I’ve started looking through a very old laptop, and have found 2 items from Irene de Villiers – one on Innate Constitutional Types, the other on Cancer.
Perhaps others who have saved any of Irene’s opus could share???
Thanks,
Kristy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innate Constitutional Type IRENE DE VILLIERS
"HEALTH by ICT" (ICT = Innate Constitutional Type)
.... has been more than 30 years in the making so far, and it needs a lot more. It is essentially a system by which a remedy is chosen based on the inborn characteristics and genetics (innate characteristics) of an individual, as it turns out that ONLY one remedy will resonate with that set of innate characteristics, and cause the individual to become more robust and resistant to illness, and/or to use its own immune system to overcome any illness, by repairing it.
How I got there started with my very early interest in genetics, thanks to a 2 inch tailed stray cat delivering five variable length tailed kittens. I was about 7 yrs old and just HAD to understand this weird event.
Classic genetics teaches that genes come in pairs, one each from father and mother, at random from THEIR gene pairs (taking one of a pair from each parent, randomly) - and one was supposed to study peas, with and without wrinkle genes for example (experiments by Mendel, the father of genetics) and so on, to prove the inheritance mechanisms of what we now call "major genes". Major genes are the ones found on the main chromosomes, in pairs, one from each parent. For example blue eyes and brown eyes are major genes, one dominant and one recessive, which just means one of them can hide in a little recess and nobody would know it was there by looking at the person - unless there were two of them, one from each parent, then no other gene could dominate them and be "expressed” to be visible.
So then I stuck my foot in it when I married young. My in-laws were BOTH blond, blue eyed and straight haired, all three of which are recessive genes, so their kids could ONLY get those genes and no others as there could not be any other genes in that couple to pass on. Obvious right? (I assumed).
But one of the five kids was NOT blue eyed, blond and straight haired, he had curly brown hair and brown eyes. So I asked who his father was?
Oh dear, hell to pay, nobody had realized. Multimillionaires....Inheritance issues and you name it...
So maybe not everyone understands dominant and recessive genes.
As a hobby I bred cats, and taught and helped others to breed well - by well I mean healthy cats as well as show cats.
My genetics studies had taught me the one most important thing about health and genetics:
The more gene pairs you have that include two DIFFERENT genes - a different one from each parent, not two the same - (called "heterozygous pairs" for the technically minded)
- the healthier and more robust the offspring will be - called "HYBRID VIGOR". A hybrid means a mixture of two types.
Side note: Hahnemann refers to "robustness" in aph 141 which is the same principle - a healthy constitution overall.
Unhealthy example:
Cheetahs have so few genes left that there are very few gene pairs with two DIFFERENT genes in any cheetah - the gene pairs on all the chromosomes nearly all have two of the same genes. This causes immune system weakness in proportion to the number of gene pairs with two the same (called "Homozygous pairs" for the technical types).
It was customary for cat breeders to select for identical genes in each pair, and the terrible result is a lot of horridly sickly cats (or dogs, horses, etc) - and it is why there are rules against marrying a close relative - too much risk of many identical gene pairs and resultant ill health.
So I wanted to find a HEALTHY (heterozygous) way to breed and still get show quality features in show cats. Breeders believed it was impossible. They kept putting recessive gene pairs in one cat (eg "blue" fur coat) with the SAME pair in another cat, and "brededing true" - lots of same gene pair results, all blue as they wanted - but they were sickly and smaller with each generation.
So I bred a healthy version with LOTS of different gene pairs, carefully selected for OPPOSITE polygene features.
(Polygenes are the ones used in ICT) Polygenes also come in pairs but there are a LOT more of them than there are major genes and cat breeders were not taking any of them into account. SO using polygenes you can multiply up the heterozygous pairs enormously, improving size and robustness and immune system - and STILL get the major genes desired, like color, that are judged in the show ring.
The cats I bred - were so healthy they stood tall and proud, were the picture of superb health, had calm and friendly temperaments, did not freak out at shows, and consistenty got best in show, and the sickly little competition cats lost all of the competitions - despite what THEIR breeders thought was clever breeding - by inbreeding identical gene pairs.
Four Examples are below of the healthy breeding you can see just by looking (show winners in multiple continents, and each is a different ICT - point being you can breed ANY ICT as a very robust and healthy individual):
Minerva age 9 months, wt 11 lbs:
Sindri age 3 years, wt 15 lbs
Odin age 6 years, wt 18 lbs:
Frigga, age 13, mistaken by judge as 3 yrs, wt 12 lbs
So I started giving breeders workshops - inviting them to bring cats along for discussion. I had them feel the shape of the ribcage, assessing volume - a healthy cat has a large volume for air, and will be less easily stressed or ill. They felt the pelvis shape, noting some were too small for easy birth or too narrow for healthy hips - resulting in hip dysplasia, and some had flatter chests, others deeper chests. Some had narrow and flat, with low volume. Legs were felt for boning size and structure etc.
Every aspect of the cat's structure and proportions was studied and discussed.
The objective on healthy breeding is to mix the features up, You did not have to have a great cat to breed from - you had to have a compenasting PAIR of cats.
A male with a wide shallow chest and a female with a deep narrower one.
A male with a short face for the breed, and a female with a long one for the breed
One with finer boning, and one with heavier boning.
females with broad hips, males with narrow..
and so on for as many gene variations (caused by polygenes) as possible in the two parent cats.
So that you bred two cats who were VERY different as regards many genes, especialy polygenes.
In fact you can breed siblings also, if they have many different genes, and they will be healthy and robust.
BUT - you can breed unrelated cats with many genes in common and they will produce very unhealthy and inbred cats (inbred is lots of same pair genes, it has nothing to do with relatedness actually, only to do with how many gene pairs are "two the same".)
Thousands of kittens later, I saw there were problems with what should have been predictable.
Try as I might, some combinations just could NOT be made to occur. It was a statistically ridiculous finding UNLESS the theory that genes combine randomly from parents' gene pairs, was WRONG.
TO make a long story short I proved it is wrong.
Gene pairs do NO combine randomly from each parent.
Instead as I put it then, "genes come in cans". If it is beef stew can, you will not find any mushroom in there no matter how many breedings you do from parents that do have a mushroom gene. If the can is a clam chowder one, you will find no beef gene in there.
I started documenting what genes would allow themselves to get combined with which other genes.
Pretty soon I saw repeating types far more often than they had any right to be so, by random inheritance rules.
I could find nothing to tell me WHY those specific genes were always in those groups of genes in one individual, and not ever muddled with any other group's "can of genes".
There is always a discrete "can of genes" from a finite number of available cans.
It is like having a factory with soup recipes but each recipe is very specific - and you never got something halfway or partway between two soups.
Certain things just never went together.
For example one "can of genes" involved a very sociable cat with long body and long fur but no matter how much it was crossed with the type that is short-bodied with a high milk production - I could never get the long-bodied plus high milk production combined into one cat. You either got the one combination or the other combination - or a still different one - but never the one I wanted.
The inherited traits of any cat (or any other species) always came in sets - a "can of genes" from a specific set of options in nature. (IN truth it is not only genes but ANY inherited trait that fits this fiding. Hence the different traits of identical twins are relevant for example.)
There are NOT random combinations from the two parents' gene pairs as classical genetics claims, but only certain specific possible final combinations in the offspring, "cans of genes/traits", actually do occur.
(I did not know then that I was documenting ICT types - and that there are no in-between ICTs - much less did I know then that a single unique homeopathic remedy matched one and only one "can of genes" or ICT.)
So at that stage I published the book "Cat Genetics - What will the kittens look like?"
THis book has charts by which a breeder can list the genes of a cat just by looking at it.
It then shows how to choose cats to mate based on opposite polygene characteritic matching, and on selection of major genes.
A bookmark lists the major genes and which are dominant over what other genes.
The text is designed as a more interesting way to learn the basics of genetics than the traditional study of wrinkled peas. (with apologies to Mendel whose pionering work with peas was the start of genetics as a science.)
It also had other charts - for example "who was the father" chart, based on what the mother and kittens look like.
And also charts for "what will the kittens look like", based on the parents. And how to choose parents when you wish a specific offspring result, such as bringing out a double recessive gene (like golden fur in cats) without inbreeding.
The idea was to make genetics fun to learn, and useful to breeders to make HEALTHY selections for healthy kittens that would also win at shows from pure robust healthy stance and looks..also cuttring vet bills of course.
I did not realize till later what the wider significance was - for the "cans of genes" that nature had chosen to use as limits on what breeding results - what combinations - could actually exist or be obtained by breeding.
At that point I just knew that some combinations are not possible - they do not exist - and that genetics is NOT random - that it comes only in specific groups of features - and that health has a whole lot to do with a LOT of logical combinations of genes into a "can". THose cans are in no way random, they are designed by nature to work well together as a whole and fit in an intelligent way into the universe to make it well balanced.
The connection with homeopathy came later.
For now it was nice to know how to NOT get hip dyplasias or too small a ribcage for good health, or how to get a HEALTHY showcat.
The principles of course apply to any species or breed, though humans do not consciously use them, unless you count the "opposites attract" maxim
Namaste,
Irene
==========================================
I don’t know who invented that fiction.
You started out speaking about pleomorphism - which is the ability of some *bacteria* to alter their shape or size in response to environmental conditions. Rife saw it with his microscope. Whoever assumed that meant one organism changed into another one was mistaken - there is no such thing as a life cycle between viruses and fungi - except maybe in sci-fi stories!
In Rife's time,in 1932, light microscopes could not see a whole lot of what was really happening in the growth medium with the smaller living organisms (they were bacteria not viruses that Rife was seeing) - he managed to cause color changes to be viewed but could not prove what was causing that exactly.
It most definitely is not! The placenta is a controlled-growth tissue.
Cancer is tissue whose cells have damaged DNA and which grow in an UNcontrolled fashion.
That's the least of our worries. Impaired nutrition results in a shortage of good nutrients to run the mechanisms of the body - that's far more relevant.
If foods merely "rotted" in the intestines, that would be bacterial fermentation - not fungal. Even if fungi were present they would not "rot" food - (they'd likely be digested as microprotein). Bacteria do all the rotting work. Depending on what bacteria are present, that can even be beneficial!
A theory that holds no water.
What really happens is that cancer patients get radiation treatment for cancer, and it knocks out what's left of the immune system, as a result of which they can get an intestinal fungal infections. the rate of this is documented:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC495110/
It's no reason to suggest fungi penetrate intestinal walls much less cause cancer - that's back to front - fungal infection results AFTER cancer.
No - fungi invade only when the immune system is extremely compromised. They do not cause cancer. In fact the toxins of fungi such as aspergillus are actually toxic to cancer cells and are used in some modern cancer treatments:-)
Not so. An acid pH is not healthy. You can try to wander about with concentrated sulfuric acid in your veins - it will not keep you alive!
On the contrary - It varies very narrowly in the blood and tissues, and needs to be slightly alkaline (pH 7.4, 7.0 being neutral. An acid pH is an indicator of a very ill person. Acceptable "normal" range is 7.35 to 7.45 - it's very narrow! and it is not acidic - acid is below 7.0)
There is no fungus of cancer. Cancer does not involve fungus (except as a treatment).
They only THOUGHT they showed it.
Does not happen and is not possible.
Each living organism invokes its genetic code to determine what it looks like and how it replicates and also how the pleomorphism of bacteria works for that bacteria. It does not become a different bacteria in the process - it's still the same one. (Unless Monsanto gets hold of it that is - they stick gene bits for pesticides into plants - and go other nasty genetic things with far reaching consequences - but that's not a process in nature and is not pleomorphism).
Nope....though pH MIGHT be one possible factor in inducing survival by pleomorph activity.
Pleomorph bacteria change to another pleomorph state due to environmental changes that threaten survival.
An example:
The bacterium that causes Lymes disease (Borrelia burgdorferii) is in the spirochete category of bacteria and also happens to be a pleomorph. It cycles between a cyst form (to help it survive as the cyst has a surrounding wall that makes it impervious to many drugs) and a bio-film active form - which can function and replicate as opposed to just sitting there as a cyst form - but which is then much more susceptible to attack.
Escheria coli is also a pleomorph - it can encapsulate to withstand environmental issues - usually lack of water or presence of drugs - but has to unencapsulate to grow and reproduce. THAT is what pleomorphism is about. Nothing changes form one organism into another. E coli remains E coli and Borrelia burgdorferii remains Borrelia burgdorferii in each respective pleomorph form.
Now you are jumping to a tumor. What capsule?
Cancers need no capsule and have none. They consist of cells much like the normal cells from which the cancer arises.
Cancer stem cells are tissue specific. Breast Cancer stem cells are behind a breast cancer tumor - including any metastasized version of it in a new location - it is still breast tissue if the primary cancer is breast cancer.
of nothing except that bacteria perform pleomorph activity.
They have great imaginations and a great lack of scientific knowledge and understanding.
In another email you sneer at electron microscope photographs.
They indeed show static pictures of surfaces and of cross sections inside and of detailed structure - but at a detailed level that shows what one is looking at - not like the Rife pictures that are just colors that change - and which can be interpreted in dozens of ways.
Cancer stem cells occur for each type of cancer. The latest research shows that these - and the normal tissues where a cancer can form - both change forms from a static one that replicates fast - to a mobile one that can send a cell of in a new direction but which cannot replicate en route.
IN the case of the cancer stem cell, this change to mobile form versus static form (called epithelial form), is triggered by a heat shock protein (specifically HSP 27) and that is what results in a metastasis of the cancer to a new area - where it changes back to epithelial form so it can multiply. The multiplication/replication - is triggered by a micro-RNA gene fragment.
SO this is the PHYSICAL mechanism of cancer - not a fungus as out of date theories have suggested.
It's not 1932 any more. It's almost 2013. Progress in understanding the MECHANISM of cancer - HAS been made!
Any new theory you want to come up with need to fit the newly known FACTS.
The above is shown as fact - not colored lights open to interpretation - but visible and chemically present triggers with specific target areas on the cells that are visible under the electron microscope - and which respond predictably to triggers of receptors on the surface - even if they are not doing the boogie-woogie all in one picture - a series of pictures is really no big deal - much as a movie consists of still frames:-)
SO we know at a very detailed level what cancer looks like and consists of. Sorry but there's no fungus involved.
Namaste,
Irene