September 13, 2012




about words


Welcome to the About Words website. Below is a brief audio introduction to this site.

Did you know that one of the most popular words on the internet is God?

My Google Profile


September 27, 2014
  • This long article details the suppression of the most controversial research of Weston A. Price, DDS:

    > > “Dr. Meinig began doing root canal fillings on his patients’ teeth in 1943. In 1948, he was one of the 19 founders of the American Association of Endodontists (root canal therapists). When he retired in 1993, he was honored, along with the other three surviving founders at the 50th anniversary celebration of the AAE.

    In 1993, shortly after his retirement, Dr. Meinig learned of the 1,174 pages of research done on root canal teeth by Dr. Weston Price, D.D.S., F.A.C.D. and 60 fellow research dentists. Their findings had been suppressed by the American Dental Association since 1925. This research, done over 20 years, showed, beyond any doubt, that there was no safe way to do a root canal filling. Not only that, but the research established root canal teeth as the cause of many serious degenerative conditions, including cancers. “


    The Root Canal Coverup If you have any root canal-filled teeth, removing them from your mouth should be your number one priority.  You will not get well until you do this.  Once it is done…
  • Regarding cancer again, there is the issue of exactly why does someone go from “not having it” to “having it” and then to “not having it,” then perhaps “having it again” (or a different form of cancer, like in a different location). My assertion / claim is that many cases of cancer have been completely reveresed through methods that do not include any dietary change or lifestyle change (according to my own personal definition of lifestyle change).

    The dental root canal issue has been studied and verified (in that the location of the root canal – which teeth- reliably predicts exactly where the “cancering” will manifest). Further, I assert that the single intervention of replacing metal dental work with porcelain fillings has produced a full reversal of many cases of cancer (no dietary change and no lifestyle change).

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn So, these are simple, direct claims about the source of cancer. People can say “I dismiss your claim as irrelevant to me.” People can say “I want to see the research on that.” People can say anything else.

    “Cancer has only one prime cause. It is the replacement of normal oxygen respiration of the body’s cells by an anaerobic [i.e., oxygen-deficient] cell respiration.” -Dr. Otto Warburg-1931 & 1944 Nobel Prize-Winner

    I say that Warburg was right, but his comment alone is not useful. *Why* do cells lose the ability to metabolize oxygen?

    pH is the answer (and that may not have been established scientifically as of 1931 or whatever). Why is pH so far off from “normal” in so many people? Dental fillings “bleeding” electrons is my answer. That is a very useful answer whenever a filling can be easily replaced with porcelain.

    This article focuses mostly on toxicity as it relates to cancer, but has lots of interestign actual data for any science nerds out there.http://www.icnr.com/cs/cs_21.html

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn This is a shorter piece (by a dentist) with less detailed science, but a nice summary: http://www.mgoldmandds.com/cancer.htm

    � Chronic Illness, Cancer, Dentistry – �� Are there any connections?
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn In this article, an employee (?) of Jerry Tennant MD refers to eating raw eggs, drinking raw milk (page 7), and the sidebar of page 4 is all about how to produce cancer 100% of the time through electr0magnetic charge (measurable as pH or voltage)..


  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Here is a reference to a study in which breast cancer was correlated at 98% with root canals: https://www.gcmaf.eu/patient…/root-canals-cause-cancer/

    They do not detail “getting a bridge” (a dental bridge) to replace a root canal, but that is the “useful info” in terms of reversing the process that causes the symptoms known as cancer.

    He found that 147 of them (98%) had one or more root canal teeth on the same meridian as the original breast cancer…


a mindful approach to promoting health

September 26, 2014
  • Valerie Steinfeld JR, what I grok from your words is that balance is the key. If one’s system is out of balance one is subject to “dis” ease. This is affected by many things…diet being one of them. Habits that are optimum as a base for everyone include adequate sleep, clean water, fresh foods, clean air, exercise, contact with earth, good communication with self and others, tolerance….In your own personal day to day experience, what habits create the best balance for you? How do you specifically employ all the ideas you are sharing with us to yourself in a real and tangible way daily?
    1 hr · Unlike · 2
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn I could say that “mindfulness is the key.” My standard recommendations to “most people” are #1 slow down your breathing to increase the CO2 levels in your blood (which will increase oxygen to the brain). I slow my breath as a routine most every time that I lay down (and I tend to lay down briefly several times a day if possible). I know about that and (several other methods I like) specifically because of this group in general and Max Smile in particular.

    Next is that I stay grounded almost all the time (and always while sleeping/resting), usually through copper wires. I also use a very specific product for hydration (see link).


  • J R Fibonacci Hunn I will not detail diet here in depth, Valerie, but I do have a “mixed” adherence to the primal diet and related ideas of [Aajonus Vanderplantiz] – sometimes more WAPF [Weston A. Price Foundation], sometimes more “paleo,” etc….

    I also have been using Iodine on my skin daily. Because of Barry Soetoro and other facebook interactions (on and off this group), I am considering a conservative experiment with using iodine orally. What I learned recently is that if I was also taking Selenium, then my some of biggest concerns regarding oral consumption of dilluted iodine (like heavy detoxes of Flourine or Chlorine) are a non-issue.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn A newer thing is that I regularly (a few times a week) put my feet in very cold water for 15-30 minutes (lately, usually while watching football games on TV). If someone wants to learn why, they can research “cold thermogenesis” or “Wim Hof Ted talk.”


  • J R Fibonacci Hunn So, with mindfulness comes a clear awareness of priorities. For instance, you cannot replace breathing with diet. You either breathe or you die. Diet is irrelevant if there is no respiration.

    So, I assess a set of possible targets of focus and then I go down my list. I do not have a comprehensive routine that I rigidly follow in a perfectionist paranoia of hysterical panicking. I have a set of priorities that I frequently review, explore, and re-prioritize. Some of the practices, like keeping grounding wires at the bed, have become a routine and others, like eating “high meat,” I do quite sporadically.

    A huge factor in the “randomness” of what I do when is my wife. We do some things together and then some things I tend to do when she is away, like for most of a day (like eating “high meat”). I almost never think of “high meat” except on weekend mornings, so it is not exactly random, but certainly not a routine.

