sugar happen to be very clearly protecting the bone strength as well as bone mineralization. Bone strength is the important thing.
Participant #1:
Right. Is there a preference? Because obviously dairy is important. Can someone just take calcium supplements and get the same effects? For some reason, for various reasons, medical prescriptions have usually favored calcium, citrate, sometimes gluconate, but the gluconate tablet is somewhat less effective. The situate doesn't work. Simply the extra citric acid in itself disturbs your physiology. They think of it as neutral because Orange juice, for example, has lots of it. And they think of Orange juice as necessarily being beneficial. But taking in citric acid from the outside is very different from the citric acid produced in our own metabolism. And it tends getting into the wrong compartment. It can even change our resistance to cancer. So the closest to physiological would be calcium carbonate. Even that fails to be absorbed as well, because in milk, you have the especially lactose. But any sugar, glucose from ordinary sugar works almost as well as lactose for stimulating calcium absorption. So if you're going to try to get it from calcium carbonate, for example, you should make sure you're taking it with adequate carbohydrates. So essentially, if somebody isn't able to have milk or dairy for one reason, one thing they can do is take calcium carbonate, which is also eggshell, calcium that you can make on your own. And having it with something like Orange juice would help facilitate a better absorption. Is that right? Yeah. Except even in Orange juice, the citric acid isn't an official thing. The best Orange juice has almost no citric acid. I'm saying. Yeah. Consuming calcium carbonate with the Orange juice, with the sugar would help facilitate increasing. Yeah. The sugar is a really important thing. Okay. So that would be a decent option for someone because there's a lot of talk about what happens to the body under stress, and that when we're under stress, we take in too much calcium and we take in too much calcium. That calcium goes and state goes to our tissue. Is that what's happening? Can we take in too much calcium or where is the calcium coming? That is basically in someone's tissue. The parathyroid hormone, which takes calcium out of your bones, does it by increasing fermentation, by producing lactic acid in the bone and in the presence of carbon dioxide and carbonic acid, calcium goes into your bone. But parathyroid hormone reverses that process, decreasing CO2 and increasing lactic acid, getting the calcium out of your bone, putting it into your bloodstream, and also shifting the balance, generally, of lactic acid, causing the calcium to accumulate in soft tissues at the same time that it comes out of bones where it belongs. And if you don't eat enough calcium and have adequate vitamin D, your parathyroid hormone rises. So you have less calcium in your bones, more in your soft tissues. So people who don't consume enough calcium will get calcified, arteries and calcified, nerves and other tissues. So you have to think about what happens when you get adequate calcium and vitamin D, that you inhibit the parathyroid hormone and also inhibit the conversion of 25 hydroxy vitamin D into 125 hydroxy vitamin D, which is called the active vitamin D. But actually, it's a stress related factor that goes with all of the toxic effects of excess calcium. Okay. So I'm going to go back a little bit here because I think we need to chat a little bit about a few of these things. I think the first thing you said is if you consumed vitamin D or you had adequate vitamin D but did not consume enough calcium, your parathyroid hormone would elevate pulling the calcium from the bones and that would pull it into the tissue, is that correct? Yeah. Presence of D without calcium. I'm only saying that because obviously there's people out there taking lots of vitamin D right now and maybe not consuming enough calcium. And so with that person, they could be creating hyper calciumia or calcium in the tissue, is that correct? Yeah. The combination of vitamin D in the Dioder from sunlight plus adequate calcium and magnesium is necessary to keep parathyroid hormone down and the active 125 hydroxy vitamin D down. Okay. So I just want people to understand that because there's a lot of D controversy and I don't if I want to talk about in depth in this conversation, but taking D without calcium and some of the other mechanisms like magnesium, can create an atmosphere that isn't very good for you, which could create calcium getting into the tissue, which is what you do not want, correct? Yeah. And taking 400 units vitamin daily, which a lot of doctors claim is adequate, is essentially nothing. You see publications saying that vitamin D is absolutely ineffective at preventing heart disease and hardening of the arteries and so on. But that's because they prescribed only 400 mg units per day or to effectively raise the circulating vitamin D to the point that it corrects things takes usually around four or 5000 units of vitamin D. Yes. So is there any evidence? Because obviously as people age, they get calcifications of the tissue and the calcium is going in the wrong places. Would that just happen from people ingesting too much calcium, or is it more likely coming from a stressed system which isn't balanced, probably isn't getting enough calcium or isn't able to absorb it, and now the body is elevating the parathyroid hormone and now it's pulling it from the bones. Yeah. Anything that cuts your energy metabolism or that over stimulates cells, they amount to the same thing. When you overstimulate a cell, it doesn't have adequate energy. And the excitotoxic amino acids, for example, will overstimulate a cell, cause it to take up calcium improperly, which can lead to calcification and cancerization. And blocking adequate energy production also causes cells to take up calcium, keeping them in the excited, de energized state. Got you. And something you said a little bit ago, you were referencing the importance of carbon dioxide and calcium metabolism. Can you kind of talk about that again about why it's so important to have enough carbon dioxide? Because obviously we know that carbon dioxide is produced highly in a glucose metabolism over any other type of macronutrient metabolism. So how it is really important to be metabolizing sugars because obviously that produces the most carbon dioxide. And why is that important in calcium metabolism? Most people have now at least heard of the so called Drangled cycle, in which oxidizing fat blocks the oxidation of glucose, and vice versa oxidizing glucose helps you not to oxidize fat, but to dispose of it in safer ways. And CO2, once it's produced and keeping your fat oxidation low, the CO2 directly turns off lactic acid production and has a directly quieting effect on cells. And as it's produced continuously in an active cell,
Participant #1:
acid as that streams continuously out of the cell, it takes calcium with it. So metabolizing glucose facilitates the anti excitatory pro energy function of the glucose oxidation by this antiexcitatory effect of the carbon dioxide. So what I'm hearing is it is the increased amount of lactic acid that could be greatly increasing the chance of the calcium going into the tissue. Is that correct? Because I definitely see that in diabetics and they start losing a lot of bone density. Can you explain why they can't oxidize their glucose? But what they can do is turn it into lactic acid. And even if it doesn't reach the point of deadly lactic acidosis, it's always there, tending to raise their free fatty acids. And the raised blood level fatty acids is constantly interfering with the ability to oxidize glucose. So the essence of diabetes is in the actions of lactate and free fatty acids, they create a vicious circle. Got it. Interesting. Okay, so I think that's an important factor to discuss because obviously, calcium metabolism needs carbon dioxide. And in a body that is using fat as fuel, carbon dioxide is going to greatly decrease. So for some of those people, they're not going to be metabolizing calcium properly because of that state. Is that correct? Yeah, the circulating lactate should be at the very minimum. Got you. Okay, so I want to just kind of skip down to going back to milk, because, again, milk is getting off on the calcium tangent. But I do want to talk about some of the myths about milk, and maybe we'll go over these and one of those is the lactose intolerant. Everyone thinks that there's obviously two thirds of the population of this world can't tolerate milk because they're lactose intolerant. Is there a reason for that? Why can't they tolerate milk? Is it genetic or is it maybe because once it's just their culture and they stopped being fed milk at a young age and now they can't tolerate it. There have been studies on the Chinese who are among the so called genetically lactose intolerant people. And in experiments, they simply had them add, starting with half a glass of milk with a meal which didn't cause any disturbance. But if they keep that up for a few weeks, the presence of the lactose gradually reinduces or restores the production of the lactase enzyme, which every baby has and which is turned off when they stop drinking Belt. And so if you don't stop drinking Belt, you don't become lactose intolerant. But like the Chinese, if you chronically re expose them to lactose, they can develop the enzymes. I think that's a myth that can be debunked because there's definitely an argument in the antimilk community that milk isn't that great because so much of the world's population can't consume it, but ultimately they could they could bring it back into their diet very slowly and they could start producing the enzyme because like all things in the human body, if we don't drink milk, our body stops producing enzyme. Essentially correct. Isn't that what happens? Right. About 30 or 40 years ago, the US government was giving foreign aid, some of it in the form of powdered milk. But the people who wanted them to buy waste from the fish industry, powdered fish, for example, promoted the idea that giving a powdered milk to famine areas was bad for the people. You should give them fish powder. But it was really a market influence, pressure on the government that helps amplify the doctrine that most of the world is electroly intolerant. Got you. So for people that later in life say, hey, I used to be able to tolerate milk, but now I can't tolerate milk. What would be some factors that may give somebody a lactose intolerance later in life? Well, often it's something else about the milk. A lot of people just are determined to have raw organic milk. And there have been two big dairies that I've tried to drink the organic milk from. The milk tastes bad. In one of the cases I looked on the map, and there's a factory on I Five, I think it was called Wang that produced a toxic metal for the government military and the odor permeates miles around it. And this dairy, organic dairy was very close to the factory downwind summit. And so their cows were constantly breathing that horrible sink, and it showed up in the milk, even though technically it was organic and the milk was making me sick. That happened with two or three brands of organic milk. And I simply found that the most common reason was that they allowed their cows to graze on weeds rather than known grass or Clover. And many weeds are very bad tasting. Many of them are allergenic. Breastfeeding women often have the experience that if they eat certain foods, the baby becomes constipated or develops related symptoms because the allergens go right into the milk. So if the cow places on allergenic weeds, the milk is allergenic. So good tasting milk, whether it's organic or not, is a good bet that is less allergenic and also highly pasteurized as milk kills some of the bacteria that people are sensitive to. So it's a matter of finding the milk that agrees with you. And none of that has to do with lactose. Right? I'm going to touch on that. But can stress be a factor in producing the lactose enzyme so that that would affect someone? What I certainly see is people under severe amount of stress don't tolerate hypothyroidism, and low progesterone interfere with the production of lactate synthetic. Yeah. So could just improving thyroid function and getting on a stress improve someone's ability to tolerate milk very often. That's all it takes. Yeah, right. And then also then kind of going off what you just said. I think it's important to understand that it's important to find what milk works for you. And for some people, it is a raw milk works best for them and they feel great on that. And then for others, it's ultra pasteurized or it could be pasteurized for other reasons, and that might be why they tolerate. So it's important to not just try one that if you're trying to bring milk back into your life to try a variety of different milks and to try to find one that works for you, getting on that, and I'm going to jump into another thought that people have is a casein allergy. Is this a true allergy, or what else could it be if somebody feels they have a casein issue with dairy, with the what issue casein, the other protein, Besides the way people say they have a casein allergy. Yeah. Some of the studies are based on chemical breakdown of cacine and then even chemically hydrolyzing it, which is not the same as detesting it in your stomach and intestine. They test the toxicity of the broken down Casin, for example, by inspecting it into a mouse brain. Absolutely nothing to do with the way milk is used under chest. There's a lot of extreme illogical propaganda attached to the idea that one kind of casing is better than another. Right. I think that some people will consume something like cheese and think because it doesn't have a lot of lactose, because everyone's either lactose or casing and go, well, I don't do well on that. So I must have a casing issue or casing intolerance or casing allergy. Could it be maybe something else in that cheese about? I guess it's been more than ten years ago. There were several brands of American cheese imitating traditional European brands. And I was eating a particular good kind. I think it was from Vermont. And I noticed suddenly it had an unfamiliar soft waste texture. And then after eating it for a few days, I started getting bowel inflammation symptoms. And so I checked the labels and they had suddenly changed from animal rennet to so called vegetable rennet, which means in most cases, genetically engineered microbial enzyme producers, which always carry allergens from the microbe. So I changed to another American cheese that was traditional. And in a short time, the texture of that became softer, white for slightly different taste. And then I got sick. That happened with free American brands before I investigated in detail and found out that by that time, two thirds of all cheese in the world was no longer made with animal granite. But with these genetically modified microorganisms producing only usually one single enzyme, rather than the natural complex of enzymes occurring ran it. So the industry of genetically engineered enzyme has almost completely taken over world cheese production. So you have to very carefully read the labels and interpret labels that they're using the language more and more slightly so that people will not dig too deeply and find the genetic modified organisms in their food. Are they allowed to put these because I see them all the time. It's vegetable rennet. It seems to be prevalent in so much cheese. Can they put that in an organic cheese? Cheese in an organic. So if it says organic cheese, the cheese makers have pretty much damaged the idea of what really is organic. So that's allowed to put in a vegetable rennet that's been engineered. Yeah. There is no rent other than made by a cow's stomach or a cat stomach. Right. But some of these cheeses are putting in this vegetable rennet. So is that allowed? That's a total dishonesty. There is no such thing as vegetables in it. It's like saying the butter made from cotton seed oil. I see. So it's just their terminology, but it isn't really that. Yeah. Or soy milk. Milk. Well, we have soy milk isn't anything. It's just man. It removes the man from people. Yeah. But to use the word milk in such a situation, one of the worst foods gets the name of one of the best foods. Yes. Okay. So basically food manufacturers are using certain terminologies to make you think you're getting something. I think they use that because everybody's so plant based right now, they think they're getting something better when in fact, they're absolutely not getting something. Okay. So what about people talk about the hormones in milk. They're like, I'm afraid of milk because it has all this estrogen or progesterone in it or whatever. Is this affecting people's health? Is it something to worry about? The amounts are barely measurable. They probably don't have any effect.
Participant #1:
Progesterone will tend to concentrate in the butter, so it's much larger than the presence of other hormones. But all of the animals hormones will show up in the milk, and progesterone is a major one, especially concentrated in the butter. And it's beneficial, but the quantity is very low and most of the hormones would be present in the fat, too. I guess that's why it's more prevalent in butter. So if somebody consumed a lower fat milk, the hormones would be greatly decreased. Correct? Yeah. Okay. So if someone has an issue, I've had people say that literally they've had cancer and so they won't drink milk. And I find that doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think it's the premise that they think that the hormones are going to affect them. Yeah. I think it's one of the tricks of the anti milk cultures. Yes. They are out in full force these days. What about people who drink milk and they say milk is giving me acne. What would you say is going on there? Milk does what gives them acne. They start to get acne on their skin.
Participant #1:
Yeah. Maybe they're drinking too much fat with it. Any kind of fat in excess will disturb your skin energy production. And for any cell, it functions decrease under the influence of other than sugar. So if someone thinks that they're drinking milk and they're getting acne, then maybe consuming a lower fat milk would be to their benefit? I think so. Okay. And what about milks linked to increasing insulin growth factor. So that's a conversation as well. They think it's having an effect on this growth factor. What would you comment on? That it has benefits as well as risks, but the idea that it becomes a danger of accelerated aging and cancer and so on, I don't think there's valid evidence that those changes are harmful. Okay. So you just see some studies that say that milk is going to increase the insulin growth factor, and that's going to have a negative effect on certain aspects of people's health. And essentially you're just saying at this point we don't have enough evidence that it's going to do anything long term. Yeah. Like with vitamin. Lots of publications over the years showing immense benefits from vitamin E. But when the industry had something else they wanted to sell, they decided to emphasize that vitamin E could be a risk. So they took the very papers that had been published showing changes, implying that those changes were in the direction of benefit. But anytime they had a publication that says vitamin E changes or something, they said introduced a change, that means vitamin E is harmful. Everything you do causes almost an infinite number of changes. And you have to evaluate whether the weight of the changes in one direction are more effective than waiting the other direction. You can't argue anything from one or two factors. That's a propaganda tool. Use all the way anything physiological or biochemical, where you have a million influences, they find two or three that could be harmful, and therefore you shouldn't do something because it causes those changes. But they're ignoring the almost a million other events that could be all beneficial. Well, that sounds like what they did with the estrogen therapy. They found some things that they liked, and then they focused on those and forgot all the other things it was doing negatively. Exactly. That's why you have hundreds of thousands of estrogen papers, almost all of them saying how wonderful Estherton is. So you have to read each one carefully and consider the relatively few publications that show contrary effects, harmful effects. And it always turns out that they've carefully selected things that could be beneficial from Estherton, not things that are known to be beneficial. And I think this is just a good understanding of why having a big picture look at the metabolism and how everything works and looking at everything, not just singularly, maybe a single nutrient or a single hormone, because if you just single focus, I tend to miss the big picture about how it all works together. And I think that's why, in fact, that's the essence of science. Beginning in the 20th century, such a narrow focus, mechanistic determinism, whether it's in atomic physics or genetics and physiology. If you narrow your attention, you can always become blind to the surrounding benefits, pick out only what you want or simply the nature of reductive thinking. Yeah. Well, it's seems to use it in a lot of different ways in today's world when they just want to push an agenda, they can just focus on one or two things and forget all the other things. It seems to be a popular way to approach science or whatever you want to call these days. Okay. We got a few more questions about milk, just to kind of round it up. I just probably said what type of milk is best? And I think you answered it by the one that works best for you and how important the quality of the animals are being treated and what they're eating. And that is a pretty important part. So in your view, is it that important if the milk is raw or pasteurized or ultra pasteurized or even if it has additives in it? It's just basically finding which one works for the individual. Correct. Okay. So even if a milk has certain additives, because obviously in most areas there's nutrients added to milk that are low fat. But as long as someone can tolerate those and seems to do okay, then that is okay. Yeah. Okay. Now what other sources if someone doesn't tolerate milk, where else can they get their calcium sources from? Cooked Greens have a very high ratio of calcium de, phosphorus. And the ratio is of major importance because too much phosphate turns on the parathyroid hormone, turns off useful energy production and so on. So the excitatory effect of inorganic phosphate is a real danger, and that has rebalanced by the calcium. So cooked Greens are a very safe source if you can digest them. Okay. And can you just explain maybe some of the foods that are high in phosphorus so people can understand why maybe some diets out there aren't beneficial because they might be high in that nutrient. Yeah. The meat and fish, because they have a very low calcium content. If the animal is healthy, their soft tissues exclude calcium. So the phosphate in the ATP, for example, it gives them a very high ratio of phosphate, calcium, nuts, grains, in general, the reproductive tissues. The phosphate is present so that the storage material can be turned into growth material. So when something has a great potential for growth, that means it has to have stored phosphate in excess. And that makes beans, nuts and grains among the worst foods for calcium. Okay. So essentially a diet that's high in dairy or cooked Greens and then balancing that with the meat and maybe minimizing the grains and the beans and the nuts would be advantageous. Yeah. What about just because I'm obsessed with this lately, masaharina, is that a decent source of calcium? Yeah, because they add the boil it in calcium hydroxide for overnight. So it soaks up a lot of calcium. My dentist in Mexico says in her area where people eat no bread but lots of tortillas, even people in their 80s who insist they want a Truthful. She says sometimes it