Massachusetts considers legalizing assisted death, so the same doctors who now kill you accidentally can start killing you on purpose

Image: Massachusetts considers legalizing assisted death, so the same doctors who now kill you accidentally can start killing you on purpose

(Natural News)
Should a doctor be allowed to give an adult who is terminally ill and has fewer than six months to live a medication that will allow them to die peacefully in their sleep if they request it?

After opposing assisted death officially since 1996, the Massachusetts Medical Society has now become neutral on the issue, paving the way for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow assisted death as lawmakers there consider a bill allowing doctor-assisted suicide. With the Death with Dignity Act, Oregon became the first state to allow it in 1994, and it was followed by Colorado, Vermont, California, Washington and Montana.

It’s something that has doctors divided. Some believe it is a compassionate act, while others see it as a violation of the part of the Hippocratic Oath that says: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.”

While those who have seen terminally ill loved ones suffer greatly and die slowly say they wouldn’t wish that fate on anyone, there are also many people who believe that we have no right to decide when is the right time for another person or even ourselves to die.

Could some people be encouraged to request medically-assisted suicide?

One Massachusetts palliative care physician, Dr. Laura Petrillo, told the Daily Mail that she is concerned that any doctor could write such a prescription – for example, dental surgeons – without having the proper health training to thoroughly grasp end-of-life issues. She’s also concerned that doctors or hospitals that can’t handle rare illnesses might use it as a quick solution to deal with the patient. In addition, insurance companies might see it as a cheaper option than providing care, which means people could be encouraged to end their lives for financial reasons.

It’s a very unsettling thought to imagine that people could be steered toward dying earlier than nature intended, especially specific groups like those who are poor, in a way that is dangerously similar to the eugenics programs of Nazi Germany. From here, is it that far of a leap to imagine that the disabled and mentally ill might be encouraged to end their lives?

On the other side of the debate, a retired physician with terminal prostate cancer, Dr. Roger Kligler, is in favor of medically assisted death so that he and others can die peacefully. He says that a lethal prescription allows people to fall asleep within five minutes and then die peacefully at home surrounded by loved ones within half an hour. This is in contrast to palliative sedation, which entails giving people a morphine drip until they are unconscious and then stopping their food and medication to allow them to die sooner, which can take days or weeks and is usually done in a hospital.

And what about those people on the brink of death who have made miraculous comebacks? There are countless stories of such recoveries taking place. For example, there have been a lot of stories emerging recently of people who were given just months to live by doctors turning their fate around with alternative remedies like cannabis oil, who are now thriving as a result.

When a doctor says someone has six months to live – the amount of time specified in the Massachusetts bill and many others – they are making an educated guess at best. No one can say for certain when that person will die or that something won’t happen in the meantime that could prolong their life. While most of us don’t wish pain and suffering upon other people, passing laws that are open to abuse that could see people dying needlessly – or simply because they are considered “inferior” in our society – is very dangerous.

Sources for this article include:



Source Article from

Boy Missing Part Of His Brain Essential For Sight Mystifies Doctors — Because He Can Still See

By  Amanda Froelich Truth Theory

For the first time ever, a 7-year-old boy who lost the part of his brain essential for sight can still see. In this story, the boy is referred to a “BI.”

New Scientist reports that in infancy, BI lost the primary visual cortex of his brain. The loss occurred as a result of a rare condition called medium-chain acyl-Co-A dehydrogenase deficiency.

The primary visual cortex is necessary for vision and the various sensations that allow us to perceive this world. As IFLScience reports, the neurons of the primary visual cortex are very sensitive to things like the orientation of a contour and the direction of motion. Those with an impaired primary visual cortex tend to experience “cortical blindness,” which involves either a partial or total loss of sight.

Because BI lost his primary visual cortex, it was assumed that he would lose the ability to see. But, this was not the case. In fact, BI retain normal vision (though he is short-sighted). This type of recovery is unheard of.

A group of researchers, led by Iñaki-Carril Mundiñano from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, decided to study the phenomenon. Recently, they presented their findings at the annual meeting of the Australasian Neuroscience Society in Sydney.

