Category Archives: Body, Mind & Spirit

Drugs, Medical Tests, Infections, etc.

Posted on by

Hospital-Acquired Infections, Dangerous Tests and Other Medical Cover-Ups

By Dr. Mercola

March 08, 2016

Story at-a-glance

  • 1 in 4 patients in the U.S. end up contracting some form of infection while in the hospital, and 205 Americans die from hospital-acquired infections every day
  • Hospitals that accept Medicare tend to be riskier than others in this regard, but the FDA does not release the names of hospitals where infections are reported
  • Non-disposable flexible medical scopes can transmit infections between patients, due to the fact that they cannot be properly sterilized. If you must get a colonoscopy, make sure they clean the scope using peracetic acid

Hospital-acquired infections are a significant problem. According to 2011 statistics, 1 in 4 patients in the U.S. end up contracting some form of infection while in the hospital, and 205 Americans die from hospital-acquired infections each and every day.

In just one year (2011), an estimated 722,000 Americans contracted an infection during a stay in an acute care hospital, and about 75,000 of them died as a result of it.

The most common hospital-acquired infections include central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, surgical site infections, and clostridium difficile infections.

Contaminated Medical Scopes Implicated in Spread of Superbug Infections

Last year, Dr. Jeffrey Tokar, director of gastrointestinal endoscopy at Fox Chase Cancer Center, and a paid consultant for a medical scope manufacturer, wrote an article1 discussing strategies to improve patient safety in light of superbug outbreaks traced back to contaminated medical scopes.

Now, Kaiser Health News points out that Tokar’s own cancer center was ground zero for at least three cases in which patients were infected with drug-resistant bacteria.

According to the article:2

“In accordance with federal rules, the hospital reported the possibility to the manufacturer … But the public was none the wiser.

The information only came to light … when a U.S. Senate committee unveiled the results of a yearlong investigation into scope-related infections that sickened nearly 200 patients across the country from 2012 to 2015, including those potential cases at Fox Chase in Philadelphia.

The incident in Philadelphia illustrates a larger problem, experts say: a lack of public disclosure when medical devices are suspected of posing a risk to patients …

[S]aid Lawrence Muscarella, Ph.D., a hospital-safety consultant … ‘Hospitals don’t realize the more transparent they are, the more infection risks would decrease. It looks like important information was missing from this paper.’ …”

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way for patients to determine where these kinds of infections are occurring, and whether your local hospital might be a hotspot.

According to the 2011 Health Grades Hospital Quality in America Study,3 Hospitals that accept Medicare tend to be far riskier than others in this regard, but the FDA does not release the names of hospitals where infections are reported.

Asking the Right Questions Could Save Your Life

Download Interview Transcript

Last December, I interviewed David Lewis, Ph.D., a retired microbiologist, about how non-disposable flexible scopes such as sigmoidoscopes and colonoscopes can transmit infections between patients, due to the fact that they cannot be properly sterilized. Their design simply does not permit it.

Lewis was the microbiologist that uncovered the fact that dentists were spreading HIV by not properly sterilizing their equipment in the 1990s. When he uncovered the problem with scopes however, rather than being rewarded he was fired.

If you’re having a colonoscopy or any other procedure using a flexible endoscope done, you can significantly reduce your risk of contracting an infection by asking the hospital or facility how the scope is cleaned, and which cleaning agent is used.

Some esophagoscopes and bronchoscopes have sterile sheaths with disposable air-water and biopsy channels, but many others do not, and must be cleaned between each use.

If the hospital or clinic uses glutaraldehyde, or the brand name Cidex, cancel your appointment and go elsewhere. About 80 percent of clinics use glutaraldehyde because it’s a less expensive alternative, however it does not do a good job of sterilizing the equipment.

If they use peracetic acid, your likelihood of contracting an infection from a previous patient is very slim.

So making a phone call or two before scheduling your appointment, asking what kind of scope will be used; whether it’s fully disposable or must be cleaned, and what they use to clean it with, could be a lifesaving strategy.

The ultimate long-term solution would be to create flexible scopes that can be autoclaved (heat sterilized). But manufacturers have not been pressured to come up with such a design. As noted by Lewis, it really boils down to federal agencies failing to take the contamination issue seriously enough.

Canadian Experts Dissuade Patients From Colonoscopies

While contamination risk was not cited as a reason for Canada’s updated recommendation to not use colonoscopy as a screen for colon cancer, it’s certainly a consideration that needs to be taken into account, no matter where you live.

Canada’s Task Force on Preventive Health care now recommends4 using guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) when testing for colon cancer in adults over the age of 50 who have no symptoms of cancer and who are not in a high risk category.

According to Reuters:5

“Opposition to colonoscopy as a primary screening test for colon cancer stems from the lack of evidence showing it to be any better than other screening methods, the Task Force says …

These recommendations differ from those published by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2008, which support the use of FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy for colon cancer screening in adults aged 50 to 75.

‘Regardless of age, primary care providers should discuss the most appropriate choice of test with patients who are interested in screening, considering patient values and preferences as well as local test availability,’ the [Canadian] recommendations conclude.”

Antibiotic Resistance Likely to Reach Epidemic Proportions Worldwide

In the CDC’s 2013 report “Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States,” no less than 18 superbugs were identified as “urgent, serious and concerning threats” to humankind.6

The majority of these dangerous bacteria are in the gram-negative category, because that variety has body armor that makes it extremely resistant to the immune response.

Most disturbing of all, an increasing number of bacteria are now exhibiting “panresistance” — meaning, resistance to every antibiotic in existence. One of the latest multi-drug resistant bacteria gaining ground is Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae(CRE), which produce an enzyme that breaks down antibiotics.

Hospitals are the most common source of this infection, which is lethal in about 9 percent of all cases. When the CRE infection affects your blood, the death rate jumps to 50 percent.7

In January, Canadian researchers issued a warning saying that antibiotic use in farming must be stopped if we’re to gain the upper hand against antibiotic-resistant disease. Canada recently began a surveillance program covering all Canadian hospitals, following reports that China had discovered a drug-resistant gene (MCR-1) with epidemic potential in animals, meat, and human patients.

MCR-1 is a gene mutation that makes bacteria resistant to a last-resort antibiotic called colistin, and the rate of transfer of this genetic mutation between bacteria is exceptionally high.

While colistin has not been used much in human medicine in recent decades, it is widely used in China’s agriculture industry. This heavy use may have triggered the acquisition of MCR-1 by E. coli and other bacteria. As a member of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University said in a National Geographic interview, “It’s real world, empiric evidence that this thing can spread very widely. It’s almost like it possesses a universal key.”8

As noted by CBC News,9 “scientists in England and Wales, Denmark, Thailand and Laos, among others, have published similar findings.” Canada has also found the gene in three human cases. According to Michael Mulvey, Ph.D., head of antimicrobial resistance at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, “It’s the first such finding of the gene in North or South America, which confirms its global dissemination.”

Antibiotic Resistance Is Not the Only Cover-Up in Medicine

As reported by STAT News,10 “the regulatory system for reporting side effects caused by prescription drugs is producing its own kind of side effect — incomplete information about injuries that patients may have suffered.”

According to an analysis11 published in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, drug companies frequently fail to file comprehensive reports on side effects, thereby preventing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from assessing the scope of the threat to consumers.

Doctors and consumers can report drug side effects to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and drug makers are required to not only report but also investigate side effects associated with their drugs and medical appliances. However, while drug makers file the vast majority of reports of serious or fatal side effects, compared to those filed by doctors and consumers the majority of their reports do not include key data.

As noted by STAT:

“For this reason, one of the study authors contends there are still wider implications … The analysis found that in 2014, the FDA received 528,192 new reports of a serious or fatal side effect, of which 4.7 percent were filed with the agency directly by doctors and consumers. Of those, 86 percent included complete information about four important data points — patient age and sex, the date the side effect occurred, and a specific medical term to describe the problem.

By contrast, drug makers filed 95.3 percent of side effect reports, but most were incomplete … nearly 38 percent lacked the patient’s sex and age, and 47 percent did not have the date when the problem occurred. Overall, reports involving patient deaths offered the least amount of complete information for all of the key data points…

‘With increasing pressure for the FDA to approve drugs fast but with less clinical testing, it is a major concern that postmarket surveillance has major problems that are not being addressed,’ said Thomas Moore, a senior scientist the Institute for Safe Medicination Practices …‘It is time for the FDA, the medical community, and industry to start work on a badly needed modernization’ of this ‘critical tool’ for monitoring safety.”

How Drug Ads Fool Consumers

Drug makers are also required to inform consumers about potential side effects in their ads. In another article,12 STAT News discusses how drug narrators “take the scariness out of side effects.” If you think about it, how is it that so many people voluntarily take, let alone ask their doctor for a drug that has very serious and in some cases lethal side effects?

“[T]he actors paid to deliver these warnings … say there’s an art to it. ‘We use the same approach medical professionals do, telling a patient calmly: ‘We’re going to perform this surgery and there’s a 60 percent chance you won’t live,’’ said Joey Schaljo, who has worked as a voiceover actor on drug ads and who has a knack for narrating endless lists of side effects …

Some ads use one narrator to talk about the benefits of the drug and a different actor to recite the risks — in a less engaging voice. Or the warning section may be written with more complex sentence structures, to make it harder for viewers to absorb …

Another common trick: Keep the voice actor who talks about risks off screen. Research has found that consumers absorb the most information when they can see people speaking rather than just hearing them … ‘There’s a shift in how the voice is used to make it easier to understand the benefits and less easy to understand the risks,’ said Ruth Day, a cognitive scientist at Duke University who has studied drug ads for more than a decade.”

Drug Companies Siphon Tax Dollars for Dangerous, Useless, Overpriced Drugs

As if it wasn’t enough that you pay with your health for the drug industry’s lackadaisical approach to side effects — both by their downplaying the risk of death or serious injury in their ads, and by their filing adverse event reports that are useless for predicting risk to other patients — you also pay for their crimes with your tax dollars.

Sovaldi, a hepatitis C drug made by Gilead was under investigation for 18 months by the Senate Finance Committee. In the end, the Committee decided that the price of the drug — $1,000 per pill, or $84,000 per treatment — “did not reflect the cost of research and development and that Gilead cared about ‘revenue’ not ‘affordability and accessibility,’” the Epoch Times13 writes.

In 2014 alone, Medicare and Medicaid shelled out more than $5 BILLION for Sovaldi and another hepatitis C drug called Harvoni.

Writing for the New York Times,14 columnist Nicholas Kristof notes that in the year 2015, the drug industry “spent $272,000 in campaign donations per member of Congress … to bar the government from bargaining for drug prices in Medicare. That amounts to a $50 billion annual gift to pharmaceutical companies.”

“But Gilead is far from the only drug company camping out on our tax dollars,” Epoch Times reports. “Drug companies have devised elaborate schemes for drug sales to states … In 2008, the Texas attorney general’s office charged Risperdal maker Janssen (Johnson & Johnson’s psychiatric drug unit) with defrauding the state of millions ‘with [its] sophisticated and fraudulent marketing scheme,’ to ‘secure … Risperdal, on the state’s Medicaid preferred drug list’ …

The Department of Veterans Affairs spent $717 million on … Risperdal to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq only to discover after nine years that the drug worked no better than a placebo …

In Texas, a Medicaid ‘decision tree’ called the Texas Medical Algorithm Project was instituted that mandates that doctors prescribe the newest and most expensive psychiatric drugs first. The program was funded … by the Johnson & Johnson-linked Robert Wood Johnson Foundation … Another tactic that drug companies use is ‘helping’ states buy their own brand name drugs …

One such program sends registered nurses to the homes of patients who are on expensive brand drugs to ensure ‘compliance’ — that they have not stopped taking the drugs.”

To Protect Your Health, Avoid Antibiotics — Both in Medicine and Food

The conventional medical system has in many ways created just as many, if not more, problems than it has solved. Drugs are vastly overprescribed and misused, and this is particularly true for antibiotics — more than 80 percent of which are used in agriculture to fatten up livestock.

This routine practice has resulted in a manmade scourge of antibiotic-resistant disease, which is already rendering previously treatable infections lethal, and may soon turn even minor surgery into a dangerous proposition.

So what can you do to protect yourself? Regarding antibiotics, avoid using them unless absolutely necessary, and remember they don’t work for viral infections. Also opt for organic grass-fed and grass-finished meats, to avoid antibiotic residues and, more importantly, antibiotic-resistant bacteria that could kill you. This is a serious issue, so if you chose to eat meat, make sure it’s clean.

Strategies That Could Save Your Life If You’re Hospitalized

to read the rest of the article, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/03/08/hospital-acquired-infections-superbug-cover-ups.aspx

 

Do-It-Yourself Foot Detox

Posted on by

Make Detox Foot Pads At Home And Remove All The Dangerous Toxins From Your Body Overnight

| March 8, 2016 

Make Detox Foot Pads At Home And Remove All The Dangerous Toxins From Your Body Overnight

via MyLifestyle

Detox foot pads were first used in Japan. It is about stick-on pads that need to be placed on the soles of the feet before going to bed. The next day when you remove the footpads, you will see that the dangerous toxins eliminated from the body have darkened the pads.

The foot pads are worn on feet because they help circulate blood and lymph into the torso. Our inactive lifestyle causes circulation to bog down around the ankles, lower legs and feet.

The positive results of using foot detox pads are less fatigue, joint pain, and fewer headaches.

Additionally, you can buy ready-made detox foot pads, or make your own at home.

These are the ingredients you will need:

  • Onion
  • Garlic
  • Water
  • Self-stick gauze pads
  • Socks

Slice the garlic and onion till it is well chopped. Put it aside. Pour water in a kettle and let it boil. Add the finely sliced garlic and onions in the boiling water. Then, let it boil for additional 10 minutes.

Next, let the water cool off for 20 minutes. Then, pour the mixture in the center of the self-stick gauze pads, only enough to get wet. If there is too much liquid in the pads, squeeze the excess out. Also, try not to wet the sticky part of the pads.

Patch the self-stick gauze pad on the soles of the feet, especially at the center part. Put on socks so the pad won’t fall off. Throw it the next morning.

Image by Emma

from:    http://www.bodymindsoulspirit.com/foot-pads-detox/

Auras & Health

Posted on by

Here’s What Your Aura Reveals About Your Health

The energy surrounding our bodies is known as our aura, emitted from our body and spirit based on our own vibrational frequency. Auras can be seen as rays or ovals of light around a person, but not everyone can see them. Scientists have made significant breakthroughs on the subject of auras, and have been able to successfully document this phenomenon and what it can actually reveal about your health and state of mind.

Aura colors and strength vary from person to person, depending on their own specific energy. Your aura can change from day to day, even moment to moment, depending on the experiences you have and the emotions you feel. Thoughts can also affect your aura, as they largely determine your energy field.

Around the world, at Russia’s St. Petersburg State Technical University, Dr. Konstantin Korotkov is building a bridge between auras and a person’s health. So far, he’s created a unique device that reads the bioenergy of organisms and their surroundings. This device (GDV) takes an electron cloud snapshot of the subject in a millisecond and prints out the results. When the image prints out, he compares it to images from other healthy subjects. With this comparison, specialists can track diseases and potentially stop them before they become lethal.

Here’s a video to explain the idea of how auras can affect your physical health

Here’s what your aura reveals about your mental health

YELLOW

The main traits of those with a predominantly yellow aura are intelligence, logic, and a quick wit. They think with their heads, not their hearts, and can quickly put their emotions aside to deal with problems that arise. They can sometimes work too hard, however, as they are Type A’s who thrive on reaching their goals.

RED

As you might have guessed, people with a red aura have a fiery, feisty nature, and cannot be tamed easily. They love freedom, adventure, and excitement, and get bored quickly. People with a red aura have a high level of confidence in all areas of life, and don’t normally suffer from mental or physical illnesses. This is probably because they don’t live in their heads much; they thrive on action, and don’t mull over decisions too long.

PINK

People with a pink aura have a very generous, sweet, approachable energy. They give love freely, and are a hopeless romantic. They also are empaths, with an uncanny psychic ability and creative talents. People with this color aura are idealists, which makes it hard for them to see the world as it is. They want to change it somehow, and feel like it’s their mission in life to do so. They have a bubbly, charismatic personality, and have many friends because of it.

GREEN

If you have a green aura, then you have an unwavering love for the outdoors, and consider yourself a true nature lover. You also care a great deal about health, and strive to eat nutritious, wholesome foods the majority of the time. You’re very grounded and logical, and people come to you all the time for advice because of your no-nonsense approach to life. Your home and car are spotless, which reflects the way you look after yourself. You enjoy safety and stability, and don’t deal well with changes. However, sometimes you can be too rigid in your approach to life, so try going with the flow more.

ORANGE

People with an orange aura love the spotlight, and enjoy activities with many people around them. They are charismatic, funny, loud people, and are usually the life of the party. However, they have an innate ability to sense other’s emotions, and care deeply for how people feel. Due to their passionate nature, they can sometimes lose their temper, but will quickly apologize if they’ve been out of line.

PURPLE

This color signifies great psychic abilities, and high sensitivity to emotions and energies. People with a purple aura have a mysterious, quiet, contemplative nature. They are considered empaths due to their ability to feel things deeply. They live a lot inside their own minds, but have a beautiful soul. People with this color aura tend to spend a lot of time alone in nature, as they feel misunderstood by most humans. They don’t have many friends, but they adore and cherish the ones they do have. Sometimes, people take advantage of their open, loving nature, so people with this aura need to do a lot of self-care to protect their energy.

BLUE

This color aura is the rarest of them all, but it symbolizes strength in communication and a balanced persona. As you might have guessed, this aura represents a calm, soothing nature, and so these people make wonderful peacemakers and solvers of problems. They can smooth things over quickly in an argument, and have an honest, highly eloquent way of talking with people. These people seem to have the perfect balance of thinking and feeling, and always say the right thing at the right time. They are very intelligent, and have a gift of communicating in any means necessary.

GOLD

People with a gold aura have a love for the finer things in life. They thrive on being the center of attention, and have a very colorful social life. They love to entertain people and show others a good time. They have a strong independent streak, and don’t usually ask anyone for help. These people can sometimes come across as superficial due to their extravagant tastes, but they simply enjoy giving people nice things, and decorating their living space with them as well.

WHITE/SILVER

Highly talented and versatile, people with this aura can adapt perfectly to any situation. They are a chameleon, able to change quickly based on their environment, and excel in many different areas of life. They attract success easily, and usually make very good leaders and teachers. People are drawn to them because of both their inner and outer beauty, but people with this aura need to take care to keep their egos in check.

BROWN

People with a light or dark brown aura tend to be lost souls, wandering around aimlessly searching for a place to call home. They might fall back into bad habits, and have a negative self-image. They tend to focus so much on other people’s flaws, that they forget to address and fix their own.

BLACK

Black points to blockages in the energetic field. It can also signify deep, unresolved issues, depression, anger, rage, stagnation, discontentment, or any other negative emotion. People with this color aura need to make time for self-care, and not be so hard on themselves.

from:    https://www.powerofpositivity.com/heres-what-your-aura-reveals-about-your-health/

Homemade Soap Businesses – Take Heed

Posted on by

Cosmetic giants pressure FDA into cracking down on homemade soap artisans while ignoring their own toxic products

Monday, March 07, 2016 by: Harold Shaw

Cosmetics industry

(NaturalNews) Once again, those who are trying to live a simple, clean life or make a decent living from traditional skills are threatened by the corporatist society they try to avoid. The current assault comes from Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Susan Collins, who have recently introduced S.1014: a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.[PDF] Also referred to as the Personal Care Products Safety Act, this bill is supposed to ensure the safety of cosmetics for all consumers.

Under the pretext that some of the chemicals in personal care products are hazardous for the consumer’s health, this bill imposes user fees and paperwork that would put small artisanal soap and cosmetic makers out of business. And guess who is supporting the bill? Cosmetic giants like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Revlon, Estee Lauder, Unilever and L’Oreal have nothing to lose.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act: Overview

According to Senator Feinstein and the corporations that support S.1014, the Personal Care Products Safety Act is necessary to make the use of cosmetics safer. How? Not by banning hazardous ingredients like methylene glycol or propyl paraben, but rather by regulating them with FDA tests, warning labels, fees and recall authority.

Basically, the PCPSA makes it mandatory for all cosmetic manufacturers to register their business and make a statement allowing the FDA to inspect their facilities. Businesses that make more than $500,000 in annual gross revenue will also be required to pay registration fees. In addition, manufacturers will have to file annual ingredient statements, as well as extensively report side effects on a regular basis. More extensive labeling requirements are also part of the bill.

