and a look behind the hollow facade of bioethics proclamations
Greatly fanfared government watchdogs
never meant to do their job
Oxygen withholding kills many babies
Proclaiming the innocence of light will further help the sponsoring physicians to deflect attention away from a related and equally entrenched doctrinal malpractice which their predecessors enshrined four decades ago as medical dogma and which today's neonatologists still follow in blind faith although it causes even more harm to the babies than the blinding excess light.
That second and even worse malpractice is the withholding of supplementary oxygen from the preemies who need this breathing help most, in the purported but scientifically unsupported hope to thereby protect them from ROP. This oxygen rationing is one of the major activities in a modern intensive care nursery and accounts typically for about a third of its billings. (See Section 2 of my book.)
As you know, it is a naïve violation of the scientific procedure to disregard all previous evidence and accept a single new finding without further evaluation. Yet, the entire oxygen rationing policy that forms the core of modern neonatologist theory and practice throughout the world is based on one single and patently rigged trial that contradicted many decades of previous experience with oxygen and could never be duplicated despite several attempts.
That trial, the Cooperative Study, was held in 1953/4 and received much praise as a successful and flagship example for the then relatively new concept of double- blind controlled clinical trials. It was certainly successful in that it yielded exactly the result its sponsors had designed it to yield, along the lines of the similarly biased and intentionally misleading McCarthy show trials of that time.
The perpetrators of that Cooperative Study flagrantly violated the Nuremberg Code by deliberately risking the lives of patients in the alleged hope of saving them from a non-fatal disease (my pages 31 ff.), and they intentionally killed many of the weakest preemies enrolled in the trial by withholding all supplementary oxygen from them for the first two days (my page 30).
This cynical trick weeded out the babies with the most fragile lungs who happened to be also those with the most immature eyes and thus most at risk to develop ROP. The researchers did not include these early deaths in their comparison and found therefore in their so fudged data no difference in mortality but less eye damage among the survivors.
It was only the non-reporting of this expedient mass-asphyxiation which allowed the study sponsors to enshrine their pre-trial condemnation of the life-saving gas as responsible for ROP. Since that time many have tried to replicate this finding, but no one has ever been able to incriminate supplementary oxygen as independently associated with ROP.
If you ever doubted that the pen is mightier than the sword, then please see pages 21 to 24 in my book where I compute the estimate that the eagerly hailed and Congressionally rewarded results of this one sham trial killed in the first decade of extreme oxygen withholding probably more Americans per year than the Vietnam war did at its height.
The official aim of this domestic mass slaughter was to save a few of the victims from having to grow up potentially blind, thus anticipating by several years that foreign war's reputed principle of destroying villages to save them.
Today, the doctors' tinkering with the babies' oxygen supply is slightly less drastic, but it still kills or cripples many of those babies (see my pages 35 and 36).
This harmful practice continues routinely although no subsequent study could ever confirm the results of the initial trial and although the researchers in this domain know meanwhile that they are completely adrift with neither compass nor clue.
Contact us at recoveredscience.com