The Immune System, part 1

Posted on by

THE IMMUNE SYSTEM, Part 1

There is a lot of focus on the issue of immunity to virus disease because of the current crisis. The immune system is a marvelous mechanism, but often what you hear is not accurate in terms of how it functions. In this writing I would like to help you have a better understanding of this. You will then be in a position of making intelligent decisions yourself.

You likely have noticed that when immunity is discussed it almost always is focused on the production of antibodies. We will get, later, more thoroughly into what antibodies are and what they do, but at this point here is an explanation of the place of antibodies in the whole schema.

THE PLACE OF ANTIBODIES

The first thing to understand is that antibodies are a minor player in this story. This is not saying they are not important, rather they are less important than other aspects of what we call the immune system when we talk about resistance to disease.

This function of producing antibodies is called the adaptive immune system, meaning it can adapt to new situations. This is what gives it the wonderful ability to learn and respond. This function if not present in all creatures, having developed about 200 million years ago in vertebrate animals, those with a spinal cord — basically fish, animals and humans. What is significant in this is to realize that most of living creatures on the planet don’t have this function or use this, and actually don’t need it. That they are still on the planet and doing OK tells us that.

Animals developed this to their advantage and it is wonderful gift and it was added on to the immune system that had already developed over the evolution of life on earth. We will, as we go on, get into the primary immune function, but first let me give you an analogy that may help you understand how the antibody part of this fits in.

AN ANTIBODY ANALOGY

Let us say you have nice home and you have made considerable effort to make it secure. You built a wall, perhaps a water moat around it, have secure doors and windows. You have made it very hard for anyone to break in. However, there are some clever thieves out there and they figure out a way to get past all these barriers, silence the alarm bell, quiet your dogs, and get inside and begin to ransack your place. 

At some point you hear what is going on and seeing the commotion and realizing that all your defenses have been breached you reach for your phone and call 911. “I am being robbed! The house is full of robbers. I need help.” They respond by sending out the police, and if they respond quickly enough they will catch the robbers and take them away. 

This is how antibodies come into the situation. They are the police that are called on when all other defenses have failed. This is important and can be what saves one from excessively long illness or even dying. However, they are not the primary defense. They are the last resort.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS

I am emphasizing this because it is too narrow a view to consider only the antibody function when talking of immunity. To have a balanced view we must consider the whole immune function because it is the whole immune function that must be in top order for us to have optimal and maximal resistance to all diseases. 

In the next part we can begin to look at the primary defenses.

Homeopathy Treating Epidemics

Posted on by

HOMEOPATHY IN EPIDEMICS

This is in response to many asking for advice in using homeopathy in the currect virus epidemic. In homeopathy the practice of identifying the effective remedy in treating and preventing the disease resulted in a remedy called the Genus Epidemicus. In what follows it some history and explanation of how this has been done.

THE SIMILAR REMEDY

In the discovery and development of homeopathy Dr. Hahnemann first had the understanding of using a similar remedy, a medicine similar in its effect to the disease condition. This is very important to understand. 

Hahnemann found that if he gave such a substance that resulted in more or less the same pattern of disturbance as the patient was presenting, that it brought about rapid recovery of health. It was an unexpected discovery. 

How could it do this? It was not obvious at first but Dr. Hahnemann came to the understanding that this medicine, when given in adequate dosage, became the primary influence in the person. Attention was shifted from the disease to the remedy and the disease was canceled out. Then when the remedy effect ended (in a few hours) the patient was left free of the disease and proceeded to rapidly recover health.

DISEASE STATES

The next development in homeopathic work was the finding that a sick individual was showing a condition unique to them. There may be some patterns, like having a cold, but each person was affected in their own way and not identical to others. The idea of diagnosis was, therefore, discarded, as diagnosis is done so as to group patients together under one label, all of which are to get the same treatment. Dr. Hahnemann found this was not reliable. It was necessary to look carefully at each patient and find which of the available medicinal substances was indicated for that particular person. This is how homeopathy developed at first.

EPIDEMICS

A next discovery was that epidemics were an exception to this rule. There was something different about the epidemic diseases of the time, like cholera, typhoid and influenza. After careful investigation of a large number of patients affected by these diseases the understanding emerged that these diseases were an exception to what was said above. Whereas most conditions were, indeed, unique to that individual, the epidemic diseases resulted in the same pattern of disturbance in all affected. This is more like diagnosis, but qualified. 

The value in making this discovery was coming up with the method of finding out which remedy was most suitable by grouping many patients together — like 20 or more. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE GROUPED AND ANALYZED AS IF THEY WERE ONE PERSON.

This gave a more complete picture of what remedy would be most similar. 

Once this remedy was recognized it could be used for all the persons affected by the epidemic and it would not be necessary to do extensive workup of each person. It saved time. 

As well, the same remedy could be used in the healthy people that were around the sick one (the family) as a preventive of the disease before it made its appearance.

The remedy that was recognized (and sometimes two remedies) by going through this process is called the genus epidemicus.

UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMIC

If what has been explained so far is understandable, then we can go into the use of the genus epidemicus remedy. 

As said above, the identified remedy could now be used routinely to treat all of those becoming affected. However, this next point is very important to understand. The remedy in its similarity matches the very first disturbance that occurs on exposure to the infectious disease. We know how a cold will start, or a flu condition. There will be early hints of it coming on — a sensation, fever, something like that. It is this very first early stage that the genus epidemicus is similar to. 

If the disease is not treated at that early stage, or treated ineffectively, then as it develops it becomes a pattern that no longer matches the genus epidemicus. This is critical to understand. What Dr. Hahnemann found was that epidemics were different from other diseases in that THE VERY FIRST STAGE OF THE ILLNESS WAS THE SAME IN ALL AFFECTED. However, he goes on to explain that if the disease has developed further, there will be other remedies needed, not the genus epidemicus. He gives examples for cholera and scarlet fever, and such like. 

This is what is happening today with coronavirus. If the person is not treated at the beginning with the genus epidemicus, then using that same remedy later will not be effective. A different one is needed. The different remedy needed is no longer the same in all affected persons (or animals) as they have reverted to the condition of individuality as described above — same as most disease conditions. 

This can lead to confusion in what is reported because a homeopathic practitioner may say there is this list of 6 remedies they have found useful (or more). What they are reporting is the treatment of cases that are in a later stage.

USE OF THE GENUS EPIDEMICUS 

If we can summarize all of this, we can say that epidemics are different as to homeopathic treatment in that the very first stage will be the same in all affected. However, any development of the condition past the beginning will call for careful individual prescribing. 

I will add that is not just that the disease has developed but the same thing happens if at the very beginning a remedy different than the genus epidemicus is used. If that remedy has some effect, it will alter the pattern but the disease continues. This continued disease will also require a remedy other than the genus epidemicus.

SUMMATION 

When we are discussing identifying the genus epidemicus, it is with the idea it can be used successfully in all very early cases. We will see a clinical pattern that confirms this in that the genus epidemicus will most often act with one dose, that being sufficient. When it is reported a remedy is being used, over and over, for days, it is not this situation, it is not using the genus epidemicus.

The genus epidemicus can also be used to prevent the disease in those not affected. How is this done? There is no standard method, but historically a common practice was to give the remedy in 30c potency once a week.

I hope this makes sense to you. Those of you that use homeopathy likely already know this, but many are not clear about it so the intention here is to give you the ability to interpret the reports coming out.

WHY HAS HOMEOPATHY NOT BEEN MORE ACCEPTED?

Posted on by

Part 1

Some of you are wondering about the seeming contradiction between what is being posted here, like the last one about how effective homeopathy in epidemics, and how, nonetheless, it seems to be a minor player in the medical world. It is not “minor” in all countries but certainly not the primary system anywhere in spite of its unusual effectiveness.

The answer has to do with our cultural world view. The way we have been moving the last few centuries is increasingly towards materialism. What this means is that how we understand reality is that there is a physical universe we are derived from. The physical universe is the foundation, primary, and we have evolved from it over time. 

This is the basis for our science and, as well, for the practice of medicine. This way of seeing things is demonstrated in medicine by the emphasis on laboratory data, various physical tests, X-rays, cat scans, etc. As a result, the patient has increasingly come to be seen in fragments. Instead of considering the whole being, which includes their mental, emotional and physical states as one thing, we look away from them towards our physical devices.

Medicine, a century or so ago, was different in that the focus was on the patient as a being. The doctor would spend much time in the physical exam — palpating, touching, listening, questioning and this was the basis for deciding what was wrong. 

Quite different today. You may feel ill, yet the tests done do not show a change so you are told you are not ill though you may feel like crap.

Homeopathy is different. It started when the patient was the focus, as described above, but the way medicines were used was to give drugs, herbs, substances like silver or mercury with the intention of blocking or counteracting the symptoms the person was showing. A simple example would be the person with a fever being given something that would make the fever decrease. 

This is the same method as today, isn’t it? Treatment often is done to decrease or eliminate a symptom from expressing itself. Another way of putting it is that the symptoms are considered to be the disease. When Dr. Hahnemann discovered the effect of using substances that would bring about symptoms in the person much like they were having already, he referred to it as using “similar medicines.” Makes sense, doesn’t it? Instead of giving something to make the symptom diminish through the effect of that substance, he gave what would actually bring about those symptoms in a healthy person. 

I know, doesn’t make sense. But it was a discovery and he did not anticipate it. He was only studying how substances act on a person and saw this happen without expecting it. He probably was shocked by it. In any case, he spent the next six years researching this with patients and volunteers. After he felt confident that it really did work, he released it to the other doctors who began using it. 

As expressed in the earlier post, one of the dramatic things that happened was the extraordinary effectiveness of homeopathy in epidemics and this really confirmed that Hahnemann on to something. 

HOMEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY

When Dr. Hahnemann coined the word for a “similar medicine” in 1824 he used the word “homeopathy.” I won’t try to spell the German form of it but the first part of the word “homoios,” from Greek, means “like, similar, of the same kind.” The latter part of the word “patheia” means “disease, also feeling, emotion.” So the Greek word he incorporated meant “having like feelings or affections, sympathetic.”

To make the distinction clear to the fellow doctors he called the other form of medicine of that time “allopathy.” Like the word above it comes from Greek “allos” which means “other.” Again the latter part has the meaning as described above. The meaning he had in mind is that this other treatment did not use similar medicines but rather ones that were quite different in their effects. Instead of stimulating the same symptoms the patient had, the did the opposite, they countered the symptoms. The medicines, therefore, were “other” than the symptoms.

Now, after going through this, can you understand why many people will reject the homeopathy idea as nonsense? How could it be a treatment to give something that actually increases the symptoms? Of course, the homeopathic perspective is that this stimulus actually brings about an improved patient response, one that leads to the recovery of health. 

Let us contrast the two medical methods like this;

  1. The conventional, allopathic, method uses medicines that counteract the symptoms — reduce fever, stop allergic reactions, slow down diarrhea, etc.
  2. The homeopathic method, by studying the details of the patient’s condition, uses a medicine that brings about the same (actually similar) set of symptoms. This stimulates the inherent healing mechanisms of the body. 

This comparison points to a significant difference in the two views in medicine. The usual, conventional, one doesn’t have a lot of confidence that the body can heal itself. Substances are given to regulate or control it. The homeopathic method assumes that the only way health can be restored is if the patient’s system does it for itself. The medicines are a stimulus for that to happen. 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL PROBLEM AND WHY TO EAT A PLANT-BASED DIET

Posted on by

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL PROBLEM AND WHY TO EAT A PLANT-BASED DIET

Introduction

We live in a changeable world. This is especially true in the last decades. The development of industry, harnessing various fuels, scientific discoveries, technological advances — all of these have literally transformed our world. 

I can remember in the late ’60s when I was in graduate school at Washington State University, I lived in a smaller community outside of town and the only choice for a phone service was a 10-party line. There were no cell phones, computers, tablets — all of which are now prominent in our lives. 

Along with these changes are the contributions of chemistry. It was learned how to make incredible new substances that were put to use in various ways. Many of these were marvelous but I wish to point out that these were new chemicals and often cherished because of enhanced qualities compared to natural, similar, material. One example that comes to mind is how often wood was sealed and protected by linseed oil. Then there were the new sealers developed, much more protective, and that lasted a much longer time. There was no longer the need to keep re-oiling wood. You can see why this would be appreciated. 

The part of this development that was not really considered is what effect these new substances would have on our environment. Even today, if you inquire about something you are about to use as to its effects on your health, or on the health of the natural world, you will find there is no information available. 

Another example of this lack of foresight is the embracing of plastic. As we now know plastic contamination is a serious problem. It is killing off much of the life in the sea, and there are recent reports that even our rain now contains millions of microscopic particles. Could this have been anticipated? I don’t know. If I put myself in the planning room for plastic development I doubt the possibility of microplastic accumulating in our bodies would ever enter my mind.

Nonetheless, this is an issue we have to deal with. Not just plastic but the many chemicals that are now part of our natural environment and have become important factors in the quality of our lives. 

In my work as a veterinarian, I think that one of the most important ideas I finally understood is how important these environmental chemicals are in our health. I have come, now, to think that these chemicals accumulating in our bodies is one of the major factors in the development of chronic disease in our animal friends. 

To discuss this with you, I would like to go into why my advice is now to change the way we eat and how we feed our animal companions. To put it simply the suggestion I make is to emphasize a plant-based diet. 

This idea of feeding a plant-based diet to dogs and cats is often met with incredulity, even ridicule. It seems to be going contrary to nature. If you have the patience let’s go into this and I will explain why this makes sense to me.

