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.

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?

preload preload preload