Time to Abolish the CDC?

I’ve never taken the time to consider whether or not the CDC is constitutional [EDIT: I checked, it’s not]. Which is a polite way of saying “legal”. Regardless of whether or not it is, stuff like this makes a strong case for abolishing it entirely, or dramatically reducing it’s scope, specifically removing it from the realm of nutrition forever.

CDC researchers say mothers should stop breastfeeding to boost ‘efficacy’ of vaccines

On a creepiness scale of 1 to 10, this is a 15. 

The CDC is funded by violence. It’s a federal agency that is paid for largely by your income tax, which you pay, or go to jail for not paying. If you refuse to go to jail, you will be shot by armed IRS agents. If you think I’m joking trying making $100,000 fiat dollars and ignoring the IRS for the next 2 years.

You’ll be murdered. A federal judge agrees.

And this is the shit your income tax goes to pay? An agency that promotes putting infants on soy formula so their fucking vaccine might work better? What the fuck?!

Here is what Doug McGuff M.D. has to say about being taken off the teet as an infant.

Doug is a practicing emergency room physician and licensed medical doctor.

 

 

The CDC spent your money, taken from you by the threat of violent force, to perform this research.

That’s nuts.

— Anthony Dream Johnson

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at TheDreamLounge.net and Declarationism.com.

10 Responses to Time to Abolish the CDC?

  1. James13ond January 22, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    Woah.. thats messed up. That could fuck up a kid big time. They take our money to perform research that kills us.

  2. Hugo January 22, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

    Now I’m not one to defend government agencies, but the article is wrong. The CDC never said that.

    If you look up the study on Pubmed, the CDC is talking about poor Indian women. And it recommends DELAYING breast feeding as one of the strategies to promote the efficacy of 1 oral, rotavirus vaccine that Indian children are taking. It doesn’t even define what “delaying” means. That could mean a day, an hour or a week. Although unclear the report definitely does not say “STOP BREAST FEEDING YOUR BABIES AND NEVER DO IT AGAIN.” Especially when it clearly states that this subject matter needs further examination.

    The study clearly states that it’s just one POSSIBLE strategy of increasing the effectiveness of the rotavirus vaccine. It’s not the be-all-end-all. Also just one study. They could do more studies and find that the first one was wrong. That’s what science is all about. For something to be valid a test must have the same results multiple times.

    The study analyzed breast milk from Indian women, South Korean women, Vietnamese women and American women. It turned out that American women’s breast milk had very little affect on the efficacy of the vaccine while Indian women had the highest affect.

    If anything they identified a correlation between Indian women’s breast milk and the efficacy of the vaccine, but that doesn’t mean it’s the cause. As we know correlation is not causation.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson January 22, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

      Hugo, I am unable to find the quote by Robb Wolf right now, but I think he said it best, that (paraphrasing) if we debate with studies vs studies, nothing will ever change.

      The arguments will go on and on forever … and mainstream practice in medicine and nutrition will remain the exact same.

      My point being that if a study was performed tomorrow that found the exact opposite of this study, neither should fundamentally affect a parent’s decision to breast feed their infant in the first place.

      Furthermore, this study sets up a slippery slope. It opens the flood gate for more money to be pumped into more research studies testing this conclusion … and probably looking to support the initial findings.

      First it’s delay, then it’s delay further, then it’s delay for a week … eventually leading to “never start in the first place” being recommended to young mothers who are clueless on the subject one way or the other.

      Then “Mothers Against Disease” gets $10 million dollars in contributions from Infant Formula Inc. to pass legislation restricting the practice of breast feeding for “safety reasons”.

      Then it’s an outright ban. “For the children”.

      This isn’t conspiracy, it’s reality for laws passed every day. Raw milk is a perfect example.

      50 years ago people would have laughed at a raw milk ban. Now it’s law and is backed by the force of a gun.

      50 years from now … why wouldn’t the same thing happen to breast milk?

      It sounds ridiculous. And so did a ban on interstate trade of raw milk when it was first introduced.

      So did a central bank and an income tax in the 1890’s.

      — Anthony

      • Hugo January 22, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

        I understand where you’re coming from, but the scientific method offers us the best method to obtain the truth. If they perform the study several times and the results are the same then it makes sense to suggest a specific strategy. That’s how you get to progress.

        I’m not in favor of adopting any strategy without scientific testing that is statistically significant and demonstrable in repeated trials.

        I’m not saying I agree with spending all this money on this subject matter. Especially when it’s a US government agency analyzing something having to do with citizens of another country. If this was focused on US citizens that would be a different story.

        I am in agreement with you that we shouldn’t spend our tax dollars like this. They can definitely be put to better use. You know I am a Ron Paul supporter and am in complete opposition to the state and the use of force.

        The study did not say anything about forcing. It simply made a suggestion and I think that’s OK for the government to suggest, not to force.

        In Thailand the government was concerned about unsustainable population growth. Rather than pass a “one-child law” the way China did, they instituted an education program. They increased funding for sexual education in public schools, got religious leaders to promote protected sex going as far as having Buddhist monks bless condoms, offered insurance discounts to taxi drivers who sold condoms and other prophylactics along with their fairs. The result was a reduction in birth rates.

        No force was used. They simply invested in education that paid off. I don’t see anything wrong with that. They put the information out there and the people decided.

        I think that’s a way better option than government mandated anything. As I always say there is no way a solution is a good solution when the process involves making people less free. Nothing good can come from being less free.

  3. Carnivore January 22, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    “The CDC is funded by violence.”

    Actually, that’s only half of it. Yes, they hold a gun to your head and take money out of your pocket. They then spend more then they’ve taken, inflating the money supply such that what was left in your pocket is now worth less. Pretty good scam.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson January 22, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

      Agreed.

      Although, they only have the power to do that via a monopoly on money, also called legal tender laws, which are enforced with violence.

      • Armi Legge January 25, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

        Thank you Anthony.

        I get disgusted by people who act like the government has any role other than to protect individual rights (i.e. protect individuals from physical violence). Instead, they are the only organization with a legal right to use force against and extort money from individuals. It is just as you say – funded by violence and brute force, and guided by majority rule (mob rule). The CDC is no different.

        -Armi

  4. William Courchesne January 24, 2012 at 7:41 am #

    Let’s approach this from a different angle.

    When’s the last time that the CDC was useful for anything? I’m not saying it’s not; I’m seriously wondering what it’s for.

    As far as I know, in my lifetime, it has promoted the swine flu craze, which turned out to be a hoax. I know of other situations like the polio outbreak (in the ’50s, I believe?) where the CDC was not helpful, simply because the origin was tonsil removal on a large scale, not some infectious zombie-spreading pathogen.

    But yes, anything that trades freedom for security is blatantly wrong, especially since the “security” in this statement doesn’t refer to our own as citizens, but to the financial security of the controlling interests hiding in the shadows (or sometimes in plain sight *coughgoldmancough*). So it should ready “Trading OUR freedom for THEIR financial security”).

    We lose a core right; they gain more of what they already have. GG

  5. Doug McGuff, MD January 26, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    How about genetically re-engineering the 1918 H1N1 Avian Flu virus? The purported purpose was to see if they could produce a vaccine should it ever occur again. My concern: this deadly pandemic-causing virus is now held in the hands of a government with 15 trillion dollars in debt and half the population in the recipient class and the real “tit” is about to run dry.

    How ’bout a nice pandemic for all us minions and vaccine for the government elites?

    The CDC has much worse potential than discouraging breast feeding my friend.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson January 27, 2012 at 10:03 am #

      Doug, this might be a dumb question, but would paleo diet + plenty of Vitamin D3 keep you safe from that virus? It appears out of the 500 million infected, about 10 to 20% died.

      That’s a shit load of people … but if it kills by cytokine storm … isn’t that only a lethal consequence for someone with low vitamin D levels?

      Thanks for commenting and checking in on the blog.

      Going to workout on the ARX equipment here in Austin today!

      — Anthony

Make your mark