My 20 December Blog, “The Photographs” was set in the mid 1940′s. From then we now teleport through time to the more or less now, the Future from then. The setting is the same. [If you did not read that December Post please do so now before reading further. The December Post is real in every detail the best that I can remember it.]
Please keep in mind that this Post is pure fantasy, and is not meant to reflect on any one, organization, or government. After all, who could believe such a story anyway?
****************
There is a knock on the front door. My grandfather goes to the door, opens it, and sees a man, a stranger, dressed rather like the old–time traveling salesman.
“Yes?” my grandfather says.
The fellow replies “I am Joe Smith, from the Department of Health. We have to inspect every home and business to make sure everyone lives and works in a healthy environment.” He offers a very official looking photo ID for inspection, as though anyone would know what is fake or real.
“Oh?” my grandfather says.
“Yes. The Federal Government instituted new regulations which every state must follow, or important state programs will not be funded. You know, vaccinations, water fluoridation, and all those other great health measures.”
“Uh, what do you want to know?”
“First of all, I see you have an outhouse over the creek out beside the house. That is not permitted because it pollutes the river. There is a fine for that of $1000 a week. You have three days to comply.”
“I have a question for you, then. Because that little river down the hill is black and polluted from washing coal upstream, how much fine do they pay?”
“Oh, they do not have to pay a fine, as they pay $100 a year for the permit.”
“Oh.”
“Furthermore, I see that your water supply is from a natural spring. That is not permitted unless you properly process the water and chlorinate it to make sure it is pure and safe to drink. Failure to do so will cost you another $1000 per week fine for non-compliance with the regulations. Again, you have three days to comply.”
“I see”, said my grandfather in such a manner that even at my few years of age I could tell he was doing some quick thinking.
“Is that a COW I see up on the hill?”, asks Joe.
“Everybody around these parts recognize cows” was granddaddy’s reply. “And, yes, we do drink the milk the way Mother Nature intended, raw. Also, the cow only gets a natural food diet, grain I myself grow and grazing on the organic hillside above here and has never been vaccinated. Ain’t nobody ever got sick, either, from the milk, butter, cream, or the water.”
“Well, that is a blatant violation of the law. Unless that is changed immediately the FDA [Fraudulent Directives Administration] will send out their SWAT Team and close this place down and throw you into jail, place the kids into a safe foster home, and demolish this unsafe house.”
“Hummm”, my grandfather mutters as he calmly walks over to the side wall of the living room where his double-barrel 12 gauge resides.
As he reaches for it Joe notices and says, “Do you have a permit for that gun? I see there is no trigger lock. Those violations can put you into jail for 6 months each!”
Granddaddy calmly reaches into a drawer and pulls out two of those 12 gauge shells, and began slowly inserting them into the gun, of course being careful not to point it at anyone.
Joe got very excited at that and said, in an increasingly shaky voice, “W… wh… what are you d. d. doing?”
Grandfather said very calmly and deliberately, “I am helping you write your report about your visit here. What is it going to say?”
Joe was no dummy at this point so he said, in his still shaky voice, “Inspection showed no violations, and further inspections will not be needed.”
Granddaddy said, “Good boy. Now leave here and go find yourself a real job.”
“Yes, YES SIR, and thank you for being so understanding.”
Then Granddaddy said to me, “ I remember those Photographs, too.”
When I was very young my father was drafted into the US Army to “Fight the Nazis”. I remember the day he left; I hid under the covers of my bed, as though that would stop his departure.
My mother, older sister, and I moved in with his dad, in the mountains of West Virginia. My grandfather had built that house, situated above the little river, beside a small creek, on the mountainside. The garden was up the hill, as was the grazing pasture for the cow. Even then the house was not new. We did not have indoor plumbing, and got our water from a pipe placed into a spring at the creek. The outhouse was placed over the creek, downstream, of course. That stream ran into the little river, but no one was concerned with pollution; after all, the river was already black from washing coal further upstream. To take a bath we got water from the spring-pipe, carried it into the kitchen, heated the water on the wood–burning cookstove, then, when hot enough, it was poured into a galvanized “wash tub” placed on the floor. Winter heat was with a coal stove. That was just how things were. I don’t recall knowing the word “complain”. Oh, we did have electricity, along with fresh raw milk and butter, which I frequently churned myself, and other fresh organic foods. I think only organic was available, but was not called that. It was just real food.
My dad was in an MP Detachment and was variously located in England, Belgium, The Netherlands, France, and Germany. He virtually never talked about what he did in the war, just about his buddies. The worst time he had seemed to be the Battle of the Luddendorff Bridge at Remagen. I only remembered twice my dad ever crying. Once was at the death of one of his brothers and the other was him remembering about the battle when he visited the site decades later (but he did not talk about it).
As his unit penetrated deeper into Germany at the end of the war they entered a concentration camp. He took pictures, and they were deeply ingrained into my memory at the tender age of about 6. These were pictures of many dead people; gaunt, starved, sickly looking, mostly necked, dead bodies. Piles of dead bodies. A bulldozer trench was filled with these bodies for mass burial.
It is my understanding that the IG Farben drug company ran at least some of these camps and was known to make nerve gas. IG Farben was broken up into four different drug companies after the war. Interestingly enough it is these same four drug companies which have been the major push behind the Codex Alimentarious, the UN has pushed international effort to control all foodstuffs around the world. (I will have another Blog entry about this later.) These are the regulations which are designed to ban things like garlic in a capsule and raw milk, but push irradiated foods, GMO foods, and other un-natural “foods”. Every time I hear Codex what I remember is those photographs.
I know a German woman who grew up in 1930′s Germany. In a very quiet conversation (we were in public) she told me she could not tell the difference between 1930′s Germany and modern Germany. Furthermore, the USA and Canada both were worse than 1930′s Germany. I remembered those photographs.
Every time I read of the government seizing children to forcibly vaccinate them, I remember those photographs.
Every time I hear of “health” Canada inspectors forcibly dragging Citizens out of their vehicles and pushing them into the ground just because they have a container of raw milk on the seat, I Remember the photographs.
Every time I hear about the abuses of the TSA on travelers, I remember the photographs.
Every time I hear about the cops in Tennessee (and other places) stopping vehicles on the slightest whim and seizing their money, I remember the photographs.
When I hear the US Congress has yet again passed unconstitutional laws, which the judges will probably uphold, I remember the photographs.
Every time I am searched for an hour when I drive across the Border into Canada, I remember the photographs. (And it IS every time.)
Every time I hear of a young kid having their lemonade stand smashed by authorities for violating some inane law, I remember the photographs.
Every time the politicians push for more gun control laws, I remember the photographs of an unarmed people.
Every time I cannot obtain health–giving natural remedies for myself or clients while toxic drugs and vaccines are pushed on everyone, I remember the photographs.
Every time I think about my father’s great grandmother, a Cherokee woman who escaped from the infamous “Trail of Tears”, I remember the photographs.
Every time I hear of an alternative health practitioner who is being harassed by “the authorities”, I remember the photographs.
When congress (deliberate small c) passed a law to allow Citizens to be arrested and incarcerated indefinitely without charge or hearing, I was horrified, and remembered those photographs.
When I hear of the insane corruption of politicians, public officials, bankers, and some large businesses, I remember the photographs.
If you quote some things in public that Thomas Jefferson said, you get arrested for terrorism. Remember the photographs?
In far too many instances recently if you protest too much you get beat by the police. Remember those photographs!
Why is it that when we peacefully protest the addition of toxic fluoride and toxic chlorine to our water we are ignored? Next comes the photographs.
Why is it that when we peacefully resist more gun control laws we are ignored and told it does not matter what we want. Load the camera, here come more photographs.
Sadly this list of examples hardly conveys its extent. A large volume would be needed to document all the instances so briefly illustrated here. If we all work together in clear and logical thinking and action we can overcome this situation peacefully. It MUST be done or else there will be more of those photographs.
In all too many (one is too many) cases we are arrested for taking pictures of what the “authorities” are doing. They don’t want us to see those photographs. Wonder why? What do these photographs show? Good honest, peaceful, caring public servants, doing what is necessary to truly protect us? Maybe we will see how those original photographs came about. In which picture do you want to be featured? We need to make sure there can never be any more new photographs like those old photographs. And, no, I do not mean by censorship!
What is a box? A box is a container, which keeps things in, but also keeps things out. For most people the most important thing kept out is new thinking. For ages. I have said, “I am so far out-of-the-box I don’t know where the box is”. My work and my thinking, by most people’s standards, is definitely unorthodox. That what I do works so incredibly well is just not believable by those people who still live in their small box and will not consider a new way of thinking or doing. Let me describe a recent example of something in a very small box.
I have been consulting with the family about a child who is now a few months old. For privacy of the family I will not describe much detail about this child, but the child was born with serious birth defects and has undergone surgery as a consequence. Some of these defects are mostly not amenable to surgical intervention. My bioenergetic work with this child has suggested a number of bioenergy corrections and some nutritional intervention. It was clear, bioenergetically, that this child had significant nutritional deficiencies. Being fed through a tube, reportedly directly into his duodenum, gives good opportunity to give this child quality nutrients. Mother’s milk is a major part of the diet, supplemented (according to the medical people) with a standard infant formula (which I consider grossly inadequate, in not downright harmful, since it is full of synthetic materials and a lot of sugar). I suggested several additions to the diet, including vitamin D3, a good ionized calcium, DHA, and several other items, including changes to mom’s diet is. One recommendation was biotin. Now the official guidelines suggest 5 µg of biotin are sufficient for a child that age. My bioenergetic testing indicated more like 60 µg of biotin where required. The boxed in people refused to give that much. The hospital dietitian insisted that 5 µg was enough because that was the standard recommendation. In our discussion of that number she said well, 5 µg is all that 98% of the population needs. I said that this kid is not in the 98%. Furthermore, that intake is presumably the amount needed by healthy people to stay healthy. She didn’t have much response to that. I also mentioned the work of Roger Williams, the discoverer of pantothenic acid and who named folic acid, and he wrote about biochemical individuality. Many years ago Williams showed that genetically identical mice, as understood in that day, could have as much as a twentyfold difference in need for a given specific nutrient. It seems she never heard of Williams. The bottom line was that she said she could not give more than the five unless I could refer her to peer review published studies indicating that the 60 µg was safe and effective, or some such thing as that. It was not clear to me she had to adhere to a book or whether it was her book. It took me only a few minutes of on-line checking to discover interesting things about biotin. One is that most adults have an adequate level of biotin because biotin is made by the microorganisms in the gut. Much more is being made in the body than it needs to use (some times hundreds or even thousands of times more) and so most adults have an excess of biotin being made in the body. Great. Further reading indicates basically that biotin is not toxic even as in large amounts. And, very importantly, in some pregnancies something happens to the microorganisms in the gut that make the biotin and so the pregnant woman becomes deficient in biotin. It is also indicated that a deficiency of biotin is associated with birth defects. Now it seems to me that a hospital, when working with a child with birth defects, would assign somebody to be responsible for knowing what’s in the literature about that. And a dietitian should especially do some research. To refuse to give essential nutrients when indicated is, in my mind, serious malpractice. Furthermore, even if this literature is not very adequate a child in such serious condition deserves every benefit of the doubt. The child might die anyway, but to die from malnutrition in a hospital is unconscionable.
I’ve had a theory for a number of years now.
It is not rare that we read a newspaper story about some person who, for example, ran off the road in their vehicle and was lying trapped in the ditch for five days before they were found, still alive and relatively unharmed mechanically. However, after two or three days in the hospital they died “of their injuries”. I have a hard time understanding why, if they are okay after five days without attention, they would die two or three days after being given attention and treatment. My theory is this: one of the first medical treatments is to give IV glucose. Now glucose, in order to be metabolized in the body, requires the use of various other nutrients. After five days of no nutrients coming into the body many people in that circumstance will have low levels of those nutrients, so getting glucose, will deplete those nutrients still further, leaving body systems with inadequate levels to continue functioning. [See Note at bottom of this article.] If no glucose were given and the person was just fed real food, or additional appropriate nutrients were provided, along with the glucose, those people may not have died. In other words, inadequate medical treatment literally causes the death. To be clear, I don’t have real supporting data for this hypothesis, but I have seen repeatedly that the lack of nutrition education in the medical system is harmful to people. For example, sometimes I work with people who have cancer. Every one of these folks in the last 2 or 3 years I have asked a simple question: “Did your medical doctor talk to you about vitamin D and cancer?” So far everyone has said “No”. How can it be that the medical doctors seem to be the only people who do not know something about the literature about cancer and vitamin D? That information has been published in virtually every magazine, many books, talked about on many, many radio and TV stations, newspaper articles, and vast numbers of references on the Internet.
