FUNDING for crone divination should be scrapped, the British Medical Council said last night.

Fewer cats will be interrogated, warn experts

Fifty NHS hospitals, all of them based in the North, currently offer treatments for dark art dabbling to the local community.

But wide-ranging government cuts have required a review of all procedures developed before 1465, or involving the consumption of any ingredient with the suffix ‘bane’.

A BMA spokesman said: “There is no scientific proof that these methods work, although when Jan Moir accidentally fell into a witch-ducking pool at Manchester General Hospital, she did turn into a swarm of flies.

“They hovered over the sexual health clinic for half an hour, attacking all the outpatients, before heading off toward Canal Street, buzzing furiously.”

The NHS spends over £80m a year interrogating cats and reading dove entrails to investigate reported cases of witchcraft.
Cures have become more difficult to effect since clean air regulations and mandatory recycling have outlawed live burial and human bonfires.

Dr Martin Bishop, a consultant Witchfinder in Carlisle, has defended the work of his department, despite having failed to conclusively prove a case of witchcraft since 1972, when a woman was admitted to his ward after locals discovered she could read.

He said: “What the critics choose to ignore are the many people who feel better after we’ve stuck pins into their grandmother for a bit to see if she’ll bleed.

“There’s no ‘scientific evidence’ to prove it works, but what does ‘science’ really mean anyway?”

Article with thanks to The Daily Mash

Emotionally, Highly Sensitive People (HSP) are mainly seen as shy, introverted and socially inhibited (or can be socially extroverted). They are often acutely aware of other’s emotions. Sensitive people learn early in life to mask their wonderful attributes of sensitivity, intuition and creativity.

Physically, HSPs may have low tolerance to noise, glaring lights, strong odors, clutter and/or chaos. They tend to have more body awareness of themselves and know instinctually when the environment they are in is not working for them.

Socially, introverted HSP may feel like misfits. They actually enjoy their own company and are totally comfortable being alone. Both introverted and socially extroverted HSP often find they need time alone to recover after social interactions.

Psychologically, HSPs compensate for their sensitivity by either protecting themselves by being alone too much, or, by trying to be ‘normal’ or sociable which then over-stimulates them into stress.

Work and career is particularly challenging for HSPs. They are often overlooked for promotions even though they are usually the most conscientious employees. They are excellent project oriented employees because they are responsible and thorough in their work.

Relationships can be difficult. In relationships they may be confronted with their unresolved personal issues. They can however, offer their partner the gifts of their intuitive insights.

Culturally, HSPs do not fit the tough, stoic and outgoing ideals of modern society and what is portrayed in the entertainment media.

Childhood wounds have a more devastating effect on HSPs. It is important for them to heal their past hurts because they cannot just forget them and go on in denial.

Spiritually, sensitive people have a greater capacity for inner searching. This is one of their greatest blessings.

Nutritionally, HSPs may need more simplicity in their diet. They may be vitally aware of the effects of food on the health of their body and their emotional stability.

This is still our land
and your arrogance won’t break her.
Her trees grow green and wild
and your power games will not make her
into a barren land where life is not for living,
into a well of souls with eyes staring, unforgiving.

Our ancestors have sung this land
and she has her own spirit.
Other songs have joined with hers,
her boundaries have no limit.
Tolerance is in her blood and sings in her blue rivers
Suspicion has no home in her so don’t try to begin it.

Her serpent currents run,
despite your machinations
Her dragon lines flow on,
have no room for your intentions
And those of us who love her can feel her deep heart beating
We’ll sing her on with open hearts, our voices raised in greeting.

Her warrior soul protects us all,
does not seek to turn on others
Our mother land embraces all,
Joy and freedom are our lovers
And when you think you’ve had your way
and our hearts are torn and burning
We’ll shout with voices of true power
Our land is not for turning!
(Jacqui Woodward-Smith, Election Day, 5th May 2005)

and the benefits?

How to master the art of mindful eating:

1 head broccoli, chopped into bite sized mini-trees
extra virgin olive oil
1 can chickpeas (14oz or 400g), drained
2 tablespoons tahini
3 tablespoons lemon juice

Jules Clancy is the author of the cookbook ‘And the love is free‘ and writes stonesoup – a blog about helping people become better home cooks by using a minimalist approach to cooking.

Friday, December 07, 2007 by: Gabriel Donohoe, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Modern medicine is firmly founded on the “Germ Theory of Disease” promulgated by Louis Pasteur in the 1860′s. Pasteur’s 140-year-old theory is still the medical paradigm upon which Western medicine fights disease as we enter the 21st century.

But with a huge increase today in infectious diseases and the rapidly rising epidemic of cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic illnesses; we have to wonder if Pasteur’s theory is really that sound.

Consider this alarming statistic from a report commissioned by the Nutrition Institute of America in October, 2003: 2.2 million hospital patients suffer Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) to prescribed medicine each year leading to the deaths of 106,000 people. In other words, over 2,000 Americans die each week from properly prescribed medicine in properly prescribed doses.

This is a serious indictment of pharmaceutical medicine which is inextricably based on Pasteur’s germ theory.

According to Pasteur:

· Germs, or microbes, cause disease
· Germs invade the body from the outside, i.e., air, water, or food
· Human blood is sterile and can only be infected by outside microbes
· Germs are monomorphic, i.e., they have only one form and can be identified by species
· Specific diseases are caused by specific germs
· Germs should be killed by pharmaceutical drugs

In the 1870s Pasteur’s germ theory was developed further by William Koch, a contemporary and rival of Pasteur, whose proofs of the germ theory are still known today as “Koch’s Postulates”. See Koch’s Postulates at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch’s_postulates)

Basically, Koch’s contribution to the germ theory was to prove that a specific type of germ caused a specific disease, that the germ would be found in all people suffering from that particular disease but not healthy people, and that every person exposed to these germs would fall ill with disease.

