CDC Corruption: Corporate Science Cover-Ups And How They Enrich The Politically Elite

The elitists in government have their pawns in the mainstream media to do their dirty work and cover up the scandals that arise from corporate science and the subsequent enrichment of the political parties in power. But the CDC director’s resignation is shining a new light on the agency that’s been corrupted for years.

Just days ago, the head of the Centers for Disease Control, Brenda Fitzgerald, abruptly resigned after it was revealed that she owned shares of big tobacco companies, as well as a prominent vaccine manufacturing company called Merck, whose products are often promoted by the CDC.  Of course, it doesn’t take much “connecting of the dots” to realize what a gross conflict of interest that was; and Americans should be outraged.  But they aren’t.

According to Natural News, the corruption of Fitzgerald does not stop there either. Fitzgerald also purchased shares of junk food companies during her time as director of the CDC, which is certainly outrageous but really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. After all, back in 2016, the director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention was caught using her influence to favor Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.

This corruption isn’t new; Fitzgerald’s resignment, however, sheds fresh light on the problems and the corruption within the CDC and how the government agency goes about promoting certain products for human consumption. While most human beings would agree that tobacco and junk food are not considered to be products that are “in one’s best interest” to consume, far too many people still don’t understand the threat that the vaccine industry poses to our country. Just days ago, Natural News published an article on how the vaccine industry is now in panic mode as a result of children dying all across America after receiving flu shots.

Yet, the former CDC director has shares of Merck, and the CDC, of course, promotes vaccines like it’s some kind of a magic shield protecting one’s body from illness.  Which isn’t the case at all. With the global vaccine market now at over a trillion dollars, vaccine safety should be of utmost concern to the CDC. But instead, rather than testing and monitoring the health effects of vaccines and patient injuries truthfully to the American public and making critical and necessary corrections in the program, the CDC has become a mouthpiece for industry and has protected the ‘all vaccines for all children’ policy despite peer-reviewed science to the contrary.

According to the World Mercury Project, a UPI Investigative article written in the early 2000s highlights just a sliver of the corruption surrounding the CDC and vaccines. The CDC owned at least 28 vaccine patents. They are also in charge of vaccine promotion (getting the public to take vaccines) and vaccine safety. The CDC, like other large bureaucratic agencies, also has a revolving door to an industry that comes with inherent conflicts of interests. Common sense should have told us that this system was doomed to fail.

All of this corruption pads the pockets of the political elite while sickening the general public.

*This is not to say one should or should not receive a vaccination; but one should conduct their own research and look into independent studies (although, admittedly difficult to find) that will detail the potential benefits and side effects before making a decision.

Dying to Eat

For all Monsanto’s bluster about “feeding the world,” the truth is this: Globally, 3.9 billion people are either hungry or malnuourished, according to ETC Group.

Now, a new global study (billed as the most comprehensive of its kind) says poor diet, which often leads to obesity, kills one in five people.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which coordinated the study, said:

One of the most alarming risks in the GBD is excess body weight. The rate of illness related to people being too heavy is rising quickly, and the disease burden can be found in all sociodemographic levels. High body mass index (BMI) is the fourth largest contributor to the loss of healthy life, after high blood pressure, smoking, and high blood sugar.

Who’s to blame for the foods that are killing us? Big Food, mostly.

The New York Times recently reported on the rise of obesity in Ghana, which not coincidentally corresponded to the rising presence in U.S. companies like Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC):

But KFC’s expansion here comes as obesity and related health have been surging. Public health officials see fried chicken, French fries and pizza as spurring and intensifying a global obesity epidemic that has hit hard in Ghana – one of 73 countries where obesity has at least doubled since 1980. Obesity rates have surged more than 650% since 1980 from less than 2% of population to 13.6 percent.

According to the Times, KFC, owned by Louisville, Ky.-owned YUM!, has about 850 outlets throughout sub-Saharan Africa: to Angola, Tanzania, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana and beyond.

Read ‘Poor Diet Kills One in Five of Us

Read ‘The Global Burden of Disease’

h/t: Organic Consumers Association

Create your own review

Average rating:  

 0 reviews

How TV Food Ads Penetrate the Brains of Children as Young as 2 Years Old

Preschool-age children are impressionable, so it isn’t so surprising to hear that the food ads they see on TV influence them to overeat and consume unnecessary calories, as a study by researchers at Dartmouth University shows. [1]

The small study, published, in the journal Pediatrics, shows that the food ads young children see on TV while watching their favorite shows can sway them to overeat even when they’re not hungry.

The research is believed to be the first of its kind to measure the impact that food ads have on preschoolers’ snacking habits, according to the lead author of the study, Jennifer Emond. Most of the studies conducted up to this point have focused primarily on the effect of food advertising on school-age kids or older children, but Emond says unhealthy junk food is marketed on TV to kids as young as 2.

She explains:

“Overall, our research suggests that exposure to food ads can prime eating behaviors in young children that tells children to respond to external signals instead of listening to their own internal signals of fullness and hunger. That learned response may set children up for developing poor eating habits that contribute to obesity.”

Too Young to Know Better

For the study, 60 children ages 2 to 5 were shown a 14-minute segment of “Elmo’s World” from the kids’ classic show “Sesame Street.” Half of the kids watched the segment with intermittent food ads, while the other half watched the segment embedded with a mix of department store ads.

Before the showing, all of the children were provided with both a sweet and salty snack. The same salty snacks provided were featured in the food advertisements shown to some of the youngsters.

The researchers found that the children who watched the segment with the food ads consumed about 30 more calories in snacks on average than the children who watched the segment with the department store ads. [2]

Source: Obesity Action Coalition

Furthermore, the kids who watched the segment peppered with food ads consumed more of the advertised salty snack than the sweet snack. They chowed down on the salty munchies even if they’d never had it before. [1]

Read: McDonald’s, Burger King Lure Kids With Toys And Targeted Ads

The parents reported the children watched TV about an hour a day.  If they ate 30 extra calories in a quarter-hour, that’s 120 extra calories per day. [2]

Emond says:

“That was surprising because it demonstrated the powerful effect food advertising can have on priming potentially unhealthy eating behaviors at a young age.” [1]

The study concludes:

“Findings suggest that food advertisement exposure may encourage obesogenic-eating behaviors among the very young.” [2]

Dr. Allison Stakovsky, a pediatrician at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New Hyde Park, New York, said:

“We already know that television viewing is an important environmental influence on the development of obesity. Kids who watch more television are more likely to be overweight. Kids who have a television in their bedroom are more likely to be overweight.” [3]

Teaching Kids to Overeat

Eating an extra 120 calories a day can be harmful enough to kids’ health in today’s sedentary world, but there is another aspect of the study that’s equally troubling and perhaps more dangerous in the long-term. Emond says that TV snack ads send a damaging message that subconsciously gets burned into children’s developing brains.

She explains:

“It’s training kids to not trust their internal hunger signals. The food industry here [in the United States] is self-regulating. We need to speak out in favor of regulation.” [2]

Read: Kids’ Brains Imprinted With Fast-Food Logos

For example, Emond points out, a law in the United Kingdom prevents marketing food to children. But since no such law existed in the United States, Emond says parents have to be especially proactive about guarding their children’s eyes, brains, and eating habits. In her home, she deals with the issue by eliminating commercial television and subscribing to a service like Netflix.

Dana Angelo-White, a dietitian and clinical assistant professor at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut, adds:

“Efforts should be made towards eating as a family and focusing on conversation instead of the distraction of TV. Screen time should be limited during meal and snack times, regardless of what type of programming they could be exposed to.” [3]

Sources:

[1] CNN

[2] Healthline

[3] HealthDay

Obesity Action Coalition

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Government Knows Best - Junk Food Ban Goes Global

Obesity is a "big" (pardon the pun) problem in the Pacific Islands.  In fact, a recent World Bank study found that over half the adult population in 16 of the 17 Pacific Island countries and territories were obese while over 75% of the population was obese in 11 of those counties.

So what do you do when you just can"t count on citizens to make sound judgements about their own personal health decisions?  Well, you call in the Nanny State to ban sodas and sugary snacks, of course...which, according to the New York Times, is exactly what the tiny Pacific island nation of Vanuatu is doing.

While many governments struggle to ban soda to curb obesity, the tiny Torba Tourism Council in the remote Pacific island nation of Vanuatu is planning to outlaw all imported food at government functions and tourist establishments across the province’s 13 inhabited islands.

Provincial leaders hope to turn them instead into havens of local organic food. The ban, scheduled to take effect in March, comes as many Pacific island nations struggle with an obesity crisis brought on in part by the overconsumption of imported junk food.

“We want to ban all other junk food from this province,” Luke Dini, the council’s chairman and a retired Anglican priest, said in a telephone interview from Torba. He said the province had about 9,000 residents and got fewer than 1,000 tourists a year, mostly Europeans.

Not surprisingly, so-called "public health experts" have praised Vanuatu"s ban on imported food while blasting international consumer goods companies for "exploiting these nations by providing a food supply that is not, in the long term, better for health" while "decimating" local populations.

Public health experts who study the island nations of the Pacific welcomed the ban, saying that bold measures were necessary for an impoverished and isolated region of 10 million people — one where the cost of sending legions of patients abroad for dialysis treatment or kidney transplants is untenable.

“Imagine if 75 million Americans had diabetes — that’s the scale of the epidemic we’re talking about in Vanuatu,” Roger Magnusson, a professor of health law and governance at Sydney Law School in Australia, said in an email.

“Can anyone seriously say that Vanuatu doesn’t have the right to exercise its health sovereignty in every way possible to protect its population from an epidemic of that scale?” he added.

“It is so wrong what is being done to exploit these nations by providing a food supply that is not, in the long term, better for health,” said Elaine Rush, a professor of nutrition at the Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand who has studied health problems in the Pacific islands. She described the effect that the health crisis was having on families there as “decimating.”

Of course, there are just a couple of small problems with the "evil corporation" theory as presented by "public health experts" and the New York Times.  Unfortunately, while the "health experts" would like for you to believe that obesity is a new problem plaguing the people of the Pacific islands, as Wendy Snowden of the World Health Organization points out, in reality obesity rates on these islands were simply "higher to start with."  Moreover, as Snowden also notes, one other small problem is that no level of "taxes and prohibitions" on sugary food products has "been able to demonstrate reductions in obesity prevalence."

Still, Dr. Snowdon said, the taxes and prohibitions on drinks in the Pacific islands — along with education, food labeling and school-nutrition programs — have not reduced the region’s overall incidence of obesity or its associated health problems.

"No country in the world has been able to demonstrate reductions in its obesity prevalence, so we’re not that different,” she said. “It’s just that our levels are higher to start with.”

But rest assured, dear citizens of the world, that your Nanny State"s aggressive, invasive policies stripping you of your basic personal liberties are intended for your own good and are in no way a meaningless attempt to cram their liberal agendas down your throat at all costs, irrespective of scientific data proving their complete lack of effectiveness in achieving their stated goals.