LOREN: "I'm still wondering why anyone would actually care what your "considered opinion" is?"
People do care about my opinion because they know me to be an honest, sincere, caring, rational health educator who has a people-before-profits health practice. So there are many people who do put a lot of stock in what I say. These are open-minded, rational people who truly care about their health, and have no authorities, no allegiances, and understand the downsides of being biased, in that this can color someone's otherwise good judgment.
LOREN: "You make money on nutritional testing and claim not to be motivated by the money, but only by the desire to help people."
This is correct. If I were truly motivated by money, my counseling fees would be more in line with the higher rates charged by other health educators, and I would certainly not give away my books when I could get paid for them. And if I was motivated by money over all else, by now I certainly would have been able to own my own home (instead of living in a tiny motorhome). But someone who lives an altruistic life cares more about people than about profits both in reality and as perceived by the public, and not just in the public's perception as some health educators do.
LOREN: "It seems now that you finally have found a source of income, convincing people that unlike every other species on the planet, humans cannot get their needs met by simply eating an optimal diet..."
Most rational-thinking people who have no allegiances to you or to those who promote this line of thinking see this statement as an example of your dogmatic and irrational approach to health education, or at the very least, this statement simply doesn't make sense to them. And this is because unlike most every other species on earth today, humans are no longer living in their biological "eco-niche" and are no longer eating the quality of food they once did, even when eating the foods of their biological adaptation. And when you combine this fact with any increased nutritional needs because of environmental stressors, this explains very nicely why many of us need nutritional complements to our diet if we want optimal health. So this is a spurious argument on your part, and one that has been disproven, but because it gets in the way of what you sell fasting retreats this may be a reason you continually attempt to discredit this notion of the need for nutritional supplements (which is shared by others besides myself). So when you use the phrase, "it is absurd on its face" to describe a counter-argument to something that is itself absurd on its face, well, this is a marketing tactic that is used by people who are well aware that their statements are incorrect but who desire that the public believes their statements to be true. There's a word in marketing for this tactic, but it escapes me at present.
LOREN: "I have thousands of clients all over the world who thrive without needing supplements"
1. What about the people who were not able to "thrive" or do well, who weren't helped by fasting (whose problem wasn't a malabsorption issue), and who were helped by consuming nutritional adjuncts to their diet to compensate for the nutritionally sub-par fruit and greens they were buying from agri-industry food suppliers (who grow things for just about every reason other than nutritional quality)?
2. The clinical definition of thriving is having a high quality of life, living a long life, and never getting a diagnosis of something serious. So you can't really know if someone is thriving just because they've resolved some health issue by making major changes in their life and have experienced initial improvement. To know if you are truly thriving means, by definition, that you can only assess this after a goodly amount of time has passed, enough time for any degenerative diseases to have become known. To thrive is to be doing well, long-term, and you're not doing well if you're going downhill at a pace that is not initially noticeable by you. I have counseled many people who did enjoy initial improvement, and who were doing well on a raw food diet, who then weren't doing well. And so far, the "fix" has been paying attention to getting enough of all the nutrients their body requires for optimal health. To date I have had to fast no one to achieve this (this doesn't mean that no one would benefit from fasting, but clearly a lot less people require it than fasting practitioners would like the public to believe).
LOREN: "I've been raw vegan for over 23 years and have taken no supplements and feel and function better than ever."
See my above statement.
LOREN: "Furthermore, research has shown that both multivitamins and individual supplements Increase the risk of disease, something you continue to ignore....perhaps because it affects your bottom line."
If you had taken the time to investigate exactly what nutritional supplements I recommend, you'd see that I am of the opinion that 95% of the supplements that are sold are garbage, with some doing more harm than good. So that research you love to tout does not apply to all nutritional supplements. And indeed, some of that research is "research-for-hire" done to denigrate the idea of nutritional supplementation, because that is bad for certain industries, like the pharmaceutical industry (and the fasting industry).
LOREN: "And anyone with actual fasting experience has seen what I've seen over and over again: deficiency conditions routinely disappear while fasting."
This flies in the face of my experience with people who were not helped by fasting (or where their conditions were made worse) because their problem was simply not enough of certain nutrients in their diet. Of course anyone with a malabsorption issue may be helped by fasting, but since malabsorption issues can also have as a contributing factor a lack of certain nutrients in the diet, this issue is not as straightforward as you would have people believe. And do you accuse me of being motivated by money to misdirect people from wondering if you have that motivation yourself? Since this has been suggested to me by others, I have to wonder.
LOREN: "...after nearly 19 years running Tanglewood -- [I] have never taken a salary and own next to nothing..."
Based on other things you state as the truth but that can be disproven, I'd "consider the source" when thinking about a statement like this from someone like Loren. And not that this is any kind of proof of Loren's insincerity, but others have "run the numbers" based on how much Loren charges people, and what his operating costs likely are, and it appears that his bank account should be "fat" if he has indeed helped as many people as he says he has. If it isn't, someone there may be embezzling from him, or he simply may not be representing his attendance honestly.
LOREN: "And while you insist on your "expertise" in all areas of health..."
I have never said that I have expertise in all areas of health. There are many occasions where I will refer a client to someone else who is more knowledgeable than I in a particular area. No one, myself included, has all the answers. But anyone who is a seeker of health education should require that all the answers a particular health educator has are 100% correct. And I don't find too many health educators who are in this category, including Loren IMO.
LOREN: "...the fact is that the ONLY real knowledge comes from experience. So yes, I would indeed say that you are absolutely NOT qualified to talk about fasting because you have precious little experience and None supervising others. You have beliefs, but they are completely unsupported by facts."
This is probably the most damning thing that Loren says that speaks to his credibility. I'm told it is the statement that most discredits him as a health educator. To say that a health educator can have no credible input on the issue of fasting simply because they have never supervised anyone's fast is, on the face of it, ridiculous. Someone who has researched the many issues of fasting, who has had plenty of second-hand input from those who have fasted (both successfully and unsuccessfully), and who looks at the issue of fasting through the lens of the ethos of science: open questioning, no authorities, honesty, transparency, reliance on evidence, peer review, and testability, and maybe most importantly someone who has no financial gain to be had that might color their judgment, this person can certainly participate in the conversation regarding fasting, and to say otherwise is a clear indication that the person saying this has a hidden agenda and a reason for saying this that he does not want the public to know about.
LOREN: "It may indeed be 'safer' to fast with medical supervision. But medical supervision virtually guarantees much less benefit because MD's will stop fasts at the first sign of anything outside accepted ranges. Why? Because they are more concerned with potential liability than with actually helping people maximize their health."
This may be true in some cases, but since a good philosophy is "better to be safe than sorry", and stopping a fast prematurely is better than allowing a person to die, I'd rather fast with medical supervision but also with a decent knowledge of what I am doing when I fast, so that I can be better equipped to have a conversation with the supervising practitioner, and this can be had by doing your due diligence with information from someone prior to a fast who has some well-researched, logical, honest, and reality-based info on the subject.
LOREN: "Fasting is Not a medical process and medical practitioners rarely understand it."
This is why you don't go to just any medical practitioner and ask him/her to fast you. There are medical doctors who have gone outside-the-box of their traditional medical training to where they understand the value of things like fasting or checking one's iodine level when doing thyroid function tests. And owing to the many positive experiences of those who've gone to a fasting clinic staffed by medical doctors, you can't say that there is no benefit from fasting at such a place, because this is obviously not true. Is this an attempt by Loren to make a case for going to his fasting retreat and not to one with medical doctors on staff? His argument doesn't make sense in light of the facts.
LOREN: "Your ideas on body-intitiated [sic] fasts versus human-initiated fasts are -- like many of your ideas -- nonsensical."
Above I mentioned how someone thought that Loren's statement about how I can't have anything worthwhile to say about fasting because I've never fasted anyone was the most discrediting thing he has said, but I disagree. I believe that this statement of his is the one that clearly shows that people should avoid Loren like the plague IMO. And this is because it is obvious that there are these two types of fasts, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with the logic-based statements I've made about each. But obviously, deciding if you should fast or not based on whether your body is wanting to fast could mean a lot less income for fasting practitioners. My comments on this issue are at http://health101.org/fasting
LOREN: "If one has an acute crisis, appetite will disappear. But unless one is actually tuned in to their body -- certainly Not the case for the vast majority of humans who are constantly eating far more than necessary and missing/ignoring most of the body's messages, they are likely to miss the fact that the body doesn't want food and keep eating anyway."
And this is precisely why people should consult someone prior to fasting who can help them determine if an extended water-only fast is appropriate or not, and a fasting practitioner might not be the best person to ask... because of human nature. Seeking out the counsel of someone who has no "skin in the game" regarding fasting, and who might suggest making sure to eat an appropriately nutritious diet before deciding whether or not to fast (in case this paradigm might resolve their problem) might be a prudent thing to do. And I'm not necessarily talking about counseling with me, but with someone who understands that the foods you are eating might not be providing enough of all the nutrients your body requires for proper functioning, and that if this is the case, water fasting may help in some ways but will hurt in others. Bottom line: Your health condition (and any health conditions you may have that you don't know about yet) might not be completely resolved merely by fasting.
LOREN: "Yet we [Tanglewood] have a 100% success rate eliminating hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and very high rates of success with MS, lyme disease, candida, cancer, lower GI tract issues"
Let's be intellectually honest with this and talk about the cases where fasting wasn't "the answer", and where fasting PLUS a change to a healthier diet did help but it was the change to the healthier diet that did most of the heavy lifting.
LOREN: "Until the Woodstock Fruit Festival put your name in front of people, you've been largely laboring in obscurity for many years"
This one made me laugh, thanks Loren! Ladies and Gentlemen, Loren Lockman is the last word on whether or not someone has been laboring in obscurity. Please. I am glad to have had the opportunity to have a larger audience to get my message out to. This message is something that wasn't being talked about because it does bring up the negative side of human behavior, and there are some people who are drawn to the raw food diet who would rather bask in the positive and not be exposed to anything negative. But as this is an unbalanced way of looking at things, my message has been to look at health issues "all things considered", and to accept that there are marketeers in all industries including the raw food industry. And these folks will always appear to be sincere, caring, well-intentioned people who have your best interests at heart, but in reality, they are not. They run their practice as a profits-before-people business model no different than 95% of the other businesses in the world. And these business people hate it when someone like me shines a light on this issue, and worse, teaches people how to recognize the red flags.
LOREN: "Don. Now you finally have a voice. Unfortunately, this does Not necessarily mean that that voice is worth listening to."
LOREN: "You'll believe and say whatever you choose to, but until you actually Have real fasting experience...why would anyone care?"
They'd care about what I have to offer in the way of information if they care about being as healthy as their DNA will allow. If they're considering fasting, they'd care because they can comprehend how it might be good to listen to someone who has nothing to gain from them fasting or not fasting. And since reading my free articles on the subject doesn't make me any money, they might care about that too. And they might also care about not being ripped off, and not being presented with inaccurate information masquerading as the truth. They might care about what I have to say, if what I suggest is to take a multi-source educational approach to their learning journey. And they might care that I don't sell the nutritional supplements I recommend when I could, and they might appreciate that the reason I give up this potentially lucrative revenue stream is so that my recommendations will have the highest degree of credibility so that there will be the highest degree of compliance (because I know these supplements are worthwhile). And they might care that I have free articles that compete with my for-a-fee counseling (D, B12 assessment and correction). And they might care to know that the only reason I charge to do iodine counseling is that it's too complicated to put in an article, and I unlike some other health practitioners do care that my clients don't get harmed from following my advice, so they might care that I am one of those practitioners who take seriously that tenet of the Hippocratic oath which says, First, do not harm."
This was my initial post to the video, the post that Loren replied to above...
Because I have a lot of experience with these issues over multiple decades, and with people like Loren, and with Loren himself, I am qualified to weigh in here.
Fasting does have benefit but only when done safely. Although Loren disagrees with what I am about to say (possibly because it impacts his financial bottom line), there are two types of fasting: body initiated, and intentional. When the body wants to have no food put into it (to not have to "spend" any nerve energy on digestion so all available nerve energy can be utilized for healing something semi-serious) it doesn't make you hungry in the hopes that you will obey and not eat (body initiated fast). But since many people eat not according to hunger, lots of people are walking around with a body that would like to skip some meals; maybe many meals. Intentional fasts are fasts that are done because some person DECIDES that a fast is in order, but the body would disagree. My point: If your body is wanting to fast, going to a qualified fasting practitioner is a good idea (and a qualified fasting practitioner is one who errs on the side of caution/safety and will have medically trained personnel on staff). If your body is not wanting you to fast, and is instead wanting more nutrition (because this is the underlying cause of your health issues), then fasting is NOT a good idea because it will only deepen any nutritional deficiencies you have.
Loren states that I can have no qualified opinion on the subject of fasting because I have not fasted lots of people as he has. This statement should be taken as a red flag to anyone who can view this issue dispassionately and rationally. Someone can certainly know a lot about fasting without them ever having fasted or supervised anyone's fast. In fact, since I've helped people who weren't helped by fasting, there is obviously more to the fasting issue than people like Loren (and his supporters) would have you believe. It is not as straightforward as some fasting practitioners make it out to be. I think this video clearly demonstrates that. [The video has since been deleted by Loren, then edited and made private.]
Loren also accuses me of pushing nutritional testing and nutritional supplements purely for monetary gain and not because these are helpful, because, according to Loren, nutritional deficiencies are caused by malabsorption which can be addressed with fasting, and if you're eating a raw fruit and greens diet, this will provide enough of all the nutrients you require says Loren. But this has been shown to be incorrect, and is easily provable, but since it also threatens Loren's bank account, he will not debate the issue with the gen pop's best interest in mind, and will instead like any good businessperson attempt to discredit his competition (me, helping people get well with nutritional testing and the addition of missing nutrients to the diet). And anyone who attempts to put fasting into a proper perspective must also be discredited because it's bad for business.
So it is my considered opinion that Loren does not adhere to "First, do no harm", and has a "profits-before-people" business model. The opposite model "people-before-profits" is practiced by some health educators like myself, but not by enough of us IMO. Folks, marketeers, sociopathic business-people, and outright charlatans are in every industry, and raw foods is an industry. True, they may be the exception and not the rule, but they also have the potential to hurt lots of people, both in the near-term, and in the future because of their misinformation that prevents thriving.
So, bottom line: Fasting can be helpful but only when done properly, when appropriate, and when done safely. So this rules out certain fasting practitioners, but not all.
More info about fasting (that Loren disagrees with) at http://health101.org/fasting
Also, one of the things that is confusing to people when they attempt to vet someone like Loren is this: Lots of what Loren has to say is 100% spot-on accurate, and I and others say the exact same things. It would be easier to vet people if all their information was either 100% accurate or 100% incorrect, but that's not representative of reality. In fact, if you're trying to sell to your market, you'll want to provide some unassailable, unarguable, truthful information so that your inaccurate sales-oriented information will appear to also be true by association. This is a marketing tactic used by all good "profits before people" businesses. They know that pubic perception can be a huge "buying" factor. So when using information to sell their products/services, it's vital that all their information is perceived as true and correct. To help create this public perception, a good deal of true and accurate health information will be weaved into their marketing message. So I've found that every "health educator" who has info that is potentially ruinous if followed fully, has lots of health info that I and others agree with and support.
This is why, if you want the best health your body is capable of achieving, you should not get your health information as a student. Students may ask questions of clarification of their teachers, but they don't tend to question basic premises that are taught. And if you're learning from someone who has 85% correct information, but you don't ever recognize the 15% that is incorrect, it's a recipe for disaster (especially if you yourself then become a health educator). I advise learning as a researcher. Researchers accept nothing as the Gospel truth, and they question everything as a matter of course. Sure this makes it more difficult to learn how to be healthy, but if being optimally healthy is your goal, you need to take human nature into consideration. And human nature is what accounts for hucksters who appear to be sincere, well-intentioned, caring people, and it also accounts for truly well-intentioned people who become ardent followers and thus supporters of health educators who are, in reality, "profits before people" businesses.
Look for the red flags. And take a multi-source educational approach to your learning journey. Truly honest health educators will echo this... less-than-sincere health educators will not (but some will say they agree with this for the above mentioned reasons...urgh!)?
Loren Fights Back!
LOREN: "And I never suggested that raw foodists may not have health issues caused by poor nutrition Don. There you go living in your fantasy world again, constantly making stuff up. How sad that you can't simply cogently argue the facts.
The simple fact is that an optimal diet can indeed provide every species with everything that it needs, including humans.
Those who are not getting what they need from eating an optimal diet have systems that simply are not functioning as well as possible -- something that you surely must know Lots about.
But when the body has a chance to truly cleanse and heal itself -- something you apparently know Nothing about -- it will almost invariably have no trouble getting all of its need met.
Crazy, I know, but just like every other species, when we eat a truly high-quality diet which our bodies are actually adapted to, we get everything we need.
And while Don Bennett is a "researcher" -- whatever that means -- those of us who actually work with real human beings (not a few, over the last couple of years since you escaped obscurity, but thousands over decades,) including Shelton and the long list of hygienic superstars who came before have all been very clear about this totally common-sense point: supplements have NO place in a hygienic lifestyle and a healthy, well-functioning system simply doesn't need them.
But That inconvenient truth -- coupled with the one you continue to ignore: the research showing higher rates of disease with supplementation -- would leave you without your new-found source of income, telling people what supplements they need -- something which you are completely unqualified to be doing.
Your pretension is unmatched.
I for one, am not the least bit impressed."
And Don responded...
Loren said, "I never suggested that raw foodists may not have health issues caused by poor nutrition...The simple fact is that an optimal diet can indeed provide every species with everything that it needs, including humans."
Loren's twisting of words does not hide his agenda. He has said, in effect, if a person eats an all raw diet of fruits and greens that they will get enough of all the food-provided nutrients their body requires for optimal health. He said it again in his reply to me, "...an optimal diet can indeed provide every species with everything that it needs, including humans" but this has been clearly shown to be an inaccurate statement; it's a lovely sounding notion, but an inaccurate one nevertheless. And he says this with a high degree of certainty, and yet he cannot prove this to be true (no matter how many times he says it). And because what he contends has been shown to be untrue, continuing to say it just discredits him even further. It is a mystery to some people why he continues to make such a spurious statement (personally, I think it's because he knows there's a market for people who would love to believe such a notion and would resonate with it and therefore with him). What would he say to all the people who know, from personal experience, that what he's saying isn't true? Would he say that their problems would have been resolved had they only fasted, but instead they took supplements which only appeared to resolve their conditions? Loren's on record as saying that it's simply not possible to not intake enough nutrients from an optimal diet, and that if you have a deficiency eating this diet it can only be due to malabsorption which fasting can help. Although everyone is entitled to their own opinions, everyone is not entitled to their own facts, but it's evident that Loren disagrees with this too.
Thanks to the internet and to folks like me who are willing to speak up and shine a light on those who take advantage of people for the sake of profit, the marketeers in the raw food arena will find that their days are numbered. Loren can spin this any way he wants, say whatever he wants, make up anything he wants, it won't change the inevitable.
But Loren keeps trying...
LOREN: "What I said -- and said very clearly -- was that if one is Not getting what they need from an optimal diet, it means that they need to give their body a chance to cleanse and heal. Many of my clients were Not getting what they needed eating an optimal diet. And then they fasted, and their deficiencies went away."
This has not been my experience. Although I'm not saying that there is never a case of malabsorption, but if the person's optimal diet isn't providing enough of all the nutrients the body requires for optimal functioning, no amount of fasting will resolve deficiencies, and this has been my experience. What else explains why deficiency symptoms resolve when the nutritional inadequacies in the diet are addressed? If it was truly a case of malabsorption, adding a bit of a nutrient(s) into the diet would not help resolve the underlying health issue. And I hope that Loren doesn't insult the readers' intelligence by saying that nutritional supplements stifle symptoms due to their toxic properties making it appear that the health issue was resolved. There are some Natural Hygiene practitioners who I know who understand, as I do, the difference between a stimulatory effect, a pharmacological effect, and a nutritive effect.
So yes, there are instances of malabsorption, but the vast majority of the cases I've seen resolve nicely by making sure the diet provides optimal nutrition, and Loren doesn't see these cases because of his selection bias towards fasting. Fasting is a good tool, but it doesn't fix as many things as Loren would like you to believe when he says, "fasting allows the body the chance to cleanse and heal so that it is able to digest, absorb, and assimilate properly, making optimal nutrition just as easy for us as it is for every other species." He steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that it has clearly been shown that in many cases our optimal diet will not provide enough of all the nutrients our body needs for optimal health. To him, fasting is "the answer". But as I've said, no amount of fasting will compensate for nutritionally sub-par food.
LOREN:" ...taking supplements is a band-aid approach which does Not deal with the cause of the problem."
Since this has been shown not to be true, and since I believe Loren to be an intelligent person capable of understanding that this isn't true, the only conclusion I can come to is that he has an ulterior motive for saying this. Since people have had their ill-health issues resolved by the prudent use of worthwhile nutritional supplements making fasting unnecessary to resolve the issue, and since Loren makes his living by fasting people, I can understand why he would continue to say this. But no matter how many times he says it, it doesn't make it true. And he also fails to mention that the body is capable of self-cleansing. Again, I'm not saying that fasting is never helpful in the cleansing department, but it isn't as helpful as people like Loren make it out to be. So I am against people who sell the notion that supplements are never the answer and fasting always helps. The truth lies somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.
LOREN: "Every other species routinely gets all of their needs met from their diet, and If someone is not, there are only two possible causes: 1) the diet is Not sufficient. 2) the body is Not working properly."
Here Loren tries to make it sound as if he agrees that the diet can be nutritionally sub-par, but here he is referring to diets like the typical Western diet. He is on record as saying that an all-raw fruit and greens diet will provide enough nutrition. This is the same notion that Doug Graham has and still promotes. But it doesn't matter how many people say it, it still doesn't make it true. As a critical thinking person in search of the truth, you must factor in the possible motivations for why a health educator says what they say. Those people who dogmatically believe what Loren and Doug say in this matter, and who will not question what they say, will simply tell me that I am a supplement pusher, that I misrepresent Natural Hygiene, and the other things Loren has mentioned like maybe I'm "as dumb as I appear". Okay, so it's clear that I'm going after a different market than Loren. I'm appealing to people who can think for themselves and don't have to appeal to authority for their answers, and who aren't looking for the information that they'd prefer to believe; they're looking for what squares with reality.
LOREN: "...give the body the chance to cleanse and heal itself as well as possible via a properly-conducted, water-only fast."
If you would truly benefit from a lengthy water-only fast, then do it under proper supervision. There are a range of fasting practitioners, some who I would go to, and some who you couldn't pay me to go to. Don't vet them solely on their promotional material or on the seemingly well-articulated case they make for fasting. There are red flags to look for. And just because they have some 100% accurate, spot-on information does not mean that ALL their information is correct. This is a perfect example of "Let the Buyer Beware". And please, before engaging the guidance of any counselor, myself included, vet them thoroughly.
LOREN: "Taking supplements not only does Not address the underlying cause of the problem, but as is true with any unnatural "crutch," they undermine the body's ability to properly do it's job by creating dependence."
Part of the vetting process should be to investigate claims such as the above. Since there are health educators who call BS on statements such as this, this is reason enough to look into it instead of accepting it simply because, naturally, you don't want to become dependent on anything; this has a bad connotation because of the example of pharmaceutical drugs which truly create a dependency and they don't address the underlying cause of the health issue, they only manage the issue and its symptoms. But just as the body does not require pharmaceutical meds, it does require nutrients. And the fact is, if the fruit and greens you're eating do not supply enough of all the nutrients the body requires for optimal functioning, it won't function optimally regardless of how well it absorbs nutrients in the gut. And to say that making sure to get enough chromium for example because the body depends on having enough, is not "creating dependence" as Loren states. The body does have many dependencies, natural ones, and it depends on you to supply them. You can't not fulfill your air dependency because the body won't let you, but it has no such mechanism for sunshine or food-provided minerals. It is possible to not get enough; this has been clearly shown. So if the underlying cause of the problem is not enough iodine for example, no amount of fasting will fix this scenario. Neither will a zealot-like adherence to dogmatic, disproven notions, the kind that some health educators continue to promote despite evidence to the contrary. And if I sold supplements, you should take what I say with a grain of salt because I might have an ulterior motive for making these "pro" supplement statements, but since I don't sell supplements or make any money from their sale, and I only speak highly of some of them, this fact should inform the conversation.
LOREN: "Here's the inevitable: research will continue to show that supplements are harmful to our health and then you'll be back to living in the parking lot at Walmart like you were when I met you."
I have to wonder why Loren would find it informative to this conversation to mention that I have stayed overnight, in my RV, in a Walmart parking lot. First, lots of RVers do this when traveling. It saves boatloads of money. And the less money I need to make, the lower my counseling fees can be. But not all health educators have a people-before-profits business model, so they're not trying to minimize outgo, they're trying to maximize income. Second, this is another example of Loren lying to paint a picture he wants to paint. I have never "lived" in a Walmart parking lot. I know that he's lying because I know that he knows I wasn't living there. So why does he want you to believe I was? Could this be an attempt at character assassination?
And as far as supplements being harmful to your health, yes, they can be. As I've said, about 95% of supplements are worthless, and some can burden the body even more than it's already burdened by dietary nutritional deficiencies. So just like health educators, supplements are also a "Let the Buyer Beware" proposition.
LOREN: "Fortunately for you, there are people foolish enough to listen to you in the meantime. Fortunately, these are absolutely Not the people I'd want to be working with."
On the contrary, people who have listened to both of us, and who have found worthwhile information in what I've said are people who are rational, clear-thinking, unbiased people who want to do what squares with reality, and they can see through marketing messages and recognize information based on a critical review of the issues. These are the people I work with. And I don't think it's "foolish" to listen to the debate and come down on the side that not only makes sense, but upon further vetting shows who has the most correct information. And people who are swayed by health educators who are charismatic and paint lovely pictures and who sound like they know what they're talking about, are not foolish, they are just optimistic, trusting people who are more easily influenced by marketeers than other people who are more appropriately skeptical.
LOREN: "By the way...do you actually read the drivel you type before you hit "send"? It might be a good idea..."
Another red flag. Here Loren attempts to characterize my statements as "drivel". This is a common tactic used to try and discredit someone who has solid, unassailable things to say. If this is the best Loren can do as a rebuttal to what I've said, this speaks volumes about his assertions and credibility.
Loren is like a dog with a bone...
LOREN: "I would never attempt to assassinate your character. It's far too late for that. The point is, you [Don] have No credibility as far as I'm concerned. You are an expert in Nothing. And while my memory from 20+ years ago may fail me, I would swear that you were indeed Living in the Walmart parking lot. You are completely full of crap and don't actually have a clue what you're talking about. You have no fasting experience to speak about so when you speak about what "your experience" is...who cares? You continue to make mis-statements and to try to paint yourself as the beneficent, realistic "researcher" while I (and others) are simply out to make a buck. But you're now in better shape than you've ever been in because of your need-for-supplement scam while I walked away from a very lucrative career to do something which to date, has never even paid me a salary. You are clearly angry, dishonest, and trying to make a name for yourself. There may be some out there who care what you think and maybe they're not All morons but I'm certainly not the Least bit interested in your opinion and don't know why anyone else would be either.
And my attempt at a reply to him...
LOREN: "The point is, you have No credibility as far as I'm concerned".
Well since your opinion of me carries little weight with those who've "got your number", the fact that you feel I am not credible is obviously meaningless.
LOREN: "You are an expert in Nothing."
Those who've I've helped with their health issues (especially when fasting did not help) would disagree.
LOREN: "And while my memory from 20+ years ago may fail me, I would swear that you were indeed Living in the Walmart parking lot."
In case my memory is failing me, I checked with Walmart, and they say that RVer's are not allowed to live in their parking lots. So I'd suspect that your memory is not as good as it should be. And memory is the second thing to "go"... the first is...mmm, I forget. :)
LOREN: "You are completely full of crap and don't actually have a clue what you're talking about."
Statements like this just make it more evident that Loren is simply trying to discredit me for reasons that are probably personal, because too many levelheaded, critical-thinking people have implied that I do indeed know what I'm talking about, and some of those are the people I've helped. And from an open-minded, unbiased reading of my articles on things like Natural Hygiene (http://health101.org/nh) and fasting (http://health101.org/fasting) people can plainly see that I certainly know what I'm talking about. Conversely, when they read your statements that are easily disproved or erroneous on their face, it is your credibility that gets called into question.
LOREN: "You continue to make misstatements and to try to paint yourself as the beneficent, realistic "researcher" while I (and others) are simply out to make a buck."
Opps, to avoid the "Freudian Slip" Loren, you should have worded the above, "You continue to make misstatements and to try to paint yourself as the beneficent, realistic "researcher" while saying that I (and others) are simply out to make a buck."
LOREN: "But you're now in better shape than you've ever been in because of your need-for-supplement scam while I walked away from a very lucrative career to do something which to date, has never even paid me a salary."
If my contention that some people require nutritional supplements to resolve health issues is a scam as Loren maintains, following my advice wouldn't resolve any health issues, yet it does. So evidently it's not a scam; at least not to all the people that have been helped by such advice. But I understand Loren's need to keep saying that it's a scam, because Loren figures that if he keeps saying it, and says it to enough people, that it will eventually become the truth. But Gandhi said, "A lie can never become true however many times you repeat it, and the truth can never be wrong, even if no one hears it." And since, as opposed to some other health educators, as someone who is an empiricist, realist, and an intellectually honest person, I seek the truth (though the heavens may fall), and if we indeed require nutritional complements to our natural diet to have optimal functioning and thus optimal health, I may not like the idea, but I won't appeal to dogmatic teachings that don't deal with reality. Loren either has no problem doing that, and honestly feels that his contentions are the correct and true ones, or he is merely running a profits-before-people business and employs all the various marketing tactics used to minimize competition, including some tactics that are not used by marketing experts like calling me names. And if the latter is Loren's deal, then I guess that makes him both a good businessman and an immature person. And if the former is true, then Loren is not open-minded and does not take an intellectually honest approach to health education, and since he is dealing with people's health, you'd think that an adherence to the most basic tenet of the Hippocratic Oath, "First, do not harm", would be paramount, but this appears not to be true.
And I firmly believe that Loren should stop embarrassing himself by saying that what he does doesn't pay him a salary. Anyone who knows anything about business knows that this can be a totally meaningless statement when said by a profits-before-people businessperson. So if indeed this is what Loren is, saying this is meaningless and is only meant to fool people into thinking he is really an altruistic person (marketing tactic). And if he instead truly believes the dogmatic, rigid notions that he is basing his rebuttals to me on, this statement is irrelevant.
LOREN: "You are clearly angry, dishonest, and trying to make a name for yourself."
If anyone would be displaying anger over this dialog, it would be Loren, because he has been observed to exhibit such behavior. And although I don't get "angry", I wouldn't even be upset at the things Loren is saying, because I know what the truth is in this matter, and because too many of the things Loren says makes me chuckle, and it's hard to be upset when you're chuckling. And since the above picture of me that Loren is painting could be said of Loren by those who have a firm handle on what's really going on here, he probably should cut his losses and stop trying to convince people of what he implies are my ill intentions. The fact that he continues insistently saying the same things over and over despite light being shone on the erroneousness of his claims says something about the man. I'll leave it to you, dear reader, to decide what that is.
