Vitamina D3: “O meu médico disse que não há evidência científica” – Pergunte: mas ele não sabe que é um pró-hormônio esteroide da mesma família da testosterona e progesterona, vital para a imunidade inata?

Em 2003, foi publicado no British Medical Journal uma revisão sistemática sobre eficácia do uso de paraquedas em pacientes que pulam de grandes alturas.

A revisão indicou ausência de ensaios clínicos randomizados para esta conduta.

Foi uma forma inteligente de demonstrar que nem tudo necessita de evidências experimentais.

Aquele artigo inspirou a criação dos termos “paradigma do paraquedas” e “princípio da plausibilidade extrema”.

A insulina foi descoberta em 1921 para tratar diabéticos. Ninguém questionou a “ausência de evidência científica”, pois tratava-se de um hormônio e não usá-lo causaria a morte do paciente.

Desde a década de 30 do século passado, é conhecido na Medicina que a Vitamina D3 é um hormônio, mas ainda hoje os crédulos ou maliciosos manipuladores da “Teoria dos Paraquedas” cobram a realização de “evidências experimentais”, que se forem realizadas no Brasil, determinarão a incidência do Artigo 132 do Código Penal (“colocar em risco a saúde ou a vida de terceiros”) ou do Artigo 121 (“matar alguém”).

É obrigação médica compensar deficiências. Não é admissível ignorância sobre a natureza hormonal da D3 e sua relação vital com a imunidade inata.

A cultura da vacina impõe hoje a busca por uma providência que pode ser igual ou pior que a pandemia, devido à óbvia ausência de testagens de médio e longo prazos, e a persistente ignorância médica e de governos de que a imunidade inata humana, da qual depende a adquirida, é deficiente em mais de 90% da população mundial por deficiência grave de doses realistas do pró-hormônio esteroide, equivocadamente chamada de “vitamina” D3.

Celso Galli Coimbra OABRS 11352

Publicado em Biodireito. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Morte pela Medicina – Death by Medicine

__

O artigo relata com objetividade e ampla bibliografia um rol de causas médicas e hospitalares de doenças e mortes que estão se ampliando a ponto de deixar de serem exceções para serem regras, e também aponta o envolvimento geral de médicos e revistas médicas com os interesses da indústria farmacêutica, comandando as prescrições para a medicação alopata,  subordinando a pesquisa acadêmica a estes interesses.

Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352

O artigo está disponível na íntegra para download neste link:   Death by Medicine

__

Seguem trechos deste artigo, Death by Medicine:

Medical Ethics and Conflict of Interest in Scientific Medicine

Medical Conflicts of Interest

Medical Conflicts of Interest (Photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com)

Jonathan Quick, director of essential drugs and medicines policy for the World Health Organization (WHO), wrote in a recent WHO bulletin: “If clinical trials become a commercial venture in which self-interest overrules public interest and desire overrules science, then the social contract which allows research on human subjects in return for medical advances is broken.”(19)
As former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine , Dr. Marcia Angell struggled to bring greater attention to the problem of commercializing scientific research. In her outgoing editorial entitled “ Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” Angell said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science and called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers:(20) “When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways.” She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry.


Angell left the New England Journal in June 2000. In June 2002, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it would accept journalists who accept money from drug companies because it was too difficult to find ones who have no ties. 

Another former editor of the journal, Dr. Jerome Kassirer, said that was not the case and that plenty of researchers are available who do not work for drug companies.(21) According to an ABC news report, pharmaceutical companies spend over $2 billion a year on over 314,000 events attended by doctors.

The ABC news report also noted that a survey of clinical trials revealed that when a drug company funds a study, there is a 90% chance that the drug will be perceived as effective whereas a non-drug-company-funded study will show favorable results only 50% of the time. It appears that money can’t buy you love but it can buy any “scientific” result desired.


Cynthia Crossen, a staffer for the Wall Street Journal, in 1996 published Tainted Truth : The Manipulation of Fact in America , a book about the widespread practice of lying with statistics.(22) Commenting on the state of scientific research, she wrote: “The road to hell was paved with the flood of corporate research dollars that eagerly filled gaps left by slashed government research funding.” Her data on financial involvement showed that in l981 the drug industry “gave” $292 million to colleges and universities for research. By l991, this figure had risen to $2.1 billion.

(…)

“Pharmaceutical and Medical-Device Industries


1. About two-thirds of the industry’s $9.4 billion budget went to drug research; device manufacturers spent the remaining one-third.
2. In addition to R&D, the medical industry spent 24% of total sales on promoting their products and 15% of total sales on development.
3. Total marketing expenses in 1990 were over $5 billion.
4. Many products provide no benefit over existing products.
5. Public and private health care consumers buy these products.
6. If health care spending is perceived as a problem, a highly profitable drug industry exacerbates the problem.

 

Cover of "Tainted Truth: The Manipulation...

Cover via Amazon

(…)

WHAT REMAINS TO BE UNCOVERED
Our ongoing research will continue to quantify the morbidity, mortality, and financial loss due to:
1. X-ray exposures (mammography, fluoroscopy, CT scans).
2. Overuse of antibiotics for all conditions.
3. Carcinogenic drugs (hormone replacement therapy,* immunosuppressive and prescription drugs).
4. Cancer chemotherapy(70)
5. Surgery and unnecessary surgery (cesarean section, radical mastectomy, preventive mastectomy, radical hysterectomy, prostatectomy, cholecystectomies, cosmetic surgery, arthroscopy, etc.).
6. Discredited medical procedures and therapies.
7. Unproven medical therapies.
8. Outpatient surgery.
9. Doctors themselves.

(…)

 

UNNECESSARY HOSPITALIZATION
Nearly 9 million (8,925,033) people were hospitalized unnecessarily in 2001.(4) In a study of inappropriate hospitalization, two doctors reviewed 1,132 medical records. They concluded that 23% of all admissions were inappropriate and an additional 17% could have been handled in outpatient clinics. Thirty-four percent of all hospital days were deemed inappropriate and could have been avoided.(93) The rate of inappropriate hospital admissions in
1990 was 23.5%.(94) In 1999, another study also found an inappropriate admissions rate of 24%, indicating a consistent pattern from 1986 to 1999.(95) The HCUP database indicates that the total number of patient discharges from US hospitals in 2001 was 37,187,641,(13) meaning that almost 9 million people were exposed to unnecessary medical intervention in hospitals and therefore represent almost 9 million potential iatrogenic episodes.(4)

 

(…)

UNNECESSARY X-RAYS
When x-rays were discovered, no one knew the long-term effects of ionizing radiation. In the 1950s, monthly fluoroscopic exams at the doctor’s office were routine, and you could even walk into most shoe stores and see x-rays of your foot bones. We still do not know the ultimate outcome of our initial fascination with x-rays.
In those days, it was common practice to x-ray pregnant women to measure their pelvises and make a diagnosis of twins. Finally, a study of 700,000 children born between 1947 and 1964 in 37 major maternity hospitals compared the children of mothers who had received pelvic x-rays during pregnancy to those of mothers who did not. It found that cancer mortality was 40% higher among children whose mothers had been x-rayed.(88)
In present-day medicine, coronary angiography is an invasive surgical procedure that involves snaking a tube through a blood vessel in the groin up to the heart. To obtain useful information, X-rays are taken almost continuously, with minimum dosages ranging from 460 to 1,580 mrem. The minimum radiation from a routine chest x-ray is 2 mrem. X-ray radiation accumulates in the body, and ionizing radiation used in X-ray procedures has been shown to cause gene mutation. The health impact of this high level of radiation is unknown, and often obscured in statistical jargon such as, “The risk for lifetime fatal cancer due to radiation exposure is estimated to be 4 in one million per 1,000 mrem.”(89)
Dr. John Gofman has studied the effects of radiation on human health for 45 years. A medical doctor with a PhD in nuclear and physical chemistry, Gofman worked on the Manhattan Project, discovered uranium-233, and was the first person to isolate plutonium. In five scientifically documented books, Gofman provides strong evidence that medical technology—specifically x-rays, CT scans, and mammography and fluoroscopy devices—are a contributing factor to 75% of new cancers. In a nearly 700-page report updated in 2000, “Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease: Dose-Response Studies with Physicians per 100,000 Population,”(90) Gofman shows that as the number of physicians increases in a geographical area along with an increase in the number of x-ray diagnostic tests performed, the rate of cancer and ischemic heart disease also increases. Gofman elaborates that it is not x-rays alone that cause the damage but a combination of health risk factors that include poor diet, smoking, abortions, and the use of birth control pills. Dr. Gofman predicts that ionizing radiation will be responsible for 100 million premature deaths over the next decade.
In his book, “Preventing Breast Cancer,” Dr. Gofman notes that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Because breast tissue is highly sensitive to radiation, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened other factors including a woman’s genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.(91)
Even x-rays for back pain can lead someone into crippling surgery. Dr. John E. Sarno, a well-known New York orthopedic surgeon, found that there is not necessarily any association between back pain and spinal x-ray abnormality. He cites studies of normal people without a trace of back pain whose x-rays indicate spinal abnormalities and of people with back pain whose spines appear to be normal on x-ray.(92) People who happen to have back pain and show an abnormality on x-ray may be treated surgically, sometimes with no change in back pain, worsening of back pain, or even permanent disability. Moreover, doctors often order x-rays as protection against malpractice claims, to give the impression of leaving no stone unturned. It appears that doctors are putting their own fears before the interests of their patients.

(…) 

Specific Drug Iatrogenesis: Cancer Chemotherapy

 
In 1989, German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, PhD, wrote a monograph entitled “Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer.” It was later published in shorter form in a peer-reviewed medical journal.(70) Abel presented a comprehensive analysis of clinical trials and publications representing over 3,000 articles examining the value of cytotoxic chemotherapy on advanced epithelial cancer. Epithelial cancer is the type of cancer with which we are most familiar, arising from epithelium found in the lining of body organs such as the breast, prostate, lung, stomach, and bowel. From these sites, cancer usually infiltrates adjacent tissue and spreads to the bone, liver, lung, or brain. With his exhaustive review, Abel concluded there is no direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival in patients with advanced carcinoma; in small-cell lung cancer and perhaps ovarian cancer, the therapeutic benefit is only slight. According to Abel, “Many oncologists take it for granted that response to therapy prolongs survival, an opinion which is based on a fallacy and which is not supported by clinical studies.”
Over a decade after Abel’s exhaustive review of chemotherapy, there seems no decrease in its use for advanced carcinoma. For example, when conventional chemotherapy and radiation have not worked to prevent metastases in breast cancer, high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) along with stem-cell transplant (SCT) is the treatment of choice. In March 2000, however, results from the largest multi-center randomized controlled trial conducted thus far showed that, compared to a prolonged course of monthly conventional-dose chemotherapy, HDC and SCT were of no benefit, (71) with even a slightly lower survival rate for the HDC/SCT group. Serious adverse effects occurred more often in the HDC group than the standard-dose group. One treatment-related death (within 100 days of therapy) was recorded in the HDC group, but none was recorded in the conventional chemotherapy group. The women in this trial were highly selected as having the best chance to respond.
Unfortunately, no all-encompassing follow-up study such as Dr. Abel’s exists to indicate whether there has been any improvement in cancer-survival statistics since 1989. In fact, research should be conducted to determine whether chemotherapy itself is responsible for secondary cancers instead of progression of the original disease. We continue to question why well-researched alternative cancer treatments are not used.

(…)

Vitamina D e Alzheimer – Vitamin D may reduce the risk of dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease

The New England Journal of Medicine

__

Sobre Vitamina D, assista ao vídeo do Programa Sem Censura:

Vitamina D – Sem Censura – Dr. Cicero Galli Coimbra e Daniel Cunha

 

__

Posted on July 25, 2012 by Dr William Grant

A recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine reported on a number of biomarker and behavior changes in dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease, and proposed that treatment and prevention trials could incorporate these pathophysiological changes to gauge the likelihood of future clinical success.1 Some of the changes noted were reduced glucose metabolism in the brain, amyloid-beta deposition in the brain, and increased cognitive impairment.

 

Colleagues and I suggested in a published commentary on this paper that raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations might be able to prevent or slow the development of Alzheimer’s disease.2 The evidence is outlined here.

Two studies found vitamin D reduced amyloid-beta in the brain.3, 4 One paper found a beneficial role of vitamin D for glucose transport and utilization in the brain.5 A recent longitudinal study found a significant increase in global cognitive impairment for women with low vs. high serum 25(OH)D concentrations.6 A recent review discussed the evidence that vitamin D reduces the risk of cognitive impairment.7

Additional evidence that vitamin D reduces the risk of Alzheimer’s disease is given in several other papers.8, 9

Thus, higher serum 25(OH)D concentrations may reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Based on results from other studies, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations should be above 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/l) for optimal health.10

References:

1.Bateman RJ, Xiong C, Benzinger TL, et al. Clinical and Biomarker Changes in Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s Disease. N Engl J Med. 2012; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1202753

2. Grant WB, Mascitelli L, Goldstein MR. Vitamin D may reduce the risk of dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease. NEJM. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1202753#t=comments

3. Yu J, Gattoni-Celli M, Zhu H, et al. Vitamin D3-enriched diet correlates with a decrease of amyloid plaques in the brain of AβPP transgenic mice. J Alzheimers Dis. 2011;25:295-307.

4. Mizwicki MT, Menegaz D, Zhang J, et al. Genomic and nongenomic signaling induced by 1α,25(OH)2-vitamin D3 promotes the recovery of amyloid-β phagocytosis by Alzheimer’s disease macrophages. J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;29:51-62.

5. Kumar PT, Antony S, Nandhu MS, et al. Vitamin D3 restores altered cholinergic and insulin receptor expression in the cerebral cortex and muscarinic M3 receptor expression in pancreatic islets of streptozotocin induced diabetic rats. J Nutr Biochem. 2011;22:418-25.

6. Slinin Y, Paudel M, Taylor BC, et al. Association Between Serum 25(OH) Vitamin D and the Risk of Cognitive Decline in Older Women. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2012 Mar 27. [Epub ahead of print]

7. Soni M, Kos K, Lang IA, et al. Vitamin D and cognitive function. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl. 2012 Apr;243:79-82.

8. Wang L, Hara K, Van Baaren JM, et al. Vitamin D receptor and Alzheimer’s disease: a genetic and functional study. Neurobiol Aging. 2012 Aug;33(8):1844.e1-9.

9. Annweiler C, Rolland Y, Schott AM, et al. Higher Vitamin D Dietary Intake Is Associated With Lower Risk of Alzheimer’s Disease: A 7-Year Follow-up. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2012 Apr 13. [Epub ahead of print]

10. Cannell JJ, Hollis BW, Zasloff M, Heaney RP. Diagnosis and treatment of vitamin D deficiency. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2008 Jan;9(1):107-18.

About Dr William Grant
Dr. William Grant is an epidemiologist and founder of the nonprofit organization Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC). He has written over 140 peer-reviewed articles and editorials on vitamin D and health. Dr. Grant is the Science Director of the Vitamin D Council and also serves on their Board. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics from UC Berkeley.

Fonte: http://blog.vitamindcouncil.org/2012/07/25/vitamin-d-may-reduce-the-risk-of-dominantly-inherited-alzheimers-disease/

__

Stop Harvesting Organs after ‘Cardiac Death,’ Say MDs

__
Wednesday September 15, 2010

By Patrick B. Craine

CALGARY, Alberta, September 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A group of doctors have called on the medical community to cease harvesting organs from patients whose hearts have stopped pulsating, saying that doctors are misleading families to believe that the patient has died when in fact their loved one is still alive.

The story was featured Wednesday on the cover of Canada’s National Post.

“A longstanding tenet of ethical organ donation [is] that the nonliving donor must be irreversibly dead at the time of donation,” explain the eight paediatric intensive care specialists, writing in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine.

The doctors say that the public’s “underlying assumption” when they agree to donate organs is that “they are giving permission to have their organs removed after they are dead.”

But the authors observe that “death” has been redefined in the last few decades to meet the demand for more organs.  They say organs were originally taken from “cadaveric donors who died in the conventional way, irreversibly losing all electrical and mechanical activity from the heart (circulation) and all brain function, despite medical efforts to save them.”

But “this method of organ procurement created a problem for organ transplantation.” “If the patient died in the conventional way then, at the time of irreversibility, so did most organs.”

The notion of “brain death” was created in 1981 in order to harvest more organs, they say.  Then in 1991 the Pittsburgh Protocol was developed to allow doctors to harvest the organs of adults after a person’s heart has stopped for a certain period.

The Protocol involves removing the person from life support for 30 to 60 minutes.  If the patient’s heart continues to beat after that time, they are returned to the ICU, but if it stops for a prescribed period (around 2 minutes, though ranging from 75 seconds to 10 minutes depending on the jurisdiction), the organs are harvested.

“No efforts are made to assess the patient’s brain function at the time of organ removal,” the authors explain. “The claim is that circulation has irreversibly stopped after 2 mins of observation.”

But this ignores the many reports of the “Lazarus phenomenon,” where a patient’s heart starts again 5 to 10 minutes after CPR is performed.  Such instances suggest that “the heart function and circulation may not be irreversibly stopped in DCD [‘Donation after Cardiac Death’] patients at the time of organ procurement.”

The authors also point out that doctors’ desire to prolong lives through organ transplants can “foster physician and institutional bias” for the cardiac death criteria.

While opposing the notion of “cardiac death”, the authors accept organ harvesting following “brain death”.  Opponents of “brain death” point out that organs can only be harvested when the organ’s functioning continues, meaning that the donor is still showing signs of life.  They say that if the person is truly dead, the unpaired vital organs cannot be transplanted.  In particular, “brain death” has allowed heart transplants, but the heart is only useful if it is still beating in the donor.

Akin to the “Lazarus phenomenon” noted by the authors, there have been numerous instances of patients recovering following a declaration of “brain death”.

The National Post interviewed Dr. Ari Joffe, the sole Canadian author of the controversial document, from Stollery Children’s Hospital in Calgary.  “I think that we’re being less than entirely honest about when the patient is truly dead,” he said. “We’re not trying to deny the parent the choice to donate … The point we’re making is ‘what if they’re almost dead and we’re not sure if they’re dead, and it’s not at the point of irreversibility yet?’”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091510.html

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Melbourne Doctor: Most Donors Still Alive when Organs are Removed
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102105.html

New England Journal of Medicine: ‘Brain Death’ is not Death
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081406.html

Doctors Who Almost Dissected Living Patient Confess Ignorance about Actual Moment of Death
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061308.html

Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting – “Brain Death is Never Really Death”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032709.html

Denver Coroner Rules “Homicide” in Organ-Donor Case
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/oct/04101208.html

Russian Surgeons Removing Organs Saying Patients Almost Dead Anyway
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/sep/03090906.html

Shock: Oxford Neonatologist Says Time Has Come to Consider “Mandatory Organ Donation”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102413.html

__

O falecimento da “morte encefálica”

The Demise of “Brain Death”

Thursday September 18, 2008

— Commentary by Dr. Paul A. Byrne, M.D.

http://www.thelifeguardian.org

We are bombarded with propaganda that encourages organ donation. For an organ to be suitable for transplantation it must be taken from a living person.

Recent reports in the literature include:

  • Dr. KG Karakatsanis of Greece evaluated current clinical criteria and confirmatory tests for the diagnosis of “brain death” to determine if they satisfied the requirements for the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain including the brain stem. He reviewed medical, philosophical and legal literature on the subject of “brain death.” He presented four arguments:

    1. Many clinically ‘brain-dead’ patients maintain residual vegetative functions that are mediated or coordinated by the brain or the brainstem.
    2. It is impossible to test for any cerebral function by clinical bedside exam, because the tracts of passage to and from the cerebrum through the brainstem are destroyed or nonfunctional. Furthermore, since there are limitations of clinical assessment of internal awareness in patients who otherwise lack the motor function to show their awareness, the diagnosis of ‘brain death’ is based on an unproved hypothesis.
    3. Many patients maintain several stereotyped movements (the so-called complex spinal cord responses and automatisms) which may originate in the brainstem.
    4. Not one of the current confirmatory tests has the necessary positive predictive value for the reliable pronouncement of human death.
    5. Conclusion: According to the above arguments, the assumption that all functions of the entire brain (or those of the brainstem) in ‘brain-dead’ patients have ceased, is invalidated. Spinal Cord (2008) 46, 396-401.
  • In the New England Journal of Medicine on 8-14-08 it was reported that infants who were not “brain dead” were pronounced dead after life support was discontinued. When there was no detected pulse for only 1.25 minutes, the heart was then excised for transplantation.
  • Dr. David Greer reported in Neurology (Jan 2008) that many highly regarded hospitals in the U.S. routinely diagnose “brain death” without following the guidelines promulgated in 1995 by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). Researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital surveyed the top 50 neurology and neurosurgery departments nationwide; 82 percent responded. Results showed that “adherence to the AAN guidelines varied widely, leading to major differences in practice, which may have consequences for the determination of death and initiation of transplant procedures. Apnea testing was omitted by 27 percent; still more distressing is that many fail to even check for spontaneous respirations.

While the apnea test can only cause a patient with a neurologic problem to get worse, it is commonly done without full and explicit consent. The test involves turning off the ventilator to determine if he can breathe on his own; and if he cannot, the result is suffocation of this living human being. The sole purpose of the apnea test is to determine that the patient cannot breathe on his own in order to declare him “brain dead.” It is illogical to do this stressful, possibly lethal, apnea test on a patient who has just undergone severe head trauma. To turn off the ventilator for up to 10 minutes as part of the declaration of “brain death” risks further damage and even killing a comatose patient, who might otherwise survive and resume spontaneous breathing if treated properly.

“In plain, straight talk,” writes Dr. Lawrence Huntoon, editor-in-chief of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, “the survey indicates a high likelihood that some patients are being ‘harvested’ in some hospitals before they are dead! In hospitals with aggressive transplant programs (hospitals make a huge amount of money on transplant cases), making sure a patient is dead before going to the ‘harvesting suite’ may be viewed as a minor technicality/impediment.”

In the largest study in the literature known as the Collaborative Study 10 % at autopsy had no pathology in the brain. Only 27% of patients on the ventilator for 1 week had a “respirator brain.” From the beginning “brain death” was not based on data that was not sufficient and acceptable scientifically for destruction of the brain much less death of the person.

Now more than ever, there is great push to kill for organs. It was reported in the news that Zack Dunlap from Oklahoma was declared dead, and a transplant team was ready to take his organs until that young man moved. Instead of a calling it a reflex (as I have been told is commonly done), the transplant team was sent away. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23768436/)

This young man did not have a destroyed brain. Nevertheless, Zack would have been truly dead had they excised his heart for transplantation. He could hear the doctors discuss his “brain death,” but he could not move at that time to tell them he was alive.

Brain death” never was, and never will be true death. This has been known by neurologists and organ transplanters since the beginning of the multi-billlion industry. So if a declaration of “brain death” is not true death, but organs are taken legally in accord with “accepted medical standards,” why not continue to make “acceptable” this less stringent criteria?

In the 10 years after the ad hoc Committee conjured up the Harvard Criteria, 30 more sets were reported by 1978. Every set became less stringent. Less strict sets were reported until eventually there came about a criterion that does not fulfill any of the “brain death” criteria. This is known as donation by cardiac death (DCD). Organs are obtained for transplantation by first getting a DNR order, then taking the patient off life support and waiting until the patient is without a pulse. In the past the waiting time was 10 minutes, then shortened to 5 minutes, then 4, then 2 and now in the NEJM (8-14-08) the waiting time is only 1.25 minutes until they cut out the baby’s heart.

How shameful can it get? Shame on the medical field for knowing and not protecting these patients! Shame on the transplantation organizations for valuing money over an innocent injured person’s life! Shame on the US government, other governments, and clergy for allowing and even encouraging extracting vital organs for transplantation and research! When will doctors informed of the truth stand for life instead of being political creeps?

The transplant world no longer waits for “brain death.” Now the goal is to get a DNR. Then they wait until the pulse stops for as short a time as 1.25 minutes. Organs obtained deceptively, yet legally, are called donation by brain death (DBD) and donation by cardiac death (DCD). It is the excision of vital organs that finalizes the death of the donor.

What is going to happen when it becomes better known that “brain death” was a hoax from the beginning? Do doctors and laymen not realize that destroying human life before its natural end is a heinous crime? Do they not realize that excision of an unpaired vital organ for transplantation or research is imposed death, also known as euthanasia? Have they not been reading the papers about all those “donors” about to be sacrificed who suddenly wake up minutes before their organs were going to be extracted?

No matter how generous one might want to be by donating his own self, or vital organs from someone else to save others, suicide or homicide to save another is not morally acceptable.

See related News:

Val Thomas from West Virginia wakes after heart stopped, rigor mortis set in

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357463,00.html

French man began breathing on own as docs prepared to harvest his organs

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25081786

Woman Diagnosed as “Brain Dead” Walks and Talks after Awakening

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021508.html

Vatican Newspaper: Brain Death and thus Organ Donation Must be Reconsidered

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08090310.html

New England Journal of Medicine: ‘Brain Death’ is not Death – Organ Donors are Alive

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081406.html

Catholic medical authority raps ‘brain death’ criteria

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/feb/05021106.html

Woman’s Waking After Brain Death Raises Many Questions About Organ Donation

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052709.html

Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting – “Brain Death is Never Really Death”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032709.html

<span>%d</span> blogueiros gostam disto: