Say What?

 

So the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) just released an article in the January 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics journal saying that doctors should stop calling breastfeeding “natural.”

“…we are concerned about breastfeeding promotion that praises breastfeeding as the “natural” way to feed infants.”

Why would the AAP make such an absurd statement? Because natural breastfeeding may have unintended consequences of the parent seeking out other “natural” ways of health and life.

 

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/03/02/peds.2015-4154

 

I wonder if the AAP can hear themselves while writing this article:

“Beneath the concern of many Americans over vaccine safety, a specific and not necessarily illogical worldview is discernable: a rejection of the manufactured, the synthetic and the “unnatural,” and an embrace of the “natural” as healthier and intrinsically better. Vaccines are often seen as “unnatural,” and boosting immunity “naturally” is viewed by some as the healthier and better approach. Online forums and blogs devoted to natural living offer countless examples of this perspective, and the recent book Vaccine Nation by Elena Conis documents the evolution of this worldview in detail. Studies have shown that parents who resist vaccination tend to inhabit networks of like-minded individuals with similar beliefs. These pockets of antivaccination sentiment tend to overlap with reliance on and interest in complementary and alternative medicine, skepticism of institutional authority, and a strong commitment and interest in health knowledge, autonomy, and healthy living practices.

The idea of the “natural” evokes a sense of purity, goodness, and harmlessness. Meanwhile, synthetic substances, products, and technologies mass produced by industry (notably, vaccines) are seen as “unnatural” and often arouse suspicion and distrust. Part of this value system is the perception that what’s natural is safer, healthier and less risky. This embrace of the “natural” over the “unnatural” appears in a variety of contemporary scientific and medical issues beyond vaccination, including rejection of genetically modified foods, a preference for organic over conventionally grown foods, and rejection of assisted reproductive technologies, as well as concerns over environmental toxins and water fluoridation. Much of the interest in complementary and alternative medicines also hinges on “ideas of natural techniques as safer, gentler and benign.” In some cases, however, this view that “natural” is synonymous with “better” may work against specific public health goals.”

I’ve blogged recently about censorship and how conservatism and conservative ideas and morals are being shut down across main stream media and social media platforms. In fact, even more recently, conservatives have been demonized and called domestic terrorists, and racists among a slew of other things based on the actions of just a few. The world is in the middle of a fight between good versus evil, and censoring opinions on either side shuts down the flow of knowledge that allows individuals and families the opportunity of due diligence in their research – which is paramount to making informed decisions. And what about their inherent right to basic freedoms and caring for themselves and their family members in a way that they feel is best? What happened to “my body my choice”?

It is not surprising that the liberal powers that be, that financially fund medical associations and organizations that are supposed to only base their recommendations on scientific facts and what is best for us from a medical perspective, are now also fighting against a person’s right to choose what to put in their own bodies and their children’s bodies, whether “natural” or “unnatural.” They are seeking to shut down a WHOLE CULTURE that is based on things that are “natural,” because some of them disagree with this culture and mindset. And the American people are letting them continue this sham. They have our best interests in mind, right? Well, before we come to any logical or emotional conclusions here, let’s look at who is donating to and funding this astute American Academy of Pediatrics. I found this list of top donors since 2018 on their website:

Mead Johnson Nutrition
Abbott Nutrition
Nestlé Nutrition
Johnson & Johnson
The Nicholson Foundation
Conrad N. Hilton Foundation
The JPB Foundation
Merck & Co.
Ronald McDonald House Charities
Sanofi Genzyme

And here is a list of donors to their Friends of Children’s Fund ($50,000 and above):

Abbott
Pampers
Mead Johnson Nutrition
Nestle
Merck
Sanofi Pasteur
Prolacta Bioscience
Sobi

Those who donated less than $50,000 include:

Johnson & Johnson
kaleo
Perrigo Nutritionals
Seqirus
GlaxoSmthKline
Genentech a Member of the Roche Group
Janssen Infectious Diseases
Kabrita USA
New York Life Insurance Company
Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Physician’s Computer Company

It kind of makes sense now, doesn’t it? If your major funding sources are baby formula, big pharma, and vaccine companies, you wouldn’t have any pressure or bias towards recommending “unnatural” ways of healing and living life, versus “natural” would you? Always follow the money. Our nation’s capital is surrounded by lobbyists for the same reason. The majority don’t have our best interests in mind, but rather their own pocket books and whatever agenda their funding source wants them to push.

For example, Abbott, the parent company of Pediasure and Pedialyte, also recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AND ONE OF THE TOP FUNDING COMPANIES LISTED ON THE AAP WEBSITE), and both have a whole lot of corn syrup and SUGAR, also sells diabetes glucose monitors. Conflict of interest? Follow the money.

And when COVID-19 emerged, several doctors touted the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine in both treating and preventing the virus. But almost immediately, reports published in the Lancet by the American Medical Association came out that Hydroxychloroquine was bad for you and could even kill you. Meantime, in other countries, people who take this medication regularly and have safely and effectively taken it regularly for years to prevent Malaria, were confused by this statement. In fact Dr. Faucci knew that Chloroquine medication types had been proven in the past to treat other strains of cononaviruses because of a study published in the Virology Journal in 2005. From the article,

“Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available. We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations. Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.”

Hydroxychloroquine is also successfully used around the world to treat some auto-immune diseases, and a rare bleeding disorder and doctors noticed almost immediately that patients on this medication were not contracting COVID-19. And if a patient already had COVID-19, this medication practically cured their symptoms – especially if given early on in the virus. Then miraculously, after the vaccine companies had already gotten their vaccines underway, and their aggressive advertising campaigns backed by the main stream media and social media platforms – you may also want to look into who is funding these experimental vaccines (including companies tied to the Gates foundation and Dr. Anthony Faucci) – in October of 2020 they RESCINDED their article and reported that Hydroxychloroquine actually helps COVID-19 patients. But the damage had already been done, so many lives had been lost, and the main stream media had already run with the danger story, and didn’t even bother to report on the false article BY THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION - who was well aware that the drug was safe and is even sold over the counter in other countries - being rescinded. Instead the main stream media touted the safety of the EXPERIMENTAL vaccines (that no safety or efficacy has been reported on in animal or human trials yet according to normal vaccine testing standards) that big tech and big pharma and billionaires have been funding and pushing and who essentially will financially benefit from in a ginormous and global way. Why is the main stream media so one sided? Why did Dr. Faucci not encourage emergency (shortened length) studies on Hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 because that drug has less side effects than Tylenol, and certainly doesn’t need an experimental vaccine that has unknown side-effects? Follow the money.

Did you know that a lot of these same companies and billionaires including the Chinese Communist Party are funding the main stream media? You can read my last post for more on that can of worms. What about that the same factory that COVID-19 came from in China also makes vaccines – and that Dr. Anthony Faucci and Bill Gates also have ties to that factory? These are all coincidences, right? Follow the money. They have made this information very difficult to find, but it is there.

Since I mentioned Bill Gates, did you know that in his 2010 TED talk he talks about how the world is overpopulated? Here is a direct quote, “now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%.” Say what? I can understand how reproductive services in the form of abortion and birth control can reduce future population numbers, but how exactly will new vaccines and healthcare reduce population? I thought vaccines and healthcare were supposed to save and preserve lives? THEY ARE TELLING US DIRECTLY TO OUR FACES WHAT THEIR AGENDAS ARE. Are we listening? Are we sure we want any new vaccine that Bill Gates (who is NOT a medical doctor or scientist) is funding? Especially when he has already told us that new vaccines could lower our problem of overpopulation? The man sells computer software, and then also the virus software to keep his own computer software programs running. Conflict of interest? Suspicious intent? Follow the money.

In 2010, did you know that Obama appointed an FDA commissioner that had formerly worked with a company that made, sold and profited off of genetically modified (unnatural) food? This is the organization that is supposed to make sure the food, water, and medications approved for consumption in the United States are safe and effective. Have you looked into the values and qualifications of the newest appointed commissioner? The bias is everywhere and the hypocrisy is ripe, yet as Americans, we are blind to what is going on around us. And why are certain chemicals and food additives banned in other country’s foods because they are harmful, can cause cancer, and other devastating consequences, yet approved for consumption in the United States? Follow the money.

I guess it begs the question, is anything labeled “natural” a detriment to society? Or is it more so a detriment to the billion dollar industries that overwhelmingly dominate our country – monopolizing food supplies, medical treatments and price points? Are they trying to shut down the opposite opinion and way of life because it is really harmful to our health, or because it is harmful to their pocketbooks and agenda? If a lot of these unnatural chemicals were banned in our country, what would happen to the multi-billion dollar health industry that profits off of the health conditions those chemicals cause? And then who would fund the organizations that tell us what is healthy or not? Don’t bother researching Google for the answers. They are just as censored and biased and funded by the same companies. Follow the money.  

The organizations that are supposed to guide us and help us maintain our best health are funded by companies that sell products that profit off of poor health. Let that sink in. Really sink in.

Congress men and women who are supposed to fight for their constituent’s rights and needs are overwhelmed by lobbyists who have their own agendas. Who has who’s back?

Why is cancer, autism, obesity, auto immune diseases, heart disease, and diabetes at record highs in our country, more so than any third world country or even other first world countries? If our agencies were so good at telling us and deciding for us what is “healthy” and what is “natural” or not, then why is our country’s health so poor?

As far as I’m concerned a person should be able to decide if they want to use “natural” or “unnatural” ways to eat, drink and heal. But I’m tired of agencies and associations that are supposed to be champions for our well-being, benefiting from the companies that are invested in our poor health.

The definition of mammal from the American Heritage Dictionary is “any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, including humans, characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young.”

And the definition of natural from the American Heritage Dictionary is “Present in or produced by nature. Of, relating to, or concerning nature. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature.”

Yeah, I’m pretty sure breastfeeding is “natural” and is actually a factual part of what defines our own species. I’m not sure how much more scientific evidence is needed there. But let’s wait and see if they change those definitions if the near future, like they did the definition of a “pandemic” after COVID-19’s numbers were not following under the original definition so they could keep the mask mandates and lock-downs going, and the way they changed the definition of “herd immunity” to include immunity by vaccines after the onset of COVID-19. Say what? Follow the agendas. Follow the restrictions on our basic human and American rights and freedoms. Follow the ways they are trying to divide us by gender, culture, race, political party, viewpoints, socio economic status, values, and ways of life. Are they trying to distract us from what is really going on? If we unified as a human race and actually fought for our health, safety and rights instead of letting biased individuals and multi-billion dollar industries deciding that for us, we might have a chance. Oh, and don’t trust the “fact checkers” and “rumor checkers” or “conspiracy checkers” either. They are also on the payrolls. Just look up who leads Facebook’s “independent fact checking” organization, paid for by Facebook by the way. What are their qualifications you might ask? Their ability to censor any kind of information that goes against the agenda their funding sources have. There seems to be a theme.

Follow the money.