Bring4th

The thing I wonder about Gerson Therapy is: if it basically amounts to a veg diet, juicing, and some colonics, why not just leave it at that? None of those things are illegal. Making false claims about "cancer cures" is.

They could have promoted it as a way to support the body's immune system, but instead they went with the "cancer cure" route. Sounds like poor planning to me.

It becomes an option for those with cancer. Without the buzzword many of the programmed would not become aware of it.

Why is it "legal" to call sickening treatments that only last temporarily a "cure"?

(10-26-2012, 05:10 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]It becomes an option for those with cancer. Without the buzzword many of the programmed would not become aware of it.

What good is becoming aware of it as an option, if they don't have access to it? Of course, it is pretty simple to piece back together, once one knows about the different elements. No need to go to Mexico and spend $5500 per week at the Gerson Institute.

Quote:Why is it "legal" to call sickening treatments that only last temporarily a "cure"?

It isn't. That's why they're called "treatments."

(10-26-2012, 05:20 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]It isn't. That's why they're called "treatments."

in a way i think paying 5500 a month to gerson is not a lot different than paying 2000 for a chemo session. u are still giving your power to someone else. of course its easy to say that and hard to do it. i think these ills we are affected by are also opportunities for us if we so choose to accept them as such and absolutely refuse to surrender to them. is chanting a healing mantra as effective as chemo or gerson. depends on how much we believe in it i guess. its all about belief systems. could we actually put our faith in ourselves and our own i am presence . we can if we have the guts to cast our fate to the winds and trust in the unseen.

om shri dhanvantre namaha invokes the celestial physican. we will be led to the right course of treatment for us if we chant this. or at least i believe we will. i have more faith in those words than in any human being allopathic or alternative actually

you'd have to pay me to get colonics.

(10-27-2012, 05:27 AM)norral Wrote: [ -> ]the celestial physican

Just curious- Is the "celestial physician" also represented by the constellation Ophiuchus in this tradition?

(10-26-2012, 05:20 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]It isn't. That's why they're called "treatments."

Treatment - the process of providing medical care
Practice - The actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method as opposed to theories about such application or use.

The word "cure" cannot be applied in the medical profession which is why "treatments" are "practiced". A cure manifests from homeostasis. Homeostasis is simply the body returning to a natural state from natural input.

To better understand what the medical profession is doing to cancer we only need look at the use of antibiotics and pesticides. By attempts at direct annihilation of nature we are confused as to how nature will fight back. In these attempts we are forcing the evolution of larger problems that tend to do a better job at getting the message across.

---

So you don't have a problem with a cure, you have a problem with the use of legal jargon? Is this a useful thought?

robin roberts from good morning america is now going thru a 2nd round of "treatments" due to the fact her first "treatment" has caused another form of cancer. if this is not insane i dont know what is. our whole medical system actually is nuts because all of the drugs have some seriously nasty side effects. our society encourages dependence, on doctors on priests on experts of all sorts. most of these experts are motivated by money, not all but most. tenet i will get back to u on that question i have to look it up . if u go to the website sanskritmantra.com it contains a wealth of info. i have his book healing mantras which i consider a very worthwhile investment. the good thing about chanting mantras is its free ha ha.

Quote: due to the fact her first "treatment" has caused another form of cancer

Yeah it is a pretty dissonant "practice". An old lady i know chose cancer instead of a natural diet. Her liver had fatty deposits and the pills she was given had two cancers listed as a side effect, with a guarantee of the cancer appearing in two years whether she stopped taking them or not.

During my road trip today i realized that the term "practice" is used in medicine the same way it is used in religion lol!

(10-27-2012, 10:38 AM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]The word "cure" cannot be applied in the medical profession which is why "treatments" are "practiced".

Exactly. And anyway, since the "cure" comes from within, I don't really see why everybody is so eager to fight over who owns this term.

Quote:A cure manifests from homeostasis. Homeostasis is simply the body returning to a natural state from natural input.

Yes- except I would go with the homeodynamic theory which posits that homeostasis takes the form of highly-ordered plateaus in an otherwise chaotic process. With homeodynamics, we can explain how complex systems evolve from one homeostasis to another homeostasis, with intervening periods of chaotic activity between them. Homeodynamics also provides more explanatory power on the superorganism and ecosystem levels of life.

