Desperate medical monopolists warn not to call breastfeeding 'natural' because it might train women to avoid 'unnatural' medical interventions like vaccines or GMOs

Monday, March 21, 2016 by: Jennifer Lea Reynolds
Tags: breastfeeding, natural health, medical monopolists

---

(NaturalNews) One of the most natural actions in existence – a mother breastfeeding her child – is facing scrutiny not over the age-old breastfeed or bottle-feed debate, but rather something much more bizarre.

Medical experts are taking up issue with use of the word natural when describing the behavior, saying that the word could make people leery of other health-related topics like GMOs and vaccinations, which already face their fair share of resistance and pressures by those who consider them "unnatural."

Talk about a stretch. This has to be the most ridiculous over-analyzation of a word yet. Even worse is the fact that these experts are implying that the likes of vaccines and GMOs are natural, and that they actually think that calling breastfeeding "natural" will somehow interfere with the wonderful goodness that is getting a shot of mercury in your arm or eating health-destroying Frankenfoods.

"Promoting breastfeeding as 'natural' may be ethically problematic, and, even more troublingly, it may bolster this belief that 'natural' approaches are presumptively healthier," wrote authors Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill in the journal Pediatrics. "This may ultimately challenge public health's aims in other contexts, particularly childhood vaccination."

Saying breastfeeding is "natural" is "ethically problematic" say journal authors

Their article, "Unintended Consequences of Invoking the 'Natural' in Breastfeeding Promotion," continues to state, "we are concerned about breastfeeding promotion that praises breastfeeding as the 'natural' way to feed infants. This messaging plays into a powerful perspective that 'natural' approaches to health are better...."

It's almost hard to read their words regarding the "belief that 'natural' approaches are presumptively healthier," without cringing. The "belief"? Are they serious? They suggest that "natural" is simply a nonsense notion, meant to be put by the wayside while society lines up to subject their bodies to herbicides, heavy metals, and all kinds of toxins that exist in everything from our chemical-laden food supply to the shots we're encouraged to receive or give our children. After all, that's what everyone's doing since it's um, the natural thing to do.

Therefore, the authors imply that the masses should think long and hard about breastfeeding and its "natural" terminology and focus on profitable medical interventions like vaccinations, which they truly think are healthy and natural. Let's see. Is milk naturally produced by a mother's body as fuel for her own baby or puncturing a child's skin only to inject it with a hodgepodge of lab-created toxins endorsed by Big Pharma?

Babies die from vaccinations while bought-off scientists "omit" pertinent vaccine information in published studies

Have we not seen enough of the devastating effects that arise time and again when vaccinations enter the picture? Many incorrectly assume it's just something everyone should do for themselves or their children, but the reality is that people's lives are often destroyed by the toxic ingredients in vaccines.

For example, after receiving a total of 14 vaccines within just a few months of her birth, baby Ja'Liyah Cortize Turner died. These vaccines included DTaP, polio, Hib, PCV and the oral rotavirus vaccine. "I thought I was doing the right thing," the baby's mother, Quavia, said. "Where we live in Tennessee, if you don't vaccinate, they try to deem you unfit. You are made to feel you have no choice what vaccines your child gets and when they get them. They will say you are unfit and try to take your kid away if you decline them."

If vaccines weren't so bad, then why did Dr. William Thompson of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention come forward last year and admit that he and his co-authors purposely left out important details in a published study?

"I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics," Dr. Thompson said in a statement released through his attorney. "The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."

But sure, let's go ahead and brush the issue under the carpet while focusing instead on the horrific behavior that is called breastfeeding. Let's get the masses to think that one of the most natural things in the world is, in actuality, very unnatural.

It's a backwards society, indeed.

Sources for this article include:

CNN.com

Pediatrics.AAPPublications.org

NaturalNews.com

Evil.news

Science.NaturalNews.com