What’s So Special About The Hallelujah Diet?
Excerpt...
The world’s approach to physical problems is a symptomatic approach! Rather than seeking out the cause of a physical problem, and eliminating the cause so that the symptom can go away, the world continues to treat the symptom.
The medical community has a different drug for every symptom. The problem with this approach is that the drug merely covers or masks the symptom, while never dealing with the cause. The patient never gets well. Oh, they can drug the symptom into submission and thus reduce the symptoms manifestation, but once the drug is stopped, the symptom returns.
At Hallelujah Acres we teach that the symptom is not the problem! Rather, the symptom is merely the outward manifestation of a broken down immune system or organ not functioning properly.
Rather than trying to rid the body of the symptom through the use of a drug, at Hallelujah Acres we say that if you want to get well, "stop putting into the body that which is causing the symptom."
4 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My mother is overweight. She has blood pressure issues, which she treats through medication. This idea that her doctor whom she is paying for service should refuse to treat the symptoms of her obesity instead of the underlying cause, is like a mechanic who says he won't fix a twenty year old car, because it isn't new enough or hasn't been well maintained.
Beyond the objection that people pay to have symptoms treated instead of disease is the fact that for all medical science has progressed in the last century there are still vast realms of the human body that we can not understand and cure. An easy example is the common cold. There is no cure and may never be. Should doctors not prescribe medications that treat the symptoms of this seasonal disease?
This is simply not true. The underlying causes CAN be treated. Results, however, are not guaranteed for all. It depends solely upon what any given patient is willing to do to change their circumstances. And for some, age itself, can be a detriment. What if my 98 year old grandfather's body requires 3 years of constant and strict adherence to a specific diet, to cure his prostate cancer (yes, he has it) but he only lives half that? Some folk simply run out of time.
It's not that doctors "can't" treat underlying causes. It's that, for the most part, they either don't wish to, don't believe it's possible, or don't know how to go about it. It's not, after all, what they are taught in medical school. They are taught to prescribe drug A for symptom B.
"This idea that her doctor... should refuse to treat the symptoms of her obesity instead of the underlying cause..."
No one is saying (least of all, me) a doctor should refuse to treat symptoms. Neither is anyone suggesting that drugs are not beneficial in certain cases. Especially in matters of life and death. BUT! Blood pressure is easily treated by diet and exercise alone. No drug should ever be a lifelong solution for any ailment other than the obvious; i.e., anti-rejection drugs and such-like. Even schizophrenia is treatable by diet alone.
"...there are still vast realms of the human body that we can not understand and cure."
There are, naturally, some things we don't know, but that list is not vast.
If people desire only to have their symptoms addressed, that's their prerogative. And if doctors wish to cater solely or pseudo-exclusively to the treatment of symptoms, again, that's their prerogative; it's not like there isn't a market for such services. But the simple truth is, it easier on the patient, once symptoms have subsided, to approach their long-term healing-- to be read: "cure" --in terms of lifestyle change.
There is a cure for cancer. There is a cure for heart disease. There is a cure for kidney disease. There is a cure for diabetes (even, in some cases, for Type 1), etc, etc.
But none of these cures can be patented or pressed into a caplet. And the FDA is not in the business of approving "natural" approaches to health care. They are in the business of regulating the pharmaceutical companies and their drug du jours... and doing a very poor job at that.
No, I'm not surprised you disagree, but what puzzles me is your seeming inability to see common sense on this. Is it not better to feed the body what it needs and allow the body to heal itself? Let drugs stabilize your condition, but once it's achieved move toward the cure but treating the underlying causes. Namely, poor nutrition.
I do not suggest doctors refuse to treat symptoms. Drugs are beneficial in lifesaving situations. But no drug should ever be taken as a lifelong solution. Personal Responsibility is the key. Sadly, not many people are "into" personal responsibility.
I could not agree more. The idea that no cures exist is really backward thinking. There is very little that needs curing if one takes the time to learn proper nutrition and lifestyles. The underlying causes of disease are almost always a matter of providing the best environment in which diseases flourish. Thus, the "cures" are all related to providing the WORST environment for bacteria, viruses, cancers, etc. to flourish. As you say, time is key. We spend our whole lives polluting our systems, so it makes sense to understand that some time is required to clean our systems out. Fortunately, it doesn't take the same amount of time. It does, however, take some determination and discipline.
And no, abstaining from meat is not going back to the Law. No where in the New Testament are the dietary laws revoked.
Paul, writing in 1 Corinthians 10:23 says, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient..." A bit out of context, but apply this to what he said in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 (which in itself speaks of how some shall depart from the faith and giving heed to 'seducing spirits') which speaks of how nothing should be refused because it is "sanctified by the word of God and prayer." Well, here's the rub. The only "word of God" Paul had at the time was the Old Testament. And the only meats that are sanctified by the word of God are those NOT covered by Levitical restriction.
In effect; Yes! You can eat pork and shrimp. But they are still unclean, and you will pay a price in terms of health. All things are lawful (in terms of eternal ramifications), but not all things are expedient (in terms of physical/temporal ramifications.
Jesus ate meat and fish, but he didn't eat pork or shellfish. If you're healthy, feel free to enjoy the foods Jesus did, in moderation. But the sick and dying should turn to Genesis 1:29. THAT diet saves and extends lives, and cures disease.