kamagra does it work

Dec 18

The Box

By Jimmy Scott, Ph.D. Various 1 Comment »

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.

May 02

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.

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