When modern medicine sets out to hoodwink the body does it create confusion in our cells which makes it easier for them to be hoodwinked or tricked in general and subject to disease?

Cancer may trick the body but most of modern medicine does the same thing much of the time. Logic suggests the two may be connected.

While science/medicine does continue to ask questions and this article is a part of that process, I can only wonder how many make a connection between 'how cancer acts,' and how so much of modern medicine 'works.'

Given the ancient presence of cancer as a disease there are obviously many triggers but perhaps the massive rise in cancer today, to one in two from one in ten in 1900,  is linked to the actions of science/medicine and the pharmaceutical methodology it relies upon to a very large degree. A methodology which did not exist a century ago and which was not used in the way it now is, until probably 60 years ago, must have an impact on the individual human body and its capacity to function.

In a world of mass medication for diseases people do not have and may never get and often from childhood, the question must be asked: Yes, but what does it do to the body?

Every action has an effect and subjecting the body to unnatural, artificial substances in the form of medications and processes, designed to 'trick,' or to use the word in this article 'hoodwink' the body must have an effect which involves confusion. How long does it take an immune system, and no doubt some are more robust than others, to become permanently 'confused' and unable to accurately identify Self and Other; Friend or Foe?

All that interventionist 'maybe medicine,' often in the form of experimental, synthezied drugs, may be meddling which, ultimately confuses the body and creates more disease.

‘Our bodies produce thousands of different molecular messages, and drug developers have taken advantage of this fact by synthesizing ‘imposter’ messages that mimic the chemistry and shape of our natural molecules.  In fact many drugs used in medicine today achieve their results by preventing natural signals from engaging their receptors.’ From Secrets of Your Cells, Discovering Your Body’s Inner Intelligence, by Sondra Barrett, PhD.

Doctors and patients, who would be horrified to be so ‘tricked’ by those who set out to deceive and who ‘dress’ and ‘act’ and ‘talk’ in recognisable ways and yet are imposters,  think nothing of ‘tricking’ their cells and their body consistently.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/aussies-reveal-how-cancer-tricks-the-body/story-fn3dxiwe-1226862806111

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate, that is the question but why so much fear and hysteria?

Why is vaccination becoming such an emotional topic?
______________________________________________


With a measles outbreak in North America again, the hysteria level rises with fingers pointed at the growing numbers who question vaccination and either limit it or reject it completely.

What continues to confuse me however is the fear factor amongst the pro-vaccination camp when, as the vaccine theory attests and common sense demonstrates, it is the unvaccinated who are at risk and who have chosen to take that risk for themselves or their children and not the vaccinated. Vaccination, so it goes, either prevents one from getting the disease completely or ensures a mild case of the disease.

Given the absolute impossibility of 100% of the world being vaccinated ever, for any length of time, and the reality of constant air travel, exposure to various diseases for which people can be vaccinated is a given. So, in the circumstances the vaccinated should rest comfortably that they are protected and accept that not everyone is alike and those who accept the risks supposedly associated with non-vaccination, have a right to do so. In the same way that some people join fundamentalist religions, become vegans, home-school their children etc., so too, as is their right, do some people choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children.

What concerns me most about this situation is the hysteria and the demonisation of the non-vaxxers as they are now labelled. My view is that with informed research parents and people should be able to make up their own minds whether to have all vaccinations, some vaccinations or no vaccinations and no-one has the right to condemn anyone on any count.


The first moves to question vaccination came from parents who saw changes, often crippling changes, in one or more children after vaccination. Given that even scientists and doctors agree, if there is a fallback position then parents are likely to be right, it seems a matter of respect, if not sanity, that those parents who now limit or reject vaccination be respected.
There is a witch-hunt mentality amongst too many of those who support vaccination and the deeply troubling thing about it is that they should be so hard-line because clearly they are fearful, when logic and science/medical theory would have it they are under no great threat.

So what is it really about when those seeking to promote or validate vaccination - and obviously not all do, but it is increasingly common - feel a need to demonise those who hold different views?

The reaction to the current measles outbreak in the US would have one thinking it equates with the Black Death instead of a childhood disease in the main which generally is mild, brief and does no harm.

