American Medical Association

The American Medical Association vs. Human Nature

The AMA has long since turned on its would-be patients, thanks to Technocrats within who grant very little value to the human life they are supposed to protect. Furthermore, ethics and morality do not interest the Technocrat mind whatever, leaving only efficiency and pragmatism as goals; indeed, it is the ‘science of social engineering’ that they are pursuing.  TN Editor

The AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics is a cautionary tale of what happens when medical ethics are grounded in social policy and personal intuitions rather than timeless, universal, and immutable moral truths.

In his prophetic work, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis foretold humanity’s final conflict as a revolution against ourselves, or, more specifically, our human nature. In case you hadn’t noticed, the battle is well underway. Nowhere is this struggle more evident than in the realm of medicine, where stunning technological advances have opened the door to metaphysical mischief.

A microcosm of this conflict can be seen in the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) Code of Medical Ethics. Curiously, nowhere in this document does the AMA explain its foundational moral principles—a conspicuous omission for a code of ethics. Even more curious is the other conspicuous omission: us. You and me. Oh, sure, there are several mentions of various body organs, human genes, and the like, but nowhere in the text’s eleven chapters will you find any discussion of our human nature. The qualities that ground patient rights and physician duties are simply never mentioned. It is as if the AMA has abandoned human nature as a meaningful determinant of medical ethics.

Moral Principles Du Jour

The AMA’s code makes a drive-by reference to “moral principles, values, and practices,” but never defines them. While it enumerates a short list of “Principles of Medical Ethics,” these are primarily statements of professional hygiene (e.g., physicians should provide competent care, uphold standards of professionalism, respect the law, etc.). The only telling revelation appears in the document’s preamble, which defines medical ethics as also encompassing “matters of social policy.” This is our first clue that the AMA’s code of ethics is something other than a search for universal and immutable moral truths.

The pernicious effect of this approach manifests itself in several of its ethical guidelines and opinions. For example: “The conflict regarding research with embryonic stem cells centers on the moral status of embryos, a question that divides ethical opinion and that cannot be resolved by medical science.” In a literal and very limited sense, this statement is true—a metaphysical definition of life is necessary before science can tell us whether embryos meet that definition—but the AMA’s statement is also grossly misleading.

If it wants to speak for the medical profession on matters of morality and ethics, the AMA must contribute to the discussion by affirming scientific truths about human life at all of its stages—truths that provide support for moral status and its attendant protections. Like, for instance, the fact that every human embryo is a human being, a whole and complete human being. It would also be helpful for the AMA to clarify (given an epidemic of confusion on this point) that our biological nature does not change on the basis of our developmental state, functional capacities, or health.

Granted, it is not the AMA’s job to define human nature, a task properly led by philosophers and theologians. However, medical science has a duty to contribute to this discussion. The AMA’s statement about embryos is an obvious equivocation designed to sidestep scientific truths that are inconvenient to its particular point of view. Regarding a foundational moral issue—what qualities compose membership in the human family and what protections are owed to its smallest and weakest members—the AMA has nothing to say. Irrespective of one’s viewpoint about this particular issue, this sort of evasion should be deeply troubling to all.

Even more troubling is what comes next. Immediately after demurring on the moral status of embryos, the AMA declares: “Embryonic stem cell research does not violate the ethical standards of the profession.” In other words, after telling us that the embryo’s moral status is above its pay grade, it affirms the moral permissibility of embryo-destructive stem cell research. This bewildering display of ethical doublespeak is offered without explanation.

The document is laced with similarly inexplicable statements, seemingly backed up by nothing more than the personal intuitions of its author(s). For instance, regarding gene therapy: “Because of the potential for abuse, genetic manipulation of non-disease traits or the eugenic development of offspring may never be justifiable” [emphasis mine].

The operative word in the above sentence is “may.” They could have written “isnever justifiable” but instead wrote “may never be justifiable.” This is a crucial distinction. The AMA defines its use of the word “may” to mean “that an action is ethically permissible when qualifying conditions are . . . met.” So, I must ask, exactly when is eugenics permissible? If the AMA chooses to leave the door open to a practice most consider abhorrent, we deserve to know what qualifying conditions might lead them to view it as permissible. Even if such circumstances as rare exceptions, it owes us a list of those exceptions. Clarity is a minimum prerequisite for honest discussion. Left as is, this strange statement implies an ethic grounded in power and supremacy rather than equality.

An ethical code formed from timeless moral truths is itself timeless precisely because it is built on truths discovered by discerning thinkers over millennia. By contrast, when an ethical code is grounded only in human thought and human will, as the AMA’s appears to be, the rules can change as quickly as social tastes and preferences shift. That sort of inconstancy should be a grave concern for everyone, but especially for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. As Aristotle taught us over two thousand years ago, moral law is not a mirror used to reflect back to us current cultural trends or fickle personal preferences. Rather, it is the essential and unvarying form of our true (and common) nature as human beings. Our task is to discover the objective truth of moral law, not to concoct it from personal opinions.

Absent from the Battle for Human Nature

Whether by design or accident, the AMA caters to postmodern relativism by excising human nature from its discussion of medical ethics. It also exposes the analytical and deductive pitfalls awaiting those who attempt this approach.

A case in point is its guideline concerning physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia. It writes that these practices are “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.”

I wholeheartedly support the AMA’s longstanding opposition, and tragic eventsin the Netherlands and elsewhere demonstrate the truth of its statements. Still, we should notice what is missing from this argument defending human life: the person undergoing these deadly procedures.

In my view, this is a stunning omission. None of the AMA’s arguments for opposing PAS and euthanasia respond to the primary question: Are these lethal acts morally justifiable? To answer that question, one must begin by considering the patient and whether that patient’s life has intrinsic value (and if so, why). If human life has innate dignity and value, if human life comprises universal goods that we must promote and defend, then physicians have a duty to protect every human life.

Read full story here…




Oxytocin-enforced norm compliance reduces xenophobic outgroup rejection

Rockefeller University: Doping Western Cultures With Oxytocin Will Cure Hatred Of Refugees

Technocrats are dedicated to the ‘science of social engineering’, and that includes direct manipulation of the human herd by putting chemicals into the water supply. This study was edited by Bruce S. McEwen of Rockefeller University. That they would even discus this is a horror reminiscent of Nazi Germany during WWII. Remember, however, that most of America is already drinking fluoride that was imposed without advice and consent from the consuming public. TN Editor

A group of researchers from Germany and the United States have published a study which concludes that doping ‘xenophobic’ populations with massive quantities of the estrogen-linked hormone Oxytocin will cure nationalism – making native citizens more accepting and generous towards migrants who simply want free handouts from Western taxpayers while Islamic extremists peacefully rape and murder infidels.

Accommodating the large influx of migrants not only challenges the humanitarian capacities of European countries but also requires their native populations to adjust to rapid growths in ethnic diversity, religious pluralism, and cultural differentiation. However, the impetus to adapt to changing social ecosystems is susceptible to considerable interindividual heterogeneity. Resistance to this transition often goes along with xenophobic sentiment, and as a consequence, recent elections in Europe have favored populist candidates who have openly expressed xenophobic attitudes toward refugees.

As co-author René Hurlemann said in a related study; “Given the right circumstances, oxytocin may help promote the acceptance and integration of migrants into Western cultures.

Widely referred to as the ‘love hormone,’ ‘hug hormone,’ and ‘cuddle chemical,’ Oxytocin is secreted from the pituitary gland during sex, childbirth, and lactation – influencing social behavior and emotion. It has been shown to increase romantic attachment and empathy – invoking feelings of relaxation, trust, and psychological stability.

[the_ad id=”11018″]

For just €3.11 / day you can destroy your culture! 

The study concludes that a combination of oxytocin nasal spray and social pressure from other doped up participants resulted in ‘xenophobic’ test subjects increasing donations to migrants by 74% – jumping from average of €1.79 to €3.11.

Our results imply that an OXT-enforced social norm adherence could be instrumental in motivating a more generalized acceptance toward ethnic diversity, religious plurality, and cultural differentiation resulting from migration by proposing that interventions to increase altruism are most effective when charitable social cues instill the notion that one’s ingroup shows strong affection for an outgroup. Furthermore, UNESCO has emphasized the importance of developing neurobiologically informed strategies for reducing xenophobic, hostile, and discriminatory attitudes (47). Thus, considering OXT-enforced normative incentives in developing future interventions and policy programs intended to reduce outgroup rejection may be an important step toward making the principle of social inclusion a daily reality in our societies.

Perhaps the researchers can also explore how to chemically control refugees so they’re less violent, rapey, and are willing to integrate into other cultures without destroying them? Maybe if they tainted the water supply in Saudi Arabia with Oxytocin they’d start accepting refugees instead of forcing Europe to shoulder the burden?

Meanwhile, the BBC is reporting that Lithium added to tap water may cut dementia by up to 17 percent.

“By this time the soma had begun to work. Eyes shone, cheeks were flushed, the inner light of universal benevolence broke out on every face in happy, friendly smiles.” Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

Read full story here…




Transforming Medicine: The American Medical Association As Technocrats

Technocrats do not view themselves as hindered by ethics or moral standards; rather, they view efficiency, pragmatism and unfettered scientific activity as normal, and everything else abnormal. There is no scientific education that qualifies anyone to be a ‘social engineer’.  TN Editor

The AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics is a cautionary tale of what happens when medical ethics are grounded in social policy and personal intuitions rather than timeless, universal, and immutable moral truths.

In his prophetic work, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis foretold humanity’s final conflict as a revolution against ourselves, or, more specifically, our human nature. In case you hadn’t noticed, the battle is well underway. Nowhere is this struggle more evident than in the realm of medicine, where stunning technological advances have opened the door to metaphysical mischief.

A microcosm of this conflict can be seen in the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) Code of Medical Ethics. Curiously, nowhere in this document does the AMA explain its foundational moral principles—a conspicuous omission for a code of ethics. Even more curious is the other conspicuous omission: us. You and me. Oh, sure, there are several mentions of various body organs, human genes, and the like, but nowhere in the text’s eleven chapters will you find any discussion of our human nature. The qualities that ground patient rights and physician duties are simply never mentioned. It is as if the AMA has abandoned human nature as a meaningful determinant of medical ethics.

Moral Principles Du Jour

The AMA’s code makes a drive-by reference to “moral principles, values, and practices,” but never defines them. While it enumerates a short list of “Principles of Medical Ethics,” these are primarily statements of professional hygiene (e.g., physicians should provide competent care, uphold standards of professionalism, respect the law, etc.). The only telling revelation appears in the document’s preamble, which defines medical ethics as also encompassing “matters of social policy.” This is our first clue that the AMA’s code of ethics is something other than a search for universal and immutable moral truths.

The pernicious effect of this approach manifests itself in several of its ethical guidelines and opinions. For example: “The conflict regarding research with embryonic stem cells centers on the moral status of embryos, a question that divides ethical opinion and that cannot be resolved by medical science.” In a literal and very limited sense, this statement is true—a metaphysical definition of life is necessary before science can tell us whether embryos meet that definition—but the AMA’s statement is also grossly misleading.

If it wants to speak for the medical profession on matters of morality and ethics, the AMA must contribute to the discussion by affirming scientific truths about human life at all of its stages—truths that provide support for moral status and its attendant protections. Like, for instance, the fact that every human embryo is a human being, a whole and complete human being. It would also be helpful for the AMA to clarify (given an epidemic of confusion on this point) that our biological nature does not change on the basis of our developmental state, functional capacities, or health.

Granted, it is not the AMA’s job to define human nature, a task properly led by philosophers and theologians. However, medical science has a duty to contribute to this discussion. The AMA’s statement about embryos is an obvious equivocation designed to sidestep scientific truths that are inconvenient to its particular point of view. Regarding a foundational moral issue—what qualities compose membership in the human family and what protections are owed to its smallest and weakest members—the AMA has nothing to say. Irrespective of one’s viewpoint about this particular issue, this sort of evasion should be deeply troubling to all.

Even more troubling is what comes next. Immediately after demurring on the moral status of embryos, the AMA declares: “Embryonic stem cell research does not violate the ethical standards of the profession.” In other words, after telling us that the embryo’s moral status is above its pay grade, it affirms the moral permissibility of embryo-destructive stem cell research. This bewildering display of ethical doublespeak is offered without explanation.

The document is laced with similarly inexplicable statements, seemingly backed up by nothing more than the personal intuitions of its author(s). For instance, regarding gene therapy: “Because of the potential for abuse, genetic manipulation of non-disease traits or the eugenic development of offspring may never be justifiable” [emphasis mine].

The operative word in the above sentence is “may.” They could have written “isnever justifiable” but instead wrote “may never be justifiable.” This is a crucial distinction. The AMA defines its use of the word “may” to mean “that an action is ethically permissible when qualifying conditions are . . . met.” So, I must ask, exactly when is eugenics permissible? If the AMA chooses to leave the door open to a practice most consider abhorrent, we deserve to know what qualifying conditions might lead them to view it as permissible. Even if such circumstances as rare exceptions, it owes us a list of those exceptions. Clarity is a minimum prerequisite for honest discussion. Left as is, this strange statement implies an ethic grounded in power and supremacy rather than equality.

An ethical code formed from timeless moral truths is itself timeless precisely because it is built on truths discovered by discerning thinkers over millennia. By contrast, when an ethical code is grounded only in human thought and human will, as the AMA’s appears to be, the rules can change as quickly as social tastes and preferences shift. That sort of inconstancy should be a grave concern for everyone, but especially for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. As Aristotle taught us over two thousand years ago, moral law is not a mirror used to reflect back to us current cultural trends or fickle personal preferences. Rather, it is the essential and unvarying form of our true (and common) nature as human beings. Our task is to discover the objective truth of moral law, not to concoct it from personal opinions.

Absent from the Battle for Human Nature

Whether by design or accident, the AMA caters to postmodern relativism by excising human nature from its discussion of medical ethics. It also exposes the analytical and deductive pitfalls awaiting those who attempt this approach.

Read full story here…




Computer Chips Bonded With Living Brain Cells Give AI Ability To Smell

This is mind-boggling technology, but will completely overtake many existing security functions. Basically, humans cannot escape their odors, and every human has a unique odor signature.  TN Editor

A technology expert has created a computer chip based on mice neurons that could recognise the smell of explosives.

The device could be implanted into the brain of future robots, which could be trained to recognise danger via odours, replacing traditional airport security.

The Koniku Kore device is a ‘world first’ that is able to breath in and smell air, meaning it could detect volatile chemicals and explosives or even illnesses such as cancer.

The Koniku Kore device is a ‘world first’ that is able to breath in and smell air – meaning it could detect volatile chemicals and explosives or even illnesses such as cancer (stock image)

THE KONIKU KORE

Named the Koniku Kore, the modem-sized device could provide the brain for future robots.

Instead of being based on silicon, the Koniku Kore is built using mice neurons.

Each chips a bizarre mixture of living neurons and silicon.

The device have sensors that can detect and recognise smells.

While computers are better than humans at complex mathematical equations, the brain is better at a number of cognitive functions such as smelling.

The researchers behind the device say it could one day be placed discreetly in airports to sniff out explosives.

This means in the future passengers could skip tedious airport security lines, while the special device sniffs out explosives silently in the background.

While those in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) are working furiously to create machines that can mimic the brain, or – like tech entrepreneur Elon Musk – implant computers in our brains, one researcher has found a way to merge lab-grown neurons with electronic circuitry.

Nigerian neuroscientist Oshiorenoya Agabi says his supercomputer – the pictures of which cannot yet be publicly revealed – could simulate the power of 204 brain neurons.

As many grapple with the finite processing power of silicon, the 38-year-old said he had looked to the brain which is ‘the most powerful processor the universe has ever seen.

‘Instead of copying a neuron, why not just take the biological cell itself and use it as it is? That thought is radical. The consequence of this is mind-boggling,’ he said.

So he and a team of geneticists, physicists, bio-engineers, molecular biologists and others set about doing just that, focusing on the problems that were particularly hard for silicon devices to solve.

Read full story here…




Johns Hopkins Researcher Releases Shocking Report On Flu Vaccines

The esteemed Dr. Russell Blaylock, who is quoted in this article, wrote the very first review on Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. He totally gets Technocracy, and his assessment of vaccines is spot on.  TN Editor

In 2015, a whole new slew of flu vaccines found themselves getting approved by the Federal Drug Administration.  This isn’t an uncommon practice; most flu vaccines pass inspection every year.  It’s well known advice that has been passed down from doctor to patient that the flu vaccine is something that we all should get, but it has been quickly surfacing that what’s in the vaccines–especially those from 2015 and after–might actually be more damaging then simply rolling the dice on getting the flu.

The ingredient that is getting the most flack is called an adjuvant.  The particular one involved is called Squalene, and it has been linked to auto-immune disease side effects.  In fact, it may have been used during chemical attacks in the Gulf War.  Symptoms include chronic fatigue, muscle aches, and neurologic damage.

While it may be a contested subject, it remains that we aren’t really sure what’s going into these vaccines we’re being convinced should be used.  A scientist who has been working at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, released a report sharing his views on the subject.  And they aren’t pretty.

Here is an excerpt from yournewswire.com that summarizes aspects of Peter Doshi’s report.  You can find the original report at the British Medical Journal’s site.  Determine for yourself if the evidence he presents is credible or not…

“Promoting influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies in the United States…Drug companies and public officials press for widespread vaccination each fall, offering vaccinations in drugstores and supermarkets. The results have been phenomenal. Only 20 years ago, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States on an annual basis. Today, the total has skyrocketed to 135 million doses.

The vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza seems to be overstated…Mandatory vaccination polices have been enacted, often in healthcare facilities, forcing some people to take the vaccine under threat of losing their jobs…The main assertion of the CDC that fuels the push for flu vaccinations each year is that influenza comes with a risk of serious complications which can cause death, especially in senior citizens and those suffering from chronic illnesses…

[the_ad id=”11018″]

When read carefully, the CDC acknowledges that studies finding any perceived reduction in death rates may be due to the “healthy-user effect” — the tendency for healthier people to be vaccinated more than less-healthy people. The only randomized trial of influenza vaccine in older people found no decrease in deaths…This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes…

Even when the vaccine is closely matched to the type of influenza that’s prevalent, which doesn’t happen every year, randomized, controlled trials of healthy adults found that vaccinating between 33 and 100 people resulted in one less case of influenza…In addition, no evidence exists to show that this reduction in the risk of influenza for a specific population — here in the United States, among healthy adults, for example — extrapolates into any reduced risk of serious complications from influenza, such as hospitalizations or deaths, among seniors…

For most people, and possibly most doctors, officials need only claim that vaccines save lives, and it is assumed there must be solid research behind it…

(In) an Australian study (it was) found (that) one in every 110 children under the age of five had convulsions following vaccinations in 2009 for H1N1 influenza. Additional investigations found that the H1N1 vaccine was also associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents.”

Dr. Russell Blaylock, a neurosurgeon and author of “The Blaylock Wellness Report”, echoes the findings of Doshi.  Here is a continuation of the excerpt from yournewswire.com in which he shares his own concerns of vaccines and their safety:

“Not only is the vaccine not safe, it doesn’t even work…The vaccine is completely worthless, and the government knows it…There are three reasons the government tells the elderly why they should get flu shots: secondary pneumonia, hospitalization, and death. Yet a study by the Cochrane group studied hundreds of thousands of people and found it offered zero protection for those three things in the general community. It offered people in nursing homes some immunity against the flu — at best one-third — but that was only if they picked the right vaccine…

A study released in February found that the flu shot was only 9 percent effective in protecting seniors against the 2012-2013 season’s most virulent influenza bug…

What’s even worse is that small children who are given the flu vaccine get no protection from the disease…The government also says that every baby over the age of six months should have a vaccine, and they know it contains a dose of mercury that is toxic to the brain…They also know the studies have shown that the vaccination has zero — zero — effectiveness in children under five…

For most people, flu vaccinations don’t prevent the flu but actually increase the odds of getting it. The mercury contained in flu shots is such a strong immune depressant that a flu shot suppresses immunity for several weeks…This makes people highly susceptible to catching the flu…They may even think the vaccine gave them the flu, but that’s not true — it depressed their immune system and then they caught the flu.”

Mercury overstimulates the brain for several years, and that activation is the cause of Alzheimer’s and other degenerative diseases. One study found that those who get the vaccine for three to five years increase their risk of Alzheimer’s disease 10-fold…”

Why do these vaccines get pushed so much?

“It’s all about money,” says Dr. Blaylock. “Vaccinations are a pharmaceutical company’s dream. They have a product that both the government and the media will help them sell, and since vaccinations are protected, they can’t be sued if anyone has a complication…

Read full story here…




Scientists: Memories Of Fear Could Be Permanently Erased

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four had nothing on these scientists who are using genetic modification to permanently erase fear in mice. Technocrats will have a hey-day with this technology some day.  TN Editor

The eternal sunshine of a spotless mind has come one step closer, say researchers working on methods to erase memories of fear.

The latest study, carried out in mice, unpicks why certain sounds can stir alarming memories, and reveals a new approach to wiping such memories from the brain.

The researchers say the findings could be used to either weaken or strengthen particular memories while leaving others unchanged. That, they say, could potentially be used to help those with cognitive decline or post-traumatic stress disorder by removing fearful memories while retaining useful ones, such as the sound of a dog’s bark.

“We can use same approach to selectively manipulate only the pathological fear memory while preserving all other adaptive fear memories which are necessary for our daily lives,” said Jun-Hyeong Cho, co-author of the research from the University of California, Riverside.

The research is the latest in a string of studies looking at ways to erase unpleasant memories, with previous work by scientists exploring techniques ranging from brain scans and AI to the use of drugs.

Published in the journal Neuron by Cho and his colleague Woong Bin Kim, the research reveals how the team used genetically modified mice to examine the pathways between the area of the brain involved in processing a particular sound and the area involved in emotional memories, known as the amygdala.

“These mice are special in that we can label or tag specific pathways that convey certain signals to the amygdala, so that we can identify which pathways are really modified as the mice learn to fear a particular sound,” said Cho. “It is like a bundle of phone lines,” he added. “Each phone line conveys certain auditory information to the amygdala.”

In the first part of the experiment the team played both a high pitched and low-pitched tone to mice. But, when the high-pitched sound was played, the researchers also gave the mice a small electric shock to their feet.

….

But the team discovered that using a technique called optogenetics, it was possible to truly erase the unpleasant memories.

This technique involved the researchers using a virus to introduce genes into particular neurons in the brains of the mice that were involved in the “high-pitch” pathways.

Once inside the cells, the genes result in the production of proteins which respond to light, allowing researchers to control the activity of the neurons.

Taking mice with the fearful memories, the team exposed the neurons involved in the “high-pitch” pathway to low-frequency light – an approach which weakens the connections between the neurons.

Read full story here…




Penny-Sized Nanochip Pad Able To Regrow Organs and Heal Injuries

There is still a science fiction aspect to this technology because all claims are not yet proven, but it could be a breakthrough discovery. There are also Transhuman implications as well, in finding ways to overcome aging and even death.  TN Editor

Scientists have hailed a “breakthrough” technology capable of regrowing damaged organs and healing serious wounds with the single touch of a penny-sized pad.

The new device uses nanochips to reprogramme skin cells which then generate any type of cell necessary for medical treatment.

The non-invasive procedure takes less than a second and in laboratory trials was found to restore the function of badly damaged blood vessels within days.

Dubbed tissue nanotransfection (TNT), the technique works by placing a small pad of nanochips over a damaged area.

A small electric current then fires DNA into the skin cells, converting them into the specific building block cells of any other part of the body, such as arteries, or even organs like the heart.

It promises to transform the chances of patients in need of complex reconstructive  surgery, as well as those whose organs are prematurely ageing.

The US researchers who created the technology say it could even be used as a weapon against neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

They believe it will be possible to reprogramme skin cells to harvest brain cells in a peripheral part of the body, such as the arm, which can then be injected into the brain.

The team at Ohio State University have successfully trialled TNT on pigs and mice, with a reported success rate of 98 per cent.

In one experiment, blood flow in the severely injured leg of a mouse was restored in less than a week after the pad reprogrammed skin cells to create vascular cells.

After two weeks, the leg was substantially healed.

Researchers plan to start clinical trials on humans next year.

“With this technology, we can convert skin cells into elements of any organ with just one touch,” said Dr. Chandan Sen, who led the study.

“This process only takes less than a second and is non-invasive, and then you’re off.

“The chip does not stay with you, and the reprogramming of the cell starts.

Unlike stem cell therapies, TNT would require no laboratory-based procedures ahead of use, meaning it could be implemented in everyday healthcare setting, such as a GP surgery.

Because the new reprogrammed cells are produced under the guidance of the patient’s own immune system, there is no need for the immunosuppressant drugs that can be necessary when biological matter is transplanted.

Read full story here…




Majority Of U.S. Insurance Companies Covering, Promoting Suicide Drugs

Technocracy’s evil underbelly promotes euthanasia as an extreme form of eugenics, and insurance companies are eating it up. Why? The sooner that terminally ill patients die, the sooner their medical claims stop being paid. Efficiency.  TN Editor

The Denver-based group Compassion and Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society, has released a report, marking the one-year anniversary of the passage of the so-called End of Life Option Act in California. The group states in its release that hundred of adults have been prescribed lethal drugs since the passage of California’s euthanasia law. The group also said that the majority of private insurance companies cover the cost of life ending drugs, including Blue Cross, Blue Shield and Kaiser.

As Church Militant reported on May 31, not only are major insurers covering suicide drugs, but they are pressuring healthcare providers to recommend life ending drugs while denying coverage for more expensive life-saving therapy. As the cost of health insurance continues to rise under Obamacare since it was passed in 2010, insurers are incentivised to cover suicide and not life-sustaining treatment, simply because the former is cheaper, making the insurers into de facto death panels.

The End of Life Option Act in California was pushed by the family of Brittany Maynard in cooperation with Compassion and Choices. Maynard was a 29-year-old from the San Francisco Bay Area who moved to Oregon, where assisted suicide had been legal since the 1990s, after being diagnosed with brain cancer. Church Militant reported on the resulting suicide spike following the nationwide coverage of Maynard ending her life.

A 2015 study from the Southern Medical Journal concluded that legalization of physician-assisted suicide not only leads a “copy-cat” effect of suicidal inclinations, but that euthanasia legalization has no effect on the frequency of non-physician-assisted suicide.

In 1980, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released the Declaration on Euthanasia. In that document, the CDF explained the special place of redemptive suffering in the Catholic faith, “According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God’s saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ’s passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice, which He offered in obedience to the Father’s will.”

Read full story here…




Euthanasia

Merchants Of Death: Dutch Euthanasia Troubles Even Assisted-Death Doctors

Euthanasia is the Technocrats’ plan for end-of-life, whether you want it or like it or not. For doctors who took an oath to “do no harm”, euthanasia is the extreme opposite of promoting life and healing. Euthanasia is also the logical end of all eugenics philosophy – cleanse society of the week, the demented and the non-productive.  TN Editor

An advertisement taken out in a major newspaper in the Netherlands by more than 200 Dutch doctors begins, “[Assisted suicide] for someone who cannot confirm he wants to die? No, we will not do that. Our moral reluctance to end the life of a defenseless man is too great. ”

The doctors, many of whom currently serve as assisted-suicide providers, are objecting to the unchecked growth of euthanasia in their country, where people who have reduced mental capacity due to dementia are being euthanised.

Current law allows doctors to euthanize without verbal consent if a written declaration of will has been provided in advance. In addition, a doctor has to also first determine that the patient is undergoing unbearable suffering. But with reduced mental capacity, patients are often unable to confirm that their former request to be euthanized — executed perhaps years earlier — is still valid.

A turning point

Alarm bells began to sound for these doctors a few years ago when an elderly woman was euthanized against her will.

The 80-year-old suffered from dementia. She had allegedly earlier requested to be euthanized when “the time was right” but in her last days expressed her desire to continue living.

Despite changing her mind about ending her life, her doctor put a sedative in the her coffee. When that wasn’t enough, the doctor enlisted the help of family members to hold down the struggling, objecting patient so that she could administer the lethal injection.

“Doesn’t someone have a right to change their mind?” asked Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. He told LifeSiteNews earlier this year, “They sell it as choice and autonomy, but here’s a woman who’s saying, ‘no, I don’t want it,’ and they stick it in her coffee, they hold her down and lethally inject her.”

“It’s false compassion,” Schadenberg continued. “It’s killing people basically out of a false ideology” that treats euthanasia as somehow good when “it’s the exact opposite of what it actually is.”

In 2016, the Dutch doctor was cleared of wrongdoing by a euthanasia oversight panel. The chairman of that panel expressed hope that the case will go to court – not so the doctor can be prosecuted but so a court can set a precedent on how far doctors may go in such cases.

Troubling new legislation

That case remains fresh in the minds of the Dutch as ‘groundbreaking’ new legislation is being floated by the country’s lawmakers.

Legislators in the Netherlands have now proposed the ‘Completed Life Bill’ that would allow anybody age 75 or older to be euthanized even if they are healthy. If the legislation passes, it would be a big step toward the ultimate goal of making euthanasia available to any adult who wants it.

Alexander Pechtold, leader of the Dutch political party D66, said, “It’s my personal opinion that in our civilization dying is an individual consideration. You didn’t ask to be brought into the world.” He went on to explain that this new legislation would be one more step toward the universal availability of euthanasia, part of a process of steady incremental gains over the last few decades.

Belgium’s culture of death seeping into the Netherlands

As reported by Schadenberg several years ago, according to available data, more than 1,000 Belgian deaths were hastened without explicit request in 2013.

Read full story here…




Big Pharma Using Artificial Intelligence To Speed New Drug Discoveries

AI will be used to fast-track new drugs and combinations of drugs and thus create more profits for Big Pharma. However, given their poor track record of safeguarding patients from unintended consequences, the use of AI and super-computers may only speed up that process.  TN Editor

The world’s leading drug companies are turning to artificial intelligence to improve the hit-and-miss business of finding new medicines, with GlaxoSmithKline unveiling a new $43 million deal in the field on Sunday.

Other pharmaceutical giants including Merck & Co, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi are also exploring the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to help streamline the drug discovery process.

The aim is to harness modern supercomputers and machine learning systems to predict how molecules will behave and how likely they are to make a useful drug, thereby saving time and money on unnecessary tests.

AI systems already play a central role in other high-tech areas such as the development of driverless cars and facial recognition software.

“Many large pharma companies are starting to realise the potential of this approach and how it can help improve efficiencies,” said Andrew Hopkins, chief executive of privately owned Exscientia, which announced the new tie-up with GSK.

Hopkins, who used to work at Pfizer, said Exscientia’s AI system could deliver drug candidates in roughly one-quarter of the time and at one-quarter of the cost of traditional approaches.

The Scotland-based company, which also signed a deal with Sanofi in May, is one of a growing number of start-ups on both sides of the Atlantic that are applying AI to drug research. Others include U.S. firms Berg, Numerate, twoXAR and Atomwise, as well as Britain’s BenevolentAI.

“In pharma’s eyes these companies are essentially digital biotechs that they can strike partnerships with and which help feed the pipeline,” said Nooman Haque, head of life sciences at Silicon Valley Bank in London.

“If this technology really proves itself, you may start to see M&A with pharma, and closer integration of these AI engines into pharma R&D.”

STILL TO BE PROVEN

It is not the first time drugmakers have turned to high-tech solutions to boost R&D productivity.

The introduction of “high throughput screening”, using robots to rapidly test millions of compounds, generated mountains of leads in the early 2000s but notably failed to solve inefficiencies in the research process.

When it comes to AI, big pharma is treading cautiously, in the knowledge that the technology has yet to demonstrate it can successfully bring a new molecule from computer screen to lab to clinic and finally to market.

“It’s still to be proven, but we definitely think we should do the experiment,” said John Baldoni, GSK’s head of platform technology and science.

Baldoni is also ramping up in-house AI investment at the drugmaker by hiring some unexpected staff with appropriate computing and data handling experience – including astrophysicists.

His goal is to reduce the time it takes from identifying a target for disease intervention to finding a molecule that acts against it from an average 5.5 years today to just one year in future.

“That is a stretch. But as we’ve learnt more about what modern supercomputers can do, we’ve gained more confidence,” Baldoni told Reuters. “We have an obligation to reduce the cost of drugs and reduce the time it takes to get medicines to patients.”

Earlier this year GSK also entered a collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy and National Cancer Institute to accelerate pre-clinical drug development through use of advanced computational technologies.

Read full story here…