goodness, that case of the fracture not showing with one personality
"in", and showing with the other personality "in",
was an anomaly of extraordinary importance!
That is heartbreaking, because such an anomaly ought to be
thoroughly documented scientifically and witnessed by a number of
impeccable scientists. It
is the ANOMALIES -- verified ones of course -- that tell us what the
extension to our science is, and clearly shows us the way!
is sad that scientists today are so constrained that they honestly
fear for their positions and careers if they have the courage to
report such serious anomalies actually discovered.
A little anomaly, okay (a little scientific 'creep forward' is
acceptable; that is not threatening to the Establishment).
But a big anomaly, that is tabu (unacceptable, it is
threatening to the Establishment).
we mostly can only "fudge forward" like an inch worm, while
being constrained to pass by and ignore the giant leaps that reveal
themselves sometimes in the laboratories.
Subject: Re: Tom Bearden Website update
Enjoyed the new slide series. There is a great deal of interesting
material on your site, and I share it with others on a regular basis.
also looking into learning the math you discuss in understanding these
ideas. (I was headed into Theoretical Math until I had to leave
The material on Priore, engine construction, and cellular change
reminded me of an interesting phenomenon to which current medicine has not paid
much attention: the medical conditions of people with multiple personality
disorder. I have heard stories, one from a very reliable source, that medical conditions can switch on and off in such people with the
change of personalities.
The case I know of directly from someone involved was a case of an
attempt to validate a worker's comp claim on a broken bone. If the personality
involved at the time of the break was not "in" when the
x-rays were taken, the break did not show! When the personality in question was
"in," the break did show on the x-rays! This is impossible in the old medical
model, of course, but not in yours. The person who told me the story revealed
it only reluctantly after a long period of silence in a conversation
where I was discussing my recent discovery of this phenomenon. It had upset
them greatly and they feared telling anyone.
I have heard of other conditions, such as refractive errors in the eye
and diabetes, which totally disappear depending on who is
"running" the body. I could never understand why medical science (and I use the term
loosely) ignored these cases. Seems to me these should be the most heavily
studied people in medical research. If we studied them, we could heal
(Oh, maybe that's it! No more big drug companies and HMOs.)
It definitely shows that your EM-based medical model accounts for more
data than the current model, and is thus superior.
Keep up the good work and keep healing. We need you.