Sunday, 6 August 2017
THE ALLERGIES OF SIGHT & SOUND:
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