response to Marc #2

Marc wrote:
Yes, in the months prior to my health failing back in 1999, I had
increased my consumption of soy products.  Now, I don't eat much,
except when it's the only vegetarian source of protein available
to me. 

I was vegetarian for over 30 years, until I realized that it was not
supporting my health but weakening it. I found that most of the argumentsfor
vegetarianism were not sound once I looked into them. The compelling one,for
me, is compassion for animals. I truly do not like to eat animals.  
However the Creator has made this world so that the life forms in it exist by eating
each other, strange as that may seem to us.    
Yes it is possible to exist on a vegetarian diet. To be truly healthy
is another matter. Traditional peoples ate a very nutrient-dense diet.  
As soon as the various traditional peoples abandoned this kind of diet they
fell prey to degenerative diseases.  
Ones teeth are one way of measuring health. Tooth decay is not
natural. When the diet is nutrient dense, tooth decay cannot occur, in fact it is
reversed. Immunity on traditional diets is amazingly high.  


Marc wrote:
Now, what about flax oil?  This seems to be as controversial
as soy, yet I find myself needing this to fend off constant
allergies (it doesn't seem to help or hurt my ES)
     
Flax oil is good, as long as it is really fresh. For this reason
grinding the seeds and eating them raw immediately is the best way to eat flax.
However, when we have chronic health problems, it is good to get to the
cause, rather than just using bandaids. Constant allergies are a very red
flag.  


Marc wrote:
I wear contact lenses, but have noticed that I can't wear
metal framed glasses while in front of the computer.
I can't even wear plastic framed glasses, because even
these have some metal in them.
     
There is a way to set up your computer so this does not happen.  
All-plastic frames are adviseable, though, because current is being inducedinto us
by much more than our computers. No point in wearing a receiving antenna!
I have all-plastic frames. Not a trace of metal.


Marc wrote:
My first couple purchases of EMF gizmos produced no results, but
like you said, these companies had impressive advertising and
studies to prove their products worked.  But they certainly
didn't for me.  Even after trying dozens of these, my success
ratio was really pretty bad.  But there were a handful of items
which produced an obvious effect -- the only question was whether
it was a good or bad effect!

This is one of the reasons that I am wary of gizmos that don't have
measurable results.
The other important point about these is that even if you find one that
does seem to reduce your electrical sensitivity, it is not reducing the actual
RF exposure you are receiving, which may result in health failure. This is
the reason that the GS filters are so valuable, because they literally reduce
the RF you are chronically exposed to.
This is a point that is of paramount importance. Take me for an
example. For a while I was a walking meter. I had immediate intestinalspasms
when I went near computers, cash registers, telephones, fans, etcetera. Now I
am much less sensitive and do not have that physical reaction. This does
not mean, however, that the frequencies generated by computers, etcetera will
have no long term effect on my health, does it? Russian reseach shows clearly
that RF causes cancer. During the many years before the cancer surfaces, the
individual is not aware of having any reaction to the RF. That did not mean
he/she was not being harmed, did it?
So, if you do find something that allows you to be exposed to RF without
experiencing a headache, are you really protected? It may turn out years
from now that there are gizmos or potions that can protect one from the long
term effects of RF. And it may not! I do not wish to be one of the guinea
pigs in this particular epidemiological study. I stand with Dr. Neil
Cherry, who said "THE SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE IS ZERO." THE LOGICAL AND SAFEST
APPROACH IS TO REDUCE THE ACTUAL EXPOSURE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. This is why the
GS filters are so valuable.  

Regards,
Shivani
     


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I was vegetarian for over 30 years, until I realized that it was not
> supporting my health but weakening it.

My health has done nothing but improve since I started being
a vegetarian. Also, according to the blood type diet, I should
be a vegetarian (blood type A), and according to EAV testing,
I'm allergic to beef. Of course, I realize that there are
organic, grass-fed chicken, etc., which admittedly I have
not explored.

> However, when we have chronic health problems, it is good to get to
> the cause, rather than just using bandaids.

Well of course... but if you're severely toxic, you cannot
magically expect to detox overnight. It can years... in
the meantime, the bandaids allow you to live your life,
earn a living, etc.

> This is one of the reasons that I am wary of gizmos that don't have
> measurable results.

There are many gizmos out there that have measurable results,
as long as you are using your body as the measuring device,
not some EMF meter or oscilloscope.

> it is not reducing the actual RF exposure you are receiving,
> which may result in health failure. This is the reason that
> the GS filters are so valuable

Well, like I said, I spend 8+ hours/day sitting in front of
a computer. GS filters are not going to reduce my exposure
to the radiation emitting from the computer screen. Only
a change of profession will do that. :-)

> This does not mean, however, that the frequencies generated
> by computers, etcetera will have no long term effect on my
> health, does it?

Well, according to the people who sell various EMF protection
devices, the frequencies can be changed from unhealthy to
healthy, while still being noisy on the oscilliscope and
still having a large field strength. My own experiences with
these devices don't contradict what they are saying.

Marc

Marc said:
My health has done nothing but improve since I started being
a vegetarian. Also, according to the blood type diet, I should
be a vegetarian (blood type A), and according to EAV testing,
I'm allergic to beef. Of course, I realize that there are
organic, grass-fed chicken, etc., which admittedly I have
not explored.

Vegetarianism can be great for detoxing. It is the long haul where
problems with it arise. (and for children.
Different people certainly lhave different opinions of thre blood
type diet. I don't think much of it. I think the good results the
majority have gotten fromit have been fromgetting off refined grains.
It is all wrong for me, and my husband.
the "typing" systems I find really useful are Ayurveda and metabolic
typing.

Marc said:
> However, when we have chronic health problems, it is good to get to
> the cause, rather than just using bandaids.

Well of course... but if you're severely toxic, you cannot
magically expect to detox overnight. It can years... in
the meantime, the bandaids allow you to live your life,
earn a living, etc.

Yes, of course.


> This is one of the reasons that I am wary of gizmos that don't have
> measurable results.


Marc said:
I spend 8+ hours/day sitting in front of
a computer. GS filters are not going to reduce my exposure
to the radiation emitting from the computer screen. Only
a change of profession will do that. :-)

Not so. You can buy things that will reduce what comes from the
screen. Easier to use a flat screen. I have an Apple laptop. Never
use it plugged in to the utility power, just off the battery. (Of
course the battery won't last 8 hours.) This makes it possible for me
to use it comfortably.
There is also a way you can set up your computer so that the
currents/fields produced are carried away from you. You are like a
bird sitting on the HV line, unaffected.

Marc said:
Well, according to the people who sell various EMF protection
devices, the frequencies can be changed from unhealthy to
healthy, while still being noisy on the oscilliscope and
still having a large field strength. My own experiences with
these devices don't contradict what they are saying.

You are willing to be a guinea pig in that experiment. I am not.
Your choice. My choice.


Regards,
Shivani

> Not so. You can buy things that will reduce what comes from the
> screen. Easier to use a flat screen.

It's an overgeneralization to say that it is easier to use a flatscreen.
I have a *much* harder time with flatscreens and laptops than I do with
CRTs. And with CRTs I can lower the resolution to reduce the amount
of high frequencies I'm being bombarded with. With LCDs, you're stuck
with the high frequency flicker of the florescent backlight, and the
electric field source is much closer to you. And the exposure to the
florescent light reduces your tolerance for florescent lighting in
stores, office building, etc.

And I'm not the only one who prefers CRTs:

http://cloanto.com/users/mcb/19960719lcd.html

> You are willing to be a guinea pig in that experiment. I am not.

Well, given all the new forms of high frequency radiation we are
being bombarded with these days, we are all guinea pigs. The
only way to avoid them is to live on a desert island.

Marc

Shivani

You say
`There is also a way you can set up your computer so that the
currents/fields produced are carried away from you. You are like a
bird sitting on the HV line, unaffected.
`
Could you explain these ways.
Thanks
Nil
----- Original Message -----
From: "wijyotishi" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 4:37 AM
Subject: [eSens] Re: response to Marc #2