XPOST: [PathOfHealth #3465] Menses in the Context of Physiological Cleansing

[Guest guest]

THIS IS A VERY LONG POST. PLEASE NOTE AND RESPECT THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE.

THANK YOU!

 

Elchanan

______

 

Greetings everyone,

 

In light of all the recent discussion about menstruation and related

matters, I've decided to post publicly a piece I wrote awhile ago as a

private response. Someone expressed fear that, if a woman were simply to

release no bloody discharge at all, this would indicate a problem. In fact,

this is biologically normal; all bloody discharge signifies toxic overload

in the system.

 

I hope some find this information constructive. Please note that this is a

VERY long post. Also, this is a first draft of something I plan to develop

more fully at some future time.

 

As usual, I have given others meaningless names, X and Y.

 

Best to all,

Elchanan

__

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

 

Copyright 5767 (2006 CE) by The Presiding Chaplain for Vibrant Life, and

Successors, as provided in natural law and common law. All rights reserved.

 

Permission is hereby granted to any natural man, woman, or child ONLY to

excerpt or use all or any portion of the following text for any

noncommercial purpose whatsoever, subject to the following conditions:

 

1. Any portion excerpted must be sufficiently complete to assure no loss or

alteration of meaning or context.

2. The man, woman or child excerpting or otherwise using all or any portion

hereof must place the following (or substantially similar) text prominently

and in close proximity to the material excerpted or used:

 

Written by Elchanan. Copyrighted material of The Presiding Chaplain for

Vibrant Life,

and Successors, as provided in natural law and common law.

________________________

INITIAL INQUIRY FROM X

Sunday, July 09, 2006 8:57 AM

Unnatural menses

 

As far back as one can look in history women have been menstruating. So

what I took from your post is that throughout history most cultures and

women in them have been toxic because of what they eat. I am curious to

know how much these women weigh that don't have their periods any more.

 

My husband eats raw, I eat a lot of raw , but not completely. The thought

of not having my cycle anymore makes me VERY skeptical of this diet.

Kimberly

____________

ANOTHER RESPONSE TO THE SAME INITIAL INQUIRY FROM X

Hi, I guess I am quite out of the ordinary, but I had 3 very healthy

pregnancies and three healthy teenagers to show for it. I have only had 4

periods in my life ( " normal " monthly bleeding) and obviously still ovulated

just fine.

 

Doctors have never found any reason why, but all say I am quite healthy and

hormone levels have always been fine.

 

Y

____________

MY INITIAL RESPONSE TO X

Hi X, This is a private response.

 

What you say does reflect mainstream belief and teaching. And it is simply

incorrect. All female mammals ovulate, and none except those that consume

horrific diets releases bloody discharge every month. These two events are

unrelated, except that the female reproductive canal provides an additional

exit pathway for trash. But the body only uses this pathway when it is

overloaded elsewhere. And the cost is high in terms of lost material and

energy expended.

 

The same is true for the skin and mouth. When you are biologically clean,

you do not exude awful body or breath odor, oily discharge, " plaque " , etc.

through the skin. But when one is biologically dirty or contaminated or

filled with toxic or foreign matter (whatever language you prefer), then the

body enlists the skin as an extra eliminative organ. The circumstances are

identical, except that males have no access to the first.

 

By design, the eliminative organs for our species are the colon, kidneys,

and lungs, that's it.

 

X, you have asked to understand. Therefore, much of this writing does not

deal with menses at all, but rather with background material, to create a

context in which to comprehend menses. So I ask that you maintain your

patience, and above all your sense of curiosity, as you read further. I do

not regard this as " definitive " in any way, just food for thought.

 

Best to all,

Elchanan

____________

MY LONG RESPONSE TO X

X and all, To address this topic comprehensively, I suggest we break the

discussion into several components.

 

First, I suggest we acknowledge the fear that may arise with this topic.

When I read your words, " The thought of not having my cycle anymore makes me

VERY skeptical of this diet, " I hear such fear, commingled with a healthy

intellectual inquiry.

 

For now, I simply encourage you and others to acknowledge, accept, and

embrace whatever fear or other feelings you may be experiencing in response

to this whole inquiry. For there can never be any " wrong " feelings, only to

disavow them is self-defeating and self-destructive.

And in truth, until you feel comfortable, you will not likely shift your

perspective. Nor would any sane person.

 

* * * * *

 

Whenever we are very familiar with an occurrence, when we experience that

occurrence as ubiquitous across the population and over time, we easily form

the impression that the occurrence is " normal " or " natural " . This is quite

understandable, for the occurrence constitutes a fairly constant, seemingly

reliable component in our world.

 

When someone comes along and says, " Hold on, this might be false, or at

least our perception of it might be false, " automatic rejection comes all

too easily to most of our species. And when what is challenged is something

we hold rather dear (such as our capacity to reproduce), then we likely

become afraid, whether we recognize our own fear or not. We become apt to

condemn the speaker of the " heretical " view. Such has been the treatment of

Socrates, Kepler, Galileo, Shelton, and so many others throughout human

history who have dared to speak truthfully in contrast with widely held

beliefs of their respective times.

 

This inquiry into the nature of menses and its relationship, if any, to

ovulation and reproduction gives rise to precisely such a circumstance.

For we do hold dear our capacity to reproduce. And it is indeed the case

that, as X writes, " As far back as one can look in history women have been

menstruating. " So as we challenge the notion that menses characterized by

bloody discharge is normal, we do threaten existing notions about ovulation

and reproduction, and we do also challenge well-established experience and

" knowledge " .

 

* * * * *

 

Before discussing menses per se, we may find it helpful to set forth a few

fundamental concepts in language and in science.

 

1.0 " Typical " vs. " normal " .

What we experience as commonplace, or " typical " , we often describe as

" normal " . But the terms have entirely different meanings and intentions.

" Typical " refers to the product of our own casual observation: we see or

otherwise sense something occurring again and again, under similar

circumstances, and we recognize that this is so. In contrast, " normal "

involves an entirely different approach to observation, wherein we

consciously explore the nature and design of a thing.

 

In our present discussion, for example, it is indeed typical, or

commonplace, that women bleed on a monthly basis. But this offers us no

insight whatsoever into whether this pattern is normal. To address the

latter question, we would need to consider the design of our system, how our

anatomy and physiology are intended to operate under " ideal " conditions.

 

1.1 Biological " normal " vs. statistical " normal " .

Here arises much of the confusion many people experience around use of the

word " normal " .

 

Biological normal is simply as I describe above, the result of inquiry and

observations about the design of an organism, system, etc. In contrast,

statistical normal is entirely an invention of mathematics -- extremely

useful, but entirely different in nature. In this context, normal refers to

an arithmetic average (mean) and the distribution of occurrences around that

mean (deviation). When scientists use the word " normal " , it is often

unclear to which idea they refer. Further, any statistical norm is derived

from the population as it presently exists.

If the population, as a whole, is unhealthy, then when we gather data and

compute norms, we are establishing norms for illness and disease, not for

health. Therefore, we must read and comprehend all contemporary research

with a healthy skepticism.

 

1.2 Example: " normal " human body temperature.

In the United States, it is well-known that " normal " human body temperature

is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (37 degrees Celsius). In the United Kingdom, if

I understand correctly, it is equally well-known that " normal " human body

temperature is 98.4 degrees Fahrenheit. In other words, there must be two

somewhat different variants of the species homo sapiens living in these two

countries ... correct?

 

Of course not! But the differences in diet, lifestyle, sunshine, and other

factors between these two locations and these two societies, taken as a

whole, are large enough to have created two somewhat different " norms " in

their respective medical communities. Let's keep looking ...

 

One scientist writes, " the normal range for body temperature is 97 to 100

degrees Fahrenheit or 36.1 to 37.8 degrees Celsius. " Another writes, " For

decades it was thought that the normal body temperature was 98.6 °F. This

number was calculated from a study in Germany which reported normal at 37

°C. What was not known was that this number was an average rounded to the

nearest degree. In other words it was only accurate to two significant

digits, not the three we have with 98.6. Scientists today know that normal

is actually 98.2 plus or minus 0.6, that is to say anything in the range of

97.6° to 98.8° should be considered normal. "

 

From one physics text, we have " What is your normal body temperature? It's

probably not 98.6 °F, the oft-quoted average that was determined in the

nineteenth century. A recent study has reported an average temperature of

98.2 °F. "

 

And finally, directly from a study reassessing " normal " human body

temperature, we have " Our findings conflicted with Wunderlich's in that 36.8

degrees C (98.2 degrees F) rather than 37.0 degrees C (98.6 degrees F) was

the mean oral temperature of our subjects …. Thirty-seven degrees

centigrade (98.6 degrees F) should be abandoned as a concept relevant to

clinical thermometry. "

 

Note that the word " normal " as used here refers to the mean (average)

measurement obtained from the existing test population, as described above.

 

According to these studies, every thermometer sold in every pharmacy in

America, and therefore every diagnosis based upon use of any such

thermometer, should be discarded, in the former case, and reconsidered, in

the latter. Let's keep looking ...

 

Several long-time raw fooders, who consume a high-fruit, low-fat diet rich

in greens and who are physically active, have observed that their " normal "

body temperature is now in the range, say, 94-97 degrees Fahrenheit (roughly

34.4-36.1 degrees Celsius). Now, these numbers are imprecise. Why? Small

sample size, among other reasons. But one thing is clear: the norms derived

from sampling the mainstream population differ substantially from the same

norms derived from sampling a very health subset of that population.

 

What, then is " normal " . And what is the significance of this apparent

difference in norms?

 

If " normal " is 98+ and " fever " (abnormal) is 99+, then the range within

which one's temperature remains " healthy " is small. But if " normal " is,

say, 95 and " fever " is 99+, then the range within which one's temperature

remains " healthy " becomes quite large.

 

Imagine an athlete " warming up " . In exercise physiology, this means raising

one's body temperature about 1 degree Fahrenheit against the body's natural

cooling capacity. Now imagine engaging in strenuous activity, with your

body running at 96 degrees instead of 99+. Your stamina and overall

capacity would increase, and your metabolic waste would decrease. Further,

your recovery time would shorten considerably, your water requirement would

decrease, and so on. The list of benefits could become quite long.

 

Let's further consider the implications of such a difference in terms of

ordinary activity. Anyone who has ever studied engine design knows that, in

general, the leading cause of destructive wear in any engine is heat. Now,

imagine running a human body 3 degrees cooler than everyone else's body for

an entire lifetime. The reduction in " wear and tear " would be significant

indeed!

 

Of course, people whose body temperatures are lower do face certain

challenges. For example, the air conditioning settings in most buildings

seem VERY cold! But who would sacrifice a lifetime of improved efficiency

and decreased wear and tear over that.

 

Now, if you were to go to a medical practitioner -- allopathic, " holistic " ,

or whatever, almost universally they would tell you that 95 is not normal,

that it signals exhaustion or other more serious conditions. This leads us

to an interesting point about health:

 

We often find important indicators of health to be

similar in the very healthy and the very sick.

 

1.3 Example: White blood cell count.

The medical " norm " for WBC is 5000-10000. But a very healthy man or woman

likely has a WBC of only 2000-3000. Similarly, someone who is extremely ill

may have a WBC in the same range. In fact, the first test for AIDS is a WBC

test, and when the number falls into this range, a person is classified as

" at risk " and referred immediately for further testing. (Never mind, for

the moment, that AIDS is a hoax.)

 

1.4 Conclusion.

If we are to embark upon a journey into excellent health, then we need to

distinguish between what is commonplace and what is really normal, in terms

of Nature's design. We may need to relinquish our ties with what the

mainstream, and our own upbringing and education, consider " normal " . We

will serve ourselves best by traveling forward with our childlike sense of

curiosity in the foreground, right alongside our healthy sense of

skepticism. And we serve ourselves best by welcoming the paradigm shifts

that will become available to us along the way.

 

* * * * *

 

2.0 " Reductionism " vs. " holism " .

Every system of human thought rests upon one or more core beliefs. This is

equally true for " science " as it is for " religion " , and for " Natural

Hygiene " as for any other approach to health. In the world of science,

taken as a whole, there are actually two very different belief systems. One

dates back to the 1600s, the time of the advent of Newtonian physics, the

time of Sir Isaac Newton and Edmond Haley (Haley's Comet), and even earlier

to the time of Roger Bacon (1200s), originator of what we call the

" scientific method " . The other originates around 1925 with the advent of

quantum physics. Though quantum physics is 80 years old, almost NONE of the

rest of science has come over to this way of thinking. Of particular

interest for this conversation, the entire field of biology, with the

notable exception of medical imaging technologies, remains firmly entrenched

in the Newtonian perspective.

 

What is the significance of this?

 

In a Newtonian world, everything is the sum of its parts (reductionism). In

other words, one can disassemble a thing, study its parts, repair or replace

any damaged parts, reassemble, and voila, just like new! Sound familiar, as

in modern surgery? Now this approach works exquisitely well for objects of

human design, as clocks and engines. But it fails miserably when applied to

living organisms. Why? Biological organisms learn, they adapt. Faced with

something potentially harmful, biological organisms have the capacity to

orchestrate a self-beneficial, adaptive response, so that " nothing ever

occurs in exactly the same way twice. "

 

In other words, the capacity of every living creature to adapt makes every

living creature larger than the sum of its parts. For example, allopathic

medicine perceives every inflammation ( " -itis " ) as a unique phenomenon based

upon its location. So we have sinusitis, pharyngitis, laryngitis,

bronchitis, and various other -itises. A medical approach, based upon a

reductionist belief system, is to treat each of these differently, as if

each such condition had a unique cause and were unrelated to the others.

The same holds true for virtually every category of " illness " and " disease " ,

even cancer.

 

In contrast, any perspective genuinely grounded in holism would easily

perceive all these " itis " conditions as variants of the same phenomenon:

inflammation in response to an irritation. Such is the perception of

Natural Hygiene. And based upon such a perception, one would " prescribe "

similar or identical responses (other than for palliative relief, if

desired) in response to all -itis conditions. In other words, one would go

about creating health, as opposed to treating symptoms. And over time,

almost everything would turn out for the better.

 

* * * * *

 

3.0 Correlation vs. causation.

It is quite common for people to associate two events that occur closely

together, whether in time, location, or both. That is, the events appear to

be correlated with one another. We observe this particularly when the same

two events occur closely together on multiple occasions, whether regularly

or irregularly. One might call such a relationships " correlation " . Often,

if event A occurs prior to event B, we assume that A caused B.

 

It can take considerable thoughtfulness and patience to approach such an

apparent relationship with a sense of curiosity, rather than a sense of

presumption. By curiosity, I mean that one might come from a place of

inquiry, seeking to discover whether A and B are indeed related at all;

whether A and B share a common cause; and so forth.

 

3.1 Example: Traffic jams in Los Angeles. I imagine most would agree that

the sun rises every day in Los Angeles, though not always visibly so due to

smog conditions. And most people are aware that traffic jams occur

throughout the Los Angeles area, generally in the same locations, day after

day between 5-7 days per week, with occasional exceptions for holidays.

Therefore, these two events are highly correlated: they occur closely

together in time and space on an ongoing basis. In fact, if one were to

calculate a correlation coefficient using some statistical approach, one

might easily arrive at a value greater than 80%, quite high in many fields

of analysis.

 

The question is, does either event cause the other? In this case the answer

seems rather evident, in that sunrises do not cause traffic jams, and

traffic jams surely do not cause the sun to rise. Nor do these 2 events

share a common cause: the sun rises because of the Earth's relationship to

the sun, within the solar system, and the like (explainable using physics),

whereas traffic jams occur as a long-term effect of choices made by people,

both individually and collectively, about lifestyle, economics, and other

factors (explainable perhaps in terms of " traffic engineering " ). Thus,

these two events (sunrises and traffic jams in LA) appear to be entirely

unrelated in terms of causation, even though they are highly correlated with

one another.

 

* * * * *

 

4.0 Cleansing mechanisms of the human organism.

With these concepts and distinctions in mind, but before we consider menses

directly, it is helpful to review the general nature of cleansing systems,

organs, and functions in our human organism.

 

At the root of this topic, one may observe several core principles:

 

- First, elimination requires some pathway out of the body. In other words,

the body must find a hole through which to push out the material being

eliminated.

 

- Second, the body seeks to eliminate all foreign matter. This includes not

only digestive and metabolic waste, but all extraneous material--whether

living or dead, organic or inorganic--that has entered the body by any

means. In other words:

 

- Digestive and metabolic waste constitute foreign matter.

- The body seeks to eliminate any foreign matter that is present.

 

- Third, the converse is also correct: if the body eliminates something,

then the body must have perceived that thing as foreign matter.

 

- Fourth, the Law of Conservation of Energy, ubiquitous throughout all of

Nature, applies to human elimination. The organism seeks the most efficient

means of eliminating. In general, this means an avenue proximate to the

location of the waste and/or proximate to resources needed to prepare the

waste for elimination. The organism recovers for reuse anything of value

that it can " recycle "

efficiently.

 

- Fifth, the body conserves itself. It eliminates whatever it can safely

eliminate, and no more.

 

- Sixth, every part of our organism nourishes itself through use.

 

\Contrary to many widely held beliefs, the human organism, by design,

possesses only three primary avenues of elimination. These include:

 

- Colon (digestive system), for elimination of digestive waste and foreign

matter located at the bottom of in the digestive system.

 

- Kidneys (urinary system), for elimination of metabolic waste and other

foreign particulate that must exit the body either dissolved in or

transported by water. The primary waste products eliminated through the

kidneys are urea, formed of carbon dioxide, water, aspartate, and ammonia,

and certain solids transported but not dissolved in this liquid.

 

- Lungs (respiratory system), for elimination of smaller, lighter waste

either in gaseous form or in a form that can attach to water vapor. The

primary waste product through the lungs is carbon dioxide, formed from

carbonic acid.

 

One might consider the liver in addition to these. The liver functions as

the primary chemistry plant of the body and serves as counterpart to the

kidneys. Whereas the kidneys act as mechanical filters, removing foreign

particulate from the blood, the liver acts by creating and initiating an

untold number of different chemistries, isolating and neutralizing every

manner of chemical toxin and secreting a vast array of substances vital to

our metabolism. Because the liver serves an additive as well as a cleansing

function, and because it has no direct access to the exterior, most do not

consider it an eliminative organ per se. But this is largely a matter of

perspective, of classification.

 

Of significant interest are all the organs not intended for use as

eliminative pathways on any regular basis. These include the skin, eyes,

ears, nose, mouth (in other words, all the sensory organs) as well as the

reproductive system. These all have entirely different, well differentiated

primary functions.

 

Shortly after an egg is fertilized in a woman's womb, specialization begins

to occur in the growing fetus. Specifically, scientists have identified

three " layers " , or distinct avenues of development, these being known as the

ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm (outer, middle, and inner layers,

respectively). Of interest for our purpose here, the ectoderm develops into

the brain, nervous system, and skin, and contributes to the development of

the sensory organs. In other words, the skin is integral to the brain and

nervous system.

 

This macroorganismal design corresponds exactly to the microorganismal

design of every living cell. For although the mainstream of biology still

holds that the nucleus of the cell, which contains the DNA, is the " brain "

of the cell, research over the past two decades clearly demonstrates

otherwise, and that the skin of the cell, its membrane, is actually its

primary control mechanism, hence, its " brain " .

 

In contrast, the function of the reproductive system seems rather

straightforward and clear: propagation of the species.

 

4.1 Overload of the primary cleansing organs.

In present-day western cultures, and particularly in the United States,

almost 100% of the population exhibits heightened " toxicity " in the body due

to a variety of factors. These factors may overload the body's inherent

capacity for cleansing, eventually leading to symptoms across the entire

range of acute, chronic, and degenerative conditions and " diseases " .

 

Several common sources of overload are

 

- Overeating anything

 

- Eating substances the body interprets as foreign matter (e.g., cooked

foods, medicines and other " remedies " )

 

- Generalized malnutrition resulting from the foregoing

 

- Salt (NaCl, sodium chloride)

 

- Inhaled poisons (e.g., vessel and engine exhaust, airborne residue from

cosmetic, personal care, and household cleaning products)

 

- Elevated prolonged and/or chronic stress (e.g., financial, work-related,

family-related)

 

- Underrest (e.g., inadequate and/or poor-quality sleep, insufficient

recovery time following activity of any kind, whether internal or external,

overloading the digestive tract)

 

- Erratic physical activity (e.g., weekend warrior)

 

- Overuse of any part of the organism (e.g., television, computers on the

eyes; repetitive stress in any form)

 

- Elevated exposure to emissions in the harmful portions of the energy

spectrum (e.g., EMF from electronics equipment; microwaves from cooking

devices or cell phones; mechanical irradiation from medical tests and

treatments or from airport inspections)

 

One might observe that many common items are now available in far greater

supply and with far greater convenience than has ever before been the case.

Common examples are nuts and seeds, and all forms of animal-derived food

products. Never before in the recorded history of our species have so many

people had such easy and continual access to such supplies.

 

Further, we have experienced an explosive increase in consumption of

" prepared " and " processed " foods during the past four generations, and a

corresponding increase in the quantity and intensity of pesticides,

herbicides, fungicides, and other agricultural toxins applied directly to

the mainstream food supply, as well as chlorine and a host of other toxins

applied directly to the mainstream water supply. Prior to the

1930s, almost none of these was a substantive health factor at all.

 

Similarly, computers, all manner of electronic devices, microwave ovens, and

the like have all come into widespread use only since the 1970s. As a

result, we have experienced explosive increases in exposure to a vast range

of adverse electromagnetic influences. Then there are financial stresses,

stresses arising from disintegration of communities and families, and so

forth.

 

Never before in the known history of the planet have living organisms

experienced such an aggregation of self-imposed stresses. And the effects

show all too readily as exhaustion, anger, inattentiveness, collapsed

posture, dental and other health problems, and in countless other ways. That

almost everyone's physical apparatus is overloaded seems a rather obvious

understatement.

 

4.2 Physiological response to chronic systemic toxic overloading.

In the presence of such conditions, the human body responds with every

resource at its disposal, attempting to eliminate trash and restore its

internal order and homeostasis.

 

Our organism, in its magnificent brilliance, is capable of orchestrating a

vast array of adaptive responses to alleviate a toxic overload, whether

temporary or chronic in nature. The human body can initiate, even on a

sustained basis, a myriad of hormonal and other responses that can bring

down elevated blood sugar in the presence of elevated blood fat. It can

recalibrate our mechanisms for regulating thermal, circulatory, and other

functions. It can shuffle scarce resources almost endlessly, from one vital

necessity to another, drawing upon whatever " reserves " the body has

available to neutralize acidic and otherwise harmful material, so that it

may be stored and eventually eliminated without harming the organism itself.

 

 

And in every moment where even the smallest instance of rest occurs, the

human body immediately focuses whatever attention and resources it can on

cleansing and rebuilding itself, all in accordance with priorities that

reflect the biological wisdom of the ages.

 

In short, our body knows no other way than continually to seek health.

 

The human body can turn every orifice--eyes, ears, nose, mouth, every pore

in our skin--into an avenue of elimination. It can create new openings,

initiating skin " eruptions " anywhere on the body where it is biologically

economical to expel waste as exudate. It can construct warehouses--cysts,

polyps, tumors, and other fibrous structures--to store excess waste until

the body has the energy and resources to remove them safely. It can store

excess salt as brine under the skin and elsewhere, until the day arrives

when this caustic substance can be flushed out with seeming grace and ease.

 

And in women, the human body can transform the vaginal canal into a

wide-open avenue for elimination.

 

* * * * *

 

5.0 Menses as a cleansing event.

All of the foregoing acts by our organism are normal responses to abnormal

conditions. These responses become " typical, " or commonplace only in the

presence of our own self-abuse.

 

It is a truism of Nature that our organism, and indeed every living

creature, nourishes every part of itself through use. When we do not eat,

sleep, move, or otherwise act in accordance with the design of our organism,

the organism itself is weakened. It's vitality, its capacity to respond and

adapt to conditions, is diminished. And how does our body respond to such

self-destruction? In the only way it knows how--by seeking to create health

at every opportunity.

 

Now let us consider the phenomenon of menses in women in this larger context

of cleansing to create health.

 

We have stated above that the body recovers whatever it can use and only

eliminates what it does not need. This is abundantly evident from any

attentive observation of the experience of fasting on water only. During

such a fast, the body not only cleanses itself at a vastly accelerated pace;

it also builds new tissue, repairs organs and vessels, and in general

improves wherever it can. Yet throughout this time, we offer the body no

external supply of nutrients whatsoever.

 

Where, then, does the body find fuel and other nutrients sufficient not only

to maintain itself, but to cleanse and rebuild? The body finds fuel in

stored body fat, and it finds an array of other materials in the very

problem areas it seeks to cleanse. For example, the body uses the same

building blocks, the same set of nutrients, to construct a cyst, polyp, or

tumor as it uses to construct ordinary tissue. And when the body finally

has an opportunity to dissolve this tumor and dispose of its toxic contents,

the tumor itself is broken back down into its components, and these are

recaptured with minimal loss.

 

Would it make sense that the body functions so consistently in this way, yet

fails to do so only in the case of menses? Would it make sense, in

particular, that the body loads the uterine region with resources, waiting

to nourish a new embryo should one appear and implant itself successfully,

then simply discard all those resources if no embryo appears? For this to

be so would contradict everything we have observed about how the body

cleanses itself. It would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy that

pervades all of Nature. It would violate the principle that the body only

eliminates that which it perceives as foreign matter. And it would violate

the notion that the body nourishes every part of itself through use.

 

For to eliminate valuable resources toward no constructive purpose cannot be

reconciled with any of these ideas.

 

5.1 Historical considerations.

The original question motivating this writing notes that women have

experienced menses throughout recorded, or known, history. This statement

seems at least largely accurate. But we also know that in every established

" civilization " , people consumed large quantities of cooked grains; in fact,

bread and related products have been a primary dietary staple of every

" civilized " society on record. And grains are acid-forming in the human

body; they leave a residue, a digestive ash, the forces the body to divert

alkaline minerals and energy to neutralize and hopefully eliminate the acid.

 

 

We also know, from our study of our own organism, that the human digestive

tract is roughly 12 times the length of the torso, one of the largest such

ratios found anywhere in Nature. Such a long, thin (in diameter) digestive

tube can only act (digest) effectively when we eat foods that are high in

water, soluble fiber, simple sugars, alkalizing minerals, and generally low

in fats and indigestible fiber. This description applies to the natural

foods for our species, fruits and tender greens. In contrast, grains, which

are nothing more than grass seed, are dry (low in water content), high in

fat (as we typically prepare them), high in insoluble (indigestible) fiber,

and low in simple sugars. In short, grains represent almost the diametric

opposite of what, by design, constitutes food for our species.

 

The ultimate test of whether grains constitute a viable food for our species

may be found in the experience of those who followed the Pritikin diet.

This experience is well documented in Ross Horne's books, available at no

cost at <http://www.soilandhealth.org/> www.soilandhealth.org. Pritikin

set out to create a diet that would virtually eliminate heart disease, and

in this he was successful. But a side effect of his approach was an

explosion of arthritis, diabetes, and other challenging conditions. Why?

Because his program was build around grains as the primary energy (calorie)

source.

 

The advent of grain cultivation coincides with the advent of the first

large-scale " civilizations " , as in the Tigris-Euphrates and Nile regions.

Never before in known human history had there been such a supply of durable

(storable) calories, fuel. Populations grew, mostly as slaves or

quasi-slaves. But human health was impaired and has remained so ever since.

Now, in our own time, we have added consumption of massive quantities of

pasteurized (cooked) animal products to the mainstream diet. These, too,

are highly acidifying to the human body, and our health has deteriorated

accordingly. But the basic pattern of consuming foods that are dehydrating,

acidifying, and depleting to the body was set down millennia go, when our

species first learned to cultivate grains.

 

5.2 Implications with respect to menses.

The implications seem straightforward enough. Throughout recorded human

history, our species in civilization has consumed a self-destructive diet

that has overloaded the system. In recent history, we have exacerbated this

condition considerably through use of processed foods, agrichemicals, drugs,

etc. But the basic pattern has been consistent throughout our history;

recent events serve only to intensify already existing circumstances.

 

In this light, it makes sense that whatever cleansing our bodies do now is

similar, only perhaps more severe, than what has occurred for millennia.

And this is precisely the case. In women, the vaginal canal provides a much

more accessible exit pathway than skin eruptions or the various sensory

organs (ears, eyes, mouth, nose). Each month, a woman's body preferentially

loads resources into the uterine area, to be available in the event an

embryo successfully implants. And if this does not occur, then in a healthy

woman, the body simply reabsorbs and recycles the resources that have been

allocated.

 

But in an less healthy or unhealthy woman, these resources facilitate easy

and relatively low-cost elimination. For whatever acidic materials need to

be removed, an abundant supply of alkaline resources sits already present in

the uterine lining. It is a simple matter, physiologically speaking, and

quite economical for the body to take advantage of this circumstance to

eliminate some of the worst of its presently stored toxins.

 

That this is what occurs is evidenced by the odor in the vaginal area during

such elimination. For just as the body creates foul odors elsewhere in the

body, so too the scent in the vaginal area deteriorates considerably during

such elimination. In a healthy woman, this simply does not occur. And in

Nature, smell is one vital indicator of healthful decomposition vs. rot and

stagnation.

 

5.3 Menses in the context of a high water-content, low-fat raw diet.

When any person, male or female, substantially increases consumption of

fruits and tender greens, and correspondingly reduces consumption of all

other material, that person immediately begins to experience various

cleansing " symptoms " . These typically range from the enjoyable, such as

rapid yet healthful weight reduction, to the unpleasant, such as headaches,

rashes, diarrhea, and the like.

 

As one increases one's intake toward 100% raw fruits and tender greens,

removing even raw nuts, seeds, and grains, as well as condiments (and

including salt) from one's diet. one typically experiences further changes.

Some of these include virtual disappearance of foul odors from the breath,

body, and from even the feces. The mouth becomes moist, and swelling of the

tongue, throat, etc., ubiquitous throughout society, disappear as well.

Rashes, initially useful for cleansing, vanish.

 

Similar changes may be observed in other anatomical locations, as well.

Pertinent to this exploration, the texture, smell, and taste of a woman's

vaginal area change dramatically for the " better " . Here, some have observed

that there is even a marked difference between those women who consume the

high-fruit diet and other RF women.

 

 

Most people joyfully welcome such changes without the slightest fear or

hesitation, only perhaps a sense of delightful surprise.

 

Let us consider what these changes reflect within the system. The

disappearance of odors, rashes, and the hydration of the mucus membranes

(mouth, nasal region, etc.) and of the skin overall indicate that the body

no longer needs to press these into service as regular avenues of

elimination. In other words, at some point, the toxic overload, once

chronic in the body, is remediated to the point where the body can once

again rely only upon its primary eliminative organs for removal of digestive

and metabolic waste and other foreign matter.

 

Cessation of menses reflects nothing more than the same trend. As the

body's overload, it's chronic state of emergency, finally comes to an end,

the female body no longer requires use of this additional avenue to expel

foreign matter and simply ceases to use this avenue for that purpose. When

no embryo implants, the small amount of material the body placed in the

uterus to receive the embryo is dissolved and largely reabsorbed, with

perhaps only a tiny, almost unnoticeable, shedding as vaginal output.

 

This phenomenon is not unique to humanity. For millions of years, female

mammals have undergone a similar process of ovulation and reabsorption. This

cycle has been around for countless millions of years; it is part of the

planetary biology. Other than in the " care " of humans, none of these

animals bleeds out during the shedding of the lining; in fact, the material

of which the lining is composed is largely reabsorbed and recycled.

 

As we have stated above, the body functions brilliantly as a recovery and

recycling plant. Thus, during systemic cleansing, cysts, polyps, tumors,

and all other containers the body constructs, then later does not need, are

dissolved and reabsorbed. The body eliminates only those components it

cannot reuse, and as the body becomes healthier, these waste byproducts are

eliminated via the lungs and kidneys, just as with all other metabolic

waste. The law of conservation of energy applies here- the body applies the

same processing principles wherever it can.

 

In time, the body's overall efficiency improves to such an extent that

decreased food intake is required to support the body's ongoing activity.

 

5.4 Relationship to ovulation and reproduction.

In women who eat an exceptionally healthful diet, menses generally

disappears. But what, if any, connection does this have with ovulation and

reproduction? The answer, fortunately, is " none at all " . Women who

experience little or no menstrual activity ovulate normally and bear healthy

children. They experience none of the emotional turbulence, or " mood

swings " , often associated with menses, suggesting that their hormones are in

excellent balance. They do not report any special food cravings or other

unusual desires in connection with monthly ovulation. And if no embryo

implants, they experience almost nothing. The body, being clean and

healthy, simply dissolves and reabsorbs the material that is no longer

needed in the uterus.

 

Although enrichment of the uterine lining accompanies ovulation, this does

not create any requirement that the body discard these resources if no

implantation occurs. Quite the contrary, the Law of Conservation of Energy

demands that the body retain and reuse as much of these resources as it can.

Therefore, bloody elimination and its accompanying aches and emotional

events occurs only when there is excessive waste built up in the body, such

that the body is willing to sacrifice considerable resources (in the blood

eliminated) in order to eliminate the waste now, rather than waiting for

some future opportunity.

 

* * * * *

 

6.0 Conclusion.

Disappearance of menses in response to dietary improvement implies no

impairment of ovulatory or other reproductive function. Quite the contrary,

its disappearance in the presence of improved diet (and other health

factors) signals healthful outcomes within the body.

 

There is no reason to fear diminution or disappearance of overt menstrual

activity and its attendant hormonal emotional disarray. Although our

species possesses vast adaptive capacity, Nature has not built into our

organism any mechanism for " planned upheaval " . It is only through our

species' own, generally unwitting, self-abusive behaviors and lifestyle

choices that we have impaired our own physiology and diminished our own

vital capacity. That these changes have occurred continually for millennia

and have become ubiquitous among our species does not make them " normal " or

" natural " in the slightest. Rather, it is only our perception of what is

normal that has been affected, by the virtual absence of truly healthy women

for many generations.

 

The same type of skewed perception has developed with respect to other

aspects of health, as well. For example, our species' natural body

structure is slender; our natural body composition (e.g., body fat percent)

is low. Yet the mainstream so completely misapprehends body weight and

structure, that nowadays government agents sometimes seize absolutely

healthy children when they are perceived as " underweight " . While this

assessment may be accurate in some cases where genuine malnutrition is

present, it is entirely incorrect with respect to raw food children. These

children are, and will remain thin, lean, yet strong and quite durable.

Their bones are " thinner " , but far stronger, that is, of higher density,

than the bones of their nonraw counterparts. Their digestion, lungs, skin,

hair, and indeed every part of them functions better. Their emotions are,

subject to external factors, smoother, their energy more consistent. And

unfortunately, all this sets them up as oddities, deviant from the " norm " ,

and therefore as potential targets of abuse.

 

I add these comments, not to divert our attention from the topic at hand,

but rather to show, on the basis of less-threatening content, yet another

example of the widespread misperceptions I describe here. It is my hope

that, with this understanding in mind, others may find it easy to let go of

whatever fear and other challenging feelings they may experience in response

to the possibility of vanished menses, and instead embrace this change in a

joyful celebration of health, vitality, and of life itself.

 

Once again, I remind everyone that this writing constitutes a

work-in-progress and is copyrighted material. In this context, I invite you

to receive this writing as a private gift, thereby allowing me the time and

opportunity to pursue the work as I intend.

 

Wishing to all the very best that love and life have to offer,

Elchanan

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Caron,

Would you be willing to just highlight a question or two?

Elchanan

 

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Caron

Friday, July 06, 2007 8:58 PM

rawfood

Re: [Raw Food] XPOST: [PathOfHealth #3465] Menses in the Context of

Physiological Cleansing

 

 

 

Hi Elchanan,

 

Thanks so much for sharing that with us. There's some interesting things

there to think about. You're right in that we're taught to associate

menstruation with fertility. (apologies if this is a bit too much

information, for you or others)

 

One thing I'm wondering about is the fact that when I was most sick, I

didn't menstruate for nearly 2 years after I stopped taking the Pill. I was

certainly in need of elimination then. By the same token, most of the

circumstances you mentioned that result in overload (and therefore require

elimination), are the same circumstances which we're told can delay or cause

irregularities in menstruation - stress being one major factor, as women who

don't want to be pregnant often panic if their period doesn't hit on day 28,

and they're told that stress is the reason, they're stressing that they

might be pregnant.

 

Another thing I wonder about is whether these women also experience a lack

of postnatal bleeding, or reduced postnatal bleeding? One of the reasons

some women choose a caesarian birth is because they're told the postnatal

bleeding will be reduced, due to the uterus being " cleaned " during the

surgical removal of the neonate - they scrape the lining out, and suction

out any fluids. Whereas " normal " postnatal bleeding lasts around 6 weeks on

average. Also, why does menstruation not occur during breastfeeding (in many

women, solely breastfeeding their infant on a needs basis - as opposed to on

a schedule - will prevent ovulation and menstruation), when any toxins would

need to be released out of the body, rather than passed on to the infant via

the breastmilk. In my own situation, I had about 3 weeks bleeding after my

emergency c/s, and I think 1-3 periods in the next 18 months, going back to

monthly about a year ago. I have no idea if I'm ovulating or not, no reason

really to test for it, given that any pregnancy I might want won't be

happening any time soon.

 

Third, you mentioned smells - I've noticed at times that my menstrual blood

seems to smell as my blood tastes, if I bite the inside of my mouth by

accident, or suck a cut finger. That is, it smells very metallic, which I've

been told is (the taste is, at least) the iron in my blood. If that's true,

then my iron levels should be very high, but I tested borderline anemic the

last time I went to a doctor (a few months ago). Or is my blood just tasting

rotten?

 

I wonder, too, if you have any insight to offer on the purpose or reason for

cramping during menstruation? During antenatal classes, we were told that

labour contractions are like period pains (yes, in the same way that a

tornado is a breeze..) and it's true that they happen in the same area, that

is lower abdomen and lower back and hips. Since my labour, however, which

didn't really do what it was supposed to (that is, open my cervix), I've had

a few periods which have reminded me very strongly of labour, as intense, in

fact, as my second miscarriage, going back a few years before my boy came

along. Intense to the point where I just had to check if my cervix was

actually opening (ooh, aren't I cheeky). It wasn't, no moreso than it had

during labour. Why is this so? By this I mean both the pains (which really

are bordering on unbearable, and lasting all the first day and most of the

night, which makes it hard to be around people and pretend everything's ok),

and how to tell if my cervix is working, without having another baby (which

I'd love to do, but I'm not a frog). I REALLY don't want to have another

surgical birth, both because of what it does to my body, and because of the

effects on the baby. I know there were external reasons for labour not going

the way I expected (my ex being there was one major contributing factor; the

hospital insisting on me being chained to the bed with insulin AND glucose

going into one arm, and labour inducing drugs going into the other arm, and

a monitor strapped to my belly, didn't help either, nor the fact that the

boy was 5 weeks early), but I'd also like to know if there's something wrong

with my bits (some mothers I know have been told they have scarring on their

cervix, which prevents it from opening, others are in the wrong position),

and whether it's something that will resolve itself, or if I'm doomed to

being cut open if I ever have another child, which I would really like to

do.

 

ok, I realise that last is probably beyond your ken, so don't really expect

an answer ) That's the place I'm coming from though - being very

protective of, and concerned about, my reproductive system. I love babies,

love being pregnant, and I'd have a dozen if I can (need the man bits for a

start).

 

Caron

 

 

[Guest guest]

-

Elchanan

>Would you be willing to just highlight a question or two?

 

ok, less words, hehe:

 

1. If lack of monthly bleeding is a sign of optimum health, why is it also a

sign of poor health, or things that need elimination, if that is the cause

or reason for the bleeding?

 

2. Does the lack of monthly bleeding also carry over to postnatal bleeding -

usually around 6 weeks worth?

 

3. A lot of women experience a lack of periods after childbirth, while

exclusively breastfeeding their child. Periods often return after the child

starts on solid foods, or if the child is fed on a schedule, rather than on

a needs basis. If menstruation is a method of elimination, why would the

body stop this at a time when it would be best to have any toxins out of the

body and away from the baby?

 

Caron

[Guest guest]

This is exactly what natural health doctors like Dr. Jameth Sheridan of

HealthForce Nutritionals and others warn against, especially ex-members

of the NH movement. Elchanan, I know we may disagree on diet, but it is

borderline practicing medicine without a license and definitely

brainwashing, not to mention absolutely irresponsible to be indicating

that it is fine and perfectly healthy that women during their

reproductive years do not menstruate. I seriously hope that other women

on this board do not put much stock in this post and investigate

possible deficiencies if your body is in such a state. This is not a

petty issue - I'm okay with leaving well enough alone and will post

like everyone else, as I see fit. We don't all have to agree, but this

is truly alarming. I have said my piece. Erica