TaN: A possible explanation for the finding that intelligent people are easier to hypnotize is in the definition or the current understanding of what the term “intelligent” means or refers to today. In today’s definition, “intelligent” (as against “intelligence”) usually refers to a person with much knowledge, especially in the case of knowledge derivable from academic textbooks – in contrast to knowledge obtained from or through experience, wisdom, and common sense.
When defined this way, it means that these so-called “intelligent” people take, as Bible truth and without question, everything in the textbooks. Taken in this manner and sense, the so-called “intelligent” people can be described as “gullible”. And, for argument’s sake, this “gullibility” – some would prefer the term “faith or trusting” – could be the reason behind an “intelligent” person’s being easily hypnotized, because he is susceptible to “suggestions” (from the hypnotist). This is very evident in the usual (conservative) reaction or (knee jerk) response of most learned and highly-educated people – with a long train of academic letters and initials after his/her name – when they are confronted with realities that run counter to what they have been indoctrinated in their academic years. They will usually “defend” their academic (and pro-establishment) indoctrination with rabid fervor and over-zealousness. These people will “swallow” any information emanating from a perceived and accepted authoritative source “hook, line, and sinker” – without the slightest effort to analyze and subject to logic the veracity of the information. For them, the “messenger’s credibility” is more important than the veracity of the message. It must be remembered that St Thomas Aquinas once said, “The truth, even if it comes from a liar, is still the truth.”
On the other hand, for the “less intelligent”, his mind would be either “less focused” – thus, more difficult to “influence” with hypnotic “suggestions” – or “less trusting” and, therefore, more resistant to the “suggestions”.
TaN: Allopathic (or conventional) medicine is the alternative medicine! A long time ago, naturopathy (and ayuverdic) and homeopathy were the medicine of the day – “witch doctors”, shamans, herbalists (or arbolarios), and all those dealing in healing and curing using whatever is available in nature or the environment. Later, allopathy came to serve as an alternative. Aside from this, the root or etymology of allopathy is “allos” in Greek means “other” and “pathos” means “suffering”. The mere fact that “allo” means “other” likewise shows that it is the “alternative” – and not the other way around, as conventional or mainstream medicine, Big Pharma, and the rest of the so-called experts would have us believe.
Allopathy is also known as heroic medicine because, unlike homeopathy which allopathy is intended as a “rescue” or emergency medicine where immediate relief and remedy is of the essence due to life threatening conditions. Homeopathy is more of a preventive and has slower results. Its fundamental principles are “like cures like” and, still inexplicable, “the lesser the concentration, the more potent the dosage”. But I digress.
The former is one of the bases of oriental or Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) wherein it argues that all similar organs have similar functions and requirements – like a pig liver would have the same job and and needs as that of a human liver, hence, liver problems arising from deficiencies in nutrients can be adequately addressed by the consumption of liver.
In the case of the latter, it would appear to be in support of a little known characteristic of water – which is that water has “memory”, meaning it “remembers” any substance it comes in contact with or is dissolved in it. Moreover, it would, likewise, appear that water has a tendency to “magnify” this “memory”, which would explain why, as one dilutes a solution, the efficacy becomes stronger. Returning to allopathy as the real alternative medicine, since homeopathy and naturopathy are historically earlier than allopathy, this would make allopathy the “alternative” rather than the “original”.
TaN: Recent (relative to this writing) incidents in the USA with respect to the US FDA conducting raids on raw food providers does not make sense in the context of food sold in the public (wet) and farmers markets. The food sold there are likewise raw, so what makes those (raw food) sold in businesses and commercial establishments any different? Moreover, the US FDA should also conduct raids on those who sell raw food that are not organic, like those that are pesticide-laden and those genetically-modified sold in the fresh produce sections of large supermarkets.
And what about mother’s milk. Is the US FDA and the authorities start raiding and/or arresting mothers who breastfeed their children. Isn’t breast milk considered raw milk?