Nathan's Visionings

My Council Of Greats

Nathan — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:21:05 +0000

In the 1937, self development pioneer, Napoleon Hill wrote his classic: “Think and Grow Rich”. This book has remained one the most influential books since that time. It may seem that this book is simply about wealth, but in truth it is just as relevant to spiritual growth or success in any endeavor. One of the most controversial techniques talked about in Hill’s book was ‘The Invisible Counselors Technique’, and he stated that it was his ultimate technique for sourcing skills, ideas and inspiration. Hill claimed that it allowed him to tap into the imaginary minds of anyone living or passed on. In this technique you are called on to ask the council members, of which you are the Chairman, for the information you wish them to contribute. The idea here is for you to start a discussion with these people on any topic you choose and listen to what they have to say.

In Hill’s own experience, even after just a few times of trying it out he found it to be more profound and real than he ever thought possible. He reported that after a short while the characters seemed to take on a life of their own and developed individual characteristics that surprised him. In fact, as these sessions continued on, Hill found that he was receiving information and advice that he could have never known by himself. What was going on here? Was Napoleon Hill somehow tapping into a collective consciousness, the Akasha or as British biologist Rupert Sheldrake calls it,’the morphogenic field’? Sadly there is no short or even definitive answer for this question, but it appears that Hill’s technique was remarkably effective in bringing about positive change for many.

In today’s post, I am presenting an interesting youtube video, that talks about how to start using and reaping benefits from this technique. Enjoy! Many blessings and Namaste, Nathan.

The Power of Illogical Thinking

Nathan — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:27:17 +0000

Today’s post could really be subtitled: “How To Find A Miracle In Every Mess”. Everyone I have ever spoken to, heard of or even read about has found themselves in a ‘real mess’, which I suppose is in contrast to a bogus mess, and is of course no problem of all. “What”, you say, “are you ruminating about here? To cut to the quick, I will say happiness and how to consciously experience it.

Sure, we all experience happiness every now and then, and if you’re like me you might even find yourself saying I: “I wish I knew what just happened so that it could happen again”. Except for bona fide curmudgeons perhaps, happiness feels good, because after all, what’s not to like? The only trouble with happiness though, from one point of view is that some say it doesn’t last. Is this true? Perhaps, but here is where the power of illogical thinking comes in.

I read an article recently (here is the link if you’re interested), that got me to think less logically about this whole business of illogical thinking and feel more instead. In this article, author Charles Burke, talked about his own experience of finding and losing happiness- an all too common experience for most of us I suspect. Now when we believe we have lost happiness, it’s easy to think or say: “My life is such a mess”, and then we begin to reel off an increasing list of reasons that will apparently validate for the world the veracity of this assertion. Why do we do this?

Now before I explain that, I want to point out the obvious and say that you should always seek out ‘true experts’ in any area you want to learn something about. Listen to what they have to say and consider it before thinking ‘illogically’ as I will soon describe. Anyway, I’m asking you to listen to me in this post, because I consider myself a ‘true expert’ in both mess making, and illogical thinking. In Nathan speake, mess making involves the process a person goes through and finds themselves in a place of perceived challenge(s). We may even say or think: ‘I don’t know how this happened, but I am not ‘feeling’ happy about it’! Now this is a logical thought is it not?

You turn on the TV, radio, your computer, and perhaps you learn about more examples of unhappiness occurring, and perhaps you think consciously or unconsciously: “the world is such a mess”, here is the evidence of it and it is only logical to think that way”. After all, who in their right mind would look at the unhappiness in the world or their small part of it and say, “I’m glad this unhappy situation I find myself in is happening?” It’s only logical to feel unhappy when you’re ‘supposed’ to be. So what is illogical thinking then and do we really want to embrace it? How about you, what is illogical to your understanding of the term?

I suppose that a common answer, if you were to poll people, is that thoughts or actions that defy consensus understanding are illogical. Yet there are many places and many situations where consensus thinking just doesn’t explain experience. A good example can be seen with a person’s blood type. Consensus thinking says it doesn’t and can’t change during a person’s lifetime- that it is genetically programmed into us. Yet, there are examples of people with Dissasociative Identity Disorder (formerly called Multiple Personality Disorder) that have been observed to do just that. When these people switched between personality identities, their blood types and even diseases they had would come and go! Defies logic, does it not?

Thinking in a way that is fixed, that assumes it is absolute truth’, that excludes limitless possibilities, is my definition of logical thinking. Within the scope of that definition (which is just another thought after all), all thinking is logical. All thinking involves perspective, points of view or beliefs. When you change the way you think, your point of view if you will, what was once absolute to you, no longer is. As long as ‘logical thought’ is the major navigator in your life, you may get to where you ‘thought’ you wanted to go, only to be surprised at what you found when you got there. Does the expression, ‘be careful of what you ask for come to mind’?

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, we find the quote: “for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. In this we find, the power of illogical thinking- and I know what you are thinking (yes I am a mind reader) – that this is not logical. Before I lose you completely with my illogical ruminations, here is what I mean- allow yourself to move your perspective when perceiving challenging or unhappy situations in your life. It may be illogical to think that when you are unhappy there is blessing in it and you would be right of course. It is also very logical to think there is great blessing and happiness in unhappiness and of course you would also be right. And in case you are thinking all this is very confusing and illogical, well of course you would be right too!

So once again in my ruminations as I inevitably do, I come to the point. To lead a happier life, train yourself to feel happier, not think happier. Learn to embrace and appreciate (yes, even with gratitude) every situation you find yourself in. Gratitude is a key and a most powerful force behind happiness.

A teacher of mine was fond of saying that the great questions in life are like a multifaceted gemstone where you can look at it from different points of view and understand it more fully. In order to appreciate the gemstone, you have to consider it as a whole. Who we perceive ourselves to be and the way we relate to the world are but one facet of our multidimensional being. May you all find great happiness in your life in every situation.

Many blessings and Namaste, Nathan.

How to Invent A Disease by Selling Cures

Nathan — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:35:45 +0000

How to Invent a Disease by Selling Cures

Posted on October 29, 2010 by Nathan

If it weren’t tragic it might actually be amusing- a strategy used by large drug companies that creates an instant market for what you wish to sell. Embracing the ideology of Edward Bernay, the father of modern PR, drug companies focus on creating conditions in which products sell themselves. Using this philosophy, instead of selling drugs on their own merit, they sell drugs by branding or labeling something ‘a disease’. To some this may seem like the use of mere hyperbole or spin doctoring and not much different than what many other marketers do too. The consideration here to keep in mind though is that many (if not most) drugs have serious side effects, and are often unnecessary. I could site many examples of these over-prescribed medications (‘cures’) but to name just a few: statin drugs (to reduce risk of heart attack by lowering cholesterol – even though surprisingly, LDL cholesterol is not a major risk in relation to heart disease.); antibiotics (which are often prescribed for things they shouldn’t be such as minor infections and even viral infections); Vaccines to deal with pandemics (that rarely materialize and which often contain heavy metals in the preservatives used and/or, are untested or show very little effectiveness in dealing with what they are supposed to prevent); Hyperactivity drugs which are now even administered to infants (because surprise, infants are restless and inattentive) and so on.

In today’s post, I present an article by Dr. Joseph Mercola, in which he elaborates on this strategy of the pharmaceutical companies with respect to common conditions which can he helped or reversed quite simply and naturally and giving them a name and calling them a disease. An example he talks about is shyness and if you refer to it as such you may be behind the times. Shyness is not shyness really, it is Social Anxiety Disorder- and you guessed it, there is a drug that can rid you of (or so the drug companies advertise). By the way, if you suffer from shyness (and I want to be clear I am not minimizing the possibility that it can be quite debilitating for some) simple procedures such as EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques), Hypnosis, or NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) can often be highly effective (even in severe situations) without ever using an expensive or dangerous drug.

CNN commenting on the marketing of Paxil by a PR firm hired by GlaxoSmithKline, labeled their campaign as a “public awareness campaign” about an “under-diagnosed” disease. The under diagnosed disease, was of course Social Anxiety Disorder formerly known as shyness. As a result of their campaign, mentions of Social Anxiety in the press rose from 50 to over a BILLION in just 2 years and Social Anxiety Disorder became the third most common illness in the US!! Predictably, Paxil became one of the most prescribed drugs in the US. It’s clear from available statistics that there was not a catastrophic rise in the number of people suffering from shyness, but a catastrophic rise in people listening to others telling them: “if you are shy or nervous around others you need to take this drug”. If this sounds like a familiar story to you, then you will probably find the article below to be quite interesting. Many blessings and namaste, Nathan

How to Brand a Disease – and Sell a Cure

Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 29 2010 | 17,304 views

Share445

Email to a friend : 139

The manner in which prescription drugs are marketed today can be readily understood if you read the 1928 book “Propaganda,” by Edward Bernays, the father of PR. Bernays knew that public relations business was less about selling things than about creating the conditions for things to sell themselves. Pharmaceutical marketers, following in his footsteps, sell drugs by selling diseases — a system known as “disease branding.” Illnesses such as panic disorder, restless legs syndrome, bipolar disorder, and ADHD were once considered rare until a marketing campaign transformed the brand in order to sell more drugs. According to CNN:

“If all drugs were harmless, disease branding would be relatively harmless, too. But no drug is completely benign … Detrol can make elderly people delirious and may cause memory problems. Paxil is associated with sexual dysfunction and dependence … Side effects like these are a part of every drug. But they are never part of the brand.”

Sources:

CNN October 11, 2010

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Drug companies are master marketers and they fully embrace the ideology that Edward Bernays’ — the father of PR — is most known for. Instead of trying to sell their drugs on their own merit, they invest untold amounts of money into creating diseases their drugs are meant to treat. By doing this, they create instant patients, patients who will likely go to their physicians and request the said drug by name. It’s an ingenious model and one that the PR industry has won awards over … the only problem is that it’s detrimental to your health.

The Fine Art of Disease Mongering

Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than research — almost twice as much. Part of these costs often go toward hiring expensive PR firms, celebrity spokespeople, and physicians and academics to pedal their wares. As CNN reported, in order to market its antidepressant Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline hired a PR firm to create a “public awareness campaign” about an “under-diagnosed” disease. The disease? Social anxiety disorder … previously known as shyness. You may have seen this campaign firsthand; ads stating “Imagine being allergic to people” were distributed widely, celebrities gave interviews to the press and psychiatrists gave lectures on this new disease in the top 25 media markets. As a result, mentions of social anxiety in the press rose from about 50 to over 1 billion in just two years … social anxiety disorder became the “third most common mental illness” in the U.S. … and Paxil skyrocketed to the top of the charts as one of the most profitable and most prescribed drugs in the United States. Clearly there was not a rapid rise in the number of people suffering from extreme shyness during this time … there was just a masterful marketing campaign that successfully whispered into enough people’s ears, “If you’re shy or nervous around others, you need to take this drug.” And that’s just what millions did.

Drug Companies are Seeking to Medicalize Society … and You

Drug companies would like you to believe that for every symptom you experience, there’s a pill you need to treat it. This includes symptoms you might not have thought twice about, had you not seen the very same ones advertised on television in relation to an “underdiagnosed” and “undertreated” disease. As authors of Selling Sickness: The Pharmaceutical Industry and Disease Mongering wrote in the British Medical Journal:

“There’s a lot of money to be made from telling healthy people they’re sick. Some forms of medicalizing ordinary life may now be better described as disease mongering: widening the boundaries of treatable illness in order to expand markets for those who sell and deliver treatments. Pharmaceutical companies are actively involved in sponsoring the definition of diseases and promoting them to both prescribers and consumers. The social construction of illness is being replaced by the corporate construction of disease.”

This practice has resulted in the creation of unholy alliances between drug companies, health care providers and supposed consumer groups, all working in concert to convince people they’re sick and in need of drug treatment. As the British Medical Journal continued:

“Within many disease categories informal alliances have emerged, comprising drug company staff, doctors, and consumer groups. Ostensibly engaged in raising public awareness about underdiagnosed and undertreated problems, these alliances tend to promote a view of their particular condition as widespread, serious, and treatable. Because these “disease awareness” campaigns are commonly linked to companies’ marketing strategies, they operate to expand markets for new pharmaceutical products. Alternative approaches—emphasizing the self limiting or relatively benign natural history of a problem, or the importance of personal coping strategies—are played down or ignored.”

What the drug companies don’t want you to know is that ALL of their drugs carry risks of serious side effects, some worse than the alleged diseases they’re meant to treat. They also don’t want you to know that, more often than not, you can overcome problematic symptoms yourself by making positive dietary and lifestyle changes. And, in fact, this latter form of “treatment” is virtually the only way to actually cure an illness, as drugs typically do absolutely nothing but temporarily mask your symptoms.

You Needn’t Live in Fear …

One of the key strategies that drug companies depend on to make medicalization of society work is targeting your news media with stories designed to create fears about a condition or disease, and draw attention to the latest treatment. This has led to problems on several key levels:

People with benign, normal symptoms end up taking dangerous drugs. Once you’re convinced that natural signs of aging and common conditions are diseases or treatable symptoms, you take drugs for such things as balding, anxiety, mild bone loss and indigestion, which puts your health at risk over issues that were not true illnesses or risks in the first place.Further, many of these conditions are entirely treatable with diet and lifestyle modifications.

People who are tested regularly end up undergoing unnecessary treatments with drugs and invasive surgery. Very few people after middle age can pass standard medical tests without being told that they have some sort of “risk.”This risk is then turned into a pseudo-disease leading to such things as dangerous breast and colon surgery and “preventive” medications, instead of outlining natural strategies that would actually help a person’s health to thrive.

As a result of “disease mongering,” the more the medical industry influences a nation, the sicker that nation “considers itself to be.” It eats away at your self-confidence and teaches you that you’re weak and incapable of staying well, and that all signs and symptoms are potentially dangerous conditions and diseases.Truly, this sort of marketing has blurred the lines of what drugs and surgery you really need to save your life, and which may end up killing you faster. Rather than focusing more time and attention on your health as you age, or as you see degeneration setting in, you might settle for a “diagnosis” and the latest medications. The only winners in this grand scheme are the ones who profit financially.

It’s Time to Take Control of Your Health

Drug companies will try to convince you that you’re sick. Your physician, too, may encourage you to seek drug treatments that aren’t really necessary and are very likely dangerous. The only way to break out of this self-destructive system is to take a stand for yourself, and take control of your own health. One of the primary purposes of Mercola.com is to provide you with the insight to protect and defend yourself from these persuasive and manipulative influences. I encourage you to browse through the site and get educated about how to get and stay well without drugs, surgery, and other often-unnecessary medical interventions. If you’re just beginning, read my nutrition plan first, as its recommendations come from decades of experience in which I have researched extensively, conferred with my professional colleagues, and most importantly, successfully treated tens of thousands of patients. And always remember: first and foremost, drug companies are nearly always trying to sell you something that there are better natural solutions for. They’re not really concerned if you’re sick or well, or whether you get healthy or sicker; they just want you to buy their products. But in far more cases than not, there are more effective and safer options than drugs to help you get well.

Random Acts Of Kindness

Nathan — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:05:12 +0000

Special Post

Sometimes a kind word, a compassionate hug, or simply listening can change and save lives. Recently, I learned that a friend inspired by a project to freely offer hugs to people, decided to do just that along with a few friends, in front of a local courthouse. The event covered by a local tv station, was in my opinion a great success and I provide a link to video interview below. I hope you enjoy it. Many blessings and namaste, Nathan.

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21002592352197/#?ref=nf

How Available Are Herbs And Supplements?

Nathan — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:23:52 +0000

I have long been an advocate of free choice with regards to what we use to help promote and maintain health. Progressively in America and Europe those choices are being removed. Until the present there is been a steady increase in use of alternative and holistic healing modalities overall. Among these modalities both interest and use of those using herbs and herbal supplements has been huge. Why, because the potential to supply what the body needs but can no longer obtain through diet is obvious. In America we spend more money on health care per capita, then many other developed countries combined, yet we rank near the bottom of the list in terms of results. Clearly for many reasons, the current strategies using drug based approaches to symptomatic management of disease, is unaffordable, ineffective and has a history of poor safety. Understandably then, when people don’t get the help they need or if their conditions are made even worse by the current health care offerings, they seek alternatives. Our ability to seek alternatives based on herbs is poised on the brink of extinction. Laws are ready to be enacted throughout Europe and if they do, it is highly probable, based on regulatory policy, that America will rapidly follow. Plainly and simply, the reason for this development has little to do with efficacy or safety but everything to do with power and control. In the article which follows, Dr. Mercola elaborates on this situation in ways that should make everyone who values their ability to make their own health choices stand up and take notice.

If You Use Herbs and Supplements, You’ve Been Betrayed by Lawmakers. A HIGHLY URGENT Message…
Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 26 2010 | 28,363 views
Share1101

Email to a friend
Email to a friend : 426
Previous

In less than a year, virtually all medicinal herbs will be illegal in the European Union.

In their take-no-prisoners strategy to wipe out every penny of competition and gain complete control of the health of the people, Big Pharma and Agribusiness have scored a major win in Europe. Similar, potentially devastating battles are also underway in the U.S.

How can this be happening?

The secret weapon used by drug companies is trade law. According to Gaia Health:

“Rather than treating food and traditional medicines as human rights issues, they have been treated as trade issues. That makes the desires of large corporations the focus of food and herbal law, rather than the needs and desires of people.

It’s this twisting that has resulted in the FDA’s making outrageously absurd statements, such as claiming that Cheerios and walnuts quite literally become drugs simply because of health claims made for them.”

Sources:
Gaia Health September 12, 2010

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Follow me on twitter Follow me on facebook

Even though I generally believe many people take far too many supplements, and that supplements are a poor substitute for improving your diet, it is clear that some supplements are highly beneficial. And supplements in general are clearly safer “band-aids” when compared to expensive and potentially toxic drugs.

That said, in order for all of us to take responsibility for our own health, I believe we must never lose the right to choose and buy nutritional supplements.

Unfortunately, your health freedom is being encroached upon at this very moment.

The European Union stands poised to enact into law a directive that may have a devastating impact on Europeans’ freedom of choice in regard to supplements, and practitioners of ancient medical modalities such as Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and Ayurveda, may lose their ability to prescribe traditional herbal remedies.

And once the EU enacts this law, I can strongly assure you the United States will not be far behind.

I usually urge my American readers to take action, but in this case, the action call at the end of this article goes out to all my European readers.

Please be sure and distribute this information to your family, friends and social networks and ask them to join you in taking action as well.

The Restrictive EU Herbal Directive Poised to Become Law Next Year

As described in a recent article by AlternativeHealthzine.com, the European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products (THMPD) was enacted back in March 2004, and will become law as of April 1, 2011, but the groundwork was laid well before:

“In 1998 or so the EU said they had received a large number of complaints from companies who said that it was difficult to sell their herbal products in other member countries.

So, as the EU does, they said: “Let’s harmonize herbal regulations in all EU countries.”

This approach has some merit. If everyone follows the same rules in every country, it is easier for products to be sold in each country – rather than exporters having to accommodate different rules in every country. So, it’s OK for exporters.”

In essence, this Directive creates new rules and regulations for herbal products and nutritional supplements that were previously traded freely. Any supplier within the EU who wants to sell their product to another European country will need to get a license for each and every supplement they sell.

In fact, under this Directive, all supplements and herbal preparations must go through the same licensing procedure as pharmaceutical drugs.

In TCM and Ayurvedic formulas that contain a number of herbs, each herb would have to be licensed separately.

The cost alone will undoubtedly drive most supplement makers and herbal manufacturers off the market. According to GaiaHealth, the estimated cost per nutrient or herb ranges from £80,000 to £120,000 (around $126,700 to $190,000).

