Positive Health Online

Originally published at https://www.pqliar.net/in-life/food/92-thought-for-food

In the last seventy years food, the healthy and unhealthy aspects of it, has become a major focus of attention. Food is now evaluated in terms of sugars, fats, proteins, calories, fibres and vitamins and minerals. All the ‘invisible’ stuff seems of the utmost importance. Everything is laboratory analysed into the smallest details to determine what would be healthy food for all human beings. This is happening for the first time since man walked this earth. Ancient philosophies and healing systems have always focussed on the state of mind as the most important factor in personal health and they have only used foods as a support system to help maintain a balance in life, never to achieve the balance. There was a recognition that the energetic quality of certain foods are better suited to certain types of people and not so good, in terms of maintaining that balance, for other people. In other words, there are individual differences in food requirements. This distinction has been completely wiped out in our modern era. Lead by the medical profession it has become a one-for-all food system, based on the chemical content of the food, rather than on its energetic value. Moreover, food has been elevated to the highest contributor to our state of health.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Good_Food_Display_-_NCI_Visuals_Online.jpg

Picture Credit: Display of Healthy Foods on Wikipedia

Whatever health advice we receive nowadays it always contains in the first place dietary advice and in the second place exercise advice. This is, to say the least, strange in so far that the society that offers this advice is the same society that forced us into sedentary work. Manual labour was banned by mechanisation and computers, which created the market for exercise equipment and gyms. Similarly, food ingredients have been marked as ‘bad’ for our health and the industry has come to our rescue. Sugars have been removed from our food. Fats have been removed from our foods. We have begun to count calories as a way of figuring out exactly how much and what type of food our lifestyle demands. And strangely enough, but without it being questioned anywhere, the answer turns out to be the same for the average person. Everybody should do the same to avoid becoming ill.

Over the past sixty years governments all over the western world have been campaigning against obesity. The answer, according to the official advice, is diet and exercise. They have modified our regular foods and altered the way we approach eating. The result has been a dramatic increase in obesity during that time, and still they keep recommending the same approach. They keep modifying more food items, not simply by removing certain ingredients and adding others such as artificial sweeteners, vitamins and other supplements, but also by changing the way crops are grown. Moving on from using a lot of artificial fertilisers they are growing crops on water culture now whereby they control every single mineral the plant is being offered. This allows for a controlled yield, which delivers a guaranteed profit. So, all the plants of the same crop are being fed the same nutrition, just as all human beings are being fed the same nutrition. It doesn’t deliver healthier plants, just more voluminous plants. Overfed, overgrown and nutrition depleted. Plants can no longer choose what they need and neither can human beings. This is – you must understand this – done for your own health benefit as the natural way is now identified as the main source of disease, either by way of microscopic organisms or by way of a ‘faulty’ balance of ingredients. The clever people who discovered this, and who are here to pull us out of the swamp, are medical researchers who work for the pharmaceutical industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Africa_Food_Security_18_(10665134354).jpg

Women selling produce at a market in Lilongwe, Malawi

Picture Credit: Africa Food Security via Wikipedia

It is striking that this industry is investing unimaginable amounts of money and effort into reaching for the core of life, not to understand it but to alter it. Over the years we have become familiarised with scientific terms and with processes we have been told are scientific, even though they do not follow scientific methods and scrutiny. The use of language that surrounds these processes is also very interesting. A few decades ago we were confronted with the process of genetic manipulation of plant material. The word ‘manipulation’ indicates a forced alteration of the genetic material, which very much implies ‘anti-natural’. The terminology for the same process was changed to genetic engineering, which very much indicate a technical process that is pretty neutral in its effects. More recently, it is called genetic modification, which implies that an improvement has been added to the genetic material. The genetic structure has been modified, no longer manipulated. This presents the whole thing as if this artificial manipulation is in fact a natural process. Genetic ‘modification’ does happen within the realm of natural selection but there it is a spontaneous process that allows the organism to adjust to changing environmental circumstances, an adaptation necessary for the survival of the species. Genetic modification, manipulation, is a totally different process through which unscientific interference in natural structures and processes the medical industry is altering the genetic material in accordance to their requirements, not those of the organism. We are also no longer solely talking about plant material, but it nowadays very much includes animals and even humans.

Marketing the ideas is done via a network of medical practitioners and the regular media. The industry follows its own ideas, disregarding science and scientific methodology. Here are just a few examples of what scientific methods would question and scrutinise.

• Obesity increases while specific measures to combat it are being taken;
• Artificial sweeteners are recognised to be highly toxic to the human system and yet are recommended as a healthy option;
• Artificially lowering the fat content in the blood has not shown a reduction in heart and blood vessel diseases, which the medical profession says are caused by the accumulation of fat in the blood;
• The food pyramid, the directive of good and bad foods, has recently been turned upside down. What was good has become bad and vice versa. Both versions are, in their own time and during the recommendation, to be believed to be correct;
• Dietary advice is disregarding individual living conditions of human beings;
• Air quality in cities improved dramatically when horse and cart was replaced by the automobile. So, how ‘bad’ is the car in respect to the air quality?;
• Apparently passive smoking can cause lung cancer, but then only in humans, not in the pets that live in the same environment;
• Consuming high levels of sugar only becomes toxic when the sugar has been refined. It is never toxic when consumed in its naturally occurring state, the entire fruit or vegetable.

Scaring the population with regards to a basic requirement such as food triggers the most important reflex within the human being. How to survive? ‘Identifying’ poisonous substances that we consume or breathe in reverberates right the way through to the core of our being. It shakes us so much that we even abandon our own powers – we forget to observe – and become trembling wrecks. We forget that powerful medicines, both in the allopathic and the natural world, are substances that are, under normal conditions, poisonous to us. We forget that the industry, the authority that informs us on poisonous substances in our food, adds chemicals to our food that are known to be unfit for human consumption. However, they tell us they ensure a safe level of toxicity of the added chemicals. Each food item may only contain a certain level of one specific poison, but each food item may contain several poisons, each within the safe bracket. An individual may consume any amount of such food items as they are perfectly safe. Apparently, there is no accumulative effect as far as the poisons are concerned when they are being recommended and administered by the authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FoodSourcesOfMagnesium.jpg

Picture Credit: Food Sources of Magnesium on Wikipedia

The fact that certain chemicals that are on the poison list are used in our food production and food preservation makes me wonder what poison actually means. If a known poisonous chemical can be hailed a health supplement or healthy addition then I am getting confused. I observe the use by humans and animals alike of a poison ‘to cure’ an acute illness, to rectify an acute imbalance, but I fail to see how a regular consumption of that same poison is going to keep the animal or human healthy. How do we define a poison?

Our dictionaries explain the word in these terms: a substance that through its chemical action usually kills, injures, or impairs an organism. This could mean something destructive or harmful, or an object of aversion or abhorrence. Now I am stuck again. What exactly is ‘destructive’? How does one define ‘harmful’? A forest fire is extremely destructive but it clears the way for a new development, new growth, fresh life. Without the destructive phase no deep layered change to the forest could ever happen, which would lead to stagnation, disease and death. So, it appears as if the harm that is done is a short term evaluation and judgement of the situation and that the long term outlook is the opposite. This is pretty much how medication was used before a health industry even existed. A poison was used ‘to harm’ the system (body and/or mind) in order for it ‘to wake up’ and ‘to restore’ itself to an even better version of itself.

Ancient philosophies determined the word poison in a very different way. A poison is any substance or situation that is, at that particular time, of no use to the organism. This changes two important things. One, the poisonous effect is an individual reaction to the substance. And two, the poisonous effect that the substance has on the individual changes over time. This makes the poison time dependent and individual dependent. Now we can understand our own observations much better. The same substance does not create harm or injury to all that come in contact with it. And also, the same substance does not always has the same effect within the individual.

So we can’t truly define poison in general terms of absolute effects or in general terms of an entire population. However, if that is the case then no authority can be allowed to control the use and the prohibition of any substance. It is up to the individual who can decide, dependent upon the current situation, the current balance in his or her life, whether or not the substance is taken. Individuals can find out for themselves what effects specific substances have on them under specific conditions. This, once again, matches our own observation. Alcohol has a depressive effect on the mind. When taken regularly and in sufficient quantities while being in a depressive mood, it will worsen the condition. However, the initial short-lived effect of alcohol is uplifting, lowering inhibitions, which makes people feel better. So, using the terminology of the above discussion, we can conclude, from our own observation, that consuming alcohol, the poison, when you are feeling contented and at ease will not harm you or make you ill, while it potentially can destroy you when consumed whilst being troubled by a heavy mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MaslowHierarchy.png

Picture Credit: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs  on Wikipedia

A heavy, a troubled, mind is a mind that is not at ease. A mind that finds it difficult to come to rest. A mind that is anxious. A mind that is troubled by doubt and worry. A mind that is afraid. And when your mind has been fed a poisonous thought it keeps regurgitating that thought, making the mind sick. When our attention is drawn to a poisonous substance found in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil that produces our food, our mind becomes engulfed by the possibility this substance is going to cause harm to our health and might even kill us. That is what we understand the word poison means. This fear has, over the last century, become the general state of being for the entire western population. A culture, poisoned by a narrow definition of the concept of poison, soaking in the jus of the belief that if it can create a harmful effect in one it can create a harmful effect in all. Those two beliefs that people have been feeding on create the need for an authority on poison in order to tell the troubled mind of every individual how to stay clear of poisons and to instruct every individual to believe that this authority will safeguard you from the harmful effects of poisons. Trust the authority when they use poisons. Distrust anybody else, including yourself, to use poisons. You must believe the poison harms everybody in all circumstances, except when our expert says it will ensure you are or will become healthy.

Science, on the contrary, teaches that the subject is an essential part of the outcome. An observer influences what and how he or she sees the observed. The way a test has been set up and is being performed is part of the kind of test result one gets. Every effect one observes within a person is a direct result of an interaction between that individual and the outer environment. This actually means that no matter what ‘poison’ can be detected in the outer world the effect this may have on a single individual is determined by the makeup and the current state of the individual. Of course, some substances will affect people more readily and more severely than other substances but to act as if the substance is dangerous to all is a serious mistake. However, the effect this mistake has on the entire population is one of fear for survival and that fundamentally affects how the individual approaches the environment. Behaviour will become avoidance. Don’t eat this. Don’t drink that. Panic searches for the exact location of the poison will dominate everyday life. Investigation into finding a culprit or someone to hold responsible will focus the fear on how truly important this is for one’s survival. While in fact science tells us to look inside the individual for the main explanation of the effect the individual is displaying. In spring, pollen can ‘cause’ a lot of upper-respiratory problems in a number of individuals. The disease is called hay fever. The cause is the pollen in the air. Science teaches that the pollen cannot be the cause of the disease as they seem not to harm a lot of other individuals. The difference between the two groups can only be explained by some specific differences between the two individual inner-worlds. In other words, different people react differently to similar stimulations. And that is no different with regards to the air we breathe, the food we eat and the ‘poisons’ we come in contact with.

When the industry lowers the natural quality of the food we consume it does have an effect on our metabolism. However, no matter how poor you might think the nutritional value of this food is, many war and deprivation times have proven that humans, like all other living organisms, are able to survive on almost nothing. And here is how that works.

When the quality of your food has diminished your system will do either one of these things as a response to it. It will start searching for different things to eat in order to try and compensate, or it will tune down the needs, the drive to eat. Both responses, when allowed to be put into practice, lead to a new balance, to a new relationship that the individual has with food. However, when you worry about the lack of quality within your food and you are almost counting the bits that you are lacking, your system is now in serious doubt. On the one hand its nature draws it towards eating whatever is available in order to sustain life, while on the other hand your mind is rejecting the food, not accepting that it will keep you alive. These latter circumstances create a very different type of inner response. The perceived ‘shortcomings’ within the food, in other words the low quality of the food, will not properly feed the individual and signs of a health imbalance will shortly start to appear. It is not whatever the food is lacking, it is whatever you believe that the food is lacking that is going to harm you. You then believe that your system is missing something in order to maintain that healthy balance. In that state of mind you are causing the ill effects your environment has on you. The ‘poisonous environment’ is the same for everyone and yet not everyone shows the same ‘poisonous’ response.

The quality of the water we consume is even less important. Now that may come as a shock to you but the reason is very simple and lies within the properties of water itself. Water has the ability to adjust quickly to its surroundings. It takes on the energetic quality of its surroundings very easily, which means that it is not difficult ‘to upgrade’ the water you are consuming. Anything that will lighten the water, that will intensify the vibration, will improve its quality. You can do this by physically altering the water. You can boil it, shake it or you can add other substances such as herbs or lemon juice. But you can also achieve the same thing by your thoughts. You can say a prayer or express your gratitude. So approaching the water you are about to consume with fear or with gratitude gives you two completely different relationships with that water and hence the effect that water will bring to your system is completely different in both cases.

That difference is due to the individual, not due to what you consume or in general
terms the environment you live in.
environment + individual = individual response

However, when the industry is allowed, even encouraged, to remove items from the natural food supply under the guise that it will improve the health of the entire population, we open ourselves to be conned in a big way.

• Remove the fats from food items. – Later on, the message is that certain conditions are caused by the lack of omegas, the essential parts of fat. This separate supplement you now need to buy in order to restore what the initial advice has taken away;
• For healthier hair wash your hair (frequently) with our shampoo. – Soap (shampoo), over time, removes oil from the hair. Now the recommendation is to follow up washing your hair by applying a conditioner, which is going to replace the oil within the hair;
• To cure infections you must take antibiotics. – This will seriously disturb the bacterial balance everywhere in the body. Now it becomes essential to take probiotics to restore the bacterial flora.

It is a general pattern within the medical industry that a health recommendation leads to either a worsening of the condition or to the introduction of another condition, which then in turn can be focussed upon, can be marketed. A useful rule of thumb is that every advice coming from the industry will not cure anything – they talk in terms of expected rate of potential improvement – but it will certainly create new problems or add to existing problems.

Feeding the bodily tissues is a major undertaking and generally, by the medical profession, it is put forward that the food we consume is broken down and nutritional items from this food are being distributed throughout the entire body. This is done via the blood circulation, and in general terms this is how the profession describes how this distribution and feeding process happens.

1. The heart’s bottom right pumping chamber (right ventricle) sends blood that’s low in oxygen (oxygen-poor blood) to the lungs. Blood travels through the pulmonary trunk (the main pulmonary artery);
2. Blood cells pick up oxygen in the lungs;
3. Pulmonary veins carry the oxygenated blood from the lungs to the heart’s left atrium (upper heart chamber);
4. The left atrium sends the oxygenated blood into the left ventricle (lower chamber). This muscular part of the heart pumps blood out to the body through the arteries;
5. As it moves through your body and organs, blood collects and drops off nutrients, hormones and waste products;
6. The veins carry deoxygenated blood and carbon dioxide back to the heart, which sends the blood to the lungs;
7. Your lungs get rid of the carbon dioxide when you exhale.

Oh, I am sorry. This only talks about oxygen as, what appears to be, an important source of nutrition. It says that “the blood collects and drops off nutrients, hormones and waste products”. It doesn’t, however, tell us where it finds those nutrients. I can assume the blood finds hormones and waste products at the cellular level, but where do the nutrients come from? What are those nutrients?

If we don’t talk about it then the above picture of the circulation can be used to support the idea that the blood is carrying nutrients to the cells. However, that is not what the anatomy of the circulation shows us! Maybe we do need to talk about it. Let’s talk about what is known as the hepatic circulation. What is it? How does this work? All blood from the entire digestive tract, including the pancreas and gall bladder, and the spleen gets taken directly to the liver. So any nutrients that enter the blood stream from the digestive tract, which is where the food enters the body, is taken directly to the liver. What is the function of the liver? The liver is the largest detoxifying internal organ in the entire body. It breaks down almost everything into recycling pieces. Do you see what that means? Every item of food we consume, no matter what it is, deemed healthy or poison, gets taken directly down to the incinerator within the body. Nothing, no vitamin, no carbohydrate, no fat or protein, remains intact. What leaves the liver via the blood stream are mainly atoms and simple molecules that will be reused by the cells. But there is no scientific direct link between what enters your stomach and what is being presented to the cells of your body. And I would add: Thank God for that! It seems to me an impossible task to have to deal with an almost indefinite number of possible items from nature entering the body. How dangerous would that be? Much better to immediately break it all down to its minutest form, thereby defusing the potential bomb and preventing any major disturbance to the inner balance.

Then the question remains, how do we feed ourselves? From the description of the blood circulation we have already understood how important oxygen is as a food, as an energy source to all cells. But we also have the experience that when we eat we feel strengthened. So, how is that feeling being generated by the food we consume, even though the system fails to bring food nutrients to the cells? I suggest we look towards science to help us out.

Science has shown that everything in life, including all matter, is energy. It is all about frequencies and vibrations, which determine the structure and the function of the matter. Science has also shown that all interactions happen at an energetic level and that such frequency interferences alter the function, and sometimes the shape and structure of the matter. What does this mean in practical terms? It means that the message the food we consume is bringing to our system has already been delivered by the time we put the food item in our mouth, or better still from the moment we smell or see the food in front of us. The main natural message we receive from food is: life is plentiful, survival is assured. This relaxes the organism. It brings peace to its system. The ‘food’ has delivered a satisfying feeling, a full feeling, a sense that life is good. And it has done this within the need for a physical contact between the cells of the organism and the ingredients of the food.

What we eat delivers a message, a message from one natural system to another. Our system recognises natural rhythms and vibrations and it knows how to respond to these messages. Hence, the more natural our food is the more easily our system will be ‘satisfied’. But the more we doubt the incoming message that life is good and survival is easy, the less satisfied our system will be. Our attitude towards what we consume largely determines the effect the incoming message creates within our individual system. Our attitude towards what we consume determines how well we live on it or how much harm it does to our system.

There is no need for all and everything to be natural and optimal either. Nature is not about pure, refined, sterile, lifeless and singular details. There is, however, a need for us to believe that we will survive because we are able to eat. Evaluating food as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is not helpful. It divides the incoming message into good and bad, whilst the natural content of the message is simply that with enough food around we will be able to survive. And that is good, no matter what you judge the quality of that food to be. The idea that we need ‘protection’ against certain foods removes the innate power the system possesses to know what to consume at every moment in time. The need for protection hands that power to our conscious mind, which does not have the knowledge or the connections to make appropriate choices at this level. This allows an authority to step in and take over from nature.

An authority which is, in this case, an industry that benefits greatly if it is allowed to evaluate its own performance and its own successes. This authority includes the medical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the cosmetic industry and the food industry. They are one and same authority. They have the knowledge, so they say. They can do no wrong, even when they completely reverse their own recommendation. They are the authority, because they say they are.

Acknowledgement Citation

Originally published at https://www.pqliar.net/in-life/food/92-thought-for-food