However, Koch had to abandon part of his first postulate when he discovered that healthy people could carry the germs of certain diseases and yet show no symptoms. He also had to revise his third postulate when it was shown that some people could be exposed to virulent germs yet not catch the disease.

The “proofs” of the new Germ Theory were already showing flaws.

Still, despite being highly controversial in the late 1800s, the Germ Theory was quickly adopted by the medical powers of the day. This new theory about germs invading from outside the body empowered the medical and pharmaceutical industry as guardians of human and animal health. People became dependent on the fledgling medical/drugs industry for information and protection from disease. Thus, Modern Medicine was born.

A number of eminent scientists opposed Pasteur and The Germ Theory, most notably the highly respected Professor Antoine Béchamp. Béchamp was a reserved, modest man and a much more distinguished scientist than the self-promoting chemist, Louis Pasteur. (It is believed today that Pasteur stole much of Béchamp’s work and passed it off as his own. This prompted R.B. Pearson to write a book in the 1940s called “Pasteur, Plagiarist, Imposter.”) See text at (http://www.whale.to/a/b/pearson.html)

Béchamp and other scientists believed in the theory of pleomorphism, that a microbe could evolve through many forms from virus to bacterium to yeast to fungus to mold and could even de-evolve back to a pre-virus again. Béchamp could see this evolution and de-evolution clearly in his microscope. Big Medicine rejected pleomorphism back then just as it will not even look at pleomorphic phenomena filmed and documented by scientists today, such as Dr. Robert O. Young in San Diego, California.

Another of Béchamp’s contemporaries, Claude Bernard, expounded on the pleomorphic theory and said that the inner terrain or “milieu interieur” was the cause of disease, and not microbes. It was discovered that acidic blood and tissue provide a terrain that is ideal for disease to develop. When the terrain becomes acidic, microbes evolve into pathogenic forms and carry out the work nature designed them to do – as cleaners and undertakers, scavenging inflamed or infected tissue.

The acidity or acid/alkaline balance of the blood is measured by pH, the potential of Hydrogen, see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH) and is a very important marker for good health. The blood will do all it can to keep its pH at 7.365, or slightly alkaline. It will even strip alkaline reserves like calcium from the bones to buffer a rise in acidity. (This can lead to a condition labelled by modern medicine as osteoporosis.)

When the pH drops, even by .1, the increase in acidity is interpreted by the microbes, already present in the body in their billions, as a sign of a dead or dying body. This prompts them to morph from benign bacteria into virulent yeast and mold so that they can reduce the body to the dust from whence it came.

Even Pasteur eventually realized the truth of this and on his death-bed said that “Bernard was right… the microbe is nothing; the terrain is everything.” But Big Medicine now chose to ignore him. They sensed that the germ theory provided a gilt-edged opportunity to amass a huge fortune.

Béchamp and others in the scientific community opposed the germ theory and advocated the theory of pleomorphism, saying:

· Acidic terrain, not germs, cause disease
· Germs are already in the body by the billions and don’t necessarily have to come from without (although that can sometimes happen)
· Blood is not sterile but can contain many microbial forms
· Germs are pleomorphic, i.e., they can change through many forms (Dr Gaston Naessens identified a microbe undergoing 16 different stages of evolution)
· Virtually all diseases are caused by acidic terrain
· Diseases can be prevented or reversed by increasing the alkalinity of the terrain

What led Professor Béchamp to formulate his pleomorphic theory was the discovery of great numbers of small grainy objects in live blood samples which he observed through his microscope. Many of his contemporaries dismissed these tiny life forms as laboratory contamination which were of no importance. But they intrigued Béchamp. He named them “microzymas” or “little bodies”.

He found microzymas present in every cell in the bloodstream, in animals, in plants, and even in rocks. He found them present in the remains of dead animals many years after the animal’s body had withered away to dust. He observed that in a healthy organism, microzymas work at repairing and nourishing all cells; but when the terrain becomes acidic, the microzymas morph into viruses, bacteria, yeast, fungus, and mold and prepare to break the host down.

Béchamp’s work was ignored, ridiculed, suppressed, and soon forgotten. Down through the years, some scientists discovered pleomorphic phenomena for themselves – Enderlein, Rife, Reich, Livingston-Wheeler, Naessens, and more recently, in the U.S., Dr. Robert O. Young (San Diego) and Dr. David Jubb (New York). Most had no recourse to the works of earlier scientists and thought that their discoveries were unique to them. Like Béchamp before them, they too found their discoveries ignored or suppressed.

All of them were fascinated with the “little bodies” that Béchamp had called “microzymas”. Enderlein called them “protits”, Livingston-Wheeler called them “Progenitor cryptocides”, and Naessens called them “somatids”. But all found that they couldn’t destroy these “little bodies” even when subjecting them to excessive carbonizing temperatures or high dosage radiation.

Dr. David Jubb calls them “Colloids of Life” and says that they are indestructible. They resist “enormous heat, radiation, and chemicals and can reside in petrochemical solution, in hot rock deep within the Earth, in meteorites and in radioactive water inside nuclear power stations. Upon the loss of life of its host, colloid of life return to the earth. A colloid of life is the unknown factor between the animate and the inanimate.” (Jubbs Cell Rejuvenation, p.14.)

That last sentence has quite a resonance. Dr. Jubb is saying that colloids of life, or microzymas, are the smallest observable life forms between spirit and matter.

We still have a lot to learn about life, medicine, and healing but we need to approach these things with an open, inquisitive mind.