Posts Tagged ‘Health’

promoting health or… agonizing about health?

October 29, 2014
  • Sam wrote:
    So if alkalinity is the key to reducing inflammation and illness then are not meats…eggs….milk….all acidic foods??? And fruits and veggies are alkaline foods??? So how would that work??
    Thanks

  • Sam, if you suspect that you are having an unfavorable reaction to any food, then stop eating it, at least temporarily. As for inflammation, it is an electromagnetic effect (a charge imbalance). You need electrons in order to restore the proper charge and correct the inflammation (the burning).

    If the inflammation is very contained, like a little sunburn on your shoulders, then something topical like baking soda paste or aloe vera gel is relevant. For most people today, they have extreme systemic inflammation (electromagnetic imbalance) and need to ground themselves to the earth.

    Most people have massive deficiencies of electrons and only after weeks or even months of resumed contact with the earth (like at least 12 hours a day), will their “allergies” (inflammatory repsonses) begin to disappear. You can construct your own “grounding device” for under $20. I show how in this video (though I now recommend that people use UNinsulated wires for greater surface area contact): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naSgbQUN674

    DIY grounding demonstration: the wires I put in my wall…
    YOUTUBE.COM|BY 144JR144
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn To promote health, I recommend that people focus more on electromagnetic balance (grounding/ pH/ voltage, etc), on proper breathing (that could be another thread, but mostly is just slowing down your breathing by about 1/2 of the normal pace for most people), on proper hydration (not just Reverse Osmosis water, but that is a good start), and proper SLEEP (which requires attention to issues like exposure to visible light and EMF exposure from cell phones and wifi and regular household electrical flows).

    Organisms who have major problems in those realms will die in seconds, minutes, hours, or weeks. Much less important to me (once the main “poisons” are removed from someone’s diet) is nutrition, including things like the use of iodine “supplementation” on the skin.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn So if one is operating from the logic I present above, the most important “nutrient” BY FAR is water. What foods have lots of moisture? Lots of them.


    Raw meat has much more water than cooked meat (which is dehydrated by heat). Raw fruit has much more water th
    an cooked fruit (which is dehydrated by heat). Notice a pattern there yet? (Of course, if you are steaming some veggies, that adds moisture.)

    So, if someone eats 4 ounces of juice from raw calf liver every morning and 8 ounces of raw celery juice every night (like in the classic Gerson method to “cure cancer”), is all of that enough daily hydration? It might be enough to survive- much better than none- but nowhere close to optimal.

    If you have done nutrition “poorly” for decades and are still alive, that is a sign that it is not an URGENT matter for you. Maybe it is a good investment for someone to explore improving nutrition, but keep it all in perspective.

    Agonizing is totally optional- which is easy to say. I consider it a signal of distress. If agonizing can help you to withdraw from interacting with an incompetent specialist (or to remain withdrawn), that is good. Beyond that temporary benefit, agonizing may be of little benefit.

    Let it frighten off those who do not care or are incompetent to help. Be grateful for it’s purpose and value. When that value is fulfilled, other patterns of activi56ty are relevant becasue the behavioral pattern of agonizing.

“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 propaganda of centralized governments (about health)

September 2, 2014
“Land of the free” is just a slogan. Ask a Native American (who knows the real history of their tribe). However, if you ask an immigrant to the US who came from the Soviet bloc (for instance), they will also note that some slogans have a lot of truth to them.

 
Let’s talk about centralization and decentralization. First, let’s talk about systems for influencing public perception (as well as public focus and public behavior). These are systems for forming herds (and leading them, governing them, and regulating them, as in managing the herd of human resources).
 
Modern civilization includes a few institutions for influencing public perceptions. The oldest one that I will mention is “the church.” In places like Great Britain or parts of the middle east, the political leader (hereditary monarch) is also the official head of the religious intstitutions. The churches, whether government-funded or otherwise, focus on certain issues and ignore or dismiss others.
 

Another innovation in the influencing of public opinion was the printing press (and publications like newspapaer and magazines). Later, that became raido and TV and so on. Again, the media outlets focus on certain issues and ignore or dismiss others.

 
When these are government-regulated, like by the FCC, that produces a culture of a certain level of censorship. When the media is government-funded or government-operated, then every single program can be presumed to be government propaganda.
 
In the case of public schools, with virtually all schools government-operated in the US for the last century or so, then every bit of the curriculum is not only funded by the government, not only regulated, but entirely produced by them. Whether any particular school is a government propaganda program or otherwise, each school will focus on certain issues and ignore or dismiss others. 
 
With big, controlling networks that have a “common core,” there will naturally be a dramatic reduction in diversity of content. That is what common core means, after all, right?
 
 

So, centralization of authority ALWAYS corresponds to less receptivity to certain kinds of content as well as “bias” toward big funders. When there is a decentralized set of media outlets, then it can be challenging for a single “tyrant” to influence every single media outlet (or school or church). It is harder to censor or suppress information without centralized distribution and control mechanisms.

In particular, the “wire services” of AP & Reuters allow for huge numbers of media outlets to all program the masses with the same “curriculum.” Further, when there is a regulatory power like the FCC watching every move by AP and Reuters, then that effects content, too.

Plus, there are many cases of fabricated propaganda that governments create and then feed to the private media. Edward Bernays wrote about the deceptions that he used as a US government contractor to get the US public to be more receptive to the idea of invading Europe. He “sold” World War 1 to the US public. How? Deception was a reliable method (consistently effective). He made up emotionally-charged accusations and then had a big budget to get those stories published as “news.”

In WW2, while our allies the USSR were slaughtering tens of millions of their own citizens, they also massacred about 22,000 Polish people and blamed it on the Nazis. Because the USSR was our ally and the Nazis were our enemy, the US (and UK) media publicized the Katyn Forest Massacre as another Nazi atrocity. It was not.

Further, the idea of a massive holocaust in Germany is notable relative to the devastation conducted by the USSR in Ukraine and elsewhere. The popular figure for the total deaths in the German holocasut is 6 million.  Not only is that figure considered by many to be immesnely inflated, but it is still dwarfed by the series of genocide conducted by the USSR (the US ally).

But the US government’s “ministry of information” did not “feed” AP & Reuters stories about the genocides of our communist allies. Instead, the Katyn Forest massacre was blamed on the Nazis as well as a variety of emotionally-charged stories, like making soap from human flesh or using human skin for lampshades. If some of these stories were “recycled” inflammatory content created by Edward Bernays, they were not publicized for accuracy but for emotional impact.

So there are many layers to the issue of centralizing information. There are clear cases of falsehood like the Gulf of Tonkin “attacks against the US” that the US used to justify aggression against Vietnam. Basically, the US Navy traveled many thousands of miles to bring immense military power to the edge of Vietnam, then publicized a report of an attack against a US vessel, then “retaliated.” The report of the original attack was later admitted as entirely false, but the invasion itself did not stop because of that detail.

The current “official” version of the story is that the US Secreatry of Defense McNamara intentionally deceived President Johnson. However, some radicals assert that the US invasion of Vietnam was a choice made long before that, with the assassination of JFK to remove him as a “barrier” to the invasion. LBJ may have been ignorant and naive or may have just been smart enough to have a lower-ranking agent (lower than his rank) be the “bad guy.”

What about matters of health? Would commercial interests lobby for the creation of US government agencies to advance the interests of the lobbyists? Would the lobbyists try to influence their agency (the one that they created)  so as to protect the economic interests of the lobbyists?

If margarine sales depended on a demonization of saturated fat, could the commercial interests get the FDA to approve the use of margarine (whether safe or healthy or what) and also permit a demonizing of saturated fat? What if the lobbyists could get the FDA to do the demonizing itself and at the expense of taxpayers? That would be a great result for a lobbyist or PR firm, right?

The idea that the FDA or the CDC ever had any scientific credibility or integrity is an interesting idea. Where did you learn it? From the government-operated schools and government-regulated media?

Consider the allegation by the FDA that cholesterol is a dangerous substance. Millions of species of animal on this planet all have livers and all of those livers are constantly producing cholesterol, which can then be made in to estrogen and cortisol and vitamin D. How many of those animals are harmed by cholesterol?

The FDA can publicize the idea that all of those animals are harmed by cholesterol. That is not only false, but ridiculous. Even now, though, if you go to a grocery store or search online for cholesterol, you can find reference to “lowering cholesterol” as if that is a good thing. (What if there is extensive evidence that lowering cholesterol has huge long-term detriments?)

What is the actual issue that led to the demonization of cholesterol? Cholesterol is sent to damaged tissue to help repair it. So, there is a correlation between cholesterol and various kinds of medical conditions.

The FDA, as an instrument of lobbyists, publicized the idea that cholesterol caused the damage to the tissue. This is exactly like saying that the presence of paramedics CAUSES medical emergencies. It has no scientific credibility and never did.

However, demonizing cholesterol was recognized as a profitable promotion. This allowed for the creation of a new industry: toxic drugs to impair the function of the liver in regard to the manufacturing of cholesterol.

Some radicals assert that the FDA has always been an instrument of special commercial interests (created by them and directed by them). They say things like “the only thing the FDA has ever done is to conduct a war on science.”

However, anonymous sources within the FDA have issued statements saying “we operate only to promote the interests of you personally and of all of the other human resources that we manage.” Hillary Clinton recently said, “This is a huge relief to know, right?”

So, as to the issue of “holding the government officials accountable,” who will do that? Other government agencies? Really?

The wise thing to do is to “wake up” to the nature of governments. They are systematically violent and deceptive.

In the case of the 1979 Iran hostage situation, certain US politicians took actions to delay the release of the hostages to promote the campaign of Reagan over Carter. Among the leading agents of the operation were Oliver North and Caspar Weinberger. They illegally laundered drug money from central America and they illegally traded in weapons in order to convince the Iranians to keep the US hostages captive until Reagan’s inauguration.

North was later convicted (and sentenced) and Weinberger was indicted (plus 4 others) and awaiting trial. President GWH Bush had the legal right to interrupt all of those legal punishments and did so.

Marc Rich was not as well known. He was involved in illegal smuggling of oil out of Iran during the embargo of the late 1970s. After massive donations to causes “near to the heart of Bill Clinton,” Clinton also reversed the convictions against Marc Rich (which included tax evasion and fraud, etc).

Those are events within our lifetimes. Prior to our lifetimes, were governments less violent or less deceptive? Government propaganda all over the world may suggest that “our government, which is so unlike the evil governments of so many other places and times, has always been the best one ever.”

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Health, digestion, and nutrition

August 15, 2014

Consuming something is distinct from digesting it. If something is not digested, it has no nutritional value even if it has lots of nutrients in it.

So, how many digestive systems on this planet are designed for digesting cooked foods? Zero is the correct answer.

High quality food sources are also an obvious factor in nutrition. Wild sea creatures tend to have more nutrients than any land creature. Wild tend to be far more healthy than captive. Grass-fed organic beef tends to be several times as healthy as grain-fed conventonal beef.

As an aside, all ranchers know that eating grains causes massive weight gain in cattle. That is how they fatten the cattle. Eating low quality carbs blocks the metabolism of fat (leading to rapid accumulations of stored fat). This is very old science. The obesity-promotion programs of the FDA were never scientifically credible (in regard to the propaganda used to popularize those programs of behavior).

So, in addition to high quality sources of nutrition, there are also issues like how it is chewed, the presence of stomach acid, and of course how it is prepared (like marinated with no heat, only lightly cooked, or sterilized and thoroughly charred to not only reduce nutritional value but create new compounds that may be detrimental to the digestive tract of any creature… human or otherwise, etc).

Meat does not need to be cooked or even chewed (though chewing makes for smaller bits and thus increases the total surface area, improvign digestive efficiency). However, meat *must* be thoroughly exposed to acid in order to break the proteins in to amino acids. My understanding is that foreign proteins that get past the stomach SHOULD be attacked by any healthy immune system. We can call that “an allergy,” but that is just a failure of the stomach to fully digest the protein. (So, diluting the stomach acid with any beverages during a meal also affects digestion.)

Many modern people have horrific overall health, such as Lance Armstrong and many other successful endurance athletes who suffered from cancer and cardiovascular crisis by their late 30s or early 40s (and often die before the age of 50). Mr. Armstrong was apparently very motivated to reform many of his habits (after the initial collapse in his health) and I understand that he dramatically changed his behaviors and thus created very different results.

