Here is a statement from a Scientific Journal that puts doctors, nurses and health-practitioners on the spot:
The words may look complex to the non-scientific eye, but it is simple logic. If our environments are a proxy for epigenetics, and our epigenetics are directly tied to our mitochondria, and the quadrillions of mitochondria create the very basis for our energy and health, then why isn’t it a standard protocol for doctors to ask their patients about their environmental exposures? Instead, doctors test a patient rather than a patient’s environment.
A wonderful analogy would be a fish as the patient, and a fish-tank as the patient’s environment. Could it be that we live in a society where we over-rate a patient’s diagnosis and under-rate the diagnosis of a patient’s environment?
We also live in a world where the biochemistry is propped up and the biophysics of life are often removed from the conversation. Biophysics are generally related to:
- Energy and light frequencies we absorb into our bodies each day
- Interactions of light into our water chemistry with our cells
- Generation of our own light as biophotons
- Natural sunlight and the artificial sources we generate as humans, like the lighting over our heads, stray voltage, harmonics and transients typically generated from the power grid, electric fields, magnetic fields, wireless source, x-ray machines and so on.
Many of our scientists, researchers and medical professionals are educated to think about concepts independently as reductionist, compartmentalised, on/off, 1s and 0s thinkers. Although a mechanistic point of view can be useful, the application of this way of teaching often does not reflect complex systems. In contrast, life is a dynamo of synergy with chemistry light and energy all working, at-the-moment, in complexity.
Electromagnetic fields and frequencies are typically broken down the same way, even though there is a complexity of frequencies and their convergence and interference patterns happening at any given moment in time.
Educators typically look at an individual frequency of light in a vacuum, remove other frequency interactions and omit what could be happening in life: the dynamic synergy in how we consume or absorb something into our bodies and all of the interactions between matter, light and energy.
When looking at our mitochondria’s response to an individual’s fish-bowl, it becomes very logical for doctors and medical practitioners to question the spaces each of us inhabits. The most sacred space is where the patient sleeps during our critical regeneration cycles.
- Are we sleeping in darkness, or are there artificial lighting sources around?
- Are there sources of non-native electromagnetic fields and frequencies that interact while we sleep, or is the room generally quiet and free of data transfer?
- Food can matter, but water matters even more inside of us as life’s universal solvent: is the water’s deuterium content higher than normal and pushing our own levels higher in the mitochondria where our ATP Synthase rotors desire to spin and not hitch?
“It seems likely that deuteronation of ATP synthase and other macromolecules has stochastic biological consequences. The proposed mechanism could shed light on the mechanisms of heavy water toxicity and on certain time dependent pathological processes such as aging.”
New Chapter in Science
Because we have thousands of mitochondria typically within each brain and heart cell to generate the energy we need to live, and our society suffers from now hundreds of modern diseases related to our mitochondria, this is a new chapter in science: it is telling us about the quality of our environments we inhabit and their influences upon us over time.
A great strategy is awareness, such as using an EMF meter to measure what could be happening under our noses. It’s easy when we “see all of the light”, and not simply the tiny slice of the Visible Light Spectrum of Electromagnetism that we call color.
Sunlight itself comes down on us with literally a myriad of frequencies under the sun, but at conditions and variances based on the time of day, season, altitude and other factors. So when the mechanistic-minded scientists look at a single frequency like UVA or UVB and then attempt to produce it using an AC system to pulse that light as well, then remove other frequencies normally found in sunlight, then have more invisible parts of the EM Spectrum that could also be around at the same time, and then attempt to convince others that “nearly all UV is a problem”, shouldn’t we all have a problem with these scientists instead?
The next time we think about throwing down some rat poison (Cholecalciferol) deep into our guts, maybe it’s a better plan to live with nature’s cycles for real benefits as described here:
This article has many powerful reminders.
“Yet vitamin D supplementation has failed spectacularly in clinical trials. Five years ago, researchers were already warning that it showed zero benefit, and the evidence has only grown stronger. In November, one of the largest and most rigorous trials of the vitamin ever conducted—in which 25,871 participants received high doses for five years—found no impact on cancer, heart disease, or stroke.”
Mainstream news outlets, sunglass-makers, sunscreen-dealers and like-minded entities have attempted to convince us that sunlight is dangerous, when Vitamin D itself is well-known to fight and ward off cancer and disease. It is vital for our health not to miss the most important details about natural frequencies to understand how society got to the place of removing the benefits of sunlight.
It is wise to be reminded about how we make Vitamin D:
Cholesterol and Vitamin D are nearly identical in chemical structure and Vitamin D is synthesized from cholesterol in the skin upon exposure to sunlight in a wonderful dance of UV light and infrared. However, when plugging in and pulsing a 230-volt UV lamp connected to a 50 Hertz AC power grid in a scientific experiment, we can cause additional oxidative stress.
Sunlight is complex in the frequencies emitted, including all of the conditions like time of day due to atmospheric filtering. It is very difficult for humans to recreate the sun’s spectrum analysis with a bulb, although some frequencies may have direct influences, even beneficial ones.
John Ott was a lighting pioneer back in the mid-20th century. He actually studied a great deal about what happens to plants when specific frequencies of light are removed from full-spectrum lighting. The nature of frequency interactions and the observed biophysics is rarely taught in our education system today. In part, this is how many of our researchers, optometrists, ophthalmologists and dermatologists may have come to a belief that UV frequencies are generally bad and they should be avoided by applying toxic sunscreens upon our skin and filtering natural lighting conditions with sunglasses at all hours of the day, while rarely questioning the ramifications of wearing sunscreens and filtering lighting into the eyeballs. It is up to deeper thinkers to help show how light-itself works, observations and epidemiology that can be useful to keep open-minded about the paradigms that have been established.
When reading the science in this study below and the implications of this Sallamed Abstract, it is quite intersting to say the least. Using a narrow UV frequency band, we see alterations with autophagy, mitochondrial ROS and apoptosis. Many scientists will extrapolate that “it is UV light and therefore because UV light is in sunlight, sunlight must be a problem.” But when I read the article, I think about their artificial light bulbs as an nnEMF source and what specific frequencies of artificial lighting could cause, NOT sunlight.
As mentioned earlier, it is important to consider the biophotons we produce in addition to the light frequencies we take into our bodies. However, we use signaling mechanisms within specific pathways and when we use them with various cycle drives much of our biochemistry. Moreover, it is important to look at the basic cycles of life and ask if we are altering them and how we could be doing it for our benefit or detriment. People generally can feel jetlag, know if they have stayed up too late or do not feel rested in the morning. This can be compounded with dehydration, but the status of each of our 40+ trillion cells may be more dehydrated than others due to many, many factors. Because our mitochondria are at the basis of our energy levels, it is wise to find approaches to minimize damage and improve their overall health as a longer-term strategy. It is not only the nuclear DNA we need to consider that we typically study as genetics, but the mitochondrial DNA as our epigenetics.
“In every instance, the compounds that he found to be carcinogenic took the UV light, absorbed it and changed or scrambled the frequency. This is what happens to our DNA when we eat poor quality food, are repeatedly subjected to negative emotions, listen to DNA-harming music, television, etc. or even endure an onslaught of chemical toxicity in our air, water, and soil due to corporate polluting. These elements scramble or confuse the light signals being communicated by our cells.”
In my humble opinion, the value and behaviors we place on nature to embrace it or remove it is arguably the greatest decision we can make about our future health. When a person decides to text on a phone for 15 minutes vs. going outside for 15 minutes, a new value-choice arises. Often people believe multitasking is the answer, and it may work for many people. For others, it may be a more dire health situation and it is hard to compromise. There is always a risk-analysis involved with anything in life: we can find compromises, but often we are unsure if we are compromising our future-health with present-decisions.
I believe the “greatest choice” we make in our modern way of life is to attempt to use nature frequently and integrate her daily into our lives, or keep nature farther removed and often buried over longer time-frames that may reduce natural cycles. It is a decision for each individual to make, but there is also enough knowledge and truth required for each personal decision. We have a choice to stay the course inside of the artificially-human created, not use sunlight, not be grounded like the animals we see in nature. Or do we choose to be more like a zoo animal: caged up and surviving in our boxes. Each person that becomes aware of nature’s vast benefits is left with this profound choice: how much nature can be removed and how much artificial can be added to maintain a healthy life?
Lifestyle choices are typically at the root of longevity and how we age, which arguably, ties directly to our mitochondrial health. When we are not willing to change our lives back toward nature to incorporate more natural lighting and frequencies into it, then we can expect “the artificial” to take hold instead. However, access to nature is also becoming more scarce at times. Living in a city environment, for example, may be difficult to access nature, especially in cloudy regions or even where buildings are blocking sunlight. When a person is willing to take a higher risk an artificial environment, finding other solutions may be needed.
What Can You Do?
Although it is much easier to use sunlight and the Schumann resonances of the earth itself as the primary benefit when available, it may be difficult for some people to access the outdoors. My approach is that when I cannot access sunlight or do not have a good place to earth my body, having other strategies in place can be beneficial.
- For enhancing mitochondrial function, I can use a DDW (Deuterium Depleted Water) source.
- Eat more Deuterium Depleted Foods by removing the higher deuterium sources.
- Have a better source of Red Light on hand for a greater mitochondrial input if I cannot find enough sunlight to access.
- I also consider more disciplined methods of mitochondrial benefit, like intermittent fasting, fasting and cold thermogenesis (like taking a cold shower or dipping into a river).
These are often a Plan B approach because Plan A is getting outdoors, using the sun and cycling with the day-night cycle. I never make the willing choice to reduce nature and devalue her, while embracing the artificial. Like never before in history, our modern world provides new challenges to our biology to maintain our health. As long as we are mindful and prepared, we will survive and prosper.
Lifestyle choices are known to be the most crucial element of our health; strategies to relax in the evening helps to reduce stress and provides us deeper sleep. Have you ever logged how you feel the next morning after using a computer or phone screen just before going to sleep versus a non-technological activity? If we are not living mindful enough in our daily approach, can we expect to heal properly? Humans are typically guilty of perceiving the right thing to do, but the right thing might be a little more inconvenient when we have busy lives. But humans are also a product of nature and our instincts are built by them. It is quite simple to log how much time we spend outside, face to face having real relationship with other people and in nature, in comparison to how long we are in front of our technology and screens disconnected from real people. Personally, if I value nature enough, I naturally keep track of how long I have been away from her, instinctively.
In other words, when I am not romancing nature like a significant other, I expect more abnormal expressions to arise within my biology and attempt to find ways to get back to her. It is an interesting time we are living in, because more humans are pondering how we have become more disconnected in our personal relationships, such as with our own children, in a technologically connected world. Are we honest about how we are balancing our lives and connecting to others? What patterns do we have? Have they changed in the last 5 years, 10 years, 20 years in comparison? Technology is a want in most cases, even though many people may use the word need. Technology is a tool and very convenient. But if we wish to have healthy, long lives, we can balance nature into the formula and keep nature as a need and question our wants. One of the greatest questions to ask is: when was the last time you have felt the most complete, fulfilled, content, relaxed and filled with purpose and yearning? Was it sitting down with your phone or computer, or was it taking a vacation to a foreign country and just taking in an ocean beach, mountain or forest?
I know my answer.