What is your passion?

Passion being something that keeps you up at night, that you research and pray about and give your whole heart to.

I have discovered over the years that passion is the driving force that can change things for the better. Unfortunately many times it comes about because of suffering. In the midst of suffering, you discover something you didn’t know before.

I’ll tell you the truth you can’t be passion about a lot of things because there are only so many hours in the day.

Dr. Seuss quote When you have passion you CARE… an awful lot.

Like Dr. Suess says in one of his book quotes, “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

Brain Death

Obviously, my writing this blog I care about the controversial definition of death. I care that people don’t understand when they go into the DMV or Secretary of State office and sign up to be an organ donor they are giving consent to something they don’t understand.

Informed consent is an ethical concept—that all patients should understand and agree to the potential consequences of their care—that has become codified in the law and in daily practice at every medical institution. Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a person. The ONLY time it doesn’t apply is if the patient does not have the mental capacity to decide.

Hence, in organ donation the patient is unconscience and can not make that decision. This is where the organ donor card comes into play. If you have signed to be an organ donor after death then that becomes a legally binding contract that is enforceable should you not be able to make that decision.

The problem is further exasperated by the fact that you were NOT told the legal definition of death. Like most reasonable people you thought dead meant dead, and who cares what happens to the body IF you are really dead. You came to believe that death meant no breath, no circulatory response.

U S Definition of Death and what they use to pronounce you dead.

“An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of ALL functions of the ENTIRE brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.”

I will point out to you that this legal definition of death says irreversible cessation of the ENTIRE brain.  But, that rarely is the case as there is usually some parts of the brain that continues to have blood flow.

There are two other area’s that I have become passionate about 1) mandatory vaccines and 2) the corrupt foster care system in America.

I am not against all vaccines and I am not against the fact that some children need to be removed from abusive homes. What I am against 100% is the government telling us we have to vaccinate to have our children in school. I want informed consent to be presented in ANY and ALL decisions we have to make concerning our bodies.

Vaccines

I am against the government telling us we have to vaccinate to have our children in school. I am against the fact that parents are not informed on what is in the ingredients (adjuvants) in every vaccine.

I don’t blame doctors for this as they are only taught about scheduling in med school. I read a VERY disturbing report over the weekend. It is actually the minutes from an FDA meeting in 2012. I am going to link here as it is 80 pages long. The essence of the report is the discussion in using human tumor cell lines in vaccinations.

Excerpts from the 80 page FDA Meeting on Human Tumors for Vaccine Manufactures

Meeting notes of FDA“I think there’s a brave-new-world aspect to this that we have to deal with. I think we have to tell providers about it in a way that they get it. I think we have to tell the public about it in a way that they get it. But I’m convinced after hearing the data today and the discussion today that these cell lines are important in continued development of vaccines.”
“I’m not a regulator, so I will say just what I think in reaction to the comment about putting comments in a package insert about tumor cells making tumorsin which vaccines were made. I would say, from a personal opinion, that you would have tobe very careful about the degrees of separation between where the stuff comes from andwhat you are putting in the vial that the package insert is describing. It’s not at all related, in a certain sense. I’m not 100 percent convinced that whether or not a cell makes a tumor in a nude mouse has anything to do with the safety of a vaccine that ends up getting made.”
“There are concerns we have. It’s a really interesting intellectual discussion. When it gets right down to what’s in the vial and what the patient is going to ask me about, whether it’s safe, I’m not going to back and say, well, you know, HeLa cells kill nude mice.” 
Now what is interesting about the nude mice, is that they only keep them for a year. If the mouse doesn’t get the tumor in a year then the mouse is killed. Why is that? Well it costs too much to keep them so they said.
“Just one more thing to add there. There is also, especially with the nude mouse, a rate at which tumors will spontaneously form. The longer you keep the animals, the more likely you are to get results that are very difficult to interpret. Part of this is the fact that the rate of spontaneous tumor generation goes up with age. But if you were to hold the animal that long, then you would be obligated to investigate those tumors, for most of which you might not be able to come up with a clear idea of why they occurred because of that background tumor rate.”
“If they are going to get a tumor with aninoculum of a high dose of an immortalized cell, they will usually get a tumor in six months.Beyond that, they start getting skin disease. They are very expensive to maintain. They have spontaneous tumors. Lots of things happen that make it impractical.
So there’s a limit to just watching them forever, just in case you pick up that last tumor. Dr.Peden’s point about “so what”— if you get out there at a year and an animal pops up with a tumor,you probably will spend $10,000 trying to find out that it was a spontaneous tumor.”
Here is the FDA entire meeting notes. It took me a few days to read it in its entireity.
Folks, I DID NOT say all this it is in plain black and white for you to read the discussion and make up your own mind. 
I am a mom of 5 and I vaccinated all my kids from 1979 to 1990. I still have their records. The first four children had 6 before age of 5. My youngest had 8 before age 5. Now children have 36 before age 5.
When we lost my granddaughter at 13 weeks due to SIDS, I started to look into SIDS and stumbled across a vaccine connection which led me to look into other vaccines, adjuvants in them and the harm done to children.
William Wilberforce Shocking and I mean shocking. 
Isn’t it a comforting thing for all of us to know that the FDA approved the use of human cancer cells (“human tumor-derived cell lines”) in vaccine manufactures?
Why has this NOT been publicized to the public?
In fact, at the FDA hearing held at which this technology to employ “eternal life cells” in vaccine manufacture was approved, the VRBPAC Chair, Dr. Robert Daum, spent probably 30 minutes in discussions regarding how exactly to keep this fact SECRET from the American public, e.g., let’s describe these cells as “cell tissue cultures,” not as human cancer cells.
What are you passionate about? I would love for you to tell me what it is and why in your comments?
`Missy

 

Jamie CaulkThis was really hard for me to read as this is what they said about Jamie and a blood clot in the basilar artery from his auto accident. The doctors told us that the blood clot showed where the stroke occurred.

Oh, how I wish I knew what I know now about the lie of brain death. It is so hard to speak intelligently when you just don’t understand what the legal definition of death is. I guess this is why I write to give other families a chance to understand when they say your child is dead.

In an article from the May 6, 2016, Newsweek Magazine entitled, “Given the right stimuli, brain activity in patients in persistent vegetative states can bear similarity to non-injured people,” author Don Heupel highlights two separate but related issues related to serious brain injuries.

Maggie Worthen was a week away from graduating from Smith College in May 2006 when she suffered a massive stroke. Her classmates found her unconscious on the floor of her dorm room, unable to speak or move.

A CT scan revealed that the stroke in the otherwise healthy 22-year-old was brought on by a blood clot in the basilar artery, a critical blood vessel in the back of her head that supplies oxygen-rich blood to the brainstem, the part of the brain that controls the body’s basic life support system. It took 12 hours before neurosurgeons at the closest trauma center were able to remove the clot and restore blood flow to Maggie’s brain.

“They told me most people don’t survive these kinds of strokes. If she made it through the next couple days, it was almost certain she would have no meaningful recovery,” says Maggie’s mother, Nancy Worthen.

As Nancy grappled with Maggie’s prognosis, she felt pressured to make some harrowing choices. One doctor advised removing Maggie from the ventilator and letting her die. Another suggested foregoing the insertion of a feeding tube and tracheotomy that would help Maggie breathe. A representative from an organ procurement organization approached her for consent to transplant Maggie’s organs.

But Nancy resisted them all, believing in the resilience that had always defined her daughter.

MRI's and CT scans can not determine consiciousnessDr. Joseph Fins, chief of the division of medical ethics at Weill, says Maggie’s experience and that of others like her raise troubling questions about how people with serious brain injuries are diagnosed and cared for. “Patients like Maggie are routinely misdiagnosed and placed in what we euphemistically call ‘custodial care’ where they have no access to any treatments that might help them recover or give them a chance of engaging with others,” says Fins, even as research suggests that 68 percent of severely brain-injured patients who receive rehabilitation eventually regain consciousness and that 21 percent of those are able to one day live on their own. A recent post made on www.sideeffectsofxarelto.org about brain blood clots demonstrates a truly somber attitude to victims of such injuries.

Dr. Joseph Fins interviewed Maggie’s family along with over 50 other families in similar situations. Almost all their stories shared a common thread – that the injured person was immediately “written off” and families were asked to make “what he calls ‘premature’ decisions about their loved one—such as whether to withhold or withdraw care or to consent to organ donation.”

(Yes that is the choice)

Dr. Nicholas Schiff, a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medical College, says even one person wrongly diagnosed when they have intact mental life is one too many. “Imagine being conscious in a body in which you have no control. It’s difficult to imagine anything more terrifying.” He attributes misdiagnosis to a number of factors, chiefly neglect. “Society as a whole has given up on these people. When somebody is not waking up, it gives people an uncomfortable feeling. It’s easier to say, ‘Nope, they’re not there.”

(And those that believe there is HOPE have their claims and faith disregarded)

EEG tests have shown that brain injured patients can demonstrate consciousness undetectable in a bedside test. And because the technology is portable, cheap and doesn’t require a patient’s active participation.

(We asked for and didn’t get the EEG)

“There are a lot of people out there who could be helped but aren’t,” says Schiff. “All patients should be treated as if they too have that same potential for recovery.”

(Oh this is my hope and prayer) 

Read more details at Source: Brain Imaging Scans Show Some Vegetative Patients Are Living on the Edge of Consciousness by author Don Heupel

Three clicks for ChadTough

I have a HUGE favor to ask you all today. It won’t cost you a dime and only 3 clicks of your time for the next 2 weeks. 

September of 2014 a little boy from Saline, Michigan captured my heart, he reminded me so much of my Jamie with his blonde hair and sparkling eyes. His name was Chad Carr. 

Chad had been diagnosed with cancer that eventually took his life called DIPG or Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma. 

There is NO CURE  for this pediatric brain cancer. 

Did you know that ONLY 4% of all cancer research goes to children’s cancer research at our National Institute of Health? Think on that next time you see the TV commercials with kids in them.

ChadTough

The mission of The ChadTough Foundation is to fund research and raise awareness for Pediatric Brain Tumors with an emphasis on Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma (DIPG) 

How you can help

Infiniti Coaches Challenge

Here is how you can help.  Infiniti is sponsoring a contest to see which basketball coach can win money for their charity of choice. Coach Beilein from the University of Michigan has chosen the Chad Tough Foundation. 

Many of us have been helping for weeks, we are now down to the fourth and last round. 

The winner of the ESPN challenge will win 100,000.

We need your help for the next 2 weeks to win  $100,000 for the ChadTough Foundation to continue to research a cure for DIPG in kids. 

I’m not asking for money JUST  3 clicks of your mouse. I haven’t missed a day even when I had that awful flu. 

30 seconds of YOUR time to help find a cure for Pediatric Brain Cancer, especially DIPG. Watch the short video below and commit to:

3 clicks = $100,000 to help kids like Chad and give them hope. 

Vote Coach John Beilein

Michigan

The ChadTough Foundation

Please share on Facebook and Twitter.

VOTE Coach Beilein

University of Nevada student Hanna Lottritz was mistaken for “brain-dead” after she fell into a coma last July following a round of binge drinking.

The 20-year-old’s story is a cautionary tale for alcohol abuse, but also for the danger inherent in the contentious concept of “brain death.”

Lottritz, who turned 21 last Wednesday, said on her blog she would not be doing any shots or getting wasted to celebrate coming of legal age, and she advocated for responsible drinking, because, she said, “I don’t want anyone to go through what my family went through.”

The journalism student chugged an entire Solo cup of whiskey at a music festival last summer. She collapsed five minutes later and then had to be intubated and life-flighted to the hospital in critical condition.”I was in critical condition, suffering from acute respiratory failure and acute alcohol intoxication,” she said. “My blood alcohol concentration was .41 when I arrived at the hospital, five times over the legal limit.”

“The doctors thought I was brain dead because I was completely unresponsive,” Lottritz continued. “My pupils were sluggishly reactive, I had no corneal reflex and I wasn’t responding to verbal or painful stimuli.”

Doctors initially didn’t expect her to make it through the night, but she woke up 24 hours later.

Lottritz’s waking up so soon after her injury is where her case departs from so many others with patients who remain unresponsive for a period of time, falling into the dangerous scenario of being presumed dead, especially when medical facilities or family members are quick to remove treatment or there is a push to harvest organs.

The question of determining when a person is brain-dead has been the subject of considerable controversy for some time, with disagreement over the legal definition of brain death.

Read more here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/yet-another-case-of-mistaken-brain-death-diagnosis-in-nevada

 

Source: Doctors thought 20-year-old was ‘brain dead’ after birthday binge drinking: they were wrong | News | Lifesitenews

Not All Hospitals Comply With Brain Death Criteria

Not all hospitals in the United States are following guidelines on determining brain death, a new study suggests.

 

Calendar kept by daughter Lisa SturmThe new study included hospital policies from 492 hospitals or healthcare systems with adequate data for analysis, representing those from all 50 states (some analyses included 491 policies).

Of the total, about a third of policies (33.1%) required specialist expertise in neurology or neurosurgery, but 150 policies had no mention of who could perform the determination. Many policies still allow for more junior physicians to determine brain death, the authors noted.

Unfortunately most hospitals (97.4%) required apnea testing which is the WORST thing to do for a severely injured trauma brain injured patient.

Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA)

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), drafted in 1980 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to provide “comprehensive bases for determining death in all situations,” determined death by the following criteria:

“An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.”

So the UDDA allowed the determination of death to be made in accordance with accepted medical standards, but left it up to each hospital to determine those standards.

I know you’ve heard me talk about if you were injured in Iowa your treatment may be different than IF you were injured in Michigan. If you were taken to the U of M Hospital your care may be different from if you are taken to Beaumont Hospital in the suburbs of Detroit. My point is that it appears and I could certainly be wrong in my intepretation is that the authors are now advocating for more uniform, written standards and protocols in hospitals.

Comments on the article

Here are some of the comments on the original article that I found revealing. (Highlights mine, links mine, no attempt to correct the spelling in their comments)

NV

As an RN who was involved with brain death organ donation in the 1970s, even then I had questions about the diagnosis such as the claim that such patients would die anyway after 2 weeks even with a ventilator but I was assured that greater minds than mine had it all figured out.

I really became alarmed when I saw that pregnant women diagnosed as brain dead were sometimes able to gestate their babies for months and these babies could survive and be healthy. Obviously, the 2 week claim was wrong but I still see it used today.

Later, I served on an ethics committee where one doctor canvassed the brain death criteria in our area, found that the criteria varied wildly but yet suggested that our hospital change its criteria to match the least restrictive one he found so that we could harvest more organs. I protested but was told that I didn’t understand how much these organs meant to the recipients.

I have also even seen a doctor tell a family that their loved one was brain dead even when the could take some breaths without a ventilator and despite apnea being the crucial criteria for brain death. In that case, the goal was not organ harvesting but rather to persuade the family to take the ventilator off a patient with a poor prognosis and give high doses of morphine as “comfort care”.

I am also appalled that this article repeats the claim that “there have been no documented reports of regaining function after a declaration of brain death” despite the recent Zach Dunlap and the current Jahi Mahi cases. These cases and other such cases should be written up for medical journals, not ignored.

Thus, I am not surprised by the problems this article presents. I hope it will lead to unbiased further research even if it results in a reexamination of brain death and even if it means fewer organs for people like my daughter-in-law who needs a kidney transplant. In the meantime, we are hoping for a living donor.

 

Dr.Kent Lyon 

Unfortunately, federal regulations and financial incentives tend to encourage hospitals to pursue a rushed process of diagnosing brain death and procuring organs, with no incentives to make accurate diagnoses. Thus, Dr. Geer’s effort to “light a fire” is likely to make little headway with disinterested hospitals.  A better approach to organ procurement would be to financially reimburse potential living donors for kidney transplants than to appeal to a professionalism that runs counter to federally constructed financial incentives for procuring cadaveric organs.

Dr. Leon Zacharowicz

 

Why am I not surprised?

AR

This past summer, my nephew suffered a TBI in a motor vehicle accident.  I received the phone call saying that he was “brain dead,” and his organs were going to be donated, but my sister had requested that he be kept on the ventilator until all family could come to say goodbye.  Through a series of unexpected events, my 8 hour trip turned into a 24 hour trip, and I was the last to arrive at the hospital.  When I arrived, I was told that a possible pupillary response had just been observed by a nurse.  A few hours later, he was re-assessed by the neurologist and a definite pupillary response was present.  When I asked the neurologist about the type and location of the injury, I was told “It doesn’t matter – this is not a survivable injury. The brain is dead.” The trauma specialist told us that it was a diffuse axonal injury to “most of” the left hemisphere, with additional damage from multiple strokes in the right cerebellum. After five days with a Glasgow score of 3, he opened his eyes and looked around.  His GCS increased to 5, then 6. He began breathing on his own.  After weeks in CCU, additional weeks in a neuro step down unit, and more weeks of inpatient TBI therapy, he was able to go home.  It has now been 6 months since his injury.  He is walking, talking, laughing, reading, texting.  His long term memory, personality, and sense of humor are intact.  He’s still working on his short term memory, cognition and vision, with remarkable improvement and strong motivation.  He’s waiting impatiently for snow so he can start cross country skiing.  He will be re-starting college in a few weeks.

Was it a mistake?  Was it a miracle?  A little of each?   I have no idea. The trauma specialist said it is proof that God exists.  I just know that I am profoundly grateful.  And I believe there need to be uniformly followed guidelines for declaring brain death, including multiple assessments with a waiting period between assessments.

Dr. Arthur Drazan

What happened to the proven nuclear medicine brain scan?

Dr. William Goldie

I am concerned  that there is no comment about standards for use of EEG as ancillary  test for determining brain death.  Many well trained specialists who consider themselves experts in brain death will order EEG with no understanding of the necessary standards for using EEG in this setting.  Few hospitals have EEG technicians who are qualified to perform ECS EEG, and few have neurologists available who are qualified to interpret ECS  EEGs.  I would hope that brain death policies include the use of quality EEG to assist with the clinical diagnosis of brain death.

Does Dr. Goldie not know that EEG have not been used since the Minnesota Criteria?

When Harvard first published their criteria in 1968, EEG’s were a part of the evaluation, then in 1971 the Minnesota criteria along and they decided patients didn’t need EEG’s because too many families got upset when they saw brain waves. Then the “Pittsburgh protocol” came along and they began to take organs not from “just” the “brain-dead” patient but from patients after cardiac death. Now in Denver they are waiting 75 sec for a babies heart to stop and then proceeding with organ harvesting.

I believe life and death are NOT human decisions but one that only God can make. He gives life and He takes life away.