Turning On and Tuning In to Healing Information

I guess I should be honored to have someone tweet that I’ve kicked up the ‘woo’ factor a notch in organizing the first Genome Healing Workshop in the United States (June 11-18). Yet, given our current addiction to virtually all things metabolic it should also be no surprise, especially when critics rely only on what they themselves have spent the time to research, which is often little or nothing.

That said, we’ll simply have to risk or endure some ridicule or criticism if we’re going to change our state of affairs. Given our predominant beliefs, the Genome Healing Method, along with the other protocols proffered by our Russian friends, Grigori Grabovoi and Arcady Petrov, are a clear departure from current conventions of thinking, and may sound “woo woo” indeed. That is, until the truth becomes self-evident.

This is where results weigh in, if one is willing to use their own judgment and not wait for an “authority” to validate, approve, or confirm what they have seen, read, or heard.

Skepticism is considered a “smart” position to take these days. But look at its underpinnings. It simply involves an attempt to “prove” or “argue” the likelihood of a negative outcome instead of a positive one. Skepticism and its more extreme component, doubt, present nothing positive for consideration, require no intelligence, and certainly, no inspired thinking. After all, inspired thinking connects us to outcomes imagined, but not yet experienced, hoped for, but still in waiting. This doesn’t make such options “woo woo”. Their mere possibility is reason enough to seek greater understanding of how to make them come true in the here and now.

And yet, it takes the same amount of energy to be skeptical as it does to be inspired. Actually, less. Both sets of information exist as available “truths”. Both have equal ability to exist, and not simply in a “battle” or “debate” over which is “right.” A limitless universe has room for ALL.

We are moving toward a new dimensional plane, one in which many elements that were thought to be impossible, or even miraculous, will become commonplace. Organ regeneration is one such element. Telekinesis is another. Bilocation is yet another. While the latter two would be so far out as to break most “woo woo” limbs, organ regeneration, such as spinal cord repair, are likely to be embraced first and by many.

As outlined in Arcady Petrov’s trilogy, “Creation of the Universe,” internal organs regenerate faster than external ones, such as limbs or teeth. This may in part be due to the dynamics between observation and one’s beliefs.

Our ability to “see” the external organs makes regeneration dependent on our belief in the possibility, given that we’ve not “seen” it, or heard of it happening before. No such perceptual inertia is involved with the internal organs. We can’t see the kidneys, gallbladder, tonsils, or prostrate, so a simple stance of neutrality, or non-disbelief, could very well suffice, if other conditions and factors are equal.

The new dimension that we’re entering makes medicine-free healing possible, as well as distance healing. Interestingly enough, the National Institutes of Health has been looking into distance healing and other acts of consciousness. (See article.)

I also found a scientific article, “The DNA-wave BioComputer,” written in part by Dr. Peter Gariev, that reports the results of experiments conducted by the Institute for Control Sciences, in Moscow. The article goes on to confirm the informational factors that affect DNA, and opens the door to change. In essence, it explains how and why consciousness-based methods, if performed under the proper conditions, can and do work. (View or download the article.)

In somewhat esoteric, but still comprehensible terms, the report describes how the researchers’ studies of DNA “led to the conceptualization of the genome’s associative-holographic memory and its quantum non-locality.”

These factors are important in both the informational management that is a normal and natural part of the human thinking process (our thoughts are much more powerful than we know), and the ability to affect beneficial physiological changes at a distance (non-locality). All of these are part of the matrix of potential within which the Genome Healing Method operates.

Further the phenomena, detected by these experiments described in part two, establish the existence of an essentially new type of radio signal, where the information is encoded by polarizations of electromagnetic vectors.

Further experimental research has revealed the high biological (genetic) activity of such radio waves, when generated under the right conditions by DNA.

Instead of declaring “this is impossible!” and dismissing it, as many $cientists have shown a proclivity to do, the researchers saw great potential of this information, as evidenced by the following:

For example, by means of such artificially produced DNA radiations, the super fast growth of potatoes (up to 1 cm per day) has been achieved, together with dramatic changes of morphogenesis resulting in the formation of small tubers not on rootstocks but on stalks.

The same radiations also turned out to be able to cause a statistically authentic “resuscitation” of dead seeds of the plant Arabidopsis thaliana, which were taken from the Chernobyl area in 1987.

