Medical insanity: Babies now being treated with dangerous diabetes drugs before they’re even born

Tuesday, April 03, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of all articles…)

Learn more:

(NaturalNews) In Britain, drug companies are now pushing for children to be dosed with potentially dangerous diabetes drugsbefore they’re even born!It’s just the latest example of medical insanity in a world experiencing arunaway diabetes epidemic.
But instead of teaching expectant mothers how to halt the disease through exercise, mineral-rich nutrition, and avoiding processed foods, the government is pushingdangerous chemical medicationsthat inevitably have health-compromising side effects.
The drug being used in UK trials right now isMetformin(glucophage), a drug with a long history of toxicity and known to cause side effects like:
• muscle pain and weakness
• slow or uneven heart rate
• nausea and vomiting
• difficulty breathing
• reduction in levels of sex hormones
• numbness in arms and legs
• stomach pain
• lactic acidosis, a potentially fatal build-up of lactic acid in the body
… and this is what they’re now giving pregnant women? Seriously?

Pregnant woman are the new target market for Big Pharma

The Daily Mail reports that “If the strategy is a success, the treatment could be in widespread use in as little as five years, with tens of thousands of overweight but otherwise healthy mothers-to-be drugged each year.” (…)
This push to drug pregnant women with diabetes drugs is truly the height of medical insanity. And it’s on top of the recent push tovaccinate pregnant womenwith flu shots — something that was unthinkable even in conventional medical circles just five years ago.
It’s clear from all this that Big Pharma sees unborn babies as fertile new ground for profit exploitation. In scanning news headlines each day, I’ve even seen a push forchemotherapy for expectant mothersas a way to “prevent cancer” in their unborn babies!
Yeah, insane. But that’s the new norm for Western medicine which has proven itself to be little more thana profiteering racketof mindless drugging of adults, teens, infants and even your pet dog.

“Aborting” babies years after they are born

At the same time, none of this medical science agenda is really about saving children at all, because the very same circle of scientists who push vaccines and drugs are also pushing a new agenda of legalizingpost-birth “abortions”— the killing of babies up to three years old if the parents don’t like the child.
Yes, a new “scientific” paper published in theJournal of Medical Ethicsargues that killing newborn babies is ethically no different than abortion and should therefore be openly allowed in society. The paper says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and that they do not have “a moral right to life.” The authors — Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva — say that killing babies up the three years old is bothethicalandbased in science!(…)
In medical science circles, it seems, babies are either seen asprofit exploitation opportunitiesor useless trash to be thrown out or re-processed as raw materials for cosmetics (yes, it’s true this is done in China). These are the values of modern medical science, the vaccine industry and the pharmaceutical companies. Think about it: Advocates of infanticide (the murder of babies) get published in a mainstream science journal, while those who advocate natural childbirth, midwifery or breastfeeding are routinely marginalized as being “unscientific.”
Science, it turns out, has been hijacked by corporate interests and a life extermination agenda.
Learn more:

More on MURDERING Baby up to 3 years of age and the Scumballs behind it…


When do we get to euthanize the medical ethicists who say murdering newborn babies is good for society?


(NaturalNews) In an article published in theJournal of Medical Ethics, scientists argue that killing newborn babies is ethically no different than abortion and should therefore be openly allowed in society. The paper says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and that they do not have “a moral right to life.” (See sources, below.)
The authors of the article are mainstream medicine ethicists named Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. One is a former Oxford scholar. In their paper, they argue “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Several death threats have been leveled against the scientists, although it’s hard to actually call them “death” threats since scientists who recognize no sense of life in newborn babies can’t possibly be living themselves, right? At best, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva aremindless zombies, so whacking off their heads with a chainsaw would seemingly be no more meaningful than turning off the switch to a hollow sack of skin that contains no soul.
I’m being sarcastic, of course, by using their own mad reasoning against them. They call the murder of infants nothing more than “after-birth abortion” and declare that “it should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is.”
Can we still abort these scientists? Or is it too late for that?

Finally out in the open: The mass murder / eugenics agenda of abortion pushers

In one sense, it sure is refreshing to see all this admitted for a change. Instead of hiding behind the false explanations and excuse-making that we normally hear from the abortion crowd, we now get an uncensored, heartless attack on human life wrapped in a “scientific” paper of such arrogance and destruction that it can only make you wonder just how totally mad the medical scientists have now become.
If a human baby has no value to them, then probably neither does a young tree, or a newborn wild animal, or a seed sprout. Life is not sacred to the conventional medical industry; it is merely somethingto be exploited for power and profit. This is precisely the ethical context under which GMOs are pushed… or chemotherapy, or even vaccines.
In fact, the argument of these medical ethicists — that babies may be murdered because raising them could create an undue burden on society — is exactly the same logic of the vaccine murderers — that it’s okay if a few children die during a mass vaccination campaign because it reduces the health care burden on society. That’s a lie, of course, because vaccines don’t actually reduce the spread of infectious disease at all. Theyincreaseit, as Jon Rappoport covers in excruciating detail in his new course “Vaccines: Armed and Dangerous.” (
In attempting to explain why theJournal of Medical Ethicschose to publish a paper promoting the mass murder of newborn babies, its editor offered the following deplorable self-justification: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”
Well-reasoned? Murdering babies is now “reasoned?”

Using human babies as vaccine guinea pigs

If the conventional medical industry sees nothing wrong with murdering newborn babies, no wonder it simultaneously has no problem using them ashuman guinea pigson which mad medical experiments are conducted.
Over the last hundred years or so, pharmaceutical and vaccine makers have been repeatedly caught using babies as guinea pigs to test the “safety” of their deadly drugs and vaccines. Such events almost always end up murdering a few dozen children, an outcome which is labeled “scientific progress” because it provided fatality data to the corporate sponsors of the experiments.
Pfizer murdered children Nigeria using precisely such a scheme (, and the U.S. federal government openly funded “scientific” drug company experiments on human prisoners in Guatemala ( In fact, there are literally hundreds of cases of drug companies and governments using innocent children in “scientific” medical experiments, always claiming that the benefit to society outweighs their murdering ways.
These are, of course, the mad murder profiling behaviors ofpsychotic killerswho nevertheless are widely commended and even heralded as world-renowned scientists in the realm of conventional (mainstream) medicine. Yet if anyone on the planet deserves to be justifiably killed by the villagers, it’s these mad “scientific” baby killers and vaccine experiment pushers. As they recognize no value in human life whatsoever,they represent a clear and present danger to the safety of societyand might best be dispatched in electric chairs or tightly-bound neck ropes before they unleash another Hitler-era holocaust of eugenics across the globe.

