Conference hydra::dejavu

>    POLARITY THERAPY works to bring the life  energies  of  the  body
>    into  a  state  of  balance.   
    
    I guess this relates back to my brief discussion with Cindy.
    
    What exactly are 'life energies ?'
    
    And why is Cindy so sure that they are completely distinct from
    the human soul, to the point that she would claim that the
    soul is an abstract intellectual theological construct, whereas
    life energies are real in some different sense ?
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    
    Todd,
    
    It all depends upon which level of consciousness one is speaking from.
    Ultimately everything is the same.  However, for purposes of this
    discussion, I'd like to stay away from terms such as 'soul' that would
    detract from the main point...that being the energy body (life
    energies, quantum mechanical body, etc.)  
    
    We could intellectually philosophize for countless notes about the soul, 
    comparing this literature to that, and not get anywhere.  I'd like to 
    stay within the bounds of things like scientific studies and writings 
    that come from relatively this same perspective.  A lot of information 
    exists, and I intend to present it here as time allows.  Hopefully 
    others will contribute as well, like Ro did. 
    
    As for 'levels of consciousness', a good friend explained it like this:
    
    To someone who has realized directly that all is the same, one can say 
    that Christ, Buddha, Krishna, and all avatars are the same, carrying
    the same message. 
    
    To someone who has not yet realized directly that all is the same,
    Christ, Buddha, Krishna, and all avatars are separate and distinct,
    with separate purposes and messages to humanity, appearing at different
    times to different people.
    
    Is this a bit more clear?
    
    Cindy
                                                 

>    We could intellectually philosophize for countless notes about the soul, 
>    comparing this literature to that, and not get anywhere.  I'd like to 
>    stay within the bounds of things like scientific studies and writings 
    
    	I appreciate your sharing your distaste for philosophy with me,
    	Cindy, but I knew it well already, and I was mainly waiting for the 
    	promised scientific literature about the existence of the energy 
    	body.  I'm not really an argumentative twit, I just play one in the 
    	notes conferences.  ;-)
    
    							todd
    	

    Re 1792.2

    Electromagnetic currents? As far as I know they do not exist.

    >After a number of sessions, "eliminations" occur as the body rids
    >itself of sugar, salt, uric acid, cholesterol, alcohol, caffeine,
    >nicotine  and  other  toxins. 

    I do hope that his treatment does not eliminate sugar, salt, and
    cholesterol from your body as they are vital for its functions, without
    them you are dead.

    I found that there was no explanation of the "energy body" in the
    topic.

    Jamie.

               
    Jamie,
    
    Re.6 Did you just change your entry?  I thought there was a note to me
    in it.
    
    In any case, yes, I will provide several sources, and please have
    patience as I find the time to enter the material to explain the
    overall view before getting into the 'proofs' you are looking for.  
    This is a completely new paradigm, and takes some upfront explaining 
    to describe the total picture.  
    
    (Or, in other words, I do not intend to reply to any comments about 
    my avoiding providing you immediately with 'facts' and 'proof', and 
    other such remarks from this point on.)
    
    Cindy

    >Re.6 Did you just change your entry?  I thought there was a note to me
    >in it.
    
    No I moved it from the previous topic to this one.

    Re .1792.3

    Now your nice doctor is being very devious, he is deliberately making
    things seem mysterious when there is no mystery at all. Let us look at
    where he is creating a smoke screen.

    >It is not uncommon for doctors to see patients whose respiratory
    >tracts contain clusters of virulent meningococcus bacteria living
    >there harmlessly.  

    Absolutely true. Although they are in your lungs they are really not
    inside your body, the lungs and gastrointestinal tract are not part of
    the sterile area of your body. Like your skin they can and do have all
    sorts of micro organisms living on them, causing you no harm
    whatsoever. But should these bugs get into your blood stream the
    trouble really starts.

    >Only on rare occasions do they break out and cause meningitis, a
    >serious and at times fatal infection of the central nervous system.  

    Well they do not break out, they find weak spot or small cut in the
    lining of the ling or respiratory tract and break in. BTW meningitis is
    not a disease of the central nervous system, it is an inflammation of
    the meninges, the membrane that surrounds the brain. The swelling of
    this crushes the brain and/or nerves causing temporary or permanent
    damage. An odd error for a medical doctor to make.

    >What provokes such an attack?  No one knows precisely, but it seems to
    >involve a mysterious factor called "control by the host," meaning that
    >we, the host of germs, somehow open or close the gate to them.  

    He is pulling the wool over our eyes. The methods of infection are well
    known, yet he is pretending that they are not, why?

    >More than 99.99 percent of the time, the gate is closed, which implies
    >that each of us is much closer to perfect health than we realize.

    Now we are being led up the garden path.  

    >One person with a single, rather small bit of plaque can be 
    >incapacitated by angina, the squeezing chest pain symptomatic of 
    >coronary artery disease.  

    The doctor obviously slept right through his cardiology lectures.
    Angina is not caused by a small bit of plaque. Question, is he telling
    us lies or is he ignorant of the causes of angina?

    >People whose coronary arteries were 85 percent blocked have been known
    >to run marathons, while others have dropped dead of a heart attack
    >with completely clean vessels.    

    Clever that, he is comparing apples and oranges. Those who have a
    "heart attack" and have completely clean vessels usually have a
    congenital heart condition, notice how he slipped that one past you?
    The implication was that a perfectly normal heart, with clean arteries
    could suddenly have a heart attack.
     
    >In addition to our body's physical immunity, we all have strong 
    >emotional resistance to sickness. As one woman, an older patient of 
    >mine, put it, "I've read enough psychology to know that a well-adjusted 
    >adult is supposed to become reconciled to getting sick, growing old,
    >and  eventually dying. At some level I have understood that - but 
    >emotionally and instinctively, I don't believe it at all. Getting sick 
    >and deteriorating physically seems like a ghastly mistake, and I've 
    >always hoped someone would come along to correct it."

    Pure play on the emotions, no information is provided just anecdotal
    evidence from a woman he met.

    >This woman is nearly 70 now, and her physical and mental condition is 
    >excellent. When asked what lies ahead, she said, "You may think I'm 
    >crazy, but my attitude is that I'm not going to get old, and I'm not 
    >going to die." Is that so unreasonable?  

    Again pure play on the emotions. So he has a 70 year old woman who is
    convinced that she is going to live forever, so what. This is just the
    personal opinion of a 70 year old woman, it is not proof that the aging
    process can be delayed or reversed.

    People who consider themselves "too busy to get sick" are known to
    have above-average health, 

    Hold on a minute, the guy who created the Muppets, Jim Henderson (I
    think) was one of those people, he caught pneumonia and died. Robert
    Maxwell had a heart attack. Want more people who were too busy to get
    sick then suddenly died?

    >while those who worry excessively about disease fall prey to it more
    >often. 

    This is true, but how much of it is real and how much psychosomatic?

    >Another man told us that the idea of perfect health appealed to him 
    >because it was a creative solution - perhaps the only solution - to the 
    >overwhelming problems currently facing medicine.  A highly successful 
    >electronics executive, this man compared perfect health to the kind of 
    >"breakthrough thinking" that transforms corporations.

    Once more he is trotting out the personal opinions of a layman and
    presenting them as if they were facts, they are not. 

    >Breakthrough thinking is a unique form of problem solving: it involves 
    >making a situation better by first raising your expectations much
    >higher  than anyone believes possible and then looking for ways to make
    >your  vision come true.  "If people continue to think and act in the
    >same  familiar ways," this man commented, "they may accomplish five to
    >ten  percent improvements by working harder.  However, to get
    >improvements of  two to ten times, targets must be set high enough that
    >people say,  'Well, if you want *that much* improvement, we'll have to
    >do this an  entirely different way.'"

    Unfortunately your body doesn't really pay much attention to your mind,
    you may set your goals, if they exceed your body's abilities all you
    are liable to do is damage your body. Athletes are often out of action
    from over stretching their body's resources.
     
    >Breakthrough thinking has been applied among advanced computer
    >companies  in Silicon Valley - for example, if the current model of
    >some hardware  took forty-eight months to develop, the next generation
    >is scheduled for  twenty-four months.  If defects in manufacturing have
    >been cut down to 5  percent, then "zero defects" becomes the rule for
    >the future.  This is  exactly how perfect health works - it sets zero
    >defects as the goal and  then discovers how the goal can be met.  In
    >the computer world, it may  cost eight to ten times more to repair a
    >defective machine than to make  it defect-free in the first place.  For
    >that reason, imposing "quality  at the source" (i.e., doing things
    >right the first time) makes better  business sense than going for
    >engineering that is merely "good enough."

    I suppose that it is churlish to point out that although we can
    reproduce the human body we actually have little or no control of its
    design. Were we in charge of the design and building of the human body
    the above would be relevant.

    >The same holds true in medicine, where prevention is much cheaper than 
    >treatment, both in human and in economic terms.  A 1988 poll shows that 
    >more than anything else, Americans fear catastrophic illness.  

    Apart from those who are seriously deranged, as far as I know everyone
    in the world fears catastrophic illness.

    >The reason  doesn't have to do with pain and suffering - it involves
    >the crushing  expense of a long hospital stay and the devastating costs
    >of whatever  surgeries and drugs are required.  Even death is not as
    >frightening as  leaving one's family destitute.  Clearly, we need a
    >medical approach  that believes in "quality at the source" and can
    >promote it in  individuals.

    Clearly the doctor has not been around the chronically ill very much.
    The pain and suffering take over your whole existence, if you are not
    careful. Even here where medical insurance will pick up the tab without
    any quibble, people fear being chronically ill.

    Now let us take an overview of the entire thing. Well for starters it
    was almost content free. There were loads of emotionally loaded bits.
    There were plenty of misrepresentations of the truth to assist the
    emotional hype. But, and most significant, there was absolutely no
    scientific evidence presented. So it looks like the good doctor is out
    to get us to believe something that isn't true.

    Jamie.

                                                           
    Jamie,
    
    This is only the first 100 lines of the book.
    
    To paraphrase a comment that you would no doubt recognize, do you 
    always draw such definite conclusions before being in full possession 
    of all the facts?
    
    I'm going to continue to post, and of course you're free to comment.  
    I don't plan on replying to your notes though - except possibly for a
    few points here and there - due to sheer lack of time, however others 
    here may feel free to do so.
    
    I fail to see how remarks like, "your nice doctor is being very
    devious", and "did he sleep through his cardiology class" (parahprase) 
    have any bearing on the topic whatsoever.  Can you not just refute the
    information presented without putting in personal digs? 
    
    Cindy

    Cindy why do you bother debating with him??  You should know by now
    that his mind is closed.
    
    
    Melinda
    

    In the long run, without _both_ severe skeptics of paranormal claims,
    and also enthusiastic credulous supporters, we'd 
    probably know a *whole* lot less about what's really going on.   
    
    In researching the history of various claims, like the energy body, 
    I noticed that it has frequently been incredibly difficult to separate
    out the useful from the noise data unless opposing camps all tried
    to tear it apart from different directions.   
    
    For example, it's amazing how
    often a well known and well established afterimage mechanism
    or other common illusion effect is mistaken for a purely psychic aura.  
    Cells floating in the occular humors are very commonly mistaken for
    all kinds of things, like being able to see 'molecules' or fairy
    dust, or other unlikely things.
    
    Which does not by itself in any way deny that an energy body, even a
    psychic one, could be possible, or that the 'illusion' aura could be
    useful in learning to see it.  But without knowing about the illusions,
    you'd never investigate any true ability further.   This is just a simple
    example of why skeptical views are important to people seriously
    interested in psychic phenomena.
    

    
    Melinda,
    
    I'm not debating him.  (;^)  I'm just providing information.
         
    Cindy

    re: 1792.6, 

>From: "Perfect Health - The Complete Mind/Body Guide", by Deepak Chopra, M.D.
    
   >The best that they hope for is creeping gradualism - taking one tiny step 
    > at a time toward a solution.  (Lowering cholesterol levels will, 
    > statistically, reduce heart attacks in a large group of people, for 
    > instance, but it does not guarantee that any single person will be spared.

    This argument makes sense only if extraordinarily few of this doctor's 
    patients today will ever get sick or die.  Other than that, his method 
    suffers from the same 'creeping gradualism' as the more mundane methods, 
    like immunizations, drugs, behavioral medicine, etc..
    In fact their improvement rate would be *much* worse, since it has been 
    'creeping' for so many thousands of years, ostensibly, vs. a hundred.
    Thus, there would be very little to prefer it to other
    behavioral treatment systems.
    
    I wonder what the illness and death rate of his patients is like,
    compared to other people who meditate and have similar lifestyles
    but don't benefit specifically from Ayurvedic medicine ?
    
    There were some interesting studies a while back on the stress
    relief effects of meditation in general, and some related to
    TM groups.  I'll have to check and see if any compared TM
    to other kinds of meditation, now that I know this stuff is
    somewhat associated with TM practices.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    Jamie,
    
    You missed a possible cause-and-effect link.
    
    "This woman is nearly 70 now, and her physical and mental condition is
    excellent." and "People who consider themselves "too busy to get sick"
    are known to have above-average health..."
    
    People who do tend to get sick never have those attitudes.  Only those
    who enjoy robust good health can (sanely) even consider those
    attitudes.  Thus, it is possible for a good physique to cause a
    point-of-view, rather than the other way around.
    
    I know one woman who is heavily into visualizations, yoga, homeopathy,
    et cetera, but she is sick and becoming sicker.  Oh, yeah, she's no
    dummy; she goes to the medical experts for her conditions as well.
    
    							Ann B.

    "Jamie's mind is closed" is too simplistic a statement to be taken
    seriously, and shows a lack of understanding of Jamie's viewpoint.
    
    Laurie.

  ... but let's face it, Jamie has made his fair share of statements that
  are too simplistic to be taken seriously and show a lack of understanding
  of practically everyone else's viewpoint ... I doubt that one more (either
  way) will make any great difference so let's carry on with the debate ...

  As Todd said, without a balanced mix of pro-x & anti-x, we wouldn't know
  anything like as much as we do about x.

  Frank

    Well Cindy your Doctor is coming out with some strange mistakes. Over
    the years I have noticed that doctors are usually very precise in their
    definitions of illnesses, however in the first hundred lines of your
    book he made several mistakes that I would not expect a medical
    practitioner to make. There is also a very high emotional content which
    should really not be there.

    As to women getting into their 70s in perfect health. I can only
    remember my mother ever being ill in bed once, that was with the flu
    when I was 7 years old. Her perfect health proceeded until she was in
    her late 70s. She, like the lady the doctor mentioned, did not see any
    point to getting sick, old or dying. One day as she climbed the stairs
    she felt breathless and there was a pain in her chest. She now suffers
    from angina. Now no one is going to convince me that she is not someone
    who liked to be healthy or that by her mental efforts, or lack of them,
    brought on the angina.

    >Cindy why do you bother debating with him??  You should know by now
    >that his mind is closed.
    
    Actually Melinda my mind is quite open to being changed with facts.
    However it is quite closed to being changes by fiction, fantasy and
    meanderings of people who would like life to be the way they want it to
    be rather than how it is.

    BTW I notice that while you have plenty of time to criticise people
    you do not seem to have the time to produce the proof that you promised
    Laurie. It it possible that your lapse is caused by this proof never
    having existed?
    
    Re .16

    >  ... but let's face it, Jamie has made his fair share of statements
    >that are too simplistic to be taken seriously and show a lack of
    >understanding of practically everyone else's viewpoint

    OK Frank another overly simplistic statement by me. If all this age
    reversal is working, why is the oldest recorded age about 130?

    After all these techniques are supposed to have been round for hundreds
    of years. You should by now have some people who are much older than
    that. Mind you if the whole thing is a sham this could explain this
    point very easily.

    Jamie.

>    Actually Melinda my mind is quite open to being changed with facts.

  It seems that is quite accurate. Unfortunately, that's not open-minded
  enough. Things like axioms are not facts. They are notions that one
  has the choice to accept or not, and proceed from there to see where
  it will lead. If one refuses to experiment with non-euclidean axioms
  about parallel lines, one does not find out much about non-euclidean
  geometries, but that doesn't prove that they can't exist (geometries
  don't actually exist, they get created by us as we expand our base of
  proof from axioms).

    Re .18

    While I quite agree with you Mike, I do not think that you are
    discussing the type of thing that Melinda is discussing. It is one
    thing discussing abstracts like geometry, it is another believing that
    it is possible to reverse the aging process and live forever.

    Over the last few weeks I had a look at the known facts about aging and
    I found that it is a much larger and more complicated subject than it
    appears. Over your life your hormonal balance keeps changing, this
    causes some of the aging process. Almost every organ in your body seems
    to have a unique set of problems as it gets older.

    I know several apparently perfectly healthy old people, but they do not
    have the reserves that a younger person has. For example the
    mother-in-law of a friend of ours, a sprightly 80 year old, was given a
    drug that I use. When I was first given this drug I was a bag of bones
    and was lying at death's door, they gave it to me in truly massive
    amounts and I had very little problems from it. She was given a bit
    over twice my maintenance dose and it put her in a coma within two
    days. Her liver could not take the extra load. As Harry puts it, "They
    are perfectly healthy until something goes wrong and then they go down
    very fast." 

    I am happy to report that the patient in this case is still alive.

    Jamie.

  Re .17 (Jamie)

>>  ... but let's face it, Jamie has made his fair share of statements
>> that are too simplistic to be taken seriously and show a lack of
>> understanding of practically everyone else's viewpoint
>
>  OK Frank another overly simplistic statement by me. If all this age
>  reversal is working, why is the oldest recorded age about 130?

  I was referring to your comments throughout this conference, not just in
  reference to this single note.  [ Anyway, your example doesn't apply, it
  is a question rather than "another overly simplistic statement" ].
  I'm waiting to read some answers on this particular topic myself.

  Frank

>          <<< Note 1793.19 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "Lock up the UB 40!" >>>
>
>    Re .18
>
>    While I quite agree with you Mike, I do not think that you are
>    discussing the type of thing that Melinda is discussing. It is one
>    thing discussing abstracts like geometry, it is another believing that
>    it is possible to reverse the aging process and live forever.

  Sorry, Jamie, you're right. I was incorrectly continuing the
  conversation from another note.

    Re .20

    >I'm waiting to read some answers on this particular topic myself.
  
    In that case you may fall in line behind Laurie and me. BTW you didn't
    happen to being some sandwiches and a flask of tea, did you? I fear
    that we may well be in for a long wait.

    Jamie.

    I found a fair number of studies showing relationship of
    TM to health factors, meditation in general to health factors,
    and so on.  So far, little seems to indicate that there is 
    anything objective beyond an affinity with your personal belief system to 
    prefer one method of stress reduction over another, or one method
    of biofeedback over another for the prophylaxis of various classes
    of disease or ill health (and I assume here that promoting superior
    health and influencing aging is part of the same process). 
    
    That's why I'm somewhat suspicious of claims that someone has yet developed
    a true 'science' of psychological or spiritual healing.  I think the
    details of how the mind heals are still very much to be worked out,
    and not likely by people selling secret mantram for hundreds of dollars,
    and so on, although obviously there is potentially a lot to be learned from 
    some of the traditional methods.  
    
    I strongly suspect that theoretical progress will require not delving back 
    into alchemy and seeing the universe again in a spirito-scientific blur,
    but separating the methods from their occult metaphysics and 
    generic humanistic and transpersonal psychologies.  As painful as that 
    sounds to many people, and as useful as those 'fuzzy' aspects are in the 
    practical application of the various healing methods.   As individuals,
    we often need the warm and fuzzy stuff, the greater and higher powers and 
    miracles and mysteries, but the progress of knowledge in general often 
    requires a colder and more removed approach, I think.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

  Re .22 (Jamie)

> BTW you didn't happen to being some sandwiches and a flask of tea, did you?

  Nah, I've given up being sandwiches these days ... :-)

                                          
    Last night on the television, it was announced that Bill Moyers is 
    presenting a 4 or 5-part series on Healing And The Mind on PBS (Public
    Broadcasting System).  
    
    As I was listening to that announcement, I was flipping through my
    latest issue of my Noetic Sciences newsletter, and they had a 16-page 
    pullout spread on the upcoming series.  It looks *great*!
    
    For those not in the US, Bill Moyers is one of the most highly
    respected journalists in the country. 
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. Just make sure you drink enough tea to keep you awake for the
        duration, Jamie.  (;^)

    Gidday.
        	hi Cindy and others..
    	
>    TM to health factors, meditation in general to health factors,
>    and so on.  So far, little seems to indicate that there is 
>    anything objective beyond an affinity with your personal belief system to 
>    prefer one method of stress reduction over another, or one method
>    of biofeedback over another for the prophylaxis of various classes

    I know of a few articles and have been the subject in one experiment.

    It basically examined the relationships between psychological and 
    neroendocrine variables in two metabolically bipolar types of action
    and experience : vigorous exercise (running) and meditation. I was one of
    the meditation subjects . To quote from the subsequent paper:
     'studies here revealed a link between positive affective change
      and urinary noradrenaline release and cortisol decrease. Plasma
      B-EP-IR did not change, CRH-IR not only increase but correlated with
      positive affect'

    from 'Psychoneuroendocrine Concomitants of the Emotional Experience
    	Associated with running and Meditation'
    		by Jane Harte School of Behavioral Science James Cook
    		   University North Queensland.



	In the study below the researchers standardise on one meditation
	technique taught by Sahaja Yoga. 

	"Some Effects of Sahaja Yoga and its Role in the Prevention of
	  Stress Disorders"
    
		UC Rai, S Sethi & SH Singh
    
    	Journal International Medical Science Academy Vol2 No 1 pages 19
       -23  March 1988.
		
	"..Blood pressure, heart rate and respiratory rate, blood lactic
	 acid, urinary VMS were determined before and during the practice
	 of Sahaja-meditation and after 20 minutes. These showed a significant
	 decrease in both groups compared to the control values. However
	 GSR significantly increased as compared to the controls thereby
	 indicating a state of relaxation."

	".significant decreases in respiratory rate and systolic blood 
	 pressure  during Sahaja-meditation. Mean diastolic pressure also 
	 showed a tendency to decline. Heart rate as we know is determined
	 by a balance of sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. During the
	 practice of Sahaja-meditation sympathetic activity decreases 
	 relatively. This  has been confirmed in our study by significant
	 decrease in urinary VMS and blood lactic acid. Recently published
	 data by Kunovska et al have shown that increased sympatho-adrenal 
	 medullary activity was one of the main factors in the development
	 of high blood pressure: in view of this decrease in sympathetic
	 activity in our study could be one of the important factors for
	 the lowering of blood pressure and heart rate."


	I have references for more studies if you are interested.

    	I do not think that it is beyond the realms of possibilities
    	that we should expect to see signs within the human physiology
    	which reflect the positive expeiriences gained through meditation.
    	Studies like the ones above are beginning to uncover some of
    	these effects.
    
    	In the first experiement the researcher commented that the
    	different practitioners of meditation produced different
    	effects in the levels of the blood hormones studied and heart
    	rate. A friend who also took part was able to reduce his
    	heart rate by half compared to his normal resting heart rate.
    
				Chris 
                                                                     
    	

    Re .25

    >PS. Just make sure you drink enough tea to keep you awake for the
    >    duration, Jamie.  (;^)
    
    While the Amsterdam Cable does provide an excellent range of stations,
    I fear the only American one we receive is CNN. Also due to the fact
    that I live at least five timezones ahead of America I think that it
    might require an awful lot of tea to keep me awake even if I could
    receive it. 

    Jamie.

    re: .26, Chris,
    	Thanks very much for entering that, Chris !
    
    	My note, read carefully, never disputed the benefits of 
    	any mind-body integrative practices.  I've followed and been 
    	impressed by the literature on this for almost 20 years,
    	It's one of the main reasons I follow this conference, in fact.
    	I may even take it so much for granted that I didn't clarify
    	it as much as I should have.
    
    	Now, my point to Cindy was 
    	that claims have been made for a particular healing specialty
    	(Ayurvedic medicine) and particular set of concepts (energy
    	body, etc.) that have some special particular significance
    	for achieving this benefit and that is the part
    	left unsupported so far.  
    
    	The claims subtly and deceptively take the 
    	notion of mind in healing, which few people dispute, to an extreme 
    	that is in no way implied by the scientific literature, namely that 
    	*all* disease can be treated or prevented by Ayurvedic techniques.
    	Think for a moment how significant that difference is, and the
    	implications, good or bad.
    
    	From another angle, if I want to choose
    	between self-hypnosis, zen meditation, chakra meditation, etc.,
    	and one of my most important criteria is good physical health,
    	what supports Dr. Chopra's claim that he has something special
    	that is not available elsewhere ?  
    
    	The reason this angle is particularly pertinent
    	is the links to the TM society that Cindy quoted.  The TM
    	society was well kniown for having charged exorbitant rates
    	for what people assumed were special secrets of meditation,
    	later having established that they were being given sanskrit 
    	syllables or nonsense syllables and that many of the claims for 
    	benefits had been somewhat exaggerated.   Herbert Benson's early
    	research showed what to me seem to be identical results from using
    	nonsense syllable meditation as well.  This is not to slam the TM
    	Society, just to point out the inherent problems in this kind of
    	field, when there is no careful checking on claims.
    
    	So, I'm not denying Dr. Chopra (or anyone else) the right to
    	sell his methods or promote his philosophy, I'm just interested
    	in picking apart the aspect of it that is unique to him, and
    	which we have to buy into his ideas to benefit from, compared to
    	numerous other competing ideas on the mind in healing.
    
    	I hope that makes my line of interest and my assumptions more clear.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    								todd

    
    Thanks too for that, Chris.  I find Sahaja meditation to be quite good,
    and it has helped me a great deal in my quest for a pain-free life.
    
    Todd,
    
    Will you *please* be patient?  As I keep saying, my time is limited,
    and I've only entered parts of the first few pages of the book.  I'm
    continually amazed by how one can jump to such conclusions based on
    very little information.
    
    What Dr.Chopra is doing is introducing a new paradigm into our current
    view of medicine in the west.  TM and related things are a part of it,
    because that's how he attained unity consciousness and began realizing
    these things directly.  However, one can also attain unity
    consciousness by chanting one of many other commonly known mantras.  I
    personally chant my guru mantra, which I can teach you or anyone here,
    for free.
    
    Ayurveda as a science has been around for thousands of years, and what 
    he's doing is bringing it to the West, under the guidance of his guru,
    who is also the founder of TM.  The concepts behind it though, are the 
    same as they were thousands of years ago.
    
    Hopefully in a few weeks, I'll send you the tape of that lecture, and
    then you can comment on it in here.  I'd send it also to Jamie and 
    Laurie, except that the video formats aren't the same.
    
    As for the energy body, again when I have time, I'll enter some other
    things from other sources as well.
    
    Cindy

    re: .29, Cindy,
    
>    Todd,
>    
>    Will you *please* be patient?  As I keep saying, my time is limited,
>    and I've only entered parts of the first few pages of the book.  I'm
>    continually amazed by how one can jump to such conclusions based on
>    very little information.
    
    	I'm honestly not in any rush, Cindy.  Any pressure to reply is all is 
    	in your mind, like all of disease.  ;-)
    
    	Do you really think I'm uninformed on the subject, just
    	because you haven't finished entering your chapters in this
    	conference ?   
    
    	Very hasty of you to draw that conclusion. :-)
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

 >   	notion of mind in healing, which few people dispute, to an extreme 
 >   	that is in no way implied by the scientific literature, namely that 
 >   	*all* disease can be treated or prevented by Ayurvedic techniques.
 >   	Think for a moment how significant that difference is, and the
 >   	implications, good or bad.
         
    	I agree. I think it should be said that Ayurvedic has nothing
        in particular to do with TM. It is an ancient form of medicine
    	from India which attempts to treat the physical problems which
        are imposed upon our bodies. Although it treats the physical body
    	it has as its base a connection between medicine, religion and
    	philosophy. As this conference has been discussing, a connection
    	between mind, body and soul. As recent evidence suggests,
    	the influence of mind over body is real, this help to validate
    	some of the principles of Ayurvedic. Not propose, or imply that
    	all disease can be prevented. More than Ayurvedic is required for
    	that.
    
  >  	From another angle, if I want to choose
  >  	between self-hypnosis, zen meditation, chakra meditation, etc.,
  >  	and one of my most important criteria is good physical health,
  >  	what supports Dr. Chopra's claim that he has something special
  >  	that is not available elsewhere ?  

   	Nothing, because obviously it is not true. 

>    	is the links to the TM society that Cindy quoted.  The TM
>    	society was well kniown for having charged exorbitant rates
>    	for what people assumed were special secrets of meditation,
>    	later having established that they were being given sanskrit 
>    	syllables or nonsense syllables and that many of the claims for 

    	I am not sure how widely this is known, when I mentioned this 
    	to a TMer in Digital he scoffed at the claim. Yet it is true.
    	What happens to logic when it comes to spirituality. All processes
    	of rationality do not need to be suspended because we are
    	entering into some imagined twilight zone. This TM practice was nothing
    	more than a money making exercise which took advantage of the
    	sincerity of people looking for answers. If you want
    	Ayurvedic medicine, then there are doctors who can give it
    	to you, why do we need TM as part of the deal, consider the
    	before mentioned money making exercise, one needs to be at least
    	wary of the dreaded money motive.

>    	nonsense syllable meditation as well.  This is not to slam the TM
>    	Society, just to point out the inherent problems in this kind of
>    	field, when there is no careful checking on claims.

    	Call a spade a spade, if it a sham then so be it. Todd, you let
    	the genie out if the bottle so let it play all the way. There
    	are inherent problems in this field, that is why there are so
    	many charlatans selling their own unique brand of snake oil.
     	That is why evidence is all the more important, and why placebo 
        effects need to be eliminated. We need more experiments in this
    	area, hopefully of the double blind variety where some of the 
    	people taking part in the study do not know  what it is they
        are supposed to find.

>    	sell his methods or promote his philosophy, I'm just interested
>    	in picking apart the aspect of it that is unique to him, and
>    	which we have to buy into his ideas to benefit from, compared to
>    	numerous other competing ideas on the mind in healing.

    	Good point, as you said in an earlier note he needs to provide
    	hard evidence in order to support his ideas.


    	My involvement with the meditation experiment mentioned really showed
     	the need to look at the different types of meditation. I think
    	it is misleading to assume that all meditation is the same,
    	and leads to same physical effects within the body. When Ms Harte
    	was analysing her data from the `Meditation group' she had to
    	discount some of the data because of greater than significant
    	fluctuations in the meditation data. Upon closer examination
    	she found that the variations had more to do with the type of
    	meditation the subjects were doing as apposed to random variations 
    	between all the meditators. Unfortunately she did not have large enough
    	numbers of subjects from the various meditation techniques to
    	provide statistical significant results.

    	It is an experiment somebody should undertake.

    		
    			Chris 

      

    Re 1792.7

    Having read through the first part, the quantum mechanics bit, my
    impression is; it sounded like a vicar with no knowledge of the matter
    had thumbed through a book on the subject and decided to base his
    sermon the next Sunday on it. The flimsy connections that he makes are
    really rather childish. Basically he seems to be putting up a nice line
    of very complicated waffle. It also appears to be totally fact free.

    As to Dr Ornish's amazing discoveries, I had a chat with my
    cardiologist about him during my annual checkup. Yes she does know that
    diet can reduce the clogging of the arteries. But she pointed out that
    patients tend to present themselves to her at a point where they are
    far beyond the help that a change of diet would reverse. Usually they
    have had, or are having, a heart attack. She agrees fully with the idea
    that if everyone had a better diet then the amount of heart attacks
    would drop. But she added the point that if no one smoked it would most
    likely bring about a larger over all saving of life, and as doctors
    can't even convince people to stop smoking the chances of getting them
    to radically change their diet is very limited. Thus Dr Ornish's impact
    on the medical world is going to be minimal.

    >70-year-old woman who  develops osteoporosis in her spine has had
    >innumerable chances to make a  healthy spine.  

    Oops the doctor is telling lies here. Osteoporosis is a side effect of
    one of the drugs that I take, so I have done a lot of checking up on
    what can and cannot be done about it. Although there is some promising
    research being done, at the moment osteoporosis is currently totally
    irreversible. Its progress can be stopped but the bone that has been
    lost cannot be replaced. 

    So why is this Doctor tell us that it can be reversed? Can he prove
    this? If he can I, and the transplant team that look after, me would be
    most interested in using his methods.

    BTW it is also completely impossible to "build new arteries", you may
    be able to clean up your old ones but build new ones, no.

    Now Cindy I am used to reading articles written by members of the
    medical profession. Some of these are designed to be read by other
    members of the same profession, while others are meant to be read by the
    general public. I have noticed that they all lack the wishy-washy
    emotionalism of the book that you are quoting. They also have a certain
    precision in the terminology, statements like "building new arteries"
    to mean "cleaning up arteries" would never be used as it is highly
    misleading.

    I wonder why your book is trying to dazzle us with fake quantum
    mechanics, overload us with emotional content and make claims that are
    not really true?

    This is beginning to smell more and more fishy as it progresses.

    Jamie.

    re: .32,
    
    Yes, I see what you're saying.  Thank you very much.
    
    Do we also agree that the ancient puzzle box of Yoga can serve by
    being unlocked by a key other than an energy body theory or stretches of
    quantum mechanical speculations ?   That's really my only thing about
    Chopra's interesting work, not any doubt that it is potentially
    very useful, just its (seemingly to me) weak attempts at scientific 
    rationalization.  That's the only reason I debated the point about
    the energy body with Cindy.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

Re.33

Jamie,

>    As to Dr Ornish's amazing discoveries, I had a chat with my
>    cardiologist about him during my annual checkup. Yes she does know that
>    diet can reduce the clogging of the arteries. But she pointed out that
>    patients tend to present themselves to her at a point where they are
>    far beyond the help that a change of diet would reverse. 

It isn't only a change of diet, but a change of one's entire lifestyle.
And most people - doctors and patients - are not willing to embark on such 
a drastic change when there isn't much chance of a success, and where 
an operation would be far easier and quicker to solve the problem at 
hand.

I don't disagree that there is a place for traditional western 
medicine because some cases are so far deteriorated that no other 
course of action is possible to save the life of the person.  However, 
given the Ornish study, I do question whether all the operations that 
are currently happening could actually be avoided if the patient 
really knew that there was indeed another way to correct the problem...
difficult as it might be, due to the complete lifestyle change.


>    Usually they
>    have had, or are having, a heart attack. She agrees fully with the idea
>    that if everyone had a better diet then the amount of heart attacks
>    would drop. But she added the point that if no one smoked it would most
>    likely bring about a larger over all saving of life, and as doctors
>    can't even convince people to stop smoking the chances of getting them
>    to radically change their diet is very limited. Thus Dr Ornish's impact
>    on the medical world is going to be minimal.

Unfortunately this is so.  But western medicine is approaching it from 
a different angle than Ayurveda does.  

Western medicine gives people a patch to help them quit smoking.  
Ayurveda says not to give up smoking, but rather begin by slowly changing 
one's diet, start exercising more, do yoga, start meditating, and the 
desire to smoke will fall away naturally.  It's a whole different way 
of approaching these things.  Dr.Chopra himself was a chain smoker 
until he went through this process.


    >>70-year-old woman who  develops osteoporosis in her spine has had
    >>innumerable chances to make a  healthy spine.  
       >Oops the doctor is telling lies here. Osteoporosis is a side effect of
       >one of the drugs that I take, so I have done a lot of checking up on
       >what can and cannot be done about it. Although there is some promising
       >research being done, at the moment osteoporosis is currently totally
       >irreversible. Its progress can be stopped but the bone that has been
       >lost cannot be replaced. 

Jamie, I do not know for sure if the bone loss can or cannot be 
replaced, and I do not know any studies that show that it can, however 
based on Dr.Ornish's research with arteries in light of the medical 
profession saying countless years that clogged arteries can never be 
cleared without surgery, it may indeed Be Possible to reverse 
osteoporosis via natural methods as well (yoga, meditation, diet, 
exercise, etc).  In fact, I do recall reading an article in a back 
issue of Yoga Journal about osteoporosis a few years ago, and will try 
to find it to see what it says.

One has to allow for the possibility that it Might be true, rather 
than say flat out that it can never be done.  Can you positively prove 
that it Can't be reversed?


>    So why is this Doctor tell us that it can be reversed? Can he prove
>    this? If he can I, and the transplant team that look after, me would be
>    most interested in using his methods.

You are correct in that there are many, many times that traditional 
medical procedures cannot be avoided, and I don't doubt for a moment 
that your transplant was one of them.  

I'd like to ask a question now - looking back on your life, were there 
things you could have done in your life/lifestyle to prevent your 
medical condition from deteriorating to the point of needing a transplant?

Anyway, some of Dr.Chopra's methods are written about in "Perfect Health".  
Yoga, exercise, diet (especially diet), meditation - there are very simple 
procedures to follow that will help you to get even more mileage out of 
your body and heart.  I've incorporated many of his suggestions into 
my own life, and they are working.


>    BTW it is also completely impossible to "build new arteries", you may
>    be able to clean up your old ones but build new ones, no.

He does literally mean 'building new arteries'.  That's part of the new 
paradigm.  The old paradigm is 'cleaning up arteries', and using 
surgery to do it.  We are building new bodies all the time.  If we do so 
consciously, then we can change/alter our bodies toward a better way of 
living, using natural methods.  Then our chances of getting sick 
enough to need traditional western medical treatment are far, far 
less.

Cindy

    I've been reviewing the responses to Cindy Painter's submission, and
    have marveled at how shrill the discussion has been.  Geez, first,
    everyone dies--everyone who has lived seems to be subject to the
    condition known as entropy by physical scientists.  That entropy in the
    human body is described by the names of the various diseases we acquire
    in our civilization.  They are obviously engendered and reinforced by
    certain of our habits of living, like eating too much fat or sugar, or
    having disharmonious relationships at work and at home, or, to be sure,
    burning leaves and absorbing the smoke into one's lungs.
    
    Now, there are a number of civilizations much older than this one. 
    They have arrived at ways of treating the human body when it is
    operating sub-optimally.  Some of those ways seem crazy, impossible,
    "un-scientific", silly, etc.  Among those ways are practices like
    Acupuncture.  When it was first introduced, Western scientists and
    medical practitioners declared that this was little more than
    hocu-pocus, and couldn't possibly have any validity.  Let Jamie
    Anderson prove that Acupuncture doesn't work.  Look, someone, I think
    Mike Glantz attempted to indicate that this discussion is not about
    "facts", it is about one's axiomatic assumptions, one's linguistic
    habits, not the "facts".  Jamie, Todd, Mike, Cindy, and I are all
    operating through our nervous systems and through the educational,
    cultural, medical history of each of our particular bodies, including
    the "Energy Body".  Now, I know that many of you do not know of, and do
    not believe such "evidence" as has been presented to you about the
    existence of the "energy body".  My understanding suggests that there
    isn't any evidence you would accept.  Your paradigm would seem to
    exempt the existence of an "energy body".  Now, for the past twenty
    years I have attended Workshops by George Leonard, which deals with
    something he calls "the energy body".  I have experienced this, and, in
    fact, did so again, last week.  This is not "evidence" you can use to
    change your understanding of how our bodies are constituted.  To be
    sure, I'll not waste any more electrons trying to convince you.
    
    I'll conclude with this: if you'd like to know why you can't and won't
    understand what an "Energy Body" is, read Thomas Kuhn's. "Structure of
    Scientific Revolutions".  At least, then, you won't be spouting this
    nonsense about "facts" and about science being some sort of
    dispassionate pursuit of "truth" or the "facts".  That is utter
    rubbish, and I'm surprised that people as well read as you and Todd are
    would continue to write such nonsense.  Only people poorly educated in
    scientific methodologies and philosophy of science would be taken in by
    that.
    
    Richard Bradley 

    re: 1792.8, Cindy,
    
    I think the overall idea, of integrating levels of description,
    is definitely the right approach, but his quantum theory is hard to swallow.
    I'll explain more specifically below.
    
>Timmy is particularly amazing because one of his personalities, and only 
>one, is allergic to orange juice and breaks out in hives if he drinks
...
>This is a perfect example of how signals from the quantum mechanical 
>body can cause instantaneous changes in the physical body.  What is 
>remarkable here is that allergies are not known to come and go at the 
>whim of the mind.  How could they?  
    
    Yes they are, Timmy demonstrated it admirably.  :-)
    
    What happens is apparently that whatever stimulus triggers the personality
    change in the brain causes a complete shift in biochemical state,
    as if the person had a different physical brain in some ways (!)
    
    The change in brain chemistry in turn causes the immune system
    to respond differently.  It may not be common knowledge yet among
    physicians that this occurs, but it has been demonstrated with
    PET scanners within in the past few years.  
    
    The quantum mechanical model, and vitalism, are probably not
    required for explanation, though they certainly might make for a useful
    part of therapeutic application.  Just as 'Ki' works so well
    in some Japanese martial arts as a concept to help the individual
    properly focus their mind in training.
    
    I'd say, based on the PET data, that the 'decision' was probably made in 
    the brain, just as we'd have expected, not at the individual cell level
    as Dr. Chopra believes.  It is more the brain than the cells or
    molecules themselves that is apparently more remarkable than previously 
    understood !
    
>To say that molecules can make decisions defies current physical science 
    
    Since this is the crux of his theory, I submit that 
    he has insufficient evidence to make the conclusion that he
    has made at this point, or to justify any new paradigm of the
    sort he proposes.
    
>how else could he turn his hives on and off? - the we confront the 
>possibility that we are choosing our diseases too.  We are not aware of 
>this choice, because it takes place at a level below our everyday 
>thoughts.  But if we have such an ability, we should be able to control 
>it.
    
    This part is certainly true, imo, just not to the extent that his
    quantum mechanical body theory implies.  
    
>One of the most crucial changes in contemporary science is the sudden 
>arrival on the scene of models that take intelligence into account as a 
>vital force in the universe.  

    Most vitalist and similar integrative theories in biology are used 
    initially to describe larger patterns in nature, like Weiner's 
    self-directing mechanisms in cybernetics, or von Bertalanffy's systems,
    Henry Margeneau's integrative principles, or Paul Rapp's fractal neural 
    patterns (Medical College of Pa. research, Feb 1990 OMNI).  
    
    The true connection to quantum mechanics is yet to be made, though
    everyone who has trouble explaining a data point seems to want to
    explain it as 'quantum mechanical,' like 'atomic' or 'electric'
    or 'magnetic' were used popularly in the past.
    
    The quantum mechanical connection and the 'anything can be
    changed by a flick of intention' still seem pretty weak to me,
    but I like his writing, and I think he's right to a large degree
    about the general possibility of shifting consciousness causing
    extraordinary shifting internal chemistry under certain conditions.
    
    Thanks very much for all your help, Cindy.  
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    
    Re.37
    
    You're quite welcome, Todd. (See? (;^)
    
    About 'Ki' being a concept...only to those who cannot actually 
    sense and feel the energy.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    re: Richard,
    
>    I'll conclude with this: if you'd like to know why you can't and won't
>    understand what an "Energy Body" is, read Thomas Kuhn's. "Structure of
>    Scientific Revolutions".  At least, then, you won't be spouting this
>    nonsense about "facts" and about science being some sort of
>    dispassionate pursuit of "truth" or the "facts".  
    
    The philosophical debate between Popperians and Kuhnians and so on
    is not the issue here, the neccessity of postulating an energy body
    or quantum mechanical explanation when other models seem to better 
    explain the data is the issue (for Todd, anyway).
    
>    rubbish, and I'm surprised that people as well read as you and Todd are
>    would continue to write such nonsense.  Only people poorly educated in
>    scientific methodologies and philosophy of science would be taken in by
>    that.
    
    Your valium wore off early today too, huh ?    :-)
    
    I'm very sorry I came off as shrill.  I hope I add enough value
    to the discussion to make up for my lack of form.
    
    						peace,
    
    						todd

    Todd sent me his reply .37 offline, and I have apologized for including
    him with Jamie.  Todd's approach is a great deal more reasonable and
    open.
    
    The problem of communicating across paradigms is a severe one, and,
    Cindy, you're finding this out.  There is another helpful book which
    could be of some help: F. David Peat and David Bohm have written,
    "Science Order and Creativity" to deal with the persistent problem of
    inter-paradigm communication.  I found it helpful and hopeful--but our
    extreme logical positivist's, like Jamie, would somehow, have to be
    persuaded to read it.  (Perhaps, when I get some time, I'll post some
    relevant passages from that book.  Till then cross paradigm discussions
    are tedious, to say the least.
    
    Richard B

    Re .35

    >It isn't only a change of diet, but a change of one's entire lifestyle.
    >And most people - doctors and patients - are not willing to embark on
    >such  a drastic change when there isn't much chance of a success, and
    >where  an operation would be far easier and quicker to solve the
    >problem at  hand.

    And there you put your finger on the problem. When I was a child the
    population of the UK was at its healthiest and life was truly miserable.
    Nearly all food was rationed and we were always hungry. Butter, eggs
    cream, sugar and meat were all luxuries. Time passed and Britain repaid
    its debts and food came off the ration. Did people stick to the healthy
    diet that they had been on? No way. Basically people will prefer an
    operation to a healthy diet. Doctors can tell them what to do and what
    not to do, but they don't listen.

    >Jamie, I do not know for sure if the bone loss can or cannot be 
    >replaced

    Well Cindy I do. When I discovered that I was suffering from this
    problem I took a great interest in its reversal. On all the literature
    that I have read, medical and non medical, there is no proven incidence
    of any significant reversal of this process. Should anyone find a
    method of doing this it would be a milestone in medical progress. Thus
    I think that the the claim is a false one.

    >Can you positively prove that it Can't be reversed?

    No, but there are no cases on record and if it were reversible then a
    lot of people would be most interested in it. If anyone can reverse it
    they are doing a miraculous job of keeping it secret.

    >I'd like to ask a question now - looking back on your life, were there 
    >things you could have done in your life/lifestyle to prevent your 
    >medical condition from deteriorating to the point of needing a
    >transplant?

    Yes I would have tried to avoid getting infected with the virus that
    later led to my cardiomyopathy.

    >He does literally mean 'building new arteries'.

    Cindy you cannot build new arteries, period. You can clean up the old
    ones. The actual materials of the artery walls are of course being
    routinely replace, but that is not the same as making new ones.
    
    >We are building new bodies all the time.  

    Actually we are not. We are capable of replacement of some parts of our
    bodies, but not all. Should we manage to destroy tissue we cannot
    replace it, it is gone for good, we can only grow scar tissue. Were we
    able to build new bodies we could replace diseased organs and missing
    limbs.

    >If we do so  consciously, then we can change/alter our bodies toward a
    >better way of  living, using natural methods.  Then our chances of
    >getting sick  enough to need traditional western medical treatment are
    >far, far less.

    Cindy, ever look at the statistics for the last century? Traditional
    western medicine has been the main instigator of the rise in the length
    of life span, the reduction in infant mortality to almost negligible
    levels. I do not think that the methods that you propose would have had
    the same results.

    Re .36
    
    >Geez, first, everyone dies

    Yes I fully agree with you, although some who write in here seem to
    disagree with you, but they have come up with no proof yet.


    >Now, there are a number of civilizations much older than this one. 
    >They have arrived at ways of treating the human body when it is
    >operating sub-optimally.  Some of those ways seem crazy, impossible,
    >"un-scientific", silly, etc.  

    Ok let's ask the question again. Did these older civilisation have a
    longer life span and lower infant mortality than we enjoy?
                                                         
    >Let Jamie Anderson prove that Acupuncture doesn't work.

    Now hold it right there fella. I have never stated that it doesn't
    work. Kindly do not put words into my mouth.

    As to your comments on the existence of the energy body, no you did not
    convince me, but there again you presented absolutely no evidence. Going
    on what you tell us it would appear that the energy body requires the
    sort of act of faith that was required to see the Emperor's suit.

    Jamie.

    RE: a few back
    
    � Let Jamie Anderson prove that Acupuncture doesn't work.
    
    In fact, it would be easier to prove that it does work. Acupuncture is
    one the things easily proven by standard scientific testing methods.
    Just as the reversal of the aging process could be.
    
    Laurie.

    Re 1792.8

    >In India's ancient Vedic tradition, the most basic force underlying all 
    >of nature is intelligence.  The universe, after all, is not "energy 
    >soup"; it is not mere chaos.  The incredibly exact fit of things in our 
    >world - above all, the astounding existence of DNA - argues for
    >infinite  amount of intelligence in nature.  

    It may well argue for it, but it in no way provides any proof, therefore
    it is just an assumption.

    >You may find this hard to believe, so let me offer the example of
    >Timmy, a perfectly ordinary-seeming 6-year-old who suffers from one of
    >the strangest psychiatric syndromes - multiple personality disorder.

    I believe that the PC term in here for that condition is "Walk-in".

    >One personality might have diabetes, for example, and the person will
    >be  insulin-deficient as long as that personality is in force.  Yet the 
    >other personalities may be completely free of diabetes, testing
    >normally for insulin levels.  

    Sorry I would need more than someone's word on that one. I doubt if it
    is possible to suppress your insulin secretions to that extent. I doubt
    if the islets of Langerhans appear and disappear with personality
    changes.

    >Likewise, one personality may have high blood pressure while the
    >others do not; even scars, warts, sores, and other skin blemishes have
    >been seen to appear and disappear with the changing of personalities.  

    The high blood pressure I will believe and minor skin blemishes. scars,
    sores and warts you would have to show me or provide me with proof.

    >The literature on multiple personalities includes patients who can
    >instantly alter their pattern of brain waves on an EEG  

    Believable

    >or transform the color of their eyes from blue to brown.  

    I would like to see that one happen.

    >One woman had  three separate menstrual periods each month,
    >corresponding to her three  separate personalities.

    Quite possible, a fairly minor change in the hormonal balance.
     
    Timmy's reaction to the orange juice is also quite possible.

    >The white cells of the immune  system, coated with antibodies that
    >cause the allergic reaction, wait passively for the contact of an
    >antigen.  When contact occurs, a series of chemical reactions is
    >triggered automatically.

    My this is a new version of how the boy's immune system works. Someone
    did not do their homework before writing that bit.

    >Yet, in Timmy's case, it appears that as the molecules of orange juice 
    >approach his white cells, a 'decision' is made whether to react or not.  
    >This implies that the cell itself is intelligent.  

    What an interesting conclusion to reach. There is a simpler answer, if
    you look at some of the symptoms that people can produce from
    psychosomatic conditions you will realise that an allergic reaction
    does not need intelligent cells. You will no doubt have heard of
    phantom pregnancies. These can imitate a real pregnancy right up to the
    point of giving birth, but there is no baby. It is quite interesting to
    see the things your mind can induce your body to fake.

    >Moreover, its  intelligence is contained at a level deeper than its
    >molecules, for the  antibody and the orange juice meet end to end with
    >very ordinary atoms  of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    >To say that molecules can make decisions defies current physical
    >science  - it is as if sugar sometimes feels like being sweet and
    >sometimes not.  

    By making one false assumption on cellular intelligence we have now
    entered the realms of fantasy.

    >But it is not only the remarkable intensity of Timmy's case that stuns 
    >us.  Once we absorbed the fact that he is choosing to be allergic - for 
    >how else could he turn his hives on and off? - the we confront the 
    >possibility that we are choosing our diseases too.  We are not aware of 
    >this choice, because it takes place at a level below our everyday 
    >thoughts.  But if we have such an ability, we should be able to control 
    >it.

    Now we have reached a strange conclusion. By misinterpreting a
    psychosomatic condition producing an apparent allergic reaction it is
    being put to us that we have a choice about which disease we may suffer
    from. Basically it is nicely worded nonsense.

    Jamie.

RE:      <<< Note 1793.43 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "An optimistic yellow colour." >>>

�    >or transform the color of their eyes from blue to brown.  
�
�    I would like to see that one happen.

    Without wishing to detract from Jamie's note, which, unsurprisingly, I
    agree with, I thought I'd mention this:
    
    My eyes, which are generally a greeny-brown colour, can change colour
    from a hazel-brown to a bluey-green according to what I'm wearing. They
    don't change from Paul Newman blue to Sylvester Stallone brown by any
    means, the variation is much more subtle than that.
    
    What degree of colour change is being claimed?
    
    Laurie.

    re:1793.44
    
    Just kidding: Mine turned from dark brown to brown/blue once!
                  But this is not what you are referring to, isn't it? :-)
    
    Mork from Ork

    Jamie is absolutely right about the described simplified
    view of the immune system.  The action of the helper T-cells
    is strongly influenced by virtue of their possession of
    receptors for chemicals that can originate with brain activity.  This 
    was documented in medical journals several years ago, starting with 
    the discovery of enkephalin receptors on helper T white cells.
    Enkephalin and endorphin are aspects of the body's pain and
    emotional response mechanism, providing one of the first documented
    links between emotional state and immune response.
    
    What is confounding me is that it is unthinkable to me that an 
    endocrinologist such as Dr. Chopra is would have 
    overlooked this in favor of a theory of quantum cellular intelligence !
    Unless we have vastly misinterpreted his theory (or it is an old version 
    of his theory).
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    A phrase springs to mind which describes the note topic...
    
    
    "I'm going to live forever
    
    		....or die in the attempt !!"
    
    
    optimistically yours
    
    Steve
    

    From Chapter 2, "Science, Order, and Creativity", by David Bohm, and F.
    David Peat.        
    
    PARADIGMS AND SPECIALIZATION AS SOURCES OF BREAKS IN COMMUNICATION 
    
    ...ONLY when scientific communication takes place in the spirit of
    creative free free play can scientists become sensitive to the overall
    contexts and long-range connections between their disciplines.
    
    A simple example may illustrate this point.  Neurobiologists have
    little to do with the theories of quantum mechanics.  However, it has
    been found that, in certain ways, the nervous system can respond to
    indiviidual quanta of energy.  This opens the posssibility that the
    current reliance of the neurosciences on everyday notions of space,
    time, and causality may prove to be inadequate, and eventually notions
    from quantum theory may have to be brought into this field.
    
    It should also be stressed that each discipline provides a context for
    the others, contributes to the particular ways they use their
    scientific language from day to day, and disposes them to
    perceivenature in particular ways.  ...Whenever barriers between the
    disciplines and specializations become fixed and rigid, then
    communication breaks down, ideas and contexts become inflexible and
    limited, and creativity suffers.  Indeed the more subtle and
    unconscious the connections betwween the sciences, the more dangerous
    the effect of a blockage to their free flow in active communication.
    
    (The foregoing was from pages 71 and 72.
    
    Richard B
    
    8i

    
    Re.41
    
    Those are good points, Jamie. We are just looking at it from two very 
    different perspectives.  Otherwise, we would agree (me with you, not
    necessarily you with me (;^).
    
    I will try to find that yoga article on osteoporosis.  Perhaps it will
    be of some use.
    
    Part of the problem is that the perspective that Dr.Chopra is coming
    from is that it is a change in consciousness that is what must come
    first.  Otherwise, you are correct - one cannot build a new body, one
    cannot do much of anything beyond what you suggest.  That's where the
    meditation practices like TM, etc., come into the picture.  That's how
    it's possible to get to unity consciousness.  Then once one is there,
    the realization of how this new paradigm works become very clear. 
    
    However, looking at it from the physical perspective, as you aptly show,
    it does seem a bit farfetched.
    
    Keep your comments coming...I do find them quite insightful.  Not
    having been through all that you've been through, I gain a lot from your
    perspective.                                       
    
    Cindy

    re: .48, Richard,
    
    	Bohm just died recently, didn't he ?  What a tragic loss.
    	A brilliant man.
    						todd

    Yes, he did.  When Cindy and I visited Dr. Mehta, he had recently been
    informed via a phone call from England.  No, I don't consider his death
    a "tragic loss".  In the fullness of time, (it appears that maximum is
    around 130 years right now), we will all go the same way.  He,
    fortunately for us, lived a rather long time (late 70's or early
    80's),and has left a legacy of wonderful thinking.  His work is being
    carried forth by a much younger man, F. David Peat, whom I referenced
    in .48.  I've just bought Peat's most recent work, "The Philospher's
    Stone".  It's subjects are Synchronicity, Chaos, and the "hidden order"
    about which Bohm wrote so creatively and eloquently (ie., Explicate and
    Implicate Order).
    
    Richard B

    
    An explanation might be in order here.  Richard, we crossed conferences.  
    (;^)                   
    
    Dr.Mahesh Mehta is a friend of mine, and president of an organization
    called the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) of America.  They have a program
    in place called World Vision 2000, which is currently in the process of
    creating a vision for the next century.  They are hosting a conference
    in Washington D.C. next August, to form the vision.  The vision is to
    celebrate Swami Vivekananda's 100th year anniversary of his first visit 
    to the United States back in 1893, where he addressed the World
    Parlament of Religions in Chicago representing Hinduism.  His opening
    words were, "Sisters and Brothers of America...", at which time all
    7000 people lept to their feet and applauded for several minutes. 
    Instead of the usual 'Ladies and Gentleman', he established a
    relationship based on the Hindu/Vedantic understanding that "The World 
    is One Family", or in Sanskrit, "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam".  I'll enter 
    more about the WV 2000 program in this conference as time goes on.
    
    Richard was visiting recently, we met Dr.Mehta together, and now we are 
    both doing some work together, linking up mutual people and organizations 
    to tie in with the World Vision 2000 program.  At that meeting, talking 
    about unity, physics and Hugh Pribram, it was mentioned that David Bohm 
    had passed away.
    
    Cindy

    re: .51, Richard,
    
    Yeah, I've read Philosophers_Stone.  Has a lot of very interesting
    speculations.   One of the most memorable to me was a little bit
    reminiscent of one of the aspects of the Chopra theory about
    'intelligent cells.'   It consisted of a theory about coherent
    light being used as a guidance mechanism for DNA protein manufacture
    operations.   Shame it will probably be a while before anyone can come 
    up with a way to test such a thing, though.  One way or the other,
    a definite result would go a long way toward a theory tieing things 
    together at the lowest level of molecular biology.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    Re .35

    >Jamie, I do not know for sure if the bone loss can or cannot be 
    >replaced, and I do not know any studies that show that it can, however 
    >based on Dr.Ornish's research with arteries in light of the medical 
    >profession saying countless years that clogged arteries can never be 
    >cleared without surgery, it may indeed Be Possible to reverse 
    >osteoporosis via natural methods as well (yoga, meditation, diet, 
    >exercise, etc).  In fact, I do recall reading an article in a back 
    >issue of Yoga Journal about osteoporosis a few years ago, and will try 
    >to find it to see what it says.

    Thank you for sending me a copy of the article, however if you noticed
    it told you how to avoid getting osteoporosis, it did not claim that any
    reversal of the disease and replacement of the bone loss was possible.

    Stopping the damage that a disease is doing to your body, and repairing
    the damage that the disease has done are not the same thing.

    As far as I can find out the damage done by this disease cannot be
    reversed.

    Jamie.

    P.S. I passed the article on to a friend as she is will soon reach the
    menopause and is reading up on the subject.

    There's no reason _in_theory_ why you couldn't replace the bone,
    to some extent.  Though the structural integrity of the bone
    might be in question.  The normal metabolic process of rebuilding bone
    takes about 1-3 weeks to break down the old bone and 3 weeks to 4
    months to rebuild the new bone.  Once a few cycles have gone past
    without significant rebuilding, it is more more tricky to try
    to replace the missing bone mass without making the new bone fragile.
    
    There are two types of cells, osteoclasts which break down bone
    and osteoblasts which build it back up.  In a nutshell, when the bone 
    eaters are more active than the bone builders, you gave osteoporosis.
    
    Treatments involve either facilitating the bone builders or 
    inhibiting the bone eaters.  No reason why the body couldn't
    have an endogenous substance that could have either or both these effects 
    and be triggered by some 'natural' method.  No reason I've seen yet to 
    assume anyone has reliably shown such a thing either, though.
    
    Most current medical research is into drug therapy.  There are about
    29 drugs in use or clinical trials, and another 32 in early
    development.
    
    Because there's a new early screening test in clinical trials for
    osteoporosis, I entered a brief capsule summary in ::MEDICAL as
    topic 173.13, if anyone is interested in this.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

                                                              
    You're welcome, Jamie.
    
    There are two different things going on here.  They are: prevention of 
    further bone loss, and reversal of bone loss.  The article was for you
    personally, so that you may use the information (and do the exercises)
    to assist in keeping the bone loss in check, and was not meant to support 
    the latter claim in any way.  That's a different matter - and a
    different level of consciousness - entirely.
    
    Hope you enjoy(ed) the tape!  (;^)  And I have this video too...hehheh...
    
    Cindy

    Alas Cindy as my bone loss is from one of the drugs I use none, of the
    possible treatments to stop or slow the disease works on me.

    As to the tape. I made a copy but as we had a house guest I have not
    yet got round to listening to it. However now she is gone and I have
    caught up with the backlog of work that built up while she was with us
    I should be able to listen to it over the weekend.

    Jamie.

                                            
    That's unfortunate, Jamie.  
    
    I've been able to use yoga and some other holistic treatments to
    counter the effects of the medicine I take with success, however I
    haven't had the problem that you have.  Have you given yoga a try?
    It's different from just straight exercise.  It's a lot more powerful
    than it looks...  
    
    There is a fairly large group of Kripalu Yoga folks in your area who 
    teach there, and I think they have a center too.  If you're interested, 
    I can find out some names and locations for you.  One fellow was in my 
    initiation class, his wife worked as Gurudev's travel assistant for
    many years, and Gurudev's daughter was also there in Holland until very
    recently.
    
    No pressure to take me up on this offer though.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Reply to 1792.1 "Dr. Stone's Polarity Therapy"

    Thanks for entering that!

    I wanted to comment about my own experiences with the mind/body
    detoxification process described in 1792.1.

    Back in 1987, when I first began working with the idea that body is a
    product of consciousness, I also went through some very intense
    mind/body cleansing.

    I was using Dr. Michael Ryce's "Reality Management Worksheet" to change
    my belief system about the world I experienced.  I noticed that after I
    completed a worksheet, that often I would undergo emotional or physical
    reactions.  Sometimes a bone-deep tiredness would overcome me and I
    would just sleep and sleep for hours.

    Once, immediately after completing a worksheet I broke out into a rash
    and blisters appeared on my throat.  It all cleared up by the next day,
    and I have never experienced anything like it before or since.

    For a while, I wouldn't do any more worksheets because I didn't want to
    experience "the symptoms of healing."  I was growing weary of
    headaches, backaches, nausea, depression, fatigue, diarrhea, dizziness
    -- all of which I experienced at one time or another right after
    completing a worksheet.

    But, I persisted.  And over time, the physical cleansing symptoms
    became less and less traumatic.  (The emotional symptoms still bite me
    in the butt when I least expect it.)

    And, it has been worth it.  After a lifetime of illness and
    hospitalizations and surgeries and pain, I'm healthy!

    Radiantly so.  My friends tell me that I'm looking younger and younger
    each year.  What's really nice is that I feel good.  

    Let me encourage those who would try some of the mind/body healing
    techniques go ahead and play with it.  If it doesn't work, then you had
    fun.  But if it does work then you have not only regained your health,
    you will have expanded your own view of the universe.

    All this talk of proof reminds me of television.  How many of us would
    ever watch a thing if we had to know exactly how the darn thing works
    before we plugged it in and turned it on?
    
    Peace,
    
    Ruth

    No Cindy I have not tried Yoga, nor do I have any intention of trying
    it. You see it might just do something benificial, like stimulate my
    imune system back into action, as this would not be noticed until it
    was too late it would be fatal. So I will stick to treatment with known
    outcomes and put up with the side effects.
    
    Jamie.

    Hey Ruth,
    
    Do you have an ISBN number for the workbook and associated books?
    
    thanks,
    
    mary

    re .61

    Mary,

    We do not yet have the ISBN number for the workbook....It's one of
    those things on my ever-expanding list of things to do.

    The first draft of the workbook is completed.  The four weeks that I
    took off from DEC-work were very productive.  I am going to be doing
    the reviews with Michael Ryce in 3 weeks (in Ft. Lauderdale!).

    We hope to have it published by this summer.  We are self publishing it
    initially.  Michael has a huge mailing list since he has been "on the
    road" with his seminars since the early 80's.

    You can order a set of video tapes or audio tapes for the "Why Is This
    Happening to Me...Again?"  workshop directly from Michael Ryce's center
    (Heartland).

    The address is:   Dr. Michael Ryce
    		      Rt 3.  Box 3280
                      Theodosia, MO  65761

    The audio tape set is $40 and the video tape set is $100.  The tapes
    are professional quality and take about 4 hours to  listen to or watch.
    We are probably going to market the workbook at the $10 level.

    Michael gives the workshop for free.  He accepts "love offerings" and
    support from people who believe that his work is beneficial to the
    world.  

    He encourages people to copy the tapes and send them to friends.  He
    feels that lack of money should not prevent anyone from getting the
    benefits of the workshop.  I share Michael's vision on this and
    permission to copy will also apply to the workbook that I am writing.  

    So if anyone wants to listen to the workshop on tape I do have a
    "loaner" set (audio) that I let people borrow and copy.  Please
    send mail to weller::fannin if you'd like to do this.  

    I will also post a note when the book is finished.

    Thanks for your interest!

    Ruth

    Thank you, Ruth.

            
    Re.60
    
    Jamie,
    
    Have you checked with your doctor, or Harry, as to whether yoga would
    indeed do what you think it *may* do?
    
    For me personally, doing yoga has allowed me to cut my migraine
    medication dose by 1/3rd...and that's just for starters.  Yoga 
    was also a main portion of the heart cholesterol reduction program 
    that Dr.Dean Ornish had potential coronary bypass patients participate 
    in.
    
    Given the possibility that yoga may work in your case, compared with 
    enduring the alternatives that you are currently faced with, I would 
    think that it would be worth at least investigating to some degree 
    before deciding that you choose once and for all not to do it.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy, I walk a very fine line, more like a tight rope really. On one
    side lies rejection and on the other infection. By keeping the proper
    balance I can continue to live. Should I do any thing that causes my
    immune system to change by either becoming more efficient or further
    suppressed I will put myself in danger.

    Now if I tilt to the side of infection it will become immediately
    noticeable and they can give me some help. However if I slip towards
    rejection, then there will be no initial symptoms but I will develop
    antibodies to the heart, at that point things cannot be reversed and my
    only hope is another transplant, something that for an assortment of
    reasons I'd rather avoid.

    Should the exercises reduce my need for the drugs by one third, as they
    did for you, then my immune system will be suppressed far too much and
    I will only notice this when I catch something nasty.

    So currently we have things nicely balanced with drugs whose side
    effects I can tolerate. This process took over a year, some parts of
    it were not very nice and I would rather not have to do it all over
    again.

    I know it sounds cowardly but I am not prepared to take the risk.

    Jamie.

    I don't think it's cowardly, Jamie.. seems very sensible to me.

    Jamie,
    
    After having read your note about your transplant, and all that you
    went through to get to where you are today, I would also agree that
    it's not cowardly, but VERY smart for you to do exactly what you're
    doing for yourself. 
    
    I would hate to think of you endangering yourself, after you finally
    got thing on an even keel so to speak. 
    
    I think you should just go ahead and do what's right for Jamie. You
    know better than anyone what you've gone through, and what's best for
    you, both physically, AND mentally.
    
    BTW, I love reading your notes! ;-)
    
    Yvonne
          

    Re.65
    
    Jamie,
    
    I do see your point, and of course you should do what is right for you.
    
    The medicine I take is for a far different problem, so it cannot be
    used as a direct comparison.  I was using it to show that yoga has 
    improved my health and my life considerably since beginning the 
    practice several years ago.  
    
    What I'm more interested in finding out, from the western medical 
    community via you, is why yoga would not be beneficial to you in 
    your situation...why, from the western scientific perspective, it 
    may cause you harm in the way that you have stated.  Are there 
    papers published stating this that you are using as your basis for 
    not considering it?  Or have your doctors explicitly stated that you 
    should not do yoga or any kinds of exercises at all?
    
    As a future yoga teacher, it would be helpful to me to know these
    things so that I may be of the greatest assistance to future students.
    Any facts you can provide me along these lines would be most appreciated.
    
    Cindy

    Re .68

    No Cindy there is no specific ban on yoga, however before the
    transplant they have several sessions with you explaining in precise
    detail how dangerous your life will be after the operation. 

    For example there is a list of drugs which I am permitted to take, all
    others are banned to me unless I get specific permission to take them.
    For example aspirin and any medication containing it is completely
    forbidden and when I wanted to take a vitamin B6 supplement it took
    them over two weeks to check it out and give me the OK.

    They do encourage you to exercise, within reason. As I do a lot of
    walking and live on the third floor of a building which has typical
    Dutch stairs - nearly vertical - and no elevator I consider that
    enough.

    I also have one other thing to take into consideration, when they
    replaced my heart they had to severe the vegal nerve. In a very small
    percentage of the cases this does reconnect to the donor heart, alas I
    was not one of those, so my brain has no control over the heart. Now
    when I begin to use up more oxygen by doing something, like climbing
    stairs, the heart does not speed up and move more oxygen through my
    system. This causes me to pass out very quickly should I do anything
    energetic without building up to it very carefully.

    So currently things are stable for me and I do not wish to do anything
    that will rock the boat. As I have said what would be beneficial for
    normal people could be harmful to me and I'm not about to find out the
    hard way.

    Jamie.

    This is a re-entry of .69, where I made an editing buffer mistake
    that probably made the note incoherent...
    
>    What I'm more interested in finding out, from the western medical 
>    community via you, is why yoga would not be beneficial to you in 
>    your situation...why, from the western scientific perspective, it 
    
    The way the immune system works is that antibodies and 
    cytolytic T lymphocytes (white cells) recognize specific kinds of molecules
    (antigens) that they attack.  Antibodies attack molecules
    in the body fluids in general, and lymphocytes generally 'lyse' 
    cells penetrated by viruses, which exude chemicals that make them
    recognizable as having been invaded.
    
    The system works better than any drug, when it works, because antigens
    and invaded cells can be very specifically targeted chemically, without
    side effects.
    
    In cancer, for example, the body theoretically could kill only the
    cancerous cells without the drug or radiation or surgery side effects,
    IF it could recognize the tumor cells chemically.
    
    'Activating' the immune system in a person with a transplanted organ
    might cause tissue rejection, or the body might know to more
    selectively target disease and leave the transplant tissue alone,
    depending on exactly what kind of 'activation' is being done.
    That's where the delicate balance between immunity and rejection
    comes in.  
    
    As far as I know, no studies have been done on Yoga or meditation
    and transplants.  The few studies I know of show generallized
    activity and number of white cells, which could well be dangerous in
    a transplant situation as Jamie fears.  I'd love to hear about it if 
    anyone has more information on this !
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd
    

    
    Re.70
    
    Jamie,
    
    Thank you for that information.  It's all quite fascinating.  I've 
    never known someone with a heart transplant before.  I'm glad you were
    encouraged to do some exercises.
    
    One thing...the next time you see your doctor, would you please ask if 
    there would be a problem with you doing (beginner) yoga, and if there
    is a problem, exactly what is it?
    
    There's a difference between actually *doing* yoga and *inquiring* about
    it.  At this point, I'm only asking that you consider doing the latter, 
    not the former.
    
    Cindy

    You miss my point Cindy. I will do nothing, absolutely nothing, that
    will in any way shape or form endanger the balanced situation that I
    now enjoy. 

    It does not matter if these changes are drugs, exercises or diet. I am
    quite happy with my little lot and I have no wish to return to the days
    when we were establishing this equilibrium. I remember all to well the
    blinding headaches, the shivering from cold while in a warm room and
    the feeling of utter exhaustion that comes with sudden hypotension.

    One of the instructors that I had when I first entered this industry
    gave the class of eager young would be engineers some advice, "If the
    machine is working, don't try to fix it, you'll usually make it worse."
    It was very wise advice. Many times later in my career I had to pick
    up the pieces left after a junior colleague tried to "improve"
    something.

    Currently I feel healthy and enjoy life. That is enough for me.

    Jamie.                                                           

                               
    Jamie,
    
    You are missing *my* point.  I'm looking for information here.
    
    Simply *asking* your doctor about yoga and your condition will not
    endanger your condition one iota...unless I'm totally missing 
    something.  
    
    Again, I'm not asking you to *do* yoga, I'm only asking that you
    *inquire* about it, and pass along to me what your doctor has to say.
    
    *I* don't have access to the kinds of doctors that you do, since I've
    not had a heart transplant.
    
    Cindy

    Jamie,
    
    If what I am about to ask you is too personal for this conference just
    answer "THHHHHPH!" in your reply and I'll never bring it up again.
    
    I have heard rumors/stories that people who have organ transplants
    sometimes experience different *feelings* about situations in their
    lives after the transplant.  Did you notice anything out of the
    ordinary?
    
    --Ruth

    Re .75

    Apart from what happened during the operation, the only difference that
    I feel is healthier. I have been asked on several occasions if the
    donor heart feels "different". I usually answer "Oh yes this one
    doesn't keep missing beats and I no longer fall over when I stand up."

    Then the argument goes to, "But doesn't it feel strange." To this I
    point out that a normally functioning heart doesn't really make any
    impression on you at all.

    As the heart consists mainly of muscle, I doubt that it could carry any
    part of the personality of its owner and even if it did, as I have
    pointed out, it has no connection with my nervous system so I don't
    think that it could communicate with me.

    If you want a copy of the tale of the transplant mail me and I'll send
    you one.

    Cindy, if I ask a question like that to the transplant team they will
    want to know the exact details of every exercise before giving it the
    ok. It is not going to be a straight yes/no answer. Remember it took
    them two weeks to make up their minds on the matter of me taking
    vitamin B6 supplements. 
    
    They must take many things into consideration, the damage to the
    sternum, the denervation of the heart, the physical condition of the
    individual patient post op. 

    Also bear in mind I did not have a heart attack, so I bounced back
    quite quickly, some my fellow patients do not make as rapid recovery as
    I did and many do not reach the level of recovery that I enjoy.

    Jamie.
                                

    
    Jamie,
    
    What kind of exercises do you currently do, that are approved by
    the medical team?
    
    Cindy

    >What kind of exercises do you currently do, that are approved by
    >the medical team?
    
    Absolutely none, I Have never been keen on exercising as I consider it
    a waste of time and energy. My normal daily life gives me enough
    natural exercise. 
    
    This attitude is not totally approved of by the medical team, but as it
    is a life long habit they do not seem concerned. I get the impression
    that if I had had a very active life before the op and a sedentary one
    after it, then they would be worried.

    Jamie.