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/

Taking Over The Non-Profits

Posted on by

How Billionaires Use Non-Profits to Bypass Governments and Force Their Agendas on Humanity

As wealth becomes concentrated in fewer hands, so does political and social power via foundations and non-profits.
By Sarah Lazare
February 29, 2016

Bill and Melinda Gates pictured in June 2009.
Photo Credit: Wikipedia

As wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the billionaire class is increasingly turning to foundations and non-profits to enact the change they would like to see in the world. Amid the rise of philanthrocapitalism, growing numbers of critics are raising serious questions about whether this outsized influence is doing more harm than good.

In the January issue of the New York Review of Books, veteran journalist Michael Massing noted that, in the past 15 years alone, “the number of foundations with a billion dollars or more in assets has doubled, to more than eighty.” The philanthropic sector in the United States is far more significant than in Europe, fueled in part by generous tax write-offs, which the U.S. public subsidizes to the tune of $40 billion a year.

As Massing observes, billionaires are not just handing over their money, they have ideas about how it should be used, and their vision often aligns with their own economic interests. For this reason, the philanthropy industry deserves rigorous scrutiny, not a free pass because it is in the service of good.

Massing’s argument followed a study released in January by the watchdog organization Global Policy Forum, which found that philanthropic foundations are so powerful they are allowing wealthy individuals to bypass governments and international bodies like the United Nations in pursuit of their own agendas. What’s more, this outsized influence is concentrated in the United States, where 19 out of the top 27 largest foundations are based. These 27 foundations together possess $360 billion, write authors Jens Martens and Karolin Seitz.

Such dramatic wealth accumulation has disturbing implications. “What is the impact of framing the problems and defining development solutions by applying the business logic of profit-making institutions to philanthropic activities, for instance by results-based management or the focus on technological quick-win solutions in the sectors of health and agriculture?” the report asks.

These questions are not new, as social movements have long raised the alarm about the global impact of the ever-expanding philanthropy sector. In 2010, the international peasant movement La Via Campesina blasted the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s acquisition of Monsanto shares as proof that its role in privatizing the global food supply and exporting big agribusiness, from Africa to North America, should be viewed through a commercial rather than humanitarian lens.

“It is really shocking for the peasant organizations and social movements in Haiti to learn about the decision of the [Gates] Foundation to buy Monsanto shares while it is giving money for agricultural projects in Haiti that promote the company’s seed and agrochemicals,” said Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Haitian Peasant Movement of Papaye and Caribbean coordinator of La Via Campesina at the time. “The peasant organizations in Haiti want to denounce this policy which is against the interests of 80 percent of the Haitian population, and is against peasant agriculture—the base of Haiti’s food production.”

The Gates Foundation more recently fell under scrutiny from the advocacy organization Global Justice Now, which released a report in January raising concerns about the institution’s track record on education, food and health care policies.

“The Gates Foundation has rapidly become the most influential actor in the world of global health and agricultural policies, but there’s no oversight or accountability in how that influence is managed,” said Polly Jones of Global Justice Now. “This concentration of power and influence is even more problematic when you consider that the philanthropic vision of the Gates Foundation seems to be largely based on the values of corporate America. The foundation is relentlessly promoting big business-based initiatives such as industrial agriculture, private health care and education. But these are all potentially exacerbating the problems of poverty and lack of access to basic resources that the foundation is supposed to be alleviating.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, raised eyebrows in December when they announced they would give away 99 percent of their wealth. As it turned out, this was not a giveaway at all, but a shifting of funds into their own limited liability company (LLC). Just weeks later, Zuckerberg lashed out at Indian media justice advocates who raised concerns about his company’s efforts to undermine net neutrality protections in their country.

Like many others, Massing is calling for greater transparency, not only for foundations but for think tanks, Hollywood, Silicon Valley and universities. Pointing to the website Inside Philanthropy, whose stated purpose is to “pull back the curtain on one of the most powerful and dynamic forces shaping society,” Massing argues that far greater and better-resourced scrutiny is needed. “There remains the question of how to pay for all this,” writes Massing, posing: “Is there perhaps a consortium of donors out there willing to fund an operation that would part the curtains on its own world?”

But some argue that we already have all the information we need to be concerned. In December, Vandana Shiva, an ecofeminist and activist, wrote in response to Zuckerberg’s move in India that a “collective corporate assault is underway globally. Having lined up all their ducks, veterans of corporate America such as Bill Gates are being joined by the next wave of philanthro-corporate Imperialists, including Mark Zuckerberg.”

“It is an enclosure of the commons,” she continued, “which are ‘commons’ because they guarantee access to the commoner, whether it be seed, water, information or internet.”

from:    http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-billionaires-use-non-profits-bypass-governments-push-their-agendas

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/

So WHo’s Watching You?

Posted on by

New Billboards Film You, Then Use Your Mobile Phone To Follow You

March 1, 2016

BillboardsBy Jake Anderson

Recently, Anti-Media covered the revelation that Samsung transmits audio commands recorded by their Smart TVs to a third party company, which raises all sorts of red flags regarding encryption standards and, more importantly, people’s privacy in their own homes.

Last year, Anti-Media posted a list of surprising objects endowed with surveillance or data extraction capabilities — including the Statue of Liberty, mannequins, billboards, and more. The company Immersive Labs, for instance, creates software for digital billboards that allows them to watch your face and then tailor a specific ad based on your facial features.

On Monday, the next generation of corporate surveillance was deployed — a new kind of billboard that utilizes surveillance triangulation the likes of which we’ve never seen.

According to the article entitled “See That Billboard? It May See You,” Clear Channel Outdoor Americas has partnered with a bevy of tech and data companies, including AT&T, to combine billboard surveillance and location-based mobile data in order to study people’s travel patterns and shopping behaviors. The program, called Radar, will hit 11 major markets this coming Monday. Clear Channel plans on expanding Radar to the entire nation within a year.

Billboards equipped with cameras that track consumers is not new, but tracking drivers by aggregating data from both billboards and mobile phones simultaneously is an evolution in data mining.

Information gleaned from these new billboards will include the average age and gender of people who pass by, as well as the time and what stores they subsequently visit. The info collected from the billboards will then be paired with data from the third party companies for a one-two punch that will be very valuable to advertisers.

In essence, there is a tag-team effect: the billboards identify you, then the third party companies use your mobile phone to follow and track your consumer behavior.

For instance, PlaceIQ will use mobile apps to determine location data and consumer behavior. In an article for Adweek entitled “The Future of Auto Marketing Could Be a Little Creepy – Get ready for brands to follow you everywhere,” PlaceIQ CEO and co-founder Duncan McCall discussed another campaign “designed to target in-market car buyers, one that tracks people from the moment they begin contemplating making a purchase to the moment they leave their house and head to the dealer.”

Another third party company involved in Clear Channel Outdoor’s Radar billboard campaign, Placed, will use the tracked movements of the consumer to craft customized in-store ads. Placed uses mobile phones to verify shopper movements; they sell this data to stores, online retailers, and app developers.

Between the billboards and third party companies, it sounds as if the Radar program seeks to create a consumer environment where citizens can be publicly tracked — whether in their cars or after they have parked and are shopping (or simply taking a walk) — synchronously and in perpetuity.

Both PlaceIQ and Placed claim all the data they collect is anonymized.

Clear Channel Outdoor tested the new Radar system in Orlando, Florida recently, using a billboard advertisement for Toms Shoes.

Unsurprisingly, privacy advocates condemn the new campaign as yet another violation of consumer trust.

“People have no idea that they’re being tracked and targeted,” says Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. “It is incredibly creepy, and it’s the most recent intrusion into our privacy.”

According to Amie Stepanovich of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, corporate surveillance is especially troubling because in many cases, it paves the way for government surveillance. As the top secret military agency DARPA advances complex new war weapons, many times it relies on private contractors to move the needle. The same goes for surveillance: in creating their consumer profiles, corporations essentially run a kind of societal beta test of surveillance programs from which the government can pick and choose.

Stepanovich describes it like this:

None of the information in question would be sharable if Internet and telecommunications companies encrypted it to protect privacy. In other words, it’s not a given that corporations must collect vast amounts of information from and about us. But failing to do so wouldn’t be good for business.

Here she is referring to metadata gathered online, but the same applies to analytics collected on the street. We’re entering an era in which surveillance is essentially ubiquitous. Concurrently, privacy advocates say new guidelines and ethical contracts need to be considered.

Already, judicial actions have made an impact. Last year the Federal Trade Commission settled charges against retail-tracking company Nomi Technologies, which was found to have misled consumers regarding their practice of gathering signals from shoppers’ mobile phones.

In the meantime, besides moving to Antarctica and relinquishing all technology, what can consumers and citizens do to protect themselves from intrusive data mining and surveillance?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers a comprehensive suite of free encryption tools and tutorials for protecting your online data, including information stored on mobile phones.

There are also techniques available for camouflaging yourself from surveillance cameras. Using makeup patterns called ‘computer vision dazzle’ (or CV dazzle), it is possible to fool the facial recognition algorithms of many surveillance systems.

from:    http://www.activistpost.com/2016/03/new-billboards-film-you-then-use-your-mobile-phone-to-follow-you.html