The Gary Null Show
The Gary Null Show - 02.28.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.28.19

February 28, 2019

Saving The Planet - One Bite At A Time (New Book)

Our Planet Needs Your Immediate Attention

Tens of millions of Americans do not believe in global warming or deny that climate change is being driven by human activity. Others accept the consensus from the vast majority of scientists in the international community that anthropogenic climate change is real; however, most do not fully understand it.

"Earth's  Carbon  Concentrations  Have  Soared  to  Levels  Not  Seen  in  800,000 Years"

"Summers Are Getting Hotter Faster, Especially in North Americas Farm Belt New Study Shows Antarctic Melting Approaching 'Unstoppable' Tipping Point"

Did you know:

  • "NYC Can Expect More 9-Foot Floods"
  • "California Is Turning Back into a Desert and There Are No Contingency Plans"

Yet, despite the lack of action in the US, there are nations and major cities around the world taking climate change seriously. Visionaries and scientists are creating unique and wonderful innovations in renewable energy to challenge America's hubris, denial, and complacency. Rather than descending into apathy, withdrawing into isolation and being unwilling to face these problems, this book intends to provide a deep and detailed strategy for how we can individually and collectively make a difference. And the foremost effort each of us can begin at this very moment is to adopt a healthy, plant-based diet. Not only is it affordable, but a vegan lifestyle will also strengthen our physical and mental health to face the challenges ahead. It is the single most important thing each of us can do to save the planet.

 

The Gary Null Show - 02.27.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.27.19

February 27, 2019

How We, the People, Can Save the Planet

How We, the People, Can Save the Planet
By Gary Null, Richard Gale, and Helen Buyniski

The recent (February) release of the proposed Green New Deal is a template, an outline identifying some of the most crucial issues facing the nation regarding climate change and a wish list of measures to address those issues. It contains a variety of inspired agenda items, many of which have been voiced by the Green Party and environmental fringe groups in Washington for over a decade. According to the Deal’s Fact Sheet, 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Deal. Almost every Democrat throwing their hat into the 2020 presidential race backs it. And the Deal has gained wide approval in the climatology and atmospheric science communities; among hundreds of conservation, environmental, renewable energy, and social activist organizations; and within the younger generation. It has been a long time coming, and the question is whether it is too late. It is optimistic to think that we can reverse accelerating global warming trends and mitigate their impact by keeping the planet below the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 1.5 degree C warming mark for the next 12 years, and it is even more optimistic to think that Congress will be able to enact legislation like this without prioritizing the interests of the multinational corporations and lobbies that contribute to their re-election campaigns over the people who elected them.

It took no time for the Deal’s co-authors, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Democrat Senator Ed Markey, to be broadsided with disparaging criticisms by corporate leaders and political opponents, including old rank-and-file Democrats. The critics include the President of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, fossil fuel backer Terry O’Sullivan, who labeled the report a “fantasy manifesto” that will create “divisions and inequality.”  Billionaire Michael Bloomberg called it “pie in the sky.” And Pelosi and her multi-million dollar corporate colleagues are simply clueless about the “Green Dream or whatever they call it,” as Pelosi dismissed it. But there are plenty of legitimate criticisms too, and progressives would be wise not to let their desire to see pro-environmental legislation enacted at last blind them to the very real problems with Ocasio-Cortez and a legislative blueprint that could very easily become as much of a giveaway to multinational corporations as the Affordable Care Act was to insurance companies.

The Green New Deal largely relies for precedent upon the idealism behind great accomplishments in the US’ history when the nation succeeded in mobilizing to tackle difficult challenges that critics argued could never be accomplished.  Examples include FDR’s transformation of the private auto and manufacturing industries to meet military needs during World War 2, Eisenhower’s interstate highway system, and the achievement of JFK’s promise to reach the moon before the end of the 1960s. Although Washington remains strait-jacked by the interests of the finance and energy lobbies, at the local level, constructive change is happening. Over one hundred cities across the country have issued statements pledging to transition to 100 percent renewable energy.[4] Unfortunately, their dateline targets are far off track, and the best case, Hawaii, is looking at reaching 100 percent clean energy efficiency in another 26 years. Farmers are forgoing energy-intensive chemical agriculture and transitioning to organic. And the public is becoming increasingly more aware and educated about their energy usage and slowly changing its consumption habits. Nevertheless, compared to other developed nations, the US lags far behind in reaching realistic targets to address the the IPCC’s 1.5 degree prediction, which is overly conservative. Absent the IPCC’s statistical limitations, the actual time frame, according to most independent climate scientists, is more dire. We may have only 7 years to get off fossil fuels.

However, reaching the Deal’s goal is potentially doable if the country’s industries and finance giants get behind it. Sweden already gets over half of its energy from renewables. In 2015, Denmark’s wind farm industry reached 140 percent of energy demands. In 2016 Portugal reached a milestone by operating for four days without any fossil fuels.[1] Due to its favorable clean energy geothermal resources, Iceland generates the most clean energy per capita in the world; almost 90 percent of its total energy needs are satisfied by non-fossil fuel sources. Costa Rica has managed to run for over two months on 100 percent renewables. In 10 years, Uruguay’s unique public and private sector partnerships now supply 95 percent of its national energy needs with renewables.[3]  Many other nations are also making aggressive efforts to power themselves exclusively with clean energy.  And where does the US stand?  According to the US Energy Information Administration, for 2017, non-fossil fuel sources only accounted for a dismal 20 percent of energy consumption.  And still 34 percent of fuel for our electric power sector relies on coal![2] While getting off fossil fuel dependency is absolutely critical, the US’s electricity production only accounts for 28 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions (GHEs). While switching to renewable energy for electrical power needs is very likely achievable, the obstacles to reach the IPCC target are enormous.

