No Comment Diary

The News Without Comment

This content shows Simple View

Collective Evolution

This Is What Actually Happens To Our “Recycling” (Video)

Everyday we produce waste, in our current society, it’s almost impossible not to. Many of us make an effort to recycle our recyclables, but unfortunately much of that still ends up in the trash. There are also a lot of countries that don’t recycle at all so all of the waste – all of that plastic, effectively ends up in the ground or sadly in our oceans. For those of us who do recycle, we feel good about ourselves, and feel like we are doing our part to reduce our impact on the environment, but do we ever question what actually happens to our recycling and where it ends?

Like many other aspects of our society, our recycling is, for the most part, out of sight out of mind. We don’t actually know what is happening to it, we just drop it off into the appropriate containers and hope for the best. Unfortunately this is not helping and in many cases is making the issue of the global waste epidemic, much worse that we could ever imagine. Whether or not the waste is actually recycled doesn’t really matter, because as soon as it leaves the country it came from and is labeled as recycling it is counted as such, regardless of where that plastic and other waste actually ends up. Often, there is so much un-recyclable garbage and material mixed in with the stuff that actually can be recycled that it all just ends up going to landfills.

This could be avoided if communities and countries became more strict with their recyclable material standards, it could also be avoided if everything we manufactured was made of biodegradable substances, like hemp.

The following video from Sky Ocean Rescue shares some more eye-opening information about the truth about our supposed “recycling”…


Something Needs To Change

It is clear that our current “solution” to all of our plastic waste is not working, as the video says, we need to find a better solution to this epidemic. Recycling standards certainly need to become a lot more strict, and each country should be held responsible for their own recycling and potentially laws should be put in place by the UN that makes it illegal to export plastic waste and recycling, this would then force us to come up with a better option. It is not fair that there is no transparency towards what is really going on with the public. If people really knew, it is likely that they would take a stand against this.

What Can We Do, Ourselves?

Sometimes, we truly have to take matters into our own hands, we cannot rely on our governments to do the right thing, I’m sure many of us are aware of this by now. If we truly want to make a difference we have to do as Gandhi says and,

“We must be the change we wish to see in the world.”

What does this involve? Taking responsibility for our own actions and dealing with these matters on a personal level. Do you know where your recycling is going? Have you ever actually looked into it? This is a great start, but an even more effective way to deal with this problem is to stop it before it starts. How can you lower your consumption and amount of waste you are producing? Can you choose products that are not packed in plastic? Can you use reusable, glass or stainless steel containers? Could you go back to the old-fashioned bar of soap? The fact of the matter is, we got along just fine without plastic for many years, we have other options and can all make a conscious decision to choose those other options.

We have to remember that as the consumer, we do have a direct say in what the big corporations are manufacturing. By opting out of plastic products, the companies will have no choice but to update their products and materials, or go out of business. We have already seen massive companies like Starbucks & McDonald’s making huge changes in this regard. If you need some ideas on how to reduce your impact, check out 10 Smart Hacks TO Cut Plastic Packaging Out Of Your Life.

Change starts with you!

Much Love

Related CE Articles

Does Every Single Piece Of Plastic Produced Still Exist Today?

The Story Of A Woman Who Can Fit All Of Her Trash From The Past 5 Years Into A Mason Jar

Source: http://ift.tt/R7c12l


  • Categories:

US Patent 6506148 B2 Confirms Human Nervous System Manipulation Through Your Computer & TV

It’s hard to find any information at all on a one “Hendricus G. Loos,” despite the fact that he’s filed multiple patent applications, with success, for apparatuses that deal with the manipulation of the human nervous system via a computer screen or a television monitor. In the abstract, he explains the following,

“Physiological effects have been observed in a human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near ½ Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance. Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation. It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set. For the latter, the image pulsing may be imbedded in the program material, or it may be overlaid by modulating a video stream, either as an RF signal or as a video signal. The image displayed on a computer monitor may be pulsed effectively by a simple computer program. For certain monitors, pulsed electromagnetic fields capable of exciting sensory resonances in nearby subjects may be generated even as the displayed images are pulsed with subliminal intensity.”

The concerning thing about this, as the patent application explains, is that even a very weak pulse can have adverse affects on the human nervous system.

He then goes on to describe that pulse variability and strength can be controlled through software, and explains how, with regards to a computer monitor, DVDs, video tapes and more, and also how it can be remotely controlled from another location.

Perhaps the most concerning part is this,

“Certain monitors can emit electromagnetic field pulses that excite a sensory resonance in a nearby subject, through image pulses that are so weak as to be subliminal. This is unfortunate since it opens a way for mischievous application of the invention, whereby people are exposed unknowingly to manipulation of their nervous systems for someone else’s purposes. Such application would be unethical and is of course not advocated. It is mentioned here in order to alert the public to the possibility of covert abuse that may occur while being online, or while watching TV, a video, or a DVD.”

The application is full of cited examples that the “nervous system of a subject can be manipulated through electromagnetic field pulses emitted by a nearby CRT or LCD monitor which displays images with pulsed intensity.”

Our nervous system basically controls everything in our body, including the brain. It’s a network of nerves and cells that carry messages to and from the brain and spinal cord to various parts of the body, and it’s no secret that the United States government, among others, have a long history of experimenting on human beings for mind control purposes. Could television be a mind-control tactic? It would explain why so many people believe stories and explanations of events presented to them by mainstream media, instantaneously, without even questioning.

In some cases, we are made to idolize what we see on T.V, like celebrities, and imitate behaviour and wants.

Sometimes, a perspective that’s backed by evidence, which completely counters the story and information we receive from mainstream media, is thrown into the “conspiracy realm.” This is dangerous, have we reached a point where our televisions are doing the thinking for us? Could they be using pulse techniques described above to influence our thoughts, behaviours and perceptions?

Given what we know about our governments and the unethical actions they’ve taken throughout history, it’s really not out of the question.

There is a reason why airplanes and hospitals ban the use of cell phones, it’s because their electromagnetic transmissions interfere with critical electrical devices. The brain is no different, it’s a bioelectric organ that’s extremely complex and  generates electric fields.  Scientists can actually control brain function with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a technique that uses powerful pulses of electromagnetic radiation beamed into a person’s brain to jam or excite particular brain circuits.

This is the same type of thing described in the patent, so to what extent are our computer monitors and television screens doing this? This is why, for example, when somebody turns on their Sony Playstation, the screen warns them to read the important health information before playing. Research has also shown that simple cell phone transmissions can affect a person’s brainwaves quite significantly, which in turn leads to effects on their behaviour as well.

“Electromagnetic radiation can have an effect on mental behaviour when transmitting at the proper frequency.” – James Horne , from the Loughborough University Sleep Research Centre (source)

Not only this, but hundreds of scientists have come together, and are currently creating awareness on and petitioning the United Nations about the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. They’ve been linked to cancer, and have been shown to manipulate our DNA. You can read more about that here.

The initiative was started by Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Colombia University, who has joined a group of scientists from around the world making an international appeal to the United Nations regarding the dangers associated with the use of various electromagnetic emitting devices, like cells phones and WiFi.

“Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely,”said Dr. Martin Blank, from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, in a video message.

“We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation.”

This information is a separate effect on the body from mind control, but it’s still important to mention and bring light to.

Not only are our electronic devices monitoring, watching, and recording everything we do, they may also be influencing our behaviour, perceptions, thoughts and feelings on a large-scale as well, but who really knows if “the powers that be” are using these devices for mind control, in the same way they use them for surveillance.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not hard to see how corporations use television to influence our behaviour and perceptions, but perhaps they, and other authorities, are changing things around, as mentioned above, and manipulating our nervous systems purposefully for their own personal gain, and knowingly do so.

Chamath Palihapitiya, the vice-president for user growth at Facebook prior to leaving the company in 2011, said, “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we created are destroying how society works. . . . No civil discourse, no cooperation, misinformation, mistruth.” So, we are seeing a similar type of thing there as well.”

When it comes to mind control, project MK ultra was the CIA’s baby. It’s commonly believed that it was only LSD that was used on human test subjects, but that was just one program. As the US Supreme Court brought to light in 1985, MK ultra consisted of 162 different secret projects that were indirectly financed by the CIA, and contracted out to several universities, research foundations and similar institutions.” The majority of the MK Ultra records were actually destroyed, and have never been seen.

Perhaps television programming was a part of the MK Ultra program?

Concluding Comments

It’s hard to fathom the idea that we could be manipulated and used so much, for the purposes of profit, control, and other agendas, but it’s a reality we have to face. There are limitless examples of this throughout history all the way up to the modern-day, and all aspects of human life seem to be controlled by a select group of very few people from health, to finance, education, entertainment, big food and more. We’ve become tools for their use, and our thoughts, behaviours, and perceptions, for the most part, seem to be the same. If they’re a little different, or don’t really fit the frame, one can instantly be labelled, or become a ‘social outcast.’

There is no doubt in my mind that our Television, and other electronic devices has detrimental health effects, and that they do/can effect our nervous system in several different ways. The science on this is clear, but what is not so clear is the idea that there are others using these techniques, knowingly, to control our minds.

Based on all of my research into mind control ,and the actions our governments have taken and to what extent they’ve taken them to, I would be surprised if Television was not apart of the MK ultra program.

All and all, it’s another great recent to spend less time in-front of your screen, and more time with a book or spending time outside, or with family and friends. If there is one thing that’s for sure, our screens are detrimental to our health in several different ways.

Source: http://ift.tt/R7c12l


  • Categories:

Where Do We Go When We Die? Signs That Consciousness Remains After Death Are Increasing

What happens when we die? Who really knows? But to deem these questions completely unanswerable is absurd in light of all the evidence that’s emerged over the past view decades. Sure, contemplating what happens after death can be a little too ‘out there’ for some people, it can even contradict long-held belief systems that we’ve been holding on to for so long, with a tight grip, so much so that it can be hard to even entertain an alternate perspective that’s backed with some type of credible evidence.  It’s called cognitive dissonance.

There is nothing wrong with discovery, and throughout all stages of human history new discoveries have always been denounced and ridiculed before they eventually make their way into the mainstream. This is exactly what we are seeing with non-material science. The birth of quantum physics clearly showed a strong relationship between consciousness and what we perceive as our physical material world, this is why all of the founding fathers of quantum theory, like Max Planck,  regarded “consciousness as fundamental,” and matter as “derivative from consciousness,” and it’s why Nikola Tesla believed that humanity would not make giant leaps forward until it studies “non-physical” phenomena – subjects such as, like telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, remote viewing, near death experiences (NDE’s) and more.

Today, new discoveries like this can have huge implications, and can shake the foundations of the global collective worldview as well as change the global perception forever.

In the mainstream scientific community, there is still a harsh resistance to this type of phenomenon, despite the fact that there are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies showing, in some cases, even greater statistically significant results than that of the ‘hard sciences,’ under the same controlled laboratory conditions. It truly goes to show that science, today, is in large part not about remaining neutral, but rather pulling the curtain over results that still challenge what we think we know about the nature of reality. As a result, we have tremendous amounts of scientific dogma, rather than scientific truth.

A 1999 a statistics professor at UC Irvine published a paper showing that parapsychological experiments have produced much stronger results than those showing a daily dose of aspirin helps prevent a heart attack. There are multiple examples, most of them coming from the Department of Defence.

Below is a great quote that I’ve used multiple times, so my apologies if you’ve already seen it but it really gets my point across,

“Despite the unrivalled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension and even anger.” – T. Folger, “Quantum Shmantum”; Discover 22:37-43, 2001)

Dr Gary Schwartz (University of Arizona ), is one of hundreds of scientists who have gathered to emphasize that matter is not the only reality. You can read more about that in this article:

Distinguished Scientists Gather To Emphasize That Matter Is NOT The Only Reality

He sums up the problem quite well,

Some materialistically inclined scientists and philosophers refuse to acknowledge these phenomena because they are not consistent with their exclusive conception of the world. Rejection of post-materialist investigation of nature or refusal to publish strong science findings supporting a post-materialist framework are antithetical to the true spirit of scientific inquiry, which is that empirical data must always be adequately dealt with. Data which do not fit favoured theories and beliefs cannot be dismissed as priori. Such dismissal is the realm of ideology, not science.”  Dr. Gary Schwartz (source)

So, What Happens After We Die? 

Contemplating where we come from, and where we are before and after death, has been done for thousands of years. The stories of our creation span the literature of all cultures throughout human history, from a variety of different time periods, and if we look at the stories of our creation from sources that predate religion, they all seem to be very similar, and very spiritual in nature, but what does modern-day research show us?

From a medical standpoint, death means that our heart is stopped, all brain activity and blood circulation comes to a halt and we are no longer doing any breathing. It’s important to note that, on numerous occasions, individuals have been pronounced clinically dead, only to be revived and brought back to live via CPR and other mechanisms.

An article written for Newsweek explains.

“Modern resuscitation was a game-changer for emergency care, but it also blew apart our understanding of what it means to be dead. Without many people returning from the dead to show us otherwise, it was natural to assume, from a scientific perspective, that our consciousness dies at the same time as our bodies.”

Today, it’s a different story. Large studies have shown that a significant amount of people who have been clinically dead, experience some type of ‘awareness’ during that time. For example, one patient – a 57-year-old man at the time, despite being pronounced “dead” and completely unconscious, with no detectable biological activity going on, recalled watching the entire process of his resuscitation.

What’s also weird is that scientists have discovered that once you die, “only after you die, that the cells inside our bodies start to gradually go toward their own process of death,” Dr. Sam Parnia, director of critical care and resuscitation research at New York University Langone Medical Center, told Newsweek. “I’m not saying the brain still works or any part of you still works once you’ve died. But the cells don’t instantly switch from alive to dead. Actually, the cells are much more resilient to the heart stopping – to the person dying – than we used to understand.”

His published research in this area provides a number of examples as well.

All researchers in this field have found that the experiences patients are having while dead, are unexplainable and given that so many have experienced it, brushing them off as mere hallucinations is not completely valid. These experiences, as mentioned above, have also been verified by the doctors involved with the patients themselves.

“How these patients were able to describe objective events that took place while they were dead, we’re not exactly sure……But it does seem to suggest that when our brains and bodies die, our consciousness may not, or at least not right away….I don’t mean that people have their eyes open or that their brain’s are working after they die…that petrifies people. I’m saying we have consciousness that makes up who we are – our selves, thoughts, feelings, emotions-and that entity, it seems, does not become annihilated just because we’ve crossed the threshold of death; it appears to been functioning and not dissipate. How long it lingers, we can’t say.” – Dr. Sam Parnia

You can watch a lecture of the leading scientists in this field summarize 50 years of research in this area, below

Related CE Articles: 

Beyond Space & Time: Quantum Theory Suggests Consciousness Moves On After Death

Quantum Theory Sheds Light on Life After Death

Is Consciousness A Product of the Brain or a Receiver of It? 

Source: http://ift.tt/R7c12l


  • Categories:

The Forgotten Art Of Squatting: Is It The Antidote For The Damage Done To Our Bodies From Sitting?

The invention of the chair was really a total game changer in regards to how our bodies function and which parts of the body we are using on a regular basis. The chair took all of that pressure off of our rears and backs, and relieved some of our weight for us. Of course, we always had the option to sit on the ground or perhaps in a tree, but the chair became such a fundamental piece of furniture in our lives that it absolutely changed how our bodies function.

By now, most of us are aware of just how detrimental it can be to our bodies to sit for a prolonged period of time, in fact, some researchers are even going as far as to say that sitting is the new smoking in terms of the potential damage it can cause to our bodies. With so many of us, myself included, working desk jobs on computers this really is important information to be aware of. Sitting is wreaking havoc on our bodies. Luckily, as the awareness grows towards this important health issue, we are seeing many new designs for standing desks, or things like core chairs that are aimed to utilize the muscles in our body and effectively relieve the issues that too much sitting can cause. But is there a much simpler option that humans have forgotten?

How The Forgotten Art Of Squatting Can Help You

Squatting is essentially a position of the body that humans have used for thousands of years, and in many cultures is still being used today. If you practice yoga, you might know this position as a Malasana, which is essentially a deep squat. A yoga instructor once said that a guru told them that “the problem with the west is that they don’t squat.” This is so true, if you aren’t someone who practices yoga or – does squats during a workout, when are you really going to squat? If we feel like taking a rest, we’re definitely choosing the chair or the big comfy couch before squatting down. We eat in chairs, sit in our cars and on the train, sit on the toilet – essentially, we are often only not sitting when we are walking from one chair to the next. In fact, many of us probably couldn’t even squat down to the ground if we tried, not without some serious stretching first at least.

Our lack of squatting has bio-mechanical and physiological implications, but perhaps it is inhibiting us from the grounding force that this posture provides as well. The lack of squatting is actually only really an issue for the westernized civilizations as there are many cultures around the world that are squatting down any chance they get, to eat, to pray, to use the toilet – yes, squatting toilets are the norm in Asia, and actually make way more sense. Squatting, in more undeveloped nations is also the most common way for women to give birth, and again when you really think about it, it also makes much more sense than lying on your back in a hospital bed.

In these “less advanced” cultures, the rich and middle class are not squatting either, as it is generally seen as something that the poor do as it is uncomfortable and actually causes the body to work. Have you ever heard the expression, “If you don’t use it, you lose it”? Well, this can be said in regards to squatting because if you were to give it a try now, you may find it very difficult, especially for a prolonged period of time. But, our bodies are amazing organisms and they can always transform.

According to author and osteopath, Philip Beach, “The game started with squatting,”  Beach is known for pioneering the idea of “archetypal postures.” These positions—which, in addition to a deep passive squat with the feet flat on the floor, include sitting cross-legged and kneeling on one’s knees and heels—are not just good for us, but according to beach they are  “deeply embedded into the way our bodies are built.”

“You really don’t understand human bodies until you realize how important these postures are,” Beach, who is based in Wellington, New Zealand, tells me. “Here in New Zealand, it’s cold and wet and muddy. Without modern trousers, I wouldn’t want to put my backside in the cold wet mud, so  [in absence of a chair] I would spend a lot of time squatting. The same thing with going to the toilet. The whole way your physiology is built is around these postures.”

Why Is Squatting Good For Us?

According to Dr. Bahram Jam, founder of Advanced Physical Therapy Education Institute in Ontario, Canada, “Every joint in our body has synovial fluid in it. This is the oil in our body that provides nutrition to the cartilage,” Jam says. “Two things are required to produce that fluid: movement and compression. So if a joint doesn’t go through its full range—if the hips and knees never go past 90 degrees—the body says ‘I’m not being used’ and starts to degenerate and stops the production of synovial fluid.”

A healthy musculoskeletal system is much more important for our health than just helping us to feel limber, strong and flexible, a study published in 2014 from the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology found that those participants who had a difficult time getting up off the floor without support of hands, elbows or leg remarkably resulted in having a three-year-year shorter life expectancy than those who got up with ease.

So, Why Did We Stop Squatting?

It seems that in the West, we stopped squatting around the same time as the modern seated toilet came into our existence. It might not seem like this alone would be a cause for such a drastic change to our physiology, but as Jam says, “The reason squatting is so uncomfortable because we don’t do it,” Jam says. “But if you go to the restroom once or twice a day for a bowel movement and five times a day for bladder function, that’s five or six times a day you’ve squatted.”

As we sit in our office chairs, staring at our computers in our office attire, for men slacks and dress shirts and often for women pencil skirts and dresses – can you even imagine trying to squat or sit cross-legged? Both of which would be much better for our health than sitting in chairs. It’s interesting how we seem to think we’ve come so far, and that we are much more civilised and advanced, but really we aren’t doing ourselves any favors with this arrogant attitude.

“It’s considered primitive and of low social status to squat somewhere,” says Jam. “When we think of squatting we think of a peasant in India, or an African village tribesman, or an unhygienic city floor. We think we’ve evolved past that—but really we’ve devolved away from it.”

Time To Start Squatting?

If you can, practice squatting down a few times a day. If you can’t, start by stretching your body and getting down as low as you can, if you are very rigid, it may take time, but doing some light stretching or yoga daily can assist you with this process. It is very good for our health! Especially if you are sitting on a chair all day at your place of employment, you might want to consider setting a reminder on your phone to remind you to get up and squat down at least a few times a day.

All the best!

Source: http://ift.tt/R7c12l


  • Categories:

What Would Happen If The World Ran Out Of Oil Today? (Video)

Although many of us would like to see a world without oil, mostly for environmental reasons, no emissions from cars, no plastics polluting our oceans and nowhere near as many synthetic chemicals in our personal care products, we don’t always realize just how much of our lives actually involves oil everyday. From the clothes we wear, to the packaged food we buy, and the phones and computers we use daily, oil is right there beside us. It’s difficult to imagine a world without oil, but what if oil were to suddenly disappear overnight? What would our world look like?

I come from a small oil-field town called Fort St. John, in Northern British Columbia, Canada. It is one of the largest producers of oil in North America. The lives of the majority of the people who live in this town directly depend on oil, and when things are slow, the people feel it. Even though I can see that oil is polluting our planet and our environment and that there are much cleaner options available, I still can see the other side of the coin as to just how much is at stake if we were to eradicate the oil industry completely. Thousands and thousands would be out of work and my hometown would likely eventually cease to exist. The point here is that there are always two sides to every story.

In a series of videos from A Facebook page called, What.If, this question is answered in an informative and intriguing video. Would life still go on? How much of our daily lives would be impacted? Could we survive? Check it out.

But, What About The Alternatives?

This video, while interesting, doesn’t mention the alternatives to oil that currently are available to us right now. Sure, if oil were to disappear like that, there would be many issues as were described in the video, but what if it were a steady phase out process? We have many alternatives that are being implemented today. As awareness grows so does the popularity in these new sources of energy, and alternatives to petroleum-based products in our clothing, personal care products etc. It is important to remember that human beings also got along just fine without oil for a number of years, and would be able to do it again.

We have solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power and even more options available to us today. In some ways of our lives, perhaps taking a step backwards isn’t a bad thing if it means being more connected and harmonious with our mother earth. We essentially do not need any of the chemicals used for cleaning or personal care products and we can always buy clothes that are made from natural, sustainable materials like organic cotton and hemp. Tesla has done a great job at showing us that oil is not needed any longer for cars. If we could figure out a way to turn the current vehicles over to electric… or even water powered then we would be golden.

And… What About The Jobs?

This is a tricky one, there is no denying that. If we were to slowly start cutting out oil there would definitely be more sustainable options coming in to take its place and this alone would create many new jobs that people would have to be trained on. It could be a gradual process.

Another Theory Worth Considering

If you are a fan of popular UFO researcher, Stephen Greer then you might know where I’m going with this, if you are not then stick with me. Greer believes that we are without a doubt being visited by extraterrestrials and that their presence is being kept a secret by our military and governments. Why the secrecy? Because if we knew of the existence of ET’s and their craft, then we would know that alternative energy technologies do exist and we would have them implemented, which in turn would crush the multi-billion dollar industry. Greer believes that the technology that is being suppressed by our governments could take the world off of oil overnight and eliminate all the need for oil powered anything. You can learn about this and more in Greer’s compelling documentary, “Unacknowledged.”

Final Thoughts?

Regardless, most of us would like to see this planet around for another few centuries, at least, and by now we know the damage that oil is doing to our planet. In our own lives we can do our part by moving away from oil, you can check out a partial list of 6000 products containing oil here. But of course, there is also the argument that most of the food we eat is shipped to us using, you guessed it – oil, but as electric cars continue to rise we can see that perhaps this method of transportation is on it’s way out.

What do you think? Will oil soon be a thing of the past or do to many aspects of our everyday lives rely on the use of oil? Are we able to make the switch? Let us know in our Collective Evolution Group on Facebook. See you there.

Much Love

Source: http://ift.tt/R7c12l


  • Categories:

What Every Doctor Should Acknowledge About The Vaccine Program – Does Yours?

Note from the World Mercury Project Team:  This article concludes our seven-part serialization of Vera Sharav’s exposé on the complex and widespread corruption that exists in the vaccination program, the deceptive practices by officials of “authoritative” international public health institutions and further evidence of the callous disregard for the plight of thousands of children and young adults who suffer irreversible harm. As one reads all seven parts, it becomes abundantly clear that the revolving door between regulators (charged with protecting the health of citizens) and pharmaceutical companies should close. Links to previously published parts one through six are at the bottom of this segment.

European Commission boosts vaccine research with £30 Million projects: ADITEC

Advanced Immunization Technologies will accelerate the development of novel and powerful immunization technologies for the next generation of human vaccines. €30 Million of European Commission co-funding will enable ADITEC to establish a strong platform for innovation in a key area for human health.

A consortium of scientists from 42 research and industry bodies in 13 countries will work together on the project, which will work on a wide range of crucial aspects of vaccination; from basic research and new technologies to clinical trials and public health. The support for this project underlines the importance of the vaccine sector in effective healthcare, and gives a boost in a key innovation area for the European health industry.” (News Alert: Brussels, September 2011)

Accelerated development of vaccine benefit-risk collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) (2013)

“Vaccines are one of the most effective public health measures…Immunisation prevents two to three million deaths worldwide every year from diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) and measles. In Europe, one of the greatest barriers to the wider uptake of immunisation is distrust, among some sections of the public, of immunisation programmes. This is due largely to fears surrounding vaccine safety…resulting in outbreaks of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases that had almost disappeared.

ADVANCE brings together the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the European Medicines Agency, as well as national public health and regulatory bodies, vaccine manufacturers and academic experts, the ADVANCE project will develop and test methods and guidelines in order to pave the way for a framework capable of rapidly delivering reliable data on the benefits and risks of vaccines that are on the market.”

The UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) chaired by Professor Andrew Pollard, has recommended that the UK switch to hexavalent vaccines for babies. This recommendation disregards the risks for babies – including the risk of sudden infant deaths that have been linked to multi-valent vaccines, [see Appendix 8] Prof. Pollard is Director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, noted for its active role in vaccine development and testing on behalf of industry. He is also a Trustee of the Jenner Vaccine Foundation. Dr. Norman Begg, Vice-President and Chief Medical Officer of GSK Biologicals, the manufacturer of Infanrix Hexa, is also a Trustee of the Jenner Foundation.

The common thread and longstanding intertwined connections that bind vaccine stakeholders is demonstrable in the case of Dr. David Salisbury, former Director of Immunisation at the Department of Health, who was the chief architect of the UK children’s vaccination program from 1986 to 2013, was a leading promoter of Pluserix in 1988. In 2013, Dr. Salisbury chaired the panel that appointed Prof. Pollard to chair the JCVI.

He then left to become chair of the Jenner Vaccine Foundation on which he sits with Prof. Pollard and Dr. Norman Begg – GSK Chief, Scientific Affairs, and Public Health. He is President of the International Association of Immunization Managers (IAIM). (Read more: Not published in the British Medical Journal: the dangers and conflicts of Infanrix Hexa, 2017)

A Concerted Push For Compulsory Childhood Vaccination Is Fueled By Fear-Mongering

A headline in The Guardian (July 2017) announced a Small Decline In MMR Vaccination Rates Could Have Dramatic Effect, Experts Warn. It went on to declare: a 5% drop in measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations could cause a threefold increase of measles cases, costing the public sector millions, US study shows.” The article quotes Professor Andrew Pollard, Director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and Chair of the JCVI who stated:

“Immunisation is something that many people think of as personal, but it is actually part of being in a society.” A similar view was expressed by BMJ Editor-in-chief Dr. Fiona Godlee in a BBC interview (2017),[74] when she invoked “the need for herding as opposed to individual choice.”

  • The Supreme Court has ruled (2011) that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”[75]
    The US National Vaccine Injury Program has adjudicated 5,581 vaccine-caused injuries – including 1,234 claims for vaccine-related deaths from vaccines recommended by CDC’s Childhood Vaccination Schedule, and plaintiffs received compensation. [See Appendix 4]
  • If, as the Supreme Court determined, that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”, it is morally abhorrent to coerce parents who are rightly concerned about exposing their babies and young children to possible serious adverse effects – including deaths.

The CDC vaccination schedule is particularly aggressive compared to all other national policies. The CDC 2017 schedule requires U.S. children – from birth to age 6 – to receive 50 doses of 14 vaccines. Infants in the US are exposed from birth to age 2, to 24 vaccine doses, combining 8-in-1 vaccines to be given to infants 2, 4, and 6 months in a single visit. Babies receive 36 vaccine doses before they are 18 months old. The schedule includes vaccines against diseases that rarely occur in developed nations.

Notwithstanding CDC assurances to doctors and the public that these combinations are perfectly safe, none of the combinations in the CDC childhood vaccination schedule have ever undergone proper safety studies — as was acknowledge by the Institute of Medicine Report (2013):[77]

“key elements of the entire schedule—the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies… to consider whether and how to study the safety and health outcomes of the entire childhood immunization schedule, the field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule [sic] and clearer definitions of health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in rigorous research that will ensure validity and generalizability. ” [Highlight added]

What’s more, a report by CDC and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Mixed Exposures Research Agenda (2014) acknowledges that:

“Mixed exposures may produce acute or chronic effects or a combination of acute and chronic effects, with or without latency. Other exposures in combination with certain stressors may produce increased or unexpected deleterious health effects… exposures to mixed stressors can produce health consequences that are additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or can potentiate the response expected from individual component exposures.”

If mixed environmental exposures to toxins pose serious risks to adults, how can CDC claim that the mixture of toxins injected into infants poses no risk?

The truth is that CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule was configured to promote industry’s financial interest in maximizing vaccination utilization. However, CDC recommendations violate medicine’s foremost precautionary principle “First, do no harm.”  The evidence of infants being harmed following administration of multiple vaccines has been uncovered in CDC documents.

The following CDC acknowledgment of the possible lifelong debilitating brain damage following vaccination with the CDC-recommended DTaP  (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis)  should give pause. It appears on CDC’s otherwise upbeat website assurances about the safety of all vaccines.  

Any child who had a life-threatening allergic reaction after a dose of DTaP should not get another dose.

Any child who suffered a brain or nervous system disease within 7 days after a dose of DTaP should not get another dose.

Several severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, and might also happen after MMRV. These include severe allergic reactions and problemssuch as:

Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage

However, public health, and medical “authorities” who pretend that no evidence of harm due to vaccines exists; they continue to deceive the public with reassuring propaganda. The media continues to disseminate “fake news” about the life-saving attributes and safety of all vaccines; promotional campaigns push the flu vaccine, the HPV vaccine, and the ever inflated CDC childhood vaccination schedule.

IOM Report (2013): “…key elements of the entire schedule—the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies… to consider whether and how to study the safety and health outcomes of the entire childhood immunization schedule…”

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created in 1988 because there were so many vaccine-related injuries and lawsuits against manufacturers. Congress absolved vaccine manufacturers from all liability and created the NVICP to compensate vaccine-injured children.

Since its inception, the NVICP received 1,234 claims for vaccine-related deaths; of these 696 deaths were linked to the DTP vaccine, 127 deaths to the flu vaccine, 81 deaths were attributed to the DTaP, and 61 deaths were linked to the MMR.

The Drumbeat Toward Mandatory Vaccination: A Most Sinister Public Policy Direction

It is especially troubling to note the sinister direction that our “democracies” are headed towards. The position of both Professor Pollard and Dr. Godlee are antithetical to the moral stand articulated by Dr. Hamish Meldrum, the chairman of the British Medical Association, who called proposals for compulsory vaccination “a Stalinist approach.” He stated (in 2008) that forcing parents to vaccinate their children, by eliminating free choice was “morally and ethically dubious.”

Currently, government regulators in Italy, France, Germany, Poland and Australia have embarked on an aggressive drive to eliminate parental choice by adopting mandatory vaccination policies.  A case involving compulsory vaccination was filed with the European Court by the European Centre for Law & Justice.

It would appear that those in positions of influence in academia and journalism /media, and those in positions of authority in government, have learned nothing from 20thcentury history of coercive public health policies – forced sterilization, forced abortions – that were enacted across Europe and the US, ostensibly for “the greater good”.

Have we learned nothing about the debasement of medicine by the willing participation of medical doctors from elite universities, who formulated and implemented the medicalized mass murder of disabled children?

It was doctors who declared those children to be “unfit” to live.

“Aktion T4 could not have happened without the willing participation of German doctors”.

That history cannot be erased from memory or from the historical record.[81]

(Read: The Nazis’ First Victims Were the DisabledThe New York Times, Sept. 13, 2017)

If, as the Supreme Court determined, that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”, it is morally abhorrent to coerce parents who are rightly concerned about exposing their babies and young children to possible serious adverse effects – including deaths.

WMP NOTE:  This concludes of our seven-part series of Vera Sharav’s exposé. Previously published articles: Sharav’s Introduction to the full article,  L’affaire Wakefield: Shades of Dreyfus & BMJ’s Descent into Tabloid Science, outlines her well-researched and documented belief that, “Public health officials and the medical profession have abrogated their professional, public, and human responsibility, by failing to honestly examine the iatrogenic harm caused by expansive, indiscriminate, and increasingly aggressive vaccination policies.” Part One focuses on how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the vaccine industry control vaccine safety assessments, control the science of vaccines and control the scientific and mass channels of information about vaccines. In Part Two Ms. Sharav interprets the complex web of internal CDC documents, revealing how key CDC studies and CDC-commissioned studies were shaped by use of illegitimate methods. Part Three takes a closer look at the Brighton Collaboration and the extraordinary influence these stakeholders have in the business of vaccines and their power to control the science and research and manipulate reports to further their own interests. Focusing on the HPV vaccine, in Part Four Ms. Sharav explores how a global network of government/academic and industry stakeholders can suppress information about genuine scientific findings and, when needed, engage in corrupt practices to thwart the airing of information about vaccine safety issues. CDC’s childhood vaccination policy rests on the denial of safety hazards posed by vaccines and CDC officials are intent on shielding the policy and vaccination schedule at any cost. Part Fiveexamines documentation and internal correspondence that reveals how CDC used its influence and subsequently rejected scientific studies that contradicted the sacrosanct vaccine safety mantra. From major methodological flaws and inconsistencies, to outright fraud, in Part Six of this 7-part series, Vera Sharav reveals much about corrupted vaccine literature including journal editors who knowingly facilitated fraudulent research articles to influence vaccination policies that put thousands of children at risk, and depriving them of living normal lives.

More about the author: Vera Sharav is a Holocaust survivor and a fierce critic of the medical establishment. This article was originally published at www.ahrp.org. Stat news recently published an article about her and her work. 

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Source: http://ift.tt/R7c12l


  • Categories:

Watch: Former British Diplomat Believes Anarchism Is Our Only Alternative To A Corrupt Government

“I was once a British diplomat, now I’m an anarchist.” – Carne Ross

This is a pretty powerful statement, and chances are that you think this man has completely lost it. The term anarchy has somehow been confused with complete and utter chaos, with no order, no peace, no structure and essentially destruction. In reality, this couldn’t be further from the truth. In short, anarchy means self-governance. This is to rely on ourselves and our own internal guiding systems as to what works, what doesn’t and essentially let our own moral compass determine what is right and what is wrong. Believe it or not, inherently, most of us know.

Anarchism is defined as as, “A doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.”

Many of us believe that without the government, we would be completely lost, inept and unable to take care of ourselves, but, those who consider themselves anarchists believe the opposite. They feel that the government is merely a system of control that only benefits those at the top and keeps the rest of us complacent worker bees keeping this system alive. It’s no wonder such a bad name has been given to anarchy and it’s movement, it threatens our current system and more specifically, those at the top of the pyramid.

Recently, former British diplomat, Carne Ross was featured on BBC Newsnight to share his thoughts on why anarchy is the answer to our current political problems. Check it out!

 

As Ross states in the video, anarchism is a simple idea based off the principles that no one should have power over another and people should govern themselves. There are a few cultures around the world where the concepts of anarchism are being implemented and proven to be successful.

Shouldn’t We Have A Say?

I mean, think about it. We essentially give up all of our own personal thoughts, opinions, desires, ideas to the hands of a few powerful people who call themselves government. We have been conditioned to believe that we actually have a say because we are allowed to vote for our “leaders.” Unfortunately, these people are more often than not influenced heavily by corporations and therefore do not have our best interests in mind. Essentially, because of lobbying the large corporations are actually the ones calling the shots, this is very common in the United States of America, but it also happening in many other countries across the globe.

One fine example is of the wars being fought… if the public had a say in these matters, do you really feel that these wars would continue for as long as they have? Likely not, because the reasons for entering them in the first place, which is more often than not to do with oil, would not be of concern, because again it would not be the corporations calling the shots, but the citizens of the earth who genuinely care for the well-being of humanity. Believe it or not, people actually want to help each other and in instances where the government has collapsed, we have seen the people coming together as one to cooperate and face the matters at hand.

The concept of anarchism goes really deep, and realistically there is a lot more to it than this. But for now, to begin we can take the advice given by Ross and start to have a direct say in the decisions that are impacting our lives on a daily basis.

Much Love

Source: http://ift.tt/R7c12l


  • Categories:

Wi-Fi Devices Increase Mercury Release From Dental Amalgams

This article was written By Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com. For more news from them, you can sign up for their newsletter here

A new study published in the Journal of Neuroimmunology entitled, “Effect of radiofrequency radiation from Wi-Fi devices on mercury release from amalgam restorations,” reveals that our now ubiquitous exposure to Wi-Fi radiation may be amplifying the toxicity of dental amalgams and other forms of mercury exposure to the human body.

Brazilian researchers, in what appears to be the first study of its kind, looked specifically at the potential for Wi-Fi signals to increase the release of mercury from dental amalgams, which are composed of approximately 50% elemental mercury.

The highly controlled method researchers used was to recreate amalgam-filled teeth using standard protocols and then storing them in saline solution at  37° C for 14 days.  The 14 day period was chosen because previous research has revealed mercury is released from amalgam restorations at gradually decreasing amounts to a constant level 14 days after the filling. 1Afterwards, and before exposing the teeth to Wi-Fi signals, samples were poured into plastic tubes filled with artificial saliva at a 1.5 cm thickness to mimic soft tissue.

Next, the researchers divided the teeth randomly into 2 groups of 10. The specimens in the experimental group were exposed to a radiofrequency radiation emitted from standard Wi Fi devices at 2.4 GHz for 20 min. The distance between the Wi-Fi router and samples was 30 cm and the router was exchanging data with a laptop computer that was placed 20 meters away from the router. The control group were not exposed to Wi-Fi.

The results statistically significant, with the mean concentration of mercury in the Wi-Fi group about twice of the control group. The details were as follows:

“The mean (±SD) concentration of mercury in the artificial saliva of the Wi-Fi exposed teeth samples was 0.056 ± .025 mg/L, while it was only 0.026 ± .008 mg/L in the non-exposed control samples. This difference was statistically significant (P =0.009).”

The authors concluded:

“Exposure of patients with amalgam restorations to radio-frequency radiation emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices can increase mercury release from amalgam restorations.”

In the discussion section of their paper, they point to previous research that has also found exposure to both MRI, and microwave radiation from cell phones, also produce increased release of mercury from dental amalgam.

We’ve discussed the dangers of laptops and mobile phone radiation in previous posts available below:

Why Laptops Should Be Renamed To Protect Consumers

Brain Wave Warping Effect of Mobile Phones, Study

For evidence-based research on Wi-Fi Radation, visit the GreenMedInfo.com Research Dashboard.

References

1Müller‐Miny H, Erber D, Möller H, Müller‐Miny B, Bongartz G. Is there a hazard to health by mercury exposure from amalgam due to MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;6(1):258–60. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1880060146. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

Source: http://ift.tt/R7c12l


  • Categories:

Related Teen Epidemics? Looking for Answers in All the Wrong Places

Via The World Mercury Project Team.

As discussed in Part One, American teenagers are drowning in a rising tide of disorders: behavioural issues, sensory problems, depression, self-harm and more. The medical-pharmaceutical industry has rushed to brand all of these problems as mental health conditions treatable with profit-generating drugs. Few are talking about the broader neurodevelopmental crisis—triggered in part by environmental toxins such as the mercury and aluminum in vaccines—that is sabotaging children’s neurodevelopment and sapping adolescent resilience.

Age of Autism’s media editor Anne Dachel deconstructs this disproportionate focus on mental health, suggesting that the underlying aim of proclaiming half of American children mentally subpar may be to mask the real and serious neurological issues affecting children. As Dachel explains, “If every other child is ‘mentally ill,’ the ones with autism…and a host of developmental problems won’t matter.” In short, mental illness will become “a normal and acceptable part of childhood,” conveniently letting the manufacturers and purveyors of environmental toxins off the hook.

Blame the parents—for everything

Dachel astutely observes that some of the trendiest explanations for teen distress are inherently victim-blaming—or, more precisely, parent-blaming. Chief among these is the suddenly ubiquitous notion that teens’ problems are all due to “adverse child experiences” (ACEs), a vaguely conceptualized term comprising early-life trauma or abuse and household dysfunction. The sweeping line of reasoning underlying ACE research is that experiences such as “trauma exposure, parent mental health problems and family dysfunction put children at risk for disrupted brain development and increased risk for later health problems and mortality.” In response, researchers are calling for a more “trauma-informed and trauma-focused” approach to psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. Investigators also have begun holding ACEs responsible for a wide range of health behaviors and outcomes, including “depressive symptoms, ADHD symptoms, cigarette use, alcohol use, marijuana use, and BMI, in addition to lower levels of fruit and vegetable intake, and sleep.”

Without discounting the potential mental and physical health impacts of trauma and abuse, there are two problems with using ACEs as a catch-all explanation for young people’s mental and neurodevelopmental woes. First, a large body of scientific evidence clearly indicates that the neurodevelopmental disorders disabling today’s youth are multifactorial in origin. ACEs are only one component of a much longer list of likely environmental factors—including chemical pollutants and drugs—that can “interfere with typical brain developmental trajectories, eventually increasing the risk of either subclinical neuropsychological alterations or…clinical conditions such as learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).”

Unhelpful victim-blaming explanations serve corporate interests, allowing powerful medical and pharmaceutical entities to shirk their ethical responsibilities.

Second, it is hard to explain why ACEs suddenly should result in sky-high rates of intellectual disabilities and developmental delays (including autism) when, historically, even the most extreme forms of adversity have not been predictive of neurodevelopmental disorders. As Dachel observes, “Adversities and stress are nothing new. Somehow, everyone’s buying into the idea that kids today are falling apart because of the stress of modern life.” Dachel describes her grandfather’s family, which left Northern Ireland after going through a lot in the struggle for independence. She observes, “He and his siblings were working at a very young age when they got to North America. Although no one went beyond the fourth grade and they were as poor as one can imagine, all these kids were normal, intelligent and functional. They had to function in the adult world, and they did it.”

As with refugees from the Northern Irish “troubles,” there is no evidence that Holocaust survivors had (or have, for those still alive today) higher rates of ADHD, Asperger’s, autism, learning disabilities, sensory processing disorders or dyslexia, despite undergoing extreme trauma. Violinist Alison Fujito notes that Holocaust survivors “were tortured and suffered emotional and physical agony, and most had severe nutritional deficiencies. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is the norm for a Holocaust survivor, not the exception.” Yet after Fujito’s father escaped Nazi-occupied Austria, leaving “his home and his entire family at age 14, not knowing if he’d ever see his parents, aunts, uncles or cousins again—talk about stress!—he hardly ever got sick, and it certainly didn’t affect him neurologically. He earned top honors in an English-language school though his first language was German and went on to not one but two successful careers. And he was always happy and cheerful—this was not an act, he was just a positive force.” Fujito noted that Holocaust survivors also “didn’t have fidget toys.”

If it’s not the parents, it’s the smartphones

Dachel’s commentaries note that, in addition to ACEs, a growing number of celebritiesand academics are blaming smartphones and social media for adolescents’ plummeting mental health. Again, without discounting this still-emerging body of research, the chronological sequence of events suggests that this can only be a partial answer at best. The first mass-market-oriented smartphone did not appear on the scene until 2007, and widespread smartphone ownership did not take off until some years later. However, rates of neurodevelopmental disorders started climbing in the 1990s, and the widely cited national survey that first highlighted the astoundingly high prevalence of teenage mental health disorders was conducted in 2001-2004.

Unhelpful victim-blaming explanations serve corporate interests, allowing powerful medical and pharmaceutical entities to shirk their ethical responsibilities. Instead of telling parents they are doing everything wrong, we should immediately be looking to reduce children’s and teens’ exposure to neurotoxins and other damaging chemical concoctions. Otherwise, families, schools and communities increasingly will find themselves hard-pressed to fulfill their task of safely guiding adolescents into a healthy and happy adulthood.

WMP NOTE: In Part One, WMP examines whether the ballooning epidemics of mental health problems and developmental disabilities are connected by having the same root causes.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Source: http://ift.tt/R7c12l


  • Categories:

How to Go Vegan for Good in Twenty-Four Hours: An Interview With James Aspey

This article is not meant to push anything on anyone. It is meant to help people make a big transition in a short amount of time if you so choose. The key word is choice. Titles, labels and identifications are often limiting, but decisions and commitments we make to ourselves can often come with unlimited benefits.

My personal journey to going vegan was not easy. I can’t eat gluten, so the initial idea of committing to a vegan lifestyle felt like I had nothing left to eat. Every person has their own perceptions and limitations and every one of them are valid until we reach a point where they no longer serve.

In my experience, I stayed a vegetarian for quite some time. For almost three years I would try committing to being vegan for a few weeks and fail. I was gentle with myself about it, but it was no longer a struggle the day I sat down and committed to seeing the truth.

I decided that to motivate myself, I needed to understand what livestock farming looked like. I was aware of the health benefits and aware of how animal agriculture impacted the environment, but I had always justified not watching the terrible videos on the internet.

I figured I might as well check out the actual conditions each species was subjected to, in order to avoid any denial that might exist. I told myself I would make whatever personal choice I wanted to after I did this research.

How This Decision Came Easily 

The first video I saw showed an injured cow getting violently kicked and beaten while she couldn’t get up. I was horrified. I noticed a part of myself try to justify ending my “research,” but chose to take a different approach this time.

 I decided that if I’ve been eating this food for decades, I might as well commit just one hour of my time to investigating what the process of getting my food looked like. I figure this was the only way to make an honest decision about what I was eating.

I knew this way, the decision would be up to me. I’m a firm believer in making clear decisions based on all the details, so I had to see what those details were.

After one hour, I knew eating animal products was in the past for me. There weren’t words to describe the horror that goes on, and I had no real idea about the implications of the industry I was supporting until I saw the truth with my own eyes.

How to Properly Make a Decision For Yourself

The subconscious mind is programmed through repetition. If we have repeatedly seen ads and positive confirmation regarding eating animals or animal products for years, this is simply embedded in our perception. This isn’t an excuse, but it is a reason to be gentle on ourselves as we see these things.

This bombardment in the media has desensitized us over time and even made us defensive because we associate our habits with our identity. If our lifestyle feels threatened, we interpret this as a threat to our survival and our fight/flight mechanisms in the reptilian brain are activated to defend ourselves immediately. This often stunts our ability to investigate with an open mind. This is completely normal, but being aware of it can help us to move beyond this step.

If we want to change our programming, it requires a good amount of research and emotionality to actively change what has already been stored subconsciously regarding our relationship to food.

Exercise Self-Compassion

This is nobody’s fault, and nobody should be forced to do this either. But if we want to make autonomous decisions, we must investigate both sides of what’s happening. There is a tremendous amount of financial incentive for large corporations to keep information hidden and to repeatedly feed us with ads about the “benefits” of animal products.

Everyone is entitled to their own lifestyle and decisions, but they should be made with information that is not just what we see on television or through advertisements that are geared to create a specific perception.

Check Out World-Renowned Activist James Aspey

After an incredible interview with James Aspey, a vegan activist who did a 365-day vow of silence for animals, I learned some more excellent tips and tools to keep me dedicated to my journey. James has over 30 million views on some of his beautiful speeches and is a sensational international speaker. He is also a beautiful human being who has a wonderful story about his own transformation.

The Process of Becoming Vegan Overnight

The First Step: Awareness

  1. Dedicate one hour of your time to watching what happens in slaughter houses. Check out what happens to every species of animal involved. See the process of how your food is created. This way you get to make an educated decision, independent of the media.
  2. James says we must try to imagine the argument from both sides. He isn’t referring to “eating animal products vs. not eating animal products.” He is referring to looking at the perspective of how we are personally impacted, as well as how the victims are impacted.

The Second Step: Educate Yourself

1. Learn about the health benefits of being vegan, while looking at the drawbacks of the lifestyle you are currently living. Take the time to evaluate this with an open mind. If you didn’t already know, The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen, along with tobacco and asbestos. James shares this as a resource:

https://www.forksoverknives.com/10-things-wish-americans-knew-meat-dairy-industries/#gs.mCqxTRE

2. Learn how animal agriculture impacts the environment. The best source that James Aspey shares is:

cowspiracy.com/facts

3. Learn about vegan alternatives, so you know what you will need to find substitutions for. I suggest simply making a list of foods you need to cut out of your diet and go to the grocery store to pick up these alternatives. Nowadays, you can find almost all alternatives for animal products at your local supermarket.

4. Identify your potential road blocks/fears and create proactive strategies to move through these moments. For example, what do you do if you are stuck late at work and need an emergency snack? How can you make these situations as easy for yourself as possible?

5. Join community support groups online and subscribe to some cool vegan Youtube channels for food recipes!

Some Tips/Suggestions:

  1. Don’t be afraid to ask questions about the things you’re uncertain of.
  2. Don’t stress yourself out if you make mistakes. This is how we learn.
  3. Don’t push your beliefs on others. Change doesn’t come from fighting a problem, it comes from being for the solution. Sharing is different than preaching, and we can’t know someone else’s reasoning for their decisions.

Three principles to remember:

  1. Stored subconscious guilt is the biggest cause of self-sabotage for behaviour. If you really want to make the commitment to a new lifestyle and have done your research, remember that what you eat can go so far as to affect your behaviour too.
  2. Every single person makes a difference. No one person is too small to make an impact. Change happens when many individuals take accountability for their lifestyles and habits, to create a collective shift. Your decisions matter.
  3. Where you spend your dollars supports an industry to be upheld. You are generally supporting an industry or not with your funding. Choice by choice, you are a part of the problem or the solution to change.

Check out this interview with James Aspey! He will teach you everything you need to know, and he has a heart of gold that will inspire you to take the next steps!

Source: http://ift.tt/R7c12l


  • Categories:


top