nora lenz on mensturation


The medical profession has a habit of making its detractors suffer dearly. So we can't tell you to get doctors out of your life. But I can tell you that there is a way to become so secure and comfortable in your knowledge of how your body works that you won't be frightened into visiting a doctor every time you notice a change in it. That should be your goal. I can help direct you to some resources, if you're interested.

I stopped menstruating 4 years after I went raw, but I was 48 at the time and it may have stopped even if I hadn't gone raw. The interesting thing is that I was monitoring my basal temps at that time and even when I had no period, my temperature continued to spike at the normal time of ovulation. So, I assumed I was still ovulating. Also, I had no "menopause" symptoms.

The hygiene literature is full of examples of women whose monthly bleeding stopped after they cleaned up their diets (including many who became pregnant while not menstruating). The way I've heard it explained is that the capillaries are better able to re-absorb the blood and other fluids that have been used to prepare for potential pregnancy, plus less of these are produced in a healthy female body. The medical profession is simply wrong about monthly bloodloss being "normal". It is experienced by most women in modern civilization, but it is NOT normal. It is pathogenic. That is, arising from disease and its precursor, toxemia. That its disappearance sometimes accompanies disease in SAD-eating women does not mean that disease is always present when it goes away. This is a crazy assumption. That's like assuming that weight loss always means disease. Weight loss sometimes happens as a result of disease. But it's a sign of returning health and vitality as well. The same goes for menstruation. It all depends on how the woman is eating and living. To assume that disease happens when a woman cleans up her diet is to assume that nothing in our world is scientific or predictable. The medical profession makes these kinds of assumptions all the time, and that's how we know that medicine is NOT SCIENCE. Disease has a cause. When you take the cause away, it cannot happen.

It is common for raw fooders to submit to 'routine' blood tests after they've been raw for awhile, to "prove" to themselves and others that they're doing just fine. The problem is, there is no reliable standard by which to judge the results, except (as rawgasm says) that which is derived from sick people. So they leave themselves vulnerable to scare tactics used by doctors to get them to submit to "treatment" for whatever "problem" is found. Wouldn't you expect people who eat according to doctors' recommendations (basic 4 food groups) to have lots of indigestible substances, including perhaps the proteins your doctor says you're "deficient" in, floating around in their blood? Do you really think the absence of these in *your* bloodstream is cause for alarm? If you do, then you'll have to eat steak for dinner tonight. If not, you'll have to face the fact that your doctor is incorrect in her assessments. You can’t have it both ways. Sitting on the fence is the most dangerous thing health-seekers can do, imo.

As I mentioned, there are lots of us willing to help you get properly educated, all you have to do is ask.

Best wishes,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Older Posts