Vaccines: Making you far sicker than you ever thought

I was planning on writing today about "Shame and Guilt", in continuation of the Babble Debacle, but an article crossed my computer screen today that I feel is more important.


You all know that I'm seriously against vaccines, and that I feel that they are far more dangerous than the diseases they are supposedly protecting us from.  I've talked about the dangerous chemicals used regularly in vaccines- chemicals like Mercury, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, MSG, etc... and the fact that there are other substances in vaccines that are highly questionable- live viruses, eggs, peanuts, aborted embryo cells, cells from multiple animals.  For anyone who's spent any time researching and reading about vaccines and their risks and side effect, this is old news.  But what you may not know, is about the diseases that are being discovered IN the vaccines.


Gardasil.  One of the most dirty words in my vocabulary.  I've talked about the huge risks associated with this vaccine, the deaths of young girls and women directly caused by this vaccine, but did you know that there is something even more scary that you should know about Gardasil?

In seeking answers to why adolescent girls are suffering devastating health damage after being injected with HPV vaccines, SANE Vax, Inc decided to have vials of Gardasil tested in a laboratory. There, they found over a dozen Gardasil vaccine vials to becontaminated with rDNA of the Human Papillomavirus(HPV). The vials were purchased in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Poland and France, indicating Gardasil contamination is a global phenomenon....

The rDNA that was found to be contaminating Gardasil is not "natural" rDNA from the HPV virus itself. Rather, it is agenetically engineeredform of HPV genetic code that is added to the vaccines during their manufacture.

As Dr. Lee, the pathologist who ran the laboratory tests identifying the biohazard contamination of Gardasil said:

"Natural HPV DNA does not remain in the bloodstream for very long. However, the HPV DNA in Gardasil is not 'natural' DNA. It is a recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) -- genetically engineered -- to be inserted into yeast cells for VLP (virus-like-particle) protein production. rDNA is known to behave differently from natural DNA. It may enter a human cell, especially in an inflammatory lesion caused by the effects of the aluminum adjuvant, via poorly understood mechanisms. Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA."

HERE to read the entire article

Reading this article led me to another article by Natural News about the Polio vaccine.  Now let me tell you, the polio vaccine is one of the biggies that everyone brings up when you say that you don't vaccinate:  "But look at the polio vaccine!  It wiped out polio!!"..... except that it didn't.  I won't get into that right now, but if you really want to know about the polio epidemic and the vaccine, read THIS page..... make sure you have lots of time on your hands because once you start reading , it's kind of like a train wreck and you can't look away or stop reading!

No, What I want to focus on is the fact that AIDs was introduced into western society through the Polio vaccine.

  

Seriously.

Dr. Maurice Hilleman of Merck (aka Big Pharma), openly talks about how they introduced the AIDs virus and cancers into the bodies of men women and children while inoculating them to prevent polio. From Natural News:

One of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry -- a Merck scientist -- made a recording where he openly admits that vaccines given to Americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses. In response, his colleagues (who are also recorded here) break out into laughter and seem to think it's hilarious. They then suggest that because these vaccines are first tested in Russia, they will help the U.S. win the Olympics because the Russian athletes will all be "loaded down with tumors." (Thus, they knew these vaccines caused cancer in humans.)
This isn't some conspiracy theory -- these are the words of a top Merck scientist who probably had no idea that his recording would be widely reviewed across the internet (which didn't even exist when he made this recording). He probably thought this would remain a secret forever. When asked why this didn't get out to the press, he replied "Obviously you don't go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community."
In other words, vaccine scientists cover for vaccine scientists. They keep all their dirty secrets within their own circle of silence and don't reveal the truth about the contamination of their vaccines.

Taken from the transcript (available to read HERE)


 

Dr Edward Shorter: Tell me how you found SV40 and the polio vaccine.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: Well, that was at Merck. Yeah, I came to Merck. And uh, I was going to develop vaccines. And we had wild viruses in those days. You remember the wild monkey kidney viruses and so forth? And I finally after 6 months gave up and said that you cannot develop vaccines with these damn monkeys, we're finished and if I can't do something I'm going to quit, I'm not going to try it. So I went down to see Bill Mann at the zoo in Washington DC and I told Bill Mann, I said "look, I got a problem and I don't know what the hell to do." Bill Mann is a real bright guy. I said that these lousy monkeys are picking it up while being stored in the airports in transit, loading, off loading. He said, very simply, you go ahead and get your monkeys out of West Africa and get the African Green, bring them into Madrid unload them there, there is no other traffic there for animals, fly them into Philadelphia and pick them up. Or fly them into New York and pick them up, right off the airplane. So we brought African Greens in and I didn't know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.
Miscellaneous background voices:…(laughter)… it was you who introduced the AIDS virus into the country. Now we know! (laughter) This is the real story! (laughter) What Merck won't do to develop a vaccine! (laughter).....
Dr Maurice Hilleman: …but, anyway we knew it was in our seed stock from making vaccines. That virus you see, is one in 10,000 particles is not an activated… (unintelligible) …it was good science at the time because that was what you did. You didn't worry about these wild viruses.
Dr Edward Shorter: So you discovered, it wasn't being inactivated in the Salk vaccine?
Dr Maurice Hilleman: …Right. So then the next thing you know is, 3, 4 weeks after that we found that there were tumors popping up on these hamsters.
Dr. Len Horowitz: Despite AIDS and Leukemia suddenly becoming pandemic from "wild viruses" Hilleman said, this was "good science" at that time.

Dr. Len Horowitz uncovered this interview from the national archives, and got it released so the public can learn the truth behind the deadly vaccine industry.  You can watch the video of this HERE

AIDs and a whole bunch of cancers.....all from the polio vaccine.

..... How do you feel about the oh so wonderful polio vaccine now?

Follow the money trail!

So the Drama is never ending it would seem.  More Guilt.  More Shame.  More horrible "lactivists" emotionally emasculating mom's because of their choices for infant feeding.  This seriously is getting ridiculous.


Last night the Toronto Globe & Mail Newspaper publish a blog article by Tralee Pearce entitled "Why do "Lactivists" want to ban baby formula advertising?".  It would seem to be a valid question.  Why DO breastfeeding advocates want infant formula advertising banned?  And if the article was really serious about discussing this topic, I would whole heartedly join in the conversation and gladly discuss the WHO Code and the ramifications of formula advertising on breastfeeding rates and longevity....


But that's not what the article is about at all.  No, this article is yet another attempt to play the "oh woe is me" card using the media to incite yet another mothering riot, pitting the breastfeeders against the formula feeders, and vice-versa.  


The article starts off by quoting Babble blogger Catherine Connors about the recent Babble debacle:

“The message at the core of the ‘ban all formula advertising’ platform is simple: formula is bad. You should not use it. You should not even think about using it. You should not look at words or images that in any way suggest that you are not a terrible mother if you choose it. Giving your baby formula is akin to sticking a cigarette in her mouth. If you use formula, you are a bad, bad mother.Influential Canadian blogger Catherine Connors characterized the anti-advertising stance this way:
“This is nonsense. This is pernicious nonsense that is harmful to mothers, inasmuch as it undermines mothers’ powers of self-determination and calls into question their ability to make the best choices for themselves. It is harmful, because it shames mothers.”

This is such a load of bull crap!!  At no point in time during the conversations between Emma and Babble owner Alisa was this discussed.  At no point did any "lactivist" make any references comparing formula to cigarettes.  At no point did breastfeeding advocates call mothers who formula feed bad mothers.  It never happened.  Apparently Catherine has a very active imagination.  Or could it be that she has an agenda that she is pushing?  hmmmmm..... Catherine works for Babble.com.  Babble takes money from infant formula manufacturers.  Infant formula manufacturers place ads all over Babble's site and together they promote the use of Similac's "breastfeeding experts", who really are just infant formula salespeople in disguise, as I pointed out yesterday. So Babble hires writers, like Catherine, to write articles for their site, and pays them from the money they receive from infant formula manufacturers, like Similac, who use their website as a platform to sell moms their formula.  Now their writers, like say.... Catherine for example, go to the main stream media, with a story of how "Lactivists" are torturing moms, making them feel guilty about using infant formula.... oh the SHAME of it all!....

Does anyone else see the hidden link here?

And just two days ago, on her own blog, Catherine talked about infant formula, and formula advertising/marketing:

I disagree with the hard line of many breastfeeding activists that any and all formula advertising is by definition – because it is the advertising of formula, full stop – bad. I disagree with the position that any and all advertising of formula is uniquely deceptive and sinister; I disagree with the claim that the very existence of formula advertising meaningfully undermines breastfeeding. Yes, I know that the World Health Organization recommends against the advertising of formula. But the WHO recommendations were developed primarily to address real problems with the marketing of formula to vulnerable communities – problems that are being widely addressed by most formula companies. Mothers in the North America are not, by and large, a vulnerable community. And the choice to formula feed, freely made, is not an terrible one, nor is any mom who cannot for any reason breastfeed and is therefore compelled to formula feed harming her child.

(Edited original article to add these two points)


Can Catherine tell me the difference between "vulnerable communities" and non-vulnerable communities?  What is she trying to say? That women/mothers in developing nations, like China and the Philippines, are not as smart as mothers in developed nations, like Canada and the US? That they are stupid and therefore require the World Health Organization to create a Code of conduct for formula manufacturers just to protect them?  But not to protect women and mothers in Canada and the States, because they're smarter than their poorer counterparts in Asia? 




You know what the difference is between the marketing strategy of infant formula companies in the Philippines vs America?  In the Philippines, the formula company pay medical professionals to go out into the community and tell new moms that infant formula is just as good as breastmilk. Then they give these new mothers just enough free formula to make sure that their breastmilk supply dries up, thus forcing them to BUY the company's formula to feed their baby. In North America the formula company pays someone pretend to be breastfeeding professionals, and they sit in front of computers talking to mothers in their virtual community. And they tell them that "Good quality infant formula is just as good as breastmilk" and they send the mother enough free formula to insure that they have the family hooked on the bottle, so that then the family is forced to buy their infant formula from the company.


And women from both the Philippines and North America fall for this marketing tactic. Every. Single.  Day.


...yes, formula companies are "addressing" the problems of infant formula marketing in NON-vulnerable communities by creating pretend "breastfeeding help lines" staffed by pretend "breastfeeding support" people. And that is supposedly ok.  And the breastfeeding advocates are apparently suppose to sit back and not comment on the conflict of interest.  And "Lactivists" are not allowed to point out that the horrific advice given by these fake breastfeeding support people (who are really formula salespeople in disguise) is.... HORRIFIC and WRONG on all levels, because if they do, then they are causing "SHAME" and "GUILT".  And Gods forbid that a breastfeeding mom happens to mention the risks of using infant formula to another, non-breastfeeding mom!!!!  THE ABSOLUTE HORROR!  


Why is it that the formula companies can promote their product all over the place, yet breastfeeding advocates can't promote their product?  Why is it that formula pushers continuously point out that so many women fail at breastfeeding and they Need to feed their babies formula?  Why don't they recommend that these women feed their babies species specific donated breastmilk? 


Yes, Why DON'T they recommend that women who cannot breastfeed use donor milk?  WHY?!


....Because formula companies don't make any money off breastmilk- whether it comes from a donor  or directly from the mother.


It all comes back to the almighty dollar.  Would Babble make such a big issue about this if they weren't getting paid from a formula company?  Would writers, like Catherine Connor, make such a big stink about it all if they weren't getting paid by formula companies dirty money?  Would the major media outlets continuously flog this battle between breastfeeders and formula feeders if it didn't mean money in their pockets?


In their reality, money makes the world go round, not the truth.  The truth is easily verifiable. It takes a google search less than 2 seconds to pull up articles about the risks of formula feeding, about the multitude of studies done that have proven over and over again that formula is NOT a healthy substitute for human breastmilk, and that formula advertising directly negatively impacts breastfeeding.  Babble and Catherine and the media bulldogs can hide their heads in the sand (along with their ill gotten money), and pretend it's not true, but that doesn't change the facts.


I still haven't said all that I want to say on this topic, but my baby needs to nurse.


Tomorrows topic "GUILT & SHAME"

oh yes, I will go there!!

More Babbling about the Babble Debacle

Yesterdays article "Breasts, Babble, Boycotts and Bashing: Baffled?" was a long one, and after many hours of reading, researching and writing I finished it up.... even though I hadn't really said all that I wanted to say on the topic.  I woke up this morning, toying with the idea of writing a second article to further expand on my  thoughts..... but not today.

Then I fired up my computer this morning and the first thing I read on my Facebook feed was this post by Emma Kwasnica:

"‎Jamie called the Similac hotline just to see, folks. Nice "support" she got from them. :/
"So, just now out of curiosity, I looked up the "Similac Feeding Hotline" number, and gave them a faux compliant. I said my 8 month old (true) isn't seeming satisfied after nursing (false). Their immediate solution? "Why don't I take your address and we can overnight you some samples, and then we can put in an order to ship direct to you? Then its just as convenient, you won't even need to leave the house!" When I said that I wanted to continue breastfeeding, they said (direct quote here): "Your baby has all the benefits breastfeeding offers. After 6 months, breastfeeding and feeding quality formula are exactly the same."" 

 WTF!?!?!

This, my friends, is why I am so outraged at Babble and their never ending infant formula ads that are all over their website.  As I said yesterday, Babble owners Alisa and Rufus might want to claim that the Similac ads on their breastfeeding and infant feeding sections are allowing women to make a choice on how they will feed their infant, but I will point out that making a choice based on an ad by a company is NOT making an Informed Choice.  And saying that women can make a choice based on receiving so called "breastfeeding advice" from a company that makes money off of women that don't breastfeed...... well that just plain stupid.

As Jamie learned this morning, Similac's  so called "breastfeeding experts" have no interest in helping women breastfeed.  Why would they?  They are being paid out of the money that Similac makes from selling families infant formula.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in Never Never Land and sniffing too much pixie dust.

THIS is WRONG!!! 

THIS does NOT help women breastfeed.

THIS is one reason that North America's breastfeeding rates are so pathetic.

Breasts, Babble, Boycotts and Bashing. Baffled?

.... And so it begins.  Or maybe I should say "So it continues". Throwing around words like "guilt" and "shame" in the world of breastfeeding activism is not a new thing, but this week it's reached epic proportions. I've been following the conversations between the different parties that are involved and I've been involved in several discussions on the ethics and  rights that are being called into question.....I cannot understand what people do not understand.  It's very clear cut and completely black and white:


Infant Formula Advertising and Marketing Is BAD.


