Don’t Drink Water In Ottawa


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 30, 2017

I’ve known many Canadians over the years and even visited their beautiful country, and for the most part, found them to be a very “grounded” group of people, which leads me to think that maybe the proverbial “they” are putting something – LSD? oxycontin? –  into the water supply at Parliament House in Ottawa, for ever since the lamentable advent of Mr. Trudeau on the scene, Canada appears to be in a race to establish Ottawa, and not Washington D.C., as the undisputed leader for the swampiest and kookiest place on the planet. (To my Canadian friends: yea, good luck with that. We’ve had a lot more practice).  As a tangent, I would like to propose a new Friendly International Competition between the two countries, one perhaps to rival the Stanley Cup, for the USA and Canada to compete for the kookiest idea to come from its political class on a yearly basis. This will pit Congress and Parliament House directly against each other. We can call the award the Grand Tacky Award (le Plus Grande Tacqueie for those in Quebec) or Green Worm Award, or some other appropriate name (to be decided at a later date), for the appalling kookiness governing our respective swamps. The award nominations would be reviewed by a committee of equal numbers of sane Canadians and Americans (if they can be found) and a winner chosen by that committee. In cases of ties, Mr. Putin would be invited to interfere in our internal affairs, and cast the deciding vote, which could then be turned over to Congress and the Canadian Parliament as more evidence of Russian malfeasance.

What am I talking about? Canada’s new “gender language” law, which, like most projects coming out of the left these days, is not only nutty, but a massive restriction on freedom of speech, and, at the same time, a dangerous codification in law of what is, at best, a theory(and thanks to Ms. C.V. for sending along the following article):

Canada Passes Bill-C16 Forcing Gender Theory Acceptance

What is intriguing here is to note the reactions:

Senators who voted against the bill along with Plett are all affiliated with the Conservative Party.

They are David Tkachuk, Yonah Martin, Richard Neufeld, Leo Housakos, Don Plett, Betty Unger, Norman Doyle, Tobias C. Enverga, Thanh Hai Ngo, Lynn Beyak, and Denise Batters.

Senators who abstained are Anne Cools (independent) and Conservatives Larry Smith, and Michael MacDonald.

Campaign Life Coalition, the political arm of Canada’s pro-life movement, condemned the passage of Bill C-16.

“This tyrannical bill is nothing but social engineering to the nth degree, all in the name of political correctness,” Campaign Life’s Toronto vice president Jeff Gunnarson told LifeSiteNews.

Jack Fonseca, Campaign Life’s senior political strategist, said the bill will be used the attacked Christian belief.

“Mark my words, this law will not be used as some sort of ‘shield’ to defend vulnerable transsexuals, but rather as a weapon with which to bludgeon people of faith and free-thinking Canadians who refuse to deny truth,” he told LifeSiteNews.”

This, I suspect, is the real root of the problem: it’s a bill designed to attack certain fundamental core pillars, not just political ones, or not just pillars of Canadian law or custom (or, for that matter, the USA, where similar measures have been attempted), but of our common culture; it is a bill enabling a certain vocal minority to be used by people ostensibly concerned with its rights, to seek to impose cultural norms and values on a greater number of people. This is not politics, but culture, and the plain fact of the matter is, the divide is cultural, and not political.

It is, I suspect, about exactly what its conservative critics say it is: an attempt to legalize unrestrained social engineering, and social engineering of a certain type at that.

This month is June, the month that seventy-three years ago the troops of America, Britain, and Canada stormed ashore in Normandy, France, to put an end to a tyranny that likewise regulated speech in the most extreme manner, choosing what words were acceptable, and what were not. One wonders what those men would think, now.

In the final analysis, the Canadian bill is a form of tyranny, like it or not. Let us hope that the insanity which produced it in Canada, and produces similar nonsense in the USA and elsewhere, will not require similar measures to defeat it.

But note, this bill is about forcing certain types of language, and again, this critique suspect what I suspect, that a certain community, in this case, the transgendered community, is being used by the political elite to drive something very different:

Peterson told the Senate committee last month that he believes “ideologues” are “using unsuspecting and sometimes complicit members of the so-called transgender community to push their ideological vanguard forward.”

“The fact that it’s potentially illegal for me not to participate in that is something that I think is absolutely dreadful. It puts a shudder in my heart as a Canadian that we could even possibly be in a situation like that,” he said.

Peterson became Canada’s preeminent critic of the Liberal bill after he produced three videos opposing the enforcement of gender ideology, one of which blasted Bill C-16, which he said “requires compelled speech.”

He has also vowed that, come what may, he will not use “genderless pronouns” such as “zir” and “ze” for those who self-identify as gender non-conforming when requested.

Lawyer Brown told the Senate Committee the federal Liberals have made it clear they will follow Ontario’s lead when implementing Bill C-16. And Ontario Human Rights Code guidelines “mandate” the use of genderless pronouns on request, he said.

“Mandating use of pronouns requires one to use words that are not their own that imply a belief in or agreement with a certain theory on gender,” he added.

And this, as I wrote and said long ago, is the hallmark of all gnostic systems: the demand to (1) define reality solely by language (2) the demonstration that one has subscribed to that “raised consciousness” by adherence to the linguistic agenda, and hence, (3) the pressure on others – by law or simple “shaming tactics” – to adopt the linguistic agenda.  Ultimately, as I have warned before, the coup was to substitute “gender” for “sex.” Once this occurred, it became possible to deal with a fundamental human issue by manipulations of language.

Make no mistake, this is an assault on free speech, and for the fools in the Canadian transgendered community who think this is a good thing I have only this warning: eventually, they will turn on you, as well, and force you to use language you do not wish to use, to force your subscription to a cosmology with which you are not agreed.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Advertisements

Lesson’s From Orwell’s 1984

1984
Source:WakingTimes.com
Ethan Indigo Smith
February 27, 2017

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” — George Orwell

Some fictional literature is so profound as to be relevant for decades. George Orwell’s timeless 1984 is one such literary work. One of the most influential books of our time, its message resonates today as much as it did when it was first published over 65 years ago — as shown by its recent surge to the #1 spot on Amazon’s bestseller list.

So what can 1984 teach us about the modern day?

At its core, 1984 is a post-WWII interpretation of the relationship between individuals and institutions. It changed the course of social history by spawning new language relating to the structure and mechanisms of our society, expanding the scope of human language and thought, and therefore, humanity’s understanding of itself. And that legacy seems perfectly fitting, for in the story of 1984, the world is controlled by so many restrictions that even the expressiveness of the official language, “Newspeak”, is deliberately narrowed by the ruling institutions in a way that limits the ability of individuals to express “thoughtcrime” — that which is deemed illegal by the “Inner Party”, the State.

As a work of fiction, 1984 provides a stark view of a burgeoning culture of totalitarianism. As a work of symbolism, however, it stands as a reflection of modern fact in The U.S.A. and the world today. Within its narrative, the five freedoms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution were infringed and removed; in particular, the freedom of speech was so restricted that there was only one source of news operated by the official governing body and an entire branch of government was dedicated to steadily eliminating language deemed detrimental to the State.

Orwell created new phrases like “Newspeak” (the official, limited language) and its antonym “Oldspeak”, “Goodthink” (thoughts that are approved by the Party) and its antonym “Crimethink”, and “Doublethink” (the normalized act of simultaneously accepting two contradictory beliefs). The new language allowed his narrative to portray and expose age-old structures of thought and language manipulation – structures that have exponentially escalated in the modern day.

In 1984 all opposition is controlled and absorbed into the background. ‘Big Brother’ is the human image that represents The Inner Party (and the Party line) via the Telescreen providing an ‘official’ narrative while appropriating and misrepresenting the notion of brotherhood and unity into a ‘brand name’ — one that actually instills a psychology of collectivism, not brotherhood, just as the controllers in our own world instill nationalism and war-mindedness in the name of “freedom” and “liberty”. Indeed, the Telescreen is the primary means through which norms were forced on the society and false imagery and narratives embedded in its collective consciousness. Totally transfixed on the Party line, as told by the Telescreen, the fictional society of 1984 has lost the ability to think such that it will believe two plus two is five, as the saying goes, as long as it is presented as such on the Telescreen. They have been captive to this set up their entire lives, and, with language and thought restricted and outlawed, they are blind to their own captivity, unable to discern for themselves. Thus, lies are made to be “truths” using logic so distorted that it not only convinces the masses that two plus two equal five, but that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