Famed physicist Stephen Hawking also sees no ethical violation in mass murder

Lest you think this genocidal streak among the so-called scientific community is limited to just a couple of medical whackos who wrote a paper in a science journal, recall the fact that famed physicist Stephen Hawking openly and adamantly insists human beings are nothing more than “biological robots” who have no souls, no consciousness, no free will and therefore no value as anything other than a collection of cells.
Snuffing out the lights on something that isn’t really alive can’t exactly be called murder, can it? So the bizarre view that human beings are not conscious beings with minds or souls is, of course, the prerequisite argument to justifying their mass murder.
“It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more thanbiological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”
– Stephen Hawking, the Grand Design
If free will is nothing more than an illusion, then that means you aren’t responsible for your own actions anyway, so committing mass murder against others is morally neutral for you. Killing babies is of no consequence. Heck, you might as well just pick up a full-auto M4, march into a local high school, and start blasting away all the students, teachers and principal, then claim it must have been your biology that caused you to do it because according to Stephen Hawking, you have no mind or consciousness to begin with. That’s the kind of madness the quack philosophies of people like Hawking end up promoting.
But it isn’t just Hawking who believes humans have no value as conscious, living beings — DNA discovered Francis Crick also pushed the same stilted beliefs:
“You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules,”, Crick claimed in his bookThe Astonishing Hypothesis.”
This view by Crick, just like the view of Hawking, is that human beings are merelybiological machinesthat onlyappearto house conscious beings inside. A newborn is just a really advanced fetus, and a fetus is just a couple of cells, they might argue. So a teenage boy playing baseball at the local park is just an advanced version of a newborn, and we can murder him too, if we like. In fact, nobody is off limits from these genocidal maniacs because at no point in human development do psychotic scientific whackos like Hawking or Crick admit thatconsciousnessenters the body, thereby achieving some degree of merit or value as a living, breathing, free-thinking being.
These same views are mirrored across the so-called “scientific” community, which has increasingly revealed itself to be a collection of death merchants, corporate sellouts, clinical quacks and hyper-arrogant God complex worshippers whose deepest dreams always seem to involve destroying humanity.
Such is the current aim of none other than Bill Gates, the Microsoft pioneer who now spends his time (and money) preaching the benefits of depopulation. I have no doubt Bill Gates also supports the view that killing babies is no different than aborting them in the womb, but since he hasn’t publicly made that statement yet (and probably won’t), this will have to remain mere conjecture.
We can, however, remain confident in his new nickname,the Sperminator!(

Stop creating mutant babies in the first place

Part of the justification of all this in the minds of these baby killers, by the way, is that parents should not have to raise deformed babies, and since many deformities aren’t obvious until the moment of birth, parents should have the right to just euthanize the child right after birth, like putting down the family dog. Don’t like your first baby? Shoot him and make another, they seem to suggest.
That’s modern medical ethics for ya, huh?
I have a better idea: Why don’t we stop causing birth defects in pregnant women in the first place? Have you noticed over the last 2-3 years how aggressively these baby-killing doctors are pushing formass vaccination of pregnant women?Until about 2009, vaccine shots were never recommended for pregnant women because medical professionals knew the vaccines would cause either birth defects or spontaneous abortions (VERY common in women who are vaccinated while pregnant).
Well now, all of a sudden, there are vaccine ads for pregnant women everywhere. The argument now is that pregnant women need MORE vaccines in order to protect themselves and their babies. Hallmark cards even distributes vaccination compliance cards for new moms ( to help make sure newborn babies get injected with an often-fatal cocktail of toxic vaccine chemicals.
Do you see the real agenda behind all this? It’s yet another depopulation tactic. Vaccinate all the pregnant women and you’ll lose maybe another 10% of all the babies through spontaneous abortion. Bill Gates marks that down as a depopulation victory!

When do we get to abort all the mad scientists?

That there remains a group of mad eugenics “scientists” in our world who openly and unapologetically promote the mass murder of living newborn babies is itself disturbing enough. But what’s really frustrating is that the rest of us can’t just take a machete to these people because we are bound by a higher sense of honoring the value of life — even the lives of those who are destroyers of life.
Because after all, if the argument is that we can openly kill people as long as such murders benefit society, then there’s a really, really long list of people who need to be taken out, starting with many of the top death-merchant scientists who push all this madness. (But we don’t do that kind of thing, because we’re decent people, see?)
If we kill them at age 55, it’s not really murder, remember. It’s just a really drawn-out post-partum abortion, they say. In fact, according to these science psychos, you can kill anybody right up to the day they die and still call it an abortion. It’s all just a matter of time, and time is an illusion, the physicists claim.
So get out your chainsaws, ninja swords and poison blowgun darts, friends. Saddle up and lock-and-load. There’s some death to deal out on this here planet, and thanks to the likes of authors who are published in mainstream scientific journals, it’s now a totalfree-for-alldeath derby on the human race!
If you kill enough people, you might even win a free subscription to theJournal of Medical Ethics!
Editor’s note: Please don’t actually kill anyone after reading this article. Some of the language used herein is presented in a tongue-in-cheek style of indignant sarcasm in order to draw attention to the outrageous absurdity of the medical ethicists being covered here. We do not condone actually killing anyone. Not even those who very clearly deserve it.
Sources for this story include:……
Learn more:


Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion

A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion Photo: Alamy

Stephen Adams

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent

1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled ‘What is the problem with euthanasia?’

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” – a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College, said: “If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say ‘it’s doesn’t matter, she can get another one,’ is that what we want to happen?

“What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new.”

Referring to the term “after-birth abortion”, Dr Stammers added: “This is just verbal manipulation  that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide.”


Doctors ‘should have the right to KILL unwanted or disabled babies at birth as they are not a real person’ claims former Oxford academic

  • Philosopher and medical ethicist Francesca Minerva argues that killing a newborn is little different to aborting it in the womb
  • Even a healthy baby could have its life snuffed out if the mother decides she can’t afford to look after it, Dr Minerva suggested
  • Doctor receives death threats and hate calls telling her to ‘burn in hell’
  • Anti-abortion vicar: ‘If infanticide is morally repulsive, then abortion is too’

UPDATED: 14:00 GMT, 1 March 2012

CAUTION THIS WOMAN Francesca Minerva SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABORTED(Just after her own birth)


Controversial: Francesca Minerva says doctors should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers

DANGER DANGER Conspiring to promote BABY murder DANGER DANGER

Controversial: Francesca Minerva (pictured above) says doctors should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers

Doctors should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers, an academic with links to Oxford University has claimed.

Francesca Minerva, a philosopher and medical ethicist, argues a young baby is not a real person and so killing it in the first days after birth is little different to aborting it in the womb.

WE SAY Doctors should have aborted Francesca Minerva in the womb for even suggesting this insane,absurd,murderous Idea that doctors should have the right to KILL – MURDER newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers

Even a healthy baby could have its life snuffed out if the mother decides she can’t afford to look after it, the article published by the British Medical Journal group states.

The journal’s editor has defended the piece, saying the publication’s role is to present well-reasoned arguments, rather than promote one particular moral view.

But the article has angered other ethicists, peers and campaigners. They have described the call for legalized infanticide as chilling and an ‘inhumane defense of child destruction’.

The doctor, a research associate at Oxford, has received death threats and hate calls telling her that she will ‘burn in hell’, and she said the last few days since publication have been ‘the worst of my life’.

Writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Dr Minerva and co-author Alberto Giubilini, a University of Milan bioethicist, argue that ‘after-birth abortion’ should be permissible in all cases in which abortion is.

They state that like an unborn child, a newborn has yet to develop hopes, goals and dreams and so, while clearly human, is not a person – someone with a moral right to life.

Our Question??? Who make this moral decision of the newborns moral right to life or death. Tell us who-what human has the right to decide life or death for any other LIVING being…Any human on the planet only has the right of choice of life or death for there own life only and the jury’s still out on that one

In contrast, parents, siblings and society have aims and plans that could be affected by the arrival of the child and their interests should come first.

The article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? first addresses scenarios in which parents are unaware their child is disabled until after it is born.

The piece argues that, though the child may be happy, it will not reach the potential of a normal child.
SO WHAT… THE CHILD STILL HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE LIKE YOU AND I AND EVERY OTHER LIVING BEING .Who is to decide what quality of life deserves life and what even if happy quality of  life deserves death

‘To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole…On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.’”SICK”

Right to decide: Dr Minerva argues a young baby is not a real person and so killing it in the first days after birth is little different to aborting it in the womb

Right to decide: Dr Minerva argues a young baby is not a real person and so killing it in the first days after birth is little different to aborting it in the womb

The ethicists are also in favor of the infanticide of a healthy baby when the woman’s circumstances have changed and she no longer has the time, money or energy to care for it.

They argue that while adoption might be an option, it could cause undue psychological distress to the mother.


As the hate calls came in, Dr Minerva she had not been expecting the overwhelmingly negative reaction.

Joanna Jepson: 'A compelling reason to stop late-term abortions'

Joanna Jepson: ‘A compelling reason to stop late-term abortions’

She said she believes her argument was taken out of its academic and theoretical context, and that ‘I wish I could explain to people it is not a policy – and I’m not suggesting that and I’m not encouraging that’.

She believes the majority of threats have come from religious or Pro-Life groups.

Some of the hate messages told her that she would be punished by God, while others suggested she should ‘burn in hell’.

The article also provoked responses from religious and pro-life groups.

Rev Joanna Jepson, came to public attention when she spoke out against a late abortion that had been carried out in 2001.

Doctors are permitted to carry out abortions beyond the 24-week legal limit if they believe a baby’s disability is serious enough, but Joanna argued that a cleft palate was a minor physical flaw, not a severe abnormality.

She revealed that, until surgery at the age of 19, her own face was disfigured by a congenital defect. Her upper jaw overhung her lower jaw, which receded into her neck, and posed the question: ‘Would it have been right to abort me?’

She said: ‘It’s misleading to call this ‘after birth abortion’. The pregnancy is already over, there is nothing to abort.  What is being discussed is infanticide.

‘There is a logic to their point – if we consider it acceptable to abort a baby up until birth then why not allow it to die afterwards? It is just a difference in geography –  within or outside the mother’s body.

‘Of course, I would see this a compelling reason to abolish late-term abortion, if infanticide is morally repulsive then abortion is too.

‘If a baby, because of it’s physical disabilities, is seen as being “incompatible with life” then we need to let life and death take its course. Becoming agents of death fundamentally changes doctor’s role as healer and physician, and it also has massive repercussions on society’s conscience shifting what is understood to be morally and socially unacceptable to become acceptable.

Of course motherhood is inconvenient, physically, emotionally, psychologically, financially – but this inconvenience is not allowed to become acceptable grounds for abandoning one’s child.

‘If a child or an adult has a life-changing accident or illness, do we suggest we’ll put them down because their goals and dreams now have to change?

‘My brother, Alastair, has great and huge goals and he goes after them with great courage.  His Downs Syndrome does not stand in the way.

‘They are very different dreams and goals to my own but no less valuable or of contribution to society.  At what level would Dr Minerva assign somebody’s meaning and value to be worth a life?

When infanticide was mandatory: How values have changed through history

Mass grave: Yewden Villa

Mass grave: Yewden Villa in Buckinghamshire

While infanticide may seem an inhumane concept for many people, there have been periods in history where it has been accepted behavior – and even a legal obligation.

In Roman culture, disabled infants were often abandoned after birth by parents who did not want or could not afford the financial burden.

The child would simply be left outside to die from starvation and the elements in a practice known as ‘exposure’. It was an established and acceptable procedure.

In 1912, Yewsden Villa (right) was excavated in Hambleden in Buckinghamshire, and researchers were shocked to find the bodies of 97 babies in a mass-grave.

The babies had apparently all been killed shortly after birth, and the prevailing theory is that the site was near a brothel.

With a lack of contraception in Roman times, unwanted pregnancies would likely have been much more common, and the mass grave is another example that infanticide did not pose such an ethical dilemma in that era.

Archaeologists believe Romans did not consider infants to be ‘full’ human beings until about the age of two, and babies who died before that age were not buried in cemeteries, but instead in public or domestic areas.

However a Roman couple were entitled to raise a disabled child. In Sparta, there was little choice in the matter.

Newborns were seen as the property of the state and all babies were inspected by a community leader. If the child showed signs of deformity or ill-health, the parents were ordered to expose it.

Many parents in ancient Greeks would also expose their newborns because of sickness, financial pressure, or simply for being the ‘wrong’ sex in the male-dominated society.

Many religions had did not raise moral objects to infanticide, although Christianity and Islam notably rejected it.

Leaving the child to the elements was the preferred method to ‘dispose’ of the child, because it meant the child died of natural causes, which was a more ‘moral’ death than directly killing the child.

The practice generally died out, and was outlawed in the last years of the Roman Empire. However there are references to infanticide in many cultures in every historical era, and is believed to still take place in certain parts of India, Africa, and China.

China’s controversial ‘one-child’ policy leads to many children being abandoned after birth.

Trevor Stammers, a lecturer in medical ethics and former chairman of the Christian Medical Fellowship, described the viewpoint as ‘chilling’.

Gill Duval, of the ProLife Alliance, said every life is precious and added: ‘Everybody talks about what women want but women wouldn’t want this.’

Lord Alton, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Pro-Life, told the Catholic Herald: ‘It is profoundly disturbing, indeed shocking, to see the way in which opinion-formers within the medical profession have ditched the professional belief of the healer to uphold the sanctity of human life for this impoverished and inhumane defense of child destruction.’

Julian Savulescu, the journal’s editor, said that the article’s argument has been made before by eminent figures.

He added: ‘I’m not defending practicing infanticide. I’m defending academic and intellectual freedom.’

He said that Dr Minerva has a ‘loose relationship’ with Oxford and her main position is at the University of Melbourne.

Single mum: The ethicists are also in favour of the infanticide of a healthy baby when the woman¿s circumstances have changed and she no longer has the time, money or energy to care for it

Struggling mother: The ethicists are also in favor of the infanticide of a healthy baby when the woman’s circumstances have changed and she no longer has the time, money or energy to care for it

Read more:

Then from Killing Babies to Killing Sperm

Bill Gates is the Sperminator

Posted: 2/24/2012 – Commentary by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Spread the word about this comic:

What do you call a guy who is obsessed with destroying human sperm and depopulating the planet? The Sperminator, of course.

Much like the Terminator played by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movies, the Sperminator is a highly-intelligent death machine that seeks to use high technology to destroy humanity’s future.

When it comes to Bill Gates and his dehumanization agenda, it’s hard to even know where to begin: GMOs? Vaccines? Chemtrails? Genetically engineered mosquitoes?

Bill Gates has even funded a technology that can sterilize a human man by blasting his scrotum with a high-frequency ultrasound device. Bing!(

That’s where the idea for this cartoon came from, by the way. Word!

Microsoft has also teamed up with Merck, becoming a global “drug development partner” with the world’s larger vaccine manufacturer. ( As if we didn’t already have enough blue screen of death in our lives, just wait until we start getting psychiatric drugs patented by Microsoft. Can you imagine the psychotic side effects of something like MS-Prozac? “Don’t worry, you brain will reboot after it downloads and applies 47 update patches at the most inconvenient time imaginable. Do not disconnect power during this process…”

The Sperminator says: Kill the humans!

You read it right: Microsoft is now in the pharmaceutical business. And their focus is gene-targeting technology that could theoretically be used to develop race-specific bioweapons that, for example, kill only people of a certain color.

Then again, Bill Gates’ depopulation agenda doesn’t seem to be race specific… it’s more like “Kill all humans” much like the Terminator in the first film. Hey, maybe Bill Gates will use his billions of dollars to build a time machine that transports him back into humanity’s early origins where he can destroy the entire future of the race by vaccinating a young male child named John Conner.

None of this is a joke, by the way. The cartoon may be satire, but Bill Gates’ depopulation agenda is 100% true. This is a guy who openly admitted on stage in front of a live audience that if society does a “really great job” with vaccines and health care, we can “lower the population by perhaps 10 to 15 percent.” Watch that video yourself right here:

Or read our report on this at:

The Great Culling is upon us

The global depopulation agenda, you see, is hiding in plain sight. The monsters who are pushing to depopulate the planet are telling you right out in the open how they’re planning on killing you. VACCINES, get it? HEALTH care, okay? These are the words Bill Gates uses right in plain sight.

It’s all a big IQ test to see if you’re paying attention enough to save your own life and avoid being part of the “great culling.”

Check out that new documentary, by the way, at:

And above all, remember that if you are reading this, you ARE the resistance.

Spread the word. Stay alive. Avoid being “depopulated” by vaccines, GMOs, chemical food additives and pharmaceuticals. And most of all, avoid being “sperminated” by Bill Gates.


In the meantime keep on Vaccinating your newborn with as many and as often as the medical societies can con you into


Hallmark now distributing vaccine shot compliance cards targeting newborns across America

Friday, December 09, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of

Learn more:

(NaturalNews) The Arizona Department of Health Services wants to remind parents to inject their newborn babies with neurologically-damaging chemical adjuvants found in vaccines, and to aid in this effort, they’ve teamed up withHallmark, the famous greeting card company.
Hallmark has designed and provided a special “vaccine shot tracking” card — an “Immunization Record” — that features the following vaccine propaganda:
Bet you’re as proud
as you can be
of that new little branch
on your family tree!
One of the most important roles as a parent is to make sure your baby is immunized.
Keeping your little one healthy mean starting immunizations by two months of age.
…The following immunizations are recommended before the age of 2…

See the inside of the card yourself at:

And the outside of the card here:…

The outside also adds:
Hallmark is committed to encouraging childhood immunizations… for additional information on the program, go towww.Hallmark.comand search “for America’s babies”

For America’s babies?

Maybe you should instead search for “deathfor America’s babies.” That’s what these vaccines often cause, of course: Death, seizures, neurological damage, autism, fevers, vomiting and much more (
I find it fascinating that Hallmark, a greeting card company that usually churns out feel-good blessings and warm fuzzy limericks is now openly advocatingchemicals that kill babies.
And they can’t even claim to be “saving” more children than the vaccines are killing, either. Because it turns out thatunvaccinated childrenare overall far healthier than vaccinated children! (

Targeting Latino newborns? Si! Se puede!

But of course, we know thereal agendaof pushing vaccines to new moms in Arizona. I lived in Tucson for many years and I’ve seen the local politics at work. Arizona is a state that’s overrun by the financial costs of providing medical care to so-called “illegals” — undocumented residents who pay little or no taxes but often burden the state’s coffers for hospital expenditures.
What I see in this Hallmark vaccine shot propaganda card isan effort to promote widespread infertility across the Latino populationof Arizona. That’s what vaccines do best, of course — induce infertility in both men and women. That’s why Bill Gates, the ultra-wealthy globalist behind the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, specifically stated that vaccines and health care services could be used to “reduce population by 10 – 15 percent.” (
Perhaps Arizona Governor Jan Brewer agrees with that assessment. What better way to reduce Arizona’s financial burden on the Latino community than to make sure as many as possibleget sterilizedat the earliest available opportunity?
All the better that the entire campaign can be shrouded in the language of “caring for your precious little baby.” You mean the baby that cost the state of Arizona a hundred thousand dollars in emergency childbirth expenses that will never be repaid? That’s the kind of baby the state wants to prevent from ever happening again, it turns out. That’s what the state politicians are saying behind closed doors, in reality.
They figure you can’t just force all the Latinos to be sterilized by injection. So instead, you have totrick theminto sterilizing their own little children. Nothing halts the family tree as quickly as a few rounds of voluntary vaccine shots for momma and daughter. And heck, even if the shots don’t kill ’em, the child will have a weakened immune system which translates intoa lifetime of Big Pharma revenuefrom sickness and disease.

Everyone AROUND your baby should get vaccinated, too!

Continuing the propaganda push, the AZ Department of Health Services includes yet another piece of printed propaganda, claiming that everyonearound your babymust also get vaccinated with multiple vaccine shots.
See that insert here:
So now you’re supposed to push every member of the family to go get vaccinatedfor the benefit of the baby!
See how this works? So cousin Jorge, who is about to impregnate another Latino teen, can get sterilized too. It’s sort of like a viral form ofsocially-enforced sterilization, brought to you by the wonderful people at the state of Arizona and Hallmark, headquartered in Kansas City.

Newborns targeted in Colorado, too

NaturalNews has learned that Hallmark is also conspiring with Colorado officials to push vaccine shot compliance cards onto new moms across that state, too.
In a recent press release, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment proclaimed it would:
“…distribute custom-made Hallmark greeting cards statewide to welcome newborns and inform new parents about the importance of childhood immunizations.”(
No doubt other states are also working on similar programs to distribute Hallmark’s vaccine compliance propaganda to the new moms in their own states.

The great medical IQ test

What’s most interesting about all this is that people who choose to receive vaccine shots are allwinning the Darwin awardby effectively removing their own future generations from the gene pool. These vaccines create atrans-generational sterilization burdenthat increases with each successive generation until it brings newborns to the point of genetic extinction ( That’s why I’ve called flu shots a “great IQ test” to see who is stupid enough to actually take them. In a way, the globalists are actually trying to reverse the “moronification” of the human race by eliminating low-IQ people from the future of human fertility.
And it turns out that gullible people who inject their own children with toxic vaccines come from all races and nationalities: White, black, Latino, Asian, you name it! That’s why vaccines, as they are irresponsibly pushed on children today with the use of brain-damaging chemical adjuvants, are reallya crime against humanity.
You can surround these crimes with warm and fuzzy language in a Hallmark card, but that doesn’t make it any less of a crime, of course. It’s still a chemical assault on an innocent child, and that’s a crime no matter how many fuzzy bears and cuddly cartoons you slap on the front of a greeting card.
In the mean time, I recommend we allboycott Hallmarkfor their role in pushing dangerous and oftendeadly vaccinesonto newborns in Arizona. It’s yet another example of shameful corporate behavior that betrays the trust of the people while serving the selfish interests of the State.
Learn more:


If you would have never in a million years believed that a law enacted by our governments allowing babies up to 3 years of age, to be Murdered-Euthanized could ever come into existense???  Think Again Read On for more on past crime allowed by our Governments


Guatemalan STD medical experiments were just one crime in a long history of medical-government collusion to use humans as guinea pigs

Saturday, October 02, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of

Learn more:

(NaturalNews) It has now been widely revealed that the United States conducted medical experiments on prisoners and mental health patients in Guatemala in the 1940’s. Carried out by a government-employed doctor working in a psychiatric hospital, these experiments involved intentionally infecting Guatemalans with syphilis (and other STDs) without their knowledge in order to determine the effectiveness of penicillin. They were sponsored in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), and they’ve now been widely reported by ABC News, theWashingtonPost and many other mainstream papers (who have suddenly taken an interest in a subject they normally wouldn’t touch).
The outrage against this inhumane medicalscienceexperiment is reflected in mainstream news headlines across the globe, and the Guatemalangovernmentnow characterizes this sad chapter in U.S.historyas a “crime against humanity.” News reporters are shocked in reporting the story, and U.S. government officials seem to be almost beside themselves in discovering that this ever took place inAmerica.
But what you’re about to reveal here willshockyou even more.The U.S. medicalexperimentson Guatemalan citizens, you see, barely scratch the surface of the criminal experiments the U.S. government and themedical industryhas carried out on innocent victims over the last century.

The U.S. pretends to be surprised

Thediscoveryof this medical experiment generated a series of official U.S. responses that can only be calledpolitical theatergiven how contrived they are. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton went on the record saying, “Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensibleresearchcould have occurred under the guise of publichealth… We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices.”
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs called the discovery “reprehensible,” and PresidentObamaeven picked up the phone to call Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom and offer a verbal apology.
You know what all these actions have in common? An implied message that this experiment from the 1940’s was somehow an aberrant mistake that never happens in America. They want you to believe this is just some lone researcher who went off his rocker and committed some atrocious crime in the name ofmedicine. But the reality is thatBig Pharmaand the U.S. government use innocent people in medical experiments every single day. This wasn’t some bizarre, rareevent. It was a reflection of the way the U.S. government has consistently conspired with the medicalindustryto test drugs on innocent victims and find out what happens.

U.S. government and Big Pharma continue to commit crimes against humanity

This pattern extends to the modern day, of course. Remember the Gulf War veterans who were diagnosed withGulf War Syndromeshortly after returning from serving in Iraq? It is widely believed that this syndrome is the side effect ofexperimental vaccines anddrugsforced upon these soldiers by the U.S. government. In thetimelineof medical experiments shown below, you’ll notice a disturbing pattern of governments exploiting soldiers for their experiments.
More recently, last year’sswine fluvaccinewas essentially one grand medical experiment involving hundreds of millions of people around the world. The vaccine was entirely untested and had never been scientifically tested and then approved as safe by any healthauthority, yet it was aggressively pushed by government authorities in the hopes that people would take the shots so they could find out what happens. (It’s a lot like Nancy Pelosi trying to pass the health care reform bill so that we can all find out what’s in it…)

The timeline of medical experiments on innocent victims

What’s really interesting about this story is how the discovery of this 1940’s medical experiment suddenly came to light. It was “discovered” by Susan M. Reverby, a professor at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, who said, “I almost fell out of my chair when I startedreadingthis… Can you imagine? I couldn’t believe it.” (…)
Well maybe she should have been readingNaturalNews. We’ve been publishing the truth about medical experimentation on innocent humans for years. If Susan Reverby knew anything about how the medical industry really operates, she wouldn’t have been surprised at all. The history of medical experiments conducted in the name of thepharmaceutical industryis chock full of accounts ofprisoners, blacks, women and other groups being exploited as human lab rats (see the timeline link below to read it for yourself).
Upon discovering this medical experiment, Susan Reverby was so outraged that she went public with her findings. ABC News picked up on the story and then it spread like wildfire throughout themainstream media. That’s the curious thing about this: The mainstream media so rarely prints the truth about the history of medicine that when something truthful appears, it’s “amazing” news.
But here on, we print these kind of stories every single day. To discover that yet another group of victims was abused and exploited by a government-paiddoctorworking for thedrugindustry isroutine. The abuses of human life committed by the pharmaceutical industry goes far beyond 1500 Guatemalans and actually extends totens of millions of Americanswho are being treated like guinea pigs every single day.

Psychiatry – An Industry of Death

If you really want to be freaked out by the true, documented history of how people have been tortured, abused, injected, maimed and otherwise had their lives destroyed by the medical industry, check out thePsychiatry An Industry of Death Museumcreated by CCHR (
Watch the video here:
You can actually walk through this museum yourself. It’s in Los Angeles, and it’s one of the most disturbing things you’ll ever see about the true history of medicine. The STD experiments inGuatemala, by the way, were carried out in a psychiatric hospital. (No surprise.) I walked through this museum and practically found myself in tears before it was over. The things that psychiatrists and doctors will do to other human beings in the name of “medicine” will rock you to the core.
The psychiatric industry has done unspeakable things to women,children, prisoners, senior citizens, African Americans and racial minorities — all in the name of “science” and “medicine.” In fact, these experiments continue to this day in the form ofthe psychiatric drugging of childrenwho are diagnosed with fictitious health conditions such as “ADHD.” See mydiseasemongering engine to invent your own psychiatricdisorders, if you want a bit of satire on this subject:
Nobody has documented the real history of medicine’s criminalabuseof human beings as well as CCHR – theCitizens’ Commission on Human Rights. Check out their amazing, shocking and eye-openingvideossuch asThe Marketing of Madness( andMaking A Killing(
Here, you’ll begin to scratch the surface of the true story of criminal abuse by the pharmaceutical industry — often in collusion with government. Normally, these stories are all covered up and we never hear about them. After all, to discover that the U.S. government conspired with the pharmaceutical industry to infect Guatemalans with a sexually-transmitted disease doesn’t exactly reflect the kind of image Obama wishes for people to believe about America.

A timeline of medical experiments on humans

Below, I’ve reprinted a timeline ofhuman medical experimentsthat we first put together here on NaturalNews several years ago. This is just a partial list, by the way: There are more experiments that were conducted in secret and were never documented.
As you’ll see here, the experiment on Guatemalans just barely begins to paint the full picture of just how many human beings have been killed, poisoned, maimed or otherwise had their lives destroyed by criminal medical experiments carried out in the name of “medical science.”
Many of these experiments involve organizations whose names you would instantly recognize: Merck, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, theNational Institutes of Health, Massachusetts General Hospital and many more. This is like a Who’s Who of the pharmaceutical industry, and they were all involved in using human beings as guinea pigs to conduct medical experiments.
And as you’ll see below, the Guatemalan experiment isn’t even the most grotesque or disturbing.
Note: Below is only apartial listof human medical experiments we’ve documented here on NaturalNews. See the full list here:

(1845 – 1849)

J. Marion Sims, later hailed as the “father of gynecology,” performsmedical experimentson enslaved African women withoutanesthesia. These women would usually die ofinfectionsoon after surgery. Based on his belief that the movement of newborns’ skullbonesduring protracted birthscausestrismus, he also uses a shoemaker’s awl, a pointed tool shoemakers use to make holes in leather, to practice moving the skull bones ofbabiesborn to enslaved mothers (Brinker).


New Yorkpediatrician Henry Heiman infects a 4-year-old boy whom he calls “an idiot with chronic epilepsy” with gonorrhea as part of a medical experiment (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After”).


Dr. Arthur Wentworth turns 29 children at Boston’s Children’s Hospital into humanguinea pigswhen he performs spinal taps on them, just to test whether the procedure is harmful (Sharav).


Harvard professor Dr. Richard Strong infects prisoners in the Philippines with cholera to study the disease; 13 of them die. He compensates survivors with cigars and cigarettes. During the Nuremberg Trials, Nazidoctorscite this study to justify their own medical experiments (Greger,Sharav).


Dr. Hideyo Noguchi of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research publishes data on injecting an inactive syphilis preparation into the skin of 146hospitalpatients and normal children in an attempt to develop askintest for syphilis. Later, in 1913, several of these children’sparentssue Dr. Noguchi for allegedly infecting their children with syphilis (“Reviews and Notes: History of Medicine: Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War”).


Medical experimenters “test” 15 children at the children’shomeSt. Vincent’s House in Philadelphia with tuberculin, resulting in permanentblindnessin some of the children. Though the Pennsylvania House of Representatives records the incident, the researchers are not punished for the experiments (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After”).


Dr. Joseph Goldberger, under order of the U.S. Public Health Office, produces Pellagra, a debilitating disease that affects the centralnervous system, in 12 Mississippi inmates to try to find a cure for the disease. One test subject later says that he had been through “a thousand hells.” In 1935, after millions die from the disease, the director of the U.S Public Health Office would finally admit that officials had known that it was caused by a niacin deficiency for some time, but did nothing about it because it mostly affected poor African-Americans. During the Nuremberg Trials,Nazidoctors used this study to try to justify their medical experiments on concentration camp inmates (Greger;Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).


(1932-1972) The U.S. Public Health Service in Tuskegee, Ala. diagnoses 400 poor, black sharecroppers with syphilis but never tells them of theirillnessnor treats them; instead researchers use the men as human guinea pigs to follow thesymptomsand progression of the disease. They all eventually die from syphilis and their families are never told that they could have been treated (Goliszek,University of Virginia Health System Health Sciences Library).


In order to test his theory on the roots of stuttering, prominent speech pathologist Dr. Wendell Johnson performs his famous “Monster Experiment” on 22 children at theIowaSoldiers’ Orphans’ Home in Davenport. Dr. Johnson and his graduatestudentsput the children under intense psychological pressure, causing them to switch from speaking normally to stuttering heavily. At the time, some of the students reportedly warn Dr. Johnson that, “in the aftermath of World War II, observers might draw comparisons to Nazi experiments on human subjects, which could destroy his career” (Alliance for Human Research Protection).


Dr. William C. Black infects a 12-month-old baby withherpesas part of a medical experiment. At the time, the editor of theJournal of Experimental Medicine, Francis Payton Rous, calls it “an abuse of power, an infringement of the rights of an individual, and not excusable because the illness which followed had implications for science” (Sharav).
An article in a 1941 issue ofArchives of Pediatricsdescribes medicalstudiesof the severe gum disease Vincent’s angina in which doctors transmit the disease from sick children tohealthychildren with oral swabs (Goliszek).
Researchers give 800 poverty-strickenpregnant womenat a Vanderbilt University prenatal clinic “cocktails” including radioactiveironin order to determine the iron requirements of pregnant women (Pacchioli).


The Chemical Warfare Service begins mustard gas and lewisite experiments on 4,000 members of the U.S.military. Some test subjects don’t realize they arevolunteeringfor chemical exposure experiments, like 17-year-old Nathan Schnurman, who in 1944 thinks he is only volunteering to test “U.S. Navy summer clothes” (Goliszek).
Merck Pharmaceuticals President GeorgeMerckis named director of the War Research Service (WRS), an agency designed to oversee the establishment of a biologicalwarfareprogram (Goliszek).
(1944 – 1946) A captain in the medical corps addresses an April 1944 memo to Col. Stanford Warren, head of the Manhattan Project’s Medical Section, expressing his concerns about atom bomb component fluoride’s central nervous system (CNS) effects and asking for animal research to be done to determine the extent of these effects: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect … It seems most likely that the F component rather than the T is the causative factor … Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur afterexposure.” The following year, the Manhattan Project would begin human-based studies on fluoride’s effects (Griffiths and Bryson).
The Manhattan Project medical team, led by the now infamous University of Rochester radiologist Col. Safford Warren, injects plutonium intopatientsat the University’s teaching hospital, Strong Memorial (Burton Report).


Continuing the Manhattan Project, researchers inject plutonium into three patients at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital (Sharav).
The U.S. State Department, Armyintelligenceand the CIA begin Operation Paperclip, offering Nazi scientists immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top-secret government projects on aerodynamics and chemical warfare medicine in the United States (“Project Paperclip”).
(1945 – 1955) In Newburgh, N.Y., researchers linked to the Manhattan Project begin the most extensive American study ever done on the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water (Griffiths and Bryson).


Continuing the Newburg study of 1945, the Manhattan Project commissions the University of Rochester to study fluoride’s effects on animals and humans in aprojectcodenamed “Program F.” With the help of the New York State Health Department, Program F researchers secretly collect and analyzebloodand tissue samples from Newburg residents. The studies are sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission and take place at the University of Rochester Medical Center’s Strong Memorial Hospital (Griffiths and Bryson).
(1946 – 1947) University of Rochester researchers inject four male and two female human test subjects with uranium-234 and uranium-235 in dosages ranging from 6.4 to 70.7 micrograms per one kilogram ofbodyweight in order to study how much uranium they could tolerate before their kidneys become damaged (Goliszek).
Six maleemployeesof a Chicago metallurgical laboratory are givenwatercontaminated with plutonium-239 to drink so that researchers can learn how plutonium is absorbed into the digestive tract (Goliszek).
Researchers begin using patients in VAhospitalsas test subjects for human medical experiments, cleverly worded as “investigations” or “observations” in medical study reports to avoid negative connotations and bad publicity (Sharav).
The American public finally learns of the biowarfare experiments being done at Fort Detrick from a report released by the War Department (Goliszek).


Col. E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issues a top-secret document (707075) dated Jan. 8. In it, he writes that “certain radioactive substances are being prepared for intravenous administration to human subjects as a part of the work of the contract” (Goliszek).
A secret AEC document dated April 17 reads, “It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans that might have an adverse reaction on public opinion or result in legal suits,” revealing that the U.S. government was aware of the health risks its nucleartestsposed to military personnel conducting the tests or nearby civilians (Goliszek).
TheCIAbegins studying LSD’s potential as a weapon by using military and civilian test subjects for experiments without their consent or even knowledge. Eventually, these LSD studies will evolve into the MKULTRA program in 1953 (Sharav).
(1947 – 1953) The U.S. Navy begins Project Chatter to identify and test so-called “truth serums,” such as those used by the Soviet Union to interrogate spies. Mescaline and the central nervous system depressant scopolamine are among the many drugs tested on human subjects (Goliszek).


Based on the secret studies performed on Newburgh, N.Y. residents beginning in 1945, Project F researchers publish a report in the August 1948 edition of theJournal of the American Dental Association, detailing fluoride’s health dangers. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) quickly censors it for “national security” reasons (Griffiths and Bryson).


(1950 – 1953) The U.S. Army releases chemical clouds over six American and Canadiancities. Residents in Winnipeg, Canada, where a highlytoxicchemical called cadmium is dropped, subsequently experience high rates of respiratory illnesses (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).
In order to determine how susceptible an American city could be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud ofBacillus globigiibacteriafrom ships over theSan Franciscoshoreline. According to monitoring devices situated throughout the city to test the extent of infection, the eight thousand residents of San Francisco inhale five thousand or more bacteria particles, many becoming sick with pneumonia-like symptoms (Goliszek).
Dr. Joseph Strokes of the University of Pennsylvania infects 200 female prisoners with viralhepatitisto study the disease (Sharav).
Doctors at the Cleveland City Hospital study changes in cerebralblood flowby injecting test subjects with spinal anesthesia, inserting needles in their jugular veins and brachialarteries, tilting their heads down and, after massive blood loss causes paralysis and fainting, measuring theirblood pressure. They often perform this experiment multiple times on the same subject (Goliszek).
Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, later of MKULTRA infamy due to his 1957 to1964 experiments onCanadians, publishes an article in theBritish Journal of Physical Medicine, in which he describes experiments that entail forcing schizophrenic patients at Manitoba’s Brandon Mental Hospital to lie naked under 15- to 200-watt red lamps for up to eight hours per day. His other experiments include placing mental patients in an electric cage that overheats their internal body temperatures to 103 degrees Fahrenheit, and inducing comas by giving patients large injections of insulin (Goliszek).


The U.S. Army secretly contaminates the Norfolk Naval Supply Center in Virginia and Washington, D.C.’s National Airport with a strain of bacteria chosen because African-Americans were believed to be more susceptible to it than Caucasians. The experiment causes foodpoisoning, respiratory problems and blood poisoning (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).
(1951 – 1956) Under contract with the Air Force’s School of Aviation Medicine (SAM), the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston begins studying the effects of radiation oncancer patients— many of them members of minority groups or indigents, according to sources — in order to determine both radiation’s ability to treatcancerand the possible long-termradiationeffects of pilots flying nuclear-powered planes. The study lasts until 1956, involving 263 cancer patients. Beginning in 1953, the subjects are required to sign a waiver form, but it still does not meet the informed consent guidelines established by the Wilson memo released that year. The TBI studies themselves would continue at four different institutions — Baylor University College of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda and the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine — until 1971 (U.S. Department of Energy, Goliszek).
American, Canadian and British military and intelligence officials gather a small group of eminent psychologists to a secret meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Montreal about Communist “thought-control techniques.” They proposed a top-secret research program on behavior modification — involving testing drugs,hypnosis, electroshock and lobotomies on humans (Barker).


At the famous Sloan-Kettering Institute, Chester M. Southam injects livecancer cellsinto prisoners at the Ohio State Prison to study the progression of the disease. Half of the prisoners in this National Institutes of Health-sponsored (NIH) study are black, awakening racial suspicions stemming from Tuskegee, which was also an NIH-sponsored study (Merritte,et al.).
(1953 – 1974) The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) sponsorsiodinestudies at the University of Iowa. In the first study, researchers give pregnantwomen100 to 200 microcuries of iodine-131 and then study the women’s aborted embryos in order to learn at what stage and to what extentradioactive iodinecrosses the placental barrier. In the second study, researchers give 12 male and 13 femalenewbornsunder 36 hours old and weighing between 5.5 and 8.5 pounds iodine-131 either orally or via intramuscular injection, later measuring the concentration of iodine in the newborns’thyroidglands (Goliszek).
As part of an AEC study, researchers feed 28 healthyinfantsat the University of Nebraska College of Medicine iodine-131 through a gastric tube and then test concentration of iodine in the infants’ thyroid glands 24 hours later (Goliszek).
(1953 – 1957) Eleven patients at Massachusetts General Hospital inBostonare injected with uranium as part of the Manhattan Project (Sharav).
In an AEC-sponsored study at the University of Tennessee, researchers inject healthy two- to three-day-old newborns with approximately 60 rads of iodine-131 (Goliszek).
Newborn Daniel Burton becomes blind whenphysiciansat Brooklyn Doctors Hospital perform an experimental highoxygentreatment for Retrolental Fibroplasia, a retinaldisorderaffecting premature infants, on him and otherpremature babies. The physicians perform the experimental treatment despite earlier studies showing that high oxygen levels cause blindness. Testimony inBurton v. Brooklyn Doctors Hospital(452 N.Y.S.2d875) later reveals that researchers continued to give Burton and other infants excess oxygen even after their eyes had swelled to dangerous levels (Goliszek,Sharav).
A 1953 article inClinical Sciencedescribes a medical experiment in which researchers purposely blister the abdomens of 41 children, ranging in age from eight to 14, with cantharide in order to study how severely the substance irritates the skin (Goliszek).
The AEC performs a series of field tests known as “Green Run,” dropping radiodine 131 and xenon 133 over the Hanford, Wash. site — 500,000 acres encompassing three small towns (Hanford, White Bluffs and Richland) along the Columbia River (Sharav).
In an AEC-sponsored study to learn whether radioactive iodine affects premature babies differently from full-term babies, researchers at Harper Hospital in Detroit give oral doses of iodine-131 to 65 premature and full-term infants weighing between 2.1 and 5.5 pounds (Goliszek).
(1955 – 1957) In order to learn how cold weather affects human physiology, researchers give a total of 200 doses of iodine-131, a radioactive tracer that concentrates almost immediately in thethyroid gland, to 85 healthy Eskimos and 17 Athapascan Indians living in Alaska. They study the tracer within the body by blood, thyroid tissue, urine and saliva samples from the test subjects. Due to the language barrier, no one tells the test subjects what is being done to them, so there is no informed consent (Goliszek).
(1956 – 1957) U.S. Army covert biological weapons researchers release mosquitoes infected with yellowfeverand dengue fever over Savannah, Ga., and Avon Park, Fla., to test the insects’ ability to carry disease. After each test, Army agents pose aspublic healthofficials to test victims for effects and take pictures of the unwitting test subjects. These experiments result in a high incidence of fevers, respiratory distress, stillbirths, encephalitis and typhoid among the two cities’ residents, as well as several deaths (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).


The U.S. military conducts Operation Plumbbob at the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Operation Pumbbob consists of 29 nuclear detonations, eventually creating radiation expected to result in a total 32,000 cases of thyroid cancer among civilians in the area. Around 18,000 members of the U.S. military participate in Operation Pumbbob’s Desert Rock VII and VIII, which are designed to see how the average foot soldier physiologically and mentally responds to a nuclear battlefield (“Operation Plumbbob”, Goliszek).
(1957 – 1964) As part of MKULTRA, the CIA pays McGill University Department of Psychiatry founder Dr. D. Ewen Cameron $69,000 to perform LSD studies and potentially lethal experiments on Canadians being treated for minor disorders like post-partumdepressionand anxiety at the Allan Memorial Institute, which houses the Psychiatry Department of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal. The CIA encourages Dr. Cameron to fully explore his “psychic driving” concept of correcting madness through completely erasing one’s memory and rewriting the psyche. These “driving” experiments involve putting human test subjects into drug-, electroshock- and sensory deprivation-induced vegetative states for up to three months, and then playing tape loops of noise or simple repetitive statements for weeks or months in order to “rewrite” the “erased” psyche. Dr. Cameron also gives human test subjects paralytic drugs and electroconvulsive therapy 30 to 40 times, as part of his experiments. Most of Dr. Cameron’s test subjects suffer permanent damage as a result of his work (Goliszek,“Donald Ewan Cameron”).
In order to study how blood flows through children’s brains, researchers at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia perform the following experiment on healthy children, ranging in age from three to 11: They insert needles into each child’s femoral artery (thigh) and jugular vein (neck), bringing the blood down from thebrain. Then, they force eachchildto inhale a special gas through a facemask. In their subsequentJournal of Clinical Investigationarticleon this study, the researchers note that, in order to perform the experiment, they had to restrain some of the child test subjects by bandaging them to boards (Goliszek).


The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) drops radioactive materials over Point Hope, Alaska, home to the Inupiats, in a field test known under the codename “Project Chariot” (Sharav).


In response to the Nuremberg Trials, Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram begins his famous Obedience to Authority Study in order to answer his question “Could it be that (Adolf) Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” Male test subjects, ranging in age from 20 to 40 and coming from all education backgrounds, are told to give “learners” electric shocks for every wrong answer the learners give in response to word pair questions. In reality, the learners are actors and are not receiving electric shocks, but what matters is that the test subjects do not know that. Astoundingly, they keep on following orders and continue to administer increasingly high levels of “shocks,” even after the actor learners show obvious physical pain (“Milgram Experiment”).


Researchers at the Laurel Children’s Center in Maryland test experimentalacneantibiotics on children and continue their tests even after half of the young test subjects develop severe liver damage because of the experimentalmedication(Goliszek).
The FDA begins requiring that a new pharmaceutical undergo three human clinical trials before it will approve it. From 1962 to 1980,pharmaceutical companiessatisfy this requirement by running Phase I trials, which determine a drug’s toxicity, on prison inmates, giving them small amounts of cash for compensation (Sharav).


Chester M. Southam, who injected Ohio State Prison inmates with live cancer cells in 1952, performs the same procedure on 22 senile, African-American female patients at the Brooklyn Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in order to watch their immunological response. Southam tells the patients that they are receiving “some cells,” but leaves out the fact that they are cancer cells. He claims he doesn’t obtain informed consent from the patients because he does not want to frighten them by telling them what he is doing, but he nevertheless temporarily loses his medical license because of it. Ironically, he eventually becomes president of the American Cancer Society (Greger,Merritte,et al.).
Researchers at the University of Washington directly irradiate the testes of 232 prison inmates in order to determine radiation’s effects on testicular function. When these inmates later leave prison and have children, at least four have babies born withbirthdefects. The exact number is unknown because researchers never follow up on the men to see the long-term effects of their experiment (Goliszek).
(1963 – 1966) New York University researcher Saul Krugman promises parents with mentally disabled children definite enrollment into the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, N.Y., a resident mental institution for mentally retarded children, in exchange for their signatures on a consent form for procedures presented as “vaccinations.” In reality, the procedures involve deliberately infecting children with viral hepatitis by feeding them an extract made from the feces of infected patients, so that Krugman can study the course of viral hepatitis as well the effectiveness of a hepatitis vaccine (Hammer Breslow).
(1963 – 1971) Leading endocrinologist Dr. Carl Heller gives 67 prison inmates at Oregon State Prison in Salem $5 per month and $25 per testicular tissue biopsy in compensation for allowing him to perform irradiation experiments on their testes. If they receive vasectomies at the end of the study, the prisoners are given an extra $100 (Sharav, Goliszek).
Researchers inject a genetic compound called radioactive thymidine into the testicles of more than 100 Oregon State Penitentiary inmates to learn whether sperm production is affected by exposure to steroid hormones (Greger).
In a study published inPediatrics, researchers at the University of California’s Department of Pediatrics use 113 newborns ranging in age from one hour to three days old in a series of experiments used to studychangesin blood pressure and blood flow. In one study, doctors insert a catheter through the newborns’ umbilical arteries and into their aortas and then immerse the newborns’ feet in ice water while recording aortic pressure. In another experiment, doctors strap 50 newborns to a circumcision board, tilt the table so that all the blood rushes to their heads and then measure their blood pressure (Goliszek).
(1964 – 1967) The Dow Chemical Company pays Professor Kligman $10,000 to learn how dioxin — a highly toxic, carcinogenic component of Agent Orange — and other herbicides affect human skin because workers at the chemical plant have been developing an acne-like condition called Chloracne and the company would like to know whether thechemicalsthey are handling are to blame. As part of the study, Professor Kligman applies roughly the amount of dioxin Dow employees are exposed to on the skin 60 prisoners, and is disappointed when the prisoners show no symptoms of Chloracne. In 1980 and 1981, the human guinea pigs used in this study would begin suing Professor Kligman for complications including lupus and psychological damage (Kaye).
See the rest of the list at
Learn more:


Finally after 15 years Big Pfizer Pharma pays up $$$ for their disgusting immoral and inhumane experiment on the Nigerian people. But when will the Real HUMAN Owners(and they do exist) of these disgusting front mega corporation be held accountable for there despicable Crimes. The Criminal Human Owners of Pfizer had to have ordered these crimes and new they would be done on children as well. More proof children mean very little to these self anointed Illuminated criminals attempting to rule mankind. So moral people believe that if real humans are guilty Justice must be done to real people … Money paid out by a multimillion dollar corporation is not true Justice at least not for the moral few who lost loved ones-there children in this case

After 15-year court battle, Pfizer reluctantly compensates Nigerian families whose loved ones injured, killed by illegal drug experiment

Thursday, August 18, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

Learn more:

(NaturalNews) The families of children who were permanently injured or killed in an illegal 1996 Pfizer drug trial in Nigeria are finally starting to get the promised financial compensation for their losses, according to a recent report byBBC News. After trials involving the experimental anti-meningitis drug Trovan left 11 Nigerian children dead and dozens more injured, Pfizer initially refused to admit fault, claiming that the drug was not the cause. The drug giant eventually agreed to settle the issue out of court, however, and 15 years later is finally starting to distribute payments.
There was ameningitisepidemic in Kano, a city in northernNigeria, during the time whenPfizercame into the country and began pushing Trovan on youngchildren. The goal of the trial was to prove that Trovan was more effective than other established treatments for meningitis, even though it never had legal authority to do so. In the end, many of the 200 children who participated in this illicit medical experiment paid the ultimate price with either theirhealthor their lives.
When news of permanent disabilities and deaths first began to surface, Pfizer insisted that meningitis, not Trovan, was responsible. But the Kanogovernmentwas persistent in pursuing justice in the matter on behalf of itspeople, and it eventually forced Pfizer into a settlement agreement. And besides payments made to the victims’ families, Pfizer also agreed to sponsor various health projects in Kano to be determined by the government.
“People and entities can and must be held accountable for the consequences of their conduct,” said Babatunde Irukera, attorney for the state of Kano, to theWashington Postback in 2009 when the settlement was finally reached. “People around the world are no different and must be accorded the same levels of protections, always.”
The original lawsuit sought $9 billion in restitution for damages and 31 criminal counts, which according to theWashington Postincluded homicide. Pfizer’s Chairman Emeritus, William C. Steere Jr., was named as one of the defendants. While that suit was dropped in exchange for the settlement, Nigeria’s federal government also filed a separate suit seeking roughly $6 billion in damages that was not affected by the settlement.
Sources for this story include:…
Learn more: