Epigenetics and Evolution: Bettering Yourself and Humanity with Dr. Bruce H. Lipton

Epigenetics and Evolution: Bettering Yourself and Humanity with Dr. Bruce H. Lipton

Dr. Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D joins Daniel Schmachtenberger on Collective Insights to discuss his career work in the field of epigenetics. In this episode, you’ll learn all about epigenetics and why the traditional view of genetic and biological determinism is incorrect. The environment plays a big role in genetic behavior, in part due to how we perceive it. The discussion expands to include a look at how our view of evolution changes thanks to these advances. We also get a better understanding of humanity’s progress and what we need to do to reach that next step in societal evolution.



In This Episode We Discussed:

  • Genetic determinism

  • Environmental effects on gene behavior

  • Cellular perception

  • Epigenetics

  • Proteins

  • Feedback mechanisms and evolution

  • Signal transduction

  • Viruses and exosomes

  • The Nocebo Effect

  • Integral membrane proteins (IMP)

  • Collaboration and competition in evolution

  • Raising consciousness

  • Positive thinking

  • Conscious and subconscious mind

  • Communication


Show notes:

  • 3:25 Environmental effects on genetic behavior

  • 9:32 Perception at a cellular level

  • 16:00 What is epigenetics?

  • 28:15 The changing face of evolution thanks to epigenetics

  • 41:21 How the cell membrane is like an information processor

  • 50:27 Evolution and survival depends upon the community

  • 1:04:31 What really had an impact on humanity’s technological advancement

  • 1:12:46 The importance of raising our consciousness

  • 1:21:20 Discussing the placebo effect

  • 1:27:55 Bringing the conscious and subconscious mind into harmony

  • 1:32:23 Stress and beliefs and their effects on the body


Mentioned in This Episode:


Books, Tech & Products Discussed in the Show:


Bio: 

Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D., bestselling author of The Biology of Belief, is a cellular biologist and former Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin's School of Medicine.  His pioneering research on cloned stem cells at Wisconsin presaged the revolutionary field of epigenetics, the new science of how environment and perception control genes. His later research at Stanford University’s School of Medicine revealed the nature of the biochemical pathways that bridge the mind-body duality. For more information visit www.brucelipton.com

Connect with Dr. Bruce Lipton:

Website: www.brucelipton.com

Twitter: https://twitter.com/biologyofbelief

Full Episode Transcript:

Daniel S.:Hello everyone, welcome to the Neurohacker Collective podcast, Collective Insights. My name's Daniel Schmachtenberger. I'm with R&D here at the collective. We are delighted to have Bruce Lipton with us today. Bruce Lipton is a eminent cell biologist and is actually popularly known for helping to popularize the understanding of epigenetics and possible [00:01:00] consequences of where epigenetics could take medicine and mind brain medicine into the future.

His training was as a cell biologist, and he's done work with NIH and with Stanford and University of Wisconsin and a lot of very reputable institutions. Did some of the work in early genetic engineering, in stem cell work, in muscular dystrophy, and all of this brought into some very interesting insights about the nature of genetics, genetic transcription, and [00:01:30] the relationship between what the genome is and what is actually expressing, what physiology is. You know, actually took him into a place of very deep inquiry into the nature of what is consciousness, what is physics, how do they interface, the nature of mine bring medicine. We're delighted to have you here today with us Bruce and excited to get into this dialogue.

Bruce Lipton:I am so happy to be here because I know this is an audience that can appreciate some of the more salient features of the scientific [00:02:00] foundation rather than, tell me what it means. I love it because I got to this place not through wishful thinking, not through New Age anything. I wasn't even a spiritual person at all. It had nothing to do with it. Ended up completely transformed through a knowledge imparted by the cells that I was working with for years.

It was like, oh my God, an insight that there's a lot of interesting aspects of it. [00:02:30] This is about 50 years ago when my seminal experiments on stem cells changed my life. I saw a new science that wasn't named at that time, how environment was controlling genes. That was way ahead of the curve, matter of fact. All my colleagues thought I was a total weirdo kind of thing, except my experiments were repeatable every day. Come in the lab, I'll show you again [00:03:00] and again. It didn't conform to their belief at the time in genes. Because my work really involved how the environment was controlling genetics. I mean controlling genetics, not just activating genetics but actually rewriting the code live time in a mechanism. Can I just impart the fundamental experiment that changed my life?

Daniel S.:Yeah.

Bruce Lipton:Okay. First of all, recognize I'm teaching in a medical school [00:03:30] a concept of genetic determinism, which the public is still imbued with, but science has let that go, except the public is still caught in the belief of genetic determinism. That is genes turn on and off and regulate the characteristics of your internal and external life experiences. When teaching that back in those days, what I was teaching, and I see it from a whole different perspective today is victimization.

In other words, you train medical students to understand that all these diseases [00:04:00] are caused by things going out of control and all that stuff. Then they tell the patient, then of course the patient goes like, oh my God. I didn't pick these. I can't change the genes, and the genes are apparently controlling who I am. By God, I'm a victim of my heredity. I'm teaching that.

In the laboratory, I was working on stem cells. Now, you got to remember, this is 50 years ago. There were only a handful of us in the world that even knew what the heck a stem cell was. That wasn't a big topic at that time. [00:04:30] I was in the right place at the right time to be cloning stem cells back in 1967. Just for those in the audience very quickly, a stem cell is an embryonic cell. We changed the name at the moment a person is born. Just before they're born, the cell, oh, that's an embryonic cell. Right after they're born, same cell is called stem cell.

The significance is a human body is not a unity. It's [00:05:00] a community of 50 trillion citizens, sentient citizens called cells. I say the word Bruce, that is actually a word for a community. Bruce is 50 trillion cells. The relevance about that is the cells have lifetimes. Some of them turn over very, very quickly. Skin cells are continuously being sloughed. The entire lining of the digestive tract every three days. Hundreds and hundreds of [00:05:30] billions of cells every three days. You're losing them. It's like, how long can you live if you can't replace them? The answer is not very long, so a very significant factor for everyone after if you're watching or listening to this. You have stem cells because the function of stem cells is to keep the body in tact as you're losing billions, hundreds and hundreds of billions of cells every day.

A stem cell is an embryonic cell that can replace anything. Here's my scientific stuff. I isolate one stem [00:06:00] cell and put it in a Petri dish all by itself. That's cloning. It divides every 10, 12 hours. First one, two, four, eight, doubling, doubling, doubling, doubling. After a week, 30,000 cells in the Petri dish. Most important fact is they're all genetically identical because they came from the same parent. I split the 30,000 cells into three Petri dishes.

What I did was change the composition of the culture medium sidebar. Culture medium is the equivalent of blood. [00:06:30] If I grow human cells, I look at the composition of human blood, try to duplicate that in a lab synthetically called culture medium. I grow mouse cells, I look at mouse blood. Culture medium is synonymous with blood. I make three versions because I'm synthesizing it and I slightly change some of the chemistry in each of the three versions. I have three Petri dishes, genetically identical cells in all dishes, but I feed them a slightly different version of growth medium, blood. [00:07:00] In one dish the cells form muscle. In the second the cells from bone. In the third dish the cells form fat cells.

What controls the fate of the cells? The first thing is this. They were all genetically identical, so I can't say one had different genes than the other or something was going on. The environment interacting with the cells and the cells interacting with the environment, that selected genetic activity of the cells. The genes did not make a decision as to what they should be. [00:07:30] The genes responded to environmental signals as to what they should be activated or not.

The first thing is this. Any concept of the term, a gene turned on and a gene turned off is 100% fallacious. A gene has no self-actualization. A gene cannot turn itself on and off. A gene has no knowledge of what it is. A gene is a blueprint, a linear molecular blueprint no different than a blueprint in an architect's [00:08:00] office. I say why is it irrelevant? Because I say you go into the architect's office, she's working on a blueprint. You say, "Is your blueprint on or off?" She'll look at you like, are you crazy? It's a blueprint. There's no on and off.

I go, precisely. A gene is a blueprint. It has no on and off. What the studies revealed is that the information from the environment is perceived and reacted to by controlling the genetics and behavior of the cell. [00:08:30] Now, what's really interesting about this is when I first showed this to my colleagues which is, this is when the whole genetic industry was getting off the ground and everybody was like lemmings running toward that genetic gold mine somewhere. I'm the only guy standing on the side going, I don't think it's the genes. I think we should be looking at the environment of this.

The genetic thing, it was a vast movement. I just did my research. I repeated [00:09:00] it all the time. At some point I realized I can't teach medical students any more that people are victims of genes because the recognition is that the environment and the perception of the environment by the cell determines the genetics and behavior. If you say genes control your life, you're telling people they're a victim. If you're telling them the environment and their perceptions control life, you're giving them an opportunity for mastery. Why? I can change the environment and I can change my perception. Therefore I can change my [00:09:30] biology. I go, precisely. This empowers people, yes.

Daniel S.:When you say perception, you're actually meaning something very specific at the level of a cell. When you say the environment, so when you were doing this, the concept of the exposome didn't exist yet. The concept of epigenetics didn't exist yet. So that it's clear for listeners, at a cellular level, what does perception mean?

Bruce Lipton:Perception means that since a cell is in response to environmental information, then by definition a cell must have a perception of the environment, [00:10:00] otherwise it wouldn't be able to read what's going on. Now to add a little interesting twist is yeah, my liver cell has a perception of what's going on in the environment. I say, what's the environmental of a liver cell? It's like culture medium, it's the blood fluid. Then I go, yeah. The information in that blood fluid, where'd that come from? I go, oh, the perception of the person. Because their perception is translated into chemistry that goes in the blood and then controls the cell.

The cell doesn't see the real [00:10:30] environment. The cells sees your nervous system's interpretation of that environment. Yet since it doesn't see the real environment, it can only respond to the signals that are being sent by the nervous system at that time. You might be in fear when there was no reason to be in fear, but there was a, I'm in fear. I go, yeah, but your liver cell doesn't know there's no reason. The liver cell just knows you're in fear and makes the appropriate response. Then it's not just the perception of the cell. We bump it up. Now it's the perception [00:11:00] of the individual who's controlling the blood culture medium which signals control the behavior. It's a cascade. Now we realize it starts at the top with perception.

Daniel S.:I think this is a place where some people get hung up. Let me just see if I can disambiguate. At the level of a cell, perception is a receptor site. Right? The receptor site is going to perceive some particular chemistry being in the blood or not, et cetera. Then it's going to trigger some actuator process.

Bruce Lipton:[00:11:30] Yes.

Daniel S.:The chemicals that it has receptors for might be things that aren't really affected by the nervous system that directly. It might be toxic exposure from the environments. It might be metabolic byproducts. It might be nutrients that come from food and et cetera.

Bruce Lipton:That's why I said environment and perception.

Daniel S.:Right. It also includes things like hormones and chemistry that are pretty top-down neuroendocrine controlled.

Bruce Lipton:Absolutely.

Daniel S.:Then when you say perception of the individual, [00:12:00] this is where we get of their outer environment. This is where we get the ability to actually have faulty perception dynamics leading to a neuroendocrine cascade.

Bruce Lipton:Absolutely, 100%. It's more or less a better word than I use in my lecture is interpretation. I say the nervous system does perception. The mind does interpretation. The relevance is it's not the perception directly that controls it. It's the interpretation that is translated into the control. That's where all of a sudden it says, oh my goodness, [00:12:30] two people standing right next to each other in the exact same environment have totally different interpretations of what they see. One could be blissed out and the other could be in fear of their life based on what they see individually.

Daniel S.:The blissed out versus fear is obviously different hormonal trends that are chemistry that is then affecting the blood as the environment.

Bruce Lipton:100%. A simplification of this is [00:13:00] the mind, a lot of us when we were young did something like paint by numbers where you take an outline ,and then there's an outline of the picture and their numbers. The numbers correspond to paint. Then when you put the paint inside the numbers you create the picture. To simplify it, the ultimate simplification, the mind is paint by numbers in reverse. First you put the picture in your mind, then the nervous system breaks it down into numbers. Those are the neurochemicals and the controls that go into the blood, which then go out, [00:13:30] the controls go out and paint the body to match the image that was sent down.

Whatever your image is, it changes the chemistry. Very simply, I'll give two totally opposite ones. When a person opens their eyes and they experience a perception and interpretation of love, they release dopamine, pleasure, they release vasopressin which increases your attractiveness to your partner. They release of oxytocin which bonds you to your partner, and [00:14:00] very importantly, love causes release of growth hormone. The net result, when people are in love, they glow. They're healthy. They're happy. They got the whole thing's working beautifully. Yeah, because the culture medium is infused with good stuff.

What happens if they open their eyes and they see something they fear? I go, none of that chemistry is going to be released by the brain. What's going to be released by the brain are stress hormones such as cortisol. Inflammatory agents such as histamine. If those are the chemicals in the blood, [00:14:30] I can tell you what will happen because when I added those to my tissue cultures, guess what? The cell stopped growing. If I keep that culture medium in there with the stress hormones and things like histamine at some point, it actually caused the death of the cells.

Now I realize, oh my goodness, the environment is controlling behavior and genetics. Love is assimilation. Take it in. Taking things in is growth. [00:15:00] Fear is protection. Close down. Oh, there's your problem. Protection responses is okay if it's a short little duration response. When protection become a 24/7/365, now you're destroying the system because you're keeping it closed down and you're inhibiting growth and maintenance of the body not to punish you. Very simple point is if you're in fear, you're in fight or flight.

If you're in fight or flight, you need to have available at [00:15:30] your momentary need all the energy available in your body because if that saber tooth tiger coming after you, you don't want to spend some of your energy on fighting bacteria or fixing the gut. It's like, no, no. I want every bit of energy to run. Stress hormones shut down growth maintenance and the immune system as not relevant in a fight or flight response. When I added the stress hormones to my [00:16:00] tissue culture dish, the cells shut down their growth and stop growing.

Daniel S.:It would be easy for us to think about the endocrine response independent of genetics or epigenetics. The cell functions differently in the presence of that hormone versus this hormone.

Bruce Lipton:Absolutely.

Daniel S.:Now the next step is saying that this hormone is not only making the cell function differently while it's there, but if it's there often enough long enough that it can actually change genetic expression. We haven't entered the concept of what epigenetics is, how [crosstalk 00:16:31] [00:16:30] or any of that works. Maybe that's useful now.

Bruce Lipton:Okay. The cells are reading the environment. If they have the proteins in their cytoplasm to make a response to whatever their stimuli or they're experiencing, you don't need to engage the nucleus at all. But if you need proteins that are programmed in the nucleus but are not available in the cytoplasm and the stimulus shows up, [00:17:00] then the signal can't activate the proteins. The signal has to go to the nucleus and call up the blueprint to make the protein. The whole process of signal controlling the cytoplasmic behavior and the nuclear behavior is called signal transduction.

That's the leading edge of science today. It's tracking an environmental signal engages the cascade inside the cell. Epigenetics is that part of signal [00:17:30] transduction where the signal is specifically going to the genetics. Because the signal can just go to the proteins as you said. You don't need to engage the genes. A sidebar, what's the nature of life? This is the coolest thing. A protein is a linear string. There's a folding pattern built in, which is a sequence of amino acids. Although it synthesizes the linear string, once it's released from the ribosome, the protein folds itself [00:18:00] up into an intricate 3-D pattern determined by the amino acid sequence.

I say, oh, what is responsible for the folding? I go, the charges inside the peptides, the positive and negative charges line up and repel or attract and then create the three-dimensional structure. I say, oh, the structure for protein is determined by the charge. Yes. If the environment changes the charge, the protein will restructure [00:18:30] itself into a more balanced state based on the new charges. You go, so? I do, that's secret of life. Why? A protein in a cadaver is a structure. Yeah, there's the body of that cadaver but there's no life. I said, where's the life come from?

When the proteins respond to an environmental signal, they adjust their structure to accommodate the new energy. As a result, adjusting the structure is movement, behavior. [00:19:00] I say, oh, life is proteins plus signals. I go, absolutely. I say, okay. Now the signals are specific to the proteins and they're specific to the proteins in the nucleic acid, part of the nucleus with the chromosomes. Chromosomes are 50% DNA and 50% protein.

Everyone ever since Watson and Crick, and let me emphasize Russell and Franklin, [00:19:30] the real founder of the double helix, stolen by Watson and Crick, that once everybody focused on DNA, there was a second error. An error came in here. This error changed biology forever and it's now having being corrected. That is this. They found that proteins were controlled by DNA. They said, fine. Then they said, what controls DNA? This is where the whole thing went wrong. They said, oh, take a double helix, [00:20:00] split it apart, have a single helix, and then put it in a beaker where the building block is of nucleic acid are in there, the four bases.

I said, what's the result of that? I said, if you incubate the single strand of DNA in a solution, it will create the complementary DNA strand. DNA covers its own reproduction. All of a sudden the quest for how life works stopped. They said, DNA codes for the protein. DNA codes for itself. Then everything comes [00:20:30] from DNA. That's led us to the belief of the information flow, DNA, RNA, protein, DNA at the top. I said, what's wrong? It's an artifact. Because they had isolated DNA. I go, in the nucleus it's 50% DNA and 50% protein.

I said, what about the protein? That's what somebody asked after so many years of throwing away the protein just working with DNA and saying, [00:21:00] what the hell was the protein? Regulation. The protein is the code of regulations. We have the same number of genes of the most primitive worms studied in biology, [inaudible 00:21:13], it's a worm about a half a millimeter long with 1271 cells, got 20,000 genes. A human has 20,000 genes. It's like, then we're not genetically superior. Not in genes.

In what was used to be called junk DNA, [00:21:30] now that's where the information is. How to build using the proteins that are created by the gene. Once you have the protein, you need to assemble them and how they're organized. Keratin, a standard protein is in your skin, flexible. Keratin is in your hair. A keratin is a fingernail or a claw. I go, same keratin gene. Yeah, but how it's assembled is in the so-called junk DNA, which is regulated [00:22:00] by the proteins.

All of a sudden it's like, oh my god. The genes are not controlling themselves. They're in combination with the proteins. The proteins are responding to the environmental signal. All of a sudden it's like, oh my God. It changes the whole meaning. Genes have no ability to turn themselves on or off. They're regulated by the proteins. The analogy I give in my lecture is old-fashioned days, when broadcast wasn't on the TV in the evening, they put [00:22:30] what was called a test pattern. The test pattern was a broadcast. It's a pattern, a gene. Test pattern is a gene. I go, the dials on the television set, on and off, volume, contrast, color, width, height, all those controls, I can manipulate all the controls and change the appearance of that pattern.

I go, did I change the original [00:23:00] pattern? No, no. The broadcast is still exactly the same broadcast, but the dials and their influence can change the pattern, the color, contrast, the focus, the width, the depth, whatever, but without changing the original broadcast. Now, relevance. Epigenetics is environment changing the dials on your DNA, the proteins. The proteins change the readout of the DNA but they didn't change the DNA.

[00:23:30] For every gene I could read the straight program, or by adjusting the dials I can change the appearance of that protein result. Not changing the code but changing the way the code is assembled. I can create a minimum of 3000 different versions of proteins from the same gene blueprint based on epigenetics. Epigenetic signals can say which gene is going to be activated, and then how that gene is going [00:24:00] to be expressed.

The keratin in a lion's claw and the keratin in my fingernail, same keratin. How you use that keratin wasn't based on the gene. It was based on what was called junk DNA. Now the most important DNA. That's where the architectural plans are. Yes. Epigenetics is how the environmental signals affect the proteins which are the dials that change the readout of the DNA. Epigenetic [00:24:30] is how environment controls genes. Not just on and off, but gene expression to create thousands of variations per gene.

Daniel S.:You just spoke to a recursive process that sounds like it's actually a closed-loop ring that is super fascinating where you say, okay. We've got proteins that are modulating the genome and genomes that are creating proteins, right? We have some sense of recursivity there, which [00:25:00] bring up the concept of some kind of self organization. Then you mentioned protein folding as a result of changes in where charge is located, right? It has to do it voltage and protein structures.

Now, if we think about the definition of life from complexity science, Stuart Kaufman's definition which is self organization, self replication, and completing thermodynamic work cycles, and we put all this together, there is still this very fascinating [00:25:30] question of okay, we have proteins that are affecting genetic expression. We have genes that are coding from proteins. We have an individual that's being affected up by it's in environment, but is also then evolved to be able to act on its environments. Speak to this whole self organization recursivity process.

Bruce Lipton:Okay. It basically says this. The protein are devices that create structure and function. The structure and function required by a cell is directly connected to what's going on in the [00:26:00] environment. If the environment changes, I have to accommodate those changes. Otherwise I can't stay static and have the environment be dynamic, unless I completely encapsulate myself on the environment and shut myself down, but that would kill me. The simple reality is I have to be able to know when to use a function, when to create a structure, and how that structure should be more or less to be functional.

I say, but the genes make [00:26:30] the structure and the, that's the other part. The protein part is defining how that structure is going to be adjusted. Then you have to remember. I said the proteins only work based on the environmental signals coming in. Now the activity that's going to control the genes is now connected to the environmental signal. If the signal doesn't come in, I'm not even going to engage the damn gene. When the signals come in, it's going to determine how I'm going to sculpture that gene.

I'll give you the best example in the world, [00:27:00] the immune system. What's the point? I put a new molecule that's never been created on this planet ever, injected into your body, and three days from now I will harvest from you protein antibodies that are so specific to that new molecule that would only recognize that molecule. It didn't exist three days earlier. How did that happen? The answer is this. [00:27:30] First you activate a crude version of a protein that's built into the genetic repertoire, but it's crude. If you assemble a crude version that can just temporarily hold on to that new structure, that's a starting point. Okay, we're going to start with that.

Then what it will do through feedback with the environment, over three days, it will create variations of that protein by changing some of the amino acids, and then test those [00:28:00] variations until you find the one that's even better. Then you say, okay, now I'm one to start with this one. Make some variations until I find a better version of it. It goes through a minimum of it looks like seven, in one of the studies, seven changes in specific amino acids to accommodate the shape to conform to that new molecule.

Daniel S.:There is actually an evolution and natural selection of receptor binding.

Bruce Lipton:That is evolution. Evolution is [00:28:30] awareness. Awareness is to be able to read the environment. Every single that shows up, if you can read that environmental signal. you have more awareness. The more awareness you can put into a cell, the more intelligent a cell becomes.

Daniel S.:You are speaking about a selection process between non-random mutations of those various receptors.

Bruce Lipton:There's nonrandom, that's a more or less a joke in regard to, what percent of random mutations can accommodate evolution? I go, [00:29:00] infinitesimally small. A chance mutation almost inevitably either does nothing or is destructive. Very rare if anybody ever finds a chance mutation by accident, one single one that changed everything. With the new science of epigenetics manipulating gene, all of a sudden the version of Darwin drops out the window.

Hey, it was just a bunch of random accidents and that's how we got here, to a Lamarckian point of view that says there's a lockstep interaction between the organism [00:29:30] and the environment so that the environment and organism, the organism stays alive in a very changing environment. By what? Reading this environment engaging functions that will keep it alive. This is not chance. This is a feedback mechanism. Before epigenetics, there was no feedback mechanisms. DNA was the cause. Epigenetics says no, the environmental signal controlling the chromosomal proteins is the cause.

[00:30:00] Therefore, the mechanism of evolution was built in from the very beginning with the concept of epigenetics that says an organism can learn from the environment. Making an antibody is an example of learning and memory. Learn by creating a receptor, and then it keeps a gene for that final program locked into the system, new gene, new antibody. Learning, memory, evolution. [00:30:30] That's what it's about.

Daniel S.:Then if an animal is exposed to a new molecule that they hadn't been exposed to before, they developed a receptor for doing whatever it was that was appropriate to do with it. You're saying that that would actually change their genome. They would develop chain for coding for that new protein, and then that would be passed down to their offspring?

Bruce Lipton:Absolutely.

Daniel S.:That's not an epigenetic change, that's a genetic change.

Bruce Lipton:Yeah, but epigenetic changes go for generations. There's a point where they're translated [00:31:00] into genetic changes over time of repetition. So that when they affected the epigenetics of a father with some chemicals which they've tested, they found that it will propagate at least three or four generations, the same epigenetic mechanism. At some level it starts to take on a more permanent structure, and at some point the transition now is that you can take an epigenetically modified gene and program it in as its own [00:31:30] gene.

All of a sudden, the whole picture of evolution changes. It says evolution did not happen by accident. Evolution was a concerted effort to do what? Adapt to the environment, read the environment, and become conscious of that environment, which the most primitive organism is by definition. Consciousness means you're able to perceive a signal and make a directed response. Bacteria do this.

Daniel S.:You're of course not precluding that gamma radiation [00:32:00] could affect the DNA and cause a random mutation.

Bruce Lipton:No, no.

Daniel S.:If it happens to be adaptive, that that would be selected for. You're not precluding that, you're just not saying that that's not sufficient.

Bruce Lipton:Not excluding that at all. I'm just saying if you're going to look at the percent where one of those events contributed to evolution versus the feedback mechanism, it's minuscule small, it could happen. I'm not saying no for sure it can happen. I know that. I've radiated my cells and altered them in a lab. [00:32:30] I know that. The reality is, will this propagate? Now, not necessarily. Not necessarily.

Daniel S.:You just said something interesting that I've never heard before which is knowing that epigenetics is passed down. I've seen those studies up to 40 generations in human where the methylation pattern or the histone pattern or the non-coding micro-RNA pattern passes down, right?

Bruce Lipton:Yes.

Daniel S.:Did that actually translates to changes in the base pairs themselves, that at some point it becomes [00:33:00] more efficient than keeping that gene with that methylation pattern to actually create a new gene? I have not heard that. That is ...

Bruce Lipton:There is a feedback. There's more current research. I will forward that to you because it's very important.

Daniel S.:Fascinating. That's a big deal.

Bruce Lipton:That allows something that's vital.

Daniel S.:That's evolution not through breeding.

Bruce Lipton:What's that?

Daniel S.:That's evolution not through sexual selection.

Bruce Lipton:No, this is completely somatic even in its origin. The [00:33:30] fact is, it's quite significant because the system cannot gamble. In other words, we have an innate immune system. I say, where the heck did the innate immune system come from? Originally we were immersed in a bacteria solution. Some of them were good, some were bad. We had to identify them. Therefore they created receptors to identify them. Then they can turn into DNA. I go, for example [00:34:00] plasmids and bacteria can become memory units and bacteria. I say, yeah. Put bacteria into a solution of oil, petroleum contaminants. Put a bunch of bacteria in it.

Most of them are going to die. There will be some who will adapt and create a plasmid, which is a DNA, a little string, like a memory stick for this new protein. And not only can they put that plasmid [00:34:30] back into the DNA at some point, into the chromosome, because it's extra chromosomal when it starts. It can pass it on to all the other bacteria by sending plasmid viruses. That's what a virus was intended for is communication in the positive side. What we've only looked at is viruses on the negative side as damaging communications. Yeah, but nature doesn't just create just negative. There was a positive side to viruses, and the fact is this. [00:35:00] Viruses are the highest of communication that exist in biology today, meaning for specificity.

I got nerves, yeah, but they only connect to a small percent of my cells. Yeah, I have hormones. I can release them, but then they're exposed to all of the cells. How can I say I want more of these cells and I want less of these cells? What signal is possible to do that with specificity? Viruses. Guess what? When they did the human genome, they found a lot of virus [00:35:30] genes in there. It's like, what are they doing in there? The answer is now, we are making something, it's just coming out in the forefront of where this is coming from. We make viruses as the highest level of communication in our community of biology. They're called exosomes.

Exosomes were like little pinched off pieces of cytoplasm from a cell. They thought they were just degenerative. Now they find, no, [00:36:00] the vast majority of these little pinched off things carry RNA, micro RNA, cytokines, pieces of DNA. I say, what are they doing? They're interbody communications of specificity that can't exist anywhere else. New insight. A cancer, a precancer cell, wherever it forms, it can be in your toe, I don't care where it sits, will create exosomes that will go to a destination [00:36:30] where the cancer will grow before the cancer cell gets there, feeding the cells around it. Not feeding them, infecting with exosomes that control the behavior of those cells to support an environment for cancer.

What's the point? The intelligent system of cancer just happened to fall in somewhere. It created a message and already sent it to the destination where it's going to proliferate. Man, there's an intelligence in here beyond anything of this [00:37:00] genetic determinism, accidental mutations, chance. This is not chance. There's no chance in this.

Daniel S.:Okay, so let's come back to genetic determinism and the inadequacy of genetic determinism. Let's say you're talking about cancer now. We have oncogenes that we know are statistically correlated with a particular kind of cancer.

Bruce Lipton:Correlated. Correlated. I want to emphasize because you said the word and I want to emphasize it. That is most important word to get left out of the discussion because it has [00:37:30] been replaced by causation. Correlation and causation are not the same thing. When you interchange them, then genes are not correlated. Genes become causative. That changes the entire perception. Oh, wait, perception of just my biology is like, you put that wrong information to a person as a prognosis or diagnosis of you've got cancer. They believe it, that's the signal. The signal is what? It's for image of cancer. I go, then what? I say, then the brain will manifest the chemistry [00:38:00] to make a cancer.

That's the opposite of the placebo effect, it's called the nocebo effect. The placebo effect is the positive side. What about a positive idea of a drug? I say, then you're signal sending signals to positivity and healing. Did the drug do it? No, it's a sugar pill. I go, oh, yeah. Everyone goes positive thinking, positive result, placebo. What they leave out of the discussion to me is more important. Negative thinking is equally powerful, but works in the opposite [00:38:30] direction. Negative thinking can cause any disease on this planet and negative thinking can actually just kill you out of fear. The point about that is we just have to recognize the power of thinking, positive or negative.

I say, we have the BRCA1 gene, the breast cancer gene. Oh my god, oh my god, I got the BRCA1 gene, Angelina Jolie, double mastectomy right away because I don't want to die like my mother and my grandmother. She has [00:39:00] a double mastectomy. Based on what? Genes cause cancer. I go, genes do not cause cancer. 50% of the women that carry this gene never get cancer. Your word, that's what I'm going off on this diatribe thing right here because it's so important. The gene is correlated with cancer but the gene does not, there is not one gene that causes cancer, but they're correlated. Then that determines, what in your life is [00:39:30] bringing this gene into action? That changes the game.

Daniel S.:You said a lot of things as a matter I want to double-click on. If we take the BRCA gene or we take any gene, let's take APOE4 for a moment because it's one of the most highly statistically correlated, right? If we look at APOE4 and Alzheimer's, if someones got a homozygous mutation on it, 75% correlation or something. What that means is that of course that gene is neither necessary nor sufficient as a cause.

Meaning some people [00:40:00] have Alzheimer's, express who don't have a homozygous mutation on that gene. Some people who do have it don't have Alzheimer's. Yet 74% statistical correlation is high. I would interpret that to mean it is part of a dominant causal cascade, but it is the causal cascade that requires other activity like exposome dynamics and could not express. Then we want to find out what is involved for it to express or not express. Is that ...

Bruce Lipton:[00:40:30] Yeah. Here's an interesting story, because it's a behavioral concert that they trained, I forgot what organism it was. Some animal to have a fear response linked with an odor. It was a Pavlovian thing. At some point then of course that organisms learned when that odor showed up, the fear response is going to be engaged right now, whatever is going to cause it. They then found [00:41:00] that meeting, I think it was mice, that the offspring who never even experienced that odor before, once they experienced the odor, had the same response as the parent.

All of a sudden it says, so what am I passing down? I'm passing down behavior. In what form? Epigenetically controlled programs. Then we go into this, how many generations? As you said, we can go many, many generations. [00:41:30] Yet there's recent information that says yeah, it can go back in and become part of the genome at some period of time depending on how important it is for survival. More important it is, the less I want to carry it around as a possibility. I want to carry around as a surety. I'll make it a gene at that point. This is the part of the evolution.

Now, I think what's most interesting about this that I would really like to take a little tangent on if it's okay with you is, so we talk about the signal [00:42:00] being perceived, and then a response connected to that signal. There's a stimulus response. This is what's going on. When I started to do this research originally 50 years ago, there was no understanding of signal and response, the new signs of signal transduction, that wasn't there. Nobody had any idea about this damn signals and stuff like that.

When I tried to, when I showed them my research that how the environment was controlling this, [00:42:30] one of the reasons why they ignored it is because there was no concept in the world of how this could happen. There wasn't anything in their biology that said, oh, yeah, I can see how the mechanism could happen. I had to look at, where or how was this interface between environmental signals and a specific activity? That took me to the cell membrane. The reason why it to me cell membrane is because bacteria which have no internal organelles, really, have [00:43:00] a cell membrane. This is their equivalent of all their functions, digestion, respiration, and nervous system, the membrane.

It was like, and it was interesting because when I first looked at the membrane, you have to recognize this. You can't see a membrane in a microscope. You can only see it in an electron microscope. It's so thin. First of all, until the 1940s, late 40s, nobody even knew all cells members. In find out all cells have the same morphological structure, [00:43:30] the same type of membrane. It's a common thing from the very beginning of life up to the most complex. I'm looking and saying, obviously the membrane is somewhere between the environment and the inside of the cell.

I started to look at the structure. The first structure of the membrane that gives it its border characteristic, it's a regimented molecule that's called phospholipids. They're all regimented, all lined up like a crystal. Matter of fact, the definition of the cell membrane is a liquid crystal [00:44:00] because the [inaudible 00:44:01] are all crystalline in their array. As phospholipids, they have fat, oil, lipid in the middle of their three layer structure. It's the oil layer that is the barrier, because then stuff in water, the aquarium can't get through the oil layer. So the skin of the cell is a barrier. Now you got a problem. If nothing can get in or nothing and get out, you can't have a viable cell. You have to take food in get rid of waste.

I [00:44:30] said, how does that work? In the beginning, in the microscopy all you could see was the lipid stuff. Conventional biology especially at the time when I was doing was was oh, the membrane is like plastic wrap that holds the cytoplasm together. That was the big function. Then I found, they got holes in that because stuff can get through. It's perforated plastic wrap. That was the limit of what they thought about the membrane. When I'm looking at the membrane, what I'm trying to figure out is first of all, of course it's that [00:45:00] crystalline array of lipids. Then I recognized that there are proteins built into the membrane.

What was interesting, because at that time a new term started to show up in very diverse articles I was reading. The term IMP. I'd read this article on this and it's like, IMP is involved. I'm going to read this article and stuff. IMP's are integral membrane proteins. In other words, in that lattice of lipids, there are proteins. [00:45:30] There are two basic classes of proteins. I started to focus, and the classes of proteins are called receptors. The other class is called effectors. Receptors build into the skin, oh, what a coincidence. The fractal structure of life, a human is a fractal image of a cell. Our cell membrane, our skin has receptors built into it. Eyes, ears, nose, taste, touch, pain, temperature, pressure. [00:46:00] We're like the cell. We have receptors. To do what? Read the environment.

I said, yeah, once you read the environment, that's a stimulus. You have to have an output. Otherwise, nothing. There's a complementary set of proteins, I'll give an example of one because it's major, called the channel which can be closed and nothing can get through a membrane. The channel can open up making a pour where specific is going. When the membrane just had lipids in it, it's a non-conductor. [00:46:30] Nothing goes through the lipid.

When you put the channels in there, it's not a full conductor. It only lets in what the channels let in. If it's a potassium channel, only potassium's getting in. A sodium channel, only sodium's getting in. It's not a nonconductor. It's not a full conductor. It's a semiconductor. The two classes of proteins, the receptors which read the environmental signal, remember [00:47:00] when a protein reads a signal it changes its shape. When there's no signal, the protein has shape A. WHen the environmental signal shows up, it causes the protein to change into shape B which engages the channel to go into its shape B, which is open. The signal changes the protein of the receptor which couples to the channel, changes the shape of the channel. A signal is translated into a response. Stimulus coming in the receptor, response coming out [00:47:30] the channel.

Now the part that I was sitting there, and my whole life changed is after 10 years of working on this, how does the cell membrane going to do this? Because everybody's so into genes and I'm working on this. This one day I change the definitions. I just started to write. The membrane is a liquid crystal, semi-conductor with receptors and channels. Then I realize, gate is a synonym for receptor. I sat there and I [00:48:00] go, the membrane is liquid crystal semiconductor with gates and channels. I said, in 1995, I just read that. Where the heck did I read that? I just got my first Macintosh and I got a book from RadioShack. It's called understanding your microprocessor. There it was in the introduction. A chip is a crystal semi conductor with gates and channels. I go, wow, what a coincidence.

Then it hit me. It's not a coincidence. There's a structural parallel. [00:48:30] The function of every part of the is functionally identical to what goes on in a silicon chip. I realize, oh my God, it's a stimulus response. It's a perception unit. It reads an environmental signal and sends a very specific signal into the cell. The specific signal resonates with those proteins that remember, the proteins change shape in response to a signal. If I group a bunch of proteins to respond to the same signal and send that signal in, those proteins begin to function. Respiration, [00:49:00] digestion, expiration.

All of a sudden, oh my geez, the membrane is an information processor. That's a fact of mechanic biology, cells, molecules, no doubt. This information processor has inputs and outputs, I/Os. That's the foundation. That's a bit. Then I started to realize, oh my God. These bits in the membrane, each represent a different perception. This is a response to glucose. This [00:49:30] unit's responding to calcium. I go, oh, I'm reading the environment, and as a result of the receptors changing shape, coupling to the effectors, sending a signal in, I'm going to create a behavior cascade of proteins responding to that signal I just sent in that will make the response necessary for my survival.

I go, oh, jeez. The cell is a programmable chip. The nucleus with genes, that's what's being called up by epigenetics. [00:50:00] Then epigenetics doesn't just activate the reading of the gene. It can rewrite the expression of the gene. The nucleus is not read-only, old-fashioned genetics, read-only. That's your gene. That's your life no, no. It's read and write. You can pick the gene and change it tailor it to fit the environment that I'm working in right there. It's like, holy crap. This is completely different than genes turning on and off. [00:50:30] This was years before at epigenetics even. I was really into this.

I want to add this part because this is so exciting even beyond that. That right away is exciting. I say, what does a receptor effector or receptor channel complex? I give it a name, a perception unit. Yeah, it's perceiving glucose at that one or calcium, whatever. The units of perception. I go, yeah. What's consciousness? Perception. What's evolution? More perception. I [00:51:00] say, oh, all of a sudden it's like, oh my Jesus. This is the mathematical foundation for evolution. This is the math of evolution. Why? What's consciousness? I don't know what consciousness is. It may be microtubules, which is not true. Because half the biomass on the planet doesn't have microtubules, but it sure as heck has consciousness.

The relevance is consciousness is the ability to make a response to the environment that will keep you alive or advance [00:51:30] you in some form. That the receptor effector complexes are built into the membrane, and then this comes about. It says then the perception units you have, the more evolution you have. I go, yes. This is the cool part now. The membrane structure, the crystalline structure of those lipids is a fixed diameter. And the diameter of the membrane is almost exactly the same size diameter as [00:52:00] the protein.

What's the point? If perception units are proteins, I can't stack them on top of each other because the diameter is limited by the crystal. Point. You want to add more perception units, you have to add them laterally in the plane of a membrane. A two-dimensional plane, because  the thickness is defined. That's a defined plane. Then I go, what does that mean? [00:52:30] The more surface area, the more intelligent the system. That surface area is the metric of evolution. At first bacteria had only limited surface area. Why? Because they were invertebrates. They had a capsule on the outside that says you can only put so much membrane on the inside. You can't put any more membrane in there.

I say, if we're making the smartest bacteria by putting in the most perception units, [00:53:00] and you fill up the membrane that you can put inside the castle, evolution stopped. It did. It changed paradigms. Now that I made the smartest unit, the idea is to bring the units together. More bacteria in a community where each one is sharing its knowledge with the other ones. That led to the first organization called biofilms. [00:53:30] Biofilms are communities of bacteria that encapsulate themselves in a membrane so they can control the environment. But they're different populations. Some aerobic, some anaerobic. Some doing this, some doing that. Oh, in a community their collective work provided the survival of the community.

As individuals, they couldn't get any smarter because the membrane limitation inside the capsule said that's all you got. The membrane that they put around themselves in a [00:54:00] biofilm later became the membrane of the community. All of a sudden an amoeba formed. Where the hell did the amoeba come from? The answer was a biofilm that specialized itself. That took the genetics of all the different bacteria and put it in to one double membrane like bacteria structure called the nucleus. Even though mitochondria has bacteria and DNA are still in the cell, the other organelles were represented by other forms of bacteria. [00:54:30] We keep the genetics of them, don't have the bacteria. Now we have the membrane.

I say, oh, so a bacterium can only have so much membrane. An amoeba with an internal skeleton can have thousands of times more surface area and therefore thousands of times is smarter than the bacterium. Then guess what? We're leading to something, Daniel, I'm getting there. Even the amoeba reaches a size it can't get any bigger. The reason is this. The membrane [00:55:00] has to hold the contents of the cytoplasm. The amount of pressure, the more cytoplasm you put in can cause the membrane to rip.

I equate it to a balloon with water in it. If you only put a small amount of water in a balloon, we could throw it around all day. If you put a large amount of water in a balloon and then try and throw it, the consequence of that, that mass pushing on the membrane will cause it to rip. Amoeba, it's got itself filled up. [00:55:30] Guess what? It couldn't evolve anymore once you made the smartest amoeba. I say, what do they do? I say, exactly as the bacteria. They joined in a community. All the plants and organisms that we can see by definition including ourselves are communities of amoebas. Their integration is to share awareness, because it's smarter than any single amoeba.

Then I say, guess what? Then we get to the human, we're almost back to the story of the bacterium. There's a capsule [00:56:00] that says if you're going to put membrane in here, you can only put so much. Guess what? All the folds, the gyri and the [inaudible 00:56:08], if you spread it out as surface area, that's where the intelligence is is. That's why we have all the folds in here is to put as much surface area in a brain that you can put a human skull, and then smartest human, evolution stopped. Next level, the community of [00:56:30] humans coming together as a community of cells to create a higher organism.

We are in that evolutionary moment right now where we are seeing a breakdown of the borders, the breakdown of what was separate parts of the world because the nervous system, the Internet is hooking all the cells together. As the cells get hooked together, they start to recognize, we're one community of cells. Killing another human is the equivalent of autoimmune disease where one cell kills another cell. [00:57:00] That's disease. The evolution in front of us is community. You're seeing a breakdown of the structure.

I applaud that. I applaud it like crazy. Why? Because scientists recognize we're facing the sixth mass extinction of life on this planet. Five previous mass extensions, the last one in the loss of the dinosaurs, life was thriving. Then some event, boom, blew it out. Then 70% to 90% of life got lost. [00:57:30] I'm going to tell you today, we are in the sixth mass extinction. Not flirting with it, we're in it. I say why? For example, they took a survey of how many animals were on the planet in 1970. They just did the survey. Two thirds of the population have disappeared. They only got one third the number of animals left on this planet.

Just two months ago, Germany released statistics. For 28 years they were studying insect populations in their national parks. Last year they said the population is down 75%. [00:58:00] The fish in the ocean, 90% gone since 1950. Current estimate, 2048, no fish in the ocean. Overfishing, pollution, destroying the breeding grounds, et cetera. I say, oh my God. We are creating the sixth mass extinction. As we break the web of life underneath us through the way we are living, we are threatening our own existence.

The simple reality is this. [00:58:30] The culture we have been living in has been a destructive culture. It's based on competition of fitness and survival in a struggle. When this is a misperception of evolution. Because evolution, there was a garden. There was indeed a garden here before we got here. We evolved in this garden. What's the relevance? We are part of the garden. We never got separate from this garden. And a garden by definition is not a battleground. [00:59:00] A garden is community, working together in harmony. The planet has been a battleground. Now to survive, we have to recognize that all humans are cells in a larger organism called humanity.

What you're seeing is a breakdown of the structure that has separated us and the evolution of a new structure that will provide the support for all beings on this planet. That is our [00:59:30] evolutionary destination. Whether we make it or not, hey, other civilizations were here and didn't make it. There's no thing that says we must make it. I'm of course be very helpful because programs like yours, the audience that we have on this program right now are people that have knowledge. Knowledge is power. The general public is sorely lacking in knowledge. I say what's the relevance? Knowledge is power. The corollary, a lack of knowledge [01:00:00] is a lack of power.

The people on this planet have been disempowered by not being given the right understanding of who they are, how they function, and what they can create without a program. We've all been programmed. That's where the chips got their program. That's what life comes from, programming. That programming, I'm running on in this because I want to tell you everything. Go ahead.

Daniel S.:It's a really fun evolutionary [01:00:30] story the way that you're telling it. Pierre de Chardin and Barbara Marx Hubbard and Arthur Koestler's holons and self organization theory are all included in there. When we think about increasing the amount of surface area for the amount of complexity of parallel processing until you reach a structural limit, and then going into the next layer of holonic inclusion, right? Which has to have some kind of parallel processing [01:01:00] across holons, which is why you get organelles within cells within tissues within, right?

That is kind of the perennial philosophy's idea of the great chain of being. You're speaking that the next step in the great chain is we've got to tribes. Then after tribes we got to command and control hierarchies that were harm externalizing en masse. Now we're at a great mass extinction that is the next step of self organization that has real [01:01:30] affective complexity of organization beyond tribe? Humanity hasn't got there yet. That's kind of the next topic, right?

Bruce Lipton:Yes it is. Go ahead.

Daniel S.:It's actually core to things that we're working on with the future of macroeconomics and the future of governance, future of infrastructure, and future of new epistemologies and world views. How do we have anti- [01:02:00] rivalrous, symbiotic coordination, coherence, collaboration, of people at a global scale? How do we transcend the Dunbar number while having that level of collaborative dynamic? I'm curious, I want to go back just to your scientific for a moment. Because when you say maximizing surface area, we know gyri looks like that in the cerebral cortex, right? We can see the amoeba example. It seems like we've got to say surface area multiplied by some [01:02:30] other dynamics, because otherwise I would say a male silverback who weighs 400 pounds is a more complex organism than a human Homo Sapien female who's 100 pounds.

Bruce Lipton:What's the brain size on that gorilla?

Daniel S.:If I'm just looking at brain. If I'm looking at total number of cells and the surface area ...

Bruce Lipton:Oh, no. The number of cells story goes awkward when you say, look at a dinosaur.

Daniel S.:Right.

Bruce Lipton:A dinosaur's got cells beyond anything you can ever imagine. You know what [01:03:00] happened there, there's an important part. There is the neurological element and the body which supports a neurological element. The brain says get food, the body has to get food. The brain says do this, the body has to be this. The body is like, carrying out the administration of all this stuff from the brain. What happened is when the administration outgrows the awareness, it [01:03:30] puts a drain on the system. The system's got to support this massive administration with only a small amount of awareness. At some point, it can't control it if the environment is not stable.

The environment's stable and you get it to run, it will continue running. If the environment undergoes a change and you're going to try and change a massive administration behind you, you may not be able to do it effectively enough to keep the system alive in a different environment. It [01:04:00] really becomes important to recognize, look, a 5 inch lizard is the blueprint of a 50 foot lizard. It's the same blueprint. In the leg of the 5 foot lizard, the leg will do this.

I say, how many muscles? I say, 10 muscles. I say, how many nerves? One nerve. I say, okay. Now I have a 50 for dinosaur, the leg is this big and it does the same movement. I say, how many muscles? I say, 100 million. I say, how many nerves? [01:04:30] One. The dinosaur body got big but the brain stayed at the small level. It was the distortion of the evolution. We're building body but not intelligence. If the environment was very supportive, no problem.

When the environment changed, that massive amount of cytoplasm and stuff just could not accommodate adaptation fast enough to [01:05:00] keep it alive. What was lost? I said, the body was this giant thing and the brain was this little tiny thing in the front. Now it's different. Now the brain is taking big and rest of the body is conforming to supporting the brain. It was a track of evolution. It was a track. It worked because the environment was stable.

Daniel S.:As you mentioned, stable environment, it's all hill climbing rather than valley crossing, in which case you don't need that much search for novel environments. [01:05:30] You need the ability to exploit very well an exploitation dynamic that's understood. Obviously a mammal was little body, lots more adaptive capacity. This movement towards more valley crossing then really has found a zenith in humans who then became niche creators in every environment, right? Which is a ...

Bruce Lipton:Absolutely. Life is done, there's every environment on this plant has life. Whether it's in the volcano vent or whether it's a mile or two in [01:06:00] the ice in Antarctica. There's life from there to there and it's everywhere. Life has a tendency to fill in the space. It's awareness and consciousness. This is why this intelligence of the system and the hierarchy of putting the community together to enhance this intelligence of the system, I mean, very interesting.

There was a study, I'm sure you're familiar with it, about human technology got off the ground about 30,000 years ago. [01:06:30] Before that so-called 30,000, they would look back at digs and look at where Stone Age people lived and they found the same tools for 100,000 years. Then about 30,000 years ago things [inaudible 01:06:43] the wheel and this, a plow. I go, it was real interesting because when it turned up, at first those new technologies altered things. They lasted a long time. You know, the hand plow was hundreds of years.

[01:07:00] What happened was if you would look at the growth of our technology, 100,000 years, flat, flat, flat. Then about 30,000 years ago started to go. At this point it's almost a vertical line. Interesting point because the conventional thinking was, what happened 30,000 years ago where technology came in? There were two conventional answers. One, there was a change in genetics. Two, there was a change in brain structure [01:07:30] which created a new function. They go back and they try to track it down, but it was neither of those. It turns out it was density of population.

If it was just you and I having a conversation as cave people around the fire and I said, "You see that moon? I'd like to go there. Maybe we should build a rocket ship." You go, "What's a the rocket ship?" There already we got a problem. The reality is with just a couple of people around the campfire, I'm not going to take an idea and do anything with it. As you get thousand [01:08:00] of people around, and one person has this idea and another person has this idea and they come together it's like, woah.

For example, how many different individual discoveries were required to make a computer? The answer is 50,000 individuals had to come up with some small idea that when collectively put together could create that. 50,000 people. You go back 30,000 years ago, [01:08:30] and obviously they were not very dense large populations. There was a slow trajectory of technology. In today, the connectivity of today's world and all that, technology is changing in 24 hours. That is the result of group thinking. A process called emergence in quantum physics says, you never can predict what's going to come out of these parts that are appearing right now. You can't predict that. We're facing this future where a [01:09:00] lot of stuff can happen and still not predictable.

Daniel S.:Now, your answer as to what happened 30,000 years ago is much more collaborative and less competitively oriented than the standard historical narrative, which typically says when population density started to get high relative to the natural resources, people migrated. They avoided each other via migration. Once they had migrated everywhere and there was nowhere else to go, then they hurt to start competing militarily. That's what actually [01:09:30] drove the development of technology was the need to actually have force projection, advantage over others that had force projection. Tools were growing military first. I'm sure it was both.

Bruce Lipton:I'm sure it is too, Daniel. Let me just add this to your story, because this is true. What's very interesting is the further north or south you go from the equator, the more the technology evolved. The simple reason is this. You don't need any technology at the equator. The [01:10:00] stuff's growing on the trees. You don't have to do anything. Just pick it. As you start to get into temperate clients where there are winters and growing seasons, how are you going to protect yourself and what are you going to eat? All of a sudden it required a lot more adaptiveness to the environment, which was learning.

That's where the separation of why the tropical countries were, they didn't need this technology. The technology was all the need. I got is survive in the ice. What the hell am I going to do? [01:10:30] Yeah, that's a big part of the evolution is recognized that the environment is not hospitable as it is in the ecosystem of the equator. Then you must have a technology to survive in that environment. That was a good driver of technology. I also agree with you that it was competitive. That was a destructive character. One positive, one negative.

Daniel S.:It's competitive and collaborative, right? It ended [01:11:00] up being the competition of tribes against tribes rather than people against people. It was your ability to collaborate with an in-group against an out-group that ended up being the selection criteria.

Bruce Lipton:Absolutely. It changed the whole dynamic of everything. It also changed the meaning of competition, because as I write in my book, the original term competition, which has been bastardized, the original term competition meant to strive together. That meant, if I was a player tennis, which [01:11:30] I'm not, and I wanted to better my game. I'm not going to play with a weaker player because I'm not going to gain any ability over that. I will compete, but we're striving together. Why? Because they're trying to improve their game. I'm trying to improve my game. I'm not trying to kill them and they're not trying to kill me.

The original competition had nothing about that antagonism in it, but it had everything about if we work together, we can get there faster. [01:12:00] Elon Musk who was one of my heroes of today, look. He took his company plans and he opened it up. These are the patents. Here, take a look at my patents. You can have these. You want to use them? Go ahead and use them.

It's like, that is new thinking, new business, new corporations. Conscious business. Because he knew damn well if other people make improvements, his car's still going to be leading the whole thing because he'll add whatever he needs when somebody else adds that. [01:12:30] Basically the idea of keeping a secret, which is the old version, I compete against you. If I drive you out of business, good for me. In this case, no. If other people make electric cars, his business is better. [inaudible 01:12:42] but they're still a competitor.

Daniel S.:There's many tangents that have been opened up that I would love to go down that would be really fun. I only have a few more minutes of your time. You mentioned one thing that I think is both really interesting, [01:13:00] valuable, and unclear to most people which, has to do with placebo and nocebo dynamics. Specifically want to address the difference between specific and general placebo and nocebo dynamics. If we say when someone is thinking positively so they feel better because they're releasing dopamine and oxytocin and ...

Bruce Lipton:Let me clarify that because some people, and this is where the issue of, I tried positive thinking and it [01:13:30] didn't work. I don't want it to say that everybody that thinks positive is automatically now going to have some positive benefit, because that's not true. It's not that positive thinking can't do it, but there's another factor. That's why I just wanted to stop right there. Okay, positive thinking is good.

Daniel S.:If we look at a complex systems view, we say there's a lot of different causal elements. We can't actually even define all of them, so we talk about the system disposition. Obviously if [01:14:00] I've got mold in my house and I'm breathing in mycotoxins or I'm breathing in VOC, that's affecting the chemistry of my blood that's the environment for my cells that can affect their behavior and their epigenetics independent of my conscious thinking and emotional state. Then my diet also can and my emotions also can. They all have to be taken as affecting as system disposition, right?

Bruce Lipton:Yes and no.

Daniel S.:Okay.

Bruce Lipton:Okay. I wish I should have planned this advance, [01:14:30] but I can't do it. Right now I'm going to use my hand. The screen is a chart. This, I'm trying to figure out which way you would see it on the screen. This is a chart of consciousness. Zero consciousness, 100% consciousness. We're not there, but let's just say we have 0 and 100. Then I say, factors affecting life. That runs this way. Meaning if I have no consciousness, every damn thing out here is going to affect me. [01:15:00] As my consciousness gets higher, then I'm less, the outside stuff is less influential. Until there's a point if you become fully conscious, the outside stuff is irrelevant. We're not necessarily there, and I don't know what that would be like fully. It would be godlike for sure, but we're on that trajectory.

The trajectory is this. As we raise our consciousness, we are less affected by those environmental things that affect other people. [01:15:30] Let me give one story, number one. Of course, there's always that understanding that if you live under high tension, high power lines, that this is an environment that is really not good for your health, statistics yes. This is absolutely true. Families that live under these high tension lines have worse health outcomes than families not living under high tension lines. Then they were trying to find out, there were a lot of a people under high tension lines that have no adverse effects. It's like they're doing really great under there.

The question is, what was the difference between [01:16:00] those that were really not affected by it and those that were profoundly affected by the high tension, what's different about them? Stress. Stress opens the system. It perforates the energy around us like in Kirlian photography where you can see an energy field around structure, that an individual in distress or disease has perforations [01:16:30] in this energy field. The relevance about that is yeah, when we are not in harmony, we're perforated. We're affected by the environment much more. That's the same chart that I just said. When you start to get harmony, the environment's not even relevant to you.

I use a video that I got from Discover TV on fundamentalists in the South that work themselves up into a religious ecstasy. They start speaking tongues. They play with poisonous snakes. [01:17:00] Now, they're snake handlers. Actually, about four months ago one of them died, made the news of course. Most of them have no adverse effect when they get bit by a snake. That's not the ones I want to talk about. Listen to this. Some of them, and this is called testifying. Testifying is their belief system. They trust God so much they will do something no normal human would being would do like playing with poisonous snakes.

The ones [01:17:30] that were really cool in the video that I use, they drink strychnine poison in toxic doses with a firm belief, with a firm belief that God protects them. They have no adverse consequences from strychnine poisoning. Now, that's taking belief up to that where I said, that's taking the belief way up toward that part. You go, that sounds totally weird and all kinds of stuff like that. Then I go back and I have to start out with the A, the concept [01:18:00] of epigenetics, B, quantum physics.

I go, why is quantum physics relevant? Because from day one 1925, quantum physicists recognized one of the prime directives in quantum physics is that the universe is immaterial and that we are creating this expression with our consciousness. I go, that's it. Go back to quantum physics, the most valid science on this planet [01:18:30] today, and the emphasis is consciousness is unfolding this whole thing. Now, the question is where's your consciousness? That's where the looseness comes into this picture. That's where all the things that you don't want to happen necessarily do happen.

As you increase that level of consciousness, do you need to even eat food? Not necessarily because we can trap energy from the environment. That's through the melanin in our skin, the crystals [01:19:00] that absorb the EMF fields around us translate that into biological energy. I wouldn't suggest that you just say, "Oh, I can live without food." Then walk off into the desert thinking you're going to live without food. No. You have to go back and realize, you've been programmed your whole entire life to eat. If you don't eat, the program is you will die.

As a result, you really have to change a lot of psychology and consciousness to even get to that state. What was the [01:19:30] point? If I can drink strychnine poison, then all of a sudden it says, basically can I be immune to all this stuff that's going on? I say, what about those people under the power lines? I said, the difference between them, the amount of stress. Those that were under stress who had negative impact from the field, and those that had no stress had no impact from the field.

All of a sudden it goes back to that energy that surrounds us. It's a barrier. [01:20:00] Euphemistically new age-y, surround yourself with white light. I'm going, that's an energy field. If you're in harmony, your energy field is very strong. You can walk across hot coals. Don't get in the middle of a walk and then have a question of whether you can do it or not. Because the moment you doubt, you will instantly get burned. Drink the strychnine. I sure as hell with all my belief in belief, I'm not drinking the strychnine because I'm not that sure of [01:20:30] my own belief not to do that, but the reality is it can be done.

The issue is, who are we? We've been limited by our beliefs, our perceptions. If we believe we're a victim, we become a victim. Henry Ford said it. If you think you can or you think you can't, you're right. That's really where it comes down to. Now, how far can you push it? I said if I have full consciousness, we'd have a whole different conversation [01:21:00] right here. I'm on my way toward more consciousness and having a much healthier and happier life. No physician, no doctor 30, 40 years from now. I don't need this right now.

Why? Because there's a way of living in harmony which enhances your vitality. This is important work that you're involved with that help those people. Because as I said, if they're not up here on that consciousness level and they're anywhere down here, then [01:21:30] anything that will support and enhance your life should be considered to support them until such consciousness arises. Until then, then by all means take advantage of any kind of support that you can be offered to enhance your vitality and your cognition and the work that you're doing for example. This is important work.

Daniel S.:Because I think that this is [01:22:00] such an important and problematic topic, I want to offer back an alternate hypothesis regarding placebo dynamics. Can you still hear me?

Bruce Lipton:Quickly, I'm trying to get it.

Daniel S.:Okay, I think we're back.

Bruce Lipton:Yes.

Daniel S.:I want to offer an alternate hypothesis that I would say is [01:22:30] going to be, has less potential but is also going to be easier to accept in terms of the data supporting the hypothesis. I want to hear your take on it if that's all right. If I think about the construction you just shared, I would say that placebo dynamics are mediated via some type of dynamics at the level of quantum mechanics. [01:23:00] That quantum mechanics actually has, is a level at which there's an interface between something like consciousness and physics, and that there could be increasingly coherent consciousness dynamics that could increase physics more potently.

Bruce Lipton:Absolutely.

Daniel S.:That's like the primary idea of a whole field of metaphysics, right? There's a bunch of different possibility for the physics that could reconcile that. What I'm going to say about that is I don't know whether that's true or not true. [01:23:30] I of course hope that it's true. I like the idea. I don't have data that I can say is adequately compelling. I do have data that's pretty compelling regarding some placebo dynamics, and it's not one mechanism. It seems to be several. I just want to offer this construction because it's going to be the construction that's in the mind of most of the people listening. I'd like to see what the closure here is on your [crosstalk 01:23:54].

Bruce Lipton:Yes.

Daniel S.:We look at some studies on placebo, like the studies that were done with placebo [01:24:00] inhalers and albuterol. They found that when we look at subjective and objective metrics, so we looked at did the person feel better after the placebo inhaler versus the real albuterol inhaler. Then we also looked at objective metrics which was blood saturation levels and bronchial dilation and those types of things. We saw that with the people who didn't get anything, they had a hard time breathing from asthma. They didn't get anything. They subjectively felt shitty and objectively. They had constructed [01:24:30] airways and their blood saturation dropped.

The people who got the albuterol inhaler felt better subjectively and that their objective metrics changed. They have real bronchial dilation and blood oxygen saturation. The people who got the fake inhaler but thought it was a real inhaler felt better subjectively, but their objective metrics corresponding to bronchial dilation didn't change. It was actually changing perceptual processes in their brain rather than changing the underlying mechanisms. It was actually affecting sensory cortex dynamics. [01:25:00] They felt better. We saw similar ones with some of the studies done on angina chest pain stuff where it didn't actually open up arteries, but some of the pain went down because it was inducing increasing endogenous opioids in the brain.

There we'd say, okay. This was a placebo. It makes sense that top-down belief could be affecting those types of opioids, beta enkephalin, whatever, brain center stuff, why it works so well with pain. Now in that one, I wouldn't expect it to actually affect the underlying at the [01:25:30] physiology that much because the mechanism that it seems to be working through is more the sensing of the pathophysiology rather than the actual pathophysiology.

Now in another one, say I'm looking at cancer and I say if someone is stressed out and they feel shitty because they're worried about cancer, they're worried about finance or whatever, and their cortisol is high, their ACTH is high, their pregnenolone is all shunting from DHEA into cortisol, so the ratio goes off which changes transcription which increases carcinogenesis and [01:26:00] changes oncogene expression. Then I'd say getting cortisol down and just getting sympathetic to parasympathetic tone in better place is going to make cancer generally less likely. It's going to make health and regeneration better.

I wouldn't think very specifically, right? Sympathetic to parasympathetic getting better would make less likelihood for autoimmune and neurodegenerative and cancer and heart disease because it's just relevance to regenerative process comprehensively. It wouldn't be like [01:26:30] believing in the specific thing getting better would really address that specific thing. It would address generally the regenerative processes of the body doing better.

It seems like that level, everybody can get on board with. Right? Everybody, anybody, any MD can see the studies on positive thinking and mindfulness and say sympathetic prayer, sympathetic ratio changing, cortisol DHEA changing, less stress hormones. Stress always have effects on disease progression, cool. [01:27:00] One, that doesn't require quantum mechanics, but it's also not super specific. That's just kind of an endocrinology, neuroendocrine effect. You're totally fine with that. You just think that we can go further than that as well.

Bruce Lipton:Yeah. First of all, let me tell you that life as I said comes from the structure for protein being altered by an environmental field. As a result, [01:27:30] changing from confirmation A to confirmation B which is a movement which generate life. It's always been looked at, it's like a Newtonian mechanism with positive and negative charges that change this thing. There was a paper by a couple, Pophristic and Goodman in nature. What they were trying to do was protect the movement from confirmation A to confirmation B of a molecule that rotates based on the charge. [01:28:00] They applied all the, they applied an approach using Newtonian physics with charges and localization and stuff like that.

Turned out, it had nothing to do with that at all. They were unable to predict the confirmation stages. It had turned out that it was quantum mechanical effects. That the system, the proteins respond to quantum fields. All of a sudden, that opens up the game. Because if it only responds to a Newtonian thing, then of course [01:28:30] it's just the chemicals and things around you. Once you open it up to the quantum field, then all of a sudden it says, oh my God. A quantum field could, we can walk into a field and be affected by this because your proteins read that field.

The interesting part about this is how are you evaluating? First, you're evaluating on the physiology of the person, and you're evaluating on how they feel about it. There's two minds. There's the conscious mind [01:29:00] and the subconscious mind. Now, this is where if you don't get this right, the whole thing doesn't work anymore. The conscious mind is the one connected to your personal identity. It's primarily prefrontal cortex right back here. The significance about that is conscious mind, the quality of a conscious mind is creativity. As a result, imagination, wishes, desires, aspirations. These are creative thoughts.

The subconscious mind in contrast is no creativity, really is very minimal [01:29:30] amount of creativity. It's primarily record, playback. It's habit. Instincts and habits are built into the subconscious. The issue is this. The two minds operate interdependently. I can have a feeling in my conscious mind which in no way is influencing the subconscious mind, which is the one that's controlling the biology itself. The muscles are under the control of the subconscious mind. The functions of the digestive system are being mediated by the subconscious [01:30:00] mind.

I'm going to say, here's the problem. If you're dealing with a person's conscious mind, they can say whatever the heck they feel like at that moment, but it doesn't necessarily involve what's going on with the subconscious mind. As neuroscientists have evaluated, we are only controlling our lives 5% of the time. Our cognitive behavior is controlled 5% by the conscious creativity. That 95% of our cognitive activity is controlled by the [01:30:30] programs in the subconscious mind because they are indeed programs.