I guess that this weeks foray into the realm of lactivist bashing and oh so dramatic exclamations of

"Oh the SHAME of it all!!  You're making me feel so GUILTY!" 

...all started just over  year ago when PhD In Parenting author Annie wrote an article entitled "Similac and Babble team up to Dupe breastfeeding moms."  Talking about the fact that yet again an infant formula company is preying on tired new moms and pretending to have their best interests at heart.... when in fact both Babble and Similac are both more interested in the bottom line. Money.

 "...if you were an online media property that is trying to turn a profit, would you be willing to sell-out your breastfeeding readers, by feeding them a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Would you be willing to partner with Similac, an infant formula company, on your Breastfeeding Guide?I wouldn’t. But apparently Babble and Similac see nothing wrong with this scenario.
Most of us (including Dou-la-la and I) realize that infant formula companies are not really there to support breastfeeding moms, they are there to sabotage them. The Similac sponsorship of the Babble guide goes beyond simple advertising and takes things to a whole new level. The Common Breastfeeding Problems section of the Breastfeeding Guide is clearly marked as being “brought to you by Similac“. It includes a large banner at the top encouraging you to call a Feeding Expert for your baby’s breastfeeding problems. They indicate that “lactation consultants” are available, but I doubt they are International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLC), since their Code of Ethics would prevent them from working for an infant formula company."

Fast forward a year later and Babble.com announces that they are going to give out 10 prizes of $5000 to their top "mominated" moms in 10 different categories, and they want people to nominate those amazing women who deserved the recognition for the work they do.  A friend of ours, Jodine Chase, nominated Emma Kwasnica, founder of Human Milk 4 Human Babies, Lactivist and empowered birth activist, to Babble.... and we all cheered.   No one deserved recognition for her outstanding contributions to society and the empowerment of women and babies more than Emma, and within a few short days, Emma's "momination" had her in third place with over 700 votes without any self-promotion at all.

But then we had a reality check.  Babble was a notorious abuser of the WHO (World Health Organization) International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes, who accepted money from Infant formula companies and allowed their ads to air even in the middle of their breastfeeding advice section of their website.  This REALLY concerned Emma.  We talked about whether or not good could come from accepting this soiled money if she won.  Could we use it to fund an event to highlight the impact of WHO Code violations and how infant formula marketing effects breastfeeding? After many agonizing hours of discussion with many concerned supporters and friends Emma decided that she could not allow her nomination to continue, and she requested that her name be dropped from the Babble competition.  Jodine writes about this decision and gives an outline of what took place in her article "Babbling about Breasts Again" 

But also within a few hours Emma and I were pinged with PMs. Did I know about the controversy that erupted last year over Babble.com's acceptance of ads from Abbott's infant formula brand, Similac? Did I know that Similac ads for their breastfeeding support hotline appeared alongside Babble.com breastfeeding advice? Did I know that when you search for the word "breastfeeding" in Babble.com's search window, the first result that appears is a page describing horrific breastfeeding problems, and right alongside there is Similac's ad, offering to help?
I didn't know this. Up here in Canada the ads displayed on Babble.com's website were for things like juice and batteries. 
The last thing in the world I want is for Emma Kwasnica's good name to be tainted. And tainted it could be, through association with a formula company seeking to increase market share by offering self-serving advice and understanding to women with breastfeeding problems. Or worse, a company that combats a stagnant market for its product by countering proven public health advice and offering what some say is sabotage disguised as support.

Annie, from PhD in Parenting, wrote another article in support of Emma withdrawing her nomination, and sums up the question about using soiled money very clearly:

Recently, I wrote a blog post questioning whether good cancels out evil. There is no question that the $50,000 that Babble will be giving to inspirational moms will go to excellent causes. But if that money came from duping breastfeeding moms, can it make up for the damage that is done? The cost of formula feeding is significant. In terms of the price of formula alone, I saved around $2400 by breastfeeding both of my children. Beyond the cost of formula, a significant study last year found that the United States incurs $13 billion in excess costs each year and also suffers 911 preventable deaths because of low breastfeeding rates. Suddenly, the $50,000 in “blood money” that Babble is handing out seems like nothing compared with the significant cost that comes with sabotaging a mother’s ability to breastfeed her child successfully.

Apparently Babble is not taking this withdrawal very well.  Instead of taking a good look at their website and the ethical ramifications of taking money from formula companies and allowing them to place ads all over their site, instead of making changes that would insure that mothers got the best possible advice about breastfeeding and that they would received support that wasn't hell bent on making money off them, Babble decided to launch their own campaign to play the "Oh woe is me" card.  Instead they played on the emotions of "Shame" and "Guilt".


Babble writer Catherine Connors writes:  

Because herein resides the problem: I’m not against formula advertising. I’m just not. I’m against bad formula advertising: I’m against misleading formula advertising, and formula advertising that actively and explicitly undermines breastfeeding, and I’m against formula advertising to vulnerable communities. 

...and she launches into a diatribe about "the shame" of it all.


I hate to tell you this Catherine, but regardless of your opinion about "good or bad" formula marketing and advertisements, the truth is in the studies:  ALL formula advertising and marketing directly interferes with breastfeeding initiation and longevity rates- world wide.  Hence the creation of the WHO Code.  ....and Shame?  Really? Do we shame families when we tell them to keep their baby rear facing in their car seat?  NO, we are just relaying the facts: rear facing is safer.  It's not about "Shame". It's about acknowledging the facts and stating the truth. Formula marketing directly affects breastfeeding.  Truth.  You can dispute it, or put a fancy name on it, or misdirect it all you want.  Truth is truth. Just as it is truth to talk about the risks of infant formula, risks that are conveniently swept under the rug by Babble and their formula manufacturing accomplices.  Even a vacuum can't hide the fact that infant formula is vastly inferior to breastmilk in every way.  Read "The fourteen risks of formula feeding" for the real information. Read "Breastfeeding protection and the International Code" to fully understand the ramifications of formula marketing on our children's health.

In response to Catherine's blog Jodine goes on to summarize the "shame" issue perfectly in her next article "Shame is the new guilt" : 

For a while founder Rufus Griscom hung out on Annie's site, answered a few questions and tried out his rationalizing messaging, now more finely tuned and apparent in Catherine's writing. Here's how it goes: the winner in the infant formula market share race will be the one who makes moms feel the most warm, the most fuzzy, when they need to turn to formula after their breastfeeding plans have gone awry. Offering the very best and most supportive breastfeeding advice is clearly the way to make moms feel all warm and fuzzy.
In addition to refining the warm fuzzies messaging, there's a new angle. Here's the spin: mothers make their own choices and decisions about breastfeeding. If for any reason they have chosen infant formula, and especially if that was a difficult choice because they really wanted to keep breastfeeding, any attempt to talk about formula company marketing tactics, and the harm they cause, is shaming mothers.
Did you catch that? The winning infant formula company will be the one that succeeds in making moms feel warm and fuzzy. Talking about the harm caused by these marketing tactics makes moms feel shame.

 It's all very nice that Babble wants to convince us that formula advertising is all ok.  That Babble owners

 "believe in the right of mothers to make individual choices with all information available to them and that includes information about different formula options, provided both by our writers and advertisers themselves."

...and even went so far as to offer Emma a position on their imaginary board of breastfeeding advocate advisers to review the Breastfeeding resources they will make available to women on Babble.  But as Emma responded to Alisa and Rufus, "The only way I would consider working on an advisory board for Babble, is if Babble were to instigate a zero tolerance policy for all formula advertising across the site --no exceptions. This is a question of ethics; the advertising of formula to pregnant or new mothers, in any capacity, is unacceptable."  A question of Ethics, NOT Shame. 


A long while ago I wrote an article called "Breastfeeding: Guilt, Statistics, Support, and making a choice", where I said:

 This is the story that we hear constantly.  Parents-to-be take a class in childbirth, read books about all the important things you're suppose to know about babies, they give birth to these wonderfully beautiful beings and are sent on their way home to enjoy their new family life...
Mothers know they're suppose to breastfeed their babies.  They know it's the healthiest choice and will give their babies the best start in life- offering them some of their mothers immunities and some vital protection from diseases, lessening their risks of diabetes, certain cancers, obesedy, and maybe even increase their IQ by a few points along the way.  As an added bonus, mom's are offered some protection from breast & ovarian cancer, post partum depression and might even loose that baby wieght a bit faster!!  And it's FREE!!  Over all it's a "win-win" situation, right?  
But what happens when that mother gets home? She probably tired, maybe sore from the birth, perhaps dealing with unexpected trauma from the birth of her baby: inductions, forcept/vacuum assisted birth, episiotomy, Caesarean section..(all of which are known to have a negative effect on breastfeeding)..?  Is the baby sleepy because of medical interventions used during his birth?  "How is he feeding?  Does he have a good latch?" are the questions a new mum might hear, but how the hell is a new mom suppose to know?!   One book said that breastfeeding is hard and it can hurt, another book said that breastfeeding is natural and only hurts if there is a problem with the baby's latch.  One book says to nurse the baby for 10 minutes on each side every 2 hours, one book says to nurse the baby on demand when ever they want to eat.  One web site says that this is the best nursing position, one site says that that position will cause blocked ducts and will cause problems because you can't see the baby's latch. One nurse in the hospital told her to use this method to get the baby to latch, but the night time nurse told her that it was wrong and she should use this method instead.  This is what we call a recipe for failure- before this baby is even a week old, he's already on the road to bottles of formula because his exhausted stressed out mother is unsure of anything to do with breastfeeding.  She can't get any support to make breastfeeding work for her or give her the confidence to persevere and keep nursing regardless of any issues that might arise. The emotionally wrung out mother goes to the doctor with her crying baby and begs for help and advice.  The doctor is affraid to cause her guilt about breastfeeding, or has no interest/education in lactation management, so instead of sending her to the right people to get proper support and advice, he pats her on the back and tells her it's ok, some women/babies just can't breastfeed and that formula feeding would be so much easier because then her husband/mother/sister could feed the baby and let her sleep.  He gives her a perscription for some sleeping/anti depressants/anti anxiety pills and sends her on her way with a gift pack of formula samples and a book of coupons for free baby bottles and matching diaper bag.
Then the Media make s a big production about how women are MADE to feel guilty about not breastfeeding. 
Guilt?!  The last thing this mother should feel is guilt!!!!
This woman should be rip roaring mad!!  She should be stomping her feet and demanding WHY she didn't have the support and information she needed to do something that women have been doing for a millennia!! She has nothing to feel guilty for- she was failed by every single person and place she went to to look for information and support and advice!  

  Guilt and Shame are not something that is projected onto you.  Guilt and Shame is something that you take on yourself.  Emma's words echo true:

"‎~On guilt~
No one can make any one else FEEL guilty. Guilt comes from within. You either feel it, or you don't. And actually, guilt is a very good thing! It causes us to re-evaluate things, lets us know when we are no longer in line with our own principles, our core values. It tells us that something is off, motivates us to......change whatever it is we're doing. In other words, guilt makes us uncomfortable for good reason!
Rather than blaming OTHERS for making us "feel guilty", we really need to look within ourselves for the answers, and stop deflecting our issues away from ourselves, stop projecting our issues onto others. We need to be 100% accountable for our feelings, we need to OWN them. Because they are no one else's *but* our own." Emma Kwasnica

 Truth is Truth. Facts are Facts.  People can stand on their soapboxes as long as the want and they can shout their opinion about Breastfeeding or Formula feeding, or about the effects of Infant Formula Marketing....... but it's only words if you don't have the facts to back it up.


We have the facts.


ALL INFANT FORMULA ADVERTISING IS DETRIMENTAL TO BREASTFEEDING AND DOES NOTHING TO HELP MOTHERS MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE ABOUT INFANT FEEDING.  

...and THAT's the TRUTH.       

INFACT- WHO Code: Action Alert

Time to rally together again to stop another Infant Formula manufacturer from blatantly breaking the World Health Organizations International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes.  This time it's Mead Johnson who is trying to pretend that they are educating about infant health, when in fact it is just a marketing and sales ploy for their company.

Please take the time to write a letter or email to the powers that be at the Royal Victoria Hospital- tell them that we are watching them and that this can not and WILL NOT be allowed!! Take the time to do this because every single voice counts.  We have rallied together many times in the past and stopped this sort of sneaky marketing by Infant Formula companies before- the voices of the masses start with just one voice- YOURS.  It all starts with one, and every single voice makes a difference.

Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie:

Seminar Would Promote Infant Formula to Paediatrics Department Staff

In marketing, recruiting new customers is important. If you’re in the business of marketing infant formula one of the best ways to recruit new customers is a hospital paediatrics department: where new mothers come looking for guidance. And how could you influence the doctors and nurses, make them think that your product is scientifically advanced, that it’s getting closer to breastmilk, and that it’s OK. How about a one-hour infant formula infomercial masquerading as a scholarly seminar?

Well, that’s what infant formula maker Mead Johnson was thinking when they arranged for Dr. Marianna Mitchell to speak at the Barrie Royal Victoria Hospital paediatrics department.

Have a look at an excerpt from the seminar flyer:

Please join us as we welcome our speaker:

Dr. Marianna Mitchell, FAAP, FRCP(C), Lakeridge Health Corp., Oshawa site, Department of Paediatrics

The topic:

“Leading the Way: Bringing Infant Nutrition Closer to Breast Milk Function and Composition”

Objectives:

1. Explore the role of prebiotics in supporting GI health in infants
2. Examine advances in infant nutrition to more closely approximate the nutritional and functional properties of breast milk
3. Review the importance of DHA and ARA in cognitive and visual development and in immune health

View the entire flyer: Mead-Johnson-Royal-Victoria-Hospital.pdf

The words ‘infant formula,’ purposely do not appear, but in fact the seminar is all about infant formula. Prebiotics, ‘approximating breastmilk,’ DHA and ARA, with bogus unsubstantiated claims, are all infant formula marketing strategies. Throughout the flyer ‘infant nutrition,’ is simply a euphemism for ‘infant formula.’

This seminar is clearly a violation of section 6.2 of the World Health Organization International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and Resolution 63.23(4).

So, if Mead Johnson can make the doctors and nurses who work with new mothers think their formula is OK, or at least a viable alternative to breastfeeding, that thinking will affect the mother’s decision to breastfeed and her breastfeeding duration.

Help cancel this very blatant violation of the WHO Code and WHA Resolutons. Send a letter to Janice Skot, Executive Director, President and CEO of the Royal Victoria Hospital and ask her to cancel the Mead Johnson promotion of formula to pediatric staff. Let her know that you expect the Royal Victoria Hospital to abide by the World Health Organizations recommendations banning formula promotions in health care facilities and that she has a pubic mandate to protect the highest attainable standard of health for mothers and children in the facility she manages.

Ms. Janice Skot Executive Director, President and CEO North Simcoe Muskoka Royal Victoria Hospital

Mailing Address: Royal Victoria Hospital 201 Georgian Drive Barrie, ON L4M 6M2

Email: skotj@rvh.on.ca

Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada/IBFAN North America
esterken@infcatcanada.ca

Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section: the REAL risks

I haven't written on a Birthing topic for a while..... since having my own VBA3C almost 19 months ago, I've been more  focused on issues to do with raising babies (and children), than birth.  I continuously get asked about VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean section) birthing, so when I read this article I fired up the blog: This information is VITALLY important to making a fully Informed Choice about how to give birth to your child.

Picture from About.com

Birth Without Fear blog brought this to my attention (check out their amazing articles HERE).

The original information comes from a Medscape article published in May 2010, which can be read in it's entirety HERE.

For Generations, women and families have been told that "Once a Cesarean Section, always a Cesarean Section".  Even during the 90's, when VBAC births were starting to become more encouraged, mothers were told horror stories of their risks- both to themselves and to their babies.  The buzz word used has always been " Uterine Rupture", a term designed to scare the bejesus out of any woman.

From the Medscape article:

"Uterine rupture in pregnancy is a rare and often catastrophic complication with a high incidence of fetal and maternal morbidity.... uterine rupture is defined as a full-thickness separation of the uterine wall and the overlying serosa. Uterine rupture is associated with (1) clinically significant uterine bleeding; (2) fetal distress; (3) expulsion or protrusion of the fetus, placenta, or both into the abdominal cavity; and (4) the need for prompt cesarean delivery and uterine repair or hysterectomy."

Just the word "uterine rupture' is enough to scare most people, enough so that hospitals and doctors,especially in the States, won't even allow a woman with a previous uterine scar to have a TOL (Trial of Labour).  But how common is it really?  Hospitals (and their insurance companies), and Doctors (and their insurance companies) have led women to believe that the risks are so high, that only an insane person would want to take the chance. So much so that VBACs are actually banned in many many areas of the States. In Canada trying to find a doctor- or midwife- to support your wish to have a TOL for a VBAC birth is very difficult, and even if you do find one, there is a good chance that they will throw so many "necessary" interventions into your labour that your chances of succeeding are slim.

Back in July 2010 I wrote an article about ACOG's new guidelines for VBAC birth:

ACOG states that VBAC is a safe and reasonable option for most women, including some women with multiple previous cesareans, twins and unknown uterine scars.  ACOG also states that respect for patient autonomy requires that even if an institution does not offer trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), a cesarean cannot be forced nor can care be denied if a woman declines a repeat cesarean during labor. 

WHY has ACOG changed it's tune so drastically?  Because the statistics show that the real risks of uterine rupture are actually VERY low!!!

The Medscape article goes on to say this:

Incidence and risk factors
Meta-analysis of pooled data from 20 studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature published from 1976-2009 indicated an overall incidence of pregnancy-related uterine rupture of 1 per 1,536 pregnancies (0.07%). When the studies were limited to a subset of 8 that provided data about the spontaneous rupture of unscarred uteri in developed countries, the rate was 1 per 8,434 pregnancies (0.012%).

 Yes, the Risk of Uterine Rupture is not 1%,  not even .1%, but .07%!!!!!!

Birth Without Fears article: Uterine Rupture: A Look At 20 Peer-Reviewed Publications Goes on to say this:

Risk FactorsCongenital uterine anomalies, multiparity, previous uterine myomectomy, the number and type of previous cesarean deliveries, fetal macrosomia, labor induction, uterine instrumentation, and uterine trauma all increase the risk of uterine rupture, whereas previous successful vaginal delivery and a prolonged interpregnancy interval after a previous cesarean delivery may confer relative protection. In contrast to the availability of models to predict the potential success of a TOL after a prior cesarean section, accurate models to predict the person-specific risk of uterine rupture for individuals are not available.

There are many factors taken into consideration in the .07% including uterine anomalies, myomectomy, number and type of cesarean births, induction and more. That’s right, it’s not even just about cesareans. In that .07%, it includes complications for anomalies, traumas from car accidents or falling and INDUCTIONS!

So for all of you out there struggling to get the birth that you want, desperately searching for a care provider to allow you the Right to birth normally and naturally, arm yourself with KNOWLEDGE!  Show the STUDIES to your doctor or midwife.  Show them that you are an educated human, not an automaton that blindly follows orders.  It's your body.  It's your birth.  


My final note is for my Canadian friends.  Remember this:  you have the RIGHT to birth as you wish.  No hospital or doctor can FORCE you to have a repeat cesarean section.  KNOW your Rights and stand up for yourself and your child.  


For more info about my VBA3C birth in Cambridge Memorial Hospital, please read my story HERE..... read it and educate yourself about the support you need and the mistakes I made that you do not want to repeat!!


(Side note; sorry about the white highlighter in the end of the article.... I can't figure out how to get rid of it, lol)

New US Report MMR Vaccine Causes Serious Conditions

This is a very important article to read for all parent before choosing to Vaccinate, or continue to vaccinate, their children. Natural News might not be a "medical journal" but their extensive links to professional papers and published articles stands for itself.  Please take the time to read the article and follow up by reading the links provided.  The lives of our children depend on us parents doing research for OURSELVES.




(NaturalNews) The Institute of Medicine, which has long functioned as a front group for the pharmaceutical industry and receives tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from drug companies and global elitists (like Bill Gates, Ted Turner, etc.), has issued a report that declares the MMR vaccine is not linked to autism. This is now being widely reported in the conventional (controlled) media, which isn't telling you the real story behind this report.

What's the real story? That this IOM report, even though it goes out of its way to excuse vaccines and dismiss safety concerns, still openly admits thatvaccines cause measles, febrile seizures, anaphylactic shock and other potentially fatal side effects. It also admits that other vaccines are linked to a whole host of bizarre side effects, including skin lesions, difficulty breathing andlive virus infections(see complete list, below).....

The real conclusions of the Institute of Medicine report on vaccine adverse reactions

Here are some of the other conclusions of the IOM's report, which the old dinosaur media outright refuses to tell you because they are all controlled by pharmaceutical interests:

• MMR vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causingmeasles. (Just as we told you here on NaturalNews, the vaccine is what's causing the disease.)

• MMR vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causingfebrile seizure, just as we also reported here on NaturalNews.

• MMR vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causinganaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction that can result in death within minutes. This is what kills many young children who are injected with MMR vaccines.

• MMR vaccine is likely linked to causingtransient arthralgia in women and children.

• Varicella vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causingDisseminated Oka VZV, a viral disease (Varicella Zoster Virus) which causesskin lesionsand can also infect the lungs and brain. The fact that this vaccine is causing VZV infections is proof that the vaccines containlive viruses!

• Varicella vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causingVaccine Strain Viral Reactivation, meaning the vaccine contains live viruses that are reactivated in the human host, multiplying and causing widespread infections.

• Varicella vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causinganaphylaxis, the life-threatening allergic reaction mentioned above.

• The influenza vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causinganaphylaxis, which is why influenza vaccines have killed so many children (http://www.naturalnews.com/029586_A...).

• The influenza vaccine likely causesOculorespiratory Syndrome, a vaccine reaction described as causing "bilateral conjunctivitis, facial edema, and upper respiratory symptoms." Once again, this is proof that the vaccine itself isdangerousto humans.

• The Hepatitis B vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causinganaphylaxis.

• The HPV vaccine (for cervical cancer) is also likely linked to causinganaphylaxis.

• The TT (Tetanus Toxoid) vaccine is also likely linked to causinganaphylaxis.

• The Meningo-Coccal vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causinganaphylaxis.

• Vaccine injections (of all kinds) are "convincingly" linked to causingDeltoid Bursitis(severe pain and swelling at the injection sight) andSyncope(loss of consciousness). These are no doubt caused by the toxic chemicaladjuvantswhich are added to vaccines to invoke an immune reaction. These adjuvants are known neurotoxins (http://www.naturalnews.com/026717_v...).

When will we have a truly independent review of vaccines?

If you want to seriously investigate the safety of vaccines, you needan independent reviewof the evidence; meaning you need reviewers fromoutside the systemto look into all the evidence, including interviewing the parents of autistic children and, of course, comparing the outcomes of vaccinated children versus non-vaccinated children.

That's something the vaccine industry has absolutely refused to do, not surprisingly. Any honest comparison would immediately reveal vaccines to be harmful and even deadly. Plus, they simply don't work. Most outbreaks of infectious disease happenamong those children already vaccinated.

And that's no coincidence, either. As it turns out, vaccines almost always containlive viruses that spread disease. Vaccines, ultimately, are a public health hoax through which infectious disease is introduced to the population so that more people can be made sick, thereby killing some (Bill Gates' population control agenda) while sending the rest to the hospital for treatment (satisfying the corporate profit agenda).

The IoM, in releasing its conclusions on vaccine adverse events, only cements its position in the history of medicine as anobvious pharmaceutical co-conspiratorwith absolutely zero scientific credibility.



The entire article is here: http://www.naturalnews.com/033447_Institute_of_Medicine_vaccines.html#ixzz1WJ61Yvpy