How S.1014 affects you

Senator Feinstein strongly argues that the new bill doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything and that industry user fees will be used to fund it. Others also argue that S.1014 will not affect homemade soap artisans because small producers are excluded from the new requirements. But most changes proposed by PCPSA apply to businesses that make more than $100,000 in gross annual revenue. This kind of revenue is not at all unusual for family businesses run from home. Deduct taxes from this number and you’ll realize that these families of three or more people are barely making a livable wage.

While current cosmetic giants will easily afford paying the proposed fees and making room for the required paperwork, small soap manufacturers will most likely run out of business. And you don’t have to be a soap artisan yourself to be affected by S.1014. Some people are dealing with skin sensitivities that don’t allow them to purchase most soaps on the market. Instead of going bankrupt on overly expensive suitable products, they buy natural, gentler homemade soap. If these small businesses fail, the communities they were part of will inevitably be affected as well.

Something doesn’t add up

Perhaps the most irritating issue with the Personal Care Products Safety Act is the fact that while it claims to make soaps and shampoos safer, it does absolutely nothing to ban the dangerous ingredients it complains about. If the safety of the consumer is what concerns the cosmetic giants backing the bill, then why don’t they stop using paraben in their products?

Suddenly, S.1014 looks more and more like a way to crush the small homemade soap businesses that actually make healthy products and therefore stand in the way of giant corporations and their revenue. The Handmade Cosmetic Alliance feels the same way. If you do too and you manufacture soap only from FDA-approved ingredients, then make your voice heard and contact elected representatives using this form. Don’t let others decide the future of your trade.

‘Eliminate the Negative’

Posted on by

How To Stop Absorbing Other People’s Negative Energy!

Filed in Matrix Articles by

energywww.healthiswealthofheart.com

Sympathy is the ability to feel compassion towards others. Empathy goes a step beyond that. Being an ‘empath’ means you not only recognize the emotions of others, but you feel them as if they were your own.

Too often, strong empathizers absorb much of the pain and suffering from their environment. This bogs them down emotionally and blocks their ability to function at a high level.

If you’ve ever been in a room with a negative person, you know how tangible his/her emotions can feel. You feel like his/her heaviness is seeping into you and you find it harder to keep your head up. Learning to defend yourself from this kind of toxic energy is an essential life tool, because your emotional state affects you mentally, physically and spiritually. Let it be your own!

Here are five ways to stop absorbing people’s negativity:

1.Let Go Of People Pleasing

If someone is complaining about you, gossiping, or talking down to you, do not take it personally or fixate on trying to make them like you. This will only pull you deeper into his/her field of negativity and make you energetically and emotionally dependent on their opinion.

Be compassionate towards yourself and realize that not everyone is going to like you – and that’s okay! Everybody has different personalities, likes and dislikes and these will create a different life experience for every person. Show yourself love first and it will act like a forcefield around you that will keep other people’s opinions from draining you.

2.Know When To Say ‘NO’

If you had a guest in your home, would you let him come in off the porch and track mud all over your carpet, or would you require him to clean his shoes before he entered your personal space? What if you asked him to dinner once and he invites himself over for the rest of the month? And what if he insisted on sleeping on your couch to save himself the trip tomorrow? All without your invitation?

Being generous can be a great thing, but there is a fine line to be aware of to make sure you and your generosity are not taken advantage of. Accept no freeloaders, naysayers, or emotional vampires past where you are comfortable. Set boundaries and enforce them!

This is your life. Your body, space and personal time are your sacred temples, so think carefully about what kind of people you allow access to them. There is nothing wrong with saying ‘no’ as often as you feel you need to. Set clear standards about what you expect from others before you give them a place in your life.

3.Stop Feeding The Beast

Above, I threw out the term ‘emotional vampire.’ These are parasitic personalities who literally feed on your attention and affection and suck you dry for all your efforts. Emotionally investing in these people may feel worthwhile at first, but ultimately, you will find yourself drained of energy and their many problems still unsolved. Their thirst for your love can never be satisfied if they are determined to stay feeling like a victim.

You can offer your support to those who need it, give a listening ear to a struggling friend or stranger, but note when your efforts start becoming redundant or when their calls for help begin feeling more like vies for attention. The more attention you give their problems, the less resolution there will be.

It is not your responsibility to fix other people’s problems, especially when people don’t really want their problems solved. They want to be pitied. It is healthy to know when to walk away! When you feel your resources depleting, offer your sympathies and leave the situation. There is nothing mean about refusing to engage in someone else’s drama.

4.Return To Nature

Sometimes, you really just need a breather from everyone else. Their chaotic energies can be hard to tune out, so take a weekend, an afternoon, or even an hour for yourself and go somewhere peaceful. Let the many voices of nature replace the mind chatter of the modern world. Notice the simplicity of the natural world, the lack of motive, the coexistence of all things plant, animal and earth.

Breathe deeply and meditate. Focus on filling your body with fresh oxygen and elevating your spirits and when you return to your daily routines, you will feel refreshed and less apt to absorb negativity from others.

5.Remember Who Is Responsible For YOU

You are the only one with any say about how you feel. You are 100% responsible for what you let influence your thoughts and emotions and if any aspect of your happiness is out of balance, you have the ability to correct it. Your own perception of yourself is more powerful than anyone else’s, unless you choose to trade away that power for their approval.

Once you choose to be accountable for your feelings, you free yourself from the influence of others. When you are confident in who you are and how you want to feel, it is much more difficult for others to throw you off balance.

Make deliberate choices and take control of the positivity in your life. Choose situations which boost your energies and keep the kind of company that only adds to who you are. Love yourself enough to say ‘no’ wherever it is warranted and walk away from environments that do not serve you. Remember, you are responsible for your life experience. Make it for you and make it phenomenal!

from:    http://howtoexitthematrix.com/2016/03/06/how-to-stop-absorbing-other-peoples-negative-energy/

Time to Go Back to Saturated Fats

Posted on by

Could Eating the Right Fats Save 1 Million Lives per Year?

By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Sadly most health “experts” continue to ignorantly recommend diets low in saturated fats and high in refined vegetable oils, resulting in dramatic increases in disease
  • Contrary to popular opinion, diets high in saturated fats are not responsible for rising rates of heart disease
  • Saturated fats increase levels of large, fluffy LDL cholesterol, which is not linked to heart disease
March 06, 2016

You know the drill. Watch or read the health media and you will be regularly told to avoid saturated fats because they raise your LDL cholesterol, which will ultimately clog your arteries and lead to heart disease.

The problem with this recommendation is that it is only based on a theory, and worse yet that theory has never been proven. In fact, the recent studies that carefully examine saturated fat disprove this.

The video above provides a comical illustration of what happens when a renowned international cardiologist publishes a groundbreaking article1 that debunks saturated fat. He is challenged by two ignorant dietitians spouting what they had been taught years ago.