More on the simplicity of cancer and electrical charge (pH/acidity/alkalinity)

September 26, 2014
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn To clarify, dietary changes can be entirely sufficient to stop producing the effect of cancer in many cases. However, the most common cause of cancer are electrically conductive root canals (capped with dental fillings made of mercury, gold, silver, etc) that “bleed electrons” out of specific areas in the interior of a body.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn No matter how much benefit arsises from raising pH through diet, replacing conductive fillings with porcelain fillings will universally improve health (whether or not cancer has been diagnosed). However, that can cost thousands of dollars.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn The most abundant supply of electrons is the planet itself. By electrically insulating ourselves from the planet (using rubber-soled shoes etc), modern humans have cut themselves off from “being grounded” to the earth. That means that we cannot access electrons directly from the earth, so static electrical charge can build up and will suddenly shock us if we touch a metal doorknob that is grounded to the earth. (If you regulary “get shocked” by a doorknob, then that means you have a recurring issue with imbalanced electromagnetic charge).
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn An excess of protons can be measured as acidity (in liquids) and also as “positive charge” in volts or millivolts. By touching the earth directly (or connecting electrically through a grounding wire, hugging a tree, etc), than anyone with a relative excess of protons will magnetically draw electrons from the earth in to the body, bringing the body as a whole toward the same pH / charge as the surface of the earth, which is around 7.35 – 7.4 pH.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn However, that does not mean that urine or stomach acid (!) should have that same pH. Living things must have the capacity to hold a charge (to insulate electromagnetic charges in the interior of a “cell”). Intracellular charge should not be the same as intercellular charge. That condition is called “death.”
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn The letters pH stand for “potential hydrogen” and refer specifically to the relative abundance of hydrogen atoms with exactly one excess electron (a “negative ion of hydrogen”). When pH is low (acidic), that means that there are very few unbonded electrons available for chemical reactions (or how big the demand is for unbonded electrons). When pH is high (alkaline), the pH number (pH of 8.2, or of 10.5 etc), that number indicates the relative abundance of charged ions of hydrogen.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn In other words, pH measures electrical potential AKA electromagnetic charge. If the pH of an entire body is way too high, that is also bad- but is also easily corrected by maintaining physical contact with the earth. Touching the earth always brings us back toward the small negative charge of the earth (pH close to 7.375). Touching anything that makes your hair spread out in to the air is creating a huge “bleed” of electrons from your body, causing your voltage to soar so far away from normal that your hair pulls electrons out of the air (like lightning).
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn We need an overall charge similar to the charge of the surface of the earth (which has apparently been pretty consistent for the last several million years). We also need both acidity (like to digest proteins) and alkalinity (like to neutralize the acids for digesting proteins). So, the human body makes HCl (hydrochloric acid) as well as baking soda (for alkalinity).

    In the image below, NaHCO3 (at the bottom left) refers to what is otherwise known as baking soda:

Is cancer a living demon that possesses cells?

September 26, 2014

VS asked: …Do cancers feed on protein? Does this idea not apply to raw protein? I know sugars feed cancer.

SC: Sugars, lack of oxygen, glutamate and acidity all feed cancer. This is why I question the balance of it all. One says that being too alkaline is too “yin” but it’s good for starving cancer cells. However, in order to digest protein, one needs more acid, which I assume is more “yang.”

JR: the issue of the low pH of stomach acid (to digest protein) is completely distinct from overall pH or pH in a particular part of the body where there might be the physiological effect/ process called “cancer.”

It is like saying “blood and urine should have liquid in it but not so much that you drown.” Acidity in the stomach and overall pH are very, very different issues.

SC: Yes, J R, I am aware of this fact. However, what one consumes will either lower or raise the pH of the stomach as well as the body itself.

Also, I’m not on this forum for any type of contention. I don’t find your analogy to be of any relevance. Thank you.

JR: SC,  maybe you are open to learning and maybe not. If you do not understand what pH measures, then my comments may seem irrelevant or even threatening. pH is simply a measure of electromagnetic charge (which comes down to the number of electrons relative to protons).

Consider the idea that cancer is a label for an effect of prolonged acidity in a particular tissue / area. It is “localized” (like arthritis).

Reducing the pH of a skin tumor reverses the process called cancer. Injecting an alkaline solution in to the area of a tumor does too. This article covers a lot of what VS referenced:


More on the use of slight alkalinity (baking soda) to reverse cancer: http://azcc.arizona.edu/node/4187

As for the idea that cancer is a living thing that feeds on protein, I do not acccept those presumptions. Cancer is just a label for the natural result of prolonged localized acidity in any living tissue.

So, it is common to say things like “oxygen feeds a fire.” However, to mix metaphors and ask if fires like to eat protein is “inattentive language.”

Eating sugar can “feed” cancer in the general sense. However, it is helpful to be calmly attentive to our language. It is not as if we must hysterically avoid proteins because proteins contain amino acids and “I read that acidity is bad and car battery acid can burn your skin.”

That is misunderstanding the simplicity of the issues. Acidity is not something to avoid hysterically “no matter what because it leads to cancer.” For someone who understands clearly what cancer is, it is is easy to treat. It is also easy to alter pH (and that is why it is easy to treat the natural result of prolonged localized low pH… AKA “cancer”).

Did I “oversimplify” in my comments? Yes. When people are confused about little details, it can be useful to “zoom out.”

SC: J R, an old Chinese proverb says, “you can catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.” Your assumptions of me, as I stated, are irrelevant and all the information that you have supplied, I am aware of. Have a nice day and may you continue to be blessed.
JR: I do not recall stating any presumptions about you, SC. If you presumed that you were a fly that I was trying to catch, you might be wrong.

For those that think of cancer cells as “the source of a problem,” there can be a hysteria about cancer. But “cancer cells” are just regular cells that stopped behaving “normally” and for very specific reasons. Cancer is a symptom, not a cause.

So, to me, the best way to respond to the effect called cancer is to know how to produce it and then stop producing it. Also, the assumption that diet is the primary cause of the effect called cancer does not explain why cancer shows up only in certain places/ areas of the body.

Is skin cancer caused by one dietary factor and breast cancer by another? No. Diet is not the primary issue at all.

However, can dietary changes “make a difference?” Yes, and so can many other things- some much more effective than drinking “baking soda tea.”

(For more info, ask me.)

Clarity about guilt, regret, & remorse

September 24, 2014

JR: I say that guilt involves a fear of future punishment (as distinct from remorse which is a type of disappointment/ grief about unmet desire).

To J.R.: Maybe, but guilt is used as a weapon against someone. I know my ex partner used it often, in an abusive way and that made me remorseful.

Guilt or shame is used to hold people back in a religious or societal sense we are told not to do this but that, what would *___* think about that, we can’t possibly go out in those clothes, hair unkempt, not bought a new TV/ mobile yet?! Future punishment is fear not guilt, but perhaps these walk hand in hand depending on ones beliefs.

I question all emotions on if they are real or not, evwn love and hate. The line between them is very much similar and there studies that show the same part of the brain activates. Love is not instilled… i know that. Hate can be.



