Archives
Messages From Water
"Hado creates words.
Words are the vibrations of nature
Therefore beautiful words create beautiful nature.
Ugly words create ugly nature. This is the root of the
universe"
Masaru Emoto
The Japanese researcher in question is Dr. Masaru Emoto,
chief of the Hado
institute in Tokyo. He is the author of many books concerning the phenomenon
of
"Hado." The two ideograms comprising this expression Hado literally
means
"wave and "move". This following definition is how Dr. Emoto
himself describes
the phenomenon, which led him to a series of remarkable discoveries pertaining
to the
nature of water.
Essentially, the capturing of water 's expressions is what Dr. Emoto did.
He delveloped a technique to photograph newly formed crystals of frozen water
samples. A powerful microscope in a very cold room allowed
this to be done.
Not all water crystallise however. Water samples from extremely polluted rivers
directly seem to express the 'state' the water is in.
Hado: The intrinsic vibrational pattern at the atomic
level in all matter.The smallest unit of energy. Its basis is the
energy of human consciousness.
A rapid understanding of Hado quickly spread through Japan as Dr Emoto's theory
gained ground.
The word subsequently became part of the daily Language. "The Hado of
this place is really low. Lets leave"
"That person has a really powerful Hado""Lets change the Hado
of this enviroment"
Conversational pieces such as this now abound in Japan and it is largely due
to his revolutionary
photographs of water crystals under high magnification.
Thus far then we can literally see how the state of
water varies greatly even though it is the same
H20 Geometric order, in hexagonal form, appears in crystals of frozen water
exposed to positive
influence. And yet negative influence can be so powerful that crystals do
not form at all.
Without the images of frozen water samples we would never have known such
enormous
differences exist. Dr Emoto diligently continued the research by collecting
water samples from
all over the world.He then exposed them to a great variety of Hado.
Interview February 2005
Q: What inspired you to begin investigating water?
A: I have developed Hado water ( distilled water that
has received a small level of
electromagnetic information) and cured many disease. However, according to
the modern
scientific analysis, it is just water. I wanted to present convincing proof
that water has
the ability to retain information.
Q: In terms of water's response to specific words have there been any that really surprised you?
A: I was especially surprised when crystals of water
that was exposed to images and photographs
with a distinct shape such as an elephant or a heart formed a similar shape.
Memory of Water
The World's No.1 Science & Technology
News Service Icy claim that water has memory 19:00 11 June 03 Exclusive from
New Scientist Print Edition Claims do not come much more controversial than
the idea that water might retain a memory of substances once dissolved in
it.
The notion is central to homeopathy, which treats patients with samples so
dilute they are
unlikely to contain a single molecule of the active compound,
but it is generally ridiculed by scientists.
Holding such a heretical view famously cost one of France's top allergy researchers,
Jacques Benveniste,
his funding, labs and reputation after his findings were discredited in 1988.
Yet a paper is about to be published in the reputable
journal Physica A claiming to show that even
though they should be identical, the structure of hydrogen bonds in pure water
is very different from that in homeopathic dilutions of salt solutions.
Could it be time to take the "memory" of water seriously? The paper's author,
Swiss chemist Louis Rey, is using thermoluminescence to study the structure
of solids.
The technique involves bathing a chilled sample with radiation. When the sample
is warmed up, the stored energy is released as light in a pattern that reflects
the atomic structure of the sample.
Twin peaks When Rey used the method on ice he saw two peaks of light, at temperatures
of around 120 K and 170 K. Rey wanted to test the idea, suggested by other
researchers, that the 170 K peak reflects the pattern of hydrogen bonds within
the ice.
In his experiments he used heavy water (which contains the heavy hydrogen
isotope deuterium), because it has stronger hydrogen bonds than normal water.
Unexplained results After studying pure samples, Rey looked at solutions of
lithium chloride and sodium chloride.
Lithium chloride destroys hydrogen bonds, as does sodium chloride, but to
a lesser extent. Sure enough, the peak was smaller for a solution of sodium
chloride, and disappeared completely for a lithium chloride solution.
Aware of homeopaths' claims that patterns of hydrogen bonds can survive successive
dilutions, Rey decided to test samples that had been diluted down to a notional
10-30 grams per cubic centimetre - way beyond the point when any ions of the
original substance could remain.
"We thought it would be of interest to challenge the theory," he says. Each
dilution was made according to a strict protocol, and vigorously stirred at
each stage, as homeopaths do.
When Rey compared the ultra-dilute lithium and sodium chloride solutions with
pure water that had been through the same process, the difference in their
thermoluminescence peaks compared with pure water was still there .
"Much to our surprise, the thermoluminescence glows of the three systems were
substantially different," he says. He believes the result proves that the
networks of hydrogen bonds in the samples were different.
Phase transition Related Stories Oil and water do mix after all 19 February
2003 Bizarre chemical discovery gives homeopathic hint 7 November 2001
For more related stories search the print edition Archive Weblinks Physica
A DigiBio, Jacques Benveniste Martin Chaplin, South Bank University US National
Center for Homeopathy Martin Chaplin from London's South Bank University,
an expert on water and hydrogen bonding, is not so sure
. "Rey's rationale for water memory seems most unlikely," he says. "Most hydrogen
bonding in liquid water rearranges when it freezes." He points out that the
two thermoluminescence peaks Rey observed occur around the temperatures where
ice is known to undergo transitions between different phases.
He suggests that tiny amounts of impurities in the samples, perhaps due to
inefficient mixing, could be getting concentrated at the boundaries between
different phases in the ice and causing the changes in thermoluminescence.
But thermoluminescence expert Raphael Visocekas from the Denis Diderot University
of Paris, who watched Rey carry out some of his experiments, says he is convinced.
"The experiments showed a very nice reproducibility," he told New Scientist.
"It is trustworthy physics." He see no reason why patterns of hydrogen bonds
in the liquid samples should not survive freezing and affect the molecular
arrangement of the ice.
After his own experience, Benveniste advises caution. "This is interesting
work, but Rey's experiments were not blinded and although he says the work
is reproducible, he doesn't say how many experiments he did," he says. "As
I know to my cost, this is such a controversial field, it is mandatory to
be as foolproof as possible."
Lionel Milgrom
Vitamin D is just as good, and safer Despite the
concerns about HRT,
the drug is still very actively prescribed, particularly to post-menopausal
women with increased risk of osteoporosis.
But there's a better way, as new research has discovered. Instead of running
the gamut of side effects of HRT, how about taking vitamin D supplements instead?
A study from Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, England found that even
a low level of supplementation dramatically reduced the risk of fracture in
both women and men.
A group of 2,686 people aged between 65 and 85 were given either a placebo
or 100,000 IU of vitamin D, which they took once every four months for five
years. The vitamin D group had dramatically fewer fractures than the placebo
group-and nobody reported any side effects from the vitamin.
(Source: British Medical Journal, 2003; 326: 469-72).
People are the problem Medicine prides itself on
being a science.
It constantly evaluates drugs and therapies by way of expensive trials, and
is governed
by strict - and expensive - regulatory guidelines. As a result, it has the
hearts and minds of governments and the media, and its advocates and lobbyists
are able to encourage laws that destroy alternative medicine.
There are plenty of problems with this picture, as regular readers of Enews
will already have surmised.
In the first place medicine can never be a science because it is a logical
impossibility to deduce universal truths from empirical evidence.
For instance X may die from lung cancer because he smoked, but you cannot
say that Y will also definitely die the same way because he smokes.
Then we have the problem with 'scientific' trials. If a trial finds that in
a study group of 1,000 patients 70% respond well to treatment and 30% don't,
you would surmise that the therapy works for 70% of people 100% of the time.
But the same data could also be interpreted as stating that the treatment
works in 100% of patients 70% of the time. It all depends on who's paying
for the research, and as it's invariably a drug company, there are no prizes
for guessing which conclusion is reached. Even the 'fairer' interpretation
is questionable because no drug works the same way all the time. Individuals
respond differently to drugs at different times, something that complementary
and alternative practitioners have been endeavouring to stress for years.
Their form of medicine cannot be analysed by the standard, double-blind placebo
study simply because of the differences in individuals involved, and their
changing characteristics over time. Medicine is beginning to wake up to these
problems, a process that will be helped by a thoughtful essay by Stephen Senn
at the University of Glasgow, published in a recent British Medical Journal.
But we are still many years away from a realization within governments and
the media that medicine is not a science at all. It's surprisingly similar
to alternative medicine, in fact. And then what will we do?
(Source: British Medical Journal, 2004; 329: 966-8). EU LAWS: The fight goes
to the courts We may not have alternative medicine by then, of course, not
if the EU has its way. The Alliance for Natural Health is one group that continues
to fight the Food Supplements Directive, a draconian law that will see high-dose
supplements disappear from our shelves by next August.
The ANH has succeeded in having its appeal listed for hearing on January 25
next year. The decision will not be known for several months, but the ANH
is obviously hoping that the European Court in Luxembourg will overturn the
legislation.
Dr Robert Verkerk, ANH's executive director, points out that the supplements
have been sold as 'foods' for years, and are perfectly safe.
You can view details of the case (Case C-154/04, Alliance for Natural Health
and Others) by visiting their website: http://www.alliance-natural-health.org
Alzheimer's
Now let's try an arthritis drug for it (Or; The Resourcefulness
of the Drugs Industry, Part III)
Most of us know that there's very little similarity between arthritis and
Alzheimer's disease, other than the fact that they both start with the letter
'a'.
The drugs developed to treat them are likewise dissimilar. Common drugs for
treating arthritis, for example, are the NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs),
which, as their name suggests, try to reduce swelling and inflammation, so
easing pressure on arthritic joints. An increasingly popular anti-inflammatory
is the COX-2 inhibitor, designed to be kinder to the stomach.
It's hard to see, therefore, why some therapists are beginning to treat mild,
early-stage Alzheimer's with an NSAID or a COX-2. The only likely reason is
the belief that Alzheimer's is, in some way,
an inflammatory disease. But researchers have tested the theory, and found
it wanting.
They tried tested the NSAID naproxen and the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib against
a placebo on 351 patients.
They found that neither drug was any better than the placebo in slowing the
progress of the disease over a year. Worse, many of those on one of the drugs
suffered at least one adverse reaction, such as hypertension, fatigue or dizziness.
So, in short, they were worse off while taking one of the arthritis drugs.
(Source: Journal of the American medical Association, 2003; 289: 2819-26).
They increase your chances of pneumonia Many of us have taken
an antacid or some other
mild over-the-counter remedy for a minor gastric problem - but we increase
our chances of catching pneumonia every time we do, astonishing new research
has discovered.
The antacids reduce gastric acid secretion, which allows bacteria and viruses
to migrate into the respiratory tract, possibly leading to pneumonia.
The researchers reckon that people who take antacids are nearly twice as
likely to develop pneumonia as those who rarely, if ever, take them.
A research team from the University Medical Centre in Nijmegen tracked 364,683
people for seven years, during which time 5,551 of them developed pneumonia
for the time.
But after stripping out all other factors, the researchers found that the
rate of pneumonia was 0.6 in those who never took antacids, but was 2.45
in those who did.
This new finding may make people - and doctors - think twice before reaching
for the bottle of antacids. Up to now they've been considered to be mild
suppressants with no side effects.
As a result it's reckoned that every year around 40 per cent of the population
takes at least some antacids for upper gastrointestinal tract problems such
as reflux and dyspepsia, either as an over-the-counter remedy or by prescription.
(Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2004; 292: 1955-60).
* There are better ways of treating stomach problems than antacids - and
there are plenty of things you can do to avoid gut problems in the first
place. All is revealed in the WDDTY Good Digestion Guide
http://www.wddty.co.uk/shop/details.asp?product=345
PREGNANT WOMEN:
Another group being given dangerous drugs The very young and pregnant women
are two groups who should almost never be prescribed general pharmaceuticals.
Trials have never been carried out to discover the biochemical effects on
such a small and developing body, or on a fetus.
Nonetheless, we know that doctors have been disregarding this guideline,
which is attached to every pharmaceutical drug, in prescribing to small
children.
Our research has found that children as young as three have been prescribed
powerful antidepressants, a worrying practice that has been going on for
at least 15 years.
But a new study has discovered that doctors are also regularly prescribing
inappropriate drugs to pregnant women. Nobody is quite sure about the extent
of the problem, but researchers say that 'substantial' numbers of pregnant
women are prescribed drugs that drug companies know may harm the fetus.
The researchers reviewed data on prescription drug usage among a group of
152,531 pregnant women between 1996 and 2000. Of these, 64 per cent were
prescribed some medication other than a vitamin or mineral supplement, and,
of these, 40 per cent received a drug for which human safety during pregnancy
had not been established. Worst of all, 5 per cent were prescribed a drug
that was known to possibly cause some fetal risk.
(Source: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2004; 191: 398-407).
Breast Cancer:
ONE WOMAN'S STORY:
With three months to live, she conquered terminal breast cancer I don't think
I've ever told you about my mother, Edith.
She was a wonderful, kind woman who always seemed to have time to help others.
She was brought up in a different time, of course, and her upbringing was
far from easy anyway. She learned to bottle things up, and keep her feelings
to herself. Trouble was, she had quietly nursed breast cancer for the previous
18 months, bandaging her wounds without telling anyone, not even my father.
One day the pain became so great that finally the family came to learn that
something was badly wrong.
The following day she went to see the doctor who was so overcome by what he
saw that he almost fainted.
He told the family that there was no hope, and that mother had just three
months to live.
At least we had time to put affairs into order, he said. Lynne and I couldn't
accept this prognosis, and asked the doctor if we could take over her care.
He agreed. Immediately we took Edith to see Dr Patrick Kingsley who thought
the position was far from hopeless. Edith was an interesting case, after all.
She hadn't been 'contaminated' with chemotherapy and the like.
So he radically changed her diet, and put her on very high dose vitamin C,
given intravenously. With the love and support of the family, she started
to rally and, a year later, the family doctor was surprised to see her still
walking in the town! He asked if she would mind having an x-ray, which she
agreed to.
As I said, she was kind to everyone. He was astonished that the x-ray revealed
no cancer whatsoever. Could he have been wrong? No, but Dr Kingsley had been
right.
link: http://www.wddty.co.uk
Breast Cancer Apricot Kernals
Then there was the woman who'd read good things about apricot
kernels as a therapy for breast cancer.
Plenty of you have heard encouraging things about the kernels, whose active
ingredient is B17.
According to one reader, B17 is cyanide, which remains harmless until it's
in contact with cancer cells.
Her friend was given one year to live, and has successfully treated herself
with B17, flax seed oil, pangamic acid and 10 grams of vitamin C.
Another reader has been eating apricot kernels for a long time, and says she
has not yet succumbed to cyanide poisoning. She says that the Hunzas eat apricots
every day, and cancer is not in their vocabulary.
Several recommend reading Phillip Day's book Cancer: Why we're still Dying
to Know the Truth.
We were at a Phillip Day conference October 2004
Very interesting and entertaining, would highly recommend
going to one of his lectures.To say the least he
gives you a great deal to think about, plus plenty of facts and figures to
back up his work.
The Drugs Dont
Work:
And for once it's not us saying it, it's
Glaxo
In an extraordinary admission, a senior executive with UK drug giant GlaxoSmithKline
(GSK) has 'confessed' that the vast majority of prescription drugs don't work.
Dr Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GSK, has told a conference
that over 90 per cent of all drugs work for only between 30 per cent and 50
per cent of patients.
At the very bottom of the efficacy table are the cancer drugs, which work
on only 25 per cent of patients. These are closely followed by Alzheimer's
drugs that work on just 30 per cent of people.
Drugs for rheumatoid arthritis, migraine, incontinence, hepatitis C, and diabetes
work on only half the patients, at best.
The most effective drugs are the analgesics, which work for to 80 per cent
of those who take them.
This frank admission is also a very shocking one, and for several reasons.
The pharmaceutical industry is about the most profitable in the world, and
its profits are generated by drugs that everyone has implicitly believed would
work (everyone apart from regular E-news readers, that is).
Worse, in this scramble for profits, around 105,000 Americans and 40,000 Britons
die every year from an adverse reaction to a drug, and many thousands more
are permanently harmed from one. Almost as astonishing has been the reaction
from some of Roses's industry colleagues.
"What he is saying will surprise the public but not his colleagues," said
one industry scientist. Surprised may be a slight under-statement for the
reaction of families who have lost a member to a drug-and one that the manufacturer
probably knew would not work.
So it's no surprise to the drug companies. Is it a surprise, perhaps, to the
drug regulators? Did they know that they were part of a scam? Or the government,
maybe, that buys £7.2bn of drugs each year for the National Health Service?
Are they also aware that at least two-thirds of that enormous expenditure
is an utter waste?
How about the doctors? They are writing millions of prescriptions a year.
Did they notice that their patients just weren't getting any better?
Some commentators have described Roses's admission
as a Ratner-like gaffe. For non-UK readers and those too young to remember,
Gerald Ratner ran the UK's largest jewelers - until the day he 'joked' that
his products were 'crap'. But this was no Ratner moment. Roses knew full well
what he was doing, and he almost certainly had his statement cleared by the
very top executives at Glaxo.
Roses has been described as a highly intelligent man, and he's certainly too
smart to commit corporate suicide. Roses is staking a major claim for his
own division, into which Glaxo has poured billions of dollars of research
money.
Our guess is that Glaxo has taken the lead in the market, and will soon be
launching a new approach to therapy, based on the patient's genetic make-up.
In this new treatment model, patients will first be tested to discover the
effectiveness of a drug, and if they are among the 20 per cent for whom the
drug will work. By allowing Roses to blow the whistle, Glaxo is playing a
very high-risk game.
Genetic profiling may be achievable, but it will cut drugs production by up
to 80 per cent, so eating into profits. It may also not be a workable option,
especially for an already overstretched health service.
What then? We are just left with the information that most drugs don't work.
Which is pretty much where we at WDDTY came in.
* Following on from Dr Roses's admission, you really must read the WDDTY book
Secrets of the Drugs Industry. It lifts the lid on the drugs that don't work,
those that are dangerous, and how the drugs industry masks its aggressive
sales drives with supposed science. To order your copy, click on this link:
http://www.wddty.co.uk/shop/details.asp?product=341
A Laugh a
Day to Keep the Doctor Away?
A hearty laugh a day may keep the
doctor away, say the findings of a unique study. Whereas previous studies
have examined how negative emotions can adversely affect our health, this
study took a new spin--they measured the affect of watching a funny movie
on the ability of heart blood vessels to expand. And they found some surprising
results--laughing increased blood flow as much as a 15- to 30-minute workout.
The ability of blood vessels to expand is known as vasodilation. Poor vasodilation means that passageways may be blocked and blood flow may be cut off. The result is an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.
In the study, 20 healthy men and women watched clips of two movies--a violent battle scene from "Saving Private Ryan" or a humorous scene from a comedy such as "Kingpin." Each participant's vasodilation was measured prior to the movie and again afterward.
The results were "dramatic." Of the 20 participants who saw the stressful film, 14 had significantly reduced blood flow. However, after watching the funny film, 19 of the 20 volunteers had significantly increased blood flow. Specifically:
Blood flow decreased by about 35 percent after experiencing stress
Blood flow increased by 22 percent after laughing, which is equivalent to what happens after a 15- to 30-minute workout
Past studies have found that stress hormones like adrenalin and cortisol, which is released when a person is stressed, may harm the body by suppressing the immune system and constricting blood vessels. On the other hand, the researchers believe laughing causes the body to release beneficial chemicals called endorphins, which may counteract the effects of stress hormones and cause blood vessels to dilate.
In a similar manner, laughing may also boost the immune system and reduce inflammation, which is thought to increase the risk of various health problems.
The researchers say they have a long way to go before their hypothesis will be proven, but they point out that there's no downside to laughing and they have no problem recommending it to their patients.
Washington Post March 14, 2005
CAMOMILE TEA:
It stops menstrual cramping too Finally, after all that bad news,
settle down to a nice cup of tea - but make sure it's camomile. Scientists
from London's Imperial College have found that five cups of the tea over a
fortnight can fight the common cold and stop menstrual cramping. The tea increases
levels of glycine, which can ease muscle spasms, and hippurate, a naturally
occurring anti-inflammatory. And even after the volunteers stopped their five-cups-a-day
intake, levels of glycine and hippurate remained high for another two weeks.
The scientists made the discovery after testing 14 recruits whose urine was
monitored every day. Maureen Robertson from the Scottish School of Herbal
Medicine has said that camomile removes heat from the body, and it also works
well as an antiseptic when used as an essential oil. But she warned against
pregnant women using camomile. Of course, the Italians have been drinking
camomile tea for years before heading for a good night's sleep. They are the
same guys who eat health-giving pizzas and who slather their salads in extra
virgin olive oil (see last week's broadcast), so we guess they must live forever.
(Sources: Prepublication from the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
and the BBC website).
Sept 2004
Jan2003
Sept 2002
|