‘Eliminate the Negative’

Posted on March 7, 2016 by marcia

How To Stop Absorbing Other People’s Negative Energy!

Filed in Matrix Articles by MichelleWalling

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 March 6, 2016 by marcia

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 March 6, 2016 by marcia

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 March 4, 2016 by marcia

7 False Claims About Cancer by the Medical/Pharmaceutical Establishment

Posted by clnAdrian 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.

False 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 March 2, 2016 by marcia

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 March 2, 2016 by marcia

Taking Apart Psychiatry: Fraud-Kings of the Mind

Jon 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/

On Being Optimistic

Posted on March 2, 2016 by marcia

Is Optimism a Choice?

Written by Barbara Sinclair

barbarasinclair.com

Many years ago someone said to me “You’re always so pessimistic.” Frankly, it took me by surprise. After all, I’m a Sagittarian, and by nature, we’re pretty darn optimistic.

To make matters worse, this was a Virgo (notoriously one of the most pessimistic signs in the Zodiac) saying this to me.

For some reason I never forgot that statement and the other day, while looking at the above photo that I took (cards by Reed Seifer at Grace Heaven Organic Salon), I had a lightbulb moment.

I remember my response to being called a pessimist. It was something like “Well, if I’m too optimistic, I’ll be devastated when bad things happen. If I think the worst, then I won’t be so disappointed.” Wow. It must have been almost thirty years ago that I said that.

Pessimism: A tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen; a lack of hope or confidence in the future.

I realize now that what was going on was less about pessimism and negativity and more about FEAR. Or, perhaps that’s the root of all pessimism.

According to Ayurveda, anxiety and fear are the curse of the Vata-type person. They can take over our lives. I knew zip about Ayurveda back then and for most of my life I battled to keep the anxiety and fear demons at bay.

I worried about everything – losing people I loved, losing things, getting sick, dying, change, the weather. You name it – I worried about it.

Eventually, I found yoga, energy healing, and meditation and everything changed. I’ve talked about the melting away of my anxiety and fear after starting a meditation practice many times before. It was a profound shift for me.

Whatever your constitution, it’s not difficult to fall into a pessimism trap in the world we live in today. Things look pretty bleak, right? But pessimism, fear, anxiety, negativity, and lack of hope all seem so heavy and dark, and an unfulfilling way to go through life.

So, I wonder – is optimism a choice?

I don’t think anyone today would call me a pessimist. I live my life very much in the moment. There is nothing that could be taken away from me anymore that I don’t feel I could handle. I have experienced grief in many different forms and have survived the sorrow to come out on the side of optimism. Hope, light, a joyful way of living.

I’m not even sure if this has been a choice or if it’s just been my own life’s journey and I’m lucky to have arrived at this state of being. I attribute a great deal to the fact that I no longer suffer from crippling fear and anxiety.

It could also be age-related. I’m in my wisdom years and perhaps it’s easier for me to let go of expectations and live my life more simply.

But I know lots of pessimistic 60+-year-olds. Bitter, fearful, and unable to let go of the past.

And I know lots of optimistic young people who, despite the state of our planet, are able to live from a bright place of optimism.

You could be homeless but filled with peace or you could be wealthy and so miserable you want to take your own life.

Go figure.

I don’t judge others for where they are on the optimism/pessimism scale. We all came into this life with a different set of circumstances, different personalities, and a unique reason for being here.

But wouldn’t it be the loveliest world if Optimism could tip the scale and drive pessimism away. Our world would be so much lighter and brighter.

For me, on days when I feel pessimism creep in, I get out in Nature, listen to music, ride my bike, and meditate. It’s amazing how things can shift.

from: http://consciouslifenews.com/optimism-choice/11114929/

Buddhist Superpowers

Posted on March 1, 2016 by marcia

Harvard Goes To The Himalayas – Monks With ‘Superhuman’ Abilities Show Scientists What We Can All Do

March 1, 2016 by Arjun Walia

It’s fascinating to consider just how many ancient teachings tell us that humans have the capacity to gain extraordinary powers through various techniques. Some of these techniques, known as siddhis in the yoga tradition (from the Sanskrit, meaning “perfection”), include meditation, static dancing, drumming, praying, fasting, psychedelics, and more.

In Buddhism, for example, the existence of advanced powers is readily acknowledged; in fact, Buddha expected his disciples to be able to attain these abilities, but also to not become distracted by them.

A Professor of Buddhist and Tibetan Studies at the University of Michigan, Donald Lopez Jr., describes the many abilities ascribed to Buddha:

With this enlightenment, he was believed to possess all manner of supernormal powers, including full knowledge of each of his own past lives and those of other beings, the ability to know others’ thoughts, the ability to create doubles of himself, the ability to rise into the air and simultaneously shoot fire and water from his body. . . . Although he passed into nirvana at the age of eighty-one, he could have lived “for an aeon or until the end of the aeon” if only he had been asked to do so. (source)

Again, there are numerous historical anecdotes of people with, as the Institute of Noetic Sciences calls them, ‘extended human capacities.” Since this article is focused on Buddhist monks, here is another example from the lore as written by Swami Rama in Living with the Himalayan Masters:

I had never before seen a man who could sit still without blinking his eyelids for eight to ten hours, but this adept was very unusual. He levitated two and a half feet during his meditations. We measured this with a string, which was later measured by a foot rule. I would like to make it clear, though, as I have already told you, that I don’t consider levitation to be a spiritual practice. It is an advanced practice of pranayama with application of bandeaus (locks). One who knows about the relationship between mass and weight understands that it is possible to levitate, but only after long practice. . .

He (also) had the power to transform matter into different forms, like changing a rock into a sugar cube. One after another the next morning he did many such things. He told me to touch the sand – and the grains of sand turned into almonds and cashews. I had heard of this science before and knew its basic principles, but I had hardly believed such stories. I did not explore this field, but I am fully acquainted with the governing laws of science. (source)

A lot of these stories exist within the literature and lore, but they are just stories, up to the readers to decide if they hold any actually credibility. Of course, one who subscribes to various ancient teachings would be more inclined to believe that these are more than just stories and tales. With science shedding light on the possible truths of ancient mysticism, it’s not implausible to think that, at one time, these abilities were more common knowledge.

Today, there have been a number of studies within the realms of parapsychology that have yielded statistically significant results, especially when examining the findings that’ve come from quantum physics. This is why Max Planck, the theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, stated that he “regards consciousness as fundamental” and that he regarded “matter as derivative from consciousness.” He also wrote that “we cannot get behind consciousness” and that “everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing postulates consciousness.” And the Dalai Lama has supported this viewpoint:

R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics of Physics and Astronomy at John Hopkins University, explains things further:

A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual. (source)

For a selected list of downloadable peer-reviewed journal articles reporting studies of psychic phenomena, mostly published in the 21st century, you can click HERE.

Harvard And The Himalayan Monks

During a visit to remote monasteries in the 1980s, Harvard Professor of Medicine Herbert Benson and his team of researchers studied monks living in the Himalayan Mountains who could, by g Tum-mo (a yoga technique), raise the temperatures of their fingers and toes by as much as 17 degrees. It is still unknown how the monks are able to generate such heat. (source)

And it doesn’t stop there — the researchers also studied advanced meditators in Sikkim, India, where they were astonished to find that these monks could lower their metabolism by 64 percent.(source)

In 1985, the Harvard research team made a video of monks drying cold, wet sheets with body heat alone. Monks spending winter nights 15,000 feet high in the Himalayas is also not uncommon.

These are truly remarkable feats, and not the first time science has examined humans who can do extraordinary things. We published an article a couple of months ago showing that factors associated with consciousness can influence our autonomic nervous system. You can read more about that in the article linked below, as it is heavily sourced and provides links to several papers that clearly indicate how factors associated with consciousness can influence our biology.

Study: Factors Associated With Consciousness Can Influence Our Autonomic Nervous System

If you’re further interested in this subject, I recommend reading Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities by Dr. Dean Radin, Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences.

from: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/03/01/harvard-goes-to-the-himalayas-monks-with-superhuman-abilities-show-scientists-what-we-can-all-do/

Vaccine Exemptions

Posted on February 23, 2016 by marcia

Meet the MD Who Can Help Parents Get Vaccine Medical Exemptions

Feb 22 •

by PAUL FASSA

Dr. Kenneth P. Stoller, MD was trained as a pediatrician at UCLA and was a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for two decades. In 2008 he resigned from the AAP after realizing that the AAP has known that mercury in vaccines can lead to neurological damage and bring on various levels of the autism spectrum, from ADD to full blown helplessness, inflammatory pain, convulsions, and destructive behavior.

Of course,Dr. Stoller goes on to mention the other toxic heavy metals and ingredients that destroy immunity and health. But he knew they knew about mercury and lied about it. They may be ignorant of aluminum and other ingredients.

Dr. Stoller reveals that the AAP has been aware of vaccine damages for decades. Even worse, the AAP, the CDC, and pharmaceutical companies, have gone through extreme measures of covering up the dangers, hiding evidence, and attacking those who come close to disclosing the real science behind vaccine dangers with very little efficacy, if any.

California has set the precedence that’s spreading to other states: Religious, philosophical, and lifestyle exemptions have been removed to make it more difficult to opt out of vaccinations than ever.

The one exemption that remains even within this tyranny is the medical exemption. And in the shadow of extreme willful ignorance among pediatricians and family physicians, that’s difficult to provide without sufficient proof.

Dr. Stoller has created an online portal for concerned California parents who want to protect their children from vaccinations in states that have vaccination mandates enforced by denying school attendance.

However, non-Californians whose states are trashing vaccination opt-out exemptions can gain some insights from his site listed after his forthright informative presentation in the video below.

A major point that struck me is how autism is evaluated and diagnosed on a purely psychological level. Kids who are severely autistic from vaccine damages suffer from extreme gut inflammatory pain, joint pain, brain damage pain, and seizures.

This makes it difficult to develop from applied behavior analysis (ABA) and address learning and social developmental issues. Resorting to inflicting pain on themselves or steady screaming fits because of inflammatory agony doesn’t make for much ABA success.

You’ve probably seen comments on antivax or autism sites claiming they’re autistic and doing fine. Autism’s no big deal, they say. Some even claim they’ve gained unique mental or creative skills and they’re high functioning autistic. They have been solely psychologically diagnosed without medical workups. Their situations are misleading

Now there’s a new documentary available to rent or buy called “50 Cents a Dose”. “A father revisits the autism study in which his oldest daughter participated: the study on Thimerosal (a mercury based medical product). What begins as a lighthearted rumination on raising children – ends as a discovery of scandal, and perhaps, a nation in denial.” Here’s the link to the trailer.

And here’s that link to Dr. Stoller’s site I had earlier mentioned.

Paul Fassa is a contributing staff writer for REALfarmacy.com. His pet peeves are the Medical Mafia’s control over health and the food industry and government regulatory agencies’ corruption. Paul’s contributions to the health movement and global paradigm shift are well received by truth seekers. Visit his blog by following this link and follow him on Twitter here

from: http://www.realfarmacy.com/vaccine-exemption/

Heart & Mind

Posted on February 23, 2016 by marcia

How the Human Heart Functions as a Second Brain

The word “heart” is an anagram for the word “earth”. Hence, the phrase “home is where the heart is”.

Did you know that the human heart is the organ that generates the strongest electromagnetic field of any organ of the human body? In fact, the electromagnetic field of your heart can be measured up to a few feet away from your body. Furthermore, this energy field changes in relation to your emotions. One thing you should know about electromagnetic field is that every organ and cell in your body generate an energy field.

Because the heart generates the strongest electromagnetic field, the information stored in its electromagnetic field affects every organ and cell in your body. Could this be why the heart is the first organ to function in a fetus? Besides generating the strongest electromagnetic field, the heart has an intelligence of its own, which is why certain neurocardiologists refer to it as the heart-brain or the fifth brain.

According to neurocardiologists, the heart is not only made of muscle cells but also neurons. Researchers at the Institute of HeartMath have done experiments proving that the heart’s role is not limited to just pumping blood. They believe it has intelligence and plays a major role in the perception of reality.

Here is an excerpt from my book Staradigm that talks about the deeper roles of the heart:

The heart is one of the most important organs in the human body, because it is one of the main mediums for connecting us to each other and the Universe. Conventional science has taught us that the main role of the heart is to pump blood to all the systems of the body. This definition of the heart is not very accurate. Besides pumping blood, the heart also has an intelligence of its own.

According to neurocardiologists, 60 to 65 percent of heart cells are neuron cells, not muscle cells.¹This discovery has helped them to develop experiments that have proved the heart works similar to the brain and in some ways is even superior to the brain. This may be the reason why the heart is the first organ to function after conception. Within about 20 days after conception the heart starts to function, but the brain does not function until after roughly 90 days. This information tells us that the brain is secondary to the heart.

The Heart, Brain, and Feelings

The brain and the heart are sometimes said to work in opposition. We are constantly trying to determine whether to place more emphasis on our thoughts or feelings. Rational people would say that the mind is the key to keeping us out of trouble, as the mind thinks in terms of what has the most payoff and is quite possible the safest or most calculated risk.

The heart on the other hand allows us to feel what is best at an internal level that connects to our intuition. Operating with either one of these alone, only the mind or the heart, can sometimes lead us into trouble. The mind can be afraid to seek happiness outside of the comfort zone, and the heart sometimes urges decisions that are unknown and risky, but using the two in balance can bring great clarity to a person.

Follow the heart is a common phrase that is tossed around, but it is not necessarily easy to enact. Follow the heart means letting deep feelings draw us one way or another without a logical answer or obvious reasoning. This organ provides a feeling of intuition or guidance, but we must have the contentment and the confidence to understand when it is pushing us in a direction, and then act upon this with complete faith in the outcome. Our feelings are what help us to understand the world beyond logic and therefore they are the keys to understanding the spiritual aspects of ourselves.

The Intelligence of the Heart

Some researchers and neurocardiologists are pushing the idea that the heart can actually act like another brain, helping to guide us with a different form of intelligence. Many physiological studies are currently being done regarding the interconnection of the heart and the brain, and why certain sensations and feelings are experienced at the level of the heart. Generally, love and certain emotional states are felt at the heart level, producing different physiological reactions of the heart.

Heartbeats have been found to be affected by inner states and emotions, including disorder in heart rhythms when we are experiencing stress or negative emotion. Conversely, when we are feeling positively, the heart rhythms are more cohesive and beat more regularly and steadily.

The nervous system of the heart contains roughly 40,000 neurons or sensory neurites. One of its roles is to monitor the heart’s hormones, neurochemicals, heart rate, and pressure information. The information of how these chemicals behave is also sent to the brain. The heart and brain are always communicating through the vagus nerve system and the electromagnetic field of the body. It is through this dynamic communication process that the consciousness of the heart can change how the brain process information. This process can also affect how energy flows in the body.

These findings indicate that the heart works with the brain and body, including the amygdala, to process emotions and incorporate emotional memories. The amygdala is the part of the brain that assists us in making decisions about incoming information and processing them based on our past experiences. This shows a link between the emotions and feelings and the actual brain and body physiology.

Other mental attitudes and stress also affect the body and our overall health, and these issues can be linked to the heart as well. Recent scientific research has determined that the emotions of anger, anxiety, and other negative feelings can significantly increase the risk of heart disease. Therefore, stressful situations and high anxiety levels negatively affect the heart as an organ.

Connecting the brain and the heart as its own emotional processing center is a topic that many researchers are focusing on. It has been shown that emotions experienced mentally will also manifest physically in the body, and feelings can affect the rhythms and beating of the heart. The best way to maintain a healthy heart is to not only eat a healthy diet, but also incorporate meditation techniques to balance the energy of the heart and brain.

Why the Heart Holds the key to World Peace

The heart helps us to understand the world through feelings. It allows us to understand our reality in a universal kind of way, giving us universal characteristics. This biological electromagnetic field generator allows us to understand each other at the emotional level and beyond, giving us a sense of connection to all things. This emotional connection is what creates bonding between individuals.

When we learn how to think with our hearts, it becomes easier for us to understand others and live in harmony with them. For these reasons, the heart holds the key to uniting humanity and achieving world peace.

Mysteries of the Heart

**Also featured at Waking Times.

from: http://themindunleashed.org/2016/02/how-the-human-heart-functions-as-a-second-brain-2.html