Why New Antidepressant Brintellix May Be a Killer

Why New Antidepressant Brintellix May Be a Killer
Oct 4, 2013 | Gaia Health Blog | Heidi Stevenson

Brintellix is being marketed with implications that it’s the best antidepressent yet and that it’s exceptionally safe. What is this based on? 

Close examination shows the usual smoke and mirrors, and an even closer look points out disturbing indications of potentially devastating and deadly effects—with no indication that it’s better than existing SSRIs, which are known killers.

One of the most devastating classes of drugs ever developed is antidepressant SSRIs, selective serotonin receptor inhibitors. Not only can they destroy your own life, but they can also turn you into a murderer. Now, the FDA has approved Brintellix, which may prove to be the worst of them all.

In a press release by pharmaceutical company Lundbeck, the developer of Brintellix^[1], it’s admitted that the cause of depression is unknown. Nonetheless, they cavalierly play with brain chemistry about which they know very little. Making this particular drug potentially even worse than any other SSRI is that it doesn’t limit itself to one or two pathways in the brain. It manipulates a total of 6 receptors!

Although Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Lundbeck, the US distributors, are expecting Brintellix to become a blockbuster drug, the hyped studies that appear to demonstrate both efficacy and safety are far from the full story. In fact, some studies have shown no benefit over placebo whatsoever.^[2] It’s apparent from their approval announcement that the FDA did not take studies with negative results into account. They referred to only 6 studies, which the agency states, “demonstrated that Brintellix is effective in treating depression”.^[3]

SSRIs

SSRIs do not work as claimed. They interfere with normal brain functioning. They don’t stop depression. Instead, they stop the ability to feel emotions. They result in emotional flatness. Some people may find that beneficial, something of a time-out. But it never resolves the problems that lead to depression, and even interferes with resolution. How can anyone resolve a problem when a drug interferes with their ability to even know that it’s there?

All SSRIs do the same thing. They prevent serotonin, also called 5-HT, from being reabsorbed, as their name, selective “serotonin reuptake inhibitors”, indicates. That hasn’t turned out well. These drugs are now known to cause previously nonsuicidal people to take their own lives without warning. They have also made many people violent and are associated with almost all school shootings.

There is little reason to believe that Brintellix will be more effective than other SSRI antidepressants. In fact, the more SSRIs manage to shut down serotonin production, the more harm they do. The brain works to counter the effect. As Dr. Peter Brennan notes, it can result in permanent brain damage.^[4]

In fact, the Los Angeles Time reported that Dr. Michael Thase, a Brintellix development consultant, stated:

It is different enough from the welter of SSRIs currently available that it’s not simply a ‘me too’ drug.^[5]

That’s likely true, but does that  make it better?

Brintellix May Be Even Worse

Inexplicable violence, turned both inward and outward, is the result of SSRIs causing a single change to brain function. Brintellix will cause several changes! These changes involve the handling of glutamate, which is a critical amino acid that’s required for brain function and cellular metabolism. Glutamate is necessary—at proper levels, in the right places, and at the right times—for learning, remembering, thinking, and emotions. It’s also involved in energy production throughout the body.

Glutamate excites neural function. Too much glutamate can burn nerves out and too little keeps them from functioning properly. Not only does Brintellix manipulate 5-HT (serotonin), like all other SSRIs, it also manipulates glutamate in several neural receptors:

• 5-HT1A: Agonist
• 5-HT1B: Partial Agonist
• 5-HT3: Antagonist
• 5-HT1D: Antagonist
• 5-HT7: Antagonist

Note: An agonist triggers a response from a cell. An antagonist does the opposite. It blocks a cell’s response.

Does anyone really know what the effects of this manipulation of neural transmission will be?

No. Here is what the manufacturer’s press release announcing Brintellix’s approval says about it:

The contribution of each of these activities to Brintellix’s antidepressant effect has not been established. It is considered to be the first and only compound with this combination of pharmacodynamic activity. The clinical relevance of this is unknown.

Let’s look at that again:

No one knows what relationship exists between any of these neural receptors and Brintellix’s effect.

No one knows what these manipulations of the brain will do to the body, intelligence, emotional state, sexuality, criminality, empathy, or anything else.

Nearly all the effects of Brintellix are unknown.

How Much Harm?

Like so many drugs, Brintellix is being rolled out as safe. Like others, that safety is based on a very slim thread: short term studies, which evade the risks. The existing studies produced by Lundbeck are short term, and many adverse effects take time to be seen. They’re also based on a small number of subjects. Most severe adverse effects don’t show up in such studies.

At this point, the list of adverse effects is both brief and appears to be fairly minor. Medscape^[6] reports the following adverse effects, followed by the percentage who suffered it:

• Nausea: 21-32%
• Diarrhea: 7-10%
• Dizziness: 6-9%
• Dry mouth: 6-8%
• Constipation: 3-6%
• Vomiting: 3-6%
• Flatulence: 1-3%
• Pruritus: 1-3%
• Abnormal Dreams: Less than 1-3%

These adverse effects are not as innocent as they first appear. Notice that as many as a third of the subjects suffered from nausea, and other gastrointestinal effects were not unusual. This is a red flag that there may be a dangerous adverse effect on the digestive tract that doesn’t show up quickly—not something to take lightly.

Dizziness and abnormal dreams are indicative of very serious harmful neurological effects. Pruritus is a neurologically-induced extreme urge to scratch an itch. This symptom is also indicative of neurological damage. Even at this early stage, the adverse effects point to the potential of severe and dangerous, potentially deadly, reactions.

The history of all other SSRIs, which interfere with only one specific function, has been dismal. Is there any reason to expect Brintellix to be different? The studies certainly aren’t more extensive than they’ve been with other SSRIs, so the reality is that, as usual, the people whose doctors prescribe it will be the guinea pigs.
If your doctor tries to prescribe Brintellix, perhaps the correct response should be, “Oink!”

Even Big Pharma’s faithful lapdog called the FDA has acknowledged some risk. They’re requiring a boxed warning that people younger than 24 years are at risk of developing suicidal thoughts. This, of course, is meaningless. All SSRIs carry that warning, and it certainly doesn’t seem to have reduced prescription levels!

SSRI = Killer

As the FDA admits, all SSRI drugs are known to be killers, and worse than most drugs, they can result in the deaths of people who don’t even take them! They are implicated in virtually all the school shootings. That’s a lot of carnage.

Brintellix is an SSRI. Is there any reason to believe that it will produce less harm than other SSRIs? In fact, there is every reason to suspect the opposite.

By its developer’s own admission, no one knows what effects are produced by 5 of the 6 functions Brintellix was designed to cause. But we do know that the 6^th function, serotonin/5-HT reuptake inhibition, is a killer. All of the other 5 functions interfere with normal brain activity—and the manufacturer admits that no one knows what those effects will be!

 What more do you need to know?

 

Sources:

 

1. Takeda and Lundbeck announce FDA approval of Brintellix™ (vortioxetine) for treatment of adults with major depressive disorder. Lundbeck’s Brintellix press release.
2. Antidepressant – vortioxetine. Manufacturer’s Chemist’s review of Brintellix.
3. FDA approves new drug to treat major depressive disorder. FDA’s Brintellix approval announcement.
4. Psychiatric drug-induced Chronic Brain Impairment (CBI): Implications for longterm treatment with psychiatric medication; International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine; DOI 10.3233/JRS-2011-0542.
5. FDA approves a new antidepressant: Brintellix; Los Angeles Times.
6. Vortioxetine Adverse Effects; Medscape Reference.
7. Vortioxetine (Lu AA21004) hydrobromide.
8. Glutamate.
9. Glutamate benefit and side effects, risk and danger.
10. Vortioxetine: A New Antidepressant Choice in the United States

Hidden Gluten: 7 Foods You May Not Know Contain Gluten

© Natural Society

Hidden Gluten: 7 Foods You May Not Know Contain Gluten
Oct 5, 2013 | Natural Society | Elizabeth Renter

The food industry is known for their ability to rename, reformulate, or simply hide ingredients in order to deceive consumers. Just when people began realizing how bad high fructose corn syrup is, the corn industry introduced “corn sugar” to placate the masses. MSG, one of the most damaging food additives out there, has dozens of other names by which food producers can list it. Now, gluten is on consumer radars, not necessarily because it’s harmful to everyone, but because some people have difficulty digesting it. Gluten-free has become the new en-vogue eating style and food makers know it.
 
Unlike MSG and HFCS, however, food makers are pretty forthcoming about gluten. They are quick to point out on their labels if something is “gluten-free” because they know they can charge more and hit consumers who currently feel limited by what they can buy while trying to avoid gluten. Or, maybe some companies are trying to help people.

While gluten certainly isn’t the number one culprit in today’s toxic substances department, people are still trying to avoid it. And while many products represent the ‘gluten-free’ label, there are some foods that contain gluten you might not know about.

Doctor Says Modern Wheat a ‘Perfect, Chronic Poison’

7 Foods (Potentially) Containing Gluten 

Here are 7 foods that may contain gluten that you might not know about.

• Soups - Canned soups in particular often contain gluten. (They also contain BPA). Make sure you look for labels that explicitly state the product is “gluten free”.

• Reduced-Fat Foods - When food makers take fat out of foods, they add other junk back in. Starches including gluten help foods gel better when there is no fat present.

• Soy Sauce - There are gluten-free soy sauce options out there and you should seek them if you are avoiding gluten. That’s because regular soy sauce is usually 40 to 60% wheat.

• Ice Cream - Most ice cream flavors are packed with extras like cookie dough, caramel ribbons, and more. These little additions can wreak havoc on a gluten-sensitive digestive system. Make sure you read the label before you indulge.

• Salad Dressings - Thickening agents used in salad dressings often contain gluten. “Modified food starch” is one of these agents—be on the look-out for this gluten ingredient.

• Veggie Burgers - You may be able to avoid meat with a veggie patty, but in place of the animal protein, food makers use grains in addition to their veggies. Be cautious of all faux-meat products.

• Licorice - This surprising candy often has wheat flour as one of the main ingredients and few people would think to even read the label of licorice. While there are notable licorice benefits, know that gluten-inclusion is a possibility.

In the ongoing hunt for gluten, it pays to know what you’re looking for. There is a lengthy list of food ingredients that ultimately contain gluten. Printing the list and carrying it with you to the grocery store could save you some extreme discomfort down the road.

Breaking: Tylenol can lead to liver failure, death

Breaking: Tylenol can lead to liver failure, death
Oct 4, 2013 | RTAmerica

One of the most popular over-the-counter painkillers, acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol), could kill you. It is considered to be safe when taken at recommended doses, but taking even two extra pills a day could put your liver and your life at risk, according to a new, in-depth ProPublica report. Acetaminophen overdose now sends over 78,000 people to the emergency room each year, and the drug is now considered the leading cause of acute liver failure in the country. RT's Ameera David has more information on the hidden dangers of what is believed to be a harmless drug.

Comment: See our Herbs category to find natural alternatives.

The devastating truth behind Obamacare

Dees Illustration

Activist Post: The devastating truth behind Obamacare
Oct 3, 2013 | No More Fake News | Jon Rappoport

I want my Obamacare! I want my Obamacare!

It’s vital to look at the real meaning of this sinister plan. It’s all about the toxic effects of mainstream medicine. That’s what the sold-out press is refusing to examine.

A year ago, I discussed the case of a young Michigan boy, whose parents had been taken to court three times to force them to submit their child to intensely toxic chemo treatments—despite these facts:

The boy’s latest scans revealed no sign of cancer; the drugs that would be forced on him can cause cancer; the drugs have not been approved to treat children.

And I warned: this is what waits for you and your children, up the line.

The “share and care” humanitarian mask will be peeled away. The US Dept. of Health and Human Services will create, as ordered, a complete list of approved treatments for every disease-label under the sun. And everyone in the insurance plan will be forced to take what the doctor tells them to take.

For a bonus, unapproved treatments will be banned. People and practitioners who try to use alternative treatments will find themselves in trouble.

This is the hidden agenda of Obamacare. This is what it will morph into in the future.

I’m not dreaming or fantasizing. I’ve been following and reporting on the medical cartel for 30 years, and I know the mindset of these people, these doctors, these bureaucrats, these pharmaceutical string-pullers behind the scenes. Obamacare is right up their alley. It’s about control, so it’s an answer to their prayers.

 So what do we know about their mainstream medicine, the hospital-based drug-addled modern version?

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a landmark paper by Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), “Is US health really the best in the world?” In it, Starfield revealed what many people inside the medical establishment already knew: every year, like clockwork, the medical system was killing huge numbers of people.

Each year in the US, as Dr. Starfield reported, there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000. (a conservative estimate)

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer.

In the wake of Starfield’s devastating report, other facts came to light: 2.1 million people in America, every year, are hospitalized as a result of reactions to FDA-approved medicines. Annually, 36 million serious adverse reactions to those drugs occur.

So, inclusive health coverage for many more Americans under the Obama Plan means these horrendous figures will rise.

This is the dirty secret.

Obama and his allies are promoting a medical system that is the third leading cause of death in America. It’s that stark and it’s that simple.

The Obama Plan involves appointing an “expert panel” to decide what treatments Americans should be given for what diseases, under the new regime.

Only a certified idiot would assume that, over time, alternative non-mainstream therapies would survive such an ongoing vetting. Hope may spring eternal, but common sense makes it easy to grasp the realities on the ground.

In the long run, alternative therapies will be edged out. Those that remain will be permitted for a narrow range of conditions, or as adjuncts to standard drug treatments and surgery.

Chiropractors and acupuncturists, who are temporarily basking in the notion that Obama “really cares,” are in for a very rude awakening. Their careers and practices will be significantly reduced. Not today, not tomorrow, but it will happen.

Doctors, under the Plan, will be telling patients they may not take nutritional supplements while in treatment. This will assume the status of an irreversible edict. In many cases, “while in treatment” will mean years.

What happens to a person, conscripted into the mandated Insurance Plan, who is told by his doctor that he should/must receive a vaccine? Suppose this person says no? What are the consequences? Will he then be labeled a defector? What penalties will he suffer?

Does a diagnosis of cancer imply a patient must submit to chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery? Can these treatments be forced upon him?

Perhaps, in the early days of the Plan, nothing untoward will happen. But then, as time passes, and the system assumes tighter and tighter controls, the hand of government will close around the recalcitrant patient’s neck.

“Take this vaccine. Take this chemo drug. If you don’t, you’re in violation of the rules.”

Doctors, who are an integral part of the Plan, will surely be punished if they give unapproved (alternative) treatments to patients.

And in order to make the Plan operate on a day-to-day basis, the records and bookkeeping data of every health-care practitioner in America will eventually be tracked on government computer networks.

Every person in America will have a traceable and trackable medical ID package. Government-issued. There is no way around it. The monitoring apparatus can’t work without it.

Orwellian consequences lie up the road in the field of psychiatric practice. In case you hadn’t noticed, the invention of “disorders” by committee is the preferred method for “discovering” more and more mental illnesses.

Yet, the science is completely fraudulent. For evidence, consult the many works of psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who has done more than any other person to expose the guts of his own profession. (www.breggin.com) Breggin establishes that mental disorders are not authoritatively diagnosed by a chemical or biological test. Conclusive tests do not exist. And worse, in this undefined and arbitrary territory, the drugs that follow diagnoses are killers: for example, 300,000 cases of motor brain damage, as a result of the administration of major tranquilizers.

Under the Obama Plan, you can bet your bottom dollar that psychiatric care will eventually become mandatory. A patient suddenly diagnosed with clinical depression or bipolar disease will be told he must take the drugs—and suffer their adverse effects.

Very young children will be given more and more debilitating and dangerous brain drugs.

Under the Obama Plan, it will be very convenient to declare new pandemics every few seasons, because these phony non-epidemics provide an opportunity to herd the sheep into clinics and remind them who is running the show. Go here, take this vaccine; go there, take that drug; the epidemic is endangering the herd, and you must help your brothers and sisters.

These are the figures on the last several “epidemics.” They are not yearly; they are grand totals, to date; global totals, except in the case of West Nile (US only):

SARS: 774 deaths.

WEST NILE: 1159 deaths.

BIRD FLU: 262 deaths.

SMALLPOX: (terrorist threat): 0 deaths.

SWINE FLU: 18,500 deaths.

To give perspective, globally, 250 thousand to 500 thousand people die of ordinary flu-like illness every year. Yet this higher death rate accrues no interest as an epidemic. It is only the “teaching (brainwashing) moments” of the phony epidemics that are promoted by health agencies (e.g., CDC and WHO) and their pharmaceutical allies, who rake in billions by manufacturing new vaccines.

Yes, under the Obama Plan, there will be more declared health emergencies, and they will serve to cement the citizen to his new role as eternal patient in the medical march along bleak streets of the future.

Can you perceive the loss of individual freedom implicit in this universal system of health control?

The widespread (and false) assumption is that more medical care for more people is a good thing. That’s what the politicians and the press tell us. That’s what the medical bureaucrats and the drug companies tell us. This is the central piece of brainwashing.

It’s a baldfaced lie. It’s a death-dealing lie.

And now the American people are saddled with it.

Unless the current rebellion against Obamacare expands all over the country.

Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Monsanto is Not ‘Too Big to Fail’ – Ban GMOs Now!

Monsanto is Not ‘Too Big to Fail’ – Ban GMOs Now!
Oct 1, 2013 | Farm Wars | Barbara H. Peterson


The movement for a ban on GMOs is growing. Recently I came across a couple of things that have given me renewed hope that some of the people so adamant about labeling are beginning to see the light and making the shift towards endorsing a ban.

This came from GreenMedInfo.com:

And this came from March Against Monsanto, who is asking for studies showing GMO harm:

If you are still on the fence about this, please listen to the following testimony of a mom who found out just how GMOs can affect your health and the health of your children:


Still not convinced? Here is another first-hand account of what GMOs are doing to us:

Ellen says: I have a pretty good idea since I developed a mystery autoimmune disease a year ago plus where my body attacks itself…years of unknowingly consuming GMO food had altered my immuno response. I was weak, had severe joint pain and anaphylaxis after working out combined with severe asthma. A year on non GMO organic food and I weigh more (not less) and can play my favorite bone crushing sport polo without issue and am strong as an ox. Had I continued to eat a normal American diet I would be dead for sure. I was told no cure available for mystery ailment just carry 3 epis and inhalers and prednisone and pray each time the paramedics get to me in time. I politely disagreed and sought my own homeopathic, naturopathic and alternate treatments including deep cleansing detox. I know others who accept their fate and hope that the drug companies will make them well or run for a cure but I took matters into my own hands and have lived to tell my story. My destiny is different than their fate. 

Barbara H. Peterson

Better than big pharma: 5 herbs you can't do without

Better than big pharma: 5 herbs you can't do without
Sept 29, 2013 | Alternet | Jill Richardson

Sometimes herbs can deliver up healing powers that pharmaceutical companies can only dream about.

Can't sleep? Try lemon balm. Suffer from anxiety? Lemon balm. Want to boost your immune system? Lemon balm. Cold sore? Lemon balm. And this lemon-scented mint relative is also antiviral, good for fevers, and great for indigestion, gas, and bloating.

Find it surprising that one plant can do so much? Herbs are not always as multipurpose as lemon balm - not to mention delicious, safe, and effective - but sometimes herbs can deliver up healing powers that pharmaceutical companies can only dream about. And if that sounds crazy, then give it a try with an open mind and see for yourself.

In my own case, after trying every pharmaceutical around, I've found two fixes for my migraines. One is Percocets, a controlled, Schedule II substance that cannot be used too frequently because of dependency issues. If you use Percocets regularly, you'll find that the same dose no longer delivers the same amount of pain relief.

My other migraine fix is peppermint essential oil. Safe, cheap, non-prescription, and non-addictive. I smear the stuff all over the part of my head that hurts, keeping it well away from my eyes, and within minutes my headache dissipates. For me, that's an herb I cannot live without.

Each of us is unique, with different health problems and needs, and sometimes the best herb for you depends on where you live and what grows nearby. In the Pacific Northwest, Oregon grape is likely an herb you can't live without, whereas in Southern California, you'd find use after use for white sage or creosote. But there are a few herbs that are fantastic across the board, no matter who you are or where you live. These plants can help you take your health into your own hands.

 1. Lemon Balm: As noted before, lemon balm is a highly versatile herb that is useful for a number of different conditions. The fact that it's safe for all ages and tastes good makes it a great choice for kids. In fact, herbalist Rosalee de la Foret recommends it as an ideal choice to help teething babies deal with pain. She also uses it for cold and flu, particularly when you've also got a fever, digestive complaints, cold sores, and stress. (The only note of caution here: don't use lemon balm too much if you suffer from hypothyroidism.)

2. Ginger: You've likely sipped ginger ale or ginger tea when you've had an upset stomach. Ginger's fantastic for nausea - and so much more. Because it gives your immune system a boost, it never hurts to add ginger to your cooking if you like its flavor. It's also antimicrobial and pain-relieving, properties you can take advantage of both internally or externally - for example, by applying cooled ginger tea to burns. Its expectorant and diaphoretic properties make it a great choice for colds, coughs, and fevers. De La Foret also recommends ginger for menstrual cramps.

Drinking a tea of ginger alone can be overwhelming, so you might wish to combine it with other herbs so your tea has a little zing without making it too difficult to drink. Try an immune-boosting blend of equal parts ginger, lemon balm, rose hips, and dandelion, for example. Pour one cup of water "just off the boil" over one teaspoon of herbs and steep, covered, for 20 minutes. Then sweeten with honey, add lemon if you wish, and enjoy.

3. Turmeric: Turmeric is another herb - well, a spice technically - that acts like one-stop shopping. What doesn't turmeric do? This curry ingredient is used for everything from eczema to Alzheimer's. It helps with heart health, digestion, liver function, and more. You can find many resources on turmeric online, from a scientific analysis to sites telling how to use it as everything from a natural dye to a tooth whitener.

One word of caution about using turmeric: some sources say that the active ingredient is fat soluble (meaning you have to consume it with some fat in order to get its benefits) and works best when combined with a small amount of black pepper. In other words, maybe consuming turmeric in a curry is a good idea!

 4. Dandelion: This scourge of suburban lawns everywhere is actually a superfood. And every single part of the plant is useful or edible, from the root to the flower. Even the sap can be used topically on warts. In herbal medicine, the root and the leaf are used most often. Dandelion leaf is bitter, especially after the plant flowers. Herbalists say the bitterness of the leaves stimulate digestion, making dandelion leaf a good choice as a salad green to eat at the start of a meal.

Dandelion leaves are also highly nutritious. But watch out - the French word for this diuretic herb is pissenlit ("wet the bed"). While it will send you to the bathroom, it won't actually make you wet the bed.

Both the leaf and the root - especially the root - are great for your liver. Dandelion root is a fantastic detox herb. One way to enjoy it is as "coffee," by roasting the dried root until it changes color and becomes fragrant. Then use the roasted root to make a coffee-like, caffeine-free beverage. You can even add cream and honey like you would to real coffee.

5. Elder: Although elder is used for fewer purposes than the other herbs on this list, it makes the cut because they are such a delicious introduction to herbal medicine. You might be familiar with elder only through pop culture references in Harry Potter and Monty Python, or maybe you've heard of elderflower cordial and elderberry wine. But did you know that elderberries are an herbal powerhouse for boosting your immune function? Before cold season begins, make a batch of elderberry syrup to help your family keep from getting sick. Elderberry syrup blurs the line between medicine and dessert.

Before delving into treating yourself with herbs, it's a good idea to check out a book or at least a website like LearningHerbs.com to familiarize yourself with the basics. And be sure to check with your doctor, especially if you are treating children or you are pregnant, breastfeeding, taking prescription drugs, or suffering from a medical condition.

However, you might already use ginger and turmeric in your cooking, and odds are you use other potent herbal remedies in the kitchen as well. Garlic, cinnamon, onions, thyme, shiitake mushrooms, peppermint, black pepper, cilantro, cayenne, and lavender are all useful for both culinary and medicinal purposes. So even if you don't plan on becoming a guru of herbal remedies, go ahead and spice up your cooking. Or expand on your culinary use of herbs and spices by discovering how to take your health into your own hands.

About the author  

Jill Richardson is the founder of the blog La Vida Locavore and a member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board. She is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It..

GMO ‘Golden Rice’ Tested on Kids Without Parental Consent

© TruthStream Media

GMO ‘Golden Rice’ Tested on Kids Without Parental Consent
Oct 2, 2013 | TruthStream Media | Aaron Dykes | Melissa Melton

Beta-carotene enhanced GM rice, the “golden” child of biotech, is now hampered by a fudged study under ethics scrutiny. 

A GMO study conducted in China, but funded by the USDA, tested unapproved “Golden Rice” on children without authorization, creating serious violations of ethics rules.

Tufts University researchers admitted that their lead scientist, Guangwen Tang, had broken the rules of disclosure in tests on human subjects, but maintain that their August 2012 study titled “β-Carotene in “Golden Rice” is as good as β-carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children” remains valid.

Greenpeace China blew the whistle on what it called a scandal over a “potentially dangerous product.” Not properly informing the parents of the children used in the study constitutes a clear and serious ethics violations, the organization indicated.

The larger Greenpeace organization has played a long-term role in opposing the approval and use of “Golden Rice” to fight disease in the developing world. They and other opponents have long argued that “tried and true” methods of treating Vitamin A deficiency render the biotech “solution” irrelevant and unnecessary.

Nature.com highlighted an investigation conducted by CCTV in China, who aired a special documentary program on the ‘scandal.’ Emails turned up by reporters showed that a Chinese CDC official hid mention of the fact that the Golden Rice was genetically modified, claiming that it was dropped because it was ‘too sensitive’ to discuss with the parents of the children being fed GMOs in the study.

Many parents have since “demanded a guarantee that the rice will not affect their children’s health” as well as compensation money for the ethics breach. “If it’s safe, why did they need to deceive us into this?” a parent angrily asked China’s CCTV in their exposé.

There were further issued raised about how often the children in the study were actually fed the “Golden Rice,” with inquiries revealing that the children may have only eaten the rice ONCE during the study rather than daily over the course of three weeks. Nature reported:

Critics note that discrepancies remain over the full details of the trial. For instance, the CDC’s investigation revealed that the children ate Golden Rice just once during the study — and not lunch every day during the three-week study as the paper states.

“How much Golden Rice did the children have exactly?” asks Wang Zheng, a policy researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Policy and Management in Beijing. “Either the researchers are lying about this now or they lied about it in their paper. It’s a serious offence either way.” [emphasis added]

According to the published study, the GM trait in “Golden Rice” that produces beta-carotene, a precursor to Vitamin A, was produced using heavy water (a technique derived from Harold Urey’s development of enriched uranium during the Manhattan Project) “harvested from a hydroponic plant system housed in the USDA-Agriculture Research Service Children’s Nutrition Research Center at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston TX.” Along with Tang’s research conducted at the Hunan Province Center for Disease Control and Prevention in China was additional research provided by the Carotenoids & Health Laboratory, USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston.

Golden Rice has been a hot-button issue in genetically-modified politics for decades now. Proponents blame GM opponents for delaying its approval, and outlandishly claiming that they have cost lives, building upon the long-standing claims that “Golden Rice” could save a million lives per year, prevent blindness (and other related pro-GM puffery).

Slate accused anti-GMO activists of lying to get their way, reporting that groups behind the destruction of a trial GM rice field had falsely claimed farmers in the Philippines were behind the sabotage.

Biotech watchdogs like GM Watch, on the other hand, have long claimed that the benefits are less than shimmering, and that instead its real significance is in expanding the reach of GM agriculture – and companies like Syngenta who push it – in the developing world. Since 2001, activist Michael Pollan, Greenpeace and others have shown that the concentration of beta-carotene is not enough to make a ‘life saving’ or disease preventing difference – a problem worsened by the fact that cooking the rice reduces the Vitamin A content by 50%.

GM Watch explained how “Golden Rice” co-inventor Ingo Potrykus acknowledged back in 2001 that Greenpeace’s argument concerning the ineffective concentrations of beta-carotene in the rice amounted to a valid concern and notable flaw.

“I am happy to acknowledge, that Greenpeace is arguing on a rational basis… I also acknowledge, that Greenpeace has identified a weak point in the strategy of using Golden Rice for reducing vitamin A-deficiency… We will know for sure of course only, when all the standard biosafety assessments have been performed… we need far more data, than we have to date.” [emphasis added]

The current levels of beta-carotene produced by the heavy water “Golden Rice” would require children to eat between 100-150 grams of rice per day (or about 1/2-3/4 of a cup of cooked rice) in order to achieve 60% of the recommended daily allowance.

Even the Rockefeller Foundation, which long funded the development of “Golden Rice” – and, arguably, the entire “Gene Revolution” that brought genetically modified crops into mainstream use – conceded in a letter written by Gordon Conway in January 2001, that “we do not consider Golden Rice the solution to Vitamin A deficiency” and noting that “the public relations uses of Golden Rice have gone too far.” Conway writes:

“The industry’s advertisements and the media in general seem to forget that it is a research product that needs considerable further development before it will be available to farmers and consumers.”

Yet more than a decade after industry proponents tried to knock environmental watchdogs for their critique and delay of “Golden Rice,” researchers are caught fudging their data and failing to properly inform the parents of the children used in the study that the product was even genetically modified.

If the benefits for the world are so profound, why is there so much to hide?

About the Authors

Aaron and Melissa created TruthstreamMedia.com as an outlet to examine the news, place it in a broader context, uncover the deceptions, pierce through the fabric of illusions, grasp the underlying factors, know the real enemy, unshackle from the system, and begin to imagine the path towards taking back our lives, one step at a time, so that one day we might truly be free...

GMO pushers in desperation, trying to claim consumers no longer care about GM foods

© Natural News

GMO pushers in desperation, trying to claim consumers no longer care about GM foods
Oct 2, 2013 | Natural News | Sue Woledge

While an Australian scientist from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has been quoted saying that the heat has gone out of the genetically modified food debate and that people are now willing to eat GM food, particularly if they understand why the crop has been modified, statistics from public surveys around the world say otherwise.

It would appear that, although pro-GM scientists, reporters and politicians continue to manipulate figures and create excuses for consumers being uneasy about genetically modified foods, polls continue to indicate that public opinion still leans very heavily toward a "No GMO" stance.

According to ABC News, in the USA, only slightly over one third of the population believes that genetically modified foods are safe to eat, with fifty two percent believing that they are unsafe and thirteen percent remaining unsure. Surveys in Australia and Europe have resulted in similar figures, with seventy five percent of Australian consumers having said that they would have concerns about eating GM foods, and seventy percent of those surveyed in European countries agreeing that GM food is fundamentally unnatural; only twenty one percent of Europeans believe that genetically modified foods are safe to eat.

Statistics also reveal that attitudes toward genetically modified foods varies with age, sex and education level. Those who are more likely to believe that GM foods are unsafe include women, older people, those who are more educated and those from a scientific background.

The pro-GM lobby has stated that the fact that many people still buy foods even when GM ingredients are listed on labels indicates that consumers aren't really that concerned, assuming that people are in fact more accepting of GM foods than they might imply when asked outright; however, studies have also revealed that most people don't actually read ingredient labels on the products they buy even when they say they do.

It would appear that human beings instinctively understand that the genetic modification of food is unnatural. Almost twenty years after the first GM crop was approved for sale, consumers continue to feel that this technology is potentially dangerous. Many view it as an experiment that is not needed: it is dangerous and is purely about profits for biotech companies that seem hell bent on forcing it down the throats of a population that does not want it. But as much as these companies and their supporters try to change public opinion, it is obvious that most people still don't want GM foods, and public attitude remains unchanged.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.innovation.gov.au

http://abcnews.go.com

http://www.abc.net.au

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

http://ec.europa.eu

http://healthland.time.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

About the author:

Sue Woledge is a natural therapist, writer and owner of Creating A Toxin Free Future Sue is an advocate for natural health and responsible living and is passionate about life-long learning, natural health, nutrition, healthy living, the environment and natural medicines. Sue believes that living as naturally as possible and eating a diet consisting of natural, unprocessed foods is key to good health, as is reducing exposures to synthetic and toxic chemicals.

Ancient Mind, Body, and Spirit Methods for Maintaining Health During Autumn

© Natural Society

Ancient Mind, Body, and Spirit Methods for Maintaining Health During Autumn
Oct 1, 2013 | Natural Society | Paul Fassa

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has a knack for poetically and empirically describing how our body, mind, and emotions are actually a microcosm of nature’s cyclic seasonal dance and the changing elemental emphasis, quality of energy, and directional focus. In other words, we need to make our own changes with each seasonal shift in order to be as healthy as we can be.
 
The seasonal health challenge is to harmonize our personal energy field with the larger energy field of nature. Seasonal changes in TCM represent shifts between yin and yang energies. In autumn, contracting yin energy replaces the expansive yang energy of summer.

Yin energy moves inward and downward in contrast to extroverted yang energy which moves outward and up. Each seasonal change requires an adjustment in our body, mind, and spirit so we can maintain health. The key to staying healthy through seasonal shifts and to maintain our balance is found via diet and lifestyle choices and routines.

The Inner and the Outer are Really One 

From a western scientific perspective (think quantum physics and unified field theory), we are energetically one with nature and the seasonal cycle. As the summer is winding down and autumn is approaching, we are going through a similar internal energy shift.

From the perspective of TCM, elementally, autumn is the metal season. It’s when dryness, coolness and wind are dominant. Autumn brings to the forefront the energy meridians and organs connected to the lungs and the colon. The lungs take in our primary nourishment oxygen and chi (life force) and the colon eliminates waste.

Autumn is harvest time. The bounty of summer is collected and stored for use during the barren winter months. Food cellars, canning, and drying are time honored methods for preserving fresh food for later use. Autumn is the season for condensing, conserving, and concentrating the life force.

The seasonal message to humans is implied. It’s time to let go of the old the outdated, the broken, and the past in general. It’s a time to look inside not outside for one’s nourishment and to connect with the hidden roots of ones being. By merging with our energetic source, a new creation can take root via a restful hibernation period through the winter. The new buds will appear in the spring and the flowering or mature manifestation will bloom in summer.

Read: The 5 Tibetan Rites: Powerful Mind-Body Healing Adds 10 Years to Life

Suggestions for Harmonizing with the Autumn Season

• Eliminate clutter in your home by discarding what you no longer need. Consider donating or selling your best and most useful unwanted items on Craigslist or Ebay.

• Start a journal. Review the previous year via attitudes, emotional patterns, values and goals. Create an Autumnal equinox letting-go fire ceremony. Ritually, write down on little pieces of paper specific issues and or limitations that you need to resolve but instead have been hanging on to by throwing each paper into the fire.

• Start a daily yogic breathing practice. Slowly breathe in (from the belly) healing energy and slowly breathe out emotional baggage and negativities via the nose. And there is alternate nostril breathing to calm the nervous system.

• Include saunas (for detox) as well as massages with warming qualities like unprocessed sesame oil or warming oils like: Vetiver, Sandalwood, Patchouli, or Clary Sage.

• Remove old energy blockages with acupuncture and/or a restorative yoga practice. Turn inward toward your source or center with a meditation practice.

Making the Right Dietary Choices for Autumn 

Chinese medicine classifies food energetically according to taste: Sweet, bitter, pungent, astringent, salty and sour: according to temperature: cold, cool, warm and hot.

Bitter foods move energy to the lower or yin part of the body. Astringent foods are contracting, while sour and pungent foods are also advised during autumn.

Autumn energy is moving inward and downward (yin) toward the earth like the energy in root vegetables. For example, beets, carrots, rutabagas, parsnips, turnips, potatoes, and celeriac are widely available in the Fall. Spaghetti squash and braised fennel could be included. Cooked (organic) root vegetables are excellent autumn and winter foods.

In autumn eliminate raw, cool, and cold foods in favor of cooked, warm and deeply nourishing foods. Instead of ice cream, frozen foods, cooling vegetable or fruit juices and salads, move towards soups, stews, and warm beverages.

Seasonal fruits like apples and pears are favored, also cooked fruits like baked apples with cinnamon. Add some pungency to food with leeks, onions, garlic, ginger, and cumin which stimulate the lungs and help digestion by kindling the digestive fire and eliminating excess wind or gas.

In autumn it’s important to keep the lungs slightly moistened without creating mucous and the bowel moving regularly without constipation. Diet and lifestyle choices are the key to maintaining your health through the seasons.

There’s an old Chinese saying: “When you are sick don’t look for a cure; instead find your center and you will heal.”

Additional Sources:

5Elements

StraightBamboo

HolisticNetworker

Number of 0-5 year olds on psychotropic drugs skyrockets 42% since 2009

SOTT: Number of 0-5 year olds on psychotropic drugs skyrockets 42% since 2009
Sept 30, 2013 | CCHR International

While the national media has been running that the use of psychotropic drugs in children has decreased based on a "sample study" of only 43,000 kids, the fact is, according to data obtained from IMS Health, the number of children 0-5 on psychiatric drugs has increased 42% since 2009. In 2012, there were 1,085,410 children aged 0-5 on psychiatric drugs, which is the highest the number has been in the last decade.

With this increase, parents are quite simply not being given accurate information about psychiatric labels (mental disorders) or the drugs being prescribed to "treat" their children. For more information, visit CCHR's Parents Know Your Rights page, which includes all documented risks of the psychiatric drugs prescribed to children, as well as non-harmful medical alternatives.

Also watch: The drugging of our children - 0 to 5 year olds. Please watch it and share it.

Cholesterol Drugs Linked To Eye Damage, JAMA Study Confirms Anew

© Green Med Info

Cholesterol Drugs Linked To Eye Damage, JAMA Study Confirms Anew
Sept 27, 2013 | Green Med Info | Sayer Ji

A new study published in JAMA Ophthalmology titled, "Association of Statin Use With Cataracts: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis," reveals that the top-grossing, cholesterol-lowering drug class known as statins is significantly increasing the risk of cataracts within exposed populations.[1]

Statin-induced eye damage will be a surprising finding to some, especially to statin drug advocates who have argued that the purported 'antioxidant' effects of statins 'may slow the natural aging process of the lens.' This latter, strictly theoretical benefit is increasingly being disproved by the biomedical literature. In fact, last year, we reported in an article titled, "Blind To The Truth: The Eye-Damaging Effects of Statins," on findings published in Optometry and Vision Science, revealing that statin drugs users have a 48% higher risk of pathological eye lens changes commonly associated with cataract formation.

A cataract is a clouding of the lens of the eye which leads to a decrease in vision, and is a leading cause of blindness in the world. The most commonly identified causes are aging, trauma and excessive UV radiation exposure, along with a still poorly understood genetic component. While there is preclinical evidence that the opacity of the lens can be reversed through natural substances such as wheatgrass,[2] the most common conventional approach is to treat the condition with surgery, which does nothing to mitigate or undo the underlying causes.

Researchers at San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio Texas, compared the risks for development of cataracts between statin users and nonusers, using a military health care system database. The study design was described as follows:

"Based on medication fills during fiscal year 2005, patients were divided into 2 groups: (1) statin users (received at least a 90-day supply of statin) and (2) nonusers (never received a statin throughout the study). Among 46 249 patients meeting study criteria, we identified 13 626 statin users and 32 623 nonusers."

The main results were reported as follows:

"For our primary analysis, we matched 6972 pairs of statin users and nonusers. The risk for cataract was higher among statin users in comparison with nonusers in the propensity score-matched cohort (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17). In secondary analyses, after adjusting for identified confounders, the incidence of cataract was higher in statin users in comparison with nonusers (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.40). Sensitivity analysis confirmed this relationship."

In other words, the risk for cataract was between 9% and 27% higher in statin users, leading the study authors to conclude: "The risk for cataract is increased among statin users as compared with nonusers. The risk-benefit ratio of statin use, specifically for primary prevention, should be carefully weighed, and further studies are warranted."

What is important to point out is that the human eye is an extension of the nervous system, which is the second most lipid- and cholesterol-concentrated tissue type next to adipose tissue in the human body. The lenses of mammals, but particularly the human lens, is extremely stable due in part to its cholesterol content. Amazingly, this is why the only reported lipid remaining in a frozen mammoth 40,000 years after its death was from its lens membranes.[3] Therefore, given the crucial role that cholesterol plays as a structural and functional biomolecule within the eye, is it any wonder that cholesterol-inhibiting drugs adversely affect them?

Also, considering that statin drugs bear a wide range of additional health risks, with over 300 known adverse effects associated with their use extensively documented in the biomedical literature [see our Statin Drug database], the reported cardiovascular benefits of this drug class may not be significant enough any longer to justify their use.  To the contrary, the research increasingly indicates that statin drugs are both muscle-damaging (myotoxic) and nerve-damaging (neurotoxic) – a concerning heart-damaging (cardiotoxic) combination, as the heart muscle is a highly nerve-dense muscle.

At the very least, patients need to be adequately informed of their risks in order for the medico-ethical principle of informed consent to even be possible.  Failing that, the drug-based default approach in using statin drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease violates the most basic ethical and likely legal rights of their patients.

For extensive documentation of the potential adverse health effects of statin drugs, as well as research into scientifically vetted natural alternatives, read any of our recent reports on the topic:

• Cholesterol Lowing Statins Found To Damage Peripheral Nerves
• Statin Drugs Found To Accelerate Arterial Calcification
• Statin Drugs Linked To Arthritis, Heart Trouble And More
• Confirmed Again: Statin Drugs Calcify The Coronary Arteries
• Statins Provide No Benefit: Study of 4 Million People
• Are Statin Drugs Killing The Health Benefits Of Omega-3 Fat?
• A New Greek Name for Statin Toxicity: Polymyalgia Rheumatica
• Statins Raise Diabetes Risk by 48% for Postmenopausal Women
• Statin Drugs Linked To Worsening Osteoarthritis Of The Knee
• Sugarcane Extract Superior To Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs?
• Chocolate Gives Statins A $29 Billion Run For Their Money
• How LOW Cholesterol Can Harm Your Health

There already exists an extensive body of preclinical and even some clinical research on natural cholesterol-lowering substances. We have spent years indexing this research in order to make it freely available on our natural research database. You can view that research here [Cholesterol-Lowering Substances]. Please be aware that by providing access to information we are not providing medical advice. It is very important for the health consumer to understand, as well, that when combining natural interventions with drugs you risk profound, even deadly interactions. It is advisable, therefore, to search out the help of a licensed health professional, preferably with an integrative medical background to assist you with your health problems.
For additional research, please feel free to visit (or share with your health practitioner) our research page: Health Guide: Statin Drugs.

For health care practitioners, consider using our Professional Database Features, to greatly enhance your ability to retrieve, comprehend and disseminate the biomedical information on our multiple databases.

References

---

[1] Jessica Leuschen, Eric M Mortensen, Christopher R Frei, Eva A Mansi, Vasudha Panday, Ishak Mansi.Association of Statin Use With Cataracts: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013 Sep 19. Epub 2013 Sep 19. PMID: 24052188

[2] GreenMedInfo.com, Research > Ailments > Index: C's > Cataract

[3] Douglas Borchman1,* and Marta C. Yappert. Lipids and the ocular lens  J Lipid Res. 2010 September; 51(9): 2473–2488.  doi:  10.1194/jlr.R004119 PMCID: PMC2918433

About the Author

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation.
He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is widely recognized as the most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

The big lie of genetics exposed: human DNA incapable of storing complete blueprint of the human form

© Natural News

The big lie of genetics exposed: human DNA incapable of storing complete blueprint of the human form
Sept 29, 2013 | Natural News | Mike Adams

The curse of being a critical thinker is that you can't turn it off, I've discovered. So you become a critical thinker about everything you've been told or taught, and as it turns out, most of what we've all been taught about genetics is a lie.

But don't take my word for it. Join me as we take an honest, critical look at genetics using the same kind of skepticism scientists demand we invoke when looking at medicinal herbs or acupuncture.

Genetics is an attempt by materialistic scientists to offer a purely materialist view of inheritance and development of not just physical bodies but non-physical inherited attributes such as instinctive behaviors and cellular function.

According to the theory of genetics, physical gene sequences contained in chromosomes found in each cell in your body are a "blueprint" for all your body's physical structures, biochemical functions and inherited behavioral patterns. This blueprint, the theory goes, contains ALL the instructions needed to create a complete human form with all its physical structures, physiological functions and inherited behaviors fully represented and complete.

Because of the enormous complexity of the human body, organ function, cell structures and instinctive behaviors, it was once believed that humans must possess somewhere around 2 million protein-coding genes. The Human Genome Project was launched in 1990 with the widespread belief that when it was finished, it would "unlock" all the mysteries of the origins of disease in humans. It was also believed that when the human genome fully mapped, scientists would be able to create humans in any form they wanted, including humans with extra arms or legs, humans free of all disease, humans with "enhanced" physical powers, and so on.

At the start of the Human Genome Project, everybody "knew" that humans were far more complex than, say, a roundworm, which only has about 20,000 protein-coding genes. This is why estimates of the number of genes in a human ranged from 100,000 to 2 million. Scientists were absolutely sure that humans were far more complex than a tiny roundworm, and therefore humans needed far more genes.

The Human Genome Project suffers an "epic fail" 

The first draft of the Human Genome Project was published in the year 2,000. Far from being a breakthrough that would end all human disease, its findings utterly shattered the mythology of genetics as the sole explanation for all inheritance and physical development. Why? Because the Human Genome Project found that humans have only about 20,000 protein-coding genes, roughly the same number as the roundworm.

Huh? A human being has about the same number of protein-coding genes as a roundworm? Yes. And that's straight out of the mouths of human genome researchers who are, themselves, hard-core materialists.

By comparison, the common fruit fly has about 15,000 genes, only marginally less than a human. And yet it is obvious to any intelligent observer than a human being is considerably more complex than a fruit fly and a roundworm. So why didn't the Human Genome Project find a lot more genes that code proteins in humans?

Genetic inheritance theory shattered

The findings of the multi-billion-dollar Human Genome Project shattered the mythology of genetic materialism, sending nearly the entire scientific community into a tailspin and forcing "the great genetic cover-up" to begin.

Human genes simply needed "more research" to be understood, scientists exclaimed. And since the year 2000, that research has continued to no avail. The cover-up continues...

The truth is that there isn't enough data storage in 20,000 genes to hold a blueprint for a human being.

Human DNA data storage capacity 

Allow me to explain this from a computer science point of view, as many of you know I founded a very successful computer software company and was the head of R&D for many computer science projects, including the popular new SCIENCE.naturalnews.com which uses advanced statistical algorithms to analyze scientific concepts across millions of published studies.

The human genome contains about 3 billion "base pairs" of genes. Each base pair can exist in one of four possible combinations of the four bases that make up DNA: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G).

From a digital storage point of view -- as DNA is "digital" in its format -- a base pair is equivalent to two bits of binary data, which can represent four possible states as follows:

00
01
10
11

In computer storage vernacular, a "byte" is eight bits of data, such as:

01011010

Four DNA base pairs, then, makes one byte of data.

Given that there are roughly 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, this equates to roughly about 750MB of data storage capacity.

It turns out this number is shockingly small. 750MB is smaller than the file of a typical modern video game. It's smaller than a movie on a DVD, in fact. It's so small that a typical miniature thumb drive you might buy at Best Buy can actually store over 20 times as much data (that's merely a 16 GB thumb drive). You can buy a 16GB SD card right now on Amazon.com for a mere $12.

750MB of data is so small that no one can explain how it could possibly account for a human body with extraordinary complexity while somehow encompassing physical, structural, functional and behavioral inheritance as well.

To get a grasp of the complexity of the human body, realize that your body is made of 60 - 90 trillion cells. Each cell is its own ecosystem with highly complex functions including cell energy production, waste removal, cell membrane function, the nucleus command control center, and so on.

Your body manufactures 10 million red blood cells every hour. It has a capacity to heal damaged tissues almost everywhere. Your skin and intestines are being slowly replaced with new cells every minute. Your immune system is incredibly complex and highly capable, representing the most advanced system of nanotechnology that modern science has ever witnessed.

On top of all this, you are born with innate behaviors and the ability to develop, all on your own, the behavioral skills to walk, talk, focus your eyes, digest foods, eliminate waste, sweat, breathe and much more. Meanwhile, your body accomplishes billions of chemical reactions every second without you even knowing it. Somehow, every cell, organ and organ system in your body knows what to do to keep you alive and functioning.

Your body and its functions are unimaginably complex. Simply cataloging the structure and function of all the cells in your body right now would take countless terabytes of data -- more than a million times larger than "megabytes" of data.

Yet the entire human genome delivers only 750MB worth of data storage. Obviously, this is wholly insufficient to describe the entire structure, function and development of a human being. No matter how the desperate materialists try to keep us focused on human genes, it flat-out isn't possible to store a full blueprint of the human form in 750MB of data.

The human genome, therefore, is not the entire blueprint of human development. Although some genes do obviously code for some physical characteristics (such as eye color), genes alone do not contain the full blueprint. There must be something else that also contributes morphological information in addition to DNA.

The Human Genome Project, to the shock of nearly all materialists, ultimately proved exactly the opposite of what scientists had hoped. It proved that genes alone do not explain inheritance.

The materialists were horrified by this finding. To this very day, they are pouring over human genome data, desperately trying to find some "meta data" that would explain all inheritance. What they refuse to acknowledge is that there is a non-physical field of inheritance patterns that functions as an overlay to the human genome, interacting with it and enhancing its scope with non-physical encoding of additional information needed to develop a complete human form.

That field is called the "morphic resonance" field, and it was proposed by one of the most brilliant, revolutionary scientific thinkers of our time, Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of "Science Set Free."

Morphic resonance fields infuriate materialists 

The idea of morphic resonance infuriates materialists -- and nearly all modern-day scientists are materialists -- because the presence of a non-physical field of information naturally leads to the most dangerous idea of all to materialist science: the idea of consciousness.

This idea that your body as a whole, as well as each cell in your body, can tap into a field of information which encodes the "memory" of what a human form is supposed to be threatens the very pillars of materialistic science, upon which nearly the entire pharmaceutical industry is based, by the way. This is why materialist scientists are desperately attempting to defend the human genome as the single source of all the information needed to develop a human body, even though the human genome clearly doesn't have the storage capacity to represent an entire body (not to mention inherited physiological functions and behavioral inheritance).

The best place to read and learn about morphic resonance is at Rupert Sheldrake's website:
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/pap...

I also recommend his amazingly insightful book, A New Science of Life.

Keep in mind that if you read about Rupert Sheldrake from any materialistic science website -- including Scientific American which is 100% pro-Monsanto, pro-GMO and anti GMO labeling, by the way -- you are going to read vicious attacks against Sheldrake from desperate materialists who brand morphic resonance as "magical thinking."

This is especially comic, given that these same materialists believe the entire universe in which we live spontaneously appeared from nowhere without cause or reason through a process they call the "Big Bang." Somehow, the big bang isn't magical thinking to the materialists, but the idea of a non-physical field of inheritance is magical thinking. It's almost like these people have never heard of gravity: yet another invisible field that affects all living things.

How does your hand know it's a hand? 

Another key problem with the theory of genetic inheritance is that even though all the cells across your body are supposed to contain the same exact genetic code, somehow the cells in your hand knew they were supposed to grow into a hand, not a foot or an ear, for example.

Conventional genetics has no explanation for this. How does a cell "know" it's supposed to be a specialized cell functioning as a tiny part of the whole? If every blood cell in your body contains the DNA for your entire body, how does it "know" to form itself into a blood cells and not, for example, a skin cell?

Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance explanation provides an answer. The cell taps into a knowledge field -- a non-physical pattern blueprint -- and through influence with that field, the cell knows to activate only the genes that code for it to form a blood cell. The local physical genes accomplish the protein coding, but the morphic resonance field directs the pattern of which genes to activate. This is how morphic fields interact with DNA.

The human genome, in other words, works hand in hand with a non-physical information field that keeps physical form development organized so that the resulting form is a human. The morphic resonance field "knows" the pattern of being human because it is a pattern that has been reinforced by billions of other humans who came before you and contributed to the resonance of the field.

This explains the missing link in DNA -- the fact that DNA alone cannot store the entire blueprint of the human form. The master blueprint is actually found in the non-physical morphic field. Local DNA are simply "protein builders" that follow the morphic resonance blueprint.

Just like there is an energetic pattern for a human being, there's also a different energetic template for an oak tree, and it overlays the genes from an oak tree seed, directing it to form a fully-grown oak tree. For every cell, every organ, every organ system and every life form on our planet (and across the universe), there is a morphic resonance field that provides the template overlay which affects local gene activation.

Learn more about morphic resonance

This article, of course, is only a short summary of the concept of morphic resonance. To learn more, I encourage you to read books by Rupert Sheldrake, and visit the Sheldrake.org website.

Keep in mind that Sheldrake's theories absolute infuriate materialist scientists. The journal Nature actually suggested that Sheldrake should be burned at the stake... like a witch, I suppose. TED talks essentially banned Sheldrake from speaking because he dared mention the idea of "consciousness."

Everywhere across the fatally closed-minded community of materialist science, Sheldrake is considered to be worse than a demon... he is a non-believer in the Church of Materialism! And there is no greater sin to today's cult-like science community than non-belief in materialism.

This is why Sheldrake's ideas will be viciously attacked, demonized and denied... up until the day they are finally embraced and accepted as the "new science of life." In a hundred years, Sheldrake will likely be remembered as far more important to science than even Charles Darwin. His ideas are not merely revolutionary, but desperately needed to advance science beyond the limiting realm of materialism. If science does not expand its scope beyond chemical structures, it will never understand life and will always remain mystified and frustrated about why genes still don't control much in the way of inheritance.

Watch for more coverage of Rupert Sheldrake here on Natural News, where our ideas are rooted in science yet not limited by the artificial confines of materialism. We also hope to interview Sheldrake soon and bring you the interview that TED won't allow you to hear.

Questions for faith believers in materialist genetics 

1. Where is the gene for creativity? If creative works (songs, poems, fiction novels, etc.) are merely the work of mechanistic brains following genetic instructions, then all the lifelong works of creative individuals (musicians, artists, novelists, etc.) must somehow be encoded in the DNA before birth. Where is all this creativity encoded?

2. How does a blood cell know to make itself into a blood cell and not a skin cell?

3. Why is most physical inheritance unable to be traced to DNA? (The "heritability problem.")

4. If there is not enough storage capacity in the human genome to fully describe the human form, then where does the rest of the blueprint come from?

5. Where is the genetic code for love, compassion and cooperation, without which human civilization never would have survived?

6. If human consciousness is an illusion, as materialists claim, then it can have no impact on human behavior, which is purely mechanistic, they insist. So then why did the "illusion of consciousness" evolve in human beings if it serves no purpose? This contradicts one of the more fundamental tenants of natural selection.

7. Are you, yourself, purely a mechanistic biological robot suffering under the illusion of consciousness? And if so, then why should we listen to anything you have to say in the first place?

Learn more 

Watch this video of Rupert Sheldrake to learn more: