Connect with us

Alternative News

Paediatricians Now Advised It’s ‘Dangerous To Call Breastfeeding Natural’

Published

on

Is it dangerous to use the term natural? Paediatricians are now being advised to think so, particularly when it comes to describing breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is natural though, and while it is certainly not the only way to feed your baby, and not physically an option for some women, it is nevertheless, and I think inarguably, the most natural and healthy way to feed a baby, the way women have been doing it since the beginning of time. So where’s the danger in referring to breastfeeding in this way?

advertisement - learn more

Science Struggling With Term ‘Natural’

A bioethical argument published in the journal Paediatrics is now advising paediatricians that it’s time to stop referring to breastfeeding as something that is ‘natural.’

A short essay published by authors Jessica Martucci, Ph.D, and Anne Barnhill, Ph.D., builds on a previous publication from the Nuffield Council in bioethics. This 109-page report attempts to classify and explain how the term ‘natural’ may affect an individual’s decision-making process when it comes to health care, as stated:

“Commenting, praising, or favouring something on the basis of it’s being natural, or criticizing, condemning or disapproving of something on the grounds that is unnatural connects the notion of what is natural with value.”

As a basis for their argument, the authors recommend the term ‘natural’ not be used by paediatricians who are encouraging new mothers to breastfeed. It is essentially the opposite of other breastfeeding initiatives from the American Academy of Paediatrics, as follows:

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

advertisement - learn more

It appears that the authors assume that public health initiatives should be built based on the assumption that individuals can’t tell the difference between what is natural or normal and what is healthy. The authors go on to propose:

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

Ahhh… so now it makes sense. It seems they are worried that by calling breastfeeding natural and healthier for the infant, parents might assume that whatever is natural is healthier in all cases, and thus potentially opt out of vaccinating their children.

It’s also important to think about where Doctors are being advised from.

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”  – (source)(source) Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal

This is a problem that’s well known in the medical community, which is why John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University School of Medicine published the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. In the report, he stated that most current published research findings are false.

How Can We Properly Define ‘Natural’?

The correct definition of natural is “existing in or formed by nature.” As you can see, at no point is it implied that natural equals healthier. In many cases natural does not mean healthy, such as the addition of “natural flavourings” in many processed foods.

A few months after this initial article was published, Martucci wrote an essay that goes on to describe the severe backlash that she and her colleague experienced in response. Apparently, many people took offence to the article, particularly to assertions like the ones below:

“Studies have shown that parents who resist vaccination tend to inhabit networks of like-minded individuals with similar beliefs. These pockets of anti-vaccination sentiment tend to overlap with reliance on and interest and complementary and alternative medicine, skepticism of institutional authority, and a strong commitment and interest in health knowledge autonomy and healthy living practices.”

There are a few important points to bring up here. Firstly, there are a number of assumptions being presented that need to be questioned. Many parents are labelled “anti-vax” for simply choosing to delay the recommended vaccination schedule, or choose which ones their children receive. The statement seems to be aimed at those who choose to either not vaccinate or at least question the safety of vaccines. However unintentionally, though, it also shows that there is a massive shift in the way parents are thinking nowadays, and that they aren’t just taking what doctors tell them at face value.

The authors go on to compare breastfeeding to not vaccinating:

“Meanwhile, synthetic substances, products, and technologies mass produced by industry (notably, vaccines) are seen as “unnatural” and often arouse suspicion and distrust. Part of this value system is the perception that what’s natural is safer, healthier and less risky.”

Again the authors fail to note a few obvious flaws in their argument; breastfeeding has absolutely no associated risks and vaccines have many potentially harmful side effects, with countless studies to showcase this.

It is important to note that both authors are employed at the same institution as Dr. Paul Offit, the Director of the Vaccine Education Centre at the Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia and a professor of vaccinology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

It seems clear the paper was motivated by a vested interest in encouraging mothers to vaccinate their children.

If you want to learn more specifically about the controversy and the information emerging that has more parents choosing not to vaccinate their children, you can check out this article:

The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Should Never Be Forced To Vaccinate Their Children

You can also sift through or website as we’ve published many articles sourced with many studies regarding vaccines, and different types of vaccines.

Conclusion

You cannot compare something like breastfeeding to vaccines. Breastfeeding is natural, whether you like the term or not, and vaccines are unnatural — they are part of a man-made process that involves putting chemical additives into the human body.

Parents should have the right to choose, based on their own research, what they feel is right for their children, regardless of if breastfeeding continues to be defined as natural or not.

Thoughts, concerns? Get involved in the discussion in the comments section.

Much Love

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

WHAT?! Marineland Is Officially Exempt From Canada’s Ban On Whale & Dolphin Captivity

Published

on

Image: 123RF

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Canada recently passed a bill that bans the capture and captivity of whales and dolphins. Marineland, a huge whale/dolphin entertainment park, has been exempted from the law that makes it illegal to do so.

  • Reflect On:

    What gives human beings the right to hold such majestic, innocent, benevolent and intelligent animals captive? What gives them the right to separate them from their families? Why do we treat other beings on Earth the way we do?

Animal captivity is extremely cruel and heartbreaking. Imagine what another intelligent, benevolent race would think if they came across our planet and observed what we do. My guess is that they’d be terrified to attempt to interact with us simply based on how we treat other sentient, benevolent beings on this planet.

Canada recently passed a legislation that completely bans keeping whales, dolphins and porpoises in captivity for entertainment, trade, possession, capture and breeding. The bill (S-203) is also known as the “Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act,” and it was approved by the House of Commons after they voted in favour of the bill, which was first introduced in 2015.

The only time capture is permitted in Canada is for rescue purposes or, unfortunately, for scientific purposes.

According to Green Party Leader MP Elizabeth May, “Canadians have been clear, they want the cruel practice of keeping whales and dolphins in captivity to end… With the passage of Bill S-203, we have ensured that this will happen.”

More than 20 marine scientists and stakeholder organizations endorsed the bill, which quite frankly should have happened long ago. These beings, or any beings for that matter, do not belong in tanks where they are constantly suffering. These are extremely emotional, social, empathetic and brilliant beings. What we’ve done to them and continue to do to them is beyond horrid, to be blunt.

This bill was supposed to phase out this type of captivity in Canada, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, as Marineland Canada’s whales will remain at the park following the page of S-203. Already captive whales will remain in captivity, which means approximately 60 animals will live out their entire lives at Marineland and at the Vancouver Aquarium.

advertisement - learn more

Canadian law now states that it’s a criminal offence, as it should be, to keep a cetacean in captivity, but it looks like Marineland Canada has been exempted from this. It does not seem, however, that they can bring more animals into the park, but they’ll more than likely begin breeding programs to keep their business going for as long as they can.

According to Marie Holer, a representative from Marineland Canada:

We’ve been working to evolve Marineland for over a year and have made many positive changes to the park, including the new educational presentation on marine mammals, the introduction of the Marineland Express and our Polar Splash pad that will open in July. Since opening day, we’ve seen our largest crowds in years and are thrilled that so many people support us in our work. We’re looking forward to enhancing our education, conservation and research focus in the short term to highlight our commitment to marine mammals.”

Is this truly a good step? As long as these animals are in captivity, there can be no care given to these animals. Why do we as human beings feel we can imprison animals like this is simply for entertainment? It feels heartbreaking, confusing, and makes deeply question the state of our connection to wildlife.

Have we really become that disconnected from life?

It’s not all bleak though! Things are obviously improving, and that’s become quite evident thanks to the vast amount of activism over the years that has finally resulted in the passing of the legislation mentioned in this article, but we still have a long way to go.

Remember, these animals have never really shown any type of aggression towards humans, except in captivity.

The Takeaway

Why do human beings go to the circus? Why do they go to places like Marineland? Is it because human beings are terrible? No. It’s simply because many of us have been desensitized and have not quite questioned this in many ways. Which is OK! That’s part of the process. When it comes to animal captivity, mass marketing and scientific justifications have allowed our minds to be manipulated. They’ve made us think that animal captivity is okay, when clearly we would not like to be confined against our will, so why do it to others?

I believe that we’re all born as extremely understanding beings, and that humans are a very empathetic race. I believe that our feelings and our ability to experience empathy are what makes us special. I also believe that these traits and characteristics left us for a while, but they are now returning and we are beginning to “think” from our hearts again.

This is why awareness regarding animal captivity has increased and will continue to increase around the globe until it is completely banned everywhere, or until people simply stop showing up to these places and providing them with profits.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Video: The Most Significant Leak About Extraterrestrial Craft Just Went Public

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recently leaked document has exposed notes taken by legendary scientist Dr. Eric Davis during a meeting he had Admiral Thomas Ray Wilson, who was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, regarding extraterrestrial space craft.

  • Reflect On:

    UFOs used to be a conspiracy, now they are quite mainstream and their existence is backed by tremendous amounts of evidence. The next question is, where are they from, and who made them? Will this information be suppressed too?

A quote I love to use in many of my articles comes from Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell. He said, “yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered.” (source)

The thought that governments and/or rogue agencies around the world have been involved in taking down and even possibly revere engineering possible extraterrestrial craft is nothing new. Available to the public are statements from the highest ranking positions within government and the military, and there are also declassified documents that hint toward the same idea.

For example, former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer once told the public that the protocol with regards to UFOs was to “shoot first and ask questions after.” Dr. David Clarke, an investigative journalist, reader and lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University in England who was also the curator for The National Archives UFO project from 2008–13 uncovered documents showing that the Royal Air Force was desperate to capture one of these UFOs and reverse engineer it. You can see those and read more about it here.

Most Significant Leak?

Check out our video segment on this new leak, or read more below.

More recently, what some are calling the most significant leak in UFO history has been made public – and it may be one of the strongest documents linking UFOs to extraterrestrials.

The document goes into detail about a meeting that was had between Dr. Eric Davis, and Vice Admiral Thomas Ray Wilson. Who is Eric Davis? He is a very well known scientist, and quite the legend. For many years he was a member of the National Institute for Discovery Sciences (NIDS)(Owned by Robert Bigelow), the Chief Science Officer of EarthTech Int’l, Inc. and the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin in Austin, Texas; and he is the Owner/Chief Executive/Chief Scientist of Warp Drive Metrics who consults and contracts for the Department of Defense. He is also an Adjunct Professor in the Early Universe, Cosmology and Strings Group at the Center for Astrophysics, Space Physics & Engineering Research at Baylor University in Waco, TX.

advertisement - learn more

Admiral Thomas Ray Wilson was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from July 1999 to July 2002, prior to that he was the Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The document is in the form of notes that were written by Davis after their meeting that took place in 2002, regarding a series of events that took place during the spring of 1997, when Wilson was Deputy Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Since the leak of this document, there has been no denial publicly by Davis regarding the authenticity of these documents, and the focal point of the document is about a meeting (and what happened after that meeting) that took place in 1997 between UFO researcher Dr. Steven Greer, Admiral Wilson, Dr. Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 astronaut) and other high ranking individuals within the military. This meeting was spoken about by Dr. Greer and Dr. Mitchell nearly four years prior to the leak of these documents, so it’s all very interesting. In the episode, we actually play footage of Mitchell confirming and talking about this meeting as well as Greer.

The documents point towards a program that involves the crash retrieval of extraterrestrial craft, that are “not made of this earth, not made by man.”

You can view the entire document here.

if you missed the video embed above of myself and Joe Martino having a discussion about these documents in detail, you can watch it here.

The Takeaway

“There is a serious possibility that we are being visited and have been visited for many years by people from outer space, from other civilizations.” – Lord Admiral Hill-Norton, Former Chief of Defence Staff, 5 Star Admiral of the Royal Navy, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee

The fact that we are not alone has huge implications from science to technology, to history and possible metaphysical/spiritual implications as well. It really opens up Pandora’s Box, and it is one out of many examples that are allowing us to see how humanity has been conditioned to think a certain way, limit our reality, despite all of the evidence, that conflicts with long held belief systems.

At the end of the day, the idea that there are other highly advanced, intelligent lifeforms in the universe, or multiverse, and possibly other dimensions that are and have been visiting our planet, and others, for a very long time is most likely just the very tip of the ice-berg.

This is not a new discovery. We have had this type of knowledge of UFOs and ETs for a very long time, culture and elites have simply suppressed this knowing.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

British Home Secretary Has Signed Extradition Order To Send Julian Assange To US

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    British home secretary Sajid Javid has signed the extradition order to send Julian Assange to the US. This now leaves the final decision to the courts. It's likely that the extradition decision process will take many months to decide in court.

  • Reflect On:

    Is this another step in harming the freedom of press? The freedom of revealing truth to citizens? Is this government overreach whereby they feel it's OK to pretend to the public that their knowledge of truth is not important?

The British home secretary, Sajid Javid, has just signed a request for Julian Assange to be extradited to the US where he faces an 18-count indictment, issued by the US Department of Justice, for charges linked to computer hacking and revealing government secrets in collaboration with Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning. The charges all fall under the Espionage Act.

“He’s rightly behind bars. There’s an extradition request from the US that is before the courts tomorrow but yesterday I signed the extradition order and certified it and that will be going in front of the courts tomorrow.” – Sayid Javid

Officially, Assange is accused of soliciting and publishing classified information and conspiring to hack into a government computer. “It is a decision ultimately for the courts, but there is a very important part of it for the home secretary and I want to see justice done at all times and we’ve got a legitimate extradition request, so I’ve signed it, but the final decision is now with the courts,” said Javid.

If you were to look entirely at the law, you might say “yes, technically if he did these things, there is a case to be made.” However, was Assange involved enough in this process to prosecute him? Did he do something that was a disservice to the people? Or did he do something that was a disservice to the powerful elite?

That is something for you to decide, ideally without the manipulative rhetoric from the powerful elite and the mainstream media they own. Attempts to suggest he threatens the patriotism of the US and the national security of the US might be something to observe as a clear sign of bait and switch: get upset at this, instead of looking at what he revealed about the powerful elite in the totality of the leaks he has put out.

Swedish courts had just recently rejected an extradition request for Assange to be sent back to Sweden for an alleged rape case dating back to 2010. Assange denies the accusation and has since the beginning. The decision out of Upsalla to deny his request was fueled by the claim that Assange did not need to be detained.

advertisement - learn more

Assange is currently in jail for 50 weeks for skipping bail after he spent seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He was recently too ill to appear at a hearing at Westminster magistrates court in relation to the US request. The hearing has been rescheduled for Friday, June 14th, 2019.

Thomas Garner, an extradition lawyer at Gherson Solicitors, said Javid’s certification of the request was “an important though merely procedural step” to start the extradition process.

“I would expect the court to set a preliminary timetable for the extradition process tomorrow,” he said. “It is likely to be many months before any hearing at the magistrates court and of course either side may then seek to appeal that decision in due course. Despite this, the Swedish authorities will be monitoring the process carefully as the further down the line the US proceedings get the harder it might become for the home secretary to give precedence to any competing request.”

The Takeaway

From a systematic standpoint, this is a necessary procedural step in extraditing Assange to the US and it has been granted. It could have been blocked but Javid felt it was necessary for ‘justice to be served.’

As we can see, this is an example of a spot where someone could have stood up and said “no I don’t support this given what it does to protect the powerful elite and given what it does to journalism and the maintenance of secrecy.” Obviously, Javid would have faced much criticism if he had stood up, perhaps legal problems too, we were not able to confirm that, but we are seeing a system play entirely along with the power elite in this case.

In the video below, there is an important discussion on some of the ‘Qanon’ ideas in relation to Assange. My analysis on that is that it appears to be heavily misguided, but you decide for yourself.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod