Posts Tagged ‘chemicals’

Trusting the Research

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

This past year, City Council meetings in my hometown regarding the hazards/benefits of having fluoridated water was interesting beyond the obvious level of polarization that it created.  If you were trying to be totally objective in weighing the pros and cons, you had to be impressed with the level of knowledge and research presented.  I was struck by the fact that most of the best research was shared by ordinary citizens rather than health professionals.

It occurred to me that the anti-fluoride side was much better prepared in presenting actual facts and figures about the problems with adding fluoride to municipal water systems, while the professionals seemed to expect that people should agree with them just because they had a title or credentials. Today, in the age of the internet, everyone has access to Pub Med, the service that supplies published research to anyone with a computer.  In other words, we all have access to the truth if we can type in a few search words.

Personally, I spend a lot of time on Pub Med.  Did you know that there are over 20,000 peer-reviewed research papers published each year?  Keeping up on all of the information is impossible for any one person, even if you spent all of your free time reading the available data.  That is why I am always amused when another health professional tell me that there is no research to validate a statement that I have made.  I just ask them if they have reviewed all of the 20,000 articles that were published in the past year. End of discussion.

The real issue is this—Can you trust the results of the research?  After all, somebody had to write a check to pay for the study that was published, since most researchers do not work for free.  Can the results of the research be tainted by the special interests of the industry that is funding the research?  Of course it can!  It happens more often than the general public will ever be allowed to know.  Therefore, looking at the source of the funding is paramount.

Approximately 2/3rds of the research is funded by two industries, the chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry.  Many of the research projects that are started are never finished.  The funding is pulled if the data implies that completion of the study may possibly work against the industry that is paying the bills.  That information is then swept under the carpet and the public will never learn why the data was destroyed.  This is particularly evident in the chemical industry, where GMO (genetically modified organism) research is often started but never completed.

Personally, I prefer to read the purer research studies published by the computer industry, for two reasons.  First, they are only interested in the truth about how to create the next level of technology.  They have nothing to hide from the public about studies that go horribly wrong.  Secondly, they tend to model future computer technology after new research that studies the functions of the human brain.  Computers have always been designed with that idea in mind.

The latest peer-reviewed research suggests that human memory is not held in the brain, or even in the body.  It is held in the field of energy that surrounds the body.  The brain, the neurons and the dendrites act as antennae to read the information coming in from the field as a person recalls a memory.

As the co-creator of a healing technique that has pioneered the concept of reading and responding to information from the human energy field, this revelation directly impacts my communication with the health care practitioners that I teach around the country and the patients that I treat.

In the computer industry, this research has led to the development of a new type of memory chip.  It is not silicon based.  Since the body is about 70% water, the new computer chip utilizes a lightly refined droplet of water.  They can pour many terabytes of information into this new chip.  As you might suspect, the data is not stored in the water.  Water acts as a matrix/template to organize the data which is actually help in a field around the chip and even around the computer itself.  This give a whole new meaning to the term “cloud computing”.

It is easy to see why I am selective about the research that I rely upon to provide the truth about the world around us.  I tend to distrust the research that is funded by chemical and pharmaceutical industries, because they tend to withhold any inconvenient information from the public.  When any “expert” attempts to convince you that you need to believe what they are stating, consider that they may be quoting research that came from an impure origin or denying the existence of research that is valid and factual.

 

GMO Sugar Beets:  What the Public Needs to Know

Thursday, March 2nd, 2017

The United States has agencies in place, created by President Teddy Roosevelt, that exist to protect the integrity of the American food supply.  In the early 20th Century, President Roosevelt witnessed a consistent degradation of the food. So, he oversaw the creation the Pure Food and Drug Administration, to ensure that our citizens would always have access to the best quality food available.

Sadly, within one administration, that agency was infiltrated by the very industries that Americans needed to be protected from.  When that happened, the adjective “Pure” became problematic, so it was removed.  Today we have the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) claiming to protect the interests of the American people with regards to the food supply.  Their job is to regulate changes to the growing of our food, before the public is exposed, to insure continued quality and safety.

GMO Sugar Beets are an example of a dismal failure of this regulatory process.  GMO sugar beets were thrust upon an unsuspecting public several years before they officially approved.  Added to that, the approval process initially only considered what the new beets might do to the immediate farm environment.  They did not consider possible danger to the humans that consumed the end product–the white sugar.

You see, the government was being put under pressure to prematurely approve the beets.  This maneuver was done by the chemical company that had created the GMO sugar beets.  Monsanto, the chemical company, did not offer an approved alternative to the new beets, so the farmers had nothing else to grow.  Fearing a sugar shortage, the government allowed the sugar to be released without completing the legal approval process.  Americans have now been eating sugar from this source for over ten years.

So, is the sugar safe or not?

Forgetting for a moment that, in general, sugar is bad for you, should you be consuming the sugar that originated from GMO sugar beets?  The energy signature testing we do at Morphogenic Field Technique says:  No, you should not be eating this sugar if you care about your overall health.  It tests very badly, as you may have observed if you have attended any of our live presentations.  It makes almost everybody’s muscles incredibly weak when tested.  

Why does this happen?  Here are our observations:

  1. GMO Sugar Beets are created using a process that we consider to be dangerous, the insertion of viral and/or bacterial genes into the seeds. Universally, our energy signature testing for anything created using this process has had a negative outcome.
  2. The beets and the soil that they are grown in is sprayed with pesticides and herbicides, with residual chemicals staying with the beets after harvest and processing.
  3. Beets are super-absorbers.  If it is nutritious, the beet will absorb it.  If it is toxic, the beet will also absorb those things as well.
  4. The result:  A toxic, genetically engineered beet, growing in toxic soil and eventually turned into a toxic product called white sugar.

Interestingly, our Morphogenic Field Technique testing procedure often demonstrates aberrant liver energies on people who have tested positive for GMO Sugar Beet energy.  

Solutions?  

  1. Avoid eating sugar, especially if you do not know the source.  If you must have sugar, buy and use only organic cane sugar products.  (Most commercial cane sugar is also sprayed with pesticides and herbicides).
  2. In our Morphogenic Field Technique classes, we like to energy signature match the “problem energies” to the “solution energies”.  In our home-testing classes, we offer 4 possible homeopathic “solution energies” that you may find valuable to expand and balance the M-Field when correctly matched.
  3. If you feel that your personal health concerns warrant a professional evaluation for more specific truly-natural protocol development, you can locate a trained MFT Professional at an event or on the MFT website here

Remember, the only stated goal of Morphogenic Field Technique is the expansion and balancing of the human energy field, the M-Field.  Years of experience have taught us that a large and balanced M-Field will move a person toward greater vitality and health, while a small or distorted M-Field usually means health-related challenges over time.

America and the Culture of Chemicals

Wednesday, March 1st, 2017

Recently, I observed the 40th anniversary of my chiropractic practice in Port Angeles, WA, treating the citizens of the North Olympic Peninsula longer than any other current practitioner in my profession. As the local chiropractic patriarch, so to speak, please forgive me as I look back over that time. I wish make a few personal observations about health perspectives in my practice over the past 4 decades.

Initially, I began my professional education as a student at the University of Washington
School of Pharmacy. In my short time there, I came to understand that the health concepts they taught there were not aligned with my own beliefs. I walked away from that experience convinced that I did not wish to exist in a world of chemically-induced side effects and adverse reactions.  

To be clear, I also had other objections regarding the Pharmacy School’s narrow view of natural health care and the issues of big pharma’s stated financial goals.  It seemed to me that their objectives revolved more around positive profit outcomes rather than positive patient outcomes. But those are subjects for a different article.

In this commentary, I wish to discuss the general topic of chemical use and abuse, both legal chemicals and illegal chemicals.  Since I practice in a profession that does not use chemicals as part of the healing experience, I speak from the perspective of the now-uncommon person who prefers that the injection or ingestion of chemicals be kept to a minimum.

One of my first professional experiences with chemical abuse came in the mid-1970’s, when scientists suddenly “discovered” that Valium was addictive.  You might remember the Rolling Stones song called “Mother’s Little Helper”, about the overprescribing of tranquilizers.  In 1977, there were 60 Valium dispensed for every man, woman and child in the United States.  Somebody got my 60, somebody got my wife’s 60 and somebody got my children’s 60.

I can still recall the stress in the voices of the many people I treated that year who had suddenly been “cut-off” and could no longer get their fix.  It was heartbreaking to watch.  It was an example of what I call “legal chemical abuse”.  At that time, I put the blame directly on the shoulders of the big pharmaceutical companies and their representative, who convinced the doctors that there was no harm in prescribing them.  At that point, I was feeling pretty pleased with myself for walking away from that world.

That experience was the first of many similar episodes regarding both legal and illegal chemical abuse in my home town.  I have talked with many women who were convinced by their practitioner that they needed hormone replacement therapy to avoid hot flashes or osteoporosis, only to learn later that it made them predisposed to some types of cancer.

I have watched as the vaccines have grown to a $35 billion industry, projected to reach $60 billion in 5 years with absolutely no legal consequences if it all goes wrong. This has occurred thanks to a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that stated that vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe”, therefore the 3-5% of people who reacted to them had no legal recourse if their health was permanently damaged following their inoculations.

I have watched big pharma successfully lobby to make vaccines mandatory for students entering school in California, forcing the parents of these children to make radical, life-changing decision to avoid the vaccine dragnet.  There are many conscientious parents who do not want the vaccine chemicals, known as adjuvants, injected directly into their children’s blood stream.

I have watched as the USDA and the FDA have allowed the large commercial food manufacturer to add over 12,000 “legal” chemicals to our food supply.  I have also seen them approve the use of genetically modified (GMO) food lased with pesticides and herbicides without a single human feeding study to show that they are safe.

15 years ago, I watched as a large group from the local High School Class of 2002 suddenly “disappear” from school, drawn into the poisonous world of methamphetamine.  That was a classic example of the illegal side of the culture of chemicals.  To my thinking, it is an offshoot of the idea that you can just go numb to your problems if you take the right chemical.  Currently, my town has even greater threats from meth, cocaine and other illegal chemicals.

Someone purchases each of these chemicals, making them a huge stream of revenue for the entity that manufactures them.  And, they have a vested interest in pressuring us to continue their use.

Yes, my town is a big consumer of chemicals, both legal and illegal.  

How many more chemicals can we consume before we pass the point where cancer, autism and other diseases related to chemical abuse become the norm rather than the exception?

MORPHOGENIC FIELD TECHNIQUE
Port Angeles, Washington