On February 18, 1996, in response to a direct question, Ramtha stated that
the Isis White Powder had no discernable healing power, other than that of a
placebo. Due to the great power of the mind to effect healing, you cannot
discount the placebo effects. However, the healing comes from the mind; not
from Isis.
Earlier, Hudson had told me that his analysis of the Isis White Powder showed
that it was comprised of 98 percent dirt. Because most people do not digest
dirt too well, some people may experience stomach cramps after taking Isis.
Thus, when you take Isis, you have a race in your body between the placebo
healing effects and stomach cramps. You can judge for yourself which wins
the race in your own body.
For anyone to try to generalize the observed effects of any placebo such that
the effects can be projected across a general population base would be an
exercise in futility. Any observed effects from any placebo are due to the
patient's mind; not the substance taken. (Any placebo operates to give each
patient the exact effects that patient expects. Try putting that into a
computerized database.)
Ramtha continued to state that the "real" white powder was not yet available
and that we (his audience) should wait for it. It would be available "soon."
During November 1995, Ramtha stated that Hudson had the "real" thing and that
we should wait for him to get his production going before taking any white
powder for healing purposes. We should avoid taking substitute materials
because
they are not what they claim to be. He commented that Hudson had been
"chosen" to rediscover this material and had been receiving "divine guidance"
for the last 14 years of his quest, without Hudson's knowledge.
Apparently, this means that Hudson has been receiving flashes of inspiration
from time-to-time in his quest for the white powder. When I asked Hudson
about this, he shrugged it off as so much "xxx." I took his comment to
mean that Hudson was not a strong believer in channelling. And, he hasn't
confirmed that he has received flashes of inspiration.
However, "divine guidance" might explain the various "leaps-of-logic" which
have led Hudson to the "miraculous" discovery of this legendary material. A
detailed study of the history of science reveals that similar
"leaps-of-logic" led to the discovery of many previous great scientific
principles including the theory of relativity by Einstein and of
electromagnetic theory by Maxwell. Neither used deductive reasoning to
develop their theories.
It might also explain why the various contemporary scientists are having so
much difficulty confirming Hudson's work. There have been several
"leaps-of-faith" in Hudson's work which Hudson has not adequately explained
in his lectures. Anyone following in his footsteps without adequate guidance
from Hudson will require similar inspirations to reason it out. It's not an
easy task and the scientists are who busy trying to do this are to be
encouraged and commended.
The observer is left with two options:
1) Hudson's work is a legitimate great discovery of the first order and it
will just be a matter of time before his work is confirmed by established
scientists.
2) Hudson is a fraud and we are all wasting our time and effort trying to
confirm his discoveries.
Now isn't it reassuring that a great channelled being makes an unsolicited
comment that the first option is valid and that the second option is invalid
and that established scientists should redouble their efforts to confirm
Hudson's work?
Again, using Einstein as an example, it took quite a number of years after
Einstein published his Theory of Relativity before ANYONE else figured out
what he was talking about. Now, his theory is pretty generally accepted and
is taught at the college level.
Take the above for what it is worth considering the source. It was
considered to be "inadmissable" material on the moderated forum.
Whenever you are dealing with "leaps-of-logic", such as we are with the white
powder, there is a virtually indistinguishable line between "fact" and
"opinion." Asking any moderator to discern the difference such that "facts"
can be included and "opinions" can be excluded is to ask the impossible.
"Facts" are based on generally-accepted scientific principles. "Opinions"
are "facts" which have yet to be confirmed and generally accepted. By this
definition,
anything said about the white powder must be considered "opinion" until the
general scientific community accepts it as "fact." How can any scientific
forum serve any useful purpose when any considered "opinion" is excluded from
discussion? To exclude opinons means that "inductive" reasoning would be
excluded which is where all great discoveries and inventions are made.
To exclude "opinion" means that we should all sit on our hands until Joe
Champion finishes his important work of confirming Hudson's theories.
Perhaps we should.
ekarels