Right, a threat of future punishment can be made- directly or subtly- and if that threat is noticed, then that experience can be called guilt. An infant who does not perceive the threat will not fell guilty.
Also, someone who inaccurately perceives a threat (when there is none) will still feel guilty.
I think of the words like this: Remorse is natural and automatic. Regret is not. It can be “social,” like something that you re “guilted” in to feeling (like your example with ex boyfriend).
Anyway, yes, I am referencing guilt as a subcategory or type of fear (like terror, frigh, horror, paranoia, etc).
Many things can be indoctrinated, such as adoration or admiration. In schools or in the movies, we are given biased versions to glorify some and villify others. There is no avoiding bias, but just a question of what bias will be promoted.
As for guilt and shame, there is no avoiding those either.
If a child is running and is approaching the boundary of a busy street, the important thing practically is to do whatever it takes to promote their safety, so yelling at them is reasonable if it stops them from running out in to traffic and getting hammered by a passing truck,
(like a child running in a yard or in a park)
If they do not understand the yelling and the risk, then shame is one way to label the experience.
There is a distress for the child from the yelling. They may not comprehend the actual issues involved with the traffic and safety and so on.
With the wolves, the alpha male may present a direct threat of violence if a lower-ranking individual eats out of turn or some other “violation.” It is fine for threats to be made and violence to happen- even for a lower-ranking wolf to challenge the alpha and even fail or succeed.
The idea that “wolves should not be how they are” is idealism and contrary to health/ wisdom.

The idea that emotions should not be how they are is similar.

Human cultures socialize their members (children and adults) through fear of punishment and hope for rewards and
so on.
That can be “santa claus” or “st. peter at the gates of heaven and hell.”
There are many weapons including guilt. To use any weapon involves some danger. To neglect to use any weapon because “it is the wrong thing to do” implies… guilt.
It is okay to experience guilt. It is okay to use it as a weapon- but it can be quite destructive to a relationship when there is a weak bond and then lots of guilt thrown in with a weak bond.
It is okay for relationships to weaken or dissolve. There are just different forms of bonds and different attractions and different repulsions.
All of it can simply be noticed as variations of human experience.
In the case of religion, there are often lots of people who are enforcing a regulation without understanding it. They are like people yelling at children who are standing near an empty street with no traffic plus yelling at children close to danger.
They do not understand the regulations so they apply them in hysteria (paranoia) which is understandable but not ideal.
Many religious people are like little kids lecturing another little kid about Santa Claus.
They are deep in distress and shame. That is understandable. That is not desirable. It is much better generally to associate with people who are spiritually mature rather than people who are religiously devoted to a particular fundamentalism.
Being “against” religions or any religion is a sign of spiritual immaturity. Being cautious is smart (or even yelling at someone to be careful about getting too close to where the big trucks are going very fast). Some religious groups can be quite dangerous (misleading, etc), so extreme caution is relevant. That is not the same as having contempt for religions and being against them. I can yell for the child to stay out safely away the speeding trucks, but I have no contempt for the child or the trucks.

Making friends with fear and even… shame!

September 24, 2014

JD wrote:

Guilt, shame and fear are the lowest vibrations; joy and excitement, compassion and concern, these are high vibrations — Quite simply, change your complex frequencies and vibrations, you are born a Master of this ability as cocreator.

  • 19 people like this.
  • Clare Kent Quick question you didnt cover anger because with that comes passion, emotion, feelings. I understand the intent is there but if you’re angry for the right reasons – Is that a high or low vibration? When I am truly angry my intent and virations seems stronger than any other point.
  • Star Skittles anger is a product of fear.
  • Star Skittles we are fixed on the physical plane, which disables us from seeing the unseen vibrational interactions.
  • Clare Kent Hmmm maybe but I don’t think its always the case. I will have a think about this tonight, connect some dots. Thanks skittles.
    9 hrs · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn The use of terms like “low” and “high” are arbitrary preferences. Of course people prefer experiences of gratitude and joy over terror or frustration.The one who fears shame is still a slave, even if joyful or grateful in a moment. The one who embra

    ces shame will be humbled / humiliated… Which can produce the most precious learning.And the faith that is required involves immense courage. Most people do not have it. They will chase joy and “high vibrations” out of fear (for in fact it is paranoia that drives their frightened chase for higher vibrations). They will eventually encounter frustration and exhaustion, which is a very valuable lesson (though they may resist learning for quite awhile).

    Embracing shame, Grace also arises… Through the relaxing of the shames programmed by schools and in culture (including shames about human bodies). Modesty develops after the terror of idealism relaxes.

    By the way, a message like “just think positive and raise your vibrations” does have some value. However, if people relate to that idea / “method” as an affirmation that is a “cure-all,” that is idealism.

    the idea that people “should not feel how they feel” is shaming / psychological warfare. If circumstances produce the result of a child screaming in terror, that is just a momentary behavior. There is no need to shame the child for “low vibrations” or be aloof and obsess about “high vibrations.”

    I am not just talking theory here. I have made some “mistakes” as a parent and slowly or quickly I have learned from them.

  • Chaffee Cline to release guilt shame and fear… one has to be a “forgiveness warrior” and in a nanosecond in any situation…with any person…and most importantly is to forgive self and others… past, present and future easily and effortlessly with calm and compassion…. here and now… “To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover that the prisoner was you.”
    1 hr · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Chaffee, you speak as if shame is primarily a conscious process. Shame is all about the internal suppression of consciousness.How does shame relax? With the opening of chronic physical tensions (and bodily pain), panicked breathing, terrified confus

    ion, and no immediate sense of a trigger.Of course, there is also the issue of withdrawing any prior condemnation of the past. However, that is not “forgiving people for doing wrong.” That is completely releasing any idealism about how the past should have been (or should not have been). Most people are terrified of shame and retreat in to higher vibrations … Which allows them to begin relaxing.

    But their retreat from shame is not relaxing it. That is a coping mechanism to decrease the addition of new layers of shame.

    That is an important step. However, it is a baby step. Withdrawing from shame In fear is wise at a particular stage but is a *very* long way from the end of the path.

  • Clare Kent These three are all society/ religion made emotions, if you don’t judge there is no shame or guilt. I eliminated guilt and shame from me, yeah I made mistakes but who hasn’t. I won’t be held to ransom by an emotion or society for slight errors of judgement. I’m not saying I don’t feel those but they’re weak and not something I cling to anymore. Fear is something I have worked on these past six months by facing them head on.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn It is one thing to refrain from displaying our condemnation of some behavior or some person. It is an entirely different issue as to whether there is a sense of repulsion or not. Is there is an inner terror or a disturbance of a certain kind, that could be called “shame.”
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn If anything “disgusts” me, that is a real emotion. If I have contempt for anything, that is also real.Those who are ashamed of *any* emotion are still “slaves.” Those who pretend not to be slaves are… many. Such is the nature of shame!

