VA hospitals now hiring FELONS as doctors

Image: VA hospitals now hiring FELONS as doctors

(Natural News)
When you go to the doctor’s, you’re taking a gamble. Perhaps you’ll be lucky enough to end up seeing someone with a gentle bedside manner who offers you unbiased advice that is legitimately helpful. It’s more likely, however, that you’ll be going to one of the many doctors who tries to see as many patients per hour as possible, spending all of five minutes with you before sending you on your way with a prescription for whatever drug the pharmaceutical reps are offering incentives for prescribing. If you’re going to a VA doctor, however, it could be a lot worse.

That’s because a recent investigation by USA Today has uncovered that the hiring process used by the VA for bringing in physicians leaves a lot to be desired – and that’s putting it mildly. Although they verify licenses and check references, they have a fair amount of leeway when it comes to overlooking felony convictions, malpractice, or licensing problems. This means that questionable doctors can easily end up alone in a consultation room with a patient – and some even have counts of sexual misconduct against them.

Doctors hired with histories of sexual misconduct, burglary, drug dealing and malpractice

In one case exposed by the paper, a psychiatrist was hired by the VA hospital in Muskogee, Oklahoma, even though the hospital knew that actions had been taken against his medical license for offenses including sexual misconduct. Dr. Stephen Lester Greer, the psychiatrist in question, went on to have a sexual relationship with a patient there, later pleading guilty to persuading the patient to lie about their relationship.

In another incident, a Lafayette, Louisiana VA clinic hired a psychiatrist in 2004 despite having felony convictions on his application. A background check that was carried out a year after he was hired found eight arrests that included burglary, reckless driving resulting in death and drug dealing – hardly the type of person you want advising people with mental health problems! The VA received a slew of complaints about mistreatment of patients before firing the unnamed psychiatrist earlier this year.

Who else can get hired by the VA? Neurosurgeon John Henry Schneider managed to collect more than a dozen claims of malpractice against him and had reached settlements involving surgical mistakes that left his patients dead, paralyzed or maimed. In one case, he placed spinal screws badly, robbing the patient of bladder and bowel control. Another patient was left paralyzed from the waist down after poor placement of a spinal canal device. When one of his surgical patients died, his medical license was revoked by the state of Wyoming – but the VA was happy to hire him at a hospital that treats 184,000 patients in Illinois, Iowa and Missouri at a yearly salary of $385,000.

VA hiring practices need an overhaul

Unfortunately, some of the practices at the VA actually attract doctors who have a history of licensing problems and malpractice. Clinicians at the VA do not need malpractice insurance as the federal government covers claims with taxpayer dollars. This leads doctors who have trouble getting insurance for malpractice in the private sector because past problems make them high-risk to seek work with the VA.

A report from the Government Accountability Office that was recently released found that the VA neglected to report doctors who could be dangerous to the national database and state licensing boards in nine out of ten cases. In doing so, they failed to follow their own policies, which were designed to protect VA patients from harm.

Don’t the veterans who put their lives on the line to defend our country deserve far better than treatment by criminal, incompetent doctors?

Sources for this article include:



Source Article from

Autopsy Doctors Say Sheriff Overrode Death Findings to Protect Law Enforcement

Two San Joaquin County forensic pathologists have accused the sheriff of meddling in death investigations in order to protect officers of the law. Documents released Monday by a pathologist who announced her resignation last week raise serious questions about the integrity of investigations of people who died in the custody of law enforcement officers who used Tasers or other types of force.

Dr. Susan Parson, who performs autopsies for the county, accused Sheriff-Coroner Steve Moore of interfering with her work, and sent copies of emails, notes and other correspondence to the district attorney and the Board of Supervisors documenting her claims.

‘The sheriff was using his political office as the coroner to protect police officers whenever someone died while in custody or during arrest. … I had thought that this was initially an anomaly, but now, especially beginning in 2016, it has become routine practice.’

The documents, obtained by KQED, also include correspondence and memos written by the county’s chief forensic pathologist, Dr. Bennet Omalu.

The Nigerian-born neuropathologist rose to national prominence in 2005 after he published his discovery of a degenerative brain disease in football players he named chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE. His discovery was documented in the 2015 film “Concussion,” starring Will Smith.

San Joaquin County hired Omalu in 2007 to raise the standards of death investigations. But in a memo Omalu wrote on Aug. 22, 2017, he indicated it was a losing prospect.

“I have always believed that the longer I spent in the office, the better the office would become,” Omalu wrote. “I was wrong.”

In March 2017, Omalu and Parson began documenting incidents they believe show wrongdoing by Sheriff Moore. The two doctors allege the sheriff labeled certain deaths as “accidents” rather than “homicides” to shield from prosecution law enforcement officers who were involved.

Pages: 1 2

If you haven’t already, be sure to like our Filming Cops Page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Please visit our sister site Smokers ONLY


(function(d) {
var params =
id: “3c7936d6-71e2-4cba-afb4-95ed4171941f”,
d: “ZmlsbWluZ2NvcHMuY29t”,
wid: “365543”,
cb: (new Date()).getTime()

var qs=[];
for(var key in params) qs.push(key+’=’+encodeURIComponent(params[key]));
var s = d.createElement(‘script’);s.type=’text/javascript’;s.async=true;
var p = ‘https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https’ : ‘http’;
s.src = p + “://” + qs.join(‘&’);

Filming Cops

  • This bastard needs to be voted out of office by the people of San Joaquin County. I say this because you, and I, both know that the state AG will never bring charges against this douche who calls himself a member of law enforcement. Can you say recalll…

Source Article from

This Doctors Response To A Vaccine-Autism Link Is Something Every Parent Should Hear

Next Story

Earlier this year, Dr. Alvin H. Moss, a physician and professor in the Centre for Health Ethics & Law Department at West Virginia University, testified at the West Virginia Senate Education Committee on the topic of childhood vaccinations.

As most of you reading this probably already know, multiple countries and communities around the world are now implementing mandatory vaccination policies, which ensure that if a child has not received the full amount of recommended immunizations, they cannot attend public school. This is primarily due to the belief that if the majority of a population can become “immune” to a disease via vaccination, diseases will either be eradicated or at least kept under control. It’s called “herd immunity,” and refers to a pattern of immunity that should protect a population against invasion of a new infection. It’s the backbone of pro-vaccine arguments, despite the fact that there is no science behind it, which is why it remains a theory. Measles is one example where the theory has shown to be false. Measles vaccine failures have been documented for a quarter of a century around the world, showing that we’re not really looking at a failure to vaccinate, but rather a failing vaccine.

According to Dr. Lucija Tomljenovik, a post-doctoral research fellow in the Department of Opthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Colombia, “The statement that high levels of vaccination prevent disease outbreaks is not as accurate as infectious diseases do in fact occur even in fully vaccinated populations as well as individuals.”

We recently published an article regarding herd immunity, which is a completely separate topic from this article. If interested, you can click on the title below to read the article:

Why Unvaccinated Children Are Not A Threat To Vaccinated Children & Seniors

The recent proposed and accepted bills to implement a mandatory vaccine schedule for children has created even more controversy within an already divisive issue.

The Hearing

During the hearing, Senator Mike Romano asked Dr. Moss, “Are you aware of a reputable peer-reviewed study that links childhood autism with immunizations?” 

Dr. Moss replies  “the answer is yes” and then goes on to state that he could lay his hands on over 100 that directly and indirectly look at this issue.

After that, Moss emphasizes a very important point: “If we really wanted to do justice to that issue, it would take us well over an hour, perhaps several days.”

The Senator then goes on to ask again, “Has there been a statistically valid peer-reviewed study that links autism to childhood immunization?”

Dr. Moss states once more, “I believe the answer is yes.”

The Senator then asks the same question, after trying to understand the difference between published peer-reviewed “medical articles” and studies.

Dr. Moss then drops a bombshell that was, and still is virtually unknown, by a large majority of the population:

I think we need to be fair, we need to talk about the article that is quoted most widely to say there is no relationship between autism and vaccines, that’s an article that was in the 2004 issue of the journal Paediatrics, highly respected journal. The first author was Frank DeStefano, he was from the CDC, and the author in charge of the statistics for that study is William Thompson. You may or may not recall, it did make national news a couple of years ago, William Thompson is a senior at the CDC, he came out and he said “we committed fraud” with the publication of that article.

Senator Romano then deflects the point, which is hard to believe given the bombshell of a point Dr. Moss had just made regarding Dr. Thompson. It goes to show, despite the fact that the current science (much of which is still unknown to medical professionals and the population in general) is strong enough and speaks for itself to show that the science has, in fact, not settled the link between vaccines and autism, that there is a tremendous amount of scientific fraud that surrounds the approval of various “medicines,” which, unfortunately, include vaccines. The ironic part about this is that they’ve been marketed to be life saving, as tools for the eradication of certain diseases. The mainstream media narrative has made people feel inferior or crazy for even questioning the efficacy of vaccines, and that includes most medical professionals, who themselves aren’t really educated on the topic of vaccinations. They are simply given the science the pharmaceutical industry has paid for.

The autism question comes in towards the end of the hearing.

As the current Editor-In-Chief of the New England Medical Journal, Richard Horton, recently shared, because of conflicts of interest and industry ties, “more than half the (medical) literature could be false.”  

This story has been circling around since it emerged a few years ago. For example, below is another clip where Congressman Bill Posey also shares this story. The CDC scientists actually forwarded off their information to a number of people who could do something with it, since it was getting virtually no attention within the mainstream.

Posey read off the letter he received from Thompson:

“The [CDC] co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the [MMR vaccine] study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can.”

The study he and his co-author published in 2004 was, as mentioned above by Dr. Moss,  the most commonly cited study used by the scientific community to debunk the controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine/autism link.  (Destefano, et al. 2004)

The study concluded that “the evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.”

Dr. Thompson admitted it was “the lowest point” in his career when he “went along with that paper.” He went on to say that he and the other authors “didn’t report significant findings” and that he is “completely ashamed” of what he did, that he was “complicit and went along with this,” and regrets that he has “been a part of the problem.” (source)(source)(source)

Quite remarkable, isn’t it?

You would think this would receive mass media attention, but it didn’t, and the story is still trying to make its way into the mainstream. It just goes to show how much power the elite truly has. If they want to silence a fact, it can be done with ease, regardless of how impactful or important it might be.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to get stories like the ones above out to the public, as Facebook has teamed up with other corporations, like Disney, to decide for us what is “fake news” and what isn’t.

Why don’t they just let us think for ourselves?

I think the answer is obvious.

Related CE Article: The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Should Never Be Forced To Vaccinate Their Children

Peer-Reviewed Science Losing Credibility As Large Amounts of Research Shown To Be False 





Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

The Truth About Vaccines Revealed By A Number of Doctors, Scientists & More

What do you really know about vaccines? Is it as much as you think? Do you know how they are made, or what’s in them? Do you know how these ingredients affect the immune system? Do you know their risks and potential side effects, or how often vaccine injuries occur?

If you are relying on your paediatrician to know all of these answers and keep up with the latest research, you may in fact be risking your family’s health.

Do you know how much training doctors actually receive about vaccines? And do you know exactly what they do and don’t learn about them? You might not know that they get told vaccine injury occurs “one in a million,” and when a patient or parent presents with a concern that think they are vaccine injured, the Doctor has been trained to say ‘no it’s not connected’.

With huge profits (vaccines make an estimated 30 billion dollar profit each year) associated with their promotion, vaccine ‘health benefits’ tend to be highly exaggerated, and their risks downplayed, denied, or outright ignored.  Parent’s get shown glossy promotional leaflets with the mild side effects listed on them and aren’t being shown the vaccine inserts which is where the serious information is found.

Running from November 28 to December 7 is Vaccines Revealed, a nine-part documentary series featuring some of the world’s most renowned experts when it comes to the ‘other’ side of vaccination — the side that most doctors, scientists, and parents often know little about.

The series has been produced with award-winning documentary maker Jeff Hays (the man behind Bought The Movie) and Dr. Beau Pierce, CEO of Circle Of Docs, and health activist Dr. Patrick Gentempo.

