Is there a "fear" that's holding you back? What should you do about it?

[Dien Rice]

I just got the book "How To Get Rich" by Felix Dennis. In case you never heard of him, he's a British publishing "tycoon" who's worth somewhere in the range of $500 million to $900 million (according to his own estimate)... I wrote about him a little before (you can read a little more about Felix Dennis in my earlier post)...

Anyway... I'm only starting the book, but one of the things he emphasizes early on is FEAR... That FEAR is what holds most people back!

"Fear" can stop you from getting started! He says for many people it's "fear of failure" - the bad consequences of failure. But it's also fear of PUBLIC failure! If you try and fail, and everyone knows about it, it could be humiliating - and some people can't take that! Some people feel it's better to "play it safe"... If you apply for a job, and don't get it, nobody really needs to know about that "failure", because it's usually done and over in a few days. But a business is much more "public"...

Speaking of myself, I don't think I have a "fear of failure." (I've failed too many times in the past to let it worry me too much! I think I have a good track record on "bouncing back"...) But, I do have a "fear" too... Which is, I have a "fear" of "offending" people. I am not easily offended myself - but I hate the idea that I might "offend" others. So I would find it "hard" to do a "rich jerk" type promotion, because it's intentionally offensive... But that fear is probably also holding me back as well. (You don't need to offend others to succeed, but - you do have to keep in mind that your promotions may "annoy" others who are not your prospects... Simply because they're not interested.)

What other fears are there? Any good tips on overcoming these fears?

I'll let you know what else Felix Dennis says in the book (if he has any good advice - I'm still reading the relevant chapter on this topic)...

Cheers,

Dien

You hit the nail on the head, Dien.

I'm deathly afraid that, if I sit in this chair doing internet stuff much more, I'll end up crippled and in a wheelchair due to inactivity. Not what you expected probably, but a fear nonetheless.

In all honesty, I should get well enough to exercise again, lose weight, and get out and do my own thing. I'm working on the wellness and weight things now. So far, so good. Just have to remember that 'slow' is better than 'no' progress.

Sandi Bowman

[Dien Rice]

Originally Posted by Sandi Bowman

You hit the nail on the head, Dien.

I'm deathly afraid that, if I sit in this chair doing internet stuff much more, I'll end up crippled and in a wheelchair due to inactivity. Not what you expected probably, but a fear nonetheless.

In all honesty, I should get well enough to exercise again, lose weight, and get out and do my own thing. I'm working on the wellness and weight things now. So far, so good. Just have to remember that 'slow' is better than 'no' progress.

Hi Sandi,

I agree that lack of movement is a danger of the internet! If it's not part of a person's usual routine (due to work or whatever), it's a good idea to really make an effort, I think, to go out and do something...

I'm not so great at this myself... But when I am good at it, I go out for regular long walks.

The other thing is, I think our "modern" diets are sometimes quite lacking! There are often things in our diet that shouldn't be there (like trans-fats, for example!), and on the other hand, there are other things which should be there, but which are often missing!

Modern farming and food processing techniques have given us so many foods - but they're not always wholesome and balanced for what we need...

Anyway, I was just recently reading about vitamin B6. I read that often as you get older, it's more likely you'll become deficient in this vitamin. And that can have follow-on effects - since vitamin B6 helps keep your cardiovascular system healthy, it helps keep your skin healthy, and it's a precursor for some neurotransmitters in your brain (so you can think clearly)... As of yesterday (when I read about this), I'm gonna be more conscious about making sure I get enough B6. Some good natural sources of B6 are apparently bananas, potatoes, chick peas/garbanzo beans, and chicken, though I also sometimes take a B-complex supplement. Some breakfast cereals are also supplemented with B6 (you have to check the little info-panel to see which ones are)...

However, you reallly do have to watch this stuff. Since otherwise, I think you can be lacking in certain important vitamins or minerals that your body needs - even in our modern day and age...!

(I'm a bit of a "junkie" for this kind of info...)

Cheers

Dien

Hi, Dien,

We're two peas in a pod when it comes to devouring the info.

B-6 is the main nutrient deficient in many schizophrenics and is used a lot in orthomolecular psychiatry to treat them. There's a certain segment of the population, not necessarily schizophrenic, who seem to require larger amounts of this nutrient than the general population.

This is one reason why Codex Alimentarius won't work. It's far too restrictive in amounts and is just designed to allow big pharma (pharmaceutical companies) to take over and quadruple the prices of supplements and require doctor visits every time you need a supplement of any kind.

It will also spawn a huge black market in vitamins from clandestine sources that may not be safe, and put many businesses and people out of work, just for starters. Worst of all, many folks who need supplements won't be able to get or afford them. On top of everything else, what it implies for our country's independence and ability to self-rule is horrendous.

Sandi Bowman

Originally Posted by Sandi Bowman

Hi, Dien,

We're two peas in a pod when it comes to devouring the info.

B-6 is the main nutrient deficient in many schizophrenics and is used a lot in orthomolecular psychiatry to treat them. There's a certain segment of the population, not necessarily schizophrenic, who seem to require larger amounts of this nutrient than the general population.

This is one reason why Codex Alimentarius won't work. It's far too restrictive in amounts and is just designed to allow big pharma (pharmaceutical companies) to take over and quadruple the prices of supplements and require doctor visits every time you need a supplement of any kind.

It will also spawn a huge black market in vitamins from clandestine sources that may not be safe, and put many businesses and people out of work, just for starters. Worst of all, many folks who need supplements won't be able to get or afford them. On top of everything else, what it implies for our country's independence and ability to self-rule is horrendous.

Sandi Bowman

"Roses are Red
Violets are Green
I'm not schizophrenic
... and Neither Am I!"

Hi Sandi,

Thanks for talking about Nutrients and Big Pharma...

It seems with ALL 'supplements' and anything that may
actually be 'good for' an individual would cost multi-millions
of dollars just to get FDA Approval to begin with.

That leaves these potential 'cures' and 'potions' cost
prohibitive for almost anyone to get started with...

Crazy Crazy Crazy Agencies We got here, wouldn't Ya agree?

Christopher

Most folks haven't heard the worst of it. Did you know that the very companies that are applying for approval of a drug, are the same ones who conduct the tests that show whether it has side effects, is dangerous, etc? The shocker: they are NOT REQUIRED to submit anything negative that shows up to the FDA! So, Big Pharma has the FDA under their thumbnail, not the other way around as it should be. The FDA is a puppet, essentially, for the pharmaceutical companies to manipulate.

Doctors (and patients) get 'free' medications samples...and in exchange, the doctors 'push' Big Pharma's products even when generics at half the price are available. A high percentage of doctors are nothing more than sales reps for Big Pharma...and the patient pays the price in lost health, not to mention high prices. The cost in human lives and suffering completely over-shadows the highly-touted research that Big Pharma loves to hoot and holler about. The only things they 'research' these days, generally, are things that will boost their own bottom lines while people who could be genuinely helped with just a bit of research suffer and die because it's not cost-effective for Big Pharma.

In the meantime, highly effective, natural, and less expensive genuine cures are being withheld from people who need them. Why? So Big Pharma can come up with something they can patent (and profit from) that will do the same thing, in theory. Realistically, it's never as good as the natural products and usually have tons of dangerous side effects that the original doesn't.

That's big business for you...and absolute power corrupting absolutely anything and everything it can reach. The cost in human suffering is just an 'unfortunate consequence' in their quaint dismissive language.

Sandi Bowman

Sandi,

Thanks for expressing your Big Pharma thoughts.

That's big business for you...and absolute power corrupting absolutely anything and everything it can reach.

And this line of thinking is part of the problem.

It is NOT Big Business. It is the Govt that Makes Rules which Restrict the little guy in Favor of Big Business. The GOVT, not Business.

Imagine there was no FDA. The Stores would be able to Stock the Items That Sell - such as the effective natural non-patentable items. Big Pharma would have a Real Battle on its hands, wouldn't it.

BUT, THE GOVT makes a rule in favor of Big Pharma - usually because those making the rules have a vested interest. So Don't Blame Big Business, put the blame on those who create the situation... The Govt.

In fact, if you look closely at Bad Things which get attributed to Capitalism, you'll find Govt first and foremost which makes it happen that way. But the Govt - even the so-called right leaning conservatives - like it when business is blamed as it disguises and hides the real culprits... The Govt.

Michael Ross

Michael, I realize you're not in this country and see things develop as we do therefore your conclusions will make sense to you but not to those of us who are here and see what goes on.

In this particular case it really IS big business, ie: the pharmaceuticals, that are calling the shots. They have deep pockets and tons of 'pull' on Capitol Hill and elsewhere with large numbers of lobbyists and other resources mom and pop businesses only dream of (or have nightmares about).

My statement is not part of the problem. It is an attempt to awaken the sleepy folks to what is really happening. It was Big Pharma who proposed, indirectly through their agents (lobbyists) the legislation that allowed them to forego sharing negative findings. When you have the fox guarding the hen house, the inevitable happens more often than not.

Sandi Bowman

Sandi,

Thanks for adding.

I know perfectly well how Big Pharma operates. I know perfectly well the politicians getting kickbacks to push drugs. I know perfectly well the Jobs members of the FDA get with Big Pharma. And I know perfectly well that the guy who founded the FDA was subsequently ejected out of it because he had integrity and would not allow Benzene and related products onto the market.

My point is... as long as people keep blaming Big Pharma the others get a pass. Yes, Big Pharma has money to spend and Lobbyists. But it is the Pollies that vote the rules through. They get a pass on what they do as long as people keep getting angry at Big Pharma - let's jsut call it MisDirection.

Will making their backdoor deal public change anything? No, I seriously doubt it. For those who stand to gain are those who would make the rules to prevent it. Meaning, they will NOT remove the FDA. Medicine will not be a Free Enterprise. It will Always be a Controlled Entity. Something, I believe, one of the Founding Fathers Warned against.

Michael Ross

Michael, thanks for your comments.

Like many others, you are assuming everything is done via the legislature. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, legislators had little to do, really, with the 'no reporting of negatives' change in the FDA. It was, basically, a tacit agreement between opposing parties as a method to eliminate the backlog of requests for approval. ???Yeah, that's what I thought, too.

Somebody really wasn't thinking when they essentially gave away their only reason for the FDA to exist...to protect the public. There's no protection for the public when the offenders/guilty parties don't have to acknowledge problems in the reports or anywhere else. Anything the government has to do with it was subsequent to the real deal...just a rubber stamp with no more thought than an 'oh, okay'...

BTW, it has been stated that the Big Pharmas put through deals they really don't care about, at little or no cost, as part of the deal so the FDA can show that they're 'doing their job' when they deny the request. It's a cover up for their inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Better watch those feet under the table...they're playing footsie!

Sandi Bowman