Posted by SArjuna on
URL: https://www.es-forum.com/response-to-Marc-2-tp1538453.html

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]