Interestingly, a new American Heart Association (AHA) study claims eating the “right” fats could save 1 million lives per year.

Indeed, this is likely an understatement, but the researchers got the fats wrong and now are spreading misinformation that will likely cause needless pain, suffering and premature deaths.

Saturated Fats Are NOT to Blame for Heart Disease

The widely circulated assumption that eating a diet high in saturated fats leads to heart disease is simply wrong, as they are actually necessary to promote health and prevent disease. Dietary fats can be generally classified as:

  • Saturated
  • Monounsaturated
  • Polyunsaturated

A “saturated” fat means that all carbon atoms have maxed out their hydrogens and as a result there are no double bonds that are perishable to oxidation and going rancid. Fats in foods contain a mixture of fats, but in foods of animal origin a large proportion of the fatty acids are saturated.

So How Did These Natural Saturated Fats Come to Be Vilified?

In 1953, Ancel Keys, Ph.D. published a seminal paper that led to a later study that served as the basis for nearly all of the initial scientific support for the so-called “diet-heart hypothesis.”

Conducted from 1958 to 1970, and known as the Seven Countries Study, this research linked the consumption of dietary fat to coronary heart disease.2

What you may not know is that when Keys published his analysis that claimed to prove the link between dietary fats and heart disease, he selectively analyzed information from only seven countries to prove his correlation, rather than comparing all the data available at the time — from 22 countries.

As you might suspect, the studies he excluded were those that did not fit with his hypothesis, namely those that showed a low percentage of fat in their diet and a high incidence of death from heart disease as well as those with a high-fat diet and low incidence of heart disease (like France).

If all 22 countries had been analyzed, there would have been no correlation found whatsoever.

Journalist Nina Teicholz, author of “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet,” also stated that when researchers went back and analyzed some of the original data, heart disease was most correlated with sugar intake, not saturated fat.3

What’s Wrong With the 2015 Dietary Guidelines?

I recently interviewed Nina Teicholz about the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (below). While there were many positive changes, such as the elimination of a limit on dietary cholesterol, the fallacies about saturated fats remain.

These guidelines are highly relevant, as they determine what foods will be served in feeding assistance programs, including the National School Lunch Program, programs for the elderly, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and military rations.

Through these programs, they determine what 1 in 4 Americans will eat on a daily basis. They also dictate the advice you’ll get from your doctor, nutritionist, or dietician. According to Nina, when the guidelines were launched in the 1980’s, one single Senate staffer wrote what became the national dietary guideline.

He was heavily influenced by certain scientists, and didn’t have the background to conduct a sound review of the science.

Those guidelines resulted in a diet that is low in fat and high in carbohydrates, and it has remained that way ever since. This type of diet is clearly tied to obesity, diabetes, and many other chronic health problems.

The guidelines are still to this day heavily influenced by industries whose main concern is unrelated to the public health—a fact pointed out in Nina’s controversial article4 in The British Medical Journal, which was eventually retracted after 170 scientists signed a letter asking for its retraction.

Why The Saturated Fat Myth Continues

Click HERE to watch the full interview!

So why does the saturated fat myth remain, despite all the evidence showing it’s false? Why won’t the guidelines committee review the now overwhelming evidence and set the record straight? As noted by Nina:

“I think that there are two kind of big explanations for why this is [not done]. One is that there are huge industry interests. Because the guidelines are part of the USDA, half of the USDA’s mission is to promote agriculture.

At the same time, they have a mandate to tell people to eat less of some things over other things. Those two mandates conflict…What are the industries that benefit from the guidelines? The makers of carbohydrate-based food… Corn, soy, and the vegetable oil manufacturers. Because when you tell people not to eat saturated fats, what they eat instead are unsaturated fats, mainly vegetable oils, which have increased over 91 percent over the last three decades…

The other major factor that keeps the guidelines from changing…is that there’s a tremendous professional investment in this particular kind of advice. There are university professors’ reputations staked on it. There are many institutions who have invested in this particular hypothesis about what makes people healthy… These giant institutions cannot be seen as flip-flopping. They can’t be wrong. That prevents backing out of any advice that might be flawed.”

Cutting Back on Saturated Fats Doesn’t Lengthen Life: 6 Major Studies

…

Dietary Guidelines to Reduce Fat Were Introduced Without Any Supporting Evidence

In 1977, the U.S. released the first national dietary guidelines, which urged Americans to cut back on fat intake. In a radical departure from current diets at the time, the guidelines suggested Americans eat a diet high in grains and low in fat, with vegetables oils taking the place of most animal fats. The U.K. released similar guidelines in 1983. The guidelines were controversial, and even the American Medical Association said at the time:16

“The evidence for assuming that benefits to be derived from the adoption of such universal dietary goals … is not conclusive and there is potential for harmful effects from a radical long-term dietary change as would occur through adoption of the proposed national goals.”

There’s no telling how many have been prematurely killed by following these flawed low-fat guidelines, yet despite mounting research refuting the value of cutting out fats, such recommendations are still being pushed. Further, according to research by Zoe Harcombe, Ph.D. and published in the Open Heart journal, there was no scientific basis for the recommendations to cut fat from the U.S. diet in the first place.17

The guidelines were, and still are, quite extreme, calling for Americans to reduce overall fat consumption to 30 percent of total energy intake and reduce saturated fat consumption to 10 percent of total energy intake. No randomized controlled trial (RCT) had tested these recommendations before their introduction, so Harcombe and colleagues examined the evidence from RCTs available to the U.S. and UK regulatory committees at the time the guidelines were implemented.

Six dietary trials, involving 2,467 men, were available, but there were no differences in all-cause mortality and only non-significant differences in heart-disease mortality resulting from the dietary interventions. As noted in Open Heart:18 “Recommendations were made for 276 million people following secondary studies of 2467 males, which reported identical all-cause mortality. RCT evidence did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines.”

…

In Summary, Saturated Fats Are Healthy

Saturated fats:

  • Increase your LDL levels, but they increase the large fluffy particles that are not associated with an increased risk of heart disease
  • Increase your HDL levels. This more than compensates for any increase in LDL
  • Do NOT cause heart disease as made clear in all the above-referenced studies
  • Do not damage as easily as other fats because they do not have any double bonds that can be damaged through oxidation
  • Serve to fuel mitochondria and produce far less damaging free radicals than carbs

To read the whole article, go to the link below from which this was excerpted:

from:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/03/06/saturated-fat-diet-heart-disease.aspx

 

Still Chewing Gum?

Posted on by

As always, do your research:

Is Chewing Gum the Most Toxic Substance in the Supermarket?

Nothing in chewing gum is natural. It is chemical goop that in no way contributes to health or is good for your teeth. Don’t be fooled by fancy advertising.

chewing Gum

Recently, I asked about thirty women, whose ages were mostly under the age of forty, if they carried chewing gum with them. Twenty seven of the thirty were able to pull out a pack of gum, some even going as far as telling me why they loved a particular brand/flavor of gum.

While this demographic is not representative of all women, 90% of them chewed gum on a daily basis, some consuming more than one stick per day. As with many things that we expose our bodies to on a daily basis, let’s take a moment and analyze the ingredients of chewing gum and ask some important questions that pertain to whether it contributes to good health. How many of us have looked at the ingredients on a pack of gum?

If you have, do you know what each one of the substances is? Is a stick of chewing gum more of a “cancer stick” than a cigarette? As you will see below, commercial gum products are some of the most toxic substances that you can expose your body too and literally can lead to some of the worst diseases on the planet.

Here is a list of the most common ingredients in the most popular chewing gum products on the market:

  • Sorbitol, Xylitol, Mannitol, Maltitol
  • Gum Base
  • Glycerol
  • Natural and Artificial Flavors
  • Hydrogenated Coconut Oil and Starch
  • Aspartame –Acesulfame
  • Soy Lecithin
  • Colors (titanium oxide, blue 2 lake, red 40)
  • BHT
  • Malic Acid, Citric Acid

Ingredient #1: Gum Base

Imagine if someone came up to you and said, “Hey, would you like to chew on some tire rubber and plastic?” You probably would politely decline and want to report this person to a doctor for a psychological evaluation. “Gum base” is a blend of elastomers, plasticizers, fillers, and resin. Some of the other ingredients that go into this mix are polyvinyl acetate, which is frequently referred to as “carpenter glue” or “white glue”. Paraffin wax is another ingredient that is a byproduct of refined petroleum. Is chewing plastic, petroleum and rubber safe? As you chew, these substances leach into the mouth and body. Yummy.

Ingredient #2: Aspartame

The controversy surrounding this substance is widespread. It is one of the most body toxic substances we can consume. The political corruption and money trail behind this agent of disease is a mile long. Aspartame has been linked to all of the major brain diseases including Alzheimer’s and ALS. It is also considered a prime contributor to many other diseases such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis, asthma, obesity, and many others. It is in many diet products on the market today, but in the long run actually contributes to obesity due to his extreme acidity. Aspartame is an excitotoxin, which over excites neurons in the brain until they burn out and die. Dr. Russell Blaylock is the leading expert on Aspartame and other excitotoxins and I would highly encourage you to see the documentary entitled Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World.

Ingredient #3: Hydrogenated Coconut Oil and Starch

Hydrogenation is chemical process that adds hydrogen across a double bonded carbon. This is done to increase the shelf life of a product, turning oil into a more plastic like substance. This process also creates Trans fats, which are now known to be very harmful to health.

Ingredient #4: Colors

(titanium dioxide, blue 2 lake, red 40). Titanium dioxide is a nanoparticle that is very common in sunscreen and many other health products, including synthetic nutritional supplements. New evidence is leading in the direction of this substance being carcinogenic, leading to cancer. We as humans are drawn to things that are colorful. Artificial food colorings, such as red 40, are made from petroleum and are dangerous to our health. Many people have extreme allergies to these substances and they have been implicated in contributing to ADD and other disorders and diseases.

Ingredient #5: Sorbitol, Xylitol, Mannitol, Maltitol

These sugar alcohols are originally made from sugar, but are altered so much that they are considered sugar free. As a general rule, when nature is altered and changed to make a “better” product, more often than not, the result is something that is not healthy. Some even go so far as to say that these products are far worse than sugar and can stimulate weight gain. Other side effects can include abdominal pain and diarrhea. Is sugar alcohol better than sugar? Neither are good substances, so comparing the two is somewhat pointless.

Chewing Gum and Digestion

Every time you chew gum, your brain is tricked into thinking that you are eating food. Therefore, it sends signals to your stomach, pancreas and other organs involved in digestion to prepare for this “food”. Your salivary glands and pancreas will begin to emit enzymes, which are necessary to digest food and absorb nutrients from food. Constant emission of enzymes over time will deplete enzymes and over time this process can slow down. If you are not breaking down and absorbing food properly over time, you will get disease because the body needs nutrients to rebuild and thrive.

A Great Alternative for Fresh Breath

A great alternative to chewing gum is to carry around a small bottle of organic food grade peppermint oil and when you would like fresh breath, just put one drop in your mouth and you will have achieved the same effect. You can find many food grade oils that are wonderful for helping you have fresh breath.

Nothing in chewing gum is natural. It is chemical goop that in no way contributes to health or is good for your teeth. Don’t be fooled by fancy advertising. The five ingredients that we reviewed above, in one form or another, contribute to disease and poor health. Is this really a risk that you want to expose yourself to all for the sake of fresh breath? In the future, perhaps we will see that chewing gum may be as much of a contributor to disease as are cigarettes.

from:   https://www.endalldisease.com/is-chewing-gum-the-most-toxic-substance-in-the-supermarket/

 

Cancer Claims & Treatment

Posted on by

7 False Claims About Cancer by the Medical/Pharmaceutical Establishment

Posted by March 3, 2016

bowl-compressed

By Paul A. Philips | Natural Blaze

False claim 1 – The idea that cancer is a disease of the modern Western world is overplayed

Cancer has been known since ancient times. However, it has gone from a rare disease, as it was during the turn of the 1900s, to a rising global epidemic in modern times. The cancer establishment gives the impression that its true causes are unknown and plays down the idea that it is a disease of the modern Western world.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Well-documented evidence has been produced to show that cancer causes have been known for years. In recent decades, there have been a growing onslaught of DNA-changing carcinogenic circumstances.

Examples include rising numbers of: food chemicals; water and air pollutants; vaccinations; GMOs and medications.

It practically ignores the findings that isolated indigenous tribes such as the Hunsas, Karakorum or Azerbaijanis had been virtually cancer free, with evidence strongly suggesting that this was because the spoils of the Western world had been absent.

False claim 2 – The medical/pharmaceutical approach is the only real way to treat cancer

In line with the “mechanistic approach to medicine” the cancer establishment generally ignores anything outside of this health model: Little or not enough attention is given to the highly effective roles of diet, the mind-body influence, exercise and environmental toxicity…

False claim 3 – There are no natural health-based successful cures for cancer

Following on from 2, it beggars belief to me how anyone could not seriously look into the factors that address the very fabric of our being: diet, the mind-body influence, exercise and environmental toxicity … and how they influence our health. This blatant ignorance has made the cancer establishment blind to the evidence suggesting the contrary and how the natural health-based model with its principles has been highly successful.

False claim 4 – Natural health based innovators/pioneers are just quacks

Those innovators / pioneers who have taken on natural health approaches related to the above 4 factors have had quite a hard time from the cancer establishment. While there is no 100% cure for cancer, the overwhelming evidence shows that their approaches can be successful. At times, more successful than the cancer establishment; credit should, therefore, be given to these individuals where it’s due.

cache_23648412False claim 5 – There is no suppression of alternative cures

Anyone can Google a number of innovators/pioneers with their natural health approaches and see that they have had their equipment seized by the medical/pharmaceutical establishment and have been taken to court for illegal practices in spite of the fact that they had records and case testimonies to show high cure rates! The innovators/pioneers had won many court cases because cancer-cured individuals stood up and testified.

Examples of this include: Stanislaw Burzynski Antineoplaston Therapy, Harry Hoxey Herbs, Max Gerson Therapy (now headed by daughter Charlotte Gerson), Royal Rife’s cancer machine… it is indeed up to you the reader to research this then decide for yourself.

False claim 6 – The acid/alkaline dietary choice plays no major role in cancer prevention/reversal

The human body’s blood pH lies somewhere in between 7.3 – 7.45. Anything outside this range and we’d be dead. Remember, the lower the pH the more acid the blood, which in effect means less oxygen content (read Dr Otto Warburg 1920s) and has the effect of cell degeneration on an individual. Energy is sapped by the body trying to raise the blood pH back to mid-range. This is caused by eating acid junk foods… which also creates a favourable environment for disease such as cancer to set in.

The answer is to eat alkaline foods such as raw greens (spinach, broccoli and asparagus) to get the pH towards the higher figure in the range, allowing more energy available for enzyme efficiency, metabolic functioning and an environment unfavourable for disease.

False claim 7 – Survival rate and prevention claims … winning the battle

As a reaction to the rising cancer deaths Richard Nixon, US president at the time in the early 1970s, introduced a “war on cancer” and funding increased hugely. However, the illusory war that followed, in spite of the increased funding for research into cancer, the death rates continually increased over several decades! Chemotherapy, radiation and surgery have not been that effective. Much has been done to cover up or twist data interpretation related to this to make results look better. For instance, chemotherapy goes down as successful if results produce tumour shrinkage; even if it’s only for a limited time period and the tumour returns stronger (rebound phenomenon) to eventually kill the patient.

The early detection improvement claim is a myth. That’s because no one really knows if the cancer detected will turn out to be malignant or benign … a classic example of this is in mammograms. The only absolute that can be said about a mammogram is that it detects cancer.

All in all

A holistic approach would be a step in the right direction, incorporating natural health approache,s but I can’t see the cancer establishment changing their ways from the dogmas of mechanistic medicine. There’s too much money to be made from the status quo…

from:    http://consciouslifenews.com/7-false-claims-about-cancer-by-the-medicalpharmaceutical-establishment/11115005/

The Persistence of Consciousness

Posted on by
Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

A book titled “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of the Universe“ has stirred up the Internet, because it contained a notion that life does not end when the body dies, and it can last forever. The author of this publication, scientist Dr. Robert Lanza who was voted the 3rd most important scientist alive by the NY Times, has no doubts that this is possible.

Beyond time and space

Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director of Advanced Cell Technology Company. Before he has been known for his extensive research which dealt with stem cells, he was also famous for several successful experiments on cloning endangered animal species.

But not so long ago, the scientist became involved with physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. This explosive mixture has given birth to the new theory of biocentrism, which the professor has been preaching ever since. Biocentrism teaches that life and consciousness are fundamental to the universe. It is consciousness that creates the material universe, not the other way around.

Lanza points to the structure of the universe itself, and that the laws, forces, and constants of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life, implying intelligence existed prior to matter. He also claims that space and time are not objects or things, but rather tools of our animal understanding. Lanza says that we carry space and time around with us “like turtles with shells.” meaning that when the shell comes off (space and time), we still exist.

The theory implies that death of consciousness simply does not exist. It only exists as a thought because people identify themselves with their body. They believe that the body is going to perish, sooner or later, thinking their consciousness will disappear too. If the body generates consciousness, then consciousness dies when the body dies. But if the body receives consciousness in the same way that a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at the death of the physical vehicle. In fact, consciousness exists outside of constraints of time and space. It is able to be anywhere: in the human body and outside of it. In other words, it is non-local in the same sense that quantum objects are non-local.

Lanza also believes that multiple universes can exist simultaneously. In one universe, the body can be dead. And in another it continues to exist, absorbing consciousness which migrated into this universe. This means that a dead person while traveling through the same tunnel ends up not in hell or in heaven, but in a similar world he or she once inhabited, but this time alive. And so on, infinitely. It’s almost like a cosmic Russian doll afterlife effect.

Multiple worlds

This hope-instilling, but extremely controversial theory by Lanza has many unwitting supporters, not just mere mortals who want to live forever, but also some well-known scientists. These are the physicists and astrophysicists who tend to agree with existence of parallel worlds and who suggest the possibility of multiple universes. Multiverse (multi-universe) is a so-called scientific concept, which they defend. They believe that no physical laws exist which would prohibit the existence of parallel worlds.

The first one was a science fiction writer H.G. Wells who proclaimed in 1895 in his story “The Door in the Wall”. And after 62 years, this idea was developed by Dr. Hugh Everett in his graduate thesis at the Princeton University. It basically posits that at any given moment the universe divides into countless similar instances. And the next moment, these “newborn” universes split in a similar fashion. In some of these worlds you may be present: reading this article in one universe, or watching TV in another.

The triggering factor for these multiplyingworlds is our actions, explained Everett. If we make some choices, instantly one universe splits into two with different versions of outcomes.

In the 1980s, Andrei Linde, scientist from the Lebedev’s Institute of physics, developed the theory of multiple universes. He is now a professor at Stanford University. Linde explained: Space consists of many inflating spheres, which give rise to similar spheres, and those, in turn, produce spheres in even greater numbers, and so on to infinity. In the universe, they are spaced apart. They are not aware of each other’s existence. But they represent parts of the same physical universe.

The fact that our universe is not alone is supported by data received from the Planck space telescope. Using the data, scientists have created the most accurate map of the microwave background, the so-called cosmic relic background radiation, which has remained since the inception of our universe. They also found that the universe has a lot of dark recesses represented by some holes and extensive gaps.

Theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton from the North Carolina University with her colleagues argue: the anomalies of the microwave background exist due to the fact that our universe is influenced by other universes existing nearby. And holes and gaps are a direct result of attacks on us by neighboring universes.

The Scientific Explanation For The Soul

So, there is abundance of places or other universes where our soul could migrate after death, according to the theory of neo-biocentrism. But does the soul exist? Is there any scientific theory of consciousness that could accommodate such a claim? According to Dr. Stuart Hameroff, a near-death experience happens when the quantum information that inhabits the nervous system leaves the body and dissipates into the universe. Contrary to materialistic accounts of consciousness, Dr. Hameroff offers an alternative explanation of consciousness that can perhaps appeal to both the rational scientific mind and personal intuitions.

Consciousness resides, according to Stuart and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose, in the microtubules of the brain cells, which are the primary sites of quantum processing. Upon death, this information is released from your body, meaning that your consciousness goes with it. They have argued that our experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in these microtubules, a theory which they dubbed orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR).

Consciousness is a property like space and time

Consciousness, or at least proto-consciousness is theorized by them to be a fundamental property of the universe, present even at the first moment of the universe during the Big Bang. “In one such scheme proto-conscious experience is a basic property of physical reality accessible to a quantum process associated with brain activity.”

Our souls are in fact constructed from the very fabric of the universe – and may have existed since the beginning of time. Our brains are just receivers and amplifiers for the proto-consciousness that is intrinsic to the fabric of space-time. So is there really a part of your consciousness that is non-material and will live on after the death of your physical body?

Dr Hameroff told the Science Channel’s Through the Wormhole documentary: “Let’s say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information within the microtubules is not destroyed, it can’t be destroyed, it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large”. Robert Lanza would add here that not only does it exist in the universe, it exists perhaps in another universe.

If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says “I had a near death experience”‘

He adds: “If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”

This account of quantum consciousness explains things like near-death experiences, astral projection, out of body experiences, and even reincarnationwithout needing to appeal to religious ideology. The energy of your consciousness potentially gets recycled back into a different body at some point, and in the mean time it exists outside of the physical body on some other level of reality, and possibly in another universe.

from:    https://decryptedmatrix.com/quantum-theory-proves-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-at-death/

Drugs, Effects, & the Mind

Posted on by

Taking Apart Psychiatry: Fraud-Kings of the Mind

Happy Sad PillsJon Rappoport, Guest
Waking Times

Exploding the myth of “good science…”

“Promoting diabolically false science, psychiatry creates a gateway for defining many separate states of consciousness that don’t exist at all. They’re cheap myths, fairy tales.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

USA Today, January 26, 2016: “Primary care doctors should screen all adults for depression, an expert panel recommended Tuesday.”

—Let’s screen everybody to find out if they have mental disorders. Let’s diagnose as many people as possible with mental disorders and give them toxic drugs—

Wherever you see organized psychiatry operating, you see it trying to expand its domain and its dominance. The Hippocratic Oath to do no harm? Are you kidding?

The first question to ask is: do these mental disorders have any scientific basis? There are now roughly 300 of them. They multiply like fruit flies.

An open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist?, Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out the fraud.

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid… There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 297 mental disorders. They’re all hoaxes. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.

You can sway and tap dance and bloviate all you like and you won’t escape the noose around your neck. We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

There’s more. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been obliquely referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

If this is medical science, a duck is a rocket ship.

To repeat, Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definitions of Bipolar and ADHD were expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;

* life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;

* brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* intercranial pressure leading to blindness;

* peripheral circulatory collapse;

* stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

* serious impairment of cognitive function;

* fainting;

* restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances self-admitted label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So…what about Ritalin?

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

* Paranoid delusions

* Paranoid psychosis

* Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis

* Activation of psychotic symptoms

* Toxic psychosis

* Visual hallucinations

* Auditory hallucinations

* Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences

* Effects pathological thought processes

* Extreme withdrawal

* Terrified affect

* Started screaming

* Aggressiveness

* Insomnia

* Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects

* Psychic dependence

* High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug

* Decreased REM sleep

* When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia

* Convulsions

* Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Let’s take a little trip back in time and review how one psychiatric drug, Prozac, escaped a bitter fate, by hook and by crook. It’s an instructive case.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a while. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.”

She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes:

“Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

An instructive article, “Protecting Prozac,” by Michael Grinfeld, in the December 1998 California Lawyer, opens several doors. Grinfeld notes that “in the past year nearly a dozen cases involving Prozac have disappeared from the court record.” He was talking about law suits against the manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and he was saying that those cases had apparently been settled, without trial, in such a quiet and final way, with such strict confidentiality, that it is almost as if they never happened.

Grinfeld details a set of maneuvers involving attorney Paul Smith, who in the early 1990s became the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the famous Fentress lawsuit against Eli Lilly.

The plaintiffs made the accusation that Prozac had induced a man to commit murder.This was the first action involving Prozac to reach a trial and jury, so it would establish a major precedent for a large number of other pending suits against the manufacturer.

The case: On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker, a former employee of Standard Gravure, in Louisville, Kentucky, walked into the workplace, with an AK-47 and a SIG Sauer pistol, killed eight people, wounded 12 others, and committed suicide. Family members of the victims subsequently sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, on the grounds that Wesbecker had been pushed over the edge into violence by the drug.

The trial: After what many people thought was a very weak attack on Lilly by plaintiffs’ lawyer Smith, the jury came back in five hours with an easy verdict favoring Lilly and Prozac.

Grinfeld writes, “Lilly’s defense attorneys predicted the verdict would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac litigation.”

But that wasn’t the end of the Fentress case. “Rumors began to circulate that [the plaintiffs’ attorney] Smith had made several [prior] oral agreements with Lilly concerning the evidence that would be presented [in Fentress], the structure of a postverdict settlement, and the potential resolution of Smith’s other [anti-Prozac] cases.”

In other words, the rumors declared: This plaintiff’s lawyer, Smith, made a deal with Lilly to present a weak attack, to omit evidence damaging to Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly innocent of all charges. In return, the case would be settled secretly, with Lilly paying out big monies to Smith’s client. In this way, Lilly would avoid the exposure of a public settlement, and through the innocent verdict, would discourage other potential plaintiffs from suing it over Prozac.

The rumors congealed. The judge in the Fentress case, John Potter, asked lawyers on both sides if “money had changed hands.” He wanted to know if the fix was in. The lawyers said no money had been paid, “without acknowledging that an agreement was in place.”

Judge Potter didn’t stop there. In April 1995, Grinfeld notes, “In court papers, Potter wrote that he was surprised that the plaintiffs’ attorneys [Smith] hadn’t introduced evidence that Lilly had been charged criminally for failing to report deaths from another of its drugs to the Food and Drug Administration. Smith had fought hard [during the Fentress trial] to convince Potter to admit that evidence, and then unaccountably withheld it.”

In Judge Potter’s motion, he alleged that “Lilly [in the Fentress case] sought to buy not just the verdict, but the court’s judgment as well.”

In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion: “…there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court [during Fentress] and there may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud.”

After the Supreme Court remanded the Fentress case back to the state attorney general’s office, the whole matter dribbled away, and then resurfaced in a different form, in another venue. At the time of the California Lawyer article, a new action against Smith was unresolved. Eventually, Eli Lilly escaped punishment.

Based on the rigged Fentress case, Eli Lilly silenced many lawsuits based on Prozac inducing murder and suicide.

Quite a story.

And it all really starts with the institution of psychiatry inventing a whole branch of science that doesn’t exist, thereby defining 300 mental disorders that don’t exist.

Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance theory of mental illness is dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

Boom.

Dead.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to cover his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?

Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.

Psychiatry is a pseudo-pseudo science.

So the shrinks have to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.

For example, genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.

“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional gibberish.

It’s all gibberish, all the way down.

Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.

So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.

Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.

And in the wake of Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Naval Yard, and other mass shootings, the hype is expanding: “we must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”

More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drugs.

You want to fight for a right? Fight for the right to refuse medication. Fight for the right of every parent to refuse medication for his/her child.

from:    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/03/01/taking-apart-psychiatry-fraud-kings-of-the-mind/