wrote on February 8, 2009 at 10:49pm
Greetings Professor and Ehret devotees!
With the Formula of Life at the foundation of my approach, V=P-O (Vitality = Power-Obstruction) more vital blood is blood with less obstruction (waste) residing. Is healthy/ more vital blood more radioactive or less radioactive?
What is the significance of the blood’s iron content in relation to radioactivity and what are some of the potentialities?
How can one understand with certainty that white blood cells are in fact waste, decayed, undigested unusable food substances?
Reply by Prof. Spira on February 15, 2009:
Thank you all so much for your responses to my first discussion topic concerning iron and blood. We are having a monumental discussion about human physiology that will stand the test of time. Given the scope of the questions posed, I would like to focus on the following: “How can one understand with certainty that white blood cells are in fact waste, decayed, undigested unusable food substances?” The process by which we “understand” or “know” something is quite complex. An epistemic approach would force the question: how do we know what we know? Can we acquire such knowledge through experience and observation? Can we obtain it through rational thought? Or is our “knowledge” merely a socially constructed belief system? The important issue here is the extent to which Ehret’s thesis on blood composition is useful. My argument is that Ehret’s hypothesis is accurate. Consequently, a new dialectic is emerging to better understand its implications. Ultimately, Ehret’s findings will catalyze a major paradigm shift among practitioners of Western Medical Science and Naturopathy. To explore my claim I will 1) examine Ehret’s arguments about blood composition and 2) review the historical and dialectical emergence of the white blood corpuscle theory.
Ehret claims that the Western notion of metabolism, or the “science of the change of matter,” is the most absurd and dangerous doctrine-teaching ever imposed on mankind (Ehret, Lesson VI). He explains that it has helped spawn the fallacious “additive principle.” The additive principle is the belief that certain food substances must be consumed to nurture the body and replace used up cells. Ehret does not accept the additive premise and argues that energy and body revitalization does not derive from the intake of food. Rather, energy (vitality) is determined by physiological cleanliness and the only purpose for eating is to aid the body in eliminating waste. In other words, the cleaner the body is the less food it will need to consume and the more vitality it will emit. Ehret explains: “claiming that you must replace cells (which are not used up as you can plainly see), with high protein food from a cadaver, partly decomposed meat, and which has gone thru a most destructive heat process of cooking! The fact is that you accumulate more or less of the wastes in your system in the shape of mucus and its poisons as the slowly growing foundations of your disease and the ultimate cause of your death.” Given the above, where does this accumulated waste go? Does it ferment and rot in the intestines? What happens if this waste is not eliminated in a timely manner? Is some of the waste incorporated into the tissue system? How does the waste accumulation effect the blood stream?
Ehret begins to address the above in Lesson VIII. He writes: “the problem is this: Are the white corpuscles living cells of vital importance to protect and maintain life, to destroy germs of disease, and to immunize the body against fever, infection, etc., as the standard doctrines of physiology and pathology teach? Or are they just the opposite—waste, decayed, undigested, unusable food substances, mucus, pathogen, as Dr. Thos. Powell calls them? Indigestible by the human body, unnatural and therefore not assimilated at all?(Ehret, Lesson VIII)” Ehret argues that what has been labeled “white blood” is nothing more than uneliminated waste. He supports his claim with the following observations: 1) pathology asserts that “white corpuscles” are increased in case of disease and 2) physiology claims that they increase during digestion in the healthy body, and that they derive from high protein foods. Thus high protein foods, or mucus-forming foods, are involved in the creation and perpetuation of white corpuscles. Nevertheless, how do we know that these corpuscles are not agents for good in the body? More importantly, why has medical “science” embraced and promulgated the theory that white blood is normal?
Given the pathological condition of our bodies, it is possible that white corpuscles were originally viewed as normal due to their prevalence. The proposition is this: since white corpuscles are so common they must have a function. Ehret argues that white corpuscles do not help protect the body from predators, but is actually dead material. He explains that the skin pores of man are “constipated by white, dry mucus” and that his entire tissue system is filled-up and filled-out with it (Ehret, Lesson VIII). In other words, dead waste materials are being wrongly viewed as living blood cells. To support his claim he provides observations of his own experiences: “Everybody knows that an extreme case of paleness is a “bad sign.” When I appeared with my friend in a public air bath, after having lived for several months on a mucusless diet with sun baths, we looked like Indians and people believed that we belonged to another race. This condition was doubtless due to the great amount of red blood corpuscles and the great lack of white blood corpuscles. I can notice a trace of pale in my complexion the morning after eating one piece of bread (Ehret, Lesson VIII).” Why does Ehret become darker after being on a mucusless diet with sun baths? Why does his complexion become pale after eating bread? Ehret’s anecdote implies the following: the tissue system and blood stream of man’s body is permeated with waste materials. These waste materials, i.e. mucus and pus, cause the body to reflect light. The more waste that the body contains the more reflective it becomes. Consequently, the color of man is dependent upon the quantity of mucus within him. Therefore, the physical distinctions that we describe as “race” are nothing more than physiological conditions of pathology.
To understand the above it is important to know the role of iron in the blood. When iron that is mined from the earth comes into contact with oxygen dark rust is produced (iron-oxide). When our blood iron comes into contact with air, i.e. oxygen, it also rusts. Clean blood that is free of white corpuscles easily rusts when oxidized. To demonstrate this argument Ehret tells of his experiments with self-inflicted bleeding. He found that when he ate a mucusless diet for an extended period of time, a knife wound would heal immediately with no secretion of pus and mucus. He would also suffer no pain or inflammation. Thus, the oxygen would mix with the iron in the blood and rust immediately. However, when he ate mucus-forming foods his wounds did not easily heal and he suffered from pain. He also became paler. This experiment suggests that 1) a mucusless diet promotes clean blood, 2) clean blood is free of white waste materials, and 3) clean blood becomes dark when oxidized. My question is this: given that blood becomes dark when mixed with oxygen on the outside of the body, to what extend does this happen inside the body? When clean blood is oxidized through the act of breathing does it rust and darken? Hensel’s argument may shed some light on these questions: “in our blood albumen is a combination of sugar-stuff and iron oxide, but not to be found or recognized (discovered) in such a way that neither the sugar nor the iron can be found by ordinary chemical tests. The blood albumen must be burned first to make the test perfect (Ehret summarizing Hensel’s “Life,” Lesson VIII). Consequently, the red color of blood is due to iron-oxide, i.e. rust. Furthermore, the ability for red blood to become oxidized is dependent upon the absence of albumen, i.e. mucus/waste.
In his scientific treatise on physiology entitled “Fundamentals of Health and Disease,” Thomas Powell explains: “the biologic, physiologic and much of the dietetic and pathological teaching of this day and age is founded upon the assumptions, that the “white blood corpuscle” is a “living cell”; that it is “differentiated” into the tissues of the body; that it is a “phagocyte” or germ-devourer and that the material in which it is found and from which it is formed . . . is the “physical basis of life (Powell, 263).” He then asks the following question: “Is it not entirely reasonable to suppose that the motility of the white blood corpuscle is due to the forces, not of life, but of death; to the processes not of vital duplication, but of chemical dissolution—that is, to the combined effects of chemotaxis, disintegration and gaseous expansion . . . ? (Powell, 275)” Powell’s argument parallel’s Ehret’s by asserting that the leukocyte (white corpuscle) is “not a living cell, but a particle of dead and perishable material (Powell, 292).” He adds that “the irony of the situation into which the leucocytic addendum to the cell-theory has led us is not only perfectly discernible, but as cruel and relentless as the grave, since it is to the effect that the more “tissue-building’ material (white corpuscles) the sick man carries in his circulation that more pronounced is his debility and emaciation, and that the more “vigilant policeman” (phagocytes) he has to guard and defend him, that more certain and speedy is his destruction.” (For further reading please see Powell, “The Cell-Theory” 263-294).
Let us now shift our attention to the historical and dialectical emergence of the white corpuscle theory. My guiding questions are as follows: what is the origin of the white corpuscle theory and why did early scientists view these corpuscles as “living cells?” My aim is to provide a broad overview of the emergence of the theory. As a result of technological advances in Europe simple and complex microscopes appear in the 16th and 17th centuries. In 1656, Frenchman Pierre Borel, physician-in-ordinary to the King Louis XIV, is credited with being the first to use the microscope in medicine. He described a type of "worm" found in human blood. In 1657, Athanasius Kircher, a Jesuit priest and scientist from Germany, examined blood from plague victims and described "worms" of plague. In 1661, 1664 and 1665, blood cells were observed and discerned by Marcello Malpighi. Also, after dissecting a black Ethiopian he asserted that black pigment was caused by a layer of mucus just beneath the skin (for further readings please see Sidney N. Klaus, “A History of the Science
of Pigmentation” http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/cont ... _4_001.pdf ) In 1678, red blood corpuscles were described by Jan Swammerdam of Amsterdam , a Dutch naturalist and physician. The first complete account of the red cells was made by Anthony van Leeuwenhoek of Delft in the last quarter of the 17th century. A more thorough examination of the scientists and their interpretations mentioned above is forthcoming in a future essay.
By the 19th century scientists had varying theories about the nature of blood cells. Powell explains that there was a major controversy about what the corpuscles should be named. Some suggested “colorless corpuscles,” as the leucocytes were then called, and others preferred "pus corpuscles." The father of the cell-theory, Prof. Rudolph Virchow explains: “Under all circumstances this layer resembles pus in appearance, and since, as we have already seen, the colourless blood-cells individually are constituted like pus-corpuscles, you see that we are liable not only in the case of a healthy person to take colourless blood-cells for pus-corpuscles, but still more so in pathological conditions when the blood or other parts are full of these elements (Powell, 268).” Powell goes on to claim that the supposition of the “white blood corpuscle” as a living organism is the result in part by the “life-like activities that it displays at a certain stage of its existence (Powell, 270).” Here, the reader must be reminded that technological advancements often do not produce better explanations. Given the ability to view blood on the cellular level, some scientists concluded that the colorless cells were disease causing waste materials, while others believed that they were life-saving agents. Powell points out that many of his colleagues had an affinity toward the latter.
In sum, Ehret was not alone in claiming that the colorless material in blood is dead waste. It is of the utmost importance that we begin to seriously consider the implications of what Ehret terms the “wrong cell theory.” Far too many people have needlessly suffered and died as a result of the dead corpuscle fallacy. We must stop using the erroneous reference “white blood corpuscle.” The term blood presupposes that it is a living cell. I propose that we refer to the material as dead corpuscles or white waste. Virchow’s “pus corpuscle” may even be a viable option. One of the reasons that it is important to rename the above is because our dialog has a direct influence on how we think about and practice our dietary system. Understanding this fallacy will help true health seekers put their condition into the proper perspective. Once it is understood that pus corpuscles are waste then we can begin to ask very important questions regarding our dietary practices: Given that white corpuscles are waste derived from pus and mucus forming foods, how can they safety be eliminated from the blood stream? What is the nature of blood that is cleansed of white waste materials? What is the significance of grape sugar and how can it help form perfect human blood? These questions will move us to Lesson IX on Blood Building.
Ehret, Arnold. Mucusless-Diet Healing System. Los Angeles: Ehret Literature, 1924.
Klaus, Sidney. “A History of the Science of Pigmentation.” (accessed on Feb. 8, 2009 from http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/cont ... _4_001.pdf )
Powell, Thomas. Fundamentals and Requirements of Health and Disease. Los Angeles: Powell Publishing, 1909.[/b]