To get email notification of new content, change your preferences settings. Sign in first. Then click on the icon under your name called 'account options' and choose 'edit profile' in the dropdown menu. Now click on 'Notification preferences' in the new menu below your name. Under 'Category Notifications' click on the boxes under the Email heading as you desire.

Going public with subcellular psychobiology, paradigm shift, and more...

edited March 2018 in Peak state(s)
I was thinking today about how to spread the use of our awesome technologies like the TBI healing process. Surely, these kind of processes are a complete breakthrough in current science and medicine, and can help so many many people !

However, the institute have contacted many researchers, doctors, mental health institute and organizations before, on issues as suicide prevention, schizophrenic voices, and so on. It looks like very few people yet wants to talk about it or even hear about it.

Subcellular psychobiology (peak states) is a new science and it will be years before it gets the recognition it deserves. Even though technologies are already being developped and bringing successful disruptive innovations.

So, how can we make it more accepted by mainstream science and medicine ?

The same problem occured to James Lovelock and the science proving the existence of Gaïa. Today, there is little scientific argument to contradict the proof that Gaïa, a super-organism maintaining homeostasis on the whole planet, exist. However, as it still contradict the mainstream belief system, or paradigm, it is mostly being ignored by academicians and researchers (not even to mention the general public).

It seems there is a selective unconscious choice being made. Science today is still very reductionist and materialistic. Thus, the obvious is being ignored.

I have been thinking the topic of generationnal traumas and epigenetic damage could bridge the gap.

Scientists discovered that psychological traumas can be passed down the generations through the mechanism of epigenetic damage, and that is real hard science. Thus, it is not to far stretched to think that we can prove our approach works. Our approach is that epigenetic damages can be repaired by healing generationnal and other traumas with psychological-like techniques, especially our WHH.

However, I realised today, thinking about TBI healing, that there is still a paradigm problem that will make acceptance unlikely to happen.

Here is how things can be presented : healing generationnal traumas repaires damaged histones (epigenetic damage), thus opening a new metabolic pathway that was previously blocked. The organism now being able to use new proteins, can use a new biological function to fight a pathogen, improve metabolism, detoxination, etc...

In case of TBI, epigenetic healing maximise the brain resistance to the point it can be 100% repaired after TBI. This is unheard of.

However, as much as the explanation above is sufficient for general purpose, a scientific will want to dig deeper and ask which genes are involved, why do they impact brain resilience, and how it was discovered.

That "genetic" approach is likely to fail. How can you ever find which genes are responsible for such a function as repairing the brain ? Even if you can compare people who naturally have that ability (if you can find them, they are rare) with people who suffer from TBI, it is just a statiscal approach and is not a sufficient proof for the theory.

This kind of knowledge should be usable to reverse-engineer the research process that made the discovery possible.

The problem is our approach with subcellular psychobiology is very different from classical biology. We look in the past for pre-cellular development and use the primary cell model to understand wich subcellular structured (that correspond to the disease we want to treat) are impared, and use regression to investigate. The biggest part of it is understanding how some of these structures are pathogen, and thus finding an indirect approach to eliminate these pathogens by making the organism immune to them in the past.

Therefore, a central axiom of our science is that trauma healing is actually really CHANGING THE PAST.

That's where the shit hits the fan.

Changing the past is probably totally unnaceptable for modern science, as it completely violates the current accepted paradigm. Even with new ideas in the field of quantum physics, our understanding of the nature of time isn't likely to be revamped so easily.

The minute you accept it is possible to change the past, though, everything fall into place and it is easy to accept the other elements of the model.

A few days ago, I was talking with a client about doing an experimental process for Alzheimer on his grandfather. He told me he probably would reject the idea because he is not so spiritual. That confused me for a second, because in my view, the institute's approach is really a scientific approach before being spiritual at all.

Thus, there will be much difficulties to make our science accepted, even though it has amazing practical successes !

I don't know how we can bypass this problem. If mainstream scientists are open minded enough to try our approach, they will have huge difficulties to replicate our technology because they won't use our model because of paradigm conflict.

Maybe a smart mind here can work on the epistemologic problem of the idea of changing the past, and the irrationnal problem of paradigm shift.
Or maybe we should just educate the new generation and wait for the older one to die. I don't know.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of people who want and need to be healed, and we can work with them. Hence, the growing need to being able to market and widespread our treatments in the general public.