Quote: Remember that antibodies mean nothing with measles. A child who cannot make any antibodies at all, can sail through measles with a normal infection course and not have a second bout, because measles is fought and overcome by front line defences, not antibodies. That’s all laid out clearly in medical textbooks and the first book I read that in was written years ago, by Australian, Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet. Antibodies are simply a by-product of the process, and have no role in a first experience of any disease. People immunosuppressed by toxic drugs are a different story, and can die from measles, because those drugs knock out the whole immune system.



http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/07/03/measles-misdiagnosis-and-malpractice-hilary-butler/
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/01/13/melanies-marvelous-measles-is-the-provaccine-backlash-rational-or-hysterical-suzanne-humphries-md/

Getting beyond blame

It is human instinct and possibly need to blame someone or something for their pain and suffering. Families very often have one individual who will play 'coat-hanger' for all the robes of grief, loss, hurt and agony that others do not want to wear.

But projecting out onto others, blaming someone else for what is wrong in your life or in your relationship with them does nothing but feed your shadow. Facing unpleasant realities and retrieving your own shadow from their 'hook' is the only way to maturity, inner growth and peace of mind.

Everything and everyone in our lives is a 'mirror' reflecting what is at work. No-one can 'make' us unhappy in the long-term. Anyone can act in ways which hurt deeply and cause unhappiness in the short-term, but it is up to each of us to work with that pain and bring forth something of value.

Sadly, more often than not, we reach for a scapegoat, someone in our life, our family, our work, our world, who is a convenient object of blame.

We tell ourselves all sorts of stories when we have complex relationships with people or when complex relationships develop with people who have long been a part of our lives and who we love.

 'They don't understand me. They don't appreciate me. They don't value me. They are too outspoken.  They don't share with me. They are too selfish, too generous, too anything.... too useful as someone to blame which means it is not my fault, but their fault, and I need do nothing but suffer.'

Some people, generally the courageously frank and foolishly outspoken, will act as 'mirrors' to more people, more often, which is why, they often become the 'hook' on which many projections will be hung.

It equates with the maxim of 'shooting the messenger.' Whatever is mirrored back to us, reflected against and upon us, is a part of us and something we need to process, but such 'mirrors' are often a source of fear because, in the way of myth and fairy tales, they as often as not 'reflect' our shadow; that which we do not know, do not wish to know and would seek to deny.

And so the  'Cassandra' archetypes of this world, those who can often see deeper, farther, wider, often unconsciously and sometimes consciously, who are prepared to 'speak' of what they see, feel, perceive, sense, know, become objects of fear. As 'mirrors' of what has been denied, of what is fearful, of what is rejected, they are garlanded with the dross and dregs and detritus of other people's pain and deemed to be at fault. The problem is draped around their necks and the mirror is, when possible, shattered.

Such 'mirrors' and archetypes are the origin of the label, 'scapegoat,' that sacrificial and symbolic 'creature' which carries the sins of others and dies to set them free. In ancient times it was often a  literal 'goat' which was literally killed, but variations on the theme, both literal and metaphysical, have been with humanity from the beginning.

And of course, this is the origin of what the Christians call Jesus and all the other saviour/redeemer gods throughout history.

It is not that most 'mirrors' are god-like, but that the same sort of energy is at work ... where truth, honesty, reality are reflected back at people who do not want to see and so, instead of facing the reality, driven by fear, it is the messenger, or the mirror, which is attacked.

One could argue that witches, often the healers, shamans, counsellors, guides of their societies, were killed by the hundreds of thousands because they were uncomfortable mirrors and outspoken 'Cassandras' in society.

Many would argue that people who seek to 'remove rugs' under which much has been swept should expect and accept the consequences of any mess that will be found. And this is valid.

 In truth, we all sweep things under our metaphorical rugs and we all deny, repress and drive into the shadows much we do not like about ourselves - the question is how much and how often it is done and whether or not one has the courage to bring into the light, that which has been hidden.

My sense is that while some people are born to be 'rug-lifters' and 'shadow retrievers,' the fact is that some people don't get a choice for life lifts the rug or releases the shadow and then there is no choice but to deal with it. Actually, there is some choice because there are ways of fighting to keep the mess hidden or the shadow denied: through insanity, dysfunctional denial, addiction of any kind and constant distraction. But generally, what is within will become so powerful that it will find a way out and then everyone will need to clear up the mess whether they like it or not.

So often with such work we 'look at the finger pointing at the moon,' instead of putting our focus where it is needed - on the moon.

If someone is an 'irritation' in your life, remember that this is the path to the formation of a pearl, the symbol of the Great Mother and of the eternal, heart-spoken Moon and great beauty can come from the smallest piece of annoying grit!

Your life is your responsibility

What matters in life is not what others do but what you do.

To varying degrees we have the free will to decide who and what we will be. If others act unkindly, cruelly or without compassion, courtesy and consideration that is about them, not you. Even if you have been instrumental in triggering those responses in them - it is still about them, not you.

How you act is about you and that is your responsibility. We all make mistakes, we are all at times, instruments of pain for others, mostly unconsciously but perhaps consciously at times and no-one is perfect.

Life is short but it does not have to be brutal. Most of us have a choice as to how we behave and how we react or respond to the pain which comes from others.

People are more damaged than evil and more frightened than cruel and at the end of the day it will not be their behaviour which impacts your life, but your own. And, if there is a world beyond this one and your life to ponder, it will be your life and not the life of someone else which needs to be pondered. It will be your words, actions, thoughts and behaviour which impact how well you have lived your life and not what others have done to you.

One theory of the afterlife is that we experience everything as part of a life review and that means all we have thought, done or felt, but, also how others have felt in relationship with us.

It seems far more just and logical than the religious judgement and damnation we have been taught. And it says that each of us will experience all we have been and that means there is never any need for revenge, satisfaction, apologies or redress, because those who hurt you will feel it all.

So remember to smile, to have compassion, to trust the process, to acknowledge the woundedness of others and yourself and in the words of one of the great mystics, Hildergard of Bingen: All is well and all is well and all manner of things are well.

For 'this too will pass' and pain and suffering are as much a matter of perception as reality.

The more cultures change the more they move on....

This post came into being as the result of questions asked about impressions of culture on a poetry website, dverse.

Having lived around the world for many years and having lived in and travelled in and been exposed to many cultures I ponder the most important things I have learned.

I enjoy different cultures but find those with a common language often the most challenging because there are so many more expectations and assumptions and 'divided by a common language' is very real. When we both speak English we believe we can communicate effectively but that is not necessarily the case because of cultural perceptions, habits, attitudes and manners.

It is also interesting, having lived in a number of English-speaking cultures to see how different cultures which speak the same language can be. As an Australian I have been exposed to New Zealanders, many of them live in Australia, have NZ relatives but have not been there. I have lived in the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, both Johannesburg and Cape Town, and spent months at a time, many times, in the United States over the past 20 years because I have family living there.

The closest English-speaking culture to Australia I have found is Scottish although we share a lot with the English and Irish, since these three made up the bulk of our first settlers and still make up a sizeable number of our immigrants. New Zealanders and South Africans come next in terms of cultural understanding and connections, then the Canadians and last the Americans which is the most 'different' from Australia of any of the English-speaking cultures. I also find it quite different to Canadians and the British.

Of course there are exceptions and I know a few of them, but this is by its nature, a generalisation of culture or impressions of culture. Are their flavours to a culture? I think so. It does not mean that everyone within the culture is flavoured in the same way or to the same degree but the word culture and society mean, by their nature, that something is shared more often than not.

And these are my impressions and perceptions although, talking to other Australians, more common than not. And talking to other English-speakers, also not uncommon.

To clarify perhaps why I find the US so culturally different to the other English-speaking cultures I know, I would say the following are some of the major 'differences' between the US and the rest, where many, sometimes most Americans have, across their enormous diversity the following:

. a high level of religious belief of a fundamental nature. (The US is the most religious nation in the developed world.)

. a fear and often hatred of Government (In other developed English-speaking nations you can find people dislike Government, a few might even hate a particular Government because of its political persuasion but it would be hard to find anyone who feared it)

. a belief that poverty is self-inflicted. (This view was common in general prior to the 18th century but would be rare to find in developed nations today, except in the US.)

. a belief that owning a gun or guns is a requirement for security. (Other than South Africa which is not really a developed nation and which has high levels of violence, this obsession with guns would be, and is, seen as ludicrous. In other words, most cannot understand the American obsession with guns and never will.)

. a belief that social welfare is not only NOT a right in the modern world but is dangerous. (Social Welfare, including universal healthcare and quality universal education,  in other developed nations is seen as a right, is provided in the main, has not proven to be dangerous and has nothing to do with socialism or communism.)

. deep levels of fear and paranoia at general levels about life, society and the outside world in general. (You will find this in some people to a small degree in other English-speaking developed nations but nowhere to the same degree that you do in the US, and only in the US do you have a Prepper Movement, let alone one of such magnitude.)

. a lack of understanding about the rest of the world and other nations, sourced in a lack of curiosity and a general ignorance not found anywhere else in regard to your other nations, Canada being sometimes an exception in the northern US. (Most other English-speaking nations, including South Africa, seem to provide students with more comprehensive studies in regard to the world in general and other nations.)

. very little exposure to the outside world through travel. (With 80% of Americans not possessing a passport and unable to travel due to lack of interest or lack of money because of low salaries, this is exceptional not just in the English-speaking world but in the developed world in general.)

. a belief that the United States is 'the world' and despite all the evidence to the contrary, that life for Americans is as good as it gets and therefore the rest of the world is of little interest. (Perhaps it is because other English-speaking nations are less powerful, and in terms of military, actually powerless in the main, including the UK in this day and age, although even there at the height of their power the British were nothing if not curious, that Americans are exceptional in this regard and equate military power with progress. Although the internet is changing this for Americans.)

All of these factors, combined with poor levels of education and probably the worst media in the entire world,  make it harder I think for Americans to understand others and for others to understand Americans.

Having said that, the rest of the English-speaking world has, if they choose,  an opportunity for exposure to and a curiosity about the United States  which can be met through films, books and television and so a visitor to the US is likely to have a greater understanding of American culture than will the Americans they meet, have about their country or culture.

But again, the internet can and does play a part in changing that and perhaps in years to come more Americans will have passports and see more of the world than most now do.

All cultures are in a state of change including my own country. Given the changing demographics in Australia with our diversity of immigration in more recent years, my view is purely my view from my experience, in my lifetime and nothing set in stone. My sense of Australian culture would not be how my parents or grandparents saw it and neither it should be. Cultures change, some faster than others, particularly the historically recent immigrant nations, but all cultures do change.

The only constant in life is change and without it society becomes moribund and stale. Being exposed to different cultures whether through travel, living as an expatriate or immigration is ultimately to the good of all. It is challenging but in positive ways. One can feel insecure or inspired, or often both!

Other cultures do not make me feel insecure but it is certainly challenging when you do not speak the language. I spent quite a few years in Belgium and relied on the linguistic skills of the Belgians in the main but picked up some Flemish and studied French, because I love the language.

I spent more than four years in India but English is spoken widely so beyond picking up a bit of Hindi, Gujarati and Marathi, it was pretty much English.

With more than four years in Angola, I learned Portugese in Portugal but was never proficient. Angola was immersed in a civil war which made it challenging in terms of exploring the culture and we lived amongst a lot of Brazilians which confused it even more.

I have spent months living in Russia, no English there, well, not comparatively, but picked up enough cyrillic to use the 'tube'; Portugal; London; Switzerland and have also lived in Zambia, where they speak English and Malawi, where, for the same reason of British colonialism they speak English.

Getting around and finding your way without the language is the most difficult part for me. Wanting to communicate with someone you instinctively like when you don't speak the language is also hard.

What I love about it all, and I have set up home 32 times in 43 years around Australia and the world, is that when you live in a different culture you are presented with stark images of yourself - India was the most challenging - and you learn things about yourself that you would not otherwise learn. Often what you learn is not pretty and represents your 'shadow' which has been pushed to the surface by the challenges of an alien culture. Living as an expatriate in the difficult countries and cultures, which challenge you on many levels,  is excellent shadow work.

Experiencing other cultures  is inspiring, stimulating, frustrating, annoying, enraging, delightful, fascinating and more.

The only time I have felt unwelcome in another culture was with a religious culture where those who were 'other' were excluded unless they were necessary in a commercial sense. But any religion which sets itself up as being separate from the rest would be this way. I was only exposed to one and having said that, I also had friends, from various countries, from the same religious culture. Otherwise I found people welcoming everywhere.

India was my first exposure to how religious belief can create inhumanity to the other, particularly to those considered inferior because of a lower caste. India was my first exposure to levels of misogyny and hatred of the female which remain still, the worst I have ever encountered. India was my first exposure to the levels of filth with which human beings can and do live.

Africa was a variation on the theme of India. It is generally cleaner, still misogynistic but not so much so because it lacks the Hindu belief in the evil of the feminine, and caste is replaced by a somewhat less rigid tribal system which discriminates all the same. Africa was my first exposure to the part that witchcraft can play in a society and the cruelty and suffering it engenders. Africa was my first exposure to the damage done by evangelical Christians, mainly Americans, bringing their vengeful, smiting, smoting, angry God into a world where it fits perfectly with witchcraft.

The Third world was my first exposure to the damage done by self-serving corruption and societies where there seems little capacity to care about the community or the society as a whole and where me first, family second, community - religious, racial or tribal, third, is the order of the day.

Africa also taught me the destructive nature of Aid and brought the depressing understanding that after 50 years and untold billions of dollars in Aid funds, nothing had been achieved, except a few very rich Africans, and the average person was worse off than they were thirty years ago.

The Third World also taught me how bad life can be without Western values and functioning democracy.

In the Third World it is important, I believe, to remember that a Westerner will always be 'welcome' because they are useful - this is my experience anyway of India and Africa. It is not that people are less 'friendly' but that their world is different and friendships as we know them in the West are not common. Friendships in both India and Africa are about caste, community, tribe, family, commercial relationships - rarely just because they like you as we would make friends.

In terms of commenting on others, well, if you are in another country, I believe, despite a natural frankness, that one needs to be considered in comments although honest where possible. Some cultures, like Australia, are much more open to honesty and frankness and so you are unlikely to offend an Australian in the way that you could offend someone else. This is something I also learned that cultural perceptions even with a shared language, or perhaps because of a shared language, are a major factor in relationship.

I think I would say that what the past 35 years of living and travelling around the world have taught me, and I know this is politically incorrect, but here it is - some cultures are superior to others and Western democratic  culture, for all of its faults, offers the most amount of people the most amount of freedom, justice and quality of life in the history of the world.

Like it or not, Third World cultures are where Western culture was hundreds of years ago and the modern, developed world, while far from perfect and in need of improvement, is still better than any Third World culture. Particularly if you are female, poor, black, a minority religion, mentally or physically disabled or homosexual or lesbian or transvestite or any permutation on the theme of human.

So, while there are wonderful things to experience and explore in the less developed world and while the developed world has, in its growth, lost too many things of value, I still believe that the modern, democratic, developed world is where humanity is meant to be heading.

As someone who has lived for so long in Africa and India I find the 'politically correct' tendency to condemn the Western world and seek to make noble the less developed world or less developed societies, to be dangerous.

The other thing one learns living in so many different cultures is that the veneer of civilization is thin. By all means condemn and criticise where needed, what is wrong in Western societies but do not make the mistake of thinking that non-Western societies are better.

Democracy remains the best political system we have ever had. Flawed yes, but until something better comes along it is the best any of us can have and using our vote - not an issue in Australia as voting is compulsory - is the greatest gift we can give to ourselves, our children, our nation and our world.

If you don't believe me, spend some time in non-democratic countries or totally corrupt, semi-democratic countries, caste, clan and tribal ridden like most of Africa and India, or even totalitarian or tyrannical regimes and see if you change your mind.

Decades of exposure to many different cultures has made me appreciate and honour the diversity, courage, nobility of spirit and creativity of humanity in general but it has also made me value and appreciate the advances made which the Western world now appreciates and for which the less-developed world still strives.

What cuts the ties that bind?

There have been a couple of articles recently written by Kate Legge, on the modern phenomenon of adult children rejecting their parents in ways which would horrify past generations and  more traditional societies in the world today.

Apparently Legge's first article, The Deserted Mother's Club, sparked an avalanche of mail from parents who had experienced such rejection, or who had found themselves in situations where it seemed the best thing they could do, was to limit contact, for a short or long time, with an adult child.

Taking up the theme and talking to friends I have been surprised, and at times shocked, given the nature of some individuals, that they have found themselves in a similar place. One had lost contact with a daughter following a mental collapse and advice from a therapist that she end contact with her mother!

What is at work? Is it because this generation, the ages seem to be thirties and forties,  has been given so much more by parents that they have been indulged in ways unknown in the past and hence made more demanding, needy, judgemental? Former generations might not have liked their parents but they 'did what was right' in the main out of respect for them at least.

Now there is little or no respect, let alone any sense of traditional obligation to those who gave birth to them and raised them, for so many. It seems hard to imagine how such rifts can happen. Talking to friends, reading what is written, it is pretty clear that more parents than not, who find themselves in such a situation, were fairly reasonable and totally undeserving of their rejection. One can understand such things where child abuse or sexual abuse is a factor, but where parents have done their best, been fairly reasonable and often actually excellent parents, it is unimaginable that they should be so condemned and often dismissed.

No doubt there are astrological explanations for what is at work in this generation in ways never seen before. But it is also one presumes, largely a Western phenomenon and no doubt, our ways of being and living play a part. Although, having said that, people I know personally in this situation were more often than not, attentive, thoughtful parents and not the sort to allow 'latch-key' kids or too much television so it cannot be about a lack of care.

And nor are most of them too rigid in terms of discipline in the way that parents were in the past. What makes an adult child reject a parent who has been, by any assessment, a pretty reasonable parent and who in fact has never done anything to deserve such rejection?

Given Legge's perspective and talking to friends, it is clear that such situations often arise ‘suddenly’ with a dramatic ‘change’ in the adult child where the parent becomes the focus of blame for all things. No doubt if therapists are involved, young enough to be trained in the view that if it is unpleasant, get rid of it.. institute a quick fix, then many young people are being badly guided when they face the necessary challenge of coming to terms with themselves, their lives, their parents and their destiny.

To grow beyond the child/parent relationship is a requirement for maturity. The mother or father will always be the more powerful because that is the nature of the relationship and while there may be more of a friendship between adult child and parents, there will never be true friendship because a peer relationship is just not possible. A parent will always have more power to hurt an adult child than the other way around although no doubt, being rejected by an adult child, is a hurt beyond imagining for most parents. And yet it seems to be increasingly common.

Has this generation been ‘spoiled’ by too much tolerance from parents and teachers, from the loss of too many rules involving courtesy, respect and ‘doing the right thing?’ Clearly most have survived with relationships intact with parents but it is also clear there is a very large minority where the opposite has happened. The question is why?

There is not much parents can do about such situations except remain open for a knock on the literal and metaphorical door, but it must be the hardest thing of all for a parent who knows they have been pretty reasonable, to deal with. It is in essence a ‘death’ without a body. The ‘child’ for they are always a child even when they are grown and no matter what age they might be, is lost and when there is no contact, gone from life as they know it. It must be an endless, eternal, abiding grief, particularly for mothers who are connected to their children in ways fathers are not. That is not to say men care less but that even as science shows, the DNA of the baby, particularly the sons, passes into the mother’s body and brain and they remain forever connected.

I do not think you can hold another human being in your body for nine months and not be physically connected forever, as well as emotionally and psychologically. The grief of their loss may be distracted, diluted with the passing of the years, but never truly diminished for such ‘deaths’ are impossible to properly grieve and impossible to forget.

No doubt there are karmic lessons in it for all involved but it is something beyond imagining for most parents, and yet, so terribly real for so many in this day and age.

The body electric

While I am quick to challenge the limitations of science, I do look forward to the day when it can move beyond its narrow materialistic and mechanical paradigm, for then it will do less harm and good beyond imaginings.

No medical methodology lasts unless it works and TCM has worked for thousands of years. When science can understand acupuncture it will also be able to understand Homeopathy and Reiki and fully understand herbal medicine.

It is always heartening to see where those involved in science or science/medicine in particular, for it is in this field that the harm done because of the materialistic paradigm is greatest, despite the fact that mechanical and materialistic understandings can be of value, are pushing the boundaries.

Quote: Why can salamanders grow new legs, and young children grow new finger tips, but adult humans can't regenerate? What is the electricity that flows through the human body? Is it the same thing that the Chinese call Qi? If so, what does Chinese medicine know, that western medicine ignores?

Dan Keown's highly accessible, witty, and original book shows how western medicine validates the theories of Chinese medicine, and how Chinese medicine explains the mysteries of the body that western medicine largely ignores. He explains the generative force of embryology, how the hearts of two people in love (or in scientific terms `quantum entanglement') truly beat as one, how a cheating heart is also an ill heart (which is why men are twice as likely to die of a sudden heart attack with their mistress than with their wife), how neural crest cells determine our lifespan, and why Proust's madeleines evoked the memories they did.

The book shows how the theories of western and Chinese medicine support each other, and how the integrated theory enlarges our understanding of how bodies work on every level. Full of good stories and surprising details, Dan Keown's book is essential reading for anyone who has ever wanted to know how the body really works.

http://www.jkp.com/catalogue/book/9781848191969

When ties that bind become untied

In past generations you might not like your parents but you accorded them respect as your parents. Generally people would 'do the right thing' and as they matured and had children, come to understand that, their parents had done their best, however much they may have failed as parents or as people or as both.

But times have changed it seems and those family ties and belief in family and the 'blood connection' are thinner and more stretched for many. And that is a loss for everyone involved. One can only hope in the swings and roundabouts way of life that that there will be a 'return' to a more balanced centre.

If only because we are connected at a cellular and DNA level and our parents are a part of us, as we are a part of them, and the line moves backward through centuries and forward into the future.

It may be 'easier' to dismiss and reject one's parents as many have chosen to do as this article reveals, but, that is not resolving a 'problem,' it is merely pushing it out of sight and mind, and the 'ties that bind' will always remain.

There is no doubt that 'time-out' maybe required by anyone from a complex and challenging relationship, but doors should never be locked and bolted, even if they are closed for a time, and a knock should always be welcomed, and at the end of the day, because parents will always have more power to hurt a child than vice-versa, final responsibility for 'mending' broken relationships, I believe, rests with the parent.

Some relationships may never be fixed, no matter what attempts are made, but, a child needs to know, whatever age they may be, that a parent will never reject them completely and a parent will always be there for them if they ask for help or seek to restore a relationship.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/when-two-worlds-collide-why-do-some-adult-children-disown-their-parents/story-e6frg8h6-1226836116138

Standing at a crossroads for health and humanity

 Our cells represent the cosmic consciousness that is us. They have one reason to be – their sole raison d’etre is to maintain integrity.  It is not surprising that is the focus of life across its entire spectrum, including the spectrum of the human organism.

If an imposer entered your home and tricked you, how would you feel?  Betrayed, confused, deceived, uncertain….? All of that and more. Our cells are no different.

If you found imposters entering your home daily, weekly, monthly, yearly – regularly, how do you think it would affect you?  Would you become more confused, uncertain, separated from what you believed was reality and what you faced? Probably.

The more it happened the more stress it would create and over time you would become dysfunctional to a greater degree and perhaps so dysfunctional that you were no longer sure of who you were, what was real and what was not and what you should do. Our cells are no different.

If you had the ability to help a friend who had to deal with imposters entering their home constantly, would you do what you could to help? Of course you would. So why not for your body?

‘Our bodies produce thousands of different molecular messages, and drug developers have taken advantage of this fact by synthesizing ‘imposter’ messages that mimic the chemistry and shape of our natural molecules.  In fact many drugs used in medicine today achieve their results by preventing natural signals from engaging their receptors.’ From Secrets of Your Cells, Discovering Your Body’s Inner Intelligence, by Sondra Barrett, PhD.

Doctors and patients, who would be horrified to be so ‘tricked’ by those who set out to deceive and who ‘dress’ and ‘act’ and ‘talk’ in recognisable ways and yet are imposters,  think nothing of ‘tricking’ their cells and their body consistently.


Not only that, these ‘imposters’ and invaders trick us to be other than who we are. They deceive us into not acting as we would normally do. They compromise us and our capacity to maintain our integrity. They compromise our entire reason for being.

Is it any wonder that there is so little real curing and so much serious and chronic disease?

How could we become so cavalier, so unfeeling, so rude and so cruel to our greatest friend – our body?  Because we too are deceived into believing that our body is no more than a machine, or as one erstwhile scientist-medico said: ‘a bag of chemicals.’

This view of the human body and the human condition is recent. It is just a few centuries old, although, in truth, as a rigid mindset it is probably less than a century old. The ‘mind’ of science/medicine began to harden as power brought prestige and massive profits to a system sourced in the mechanical.

Healers of old would have laughed at such a concept. Older medical methodologies like Traditional  Chinese Medicine would have laughed at such a concept. The great scientists, doctors and healers throughout history would have laughed at such a concept. A more recent medical methodology, Homeopathy, was founded by Samuel Hahnemann, a doctor and a chemist, just over two centuries ago,  because he could see the beginnings of this ludicrous concept and the damage it did.

The Newtonian/Descartes paradigm which is the foundation of modern science and therefore modern medicine posits that all is material and can be approached from a mechanical perspective. Needless to say, neither  Newton or Descartes would have agreed with this and would no doubt be horrified at what is believed and done in their name, but this is where science chooses to sit itself. For the moment anyway.

So most people have come to see their body as something little different to a piece of equipment – except that it bleeds and needs sleep! The capacity not just to understand but to recognise that the human body is far more than this, has been lost or temporarily misplaced. In the meantime, with more mechanical advances in science/medicine, people are not healthier more of the time but healthier less of the time and few are every truly cured. Being on medication for life is not a cure.

More to the point, so much of modern medicine as procedures and pharmacology runs absolutely counter to the physiological and biological nature and wisdom of the human body.  The Allopathic approach of ‘removing’ or repressing a symptom has become accepted as a norm, despite the fact that you would have no time for a mechanic who suggested solving the problem of your ‘flashing warning light’ by cutting the wire.

 Most people would consider that not just delusional but dangerous. As it would be. The problem is not solved but you are not reminded it exists because the warning light is no longer flashing.

And yet that is what most people and most doctors do every hour of every day and have done for decades. ‘Cutting the wire’ to stop a ‘warning light from flashing’ is not healing by any stretch of the imagination.

No-one denies that the aspects of modern medicine which can be approached mechanically – crisis situations or reconstructive surgery – are invaluable. They would however be more valuable and more successful if science/medicine could embrace the ‘big picture’ and not just the material picture. But that will come.

And no-one denies that when modern medicine is returned to a holistic perspective, that the material and mechanical knowledge gained from the narrow and limited focus of its perspective for the past century or so, will be useful. It is just not enough and has now reached a point where it is doing more harm than good.

There is no doubt that the dogmatic mindset of science has driven medicine to this distorted perspective and will continue to do so until the harm quotient outweighs any good. There is also no doubt that the profit-driven focus of science/medicine plays a part in maintaining the system as it is and in keeping people second to any bank balance. But as the cost of litigation rises, and it will, that too will be questioned.

Human beings are not stupid and only a fool keeps doing the same thing and expecting a different result. It is little wonder then that more and more people are turning toward non-Allopathic medical methodologies and in the doing, demand that science/medicine rethink its beliefs and dogma, and see the human organism for what it is – a complex entity which may have some functions which appear mechanical but which are not mechanical.

At this point in history it is heartening to see more and more people questioning science and medicine and taking responsibility for their own health. That can only be to the good of all.

And why do I care about health and the role modern medicine plays in it ?

I care because I have an interest in health in general and a deep and abiding respect and awe for the wonder of the human body and an awareness that materialistic and mechanistic science/medicine, because of its mindset, is capable of great and unnecessary harm. That will change, because it must and even modern medicine is seeing a need for change demonstrated in a move toward Integrative medicine where the best of Allopathic works alongside other medical methodologies like Homeopathy, TCM, Herbal etc.

And also I care because I believe that modern medicine, Allopathic, despite its distorted and dangerous mindset, has developed useful skills. No-one could deny the 'nuts and bolts' knowledge of science/medicine can be and is useful. But it is not as useful as it will be when the body can be seen for what it is - an organism of deep complexity, which functions beyond the material and the mechanical.

This means that even modern medicine will be forced to give up the ludicrous idea that the body is a machine and take a holistic view of the body and health.

And when that happens Allopathy will do more good and less harm and medicine will be sourced in a 'big picture' which takes into account all that a human being is, instead of something akin to a car with a 'rattle' or a dishwasher which doesn't 'rinse' properly.

But much harm has already been done. With iatrogenic - doctor or medical induced - now the third biggest killer in the US and high on the list elsewhere, something is very, very wrong.

With rates of chronic and serious disease rising dramatically, particularly in developed nations where people are most exposed to modern medicine, and even faster in children, something is very, very wrong.

With cancer rates up from one in ten in 1900, before modern medicine embarked on its meddling, before vaccinations became an obsession, before pharmaceuticals became like 'lollies;' before antibiotics were over-used and abused.....to one in two today, there are serious questions to be asked. Why?

Why are people less healthy in this day and age than they were a century ago? What has changed? Question everything that is different and on that basis vaccination must be questioned along with over-medication and the process of modern medicine and pharmacology where little that is natural goes into the body but a great deal which is unnatural - synthesized, for therein lies the potential for profit - is introduced into a human body within hours of birth and beyond and sometimes before birth.

In terms of health and lessening disease, modern medicine is an abject failure. The question is Why?

Well, it is my question, out of curiosity, concern, caring and consideration for all the people I love - big and small - but particularly the little ones who are utterly dependent on the big ones to make decisions for them.

Not enough people make decisions about health based on solid research, considered thinking and balanced information.

If I have a cause it is toward that end.