Sunbathing you baby?!
Surely, you can’t be recommending such a dangerous practice?
Yes, I am.
This is just one of the many types of pushback I have experienced on this subject which is highly charged for no other reason than ignorance.
It’s no secret that many people display NPC behavior. They take every spoon that mainstream media offers them. They defend the centralized narrative with their lives. They even believe that the government as it runs now actually cares about the health of people. It’s an ass backward worldview rife with delusion.
I’m here to tell you that sunbathing your child is a great idea.
You obviously must do it wisely and within the framework of building a solar callus progressively, but this idea that it’s inherently toxic for babies, or any human being for that matter, is downright stupid.
I’ll show you why here.
Parents make a number of mistakes in relation to the sun and their children. Lathering them up with sunscreen, wearing clothing, sun-avoidance, so forth.
It’s sad because these parents believe they are protecting their child, when in fact they’re doing more harm from a place of ignorance.
Cue the 1931 U.S. Department of Labor’s Child Bureau
Most practitioners today would scoff at this since they seem to think that people back then were scientifically illiterate, but I’m here to show you a different perspective.
These people were wise, and they’re sunbathing recommendations for children were flawless because they needed to be considering that rickets was becoming a massive problem in Northern Europe and North America post industrial revolution.
Since families were moving from the farm to the city, they weren’t receiving the level of sun exposure they were used to. As a result, up to 90% of children developed some form of rickets around this time.
Doctor’s were wise enough to pinpoint the cause as a manifestation of Vitamin D3 deficiency, hence they prescribed sunbathing to children in the late 1800s.
Best part about it?
It worked.
Let’s explore the 1931 U.S. government recommendations in depth.
It states:
“The sun that tan’s the child’s skin helps him to grow naturally. If the sun’s rays are to help the baby grow properly and to prevent rickets, they must fall directly onto the skin and tan it.”
They had an intuitive understanding of both melanin production and the concept of building the solar callus in the first place. If you compare this with current 2023 recommendations, it is light years ahead in regards to its understanding of light and human biology.
“The rays that tan the skin and prevent rickets - the ultraviolet rays - do not pass through clothing nor through ordinary window glass.”
This was a kicker for me because I had no idea they understood that most glass artificially manipulates the full light spectrum to create artificial blue light toxicity.
They also understood that clothing blocks UV-A & UV-B, hence preventing Vitamin D3 production.
“Begin Sun Baths Early” is an incredibly powerful motto, yet how many people would reflexively be against such a recommendation today? Countless.
“The baby should get tanned all over, but the tanning should take place gradually. Care should be taken not to burn him. Some babies tan more quickly than others; some burn more easily.”
They had a deep understanding of building the solar callus based on skin type with either a conscious or unconscious reference to melanin type.
Such recommendations are not only sensible, they’re also highly effective at helping people understand the nuance around sunlight exposure for better results in little time.
“Dark skinned babies need more sun to tan them and to protect from rickets than fair-skinned babies.”
It even recommends focusing more on AM and late PM sunlight during summer along with more midday sunlight during winter because of the difference in the UV index, aka the intensity of the UV-A and UV-B wavelengths.
AM and late PM sunlight contains a more of the red light spectrum which rejuvenates the skin and protects it from any damage from higher UV conditions due to filaggrin production, a skin protein that enhances skin health and resilience.
I mean for God’s sake In 1931, they even knew about the UV protective effect of the eyebrows, eyelashes, and eyelids Something that modern reductionist science has only seriously entertained in 2015.
I can’t begin to tell you how shocked I was to find this from the U.S. Department of Labor in 1931. They explicitly lay out a perfect plan to progressively build a child’s solar callus based on season. It’s pure gold.
The recommendations here are sensible and excellent. Sunbathing baby during summer between 8AM - 11 AM and after 3 PM. This is exactly how I’ve intuitively been sunbathing my own son with the understanding that midday exposure is too harsh at first without that solar callus.
Fall and winter sunbathing is on point as well with the understanding that UV light is weaker, hence not as much D3 production. Nothing about this is dangerous. Nothing about this is reckless.
Rickets, as I mentioned, was a huge problem after the industrial revolution. By the late 1800s, approximately 90% of all children living in industrialized Europe and North America had some manifestation of rickets because they stopped getting sunlight exposure.
As a response to the alarming rickets rates, doctors throughout Europe and North America began promoting whole body sunbathing.
Ask yourself, why has centralized medicine regressed so much so that we’re now seeing a 21st century RISE in rickets?
How have doctors gone from recommending sunbathing to now recommending sun-avoidance?
I say follow the money and follow the influence of the Rockefeller’s.
Society has been brainwashed into believing that sunlight is inherently toxic when it’s inherently healing and regenerative. The psyop is strong, my friends.
The obvious answer is people are indoors more than ever.
Stats show that the average person spends up to 90% of their time indoors. Sunbathing is a foreign concept to many, and it’s creating a tsunami of Vitamin D3 deficiency. Rickets is one manifestation of that deficiency.
Adults are barely getting sunshine.
Our babies are getting even less.
Now think about this:
The light that babies are primarily exposed to now is toxic artificial light. This is a recipe for disaster for future generations due to circadian disruption.
The Skin Cancer Foundation is at it again with their dangerous recommendations. Of course, burns are unacceptable. It’s an indicator that you don’t have the right approach to sunlight. Yet, take a look at the messaging and contrast that with the 1931 recommendations.
Continuing with The Skin Cancer Foundation.. and I quote: “It’s better in the first six months to shield them from the sun rather than use sunscreen. It’s especially important to avoid direct sun exposure.”
Chalk that up to iatrogenesis.
Start sunscreen at 6 months.
Put sunglasses on your child.
This article should genuinely be on The Onion, and it just goes show why confidence in the medical establishment is at all-time low.
The irony of it all? What they’re telling you to do is going to INCREASE your child’s risk of getting ALL forms of cancer because you’re forcing them to stay inside and develop a D3 deficiency on top of the inverted circadian structure.
This one thread should clearly show you that everything centralized medicine recommends in regards to sunlight is a joke.
All harm, no upside.
When you put our babies in harm’s way with your shitty advice, you deserve all the heat that comes your way. We don’t give a fuck what certifications you have to your name. We don’t care about that cute little plaque of yours on the wall. We can clown on you for giving such advice, even if you’ve practiced medicine for 30 years.
We live in a day and age where we can educate ourselves from a decentralized perspective to a level you’re unable to comprehend.
Power to the people, not institutions as they’re set up today.
Much love,
Zaid