transporter_ii

The main focus of the film is a handful of people who were able to turn their lives around using nutrition. These were not marginal people who only had to improve a little to function. A few lost portions of their lives to the pharmaceutical industry's treatment of their mental illness. One person spent time so heavily medicated that she would sit in a chair and drool. If she fell out of the chair, someone would pick her up and put her back in the chair. That was her life.

Using sound nutrition, everyone involved in the film was able to turn their lives around and become normal, functioning members of society, throwing their meds in the trash in the process. The person mentioned above went on to have three more children and is healthy and happy.

Nothing about the film is bad, but it is a little short and could have stood to get more in depth. For those wanting more information on the subject, I recommend the book "Food & Behavior: A Natural Connection," by Barbara Reed Stitt.

One thing I found interesting in the film was the segment on Roger Williams and biochemical individuality. This was a helpful look at why some people may require more micronutrients than others. What Williams found was that intestinal disorders such as leaky gut syndrome in children stopped them from absorbing some micronutrients.

You have to keep in mind that America is running over with food. It's not running over with nutrition. Over farmed land is producing stuff to put in our mouths, it's not feeding our bodies or our brains. It only compounds the problem if people aren't properly absorbing what little nutrition is actually in our foods. Making and taking vitamins is not necessarily the answer to this problem, either.

One theory presented both in the film and in Stitt's "Food & Behavior," is that there is a host of sub-clinical diseases going on that is affecting mental health. For example, while few people have full-blown pellagra anymore -- a vitamin deficiency disease -- there may be a large number of people suffering from sub-clinical pellagra. Since a symptom of pellagra is dementia, someone suffering it may be giving a psychotropic drug (treat the symptom), when the root cause of the problem was simply a vitamin B3 deficiency.

In some way, we have to change the financial rewards in the medical industry to producing results, not selling pills, or treating sub-clinical pellagra by drugging people so hard they can only sit in a chair and drool will never change. The sad fact is, telling people to eat right is not profitable. We need people to get paid when they get people back to being fully functioning, and financially penalized when they sell pills.

Sadly, too many people in America benefit from the way things are now to really make meaningful changes. Because of this, as I always say, "when it all comes crashing down around us, we all had a hand in it!"

While another review described this movie as "liberal," I must say that while it may be, it still had a lot of interesting information in it. At one point in my life, I thought Rush Limbaugh was too liberal, but yet I still enjoyed this movie and have watched it several times.

There were several turn offs, yes. The New Age vibe the movie gives off is one of them. However, this is also a plus, because New Agers must be one of the last groups in America that have an upbeat outlook for the future. I may not agree with them, yet it is totally refreshing to see what is an unusual stance in this day of "doomsday preppers."

The other negative of the film is the kind of glowing nostalgic view of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. Yes, both of them may have really done some good in some way, but there were a lot of dark things about Mandela that were pushed under the carpet, and making him look like he could walk on water really does a disservice to history. The same with King, who in some ways did help move America to the "left" politically, but yes, he did accomplish some things that were needed in America.

That being said, there are some really positive things about the movie. The look at America as a consumer-based society. The look at community versus individualism is interesting. Really, all of the interviews in the film are pretty interesting and the movie is worth watching just for this reason.

Lynne Mctaggart, the author of one of my favorite books, "The Field," is interviewed in the film. For anyone wanting to look more at the scientific side of "I Am," I highly recommend getting a copy of "The Field."

I will add as a side note, that while it isn't totally fitting to "I Am," I recommend the book, "The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom," by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt expands on some of the same issues, discussing community versus individualism, consumerism, etc., and even discusses some of the political views that affect these topics.

Rather than it being one or the other, Haidt points out that both Left and Right have some truth to them, and that America is better off because both sides exist.

I think that is how "I Am" should be viewed. There is some truth in it, and it should be watched even if you don't agree with every single minute of the movie.

In fact, I think people can grow from hearing different viewpoints even if they don't agree with them. In that respect, "I Am," offers a lot to think about, again, even if you don't agree with all of it.