Water – Diet and Health

Water – Diet and Health

Recently, I started reading about what’s called EZ water (the term “EZ” refers to the Exclusion Zone around that particular water). EZ water is different from what’s called bulk water, in that it has a different molecular structure and shows different properties. For example it’s H3O2 instead of H2O, and grows and shrinks according to energy input, specifically from infrared but likely from other types of energy as well. For the purpose of this post, one property is the ability to transduce this energy into mechanical work. So, we take a hydrophilic tube, EZ water grows on the tube’s surfaces, then there’s flow inside and across the tube from one end to the other – it becomes a pump.

How does that work in physiology? Well, we have capilaries that are smaller than red blood cells, and the heart is just not strong enough to push these red blood cells through. So how do these red blood cells get pushed? With hydrophilic surfaces and EZ water.

Some substances grow EZ water around them. One of those is glucose. When EZ water grows, it becomes like a sludge, it’s almost solid like ice. Indeed, its molecular structure is almost exactly like ice. OK, so there’s two main ideas here. First, glucose grows EZ water, so it tends to push other stuff away from itself. Second, glucose attracts red blood cells so it can meet up with it and get taken in (it’s to do with charge differentials, opposites attract, or like-likes-like when there’s an opposite charge as interface, that’s from Richard Feinman).

So now we have a mechanism to explain diabetic pathologies like nervous, eye and tissue damage from lack of blood flow and oxygen, from blockage by too much EZ water around too much glucose. We also have a mechanism for low-carb that actually helps these pathologies, as now there’s less glucose, so there’s less EZ water in the blood, so the blood is more liquid and can flow more easily through the blood vessels, so more oxygen can get to tissues. We also have less glycation since proteins also grow EZ water around them, so when proteins and glucose meet, they form clumps around which EZ water grows further.

On the other hand, EZ water that normally grows on surfaces where it should, like blood vessels and capillaries, can now work properly by comparison. When this EZ water is shrunk, everything in the body works less efficiently, if at all, we get sick.

Keep in mind that EZ water has both a different molecular structure and a different charge, and grows and shrinks according to energy input which has an effect on charge.

 

Now for what’s called structured water. Structured water is water that was passed through a device that creates a vortex. We call it structured water because its structure is changed by this device. But I don’t really know so I’m just going to call it vortexed water, because that’s the only thing I can actually be sure of.

One of the ability of vortexed water when we drink it is to cause a change in the blood, specifically to cause red blood cells to go from clumps to independent and free-flowing. Well, EZ water has that ability as well (but in reverse when it grows around molecules), so we’re dealing with charge here as well. So, the idea is that red blood cells clump together, there’s EZ water around that clump for some reason (maybe the clump’s nucleus is a protein, so we’re dealing with glycation). When we drink vortexed water, it affects the charge in the blood so that the EZ water around the red blood cell clumps shrinks, we get separation. From this, we get a bunch of effects like it’s now easier to get to the glycated hemoglobin and fix that, more red blood cells can now get through capillaries, more oxygen can get to various tissues, white blood cells travel through the blood more easily to do their thing, etc.

In a big picture point of view, glucose and red blood cells are tightly linked because red blood cells can only use glucose for fuel. Well, when red blood cells clump, it’s probably because there’s too much glucose, and too much EZ water around that glucose, so that when the excess glucose hits red blood cells, the red blood cell doesn’t let it in (because it already took in glucose so it’s not ready for more), glucose lingers and accumulates around that red blood cell, but since it’s still in the blood and all other red blood cells also don’t let it in, and since glucose continues to attract red blood cells cuz that’s how it meets up with them, red blood cells clump together around this excess glucose, we get clumps. Remember, there’s only about 5 grams total glucose in the entire blood supply, so while this effect occurs normally, it does so to a much lesser degree than let’s say when we eat 100 grams of glucose in 15 minutes 3 times per day to get our 300 grams of carbs as recommended by official dietary guidelines.

So, the EZ water, that’s true. The tube pump, that’s true. The red blood cells bigger than capillaries, that’s true. The rest is just ideas, take from it what you will.

