This past year, City Council meetings in my hometown regarding the hazards/benefits of having fluoridated water was interesting beyond the obvious level of polarization that it created. If you were trying to be totally objective in weighing the pros and cons, you had to be impressed with the level of knowledge and research presented. I was struck by the fact that most of the best research was shared by ordinary citizens rather than health professionals.
It occurred to me that the anti-fluoride side was much better prepared in presenting actual facts and figures about the problems with adding fluoride to municipal water systems, while the professionals seemed to expect that people should agree with them just because they had a title or credentials. Today, in the age of the internet, everyone has access to Pub Med, the service that supplies published research to anyone with a computer. In other words, we all have access to the truth if we can type in a few search words.
Personally, I spend a lot of time on Pub Med. Did you know that there are over 20,000 peer-reviewed research papers published each year? Keeping up on all of the information is impossible for any one person, even if you spent all of your free time reading the available data. That is why I am always amused when another health professional tell me that there is no research to validate a statement that I have made. I just ask them if they have reviewed all of the 20,000 articles that were published in the past year. End of discussion.
The real issue is this—Can you trust the results of the research? After all, somebody had to write a check to pay for the study that was published, since most researchers do not work for free. Can the results of the research be tainted by the special interests of the industry that is funding the research? Of course it can! It happens more often than the general public will ever be allowed to know. Therefore, looking at the source of the funding is paramount.
Approximately 2/3rds of the research is funded by two industries, the chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the research projects that are started are never finished. The funding is pulled if the data implies that completion of the study may possibly work against the industry that is paying the bills. That information is then swept under the carpet and the public will never learn why the data was destroyed. This is particularly evident in the chemical industry, where GMO (genetically modified organism) research is often started but never completed.
Personally, I prefer to read the purer research studies published by the computer industry, for two reasons. First, they are only interested in the truth about how to create the next level of technology. They have nothing to hide from the public about studies that go horribly wrong. Secondly, they tend to model future computer technology after new research that studies the functions of the human brain. Computers have always been designed with that idea in mind.
The latest peer-reviewed research suggests that human memory is not held in the brain, or even in the body. It is held in the field of energy that surrounds the body. The brain, the neurons and the dendrites act as antennae to read the information coming in from the field as a person recalls a memory.
As the creator of a healing technique that has pioneered the concept of reading and responding to information from the human energy field, this revelation directly impacts my communication with the health care practitioners that I teach around the country and the patients that I treat.
In the computer industry, this research has led to the development of a new type of memory chip. It is not silicon based. Since the body is about 70% water, the new computer chip utilizes a lightly refined droplet of water. They can pour many terabytes of information into this new chip. As you might suspect, the data is not stored in the water. Water acts as a matrix/template to organize the data which is actually help in a field around the chip and even around the computer itself. This give a whole new meaning to the term “cloud computing”.
It is easy to see why I am selective about the research that I rely upon to provide the truth about the world around us. I tend to distrust the research that is funded by chemical and pharmaceutical industries, because they tend to withhold any inconvenient information from the public. When any “expert” attempts to convince you that you need to believe what they are stating, consider that they may be quoting research that came from an impure origin or denying the existence of research that is valid and factual.