The reasons people seek answers to health challenges in the world of CAM (Complementary & Alternative Medicine) or integrative medicine are as varied as people themselves, though in my experience a great many do so owed to real or perceived failures on the part of their mainstream doctors to diagnose or treat or otherwise address their ills (Again, real or perceived). My interaction with patients and “natural medicine” (Is there an unnatural medicine?) practitioners from chiropractors to naturopathic physicians to just about everything else under the “alt med sun” is extensive – stretching from my childhood in the 1960s to the present – and has taught me a great deal firsthand about how disappointment with conventional or mainstream medicine plus hope, wishful thinking, the placebo effect, lack of critical thinking, and sometimes desperation  have sent my folks into the arms of those who offer seemingly definitive diagnoses and/or solutions (Or at least less personally intimidating non-invasive diagnostic methods plus gentler therapies often dispensed or administered with a great deal more TLC than some overworked MDs can understandably muster).

Do these people get positive results? By all means. But as to why, this isn’t always a clear cut case of “I took or did this and it worked”. Many of the diagnostic methods used on these patients have been disproved and utterly discredited, as are some of the treatments prescribed. For more than a few I’ve followed – some for years—their illness is psychosomatic and their improvement the end result of their vested faith in their practitioner and expectancy that his or her therapy will prove efficacious. Others attribute improvement to a non-standard treatment when it was more likely a prior mainstream treatment or just the disease or condition having run its course.

Back when I first began exploring nonstandard medical and paramedical modalities (1960s as a boy of 8 or so) many specific herbal, nutritional and other forms of intervention had not been formally evaluated in well-designed and executed clinical trials. As a result there was the very real possibility some of these would pan out once put to the test. And if some of these gentler remedies could bring about remediation of disease with few if any of the side effects associated with their pharmacological counterparts, their promotion and use seemed a reasonable course of action or recourse for both practitioners and patients. This line of reasoning apparently informed and motivated many to offer them at the retail and professional level and scores of ailing folks to seek them out in health food stores and in the offices of clinicians of various stripes.

The years and subsequent rigorous evaluation has not been kind to many cherished non-standard  diagnostic tests and remedies (Nor to many accepted mainstream techniques and treatments either). What should have happened is that treatments and diagnostic methods that didn’t pan out following rigorous evaluation should have gone the way of the dinosaurs.  But they didn’t.  Why? The reasons are varied but among the recurring ones I have run across down through the years among medical consumers and many integrative practitioners are: (1) A refusal to accept scientific valid consensus findings from multiple studies (Many I’ve confronted with this have said something to the effect that “I know this, but I also know it works no matter what and I won’t set it aside”. True believers whose reasons have more in common with the kind of faith articulated in revival meetings than anything else); (2) A vested interest in the therapy or therapeutic agent that makes it difficult to relinquish it; and (3) A lack of exposure to the methods of science and critical thinking and how to apply them when it comes to evaluating a given therapy, diagnostic method or treating compound, drug, herb or such.

In my own case, I took my childhood interest in the promise of natural medicine and eventually ran with it over time.  Mine was a wide-ranging course whose first stop was another childhood passion, physical anthropology (and especially dietary patterns throughout human evolution). To my way of thinking, the best way to approach diet, human disease and even psychology was through an evolutionary lens, something given increasing credence by subsequent developments and discoveries. Following this I studied and did hands-on work with various mainstays of what is now known as integrative medicine such as homeopathy (German school), orthomolecular nutrition and psychiatry, therapeutic nutrition, botanic medicine or phytotherapy, and much more. Along the way I came up with and shared various ideas with such notables in science such as Stephen Jay Gould (Nonstandard but seemingly promising approaches to the mesothelioma that had him in its grip plus my thoughts on the possible effects of ultra low  levels of iridium during the Cretaceous-Tertiary asteroid impact on bacteria that populated the guts of prehistoric animals, insects and such), Karl Folkers (CoQ10 for treating various avian diseases) and Carl Sagan (Feasibility of going a Cosmos type program focused on human evolution as well as one that focused on medicine including the impact of the CAM movement)……many whose work was quite controversial such as Michael Persinger (Application of his extremely low frequency electromagnetic technology to induce hallucinatory states aimed at pain attenuation or rallying immune response in terminally ill cancer patients)….…and still others who were regarded as being solidly on the fringe such as  Roy Kupsinel, MD (Shared with him information and thoughts on a botanic drug called PADMA 28 which had shown efficacy for Peripheral Artery Disease in 5 randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trials done in Europe). I was, in short, “all over the map” in the sense I was working with and acting on knowledge, ideas, therapies and forms of therapeutic intervention that spanned the gamut from the realistically possible or promising to tentatively proved on one end, to the far-fetched and virtually impossible on the other. This was not a pattern peculiar to me though, but one that seemingly characterizes if not defines a large segment of the CAM movement (Both practitioners and proponents).

Thankfully though, I listened to the skeptics and critics of many of things I had studied or was otherwise involved with. As a result of their well reasoned writings I decided I needed to master aspects of the scientific method that was not part of my education and hands-on work or which was but which I’d sometimes glossed over in my erstwhile rush to help suffering people. I thus went on to teach myself such things as the principles of medical statistics and clinical studies design and then applied this body of knowledge and methods to help evaluate many of the ideas, therapies and treatments in my repertoire. The outcome was predictable: I found many which failed to hold water and thus had to be ditched, while others garnered evidence that suggested a more circumspect use or dose than proponents had originally declared effective. Among those I tossed was homeopathy (though Jacque Benveniste’s published paper in the Nature in 1988 made me take a second look – until the methodological flaws which invalidated his work became apparent) plus many botanic medicines and individual herbs.

I also tested things for myself using the tools of science; the methods that as Carl Sagan rightly contended reliably “delivers the goods” (Truth in the tentative scientific sense of “successive approximations” as pioneering astronomer Edwin Hubble put it; that is, findings that might be overturned or subject to modification as new evidence turns up). One prime example was EAV testing, the use of what amounts to a computerized galvanometer to diagnose or otherwise detect allergies, organ deficiencies and bodily needs for various nutrients and such.

During the late 1980s I was introduced to EAV (Electroacupuncture according to Voll) or electrodermal testing using a Vegatest device and trained in it as part of my staff duties for a prominent CAM physician (Later this unit was replaced with a computerized Interro device). As a baby boomer I’d grown up watching such venerable sci-fi classics as the Outer Limits, Twilight Zone and Star Trek, and as such had a special fondness for high tech medical, scientific and robotic devices. Anything along this line that might make medical diagnostics as easy and forthright as Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy’s medical tricorder was especially appealing to me– which the EAV machine in some ways was purported to be.

To understand what EAV or electrodermal testing is all about you have to first understand the principle behind it. In-a-word, these machines are purported to measure changes in the body’s flow of “energy” along “acupuncture meridians”. According to proponents there are specific points on people’s hands and feet that can be used to gage health in various organs and also test drugs, hormones, nutrients and such to see what will remedy any detected abnormalities. This is how it works: The patient holds a moist gauze covered conductive metal cylinder in one hand which is connected to the device (A tiny electric current is sent through this wire by the machine). A second wire runs from the device to a probe held by the technician or doctor who does the testing. When the probe is touched to specific “acupuncture points” a low voltage circuit is completed and the flow of current is measured by the EAV machine and a reading is displayed that indicates organ status (Healthy or unhealthy and, if unhealthy, to what degree). The operator can supposedly determine what will bring the meridian flow back up or down to normal by testing various substances housed in small vials (These vials are introduced one-by-one or in combinations into receptacles into the machine or a plate that connects probe and/or cylinder to the machine). In addition, allergy testing is can supposedly be done by placing vials of known/suspected allergens in the receptacles or on the plate and watching for responses (A jump in the readings).

Even if the principle behind the machine were true – that meridians exist and can be tapped into in a meaningful way to diagnose – it is obvious that if the skin stays at the same level of moisture the readings can be influenced subtly or grossly by the pressure the operator using when he or she applies the probe. This alone would tend to throw off readings. And in practice I saw this for myself. In fact, I quickly realized that what I was doing with the machine was essentially a variation on psychic parlor cold readings – that is, by combining my own  perceptive reading of body language and asking leading questions I would come up with “findings” that agreed with the patient’s known medical history and expectations. 

This said, what intrigued was the use of the machine to determining drugs, hormones and such that “balanced” a patient’s readings. The readings would supposedly indicate what single or combination of drugs and such would benefit the patient, as well as the dose.  This was something I could actually put to the test in a strictly scientific way.

With the assistance of a research engineer friend of mine named Jim this is what we did:

First we filled glass vials (identical to the others in the EAV testing kit) with arsenic, mercury, cadmium and other toxic substances plus samples of deadly herbs and toxic weeds and labeled each one. I then had my buddy go to a separate room and cover the labels on all the vials in the kit – the original ones plus those we created — with other labels bearing an alphanumeric code which he recorded on paper and locked away. Jim then mixed up all the vials and brought them to me. I proceeded to perform tests on a succession of about 40 people, both healthy and ill over a five (5) day period. The end result? Eighty-three percent tested out as “needing” arsenic, mercury, cadmium, etc. (That is, the EAV device clearly indicated 83% of those tested would especially benefit from pure, toxic doses of various heavy metals, toxic herbs, poisons, etc.)

I shared my findings with the clinic director, of course. The EAV machine found its way to a storage closet not too long afterwards.

In the ensuing years I watched many more CAM diagnostic devices and treatments fail to hold up to testing, both those I carried out as well as more formal and rigorous ones conducted by others. Conversely, some herbal medicines, individual herbs, therapeutic dietary measures and such were shown to be effective for various health conditions in formal clinical studies. This said, a great many of these studies were not so rigorous in design or poorly designed and/or executed. And the number proved effective in well designed and executed randomized controlled trials (RTC) appeared to be quite small. Naturally, until these remedies and such pan out in RTCs their effectiveness remains an open question.

Given the paucity of hard scientific evidence underlying many cherished CAM diagnostic methods and treatments, one is compelled to ask if it is it ethical or wise to run a clinical practice based largely on such unproved testing and/or remedies?  Certainly not if the practitioner admits patients who have foregone undergoing proper diagnostic work-ups and scientifically validated medical care for his or her clinical offerings (Unless the practitioner is qualified to do this sort of testing and treatment and competently does so). But what if the practitioner and his methods or treatments are not substituted for standard medical care by the patient, do no harm and largely inspire hope? It could be argued that even if the CAM practitioner’s fare is medically ineffective or even worthless, the positive aspects such as the placebo effect and corresponding reductions in anxiety or fear make it worthwhile provided the cost is not outrageous. Perhaps so. As for squaring the ethical issues involved, at the very least CAM practitioners should clearly label unproved diagnostic methods and treatments as such and disclose any known hazards or potential side effects, making them de facto experimental.  Many in fact do.

Of course, the fact that unproved treatments are being used at all by CAM practitioners of various stripes and also by legions of people doing dietary and supplement self-experimentation is galling to many mainstream physicians, medical consumer advocates, journalists and others. More than a few of these would tightly regulate these remedies and severely reduce access to them, something the vast majority of Americans appear to oppose. In an ideal world unproved diagnostic methods and disease-specific treatments would be speedily and thoroughly evaluated, and those that indisputably bomb would be swiftly abandoned by CAM practitioners. But testing has often moved at a snail’s pace and even when specific remedies have been repeatedly shown to have no efficacy, many proponent CAM practitioners and medical consumers refuse to relinquish them. Some of this is likely a reflection of human ignorance or stubbornness (as in “it’ll be vindicated somehow”) or both. Some people just flat out prefer to live on the other side of looking glass even when so doing lands them squarely in a land of illusions and delusions. But since illusions and delusions help many folks cope with the vicissitudes of life including illness, these discredited CAM tests and treatments is unlikely to vanish anytime soon – if ever.  

Want to learn more about how many CAM modalities and treatments hold up to scientific scrutiny? How to think critically about CAM as well as other heterodox beliefs and practices?

PIER (American College of Physicians) – Provides information on specific diseases and includes interpretations of the extant evidence

SKEPTICISM – James Randi Educational Foundation

COMMITTEE FOR SKEPTICAL INQUIRY

THE SKEPTIC’S SOCIETY & SKEPTICS MAGAZINE

NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Snake Oil Science by R. Barker Bausell, Ph.D.

The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, Ph.D.

Any and All Books by James Randi

The Undercover Philosopher by Michael Philips

Skeptical Look at Acupuncture

© 2009 by Dr. Anthony G. Payne. All rights reserved.

YOU MAY NOT COPY, REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, DISPLAY, PERFORM, MODIFY, CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS, TRANSMIT, OR IN ANY WAY EXPLOIT ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR (DR. ANTHONY G. PAYNE E-mail: attachi-mailbox@yahoo.com). WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, YOU MAY NOT DISTRIBUTE ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT OVER ANY NETWORK, INCLUDING A LOCAL AREA NETWORK, NOR SELL NOR OFFER IT FOR SALE. IN ADDITION, THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE USED TO CONSTRUCT ANY KIND OF DATABASE

The Supreme Trap Box by Jim Haverlock
The Supreme Trap Box

Looking for God?
Do Religions follow the Teachings of Christ?
Are churches “infallable”?
Do you have your own questions about God?

What you will read in this book:

*Preface
Chapters:
1. Embroidery of Life
2. Everyman’s way is right, in his eyes
3. 21st Century – vs – early B.C.
4. Religions – Rules/Regulations / Sins
5. Wisdom Literature
6. Genesis-Purity-Compassion-
Chocolates Because so many of us “lay people” question this topic, it may just be time for a lay persons view point and expressions, that may open new doors, or provide more questions for each of us to ponder.

7. Infallibility
8. Hypocrisy
9. Just for Fun
10. Communication with God
10a. Angels, Guides, Spirits
11. Trap Box – Supreme
12. Closing Notes
*About the Cover
*Foot notes / references
*Suggested Readings

Want a sneak preview? <—Click this link

By
Anthony G. Payne, Ph.D.

When it comes to enhancing sexual responsiveness and performance, most men would agree that a “gadget fix” beats an “ED drug fix”. After all, gadgets sport few if any side effects while ED drugs do. In addition, buying a device for $20-150 that “keeps on keeping on” beats the Hell out of handing a pharmacy what often are sizeable chunks of change on a regular basis.

One relatively low cost but effective ED remediating gadget worth a proverbial “look, see” is the increasingly popular “Dr. Erector”.

The aptly named “Dr. Erector” is an ingenious little battery powered device made in Europe (Finland) which ably serves a dual purpose: It provides users with what amounts to a gentle though powerful pulsating “electric current massage” of the prostate which is highly stimulating and pleasurable in its own right; but just as important or perhaps more so, it jump-starts the erection machinery in the male body which leads to firmer, stronger erections.

The device itself is basically a soft plastic wand with a metal cap at the “business end.” It is inserted anally and positioned so as to rest up against the prostate gland. Once it kicks in this simple though effective little gadget goes to work sending truly pleasurable electric stimulation coursing through the prostate and the nerves that facilitate erections.

Not surprisingly, many users report that not only are their erections harder but their orgasms more intense and their ejaculations more copious with use of the “Dr. Erector” device. This makes sense really, as electrostimulation has been shown by researchers to bring about orgasms and ejaculation in both animals and people.

As a matter of fact, doctors employ “ejaculation by electrostimulation” to help men with spinal cord injuries who have ED (impotent) to ejaculate (The semen can then be harvested and used to impregnate their mates or deposited in a sperm bank). Mind you, the electrostimulation technology used to achieve this employs far more electrical current than the Dr. Erector device (AC or wall current as opposed to DC from batteries as is the case with the Dr. Erector device).

Erection enhancement aside, there may be some profound medical benefits for men who have more frequent, copious ejaculations. A number of studies indicate that regular ejaculations help flush the prostate of carcinogenic compounds that accumulate there and, by so doing, reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer.

If you are a man who has been looking for a genuine alternative to the use of ED drugs, there is “Dr. Erector”. The right tool for the job, as the old saying goes.

Ready to learn more or give the Dr. Erector a whirl? Just click this link and “have at it: DR. ERECTOR

© 2009 by Dr. Anthony G. Payne. All rights reserved.

YOU MAY NOT COPY, REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, DISPLAY, PERFORM, MODIFY, CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS, TRANSMIT, OR IN ANY WAY EXPLOIT ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, YOU MAY NOT DISTRIBUTE ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT OVER ANY NETWORK, INCLUDING A LOCAL AREA NETWORK, NOR SELL NOR OFFER IT FOR SALE. IN ADDITION, THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE USED TO CONSTRUCT ANY KIND OF DATABASE.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice or instruction. Readers are advised to consult a licensed health care professional concerning all matters related to their health and well being.

There have been a number of studies that suggest that regular masturbation by men, especially during their youth to perhaps age 50, flushes carcinogens that tend to accumulate in the prostate from the gland and by so doing help prevent initiation of cancer in this gland. One recent one was carried out by the Council of Victoria which revealed that men who masturbate to ejaculation more than five times per week were one-third less likely to develop prostate cancer.

If this correlation is true, it logically follows that the greater the degree of prostate “emptying” the more likely a man is to purge his prostate of cancer-causing compounds and thus the lower his risk of developing carcinoma of the prostate. There are a number of ways to (ahem) pull this off:

(1) Prostate massage: This commercial website appears to provide some really sound advice in this regard. Note that I have no financial or other interest in this website of any firm it links to or promotes.

(2) Masturbate while using the “Dr. Erector” prostate electrostimulation device : The “Dr. Erector” is a battery powered device which provides users with what amounts to a gentle though powerful pulsating “electric massage” of the prostate which is highly stimulating and pleasurable. Many men report having more copious ejaculations when they climax while using this ingenious gadget (Which is the goal when it comes to draining the prostate of fluids that might harbor carcinogenic substances). It is also reputed to jump-start the erection machinery in the male body which leads to firmer, stronger erections.

The device itself looks like a wand with a metal cap. It is inserted anally and positioned so as to rest up against the prostate gland. Once it kicks in this simple, ingenious little gadget goes to work sending truly pleasurable electric stimulation coursing through the prostate and the nerves that facilitate intense prostate stimulation and erections.

(3) Use the Aneros prostate massager or something similar during masturbatory sessions .

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice or instruction. Readers are advised to consult a licensed health care professional concerning all matters related to their health and well being.

YOU MAY NOT COPY, REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, DISPLAY, PERFORM, MODIFY, CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS, TRANSMIT, OR IN ANY WAY EXPLOIT ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, YOU MAY NOT DISTRIBUTE ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT OVER ANY NETWORK, INCLUDING A LOCAL AREA NETWORK, NOR SELL NOR OFFER IT FOR SALE. IN ADDITION, THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE USED TO CONSTRUCT ANY KIND OF DATABASE.

© 2009 by Dr. Anthony G. Payne. All rights reserved.

One of the charges leveled at private foreign stem cell clinics and institutes is that they do little if any legitimate science and primarily rely on anecdotal material to vouchsafe for their therapies. As one involved with a foreign stem cell operation (Nepsis Institute-Mexico) I basically do not disagree with this contention at all. Most foreign stem cell facilities I have surveyed do by-and-large lean heavily on anecdotal (case history) data and documentation to support their treatment approaches. There are exceptions, yes, but on-a-whole solid objective data obtained in a scientifically rigorous fashion is lacking when it comes to most of the stem cell clinics I am acquainted with.

I cannot speak to why most of the foreign (especially second and third world) clinics I am familiar with do not pursue evaluating their treatments using the proven tools of clinical research, but suspect the reasons are many and varied and include but are not limited to: Lack of resources especially funds to engage the services of experienced clinical researchers and biostatisticians, lack of patient cooperation (I know from experience that many patients prefer to “get treated and get on with life”), concern that doing any sort of study that includes a placebo when it comes to terminally ill patients is unethical – and I some instances such negative players as greed, ignorance, indifference, or incompetence.

With respect to Nepsis Institute which I serve as a patient educator-liaison: Like most private stem cell enterprises the website put up by Nepsis is geared to attract browsers, especially prospective patients – and hopefully get them to ask questions and probe the science that informs what the physicians and scientists down in Mexico are doing. One of these draws is posted case histories (Anecdotal material). Mind you, no one at Nepsis would ever contend that these ultra-summarized posted case histories or other promotional information constitutes hard, objective scientific proof of efficacy or claim they constitute rigorous proof in the hard science sense.

Click this to read more

One online source defines the term “delusion” thusly:

delusion

n 1: (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary [syn: psychotic belief] 2: a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; “he has delusions of competence”; “his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination” [syn: hallucination] 3: the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas [syn: illusion, head game]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

This pretty much lines up with how psychiatrist Karl Jaspers, MD, defined “delusion” in his seminal book General Psychopathology. Dr. Jaspers gave three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional:

• Absolute certainty (A belief is held with absolute conviction)
• Incorrigibility (A belief is not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
• Impossibility or falsity of content (A belief is implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

Undoubtedly many of you reading this hold fast to specific religious or other beliefs that meet all 3 criteria. To your way of thinking this is a demonstration of faith, a strength that pleases the Almighty. Nothing will sway you from what you hold to be sacred truth. Maybe you fear dire consequences in this life or the next should you deviate from the faith tradition you were inculcated in as a child or embraced later on. You may not even be able to consider the remotest possibility that what you believe about (say) biblical accounts of miracles or specific stories or accounts could be misinformed, misguided,  or just plain wrong. As one neo-Pentecostal minister put it, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it”. This appears to be a timeless species of faith down through the millennia of human history.

Many fundamentalist believers and scholars from the major faith traditions engage in the most incredible feats of mental gymnastics to preserve sacred beliefs. Many Christians, for example, believe that their scriptures are inerrant, while abundant evidence exists that their Bible is chocked full of contradictions and is anything but free of error. For example, the book of Genesis alone contains two separate accounts of the creation saga that contradict one another profoundly http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html. The same is basically true of the story of Noah and the flood http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/2cs.htm. But rather than modify their belief system to accommodate logic and fact, they force a fit between religious dogma and contrary evidence (Or just deny the evidence altogether or define or otherwise alter it such that it accord with belief). This imposition of religious dogma or belief on the process and findings of history and science has given the world an incredible array of pseudo-historical and pseudoscientific books, documents, papers and such that, well, help reinforce the delusions of multitudes of “true believers”.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html –Contradictions in the Scriptures

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html  – Contradictions in the Bible

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible4.htm – Absurdities and troubling entries in the Bible

Mind you, I am not an atheist or an “enemy” of religious beliefs or faith. My family tree is one brimming over with fervent Protestant fundamentalists, southern Baptist deacons, creationists and even charismatic and neo-Pentecostals. My late maternal grandmother, Faye C. Whittle, a rather extraordinary woman who helped aid and encourage my studies in science and medicine, was about as devout a Bible-toting woman as you could hope to meet and fully fundamentalist in her thinking. I did not often challenge her beliefs…..and was especially less inclined to do so as she reached into her eighties and nineties – for reasons I will weave into this essay shortly.

My own quest for “religious truth,” which is to say a faith that is concordant with logic, biblical scholarship, historic fact, and the findings of science led me first to Roman Catholicism, then ultimately to Judaism. Yes, there are some commonly held Jewish beliefs that run contrary to this thrust, but at least there is room for reconciling all this within most Jewish traditions.

Some of you gentle readers are probably having an “ah hah” moment as you read all this. Some will surely be thinking, “Well, if I embrace delusional beliefs, so does he. So does everyone”.

No doubt most of us – even those who are ultra-diligent in their efforts to bring every aspect of their lives into accord with logic, fact and sound reasoning – harbor some belief, conviction or idea that is at the very least unfounded or suspect, but which we resist discarding unless and until contrary fact compels us to. Such a belief or idea may not constitute a full-blown delusion or delusional belief, but it in some respects belongs to the “fraternity”. Psychologists have shown that we all possess cognitive filters that bias what we perceive and believe; mechanisms (if you will) that tend to find patterns in things (often where none exists), discard ideas or facts that contradict cherished beliefs or views, and inflate our own self-perception of being objective. This tendency to be self-deluded and to deceive others has survival value. Deception is part and parcel of nature itself, something documented by field ethnologists and primatologists studying the behavior of chimpanzees and monkeys.  

While not immune to delusional beliefs, in my own case precious few (if any) of my core religious beliefs meet Dr. Jasper’s 3 criteria. How so? In a word, I am willing to modify or reinterpret them to gel with logic and compelling scientific and historic fact. My belief in the Almighty, for example, is resolutely entrenched (A delusion according to many skeptic friends) – but my views on His nature, interaction with humankind, activities and such is amenable to modification in light of reason, logic and fact. Actually, this willingness to modify or discard one’s beliefs about anything that is redefined or overturned by new evidence lies at the heart of the scientific method. Without this plank, there would be little scientific progress. And while this process can and does generate evidence and reasoning that wrecks havoc with many beliefs long held to be sacred, this is not something to be feared or resisted. If religion and religious beliefs are to genuinely enable us to zero in on truth, it must necessarily be informed by the scientific method, critical thinking and hard logic. If not this, there is only a retreat into blind faith – this being often a wellspring of irrationality and, in the case of fundamentalism, a path to unhealthy extremes and even monstrous intolerance and bloodshed. 

Of course, the mere idea that one has birthed, embraced, nurtured or perpetuated delusional beliefs is, for most of us, something we tend to resist or deny. After all, to be delusional or harbor such thoughts is invites the stigma of being weak or intellectually failed or possibly given to a form of pathology (Disease). And I would readily agree that more extreme expressions do indeed reflect a pathological form of aberration or deviance. Especially forms that are divisive, that create or sustain barriers that marginalize others or foster bias, racism or ethnocentrism, or otherwise diminish our individual or collective human potential for caring for others, extending kindness and aid to strangers, and encouraging a peaceful coexistence that denies justice, opportunity and fairness to no person.

But what of delusional beliefs that do not give rise to or involve these negatives? Many would argue that a delusional belief is always antithetical to fullest personal development or best appreciation of reality, and this is a reasonable contention. However, I tend to view “benign” delusional beliefs as an effective coping mechanism; a way of ably dealing with the pain, vicissitudes and ugly moments in life, as well as being a mental tool for handling the contradictions and seemingly irreconcilable aspects of life.  In this sense, I see delusional beliefs as not only a tendency, but a normative coping mechanism.

And in this vein, truly benign delusions can play a useful role when it comes to the genesis or maintenance of our individual and shared (societal) weltanshaung or worldview; the mental constructs of reality we fashion and refine all the days of our lives. They also can have beneficial physiological effects. People who, for example, believe that ultra-diluted homeopathic medicines effect or foster healing despite overwhelming scientific evidence that they do not produce statistically significant results in well designed and executed clinical trials, nonetheless can and sometimes do perceive good things “going on” that in and of itself is encouraging; that may spawn some corresponding benefits such as one would expect when a person stops being anxious and fearful, and adopts a positive frame of mind. There are studies that link this species of faith or belief with reductions in resting blood pressure.

Delusions can also give life purpose or special meaning in some instances or settings. Consider those who vest tremendous money, time and energy in pursuit of beliefs, events or practices that are contradicted by a confluence of historic and/or scientific fact, logic and well honed scholarship. Some actually border on the irrational, while some truly are. However, when such beliefs, pursuits or devotions cause no harm to self or others, do not generate intolerance or violence or other negative behaviors, do not wind up sanctioned by the state, and basically function to endow the lives of believers with a sense of purpose or meaning, then they have arguable utilitarian merit.  

Of course some species of delusional thinking can obviously set the stage for doing great harm to others. One need look no further then Nazi Germany to see this. In this tragic example from history’s darkest page, delusional beliefs and the pseudo-history and pseudo-science they sprang from and reinforced became ideology, then law, and finally a national religion of sorts. The Nazis elevated malignant delusions to sacred status and then took them to their logical conclusion: Repression, brutality, murder and finally genocide.

Given this, it logically follows that people need to be vigilant in terms of identifying, openly exposing, countering and even legally penalizing all forms of delusional thinking that clearly leads to the deprivation, denial or erosion of basic human rights to any group, creed, religion or what-have-you. Humankind can ill afford a Fourth Reich.

But what of countering benign delusional beliefs that offer solace and comfort? This brings me full circle to my maternal grandmother: She believed that her New Testament was inerrant and, as such, was a reliable and sure guide to all that’s needed to assure a place in God’s realm (following death). Yes, there were many occasions – many kitchen table chats on religion (especially during her more vigorous 60s and 70s) — in which I placed before her facts and reason that clearly demonstrated the errancy of scriptures. This she resisted solely on the basis of her faith, not reason or logic or fact. And while this belief influenced her life and actions to a degree, she did not seek to have this view become the law of the land or promulgated in public schools as fact or paraded as science in the classroom. At first I diplomatically and gingerly challenged her stance, but ceased doing so as she grew older and frailty began to take its toll on her physical and mental faculties. Who would be so callous as to deprive her of a delusion (inerrancy) which was a vital component of her worldview (Especially given its benign, tempered expression, as well as its utility in terms of dealing with her own mortality)? Not me.

 

“No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities.”

-Christian Nestell Bovee

 http://www.famousamericans.net/christiannestellbovee/

 

The cup of delusions runneth over:http://www.crank.net/

A critical look at homeopathy:http://skepdic.com/homeo.html

What is Pseudoscience?http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html

THE DARK BIBLE

Foreword

A Short History of the BIble

Atrocities (a few)

Sex, Obscenities, Filth

Morality And Paradoxes

God, Satan, Jesus, Heaven

The Inferior Status Of Women

Bibliography

About The Dark Bible

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl1.htm#diff

 

http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/decalog.htm

 

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/bible.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html – Atrocities

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html – Absurdities

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html – Inconsistencies

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/precepts.html – Questionable Guidelines

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html – List of biblical contradictions

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/vulgar.html – Vulgarities

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_ball/bible.html – Errancy

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/biblegod.html - BIBLEGOD – A God of Love or a God of Atrocities and Murder? 

NOTES ON BIBLE PROBLEMS Compiled by Richard Packham

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/index.htm

CONTENTS

MORALITY IN THE BIBLE

MORAL MODELS

HUMAN SACRIFICE

ANIMAL SACRIFICE

WAR

GENOCIDE AND SLAUGHTER

CRUELTY, BARBARITY, VIOLENCE

DECEIT, TREACHERY

LYING

INCEST

POLYGAMY, CONCUBINAGE

PROSTITUTION

ABUSE OF WOMEN, WOMAN’S INFERIORITY

ABANDONMENT OF WIFE, CHILDREN, FAMILY

HYPOCRISY

HOMOSEXUALITY

EXTORTION

CANNIBALISM

SLAVERY

DRUNKENNESS

RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, CLOSED MINDS

OBSCENE, OFFENSIVE, INDECENT, EROTIC PASSAGES

ABOUT GOD

PUNISHMENTS

GENERAL PRINCIPLES, LAWS

PARTICULAR EXAMPLES OF GOD’S PUNISHMENTS

CONTRADICTIONS

NUMERICAL CONTRADICTIONS

GENEALOGICAL CONTRADICTIONS

DETAILS OF EVENTS – OLD TESTAMENT

DETAILS OF EVENTS – NEW TESTAMENT

CONTRADICTORY DOCTRINE, COMMANDMENTS

CONTRADICTIONS ABOUT GOD

OTHER CONTRADICTIONS

OTHER PUZZLES, ANOMALIES, QUESTIONS

PROPHECY IN THE BIBLE

PROPHECIES OR PROMISES NOT FULFILLED

“FULFILLMENT” OF NON- EXISTENT PROPHECIES

“FULFILLMENT” OF PASSAGES NOT PROPHECIES

PROPHECIES CLAIMED AS FULFILLED

PROPHECIES IGNORED BY CHRISTIANS

PRECEPTS OFTEN NOT OBEYED BY BELIEVERS

OLD TESTAMENT PRECEPTS

TEACHINGS OF JESUS NOT OFTEN FOLLOWED

HISTORICAL / GEOGRAPHICAL INACCURACY, ANACHRONISMS

SCIENCE

EXAGGERATION, “TALL TALES”

WEB LINKS, BOOKS, PERIODICALS

© 2009 by Dr. Anthony G Payne. All rights reserved.

YOU MAY NOT COPY, REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, DISPLAY, PERFORM, MODIFY, CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS, TRANSMIT, OR IN ANY WAY EXPLOIT ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, YOU MAY NOT DISTRIBUTE ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT OVER ANY NETWORK, INCLUDING A LOCAL AREA NETWORK, NOR SELL NOR OFFER IT FOR SALE. IN ADDITION, THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE USED TO CONSTRUCT ANY KIND OF DATABASE

One of the arguments advanced against utilizing embryonic stem cells in research and ultimately therapy for various diseases and maladies is a moral or ethical one: Many people view viable human life as beginning with the union of sperm and egg. By this definition, a scientist who employs an embryo – even at the earliest stages of development (blastocyst) – is essentially engaged in harvesting and exploiting viable human life (The stem cells are extracted and the blastocyst or such is oftentimes dispensed with).

 There is compelling scientific as well as ethical arguments to the contrary. But for people whose faith tradition or religious perspective views the fusion of sperm and egg as marking the advent of a human life, these do not satisfy them nor disabuse them of the belief that even a zygote (egg + sperm) is viable human life.

 Beliefs predicated on faith that are not testable lie outside the purview of science. For example, the religious concept that every human has a soul or spirit imputed by the Almighty at conception or thereafter is not something that can be tested and verified or refuted using the tools of science. There is no laboratory assay that will disclose or measure something that is held to have no material substance as we know it and which is not physically manifest in cells or tissues or such.

 For religionists who hold that ensoulment (i.e., spirit is imputed) occurs at conception, and (who) refuse to consider even slightly modifying this perspective in light of contrary biological evidence or ethical reasoning, there exists an impasse that cannot be readily breeched (If at all). And when enough people embrace such a spin on what constitutes viable human life, their collective influence on the direction federally funded research takes in a democracy will be very manifest (Some would argue disproportionately so). This is clearly the case here in the United States.

 Many scientists regard the convictions of those who hold that viable human life begins at conception or during the very early stages of development as both presumptuous and naive. Many religionists and theologians agree. Among those who happen to hold fast to a belief that a fertilized egg is entitled to full status as a viable human, the use of blastocytes or very early stage embryos constitutes a species of murder. Some even go so far as to decry those who take exception to their faith-based beliefs as being immoral or amoral.

 Does the truth lie somewhere between the strictly secular and the sacred? Most of us probably harbor a feeling that somewhere in all this – lurking in the facts of biology and the world of polemics and logic, ethics and religion – there is an answer that will win the day. If this is the case, it is quite obviously going to take time for such a truth to fully emerge.

 Many have asked me, “What is your spin on what constitutes viable human life?” Being as I have a foot in both worlds – which is to say religious belief and science – it seems logical to suppose that I would be able to offer up a “faith and science-friendly” definition of when viable human life begins. Well, yes, I do have something to offer up for consideration. And here it is – informed by biology, of course.

 The heart begins beating at three weeks of gestation and the first neural reflex is manifest at eight weeks (and consists of hand withdrawal in response to stimulation of the fetal lip region). During weeks 9-13 the first brain waves appear and are discernible using special medical instrumentation.

 Given that death is defined (in part) as a cessation of both heart and brain wave activity, one could argue conversely that to be alive in any meaningful sense beyond mere biological existence (Potential life begins when both heart and brain are operational – (Week 9 onwards).

 Interestingly, according to Orthodox Jewish teachings the fetus generally becomes a viable human life after day 40 of gestation [As Jewish history, ethics and religious principles influenced the development of both Christianity and Islam, its teachings should be carefully weighed by adherents of both faith traditions]. In the ancient Jewish context, the fetus is deemed to be little more than water until “quickening” occurs, about 40 days after insemination. “What Do Orthodox Jews Think About Abortion and Why? By Judith Shulevitz – Orthodox Jews on Abortion If we take week 9 as our bench mark — the heart and brain being recognizably functional – then the fetus would be deemed viable from about day 63 onward.

 Applying this definition of when human life becomes viable, it follows that embryos from conception to week 9 or so are “pre-viable” or “proto-viable.”

 Now is this to say that embryos prior to week 9 are “fair game”? Say, that we can create embryos strictly for the purposes of harvesting their stem cells? These embryos aren’t viable, so why not? Well this brings us full circle to religious and ethical concerns. Rather than belabor that in this op-ed piece, I would direct readers to an excellent treatment of this subject in this posted article: Jewish Virtual Library – Abortion

 OK, so we don’t create embryos to harvest, how about using intentionally aborted fetuses as a source of embryonic stem cells? As one fellow actually said to me, “Hey, Doc, they are going to die anyway, so why not get some good out of them for sick and ailing people”. To my mind, this comes uncomfortably close to the arguments advanced by physicians and scientists who performed hideous experiments on human subjects in Nazi concentration camps. This very line of reasoning was, in fact, used as a defense by some of the physicians being tried for war crimes in the 1946 “Doctor’s Trail” in Germany). Granted, there is a world of difference between an abortion by consent and the intentional dispatch of life at the hands of doctors (such as the late Nazi “Angel of Death” Dr. Josef Mengele and his ilk) who abandoned universally acknowledged medical ethics in the service of the state; But even so, harvesting aborted fetuses from any source does strike many folks in America as constituting a form of callous utilitarianism. And even if the intentional abortion of a fetus before week 9 were universally embraced as morally and ethically acceptable – in no way offensive to humankind or the Almighty – there remains something hauntingly “predatory” about utilizing material from intentionally terminated “pre-viable” human material.

 Moving on, what about extracting stem cells from fetuses that are spontaneously aborted? This is probably a more acceptable alternative to that of taking stem cells from intentionally aborted fetuses to many folks, provided one can show that the stem cells coming from such a fetus are not defective (Genetic abnormalities cause many spontaneous abortions.) This is not yet easy to do, which would lend most of us to take a “better safe than sorry tactic” — use these cells only when they can be declared free of genetic defect with great confidence.

 Clearly, resolving the question of exactly when viable human life begins will not make doing embryonic stem cell research here in America as easy and straightforward as some imagine it would be. And even if we could resolve or set aside every conceivable moral or ethical difficulty connected with using embryos tomorrow morning, it will be quite some time before the safety issues and technical challenges surrounding embryonic stem cells are adequately addressed and resolved or surmounted. Until then, embryonic stem cells must remain confined to laboratory and clinical research. No doubt FDA approval for specific clinical applications is a decade or more down the road. A few scientists are now mentioning timeframes of a quarter century or more.

 So while we as a society continue to grapple with the moral and ethical concerns, and scientists try to work out matter of safety and efficacy, many folks who might be helped by stem cell therapy must wait. Unfortunately, for many suffering Americans their window of opportunity to stabilize and even reverse or cure their health challenges will pass them by. This has resulted in scores of ailing people leaving US shores and undergoing experimental treatments with stem cell-rich embryonic or fetal material or stem cells in clinics abroad (In countries where stem cell therapy is legal, such as Costa Rica, Mexico, and such). See For Those Considering Doing Stem Cell Therapy Abroad

 I can and do fully sympathize with people who have intractable conditions or incurable illnesses or such who elect to take their changes on getting some manner of improvement from embryonic stem cell therapy in foreign lands. My concern lies in the realm of safety issues. Will today’s palliative, curative or even restorative embryonic stem cell treatment result in something more insidious cropping up a few years down the line? Is relief from the anguishing symptoms of advanced progressive MS or some other neurological disease over the short-term really worth it if one (say) winds up with an embryonic stem cell therapy-spawned tumor in a vital organ in a year or two or so? At what level is the risk acceptable? Is a 1 in 20 chance of developing complications or worse in time an acceptable risk level? Is a 1 in 10 risk acceptable? How about 1 in 5?

 Is there an alternative to embryonic? There are, after all, two other kinds of stem cell available: Adult and umbilical cord.* Adult stems cells been employed to successfully treat many diseases and conditions. However, there appear to be many limitations associated with using adult stem cells. For one thing, they are often present in only minute quantities and are often difficult to isolate and purify. But stem cell-rich umbilical cord blood provides a ready source of stem cells that can be readily isolated and expanded. Human umbilical cord stem cells (hUCSC) also boast an impressive clinical pedigree: Stem cell-rich cord blood has been successfully employed to combat many intractable and even terminal illnesses for more than 20 years now. And by-and-large, very few folks so treated went on to develop a secondary illness or such due to the umbilical cord blood treatment. This track record suggests that the safety margin is substantial. This said, some scientists argue that cord blood stem cells are eliminated by the recipient’s immune system and by virtue of this it is wiser to look to stem cells taken from a patient’s own tissues or blood (Autologous à  from self). 

This brings us to autologous bone marrow and the stem cells it contains. Bone marrow has been harvested and used by doctors for quite some time to treat various diseases including various forms of cancer and some autoimmune diseases. The established approach often involves chemoablation (chemo eradication) of the patient’s own bone marrow followed by an infusion of healthy stem cells extracted from the marrow sample. The infused stem cells then migrate to the bones where they create new marrow. Of course, with autologous stem cell therapy there is zero risk of rejection.

More recently, stem and progenitor (precursor) cells are extracted from a patient’s bone marrow, expanded in the lab, transformed (differentiated) into whatever cell type (say a heart cell) that is needed to confer clinical benefit, then infused into the patient by IV drip,  catheter,  direct implantation into an organ or specific tissue,  or such.  As this approach involves manipulating the marrow, the FDA requires doctors doing this here in the USA to obtain an IND (Investigational New Drug permit), usually as part of a formal clinical study.

There are countries outside the US which allow greater latitude in terms of what doctors doing stem cell medicine can do with stem cells derived from bone marrow as well as other sources. Mexico is one.   As a result, many suffering people are having stem cell therapy abroad.

 Clearly many suffering people need a shot at improvement or clinical benefit that only stem cell therapy is likely provide. Ethical, safety and technical challenges are immense when it comes to embryonic stem cells and thus takes them out of the picture — for now. Adult stem cells do not carry the ethical baggage true of embryonic, but appear to have limits in terms of the kinds of cells they can be transformed into (For instance, some umbilical cord stem cells can be transformed into neuron-like cells in the lab – but not full-fledged neurons). This said, some recent advances in technology and lab methodology is pushing the envelope in terms of what can be done with adult stem cells, i.e., some adult stem cells can be programmed to zero in on specific tissues, etc. 

 Until and if such time as “We the people” reach a consensus on the question of when viable human life begins and reach an accord on assorted other ethical issues connected with the use of embryonic material, this plus the unanswered safety and technical challenges will no doubt keep embryonic stem cell therapy a distant hope for quite some time to come (At least here in the states). Thankfully, we have an apparently safe, less controversial alternative in adult stem cells harvested from allogenic (non-self) sources such as umbilical cord blood, and autologous (self) ones such as fat tissue and bone marrow. 

 ________________________________________________________

 *There are also induced pluripotent stem cells – iPS— stem cells with embryonic-like characteristics created from liver, skin or other somatic cells in the laboratory. As the first such iPS was created only recently (2007) and typically involves inserting or manipulating specific genes, it is unlikely that these will be used in humans in the US or the EU for many years to come. This said — experimental use of iPS in adults with terminal and intractable diseases & conditions for which modern medicine has little to offer is reportedly being pursued in Mexico, China and a few other countries. At least one private foreign stem cell operation has licensed US patent pending technology and lab methods for transforming somatic cells into iPS cells using recombinant proteins alone (No viruses). This approach appears to produce very safe pluripotent stem cells. Animal safety studies are in-progress.    

 Readers interested in learning more about the safety issues that surround the use of embryonic stem cells should visit STEM CELL RESEARCH.ORG , specifically STEM CELL RESEARCH.ORG – QUOTES.

 Stem cell basics from the National Institutes of Health: NIH STEM CELL BASICS

 Dr. Anthony G. Payne can be readily reached by e-mail at DrAGPayne@yahoo.com

 

 

© 2009 by Dr. Anthony G Payne. All rights reserved.

YOU MAY NOT COPY, REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, DISPLAY, PERFORM, MODIFY, CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS, TRANSMIT, OR IN ANY WAY EXPLOIT ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, YOU MAY NOT DISTRIBUTE ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT OVER ANY NETWORK, INCLUDING A LOCAL AREA NETWORK, NOR SELL NOR OFFER IT FOR SALE. IN ADDITION, THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE USED TO CONSTRUCT ANY KIND OF DATABASE

This article and the information in it are not to be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment of any health condition or problem. You should not rely on information provided herein for health problems. Any questions regarding your own health should be addressed to your physician or other licensed healthcare provider. Dr. Anthony G. Payne, Nepsis Institute (Mexico) and Weller Health Research Institute make no guarantees, warranties or express or implied representations whatsoever with regard to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, comparative or controversial nature, or usefulness of any information contained or referenced in this article. Dr. Anthony G. Payne, Nepsis Institute (Mexico) and Weller Health Research Institute do not assume any risk whatsoever for your use of this article or any associated websites or for the information contained therein. Health-related information and opinions change frequently and therefore information contained in this article may be outdated, incomplete or incorrect. All statements made about products in this e-mail or any associated websites have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Use of this article and any associated web sites does not create an expressed or implied professional or other relationship.

Autologous Stem Cells—Hope for the Future

http://gaia-health.com/articles51/000055-Stem-Cell-Advocacy.shtml

by Barbara Hanson

12 June 2009

Barbara Hanson is cofounder of Stem Cell Pioneers, the largest patient-moderated forum for stem cell discussion and support for those who have had treatment and are considering it. Many different diseases are represented and ages range from very young children to octogenarians. She says, “We have one thing in common however, and that is that we are all seeking something that will help us or our loved ones find a cure or relief from the myriad of terminal and chronic diseases that the membership represents. The Pioneer forum represents hope.” She speaks passionately of that hope and the FDA’s attempts to…Well, I’ll let her tell you

http://www.nepsisinstitute.com/testimonials.php

MM, 75, Alzheimer’s disease, stage 7. Mrs. M came to treatment racked by the inability to recall things she had asked about or been told moments before as well as a persistent sense of dread and free floating anxiety. Her devoted 80 year old husband, a retired farmer, was becoming progressively exhausted trying keep up with his ailing wife’s day-to-day needs such as feeding, grooming, dressing, and medicating her. Mrs. M’s decline was, in fact, taking a toll on Mr. M’s own health. On May 29th Mrs. M had an infusion of autologous bone marrow-derived stem & precursor cells into her CNS (Central Nervous System). On June 11th Mr. M spoke with Nepsis Institute’s Dr. Payne and reported the following:

• He (Mr. M) took his wife to a have a regular chiropractic treatment. Prior to this and for a year or more previously Mrs. M would go to the clinic and promptly forget she had ever been there. This time, however, she looked around and said, “I’ve been here before.”
•  Mr. M took his wife to visit an old home that had once lived in. Prior to this he had driven her past this house but his wife had failed to recall much about it. This time, however she mentioned recalling a number of “new” things.
• Mr. M as well as Mrs. M’s chiropractor both observed improvements in her ability to form cogent sentences. She was, as Mr. M put it, “forming more rational sentences”.
• Mrs. M recovered an interest in intimacy with her husband, something she had not shown in a very long time.
• Mrs. M, who previously would get annoyed and agitated whenever her grandchildren came over to her house and make noise and such, now displays a calm demeanor in their presence.
• Mrs. M’s free floating anxiety appears to be lessening in intensity. In fact, she is now displaying periods in which she expresses no anxiety at all.

Click this link and access a very brief video on stem cells — what they are, where they come from, what they do:  http://sciencestage.com/v/882/stem-cell-primer.html