ALLERGIES,
DRUG ADDICTION,
PSYCHOSOMATIC ILLNESSES
AND
POOR MENTAL HEALTH.
IS
THERE A CONNECTION ?
A
recent T.V. programme on allergies proved excellent as far as it
went. Unfortunately, whilst it painted a near perfect picture of
what was known of that subject in 1955, it fell so far behind what is
known today from 67 years of Dianetics®
practice, that it renders the producer’s dedicated work nothing
more than a description of what allergies, and particularly asthma,
DO to sufferers and how best to handle and alleviate their
symptoms.
This
statement does not undervalue the work of that programme, but reveals
that it did nothing to expose and handle the underlying cause of
allergies.
Just
ask yourself the question: “If bedbugs, cat hairs and dust mites
are the real cause of asthma, because these are present in 99.9% of
houses across the land – why have we not all got asthma ??”
Also
- if we clean up the family home to a point which provides the relief
so desperately sought, how do we handle their local school, or the
hotel where they go on holiday ?
For
many decades the medical profession has
recognised and treated various allergic reactions to the
touch, the taste, the smell and / or the ingestion of a wide range of
substances.
Over
the years, nuts, eggs, dairy produce, cats, dogs, animal fur, new
mown grass, warm tar, tobacco-smoke, alcohol, sugar, shell-fish,
fresh paint, chemicals, drugs and numerous other everyday substances
have been identified as “triggering” asthma, hay-fever,
bronchitis, eczema, dermatitis, re-occurring stomach problems and
streaming eyes, as well as migraine headaches, coughing, sneezing,
vomiting, diarrhoea, acne and other physical ailments.
Because
of the growing incidence and recognition of allergies, it is
increasingly suggested that we need to know more about their cause,
so that we may know more about their cure.
SO
LET’S START BY EXAMINING A TYPICAL PROGRESSION IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF
ALLERGIES.
The
first indication is generally when a person manifests an undesirable,
unusual and unexplained physical – or even a mental - reaction.
As
examples, the individual feels breathless, or breaks out in a rash,
has bouts of sneezing, vomits, has a headache or other pain, feels
dizzy or faint, exhibits irrational fear or anger, passes out, or
even has more than one symptom occurring at the same time – all
for no apparent reason.
If
this later becomes recognised as occurring regularly and is suspected
to be an allergic reaction to some substance in his or her
environment, a search is then undertaken to discover the exact factor
or re-stimulator in the surroundings which is triggering the
particular symptom or reaction.
Observation,
examination and testing is normally expected to eventually discover
that a specific factor or factors in the sufferer’s environment is
responsible. e.g. in the presence of dogs Bill has breathing
problems or, (another example) the smell or taste of boiled milk
makes Mary break out in a rash.
Steps
are then taken to keep the subject patient away from dogs or boiled
milk or whatever has proved to be the ‘trigger’. Alternatively,
medical attempts are made using medicines or drugs to reduce the
sensitivity of the subject, or to reduce the impact of the triggering
factor on the subject.
Questions
might be asked as to why Bill should be affected by dogs in this way
when neither his brother nor his sister have the same problem. And
similar questions might be asked as to why Mary should be so affected
by boiled milk, when no one else in the family or amongst her friends
is similarly distressed.
In
fact, if the problem was ‘dogs’ or ‘milk’, then one might
expect dogs and milk to have the same effect on everybody. But
they don’t. So is the problem ‘Bill’ and ‘Mary’ ? Or
is it as a result of something which has earlier happened to Bill
involving dogs, and also as a result of something which has earlier
happened to Mary involving hot milk ?
In
the medical profession anything from ten to fifty percent or more of
medical conditions are considered to be ‘psychosomatic diseases’,
i.e. illnesses caused by or originating in the mind or psyche -
rather than as the result of a direct or immediate effect upon the
organism of current
infection, contagion, germs, viruses, impacts, injury or other
physical causes.
In
fact, according to the authoritative, widely used and highly
respected “Black’s Medical Dictionary”: “Psychosomatic
diseases are illnesses resulting from the effects of excessive or
repressed emotions upon bodily function or structure.
They
affect vast numbers of patients who are not
out of their minds and yet do not have any organic disease to account
for their illness.”