takes her all afternoon to get a molar out because their jaws and teeth are so well constructed from a clinically good ratio of calcium to phosphate. So the Masa Harina doesn't have a lot of phosphate in it, not compared to the calcium. Okay, so everybody gets some Masa Harina makes them your own tortillas. It's very good for you. I can't think of anything else. Kitty, I don't know. You've been sitting there. Is there any other questions you'd like to ask, Grace? I don't think so. I've just been listening intently, learning so much. It's amazing. This is a really good episode. And it was really clear the sound this time. Yeah. Well, yeah. Ray, thank you. So I mean, this cleared up a lot. I actually feel like it pulled a lot of things together and some deep understandings about the estrogen therapy and also just about calcium and calcium metabolism and important aspects of sugar and carbon dioxide in that I think those are very key points that I certainly got from this. Did you have anything else to share, Ray? Did I mention Steve Kersha's website? He's an MIT graduate who has been exposing science fraud, exposing the absolute disregard for science from the great institutions like Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Absolutely not caring to discuss the scientific issues. His website just on the issue of the disappearance of science from our culture, it's very important for everyone to think about. His last name is spelled K-I-R-S. Yes. And he looks like he has a substance. I'm just Googling him right now. You kind of touched on him. And we were discussing the estrogen therapy and how science has changed so much and what they're doing with these days and why we're just getting all this, I guess, fake news because of how they're deciding on what is real and what is not. So that's what Steve Kirsh, K-I-R-S-C-H. Correct. Yeah. So he's worth looking into if anybody is interested in going down that rabbit hole. But I'm good. Ray, do you want to just mention your newsletter real quick? Oh, yeah. It's now going to be quarterly rather than bimonthly, and overall the price is roughly the same. And you can get information at Raypeachnewsletter@gmail.com. Yes. I'll pop up in the show notes, too. I'll put that email. Yeah. So does that mean they're going to get the same number, Ray, or are they still only going to get two years worth? Yeah. The subscription is still for twelve issues, which means three years instead of two years because they'll be only four per year. I have no idea how you keep up with all that but God bless you. I go when people things expire after three years. Maybe it is amazing. Well, thank you again, both. Kate, thank you so much. Thank you so much, Ray. Thanks. Kate and I know Kate we'll have you on again, Ray. I know Kate has got a few others topics that she wants to dive into. Okay. Very good. Thanks. Dr. Pete. Always a pleasure. Bye.
</markdown>
Edit:2022.08.29<markdown>
Unknown Speaker 0:00
So all of the mechanisms are suggests that estrogen imbalance relative to progesterone is what is causing the hot flashes. The fact that you can stop a hot flash with estrogen is probably because estrogen activates cortisol and other stress hormones that have blocked the metabolism of estrogen. And that has the potential to inhibit nitric oxide synthesis.
Unknown Speaker 0:31
Okay, so, so that nitric oxide will increase estrogen though don't they kind of all work together. So it's just the overabundance can inhibit it can you kind of go over that one more time,
Unknown Speaker 0:43
it tends to be a vicious circle. But estrogen is one of the estrogen in stress and hyperglycemia will all activate nitric oxide and progesterone inhibits it partly by keeping a steady sugar metabolism. Maintaining body temperature, a lower body temperature creates a vicious circle, including the production of more estrogen.
Unknown Speaker 1:16
Welcome to the weight loss for women podcast, a place that we share everything you need to know about restoring your metabolism, so you can eat more, train less and lose weight in a healthy and sustainable way.
Unknown Speaker 1:28
I'm Kenny Bloomfield, a co founder of new strength and saturate creator of pre metabolic food supplements and seriously saturated skincare. And today I'm really excited to have Dr. apt and Kate Dearing back on the podcast. So we've done quite a few podcasts with both of them. So highly recommend you go back and listen to those. But today I wanted to get Ray back on to talk more about estrogen replacement therapy. And we also dive into some of the myths around milk and calcium. So if you're anything like I once was, you know, you probably thought milk and dairy products caused inflammation and cancer and you know, I thought they were too high in sugar. So I cut them all out of my diet. And I was actually diagnosed with lactose intolerance at age 12. So my mum put me on Bloody soy milk and all those disgusting cheeses you know non dairy cheeses. But when I met Mr. I realized that I couldn't digest dairy because I had a stressed digestive system. So you know, once I improved that and improved all my metabolic markers, I was able to tolerate dairy again. And you know, calcium has so many benefits and is needed by the body for so many different things which we cover in this podcast so it is jam packed with information. So I highly recommend you grab a pen and paper and take notes. And as always, please rate and review the podcast. So if you add the podcast episodes if you've read it and reviewed us before you can do it as many times as you like. And each month I actually pick a winner from those that share. So if you'd like to win a tub of saturated premium college and all you need to do is take a screenshot of the review or the podcast episode and share it on Instagram stories and tag me at Kitty Biello MFI LD and like I said each month I just pick a winner pick someone from those that have shared and they get a tub of statuary premium collagen. So look, I hope you learn as much as I did in this episode, let's get into it. Super, super excited to welcome back to the podcast, Dr. apt and Kate Dearing. Hi guys, welcome back.
Unknown Speaker 3:55
Hello, Miss Kitty.
Unknown Speaker 3:58
How are you today? Oh, good.
Unknown Speaker 4:02
Yeah, all good here. Yep,
Unknown Speaker 4:04
you're sure to.
Unknown Speaker 4:05
Okay, great. So this is I think probably maybe the fifth time we've had Dr. Pete on the podcast. We've had Kate Dearing on the podcast probably 10 plus times. And the last podcast we had, there was quite a lot of questions around estrogen replacement therapy. So we thought we'd start this podcast. Kate just wanted to ask Dr. Pete some questions around that. And then we wanted to dive into myths around calcium and milk. So Kate, I'll hand over to you.
Unknown Speaker 4:37
Okay, um, so yeah, a lot of what we talked about last time was certainly estrogen and the industry of estrogen, which went down a lot of trails of estrogen replacement therapy, because obviously when women enter menopause, it seems to be a somewhere that they're driven to because it can make them feel better. And so during the course of this, I was actually referred to a book if people want to look it up. estrogen matters by Dr. adverum, bluffing and Carol Tamaris. And so I thought we would talk about some of the things that he says in there because he's certainly a pro estrogen therapy doctor. So in in this book, he definitely talks about that. estrogen therapy has some good reasons to take it, especially for women. There's good and bad, but one of one of his things he says that estrogen therapy can help with heart disease. And so I thought Dr. Pete could maybe elaborate on some of these claims that the estrogen industry is saying about what it's doing to help benefit women.
Unknown Speaker 5:41
I have been writing newsletters on that topic in particular, many years ago, showing the contrary research that women do have a better outcome for heart health at the end of their lives. But progesterone is the heart protected factor for decades have been saying that the research shows that estrogen increases clotting, many kinds of inflammation, and other factors relating to plaque formation, arterial spasms, and so on. Progesterone has many life extending properties, especially against heart disease, but against all of the degenerative tissue processes demonstrated. First, rabbit studies showed very clearly that the higher their progesterone exposure, relative to estrogen, the longer they lived, and the younger all of their tissues were at a given age. And then that was supported by population studies in humans over the course of their life. For example, having more babies leaves their body more able to produce progesterone and regulate downward estrogen. So the facts are historically very clear against estrogens protective effect, though, you'd have to start out with the fact that beginning in 1942, after several years of research, showing that estrogen caused infertility was an Borger patient had many dangerous properties, including blood clotting, this was established starting in the mid 1930s. And the carcinogenic effects were clearly shown in animal studies, all through that period, are culminating in the 1950 book by Alexander Lipschitz, for example, showing that estrogen was carcinogenic to every tissue in the body, not just breast, uterus, brain, and so on. But his kidneys, all the other organs. If it isn't interrupted, regularly. Buy progesterone. One of the main functions of progesterone is to knock out estrogen protects against stressors such as estrogen, estrogen. So in 1942, the drug industry managed to convince the FDA that it was alright, to use estrogen to treat menopause, including infertility symptoms that are exactly opposite of what the facts were showing for several years. They using their financial power, they convinced the FDA to approve it for all of these illogical uses. And they use that market power to finance research to practically force the use of medical schools to oversee the research done in their schools to make sure their medical school would keep getting generous. financing for research purposes. And the same thing with journals. They let it be known that they were buying advertising, that would enrich the journals. And if there weren't advertisements in the journals, the journals would sell them reprints of their articles, sometimes for huge amounts of money, which were essentially bribes to the journals to publish things regardless of their truth.
Unknown Speaker 10:36
That's that same power went directly to influencing doctors, giving them kickbacks for prescribing estrogen, and finally, to direct advertising to the public. So starting right, in 1942, the estrogen industry profoundly corrupted science changed the whole nature of how the public thinks about it. And as people grew up in a culture in which estrogen was said, The Cure hundreds of different conditions, contrary to the fact that people growing up in that generalized culture of estrogen worship, when they got to medical school, that was still their framework. And so when they found that doing research that would support the estrogen industry, that that was all it was going to be financed the background belief that was observed from the culture, just the so called common knowledge that was reinforced by the knowledge that their career could thrive if they came up with results that favored the estrogen industry. And the result was hundreds of diseases promoted by estrogen were according to articles and medical journals claimed to cure or prevent exactly that same disease caused, for example, the it was widely known that estrogen causes abortions, but they found professors at Harvard, who would say that it's a female hormone, and people who are infertile, must be less female. And so if you give him estrogen, it will make them more feminine, and therefore more fertile. So they, using diacetyl Silvis trial, they prescribed estrogen, ultimately to millions of women, damaging their babies, and their own health, causing generations of uterine cancer at various deformities, and so on. So, the most outrageous false hood about what estrogen does took years and years to be reversed. And in the first studies of estrogen in humans, they saw no benefit at all to the bones and skeleton. If anything, the estrogen was causing soft tissues to bind to calcium, not to vote. And so they did animal studies. The first research animal they use was the Beagle dog. And it happens at estrogen very distinctly damaged and weakened their bones. And apparently, people understanding that nocturnal rodents react almost oppositely at to steroid hormones to human beings. They settled on rats as their proof that estrogen would prevent or cure osteoporosis. Again, the history of it is based on obvious fraud. And the same with heart disease, for example. They were so convinced and convinced the regulators that estrogen was white women didn't have so much heart disease. But they started giving estrogen to man. That didn't take long before the men were having more heart problems. Heart attacks in particular.
Unknown Speaker 15:12
Yeah, I think that is an assumption with a little bit little she's kind of kind of go over a little bit about heart disease in women. And I think it's believed that since women have estrogen, because they do have less heart disease pre menopausal. And you're and I've always heard, it's usually because women have a cycle, and they have a way of dumping out iron. And would you say that might be the reason why women have less heart disease, it's just because they can get rid of things toxic metals like iron.
Unknown Speaker 15:40
Definitely. When when they stopped menstruating, their iron level goes up sharply. But progesterone does many other things. Besides allow menstruation. The first missed menstruation, the beginning of menopause. When you measure the hormones, estrogen hasn't changed at all and won't for a few months. But as certain is hot fails, when menstruation stops. Again, another evidence that progesterone is a protective factor. And in the absence of progesterone, beginning with menopause, you have unopposed estrogen for the first few months, or around the age of 38 is generally the peak of estrogen production. And then shortly after that, you get prescribed progressive failure of progesterone production. So the unopposed estrogen is astronomically high in that period from age 38. Up until menopause whenever that is,
Unknown Speaker 17:01
right. And when you would say unopposed, because it seems that a lot of women during that age will get their hormones checked, and they'll come back and say, Well, my estradiol is low. So they're being told to get on estrogen therapy even before
Unknown Speaker 17:16
estradiol doesn't oil loving substance. And the way that it's eliminated is to add either sulfuric acid, or glucuronic acid to the estrogen molecule that makes it water soluble. And so it's circulating in the blood, when when it's being eliminated from the body. Progesterone in at least half a dozen ways, activates and interaksi in activates, the enzyme is regulating the attachment of the acid or the removal of the acid. So in the absence of progesterone, the soluble form of estrogen circulating in the blood is decrease. But that means the oil soluble form stays within cells and within cells, that activates a various things including aromatase. So in the absence of progesterone, you're increasing aromatase, and you're blocking the enzyme was that excreted? So as it follows the level follows in the blood, the actual intracellular form is increasing.
Unknown Speaker 18:55
Okay, so kind of to summarize that, when you release progesterone, certainly during your cycle, that's also going to increase the, the estrogen in the blood because it's there to be excreted. So no progesterone, there's always going to be less estrogen in the blood because it's the progesterone is needed to activate estrogen to release, is that correct? And something I've also heard too, about women that have been on estrogen therapy, and I think this is another theory is when they're on and they get off estrogen therapy that they're told, Well, your cholesterol levels have elevated and so they're like, well, and then they're being told well, because estrogen is protective for your heart can does can estrogen have an effect on the liver that would affect cholesterol numbers? Because obviously, just because your cholesterol is up or down doesn't mean technically that you have any more chances of heart disease.
Unknown Speaker 19:48
Yeah, the reason women have about 10 times higher incidence of thyroid deficiency and rheumatoid autoimmune diseases It is because estrogen knocks out the detoxifying process in the liver that removes estrogen. So the more estrogen circulating and produce, the more your liver suffers, and your thyroid is suppressed, and the liver slows down all of its metabolism, especially the glucuronidation. And sulfur transferase. Enzymes would detoxify estrogen, so the defensive processes produce more progesterone. But if your thyroid is less active because of the estrogen blockage, then you're needing something to increase the protective progesterone. And it happens that if you can increase cholesterol in circulation, it directly supports the production of steroids in the brain, as well as in the ovaries and adrenals. So rising cholesterol compensates for excess estrogen and the resulting hypothyroidism. If you isolate and over measure how much progesterone is coming out of the ovary, and then you increase the cholesterol circulating in the blood, you directly increase their production of progesterone. So there's a way to misinterpret everything.
Unknown Speaker 21:56
Well, that that's what I'm always finding. So you're saying that if you get on estrogen, because what, like I said, people say when they get off estrogen therapy, my cholesterol levels elevated. And you're saying that is happening? Because of maybe the damage to the liver? Or am I getting that the opposite?
Unknown Speaker 22:19
Well, the liver and intestine are major sources at every, every cell can make cholesterol. So when you're under stress of any sort, you'll increase your cholesterol production, potentially increasing progesterone.