  • Clare Kent Shame is not a real emotion, in some societies it is instilled, for instance tribal women have no worries about exposing their breasts in public,nobody is repulsed however do this in any major city and you’ll see the shame and repulsion,and the guilt instilled into you for doing so. Or the fact certain places monkey brains and cats are eaten, imagine that in your local town? They’d be outrage. Its what’s programmed in to you through the society you belong and its done in childhood. Where one thing is acceptable and normal somewhere, it isn’t so elsewhere. I am not saying I’m not repulsed by certain things because I find some cultural differences absolutely horrific.
  • Clare Kent I don’t believe we should be held ransom by any emotion be it guilt,shame,love of fear. Finding balance is really hard but I’m working on it.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn I see what you mean now by “real,” Clare. Shame is always social.In a state of alarm, there are two main alternatives: flight (the natural #1 preference) or fight. Next is “freeze.”

    Shame is a type of “freezing.” It has a very specific set of physical tensions, such as “holding back” and holding your tongue.”

    Is all shame cultural? Close enough…. but a pet can display what would be called shame. So can a wild animal.

    In this image, one wolf has a head kept low as a sign of submission to the alpha male. You can say “shame is not real,” but saying that does not alter the reality of the various patterns of BEHAVIOR. Note that I am referencing emotions as neurological patterns of ACTIVITY.



  • J R Fibonacci Hunn There is a fourth type of fear (besides fight, flight, and freeze). I called it “faking.” That includes any behavior to distract others from fear.Mixing aspects of “flight” and faking” would be behaviors to divert ourselves from perceived triggers of panic, such as a mantra or repeating an affirmation. That CAN be beneficial.

    However, that is not the absence of distress. That is moving the attention away from distress as a temporary coping mechanism.

    If your house is on fire, a mantra will not put out the fire or make it safe. It is fine to use a mantra to calm down a bit. Then, get a fire extinguisher and put out the fire (or leave the building and call 911).

    Fear is healthy. Paranoia and shame about fear is a state of chronic emotional distress. It is getting caught up in a desperate panic of “faking” calm.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn:
      Clare Kent, thanks for sharing your experience. If I was holding up a chair in one arm and a pitcher full of water in the other hand, and then walking up a stairway backwards, staying balanced would be hard, right?It is much easier to experience balance if you first “empty yourself of luggage.” However, those a nice poetic words that imply that you could do it yourself already.If you are interested in some interaction about how I could help you “set aside some of that old luggage- at least for a moment,” then you are welcome to send me a friend request. Sometimes it is much easier to find balance with someone helping to bring attention to where the energy is currently concentrated.

      2 mins · Like · 1
    • Brenda Lozano Let us not judge our feelings and emotions, much less our reactions! I know that when I judge my feelings, it just creates anxiety, which makes me feel even worse and leads to guilt/shame…as if I am “above” these human experiences and “should know better”. We practice being ourselves everyday, part of inner peace and living in the present moment is acceptance. We have to accept that light casts a shadow, darkness is ok…as a being of light, a Starseed…embracing the shadow does not mean the darkness will swallow you whole…it makes love deeper and stronger. There is only one vibration for me…the Alpha and Omega…everything else is just human/earth experience, always in motion.

      • 7 mins · Unlike · 1

        • J R Fibonacci Hunn To Brenda, to face a place that has been in the shadows is to bring light (consciousness) to it. In some cases, it is useful to do this “with company” … with other people who have already seen what has been hidden in a shadow.The “freezing” of cons

          ciousness to create a blindspot or “shadow” is a healthy coping mechanism… temporarily. If I am not disgusted or disturbed by something, then I can assist others in bringing light (lightness, humor) to it- perhaps especially if I used to be disgusted or ashamed or disturbed by that same shadow.I know how to joke about some shames with tremendous power and familiarity. In other cases, I can offer lightness but not any personal expertise or insight- just curiosity. However, innocent curiosity can be incredibly powerful.

      • Clare Kent Dogs know shame too,but one could argue this is instilled into them. They are intelligent creatures all animals are, just because we don’t understand inside their brains it doesn’t mean they don’t have feelings or understand their society boundaries. Wolves and dogs are pack/ social animals they know within their group what is tolerated. Merrkats display emotions (i loved meerkat manor) and birds that flock do the same, even within other species. I had a very nippy and aggressive african grey, and another Timmi who idolised me. Sadly, Timmi died and the other became top bird, he changed that day to the most living of birds. As for cats ha, they don’t care. I would like to be a cat I always wanted to be an animal psychologist. I studied my birds and it was fascinating. I also think fear is healthy to a certain degree, but we should only use fear when its necessary and not for trivialities, such as fearing what other may say or think, or fear of other’s. Thats unhealthy and it holds you back.
        • J R Fibonacci Hunn Clare, again thank you for sharing your interests and experience. I have a tendency to present contrary ideas to create new openings for conversation. So, keep that in mind when I say….“We should only use fear when…” Clare is not afraid to use it

          ?In an extreme situation, might it be best to refrain from drawing any attention to myself? Might it be best to remain totally silent… to wait… even to suddenly withdraw with no explanation or justification?

          Isn’t caution intelligent sometimes? Isn’t “being afraid of what people will think” intelligent sometimes? Isn’t “being afraid of what people might do as a consequence / in retaliation” sometimes an intelligent consideration?

        • Brenda Lozano J R without being able to explain to you exactly how…I totally understand every word you have shared here! On the same wavelength…absolutely.
        • Clare Kent I know where my demons lie, as I say I am facing those. I do embrace the dark as well as the light. We need to make sure we are balanced correctly and holding onto old stuff and out of date issues is really unnecessary. I think I have come to a point where I realise the person I am, and not who I am told be be. That’s what I am erasing.
          3 mins · Like · 1

        • J R Fibonacci Hunn Clare, if I am conscious of a shame (like if I can admit it as a subject of shame), then it may not be especially powerful of a demon for me. The ones that someone is not aware of as any issue at all can be the most dominant.For instance, with behavi

          ors like alcoholism or gambling addictions, those are coping mechanisms. Those are not the shame. Those are methods for distracting myself from the actual issue of shame.What happens when someone experiences a core shame from which they have been hiding? Trembling, nausea, hyperventilation, etc….

          • Clare Kent I get what you’re saying, but of course one must take into consideration other people but at the same time don’t forget who you are and what you feel is the right thing. I am not afraid of fear, I fear very little these days aside from spiders. I do have worries like we all do, but life has its own way of correcting things eventually. I believe in karma and balance. I haven’t always thought this way, I was a ‘fight’ reactive, I still am to some degree. I like challenges and I do embrace the darkness, and accept the consequences of my own actions. I take responsibility where I am wrong and I fight for what I know is right.
          • J R Fibonacci Hunn Clare, what “I feel is the right thing” is a product of social conditioning. That is not a problem. That is just a fact. “What is right” is dependent on a cultural context or social context. The idea of “inherently right behaviors” is cultural idealism.The *idea* of “who I really am” is also a cultural construct. Who I really I am is simply not an idea at all. Am I afraid of dropping any idea of “who I really am” and learning something new about me… or even evolving in to somehting that I have never been?

            3 mins · Like

            • Clare Kent No. My morals are my own. When I say I know what is right its what I know and feel inside is right that’s not social that’s all me. I know who I am, well I am learning every day. I stopped truly caring what other people said or thought a long time ago. I want to evolve.

              Just now · Like

              • J R Fibonacci Hunn:
                Clare, maybe you stopped caring what *certain* people think or said. In fact, you may still care now what they did say in the past, but you just were repulsed by what they said, so you withdrew for your own health and well-being. Great!Further, I am confident that you would deeply care about what some people think or say.You would give great attention and interest to their words and expressions. However, you now have high standards and people need to earn your admiration or else you might just respect them from a casual distance without any special personal admiration or interest.Of course you will have preferences in regard to caring about the statements of certain people. Do I care what my clients say? Generally, yes… especially if they say, “I think it is time that we pay you even more than we have been so far.” I notice that I have never argued with someone who was offering me a pay raise or a promotion.

              • J R Fibonacci Hunn As for wanting to evolve, you really have no choice. You will evolve!But being curiously attentive to the process certainly can have advantages over not recognizing it or resisting it.

                For anyone who wants more background on this tangent, here’s an article: http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/courage-and-the-four-fears-fight-flight-freeze-and-fake/

              • Clare Kent That’s an interesting article, I read it but I’m not sure I’ve taken it in its still very early here in London. I will read it again later. Thanks for accepting my friend request.
              • Clare Kent I think perhaps I agree with what you said there. Thanks for the conversation, I value your input it has made me think. Now I need some coffee

“Who is an authority on health?” (according to the owner of an insurance company)

September 23, 2014

My well-being includes my physical health. Which people do I relate to as authorities on the subject of promoting health?

If you are interested in promoting your own health, then I invite you to take a few moments to consider how my perception of who has the most authority (credibility) in regard to health has changed over time. You may find that you can quickly reach the same conclusions as I have, saving years or decades from your learning process.

When I was very young, I knew very little about health, so lots of people knew more than I did. My sister was four years older than me, so she was an expert (relative to me). Also, at school, there was a nurse who knew more than me. In fact, almost all adults knew more than me. Indeed, at a very young age, almost all humans knew more than I did about health.

As time went on, I learned as much about health as any average child, but still any licensed specialist in the health care field would know much more than I did. Once, I got bit by a tick and my mom called a neighbor (who was a licensed nurse) to come assist us in “the right way” of removing the tick (without the head of the tick staying attached to me). The nurse came for a quick visit and her method worked great. She showed us her method, explained why it was her favorite method, and so then we learned how to do it ourselves if we ever had the same issue.

Eventually, I saw advertisements about which toothpastes are most recommended by dentists in the US. I also found old advertisements about which cigarettes are the favorites of MDs in the US. I could imagine that in other countries, there were TV ads about how “9 out of 10 doctors in Russia” prefer a particular brand of vodka (or a particular grocery store or type of soda or fast food chain).

One afternoon as a teenager, I sat eating french fries in a fast food restaraunt called Wendy’s and looked on the tables at old print advertisments from the 19th century. They said things like “DuPont’s snake oil is the only brand that contains at least 5% snake oil by volume!” Here is one that can quickly derail your appetite: “9 out of 10 doctors recommend using Johnson’s leeches over any other brand.”

By my 20s, I was directly presented with the idea that even though some method is popular among some group of specialists within a particular field, some other method might still be more effective. Innovations get started by one or a few people, then eventually may spread to many more, then eventually may get very popular, then some new innovation can make that “innovative” method obsolete.

The particular information that I was presented at that time was a general comparison of the results produced by MDs and the results produced by veterinarians. Because vets had to attract business from people who were not willing to pay huge amounts for the interventions (like ranchers who just wanted their livestock to make it to market), the vets studied lots of inexpensive nutritional supplements.

At vet clinics, there were no insurance companies offering to pay for $100,000 treatments. Also, there were apparently no veterinarians making $500,000 a year selling expensive interventions (like cosmetic surgery for Hollywood stars).

So, the information that I was presented also made references to issues like the actual health of veterinarians as a whole relative to MDs as a whole. Vets were more healthy than the average population and MDs were less healthy than the average population.

What?!?! Could MDs on the average be less healthy than the population as a whole? How could that be? After all, they could afford expensive treatments as well as inexpensive ones, right?

Years later, I learned of many stories about MDs who had encountered serious health problems and were disappointed by the lack of competence in mainstream medicine to promote an improvement in their health. There was the Brain Surgeon Jack Kruse who was over 300 pounds (among many other issues). There was Terry Wahls, MD, who was crippled by Mutliple Sclerosis. There was Jerry Tennant, MD (one of the developers of Lasik eye surgery) who got very ill and was bedridden.

All of them recovered remarkably. None of them used the popular methods that had been taught to them in medical school. Generally, the methods that they used were not even well-documented yet in clinical research trials. They were experimenting (and innovating).

In the case of Dr. Terry Wahls, she used methods that many other people had used, but those other people were not MDs. She learned from non-professionals, then created clinical trials (which I believe she funded out of her own pocket).

Her commitment was to test whether those methods (nutrition-based) would consistently reverse advanced cases of Multiple Sclerosis. Eventually, with less political resistance than she expected, she got her research accepted for publication in a mainstream medical journal.

However, the rest of the field did not respond with great receptivity. A simple, inexpensive method of reversing even severe cases of MS might have sounded very bad for business.

For example, I recovered the ability to walk for a cost of about $5. In early 2007, I had a series of health issues and sought the help of many people, included licensed health care practitioners. A friend of mine asked me how I was doing (as was normal for her to do) and I gave her a longer answer than she might have expected.

She said “that sounds like the insulation around your nerves is not working. The myelin sheaths around nerves are very important. I know someone else who had lost the ability to walk like you and they recovered through a simple dietary addition.”

The intervention that she suggested to me had been widely used for many thousands of years. In fact, only in recent decades had that common dietary practice lost popularity.

My friend was a “motivated non-professional” (motivated by health issues of her own), as in the kind of people that helped to bring awareness to Terry Wahls, MD. Terry Wahls went from having no special motivation to understand MS (which was not her own medical speciality) to being crippled and completely disappointed in the mainstream treatments promoted to her by MDs.

She was motivated to look for the results that she valued. She was open to unfamiliar methods. She was committed to health. (Maybe she even went so far as to talk with some mere veterinarians….)

In the case of Jack Kruse, MD, one thing that intrigued him was the hormone that triggered hibernation in many mammals. Why did animals like bears get so fat prior to winter, then go for months without eating… or even urinating?

After months of no exercise at all, bears wake up from hibernation lean and fit. How could Dr. Kruse use that same hormonal mechanism to lose the extra 150 pounds he was carrying around? He had not been taught about this issue in school. He just pondered, figured it out and lost the weight.

By the way, note that he was not just curious. He was very motivated. He was so heavy that his obesity contributed to him injuring his knee so severely that he could not walk or even stand.

After he recovered, he reproduced his results within his family, then eventually started to share those methods with patients (in order to prevent the need for brain surgery in some cases and also to dramatically reduce post-operative recovery time in case after case). Note that the hormone mechanism does not only promote a healthy weight, but also promotes a very deep sleep (in fact, in the direction of hibernation) and thus also very rapid healing.

In the case of Jerry Tennant, MD, he got very interested in how all biochemical processes are controlled by electromagnetic charge (AKA voltage, pH, acidity, alkalinity). His experiments and research included establishing reliable, inexpensive ways to stop producing the effect called cancer (as in 100% of the time).

I could go on with other examples of MDs who got sick then recovered through innovative methods. Stephen Sinatra, MD, (a cardiologist) is another doctor that I consider an authority on health (simply because of the actual results that he produces). However, in his case, his own health was not as big a motivator for exploration of unfamiliar methods… as the health (lack of health) of his son.

On to another issue, if I owned a health insurance company, would I be interested in publicizing inexpensive, favorable results? I would want to protect my profits, right? I would want health care to be confusing and expensive, right? I would want people to need to pay huge amounts every month (out of paranoia that they will experience a catastrophic health crisis).

The idea of treatments that are inexpensive, simple, and effective might be something that I would preceive as a threat to my profits. Are there many thousands of years of evidence? So what?!?! I’m just not interested!

I would want health care to be restrictively expensive. I would want it tightly regulated to protect my profit margins. I would want it to be very hard for someone outside of my network to compete with me. I would want licensing regulations to promote a monopoly on the kinds of methods that I can easily exclude others from using.

I would want it to be extremely expensive to operate in the health care field. I would want it to be very expensive to enter the field or get a medical degree. I would want to make health in to a government-regulated commodity so that I can protect my profits.

Promoting the health of the general population is simply not a priority. It would even be bad for profits.

I would want loyal customers who are willing to pay huge amounts for relatively cheap products. For instance, if we can manufacture a bottle of pills for 40 cents and sell it for two hundred dollars, that sounds like a nice profit margin, right?

However, I do not just want hundreds of people using those pills. I would want millions or billions of people addicted to those drugs. I want them to start using them as early as possible and as frequently as possible. I want them to dismiss any treatment methods that threaten my profits.

I might hire PR firms and lobbyists and lawyers to promote my commercial interests. I might invest hundreds of dollars- no even thousands of dollars in to protecting my multi-million dollar annual cash flows. I might even get interested in public school curriculums and influencing the behaviors that are being pushed on school children.

Would I consider MDs that are motivated to promote health (like Terry Wahls and Jack Kruse and Jerry Tennant and Stephen Sinatra) to be enemies that I would target for defamation (or worse)? Who would be my allies (if I owned millions of dollars of stock of an insurance company)?

People who protect my profit margins would be my allies- whether they were MDs or not. People who are threats to my profit margins would be my targets- whether they are MDs or not.

Of course, as the owner of an insurance company, I might be interested in other things besides my profits. I might be interested in my health or the health of my family.

In that case, if motivated enough to produce a breakthrough in health, I would be happy to pay whatever it costs to fly to Mexico or Australia (etc) to hire someone who specializes in methods that actually work well and have no detriemntal side effects. For instance, if one my grandkids develops regressive autism, then of course lots of MDs in the US will call it incurable (since they personally really do not know how to cure it).

However, why would I think of them as having any monopoly on crediblity in matters of health? In many cases, they assert their own lack of competence in regard to a medical issue by calling it incurable.

They are just high-regulated officers within a network of vested interests, right? They are typically excellent technicians (like surgeons or pilots), but the credibility of a researcher is in their results, not their licensure, right?

For profit, I promote to the population a religious worship of the sacred MDs. For health, I look for credible authorities on matters of promoting health. How do I assess them? One by one, I assess them by actual results.

The greatest (?) ideal of all: love (not sex!)

September 21, 2014

Hope Johnson wrote:

Through my early experiences in dating and relationships, I learned to pretend like I was enjoying sex even when I was not. I tried being honest about what sensations I was feeling up until I was about 21 years old, but after being rejected a few times for not “getting into it enough” with guys I thought were really great, I decided that in order to be accepted by any man I needed to express pleasure in response to All of his sexual efforts.

It’s not that I didn’t enjoy sex much of the time…it’s just that when I wasn’t enjoying it, I chose to keep egos intact instead of being authentic…because I was afraid of being rejected. Following this choice, I became a believer in the “fake it till you make it” philosophy because I experienced that my body did respond favorably…often leading to one or many orgasms.

In this way, much of my sexual practice was really a form self masturbation…using a partner sort of as a sexual object…while helping to feed his illusion that he was “making me cum”…oh yeah baby! Lol!

I can see that this strategy was quite valuable, useful and served me well for the time I believed in certain illusions….And it’s now apparent to me that said strategy was also a barrier to deepening intimacy and awakening the mind.

I’ve also come to recognize that pursuing or initiating sex has never felt natural for me, and I only did it because I believed it was what I needed to do in order to get love.

As soon as I became aware that these strategies were playing themselves out through me, they could no longer persist. At first there was a bit of anxiety about this, but over time my mind has become perfectly content with sexual authenticity…even it speaks to sexual insecurity…and even it means I’ll have experiences of being rejected.

After all, every interaction can either awaken the mind or perpetuate illusions…and sex is no exception.

May everyone be free to express themselves authentically. Blessings!

JR wrote:

Interesting…. Regarding “what I needed to do in order to get love,” I thought what does Hope mean by “love?”

We witness attention, interest, and validation or approval and we may call it love. Or maybe only when there is an economic investment behind it, like buying dinner or paying rent.

For a guy, it may be “of course I know for sure that she loves me because we finally had sex.” It is such a “charged” (sacred) word: love.

However, do we say that an employer loves us? They may appreciate us. But love?

Love to me implies an aspect of a relaxed, casual, spontaneous fun process. Sometimes, to role-play and “pretend” (like Hope referenced) can be “fun” and relaxing, which can lead to greater enjoyment of physical arousal.

I am reminded of other intriguing references to love like “he intentionally burned me with a cigarette, but at least he loves me!” Other people say things like “I cut in to my skin with a razor blade day after day because it feels familiar and reassuring.”

As for “responding favorably” eventually and having orgasms, that sounds to me like enjoyment. Was there joy in “tricking” the guy? Maybe, but I am not aware of anything so repressed and taboo in modern cultures as sexual pleasure (oddly enough).

We may be constantly stimulated, but that is actually part of the repression programming. We get stimulated (like by pornographic beer commercials for men or romantic comedies for women), but then we are discouraged from pursuing the arousal. Even simple masturbation is discouraged in most settings. Pleasure is shamed as “selfish” … for it distracts from the indoctrination programs of schools etc…. Spontaneous learning (or experimental exploring for pleasure) is at least “off-task” and conforming to the holy curriculum (being on task) is rewarded.

We live in high density civilization in which certain forms of nudity in public is a crime. In some cultures, a woman must cover her face in public or face criminal penalties, right?

The LAST thing that public schools should produce is fertile females who are sensitive to physical pleasure. We need focused employees for the centrally-planned economy!

“I had a girlfriend who made me erect, but I did not like it. (Or that is what I later said to my mom out of shame). However, I pretended to like it and soon I had a real orgasm.”

To me, that entire commentary sounds like “ego.” That means a neurological protective mechanism to minimize social anxiety and avoid punishment. It means “displaying that I am a good person- how i should be according to a social idealism.”


To connect the two comments, there is also the ideal that “a woman should not enjoy sex unless she is in love. Otherwise, she is a slut or whore. The best sex requires love between the two (?) people. Unconditional love is the best thing ever. By the way, if only you were more unconditional in your love toward me, then on that condition, I would give you unconditional love!”

The modern concept of “love” is allegedly only a few hundred years old and is not worldwide. It is the core of certain propaganda systems like “love is the ONLY natural way for two spiritually advanced creatures to relate.”

Love is the object of worship. Love is the target of utopian idolatries: “god is love!”

Really? “There is a time for love and a time for hate.” – Ecclesiastes, chapter 3

15 mins · Edited · Like · 1

The idealism about love becomes a mechanism for guilt and for shaming:
“If there is any problem in your life at all, the only possible thing that is wrong with you (!) is that you need to be more loving. For instance, if you have been diagnosed with asthma, Gregg Braden said that Louise Hay said that it is CAUSED by your unwillingness to love others. You should more ashamed of yourself… you know, like as ashamed of you as I am ashamed of you.”

The New Age idolatries contain a lot of “friendly-sounding” psychological warfare. I am not saying that modern psychiatry is any “kinder” or “friendlier,” but, in regard to something like a correlation between asthma and “fear of expressing love,” finding a correlation does NOT establish causality.

If all public school students are traumatized to associate sexual arousal with physical punishment and social shaming, then yes, in extreme cases, even moderate amounts of sexual arousal will lead to a panic attack- they will both experience a panic of hyperventilation (“asthma”) as well as a compulsive retreat from intimacy or sexual pleasure. Certainly, there are other biochemical risk factors, but those are only focused on by people who do not understand the simplicity of how to produce an epidemic of asthma. If asthma can EVER be produced just through social conditioning (like the Pavlovian indoctrination methods of public schools), then no biochemical “causes” are actually causes.

If you watched a lot of Friday the 13th movies, those movies are packed with “stacking” sexuality (softcore pornography) with violence (murder). Any young man (in particular) watching those movies is being programmed to associate sexual arousal with danger. The message of “sex = death” is similar to the message of *unauthorized* sex = eternal tortures in hell.

Even without all of that, can it be scary to experience intense physical sensations? Sure! Should there ever be social anxiety about “what if I get caught?!?!” (by my parents, my spouse, my priest, Santa Claus, St. Peter, etc….) If there ever is, then there is.


Also, I am reminded here of one of my friend’s frequent references to “manipulation and deception as things that are WRONG- that should not be.” Why would someone ever say that “religiously?”

Because you were programmed with that reflexive denial response by public schools, right? Why was it so important that you reactively condemn all deceptions and manipulations? Because otherwise you would be confronted with the “Mr. Obvious simplicity” that the entire design of school systems is manipulative. Since you were trained that schools are holy and manipulation/deception is unholy, then “obviously” schools could not be manipulative or deceptive, right?

That is the standard usage of what social psychologists call “cognitive dissonance” – the standard protocol in the psychological warfare programs known as public education. Those methods cause trauma, disassociation, “compartmentalization,” hypnotic “delusions,” chronic distress disorders, etc….

It is standard practice. It is very effective.

Manipulation is called wrong because if it was not demonized as wrong (named as a taboo), then you might notice that it is the standard practice not just in schools or mass media, but in a huge portion of human interactions. “Sincerity” is called holy not only to cripple you with guilt for natural humorous insincerity, but to hide the systematic insincerity of the “rulers.”

Profits and popularity: the case of vaccines (and snake oils)

September 20, 2014

If I listed 100 treatment methods and then analyzed each of them for popularity, an odd thing might be that the more profitable the treatment method is, the more likely it is to be popular. Huge profits allow for big marketing budgets and swarms of lobbyists and lawyers (and biased researchers).

Consider how long it took for an immensely inexpensive treatment method for “curing” the diagnosis of scurvy (the consumption of citrus fruit) to become popular in western civilization. Do you know the history? Immense resistance to a simple, effective method can lead to immense campaigns to discredit it.

In the famous case of snake oil, it was not that certain snake oils did not produce tremendous benefit. They did. This terrified certain commercial interests.

So, those interests hired some salesman to sell snake oil that was not actually snake oil at all. That reactive wave of traveling snake oil salesman was sent across the nation (USA) with a tremendous marketing budget and soon the “threat” of snake oil (to conventional medical practitioners of the day) was eliminated.

There was no quality control in those days. Consumers could not reliably assess which liquids marketed as snake oil were effective and which were fraudulent. The demand for snake oil collapsed.

The above comment was in response to the following thread: (note that my own comments begin several down)

RQR wrote:

This has always been a big issue for me. The self-righteous ignorance of the anti-vaccination crowd, and how their ignorance endangers those around them while their own kids are benefiting from the so-called “herd immunity” of a vaccinated population in schools. In the mid-nineties, I almost lost a client over it – a chiropractor who refused to get his children vaccinated according to school requirements. Prior to that encounter, I had bashed heads with a chiropractor who I visited for a back problem – one who had in his office pamphlets encouraging patients to use “Chiropractic” and not vaccination to prevent disease. I told him to stick with his own field and quit spreading bullshit to his patients.




  • Robert Q. Riley PS: Please watch the video in the article.
  • Adam Fritz Agent and attenuated agent vaccination has a success and safety record going back to the late 1400’s. The european choice of vaccines and schedules has proven to be superior to our for over two decades.

    I’m vaccinated. It isn’t anywhere close to what the CDC recommends for children or adults. As one example how out of control the patented technology being used has gone past science and back to snake oil the only flu vaccination that proved to be effective last year was the active agent. The other two offered less protection than placebo.

    The appropriate and useful thing isn’t to requires vaccination of particular MFG, it’s to simply test for the antigens. My and almost all of our blood donations are screened for the tetanus antigen and if it is there the antigen is extracted and used in emergency room treatments. If I have the anitgen I don’t need to be vaccinated for tetanus again.

    Given the breakthroughs on lab tests on a chip it wouldn’t seem tough to have a antigen test that really wouldn’t be more complex than a modern blood sugar test. Patients who are lacking antigens could then make choices. Even better that would make the validation of vaccination technology far better than the antiquated FDA procedures that simply measure undifferentiated antigen response. WHILE allowing vaccine mfg to use adjuncts in their formulations that provoke undifferentiated antigen responses in dead animals.

    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Robert Q. Riley Thanks Adam. I didn’t know all those details. I grew up with the Polio scare. Then the Salk vaccine was developed and within two decades or so Polio was almost wiped out, worldwide. It’s almost impossible to remain unaware of that, and what the other vaccines have done to prevent the spread of disease. I place my trust in that.
  • George E Anderson OK.. so no problem If they do not want to vaccinate their children it should be their right to opt out. Nothing wrong with home schooling..
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Robert Q. Riley George, I think there is something wrong with home schooling – except for perhaps in rare instances. But I’m okay with the idea of letting a few parents undermine their children with magical thinking and sorcery. And if they want to teach their children that the world is only 6,000 – 8,000 years old, and was created in six 24-hour days by a great wizard in the sky, just don’t ask that it be taught in public schools. Let them learn that stuff at home. And here I am talking about dogma and myth – metaphoric stories – not about God or spirituality.

    Children should be taught to think and socialize in a world of diverse opinions and cultures – not insulated and hidden away. Schools teach more than facts.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Robert, your terminology is rather adversarial. Your emotions are triggered, right?

    Adam brings up something that I consider an intelligent point: measuring the actual effectiveness of various interventions (including various vaccines). Respectfully, I did not see anything that I consider an intelligent point in your comments.

    as someone interested in promoting health, that focus would involve considering both the alleged benefits and alleged risks of any treatment. Perhaps a month ago, I shared a recent report by the US department of justice on the recent wave of civil court cases in the US in which damages were awarded to family members of people in whom vaccines allegedly caused results as extreme as death.

    commercial interests are prominent in many (all?) political institutions. The Science taught in most public schools is not presented for open debate, but as if correlation was the same as causality. In other words, it is not very scientific.

  • Adam Fritz Polio vaccination has been based on attenuated agents. That is technically a very long way from todays suite of GMO derived toxoid vaccinations. I do not understand how the success of agent and attenuated agent vaccinations is assumed to transfer to toxoid based vaccinations. Even the CDC schedules show that toxoid based are short lived in the human animal at best.
  • Adam Fritz BTW: If your kid is bullied in todays schools you will have to medicate and home school them anyway. Not sure I see the big value in a social structure that is a safe haven for bullies and mandates the drugging, isolation and rejection of their victims.

    In many communities home schooling is evolving to being schooling, just without the support of public monies that are going to maintaing these charming little prisons run by gangs.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Adam, since the original topic was in my opinion about school bureaucracies as much as about health, I will comment on that topic. Schools promote the interests of those who create them, fund them, regulate them, and operate them.

    The idea of “bullying” as something that “we are all against” is notable. Notice that how public schools define bullying will tend to exclude all forms of systematic coercion by governments (at least “our” governments) and by schools.

    50 mins · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn And then Karl comes in with extensive data that refutes the speculative claim that there is even a direct correlation between the use of vaccines and declines in disease rates. (Then there are the correlations and claims about rising disease rates and vaccinations.)
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn The simple fact is that bias exists. When the way that a disease is diagnosed (the protocol) significantly changes close to the timing of the introduction of a vaccine, that naturally biases the data.

    What I have found is that there is tremendous ignorance of heAlth and physiology amongst the mainstream (including MDs). The promotion of hysterias and delusional paranoias by schools and mass media is, I argue, not just a major influence on popular thought, but further I assert that promoting delusional hysterias is the specific target of certain campaigns.

    We may think “that only happened hundreds of years ago” or “that only happens in other places.” What a fascinating response to the stress of cognitive dissonance, eh? Delusional hysteria, even when wildly popular, is still hysterical and still delusional. Calling it “science” is… predictable.

    Hysteria can be great for business, right?

  • Robert Q. Riley JR, you’re right. This triggers my emotions. I’m aware that it’s not so black and white. And I’m aware that there are commercial manipulations, which would also include a chiropractor encouraging a patient to use chiropractic instead of vaccines.

    This client/chiropractor I mentioned was the one who first triggered such a strong response in me. He was anti-vaccine, but he was also a user of people.

  • Adam Fritz OH!! Amid all this there is some science that is critical to understand and promote.

    WASH YOUR HANDS! There are plenty of instructional video’s and it does not require anything but soap. There is no single action you can take to reduce the spread of disease with greater efficacy than this one thing. PLEASE WASH YOUR HANDS….

    COVER YOUR MOUTH AND NOSE! Wear a mask in public if you have to. Again this is completely supported by science. Every expulsion with cough or sneeze atomizes bodily fluids that act as a disease carrier. Many of the expectorant droplets are micronized and can float in the air for hours acting as a huge carrier of viral and bacterial contagens.

    If all of us did these two things reliably there is NO DOUBT the incidence of ALL viral and bacterial illness would be DRAMATICALLY reduced.


comedy video: “Mr. Pavlov’s honesty training program”

September 19, 2014


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 289 other followers

%d bloggers like this: