and a documentation of patient-harming frauds in medical research
Baby-blinding retinopathy of prematurity
reveals dangerous medical bias
The brilliant accomplishments of modern medicine are badly tarnished by its antiscientific and dishonest approach to the epidemic of blinding among premature babies which is now called retinopathy of prematurity. This epidemic broke out in 1940, the year after the introduction of fluorescent lamps at the New York World Fair of 1938/39. Now it accounts in the US for more cases of blindness among children than all other causes combined.
The discoverer of that new eye disease suspected right away that the premature exposure to light outside the dark womb might be the reason for the observed damage to those babies' most light sensitive organ, but several poorly conceived and conducted eye-patching experiments alleged to rule this out.
Instead of correcting the blatant errors in those tests which all had patched the babies much too late, a small group of nursery doctors used the epidemic as a pretext to impose their own agenda which happened to be a survival from the then only recently discredited eugenics movement.
The leader of that group, a Dr. Algernon Reese, had previously suggested that “defective germ plasm plays an important role” in the blinding. Then, in the discussion after his lead article about the baby-blinding in the May 1949 issue of the American Medical Association’s Archives of Ophthalmology, one of his colleagues even recommended to prevent the disease “by selection of parents” and continued (on page 550 top):
Other like- minded writers in that field at the time described the oxygen supplementation for preemies as an “undeserved subsidy” for "weaklings" who should prove themselves "worthy of survival" by struggling on their own. To translate their then still openly expressed eugenics views into practice, the trial designers withheld all oxygen supplements from all babies for their first two days. Then they enrolled only the survivors, after this Draconian asphyxiating had predictably weeded out the babies with the weakest lungs.
These so killed victims were also those with the most vulnerable eyes who would otherwise have grown up blind, so the trial results reported less eye damage among the more resistant survivors. They also omitted to count the babies killed before enrollment, so the researchers behind this fraud announced that oxygen withholding had not changed the mortality rate and was therefore a safe way to reduce the chances of blinding.
This knowingly false pronouncement by a prominent panel of leading pediatric ophthalmologists and neonatologists was uncritically accepted by the many doctors who relied on them for guidance, and without further question the oxygen- starving became standard practice virtually overnight in nurseries around the world.
This cynical research fraud in a study from half a century ago is all the “science” there is behind the long unquestioned doctrine of denying the babies life- saving oxygen supplements in a misguided attempt to prevent damage to their eyes.
One of them even wrote in 1988 that the oxygen hypothesis for the blinding is “void of any scientific meaning”.
Oxygen withholding has never been shown to offer the preemies even the slightest benefit against the eye damage, but it often leaves them worse off than if they had merely lost their sight.
On the other hand, there is a mountain of evidence that retinopathy of prematurity is caused directly by the overly bright fluorescent lighting which the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends for those nurseries.
In country after country, the epidemic started soon after the introduction of this then new lighting. No wonder, because fluorescent lamps happen to concentrate their strongest energy spike in precisely that narrow blue- violet wavelength which inflicts the most damage to all mammalian retinae tested, including those of humans.
And to make things worse, the still developing retinae of the preemies are much more vulnerable to such radiation damage than the eyes of older people and animals. (See Babyblinding01.htm and the subsequent pages in that series.)
For all the babies in all the groups, the chances were almost 19 in 20 that the more intense light was connected with the blinding (NEJM, 1985, 313, pages 401 to 404, and see Babyblindinglights07.htm?#next study).
Yet, the typical nursery doctors oblige all parents of preemies to accept this danger- associated exposure, without telling them anything about its well documented risks.
To cover up these potentially embarrassing risks and to falsely exonerate the nursery lights, a group of pediatric retinal surgeons and neonatologists staged from 1995 to 98 another rigged trial, called LIGHT-ROP. As in a Ponzi scheme, they piled on additional frauds to hide the earlier deceptions.
This deliberately misleading approach was approved without question at all the levels of the National Eye Institute's review process.
For your convenience, I bookmarked some of the salient passages in that Manual where the authors' own words reveal their willful ignorance of the studies they themselves cite, including those that document the authors’ knowledge of the short exposure times required for the eye damage.
This now electronic paper trail enables you to judge for yourself how callously un- Hippocratic, blatantly hypocritical, and clearly contrary to all common sense or scientific logic this mainstream example of "ethical" modern medical research turns out to be.
The authors wanted “greater contrast between the groups”, as if human babies were expendable guinea pigs that can be sacrificed for science.
Despite the ritual "never again" rhetoric of those apologies, the U.S. government's allegedly fail- safe protections against medical abuses have again all failed, as they had failed for the infamous Tuskeegee Study and for the Human Radiation Experiments. And in case you might think such aberrations are safely past, you will discover that the current alleged protections are still designed to fail again.
The series on Bogus Bioethics exposes the dishonesty of the medical- governmental complex which projects a façade of concern for patients and for "medical ethics" but disdains its proclaimed mission. The alleged guardians of the public against medical abuses refused to intervene against the harmful and ongoing abuse of human babies in their country's nurseries. They helped instead to cover up this widespread medical malpractice.
In the Sovereign Doctors series, you can follow the "progress" of my complaint against the frauds in the LIGHT-ROP trial as it continues to wind its way through the maze of Kafka's castle.
The various government agencies and blue- ribbon ethics commissions that were ostensibly created to prevent such violations of patients’ rights and such flagrant scientific fraud, all evaded the questions and saw nothing wrong with that plainly inhumane and dishonest study. They all sovereignly refused to address any of the objections against the fraudulent trial.
As the representative of my district, U.S. Congressman Frank A. LoBiondo made several attempts to obtain official answers to my never refuted charges. His and his staff's repeated efforts yielded no such answers, but they led instead to the instructive documentation assembled on this site about how the present alleged patient protection system is set up to snuff such complaints.
The Congressional Research Office even lied to US Congressman LoBiondo about having conducted the investigation of the bogus trial he had requested. They told him that they believed all possible safety precautions had been followed during the course of the study, and that there was no reason not to believe the results of the study are valid and meaningful.
However, when he asked them for the written record of their investigation, such as memos, notes, correspondence, or reports, they were unable to produce any.
The detailed documentation on this site of the above statements and more lets you observe in vivo the medical system at work, and how it failed to detect and correct a guild- protecting nursery myth that passes for medical science. You can examine here why those doctrine- caused medical malpractices against preemies and the lies to their parents are still a common routine in intensive care nurseries to this day.
Moreover, the current regulations for the public's protection against those harmful breaches of trust are still written in such a way that the infamous Tuskegee Study would be approved again without question if the same protocol was submitted today under a different name.
To help inform parents about some of the dangers to their child in the nursery, our "Protect your baby" page offers you a helpful checklist by Margie Watson, mother of a prematurely born daughter and advocate for the safety of preemies. She tells you a few simple things which you can do to protect your baby from some of the unacknowledged dangers to preemie eyes in the typical intensive care nursery.
If you or one of your relatives or friends are expecting a baby, please read and copy this practical advice and be alert to those dangers. Prematurity is common and can happen for reasons unknown or unforeseen, and there is always a risk that a baby might happen to arrive too early.
It helps therefore to be forewarned if s/he has to spend any time in an intensive care nursery. The environment there is said to represent the doctors' attempt to reproduce that of the womb, and it reflects their apparent belief that wombs are brightly lit. However, it resembles more that of a factory -- except that intensive care nurseries are less regulated and less safety- oriented than most industrial plants.
The page on Macular Degeneration explores the possibility that prolonged childhood exposure to the same retina- damaging radiation which quickly blinds the preemies may also be involved in the now growing epidemic of much slower retinal damage which accumulates over a lifetime of light exposure. This slower damage now blinds older people much earlier than usual and in ever greater numbers.
The victims come from the first generation that spent its school years under fluorescent lamps, and there are compelling reasons for suspecting a link. The early retinal damage may use up much of the photo- receptors' limited renewal capacity and so cause these to degenerate significantly sooner than normal.
Raising school children under fluorescent lamps is therefore an entirely uncontrolled large- scale experiment with a radiation that is known to cause retinal damage and that has the potential to produce disastrous long- term outcomes.
The page titled FAQ on ROP ending discusses some of the reasons why the baby-blinding epidemic continues, and why there has been not more of a public outcry about the casual cruelties in today's intensive care nurseries.
An example of these cruelties against preemies is described in the article by Jill Lawson which is posted here with her kind permission at Preemie Pain.
The series about Parents' Concerns reproduces a speech about Environmental Issues and Developmental Care in intensive care nurseries which Helen Harrison, author of the acclaimed Premature Baby Book, gave to a pediatric conference and which she kindly allowed me to include here.
In Skeptics' Test, I applied to the baby doctors' claims a checklist for Baloney Detection which Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and author of a monthly column on skeptical thinking in Scientific American, suggested for screening dubious claims. I posted the results as an open letter to him and the editors at Scientific American, asking them to speak up against the continuing child abuses by the pediatric priesthood and to help expose the cover- ups by the medical hierarchy. I received no reply.
The page Help for Victims? proposes that medical malpractice lawyers take a new look at the intensive care nursery epidemics of baby- blinding retinopathy of prematurity and oxygen- deprivation- caused cerebral palsy.
The US Supreme Court's rulings against junk science now oblige even big- titled experts to support their assertions, so the nursery doctors can no longer deny their patient- harming routines unchallenged. The documentation assembled here makes it easy to show that their doctrine has no more substance than the legendary emperor's new clothes.
To help spread the message about the dangers to preemies and other children, all the writings on this site are free. You can read and copy them online, or you can download the free e-book in which some of the articles are compiled. Please pass this information on to anyone who might be concerned.
We offer all kinds of certification exams including http://www.pass4sure.com/certification/cissp-exam.html and http://www.pass4sure.com/certification/scjp-exam.html. Our guaranteed http://www.actualtests.com/onlinetest/act-test-prep.htm exams are freely accessible all around the world of http://www.actualtests.com/onlinetest/CPT.htm and http://www.actualtests.com/exam-000-450.htm.
Contact us at recoveredscience.com