kamagra does it work

Oct 18

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?

Oct 14

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?

Jun 11

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.

Apr 14

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!!!

Reference Daily Values

(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.)

Apr 03

Is the headline for a story published in the British newspaper The Telegraph, 18 Jan 2010.

That British medical doctor declares that butter should be banned to save our hearts? His argument is that butter adds additional saturated fat to the diet, which [he says] is the problem. What about that?
Official Government statistics for the United States have shown that the total fat intake since 1900 has hardly changed over many decades. However, the proportion of different fats has changed markedly. There has been a strong trend for the REDUCED intake of saturated fats over all these years, with a proportional increase in the consumption of the unsaturated fats. Hummm.

Over these same years the increase in heart disease, cancer, and many other “diseases”, has paralleled the increased intake of the unsaturated fats / decrease of saturated fats. This is, of course, the opposite of what the medical folks say. The incidence of cancer has also increased in the same way. Why would this be?

Most unsaturated fats are consumed only after extensive processing. The typical commercial bottled oils are filtered and heated for hours. This makes the oils rancid (oxidized, combined with oxygen) and then mixed with chemicals to mask their rancid taste before they are bottled. This makes the oils unfit for consumption, and damages the body’s biochemical processes. That is why the bottled oils are correlated with the increase in cancer and other diseases. Up until the late 1970′s some 25 large scale studies, with many thousands of participants, showed that the increased intake of the unsaturated fats did NOT significantly decrease cholesterol, and when they looked, there was an increase in cancer. Not exactly what they wanted to find. The medical establishment has largely ignored these results.

Of course I am fully aware of the body’s need for GOOD unsaturated fats. The problem is the processed, bottled, low quality fats which are bad, not the good, whole food, nature–made fats which we should have.

The butter in question: was it raw? Most folks eat the pasturized version, which is badly damaged by the heat of pasteurization. I have found over more than 35 years that pasteurized dairy products should be generously referred to as garbage. Pasteurized dairy products are harmful. That is the reason that dairy is at the top of my all-time-hit-parade of food allergies / sensitivities. I do not consider pasturized dairy items as food at all! A client in Canada once brought in two items for me to bioenergy test with her. One item tested 10 drops per week(!) tolerance. The other tested six liters per week tolerance. I did this blindly, not knowing that the items were milk. The bad one was commercial milk off the shelf. The good one was organic raw milk. I repeated this again later at a class I was teaching in Germany with the same results. To me it is unconscionable to prohibit the sale of certified raw dairy products. Pasteurized dairy products cause real addiction and damage in many. They weaken and debilitate people. They are what should be prohibited!

What about the doctor’s conclusion? I think he is right, but for exactly the wrong reasons. Get rid of that pasteurized garbage, let us all have real and natural food.

Mar 28

Hello Viewers

By Jimmy Scott, Ph.D. Various 5 Comments »

This is a new site as of 28 March 2010. It takes a while to get everything going, so check back frequently. New content will be added often, but irregularly. I will be commenting on many News Stories, the state of knowledge about Health Kinesiology, nutrition, health topics in general, and other such topics. This will be from an alternative perspective and science based. Check the links shown for still further information. Enjoy and submit your comments, too.

preload preload preload