The latter example was reported in David Wilcock’s book, The Source Field Investigations. Yet, the resuscitation of “dead” seeds suggests that other “dead” items may also be vivified once again, or perhaps I should say any or all rather than “other.”

The new dimension is not really “new,” it’s just becoming consciously accessible once again. Indeed it is becoming the standard playing field of reality, as the “laws” of nature are changing. While we may have had the ability to regenerate organs previously, the ability hadn’t been active in enough people for the idea to take hold as part of our collective reality. We’re in the process of changing that.

The beauty in all this is that every one of us have the components needed to either (1) remain under a spell of limited possibility, or (2) liberate ourselves. No one can do that for us, no matter how many initials they place before, or after their name.

I talked more about the Workshop in the video, just published.

This one includes some comments by Gregg Braden.
Please follow and like us:

Written by 

Related posts

0 Thoughts to “Turning On and Tuning In to Healing Information”

  1. sbs

    Some years ago (in fact not many), we knew nothing about magnetism or electricity, but does it mean it did not exist? There came the right time to prove both exist and that’s it. I’d not bet that current science is much different than medieval 🙂 We’re still on the path of development. I mean skepticism is good, but open mind is better. If Tesla had borders in his mind…there wouldn’t be Albert nor Adam writing polemics via internet 😉 Open mind is the most important thing. Above all.

  2. Gilgamesh

    David Wilcock in his book, The Source Field Investigation wrote about how the fish can swim up a 20-30 feet high water fall at spanning time.
    And I think the Russian army guys using this same anti gravity technology in their cossack dance, the way they can dance under the knee, and than jump up way high up in the air, almost, like there was no gravity at all.
    Only the Russians, and Ukrainians can do this dance, the Ukrainians are even better, they know the secret of the fish.

  3. Albert Krauss

    Your comments vis a vis “skepticism” versus “inspiration” are utter rubbish. It certainly is useful to be aware when “skepticism” comes from a place of dogged negativism, and certainly “inspiration” is a gift from the intuitive universe. But to set these two sheerly linguistic concepts up as part of the human, or “moral”, dilemma (think of the connection between “moral” and “morale”, the former rooted in ethics, the latter rooted in “self” confidence), is to set up a straw man. It is a faux semantic “victory” of faith (inspiration) over science (skepticism). All of these categories are sheer rhetoric.

    Science, as the investigative discipline of observation, trial, error, objectivity, etc., uses inspiration for creative leaps forward. Skepticism in this context is merely like a check and balance within the whole, and is not attached to any one person’s sour and negative attitude. Hence, the expression “healthy skepticism”.

    Inspiration is driven by a union between the individual psyche and the phenomenal world. It is boundless and limitless. It can never suffer, except within an afflicted individual, from “healthy skepticism”. All of this assuming, of course, that one accepts the dichotomous opposition in the first place!

    1. Looks like my choice of words struck a nerve Albert. It’s fascinating to see how one’s reaction determines what follow-on information they receive. In defending the idea of “healthy skepticism”, something I imagine you take some pride in attributing to yourself, you were oblivious to other threads of possibility that were there, including ways by which this information might provide clues to ways to mitigate radiation, a concern shared by more than a few people, $cientists included, on earth these days.

      Scientific investigations begin with a hypothesis; a statement of believed possibility. They then develop various methods to confirm the hypothesis, not disprove or “debunk” it. If they succeed in confirming and replicating, said hypothesis becomes an “operating truth”.

      However, we get enamored with these truths, and treat them as though they are absolute, beyond question, or succession. We have many examples of this behavior throughout history, from “Earth is the center of the solar system,” to Darwin’s “survival of the fittest,” to Pasteur’s “germ theory,” and the FDA’s “anything that can claim curative properties is a drug,” just to name a few. All have been treated as unquestionable by their proponents. Yet, all are subject to other interpretations. Many will be found not only to be untrue, but that they never were.

      On the other hand, when we witness or hear of phenomena that “break” known “laws of possibility,” (which may also put some long-standing “truths” to rest), we dismiss them as impossible, their proponents as heretics. I’m not suggesting that you do this Albert. I don’t know you. I do know, however, that the meaning each reader gets out of these postings will be unique to the individual. If you see these ideas as rubbish, it’s your prerogative. And yet, it may be at the expense of gaining glimpses into how we might transform our world.

      Thanks for your comments and best wishes,


Leave a Comment