December 9, 2024
Let’s Talk About Functional Medicine Testing (Via Saliva, Stool, Blood, Skin, Etc.) As It Relates to Food Elimination & Health Improvements
We have all heard about elimination-based diets before, where one eliminates a food when they notice that it’s creating an issue for them, but in the last decade or so, I have noticed that it has taken a different turn, where it is now being based off from various laboratory tests. Eek is all that I have to say! I’ve been down this road with my son about 12 years ago…and let me tell you it’s a 0/10 would not recommend! If you have been following me, you will know how much confidence I have in any type of [functional] lab testing (….zero, zilch, nada) because all of their assumptions and thus, interpretations of these test results are absolutely flawed and in turn, incorrect and I’ll get into more specifics below as to why this is. As I do with any other “Real Talk” article, I will outline various assumptions regarding the topic and then move to refuting those assumptions by questioning the way that we have been taught to think about it as well as providing other perspectives that are likely true from real world data, observation, and just plain experience in the field. So without further ado, let’s jump right into it!
Assumption #1 – Our microbiome can be measured via our saliva and stool and this is an indicator of health status.
This is a loaded assumption. Can microbes be found in the saliva and stool? Sure, but does it give us a complete picture of one’s microbiome? No. The microbiome fluctuates based upon the terrain or environment of the whole organism. Our microbiome itself has many more functions than we are taught in both the natural health field as well as the functional medicine field. They are the clean-up crew, the energy producers, the protein synthesizers/splicers, and essentially, are the basis of all life. As such, taking such a small sample size at any given moment in time (especially of a waste or byproduct) is going to give you just that…a small sample size of the exact measurement (and moment) of that small sample. Variables, such as duration of time the sample was outside the body, merely the fact that it’s out of the body (not in its natural environment), the transitory environmental factors, the testing environment and process itself, and so much more all have a microbiome shifting or pleomorphic effect on the microbes themselves and thus, the assumptions that are gathered, especially inferring or stating that one’s current microbiome status is accurate under such conditions as well as drawing conclusions from this inference as to what may be beneficial in bringing balance back to one’s microbiome via elimination diets and “nutraceuticals,” are not valid. Why? Because the variables create a different environment for the microbial environment to morph and change, which wouldn’t be the same in comparison to the internal environment, or terrain, of one’s body.
As you can see, the conclusion that the microbiome being “imbalanced” is a majorly flawed assumption that is based upon these tests. There are too many variables within the process itself and sample sizes are way too limited because the microbiome is far more than just the microbes on and in the stool and/or digestive tract. They span the entirety of our body so to isolate it to just certain areas of the body will never give one an accurate picture of their complete microbiome…nor will any functional medicine test, unfortunately. Why is this? Because the angle at which they are looking at the body is skewed. Our microbiome is never “imbalanced” because it is the one that keeps balance by cleaning up the body and doing all of the other tasks that it is responsible for, which essentially means that in any format that they appear, that is what the body needs in order to complete the healing and remediation, remodeling, and restructuring process. To understand this more clearly, you would have to understand the work of Bechamp, Enderlein, and many others, who studied pleomorphism, which is the ability of the microbes to morph into what is needed in the environment and/or terrain of the body at every given moment.
What this essentially means is that there is no such thing as an “imbalanced” or “poor” microbiome and as such, a so-called measurement of it is meaningless. Each of us are swimming in a “sea” of microbial organisms as well as precursors to these organisms, and in this sense, a shortage of supply is never the case. Just because we don’t see them, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t there. There is simply a shift or “morph” that has occurred within the “microbiome,” or terrain, so that any damage that was caused by such a toxic exposure (and this can be at any level of one’s being, meaning physical, mental, emotional, and energetic toxins) can be repaired accordingly. It is only a belief system that instructs, compels, or programs one to believe in the so-called “lack of microbes” and thus, will push the consumption of “probiotics” and other such narratives regarding supplements and/or interventions in order to get the microbiome so-called “balanced.” That view is distorted and incorrect. If we expand our view beyond these limited, lack perceptions, then that is where we can see the truth. Aligning with this truth will shift our experience and thus, the experience of our body as well, which ultimately means that at some point, we must throw out these metrics and live from (or align with) whatever inner guidance we receive in every moment because one cannot linearly measure something that is non-linear in “nature,” which is what we each are. As such, no amount of measuring one’s saliva or stool sample is going to give anyone an accurate depiction of one’s microbiome or “health status” because it’s reducing a whole being down into only a fraction of a system and thus, it is an assumed conclusion that is drawn from a very narrow data band of information gathered, meaning that the information is essentially, useless.
Assumption #2 – Certain presences of microbes within these samples can indicate certain sensitivities and/or nutritional needs in the body.
So as I stated in the first assumption, there are way too many variables in the process of the testing methods themselves for these samples and the simple fact that our microbiome goes far beyond just the digestive tract, so basing any solid conclusions from these tests alone on what you may be sensitive to or what your body needs nutritionally is like basing your diet off from an eenie meenie miney moe game. It is drawing conclusions from an entirely baseless assumption, simply because that is what the medical model points to as fact. These same practitioners will then turn around and say that you are “infected” with a “bad bacteria” and then feel the need to prescribe or recommend antibiotics (even if they are in a more natural form, like echinacea, goldenseal, grapefruit seed extract, garlic, clove, oregano oil, etc.) for a week or even months at a time, depending upon what they deem this so-called “infection” as, in order to “save your life;” meanwhile, it’s harming your mitochondria, which are the ancient microbes in your body that assist with energy conversion and creating structured water (via proteins and ATP) within the body that essentially protects the tissues of our bodies, allows us to be a clear conductor of electrical messages, and allows us, as the whole organism that we are, to function optimally as well as our terrain, which includes our microbiome. In other words, their whole thought process or paradigm of thought is distorted because they believe in labeling the microbes as “good” and “bad,” instead of seeing the role that they play and do. So, if the basis of your assumption is already pointed in an incorrect direction, then the outcome of any testing or extraction method of said data is going to be invalid, right? Why? Because the interpretation of the data under that subset of understanding is distorted from the truth. If it is distorted, then any recommendations or interventions based upon that is not going to assist the client or individual. We see this over and over again when it comes to any type of treatment in conventional medicine as well as in the natural health field, especially if they align with many of these same mainstream “science” beliefs and “models” for how the body works.
The presence of certain microbes within a sample simply indicates that those are the ideal microbes (bacteria, yeasts, fungi, and even parasites) for that particular terrain or environment. Like for instance, the microbes within a stool sample are the ones that will best benefit the organisms in the breakdown of that waste in order to recycle it back into the soil and be used most appropriately in the “circle of life,” if you will. Everything is interconnected in this interdependent/symbiotic experience of a “system.” People also tend to forget that there are microzymas, endobots, somatids, protids, and any other name that has been given to or established for these precursor organisms to all forms of microbes, including yeasts and fungi, all over every square inch of our environment, so just because the sample is taken from one host, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all of these microbes are from that actual host alone either. It is impossible to separate us from the macrobiome that is swarming with life all around us, possibly even influenced by the aether, which is the medium that we live in every second of every day. In essence, reducing it [and us] down to these isolates of certain substances [from the whole] is THE issue. It is reductive, materialistic thinking like this that has gotten us as a species to where we are now…so far away from reality (or the truth resonance) that we would believe a test over our own direct experience, observation, and all of the data that we intuitively receive. It’s like we forgot how to be HUman…as an intrinsic part of nature, which cannot be separate, and instead, we try to act like we are automatons, completely detached from our divinity, creatorship, and innate intelligence of life that flows through everything here. This perception of separateness has created an absolute mess, which was perfectly highlighted most recently during the “covid-19” hysteria. If you were yelling for others to wear a mask, stand six feet apart, and/or take a shot for others to be “protected,” then congratulations, you fell for the real misinformation psyop, propaganda, and further indoctrination of this separation programming. We aren’t vectors of disease and we never have been. We are the masters of alchemy and creation…what we believe becomes what we see in the world reflected back to us from “out there.” If you believe that an invisible, "contagious" particle is going to hijack your cells and make you “their b!t@h,” then that is what you will experience within your reality. However, if you believe that what they claim are “viruses” are simply the tissues and/or cells way of detoxing, then you will be grateful for that detox and healing process and with that, comes peace and gratitude over fear. Feel into it, which feels more aligned with the truth resonance of this experience? Are we supposed to live in fear? The fear response keeps us in a certain pattern of responses (more like reactions as a means to “keep us safe”), our survival mechanism, if you will. This doesn’t allow one’s consciousness to expand out in order to see a larger picture at play nor does it allow one to be able to look at it from multiple perspectives. This is where the “unhinged” behavior comes into play and essentially, what happens is the person begins living from those limited, programmed beliefs in order to maintain an appearance of control and safety (or what they perceive as safety), where they feel that the “experts” know better than they do (or anyone else) and they believe that we must listen to the “authorities” so that we can remain safe and secure at all times…except, it’s an entirely false sense of security because they are looking outwards for it (thus, giving their power over to another), instead of inwards (where they can stand in the security of their own power and ability to choose how they want to live and experience their life). So in that sense, if you want a test to tell you what to believe, or you believe that it holds all of the answers for you, then by all means do, but please know that you don’t have to since you are perfectly capable of finding what works for you and meeting your own needs entirely. In the latter, however, you will likely have to unlearn many of the assumed truths (or conditions) that this world has bestowed onto your consciousness.
In other words, you don’t have to waste $300 - $500 on a test that is highly flawed and builds from (and on) dogmatic assumptions and/or principles that are not true and thus, will not detect “food sensitivities” nor will it give an accurate picture of anyone’s nutritional needs.
Assumption #3 – RNA based testing can give us clues about our microbiome, diet, and supplementation “needs.”
In order to understand this assumption, we first have to understand what RNA, endoplasmic reticulum, and ribosomes exactly are in the body because they are all linked together in this regard. A ribosome is a supposed organelle within a cell that is responsible for protein synthesis, working closely with mRNA. However, if you look at the work of Harold Hillman, some inconvenient truths will begin to emerge, one where ribosomes (and other organelles, like the endoplasmic reticulum) are actually microscope artifacts since a perfect circle, or a sphere in third dimensional reality, isn’t really a possible outcome after mixing said solution in a centrifuge and then slicing it up with a microtome blade. So, what does this mean about RNA then, since the organelles within a cell are likely artifacts, which essentially means that they do not exist? In order to fully understand this, we must understand Harold Hillman’s work.
As such, here is the breakdown of Harold Hillman’s work by Mia Breeze that explains this whole cell theory a little bit better:
“First the tissue is fixed (killed) in formalin, this stops metabolism and enzymes are inhibited. Basically, the tissue is treated to prevent it from decomposing before it is viewed.
Next, because the tissue will not survive being put under a high vacuum and the bombardment of electron and x-irradiation, the tissue must be coated or stained by the deposition of heavy metal salts of osmium, lead, tungsten, manganese, etc.
The stained tissue is thereafter dehydrated with increasing concentration of alcohol (which shrinks the tissue). The alcohol is then extracted from the tissue with a fat solvent (propylene oxide), following which the tissue is impregnated with and embedded within an epoxy resin (plastic), and then left for a few days to harden.
Sections or slices one tenth of a millimeter thick, or less, are cut with a special cutting tool called a microtome. Note that the microscopist has no idea of the orientation of the microtome blade in relation to the cell and its inner structures when cutting sections.
These incredibly thin sections are then placed inside of the microscope’s viewing chamber where nearly all the air is pumped out to place the specimen under high vacuum, known as venting.
A beam of electrons ranging from 1,000 volts to 3,000,000 volts is directed at the specimen, the amount of volts depends on the magnification desired. The higher the voltage, the higher the magnification.
Those electrons which are not intercepted by the heavy metals pass through and strike a fluorescent screen. The microscopist selects a particular field (area) of the screen and zooms in until the features they want to demonstrate are observable. The image can then be enhanced, and photographs are taken, some of which are selected as evidence.
Some argue that the more modern rapid deep-freezing techniques, where samples are frozen at -150 degrees or more, can be carried out without causing dehydration of the cellular fluids as is the case with alcohol.
Hillman says that without the undertaking of proper control experiments this has never been demonstrated. Moreover, he disagrees this could be the case given that when something is frozen to very low temperatures, water comes out of any solution it is in, in the form of ice crystals thereby leaving all other constituents of the solutions dehydrated.
It is also essential to realize that over and above the steps that dehydrate the specimen during preparation, the specimen is further dehydrated when subjected to the bombardment of the electron beam. This is because when the electron beam hits the specimen, it heats up the tissue-metal combination causing the temperature of the specimen to rise by hundreds of degrees.
Following their investigations, Hillman and Sartory concluded that the commonly accepted model of the cell (the generalized cell) is impossible on geometric and biological grounds, and that those inner structures (also known as organelles) deduced by electron microscope are artifacts (products) of the methods employed to prepare the sample for viewing.
Until the early 1940s, before the use of electron microscope to study cells, it was agreed that all living cells were round or spherical entities consisting of an outer or cell membrane enclosing the sphere, mitochondria, a nucleus, cytoplasm, and a nucleus membrane.
Following the introduction of the electron microscope, the following organelles were added to the generalized cell and can be demonstrated to be artifacts:
The cell membrane, the nuclear membrane, and the mitochondria membrane now all appear as two lines with spaces in between them, this appearance is called the ‘unit membrane.’ This is opposed to the single line accepted prior to 1940;
An ‘endoplasmic reticulum’ (ER) permeating the cytoplasm (gel like liquid inside cell membrane but external to nucleus) three dimensionally;
‘Ribosomes’ line the endoplasmic reticulum;
‘Nuclear pores’ appear in the nuclear membrane;
‘Lysosomes’ a membrane bound cell structure found in the cytoplasm that contains digestive enzymes; and
‘Cristae’ were described in mitochondria.
‘Ribosomes’ is the name given to granules seen on electron micrographs between the layers of the ER (‘endoplasmic reticulum’), and to a particular subcellular fraction containing roughly 50% RNA. It is generally believed that RNA and its chemical function sits in the ‘ribosomes’ in the living cell.
Hillman and Sartory argue that if the ‘endoplasmic reticulum’ is an artifact due to deposit of the cytoplasm, it is very likely that ‘ribosomes’ are also a deposit. ‘Ribosomes’ are not seen by light microscopy and Hillman and Sartory hold the view that, in addition to the issues they have with subcellular fractionation already discussed, there is insufficient evidence of subcellular localization of biochemical activities. In other words, there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the RNA detected after subcellular fractionation comes from the ‘ribosomes’ in the living cell.
This is because all membranes are believed to be ‘rounded off’ into particles called ‘microsomes’ and it is quite possible that ‘microsomes’ in a particular fraction believed to be ‘ribosomes’ on the ‘ER’ could in actual fact be pieces of the cell membrane or any other membraned structure believed to be in the cell. Further and given that it is believed that nucleic acid absorbs UV-light and thus, can be used to detect nucleic acid. Hillman points out that if RNA were lining the ‘ER,’ one should see this under ultra-violet microscopy as dark channels permeating the cytoplasm. Put differently, where the ‘ER’ and ‘ribosomes’ are believed to be in the cell, that part should absorb much more UV-light and appear darker than its surroundings due to the high concentration of RNA. Hillman and Sartory could find no evidence that such experiments have ever been done.” (Breeze, 2024)
Thus, this calls into question the whole RNA and even DNA processes themselves, as it relates to their definition of cell theory and protein synthesis…or in other words, the genetic blueprint of our life (or more so, body) experience.
Furthermore, Mia goes on to say that “nuclei (the dark center of cells) have been seen for 150 years. Only recently, however, have ‘nuclear pores’ been reported in nuclear membranes of many plant and animal cells by electron microscopy, though not by light microscopy.
A pore appears on transverse (crosswise) section of the nuclear membrane as a discontinuity in the two-line appearance of the membrane layers. On a tangential view as a circle or octagon.
Initially, ‘nuclear pores’ were thought to be breaks in the membrane but recently much more detail has been attributed to them. Nowadays, they are said to be part of a ‘nuclear pore complex’ and allow for the passage of proteins and RNA between the nucleus and cytoplasm, which is of particular importance to protein synthesis.
As you can by now imagine, Hillman and Sartory have similar issues with this description as with the previous structures, namely the evidence presented appears to defy the rules of logic, geometry, and biology.
First, you only ever see ‘pores’ as gaps in the ‘unit membrane’ or as an array of circles or octagons, they are rarely, if ever, seen as any of the intermediary shapes which would ordinarily be expected. For example, the closer the ‘pores’ get to the edge of the nucleus, they should necessarily appear more squished or slit like, rather than maintain their appearance right up to the edge.
Second, it must be realized that you will only be able to see gaps in the ‘unit membrane’ in instances where the ‘pore’s’ diameter is thicker than the section thickness and the section cuts the ‘pore’ on both sides (front and back faces). Note it follows that the pore will necessarily appear to have the diameter of the hole of the smallest face cut by the section and will not always appear to be of the same diameter in every section.
Third, similar circles or octagons with similar dimension appear in the cytoplasm but these are never deemed to be pores. Indeed, the criterion of a circle of relatively uniform in diameter on the nucleus appears to be the only way of identifying ‘nuclear pores.’
Fourth, even if ‘nuclear pores’ are said to only perforate 3 percent of the nucleus membrane, it is difficult to understand how nuclei apparently maintain their approximate spherical shape after homogenization or centrifugation. Maintaining a spherical shape would require either a consistent pressure difference between the inside and outside of the nucleus – which would not be possible if the membrane were punctured with pores – or an internal structure maintaining its spherical shape.
Fifth, if ‘nuclear pores’ allow RNA to pass through, how do they prevent smaller molecules and ions from also passing through, and then how can it be said that there is a potential difference (a difference in pH) across the nuclear membrane? In other words, how is the difference in pH (difference in hydrogen ions) between the nucleus and cytoplasm maintained if the pores allow elephants (mRNA molecules) to pass through but not mosquitoes (hydrogen ions)? Hillman and Sartory argue that it is far more likely that ‘nuclear pores’ are cracks in the nucleus membrane occurring during the fixation, dehydration, freezing, or subjection to the electron microbeam.
An accurate model of the living cell:
Note that ‘lysosomes,’ ‘Golgi apparatus’ both said to be found in the cytoplasm and ‘cristae’ said to be located in mitochondria are also organelles discovered by electron microscopy and said to exist in the living cell. They are not, however, discussed in this paper as they are not directly relevant. Nevertheless, the reader should know that these organelles have also been shown by Hillman and Sartory to be artifacts, for similar reasons as set out above, namely they appear to defy the rules of logic, geometry, and biology.
Ultimately, Hillman and Sartory regard the evidence for the cell membrane, the nucleus, the mitochondria, cytoplasm, and nucleus existing in the living cell as beyond reasonable doubt. The rest of the currently accepted organelles of the living cell seem to be far from certain.
One more time for those of you who are not concentrating, except for the nucleus and mitochondria, all other organelles said to be found in plant and animals cells are artifacts produced by the electron microscope and do not exist outside electron micrographs. The pre-1940 generalized cell model is the only accurate model of a living cell.
Protein synthesis, the central dogma of genetics and DNA:
As alluded to in the above discussion of Hillman’s work, the main function attributed to the organelles of the cell ‘discovered’ by electron microscope relates to the manufacturing of proteins. How protein synthesis became synonymous with gene expression and the central dogma of genetics will be explained in further detail shortly, it is first necessary, however, to briefly look at how molecular biologist determined that protein synthesis takes place in cells. It is also noteworthy, that it is believed that the living cell is primarily comprised of water, proteins and potassium which floats in an environment of water and sodium.
Cell free protein synthesis (CFPS):
The mechanisms said to be responsible for protein synthesis were discovered by biochemists and molecular biologist in the 1950s and 1960s, two of the most crucial aspects being the discovery of RNA (tRNA and mRNA) and the realization that RNA was located in the ‘endoplasmic reticulum’ and ‘ribosomes’ of all cells.
It was these crucial discoveries that lead biochemists and molecular biologists to being able to synthesize proteins in test tubes by incubating ‘ribosomal’ fractions (RNA), also known as ‘microsomes,’ with certain substrate mixtures – amino acids (building blocks of proteins), salts (sodium and potassium to replicate environment of living cells), and adenosine triphosphate (ATP’s).
ATP is a macromolecule which is said to be created by the mitochondria in cells out of the glucose derived from the food that we consume (process is known as glycolysis). It is said to function as a high-energy storage molecule used in the cell. When the bonds of the ATP molecule are broken via acid hydrolysis in the ‘lysosomes,’ energy is released which is harnessed by the ‘ribosomes’ to synthesize proteins. It’s thus believed to be the energy source powering protein synthesis.
Basically, the mechanisms of protein synthesis were deciphered in experiments which began with a cell homogenate that could synthesize proteins. Subcellular fractionation of the cell homogenate allowed individual fractions to be added or withheld separately from the incubated substrate mixture to determine its exact role in the process and which combinations lead to the amino acids in the tube being synthesized into proteins.
This procedure is known as ‘cell free protein syntheses’ (CFPS) and forms the basis for synthetic biology. The subcellular fraction necessary for protein synthesis to take place in the test tubes were then later identified by means of electron microscopy to be derived from the ‘endoplasmic reticulum’ and ‘ribosomes.’
Whether CFPS demonstrates beyond a doubt that cells synthesize proteins is a topic for another paper. But given that the underpinning experiments were only possible using subcellular fractionation, an electron microscope, and chemical treatments – none of which have been demonstrated through control experiments not to interfere with the experiments themselves (as discussed in this paper already), it is fair to say that these discoveries rest on rocky foundations.
For now, though, we will give them the benefit of the doubt, and accept for the purposes of this paper, that cells do synthesize proteins. What is not accepted, however, and as evidenced by Hillman’s work, is that proteins are manufactured by the ‘endoplasmic reticulum’ and the ‘ribosomes’ in cells.
For those wondering, proteins are said to perform a wide range of crucial functions in living organisms. They act as enzymes, hormones, antibodies, structural components, and transport molecules. Protein synthesis allows cells to produce these necessary components in response to changing needs, such as growth, repair, and regulating physiological processes. Basically, proteins determine how your body is structured and how it functions.
Gene expression and the central dogma:
Gene expression forms the central dogma of molecular biology and genetics and, since Francis Crick first proposed it over fifty years ago, the central dogma model has come to dominate research in these fields. Simply put, the central dogma is the origin story for RNA, without which (cell free) protein synthesis could not take place.
The central dogma states that DNA is static, it does not change of its own accord from the moment it comes into existence; from DNA comes RNA (transcription); RNA is translated into proteins by the protein manufacturing machinery in cells (translation). This process can only flow one way and proteins cannot be made to transform back into genetic material. Lastly, because DNA is made of the same four nucleotides in every living thing, the genetic code is universal, which means that a gene should be capable of producing its particular protein wherever it happens to find itself, even in a different species.
Protein synthesis, carried out by the ‘endoplasmic reticulum’ and ‘ribosomes,’ is thus believed to be under the exclusive control of our DNA and the genes from which it is comprised. This is because it is believed that the sequence of the nucleotides in a gene ‘is a simple code (recipe) for the amino acid sequence of a particular protein.’
To briefly explain the gene expression process: An enzyme (a type of protein), known as RNA polymerase, is responsible for the transcription of a gene (a segment of DNA) into what is called messenger RNA (mRNA).
Following its creation, mRNA leaves the nucleus for the cytoplasm via the ‘nuclear pores’ and floats its way to the protein making machinery of the cell. As you by now know, the ‘endoplasmic reticulum’ and particularly the ‘ribosomes’ are the organelle said to be responsible for protein synthesis and thus for translating the mRNA and assembling amino acids into protein chains (peptides) in accordance with the recipe imparted by the mRNA molecule.
A molecule known as transfer RNA (tRNA) is thought to be attached to the amino acids and functions as the ‘ribosomes’ translator or adapter. This is because the ‘ribosomes’ are said to read the mRNA recipe three nucleotide base pair (codons) at a time and then match them with the complementary anticodons on the tRNA molecule.
It is important to note that no person has ever observed the central dogma in action in any living cell. All the structures and molecules claimed to be involved cannot be seen under a light microscope in unfixed tissue (live tissue). The structures are observed only under electron microscope and the molecules found only after subcellular fractionation.
The central dogma is therefore a theoretical model proposed after observations were made of a) tissues that had undergone various procedures and chemical treatments and b) static pictures obtained from electron microscopes. Moreover, it is very hard to believe this process is supposed to transpire in exactly the same way in a test tube following subcellular fractionation.
DNA:
DNA, where RNA is supposedly derived, is said to be a very long, linear molecule shaped in a double-helix and tightly coiled within each cell’s nucleus.
DNA is believed to be made up of four different kinds of nucleotides, strung together in each gene in a particular linear order or sequence. The four kinds of nucleotides can be arranged in numerous possible sequences, and the choice of any one of them in the makeup of a particular gene represents its ‘genetic information.’
Each human cell is believed to contain roughly 2 meters of DNA and is supposed to be packed into a nucleus of 6 nm. This is akin to packing 40 km of extremely fine thread into a tennis ball.
Apparently, this is possible because four double-stranded DNA strings are wrapped and tightly folded around a histone molecule (type of protein), into packages known as a nucleosome. Nucleosomes are believed to be condensed further into a spiral structure known as chromatins, which are finally condensed further into chromosomes.
It is claimed that humans have 46 chromosomes which exist in pairs, one from our father and one from our mother, and that within our nuclei there are 23 paired chromosomes in a roughly linear rod-like structures. The total sequence of these strings of DNA within these chromosomes are then known as the human genome (blueprint). Unbelievably, despite being very tightly folded and wrapped up and condensed into complex structures, there are apparently no issues when it is necessary for the strands to be copied and transcribed in mRNA.
It is essential to note, that molecular biologists feel qualified to make these assertions about DNA’s composition and structure because they claim to have isolated the DNA found in cells. In many respects, these claims are similar to those made about the inner structure of cells in that they fail to take into account the impact the experiments, which led to the discovery, had on the actual things said to be discovered.
I cannot critically review these claims any better than has already been done by Tam in her paper on the subject. I would suggest that Tam’s paper is mandatory reading for anyone wanting to know about DNA. (That paper can be found here - https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/)
The bottom line is what molecular biologists have isolated cannot honestly be said to be anything more than the by-products that remain after a biological sample has been mixed with chemicals and then heated. This is especially the case since no control experiments have been performed. If the isolation of DNA is dubious, it follows that the structure of the molecule is equally suspect.” (Breeze, 2024).
As you can see, no one really has any concrete idea on what RNA and/or DNA exactly are (especially in relation to the experimental processes that they did to gather any such information), let alone cellular structure, and thus, we cannot infer or know exactly the function or mechanisms of it if we cannot even prove that it is what they say it is. With this logic, we can conclude that sequencing RNA from a sample in order to supposedly differentiate what our predispositions may be to certain foods or what our diet “should” look like, what nutrients we supposedly need, and our overall “health status” based upon this “data” is nonsensical. What are they basing any of these claims off of…in vitro cell culture studies with food exposures, assumptions about our genes and their function, and nutrient (or biochemical function and reaction) assumptions as well in relation to our genetics? If that is the case, then we already know that the end result will be quite flawed because of the environment, all of their original [base] assumptions, and the process itself (in which the experiment is performed)…all of which will lead to their own interpretation of the outcome, not what is truly happening. Their whole foundation of genetics is entirely contrived [from still frame pictures of chemical concoctions] and flawed, so from this, we can see that these tests are not going to give you accurate results or answers for anything that you seek, but will in turn, end up restricting your thought patterns and beliefs and thus, behavior, actions, and choices. Ultimately, it can lead to other downstream health effects as well, if one ends up cutting out a lot of different whole foods that they actually have no issue with and then continues to include foods that one actually has issues with, or one begins supplementing based upon these test results when in reality it really may not be necessary to do so, and so on. It’s kind of crazy to think about, and there are so many people that put an enormous amount of faith into these tests as a way to “give them the answers that they need” or are “seeking” in order to "feel better," yet it is simply creating “distance” (metaphorically speaking) between them and the actual truth. So instead of supporting this heavy reliance on lab testing and propping that up as the “Holy Grail” or “expert” for providing "accurate" information about our body, we can switch our focus to relying on our direct experience, observations, and that inner guidance or knowing for what our body truly requires of us in any given moment. This is taking back our power, which is where it should be anyway because we are the only one who can truly shift our experience for the “better.”
Assumption #4 – IgG and IgE are antibodies that can indicate food sensitivities and/or food allergies.
In order to understand this assumption fully, we first have to understand what antibodies exactly are, and this is yet another deep dive into uncovering actual truths as well. We have always been told that antibodies are antigen (a “foreign invader”) specific, but is this really the case? Well, when these studies were done (to say that this was the case), the common theme across much of research was, of course, not followed – the dreaded use of controls in their experiments. The use of controls would actually show us that antibodies are indeed, not antigen specific. They have been shown by some independent researchers to be soluble blood proteins that play a crucial role in the healing of wounds, tissues, and cells, where they bind arbitrarily with other such proteins…thus, any sample that is taken from an animal or human can be “made” to test arbitrarily positive or negative for such antibodies (Lanka, 2005 interview). As such, it would make complete sense as to why they would be found in and around areas of poisoned tissue then. Furthermore, antibodies have been found in a few different varieties (or forms), yet antigens, on the other hand, have been found in infinite types or forms, so this alone further validates or confirms the fact that antibodies are not antigen specific. How could they be if they are few and antigens are plenty? The math just simply isn’t “mathing” here, and it rarely does in a lot of these so called “scientific research studies/experiments.” Why is this? Because it doesn’t fit into their narrative, model, or the picture that they have painted as to how the body works, so they just ignore anything that doesn’t fit and then they will turn around and call those who question it or them, “science deniers,” “conspiracy theorists,” or throw other ad hominem attacks their way. It just further proves the point that many of us are trying to make.
Dr. Stefan Lanka does a great job breaking it down here in regards to antibodies:
“The increase [in the titer tests] is nothing more than the body’s reaction to poisoning [adjuvants], when the body is poisoned, holes are torn in the cells by these poisons and the cells are destroyed. The body’s reaction when cells break down is to form sealing substances (globulins), small protein bodies that immediately expand in acidic environments, become flat and cross-link with their hydrogen sulfide groups (in which energy is stored) with other proteins and other things. These cause blood to clot and wounds to heal and they seal our cells when toxins are injected into the body. Even if you get a blow on a muscle (forming a bruise), or a blow on the kidney (especially sensitive), or the liver, there is an immediate increase in titer. The body reacts to this by sealing the damaged cells and sealing growing cells. It’s like a house that leaks until the windows are in and sealed. They called this an antibody and even a specific antibody, which is not true. The binding property of these hydrogen sulfide-type proteins is nonspecific, they bind to all sorts of things. You can manipulate this in the laboratory by changing the acid level or adding detergents that change the mineral concentration to achieve a binding or not.
The blood of a pregnant woman is full of globulins to seal the placenta, which is constantly growing, to accommodate the baby. The blood of a pregnant woman has to be diluted 40 times to avoid a massive positive result in tests, such as an HIV test” (Lanka, unknown date, para. 4).
So let’s break this down now in regards to IgG’s and IgE’s. They are often described as variations of “immunoglobulins.” It is said that IgG “immunoglobulins” are a more delayed or mild “immune” response (often associated with the food sensitivity aspect), while IgE “immunoglobulins” are a more rapid “immune” response (often associated with the allergy aspect). Immunoglobulins are antibodies, which are simply blood proteins that assist the body in healing its tissue and cells. So, what does a high presence of these blood proteins in the body indicate? Damage, right? This doesn’t mean that we are sensitive or allergic to these foods, or antigens, but rather, that there’s a toxicant or poisoning happening to the tissues in some way, which is likely due to certain chemicals and other “elements” that are added to foods, in which, the body finds poisonous. In essence, this means that you are not sensitive to the food per se, but rather, your tissues are sensitive to certain damaging poisons contained within and/or on the foods. Glyphosate being a major one on grains and other produce. It also depends on your current toxic load as well on whether something pushes your body over that edge into anaphylaxis or not. In this sense, a high level of IgG “immunoglobulins” may simply indicate that there is a low level (or chronic, low level exposure type) of damage occurring in the body, while a high level of IgE “immunoglobulins” may indicate that there is a higher level of damage/poisoning occurring in the body, which is why the body reacts much more severely in this instance with anaphylaxis being a possibility. Some research has pointed to the possibility of this high presence of IgG “immunoglobulins” to mean that those are actually the foods that the body can handle or tolerate. I’m not absolutely certain on this, but it may be a possibility because I have heard that IgG “immunoglobulin” tests are merely picking up on, or pointing to, those foods that one consumes regularly (so a more frequent exposure) and that is why it usually reflects everything that one is currently eating and thus, is often said by practitioners to eliminate those foods as a way to “feel better.”
So, what exactly is anaphylaxis? It is a brutal assault or shock to the nervous system. According to Professor Charles Robert Richet, “The nervous symptoms often develop so suddenly and violently that there is no time for colic or diarrhea. Ataxia follows at once, which is described as a lack of muscle control or coordination of voluntary movements, such as walking or picking up objects. A sign of underlying condition, ataxia can affect various movements and create difficulties with speech, eye movement, and swallowing. Feelings of drunken intoxication, dilated pupils, and the subject may fall to the ground, becoming unconscious or unresponsive. Labored or agonized breathing is common. The heartbeat may be faint, there is rapid and acute loss of blood pressure. All the symptoms point to the central nervous system being the seat of severe and sudden intoxication.” This isn’t what we are told by conventional medicine or “science” though regarding anaphylaxis. We are told that it is due to an allergy and thus, is an immune-induced response that can cause swelling in the face, eyes, lips, tongue, hands/feet, and throat (which makes it hard to breathe) and can create hives due to a high histamine response in the body. However, it appears to be more of a poisoned response by the body, like I have pointed to numerous times already within this article regarding “food sensitivities” and “allergies,” so this definition by Professor Richet makes a lot more sense than the one that conventional medicine uses.
With this information, we can conclude with confidence that IgG’s and IgE’s are all part of the illusory game that they (those who profit and benefit) would like to keep playing. They have many believing it (their narrative) as true within their limited, reductionistic paradigm(s), where a great majority of those people then in turn, believe that they have no control or power over their own body and/or experience here; and instead of looking to the actual culprits of poor health outcomes (those toxin exposures within our environment and thus, terrain), they distract and place blame elsewhere so that they can keep writing prescriptions for Epi-pens, antihistamines, steroids, and continue to have ER visits (approximately 200,000 per year in the U.S.) that essentially bring in more profits for these institutions, and for those in the natural health field, they will continue to make profits from consultations, services, and products/supplements as well. It always seems to come back to that monetary gain aspect in life, unfortunately. Why would anyone want to rock the boat if they are directly benefitting from it? They won’t until their consciousness expands beyond this conditioning and in turn, won’t allow them to “operate” or behave in that way any longer, which is likely going to be happening more and more in the next few years (and decade) as the conscious expansion takes place worldwide. As this tide turns and shifts, more and more will begin to question these concepts and will further step into following their own, innate inner guidance and thus, power. Until then, please remember to be acutely aware of what you are giving your power away or over to (by holding any untrue beliefs of a so-called external “authority,” as in something or someone that “knows better than you”) and this includes, any of these antibody tests as well. It all begins with you/us having the ability to trust our internal authority again…and from there, great shifts are [always] possible.
Assumption #5 – These functional tests are necessary to find the optimal diet and assist with your health and nutritional status.
Not only are these functional tests not necessary, they are often harmful in a multitude of ways (i.e., in a mental, emotional, physical, and financial sense). They often cost hundreds of dollars and for what? To simply provide us with false information and a skewed perception for how our body actually works, where our health could then take an even darker turn into malnutrition, distortion, and the appearance of “dysfunction”…simply because a test told us so and we listened, instead of listening to our own experience, firsthand observations, and the intuitive wisdom that guides us to what works well for ourselves. How much more do we want to continue handing over our power to those labeled as “experts” or these “tests” in the name of profit? How much longer do we want to keep being manipulated by these reductionist and materialistic mentalities telling us that our bodies are not capable without these products and/or interventions? If an assumption builds upon another false (and often, fully disproven) assumption, then isn’t it all a false, inaccurate, and/or an incorrect assumption…I’m asking for the billions of people who live here and are experiencing this life and/or “realm” at the moment. Because that is exactly what these “functional” medicine tests do. They are all assumptions with very little truth, if any, that are supposedly meant to assist people’s experience, and how exactly is this accomplished? Well, people willingly submit themselves to the manipulative marketing tactic(s) that claim that there is something inherently wrong or flawed with their body. It is the notion or belief that they are not “good enough” as they are, which is far from the truth. If we weren’t conditioned to believe this way via conventional medicine, “science,” and/or societal standards in general, then we wouldn’t run towards these type of tests to begin with because we would know that our body is inherently doing what is necessary to remediate, remodel, and reconstitute our gels and tissues in order to recover and come back into balance or harmony once again. In all honesty and on that same train of thought, how can these practitioners label themselves as “functional medicine” practitioners or nurses when they don’t even understand (or comprehend) how the body even functions, especially knowing that it functions way beyond the medical model and framework and even most of the natural health paradigms too, since that appears to have been co-opted as well with the madness of this supposed “scientific progress” over the last two centuries. Our body doesn’t need additional technologic advances in order to understand it…if anything, that has led to an even more distorted picture of life and in turn, a greater amount of harm done across the board. Our bodies are the advanced technology itself, meaning that, if we simply give it the proper inputs, then the outputs or functioning of it is going to be free of distortion and/or the appearance of “dysfunction.” I honestly don’t understand why this is so difficult for people to grasp. A pill of any kind isn’t going to heal you. A surgery of any kind isn’t going to heal you. A test of any kind isn’t going to heal you. Why? Because none of that gets to the actual root cause(s) of the distortion(s) within one's experience that are creating this re-harmonization process as an outward expression or experience of this symptomology. What is it that heals us then? It is the innate intelligence of our body interacting with(in) the “quantum field,” the aether, consciousness, nature, sound/light/frequencies (because that is what we are), electromagnetic harmonization (which is what programs this entire reality), and being authentically us (beyond the programming and conditioning of this materialistic world) as well as supporting our physical body as we are guided to do and essentially, not living in an overwhelmingly toxic environment.
So, in other words, no these tests are absolutely not necessary for finding one’s optimal diet nor assisting with one’s health and/or nutritional status. It can easily be done by simply trusting our gut and de-programming ourselves about giving our power away to a belief outside of ourselves that claims to “know what’s better or best for us more than we do so for ourselves”…because that 100% isn’t true! That is a manipulation trick…to get us to not trust our gut/inner compass, as a way to con us into buying these expensive tests and/or interventions based upon false assumptions/presumptions, and then to gaslight us when that path doesn’t work out for us in the end or the long run. It's the same playbook over and over and over again...until one day, we wake up and break the cycle.
Now don’t get me wrong, many people in these positions aren’t even aware that they are falling into these belief systems. They are being “driven” (or animated) by these false assumptions, conditions/standards, and the promise of a fulfilled and accomplished physical experience because that is how they were programmed. People don’t open up to beyond the physical/material-based realm until their physical foundation becomes shaky and unstable (or in other words, some type of experience happens that rocks their world-view)…only then will their perception begin to shift and expand beyond many of these “accepted norms and conditions” because in these feelings of “suffering,” we guide ourselves back into alignment by bringing light to all of "our" shadows (which are essentially, these conditioned, untrue beliefs that really aren't ours and thus, we don't have to claim nor identify with them at all). It is then that they enter into our conscious awareness and we are able to see the falsehoods contained within our thoughts and beliefs for what they are and thus, we can then see and experience a world beyond these “survival” mechanisms and merely "operating" in a “physical” or “material-based” plane of existence. From that place, or with this wider lens perspective, it is much easier to be open to all possibilities and to know that “medicine” and “science” are only touching the surface of what is contained within us. As such, trust yourself fully as the wealth of knowledge (and advanced being) that you/we are. No [flawed] lab test is ever going to compare to the innate intelligence that is life force energy that flows through each and every one of us at all times. In other words, we each have access to this “Holy Grail” within [now and always]. It's only a matter of realizing that it's there.
The question of the day or even of the past few decades then becomes, why are these supposed “food sensitivities” on the rise?
Well, I have a few thoughts about why this is and I will outline them below:
1. The use of toxic chemicals in and on our foods.
People think that simply testing for a “food sensitivity” is just using the specific food substance alone, but we have to ask ourselves what was sprayed on the food substance, what was added to the food substance, and how was the food substance grown, fed, and what was their water source? These are all important factors as to why the body may be reacting to a certain food. It is likely not the food itself, but the toxic chemicals and the changing of how we naturally grow our crops and feed/treat the animals that we eat.
2. The body itself is already in a toxin-overload state so the terrain is distorted and thus, the functioning of one’s body may lean towards “hyper-sensitivity/reactivity” because inflammation is one way the body protects itself from toxin exposure.
3. People have been taught inaccurate dietary guidelines.
The food pyramid is utter nonsense and so are any governmental or medical guidelines on how one should be eating. Here are some highlights for just how off-base these dietary guidelines have been:
* Counting calories or macros is nonsense and not necessary. Calories in versus calories out is simply a linear way to look at both diet and health. Looking at what you are eating is much more important than the amount of calories that it has. Counting macros gets into much this same linear mindset. Our bodies are NOT linear…they are alchemical instruments. There are also factors that can vary each day for us (like stress, menstruation, activity level, perspiration amount, climate/environment, etc.), leading one to have a greater or lesser nutritional need than other days, so if one is simply basing their food intake on a specific set of macros and/or standards, then they will likely deny or overindulge their body as these factors vary. If you eat a whole foods diet, then there is no need to restrict calories or macros to a specific numerical value. You simply eat until you feel a sense of fullness or the food no longer tastes appetizing anymore, especially when it comes to animal products. In other words, our bodies will give us the cues that it needs in order to guide us appropriately. We have simply been conditioned to ignore these cues and follow a metric instead, or what an “expert” has to say (or has said) with some sprinkled in bogus epidemiological data, material, and/or studies that are not done properly with controls, so in other words, they don’t identify the true variable that they are indeed looking for in the beginning. This simply leads to a false outcome and an incorrect conclusion drawn from said outcome, so a healthy skepticism is always a plus when it comes to published papers, especially ones that talk about food and health in general.
* Cholesterol and saturated fat aren’t the bad guys. Butter, eggs, and red meats (preferably organic and grass-fed/finished) are some of the most nutrient-dense foods that you can eat. In turn, these foods allow the body to rebuild and restructure itself, which is often referred to by the majority of people as “healing.”
* Plant foods have “anti-nutrients” in them so please be aware of this, especially when it comes those that are often labeled as “superfoods” because many of them contain these “anti-nutrients” in high amounts, like oxalates, and as such, they can create what appears to be “food sensitivities” for you too. This is because plants contain certain poisons in them as their defense mechanisms, since they don’t exactly have arms and legs to move away and protect themselves from predators/animals eating them. Thus, symptoms can occur as a result of these “anti-nutrients,” which can act like chemical poisons in the body.
* Exogenous hormones and antibiotics are added to certain animal sources of food, which can create food-like sensitivities as well since they can distort the terrain and microbiome.
* Pasteurization harms (and/or pleomorphs) much of the microbes and certain enzymes within the foods, which our body then doesn’t recognize as being a natural source of nutrition since it prefers food in its whole, natural form…unadulterated by human intervention.
* The packaging of most foods in the store are now plastics, Styrofoam, and other chemical-laden products, leading to micro-plastic exposure as well as all sorts of endocrine disruptors and chemical agents, which can lead to an outward expression of sensitivity symptoms as well.
“Limited-thought humans” tend to think that they understand what is best for all humans due to flawed assumptions and because of corporate-funded studies, but our “ancient” ancestors understood this much, much more than any of the “experts” within today’s society by far. Much of what we see as food today are food-like chemicals…so of course our body is going to react to what isn’t natural and whole as we expose ourselves to it. Honestly, how could it not?
As such, instead of spending hundreds of dollars on these types of tests, you could simply ask your body what it wants via muscle response testing, intuitive guidance or eating, or simply by keeping a food journal in order to see how your body reacts to the foods that you consume. It may have to go a little deeper than that though if you aren’t buying organic [whole] foods and/or farm fresh foods, where you know that they aren’t loaded with chemicals and/or other additives, in order to see if the additives are causing the reaction or it’s the actual food itself, which can be done with muscle response testing as well. If it is a plant food, then you may have to see if it is an “anti-nutrient” (i.e., oxalates, lectins, phytoestrogens, tannins, phytates, goitrogens, etc.) creating the problem, or any possible pesticide, herbicide, insecticide, and/or any other additives. Plant foods have natural pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides too as well as some carcinogenic attributes that could be a contributing factor for what appears to be a “sensitivity.” If it is an animal food, then you may have to see if they were given vaccines, antibiotics, steroids/hormones, or any other additives (nitrates, nitrites, etc.) as a possibility because people are likely to react to those as well. Seed and vegetable oils are “industrial lubricants” and are often highly oxidized (creating free radicals, which can be harmful to our health) after production, where they are processed with petroleum-based solvents like hexane, so they end up using bleach and deodorizing them in order for them to be palatable to the consumer, which in turn, can create trans fats and damage to our tissues. Seed and vegetable oils are classified as omega-6 fatty acids, which are known to create more of an inflammatory response in one’s body, especially if one’s omega-3 fatty acid intake is low, like cod liver oil, fish oil, fish, flaxseed, and such. So in other words, it goes much deeper than simply using a “food sensitivity” test in order to see what you “should be” eating and/or eliminating as well as using genetic testing in order to see what nutraceuticals you “should be” supplementing with in order to be “healthy” or “increase your odds” for “health improvements.”
I already wrote an article on genetic testing too as it relates to health and supplementation and you can find that here, if you’d like to read more about it - https://www.beyondwellnessllc.com/post/let-s-talk-about-genetic-testing-and-dna-as-it-relates-to-nutraceutical-recommendations-and-our-heal.
If you made it this far, kudos to you and thank you so much for reading my article. Please be on the lookout for more articles and videos to follow in the coming months on a variety of “Real Talk” topics. If you have a topic that interests you and you would like me to address it, then please feel free to reach out and I’ll do my best to do so.
Thanks again, everyone!
Dr. Andrea Bird, BCND & CHHP
Reference:
Breeze, Mia. (February 14, 2024). Why You Should Know About Harold Hillman’s Work on the Living Cell. Retrieved on December 7, 2024, from https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2024/02/14/why-you-should-know-about-harold-hillmans-work-on-the-living-cell/.
Lanka, Dr. Stefan. (Unknown date). The Misinterpretation of ‘Antibodies.’ Retrieved on December 7, 2024, from https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2020/11/26/the-misinterpretation-of-antibodies/.
Richet, Professor Charles Robert. (Unknown date). Anaphylaxis – The Real Bio-Weapon. Retrieved on December 7, 2024, from https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2022/02/26/anaphylaxis-the-real-bio-weapon/.
Comments