When I was medical school faculty, several decades ago, and I talked about nutrition to colleagues’s nobody wanted to listen. Then, and I believe it is still true, medical students received about three hours lecture about nutrition in their entire career. This three hours of lecture included wonderful information like “three square meals a day is all you need”, “taking vitamins is a way to make expensive urine”, and other equally useful information!
It is this ignorance which is at the key to the issues with the child discussed above. Furthermore, it is this ignorance which allows pregnant women to be or become, nutritionally deficient, in turn causing many more birth defects than would happen otherwise. To me this is criminal. Even the March of Dimes Charity has claimed that half of all birth defects are due to malnutrition. I am quite certain they significantly understate the case.
In my bioenergetic work I use an energy index of diet quality. The perfect diet has an index of 100, but this is essentially impossible these days because food quality is so low, so I consider that any index of 90 or above is usually adequate. I have tested the diet quality in hospitals for a number of people that I know personally. (They were there for physical injury requiring surgery. To really heal they get out as quickly as possible.) A typical hospital diet index is about 20 on my scale. The fast food place down the block, or even the canteen in the hospital, usually has a diet quality index of about 30 or 35. In other words, the traditionally called “junk food diet” is actually better quality than the typical hospital diet. Maybe now we know one of the reasons that so many deaths occur in the hospitals!
Being afraid to step out of your box and look at the broader universe is very sad. The World is changing very rapidly these days, and if you insist on staying in your box, it may be the one you are buried in.
******************************************
Note from above
Over the years I have supervised many people fasting, and often participate myself. Almost anyone can safely fast for a week or more. I have supervised a month-long fast and countless shorter ones. If you have difficulties on the first and second days particularly, it usually means you are undergoing withdrawal from foods to which you have become addicted. This is little different than withdrawal from drug addiction.
On a whim I can decide to fast and do so for a week or two with no effort at all (and no one notices unless I mention it). As a bonus, the time saved by not dealing with eating can be put to good use! Good reasons to fast will be discussed in later Posts.
A reasonably healthy person should easily be able to fast for a week or ten days without any special effort and hardly notice any hunger most of the time.
Almost anyone who has been paying any attention has been hearing about predicted events around 2012. Are these predictions for real? There are people who say they know for sure and others who insist the exact opposite. For certain, however, we will all find out in the next year or two.
Add to those concerns the issues about the economy, excessive government pressures to regulate everything that is natural out of existence, the increasing extremes in the weather, be it tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, or earthquakes, and we are all in the middle of the ancient Chinese curse “living in interesting times”.
So the question is have you been preparing in any way for your future? My point in this blog is to discuss your testing to see if your preparations are adequate and working. This topic occurred to me in “bold print” in the last few days because of a local storm. It was not horrendous, but the high winds did cause extensive damage to trees, power lines, and other things. The electricity was off in our home and office for about two days. So I cranked up my diesel powered generator, flipped a few switches and had — some glitches. Nothing major, just a short circuit in one side of the output lines from the generator. Of course, that tripped the circuit breaker. The consequence of that was that part of the house and office had electricity. The other part did not. That itself is not a big issue, except that some equipment operates on 240 V and it was getting only 120 V. That does strange things to equipment like water pumps!
We had the electricity we needed for our telephones, fax, computers, printers, food preparation, etc. However, one big problem was that our Internet service provider was also knocked out by the power outage (and as of my writing this it is still off). These days in many homes and offices without the Internet, things just bog down. Our business is so Internet oriented that we can hardly function without it. We just promised a client a copy of a document, but could not send the e-mail. We had a telephone inquiry about a package which we had shipped, but we could not check where it was with our tracking number. Internet banking? Forget it! And so on and on.
Let’s fast-forward anywhere from a year and a half to two years. Suppose the powerful magnetic pulse from the sun does happen. Suppose there are ultra-massive earthquakes and storms. Suppose significant numbers of people do not survive. Are you ready to function in that circumstance? Can you generate electrical power indefinitely (diesel won’t last very long under that circumstance). And that assumes your electrical power system will even survive that (those) electric magnetic pulse(s). What if it doesn’t? You may have developed the materials and the skills necessary to survive in a less-developed world, but have you developed the attitude that you need? If you just can’t give up your coffee from the shop, or your frozen pizza, or your daily newspaper, or those sugared carbonated artificially flavored and colored products miscalled beverages, or those favorite TV shows, or having those daily long hot showers, or chatting with your friends on the Internet or telephone, and all those other components of many people’s modern-day life, you’re going to have a difficult time! Withdrawal from iAddiction may be worse than any other for many.
Many “preppers” have been preparing space and gathering goods for survival or barter. They may not have paid sufficient attention to their new social and psychological situation if such a disaster occurs. In fact, I believe that your mind set is probably the most important component of your survival and happily thriving afterwards. If the adjustment to a totally new environment is quite stressful for you, your probability of survival diminishes. If you can’t adapt to the massive changes in your lifestyle , your probability of survival diminishes. If you can’t learn to eat things that you don’t like, your probability of survival diminishes. If you can’t cooperate with other people in new ways, your probability of survival diminishes. If you can’t use your mental abilities to problem solve almost everything, your probability of survival diminishes. If you can’t imagine catching and preparing an animal for your food, your probability of survival diminishes. If you can’t believe you must grow your food, your probability of survival diminishes. You can keep adding to this list indefinitely and when you are confident in each of these situations your probability of survival increases. What is your choice? What is your probability of survival? Starting now improves your chances.
Your mind set can be changed with very simple techniques and procedures. We have been doing that for more than three decades with Health Kinesiology methodology. If you want some help with these or other issues, look at the links on this site. HK has practitioners in many parts of the world.