P.S. See Loren, even though I posted all this on a page on my website, that wasn't an attempt to prevent you from commenting, as you contended. I just want to keep things "on the record" in an easily accessible place.
And he just goes on and on...
LOREN: "Either you're an intelligent con artist trying to take advantage of people's desire for magic bullets or an idiot who truly can't see that taking supplements will indeed make the deficiency symptoms disappear while actually resolving Nothing. The underlying reason for the issue is still there and like any other crutch, using supplements will indeed make the body more dependent, and as a growing body of research shows, raise rates of disease."
I cannot comprehend how Loren can say such ridiculous things. To think that resolving a dietary nutritional deficiency by taking worthwhile nutritional supplements which will make the deficiency symptoms disappear but will not address the underlying cause of the deficiency when clearly this is what it does, is irrational and nonsensical thinking. And people are wising up to the tactic of accusing an opponent (me) of being the very thing that the accuser is. So Loren saying that I may be an intelligent con artist will give people something to think about, especially when the other things Loren says make no sense, and instead look more and more like an attempt to discredit something that stands to negatively affect Loren's income.
LOREN: "The fact that many of us can function for decades on an optimal diet without need for supplements while you and others can not, only suggests that you and others are doing something wrong."
Functioning (i.e. surviving) is not the same as thriving. Let's check back in with Loren in another 20 years and see how he's doing (assuming he's being honest and not consuming any supplements which he shouldn't have to if he has access to nutritious locally grown food which a lot of raw foodists including myself do not).
LOREN: "As for your "articles on Natural Hygiene" given that you don't practice natural hygiene, who would possibly care what your opinions are?"
Here is another death blow to Loren's credibility. To suggest that I do not practice Natural Hygiene (NH) is absurd. A cursory reading of my NH page (http://health101.org/NH) clearly shows that I have a very good handle on just what NH is. Loren would have people believe that just because I recommend the prudent use of worthwhile nutritional supplements where needed, that this means I have violated a tenet of NH. But the opposite is true. Nowhere does NH preclude this practice. In fact, a critical reading of NH shows that it actually requires this. But a narrow, rigid, dogmatic (and self-serving) interpretation of NH would support Loren's contention. Fortunately, this is not rocket science, and not a subjective issue, so that anyone with some common sense who can think logically and critically, can make sense of this conversation and recognize the nonsense for what it is.
LOREN: "...those of us who actually know and practice hygiene are clear that Don Bennet [sic] is Not a hygienist and apparently doesn't know the first thing about hygiene."
I'll forgive that Loren does not even know how to spell my name correctly. And I can laugh when he makes a statement that is so obviously inaccurate based on a reading of my NH page. But it is difficult to give him a pass when he says deceptive things in an attempt to put him in a good light and to discredit me so his fasting business goes in the direction he wants it to. Let's hear from Dr. Vivian Vetrano who worked with Dr. Shelton about what NH says regarding the prudent use of worthwhile nutritional supplements. If there's anyone who knows what NH actually says, it's her. Big surprise, she agrees with me and does not agree with Loren. There are plenty of people who believe they understand what NH says and believe that it says "NO SUPPLEMENTS". But this doesn't change the fact that NH doesn't say this. And there are other NH educators who are on the same page as myself. Of course, Loren would simply characterize them as equally inept or a con artist.
BTW, if you're wondering why I am spending so much time and effort replying to such obvious self-serving attempts to discredit me, it's because each time Loren posts something, he just buries himself even deeper. And I do want to give him the opportunity to do this. So in one sense, this is a good use of my time, and I don't mind it, but in another sense, I wish there wasn't a need to do this with people like Loren et al. But human nature being what it is, there will always be Loren Lockman's, and I'm just glad he doesn't take the opposite tact of not saying anything against me, because it gives people the opportunity to see health educators for who they really are. And the more of that, the better.
April 4, 2015
Loren posted this on the Facebook group "INHS", and I am not a member there any longer because Loren is an admin and it became pointless to post there as I was not allowed to have a rational, reasoned, open-ended dialog about the need for nutritional supplementation in today's world, or about fasting (because I can't possibly have anything to say about fasting because I haven't fasted scores of people according to Loren). So I could not respond to this post of Loren's there, so I am responding here.
Loren's assertion that I have little experience with fasting so that my beliefs are not based on experience is not true. While I have not personally supervised hundreds of fasts, I have worked with people who have fasted some at Loren's facility and I myself have done lengthy fasts, and I have dialoged with many people who have fasted who had both good and bad experiences. So I do have some experience. But the remainder of Loren's statement makes no sense; he says that since I have "precious little experience with fasting" my beliefs are not based on "science, or expert opinion". A health educator doesn't need to have fasted people in a supervisory fashion to understand the science of fasting. After all, it's not rocket science, and even if it was, a scientist can have a thorough understanding of the science of rocket propulsion without having built hundreds of them or flown in one. A reading of my two articles on fasting clearly demonstrates that I have more than a passing knowledge of fasting.
And more importantly, I have no hidden agenda when talking about fasting; I don't stand to gain anything by speaking highly of it, nor do I have anything to gain by saying that it may not be appropriate in all the cases that fasting practitioners contend it is. So my comments on fasting might be more credible than someone who does have such an agenda, especially considering that I apply the ethos of science to my discussions: open questioning, no authorities, honesty, transparency, reliance on evidence, and testability as this can make the world a better place by burying myth and dogma, and by looking at things from the perspective of reality (the body, the soil, the environment). And the requisites for this inquiry are respect for rational and honest discussion, and an intolerance of distortion and misrepresentation. So I'll continue to stick with the tools in my toolbox that have served me well: critical thinking, logic, independent thought, and certainly the skeptical interrogation of accepted notions, and this way of thinking doesn't sit well with some health educators, which should say something about the credibility of their information.
And Loren's utterly ridiculous statement that my speaking highly of nutritional supplements "pays his bills" is ludicrous on its face because I don't sell the supplements I recommend, I merely provide links to them on my website as a convenience (and no, Loren, they are not affiliate links). Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to sell the supplements I recommend; the reason I don't is because it's common knowledge that there are many "health educators" who promote supplements merely to make a buck, and I want my recommendations to have the highest degree of credibility because I know how beneficial they can be. It's a shame that I must give up this honest source of income (which would have been very lucrative), but I seem to care more about people's well-being than my bank account. The same cannot be said for all health educators.
Loren goes on to say, "Bennet [sic] is not a Hygienist and clearly does not understand hygiene". A cursory reading of my page on Natural Hygiene will clearly show that I can certainly be considered a Natural Hygienist, just not the rigid, dogmatic type of hygienist who doesn't deal with reality as Loren appears to be IMO. There is just way too much hard-science that shows the agri-industry soils to be incapable of providing enough of all the nutrients our bodies require for optimal healing and functioning, and at its core, that is what Natural Hygiene is about; optimal healing and functioning. And there is also plenty of empirical evidence that clearly demonstrates that worthwhile nutritional supplementation as part of a truly healthy diet is beneficial, and again, Natural Hygiene is about living in accordance with our biological imperatives, one of which Natural Hygiene says is getting enough of all the nutrients our bodies require for optimal health. The fact that Loren disagrees with the prudent use of a nutritional supplement(s) to achieve this goal in our very unnatural world (with its unnaturally nutritionally sub-par soils, unnatural amounts of environmental toxins, and unnatural amounts of stress) is a mystery since this has clearly been shown to be beneficial. Could it be that he has a bias towards fasting for some reason, and this is why he is so against nutritional supplementation, because it has been shown to be beneficial, sometimes making an extended, water-only fast unnecessary to resolve a health condition? You be the judge.
DON: The too low BP "test" I mentioned for Van Der Valk L to try (when properly hydrated of course) is not "nonsense" Loren. It is diagnostically revealing if you understand how the body works. You sound like you do, and indeed you do have a decent grasp of how the body works in many important ways, just not one that squares with reality in all areas (like your constant insistence that there is no such thing as dietary caused nutritional deficiencies when eating an all raw fruit 'n greens diet, and your incomprehensible lack of acknowledgment of the two basic kinds of fasting: body initiated and intentional... and a person doesn't need to have fasted scores of people to recognize this fact). So even though we're playing from the same sheet of music in many areas, we are very out of tune on certain important issues.. issues that can affect a person's future health. And yes, no one has all the answers, but all the answers that health practitioners DO have should be accurate IMO.
LOREN: We are most definitely Not playing from the same sheet of music Don. Hygiene has worked perfectly well without needing Don Bennett to fix it. Hygiene and I are both completely clear that dietary-caused nutritional deficiencies do indeed exist. And unlike you, we are aware that said deficiencies can only exist from one of two possible causes: 1) either the diet is insufficient (as can happen when Not eating an optimal diet or when eating an optimal diet but Not of organic produce, and 2) the body is unable to efficiently digest, absorb, or assimilate.
Taking supplements does Not correct the underlying issues and so is just a Band-Aid approach. And because the body becomes dependent on any unnatural crutch, using supplements insures that the body becomes Less able to get its needs met real food.
DON: And Loren, I'll try to correct this contention of yours one more time, not for your benefit, but for the benefit of anyone who believes you to be a repository of 100% accurate health information. You said, and I quote,
How absurd to imply that eating an all-raw diet of organically grown fruit and greens cannot possibly result in any dietary-caused nutritional deficiencies, when this has CLEARLY been shown to be true. You can keep saying it's impossible all you want. And you can keep telling people that the ONLY reason a healthy diet won't provide you with enough of all the nutrients your body needs is because you have a condition that requires fasting to resolve it, but when the light of reason is shone upon this issue, rational, critical-thinking people can see this for what it is.
DON: Sorry to have to make this correction Loren, but at the time of my BP test I was not dehydrated, but that doesn't mean that dehydration can't cause low (and high) BP because it can of course, but it doesn't necessarily mean that a person is dehydrated if they show numbers that Van Der Valk L or I did, but it is something to consider. And we can go back and forth on whether that test I mentioned for too low blood pressure is nonsense or not, but here people will simply have to decide for themselves how diagnostically relevant it is when also considering one's hydration level, diet, etc. I mentioned the test because an across-the-board recommendation that a BP reading of the kind Van Der Valk L experienced should be dealt with by an extended water only fast is not a responsible one because there are many other factors that should be considered first before jumping to the conclusion that a fast is called for or that a fast may help.
DON: And I have not "fixed" Natural Hygiene,
because it doesn't need fixing. It just needs a proper, reality-based
interpretation, which many Natural Hygiene "purists" are incapable
of for various reasons. If there's anything that needs "fixing"
it is the dogmatic, irrational, interpretations of Natural Hygiene that
do not take into account that today's humans are no longer living in their
biological "eco-niche" and are, in a very real sense, domesticated
animals who can have higher than normal needs for certain nutrients AND
have lower than natural supplies of them due to where we get our foods
from today (agri-industry that does NOT grow for nutritional content because
they grow for profit)... a double-whammy if there ever was one. And since
you implied that I misrepresent Natural Hygiene, why don't we let the
readers decide for themselves...
LOREN: Clearly you haven't fixed Hygiene because it wash't broken. You just continue to act like it was. It does NOT need Don Bennett's ideas to become reality-based. While you've been reading books in your trailer, I've been working with real human beings for the last 25 years and what I teach works over and over again.
LOREN: Why anyone committed to their health would be eating standard commercial produce if they can get better is beyond me. And as I said, improving the food quality is the key, not taking processed supplements proven to cause higher rates of disease.
DON: Loren, either you merely glossed over what I posted, or you're trying to manufacture public opinion re: me. I clearly said I hadn't fixed Natural Hygiene because it didn't need fixing. So you then stating, "Clearly you haven't fixed Hygiene because it wash't broken" is a discontinuity. And, true, Natural Hygiene doesn't need my ideas to become reality-based; it is those health practitioners who misinterpret or deliberately misrepresent Natural Hygiene who stand to be corrected from a thorough understanding of my contentions (well, those who deliberately misinterpret NH for their own ends will, of course, not find anything of value in my writings, and will instead protest my work vigorously and accuse me of the very thing they are doing... human nature, gotta love it).
DON: And Loren, your denigration of nutritional supplements in favor of supervised fasting as a way of dealing with issues of ill health, painting all nutritional supplements with a broad brush saying that they cause higher rates of disease, is clearly self-serving... do you think that people don't see this? And my recommendations of the prudent use of worthwhile nutritional supplements owing to their proven beneficial effects on health don't make me one penny because I don't sell these things that I recommend (I'd love to, but it's more important to me that my recommendations have the highest degree of credibility because I know how helpful they can be, and they will be more credible if I don't sell supplements).
LOREN: Don, you have a habit of completely ignoring or misunderstanding what I've said. I never said that a deficiency can't occur with a diet of organic fruit and greens...what I said -- and what I have said to you repeatedly over the last year or two -- was that when such a deficiency does occur in the presence of organic fruits and greens, it occurs because the body is incapable of properly processing the food to get what it needs.
And in the case of the body Not working as well as is possible, yes: there is indeed nothing as powerful and beneficial as fasting to correct it. While this may seem self-serving, it's not. My business is thriving because more and more people are waking up to the fact that the best we can do is to let the body cleanse and heal. I do what I do because I've committed my life to helping people and there was No place one could go and get the amazing environment and information that we offer here...so I created it.
Of course you can believe what you want to, but what's clear to me is that you seem to be incapable of determining what rational thinking is.
I didn't bother to answer Loren because he is being intentionally deceiving and obfuscatory. I'd like to say I won't be wasting any more ink on him, but since I started teaching because I hated seeing people being taken advantage of, for the sake of profit, at the expense of their health, I have a feeling that I will be writing more on this subject.
Loren correctly says "...deficiencies are either caused by a poor diet or a poorly-functioning system..." but a "poor diet" can be a diet that consists of the foods we're biologically adapted to, but they do not contain enough of all the nutrients a person requires for optimal healing and optimal health maintenance. And no amount of fasting will correct this, although if a person truly has a malabsorption issue, fasting can certainly help with that, but even an optimally functioning gut still requires enough of all the nutrients the body requires, and if it's not getting that, no amount of fasting will help.
And worthwhile nutritional supplements, green juices, and smoothies do not increase the rates of disease. This spurious statement of Loren's cannot be supported, and in reality, the opposite is true. And in the above scenario, where the healthiest of diets isn't supplying enough of all the nutrients the body requires for optimal health and healing, complementing that diet with the missing nutrients is of paramount importance.
Loren says, "...and the experience of every fasting practitioner who's ever written or spoken about the process is that deficiencies are almost always Corrected via fasting". Not if the foods the person is consuming do not contain sufficient nutrients. And contrary to these fasting practitioners who may have had an ulterior motive for making these statements improved nutritional intake has been shown to facilitate health improvement. I'm not saying that fasting is never called for because that would be absurd, but saying, as Loren does, that complementing a raw fruit-based diet with additional nutrition never helps and only increases the odds of disease is not a statement based on reality and is equally absurd.
Loren says, "the fact is that there has never been one single case of deficiency as the result of fasting". To anyone who can think rationally with unbiased, considered, critical thinking will clearly see that there is no way Loren can know this. It's like the people who say, "There has never been anyone who thrived on an all raw plant-based diet". The person can only know this if he/she knows everyone in the world. And in fact, there have been people who have gone into a water-only fast with a diet-related nutrient deficiency where that deficiency was deepened by not eating any food for a month, and the potential for this scenario should be obvious to anyone who can look at this issue without biases to color their otherwise good judgment.
Loren goes on to say, "What this proves is that these nutrients are Not necessary for the amazing healing that occurs when we fast". The body needs enough nerve energy for optimal healing, and the cessation of eating/digestion frees up a bunch of daily nerve energy availability for more robust healing. This is self-evident to those who understand the role that nerve energy plays in healing. What should also be self-evident is that the body is the thing that is doing the healing, more specifically, the organs, glands, and tissues that are responsible for healing that which was ailing the body. But the healing process, besides needing sufficient amounts of nerve energy, needs sufficient amounts of the other bare essentials like calories (which it gets primarily from its fat reserves while water fasting or from food if still eating) and it also needs the nutrients those organs, glands, and tissues require for optimal functioning (assuming we want optimal healing). If any of these essential nutrients are in short supply due to long standing dietary insufficiencies, healing will not be as robust as it could be.
Another false statement of Loren's is, "You [sic] not involved with caring for clients". Not true. I have been for many years. I'm just not as high profile about it as Loren is. And I've counseled people who have experienced water-fasting "fails", and people who were considering water fasting but first tried testing for certain nutrient deficiencies, and after correcting the ones they were found to have, found that they healed very nicely. Going easy on digestion always helps, and this can be accomplished by not over eating, and one way to curb one's appetite that results in over eating is to supply the body with enough of all the nutrients the body requires, and this is because the body requires food for two reasons: fuel and nutrition. And if it's not getting enough of either, it will want to eat.
And Loren persists with, "You [Don] get paid to tell people what supplements they need and clearly, you don't want people to know the truth: that when the body is clean and well-functioning and they are eating the diet that the human body is adapted for, there's not only No need for supplements the vast majority of the time, but that supplements create higher rates of disease." That is an over simplification of what I do, but that remark is to be expected. And if there's anyone who doesn't want people to know the truth, I'm thinking that it's Loren, possibly for the reasons I've eluded to above.
And once again, for the body to be "well functioning" it requires enough of all the nutrients it needs to achieve this most worthy goal. And again, just because someone is eating a diet of the foods that they are biologically adapted to, is not a guarantee that they will get enough of all the nutrients their body requires for optimal health even if they are active enough to warrant eating an appropriate amount of food. With certain exceptions, humans are the only animal species that is no longer getting their food from where we were designed to get our food from, and this little factoid can account for nutrient insufficiencies that can become deficiencies. And saying that this is impossible (to not get enough nutrients when eating the diet we're adapted to eat), regardless of how many times you and Doug Graham repeat it, will not make it true. I agree that it's a lovely notion, but it simply isn't true. Here's a maxim of health (a maxim is simply an unwritten truism)... "if you want optimal health, deal with reality".
And, sorry, I can't resist this one (and I was fed the line), "And if I didn't run a fasting center I would be just another schmuck with an unsupported opinion". I've found that it is possible to be a health educator who doesn't follow the "First, do no harm" tenet of the Hippocratic Oath even if he or she DOES run a fasting center. In-other-words, running any kind of retreat facility, regardless of how long, is not a guarantee that the person is teaching 100% correct information. The same goes for all health educators, including me. This is why it's best for people to take a multi-source approach to health education. And when you encounter conflicting information - as you've encountered here - be glad, because you may now be in possession of both true and false info. Naturally, the trick is figuring out which is which.
Loren states, "The problem isn't that I run a fasting center, it's that you Think that what I say is purely motivated by my desire to get more clients" I never said "purely", but let's go to the video tape (an old expression). In the majority of Loren's posts, he engages in marketing his fasting center, saying something to the effect of "if you want to know more about fasting at Tanglewood..." Now let's compare this to the things I do to make money. Hmmm, I never seem to bring them up in my posts. I don't talk about my books (and when I do because it pertains to the topic I offer the book for free to those on the thread), and I don't market my counseling. And yet, Loren has accused ME of marketing myself in my posts.
And for reasons I can't comprehend, Loren thinks it's important for you to know, "But while you've been living in your mobile home for the last 23 years..." Fact checking fail. It hasn't been anywhere near 23 years, and it's a motorhome, not a mobile home. I endeavor to be accurate.
LOREN: [responding to a post I made about fasting] That fasting makes defifciencies worse is only "obvious" who know little if anything about fasting. The simple fact is that fasting virtually always allows the body to resolve deficiencies and this isn't the least bit surprising if one understands that our nutrient needs are tiny and that in most cases, deficiencies stem Not from a lack of the nutrient in question but rather from the body's inability to access what it needs.
The deficiency is only a symptom of a larger underlying issue (one of two.)
If the diet is truly insufficient -- unlikely for anyone eating plenty of produce, especially if organic -- than correcting the diet is necessary to insure maximum health.
As I've pointed out above and many times before, in the vast majority of cases, the problem is not the diet, but rather a toxic, dehydrated, poorly-functioning body which is unable to get its needs met even though there are ample nutrients present.
While supplements will indeed eliminate any deficiency symptoms, they only make the underlying condition worse, not better, as the body becomes dependent on any unnatural crutch that we give it, including supplements.
And because studies increasingly show that supplements -- whether single nutrient or multivitamin -- tend to increase rates of disease, supplements are only a logical choice as a temporary meausre in those situations where true harm might accrue as a the result of the deficiency.
The only logical, reasonable, and intelligent response to any kind of health issue -- including a deficiency -- is to address and correct the underlying problem.
With a deficiency, this means that we need to insure that we are consuming only they highest quality food possible and if we are, to realise that the issue is -- as usual -- not with nutrient availabiltiy in the food, but with an underlying issue in the body;s ability to access those nutrients.
How we address that is to give the body the single most powerful and effective tool for cleansing and healing itself: water-only fasting.
And while it's true, there is a difference between a body-initiated fast and an intentional fast: one is intentional and one is initiated by eh body -- there is No difference in the efficacy of the process when done correctly.
Having fasted more people than all but a handful of people alive today with consistently amazing results even though the vast majority of the thousands of fasts I've supervised and dozens that I've personally undertaken were intentional fasts, it's absolutely clear that whether intentional or initiated by the body, fasting is the single most beneficial and powerful thing that one can do to maximise their health and vitality.
And while supplements create dependency as the Law of Efficiency predicts, fasting allows the body to finally correct the underlying issues of digestion, absorption, assimilation and utilisation to insure that we get maximum benefit from everything we eat and don't create a situation where we ever need to consume unnatural, isolated nutrients.
Fasting leads to a higher level of health in virtually every case and supplements create dependency as the body becomes increasingly unable to meet its own needs from its diet in the presence of unnaturally-concentrated sources of nutrition and so imbalances the body and leads to higher rates of disease.
DON: Loren wrote: "The simple fact is that fasting virtually always allows the body to resolve deficiencies and this isn't the least bit surprising if one understands that our nutrient needs are tiny and that in most cases, deficiencies stem Not from a lack of the nutrient in question but rather from the body's inability to access what it needs." This has not been my experience in my 13 years of counseling raw foodists. Fasting, properly done, does NOT always allow the body to resolve nutritional deficiencies, because fasting CAN'T do this when those nutritional deficiencies are dietary-caused...obviously. And in my experience, the dietary-caused nutritional deficiencies are more prevalent than the deficiencies caused by gastrointestinal malabsorption (which can be helped by fasting). And if Loren is planning on replying that I don't supervise fasts so I can have no input on this issue (as he has said in the past), please don't, because I have counseled people who have done supervised fasts where they WEREN'T a beneficial experience, and the people WEREN'T helped by it. And for Loren to say that "our nutrient needs are tiny" is an irrelevant statement. It doesn't matter if the mass of a particular nutrient that we need in a year's time could fit in a sewing thimble, if a person isn't getting from their diet the amount required for optimal health (and not just for surviving), it doesn't matter how much we require if we're not getting enough, and all the fasting in the world won't change that BTW.
I can understand how someone who makes their living from fasting counseling can have their perspective influenced by their avocation, but it's still wrong IMO to make up things to promote fasting when this can negatively affect people's health, and I have counseled people whose health issues weren't helped by fasting but they were helped by improving their nutritional intake. This is not to say that fasting doesn't help the body deal with issues, but at the same time as it's helping one area it can be hurting another as I mentioned in an above post, and at http://health101.org/fasting
And I've counseled people who were thinking of fasting as a way to help resolve their health issues, who got some decent nutrition into them (compensating for the nutritionally sub-par fruit they were eating), and lo and behold, they resolved their issues and didn't need to fast (which is good because their body wasn't calling for a fast, as explained in the above article).
Also mentioned was, "If the diet is truly insufficient -- unlikely for anyone eating plenty of produce, especially if organic...". Once again, if that produce is being grown in nutritionally sub-par soil, it will have insufficient amounts of certain nutrients for the consumer of that produce to have OPTIMAL health and healing. So while they won't die instantly from eating it, their health and healing ability won't be what it could be. This is not only logical, it has clearly been demonstrated. And so that I'm not accused of taking statements out of context, Loren continues with, "...than (sic) correcting the diet is necessary to insure maximum health." And BTW, the quality of organically grown food today is not what it was 40 years ago, some even being comparable to conventionally grown food (although this is not a reason for not eating it).
Loren repeats, "As I've pointed out above and many times before, in the vast majority of cases, the problem is not the diet, but rather a toxic, dehydrated, poorly-functioning body which is unable to get its needs met even though there are ample nutrients present." In the vast majority of cases, it is precisely because of a lack of sufficient dietary nutrition that the individual is experiencing ill-health, this is where particular nutrients are anything BUT ample (and there are hard-science reasons for this lack of sufficiency in the foods). So since both Loren and myself can state these opposing viewpoints, it's up to the reader to not take this info in as a student and to look at this conflicting information as a researcher and vet the info. And it is also advisable to vet the educators supplying the info because the veracity of info can be influenced by the various aspects of human nature (both dark and light). To facilitate this research, if anyone would like access to a compilation of back-and-forth dialogs between Loren and myself such as we're having here which can shed some light on our rationales for saying what we say, and on some of those aspects of human nature I referred to above, PM me [I'm referring to this webapge]
And Loren continues, "While supplements will indeed eliminate any deficiency symptoms, they only make the underlying condition worse, not better, as the body becomes dependent on any unnatural crutch that we give it, including supplements." It stands to reason that if the underlying condition has, as a major contributing factor, dietary nutrient(s) insufficiencies, nutritional supplements ARE addressing the underlying issue, and are NOT being used as a crutch, but instead they are an unnatural compensation for an equally unnatural scenario (not being able to get enough of all the nutrients we require for optimal future health). So because we are dependent on getting "enough of all", the prudent use of worthwhile nutritional adjuncts to the diet are merely helping to provide what we need (and BTW, I do not sell supplements nor make any money from their sale).
Even though Loren is well aware that I have stated that there are worthless and even harmful supplements and there are also worthwhile supplements, he goes on to say, "And because studies increasingly show that supplements -- whether single nutrient or multivitamin -- tend to increase rates of disease..." so this can be seen as a misleading attempt to discredit all supplements, and through association, anyone who recommends supplements of any kind as I do. To imply that ALL nutritional supplements fall into the "disease causing" category is "bad form" to say the least for someone who self-identifies as a health educator, knowing what is known about how beneficial a tiny percentage of nutritional supplements can be. But just as the use of such nutritional supplements can be seen as competition of sorts to the medical/pharma industry, it's not a stretch to see how beneficial nutritional supplements can negatively impact the supervised fasting industry. So I can certainly see how this may color a fasting counselor's judgment, especially considering that Loren and I are playing from the same sheet of music about 80%, saying the exact same things except where it comes to these issues.
I apologize for commenting on the following again, but Loren continually brings it up within the same comment as if constantly saying it will influence the reader to believe it's true, "With a deficiency, this means that we need to insure that we are consuming only they highest quality food possible and if we are, to realise that the issue is -- as usual -- not with nutrient availabiltiy in the food, but with an underlying issue in the body;s ability to access those nutrients." Gandhi said, "An error can never become true however many times you repeat it, and the truth can never be wrong, even if no one hears it." The issue of nutrient availability in most people's food supply is one that should be considered if optimal health is the goal, and IMO naysayers like Loren do a disservice to those looking for accurate health information by representing a falsehood as something true.
He continues, "How we address that is to give the body the single most powerful and effective tool for cleansing and healing itself: water-only fasting." A tool, yes, but only one of many, and hardly the "single most powerful and effective tool". But we must allow for some hyperbole considering the source.
And now for an example of flip-flopping when called on a misstatement, "And while it's true, there is a difference between a body-initiated fast and an intentional fast: one is intentional and one is initiated by eh body -- there is No difference in the efficacy of the process when done correctly." In the above mentioned compilation of dialogs between Loren and myself, you'll find him stating that there is no such thing as "body-initiated" and "intentional" fasts, and as such, I do not know what I'm talking about. But after explaining the absurdity of such a statement, I'm glad to see he has come around and acknowledged rational thinking and conceded that maybe I do know something about fasting after all. But there still exists some misinfo... the two types of fasts are not experienced by the body the same way. Here logic dictates this. I'm not saying that one will provide some benefit and one won't, my point in mentioning the two types is that they do NOT affect the body the same. Please read http://health101.org/fasting for an explanation of this self-evident issue.
I won't continue to comment on the the self-serving statements
promoting fasting made by Loren because I'm reasonably sure they are becoming
obvious to the reader at this point in the dialog. And again, his restating
that supplements create dependency is a hollow statement considering that
we have a natural dependency on nutrients, and that Natural Hygiene (the
scientific application of the principles of Nature in the preservation
and restoration of health) upholds this requirement and does not imply
that the prudent use of worthwhile nutritional supplements is a Natural
Hygiene no-no (see http://health101.org/NH
Here is a reply by someone who read the above dialog between Loren and myself, demonstrating either how people who are biased employ "selective reading", or demonstrating a lack of ability to comprehend the issue.
READER: When one poster says we need these supplements if we have deficiencies for the body and claims this logical as if he knows the body. Then another poster whom has said Fast and i do not know how the body does it but prior to fast he's seen people deficient and after water fast they are not. I trust the later for having water fasted my experience resonates with such. One's selling a product and the other is going with the power of the human body and the universe.
DON: Let's be accurate here, one person is both promoting and selling a fasting service, and the other (me) is promoting but not selling supplements nor does he make any money from their sale. So since I'm not selling what I'm recommending, what other motivation could I have for making such recommendations other than I know them to be helpful in resolving conditions of ill-health.
Second, he says he has seen people improve after fasting, and no doubt that is true because fasting has benefits, but I have seen people improve after adding nutrition to the their diets the nutrition that was lacking in their foods (which shouldn't be difficult to understand how this can be). So if a person's health issues are being caused by dietary insufficiencies, fasting will not help, and increasing nutrition in the diet will. So my claim that this scenario is true is based on logic, biochemistry, and empirical evidence.
So again, I'm not saying that fasting is not beneficial, but it will not help resolve ill-health caused by dietary nutritional insufficiencies, and these DO exist regardless of anyone's assertion that they are highly unlikely or that they do not exist.
And Loren replies...
LOREN: More patent nonsense above posted by someone who makes his living promoting supplements and continue to pretend that he in no way benefits from their promotion. If everyone understood that supplements NEVER address the underlying issue (which Is Not the deficiency but rather the reason the deficiency exists) and if everyone understood that even so-called high-quality supplements imbalance the body for the simple reason that they are far inferior to whole foods and don't ever come with all of the necessary and synergistic co-factors, than no one would be paying this person to analyze their supplement needs.
Because supplements are neither addressing the underlying poor quality food nor the almost certain-to-be-present issues in the body the prevent the optimal digestion, absorption, and assimilation of nutrients they are indeed only a Band-Aid approach.
Natural Hygiene is indeed completely crystal clear that supplements have NO place in hygiene or health save the immediate need in a grave situation. Hygiene promotes consuming whole foods only because hygiene is indeed about understanding and applying the laws of nature and there are no fractionated, unnatural, imbalanced supplements in nature.
You can cast dispersions all day long Don; only the ignorant and those who prefer not to truly take responsibility for their health believe your nonsense. Supplements are indeed unnatural crutches and have no place in Natural Hygiene and while you can continue that Hygiene embraces supplements, it's position has always been completely clear and stated by hygienic practitioner and expert, one after the other.
Fasting on the other hand, is a completely natural process undertaken by every species on the planet and completely central to Hygiene. And my experience of seeing deficiencies reversed via fasting is not unique, but in fact common to every fasting practitioner. Once again, you insist that you know what your lack of experience insures you cannot know.
And while you push ample nonsense on your website, the fact is that you actually have precious little experience, and therefore, no real knowledge of fasting. You make absurd statements after absurd statement unsupported by facts, experience, or even the logic you think you possess.
You are either dishonest or ignorant, but in either case, are in no position of authority around fasting.
Every other species meets its needs and functions at a much higher level of health than most humans consuming only whole foods.
And so do we.
The fact that supplements cause dependence is in no way a "hollow statement." Yes, we need nutrients, but we need them from whole foods. Using supplements makes the body LESS ABLE to meet it's needs naturally and this is a terrible result of using supplements.
Claiming that because we need nutrients using supplements is fine is like suggesting that because we need oxygen needing to get it from a tank is ok. But the fact is that most of us can get our oxygen needs met by breathing air, and one who can't get it naturally this way has a significant issue.
Similarly, those who truly cleanse and heal the body virtually Never need supplements because we can easily meet the body's needs for every nutrient by simply consuming whole foods...just like every other species. Those who cannot do this clearly have a problem just as surely as those who can't get enough oxygen without a supplemental source.
And I have never said that body-initiated fasts don't exist; why don't you copy and paste my past statements to prove me wrong? Right...you cannot because it never happened. I've only pointed out over and over again as the only one here who has any real knowledge or experience with fasting that there is no difference in the benefits of one versus the other.
In an acute crisis, the body will indeed reject food and we will lose appetite. Eating then is always harmful. I have fasted dozens of times and nearly 2.5 years of my life cumulatively and have done body-initiated fasts many times. They were in no way more powerful or beneficial than fasts that I decided to undertake knowing that my body still had work to do, and the hundreds of thousands of fasts supervised by myself, and by all of the other fasting centers in the world with the amazing results we've gotten have almost always been intentional fasts.
Most humans are not in acute crises. Rather they are walking around with serious chronic conditions and in a chronic condition there will Not be a body-initiated fast as this is only a response to an acute crisis.
Raini, putting one's "life on hold" to fast may be difficult for many, but those who are truly committed to their health will always find a way to create what they need to, including the time and money to fast.
The simple fact is that most people are Not truly committed to their health and would much rather treat the symptom...and I hope it's clear that this is all supplements can ever do.
Magic bullets have always been popular and always will be because they excuse the individual from doing what they need to do.
But given that supplements ignore and exacerbate the underlying problem and are increasingly implicated in higher disease rates, taking supplements should Only be used when a serious, immediate health challenge is possible because of said deficiency and should be avoided under all other circumstances by anyone truly committed to their health.
DON: The poster [Loren] writes, "More patent nonsense above posted by someone who makes his living promoting supplements". More irresponsible information from someone who clearly has an agenda (at least to me). And the marketing tactic of turning it around on the person who's calling you out will not work in print because people can re-read your comments and the responses to them (remember folks, I have them archived all in one place if you want to research this issue). And if he's hoping he can simply repeat this false accusation over and over and that it will become the truth, remember what Gandhi said, "A lie can never become true however many times you repeat it..." But maybe Loren is adhering to what Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." And this is why I will always reply to set the record straight.
So he can say the above statement all he wants, it doesn't make it true. I do not make my living selling supplements. I wish I did sell the supplements I highly recommend, but I don't so that my recommendations will have the highest degree of credibility and thus compliance, and I know that if I DID sell them, for some people, this would make my recommendations suspect. And understandably so, since lots of practitioners and health educators promote worthless stuff (I do not consider fasting worthless, it's just not the magic bullet it's being made out to be).
He goes on to say, " If everyone understood that supplements NEVER address the underlying issue (which Is Not the deficiency but rather the reason the deficiency exists) and if everyone understood that even so-called high-quality supplements imbalance the body for the simple reason that they are far inferior to whole foods and don't ever come with all of the necessary and synergistic co-factors, than no one would be paying this person to analyze their supplement needs."
I think people are starting to realize what Loren is all about; at least I hope they are. When saying that nutritional supplements NEVER address the underlying issue, Loren demonstrates either his ignorance of the facts about dietary nutritional availability, or his attempt to discredit something (nutritional supplements) that stand to negatively impact his sales.
And to imply that underlying causes of ill-health that are nutrient deficiency related are rarely or never caused by a lack of dietary nutrition just demonstrates that this person either has a dogmatic, philosophical bias against nutritional supplementation, or he is simply trying to discredit the prudent use of worthwhile nutritional supplements because of the potential impact on his business.
And to say, "and if everyone understood that even so-called high-quality supplements imbalance the body for the simple reason that they are far inferior to whole foods and don't ever come with all of the necessary and synergistic co-factors..." shows a lack of understanding of the benefit of worthwhile nutritional supplements, or this is an attempt to manufacture public opinion by saying things that sound like statements of fact, when they are anything but. The nutrition from supplements do not "imbalance the body"; this is part of the dogmatic anti-supplement rhetoric that is propagated by those who misinterpret Nature Hygiene. Sure, if you take way too much of an individual nutrient, this can do harm, but taking meaningful amounts of a whole foods supplement like the green powder I speak highly of benefits the body, and helps to supply the body with the resources the body requires for optimal healing and optimal future health.
And since many folks have been helped by having people analyze the status of problematic nutrients like D, B12, and iodine, trying to discredit the use of this useful service does a disservice to those he lectures to. And again, his failing to accept the acknowledged reality of nutritionally sub-par fruits and vegetables should be a red flag to those researching the issues mentioned in this thread. As a health educator, you'd think he'd want to peer-to-peer with me and my colleagues to find out the facts behind people's health improvements when adding a worthwhile nutritional adjunct to their diet, but instead he keeps repeating the anti-supplement dogma while promoting the supervised fasting that he does, while insisting that I am the one who is engaging in marketing tactics. Please.
He goes on to say that, "Natural Hygiene is indeed
completely crystal clear that supplements have NO place in hygiene or
health save the immediate need in a grave situation." A thorough
reading of the tenets of NH and a rational and well reasoned understanding
of them will result in realizing that nowhere does NH say that nutritional
supplements have no place in health... in fact the opposite is true. Please
And he continues..."You can cast dispersions all day long Don; only the ignorant and those who prefer not to truly take responsibility for their health believe your nonsense." If he means "aspersions", I am not trying to cast disparaging remarks, I am merely trying to set the record straight, and provide educational information to counter the inaccurate comments made by Loren. And I'm also attempting to provide explanations as to why someone who knows so much about how to create health would fail to comprehend acknowledged facts about the poor nutritional quality of the foods most people are eating, and the empirical evidence that clearly demonstrates the benefit of certain nutritional supplements as part of the diet.
And to characterize my teachings as "nonsense" should hopefully be seen for what it is, an attempt to "discredit the competition", and not an attempt to inform the conversation. The people who have been helped (resolve serious conditions) by following this kind of "nonsense" would disagree with Loren's choice of words.
And he writes, "And while you push ample nonsense
on your website, the fact is that you actually have precious little experience,
and therefore, no real knowledge of fasting." Please see these two
pages for an explanation, and this should help you, the reader, get a
better understanding of what Loren is about...
And as for casting aspersions, "You are either dishonest or ignorant, but in either case, are in no position of authority around fasting." Again, please refer to the above mentioned two articles, one about fasting.
DON: Loren writes, " Using supplements makes the body LESS ABLE to meet it's needs naturally and this is a terrible result of using supplements." This is simply too laughable a statement to respond to. Anyone with a decent knowledge of nutrition and awareness of the empirical evidence of the efficacy of worthwhile nutritional supplementation in the restoration and maintenance of optimal health will also find this statement a demonstration of either ignorance or of marketing tactics.
And, "Claiming that because we need nutrients using supplements is fine is like suggesting that because we need oxygen needing to get it from a tank is ok. But the fact is that most of us can get our oxygen needs met by breathing air, and one who can't get it naturally this way has a significant issue." To compare our oxygen needs to our nutritional needs is another demonstration of his lack of integrity. This is a spurious comparison, but one that he hopes will resonate with those who are new to all this. But to go with this analogy, what would he say to those in Tokyo who need to wear oxygen masks because the oxygen content of the air is not sufficient? Would he say that using supplemental oxygen is not okay because it's not natural? I'm sure he wouldn't, yet he says that using supplemental nutrients when not enough are being supplied in the foods we eat is "nonsense".
And now for some misleading statements, "And I have
never said that body-initiated fasts don't exist; why don't you copy and
paste my past statements to prove me wrong? Right...you cannot because
it never happened." Let's be accurate; what I wrote above that you
said was, "DON: ...you'll find him stating that there is no such
thing as "body-initiated" and "intentional" fasts".
I did not say that you didn't believe there was such a thing as a body-initiated
fast. It's self-evident that there is such a thing. What you had stated
was that my saying there were TWO types of fasts and that they affected
the body differently was ridiculous and proof that I do not understand
fasting. If that was not clear, I should have worded it differently. The
issue I have with intentional fasts, done when the body is not calling
for a fast, is described in my articles on fasting...
I recall the day when he and I were traveling on a chartered bus together with about 30 people who had attended a conference where I spoke. A women asked him a question about fasting, and then asked me my opinion. When I began describing the difference between an intentional fast and a body-initiated fast, he was clearly angry, and attempted to argue with me (argue, not discuss). This spoke volumes to me about the type of educator that he is.
And his final statement from his first post is, "Most humans are not in acute crises. Rather they are walking around with serious chronic conditions and in a chronic condition there will Not be a body-initiated fast as this is only a response to an acute crisis." Not true. When "polling" people's body's as to whether or not the body wants to not eat for a period of time, some people did not get hungry. These were not people dealing with an acute crisis, these were people who obviously had health issues that the body is no doubt aware of, and the body has been trying to get them to back off of eating, probably for a while. But because the person eats according to schedule or custom, and not due to experiencing true hunger, the person has been eating ahead of any possibility of true hunger and therefore is never aware of the body's desire for them to not eat for a time.
Sure, when running a high fever, if you eat something the body will toss it back up because diverting nerve energy away from the "battle" against the pathogen to use for digestion might result in loss of life, and the body can't simply leave the food in the stomach to rot and become poisonous, so it throws it back out. But in cases of ill-health where the health issue is not life threatening, the body will roll its eyes and digest the food eaten which robs the healing process of much needed nerve energy. So Loren's statement is incorrect, and I would think as a self-identified fasting practitioner, he should be aware of these scenarios.
LOREN: This is clearly pointless as Bennett appears to have no interest in the truth or even reasonable dialogue.
Clearly, someone living somewhere without enough oxygen in the air needs to have oxygen to breathe. My advice to that person would be to do what they need to do to survive in the short run, and then to move to a place with better quality air as soon as possible.
But there are also people -- many of them -- living
close to or even in Don't own trailer park who can't breathe without supplemental
oxygen even though many others are getting their needs met breathing the
same air that doesn't work for those on oxygen tanks.
DON: And Loren stating, "there are also people -- many of them -- living close to or even in Don't own trailer park..." when I've said in dialogs with him that I do not live in a trailer park, goes to show how he continues to do the very thing he accuses me of: distorting the facts.
DON: And if I may comment on Loren's reply to Raini's comment, Loren says, "The simple fact is that most people are Not truly committed to their health and would much rather treat the symptom...and I hope it's clear that this is all supplements can ever do." I hope it's clear from the above back-and-forth that supplying the nutrients the body requires for optimal healing and future health is of paramount importance, and when the fruits and vegetables can't accomplish this because of how they're grown, the prudent use of worthwhile nutritional supplements can help assure the body gets what it needs, and this is NOT merely dealing with symptoms (as pharma meds do) but is addressing the underlying causes of ill-health.
And Loren saying, "Magic bullets have always been popular and always will be because they excuse the individual from doing what they need to do." He is, of course, referring to nutritional supplements. Although I don't consider fasting a magic bullet, instead being a useful tool in some circumstances, the way fasting is promoted by some fasting practitioners is as a magic bullet. And when what a person needs to do to resolve health issues is to ensure they are getting enough of all the nutrients in their diet that the body requires for optimal health, being told that fasting is the answer while pooh-poohing the notion that a raw vegan diet can be nutritionally insufficient, is irresponsible IMO.
LOREN: Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would care what you think given your apparent reluctance to do so. Best of luck to you. As anyone willing to consider this honestly can see that taking supplements is Not dealing with the actually underlying issue and as increasing research will continue to demonstrate the actual harm creates by taking these unnatural substances, I trust that it will become increasingly obvious to anyone who cares what's actually going on here.
DON: I feel it's quite apparent from a thorough reading of this thread who the people are who give serious, independent, logical, and rational thought to these issues, and which people take a rigid, dogmatic, approach to health restoration and maintenance. Since Natural Hygiene has as one of its definitions "the scientific application of the principles of Nature in the preservation and restoration of health", I think it's clear to the readers of this thread which of the people here apply this in their practice, and which people cherry pick those tenets of Natural Hygiene that serve them.
I'm told that you, the reader, shouldn't trust what I have to say about fasting because I've never supervised lots of fasts. But since I do not make my living from supervising fasts, and thus I can't possibly have any financial motivations for what I say about fasting, I might be a more trustworthy source of fasting information than someone who has something to gain from people fasting with him/her, especially when you consider: 1. a researcher needn't fast people to know a lot about fasting, and 2. don't necessarily assume that the self-promotion the medical industry does should be taken with a grain of salt, but the info from all raw food educators are true and correct and in your best interests, and that their glowing testimonials are the whole story. All industries are affected by human nature, both the good and the not-so-good.
Loren also said, "As anyone willing to consider this honestly can see that taking supplements is Not dealing with the actually underlying issue and as increasing research will continue to demonstrate the actual harm creates by taking these unnatural substances, I trust that it will become increasingly obvious to anyone who cares what's actually going on here." I don't agree with the first part; when the underlying cause of ill health for someone eating a raw vegan diet that is technically the healthiest diet *IS* dietary insufficiencies, correcting those insufficiencies obviously addresses the underlying issue. But since some raw food educators refuse to consider that the foods of many people's raw food diet can be nutritionally inadequate, and instead rigidly cite philosophical arguments - sometimes arrogantly or egotistically so - this underscores my advice to take in info as a researcher and not as a student.
But I agree with Loren's second part... I believe that it will become obvious what's going on here to anyone who can look at this thread with no biases.
DON: Loren also said, "While people can believe what they like, the hygienic perspective is very clear: no supplements unless absolutely necessary because supplements imbalance the body, create dependence, and ultimately are being attributed with causing higher rates of disease...It seems to me that the only ethical response from a real hygienic practitioner is to make sure that they understand that supplements are always a Band-Aid which never correct the actual problem and often create more problems."
I've explained above that a rational and critical reading of Natural Hygiene does not say that "nutritional supplements" are bad. Most are worthless, but a select few are helpful, and you can buy them on my website... only kidding; I don't make money from selling supplements like many health practitioners do. Even some popular raw food educators. And they don't cause imbalances (unless you take too much of a standalone nutrient). And no matter how many times I tell Loren that the nutritional supplements I'm referring to are NOT the ones that the mainstream literature contends does damage, he still insists on implying that ALL nutritional supplements cause "high rates of disease"... which is sad because one of the ones I recommend help to resolve disease (and no, not merely the disease's symptoms).
And again, as far as creating dependence, you would be no more dependent on a worthwhile nutritional supplement than you are on the nutrients from food. Which means that any "dependency" is the same dependency you'd have for nutrients in general. So there are dependencies that are natural. How someone doesn't comprehend this is a mystery to me, unless he has a bias for some reason. And these contentions of mine are not "beliefs", they are born out by science and empirical evidence. If anything is a belief, it's that "all supplements are harmful", because that mistaken belief is not supported by science.
Loren also mentioned, "...supplements are always a Band-Aid which never correct the actual problem and often create more problems" If the problem is not enough nutrients in the food of the diet, filling in the nutrients the foods aren't supplying is hardly a "Band-Aid", and it actually addresses the actual problem, and hardly creates more problems. But don't take my word for it, think with your own brain, and not with Loren's.
Loren continues: "What us unethical is pretending that supplements actually fix anything and that taking them is just as good as addressing the underlying issues when this is simply not the case." So says Loren. Sorry, but IMO what is unethical is not dealing with health in a way that squares with reality, and promoting that fasting will address all deficiency issues (assuming the person is eating the diet of our biological adaptation), because I can provide case histories of those who've fasted and were not helped until they dealt with reality, but you won't find these on any website's testimonial page.
DON: Loren wrote, "And he's been holding himself out as an expert for years when in fact he knows almost nothing about fasting....or apparently, natural hygiene, since most of his advice directly flies in the face of what hygiene accepts as being hygienic."
If Loren is saying that I've been holding myself out as
a fasting expert, I certainly have not. I never claimed to be an expert
in fasting. But that doesn't mean I can't know a heck of a lot about fasting
having counseled many people who have fasted, including my four fasts,
and having researched the subject. And it doesn't mean that only exerts
in fasting can write about what they do know about it... I hope. And I
think a reading my two articles on fasting should show that I know something
about the subject of which I comment on...
And it's nice that Loren holds himself out as the gatekeeper
of what Natural Hygiene says, as if it's a closed subject and no one can
have anything to say about it. Sorry Loren, but every facet of health
can be discussed. And again, I think a reading of my page on Natural Hygiene
clearly demonstrates that I do indeed have a handle on what Natural Hygiene
speaks to. And Loren, continually saying that I know almost nothing about
Natural Hygiene when this page clearly shows that I do just discredits
you, not me.
DON: Loren states, "hygiene is very clear that supplements have NO place in a healthy diet and rather than acknowledge the simple fact which any child can see that using them is not correcting the underlying issue he pretends otherwise and is completely disingenuous in doing so." First, I don't think this is an issue best discussed with children (although at times I think I am doing just that), and second, if by disingenuous you mean "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity", I think I'm being very frank and sincere. If there's any hypocrisy going on, it's not from my end.
DON: Loren writes, "...he [Don] pretends expertise he doesn't have and pretends that supplements are somehow addressing the underlying issue, when the simple fact is that they always and only treat the symptoms of a poor diet and/or a poorly-functioning system and create problems in doing so."
If there's any pretending going on, and I think there is, it's not from my end. When teaching people about health restoration it would be nothing less than a despicable act to pretend to know something when you do not. It would be the highest level of self-centeredness to see people as things of revenue generating (even though the person appears to be just the opposite). And it would be one of the worst things a person can do to deceive people when it is their future health at stake. Maybe it's time to make a video showcasing the stories of the examples of such behavior so that you, the reader, don't go down that same path. And I welcome such videos being made about me
DON: Loren goes on to say, "Don lives in his own fantasy world where drinking green juices is still considered a water fast and where all of the history of hygiene showing that fasting eliminates deficiencies is invalid...at least since he started profiting from their promotion."
See, this is where he attempts to twist my words to make it seem like I'm now saying things that are on their face incorrect. I have never said that fasting doesn't help resolve gut malabsorption issues, because it certainly does. What fasting DOESN'T do is resolve dietary-caused nutritional issues, and again, I'm talking about a good diet, not the typical Western diets. But Loren insists that when eating the diet we're biologically adapted to eat, and when we're eating enough of that food, that the foods will supply us with enough of all the nutrients we require for optimal health, and if we're dealing with symptoms of nutrient deficiency, we have but to fast to resolve them. Sorry, but this is observably not true.
Now, you the reader are hearing all this contradictory information, so it is now up to you to do your due diligence to see who has the "higher truth". And again, I would vet not just the info, but the providers of the info.
And wouldn't it be great if all the health educators could be on the same page, but human nature guarantees this won't happen..
DON: Loren says, "hygiene (and Logic!) are clear that addressing the actual cause of the problem is the most effective and beneficial way to deal with any issue." FINALLY, something here in this thread that we can agree on. But it's something that is self-evident... no one in their right mind would argue this point or disagree with it. But saying it doesn't necessarily meant that what comes directly before it or after it is just as true. So dear reader, look past the self-evident stuff and focus on what doesn't make sense in light of what's being discussed here... look at it "all things considered".
DON: Here Loren attempts to explain to you why I did something, "...he's convinced people who were going to fast to use supplements instead. Why? Because he got paid to tell them what they needed."
Well, yes, when counseling with me, if a person is shown to be low in certain nutrients, we can provide a NORMAL amount of them, the amounts that their diet SHOULD be providing, and see how their ill health is affected. If they resolve their condition (and not just the symptoms), and their body is not calling for a fast (they are experiencing real hunger), if they choose to then not fast, I would support their decision. This is the scenario Loren fears, for obvious reasons.
He goes on to say, "Had these folks fasted as intended they certainly would have taken their health to a much higher level and most likely would have never needed supplements...which are now harming them in various ways."
No, the supplements I recommend do not harm people, because the implied oath that I've taken and that Loren possibly hasn't yet is "First, do no harm,". And to say "most likely would have never needed supplements" acknowledges that they might have, and if they did need them because their great raw vegan diet wasn't supplying enough of them, I think it's prudent to deal with that first because that is the more likely scenario rather than they needed to fast to regain lost health. Please understand what fasting provides the body and what consuming the nutrients absent in the diet provide the body. If you had to choose one, I'd choose the latter because there are things I can do to get more nerve energy for healing without resorting to a fast, but when fasting I can't take in any missing nutrition... just the opposite; during fasting you're getting zero nutrition, so if the underlying cause of your health issue was indeed not enough of a certain nutrient(s) in the diet and not a gut malabsorption issue, fasting will make matters worse, not better (ooo someone must be bashing their keyboard right about now).
DON: And Loren says, "And there are many people including those who I love who push supplements but they don't pretend that it's a hygiene upgrade and don't attack me..."
First, I do NOT "push" supplements. People who "push" supplements, sell them. I do not sell them. Second, I am not attacking Loren, I am merely pointing out things that he says that I do not agree with, and if I imply a particular characterization of Loren, it's probably intentional and obviously represents my opinion. But when I share such opinions, it's usually because some ad hominem attacks have been directed my way in an attempt to discredit my character. So fair game at that point. I'm not one to take the "high road" when people's health are at stake.
DON: Loren states categorically, "what he [Don] is saying is completely absurd and completely non-hygienic." Again, you have but to read my treatise on Natural Hygiene to see that it is anything but absurd... http://health101.org/NH
DON: And another attempt by Loren to discredit me which falls flat, "If someone wants to promote supplements, go right ahead. But please stop pretending you don't have a financial interest in promoting supplements if you clearly do."
My "promotion" of the specific supplements I recommend do NOT make me ANY money. Period. I don't sell them, and with the way I DO promote them, most health educators WOULD sell them. Why don't I? So that my recommendations will have the highest degree of credibility because of the fact that I know they are beneficial. Yes, when someone counsels with me for a fee, here I also recommend those same supplements. But for the two out of three problematic nutrients (D and B12) I have DIY articles on my website that allow people to NOT have to counsel with me, financially cutting my own throat so-to-speak. It was only when I couldn't make a DIY article for iodine that I created the Problematic Nutrient Testing & Evaluation counseling, and I'd stack up the results it gets for $300 to the results people get for, what, $9000. So I think my track record re: profiteering speaks for itself. And if we're talking about promoting something where there's a financial interest to do so, let's discuss fasting, shall we.
DON: And he continues, "stop pretending that you are offering people Natural Hygiene. Natural Hygiene couldn't be more clear about supplements being harmful garbage and virtually every hygienic author who's talked about supplements has said the same thing."
Maybe you're putting words in those hygienic authors mouths,
and it would be more intellectually responsible of you to have them read
this thread and then let them speak for themselves. Even Virginia Vetrano
- the mother of Natural Hygiene - now acknowledges the prudent use of
worthwhile nutritional supplements (and I know this because I had a long
talk with her about this, and afterwards she qualified herself on the
subject of nutritional supplementation, saying that it has its place,
and is therefore NOT unhygienic). So, what, would you now say that Virginia
Vetrano misrepresents Natural Hygiene?
DON: And it continues (I'm lucky I have as much energy as I do)... "Bennett would have you believe that he's the only one in touch with reality and that he's a "researcher" while the rest of us are just lowly students of hygiene.
[LAUGHING] This is comical, considering that nowhere do I paint this scenario with a broad brush. Just the opposite. There are many health educators who are in touch with reality, or who want to know more about what reality teaches us about health. They are open-minded and can think rationally because they want the truth and are not interested in marketeering.
Loren goes on, "But I don't think that there's a research lab in Don's trailer so my guess is that he's read the same books as the rest of us."
Again, laughable, thank you Loren. First, what purpose does it serve to mention that I live in a motorhome? Does this impact my ability to think critically and rationally and to seek the truth though the heavens may fall? Maybe I choose to live this way so I can charge as little as possible for the for-a-fee counseling services I offer? No maybes about it. And since I've counseled a good many people over the last 13 years, I've got a boatload of empirical evidence at my disposal, which Loren discounts except when he talks about all the empirical evidence HE has. So, yes, I have read many of the same books, but that was a while ago, and since then I've kept my mind open instead of simply following what those books had to say.
And now the topper, "The difference is that while he's been living a life of obscurity in his trailer until Woodstock made him famous with the 80/10/10 crowd, some of us have been working as hygienists for years, helping thousands of clients recover their health...and almost never requiring supplements to do so."
I love Loren's assessments of my life, as if he is the last word on the subject. And let's mention my life of obscurity to all those I've counseled over the years who were helped by my reality-based outside-the-box research of what it takes to create health in the real world. And maybe we should get on camera those folks who didn't recover their health under the care of certain raw food practitioners, and then let's hear from them how the prudent use of worthwhile nutritional supplements is what allowed them to finally recover their health. Now THAT's a video that needs to be made. Hmmm, maybe a GoFundMe campaign is what is needed here.
DON: And he says, "hygiene isn't broken and most certainly doesn't need Don Bennett to fix it." But maybe the people who are misinterpreting what Natural Hygiene says need to be open-minded enough to listen to what others have to say about it. After all there were many people who helped craft the modern day NH message yet they didn't live as healthy a life as they should have been able to .Did they not follow NH teachings, or did they get some part of it wrong by forming tenets that didn't actually square with Nature all things considered?
DON: And there's this from Loren, "Those of us who actually practice it have thrived for years with no supplements, no grass powders, no green juices; Because none of this unnatural garbage is actually necessary if one simply follows hygiene and gives the body the chance to cleanse and heal and then make optimal choices."
First of all, you can't truly know if you're truly thriving for quite a long time. Not measured in years, but in decades. If you get through life with no serious health challenges and have a great quality of life, then you've thrived. But watching raw food vegans who were doing everything right, and who made wonderful initial improvements to their health, and who had done some long fasts, after six years find their health failing in some respect, and then were helped by the (c'mon, say it with me) prudent use of worthwhile nutritional supplements shows that it can take a long time for health to fail when the body is subjected to dietary nutritional insufficiencies. And the healthiest gut absorption rate in the world will not, ever, compensate for dietary-caused nutritional deficiencies.
And do you know who else is laughing? Those whose health has been helped by what Loren terms "unnatural garbage". I'm sorry if Loren doesn't like the fact that this "unnatural garbage" stands to decrease his income, but he is a health educator and should be glad when people are helped, regardless of who helps them. So he can try and cast aspersions on the worthwhile nutritional supplements that are beneficial, and try and lump them in with the vast majority of truly worthless supplements that fill the shelves of health food stores, but it will fall in deaf ears when some critical thought is given to the issues raised in this thread, and it will serve to help people vet those who dispense health information.
DON: And here's another one, "The rest of you can believe whatever you want, but Don's behavior is makes it very clear to me that he is Not interested in the truth, Not open to learning from those of us with real experience, but only in promoting those things that make him money."
It's funny how this sentiment precisely applies to Loren. I have to wonder it he creates these remarks because he knows that this is very thing that can be said about him, so, what then, by saying it first about me, this will prevent me from ever saying it about him, or if I do, he will simply accuse me of repeating what has already been said about him? Because that won't work, because it is obvious that I am certainly interested in the truth, and that I am absolutely open to learning, as any good researcher should be, and that I obviously do not do what I do to make money. I'm almost sad for Loren, but not quite because his behavior has the potential to affect people's future health, but not in a good way because of his aversion to dealing with reality. And whether he's just dogmatically obstinate or whether he's running his practice as a profits-before-people business, it really frosts my cookies when people are receiving misinformation that can negatively affect their future health regardless of why a health educator is teaching what they are teaching (although the profiteering "health educators" are despicable IMO).
DON: One last one, "our job is to give them
accurate information and to let them make their own choices rather than
to tell them that supplements Are the solution and to lead them away from
giving their body every chance to cleanse and heal itself."
DON: And to the point of his final remark to Raini where he says, "Taking supplements should Only be used when a serious, immediate health challenge is possible because of said deficiency and should be avoided under all other circumstances by anyone truly committed to their health." I would disagree. Anyone truly committed to their health needs to validate all information they receive, and should probably also vet the person supplying the information because a person's motivations and agendas tend to affect their integrity and therefore the veracity of the information they teach.
LOREN: Yes, put it all out there and people will see how you constantly distort things to your own advantage.
Case in point: I didn't say you make your living selling supplements Don. I said you make you living "promoting supplements."
People pay you to analyze their need for supplements and if you told the truth (which I realise you may not be able to do because of sheer ignorance of the fact that supplements are imbalancing and harmful and do Not address the underlying issues) than you would be saying the same thing that we hygienists have always said: Supplements are at best useless most of the time, and at worst, harmful. They should be used only when an extreme urgent need exists and should never be used in place of addressing the underlying issues which prevent one from getting their needs met from real, whole foods...like every other species does.
The fact is that my statements above Are true and your continued insistence to the contrary doesn't make them less so.
Fasting is indeed Not a magic bullet. Every organism is self-cleansing and self-healing and fasting simply allows the body the optimal conditions to cleanse and heal itself. This is why every species fasts intuitively and why fasting enjoys a long tradition as the single most efficacious way to allow the body to bring itself to an amazing level of health...something you clearly know nothing about.
DON: The following is a marketing tactic: Take something a detractor of yours can say about you, and say it about them. As an example, Loren writes, "Yes, put it all out there and people will see how you constantly distort things to your own advantage." I could say the same about Loren, which makes this line of rebuttal meaningless.
He says, "People pay you to analyze their need for supplements and if you told the truth (which I realise you may not be able to do because of sheer ignorance of the fact that supplements are imbalancing and harmful and do Not address the underlying issues)...". Yes, people pay to have their level of problematic nutrients tested, and any deficiencies corrected, and since this had been shown to be a good investment in their future health, it appears to be a worthwhile thing to do. But as to the nutritional supplement I promote, my point was that I make zero money from the promotion of this supplement, and my promotion of it is independent of my for-a-fee practice, so what is my motivation for promoting this supplement as I do? Many people embrace the supplement without counseling with me, and the feedback is positive, so how am I making money from it's promotion?
And I've commented above about how the worthwhile nutritional supplements do not imbalance the body as Loren maintains they do. So continuing to say that they do merely demonstrates Loren's ignorance of the facts and his dogmatic adherence to a misinterpretation of what Natural Hygiene actually says.
LOREN: Treating symptoms is Not helping people become healthier. The fact that the deficiency is Not the problem but rather a symptom of a problem is obvious and self-evident to those of us who don't profit from the promotion of supplements.
I provide a ton of free information about actual results with thousands of clients over more than 20 years of practice and guarantee my clients their highest level of health and supplements are Never part of the formula unless there's an immediate and dire need.
Yes, of course deficiencies are a real problem and I've never suggested otherwise Don. Once again you are being incredibly disingenuous here.
But the fact is that deficiencies can only stem from a poor diet or a poorly-functioning system.
Correct the deficient diet and/or the problems of a poorly-functioning body and there is no need for supplements. And given that they are Unnatural and increasingly proven harmful to us, they should be avoided at all costs whenever possible.
If you really wanted to help people you might be directing them to deal with the actual underlying issue, not the deficiency which arises as a symptom of that issue.
And if someone wants a well-reasoned thorough understanding of hygiene and an balanced view on supplements, they certainly aren't going to get it by going to your own page since you make your living by promoting supplement use.
As a health educator I am interested in those things that actually help people optimize their health.
Suupplements ain't one of them.
As for learning from your experience, your experience is exceptionally limited and completely biased by your beliefs and complete lack of understanding of the tenets of hygiene.
I've got better things to do than to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
LOREN: Of course. Read more of Don's' nonsense. There's lots of it!
DON: And Loren continues, "But the fact is that deficiencies can only stem from a poor diet or a poorly-functioning system. Correct the deficient diet and/or the problems of a poorly-functioning body and there is no need for supplements." Here he states both correct information and incorrect information. I'll start with the correct information: "deficiencies can only stem from a poor diet or a poorly-functioning system" Yes, Thank you. Now we appear to be getting somewhere, but not really. I realize that when he is referring to a "poor diet" he is referring to the typical Western diet or its counterparts, and that he feels that a raw food vegan diet will supply enough of all the nutrients the body requires for optimal health, but here he is incorrect. I include ANY diet in the category of diets that do NOT supply ENOUGH of ALL the nutrients the body requires for optimal future health. It has CLEARLY been shown that, for many people, a diet of fruits and vegetables do not supply "enough of all".
He goes on to say, "Correct the deficient diet...and there is no need for supplements." This is where his advice falls apart and is misleading, because a valid way of correcting a diet that is failing to supply "enough of all" is to make part of that diet something that will be a nutritional complement to the diet; in the case of a raw food diet, something that will help compensate for the nutritionally sub-par fruit and greens most people are eating. So even though he is not referring to the raw food diet when he talks about correcting a deficient diet, he is correct that correcting for dietary deficiencies will help the body thrive. Now, if he could just educate himself enough, he'd come to understand that, yes, food/diet matters, but nutrition matters too. But this education should include peer-to-peering with those who have a track record of helping people help their body heal with a nutritionally sufficient diet... and BTW, many people have benefited from this information that I teach without having to pay me anything.
FROM A READER OF THIS THREAD: Loren Lockman you are absolutely correct, if poor quality food is the cause of various nutrient deficiencies, why not send people directly to high quality food? :) (Don, any simple answer to this? Why choose supplements over nutritious fruit? Personally, I only eat what appeals to my senses. Supplements never do, they seem just as delicious as any other non-edible object. Well, I must admit that poor quality fruit doesn't appeal to me either -- a clean body really does distinguish between "an empty apple" and "a rich apple". Which is why I agree with Loren that the very first step has to be getting the body clean. Incidentally, fasting appears to do that wonderfully.)
DON: [to the above reader of the thread] Let's do a hypothetical: Suppose that the foods of your raw food diet were grown in such a way so they did NOT supply enough of all the nutrients your body requires for optimal health, and that your gut's absorption ability was at 100%, and that you did not have the ability to obtain more nutritious food. What would you do? Would you simply say, "Well, I guess I'm doing the best I can, so if less-than-optimal health is the result, I'll just have to live with it"? Or would you apply the ethos of science - open questioning, no authorities, no biases or personal preferences, honesty, transparency, and reliance on evidence - to the issue to see if perhaps there was worthwhile nutritional adjuncts to the diet so that you could add something to, say, your banana smoothies, to help ensure that your body was getting enough of all the nutrients it required for optimal future health?
If someone wants to resonate with the popular but untrue meme: "if you're eating a raw fruit and greens diet, you needn't be concerned about nutrition", well, I guess this is an individual's right, but when a health educator - who should know better - misrepresents the issue, this is when I need to weigh in because of my experience, which includes boatloads of empirical evidence. And this is because a health educator who disseminates erroneous information has the potential to negatively affect many people's health. And when a so-called health educator refuses to peer-to-peer and refuses to look into and correct any incorrect information that they are made aware of, this is either because of arrogance/egotism and/or running their practice as a profits-before-people business instead of a people-before-profits business. Yes, I said it, because it needs to be said. But to be fair, there are people in this thread who accuse ME of being a huckster. So then it comes down to you, the reader, to be a researcher (not a student) and vet both the information and the supplier of the information.
DON: [again, to the above reader of the thread]
You mentioned, "Can we at least agree that calling supplements NATURAL
Hygiene is musically unsound?" I would kindly ask that you read the
interpretation of Natural Hygiene on the following page, and tell me where
it says that Natural Hygiene precludes the use of the prudent use of a
worthwhile nutritional supplement in helping to provide enough of all
the nutrients the body requires for optimal health. I'd contend that NH
says quite the opposite, that it says that we must provide enough of all
these nutrients. Remember that NH is the scientific application of the
principles of Nature in the preservation and restoration of health. When
we apply the ethos of science to the issue of getting enough nutrients
from our diet, it becomes clear what NH does say. I'd welcome Anca's thoughts
on what this page says, and if he feels that I misrepresent NH...
LOREN: Are you on crack Don? She should read Your page to get an unbiased view of what hygiene is? Oh ok Don. Thanks for the great advice. Clearly if it's on your page, it must be the truth.
DON: I merely asked if she would read my treatise on Natural Hygiene and tell me what she thought of it, and of how I might be misrepresenting NH. This is part of something called "open, honest dialog", something you don't seem willing to participate in because of the potential to decrease your earnings IMO. Or maybe you're just that dogmatic and unteachable; two traits not good for a health educator.
LOREN: yes but neither I nor perhaps anyone with a working brain cares about your opinions.
I am always willing to participate in open, honest dialogue -- something you clearly wouldn't recognize if you tripped over it.
Unlike you, I do not need to lie and misrepresent in order to help people. I've got real experience with fasting and hygiene and stay almost completely full here all the time. I could build more rooms, but don't want to take on more clients. I stay busy coaching all the people I could possibly want .
When did sticking with what works and rejecting nonsense become dogmatic?
Unlike you, I have decades of experience actually helping people and know for a fact that hygiene isn't broken and doesn't need you to revise it. And what you teach is most definitely Not hygiene. Supplements aren't hygiene, grass powders aren't hygiene, green juices aren't hygiene, and fasting while drinking green juices isn't even fasting...let alone hygiene.
DON: Loren's ad hominem attacks continues, "yes but neither I nor perhaps anyone with a working brain cares about your opinions" I've been told, by people who are capable of thinking for themselves, rationally and with good judgment uncolored by biases that my opinions are very valuable, and that thank me for taking the time to participate here. Most are reluctant to post their support here for fear of being bashed by certain people in this thread, and I understand their reluctance. And anyway, my writings, anyone's writings, should be vetted on their merits and not by testimonials.
Loren now employs the marketing and political tactic of saying something about his opponent/competitor that can be said about him, implying that this is true of the other person, and by inference, not true of him, "I am always willing to participate in open, honest dialogue -- something you clearly wouldn't recognize if you tripped over it."
He continues, "Unlike you, I do not need to lie and misrepresent in order to help people." Simply saying something doesn't make it true. But Loren obviously likes the tactics of Joseph Goebbels who said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Now for some marketing from Loren who maintains that this is what I do, "I've got real experience with fasting and hygiene and stay almost completely full here all the time." So folks, better make your reservations soon before he's full-up! The fact that you get people to counsel with you is not necessarily an indication of positive outcomes. Maybe I'll make a video of "fasting fails" being sure to include the negative testimonials that - for some odd reason - do not appear on your facility's website. [Is this considered hitting below the belt? Well, not according to those folks who are tired of Loren's attempts to discredit those educators who call him on his attempts to silence those who stand to impact his income. Keep reading his comments here, and you'll see what I mean.]
FROM ANOTHER READER OF THIS THREAD: Loren, Don Bennett has plenty of experience with (and knowledge of) fasting and even has a YouTube video about a 24-day fast that he did this summer. He is being practical in acknowledging that certain people may be suffering from deficiencies and that in many cases, the only practical way for them to solve those deficiencies is through supplementation, but the amount of supplements he recommends is almost trivial compared with what pretty much any naturopath or other natural health practitioner would recommend. He advises people to get on a clean, healthy diet that provides the maximal possible nutrition. Getting 100% of one's nutritional needs met by food may be idealistic for many people, who may not have the time, money, or inclination to do a long fast to reset their body.
A THREAD READER POSTED: "maybe Don doesn't always do as much as he should to remind people that going the supplement route is NOT optimal and should be viewed as only a temporary fix.....and in one particular instance, with respect to iodine, Don may have been too willing to embrace a questionable and unnatural supplement when an iodine deficiency could be more easily and naturally resolved by consuming a small amount of seaweed."
DON: I don't view the use of nutritional supplements to the diet to be a temporary fix in all cases. Where the diet is not providing enough of all the nutrients the person's body requires for optimal future health, I consider the use of worthwhile nutritional supplements simply part of a diet that consists of nutritionally sub-par fruit (and greens for those who eat them).
And I don't recommend something unless I've vetted it thoroughly. This is because I'm not teaching pottery or something else where a "fail" is really no big deal; I'm teaching things that affect people's most valuable commodity - their health, and I take that quite seriously. And just because there are accounts of "iodine fails" and practitioners who warn against the use of iodine doesn't not make its use "questionable". I don't consider a diet devoid of animal products to be questionable, but there are those who do. But because they do, it doesn't necessarily make the vegan diet questionable (unless you consider "questionable" to mean "ask questions about it", which I always encourage). And in the experience of iodine literate practitioners such as myself, we do not see vegans having sufficient iodine status' from the consumption of dried seaweeds, and there are hard-science reasons for this that I've covered in my iodine articles. Those non-vegans eating a goodly amount of fresh seafood do have better iodine status' than vegans (but still do not have whole body tissue saturation of iodine, which is needed for proper functioning of all glands and organs that secrete anything, which are most of them). So a thorough vetting of the iodine issue should include articles from both sides of the debate.
So I would encourage those who would read a few things online, or who have a philosophical bias against taking nutritional supplements to read my articles that make the case for doing so, especially for the three most "problematic" nutrients, D, B12, and iodine.
A THREAD READER POSTED: "Loren, maybe he [Don] did not realize the extent to which someone's nutritional "needs" and "deficiencies" can actually *CHANGE* as a result of a fast, for a variety of reasons, such as 1) the body becoming more efficient and no longer needing as much of that nutrient, 2) the body becoming better able to recycle nutrients, 3) the body becoming better able to synthesize its own nutrients internally from other nutrients (which the liver can do to a certain extent if it's not too overburdened with toxicity), and 4) the body becoming better able to absorb the required nutrients from food after a fast."
DON: I am indeed aware of these issues, and have never disagreed with them. What I disagree with are those educators who maintain that these are the ONLY reasons for nutrient deficiencies when eating a raw vegan diet containing a variety of foods and eating enough of them. i.e. that this diet is perfectly capable of providing enough of all the nutrients the body requires for optimal health, and no dietary supplementation is required. I'll simply say that my research disputes these claims. And I'll also point out the most outspoken critics of my views on the role of fasting and the role that worthwhile nutritional supplements can play are fasting practitioners (and since I'm not recommending the worthless supplements, we needn't mention all the health practitioners who are against those, because I am one of them).
And since the prudent adoption of worthwhile nutritional supplements to a raw vegan diet have been shown to be beneficial even to those who've fasted multiple times who then supposedly had good gut absorption I can see why fasting practitioners might be against this issue since it stands to negatively affect their profits. And if someone buys their contentions that the only reason they are against supplements is because it is unhygienic, they need to get a through understanding of just what the body's requirements are. A dogmatic, philosophical aversion to something that has the potential to be of actual benefit by those self-identifying as health educators does a disservice to the health-seeking public.
A THREAD READER POSTED: "I think it is worth noting that the body becomes a lot more efficient as it becomes cleaner, and therefore it may not need quite as many nutrients and may be better able to recycle nutrients. When the body is burdened with excess toxicity, it has a "need" for more nutrients in order to process the toxicity or to push itself forward despite the toxicity."
DON: It is true that the healthier one becomes, the less nutrients they require because of improved gut absorption and the cessation of heavy-duty healing (and hopefully the reduction of stress). But even in this condition, the body still has nutritional needs for the essential nutrients, and if these are not met, health will (not may) decline over time in some form or fashion.
So all I am saying is that if someone's raw vegan diet (the best one) is not providing ENOUGH of ALL of these essential nutrients, Natural Hygiene says the person must get them (assuming they really want optimal future health). If the person can't relocate to a tropical environment for better quality food, do they just cross their fingers and hope? Or do they adhere to the notion of "do the best you can do". And if "the best" means having to resort to worthwhile nutritional supplements to make up for dietary shortfalls, why WOULDN'T someone consider this? (this is a rhetorical question). And BTW, even people living in tropical climates eating tropical foods have come up short in D, B12, and iodine... the three "problematic" nutrients. Now, with D there's no need for these folks to resort to supplementation, but for B12 and iodine, there can be.
So I think it should be obvious by now from a reading of this entire thread (if you're a researcher), that I take a prudent approach to supplementation, and am NOT recommending worthless/burdensome supplements, and AM recommending taking a reality-based approach to health, and am also recommending vetting all purveyors of health education and not just their information.
As I repeatedly say, following everything a health educator teaches when 85% of it is spot-on accurate and 15% of it is inaccurate will (not may) prevent a person from thriving and having optimal future health. And since this correct/incorrect information imbalance applies even to some raw food health educators - even some of the most popular ones not mentioned here - it would be prudent to take in information as a researcher and not as a student applying the ethos of science at all times: open questioning, no authorities, no biases or personal preferences, honesty, transparency, and reliance on evidence. This can make the world a better place by burying myth and dogma and by looking at things from the perspective of reality (the body, the soil, the environment). And the requisites for this inquiry are respect for rational and honest discussion, the ability to change your mind when the evidence merits it, an intolerance of distortion and misrepresentation, and above all, a skeptical interrogation of accepted notions.
A THREAD READER POSTED: You mentioned, "when
we are talking about "deficiencies", we need to consider 3 things:
DON: While the "fasting connection" is a valid one, looking at the "deficiencies" issue on balance, all things considered, would require a thorough look at the nutritional quality of the foods that comprise even the best raw vegan diet, with equal attention to the non-food provided nutrients as well. In-other-words, a balanced, reality-based approach. And this is what I attempt to do. I wish I could say the same for all health educators, especially the ones who SAY they do this but in reality do not.
A THREAD READER POSTED: "The only possible options I know of are 1) tanning salon machines that give off UV light, 2) supplementing Vitamin D, 3) eating a lot of a certain type of mushroom that has it, or 4) eating animal products that have it, such as liver, eggs, or cod liver oil? I'm guessing that you would pick the artificial UV light as being the closest thing to a natural source of Vitamin D?"
DON; For a proper D level no one needs eat animal. Yes, there are animal derived D3 supplements, but there may be a vegan D3 supplement as well, but a supplement is not my #1 option (after sunshine). A home phototherapy device is my #1 option (not tanning salons for reasons mentioned in my vitamin D article). Yes, this device is not cheap, but how much is optimal future health worth? And remember, one of the least known roles of sunshine is shining through the skin to help "disinfect" both blood and lymph fluids, and we can't get that from a supplement.
And a piece of advice was given by Loren to you for how
to get D in NY in the winter: "If you are willing to, you can find
or create a place where you can take off your shirt even on cold, sunny
winter days". This is not good advice for making D because it has
been shown that on such a day the sun is shining through too much atmosphere
because of its "low" angle to make any meaningful amounts of
D in your skin even at 12 noon on a cloudless day for people living in
NY, especially if they are below optimal in D (which is why I am big on
D testing). This time of year is known as your "vitamin D winter",
and it obviously varies by location, and by skin tone, amount of skin
exposure, and even YOUR angle to the sun (vertical vs horizontal). More
in my D article...
A READER OF THIS THREAD WROTE...
Don, as you know some people have their "beliefs" and are stuck there. They can't or won't develop any further. Those of us who aren't afraid to venture out for the answers have a more expansive way at looking at health and the world in general. I have corresponded with a few people that consider themselves natural hygienist, in depth. They have some good ideas, but it is very tunneled vision and limited. They are lacking an expansive vision of the human body and how it works. First of all, a good student of this work, will always keep an opened mind. ... Don, I have learned a lot from you and, yes, it should be quite obvious to anyone who has worked with you, that you do what you do for every other reason besides money. Another thing I wanted to point out was that Loren told me that I couldn't take ANY meds while at his place. This is a dangerous thing to tell people. How do I know? Cause, like a fool, I stopped my thyroid meds cold turkey. Very bad and stupid. I started having thousands of heart palpitation everyday. Not fun. It took me months to get it right. Very bad advice. ... Don, thank you for all you do and for making the many videos that are helping to educate people and give them some clarity to this very expansive subject.
DON: Thanks for the feedback and your comments. I agree that the first requisite especially for a health educator is having an open mind. Natural Hygiene is not a set of hard-and-fast rules but rather a way of looking at health with an eye towards the best health a person's DNA will allow. And an equally important requisite for a health educator is to not have an arrogant nature and a huge ego because these can color their judgment. And since their judgment affects what they teach, and since what they teach has the potential to affect people's health, a health educator is one of the top three professions that should not have any arrogant, self-serving, egotistical people in it (the other two are police officer and judge). And last and MOST important, a health educator should abide by the first tenet of the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm". So it is for all these reasons that I spend the copious amounts of time on threads like these, even if only a handful of people are reading them. If my comments help prevent even just one person from having their future health negatively affected by any of the erroneous statements mentioned here, it was worth it.
Lockman can appear to be very charming and knowledgeable, but when faced with "hard" questions from fasters that call into question something he said, he can exhibit a change in personality that is disturbing to those in attendance. And it's not good when you can't trust the info taught by a health educator who has your health in his hands as is the case when you go for an extended supervised water-only fast. And you won't read about the "fails" on the fasting center's website's testimonials page.
SPEAKING OF "FAILS"
While this would qualify as hearsay evidence, the following is from a reliable source...
"People have died under his care. The way he dealt with the last incident is outrageous. I heard the detailed account from someone who was there. ... Several of the fasters who were there held meetings in secret and they concluded that he is a sociopath. ... [When doing extended fasting] without blood tests, how would one know the difference between severe detoxification symptoms or severely depleted electrolytes. Both can produce vomiting and nausea. ... severely depleted electrolytes can produce severe mental imbalance or even temporary insanity. It seems that the last death at Loren's place well it wasn't at his place, he took the guy to a hotel to get rid of him was the result of this."
For a personal account from somone who fasted with Loren, watch this Youtube video.
And then there's this from October 19th 2019...
"Another person just died at his place. John was there and saw it with his eyes and had a bad experience with Loren."
The following was posted on a Facebook thread.
DON: Since Lockman has invoked me by name, I'll offer this piece of evidence that he is not an "honest actor" IMO. Remember, he is an educator, not a layperson who can easily be excused if they have inaccurate info. He should know better, but he, like other educators, persists in disseminating info known to be inaccurate, but in his case it's not due to adherence to a philosophy, but to drive business to his fasting retreat. The link to our public conversation where any person capable of critical thinking can see his agenda clearly, is below. But here are the inaccurate pieces of info he spouted above...
False. And it has been proven false. I've gone into detail as to why above.
No, not everyone and not all times of the year. Yes, when we lived in our biological "eco-niche" which was in an equatorial region, but not where many people live today. This is not my opinion, this is fact.
This is not new information, but he fails to mention why some people can and some people can't make enough themselves. One reason is the consumption of things that prevent it from being made, and the other is the person not consuming enough cobalt. And if there's not enough cobalt in the soil, you will NOT be making your own B12. Fact, not conjecture.
False. First, if someone is dealing with an iodine deficiency, they will (not may) need more than just trace amounts to correct that very unnatural condition, and they will not find those amounts in ANY food. Second, a person's "need" can be more than it was 100,000 years ago, so even normal trace amounts aren't going to be enough for some people. Third, we don't get "high quality" fruit from agri-industry, so that fruit will not supply people with enough iodine; fact not conjecture. I have bet Loren that his statement is false, but no taking me up on that. Lockman wants to cite animals where some deficiencies were found, I'll cite raw vegans where deficiencies were found. Same lab work, but since these realities get in the way of what Lockman teaches, my category of iodine deficiencies are bogus, but his animal cite is fine.
False. Read the link below. This is like the pot calling the kettle black.
I love it when these kinds of tricks are used by people who themselves are crooked in some peoples opinion. Citing other people as being crooked when the person making the accusation is themselves crooked is one of the oldest tricks in the book. But you form your own opinion of who you think is crooked. Heck, it may be me after all, and Lockman is a saint. Read the link below and decide for yourself.
http://health101.org/interactions_Loren_L [this page]
Lockman responds to my above post...
That page is a compilation of dialog between Lockman and myself, with a few comments about Lockman made by other people. So, no taking shit from me about Lockman, just our conversation so people can decide for themselves who is and who isn't the honest actor.
No, Ive counseled many people who failed to thrive on just a fruit and greens diet, contrary to what Lockman contends, and many were not helped by fasting BTW, and this was because their diet was nutritionally insufficient. And, yes, my health benefited too from complementing my diet with the nutritional supplements I recommend.
What's idiotic is comparing the food that humans are eating today to the food that animals in the wild are eating. This by itself should discredit Lockman because anyone who can think rationally understands how there can be a nutritional difference between foods grown by Nature and foods grown by a for-profit industry.
People who live too far from the equator dont have to travel during their vitamin D winter to get strong enough sunshine to get all the sunshine-provided nutrients, they can use a phototherapy device (I dont sell them, but I promote them at http://health101.org/d ). Does Lockman discuss phototherapy devices as a source of D+? No.
An example of a miseducated
educator. If youre not getting enough cobalt from your diet, you
will NOT be able to make enough B12. Not my opinion. Try science.
No, it isnt toxic. If it was, many thousands of people would have been hospitalized or have died from the iodine level restoration protocol I and other iodine-literate practitioners recommend, but instead their health has been helped by it, even women resolving fibrocystic breast tissue and breast cancer to name two issues. So dont allow Lockman to use scare tactics to dissuade you from doing things that improve your health so that you dont need to fast at a fasting center.
False. If the foods youre eating dont contain enough or any iodine, when iodine is an essential nutrient, it sounds like it means that you wont get enough. And I already addressed the enough issue above in detail, which Lockman doesnt respond to.
Again, another statement that is ridiculous on its face... we do not get our food from where the animals who live in the wild get their food from. Two different categories of nutritional quality.
The fruit and greens sold in stores that raw vegans eat are defined as industrialized food... they are grown by an industry... a for-profit industry.
OMG, talk about projection! A cursory look at all the free information on my website thats been up for 20+ years, and the realization that up until I started offering counseling for iodine assessment and correction, everything I did was free (just offered rebounders for sale), while Lockman uses scare tactics and misinformation to steer people to his fasting center, and this should speak volumes about this issue. Nice try though, Lockman; I chuckle every time he trots that one out.
Another piece of evidence that Lockmans advice should be avoided. There is plenty of empirical evidence that the dried grass juice powder I recommend has helped lots of people resolve issues of ill health, and there are hard science reasons why. Im guessing the reason Lockman doesnt recommend it is because it would help people resolve ill health issues and that would hurt his fasting center income... which has already happened BTW.
He says it again! Even though it still doesnt make any sense. Maybe he thinks that by saying it over and over and over again people will start to believe it. It doesnt matter how many times a person says something thats inaccurate, it doesnt make it accurate. Again, there is marked difference between the nutritional quality of food that animals in the wild get to partake of, and the foods we humans buy in the store that is grown by agri-industry. But dont rely on common sense to figure out if this is true, research the nutritional assays.
Actually, to be able to thrive on a diet of fruit and some greens grown by agri-industry, people will require some nutritional assistance. I dont like it any more than anyone else does, but I deal with reality, because thats where my body exists. And by peddles is Lockman implying that I sell these supplements? Sounds like it. But I dont, and he knows that. But instead of using accurate wording like, the garbage that Don recommends or the garbage that Don promotes he uses the word "peddles", which equates to "sells". A poorly chosen word, or a word chosen on purpose?
Finally, something Lockman and I agree on (but not really). Yes, as Lockman admits, deficiencies can be caused by dietary insufficiencies, but his definition of this is the typical Western diet; my definition of this is any diet that doesnt provide the person with enough of all (the nutrients the body requires for optimal functioning). And I agree that the underlying cause of dietary insufficiencies need to be addressed in order to have optimal health. Lockman believes this is accomplished through fasting to cleanse the body and improve efficiency, and then the foods you buy from agri-industry will provide enough of all, I take a different approach: Yes, get out of the bodys way so it can cleanse (you dont necessarily need to fast to do this), and eat the diet youre designed to eat, and get enough of the nutrients youre designed to require, and sadly today, this may require a nutritional complement to the diet (which I do not sell).
Wow! He goes for it again! To be clear, if we eat our optimal diet, but the foods of that diet are not grown optimally so they dont provide us with enough of all, then to have optimal health, we need to compensate for the nutritionally sub-par foods we are eating. Do this, give it some time, and you probably wont have to go to a fasting center to fast. Lockman would of course disagree.
Others refer to me as thorough because I take the time to explain, in detail, the things that support my contentions. And to see what some people have known about Lockman, check out the very long public conversations between Lockman and myself [this page].
"many of us are indeed thriving by only eating, real whole foods" This has not been my experience with the raw vegans I've known and counseled... lots of vegans and raw vegans. There is a difference between thriving and surviving, even if surviving better than many of the gen pop. And technically, you won't know if you were thriving for a very long time. Those who say they are thriving after consuming a raw vegan diet for a few years do not understand the definition of thriving.
He is a riot... a load of laughs. Anyone who can think independently with rational, critical thinking skills can read through those discussions and clearly see that it is Lockman who can't intelligently address the topic at hand, and instead resorts to personal attacks. This is again projection on the part of Lockman... accuse the other person of what he himself does.
Here Lockman attempts to paint himself as an altruistic, caring person, but a thorough reading of our conversation and the comments by people who have interacted with Lockman paints a very different picture. But judge for yourself.
Please, we have a dependence on a number of things: sunshine, hydration, oxygen, carbs, and nutrients... and we require enough of each for optimal health. And for someone to label a beneficial nutritional dietary adjunct as "health-wrecking" when there is zero evidence to support the accusation, and plenty of empirical evidence to support the contrary, demonstrates the person's irresponsibility and calls into question their credibility, and in the case of Lockman, his honesty.
I am the first to
say that 95% of the supplements sold are worthless, but to lump ALL nutritional
supplements into the same category is irresponsible. To imply that they
all increase rates of disease violates the oath that all health educators
are supposed to adhere to: First, do no harm. But obviously Lockman doesn't
care about this oath.
again, Lockman employs the tactic of accusing the person he is trying
to discredit of the very things that he himself is guilty of. So when
he says, "say whatever you want; I feel sorry for anyone dumb enough
to believe you" this is precisely what can be said about Lockman
(although I wouldn't phrase it that way). So I feel bad for anyone who
buys into Lockman's con artist tactics, and this is not just me simply
accusing someone of using these tactics; all anyone has to do to see them
for themselves is to read the rather lengthy discussion Lockman and I
have had previously [this page], and be on the lookout for them in both
his and my comments.
says, "ALL SUPPLEMENTS ARE garbage. And Natural Hygiene is completely
clear about this." No, not "all", just "most".
And no, Natural Hygiene actually is okay with some supplements (the worthwhile
ones that are beneficial, not the worthless ones). And you can read about
why that is here...
And Lockman continues his laughable attempts to smear me. I love this one, "But your unbelievable arrogance and true stupidity insist that only you know...meanwhile many laugh at you behind your back and many others thrive eating only food. Grown on high quality soil." Is Lockman attempting to suggest that agri-industry soil is "high quality soil"? Now THAT's laughable. He knows that the nutritional quality of food can be assayed, and that even the USDA shows that nutritional quality of today's food is even worse than it was just 15 years ago.
And I love this one: "Why don't you tell everyone why you're no longer on the hygiene pages, Don? The groups you were tossed out of for pushing non-hygienic garbage and personally attacking those more -- much more -- intelligent than you." The classic Natural Hygiene sites say "All supplements are bad". THAT is why they don't tolerate the facts I provide that counter this outdated tenet of Natural Hygiene. And I've been booted from 80-10-10 groups that hold that same position, but not all 80-10-10 groups (some are admin'd by open-minded people who want to know the truth, so they don't automatically delete people who have contrary viewpoints).
Mariah, I was fine with your last comment being the "last word" in this, your thread, so I didn't comment. But since Lockman replied, I'll make this my final reply.
I think it's fair to say that his name calling demonstrates that I've hit a nerve with my truth-telling. And there is no "rapid deterioration", this is just an attempt to discredit what I teach. And of course I don't think I know everything, and in none of my comments made to Lockman do I give that impression. No one health educator has all the answers, myself included, but all the answers we do have should be accurate, and when they are not, this should be called out, and this is something I'm keen on doing, and Lockman is the poster boy for misinformation.
And he is being disingenuous with his broad-brush accusation that supplements imbalance the body thus being a cause of disease when the few, worthwhile supplements I recommend do the opposite.
And his lie that "He's not stupid-enough to think this crap is actually useful and clearly not honest enough to admit that he's being compensated to push it on people" is the typical rhetoric of the con-artist. I'll pay anyone $1000, including Lockman, if it can be shown that I am being compensated for recommending the supplements I recommend. And Lockman knows I'm not, but saying that I am makes me look bad, which is his goal, so that's why he says it.
He is clearly threatened by what I teach, and that's understandable. Maybe the publication of the actual negative consequences of Lockman's so-called "amazing results" is what the community needs to see, so they can see him for who he truly is. But I agree with Lockman when he says, "do what actually works", it's just sad that he uses these obvious maxims of health to fool people into believing that it is he who has the answers, and those who do offer truly helpful information that have helped people avoid charlatans are the ones to avoid because those people would have to be "dumb" to listen to people like me; another tactic from a sales person's bag of tricks.
Once again, to see his other tactics, you have but to read the lengthy public conversation between Lockman and myself, and judge for yourself... http://health101.org/interactions_Loren_L
Best wishes, and I'm always happy to chat with you, Mariah.
I won't dignify Lockman's BS with a response except to say that when he says, "I do not lie. I have no reason to", that this is hilarious! He certainly has a reason to... money. And saying something like this is exactly what a BS artist would say. But you don't have to take my word for it; again, to see through his BS, all anyone has to do is to read our entire conversation [this page] and you will see him for the disingenuous salesman that he is. And remember, even those educators who run profits-before-people businesses like Lockman can teach a lot of accurate, spot-on info. It is the inaccurate info that has the potential to harm people.