Re: Should Nerves Be Stimulated To Heal Damage? Why?

Question - the Schulze interview that talks about stimulating nerves, was this as a treatment for an underlying cause (like MS), or was this a treatment to rebuild the damage done from an underlying cause AFTER the underlying cause was gotten rid of? There may be a big difference involved, and without being able to watch/read the same interview you found is sort of out there on thin ice. It might help if you could provide a reference to the Schulze interview.

Anyway, just trying to help you here, it is relatively safe to assume that Schulze would attack your problem (any problem, MS, Alzheimers, cancer, whatever) with the full belief that there are no incurable diseaes. This of coruse is a Doc John Christopher philosophy. From this point of view, one could assume that in the interview you found, Schulze had already helped a person to stop the underlying cause of their nerve disease (maybe this happend off screen , off stage to the interview?... I dunno) and had already progressed onto later steps, such as, recovering / rebuilding from the damage done while the underlying cause was still active. Again, there may be a big difference in treatment between ridding the underlying cause, versus rebuilding / recovering AFTER the underlying cause is gone.

This might seem like an awfully strong assumption, which I do not disagree, but again, without knowing which interview you are referring to, there is only so much to go on. However, I have spent an appreciable amount of time watching Schulze's videos / seminars, and I suspect that anyone else who does the same will come away with the impression that this man is quite confident about his ability to help people rid themselves of underlying causes to disease; there are no incurables. Taking him at his word, he has good reason to be so confident; his track record of having healed many people who were on the short track to death before they found him.

As to your conversation with Dr Christopher, you are referring to David, son of John? Are you sure that the context that Dr. Christopher answered the question for you was identical to what you heard/saw from Schulze in the interview? I've never met or spoken to David Christopher, but from glimpses around the edges, my impression is that he's a quite a bit more conservative in his approach than what his father was, as well as Schulze. Perhaps this helps him to stay on the right side of the law, to stay in business, if you know what I mean. Meanwhile, Schulze is effectively in hiding, his botantical pharmacy business is allowed to operate, but he's pretty much been silenced as far as giving advice to the public.

Best wishes. Tweet