Unknown Speaker 22:39
So when it makes sense that taking estrogen therapy would elevate cholesterol or lower class.
Unknown Speaker 22:44
They saw that for years with birth control pills. That was the only acknowledged effect of estrogen.
Unknown Speaker 22:54
And it was lowering cholesterol levels.
Unknown Speaker 22:58
I don't know that would increase them. Oh, that it would increase
Unknown Speaker 23:00
them. Okay. So birth control would. So you're saying that estrogen will elevate cholesterol levels?
Unknown Speaker 23:09
Yeah, that's one of its potential effects.
Unknown Speaker 23:11
Okay, so I'm so I actually knew someone that said she got off of her estrogen therapy, and then her cholesterol elevated and her explanation from her doctor was, well, estrogen is protective to your heart, meaning, you know, they were saying so it has this effect. And that's why her cholesterol elevated post getting off the estrogen therapy. So I don't know if there was another mechanism going on there. But that was something that I have heard anecdotally. Is there any explanation for that?
Unknown Speaker 23:47
Hello, oh, was was had a question.
Unknown Speaker 23:51
Yeah. Yeah. There was a question would there would there ever be a reason where estrogen therapy would have a cholesterol lowering effect?
Unknown Speaker 24:02
I'm sure there are situations where that can happen. Okay. Not normally, if you poison the liver, adequately, it can't make for cholesterol. proofer proofer, for example, a very, very high level of PUFA will lower your ability to make cholesterol.
Unknown Speaker 24:28
Yes, yeah. Well, and the same person had a lot of stress going on at this period of time, too. So that could have just been another variable that created the elevation cholesterol. So can we just say a little bit about? Obviously, there's lots of talk that being on estrogen therapy can be protective against Alzheimer's, it can be helpful for the brain, which I always assumed that would be the opposite. Can you explain maybe why they're getting some of these results that people on estrogen therapy have less chances of Alzheimer's?
Unknown Speaker 24:57
Oh through the 1990s The data came out clearly showing that women have two or three times the incidence of Alzheimer's disease. And naturally, the doctors said, Oh, that's because they're deficient in the estrogen. But after the Women's Health Initiative showed that, in this huge number of people in the research, their dementia and Alzheimer's disease were clearly elevated when they took estrogen. So that very strongly suggests that women's history of estrogen exposure is why women have about three times as much risk of Alzheimer's disease.
Unknown Speaker 25:58
And doesn't estrogen have an effect like immediately on the brain, because some people will say, I take my estrogen therapy, my estrogen and I can feel like that my brain is working better. So doesn't it have a slight excitatory effect on the brain?
Unknown Speaker 26:13
It is excitatory, Catherine Middleton, in the 1940s. And 50s, was doing good studies on treating her patients for premature birth toxemia especially premenstrual syndrome by giving them progesterone. She, one of the main things she saw was that in the progesterone deficiency, they tend to anytime they were experiencing a progesterone deficiency, their ability to pass a test in school was severely impaired. There have been studies of why women speak faster, use more words per minute than men. And estrogen will accelerate the verbalization of wisdom. The number of words per minute simply, is faster in general in mainland, that's the excitatory effect. But when you compare the information transmitted by fast talkers, and slow talkers, the information per word is much higher. In the slow talkers. They allow the context and more complex significance to accumulate as they formulate their sentences. But if you talk very fast, you're talking mostly in cliches not letting the information come through in an enriched form.
Unknown Speaker 28:21
So essentially, what you're saying is estrogen on the brain is like cocaine on the brain.
Unknown Speaker 28:28
However, very, very, very similar. And in animal studies in the 1950s, and 60s, for example, they would train an animal so that every trial over a period of an hour maybe would get better and better. And finally, reach 100% performance, if they would give a little extra estrogen to the animal eraser learning. There was no gain from experience, because the estrogen was simply your racing memory.
Unknown Speaker 29:12
Okay, so that's good to know that it's not sugar that we should equate to cocaine it is estrogen, more likely that creating that excitatory manner. So another interesting part?
Unknown Speaker 29:24
Yeah, cocaine increases all of this fast processes, right? Blocking good nerve function, or glucose is one of the protective things against stress necessary for good, relaxed brain functioning.
Unknown Speaker 29:44
Let's see there we have it. One thing that I noticed in this book because I went through all the references and the resources and the things that they said that is that a lot of the studies were anywhere from four to 10 years when they talk about maybe some of these benefits or that They found that estrogen taking estrogen therapy didn't increase some, some sorts of cancer. And I know you've always said that it can take a lot longer. I mean, what if someone taking estrogen therapy for decades, you know, could it take a lot time for them really to see the negative effects of their, their estrogen therapy?
</markdown>
Edit:2022.08.29
<markdown> </markdown>