Physicians aren’t ‘burning out.’ They’re suffering from moral injury

… The term “moral injury” was first used to describe soldiers’ responses to their actions in war. It represents “perpetrating, failing to prevent, bearing witness to, or learning about acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.” Journalist Diane Silver describes it as “a deep soul wound that pierces a person’s identity, sense of morality, and relationship to society.”

The moral injury of health care is not the offense of killing another human in the context of war. It is being unable to provide high-quality care and healing in the context of health care….

That’s putting it charitably…

MGM human rights primer:

Munchausen obstetrics

Medical research rediscovers harm of immediate cord clamping

50% more U.S. infants die on the first day than all other industrialized countries combined

Nine Years Later: Infant formulas STILL heavily contaminated with Aluminum

The war on empathy, love and family

Bonnie Burstow on shock treatment as violence against women

Psychiatry as the church of the status quo

The Untold Story of Psychosurgery

AMA wants minors to get vaccinated without parental consent

The vaccine discovery that destroyed Judy Mikovitz’s career

Biomarker for autism vulnerability still ignored in medical industry

2015: Rep. Posey Calls for Investigation into CDC MMR Fraud, Still No Action

Research Coverup of Vitamin D Scandal Continues

How Doctors Responded to Being Named a Leading Killer

Medical psychopath school: Diary of a 3rd year medical student

Exley: Epilepsy and Aluminium

There is a long (and perhaps regrettable) history of the injection of aluminium salts into brain tissue in animal (including primates) models of human epilepsy. With this in mind, it may be surprising that our recent research ( is the first to measure and identify aluminium in human epilepsy.

We present a case report of another victim of the Camelford water-poisoning incident ( where an exposed individual developed adult onset epilepsy and died following an epileptic seizure.   The hippocampus was the main target for aluminium where it had accumulated to pathologically significant concentrations. Aluminium-specific fluorescence showed that aluminium was loaded into glial cells as well as being associated with deposits of neuronal/cellular debris.

The hippocampus is an important target in epilepsy and our observation of the selective accumulation of aluminium in this region of the brain must raise the possibility that aluminium plays a role in the disease. Previous research implicating aluminium in human epilepsy would include our work on aluminium in brain tissue in autism (, research linking Dravet’s disease with aluminium adjuvants in vaccines ( and early research identifying high blood aluminium in epilepsy. Future research should investigate human exposure to aluminium and epilepsy and specifically post mortem if brain aluminium is consistently elevated in the disease….

Gut microbes associated with temperament traits in children

There’s no end to the toxicity of medical assaults against babies.  Needless cesarians, isolation, infant formula, bottle feeding, vaccines and the resultant need for antibiotics all impact the gut microbiome.   There’s little doubt that circumcision is also implicated via the stress-microbiome connection.

Scientists in the FinnBrain research project of the University of Turku discovered that the gut microbes of a 2.5-month-old infant are associated with the temperament traits manifested at six months of age. Temperament describes individual differences in expressing and regulating emotions in infants, and the study provides new information on the association between behaviour and microbes. A corresponding study has never been conducted on infants so young or on the same scale.

Rodent studies have revealed that the composition of gut microbiota and its remodelling is connected to behaviour. In humans, gut microbes can be associated with different diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, depression and , but little research has been conducted on infants.

Doctoral Candidate, Doctor Anna Aatsinki from the FinnBrain research project at the University of Turku, Finland, discovered in her study on 303 infants that different temperament traits are connected with individual microbe genera,  and different microbe clusters.

“It was interesting that, for example, the Bifidobacterium genus including several  was associated with higher positive emotions in . Positive emotionality is the tendency to experience and express happiness and delight, and it can also be a sign of an extrovert personality later in life,” says Aatsinki.

Temperament Can Predict Later Development

One of the findings was that greater diversity in gut bacteria is connected to lesser negative emotionality and fear reactivity. The study also considered other factors that significantly affect the diversity of the microbiota, such as the delivery method and breastfeeding.

The findings are interesting as strong fear reaction and negative emotionality can be connected to depression risk later in life. However, the association with later diseases is not straightforward and they are also dependent on the environment….

Vaccine Thought Police Strike at

Thank goodness her account has been canceled. The proles must be protected from such heresy.

This is Google’s cache of
It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 18, 2019 21:27:03 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.
Go to the profile of Ann Tomoko Rosen
Ann Tomoko Rosen
Jun 18
Why You Need an “Anti-Vaxxer” Like Me On Your Side
(Or Healing the American Macrocosm of Autoimmunity)
Anti-Vaxxer. Conspiracy Theorist. Negligent Parent. Selfish. Stupid. Crazy. Dangerous.
I have been called a lot of things since I started vocalizing some of my concerns about these massive attempts to remove philosophical, religious and even medical exemptions for mandated vaccinations across the country. People who I have never met before, who know nothing of my personal choices, have demanded to have me removed from Facebook pages and suggested that I no longer belong in the community (or the country in some cases). Some claim that my family and I are a threat to the world they live in and say I am not worthy of compassion or a voice in the conversation. But I am going to make another assertion about who I am: I am your friend.
As a holistic healthcare practitioner, I can’t help seeing this as part of the “autoimmunity” landscape — just a bigger version of self attacking self. With so much fear and hypervigilance, we as Americans are having a difficult time recognizing friend from foe and we seem to be destroying ourselves. So before you eliminate me from the discussion, I would like to remind you that I am one of you — a loving parent, a taxpayer, a voter, a neighbor and a contributor to society. I have your back in ways you are probably not aware of and I am fighting for your rights along with mine. Please allow me to explain.
1. I am for Choice. I don’t really know anyone who identifies as “Anti-Vax”. To me this is a divisive slur used to shame and marginalize anyone who dares to question the CDC’s version of vaccine science. Hitler claimed “the leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.” It’s far better for the powerful people making decisions if the rest of us are in the “outbreak” trenches calling each other names. The “Anti-vaxxers” I know have a unifying principle that is not about vaccines — it’s about informed consent and medical freedom. Among them are parents who vaccinated their children according to the CDC-recommended schedule and then watched their children suffer from any number of debilitating conditions. Some watched them die. Other parents want some vaccines, but simply don’t think others are necessary. And while some parents have done their own research and are unwilling to subject their children to any vaccines, they are working alongside other parents who just want safer vaccines. There are also people who don’t know how they feel about vaccines, but simply believe that parents, not the government, should have the right to decide what can be injected into their children. In my experience, these people are educated, compassionate respectful and profoundly dedicated. And NONE of them are getting rich off their beliefs. In fact, the most lucrative thing many of us could do right now is publically change our minds.
2. I am a Scientist. Technically, I have a Masters of Science in Traditional Oriental Medicine, and before you decide that’s not “real science”, know that I was required to take courses in Anatomy, Pathophysiology, Neuroanatomy, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Research and Design, and Western Nutrition among many others. But it’s not the letters after my name that make me or anyone else a scientist — it is my constant pursuit of understanding the natural world by asking questions and making observations. Based on this criteria, I would argue that I’m a better scientist than anyone working at the CDC, the NIH or the FDA because there is not a question I’m afraid to examine on behalf of our children. I am not afraid of the truth and I’m willing to explore every avenue. And while I may not have the funding and resources to get all of the answers I am looking for, I’m smart enough to read the science out there, connect the dots and decide for myself what is “fake news” (another manipulative language trick). I am not particularly interested in what a journalist for The New York Times, Fox News or CNN have to say about a scientific study, a disease or even an outbreak, I much prefer to learn from the sources and decide for myself. I have learned that the media will often put the word deadly in front of a common childhood disease just when the CDC is poised to offer a profitable solution. I have seen words like “safe and effective” thrown around like a mantra and then been horrified by the creative statistical maneuverings that were used to justify those words. I have also read about the scientific fraud and abundance of whistleblowers and court cases that never make headlines.
I have read articles about the peanut-derived emulsifiers patented in the 1960’s that promised to enhance the effectiveness of vaccines[1]as well as other articles about how new laws were created after the explosion of peanut allergies emerged[2]. (Spoiler Alert: the laws did not restrict the use of peanut-derived emulsifiers. Instead, they simply concluded that it wasn’t necessary to reveal certain ingredients if they were in small enough amounts.)
I have been watching Merck create more powerful adjuvants[3]while tracking parallel issues within veterinary medicine, where companies like PureVax now produce non-adjuvanated vaccines after scientists noticed a correlation between the vaccine adjuvants and chronic inflammation and sarcomas in animals[4]. As a scientist, I have to ask how it can be that our cats have access to safer vaccines than our children do?
These are just a few of the many observations I have made in my personal research journey. I have been doing all of this in my free time, between 10–20 hours a week for the better part of a decade. No one pays me to do this. I do it in part because I’m a mom and it’s just an extension of reading labels and watching what goes into my children. I do it because I am witnessing suffering that I want to understand, reverse and prevent. I do it because I really am curious and I love science. I do it because I trust my gut more than my government. And I do it because I believe in choice and, as a healer, I want people to understand their choices. Which brings me to my third point…
3. In all likelihood I am advocating for YOU. There is a bigger picture here and some of us have been watching it evolve (or devolve) over decades. Paradigms and parameters have shifted, and the very definition of science has changed. Some powerful people are out to settle science. Literally. Merriam-Webster now defines science as “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding”, effectively removing the entire process of scientific method.
But I am not willing to settle on science that has resulted in the most unhealthy generation of children this country has ever produced. I am not ok with the explosion of anaphylactic allergies, pediatric cancers, autoimmune diseases, chronic conditions and learning disabilities. I am not ok with government agencies mandating vaccines with one iron fist while clutching their own vaccine patents and the subsequent profits in the other. I am not ok with the revolving door between the CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO and pharmaceutical companies. And I am not ok with the government mandate of any product that its manufacturers won’t even stand behind.
But if you love your vaccines and want more, I am working to make them safer for you. I am asking for the double-blind studies using inert placebos that have never been done. I am trying to get legislators to revisit the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and repeal legal immunity for vaccines makers so they will once again be held accountable for the injuries and deaths caused by their products. This, hopefully, will incentivize them to make safer products and to stop the frivolous expansion of the recommended childhood vaccine schedule.
If you are not sure, I am working towards transparency and a more open discussion around the science behind vaccines and a deeper understanding of disease process and our immune systems. We all deserve access to the science and we need better conversations. I am working towards better reporting of vaccine injuries so that the real risks can be identified, understood and prevented. I am working towards better education campaigns for identifying vaccine reactions so that a child is not given what could be a potentially fatal dose of Tylenol simply because parents failed to recognized the signs of encephalopathy.
If you want to pick and choose, I am working (really hard I might add) to preserve your right to choose. As I write this, the media and government agencies are trying to use fears over a childhood disease that hasn’t killed a child in this country since 2003 to convince you that it makes sense to hand over some of our inalienable rights so that they can more fully enforce medical mandates[5]. But once you turn over these rights, you won’t get them back. And at some point you and the government may disagree.
If you are a doctor, I am asking legislators to consider broader parameters for medical exemptions so that doctors are further enabled to protect their vulnerable patients from the risks that some vaccines may pose. I am also asking for legislation that will protect the doctors who are willing to write these exemptions when they feel they are warranted.
And if you are immune-compromised, I haven’t forgotten you. I understand that perhaps this is the most frightening time for you. But you, too, deserve more than a false sense of security and an inaccurate understanding of the threats around you. Unfortunately, outbreaks of otherwise harmless childhood infections (in communities with clean water, nutrition and access to medicine) are far from the only threats to a fragile immune system, but removing religious exemptions to vaccines simply won’t move the needle towards a public health improvement. We are a country with open borders as well as an issue with vaccine failure, so outbreaks are inevitable. And there are thousands of pathogens for which there are no vaccines. Your best defense will always be tools to fortify and protect your immune system and a mindful, considerate community. And I am working towards creating those things, too.
So, unless you are simply trying to capitalize on the ignorance and misfortune of others, I am probably not your enemy at all. And if you take a moment to get to know anyone who you believe to be an anti-vaxxer, you may very well discover that you have a powerful ally who is putting a lot on the line to protect rights that will ultimately benefit you.
I would love to bring this conversation back to the level of interpersonal relationships and find our common ground. And I am not going to stop trying. Our children need us to keep them healthy. They also need us to model the kind of thoughtful dialogue that will lead to real solutions. We’re going to have to find a way to work together. I’m game if you are.
Anti VaxxersAutoimmune DiseaseVaccinesInformed ConsentReligious Freedom
Go to the profile of Ann Tomoko Rosen
Ann Tomoko Rosen

A Wife and a Mother. A Healer and a Writer. A Lover and a Fighter.

Psyop in action: “The View” Barely Tolerates Marianne Williamson on Vaccines

Why oh why does she hate children?   Can’t she see that our corporate regime loves all children?   Look at the blessings our priestly democratic representatives have bestowed on the children of el salvador, guatemala, honduras, iraq, libya, syria and yemen, all courtesy of the US taxpayer.   And then there’s chile and vietnam and indonesia and argentina and brazil and panama and colombia and so many others.   God only knows they try very hard don’t they.    And now they’re only trying to share their holy water with the domestic flock.   Where is her gratitude?

Note the appeal to conformity, as if her opinion was unique or incomprehensible.

What kind of idiot would waste time watching these idiots?   Even the audience response seems tepid, probably prompted by flashing “applaud” signs to simulate a non-existent public consensus.

This is just one facet of modern mass mind control.   These women are mercenaries for hire.

Tools of Oppression: Stanford Prison Experiment, Milgram Obedience Experiment, Asch Conformity Experiment

The vaccine discovery that destroyed Judy Mikovitz’s career

How to Predict Which Country the U.S. Will Invade Next

By the end of this column, it will be clear which country the United States will invade and topple next. Or failing that, it will be clear which country our military-intelligence-industrial complex will be aching to invade next.

We all want to know why America does what it does. And I don’t mean why Americans do what we do. I think that question still will be pondered eons from now by a future professor showing his students a video mind-meld of present-day UFC fighters booting each other in the head while thrilled onlookers cheer (not for either of the fighters but rather for more booting in the head).

But we all seem to assume that America—the entity, the corporation—has some sort of larger reasoning behind the actions it takes, the actions put forward by the ruling elite. And almost all of us know that the reasons we’re given by the press secretaries and caricature-shaped heads on the nightly news are the ripest, most fetid grade of bullshit.

We now know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the crushing of Libya had nothing to do with “stopping a bad man.” If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you’ll find that the U.S. doesn’t care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they’re using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. In fact, the U.S. gives military aid to 70 percent of the world’s dictators. (One would hope that’s only around the holidays though.)

So if it’s not for the stated reasons, why does the U.S. overrun, topple and sometimes occupy the countries it does? Obviously, there are oil resources or rare minerals to be had. But there’s something else that links almost all of our recent wars.

As The Guardian reported near the beginning of the Iraq War, “In October 2000, Iraq insisted on dumping the U.S. dollar—the currency of the enemy—for the more multilateral euro.”

However, one example does not make a trend. If it did, I would be a world-renowned beer pong champion rather than touting a 1-27 record. (I certainly can’t go pro with those numbers.)

But there’s more. Soon after Libya began moving toward an African gold-based currency—and lining up all its African neighbors to join it—we invaded it as well, with the help of NATO. Author Ellen Brown pointed this out at the time of the invasion:

[Moammar Gadhafi] initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar.

John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” also has said that the true reason for the attack on Libya was Gadhafi’s move away from the dollar and the euro.

This week, The Intercept reported that the ousting of Gadhafi, which was in many ways led by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, actually had to do with Sarkozy secretly receiving millions from Gadhafi, and it seemed that his corruption was about to be revealed. But, the article also noted, “[Sarkozy’s] real military zeal and desire for regime change came only after [Hillary] Clinton and the Arab League broadcasted their desire to see [Gadhafi] go.” And the fact that Gadhafi was planning to upend the petrodollar in Africa certainly provides the motivation necessary. (It doesn’t take much to get the U.S. excited about a new bombing campaign. I’m pretty sure we invaded Madagascar once in the 1970s because they smoked our good weed.)

Right now you may be thinking, “But, Lee, your theory is ridiculous. If these invasions were about the banking, then the rebels in Libya—getting help from NATO and the United States—would have set up a new banking system after bringing down Gadhafi.”

Actually, they didn’t wait that long. In the middle of the brutal war, the Libyan rebels formed their own central bank.

Related: U.S. Turns Screws on Top Iranian Bankers

Brown said, “Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank—this before they even had a government.”

Wow, that sure does sound like it’s all about the banking.

Many of you know about Gen. Wesley Clark’s famous quote about seven countries in five years. Clark is a four-star general, the former head of NATO Supreme Allied Command, and he ran for president in 2008 (clearly he’s an underachiever). But it’s quite possible that 100 years from now, the one thing he’ll be remembered for is the fact that he told us that the Pentagon said to him in 2002: “We’re going to take down seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan. We’re going to come back and get Iran in five years.”

Most of this has happened. We have, of course, added some countries to the list, such as Yemen. We’re helping to destroy Yemen largely to make Saudi Arabia happy. Apparently our government/media care only about Syrian children (in order to justify regime change). We couldn’t care less about Yemeni children, Iraqi children, Afghan children, Palestinian children, North Korean children, Somali children, Flint (Michigan) children, Baltimore children, Native American children, Puerto Rican children, Na’vi children … oh wait, I think that’s from “Avatar.” Was that fiction? My memories and 3-D movies are starting to blur together.

Brown goes even further in her analysis of Clark’s bombshell:

What do these seven countries have in common? … [N]one of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked.

What I’m trying to say is: It’s all about the banking.

So right now you’re thinking, “But, Lee, then why is the U.S. so eager to turn Syria into a failed state if Syria never dropped the dollar? Your whole stupid theory falls apart right there.”

First, I don’t appreciate your tone. Second, in February 2006, Syria dropped the dollar as its primary hard currency.

I think I’m noticing a trend. In fact, on Jan. 4, it was reported that Pakistan was ditching the dollar in its trade with China, and that same day, the U.S. placed it on the watch list for religious freedom violations. The same day? Are we really supposed to believe that it just so happened that Pakistan stopped using the dollar with China on the same day it started punching Christians in the nose for no good reason? No, clearly Pakistan had violated our religion of cold hard cash.

This leaves only one question: Who will be next on the list of U.S. illegal invasions cloaked in bullshit justifications? Well, last week, Iran finally did it: It switched from the dollar to the euro. And sure enough, this week, the U.S. military-industrial complex, the corporate media and Israel all got together to claim that Iran is lying about its nuclear weapons development. What are the odds that this news would break within days of Iran dropping the dollar? What. Are. The. Odds?

The one nice thing about our corporate state’s manufacturing of consent is how predictable it is. We will now see the mainstream media running an increasing number of reports pushing the idea that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and is trying to develop nuclear weapons (which are WMDs, but for some strange reason, our media are shying away from saying, “They have WMDs”). Here’s a 2017 PBS article claiming that Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism. One must assume this list of terror sponsors does not include the country that made the arms that significantly enhanced Islamic State’s military capabilities. (It’s the U.S.)

Or the country that drops hundreds of bombs per day on the Middle East. (It’s the U.S.) But those bombs don’t cause any terror. Those are the happy bombs, clearly. Apparently, we just drop 1995 Richard Simmons down on unsuspecting people.

Point is, as we watch our pathetic corporate media continue their manufacturing of consent for war with Iran, don’t fall for it. These wars are all about the banking. And millions of innocent people are killed in them. Millions more have their lives destroyed.

You and I are just pawns in this game, and the last thing the ruling elite want are pawns who question the official narrative.