Overview | Worldview Explorations | Institute of Noetic Sciences: Our research to date suggests the most powerful step people can take toward achieving their highest potential is the willingness and ability to understand new perspectives.
IONS’ history of research gives evidence that tangible and life changing transformation is happening in the lives of many adults in respect to the ways in which they perceive the world. What if this capacity was fostered from early on in life, as an integral part of the education of our youth? This was the inspiration for the Worldview Explorations Program.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
“Stunning” Difference of GM from non-GM Corn
“Stunning” Difference of GM from non-GM Corn: “Stunning” Difference of GM from non-GM Corn
GMOs, Health & Disease — by I-SIS April 22, 2013
A comparison of US Midwest non-GM with GM corn shows shockingly high levels of glyphosate as well as formaldehyde, and severely depleted of mineral nutrients in the GM corn.
by Dr Mae-Wan Ho
The results of a comparison
of GM and non-GM corn from adjacent Midwest fields in the US that first
appeared on the Moms Across America March website [1] are reproduced in Table
1.
*The GM corn was grown in a field that has been no-till, continuous GM corn (Roundup Ready) for 5-10 years and with a glyphosate herbicide weed control regime for all of the 10 years. The Non-GM corn has not had glyphosate (or Roundup) applied to the field for at least five years. The GM corn test weight was 57.5 lb; and non-GMCorn test weight 61.5 lb.
As Zen Honeycutt, who posted the report commented, glyphosate, shown to be toxic at 1 ppm, is present at 13 ppm in the GM corn. Similarly, formaldehyde at 200 ppm is 200 times the level known to be toxic in animals.
The GM corn was also severely depleted in essential minerals: 14 ppm vs 6 130 ppm calcium; 2 ppm vs 113 ppm of magnesium; 2 ppm vs 14 ppm of manganese; 3 ppm vs 44 ppm of phosphate; 3 ppm vs 42 ppm of sulphur, and so on.
It is not surprising that this analysis has been carried out independently; i.e., not by biotech companies. It was done by farmers themselves. The high level of glyphosate is bad enough. Scientific evidence on glyphosate accumulated over three decades documents miscarriages, birth defects, carcinogenesis, endocrine disruption, DNA damage, neurotoxicity, and toxicity to liver and kidney at levels well below recommended agricultural use (see our recent review [2] Why Glyphosate Should Be Banned, SiS 56). The presence of formaldehyde – a genotoxic and neurotoxic poison at such enormous concentration – is totally unexpected.
Analysis obtained by Midwest farmers
Howard Vlieger, a crop nutrition advisor working with family farmers in 10 states across the US, who has been involved in the study and research of GMOs since 1996, explained in an interview [3] that people want “a side by side comparison” of the corn in the same soil conditions with the only difference being the application of glyphosate based herbicide on the GM Roundup Ready (RR) corn and a conventional herbicide on the non-GM corn. “This has not been done and cannot be done according to the technology agreement signed by a farmer planting GM seed without being at risk of being sued by the patent holder of the GM RR corn,” he said.
In this case, however, ears of corn from two adjacent corn fields in the Midwest, separated only by a fence, were sampled two weeks before harvest. The corn fields were selected by a third party and the samples collected in exactly the same manner. The separately bagged ears of corn were shelled from the cob and the grain samples sent to the lab for glyphosate testing. The non-GM corn field has not been sprayed with glyphosate for at least five years (see Table 1).
The samples were sent to a certified laboratory where it was prepared for testing on gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, an analytical method in which chemical compounds are first separated on a chromatographic column according to their size and charge and other chemical properties, and then ionized and identified based on mass to charge ratios. The RR corn tested contained 13 ppm glyphosate – coincidentally the EPA’s newly set legal limit of glyphosate in corn – while the other non-GM corn sample tested free of any glyphosate. The RR corn sample that tested positive for the glyphosate residue also tested positive for formaldehyde at a level of 200 ppm.
Where does the highly toxic formaldehyde come from?
Plant pathologist and retired Purdue University professor Don Huber, who has been sounding dire warnings on glyphosate poisoning crops, soil, livestock, and people (see [4] USDA Scientist Reveals All – Glyphosate Hazards to Crops, Soils, Animals, and Consumers, SiS 53), commented that formaldehyde can come from degradation of glyphosate [5]. But it can also come from normal plant 1-C metabolism, as for example, de-methylation of serine to glycine plus formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde does not exist in the free-state in a healthy normal plant. It is a toxic compound that reacts with proteins, nucleic acids and lipids, and has been classified as a mutagen and suspected carcinogen [6]. Formaldehyde is also neurotoxic, and at ~100 ppm induced amyloid-like misfolding of tau protein, leading to the formation of protein aggregates similar to those found in Alzheimer’s disease; followed by programmed cell death of the neurons [7]. In normal cells and organisms, formaldehyde is detoxified by glutathione-dependent formaldehyde dehydrogenase (GDFDase) to formic acid [8]. GDFDase is dependent on zinc [9], and it is likely that the chelating action of glyphosate [4] may be responsible for inhibiting the enzyme’s activity by depriving it of zinc.
“Of course the scariest part of this is that any RR plant (corn, soybean, canola, cotton, sugar beet or alfalfa) that is sprayed with glyphosate could potentially produce formaldehyde … and then the formaldehyde would unknowingly end up in the feed and food supply.” Vlieger said [3]. The accumulation of formaldehyde was not due to any unusual environmental stress experienced by the GM corn. “This corn was not raised in an area that was affected by the extreme drought conditions of 2012.”
He also told UK group GMWatch [10] that the glyphosate and formaldehyde could “explain the continuing problems we are witnessing in livestock operations with poor animal health when GMO feed stuffs are in the diet.”
Obviously, the analysis should be repeated on more samples of GM and non-GM corn grown side by side to see if these remarkable differences could be replicated. If so, we can only conclude that previous data submitted by and for the companies that found GM corn “substantially equivalent” to non-GM corn must have been fraudulent, and the perpetrators need to be brought to justice.
Further Reading:
GMOs, Health & Disease — by I-SIS April 22, 2013
A comparison of US Midwest non-GM with GM corn shows shockingly high levels of glyphosate as well as formaldehyde, and severely depleted of mineral nutrients in the GM corn.by Dr Mae-Wan Ho
The results of a comparison
of GM and non-GM corn from adjacent Midwest fields in the US that first
appeared on the Moms Across America March website [1] are reproduced in Table
1.
Table 1 Comparison between GM and non-GM corn grown side by side*
| | ||
| Parts per million (ppm) | ||
| Ingredient | GM corn | Non-GM corn |
| | ||
| Glyphosate | 13 | 0 |
| Formaldehyde | 200 | 0 |
| Nitrogen | 7 | 46 |
| Phosphorus | 3 | 44 |
| Potassium | 7 | 113 |
| Calcium | 14 | 6 130 |
| Magnesium | 2 | 113 |
| Sulphur | 3 | 42 |
| Manganese | 2 | 14 |
| Iron | 2 | 14 |
| Zinc | 2.3 | 14.3 |
| Copper | 2.6 | 16 |
| Molybdenum | 0.2 | 1.5 |
| Boron | 0.2 | 1.5 |
| Selenium | 0.6 | 0.3 |
| Cobalt | 0.2 | 1.5 |
| | ||
*The GM corn was grown in a field that has been no-till, continuous GM corn (Roundup Ready) for 5-10 years and with a glyphosate herbicide weed control regime for all of the 10 years. The Non-GM corn has not had glyphosate (or Roundup) applied to the field for at least five years. The GM corn test weight was 57.5 lb; and non-GMCorn test weight 61.5 lb.
As Zen Honeycutt, who posted the report commented, glyphosate, shown to be toxic at 1 ppm, is present at 13 ppm in the GM corn. Similarly, formaldehyde at 200 ppm is 200 times the level known to be toxic in animals.
The GM corn was also severely depleted in essential minerals: 14 ppm vs 6 130 ppm calcium; 2 ppm vs 113 ppm of magnesium; 2 ppm vs 14 ppm of manganese; 3 ppm vs 44 ppm of phosphate; 3 ppm vs 42 ppm of sulphur, and so on.
It is not surprising that this analysis has been carried out independently; i.e., not by biotech companies. It was done by farmers themselves. The high level of glyphosate is bad enough. Scientific evidence on glyphosate accumulated over three decades documents miscarriages, birth defects, carcinogenesis, endocrine disruption, DNA damage, neurotoxicity, and toxicity to liver and kidney at levels well below recommended agricultural use (see our recent review [2] Why Glyphosate Should Be Banned, SiS 56). The presence of formaldehyde – a genotoxic and neurotoxic poison at such enormous concentration – is totally unexpected.
Analysis obtained by Midwest farmers
Howard Vlieger, a crop nutrition advisor working with family farmers in 10 states across the US, who has been involved in the study and research of GMOs since 1996, explained in an interview [3] that people want “a side by side comparison” of the corn in the same soil conditions with the only difference being the application of glyphosate based herbicide on the GM Roundup Ready (RR) corn and a conventional herbicide on the non-GM corn. “This has not been done and cannot be done according to the technology agreement signed by a farmer planting GM seed without being at risk of being sued by the patent holder of the GM RR corn,” he said.
In this case, however, ears of corn from two adjacent corn fields in the Midwest, separated only by a fence, were sampled two weeks before harvest. The corn fields were selected by a third party and the samples collected in exactly the same manner. The separately bagged ears of corn were shelled from the cob and the grain samples sent to the lab for glyphosate testing. The non-GM corn field has not been sprayed with glyphosate for at least five years (see Table 1).
The samples were sent to a certified laboratory where it was prepared for testing on gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, an analytical method in which chemical compounds are first separated on a chromatographic column according to their size and charge and other chemical properties, and then ionized and identified based on mass to charge ratios. The RR corn tested contained 13 ppm glyphosate – coincidentally the EPA’s newly set legal limit of glyphosate in corn – while the other non-GM corn sample tested free of any glyphosate. The RR corn sample that tested positive for the glyphosate residue also tested positive for formaldehyde at a level of 200 ppm.
Plant pathologist and retired Purdue University professor Don Huber, who has been sounding dire warnings on glyphosate poisoning crops, soil, livestock, and people (see [4] USDA Scientist Reveals All – Glyphosate Hazards to Crops, Soils, Animals, and Consumers, SiS 53), commented that formaldehyde can come from degradation of glyphosate [5]. But it can also come from normal plant 1-C metabolism, as for example, de-methylation of serine to glycine plus formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde does not exist in the free-state in a healthy normal plant. It is a toxic compound that reacts with proteins, nucleic acids and lipids, and has been classified as a mutagen and suspected carcinogen [6]. Formaldehyde is also neurotoxic, and at ~100 ppm induced amyloid-like misfolding of tau protein, leading to the formation of protein aggregates similar to those found in Alzheimer’s disease; followed by programmed cell death of the neurons [7]. In normal cells and organisms, formaldehyde is detoxified by glutathione-dependent formaldehyde dehydrogenase (GDFDase) to formic acid [8]. GDFDase is dependent on zinc [9], and it is likely that the chelating action of glyphosate [4] may be responsible for inhibiting the enzyme’s activity by depriving it of zinc.
“Of course the scariest part of this is that any RR plant (corn, soybean, canola, cotton, sugar beet or alfalfa) that is sprayed with glyphosate could potentially produce formaldehyde … and then the formaldehyde would unknowingly end up in the feed and food supply.” Vlieger said [3]. The accumulation of formaldehyde was not due to any unusual environmental stress experienced by the GM corn. “This corn was not raised in an area that was affected by the extreme drought conditions of 2012.”
He also told UK group GMWatch [10] that the glyphosate and formaldehyde could “explain the continuing problems we are witnessing in livestock operations with poor animal health when GMO feed stuffs are in the diet.”
Obviously, the analysis should be repeated on more samples of GM and non-GM corn grown side by side to see if these remarkable differences could be replicated. If so, we can only conclude that previous data submitted by and for the companies that found GM corn “substantially equivalent” to non-GM corn must have been fraudulent, and the perpetrators need to be brought to justice.
Further Reading:
- Monsanto Has Us Walking the Gangplank, and Wants to Give That Final Push
- Chemical Based Farming Systems Robbing Us of Nutrients
- Which Came First – Pests, or Pesticides?
- The Story of Soil
- “Stunning corn comparison: GMO versus non GMO”, Zen Honeycutt, 15 March 2013, Moms Across America March, http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunning_corn_comparison_gmo_versus_non_gmo
- Sirinathsinghji E and Ho MW. Why glyphosate should be banned. Science in Society 56, 21-32, 2012.
- “More info on 2012 corn comparison report 12 April 2013, Zen Honeycutt, Mom Across America March 4 July, http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/more_info_on_2012_corn_comparison_report
- Sirinathsinghji E. USDA scientist reveals all, glyphosate hazards to crops, soils, animals and consumers. Science in Society 53, 36-39, 2012.
- Huber D. Formaldehyde and glyphosate in corn. Powerpoint presentation, 2012.
- IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk for Humans 62, Wood Dust and Formaldehyde, IARC, Lyon, 1995.
- Nie CL, Wang XS, Liu Y, Perrett S and He RQ. Amyloid-like aggregates induced by formaldehyde promote apoptosis of neuronal cells BMC Neurosci 2007, 8, 9.
- Achkor H, Diaz M, Fernandez MR, Biosca JA, Pares X and Martinez MC. Enhanced formaldehyde detoxification by overexpression of glutathione-dependent formaldehyde dehydrogenase from Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 2003, 132, 2248-55.
- Barber RD, Ott MA and Donohue TJ. Characterization of a glutathione-dependent formaldehyde dehydrogenase from Rhodobacter sphaeroides. J Bacteriol 1996, 178, 1386-93.
- GMWatch Comment on 2012 corn comparison report. 19 April 2013, www.GMWatch.org
Thursday, April 25, 2013
About the Community Food Security Coalition
About the Community Food Security Coalition: About the Community Food Security Coalition
The Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC) is a North American coalition of diverse people and organizations working from the local to international levels to build community food security. We have a diverse membership with almost 300 organizations from social and economic justice, anti-hunger, environmental, community development, sustainable agriculture, community gardening and other fields. We are dedicated to building strong, sustainable, local and regional food systems that ensure access to affordable, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food to all people at all times. We seek to develop self-reliance among all communities in obtaining their food and to create a system of growing, manufacturing, processing, making available, and selling food that is regionally based and grounded in the principles of justice, democracy, and sustainability.
Click below to jump to the following sections:
CFSC Guidebooks and Reports
CFSC Handouts
CFS Views
The Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC) is a North American coalition of diverse people and organizations working from the local to international levels to build community food security. We have a diverse membership with almost 300 organizations from social and economic justice, anti-hunger, environmental, community development, sustainable agriculture, community gardening and other fields. We are dedicated to building strong, sustainable, local and regional food systems that ensure access to affordable, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food to all people at all times. We seek to develop self-reliance among all communities in obtaining their food and to create a system of growing, manufacturing, processing, making available, and selling food that is regionally based and grounded in the principles of justice, democracy, and sustainability.
Publications
CFSC Guidebooks and Reports
CFSC Handouts
CFS Views
CFSC Guidebooks and Reports
Click on the titles below for more information on the following publications. Some can be downloaded for free as PDF files; others can be purchased from our Membership/Publication order page.Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Von Thunen Model
Von Thunen Model: the von Thunen model assumes that land use is determined by the market price less the transport cost and from the interaction of these bid rent curves, a land use will dominate at any point a given distance from the town (or from competing towns). You can also alter the shape of the bid rent and cost curve using sliders. You can then display the land use map and look at the map as a 3-D surface of rents. You can manipulate this surface using sliders as well in oblique projection. The various pictures show you the sequence of steps in the program using a single town - the red dot in the middle of the top screen shows the location, and then the bid rent curves which the user can adjust. The circular town configuration of land uses is shown below and finally this can be seen in 3-D. You can import map pictures of real places and run the von Thunen model with towns and roads etc. planted on such backcloths. You can access the drop down menus to do this and you can also change the weights that way and incorporate a fuzzy distance calculations.
Can download program
Can download program
Engel's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Engel's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Engel's law is an observation in economics stating that as income rises, the proportion of income spent on food falls, even if actual expenditure on food rises. In other words, the income elasticity of demand of food is between 0 and 1.
The law was named after the statistician Ernst Engel (1821–1896).
Engel's Law doesn't imply that food spending remains unchanged as income increases: It suggests that consumers increase their expenditures for food products (in % terms) less than their increases in income.[1][2]
One application of this statistic is treating it as a reflection of the living standard of a country. As this proportion or "Engel coefficient" increases, the country is by nature poorer, conversely a low Engel coefficient indicates a higher standard of living.
The interaction between Engel's law, technological progress and the process of structural change is crucial for explaining long term economic growth as suggested by Paolo Leon(1967)[3] and Luigi Pasinetti(1981).[4]
Communist thinkers cite Engel's Coefficient as a quantitative measure of the misery of the working class. Some Marxists will expand the definition of Engel's coefficient as the percentage of income spent on food, shelter and clothing, i.e. to represent the percentage of income needed for the minimum requirements to stay alive.
Engel's law is an observation in economics stating that as income rises, the proportion of income spent on food falls, even if actual expenditure on food rises. In other words, the income elasticity of demand of food is between 0 and 1.
The law was named after the statistician Ernst Engel (1821–1896).
Engel's Law doesn't imply that food spending remains unchanged as income increases: It suggests that consumers increase their expenditures for food products (in % terms) less than their increases in income.[1][2]
One application of this statistic is treating it as a reflection of the living standard of a country. As this proportion or "Engel coefficient" increases, the country is by nature poorer, conversely a low Engel coefficient indicates a higher standard of living.
The interaction between Engel's law, technological progress and the process of structural change is crucial for explaining long term economic growth as suggested by Paolo Leon(1967)[3] and Luigi Pasinetti(1981).[4]
Communist thinkers cite Engel's Coefficient as a quantitative measure of the misery of the working class. Some Marxists will expand the definition of Engel's coefficient as the percentage of income spent on food, shelter and clothing, i.e. to represent the percentage of income needed for the minimum requirements to stay alive.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
The Scientific Paper
The Scientific Paper: A well-written scientific paper explains the scientist's motivation for doing an experiment, the experimental design and execution, and the meaning of the results. Scientific papers are written in a style that is exceedingly clear and concise. Their purpose is to inform an audience of other scientists about an important issue and to document the particular approach they used to investigate that issue.
If you have read scientific papers, you will have noticed that a standard format is frequently used. This format allows a researcher to present information clearly and concisely.
If you have read scientific papers, you will have noticed that a standard format is frequently used. This format allows a researcher to present information clearly and concisely.
General organization
The following sections should be included in your report (see Examples):
(1) Abstract (2) Introduction (3) Methods (4) Results (5) Discussion (6) Literature Cited
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/ug/research/paper.html
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Scientific American
Loops, Trees and the Search for New Physics : Article : Scientific American: In recent years the three of us and our colleagues have developed a new way of analyzing particle processes that bypasses the complexity of Feynman's technique. Called the unitarity method
+++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ =====
I'm not sure how this steps beyond this one: http://www.starsusa.org/equation.jpg so i guess I should ask them? It seems it described in detail already here: PUB. APP. NO.20070170306 Unity method
But I guess I can add some questions?
Like this seems like an easy - - or simplified - - concept, but over time and space the "c" speed of light term is never constant. Actually It's never constant through matter, so if matter and energy are equivalent anyway then the "c" fluctuates as making the derivation somewhat of a challenge. And in fact I critically agree with the Unitarity Method principles, while the "Unity Method" may be better terminology . . .
I have a bottle of organic blueberry wine to wager that the exploration of unitarity method may be even more simplified with this equation. The pressing question is that "c" varies through each medium, where resolving this likely will clarify completion.
How will allowing this fluctuation over space, time and matter in this equation change the derivation. .
I personally prefer the term Unity Methods but the resolution to this equation is more important.
Sincerely,
Eric R. Weaver
Graduate Student
University of South Florida
+++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ ===== +++++ =====
I'm not sure how this steps beyond this one: http://www.starsusa.org/equation.jpg so i guess I should ask them? It seems it described in detail already here: PUB. APP. NO.20070170306 Unity method
But I guess I can add some questions?
Like this seems like an easy - - or simplified - - concept, but over time and space the "c" speed of light term is never constant. Actually It's never constant through matter, so if matter and energy are equivalent anyway then the "c" fluctuates as making the derivation somewhat of a challenge. And in fact I critically agree with the Unitarity Method principles, while the "Unity Method" may be better terminology . . .
I have a bottle of organic blueberry wine to wager that the exploration of unitarity method may be even more simplified with this equation. The pressing question is that "c" varies through each medium, where resolving this likely will clarify completion.
How will allowing this fluctuation over space, time and matter in this equation change the derivation. .
I personally prefer the term Unity Methods but the resolution to this equation is more important.
Sincerely,
Eric R. Weaver
Graduate Student
University of South Florida
China's under-reported overfishing
Detective work uncovers under-reported overfishing : Nature News & Comment: Fishing contracts between Chinese companies and African nations are secret, so to estimate the catch, Pauly and his team had to do some sleuthing. The picture was further clouded because Chinese companies sometimes operate vessels flying local flags. So at least ten researchers combined clues from field interviews, scholarly articles and newspaper and online reports in 14 languages to estimate how many Chinese fishing vessels were operating in 93 countries and territories. They found many in nations where China reported no catch. The estimates were averaged to reach their conclusion: China had at least 900 ocean-going vessels, with 345 in West Africa, including 256 bottom-trawlers.
Ironically, it was Pauly’s team that 12 years ago found that China had been over-reporting its domestic catch by at least 6 million tonnes. Pauly says that mid-level bureaucrats in the country often exaggerate their achievements3.
But he says that China’s under-reporting of the distant-water catch is the more important problem. “It shows the extent of the looting of Africa, where so many people depend on seafood for basic protein.”
Ironically, it was Pauly’s team that 12 years ago found that China had been over-reporting its domestic catch by at least 6 million tonnes. Pauly says that mid-level bureaucrats in the country often exaggerate their achievements3.
But he says that China’s under-reporting of the distant-water catch is the more important problem. “It shows the extent of the looting of Africa, where so many people depend on seafood for basic protein.”
US waterways in bad shape
Seven days: 29 March–4 April 2013 : Nature News & Comment: US waterways in bad shape
Aurora Photos/Alamy
RESEARCH
US waterways in bad shape More than half of US rivers and streams are in a poor environmental condition, according to a survey published by the Environmental Protection Agency on 26 March. The data from 2008–09 — the most recent available — show that 28% of the nation’s waterways have excessive levels of nitrogen, and 40% have high levels of phosphorus. This nutrient pollution causes algal blooms (pictured; near the Iron Gate dam on the Klamath River in northern California), the breakdown of which saps water of the oxygen that aquatic life needs to survive. “This is the most dire in a string of water assessments over the last 20 years,” says Earthjustice, an environmental law organization in San Francisco, CaliforniaThursday, April 4, 2013
pascovet: Change the world by becoming aware
Integrated holistic veterinary hospital: Change the world by becoming aware. Stay in light, love, gratitude, and abundance.
Change the world by becoming aware. Stay in light, love, gratitude, and abundance.
By being in a state of light, love, gratitude, and abundance, you will exude positive energy; others will feel it and shift too.
Write your “ I statement” and read it morning and night. I am grateful for………………
(examples can be I am grateful for my family, having work, being healthy, having choices, awareness, the joy in my life, the beauty in nature, walking my path of purpose …)
Change the world by becoming aware. Stay in light, love, gratitude, and abundance.
By being in a state of light, love, gratitude, and abundance, you will exude positive energy; others will feel it and shift too.
Write your “ I statement” and read it morning and night. I am grateful for………………
(examples can be I am grateful for my family, having work, being healthy, having choices, awareness, the joy in my life, the beauty in nature, walking my path of purpose …)
Posted in Intrinsic Energy, Natural Health, Uncategorized Tagged Consciousness, Health, Law of Attraction, Optimism, Personal development, Philosophy, Self-Help, YouTube Leave a comment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)