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.

Unalienable rights

 

Is my right to breath and unalienable right?

 I’m currently in graduate school and the most recent class I completed was all about evidence-based practice. What is evidence-based practice? It combines the needs of the patient/client, clinician expertise, and proven research on the efficacy of the technique you want to use in therapy. It is part of my code of ethics to make sure that what I am doing with a patient/client is not only responsible, but effective. I learned a lot in this class about finding research, reading research articles, and being able to interpret if the information in the article was a highly effective and responsible study giving accurate and statistically significant and clinically significant results or not. And the whole time during this class I was thinking, where is all the double blind, randomized controlled trials with a level 1 or level 2 hierarchy of efficacy surrounding the effectiveness of wearing masks to help prevent the spread of disease? And not the good masks, like gas masks that we know are effective, but thin t-shirt like cloth masks? Or even a clear face-shield type mask that just pushes what you exhale out and around the sides of it?

There isn’t any. Not a single study that says beyond a shadow of a doubt or at least with any kind of accuracy, that wearing masks and/or face shields will protect us or those around us from contracting the virus. Yet the government of our states and even other states and countries throughout the world have mandated wearing a mask in public – and even in some cases in your own home. How is it that the government can mandate cloth mask use when there is no evidence-based research that supports it, when if I did the same thing in my practice, I could be in violation of my code of ethics?

Even our own Dr. Faucci has retracted what he originally stated on national TV and has said that mask wearing and social distancing will not prevent the spread of COVID-19. What? Then why are we still wearing masks, social distancing, and closing businesses and schools, parks and medical institutions that perform medical procedures year round? Misinformation? Mass media fear-mongering?

https://youtu.be/NUHsEmlIoE4

I’m a pretty simple gal. And all it takes is a little thinking about the logistics and efficacy of all of this. First of all, when in a grocery store, how many people touch a produce item to look for blemishes and then put it down only to pick up a different one and then do the same thing? How many people pick up one can of olives only to realize it is the wrong one and put it back to pick up another one. Are we going to assume everyone washed their hands with soap and water before they came to the store? And then used hand sanitizer before and after they touched anything? Including the bagger and the cashier that slides our food choices toward the bagger? What about those that touch those itchy masks, and then touch something, including children who can’t tolerate wearing a mask and have the audacity to use their God-given right to breathe in that store? The same goes for grocery delivery services – someone is picking out your food for you, touching it, and delivering it. It only takes one person who wipes their itchy nose, smudging their mask down a bit, and then doesn’t use hand sanitizer, right? When you look at it that way, it seems like whatever could be airborne is just one piece of the puzzle – especially when there is no proof that wearing thin cotton or polyester masks are actually doing anything to prevent the spread of the virus. How small is the virus? How small are the holes between the mask fibers? I can tell you that I can see the holes between the cloth mask fibers, and I can’t see the virus, so I’m pretty sure my logic right there means that the virus is not being held back by a simple cloth mask. But that isn’t the point, is it?

But don’t forget about social distancing. Doesn’t that help with reducing the virus? If we can’t get close enough for them to breathe on us, then that will keep us safe, right? FIRST of all, if social distancing worked, why do we have to wear masks? And if masks worked, why would we have to social distance? And are we social distancing when we meet with our doctor in a confined space? Are we ignoring the fact that they have been in that same confined space with over 20 other individuals that day alone? Are we ignoring the fact that the flu kills people every year? Tuberculosis? Cancer? Why don’t we just wear ineffective masks year round to protect everyone that may have a weak immune system? Why don’t we close down small businesses so that large companies can take over the market and become monopolies? Why don’t we kick hard working Americans while they are down and only trying to provide for their families? Because we might protect them? Or because we are pretending that these ridiculous measures are actually helping anything?

I’m confused. People are being forced to wear masks to protect the health of everyone else? Since when has my personal safety and health been everyone else’s job? If everyone cared about my health so much, then why did I have to go for years without going to a doctor because I couldn’t afford outrageously priced health insurance AND life-saving and quality-of-life saving medication that my son and I needed for our medical conditions? Why didn’t anyone demand that the major pharmaceutical companies involved make a lower-priced generic product so that my health was protected? Where was the public rallying around me when one of my surgeries went wrong and the doctor that performed it was not held liable? Why did no one stand up for my health and well-being when I was in so much pain I couldn’t work or take care of my own family? Why is no one standing up for the mental health of all of the people who are dying by suicide in isolation because they lost their job and can’t socialize with others? Why weren’t they there? Because it wasn’t their job to be there. I am responsible for my own health and safety – we all are. Do we have a moral obligation to help if we can? Sure. But my moral obligation to someone else does not come at the expense of my own rights. That kind of defeats the purpose of the constitution. And the fact that the government is the one forcing us to do this is also suspect, isn’t it? And not only because they have forced ineffective methods on us.

So their argument is that if I choose to not wear a mask, I am selfish? When I wear a mask that reduces MY oxygen levels and ability to think properly, that is not proven to protect myself or others, why is that selfish? I can think of a whole lot of other things that sound “selfish” but we aren’t being forced to do them. Do you still think it is only about public health? Or could it be about compliance?

You’ve all heard of Pavlov and operant conditioning, right? People (and animals) can be trained into believing and reacting to something that isn’t even what they originally thought they were reacting to. All it takes is trained compliance. So why does the government want us to be compliant? That is a good question, and I hope each of you have asked yourself that. Why did Nazi Germany require all Jews to wear a red Star of David on their clothing? Why did they require good and law abiding citizens to report when Jews didn’t wear one? Because they were TOLD it was for the good of their state. And the general public believed it. Is it possible that we are falling for something similar? Citizens of Germany truly thought that they were protecting the health and well-being of their country, when instead they were essentially sentencing millions of Jews (and their fellow citizens – Jew or not) to death. It started with something small – like mandatory Star of David wearing on clothing. And slowly they built up those mandates until it was too late. After they train us to comply and wear a mask, isolate ourselves away from loved ones and others that may be free thinkers, force businesses to close and jobs to be lost, schools to close, will they force compliance on a vaccine that is nowhere near ready for mass production and deliverance? Again – evidence-based practice? It is not about COVID-19. Have you figured that out yet? The government is not looking out for everyone’s health right now, and if masks worked, they would provide us with heavy duty gas masks, right? Have you figured out that it is not about our health yet? If it were, they would be using sound science and research that everyone else has to live up to except them. I’m training to become a speech therapist, not a medical doctor, yet my code of ethics is higher than what they are mandating. And before you say that desperate times call for desperate measures, I’m not sure a virus that has a 97% recovery rate for the majority of individuals that contract it is desperate times. In fact, I’m not even sure that constitutes as a technical “pandemic,” at least not without calling the common cold, childhood cancer, autism and other medical diagnosis a pandemic as well. Seriously. Please tell me that you have considered all these things already.

But the numbers!! The numbers are going up, right? I’d say that is hard to say. Who is reporting the numbers? The mass media? Please refer to my previous posts for that. If a person has cancer and is already in the hospital dying of cancer and then gets COVID-19, did he die of cancer, or COVID-19? If a person with COVID-19 falls off of a 10 ft ladder and dies, did he die from the fall, or COVID-19? These are real cases!! Please look them up. If a person can get tested 4 times at different testing centers on the same day and two of those tests come back positive and two come back negative, which test result is correct? And are they counting both of those positive tests for the same person as one result? Or two? Or did we forget the evidence-based practice when creating coronavirus testing kits as well? OH, you mean the majority of rushed testing kits that test for any of 30+ strains of coronavirus that have been around forever and cause the common cold? You mean those tests can’t always decipher if it is regular coronavirus or COVID-19 that you are testing positive for? Is that why some who test positive have NO symptoms, and others have life-threatening complications? I’m just trying to ask the questions we should all be asking instead of just complying with something that has not been based on any kind of sound research or clinical evidence. And we are falling for it! Is there at least a little bit of doubt that something is not right in this situation? In a court of law we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt… and as far as I’m concerned there are a lot of doubts stacking up here. Could there be a different agenda? Could there be a reason why compliance is the goal and not public health and safety? Of course. Have you learned anything from our history?

I’ve mentioned this in a previous post, but where is the pro-choice movement on this issue? As a woman especially, I have the right to choose what I do with my body, right? Even if it harms the health or even kills an unborn human baby. Right? It is my choice to decide what I do with my body and when. Then why do I not have the right to choose if I wear a mask or not? Especially if it has not been proven to increase the health of those around me? And who is fighting for all of those living unborn babies and their health and safety?

And if it is my responsibility to protect the health and safety of everyone else around me, then I choose to keep a firearm on me at all times. Why? Because you might need to be saved from certain death when someone tries to harm or kill you. That is my responsibility, right?

And why isn’t everyone taking in homeless people who have no protections against COVID-19? If everyone else’s health is the priority and the motive behind wearing masks, then why aren’t government officials requiring we wear masks taking homeless people into their own homes and providing them an opportunity to bathe and sanitize and stay out of the elements so they don’t contract COVID-19 or give it to anyone else?

And do you ever wonder if we would know that we are in a pandemic if the media hadn’t told us? Are people dropping dead around us left and right? Are 90% of its victims losing their battle? Or is there a 97% recovery rate?

I’m just saying that we need to look closer at the motives and the reason they want us to comply. We need to demand that science back up their claims, and NOT science from the companies that are profiting the most from COVID-19 (that is called BIAS). We need to understand that there is definitely reasonable doubt and according to our own justice system, their argument would not hold up in court.

So why are we still complying? Why are we telling on those that aren’t complying? Why are we acting like our freedoms aren’t in the balance, and our way of life has not already been threatened and taken over? We are doing this willingly. What next? Concentration camps for the vulnerable to “protect” them? When will we decide that enough is enough? Again, have we learned nothing from our history?

I haven’t been posting proof, because I feel that people are more likely to learn and understand if they do their own research and find out for themselves. But we are weary and I fear we are running out of time. But please, at least read the following segments of what make up the freedoms in our nation:

Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Constitutional Amendment 14 section 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So again I ask, is my right to breathe an unalienable right? What about my right to provide for my family? I think so, otherwise, what is the point?

Please don’t give up. Please don’t blindly follow. We are not sheeple, but rather individuals that have unalienable rights. If you have a lot of questions and want to learn more, please watch here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/bZ2yliCyu373/