PLANT-BASED VS MEAT BASED DIETS

What we have discussed above translates to the problem of these chemicals accumulating in our bodies and affecting our health. The difference in eating or feeding a plant-based diet vs. a primarily meat diet is then the issue of chemical dose. 

You cannot avoid exposure to these completely, however, you can reduce the amount coming in by how you eat and this is significant. Understanding how to reduce exposure is best explained by discussing what we call the “food chain” or in the scientific world “bioaccumulation.” 

It works like this. The chemicals spread about in our environment are in the air, water, and soil. They often waft away from factories, industrial plants, the burning of coal, etc. They also enter the water from the sewage water from cities, or from factories dumping into rivers. As these chemicals move around with the wind, water movement, transport (exhaust, tire shedding, etc.) they end up where the plants we use for food are growing. It is even legal practice in the US to use sewage sludge from city water treatment plants, this being the most toxic material in the world. It is used as a fertilizer on food crops, to spread it over the soil for the plants to take up.

FOOD CHAIN

So it goes like this (the food chain). I will use a very simple example of just one of the chemicals and putting the amount in terms of drops, rather than micrograms or milligrams, so this is easier to understand. Let us say the plant growing in the soil gathers one drop of the chemical as it grows. That is how much it contains. 

The steer that is feeding on the plants, eats the plant and takes that drop into his body. It ends up in the tissues and is stored there. Let us say that the steer eats 50 plants during the day. That, then, is an accumulation of 50 drops of the chemical. This goes on day by day.

By day 2, there are 100 drops in the tissues.

By day 3, there are 150 drops.

By day 30, there are 1,500 drops.

After 5 months, there are 7,500 drops.

For sake of this discussion let us say that the steer, when slaughtered has 10,000 drops stored in the tissues — the muscles and organs.

Your dog is now fed that meat, containing these drops. Let us say that the portion of meat fed each day contains 500 drops. Each day your  dog accumulates 500 drops. 

After a year, stored in his body will be 365 x 500 = 182,500 drops.

THE PROBLEM

Do you now see why this is of concern? In today’s world, there is not just one toxic chemical. Granted not all end up in the environment but many do depending on their chemistry. In the US there are 100,000 chemicals approved for use in our homes, businesses, factories, farms, schools, parks, etc. If you like, you can assume that our government has made sure that these are safe, but unfortunately that is not the case. Reports estimate the percent of these chemicals evaluated for health effects is well below 10%. That means that over 90% of we have no idea what they will do to us. Dogs and cats? Forget it. There are no tests that evaluate how these things will affect them.

Water treatment plants for towns and cities are said to test the water before putting it back into the rivers and lakes. It might vary but what I have read is that they test for 10 chemicals only. Not particularly reassuring.

Even if the chemicals are tested for safety before use, how would that be done? Usually by giving them to an animal — monkey, mouse, rat. Would they have the same sensitivity or reaction to the chemical as a human? A dog? No one knows. 

Basically, we are working in an unknown area. 

WHAT DOES THE BODY DO WITH THEM?

A common strategy that people use  to deal with this is to emphasize the body’s elimination of toxic material. Herbs, vitamins, supplements of various sorts are given for the purpose. This is a smart idea but only partially adequate. 

You have to realize that these chemicals that have been created over the last decades are done for a particular purpose. As said above, they do something that other natural chemicals, already in existence, are not able to do. This is what makes them useful and unique. But understand this — when a new chemical is created IT HAS NEVER EXISTED ON THE EARTH BEFORE. Our bodies have never encountered these and do not have an established way to deal with it. By “established” I mean that over the centuries there is an adaptation to the substances encountered in the natural world. If something not good for us gets in, there are mechanisms for dealing with it. We don’t need to go into a lot of detail, just realize that this “getting rid of” involves some kind of processing of the toxic substance, some alteration of it so it can travel to the kidneys and be peed out. 

That there are so many new substances has overwhelmed our ability to deal with them. The best the body can do is store them somewhere — in the body tissues. The concern then is that this storage over time accumulates enough of the chemical that it has health effects, it achieves the level of a drug dose. 

In the example above I used one chemical. More accurately, tests of people and animals have shown more like 400 chemicals stored in our bodies. Tests of newborn babies finds, on average, babies are born with over 300 chemicals already in their tissues. Some of these chemicals are also known to interfere with the normal development of the child.

We have gotten ourselves into some deep doo-doo.

EVALUATION

Granted you can think I am exaggerating or putting too much importance on this. I will mention, however, that this information has been published in many, many scientific reports. There are even fields of study in this. 

In my veterinary experience, one of the questions that is to be considered is why chronic disease in animals, dogs and cats, livestock and others, is steadily increasing. The veterinary profession is now saying that half of dogs will develop cancer in their lives. This is unbelievable is it not? Totally shocking. There has to be an explanation for this. 

As I said in the introduction, I have come to the conclusion that this toxic chemical accumulation is a major factor in this. It seems to me common sense that if cancer is increasing in incidence and it has been determined that dogs are eating meat containing carcinogens that this could be why it is happening.

STRATEGY

How to deal with this? The best I have come up with is to keep the dose of these chemicals as low as possible. We can use other measures to enhance detoxification, to enhance that ability to deal with these, but keeping the dose low would be very important. 

It has been determined in people eating a plant-based diet, they are very low in accumulated chemicals, especially if the plant foods are organic. We are talking a level of a few percents, less than 5-10%, compared to the person eating the usual American diet (SAD = Standard American Diet).

There have not been as many studies of dogs and cats in this regard but some recent ones have shown that the body burden of chemicals in dogs and cats is considerably higher for some substances than it is in human beings. This can be explained from the model of the food chain, that they are at the top of the chain eating primarily the meat of animals containing these materials.

MY ADVICE

The strategy I come up with is to eat at the low end of the food chain. Eat the plants rather than the animal that has accumulated thousands of them. Fortunately, in regard to feeding dogs, it turns out that they have no problem eating such a diet. A study reported in Nature Journal of the DNA sequencing of dogs DNA compared to wolf DNA tells us that dogs have adapted to the same diet that we can eat — the use of plants and grains without any problem. They have activated the same genes that we use. 

There are also other reports of dogs being fed this way, and from puppyhood, and having good health on that diet. Fortunately, it is also our personal experience that many dogs with chronic problems — allergies, itches, ears, digestion, etc. — observably improve when the diet is changed in this direction. 

It is not so easy with cats. They are more strict carnivores than dogs. Yet, again, we have found that some cats will readily accept a plant-based diet and also have health improvements. One has to be more careful with cat recipes to make sure they have everything needed but it is very possible to do this. If nothing else, it is not so difficult to reduce the meat content in their food and certainly avoid the most contaminated meats — tuna, salmon, chickens. So many commercial cat foods contain sea fish which are high in mercury. This is a major cause of the common mouth problems cats have with decaying teeth, gum inflammation, bad breath, etc. These are all signs of mercury poisoning.

CLEAN MEAT?

When I present this topic to people, if it is new to them, a very common response is that they feed “grass fed” or “farm-raised” animals that are not given drugs or hormones. This is a very helpful plan and would reduce some chemical exposure. However, what we are talking about here is not only the chemicals given by livestock farmers, rather what is in the environment. It is important to understand that the environment, as compared to injected materials, is the major source in today’s world.

A brief example of how even these more naturally raised livestock will have chemicals in them is the report of wildlife now being affected. One study of fawns in Montana showed developmental problems, heart defects, and other health issues in them. If this is happening to wildlife, how can we think that grass fed animals are exempted from it? 

CONCLUSION

Enough for now. I hope the explanation is clear enough. As said above, the challenge to our thinking is the realization that our world has changed. To bring up past experience of feeding practices does not address the accelerating chemical accumulation. At this point, it is not getting better so the best we can do is cope with it as intelligently as possible. We can also hope and pray that, as a culture, we will give this attention and change our ways.

The Difference of View

Posted on by

As I have mentioned in other posts, I have been focussed on using homeopathy for quite a long time. You can understand that with this experience one comes to see things differently. The homeopathic view is almost the opposite of what we may call the conventional medical system, or what we homeopaths refer to as the allopathic system.

The allopathic view of patient and disease is that these two things are separate. There is the patient which is a physical being and the disease which is some external agent or infuence. The emphasis, then, is to identify that disease condition which affected the physical body so that, once known, an approved means of counter-acting it will be used. Another way to say this is that the treatment will be something that counter-acts the perceived symptoms and this counter-action is based on the use of drugs or surgery that directly blocks the expression of that problem. It could be an antibiotic, an anti-inflammatory drug, a hormone, etc. Surgery is a similar method in that the unwanted physical change is removed from the body by that method.  Granted there are some health conditions that are not ascribed to an external agent in the usual sense but more to the wearing out of parts like with arthritis. However, even here, the idea is to block the symptoms that are expressing. You see, there is not the idea that these health issues cannot be cured in the sense of the person (or animal) being brought back to their previously healthy state. Even the use of the word cure is frowned upon.

The homeopathic view is based on the initial discovery, by Dr. Samuel Hahneman, that what we call disease is not caused by an external agent but rather a change in the condition of the patient at the level of what he called “the life force.” This means that disease is not physical but is a disturbance on what we might more familiarly call the energetic level. In today’s culture we can equate this to addressing the quantum vacuum from which all observed forms manifest. Dr. Hahnemann discovered that if a substance (herb, mineral, animal product) was given to this sick patient that was already know to be able to cause a very similar disturbance it acted as a stimulus and brought about return of health. So the medicines used in homeopathy are used differently than the allopathic drugs.

  • Remedies bring about a condition in the patient similar (though not exact) to what is observed in their unhealthly state.
  • Becauses of their ability to do this, the individual patient is very sensitive to them so they are given in very small doses and usually much repeated.
  • The remedies are never used to, in any way, block or tinterfere with the symptoms of the patient.
  • The choice of remedy to used is based on a direct observation of the condition of that individual, never on the idea of diagnosis (which is considered an erroneous concept).

In the story that follows you might be able to see what I am talking about here. It is the story of the contrast between the allopathic system and the homeopathic  – and an interestinsg outcome.

The “Disease Entity”

During the third week of August 1991, my 80-year-old father was hospitalized in New York. A few months earlier, he had been put on dialysis. The doctor had assured him that the inconvenience of having dialysis three times a week and having the rest of the time to live a full life was a better alternative than dying of renal failure.

He was hospitalized after he experienced extreme weakness, confusion, and a rapid decay of his mental faculties. I was joined by my brothers, and we prepared for the worst. The hardest part, for me, was the unbelievable interaction with the mind of conventional medicine. The renal specialist (who was a kindly soul— one of the few encountered), told us that they “have not yet diagnosed a disease entity.” And there, in a nutshell, is the problem. In conventional thinking, you must know what’s wrong before you can treat. They stood helpless as they tried to find something to treat. They did blood tests, Doppler tests, and CAT scans. They called in a neurologist (perhaps Dad’s confusion was neurologic in nature). He wanted to do a spinal tap to check for a rare strain of meningitis. He also checked for Lyme disease.

The neurologist was a picture of everything I fear in a physician. We were unable to reach him by phone, and his visits to my father’s room were less than three minutes long. He was always on the run. My brother, who coordinates emergency medical service in the rural area in which he lives, asked if he could meet the doctor to discuss what might be happening. “Are you a doctor?” he was asked. “No,” replied my brother. “Then we don’t have anything to talk about,” said the neurologist.

They called in a psychiatrist to determine my father’s mental state. Maybe they could find something wrong there that they could treat. Perhaps a psychosis or a delusional state. I arrived at the hospital with a kit of (homeopathic) remedies and a Repertory (the reference guide that enables one to choose the appropriate remedy). I was in touch, by phone, with several experienced medical homeopaths. I remembered the words of Kent (historically a famous and admired homeopathic practitioner and teacher): It is not up to the physician to determine if an illness is incurable. Take the case, give the remedy, let the vital force sort it out.

I was prepared for my father’s death. In the next three days, I gave him three remedies. I put them in his drinking water. Each day his symptoms changed, and the remedy selection changed with them. On the fourth day he was able to recognize us and have snippets of a lucid conversation. Within a week he was wondering why he was in the hospital. The doctors never found anything to treat. They were baffled by his sudden decline, and equally baffled by his recovery.

He continued to have some problems after his release, and I took him to a local homeopath who prescribed with a detachment I could not have. My father, though far from being in perfect health, is now functioning fairly well. In this age of modern medicine, with its tests and machines, I thought about the times past— when people understood that there was a process in life that began at birth and ended at death, and that death was a part of the whole. Instead of trying to freeze the person in life (i.e., to keep the person’s body alive at all costs), they accepted that the end does come to all. And what do you do when you are faced with an elderly man who is, apparently, running out of life? Yo u give him the proper remedy and trust the vital force. It never lets either of you down.

Mother Teresa & Homeopathy

Posted on by

I went through a personal crisis many years ago about what treatment to offer my patinets. Perhaps crisis too strong a word to use, but it was a significant trouble for my mind at that time. I am talking of the period about the middle ’70’s. I had “given up” on the allopathic medicine I had learned in veterinary school. I had tried my best, had gone back to school and gotten a graduate degree (PhD in immunology), gone back into practice, and still not feeling I could restore health in any consistent way. Of course, it might just be I am not a smart guy, but I prefered other viewpoints.

I did have the idea that there might be another way that would work better. I looked into several of these, such as color therapy, herbal medicine, polarity therapy, Chinese Medicine, Chiropractic, etc. I am not saying I had training in these methods, but I would read about them and experiment to some extent.

Then I came across a little book on homeopathy for dogs which intrigued me.  I can’t say why exactly but my interest was engaged. I started a path into this form of medicine that leaves me sitting here some 40+ years later — still studying it.

You may well think I am naïve about this but I feel that when more spiritually oriented and kind people accept homeopathic medicine it confirms my interest in it. I would like to share this little piece with you as it is meaningful to me.

Mother Teresa and Homeopathy

by Dana Ullman, MPH

The fact that Britain’s Royal Family are strong supporters of homeopathy sometimes gives people the incorrect image of homeopathy as primarily a medical treatment for the upper class. Those of us involved in homeopathy know better. We know that homeopathy can be of value to anyone who is sick.

The fact that homeopathy is practiced in India by more trained health professionals than anywhere else in the world provides some evidence that one does not have to be rich to experience the benefits of homeopathy.

Caring for the poor is nothing new to Mother Teresa. She has worked with and for the poorest of the poor for over a half century. She has brought a message of love to them, and her Missionaries of Charity have provided medical care to millions of people. The physicians and para-professionals who have worked in her Missions have not simply prescribed just conventional drugs, they also have prescribed homeopathic medicines. Mother Teresa has a special interest in homeopathic medicine because of its effectiveness and low cost.

At present, four charitable homeopathic dispensaries are run under the guidance of the Mother’s Missionaries of Charity. One of these dispensaries primarily provides homeopathic medicines to poor and sick children in Calcutta, while the other three provide homeopathic medicines to anyone who needs them.

Considering the serious health problems that poor people in India experience, it is truly miraculous that homeopathic medicines are so effective as the primary method of treatment for many children and many adults. Mother Teresa opened her first charitable homeopathic dispensary in Calcutta in 1950. She even prescribes homeopathic medicines herself sometimes.

Dr. (Sister) M. Comes, a physician who has worked at the Mother’s Mission in Calcutta since 1945, notes that one of the obstacles to the spread of homeopathy in the Mother’s work is inadequate funding for homeopathic hospitals. At present, several Sisters are studying homeopathy at a homeopathic medical college in order to improve the care they can offer poor people.

My thanks to Dr. Parameswar Bose and Dr. Iva Pal for providing me with much of this information.

The Vaccine Question

Posted on by

There seems to be much controversy about the use of vaccines which is surprising to those of us that have studied the immune system. My PhD is focused on immunology which includes the study of vaccine use. During my graduate work it was presented as understood that vaccines were not always effective, sometimes even working the opposite direction – making the individual even more susceptible. It is not surprising, is it, that this is more complieated than we would at first think.

I came from my graduate work and then a stint on the faculty of the veterinary school in Washington, back into practice. I assumed vaccines were overall very safe and effective. It took some time, and reluctance, to admit to myself that I was seeing health problems coming up after vaccine use. I did not like it, yet over time, had to admit that was the case. You can understand it was a disappointment to me as well. Nonetheless, it had to be faced.

To put it briefly, some of the animals I vaccinated became ill after the vaccine in a short ime, just hours or days. Just as often it was not so immediately obvious but for the next period of time, months, they would have, instead, more illness of other types. In other words, the vaccine had made them more susceptible to other diseases.

The use of Rabies vaccine especially ineterestng as a common change in dogs was of behavior. They would become less friendly, more aggressive, more likely to bite, and also to wander far away. These are all symptoms of the Rabies disease which were showing up in these vaccinates.

I want to share with you an example story of what is  often experienced with children. This is not unusual except in that it is not always understood. By this I mean that the changes in  health following are not mentally connected to the giving of the vaccine but other presumed causes given by the health professionals. However, in the story that follows, you can see how obvious it is.

Vaccines, What Is Right for You?
by Kathy Arnos

We, as mothers and fathers, have a commitment, and an obligation to our children to find out as many facts about the unknown as possible, to research things to the best of our ability, and to open our eyes. Then we can make an educated decision as to what we feel is right for our children. Thousand of mothers and fathers make a decision every day on whether or not to give their child the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine. If you are like most parents you don’t even know you have a choice. You have no idea of what consequence there could be one way or the other. My husband and I didn’t. I would like to share our story with you.

Our story is not a tragic one; it is one to be shared in the hope that it can help parents recognize signs before it does become a tragic story. My husband and I consider ourselves health-oriented. So how could I let something as important as research on vaccines get by me? To this day, I still ask myself that question! Neither of us had ever seen any of the specials on television (i.e. “DPT Russian Roulette”, produced by Lea Thompson). The book, DPT: A Shot In The Dark, written by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher, had not yet been published.

There comes a time during pregnancy when you start interviewing pediatricians. What do you look for? Well, you want someone with whom you feel comfortable, someone with a good reputation, someone you can trust. In my case my obstetrician gave me a list. I interviewed three and went with the one that I liked best. Also a friend of mine had been with the same one for years (my friend was a nurse at Children’s Hospital). That made me feel more confident that I had made the right choice. The next step was Lamaze class at a well-known local hospital, where we met some other nice parents-to-be. After my daughter was born, a group of mothers from the class contacted each other and joined a support group at the hospital where our children were born. The woman who ran the group was a trained psychologist and really helped us through the rough spots. The main thing that we all had in common was a new baby, our little miracle.

As a new mother I wanted to do everything right. What’s right? For thirty years I had only been responsible for making decisions for myself. Then I found myself responsible for making decisions for my daughter. We went for our first doctor’s visit and all was well, she gained, she grew, she did everything she was supposed to. The doctor said she would see us again at two months at which time Danielle was to get her first DPT shot and oral polio vaccine. My husband and I expressed our fears about the vaccines at which point the doctor gave us some statistics on reactions and told us the damage from whooping cough was much more dangerous than the chance of Danielle having a reaction.

At the next visit, we expressed our concerns again and she assured us again there should be no problems. Then she asked us to sign a waiver, not holding them responsible if something did happen. Danielle was now two months of age. They gave her the DPT and polio and left the room. Danielle was crying so hard the only thing that helped was to nurse her, so I did. We then went into the doctor’s office where the doctor told me not to give her anything to drink for thirty or forty minutes. But it was kind of after the fact, wouldn’t you say? Then we were told to give her Tylenol twenty minutes after the shot. By the time we got to the car we figured it was time, so we gave it to her as we got in the car. Two minutes later she started vomiting. We were so scared. Danielle slept the rest of the day and when she did wake up she just would nurse and go back to sleep. This went on for 24 hours. She also had quite a knot in her leg for a full week where the shot was administered. When I questioned the doctor, she said it would just go away. And it did.

The next shot was two months later. She had a low fever of 101 degrees, was very cranky when awake, and slept a lot again. This time the knot in her leg was almost the size of a golf ball and it took about two and a half weeks to go away. Just about the time that the knot went away Danielle came down with what they called Viral Syndrome- Bronchitis. I remember she was having a lot of trouble breathing and had blisters in her throat.
She just had gotten over the illness when it was time for her third DPT shot. This time she wouldn’t stop screaming, she wouldn’t nurse; she just kept screaming. She finally fell asleep after a few hours. But every time she woke up she would just cry again. The fever and knot in her leg were the same as before, but this time it took three weeks for the knot to leave. Again we contacted the doctor, and she considered it to be a normal reaction.

The third shot was in July, and from July to May of the following year Danielle experienced repeated ear infections (for which antibiotics were prescribed) and upper respiratory-bronchitis infections. In May she was diagnosed as having another ear infection and had antibiotics again. When we went for a clear ear check, they gave Danielle the MMR vaccine (mumps, measles, rubella). Shortly after that, she started having very restless sleep and dreams. By August. it developed into crying fits while sleeping. She was stuck; neither asleep nor fully awake. She would get violent, crying, kicking, screaming, and become dangerous to herself. If I tried to awaken her it would get worse. It would take a good forty minutes to pull her out of this state. This lasted, off and on, for two months.

At 18 months of age it was time for Danielle’s fourth DPT. She got the shot and didn’t even cry. So off we went to the park. Everything was fine for about three hours when all of a sudden her arm swelled so badly it was sticking straight out in the air. She started screaming at the top of her lungs. Nothing would make her stop. I got her into the car, which wasn’t an easy thing to do as she was still screaming, her face was bright red and I couldn’t touch her arm. She stopped ten minutes after we were on the freeway. Then there was total silence. She became totally unresponsive, just sitting and staring, her tongue kind of hanging from her mouth. Her skin was very pale. Our house was on the way to the hospital so I stopped there to call the doctor to tell her I was bringing Danielle in to be checked. I took her out of the car seat. She was a bit limp and still unresponsive. I made the call, then called my father to meet us there, as he worked close to the hospital. When we got back in the car I kept talking to her, singing, smiling anything to try and get her to respond. During the 15-minute ride she finally started to respond a little. And then a little more when she saw grandpa. The doctor examined her and said she was fine. (Her doctor never told me that she should never have the pertussis vaccine again.) Danielle vomited the rest of the day and night and ran a fever of 102. It took about a week for her arm to return to normal.

We returned to the doctor at two years of age, at which time she gave her the HIB (Hemophilus influenza type b) vaccine. The doctor assured me she wouldn’t have a reaction to this one. Two months later Danielle developed croup. Then just after that cleared up she got the flu. For the next seven months she had repeated bouts with croup, ear infections (antibiotics taken again) and strep throat. Each time the croup would get worse and worse. No cold. No warning. It would just hit in a matter of hours. During this period she also developed terrible fears and anxiety. I was very scared and all our family and friends couldn’t believe the change in Danielle’s personality. I was at my wit’s end and knew that something had to be done. I was very angry and didn’t feel that I could talk to her doctor any more. Two of my friends, one whom is a mother of twin three-year-old girls, and the other who has no children yet, both kept telling me the same thing: break the cycle of antibiotics and look elsewhere.

I really didn’t know where to turn, so I started doing research on Holistic Medicine. I didn’t feel completely comfortable going to someone who wasn’t a doctor, (since we have been programmed to believe that if we are sick we need a doctor) so I found a female MD who also practiced Holistic Medicine. I have to admit that I was a real skeptic, but after just one visit (and one remedy) Danielle no longer had croup!

Danielle is now under what they call in homeopathic treatment, a “constitutional”, and is doing quite well. If I hadn’t seen it happen with my own eyes, I might not have believed it possible. (I plan on doing a follow-up article on homeopathic treatment with children.)
In conclusion, I’m not going to tell you that all of my daughter’s chronic illnesses were due to the pertussis vaccine. But perhaps if the facts were presented more clearly, and more time was taken on the doctor’s part to find out more about family histories, and had I done more research on the DPT vaccine, perhaps I would have seen the warning signs earlier, and stopped it sooner.

As a concerned parent for other children and their families please take the time to research vaccines in general, especially the pertussis, polio, MMR, and flu vaccines.

Solution to Dental Disease in Cats

Posted on by

Dental Disease in Cats

gum red line

This condition is common and very frustrating for people  to deal with. The usual appearance is first a redness of the gums, a line along the border of the teeth. Then, with more progression, looseness and decay of the teeth. For some poor cats it ends up with them losing all of their teeth.

The usual treatment for this is antibiotics followed by cleaning of the teeth (or removal of same). The treatment helps for a while but does not resolve the problem. It is not a bacterial infection so the antibiotics do little to affect it. 

What is interesting is the historical perspective. I graduated from veterinary school in 1965 and in my first years of practice this condition was not seen. We would indeed see dogs that had deposits on their teeth and advise cleaning but cats rarely had any issues or needed this to be done. With time, the frequency of this in cats steadily increased and the question, of course, is why this is so. It is not a genetic condition, and is not an infection due to some new strain of bacteria. Whenever a condition without an obvious cause affects a large percentage of the population it is usually something in the environment, something that is not healthy to be exposed to. 

It is looking now that this condition is caused by mercury poisoning. Mercury was used very much in medicine a couple of centuries ago, as frequently as antibiotics are used today. As this was done in people it was learned that the primary effect of mercury poisoning was the inflammation of the mouth with eventual decay and loss of teeth over time — just like is seen in these cats.

Why would this especially be a problem in cats? If you look at the labels of cat foods you will find a very large percentage of them contain fish. And fish is very high in mercury. There is also mercury in other meat sources but it is highest in fish. This is so because in the burning of coal in power plants to produce electricity. The smoke given off contains mercury which was in the coal and this mercury released into the air is brought down to earth by rain. In the soil and water the mercury is modified by bacteria to become an even more toxic form — methyl-mercury. Then it is picked up by plants and small animals living there and as these plants and animals are eaten by other animals the amount becomes increasingly concentrated in their tissues. Much of this also washes down into the streams, and eventually the oceans, which is why it is so high in fish. You might remember that women that might be pregnant are advised not to eat fish more often than once a month. Now translate this back to the cat eating it every single day. 

This problem with mercury coming from coal burning has been known for several decades but our government decided it would be too expensive to regulate and so it was allowed to continue all of this time. We are now reaping the results. If you eat fish, whether wild or farm raised, you will be getting additionally a nice helping of mercury.

What evidence is there that this is important for cats? In a report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG; ewg.org) in 2008, the amount of mercury in the blood and urine of cats was compared to that of human beings. Over 9000 people had been assayed by the CDC and the amount of mercury found was averaged out as a reference to what, these days, is the common level for people. They didn’t say it was OK, just this is what was found. The EWG did a similar study of the blood and urine of 37 cats tested at a Virginia veterinary clinic. What they found was that cats had, on average, 5 and a half times as much mercury in their bodies as human beings. This is highly significant and identifies for us what is the likely cause of this common mouth condition. 

Once I realized this, I started treating these cats by first changing their diet to eliminate fish entirely and also minimizing meat as a secondary source. The next step was homeopathic treatment and I emphasized those homeopathic remedies which had been identified to be useful for treating mercury poisoning. There are a large number of such remedies, over 60, so it requires careful evaluation of the cat’s condition to choose the most appropriate one. However, once successfully done, it is of much benefit. Hepar sulph., Sulphur, Sepia, Silica and Aurum are often indicated but, again, it takes careful evaluation of the details to make the optimal choice.

What can you do?

An obvious next step is the avoidance of any cat food that contains fish. Our best advice is to study the 4th edition of our book, Dr. Pitcairn’s Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs & Cats. In this blog we have focused on just one substance, mercury, but there are many more to consider — heavy metals as well as many industrial and home-use chemicals which accumulate in the bodies of the animals that end up being eaten by other people, dogs and cats. We addressed this larger issue in our book, developing entirely new recipes that minimize this exposure to as many of these toxic substances as possible.

If you can go further, contact a homeopathic veterinarian to give specific treatment to your cat as this will very much accelerate recovery.

Thoughts on Plant Based Diets for Dogs

Posted on by | 45 Comments

I am thinking, since proposing this idea of changing the diet of dogs to a more plant based one, it would help to explain somewhat what my path to this has been. Many people when first hearing about this react with strong disapproval, saying this is both unnatural and harmful to dogs. Of course we know that the ancestors of dogs, the wolves, were prey animals and mostly ate the animals they hunted and killed. It is easy, therefore, to assume that domestic dogs should be fed the same way. This would be a good argument a couple of centuries ago, but not so much now.

The Problem

We have a problem in the dog world. Overall dogs are becoming more sick with the passing years. I am referring to numbers, percentages. Whatever our system of medicine is doing, it is not bringing about a progressive improvement of health in the dog population. One example, is the tremendous increase in cancer in dogs. Veterinarians that have looked into this say that cancer is now the leading cause of death in dogs and that some breeds like Golden Retrievers will have half of them experiencing cancer in their lives.

The Veterinary Perspective

I am giving just one example of what we veterinarians are facing in our desire to help dogs lead healthy lives. I have been a veterinarian for 50 years and I have seen a lot of change and it has concerned me. I kept looking into what might be causing this to happen (not just cancer, but the decline in health). This led me, over time, into study of nutrition, a re-evaluation of vaccine use (not an easy thing for me to do with my PhD in immunology), and working with alternative methods of treatment. I came to like homeopathy the best.

Nutrition

My study of nutrition opened up a whole new world. I had no idea. What I found you will see in our book along with the nutritional advice that came from my clinical experience. What is different in this last edition of our book is putting much emphasis on feeding dogs a plant based diet or a diet with mostly plant sources and minimal animal products. Many people object to this, thinking it cannot be healthy. I started out thinking the same way but my progression of learning took me to a different view.

Environmental Contamination

I learned that the environment has been very significantly contaminated by substances which are toxic when they end up in our tissues. It did not used to be like this, but with each passing year it has become greater and greater. Part of this is that more and more chemicals are being put into use. There are now 100,000 being used in all sorts of ways, most of them ending up in sewers, in the water, soil, ocean. One of the most toxic materials is the solid stuff that settles out in waste water treatment plants of towns and cities. There was so much of it that there had to be a way to get rid of it. It was expensive to put in a land fill so another solution was thought up. The sewage sludge was renamed “biosolids” and our government approved it being used as fertilizer on our food crops. So the most toxic material we can come up with, with hundreds of chemicals in it, is put on our food for the plants to take up.

It is not just this source that is a problem. As one example, industrial processing has released very extensive amounts of dioxin, which is considered to be the most potent chemical in existence that can cause cancer. Dioxin is throughout the environment, highest in fish, next in eggs, then significant amounts in dairy and beef. It is important to realize that dioxin is not something added to the food, or injected into the animals. It is in the environment, in water, air and soil. So it gets into all animals, even those raised organically.

Do you begin to see the problem? We could go on and on. After all, there are 100,000 chemicals. But you can get the idea. I realized that this contamination was a big deal and that regular feeding of dogs with sources that had poisons in them would be a very important reason whey there would be so much increasing illness.

Bioaccumulation

We could talk about this for a very long time. There is actually much information available. Rather what I would like to do is bring in one more consideration and that is called “bioaccumulation.” The idea is this: the chemicals introduced into our environment are taken up by the plants as they grow. The animals that eat the plants then also get these chemicals but because they eat plant after plant, over months or years, the chemicals build up in their bodies to much higher levels that what is in the plants. Then if there are animals that eat these plant-easting animals, then they too accumulate more of it. This is sometimes called a “food chain” meaning that like a ladder the amount of accumulate chemical gets higher every rung. How much higher at the top? We are talking hundreds of thousands or millions of times more than what is found in plants. So what animals are at the “top” of the food chain and get the most chemical buildup? Human beings, dogs, cats.

Do dogs have much in their bodies? Studies of their tissues tell us that have about one and half times as much as the average human. This is a big load. Many of the chemicals are carcinogens. I will remind you that carcinogen meant a chemical that has been shown to cause cancer in animals. Do you think it possible that if a dog is eating a food that contains chemicals that cause cancer in animals that it might be a problem for that dog eventually? It may take a few years. It might show up as something else, maybe allergies, chronic ear problems, hypothyroidism. Who knows? The veterinary profession is not really interested into looking into this. Even if it were, it would involve injecting some poor dogs with the chemical for a time to see what it would do to them. A nasty thing to do.

Another Idea

How about a simple solution? I admit not a total solution but one that does seem like it makes sense. How about we just don’t feed so much of this toxic stuff to them? Once this came to my mind I had to investigate the possibility that dogs could get by eating less meat and animal products. I was surprised to find studies that showed they could do very well on vegetarian diets, even diets entirely plant based. This investigation took some time as I had my inner resistances just like most of you. But I found that dogs have the ability to eat a variety of foods and do quite well with them. They are not considered to be strict carnivores by biologists and that has allowed them to adapt to a range of diets. Studies of their ability to make enzymes used in digestion has shown us that the have the same ability as humans in this regard. They can eat carbohydrates and digest them very well.

Testing the Idea

Along the way this idea was put into action. I began to recommend to people that they make diet changes and see if there was a favorable effect. It was surprising to see that many dogs with chronic health problems, like allergies, auto-immune diseases, seizures, would noticeably improve in their health when animal products no longer part of their diet. This was unanticipated on my part but was much like long ago when I started having clients prepare their own food instead of using commercial pet foods and seeing improvements there.

Seeing better health in these chronically ill dogs reinforced the idea that this consideration of environmental contamination was an important to understand. I am not suggesting it is the only issue but seem it must be a very significant factor. Even if the chemical buildup is not the primary influence, it must be somewhat weakening to that animal wouldn’t you think?

Conclusion

I am going to close here. As I said above, we could go on and on with information and experience about this. I do want to communicate here that my views about this, whatever their validity, have come about because of a very long time of study and experience in the veterinary field. I started with the desire to help animals, to spare them unnecessary suffering, and this intention has remained all this time. I feel like it was this intention that prompted me to look “outside the box” and consider other ways of looking at this problem of increasing chronic health problems for our poor brothers and sisters.

Blessing to you all.

Beatrice

Posted on by | 3 Comments

Loving

Beatrice came into the world on March 15, 2015 and left a little over a year later in the form of fast food burgers. She agreed to an interview.

Questioner: Your life must have been difficult. Do you regret it?

Beatrice: Not at all. There was much satisfaction with it.

Q. How could that be? Your life was in many ways unpleasant and certainly shorter than the natural life span would be.

B. After I was born I was with my mother and we shared some time together. As we were “grass fed” we lived on a pasture which we greatly enjoyed.

Pasture

Q. You enjoyed the pasture?

B. When the sun would come up the glory is difficult to describe. It was like a new creation over and over. It would warm and stimulate us and then we would begin to graze. I know this will be difficult for you to relate to but standing on the grass, eating it during the day, was intensely pleasurable. Our feet on the ground, making that connection, was associated with a feeling coming from our Mother, the Earth. It was like a subtle vibration or a thrill that filled the body, coming from the feet and moving up. It was a constant pleasure.

Q. This happened all the time?

B. All the time. It was this feeling of peace, of well-being, so that we were content just to be there. And there were the other plants, the birds and insects, and other animals that would come through the pasture and we related to all of them.

Q. How did you relate?

B. We sensed them and they us. It would be a meld of consciousness and we would feel each other’s beingness for a while. If I were to put into words it was often like a “smile.” Always interesting, always intriguing. There are so many different experiences that life has, the number is almost infinite.

Q. It does sound nice.

B. Yes, and of course I wished it had continued.

Q. What happened?

B. I was taken to a feedlot for “finishing.” No longer could I feel the thrill or eat the grass. And of course it was very crowded, smelled bad, and the cloud of emotion around us was, shall we say, unpleasant.

Feed lot

The most difficult was the having to eat such an unnatural food. Instead of grass. We were fed corn or soy and as these were not natural foods for us we were also given drugs to help us digest them. Even so, digestion was always difficult. As you know we have these stomachs designed for the fermentation of grasses and putting in these unnatural foods quite upset the process.

Feed lot eating

Q. I can quite imagine.

B. Yes, and these feed-lot foods were also genetically modified which made them taste very bland and once swallowed, irritating to the stomach.

Q. I suppose in a way it was a relief to have it all over.

B. Yes, in a way, but the process was difficult. We knew what was happening as we shared consciousness among us and as the first ones were killed those of us in line received that knowing. It was immediately clear we had no choice about it as we could not turn around or escape so the hardest part was waiting in line for your turn. The closer we got the stronger the communication and we could hear the sounds and smell the smell of death.

Q. It sounds awful.

B. I was able to ride it out however. I would let my mind go back to my spirit and remember why I was here. This brought it into perspective and the sensory part would be come less intense. By the time it was my time I was actually fairly peaceful — though I did make some sounds!

Q. Can you say more about why you were here?

B. I and my brothers and sisters came on a mission and we knew how it was going to go. We had agreed to it ahead of time. But you can relate to how, once here, you get focussed on the day to day and it is easy to forget this.

Q. This is amazing! What possible mission could you have to be a cow to end your months in a feed lot and then killed so you could be eaten?

B. What do you think?

Q. I have no idea.

B. This world experience we share is the production of Experiential Consciousness. We are all, in a sense, players in the story. I may have a different body from you but I am the same life, the same consciousness, adapted to this form. The purpose of my being here is to bring to all of us the experience of Love.

Q. Sorry, but I can’t see how you living like this, having this done to you, could bring love into the world.

B. Think of it as an invitation. If love could be there we provide the invitation to it.

Q. I don’t get it.

B. By taking this role we provide the sensory experience for you. For Love to come in there must be a perception of its need. If things went along in a way that there was rather minimal sensory evidence of less than perfect conditions you would not notice. When we volunteer to be feed lot cattle we greatly intensify the sensory communication you receive. When you, at some point, are brought to see what is happening to us it is at that moment your heart responds and the pattern ends. Love comes in, fills you, and you are forever different. So we see this as providing what we call “The Invitation.” We are there, in that condition, always looking at you with the question in our eyes “Do you see?”

Q. You are saying you take on this life with the purpose of inviting us to see your suffering? That is weird.

B. Actually it is quite common. Many others do that as well. Think of the many animals, the chickens, fish, turkeys, birds that go through similar suffering in today’s world.

Turkey farm

They are all offering The Invitation. There are so many ways this can happen it is almost impossible to list them all. We are talking about the animals but The Invitation extends beyond them. It can come from the earth, the plants, even others of your kind.

Q. I thought life was about other things, like careers, family, experiences.

B. It is about that but the overriding purpose of it all is to bring Love in, for us to experience it. This is why our world exists. Those of us that have realized this sometimes decide to volunteer as our way to help bring this about.

Q. Couldn’t we have made it easier? Why all this suffering of the animals? I read the other day that there is like a billion animals that go through the factory farming experience every year. Couldn’t we have realized this much sooner?

B. Seems like it could have but the world experience is how we collectively decide it is going to be. As we all live this we take actions every day and these actions, which are the outcome of our thoughts — our beliefs, our conclusions — result in how the world is going to be for us all. To bring it back to this discussion of my life, when you buy a burger at a fast food restaurant you maintain the way it is now for those of us being processed to be eaten.

Q. Can you explain that more?

B. When you buy the burger you are eating my body (or that of my brother or sister). Obviously this could not happen unless I was killed and cut up into pieces that would fit the bun or sandwich. The question then is why this is acceptable. If you go into it you find that it comes from an idea that is now primary in Experiential Consciousness, from which we all emanate, that we are separate from each other and that if you have the power as a separate being you can use these other beings, that are not you, in whatever way you like.  These basic ideas — of separation and superiority — wend their way into our world experience to how we see it now. Animals are dominated, made captive, made to suffer and die for pleasure or convenience of others.

The use of animals, and also plants and the other forms of nature, in this way has steadily increased, has developed over much of the last century. This has happened, and will continue, until it becomes so blatant, so “in your face” that you can no longer ignore it. As it is now the factory farming activity is kept hidden as much as possible but as it increases it becomes harder to keep it out of sight.

We that volunteer to come into form as food animals are doing so to bring this cultural error to an unavoidable perception, a perception that will change the entire world experience.

Beef carcasses

Q. You mean that we stop factory farming?

B. Not only that, but we stop eating each other’s bodies.

(To be continued?)