The relevance about that is, it depends on which mind is operating the system to determine the outcome. You say, I consciously have a positive thought. That's called placebo. Yeah, sure. I say, but if your subconscious mind doesn't support the outcome of that positive thought and it's a 5 to 95% ratio, I don't care how much positive thinking you're going to do. The subconscious mind is not going [01:31:00] to do anything with that.

In contrast, when the conscious mind and the subconscious mind are in harmony with each other in regard to the program and the subconscious supporting the wish and the desire of the conscious, then that is an unstoppable combination that will lead to, in the quantum physics concept, the conscious creation of whatever you are. You have to remember now, there's a dynamic between two minds. Which one is the one are you working with? The idea is my conscious mind could [01:31:30] say any damn thing it wants, but my subconscious mind works on a program, and as I said, 95% of my life experiences are coming from subconscious programs.

Yet when you can get that conscious mind to get in there and override it, if you can get that conscious mind to support a belief in the subconscious that can give you a healing, then that's an open pathway for placebo effect. If your conscious mind has all the wishes and desires but your subconscious mind says I can't buy [01:32:00] that, then I don't care how many wishes and desires and positive thinking. You're not necessarily going to experience the consequence of what we've been talking about.

Daniel S.:You're talking about a congruency phenomena, coherency phenomenon that the conscious mind is actually congruent and coherent with other things that we call mind and self, and that the phenomenon will be a result of maybe the total coherence that's involved, the total surface area of consciousness that's involved so to speak. [01:32:30] I'll say it one other way, because I think there's maybe no topic that people who come from a formal scientific epistemology think of as magical thinking more than this. This is the gateway to every other kind of magical thinking is the overextension of placebo effect in that view. Yet it's not an unreasonable consideration.

I'm going to state a way that both addresses the modern way of thinking about [01:33:00] it and the hypothesis that as consciousness increases, external influences could decrease. If I can think about the person under the line, under the power line, who's more affected and less affected. Rather than say it's because stress opens up their field to affect, I could say stress is already affecting them negatively and it probably, if they eat sugar and if they have mold in their house and they have mercury in their mouth, it's the total ratio of syntropic and entropic forces acting on the system that are going to determine [01:33:30] the integrity of the system.

Bruce Lipton:I agree with that.

Daniel S.:Their psychological stresses, physiological stresses including the EMFs are all going to be part of this syntropic-entropic ratio. Now, one thing I think maybe you're saying is as consciousness increases, could it become a larger percentage? Could endogenously generated forces become a larger percentage of the total chemistry of the blood that the cells are responding to that are modulating whatever other external things one is being exposed to to where, [01:34:00] in decision theory we talked about moving the locus of control more internally.

You're talking about that not just at a psychological level but a physiologic level. It seems like to at least some extent the answer is yes, right? That there is some extent to which one could have an internal locus of control that was effecting the chemistry of their blood and their cellular biology more. If there's an upper bound to that or not I think is a fascinating question for us to explore.

Bruce Lipton:Yeah, I agree. I don't know [01:34:30] upper bounds. There's a range of everything. Everything is a bell shaped curve you want to look at. I'm going to talk about the center of that curve and just say, we are very powerful people. Our belief systems empower us. Our perceptions that we are driving our chemistry and our  beliefs with our chemicals and physiological communications. In a stressful situation, we'll stop the growth of this system [01:35:00] because stress automatically puts you in a protective posture.

Then the things that you needed to be healthy, a good operating immune system, all of a sudden is not operating. Then we have a problem. You're not replacing hundreds of billions of cells every day. You're lagging. Why? Because you're not putting enough of your available energy into a growth mechanism because you're concerned and all that. Fine. How does it work? The simple understanding of how that we gave of how does [inaudible 01:35:29] [01:35:30] affect the chemistry? The fact is this, that neurological cells are not, we say neurons.

Okay, these are all neurons. What we now know, every neuron is functionally structurally different than every other neuron. It's like an immune system. Not all lymphocytes are targeted for the same things. Matter of fact, it's only a small number targeted for something. There are so many of them, they're all targeted for different things. [01:36:00] What we really have to recognize is that our ability to create life starts with vibration of thought. This is the important part again. Our nervous system and conventional neurology is based on action potentials.

Where's the language? It's action potentials. No, that is not the language. What they're missing is at a finer, higher resolution, every action potential [01:36:30] has a brush border, very fine little spikes, ultra small little spikes that neurophysiologists, when I was at the university, they use white out, they call it noise. They clean the lines so it had the beautiful shape of an action potential. I asked my friend who was a serious, one of the leaders in neuroscience at that time. I said, "What are you erasing?" He said, "The noise." I said, "What's the noise?" He said, "That's channels opening and closing."

I looked at him, I just [01:37:00] had to laugh. I thought, that's the message. It's the message is in the vibration of the channels opening and closing. The carrier waves or the message is the action potential. It's the signals, as I said, the signals on the cell are channels opening and closing each with a different vibrational frequency. There's a music coming from the membrane when the channels are opening and closing. What's the point? That vibration is part of a field that will activate the receptors on neuron [01:37:30] that are in harmony with that vibration.

I get 100 billion neurons, play one signal in the field, and pull out this neuron over here because it's the only one with an antenna that is resonating with that vibrational frequency. All of a sudden it's like, oh my God, that's what's so powerfully different about the human chip's computer versus our silicon-based ones is that our computers respond not just to chemistry. They respond to vibration. [01:38:00] The relevance about that means then you don't have to have wired inputs.

All I have to do is send a signal in the broadcast in the field, and any cell that is in harmony with any part of that signal will be engaged. It's like lightning. The cells will come together in a coherent form and create a consciousness out of it. What's the beautiful part? A computer with no wired inputs. Wired outputs, yeah. I want to take the signal and turn it into biology. Do I need the wired inputs? I go, no. What's the significance? Half the resistance in a system is gone when you don't have to wire any inputs. [01:38:30] You can just broadcast the frequency in the field.

This has been recognized that there are different frequencies that have different functions on cells. This is not new. Back in the 80s I was using a research in current science, science, nature, journal physiology. All these different things. What I was showing them was [01:39:00] in all these papers, they showed that very specific vibrational frequencies controlled, very specific functions of the cell oh my god. DNA synthesis, RNA synthesis, protein synthesis, morphogenesis, differentiation. All of these were tied to key signatures.

All of a sudden I say, because our conventional allopathic model is Newtonian based, we look at chemistry as the communication. I go, chemistry is communication. It's not as efficient. [01:39:30] Communication as a matter of fact in a paper from physics in London, McClair, compared the efficiency of a signal sent by vibration resonance versus a signal sent by chemistry and revealed that a vibrational resonance was 100 times more efficient in relaying a signal then was chemistry. Because chemistry loses a lot of energy with heat of reaction. [01:40:00] The signal being carried is largest in large part by the heat given off, which is wasted energy when the chemicals bind. Resonance has no loss.

Daniel S.:As you're looking at how many channels are involved in the communication dynamics of biology, so you're looking at endocrine communication, all the different kind of chemical communication. Then also the voltage electrical communication. Then as you're mentioning, viral communication, plasmid stile communication. Now IR [01:40:30] biofield style communication, which the fields of optogenetics, there's a few current fields that are starting to formalize this a little bit more. You think about all those different communication channels happening continuously and overlappingly. It just starts, it's fucking amazing. The communication complexity is fucking amazing.

Bruce Lipton:Absolutely. You know what it is, it's a four-year transform. Massive amount of information. But you can pull out a signal based on the receptors [01:41:00] that you have. Out of the noise comes signal. This is the intelligence part. There's so much noise in here. Yeah, but if my receptor only picks up this vibrational frequency, it's not going to be blinded by all this other stuff. It's interesting because the receptors on the surface of the cell are engaging in a [inaudible 01:41:20] transform to decipher information from the noise that we're in. Quantum physics.

Daniel S.:We might, I would [01:41:30] love to have a deeper conversation about biocomputation with you sometime. I've kept you longer than I said I would. Thank so much for your time. This was really fun. This was a delight. Appreciate the field advancement work that you have been doing and are still doing and the energy you bring to it. If people want to buy your books and learn more, get into them, they can go to Amazon, search Bruce Lipton Biology of Belief and Spontaneous Evolution. BruceLipton.com keeps people up to date with ...

Bruce Lipton:Thank you. That's a [01:42:00] good resource. There's lots of videos, audios, written papers, freely available to discuss topics we've been hitting on.

Daniel S.:Great.

Bruce Lipton:Many topics. Thank you for that, the website.

Daniel S.:I will put that in the show notes also. Yeah. This was a delight. Thank you so much.

Bruce Lipton:Daniel, I appreciate it. It was so much more fun to talk with you then a lot of my interviews because they're all about that other level, your audience, [01:42:30] yourself. It gives me an opportunity to talk a little bit deeper about the molecular nature and the mechanics of the field. This is where biology is going. Signal transduction is the field, not genetics. Signal transduction is now where it's all at. How do we take those quantum and Newtonian fields and translate them into an expression? That's the beautiful front end of biology at this moment.

Daniel S.:I love it. [01:43:00] All right, thank you my friend, thanks for everyone for being on.




Terms and Conditions - Privacy
* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. The products and information on this website are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The information on this site is for educational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice. Please speak with an appropriate healthcare professional when evaluating any wellness related therapy. Please read the full medical disclaimer before taking any of the products offered on this site.