So, not only do people cling mentally to the unscientific presumptions publicized as “medicine,” but they lack sufficient production of stomach acid. They may also lack attention to science and health, instead deferring to operations like the FDA and USDA to guide their behaviors and results. Or they go to specialists in the suppresion of the immune system (MDs) and interact with those specialists as if they are experts in promoting health. (I am sure that there are many MDs who have studied the promotion of health, including Terry Wahls and Jack Kruse- but I think they are quite rare.)

http://shar.es/1nCBnb

Back to the specific subject of worms, if there were farms of grub worms in which the worms were given anti-biotics and hormones, I would expect the nutritional value to be that much lower than “organically-farmed” grub worms. Of course, the worms are small, so they would never be given injections like cows and pigs and so on.

People who are squeamish about nutrition and health can proceed delicately. They may need to slowly nourish the bacterial garden in their intestines so that eventually they will have “more guts” and “more intestinal fortitude.”

 

(The above commentary was in response to a facebook post regarding the fact that McDonald’s has protected the use of the words “100% beef” in regard to their meat even though they [allegedly] use “filler” from meal worms.)

Grounding: issues of safety, health, and convenience

March 9, 2014
  • S.P. wrote:J R, I would appreciate your opinion on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PxA0ZAP-t4 I wanted to buy a grounding pad and a bed cover that grounds into the outlet but decided not to after watching this. He says grounding in this manner is unsafe if you are in a city due to dirty electricity–lots of electrical inteference surges, etc. I have issues with a lot of static electricity on clothes, in hair and am looking for solutions. I only use natural fibers but at night I can see really strong electric sparks when i’m in bed from the clothes rubbing against the cover—again it’s all natural 100% cotton and 100% wool. Thanks in advance!

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Hi, I watched that video several months ago (when I was first researching the issue). I did not find it very persuasive.Yes, there can be local electrical surges, like from a power plant malfunction. However, those would effect someone standing on the ground barefoot. That is just part of modern life, like nuclear weapons and cell phone towers and mass media.

    I use wires to ground almost constantly when inside, but I also put my bare feet on the earth. As for radio signals and so on, maybe it is safer to ground away from civilization and all the towers and so on. I have not seen any data on the subject. It was not a priority issue to me.

    On a similar subject, is it “bad” to wear metal jewelry in cities (or watches)? For some people, I think it is best to avoid them generally. On the other hand, I know of several “new age” jewelry products that are “charged” with “subtle energy” and seem to be VERY beneficial to human energy fields (as well as radiation shields for cell phones).

    What I know without a doubt is that the balance of electrons (alkalinity) makes a huge difference in living tissue (all animals, and all plants). In my wife’s case, she was able to completely get off of blood pressure medication simply by using grounding. (I assume you know the details about when blood cells are charged or not.)

    In my case, when I contact a large surface area of grounded copper wire, I can feel the quick increase in circulation, the relaxing of tissues, the easing of stress, the increase in energy, and most obvious are the occasional spontaneous spinal adjustments just from a deep breath. I can feel when the adjustment is about to happen and I spontaneously take a deeper breath and CLICK.

    Also, keep in mind that when you touch a doorknob and get a shock, that is also grounding. When you get in to a running shower (or bath) with metal plumbing that is grounded to the earth, then you are also grounded.

    Does connecting a potted plant to a ground wire (24 hours a day) dramatically increase the long-term health of the plant? You can test it yourself (or research it). If it is even better to do these things away from dense cities, fantastic.

    I most often use a surge protector when grounding. I actually turn off the surge protector (and/or use a lightswitch to break the circuit of electricity), and then connect to the grounded hole of the outlet.

    Also, if you did not see me refer to this already, the best form of grounding that I know is submersion in the ocean (or otherwise in alkaline liquid, because entire the surface area of the skin is able to balance electromagnetically with the charge of the water- very fast results). That is part of why adding baking soda to bath water is so popular. Note that if the bathtub itself is not grounded (by metal plumbing), then the only electrons available would be from the ionic elements of the baking soda itself, not through the metal piping.

Why plasma from the ocean is more important than diet

January 18, 2014
  • I will type to you a basic summary of “here is what to do” about health (in particular). [Note: I added a lot to what I originally wrote to Daniel below. Also, plasma is an relatively unfamiliar word that means the same as liquid crystal or gel as in gelatin. Lightning is an example of plasma, and many modern display monitors or screens are very popular because of a layer of plasma in the screen.]

    First, there is the issue of sharing this info with others. This is an issue because

    (1) I am interested in relationships and networks (at this point), not so much in retailing (profit from high volume) etc….

    & (2) I want the sharing to be effective given that some of us have better relationships/communication skills than others.So, I can “give away” certain useful information IF people are actually “getting it” and then benefiting from it so much that they support me in proving them guidance in regard to health (or investments, etc).

    plasma with blood cells

    Re retailing / accessing substances of unique value, here is the actual “what to do:”

    (1) Realize that the theory of evolution is viable. I do not mean it is “right” to the extent that we should argue about it. I mean it seems to work reasonably well.(Incidentally, the “creationists” may be completely deluded as to what “the creation story” is. It is about the development of personal consciousness in relation to language, not about the development of various life forms on a particular planet. For instance, there is no substance of “darkness.” It is a just a label in language to contrast with another label in language. Language is what divided the day from the night, the light from “dark,” the earth (solid) from the heavens (space/gaseous), and then “language named” for us the various types of creatures, the “kingdoms” of “the tree of life.” So, when a human finally recognizes their own humanity- as distinct from their egoic persona which is imposed by social conditioning about what that person should be or should not be- then that is followed by an immense relaxing, as in a period of rest.)

    (2) Next, realize that life on this planet evolved from the ocean over the course of several billion years.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    J R Fibonacci Hunn

    (3) Realize that the ONLY way that animal life made it on to land was to BRING the ocean WITH the animal. This was done not only in the blood but in the entire liquid crystal structure of the various animal organisms.

