Understanding the Biological laws, I now look at research with great discernment as explained below.
First thing is first: Has this been funded? Who by? Do they have an interest in the outcome?
If the information doesn’t pass that gate, I may or may not read it, but if I do I will read with the pre-condition that it is likely biased. As I mentioned previously, the key decision makers in government all have a financial interest in the outcome of research and studies, so I would always read anything government-funded with caution.
The Nutrition Factor
As a kinesiologist and nutritional therapist, I actually find it rare that nutrition alone is a cause of a symptom, there is almost always an emotional or energetic element. In fact, Dr Hamer who discovered the biological laws stated that the psyche brain and organ operated as one unit and that he observed the healing pattern of disease was carried out simultaneously on all 3 levels.
That’s not to say that diet isn’t important, as it does play a supportive role in healing. Lack of certain nutrients will cause unnecessary stress on the body and therefore could increase the impact of the symptoms or’disease’.
The Age Factor
In the over 65s, you often see increases in ‘disease’ due to their increased exposure to fear-programming, increased sense of death fright/fragility/mortality and the increased life traumas such as losses of loved ones that they would have experienced.
Results based on Hypotheses
I find that results from a lot of these studies, from people who don’t understand the biological laws, are based on hypotheses and assumptions that are enshrined in conventional medical science (which has over 5000 hypotheses!). If you take research with the paradigm of disease being a malfunction, microbes being harmful and a belief of contagion and metastasis, then the results will be misinterpreted and flawed.
What about the Stats?
I find most research and studies from the old conventional paradigm show risks and trends rather than absolutes. The problem with this is, anything can be explained from anything. Dr Hamer once stated that if you took 100 women who had breast cancer and 70 of them wore white bras, by conventional standards you could deduce that white bras cause cancer.
Even the stats given in the recent ‘pandemic’ taking into account various age groups, genders, co-morbidities, etc, all confirm the GNM science when it is applied and understood how the conflicts involved are processed in the different control centres of the brain.
Control Studies & Placebos
In the case of a health study such as a vaccine trial where a saline placebo is used in the control group:
1) More people with ‘real’ (non-saline) jabs will experience adverse side-effects, both short term (toxic-shock) and long-term (toxic burden weakening body) in addition to attack conflicts and various conflct resolutions
2) Some people with saline will experience symptoms but from conflict resolution, so this would likely only be short term. I guess someone very fearful who was coerced into having jab and were (ironically) given saline, could still see this as a conflict such as attack.
What about Risk Factors?
With placebo studies, the medical establishment fail to recognise the psyche involvement in reactions/symptoms and this is probably why they deal in risk assessment rather than actual cases when looking at reactions.
So, for example, in a hypothetical situation, 100 people have a vaccine, 100 have a saline injection:
If 30 in each group has blood clots (from a psyche reaction) they would determine there is no increased risk with jab, despite having 60 people who wouldn’t have had blood clots if they weren’t injected in the first place.
If 30 had blood clots in the saline group and 36 had clots in the vaccine group. Depending on their methodology (and likely how they want the results to appear), this could be seen as a 6% increase (out of the 100 total) but its actually a 20% increase (as a percentage of the 30 in the control group) in risk of blood clot from having the vaccine. From the GNM perspective this would be explained as a result of the toxic ingredients of the vaccine causing extra stress on the body and causing worse conflict reaction.
Likewise, you can turn this around and look for positive effects of certain nutrients, medications and supplements. This is often a sales tactic of pharmaceutical and many multilevel marketing companies, but it’s based upon misguided science.
You can basically create any result you want from studies, which is why I don’t bother listening to most, unless there is something extremely compelling!
What about substances, toxicities or deficiencies that appear to be a cause of disease?
If something physical creates a particular reaction to a human being, that would show in whoever was exposed to it, yet it is not. This supports GNM in that it shows that there is an involvement in the psyche. As we all experience our own perception of everything based on our individual beliefs and experiences, we will each have different reactions, however this would show trends when there is mass brainwashing so people have similar beliefs.
More Useful Studies
Dr Hamer found that factors such as biological laterality, gender, hormone status, the presence of other active conflicts, were all crucial as they can determine where traumas impact in the brain, and therefore which organ would be affected and which ‘disease’ would be experienced. This was confirmed 100% in brain scans. If a study was carried out taking into account these factors then the truth would really be revealed!
Why the Biological Laws above all others?
Simply put, it is based in accurate, meticulous research that was proved to apply to 100% of over 40,000 cases studied. It does not contain any theories or hypotheses, and if a theory was not proven to be so in 100% of cases, it was dismissed.
What really cements my knowledge of GNM in addition to the fear results it gives with clients, is that I have not yet come across anything that cannot be explained through the biological laws, and it explains clearly why things affect people in different ways.
How to read research
- See who is the sponsor – do they have an interest in the outcome?
- Determine a GNM explanation for any symptoms experienced.
- Look for logical fallacies (false logic) used in the research, results and way in which the article is written.
- Do the findings obey the biological laws?
- Are the results absolute or hidden in stats/ risk factors?
- Is it perpetuating an agenda or unproven theory that is in the old paradigm? eg. fear campaign, contagion, metastasis, germ theory, spike protein, etc
- Finally, does it resonate or is it just inducing fear?