Alt-Physics-Biology Seminar: R&D, Steiner, Reams, Tennant
Chapter 19 serializing Befriending Your Biology; Physical Health from the Inside Out. Available on Kindle now. This series ends with Chapter 20 next week.
Starting in the 2070s, the Association of USBA Healthcare Colleges finally had some breathing room to consider investing in much-needed, much-delayed research and development in urine-saliva biomarker analysis. Many of Dr. Reams’ novel ideas had no peer-reviewed literature more recent than 2008. Colleges polled current students, graduates, patrons and faculty which questions they imagined would be most fruitful, constructive and educational to invest resources into.
Unsuspected enthusiasm existed among students and graduates for professional, serious R&D projects. Students and graduates suggested a year-round Alt-physics, Alt-biology Seminar be offered for college credit. Here students can hash out the issues, propose experiment protocols and collaborate on and publish papers for peer review.
Since then, a great deal of peer-reviewed USBA-Reams research has been produced. The most popular and best-received papers are in the book, Reams, Steiner, Tennant Alt Physics, Alt-biology Seminar Findings (2082) edited by Dr. Claudio Vernight, USBA-II, Studds Tercel, PhD, Avery Goodyear, USBA-I.
Unique to Dr. Reams in his lifetime, he was convinced of many unconventional ideas.
All disease is caused by a lack of minerals
The idea of mineral deficiencies was not new in Reams’ day. What was new was his claim virtually 100% of all disease was caused by lack of the correct minerals available in the right form and pH so new cells could form optimally. For Dr. Reams “minerals” started with Calciums. Coming from soil testing, Reams understood the significance and role of calcium in soil fertility. When he started working more with people, he apparently became even more convinced of the efficacy of calciums in diet.
Where were conventional doctors on Calcium? What doctors now call “calcium signaling” via the Ca²+ ion only became somewhat common knowledge in the 1950s; then moreso, in the early 1970s. This even tho the original research proving the vast significance of Calcium to the heart had been proven in 1883:
begin Q
Sidney Ringer [Ringer, S. (1883) J. Physiol. 4, 29–43] was studying the contraction of isolated rat hearts. In earlier experiments, Ringer had suspended them in a saline medium. He admitted to having used London tap water, which is hard (calcium-rich): The hearts contracted beautifully.
When he replaced the tap water with distilled water, he made a startling finding: The beating of the hearts became progressively weaker, and stopped altogether after about 20 min. To maintain contraction, he found it necessary to add Ca2+ salts to the suspension medium. Ringer had serendipitously discovered how Ca2+, hitherto exclusively considered as a structural element, was active in a tissue with nothing to do with bones or teeth. In the rat hearts, it performed a completely novel function: It carried the signal initiating heart contraction.
The above is excerpted from a readable summary history of conventional knowledge about calcium signaling here:
“Calcium signaling: A tale for all seasons” (2002) — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122154/
end Q
Reams: in vivo cells don’t divide
Fortunately we believe, Dr. Reams’ theory of calcium did NOT stop with “calcium and minerals are good for you.” It only began there. His theory of biological ionization is live human cells in vitro, in a petri dish with a gelatin medium, may indeed grow by dividing. However, in vivo, live, in the body, cells grow only by congregating-converging minerals ions from the blood and interstitial fluid between cells, forming a cell similarly to how invisible ions of metal travel thru a salt solution to plate one metal with another.
If our blood plasma and other internal Living Waters lack sufficient mineral ions, then new cells cannot form as soon as needed. If new cells can’t form, old cells persist past their expiration date. If too many old cells persist; and, new cells are not formed, sooner or later, physical symptoms start to appear.
Make sense? Questions?
Jon Frank, a student of Dr. Reams puts this more artistically:
Jon Frank on Reams’ ionization theory
Jon Frank was a long-time student of Dr. Reams agriculture topics:
… Imagine you are sitting around a campfire at night. Wood is burning, keeping you warm. Besides heat energy, what else is releasing? Light and sound. All these energies released are on the electromagnetic spectrum. So burning wood releases and disperses energy.
When the fire goes out, you observe earth minerals in the form of ashes. What happened to the rest of the wood’s mass? Its matter went back into the atmosphere in gaseous forms.
Growing a crop, a plant cell or a human cell, is the exact opposite. Here all three forms of electromagnetic energies are brought back together to make new life processes, making healthy soil, a healthy crop, a leaf, a stalk, a human cell. All three forces must be present and available to both soil, plant and human life, to make new cells. … Jon Frank
Permission to paraphrase requested by email July, 2021. Slightly expanded and reframed from https://www.facebook.com/groups/178738658832328/user/100001336533239
In this way, Dr. Reams was a proponent of ordinary alchemy, in a very common form. Why wasn’t this wisdom studied and proven 75 years ago? The sound of cash registers ringing up sales of patent pharmaceuticals was deafening to the ears of doctors.
The Regenerative Agriculture Revolution (2007–2055) and the inclusion of biochar in so many products now has made Dr. Beddoe’s claim below seem pedestrian:
The cause of inflammatory bowel syndrome and Inflammatory Bowel Disease, as defined by RBTI, has the same fundamental cause as all diseases, no matter how medical science labels them. Dr. Reams was probably one of the earliest researchers to reveal all disease is caused by a lack of adequate and proper minerals in our diet. He found commercially grown and processed foods, for consumption by the public, have less than 20% to 30% of the minerals necessary to sustain a long healthy life.
Food mineral deficiencies begin with the soil on which the food is grown. If the farmer or gardener is not attentive to supplying the full complement of minerals needed to grow crops to the highest possible brix levels (i.e., nutrient density, as measured by a refractometer in brix units), these crops will only contribute to the rampant sickness we continue to experience around us daily.
Unless you obtain high brix fruit and produce, the only way to be sure you are getting the minerals your body requires from your diet, is to use mineral supplements.
The only way to accurately know which minerals and vitamins are needed to help your body use vital minerals is to “go by the numbers.” … RBTI test results provide the only reference point by which a diet and supplement program can be accurately and individually engineered and monitored, for maximum health and wellbeing. … — https://rbtiworld.com/2017/rbti-insights-the-cause-of-all-dis-ease/
Learning from metal plating
Most readers will know the difference between in vivo and in vitro. In vivo is nothing artificial; it’s what live cells are doing or not doing in live bodies. In vitro is what live cells do in an artificial environment, in a petri dish. This way many cell activities, invisible in living bodies, can be observed directly. However, the difference between in vivo and in vitro conditions are routinely discounted to be zero.
After studying Einstein, doing his own chemistry experiments, meditating on his results for decades, Dr. Reams came to believe in vivo, inside live bodies, cells do not divide, like amoebas. Instead, new living cells form thru attracting and aggregating ions moving in solutions. Dr. Reams believed metal plating, plating one metal with another metal, in a water bath, with electrolytes and electricity, was exactly analogous
dg-metal plating
Some plastics can be also be metal plated.
Vs: Cells reproduce by division
Conventional medicine believes human cells only reproduce by division. Why do they believe this? Because they can see and photograph this activity, among cells, in petri dishes, outside the body. That the same thing happens inside the body, in vivo, is only an assumption.
The Alt-Seminar was tasked with resolving the following:
- Verify (reproduce) human cells reproducing by division in vitro,
- Consider the possibility human cells reproduce by both division and by plating inside living human bodies.
- How can current knowledge be explained to freshman students more simply and clearly?
We are sad to say, as of this writing, no peer-reviewed paper or text exists with experiments and evidence to prove:
- In vivo one form of cell division can be ruled out.
You can contribute! If you know of relevant existing research or have experiments to propose, please contact one of the authors.
Human energy comes from “resistance”
Conventional physiology and medical texts claim this: human energy comes from making food into glucose. Glucose goes to the cells. They oxidize (burn) sugar for energy:
All parts of the body (muscles, brain, heart, and liver) need energy to work. This energy comes from the food we eat. Our bodies digest food by mixing it with fluids (acids and enzymes) in the stomach. When the stomach digests food, the carbohydrate (sugars and starches) in the food breaks down into another type of sugar, called glucose.
The stomach and small intestines absorb the glucose. They release it into the bloodstream. Once in the bloodstream, glucose can be used immediately by cells for energy or stored in our bodies, to be used later.
“How our bodies turn food into energy” (2020?) — https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/washington/health-wellness/healtharticle.how-our-bodies-turn-food-into-energy
Some readers of the above will ask, “What about mitochondria?” Please hold this question until we complete presenting Dr. Reams’ position.
Dr. Beddoe points to a common high school science experiment in his textbook pg. 21:
Grapefruit baking soda experiment
Some of you may remember a high school chemistry or physics classroom experiment. A small yet measurable amount of electricity was generated using only a grapefruit and baking soda.
A small hole is cut in a fresh grapefruit. A wire is placed into the hole hooked up to a volt meter. A second wire is inserted into the grapefruit an inch or more away from the hole. Both wires are connected to a volt meter.
Now a small amount of baking soda is poured into the hole. The soda reacts with the juicy grapefruit. A foaming action occurs. The meter registers a current flow! As long as the foaming action continues, the meter registers a current flow.
What produces the current? The synchronizing of the acid and bases. When both substances are synchronized into new substances, the current stops; no more energy is released. The situation is now chemically stable again.
At a slower rate, this is what happens in digesting food, when cationic food meets anionic digestive fluids. … It is the energy given off during this process … which humans live on. In this way, man does not live off the food we eat. Rather, we live off the energy produced in the reaction between food and our digestive fluids.
Revised for clarity from Beddoe pg. 21 top of page in my edition.
But wait! There’s more.
Note: Whenever a bond between atoms or between molecules is broken, heat and electricity are released. The “taking apart” process of ionization is all about breaking ionic bonds. When ionic bonds are broken, heat and electricity are always released. The electricity is in the form of electrons as anions and/or electrons as cations. Heat and electricity and energy-bearing matter is what we live on…
[Conventional biochem says] Glucose and oxygen go into every cell from the blood. Then in the mitochondria of each cell, these are turned into heat and electricity. This is an important energy source, extracted from the foods we eat. Yet it’s not the only energy source from the foods we eat. [Cationic~anionic friction is another source of energy] Reams-Black pg 44 (section highlighted in blue font)
Drs. Reams-Beddoe acknowledge glucose. Also, mitochondria were not known outside of research labs until 1957 at least or later. By 1957, Dr. Reams’ idea of body energy coming from “resistance” was already well-formed.
Just as fire burns oxygen and gives off carbon dioxide and water, mitochondria act like furnaces when they convert glucose into adenosine triphosphate (ATP): They “burn” (use) oxygen and give off carbon dioxide and water. Because the process uses oxygen, it is said to be aerobic (as in aerobic exercise) — “How Cell Mitochondria Convert Food into Useable Energy” (year unknown) https://www.dummies.com/education/science/biology/how-cell-mitochondria-convert-food-into-useable-energy/
From “resistance” to “synergy”?
dg-spinning anions cations
Neither resistance nor friction is what’s depicted. An image of resistance-friction would be the ions rotating AGAINST each other, both rotating either clockwise or counter-clockwise.
What’s depicted is more like synergy. The word “synergy” was first used in the 1700s yet only in theological circles. It’s widespread modern usage did not begin until the 1970s, long after Dr. Reams’ formative years.
What if the ions spinning as shown are not competing, are not in opposition but in cooperation, to a common purpose?
These are the kinds of topics the Alt Physical Seminar tries to match evidence to in support.
Three sources of human energy
In recent decades what some believe is true, which Drs. Reams-Beddoe were a bit vague on, is humans gain energy from multiple sources:
- Dr. Reams “resistance,” the breaking of ionic bonds, synchronizing of substances of different spin, clockwise and counterclockwise, and
- Burning of glucose and fats in the mitochondria (primarily in muscle cells, by which an increase of warmth (heat) is produced).
Already of note in the 1990s, a third source of human energy was hypothesized. Dr. Jerry Tennant in his Healing is Voltage: The Handbook (2010 edition preferred) says -50 mV is required at the site of any physical injury. This higher negative voltage attracts positive ions of nutrition which the body then uses to repair injured tissue. Bio-electricity is very much a part of Dr. Reams’ idea of “ionization.” He termed this “nerve energy.”
The Alt-Physics-Biology Seminar has been tasked with:
- exploring these topics,
- rectifying and conforming language in RBTI-USBA literature,
- proposing experimental protocols,
- writing and publishing papers.
The hope is the workable connections between ALL the following can be identified and established thru evidence-based, peer-reviewed papers:
- Reams-Beddoe ideas,
- Rudolf Steiner ideas,
- Jerry Tennant ideas,
- Walter Russell ideas, and
- Eric P. Dollard ideas.
Cancer as nothing more than accumulated dead cells
Dr. Reams’ theory of cancer has three parts:
- Cancer is no more than accumulated dead cells, untimely in the body; which, hang around too long, have no way to get out of the body,
- Cancer is dead cells who are disconnected from nerves connected to the brain, and
- Cancer is cells who have lost any reserve energy.
Dr. Reams theory of cancer is a prize example of a phenomena encountered again and again in Dr. Reams’ legacy; sadly, not discussed openly until the 2040s:
Even if Dr. Reams’ concept of [insert outlandish Reams idea here] makes no sense at all in theory, it may still be 100% workable in practice.
It’s useful to repeat this in more polite words: “Even if Dr. Reams’ concept of cancer has no evidential support or outside corroboration, it may still be 100% workable in practice.”
If Dr. Reams or his direct students ever identified what experiments could be done to validate his cancer theory, the present Authors are unaware of these. Readers who can conceive of experimental protocols to prove Dr. Reams ideas as encouraged to contact their local USBA college.
The danger is, as everyone knows, without evidence, we are in the realm of faith. By all accounts, what Dr. Reams and his direct students found was, even lacking all support for his theory, his method of following the numbers, worked for ever cancer patients ready, willing, able and wanting to follow Dr. Reams’ program consistently.
The above situation with Dr. Reams is unusual but not unheard of. Self-testing — what used to be called “muscle-testing or arm-pull-down,” in specialized Kinesiology, had the exact same situation in the late 1980s embodied in this joke: “Muscle testing works in practice, it simply doesn’t yet work in theory.”
Sometime in science, consistent, repeatable results get ahead of human intellectual understanding.
Faith alone in the founder of your group, and his or her articles and theory, don’t substitute well when facts from testing are yet to be done.
The human body can manufacture vitamin C
Dr. Beddoe covers many Vitamin C topics in RBTI here: http://rbtiworld.com/2012/vitamin-c-needed-more-than-ever/
For a full parsing of Dr. Reams contrary ideas and how valid they are now, please see the book, RBTI Versus Conventional Science (2105) by Gail Storm, MD, USBA-I
RBTI was a “theory of everything;” USBA is not
Perhaps this topic deserves more space. A longer version written was removed. The following supports readers understanding the topic.
A theory of everything is a hypothetical framework explaining all known physical phenomena in the universe. Modern researchers have searched for such a model ever since development of quantum mechanics and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity in the early 20th century.
Each of these pillars of modern physics describes its respective area of inquiry — the very smallest and the most massive things in the cosmos — with astounding accuracy. Yet both quantum mechanics and relativity, fail when applied to each other’s subject matter. So far, an overarching theory of everything has eluded scientists. Some believe the ultimate goal is unrealistic.
According to the American Physical Society, Einstein began to search for a unifying theory in the 1920s. He never fully accepted the strange paradoxes of quantum mechanics. He believed the mathematics describing electromagnetism and gravity, the only two forces known at the time, could be combined into a single framework.
“I want to know how God created this world,” Einstein told a young physics student named Esther Salaman in 1925. “I’m not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details.” …
“What Is the Theory of Everything?” (1919) — https://www.space.com/theory-of-everything-definition.html#:~:text=A%20theory%20of%20everything%20(TOE,in%20the%20early%2020th%20century.
The above in many ways sounds like Dr. Reams. It suggests the influence Einstein had on Dr. Reams. Reams’ RBTI is an ambitious approximation to a “theory of everything.” This is what Reams seemed most proud of. During his life he put his theory of ionization first, in front of his method for generating, analyzing and interpreting number arrays.
Dr. Beddoe follows this order in his Human Nutrition text: Theory first, method second.
The first RBTI instructor we know of to divorce theory from method somewhat, and put the method first was Wanda Seitz, ND in 2021. She is an approved RBTI educator per Betty Reams.
In this text we have followed method first, theory last. We have separated Dr. Reams’ theory considerably from his method. We believe learning and practicing his method has many times the benefits of learning his Theory of Ionization in depth. Several generations of gainfully employed Healthcare College graduates attest to the practicality of this sequencing.
Where does Dr. Reams’ Theory come in USBA curriculum? After certification for testing performance competency is acquired. Learning the Theory of Ionization is more germane to being certified for interpretive competency.
We do believe Dr. Reams’ Theory has its place. The Alt-Physics-Biology Seminar is tasked determining with this on-going project.
As mentioned, the second and highest level of USBA interpretive competency certification level requires a PhD level paper, “My Theory of How the Body Creates New Cells.” All submission must use this as title or sub-title. This requires attending one or more semesters of the Alt-Physics-Biology Seminar.
Can thing X be read in Reams’ array?
Seminar faculty and students have also been tasked with ascertaining if the following things can — or cannot — be reliably read in R7 number arrays; and HOW they are read. If they can be read in only a certain sub-group of arrays, we wish to know this too:
- oxygen
- Sulfur deficiency
- Essential fatty acids (EFAs) deficiency (see “Reams Then Revici” paper (2022).
- Sterols (fatty alcohols) deficiency (see “Reams Then Revici” paper (2022).
- What else might be possible to reliably read?
