Contact Us
Latest Posts:
McGillespie
Category

Family

Category
Why Mathematics Work
Children

Mathematician James Nickel on ‘The Unrelenting Issue of Intelligibility’

By

James Nickel explains why mathematics work. Or, as scientists put it:  “The Unrelenting Issue of Intelligibility.”

He also describes why most mathematical breakthroughs (and mathematicians) are driven by the pursuit of beauty rather than utility.

How could it be that mankind is able to predict behaviors in the universe based only on abstract mathematical principles “invented” in his mind?

Could it be that mathematics is the language of God’s creation?

Nickel expands on this theme and topics in his excellent book, Mathematics: Is God Silent?

Even better, he’s finally fulfilled his life-long ambition to create a math curriculum that inspires the student by tying math with wonder, meaning, applications, & philosophy. He calls it “The Dance of Number.” Perhaps the myth of mathematics having no applicability to life and daily inspirition are finally over!

by
Keep Reading
Once Burned, Twice Shy—Why “Anti-Vaxxers” Are Really "Ex-Vaxxers” • Children's Health Defense
Belief

Once Burned, Twice Shy—Why “Anti-Vaxxers” Are Really “Ex-Vaxxers”

By

By the Children’s Health Defense Team

In the 1920s, Edward Bernays, the so-called “father of public relations,” wrote several influential books outlining the principles of successful propaganda. In his book by that title, Bernays argued that “the mind of the people…is made up for it by…those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion” and know how to skillfully supply the public with “inherited prejudices” and “verbal formulas.”

Bernays’ comments come to mind in the current climate of hostility and intolerance being directed against individuals pejoratively dubbed by the vaccine lobby as “anti-vaxxers.” The dumbed-down propaganda being plastered across the mainstream media on an almost daily basis would have the public believe that anyone who questions any aspect of vaccination is ignorant, selfish or both. However, there is a glaring flaw with this logic. The incontrovertible fact—which the legislators, regulators, reporters and citizens who are participating in mass tarring and feathering are not honest enough to admit—is that many of the people classified as “anti-vaxxers” are actually “ex-vaxxers” whose dutiful adherence to current vaccine policies led to serious vaccine injury in themselves or a loved one.

Parental compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) heavy-duty vaccine requirements for infants is often the catalyst for the injuries that start families down the path of becoming ex-vaxxers.

From compliance to injury

Vaccine coverage in the United States is high. In their first three years, over 99% of American children receive some vaccines. By the government’s indirect admission, however, vaccine-related adverse events are also common—with fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries ever getting reported.

Parental compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) heavy-duty vaccine requirements for infants is often the catalyst for the injuries that start families down the path of becoming “ex-vaxxers.” In one tragic case, a parent who followed doctors’ orders lost her six-week-old infant girl 12 hours after the child received eight vaccines; medical experts’ conclusion that vaccination was the cause of death prompted a different valuation of risks and benefits with a subsequent child. There are many other such stories. Moreover, when individuals who suffer nonfatal vaccine injuries stick to the standard vaccination regimen, research shows that they often experience even more severe injuries the next time around.

In the U.S., vaccines have been liability-free since 1986—and evidence suggests that vaccine safety has deteriorated significantly as a result. The only current recourse for the vaccine-injured is to file a petition with the stingy and slow-moving National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). Although the NVICP has paid out over $4 billion in taxpayer-funded compensation, it denies far more petitions than it awards. The family of the six-week-old described in the preceding paragraph eventually received NVICP compensation, but not before the program expended considerable effort to leave the cause of death unexplained. And, literally adding insult to injury, the maximum payout for any vaccine-related death is only $250,000.

The chair of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) committee has stated, ‘Congress is getting paid to not hold pharma accountable.’

Money talks

When people or their loved ones are vaccine-injured, many begin to unravel the unscrupulous world of pharmaceutical influence on our media, government agency leaders and lawmakers. Connecting the dots is a horrifying and enlightening experience, exposing facts to which the general public generally remains oblivious. These revelations weigh heavily when someone makes the decision to permanently change into an “ex-vaxxer.”

Why would the people’s elected representatives (and the officials they appoint) propagate smears, promote censorship and ignore the testimonials of the many families that have experienced devastating vaccine injuries?

Why would officialdom ignore the escalating fiscal implications of vaccine injuries, which are imposing a staggering financial burden on households and taxpayers?

Why do the media increasingly advocate for the elimination of informed consent and vaccine choice?

One of the inescapable answers has to do with the overt and covert influence of pharmaceutical industry funding on those who shape vaccine policy and public opinion.

At the government level, senior Senators openly admit that “drug companies have too much influence in Washington,” with big pharma spending more than any other industry on lobbying and campaign contributions. For example, the pharmaceutical industry poured an estimated $100 million into the 2016 elections, rewarding politicians on both sides of the aisle with its largesse. The chair of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) committee has stated, “Congress is getting paid to not hold pharma accountable” [emphasis added].

…studies show that medical journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.”

Not content to just influence legislators, the pharmaceutical industry puts equally high value on print advertising directed at doctors—the all-important “gatekeepers” between drug companies and patients. In fact, studies show that medical journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.”

Covering all bases, pharmaceutical companies also advertise vaccines and other drugs directly to U.S. consumers. The U.S. is one of only two countries in the world (along with New Zealand) that permits this type of direct-to-consumer pandering. Drug company spending on television and print advertising in the U.S. rose to $5.2 billion in 2016—a 60% increase over 2012—with untold additional amounts spent on digital and social media advertising. Astoundingly, pharmaceutical companies even get a tax break for these marketing expenditures, a corporate deduction that costs taxpayers billions annually.

The media benefit handsomely from the steady infusion of pharma advertising dollars. Four networks (CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox) received two-thirds of the TV ad monies spent on top-selling drugs in 2015, with the Prevnar 13 vaccine representing the eighth most-advertised pharmaceutical product that year. Under these bought-media circumstances, it is somewhat astonishing that a few media outlets were willing to concede that drug money “coursing through the veins of Congress” directly contributed to the opioid crisis. So far, however, no reporters have been willing to connect similar dots between drug money and unsafe vaccines.

What the WHO failed to mention, however, is the preponderant role of “commercial interests”—and especially pharmaceutical industry interests—in shaping its goals and strategies.

Pharmaceutical industry influence makes itself felt not just domestically but also globally, and this has led to a corresponding amping-up of rhetoric against “anti-vaxxers” around the world. In early 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) hyperbolically declared “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate” to be one of ten major “global health threats.” What the WHO failed to mention, however, is the preponderant role of “commercial interests”—and especially pharmaceutical industry interests—in shaping its goals and strategies.

Back in 2009, sleight of hand by WHO scientists rebranded the swine flu from “a ‘perfectly ordinary flu’” into a “dangerous pandemic.” This maneuver successfully generated billions in profits for vaccine and anti-flu drug manufacturers; however, the vaccine in question (Pandemrix) caused cases of narcolepsy—many in young people—to surge all over Europe to nearly four times higher than prevaccine levels. In all likelihood, the parents of the narcolepsy-afflicted youth joined the ranks of “ex-vaxxers.” A researcher looking back on the Pandemrix fiasco recently stated:

“If vaccine regulators were serious about safety, the entire vaccine fleet would have been grounded following the Pandemrix narcolepsy disaster, to check for the same mechanism of failure in other vaccines. But nothing of that sort happened….”