It will take a mass public outcry of epic proportions to stop this draconian rule.

Fortunately the process has already been started. The Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-I) is challenging the THMPD, and according to NutraIngredients.com, the ANH is prepared to take the case to the European Court of Justice.

But they will need your help, so please review the action items at the end of this article.

As stated above, this encroachment on your personal freedom stems from the fact that companies want to be allowed to trade freely between countries, without having to comply with each country’s individual requirements.

But it’s also part and parcel of the grander scheme that is the Codex Alimentarius.

What is Codex Alimentarius?

The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1962, through a series of relationships between The World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the American FDA and USDA.

The “Codex Alimentarius” itself is a compilation of food standards, codes of practice and guidelines that specify all requirements related to foods, whether processed, semi-processed, genetically engineered, or raw.

Their purpose is to protect consumers’ health, ensure fair business practices within the food trade, and eliminate international food trade barriers by standardizing food quality.

This sounds all well and good, but there are major problems with the strategies they use to “keep you safe.”

Codex Uses Toxicology to Assess Nutrients

There are many problems with Codex, many of which are not immediately recognizable unless you have the proper perspective. But one of the most bizarre and potentially dangerous issues is their Vitamin and Mineral Guideline, finalized on July 4, 2005, which classifies nutrients as toxins.

Yes. This is what you end up with when you use Risk Assessment to assess the safety of nutrients.

Risk Assessment is a branch of Toxicology, also known as the science of toxins. In a sane world, it is used to assess how much of a toxic substance you can safely consume without noticing any physical effects or problems. As soon as there is a biological effect, you have hit the upper, maximum limit for that substance.

Codex Alimentarius has, slowly but surely, been shimmying into position to mandate the universal maximum “safe” level of every vitamin, mineral, supplement and herb that may legally be manufactured, used or sold — with “safe” being a level that has no physical effect.

However, this is not a cut-and-dry process. It’s been going on for nearly 50 years, and it will likely take many more years before all their plans are completed. See, the Codex agenda is inched forward, one piece of legislation at a time, at different times, in various countries.

However, in the end, we can never take our eyes off the final goal, with is global “harmonization” with Codex’ insanely restrictive rules and flawed ideas about nutrition. And the EU herbal directive is likely an important piece of this giant jigsaw puzzle.

Once this directive takes full effect, a vast majority of herbs and supplements will vanish from the market simply due to prohibitive cost of testing and licensing.

Whatever is left will most likely, in the end, become restricted to doses that have no beneficial impact on health whatsoever, under the Codex Vitamin and Mineral guideline…

You Can Take Action Now!

If you value your access to herbs, vitamins and other nutritional supplements, please do not remain on the sidelines.

Take action!

The Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-I) and the European Benefyt Foundation (EBF) are actively fighting to stop the implementation of the EU Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD).

You can download their joint position paper here.

The following Action Steps were provided by Gaia Health:

1. If you live in Europe, please send a letter or call your Member of the European Parliament.

You can determine who your MEP is, and get his or her contact information here.

Tell your MEP that you support the ANH and want the implementation of THMPD suspended. Ask your representative to take a stand in support of your right to choose herbal treatments and your right to buy nutritional supplements.

To make it faster and easier for you, the ANH via Gaia Health offers this prewritten sample letter, which you can modify and individualize to your own liking. There is also a Spanish version, provided by Denice Delay for Gaia Health.
2. For further information, you may contact:

* The Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-I) Sophie Middleton (campaign administrator), tel +44(0)1306 646 600 or email info@anhinternational.org
* The European Benefyt Foundation (EBF) Chris Dhaenens or Harrie Sandhövel, Tel +31 320 251 313 or email: info@benefyt.eu

Unfortunately, I do not have any action items for my American readers, other than to stay vigilant and become involved in any and all legislation that pertains to your right to supplements and natural organic food in the US.

Ditto for all of you who live in Canada.

Hopefully, the EU will stop this assault on our freedom to choose, which will make it more difficult to enact similar types of legislation here in the US.

Related Links:
How the Government is Threatening Your Freedom to Use Supplements
Codex Serves Up A Hearty Helping of Melamine!
Flawed Codex Guidelines Passed

Playing For Change

Nathan — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:31:21 +0000

I’m reminded from time to time by my guides of just how important it is to remember and spread the message that we are never alone and that we are ultimately connected and supported. In the past I have come across many beautiful and moving messages emphasizing this. Several years ago, I came across one such profoundly moving message delivered in the form of a video in which Bill Moyers of PBS Television was interviewing Movie Producer Mark Johnson who was talking about his very special global project: Playing For Change. Mark’s vision was that people everywhere could learn to realize their connection through the Universal language of Music. With the participation of musicians and singers around the world, the messages: We are ONE heart. ONE mind, ONE Spirit, ONE BEING and how by standing by each other, we can face anything. In this life, I have observed that there are no accidents, and perhaps you were guided here today to consider the message. Perhaps, you know of someone going thru a crisis that could benefit by hearing it and if so, share this post with others.

There were several short videos included in the Bill Moyer’s interview with Mark Johnson which I would like to share below. After seeing them, if you are interested in seeing the interview which I highly recommend, you can find it at the following link:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10242008/watch3.html

If you would like to check out the Playing For Change website and see some of their other short videos, you can click on the link below:

http://www.playingforchange.com/episodes

Many blessings and Namaste, Nathan.
——————————————————————-

Stand By Me | Playing For Change | Song Around the World

One Love – Playing for Change version

Space Age Mapping Before The Last Ice Age?

Nathan — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 19:30:58 +0000

One of the most astounding of the ancient maps is one drawn by Turkish Admiral Pri Reis in 1513(shown below courtesy of Wikipedia Commons). In many ways this map is an OOPart (an Out Of Place artifact). It shouldn’t exist but does. It reflects a technology that was only even barely possible about 50 years ago. This map made almost 500 years ago and based on even earlier maps, shows the earth prior to the last ice age and from a projection many miles above the earth. In future posts we will discuss other maps that shouldn’t exist but do. For now, let’s learn more about this ancient wonder.

1513 Piri Reis Map

In 1929, a group of historians found a map drawn in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet. In in a series of notes, on the map, Reis indicates that he compiled and copied the data from a large number of source maps, some of which dated back to the fourth century BC or earlier.

The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed and apparently at a time when it was free of ice.

In 1953, a Turkish naval officer sent the Piri Reis map to the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Bureau. To evaluate it, M.I. Walters, the Chief Engineer of the Bureau, called for help Arlington H. Mallery, an authority on ancient maps, who had previously worked with him. To check out the accuracy of the map, he made a grid and transferred the Piri Reis map onto a globe The Hydrographic Office couldn’t believe what they saw: the map was totally accurate and they were even able to correct some errors in the present days maps!! He stated that the only way to draw a map of such accuracy was the aerial surveying: but who, 6000 years ago, could have used airplanes to map the earth??

The importance of the accuracy of the map can not be stressed enough and is a demonstration of impossible technology. No one that far back in time was supposed to be able to draw a map of such precision. The first instrument to calculate the longitude in a approximately correct way has been invented in 1761 by the englishman John Harrison. Before that time there was no way to calculate the longitude in an acceptable way: there could be errors of hundreds kilometers.

The earliest known civilization, the Sumerians in Mesopotamia, appear out of nowhere around 4,000 B.C. but have no nautical or maritime cultural heritage. They do, however, speak reverently of ancestral people who were like the “gods” and were known as the nefilim.

Here is a summary of some of the most unusual findings about the map:

Scrutiny of the map shows that the makers knew the earth was round and knew an accurate circumference of the Earth to within 50 miles.

The coastline and island that are shown in Antarctica must have been navigated at some period prior to 4,000 B.C. when these areas were free of ice from the last Ice Age.

The map is thought to be one of the earliest “world maps” to show the Americas. Early scholars suggested that it showed accurate latitudes of the South American and African coastlines – only 21 years after the voyages of Columbus! (And remember, Columbus did NOT discover North America – only the Caribbean!)

The Wedding Song

Nathan — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:16:36 +0000

The ‘Wedding Song’ rendition by Paul Stookey has a phrase that says “whenever two or more of you are gathered in His Name, there is love!” As I consider these words, I think of the greeting, Namaste. This greeting is to me a call to awakening, a call to consciousness, a call to gathering in His Name. Why? In an earlier post, I talked about one explanation of the term Namaste, I favor, which is: ‘There is a place in you where the Universe dwells. I honor the place in you which The Universe dwells. I honor the place in you which is of love, of truth, of light and of peace. When you are in that place in you and I am in that place in me, we are ONE!” In that place, in that state of Namaste, there is no you, no me, no us, just ONE. To paraphrase the words of Pretty Flower, a cosmic being channeled by Miriandra Rota: “One heart, one mind, one Spirit, One”. Always there is just One Being, dreaming what it would be like to be you, me and everyone else, individually and collectively.

Gathering is a coalescing, and aggregation, a union. In the wedding song, Paul Stookey talks about how: ‘The union of your spirits has caused Him to remain’. Yet can He ever leave? Have our spirits ever been apart or has our consciousness, by our own design, simply forgotten the truth so that we can ever discover our union anew. From one point of view, marriage is simply an agreement to recall what has always been: a union of Spirit, a ONESS of Spirit not only between two beings but of all beings. If there is truly just ONE Being, however, is it possible for a part of that Being to gather anywhere, if that ONE Being contains everything, everywhere, everywhen? It is almost like saying: “I’ve got to get myself together”. Hopefully this is meant in a metaphorical sense (grin) and usually we understand it to mean a focusing of our awareness when we feel it is scattered.

One of the beautiful aspects of Oneness is that no matter how far afield you go, you’ve never really left. With this fresh in mind, I’d like to leave the subjects of the Wedding Song, union, Namaste, and talk about some plants in my home (can’t go further off topic than that-right?). In front of a certain window, there are a number of potted plants which all seem to grow together, so that it is hard to tell where one starts and the other leafs (pardon the pun) off. In a way it is a lot like the grass plants in the yard which grow so close together, we perceive just one thing, which, such as it is, that we call a lawn. In the case of the potted plants, I developed the habit of looking for the boundaries of their containers to tell them apart. In other words it was easier for me to imagine them as separate if I observed the containers they were in.

Perhaps our bodies, thoughts and emotions, and other things we identify ourselves with, are like the containers that plants are potted in. For one thing, these ideas provide us a framework that we can root our identity in. When we focus on our bodies, thoughts, emotions (all containers really) it is easy to imagine them as separate from that of others. We have learned from the time we were in the womb about the notions of ‘this is you and that is me and there is us’. When you were born (ejected and in a sense, rejected by your mother), this learning was reinforced dramatically.

A way that we seem to hoodwink ourselves into seeing separateness everywhere is language. Since mankind could first verbalize, language has been used to label things as a way to talk about them. Words are nothing more than labels or symbols in other words, for ideas. Words of course are not the things they represent. Every word comes complete with associations, like separate ingredients in a pot. When we combine these ingredients and cook them, the result we give yet another name which makes you feel as though you know this thing. You might say to yourself, for example, I made a tasty meal, but someone else may call it a health menace! If you ask me which is right, in typical Zen fashion, I would answer: ‘both and neither’. I say this because both are perceptions.

A perception simply is, and can be neither right nor wrong. A perception is simply what a person believes in a given time and place. What you believe is what you believe. However, without a ‘you’ container or a ‘me’ container, a perception simply has no meaning and in fact doesn’t exist and so there is nothing more to talk about. Because I love to use language as much as the next person, I would label this state of affairs as a ‘positive hallucination’, something we perceive that is there but really isn’t. At the same time, what allows holding these beliefs, these perceptual distinctions, are negative hallucinations: things that are really there that we don’t perceive (Like the eyeglasses on our heads that we go around the house looking for).

So it is that I close today’s post, ruminating as usual but coming back to where I started: Namaste! ‘There is a place in you where the Universe dwells. I honor the place in you which The Universe dwells. I honor the place in you which is of love, of truth, of light and of peace. When you are in that place in you and I am in that place in me, we are ONE!” Could it ever be otherwise? Perhaps today could be declared a spiritual ‘get it together day’ (my idea of The Wedding Song). Could it really-well maybe it could (grin)!

This Supermarket “Health Food” Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

Wolfsto_Wordpres — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 21:10:45 +0000

The GMO (Genetically Modified Food) industry has, as the article below by Dr. Mercola points out, a history of using intidmidation tactics with respect to research that casts a non-favorable light on the safety of its products. GMO products are in my opinion detrimental for people and for the environment. I hope you find the article by Dr. Mercola below, sufficiently thought provoking to do some additional research about this important topic. Namaste, Nathan.
*****************************************************

This Supermarket “Health Food” Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks

Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 04 2010 | 147,862 views

Share4881

By Jeffrey Smith

Arpad Pusztai

Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world’s top expert in his field.

But when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech industry’s bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle.

In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3 million grant by the UK government to design the system for safety testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His team included more than 20 scientists working at three facilities, including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in the UK, and his employer for the previous 35 years.

The results of Pusztai’s work were supposed to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe. But when he fed supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn’t go as planned.

Within just 10 days, the animals developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems. Moreover, the cause was almost certainly side effects from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, the GM foods on the market, which are created from the same process, might have similar affects on humans.

With permission from his director, Pusztai was interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns about GM foods. He became a hero at his institute — for two days.

Then came the phone calls from the pro-GMO prime minister’s office to the institute’s director. The next morning, Pusztai was fired. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, his team was dismantled, and the protocols never implemented. His Institute, the biotech industry, and the UK government, together launched a smear campaign to destroy Pusztai’s reputation.

Eventually, an invitation to speak before Parliament lifted his gag order and his research was published in the prestigious Lancet. No similar in-depth studies have yet tested the GM foods eaten every day by Americans.

Irina Ermakova

Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences, was shocked to discover that more than half of the baby rats in her experiment died within three weeks. She had fed the mothers GM soy flour purchased at a supermarket. The babies from mothers fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only suffered a 10% death rate. She repeated her experiment three times with similar results.

Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary findings at a conference in October 2005, asking the scientific community to replicate her study. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Her boss told her to stop doing anymore GM food research. Samples were stolen from her lab, and a paper was even set fire on her desk. One of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, “Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem.”

Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise doubts about the cause of the deaths. She did not conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without it, we don’t know if some rogue toxin had contaminated the soy flour. But more recent events suggest that whatever caused the high infant mortality was not unique to her one bag of GM flour.

In November 2005, the supplier of rat food to the laboratory where Ermakova worked began using GM soy in the formulation. All the rats were now eating it. After two months, Ermakova asked other scientists about the infant mortality rate in their experiments. It had skyrocketed to over 55 percent.

It’s been four years since these findings were reported. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s study, even though it would cost just a few thousand dollars.

Andrés Carrasco

Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his research into Roundup, the herbicide sold in conjunction with Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops.

Dr. Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science, said his studies of amphibians suggest that the herbicide could cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of fetuses. Moreover, the amount of Roundup used on GM soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects.

Tragically, his research had been inspired by the experience of desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used on the GM soy fields throughout Argentina.

According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study. “It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”

Argentina’s Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup, and the Ministry of Defense banned GM soy from its fields.

Judy Carman

Epidemiologist Judy Carman used to investigate outbreaks of disease for a state government in Australia. She knows that health problems associated with GM foods might be impossible to track or take decades to discover. Moreover, the superficial, short-term animal feeding studies usually do not evaluate “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function” and are too short to test for cancer or reproductive or child health.

Dr. Carman has critiqued the GMO approval process on behalf of the Public Health Association of Australia and speaks openly about her concerns. As a result, she is repeatedly attacked. Pro-GM scientists threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor, and circulated a defamatory letter to government and university officials.

Carman was awarded a grant by the Western Australia government to conduct some of the few long-term animal feeding studies on GMOs. Apparently concerned about what she might find, GMO advocates wrote letters to the government demanding that the grant be withdrawn. One scientist tried to convince the Western Australia Agriculture minister that sufficient safety research had been conducted and he should therefore cancel the grant.

As his evidence, however, he presented a report summarizing only 60 GMO animal feeding studies — an infinitesimal amount of research to justify exposing the entire population to GM foods.

A closer investigation, however, revealed that most of the 60 were not safety studies at all. They were production studies, measuring, for example, the animals’ carcass weight. Only 9 contained data applicable to human health. And 6 of the 9 showed adverse effects in animals that ate GM feed!

Furthermore, there were several other studies with adverse findings that were mysteriously missing from the compilation. Carman points out that the report “does not support claims that GM crops are safe to eat. On the contrary, it provides evidence that GM crops may be harmful to health.”

When the Western Government refused to withdraw the grant, opponents successfully interfered with Carman’s relationship with the university where she was to do the research.

Terje Traavik

Prominent virologist Terje Traavik presented preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that:

Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;

Genetic material inserted into GM crops transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and

Key safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines.

The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr. Traavik. Their excuse? — he presented unpublished work. But presenting preliminary data at professional conferences is a long tradition in science, something that the biotech industry itself relied on in 1999 to try to counter the evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn.

Ironically, three years after attacking Traavik, the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a peer-reviewed publication for not citing unpublished data that had been presented at a conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM Bt corn into streams can kill the “caddis fly,” which may seriously upset marine ecosystems. The study set off a storm of attacks against its author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall, which Nature described in a September 2009 article as a “hail of abuse.”

Companies Prevent Studies on Their GM Crops

When Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by withholding GM seeds and genes.

After Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in Monsanto’s GM soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz, told them they could no longer provide samples.

Research by a plant geneticist at a leading US university was also thwarted when two companies refused him GM corn. In fact, almost no independent studies are conducted that might find problems. According to a scathing opinion piece in an August 2009 Scientific American,

“Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers … Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”

A group of 24 corn insect scientists protested this restriction in a letter submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. They warned that the inability to access GM seeds from biotech companies means there can be no truly independent research on the critical questions. The scientists, of course, withheld their identities for fear of reprisals from the companies.

Restricted access is not limited to the US. When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under review in Japan, both the government and the bean’s maker DuPont refused to give him any samples. Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas discovered that Monsanto’s GM corn hurt endangered species in his country. Monsanto immediately shut off his supplies.

Dr. Darvas later gave a speech on his preliminary findings and discovered that a false and incriminating report about his research was circulating. He traced it to a Monsanto public relations employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared on her desk — so she faxed it out.

GMO Contamination: Don’t Ask and Definitely Don’t Tell

In 2005, a scientist had gathered seed samples from all over Turkey to evaluate the extent of contamination by GM varieties. According to the Turkish Daily News, just before her testing was complete, she was reassigned to another department and access to her lab was denied.

The unexpected transfer may have saved this Turkish scientist from an even worse fate, had she discovered and reported contamination.

Ask Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist from UC Berkeley. In 2001, he discovered that the indigenous corn varieties in Mexico — the source of the world’s genetic diversity for corn—had become contaminated through cross pollination with GM varieties.

The government had a ban against GM corn to prevent just this possibility, but apparently US corn imported for food had been planted nonetheless.

Dr. Chapela submitted the finding to Nature, and as a courtesy that he later regretted, informed the Mexican government about the pending publication. He was called in to meet with a furious Director of the Commission of Biosafety and GMOs. Chapela’s confirmation of contamination would hinder introduction of GM corn. Therefore the government’s top biotech man demanded that he withdraw his article. According to Chapela, the official intimidated and threatened him, even implying, “We know where your children go to school.”

When a traumatized Chapela still did not back down, the Underminister for Agriculture later sent him a fax claiming that because of his scientific paper, Chapela would be held personally responsible for all damages caused to agriculture and to the economy in general.

The day Chapela’s paper was published, Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek began posting messages to a biotechnology listserve called AgBioWorld, distributed to more than 3,000 scientists. They falsely claimed that Chapela was biased, that his paper had not been peer-reviewed, that Chapela was “first and foremost an activist,” and his research was published in collusion with environmentalists. Soon, hundreds of other messages appeared, repeating or embellishing the accusations. The listserve launched a petition and besieged Nature with a worldwide campaign demanding retraction.

UC Berkeley also received letters from all over the world trying to convince them not to grant Chapela tenure. He had overwhelming support by his college and department, but the international biotech lobby was too much. Chapela’s tenure was denied. After he filed a lawsuit, the university eventually reversed its decision.

When investigators later analyzed the email characteristics sent by agitators Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek, the two turned out not to be the average citizens they claimed. According to the Guardian, both were fabricated names used by a public relations firm that worked for Monsanto. Some of Smetacek’s emails also had the internet protocol address of gatekeeper2.monsanto.com — the server owned by Monsanto.

Science and Debate is Silenced

The attacks on scientists have taken its toll. According to Dr. Chapela, there is a de facto ban on scientists “asking certain questions and finding certain results.” He says, “It’s very hard for us to publish in this field. People are scared.” He told Nature that young people “are not going into this field precisely because they are discouraged by what they see.”

New Zealand Parliament member Sue Kedgley told a Royal Commission in 2001: “Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the research that is taking place … and the increasingly close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly … or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution.”

University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal testified before the same Commission, “I think the people who boost genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition.” Sue Kedgley has a different idea. She recommends we “set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered scientists and their families, because I think they are so convinced of the safety of the products that they are creating and I’m sure they would very readily volunteer to become part of a human clinical trial.”

To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

About the Author

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced.

Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.

Sources:

Chickens Not Fooled by GM Crops

Could Monsanto Be Responsible for One Indian Farmer’s Death Every Thirty Minutes?

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Together we CAN get GMOs banned from the US. Europe was able to do it over a decade ago without any government assistance. All they did was educate the consumers, and that was enough pressure on the food industry to drop their ploys.

If we band together as an effective army we will be able to do this. Please understand that the VAST majority of people in the US do not want GM foods, so this is an EASY battle to win. All we have to do is a bit of organizational work.

So let me tell you how we are going to achieve the removal of GMOs in the US.

October is Non-GMO Month, and you’ll receive a lot of important information about genetically engineered foods this week.

The Tipping Point is Near – The Time to Join is NOW!

How many Americans do we need to convince to avoid eating genetically modified foods to achieve the same victory in the US?

We believe it’s only about FIVE PERCENT of US shoppers!

So, changing the shopping habits of about 5.6 million households may be sufficient to eliminate GMOs in the US.

That is our goal!

We already have these numbers on our side. About 28 million Americans buy organic on a regular basis. Eighty-seven million Americans think GMOs are seriously unsafe. A hundred and fifty nine million Americans, the majority, say they would avoid GMOs if labeled!

Unfortunately, no labeling is required, making your commitment to avoid GM foods all that more complicated. But that’s where we come in.

How You Can Help Others to Avoid GMO Foods

Most people want to avoid GMO foods but it is virtually impossible to do so, since the government prevents GMO labeling.

However, Jeffery Smith has compiled a resource for you to avoid the government block of information. It is the free Non-GMO Shopping Guide. We realize that with the challenging economy it is very difficult for many to donate money to help this cause, so we are merely asking for your time and connections with your family and friends.

You can really help by making this message go viral. So if you are convinced that GMO foods should not be in the US, please send this information to everyone you know; post it on Facebook and Twitter…

You can also print out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and give it to your friends and family.

If you feel more ambitious you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk, and bring them to the grocery stores in your area. Talk to the owner or manager and get permission to post them in their store.

Who Will You Share this Information With?

You can help nurture this consumer mindset by bringing information to your local natural food store owner, so that she can share it will all of her customers as well. IRT has created a complete Retailer Campaign Kit for this purpose.

You can also share information with your child’s school, your health care providers, and food manufacturers. The IRT has created information kits for all of them, available here:

Heath care provider kit

Parents and Schools educational material

Manufacturers information kit

Please remember to share this with your friends and family, but do so lovingly. You don’t want to make yourself a pest and risk your relationship with them. But believe me, this is a MUCH easier sell than getting them to stop smoking or eating less sugar since most do not want GMOs anyway, and it doesn’t involve giving anything up.

You may even want to share this information with your church or religious leaders. As Jeffrey says,

“There are certain religious groups that think the genetic engineering process itself violates God’s laws. So ‘GMO’ for them really means, ‘God Move Over’ and not ‘Genetically Modified Organism.’”

Must-See Movies to Share!

The IRT has created a film called Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals, which is a powerful way for parents to get an initiation into the health dangers. It’s only 28 minutes long, which is ideal for local access TV.

You can simply bring the film to your local access TV station, and sometimes they’ll play it 10, 20, or even 30 times because they’re always looking for material and are open to support from the community.

There’s also a video called Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!, which exposes the dangers of GM bovine growth hormones. Any parent still feeding their child milk from cows injected with rBGH needs to see this film! They’ll never make the same mistake again…

Another powerful video you can share with your friends and family is Jeffrey’s Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods lecture.

Your Action Plan

I’ve already mentioned a number of different ways for you to get actively involved during Non-GMO Month. To recap, and add a few more suggestions, here is a list of Action Item for you to pick and choose from:

Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.

Download the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure and keep it with you whenever you shop, or download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.You can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk and give it to your family and friends.

Urge food manufacturers to join the Non-GMO Project and become Non-GMO Project Verified. This is currently the only way for manufacturers to get around the fact that there’s no GM-labeling system.

Urge your local food retailers to join the Non-GMO Project’s Supporting Retailer Program.

If your budget allows support this urgent mission by generously donating to the Institute of Responsible Technology.

Bring the film Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals to your local access TV station, or perhaps your child’s school, along with some educational material specifically designed for teachers and educators. <

Share Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!, and Jeffrey’s lecture, Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods with everyone you know. Post them to your Facebook page, or email the links to your network of friends and family.

Join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

Together, We Control the Future of Our Food

Please join us in this important campaign. Do as much or as little as you can. Maybe you can’t make a donation to IRT, but you can distribute 20 Non-GMO shopping guides to your closest family and friends.

Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can reach the tipping point and push GMOs out of our food supply.

Together, we can protect the health of future generations and help accelerate the progress toward more sustainable agriculture in the United States.

Let’s do it!

The Big Secret Commercial Water Companies Hope You Never Discover…

Wolfsto_Wordpres — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 19:12:55 +0000

Cost issues aside, I’d like to state in the beginning of that while I am an advocate of drinking pure water for health, I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE OF DRINKING BOTTLED WATER- because it all too frequently has serious contaminants and the bottles which most often are NOT RECYCLED, have a huge negative impact on our planet!

Water and health are obviously related and it doesn’t take much thought to recognize that contaminated water is not something you would intentionally choose for yourself. I’m guessing, that most people, if they think about it at all, suppose you can rely on the ubiquitous plastic bottle of water for freedom from serious contamination. Yet such is often not the case. In the article featured below by Dr. Mercola, he covers some of the issues regarding bottled water safety, the impact to the environment and an interesting new advertising strategy for bottled water involving YouTube.
——————————————————————–

The Big Secret Commercial Water Companies Hope You Never Discover…

Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 02 2010 | 18,741 views

Share226

“Bottled Water Matters” is a front group for the International Bottled Water Association. Some time ago, they began releasing YouTube videos.

In the latest video, available at the link below, their star performer takes to the streets and urges consumers to join the movement and fight those who wish to get rid of bottled water.

“There are people who want to take your choice away,” she says. “People who want bottled water off store shelves because they think it’s unnecessary. But you know that’s not true.”

Ecorazzi sums up the problem with this nicely:

“Let’s not even talk about the fact that besides polluting the world in a big way, bottled water is often less regulated than tap and, when compared, consistently loses tastes tests.”

Sources:

Ecorazzi September 10, 2010

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Bottled water has been falling out of public favor for years now, once people began to realize just how detrimental all those plastic bottles are to the environment – and what a rip-off bottled water often is in terms of price and purity.

Now, instead of toting a plastic bottle of water everywhere, the “in” thing is to carry a refillable bottle of filtered tap water — it’s better for you and the environment.

But the International Bottled Water Association was not going to let their once trendy beverage fall into the shadows without a fight. So, they created “Bottled Water Matters,” a Web site and YouTube channel that is cleverly disguised as a “cool” grassroots movement to bring bottled water back.

In reality, the videos and the Web site are nothing more than a front group for the bigwigs behind the bottled water industry – the bottlers, suppliers and distributors – all of whom are probably sweating bullets, worried that consumers might finally be catching on to the truth.

The Truth about Bottled Water

There are many problems with bottled water, but the most obvious is the fact that you’re paying a premium for something that is in many cases indistinguishable from regular tap water.

Bottled water typically costs more than $1.50 per bottle, which is 1,900 times the price of tap water. But, about 40 percent of bottled water IS regular tap water, which may or may not have received any additional treatment.

Most municipal tap water must actually adhere to stricter purity standards than the bottled water industry. The EPA requires large public water suppliers to test for contaminants as often as several times a day, but the FDA requires private bottlers to test for contaminants only once a week, once a year, or once every four years, depending on the contaminant.

So if you think water that comes in a bottle is automatically pure, think again.

An independent test performed by the Environmental Working Group revealed 38 low-level contaminants in bottled water, with each of the 10 tested brands containing an average of eight chemicals including disinfection byproducts (DBPs), caffeine, Tylenol, nitrate, industrial chemicals, arsenic, and bacteria.

Fluoride (a highly toxic bone poison that should be avoided at all costs) is usually present in both tap water and filtered bottled water. Many bottled waters actually make a point of adding fluoride back into the water, so if you are drinking bottled water please make sure yours is fluoride free. The toxic metal antimony (a silvery white metal of medium hardness) has also been found in many commercially bottled water brands.

When you drink bottled water, not only is the water itself potentially contaminated, but the bottle it comes in often poses serious problems of its own.

Drinking from Plastic Bottles is Not a Good Idea

Plastic often used to make water bottles contains chemicals like BPA and phthalates, which mimic hormones in your body — and which can leach from the bottle during normal consumption. If you leave your water bottle in a hot car or reuse it, your exposure is magnified because heat and stress increase the amount of chemicals that leach out of the plastic, into the water, and then into your body when you consume it.

This is concerning, as even tiny concentrations can cause problems such as:

Structural damage to your brain

Hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, and impaired learning

Increased fat formation and risk of obesity

Altered immune function

Early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development, disrupted reproductive cycles, and ovarian dysfunction

Changes in gender-specific behavior, and abnormal sexual behavior

Stimulation of prostate cancer cells

Increased prostate size, and decreased sperm production

So the container your water comes in should receive just as much attention as the water itself, and plastic is simply not a wise choice for a beverage holder from a health perspective … not to mention the extreme amounts of waste — 1,500 water bottles are thrown away every second!

National Geographic cited one statistic that the U.S. public goes through 50 billion water bottles every year … and most of those are never recycled! No wonder large portions of our oceans are essentially turning into plastic.

The manufacturing process of the bottles is also an environmental concern. About 1.5 million tons of plastic are used to manufacture water bottles each year around the world, and the processing itself releases toxic compounds like nickel, ethylbenzene, ethylene oxide and benzene.

Also extremely harmful to the environment is the way corporations are pumping water from underground aquifers. These natural springs serve as water sources for nearby streams, wells and farms, but the aggressive pumping can easily dry them out prematurely.

Do You Really Want to “Buy” Your Water?

In the United States and most other developed countries, we are fortunate enough to have access to water supplies for a very low cost … for now.

I suspect you’d agree that water is more a “right” than it is a commodity. And private corporations should have no more control over the selling of water than they do the selling of our air supplies. Well, this is already occurring to some extent as corporations make a profit selling water — which at times even makes water less available to the people living in the area.

Even public water supplies are being increasingly taken over by private corporations, and in some areas of the world are up for grabs by the highest bidder.

This has been publicized in countries such as Bolivia, where residents battled police and the military to protect their water rights from the US-based Bechtel Corporation, but you should know water privatization initiatives are being pushed all over the world … including in the United States.

One way you can take a stand against this issue is by refusing to support the bottled water industry in all its forms, and instead secure access to pure water for your family using your tap at home. I do highly recommend that you filter your tap water before drinking it, however.

Actually, an even better option than using your tap may be finding a gravity-fed raw spring in your area. This water is naturally filtered by the earth and it is not pasteurized or heated like nearly all commercial bottled waters.

You see there are living organisms in pure raw spring water like algae that are actually beneficial for you, but when you heat the water, just like pasteurizing milk, you damage it and miss out on these “living” benefits.

Now, before you dismiss this idea because you think there are no such springs in your neck of the woods, there is a Web site called FindaSpring.com that will help you find a spring in your area. Typically they are even monitored by the local municipalities for contaminants.

I strongly encourage you, your family and your friends to use this resource to secure FREE and pure water. You can easily store 10 five-gallon jugs (ideally look for glass varieties) in most cars and it is a wonderful opportunity for you to stock up on truly pure water.

This is one secret the International Bottled Water Association surely does not want you to know! There is likely a spring within one hour of your home where you can get pure water, for free, anytime you want … and I highly suggest you take advantage of it.