Let's stay in this fight together. Join my email list. Subscribe HERE
Let me start off by saying, I am not going to give you an answer. I want to give you a question. I want to share what I know and let you decide for yourself if maybe I am also talking about you.
Are Peanuts Good for Everyone?
When it comes to snacky healthful food, peanuts are the first thing that come to my mind. I love them! So convenient. The perfect hiking food if you ask me. Easy to eat, fills you up, non-messy, won’t melt in your backpack or CAR!! They are packed with antioxidants, iron, magnesium, fats that fight ‘bad’ cholesterol, and amino acids for brain function, as well as, fiber. Oh, the benefits!
So, peanuts are good for you. Everyone should eat peanuts, right?
Well, yes and no. Maybe they do have many health benefits, but does that mean everyone will benefit from eating peanuts?
According to Medpage Today, (Nov. 20, 2018), 1.2 million children and teens have a peanut allergy.
“Peanut allergy is the second most common food allergy… [it] is the most likely food to cause anaphylaxis and death.”
With that in mind, can we say, ‘Yes, peanuts are good for most people’? Yes.
Can we say, ‘Peanuts are good for everybody.’ No!
We wouldn’t think of feeding someone peanuts if they were allergic to them. It wouldn’t matter what the health benefits were.
"Genuine equality means NOT treating everyone the SAME, but attending equally to everyone’s different needs." ~Terry Eagleton
What does that mean? What is my point? We need to put people into two categories. Those who have the privilege of benefiting from eating peanuts and those who do not. Two categories. Treated two different ways.
It would make no sense, and be downright wrong, I think, to FORCE everyone to eat peanuts.
we are missing someone's needs?
'What is Good for the Goose…'
As the saying goes, ‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander’ would not apply in this situation of peanuts. But it also does not apply in many other areas as well.
The medical field has recently started going further down this road in two areas that I know of.
It was once believed to be a predominately a male ‘issue’. But new studies are now showing that the warning numbers are just ‘different’ for women than men. Realizing this small detail has enabled them to make advances in understanding more about this disease. Has enabled them to help women who in the past were overlooked. Check out Science Daily article here.
This is also another area that was believed to be predominantly male. Until…the doctors realized that an autistic girl acts different than an autistic boy. When you say it, it seems so obvious. How was that overlooked for so long? They have recently realized that autistic girls tend to act like ‘normal’ boys, thus the misdiagnosis. When they realized this difference, the knowledge about this baffling illness increased. Many girls that previously fell along the wayside can now be helped.
The Scientific American article is here.
The list goes on and on about how different people need to be treated differently. (It isn’t always based on gender.)
We could also say that knowing about these new views of the same situation could not have even been conceived of until the right questions were being asked. Sometimes, just coming up with the correct question can be the hardest part.
So, here I have a question.
A question that took me five years to come up with.
What if there are
two types of people?
It seems like there could be. Surely the 80/20 rule applies in the area of well-being just like in all the other areas of life. What if 80% of people can maintain their health by ‘normal’ means, but no matter how hard the other 20% try, they cannot accomplish the same goal using the same means.
What if it is because there should be two categories of patients. What if dealing with these two categories differently enabled already existing procedures, medicines, supplements, and treatments to actually do their job for this alienated group? You know, the group that is addressed with the really fast words at the end of all those drug commercials. Doesn’t it always seem to be, the ones who need the help the most are unable to be helped?
What if, the correct answer to the question, ‘Are there two types of people?’ is YES?
80% of the results
20% of the causes.
Could it be translated as...
80% of the patients
20% of the patients
What if, to be fair,
patients needed to be in two categories.
If so…what does that mean?
The Difference Between Them and Me
I guess you could say I had placed myself into a category called, ‘Not-Me.’ It seemed that even though it worked for others, it didn’t work for me. It seemed like it didn’t matter what it was.
- GFCF egg free Diet
- Parasite cleanse
- Master cleanse
- Candida Diet
- Miracle Mineral Solution
- Other diets
- Stress reduction
- Emotion Code
- Essential Oils
- And the list goes on…
BUT…after searching for five years, I figured out ONE LITTLE THING. This one little thing enabled everything else to work! It turned what previously did not work for me into something that DID WORK! It enabled me to be in the 80%! It enabled me to make progress in my health. I could recover. My doctors’ recommendations could help me now.
It was one simple thing, but it was FAR FROM EASY. But it was/is worth it, to me.
What is this one simple thing?
What could these two groups of people possibly be?
What differentiated me from improving and not improving?
This is just a suggestion, a hypothesis. It is just something that worked for me. I went on an assumption, and it worked. I realized I had a faulty DISH©. What do I mean?
DISH©: Defensive Individual Shield Hypothesis
DISH© is a concept and term I came up with. It has two jobs.
- Shield the Body
- Sort what the Body Encounters
When DISH© is doing its job, I am winning against my health challenges. When it is NOT doing its job, I am losing.
♦♦ It’s that simple. ♦♦
(But not easy.)
What if these two categories were patients who do and patients who do NOT have a faulty DISH? (If you want to see the reasoning behind this DISH concept, check out this page on my website.)
What if for some people, the only difference between healthy and not healthy is this DISH?
What if the only thing preventing some medical procedure from having adverse side effects is this DISH?
What if this DISH means being able to tolerate a medication?
What if this DISH could make a little bit smaller the group of people who can’t be helped?
“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” ~General George S. Patton
When I had no progress and my doctor told me I should have been dead already, I needed to look for different questions. This is the question and answer I found. This is what worked for me. If it worked for me, could it work for others as well? Could this make a difference?