O trágico exemplo da Filadélfia, onde desfile de rua causou milhares de mortes pela gripe espanhola

No final de fevereiro de 2020, tivemos o Carnaval com a participação de milhares de turistas vindos de países como a Itália. Representantes do ministério da saúde ignoraram os riscos e declararam “Não há problema com o carnaval”. Ao mesmo tempo carimbaram com “fake news” um vídeo de 5 minutos em que tentei avisar a população para se prevenir, corrigindo seus níveis de vitamina D. Agora, passado o período de incubação do coronavírus pós carnaval, vamos colher os frutos dessa insensatez principalmente em São Paulo e Rio de Janeiro – as cidades que receberam o maior afluxo de turistas estrangeiros.

Dr. Cícero Galli Coimbra, 

Médico e Professor Livre Docente

“Em setembro de 1918, assim como agora, especialistas em saúde recomendavam medidas para evitar a aglomeração de pessoas e, com isso, retardar o avanço da doença. Mas as autoridades da Filadélfia, no Estado da Pensilvânia, decidiram ignorar o apelo para cancelar um desfile nas ruas da cidade, que na época tinha população de 1,7 milhão de pessoas.

“A decisão teve efeitos devastadores e fez com que a Filadélfia se tornasse uma das cidades mais gravemente afetadas pela gripe espanhola. Em seis semanas, 47 mil pessoas estavam doentes e 12 mil haviam morrido.”

https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/geral-51966427
Entre 1918 e 1920, a gripe espanhola matou ao menos 50 milhões de pessoas ao redor do mundo. Em cerca de três meses, a Covid-19, causada pelo novo coronavírus, já soma mais de 219 mil casos e 9 mil mortes em mais de 170 países.

 

usnavalhistoryandheritagecommand

A História dos Cosméticos – The Story of Cosmetics – Legendado

__

A FDA testou centenas de batons, e encontrou níveis alarmantes de chumbo em marcas como Avon, Maybelline e L’ Oréal. Revlon, M.A.C e Cover Girl também trouxeram resultados nada satisfatórios. Mary Kay, Lancôme, Clinique, Bobbi Brown, NARS (dentre outras) também apareceram com resquícios de chumbo em suas composições.  Até marcas com a Burt’s Bees e Gabriel Cosmetics – que são “naturebas” — não se safaram.

Além de ser extremamente útil para alertar as consumidoras, o estudo é interessante porque mostra que batons caros não são, necessariamente, os menos nocivos. A Campanha por Cosméticos Seguros (Campaign for Safe Cosmetics) também realizou testes para detectar chumbo na composição de inúmeros batons e pode encontrar resquícios do metal pesado até em batons da Dior.

Abaixo separei um fragmento do relatório “A Poison Kiss: The Problem of Lead in Lipstick” (em PDF) da Campanha por Cosméticos Seguros mostrando produtos com níveis indetectáveis de chumbo, produtos com níveis detectáveis de chumbo porém abaixo do permitido pela FDA e produtos com níveis detectáveis de chumbo acima do permitido pela FDA em alimentos.

A FDA alega que, do ponto de vista científico, não é válido comparar o risco que a presença de chumbo nos alimentos representa para o consumidor ao risco associado a níveis de chumbo nos batons (pois batons são de uso tópico). Já a Campanha por Cosméticos Seguros ressalta que, de acordo com a revista Glamour de Junho de 2002, as mulheres podem ingerir cerca de 1,8 quilos de batom durante a vida (ao passar a língua nos lábios, comer e beber usando batom, etc), o que põe em xeque o argumento da FDA. Além disso, a Campanha não descarta o fato de crianças poderem, acidentalmente, ingerir o produto (o que não é raro).

O mais triste da história é que mesmo com toda a polêmica, quase nada foi feito e os produtos continuam no mercado. Além disso, ainda não se estabeleceu um “limite seguro” para a quantidade de chumbo em cosméticos — algo inconcebível, na minha opinião: uma vez que o metal tem efeito acumulativo e é totalmente dispensável para o organismo, não há como estabelecer “limites seguros”.

Marin breast cancer linked to vitamin D receptor?

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

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

__

Victoria Colliver
Updated 8:51 a.m., Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Mt. Tamalpais viewed from Corte Madera Creek in Marin County. A new study of Marin County women determined to be at high risk for breast cancer found twice as likely to have a variant of a vitamin D receptor. Photo: Eric Luse, The Chronicle / SF

New research may start to shed light on why Marin County has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the world, and the answer may be related to vitamin D.

A small pilot study of Marin County women determined through testing to be at high risk for breast cancer found them to be almost twice as likely to have a variant of a vitamin D receptor as the overall population of 338 in the study.

Researchers have long been investigating and discovering variations in genes that could be associated with breast and other cancers. This is the first time a study has linked this vitamin D receptor – a protein molecule that signals the cell to activate vitamin D – with higher risk for breast cancer in Marin County women, the authors said.

Additionally, numerous studies have found a relationship between adequate vitamin D in the body and a lower risk of cancer.

“A lot of people have been doing analyses of vitamin D levels and breast cancer risk, but there haven’t been a lot of studies addressing the vitamin D receptor itself,” said Dr. Kathie Dalessandri, a surgeon scientist in Point Reyes Station and primary author of the study.

“I think this is just the tip of the iceberg,” she said, adding that the findings need to be validated in a larger study.

A focus on Marin

Researchers have long been trying to determine why largely white, affluent Marin County has higher than average rates of breast cancer.

Studies have looked at traditional risk factors such as age at the time of diagnosis, age at giving birth for the first time, family history of breast cancer and use of hormone replacement therapy. But none has offered any clear conclusions.

The first major study to look at these issues, which was led by UCSF researchers and published in 2003, determined there was nothing about the land itself in Marin County that appeared to cause breast cancer. It concluded that a woman’s risk of developing the disease did not increase according to the amount of time spent in the county.

While researchers have focused on the levels of vitamin D in the body and the vitamin’s potential to lower risk of breast and other cancers, they have yet to determine the role of vitamin D or how much of it is needed for cancer prevention.

In this most recent study, which was published online this week in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, the role of the variant in the vitamin D receptor and how that affects the amount of vitamin D in the body is also unclear.

The variant “is known to be associated with differing vitamin D levels, but the exact way it works is not known, which is kind of frustrating,” said Eldon Jupe, clinical laboratory director of InterGenetics Inc. and developer of the breast cancer risk test that was used in the study. “But it does give a direction in which to look.”

Researchers used cell samples taken from the mouths of 338 women from the 2003 UCSF study.

A larger study pool

A larger, collaborative study in Marin County is ongoing, headed by the Marin County Department of Health and Human Services. The breast cancer study, called the Marin Women’s Study, involves thousands of women. Investigators hope this study group could be used to advance the vitamin D receptor research.

Rochelle Ereman, director of the Marin Women’s Study, said Dalessandri’s research “provides us another possible piece to the puzzle as to why Marin’s breast cancer rates have been historically high.”

Jeanne Rizzo, president of the Breast Cancer Fund, an advocacy group that focuses on the environmental causes of breast cancer, said it’s too soon to stock up on vitamin D.

“But this tells us we should be looking at things that are not just traditional risk factors and it’s important to continue this investigation,” said Rizzo, who is also a Marin County resident.

Victoria Colliver is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer.

Fonte: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Marin-breast-cancer-linked-to-vitamin-D-3770785.php

__

Corte Judicial ordena para ONG abortista informar relação entre aborto, suicídio e saúde mental – Court Orders Planned Parenthood: Inform Women of Abortion-Suicide Link

__

by Steven Ertelt | Pierre, SD | LifeNews.com | 7/24/12

A federal appeals court has upheld a provision of a South Dakota law requiring the states lone abortion business, operated by Planned Parenthood, that it has to inform women of the validity of the link between abortion and suicide. With women facing a host of mental health issues following an abortion, Planned Parenthood can no longer keep women in the dark about them.

An en banc panel of the court declared that South Dakota’s statute that requires abortion doctors to disclose to pregnant mothers that an abortion places the mother at increased risk for suicide ideation and suicide constitutional because the disclosure is truthful, non-misleading, and relevant to the pregnant mother’s decision of whether or not to consent to an abortion.

Harold J. Cassidy, a pro-life attorney who represented Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center of Sioux Falls, and Stacy Wollman, president of Care Net of Rapid City — two pregnancy centers that provide abortion alternatives — sent LifeNews details about the decision.

He called the decision “a fabulous victory for the women of the State of South Dakota.”

“The Court ruled that the women will now be given additional important information before they consent to an abortion: that the abortion places a woman at increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide,” he said. “This victory represents the fourth separate decision of the Eighth Circuit reversing the District Court in this one case, two decisions issued by en banc Courts four years apart – a rare occurrence that underscores the importance of the issues presented by the case.”

As a result of the decision, upholding all eight major provisions of South Dakota’s Abortion Informed Consent Statute, pregnant mothers will now be informed:

(1) that “an abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;”
(2) that the mother’s “relationship with that second human being enjoys protection under the Constitution of the United States and the Laws of South Dakota;”
(3) that relationship and all rights attached to it will be terminated; and
(4) the abortion places the mother “at increased risk for suicide ideation and suicide.”

“Any decision that a pregnant mother makes in the context of her considering an abortion that will deprive her of the joy and fulfillment of a life long relationship with her child, must be totally voluntary and well informed. The victory today is a step towards achieving that goal for the women of South Dakota,” Cassidy said.

The case ends a several-year-long legal battle Planned Parenthood pitched over the law.

Cassidy stated: “The people of the State of South Dakota have stood up to the threats, false accusations and litigation tactics of Planned Parenthood. In the process, the people of South Dakota have shown that they will not be intimidated by threats of litigation, threats of payment of attorneys’ fees, and will hold fast to their conviction that a handful of people in New York, with a radical philosophy, will not dictate to the people of South Dakota, when, if, and how they will protect their women from harm, pressure, coercion and false and incomplete information when making the most important decision of their lives.”

There have been numerous studies that found an association between abortion and suicide. Other studies have found a link between abortion and depression (which is a major risk factor for suicide). For example:

A 1995 study by A.C. Gilchrist in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that in women with no history of psychiatric illness, the rate of deliberate self-harm was 70 percent higher after abortion than after childbirth.

A 1996 study in Finland by pro-choice researcher Mika Gissler in the British Medical Journal found that the suicide rate was nearly six times greater among women who aborted than among women who gave birth.

A 2002 record-linkage study of California Medicaid patients in the Southern Medical Journal, which controlled for prior mental illness, found that suicide risk was 154 percent higher among women who aborted than among those who delivered.

A March 2004 report from the National Institutes of Health revealed that suicide is now the third leading cause of death among America’s young people. In fact, for teen girls and young women, the suicide rate has tripled over the past 25 years.

While suicide among women in the typical abortion age range is rising, suicide rates for Americans in general are dropping across the country. Dr. David Reardon, director of the Springfield, Illinois-based Elliot Institute, says abortion is partly to blame for the increase.

“Given the fact that more than half of all women having abortions are under the age of 25, and more than 20 percent of women having abortions are teenagers, the increased suicide rate among teens and young women is sadly not a surprise,” Reardon said.

One study published in August 2003 edition of the British Medical Journal found that women who had abortions were seven times more likely to commit suicide than women who gave birth.

Reardon says unwanted abortions are a reality for teens and young women who are often pressured by boyfriends or parents to have abortions. e says as many as one in six abortions are performed as a result of such coercion and a study the Elliot Institute conducted among women experiencing post-abortion problems reveals that 80 percent said that would not have had an abortion if they had received support from others to have the child.

“Even if their families might give them the support they need to have their babies, many teens often undergo secret abortions without telling their parents,” Reardon said. “Either way, these girls and young women often have no one to turn to when they are in despair over an abortion.”

Fonte: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/24/court-orders-planned-parenthood-inform-women-of-abortion-suicide-link/

__

The right to conscientious objection reaffirmed by the Council of Europe

_

“No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason,”

_

Last evening, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) rejected 56 to 51 British MP Christine McCafferty`s proposal to “regulate” conscientious objection to abortion in European countries.

Titled “Women’s access to lawful medical care: the problem of unregulated use of conscientious objection,” the McCafferty Report was the latest effort of the pro-abortion lobby to establish abortion as a universal human right and a “health treatment” that requires compulsory participation of hospitals and doctors.

Re-titled “The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care,” Resolution 1763 reaffirmed instead their right to refuse: “No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason,” the text reads.

The Resolution’s second paragraph affirms the universal right to freedom of conscience, saying, “The Parliamentary Assembly emphasizes the need to affirm the right of conscientious objection together with the responsibility of the state to ensure that patients are able to access lawful medical care in a timely manner.”

Resolution 1763 also affirm that “in the vast majority of Council of Europe member states, the practice of conscientious objection is adequately regulated” and invites the 47 member states to “develop comprehensive and clear regulations” that protect the right to freedom of conscience.

A series of amendments proposed by parliamentarians Ronan Mullen (Ireland) and Luca Volonte (Italy) were approved by the majority and reversed the direction of the report, forcing McCafferty and other pro-abortion Assembly members to vote against their own original report.

http://federation-pro-europa-christiana.org/wordpress/?p=1389

***

Historic Turnaround in Europe Preserves Conscience Rights

By Terrence McKeegan, J.D.

STRASBOURG, October 14 (C-FAM) A dramatic legislative reversal reaffirmed the conscience rights of medical professionals and institutions in Europe last week.

The Council of Europe’s legislature considered a resolution calling for onerous restrictions on conscientious objection, including stripping protections for doctors who object to performing abortions.

Led by two politicians from Italy and Ireland, a coalition of legislators secured the passage of 29 amendments that transformed the resolution into one that upheld universally recognized rights to freedom of conscience.

The original resolution, known as the McCafferty report, sought to punish medical professionals for refusing to perform procedures against their conscience.  It even called for a new registry of conscientious objectors.

Christian McCafferty, a British politician and main author of the original resolution, said during deliberations that she sought to force private and religious hospitals and clinics to perform abortions.

A committee voted for McCafferty’s original resolution, but was overruled by the final legislative vote.  Most observers assumed the draft resolution would pass in substantially the same form, and the final resolution shocked nearly everyone, especially McCafferty.  She ended up voting against her own resolution.

The adopted resolution says that no “hospital, institution or person may be subject to pressures, or be held liable or suffer discrimination of any kind for refusing to perform, allow or assist an abortion…”

“This resolution will have a real impact on case law of the European Court of Human Rights,” said Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice. He said the court often quotes resolutions of the European legislature as a reflection of opinion in the continent’s broader society.

Puppinck told the Friday Fax that the legislature often holds votes on the most contentious issues on Thursday evening or Friday.   As more conservative members tend to live further than liberals from the Strasbourg meeting site, travel arrangements often make it more difficult for them to stay for votes late in the week.  Puppinck credited much of the success of the final resolution to efforts to keep the conservative members in the room for the Thursday evening vote.

The amendments’ backers widely credited the final result to the leadership of Sen. Luca Volonte of Italy, chairman of the European People’s Party, and Sen. Ronan Mullen of Ireland.

“Mrs. McCafferty and her supporters should ask themselves why so many healthcare professionals object to being involved in abortions in the first place,” said a press release from Mullen. “It’s because they regard abortion itself as a breach of human rights, and not part of responsible medical treatment.”

Several binding international agreements guarantee the right to conscientious objection, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

A number of medical associations, including the French National Medical Council, condemned the original McCafferty report.  Prominent figures, including a former judge of the European Court of Human Rights and a former professional conduct chairman of the United Kingdom’s chief medical council, spoke out against the original resolution at an event held the day before the vote.

__

 

UN strategy for maternal health

__

On 22 September 2010, the day of the closure of the UN summit on the Millennium Development Goals, Ban Ki-moon announced the launch of a “global strategy for women’s and children’s health” which is to be allocated almost 40 billion dollars (or 29.9 billion Euros) over the next five years. The main donors are the United States, Great Britain, Australia and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: they have given themselves the objective of “giving 100 million women access to ‘modern family planning methods’ between now and 2015”. Several companies, NGOs and institutions of cooperation will be implicated in this programme.

With this measure the UN wants to permit a reduction in maternal and infant mortality, the two millennium goals that have been the most neglected up to now. It hopes that this programme “will allow us to save more than 15 million children under 5 between 2011 and 2015, to avoid 33 million unwanted pregnancies and to prevent 740 000 women from dying from pregnancy and childbirth complications”.

UN: discussion about maternal health

__

While world leaders are meeting at the United Nations this week to discuss progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), Chris Smith, member of the American Congress, explains in the Washington Post that a strong reduction in infant and maternal mortality remains very uncertain if the Obama administration “either directly or covertly” integrates abortion into the final document.

He recalls that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “has said publicly that she believes access to abortion is part of maternal and reproductive health, thinking that runs contrary to the understanding of the more than 125 UN member states that prohibit or otherwise restrict abortion in their sovereign laws and constitutions.” For Chris Smith, reducing maternal and infant mortality are the two most realisable objectives today, but they would be compromised if the UN summit is influenced by the demands of pro-abortion activists.

To achieve Millennium Development Goal No. 4, which is to reduce infant mortality rates by two thirds from 1990 figures, Chris Smith explains that numerous cost-effective actions must be expanded, notably “treatment and prevention of disease, as well as greater access to adequate food and nutrition, clean water, childhood vaccinations, oral rehydration packets, antibiotics, and drugs to inhibit mother-to-child HIV transmission”. He adds that there is an immediate need for care of unborn children to optimise their health before and after birth, good health starting in the womb. Chris Smith recalls that abortion is by definition the death of a child and as such compromises Goal No. 4. In addition, it is heavy in negative consequences for the health of women, affecting them emotionally and psychologically.

Goal No. 5, the reduction in maternal mortality by 75% from 1990 figures, can be achieved by “skilled attendance at birth, treatment to stop hemorrhages, access to safe blood, emergency obstetric care, antibiotics, repair of fistulas, adequate nutrition, and pre- and post-natal care”.

Chris Smith quotes a study* that appeared in April 2010 in the British journal The Lancet and was financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which reports a global decline of 35% in maternal mortality, which went from 526 300 in 1980 to 342 900 in 2008. These figures confirm those of the World Health Organisation report entitled “Trends in maternal mortality” made public on 15 September 2010. Chris Smith stresses that “contrary to prevailing myths, the study underscored that many nations that have laws prohibiting abortion also have some of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world – Ireland, Chile and Poland among them”. LifeNews adds The Lancet researchers were surprised to discover that three of the richest countries of the world had rising figures of maternal mortality: the United States, Canada and Norway, which have liberal laws on abortion.

* The Lancet, “Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980—2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5”, Margaret C Hogan MSc, Kyle J Foreman AB, Mohsen Naghavi MD, Stephanie Y Ahn BA, Mengru Wang BA, Susanna M Makela BS, Prof Alan D Lopez PhD, Prof Rafael Lozano MD, Prof Christopher JL Murray MD

Washington Post (Chris Smith) 19/09/10 – Medical News Today 21/09/10 – Lifenews (Steven Ertelt) 15/09/10 – Nouvelobs.com 15/09/10

__

%d blogueiros gostam disto: