Connect with us

Metaphysics & Psychology

Jordan B Peterson: Comment on the APA Guidelines for the Treatment of Boys and Men

by Jordan B Peterson

The American Psychological Association (APA) recently released their Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men (paralleling, in principle, their 2007 guidelines for girls and women). It manages to be simultaneously predictable, reprehensible, infuriating and disheartening — no mean feat for a single document. Make no mistake about it: this document constitutes an all-out assault on masculinity, as such — or, to put it even more bluntly, on men. The coup of the APA undertaken by the ideologues and the second-raters is now complete. The field has been compromised, perhaps fatally. And the unforgivable Guidelines provides sufficient but by no means exhaustive evidence of that. The document opens with a series of terminological definitions. These serve perfectly to indicate the nature of the ideological substructure that constitutes the true motivation of the writers. Only a small number of words or phrases were chosen for definition, which means that it is those words that are of prime import. The intent is that the Guideline’s readers will understand, assimilate and come to regard as self-evident the conceptual structure that both selected the words and defined them — and these, by the way, could not possibly be clearer indicators of the post-modern/victimhood ideology.

Here are the words and phrases: Gender, Cisgender, Gender Bias, Gender Role Strain, Masculinity Ideology, Gender Role Conflict, Oppression, Privilege, Psychological Practice, and Gender Sensitive. These are all presented, along with their interpretations and definitions (available here for your detailed perusal: https://bit.ly/2Miaj05). Here’s two, just for the flavor:

  • OPPRESSION: Oppression includes discrimination against and/or systematic denial of resources to members of groups who are identified as inferior or less deserving than others. Oppression is most frequently experienced by individuals with marginalized social identities; is manifested in both blatant and subtle discrimination in areas such as racism, ageism, sexism, classism, and heterosexism; and results in limited access to social power (Robinson, 2012; Worell & Remer, 2003).
  • PRIVILEGE: Privilege refers to unearned sources of social status, power, and institutionalized advantage experienced by individuals by virtue of their culturally valued and dominant social identities (e.g., White, Christian, male, and middle/upper class; McIntosh, 2008).

There’s absolutely no indication in the Guidelines that these concepts, or their definitions, constitute the axioms of a primarily political viewpoint. There is no consensus among psychologists, for example, about the definition, let alone the existence, of, for example, “masculinity ideology” (although the reader is expected to assume that there is, as a consequence of contextual inference: why would the phrase be included, if it wasn’t widely accepted and used?). There is also no agreement that gender exists solely in the form of “roles” that are learned (as opposed to innate)—although all reasonable scientists agree that much of human behavior, including that related to sex, is learned. Let it be clearly noted, however: there is a vast different between “much of” and “all” (precisely the difference between a thinker and questioner of the scientific type and an ideologue convinced absolutely of his or her a priori rightness).

Finally (and we’ll investigate in detail here, just for the sake of illustration), there is nothing intellectually credible and certainly and indisputably nothing “scientific” and therefore worthy of definition in a document purporting to discuss psychology about Dr. Peggy McIntosh’s appallingly narcissistic, intrinsically racist and dangerously polarizing concept of “white privilege.”

When formulating that idea, Dr. McIntosh merely crafted an opinion piece (it can be found here: http://bit.ly/2HF2yTv) describing, as Wikipedia puts it, the “personal examples of unearned advantage that McIntosh says she experienced in her lifetime, especially from 1970 to 1988” http://bit.ly/2Ge9Gn8). It is absolutely germane to this discussion to note—as outlined, for example, in the Quillette piece Unpacking Peggy McIntosh’s Knapsack (http://bit.ly/2sQU9C0)—that the author of the concept in question had very highly educated, accomplished and wealthy parents, was raised in a community whose median income was quadruple that typical in the US, was educated at exceptionally elite and exclusionary institutes, and spent her life ensconced in a high paying, high-status and staggeringly secure career as an academic in the same milieu. Let me be clear: there is nothing wrong with that—except when such experience is unfairly generalized as something generally to do with “white,” instead of everything specific to do with her remarkable father and exceptionally fortunate economic and social circumstances.

All McIntosh did, when formulated her famous doctrine of “white privilege,” was write a series of questions, rhetorically aimed at herself, about everything that she enjoyed that she arguably did little to earn. Apart from the fact that this inappropriately confuses her personal experience as a wealthy individual, say, with the racial characteristics of an Appalachian coal-miner, it is simply no way of going about formulating a scientific proposition. There are rules for constructing questionnaires—methods for determining if a new concept is valid, reliable and unique—(see Construct Validity, for an intro) and she followed none of them.

Had Peggy McIntosh submitted her “white privilege” questionnaire as an honors’ thesis at an intact psychology department in a credible research university, she would have received a failing grade. She took none of the necessary steps for establishing her hypothesis (that something called “white privilege” exists, and that it is importantly separate from age, education, intelligence, personality, sex, ethnicity, health, attractiveness, height and interest—to mention just a few of the certain confounding variables that play critically important roles in determining success, status, authority and accomplishment). Unfortunately, although entirely predictably, McIntosh’s absolute absence of methodological sophistication mattered not at all to the sociologists, professors of education and social work, cultural critics, armchair Marxists, radical feminists and generally ill-educated and resentful pseudo-academic types who granted her musings the status of undeniable fact, including those who wrote the Guidelines we are currently discussing. And that’s an excellent indication of the absolute perniciousness of the document.

Things deteriorate from there. The post-definition document opens with the claim that “socialization for conforming to traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict, and negatively influence mental health” – a claim derived in no small part from the “research” published by the very people who wrote the Guidelines, and one presented, like the definitions, with no indication whatsoever that this claim by no means constitutes anything approximating established scientific fact.

Let me translate this opening salvo into something approximating clear and blunt English. The authors are claiming that men who socialize their boys in a traditional manner destroy their mental health. This translation/clarification needs to be extended to the second major claim of the document, which is distributed more subtly through its body. We’ll begin with this quote, taken from the Guidelines (p. 3): “Research suggests that socialization practices that teach boys from an early age to be self-reliant, strong, and to minimize and manage their problems on their own yield adult men who are less willing to seek mental health treatment,” in combination with this one (p. 3, as well): “Men are overrepresented in prisons, are more likely than women to commit violent crimes, and are at greatest risk of being a victim of violent crime (e.g., homicide, aggravated assault; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015).” So, it’s not only that men who encourage their boys to be “self-reliant, strong and manage their problems on their own” destroy the mental health of their children: they also produce adults who are a primary menace to their families and society.

This is all bad enough (and by that I mean inexcusable) conceptually, rhetorically and politically. But it’s also a lie, scientifically—and worse (because not merely a lie; instead, something more unforgivable). To indicate, as the writers have, that it is the socialization of boys and men by men that is producing both a decrement in the personal mental health of males and females and a threat to the social fabric is not only to get the facts wrong, but to get them wrong in a manner that is directly antithetical to the truth.

First, there is no scientific evidence that aggression, per se, is learned. Like fear, pain, hunger and thirst, rage is instinctual. The biological evidence for this is crystal clear and unshakeable (I would guide interested readers to Jaak Panksepp’s masterful Affective Neuroscience and to Jeffrey Gray’s Neuropsychology of Anxiety, which are the two best books ever written on the biology of motivation and emotion). Aggression in infants is noticeable and measurable in the early months of life, not least as a consequence of the analysis of facial emotion (a science which is well-developed, and which sheds substantive light on the putative inner life of as-of-yet speechless young children). There is substantive individual variation in aggression, but some general truths can be extracted: boys are more aggressive when young than girls, on average; some young boys are more aggressive than others; aggression peaks among young children around the age of two; most aggressive two-year olds have been properly socialized, so that their rage is under control, by the age of four (here are a couple of papers I wrote with my students outlining such findings. The first is heavily biological: http://bit.ly/2Wtb4s0; the second concentrates more on developmental psychology: http://bit.ly/2TkSSPn). So the idea that aggression is learned is not only wrong, it’s backward. Aggression is easy. Civilized behavior is difficult. It is the integration of aggression that is learned. And it is primarily men who teach it, particularly to aggressive boys. How do we know this?

It’s simple – and it is this simple fact that is absolutely damning to the claims in the APA document. What kind of families produce violent young men? Fatherless families. The pernicious effect of fatherlessness is exceptionally well-documented. No serious researchers question it. Even the generally damnable sociologists admit it (see, for example, http://bit.ly/2HB27JL). Fatherless girls tend, for example, toward early sexual experimentation (something in itself linked to antisocial behavior) and, unsurprisingly, higher rates of teenage pregnancy. What might be more surprising, however, is that there is even evidence for earlier puberty among girls whose fathers are absent. Fatherless boys are over-represented as alcoholics, addicts, gang-members, prisoners, rapists and murderers. And there’s plenty of what is positive that is lacking among fatherless children, in addition to the negative that is more likely to be present (here’s a decent summary, in lay language: http://bit.ly/2HB27JL)

Consider this (it’s of primary importance): If it is fatherless boys who are violent, how can it be that masculine socialization produces harm both to mental health and society? The data should indicate precisely the opposite: that boys who are only raised by women are much less violent than boys who have men in their lives and, similarly, that boys who do have fathers are more violent than those who do not.

This is not the case. Period.

The APA document writers — who were also, by the way, very likely to disproportionately cite their own research — are inexcusably unaware of the basic biological facts as well as either ignorant or willfully blind to the data pertaining to the absence of fathers and, therefore, to the lack of a guiding masculine hand.

Why in the world is this happening? Well, the primary axiom, the unshakeable dogma, of the ideologues who generate this kind of propagandistic discourse is that Western culture is to be regarded as an oppressive patriarchy: unfairly male-dominated, violent, racist, sexist, homo-, Islamo- and trans-phobic — and as uniquely reprehensible in all those regards. There is no doubt, to give the devil his due, that human history as such is a blood-drenched nightmare — and that is also true of Western civilization. However, to view humanity in general or the West in particular as solely characterized by its pathology is indication of a profound and fatal failure to discriminate good from bad.

How in the world did this happen? To answer this question, we need to delve a bit more deeply into the history of the APA—the American Psychological Association—itself. The APA is the pre-eminent professional and scientific organization of psychologists in the U.S., with 54 divisions covering the sub-specialties of psychology, and a membership of almost 120,000. It runs many of the major journals in which psychological research is published. Furthermore, it is actively involved in the accreditation of the training programs that produce, in particular, clinical psychologists. For decades, APA approval of a university-based clinical psychological program was an indication of entrance into the intellectual big-leagues, and for good reason. Right up until recently, when people asked me how to find a reliable clinical psychologist, I would tell them, “look for a practitioner with a Ph.D. from a clinical program from a large, research-focused university, who graduated from a program with APA approval.” It is very difficult to become a psychologist via such a route. The entrance standards to the programs are exceptionally high, rivalling or perhaps exceeding those demanded of medical school applicants: a straight A undergraduate average, excellent letters of reference from at least three professors or their professional equivalents, research experience (even publications) in a high-quality psychological lab, and scores on the standardized test for graduate school admission that exceed, in most cases, the 90th percentile. I always recommend that even the most promising of undergraduates apply to at least 20 APA approved clinical programs, all across North America, to increase their chances of acceptance, because the programs are so competitive. A clinical Ph.D. from a good research school has, historically, been almost unmatchable in its utility and in the integrity and knowledge of its holders.

