I started posting about Ray and his work in 2021, and have been thinking quite a bit about the “evolution” of online health discourse ever since, especially on Twitter. Health spheres in general tend to attract the most neurotic people, partly because high neuroticism is an accurate marker of poor health. Initially, it is this neurotic energy that drives the search for answers; an inevitability for most people ridden with ills I think. “The less you start to care about your health, the healthier you are” rings very true, as the hyperestrogenized brain that tends to obsess over circumstances is inhibited by progesterone and thyroid function is normalized. You see a lot of this phenomenon in “peat sphere.” There was a large influx of new “peaters” to this side of the internet sometime in 2023, bringing with it an observable increase in threads and posts about “bioenergetics”, accompanied by arguably unnecessary disagreements, marketing of overpriced products, drama, etc.; a repetitiveness about the same things, circling the same keywords and phrases, the same images and quotes. There is, I suppose, nothing inherently bad or wrong about spreading Ray’s work to the larger culture by recycling the same content and hammering down basic health advice like “PUFA bad” or “sugar good” into mass consciousness; it is a much-needed step in helping to shift existing paradigms. However, I think where the issue seems to lie, at least for me, is that there is very little novelty being introduced into a sphere that fundamentally sees itself as continuously changing and differentiating. I see this theme in Ray’s writing itself, where his newer newsletters are built upon his prior work, each article broadening and adding context to the previous one. Novelty is a rarity and the best way to find it is probably by looking for it, as you allow thoughts and curiosity to arise naturally. If there is any sort of meaning left in the very same digital culture that Ray hoped would one day come to an end, I’m hopeful that this torpor-like trance will someday break. I suppose a consequence of “solving biology” by the underground scientists of the West is that stumbling upon anything resembling originality is asking too much. I hope people reading this understand that “peat twitter” is a one-of-a-kind place, a small corner of the internet filled with incredible intelligence, by far one of the only places on Earth where ideas about biology, human behavior, and health are so freely, fully, and thoroughly presented and discussed without censor or authoritarian oversight.
I posted this iceberg sometime last year and for many, the ideas presented in it aren’t new. Sometime soon, I’ll write and dissect it a little more for those who aren’t too familiar with it.
Another topic I’m currently exploring is the idea of using low metabolism as a legal defense in court. The notion of it seems a little ridiculous at first but Katharina Dalton successfully employed PMS as an argument for women who committed crimes while menstruating; progesterone supplementation was prescribed as treatment.
I figure it’d be a good idea to someday present what exactly the phrase “1/2 pint saved my life” means, and so in the near future, I’ll write about how my labs and metabolism shifted when I experimented and applied Ray’s work over the years.
For the past three years, my Twitter DMs have been open to anyone looking for healthy/nutrition advice, to chat, or to simply track down an obscure study (this won’t ever change, don’t hesitate to reach out). However, I have decided to continue that here on Substack for people who are generous enough to subscribe yearly. If you do so, I’ll be more than happy to consult, answer any health, and nutrition-related questions you may have, help to interpret lab work, share my experiments and experience, etc. over email or substack messages for 30 days; you’ll have my full and undivided attention. I’m forever grateful to have such a readership.
Thanks for this. I enjoy Peat Twitter and recognise much of the iceberg. It is full of very intelligent creative minds.
The deeper stranger comments come from Peat himself sometimes - eg the dog who regrew his eye.
I generally agree with you although since Giorgi Dinkov is conducting lab experiments with certain chemicals, his interviews can reveal new information. I kind of enjoy the freedom from health research once I've ingested and assimilated the info from 4 years of it because it frees up time for more salient research into for instance, the virus hoax, which Peat didn't catch onto and question somehow. And why weren't parasites on his radar at all??