Good to see you writing on this - something with more details would be interesting, perhaps your own experiences.
If anybody remains unsure of what GNM is, then this brief summary of a summary might help: http://www.newmedicine.ca/excerpt.php
This is not a million miles away from, say, traditional Vedic medicine. However, we now have more tools available to make links that in the past were just not available.
Biological systems are far more complex than physical systems, but they are both fundamentally physics. Just as the interactions of waves and matter are a fundamental part of physics, here we see one attempt to create a similar correspondence between bio-waves (nervous system) and bio-particles (cells).
This is why the mainstream tyrants hate it - this kind of research started some 200 years ago, when electricity was first discovered, and then the whole area was like... dropped! Nothing to see here - look away.
yes I might do another gnm post at some point, a kind of testimonial but not until I feel I've healed which is not yet. I want the testimonial to at least have a happy ending ;-)
Thanx for your very interesting input as usual, yeh I never really thought of it that way, the physics and biology connection. I tend to cringe at modern medicine's way of treating our bodies like machines with separate parts but like your explanation.
Did you actually go through the CT scan part?
Both CT and MRI and MEG are all part of this biophysics field - yet few people seem to have the mind to think, firstly, how astonishing such images are, and secondly, that the consequences are that our whole bodies are NOT just machines, but complex wave-particle interactions. I mean, we knew this from early basic EEGs, and yet, even with WAVES staring people in the face, they continue to think "machine".
Cool huh. For years they thought the rings of Hamers 'target' were something to do with the machine so Hamer went to Siemens to clear it up and found they were in fact really there on the brain and not an artifact of the machine. My one scepticism of MRI's etc is the doses of radiation. Who knows what that could be causing to the brain? Lanka is working on that tho so all good.
what does "radiation" mean? I hate that word as has 2 totally different meanings.
CT is also a meaningless word; it's a 3D Xray, hence improved resolution of deeper structures that may be hard to see with a flat Xray.
MRI used to be called NMRI, but they dropped the N, coz they thought people would freak - old hospitals will still have the NMR scan signs up. lol.
The magnetic fields used in MRI are huge - like 2 Tesla - but static. It's the radio frequencies, RF, that change as it scans a body. Indeed, as soon as we focus on the pulse-frequencies the language changes into pulse rate or repetition rate - these convert to anything between low Hz to low MHz - we are now in brainwave range!
Indeed, most people will feel a bit vague or vacant - assuming that is not their natural state (!) - and slowly regain focus.
So, not sure exactly which "radiation" worries you ;-)
One interesting thing is that humans can survive at all within an MRI machine. Do not carry any metal objects! This now becomes a concern of people with any of the many types of graphene oxide (GO) in their body - that will slice up the tissue it is within. Yet another terminal vector.
I don't know if this site is pure lamestream science but might be interesting: https://www.drpawluk.com/education/magnetic-science/biomagnetic-fields/
One thing caught my attention - the usual brain blocks people have. PEMF = pulsed emf signals. Mobiles and wifi are also PEMF! So, if some frequencies have an alleged therapeutic effect, how can the others have "no effect" on humans? [off at a tangent!]
Yup it's all very perplexing and goes back to Madame Currie and her work with x-rays as she died of 'cancer' too. I'm not too knowledgeable on emf's and stuff like that which is why I try to stick to things I do understand. When someone comes up with an understandable paper on it maybe I'll get it.
I went thru one of those full body scanners at an airport in 2016 as I didn't notice what it was until too late. I felt pretty sick for a long time after that journey but was it the radiation or my own fear of it that caused it?
Depends on the type of airport scanner.
https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPmmwavesStatement2012.pdf
They're all going for the mm wave ones now - so you get a blast of microwaves.
Oh... that's nice, they're allowed to go up to 100GHz. FFS. Raytheon's microwave WEAPON operates at 95GHz. So... RUN through it!!
You may wish to check the airport - too late, but is still knowledge.
Again, the above has nothing to do with Xray radiation.
It is becoming part of the physics con to separate radiation as ionising and non-ionising - coz that's total bollox. If you have a resonant frequency and enough power to break apart a molecule, then that molecule is now ionised!! All microwave frequencies are classed as non-ionising - that's just NOT true.
It was one of those new fangled full body scanners that can see thru ur clothes that everyone was warning about years ago and I was on a stop off coming back from Thailand, Paris I think. I was kinda zombiefied and tired coz if I'd known I always said I'd refuse to get in one, I'd rather be strip searched!!!
There are many other things that can zombify a human in an airport - blanket 5G gifi would do it too. Even strobing lighting could do that.
So hard to find a tech that isn't knowingly evil.
A small point, I guess Hamers was lucky to have facilities, but full brain scans are expensive - usually a clinician will have some idea what they are looking for so will only take scans of that region. I haven't as yet read that chapter, but I thought they were CT scans, not MRI.
Yes they are CT scans, I changed that in the finished article when Ilsedora and her team spotted it. Lanka is working on a simpler way of scanning the brain. A new machine based on technology already available. Yes the brains scan thing has always put me off as I want nothing to do with hospitals myself. They do however prove the accuracy of GNM in it's diagnosis and finding the cause.
Sometimes a "coarser" tool can see larger structures more clearly than a fine-tuned tool - in this case, CT is usually considered less revealing than MRI, which is why it is often done first to locate where the MRI should focus on. But they are also quite different tools, the MRI showing finer details of tissues that are similar.
amusing =
really depends on what those "circle" structure are.
They are a change in the tissue. GNM peeps recommend CT scan with no contrast for their purpose.