After testing BI, they determined that he could name objects, identify colors, and discriminate between faces quite easily. He could also reach out and grab blocks of varying sizes. Additionally, BI could tell if faces were happy, fearful or neutral.

Said Mundiñano in an emailed statement: “Interestingly, BI has some difficulties identifying objects with a false colour, for example, a ‘blue banana’, but he has no problems with a yellow banana, we think he needs both colour and shape information to recognize an object.”

The only hindrance in BI’s vision is short-sightedness. He could read an eye chart’s top letter if he was standing 10 feet (3 meters) away or closer. Nonetheless, it remains astounding that the young boy has the ability to see at all, considering he lost his primary visual cortex.

What makes BI’s case so unique is that he is conscious of what he sees. The researchers theorize that this is possible because BI was just a baby when he lost the essential part of his brain. This might have caused other parts of his brain to overcompensate, adapting to provide sight.

When the team inspected BI’s brain more closely, they learned that he had more neural fibers between his brain’s pulvinar, which is involved in sensory signal control. It also helps detect motion. Mundiñano told IFLscience that BI’s level of vision would not have been the same had he lost his visual cortex during adulthood. This is because the brains of newborns and infants are much more flexible and adaptable than adult brains.

The human body is amazing, is it not? If you enjoyed this article, please comment your thoughts below and share this news!

Image Featured/Credit: Pexels

Get free copy of our 33 Page Illustrated eBook- Psychology Meets Spirituality- Secrets To A Supercharged Life You Control!

Source Article from

Mother Brings Baby Back To Life With Two Hours of Loving Cuddles After Doctors Pronounce Him Dead

It was a final chance to say goodbye for grieving mother Kate Ogg after doctors gave up hope of saving her premature baby.

She tearfully told her lifeless son – born at 27 weeks weighing 2lb – how much she loved him and cuddled him tightly, not wanting to let him go.

Although little Jamie’s twin sister Emily had been delivered successfully, doctors had given Mrs Ogg the news all mothers dread – that after 20 minutes of battling to get her son to breathe, they had declared him dead.

Having given up on a miracle, Mrs Ogg unwrapped the baby from his blanket and held him against her skin. And then an extraordinary thing happened.

article-1306283-0AECB534000005DC-937_468x387 (1)

Awful moment: Kate and David clasp each other and their son Jamie, circled, after being told he did not survive the birth. They were given the child to say their goodbyes but then, miraculously, two hours later he began to show signs of life.

After two hours of being hugged, touched and spoken to by his mother, the little boy began showing signs of life.

At first, it was just a gasp for air that was dismissed by doctors as a reflex action.

But then the startled mother fed him a little breast milk on her finger and he started breathing normally.

‘I thought, “Oh my God, what’s going on”,’ said Mrs Ogg.

‘A short time later he opened his eyes. It was a miracle. Then he held out his hand and grabbed my finger.

‘He opened his eyes and moved his head from side to side. The doctor kept shaking his head saying, “I don’t believe it, I don’t believe it”.’


Proud mum: Kate with son Jamie when they appeared on Australian TVl. The boy was born prematurely with twin sister Emily at 27 weeks

The Australian mother spoke publicly to highlight the importance of skin-on-skin care for sick babies, which is being used at an increasing number of British hospitals.

In most cases, babies are rushed off to intensive care if there is a serious problem during the birth.

But the ‘kangaroo care’ technique, named after the way kangaroos hold their young in a pouch next to their bodies, allows the mother to act as a human incubator to keep babies warm, stimulated and fed.


Pre-term and low birth-weight babies treated with the skin-to-skin method have also been shown to have lower infection rates, less severe illness, improved sleep patterns and are at reduced risk of hypothermia.

Mrs Ogg and her husband David told how doctors gave up on saving their son after a three-hour labor in a Sydney hospital in March.

‘The doctor asked me had we chosen a name for our son,’ said Mrs Ogg. ‘I said, “Jamie”, and he turned around with my son already wrapped up and said, “We’ve lost Jamie, he didn’t make it, sorry”.

‘It was the worse feeling I’ve ever felt. I unwrapped Jamie from his blanket. He was very limp.

‘I took my gown off and arranged him on my chest with his head over my arm and just held him. He wasn’t moving at all and we just started talking to him.

‘We told him what his name was and that he had a sister. We told him the things we wanted to do with him throughout his life.

‘Jamie occasionally gasped for air, which doctors said was a reflex action. But then I felt him move as if he were startled, then he started gasping more and more regularly.

‘I gave Jamie some breast milk on my finger, he took it and started regular breathing.’

Mrs Ogg held her son, now five months old and fully recovered, as she spoke on the Australian TV show Today Tonight.

Her husband added: ‘Luckily I’ve got a very strong, very smart wife.

‘She instinctively did what she did. If she hadn’t done that, Jamie probably wouldn’t be here.’


Source Article from

FDA bans flu tests in the middle of the worst epidemic in a decade, leaving doctors desperate CDC continues to urge everyone to get the vaccine

Image: FDA bans flu tests in the middle of the worst epidemic in a decade, leaving doctors desperate — CDC continues to urge everyone to get the vaccine

(Natural News)
Sometimes it just seems like governmental bureaucrats either don’t care about human life or are actively out to destroy it. In a recent example of this, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned two rapid flu test brands, Osom and QuickVue, insisting that they performed “poorly, resulting in many misdiagnosed cases.”

While it is understandable that the FDA would want to prevent false or incorrect diagnoses, the agency’s decision has left desperate doctors stranded without a quick way to diagnose patients in the middle of one of the worst flu seasons in many years.

The Daily Mail reports that back in January last year, the FDA gave drug manufacturers a year to come up with a design for new kits, warning them that the Osom and QuickVue tests would be permanently pulled from the market on the 12th of January this year.

Unfortunately, production of the newer kits has not even come close to keeping up with demand, leaving doctors reliant on an older type of test which takes three days to deliver a result. While the rapid flu tests make use of a nasal swab and only take 10 minutes to make a diagnosis, the older type tests require a blood test. This renders doctors unable to accurately and quickly diagnose their patients, leaving these patients vulnerable to deadly complications like pneumonia and sepsis, while they await their results.

While some forward-thinking healthcare professionals stocked up on extra tests before the flu season kicked in, the sheer volume of cases this year has left many more empty-handed.

Michael Einhorn, president of Dealmed-Park Surgical, a company that supplies thousands of physicians in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, told the Mail:

“This is something that’s been going on for the last three weeks. There’s minimal talk about it and it’s just a crisis. The alternative rapid tests weren’t able to ramp up production in time.”

While noting that rapid flu test kits only have a 50 to 70 percent sensitivity rate, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) insists that everyone should rather rush out and get a flu shot as soon as possible. This type of messaging is disingenuous, at best, because what they aren’t telling people is just how inefficient this year’s flu vaccine is.

Quart Media recently reported:

This year, experts are warning that flu season will be particularly nasty—in part, they believe, because of a less effective vaccine. …

A commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week estimated that current vaccines are only 10% effective against this year’s main flu strain, called H3N2. The authors theorized that this was in part due to this mutation and in part because of a complication with the antibody serums used to make the vaccine fit for people.

The Washington Post reported in recent days that it is likely that this flu season will turn out to be the worst in close to 10 years, having already sent thousands of patients to the hospital, and leaving 37 children dead.

And just when healthcare professionals thought the numbers were starting to taper off and the worst was over, there was a sudden spike in the number of patients admitted to hospital with complications from the disease. The CDC has warned that the number of people being treated for the flu this season has equaled the number of people affected by the 2009 swine flu epidemic.

Knowing that this season’s flu strains are particularly dangerous, that you aren’t likely to have access to a rapid detection flu test, and that this year’s vaccine is even more useless than usual, you might be thinking that prevention is better than cure – and you’d be right.

The seven best natural home remedies to prevent and treat the flu include:

(Related: Discover more natural flu fighters at

Sources include:



Source Article from

Doctors Show Common Vaccine Likely Worse than Getting the Disease It’s Suppose to Stop


The Physicians for Informed Consent is a group of doctors dedicated educate their patients and the public on infectious disease, the immune system, and informed consent. The group was founded in response to mandatory vaccination laws across the country which remove the rights of parents to informed consent. The group is not anti-vaccine, they are pro-freedom.

It is no question that the subject of vaccines is profoundly controversial. On both sides of the argument exists truth and lies that can hinder the ability of some to make rational decisions.

While we have everyone from attorneys to biologists, to political scientists who write for the Free Thought Project, none of us are doctors, so we do not make recommendations about what you and your family should do in regards to vaccination. It is important to note, however, that everyone deserves the right to make informed decisions on their own personal health and the health of their children.

Recently, the Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) reported in the British Medical Journal that every year, approximately 5,700 U.S. children suffer from seizures as a direct result of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

According to PIC, this finding is derived from results of the most statistically powered safety study ever to measure the association between MMR vaccination and febrile seizures. More than half a million children were evaluated, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, from a Danish population that is relied upon globally to examine vaccine safety. The results showed that seizures from the MMR vaccine occur in about 1 in 640 children up to two weeks following MMR vaccination. Applying this risk of seizures to the 3.64 million U.S. children vaccinated with a first dose of MMR every year results in about 5,700 annual MMR-vaccine seizures.

“To make accurate and ethical public health decisions, the risks of a vaccine must be compared to the risks of the disease one is trying to prevent,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC president and founder. “When considering the MMR vaccine to prevent measles, the risks of the MMR vaccine need to be compared to the risks of measles.”

While there is a risk of seizure from contracting measles, according to the data, the risk of developing seizures from the vaccine to combat measles is five times higher. 

What’s more, the seizures from the MMR vaccine are far worse, according to the study and can cause permanent harm.

“For example, 5% of febrile seizures result in epilepsy, a chronic brain disorder that leads to recurring seizures. Annually, about 300 MMR-vaccine seizures (5% of 5,700) will lead to epilepsy,” PIC points out.

PIC notes that the government reporting system for vaccine injuries, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), receives only fraction of the those reported seizures from the MMR vaccination. According to PIC, this could mean that there is an underreporting of other serious vaccine adverse events from MMR, including permanent neurological harm and death.

“In the United States, measles is generally a benign, short-term viral infection; 99.99% of measles cases fully recover,” said Dr. Miller. “As it has not been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that mandatory measles mass vaccination results in a net public health benefit in the United States.”

According to the report, the measles vaccine was introduced in the U.S. in 1963 and is now only available as a component of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. It has significantly reduced the incidence of measles; however, the vaccine is not capable of preventing all cases of measles, as failures have been reported. The manufacturer’s package insert contains information about vaccine ingredients, adverse reactions, and vaccine evaluations. For example, “M-M-R II vaccine has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility.”  Furthermore, the risk of permanent injury and death from the MMR vaccine has not been proven to be less than that of measles.

In regard to the question of whether or not the MMR vaccine is safer than measles, the group of physicians has this to say, “Because permanent sequalae (aftereffects) from measles, especially in individuals with normal levels of vitamin A, are so rare, the level of accuracy of the research studies available is insufficient to prove that the vaccine causes less death or permanent injury than measles.”

Source Article from

Why Doctors are Saying This New Medical Drama is ‘Potentially Harmful’

Fox’s new medical drama The Resident was taken to task on Twitter upon its premiere last week for its completely unrealistic portrayal of what goes on in American healthcare and the January 29 episode, “Comrades in Arms,” was no different as it portrayed medical personnel ordering unnecessary tests to drive up costs and the hospital administration refusing to treat a dying illegal immigrant. 

Doctors on Twitter were completely horrified with this new episode, with one saying, “When you have many, many ACTUAL doctors telling you that your fictional depiction of our chosen profession (one that greatly relies on the trust and participation of our patients) is way off-base and indeed potentially harmful, please take it seriously,” another offered: “Watching @ResidentFOX which may be the worst ever ‘doctor show.’ Money in medicine is a problem, but this show is unrealistic, offensive and potentially harmful to the public’s perception of US medicine,”and still another said, “Seeing people tweeting about how this show is ‘so true’ or that all the top doctors are ‘crooked and money hungry’ or that they’re terrified of getting sick and needing to go to hospital is very upsetting.”

This week, the plot centered around the doctors of Chastain Hospital in the midst of a new initiative called “CUTE” which stands for Code Up To Excellence. 

Barb: Now, to simplify, doctors and nurses at Chastain need to charge more per procedure. 
For example: Ear infection. Typically billed to insurance as service code one at about… Yeah? 
Nicolette: $200. 
Barb: But what if that ear infection took a trip to the brain? That’s now a code four. Serious. Costly. We can bill in the thousands. Illness is unpredictable, so billing must be proactive. Right? It’s called upcoding. Think… CUTE. Code. Up. To. Excellence.

Upcoding is illegal, so I highly doubt hospitals are bringing in consultants to teach their employees to do it. That’s a lot of legal exposure.

If this didn’t make American medicine look evil enough, they then brought in an illegal immigration twist to drive it home. 

Louisa Rodriguez, an employee at Chastain, collapses on the job but, before they can run the tests they need and determine a course of treatment, Barb, the upcoding consultant, looks into her immigration status and goes to the hospital administration, telling them, “Ms. Rodriguez is an uninsured, undocumented immigrant. She has no family in this country. She was brought here from El Salvador as a child.” It sounds like she might not just be an illegal immigrant, but a DREAMer as well. How timely!

Despite being told Lousia will die if she doesn’t get surgery right away, Barb says, “No more tests, no more treatment on our dime. This hospital isn’t a charity.

There are a lot of problems with all this, but the main one is that it is illegal. This “consultant” is a walking lawsuit waiting to happen. As one medical resident tweeted, this is a direct violation of EMTALA, which requires that hospitals treat patients in need, regardless of ability to pay. 

Of course, The Resident‘s rule-breaking hero Conrad Hawkins (Matt Czuchry) figures out a way to help Louisa and gets her ready for surgery, but the evil hospital has one more trick up its sleeve to avoid treating her – calling ICE. 

Conrad: How can I help you, gentlemen? 
ICE Agent: Sir, you need to move aside. 
Conrad: I will, if you tell me what’s going on. 
Devon: Hospitals are sensitive areas, along with schools and churches. And sensitive areas cannot be accessed by immigration officials without arrest warrants or under investigation of an imminent national security threat. ICE policy letter, October 24, 2011. 
ICE Agent: You’re interfering with the actions of authorized federal agents. 
Conrad: You’re gonna regret this. 
ICE Agent: I doubt that. 
Devon: Well then, you better drag us both out of here. 
Nicolette: Conrad. 
Claire: Stop. Step aside or you will both be fired. 
Nicolette: It’s okay. Let them pass. 
Nicolette: Surgery’s underway. Sterile environment. You cannot enter under any circumstance. No one can.

So, Louisa was haphazardly rushed into surgery to stay away from the ICE agents that the hospital called on their own patient. In reality, hospitals do sometimes call immigration on patients, but the government rarely responds, because they would become financially responsible for the patient’s medical care. Instead, the hospital has to pay for it. It is estimated that American hospitals pay nearly $30 billion per year in healthcare for illegal immigrants. Money which, of course, either comes out of budget cuts as the administration is threatening at Chastain Hospital, or the cost is passed on to those who have insurance. 

The Resident wants viewers to think that American healthcare is run by heartless doctors who care about profit over people, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Our healthcare system isn’t perfect, but its certainly better than most alternatives.

This doctor challenged the writer/executive producer on Twitter before being blocked, “I watched your horrible excuse for a medical drama (the plot beyond the medicine is also quite unwatchable). It represented nothing I know medicine to be. Come spend a day watching me take care of dying children. See what medicine is. I gave you an hour of my life, you owe us.”

Source Article from

Doctors worried about Julian Assange’s health after 6 years of jail at Ecuadorian embassy

Home » Europe, Health, Injustice, Suppression » Doctors worried about Julian Assange’s health after 6 years of jail at Ecuadorian embassy


Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks website that blew the whistle on US war atrocities in Iraq, has been dangerously affected by his confinement to the Ecuadorian embassy, doctors who examined him said. While Assange is theoretically free… there is basically little to no difference between a prison and living inside a building without having the right to get out and have a walk in the the sunlight. Heck even prisoners have a couple of hours a day when they can get out and have a walk in the prison yard, but not Assange.

In a letter published in the Guardian newspaper on Wednesday, Boston University’s physician Sondra Crosby and London-based clinical psychologist Brock Chisholm warned that his physical and mental health were at risk after conducting the most recent exam last October.

“While the results of the evaluation are protected by doctor-patient confidentiality, it is our professional opinion that his continued confinement is dangerous physically and mentally to him and a clear infringement of his human right to healthcare,” they said.

Ecuador granted Assange, who has been sheltering at its embassy in London since summer 2012, citizenship earlier this month in an effort to end what the United Nations deems an arbitrary detention.

He faces arrest by UK police if he ventures out for breaching bail conditions, although charges against him have long been dropped. The activist fears extradition to the United States where he is wanted for leaking the damning Iraq War logs.



Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from

Doctors Show What Dental Amalgam Mercury Can Do To Fetuses, Infants & Children

Next Story

Written by Amanda Just, David Kennedy, DDS, and Jack Kall, DMD from WMP’s Partner: International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT)

Dorice Madronero offered a grave warning to a 2010 Dental Products Panel of United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA): “As a young expectant mother I know that twice following dental work I miscarried.  I know that at the time the dentist gave no warning about a mercury exposure.  I know that at no point in my visits to the obstetrician was I warned about a mercury exposure, in the dental fillings or asked about my medical and dental history.”

At the same meeting Madronero presented her experiences with dental mercury, one of the Dental Products Panel members supported her concerns about children. Dr. Suresh Kotagal a pediatric neurologist at the Mayo Clinic, concluded: “…I think that there is really no place for mercury in children.”

While health agencies inform the public about the possible presence of mercury in certain types of fish and shellfish and recommend that pregnant women and children restrict these food products in their diet, the use of mercury in dentistry continues in the United States without any warnings.

Dental mercury: Dangerous to children in Europe but safe in the US?

Meanwhile, other parts of the world are taking action.  In 2013, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) formalized a global convention to end mercury usage, which includes initiatives to phase down the use of dental mercury. As part of this effort, a new EU mercury regulation plans to prohibit the use of amalgam for vulnerable populations (pregnant or breastfeeding women, children under 15 years old) and provide for discussion about the feasibility of ending dental amalgam use in the European Union by 2030.

Prior to this recent development, some countries had already banned or drastically reduced the use of dental amalgam. Also, France had previously recommended that alternative mercury-free dental materials be used for pregnant women, and Austria, Canada, Finland, and Germany had been working to reduce the use of dental amalgam fillings for pregnant women and children.

In spite of these international actions, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently “considers dental amalgam fillings safe for adults and children ages 6 and above.” However, details in the FDA’s public statements about dental mercury amalgam on its website have changed over the years, including information about its potentially harmful impact on pregnant women, fetuses, and children under the age of six. Importantly, there are no enforced FDA dental mercury regulations for women of child-bearing age, children, or any other population.

Due in part to concerns about this lack of protection, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) filed a lawsuit in 2014 against the FDA over its classification of dental mercury amalgam. As part of the case, the IAOMT secured an internal document from the FDA that had proposed restricting dental mercury amalgam use in pregnant and nursing women and children under the age of six, as well as individuals with mercury allergies and pre-existing kidney or neurological disease. Yet, allegedly for administrative reasons, the FDA communication (dated January 2012) was never released to the public.

Other American authorities have addressed the FDA about dangers of dental mercury for women and children. In 2009, 19 members of the U.S. Congress wrote a letter to the FDA with a focus on dental mercury’s potential dangers to pregnant women and children, and when Representative Diane Watson of California proposed a Mercury Filling Disclosure and Prohibition Act (H.R. 2101{not enacted}), she explained: “It is, in fact, children who are at greatest risk from these fillings.”

Scientific proof of dental mercury’s hazards to children

Research on fetal and infant risks from dental amalgam has provided significant data associating the number of maternal amalgam fillings with mercury levels in cord blood; in the placenta; in the kidneys and liver of fetuses; in fetal hair; and in the brain and kidneys of infants. Another trend in research about maternal amalgam fillings are studies that have found the mercury concentration in breast milk increases as the number of amalgam fillings in the mother increases.

Although two studies (commonly referred to as the “New England Children’s Amalgam Trial” and the “Casa Pia Children’s Amalgam Trial”) have repeatedly been used to defend the use of amalgam in children, other researchers have since demonstrated that factors such as long term effects, genetic predisposition, and measurement errors must be taken into account. Furthermore, researchers studying the same cohort of children have since identified potential risks to these subjects from mercury exposure based on gender, genetic predisposition, and even gum-chewing.

While other countries around the world are enacting measures to protect children and women of child-bearing age from the hazards of dental mercury, the US is still allowing this dangerous scenario to continue. Millions of Americans, including children and fetuses, are needlessly exposed to the neurotoxin mercury because of dental amalgam fillings.

For more about this subject, including citations and scientific sources, read the IAOMT’s Comprehensive Review on Mercury in Dental AmalgamAlso, WMP’s Mercury in Dentistry which includes material provided by IAOMT.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

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

More proof Big Pharma is all about Big Profit: Doctors experiencing a shortage of antibiotics because they’ve become less profitable to produce

Image: More proof Big Pharma is all about Big Profit: Doctors experiencing a shortage of antibiotics because they’ve become less profitable to produce

(Natural News)
It’s no secret that the world is facing an antibiotic apocalypse in which simple cuts and bacterial infections could once again be deadly. Misuse and overuse of antibiotics have created what are known as superbugs – bacteria that have evolved in such a way that they can no longer be killed by any known antibiotic.

While experts have been placing a lot of emphasis on trying to prevent this impending disaster, there is another, equally deadly antibiotic problem that very few of us are aware of: Older antibiotics that are vitally important in the treatment of common bacterial infections are no longer available because pharmaceutical companies are choosing not to produce them because they can’t make enough money off them.

The most alarming aspect of this problem is that the formulations that are the most difficult to access are those needed in the treatment of infants and young children.

Researchers from St. George’s, University of London, report that doctors are being forced to use broad spectrum antibiotics rather than the narrow spectrum, disease-specific antibiotics that should be prescribed.

These broader spectrum antibiotics often have far worse side effects, and have been linked to the growth of drug-resistant bacteria, fueling the superbug problem.

The university reported:

The authors found that absence of marketing of older antibiotics is primarily caused by the high costs involved in registering medicines in multiple countries. This is combined with the relatively small market for these antibiotics, which are sold as low-cost generics and for short courses of treatment.

Back in 2011, a study by the ESCMID Study Group for Antimicrobial stewardshiP (ESGAP) found that 22 of the 33 older, but still necessary, antibiotics were marketed in less than 20 of the 38 countries in Europe, Canada, Australia and the United States. A follow-up study in 2015, found the situation to be even worse. In both studies, the researchers found that “economic motives were the major reason for not marketing these antibiotics.”

The journal Clinical Microbiology and Infection reported that there have also been prolonged and repeated shortages of multiple different antibiotics worldwide, with 148 antibiotics being in short supply in the United States at various times between 2001 and 2013. While there is little evidence of the situation in poorer countries, experts believe that it is probably even worse.

Of course, it should come as no surprise that the pharmaceutical giants would be willing to leave babies and young children without medication because they’re watching their bottom line. After all, Big Pharma has a history of putting profits above people.

Back in 2015, a company called Turing Pharmaceuticals made global headlines when it pushed the price of a life-saving drug used to treat parasitic infections like malaria up from $13.50 to $750 – per pill!

The New York Times reported:

Specialists in infectious disease are protesting a gigantic overnight increase in the price of a 62-year-old drug that is the standard of care for treating a life-threatening parasitic infection.

The drug, called Daraprim, was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Then, in 2016, another pharma giant, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, came under fire when it pushed the price of a standard two-pack of EpiPen – the autoinjector that highly allergic people use when they have an anaphylactic reaction to peanuts, shellfish, etc. – up from its 2007 price of $55, to over $600.

Clearly, Big Pharma has its eye firmly on the financial bottom line and will put profits above people every time, which is all the more reason why it is important that we take ownership of our health and do all we can to avoid getting sick in the first place.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Babies Should Share Their Mother’s Bed Until The Age Of 3, Doctors Claim

Next Story

When it comes to parenting, everyone seems to have an opinion, and rightfully so, especially if you are yourself a parent. But what about controversial topics? Is there a right or wrong way to raise your children? Are there certain things that you should or should not be doing? Of course, some things are more important than others. But new advice given by a paediatrician suggests children should sleep in bed with their mothers until they reach the age of three. 

Dr. Nils Bergman, from the University of Cape Town, South Africa, argues that for optimal development, healthy newborns should sleep on their mother’s chest for at least their first few weeks. After that, he believes they should stay in bed with mom and dad until they are three or even four years old.

Because there has been a lot of fear propaganda created around the risk of cot death — the notion that a parent might roll over and suffocate their child — co-sleeping is generally not advised, and in fact, a recently published British study found that almost two-thirds of the cases of SIDS occurred when the bed was being shared.

But, according to Dr.Bergman, “When babies are smothered and suffer cot deaths, it is not because their mother is present. It is because of other things: toxic fumes, cigarettes, alcohol, big pillows and dangerous toys.”

A recent study involving 16 infants monitored the babies while they slept in their mother’s bed. It found that the baby’s heart was under three times as much stress when he or she slept alone. While sleeping in a cot, they had a more disrupted sleep and their brains were less likely to cycle and transition between the two types of sleep, called active and quiet.

In the cots, only 6 of the 16 babies had any quiet sleep at all, and their sleep quality was much worse.

Dr. Bergman continued to explain how changes to the brain that are brought on by stress hormones can actually make it more difficult to form relationships and close bonds later in life.

Another study published in the journal Biological Psychiatry monitored results from 73 premature infants receiving Kangaroo Care, or skin-to-skin contact with their mothers, and another three premature infants received standard incubator care. The subjects of the study were monitored over a 10-year period, and the results were as follows:

KC increased autonomic functioning (respiratory sinus arrhythmia, RSA) and maternal attachment behavior in the postpartum period, reduced maternal anxiety, and enhanced child cognitive development and executive functions from 6 months to 10 years. By 10 years of age, children receiving KC showed attenuated stress response, improved RSA, organized sleep, and better cognitive control. RSA and maternal behavior were dynamically interrelated over time, leading to improved physiology, executive functions, and mother–child reciprocity at 10 years.

The National Childbirth Trust supports bed sharing provided the parents have not been drinking, smoking, or using drugs, or if they are obese, chronically ill, or suffer from chronic exhaustion, all of which could cause them to roll over onto the baby or otherwise impact their health.

Overall, it’s a very controversial issue. Many swear by bed sharing, and it certainly used to be standard practice before cribs became so common and affordable. There are many upsides to this, but it is also important to be aware of and consider the potential dangers.

We all know babies need to be snuggled and cuddled and given love; they need to feel safe and secure, and how could they possibly feel this all alone in another room in a crib? When you actually think about it, it seems pretty backwards.

Every parent is just doing what they feel is best for their baby, but the opinions of others tend to get in the way. We’ve all heard those comments like, Oh you shouldn’t pick up that baby, you need to let them cry, they are going to have attachment issues, how are they going to develop their independence? Well, they are babies; they can’t care for themselves and they need to be taken care of. It is a natural urge for the mother to take care of her child.

What are your thoughts on this? Did you co-sleep with your child? Did you ever feel it was unsafe? Do you prefer your child to sleep in a crib? Let us know!

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