Also does a better job explaining a "healing crisis" or "detox reaction" where things need to temporarily become worse before they get better. Also explains why "palliative care" i.e treating the symptoms, may result in chronic conditions over the long term.

See Lloyd D, Aon MA, Cortassa S. Why homeodynamics, not homeostasis? ScientificWorldJournal. 2001. Apr 4;1:133-45 for more info, and a link the free full text

Quote:To better understand what the medical profession is doing to cancer we only need look at the use of antibiotics and pesticides. By attempts at direct annihilation of nature we are confused as to how nature will fight back. In these attempts we are forcing the evolution of larger problems that tend to do a better job at getting the message across.

Yes. In 1846, a Hungarian medical resident by the name of Ignaz Semmelweis was put in charge of two maternity clinics. He made the observation that one of the clinics had a much higher rate of puerperal fever than the other.

Since the only obvious difference between the two was that one was a teaching clinic for medical students and the other for midwives. Noting another difference, that the medical students had regular contact with cadavers before administering pelvic exams to the pregnant women.

He therefore theorized that there was some invisible disease agent being transmitted on the medical students' hands that wasn't present on the midwives' hands. As you can imagine, there was quite an "outrage" at this notion, which was of course interpreted as an assault on the entire medical profession- essentially accusing them of spreading disease.

Life did not go well for Semmelweis after that. He was, of course, scoffed at, derided, discredited, and eventually ignored. He ended up frantically passing out flyers on the streets warning pregnant women about the doctors. He was eventually put in an asylum, where he died at age 47. Ironically, from septicemia.

It wasn't until 1870 that the "germ theory of disease" took hold in the medical profession. The conclusive proof was obtained by several scientists, but the most crucial evidence came from the work of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch in the 1860s and 1870s.

To this day, we use Koch's postulates to establish a causal relationship between a microbe and a disease.

Koch's postulates Wrote:1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.

2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.

3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.

4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

It would be another almost 50 years before Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928. And the rest, as they say, is history.

You are right, it is our attitude that, since bacteria cause disease our aim should be to eradicate them, which has led us into our predicament today. Which not only means "superbugs" infecting us, but our near total ignorance of the gut microbiome means we have been systematically wiping out our internal ecology through the overuse of antibiotics, and possibly even mutating what is left through the pesticides and additives in our food.

But even given all of this- notice how so many people in BOTH the "mainstream medical" AND "natural health" professions are still running around half-cocked promoting their pet theories while pretty much ignoring what science has now clearly demonstrated which is the fact that bacteria- and possibly other microbes- play an absolutely critical role in the maintenance of health.

So yes, it does come down to asking the wrong questions, and making the wrong assumptions.

But now tell me this: If I go down to the Gerson Institute and pay god knows what for their "cure"... is anybody talking to me about gut bacteria? Probably not, because they are too heavily invested in their egos and in defending all the hullabaloo they have caused by claiming that scientific theories are facts.

Similarly, if I walk into see a gastroenterologist and pay god knows what for their "treatment," is anybody talking to me about gut bacteria? Probably not, because they are too heavily invested in their egos and in defending all the hullabaloo they have caused by insisting that scientific theories are facts.

So what, really, is the difference between these two groups? Not much. They're two different acts in the same circus.

Quote:So you don't have a problem with a cure, you have a problem with the use of legal jargon? Is this a useful thought?

The naturopathic philsopohy, which I have adopted, would say that the cure comes from within. Medicines- natural or synthetic- are merely treatments. Treatments do not cure, they merely help to create an environment for the cure to manifest itself.

The primary difference between the two is that drug treatments almost invariably work by inhibiting an enzyme system. While natural treatments tend to promote them. But there are exceptions to the rule on both sides.

Knowing the "legal jargon" is important. If you don't use the law, it will use you. Is it a useful to flap our wings about and squawk loudly at the "establishment" and spread viral videos? Why would we do this when we can simply elevate our language and step outside of the establishment's system?

Law is the codification of language. That's all it really is. We may not like it, or think it fair, but it is what it is. Catalyst, which we can accept, control, or ignore.

Words meaning X "to me" and Y "to you" is all fine and dandy when we are chatting philosophy in the coffee shop. But when people step into the public world- particularly when offering health services- they are agreeing to be bound by the parameters of the legal definitions of terms. However absurd they may be.

But the joke is on us, because all anybody ever needed to do is to actually read the law and learn the terms. Then, think of a way to express oneself without using those terms. It might not be a foolproof way to avoid unwanted run-ins with the legal system, but it's better than lighting torches and taking to the streets.

Bottom line, calling the Gerson Therapy a "cancer cure" amounts to shooting oneself in the foot. There's just no good reason to do it, and every reason not to. Let the system have their term back.

Quote:And anyway, since the "cure" comes from within, I don't really see why everybody is so eager to fight over who owns this term.

Logically there is no such thing as a cure, just the use of the word to capitalize on a belief structure. Still, a healthy alternative is an analog to what we believe is a "cure". If you take a motor and build it with substandard parts it will obviously reach failure/end of use faster. The same is true about changing the fuel that goes into the motor, early failure and run like crap the whole time. Most people are taught wrongly what to build the body with. I don't have a problem with anyone claiming a cure for "death" if while found to be untrue the new experiences of quality of health can teach society to move towards a more natural way of life.

Quote:Also does a better job explaining a "healing crisis" or "detox reaction" where things need to temporarily become worse before they get better.

This only happens with abrupt changes. Since I took my time changing habits I did not have to deal with any detox.

Quote:But even given all of this- notice how so many people in BOTH the "mainstream medical" AND "natural health" professions are still running around half-cocked promoting their pet theories while pretty much ignoring what science has now clearly demonstrated which is the fact that bacteria- and possibly other microbes- play an absolutely critical role in the maintenance of health.

Are you aware that you can control the actions of bacteria and common virus with thought? Can I ask you how long since the last time you down with cold or flu?

(10-27-2012, 08:32 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]Logically there is no such thing as a cure, just the use of the word to capitalize on a belief structure.

Fair enough.

Quote:Most people are taught wrongly what to build the body with.

That is most certainly so. Only I would add there are more "alternative" health practitioners and "gurus" who spread disinformation in that regard. MDs are mostly silent on the matter, because they weren't really taught anything about it, one way or another.

Also- besides putting in the right fuel, the body needs to digest and absorb it properly. And that, in turn, relies on healthy gut ecology.

Quote:Are you aware that you can control the actions of bacteria and common virus with thought?

Yes. Are you aware that:

46.9 Wrote:Control is the key to negatively polarized use of catalyst.

Quote:Can I ask you how long since the last time you down with cold or flu?

February. But that was a combination of traveling with somebody else that was sick, being in a dirty hostel with more people who were sick, and then drinking a contaminated "superfood" smoothie. It was just too much- but I did manage to snap myself out of a fever long enough to remove myself from the environment.

Other than that I don't really remember. I think it's been more than 5 years.

(10-28-2012, 01:02 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Most people are taught wrongly what to build the body with.

That is most certainly so. Only I would add there are more "alternative" health practitioners and "gurus" who spread disinformation in that regard. MDs are mostly silent on the matter, because they weren't really taught anything about it, one way or another.

You seem to be saying that drugs don't "build the body" which I agree with. It's true that MDs aren't taught about nutrition. But, given that people think it's ok to take a cocktail of drugs without questioning them, and MDs regularly dispense drugs, then one could say that MDs are implying that drugs somehow keep the body running. Also, MDs typically don't tell people to avoid toxic foods, so in that respect, by error of omission it could be said they are implying it's ok to "build the body" with junk foods, sodas, etc.

(10-28-2012, 01:02 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Also- besides putting in the right fuel, the body needs to digest and absorb it properly. And that, in turn, relies on healthy gut ecology.

Very true! I learned this the hard way, as you well know!

(10-28-2012, 01:02 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Are you aware that you can control the actions of bacteria and common virus with thought?

Yes. Are you aware that:

46.9 Wrote:Control is the key to negatively polarized use of catalyst.

We all know that controlling other 3D entities is a hallmark of STS. But, as evidenced on the meat thread, Law of One students can't even agree that killing higher 2D entities is a controlling (ie. STS) act.

Are you suggesting that controlling lower 2D entities (bacteria) inhabiting our own bodies is STS?

(10-28-2012, 01:02 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's been more than 5 years.

You must be doing something right!

Control is the key for "negative" polarization - but it would be quite interesting to equate control with "service to self" in a direct manner. It is not that simple. Balance is not the total elimination of control, and total acceptance (the "positive" counterpart of control) can only be truly acceptance if it is not hiding behind a layer of a belief system that ultimately just wants to control as well.

The paradox is crucial in this. There is someone with a sickness, no matter how severe it is. All this material is available, all this food for thought, and the sickness perseveres - and one asks "why, oh why?". "Shall I accept it? Then it goes away!" is one way to go forward. But that is acceptance AND control bind together. It works or it does not work. "Shall I try to control it? Or hell, destroy it?" I see this mentality regarding to cancer as well. "Killing cancer" or "fighting cancer" are words that are having a powerful meaning. It is one way, leading to "god knows where". For some, it works, for some, it does not.

And then here we are, again, at the crossroads of Control and Acceptance. And one might say "f***, I give up. I am not able to control the outcome, I accept this." And that can be true acceptance. And then, the disease, having served its purpose, could go away freely. Or one could say: "I will strengthen my body in ways that I never bothered to do so before" - and go down in a positive way of control. And that might be a good way as well. It is not all black and white, no matter who spins it and how the spinning is going.

Regarding Gerson-diet, of course someone wants to capitalize on it. But honestly, I watched a video about that half a year ago, and ever since then, we have been dropping processed food more and more, and it is working. I understand Tenet, that you are emotionally invested in this whole matter of wordings and calling it cure or whatnot, but it really does not matter. What matters is that for MOST people, simply going to simpler foods can actually help you and your digestive system as well. Of course, if you have severe digestive problems already, you should be AWARE of that and not blindly accept anything as a "de facto Cure". But that is not the fault of those that try to capitalize on stuff like this, but it is the gullability of the individual that has certain consequences as well.

Bring4thMonica Wrote:You must be doing something right! Smile

I understand that for me, anytime I decide to brag about something health-related, it is a call for my higher self to bring me a new set of body-related problems, just for the fun of it. So let us pray for Tenet

Yeah i notice it said "key" rather than "is". A key is just a way to unlock something.

I assume he throws out self control and discipline.

I only know of one other person on this forum that can measure someones polarity. So i find it humorous when folks fling the terms "polarity" and "sts/sto". I really have to bite my tongue

(10-29-2012, 04:49 PM)Oldern Wrote: [ -> ]Control is the key for "negative" polarization - but it would be quite interesting to equate control with "service to self" in a direct manner. It is not that simple. Balance is not the total elimination of control, and total acceptance (the "positive" counterpart of control) can only be truly acceptance if it is not hiding behind a layer of a belief system that ultimately just wants to control as well.

The paradox is crucial in this. There is someone with a sickness, no matter how severe it is. All this material is available, all this food for thought, and the sickness perseveres - and one asks "why, oh why?". "Shall I accept it? Then it goes away!" is one way to go forward. But that is acceptance AND control bind together. It works or it does not work. "Shall I try to control it? Or hell, destroy it?" I see this mentality regarding to cancer as well. "Killing cancer" or "fighting cancer" are words that are having a powerful meaning. It is one way, leading to "god knows where". For some, it works, for some, it does not.

And then here we are, again, at the crossroads of Control and Acceptance. And one might say "f***, I give up. I am not able to control the outcome, I accept this." And that can be true acceptance. And then, the disease, having served its purpose, could go away freely. Or one could say: "I will strengthen my body in ways that I never bothered to do so before" - and go down in a positive way of control. And that might be a good way as well. It is not all black and white, no matter who spins it and how the spinning is going.

Good points!

(10-29-2012, 04:49 PM)Oldern Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding Gerson-diet, of course someone wants to capitalize on it.

Just to clarify, I'm not promoting Gersen. It's too invasive for my taste (aggressive colonics, etc.) and not radical enough on diet for my taste (still includes cooked food). But, I posted the video because I thought she had some good things to say. And I do know a lot of people have healed using their protocol. There are so many different protocols for cancer though...it's almost comical, how many there are, any one of which has worked for many advanced-stage patients. The whole idea of "find a cure for cancer" would be laughable, were it not so tragic, that proven methods for healing exist but have been suppressed by the drug monopoly.

(10-29-2012, 04:49 PM)Oldern Wrote: [ -> ]I understand that for me, anytime I decide to brag about something health-related, it is a call for my higher self to bring me a new set of body-related problems, just for the fun of it. So let us pray for Tenet

I have found that principle to be true as well, and not just in matters of health! But, in all fairness to Tenet, he was just answering a direct question.

---

(10-29-2012, 06:10 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah i notice it said "key" rather than "is". A key is just a way to unlock something.

Good point. If we dissect that statement, we could logically say that just because a contains b, doesn't mean a=b. In other words, if control is used in an STS way (as a key) it doesn't necessarily logically follow that every act of control is an STS act.

For example, I controlled my cats last night by bringing them inside because it was going to be cold. I did it out of love because I care about them and wanted them to be cozy warm. There was an element of control, but it certainly wasn't STS motivated.

Same with when we control our dogs by keeping them on a leash instead of letting them run out into the street, or when we discipline our children. So control isn't inherently STS, though it is more commonly found in STS actions. If one seeks to control another for the sake of control, or in order to serve self, with no regard for other-self, then that would be STS.

(10-29-2012, 06:10 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]I assume he throws out self control and discipline.

Who does?

(10-29-2012, 06:10 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]I only know of one other person on this forum that can measure someones polarity. So i find it humorous when folks fling the terms "polarity" and "sts/sto". I really have to bite my tongue

Well sometimes those terms are used in reference to a specific action, as in this case, rather than to define a person. A person might be 75% STO yet participate in an STS action.

(10-29-2012, 04:49 PM)Oldern Wrote: [ -> ]I understand Tenet, that you are emotionally invested in this whole matter of wordings and calling it cure or whatnot, but it really does not matter.

It DOES matter, because their insisting on calling it a "cure" is why people don't have access to it. Pretty straightforward.

We can debate till the cows come home about how ridiculous the medico-legal system is. But at the end of the day, that's how it works. So what is the point of shooting oneself in the foot? Just to be defiant?

Quote:I understand that for me, anytime I decide to brag about something health-related, it is a call for my higher self to bring me a new set of body-related problems, just for the fun of it. So let us pray for Tenet

Hey now! I wasn't bragging, just answering a direct question.

---

(10-29-2012, 06:10 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah i notice it said "key" rather than "is". A key is just a way to unlock something.

Bring4th_Monica Wrote:Good point. If we dissect that statement, we could logically say that just because a contains b, doesn't mean a=b. In other words, if control is used in an STS way (as a key) it doesn't necessarily logically follow that every act of control is an STS act.

Yes, that is a good point. The quote wasn't meant as an assessment of Pickle's state of polarization. So I would advise not to take it as such.

As far as anybody around the forum who claims they can make such an assessment, I am reminded of another quote:

93.3 Wrote:It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

"It DOES matter, because their insisting on calling it a "cure" is why people don't have access to it. Pretty straightforward.

We can debate till the cows come home about how ridiculous the medico-legal system is. But at the end of the day, that's how it works. So what is the point of shooting oneself in the foot? Just to make a point?"

I see. Well, I have always been fascinated with basically everything that happens in this planet, especially stuff that seems okay at first glance, and upon closer inspection, it becomes a complex, heavily self-intertwined fabric of fear and love. I just do not see how one could break down a process to faulty parts when there are heavy inter-dependencies at play. In this case, I would really not start blaming victims (especially not people with cancer), but let me say that I think that there is a reason that for as long as there are people accepting many things as long as it comes from outside sources, then there will appear people (or thought forms) who will wish to provide catalyst in a vampiric manner (taking your money, taking your power, taking your vote, taking your wallet, taking your family, your health, your ability to do stuff, etc.).

At the end of the day, I see the change as a gradual process that affects both the gullible ("I need to start to rely on myself and inspect myself, and I should not need to always have someone telling me what is the secret for living") and those that are placing themselves in a catalyst-offering position ("I cannot sleep properly after yet again sucking out thousands of dollars for sick people. I need to make a change!"). As long as it is both, not this or that, the way forward should be fine. But it is not an easy road nevertheless.

That was quite a complex statement you made yourself there, Oldern!

Let me put it this way, if I happened upon a protocol that appeared to be resulting in remission of cancer in my patients, I wouldn't ever start pronouncing I had found a "cancer cure." This is precisely because that is a medico-legal term that carries all sorts of baggage with it, and ends up drawing the wrong kind of attention, which in turn results in less people being able to have access to the protocol.

If my goal were to bring the treatment to as many people as possible, I would NEVER use the word "cure." If my goal were to embroil myself in legal battles, be issued "cease and desist" orders, and otherwise harassed by the establishment, then I would shout "cancer cure" from the rooftops.

Instead, I would simply state the truth:

Me: When we do X, people's cancerous conditions appear to go away.
Establishment: How does it work?
Me: No clue. You guys should study it and find out.

(10-29-2012, 03:34 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]You seem to be saying that drugs don't "build the body" which I agree with. It's true that MDs aren't taught about nutrition. But, given that people think it's ok to take a cocktail of drugs without questioning them, and MDs regularly dispense drugs, then one could say that MDs are implying that drugs somehow keep the body running. Also, MDs typically don't tell people to avoid toxic foods, so in that respect, by error of omission it could be said they are implying it's ok to "build the body" with junk foods, sodas, etc.

Well, sure! I'm just saying "that MD" and "Dan the Man with a Plan" aren't all that different, when it comes to misinformation about nutrition.

Quote:Very true! I learned this the hard way, as you well know!

But seriously... not that you should have trusted me as a random person on a web forum anyway... but I'm happy things are going better for you now. (See, I had your best interests at heart all along! )

Quote:Are you suggesting that controlling lower 2D entities (bacteria) inhabiting our own bodies is STS?

Could be. Depends on the attitude one takes toward it, I suppose.

(10-27-2012, 05:59 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line, calling the Gerson Therapy a "cancer cure" amounts to shooting oneself in the foot. There's just no good reason to do it, and every reason not to.

Agreed.

(10-27-2012, 05:59 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Let the system have their term back.

Earlier you said they call it a treatment, not a cure. So is it really their term either?

(10-29-2012, 10:33 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Earlier you said they call it a treatment, not a cure. So is it really their term either?

Heh. Well, no it's really not. But good luck explaining that to a judge!

(10-29-2012, 06:51 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]As far as anybody around the forum who claims they can make such an assessment, I am reminded of another quote:

93.3 Wrote:It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

How do you suppose it is possible that the percentage of positively polarized individuals on this planet was measured 30 years ago, and came from the mouth of a 3D entity?

Well, the very same way it is done today. Much like Ra talked about healers, yet a healer does not heal. Hmmm

(10-29-2012, 07:22 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]If my goal were to bring the treatment to as many people as possible, I would NEVER use the word "cure."

Is that really his goal? Maybe his goal is to shine a light on a dark system of control. Strange how bringing attention to something dark can get people to take sides, and just what sides they end up choosing. I have seen a lot of folks do things that did not make sense from the perspective of the action itself, yet made sense if you look at the bigger picture.

How many need to "shoot their foot off" to get the attention of society?

(10-29-2012, 09:39 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Well, sure! I'm just saying "that MD" and "Dan the Man with a Plan" aren't all that different, when it comes to misinformation about nutrition.

I see your point, but the difference is that, generally speaking, people who watch Dan the Man have already decided to think for themselves, and understand that Dan is just sharing his own experiences. They aren't as likely to put blind faith into Dan like people do MDs. The people still locked into the allopathic mindset haven't even realized that there is a whole 'nother world out there. They're still in the mindset of needing permission to get off meds, and asking permission to change their diet or water. Dan the Man fans are already thinking for themselves so they aren't likely to consider him an authority; they just like him because he's cool, charming and inspiring.

(10-29-2012, 09:39 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ] But seriously... not that you should have trusted me as a random person on a web forum anyway

No disrespect intended, but I never trust any health practitioner completely, whether on the internet or not. Look at how many different practitioners all disagree. I don't follow any one of them completely. Each one might have a piece of the puzzle but I have yet to meet one that has all the pieces. And most have a few ideas that I would consider inappropriate for me personally, or, in many cases, even inaccurate. That's why I cross reference everything.

(10-29-2012, 09:39 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ](See, I had your best interests at heart all along! )

Of that I have no doubt!

(10-30-2012, 01:11 AM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]How do you suppose it is possible that the percentage of positively polarized individuals on this planet was measured 30 years ago, and came from the mouth of a 3D entity?

By whom? Dawkins?

Quote:Is that really his goal? Maybe his goal is to shine a light on a dark system of control. Strange how bringing attention to something dark can get people to take sides, and just what sides they end up choosing. I have seen a lot of folks do things that did not make sense from the perspective of the action itself, yet made sense if you look at the bigger picture.

That's interesting... personally when I think of the "bigger picture" the notion of "taking sides" seems rather irrelevant. Comical even.

Quote:How many need to "shoot their foot off" to get the attention of society?

I would ask... how many need to "shoot their foot off" in order to realize that shooting feet doesn't really accomplish all that much? This is the problem with zealous ideology... when it doesn't create the intended result, people tend to dig their heels in deeper and become more extreme in their methods, rather than questioning the ideology behind it.

Marxism would be a great example of this. No matter how many times the experiment failed, its proponents just kept pushing harder and harder... even to the point of murdering people and committing genocide in order to support their unshakeable faith in their ideology. The Nazis did the same thing. The Christians did the same thing during the time of the Crusades. The Muslims did the same thing, and still do it now.

So the most pertinent question to me is... how many people need to die at the hands of extremists in order for humanity to learn that extremism and zealotry isn't an effective way to bring "peace and prosperity" to human beings?

---

(10-30-2012, 08:21 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I see your point, but the difference is that, generally speaking, people who watch Dan the Man have already decided to think for themselves, and understand that Dan is just sharing his own experiences.

I hope you're right about that!

Quote:They aren't as likely to put blind faith into Dan like people do MDs.

I dunno. I'm inclined to say that people who are prone to "blind faith" are just as likely to place it in an MD as they are Dan the Man.

But I see your point. Taken as a whole, people who are into alternative medicine are probably more likely to be free thinkers- since one would assume they had to get themselves out of that box to begin with.

Quote:Each one might have a piece of the puzzle but I have yet to meet one that has all the pieces.

Exactly. Now if more practitioners- of all inclinations- were to adopt this attitude I think we would see some dramatically positive changes in very short order.

It's the authoritarianism that is the problem. And it's just as detrimental when it comes from the alternative camp as the mainstream camp.

That's why I am of the opinion that it is better to shy away from sweeping generalizations and strong statements of "A causes B" or "X cures Y." We don't always know what we don't already know, and often times what we think we know is totally inaccurate.

So getting back to the context of Max Gerson and his therapy, it is the authoritarian attitude that is so typical of his generation that I take issue with more than the therapy itself.

It is presented as, you MUST do A, B, and C, EXACTLY as we instruct you. If you do, then your cancer will most definitely be cured. Instead of saying "I know the way! Follow me!" it would have been better to present it as: "Here try this and see what happens."

I think a great many alternative practitioners scam people by concocting elaborate rituals and specific protocols which they claim must be followed EXACTLY in order for it to work. It gives them a convenient "out" for when their patients don't get results that were promised.

(11-01-2012, 12:23 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]So the most pertinent question to me is... how many people need to die at the hands of extremists in order for humanity to learn that extremism and zealotry isn't an effective way to bring "peace and prosperity" to human beings?

We have to pick our battles. I have much more issue with the pharmaceutical industry than with overzealous alternative practitioners. Occasionally we might hear of someone who did some alternative therapy and it harmed them. It happened to me. But how often do we hear of people dying after conventional cancer 'treatment'? All the time. It's much more prevalent and insidious. At least when people pursue alternative therapies, they know it's likely not 100% proven. But if the doctor says to do something, they do it without questioning. I see this everyday in my business. People will be getting great results, but then they get the surgery or treatment because the doctor said to, and then they die.

(11-01-2012, 12:23 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]But I see your point. Taken as a whole, people who are into alternative medicine are probably more likely to be free thinkers- since one would assume they had to get themselves out of that box to begin with.

Exactly.

(11-01-2012, 12:23 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]It is presented as, you MUST do A, B, and C, EXACTLY as we instruct you. If you do, then your cancer will most definitely be cured. Instead of saying "I know the way! Follow me!" it would have been better to present it as: "Here try this and see what happens."

I think a great many alternative practitioners scam people by concocting elaborate rituals and specific protocols which they claim must be followed EXACTLY in order for it to work. It gives them a convenient "out" for when their patients don't get results that were promised.

Yes, many of them act as though their way is the only way. Yet look at how many different ways there are to heal cancer. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, that there are so many ways that people are oblivious to! Those new to the alternative path often get confused because there are so many ways. I recently told a young woman pursuing alternative therapy to rejoice at how many options she had, rather than get bogged down and confused about which ones to do.

I think a distinction needs to be made between principles and protocols. A principle might be well established, but different so-called 'experts' have different opinions as to how to apply that principle.

Examples of established principles:

Contributors to healing
Exercise
Proper sleep and relaxation
Positive attitude
Fresh fruits and vegetables
Detoxify pesticides, heavy metals, etc.
Rebuild inner terrain for healthy bacteria
Less animal food

Detractors
Junk food
Stress
Environmental and dietary toxins
Excess animal foods

Those are just the basics. Even with the last one in both lists, there is some debate. But other than that, no one is going to disagree with those basics. But, the question of how much of the diet should be raw fruits and veggies, etc. and how to detoxify, and how to rebuild, all will yield differing answers. And that's not even getting into the issue of supplements.

What I'm hearing you say is that Gerson is too rigid on protocol. But they probably are like that because they're really just a notch above conventional treatment, as far as the mentality of those they attract. Those choosing such a rigid protocol might still be seeking some 'expert' to 'cure' them, rather than realizing that they are in charge of their own healing process.

Then you have Dan the Man, at the opposite end of the spectrum! He's so goofy and stoned looking, I cannot fathom anyone viewing him as any kind of authority!

Now I have a question for you, Tenet. What is your opinion on calcium? Of course there are many forms, and many cofactors, which I understand. My specific question is regarding the disagreement over whether to supplement with more calcium (with cofactors) or with magnesium, in order to correct a calcium deficiency.

This article says to take more calcium, and that mag is antagonistic to calcium:

http://www.xtend-life.com/downloads/report_cc.pdf

But then you have sellers of mag products claiming that most people already get plenty of calcium in the diet, but it's the mag that they're deficient in. Take more mag, and it will get the calcium into the bones and tissues where it belongs. They say mag deficiency affect calcium by keeping it locked up, outside the cells, resulting in bone spurs etc. which people think is too much calcium, but is actually a sign that calcium isn't being absorbed, and mag is the solution to free it up.

http://www.calmnatural.co.uk/magnesium-deficiency

http://www.ancient-minerals.com/magnesiu...oms-signs/

http://bodyecology.com/articles/magnesiu...JMKnW_Tcsc

What do you think?

(11-01-2012, 12:23 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-30-2012, 01:11 AM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]How do you suppose it is possible that the percentage of positively polarized individuals on this planet was measured 30 years ago, and came from the mouth of a 3D entity?

By whom? Dawkins?

Of course.

You should be able to see a correlation between harvestable and polarity. I said should. Ra invokes the Law of Confusion (means you are required to find out on your own/you are not ready) when asked about the status of incarnated free willed individuals. There are many that can penetrate the veil. The quote you used specified a single analogous perspective, when many exist.

85.11 Questioner: Then the service-to-self path has potentiated that which is not. Could you expand that a little bit so that I could understand it a little better?
Ra: I am Ra. If you see the energy centers in their various colors completing the spectrum you may see that the service-to-self choice is one which denies the very center of the spectrum; that being universal love. Therefore, all that is built upon the penetration of the light of harvestable quality by such entities is based upon an omission. This omission shall manifest in fourth density as the love of self; that is, the fullest expression of the orange and yellow energy centers which then are used to potentiate communication and adepthood.

63.12 Questioner: Approximately how many are here now who have come here from other planets who are third-density harvestable for fourth-density experience?
Ra: I am Ra. This is a recent, shall we say, phenomenon and the number is not yet in excess of 35,000 entities.

98.6 Keep in mind that this entity is harvestable third density.

(11-01-2012, 12:23 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:How many need to "shoot their foot off" to get the attention of society?

I would ask... how many need to "shoot their foot off" in order to realize that shooting feet doesn't really accomplish all that much? This is the problem with zealous ideology... when it doesn't create the intended result, people tend to dig their heels in deeper and become more extreme in their methods, rather than questioning the ideology behind it.

Yes they do. I still have the highest regard for this zealot.
17.11 The one known to you as Jesus of Nazareth did not have a name. This entity was a member of fourth density of the highest level of that sub-octave.

17.12 The fourth-density being is that which we intended to say, the highest level of fourth density going into the fifth. This entity could have gone on to the fifth but chose instead to return to third for this particular mission. This entity was of the highest sub-octave of the vibration of love. This is fourth density.