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.

Mar 16

Radiation!

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

Scary concept to most people. With the nuclear power plant problems in Japan just now, many people have renewed their fears. Lets take a closer look.

When the United States exploded two atomic bombs in Japan in WWII we heard about the horrible devastation caused not only by the blast itself, but perhaps even worse, the radiation. The pictures of people suffering from radiation sickness were difficult to look at. Nobody ever wants to see that again.

Although not a “secret” in the official sense, there was a remarkable story which has remained virtually secret anyway. I learned of this secret many decades ago, when I was a teen, and I cannot recall anyone else who seemed to have learned of it. I read about this in a scholarly book, a section of which was a discussion of the radiation damage from the explosions. That remarkable secret was that there were groups of people, while  living among the others who were damaged and killed by the radiation, who did not develop any signs of exposure to that radiation. How could that be, when we all “know” that nothing can be done to prevent the sad effects of high levels of radiation exposure? Why do we all believe that those people could not possibly survive? How could those folks be protected from the ill effects of their exposure to such high levels or radiation?

The answer is relatively simple. They ate diets rich in seafood and seaweeds. That was their lifestyle.

Fast forward a few decades. In my Health Kinesiology, HK, work I have consulted with various clients who had rather severe issues. Some of them chose to undergo radiation treatments. The question then presents itself: Can we do something to help their bodies better tolerate the radiation? Can we prevent “radiation sickness” or “radiation burns”? Can we help them recover faster? As always with HK we “ask the body”. Through our muscle testing procedures we can find out what the body itself wants, or does not want. What helps or what harms. By doing this carefully and thoroughly we can optimize the person’s life. What I found with these radiation treatments was that by giving the client sufficient amounts of various nutrients we could totally prevent all the negative effects of the radiation! In other words, the body is perfectly capable of repairing damage if it is provided with enough of the appropriate raw materials. This is exactly why those folks in 1940′s Japan were able to withstand the effects of the radiation–they had sufficient raw materials in their bodies to repair the radiation damage!

In modern times when there is some radiation leak the local people are urged to take potassium iodide, KI. The idea is, of course, to provide enough non-radioactive iodine that people will absorb less of the leaked radioactive iodine, thus being a bit more protected. Unfortunately, this approach is usually less than adequate. This is for at least two reasons: 1) It is not only iodine which is released!, 2) the radation damages tissues which require much more than just iodine for protection / repair. For example, the Japanese reactors are also leaking cesium. KI does not protect from cesium, a highly alkaline mineral which competes with lithium, sodium, potassium, and rubidium. Interestingly, non-radioactive cesium, and rubidium, have been used successfully as a cancer treatment (related to their highly alkaline nature).

How much nutrition is necessary for protection? On the simple level, if one needed, say 3 tablets of 10 different supplements “normally”, then with medical radiation the intake would be increased by about 10 / ten, times! Also, intake would have to include perhaps an additional 10 supplements. In other words, supplements could go from 30 pills a day to maybe 600 a day! That is how damaging medical radiation can be. On the other hand, if you are really eating properly and you build up your “metabolic  reserve” (stored nutrients), then your body will probably not get sick to begin with, and if you do get accidently exposed to any radiation then your body should be able to repair the damage and have little if any adverse effect. (Just like those Japanese folks.)

Eating well, by the way, is not done by following the orthodox recommended diet suggestions. I have bioenergetically tested thousands of people over the years, and I consistently find that most people’s bodys prefer a low carbohydrate, organic fresh whole natural foods diet. Grain intake should be very low, and then only eat whole grains. Pasturized products have lost most of their most beneficial components. Non-raw dairy is politely called junk. Artificial colors, flavors, and sweetners are forbidden. Frequent small amounts of a wide variety of foods are perhaps the most important rule of good diet practice. Meats and poultry are OK, if they are not contaminated by antibiotics, hormones, and so on. The so-called studies which condemn meats never seem to compare organic with commercial versions!

That said, there have been studies which concluded that chlorophyll has radiation protection properties. Naturally (pun intended) eating whole dark green vegetables is the best way to get the chlorophyll. Bottles of liquid chlorophyll are available, but the water soluble type has been chemically changed so is not quite like the original plant sources. Crude chlorophyll is a thick oily messy fantastic product. It stimulates new cell growth, rapidly eliminates pain in freshly damaged tissues (I verify that by personal experience with ripped-off toenail), speeds healing (especially with open wounds and burns), and so on. Also, it is a rich source of vitamins A and E. Anyway, get into the habit of eating some dark green veggies every day (broccoli, chard, spinach, beet greens, asparagus, turnip greens, etc.). Oh, and don’t forget, most sea weeds are green, too. That algae really soaks up the sunlight and grows up rich in trace minerals along the way. Protection in so many ways!

Background radiation is generally small. I have a professional grade radiation meter. For years I have periodically checked the radiation levels wherever I happen to be. On the ground in North American and Europe the typical counts–per–minute have been around 15. In the last few years at home I get average counts a little less, about 12. On a flight to and from Europe some years ago I got counts of about 600 at the highest altitudes.
What do these counts mean? 15 is about 0.015 mr / hr (millirem per hour). 600 is about 0.62 mr / hr. American workers are allowed about 5  rem (equals 5000 mr) total dose over a year. That is over 8000 hours at the 0.62 rate. (Note: Sievert is the unit used in some countries. 1 millisievert (mSv) = 100 mrem.)

Obviously the best way to protect yourself is to start well before the necessity to do so! Get yourself super healthy, take some precautions, and do not worry–that stress depletes your nutrient storage. Oh, it is best to get started last year. Otherwise, as they say, “There is no time like the present!”. Start NOW.

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.

preload preload preload