    (Sidenote: prior to land-based animals, plant life evolved to exist on land also as liquid crystal plasmas which “bring” the ocean with them. Land-based animals could eat the plants for their plasma without having to frequently retreat in to water- such as amphibians. With reptiles and other newly evolved kinds of things, some even evolved to get plasma form other animals, such as insects or small reptiles or mammals.

    Plants make something relatively close to ocean plasma out of fresh water combined with minerals from the earth- bu only IF the soil has the right mineral content, which is VERY rare in recent decades. We now have lots of plasma screens- like if you are viewing this on a flat screen, then it is probably a liquid crystal plasma screen- however, due to the commercial influence of the medical industry, plasma physics has been resisted as a huge threat to the clearly pathetic results of mainstream industrial medicine- like what happened to Royal Rife with his physics-based medicine, which is far superior in efficiency and reliability relative to chemistry-based medicine/the medication industry/nutrition-based interventions.)

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Daniel Fritschler

    Wow…this is interesting

    I see where you are going

    With this

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    J R Fibonacci Hunn

    (4) So, it started with the ocean. The ocean was pummeled by asteroids which dissolved in to mineral salts which, when exposed to sunlight and lightning strikes, ionized to form what we call life. Simple compounds formed and then eventually complex things like DNA, RNA, amino acids, cholesterol, hormones, etc…. DNA allows for an ameoba or a plant to do something incredible: reproduce!

    Reproduction for a cell means to efficiently organize ocean plasma in to a new cell. The foundation of healing (& “anti-aging”) is the making of new cells from plasma. We do not need most nutrients. We can make them. With ocean plasma and it’s soup of liquid crystal minerals, plus abundant electrons, our cells make lots of things, like cholesterol, which can be made in to all of the hormones. DNA is a set of codes for making amino acids and proteins. However, DNA with no electrons and no minerals is… soon extinct.

    So, again, instead of the mineral plasma soup “randomly” organizing itself in to life once every aeon, an existing life form can ACTIVELY organize new cells out of mineral plasma. That is done through DNA, given proper amounts of available voltage (electrons/ alkalinity). The electrons are what convert the liquid to liquid crystal (and then to crystal solids like ice).

    When we touch something that is a different temperature than our skin, then electrons move. All burns are electrical burns from a cellular perspective. When heat flows from one thing to a colder thing, that is a flow of electromagnetic vibration (electrons). All currents are electromagnetic.

    An electromagnetic current of electrons “going through” a liquid crystal matrix is called a semiconductor. The bodies of plants and animals are full of them. The cell membrane of every cell of every kind of living thing is a liquid crystal boundary of plasma. As another example, muscle fibers are basically plasma, which is why voltage flows will contract the muscles.

    (5) Complex creatures like humans  need (A) lots of electrons, but (B) we also need to be able to STORE them and MOVE them throughout the organism.

    (6) Certain commercial providers of select Ocean Water (which can be rich in phytoplankton or tiny algae that have lots of important minerals) have documented PROFOUND results simply from providing the full range of minerals from which humans evolved.

    (7) Then there is eating a diet that is evolutionarily sound.

    <as in eating raw and fermented foods (including marinated)- things that have been around at least 10,000 years>

    <eh… give or take 9,900 years or so- like high quality raw cow milk, especially from certain breeds, CAN be very good for MOST people- or even things like sprouted wheat… in the right portions.>

     <I am for “everything in moderation” except for the chosen priority of the moment, right?>
    We can keep in mind that the plasma of the ancient ocean IS the proper consistency of blood (of most any creature including mammals like humans) as well as intercellular fluids like spinal fluid and also intrAcellular fluid. It is folly to ignore several billion years of evolution (in relation to ocean plasma) and then focus on only a few hundred million in relation to diet.
  • Daniel Fritschler

    Daniel Fritschler

    I am very intrigued honestly <bow> sensei

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    J R Fibonacci Hunn

    (8) There is also removing the primary drains of electrons from our bodies (for those in whom it is relevant): especially mercury dental fillings.

    That is just a sample in relation to the issue of health.

    For those without funds to access the proper kind of ocean water (given that the ocean has changed more than slightly in the last 250 million years), there are other kinds of algae or mineral sources (like seaweed, which is also technically a form of algae).

    • Daniel Fritschler

      Daniel Fritschler

      So what can I do to get my hands on something like that? Where?

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn

      J R Fibonacci Hunn

      So, that is why I mentioned “retailing” in the beginning. I have a source a few miles from me (a wholesaler of ocean plasma, I think from deep sea vortexes that bring up a lot of really potent minerals).

      Later, after we cover some foundations of breakthroughs in health, we can also get in deeper to language, plus in to economics and social trends and so on. Again, I am not an educator or delusional “savior of mankind” so much as a practical networker. There needs to be a steady flow of resources to me to keep the system working. That is why my insights in to forecasting economic trends are so important to the overall process. Not only can huge gains be compounded quickly, but the typical risks of mainstream investors can be totally avoided.

      Also, back to sources of minerals (like iodine) you can get “decent” seaweed from any Asian grocery store or health food stores. You can also get ionized minerals, plus you can set distilled water in direct sunlight to ionize (charge) the water, forming the water in to plasma (liquid crystal). The sunlight will cause the water to pull electrons from the air which is how it shifts to plasma.

      I have some distilled water mixed with ocean water in the sun right now. Distilled water with added minerals will be the next best thing.

      That’s all for now. There are big things and little things, as in priorities, and of course I highly recommend “grounding” to have an abundant supply of electrons, especially for people with mercury fillings that are constantly losing electrons in to the air.

The health-wealth connection: a grassroots revolution in personal responsibility

March 25, 2013

The health-wealth connection: a grassroots revolution in personal responsibility

Health

Health (Photo credit: 401(K) 2013)

 

Imagine a family that is facing some kind of a health challenge. The family has been spending $1000 per month on expenses related to health, such as medical care, health insurance, gym membership, exercise equipment, medications, and even groceries. However, the health challenge is getting worse. So, the family reviews it’s budget and spends $1500 the next month. Soon, the health challenge get even worse. Then, the spending on health is raised to $2000 per month, then $2500 per month, and with each increase in spending, the health challenge gets more and more severe.
 
