Need your Opinions for Research..

W

Willow Brugh

New Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello. My name is Willow Brugh, and I am an undergraduate honors sociology student at IU.

What interests me is alterations upon the human body for both purposes of therapy as well as for advancement. I believe your community has a lot to say on this subject. Please let me know what you think of the following scenario. Some follow-up questions are offered, but you can ignore these or expand upon them.

Thank you for your time. I know these things take effort, but again, I think you will have important things to say about the subject. You can also e-mail me at thesis.willow@gmail.com if you'd prefer more anonymity.


Ann has a heart attack at age 34. The expected lifespan for her life-style and country of residence is 92. Unless she gets a different heart she will die. Several options exist for a new heart. She can receive a donated transfer heart, which may be rejected and will likely not last her to the expected age of death. She may be a bio-mechanical heart that will take her to the expected lifespan, but no further. She may also get a fully mechanized heart which is nearly guaranteed to take her to 150 and quite possibly further. This heart system also monitors other bodily functions, and forces a sustainable coma if any vital signs drop until health is restored.

Possible Follow-Up Questions:
• Which, if any, of these options should Ann choose and why? Is there somewhere on this scale you would like to see an option but don’t?
• What are the positives and negatives of this choice?
• Why didn’t you choose any of the other options?
• What about a person’s life expectancy makes them human? Why?
• Is someone who has willfully advanced themselves beyond what is “normal” still human?
 
I have to copy this to respond:

Ann has a heart attack at age 34. The expected lifespan for her life-style and country of residence is 92. Unless she gets a different heart she will die. Several options exist for a new heart. She can receive a donated transfer heart, which may be rejected and will likely not last her to the expected age of death. She may be a bio-mechanical heart that will take her to the expected lifespan, but no further. She may also get a fully mechanized heart which is nearly guaranteed to take her to 150 and quite possibly further. This heart system also monitors other bodily functions, and forces a sustainable coma if any vital signs drop until health is restored.

Possible Follow-Up Questions:
• Which, if any, of these options should Ann choose and why?
The option I would choose if I were Ann is Chelated Therapy, which is what they use first in Europe and Australia, then I would choose Detox and Moxibustion, and stem-cell therapy in nutrient form because it's very much a political-legal reason why we don't have it and should!
One of these would work!


Is there somewhere on this scale you would like to see an option but don’t?
Stem-Cell Therapy.
• What are the positives and negatives of this choice?
Positives, well I mean everyone knows it would work and the negative is that the politicians do not allow this because it's a political-legal hot potato that would put many corporations out of business.

• Why didn’t you choose any of the other options?
They aren't a natural choice that help to harmonize the chi of the body, or enhance the natural essence of the body's cellular age.

• What about a person’s life expectancy makes them human?
It's a weird question, because we all live well below our age capacity because of the processed foods we eat and toxins we breathe and clean with, communities in some environments live well beyond to 100 and still play soccer everyday with their society of friends, (like the Hunza's) it's well-documented in Weston Price's books, (google Weston Price Organization), you can read about traditional societies there. Even babies in native societies hardly ever cry because they have good fats in good amounts within their bodies. (No processed foods, and they eat good fats with proteins, and we can't digest proteins without fats).

• Is someone who has willfully advanced themselves beyond what is “normal” still human?
If we're talking beyond the scope here of contemporary American speech, I would say there can be different dimensions or vibrations of our humanity but a human is a human whether they can bend a spoon or walk on water. Because it's our soul or spirit that makes up who we are, our ego gets in the way a lot because we're so used to thinking with our heads instead of our heart, but those who can reach a tao of consciousness or oneness and connection with everything that has life or is of life is who we all are, and we are all connected like a web of humanity but of different vibrations.
 
Regarding the last question, I'll agree with this quote:


. . for being afraid is the first consciousness of sin's entering in, for he that is made afraid has lost consciousness of self's own heritage with the Son; for we are heirs through Him to that Kingdom that is beyond all that that would make afraid, or that would cause a doubt in the heart of any.

Edgar Cayce Reading 243-10


Source:
Official site of Edgar Cayce's A.R.E. - Association for Research and Enlightenment
 
Thank you, Dannie. You bring up a lot of points that I hadn't thought of yet! Stem cell research really is suppressed everywhere in the US. Might you have any ideas on how to get more responses on this thread? I'd like to hear more..
 
Back
Top