In our estimation, several stumbling blocks may make it impossible for the US to eliminate fossil fuels during the next dozen years. Aside from opposition within with the Democratic Party by corporatists such as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Steny Hoyer, the cost to overhaul all industry, manufacturing and current and new technological developments would be astronomical. A Republican-aligned think tank, the American Action Forum, recently published a report estimating the Green New Deal would cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over ten years, though the lion’s share of that sum relates to the Deal’s provision of jobs and healthcare for all, rather than its environmental measures. Eliminating carbon emissions from the power and transportation sector, the group said, would “only” cost between $8.3 and $12.3 trillion over a decade. The national debt is already almost $22 trillion and growing. Since Trump took office, the debt has increased $2 trillion, and there is no indication it will shrink.  Increasingly extreme weather and its aftereffects will only further raise the debt.
A closer examination of these numbers is required. The “official” price tag of the “War on Terror,” which has laid waste to the Middle East over the last 20 years, creating an endless supply of future enemies by slaughtering entire villages full of civilians via depersonalized drone warfare, recently climbed north of $6 trillion,2 and an investigation last year turned up an eye-popping $21 trillion in fraudulent budgeting by the Pentagon and the Department of Housing and Urban Development1. Thousands of whistleblowers are swept under the rug by the Defense Department’s Inspector General every year in their efforts to call attention to waste and fraud within the wealthiest military in the world. The first-ever attempt to audit the Pentagon, performed last year, was an embarrassing failure, revealing $6.5 trillion had simply vanished.3 The US spends nearly $1 trillion a year on “defense”4 – and while no one would suggest dismantling the American military, there are thousands of bases sprinkled around the world in countries the US does not belong, with undeclared conflicts raging in 134 countries.5 Surely some of this largesse could be repurposed to save the planet.
There is always money in the budget for war, which currently eats up more than half of every dollar spent by the US government, despite the fact that the US is not facing any credible military threats from state actors. Despite the evidence-free charges it meddled in the 2016 election, Russia does not pose a threat to the US – indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin in a recent speech expressed frustration that Russia was “banging on a locked door” regarding friendship between the two nations, rendered all but impossible with every round of draconian sanctions imposed as a form of legislative virtue-signaling by congressmen eager to demonstrate their allegiance in Cold War Part 2. Even China prefers to flex its muscles economically, rather than militarily, spending trillions to build its Belt and Road throughout the developing world and amassing allies by funding large infrastructure projects – where the US has historically bullied poorer nations into submissions through military force. The Green New Deal would merely take roughly the yearly expenditure on the War on Terror and use it for constructive, rather than destructive, purposes. Troops returning from costly and destructive foreign wars could even be put to work planting trees or building infrastructure, much as environmental projects are undertaken in less wealthy nations.
Because that scary $12.3 trillion figure is the cost if the Green New Deal were undertaken in the typical American fashion of rolling out grand legislation. If environmental reforms were enacted the way other countries work, the figure would shrink dramatically. Unfortunately, Ocasio-Cortez is open about her wish to work with “business interests” to get the job done, just as Barack Obama was willing to work with the insurance companies to pass the Affordable Care Act, resulting in a ruinously expensive and flawed plan that forced Americans to buy health insurance they could not afford while subsidizing a tiny sliver of the population. Healthcare costs did not go down – they skyrocketed – and healthcare quality certainly did not improve. Involving corporations with their profit-above-all value system guarantees the Green New Deal will enrich wealthy conglomerates like Bechtel and Halliburton. These will receive the big contracts for building renewable infrastructure, repurposing existing infrastructure, etc. but will contract the work out to other, smaller companies while keeping most of the money as profit. The smaller companies will then outsource the jobs (constructing solar panels in the desert, say, or planting a hardy forest on now-barren disused farmland) to poorly-paid local firms, while keeping most of the remaining money as profit. The poorly-paid local firms will then do the jobs with the cheapest materials and shoddiest standards in the hope of retaining whatever funds are left for their CEOs and investors. This is the American way, and it is why any grand infrastructure or rebuilding project costs so much.
If enacted along the lines of past grand projects like the Affordable Care Act, the Green New Deal will essentially be a giveaway to the big corporations Ocasio-Cortez claims to oppose, with her champagne socialism, neoliberal economics degree, and unhealthy affection for the trappings of wealth and power. It is no secret that the very real climate catastrophe we all face has been weaponized by multinational interests interested in pushing global governance measures as the only “solution” to the climate change problem. Too often, this has made those rightly suspicious of the motives of government and the ruling class also doubt the existence of climate change, in a form of guilt by association. But taking action on a grand scale need not be ruinously expensive or involve an authoritarian clampdown on the rights of the individual. China assigned 60,000 soldiers to plant enough trees to cover an area the size of Ireland last year6 with an aim toward eventually upping their forest coverage from 21 percent to 26 percent by 2035. Even Bangladesh – one of the poorest countries in the world – began planting one million trees in 2017 after rural deforestation had so denuded the countryside that farmers were dying from lightning strikes at high rates, copying a similar program in Thailand.7 India set a world record – twice! – using millions of volunteers to plant trees in order to bring its forests in line with the commitments it made under the Paris Agreement. With modern technology like “seed bombing,” a single airplane or drone can plant 900,000 trees in a day, dropping seeds encased in ready-to-grow soil bundles. This technology is already used in Africa, and it has advanced significantly beyond simply dropping seeds indiscriminately – modern seed bombing drones are equipped with imaging capability to ensure the seeds go where they are most likely to thrive. None of this requires outsourcing, subcontracting, slicing and dicing profit margins, or any of the typically American approaches to the problem, and it will save billions.
Relying on the government to do the right thing almost invariably leaves one disappointed. If it was not Ocasio-Cortez pushing cooperation with the business community as an integral part of the Deal, it would be another congressperson. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and the US Chamber of Commerce – the “business lobby” – is so massive it’s difficult for lawmakers to see outside its edges. Add in the size of the “energy lobby” and it’s easy to see how lawmakers find it difficult to conceive of taking large-scale action in a way that does not primarily benefit large corporations. The voice of the people has not been heard in Washington in decades, and it’s doubtful it would be recognized if it was heard.
Moreover, although the US is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases (15 percent of global total emissions), China far surpasses us at 30 percent. Together with the European Union (10 percent) and India (6 percent), these four regions account for over half of all GHEs. The bottom 100 countries combined only contribute to 3.5 percent. Launching a universal, global environmental Marshall Plan may well be beyond humanity’s means. If we consider that China is currently constructing a single sprawling megapolis that will cover over 83,000 square miles —  larger than Great Britain or New England — it is impossible to imagine how such a humongous urban operation could not be unsustainable and fossil-fuel dependent. The booming city of Jing-Jin-Ji will be the heaviest concentration of human beings on the planet, housing upwards of 130 million people, or the equivalent of the combined populations of the world’s four largest cities: Tokyo, New Delhi, Shanghai and Sao Paulo. And all of these residents will want the conveniences of a modern, western lifestyle: more cars, more meat on their tables and more energy-consuming luxuries.
Surprisingly, surveys seem to indicate that the Chinese are better-educated about climate change than the average American. After last year’s record-breaking heatwaves, droughts, deadly flash floods and a category 5 typhoon, 94 percent of Chinese polled said they believe climate change is happening now and 66 percent believe it is anthropocentric.  Seventy-three percent are willing to pay extra for climate-friendly products.  Yet similar to average Americans, the Chinese are not changing their consumption habits to adapt to the new climate reality. Likewise, similar to the US, the Chinese government is eager to press forward with unsustainable growth projects that will increase rather than decrease emissions.[13]

Among the other stumbling blocks the Green New Deal faces is that Washington has unfortunately almost reached its goal of being totally energy independent. While we produce the most energy in the world, we also consume the most per capita.  The US has also risen to the third largest fossil fuel exporter, after Saudi Arabia and Russia. Together, these three nations account for 38 percent of the world’s total oil.[8]  At the same time the US still needs to import petroleum, predominantly for our auto and transportation demands. Although the US now produces about 11 million barrels per day, it consumes almost 20 million barrels daily.[9] For natural gas production, the US is king, and is expected to reach over 90 billion cubic feet per day of production, according to the EIA.[10] Trump’s abhorrent policies have revitalized the coal industry and escalated production. Worse, the oil and coal industries are the recipients of monstrous corporate welfare to the tune of $20 billion in annual government subsidies.[11]

Jeremy Brecher properly notes that “global warming has rightly been called history’s greatest market failure. Correcting it cannot be left to the market.”[14] Unlike the faux urgency for building a silly wall on the border, climate change is THE national emergency. It is a planetary emergency. Therefore, when thousands of large and small coal-gas-oil related companies reap enormous windfalls, employ almost 1.1 million workers  — compared to under 374,000 working full- or part-time in solar and 102,000 at wind firms — there is zero incentive for any of these major greenhouse gas emitters to leap off the gravy train and shift to cleaner, renewable forms of energy.[12]

A second major obstacle to the Green New Deal is that all of our leading institutions, politicians, legislative policymakers and opinion leaders, think tanks and foundations, and the mainstream media that is controlled by these institutions, are not going to truthfully challenge the paradigm of free-market capitalism and the myth that constant economic growth and expansion will better society. This means we only have more toxic pollution, urban sprawl, destruction of the environment and habitats, and depletion of natural resources to look forward to, and with it, warmer seasons and more extreme weather events such as superstorms, droughts, wildfires, and floods.

This may be the 3,000-pound gorilla in the room. We are caught in the perpetual cycle of earning more in order to buy more and accumulate more debt. The transition of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels to increase investment in renewables and the new technologies necessary to meet the IPCC benchmark means a tradeoff for a much slower or no-growth economy in order to reach a more sustainable and livable future.  It may require up to $10 trillion to re-engineer entire industries and infrastructures in order to reach anything close to zero emissions. Yet with America’s new wealthy class of 11 million millionaires governing private industries, investments and policy-making to keep the capitalist engine churning, enactment of the kind of green agenda proposed and demanded today is unlikely. Again, there is no incentive for the ruling elite to cut back on consumption. The legions of lobbyists in Washington will make every effort to scuttle the Green New Deal and ensure it is dead on arrival. The ruling class has no allegiance to nationality. It is the most unpatriotic class in the nation. When the stresses of climate change get tough or their personal security and assets are threatened, the ruling class have the means to pick up and move elsewhere.

Furthermore, the ruling class and the conservative populace — even those educated enough to agree on anthropocentric climate change – lean heavily upon Libertarian values, which means smaller government and more freedom for the free market. Looking at the Green New Deal from any angle, it is clear this plan will require handing over enormous power to Washington. Trust in all branches of government has already eroded to a level where even true progressives doubt anything good can come out of the duopoly in Washington. Therefore, a sizable percentage of the public will be deeply suspicious of the government’s will and competence in executing any legislation that emerges from the Deal’s current outline.

The free-market economy is polluting everything, creating seas of plastic, landfills of toxic junk, and stores of computers and electronic equipment. Forests and ecosystems are being leveled to expand growth. There is little to no time to dramatically change our steel, auto, and high tech industries. And private industries and the population’s collective consumption behaviors will not change overnight. While we commend the Green New Deal’s authors and the progressive caucus that backs it, we encourage the public not to become passive with high expectations that Washington is willing or capable of solving the climate crisis. There are no saviors. Blind faith should not be directed towards the compliance of Washington, nor to new technologies developed to pull us through.  We live in remarkably tense times; but drastic times require drastic measures. In fact, the Deal may not be radical enough. Gutting our military expenditure — the largest fossil fuel consumer as well as the top recipient of our tax dollars — and the Washington Consensus’ cowboy adventurism to instigate regime changes as the world burns is absent from its wish list.

Are there any solutions that are doable without the body politic of government standing in the way?  Reducing GHEs can no longer be regarded as solely a challenge for government and private industry. It is a responsibility of every individual.

First, the public must become deeply and consciously aware of the climate problem and how our lives and culture contribute to global warming. We must also become deeply and consciously aware of how our lives will change as the world deteriorates. Our education system has been a complete failure in teaching people about the basic science of climate change and  the immediate and long-term impacts of global warming.  Nothing  we can do will efficaciously change the melting of the Arctic ice, the warming oceans and environmental dead zones, multi-gigaton methane burps from the thawing permafrost, the decimation of insect populations that will contribute to national food crises, rising coastal waters and the next season of record-setting wildfires in the Western states. The next category 5 super-hurricane could be the final straw for many Floridians and residents living along the Gulf. Industrial over-consumption is depleting our aquifers. There are in fact hundreds of canaries in the coal mine, not just one.

Second, every person and family can begin to gradually transition to eating a plant-based diet. This does not need to be an abrupt change. We can start by going meatless for a single day every week and then increase the days. The agriculture industry generates anywhere between 10 and 40 percent of GHEs, primarily methane and nitrous oxide, depending upon which metrics are being used in the equations. The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that livestock production accounts for about 14.5 percent of all human-caused emissions.[15] In the US, 42 percent of agricultural emissions come from the raising of livestock, and globally it accounts for approximately 16 percent of all human-induced GHEs.[16] When storage, transportation and distribution of meat and produce are added, the CO2 footprint rises substantially. Imagine the footprint of a single bushel of tomatoes traveling from a California farm to a Maine supermarket.  If a sufficient number of people also purchase more locally-grown food, this too would have an impact. These are two efforts — a meatless diet and buying locally — that every American can adopt in order to be part of the solution rather than the problem.

Third, our consumption behaviors are traveling on a high speed rail off a cliff. We have the will to make conscientious choices about our buying habits. There is only one solution to this and that is to downsize, purchase only what is essential for our needs and find other ways to increase the quality of our lives.  Before making a purchase, consider the item’s carbon footprint before it reaches your hands. As the world gets warmer and the economic and social stresses of life increase, inevitably a time will arrive when people will be forced to downsize. It will no longer be a matter of choice.

Finally, if it is within your financial means, find ways to increase your reliance on renewable clean energy sources. If you can install solar panels to get off the grid and become energy self-sufficient, it will pay off in the long term. Although there remains considerable debate on whether or not our global civilization has reached a “peak oil” moment, oil prices will unquestionably increase steadily in the future.

What the nation can do collectively is adequately if vaguely summarized in the Green New Deal. During a press conference following the report’s release, Sen Markey and Rep Ocasio-Cortez were clear that the plan at this time does not include any “individual prescriptions” for the issues outlined. The details and following legislation will be developed following Congressional vote and approval and the creation of a Congressional committee to develop the solutions. However, the Deal is clearly defined as a “national, industrial, economic mobilization plan.” It will take years for the US to become “greenhouse gas emission neutral.” The report notes that it will require “massive investment” to reduce existing and future greenhouse gases. It acknowledges it is crucial to develop and install “a national, energy-efficient smart grid,” upgrade our entire infrastructure, residential and industrial base for “state-of-the-art energy efficiency,” and eliminate GHE from the agricultural industry. The report also includes the need for expanding education and training for such a nationwide mobilization effort.

The report also finally acknowledges that America’s energy grid is a disaster. The majority of people and even most politicians are unaware our energy and power infrastructures are sorely inefficient.  In an analysis conducted by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories to evaluate US energy consumption, 59.1 percent of electricity generation was “rejected energy” — energy lost due to inefficiencies in power plants, engines, buildings, etc.[6] Almost all of this “rejected energy” is generated from coal, natural gas and petroleum. In the Livermore report, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal barely contributed to any infrastructural energy loss.[19] And yet Washington, and the Trump administration in particular, find it economically feasible to subsidize these fossil fuel industries for their ineptitude, negligence towards energy efficiency and exorbitant waste. Even Ocasio-Cortez seems to believe progress can be achieved by working with these monuments to inefficiency. This is naïve at best, and disingenuous at worst. In a true capitalist system – such as our president pays lip service to at every opportunity – the best performers come out on top. Why, then, does the government continually prop up failed systems, from energy to banking? This money would be better invested in funding sustainable alternatives.

A simple fact that opponents of the Deal in private industry, Wall Street and climate change deniers fail to understand as a rule is that the enormous costs for implementing a New Deal are already here. And they have been increasing annually due to rising frequency and damages from extreme weather events due to humanity’s messing with the atmosphere and environment.  NASA conservatively reported $91 billion lost in damages due to climate change episodes in 2018 alone.[18] And the federal government’s most recent National Climate Assessment warns we will rapidly reach $500 billion per year in economic losses due to sea level rise and worsening weather, droughts, storms, floods and fires.[17]

Next, it is sheer negligence that the federal and state governments have failed to upgrade our public transportation system. The US falls far behind even banana republics in its inefficient rail system compared to high speed 200-plus mph rails in China, France, Japan and elsewhere. Creating a new high-speed rail system across America may be too optimistic at this time; nevertheless, upgrading our trains between major urban hubs is perfectly doable immediately. This would mean high-speed rails between Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Dallas and Houston, and Los Angeles, San Francisco and Las Vegas for starters. High speed trains between these city hubs would significantly reduce the carbon footprint of transportation and could even be faster than airlines after considering time spent at airports. It could also be accomplished at the state level through public-private partnerships. In addition, a tax incentive could be added for those who use public transportation.

Finally, the nation needs to act immediately upon a national reforestation program and roll back the Trump’s regressive orders to further devastate public land and ecosystems to increase corporate profits. Forests and trees are recognized as perhaps the most important natural resource to offset carbon emissions. China and India are making huge advances in reforesting their nations. China has reserved an area four times the size of the United Kingdom for reforestation. There are few areas on the planet with large swathes of forest canopies. Most are located in northern Canada, the Latin American countries in the Amazon basin, Scandinavia and Russia. Therefore, we would recommend a national conservation corps to start an aggressive reforestation campaign. If India can hold the world record in planting 66 million trees within a 12 hour period in 2017, and a single 53-year-old New Delhi resident can plant 1,100,000 trees in a single year, the US could reforest ourselves easily in a short period of time.

For all the Deal’s good points, it will go nowhere if the legislation that results is larded with giveaways to the same industries and corporations that led us to environmental and economic ruin in the first place. Ocasio-Cortez’s desire to liaise with these actors may be born out of a genuine desire for cooperation, but it is more likely her Democratic Socialism is being used as a more palatable face for the same rapacious neoliberalism that has created all the problems the Deal purports to solve. While we wait for government to get its act together and legislate its way out of this mess, we would be wise to begin solving as many problems as we can ourselves even as we hold our government representatives’ feet to the fire.

1 https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct/

2 https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
3 https://www.mintpressnews.com/audit-pentagon-cannot-account-6-5-trillion-dollars-taxpayer-money/219246/
4 https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-military-spending-cost-wars
5 https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-secret-war-134-countries/
6 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-tree-plant-soldiers-reassign-climate-change-global-warming-deforestation-a8208836.html
7 https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/bangladesh-plants-1-million-trees-to-cut-lightning-toll

The Gary Null Show - 02.26.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.26.19

February 26, 2019

NEXT RETREAT IS COMING UP IN 2019! 

For more information, please email Luanne at whnn@aol.com or call 903-881-7008

 Location: Mineola, Texas

The Villa: Holistic Health and Wellness Retreat with Gary Null, Ph.D. and Luanne Pennesi, RN, MS 

Live a Happier, Longer Life!

NEXT RETREAT IS COMING UP IN 2019! 

Join US for a week that could change your life... cleanse, de-stress, rejuvenate! 

Personal health & life-issue counseling, gourmet vegan meals, juicing all day long, meditation, yoga, classes including cooking, sprouting, exercise, meditation, homesteading; nothing like it anywhere!

The Gary Null Show - 02.25.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.25.19

February 25, 2019

Today is February 20th and like always The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment.

Voicemail Line 862-800-6805
 
This new feature will allow listeners to call in and leave a voicemail question to all their favorite shows. All you have to do is call the number, Say your name, what show and what your question is. This will allow your voice to be heard on your favorite PRN shows and will allow a better host/listener connection.
 
Today's Topics: 
 
Likelihood of tick bite to cause red meat allergy could be higher than previously thought
Clinical trial: Prenatal DHA prevents blood-pressure increase from obesity during childhood
Here’s why diabetics should eat more chili peppers, according to scientists
Triclosan in Soap and Toothpaste Actually Makes Germs Stronger
Vegetable Protein Intake Was Inversely Associated With Cardiovascular Mortality In a 15-year Follow-up Study of the General Japanese Population
The Gary Null Show - 02.22.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.22.19

February 22, 2019

The therapeutic value and application of light and the risks of some artificial light sources

Anadi (Ah-nah-dee) Martel is a French Canadian physicist who has been carrying out research on the applications of light for four decades. His studies have included the therapeutic value of light and light's beneficial effects on consciousness. He is the co-founder of Sensortech, a company that engineers devices integrating light, sound and touch and systems working with light modulation and chromotherapy for benefiting health and well being. His Sensora system is regarded as one of the most advanced multisensorial systems in the world that combines audio, visual and kinesthetic stimulation to support clinical applications. Anadi has been a consultant for NASA, IMAX, Cirque du Soleil and the New York Metropolitan Opera and is the current president of the International Light Association. He is the author of "Light Therapies: A Complete Guide to the Healing Power of Light," which provides a thorough historic, scientific and spiritual overview of the role of light in energy medicine and covers a wide variety of photo therapies and methods in use. His websites are Light-Therapies.com and Sensora.com

The Gary Null Show - 02.21.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.21.19

February 21, 2019

American interventionism -- How the US interferes in the outcome of elections and promotes regime change around the world

Dan Kovalik is a human rights and labor justice attorney, a peace activist, and an adjunct professor of international Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. His work has focused on Latin America. He has worked on tort cases against Coca Cola, Drummond Company and Occiental Petroleum over human rights abuses in Colombia. Christian Science Monitor named Prof. Kovalik as one of America's most prominent defenders of Colombian workers under threat of assassination, which earned him a Project Censored Award. Dan also works as the Senior General Counsel for the United Steelworkers union. A graduate of Columbia University Law School, he contributes frequently to Counterpunch, TeleSur, Huffington Post and other news sites.   He has published books on the scapegoating of Russia and US efforts to overthrow the Iranian government. His most recent book is "The Plot to Control the World: How the US Spent Billions to Change the Outcome of Elections Around the World." 

 

The Gary Null Show - 02.20.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.20.19

February 20, 2019

Today is February 20th and like always The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment.

Voicemail Line 862-800-6805
 
This new feature will allow listeners to call in and leave a voicemail question to all their favorite shows. All you have to do is call the number, Say your name, what show and what your question is. This will allow your voice to be heard on your favorite PRN shows and will allow a better host/listener connection.
 

Acupuncture may ease troublesome menopausal symptoms

Eating nuts may reduce cardiovascular disease risk for people with diabetes

Bright sunlight exposure may decrease risk for type 2 diabetes, CVD

Who Is The Next Gary Null? 

Want to be happy? Eat your fruits and veggies

Exercise in morning or afternoon to shift your body clock forward

 

 

The Gary Null Show - 02.19.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.19.19

February 19, 2019

Dr. Bob Sears is a board certified pediatrician practicing in Orange County, California and the co founder of the Immunity Education Group  -- a non profit organization comprised of health professionals from medical schools and clinics who are dedicated to educating parents and the larger public about vaccines and infectious diseases, in addition to ways to increase immunity and improve health in children and adults. He also hosts the podcast "The Vaccine Conversation."  Dr. Sears is a graduate of Georgetown University School of Medicine and trained at Children's Hospital Los Angeles.  Much of Dr. Sears' current efforts is to oppose mandatory vaccination policies, particularly in his state of California which now have the strictest laws in the nation.  His organization's website is ImmunityEducationGroup.org  

Representative Jack Hennessy represents the 127th district, covering north Bridgeport, in the Connecticut General Assembly and serves as the state's House Deputy Speaker.  He is also an alternative health practitioner who has been advocating policies to protect non-conventional medical practice, to promote arguments for universal healthcare, and environmental justice. On two occasions Rep Hennessy has been commended by the Department of Defense for his policies in Connecticut to improve the lives of veterans and their families.  Jack is a former US Army sergeant of a Ranger battalion, holds a degree from Boston College and is a licensed massage therapist and Reiki master. He strongly opposes mandatory vaccination and is currently spearheading the efforts to preserve religious vaccine exemption ain the state of Connecticut, which is now under attack as in many other states at the moment. 

 

Kevin Barry is a former federal attorney in civil law at the US Attorney's Southern District of NY office and currently the president of First Freedoms Inc, a non profit organization dedicated to advancing the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution’s First Amendment. He is also a representative of an NGO advancing global health and environmental literacy to the United Nation. Earlier Kevin was the president of Jenny McCarthy’s organization Generation Rescue.  He has three sons, one with autism.  He is also the author of “Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC”  with a preface by Boyd Haley and forward by Bobby Kennedy Jr.  The book provides the real transcripts of conversations between the CDC scientist and whistleblower William Thompson and Prof. Brian Hooker about CDC corruption and cover-ups over vaccine safety.  His website is FirstFreedoms.org

The Gary Null Show - 02.18.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.18.19

February 18, 2019
Voicemail Line 862-800-6805
 
This new feature will allow listeners to call in and leave a voicemail question to all their favorite shows. All you have to do is call the number, Say your name, what show and what your question is. This will allow your voice to be heard on your favorite PRN shows and will allow a better host/listener connection.
The Gary Null Show - 02.15.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.15.19

February 15, 2019

Today is February 15th and like always The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment.

The Gary Null Show - 02.14.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.14.19

February 14, 2019

A medical doctor takes a hard look at the dominant vaccine paradigm

Dr. Stephanie Christner is an osteopathic and primary care physician, a board certified psychiatrist and the medical director of Marion Medical in Tulsa Oklahoma.  In the past she served on the Vaccine and Related Biological Advisory Committee at the FDA, and she is currently a board member of the National Vaccine Information Center founded by Barbara Lo Fisher. Dr. Christner is a member of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association and Oklahoma's medical and osteopathic associations. In 2009, Stephanie's infant daughter died after receiving her 2nd and 4th month vaccinations. Once a staunch advocate of national vaccination policies, Stephanie embarked on educating herself further about the science questioning vaccine safety and efficacy. Dr. Christner holds degrees in economics and business from Southern Methodist University, a doctorate in Osteopathic medicine from Oklahoma State University, and completed her psychiatric medicine residency at the University of Oklahoma. 

The Gary Null Show - 02.12.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.12.19

February 12, 2019
Voicemail Line 862-800-6805
 
This new feature will allow listeners to call in and leave a voicemail question to all their favorite shows. All you have to do is call the number, Say your name, what show and what your question is. This will allow your voice to be heard on your favorite PRN shows and will allow a better host/listener connection.
 
Part 1: The US’ Healthcare System is Predatory – It’s Time for Universal Medical Coverage

Richard Gale and Gary Null
Progressive Radio Network, February 12, 2019
For a nation that prides itself on being the world’s wealthiest, most innovative, and most technologically advanced, the US’ healthcare system is nothing less than a disaster and disgrace. Not only are Americans the least healthy among the most developed nations, but the US’ health system also ranks dead last among high-income countries.[1] Despite rising costs and our unshakeable faith in American medical exceptionalism, average life expectancy in the US has remained lower than other OECD nations for many years and has continued to decline for the past three years. On the other hand, countries with universal healthcare coverage find their average life expectancy stable or slowly increasing. The fundamental problem in Washington is that both parties are beholden to the pharmaceutical and private insurance industries. Neither has the courage or will to spurn their corporate donors to do what is sensible, financially feasible and morally correct to improve Americans’ quality of health and well-being.

 

Read More

Part 2: 

Rapidly changing conditions in the Arctic and their larger impact on global climate and weather conditions
 
Prof. Peter Wadhams is a professor emeritus of ocean physics and head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University. He is also the former director of the Scott Polar Research Institute  Prof. Wadhams is a recognized and renowned scientist in the field of Arctic region, the impacts of climate change and the rapid loss of polar ice. He has participated in 50 polar expeditions  His book “A Farewell to Ice,” is a front line report from a world leader in Arctic polar sciences that outlines his dire warnings about an ice free world in the event humanity fails to meet the climate challenges face it today. It is a must-read for gaining a thorough understanding of our dangerous climate crisis.
The Gary Null Show - 02.11.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.11.19

February 11, 2019
Voicemail Line 862-800-6805
 
This new feature will allow listeners to call in and leave a voicemail question to all their favorite shows. All you have to do is call the number, Say your name, what show and what your question is. This will allow your voice to be heard on your favorite PRN shows and will allow a better host/listener connection.
 
In the latest liberal news and political news, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made headlines at a recent congressional hearing on money in politics by explaining and inquiring about political corruption. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, aka AOC, went into the issues of lobbyists and Super PACs and how the political establishment, including Donald Trump, uses big money to their advantage, to hide and obfuscate, and push crooked agendas. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a rising star in the Democratic Party and House of Representatives.
The Gary Null Show - 02.08.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.08.19

February 8, 2019

America's crisis in personal medical debt and debt forgiveness

Jerry Ashton has had a career in the credit and collections industry for over four decades. He is the co-founder and executive director of RIP Medical Debt, which was inspired by the "rolling Jubilee" debt forgiveness initiative started by Occupy Wall Street. This is a non profit charitable organization that has abolished medical debt for 10s of thousands of Americans.  Back in 1995, after witnessing the way people who have fallen into debt were treated, he founded CFO Advisers, which created debtor-centric teams in several states to service up to a half billion in receivables annually.  Jerry is the author of the recent "End Medical Debt: Curing America's $1 Trillion Unpayable Medical Debt," and his organization's website is RIPMedicalDebt.org, which provides details for donating and helping people understand ways to relieve themselves from the burden of medical debt. 

The Gary Null Show - 02.07.19

The Gary Null Show - 02.07.19

February 7, 2019

Eating Organic Food Reduces Cancer Risk

Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (France), February 2, 2019 

 

To investigate the association between organic food consumption and cancer risk in a large prospective study

This was a prospective cohort study of 68,946 French adults who reported their frequency of organic food consumption. Volunteers were asked to provide information on their consumption frequency of 16 organic products (fruits; vegetables; soy-based products; dairy products; meat and fish; eggs; grains and legumes; bread and cereals; flour; vegetable oils and condiments; ready-to-eat meals; coffee, tea, and herbal tea; wine; biscuits, chocolate, sugar, and marmalade; other foods; and dietary supplements). Dietary intake was assessed using three 24-hour records randomly allocated over a 2-week period, including 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day. Participants were followed for a mean of 4.5 years.

The data were adjusted for confounding factors such as sociodemographics, lifestyle, and dietary patterns. Baseline age, sex, occupation, educational level, marital status, monthly income per household, number of children, and smoking status were collected.

Participants self-declared health events through a yearly health status questionnaire or an interface on the study website. Medical records were obtained for more than 90% of self-reported cancer cases. The French national health insurance system database and the French mortality epidemiology database were used to collect and verify reported health records and mortality data.

Participants

There were 68,946 participants, 78% of whom were female. Mean age at beginning of the study was 44.2 years.

Study Parameters Assessed

The authors assessed both the frequency of organic food consumption and the quality of the food consumed; quality of the diet was based on nutrient density.

An organic food score was computed based on the participant reports, ranging from 0 to 32 points. Consumption frequencies were reported with the following options: (1) most of the time; (2) occasionally; (3) never “too expensive”; (4) never “product not available”; (5) never “I’m not interested in organic products”; (6) never “I avoid such products”; (7) never “for no specific reason”; and (8) I don’t know.

Nutrient intake was derived from the self-reported diet diaries and was calculated using the NutriNet-Santé food composition table. To assess dietary quality, these intake values were compared to the official French nutritional guidelines.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome measure was the number of incident cancer cases in the follow-up period.

Key Findings

A total of 1,340 first incident cancer cases were identified during follow-up; the most prevalent were breast cancer (459; 34.3%), prostate cancer (180; 13.4%), skin cancer (135; 10.1%), colorectal cancer (99; 7.4%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (47; 3.5%), and other lymphomas (15; 1.1%). High organic food scores were inversely associated with the overall risk of cancer (hazard ratio for the fourth quartile compared to the first quartile, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-0.88; P for trend=0.001; absolute risk reduction, 0.6%; hazard ratio for a 5-point increase, 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88-0.96).

Higher organic food scores were linearly and inversely associated with the overall risk of cancer. Significant risk reduction was seen for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (hazard ratio for a 5-point increase, 0.75; CI: 0.6-0.93; P=0.009) and for other lymphomas (hazard ratio for a 5-point increase, 0.75; CI: 0.6-0.93; P=0.03). There were trends of risk reduction for post-menopausal breast cancer (hazard ratio for a 5-point increase, 0.91; CI: 0.83-1.01; P=0.07), and skin cancer (hazard ratio for a 5-point increase, 0.89: CI: 0.78-1.01; P=0.06).

Accounting for other additional dietary factors did not modify the factors.

Higher organic food scores were positively associated with female sex, monthly income, education level, physical activity, and former smoking status. Higher organic food scores were also associated with a healthier diet rich in fiber, vegetable proteins, and micronutrients (ie, a higher intake of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes), and with a lower intake of processed meat, other meat, poultry, and milk.

 

Being kind to yourself has mental and physical benefits, research shows

University of Exeter, February 6, 2019

 

Taking time to think kind thoughts about yourself and loved ones has psychological and physical benefits, new research suggests.

A study by the Universities of Exeter and Oxford has found that taking part in self-compassion exercises calms the heart rate, switching off the body's threat response. Previous studies have shown that this threat response damages the immune system. Researchers believe the ability to switch off this response may lower the risk of disease.

In the study, published in the journal Clinical Psychological Science, 135 healthy University of Exeter students were divided into five groups, and members of each group heard a different set of audio instructions. The team took physical measurements of heart rate and sweat response, and asked participants to report how they were feeling. Questions included how safe they felt, how likely they were to be kind to themselves and how connected they felt to others.

The two groups whose instructions encouraged them to be kind to themselves not only reported feeling more self-compassion and connection with others, but also showed a bodily response consistent with feelings of relaxation and safety. Their heart rates dropped and the variation in length of time between heartbeats - a healthy sign of a heart that can respond flexibly to situations. They also showed lower sweat response.

Meanwhile, instructions that induced a critical inner voice led to an increased heart rate and a higher sweat response - consistent with feelings of threat and distress.

First author Dr Hans Kirschner, who conducted the research at Exeter, said: "These findings suggest that being kind to oneself switches off the threat response and puts the body in a state of safety and relaxation that is important for regeneration and healing."

Lead researcher Dr Anke Karl, of the University of Exeter, said: "Previous research has found that self-compassion was related to higher levels of wellbeing and better mental health, but we didn't know why.

"Our study is helping us understand the mechanism of how being kind to yourself when things go wrong could be beneficial in psychological treatments. By switching off our threat response, we boost our immune systems and give ourselves the best chance of healing. We hope future research can use our method to investigate this in people with mental health problems such as recurrent depression."

The recordings that encouraged self-compassion were a "compassionate body scan" in which people were guided to attend to bodily sensations with an attitude of interest and calmness; and a "self-focused loving kindness exercise" in which they directed kindness and soothing thoughts to a loved one and themselves.

The three other groups listened to recordings designed to induce a critical inner voice, put them into a "positive but competitive and self-enhancing mode", or an emotionally neutral shopping scenario.

All the audio recordings were 11 minutes long.

While people in both the self-compassion and positive but competitive groups reported greater self-compassion and decreased self-criticism, only the self-compassion groups showed the positive bodily response.

The signs of this were reduced sweat response and heart rate slowed by two to three beats per minute on average, compared to the groups listening to critical voice recordings. The self-kindness groups also showed increased hear rate variability - a sign of a healthy heart that is able to adapt to a range of situations.

Co-author Willem Kuyken, Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Oxford, said: "These findings help us to further understand some of our clinical trials research findings, where we show that individuals with recurrent depression benefit particularly from mindfulness-based cognitive therapy when they learn to become more self-compassionate.

"My sense is that for people prone to depression, meeting their negative thoughts and feelings with compassion is a radically different way - that these thoughts are not facts.

"It introduces a different way of being and knowing that is quite transformative for many people."

The researchers now plan to extend their research by studying the physiological responses in individuals with recurrent depression.

The researchers stress that the study was conducted in healthy people, so their findings do not mean that people with depression would experience the same improvements from one-off exercises. They did not investigate another important feature of self-compassion, the ability to directly repair mood or distress. Further research is necessary to address these two open points.

 

Vitamin D helps treat lethal drug-resistant TB

Queen Mary University at London, February 6, 2019

 

Vitamin D has been found to speed up the clearance of tuberculosis (TB) bacteria from the lungs of people with multi-drug resistant TB, according to a study of 1,850 patients receiving antibiotic treatment, led by Queen Mary University of London.

Lead researcher Professor Adrian Martineau from Queen Mary University of London said: "Multi-drug resistant TB is on the rise globally. It's notoriously difficult to treat, and it carries a much worse prognosis than standard TB.

"Our study raises the possibility that vitamin D - which is very safe and inexpensive - could benefit this hard-to-treat group of patients by taking a novel approach to their treatment. By adding vitamin D to antibiotic treatment, we can boost the immune system to help the body to clear TB bugs, rather than relying on antibiotics on their own to kill the bacteria directly.

"This is a novel approach, as it contrasts with the conventional tactic of developing new antibiotics in an attempt to 'keep up' with the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria - an arms race that is proving hard for us to win."

The World Health Organisation estimates that 10.0 million people developed active tuberculosis in 2017, and that 1.6 million people died of this disease. Multi-drug resistant (MDR) TB is caused by bacteria that are resistant to treatment with at least two of the most powerful first-line anti-TB drugs, causing around 500,000 cases and 150,000 deaths per year worldwide. Existing antibiotic treatments for MDR TB are lengthy, costly and often toxic due to their serious side effects.

Vitamin D has shown potential in boosting the immune system, but randomised controlled trials of vitamin D in TB treatment have yielded conflicting results.

In the new study, published in European Respiratory Journal, the research team pooled data from 1,850 TB patients who took part in clinical trials of vitamin D in eight countries (the UK, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Republic of Georgia and Guinea Bissau). They then ran an analysis to see whether there were particular groups of patients who responded better to vitamin D than others.

When added to antibiotic treatment, vitamin D was found to accelerate TB clearance specifically in patients with MDR TB, even though no acceleration of TB clearance was seen when looking at the entire study population as a whole.

The vitamin D supplementation was also found to be safe at the doses administered, with no links to serious adverse events.

The researchers say these results illustrate the potential for so-called 'host-directed therapies' - treatments that boost the immune system - to improve outcomes in patients with drug-resistant bacterial infections.

The researchers caution that the analysis is not sufficient on its own to justify a clinical recommendation of the use of vitamin D in the treatment of MDR TB, as it is based on a relatively small number of participants. However, they say these results now provide a rationale to carry out new clinical trials to see if vitamin D really can benefit patients who are taking standard antibiotics for MDR TB.

The findings add to a growing list of health benefits for the 'sunshine vitamin'. While vitamin D is best known for its effects on bone health, previous studies by Queen Mary researchers have revealed its role in protecting against colds, flu, asthma attacks, and last month, that it can protect COPD patients from deadly lung attacks.

 
 

Curcumin for Cognitive Function in Aging Adults

UCLA Longevity Center, February 5, 2019

 

Randomized, double-blind, 2-group parallel design comparing placebo to proprietary form of curcumin (Theracurmin)

To assess whether a proprietary curcumin formula has a measurable effect on cognitive performance in older adults without frank dementia.