Double standards

If consumers want to learn about the potential risks of widely used FDA-approved drugs, they can—with a little legwork—find detailed information on hundreds of drugs on the FDA’s website. For azithromycin, for example, the FDA links to studies showing that the antibiotic increases risks of cancer relapse and cardiovascular problems. A link for fentanyl clearly warns of “the potential for life-threatening harm from accidental exposure” and “deadly” risks to both children and adults. Although it can be an uphill battle to get drugs taken off the market, the ongoing pressure of lawsuits has succeeded in removing some egregious offenders such as Vioxx—and Merck, Vioxx’s manufacturer, has been forced to pay out billions in settlements.

In contrast, consumers who go to the FDA website for risk information about vaccines (classified as “biologics” rather than “drugs”) will search almost in vain, finding sparse information for only four vaccines. One of the four is Gardasil—also manufactured by Merck, and one of the most notoriously dangerous vaccines ever rushed onto the market. While the FDA cautiously states that “concerns have been raised about reports of deaths occurring in individuals after receiving Gardasil,” the agency asserts that “there was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine.” The 2018 book, The HPV Vaccine on Trial, contradicts this benign narrative and describes how Gardasil has caused thousands of perfectly healthy young women and men to “suddenly lose energy, become wheelchair-bound, or even die” while Merck continues to enjoy “soaring revenues.”

For government and the media to dismiss these and other accounts of serious vaccine injuries as insignificant—while falsely labeling injured individuals and their advocates as irresponsible “anti-vaxxers”—is both shameful and insulting. After revealing how the mainstream narrative about Gardasil is riddled with “discrepancies and half-truths,” the authors of The HPV Vaccine on Trial issued a call for greater civility. Noting that marginalization and bullying of the vaccine-injured “destroys civil public discourse and discourages scientific inquiry,” they pointed out that “we urgently need both.”

© April 30, 2019 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Incentive Trap
Children

Japan Leads the Way: No Vaccine Mandates and No MMR Vaccine = Healthier Children

By

The Promise of Good Health; Are We Jumping Off the Cliff in the U.S.?

By Kristina Kristen

In the United States, many legislators and public health officials are busy trying to make vaccines de facto compulsory—either by removing parental/personal choice given by existing vaccine exemptions or by imposing undue quarantines and fines on those who do not comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) vaccine edicts. Officials in California are seeking to override medical opinion about fitness for vaccination, while those in New York are mandating the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine for 6-12-month-old infants for whom its safety and effectiveness “have not been established.”

The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness.

American children would be better served if these officials—before imposing questionable and draconian measures—studied child health outcomes in Japan. With a population of 127 million, Japan has the healthiest children and the very highest “healthy life expectancy” in the world—and the least vaccinated children of any developed country. The U.S., in contrast, has the developed world’s most aggressive vaccination schedule in number and timing, starting at pregnancy, at birth and in the first two years of life. Does this make U.S. children healthier? The clear answer is no. The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness. Analysis of real-world infant mortality and health results shows that U.S. vaccine policy does not add up to a win for American children.

Japan and the U.S.; Two Different Vaccine Policies

In 1994, Japan transitioned away from mandated vaccination in public health centers to voluntary vaccination in doctors’ offices, guided by “the concept that it is better that vaccinations are performed by children’s family doctors who are familiar with their health conditions.” The country created two categories of non-compulsory vaccines: “routine” vaccines that the government covers and “strongly recommends” but does not mandate, and additional “voluntary” vaccines, generally paid for out-of-pocket. Unlike in the U.S., Japan has no vaccine requirements for children entering preschool or elementary school.

Japan also banned the MMR vaccine in the same time frame, due to thousands of serious injuries over a four-year period—producing an injury rate of one in 900 children that was “over 2,000 times higher than the expected rate.” It initially offered separate measles and rubella vaccines following its abandonment of the MMR vaccine; Japan now recommends a combined measles-rubella (MR) vaccine for routine use but still shuns the MMR. The mumps vaccine is in the “voluntary” category.

Here are key differences between the Japanese and U.S. vaccine programs:

  • Japan has no vaccine mandates, instead recommending vaccines that (as discussed above) are either “routine” (covered by insurance) or “voluntary” (self-pay).
  • Japan does not vaccinate newborns with the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, unless the mother is hepatitis B positive.
  • Japan does not vaccinate pregnant mothers with the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine.
  • Japan does not give flu shots to pregnant mothers or to six-month-old infants.
  • Japan does not give the MMR vaccine, instead recommending an MR vaccine.
  • Japan does not require the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.

In contrast, the U.S. vaccine schedule (see Table 1) prescribes routine vaccination during pregnancy, calls for the first HepB vaccine dose within 24 hours of birth—even though 99.9% of pregnant women, upon testing, are hepatitis B negative, and follows up with 20 to 22 vaccine doses in the first year alone. No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.

The HepB vaccine injects a newborn with a 250-microgram load of aluminum, a neurotoxic and immune-toxic adjuvant used to provoke an immune response. There are no studies to back up the safety of exposing infants to such high levels of the injected metal. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) upper limit for aluminum in intravenous (IV) fluids for newborns is far lower at five micrograms per kilogram per day (mcg/kg/day)—and even at these levels, researchers have documented the potential for impaired neurologic development. For an average newborn weighing 7.5 pounds, the HepB vaccine has over 15 times more aluminum than the FDA’s upper limit for IV solutions.

Unlike Japan, the U.S. administers flu and Tdap vaccines to pregnant women (during any trimester) and babies receive flu shots at six months of age, continuing every single year thereafter. Manufacturers have never tested the safety of flu shots administered during pregnancy, and the FDA has never formally licensed any vaccines “specifically for use during pregnancy to protect the infant.”

Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms.

U.S. vaccine proponents claim the U.S. vaccine schedule is similar to schedules in other developed countries, but this claim is inaccurate upon scrutiny. Most other countries do not recommend vaccination during pregnancy, and very few vaccinate on the first day of life. This is important because the number, type and timing of exposure to vaccines can greatly influence their adverse impact on developing fetuses and newborns, who are particularly vulnerable to toxic exposures and early immune activation. Studies show that activation of pregnant women’s immune systems can cause developmental problems in their offspring. Why are pregnant women in the U.S. advised to protect their developing fetuses by avoiding alcohol and mercury-containing tuna fish, but actively prompted to receive immune-activating Tdap and flu vaccines, which still contain mercury (in multi-dose vials) and other untested substances?

Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms. U.S. regulators have ignored these and similar reports and not only continue to aggressively promote and even mandate the formerly optional HPV vaccine beginning in preadolescence but are now pushing it in adulthood. The Merck-manufactured HPV vaccine received fast-tracked approval from the FDA despite half of all clinical trial subjects reporting serious medical conditions within seven months.

Best and Worst: Two Different Infant Mortality Results

The CDC views infant mortality as one of the most important indicators of a society’s overall health. The agency should take note of Japan’s rate, which, at 2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, is the second lowest in the world, second only to the Principality of Monaco. In comparison, almost three times as many American infants die (5.8 per 1,000 live births), despite massive per capita spending on health care for children (see Table 2). U.S. infant mortality ranks behind 55 other countries and is worse than the rate in Latvia, Slovakia or Cuba.

If vaccines save lives, why are American children dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a 57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood?

To reiterate, the U.S. has the most aggressive vaccine schedule of developed countries (administering the most vaccines the earliest). If vaccines save lives, why are American children “dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger” compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a “57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood”? Japanese children, who receive the fewest vaccines—with no government mandates for vaccination—grow up to enjoy “long and vigorous” lives. International infant mortality and health statistics and their correlation to vaccination protocols show results that government and health officials are ignoring at our children’s great peril.

Among the 20 countries with the world’s best infant mortality outcomes, only three countries (Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore) automatically administer the HepB vaccine to all newborns—governed by the rationale that hepatitis B infection is highly endemic in these countries. Most of the other 17 top-ranking countries—including Japan—give the HepB vaccine at birth only if the mother is hepatitis B positive (Table 1). The U.S., with its disgraceful #56 infant mortality ranking, gives the HepB vaccine to all four million babies born annually despite a low incidence of hepatitis B.

Is the U.S. Sacrificing Children’s Health for Profits? 

Merck, the MMR vaccine’s manufacturer, is in court over MMR-related fraud. Whistleblowers allege the pharmaceutical giant rigged its efficacy data for the vaccine’s mumps component to ensure its continued market monopoly. The whistleblower evidence has given rise to two separate court cases. In addition, a CDC whistleblower has alleged the MMR vaccine increases autism risks in some children. Others have reported that the potential risk of permanent injury from the MMR vaccine dwarfs the risks of getting measles.

Why do the FDA and CDC continue to endorse the problematic MMR vaccine despite Merck’s implication in fraud over the vaccine’s safety and efficacy? Why do U.S. legislators and government officials not demand a better alternative, as Japan did over two decades ago? Why are U.S. cities and states forcing Merck’s MMR vaccine on American children? Is the U.S. government protecting children, or Merck? Why are U.S. officials ignoring Japan’s exemplary model, which proves that the most measured vaccination program in the industrialized world and “first-class sanitation and levels of nutrition” can produce optimal child health outcomes that are leading the world?

A central tenet of a free and democratic society is the freedom to make informed decisions about medical interventions that carry serious potential risks. This includes the right to be apprised of benefits and risks—and the ability to say no. The Nuremberg Code of ethics established the necessity of informed consent without “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” Forcing the MMR vaccine, or any other vaccine, on those who are uninformed or who do not consent represents nothing less than medical tyranny.

© April 23, 2019 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

by
Keep Reading
Children

The Lunacy of Water Fluoridation

By

By Dr. Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Research links fluoridated water consumption to endocrine dysfunction, hypothyroidism, ADHD and reduced IQ
  • Many water authorities do not use pharmaceutical grade fluoride; they use hydrofluosilicic acid — a toxic waste product of the fertilizer industry that is frequently contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins
  • 97 percent of Western European countries do not fluoridate, and data show non-fluoridating countries have seen the exact same reduction in dental cavities as fluoridated areas

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has hailed water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century. Beginning in 1945, it was claimed that adding fluoride to drinking water was a safe and effective way to improve people’s dental health. Over the decades, many bought into this hook, line and sinker, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The featured film, “Our Daily Dose,” reviews some of this evidence. As noted in the film’s synopsis:

“Filmmaker Jeremy Seifert lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research and interviewing top-tier doctors, activists, and attorneys close to the issue. Through thoughtful examination of old beliefs and new science, the film alerts us to the health threat present in the water and beverages we rely on every day.”

Share This Film With Those Still Sitting On the Fence on Fluoride!

The film may not offer many brand new revelations to those of you who are already well-informed about the history and documented hazards of fluoride.

It was primarily created as an educational vehicle aimed at those who may not be aware of these issues, or who might not yet be entirely convinced that drinking fluoride isn’t a good thing. So PLEASE, share this video with all of your friends and family who are on the fence on this issue, and ask them to watch it. It’s only 20 minutes long, but it packs a lot of compelling details into those 20 minutes.

Understanding how fluoride affects your body and brain is particularly important for parents with young children, and pregnant women. It’s really crucial to know that you should NEVER mix infant formula with fluoridated tap water for example, as this may overexpose your child to 100 times the proposed “safe” level of fluoride exposure for infants!

If your child suffers with ADD/ADHD, drinking fluoridated water may also worsen his or her condition. Ditto for those with under-functioning thyroid. So please, do share this video with your social networks, as it could make a big difference in people’s health.

Fluoride Is Both an Endocrine Disruptor and a Neurotoxin

Scientific investigations have revealed that fluoride is an endocrine-disrupting chemical, and a developmental neurotoxin that impacts short-term and working memory, and lowers IQ in children. It has been implicated as a contributing factor in the rising rates of both attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) and thyroid disease.

Indeed, fluoride was used in Europe to reduce thyroid activity in hyperthyroid patients as late as the 1970s, and reduced thyroid function is associated with fluoride intakes as low as 0.05 to 0.1 mg fluoride per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day).

For Over 50 Years, Fluoride Levels Were Too High, Government Admits

Children are particularly at risk for adverse effects of overexposure, and in April 2015, the US government admitted that the “optimal” level of fluoride recommended since 1962 had in fact been too high. As a result, over 40 percent of American teens show signs of fluoride overexposure — a condition known as dental fluorosis. In some areas, dental fluorosis rates are as high as 70 to 80 percent, with some children suffering from advanced forms.

So, for the first time, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lowered its recommended level of fluoride in drinking water by 40 percent, from an upper limit of 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.7 mg/L. The HHS said it will evaluate dental fluorosis rates among children in 10 years to assess whether they were correct about this new level being protective against dental fluorosis. But just what is the acceptable level of harm in the name of cavity prevention?

A number of studies have shown that children with moderate to severe dental fluorosis score worse on tests measuring cognitive skills and IQ than peers without fluorosis — a clear revelation highlighted in the film, as some still insist that dental fluorosis is nothing more than a cosmetic issue.

The Price We Pay for Cavity Prevention

According to the film, the CDC estimates water fluoridation decreases dental decay by, at most, 25 percent. Recent research, however, suggests the real effect may be far lower. Based on the findings of three papers assessing the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay, the researchers concluded that water fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth.

If that’s the case, then why are we still jeopardizing our children’s long-term thyroid and brain health by adding fluoride to drinking water?

Fluoride — like many other poisons — was originally declared safe based on dosage, but we now know that timing of exposure can play a big role in its effects as well. Children who are fed infant formula mixed with fluoridated water receive very high doses and may be affected for life as a result of this early exposure.

Fluoride can also cross the placenta, causing developing fetuses to be exposed to fluoride. Considering the fact that fluoride has endocrine-disrupting activity, this is hardly a situation amenable to the good health of that child. It’s important to realize that fluoride is not a nutrient. It’s a drug, and it’s the ONLY drug that is purposely added directly into drinking water.

This route of delivery completely bypasses standard rules relating to informed consent, which is foundational for ethical medical practice. What’s worse, there’s no way to keep track of the dosage. And no one is keeping track of side effects.

Infants Are Severely and Routinely Overdosed on Fluoride

According to the recent Iowa Study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the CDC, infants and young children are being massively overdosed on fluoride. This study, which is the largest U.S. study conducted measuring the amount of fluoride children ingest, concluded that:

  • 100 percent of infants receiving infant formula mixed with fluoridated tap water get more than the allegedly safe dose of fluoride. Some formula-fed infants receive 100 times the safe level on a daily basis
  • 30 percent of 1-year-olds exceed the recommended safe dose
  • 47 percent of 2- to 3-year-olds exceed the safe dose

Most Water Authorities Use Toxic Waste Product, Not Pharmaceutical Grade Fluoride

As stated, fluoride is a drug, and research into the health effects of fluoride are based on pharmaceutical grade fluoride. However, a majority of water authorities do not even use pharmaceutical grade fluoride; they use hydrofluosilicic acid, or hexafluorosilicic acid — toxic waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry, which are frequently contaminated with heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, and other toxins.

This is a key point that many fluoride proponents fail to address when arguing for its use. Indeed, holding elected officials accountable for procuring proof that the specific fluoridation chemical used actually fulfills fluoride’s health and safety claims and complies with all regulations, laws and risk assessments required for safe drinking water, has been a successful strategy for halting water fluoridation in a number of areas around the U.S.

While the idea of hiding toxic industrial waste in drinking water would sound like a questionable idea at best to most people, it was welcomed by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a 1983 letter, Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, wrote:

“… In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water, and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them…”

Data and Science Do Not Support Water Fluoridation

Ninety-seven percent of Western European countries do not fluoridate their water, and data collected by the World Health Organization (WHO) show that non-fluoridating countries have seen the exact same reduction in dental cavities as the U.S.,16 where a majority of water is still fluoridated. If fluoride were, in fact, the cause of this decline, non-fluoridating countries should not show the same trend.

Clearly, declining rates of dental decay are not in and of themselves proof that water fluoridation actually works. It’s also worth noting that well over 99 percent of the fluoride added to drinking water never even touches a tooth; it simply runs down the drain, contaminating and polluting the environment.

Source: KK Cheng et.al. BMJ 2007.17 Rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.

Ending Fluoridation Will Be the Greatest Public Health Achievement of the 21st Century

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Bill Gates with Vaccine
Belief

Gates’s ‘Illogical Causal Reasoning’ on Vaccines

By

by Children’s Health Defense Team

Bill Gates is fond of using his bully pulpit to talk about “miracles” and “magic.” Gates has featured one or both words in nearly all of his annual wrap-up letters for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2017), most often in reference to the Gates Foundation’s outsized financial and ideological support for global vaccine programs. As Gates says, “In the same way that during my Microsoft career I talked about the magic of software, I now spend my time talking about the magic of vaccines.”

Gates’s words give us an immediate clue that he is engaging in his own brand of magical thinking—which social scientists define as “illogical causal reasoning.” How else to explain his simplistic endorsement of vaccines as a miraculous intervention with unmitigated benefits and no down side? The Gates Foundation’s global spreadsheet appears to have no room to tally the massive flood of vaccine injuries afflicting children worldwide, despite abundant evidence that this damage is standing the vaccine risk-benefit calculus on its head and turning childhood into an extended round of Russian roulette.

Let’s Report History Accurately

In a widely cited 2014 blog post on the “miracle of vaccines,” Gates expressed enthusiasm about the “inspiring” data on vaccines and the “fantastic” and “phenomenal” progress being made to expand vaccine coverage. There is one major problem with Gates’ professed reliance on “data,” which is that the philanthropist ignores fundamental historical facts governing infectious disease and vaccine timelines.

There is one major problem with Gates’ professed reliance on “data,” which is that the philanthropist ignores fundamental historical facts governing infectious disease and vaccine timelines.

Vital statistics data reveal that in the U.S. and elsewhere, fatalities from diseases such as scarlet fever—in the absence of any vaccine—had become quite rare by the mid-20th century. Mortality from infectious diseases such as measles and whooping cough (pertussis) also had declined rapidly, well before the introduction of the corresponding vaccines (see Figure 1). A meticulous review of U.S. mortality data from 1900–1973 concluded:

“Medical measures [such as vaccines] contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900—having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in.”

The same researchers, in another article, chastised the medical establishment for its misplaced confidence in “magic bullets” (there is that word “magic” again!). Instead, if the decline in infectious disease incidence and mortality in the last century represented any kind of “miracle,” the phenomenon was, by all honest accounts, attributable to classic and long-term public health measures such as better sanitation and, especially, improved nutrition. A study of 20th-century mortality trends in Italy found a significant association between increased caloric intake and declining mortality, reflecting “progress in average nutritional status, lifestyle quality, socioeconomic level and hygienic conditions.” Moreover, mortality dropped most sharply in Italy’s youngest age groups—who were “probably the most sensible to the changes in nutrition and wellness.” Even early 20th-century epidemiologists who were inclined to give some credit to vaccines recognized that other factors were at play, including changes in “human resistance and bacterial quality” as well as factors yet to be determined.

Figure 1. U.S. mortality rates, 1900–1963Source: http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-vaccines-vaccination/


Oh Miracle, Where Art Thou?

Even if one leaves 20th-century vital statistics behind, there is a glaring piece of evidence that gives the lie to Bill Gates’ disingenuous assertions about vaccine miracles: vaccines are not actually making or keeping children healthy. Instead, in the U.S. (where children are the most highly vaccinated in the world), over half of all young people have a chronic illness—a trend that coincides with the expansion of the nation’s vaccine schedule. Similar patterns of chronic illness are emerging worldwide, including for potentially life-threatening conditions such as food allergies and asthma.

…there is a glaring piece of evidence that gives the lie to Bill Gates’ disingenuous assertions about vaccine miracles: vaccines are not actually making or keeping children healthy.

The World Mercury Project’s Campaign to Restore Child Health has been documenting parents’ first-hand accounts of serious adverse outcomes experienced by their children following vaccination. These testimonials, which represent the tip of the iceberg, cover a panoply of disorders that were rare or even unheard of a few decades ago:

  • Thirteen percent of U.S. children are in special education.
  • One in six American children has a developmental disorder such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
  • Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects nearly 11% of American children.
  • One in 20 children under the age of five has epilepsy.
  • Peanut allergies are the most common cause of food-related death.
  • Women who receive flu and Tdap vaccines during pregnancy are at greater risk of miscarriages and other problems.
  • Pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal or other infections (PANDAS or PANS) may affect as many as 1 in 200 children in the U.S., including up to 25% of children diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and tic disorders.
  • Sensory processing disorder (SPD) often co-occurs with ADHD and ASD.
  • In the U.S., the infant mortality rate, including from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), is double the rate in many other high-income countries. In Africa, a comparative study in Guinea-Bissau found that infant mortality was at least twice as high (10%-11%) in children who received the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and polio vaccines as in children who did not receive the vaccines (4%-5%).

…large foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation exert influence not just through their “enormous resources” but also “by shaping development concepts and policies.

Cui bono?

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Living with Grandparents
Children

Raising children near their grandparents has scientific benefits (besides the free babysitting)

By

by Abbey Ryan

When grandparents and grandchildren are able to live close together so that each can spend a great deal of time with the other, many fascinating bonds emerge! Not only that, but research shows that raising children near their grandparents presents many scientific benefits, such that go beyond free, convenient babysitting for parents.

While it’s not always easy – or possible – for grandchildren to grow up near their grandparents, the relationship that develops here is well worth the effort. The extra love, attention, and guidance help raise strong adults.

5 Reasons Raising Children Near Their Grandparents Is Beneficial

While the research is quite extensive, here are five simple ways that raising children near their grandparents leads to beneficial outcomes.

#1. The children will have a built-in support system (in addition to their parents).
According to research gathered through the University of Oxford, children who are able to maintain close relationships with their grandparents tend to have fewer emotional and behavioral issues, allowing them to be better at handling traumatic life events in life, such as divorce, bullying, death, or substantial moves. Having a good relationship with grandparents helps allow the grandparents to offer a unique sense of security and support in such a way that parents might be unable to offer. This helps growing children navigate adverse childhood experiences.

#2. By having an inter-generational identity, a child’s resilience is increased.
Understanding who they are, where they came from, and the history of their family (which can happen by knowing one’s grandparents well) can help a person be more resilient. The reason for this is that knowledge and understanding help one feel more in control of their life, even when uncontrollable events occur. Understanding their family and their history can help a person grow to understand they are part of something bigger than just themselves and their life.

#3. Having a close relationship with grandparents help children grow up to be less ageist.
Everyone gets old. This is the way of life. The hope, however, is that our younger generations won’t discriminate against the old, and a way to ensure that this doesn’t happen is by building strong relationships between youth and the elderly – or, grandparents and grandchildren. According to a 2017 study, kids who develop close relationships with their grandparents are less likely to show bias towards older adults, and children who had a poor quality relationship with their grandparents were more likely to have ageist views.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
AHA President Heart Attack
Diet

American Heart Association President Suffers Heart Attack at 52

By

By Dr. Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • John Warner, cardiologist and president of the American Heart Association (AHA), recently suffered a heart attack in the middle of a health conference at the age of 52
  • In all likelihood, Warner followed AHA recommendations, many of which can actually worsen or cause heart disease
  • AHA supports ample grain consumption and recommends eating harmful fats such as canola, corn, soybean and sunflower oil, both of which are known to cause and/or contribute to cardiovascular problems
  • Good heart health starts with your diet — what you eat and when you eat. A powerful treatment for heart disease is to work your way up to an intermittent fasting schedule where you’re fasting for 20 hours a day
  • When you do eat, make sure you eat real food, and consider a cyclical ketogenic diet, high in healthy fats, low in net carbs with moderate protein. Once you’re comfortable with this intermittent fasting schedule, start doing a monthly water only fast, working your way up to multiple days

In the health paradox of the year, 52-year-old cardiologist John Warner, president of the American Heart Association (AHA), recently suffered a heart attack in the middle of a health conference.1,2 In a statement, the association reported Warner was in stable condition after having a stent placed to open a blocked artery. Part of Warner’s speech at the Scientific Sessions conference in Anaheim, California, centered around his own family’s struggle with heart disease.

“After my son was born and we were introducing him to his extended family, I realized something very disturbing: There were no old men on either side of my family. None. All the branches of our family tree cut short by cardiovascular disease,” Warner said in his speech.3

“Together we can make sure old men and old women are regulars at family reunions, that people live long enough and healthy enough to enjoy walks and fishing trips with their grandchildren and maybe even their great-grandchildren. In other words, I look forward to a future where … children grow up surrounded by so many healthy, beloved, elderly relatives that they couldn’t imagine life any other way.”

The AHA’s CEO, Nancy Brown, said in a statement:4 “John wanted to reinforce that this incident underscores the important message that he left us with in his presidential address … that much progress has been made, but much remains to be done.”

Many AHA Recommendations Worsen Heart Health

In all likelihood, Warner followed AHA recommendations, many of which are actually recipes for heart disease disaster. Of the foods scientifically proven to cause heart disease and clogged arteries, excess sugar and industrially processed omega-6 vegetable oils, found in nearly all processed foods, compete for space at the top the list. And what kinds of foods does the AHA recommend to protect your heart?

Not only does it support ample grain consumption, it also recommends eating harmful fats such as canola, corn, soybean and sunflower oil.5 “Blends or combinations of these oils, often sold under the name ‘vegetable oil,’ and cooking sprays made from these oils are also good choices,” the AHA says. Meanwhile, the association still insists saturated fats are to be avoided.

Just this past summer the AHA shocked health experts around the world by sending out a worldwide advisory6 saying saturated fats such as butter and coconut oil should be avoided to cut your risk of heart disease, and that replacing these fats with margarine and vegetable oil might cut your heart disease risk by as much as 30 percent. Overall, the AHA recommends limiting your daily saturated fat intake to 6 percent of daily calories or less.7

This is as backward as it gets, and if Warner was following this long-outdated advice, it’s no wonder he suffered a heart attack. In fact, it is to be expected. As noted by American science writer Gary Taubes in his extensive rebuttal to the AHA’s advisory,8 with this document, the AHA reveals its longstanding prejudice — and the method by which it reaches its flawed conclusions.

In short, the AHA simply excluded any and all contrary evidence. After this methodical cherry-picking, they were left with just four clinical trials published in the 1960s and early ‘70s — the eras when the low-fat myth was born and grew to take hold. The problem is nutritional science has made significant strides since then, and a number of significant studies have firmly disproven the hypothesis that saturated fat causes heart disease, finding no association whatsoever.

In related news, the AHA recently issued new guidelines on blood pressure,9 moving the goal post for heart health yet again. Now you’re considered hypertensive if your blood pressure is above 130 over 80. Previous guidelines started hypertension at 140 over 90. This means an estimated 30 million Americans will qualify for the designation of having high blood pressure, and of those, an estimated 1 in 5 are likely to receive the recommendation to take blood pressure medication.

Flawed Fat Recommendations Have Been Followed With Disastrous Consequences

Since the 1950s, when vegetable oils began being promoted over saturated fats like butter, Americans have dutifully followed this advice, dramatically increasing consumption of vegetable oil. Soybean oil, for example, has risen by 600 percent while butter, tallow and lard consumption has been halved. We’ve also dramatically increased sugar consumption, which has also been implicated as a primary contributor to heart disease and other chronic health problems.10

While following this advice, Americans have gotten fatter and sicker. Heart disease rates have not improved even though people have been following the AHA’s “heart healthy diet.” Common sense tells us if the AHA’s advice hasn’t worked in the last 65 years, it’s not likely to start working now. Modern research is just now starting to reveal what actually happens at the molecular level when you consume vegetable oil and margarine, and it’s not good.

For example, Dr. Sanjoy Ghosh,11 a biologist at the University of British Columbia, has shown your mitochondria cannot easily use polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for fuel due to the fats’ unique molecular structure. Other researchers have shown the PUFA linoleic acid hinders mitochondrial function and can even cause cell death.12

PUFAs are also not readily stored in subcutaneous fat. Instead, PUFAs tend to get deposited in your liver, where they contribute to fatty liver disease, and in your arteries, where they contribute to atherosclerosis.

According to Frances Sladek,13 Ph.D., a toxicologist and professor of cell biology at UC Riverside, PUFAs behave like a toxin that builds up in tissues because your body cannot easily rid itself of it. Making matters worse, when vegetable oils like sunflower oil and corn oil are heated, cancer-causing chemicals like cyclic aldehydes are also produced.14

how the oils turn toxic
Source: The Telegraph November 7, 2015

Vegetable Oils Are Anything but Healthy

Other research confirms such findings by linking fried foods to an increased risk of death. For example, eating fried potatoes more than twice a week has been shown to double a person’s risk of death compared to never eating fried potatoes.15 Animal and human research has also found vegetable oils promote:

  • Obesity and fatty liver16
  • Lethargy and prediabetic symptoms17
  • Chronic pain/idiopathic pain syndromes (meaning pain with no discernible cause)18
  • Migraines19
  • Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis20

According to Dr. Cate Shanahan,21 a family physician and author of “Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food,” the idea that PUFAs are healthier than saturated fats falls flat when you enter the field of biochemistry, because it’s “biochemically implausible.” In other words, the molecular structure of PUFA is such that it’s far more prone to react with oxygen, and these reactions disrupt cellular activity and cause inflammation.22 Oxidative stress and inflammation, in turn, are hallmarks not only of heart disease and heart attacks but of most chronic diseases.23,24

[T]he folks at the AHA claim saturated fat is pro-inflammatory and causes arterial plaque and heart attacks — but there is no biochemically plausible explanation for their argument,” she told me in an emailed rebuttal to the AHA advisory. “Saturated fat is very stable, and will not react with oxygen the way PUFA fat does, not until the fundamental laws of the universe are altered. _

Our bodies do need some PUFA fat, but we need it to come from food like walnuts and salmon or gently processed (as in cold pressed, unrefined) oils like flax and artisanal grapeseed, not from vegetable oils because these are refined, bleached and deodorized, and the PUFA fats are molecularly mangled into toxins our body cannot use.”_

Open Letter to AHA President

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Bored and impatient child
Children

Reasons Today’s Kids Are Bored, Entitled, Impatient with Few Real Friends

By

by Victoria Prooday

I am an occupational therapist with years of experience working with children, parents, and teachers. I completely agree with this teacher’s message that our children are getting worse and worse in many aspects. I hear the same consistent message from every teacher I meet. Clearly, throughout my time as an Occupational Therapist, I have seen and continue to see a decline in kids’ social, emotional, and academic functioning, as well as a sharp increase in learning disabilities and other diagnoses.

As we know, the brain is malleable. Through environment, we can make the brain “stronger” or make it “weaker”. I truly believe that, despite all our greatest intentions, we unfortunately remold our children’s brains in the wrong direction. Here is why:

1. Technology

Using technology as a “Free babysitting service” is, in fact, not free at all. The payment is waiting for you just around the corner.  We pay with our kids’ nervous systems, with their attention, and with their ability for delayed gratification. Compared to virtual reality, everyday life is boring.

When kids come to the classroom, they are exposed to human voices and adequate visual stimulation as opposed to being bombarded with the graphic explosions and special effects that they are used to seeing on the screens. After hours of virtual reality, processing information in a classroom becomes increasingly challenging for our kids because their brains are getting used to the high levels of stimulation that video games provide.

The inability to process lower levels of stimulation leaves kids vulnerable to academic challenges. Technology also disconnects us emotionally from our children and our families.

Parental emotional availability is the main nutrient for a child’s brain. Unfortunately, we are gradually depriving our children of that nutrient.

2. Kids Get Everything The Moment They Want It

“I am Hungry!!” “In a sec I will stop at the drive thru” “I am Thirsty!” “Here is a vending machine.” “I am bored!” “Use my phone!”

The ability to delay gratification is one of the key factors for future success. We have the best intentions – to make our children happy – but unfortunately, we make them happy at the moment but miserable in the long term.

To be able to delay gratification means to be able to function under stress. Our children are gradually becoming less equipped to deal with even minor stressors, which eventually become huge obstacles to their success in life.

The inability to delay gratification is often seen in classrooms, malls, restaurants, and toy stores the moment the child hears “No” because parents have taught their child’s brain to get what it wants right away.

3. Kids Rule The World

“My son doesn’t like vegetables.” “She doesn’t like going to bed early.” “He doesn’t like to eat breakfast.” “She doesn’t like toys, but she is very good at her iPad” “He doesn’t want to get dressed on his own.” “She is too lazy to eat on her own.”

This is what I hear from parents all the time. Since when do children dictate to us how to parent them? If we leave it all up to them, all they are going to do is eat macaroni and cheese and bagels with cream cheese, watch TV, play on their tablets, and never go to bed.

What good are we doing them by giving them what they WANT when we know that it is not GOOD for them? Without proper nutrition and a good night’s sleep, our kids come to school irritable, anxious, and inattentive.  In addition, we send them the wrong message.

They learn they can do what they want and not do what they don’t want. The concept of “need to do” is absent. Unfortunately, in order to achieve our goals in our lives, we have to do what’s necessary, which may not always be what we want to do.  For example, if a child wants to be an A student, he needs to study hard. If he wants to be a successful soccer player, he needs to practice every day. Our children know very well what they want, but have a very hard time doing what is necessary to achieve that goal. This results in unattainable goals and leaves the kids disappointed.

4. Endless Fun

We have created an artificial fun world for our children. There are no dull moments. The moment it becomes quiet, we run to entertain them again, because otherwise, we feel that we are not doing our parenting duty.

We live in two separate worlds. They have their “fun“ world, and we have our “work” world.  Why aren’t children helping us in the kitchen or with laundry? Why don’t they tidy up their toys?

This is basic monotonous work that trains the brain to be workable and function under “boredom,” which is the same “muscle” that is required to be eventually teachable at school.  When they come to school and it is time for handwriting their answer is “I can’t. It is too hard. Too boring.” Why? Because the workable “muscle” is not getting trained through endless fun.

It gets trained through work.

5. Limited Social Interaction

We are all busy, so we give our kids digital gadgets and make them “busy” too. Kids used to play outside, where, in unstructured natural environments, they learned and practiced their social skills.

Unfortunately, technology replaced the outdoor time. Also, technology made the parents less available to socially interact with their kids. Obviously, our kids fall behind… the babysitting gadget is not equipped to help kids develop social skills. Most successful people have great social skills. This is the priority!

The brain is just like a muscle that is trainable and re-trainable. If you want your child to be able to bike, you teach him biking skills. If you want your child to be able to wait, you need to teach him patience.  If you want your child to be able to socialize, you need to teach him social skills. The same applies to all the other skills. There is no difference!

Train the Brain

You can make a difference in your child’s life by training your child’s brain so that your child will successfully function on social, emotional, and academic levels. Here is how:

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Drag Queens on Netflix
Indoctrination

Netflix Introduces New ‘Drag-Queen’ Cartoon Series

By

by Jacqueline

Netflix will be launching an LGBTQ-themed superhero show featuring cross-dressers titled “Super Drags” later this year.

The popular streaming platform shared a preview trailer of the new cartoon series on Twitter Thursday writing: “They’re here, they’re queer, and they’re going to save the world. Super Drags, a new animated series coming soon.”

There comes a time when enough is enough, and for our household, that time is now! The cartoon will feature homosexual “superheroes” who dress like the opposite gender.

Apparently, instead of responding to consumer concerns about their programming, Netflix has continued a heightened assault on life and the family.

In the beginning of July, they hosted  Michelle Wolf’s “Salute to Abortion,” a disgusting, vile, and insensitive “comedy” piece that glorifies abortion. At the end of the clip, Wolf blasphemously declares “God bless abortions and God bless America!”

“If women embrace the fact that they control life, that makes it a lot harder for men to control women.” ~Michelle Wolf

Netflix has also come under fire for renewing another season of its controversial show about suicide called ’13 Reasons Why’ even as the national suicide rate spikes.

And that isn’t all! Netflix’s recently released an Argentinian movie called Desire that critics say contains blatant child pornography. Despite concerns from critics and subscribers, they have refused to remove the movie from their site.

I just saw the teaser trailer for Netflix’s new cartoon series “Super Drags.”

According to LifeSite News, “The five-episode series is the brainchild of Anderson Mahanski, Fernando Mendonça, and Paulo Lescaut of Brazilian animation studio Combo Studios, the Brazilian website CosmoNerd reports.

“We are thrilled that our first Brazilian animation will present our audiences with the daring, scandalous and fabulous world of Super Drags!” Director of original international content Chris Sanagustin said according to Animation Magazine. “Netflix’s fortunate to invest in great animation talent from Brazil, bringing the vibrant trait of Combo and the acidic mood of our producers to the beautiful and the canvases from every corner.”

Pushing This To 190 Countries

“Thanks to Netflix, we can take the Brazilian animation and mainly the LGBTQ representativeness to the 190 countries that have access to the service,” the show’s executive producer Marcelo Pereira added.”

The Content

Here’s how the movie streamer proudly describes the show: “During the day, they work in a department store and deal with their uptight b—hy boss. By night, they tighten up their corsets and transform into the baddest Super Drags in town, ready to combat shade and rescue the world’s glitter from the evil villains. Get ready, because the Super Drags are going deeper than you think.”

The series is driven by a “politically correct” LGBT agenda, and it is chock-full of sexual innuendos that are completely inappropriate for young audiences. If you need to see it for yourself to believe it, you can watch the teaser trailer linked here. The camera zooms in showing racy cartoonish images of their chests and behinds during the trailer to show their “transformation.”

(Viewer Caution: 39 second promo video below contains suggestive images.)

The media services provider offers many great shows that young children enjoy:

  • Paddington Bear
  • Tarzan
  • Heidi
  • The Nutcracker
  • The Prince of Egypt

But right alongside offers darker fare:

  • Antboy
  • Coraline
  • The Truman Show for age 10 has “mature themes”
  • Mary and the Witch’s Flower
  • Thunder and the House of Magic for age 5
  • Room on the Broom for age 3

Netflix Target Audience

Netflix offers wholesome shows like “Clifford, the Big Red Dog” and even “Veggie Tales.” Do we really want our children to sit down to watch a ‘fun’ new cartoon series and instead have them lose their innocence to sexually lewd content?  Netflix has taken the skill sets of those who create wholesome, educational content for children and has inserted the dark homosexual agenda into their content.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Teach Liberty to Young Children
Children

5 Ways to Teach Liberty to Young Children

By

by Nancy Littlefield for Kids Learn Liberty, originally posted on fee.org

If you believe that liberty is important for the future, you probably wonder how today’s kids are learning about it. You might quiz young children in your life to determine what they know. You could scan their social studies texts to see how liberty is described. Ultimately, you will probably decide you should instruct them about liberty yourself. But how?

Elementary and middle school-aged children are not developmentally ready to debate the border wall, the minimum wage, or the war on drugs. Much of the discussion about liberty that engages adults would confuse or even distress young children. When it concerns liberty, what is appropriate to teach young children? How can it be explained? Can learning about liberty be engaging for five- to twelve-year-olds? As a parent and teacher, these are the questions I pondered. I created the website Kids Learn Liberty to answer them.

If you have ever tried to teach a young child, you know that you must build on the child’s current knowledge one small step at a time. Care must be taken to avoid using words the learner does not comprehend. Since liberty is an abstract concept, children’s grasp of it is strengthened with narratives and hands-on projects. Keeping all that in mind, here is a sample of topics from Kids Learn Liberty.

Coach Them to Distinguish Voluntary from Forced

Children can learn to distinguish between cooperation and coercion. Both involve people interacting. Cooperation is voluntary. Coercion involves threats or actual harm.

Explaining that government generally uses violence to pursue its goals would be unsuitable for young children. It would encourage fear and mistrust. However, children can learn to distinguish between cooperation and coercion. Both involve people interacting. Cooperation is voluntary. Coercion involves threats or actual harm.

After learning about, and hearing examples of, cooperation and coercion, children can listen to the story The Queen of the Frogs by Davide Cali, which explores the issue of rulers vs. ruled, and The Arabolies of Liberty Street, by Sam Swope, which pits the forces of sameness against the joys of individuality. Both will set the stage for thought and discussion about cooperation and coercion.

To make cooperation and coercion more personal, children can write examples of human interactions on index cards and sort them into their proper categories. As world events and family and personal experiences present more examples, these can be added to the deck. When they are ready, children can learn—or better still, figure out for themselves—that most government activities are coercive.

Present Facts Proving that Liberty Is Preferred

The dangers and difficulties of their journeys show the importance of freedom to them.

Immigration is an appropriate and interesting topic for five- to twelve-year-olds. Most immigrants move from less free to more free locations, which demonstrates liberty’s widespread appeal. Kids first need to know what immigration means and that troubles like war, oppression, and poverty are the reasons people relocate. The dangers and difficulties of their journeys show the importance of freedom to them.

Many outstanding children’s books describe immigrant experiences. Some are factual, such as L is for Liberty by Wendy Cheyette Lewison. A chapter book suitable for middle schoolers, Letters from Rifka by Karen Hesse, weaves a compelling narrative about a Russian immigrant girl.

The immigrant experience can be made personal for young children by sharing with them the stories, photos, and heirlooms of their own immigrant ancestors. Children can also visit Meet Young Immigrants on the Scholastic website to hear the words of present-day immigrant children.

Introduce Champions of Liberty

Kids love heroes. Introduce young children to real people who championed liberty. Founders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson come to mind. Others can be even more powerful.

The beautifully illustrated book Words Set Me Free: The Story of Young Frederick Douglass by Lesa Cline-Ransome will astonish kids as they follow the twisting path Douglass trod to learn how to read. The Picture Book of Harriet Tubman by David Adler conveys the horrors of slavery and the risks people took to escape it. Tubman’s words describing how she felt to be free are breathtaking. Consider also Malala’s Magic Pencil by Malala Yousafzai, a living young person who stood up for her freedom to learn.

Encourage Awareness of Liberty in Action

Something as commonplace as a grocery store produce department abounds with interesting examples of exchange.

Though the mathematics of economic freedom would lull young children to sleep (not a bad thing if you are an exhausted parent), adults can help generate kids’ interest in the economic activity happening around them. Farmers are plowing in their fields. Construction workers are putting up new buildings. Consider taking the children in your life on a tour of a local factory. The tag inside a new pair of sneakers will tell where they were produced. Why not help their new owner find that place on a world map? Trains and delivery vehicles are loaded with products heading to customers. What are they carrying? Where might they be going? Something as commonplace as a grocery store produce department abounds with interesting examples of exchange. Tomatoes from local farms, apples from Washington state, and grapes from Chile are all products of trade.

A surprising number of children’s books have economic freedom as a theme. Some are explicit, such as the classic story “I, Pencil” by Leonard Read. It cleverly describes how, without central direction, many specialists from all over the world work together to produce an everyday object. One Hen by Kate Smith Milway explains how entrepreneurship helped an African community become more prosperous.

Offer Real-Life Examples of Oppression

A powerful way to demonstrate the importance of liberty is to contrast free and unfree countries. Unfortunately, most nonfiction books for young children about nations such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela fail to explain the oppression and privation suffered by their citizens. Stories about developing nations focus on the ways that children all over the world are alike. Though this is good for nurturing understanding, getting children from wealthy countries to make the connection between liberty and lifestyle will probably require explanation.

The story The Water Princess by Susan Verde describes a young African girl’s daily walks to obtain water for drinking and washing. Children with indoor plumbing will benefit from hearing that dependable tap water is a benefit of living in a free and prosperous community. Narratives are what make the realities of lack of freedom come to life. For example, truthful stories about life in North Korea (N is for North Korea by Trevor Eissler) and Afghanistan (Nasreen’s Secret School by Jeanette Winter) describe the lives of oppressed children.

Hearing explanations, reading powerful narratives, and making personal connections will help young children comprehend and appreciate liberty. Then they will be better prepared for the onslaught of historic and political perspectives they will encounter in high school and beyond. The best way to preserve liberty for posterity is to make sure that those going into the future understand its importance.

For more concepts, dozens of literature suggestions, plus links and family activities for teaching liberty to children, go to the website kidslearnliberty.com.

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Childless city
Children

How ‘Vasectomy Zoning’ Makes Childless Cities

By

By Nolan Gray & Lyman Stone

At the end of last year, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission weighed a proposed zoning change that would effectively ban new day-care centers—along with tire stores and car repair shops—in a large chunk of northwest Philadelphia. The bill swiftly encountered fierce resistance, and it now appears dead. But the effort to block additional child-care facilities with a zoning overlay hints at a broader relationship between city planning and the cost of raising children. A growing body of research indicates that restrictive zoning—which often blocks the services and housing that families need—may help to explain why family sizes are shrinking in the United States.

The U.S. birth rate recently sunk to a 30-year low, a trend that’s been blamed on everything from economic anxieties and climate change to the rise of smartphones and the Millennial “sex recession.” Perhaps we should also lay some of the responsibility at the feet of city planning.

As bizarre as an anti-day-care bill may seem, the fear of more children coming into a community is a mainstay at new housing proposal hearings. Particularly in high-cost suburbs along the coasts, the mere inclusion of three-bedroom apartments—the kind of units young families need—can get a project in hot water with elected officials. While the justifications for blocking this kind of housing vary from preserving rural character to preventing (real or imagined) school overcrowding, the result is that more and more municipalities are adopting policies designed to keep out children and the families who care for them.

In the New York suburb of Garwood, New Jersey, city officials adopted a master plan earlier in 2018 that places a total prohibition on units with three or more bedrooms. In Nutley, New Jersey, another New York suburb, a July zoning fight came with assurances that three-bedroom units—and the children that come with them—weren’t part of the plan. In the Garden State more broadly, municipalities increasingly meet their state-mandated fair-share affordable housing requirements by building only senior housing. Affordable housing proposals that include three-bedroom units are rejected out of hand, leaving working families with few options.

A former Massachusetts state senator coined a term for this phenomenon: vasectomy zoning.

The problem is likely much bigger than even these overtly anti-family measures in Philadelphia and New Jersey would suggest. Insomuch as zoning serves to block smaller, more affordable housing, the way we plan cities may be undermining the desire of young couples to start families. A former Massachusetts state senator coined a term for this phenomenon: vasectomy zoning.

In Massachusetts, as in many parts of the country, suburbs increasingly throw up roadblocks to the construction of types of housing that are affordable to working families. In addition to simply limiting the number of development permits they issue, suburbs often forbid large apartments and townhomes altogether, while forcing detached homes to sit on large, prohibitively expensive lots. This shows up in the national data depicted in the chart below. The combined result is that few new starter homes or family-sized rental units are successfully built. Meanwhile, rents and prices for the existing units sail beyond the means of most working families.

Until recently, most of this discussion was speculative. But we can now reliably say based on data that rising housing costs are preventing more and more women from having children. While jokes about avocado toast would have you believe that Millennials could afford homes if they could only change their spendthrift ways, the reality seems to work in reverse: High housing costs are likely forcing many young couples to make difficult lifestyle changes, such as delaying children.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Unreported World
Children

Top 10 Facts the Vaccine Industry Won’t Report

By

by Mike Adams

The mainstream media is largely funded by drug companies and vaccine manufacturers and demonstrates extreme conflicts of interest in reporting on vaccines. Perhaps that’s why dishonest media outlets refuse to report the following ten stunning facts about the vaccine industry that are all probably true.

FACT #1) Mercury is still used in vaccines, and the CDC openly admits it. There is NO safe level of mercury for injecting into a human child. Not even “trace” levels. There is NO evidence of safety for mercury at any dose whatsoever. Any doctor who says the level of mercury in a vaccine is “safe” to inject into a child is only demonstrating their outrageous ignorance of scientific facts.

Mercury is arguably the most neurotoxic element on the entire Table of Elements. It is used in vaccines for the convenience of the vaccine manufacturer at the expense of the safety of the child. Any doctor who injects mercury into a child — at any dose! — should be immediately stripped of their medical license.

See the list of studies on the neurotoxicity of mercury at SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, now the largest relational research resource for chemicals, health, nutrients, and drugs.

Those study titles include:

Lactational exposure to inorganic mercury: evidence of Neurotoxic effects.

Neurotoxic action of inorganic Mercury injected in the intraventricular space of mouse cerebrum.

Neurotoxic effects in workers of the clinical thermometer manufacture plant.

Neurotoxic risk caused by stable and variable exposure to methylmercury from seafood.

Mother Nature’s micronutrient secret: Organic Broccoli Sprout Capsules now available, delivering 280mg of high-density nutrition, including the extraordinary “sulforaphane” and “glucosinolate” nutrients found only in cruciferous healing foods. Every lot laboratory tested. See availability here.

Additional FACT: There is no “safe” form of mercury as is often ridiculously claimed by vaccine pushers. Both ethyl and methyl mercury are extremely toxic to the human nervous system. Neither should, under ANY circumstances, be deliberately injected into a human child at any dose whatsoever.

FACT #2) Injecting any substance into the human body makes it orders of magnitude more potentially toxic because it bypasses the protections of the digestive tract or the respiratory system. Injecting mercury into a human being — at any dose — should be globally condemned as a criminal act. That it is currently considered an acceptable act in the field of medicine only condemns the true destructive nature of modern medicine. Under the vaccine doctrine, “First do no harm” has become “Poison children for profit.”

FACT #3) For decades, polio vaccines injected into tens of millions of people actually contained hidden cancer viruses (SV40 and others). This was openly admitted by a top Merck vaccine scientist named Hilleman. The CDC recently scrubbed its website of this information in a “revisionist history” purge. Up to 98 million Americans were exposed to hidden cancer viruses in polio vaccines. This is a historical fact. Read more at www.sv40foundation.org

FACT #4) Top virologists working for Merck have blown the whistle and gone public with shocking revelations that claim the company routinely fabricated lab results to claim a 95% efficacy rate of its mumps vaccine in order to continue receiving government contracts on a vaccine that didn’t work.

See the False Claims document these scientists filed with the U.S. government here:
https://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents…

FACT #5) In nearly every outbreak you hear about these days, the majority of the children affected by the outbreak have already been vaccinated against the virus! For example, outbreaks of whooping cough routinely involve children who have already been vaccinated against whooping cough. This is yet more proof that vaccines do not confer real-world functional immunity.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading