M: One of my concerns, personally, about the emphasis of diet per se was based on some of the assumptions that were made on historical population samples. Pritikin was one who made serious errors on these assumptions. In that time, perhaps 15 to 20 years ago, these assumptions were based on the observations of specific tribal communities and their diets. The problem was, and is, that many of these specific tribal communities simply had (proven) genetic predispositions and that the amazing life quality that they had actually didn’t really represent diet per se. Technology at that time was not capable of really understanding or measuring the genetic factors, so “diet” became a fad.
M: Even recently, there was, is, a population group in Italy with long life spans, and virtually zero heart attacks even through they eat a diet rich in red meat, and dairy products. Yes, it proved to be genetics, not diet, in this population.
R: Now, pass the sugar? I don’t think so. Let’s go out for a beer? Wrong! How about, Let’s totally rebuild the crapped-on-for-48-years immune system and trust the amazing organism which is the body to do what it needs to do for its wellness. Sounds like something Hippocrates would say.
M: Well, there are many postulations about what cause the genetic systems to mutate as they age. In laboratory populations, the systems “age” as a function of pre-programmed effects that are currently thought to be DNA based intrinsically. The “aging” and mutations are like a copier and each time a copy is made on paper, it gets a little altered/fuzzier. Every cell in our bodies is replaced on a sequence about every seven years, and they change just a little with each replication. Some would say that diet has an impact, and yes indeed it may – it may also have nothing to do with it. For myself, I’m not a believer or a non-believer in these matters. I am an observer.
R: There is impeccability. Cutting away what offends with a knife is back with cause and effect medicine and just fine for those unwilling to give up their nightly bowl of Haagendaus. I hold that there is a better way and that whole and unadulterated food is at the heart of it.
M: For me, that is just speculation. It’s good that you have something to believe in so fervently. I have a protege who “sounds” much as you do, and he’s made a life study of these matters, including his attitude about the medical profession which on that he approaches a cynic.
R: So, I’m doing my own “trial,” I suppose you could say.
R: The article states: “Standard treatment may be considered because of its effectiveness in patients in past studies, or participation in a clinical trial may be considered. Surgery is currently the only standard treatment of melanoma. Clinical trials are designed to find better ways to treat cancer patients.
R: Reviewing all of this I’m reminded of the seriousness of what I’m up against. I think I will call the number given and ask about participating in a clinical trial of BRM. (NOTE TO READERS: I never did)
M: From the above, that is the pattern of your own descriptions in this transmittal as well as others, it is possible to delineate some line items.
M: 1. A person seems to be suspicious and has some predispositions about western medicine, but utilizes it’s descriptions and informational facilities.
R: Answered above
M: Perhaps.
M: 2. A person who has exhibited a significant familial history of melanomas in close relatives, meaning that there is almost certainly a genetic predisposition – another “fact” that western medicine has patterned, and for that matter even “eastern” approaches because there is simply familial traceability.
R: Answered above in that, with the above logic, this is seen as dietary failure and the body’s attempt to do its best (thanks to genetics) with what it is given.
M: ..But at considerable risk since ALL of the “bet” is being placed upon one roll of the dice.
R: NOTE: Then next two lines were after this dialogue, of course, as so much of this is intermixed… I just felt the want of making it clear here.
R: I feel that way about going under the knife. And yet … you do argue well.
M: Why thank you, although the discussion has not been particularly effective.
M: 3. A person who, given this “evidence” makes a conscious decision to “self-diagnosing” and “doing his own trial” however the failure of “his own trial” could be his existence in the literal sense, eagle metaphor and all. … Hummmm.
R: Understood but with a different view of the “evidence.”
M: It seems that your view of the “evidence” is to exclude at least half of that available.
M: Again the questions are applied.
M: Is a person with these characteristics being impeccable to him/herself?
R: Absolutely
M: There are many definitions around the word “absolute”, including ultimate, final, perfect, so you are very bound in confidence to your term by using that word, and for that matter, in the assumption that impeccability by itself is absolute.
R: I do, so much, enjoy your preciseness. Perhaps I could better have said “I absolutely hope so.”
R: Thank you, Michael, for staying in my face. You continue to surprise me and I continue to be thrilled for the exchange. I like the phrase “bound in confidence”
M: Is a person taking these risks being impeccable?
R: Would, given my argument, the person opting for the knife be being impeccable? … a denial of the bodies innate ability to do what is right for its survival when given a chance. Yes, one could argue “What if 2-26 was already too late to begin giving the body that chance?” I “have to believe” that it was not. Without that belief I have nothing.
M: Point is well made and not thoroughly. The argument seems obvious, at least to the outside observer, that the “evidence” you have in hand on your genetic predisposition would suggest that significant countermeasures are appropriate partly in compensation for the genetic predisposition. The argument could be made that intellect may compensate by decisions and actions for the genetic predispositions, and that absent that, the genetic predisposition will do what “natural selection” has always done: remove those prematurely from the gene pool that have the genetic predispositions.
M: Assuming that physical death is understood, is such a person prepared for death in a manner that could facilitate his continuance through maintaining coherence of sentience in the absence of a physical body, or, will the person dissipate into oblivion because of the lack of coherent energy?
M: Has the person, having “studied information” in many metaphysical and philosophical depths, had sufficient time and “intent” to “convert” the “studied information” into true “knowledge”?
M: Given the decision matrix and the approach to a known life-threatening condition (assuming competent self-diagnosis) executed by the person, will there be sufficient “physical time” available to complete the conversion of “studied information” into true “knowledge” that could facilitate “continuance”?
R: I am continuing now. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to look at this in depth.
M: That was my job: to cause a review; and nothing more.
————–
R: reference your comment, “Why thank you, although the discussion has not been particularly effective.”
R: Do I detect a bit of cynicism in the “Why” of Why thank you? The “not been particularly effective,” would seem to support the suspicion.
M: Not at all. It was an expanded way of saying “thank you”. No more. The statement ‘not particularly’ is based on observation. I have no reason to be cynical.
R: What can’t be refuted is that the knife removes as a possibility that the physical aspect of the condition is actually part of the bodies defensive system and in an as yet undiscovered way, necessary for the bodies cleansing itself of the problem when, and this is the key, given a chance through the discontinuance of the poisons in the modern diet. I suspect; for example, that the “evil” sun that we all should stay out of is not evil at all and in fact is very beneficial.
M: Agreed. I often; for example, visit (snip) as a practicing nudist. I am more concerned about the chemistry involved in all the “sun protection” stuff – which could indeed have long term effects that won’t show up for decades – than I am “managing” my wholly exposed body in terms of quantity of exposure. My body “communicates” to me what it’s tolerance is and I pay attention.
M: Separately, the skin condition that you have been reporting is very conceptually interesting, even in the manner that you view the condition. There are a number of viruses that seem to “get onto” the body initially rather than “get into” the body. Warts, except in genital form for a woman (known to migrate into cervical cancer) don’t particularly pose a threat to the body and they go in general unnoticed by the immune system. One of my sons had a huge history of warts on his hands. He worked in a deli and his hands were moist most of the day, and he has many examples of having the warts burned off. Finally, he decided not to act upon them, and after about a year, all of a sudden, poof! his immune system “noticed” the problem and all the warts went away. Herpes, another retrovirus, has a similar story and it could be projected that melanoma also is similar except that once it breaks out of the form, it mutates and overwhelms the immune system. The successful treatment where the immune system is caused to respond by acting on processed sample of the tumor material itself is new to technology, and very successful, however it cannot be mass produced because the pathology is unique to each event of each person.