Hello, Jared,

Thanks for sharing so much. I do have a point of confusion regarding
what you wrote. Is the only difference between, say, oral Captomer and
IV DMSA, for example, both of which are used to chelate patients, the
fact that a needle is inserted into the vein directly with the IV DMSA,
vs. the Captomer being absorbed into the portal vein post ingestion?
Are you saying it's the actual insertion of the needle that violates
the Vital Force, vs. essentially the same medicine being absorbed
orally, which is why you are okay with oral chelation medicine? On
that same line, then, is a monthly injection of B12 for a person with
pernicious anemia then a violation of the Vital Force vs. using a
sublingual tablet? Please clarify these points for me with your
unending wisdom!

Mona Morstein, ND
Mesa, AZ




I would disagree with this statement. In the first place, IV therapy
violates the vis medicatrix, in my opinion, in that it bypasses the
body's wisdom
regarding the composition of the blood. This does not mean that it
should
never be done, necessarily but that it is a high force intervention.

The therapeutic order contains several concepts. The first step,
really, is
to address acute concerns. The next step is to identify and remove
causes.
The plaquing in the arteries is not a cause as much as it is an
effect. I
have totally cleared arteries, by evidence of arteriogram, by dietary
changes,
exercise, and hydrotherapy, much to the amazement of a local
cardiologist.
If this is possible, why introduce foreign substances into the blood
by an
unnatural route which may have significant adverse consequences for the
patient? I am not arguing against chelation therapy, per se, but it is
not a first
order therapeutic, it is a 6th or 7th order therapeutic by its nature.
At
least, in my opinion.

Jared Zeff, ND
Salmon Creek, WA