I developed a technique called Belief System Elimination or BS Elimination for short. BSE generally only takes a few seconds and you will probably be amazed at how effective it is. This is a link http://www.hk-training.org/custom-4/ECS.BSE.pdf to illustrated directions about how to do the technique. This link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBiykRc0uA8&feature=related is Part One of a video discussing this procedure and shows you exactly how to do it yourself, step–by–step. This is Part Two, with another real life example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA7BmtRgJ8M&feature=related This link: www.HK-Training.org leads to the previous links and additional information, including further videos.
[The BSE technique is a special case of the SCOTT Protocol (Stimulating Connections & Organization Through Touch. That it spells my last name is purely coincidental, mind you. That work is only for professional training, but has been remarked effective at reconnecting disrupted brain / body pathways. I developed it originally for a quadriplegic, who now walks. It has helped with learning disorders, autism, stuttering, verbal / language fluency, movement, and many other issues where the brain just does not properly connect with the body of within itself.]
In your new world of survival you may encounter substances which might or might not be toxic or good sources of nutrition. The SET methodology I developed in 1980 could literally save your life. For the most effective use it is best to attend Health Kinesiology classes, but this method also has a simpler, though a slightly less powerful sister. Check out this link: www.CureYourOwnAllergiesInMinutes.com for general information and this link for the Manual itself: http://www.cureyourownallergiesinminutes.com/Cure-Your-Own-Allergies-in-Minutes-Manual.html
Thousands of people have downloaded this free Class Manual for Cure Your Own Allergies in Minutes, the name of the book I first published in 1998. The second edition of that book will be available eventually! I invented the first bioenergy correction for allergies in early 1980, methodology as yet unequaled. With this technology you can reliably muscle test whether or not any substance is OK to use or not, and if so, how much you can tolerate. If you are exposed to something and you or someone else start experiencing toxic or allergy symptoms the methodology can reduce the reactions very rapidly and help the body detoxify accordingly. Over 30 years of experience by thousands of users have proven the method. And, it only takes a few minutes. Hey, it’s for free; what can you lose?
In such a case as the 2012 catastrophe not occurring, you will still benefit dramatically from the changes you’re able to make. I urge you to choose to do that now because 2013 might be too late. I intend to survive comfortably. I hope you will, also.
Below is the verbatim copy of a report from the Orthomolecular Medicine News published 8 April 2011.
I used to belong to the Orthomolecular Medical Society when I lived in
San Francisco. Ortho (right) molecular (molecule) means having the right amount of the right molecule in the right place at the right time. I always had a disagreement with them, however, as I was a firm believer in having those molecules in a natural form, not synthetic. Although chemists may not be able to distinguish the natural from synthetic molecules there is an extremely big difference between the whole natural complex vs. the individual molecule. Ascorbic acid, for example, is NOT vitamin C (even though it is declared to be so by the regulatory powers), because the whole natural vitamin C complex contains other molecules. In fact plain ascorbic acid does not cure scurvy, even though that is the definition of vitamin C! (According to Albert St. Gyorgy, Nobel Prize winner for its discovery). Linus Pauling, another Nobel Prize winner, the champion of ascorbic acid, could never get that distinction in my discussions with him about it. He was, after all, a reductionist chemist!
There is, however, an entire spectrum between truly natural and pure chemical-vat synthetic. That topic will be discussed another time.
Vaccines are not now natural products. They are manufactured using numerous toxic and un-natural materials. Careful reading of the scientific (using the term loosely) literature about vaccination only leads to one conclusion. Most, if not all, vaccines cause far more harm than good.
Read this:
This article may be reprinted free of charge provided 1) that there is clear attribution to the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, and 2) that both the OMNS free subscription link http://orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html and also the OMNS archive link http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml are included.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, April 8, 2011
The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention
A Personal Viewpoint by Damien Downing, M.D., London, U.K.
(OMNS Apr 8, 2011) “No pharmaceutical drug is devoid of risks from adverse reactions and vaccines are no exception. Vaccination is a medical intervention and should be carried out with the informed consent of those who are being subjected to it.” (Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, University of British Columbia.)
At a conference held in London this month by the British Society for Ecological Medicine, the main topic was vaccinations. Not one person speaking was anti-vaccination; most said they were in favor of vaccination, but even more so of vaccine safety. One speaker summarized it this way: “Most vaccines offer benefit to most children most of the time. Some vaccines do harm to some children some of the time.”
Here are some of the surprising facts reported.
How safe are vaccines?
-
There are no studies comparing vaccine safety to a genuine placebo. The only study that claims to do so (1) compared active vaccines to a placebo containing all the adjuvants, including neomycin (a known neurotoxin).
-
Adjuvants, a key component of all vaccinations, have been shown to predispose to autoimmune disease (2).
-
Aluminum is a serious neurotoxin but is used as an adjuvant in many vaccines; between 2 and 18 months of age children may repeatedly receive up to 50 times the FDA safety limit in vaccines alone (3).
-
A Cochrane review of MMR in 2005 found that “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate”(4).
-
Recorded adverse events following HPV vaccine in the US, which are thought to represent less than 10% of the actual incidence, now stand at well over 21,000, including 93 deaths, 8,661 emergency room visits, 4,382 cases who have not recovered and 702 who have been disabled. (5)
Do we need all these vaccines?
-
Why do we give rubella vaccinations to boys when the only people that rubella seriously affects are pregnant women and their babies?
-
Mumps is very rare and only of serious danger to boys – so why give it to girls? Introduction of the mumps vaccine only served to shift the incidence of the disease from very young children, in whom it was harmless, to older children in whom it was not.
-
Diphtheria had effectively disappeared by the time the vaccination for it was introduced.
-
Catching measles in childhood reduces the risk of asthma by 80% and of allergy in general by 30% (6).
-
Chicken pox, caught under the age of eight, reduces the risk of eczema by 45% and of severe eczema by a dramatic 96% (7).
Who can we trust?
Vera Hassner Sharav writes: “Public health officials on both sides of the Atlantic have lost the public trust because they have been in league with vaccine manufacturers in denying that safety problems exist. If vaccines posed no safety problems why has the US Vaccine Court awarded more than $2 billion dollars to settle 2,500 cases involving vaccine-related debilitating injuries in children?” (8)
When US FDA officials analyzed the data on autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines they found a clear link. Their response, detailed in transcripts of a meeting at Simpsonwood, VA in July 2000 was to “massage” the data to make the link go away (9).
In the UK, JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunization) has known since 1986 that there were serious safety concerns around vaccinations, for measles in particular. JCVI has repeatedly responded to negative data by ignoring it or covering it up, and has downplayed vaccine safety concerns while overplaying benefits (10).
Clearly Not the CDC
If you thought all that was bad, try out the proposal from the National Centers for Immunization and Respiratory Disease in CDC; a study found that the IgA antibodies in breast milk could reduce the potency of vaccines – especially in developing countries; American breast milk is not nearly as good (11). Their proposal: delay breast-feeding. No, you didn’t misread; the abstract says; “Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.”
Oh, right. That’ll fix it. Not!
Reference:
(1) Virtanen M, Peltola H, Paunio M, Heinonen OP. Day-to-day reactogenicity and the healthy vaccinee effect of measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Pediatrics.2000 Nov;106(5):E62.
(2) Schoenfeld Y, Agmon-Levin N. ‘ASIA’ Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants. Journal of Autoimmunity 2011; 36 4-8 doi:10.1016/j.jaut.2010.07.003
(3) Tomljenovic L. Aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease: After a Century of Controversy, Is there a Plausible Link? J Alzheimer’s Dis 2010; 23: 1-32. doi: 10.3233/JAD-2010-101494.
(4) Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Price D. Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD004407. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub2.
(5) VAERS; http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb Accessed February 2011
(6) Rosenlund H et al. Allergic disease and atopic sensitization in children in relation to measles vaccination and measles infection. Pediatrics 2009; 123 (3): 771-8
(7) Silverberg JI, Norowitz KB, Kleiman E et al. Association between varicella zoster virus infection and atopic dermatitis in early and late childhood: A case-control study. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2010; 126: 300-305
(8) Alliance for Human Research Protection. http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/765/9/
(9) http://www.scribd.com/doc/2887572/Simpsonwood-Transcript20Searchable
(11) Shane AL, Jiang B, Baek LJ et al. Inhibitory Effect of Breast Milk on Infectivity of Live Oral Rotavirus Vaccines. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010; 29(10): 919-923.
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Editorial Review Board:
Ian Brighthope, M.D. (Australia)
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (Canada)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Ellis, M.D. (Australia)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom)
James A. Jackson, Ph.D. (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D. (USA)
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Jagan Nathan Vamanan, M.D. (India)
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person. Email: omns@orthomolecular.org
To Subscribe at no charge: http://www.orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html
A recent issue of the Daily Express newspaper contained about allergy testing. The full article may be seen here: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/204814/Allergy-detection-What-works, (by Jane Symons.)
One of the methods (not Health Kinesiology) challenged in the report apparently concluded: “Dylan was deficient in docosahexaenoic acid (an omega-3 fatty acid often abbreviated to DHA), glutamine, niacin, silica, vanadium and sulforaphane.” The author of the article, Jane Symons, then made an unreferenced comment: “There is, however, no recommended intake for DHA, glutamine, silica, vanadium or sulforaphane, which means there is no such thing as a deficiency.” (My emphasis.)
Ms. Symons could use a lesson in scientific methodology.
In the medical world one approach to researching effects is called the “gold standard” of methodology, namely randomized double blind. What this means is that the participants, subjects, are randomly placed in the different treatment groups, such as placebo and drug groups, with neither the subjects nor the researchers knowing which group is which. However, many medical researchers do not have extensive training in scientific methodology. I do.
Depending on the type of data sought there are numerous valid research design options, and choosing an inappropriate one can lead to very misleading conclusions. Consider this example.
Dr Feingold proposed, decades ago, that hyperactive children were reacting to naturally occurring salicylates in food, (or by taking aspirin). He provided evidence, so a larger more elaborate study was needed to verify, or not, his proposal. A “gold standard” study was carried out, by others, in which a group of hyperactive kids were randomly assigned either to a salicylate-free diet or a diet containing salicylates. At the end of the study the entire groups of kids were compared and the conclusion was that there was not a statistically significant difference in the two groups. In other words the conclusion was that salicylates were not a cause of hyperactivity. So what was wrong with that? It was not understood by the researchers that not every kid was a reactor! Only about 10% of the kids reacted to salicylates, but in those kids the effect was obvious to parents and teachers. By lumping all the kids together, both reactors and non-reactors, the real effect was “washed out”. That deficiency in the research design has probably affected many thousands of kids.
Quite often there is simply a binary decision. Either there is an effect or not. So the questions becomes, “Can we demonstrate that a deficiency exists when there is no Recommended Daily Intake?” This is not to determine how much is needed, but only that some is required. There is a simple test we can do. If we can demonstrate that only one single individual requires a specific nutrient, then obviously there is a daily requirement even though that is not yet determined. This is similar to the original description of the platypus: a duck-billed mammal was so unbelievable that unless one specimen was displayed no one would believe it existed.
After massive research, about one minute, I found a perfect example of a required nutrient for which there is no recommended intake. We all accept that it is required, but obviously Jane Symons does not believe it. I urge her to volunteer to be the one subject to prove my point. Is she up to the challenge.
Hypothesis: Some nutrients are required even though there is no recommended intake.
Subject: Any volunteer. Disbelievers preferred.
Human Subject Declaration: Since a human subject is involved then a Form must be provided to the subject for them to give consent, state they understand the research, any possible consequences, and so on. The entire experiment will take only a few minutes. I was once on the Human Subjects Committee at a major American medical school.
Measurement Variables: pulse rate, respiration rate, and muscle tone. Many others could be used, but these three are very simple, inexpensive, and low tech.
Procedure: Seat subject and make baseline measurements of the variables until they stabilize. Any significant change in these measurements after the experimental treatment begins will indicate we have demonstrated the need for this nutrient.
Have the subject place a plastic bag over their head and seal the bag around the neck.
Nutrient Being Evaluated: Oxygen (or more precisely, air).
Expected Result: A drop in each variable to zero.
Conclusion: If the expected result is obtained then we have proved that there is at least one required nutrient for which there has not been established a minimum daily intake and therefore we have also disproved Ms. Symons statement as quoted above. Furthermore, we have demonstrated this even though the subject knows what is being tested and can make any effort they desire to modify their responses. Removal of the bag would also prove the hypothesis, because there would be no reason to do so otherwise! This is a very robust research design.
Well Ms. Symons?
The British newspaper “Daily Express” just published that article on Tuesday October 12, 2010, by Jane Symons. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/204814/Allergy-detection-What-works. I wrote the paper asking permission to re-post that article here, but so far they have not replied.
Such articles appear now and then, and appear more factual than is sometimes the case. The rest of this post is my reply to that article, pointing out some of the deficiencies and misleading “information” it has portrayed. I personally know the HK practitioner and believe she did nothing at all wrong or inappropriate, though the tone of the article implies otherwise. Allergy in HK terms is now “exposure to a substance which causes an altered reaction in the bioenergy system “.
Here are my comments. (I also got these posted on the Daily Express Comments section about the published article.) Looking at the article will help put my comments in perspective.
I make no comments about the Vega or the Hair Testing sections, as I do not use those procedures and they are unrelated to Health Kinesiology.
This article certainly is not any sort of scientific “test” of HK. There are too many distortions and factual errors. I discuss some of this as well as the underlying knowledge related to the article.
The definition of “allergy” is crucial for interpreting the results of any sort of “treatment”. The original definition was simply “altered reaction”. In the 1930′s medical allergists in their effort to become more scientific redefined the word to mean “causes an antibody reaction” (Ig, immunoglobulin). Even at that time there was disagreement over the new definition, as it was pointed out that there were people who react to a substance but who do not show an Ig reaction. By the late 1930′s it had been demonstrated that skin testing (“skin prick”) was inappropriate for food testing because the immunoglobins in the skin were different than the ones in the digestive system. The first book about this was published about 1941. I read the same information in a medical allergy textbook published in the 1950′s. There are some who consider skin testing for foods as medical malpractice!
Nevertheless, the medical allergists decided that skin testing was the standard and any other test had to match that standard. If a better test did not indicate the same as skin testing it was / is considered inadequate! Different medical testing methods can give very different results. One test says allergy the other says not allergy. In some cases the medical testing will not indicate the allergy unless the person has recently been exposed to the substance. Rarely noted is the information on the, sometimes low, reliability of all sorts of medical testing.
In Health Kinesiology (note that HK is not applied kinesiology) the definition of allergy is when exposure to a substance causes a change (altered reaction) in the body’s bioenergy system. This is identical to the original definition of allergy except it is specifically applied only to the bioenergetic system, and may not reflect or relate to any specific physical or mental signs or symptoms. This bioenergy definition has been around for more than 25 years. In 1984 I published a small book in which I listed 12 different ways a person can react to a substance in addition to allergy and intolerance. Allergy and intolerance are very different things, and a person can have a zero tolerance for something and still not have an allergy to that something. The truth of the matter is that when people react to almost anything they will call it an allergy. I also believe, in HK terms, that medical “allergy” testing is really “tolerance” testing, Tolerance has a graded scale of reaction; up to a certain exposure there is no reaction but above that something more happens. Allergy is binary: either the energy system reacts or not. Tolerance is more physiological; allergy is more energetic.
In the case at hand, Ms Epps had asked the mom to bring in anything to which she wanted her son tested. Mom did not. The vials were homeopathic substances used because mom had not brought items in for evaluation. Real foods, as eaten by the client (not patient), are preferred because the sample used for the homeopathic may differ from what is purchased and eaten.
Cashew is a seed in the same family as poison ivy. The inside of the seed pod has a toxic waxy membrane which must be properly removed or broken down via heat.
When asked if son had known reactions mom did not indicate anything.
Mom did say she “did not want to go down the medical route”.
Vials would not be placed on the chest, but rather over an acupoint just below the navel.
Crystals were not used.
HK works in the body’s order of preference. If someone has a strong reaction to something and is now avoiding that substance, then the body automatically lowers its priority for handling it. It is not that important unless the person is exposed!
HK does not diagnose. HK only evaluates the bioenergy.
HK does not treat, we only balance bioenergy. HK has never endorsed the use of the term “treatment”, although many practitioners do use the word as in a common usage, but it does have a different meaning than medical treatment.
HK has used the term “allergy” but that term only relates to the HK definition, which has been available to everyone for at least 25 years. The medics use their different definition. Do they also own the HK definition?
What was the accompanying picture? It was not of the session, the practitioner pictured was not doing “allergy work”, was not asked for permission for publication, and was not given any credits, so it is quite misleading.
The Expert Comments come from a person apparently not expert in any of the disciplines named, other than perhaps, medical allergy treatment, which is not the subject of the article. That is like having a UK soccer fan discuss the subtleties of American Major League Baseball. All this leads me to wonder if the article is supposed to be objective reporting or rather is part of some other agenda.
Because there are not established standards for the intake of a nutrient absolutely does not mean people cannot have a deficiency!! DHA, for example, is used by the body, among other things) to manufacture cell membranes in the nervous system, the retina, and other cells, and is partly used by the body to move soluble calcium out of the blood into the cells. Milk is a poor source of soluble calcium, as the pasteurization binds the calcium to the protein, making both harder to absorb and utilize. DHA is now added to processed baby foods because babies need it so much for development of the nervous system and mental functioning, and research showed the harmful effects of not having enough! Yes, it can be manufactured within the body, but it is far easier for the body to utilize a ready supply from the diet.
One possible reason people might react to a food (especially botanically unrelated foods like cashew, walnuts, and Brazil nuts) is that they have a metabolic issue with processing the fats and or proteins (it can also be minerals or any other nutrient, too). This would most likely show up as a very low tolerance to the food, not as an allergy (as HK defines it). Properly balancing their bioenergy can often help the body overcome these metabolic issues. Unfortunately, most medical students receive very little adequate instruction in nutrition, a “tradition” seemingly unchanged for the several decades since I was on the faculty of the University of California School of Medicine in San Francisco.
Three “allergy” stories:
1) A Swiss HK student asked if we could do something about his young son’s sensitivity to bee stings, as he just had an anaphylactic reaction and almost died. I said we would try. I had the dad collect some bees of the sort which stung his son, and we used those for balancing the bioenergy while exposed (but not by stinging!) to the now dead bees. A few weeks later the mom took the son to the medical allergist for desentization shots. The medical doctor said there was no need to test the son because the reaction was so strong that it was obvious he was allergic to the bees. But mom insisted, so finally the MD gave in and tested the child with very much diluted bee venom. No reaction. This was repeated until the material was full strength, still with no reaction. “Take him home, there is nothing we need to do” was the response. Proof that the HK technique worked?
2) A few months later, after the above story, a German HK student (A Heilpraktiker) saw a woman client, She carried her EpiPen with her everywhere because once she had almost died from a bee sting. The HK student did the same type of bee sting bioenergy balancing correction with her. A few weeks later, as “luck” would have it, the woman was actually stung by a bee. Since she had no reaction whatsoever she did not bother with the EpiPen. Proof that the HK technique worked?
3) In Jakarta, Indonesia, two HK students (also medical doctors) were eating lunch with a friend in an outdoor restaurant. Their friend picked up his glass of fruit drink and took a sip, not noticing the bee which had entered the glass for its own lunch. The bee stung the inside of his lip, and caused an immediate pain and visibly growing swelling. The HK people did an immediate lay person bioenergy balance and the swelling disappeared in moments, leaving a small hard ring inside the lip, with no pain. Proof that the HK technique worked?
Health Kinesiology has a powerful underlying scientific basis. As an experienced scientist trained in real scientific method I felt a need early on to construct a Scientific Model of this energy work. This Model as it has evolved is described in the various HK class manuals, and is based on scalar electromagnetics as developed by physicist Tom Bearden (http://www.cheniere.org) From the original Maxwell Equations. He shows mathematically how bioenergy (not necessarily by that name) is connected in the universe. The books by physicist Ervin Laszlo describe, from the quantum physics viewpoint, exactly what I have described from the bioenergy viewpoint. In other words, we know, in modern terms, how and why HK works. And it is this theoretical knowledge of energy structure which allows HK to create new procedures as required.
We describe the BioEnergetic Model as different and distinct from the Medical Model, and use different words and concepts, understanding and approach, methodology and procedures. I am told that HK threatens the establishment because of it powerful effectiveness. Proof that HK techniques work?
Important Nutrition Concepts
No one argues that everyone needs to take in nutrients; they only disagree about which nutrients and how much! Since every individual has a different nutritional requirement there can be no rigid statement about what and how much you should eat, in spite of the “authority’s” demands to the contrary. There are, however, some general nutritional principles which do apply to everyone–actually every living thing.
In my Health Kinesiology™, HK nutrition work we can actually determine, energetically, a person’s nutritional needs, and we use these general principles to guide us.
First of all we measure the person’s Diet Quotient. A perfect diet for that person is an index of 100. In our polluted, soil-nutrient-deficient, everything-needs-to-be-processed, crop-spraying-world a DQ of 100 is nearly impossible. If you Iive far from “civilization”, grow your own food, and eat it freshly preprared by yourself, then maybe you can achieve that. For most of us, no way. However, almost anyone can achieve an index above 90. This is established predominantly by avoiding the wrong foods, including junk and the foods to which you are allergic / sensitive (all by HK testing methods) , and by eating more of the especially nutritious foods. These will be discussed in future posts here. I find that the typical hospital food index is an amazingly low 20 or so. Eating at fast food restaurants is even better! No wonder that so many people die in hospitals–they starve to death.
We can determine how nutritionally deficient a person is by checking their “Nutrient Level”, using an Index of 0 to 100. A “0″ nutrient level is, or course, impossible. An index of 100 is perfect. An Index of 99.9999% is a failing grade, because the person does not have in their body sufficient levels of at least one nutrient to fully supply all the tissues. This is because 100% Nutrient Level is defined as the person having in their body 100% of every nutrient their tissues need to function optimally. Anything less than 100% means that some tissue does not have all the raw materials to function optimally. Something has got to give, and no tissue can be perfect unless it has ALL the required raw materials it requires.
Even this concept is not enough, however, because even though the nutrients are in the body does not mean that they are available to all the tissues. Various things can block the cells from absorbing or utilizing the nutrients even though they are available. What can do this? Various toxins , drugs, vaccines, fluoride in the water, chlorine in the water, and so on. In HK, however, we have methods to repair these metabolic blockages and release the toxins so the body can dispose of them. Again, watch for future posts about these concepts.
As some nutrients reach the 100% tissue nutrient level the body can store them away as a “Metabolic Reserve”. At exactly 100% Nutrient Level the Metabolic Reserve Index is 0%. The reserve level can climb to 100%, meaning that the body has stored away all of that nutrient that it can. Developing a high metabolic reserve is vital. Any type of stress will cause the body to work harder, to cope with the added stress. As your body is stressed, as long as there is some metabolic reserve to be used the tissues will not be harmed. In other words, as long as your metabolic reserve can supply your body with the required nutrients everything will continue to operate normally. As soon as any nutrient drops below the 0% Metabolic Reserve level (less than 100% Nutrient Level) some tissue cannot function properly, and you will suffer the consequences. The more nutrients and the greater the nutrient drop the more severe the tissue dysfunction.
I have worked with people who underwent chemotherapy for cancer who were not damaged by the drugs and did not lose their hair, because we were able to supply their body with enough nutrition (starting before the drug therapy) to prevent the massive damage from the drugs. (Radiation, too.) To do this they had to ingest very large quantities of natural nutritional supplements.
The above actually describes three concepts:
Meeting the Ongoing Nutritional Need (for daily activities)
Ingesting “extra amounts” to Rebuild Nutritional Deficiencies.
Ingesting still more additional amounts to Build Metabolic Reserves.
There is a Fourth concept, however, which is also very important: Nutritional Abundance.
What this means is that there is a high abundance of nutrients “just floating around”. The body can grab what it needs without finding it in storage and taking it out then transporting it to wherever it is needed. This improves efficiency and uses less energy. Suppose in your home you have only one of some frequently used item, say a water glass. That glass might be used in different rooms by different family members. If you need a glass of water you would have to go all around the house looking for that single glass. On the other hand, if you have different water glasses all over the house you can more easiy grab and use the most nearby one, saving a lot of running around.
When there is not enough nutrition available in the food you need to supplement the food with the appropriate nutrients. That is why they are called Nutritional Supplements! They are to supplement the food, not replace it. This topic will occupy some posts on this site in due time. Meanwhile, note that many, probably most, nutritional supplements on the market are rather poor.
The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in its infinite wisdom has decreed The Truth about nutrition and human needs for nutrients. For many years I have said:
Show me someone who takes in only the RDA and
I will show you a sick person.
Jimmy Scott, Ph.D.
Why is that? I can think of several reasons:
1 The FDA (and Department of Agriculture) do not believe that whole natural organic foods contain any nutrients not found in other foods and that depleted soils do not affect food quality.
2 They do not believe that whole natural complexes contain substances essential to robust life.
3 They define Vitamins as only one of the components of the entire complex. For example, tocopherol is defined as Vitamin E, even though it is only one of at least six different groups of molecules in the natural Vitamin E complex.
4 They believe that a synthetic single molecule does the same function as the whole natural complex.
5 They barely accept the proposition that nutrition deficiencies are related to disease!
6 The RDA definition states that the RDA is the amount of a nutrient that a healthy person needs to remain healthy. The great nutritional biochemist Roger Williams proved that even genetically identical individuals (mice in this case) might have as much as a 20 fold difference in need for a specific nutrient. That means that the definition only applies to those lucky few who have a lower nutrient need than most. Do, say, ½% of the population really determine what the other 99½ % need? If mice can have a twenty-fold difference how much difference in need do humans have?
7 The Committee who determines the RDA is allowed to “fudge” the numbers to account for any beliefs on their part. This may be good or bad depending on the people.
8 Human needs are not determinable by traditional reductionistic laboratory thinking. BioEnergy is an unknown concept to those who try.
9 Nutritional needs are also proportional to the stress experienced by the individual. The higher the stress the more the body and mind have to work, so the greater the nutritional needs. This is exactly like your automobile requiring more gas to drive faster! These days there is generally greater psychological stress, but perhaps more importantly for this purpose, there is more water, air, and food pollution (not to mention electromagnetic–which can interfere with normal metabolism). Toxins from these food sources as well as drugs, vaccines, antibiotics, and other substances have increased total toxin intake by, my guess, 10,000 times what it was a century ago. No wonder that so many people are obese, sick, suffer from cancer, infections, low energy, and so on.
The RDA
The following RDI’s (Reference Daily Intake, Value) and nomenclature “are established by the FDA (USA Food and Drug Administration) for the following vitamins and minerals which are essential in human nutrition”: They consider that everyone will get what they need if they take this much in. They also consider that there are no other essential nutrients!!!
(DRVs) for Food Components according to the FDA
(These may be changed on occasion, so might not be exactly up to date.)
Reference Daily Intakes (RDIs) for Nutrients Based on a 2,000 Calorie Per Day Diet
* Required on the nutritional label as percent of the daily value.
Food Component DRV / RDI
Total Fat * 65 grams (g)
Saturated Fatty Acids * 20 grams (g)
Cholesterol * 300 milligrams (mg)
Total Carbohydrate * 300 grams (g)
Fiber * 25 grams (g)
Protein * 50 grams (g)
Vitamin A * 5,000 International Units (IU)
Vitamin C * 60 milligrams (mg)
Vitamin D 4,000 International Units (IU)
Vitamin E 30 International Units (IU)
Vitamin K 80 micrograms (mcg)
Vitamin B
Thiamin 1.5 milligrams (mg)
Riboflavin 1.7 milligrams (mg)
Niacin 20 milligrams (mg)
Vitamin B6 2 milligrams (mg)
Folate 400 micrograms (mcg)
Vitamin B1 2 6 micrograms (mcg)
Biotin 300 micrograms (mcg)
Pantothenic Acid 10 milligrams (mg)
Calcium * 1,000 milligrams (mg)
Chloride 3,400 milligrams (mg)
Chromium 120 micrograms (mcg)
Copper 2 milligrams (mg)
Iodine 150 micrograms (mcg)
Iron * 18 milligrams (mg)
Magnesium 400 milligrams (mg)
Manganese 2 milligrams (mg)
Molybdenum 75 micrograms (mcg)
Potassium 3,500 milligrams (mg)
Selenium 70 micrograms (mcg)
Sodium * 2,400 milligrams (mg)
Zinc 15 milligrams (mg)
It gets worse! Food labels must state the percentage of the “daily need” provided by some number of servings of that food. How realistic are those serving sizes? How much of those nutrients are even absorbed? How appropriate are those DRV / RDI / RDA values anyway?
Lets get back to Roger Williams. As far as I am concerned he should have won several Nobel Prizes for his work. He truly was a superhero of nutrition. When I first met him in 1977 he was 86 years old, and had more energy than most people at 20. He discovered pantothentic acid (Vitamin B5) and named folic acid (from foliage, since certain types of leaves were excellent sources). He will be referred to in various later posts on this site.
Of special interest here is Williams’ concepts of “biochemical individuality”. He showed that when genetically identical mice (as best that could be determined in those days) could have as much as a 20-fold difference in need for any given specific nutrient. If both animals got their required amount they were identical. If one got their need or more than their need and the other got less than their need then the deficient one would not grow as fast, or lost weight faster, etc. The deficient ones did not flourish even if they took in 15 times more than the average of the other mice, if their need was greater than their intake. In other words, you must take in (and utilize) as much of every nutrient as you individually need, regardless of what some government agency tries to pass off on the nutritionally uneducated. (In all fairness, the agency types are the ones needing the education.)
Some of the RDA values are so obviously wrong it is laughable, although it is no laughing matter. The zinc RDA is 15 mg / day. An average ejaculation reportedly contains about 15 mg of zinc. A sexually active man then is in trouble! The retina has the body’s highest concentration of zinc; the prostate the second highest. If you follow the RDA you will go blind if you have much sex! (Oh, what a lot of jokes are possible about this!) Maybe this is related to the dramatic reduction in male fertility in the last several decades.
If you routinely ingest several times of the RDA you will be much better off. Alternatively, a good Health Kinesiology / BioEnergetic Physiologist Practitioner with some experience working with Nutritional BioEnergetics can help you determine just what your own individual nutritional requirements are. Once you take in your required amounts, and can utilize them thanks to our BioEnergetic corrections, you will become healthier, stronger, and probably happier. (You will likely not get this information from your friendly hospital Registered Dietition. I have never met one who knew anything about this material, or for that matter knew who Roger Williams was.)
