Connect with us

Health

The American Academy of Pediatrics Is Calling for Hepatitis B Vaccination of ALL Newborns Within 24 Hours

Published

on

On August 28, 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called for the administration of the hepatitis B vaccine to all American newborns within 24 hours of birth. This decision shows that the AAP is completely incapable of performing a risk-analysis, that they don’t know the basics of germ-theory, and that they don’t even give lip-service to individualized medicine.

advertisement - learn more

Diseases, including vaccine-preventable diseases like hepatitis B, are caused by exposure to pathogens. Simply put, you cannot get a disease if you are not exposed to its pathogen — it’s germ-theory 101. Hepatitis B is caused by the hepatitis B virus, so if you are not exposed to the hepatitis B virus, you cannot get that disease. Hepatitis B is NOT caused by a lack of hepatitis B vaccination. A hepatitis B vaccine can train your immune system to attack and resist hepatitis B virus if it is exposed to it, but you still can’t contract it unless you are exposed.

-->FREE Report: Discover the Top 10 Nutrient Deficiencies, including key signs you may be deficient in them and what you can do about it Click here to learn more!

According to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC):

HBV is transmitted through activities that involve percutaneous (i.e., puncture through the skin) or mucosal contact with infectious blood or body fluids (e.g., semen, saliva), including

  • Sex with an infected partner
  • Injection drug use that involves sharing needles, syringes, or drug-preparation equipment
  • Birth to an infected mother
  • Contact with blood or open sores of an infected person
  • Needle sticks or sharp instrument exposures
  • Sharing items such as razors or toothbrushes with an infected person

The ONLY one of the risk-factors listed above that should apply to an infant is being born to a mother who is infected with the hepatitis B virus. All infants that are born to mothers with the hepatitis B virus should get the hepatitis B vaccine. However, according to the CDC, only 1,000 of the 4,000,000 infants born in the U.S. each year are born to mothers with hepatitis B. That means that only 0.025% of American newborns are at risk of acquiring hepatitis B from their mother.

So, why is the AAP calling for ALL infants to be vaccinated against hepatitis B regardless of the viral status of their mother? Why is the AAP calling for an invasive medical procedure to be performed on ALL infants when far fewer than 1% of American-born infants are at risk of exposure to the virus?

advertisement - learn more

I think it’s an absurd recommendation, but in an attempt at empathy, I’ll give you a couple potential reasons why an organization of presumably smart people might make a recommendation along these lines:

  1. They think that the hepatitis B vaccine is harmless, and that we “may as well” give it to all infants “just in case” they’re exposed to the disease.
  2. Greed, greed, and more greed. Pediatricians are paid to “fully vaccinate” the children in their practice. Pediatrics is not the highest paying medical specialty, and recommending over-vaccination is a way that the AAP can financially support its members.
  3. They don’t have the time or resources to ask about every mother’s hepatitis B status, so they assume that everyone is hepatitis B positive (even though very few people are).
  4. “The AAP justifies the ridiculous extremity of vaccinating everyone’s children, regardless of hepatitis B status, on the day of their birth, with the fact that approximately 90% of infants who contract perinatal hepatitis B (there were 37 infants who contracted perinatal hepatitis B in the U.S. in 2015) would go on to develop chronic hepatitis B infections in the absence of treatment. That chronic hepatitis B in combination with cirrhosis (much more likely with high levels of alcohol consumption) could put those children at significant risk of liver cancer someday. In other words, the AAP is telling us that we all need to vaccinate our newborns immediately to keep them from being among the 33 infants per year who could drink themselves into liver cancer someday.” (source)

Possibility #1 is likely the one that resonates most with parents of newborns, while possibilities #2 and 3 are self-explanatory, and possibility #4 is just ludicrous. When most parents agree to have their newborn vaccinated against the hepatitis B virus on the day of their birth, they are attempting to protect their child. They think that the possibility of being exposed to the hepatitis B virus is high, and the possibility of suffering from an adverse-reaction to the hepatitis B vaccine is low to non-existent. Is that true though?

Again, per the CDC, the activities that put a person at-risk for exposure to the hepatitis B virus are:

  • Sex with an infected partner
  • Injection drug use that involves sharing needles, syringes, or drug-preparation equipment
  • Birth to an infected mother
  • Contact with blood or open sores of an infected person
  • Needle sticks or sharp instrument exposures
  • Sharing items such as razors or toothbrushes with an infected person

Don’t let your infants have sex with anyone — much less an infected partner, don’t let them inject drugs, don’t let them have contact with blood or open sores of an infected person (typically IV drug users and sex workers), and tell them not to share toothbrushes or razors with anyone. That’s parenting 101.

Yes, there are horrible situations that can happen — a child could get raped by a hepatitis B infected person, or a dentist could fail to clean her tools properly and infect your child with hepatitis B (or HIV). These things could happen. But they are incredibly unlikely, and they are even less likely when a child has parents who are desirous of keeping him or her safe.

But the vaccine is completely, 100%, unassailably, infallibly, safe, right? No, of course not. No pharmaceutical, medical device, or vaccine is perfectly safe for everyone. Every single medical intervention has “side-effects” — including vaccines. They may be “rare” but they are not impossible. Your child may have an immune-system disorder, kidney disorder, liver disorder, or genetic predisposition that makes him or her unable to properly process the hepatitis B vaccine, and he or she may suffer from an adverse reaction to it. Additionally, vaccinating on the day of a child’s birth makes it impossible for parents and physicians alike to know whether or not an infant is healthy, or whether his or her immune system, kidneys, liver, etc. are operating as they should.

How likely are adverse reactions to the hepatitis B vaccine given to infants on the day of their birth? That’s a tough question to answer. It’s difficult to tell when an infant is having an adverse reaction to a vaccine given to him or her at birth. Neither parents nor pediatricians have any notion of what is “normal” for that particular baby. If the baby is crying incessantly, it may be having a bad reaction to the vaccine, or it may just be a fussy baby. Vaccinating on the day of birth means that there is no baseline of health for the baby.

Since one can’t do a before/after test of an infant that receives a hepatitis B vaccine on the day that infant is born, we must look toward epidemiological studies to give us an idea of the risks of the hepatitis B vaccine. Epidemiological studies point toward increased incidents of neurological problems for children who receive the hepatitis B vaccine at birth.

A 2007 study found that odds of requiring early intervention services for developmental disabilities were nine times greater in boys who had received three doses of hepatitis B vaccine than in boys who had received zero. A 2010 study found that boys who received the birth dose of hepatitis B had a threefold risk of autism when compared with boys who didn’t.

Neurological problems in children are far more common than perinatal hepatitis B transmission. Approximately 11% of children ages 4-17 have been diagnosed with ADHD (also according to the CDC), and 1:68 children are on the autism spectrum. The chance of hepatitis B transmission at birth is less than 1%.

Which do you think is more likely, that your child is going to be exposed to hepatitis B (whether from a rapist IV drug-user, or from a negligent dentist, or from you) or that he or she is going to have a neurological disorder? Basic math and commonsense tell you that a neurological disorder is more likely. Certainly, there are other causes of neurological disorders, but vaccination for hepatitis B at birth is linked to neurological disorders, and even if it being a causal agent is truly rare, it’s still more likely than encountering a negligent dentists, or a drug-addicted, hepatitis B infected, rapist attacking your infant — at least for most people.

Even if you dismiss all evidence linking administration of the hepatitis B vaccine at birth to later neurological problems, the chances of hepatitis B infection of an infant born to a mother who is not infected with hepatitis B are so slim that it’s not even worth the pain caused by the jab itself, much less the aluminum adjuvants, intentional immune system activation (that is what vaccines are intended to do), and other side-effects of the vaccine.

The AAP recommendation that all infants be vaccinated against hepatitis B on the day of their birth is absurd. A risk-analysis using data and information directly from the CDC shows that children born to uninfected parents are unlikely to be exposed to the hepatitis B virus, and though the risk of experiencing an adverse reaction to the vaccine is difficult to establish, there are certainly reasons to think that adverse reactions are more likely than hepatitis B virus exposure.

One of the more offensive and obnoxious things about the AAP recommendation is that it doesn’t take into account any individual differences in disease-status or lifestyle. Neither I, nor the AAP, know the risk factors in your life, and I encourage everyone who has children, or even who is thinking of having children, to do their own risk analysis before taking any medication, or accepting any vaccination.

We don’t routinely vaccinate against yellow fever in the U.S. because yellow fever is a tropical disease that doesn’t exist in the U.S., and therefore it is not necessary for us to vaccinate against it unless we’re travelling to a place where it does exist. Hepatitis B exists in the U.S., but it is rare, and vaccinating every infant against it, on the day of their birth, is crazy. It’s disappointing that an organization like the AAP, that is presumably full of intelligent people, is advocating for it as a routine practice.

I’m sure that there will be many disparaging comments and accusations of being an “anti-vaxxer” thrown in my direction, but just to make sure that I make everyone on both sides of the vaccination fence mad, I want to close by saying that I’m not opposed to the hepatitis B vaccine. If you are engaged in high-risk activities, such as IV drug use or unprotected sex with various partners, getting vaccinated against the hepatitis B virus is smart and responsible. Infants who are born to mothers who are infected with the hepatitis B virus should receive the hepatitis B vaccine. However, it is absurd to vaccinate every infant, regardless of risk, against a sexually transmitted disease that he or she has close to zero risk of exposure, on the day of his or her birth. Every pharmaceutical, including every vaccine, has risks, warnings, and contraindications. Exposure of every infant born in the U.S. to those risks, is ridiculous, thoughtless, and wrong. The AAP has made a recommendation that is somewhere between thoughtless and negligent, and they should rescind and change course.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Health

COVID-19: “For People Younger Than 45, The Infection Fatality Rate is Almost 0%” – Stanford Professor

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old.

  • Reflect On:

    Are all of the measures we are being forced to take actually about the virus, or about something else? Why have we never done this for more dangerous respiratory viruses that circle the globe? What's going on here?

What Happened: John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University is one of many scientists around the world, and one of several from Stanford University, who has been telling the world that the new coronavirus, so far according to the data, is not as dangerous as it’s being made out to be by mainstream media. For example, earlier on in the pandemic he published an article titled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.“ In the article, he argues that there is simply not enough data to make claims about reported case fatality rate. He stated that rates, “like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless.”

This is exactly what these numbers did. In fact, they were the basis and justification for the lockdown.

It turns out he was right. The idea that the infection rate is much larger than previously thought seems to be well accepted and clear in the scientific community, and multiple studies have come out emphasizing the same over the past few months.  Not long ago, several academics from the Stanford School of Medicine, including Ioannidis, suggested that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza based on the data they found in their study.

In a recent interview with Greek ReporterIoannidis estimated that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected by COVID-19 around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases. He warned that “the draconian lockdowns imposed in many countries may have the opposite effect of what was intended. He told the Greek Reporter that “the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives.

He isn’t the only world renowned scientist to call these measures “draconian.” You can see another example here. In fact there are many of them, a large majority of whom have been censored by platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Since when are the expert opinions and research of scientists in this field constantly censored simply because they oppose the views of our federal health regulatory agencies and World Health Organization? Why is there a digital authoritarian “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t?

Not only are people experiencing huge economic impacts, but it’s also having a health impact. A new article published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus. You can read more about that here.

Here’s what Ioannidis, had to say about the infection fatality rate now that things have progressed further:

0.05% to 1% is a reasonable range for what the data tell us now for the infection fatality rate, with a median of about 0.25%. The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed. For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing homes, it can go up to 25% during major outbreaks in these facilities.  (source)

The idea that the death rate is far lower than original estimates, and even far lower than what the numbers show now seems to be quite obvious. Even CNN recently acknowledged this, only to state that just because it has a low infection fatality rate doesn’t mean that we should get too comfortable. In other words, keep wearing your mask.

Even the CDC recently announced that they may stop calling COVID-19 an “epidemic” due to the remarkably low death rate. You can read more about that here.

Why This Is Important

This all begs the question, are all of the measures that our federal health regulatory agencies forcing us to adopt actually necessary? Are they even good for us? Is this really about the virus, or are we simply having our perception manipulated by big media and powerful people, just as we have with regards to a number of other topics, like ‘the war on terror,’ for example. Why is there so much information showing that masks, for example, should not really be mandatory?

Why have we taken the measures that we’ve taken for this virus, but don’t do it for all of the other severe respiratory viruses that infect and kill millions of people around the world every single year?

For example, did you know that metapneumovirus has been shown to have worldwide circulation with nearly universal infection by age 5? Did you know that outbreaks of metapneumovirus have been well documented every single year, especially in long term care facilities with mortality rates of up to 50%? (pubmed 18820584) Did you know that human metapneumovirus infection results in a large number of hospitalizations of children every single year? Did you know it has a substantial morbidity rate, again in the elderly, but also among children as well? Did you know nearly 1-2 million children every single year die of these types of respiratory illnesses because they lead to acute respiratory illness? Imagine if the infection rates and death numbers were constantly tracked, and put on an easy to access website, mainstream media, radio etc. Imagine if the other coronaviruses and respiratory illnesses that are more severe in some cases, and arguably more infectious in some cases, were subjected to constant monitoring and beamed out to the population every single minute, could you imagine the hysteria that would be created?

At the end of the day, it seems quite clear that this virus is not as dangerous as it’s being made out to be, and again, based on the data, it doesn’t seem to be any more dangerous than what we’ve already been experiencing for years. So again, it begs the question, what’s really going on here, and why have governments used the coronavirus, as Edward Snowden said, the same way they used 9/11? To push more authoritarian measures on the population without their consent?

The number of controversies surrounding the coronavirus is quite revealing. Even people whose deaths are marked as COVID deaths may not have died as a result of the coronavirus. You can read more about that here. This, along with the high infection rate even drives the infection mortality rate lower.

The Takeaway

Never in history have we experienced such a collective distrust for health authorities that we rely on to provide us with truthful information. As a result, more people are starting to think for themselves instead of believing what they are told. The coronavirus, just like 9/11, is really contributing to another massive shift in consciousness, where even more people become aware of the deceit corruption, as well as the politicization of science that seems to plague our world and waking up to the realization that our world is not how it’s been presented to us, and that our perception of major events always seems to be subjected to high levels of manipulation.

We are the ones that choose the system we live in. We are the ones that continue to play the game every four years and elect a ‘leader.’ All this does is reinforce as a system we no longer want to play with. Is it time to stop giving our power away to others, and begin organizing in another fashion? Is our current political model truly serving us to thrive? If billions of us can together and follow instructions for a global lockdown, imagine what else we could do on a collective level for other important issues…

Looking Deeper

Just Like 9/11 Did, COVID-19 Is Shifting Human Consciousness In A Major Way

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Awareness

The Physicians For Informed Consent Ask If The MMR Vaccine Is More Dangerous Than The Measles

Published

on

What Happened: The Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) are a group of doctors and scientists from around the world who have come together to support informed consent when it comes to mandatory vaccine measures. Their information is based on science. Their mission is to deliver data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and to unite doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccinations. Their vision is that doctors and the public are able to evaluate the data on infectious diseases and vaccines objectively and voluntarily engage in informed decision-making about vaccination. 

You can check out their directors, advisors, and founding members here.

The organization itself is much bigger than the founding members, and includes a coalition of organizations, doctors and scientists.

On their website, they’ve put out some excellent downloadable PDF’s with regards to the MMR vaccine. There are four of them that all present different points.

  1. MEASLES: What Parents Need To Know
  2. MMR VACCINE: Is It Safer Than Measles? 
  3. Waning Immunity & The MMR Vaccine 
  4. FAQ’s: The MMR Vaccine versus the Measles

One of them deals with “what parents need to know about the measles vaccine” and another one presents the information that has them questioning if the MMR vaccine is safer than the measles. They point out that the chances of dying from measles and make many comparisons to the vaccine.

According to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine-injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

The PDF’s are well-sourced and laid out in an easy to read and understand type of manner, and quite detailed. Their arguments are quite compelling, and it would be interesting to present this information to a physician on the opposite end of the spectrum in order to hear or read their rebuttal. So feel free to take a look at them if interested!

Why This Is Important: When it comes to both our individual and collective health, all of us simply want what’s best. Nobody can really deny that, especially for our children. The issue is, many people have been made to believe that vaccines are for the greater good of everybody. We are made to believe that children, for example, who are not vaccinated are actually a danger to the vaccinated children.

The Physicians for Informed Consent are well aware of this argument, and they present a lot of information on why that’s not true. At the end of the day, in order to produce “herd immunity” from vaccines, the vaccines must be 100 percent effective for everybody, all of the time. We already know that that’s not the case and that a large majority are susceptible to vaccine injury. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act alone is enough to argue against mandatory vaccination and the idea that the unvaccinated are a risk to the vaccinated. In fact, vaccines have been known to spread diseases. This has happened with polio as well as the measles.

For example, during the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences. The media (Pharma-owned) generated high public anxiety. This fear-mongering led to the demonization of unvaccinated children, who were perceived as the spreaders of this disease. Rebecca J. McNall, a co-author of the published report, is a CDC official in the Division of Viral Diseases who had the data proving that the measles outbreak was in part caused by the vaccine. It is evidence of the vaccine’s failure to provide immunity. (source)

There are actually decades of examples when it comes to the measles.

The Takeaway

Vaccinations are quite a controversial topic, and vaccine hesitancy continues to increase among not only the global citizenry, but among doctors and physicians as well, which was also expressed at the recent World Health Organization vaccine summit. You can read more about that here.

In today’s day and age, it’s important to ask ourselves if measures taken under the guise of goodwill are really necessary and good for us. Take terrorism, for example, the idea that those who fund the problem, arm the problem, and in some cases create the problem then propose the solution of foreign infiltration, again, under the guise of goodwill.

So what were the real intentions, to stop the terrorists or to take over the country for natural resources and economic power and control?

Are people capitalizing off of the coronavirus? Not just for profit but for control, like Edward Snowden mentioned?

It’s also important to note that pharmaceutical companies hold tremendous lobbying power, even more so than big oil. (source)

Ask yourself, should we not have the right to decide for ourselves what goes into our body? Especially when there is a tremendous amount of flawed logic with the idea of mass vaccinations? Should we not have access to appropriate double blind placebo controlled safety studies? How come there are none for vaccines?

Why are there massive ridicule campaigns against organizations, professionals and people who create awareness about vaccine safety? Is vaccine safety not in the best interests of everybody? Should we not be analyzing and questioning instead of simply believing?

We must ask ourselves if we want to continue to give our consciousness and perceptions about certain medications over to these global and federal health authorities or, is it time to start asking more questions and pointing out facts that don’t really resonate? Why is discussion being discouraged, censored and even punished?

Why is Julian Assange in Jail? Why do we jail those who expose crimes and identify with those who commit them?

At the end of the day, vaccines are not a one size fits all product, and that’s quite clear. There are risks associated with vaccines, and evidence suggests that they are nowhere near as rare as they’re made out to be.

If we can come together as billions and shut down for the coronavirus, imagine what we could do if we come together to oppose measures that we as a citizenry, and as an entire collective, do not desire.

 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Soft Drink Companies Caught Using Big Tobacco’s Playbook To Lure Young Children

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Documents obtained by researchers clearly outline the unethical and immoral actions Tobacco companies used to 'hook' kids onto sugary drinks. They use the same tactics they did for smoking.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do and have our federal health regulatory agencies allow such products to be approved as safe for consumption when they are clearly linked to a variety of diseases, like cancer?

Many moves made by multiple big corporations are extremely unethical, immoral, and downright shocking. These corporations have completely compromised our federal health regulatory agencies, and it’s quite clear that they do not care about the health of the human race and will do anything when it comes to the success of the products they manufacture, including taking illegal and/or immoral actions.

One of the more recent examples comes from the tobacco industry. Companies within the industry used colors, flavors, and marketing techniques to lure and entice children as potential future smokers. They actually used and applied these same strategies to sweetened beverages starting as early as 1963, according to a study conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco.

As the Sugar Scientists point out:

The study, which draws from a cache of previously secret documents from the tobacco industry that is part of the UCSF Industry Documents Library tracked the acquisition and subsequent marketing campaigns of sweetened drink brands by two leading tobacco companies: R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris. It found that as tobacco was facing increased scrutiny from health authorities, its executives transferred the same products and tactics to peddle soft drinks. The study was published in the March 2019 issue of BMJ.

“Executives in the two largest U.S.-based tobacco companies had developed colors and flavors as additives for cigarettes and used them to build major children’s beverage product lines, including Hawaiian Punch, Kool-Aid, Tang and Capri Sun,” said senior author Laura Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH, of the UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. “Even after the tobacco companies sold these brands to food and beverage corporations, many of the product lines and marketing techniques designed to attract kids are still in use today.” (source)

The new papers, which are available in the UCSF Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library, a subset of the UCSF Industry Documents Library, reveal the close and tight knit relationships between the big tobacco and big food industries. In fact, in the 60s and 70s, these companies conducted taste tests with mothers and their children to evaluate sweetness, colors and flavors for Hawaiian Punch product line extensions. The children’s preferences were prioritized.

Kool-Aid Joins Marlboro

Meanwhile, tobacco competitor Philip Morris had acquired Kool-Aid, via General Foods, in 1985. The company flipped its marketing audience from families to children, created its “Kool-Aid Man” mascot, and launched collaborations with branded toys, including Barbie and Hot Wheels. It also developed a children’s Kool-Aid loyalty program described as “our version of the Marlboro Country Store,” a cigarette incentives program. (source)

“The Wacky Wild Kool-Aid style campaign had tremendous reach and impact,” said first author Kim Nguyen, ScD, MPH, who is also with the UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. “Lots of kids in the ’80s dreamed of getting swag from the Wacky Warehouse. What is really ‘wacky’ is that the Kool-Aid kid program was modeled after a tobacco marketing strategy designed to build allegiance with smokers.”

The tobacco giant also acquired Capri Sun and Tang, and used similar child-focused integrated marketing strategies to drive those sales.

“The industry claims that these tobacco-inspired marketing strategies are not actually targeting children and should be excluded from these industry-led agreements,” said Schmidt. “But the evidence cited in our research shows that these product lines and marketing techniques were specifically designed for and tested on children.” (source)

The UCSF Industry Documents Library was launched in 2002 as a digital portal for tobacco documents. Today, the library includes close to 15 million internal tobacco, drug, chemical and food industry documents used by scientists, policymakers, journalists and community members in their efforts to improve and protect the health of the public.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, it’s important to recognize that government health authorities and the corporations we buy our food from, among other things, really don’t care about us. This has become extremely evident, as they are responsible for the sharp rise in numerous diseases. It’s not uncommon to see parents buy their children products similar to the ones listed above, and that’s due to mass brainwashing and the fact that we’ve been made to feel that these products are actually safe. This is why awareness is so critical.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!