Baby Treated with Nap and Bottle of Formula, Parents Received an $18,000 Bill

A South Korean family took a vacation to San Francisco two years ago. In a hotel room, their then-8-month-old son fell off their bed and hit his head.  After unsuccessfully trying to console him, they grew concerned. They called 911. An ambulance showed up and transported the family to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital to check him out for internal injuries.

At the hospital, the doctors determined that the baby was fine. He had a short nap in his mother’s arms and drank some hospital infant formula. He was discharged less than four hours later. The family finished their vacation. Then, some two years later, a hospital bill arrived for $18,836. $15,666 of the charge was  designated “trauma activation.”

It’s a huge amount of money for my family. If my baby got special treatment, okay. That would be okay. But he didn’t. So why should I have to pay the bill? They did nothing for my son.”

If my baby got special treatment, okay. That would be okay. But he didn’t. So why should I have to pay the bill? They did nothing for my son.” – Jang Yeo-im, the mom, told Vox

Jang says they had travel insurance that covers only the first $5,000.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm9jJYMZR90

Recommended:



Trump’s Administration Is Not A Fan of Breastfeeding

There was an unexpected battle over a resolution supporting the use of breast milk at the World Health Organization in may. The New York Times reported that the resolution to encourage breastfeeding was expected to be approved quickly by hundreds of government delegates but the United States delegates opposed the language.

The World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations is an agency headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland that is concerned with international public health. A proposed resolution asked countries to restrict the misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes. In multiple studies spanning decades of research, breastmilk has been proven beyond a doubt to be the healthiest option for children. The New York Times reported that the resolution was expected to pass easily but U.S. delegates took issue with the language that encouraged countries to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding.” The U.S. did not want to impede the sale of baby formulas.

The U.S. Delegates reportedly told Ecuador, who planned to introduce the resolution, that if the proposal wasn’t dropped that the U.S. would implement trade measures and withdraw military support from northern Ecuador (violence from boarding Colombia causes ongoing issues here). The Ecuadorian delegates caved and then health advocates found another sponsor for the resolution. The Russian delegation introduced the measure, and unlike with Ecuadorian, Russia received no resistance from the U.S.

The Trump administration’s aggressive attempts to water down an international resolution supporting breast-feeding go against decades of advice by most medical organizations and public health experts.” – NY Times

Global health experts believe that the president’s stance on baby formula was due to a lack of knowledge regarding breastfeeding and the history of how baby formulas are marketed in developing countries. In these poor countries when powdered formula is mixed with unclean, unsafe water, it can lead to death.

What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on best way to protect infant and young child health,” Patti Rundall, policy director of Baby Milk Action

Despite the United States’ best efforts, the final resolution retained most of the original language, but the portion calling on WHO to provide support to countries seeking to halt “inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children,” was removed.

A 2016 study published by The Lancet stated that breastfeeding could save 843,000 lives and $300 billion in reduced health care costs a year. The New York Times reported that the baby food market is a $70 billion industry.

This kind of support for corporations over health isn’t new. We could thank Trump’s administration for being so blatantly corrupt and unsubtle that the issues like this are brought out into the open. We could, but we won’t.

Recommended Reading:



Georgia couple loses custody of son after giving him marijuana to treat seizures

Georgia took custody of a 15-year-old child named David in April when he tested positive for marijuana. The parents, Matthew and Suzeanna Brill, say they gave their son marijuana to treat his seizures. They are fighting to regain custody of David while they are charged with reckless conduct and facing jail time.

The Brills say David had up to ten seizures a day but was completely free from seizures when their son began smoking marijuana. The couple said he had not gone that long without a seizure before.

Nine states and Washington D.C. allow recreational marijuana, and Medical marijuana is legal in 29 states. But Georgia has very strict marijuana laws. The state does allow those with a state-issued medical card to possess “low THC oil” but physicians are not allowed to prescribe marijuana for medical use and it’s illegal to sell or possess marijuana.

The only way he could get a medical card would be a six-year waiting list,” Suzeanna said.

So the Brills, frustrated with traditional prescription medication, took matters into their own hands. Matthew said he smoked the illegally-purchased marijuana first to make sure it was okay before giving it to his stepson.

Someone alerted the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services to the marijuana that David was using. The couple was in jail for six days. On April 20, David was taken away and remanded to state custody. On that very day, he had a seizure and had to be rushed to a hospital.

When I talked to him tonight… the 10-minute phone call I was allowed to have with him, he is on the verge of going into a seizure,” Suzeanna said.

David is currently living in a group home 60 miles from his parents.

They’re facing real criminal charges. I think even if they beat the criminal case…They still are definitely in hot water with regard to Child Protective Services.” – Criminal defense attorney Rachel Kugel

Recommended:



Canada has Legalized Marijuana

When Trudeau’s Liberal Party was elected in 2015 he ran on a promise to legalize marijuana. Canada is about to realize that promise. The South American nation of Uruguay was the first and only to fully legalize cannabis. Uruguay legalized marijuana in 2013, and now Canada will be the second nation to do so, and the first wealthy nation to do it. The Senate approved Bill C-45, also known as the Cannabis Act, on June 18th.

We will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana. Canada’s current system of marijuana prohibition does not work. It does not prevent young people from using marijuana and too many Canadians end up with criminal records for possessing small amounts of the drug.” – Canada’s Liberal Party

The new law will go into effect on October 17, 2018. The bill legalizes marijuana possession, growing cannabis, and selling it to adults. The federal government will still enforce remaining criminal sanctions like selling to minors and the licensing of cannabis production, and provincial governments will oversee sales, distribution, and other related regulations. This means that provinces will be able to impose stricter rules, like raising the minimum age.

Nine states in the US so far have legalized marijuana for recreational use and 29 states allow cannabis for medicinal use.

The United Nations’ international drug treaties explicitly ban legalizing marijuana, so will be in violation of international law. The US is still considered to be in accordance with the treaties because federal law still prohibits cannabis.

Canada’s decision to end cannabis criminalization should come as no surprise. Canadian marijuana policy has been at odds with the United States’ policies for decades. Canadians allowed commercial cultivation of industrial hemp, species of marijuana that possesses zero psychoactivity, two decades ago. Canada also controls a federally licensed medical cannabis production and distribution program, a program that has been in place since 2001. In the U.S. federal law makes no legal distinction between marijuana and hemp.

Like in Canada, voters in the U.S. also endorse cannabis legalization. According to polling data reported last week, 68 percent of registered voters “support the legalization of marijuana.” That is the highest percentage ever recorded in a nationwide, scientific survey. The support is mostly non-partisan. The poll showed that 77 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of independents, and 57 percent of Republicans want federal legalization.

Recommended Reading:



Swine Flu Is Now Infecting Dogs

H1N1, a flu virus originating from birds and commonly identified as swine flu, has been discovered in dogs from the Guangxi region of China. These animals were brought to the vet after showing symptoms consistent with canine influenza, and researchers published their analysis of the 16 strains of flu they found. The most notable discovery was H1N1, the swine flu strain responsible for the 2009 pandemic that resulted in more than 200,000 deaths. Study co-author Adolfo García-Sastre, director of the Global Health and Emerging Pathogens Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, says there is a reason to be cautious.

Related: How Viruses Work and How to Prevent and Eliminate Them Naturally

In our study, what we have found is another set of viruses that come from swine that are originally avian in origin, and now they are jumping into dogs and have been reassorted with other viruses in dogs. We now have H1N1, H3N2, and H3N8 in dogs. They are starting to interact with each other. This is very reminiscent of what happened in swine ten years before the H1N1 pandemic.”

Adaptable Influenza

The continuing battle to correctly guess the dominant flu strain of the season showcases how adaptive and varied the flu is. Often pandemics originate in animals, usually birds or swine. While dogs have never been considered a significant carrier of the virus, more varied and potentially strains have been showing up in canine tests. The potential for a devastating flu pandemic that we aren’t prepared for is high in man’s best friend. There have been documented instances of viruses from avian, porcine, and equine sources successfully jumping to dogs, and that’s a potential flu cocktail that humans don’t have immunity against.

Can It Affect Us?

Does that even matter? There is no case of a human ever being infected by canine flu.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

Humans have previously been infected by the strain of flu found in the dogs, H1N1, but previous exposure has come from birds, who were the original carriers. Of course, H1N1 is now more closely identified with pigs, after 2009 swine flu outbreak. H1N1 became the dominant strain of flu in 1998, and the virus was seriously affecting humans within ten years. Before then, the idea that humans would be suffering from swine flu was farfetched.

It’s important to note that vaccination efforts were unsuccessful in both pigs and humans, primarily due to how fast the virus evolves. H1N1 also showed resistance to Tamiflu, the controversial antiviral drug. Healthcare professionals in the U.S. ended up using vaccines nearly identical to the seasonal flu vaccine, which is a daunting prospect in light of how poorly that immunization performed this year. If the discovery of an adaptable H1N1 virus in dogs follows the same trajectory as H1N1 did in pigs, do we have any good solutions?  In cases of avian flu, farmers eliminate diseased birds from the flock immediately. Is that even an option when many Americans consider their dog a member of the family?

Recommended: How to Cure Lyme Disease, and Virtually Any Other Bacterial Infection, Naturally

The More You Know

Scientists repeatedly mention how diverse canine flu strains are becoming, and there isn’t a push to figure out why. Perhaps part of the answer is the proximity of the animals to the ultimate disease incubators – us.

The further we continue down the rabbit hole of our health care system, the more it becomes clear that we have dramatically underestimated our opponents. Our answers to the problems posed by bacteria and viruses have seemed to inspire those pathogens to greater and more creative heights at a speed not seen in nature.

Sources:



Breast Cancer, Unnecessary Chemotherapy, and Invasive Procedures for Women

Is it easier to prescribe exhausting, and ineffective medications than it is to look for actual disease prevention and treatment? The answer is yes, and sixty percent of women with breast cancer are paying the price for that complacency with unnecessary chemotherapy.

A recent study released in the New England Journal of Medicine examined outcomes from two different breast cancer treatments: hormone therapy, and chemotherapy. After nine years of following patients, researchers found that the results were indistinguishable. It didn’t matter what treatment they received – nine out of ten women survived. So why do we continue with chemotherapy?

Do the ends justify the means?

Chemotherapy is our default medical standard of care for cancer. While it can eliminate the immediate threat, it’s more problematic than helpful. The cancer is gone, but many women are left crippled in another way. The immune system is a shell of what it once was, leaving the body open to all manner of infections and other health conditions.  According to Otis Brawley, chief medical and scientific officer for the American Cancer Society,

I have lost three patients over the last 25 years because they got leukemia from their chemo…I have lost patients who got congestive heart failure because of their chemo, and I have seen patients who get ‘chemo brain’ and have difficulty concentrating for the rest of their lives.”

The other, less invasive treatment option presented in this article isn’t perfect. Endocrine therapy, which inhibits the body’s ability to produce estrogen, can result in symptoms of early menopause, joint pain, and weight loss. But we didn’t have that option until recently. Why not? Is chemotherapy so effective that medicine should have stopped looking for solutions?

Recommended: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

It’s a Pattern

The practice of applying unnecessarily invasive treatments to an entire gender is not a new one in the United States. The World Health Organization has advocated for a c-section rate of 10-15% for over 30 years. Yet the U.S. is frequently cited for rates of more than double that. C-sections are among the most performed surgeries in the U.S., yet mothers who fight for a different outcome are constantly told that “the most important thing is a healthy baby.” Yes, this is true, but that should not be a reason to discourage informed women trying to minimize the physiological fallout from pregnancy. There is a reason the percentage of expectant mothers who find it necessary to hire a doula when giving birth has doubled in a six-year period. Having an advocate is more important than ever.

Me Too

Studies have found that doctors are less likely to listen to or take the concerns of female patients seriously, sometimes describing their pain as emotional or psychogenic. Yet that lack of engagement can lead to treating all women with one size all procedures that aren’t always necessary. It also causes many women years of frustration, searching for someone who will take their concerns seriously.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

It’s ironic that the alternative treatment to chemotherapy examined in this study reduces the amount estrogen in the body, literally suppressing female hormones. Women are taught to avoid rocking the boat, but speaking up or voting with your dollar and finding someone who will listen can be the thing that saves you from potential long-lasting health issues.

Related:
Sources:



Monsanto’s Name To Be Retired – Bayer Aims To Erase Sordid History

Now that the merger between Bayer and Monsanto has been approved, the German pharmaceutical giant has announced plans to scrub the Monsanto name from their agrochemical products, selling them under the name Bayer Crop Science instead. After receiving the U.S. government approval for the merger, the company announced,

Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio…”

The deal is scheduled to be completed on June 14.

The Benefits

In eliminating the name Monsanto, Bayer is getting rid of quite a bit of baggage. Monsanto is responsible for the introduction of several products that have done serious damage to the environment and public health, like Agent Orange, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), saccharin, aspartame, and recently designated carcinogen, glyphosate. Entire protest movements are dedicated to opposing Monsanto, and there’s always the possibility that the more stringent regulations of GMOs have been in response to their reputation. With this move, Bayer loses the liability of the Monsanto reputation while maintaining Monsanto’s profits and market control.

Must Read: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-EW4XzQwRM

Holistic Profits

Bayer is remaking itself. Originally a pharmaceutical company, they’re now moving into agriculture. But not just any agriculture…they’re getting into agriculture with a company that has been definitively linked to making people sick. Which makes this an excellent move for Bayer. Step one, take control of the food system. Step two, make the food that causes cancer and disrupts the endocrine system impossible to avoid. Step three, sell the drugs needed to manage the conditions caused by unavoidable unhealthy food. Step four? Profit, clearly.

Sources: