Category Archives: Health/Food Related

China sets roadmap for green agriculture

By Bai Yang    16:48, October 20, 2017

Twenty-five to 30 ducks are deployed per mu at an organic rice base in Baiquan county in the city of Qiqihaer in Northeast China’s Heilongjiang Province. The nutritious, fast-growing fowl are active runners. (Photo: Heilongjiang Daily)

China released guidelines on green development in agriculture this month, setting zero growth in the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides as one goal. The roadmap came amid increasing demand for organic products and charted a course for green agriculture.

Actually, rice farmers in Northeast China’s Jilin Province already started to test the waters: Deploying ducks to grow healthier food.

People in Huinan county, southeast of the province, raised 5,000 ducks in rice fields feeding them on grass and prawns. Through this approach and assisted by manual weeding, chemical pesticides were no longer needed.

“I raise 5 kilos of river crabs in every mu of rice paddy,” said Huinan rice grower Zhang Mingjiang, referring to the unique Chinese mainland measure of a field equivalent to about 667 square meters. Zhang has put crabs into about 8.5 hectares.

“They eat grass, eliminating the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers,” he said. “The new growth method can generate 2,000 yuan ($303) more than simply growing rice.”

An ecological rice garden in the South China village of Guzhou, Suichuan county of the city of Jian, Jiangxi Province. The rice-duck farming mode originated in southern China. (Photo: Guangdong Province green agriculture development center website)

More farmers in Jilin have started to raise ducks, crabs, mud fish or crawfish after the province rolled out its rice-fish farming mode with the aim of building a brand image.

The scientific farming mode has not only produced healthier rice but also generated extra profit. By the end of 2016, Jilin had some 691,000 hectares of farmland producing organic, unpolluted agricultural produce.

China is focusing more on quality of agriculture in a bid to satisfy rising domestic demand for green and organic food.

The guidelines on green development in agriculture are the first to set goals for conservation of resources and environmental protection. The country should maintain a certain area of arable land and prevent land quality from worsening, according to the document.

The guidelines rule against excessive exploitation of groundwater. And the document targets zero growth in chemical fertilizers, pesticides alongside the comprehensive use of straw, animal waste and agricultural plastic film.

A farmer harvests rice and collects crabs in Hengshan district of the city of Yulin in northwest China’s Shaanxi Province. (Photo: Hengshan District People’s Government website)

To guarantee better implementation, the goals were categorized into specific objectives set to be accomplished by 2020 and long-term goals by 2030.

Han Changfu, Minister of Agriculture, said it is the country’s first document about green agriculture that sets the roadmap and timetable for the development of the sector.

Over the past five years, China has made great strides in the process of agricultural modernization, with grain output having surpassed 600 million tons and vegetable and fruit production having exceeded 700 million.

But the agricultural sector remains resource-intensive, with pollution and ecological degradation yet to be contained. The supply of high-quality, green farm produce needs to increase to satisfy growing demand, the document explains.


Leave a comment

Filed under Health/Food Related

The number-one mind-control program at US colleges

The number-one mind-control program at US colleges

If you’re a college student or have a child at college, read this

The unspoken secret in plain sight

by Jon Rappoport

February 7, 2017

Here is a staggering statistic (note: Thank you to reader “Namely Liberty” for surfacing this information from the WayBackMachine) from the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI): “More than 25 percent of college students have been diagnosed or treated by a professional for a mental health condition within the past year.”

Let that sink in. 25 percent.

Colleges are basically clinics. Psychiatric centers.

Colleges have been taken over. A soft coup has occurred, out of view.

You want to know where all this victim-oriented “I’m triggered” and “I need a safe space” comes from? You just found it.

It’s a short step from being diagnosed with a mental disorder to adopting the role of being super-sensitive to “triggers.” You could call it a self-fulfilling prophecy. “If I have a mental disorder, then I’m a victim, and then what people say and do around me is going disturb me…and I’ll prove it.”

The dangerous and destabilizing effects of psychiatric drugs confirm this attitude. The drugs DO, in fact, produce an exaggerated and distorted sensitivity to a person’s environment.

You want to know where a certain amount of violent aggressive behavior on campuses comes from? You just found it. The psychiatric drugs. In particular, antidepressants and speed-type medications for ADHD.

You want to know why so many college students can’t focus on their studies? You just found one reason. The brain effects of the drugs.

The usual variety of student problems are translated into pseudoscientific categories of “mental disorders”—and toxic drugging ensues.

A college student says to himself, “I’m having trouble with my courses. I don’t understand what my professors want. My reading level isn’t good enough. I don’t like the professors who have a political bias. I’m confused. I miss my friends back home. I feel like a stranger on campus. I’d like to date, but I don’t know where to start. There are groups on campus. Should I join one? Well, maybe I need help. I should go to the counseling center and talk to a psychologist. That’s what they’re there for. Maybe I have a problem I don’t know about…”

And so it begins.

The student is looking for an explanation of his problems. But this search will morph into: having a socially acceptable excuse for not doing well. Understand the distinction.

After a bit of counseling, the student is referred to a psychiatrist, who makes a diagnosis of depression, and prescribes a drug. Now the student says, “That’s a relief. Now I know why I have a problem. I have a mental disorder. I never knew that. I’m operating at a disadvantage. I’m a victim of a brain abnormality. Okay. That means I really shouldn’t be expected to succeed. Situations affect my mood. What people say affects my mood.”

And pretty soon, the whole idea of being triggered and needing a safe space makes sense to the student. He’s heading down a slippery slope, but he doesn’t grasp what’s actually going on. On top of that, the drug he’s taking is disrupting his thoughts and his brain activity. But of course, the psychiatrist tells him no, it’s not the drug, it’s the condition, the clinical depression, which is worsening and making it harder to think clearly. He needs a different drug. The student is now firmly in the system. He’s a patient. He’s expected to have trouble coping. And on and on it goes.

Buckle up. Here is the background. Here is what psychiatry is all about—

Wherever you see organized psychiatry operating, you see it trying to expand its domain and its dominance. The Hippocratic Oath to do no harm? Are you kidding?

The first question to ask is: do these mental disorders have any scientific basis? There are now roughly 300 of them. They multiply like fruit flies.

An open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.


And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist?, Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out the fraud.

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid… There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 297 mental disorders. They’re all hoaxes. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.

You can sway and tap dance and bloviate all you like and you won’t escape the noose around your neck. We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

There’s more. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

More at:

Leave a comment

Filed under Health/Food Related

Breakthrough Device Heals Organs with a Single Touch

Leave a comment

Filed under Health/Food Related, Nature/Science/Technology