TUFTS MEDICAL CHIEF: Current Medical System Treats Newborns As “uncontrolled, unapproved study of one”
The allopathic medical model has long-presented itself as the cutting edge in healing. The model also bills itself as deeply pro-science with generations of experts and studies to back up its safe and effective claims.
No population has bore the brunt of this grand allopathic con-job more than our most vulnerable infant population.
Dr. Jonathan Davis, chief of newborn medicine at Tufts Medical Center was featured in a January 2017 article by STATnews.com where he made some uncomfortable admissions about the state of medical care for neonates.
STATnews.com writes, “Davis argues that the current system — doctors making decisions based on little more than anecdotes and intuition — essentially treats each sick newborn as an uncontrolled, unapproved study of one.”
The article gathered quotes from other doctors each revealing inconvenient points about our current established medical system which, by refusing to fully address its failures, is choosing to force its deadly shortcomings upon the lives of our next generation.
“Most neonatologists do not tell parents about the lack of medical evidence for the drugs they use…” Dr. Matthew Laughon, neonatologist at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Does informed consent, the long-sacred tenet of medical practice, require doctors to tell parents/patients about the lack of medical evidence for the treatments they use? If the drugs and vaccines doctors are using don’t have proper evidence to back their use, shouldn’t patients be informed they are part of the experiment to access the safety and effectiveness of what they are being given?
“Newborns absorb, metabolize, and excrete drugs differently than adults. “Yet we haven’t done the studies to know exactly what those differences are…” Catherine Sherwin, division chief of pediatric clinical pharmacology at the University of Utah School of Medicine,
The facts are, most medications administered to preterm infants lack convincing data to support their safety and efficacy with more than 90% not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That means neonates — premature and full-term infants less than 28 days old — are routinely treated with drugs that are not adequately tested for safety, dosing, or effectiveness.
Adding vaccines into the picture only complicates things further. Shortly after the public admissions of a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) nurse whistleblower describing routine vaccine injury in her hospital, a study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics titled Adverse Events After Routine Immunization of Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Infants confirming the nurse whistleblower’s admissions of routine vaccine injury in hospital NICUs. The JAMA study concluded the following:
“All ELBW [extremely low birth-weight] infants in the NICU has and increased incidence of sepsis evaluations and increased respiratory support and intubation after routine immunization.”
An inconvenient truth for pro-vaccine pundits is that not a single one of the clinical trials for vaccines given to babies and toddlers had a control group receiving an inert placebo. Further, most pediatric vaccines currently on the market have been approved based on studies with inadequate followup periods of only a few days or weeks. The two hepatitis B vaccine’s licensed by the FDA, given at birth whether the infant is premature or not, were approved after trials that solicited adverse reactions for five days [MERCK] and four days [GlaxoSmithKline] after vaccination.
Some defending the allopathic medical model will say that the best options are being made with the currently available knowledge base and data. Wrong again. The American opioid epidemic, called the worst drug crisis in American history by President Trump, was built on fraudulent safety studies and deceptive marketing.
Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin opioid painkiller was approved by the FDA in 1995 on criminally fraudulent research and a conflict of interest by the FDA’s team medical review officer Dr. Curtis Wright. Dr Wright later rode the revolving door to a new product development position at Purdue two years after he oversaw the approval of OxyContin. By 2004 the painkiller became the most prevalent abused prescription opioid. Regulatory agencies showed their ineptness and lack of teeth as the years passed and the crisis spiraled out of control.
After a meteoric rise of opioid deaths from 1999-2014, the FDA made a stunning move. During 2015, a year that saw a record 52,000 drug overdose deaths, over 33,000 from opioids alone, the FDA released guidelines for opioid prescriptions and use in children ages 11-16. Previously in 2007 Purdue Pharma was hit with criminal charges. The company, along with three of its top figures, struck a plea bargain to pay $635 million for deceptive marketing tactics and lying about the safety and efficacy of their superstar drug.
The FDA’s decision, in the face of a historic opioid drug epidemic, was defended as giving doctors better information to prescribe and monitor opioids in children. Up until the FDA’s 2015 decision, doctors were using adult opioid guidelines and applying them to children. Armed with their new FDA-approved information and a soft green-light from the FDA, doctors presumably felt better about writing more opioid prescription for kids. What did the FDA base its new 2015 guidelines on at the time? The FDA depended upon data and research from non-other than criminally-charged Purdue Pharma.
Countless individuals are seeing behind the allopathic medical curtain comprised of excessive public relations spin, lies by omission and a healthy control over the messaging through corporate media.
Despite its religious-like zealots and monopolistic control in lockstep with Big Pharma, the foundations of allopathic medicine are cracking hard and fast. They are not the experts we thought they were and the science they stand behind to proclaim their superiority seems to be mostly absent as well.