The Dark Practices Of Modern Medicine

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

The Dark History
Of Modern Medicine

U.S. surgeons routinely operated
on babies without anesthesia




by Mike Adams
published August 10 2006
www.newstarget.com...

A warning to readers: this is a gruesome story. Do not read this if you are squeamish. It's a hard-to-believe (but true) account of the horrors of conventional medicine and its barbaric surgical procedures, many of which are still practiced today.

We begin by examining the astonishing practice of prestigious U.S. surgeons operating on babies with no anesthesia, subjecting them to the intense pain and trauma of having their skin sliced open with scalpels, their internal organs poked and prodded, and their surgical wounds closed up with staples and stitches... all with full awareness of each terrifying moment of excruciating pain.

To stop the babies from screaming in terror, surgeons gave them heavy doses of muscle relaxants, paralyzing them for the duration of the procedure. And so these babies could only watch in terrified amazement, prisoners in their own tiny bodies, unable to move a muscle or make a sound, as strange men wearing masks and wielding sharp instruments went to work on their flesh.




Should we be surprised? Outraged? Or both?

While I am certainly ouraged,I cannot say that I am particularly surprised. The medical corporation has been out of control for decades and getting worse. The FDA is in league with food companies and drug companies to make us sicker. Doctors continue to profit from the intentional illness producing corporations.

Mod Edit: Fixed link.

[edit on 14/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
And the alternative was?
let the baby die of some correctable issue?

jack him with meds that will give his/her developing brain damage?

maybe pray for healing, instead of actually fix the problem?

unfortunately, until safe methods of anesthesia for infants were developed, then the risk is too great to add to the trauma...

it was a lesser of two evils solution, But has come a long way in a few years...

the good news is, (to the best understanding) that infant memory doesn't really start until after most of these birth defects were fixed- time wise...

I think one issue here that isn't answered, is the unneccessary surgerys done, on minor defects that may be grown out of, as the baby matures... (many heart murmurs/weaknesses fall into this category)

great article, and it does point out the many surgery techniques, that have proven to be worthless, or even worse that the original problem...

[edit on 14-8-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
And the alternative was?
let the baby die of some correctable issue?

jack him with meds that will give his/her developing brain damage?

maybe pray for healing, instead of actually fix the problem?

unfortunately, until safe methods of anesthesia for infants were developed, then the risk is too great to add to the trauma...

it was a lesser of two evils solution, But has come a long way in a few years...

the good news is, (to the best understanding) that infant memory doesn't really start until after most of these birth defects were fixed- time wise...

I think one issue here that isn't answered, is the unneccessary surgerys done, on minor defects that may be grown out of, as the baby matures... (many heart murmurs/weaknesses fall into this category)

great article, and it does point out the many surgery techniques, that have proven to be worthless, or even worse that the original problem...

[edit on 14-8-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



While I certainly understand your stance and can even,at least to a trivial degree, agree with it, there is one comment that you made that sort of gets to the root of the problem for me.


You stated:

the good news is, (to the best understanding) that infant memory doesn't really start until after most of these birth defects were fixed- time wise...



Now,while that whole statement is significant, the most pertinent part of it was "(to the best understanding)". Therein lies the real problem. We don't have a real understanding of consciousness or when awareness fully takes shape in an individual.

Given the fact that we understand very little about consciousness, we shouldn't take for granted that full awareness is not instilled into a baby. It may be. In all truthfulness, we really don't have an idea.

While consciousness research has come a long way over the last decade, man certainly cannot make any claim of understanding its complexity.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I have heard and seen alot of stuff that points to traumas recieved during and after birth creating problems psychologically and physically later on in life.

I think this would count, definitely. But what else can you do when a baby's life is in danger?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Well,I can remember being told years ago that anasthesia could kill a baby...so maybe that is why they don't give it to them. I don't know.
However,if that be the case, one would think that they would come up with some other means to put an infant out of pain.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
It is somewhat wellknown which parts of the brain are responsible for long term memory specifically the Hippocampus, the amygdala, the entorhinal cortex, and the perirhinal cortex. It is also know that many of these areas do not develop until a certain age. Often times people claim to remember an event that occured before the age of 3. These memories are usually false, often times people are told about an event that happened to them before that age and their mind paints a picture of what happened and actually believes that it remembers it. Some times these memories are shown to be completely untrue, I remeber that there was a case where a man claimed to remember being kidnapped by his nanny when he was around 2 and that he fully remembered the event happening. In actuallity it never happened, but he had been told all his life that it did and his mind had developed a memory of an event that didn't happen and he refused to believe that it didn't happen. I can't remember the name of the case or any of the individals in it, if some could help me out, it would be appreciated.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
It is somewhat wellknown which parts of the brain are responsible for long term memory specifically the Hippocampus, the amygdala, the entorhinal cortex, and the perirhinal cortex. It is also know that many of these areas do not develop until a certain age. Often times people claim to remember an event that occured before the age of 3. These memories are usually false, often times people are told about an event that happened to them before that age and their mind paints a picture of what happened and actually believes that it remembers it. Some times these memories are shown to be completely untrue, I remeber that there was a case where a man claimed to remember being kidnapped by his nanny when he was around 2 and that he fully remembered the event happening. In actuallity it never happened, but he had been told all his life that it did and his mind had developed a memory of an event that didn't happen and he refused to believe that it didn't happen. I can't remember the name of the case or any of the individals in it, if some could help me out, it would be appreciated.


Let's assume that a person doesn't remember; does that mean that it doesn't effect the individual? I mean, honestly. Just because we don't remember or can't retrieve information does not mean that it s not there, and it doesn't have influence on who we are.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 14-8-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Isn't post traumatic stress disorder a lingering chemical imbalance as opposed to a psychological battle with memories? I can see how a child could sustain an imbalance from a horrible experience without even having a memory of it.

That said...

If my child were trapped underwater because their leg was caught under a huge rock, I would snap their leg in two before I let them drown. As stated earlier...it's the (very painful) lesser of two evils.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Hmmmmm.

Let me kick in a few things here.

Pain is a major issue, but I do recall when I started out as a nurse, there was a belief that pain medicine in infants and neonates was dangerous. This mentality thankfully is done and over with.

That is really not an issue anymore and premature infants 23 weeks gestation and up routinely recieve anesthesia for operations and pain medication for routine procedures. Its no more dangerous than anythign else.

JACHO which accredits hospitals looks at pain and how it is treated in the hospital setting etc.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Hmmmmm.

Let me kick in a few things here.

Pain is a major issue, but I do recall when I started out as a nurse, there was a belief that pain medicine in infants and neonates was dangerous. This mentality thankfully is done and over with.

That is really not an issue anymore and premature infants 23 weeks gestation and up routinely recieve anesthesia for operations and pain medication for routine procedures. Its no more dangerous than anythign else.

JACHO which accredits hospitals looks at pain and how it is treated in the hospital setting etc.


Very interesting



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
JACHO which accredits hospitals looks at pain and how it is treated in the hospital setting etc.


Does JCAHO (Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations) specifically address the administration of anesthesia to infants?
I know that they have Patient Safety guidelines for anesthesia and a delivering mother...

Here's an interesting read from the American Academy of Pediatrics (dated 1987 no less)...my bolds:


The Committee on Fetus and Newborn, the Committee on Drugs, the Section on Anesthesiology, and the Section on Surgery believe that local or systemic pharmacologic agents now available permit relatively safe administration of anesthesia or analgesia to neonates undergoing surgical procedures and that such administration is indicated according to the usual guidelines for the administration of anesthesia to high-risk, potentially unstable patients. In occasional situations, physiologic instability will be so great that the anesthetic agents must be reduced or discontinued. However the decision to withhold such medication should be based on the same medical criteria used for older patients. The decision should not be based solely on the infant's age or perceived degree of cortical maturity.


These assumptions were re-affirmed by the AAP in 1993.

The whole paper is here:

AAP - Neonatal Anesthesia - 1987





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join