In reality, individual ignorance is strength to institutions. Such distortions of language and thought (and, incidentally, history) are the perfect means by which to disempower and co-opt an entire society — means that are not limited to the works of fiction. Orwell knew that ideas do not exist separately from language. Language, in both spoken and written forms, is essential to our ability to form and communicate thoughts and ideas. That is why today the United States government, the shadow powerbrokers that control it, and the mainstream media that support it (the entirety of which is owned by only 6 corporations) continue their war on “fake news” — i.e. ideas that are skeptical of government pronouncements, and information that proves them to be false — taking aim not just at independent journalism but independent thought itself. While government surveillance of its own people continues to increase, government secrecy is at an all-time high, the sharing of ideas that challenge the status quo is becoming more heavily censored, releasing information on institutional and State activity is now punishable by law, and whistleblowers from inside the State are systematically destroyed. If that wasn’t Orwellian enough, Donald Trump’s advisors have begun coining phrases like “alternative facts”, and we have even seen the creation of an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”, an “international fact-checking network” charged with deciding what is “truth” and what is “fake news”.

If the events of 1984 continue to hold true, and the ruling Party of today gets its way, words and ideas will soon become not only censored, but illegal and eliminated altogether, controlled by increasingly totalitarian governments steering our society down a dystopian path of censorship, blind belief, and misinformation — all in the name of the State. However, as our minds are freed, one at a time, we are ultimately finding that our society is heavily embedded with such norms and structures that perpetuate false imagery, preserving the status quo of the State from the ‘threat’ of individual thinking — hence the modern war on “fake news”. We are beginning, as a society, to question such falsehood, and exercise our inherent freedom to expose it.

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows”. ~ George Orwell

The Last Man in Europe

The original working title to 1984 was ‘The Last Man in Europe.’ This descriptive and evocative title idea provides a clear glimpse into George Orwell’s intent, and encapsulates a main point of 1984, a title perhaps too revealing to be anything but a working title. Certainly, that is the way many of us feel when we first become aware of lies and partial-truths that are presented as reality by those in control of our society today, and accepted in totality by seemingly everyone else – it is as if we are the last lone person. Indeed, the road of the freethinker can be a lonely one, and the story’s protagonist, patriot Winston Smith, is made to believe he is the last person who questions, who looks, listens and speaks.

In a totalitarian society — be it Orwell’s fictional world or the increasingly authoritarian political regimes of today — the official narratives portrayed by the “official” media portray that a society is in consensus with the State, and that those engaged in Thoughtcrime (whether or not it is legally a crime) are isolated social outcasts and lunatics, and demeaned as “rebels” and “conspiracy theorists” (despite the existence of actual conspiracy, against which the truly conscious mind must inevitably rebel.) Yet in reality, Crimethink is what differentiates we freethinkers from those who are lost in the spell of societal illusion and, therefore, pose a threat to the status quo of the State. But this is part of the trap of Goodthink — it creates the illusion of consensus, and therefore, engenders isolation in those who do not concede.

As a master of his craft, nothing Orwell wrote was off the cuff. Now it is not overtly spoken in the book, but there are four types of people in the fictional realm of 1984. There are three described classes and a suggested fourth, only later is it implied that the Brotherhood, anti-establishment rebels — has been eliminated from the narrative jut as those in power sought to eliminate them from the society.

The Secret to 1984 is ‘4’

1984 is in part an expose on the four basic types of people in a society, the four types of institutions and the four types of institutional lies that enable them.

Characterized by how they respond to information, modern societies are made up of four archetypes of people — idiots, zealots, elitists and patriots. Idiots refuse information, zealots blindly refute information, elitists misuse information, and patriots seek and distribute information. Despite dramatic alterations in the world’s geopolitical landscape, and some fluctuation of individuals from one group/role to another over time, the dynamic between these groups has historically remained the same, and are inevitably intertwined: Idiots avoid all new pertinent information in order to maintain their perspective, never questioning the status quo. Zealots ask certain questions of certain information, ignoring unaligned information in order to maintain their perspective, supporting the status quo at all costs. Elitists question information in order to manipulate and reap gains off those who don’t know, benefiting from the status quo. Patriots question information to educate themselves and share it with others, in order that we might enhance our lives and progress beyond the status quo.

It is no wonder, then, that the patriot has been all but deleted from today’s socio-political landscape, with those acting as true patriots being demonized by the State, and the meaning of the word “patriot” distorted and confused (by the likes of George W. Bush Jr.) to mean an unquestioning, flag-waving, with-us-or-against-us brand of nationalistic idiocy. (Check out my article, The First Amendment – The REAL Patriot Act for a deeper discussion of this.) Using a practice so well-defined by Orwell that it is known today as Orwellian speak, institutions transfer and confuse words and ideas by mixing up themselves, their policies and their products with patriotic ideas and words. They take the meaning of words and archetypes, and flip them on their heads: War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and true patriotism (such as that shown by government whistleblowers) is traitorous.

In reality, the true patriots, the rebels who see through the lies of institutions and act accordingly, are removed from public consciousness in exactly the same way. In “Orwellian” fashion, the fourth deleted class of people in 1984, the Brotherhood, who are working to bring down the fascist Inner Party, are deleted through the admission of language. The other three types, which are specifically mentioned in the-book-within-the-book, the fictional The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, are the High, the Middle and the Low castes. Similarly, the other three types of people depicted in the society of Oceania are the Inner Party, the Outer Party and the Proles. The social classes interact very little.

The Inner Party and Outer Party make up 2% of the population, and are the institutionalized controllers of Oceania. They are akin to modern politicians and the financial elite, working with and against one another, and clamoring to gain and maintain power. They have privileges the other castes do not, including being able to (temporarily) turn off the propaganda-spewing Telescreens.

However, there is a pecking order within the Party. The Outer Party are given state administrative jobs and are composed of the more educated members of society. They are responsible for the direct implementation of the Party’s policies but have no say in decision making. They are the “artificial middle class” and as such, have strict rules applied to them. They are allowed “no vices other than cigarettes and Victory Gin”, are spied on via their Telescreens, and are encouraged to spy on each other, and to report suspicious activities to Big Brother.

The lower class of workers that perform the majority of menial tasks and labors are known as the Proles. They live in the poorest of conditions, are not educated, and instead are kept entertained with alcohol, gambling, sports, fiction and pornography (called “prolefeed”) — the 1984 equivalent of “bread and circus”.

According to the Inner Party and the Telescreen it controls, those who might challenge the system – the important fourth type of person – simply do not exist. The Brotherhood, the organization of patriots, are portrayed by the controlling ‘Inner Party’ as only a rumor, and the notion of their existence is belittled by the Inner Party, via the Telescreen. In Oceania, if the Telescreen is t be believed, there are no patriots, nor is such action allowed — and any who think that way are isolated by the divide-and-conquer tactic used by empires past and present. Thus, like so many in our failing society, Smith believes himself to be ‘The Last Man in Europe’…

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

And yet, as the character of Winston Smith accurately observes in his diary, “If there is any hope, it lies with the Proles” — just as our hope for today lies with the so-called “99%”. The “proles” in our society must begin to look beyond the bread and circus, beyond the prolefeed, and become a true brotherhood, and sisterhood, by questioning information, educating themselves, and sharing what they learn with others in order that we might overcome institutional oppression and finally create the ‘golden age’ that is our combined potential.

God and Gold is Within

“We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.” — George Orwell, 1984

Nothing Orwell wrote was by accident. The name of the character who leads the Brotherhood rebellion is named Emmanuel Goldstein, a name that translates roughly to mean God (Emmanuel) and gold are within (Goldstein). The use of this character name by Orwell asserts a developed, even transmuted human being, who has transcended the imposed limitations of the system he is opposed to, and grown from dull to refined, disempowered to empowered. It also reveals Orwell’s knowledge of how such patriotism and rebellion can become revolution.

The word “prole” is short for prolétariat, a French word derived from the Latin proletarius, meaning “a man whose only wealth is his offspring, or whose sole service to the state is as father”. A word evoking pure institutionalized collectivism, it suggests that the individual has no value other than the labor and progeny he provides to the State. (If you’re only value to the state is as a breeder and consumer, well what kind of world does, sorry, would that result in??) Now compare that definition to the name Emmanuel Goldstein, Golden Godliness is Within. In complete contrast, it is a statement of inner development, of individual enlightenment and empowerment — which, as Orwell knew, are the only forces that can successfully lead a rebellion against the institutional oppression of both fiction and reality.

So, you see, the secret to 1984 is ‘4’. Its most powerful message is in its omissions: in the omission of information, which is the only way the Party/State can maintain authoritarian control, and in the deliberately-omitted fourth human archetype, the righteous rebel, the marginalized voice of descent who is led to believe he is the “last man in Europe”. But in fact, the last man in Europe is you and I. We are everywhere. And, as we open our minds and our mouths, and embrace the gold within, we re-tell the lost narrative of the Brotherhood, and turn our Proles into our Brothers.

________________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Activist, author and Tai Chi teacher Ethan Indigo Smith was born on a farm in Maine and lived in Manhattan for a number of years before migrating west to Mendocino, California. Guided by a keen sense of integrity and humanity, Ethan’s work is both deeply connected and extremely insightful, blending philosophy, politics, activism, spirituality, meditation and a unique sense of humour.

Ethan’s publications include:

For more information, visit Ethan on Facebook.

Read More At: WakingTimes.com

PROPAGANDA ALERT: Pediatricians Now Advised ‘It’s Dangerous to Call Breastfeeding Natural’

breastfeeding benefits
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
May 3, 2017

When making decisions that affect your health, and the health of your children, it’s important they are grounded on clear, fact-based information, and not influenced by those who may stand to gain financially. In past years, this was sufficiently demonstrated in results from industry-funded studies that are widely divergent from results of non-industry biased studies.1

For instance, studies funded by the sugar industry claimed fats were the primary trigger for heart disease, when research has demonstrated it is sugar and trans fats that are the culprit. For years the tobacco industry hid the dangers of lung cancer. This misinformation damaged the health of innumerable individuals.

Breastfeeding has suffered some of the same erroneous advice over the years. Following the development of manufactured infant formula, mothers were advised to bottle feed in order to improve the health of their children. Today, multiple studies demonstrate breastfeeding is more beneficial, both for you and your baby.

A recent bioethical (ethics in medical and biological research) argument in the journal Pediatrics now advises pediatricians it’s time to stop referring to breastfeeding as something “natural.”2 However, while the article focuses on breastfeeding, the intent appears to be aimed at bolstering the vaccine program.

Science Struggling With ‘Natural’

Authors Jessica Martucci, Ph.D., and Anne Barnhill, Ph.D., published a short essay3 in the journal Pediatrics, in which they discuss the use of the word “natural” to describe breastfeeding. Their argument is against using the word and built on a previous publication from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.4

The 109-page Nuffield Council report attempts to classify and understand how the term “natural” may affect an individual’s process in making decisions about health care. They stated:5

“Commending, praising or [favoring] something on the basis of its being natural, or [criticizing], condemning or disapproving of something on the grounds that it is unnatural connects the notion of what is natural with value.”

Using this as a basis for their argument, the authors proceed to recommend the term “natural” not be used as pediatricians encourage new mothers to breastfeed. It is almost opposite of published breastfeeding initiatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics,6 which state:7

“Breastfeeding and human milk are the normative standards for infant feeding and nutrition. Given the documented short- and long-term medical and neurodevelopmental advantages of breastfeeding, infant nutrition should be considered a public health issue and not only a lifestyle choice.”

It appears the authors’ underlying assumption is that public health initiatives must be built based on the hypothesis individuals cannot differentiate between what is natural or normal and what is healthy. The authors propose:8

“Promoting breastfeeding as “natural” may be ethically problematic and, even more troublingly, it may bolster this belief that “natural” approaches are presumptively healthier. This may ultimately challenge public health’s aims in other contexts, particularly childhood vaccination.”

The Value of ‘Natural’

The definition of natural is “existing in or formed by nature.”9 At no point in this definition is there a value-added implication that natural is healthier. In fact, there are many sources of natural products that are not safe, not the least of which is the opium poppy and the natural source of opiate drugs.10

In an article published months after the initial piece in the journal Pediatrics, Martucci describes the backlash she and her colleague experienced. She described how many groups took offense to the way her article defined individuals who believe in working with the body to promote health, as opposed to starting with technology to treat illness. In the original article, Martucci and Barnhill wrote:

“Studies have shown that parents who resist vaccination tend to inhabit networks of like-minded individuals with similar beliefs.

These pockets of anti-vaccination 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.”

While the authors may have meant this statement negatively, it is a strong assessment of the change in thinking currently underway. No longer are physicians and institutions given carte blanche to determine what is best for your health. Instead, individuals are taking responsibility to become educated in how to maintain their own health.

In her rebuttal, Martucci described herself as a “natural motherhood sympathizer,” until the article in Pediatrics was published.11 She and Barnhill became increasingly disturbed by the way “nature” was used by government agencies addressing public health issues. From this came an observation that ultimately led to their article:12

“The “nature” arguments used by vaccine skeptics to critique public health efforts seemed highly reminiscent of the “nature” arguments used by public health authorities to promote breastfeeding.”

Comparing Apples and Oranges

However well-meaning Martucci and Barnhill’s arguments may appear on the surface, they are comparing two different public health initiatives using their model to imply an inability to recognize the difference between “natural” and “healthy” or “safe,” and comparing the benefits of breastfeeding against the risks associated with vaccination. They write:13

“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.”

The juxtaposition between breastfeeding, which has no associated risk, and vaccinations that have a long history of drug-related side effects, is not an accident and likely meant to draw a parallel between the two, insinuating they are both equally safe.

The backlash from the article has focused on the breastfeeding issue. However, the underlying issue may not be the implication that the word “natural” may have an additional value that could possibly influence a health care decision, but rather that it could negatively influence the decision to vaccinate.

It is interesting that both authors14,15 have enjoyed employment at the same institution as Dr. Paul Offit, director of the vaccine education center at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia and professor of vaccinology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Offit’s book, “Autism’s False Prophets,” came under scrutiny after he and his publisher, Columbia University Press, were sued for fabricating an online conversation.16 He has also been widely criticized for profiting millions from royalty payments on a vaccine he invented and promotes heavily.17

Offit more recently has written about eating a gluten free diet. In his article he endorses the benefits of technologically based products, including genetically engineered food, BPA and eating wheat based foods, saying:18

“At Whole Foods, you can buy products guaranteed to be free of: (1) one of the most important scientific advances in the 20th century (‘GMO-free’); (2) a chemical resin that the Food and Drug Administration as well as every other regulatory agency that has weighed in on this subject has declared safe (‘BPA-free’); and (3) a component of wheat that causes a disease that affects about 1 percent of the American population (‘gluten-free’).”

Is It Possible to Be Too Clean?

As civilization moved from living outdoors, in the dirt and under the sun, to inside buildings, our children have had less exposure to a variety of germs.

This reduction in exposure may have led to an increase in illness and disease. Most parents worry about the germs their children may pick up from floors, dropped pacifiers and toys, but exposure to some germs may actually help to develop a more robust immune system by seeding the gut microbiome.19

A recent study20 compared the immune systems of children who grew up in an Amish community, generally on small single family farms, with Hutterite children who are genetically similar but live on more industrialized farms. They found the Amish children, whose environment was rich in a variety of microbes, had unusually lower rates of asthma than their research counterparts.

While there is no question that improved hygiene has saved many children and adults from illness, disease and infection, the movement to eradicate all germs in your immediate area may have backfired. Vaccinations are the pharmaceutical industry’s answer to correct the situation. However, the options pumped out by drug companies do not address the complexities of your body’s response to germs as discussed in the video below, and are not the solution.

Studies now demonstrate it is important to strike a balance between protection from rampant illness and creating a sterile environment where the immune system is not challenged to develop normally. Seeding the microbiome of children is critical to a vigorous immune system, which infants receive through breastfeeding.21

Vaccines Are Not Risk Free

Drug companies were granted immunity against vaccine injuries and deaths after the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court determined licensed vaccines were unavoidably unsafe.22 This essentially became a “free pass,” protecting manufacturers and physicians against those seeking to sue for death or injury resulting from a vaccination. In this interview, Dr. Suzanne Humphries dismantles the historical arguments used to defend vaccines.

Without legal liability, pharmaceutical companies are free to release vaccines that are poorly tested and have produced dubious results. However, poor performance is not the only negative effect. Included with the active ingredient, all vaccines contain some combination of suspending fluid, preservative, stabilizer and enhancers (adjuvants).23 One of the more common adjuvants or enhancers, used in attenuated vaccines delivered to neurologically developing children, is aluminum.

As illogical as it seems, children are thus injected with a known neurotoxic substance — aluminum. As noted in a 2011 study by Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw:24

“Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds.

In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.”

Aluminum Is Not an Essential Trace Metal

Offit argues that “aluminum is an essential metal … believed to play an important role in the development of a healthy fetus.”25 However, he is in the minority, as most scientists not associated with the vaccine industry acknowledge that while aluminum is found in most humans, it is not required by biological systems, nor does it participate in biological processes.26

Studies have demonstrated the lack of participation in the biological process,27 and its neurotoxic results in the body.28,29 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also clearly states the action of aluminum inside a child’s body is not the same as in an adult, as children are not neurologically mature, have an increased susceptibility to hazardous chemicals, and their unique physiology influences the results of exposure.30

Today, American children are the most highly vaccinated in the world — and the most chronically ill. The CDC reports 1 in 6 children, or 16 percent, have learning disabilities, while in 1976 the prevalence was less than 1 percent.31 In that same period between 1976 and 2008, the number of vaccines children received more than doubled.

Exposure to aluminum is only one of the identified health challenges associated with vaccinations, for both children and adults. Removing the word “natural” from recommendations to breastfeed will not change the side effects from the vaccine program in the U.S. It is more important to use public health initiatives to educate individuals about the fact-based risks and benefits to any healthcare choice.

Benefits of Breastfeeding for Mother and Infant

Infant formula, created in a lab, cannot replace breast milk when it comes to providing exactly what your baby needs, at the time they need it. Breast milk is produced based on your baby’s growing requirements, unlike infant formula which cannot accommodate your child’s nutritional needs.

Breast milk is loaded with nutrient growth factors that prime your child’s gut to promote the growth of a healthy microbiome and thus a healthy immune system. Breast milk also contains the exact amount of cholesterol your child’s brain needs for optimal neurological development. Breastfed babies also have fewer ear, respiratory, stomach and intestinal infections than their formula-fed counterparts.

Breastfeeding benefits the mother too, as it helps burn more calories and shed “baby weight,” and may reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease later in life.32 The additional load on your metabolism may lower a diabetic’s requirement for insulin, and reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes if you suffered from gestational diabetes during pregnancy.33

While breastfeeding is a natural and healthy means of meeting your child’s nutritional needs, it is important to note your child’s nutrition is dependent upon what you consume. Some drugs will pass from mother to child through breast milk, for example, making the process of breastfeeding natural, but only as safe and healthy as the foods and medications you consume.

Martucci’s and Barnhill’s argument that there is value added to the term “natural” in our society, thus making it a dangerous word to use in public health initiatives, is not a reasonable assumption. Instead, it is important to provide fact-based information to ensure safe health care decisions are made, regardless of whether the choices are natural or created in a laboratory.

When it comes to breastfeeding, there’s simply no doubt that it is the healthiest and safest choice available for the vast majority of women and children, and I find it truly disturbing that Martucci and Barnhill would risk undermining the global effort to promote and increase breastfeeding, as it is a crucial component of optimal health.

Considering the fact that babies have been successfully raised on breast milk since the dawn of mankind, it stands to reason that breastfeeding is as natural as it gets, and that breast milk is an ideal, healthy and safe food, providing a growing infant with everything it needs.

Read More At: Mercola.com