Mandatory Vaccination: The Violation of Human Rights

Did you know that mandatory vaccination is on the horizon for many states and countries, and is already in full effect in some? Certain jobs now require staff to get vaccines or else they will be fired. California now requires children to be fully vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule, and in Australia you cannot get certain welfare payments unless your child is fully vaccinated. Nor can you put your child into day care unless they are vaccinated according to the Australian schedule.  You now may not abstain for religious or philosophical reasons any longer, and medical exemptions signed by doctors are being scrutinised.

There is nothing in place to protect children from possible injuries, nor is it easy to get financial help or compensation if they do become injured. Some families find themselves in financial ruin, and many simply cannot afford to pay for appropriate treatment.

Simply put, all of this violates our human and parental rights. Where there is risk, there must be choice.

Many people, including our doctors, tend to forget that vaccines are drugs, and all drugs have side effects — including death — which is why vaccine inserts are so lengthy. Vaccines can and do cause harm to some of us.  That is inevitable. The manufacturers know this because when they carry out studies, as they report the side effects reported by  the patients.


The Vaccine Debate: Why Is It Silenced, Ridiculed, and Shut Down?

Why are we allowed to debate the side effects of ‘regular’ drugs — of which there is zero denial they can cause harm — but when it comes to vaccines, we are shut down by those around us? Shouldn’t we be able to ask questions and not be abused for it? Or not get kicked out of our doctor’s office because we are questioning the status quo? With a medical procedure that carries frightening risks, shouldn’t we have to be fully informed about how they work in the body and the possible detrimental effects they can pose to our health?

Corruption, Control, and Lies

Vaccines Revealed shares with us how Big Pharma has controlled and manipulated the media for decades to keep this important truth hidden. They’ve silenced and ridiculed whistleblowers, and repressed brave scientists who questioned the so-called safety of vaccines. For the doctors who do speak out, they have taken away their licences, destroyed their reputations, and even put some of them in jail.

Big Pharma has bribed many politicians and government health officials and organizations. The public tends not to know about the revolving doors between the FDA, CDC, other health agencies and drug companies.

With corruption infiltrating most of our powerful industries today, we have had enough. The issue of vaccination affects each and every one of us and is impacting our most precious and our most vulnerable: our children.

This has to stop.

It’s Time to Become Fully Informed and to Expose the Truth

Click this link to watch Vaccines Revealed.

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

Holistic Doctors Are the Most Endangered Species In America


Holistic doctors are the most endangered species in America. At least 77 holistic doctors have been murdered in the past 2 years.


Please donate to offset the costs of The Common Sense Show



The official storable food of the CSS. Take 5% off with Promo Code “Hodges9”. Click here

This is the absolute best in food storage. Dave Hodges is a satisfied customer.  Listeners to The Common Sense Show will receive 5% off their next order by mentioning “Hodges9” in the coupon code box.  Don’t wait until it is too late. Click Here for more information.

From the Hagmann blood sugar protocol to the Hodges joint protocol, Dr. Broer has helped hundreds of thousands of people. There is something for everybody at Take 5% off the cost of your order with coupon code DAVE5

From the Hagmann blood sugar protocol to the Hodges joint protocol, Dr. Broer has helped hundreds of thousands of people. There is something for everybody at  FOR COMMON SENSE SHOW LISTENERS, YOU CAN TAKE 5% OFF OF ALL ORDERS FROM HEALTHMASTERS.  ACT NOW, THIS IS A VERY LIMITED TIME OFFER. USE THE COUPON CODE “5HODGES”



Source Article from

Cancer Doctors Finally Reveal The Risks Of Drinking Alcohol, Here They Are

Next Story

It’s a topic that never ceases to create controversy, and one we have written about extensively. I myself have shared some of my own experiences with overcoming addiction to this substance, and I know firsthand that alcohol is one of those things in life that we love to turn a blind eye to. We are unwilling to face the fact that it carries many health risks because we enjoy it so much. Yet, though ignorance might be bliss, i t won’t protect our bodies from harm.

What I find particularly fascinating is that even many self-proclaimed health nuts, who are very careful to avoid chemicals, pesticides, preservatives, processed foods, GMOs, etc. still drink alcohol, even though it is a known carcinogen. What I find even more interesting is the lack of knowledge around the fact that alcohol is a known carcinogen in the first place. Did you know? This is something that is hardly ever discussed or written about, and we certainly don’t see cancer warnings on alcohol bottles, so how did alcohol slip under the radar when it comes to clean eating and living a healthy lifestyle?

Recently, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), which represents many top cancer doctors of the nation, has been trying to raise awareness about the direct ties between cancer and alcohol. In a statement published last week in the Journal of Clinical Oncolog, they cite evidence that even light drinking can raise a woman’s risk of developing both breast and esophageal cancer.

Of course, heavy drinkers face a much higher risk of developing colorectal cancer and cancer of the mouth, throat, voice box, and liver, warns the group.

Should I Give Up Alcohol Completely?

“The message is not, ‘Don’t drink.’ It’s, ‘If you want to reduce your cancer risk, drink less. And if you don’t drink, don’t start,’” said Dr. Noelle LoConte, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the lead author of the ASCO statement. “It’s different than tobacco where we say, ‘Never smoke. Don’t start.’ This is a little more subtle.”

So no, you don’t have to give up alcohol completely, but it is important to be aware of the risks; this way you can make an educated decision about whether to cut back the amount and frequency that you are consuming alcohol.

Casual, heavy, and problem drinking have all been on the rise in the United States and affect people of all races, genders, and socioeconomic standings.

So, Why Isn’t This Common Knowledge?

Very few adults, when asked, identify alcohol consumption as a risk factor for cancer, even though the vast majority of people are familiar with other cancer risk factors such as smoking tobacco and prolonged sun exposure. A recent study conducted by ASCO found that out of 4,016 adults, fewer than one in three identified alcohol as a risk factor. (Most of those surveyed also failed to mention obesity as a risk factor.)

This group of doctors is now calling for new public health initiatives to cut back alcohol consumption and raise awareness about its effects on health. They are advocating to raise taxes and establish advertising regulations to prevent ads from indirectly targeting minors, similar to the ban on alcohol advertising in New York City’s subways and busses expected to go into effect in January. The group also opposes any form of “pink washing,” the term given to anything using the breast cancer ribbon to enhance sales, whether that item is a known carcinogen or not.

ASCO researchers also reviewed many studies on cancer and alcohol and determined that 5.5% of all new cancers and 5.8% of all cancer deaths worldwide can be attributed to alcohol.

How Much Is Too Much?

Just one alcoholic drink a day can increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer, according to a report released last May by the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund. This was also cited by the ASCO report, which analyzed 119 studies that carried data on 12 million women and over 250,000 cases of breast cancer. They concluded there was strong evidence to support the notion that alcohol consumption increases the risk of developing both pre- and postmenopausal cancer. According to the research, even drinking a small glass of wine or beer every day, the equivalent of about 10 grams of alcohol, can increase premenopausal breast cancer risk by 5% and postmenopausal risk by an alarming 9%.

“The more you drink, the higher the risk,” said Dr. Clifford A. Hudis, the chief executive of ASCO. “It’s a pretty linear dose-response.”

Those who drink moderately, as defined by the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) as one drink per day for women and two for men, are nearly doubling their risk of developing mouth and throat cancer and are more than doubling their risk of developing carcinoma of the esophagus compared to non-drinkers. So, it really doesn’t take much.

Final Thoughts

Many of us are doing what we can to maintain good health — not smoking, not eating processed meats, and getting plenty of exercise — and that’s wonderful to see. However, ignoring the risk of alcohol doesn’t make them go away. By being aware, we can make better choices for ourselves and for our health. With this information finally coming to the surface, it’s only a matter of time before we start seeing more warnings about alcohol consumption in the future and hopefully new regulations on its promotion, too.

Much Love

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

Doctors bring nearly DEAD heart back to life using revolutionary new “box” that can keep it beating for eight hours

Image: Doctors bring nearly DEAD heart back to life using revolutionary new “box” that can keep it beating for eight hours

(Natural News)
Doctors and surgeons have managed to save a man’s life in England after giving him a transplant using a “dead” heart they were able to bring back to life.

Using a revolutionary new piece of technology that’s been called a “heart in a box,” the device can keep the organ preserved and actually beating for as long as eight hours, the U.K.’s Daily Mail reported.

Surgeons at Wythenshawe Hospital in Manchester managed the successful operation and transplant for patient Anthony Anderson, a 58-year-old man from Swinton who had been diagnosed with cardiomyopathy, which is a disease of the heart muscle. The condition left him clinging to life in an intensive care unit and landed him on an urgent heart transplant list.

“When I got the call I felt very emotional, really happy, but of course sad that someone had to die to help me and I will be forever grateful to my donor,” Anderson said following the transplant surgery.

Wythenshawe Hospital is a well-known medical center and one of only four worldwide that has performed the revolutionary transplant procedure. So far, just a small number of patients have had one.

However, doctors and surgeons say they are confident that the procedure can save scores of lives in the future by permitting a larger number of hearts to be used for donation purposes. At the present time, about 15 of every 100 patients on waiting lists for heart transplants die before they receive one.

That said, doctors are confident that the new technology will help them save many more lives because more hearts will be able to be used for donation purposes.

As the Daily Mail reported further:

Anthony first began feeling tired and suffering with palpitations in 2002, but over time his symptoms worsened significantly and he was referred to Wythenshawe Hospital.

Just weeks after his transplant, Anthony was back at home, but continues to be monitored by the team.

“I think the transplant team at Wythenshawe Hospital are out of this world. I’m getting stronger every day and my plan is now to enjoy retirement with my wife Lisa, a pediatric nurse at Salford Royal,” Anderson said.

Here’s how the new procedure works.

First developed just a couple of years ago and not yet widely utilized, it involves the use of a technology known as the Transmedia Organ Care System to resuscitate and sustain hearts that were previously unusable.

The device works by pumping blood around the heart to restore oxygenation and functionality. Once the heart begins beating once more, surgeons can assess the donor heart more comprehensively and thus reduce the risk it will be rejected by its recipient — a major problem with any donated organ. There are also problems with donated organs being diseased. (Related: Organ Donor Wakes Up During Harvesting Of Her Body Parts After Doctors Jumped To Conclusions.)

Rajamiyer Venkateswaran, who is the director of transplantation and consultant cardiac surgeon at the hospital, said this form of transplant is different because it utilizes a “Donation After Circulatory Determined Death” (DCD) donor heart. That is a condition where the brain is not actually dead yet but has encountered severe brain injury.

“In this scenario, the treatment of the donor is withdrawn and allows cardiac arrest to happen,” he told the Daily Mail. “The heart is then retrieved from the donor and is resuscitated on the Organ Care System machine.”

He adds: “I am so proud of our team at the Transplant Center. It is an amazing development as previously we would not have been able to use these hearts for transplantation.”

He said he hoped that the new procedure would allow for an increase in hospital heart transplants of about 20 percent in the coming years. Currently, the hospital performs roughly 25 transplants per year.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Shocking medical incompetence: Doctors are misdiagnosing bowel cancer as gynecological; pushing chemo for severe skin conditions

Image: Shocking medical incompetence: Doctors are misdiagnosing bowel cancer as gynecological; pushing chemo for severe skin conditions

(Natural News)
Doctors and other primary care providers in Britain are increasingly diagnosing bowel cancer late in women after overlooking their symptoms and possibly confusing them with gynecological conditions or irritable bowel syndrome, the latter of which is mostly just generalized abdominal pain.

As reported by the UK’s Daily Mail, researchers are warning that an increasing number of women with bowel cancer are more liable to have it picked up in A&E even though they are making more frequent trips to their doctors in advance of their diagnosis.

Scientists and researchers from University College London said in a study that general practitioners (GPs) are missing one-third of women’s bowel cancer, or 34 percent, adding that diagnoses in those cases are made too late to intervene successfully. That figure compares with 30 percent of missed diagnoses in men.

In addition, researchers also discovered that women were far more likely to have been told they did not have cancer by GPs and sent away.

Of the women who were diagnosed in A&E, six percent had already been told by their doctor that their symptoms were not indicative of any disease compared to just two percent of men.

As the Daily Mail reported:

GPs have been criticized in recent years for missing the early symptoms of cancer and telling patients they have nothing to worry about. 

A major study in April estimated that 32,000 cancer patients a year are sent away by GPs at least three times without diagnosis.

In 2014, health watchdog organization NICE — the National Institute for Healthcare Excellence — put forth guidelines to family practitioners advising them what to look for in terms of signs and symptoms.

The study examined 5,745 men and women who had been diagnosed with bowel cancer between the years of 2005 and 2010. Authors of the study noted that since then GPs had gotten better at diagnosing cancers especially with the assistance of the new guidelines.

Meanwhile, in a separate report, the Daily Mail noted that British doctors are increasingly placing children on harmful statin drugs, reportedly due to high cholesterol levels (rather than having parents advised to change their kids’ diets). (Related: STUDY: Mood-altering statins extend lifespan by a mere three days.)

NICE has recommended that tens of thousands of children be placed on statins to control their ‘inherited’ high cholesterol levels. The group wants doctors to put youngsters on statin pills beginning at the age of 10 and lasting their entire lives. Further, the group advised that doctors scour their patient lists to find kids and adults who may have the condition based on their family history.

Big Pharma certainly isn’t the answer here, and in fact, as Natural News has reported, statins as a cure are worse than the disease they’re supposed to fix:

…[S]cientists are reporting that cholesterol drugs, which 15 million Americans are prescribed, are also completely worthless. A group of international researchers published a study in the BMJ Open journal that found no link between what’s known as “bad” cholesterol and death as a result of heart disease in individuals over 60 years of age. … The best way to achieve and maintain good heart health is not through medications but through healthy lifestyle habits.

Statins, of course, are meant to lower ‘bad’ cholesterol.

Finally, in yet another report, the Daily Mail noted that a British woman who suffered for 20 years with psoriasis and eczema was told the only way she could be cured was through chemotherapy.

But she refused and instead actually took care of her condition naturally, through dietary changes. Hanna Stilltoe, 38, said after trying “every cream under the sun” she did some research and began cutting out foods known to cause inflammation including caffeine, alcohol, sugar, dairy and wheat.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Doctors Reveal If It Is Actually Possible To Die From A Broken Heart

If you’ve ever experienced the pain of heartbreak, then you’ll understand how devastating it can be. It’s the kind of heartache which feels like the purest form of sadness, and there’s no knowing how long it will last for – which is sometimes the worst part of the whole sorry ordeal.

For some particularly melodramatic folk, it may feel like the end of the world and there is no point living any further if their heart has been broken. Some individuals even believe that they would die for the one they love. We all know the story of Romeo and Juliet, and their infamous vow to be together forever. Love certainly acts in mysterious ways.

But can you actually die from a broken heart? It may sound far-fetched, but leading medical researchers have found evidence to suggest that the trauma of losing a loved one can lead to heart complications, and even death.

The scientific term for broken heart syndrome is takotsubo cardiomyopathy, and is particularly prevalent in women. The condition is linked to an increased level of stress, with UK charity British Heart Foundation explaining that: “About three quarters of people diagnosed with takotsubo cardiomyopathy have experienced significant emotional or physical stress prior to becoming unwell”.

Researchers at Harvard Women’s Health Watch state that: “The precise cause isn’t known, but experts think that surging stress hormones… essentially ‘stun’ the heart”. This triggers “changes in heart muscle cells or coronary blood vessels (or both) that prevent the left ventricle from contracting effectively”

If you’re looking for a reason to get morbid and cynical about love, then this is the evidence you’ve been hunting for. However, this also proves that love has a physical impact on our lives and matters deeply when it comes to our overall health. Our entire psychology is reliant on social interaction, so love must be pretty important. If you’re thinking of breaking up with the love of your life, maybe have an ambulance on hand as a precaution.

Source Article from

Mad science: Doctors and scientists will dissect Paddock’s brain to find motive for Las Vegas massacre


Scientists are preparing to do a microscopic study of the Las Vegas gunman’s brain, but whatever they find, if anything, likely won’t be what led him to kill 58 people in the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history, experts said.

Comment: Of course it won’t: he didn’t do it.

Stephen Paddock’s brain is being sent to Stanford University for a months-long examination after a visual inspection during an autopsy found no abnormalities, Las Vegas authorities said.

Doctors will perform multiple forensic analyses, including an exam of the 64-year-old’s brain tissue to find any possible neurological problems.

The brain will arrive in California soon, and Stanford has been instructed to spare no expense for the work, The New York Times reported. It will be further dissected to determine if Paddock suffered from health problems such as strokes, blood vessel diseases, tumors, some types of epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, degenerative disorders, physical trauma and infections.

Dr. Hannes Vogel, Stanford University Medical Center’s director of neuropathology, would not discuss the procedure with The Associated Press and referred questions to officials in Clark County, where Las Vegas is located. They also refused to provide details.

Vogel told The Times that he will leave nothing overlooked to put to rest much of the speculation on Paddock’s health as investigators struggle to identify a motive for the shooting.

Comment: Even if Paddock were solely responsible, the contention that the motive can be physically extracted from his brain is insane ‘science’.

This ‘deep dive into his brain’ is just another part of the sham investigation that is actually a cover-up of what really happened.

The examination will come about a month after Paddock unleashed more than a thousand bullets through the windows of a 32nd floor suite at the Mandalay Bay casino-hotel into a crowd below attending an outdoor country music festival. After killing 58 people and wounding hundreds more, Paddock took his own life with a shot through his mouth, police say.

Investigators working around the clock remain frustrated by a lack of clues that would point to his motive. Authorities have resorted to putting up billboards in southern Nevada seeking tips and now the intensive brain study that medical experts say likely won’t yield definitive answers.

If a disease is found, experts say it would be false science to conclude it caused or perhaps even contributed to the massacre, even if that explanation would ease the minds of investigators and the world at large.

Comment: In other words, they know it’s unscientific, but they’re acting out this frankenstein routine anyway to lend support to the official narrative and thereby put the elites’ minds at ease that the masses may be placated by this piece of story-telling (i.e., lie).

“There’s a difference between association and causality, and just because you have anything, doesn’t mean it does anything,” said Brian Peterson, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners and chief coroner of Wisconsin’s Milwaukee County.

The microscopic study is not a standard practice but is regularly used as needed. Families sometimes request such a detailed examination to better understand their own genetic risks.

Peterson said it’s also common in high-profile cases such as Paddock’s, where so much is riding on the results that all forensic options must be exhausted.

Douglas Fields, a neuroscientist who studies the rage circuit in brain systems, said horribly violent events, such as mass shootings and terrorism, rarely involve actual brain abnormalities but can be triggered by psychiatric problems.

Perpetrators often are suicidal psychopaths who are motivated to commit heinous crimes because they have internalized their isolation and anti-social behavior as an existential threat for themselves, he said.

“When police look for motive, it’s kind of misplaced in cases like this because they appear to be crimes of rage. There’s no motive for crimes of rage. It’s a crime of passion,” Fields said.

One such case involved the University of Texas shooter Charles Whitman, who fatally shot 13 people in 1966 from a clock tower on the Austin campus. Whitman was found to have a pecan-sized tumor in his brain, though the suggestion that it caused his rampage is still debated decades later.

Peterson, who is not involved in the Paddock case, said an initial inspection that is standard for any autopsy would generally include dissecting the brain at one-centimeter intervals to look for issues identifiable to the trained eye – infection, tumor, symmetry, bleeding and blood vessel abnormality.

A further study would involve a microscopic focus on the tissue cells, such as using stains to determine different types of dementia and other degenerative diseases, including chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is sometimes found in people who have suffered repetitive brain trauma.

There also would likely be a review of the brain at a molecular level though DNA, Peterson said.

Experts say the brain study on Paddock will be a worthy effort for scientific reasons.

Dr. Paul S. Appelbaum, a psychiatry expert at Columbia University, said that at minimum, it might yield something even tangential that can be passed on to the public, such as awareness for psychological disorders or brain diseases.

“Are we ever going to know for certain what caused his brain to do that?” Appelbaum asked. “Probably not from a neuropathological examination, but it’s not unreasonable to ask and see whether it might contribute to our understanding of what occurred.”

Source: Associated Press

Source Article from