And
in this dictionary definition we have what to many is clearly a
rather accurate description of an allergic reaction.
But
the trouble is that as soon as the term “psychosomatic”
applies to a particular disease sector, the average physician
regrettably tends to leave investigation and treatment of it to
psychiatry.
Which
unfortunately means that the whole field of psychosomatic disease and
investigation of many allergies is left to THE MOST CONFUSED AND
INEFFECTIVE BRANCH OF MEDICINE.
Clear
signs of this confusion appear in the introduction to psychiatrist
Angelina Gibbs’ book "Understanding Mental Health" where
she asks: "What is mental illness?".
Which
she goes on to answer with: "This is the first of many questions
on mental health which cannot be answered conclusively."
"Theories abound" she writes, and in the chapter "What
causes mental illness?" she tells us that "Usually only a
partial answer can be given because not enough is yet known about
the causes of mental illness . . . ." i.e. about illnesses
of the mind.
If
one doubts the confusion which exists in psychiatry, one has only to
consider the definition of “mind” as given in the authoritative
"Dictionary of the Mind, Brain & Behaviour" by
the well known psychology Doctor Chris Evans, and the definition of
psychiatry itself which concludes as follows:
“The
trouble with psychiatry today is that it is still without a working
theory, not just of the mind but also the disturbed mind. Even a
definition of mental illness is not easy to come by, so perhaps it is
not surprising that to this date psychiatric methods have inevitably
been of a hit or miss variety."
(ISBN
0
09
918070 07)
And
this “hit or miss variety” of medicine is that branch to which
the other branches of medicine have delegated the whole field of
non-organic, mental and psychosomatic medicine. i.e. likely up to
50% of all human health problems !
But,
as we have just learned from the horse’s mouth - the trouble with
modern psychiatry is that it is still without a working theory of the
mind. Which is too much like saying: “My son’s a judge, but
has a difficult job because there is no agreement on what constitutes
the law.”!
An
astute doctor might rationalise that the dog (which playfully
chased Bill down the field at five years of age and, after he had
fallen in the grass, licked his face whilst he was lying crying,
frightened, hurt and winded from running) ‘might’ have
something to do with Bill’s asthma and pronounce his problem as
being a psychosomatic allergic reaction to dogs.
Or
a similarly astute doctor might note that when Mary had measles at
four years, her grandma – believing that very hot boiled milk was a
good old-fashioned measles cure – had insisted on tearfully
force-feeding it to her for a whole week saying each time: “Now
stop crying”. Resulting in a later aversion to those words and
that beverage which would – ‘oddly enough’ - make her break out
into a rash not unlike measles.
But
now we have another very interesting observation. Namely that,
whilst physicians identify allergies in relation to the so-called
‘lower’ senses – i.e. the taste, touch and / or smell of
a given substance – one seldom if ever hears of a person being
allergic to the colour or shape of something, or allergic to the
sound of something or to a word, statement, tone of voice or noise,
etc.
Yet
these involve the two ‘higher’ senses of sight and
hearing, and one would expect that allergies via these two vital
senses would thus have far more influence on a person’s life than
allergies concerned only with the “lower” senses.
After
all, we regard someone with poor or totally absent hearing or sight
as very seriously disabled, but merely sympathise with a person who
has a distorted or absent sense of taste, touch or smell which we
consider as less of a handicap.
So
. . . . are there also allergies to sights and sounds and, if so, how
should we recognise / categorise them ?
We
earlier started by examining the typical diagnostic progress of an
allergy and the business of relating its incidence directly to the
reoccurring presence of some physical ‘trigger’ in the subject’s
environment, e.g. nuts, eggs, dairy produce, cats, dogs, bed bugs,
new mown grass, chemicals, dust-mites, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
But
if the trigger were a sight or a sound, are we able to know?
Transient perception available to the subject at the time is not
there for a later researcher.
Could
it be a visible action of some sort ? Could it be a word or phrase ?
And we need to ask these questions because we can see that when a
stage hypnotist tells his subject “If I touch my tie, you will take
off your jacket” - THE SUBJECT ACTUALLY DOES SO !
And
when the hypnotist tells his subject “whenever I say “its hot
in here”
you
will put your jacket back on” - THE SUBJECT DOES SO.
Therefore
it definitely could
be an action, and it could be a word or phrase.
In
fact the mechanism which the hypnotist uses is very like that which
takes place in the mind when an allergic reaction crops up.
Some
painful, threatening, enforced and unwanted incident in the subject’s
earlier life tells him that dogs are dangerous and frightening and
that they leave you breathless and crying, and that when dog’s are
around you have to get away from them but that because you
survived in a breathless and tearful state last time
that’s probably a safe state to be in this time.
Not
dis-similar to the hypnotist saying: “Whenever there’s a dog
present you will get out of breath and your eyes will water” –
and the subject does this. And rather similar to the
hypnotist saying: “Whenever I say “now stop crying”
you’ll break out in a measles-like rash” – and the subject
does.
A
person becomes capable of being hypnotised under a variety of
conditions.
There
can be a hypnotist present practising his
or her trade . . . .
Or
a person can be under the influence of one of the drugs listed as a
“hypnotic” in the British National Formulary pharmaceutical
“drugs bible”.
Or
a person can be tired, poorly from some germ or virus, feeling dizzy
from travel or sea-sickness, fainting from hunger, fatigue or lack of
sleep, slightly or seriously physically injured, drunk, affected by
food poisoning, fully or partly unconscious or generally under the
weather, etc.
Drugs
and other chemicals which can make you susceptible to verbal and
visual suggestions or commands are too numerous to list here, but
include: the main ranges of sedatives and sleeping pills,
tranquillisers, the benzodiazepines, methadone, buprenorphine,
many pain killers, nearly all street drugs (especially heroin and
cannabis), alcohol, solvents and even the so-called ‘uppers’ in
their hangover stage after their initial stimulative effect has worn
off.
We’ve
all heard the hypnotist say that he is going to put his subject into
a ‘nice sleep’ and that when the subject ‘wakes up’ he will
feel wide awake and refreshed and will forget all that has happened
between ‘sleeping’ and ‘waking’.
And
so the hypnotist’s subject really does not remember what
happened to him or her !
Likewise,
Bill and Mary do not recall their dog and milk and “now
stop crying”
incidents.
Like
other researchers, if you think about this, you will recognise that
the reason the hypnotist can create these sorts of effects is because
– knowingly or unknowingly – he is using an existing natural
mechanism of the human mind.
The
same mechanism which accounts for psychosomatic illnesses including
allergies – i.e the Reactive Mind
discovered by L. Ron
Hubbard.
In
the same way that the body is a self-protecting and healing
mechanism, so also is the human mind. But before we look into its
self-protection mechanisms and how they can affect our lives, we need
to look more closely at what the mind is and does, etc. Much more
closely than psychiatry has ever managed to do.
This
is of course psychiatry’s first and most fundamental failure. Its
self-confessed failure to discover the true nature of the healthy
mind and its operation. Pretending instead to be able to deal with
so-called ‘mental disorders’, i.e. symptoms assumed
by psychiatrists to have their source in the BRAINS of
the ‘mentally ill’.
In
fact psychiatry is so far away from a scientific understanding of the
“mind” and “brain” that it actually confuses “mind” with
the “brain”, which of course is merely a flesh and blood
extension of the nervous system, a fact which can be verified in any
butcher’s shop. (Somewhat like confusing ‘software’ with
computer ‘hardware’.)
The
mind is demonstrably:
i)
an analytical mechanism which, using identification,
comparison and differentiation, poses, observes and resolves problems
to accomplish survival of the whole human
organism and its controlling
beingness, plus
ii)
a reactive mechanism which works on a totally stimulus
response basis restricted to identification (without analysis) to
accomplish the survival of the body alone. (The
ultra-fast motion of removing one’s hand from a hot stove without
calculating its temperature is stimulus response).
Both
parts of the mind do their ‘thinking’ with mental image pictures
of actual experience and the analytical part also uses mental image
pictures of imaginable experience to presuppose or postulate future
survival.
(For
a fully detailed and accurate description of the human mind see:
“DIANETICS, the Modern Science of Mental Health” by L. Ron
Hubbard, – to which this article is totally indebted.)
Between
the analytical and the reactive
minds ALL the experiences of the human organism are recorded.
With the analytical mind operating at, and recording, only
those times when the organism is awake and in good condition, and
with the reactive mind continuously operating and
recording, including those times when the body is experiencing actual
physical pain, impact, injury and / or unconsciousness, loss, threat,
fear, etc., . . . as well as times when the reactive mind is reminded
by its environment of earlier physical pain, etc.
At
such reactive (i.e. unreasoning) times, the analytical mind is fully
or partially shut down, creating the condition of full or partial
unconsciousness. In addition, any tastes, physical touchings,
smells, sights and sounds present in the original painful incident
can act as allergic triggers attempting to get the individual to move
away from the area of restimulation because historically those
perceived sensations were earlier associated with pain and / or
unconsciousness, etc.
Unconsciousness
is thus a full or partial loss of analytical
control of the organism leading to full or partial reactive
control of the organism.
The
organism’s perceptions of its current environment are (subject
to normal working of the organs of perception) all essentially
recorded in date and time order in three-dimensional animated colour
picture form along with sound, taste, touch, smell and action, and
any conclusions and speculations made at the time.
These
records of perceptions, etc., are made in both the reactive
and the analytical minds when the latter mind is in operational
control of the organism, but are made in the reactive mind alone
when the analytical mind is in a state of unconsciousness or
semi-consciousness. As a result, the analytical mind is basically
unaware of the content of the reactive mind, and the recordings in
the reactive mind are therefore un-analysed.
Stimulus
response mechanisms in animals were first explored by Wundt’s
student the Russian veterinarian Pavlov who confined his best known
studies to what were essentially the reactive minds of dogs. These
same minds he then mistakenly also attributed to human beings,
completely missing the fact that humans normally operate
analytically, displaying reactive conduct only when the body
is under physical or reactive attack.
The
hailing by many, of Wundt as the father of modern psychiatry, was
that profession’s second major failure, as it has permitted the
generation of the idea that man is a stimulus response zombie-like
organism which can be controlled in the same way that Pavlov
controlled, motivated and manipulated his dogs, and other researchers
manipulated rats.
However
such zombie-like response can only be achieved if an individual is
kept in a continuing reactive state by the application of
hypnosis, drugs, physical pain or discomfort and threats to survival.
It
is therefore interesting that Britain’s most prolific pushers of
pharmaceutical prescription drugs are psychiatrists, and that their
marketing activities have largely involved the hypnotic drug
categories and the creation of lifetime addiction via so-called
‘habit management’ and 'behaviour management' based on
benzodiazepines, methadone, buprenorphine and other powerfully
addictive drugs - all with painful side-effects and / or acutely
uncomfortable withdrawal symptoms.
As
the reader may well by now have recognised, the allergies of sight
and sound mirror those conditions loosely defined as ‘mental
illnesses’. It is a mental not a physical aberration when an
individual will remove his jacket because someone else touches his
tie. It is equally a psychosomatic aberration or condition when an
individual will go into an asthma attack because a dog is present, or
break out in a rash because someone says “now stop crying”
and / or offers milk.
No
part of the so-called technology of psychiatry has ever consistently
produced results which benefited the patient.
Narcotic
shock ‘therapy’, Pre-Frontal Lobotomy, E.C.T. (Electric Shock
‘therapy’), leucotomy and Deep Sleep “Therapy”, etc., have
over the years contributed more to bringing psychiatry into disrepute
than they have to the restoration of sanity and a normal life to its
patients.
On
the medical TRAINING side, there has long been a close control by the pharmaceutical industry of medical practice in general.
However, just over half a century ago, with street drugs beginning to
make their presence felt beyond the actual users, and with
governments desperate for solutions to the growing “drugs problem”,
the increasing “guidance” or “direction” by “big pharma”
of the psychiatric sector started to become more marked, so that
today it is without question true that a symbiotic relationship has
been reached, and that psychiatry is now the pharmaceutical
industry’s prescription drugs marketing arm.
This
came just in time to give psychiatry a new lease of life based on a
deliberate escalation of the prescribing of pharmaceutical drugs to
mental health patients and drug addicts. The psychiatrists made
their contribution to the burgeoning psycho-pharmaceutical
relationship by quickly “discovering” more and more “mental
conditions” (from a dozen or so to nearly 400 in less than 65
years) all of which luckily ‘proved treatable’ “ONLY” with
pharmaceutical drugs - OR SO PSYCHIATRY SAYS !
In
fact it is the pharmaceutical industry, plus its expanding range of
potent prescription drugs (many of which are unsafe), which today
keeps psychiatry in business, whilst in return the American
Psychiatric Association invents more and more ‘mental disorders’
for which the pharmaceutical industry can develop treatments based on
more and more profitable drugs.
And
here we have another of psychiatry’s major failures. Instead of
developing a true science of the mind & instead of totally
inappropriately & dangerously applying research on dogs &
rats to human beings, psychiatry has grabbed at the chance to be
partnered with the wealth, power and influence of pharmacology and
the international chemical industry.
The
failures of psychiatry are not just:
1)
its inability to truly help those with mental disorders.
2)
its near total lack of real interest in beneficial results - the
benevolence of many (but not all) psychiatrists having been
subjugated to their desire for a good income based on a ‘fingers
crossed’ dependence on pharmaceutical drug prescribing and,
3)
psychiatry’s long-term attempts to rob Britain of truly
effective prevention
training and real cures
by DELIBERATELY SABOTAGING
those organisations which can deliver effective prevention and
treatment, and which are thus able to expose psycho-pharmacological
deceptions.
It
is psychiatry which is doing most to usher in the bio-chemical
society and thus condemn us all to a life as stimulus response drug
controlled zombies. Their goal is a world population all daily
dependent on medication or other drugs - SOLELY FOR
PSYCHO-PHARMACEUTIC POWER AND PROFIT ! Which brings us back
to allergies and “mental disorders” and why they do not get
cured.
You
will by now have recognised that an allergy is a condition which the
sufferer carries with him or her. An allergy is personal to
each sufferer. It is the sufferer’s mentally programmed personal
reaction to a set of environmental circumstances which can occur
anywhere and at any time.
Changing
the environment does not change that condition. CHANGING THE
SUFFERER’S MIND DOES.
And
because the allergies of sight and sound are essentially what we
today recognise as “poor Mental Health” the sufferer’s reaction
can be changed by a Dianetics practitioner who knows the structure
and mechanisms of the mind, and can thus help the individual locate
the reactive incident(s) in his or her life which are acting as a
hypnotic command triggering past reactions which are inappropriate
and irrational for current environmental stimuli.
Please
therefore recognise: . . . . that creating good mental health is quick and
inexpensive when you know about the reactive mind and how to defeat
it.
But
instead pharmaceutically grant trained G.Ps currently “treat”
(quite unwittingly) bogus mental disorders psychiatrically invented
just in order to promote addictive pharmaceutical drugs sales.
IN
OVER 50% OF CASES, IT TAKES ONLY ONE 7 TO 14 DAY, 3 TIMES A
DAY, DOCTOR'S PRESCRIPTION OF AN ADDICTIVE DRUG (such as Opioid
painkillers, Valium or another Benzo, etc.,) TO CREATE A LIFETIME
INVOLUNTARY DRUG ADDICT, PAID FOR BY U.K. TAXPAYERS.
As
a result, at a cost to the U.K. Taxpayer of £10,000,000 (£TEN MILLION POUNDS) a day, there are four times as
many patients FULLY ADDICTED to National Health Service supplied LEGAL pharmaceutical drugs as there are individuals addicted to ILLEGAL
recreational drugs !
Recovery
from addictive substance use starts with a lasting return to the
natural state of relaxed abstinence into which 99% of our population
is born.
Such
full recovery can be achieved by self-help addiction recovery
training, but never by so-called opioid substitution “treatment”
!
AND
PLEASE REMEMBER:
YOU
CAN NEVER BECOME ADDICTED TO A DRUG WHICH YOU NEVER TAKE . . . .
BECAUSE IT IS DRUG-TAKING ALONE WHICH CREATES
ADDICTION.
Which
makes: “SAY “NO” TO DRUGS” the best advice ever
given !
PLEASE
ALSO REMEMBER:
When
you spend N.H.S. budgets on keeping millions of patients daily
addicted without cure, you also annually
increase the number of patients IN TREATMENT and so increasingly
deprive every other part of our N.H.S. and our A&E services of
the funds, personnel, premises and equipment they so desperately
need.
____________________________________________
This
Blog Posted by the:
Society
for an Addiction
Free Existence
(SAFE)
_____________________________________________