  • PS : all the above is compounded by the very fact that our approach, specifically, triggers people traumas and resistances, and the tribal block.
    Therefore, most people would not even want to take a look at the intellectual challenge because it would cause them strong emotions and rejection. Tough !
    Our society is build around the profound state of illness people call "normal consciousness". Are we the only one crazy enough to want to change that ? :-)
  • edited March 2018
    Just a slight clarification that might helpful for some readers. Our (and in fact anyone's) trauma therapy techniques do in fact directly interact with and change the client's present day subcellular biology. When the client comes in with a psychological symptom, the therapist can usually simply focus on the symptom and immediately find the trauma - or more precisely, epigenetic damage with its inhibited gene expression - that needs to be released. For example, meridian therapies work entirely in the present by interacting directly with the damaged subcellular structures to get their effect. A little tapping and poof, the mRNA string releases from the DNA histone, the mRNA string floats up into the cytoplasm, and the symptoms vanish.

    However, things get trickier when the problem is more indirect, i.e. the presenting symptoms bears no resemblance to the feeling of the causal epigenetically inhibited genes. Say the client has a disease that is causing a symptom, for example Lyme disease. The therapist can't use the painful symptoms to eliminate the disease; instead, they need to find the epigenetic traumas that are causing the person to have a suppressed immune system. But in the many hundreds of inhibited genes, how can you find the few relevant ones, as they don't feel remotely similar to the presenting pain symptoms? So, we often use regression techniques to go to when the disease was first acquired, which allows us to identify what went wrong in the cell and what sensations or feelings come from the relevant epigenetically damaged genes. Once we know those key sensations, we can again use something like a meridian therapy to repair the gene's histone to restore the cell's proper function, and the client gets well. 

    So far, aside from the concept the a person can feel an inhibited gene expression as a traumatic sensation and emotion, it all makes sense from a biological viewpoint. And our readers can stop at this point and go "Whew, I can accept that there is something called subcellular psychobiology and this is how it works in my cells." 

    The tricky bit is when we start looking more closely at regression therapies. Experientially, the client feels like they go back into their past. So far, so good. The problem arises if the client stays in the past to heal it. Then a paradigm problem arises. To the client, it feels like their symptoms in that past moment vanish, i.e. their past changes. Stranger yet, sometimes the event itself seems to change, as it would have been if they'd only been calm at that moment. So, is that real? Did the past really change? To the client it did. But objectively? No, present physical reality remains unchanged. (For example, if you heal a past moment when a loved one was accidentally killed, the present does not suddenly shift, the person does not suddenly appear, and your memory of their death does not get erased.) But what does change is that subcellular structures heal in the present, your symptoms go away, and your life will be different in the future when you encounter similar situations. So as therapists and clients, we just ignore this as it really makes no difference to the healing process. Our current paradigm is preserved by simply ignoring the phenomena, which makes everyone happy.

    Please note that this phenomenon was observed decades ago by many researchers in the humanistic, transpersonal and trauma psychology fields. The general consensus is to just ignore it and continue on. 

    However, there is one case where some useful things do happen that is harder to ignore. It turns out that one can heal epigenetic damage ('generational trauma') and when one does, it also vanishes in related family members (parents, siblings and children). You can do this via regression, or by using a therapy that directly interacts with subcellular structures in the present - it does not matter. In either case, just like regression to biological trauma, when a client now regresses to the originating ancestral event, it has changed - and although physical reality does not shift, the traumatic impact of this issue vanishes from the client and from their relatives. So, why is this different from the previous biographical regression case? Well, this fact can be used to treat epigenetically caused diseases in a client by instead treating their sibling, parent or child. We actually use this fact in some special circumstances when we can't treat the client directly. So, does this work because we actually change the past, or are epigenetic traumas somehow tied together in the present? In practical terms, it does not matter - it simply works - and we dodge this paradigm conflict by ignoring it. Fortunately, we rarely use this approach so it doesn't matter to most people. 

    In summary, almost all of breakthroughs we've made that are completely compatible with current biological models, and my physician and biologist colleagues agree. Fortunately, the few aspects that are not are irrelevant to almost all of our work and techniques. 
  • Thanks for the clarification !

    I was speaking from the point of view of biologist with absolutely no knowledge in psychotherapy and trauma healing, and trying to replicate or model our technology.
    Knowing the subcellular psychobiology model, but using only current medical technology, would it be possible to find a cure to, say, Lyme's disease or schizophrenic voices ?

    In other words, knowing what to look at, would it be possible to get results similar to the institute's without using techniques from the institute ?
  • edited March 2018
    Great question! And my answer to the question 'using only current medical technology, would it be possible to find a cure to...?' is 'yes' in some cases, 'maybe' in some, and 'no' in others.

    On the 'yes' side, conventional medicine could cure some diseases if they just knew what they needed to cure. By contrast, our work is unique in that developmental events and subcellular psychobiology allows us to track down the real causes of various diseases whose origin are currently unknown ('diseases of unknown etiology' as they are called in the trade). Good examples are the pathogens that cause mental disorders, which are unknown to medicine at this time. Fortunately, our approach allows us to find the causes for these types of diseases, for example the bacterial cause of autism, the fungal cause of OCD, and a fungal origin of schizophrenic voices, to name a few. In other words, our approach allows us to find the connection between symptoms and pathogen that can't be done in any other way that we know of. But once that pathogen is identified, the possibility then exists that a conventional approach could be used to target the organism and find drugs to try and eradicate it. (Given that drug research can be very hit or miss as far as effectiveness goes.) 

    On the 'maybe' side are diseases where conventional treatments and psycho-immunity treatments overlap. As an example, Lyme disease (a bacteria) is currently treated with antibiotics. For most people this works ok, until they run into another tick and have to get treated again. However, for a significant percentage of the patients, their symptoms are severe and antibiotic treatment is ineffective. Baring the development of some new drug, those people are not going to get help. And the development of a new antibiotic is hard, with almost none in the pipeline - not to mention the problem that bacteria are rapidly developing antibiotic resistance. So, it turns out that our approach eliminates the disease in these drug-resistant patients, and makes them immune to future infections. Could this be done with conventional medicine? Well, theoretically, but it would be tough, and without a pressing reason to spend the billions of dollars required, probably won't happen. Whereas our approach is fast, simple, and virtually free by comparison. 

    On the 'no' side, our models also allow us to heal things that simply are not possible using a drug or mechanical intervention approach that we know of. One example would be traumatic brain injury (TBI). In this technique, our approach allows us to intervene to restore the template that the brain uses for its function. Now, it is theoretically possible that conventional research could successfully do this using some other approach, such as finding a drug that could eliminate all epigenetic damage; or a drug that could get rid of the fungal pathogen that inhibits the initial formation of the brain; or perhaps find a stem cell intervention that could somehow interact with brain tissue for its restoration. However, these possibilities are very slight, because the biological causes very hard to see or monitor for drug experimentation; and the solutions I mentioned are very indirect and would require a new level of understanding of subcellular dynamics which is not yet in the mainstream. 

    To return to the original topic, introducing new discoveries is tough, especially when they are cross-disciplinary. Even when they are not, when people have incorrect assumptions about something it takes years before any change happens. The example of the Australian physician who discovers that ulcers were caused by bacteria and the decade of resistance he encountered comes to mind - and this was something that was trivially easy to test with a course of antibiotics! In the case of our work, the approach we've taken is to try to do both. We continue to try and interest peer review journals and organizations in small aspects of what we are doing that would be more easily accepted. But in reality, I suspect that it will be the clients who will end up driving the acceptance of our work, because they simply can't get results any other way. 
  • A tangent here... 

    Is there a domino effect to the "time change" to other traumas?  Trauma A "never happened"--what about traumas B and C that stemmed off of, or were strongly affected by, or related to, trauma A?  Does the change also affect them? 
  • edited March 2018
    Hi David,
    The answer to the domino question is 'sometimes'. It depends on the particular traumas you are working on.

    For example, eliminating one generational trauma generally does not effect another generational trauma. However, there is an exception. Remember, generational traumas ('epigenetic damage') causes structural problems inside the cell. If your ancestors had a trauma that caused a structural problem in early cell development, then later ancestors may have formed generational traumas based on consequential cell damage (due to development going wrong). Then yes, getting rid of the one that started the cascade of problems would poof the others away. But this is a rather uncommon case, as the damage the generational traumas cause in the cell are generally rather independent from each other.

    Healing biographical traumas is more likely to change, but not eliminate other biographical trauma. This is because the underlying cause of trauma is a damaged gene histone. That damage is there from conception. Hence healing a biographical trauma might effect other subsequent traumas, (you are calm about getting yelled at now so don't go driving in a rage and have an accident, creating dozens of traumas); but generally those other traumas' feeling tones still pop up somewhere else in time.

    Interestingly, getting rid of generational trauma can sometimes eliminate biographical trauma issues. Generational trauma cause subcellular structural problems; if the cell is like your house, then a generational trauma can cause the construction of your roof to be screwed up and leak in rainstorms. The water damage to your stuff, and misery you feel from water pouring on your head, is like biographical trauma. If you fix the roof (heal the generational), then the rest of the problems (the biographical) just vanish. We take advantage of that in some of our techniques. 
  • edited March 2018

    Grant and Gaetan,

    About the TBI post and this one--how to move forward with acceptance and use:

    I think what you're looking for is a way to match ScPb with mainstream/accepted science, right? It might be possible, but I'd say not too likely. I'm not aware of anyone having done anything with Calligaris' stuff, hydrochloric acid shots for those about to die, Resurrection Salt, or with other "lost" or strange things that are amazing but pushed to the side.

    Coming from an energy healing point of view, where you would expect many EH workers to be really open about possibilities--I see a lot of this, like: "MY tool is the best tool (and really the only good tool)", or worse, "I can believe in MY tool, but not yours." Like one MD who could easily accept Quantum Touch, but flat out rejected even the possibility of EFT.

    In addition to the mainstream getting over the weirdness of it all...

    Off the top of my mind, I think other important things are impediments:

    1. The money is not in the healing--it's in the treatment and the drama it creates.  This is a problem for both the “healer” and the patient. This is KEY. (I have yet to have an autistic child's parent or teacher jump up and down with excitement over the announcement of autism treatment of a few hours creating immediate healing.) A lot of people who finally seek alternatives do so because after spending $20,000 over 20 years, their problem is not any better--however, that psychologist is $20,000 richer because the problem wasn't solved.  And it took that person 20 years to finally see, "Hey, this isn't working, what else is there?"  I see it in relatives and friends--they'll go to the ER, pay $1,000, suffer watching their child suffer and almost die, "she's such a strong little soul and inspiration to me", then post their story on FB--rather than pay less than 1/10 of that, without the worry, pain, drama, etc. to have it done completely stress-free.  (I know people who go through drama episodes multiple times, but they're still wary of alternatives, even proven ones.) 

    2. The ADA, FDA, pharmaceuticals, and other professional licensing organizations have final say over methods--whether or not an individual loves it or not--and if it can't make really good money for them, or it can't be mainstreamed, or especially if it replaces a good money-maker, it's basically a "no".

    3. The ego and investments are big (speaking more about persons and their training and tools). Can you imagine: "I spent four years and $100,000 and busting my tail to be first in my class, and I wrote my dissertation on treating autism, just spent $800,000 to open a world-class autism treatment center that will earn quadruple that in the first five years, and now you're saying autism can be cured in a day or two by doing some weird mumbo-jumbo, and you want me to switch?!?"

    On top of the weirdness, I imagine those two-three would be big reasons why it would be hard to convince any organization to use the institute's methods.

    Looking at past cases, either it will take at least another 20 years to even start to be looked at, or it will become a hidden gem until someone discovers it years later (if it's still around).  By the way, it's because this is way beyond Nobel prize work that I say that, and I'm glad it's still around for the public. Yes, it is possible that many people will flock to it and it will grow. But it's very disruptive to the money and those who control it. There's a pattern that has happened more than once to disruptive health (and other scientific) researchers, and it's very troubling--look at Rife many decades ago, and just within a year from current, Dr. Carly, who cured autism in many children.  When you're not part of the mainstream, but have disruptive advances, you will not be tolerated.  Some get away with it by not throwing sticks at the dog.   

    Another rough spot I can imagine is trying to bridge mainstream licensed emotional health jobs (“scientific” "professional") with new ways of doing things (“non-scientific” "non-professional"). One or the other is easier; a combination of both, is not.

    My suggestions for "going big", which includes staying around till then:

    1. relocate (or at least duplicate, or a sister institute) to a friendly country (like Taiwan or Mexico), especially where a trip to the clinic for work can be turned into a "vacation".

    2. get some humanitarian donors, maybe looking for tax breaks, to support the work (maybe like the Koch brothers). Perhaps a free peak state for every large donation to the institute?

    3. search out charities where it's about who's being helped, not about the helper.  Look for charities that have very high money passing through to the helped (some charities use most of the donations on themselves, and little on those they're supposed to be helping--in the past, I've seen 90%/10% splits). 

    P.S.  Grant, if you want this to come off the discussion board, I can understand...  :)  This is not a pleasant topic.

  • David,

    There has been a lot written about successfully managing a disruptive technology, and going direct to the mainstream is often cited as certain failure.  The mainstream is risk-averse, and wants to see a proven track record before signing on to a product or service.  The recommended approach is to target a specific application of the product to a very narrow audience, and work with them to get all the bugs out.  Build a successful track record, and then start to branch out to related audiences, all the while building more of a track record.
  • Thanks for your comments David. However unpleasant the discussion may be, it is important to talk about it, I feel. Still the institute's treatments are quite 'underground' but they are nothing short of groundbreaking. There is so much to do with it. But in the long run, the core purpose of the institute is much broader.

    Relocating to Mexico or Taiwan, well why not. Most of our clinics and therapists are working remotely anyway. The problem is more about doing any ad, promotion, marketing. Law might be prohibiting in some countries.

    Finding a sponsor is an approach I find exciting. However, how and where to find one ? Plus, the thing we work on tend to trigger traumas and tribal block on most people.

    On the other hand, subcellular psychobiology is firmly grounded in the scientific method, so it should be recognized as a legit science. But as you stated, there is so much resistance still.
  • my two cents: the vacation or spa option sounds great, although it may need some funding, so people can work with trauma and can also relax with other hands-on therapies that are more popular, like massage, detox, saunas and the like. Charities too to make  oneself known. Also are you aware that lately Oprah has been focused lately as of now on trauma although she advocates another approach she may be receptive. The issue I guess is on reaching her in the proper way

  • edited March 2018
    The nicest way would be to find organizations with tens or hundreds of thousands of helpers or helped, but as noted, not much success there--yet.  It might be easier to make business deals with them (they get commission for each person they refer, for example), or to treat the leaders to an "Introductory vacation" experience (or probably both). 

    Bypassing organizations and going straight to licensed professionals--with ads or published articles, for example--might open up or put pressure on organizations to move towards adopting ISPS's "newer things". 

    Something to consider would be hiring some lower-pay, higher-results PR firms (smaller entrepreneurships led by people who have "been there, done that" and are still good enough to get things done).  Or even hiring one or two people to lead the advertising.  I would suggest not hiring PR firms who don't track, don't get paid by results, and who just want you to "get known" by making a few "feel good" commercials and putting them on air during prime time, then charging you $$$$$$$ for it.  Find/ ask around for these types of companies that helped organizations in similar situations. 

    A page or two on the website would have to be geared towards a landing page from ads, and contact gathering, etc. 

    Working with non-profit organizations (NPO's) is also an option. 

    The vacation idea is to build a memorable good experience around the result, not just "the result".  While I personally would prefer over the phone, in my home...  Unfortunately, most humans are wired around the experience, not the results.  That fits in with the drama that is going to be hard for some to escape, but at least this time, it will be positive.  Vacations can be add-ons, in-house, or partnerships with other spas, healing centers, etc. 

    The other reason for Taiwan, Mexico, etc. is that they are more accepting of new medical ideas, an example being the cancer clinics in Mexico (where at least many of those doctors would lose their license and be prosecuted in the USA--even though they have better "cure" rates than the AMA).  Taiwan also has a long history of Chinese medicine, and recently alternative medicine, including doctors with their own special treatments being reported on in the news (great free publicity!).  Taiwan is also a non-extradition country, as are some nice places (like Montenegro, some island countries, etc.).  Not that that is necessary, just that it might be a little safer.  And before, I meant a copy, not a replacement, for the institute.  Just somewhere else , some network that is set up that doesn't depend on one or two people.  Of course, if a board of international members (and information) were set up, it wouldn't matter as much.  But some of this is my paranoia and "play it safe" feeling coming into play. 

    Does the institute have a few licensed PhD professionals?  That would be very helpful to include in "leadership" or a board.  It will be a hard sell otherwise.  As my wife always says, "No PhD, no one listens."--particularly professionals. 

    Maybe removing tribal block could be the first option to help the organization leaders with on their Introductory vacation...
Sign In or Register to comment.