Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Stop the Discrimination by Revenue Canada- CCTB

While many Canadians know that dealing with Revenue Canada can be a pain in the butt, and that dealing with the Canadian Child Tax Benefit people can be especially frustrating, they may not realize the just how far this agency will go to make life a living hell.

Twice in the past 4 years I've gone head to head with the CCTB offices. Once for a claim they'd made against me for no reason,  and once when they spent 7 months giving me the run around and making me jump through hoops when our second youngest son was born.  After 7 months of complete and utter frustration, I finally called up the offices of the Minister of Finance in Ottawa.  I lucked out and somehow got a hold of the Aide to the Minister himself and was able to tell him the entire sordid tale.... miraculously, 24 hours later I got a call from the manager from the local  Revenue Canada office and 5 days after that I had a cheque for the entire 7 months of back payments of missing CCTB cheques.

The noisy hinge gets the oil.

Last week a friend of mine sent me a link to a group on Facebook called "Stop The Discriminatory CTB Review" that grabbed my interest, so I clicked over to see what the group was about.  While I was absolutely no stranger to the never ending frustration of dealing with Revenue Canada, what I discovered really rattled me.  This is what Amber, owner of the Facebook page, wrote:

How The Canadian Child Tax Benefit Review Is DiscriminatoryThe CRA is conducting and has been conducting reviews of random families recieveing CTB. This review asks that you show various forms of proof that your child(ren) lived with you for specific tax years. They allow a month to provide the letters necessary, failing to provide exactly what they ask for results in you owing back the CTB for that tax year or not recieveing retro-payment. The specific requirements are: A letter from an authorized daycare, A letter from your child's school as well as a letter from your family Dr. or Dentist naming the dates your child was seen and the address at which they lived spanning the ENTIRE (the review itself put that in bold) year under review. Families who cannot provide the following required letters are as follows:...-Parents who choose to stay at home with thier children and not send them to daycare.-Parents who choose an unauthorized daycare provider (family member or friend)-Parents who home educate-Parents who choose not to or due to allergies are unable follow the regular vaccine schedule-Families who do not have a family doctors and only bring their child(ren) to the dentist every 6 months as recommended by the Canadian Dental Association. -Families who choose a Naturopathic doctor as their primary healthcare provider-Families who do not have dental insurance and recieve dental care through a free dental clinic I am currently working on a letter to Tony Clement describing (using statistics Canada) how the strict criteria for proving that your children lived with you for a specific tax year, is not only discriminatory, but also guarantees a large amount of savings in CTB pay out for our federal government. If you know of any families currently under going this "review" or simply believe that this is a discrimnatory review please send them to this group and join it yourselves.

Amber has written an excellent letter to Minister Tony Clement, asking that he, and our government, address this blatant discrimination against families in Canada.  I would like to encourage everyone to send a copy of this letter, or write your own, to the Hon. Tony Clement, and to all your local MPs and MPPs.  Our Canadian Government needs to hear the voices of those that are being discriminated against and the voices of Canadians in support of these necessary changes.

The CRA Ombudman's office has stated that their office will not handle these concerns however the Canadian Human Rights Commission  can, and The Minister of Finance- This situation should/could be considered a "systemic" complaint, this link will take you directly to the comments form. It can be filled out with your own words, or use the letter below.

To The Honourable Tony Clement:
I have recently read the request for information for the Canada Revenue Agency’s Canadian Child Tax Benefit Review, and I am deeply concerned about the strict and discriminatory criteria for proving that one’s child lived with them during the year under review. I am also disturbed that the review appears to be an accusation of tax fraud, with monetary consequences and not criminal, as such, the burden of proof rests on the accused. For clarity, all quotes from the CCTB review documents will be in bold.
The strict and in some situations, impossible to provide, requirements are as follows:
In the proof of residency:
“If you are the owner of your residence, provide your property tax bill(s) for each year under review. Your property tax bill must include your full name, the address of the property and the year” What if the house is only in the spouses’ name and therefore the property tax bill does not include the name of the member of the family that receives CCTB?
“In addition to either A) or B) please provide one of the following documents”
“C) Mortgage papers” Mortgage may not be in the name of CCTB recipient
“D ) Insurance policies” CCTB receiver may not have insurance of any kind in their name.
“E) Household bills…Please provide TWO of these documents per year for each year under review.” People renting in all-inclusive situations and only using cell phones could not provide this information. Also the parent receiving CCTB, may not have utility bills in their name.
The discriminatory requirements are as follows:
"Please provide documentation from TWO of the following sources for each child to support the ENTIRE period under review” (please note: all uppercase print exists on original document)
“A) A copy of the child’s registration/enrollment document or information/emergency contact sheet. It must be signed and certified by the school to be a true copy.” According to the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents, the number for Canada as a whole is estimated at approximately 60,000 homeschooled children.
“B) A letter from the daycare or school authorities which includes the following information from their files…” According to Statistics Canada, General Social Survey: Navigating Family Transitions, published Wednesday June 13th 2007: “23% of parents who took leave did not reintegrate into the labour market…24% who did not return to work said it was for financial reasons, that childcare services were too expensive to be worth the cost” Also, Statistics Canada article, Women in Canada: Paid Work. Published December 9th, 2010, stated : “The employment rate for women with children under the age of 3 was 64.4%” That leaves a percentage of 36.6% who did not need a regular daycare provider. I think we can agree that this is a significant amount of families that cannot possibly provide the required documents.
“C) Report card(s) for each year under review, only if they include the child’s home address, attendance record and guardian’s name.” see OFTP estimate of homeschooled children above.
“D) A letter from your family doctor or dentist confirming the child is under the doctor’s or dentist’s care and indicating the home address on their file for the child. The letter must contain the dates that the child was seen by them and must cover the entire period under review. The letter must be on letterhead and must be signed by the doctor or dentist…” “More than 1 quarter of those aged 20-34 were without a regular medical doctor…in comparison 1in 5 Canadians aged 35-44 (18%) …were without a regular family doctor…” – Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (correction) published June 21st, 2011. These are the age groups who are currently raising families. I do not believe it is an unfair assumption that many of the children of these adults who do not have family physicians also are without a family physician themselves. Which leaves a letter from a dentist as proof of the child living with the CCTB recipient: “The letter must contain the dates that the child was seen by them and must cover the entire period under review” The Canadian Dental Association recommends: “…a dental exam every six months will let your child’s dentist catch small problems early.” Unless, the child(ren) is suffering from serious dental problems there is no way, with a letter from the dentist, that a family could provide the documents that cover the entire period under review, as requested by the Canada Revenue Agency.
Finally according to the CRA’s CTTB review: “If you do not reply or do not provide the requested information and supporting documentation, we will stop or revise your payments. You may also be required to repay amounts already received” Families who cannot provide the requested documentation and therefore may have their CCTB payments stopped, revised be forced to repay amounts received are as follows:
-Families with a stay at home parent, who choose not to send their children to a daycare center.
-Families who home educate.
-Families without a family doctor
-Families in which the CCTB recipient is unemployed or chooses not to be responsible for utilities and therefore has no bills in his/her name.
-Families who live in “utilities included” housing.
There is a large amount of families in this constituency and all over Canada, that fall under the descriptions above, please do not let this discriminatory review deprive them of much needed CCTB.
Thanking you in advance for your swift action to protect this financial income for the families in your constituency,

To send an email to Tony Clement-

To find your local MP:

As I have said over and over, the only way we can make change happen is to stand up and speak out.  Please, take 15 minutes out of your busy schedule and let your voice be heard!!!

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

IBFAN: The Business of Malnutrition

The Business of malnutrition: breaking down trade rules to profit from the poor

Guidelines for a new range of products for babies ‘at risk’ of malnutrition was the topic at the annual meeting of Codex, the UN body that sets food standards. In the press release below, learn about how the mass marketing of these products may create the scary new ‘business of malnutrition’ where the developed world makes big profits from the malnutrition and poverty of the developing world.

Press Release

The Business of malnutrition: 
breaking down trade rules to profit from the poor

Codex Nutrition Committee: Bad Soden, Frankfurt, Germany
12-18th November 2011
Health campaigners, led by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and representatives from a dozen developing countries attended the Nutrition Meeting of Codex, the UN body that sets international food standards These attendees achieved partial success in the Codex Guidelines by calling for strict controls on the marketing of a loose range of processed fortified products for babies that were never clearly defined. The objective was to provide nutrients which are “either lacking or are present in insufficient quantities,” with the clear aim of targeting all those ‘at risk’ of malnutrition.
The countries, Brazil, Nigeria, Chile, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Gambia, Togo, Cameroon, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, South Africa and Bolivia, fearing that uncontrolled marketing would undermine breastfeeding, increase family poverty and create dependence on products that are expensive and often unnecessary, called for several key World Health Assembly Resolutions to be mentioned in the guidelines. The United States and the European Union initially opposed this move saying that because the Resolutions stand on their own there was no need to refer to them. Australia and Botswana suggested that paragraphs from the relevant WHA texts could be referenced and, after the World Health Organisation (WHO) explained the importance of the Resolutions, the EU and the US agreed to a compromise.
Experts from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), led by Elisabeth Sterken of INFACT Canada, suggest that as the EU and US economic crisis continues, the new ‘business of malnutrition’ – which has the potential for multi-billion dollar profits from exports to the developing world and is portrayed as a win-win solution for the economy and development – could lead to a marketing bonanza that, instead of improving infant and young child health, could harm it and drain family budgets.
. . . .
Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada/IBFAN North America

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Sending our toddlers off to school to learn to be good little automatons

Two days ago an article was published that literally left me speechless, and gave me a serious case of Head/Desk.

*Thud*..... thud thud thud..... *repeat

The article entitled "Childhood education starting at age 2 would pay off big, new Canadian report concludes" on states:

Forget about daycare, a new Canadian report recommends every child should start going to school starting at age two.The Early Years Study 3 , released Tuesday, recommends toddlers have access to publicly funded early-childhood education at their local school. The report says an "avalanche of evidence" indicates there's a big payoff for kids if they start learning earlier.
"Education is well-established and a well-valued system within our country, and it's a place we feel it should be attached to, to build on," Margaret Norrie McCain, who co-authored the report with the late Dr. Fraser Mustard and Kerry McCuaig," said in the Toronto Star ......recommendations should be easy to implement in Ontario, which already has a full-day kindergarten for children aged four and five.
"I would come down to three-year-olds, then two-year-olds and one-year-olds," Mustard said. "I'd move right down, and I'd pay (early childhood educators) well, and if you are telling me we don't have the money, I'd make the point that the risk for physical and mental health problems is actually set in early development."

The Early Years "Study" it's self says

"the three Early Years studies argue that if we truly wish to provide our children with an equal opportunity to maximize their potential, it is vital that we do everything we can to enhance their early development. Our survival as a species will depend on our children acquiring the skills they will need to cope with the social and environmental revolutions of the 21st century. Canada’s tomorrow depends on our ability to leverage what we know into policies and practices that support families and benefit children today." 

As I said above, these articles literally left me with a raging headache and an inability to form the cloud of outrage in my head into simple words.  But don't worry, because Jonathan McLeod seems to of taken all the anger and spluttering exasperation in my head and put it all together in a great package of words that echo my thoughts almost exactly.  

*course language warning for those that are sensitive to those things

They’re Dirty Filthy LiarsJonathan McLeodNews agencies have been picking up on a new report on child, err toddler, education. The Early Years Study 3 has made some waves as the researchers propagandists behind it make the claim that children as young as 18 months need to be dumped into schools where they can start learning.The report is garbage.This isn’t some new study that has been released, it’s not even some meta-study, analyzing the results of various other studies. It’s a political manifesto dressed up academic garb. From the very beginning, the authors state an obvious, but insidious, agenda: their “progressive goal” to make society better. ‘Progressive’ is a funny term. It seems so beneficial, and can so easily be dropped in as a synonym for ‘liberal’, but that’s not what’s going on here. The authors have a political cause to push, and they will stop at nothing – nothing – to get disabuse you of any differing views of the functioning of society.The authors are quite clear in their intent and their concern. They aren’t worried about children; they aren’t worried about families. Yes, they dress up all their politics in fuzzy stories about trips to the library and immigrants finding a place in our cold, dark society, but their concern is only for society, not individuals and not families. Personal desires and preferences should never be a primary concern; the will of the individual should be subverted for the benefit of the state.Don’t believe me? The report bemoans the lost economic activity of stay-at-home parents. The parents, we are told, are not being productive or contributing to society. They need to be freed, apparently, from the chains of parenting so that they may serve a greater function. The report worries that if the current trend away from stay-at-home parents were to reverse, it could spell the economic doom of Canada. I’m. Not. Kidding.These people were sly. They’re incredibly dishonest, but they’re not dumb. The report (and there’s too much crap in there for me to fisk the whole thing) begins with discussions about child development, and throws in a nice anecdote about a new Canadian who needed the government to help her care for all her kids. How could you be against child development or new Canadians integrating into society? Early on, though, the fix is in. First off, when the authors begin comparing their preferred model of round-the-clock child care, they tip their hand by comparing the costs to that of other schools in the district (Toronto), but they’re only comparing a public institution to other public institutions. No private schools are ever mentioned. This is a theme throughout the entire report; education is the sole domain of the government.

To read the rest of Jonathan's excellent diatribe please click HERE

If this is the way that our government thinks we should nurture our children and "support families".... it makes me very happy to be a stay at home - homeschooling mom!!!  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

"Milksharing on Facebook: one year later"

With the whirlwind of starting homeschooling and getting ready for Halloween, I completely forgot about our first anniversary!  October 28th marked the first anniversary of the launch of a global milksharing network on Facebook!!  I can NOT believe that it's already been 12 months- it seems like just weeks ago we were setting up pages and organizing hundreds of volunteers and pulling together press releases..... WOW!

Jodine's World's article  "Milksharing on Facebook: One year later" sums it all up perfectly!!

It's been a whole year since Emma Kwasnica's Facebook milksharing network  was launched. I can't believe it's been that long - seems like 10 minutes ago I was blogging about the six-month anniversary with my post, "A funny thing happened on the way to the milk bank."
Early on there were some bumps for global milksharing - understandable as 300 volunteer admins struggled to set up and run local communities using Facebook. Just as individuals struggle with the love-hate relationship with Facebook, so did the admins managing over a hundred community pages in 50 countries around the globe.
 Then there were some personality clashes - the original Eats on Feets Arizona community page founder parted ways with the global network after asserting her rights to her name. The global group became Human Milk 4 Human Babies (HM4HB) and while moms just kept right on offering up surplus milk and babes continued to receive it, the name change has hampered the growth of this network. There are still some Eats on Feets pages around and families new to milksharing can't always find their active local communities. And these days the Eats on Feets website has been hijacked by someone peddling breast implants and pregnancy diets, creating the potential for confusion for individuals and even reporters looking to do a feature on the one-year anniversary of the movement.
But Human Milk 4 Human Babies hasn't lost any steam and in September it sponsored the first World Milksharing Week with broad worldwide participation from Australia to Arizona.
 And although France joined the US and Canada with official warnings about the dangers of informal or Internet-based milksharing, three well-known academics published a supportive commentary in the International Breastfeeding Journal. "Milk Sharing: from private practice to public pursuit"  has become the most accessed item on the IBJ website this year. Authors James Akre, Karleen Gribble and Maureen Minchin argue the risks of milksharing are manageable and conclude: 


"this made-by-mothers model shows considerable potential for expanding the world's supply of human milk and improving the health of children." Akre, Gribble, Minchin, IBJ 2011

HERE to read the entire article on Jodine's World

So much has happened in the past year.  Human Milk 4 Human Babies has grown bigger and faster and busier than we ever thought possible at this time last year.  Mothers are coming together all over the world to create "communities" to support each other and insure that babies are getting the breastmilk they need to grow and be strong and healthy.  This is the Vision and Mission of HM4HB: to promote the nourishment of babies and children around the world with human milk. We are dedicated to fostering community between local families who have chosen to share breastmilk.

Our Vision

HM4HB is a global milksharing network, a virtual village, comprising thousands of people from over fifty countries. We are mothers, fathers, adoptive families, grandparents, childbirth and breastfeeding professionals, volunteers, supporters, donors, and recipients that have come together to support the simple idea that all babies and children have the right to receive human milk. We use social media as a platform for local families to make real-life connections and come together as sustainable milksharing communities where women graciously share their breastmilk. HM4HB is built on the principle of informed choice: we trust, honour, and value the autonomy of families and we assert they are capable of weighing the benefits and risks of milksharing in order to make choices that are best for them. We hold the space for them and protect their right to do what is normal, healthy, and ecological.

Breastmilk, the biologically normal sustenance for humankind, is a free-flowing resource and mothers of the world are willing to share it. Milksharing is a vital tradition that has been taken from us, and it is crucial that we regain trust in ourselves, our neighbors, and in our fellow women. Feeding any breastmilk substitute is not without risk and we support the families who know there is another option. We are the bridge that connects local families and brings them together again as milksharing communities. Indeed, the future of humanity depends on our return to sharing in a local and tangible way with one another.

We want milksharing and wet-nursing to be commonplace and babies to be fed at women's breasts whenever and wherever they need it. We dream of a world where mothers from previous generations pass on the tradition of breastfeeding and are a wealth of knowledge and support. We can forsee a time when women protect each other and help one another feed their babies so that every mother feels whole and no mother feels broken or that her body is failing her. We imagine a world where family members, friends, lactation consultants, doctors, and midwives do not hesitate to recommend donor milk when it is needed. We envision a future where families come together to raise this generation, and the next, by nourishing human babies everywhere with human milk and unconditional love.

Every person of the world is invited to join HM4HB. Page administrators, members, donors, recipients, and supporters are all important for building local, real-life communities where acquiring donor milk is no different than asking a trusted neighbor for an egg. We hope that one day in the future all babies in the world will thrive and grow on mother's milk, and HM4HB will no longer be needed because wet-nurses and breastmilk are available on every street, village, town, city, and island around the globe.
 For more information about Human Milk 4 Human Babies, please visit the website at:  Visit the global fan page on Facebook:


Sunday, October 30, 2011

"15 Tricks of Formula Companies"

This is oh so brilliant that I have nothing to add- The Alpha Parent has covered pretty much every single thing that needs to be said!!!! This long article outlines EXACTLY what Infant formula companies do to convince you to use their product.  Unethical marketing of infant formula has been going on a lot longer than most people think!!!!

It's Halloween!!  Please Boycott Nestle!!! 

"15 Tricks of Formula Companies"


Infant formulas were originally designed to be a medical nutritional tool for babies who are unable to breastfeed due to unfortunate circumstances such as maternal death or illness. Nowadays the formula industry accounts for US$20.2 billion (data for 2010). It doesn’t take Einstein to figure out that formula is now being used by more than the 2% of women who physically can’t breastfeed. What went wrong? Formula companies got greedy and laws didn’t keep up, that’s what. The greedier the company, the more strategic and underhanded their marketing becomes. This article exposes 15 tricks of the most popular formula companies, illustrating how greed is more powerful than concern for infant welfare.

Trick #1: Get your logo everywhere

FACT: Exposure to formula promotion increases significantly breastfeeding cessation in the first 2 weeks. Also, among women with uncertain goals or breastfeeding goals of 12 weeks or less, exposure to formula promotion results in exclusive, full, and overall breastfeeding duration being shortened (Howard C et al. Obstetrics and Gynaecology Vol 5, No 2, Feb 2000 p296-303).

This is bad news for babies, but great news for formula companies. The less women who breastfeed – the more formula is purchased. This means lots of wonga for the shareholders. To put this scenario in context, check out the following stats:

The advertising spend for formula companies in 2006/07 was £7,626,847, an increase of 36.6% on the previous year.

The UK Government budget for promoting breastfeeding was £729,011 in 2006/07, a decrease on the 2004/05 figure of £747,000.
(Figures published by Save the Children).

The key to successful product marketing is to get as much exposure as possible, and the formula companies have got this down to a tee. They’ve been churning out hard sell marketing for decades. Here’s a Cow & Gate advertisement published widely in 1940s and 1950s UK:


“The best possible start in life”? Looks like formula companies’ lack of accuracy is nothing new. Nowadays they just find more covert and underhanded ways to mislead parents. They advertise in parenting magazines and, more recently, fashion and celebrity magazines. Here is an advertisement from Aptamil (right) featured in Pregnancy Magazine April 2008. It is a stitched insert so that the magazine naturally falls open at that page. I’ll talk more about advertising to pregnant women bellow.

With so many formula companies paying vast amounts of money to parenting magazines, is it any wonder the deputy editor of Mother and Baby magazine wrote an article describing breastfeeding as “creepy” (The Guardian ).

Along with magazines, formula companies also place their advertisements on third-party websites, forums and blogs, promoting their infant formula brand name and encouraging mothers to visit their company website. One of the reasons I am reluctant to activate advertising on this blog is the inevitability that a formula company will detect the parenting content and submit their advertisements to the server.

Not content with bombarding your computer when you’re online, formula companies want dibs on it offline too. The idea is that every time you switch on your PC or laptop you’ll see their brand. Here’s Aptamil’s free desktop calendar:


You’ll also be targeted in supermarkets, where Cow & Gate branded gifts such as dummies and growth charts are distributed. This photo was taken in Sainsbury’s, September 2007:


And here they are at it again in Tesco, August 2011:


Aside from these examples, there’s also leaflets in health centres, email spam, snail-mail spam, supermarket ‘shelf talkers’ (plastic signs that flop out at you), pamphlets in Bounty packs, billboards, posters on public transport, internet pop-ups, TV commercials, radio advertisements, text messages, newspaper ads, social network advertising, YouTube video advertising, and several other gems I shall reveal bellow. Formula companies have an array of arsenal in their fight to line your baby’s gut, and more importantly, their pockets. The more cash they make, the more surplus funds they have to pump into their marketing arsenal. At this point you may wish to ponder what arsenal the breastfeeding movement has, and whose interests it serves.

Trick #2: Exploit the lazy

The rise of the bottle-feeding culture has fundamentally distorted our perception of the normal biology and psychology of new motherhood. It has produced a growing number of women who do not want babies’ feeds to dictate their lives. They cannot cope with the frequency of feeds required to maintain a good milk supply; that is, they cannot content themselves to sit and feed.

Why do a significant proportion of women now find that they 'can't cope' with something that's a biologically normal part of parenting? Women coped sufficiently well until formula marketing kicked off in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They also coped during the Second World War when formula was unavailable.

By claiming convenience, formula companies tap into the psyche of the lazy parent. However as I described in my article “10 (Selfish) Things I Love About Breastfeeding ”, formula feeding is anything but convenient and in many cases it’s tantamount to a pain in the arse.

No time is formula feeding more of a pain than during the night. Kettles to boil, powder to mix, milk to cool - it’s enough to wake the neighbours; so formula companies have produced ‘Goodnight Milk’. The name itself is an idealizing claim, as it suggests the milk is necessary for babies to sleep through the night. The suggestion itself is concerning, as sleeping deeper puts babies at higher risk of cot death. UNICEF has maintained that “Goodnight Milk is not necessary for any baby and there is no independent evidence to support the claim that they help babies settle or that they are easy to digest.” (UNICEF 2010 ).



Goodnight milks are thickened with cereals to make them harder to digest. Aside from the risk that they will be used to replace a night time breastfeed, another worry is that the products could encourage parents to put their baby to bed immediately after bottle-feeding which would rot a baby's developing teeth.

As with goodnight milk, the following SMA television advertisement plays on mothers’ insecurities and concerns about night feeding. It features a voice over from a man promising not to pretend to be asleep when his young baby wakes up and promising to do his share of night feeding. A scene from the ad shows a dad falling asleep next to a boiling kettle and a tin of SMA Progress in the middle of the night:

I’m sorry to burst SMA’s bubble but as Gabrielle Palmer (The Politics of Breastfeeding , 2009) has pointed out, “The reality is that few fathers actually do take the whole responsibility of infant care and most artificial feeding is still done by mothers”.

Click HERE to read the entire article on The Alpha Parent

Monday, October 17, 2011

Disney and Similac join forces to ruin breastfeeding.

Yep, Disney has joined forces with Similac, to put together pediatric kits to be sent out to OB/GYN offices across america.  These kits will of course contain samples of infant formula and baby bottles and coupons and some sort of Disney promotional paraphernalia.  Over 2 million of these kits are heading out to mothers leaving the hospital with their new babies.

When I read this article I just about had a conniption.  I"m not a Disney fan at the best of times, but now that they've joined forces with Similac, I've just discovered a new company to boycott!!!

..... Similac's latest conniving plan to interfere with breastfeeding mothers.  I'm so mad.

I strongly suggest that we start a writing campaign to Disney.  Unfortunately, after 30 minutes of searching, this is the ONLY way I've been able to discover to contact them in any way:

In their 2010 Corporate Citizenship Report, on the topic of "Human Rights" Disney says:

In implementing our human rights commitments, we will focus on the following four areas.
  • Policy Statement:
  •  Our policy statement is a first step in articulating our commitment. Our priority over the next year is to communicate this policy more widely within the Company and further engage our employees in upholding and implementing it.
  • Assessment:
  •  We are enhancing our assessment of potential human rights impacts in targeted areas including our workplace practices, labor conditions in the supply chains making Disney-branded products and our role in promoting the well-being of children. Over the next year, we will refine our assessment process to ensure we are continuing to focus on the areas of greatest importance to our business.
  • Implementation:
  •  We seek to identify ways in which we can adopt best practices and new approaches that enable us to enhance human rights considerations.
  • Reporting:
  •  We will continue to share our progress in our biennial citizenship report.
I think that we can agree that jumping into bed with Similac pretty much goes
 against their "role in promoting the well-being of children".

I think that "Jenn's World" gives a great run down of all that's wrong with this whole mess. 

Disney and Similac Team Up to Undermine Breastfeeding for Moms

Reading this, I am absolutely horrified.  First of all, the so called “Pediatric Kits” are nothing more than items designed to undermine breastfeeding.  These kits are given out with coupons and formula and bottles so that mothers have them within ready access.  If something is difficult with breastfeeding and the mom does not have the help they need to breastfeed, these “kits” come in handy.   The middle of the night desperation is exactly what the formula companies are banking on.
The partnership idea is particularly gross to me because these companies add something else to the kit – something that is appealing to an even wider group. Breastfeeding mothers who would otherwise refuse the kit, may take it because of cereal, clothing, or Disney coupons or samples (things that have nothing to do with breastfeeding).  Once that kit is in the house, the undermining of breastfeeding happens.
Finally, it is clear that this is all revenue driven because the release discusses the money that they are making!  These kits are not about helping out new moms, they are about selling a product.  The only way to sell formula is if people are not breastfeeding.  A way to stop people from breastfeeding is to market formula in sneaky and underhanded ways like giving out “pediatric kits” in hospitals full of formula and coupons to Disney.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Cdn Gov planning to skip key international health conference

Important Global Conference

Canadian Government Planning to Skip Key International Health Conference

The Government of Canada is currently refusing to send Ministerial representation to a crucial global health conference taking place in Brazil, from October 19-21, 2011. The World Conference on Social Determinants of Health is a gathering of over 100 member states of the United Nations, and will be attended by heads of state and Ministers of Health from around the world -- all coming together to discuss key national and global measures to improve health and well-being around the globe.
Please add your name to a new online petition calling on Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Government of Canada to “show up” for health by ensuring that Canada’s Minister of Health attends and participates in the conference.
Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada/IBFAN North America

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

New Study: Unvaccinated Children are Healthier

 I don't think I really have anything to add to this article, it pretty much speaks for itself: Unvaccinated children are healthier.  8000 vaccine free children were involved in this study- something that Big Pharma and our government health agencies will NEVER do, and refuse to do, which is why their so called "studies" to try to prove the safety of their vaccines will never mean anything.  The only way you can really study the effects of vaccination is to compare the the health of the vaccinated public to the health of the unvaccinated public.  Which is what they've done with this graph.

New Study: Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children
Preventable Vaccine-induced DiseasesA German study released in September 2011 of about 8000 UNVACCINATED children, newborn to 19 years, show vaccinated children have at least 2 to 5 times more diseases and disorders than unvaccinated children.
The results are presented in the bar chart below. The data is compared to the national German KIGGS health study of the children in the general population. Most of the respondents to the survey were from the U.S. (Click on the chart to see it better)The data was collected from parents with vaccine-free children via an internet questionnaire by and Andreas Bachmair, a German classical homeopathic practitioner. The independent study is self-funded and is not sponsored by a large “credible” non-profit or government health organization with political and financial conflicts of interest; hence Bachmair relies on Google ads and donations for revenue. Each one of the 8000 cases are actual cases with medical documentation. Three other studies had similar results according to Bachmair and are reported below.
No study of health outcomes of vaccinated people versus unvaccinated has ever been conducted in the U.S. by CDC or any other agency in the 50 years or more of an accelerating schedule of vaccinations (now over 50 doses of 14 vaccines given before kindergarten, 26 doses in the first year). Most data collected by CDC is contained in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. The VAERS is generally thought to contain only 3 to 5 percent of reportable incidents. This is simply because only some immediate reactions are reported by doctors; but many are not admitted to be reactions to the vaccine. Most importantly, the VAERS numbers are only immediate reactions, which I would place with a few hours to a few weeks. Long-term vaccine-induced diseases and disorders are not recognized by parents or doctors when these conditions develop perhaps a few months to five years or more and would never be realized to come from multiple vaccinations. In other words, many children and adults have diseases and disorders that are vaccine induced and they never suspect they are from the vaccines, as this study indicates.

HERE to read the entire article

Friday, October 7, 2011

Prevnar causes pneumonia and antibiotic resistant ear infections

This article is not much of shock to most people who've done any research on the Prevnar vaccine- reports of it causing severe antibiotic resistant ear infections and pneumonia are not new.  What is new  is that this article was reported in the main stream media, and THAT was a surprize to me!!!

Shot may be inadvertently boosting superbugs

Strains tied to kids’ ear infections flourish as vaccine fights common germs

 A vaccine that has dramatically curbed pneumonia and other serious illnesses in children is having an unfortunate effect: promoting new superbugs that cause ear infections.
It is a strain of strep bacteria not included in pneumococcal vaccine, Wyeth's Prevnar, which came on the market in 2000. It is recommended for children under age 2.On Monday, doctors reported discovering the first such germ that is resistant to all drugs approved to treat childhood ear infections. Nine toddlers in Rochester, N.Y., have had the germ and researchers say it may be turning up elsewhere, too.
Doctors say parents should continue to have their toddlers get the shots because the vaccine prevents serious illness and even saves lives. But the new resistant strep is a worry.
"The best way to prevent these resistant infections from spreading is to be careful about how we use antibiotics," said Dr. Cynthia Whitney, chief of respiratory diseases at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Avoiding antibiotics when they are not needed is the best way to ensure they will work when they are, she said.....
The children had been unsuccessfully treated with two or more antibiotics, including high-dose amoxicillin and multiple shots of another drug. Many needed surgery to place ear tubes to drain the infection, and some recovered only after treatment with a newer, powerful antibiotic whose safety in children has not been established.......Big trouble One strain in particular, called 19A, is big trouble. A new subtype of it caused ear infections in the nine Rochester children, ages 6 months to 18 months, that were resistant to all pediatric medications, said Dr. Michael Pichichero, a microbiologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center.
Pichichero refused further comment because he has submitted a report to a medical journal. His work was paid for by antibiotic maker Abbott Laboratories and the Thrasher Foundation, which funds projects related to child health.
All 19A strep subtypes tend to be resistant to some drugs and have been growing in prevalence:
  • Scientists from a drug company and two labs analyzed more than 21,000 bacterial samples from around the nation and found 19A increasing. Among children 2 and under, the portion of samples that were this strain rose to 15 percent in 2005-2006, from 4 percent in the previous three years.
  • A British lab tracking respiratory infections in U.S. kids found that the 19A strain accounted for 40 percent of drug-resistant cases.
  • University of Iowa researchers found 19A accounted for 35 percent of penicillin-resistant infections in 2004-05, compared with less than 2 percent the year before the new vaccine came out.
HERE to read the entire article on MSNBC

This article  gives lots more info about Prevnar, with tons of links to follow your own research:

Prevnar vaccine dangers

Search the Internet for Prevnar vaccine SAFETY and, surprise, surprise, you will get plenty of results about its dangers instead.I did such a search just out of curiosity. I had already learned that three babies in the Netherlands had died recently, at end-Oct / early-Nov 2009, after they were given this pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV),
Also, I am familiar with data from Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) - which include "coincidental" events as well as those truly caused by vaccines - that showed 28,317 adverse reactions since the Prevnar vaccine was approved in 2000. These included:
  • 558 deaths
  • 555 life threatening conditions
  • 238 permanent disabilities
  • 2,584 hospitalisations
  • 101 prolonged hospitalisations
  • 8,166 emergency room cases and
  • 16,155 "not serious".
In addition, I had written in an earlier article about pneumonia vaccine side effects that the introduction of Prevnar and other pneumonia vaccines has led to:
  • an increase in the incidence of pneumonia caused by bacteria NOT covered by these vaccines
  • an increase in middle-ear infections due to bacteria not linked to pneumonia
  • the emergence of "superbugs" that are resistant to vaccines.
So I was already quite familiar with the dangers and side effects of PCV vaccines like Prevnar. I was curious what was being claimed about the safety of Prevnar vaccine. So I did a search on Google. I found...
  • Prevnar IS Safe - Have a look at the studies...
  •  It tells about a new PCV-13 Prevnar vaccine trial in India that was stopped after a baby died. Looks like the title was just being sarcastic

  • ... This is pretty straightforward, no sarcasm or anything of the sort. But I learn here that, oh, by the way, Prevnar has not been evaluated for any carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or impairment of fertility (ie they don’t know if it causes cancer, mutates into other illnesses or impairs people’s ability to have children).

  • By law, vaccines are not required to be tested for any links to cancer. This itself is not necessarily a danger, just a (very) possible danger of the unknown.
 HERE to read the entire article.