Almost every RBTI person here is familiar with that old standard, "the more your urine foams, the higher your nitrogen numbers."
Below is a quote from Joanne Fontenot's "No Time to Die."
"Recent studies indicate that "cancer" patients, because of a lack of anionic enriched foods and minerals, fail to digest proteins. Doctors can test for this by a method discussed later in this book. The average reader will notice this by an excessive amount of "foam" or "suds" on his urine. There should be none! I have found that most medical doctors are surprised to learn of the relationship of cancer to undigested proteins."
Now and then I shake up some urine in a 6" tall graduate to see how much foam I can generate. I am getting the feeling that 7/7 urea usually gives about 10% foam. This is experimental stuff, so anybody who decides that "10% foam means 7/7 urea" is an idiot who needs to be drummed out of RBTI.
However, I do look forward to the day that several busy consultants in different parts of the world start accumulating data and build a table of how to obtain a rough urea reading by agitating urine so as to measure the foam height. To me that would be real science like Reams taught.
Why is this important. Well, gee---has anyone noticed the headlines about "acid attacks" in various countries? Can you not see the day a tiny bottle of RBTI sulfuric acid reagent might be considered a weapon---perhaps even a terrorist tool? Can you see yourself trying to explain your innocence to an angry judge who has witnessed more than one acid-scarred face?
We need better alternatives and I don't mean the $500 ammonia or nitrate meters sold by PikeAgri. I have talked before about using the ammonia and nitrate test sticks that aquarium operators favor, but I seem to remember someone pointing out they are not as accurate as the near century old Reams/LaMotte procedures. So what? For instance, using a bathroom scale to estimate a two pound package when your postal scale is on the fritz does not make anything wrong. It will do exactly what you think: help you estimate.
Although I will be staying with the acid reagent procedures for now, I do pray that some bright mind---perhaps a member of this list---will get to work and provide a much safer alternative. The "handwriting" really is up on the wall. Who knows? You may prevent a lot of heart attacks and save a lot of lives.
Rex Harrill
Below is a quote from Joanne Fontenot's "No Time to Die."
"Recent studies indicate that "cancer" patients, because of a lack of anionic enriched foods and minerals, fail to digest proteins. Doctors can test for this by a method discussed later in this book. The average reader will notice this by an excessive amount of "foam" or "suds" on his urine. There should be none! I have found that most medical doctors are surprised to learn of the relationship of cancer to undigested proteins."
Now and then I shake up some urine in a 6" tall graduate to see how much foam I can generate. I am getting the feeling that 7/7 urea usually gives about 10% foam. This is experimental stuff, so anybody who decides that "10% foam means 7/7 urea" is an idiot who needs to be drummed out of RBTI.
However, I do look forward to the day that several busy consultants in different parts of the world start accumulating data and build a table of how to obtain a rough urea reading by agitating urine so as to measure the foam height. To me that would be real science like Reams taught.
Why is this important. Well, gee---has anyone noticed the headlines about "acid attacks" in various countries? Can you not see the day a tiny bottle of RBTI sulfuric acid reagent might be considered a weapon---perhaps even a terrorist tool? Can you see yourself trying to explain your innocence to an angry judge who has witnessed more than one acid-scarred face?
We need better alternatives and I don't mean the $500 ammonia or nitrate meters sold by PikeAgri. I have talked before about using the ammonia and nitrate test sticks that aquarium operators favor, but I seem to remember someone pointing out they are not as accurate as the near century old Reams/LaMotte procedures. So what? For instance, using a bathroom scale to estimate a two pound package when your postal scale is on the fritz does not make anything wrong. It will do exactly what you think: help you estimate.
Although I will be staying with the acid reagent procedures for now, I do pray that some bright mind---perhaps a member of this list---will get to work and provide a much safer alternative. The "handwriting" really is up on the wall. Who knows? You may prevent a lot of heart attacks and save a lot of lives.
Rex Harrill
RSS Feed