Once a credible government health organization, the CDC has come out of the closet to affirm its true identity as a political activist establishment.

The agency was previously known for publishing current and relevant health information regarding vaccines and diseases, as well as public health protocols and guidance on numerous health-related issues that concern the public. However, since its questionable edicts were imposed on society during the COVID pandemic, it has become apparent to most that politics plays a greater role in the decision-making process than actual science.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Deborah Birx, and former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky became the most well-known names associated with dubious standards and protocols set during COVID. Their mask recommendations and policies seemed to be backed by those with the most to gain by tying our freedom to compliance rather than being based on whether masks could protect us from a virus. Mandates for the vaccines were likewise not based on whether they were actually effective.

Not all of that was determined by the CDC, but it was the CDC’s blatant dismissal of reality while promoting senseless public protocols that led to a substantial decline in trust. And it appears as though the CDC believes that the path of decreasing trust is the option that best suits its newfound identity as a political organization.

Walensky began her stint as CDC director in 2021, and her political biases in her medical recommendations for COVID protocols became abundantly clear when the guidance she provided seemed to conveniently align with the demands of another leftist organization, the American Federation of Teachers, and its president, Randi Weingarten.

In a recent hearing with the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Walensky was asked about the decisions that were made at the time and what her communication with Weingarten had been regarding school closure policies. It was discovered that the two women had each other’s private contact information, and when pressed, Walensky struggled to answer the question of whether any of their communication had been about determining mandates for schools or if she had deleted any texts from their conversation.

Ironically, Walensky has repeatedly warned against politicizing medicine. Even in an outgoing interview in preparation to leave her role as CDC director, she said in the Wall Street Journal’s paraphrase, “Be on guard against misinformation and the politicization of science.”

If only she had followed that advice.

Recently, the CDC published guidance for transgender individuals, both male and female, on how to breastfeed or “chestfeed” newborn infants. The guidance covers females who have had their breasts completely removed under the idea that they can become male. Bizarrely, it also covers men who are trying to unnaturally force the growth of breast tissue by taking powerful drugs to feminize their bodies in misguided attempts to live as women.

There is no other way to describe this recommendation other than being deeply consumed by political beliefs. There is no scientific data or sane doctor with a valid argument for whatever the substance that is secreting from a male’s synthetic, drug-induced breast tissue being anything close to not only breast milk but any type of nutritional material that could safely be ingested by any living organism — let alone a newborn infant — without severe side effects.

Dr. Miriam Grossman is a board-certified child and adolescent psychiatrist who has been vocal about the immeasurable damage being done to children and teens through the gender ideology movement. She gave an interview in which she excoriated the CDC for making such dangerous, irresponsible, and unfounded health proposals.

“This is just an unbelievably egregious position,” she said, “saying that men living as women can be given these drugs for off-label use — for example, they might treat schizophrenia or other medical illnesses. They have this adverse effect called galactorrhea. … It means that a man’s breast tissue begins to secrete a substance. That substance is not breast milk. Furthermore, that substance that is going to be given to these infants has chemicals in it. Those chemicals are going to be absorbed by the infant. That’s the CDC these days.”

It is common knowledge that a woman who is breastfeeding an infant has to be very careful about the medications — both over-the-counter and prescribed — that she puts into her body. She has to be careful about the foods she eats, as dairy, vegetables, or any number of things can upset her baby’s digestive system. She is advised to avoid alcohol or caffeine. These legitimate, science- and data-based instructions are provided to a nursing woman because everything she eats or ingests will go directly into the baby’s system.

There are also certain foods that mothers are warned not to give their babies before the age of one. The options for pain and cold medicines for babies and toddlers is severely limited because their systems are not developed enough to safely process even child-safe remedies. It’s not until the ages of four to six when the choices in treating a fever or a runny nose expand drastically.

Allowing infants to drink milk — or, rather, nipple discharge — that is highly contaminated with potent chemicals strong enough to induce life-altering, permanent changes in an adult could and likely will lead to harmful effects in their own vulnerable and developing bodies, minds, and systems.

Of course, feelings are now the most important guiding factor in society. So, whether these infants develop severe side effects from the egregious act of being nursed by the secretions of a delusional individual is apparently a risk worth taking and a sacrifice babies need to make to preserve the feelings of the severely mentally ill.

The question is who or what will the activist CDC blame for babies who end up suffering serious side effects?

At this rate, the baby himself will likely be criticized for rejecting trans-milk and not affirming the identity of his “chestfeeder” by accepting feelings as a legitimate source of nutrition.

The best safeguard against those repercussions would actually be to internalize Walensky’s parting warning to be on guard against misinformation and the politicization of science.