APA-approved clinical programs were once organized on principles formulated at the 1949 Conference on Graduate Education in Clinical Psychology held in Boulder, Colorado, and known for that reason as the “Boulder Model.” Graduates from Boulder Model programs are expected to be scientist/practitioners: to both understand and have contributed to the relevant scientific literature pertaining to psychological issues, as well as to be well-trained in scientifically-validated diagnostic procedures and treatment. For decades, that meant, primarily, exceptional familiarity with behavioral psychology, a very practical approach to treatment, based on an understanding of behavior derived from the careful and eminently scientific work of lab-based psychologists.

It was all working very well until cracks started to appear in the profession in the late 1980’s (uncoincidentally, during the last rise of the political correctness and ideological purity that we will discuss in much more detail). Simply put: the scientists became wary of the increasingly ill-informed and dogmatic approach that increasingly came to characterize the APA, as it became increasingly dominated by political types, who substituted for their lack of genuine knowledge the idiot ideology of the post-modernist and hard-left-leaning political activists. The Association for Psychological Science (APS) was formed in an attempt to retain the integrity of the field. It produced its own journals, held its own conferences, and attracted some 30,000 members. More importantly, for the purposes of the present discussion, it also worked on revising the APA’s clinical program accreditation process, which was criticized by the APS’s President Robert W. Levenson in 2009 in the following manner: “The vast majority of clinical psychologists are now trained in programs in which science plays only a minor role. In the epistemology embraced by many of these programs, the primacy of scientific evidence is rejected, and students are trained to use methods of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention that have little or no scientific support” (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/psychological-clinical-science-and-accreditation-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly)

Why should anyone care, apart from the evidence that yet another element of the culture closely associated with universities has become corrupt and unreliable? Let’s enumerate the reasons.

First, in the words of Levenson’s prescient words: “We all will come into close contact with mental illness during our lives. Estimates are that one in four adults and one in five children in the U.S. have a diagnosable mental disorder that impairs normal functioning. Mental illness accounts for over 15 percent of the burden of disease worldwide, consuming over 7 percent of total domestic health spending. With all of the associated suffering and costs, the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental illness must reflect the very best science possible. Good intentions are not enough. History is replete with well-intentioned practitioners offering treatments of no proven scientific value, that were enthusiastically embraced by patients and their families but ultimately did absolutely no good and kept people from seeking truly effective treatments.”

Second, the APA plays a determining role in accrediting clinical psychology programs. Because of that, these programs will be pushed in a corrupt direction, in direct proportion to the blindness of the accreditors. Second, because the APA has established these guidelines any practicing professional psychologist or researcher who disagrees with them or challenges them will be laid open to allegations of ethical misconduct.

Third, the net effect of these Guidelines will be to radically decrease the probability that any man or boy with any sense will go anywhere near an APA-approved psychologist, or dare as an ambitious and interested undergraduate to enroll in an APA-approved clinical psychology program (which are already, by the way, overwhelming dominated at the graduate school level by women).

Fourth, the APA is promulgating under the guise of science absolute mis-truths about the nature of aggression, violence and socialization, and this will culminate in the miseducation of individuals and the warping of social policy.

Fifth, and finally, it should also be noted that there is almost nothing in the document that constitutes principles of psychological treatment. I don’t believe that a newly practicing and interested young psychologist could derive a single technique of sufficiently high resolution to be applied in an actual clinical setting from these so-called Guidelines. They are not guidelines for psychological practice. They are guidelines for how psychologists must think and what they must believe — or else.  This is evidence, as far as I’m concerned, of outright fraud in the purpose and delivery of what the APA is purporting to have produced, and conscious intent to ideologically purify the private thinking, scientific hypothesizing and public practice of the psychologists they are charged with accrediting.

There is simply no excuse for what the APA has done. If the people who ran the prestigious and once rigorous clinical programs across North American were thinking clearly, acting courageously and looking forthrightly into the future they would take clear warning from the content of the new Guidelines, denounce them loudly and clearly, and announce their intent to refuse all guidance, supervision and, most importantly, accreditation by and from the American Psychological Association.

The document produced by the APA purporting to provide guidelines for the psychological treatment of boys and men is disingenuous, scientifically fraudulent and ethically reprehensible. I believe that the people who wrote it are ill-informed, ideologically-possessed, morally weak, and malevolent in their unacknowledged and overweening resentment. I am embarrassed and ashamed to have them speak on behalf of my profession, and would like to apologize to the public for not having been sufficiently awake and outraged earlier to have done more to stop something like this from happening.


P.S. I should also point out that the evidence for the promulgation and dissemination of these views throughout the APA continues to mount. The Guidelines we have discussed are by no means the only document indicatively of this trend toward ideology, in the name of clinical practice and research. Consider the titles of these articles, slated to be published in American Psychologist, one of the APA’s flagship and once-scientific journals:

  • The Japanese American wartime incarceration: Examining the scope of racial trauma. Nagata, Donna K.; Kim, Jacqueline H. J.; Wu, Kaidi – 1/17/2019 – Volume 74, Issue 1
  • Racial trauma: Theory, research, and healing: Introduction to the special issue. Comas-Díaz, Lillian; Hall, Gordon Nagayama; Neville, Helen A. – 1/17/2019 – Volume 74, Issue 1
  • American Indian historical trauma: Anticolonial prescriptions for healing, resilience, and survivance. Hartmann, William E.; Wendt, Dennis C.; Burrage, Rachel L.; Pomerville, Andrew; Gone, Joseph P. – 1/17/2019 – Volume 74, Issue 1

Source

Advertisement
Comments

Metaphysics & Psychology

Russian Military Colonel Publishes An Article Claiming Human & Animal Telepathy Is 100 Percent Real

  • The Facts:The Russian Ministry of Defense published an article about the existence of military parapsychology in Russian military techniques, with which you can penetrate into the thoughts of the enemy, hack computer programs, and communicate telepathically.
  • Reflect On:Why is this type of science studied at the highest levels of various governments, yet ridiculed and not studied at all within the mainstream?

Is telepathy real? It’s hard to argue against it; in fact, I would say that it’s not really up for debate. That being said, when it comes to topics like these, the field is polluted with a bad reputation given its association with magic, superstition and ‘pseudoscience,’ terms that often come from those who condemn the subject without ever really looking into it. The evidence for the existence of telepathy is actually quite overwhelming, and in many cases, much stronger than most other areas of science.

Dr. Jessica Utts is a great person to bring up, as I’ve done many times before, to hammer this fact home. She is the  Chair of the Department of Statistics at the University of California, Irvine. In 1999, she published a paper showing how the statistical significance with regards to results seen from studies under the realm of parapsychology (telepathy, remote viewing, etc) are stronger than some of the studies used to approve some medications. In a recent interview, she emphasized the following.

“What convinced me was just the evidence, the accumulating evidence as I worked in this field and I got to see more and more of the evidence. I visited the laboratories, even beyond where I was working to see what they were doing and I could see that they had really tight controls… and so I got convinced by the good science that I saw being done. And in fact I will say as a statistician I’ve consulted in a lot of different areas of science; the methodology and the controls on these experiments are much tighter than any other area of of science where I’ve worked.” (source)

Why is it that these topics are not touched by mainstream academia, yet studied at the highest levels of government? Multiple governments all over the world have been studying this phenomenon for decades, and a lot has been declassified. Take the remote viewing program that was conducted by the US government/CIA and Stanford University, for example.

After its declassification in 1995, or at least its partial declassification, the Department of Defense and those involved revealed an exceptionally high success rate.

To summarize, over the years, the back-and-forth criticism of protocols, refinement of methods, and successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the [remote viewing] phenomenon. (source)

The latest example comes from Russia, as their Ministry of Defence recently published an article about the existence and study of parapsychology within the Russian military. The article explains how these techniques are and were used to penetrate the thoughts of the enemy (mind-reading) as well as to hack into enemy computer systems. The article is titled “Super Soldier for the Future Wars” and was published in the Defense Army magazine.

The article was written by Colonel Nikolai Poroskov, who explained that they use parapsychological techniques like telepathy for combat purposes, revealing secrets, disclosing locations, etc… He even discloses that Russian specialists have learned telepathy by working with dolphins.

As a note to readers, we here at Collective Evolution do not condone the use of animals for any type of experimentation. There is no information on the conditions of these experiments, but we are assuming they were captured for military purposes, which is extremely sad and heart-breaking.

Poroskov writes:

“They mentally gave the animals the commands that they carried out. Similar practiced by the famous trainer Durov. The technique, as it turned out, is applicable to humans. Moreover, the impact was even possible on the technique. With an effort of thought you can, for example, shoot down computer programs, burn crystals in generators, eavesdrop on a conversation, or break television and radio broadcasts and communications. Good luck ended with such experiments as reading a document lying in a safe, even if it is in a foreign language that we do not speak; identification of individuals belonging to the terrorist network; identifying potential candidates for terrorist groups,” the statement reads. (source)

Quite astonishing, isn’t it? Parapsychology seems to be the largest known threat to any type of secrecy, doesn’t it? I found the reference to hacking computers quite interesting. Can telepathy really be used for purposes like hacking electronic equipment? I did some more digging and found an interesting document inside of the CIA’s electronic reading room with regards to the Soviet Union.

Here’s a quote from the document:

The Soviet Union is well aware of the benefits and applications of parapsychology research. In 1963, a Kremilin edict apparently gave top priority to biological research, which in Russia includes parapsychology. The major impetus behind the Soviet drive to harness the possible capabilities of telepathic communication, telekinetics, and bionics is said to come from the Soviet military and the KGB. Today it is reported that the USSR has twenty or more centres for the study of parapsychological phenomena, with an annual budget estimated in 1967 at over 13 million dollars and reported to be as high as 21 million dollars.

Today, we know that trillions of dollars have gone into black budget programs in the United States, many of which likely deal with parapsychology, as they have in the past.

The document also states:

There are reports that the Soviets are training their cosmonauts in telepathy to back-up their electronic equipment while in outer space. One of these back-up schemes is known to involve coded telepathic messages. This method was previously demonstrated in March 1967, when a coded telepathic message was flashed from Moscow to Leningrad. The involvement of astronauts or cosmonauts in telepathy experiments is not necessarily unprecedented. In February 1971, during the Apollo 14 flight to the moon, astronaut Edgar Mitchell made 150 separate attempts to project his thoughts from inside the space capsule back to an individual on earth. The results of the Apollo 14 experiments have been well-documented in detail and are published in the Journal of Parapsychology. (source)

Deeper Black Budget Discussion On CETV

Again, these programs lie within the realm of the black budget and are highly classified. Who knows how far ahead of the mainstream world they truly are?

CETV is a platform we created in order to combat the censorship and demonetization we have been facing over the past few years. On episode 4 of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, we discussed the black budget in much greater detail. Below is a clip exploring the missing money from the black budget and special access programs, explaining where the money is going and what exactly it’s being used for.

You can become a member of CETV, get access to the full show and many others, and support conscious media here.

The Takeaway

Human consciousness and parapsychology should not only be studied for the purposes of learning new defence tactics. Humans have great potential, and there is still so much that we have yet to discover about ourselves. What needs to change is the intention behind these discoveries.

Source link

Continue Reading

Metaphysics & Psychology

Magnesium Puts Psychiatric Drugs to Shame for Depression

(Sayer Ji) A powerful clinical study shows that pennies worth of magnesium a day provides an effective, safe, affordable alternative to dangerous and relatively ineffective pharmaceutical antidepressants.

Depression is one of the most widely diagnosed conditions of our time, with over 3 million cases in the U.S. every year, and 350 million believed affected worldwide.1 Conventional medicine considers antidepressant drugs first-line treatments, including the newly approved injected postpartum drug costing $34,000 a treatment, to the tune of a 16 billion dollars in global sales by 2023. Despite their widespread use, these drugs are fraught with a battery of serious side effects, including suicidal ideation and completion — the last two things you would hope to see in a condition that already has suicidality as a co-morbidity. For this reason alone, natural, safe, and effective alternatives are needed more than ever before.

While research into natural alternatives for depression is growing daily — GreenMedInfo.com’s Depression database contains 647 studies on over 100 natural substances that have been studied to prevent or treat depression — it is rare to find quality human clinical research on the topic published in well-respected journals. That’s why a powerful study published in PLOS One titled, “Role of magnesium supplementation in the treatment of depression: A randomized clinical trial,” is so promising. Not only is magnesium safe, affordable, and easily accessible, but according to this recent study, effective in treating mild-to moderate symptoms of depression.

While previous studies have looked at the association between magnesium and depression,2-7 this is the first placebo-controlled clinical study to evaluate whether the use of over-the-counter magnesium chloride (248 mg elemental magnesium a day for 6 weeks) improves symptoms of depression.

The study design was a follows:

“ An open-label, blocked, randomized, cross-over trial was carried out in outpatient primary care clinics on 126 adults (mean age 52; 38% male) diagnosed with and currently experiencing mild-to-moderate symptoms with Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores of 5–19. The intervention was 6 weeks of active treatment (248 mg of elemental magnesium per day) compared to 6 weeks of control (no treatment). Assessments of depression symptoms were completed at bi-weekly phone calls. The primary outcome was the net difference in the change in depression symptoms from baseline to the end of each treatment period. Secondary outcomes included changes in anxiety symptoms as well as adherence to the supplement regimen, appearance of adverse effects, and intention to use magnesium supplements in the future. Between June 2015 and May 2016, 112 participants provided analyzable data.”

The study results were as follows:

“Consumption of magnesium chloride for 6 weeks resulted in a clinically significant net improvement in PHQ-9 scores of -6.0 points (CI -7.9, -4.2; P<0.001) and net improvement in Generalized Anxiety Disorders-7 scores of -4.5 points (CI -6.6, -2.4; P<0.001). Average adherence was 83% by pill count. The supplements were well tolerated and 61% of participants reported they would use magnesium in the future. Similar effects were observed regardless of age, gender, baseline severity of depression, baseline magnesium level, or use of antidepressant treatments. Effects were observed within two weeks. Magnesium is effective for mild-to-moderate depression in adults. It works quickly and is well tolerated without the need for close monitoring for toxicity.”

For perspective, conventional antidepressant drugs are considering to generate an “adequate or complete treatment response” with a PHQ-9 score “decrease of 5 points or more from baseline.” At this level of efficacy, their recommended action is: “Do not change treatment; conduct periodic follow-up.” The magnesium’s score of -6.0 therefore represents the height of success within conventional expectations for a complete response, which is sometimes termed “remission.” In contradistinction, conventional antidepressant drugs result in nearly half of patients discontinuing treatment during the first month, usually due to their powerful and sometimes debilitating side effects.8

To summarize the main study outcomes:

  • There was a clinically significant improvement in both Depression and Anxiety scores.
  • 61% of patients reported they would use magnesium in the future.
  • Similar effects occurred across age, gender, severity of depression, baseline magnesium levels, or use of antidepressant treatments.
  • Effects were observed within two weeks.

The study authors concluded:

“Magnesium is effective for mild-to-moderate depression in adults. It works quickly and is well tolerated without the need for close monitoring for toxicity.”

Beyond Depression: Magnesium’s Many Health Benefits and Where To Source It

Magnesium is a central player in your body’s energy production, as its found within 300 enzymes in the human body, including within the biologically active form of ATP known as MG-ATP. In fact, there have been over 3,751 magnesium binding sites identified within human proteins, indicating that it’s central nutritional importance has been greatly underappreciated.

Research relevant to magnesium has been accumulating for the past 40 years at a steady rate of approximately 2,000 new studies a year. Our database project has indexed well over 100 health benefits of magnesium thus far.  For the sake of brevity, we will address seven key therapeutic applications for magnesium as follows:

  • Fibromyalgia: Not only is magnesium deficiency common in those diagnosed with fibromyalgia, 9,10 but relatively low doses of magnesium (50 mg), combined with malic acid in the form of magnesium malate, has been clinically demonstrated to improve pain and tenderness in those to which it was administered.11
  • Atrial Fibrillation: A number of studies now exist showing that magnesium supplementation reduce atrial fibrillation, either by itself, or in combination with conventional drug agents.12
  • Diabetes, Type 2: Magnesium deficiency is common in type 2 diabetics, at an incidence of 13.5 to 47.7% according to a 2007 study. 13 Research has also shown that type 2 diabetics with peripheral neuropathy and coronary artery disease have lower intracellular magnesium levels. 14 Oral magnesium supplementation has been shown to reduce plasma fasting glucose and raising HDL cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes.15 It has also been shown to improve insulin sensitivity and metabolic control in type 2 diabetic subjects.16
  • Premenstrual Syndrome: Magnesium deficiency has been observed in women affected by premenstrual syndrome.17 It is no surprise therefore  that it has been found to alleviate premenstrual symptoms of fluid retention, 18 as well as broadly reducing associated symptoms by approximately 34% in women, aged 18-45, given 250 mg tablets for a 3-month observational period.20 When combined with B6, magnesium supplementation has been found to improve anxiety-related premenstrual symptoms.19
  • Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality: Low serum magnesium concentrations predict cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.21 There are a wide range of ways that magnesium may confer its protective effects. It may act like a calcium channel blocker,22it is hypotensive,23 it is antispasmodic (which may protect against coronary artery spasm),24 and anti-thrombotic.25 Also, the heart muscle cells are exceedingly dense in mitochondria (as high as 100 times more per cell than skeletal muscle), the “powerhouses” of the cell,” which require adequate magnesium to produce ATP via the citric acid cycle.
  • Migraine Disorders: Blood magnesium levels have been found to be significantly lower in those who suffer from migraine attacks.26,27 A recent Journal of Neural Transmission article titled, “Why all migraine patients should be treated with magnesium,” pointed out that routine blood tests do not accurately convey the true body magnesium stores since less than 2% is in the measurable, extracellular space, “67% is in the bone and 31% is located intracellularly.”28The authors argued that since “routine blood tests are not indicative of magnesium status, empiric treatment with at least oral magnesium is warranted in all migraine sufferers.” Indeed, oral magnesium supplementation has been found to reduce the number of headache days in children experiencing frequent migranous headaches,29and when combined with l-carnitine, is effective at reducing migraine frequency in adults, as well.30
  • Aging: While natural aging is a healthy process, accelerated aging has been noted to be a feature of magnesium deficiency,31especially evident in the context of long space-flight missions where low magnesium levels are associated with cardiovascular aging over 10 times faster than occurs on earth.32 Magnesium supplementation has been shown to reverse age-related neuroendocrine and sleep EEG changes in humans.33 One of the possible mechanisms behind magnesium deficiency associated aging is that magnesium is needed to stabilize DNA and promotes DNA replication. It is also involved in healing up of the ends of the chromosomes after they are divided in mitosis.34

It is quite amazing to consider the afformentioned side benefits of magnesium consumption or supplementation within the context of the well-known side effects of pharmaceutical approaches to symptom management of disease. On average, conventional drugs have 75 side effects associated with their use, including lethal ones (albeit sometimes rare). When considering magnesium’s many side benefits and extremely low toxicity, clearly this fundamental mineral intervention (and dietary requirement) puts pharmaceutical approaches to depression to shame.

Best Sources of Magnesium In The Diet

The best source of magnesium is from food, and one way to identify magnesium-containing foods are those which are green, i.e. chlorophyll rich. Chlorophyll, which enable plants to capture solar energy and convert it into metabolic energy, has a magnesium atom at its center. Without magnesium, in fact, plants could not utilize the sun’s light energy.

Magnesium, however, in its elemental form is colorless, and many foods that are not green contain it as well. The point is that when found complexed with food cofactors, it is absorbed and utilized more efficiently than in its elemental form, say, extracted from limestone in the form of magnesium oxide.

The following foods contain exceptionally high amounts of magnesium. The portions described are 100 grams, or a little over three ounces.

  • Rice bran, crude (781 mg)
  • Seaweed, agar, dried (770 mg)
  • Chives, freeze-dried (640 mg)
  • Spice, coriander leaf, dried (694 mg)
  • Seeds, pumpkin, dried (535 mg)
  • Cocoa, dry powder, unsweetened (499 mg)
  • Spices, basil, dried (422 mg)
  • Seeds, flaxseed (392 mg)
  • Spices, cumin seed (366 mg)
  • Nuts, brazilnuts, dried (376 mg)
  • Parsley, freeze-dried (372 mg)
  • Seeds, sesame meal (346 mg)
  • Nut, almond butter (303 mg)
  • Nuts, cashew nuts, roasted (273 mg)
  • Soy flour, defatted (290 mg)
  • Whey, sweet, dried (176 mg)
  • Bananas, dehydrated (108 mg)
  • Millet, puffed (106 mg)
  • Shallots, freeze-dried (104 mg)
  • Leeks, freeze-dried (156 mg)
  • Fish, salmon, raw (95 mg)
  • Onions, dehydrated flakes (92 mg)
  • Kale, scotch, raw (88 mg)

Fortunately, for those who need higher doses, or are not inclined to consume magnesium rich foods, there are supplemental forms commonly available on the market. Keep in mind, for those who wish to take advantage of the side benefit of magnesium therapy, namely, its stool softening and laxative properties, magnesium citrate or oxide will provide this additional feature.

For those looking to maximize absorption and bioavailability magnesium glycinate is ideal, as glycine is the smallest amino acid commonly found chelated to magnesium, and therefore highly absorbable.

Source:

https://wakeup-world.com/2019/04/29/magnesium-puts-psychiatric-drugs-to-shame-for-depression/

Continue Reading

Metaphysics & Psychology

Mandela Effect – Analysis of a Worldwide Phenomenon

ANNOUNCING PUBLICATION OF NEW MANDELA EFFECT BOOK by TS Caladan
(TWB Press)

TC_BookME

After months of researching the Mandela Effect, which consisted of reading about it online, talking to people, but mainly viewing THOUSANDS of YouTube videos…

I’ve changed (excuse the pun). I’ve went from skeptic to non-skeptic in time, under the weight of evidence. If the masses feel comfortable in believing Mandela is only miss-remembering, mistaken memories by a lot of unclear people, then let them. You’ll never convince born-skeptics…because they won’t look into it. Why would they bother, waste their time, when they already know what this new craze, so-called “phenomenon” is and can easily explain it?

The masses (sometimes not the majority) can only see it differently: they are under a Black Magic spell. Yet. Every Mandela cynic and debunker can point to the “facts,” the “stats,” the histories and what’s right in front of us as “proof” that we of the Mandela Community are wrong or crazy or stupid.

Doesn’t feel good being told: “You’re wrong!” or confused, now, does it? Maybe we shouldn’t demand/insist one way or the other? Who really has the mistaken memories or the mistaken view of reality? “Who is seeing and believing the illusion?” is an intriguing question.

Basically, there are two kinds of people: 1) Those that believe there’s magic in the world. 2) Those that are confident there is no magic in the world. Or, those that think a blade of grass can unnaturally be made to change and others who are sure that it is impossible. We believe what has FOUNDATION to us, what seems sensible and toss away “absurdities” into the Fantasy Bin. Maybe we have the wrong Foundations? The wrong, narrow education? Possibly. To understand the truth or what’s really going on…

You need lessons in Science “Fiction”? It’s not fantasy. Predictive Programming. Elites, who control our Media and “entertainment,” have been telling us about what they’ve planned (Mandela) for a long time. Some of us are only realizing this now. Maybe our fundamental education and experiences should have included SF stories that inspired us to fly in dreams, to the furthest reaches of the Imagination? Outer Limits? Twilight Zones? That is, if you wanted to create, innovate, invent, mature or progress technically, mentally and spiritually? Grow and extend yourself outside of boxes, limits? To know or discover truth…we have to see beyond, beyond the surface of things in front of our eyes. It’s always been that way, long before the Mandela Wave struck 5 years ago and pushed the world and us to the Dark Side, virtually overnight. Maybe they’re doing this via technology they’ve kept from us, perverted Tesla Technology (they’ve done before)?

BackTCME

The sharp, clear message of ‘Mandela Effect – analysis of a worldwide phenomenon‘ is an extraordinary, other-worldly explanation, beyond mistaken memories. An incredible transformation has occurred to our physical universe. What is even more incomprehensible is the fact that relatively few people would believe it, relatively few can see the changes and are certain: “It’s always been that way.” Not so fast.

I was sure the original Mandela was not a true Mandela Effect, but only at first, before I examined what the Effect was. Because…we all know history, right? We all know the story of Nelson Mandela: imprisoned by South African government in the ’80s, then released and became a world hero and President of the country that had imprisoned him. A wide spectrum of oddities has made me alter my stance. Now I’m sure at least one parallel world has been made to intersect with the Old World we all knew, like a ‘Reboot’ game has descended upon us and changed our world and many people in it.

But not to everyone. Possibly, in the other reality, people distinctly remember Nelson Mandela dying in prison because he did die in prison? An alternate reality. Maybe?

The Mandela Community isn’t a collection of weirdos with mistaken memories. Because they remember just about the same universe, the same other world where C3P0 was always all-gold, there was always Jiffy and never JIF, Ed McMahon worked for Publisher’s Clearing House, and on and on it goes. Berenstain Bears were Jewish and “the” was Smokey Bear’s middle name. It was always ‘Looney Toons,’ but now it was always ‘Looney Tunes’? M.E. people have good memories.

Far from all the Mandela YT items online are real and true. Some ARE stupidity and ignorance, such as “Crosby, Stills and Nash” now have a new member: Neil Young! No, that’s the Village People and the Jacksons. Or, now, there are “hats” on Easter Island statues, when truth is: It was always one row of them and not every stone giant. Uranus and Neptune always had faint rings, it simply wasn’t common knowledge. False rumors and misconceptions are not true Mandelas. Bogie never said, “Play it again, Sam.” Captain Kirk never said, “Beam me up, Scotty.” This is trivia and not Mandelas.

Why do millions of people remember South America 1000 miles west from where it is today and Panama Canal went west to east, not more north and south? RESIDUE evidence exists of that other world, our lost Old World, where Costa Rica and Gibraltar were islands. But not today. They’ve been “magically” attached to the mainland. This baffles many who knew it and experienced it differently.

Products have inexplicably changed their designs and NAMES! They would never name-change for no good reason. They build brands over decades. These are not product upgrades or normal changes over time.

We could be wrong and mistaken of small, obscure things, but not famous lines in movies and well-known songs. So much has altered and a New World, a Dark-Universe is now upon us, as if we’ve switched with our negative counterparts, such as we’ve seen in Star Trek’s “Mirror” universe or almost every movie, series (‘Stranger Things,’ etc.).

My new book is a collection of the best examples of the Mandela Wave and global changes that will defy and discombobulate any skeptic. Even our bodies have changed from what they were, so said doctors and nurses. False Mandelas have definitely been “thrown into the Bullshit Bin.” Weeded out. The book includes the classic contradictions, paradoxes, their descriptions and analysis, somewhat like ‘Ripley’s Believe It or Not’ books. Also there’s many new discoveries you’ve never heard previously.

I found answers. It was highly unexpected.

I discovered evidence on my own to answer:

WHO IS DOING THIS TO US? I think I know WHY. I am not sure HOW, there are many theories on that point. But I believe I’ve followed the evidence and know the answer to a very important question: WHEN? When did the Mandela Wave strike and warp our more-positive world into its negative counterpart? ‘Tidy Cat’ to ‘Tidy Cats.’

Five years ago. Read how I came to that conclusion. I believe that was when Mars, the Moon, ancient and recent monuments, paintings, changed, when the Great Pyramid “magically” switched places with Khefren and was suddenly closer to Cairo! When the Statue of Liberty moved off Ellis Island and re-positioned itself on Liberty Island.

TC_card

The shocker to any student of the Mandela Effect is a realization that this explains:

  • Why are there suddenly giant statues on Earth now that very few remember? New ancient ruins on land and under the sea?
  • Why are there gigantic Jesus statues and their complete histories few people are familiar with?
  • New islands, cities, countries have appeared and their full histories? Yet, again, this is news to a large number of people.
  • Land changes, unnatural/geographical changes reported over and over by natives of those nations. They know their own country and have repeatedly said borders, etc., are not the same as what they were only a few years ago.
  • Why do U.S. state borders also appear different to a portion of the population? Two Michigans? Minnesota with a “spike” into Canada? Not to a lot of people.
  • So much has simply materialized, and only has been known to exist in the last 5 years. The “Flying Saucer” Cetiya Temple with 300,000 golden Buddhas that’s stood in Thailand for 50 years? Or entire Tartarian Age, now, according to old maps and amazing early photos that stun about everybody! Advanced building techniques in Civil War times? Tesla tech in architecture long before Tesla? It’s absolute bullshit. Or I should say: Mud-Floods and historical “re-sets” and phenomenal photos no one remembers did not exist in our Old Reality! There the maps are and unbelievable photography and films BEFORE there should have been such photography and films. Phenomenal old cities, (Tartary) empires, that never previously existed, yet there they are. This is a new ancient past and recent past that have been placed over everything, like a New Skin.

Believe it or not.

If you have a strong memory associated with a lost reality of the Old World, that’s been “burned into your brain,” nothing in the universe is going to tell you: you are wrong or crazy or mistaken. If Jiffy, and not Skippy, was your favorite, you know it existed.

I was scolded as a child and told: “Remember the 4th Commandment. Honor thy mother and father,” by my parents. They weren’t wrong or mistaken. The Parent-Commandment was fourth. Now by all records, today, it’s fifth. Guess it’s not that important to obey parents, anymore?

I know for a fact Secondo Pia was commissioned by the Pope to first photograph the Shroud of Turin in 1902. I’ve talked about it enough and even mentioned my accurate facts on at least one radio show. But, gee, if you checked the new “facts,” the date was 1898 (along with more advanced photography).

The Challenger disaster could not have happened in January of 1986, as records say today. I have vivid memories discussing it with a person who was out of my life a year earlier. I’m not mistaken. This perfectly jives with kids who saw it in class, and they remember it happened before that date. Exactly like my experience.

I know the Moon has drastically changed. “Man in the Moon” appearance is now gone. “Lady of the Moon” in profile was always there, but she was more northeast, up and away. Today, she’s front and center, right in the middle of the Moon. Old records, old movies, documentaries, tell us it’s always been that way. Mandela people who remember, know it’s not true, even though all the physical evidence reports it’s true.

One more Warrior Woman has suddenly come to be; she stands atop DC’s Capitol building. We’re supposed to believe Thomas Crawford created this 20′ bronze woman with sword, shield, helmet, and it’s stood there over this famous building since 1863?! At the height of chauvinism, a woman symbolized a soldier? No way. Why is this new to so many? There she stands in old films like ‘Day the Earth Stood Still’ or anytime D.C. was invaded. It was a flag. Also, there’s the Lincoln Memorial. Abe never made a fist before, but there it is in reality and in black and white newsreels, etc.

All the true Mandelas are connected and I believe can be traced to ENGLAND (CERN, other portals, etc.) and back to the end of 2015. It probably happened in waves. But something quite, bloody extraordinary occurred. There wouldn’t be millions of “mistaken people” and conflicts in every department. Suddenly. Never before has there ever been a memory-clash to such a mass-scale! If BS: There wouldn’t be a consistency in the Other World, that’s been gone/lost for years now, and slowly fades away from memory. A new high-tech method to send us to war and cause even more chaos in the global empire? A nasty machine that performs Harry Potter wizardry?

There isn’t much I agree with religious fundamentalists; I’m a scientist to their 17th Century views. But they know their Bibles. There is no doubt. There is no debate or Mandela question in any corner of the Church. They KNOW the King James has changed! Investigate! The KJV Bible was published in 1612. Now, it’s changed to the “Prince James” Bible, published in 1611. Queen Elizabeth, before Genesis, is praised in the intro, which is impossible. Even if the mega-praise was meant for Elizabeth the First, not Second, she had nothing to do with the English translation. She died and James of Scotland became King. He was never Prince James. Today. There are all the PJV Bibles. Now they have become Dark Bibles of such perversion and “Devil-Speak.” Investigate~

Now Moses is displayed in old sculptures and paintings with HORNS? Didn’t you know God’s bare butt has been on the Sistine ceiling for 500 years? [Exodus 33:23]. What was Michelangelo thinking? No, it hasn’t. Just appeared…

If you’ve examined the “mountain” of Mandela evidence and still maintain: Nothing strange is going on, that’s your choice. The very least you might have to consider, if we are not inside a holographic TRON game and losing: We seem to be in a M. Knight Shyamalan movie, because huge numbers of the world’s population have recently been BIRDBOXED, supremely.

Question remains: Are we seeing the environment that always was, or a new reality, an illusion and fabrication of what was real? Here and there, it’s different. Glitches in the Matrix?

I was the biggest opponent of the “Flat-Earth” idea, presently, and in any passed life. But. I’ve gone through a change in thought: It might not be a Flat-Earth…

It might be a whole new universe that’s flat? Digital? A Flat-Universe. Maybe?

Look at the clues. See if anything makes sense these days: Why are jets now mounted on wings like headlights and have never been securely fastened under wings? Never been Chevy Camero, always been Camaro? Question things; search memories. Anything in the Old (Mandela) World familiar to you? But mainly: let’s stay positive. Don’t switch to your negative polarity, or your evil twin. Good behaviors, not bad.

Study the Mandela Effect, openly. See how product names you think, and still think, are spelled one way, are really spelled completely different than what you had thought. You’re not wrong. There’s been some odd, real changes to our world. It was mad and crazy before. We had no idea of truth, real history, science, and so much more…

We’ll never know now.

“DEDICATED TO THE OLD WORLD, that should never be forgotten.”

MandelaEffect-end

Find out how to get a copy of ‘MANDELA EFFECT – analysis of a worldwide phenomenon.’ Published by TWB Press in Colorado. Signed, numbered copies will be available very soon by the author (free shipping).

Contact Tray: [email protected]

Continue Reading

Trending