Science of Structurized Water with Gerald Pollack – parts 1&2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPvYxDDpAgo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oOp350kTlY

Philippa Wiggins – Life Depends upon Two Kinds of Water

http://philippawiggins.com/

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001406

Vortexed water, various devices

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–Mup7eKarc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovrivpC20pY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh8j_aJ8M6w

 

Martin Levac 21:37 8/13/2016

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

Points of Reference 3 – Cancer – Hormones

Points of Reference 3 – Cancer – Hormones

 

They say prostate cancer is caused by testosterone, and older men are more likely to get it. In fact, primary treatments include testosterone suppression with high-dose triptorelin for example, i.e. chemical castration. Is the premise even true?

No. Testosterone declines with age.

They say breast cancer is caused by estrogen, and older women are more likely to get it. In fact, primary treatments include suppression of the estrogen receptor with a class of drugs called selective estrogen receptor modulator, or SERM. Is the premise even true?

No. Estrogen declines with age.

They say cancer in general is caused by IGF-1, and the older we are, the more likely we are to get it. In fact, primary treatments include suppression of growth hormone which in turn leads to suppression of IGF-1. Is the premise even true?

No. Growth hormone declines with age.

 

What does any cancer respond to best? Insulin, and conversely, insulin suppression.

 

Testosterone, estrogen, and growth hormone supplementation (with bio-identical or agonists such as very-low dose triptorelin, patch estrogen, and GHRH peptides, to name a few) in older people actually improve their health in myriad ways. Men and women regain their vitality, muscle tone and a bit of leanness for example. In fact, men feel best when testosterone level is restored up to optimal level found at around 20 years old. Women, most likely the same (I didn’t check). As for GH supplementation, it’s tricky because bio-identical has no feedback control so there’s a risk of under/overdose, while GHRH peptide response is well regulated by existing control systems such as somatropin for example, up to and including actual optimal level for overall health.

Suppression of testosterone, estrogen, and growth hormone are shotgun treatments, they affect everything, including healthy tissue, which means they invariably make a person sicker, not healthier. Healthy tissue mass far surpasses sick tissue mass, restoring these hormone levels up to optimal will invariably make us more healthy by simple comparison of mass – more mass in healthy tissue therefore greater effect on healthy tissue. Optimal does not mean “for your age”, it means “for your species and gender, independent of age”.

Hyperglycemia suppresses growth hormone. Hyperglycemia is achieved by eating carbs. Eating carbs also stimulates insulin, which cancer is exquisitely sensitive to, and grows quite happily as a result. If this premise is true, then the primary treatment – before any other treatment – must be low-carb. Indeed, if the premise is true, then the preventive treatment – before we even get sick – must be low-carb.

Low-carb also means high-fat – LCHF. It works to restore testosterone and estrogen production too. Both these hormones are made of sterols, which is made from cholesterol, which is made from fat. Low-fat suppresses these hormones, while LCHF restores them. LCHF alone cannot restore them completely – these hormones decline with age. If there’s something else going on that prevents LCHF from working as it should, insulin will remain higher, and testosterone/estrogen/growth-hormone will remain lower. Find it, fix it. If that’s not enough, restore these hormones by other means.

Martin Levac 13:44 8/10/2016

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

Money – What and How

Money – What and How

 

What is money and how does it work?

Money is a bill of exchange.

It indicates the value of the thing exchanged for it, thereby creating this same value for the bill itself as well. Money is not the same as currency. Currency is the unit of measure of this value. In Canada, it’s the Canadian dollar. A unit of measure is merely a quantity, not a thing. However, in the case of currency, it is both the unit of measure of money, and the physical thing, i.e. the dollar bill. Any bill of exchange is money. For example, a promissory note is money, a bill of sale is money, a debt obligation is money, a negotiable instrument is money, all these are bills of exchange and they all have a value indicated in currency. In the case of negotiable instruments, since they are negotiable, their value depends on not just the value indicated, but also on several other factors such as interest, payment method, thing for which it is issued, the person who issued it, etc. Typically, currency is not negotiable, unless it is bought and sold with currency from other countries, then by the nature of this exchange it is negotiable. The reason for this is that currency is the unit of measure of value of money, thus it must remain fixed and invariable, i.e. we can’t go to the bank and negotiate the value of 10x $10 when we give 1x $100 in exchange – $100 is $100 is $100 no matter how it’s made up.

Money is a negotiable instrument.

This means its value is variable according to offer/demand and other factors such as interest rate. For example, a promissory note of value $1,000, but with interest rate of 10% is more valuable than another promissory note of same value $1,000 but with interest rate of 5%. Or, if the maker of the note can’t pay now, the note then drops in value until the maker of the note gets rich, at that point the note rises in value. This is especially important when a note is sold by the payee to a holder in due course, and then this person tries to sell the note again, and so forth. That’s the purpose of a credit rating, it gives value to the promissory notes we issue. The higher a credit rating is, the more valuable these notes become.

How does money work?

First, we look at who issues money.

The central bank issues currency, everybody else issues any other kind of money of value indicated by currency.

Who’s the central bank? In Canada, it’s the Canadian Treasury (or its other name is Bank of Canada). The Canadian Treasury is a private bank. And this is where it gets really absurd. First of all it’s a private bank, a private corporation, and its sole purpose is to make a profit for its shareholders. First, the finance Minister issues promissory notes – called treasury bonds – and gives those bonds to the Treasury, who then issues the corresponding currency. This currency is issued at interest rate, determined by the Treasury, not by the finance Minister. This currency must be paid back to their full value indicated, not according to the actual cost of manufacture of these dollar bills. What this means is that the Treasury gets paid not for the actual thing made, but for the value indicated by the thing made, i.e. it gets paid $100 to make a $100 bill, $5 to make a $5 bill, etc, in spite of costing exactly the same to make any dollar bill of any value indicated. On top of this, interest is paid back as well, so that for every $100 bill, another $5 must be paid back to the Treasury. As if that was not absurd enough, who issues that $5 dollar bill that must exist to pay for the interest? You guessed it, the Canadian Treasury. And then we also have to pay back that $5, which the Treasury issued, so we could pay back the $5 interest on the $100 dollar bill the Treasury issued in the first place, and then more interest on that $5 dollar bill, and so forth. There’s no end. There’s only interest on interest on interest, ad nauseam. This is where the bulk of our taxes go.

The most absurd part is that since the Canadian Treasury is a private bank, and since it’s the only entity who can issue currency, it can issue any amount it wants, so the idea of making a profit for its shareholders is pointless. So what’s the true purpose of the Canadian Treasury? Well, who are the shareholders and what do they really want?

But there’s a trick.

Either we change the Law so that a) we pay only the actual cost of manufacture of dollar bills, or b) we dismantle the Canadian Treasury and instead create a state bank, then issue currency at cost without interest, or c) we each issue our own money in the form of promissory notes, with which we can then trade with everybody else, including with banks and government institutions and so forth, or d) we also maintain proper books and balance them at interval with those promissory notes, and so forth, or e) we remove money altogether, and use an alternative system instead (Ubuntu Contributionism, but it’s not the point of this post).

In fact, when we take out a loan at a bank, we sign a promissory note. The signer – the person who signs his name on the promissory note – is called the maker of the note, and the maker of the note is the issuer. We are led to believe that the bank makes the note or the bank issues the note, that’s incorrect. The signer is the maker is the issuer. We are also led to believe that we cannot control interest rates or penalties imposed when we can’t pay back the loan, that’s also incorrect. The maker/issuer of the note controls all aspects of its content, including interest rate, penalties, payment methods, frequency, amount, etc, everything. Indeed, if you’ve ever taken out a loan, read the “contract” carefully, you’ll see that the bank did not sign it, except maybe as a witness to your signature and it should be indicated clearly that it’s a witness, and anybody can sign as a witness, and even then the only signature that truly matters is the signer’s/maker’s/issuer’s – yours.

How it actually works when you take out a loan is that the bank first creates a deposit with the note you signed – this is an asset – then it creates a fictitious credit to your name – this is the liability and it balances the bank’s books. This credit to your name is financed by the note you signed – the bank is merely giving you back the money you gave it. The credit could be a check which you could cash in at any bank. Some claim that you don’t owe that money – the check you got – but that’s not entirely correct. The money you owe is the money you promised to pay, and the bank holds that promise. However, if the bank sold it, they no longer have the right to make a claim on it – to collect on it. Typically, the bank sells the note because it’s now worth much more than the value indicated because of interest. Basically, you’ve given the bank more money than the bank gave you, all because the note stipulates interest be paid.

Personally, I sent a promissory note to the bank to pay for a debt. If the bank was honest, they’d honor that note, and the debt would be paid, and then I’d pay that note according to its tenor. But the bank is not honest, so they continue to ask for money for that debt, and this makes them criminals since charging twice is fraud. The bank isn’t intentionally dishonest. I mean, it’s people and people are generally honest. Instead, it’s how they’re trained that makes them dishonest, they have no clue about the Law that applies or how that Law applies.

But that’s not a problem when we deal with promissory notes with each other, once we agree that’s how we’re going to do business with each other, and we establish a standard note format without interest or penalties. But then it’s an agreement, we must honor our promissory notes – our promise to pay. In fact, when we pay for things we can’t afford right now, we use promissory notes. For cars, houses, furniture, etc. We can’t afford the whole price right now, so we issue a note – a promise to pay – for the total amount, and that note actually pays for the whole price immediately. Typically, those notes we sign, they include interest and penalties, and they’re negotiable so the bank buys them, then sells them, but we still have to pay the bank, and again that’s fraud because the bank sold the note, yet continues to collect on it.

And this is where it gets interesting. If you’ve ever signed a promissory note, ask for the true original of this note. If the true original cannot be presented, then you cannot be liable to pay it anymore. This is how it works. When a note is sold, it is then said to be held by the “holder in due course”, and only the holder in due course has a right to make a claim on it, i.e. to collect on it. Once the bank sells a note, it no longer holds any right to make a claim on it.

It gets even more interesting. If you’ve already signed a promissory note for any kind of purchase like a car or a house, you can issue another promissory note to pay the first note, then you pay the second note according to its tenor (according to the terms and conditions which you set any way you want). This is basically what I did when I sent the note to the bank. I set the terms and conditions so that I no longer pay any interest, there’s no penalty for any reason, I set the monthly payments to be $10, and I set the payment place to be my home address so that now the bank must come to me to get their money, I also made the note explicitly negotiable so the bank can sell it if they so choose, and all of it conforms to the Law (the Bills of Exchange Act). For a house, typically there’s a mortgage – a condition that says the bank actually owns your house until you pay the full amount owed. Well, that too can be eliminated as you now control the terms and conditions, so obviously you won’t put a mortgage on your own note, right? Once you do this, the house is now yours and there’s nothing the bank can do about that. First though, you must find out the exact amount owed if you paid it in full (capital, interest, penalties, etc), then that’s the value you put in your promissory note.

Any promissory note can pay any other promissory note. In fact, that $5 dollar bill in your pocket is a promissory note, that stipulates the promise to pay $5 in the form of another $5 dollar bill, or in any other form of money of value $5. However, it’s not explicitly written on the dollar bills, that’s the nature of dollar bills – promissory notes to pay in the form of currency or in any other form of money, including other promissory notes of same value.

It’s important to keep in mind that when you sign a promissory note, you actually create money of the value indicated on the note. So, if you made a note for $500,000, then that’s the value of the note. Also, the instant you sign the note, that’s when the note becomes valuable and negotiable – it can be sold at any time after you sign it. So sign a note only when you’re about to deliver it, since delivery seals the deal – the payment (the note) is delivered, the note is completed by delivery. This means that if somebody steals your note, they won’t be able to sell it since you didn’t sign it – it has no value. Also, get a signature on delivery so that you have a record of the actual delivery to the payee, and also so that you establish your normal procedure for delivery in case of future dispute or theft of a note you signed but did not deliver yet. However, if you make a note and stipulate that it is non-negotiable, it is valuable only for the payee – for the person to whom you promised to pay.

Finally, when a promissory note you issued has been payed out in full, the note must be returned to you. So when you’ve payed back the bank for that loan, ask for the true original. If the bank does not return the true original, it’s fraud since that note continues to be deemed payable, in spite of having been payed in full, and thus continues to be traded for value even though there’s no value anymore. This is also true when you issue a promissory note to pay for another, or to pay for a loan or mortgage or whatever, the bank must return the first note you signed, because it has now been payed in full by the second note you issued.

 

But really, what did you think money was or how it worked?

 

Bills of Exchange Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-4/index.html
(Look for definition of “bill” and “note”)
(Also read as best you can, so you get an idea of what the hell I’m talking about here)

Financial Administration Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11/index.html
(Look for definition of “money” and “negotiable instrument”)

Bank Act: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-1.01/
(Look for definition of “debt obligation”)

Bank of Canada Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-2/
Currency Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-52/page-1.html

Ubuntu Contributionism
Political party: http://www.ubuntuparty.org.za/
Political party Canada: http://www.ubuntupartycanada.org/

 

Martin Levac copyright 17:07 8/7/2016

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

Diet – Our Evolution

Diet – Our Evolution

 

Recently, I started reading about ancient structures, especially the millions of stone circle ruins in South Africa that were only recently discovered by a guy Michael Tellinger, relatively speaking. The basic idea is that we were created by aliens as slaves to mine gold. Let’s ignore the absurd for a moment and instead focus on the implications as it relates to what diet we’re adapted to eat.

So, the time period is something like 300,000 years ago, that’s when our current species started. This means we can’t rely on anything before that. Among those stone circle ruins, there’s over 450,000 square kilometers of agricultural terraces. To grow what? Obviously, to grow food to feed all those slaves. To illustrate, there’s over 10,000,000 stone circle ruins. Ten million.

Where’d all the people go?

That’s besides the point. If it was food, what kind, and was it to be eaten by those slaves, or by cattle which would then feed those slaves? Dunno, but it gets me thinking. It’s noteworthy that those agricultural terraces are also connected to the stone circle ruins. The idea is that the stone circles are energy generating devices for the purpose of mining gold, but then if the terraces are connected, then some of that energy was also used to enhance plant growth. We have supporting evidence of this where seeds exposed to some ancient structures grow faster and bigger than other seeds. We lost that tech. Our modern agri doesn’t work like that. It’s all GMO, pesticides, petrol-based fertilizers, and radiation to neutralize pathogens.

These aliens, they made wine and beer. Well, that’s made from wheat and other grains, and grapes. Maybe the aliens really loved their wine, and that’s what those 450,000 square kilometers of agricultural terraces were intended for. That’s a boatload of aliens to get drunk, but then maybe it was all exported to some other planet. That’s some crazy shit but like I said it gets me thinking.

Here’s some not-so crazy shit. We easily get addicted to drinking, and whaddyaknow to bread too. Well, if I was a slavemaster and wanted my slaves to behave, I’d get them addicted to something and control the supply of that thing. Not only would that control them, but they’d fight to keep it that way, cuz you know, they’re addicted. Bread and wine. Hm, I sense a common thread to our humanity.

Yeah, so maybe we’re not actually adapted to eat a “diet” of bread and wine, and instead we’re adapted to get addicted to those, because we were designed as slaves to be controlled through that addiction. Makes sense. It’s still some crazy shit right there. Of course, you wouldn’t want all your slaves to die off in a few months from deficiencies, so you’d also design the wheat and the grapes to be somewhat nutritional. Somewhat. Don’t really need old slaves, only need young slaves that live long enough to reproduce. Hence “somewhat” nutritional.

Hm, there’s still the problem of generational epigenetics which eventually result in sterility. Can’t have that. Need those slaves, need the gold. Euh, let’s create gifts of nutrition in the form of festivities where slaves can eat whatever they want, including the good ole meat full of fat and protein and genuine nutrition. Yeah, good enough. Makes them happy cuz they feel like they deserve a break. Makes them live a bit longer to dig more gold. Makes them a bit more fertile and virile so they make more slaves. All good. Need my gold.

Ever wonder why we got hunter-gatherers in our history? Maybe these are the ones that got away. Viva la revoluzione! OK, what do we do? Let’s get the fuck outta here cuz there’s no chance to beat these aliens and their high-tech smiters. So anyways, they got away and they started to eat according to survival, cuz you know, that’s really hard to remove from a species, it forms the basis of fundamental biological systems that keep the species alive. So from that point forward, we have genuine evolution by way of natural selection. Those who survived and reproduced, continued to do whatever they did to survive and reproduce. Those that didn’t, well, didn’t.

It follows therefore that we are their descendants and the diet we’re adapted to must be whatever it was that they ate to survive and reproduce. But remember, we’re dealing with the last 300,000 years only, nothing before that. But we gotta ask, if they reproduced, did they proliferate? Yes, to some extent, but certainly not to the extent Europeans did it. Small groups, thousands if not millions of them, all over the planet. And all of them enjoying near-perfect health. Compare that to the blights of Europe and the millions of people crammed on that continent. Hum, that suggests that once we eat a diet we’re fully adapted to eat, we won’t proliferate so much. Something to think about.

But then if we only look at those traditional people, we can’t deduce causality. Cuz ya know, association is not causation. It follows therefore that the single most pertinent information we can get, we can only get through experiments we do today with our own current species, and with our own current available foods. Nothing else will do. Good thing is we can do it without asking anybody. It’s just food fer Chrissake. Don’t need permission from some dumass with a diploma. It’s some goddamn dumass that got us into this mess in the first place.

Guess what, those slaves that got away to become hunter-gatherers, they didn’t know a thing about food, but they learned, by experiment. We call this empirical knowledge, or empirical evidence. Knowledge derived from experience. Learning comes from doing. Indeed, the scientific method is just a formal description of the same thing. Well, everybody’s a scientist cuz everybody can learn from doing.

Now let’s say all that crazy alien shit is just bogus. Does it still make sense to learn from doing, and then rely on that knowledge? You bet. Let’s get on with it then. As a matter of fact, we can learn from doing when considering that crazy alien shit too. Yeah I know it’s crazy, but let’s apply the scientific method anyway, just so we can confirm it’s all bogus. If we don’t try, then we just believe it’s all bogus. We don’t actually know. Now maybe it’s just me, but I think if it’s not bogus, then we should take a serious look at that idea of energy generating devices and energy used to make plants grow faster and bigger, without all that GMO/pesticides/petrol/radiation, cuz make no mistake that’s some seriously crazy shit too.

Now I know, some of you who know me are gonna think I’ve gone off the rails. I must be mad. Crazy alien shit? Get real buddy. Yeah, well whatever. Do any of you remember the sensible stuff I wrote? Does any of it give you the impression that I have gone off the rails? Maybe I got hit in the head recently. Nope, I just read stuff, all kinds of stuff, I don’t necessarily write about all of it. But now I just did. Take from it what you will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
http://michaeltellinger.com/

Martin Levac 18:23 7/12/2016

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

Points Of Reference Bis

Points Of Reference Bis

 
Cancer. What is it, what’s the cause, how does it work, why?

There’s the metabolic theory of cancer, whereby metabolism is disrupted in such a way to allow cancer to occur and grow. I agree, but only partly. My recent readings tell me that it is about metabolism, but it’s also about pathogens. Pathogens also flourish in specific environments, just like cancer does. It’s possible both thrive in the same environment, and that’s why when we address that environment, we see an effect on cancer, though not from the direct action on cancer cells, instead from a direct action on those pathogens and then in turn on the cells which host those pathogens.

If there’s no pathogens, then it’s all about our own cells that go awry. But if that’s the case, then all cancers should respond equally well to the same change of environment, i.e. going low-carb. They don’t, so it’s not just about our own cells, there’s something else going on, it’s pathogens most likely.

Is it possible that pathogens somehow get control of the host and cause us to do things we normally wouldn’t do? Yes, absolutely. How is that even possible? Well, how does our own healthy body maintain its integrity? Pathogens merely act on those same systems for their own benefit, instead of our own benefit. Pathogens don’t necessarily need to make us do things we don’t want to do, they merely need to be able to control the systems that regulate our internal milieu, i.e. hormones and enzymes for example.

Indeed, cancer cells have many times the number of insulin receptors compared to normal cells. If it’s just about metabolism, how is that even possible? Remember, we start with healthy cells, and healthy cells work very hard to maintain their integrity, and this includes not creating superfluous insulin receptors just because. Cell receptors and all that stuff, it’s all controlled by DNA. The DNA of healthy cells does not contain instructions to create superfluous insulin receptors. How can metabolism on its own somehow change DNA instructions like that? The more likely culprit is pathogens, virus especially have the ability to alter our DNA for their own benefit.

The classic virus infection goes like this. First, the virus infects a cell, alters the cell’s DNA to replicate the virus, and then this new virus is sent out to infect other cells, and round we go. However, in this case, instead of altering DNA for replication of the virus, it alters DNA for replication of the host cell. Virus is no longer sent out to infect other cells, instead it’s hosted by the cell that replicated itself, therefore hosted by the newly replicated cell. In this scenario, both the pathogen and the host cell are adapted for survival of the pathogen at the same time, there’s no longer the need to send out a virus to infect other cells all the while remaining vulnerable to the host’s immune system as it travels through the bloodstream for example. With cancer, there’s no travel, it’s all done in situ.

However, and this is where it gets really interesting, cancer cells can apparently migrate to other tissues. This makes no sense at all. How can a liver cell become a brain cell or a pancreas cell? It can’t. But a pathogen can travel and infect any cell because its DNA is not restricted by its environment, unlike the host’s cells. All host’s cells have the instructions for replication, and that’s all the pathogen needs to control for replication of the host’s cells for its benefit.

This is control at the cellular level. There’s also control at the system level, with the brain for example, where behavior of the whole organism is controlled, i.e. driven to eat this but not that, and so forth. Is it possible that pathogens can take control of that? Yes, absolutely. The body already has the systems and mechanisms to alter behavior to, for example, drive one to eat more salt or more fat or more of some other thing, or to sleep more or less, or to drink more or less water, or to become more or less active, etc. It’s only a small step for any pathogen to take control of those systems and mechanisms. It’s done at the hormonal, enzymatic, nervous and sensory level, and even perhaps at the thought and intellectual level, all at once or independently.

There’s this thing called the vagus nerve. It’s a nerve, it’s connected straight to the brain, and it certainly controls our behavior especially for hunger and satiety. All a pathogen needs is take control of that nerve to cause the host to behave for the pathogen’s benefit rather than the host’s. It can do it right from the gut.

The point of reference here is that the body already has all the systems and mechanisms for pathogens and diseases to establish themselves, but the body uses them all to maintain health instead. So, we’re normally driven to eat genuine food and pure water, to do things that benefit us, to act and think for our sole benefit, all to maintain the body’s health and all the cells that compose it. Any idea to the contrary is wrong. Based on that point of reference, anything we do must benefit us, otherwise it’s not actually good for us, the converse is also true, anything that isn’t actually good for us doesn’t benefit us.

 
Martin Levac 21:04 7/8/2016

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

The Song Of Mother Earth

The Song Of Mother Earth

 

My mother was silenced. She no longer sings to me. I feel the need for her song. Her instrument has been shut down. Her instrument no longer resonates her song. I want to hear her song again. I want her song to resonate in me, through me.

She sings with such force, but I cannot hear it, I cannot feel it. I have been deprived of her melody. Repair her instrument, open it up again, let it resonate with her song again, so that I can hear her melody again, so that I resonate it in turn again.

Her instrument is the pyramids and ancient sites, all working in tandem, in composition, to make a song that I can hear, that I can feel. I want to hear that song again, to feel that song again.

We, whoever we were before, we built the instrument, we gave our mother the instrument to sing to us, so we can hear her song, so her song can resonate in us.

It wasn’t our mother at the time, she adopted us, we adopted her. We didn’t understand each other, we built the instrument to understand each other. We understood, she sang, we resonated.

Our mother was silenced. Remove the gag covering her mouth. Let her sing to us again, loud and clear again.

 

A guitar or piano, we believe they are the things that create the sound. No, they resonate the song of the musician, of the singer. Each musician has a different song, their instrument resonates each of their song in unique ways. Each musician prefers a certain instrument, rather than another. This instrument resonates his song better, more fully, rather than that instrument. Some musicians have so many songs, they use many instruments to resonate each one.

Mother Earth has a billion billion songs. Listen.

This is not mine anymore. It’s yours now, if you want. Take it.

 

Martin Levac
02:14 7/2/2016

Points Of Reference

Points Of Reference

 

The point of reference is a basis against which we compare differences in other instances. So for example, we produce eggs, and establish a point of reference for a good egg, against which we compare all other eggs we produce. Any egg that doesn’t match is either not good enough, or as good as or better.

 

The above is a pragmatic example, but what’s the point of reference for health? It’s the absence of disease. This means health is an absolute. Either we’re healthy, or we’re not. Since health is an absolute, perfect health is a tautology. If you’re healthy, then you’re perfectly healthy. Any and all disorders of any kind, no matter how insignificant, cannot then be described as health or healthy. Acne and other skin disorders, joint pains, aches, digestive disorders, vision and hearing problems, cognitive disorders, sleep disorders, reproductive disorders, etc, all demonstrate presence of disease, therefore none are indication of health.

 

All things considered, I’m healthy. That’s patently false. This is because when all things are considered, and if there’s just one thing wrong, then we’re not healthy. I often say “return to good health”, and this allows me to also say “I’m in bad health”, but then I could just as easily say “I’m sick”.

 

According to the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis, the primary regulator of fat tissue is insulin, and the primary disruptor of insulin is dietary carbohyrates. Obviously, when we’re overly fat, we’re not healthy. There is at least one thing wrong. We can be overly fat, yet show no other signs of disease, but that’s very unlikely. Insulin doesn’t merely regulate fat tissue, it regulates a multitude of other systems, for example protein synthesis in various tissues, and fuel distribution throughout the body starting from the liver. So, if we’re overly fat, then insulin has been disrupted, therefore any or all other systems regulated by insulin must also have been disrupted. Since the primary disruptor of insulin is dietary carbohydrates, that’s the first thing we should take care of. Once we took care of that, if dietary carbohydrates was the only disruptor, then everything should return to normal, we should return to health.

 

This is how it should be. So, what if it’s not like that? What if we took care of the primary disruptor yet there’s still something wrong? Well, there’s still something wrong. I can’t make it any more obvious.

 

There’s something wrong, let’s find it. Here’s where the point of reference for health takes all its meaning. Remember, we’ve taken care of the primary disruptor, but there’s still something wrong. Trying to understand this primary disruptor – dietary carbs – more than we already do, leads us nowhere, we’ve taken care of it. So, that’s no longer what’s wrong with us. Time to look at everything else.

 

Question everything you think you know about yourself, about your health, about all your little bits and pieces that you’ve taken for granted, you’ve thought were normal “for your condition, your gender, your age, your particular circumstances, etc”. There’s nothing normal about any disorder, it’s a disorder. So, is there anything you think of as normal for your circumstances? If yes, then it’s very likely not normal for any circumstance. Dig deeper. Whatever that little thing is, do you really know everything about it? Did you actually check, double-check and triple-check all the facts related to this little thing?

 

Whatever little nagging thing you got, it’s caused by something. It’s not caused by itself, it’s caused by something else. Let’s find it. Just as with dietary carbs, and just as with insulin, it’s not just a single effect, it’s multiple effects. So, any one of those little things you’ve taken for granted, is likely just one of multiple effects of whatever causes it. Remember when you went low-carb, and so many things got better all at once? That’s the idea. Well, carbs ain’t the only thing that do this. And, carbs ain’t the only thing that disrupts insulin, therefore any one of those little things can and most likely continues to disrupt insulin. Let’s find it. It’s also likely that it’s not just one little thing, it’s several. Let’s find them.

 

Put them all down on paper, make a list, as much detail as you want. Compare this list to any other list of symptoms and disorders and health problems and whatnots. See which other list matches best. According to my own recent readings, I’ve discovered that literally 1/3 of us are infected by parasites, more specifically gut parasites. So, count people walking down the street, and go 1,2,3, he’s infected, 1,2,3, she’s infected. I don’t mean just gut bacteria, I mean worms. These worms, in turn, are also infected by all kinds of bugs, bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc. There’s over 400 species of parasitic worms that infect humans. Any one of those worm species can cause all kinds of symptoms to the host. And, any species of the pathogens that infect these worms can cause their own kinds of symptoms to the host as well. This ain’t just a matter of transplanting crap from a slim person. And it’s not just one worm species, it’s likely to be more than one species.

 

I read that a parasitic infection is often asymptomatic. That’s patently false. This is because the list of symptoms is so extensive, it’s highly unlikely that there’s gonna be no symptom at all. See if any apply to you.

 

Maybe it’s simply a bacterial or viral of fungal infection. Let’s find it. Treat it. Problem solved. Maybe it’s just a deficiency. Find it. Treat it. Problem solved. Now, what if it is a deficiency, it doesn’t happen on its own, it’s likely to have been caused by something else, and if that thing isn’t taken care of, then the deficiency will just return. In my case, I had a vitamin A deficiency, which I treated, but it didn’t solve my problem, I’m still sick. Well then, it’s obvious that something caused this deficiency, and whatever it is, it’s still there, and it’s likely the culprit for all kinds of other things. I’m going to find it, or just treat it without ever knowing what it was. Ignorance is bliss, right?

 

The point of reference for health is the total and complete absence of disease. Any little thing wrong, it’s not indication of health. All things considered? Huh huh, maybe not all things were considered after all, ya?

 

A couple links for parasitic infections and their list of potential symptoms:

http://cdautism.org
http://andreaskalcker.com/en/

 

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

 

Martin Levac
15:36 5/10/2016