Pins & Needles & Roots & Lions & Tigers & Teddy Bears

Posted in H-I-V, learning, letting go

Understanding the processes of scientific study and how conclusions can be erroneous is important.

Just because a majority group believes a conclusion is correct, doesn’t mean it is so.

In looking into various drug regimines that are prescribed to patients, we see how this process of error can appear.

Wikipedia states: In 2013, researchers reported that tramadol was found in relatively high concentrations (1%+) in the roots of the African pin cushion tree (Nauclea latifolia).[75] In 2014, however, it was reported that the presence of tramadol in the tree roots was the result of tramadol having been administered to cattle by farmers in the region:[76] tramadol and its metabolites were present in the animals’ excreta, which contaminated the soil around the trees. Therefore, tramadol and its mammalian metabolites were found in tree roots in the far North of Cameroon, but not in the South where it is not administered to farm animals.[76]

Well isn’t that interesting, it was the drug coming out of the piss of farm animals and not a natural phenomena.

Now let’s take that concept to in study of ill gotten (Acquired) deficiency in immunity syndromes and continued dissemination of one/sided beliefs about causation. Here they looked at the root of the discovery of what caused what, but in absolutely zero studies by where all this HIV/CAUSE is based, do we find anything that looks at the effects of what people consume every day, which ends up at the roots of all their cells.

Well, some have looked at it, but none in authority have accepted that a cause for acquiring syndromes that make one immune deficient is any cause other than a parasite. They have rock solid as their belief that a parasite is THE/CAUSE, which enters the body, and ignore other things that enter the body.

Note: viruses are parasites

As with this discovery that it was actually the orally administered drug that was ENDING/UP in the roots, and not that the roots themselves typically had this chemical formulation, in viral studies affecting humans, small groups of people can reach conclusions that end up at the roots of the basis of many beliefs.

To claim that HIV (or what I like to refer to as the HI virus) is found somewhere and is the cause of something is like finding a drug at the root of a tree except in reverse.

In the case of the drug aforementioned it was found at the root, first assumed to be a phenomena of the tree itself, later found (since this kind of science is rather simple) that it was being deposited there.

HIV science claims what they are “looking at” is thought to be deposited there, but it’s been found that it’s really part of the way the body works, being that what they are looking at is really not something that attacks, but it something that is cellular debris.

They are blaming debris for something that it’s not at all capable of doing.

Though like with tree roots that have a drug found in them which get swept down a hillside from torrential rains and then clog up a stream, thus too cellular debris can clog things in the body’s streams, and thus we could say this virus is the cause of disease, but is it because of one virus or many, and like with tree roots that clog a stream, the trees do not attack the stream and the living cellular organisms in that stream, they are pushed there.

So how do we handle such clogs?

One way is chemotherapy to blast the clog to pieces. This is like bringing in dynamite next to a utility generation dam to remove a bunch of trees and their roots that have clogged up the overflow, when done, the dam is gone.

A better way to remove a clog at a utility dam would be to bring in some machines to remove just that part of the clog.

This is what the body does with antibodies. They come in and remove the blockages. Then when finished there are some pieces laying around usually found on the banks of the stream.

So called immune deficiency testing tries to find these pieces and when it does, exclaims “affirmative” but it’s like a boy scout that sees logs on the side after an timber cutting project saying “There’s evidence that the dam is clogged”. Seeing these things merely indicates that some pieces were found, not that there’s a clog, and it could also merely indicates that work was already done to remove the pieces from a clog in a stream or dam. A better way to handle this is to let the body do it more naturally and avoid clogs in blood streams.

Actually a Boy Scout is smarter than that, it’s more like a politician assessing the situation. Many in the medical world at the top of disseminating information are that very thing, politicians.

A better focus in health is “what caused the clog in the first place”? Was it the small amounts of cellular debris, or was it that huge oil slick the patient just had for dinner, and ice cream, and french fries, and cheezy tortilla chips that are so loaded with fat, 365 days a year, along with DRUGS/ALCOHOL that caused the landslide of debris to accumulate and dam up the immune system?

Did you know that most of the immune system lies in the digestive tract?

OMG 1 digestive tract + 1 oil spill does = immune deficiency!

Although the following image is not cellular debris it can represent it. If we had this teddy bear who’s fallen to pieces accumulate, say in a drain of a toilet, it would cause a diseased bathroom because every time we then tried to eliminate things from our bodies, it would end up all over the bathroom.

clogs can occur from various sources
a clog in concepts of what causes what can occur from various sources and that can cause mental problems so severe that one cannot understand that clogs are the root of so many health matters

Wikipedia entry on tree roots

Feature image of a Vincent van Gogh painting called Tree Roots painted in 1890 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Image of teddy bear in pieces By No machine-readable author provided. MatthiasKabel assumed (based on copyright claims). [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC BY-SA 2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons