WORLD REPORT: Deep State Investing And The Prostitution Of Our Children

Similac-600x600By Kat Carroll,

Feeding babies is Big Business – Deep-State style. The essence of the Deep State is “a combination of government and private businesses, working arm in arm to take advantage of the public.” Here, that public is “mother and child.” Where infant and follow-up formula (FUF) are concerned, whether purchasing, consuming, or investing in that increasingly lucrative market, the question for the health and health-freedom advocate is, “Whether in the financial market or the supermarket, do your purchases represent your ethics, beliefs, and principles or do they satisfy a less noble demand?”

Consumers drive markets. You hold an exquisite balance of power to move markets by boycotting products lacking integrity and demanding what you want and deserve. Are you taking on the Deep State by flexing intelligently based consumer power? The National Health Federation (NHF) completed another year of work in the Codex Committee for Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, going head to head with the Deep State in Codex’s electronic and physical Working Groups. It is despicable how the Deep State drives infant formula and FUF; how it impacts every segment of certain formula markets. It is certainly not supportive of children or their mothers.

Demand Due Diligence

Strangely, in light of GMO contamination, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBST), MSG, sugar, and other contaminants in U.S. and/or international infant and follow-up formulas including cupric sulfate  (a known herbicide, fungicide, and pesticide), key private investment advisor Porter Stanberry plugs the Mead Johnson ticker to potential investors, stating that “Enfamil and other Mead Johnson brands already have a reputation for uncompromised quality.(emphasis added)

Does the term, “due diligence” ring a bell – the care that a reasonable person would exercise to avoid harm to one’s (or others’) persons or property?  Stansberry clearly failed to do due diligence to support the “uncompromised quality” label claim he pitched to potential investors who hopefully do theirs. Depending where an investor, consumer, or referring doctor’s mores lay determines if Stansberry’s quality claim was researched with healthy skepticism as part of due diligence. Note Stansberry’s expansion on his already wild claim for “uncompromised quality” while leveraging the power in the marketplace of doctor-referred brands: “But when doctors actively dissuade moms from “shopping around,” it provides some additional width to an already wide competitive moat.”

Read the entire article here: