The Truth About IVF And Infertility

The other day, the news media reported, a single man brought home three babies from the U.S.A. The story goes: he purchased a donor egg, hired an incubator (surrogate mother) so there would be no genetic attachment to the baby, and then had the egg fertilized with his own sperm and implanted into the surrogate.

Of course, the fertilizing took place in vitro (in the "test tube", so to speak) just like any other IVF procedure.

What struck me wasn't what he did (although it is cool), or that IVF was used (there really is no other way), but that success was had and the babies were all normal healthy size.

This struck me as odd for two reasons...

Reason # 1: There is an 85% failure rate with IVF! Yes. You read that right. 85% of the time, the implant does NOT take. They never tell you this though. Instead, they tell you they have a 15%+ success rate. They are playing tricks with words.

Reason # 2: Almost all IVF babies are born underweight. They might go full term, but are underweight at birth.

Yet, in the story, those two things didn't occur. And it got me thinking and asking questions. Let me relay my thought process and then show what research reveals.

I'd always thought it was something about the IVF process that resulted in underweight babies. But this example - and other subsequent research - reveals, surrogates tend to have normal weight babies while couples who are having trouble (infertile couples) tend to have underweight babies. So it is obviously NOT the IVF procedure that creates underweight babies.

As I thought I mentally deduced the following:

A baby would be underweight because it isn't developed correctly. The only reason it wouldn't develop is because it isn't getting enough nutrients from the mother. The reasons not enough nutrients would come from the mother are 1, she isn't eating enough nutritious food and 2, her digestion is not fully extracting the nutrients. Number 1 can be changed with diet but number 2 would indicate a "low stomach acid" condition which would be rectified by HCL (Hydrochloric Acid - the same acid in our stomach) supplementation.

I further deduced, that the high IVF failure rate was not due to the procedure (because surrogates didn't seem to have problems), but to the medium the embryo is implanted into. Because if the infertile mother's body isn't providing enough nutrients for the baby to grow to proper size, then it stands to reason the lining of the uterus is likewise devoid of nutrients for the embryo to utilize. And automatic abortion will take place, triggered by the body's own life preservation and reproductive defense mechanisms which only want to have healthy babies.

This could be the very same reason why the couple is having difficulty getting pregnant in the first place.

Get it? The reason IVF babies are underweight is due to malnutrition in the mother. That malnutrition doesn't produce uterine linings conducive to growing a baby. So under normal sex conditions, pregnancy doesn't take place as fertilized eggs are aborted before they have become too advanced.

Example: A woman was having a bugger of a time getting pregnant. She was overweight. She had heard a rumor about someone who got pregnant once they lost weight. So she changed her diet, lost the weight and got pregnant. After the birth she went back to her old eating habits. Wanted another kid and had trouble. Back on the "lose weight diet" she goes and BANG, gets pregnant.

While some will say it was the weight loss which enabled the woman to get pregnant, I always look one or two steps deeper. And when you do, you discover, to lose the weight she had to stop eating crap food and go onto wholesome and nutritious foods. Now that her body was getting enough nutrients, her lining was ready to gestate a baby. Simple.

Having deduced all of this, I had to find out IF my theory had any credence. I knew I wasn't going to get a straight answer from any IVF lab. Because if what I have figured out is correct, the IVF labs would see a decline in IVF treatments as couples first fixed their digestive problems. And the IVF labs wouldn't want that. So I first had to find out WHY a baby is born underweight. My whole theory hinged upon this.

I Googled and discovered, a baby is born underweight due to malnutrition. That is, the mother's body isn't absorbing enough nutrients from the food she eats and thus cannot pass enough nutrients onto the growing baby.

BINGO!!! I had theorized correctly.

As I mentioned, malnutrition is caused by

1: Not eating enough nutritious food, and

2: Having "low stomach acid" - so food is unable to be digested properly.

Number 1 is fixed by a change of diet and number 2 by HCL supplementation.

(This is not to say all infertility problems are caused by poor digestion. I am certain many women also suffer from "estrogen dominance" - which will play havoc with the progesterone part of the cycle making conditions not suitable for gestation. But poor digestion is something easily rectified, as is estrogen dominance, and should be taken seriously for other reasons too - as you will see further on.)

Having a Digestion Problem is actually more widespread than you might imagine. And Low Stomach Acid can actually result in many more health effects than you might also imagine.

Consider. The acid in a dog's stomach is FIVE times stronger than our stomach acid. Dogs primarily eat meat. If you leave store-bought meat out, it goes off - we all know this. Have you considered why and what the answer fundamentally means?

Meat goes off because bacteria infest it. These aren't bacteria that fall onto it, these are bacteria already in it. We then cook this meat - and we all know you can't even leave cooked meat out otherwise it goes off - but that doesn't kill all the bugs. We then consume this meat into our weak-acid stomachs.

IF you already have low stomach acid, the bugs will not be killed by the acid and can fester. You might even get sick as a result. If you have adequate acid but gorge yourself, your acid will be diluted - and this will be the same effect as if you had weak acid (the bugs can thrive).

I know a man who used to get sick a lot. He deduced the above and simply stopped eating meat. He says he has not been sick since - that was forty years ago.

Anyway. The HCL is designed to digest the food as well as kill things which might be in that food. So it is imperative we have nice strong acid.

Further, there is the acid/alkali blood balance.

If we have low stomach acid, we likewise have low levels of HCL in our blood. This needs to be made up by retaining the waste acids in the blood. Waste acids such as carbonic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid and so on. These acids are waste and so are toxic.

Further more, research shows, when there are low level of HCL in the blood the white blood cells clump together and become inactive. When there are correct levels of HCL in the blood, the white blood cells become active and unclump.

So a low stomach acid not only effects the digestion but directly effects our immune system too.

Yes, scientists know of the HCL in the blood thing. And Yes, scientists USED to inject dilute hydrochloric acid into patients and get remarkable results. But HCL cannot be patented. And so any practitioners of this effective treatment have subsequently been labeled as "quacks" - as it always the case when visionaries bump up and threaten the profits of the big pharmaceuticals.

So what to do about increasing your acid level?

That's simple. The easiest thing is to get some HCL tablets from your local health food store. Take half a tablet a couple of mouthfuls before the end of your meal. If you do not feel a warming sensation, then next time take a whole tablet. And keep increasing the dose until you get the warming sensation, then drop back half a tablet.

Low Stomach Acid can be caused by diet - poor diet constantly neutralizing the acid; prolonged inhibition - poor diet which gradually reduced the acid formation mechanism; genetic - not much can be done about this except supplementation and watch what you eat. And for a more indepth discussion on HCL in the stomach, read here.

Is Low Stomach Acid the key to infertility?

I wouldn't say it is THE key. But I think it is definitely one big part of it. Low nutrient absorption coupled with estrogen dominance would make it impossible for a woman to fall pregnant naturally.

Side note. And let me go out on a limb here and say... seeing as low HCL leads to high levels of toxic acids in the blood, and the body needs to get rid of those toxic acids, it would not surprise me if a painful period is a direct result of the body ridding itself of these toxic acids which have built up due to low HCL. Which could also mean, correct the HCL in the stomach and period pain might also vanish. It makes sense. And it is worth a shot.

Anyway. I know if I were a woman who wanted to get pregnant, the two things I would do before going the IVF route, is to stop eating estrogen-like foods (foods that lead to estrogen dominance) and to make sure I had adequate levels of HCL in my stomach. It wouldn't surprise me if all the infertility around the globe - men and women - is directly related to these two things (a man is not going to produce too many viable sperm if he is eating a diet high in female hormone estrogen, nor will those sperm be motile when there aren't enough nutrients being absorbed to make them nice and healthy).

If you consider the possible implications to the IVF industry as well as the pharmaceutical companies if simple HCL supplementation fixed many of the woes they make money from, you get a better idea of WHY HCL is so ignored - and even discredited - by the medical profession (who seem to be all about treating symptoms with antibiotics and making money at the expense of people).

Why Murder Is Bad/Wrong

The other day I asked a tough question... Why is murder wrong?

I've had a few emails admitting that they are unable to formulate a solid backable reason why murder is wrong, other than "it just is", or "it's against the law" or some such argument.

See. It is a hard question to answer. And it goes to show how much we just accept stuff without question, without thinking about it ourselves.

Murder is wrong. And I'm going to show you why from a couple of different Points of View (POV) so you can see how the point can be argued.

POV # 1: The Good, The Bad, The Beneficial.

We need a starting based. So we start with this: That which benefits a conscious living entity is Good/Right for that entity, that which does not benefit and even harms a conscious living entity is Bad/Wrong for that entity.

With this broad unspecific base, we see that killing someone is NOT a benefit for the entity being killed - they get no benefit from it and are deprived of all future benefits. And the entity which is doing the killing is also deprived of benefit as that entity is now hunted and jailed.

So using this broad, unspecific code of conduct, murder is bad/wrong.

POV # 2: Values.

All conscious human beings can create values which can enhance the life of other human beings to some degree. Values result in benefits. Benefits are good. Therefore, values are good and the act of creating values is also good.

By killing an entity, the killer is depriving all of human kind of all values that entity was ever going to create (now and in the future), including genetic values, physical values, science values and ideological values. The killer is a value destroyer. As values are good, destroying them must be bad. As values are beneficial, then destroying values is non-beneficial. And anything that takes benefits away is bad/wrong. Thus, murder is bad/wrong.

POV # 3: Property rights.

We are all born with the right to self-determination. That is, the right to do with our own property whatsoever we see fit to do. And anything which infringes upon that right is bad.

Murder is a direct infringement upon that right because our body is our property. Thus, murder is bad/wrong.

And combining them all I can arrive at: Murder is bad/wrong because it infringes upon the personal property rights of the victim, deprives the victim of current and all future benefits as well as values shared and received.

And I was able to do it without falling back on religious or legal dogma and without falling back onto accepted societal rules - which people don't even know why they accept.

With these three POVs, I have set no moral Do and Don't "rules" as is typical of the church and government. I have used a broad, unspecific base of conduct and value against which murder - in fact, all acts for that matter - can be judged.

If we take my third angle - property rights - and throw some recent events against it, you might just be surprised how it goes.

Elsewhere on this blog I have contended that government's only true reason for existing is to protect our individual personal and property rights.

Recently there was a law passed which banned smoking in restaurants.

Let's run it by the Property Rights concept... the restaurant was the property of the restaurant owner. Therefore, the only person fit to decide whether smoking was had in that property was the property's owner - the restauranteur.

So the government has gone directly against its one and only true mandate and has, itself, infringed upon the property right of the restaurant owner.

Taxes. Well, here again the government is taking away your property - what you rightfully earn is your property. Once again infringing upon the rights that they have a mandate to uphold.

See. We don't need specific rules that say this is wrong or that is wrong. And we shouldn't really want such rules because those rules are always at the whim of the mob. But by having such standards as the various POVs mentioned above, we have a guide we can run everything by to get our answers. And we see that no-one's personal or property rights get infringed upon due to mob vote.

Try it yourself. Next time you see/hear of a new law or even some do-gooder group lobbying for something, run it by the personal and property rights POV. You will quickly and easily see that most of the lobby groups and new laws do more harm than good and infringe upon other people's personal and property rights.

Is Common Sense Inherited, Learned, Implanted By Aliens?

Can common sense be 'taught' or are you 'born with it' and thus you either have it or you don't?

Good question. And it deserves a good answer.

Common sense, by definition, is the "sense" that the majority (the common) operate under.

I say, WHO CARES whether they had to learn their ways or were born with it. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be like them on purpose.

Uncommon sense, by definition, is the "sense" that the minority operate under. And that minority have an advantage because they are AWARE of both types of "sense". And they can easily spot like-minded people and associate with them.

Anyway. Can it be learned? Or are we born with it? Or...

It is learned by everyone. We are not born with it. We are born with the ability to acquire it. Our inquisitiveness... our inclination to solve problems... to overcome obstacles placed in our way. These tendencies enable us to acquire uncommon sense.

We don't realize we are acquiring it. But we are.

Often, its acquisition comes about due to solitude moments. It's hard to think when you're bombarded by the noise of the majority.

School. Uni. Parties. Friends in each others pockets. Functions. Office politics. Big deals made out of mole hills. Rush rush. Everyone is in my way. Quick. What will Betty and Bob think? Oh, the game's on TV but it's bridge night. That darn mortgage. Debts. Latest blockbuster's on. Silence? Turn on the radio. More bad news. Blah blah blah.

Submerged in it for years, you do not notice it.

Take a step back... out of the hubbub... and it looks a little crazy. Get ready... uncommon sense is making a move. Adding a notch to its gun.

Responsible people have uncommon sense.

Think about it.

The $20 Windscreen Wash [A True Event]

If there is a major-ish intersection you will often see them. Teenagers, junior high kids, backpackers. Armed with a "squeegee on a stick" and a bucket (or poptop drink bottle) filled with soapy water.

Every time the lights turn red, they spring into action. Walk up and down the lanes of stopped cars soliciting business. ASKing to wash your windscreen for a buck or two (a $1 or $2 coin in Australia).

These kids can make a hundred bucks in a few hours.

Well yesterday, as I was pulled up at a set of traffic lights they sprang into action as per normal. (I use the term "they" because they usually work in pairs - maybe it gives them more guts to work in pairs than on their own?)

So one of the friendly kids washes the windscreen of the car in front me. And while he is waiting for his money I hear him say that he has a $5 note in change in the bag. I think, "how much is this person giving you that you need a $5 note in change"? And, "sure it can't be such a large note you don't have at least $10 in coins on you right now?"

My thoughts were interrupted by the driver's hand extending a 20 spot!

The kids says, "Wait there I'll get the change" and rushes off to their money stash.

Just as he stands back up with the change and starts to come back over, the light turns green.

The car in front edges forward a foot, stops (as if to wait for the kid - I'd already decided I was going to also wait calmly so they could get their change) then just takes off! (The kid starts to chase and yell. I couldn't believe it.)

It doesn't pull up once through the lights to get the change. It just keeps on driving. AND, when we get to the next set of traffic lights half a mile up the road, uses the car's inbuilt windscreen washers to give the windows a bit of a spray and swipe!?

Of course, washing windscreens at traffic lights is illegal in Australia. The excuse is, it is dangerous and the washers might get hurt. Not that there has ever been a recorded incident of any of those washers getting hurt, mind you.

But we know the real reason, don't we?

It has nothing to do with concern over the safety of those providing the service. If such concern was real, then the government would not encourage bicycle riders to ride on the road taking up part of the same lane a car is supposed to drive in. And there are far more crashes involving bicycles and cars on a daily basis.

No. The real reason is that these entrepreneurs are making CASH money and not paying tax on it. They are being guilty of not giving up the fruits of their labor so the greedy government can get a bit.

Like prostitution, if the government can figure out a way to police it and make money from it, then it is legal. Otherwise, it is illegal. Welcome to the biggest racket in town - owned and operated by the government.