Transcending the Pandemic Narrative

How do we transcend the pandemic narrative and move into a new paradigm? To address that ques­tion, first I want to discuss the fallacies, manipula­tion and lies that this narrative has exposed us to, with a special focus on science and health. Then, I’d like to talk about how we figure out what is actually true and the steps we can take to become our own health authority.

Our society faces many false narratives, but I’m focusing on the realm of public health. False theories—germ theory and virus theory—have been manipulated to cause fear. In fact, fear is one of the primary drivers of this latest round of coercion and tyranny. You can see how the idea that an invis­ible particle can invade your body at any time and not only make you sick, but actually threaten your very existence, is a very scary proposition. Of course, this is not really what’s going on, but the narrative leaves many of us dependent on the so-called white-coated priests of the allopathic system to come rescue us and bring us back to life, with no ability to control our own health.

CIRCULAR REASONING

Understanding logical fallacies dates back to Aristotle. The main logical fallacy behind the virus lie is circular reasoning. We’ve all encountered circular reasoning in cocktail party discussions and family debates, but in this in­stance, it’s being used for manipulation of the world population.

In his 2006 essay titled “What Is Circular Reasoning?” Dr. Robert Coleman wrote, “The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is essentially the same as one of the premises in the argument.”1 In other words, your starting assumptions are the same as your conclusions, and there’s no rigor in the process of bringing about novel conclusions.

A related form of circular reasoning is the logical fallacy “begging the question,” the Latin term for which is petitio principii. For this, we can look back to James Welton, who in 1905 wrote in A Manual of Logic, Volume Two, “to beg the question is to attempt to support a claim with a premise that itself restates or presupposes the claim.”2 So, you start off with a claim and then restate it at the end: there’s your circular argument.

Pseudoscience occurs when you give the appearance that you’re using science but you’re not. Circular reasoning, which applies to many aspects of science and medicine, describes the entire field of virology. Let’s look at virus isolation. The starting premise is that a sick individual has a virus in their body. This is a presupposition without any proof or evidence to support it, but it is the starting point. The second premise is that viruses cause so-called cytopathic effects (CPEs) in a cell culture. Once again, there is no clear evidence that this is the case, but that is the starting point.

Let’s say you take a sample from a patient and run it through the cell culture process, a process that includes putting additives in the culture. You do not perform any control ex­periments. When you then observe CPEs and interpret those results based on your original premise—which is that the CPEs are caused by a virus—that brings you back to your starting point. You haven’t made any progress here; all you’ve done is restate your initial claim.

Now let’s look at metagenomics—the use of computer sequencing to study genetic material. With metagenomic sequencing, also sometimes referred to as “in silico genome sequencing,” you are starting with the same premise, namely, that viruses are present in the patient. A second premise (and this is very arbitrary) is that vi­ruses have a genome of a certain length. When it comes to alleged “coronaviruses,” they say it is thirty thousand base pairs. So, they are going to find something of that length, even though it is completely made up.

Once again, they take a sample from a pa­tient where they assume there is a virus present. They further assume that it’s an RNA virus. They don’t look for DNA viruses at all; it’s as if that is not even a possibility from their point of view. Then they take the RNA out, but there is no strand of RNA that represents the com­plete genome of an organism in their sample; all they have are little fragments of RNA, and the provenance or the origin of those fragments is unknown. But that doesn’t stop them. They amplify those fragments using PCR,3 which also compounds the problem; because of the way they’re using PCR with overamplification, it creates new sequences that didn’t exist in the original sample. Next, they sequence all those little, tiny strands and fragments of RNA that are one hundred fifty bases long or fewer. We’re talking about pieces of one hundred fifty in length, when they say the whole genome is thirty thousand—so you can see it’s a very tiny percentage.

When they did the sequence in the SARS-CoV-2 experiment, they found that they had over fifty-six million unique fragments. They do not know where any single one of those fifty-six million comes from. They use a computer and put those sequences into the computer as data. The computer puts these things together like a puzzle and makes over a million solutions. Although there is no way to know whether any of those solutions represents anything in reality—and I would say that they absolutely do not—they arbitrarily pick one of the million sequences that happens to match their premise that the genome is thirty thousand base pairs long. They take the longest one that the com­puter spits out and say, “This is the genome.” Once again, they’ve simply restated their start­ing premise that there is a virus in the sample and that there is a genome of thirty thousand base pairs. It doesn’t matter that it was created out of thin air in a computer.

CULTIVATING DISCERNMENT

Discernment is a very important skill that you must develop, particularly when it comes to assessing science. You have to understand how a given experiment is done and what it can—and can’t—determine in order to see whether the conclusions drawn represent circular reason­ing or true knowledge. One key aspect of the scientific method is that you have to have an independent variable—the thing you think is causing the phenomenon of interest (the depen­dent variable). If you hypothesize that rain is caused by kids playing on a swing set, you have to do a control experiment where you exclude that variable to make sure there’s not something else in the experiment that is causing the rain.

Not every type of knowledge is amenable to the scientific method because it’s not always about a cause-and-effect relationship. There are many things that are purely descriptive, such as the phenomenon of pleomorphism, where you can see microbial cells changing form. You can observe that carefully and describe it, and that is valuable knowledge. However, you have to be very careful that you’re not influencing the behavior of the organisms you are observing; you want to be a passive observer, which can be challenging.

Any analytical methods that researchers use have to be validated, meaning the method does what researchers say it does. You have to do your due diligence. Someone was telling me about an external device that could tell the pH inside the cells and interstitium (the space between cells and tissues)—a type of electronic scan. I asked, “Has it been validated?” meaning “Has it been compared to a gold standard?” (In this case, the gold standard for measurement of pH involves putting a micropipette or microelectrode right into a cell.) If they didn’t compare the technique against the gold standard to see whether the results match, you can just take that analytical method and throw it right out the window and ignore it, because it’s not valid. Note that none of the tests for infectious disease have been validated.

When you read a study, here are some questions you should ask: What was the experimental design? Did they have an independent variable? Did they have a control group? Did they have a large enough sample to determine the outcome? What was the outcome? Was the outcome a lab marker or an outcome like mortality? The details of the experiment are the only thing you can look at to determine whether the conclusions are valid. Be suspicious of studies based on animal models—and especially when the animals are genetically modified because that is not what’s in nature.

You also have to be very careful with statistical analysis. For ex­ample, statistical analysis is how antidepressants came to be. We’ve all seen Bill Gates’ favorite book, How to Lie with Statistics.4 Realize that statistics give you probabilities, not certainties. If scientists stick with simple tests such as tests of proportion, t-tests and regressions, statistics can be very useful. However, you need to keep in mind that correlation does not prove causation.

Exercise discernment when you encounter logical fallacies. We need to learn to recognize these types of errors in logic. Once we can see through the false arguments, we don’t have to get caught up in the details. In addition to circular reasoning, some of the other logical fallacies that come into play in false science include:

• The ad hominem fallacy, where someone avoids discussion of a topic by attacking the character or motives of the person making the argument instead. Examples: “He just wants to make money off you”; “He’s associated with the Freemasons”; “He’s controlled opposition.”
• Appeals to authority, where claims are considered true merely because experts say so. Examples: “He’s not even a virologist”; “The CDC director said it was true so it must be”; “One hundred years of medical experts can’t be wrong.”
• The burden-of-proof fallacy. If someone says, “Tell me the proof for your theory that viruses don’t exist,” I say “No, it’s the other way around. You’re the one who made a theory claiming that viruses do exist. I am disproving you, and you have to prove your claim.”
• The straw man fallacy, where someone focuses on a different question instead of the argument in question. Examples: “If viruses aren’t real, then how do you explain herpes?” “How do you explain chickenpox moving from one kid to another?”

The straw-man argument comes up a lot in discussions about viruses, but straw-man questions about specific diseases have nothing to do with whether viruses are real or not. You have to understand that asking about viruses is a separate argument from asking what makes us sick. If someone tells you a virus made them sick, ask, “How do you know that a virus caused it? Do you know how you would go about determining that? How do you think you would find the virus?” If you look at the last hundred years of medical research, almost all of the experiments about the causes of disease were related to germs; the establishment accepted germs as the cause a priori, so they didn’t feel the need to look for any other possible causes.

With viruses, you have to establish that viruses exist before you can even explore whether they cause anything. How do you test whether something (the independent variable) is the cause of something (the dependent variable), if you don’t actually have the independent variable in hand? One of the reasons the virus narrative persists is because many people are not willing to rest in the place of not knowing all the answers.

MANIPULATION VIA COMPUTER MODELS

Of course, there are many methods used to trick people into believ­ing false ideas and premises, and one of those is computer models. As the discussion of sequencing indicated, computer models are a way to simulate any reality that you can imagine. I have experience doing this in the biotech industry with so-called “molecular modeling”—which uses computer simulation to represent and visualize a target protein’s structure and behavior.5 In my case, I was working on inhibitors of thrombin (a clotting factor in the blood); the goal was to develop new blood thinners.

Molecular modeling is very fancy; with stereoscopic glasses, you can see the molecule you are modeling in 3D, and you can do energy calculations and simulations. However, every time you do one of these procedures, you have to make a lot of assumptions. You have to put energy parameters, bond angle parameters and so on. How do you know that any of this represents reality? In drug design, there is some accountability because they have to design a molecule that in fact thins the blood. They can test it and ask, “Does it actually do that?” If it’s just based on the model, they may find that it doesn’t.

Over the last few years, we saw computer models deployed to gener­ate fear. We all remember how Western leaders used UK epidemiologist Neil Ferguson’s computer model predictions of tens or hundreds of mil­lions of deaths to drum up fear and manipulate people. Computer models are also the basis of other fear narratives, such as the global warming narrative, where there are very limited data and no real evidence from nature. Scientists can put anything they want into these computer models and essentially create any outcome they desire by tweaking the models.

WEAPONIZED COLLECTIVISM

Collectivism (the philosophy behind communism) should be a household word. Collectivism states that the safety and welfare of the collective—whether defined as your neighborhood block, your city or some abstract concept—supersedes the rights and interests of individuals. Essentially, the philosophy of collectivism stands in contrast to individu­alism, which is the foundation of the spirit of our nation.

Ordinarily, people tend to be oriented toward individualism. Under individualism, if I feel it’s too risky to go out and I’m worried about get­ting sick, I will stay home. I won’t take that risk unless I feel comfortable taking that risk. If I want to wear personal protective equipment to protect myself, I’ll do that, but I’m not going to worry about anyone else. However, collectivism and the myth of contagion have become the basis for many of the tyrannical policies we are seeing, giving rise to the idea that you need to wear a mask to protect me or to protect grandma. You can see that once we adopt the collectivist approach, our individual liberties quickly erode into nothing, forcing us to comply with whatever the leaders determine is best for the collective. This is how countries fall into totalitarianism.

Consider how this played out with “social distancing.” Strategically, this policy tells people they have to remain at a minimum of six feet apart, which is almost precisely the length that our human biofields6—our electromagnetic and acoustic fields—extend out from our bod­ies.7 That means that we can’t get close enough to other people to have those fields interact and exchange information, which is what we need as humans. We are social creatures. We need to be in proximity with one another; we need physical touch, and we need to have bonds and communities. These policies are taking that away, rendering us something other than human.

Masks have been a horrible intervention, and it makes me slightly nauseated whenever I see someone wearing one. Obviously, it has the problem of blocking your ability to breathe, which is problematic in and of itself. In addition, it represents the initiation into this new slavery surveillance system, which is something into which I do not want to be initiated.

The so-called “vaccines” also fit into the collectivist paradigm, promoting the idea that you have to get this injection to protect others, not yourself. If it was just about protecting yourself, there would be no requirement—it would be your personal choice. Now, we have Pfizer executives admitting that the injections couldn’t stop any “spread” or “transmission.”8 Of course, “transmission” doesn’t exist anyway.

Note that becoming aware of the dangers of collectivism does not mean we should not be part of communities. As I said, it’s our human nature to be social creatures and to cooperate and collaborate with each other—but we don’t have to be ruled by a collectivist philosophy to do that.

FALSE SCIENCE AND FALSE PREMISES

Now, I’d like to set aside philosophies and policies and delve further into false science. I’m going to go through some hypotheses, ideas or proposals—they’re often incorrectly called “theories”—and let you know which of these are false premises. Then I’m going to address what we actually know to be true.

First, the very idea that science is consensus-based—where everyone agrees—is anti-scientific. It’s the complete opposite of what science is supposed to be. In science, you’re always supposed to challenge the mainstream. If you can’t prove something wrong, then it stands, but if you can prove it wrong, then you will not be held subject to false information and a false understanding. Scientific truth does not come from government agencies, and it doesn’t come from academic scientists who are put on a pedestal. It comes from nature.

False premise number two is that disease comes from a foreign invader and spreads from person to person. No experiment done to provide evidence for this claim has ever come up with any positive results whatsoever.

A third false premise is that health comes from a pill. There is no health condition that one could characterize as a deficiency of a man-made pharmaceutical. The medical establish­ment’s own data published a couple of decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) show that at least one hundred fifty thousand people die every year from taking prescription drugs as prescribed.9 That number does not even include vaccines or chemotherapy, or people who accidentally take too much or intentionally overdose; if you included those, you would probably triple the numbers. This is an accepted fact in mainstream medicine, but the knowledge has not permeated throughout society.

What is the fourth false premise? “It’s your bad genes or bad luck that made you sick.” That’s not true. Instead, it’s probably your own actions, though you may not be aware of it. I’m not saying you’re bad because you made yourself sick; what I’m saying is that if you made yourself sick, you also can make yourself well. But if you go with the “bad genes” or “bad luck” premise, that amounts to “We have no idea what causes this or that.” That leaves you helpless—there’s nothing you can do about it, other than go to the system and beg them for help.

The fifth false premise is that the body makes bad mistakes. We’re told that the body makes too little hormone or makes too much hormone, or that an organ like your appendix no longer works. “As scientists or doctors, we know better why your body doesn’t make enough, so we’re going to make a synthetic version and give it to you to fix your body because your body is broken.” But that’s simply not the way nature works. When your body makes less of a hormone, there’s a good reason for that. If you interfere with it, you’re going to perpetuate rather than ameliorate the problem.

False premise number six is that the body fails with age. We’re told that dementia is inevi­table; that arthritis is just “wear and tear” from living; that wrinkles, cellulite, skin atrophy and loss of vitality are inevitable; and that you are destined to deteriorate over your lifespan. However, it’s not aging that causes those things. It is the accumulation of toxicity over a lifetime—and you can take steps to prevent the body’s “failure.” Ideally, if you’re young and already in this condition, you can achieve major reversals. I think you’ve all seen images of seventy-five-year-old body builders and athletes and others who have taken on that task. We’re all capable of doing that.

A seventh false premise is, “If it’s not working properly, simply cut it out of the body.” This premise pushes people into unnecessary or harmful surgical procedures; after all, “insurance will cover it”! One of the most common operations is the removal of the gallbladder, called a cholecys­tectomy.10 Does the notion that the gallbladder just stopped working and is “dead weight” and you need to get rid of it make any sense? Do you think nature works that way? I have worked with many individuals who had gallbladder surgery, and it didn’t stop the problem. In fact, it made things worse because now they’re missing part of the system that’s the solution to the problem that they were having.

Note that there is no regulatory agency that approves surgical pro­cedures. We may criticize the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a captured agency, but at least in theory, they are supposed to determine that pharmaceuticals are safe and effective. For surgical procedures, there is no regulatory oversight at all. As a result, many surgical procedures either have no proof that they are beneficial, or there is actually proof that they’re not beneficial. Consider knee arthroscopies, one of the most common procedures done by orthopedists. They are very lucrative be­cause the surgery is quick and easy to do right in the office; the patient doesn’t have to go to the hospital or lose a lot of time, and orthopedists can churn them out. Although placebo-controlled trials have shown that there is zero benefit, the procedure is still done. I guarantee that if any of you went to the local orthopedist right now and said that your knee was really hurting, they would offer you an arthroscopy.

The establishment’s false premise number eight is that natural rem­edies don’t work and are either silly or dangerous. This is fascinating because even in their own literature, there is a wealth of evidence that natural remedies are effective. I’ll give you an incredible example that I include in my detox course,11 which is cilantro. Cilantro has amazing properties and has been studied extensively in animals and in humans. For example, researchers poison lab animals with lead and other heavy metals to cause damage and then give cilantro; not only does it remove the metals, it reverses the damage. This is amazing. Why isn’t every doctor using cilantro? It has also been shown to reduce seizures in epileptics, improve memory in dementia patients and improve cardiovascular out­comes—all from a little plant that anyone could grow on their windowsill.

False premise number nine is that detoxification is a joke. Admittedly, even in the natural health space there are many people who will exploit detoxification as a business model, giving you tons of supplements for detox. However, in my studies of natural healing outcomes over the last five years, whenever I see amazing results from some kind of protocol, it is almost always the result of some form of detoxification. This is an ex­tremely powerful method to regain your health and allow the body to heal.

The last false premise, which originally entered into the collective consciousness during the AIDS era, is really a doozy. It is the notion of the “asymptomatic carrier.” The idea is that you can feel well and be per­fectly healthy, yet if some invalid arbitrary test says you have something in your body that’s bad, you are suddenly dangerous to society—even though you’re perfectly healthy.

WHAT WE KNOW

What are the truths that we actually know? How does this relate to science? And how do you navigate all of this information? It helps to keep in mind what Isaac Asimov said: “Science does not promise absolute truth, nor does it consider that such a thing necessarily exists. Science does not even promise that everything in the Universe is amenable to the scientific process.” In fact, it can be extremely difficult or even impos­sible to design scientific experiments to learn more about many things that we observe in nature.

We have to understand the limitations of our collective ability to understand the natural world. As Nicolaus Copernicus put it, “To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.” A chemistry professor I had in college stated the point like this: “You don’t know what you know until you know what you don’t know.” This is very important, because when you don’t know things, but you assume them to be true, you can be led down many wrong paths—as many of us have experienced in our lives.

The first thing we know is that science is based on nature. “Belief,” “opinion,” “agreement” and “consensus” have nothing to do with science. The proof is in nature. If we hypothesize that rain is caused by children playing on their swing set, we can do an experiment to determine whether that is true or false using the scientific method.

The second and third things we know are that the body is a self-healing machine, and that everything needed for optimal health is avail­able in nature. This is something that we all have observed in our life­time, but we may not have generalized it to a property of our amazing bodies. If we have a laceration on our skin, we can watch how the body just repairs it, all on its own; we don’t have to do one thing to make that happen. We haven’t created any devices that can do that. What we think of as “disease” (because we’re uncomfortable) is really healing. That’s really what our body is doing. This is a miracle of nature. We have to harness that miracle to achieve our optimal health and vitality. That’s how our bodies were designed. We don’t need man-made technolo­gies or chemicals to achieve health. Sometimes those things may be beneficial, but they’re not necessary because they are not part of nature. Nature has provided everything for us to achieve our optimal functioning and embodiment in this realm.

Fourth, we know that the law of cause and effect is very important. It’s one of the seven hermetic principles (the foundation of the spiritual philosophy of Hermeticism) and is helpful for discernment in the areas of science and medicine. Simply stated, “Every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause.” Impor­tantly, a cause must precede the effect; it can’t occur after the effect. Just knowing this law of temporality can help you debunk a lot of things.

A fifth thing we know—and this may surprise some of you—is that humans actu­ally are capable of living one hundred twenty years or longer. I don’t know whether that is the normal human lifespan, but there have been small clusters of populations all over the earth—you can even find information about this in old New York Times articles—where people lived to those ages. At present, we don’t know what distinguishes those communities; what is the “fountain of youth,” if such a thing exists? But certainly, this is a goal that we can have as we learn to take better care of ourselves and realize that our true potential is not limited to eighty years.

Sixth, we know that man-made toxins and poisons cause many, if not all, chronic health conditions. For example, we know that asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma, exposure to benzene can cause leukemia and sugar can cause dementia.

For number seven, we know that as indi­vidual men and women, we are capable of learn­ing about and managing our own health. We do not need to be dependent on experts or others.

The eighth thing we know is that DNA is not the blueprint for all life functions. We don’t really know what DNA is, but I believe we can do scientific experiments to get closer and closer to understanding it. This is an area that could be fascinating to learn about. On one level, however, we can rely on simple mathematics. As Dr. Tom Cowan has pointed out, there aren’t nearly enough genes to provide all the information to code the proteins in our body, so that information has to come from somewhere else.

A ninth thing we know, even intuitively, is that humans have extra­sensory abilities. We know that when someone is sneaking up on us from behind—even if the breeze is going the wrong way and we can’t smell them and noise is interfering with our ability to hear them—we can still perceive their presence. This has been validated in experiments, including some done by Rupert Sheldrake, who is definitely worth looking into.12

Remote viewing gives us additional hints. Remote viewing is when you can be here and you can, in your mind, visualize what is going on somewhere else on Earth, no matter how far away it is.13,14 The govern­ment actually had a secret remote viewing research program at Stanford University. After the program terminated and enough years had passed, some information about the program became publicly available through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. There are even courses where you can learn how to do remote viewing. As an example, the gov­ernment used remote viewing to locate a fallen plane in Africa that was carrying top-secret information. They had an approximate hundred-mile radius of where the plane went down. In California, where the remote viewers were working, they put up maps. After the remote viewers sat around and used this technique, they pointed to a spot on the map. When soldiers went to that spot, there was the fallen plane.

We probably have other abilities not yet characterized—at least to my knowledge or to your knowledge—but we have much more potential than we realize. I think that the forces that have been leading the world stage have purposely blinded us to these abilities so that we are easier to control and manipulate.

TAKING ACTION

One of my most important spiritual mentors, Neil Kramer,15 says, “The pursuit of truth is your spiritual journey.” This is how we can start to look at health, biology and other broader issues in order to avoid be­ing controlled and manipulated, and instead exert our own authority, autonomy and sovereignty in our lives and the lives of our families. My overarching goals and ideals are truth, justice and, most importantly, action. Sitting around and talking about these ideas is good, but it’s not good enough. We have to embody these principles and act; that’s the way change will move in the right direction.

The most important action is to stop par­ticipating in the system. Stop consuming media from television and mainstream public health agencies. We also need to stop financing them. One way is to cancel your health insurance. That might be scary for some people because you can always envision a situation where you might need the hospital. For me, that situation would be if my finger detached from my body and I needed someone to reattach it, or if I break a bone and it’s sticking out of my skin; those are the situations when I would consider going to the hospital.

Remember that if you end up in the hospital, you are still in control. Don’t sign anything— especially anything financial—because when you guarantee to pay whatever they ask, that’s how you end up in medical bankruptcy with ruined credit. If you say, “I’d be happy to sign as financial guarantor, but how much is it going to cost?” they’ll say, “We have no idea.” It could be two hundred, five thousand or one hundred thousand dollars. How can you sign a document when you don’t know what you’re agreeing to? If you don’t sign, they’re still going to take care of you because if you have a bone sticking out of your body or your finger is in a jar, they are going to realize that it’s not good public rela­tions to turn you away. Stick with it; be brave and don’t let them intimidate you.

This also goes for what they do while you’re there. You might go in there and say, “I want a hand surgeon to reattach my finger, please.” And they’ll say, “How about a Covid test? How about a flu shot?” You say no and they say, “How about antibiotics?” You can say no to that, too. “How about food?” Are you going to eat their poison hospital food? You can say no. You do have to be vigilant. You might need an advocate there with you, because nurses might pop something in your IV without your knowledge. You have the right and you can put them on notice that if they do anything against your consent, they will be sued and reported to the relevant licensing authori­ties and government agencies. Don’t let them intimidate you.

We need to stop taking pharmaceuticals and vaccines. You might think that’s difficult, but it can be done. Once you get rid of those poisons, you can allow your body to heal properly and reverse the condition that you were suppressing with those drugs. While you’re at it, stop going for checkups, screenings and lab tests. These have never been proven to be of benefit; it’s the medical system’s way of getting you in to do more and spend more.

If we are going to exit the system, we have the responsibility to learn for ourselves what to do. This is really where I am gearing most of my current efforts. To take this on, you have to believe in yourself and your ability to understand your body and become healthy. This might seem like a monumental task to someone who is not a trained health professional—I know I have a little bit of an advantage here—but that is part of the treatment. If you can envision yourself returning to health and increasing your vitality, that will actually come to fruition, whereas if you envision yourself as destined to be miserable and sickly all your life, that will also come true.

Bolstered by belief and confidence in yourself, you need to learn about nutrition, detoxification, psychospiritual issues (such as trauma, addictions and toxic relationships) as well as existential issues such as being comfortable with death. Death is part of life—we cannot escape. On a practical level, you need to learn which medical supplies to keep in your home to handle issues that arise. You want to be able to say, “I can take of this here, and I have the supplies ready to go,” rather than “I need to go to the hospital or urgent care.”

Of course, you also need to start eating real food. For those already eating a Wise Traditions diet, I’m preaching to the choir. For others, it’s time to make that change and eat real food.

Another step is to engage in contemplation. This is time that you spend with yourself in silence and stillness. It could be time spent in prayer, in meditation or just in being. This gives you space for insights to develop and for connection with nature. It is a paramount step to be able to move forward and gain perspective and confidence.

Gratitude is also important. We need to think about what we are grateful for and express gratitude extensively. This can flip us out of pessimism and hopelessness.

Root cause analysis is key because understanding the root cause of your health problem tells you how to address it. Without understanding root causes, you will get it wrong every time. You also have to understand how the body heals itself and how to support those healing mechanisms.

If you’re overwhelmed with these steps, there are professionals who can help you get started. Don’t be afraid to reach out to them, but make sure that you’re reaching out to someone who is committed to these ideals.

SOME RESOURCES

I am engaged in several efforts to bring about a paradigm shift. First, I am trying to reach the public and provide some inspiration for looking into these issues. I do a lot of interviews and put out general information to the public. That is also why I collaborated with Marcy Cravat to make the documentary film Terrain,16 which is very accessible, even to a mainstream audience. It’s not hardcore rabbit hole diving.

For people who are curious and want to learn more, I go deeper. I am curating informa­tion in a library form that people can access. This includes anything that I think is important for the historical record or for your understand­ing of health and disease. We’re adding things all the time.

I also have a platform where I bring in scientists and health professionals with valu­able knowledge—people doing new science to uncover truths about nature and health—for educational webinars that will be archived in perpetuity. Figures who have given webinars in­clude Gerald Pollack (an amazing pioneer when it comes to the role of water in biology),17 John Stuart Reid (inventor of the Cymascope and innovator in transformational sound therapy),18 holistic health practitioner and herbalist Aman­dha Vollmer,19 and biofield tuning expert Eileen Day McKusick.20

I love to teach, so my biggest venture is a comprehensive curriculum I developed. I spent over a year working on the curriculum, which encompasses most of the natural healing top­ics that are important to learn about, including detoxification. This is a way that people can acquire knowledge and take charge of their own health issues. I am also breaking this down into a series of workshops on topics like water and heavy metal detoxification.

In addition, I’m mentoring the next genera­tion of physicians who are leaving allopathic medicine and going into true medicine. For example, Dr. Grayson Dart came to me fresh out of his family medicine residency and enthu­siastically mastered this material.21 In addition, I am taking on and supervising health coaches, who do an apprenticeship with me for a year, participating in all of our protocols and meet­ings, and then go out on their own.

Finally, I am trying to conduct some original research. For example, I’m working on a clinical trial of structured water versus unstructured water and water fasting. Looking at those outcomes, I am planning to do chemi­cal analysis of bodily secretions during illness to see if we find certain toxins associated with certain diseases. I am trying to collaborate with Dr. Pollack on testing various substances to look at their effect on exclusion zone (EZ) water. Poisonous substances and pharmaceu­ticals have been found to shrink the exclusion zone—in other words, they denature our water. For example, the local anesthetic lidocaine does this, which is probably why the nerves can’t function to detect pain.

AS ABOVE, SO BELOW

I believe that the hermetic law of correspon­dence—“as above, so below”—is the principle that is going to lead to this grand paradigm shift from a tyrannical surveillance health system that poisons people to one based on nature, autonomy, true health and vitality. What this principle means is that when we each take in­dividual action in our own domains, affecting ourselves and our family, it doesn’t stop there. The summation of all those individual efforts is reflected through the holographic mirror into the larger society. Once this change is ignited, it will sweep the rest of the way forward.

Some of us wish we could convince loved ones that they can get better by stepping away from the mainstream medical system, but it’s not our decision—it’s their decision. I mentioned Neil Kramer earlier; as he puts it, “Gotta let them live; gotta let them die.” You can let them know that you’re a resource and share your own out-of-the-box successes; if they want to know more, they will come to you.

What we need to understand is that we don’t need to go out and convince everybody. We need to take action in our own life. When others observe what is happening, it will spread and have the amazing effect that we all desire. Taking all this information into account, I give you one task above all others, and that is to become your own health authority.

REFERENCES

 

1. 1. Coleman RD. What is circular reasoning? Numeraire.com, 2006. http://www. numeraire.com/download/WhatIsCircularReasoning.pdf
2. Welton J. A Manual of Logic, Volume Two. W.B. Clive; 1905.
3. Carr VR, Chaguza C. Metagenomics for surveillance of respiratory pathogens. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19(5):285.
4. Huff D. How to Lie with Statistics. Norton; 1954.
5. Steinmark IE. The rise of mulecular modelling. Royal Society of Chemistry, Jun. 28, 2017. https://edu.rsc.org/feature/the-rise-of-molecular-modelling/3007610. article
6. Rubik B. The biofield hypothesis: its biophysical basis and role in medicine. J Altern Complement Med. 2002;8(6):703-717.
7. https://www.biofieldtuning.com/what-is-the-biofield
8. https://twitter.com/rob_roos/status/1579759795225198593?s=46&t=oKvkGcX haZc-OlW-8K1omA
9. Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA. 2000;284(4):483- 485.
10. Zurich L. The health and healing of your humble but mighty gallbladder. Wise Traditions. Fall 2022;23(3):21-26.
11. Kaufman A. “Alchemical Detox Course.” True Medicine University. https:// www.truemedicineuniversity.com/the-alchemical-detox
12. https://www.sheldrake.org/
13. https://ingoswann.com/remote-viewing
14. “The history of remote viewing.” International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA), n.d. https://www.irva.org/remote-viewing/history
15. https://neilkramer.com/
16. https://terrainthefilm.com/
17. https://www.pollacklab.org/
18. https://transformationalsoundtherapy.com/speaker/john-stuart-reid/
19. https://yummy.doctor/
20. https://electrichealth.com/about-eileen-day-mckusick/
21. https://www.doctordart.com/
22. Fitts CA, Betts C. I want to stop CBDCs—what can I do? Solari Report, Feb. 1, 2023. https://home.solari.com/i-want-to-stop-cbdcs-what-can-i-do/
23. Lynn C. Inside Codex with Scott Tips: new global food diet—insects, rats and dogs. Corey’s Digs, Oct. 13, 2022. https://www.coreysdigs.com/food-supply-chain/inside-codex-with-scott-tips-new-global-food-diet-insects-rats-and-dogs/

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2023 - Written by Andrew Kaufman

Eskimos Prove An All-Meat Diet Provides Excellent Health

By Vilhjalmur Stefansson
Harper’s Monthly Magazine, November 1935.

Part I

In 1906 I went to the Arctic with the food tastes and beliefs of the average American. By 1918, after eleven years as an Eskimo among Eskimos, I had learned things which caused me to shed most of those beliefs. Ten years later I began to realize that what I had learned was going to influence materially the sciences of medicine and dietetics. However, what finally impressed the scientists and converted many during the last two or three years, was a series of confirmatory experiments upon myself and a colleague performed at Bellevue Hospital, New York City, under the supervision of a committee representing several universities and other organizations.

Not so long ago the following dietetic beliefs were common: To be healthy you need a varied diet, composed of elements from both the animal and vegetable kingdoms. You got tired of and eventually felt a revulsion against things if you had to eat them often. This latter belief was supported by stories of people who through force of circumstances had been compelled, for instance, to live for two weeks on sardines and crackers and who, according to the stories, had sworn that so long as they lived they never would touch sardines again. The Southerners had it that nobody can eat a quail a day for thirty days.

There were subsidiary dietetic views. It was desirable to eat fruits and vegetables, including nuts and coarse grains. The less meat you ate the better for you. If you ate a good deal of it, you would develop rheumatism, hardening of the arteries, and high blood pressure, with a tendency to breakdown of the kidneys – in short, premature old age. An extreme variant had it that you would live more healthy, happily, and longer if you became a vegetarian.

Specifically it was believed, when our field studies began, that without vegetables in your diet you would develop scurvy. It was a “known fact” that sailors, miners, and explorers frequently died of scurvy “because they did not have vegetables and fruits.” This was long before Vitamin C was publicized.

The addition of salt to food was considered either to promote health or to be necessary for health. This is proved by various yarns, such as that African tribes make war on one another to get salt; that minor campaigns of the American Civil War were focused on salt mines; and that all herbivorous animals are ravenous for salt. I do not remember seeing a critical appendix to any of these views, suggesting for instance, that Negro tribes also make war about things which no one ever said were biological essentials of life; that tobacco was a factor in Civil War campaigns without being a dietetic essential; and that members of the deer family in Maine which never have salt or show desire for it, are as healthy as those in Montana which devour quantities of it and are forever seeking more.

A belief I was destined to find crucial in my Arctic work, making the difference between success and failure, life and death, was the view that man cannot live on meat alone. The few doctors and dietitians who thought you could were considered unorthodox if not charlatans. The arguments ranged from metaphysics to chemistry: Man was not intended to be carnivorous – you knew that from examining his teeth, his stomach, and the account of him in the Bible. As mentioned, he would get scurvy if he had no vegetables in meat. The kidneys would be ruined by overwork. There would be protein poisoning and, in general hell to pay.

With these views in my head and, deplorably, a number of others like them, I resigned my position as assistant instructor in anthropology at Harvard to become anthropologist of a polar expedition. Through circumstances and accidents which are not a part of the story, I found myself that autumn the guest of the Mackenzie River Eskimos.

The Hudson’s Bay Company, whose most northerly post was at Fort McPherson two hundred miles to the south had had little influence on the Eskimos during more than half a century; for it was only some of them who made annual visits to the trading post; and then they purchased no food but only tea, tobacco, ammunition and things of that sort. But in 1889 the whaling fleet had begun to cultivate these waters and for fifteen years there had been close association with sometimes as many as a dozen ships and four to five hundred men wintering at Herschel Island, just to the west of the delta. During this time a few of the Eskimos had learned some English and perhaps one in ten of them had grown to a certain extent fond of white man’s foods.

But now the whaling fleet was gone because the bottom had dropped out of the whalebone market, and the district faced an old-time winter of fish and water. The game, which might have supplemented the fish some years earlier, had been exterminated or driven away by the intensive hunting that supplied meat to the whaling fleet. There was a little tea, but not nearly enough to see the Eskimos through the winter – this was the only element of the white man’s dietary of which they were really fond and the lack of which would worry them. So I was facing a winter of fish without tea. For the least I could do, an uninvited guest, was to pretend a dislike for it.

The issue of fish and water against fish and tea was, in any case, to me six against a half dozen. For I had had a prejudice against fish all my life. I had nibbled at it perhaps once or twice a year at course dinners, always deciding that it was as bad as I thought. This was pure psychology of course, but I did not realize it.

I was in a measure adopted into an Eskimo family the head of which knew English. He had grown up as a cabin boy on a whaling ship and was called Roxy, though his name was Memoranna. It was early September, we were living in tents, the days were hot but it had begun to freeze during the nights, which were now dark for six to eight hours.

The community of three or four families, fifteen or twenty individuals, was engaged in fishing. With long poles, three or four nets were shoved out from the beach about one hundred yards apart. When the last net was out the first would be pulled in, with anything from dozens to hundreds of fish, mostly ranging in weight from one to three pounds, and including some beautiful salmon trout. From knowledge of other white men the Eskimos consider these to be most suitable for me and would cook them specially, roasting them against the fire. They themselves ate boiled fish.

Trying to develop an appetite, my habit was to get up soon after daylight, say four o’clock, shoulder my rifle, and go off after breakfasts on a hunt south across the rolling prairie, though I scarcely expected to find any game. About the middle of the afternoon I would return to camp. Children at play usually saw me coming and reported to Roxy’s wife, who would then put a fresh salmon trout to roast. When I got home I would nibble at it and write in my diary what a terrible time I was having.

Against my expectation, and almost against my will, I was beginning to like the baked salmon trout when one day of perhaps the second week I arrived home without the children having seen me coming. There was no baked fish ready but the camp was sitting round troughs of boiled fish. I joined them and, to my surprise, liked it better than the baked. There after the special cooking ceased, and I ate boiled fish with the Eskimos.

Part II

By midwinter I had left my cabin-boy host and, for the purposes of anthropological study, was living with a less sophisticated family at the eastern edge of the Mackenzie delta. Our dwelling was a house of wood and earth, heated and lighted with Eskimo-style lamps. They burned seal or whale oil, mostly white whale from a hunt of the previous spring when the fat had been stored in bags and preserved, although the lean meat had been eaten. Our winter cooking however, was not done over the lamps but on a sheet-iron stove which had been obtained from whalers. There were twenty-three of us living in one room, and there were sometimes as many as ten visitors. The floor was then so completely covered with sleepers that the stove had to be suspended from the ceiling. The temperature at night was round 60*F. The ventilation was excellent through cold air coming up slowly from below by way of a trap door that was never closed and the heated air going out by a ventilator in the roof.

Everyone slept completely naked – no pajama or night shirts. We used cotton or woolen blankets which had been obtained from the whalers and from the Hudson’s Bay Company.

In the morning, about seven o’clock, winter-caught fish, frozen so hard that they would break like glass, were brought in to lie on the floor till they began to soften a little. One of the women would pinch them every now and then until, when she found her finger indented them slightly, she would begin preparations for breakfast. First she cut off the head and put them aside to be boiled for the children in the afternoon (Eskimos are fond of children, and heads are considered the best part of the fish). Next best are the tails, which are cut off and saved for the children also. The woman would then slit the skin along the back and also along the belly and getting hold with her teeth, would strip the fish somewhat as we peel a banana, only sideways where we peel bananas, endways.

Thus prepared, the fish were put on dishes and passed around. Each of us took one and gnawed it about as an American does corn on the cob. An American leaves the cob; similarly we ate the flesh from the outside of the fish, not touching the entrails. When we had eaten as much as we chose, we put the rest on a tray for dog feed.

After breakfast all the men and about half the women would go fishing, the rest of the women staying at home to keep house. About eleven o’clock we came back for a second meal of frozen fish just like the breakfast. At about four in the afternoon the working day was over and we came home to a meal of hot boiled fish.

Also we came home to a dwelling so heated by the cooking that the temperature would range from 85* to 100*F. or perhaps even higher – more like our idea of a Turkish bath than a warm room. Streams of perspiration would run down our bodies, and the children were kept busy going back and forth with dippers of cold water of which we naturally drank great quantities.

Just before going to sleep we would have a cold snack of fish that had been left over from dinner. Then we slept seven or eight hours and the routine of the day began once more.

After some three months as a guest of the Eskimos I had acquired most of their food tastes. I had to agree that fish is better boiled than cooked any other way, and that the heads (which we occasionally shared with the children) were the best part of the fish. I no longer desired variety in the cooking, such as occasional baking – I preferred it always boils if it was cooked. I had become as fond of raw fish as if I had been a Japanese. I like fermented (therefore slightly acid) whale oil with my fish as well as ever I liked mixed vinegar and olive oil with a salad. But I still had two reservations against Eskimo practice; I did not eat rotten fish and I longed for salt with my meals.

There were several grades of decayed fish. The August catch had been protected by longs from animals but not from heat and was outright rotten. The September catch was mildly decayed. The October and later catches had been frozen immediately and were fresh. There was less of the August fish than of any other and, for that reason among the rest, it was a delicacy – eaten sometimes as a snack between meals, sometimes as a kind of dessert and always frozen, raw.

In midwinter it occurred to me to philosophize that in our own and foreign lands taste for a mild cheese is somewhat plebeian; it is at least a semi-truth that connoisseurs like their cheeses progressively stronger. The grading applies to meats, as in England where it is common among nobility and gentry to like game and pheasant so high that the average Midwestern American or even Englishman of a lower class, would call them rotten.

I knew of course that, while it is good form to eat decayed milk products and decayed game, it is very bad form to eat decayed fish. I knew also that the view of our populace that there are likely to be “ptomaines” in decaying fish and in the plebeian meats; but it struck me as an improbable extension of the class-consciousness that ptomaines would avoid the gentleman’s food and attack that of a commoner.

These thoughts led to a summarizing query; If it is almost a mark of social distinction to be able to eat strong cheeses with a straight face and smelly birds with relish, why is it necessarily a low taste to be fond of decaying fish? On that basis of philosophy, though with several qualms, I tried the rotten fish one day, and if memory servers, like it better than my first taste of Camembert. During the next weeks I became fond of rotten fish.

About the fourth month of my first Eskimo winter I was looking forward to every meal (rotten or fresh), enjoying them, and feeling comfortable when they were over. Still I kept thinking the boiled fish would taste better if only I had salt. From the beginning of my Eskimo residence I had suffered from this lack. On one of the first few days, with the resourcefulness of a Boy Scout, I had decided to make myself some salt, and had boiled sea water till there was left only a scum of brown powder. If I had remembered as vividly my freshman chemistry as I did the books about shipwrecked adventurers, I should have know in advance that the sea contains a great many chemicals besides sodium chloride, among them iodine. The brown scum tasted bitter rather than salty. A better chemist could no doubt have refined the product. I gave it up, partly through the persuasion of my host, the English-speaking Roxy.

The Mackenzie Eskimos, Roxy told me, believe that what is good for grown people is good for children and enjoyed by them as soon as they get used to it. Accordingly they teach the use of tobacco when a child is very young. It then grows to maturity with the idea that you can’t get along without tobacco. But, said Roxy, the whalers have told that many whites get along without it, and he had himself seen white men who never use it, while the few white women, wives of captains, none used tobacco. (This, remember, was in 1906.)

Now Roxy had heard that white people believe that salt is good for, and even necessary for children, so they begin early to add salt to the child’s food. That child then would grow up with the same attitude toward salt as an Eskimo has toward tobacco. However, said Roxy, since we Eskimos were mistaken in thinking tobacco so necessary, may it be that the white men are mistaken about salt? Pursuing the argument, he concluded that the reason why all Eskimos dislike salted food and all white men like it was not racial but due to custom. You could then, break the salt habit as easily as the tobacco habit and you would suffer no ill result beyond the mental discomfort of the first few days or weeks.

Roxy did not know, but I did as an anthropologist, that in pre-Columbian times salt was unknown or the taste of it disliked and the use of it avoided through much of North and South America. It may possibly be true that the carnivorous Eskimos in whose language the word salty, mamaitok, is synonymous with with evil-tasting, disliked salt more intensely than those Indians who were partly herbivorous. Nevertheless, it is clear that the salt habit spread more slowly through the New World from the Europeans than the tobacco habit through Europe from the Indians. Even today there are considerable areas, for instance in the Amazon basin, where the natives still abhor salt. Not believing that the races differ in their basic natures, I felt inclined to agree with Roxy that the practice of slating food is with us a social inheritance and the belief in its merits a part of our folklore.

Through this philosophizing I was somewhat reconciled to going without salt, but I was nevertheless, overjoyed when one day Ovayuak, my new host in the eastern delta, came indoors to say that a dog team was approaching which he believed to be that of Ilavinirk, a man who had worked with whalers and who possessed a can of salt. Sure enough, it was Ilavinirk, and he was delighted to give me the salt, a half-pound baking-powder can about half full, which he said he had been carrying around for two or three years, hoping sometime to meet someone who would like it for a present. He seemed almost as pleased to find that I wanted the salt as I was to get it. I sprinkled some on my boiled fish, enjoyed it tremendously, and wrote in my diary that it was the best meal I had had all winter. Then I put the can under my pillow, in the Eskimo way of keeping small and treasured things. But at the next meal I had almost finished eating before I remembered the salt. Apparently then my longing for it had been what you might call imaginary. I finished without salt, tried it at one or two meals during the next few days and thereafter left it untouched. When we moved camp the salt remained behind.

After the return of the sun I made a journey of several hundred miles to the ship Narwhal which, contrary to our expectations of the late summer, had really come in and wintered at Herschel Island. The captain was George P. Leavitt, of Portland, Maine. For the few days of my visit I enjoyed the excellent New England cooking, but when I left Herschel Island I returned without reluctance to the Eskimo meals of fish and cold water. It seemed to me that, mentally and physically, I had never been in better health in my life.

Part III

During the first few months of my first year in the Arctic, I acquired, though I did not at the time fully realize it, the munitions of fact and experience which have within my own mind defeated those views of dietetics reviewed at the beginning of this article. I could be healthy on a diet of fish and water. The longer I followed it the better I liked it, which meant, at least inferentially and provisionally, that you never become tired of your food if you have only one thing to eat. I did not get scurvy on the fish diet nor learn that any of my fish-eating friends ever had it. Nor was the freedom from scurvy due to the fish being eaten raw – we proved that later. (What it was due to we shall deal with in the second article of this series.) There were certainly no signs of hardening of the arteries and high blood pressure, of breakdown of the kidneys or of rheumatism.

These months on fish were the beginning of several years during which I lived on an exclusive meat diet. For I count in fish when I speak of living on meat, using “meat” and “meat diet” more as a professor of anthropology than as the editor of a housekeeping magazine. The term in this article and in like scientific discussions refers to a diet from which all things of the vegetable kingdom are absent.

To the best of my estimate then, I have lived in the Arctic for more than five years exclusively on meat and water. (This was not, of course, one five-year stretch, but an aggregate of that much time during ten years.) One member of my expeditions, Storker Storkersen, lived on an exclusive meat diet for about the same length of time while there are several who have lived on it from one to three years. These have been of many nationalities and of three races – ordinary European whites; natives of the Cape Verde Islands, who had a large percentage of Negro blood; and natives of the South Sea Islands. Neither from experience with my own men nor from what I have heard of similar cases do I find any racial difference. There are marked individual differences.

The typical method of breaking a party into a meat diet is that three of five of us leave in midwinter a base camp which has nearly or quite the best type of European mixed diet that money and forethought can provide. The novices have been told that it is possible to live on meat alone. We warn them that it is hard to get used to for the first few weeks, but assure them that eventually they will grow to like it and that any difficulties in changing diets will be due to their imagination.

These assertions the men will believe to a varying degree. I have a feeling that in the course of breaking in something like twenty individuals; two or three young men believed me completely, and that this belief collaborated strongly with their youth and adaptability in making them take readily to the meat.

Usually I think, the men believe that what I tell of myself is true for me personally, but that I am peculiar, a freak – that a normal person will not react similarly, and that they are going to be normal and have an awful time. Their past experience seems to tell them that if you eat one thing every day you are bound to tire of it. In the back of their minds there is also what they have read and heard about the necessity for a varied diet. They have specific fears of developing the ailments which they have heard of as caused by meat or prevented by vegetables.

We secure our food in the Arctic by hunting and in midwinter there is not enough good hunting light. Accordingly we carry with us from the base camp provisions for several weeks, enough to take us into the long days. During this time, as we travel away from shore, we occasionally kill a seal or a polar bear and eat their meat along with our groceries. Our men like these as an element of a mixed diet as well as you do beef or mutton.

We are not on rations. We eat all we want, and we feed the dogs what we think is good for them. When the traveling conditions are right we usually have two big meals a day, morning and evening, but when we are storm bound or delayed by open water we eat several meals to pass the time away. At the end of four, six or eight weeks at sea, we have used up all our food. We do not try to save a few delicacies to eat with the seal and bear, for experience has proved that such things are only tantalizing.

Suddenly, then we are on nothing but seal. For while our food at sea averages ten percent polar bear there may be months in which we don’t see a bear. The men go at the seal loyally; they are volunteers and whatever the suffering, they have bargained for it and intend to grin and bear it. For a day or two they eat square meals. Then the appetite begins to flag and they discover as they had more than half expected, that for them personally it is going to be a hard pull or a failure. Some own up that they can’t eat, while others pretend to have good appetites, enlisting the surreptitious help of a dog to dispose of their share. In extreme cases, which are usually those of the middle-aged and conservative they go two or three days practically or entirely without eating. We had no weighing apparatus; but I take it that some have lost anything from ten to twenty pounds, what with the hard work on empty stomachs. They become gloomy and grouchy and, as I once wrote, “They begin to say to each other, and sometimes to me, things about their judgment in joining a polar expedition that I cannot quote.”

But after a few days even the conservatives begin to nibble at the seal meat, after a few more they are eating a good deal of it, rather under protest and at the end of three or four weeks they are eating square meals, though still talking about their willingness to give a soul or right arm for this or that. Amusingly, or perhaps instructively, they often long for ham and eggs or corned beef when, according to theory, they ought to be longing for vegetables and fruits. Some of them do hanker particularly for things like sauerkraut or orange juice; but more usually it is for hot cakes and syrup or bread and butter.

There are two ways in which to look at an abrupt change of diet – how difficult it is to get used to what you have to eat and how hard it is to be deprived of things you are used to and like. From the second angle, I take it to be physiologically significant that we have found our people, when deprived, to long equally for things which have been considered necessities of health, such as salt; for things where a drug addiction is considered to be involved, such as tobacco; and for items of that class of so-called staple foods, such as bread.

It has happened on several trips, and with an aggregate of perhaps twenty men, that they have had to break at one time their salt, tobacco, and bread habits. I have frequently tried the experiment of asking which they would prefer; salt for their meal, bread with it, or tobacco for an after-dinner smoke. In nearly every case the men have stopped to consider, nor do I recall that they were ever unanimous.

When we are returning to the ship after several months on meat and water, I usually say that the steward will have orders to cook separately for each member of the party all he wants of whatever he wants. Especially during the last two or three days, there is a great deal of talk among the novices in the part about what the choices are to be. One man wants a big dish of mashed potatoes and gravy; another a gallon of coffee and bread and butter; a third perhaps wants a stack of hot cakes with syrup and butter.

On reaching the ship each does get all he wants of what he wants. The food tastes good, although not quite so superlative as they had imagined. They have said they are going to eat a lot and they do. Then they get indigestion, headache, feel miserable, and within a week, in nine cases out of ten of those who have been on meat six months or over, they are willing to go back to meat again. If a man does not want to take part in a second sledge journey it is usually for a reason other than the dislike of meat.

Still, as just implied, the verdict depends on how long you have been on the diet. If at the end of the first ten days our men could have been miraculously rescued from the seal and brought back to their varied foods, most of them would have sworn forever after that they were about to die when rescued, and they would have vowed never to taste seal again – vows which would have been easy to keep for no doubt in such cases the thought of seal, even years later, would have been accompanied by a feeling of revulsion. If a man has been on meat exclusively for only three or four months he may or may not be reluctant to go back to it again. But if the period has been six months or over, I remember no one who was unwilling to go back to meat. Moreover, those who have gone without vegetables for an aggregate of several years usually thereafter eat a larger percentage of meat than your average citizen, if they can afford it.

http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.html

http://www.vintag.es/2012/08/old-photos-of-eskimos.html

Dr. Weston A. Price and The Eugenics Movement

In 1932, a year after Dr. Weston Price began his studies on healthy, non-industrialized peoples, New York City hosted the Third Eugenics Conference. Eugenics promoted the “directed evolution of man” made possible by a global scientific and medical dictatorship, which proposed to improve the lot of mankind by making “better” people, rather than resolving the conditions that led to poverty and ill health.

Speaking at the conference, and evoking the Darwinian concept of “survival of the fittest,” Fairfield Osborn, a British Fascist and adherent of Malthusian principles, stated that eugenics “aids and encourages the survival and multiplication of the fittest; indirectly, it would check and discourage the multiplication of the unfitted. As to the latter, in the United States alone, it is widely recognized that there are millions of people who are acting as dragnets or sheet anchors on the progress of the ship of state. . . While some highly competent people are unemployed, the mass of unemployment is among the less competent, who are first selected for suspension, while the few highly competent people are retained because they are still indispensable. [Remember that these remarks occur during the bottom of the Great Depression.] In nature, these less-fitted individuals would gradually disappear, but in civilization, we are keeping them in the community in the hopes that in brighter days, they may all find employment. This is only another instance of humane civilization going directly against the order of nature and encouraging the survival of the un-fittest.” Osborn’s speech was published in the New York Times, August 23, 1932 under the headline “’Birth Selection’ the Remedy in Crisis of Over-Population.”

In the U.S., the practice of eugenics took the form of marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization. Starting in 1907, thirty states passed laws promoting the sterilization of the ”unfit.”

The logo for the Second Eugenics Conference shows a tree with many roots, labeled as follows: anatomy, anthropology, anthropometry, archaeology, biography, biology, economics, education, ethnography, genealogy, genetics, geology, law, medicine, mental testing, psychiatry, physiology, psychology, religion and sociology.

What’s missing here?  Nutrition! Not a single root is labeled “Nutrition.”

While a bunch of pseudoscientists were scheming on how to eliminate the impoverished, the unwashed and the unhealthy, Dr. Weston Price was quietly studying the effects of modern processed foods on the form, health, behavior and intelligence of human beings throughout the globe.

The eugenicists claimed the physical degeneration that Price observed was due to race mixing. Price was quick to disagree. “Nature always builds harmoniously if conditions are sufficiently favorable, regardless of race, color or location,” he said.

In Chapter One of his masterpiece, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Price makes it clear that the change in physical form he observed with the change in diet has nothing to do with heredity or “race mixing” –based on what he observed, unlike the eugenicists whose pronouncements were based on what they wanted to believe.

“It is important to preface the observations by constructing a mental pattern of physical excellence from the pictures of the various primitive groups and, with this yardstick or standard of normalcy, observe our modern patterns. Certain preconceived ideas may have to be modified, as for example, that based on the belief that what we see is due to heredity or that deformity is due to mixing of races. If so, why should the last child in a large family generally suffer most, and often be different in facial form; or why should there be these changes in the later children, even in pure racial stocks, after the parents have adopted our modern types of nutrition? Although the causes of physical degeneration that can be seen easily have been hard to trace, the defects in the development of the brain, which affect the mind and character, are much more obscure, and the causes of mental degeneration are exceedingly difficult to trace. Much that formerly has been left to the psychiatrist to explain is now rapidly shifting to the realm of the anatomist and physiologist (emphasis added).”

In Chapter Twenty-One, “Practical Application of Primitive Wisdom,” Price addresses the subject again, specifically in response to the 1926 book Genius (Some Revaluations) by A. C. Jacobson.

“In the observations and deductions presented in the foregoing chapters are exerting as controlling an influence on individual and national character as seems to be indicated, the problem of the outlook for our modern civilization is changed in many important aspects. One of the most urgent changes in our viewpoint should be to look upon the assortment of physical, mental and moral distortions as due, in considerable part, to nutritional disturbances in one or both parents which modify the development of the child, rather than to accepted factors in the inheritance. The evidence indicates that these parental disturbances of nutritional origin may affect the germ plasm, thus modifying the architecture, or may prevent the mother from building a complete fetal structure, including the brain. In other words, these data indicate that instead of dealing entirely with hereditary factors, we are dealing in part with distortions due to inhibitions of normal hereditary processes. This changes the prospects for the offspring of succeeding generations. Atavism will still have plenty to her credit even if she must give up her claim to distortions of individual characteristics.

“Jacobson has summarized the determining factors in individuality and personality when he says ‘The Jekyll-Hydes of our common life are ethnic hybrids.’ Most current interpretations are fatalistic and leave practically no escape from our succession of modern physical, mental and moral cripples.

“Jacobson says of our modern young people: ‘Very much of the strange behavior of our young people to-day is simply due to their lack of ethnical anchorage; they are bewildered hybrids, unable to believe sincerely in anything, and disowned by their own ancestral manes. To turn these neurotic hybrids loose in the world by the million, with no background, no heritage, no code, is as bad as imposing illegitimacy; their behavior, instead of expressing easily, naturally and spontaneously a long-used credo, will be determined by fears and senseless taboos. How can character be built upon such foundations? There is a ludicrous as well as a pathetic side to the situation presented by a Greek puzzled by his predominantly German children, or by the German woman unable to understand her predominantly Spanish progeny. It is a foolish case over again of hen hatching ducklings, of wolf fostering foundlings.’

“If our modern degeneration were largely the result of incompatible racial stocks as indicated by these premises, the outlook would be gloomy in the extreme. Those who find themselves depressed by this current interpretation of controlling forces would do well to recall the experiments on pigs referred to in Chapters 17 and 18, in which a large colony all born blind and maimed because of maternal nutritional deficiency–from deficient vitamin A–were able to beget offspring with normal eyes and normal bodies when they themselves had normal nutrition.

“Much emphasis has been placed on the incompatibility of certain racial bloods. According to Jacobson: ‘Aside from the effects of environment, it may safely be assumed that when two strains of blood will not mix well a kind of molecular insult occurs which the biologists may some day be able to detect beforehand, just as blood is now tested and matched for transfusion.’

’It is fortunate that there is a new explanation for the distressing old doctrine which holds that geniuses cannot be born unless there is an abundant crop of defectives. In this connection Jacobson says, ‘The genius tends to be a product of mixed ethnic and nervously peculiar stock–stock so peculiar that it exhibits an unusual amount of badness. The human family pays dearly for its geniuses. Just as nature in general is prodigal in wasting individuals for the development of a type, or species, so do we here find much human wastage apparently for a similar purpose. One may think of the insane and the defectives as so many individuals wasted in order that a few geniuses may be developed. It would seem’ that in order to produce one genius there must be battalions of criminals, weaklings and lunatics. Nietzsche must have had biologic implications of this sort in mind when he spoke of the masses as merely fertilizers for the genius. This is why the genius has been compared to the lily on the dunghill. He absorbs all the energy of his family group, leaving the fertilizing mass depleted.’

“Our recent data on the primitive races indicate that this theory is not true, since in a single generation various types and degrees of physical, mental or moral crippling may occur in spite of their purity of blood and all that inheritance could accomplish as a reinforcement through the ages.”

The Nazi application of eugenic principles during the Second World War opened the eyes of the world to what eugenics was really about—a justification for genocide–and the concept fell into disfavor—or at least went underground.  But do not think that eugenic thinking has disappeared. 

In 1972, the Club of Rome published a report titled, “The Limits to Growth,” which argued that if the current trends in population growth and industrialization continued, the Earth would run out of food and resources within one hundred years. In a 2017 interview, Dennis Meadows, one of the report’s main authors (and a member of the World Economic Forum), argued for drastic population reduction.  “We could . . . have eight or nine billion, probably, if we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart … and [people have] a low standard of living …  But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high standard of living so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down.  I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience.”

Actually, the invisible controllers have already figured out how to reduce the world’s population in a way that is “relatively slow and. . . can be done in a way which is relatively equal. . . so that people share the experience.”  It’s called the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which advocates for a diet based on industrial seed oils rather than nutrient-dense animal fats, and warns against the evils of meat and salt.  It takes several generations, but the negative effects on the health and fertility of the nation have been relentless. (To that add poisoning from vaccinations, fluoride, mercury and agricultural chemicals and you have the perfect “eugenic” formula.)

Since the devastation of these Guidelines has been “relatively equal” on all classes, more prosperous Americans are suffering from infertility or having severely unhealthy children just as frequently as the poor.” Desperate for “designer babies,” they pursue such techniques as genetic testing, in vitro fertilization and egg transplants from attractive donors, and pin their hopes on the promised benefits of cloning and genetic manipulation.   In their book From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler argue for the adoption of as many “eugenic enhancement” technologies as possible, using the genome to have “better babies.”

I have news for these folks: none of these techniques will give them “better” babies.  Only the kind of nutrient-dense diets that nourished healthy primitive people will do that. We need to recognize the fact that the genetic blueprint of every human being is not flawed but perfect; but its full expression requires wise practices in food, farming and the healing arts (including the spacing of children). Eugenics is the duty of every parent, in order to ensure the birthright of every child: good health, perfect form, keen mind and a desire in the heart to create a better world. True eugenics will be accomplished by putting our animals on pasture, eating butter and adding liver to our sausages, rather than by tinkering with the genetic code.

Sally Fallon - Nourishing Traditions