First off, I really understand and appreciate your desire to understand the flash presentations that I mentioned in a previous email. The subject is, however, immense and because my concerns would lead to intense discussions that might require years of study, I have hesitated to put everything into emails, which, as you know, turn up in the strangest places, often years after they were first written.
So, cards face up on the table. I am personally ghastly allergic to mushrooms. I did not know this until well into my adulthood and the story would take a really long time to tell, but one day I must tell it. Suffice it to say that decades later, as a result of my exposure to mold, I came upon the work of Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker. He states that approximately one quarter of the human population is allergic to mold. In my estimation, there is considerable room for discussion here because an allergic response is something requiring profound evaluation. It occurs to me that some people may suffer silently and others more overtly. I am not convinced that failure to generate a response to mold is necessarily proof that exposure is benign.
The case in point and why it interests me so much is the flash, which can be found on:
In this instance, the couple had been driving from Vienna to Ticino and dreaming about lunch at a quaint restaurant that served these "marvelous" mushrooms. For all intents and purposes, they were pleased with lunch so the story that unfolded was very disturbing and it kept them up talking all night. When I saw them outside my office early in the morning, I thought, "Oh, gosh!"
At that time, I was into the fourth year of my own ordeal with mold and I had become very observant of mold in the blood. I was flirting with a thesis that approximately a third of the cancer patients I had been seeing were mold-infected. When I was in Europe, I was working extremely long hours and there was little time for reflection, but I would come home, blow up the pictures to enormous sizes, study what I had seen, review everything in my mind, and then wait for the occasion to test some of the theories.
In Switzerland, I was ready to try out some ideas. There was one breast cancer patient whose story was conclusive so far as I was concerned. She had been battling the disease for 20 years so by normal standards, she was doing well, but spending one's whole life trying to outwit and outlive a dreaded disease is not really the best use of an incarnation. There was absolutely no question but that she had mold in her blood. She was surprised; I urged her to have her apartment remediated. She has been fine ever since that work was done.
So, there is a big story here, really big story. What if countless others are making unnecessary sacrifices to procedures that are irreversible, to chemicals with lasting side effects, and so on and so forth? What if dealing with the mold restores life and opportunity? I am not on the exact same page as Dr. Tullio Simoncini because I am not saying ALL cancers are fungal and I am not limiting my observations to yeast. I am trying to look at the big picture and all I will say at this time is that I suspect that some people who have been diagnosed with cancer have a problem with fungi that, if shifted, might affect the cancerous situation.
I'm very sensitive to suffering. Sometimes my heart is really torn right out of my body, especially when I see small children, pets, or mothers with children who are suffering; but any loss of creativity, inspiration, or opportunity is challenging to me as, I believe, it should be to all who are soul conscious.
Because of Bob's situation, I came face-to-face with the possibility that people who have no demonstrable allergic symptoms may nevertheless be suffering from fungal infections. There is no question in my mind but that he was infected with yeast and most likely also mold. I am almost 100% certain about the mold. However, he had no signs of allergies at all.
On the other hand, I start sneezing within seconds of exposure, but there are people even more allergic than I am, those who go right into anaphylactic shock when someone forty feet away cracks open a peanut. I am not exaggerating so it pays to think of a spectrum here, one in which the reaction seems exaggerated to one in which there is no obvious response. The problem I face is that while it's possible that those with allergies do produce more white blood cells, there is little to suggest that those who are not allergic are impervious to the other hazards of fungi, hazards that include mycotoxins and hemolysins.
So, my first task was to see if the mushroom response was consistent. For instance, does it matter which types of mushrooms one eats or whether the mushrooms are "medicinal"? At this point, opportunities to check the blood of others have been limited to just 3-4 more people, but the results were absolutely consistent with what was seen in the flash I presented. Moreover, I wish to underscore that no one was allergic. I can only imagine how much worse my blood would look if I were the one consuming mushrooms.
Immunity
This brings me to the sore point, i.e., what we call "immunity". Ever since the germ theory seized the imagination of people who lived in terror of microbial epidemics, there has been a tendency to attribute more disease to microorganisms than to other factors, but the truth is probably, did you hear "probably", that all life forms have their functions and that there is some competition for nutrients and survival in a world that is teeming with life. In darkfield, what you see is that fungi prevail over bacteria, ergo the marketing success of penicillin and subsequent antibiotics based on variations of the Alexander Fleming observations.
Now, I will do the unforgivable and leave another cliff hanger, with a promise to return in a week or two, but I want to take an enormous detour and go back to some classic concepts of disease, including some that were considered very important in astrology in historic times. The theory goes something like this: there are acute diseases and chronic ones. The nature of acute diseases is that they arise suddenly, ravage, and either take their toll or disappear. The nature of chronic diseases is that they get worse with time. In the beginning, the symptoms are mild but rarely so annoying that people feel any urgency about correcting the problem. However, after a decade or two decades or even three, the chronic condition can become very annoying and debilitating and eventually life-threatening. Cancer was ostensibly a chronic, degenerative disease . . . and this gives much pause for thought, if one takes the time to sift through the ramifications.
In a world decimated by the Plague, it was perhaps logical to wage war on acute conditions. They are Mars-ruled and perhaps attract that energy in excess. In theory, at least according to Ingrid, people with adequate immunity would not probably succumb to most acute diseases. Historically, this has always been true. The problem that arose as a result of 20th century medicine is that suppression of the primary symptoms may have created a situation in which the infections went deeper where they generated more chronic complaints. Likewise, treatment using strategies that may contribute to chronic conditions were justified on the basis of fear of acute diseases, the ones allegedly "caused" by microorganisms.
My problem is that I do not actually have proof that the theories of 20th century medicine are valid. More likely the assault on immunity has given rise to incalculable surges in chronic diseases, everything from cancer to autism, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders, all of which are now epidemic in comparison to measles, mumps, and chicken pox.
This is already long for an email and it's easy to see that more installments of this thread will be necessary before my case is made. In the meantime, may I respectfully request that those of you who take exception to what I write either say so politely or not at all. This list is offered freely for what it worth and you are at liberty to unsubscribe at any time, but you are guests and I have enough on my plate without having to reorganize my aura. I am very interested in sincere, intelligent, and thoughtful dialogue but rudeness doesn't cut it with me. Those who do write such emails are instantly deleted by me, not because I cannot tolerate controversy but because I like to discuss important subjects thoughtfully and with respect for differing opinions.
Copyright by Ingrid Naiman 2007
All Rights Reserved.
No part of this article can be reprinted without written permission of the author.
No content on any of the pages of this web site may be reproduced without written permission of
Ingrid Naiman and Seventh Ray Press, publisher of this site.
