Posts Tagged Babies
by: Steve Watson
August 7, 2012
More scientists flag up health risks from x-ray scanners
An article in the New York Times health and science section today carries several revealing details indicating that doctors and scientists are extremely wary of the TSA’s use of full-body “backscatter” X-ray scanners.
The article details an account from pregnant Yolanda Marin-Czachor, a 34-year-old mother and teacher from Green Bay, Wis., who says:
“one of the first things my doctor said was: ‘Do not go through one of those machines. There have not been any long-term studies. I would prefer you stay away from it.’ ”
Explaining that the machines operate a narrowly focused beam of high-intensity radiation very quickly across the body, the article also notes:
David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center, says he worries about mechanical malfunctions that could cause the beam to stop in one place for even a few seconds, resulting in greater radiation exposure.
John Sedat, emeritus professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, believes that the effective dose could be 45 times as high as the T.S.A. has estimated, equivalent to about 10 percent of a single chest X-ray.
Scrutiny over radiation exposure was heightened recently following apparent efforts by the TSA to cover-up a “cluster” of cancer cases amongst scanner operators at Boston-Logan airport. According to FOIA documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), when Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, the TSA sought to downplay the matter and refused to issue employees with dosimeters to measure levels of exposure.
The documents indicated how, “A large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”
Monday, July 30, 2012
By: Nate Curtis
[NaturalNews] Research conducted with the support of the NIH proves that toxoplasmosis screening should be performed on pregnant women. Toxoplasmosis is caused by the Toxoplasma gondii parasite, and now researchers have pinpointed the strains of this parasite that are the cause for the serious birth defects and premature births in the USA. A new blood test was created by scientists at NIAID, a division of the National Institutes of Health, to diagnose strains of Toxoplasma gondii (T.gondii) parasite, which a fetus can contract in the womb, if the mother is infected.
Pregnant women contract the T. gondii by handling infected cat feces or by consuming meat that is not completely cooked. These women can then go on to have premature births, miscarriages, or babies with brain or eye defects. Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of the NIAID, states that congenital toxoplasmosis when left undiagnosed or untreated, can have severe impact on the quality of a child’s life. He goes on to say, “The findings from this study support the value of screening for toxoplasmosis to identify patients who could benefit from treatment.”
At the present time, blood tests can diagnose that a person has the Toxoplasma parasite, but not what specific strain it is. The test that NIAID developed can identify specific strains through the presence of antibodies that are associated with each one. Michael Grigg Ph.D, from the Laboratory of Parasitic Diseases at NIAID and his fellow researchers developed this test using the blood samples from a long-term study.
Fifteen separate T. gondii strains have been discovered across the world. Quite a bit of research has been performed in France, and the most common strains there are predominantly type II. These strains can be identified from any of the other strains. The other strains are called NE-II (not exclusively type II).
The researchers discovered both the NE-II or type II infections occurred in the 183 women and child pairs, when they performed the national congenital toxoplasmosis study. Further analysis uncovered the fact that the NE-II parasites tend to cause more premature births and other diseases to those infants than the babies infected with the type II parasites. Eye damage occurred in 67 percent of those with NE-II, while the type II babies only had eye damage in just 39 percent of them. Researchers do remind us that mild to serious diseases can be caused with either strain.
It has been known that specific parasite strains caused severe disease in mice. However, Dr. Grigg points out that researchers had not discovered whether it was the same for people. Up until now, the researchers had not been able to identify whether strains of the parasites the people had in the USA were the same strains found in Europe or another type. Therefore, they could not tell which strains cause the most serious diseases.
Even though other countries such as France screen pregnant women for Toxoplasma infection, it is rarely done in the USA. The research mentioned above and other studies show that there needs to be widespread screening of pregnant women to prevent brain and eye problems from occurring in newborns. The pregnant woman can receive treatment to cure this infection. According tot he CDC you can reduce your risk of exposure by washing your hands after handling cat feces, avoid eating undercooked meat or feeding it to your cat.
Sources for this article include:
by: Michael Snyder
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
The greatest environmental threat that we are facing is genetic modification. All over the globe, scientists are treating the fabric of life as if it was a playground where anything goes. Behind closed doors, scientists all over the planet are creating some of the most freakish and most bizarre monsters that you could possible imagine, and very few people seem concerned about it. But the truth is that messing with the building blocks of life is going to have some very serious consequences.
Scientists claim that they are making our crops stronger, more productive and less vulnerable to insects. Scientists claim that they can alter our animals so that they are more “useful” to us. Scientists claim that genetic modification is only going to “enhance” humanity. But what if something goes seriously wrong?
For example, what if we learn that eating genetically modified food is really, really bad for us? Well, at this point more than 70 percent of the processed foods sold in the United States contain at least one ingredient that has been genetically modified. It would be kind of hard to go back now. We have rushed ahead and have created hordes of freakish genetic monsters without ever seriously considering the consequences. Someday, future generations may look back on us and wonder how we could have ever been so incredibly foolish.
We were promised that genetically modified crops would enable us to feed the world. Well, the world is still starving, but we sure have seen super weeds, super pests and super diseases all develop as a result of genetic modification.
by: Elizabeth Renter
July 3, 2012
The best interests of humanity were long ago abandoned by corporate giants in favor of the almighty dollar. But would companies really make false promises and put babies on the line to boost their bottom line? Well, yes, they would. Baby formula manufacturers first started putting synthetic fatty acids called DHA and ARA in formula about a decade ago. Despite complaints over the years and questionable marketing practices by the companies, these DHA/ARA-enhanced formulas remain on the market today.
DHA/ARA-Enhanced Baby Formula
DHA and ARA are long-chain fatty acids that are naturally present in human breast milk. However, the DHA and ARA in baby formula is synthetic - not natural. Instead, they are produced by a company called Martek Biosciences Corp. They are made in a lab with algae and fungus, and then extracted with hexane, a neurotoxin.
Since the DHA/ARA formulas began showing up on shelves, the FDA has been flooded with complaints from consumers. Letter after letter found parents dealing with sick and unhappy babies – babies who did a complete 180-degree turnaround when taken off the formula.
Initially, according to this AlterNet report, the FDA alerted Martek that they would be convening a group of scientists to look into concerns about the synthetic DHA and ARA. But Martek responded, telling the FDA that such research would “not be productive.” For whatever reason, the FDA agreed and didn’t look any further at the formula additive.
Many formulas have used these synthetic substances and have been called out for calling their products “The Breast Milk Formula,” and suggesting theirs was even better than the breast.
Prior to the additives being placed in bottles, Martek marketed them to companies saying:
Even if [the DHA/ARA blend] has no benefit, we think it would be widely incorporated into formulas as a marketing tool and to allow companies to promote their formula as “closest to human milk.”
And there it is– the recognition that a substance may or may not be useful, the seeming disregard of any potential risks, all for the admitted marketing tool and the money that it would bring in.
This detailed report from Cornucopia.org shows that upset tummies and fussy attitudes might not be the only negative mark of DHA/ARA infused formula. They reveal that in Martek’s own studies, lab rats showed a “significant increase in relative liver weights.” And this is from the manufacturer’s studies. Imagine what an impartial study might find.
Aborted Babies Are Being Chopped Up And Sold To Researchers All Over America With The Full Approval Of The Obama Administration
Did you know that aborted babies are being chopped up and sold to medical researchers all over America? There is a federal law which is supposed to ban this practice, but it contains a gigantic loophole that abortion clinics are using to sell huge amounts of aborted baby parts to the scientific community. The loophole in the federal law allows “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.” But there are no guidelines as to what those “reasonable payments” should be and the Obama administration is not about to start prosecuting abortion clinics. So aborted baby parts from American babies will continue to be very quietly sold for profit to medical researchers and most Americans will never hear anything about it. But future generations will look back in horror at what we allowed to be done right under our noses.
With the full approval of the Obama administration, one company in the United States has plans to inject aborted baby brain cells into the eyes of patients to see if that will help improve their vision. The following is from a recent article on LifeNews.com….
Scott Fischbach, the director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life uncovered the information showing a clinical trial approved by the Food and Drug Administration uses brain tissue from aborted unborn babies to treat macular degeneration. StemCells Inc. will inject fetal brain stem cells into the eyes of up to 16 patients to study the cells’ effect on vision.
As Fischbach correctly notes, a fetus must be at a certain stage of development before brain tissue can be harvested for this kind of research….
“StemCells Inc. is not using embryonic stem cells. A five-day-old human being at the embryonic stage does not have a brain, but a fetus at 10 or 20 weeks of development with visible fingers, toes and ears has a functioning brain,” said Fischbach. “Developing human beings in the womb are treated simply as raw material for laboratory experimentation by StemCells Inc. and other companies seeking to monetize aborted unborn children.”
But the harvesting of tissue and organs from aborted babies is definitely not new. It has been going on for a long time.
For example, a recent article posted on worldmag.com describes the very big business that the Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle does in aborted baby parts….
It’s known within the research community as a top government distributor of fetal tissue. Last year the Puget Sound Business Journal stated the lab “in 2009 filled more than 4,400 requests for fetal tissue and cell lines.”
The lab’s grant records indicate it received $579,091 from the NIH last year. To date, it has retrieved the products of 22,000 pregnancies. According to a description the lab provided in its most recent grant applications, an increase in nonsurgical abortion methods has “created new obstacles to obtaining sufficient amounts of high quality tissue. To overcome these problems and meet increasing demand, the Laboratory has developed new relationships with both local and distant clinics.”
Once again, it is supposed to be against federal law to buy aborted baby parts from abortion clinics. But this “problem” is avoided by taking advantage of the loophole that allows for “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”
An article posted on LifeDynamics.com describes how this system works….
1) A baby parts “wholesaler” enters into a financial agreement with an abortion clinic in which the wholesaler pays a monthly “site fee” to the clinic. For this payment, the wholesaler is allowed to place a retrieval agent inside the clinic where he or she is given access to the corpses of children killed there and a workspace to harvest their parts. In most cases, this retrieval agent is an employee of the wholesaler. In other instances, the retrieval agent is a clinic employee who was trained by the wholesaler.
2) The buyer – usually a researcher working for a medical school, pharmaceutical company, bio-tech company or government agency – supplies the wholesaler with a list of the baby parts wanted.
3) When such orders are received by the wholesaler, they are faxed to the retrieval agent at the clinic who harvests the requested parts and ships them to the buyer via FedEx, Airborne or a similar common carrier.
4) These parts are “donated” by the clinic to the wholesaler who turns around and “donates” them to the buyer. The buyer then “reimburses” the wholesaler for the cost of retrieving the parts.
In the end, nobody is technically “buying or selling” anything but they all get what they want and a lot of money changes hands.
A number of years ago an abortion industry insider came forward with shocking details of how this organ harvesting operation actually functions. The following is from a very eye-opening InvestigateDaily article….
It was an interview that shocked America. An Insider, spilling the beans on massive malpractice to a reporter on ABC’s 20/20. Only this time, it wasn’t Big Tobacco in the gunsights, it was the US abortion industry, exposed as harvesting the organs from aborted babies. According to former abortion clinic technician Dean Alberty, clinics were harvesting eyes, brains, hearts, limbs, torsos and other body parts for sale to the scientific market: laboratories wanting to test new drugs or procedures, or researchers trying to find the causes of genetic disorders or discover new ways of treating disorders like Parkinsons.
Sometimes babies actually survive the initial abortion procedure and workers actually have to kill the babies themselves before harvesting the organs….
Alberty worked for a Maryland agency called the Anatomic Gift Foundation, which essentially acted as a brokerage between universities and researchers seeking body parts, and the abortion clinics providing the raw material. Alerted by the clinics about the races and gestations of babies due to be aborted each day, AGF technicians would match the offerings with parts orders on their client lists. Alberty and his colleagues would turn up at the abortions that offered the best donor prospects to begin dissecting and extracting what they needed before decay set in.
“We would have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go in…[to] procure fetal tissue for research. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceuticals and universities were looking for. Then we would go and look at the particular patient charts—we had to screen out anyone who had STDs or fetal anomalies. These had to be the most perfect specimens we could give these researchers for the best value that we could sell for.
“We were taking eyes, livers, brains, thymuses, and especially cardiac blood…even blood from the limbs that we would get from the veins” he said.
Alberty told of seeing babies wounded but alive after abortion procedures, and in one case a set of twins “still moving on the table” when clinicians from AGF began dissecting the children to harvest their organs. The children, he said, were “cuddling each other” and “gasping for breath” when medics moved in for the kill.
You can read the rest of that shocking article right here.
So are you sick to your stomach yet?
This is a hard article to write, but the American people need to be confronted with the truth. If we ignore the horrors going on right under our noses, then that would make us just like so many of the other nightmarish societies throughout history that we rightly condemn.
Sadly, most Americans don’t even realize that large numbers of consumer products on our supermarket shelves contain ingredients which have been cultivated using aborted human fetal cell lines.
This information is not hard to find.
But people do not like to talk about it.
There are price lists for human fetal tissue all over the Internet. You can find one example right here.
So does it bother you that aborted babies are being chopped up and sold to researchers all over America?
Or are you perfectly fine with it?
Obama agency rules Pepsi’s use of aborted fetal cells in soft drinks constitutes ‘ordinary business operations’
A week and a half ago we posted here that the Obama agency rules that PepsiCo cannibalizing aborted fetus was ‘ordinary business’.
Now, more people are realizing the audacity of this abomination taking place. It cannot be described in any other way. Please do your own due diligence in respect to your health. The establishment cares not – as seen from the articles shared above and below – about [y]our health. As they say, each one teach one.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
By: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
[NaturalNews] The Obama Administration has given its blessing to PepsiCo to continue utilizing the services of a company that produces flavor chemicals for the beverage giant using aborted human fetal tissue. LifeSiteNews.com reports that the ObamaSecurity and Exchange Commission (SEC) has decided that PepsiCo’s arrangement with San Diego, Cal.-based Senomyx, which produces flavor enhancing chemicals for Pepsi using human embryonic kidney tissue, simply constitutes “ordinary business operations.”
The issue began in 2011 when the non-profit group Children of God for Life (CGL) first broke the news about Pepsi’s alliance with Senomyx, which led to massive outcry and a worldwide boycott of Pepsi products. At that time, it was revealed that Pepsi had many other options at its disposal to produce flavor chemicals, which is what its competitors do, but had instead chosen to continue using aborted fetal cells — or as Senomyx deceptively puts it, “isolated human taste receptors” (http://www.naturalnews.com).
A few months later, Pepsi’ shareholders filed a resolution petitioning the company to “adopt a corporate policy that recognizes human rights and employs ethical standards which do not involve using the remains of aborted human beings in both private and collaborative research and development agreements.” But the Obama Administration shut down this 36-page proposal, deciding instead that Pepsi’s used of aborted babies to flavor its beverage products is just business as usual, and not a significant concern.
“We’re not talking about what kind of pencils PepsiCo wants to use — we are talking about exploiting the remains of an aborted child for profit,” said Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of CGL, concerning the SEC decision. “Using human embryonic kidney (HEK-293) to produce flavor enhancers for their beverages is a far cry from routine operations!”
To be clear, the aborted fetal tissue used to make Pepsi’s flavor chemicals does not end up in the final product sold to customers, according to reports — it is used, instead, to evaluate how actual human taste receptors respond to these chemical flavorings. But the fact that Pepsi uses them at all when viable, non-human alternatives are available illustrates the company’s blatant disregard for ethical and moral concerns in the matter.
Back in January, Oklahoma Senator Ralph Shortey proposed legislation to ban the production of aborted fetal cell-derived flavor chemicals in his home state. If passed, S.B. 1418 would also reportedly ban the sale of any products that contain flavor chemicals derived from human fetal tissue, which includes Pepsi products as well as products produced by Kraft and Nestle (http://www.naturalnews.com).
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
29 Feb 2012
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Thursday, March 08, 2012
By: Jonathan Benson
[NaturalNews] Mothers who feed their babies formula rather than natural breast milk are doing their children a major disservice in terms of their immune development and overall health. But baby formula can at least be somewhat enhanced through the addition of prebiotic foods and probiotic bacteria, which two recent University of Illinois (UI) studies found mimics, at least in a small way, the nutritional profile of natural breast milk in promoting proper intestinal development of young babies.
For their studies, both of which were published in the Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Hannah D. Holscher and colleagues compared the immune and microbiota development of breastfed babies to those fed prebiotic- and probiotic-enhanced formulas, as well as to those fed control formula. They found that enhancing formula with both prebiotics and probiotics significantly improved formula-fed babies’ development of disease-resisting intestinal microbiota, which did not develop properly in the control formula group.
“The beneficial bacteria that live in a baby’s intestine are all-important to an infant’s health, growth, and ability to fight off infections,” said Kelly Tappenden, a professor of nutrition and gastrointestinal physiology at UI, concerning the studies. “Breast-fed babies acquire this protection naturally. Formula-fed infants get sick more easily because the bacteria in their gut are always changing.”
Those babies in the prebiotic- and probiotic-enhanced formula group that were delivered via caesarean section (C-section) appeared to benefit the most from these nutrient additions, as they are even worse off than formula-fed babies delivered the natural way. Vaginally-delivered babies are imparted beneficial bacteria from their mothers which aids in their immune development, while formula-fed C-section babies lack both this bacteria and that which is delivered through breast milk.
“Babies delivered naturally are exposed to the mother’s bacteria as they travel through the birth canal, and they develop a healthier population of gut bacteria as a result,” added Tappenden. “Babies delivered by C-section enter a sterile environment, and their gut microbiota is quite different.”
Natural breast milk contains the perfect balance of proteins, carbohydrates, enzymes, vitamins, minerals, growth factors, hormones, and beneficial bacteria, all of which are lacking in typical baby formulas (http://infantnutritioncouncil.com/breastmilk-information/). As we reported on previously, many conventional baby formulas are composed almost entirely of processed sugars, genetically-modified (GM) soy and corn additives, and other dead materials (http://www.naturalnews.com/029863_Similac_infant_formula.html).
But if breastfeeding is not an option for you, the next best thing is to enhance an organic, nutritionally-rich baby formula with prebiotics and probiotics to help provide your baby with the best chance of proper immune and digestive development.
For Immediate Release: March 5, 2012
Shareholders will not be informed or allowed to vote on resolution.
[Largo, FL] In a shocking decision delivered Feb 28th, President Obama’s Security and Exchange Commission ruled that PepsiCo’s use of aborted fetal remains in their research and development agreement with Senomyx to produce flavor enhancers falls under “ordinary business operations”.
The letter signed by Attorney Brian Pitko of the SEC Office of Chief Counsel was sent in response to a 36-page document submitted by PepsiCo attorneys in January, 2012. In that filing, PepsiCo pleaded with the SEC to reject the Shareholder’s Resolution filed in October 2011 that the company “adopt a corporate policy that recognizes human rights and employs ethical standards which do not involve using the remains of aborted human beings in both private and collaborative research and development agreements.”
PepsiCo lead attorney George A. Schieren noted that the resolution should be excluded because it “deals with matters related to the company’s ordinary business operations” and that “certain tasks are so fundamental to run a company on a day-today basis that they could not be subject to stockholder oversight.”
Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life, the organization that exposed the PepsiCo- Senomyx collaboration last year (see http://www.cogforlife.org/senomyxalert.htm ) was appalled by the apathy and insensitivity of both PepsiCo executives and the Obama administration.
“We’re not talking about what kind of pencils PepsiCo wants to use – we are talking about exploiting the remains of an aborted child for profit”, she said. “Using human embryonic kidney (HEK-293) to produce flavor enhancers for their beverages is a far cry from routine operations!”
PepsiCo also requested the resolution be excluded because it “probed too deeply into matters of a complex nature upon which shareholders cannot make an informed judgment.”
“In other words, PepsiCo thinks its stockholders are too stupid to understand what they are doing with the remains of aborted children”, Vinnedge stated. “Well they are about to find out just how smart the public really is when they turn up the heat on the world-wide boycott!”
Vinnedge is warning consumers to be on guard for the roll-out of PepsiCo’s newest beverage that claims to cut sugar and calories by 50%. The product is called Pepsi Next and is anticipated to hit the market in the coming weeks.
PepsiCo stated that their goal with Senomyx is to produce new beverages with reduced sugars and calories. So is Pepsi Next the new Senomyx-PepsiCo creation?
While fetal components are currently not in the final product, there is growing concern among consumers that it could happen in the near future. With the explosion of health foods on the market, there is nothing to stop companies from using fetal remains as protein ingredients.
Impossible, you say? Actually because of GRAS rules (Generally Recognized as Safe) it might not even trigger FDA oversight. And that has consumers plenty worried about just what might be “next” from the industry!
It also makes Oklahoma Senator Ralph Shortey’s SB1418 banning the sale of products that are developed with or contain aborted fetal remains, critically important for consumer protection. See http://cogforlife.org/oklahomasenator.htm
“We commend the Senator for his courageous move,” noted Vinnedge. “The public is already saying no thanks to all Pepsi beverages and Pepsi Next is just that – the “next” product to avoid!”
To date, the world-wide boycott has expanded to include Canada, Germany, Poland, UK, Ireland, Scotland, Spain, Portugal, Australia and New Zealand.
March 1, 2012
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.”Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Study authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, both from the University of Melbourne, state in their paper that “after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” They go on to say that while it is infanticide, they prefer not to call it that. Instead, they prefer the term ‘after-birth abortion’ — a term that avoids the true labeling of the proposed technique.
Authors of the paper write that simply being a human isn’t something that grants ‘a right to life’. It appears the paper authors believe that they are the ones who are to determine whether or not a human can live or die. Under this train of thought, then these ‘after-birth’ abortions are not limited to infants. In fact, if being a human does not grant a ‘right to life’, then so-called ‘ethicists’ could soon state that everyone with a disability no longer has the right to live. Does this sound familiar? From 1929 to 1974, the United States began forcibly sterilizing individuals they deemed to not be ‘fit to live’.
During this time period, around 60,000 people were forcibly sterilized nationwide under the admitted eugenics program. The authors of this paper are now recommending that certain human beings simply do not deserve to live, in the same manner of the U.S. government in 1929. The authors even take it a step further, going from sterilizations to full-blown murders — genocide on a larger scale.
The paper states:
“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life…”
The news comes just after the ‘Euthanasia Coaster‘ hit the mainstream and alternative media, a proposed rollercoaster design that would ‘euthanize and execute’ its passengers. The creator of the coaster, Julijonas Urbonas, says the machine is engineered to take the life of a human being with “elegance and euphoria.” The coaster even met similar scientific reception as the concept of after-birth abortions, as the transhumanism science organization “HUMAN+” displayed the concept of the Euthanasia Coaster at the Science Gallery in Dublin from April through June 2011.