Biden’s HHS Secretary: "Cutting Off Kids’ Genitals Is ‘Health Care’ And Taxpayers Should Pay For It"


HHS Secretary says cutting off genitals is health care

United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra thinks that cutting off children’s genitals should be characterized as health care and funded by taxpayers.

In an exchange with Republican Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana on Wednesday, Becerra not only defended the White House’s support for experimentation on kids’ sex characteristics but also brushed off concerns that the so-called “gender-affirming care” promoted by the government causes irreversible damage. [This is a personal choice NOT to be forcibly paid for by U.S. taxpayers - ED]

“I believe that we should help those have the life-affirming care that they need,” Becerra, who along with the Biden administration has previously signaled support for using taxpayer dollars to fund genital mutilation surgeries, told Braun. “There are many transgender youth who have actually gone in the opposite direction, taking their life. If we can make a life better for someone in America, we should, especially if, in consultation with their physician, they approve of those procedures.”



Becerra’s comments come just weeks after the HHS’s Office of Population Affairs dangerously oversimplified the permanent and damaging effects that radical gender ideology, chemical castration, puberty blockers, and genital mutilation surgeries have on children and adults.

That same month, Rachel Levine, the male U.S. assistant secretary for health who masquerades as a female, falsely claimed, “There is no argument among medical professionals — pediatricians, pediatric endocrinologists, adolescent medicine physicians, adolescent psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. — about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care.”

In his interrogation of Becerra, Braun pointed out that the puberty blockers and “grotesque” surgeries recommended by the Biden administration, specifically HHS, are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and thus are often prescribed “off label,” but the secretary didn’t care. [How is the Biden administration ANY different from the Nazand particulary at Auschwitz - Ed]Is in occupied Europe.. and epecially the human atocities committed at Auschwitz? - ED]

“The FDA would raise alarms if they saw that a particular medicine or treatment were being misused. And at this stage, what we know is that for a drug to be out there available, it has to be safe and effective as FDA has found,” Becerra said. “So what I would simply say with regard to this particular subject is when individuals go in for care, it’s their physician who’s making that decision with them about what type of medicine or treatment they should receive.”

“You know, if you had used that same logic on what we’ve just navigated through Covid, it seems like there would have been a different point of view. And to me, for many parents across the country, this has more potentially tragic consequences, and it seems like it’s a double standard,” Braun replied.

“Those decisions are made by that individual in consultation with physician and caregivers, and no decision would be made without having consulted appropriately,” Becerra replied.

“I would say to you that many of our medical experts will tell you that we’ve explored this subject for a long time and what we find is that we are helping improve the lives of many Americans by providing them with the care that they have chosen with the informed consent of family and also with the consent and advice of their own physician,” he added.


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
Author Jordan Boyd profile
Jordan Boyd
Visit on Twitter@jordanboydtx



"

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Doctor in Sarasota Hospital Witnesses a 50-Year-Old Man Being ‘COVID Killed’ by Hospital Personnel – Doctor Restrained When He Advocates for Patient

By Joe Hoft


“Since when did hospitals turn into jails?” 

A doctor from Florida reported on his recent experience in the hospital.  Dr. Stephen Guffanti was entered into Sarasota Memorial Hospital in early August.  During his stay, he was roomed with another individual who had COVID.  The other individual required antibiotics for pneumonia he contracted but the hospital refused to order him the badly needed drugs.

The doctor offered to represent the 50-year-old patient but the hospital continued to not address the man’s pneumonia.  When the doctor offered to help the man, the hospital put the doctor in restraints until they decided how to deal with him.

This unbelievable story appears to be an effort by those in power to COVID-Kill the middle-aged man by not providing to him the anti-biotics needed to kill pneumonia.


Nullifying Nuremberg

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/08/nullifying_nuremberg.html

 

August 1, 2021

Nullifying Nuremberg

By Pennel Bird

Dr. Josef Mengele is one of the true monsters of history.  His profoundly evil medical experiments on Jews, the disabled, the mentally impaired, and other Third Reich deplorables are the stuff of pitch-black fever dreams.  Combining disparate elements of pernicious ideologies including eugenics, antisemitism, racial purity, and the German ideal of lebensraum ("room for living"), what eventually became Nazism informed Hitler's ethos as he rose to power.  His malignant weltanschauung eventually coalesced into the Final Solution.

Hitler's infernal vision metastasized quickly to infect the belief systems of top-tier Nazis.  Among other atrocities, Mengele used injections to attempt to change the eye color of his "patients" to blue to render them more Aryan.  When these experiments went sideways, the fiendish M.D. demonstrated a penchant for "tidying up."  One person testified to having witnessed the diabolical doctor kill fourteen sets of twins in one night with chloroform injections to the heart in order to make comparative post-mortem observations.

After the Allies won the war, the Nuremberg Trials were convened to assess the astonishing breadth of the human tragedy as authored by Hitler and his henchmen and mete out punishment for their actions.  The cruelty and depravity of Mengele and others, including Adolf Eichmann, shocked the world, were almost beyond reckoning, and subsequently inspired the establishment of the Nuremberg Code — which was tacitly endorsed by nearly every nation on earth.

The ten points of the Nuremberg Code for human experimentation are as follows:

1.       The voluntary consent of the human subject is essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the effects upon his health or person, which may come from his participation in the experiment.

2.       The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3.       The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation.

4.       The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5.       No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.

6.       The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7.       Proper preparations should be made, and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8.       The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9.       During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10.    During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

All COVID vaccines emergency authorized by the FDA have not yet been approved and are experimental, as they have undergone no long-term safety trials.  Safety data are being partially collected in real time as adverse events are reported to VAERS.  The tenets of the Nuremberg Code apply here as these vaccines are — by definition — a medical experiment being administered worldwide.  

Given that, the explicit statement in #1 that subjects not be subject to coercion raises the question: does the threat of losing one's job, not being able to attend college, or not being able to travel or attend a live event constitute coercion?  Does the president of the United States urging Americans to "get the shot" and then threatening to send emissaries door to door to "encourage" it constitute coercion?  Is it coercion to establish two Americas in which one half that chooses vaccination gets to eschew masks and move about freely, while the other half that doesn't must stay masked and have their essential freedoms proscribed?

Later in #1, the text explicitly states that the subject must be made aware of "the effects upon his health or person."  This is known as informed consent: patients need to be made fully aware of the potential dangers of a medical procedure in keeping with the Hippocratic oath.  There have been many reports of adverse events from the COVID vaccines, including Bell's palsy, seizures, blood clotting, heart inflammation, and death.  How many people reading this who got the vaccine had these potential side effects explained to them before getting jabbed?  How many were afforded informed consent?

The second bullet point dictates the experiment (COVID vaccine) "should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation."  In an alarming break with decades of convention, the Pfizer and Moderna animal trials were run concurrently with human trials.  The human trials were not a result of animal trials, giving the manufacturers a chance to make safety adjustments, which constitutes a violation of the Nuremberg Code.

The fifth bullet point states that no experiment (the experimental vaccine in this case) should be given if there's reason to believe it could cause a disabling injury or death.  With over 400,000 adverse events and 9,000 unconfirmed deaths from COVID vaccines reported to VAERS, is there reason to believe the COVID vaccines violate the Nuremberg Code in yet another way?

The eighth bullet point emphasizes the "highest degree of skill and care" by "scientifically qualified persons" when administering the vaccine.  Do pharmacists fit that profile?  Do school nurses?  How about the folks jabbing people motoring through drive-thru clinics?  Does the fact that they all enjoy total liability protection from vaccine injury and death give pause?

The last bullet point emphasizes that the administering agent should exercise caution in fulfillment of the Hippocratic oath by terminating treatment if there is reason to believe that further treatment could cause "injury, disability or death."  There are countless stories of people having an adverse reaction to the first of two shots — but being encouraged to continue with the second shot anyway.  Many of these unfortunates suffered debilitating, lifelong injuries — or death — after the second vaccine.  Meanwhile, instances of doctors or health care workers erring on the side of caution and advising against the second shot for these vulnerable patients are vanishingly rare.

It is increasingly clear that the powerful principles and precepts of the Nuremberg Code have been flouted, even decimated, by those seeking to push the COVID vaccines on every single person on Earth.  Foremost among these is the caution against coercion.  Those who resist the anti-American and anti-human idea of a one-size-fits-all medical treatment are freedom-fighters for the obvious and inherent right to choose for themselves.  That this is no longer self-evident is deeply alarming.

It is a well-worn aphorism that those who forget their past are condemned to repeat it.  Despite mounting evidence of serious adverse events and death, are we doing just that in our increasingly desperate attempts to use coercion to vaccinate absolutely everyone?

Are we nullifying the Nuremberg Code?