What is the natural conclusion to make when reviewing this pattern? Is it to spend more on the same kinds of methods that have been disappointing? Or is it to be fully aware of the disappointing results of the prior methods and be open to new methods?
 
But what if it is not a single family, but a neighborhood? What if the neighborhood spends $100,000 per year, then $150,000 the next year, then $200,000 and so on, yet the results in terms of actual health are worse and worse? Then is the natural conclusion to increase funding for clearly disappointing methods or to explore a new approach?
 
What if it is a national government? What if the governments spends $1 trillion on health in a decade, then 1.5 and 2.0 and 2.5 in the following decades, yet overall health declines further with each increase in spending? Should spending be increased more for the same old paradigm or should new approaches be explored?
 
Historical government spending by major functi...

Historical government spending by major function in the United States from 1902 to 2010 (2008 estimate, percent GDP) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Notice that it may be much easier for an individual to alter personal behavior than for bureaucracies to alter their practices. If there is a huge increase in spending, but not a huge increase in funds available, then a huge increase in spending might naturally result in individual people being more open to recognizing disappointing results as disappointing and then changing their spending habits as financial challenges also begin to arise from their health challenges (and their chosen responses to the health challenges).
 
The average financial health and physical health of much of the developed world is declining. For instance, obesity rates are rocketing while average net worth per household is declining. (In the US state of Arizona, where I currently live, almost all real estate speculators are “upside down” on their mortgages, which means that their practice of gambling on borrowed money has decreased their financial “net worth,” sometimes accelerating them toward bankruptcy.)
 
Now, in the context of rising rates of financial crisis, rising rates of health crisis, and rising spending on disappointing health care methods, it may be intriguing that sources of information which are clearly established as lacking in competence are still considered credible by so many people. For instance, if the FDA publishes guidelines that are marketed as promoting health and preventing obesity, but there are clear indications that following those guidelines promotes obesity (and even prevents health), then those results establish the FDA guidelines as unreliable (at best) and also as either irrelevant or counter-productive. However, when the FDA later presents a slight revision, how is it that so many people are interested in what a discredited source says next?
 
English: Logo of the U.S. Food and Drug Admini...

English: Logo of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2006) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
Here is a big part of why so many people still pay attention to the FDA. Briefly, we are dealing with a religious belief system of presumptive superstitions being followed by a panicking herd. Because there is a general culture of hysteria or panic or dis-ease, rational thinking is not to be expected from the individuals within the herd. If the FDA is perceived as an infallible god, then whatever god says will be given trust by the masses simply because they are in a panic. If god says to spend more on methods that also happen to be well-established as having no value or to be counter-productive, all that a panicking member of the herd is aware of is first the fact that god spoke and second the instructed action that god commanded.
There is no rational thinking involved. There is a state of panic or emergency and an automatic, hypnotic reflex by the terrified masses.
 
So, the FDA has no magical increase in scientific credibility as of today- no more credibility than decades ago when they began issuing the kinds of guidelines that have resulted in dramatic declines in over health and dramatic increases in health challenges, health care spending, and profits by mainstream health care providers. Consider further that the economic and financial challenges of households and nations cannot be from any other cause but disappointing choices. 
 
 
I may be over-simplifying when I emphasize personal choice as the primary or even exclusive source of results. However, it is a useful presumption.
  
Consider that if there was a lack of concern and foresight about risks (such as the danger of an earthquake or of driving a car), then, after a natural disaster or collision, one can recognize one’s own choices as having been part of the process that led to the results. This is not a matter of blame, for blame generally does nothing to improve the results of prior choices (unless there is also a lawsuit involved). In other words, if I reject the idea of personal responsibility, then we can notice that blame and resentment are natural consequences of… the CHOICE to reject the idea of personal responsibility, personal influence, personal power. 
 
Notice that now we are constructing our language around a presumption of personal responsibility or empowerment. If I blame the FDA for being incompetent, then I may struggle to reform them and oppose them and to promote some ideal of “bureaucratic responsibility” (which may be a fantasy or delusion) . I may find that such choices or investments (which arise from a rejection of personal responsibility and a religious practice of blaming others) to be initially very passionate, but soon frustrating and even exhausting. 
The basic disappointment in the results of my choices would remain. First, I followed the FDA guidelines and my health suffered (along with my finances). Then, I invested in reforming a bureaucracy and so my health and finances suffered even more.
 
Logo of the United States Department of Health...

Logo of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The symbol represents the American People sheltered in the wing of the American Eagle, suggesting the Department’s concern and responsibility for the welfare of the people. The logo is the department’s main visual identifier; the seal is now used for mainly legal purposes. The color can be either black or reflex blue. More information here and here. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
However, if I simply recognize my own disappointment at my own initial choice to invest in the recommendations (commandments, belief systems) of the FDA, then there is no blame in that. I was naive. I was operating from a state of confusion and hysteria and panic within an irrational herd. I might have even felt threatened and insulted if someone suggested that my infallible god be questioned in regard to scientific credibility. “What quack would suggest a review of actual results? This is my presumptive religion which I call science! I do not need to use rational thinking to review results! My infallible god, the FDA, has spoken. What other proof of scientific credibility could possibly be relevant?!?!” 
 
At the time, I might have viciously argued and defended and then condemned and ridiculed critics and even skeptics. “How can you be so arrogant and naive as to entertain any question of the divine authority of the FDA?!?!” In other words, I might have been operating from a state of confusion and hysteria and panic within an irrational herd!
 
 
So, what else is there to do? There is the alternative of studying some reliable results (some science), and then applying science to your health. 
 
In my own personal case, I had a major breakdown in physical health in which I lost the ability to walk and had a severe decline in neurological functionality. A western doctor would have called my condition “Multiple Sclerosis” and probably would have labeled it “incurable” (which simply means that the doctor does not have enough competence in the biochemistry and physiology of the human organism to understand and reliably treat the condition).
 
I had a full overnight recovery. My recovery immediately followed my choice to invest less than five dollars in purchasing a food that has been common for humans for over 10,000 years. 
 
You might be surprised at the very low cost of the recovery. Note that prior to my recovery, my physical condition (which was the natural results of my chosen behaviors) was severely limiting my ability to earn money. My expenses rose as a result of my health challenges (which were the result of my personal choices), which also resulted in my productivity and income declining.
I am grateful to have survived as well as grateful for the severe decline in health which cultivated a deep personal responsibility in me. When my health challenges climaxed, the ritual practice of blame (vilifying others and identifying myself as a helpless victim of the identified villain) was still a very real part of my life (and of my language). However, it was extremely obvious to me that blaming others had no practical value to me in regard to improving my health.
 
Government spending

Government spending (Photo credit: 401(K) 2013)

 

Imagine if millions of people in the US who are so disabled that they are not contributing to the US economy and indeed are receiving government hand-outs were suddenly to have dramatic improvements in their physical health due to improved choices. Imagine the value that such a development could add to the productivity of the nation and the global competitiveness of the US.
 
Imagine if instead of pouring trillions of dollars in to mainstream medical methods that show decreasing effectiveness, individuals one by one began to invest in things like five dollars worth of a reliable remedy for multiple sclerosis? Imagine the vast improvement to their health. Imagine the vast improvement to their economic productivity and finances. Imagine if a simple choice to discontinue the rejection of personal responsibility could lead to a total transformation of humanity.
 
Next, imagine blaming a 2nd grader for not being especially competent in algebra, rocket science, and human physiology. Then, imagine investing trillions of dollars in the services of incompetent 2nd graders and then blaming the 2nd graders for the results produced by your investing in their services.
“They should be giving me better results! Those 2nd graders need to reform their system and stop calling algebra impossible or unsolvable and also stop calling immune system responses incurable or untreatable. They need to be more mature and more intelligent! Algebra problems can be solved by anyone competent in algebra! Health challenges can be resolved by anyone competent in physiology and biochemistry! Those incompetent 2nd graders are to blame for us investing naively in their incompetence!
 
Ritalin

Ritalin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That may be precisely how critics of the FDA operate. The FDA is by now clearly established as having no credibility in regard to diet and health.
Maybe it is time to consider who has had credibility in those fields for the last century (while so many of us who have been panicking in irrational herds have been choosing to invest our attention elsewhere). Maybe it is time to explore dramatic improvements to health through dramatic declines in health spending (by re-focusing our spending on experts and methods that have a long-established record of reliable success). Maybe it is time to make new personal choices and challenge others to do the same, cultivating a grassroots revolution in the physical health and economic vitality of not just our household or neighborhood, but entire nations and even all of humanity.
 
 
So, I am not against the FDA. If people want to practice that religion and invest in that belief system, that is their choice. However, because the recommendations of the FDA are well-established as directly leading to the rising rates of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular illness, and so on, I may still comply with regulations that coerce me to support them financially, but I choose to discontinue compromising my health by being a blind follower of their religion of irrationality. At least until they adopt a rational and scientific approach, I will reject their guidelines as disappointing rather than reject personal responsibility by blaming them for the disappointing results of my past choices to follow their guidelines. 
 
I assert personal responsibility. I assert an interest in logic and rationality and science and therefore I adopt at least a skeptical orientation in regard to the assertions and claims made by organizations with no little or no scientific credibility, such as the FDA. I will assess the value of guidelines by reviewing the established results of following those guidelines. I will reject a panicked, hysterical presumption that any particular organization has any credibility whatsoever based on anything other than actual results. That is simply how a revolution in personal responsibility works.
 
 

credibility

credibility (Photo credit: moond_studio)

 
 

the power of language: beyond blame to health and wealth

March 17, 2013

Are you clear about the power of how you use language? 

 
Many blame others for the results that they experience, while perhaps only a few claim personal responsibility for the results they have produced. Many who practice blame also argue over who to blame, exhausting themselves as they defend those they call “heroes” and condemn anyone who does not also blame their selected target of their blame. 

 
However, we have been trained to blame and to argue, right? Maybe so. Still, we could accept responsibility for all the activities of blaming and arguing that we have been practicing, as well as the resulting resentment, frustration, and exhaustion. Thus, we could recognize the power of how we use language as we refrain from reflexive blaming and arguing.
 
Are you motivated to explore new alternatives because of the deteriorating financial conditions of our society?
 
Rocketing numbers of people have extremely low reserves of savings, with cash reserves often totaling less than two months of typical expenses. Many of them have been spending wildly on low priority consumer goods, presuming steady future income and steady expenses.
 
Average net worth is plummeting. The average ratio of debt-to-income has rocketed (for households, businesses, and governments). The total amount of debt has also rocketed. Speculative gambling on high-risk real estate borrowing has led to waves of bankruptcy for the most aggressive households as well as the most aggressive lenders.
All of those patterns are widespread throughout the developed world, not just in one state or one country or one city. Huge numbers of people across the planet focus their language (their attention) on who to blame, leading to arguing and bickering and combativeness. Few claim personal responsibility for the recent results of their past patterns of behavior.
 

Public Health Dentistry

Public Health Dentistry (Photo credit: Trinity Care Foundation)

Are you motivated to explore new alternatives because of the diminishing health of our society?
One of the fastest-rising costs in our society is health care. While rapid advances in technology have resulted in plummeting costs of so many things (such as electronics and computer memory), costs of heath care have soared. Those rocketing costs have also been during the most rapid advance in scientific clarity about health. How interested are you in why the costs of mainstream medicine going up so fast while the average health is going down?
 
To take actions that promote your health, it is not essential to know why health care costs are rocketing while effectiveness is falling. However, note that when someone is clear on an issue, there is no interest in blaming or arguing over who is most to blame, but only in clarity and prudence in regard to the science and the specific behavior that are relevant for promoting health. (Much of modern “science” has been totally discredited as a superstitious confusion of causes with effects, yet even the most obviously inaccurate presumptions are still promoted as science by mainstream organizations like the FDA and ADA and AHA.)
For who are clear about the power of language, there is an interest in clearly assessing scientific credibility (like based on actual results produced reliably). In contrast, there is no interest in who to blame, because blame does not directly improve health. Only investing in healthy behavior promotes health.
It is generally healthy to refrain from blaming, with certain notable exceptions (like in filing a legal action), for blaming does not directly promote health or constitute a healthy behavior. Arguing is similarly unhealthy, fostering rising rates of physical altercations and even divorce due to escalating patterns of two or more people practicing argumentativeness (often hysterically, as in without any experience of self-control and intention, but just out of trauma or panic: blame, argue, blame, argue, etc…).
But even the most basic measures of physical health are plummeting. Rates of obesity, diabetes, depression, insomnia, dental cavities, infertility, and many other conditions have gone from nearly non-existent not much more than 100 years ago to rapidly accelerating in the last few decades. The number of people addicted to medical drugs has also rocketed, especially among the elderly, who often are addicted to several medications. In the absence of any one of those medications, many people would likely soon find themselves in emergency rooms. However, many emergency rooms are already experiencing issues with historically long wait times.
medical alternatives, reducing health care costs and increasing effectiveness
 
If there was at least one area in which you could dramatically improve the results of your investments, wouldn’t a dramatic improvement to your health be a priority?
Many people may think that they are more healthy than most people. However, as average health plummets,  the gap increases between average health and optimal health. Focusing on health can not only produce huge increases in athletic performance, but in all other types of performance: concentration, productivity, intelligence, creativity, problem-solving, and so on. (That also means increased earning potential.)
What if you could dramatically improve your health while dramatically decreasing your health care expenses? How many other people can you think of that would want to spend much less for much better results?
In the case of people who are addicted to medications or otherwise experiencing chronic health issues, the relief of major symptoms can produce a dramatic change in their life, especially when it also saves them significant amounts of money (and even helps them to dramatically increase their earning potential). People who have been hopeless and desperate have had full recoveries from conditions they considered incurable.
(In my own case, I had a full recovery at age 36 from paralysis – in the form of multiple sclerosis – resulting in an overnight recovery of the ability to walk. The total cost of my full recovery was under five dollars… plus a few more dollars for shipping and handling. Prior to that, I had spent “much more than that” on diagnostics and treatments that produced little or no benefit.)
Of course, there are other factors contributing to our deteriorating economic conditions in our society besides expensive health care that is decreasing in effectiveness. However, the single factor of a revolution in the effectiveness of health care could result in a redistribution of huge amounts of economic activity from expensive, ineffective remedial care (based on flawed conceptual models) toward productive and competitive economic activities.
What is the first step? I assert that it is a commitment to refrain from blaming and arguing. Those who are unwilling to admit their addiction to blaming and arguing are unlikely to invest in unfamiliar methods of promoting their health that may be extraordinarily effective and yet inexpensive.
 
Book 1: dramatic improvements to your health
 
Book 2: dramatic improvements to your finances
 
Book 3: dramatic improvements to your personal power, communication, relationships, & happiness

How severe obesity is a sign of starvation (malnutrition)

February 16, 2013

Throughout the animal kingdom, creatures sometimes dramatically increase their storage of fat tissue. Two common occasions for that would be, first, in the “lean” months of late fall as winter nears and, second, during pregnancy and the period after delivery when the offspring will be nursing (at least in the case of mammals including humans).

Another population that tend to be a least a little “overweight” is a “very special” group of people who have been diagnosed as manifesting the symptoms called “Down’s Syndrome.” You may be familiar already with Down’s Syndrome, but I will describe it in a way that may be intriguing for you- a way that is related to how obesity is a sign of starvation.

Ben is a Downs Syndrome Boy-1=

Ben is a Downs Syndrome Boy-1= (Photo credit: Sheba_Also)

Down’s syndrome is a label for a “partially-developed” human due to the presence of only enough nutrients for that much development. (The broad term “developmentally disabled” really just means partially developed or developing at a much slower pace than is typical, as in retarded growth or less growth or less development.)

Starving babies have less mineral density in their skulls compared to “normal” or well-nourished” babies. The same light is being shined in the same way on to the skull of 3 different infants above. The more that the light passes through the tissue, the lower the density (mineral nutrient base) of the tissue.

I may be oversimplifying slightly but then again maybe not. Even humans that have narrow jaws and crowded teeth in adolescence (which is about 95% of us including me) are not fully developed due to lack of nourishment. If we look at “normal” human skulls across several thousand years of time, we find that the narrow jaws of modern humans is extremely abnormal, with thinner skulls and less mineral density in our much more brittle bones from sedentary lifestyles.

 

Note the various thickness of human skulls above. Many modern people have very low bone density and bone thickness compared to long-term averages (due to less minerals in their diets).

Obesity is also a sign of malnourishment and in fact a moderate degree of starvation. Obesity is obviously not a lack of calories but a lack of a full range of nutrients. The body “prepares for winter” by storing a lot of fat. Why? Because when the nutrient-base of foods is very low (like in many modern diets), then the body goes in to anti-starvation crisis mode and releases hormones that signal for producing more fat, which has a similar hormonal “signature” as when a woman who is newly pregnant suddenly starts increasing her fat deposits. She needs a huge increase in nutrients to support a fully developed fetus (rather than just a down’s syndrome fetus).

English: Pregnant woman at a WIC clinic in Vir...

English: Pregnant woman at a WIC clinic in Virginia (vertically mirrored image). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Obese people are starving. That is why they are so hungry. Many pregnant women and breast feeding mothers who nurse are also starving, and “post-parting depression” is simply biochemical exhaustion aka starvation.

Picture of an Obese Teenager (146kg/322lb) wit...

Picture of an Obese Teenager (146kg/322lb) with Central Obesity, side view.Self Made Picture of an Obese Teenager (Myself) (146kg/322lb) with Central Obesity, Front View. Feel Free to use. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, the practical issue with obesity and other forms of mild starvation is not to reduce the quantity of food, but to increase the quality. Those who follow the current instructions of the FDA and mass media commercial advertisements may be severely undernourished (and thus obese). Those who are committed to health may be able to easily find social resources and sufficient biochemical nutrients- yes, even if a dramatic improvement in health involves at least slightly changing what foods one eats.

All emotions are healthy- anger, worry, and sadness as frightened behaviors

September 2, 2012

the escalations of fear leading to courage

Could all emotions actually be healthy? A radical (behavioral, functional) model of human emotion:

First, a few new definitions: scared, mad, worried, and sad

 

scared- experiencing a present fear or distress (can produce calling for help, moaning, crying, weeping, whining)

English: A child sad that his hot dog fell to ...

English: A tearful child, sad that his hot dog fell to the ground. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Emotion: Fear

Emotion: Fear (Photo credit: Cayusa)

worried- projecting fear in to an imagined future (as a method of coping with present fright/horror/terror). The event that “worried me” or “makes me worry” is being projected in to the future, which “spreads” the practice of fearing across a projected or imagined period of time, diminishing the immediacy and intensity of a frightening, terrifying, or horrifying disturbance. This projecting in to a distant or nearby future can “desensitize” someone to the fear of a particular outcome, slowing allowing for relief and relaxation.

Note that hysterical, paranoid agonizing, also known as “the fear of fear itself,” is one of the most extreme forms of fearing. The labeling of any emotions as “negative” is the natural “coping mechanism” of any culture of hysterical paranoia, which tend to be quite anxiously arrogant and thus repressive of the terrifying power of emotion (vitality). In other words, the display of many “frightening” emotions would trigger a display by a paranoid audience of terrified blame and condemnation (rage)….

 

Figure 15 from Charles Darwin's The Expression...

Figure 15 from Charles Darwin’s The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Caption reads “FIG. 15.—Cat terrified at a dog. From life, by Mr. Wood.” Author’s signature is at bottom left. See also figures 9-14 and 18 by the same author. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

mad- pushing away whatever is perceived as a threat (feared). We only have contempt for people that we fear may detriment us personally, right? Do we have contempt for puppies or the sun? Do we condemn anything that does not first frighten or disturb us?
All frightened behaviors, including anger, are designed to produce a distancing from a perceived “ongoing threat” (or a reducing of or neutralizing of the perceived threat). Some increasingly severe forms of fear are frustration, blame, resentment, arrogance, rage, contempt, and disgust.
Frustration involves a desperate desire to escape (to experience relief), but with a recognition that the methods currently perceived as available are not expected to produce the desired outcome. In other words, fear and desperation (despair) are at the root of frustration and thus all forms of anger. Frustration does not need to be personally accusative, but a common way of coping with frustration is to seek interaction and attention by blaming someone for “unfairly” (unexpectedly) interfering with one’s priority. Frustration is produced by “whining to one’s self,” like an indirect call for attention through a small tantrum of frustration. We can build a fear in to an anxiety by whining privately, which is the activity of agonizing or anxiety, which can then escalate to frustration. Frustration is the moment of disconnecting from an obsessive pre-occupation with a method that has been recognized as not working for some time. After the arising of frustration, only then further relief (disappointment and then disillusionment or the ending of illusions and arising of clarity) is possible.
Worried!

“Worried!” Or just on the verge of tears? (Photo credit: photoloni)

sad- projecting fear in to past (as in regret for a particular historical sequence that allegedly led to a later outcome that is being labeled “negative”). Like the behaviors of anger listed above, all forms of sadness are forms of withdrawing from a frightening or disturbing “trigger” (“fleeing” from the original fear or shock).
Implicit with sadness is worrying about a possible repeating of a similar historical sequence in the future. Thus, sadness is a form of worry, with the worrying being about a past sequence of events, implicitly wondering how to avoid a particular outcome in the future. Disappointment is worrying “about the past.” Depression is just a severe, paralyzing form of agonizing/practicing anxiety. If one is afraid that others will perceive them as worrying (or angry) and punish them for being afraid, then they may suppress the fear and worrying and anger in to disappointment, sadness, grief, or depression.
English: A sad person

English: A sad person (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Conclusion:
As for the commercial business of suppressing emotion through the use of potentially poisonous pharmaceutical medications, it is admittedly a very lucrative business, which also involves the insurance industry and public (governmental) protection of and subsidy of these industries. Resentment toward the systematic repression of human emotion for the exclusive profit of shareholders and investors is… entirely optional, like resentment toward a cold winter or a dangerous earthquake.
Yes, someone could assert that there has been a “war” on emotion and vitality by governments and churches and commercial interests for thousands of years. Any process that organizes society will involve encouragement of certain behaviors and discouragement of certain behaviors. So, we could say that there is a war on any behavior targeted for discouragement, such as by labeling it a sin, diagnosing it as a disease which may be alleged to demonically possess it’s victim (as in cancer, mental illness, scurvy, baldness, obesity, diabetes, etc), or even punishing a targeted behavior as a crime.
English: Biting one's lip can be a physical ma...

English: Biting one’s lip can be a physical manifestation of worry. Español: Morderse los labios puede ser una manifestación externa de inquietud. Русский: Плачущая девочка. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Language is behavioral. Labeling of emotion is a neuro-chemical behavior (neuro-linguistic). Fundamentally, emotions are patterns of behavior, including behavioral relationships observable at a cellular level (and thus the functional patterns labeled as “emotion” can be influenced by nutritional and pharmaceutical interventions).
Many people might assert that “the business of suppressing certain emotions is a new threat,” and then seek to blame specific groups or individuals for a culture that may be labeled anti-emotion (or anti-human). Again, while that reaction of terrified blame is entirely predictable (and common, thus evidencing the validity of the above model), that reaction is also entirely optional (as in potentially temporary or brief).
When one is no longer disturbed by words, then one cannot be disturbed by the various linguistic labels of some emotions as “negative” or “dangerous” or “evil.” From the perspective of someone who is terrified of a certain emotion or even a certain conceptual model in language, it is natural to label anything terrifying or embarrassing as “sin,” “illness,” or even “crime.”
In other words, the repressing of emotion is itself emotional. Repression (condemnation, repulsion, etc) is emotional (more specifically, fearful).
All human cultures involve fear (repression of taboos) like all human cultures involve language or diet. To fear one’s culture may be very healthy, as in to notice and respect the danger of the operations of organized violence (gangs, governments, etc) within that culture. To have contempt for a culture of fear is to practice the programs of that culture through a terrified contempt toward that culture.
Ironically, recognizing that cultural programs of frightened contempt are in fact just cultural programs of frightened contempt is the disillusioning or dissolving of the programs. Prior to such dissolving, we could call the terrified contempt a form of denial (lack of clarity, lack of maturity). Subsequent to such dissolving, w can call the terrified contempt the process of maturing, of clarifying.
sadness

Could sadness be a form of fear? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 293 other followers

%d bloggers like this: