Sunday, October 6, 2013

Religious behavior: Middle Ages vs 21st century

In the Middle Ages people blindly believed in the church and its power to control their lives. We're in the 21st century now. Let's see what really changed.
Ever since its creation, the church has been an influential institution but also a powerful weapon able to manipulate and hold people hostages of their own fears.

1) Pilgrimages
In medieval times people often travelled hundreds of miles just to see a relic, hoping for a miraculous cure. Churches kept whole bodies of saints, heads, arms, pieces of Jesuss cross, pieces of bone, hair and blood and were expecting pilgrims with bottles of the martyrs blood and even souvenirs.  Well, don't laugh too much. Thousands of people still go on pilgrimages every year in our century.
Stories of miracles used to circulate in the middle ages as well as presently and people believed them to be true, without any evidence. Curiously nobody has ever witnessed such events, we are only expected to believe the legends and fear vengeful saints. Back in those days, most stories were invented by the church to intimidate people, determine them to go on pilgrimages and spend money on saints. In fact, medieval pilgrimages were a huge industry relying on sales of badges, souvenirs, offerings. There are documents that prove that sometimes demonstrations of supernatural power were organized in advance to give people what they expected to see - resurection from the dead, miraculous cures (people were hired to produce miracles for profit). Despite clear evidence of corruption and fraud the church's grip on the medieval mind remained strong in medieval times as well as nowadays.

2) Intolerance of other religions
The word of the church was the word of God. It had the power to absolve sins, protect from evil. If you didn't accept the beliefs of the church you were simply an outsider, an enemy. The church showed a belligerant attitude towards the outsiders. Anyone who disagreed with the church was considered an heretic. In our century, being part of a congregation still means sharing 100% its principles and beliefs, otherwise you are considered an outcast. No idea of reform is ever taken seriously. Unfortunately, many priests sometimes forget that Christianity did not begin as a bellicose religion. Although preaching Jesus, the church takes a different view according to political or social circumstances and require its believers to hate, ignore, deny and even kill for a religious cause. Take for example the crusades - when the pope urged knights to defend Christianity and free Jerusalem from Muslims.


3) Fighting and dying for your faith
The crusades were wholly wars, approved and encouraged by the pope. The church authorised them and offered spiritual benefits in return. The battle between Christians and Muslims became the battle between good and evil. The Muslims could never forget our interferance so many centuries ago and the crusades consequences are felt even today. Our history is full of hatred towards Muslims, Jews, protestants, directed and initiated by the church. "Don't worry, you are doing God's work." Those who attacked the wealth of the church and its involvement in politics were executed. And even in our century, the church generally aims to root out all opposition.

4) Fascination with the supernatural
People used to believe and they still do that going to church can get them rid of diseases, misfortunes, and the evil eye. So, they all go to church, kiss icons and worship bones of saints hoping for a miracle. They do not realize that in fact they don't need intermediaries in their relationship with God and that miracles happen only when they are supposed to happen, according to God's will, not priests' or anyone else's. Your faith is not strong enough if you rely on someone else to do your prayers for you. That's been going on for centuries.

To conclude: the cult of saints still exists, the hostility towards other religions still exists, the great journeys of pilgrimage still go on. So, is there anything that really changed in our religious behavior since the Middle Ages? Not really. 

I could never really understand this need for belonging to a certain religious group, since we are all different, have different ideals and obviously perceive divinity in different ways. Centuries ago, just like nowadays, believers were and are ready to kill others (throw bombs thrown in metro stations, organize terrorist attacks) or suicide (in Islam - Kamikaze) in order to impose their religion on others. The 21st century should be the age of reason, yet humankind continues to interpret Jesus' words as an excuse to do wrong. And the church as an institution survived and still thrives just because most people are too naive and ignorant.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Interesting facts about Christianism

1) According to the earliest Christian documents, Mary Magdalene was a close friend of Jesus, accompanied him everywhere, stood by his side when he was crucified, was the first to discover his resurrection. However, she is not an apostle, her role in Jesus' life has been forever minimized by the church just because she was a woman. Not to mention the legend of her being a prostitute, invented to decrease her credibility, as she tried to continue her friend's work by preaching (after all, she knew what she was saying, after spending so much time with the son of God!).

2) Mary, the mother of Jesus, is believed to have been a perpetual virgin all her life, but actually, she had other children after Jesus. The truth has been very well concealed by the church because the idea of a virgin divine mother suited the new religion's purposes. The same early documents prove the fact that Jesus had 4 brothers and even sisters. Just one reference to the family is mentioned in the New Testament, all the others have been deliberately deleted by the church. 

3) James, the brother of Jesus (traditionally half-brother), preached to the Jewish Christians for 30 years after Jesus' death, however, his role has also been minimized by the church, simply because he was the son of Mary, allegedly a perpetual virgin, but also because of the rivalry between James and Paul (at that time, the Church faced a choice between James’s or Paul’s versions of Christianity).

4) Many people have no idea that John the Baptist was also related to Jesus (a cousin, there is but one reference in the Bible, if you read carefully). Jesus looked upon him as a teacher and admired him very much. The Christian church tried to cover this family relationship for centuries and the admiration Jesus felt was regarded as unworthy for a divine figure.

5) Chistianism, at its foundations, is pioneered by the apostle Paul, who ironically never met Jesus in his life. His beliefs, which later became the basics of Christianity (especially Orthodox and Catholic), relied on a vision he once had, nothing more.

(inspired by - The Secret Family of Jesus, documentary, 2006, UK, by Robert Beckford)

Friday, August 9, 2013

Why do women enjoy "Desperate Housewives"?

Why do women like to watch "Desperate Housewives"? I guess each of them can easily identify with every one of the characters. I have always loved this show, especially the first 5 seasons, and found it hard not to be touched by Susan's natural awkwardness, Lynette's frankness, Gaby's spontaneity and Bree's accuracy.
These four types of personalities overlap so well with our own in different situations.
When cooking and cleaning the house, I am Bree.
When going out, wearing a sexy outfit, I am Gaby.
When taking care of my family, I am Lynette.
When falling in love and playing the victim, I am Susan.
Which one are you?

Friday, May 31, 2013

Sa demontam cateva mituri despre sarcina

1. Trebuie sa vorbesti cat mai mult cu bebe din burtica pentru ca el aude totul si memoreaza vocea mamei – si eu credeam orbeste in aceasta teorie dar s-a spulberat in momentul nasterii cand mi-am dat seama ca bebelusul o ia in intregime de la zero, si abia atunci incepe sa cunoasca lumea din jur. Faptul ca plange insistent si isteric chiar si atunci cand mama, cu vocea ei calda si blanda, incearca sa-l linisteasca, demonteaza teoria. Totul este strain pentru el in aceasta lume si nimic nu-l va linisti in primele zile sau chiar saptamani decat lapticul si somnul.

2. Muzica pe care o aude bebe din burtica va deveni preferata lui dupa ce se va naste, sau o va recunoaste cu siguranta – suna bine dar e o alta prostie. Tot ce aude el din burtica se sterge din memorie la nastere. Eu i-am cantat aceeasi melodie in fiecare noapte, dar dupa ce s-a nascut niciodata n-a reactionat la ea in vreun fel anume, sau macar sa zambeasca.

3. Incearca sa mananci diversificat in sarcina ca sa-l familiarizezi pe bebe cu toate gusturile si sa pape de toate – nu e chiar asa. Eu in sarcina am mancat zmeura, morcovi, castraveti si rosii la greu, iar bebe refuza sa le manance, face urat daca ii dau asa ceva (chiar si dupa 1 an). Acelasi lucru se spune si despre perioada alaptarii – mama trebuie sa aiba o alimentatie cat mai variata pentru a transmite la bebe preferintele prin lapte. Nu este valabil. Bebe o ia de la zero cu gusturile atunci cand incepe sa manance solid. Unele chestii ii plac, altele nu inexplicabil... nu are nici o legatura cu ceea ce ai mancat in sarcina sau in perioada alaptarii.

4. Daca in timpul sarcinii studiezi o anumita stiinta sau te pasioneaza ceva anume, se va transmite si la bebe. Deloc sau poate fi doar o coincidenta. Copilul va dezvolta propriile pasiuni care nu vor avea nici o legatura cu ceea ce a studiat mama in timpul sarcinii. Mama mea, de exemplu, pe toata perioada sarcinii a predat in particular biologia si chimia; eu insa nu am nici o predilectie pentru aceste materii, dimpotriva, nu le suport. Pe mine ma pasioneaza istoria Frantei si am citit cateva carti istorice in timpul sarcinii. Ma indoiesc insa ca baietelul meu imi va urma pasiunea.

5. Ecografiile nu dauneaza lui bebe – s-a demonstrat recent ca pana la urma ecografiile nu sunt chiar atat de inofensive. Eu nu am stiut si am facut foarte multe, la recomandarea medicului. Poate din acest motiv bebelusul meu este foarte irascibil si nelinistit.
Cititi mai multe aici:
http://apologeticum.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/avertisment-ecografiile-sunt-foarte-nocive/

Saturday, May 11, 2013

A fi sau a nu fi vegetarian?

Recunosc ca desi ma simt uneori tentata sa incerc, ceva ma opreste. Vegetarienii adevarati ar spune ca nu sunt suficient de tare incat sa renunt la lactate si carne. Dar de fapt, cred ca ceea ce ma opreste sa fac acest pas este instinctul. Oricat de mult respect si admir vegetarienii, unii dintre ei mi se par exagerati. Acestia ridica veganismul la rang de religie si nu scapa ocazia sa tina prelegeri lacrimogene despre protectia animalelor si excesul de colesterol. Iata ultima chestie pe care am auzit-o: cica laptele de vaca apartine vitelusilor si nu noua... corect, insa ce facem cu laptele de vaca in surplus? Toata lumea stie ca vacile sunt mai laptoase decat noi... O dezbatere pe aceasta tema ar putea dura la nesfarsit, dar iata argumentele mele de baza pro si contra:

De ce sa fim vegetarieni?

1. Alimentele de origine vegetala sunt mai sanatoase pentru organism, continand mai putina grasime, mai multi carbohidrati, mai multe fibre si vitamine (foarte bun argument).
2. Alimentele de origine animala pot fi mai usor contaminate de micro-organisme patogene, virusuri, bacterii periculoase (insa si plantele/legumele/fructele pot fi stropite cu pesticide si injectate cu hormoni...)
3. Hrana vegetala este mai usor de digerat si asigura o stare generala a organismului mai buna (insa si o dieta echilibrata pe baza de carne nu dauneaza, totul e sa eviti excesul de grasimi)
4. Exista alimente vegetale care inlocuiesc cu succes alimentele de origine alimala dar nu si vice-versa (foarte bun argument)
5. Veganismul perpetueaza fauna planetei (daca am fi cu totii vegetarieni, poate ar fi valabil, dar pana atunci, nici o sansa) (p.s. - daca nu am mai sacrifica animale, ele s-ar inmulti si la un moment dat ar pune in pericol rezervele vegetale)

De ce sa nu fim vegetarieni?

1. A fi vegetarian costa foarte mult, desi multi vegetarieni sustin ca alimentele de origine animala sunt mai scumpe, este doar o iluzie. Daca vrei seminte/cereale/fructe eco, din surse sigure, trebuie sa platesti peste pretul pietei. Nu oricine isi permite (de exemplu laptele de soia este mai scump decat laptele de vaca).
2. Omul este un mamifer carnivor prin definitie, prezenta caninilor demonstreaza acest lucru. Inca de la inceputul timpurilor omul vana animale pentru a supravietui, consumand carnea si imbracandu-se cu blana lor. Bineinteles ca de atunci am evoluat, mancam carne gatita, suntem mai civilizati, dar schimbarea alimentatiei ar atrage dupa sine modificarea fondului genetic, impotriva naturii.
3. Consumul exclusiv de vegetale (carbohidrati sau proteine) poate cauza anumite boli pe fond de oboseala, carente, sistem imun slabit. Vegetarienii sunt intr-adevar mai slabi, dar oare ei se satura vreodata? O nutritie sanatoasa trebuie sa includa multe elemente care lor le lipsesc sau le consuma in exces.
4. Si plantele sufera atunci cand sunt taiate, atunci de ce sa protejam doar animalele?
5. Nu s-a demonstrat inca stiintific ca o dieta vegetariana este mai sanatoasa decat o dieta ce include carne. Totul depinde de cat de echilibrata este dieta pentru care optam.

In concluzie, am mari dubii in ceea ce priveste modul de viata vegetarian.
Voi ce parere aveti ?

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Endometrioza - boala fara leac


Putini au auzit vreodata de aceasta boala a femeilor, desi statisticile arata existenta a peste 176 milioane de cazuri in lumea intreaga. Demult vroiam sa-i dedic un articol informativ, dar pentru ca boala nu m-a deranjat pentru o perioada de 3 ani, am stat cuminte, incercand sa uit prin ce am trecut. De curand insa monstrul a reinviat si simt nevoia sa ma exteriorizez. Din pacate nu cunosc pe nimeni din anturajul meu care sa sufere de aceeasi problema, dar sper ca acest articol va genera discutii utile. 
Endometrioza este o boala incurabila. Cum se manifesta? Pe scurt, tesutul endometrial, care se dezvolta in mod normal in cavitatea uterina, functioneaza in afara acesteia. El se poate extinde cel mai des pe ovare, uneori si mai departe, pe vezica urinara, intestinul gros, dar poate ajunge in cazuri foarte avansate si la sistemul nervos. Celulele endometriale sunt eliminate lunar prin menstruatie, dar in cazul femeilor care sufera de endometrioza, acestea raman in organism si se extind sub forma de aderente in cavitatea pelvina. Este un fel de cancer pentru ca se extinde mereu, numai ca nu mori... pur si simplu suferi la nesfarsit de dureri insuportabile, nu numai in timpul menstruatiei, dar uneori aproape zilnic. 
Tratament nu exista. Nu s-a gasit inca nimeni sa-l inventeze. Exista doar remedii pentru ameliorarea simptomelor: antiinflamatoare, hormonale sau interventii laparoscopice, in functie de stadiul bolii. La stadiul I femeia poate fi sau nu constienta de existenta bolii, care nu o deranjeaza prea tare. La stadiul II femeia simte dureri acute pelvine in timpul menstruatiei, dar aderentele se limiteaza la zona ovarelor, fiind mai facila interventia laparoscopica pentru inlaturarea lor. La stadiul III endometrioza afecteaza deja alte organe din proximitate, cum ar fi intestinul gros sau vezica urinara, durerile devin insuportabile, bolnava nu poate duce un mod de viata normal, este necesara spitalizarea, laparoscopia de urgenta, urmata de o menopauza indusa de cel putin 6 luni sub tratament hormonal pentru refacerea organismului. La stadiul IV – durerea atinge paroxismul, boala afecteaza unul sau mai multe organe vitale, care se pot lipi intre ele, perturband in mod evident activitatea lor. De regula, prin chirurgie se inlatura organele afectate. Eu ajunsesem la stadiul III in 2009. Am trecut prin chinuri groaznice si o interventie chirurgicala prin care mi s-au curatat aderentele accesibile ce afectasera deja ambele ovare si o parte din intestinul gros. Exista cazuri foarte grave, nimeni insa nu le mediatizeaza, putina lume stie ce reprezinta de fapt aceasta boala si cat de mult poate afecta viata unei femei.
De ce apare? Sunt mai multe ipoteze: disfunctii hormonale, disfunctii ale sistemului imun, predispozitie genetica, etc. La mine a fost o disfunctie hormonala combinata cu o imunitate foarte scazuta. 
Toate articolele pe care le-am gasit despre endometrioza vorbesc inevitabil despre infertilitate. Intr-adevar, sansele de a concepe un copil se reduc la 50% sau mai putin. Dar uneori se intampla si miracole, cum a fost si cazul meu. La un an si jumatate dupa laparoscopie si tratament hormonal intens am reusit sa raman insarcinata. Sarcina, perioada fara menstruatie, devine astfel cel mai bun tratament al endometriozei, boala fiind stopata in mod natural. Daca femeia mai si alapteaza dupa nastere, mai castiga vreo 6 luni sau mai mult. In total, 1 an si jumatate de pauza pentru organism. Unele femei reusesc sa scape definitiv de boala dupa o sarcina, dar acestea sunt cazuri fericite. Endometrioza poate reveni oricand usor usor pe fon de oboseala si imunitate scazuta (mai ales cand ai un bebelus de ingrijit, nu ai cum sa dormi suficient si sa te menajezi... e un cerc vicios – copilul te scapa de boala dar tot el poate fi cauza revenirii ei).
Pe vremuri ma interesa foarte mult cum poate afecta endometrioza fertilitatea, dar acum constat ca exista foarte putine indicatii pentru femeile care nu s-au vindecat dupa o nastere. Se ofera in general o singura alternativa – pastilele anticonceptionale, care de fapt nu trateaza boala, ci o tin sub control, adica o blocheaza pentru o perioada. Sa zicem ca poti lua anticonceptionale 1-2 ani, dar e imposibil sa faci asta mereu pana la menopauza... au si ele efecte secundare nedorite. 
Exista foarte putini ginecologi specializati in endometrioza. Si mai putini indraznesc sa efectueze laparoscopii precise si eficiente. Din comoditate, in majoritatea cazurilor se inlatura ovarele sau alte organe cu prea multa usurinta. Nu inteleg de ce aceasta boala atat de severa este tratata cu superficialitate de majoritatea medicilor, care in lipsa unor investigatii detaliate se limiteaza la a recomanda progestative sau anticonceptionale.
Menopauza indusa artificial este si ea nesanatoasa, dar momentan nu exista alta metoda de recuperare post-laparoscopica. Bolnava este nevoita sa inghita o cantitate foarte mare de hormoni intr-un timp scurt care poate da peste cap tot corpul... 
As vrea ca endometrioza sa fie recunoscuta drept boala grava incurabila alaturi de altele despre care se trambiteaza toata ziua prin presa si la televizor, as vrea sa duca pe cineva capul sa inventeze un tratament adevarat, as vrea ca aceasta boala sa fie luata in serios de catre medici, as vrea sa cunosc si alte femei in situatia mea cu care as putea sa realizez un schimb de pareri, as vrea sa gasesc un medic in Romania in care sa am incredere... Imi doresc prea mult oare? 

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Vaccinarea - arma secreta de distrugere in masa

Cititi mai jos despre cum Bill Gates si imperiul sau planuieste sa mai depopuleze un pic planeta. Aveti si un filmulet cu propriile lui vorbe in timpul unui discurs malefic.

http://apologeticum.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/bill-gates-preseaza-guvernele-lumii-pentru-a-atinge-o-rata-de-vaccinare-de-90-la-nivel-mondial-scopul-reducerea-populatiei-globului-cu-pana-la-15/


Friday, March 22, 2013

Prima carte in limba romana despre pericolul vaccinarilor

Dr. Christa Todea-Gross "Vaccinurile: Preventie sau boala? este prima carte in limba romana care pune la indoiala eficienta vaccinurilor si demonteaza in peste 400 de pagini cel mai mare mit al medicinei moderne. Ma mir ca a fost posibil sa se publice asa ceva in Romania, este laudabil. Oficial s-a deschis cutia Pandorei si la noi - din ce in ce mai multa lume va avea ocazia sa afle adevarul despre scopul real al vaccinarilor - imbolnavirea si reducerea populatiei globului, sau macar isi va pune anumite intrebari, ceea ce poate fi un inceput pentru o revolta in masa. 
Stiti cate carti exista in limba engleza pe aceasta tema? 108 carti. Pentru cei sceptici - oare chiar au fost scrise degeaba? Mai jos aveti un link cu lista completa. 

http://vactruth.com/vaccine-books/

The truth behind vaccines - Interview with an ex-vaccine worker

Jon Rappaport interviews an ex-vaccine worker "Dr Mark Randall".

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?
A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?
A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.
A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba. Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.
A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.

Q: And beyond the purity issue?
A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells."
 
Q: Why doesn't it make sense?
A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?
A: First of all, there is no "if." They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.

Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.
A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots.
A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.

sursa: 
http://www.alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/rappaport.htm

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Vaccinarile obligatorii - painea pediatrilor

"Existenta vaccinarilor obligatorii face ca pacienti care altfel n-ar avea nici un motiv sa se prezinte la pediatru, sa fie obligati sa vina periodic doar pentru vaccinare; astfel, vaccinarile au devenit “painea si cutitul” practicii pediatrice. De aceea, pediatrii vor continua sa apere pana la moarte conceptul de vaccinare obligatorie."

sursa:
http://orthomihail.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/vaccinarea-impotriva-bolilor-copilariei-o-%E2%80%9Cbomba-cu-ceas%E2%80%9D-medicala-dr-robert-s-mendelsohn/

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Mircea Badea – povestea de seara pentru adulti

In general, romanii se impart in 2 categorii: cei care se amuza copios cu Badea si cei care nu-l sufera. Ii inteleg si pe unii si pe ceilalti. E greu sa fii de acord cu el tot timpul, si uneori este intr-adevar infumurat, enervant si laudaros. Dar cine e perfect ? Facem abstractie, pentru ca stie sa creeze buna dispozitie. Omul asta e in stare sa turuie cu orele pe orice tema, dar glumele lui piperate sunt destul de inteligente. Si culmea e, ca se intampla sa gandim la fel in multe privinte. Nu stau acum sa le enumar, dar de multe ori parca imi exprima propriile ganduri. Popularitatea lui Badea evident starneste invidia multora. Ati vazut cate Like-uri poate sa adune in doar cateva minute? Este extraordinar. Emisiunea lui merge la suflet numai bine inainte de somnic.
As putea spune ca noi, cei care urmarim "In gura presei" seara de seara si ii impartasim parerile (sau de fapt el le exprima pe ale noastre) suntem un fel de generatia Mircea Badea: tineri spre varsta medie, un pic mai neconventionali, netematori de a spune adevarului pe nume si de a iesi din tipare, intotdeauna gata de a face misto de ceea ce ni se intampla in aceasta tara plina de ciudatenii, revoltati dar veseli, luptatori pana la capat. Ceea ce face Mircea Badea nu se rezuma la a prezenta presa intr-un mod mai distractiv, ci e un fel de educatie indirecta a maselor, numai ca nu are succes decat cu cei care s-au saturat sa mearga laolalta cu turma.
Il respect cel putin pentru faptul ca ar putea sa exploateze mult mai mult aceasta popularitate de care beneficiaza, dar n-o face. Putini sunt ca el.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Cum sa-ti inveti bebelusul sa adoarma singur

O sa va povestesc ceea ce am facut eu ca sa-mi invat bebelusul sa adoarma singur, dupa 10 luni in care ne-am chinuit ingrozitor in fiecare seara. Marcus a fost certat rau cu somnul de cand s-a nascut. Adormitul era partea cea mai grea: daca nu adormea la san trebuia plimbat in brate cel putin 20 minute sau leganat pe picioare (uneori nu vroia), ca sa se trezeasca dupa vreo 10 minute si trebuia s-o iei de la capat. Orele de somn variau de la o noapte la alta, in functie de cum avea el chef. Nedormita de atata timp si epuizata am hotarat sa fac ceva in privinta asta. M-am documentat pe internet despre metodele agreate de medici si recomandate de alte mamici. Am ales "the cry it out method". Desi destul de drastica, a dat rezultate imediat.
Mai intai de toate trebuie stabilita o rutina de culcare foarte stricta, de exemplu: cina, apoi baita, schimbat hainutele, alaptat, pupici si dragalaseala de noapte buna. Eu in fiecare seara inainte de somn ii enumar toate animalele care fac nani nani, pregatindu-l psihologic pentru momentul somnului. Din rutina face parte si mersul la culcare mereu la aceeasi ora.
Asadar, in prima seara, dupa rutina descrisa mai sus, l-am pus in patut si i-am zis frumos sa se culce. Am iesit din camera. Era socat si bineinteles ca s-a pus pe bocit. A plans amarnic timp de o ora, timp in care eu am intrat la 5 minute, apoi la 10 minute, la 15 minute ca sa-i aduc aminte ca trebuie sa se culce, sa-l mangai pe capsor si sa-l pup, dar fara sa-l iau in brate. A adormit epuizat dupa o ora. A doua seara a plans jumatate de ora. Am intrat la el in camera la 7 minute, apoi la 10 minute. A treia seara a plans tot jumatate de ora. A patra seara am facut progrese vizibile, a plans numai 15 minute, nici n-a mai trebuit sa mai intru. Cu fiecare seara, timpul de plans s-a redus treptat la 10 minute, apoi la 5 minute, apoi la un fel de marait si in sfarsit dupa doua saptamani, nu a mai plans deloc. Copilul se obisnuise cu ideea ca trebuie sa se culce singur, ca nu va veni nimeni sa-l ia in brate. Uneori daca nu-i e foarte somn, mai sta in picioare, vorbeste ceva pe limba lui, dar pana la urma tot se culca. Nu intru la el decat atunci cand stiu sigur ca doarme profund, ca sa-l invelesc.
De cand bebelusul meu adoarme singur viata mea s-a schimbat in bine. Pentru ca il culc mai devreme, am timp si pentru mine, o ora-doua, de care ma bucur din plin. Partea proasta e ca se mai trezeste noaptea cam de 2-3 ori, uneori la ore imposibile. Daca nu ii este foame si nu vrea sa se culce la loc imediat, aplic aceeasi metoda, il las singur. Uneori mai scanceste dar pana la urma adoarme. Din pacate nu doarme mai mult de 9-10 ore pe noapte, dar probabil atat are el nevoie ca sa se refaca.
Somnul de pranz e inca dificil, adoarme la san sau in balansoar. Doctorii recomanda sa nu aplici metoda plansului in acelasi timp pentru somnul de seara si pentru somnul de pranz. Acum astept sa mai treaca ceva timp ca sa-l invat sa adoarma singur si la pranz.
Singurul lucru pe care il regret este ca nu am facut asta cu luni in urma, cand era mai mic. Se pare ca metoda plansului se poate aplica la bebelusii de 4-6 luni, nu mai devreme.
Stiu ca unii parinti refuza sa-si lase bebelusul sa planga. Ti se rupe inima intr-adevar, dar merita. Faptul ca plange cateva seri nu-l afecteaza atat de mult pe termen lung cat obiceiurile sale proaste de adormit. Cand adoarme singur, bebe incepe sa invete sa fie independent, sa se auto-linisteasca si sa nu se mai trezeasca atat de des. Cel putin asa spun majoritatea mamicilor care au recurs la aceasta metoda. In conluzie, happier parent, happier baby.

Pentru mai multe informatii despre metoda "the cry it out" consultati linkurile de mai jos. De aici m-am inspirat eu:

http://www.babysleepsite.com/

http://www.babycenter.com/0_baby-sleep-training-the-basics_1505715.bc

Thursday, February 21, 2013

What is a good husband?

A good husband always cares about your opinion
A good husband supports your dreams (he may not always share them)
A good husband doesn’t mind when others admire your beauty
A good husband doesn’t mind you going out with your friends
A good husband is not ashamed to go out with you when you don’t wear make-up
A good husband comforts you when you’re sick
A good husband doesn’t ask you to cook every day
A good husband doesn’t ask what you spent your/his money on
A good husband doesn’t mind when you buy a new dress (even if you already have a pile of them)
A good husband never gossips to his friends and mother about you
A good husband offers a shoulder to cry on when you’re sad
A good husband keeps you as the number one person in his life
A good husband loves your mother (or pretends very well to love her!)
A good husband listens to you when you talk (most of the time)
A good husband boasts about your cooking skills and good looks
A good husband doesn’t mind you having male friends
A good husband gives up on his game to let you watch figure skating instead
A good husband brings flowers not only on special occasions
A good husband puts your needs ahead of his own
A good husband believes you are truly the best wife and mother in the world

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Sugestie regim alimentar bebelus 10 – 12 luni


Mic dejun: lapte matern la trezire
Cam peste 1,5h: lapte cu cereale (alternati hrisca, mei, ovaz, secara, gris, etc. – le gasiti la plafar)
Desert: Fruct de sezon / suc de fructe proaspat (mar, portocala)
Pranz: Legume gatite la abur cu carnita sau fara (alternati carne de pui, vita, ficatel, galbenus de ou sau peste)
Gustarea de dupa amiaza: Fruct de sezon (cu sau fara biscuit/branzica)
Cina: alternati budinca cu branza, budinca cu mere, papanasi, mar copt, dovleac copt, sfecla rosie coapta cu iaurt, quinoa, cartof copt cu iaurt, mamaliguta cu branza si smantana, tapioca cu branza, orez cu lapte, sau altceva similar.
Desert : iaurt simplu
Inainte de somn: lapte matern.


Cam pana pe la 10 luni eu i-am dat bebelusului meu la cina doar fruct cu biscuit/branzica, apoi iaurt si laptic chiar inainte de somn. Insa de la 10 luni am observat ca trebuie suplimentata cina, el avand necesitati mai mari deja la varsta asta. Dimineata cand spun lapte cu cereale ma refer numai la cereale care se fierb. Pentru a lichefia putin terciul folositi cateva lingurite de lapte praf. Consider ca este mai sanatos asa decat sa-l hraniti cu cereale instant din comert, in care, sincer, nu am incredere. Eu sunt pro administrare cereale dimineata, stiu ca sunt mamici care le folosesc pentru masa de seara. Pana la urma fiecare mama decide cum crede mai bine. Pranzul e simplu, combinati diverse legume in functie de sezon. Unii bebelusi prefera supa mai moale altii pireu de legume mai solid. Puteti adauga cateva picaturi de ulei sau o lingurita de smantana. Cina necesita creatie. Trebuie sa includa alimente usoare dar care totusi sa-l tina satul toata noaptea. Nu uitati sa-i dati cate un iaurtel pe zi, preferabil seara pentru o digestie mai buna. Intre mese - lapte matern la cerere sau cat va permite timpul (daca lucrati in timpul zilei evident ramane alaptatul de dimineata si seara). Pe la varsta aceasta bebelusul deja solicita laptic de sete sau de placere, pentru ca mesele de baza care il tin satul sunt cele solide.

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Patuturile Bertoni nu sunt bune

Nu cumparati patut transformabil Maxi de la Bertoni pentru bebelusul vostru. Primele 6 luni este ok, dar cand copilul se va ridica in picioare veti observa ca grilajul este mult prea jos, ii ajunge aproximativ la talie si exista riscul sa cada peste. Singura solutie va fi sa prelungiti grilajul pe inaltime, dar e complicat. In general patuturile Bertoni nu sunt o investitie buna, sertarele se strica repede, sau se trag foarte greu, se blocheaza, masa de infasat este aproape inutila dupa 4 luni, fiind mult prea ingusta pentru spatiul necesar unui bebelus activ. Si noi am crezut ca vom face o afacere cumparand un patut transformabil, dar adevarul este ca cele mai bune patuturi pentru primul an de viata sunt cele pliante, din doua motive: 1) un patut pliant poate fi folosit si pe post de tarc mai tarziu, 2) copilul nu se va lovi la cap in timpul somnului, oricat s-ar agita. Daca ar fi s-o iau de la capat acum, nu as mai cumpara patut din lemn, este ineficient.

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Alaptarea - o provocare

De la bun inceput vreau sa precizez ca sunt 100% pro alaptare, dar trebuie sa scot in evidenta si un dezavantaj, de care unele proaspete mamici nu sunt constiente, si aici nu ma refer la deformarea sanilor sau alte tampenii. Nu are rost sa enumar avantajele alaptarii, sunt atatea carti si articole pe net care fac asta, ar insemna doar sa le repet. Un singur lucru vreau sa confirm din proprie experienta: pe perioada alaptarii, copilul va fi cu siguranta ferit de infectii, bacterii, virusuri. In cel mai rau caz va lua o forma usoara, dar organismul lui va fi gata sa lupte singur cu infectia, fara medicamente. Laptele matern este recunoscut pe drept cuvant ca antibiotic natural si functioneaza de minune.
Deci, alaptarea... e un drum lung si anevoios, o adevarata provocare. Marele dezavantaj este lipsa somnului. Eu nu am stiut asta, sau nu am crezut ca va fi atat de greu. Copilul meu are aproape 10 luni si eu de cand am nascut inca nu am dormit mai mult de 4 ore consecutiv. Stiu ca e greu de crezut. Se zice ca bebelusii alaptati se trezesc mai des pentru ca laptele matern nu e la fel de satios ca laptele praf. Din punctul meu de vedere este o prostie. In primul rand un bebelus se poate satura la fel de bine cu lapte matern. In al doilea rand, de cele mai multe ori, el se va trezi noaptea si va cere sanul nu neaparat de foame, ci din dorinta de a se simti aproape de mama. Adeptii laptelui praf nu au cum sa inteleaga aceasta necesitate vitala. Cum alaptarea incepe din primele zile de viata, atunci se creaza o legatura afectiva foarte puternica intre mama si copil. Sanul nu mai este perceput doar ca pe o sursa de mancare ci si de liniste, dragoste, siguranta. Unii bebelusi sunt mai dependenti si se trezesc mai des, poate viseaza urat, sau se simt singuri si atunci cer cu disperare un pic de laptic pentru a se linisti. Dupa cateva inghitituri adorm la loc.


Aceasta este marea provocare, sa fii de garda 24h din 24, mereu la dispozitia bebelusului, sa te trezesti uneori si din ora in ora in noptile mai dificile, cand ies dintisorii, se simte rau, sau pur si simplu simte nevoia sa doarma la pieptul mamei. Nu toate mamele sunt pregatite pentru acest program infernal. Mai ales daca sotul e la munca, bunicile sunt departe, si e multa treaba prin casa, nu ajungi sa dormi nici ziua. Se poate aduna multa oboseala si frustrare. E normal sa rabufnesti uneori, sa plangi, sa te descarci pe copil... dar toate trec cand il vezi zambind, sanatos. Multe mamici cedeaza usor, pe motiv ca nu mai au lapte suficient. Scuze se pot gasi intotdeauna. Nu vreau sa condamn pe nimeni, dar laptele praf este in opinia mea ca orice produs de pe raftul magazinelor din ziua de azi: dubios. De multe ori am fost tentata si eu sa abandonez, ajunsa la limita oboselii. Dar Dumnezeu m-a ajutat intr-un mod neasteptat: copilul meu a refuzat cu vehementa sa bea lapte praf.


Am citit undeva ca prin laptele matern se face transfuzie de dragoste. Mi-a placut mult expresia. Alaptarea iti ofera intr-adevar ocazia sa fii conectata direct la caldura copilului tau, sa-i simti respiratia, sa-i observi bucuria si multumirea de a primi ceea ce are nevoie. As vrea sa stiu daca acei copii alaptati pastreaza o legatura afectiva mai speciala cu mamele lor, desi ar fi absurd, sa zicem, pe termen lung. Totusi ar trebui sa existe o recompensa spirituala pentru toate noptile nedormite, nu-i asa? :)