Kratom Agmatine: potentiator or not?

[Allylbenzene]

Who wrote that?

Perhaps that quote was somewhat abrupt for someone unfamiliar with him. Here's the pretext for his book:

“Most of the ideas about health and hormones that are being propagated are fraudulent commercial inventions. In this setting, it is impossible to have any sense of security about the way you are living unless you make the effort to critically examine the claims you hear everywhere.

This book is intended to help you preserve and promote your natural ability to produce an optimal hormone balance. Since the greatest threat for many people is coming from the medical and nutritional industries, it is necessary to learn enough about the hormones and their physiology to be able to critically reject the impostures that are all around us.”

Book: From PMS to Menopause: Female Hormones in Context

 

[Skorpio]

Perhaps that quote was somewhat abrupt for someone unfamiliar with him. Here's the pretext for his book:

I’ve not heard of this Raymond Peat fellow before. From a small amount of reading, he certainly sounds like an outsider figure, which explains his ressentiment towards mainstream science.

Looking at the places which promote his ideas, they seem to be a pretty disparate constellation, from raw milk Facebook groups, the low toxin forum, and “chadnet”.

I do see a lot of his ideas echoed in your posts, like about how progesterone protects against the harmful effects of estrogen.

I can’t find any more than 3 publications by him on pubmed, so his scientific career seemed short (and only 1 of them is research, which was his thesis work). His thesis publication was in 1972, which was profoundly old in terms of cell biology and biochemistry (which makes his antipathy towards genetics, enzymes, and cell biology make more sense, as techniques were downright ancient; we didn’t even have PCR then).

Like for example of how long ago that was, mentors I’ve had in the twilight of their careers started their careers well after he ended his.

 

[Allylbenzene]

Looking at the places which promote his ideas, they seem to be a pretty disparate constellation

None of these are realistic "examples"; only his website, newsletters and several books (some of which are listed here).

I can’t find any more than 3 publications by him on pubmed, so his scientific career seemed short

There's a few significant figures beyond the peer-reviewed ecosystem which - as excellent as it is - has it's limitations imo. Ray would be one, Katharina Dalton another.

I'd go so far as to say that if their work was applied to drug addiction & recovery there would be substantial progress. From everything I'm seeing on bluelight, theirs is a key element that is missing from the discussion. I've no doubt that private rehabilitation centers have incorporated Rays ideas (which are quite simple & reasonable).

Applied to medicine as a whole, Rays work would highlight many dogmas. This would affect the pharmaceutical industry, particularly the "corporate healthcare industry". Many of it's schemes would collapse. By schemes I mean the proliferation of various conditions and treatments. Ray writes:

Concerning my background, I have a Ph.D. in Biology from the University of Oregon, with specialization in physiology. The schools I have taught at include: the University of Oregon, Urbana College, Montana State University, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Universidad Veracruzana, the Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Mexico, and Blake College.

I started my work with progesterone and related hormones in 1968. In papers in Physiological Chemistry and Physics (1971 and 1972) and in my dissertation (University of Oregon, 1972), I outlined my ideas regarding progesterone, and the hormones closely related to it, as protectors of the body's structure and energy against the harmful effects of estrogen, radiation, stress, and lack of oxygen.

The key idea was that energy and structure are interdependent, at every level.

Since then, I have been working on both practical and theoretical aspects of this view. I think only a new perspective on the nature of living matter will make it possible to properly take advantage of the multitude of practical and therapeutic effects of the various life-supporting substances--pregnenolone, progesterone, thyroid hormone, and coconut oil in particular.

"Marketing" of these as products, without understanding just what they do and why they do it, seems to be adding confusion, rather than understanding, as hundreds of people sell their misconceptions with their products. The very concept of "marketing" is at odds with the real nature of these materials, which has to do with the protection and expansion of our nature and potential. A distorted idea of human nature is sold when people are treated as "the market."

 

[KurtAurelius]

None of these are realistic "examples", only his website, newsletters and several books (some of which are listed here).


