The Vaxadoodles ain’t the only thing the bastards have booby-trapped
Tap News / Weaver
WHY THE BABY FORMULA SHORTAGE IS A GOOD THING
The sooner We The People realise we are under attack by “elite” psychopaths and act accordingly, the happier (and healthier) we’ll all be
The more one finds out about the behaviour of corporate interests such as Big Pharma Big Agra and Food Inc, the more one realises one is staring into an abyss of corruption strongly and remorselessly inimical to human survival.
This is grievously illustrated by the systemic poisoning of children through the booby-trapped baby formula.
In short, only a psychopath would, through slick marketing and outright deceit, seek to convince us to feed this poisoned crap to our children.
To fully understand just how evil this is, read on!
Why The Baby Formula Shortage Is Actually a Good Thing
When you study history, you often discover that some of the most positive things that occur are due to chance or someone screwing up. The purpose of this article is to try and highlight why a shortage of baby formula is actually in the interest of the American people.
Due to both the medical industry’s greed and general corporate greed, many fundamental relationships have been defiled and artificially reconstructed to support the business of medicine. This is especially true with the process of childbirth, where many unnecessary but profitable interventions are applied that result in a variety of negative consequences for the mother and her baby.
When I was a medical student, I completed my pediatric rotations in a community clinic that predominantly served people of color of lower socioeconomic status. When I was there, I thought it was very odd that we pushed infant formula on almost every patient we saw. This was the case, even when mothers complained about their children having difficulty with the formula (such as reflux or digestive issues).
About a week into the rotation, I decided to go to the free sample cabinet and read through the ingredients within the formulas, all of which were either Enfamil or Similac (the brand the FDA recalled). To some extent I was expecting it, but I was still shocked at how bad the ingredients were. Additionally, there are many other issues with infant formula that are not disclosed on the label, such as the very high levels of aluminum present in most infant formulas ( for reference, I consider aluminum to be one of the most damaging toxins in the environment that most directly affects human vitality).
While there is some variation in formulations of each brand, I will list the standard ones. Keep in mind that ingredients are listed in order of their presence (so the most common one is first).
While there are countless issues I can go into with this label, I am only going to focus on the most pertinent. High fructose corn syrup is synthetic sugar that consistently creates sweet cravings and obesity (there’s a motto in the Midwest “white bread and corn fed“ reflecting this body type). Many of the other ingredients such as soy and heavily pasteurized cow’s milk are often potent allergens infants regularly have trouble digesting. Given this, I pondered the lobbying that had to have transpired to make the practice become established. Years later, as I listened to Robert Mendelsohn’s book “How To you Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor,” the answer finally came to me.
Every field in medicine has pointless things they expect you to come in regularly for so that the practice can be financially sustained. The most egregious one is probably annual pelvic examinations as there is minimal evidence having the inside of one’s vagina examined to screened for undetected disease provides a proven health benefit (the only exception I know of is a skilled examiner who can palpate an undetected ovarian cancer). After years of protest, there has been some progress in this area, but many guideline producing trade groups and practicing gynecologists still advocate for annual pelvic exams.
In pediatrics, you are expected to regularly bring your child in for the cleverly termed “well-child visits.“ These visits consist of testing if your child is developmentally delayed (which is often iatrogenic in nature), administering the schedule vaccinations (which often causes significantly more harm than benefit, but are essential for financially sustaining a pediatricians practice), quickly discussing any concerns you may have about your child (which in most cases just results in the pediatrician providing reassurance since infants are too young to put on psychiatric medications, something pediatricians opt for as children get older), and evaluating your child’s growth.
Growth is evaluated by first measuring your child’s height and weight, then taking a standardized growth chart and seeing if the child is the above or below the expected size and weight range for their age. The infant being a normal weight is used to reassure the parent, while the infant being underweight is used to frighten the parent over the child being malnourished. I’m not certain of this, but I believe in every well-child visit I have ever seen for someone under two years of age, that the measurement and discussion of the child’s growth with the parent occurred. As these values are provided as percentages, they often triggers parents to erroneously believe they need to shoot for the 90th percentile rather than the 50th percentile being completely fine.
What I learned from Robert Mendelsohn MD, a renowned pediatrician, was that the growth charts were produced by the infant formula companies, and they deliberately listed an above average weight for each age group so that many children would be flagged as being underweight and require additional “nutritional supplementation“ in order to have a healthy “normal” weight. After I found this out, I was a bit disappointed this possibility had never occurred to me because it is extremely similar to corporate PR operations you see throughout the society.
Many people I have spoken to over the years (including a few readers on this thread) directly corresponded with Robert Mendelsohn and stated that he was a wonderful human being who had a profoundly positive impact on their life. One of my readers, Dr. G is a physician who was directly mentored by Robert Mendelsohn. In personal correspondences (which I have every reason to believe are factual), when I asked why Mendelsohn chose to become a medical pariah to speak out against the medical system after working within it for over a decade, Dr. G told me:
“Mendelsohn told me that during his appointment as Medical Director of Project Head Start’s Medical Consultation Service in 1968, he was horrified by the discussions held privately in the White House with his medical colleagues. They were openly discussing how they could control the population of the poor by promoting infant formula, vaccinations, sadistic hospital birthing practices, deficient government schools, and neighborhood abortion clinics. This was just too much of an assault on his strong Jewish faith and his Hippocratic oath.”
For those of you who have doubts something like this could be official policy, I would strongly suggest you read this previous article that summarized the long-standing elitist philosophy for this agenda and listed multiple documented and increasingly technologically sophisticated population control programs for the lower classes (including a national security memorandum published shortly after Mendelsohn’s experience at the White House). There is also a follow-up article examining how population control has been repeatedly attempted with vaccination, a holy grail for eugenicists due to it being the easiest way to introduce a sterilizing agent into the population. From reviewing this history, it was my assessment that once a feasible means to produce sterilization through vaccination was developed, it would be deployed onto the population.
The Nestle ScandalPrior to writing this article, I reached out to Dr. G again for additional information on the subject. He first informed me of the Nestle milk scandal, and I would strongly encourage anyone considering giving their child infant formula to review this article summarizing it.
One of the very first articles published here was a summary of the public relations industry, a multi-billion dollar marketing machine that subliminally crafts many of the beliefs and practices within this country. Once you study PR, you discover that much of the news has always been fake, and many of the dysfunctional cultural practices within the United States are the direct result of a corporate client paying a PR firm to establish that practice in the society for its own profit.
The Nestle milk scandal is an excellent example of a sick and twisted PR campaign that injured and harmed millions. Briefly, Nestle did everything they could to convince mothers in the third world eager to adopt a more “civilized“ form of Western life to abandon breast-feeding and switch to (trendy) infant formula. This included paying off each nation’s medical establishment, conducting aggressive door-to-door sales with free samples to get the mother’s hooked, having sales reps impersonate nurses, convincing mothers the formula was essential for their well-being, creating a nocebo effect against breast-feeding, intentionally withholding necessary information about formula products from others, and failing to disclose the costs of formula (which often greatly exceeded what mothers could afford).
Overtime public outrage grew against Nestle, as these practices led to the deaths of millions of children through malnutrition and diarrhea, impoverishment of mothers who could not afford the formula and the developmental delay of children who received the formula. Boycotts and lawsuits occurred, and eventually congressional hearings transpired and international guidelines were put into place prohibiting Nestle’s predatory marketing (which Nestle ultimately largely ignored).
Marketing Infant FormulaDr. Gn repeatedly discussed the topic of infant formula with Dr. Mendelsohn, who in turn emphasized his primary objections to the medical practices of the time were: medical interference with childbirth, medical interference with breastfeeding, overuse of vaccines, and unnecessary drugs and surgeries.
From my own research, I have come to the identical conclusions Mendelsohn did.
Dr. G (who has been in practice for longer than I have) also stated the following:
“The Similac and Enfamil drug reps used to leave infant boy and girl growth charts at my office front desk. The charts were in stacks joined with adhesive at the top, so that you could tear off a copy and place it in the child’s chart or give it to a parent. My recollection is that before the Nestle scandal, the company’s name and logo appeared on the growth chart, but I cannot be certain of this. All the growth charts currently available are distributed by the CDC and the WHO and bear only their logos. I have no doubt that the designers of the growth charts were captured by the formula manufacturers.
Along these same lines, the public educational systems were designed so that all children were expected to develop skills like potty training, speech acquisition, ability to read, etc. in a similarly regimented growth chart fashion.* Outliers are considered “abnormal” and their parents are subjected to fear, guilt, and intimidation, and the need for the involvement of more “caring professionals”.
Also while I was practicing, when an obstetric patient was discharged from the hospital, the drug companies gave each patient a “gift bag” which included coupons for discounts and a few bottles of their formula product. My hospital had one or the other of Enfamil or Similac bottles which they administered to infants if the mother allowed their baby to go to the nursery, so that the mother could “rest”, or to prevent “neonatal hypoglycemia” or “neonatal jaundice” which were other scams applied to healthy newborns designed to undermine confidence in complete breastfeeding. I am certain that the formula was provided free to the hospital, because the manufacturers knew that hospital use endorsement would generate product loyalty. When a great lactation consultant joined the nursing staff, she strongly opposed these practices, and strongly encouraged rooming-in. She would visit each mother daily to supervise and help with nursing. The established nurses did not like the lactation consultant, because they preferred to stuff the newborns with formula and wrap them tightly in warm blankets so that they would sleep and remain quiet in the nursery.”
*note: there is some basis to believe there has been a general decline in the cognition of the American population, as overtime the cognitive developmental milestones have been gradually pushed back (here is a recent example) and the SATs have been made progressively easier.
Further confirmation for Mendelsohn’s hypothesis it is found in a 2010 post from a small group of conventional practicing pediatricians. These doctors argued that the existing growth charts (made by the CDC) had been causing a large number of children to be diagnosed with “failure to thrive” (the “scary“ official medical diagnosis for being underweight or too small for your age) alongside other growth issues as these growth charts been calibrated to a small number of children who were formula fed and therefore overweight. This medical practice believed the WHO’s growth charts were more accurate as they have been developed from a wide range of breast-fed babies, and this post was made to celebrate the fact the two leading American organizations (the AAP and CDC) were finally deciding to recommend them.
The rate of obesity has been continuously increasing within the United States, and arguably is the greatest (and most preventable) public health crisis our country faces. A few years ago it was estimated that over 40% of the US population is overweight (with 9.2% in 2017 having severe obesity), and once more current data I would not be surprised if we are near 45% due to the spike in obesity that occurred following the COVID lockdowns. Given that these trends often start in childhood, where formula feeding can set the stage for metabolic syndrome, to conclude this section, we will review the historical changes in the body weights of children. While I am by no means arguing formula feeding is the sole cause of childhood obesity, I will state that it must be considered as a key factor.
This is a CDC chart of childhood obesity rates within the USA.