There's a few significant figures beyond the peer-reviewed ecosystem which - as excellent as it is - has it's limitations imo. Ray would be one, Katharina Dalton another.

I'd go so far as to say that if Ray and Katharinas work was applied to drug addiction, recovery & harm reduction there would be unparalleled progress. From everything I'm seeing on bluelight, theirs is a key element that is missing from the discussion. I've no doubt that private rehabilitation centers have incorporated Rays ideas (which are quite simple).

Applied to medicine as a whole, both Ray and Katharinas work would highlight many dogmas. This would affect the pharmaceutical industry, particularly the "corporate healthcare industry". Many of it's schemes would collapse. By schemes I mean the proliferation of various conditions and treatments. Ray writes:

Both of your discussion has gone far beyond my very childlike and immature understanding of reading research etc,

But my point is this.

We should strive to have a established set of sort within science and research,

But it has to be open to being questioned and challenged and alternative ideas to be exhaustively explored.

It is within human nature to be corrupted, motivated and manipulated by greed and that is the very real scenario we find ourselves in with the current medical approach.

Other ideas need to be taken seriously, and although the ideas and rules of blue light don’t wish to discount medical advice, we are very much so a sect of alternative people being on here, we live alternative lives and many of us require alternative approaches aswell.

It’s a delicate balance but we must always question a narrative, and how far rigid established tools can define them.

Idk a lot of idealism perhaps as you’d never get anywhere without defining anything, but there is something better and a way to do it.

 

[Skorpio]

None of these are realistic "examples"; only his website, newsletters and several books (some of which are listed here).

I saw his website. I don’t really value volume of work if it’s just shouting into the void. The more I look into Ray Peat the more he looks like a quack or a kook.

Sure being rejected by experts may be a sign of a conspiracy by elites who only see things one way, but it also may be a sign that this person’s ideas are deeply flawed.

The only websites I can find really touting Raymond Peat are weird alternative medicine sites and redpill sites, where there is quite a volume of other sites calling his ideas quackery, such as his idea of getting the majority of a days calories from sugars.

There's a few significant figures beyond the peer-reviewed ecosystem which - as excellent as it is - has it's limitations imo. Ray would be one, Katharina Dalton another.

Katharina Dalton seems cool, but I would not describe her as beyond the peer reviewed ecosystem at all. She has published more than 40 peer reviewed articles, with some of them being cited hundreds of times.

She practiced medicine and published peer reviewed articles. Beyond that her work actually has been adopted by the medical establishment (she coined the term premenstrual syndrome, and did pioneering work on postpartum depression).

She makes a good contrast to Ray Peat, because her work was published, she made advances in patient care, and her ideas have propagated through the medical system.

I'd go so far as to say that if their work was applied to drug addiction & recovery there would be substantial progress. From everything I'm seeing on bluelight, theirs is a key element that is missing from the discussion. I've no doubt that private rehabilitation centers have incorporated Rays ideas (which are quite simple & reasonable).

The problem that I have with Ray’s ideas is that you kind of have to take him by his word. What separates him from anybody else shilling nonsense from a self-published book?

I think unfortunately we will have to agree to disagree on Ray’s ideas being a key idea missing on bluelight.

That initial quote that promoted this discussion where Peat criticizes the existence of genes causing disease and compares it to Nazi germany, in context is so ludicrously, sand in the head stupid. I don’t think we are going to agree at all if you think that statement is at all reasonable, and after reading up more on this guy, I don’t think his stuff holds water.

Alternative medicine lacks a feedback system to improve based on its own failings, and lacks any validation system. If there is any merit to it, it tends to be incorporated into mainstream medicine (because doctors and scientists actually do want to treat patients)

Applied to medicine as a whole, Rays work would highlight many dogmas. This would affect the pharmaceutical industry, particularly the "corporate healthcare industry". Many of it's schemes would collapse. By schemes I mean the proliferation of various conditions and treatments. Ray writes:

Yeah and so would Andrew Wakefield’s work on vaccines causing autism [which was proven fraud and caused him to lose his medical license]. Kind of weird how there is overlap between the communities that like Raymond Peat’s teachings and Wakefield’s.

Frankly, I also don’t understand how alternative medicine people always talk about “the corporate healthcare industry” when they are doing the same for-profit things they are decrying, just at a small scale and without regulation.

 

[Allylbenzene]

...where there is quite a volume of other sites calling his ideas quackery, such as his idea of getting the majority of a days calories from sugars.

It can be easy to accept 2nd or 3rd hand interpretations for face value but they're not necessarily valid nor realistic. The authors from those skeptic websites presumably failed to grasp the nature of what they were criticising.

She practiced medicine and published peer reviewed articles. Beyond that her work actually has been adopted by the medical establishment (she coined the term premenstrual syndrome, and did pioneering work on postpartum depression).

I know. I often mention her to people who could benefit from her books. Unfortunately some of her key findings have been ignored by the medical establishment and this has had a tremendous negative impact on how women's health is managed. She had many valuable insights about male health also.

She makes a good contrast to Ray Peat, because her work was published, she made advances in patient care, and her ideas have propagated through the medical system.

They actually share much common ground with their understanding of the body and acknowledgement of failures within the medical establishment. Ray purposefully "walked aside" from the medical system, and Katharina also in her own way which you won't read about in the Lancet or BMJ.

Alternative medicine lacks a feedback system to improve based on its own failings, and lacks any validation system.

Ray isn't what I'd call "alternative medicine". His work is based on academia just as much as yours.

(because doctors and scientists actually do want to treat patients)

I agree, they are undeniably well-intentioned but medical negligence persists in many unforseen ways. I think a major issue with the medical establishment is it's failure to recognise medical negligence in the first place. It's obfuscated by risk/benefit ratios and statistics.

 

[Skorpio]

It can be easy to accept 2nd or 3rd hand interpretations for face value but they're not necessarily valid nor realistic. The authors from those skeptic websites presumably failed to grasp the nature of what they were criticising.

What about all of the proponents of his stuff who are sketchy? When all of somebodies proponents are kooks

I know. I often mention her to people who could benefit from her books. Unfortunately some of her key findings have been ignored by the medical establishment and this has had a tremendous negative impact on how women's health is managed. She had many valuable insights about male health also.


They actually share much common ground with their understanding of the body and acknowledgement of failures within the medical establishment. Ray purposefully "walked aside" from the medical system, and Katharina also in her own way which you won't read about in the Lancet or BMJ.

I guess, but for stepping aside, she still managed to have a 30 year publication history. Whatever criticisms she has are much more valuable than somebody who’s research career seemingly stopped after getting a PhD.

While all of her ideas may not be accepted into mainstream medicine, her impact on women’s health treatment is pretty huge. I’m not sure what Ray’s impact on mainstream medicine is.

Ray isn't what I'd call "alternative medicine". His work is based on academia just as much as yours.

Did he do experiments to test his ideas in his books? The few articles I’ve read from his website don’t include any research (ie experiments that test his ideas against the null hypothesis). That isn’t science, it is window dressing by citing other people’s work.

The study molecular mechanisms of disease has advanced so much in the last 30 years. He seems to ignore or reject it entirely.

You don’t know my research. I’m not interested in doxxing myself here.

I agree, they are undeniably well-intentioned but medical negligence persists in many unforseen ways. I think a major issue with the medical establishment is its failure to recognise medical negligence in the first place. It's obfuscated by risk/benefit ratios and statistics.

My problem with alternative medicine is that it is a system of individuals, each with their own iconoclastic theory. I read the full epilepsy article where that quote that started this discussion came from, and it is like 1/3 anecdotes, 1/3 complaining about “the establisment” and 1/3 synthesizing ideas based on other work without testing it. This is alternative medicine, as never puts his theories to the test under the assumption of the null hypothesis.

His article on gelatin and amino acids mischaracterizes essential amino acids (which are called that because they are not produced by us and need to be consumed). He then talks about cancer and gets a lot of things wrong.

Some of his ideas are interesting from an iconoclasm perspective, but looking at the nuts and bolts of them, their components are sketchy at best.