Forty-six adults aged 50 to 90 years with objective cognitive performance scores and clinical histories consistent with normal aging or mild neurocognitive disorder and inconsistent with dementia (major neurocognitive disorder) were randomized to receive curcumin or placebo; all agreed to participate for the entire study duration (18 months), had adequate visual and auditory acuity for neuropsychological testing, and had screening laboratory tests and electrocardiograms that did not show significant medical abnormalities that might interfere with the study. A total of 40 participants (age 51-84 years; 21 in the experimental group and 19 in the placebo group) ultimately completed the trial and were included in the data analysis.

The experimental group took Theracurmin (containing 90 mg of curcumin) twice a day (ie, 180 mg curcumin/day) for 18 months.

The following tests were used to assess cognitive performance:

  • Verbal performance—Buschke Selective Reminding Test (SRT)
  • Visual performance—Brief Visual Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R)
  • Attention—Trail Making A (secondary outcome measure)

To assess brain effects, investigators used a specific type of positron emission tomography (PET) scan that provides in vivo images of brain plaques and tangles: 2-(1-{6-[(2-[F-18]fluoroethyl)(methyl)amino]-2-naphthyl}ethylidene)malononitrile positron emission tomography (FDDNP-PET). Thirty participants, 15 in the intervention group and 15 in the placebo group, completed the FDDNP-PET testing.

All assessments were performed at baseline (before intervention) and at the end of the 18-month intervention.

Outcome Measures

Improvement in cognitive performance tests from baseline; changes in brain amyloid and tau accumulation as determined by PET testing (for 30 participants) from baseline.

Key Findings

Significant differences between groups were seen on a number of the tests. Long-term memory retrieval improved in the curcumin group but not in the placebo group. Total long-term memory recall, visual memory, and attention also improved significantly in the curcumin group, with no significant improvement in the placebo group. The FDDNP testing showed significantly decreased binding in the amygdala in participants on curcumin compared to those on placebo. (Higher FDDNP binding values have been positively associated with dementia.) In the hypothalamus, FDDNP binding did not change with curcumin but increased with placebo

 

NSAID impairs immune response in heart failure, worsens heart and kidney damage

University of Alabama Birmingham, February 6, 2019

 

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, are widely known as pain-killers and can relieve pain and inflammation. However, prolonged use raises the risk of heart and kidney failure events. A heart attack causes death of heart muscle cells by lack of oxygen, and it also significantly injures the kidneys.

To understand the molecular and cellular mechanisms of action that damage the heart and kidneys at the same time -- known as cardiorenal syndrome -- University of Alabama at Birmingham researchers pretreated animals with the NSAID carprofen in a mouse-heart attack model. Basic research on heart disease is needed because heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Ganesh Halade, Ph.D., associate professor in the UAB Department of Medicine's Division of Cardiovascular Disease, wanted to see if carprofen affected either of the two steps the immune system takes to repair heart attack damage. First is an immediate acute inflammation, where leukocytes rush into heart muscle to remove dead cells and cell debris. Second is the subsequent resolution phase to dampen the excess inflammation caused by those activated leukocytes, which otherwise would further damage the heart and kidneys.

In a study published in the journal Life Sciences, Halade and colleagues found that carprofen treatment alone triggered subtle low-grade inflammation in the heart and kidneys. The combination of carprofen pretreatment and heart attack magnified this impact by dysregulating the acute inflammatory response, amplifying inflammation and intensifying the cardiorenal syndrome.

Specifically, the UAB researchers first found that carprofen without heart attack triggered kidney inflammation, as measured by increased levels of plasma creatinine, NGAL and KIM-1, all biomarkers of kidney injury. They also found inflamed proximal convoluted tubules and compromised glomerular structure integrity in the kidneys.

Second, they found that carprofen without heart attack caused increased levels of the inflammatory cytokines TNF-alpha and IL-1 beta, and increased levels of the enzyme COX-2, which normally is induced at the start of the inflammation process after injury to produce chemoattractants that recruit immune cells. The carprofen also induced the protein MRC-1 prior to injury. MRC-1 is involved in the resolution of inflammation, suggesting that both the acute inflammation phase and the resolution of inflammation phase are falsely activated during carprofen pretreatment before any heart injury.

Third, when the pretreatment with carprofen was followed by heart attack, the proinflammatory cytokines TNF-alpha and IL-1-beta decreased, rather than increasing as they do in response to heart attacks without carprofen pretreatment. KIM-1 showed a similar dysfunction -- it stayed at similar levels at both pre- and post-heart attack after carprofen pretreatment, rather than increasing as it does in response to a heart attack without carprofen pretreatment. This KIM-1 dysfunction led to less clearance of dead cells from the heart. Also, carprofen pretreatment and heart attack amplified subsequent kidney tissue damage, as compared with kidney damage after heart attack alone.

 

Mountain ginseng found to have immunostimulating, antioxidant, anticancer and anti-aging properties

Kyung Hee University (S Korea), February 6, 2019  

There are many kinds of ancient Chinese medicine that are known to be effective yet still not commonly understood. One example of this is the root of mountain ginseng (Panax ginseng Meyer), which is popular for its enhanced pharmacological-like properties. Although known for its many benefits, most people do not think of it as a readily available item mainly because of its expensive price tag. At the same time, it is also quite scarce, which makes it a bit inaccessible for potential users who could benefit from it.

Fortunately, there are known alternatives for it. In particular, cultured roots from mountain ginseng tissue have been identified as viable replacements for larger and cheaper production of the highly sought-after ginseng roots. With this in mind, a team of researchers worked on finding out exactly how effective these alternative materials can be when it came to providing similar benefits.

A new study titled, “Novel application of cultured roots of mountain ginseng and ginsenoside Re as safe antimelanogenic cosmeceutical components,” was authored by a team of researchers who worked together to determine the effects of the water extract of cultured roots of mountain ginseng (CRMG) and its major compound ginsenoside Re (Re) on melanin synthesis in ?-MSH-stimulated mouse melanoma B16BL6 cells (B16). That is to say, how it might affect the well-being of individuals who use them in certain amounts.

What the researchers found was that both CRMG and Re possess potential melanogenic activities and can both be used as antimelanogenic cosmeceutical agents, just as their hypothesis predicted. To be more specific, the researchers performed a number of tests to determine both the adverse as well as the positive effects of the two, and later found that neither of them have any significant cytotoxic effect at 100 ?g/mL and 100 ?M respectively.

There have already been previous studies that reported on the fact that mountain ginsengand Re both have anti-cancer properties, and now the researchers are hoping to add to the growing body of evidence that supports this hypothesis. They note in their study that further studies are going to be necessary to provide conclusive proof.

For now, the consensus is as it always has been: Ginseng has some risks as a supplement, but does indeed offer a long list of health benefits. Some of the more well-known positive effects of taking ginseng including getting a boost of energy, improved mental focus and brain function, cancer prevention, improved performance in the bedroom, enhanced activity of the immune system, lower blood sugar levels, weight control, and even the alleviation of menstrual pain.

Ginseng wouldn’t have survived as a supplement for literally several thousand years if it weren’t truly effective. People have been taking it for many centuries now and it is still being referred to as a very effective tool for improving individual moods, boosting overall health, and creating a much better sense of overall well-being.

Of course, as a supplement, ginseng is only meant to be taken if it is something that works with your past or present medical condition. For that reason, it’s always best to consult a healthcare professional for advice before taking ginseng or any other supplements. That way, you can make sure that you enjoy all of the health benefits without running into any issues afterward.

 

Heavy drinking in teens causes lasting changes in emotional center of brain

University of Illinois, February 6, 2019

 

Binge drinking in adolescence has been shown to have lasting effects on the wiring of the brain and is associated with increased risk for psychological problems and alcohol use disorder later in life.

Now, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago Center for Alcohol Research in Epigenetics have shown that some of these lasting changes are the result of epigenetic changes that alter the expression of a protein crucial for the formation and maintenance of neural connections in the amygdala -- the part of the brain involved in emotion, fear and anxiety. Their results, which are based on the analysis of postmortem human brain tissue, are published in the journal Translational Psychiatry.

Epigenetics refers to chemical changes to DNA, RNA or specific proteins associated with chromosomes that change the activity of genes without changing the genes themselves. Epigenetic modifications are involved in the normal development of the brain, but they can be influenced by environmental or even social factors, such as alcohol and stress. These kinds of epigenetic alterations have been linked to changes in behavior and disease.

The researchers looked at postmortem human amygdala tissue obtained from the New South Wales Brain Tissue Resource Center in Sydney, Australia. The amygdala is the part of the brain involved in emotional regulation. The specimens were from the brains of 11 individuals who started drinking heavily before the age of 21 or early-onset drinkers; 11 individuals who started drinking seriously after the age of 21, known as late-onset drinkers; and 22 individuals with no history of alcohol use disorder. The average age of death of the individuals from whom the samples were taken was 58 years old for those without alcohol use disorder; 55 years old for early-onset drinkers; and 59 for late-onset drinkers.

Amygdalae of individuals who were early-onset drinkers had about 30 percent more of a molecule called BDNF-AS, a large non-coding RNA. Usually, RNA is involved in the production of proteins from DNA, but this one is not. BDNF-AS regulates a gene that produces a protein called BDNF. This protein is a growth factor and is crucial for the normal formation and maintenance of synapses throughout the brain. When there is more BDNF-AS, there is less BDNF. The brain tissue of early-onset drinkers had 30 percent to 40 percent less BDNF compared with brain tissue from people with no history of alcohol use disorder. This reduction in BDNF was not seen in brain samples from late-onset drinkers or from people with no alcohol use disorder.

Subhash Pandey, professor of psychiatry and director of the UIC Center for Alcohol Research in Epigenetics, and corresponding author on the paper, believes that epigenetic changes to BDNF-AS are the reason BDNF is lower in the amygdalae from people who started drinking early in life. In the amygdala from people who started drinking after age 21, there were no such changes.

"BDNF is needed for normal development in the brain and for connections to form between neurons," said Pandey, who is also a senior research career scientist at Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago. "If levels are lowered due to alcohol exposure, then the brain will not develop normally, and we see that in these brain samples where there are abnormalities in another synaptic gene, Arc, possibly making abnormal connections between neurons."

Pandey and his colleagues found that the increase in BDNF-AS in the early-onset drinkers is caused by decreased methylation of BDNF-AS. Methylation is a type of epigenetic change where a molecule containing a methyl group is added to another molecule and results in a change in genetic expression. The decreased methylation of BDNF-AS is believed to be caused by early-onset drinking and appears to be a long-lasting change.

"The epigenetic changes we saw in the amygdala of early-onset drinkers can alter the normal function of the amygdala, which helps regulate our emotions, and may cause individuals to be more susceptible for things like anxiety, which we have shown in other studies, or the development and maintenance of alcohol use disorder later in life," Pandey said.

 

 

Architect shares his experience of how magnet therapy cured his OCD

Daily Mail, November 17, 2019

 

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) can be challenging to deal with, especially for sufferers. Scientists have not yet fully understood the underlying causes of the condition, although they have said that it could be a brain dysfunction.

However, an architect has reportedly been cured of OCD – all thanks to magnets.

In an interview, Alex Jones, a 46-year old architect from England, had been battling with OCD for over 28 years. During these times, he went around his day thinking that he had harmed others because of his actions – which has led Alex even to imagine that he had run people over with his car or beaten up strangers.

The thoughts would haunt his mind throughout the day. This would cause him great anxiety and stress, and sometimes, he would retrace his steps to check if there were any “victims” of his actions. This behavior, which included washing his hands for up to 50 times a day, put a burden on his relationship with his wife, Paulette.

After his OCD brought him to a nervous breakdown, he discovered magnetic pulse theory soon after, and he claimed to feel like a “normal person” after the first transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) session.

According to him, “I had experienced these obsessive, intrusive thoughts since I was a teenager. They were pretty much constant. I was in a perpetual state of anxiety, and it was really mentally draining, and hard on my wife too. But then after leaving the clinic after mt first TMS session, I felt like a completely ‘normal’ person.”

Running out of options, Alex visited a TMS clinic in London in July 2017 and was amazed at the results. He claims that he went to the clinic after being anxious around people, thinking that he would harm them. However, after a 30-minute session at the clinic, he felt that his mind has been cleared of all those impulses that gave him a hard time. After two sessions, he claims to be symptom-free, except a minor relapse.

Fast facts on TMS

TMS is defined as “a noninvasive procedure that uses magnetic fields to stimulate nerve cells in the brain to improve symptoms of depression.” The method is typically used for depression treatment when forms are already ineffective.

When a person undergoes a TMS session, electromagnetic coils are placed around the person’s scalp, near the forehead. The coils will then deliver a painless magnetic pulse that will stimulate the nerves in the person’s brain region that affects mood and depression. Moreover, TMS is believed to trigger parts of the brain that have diminished function because of depression. 

It is also known as rTMS since the pulses emitted are repetitive.

As TMS is a non-invasive way to stimulate your brain, there are no risks for this therapy, as against other conventional forms which require surgery or implants. Moreover, it does not cause any seizure or require sedation with anesthesia.

Some side effects that may occur after TMS are noted to be mild to moderate and may decrease over time. These would include headaches, scalp discomfort, lightheadedness, and some tingling in the facial muscles.

Earlier studies have already found TMS to be effective in providing relief for people who suffer from tinnitus, with more than 50 percent of the samples felt a significant improvement.

The Gary Null Show - 2.06.19

The Gary Null Show - 2.06.19

February 6, 2019

CONVERSATIONS WITH GREAT MINDS

US support for a coup in Venezuela and its international violations

Prof. Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois Law School with a long career as an anti-war activist and upholder of human rights. He has served as a counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina and was a legal advisor to the Palestinian delegation during the Middle East Peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993.  Prof. Boyle has served on the board of directors of Amnesty International, and the Council for Responsible Genetics.  He drafted the legislation for what became the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act in 1989 which was signed into law by the first Bush administration, served on the Board of Amnesty International and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court.  He has been a strong opponent of the current Afghan and Iraq wars, and was an advocate for bringing international arrest warrants against George W Bush-Cheney and Obama administrations.    Prof.Boyle has published numerous papers in law reviews and many books.  His most book is "Poems Against Empire" -- which captures his half-century of reflections during his career on the forefront of fighting for peace, justice, human rights and international law. 

The Gary Null Show - 2.05.19

The Gary Null Show - 2.05.19

February 5, 2019

Death by Medicine, Revisited – Part III

Death by Medicine, Revisited – Part III
by Gary Null, PhD.; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Carolyn Dean, MD, ND; edited by Helen Buyniski

Medically Induced Death: The Equivalent of Seven Jumbo Jets Falling Out of the Sky Each Day

Never before have complete statistics on the multiple causes of iatrogenesis been combined in one book. Medical science amasses tens of thousands of papers annually, each representing a tiny fragment of the whole picture. To look at only one piece and try to understand the benefits and risks is like standing an inch away from an elephant and trying to describe everything about it. You have to step back to see the big picture, as we have done here. Each specialty, each division of medicine, keeps its own records and data on morbidity and mortality. We have now completed the painstaking work of reviewing thousands of studies and putting the pieces of the puzzle together.

Is American Medicine Working?

US healthcare spending reached $3.5 trillion in 2017, representing 18% of the nation’s gross national product.1 Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. We should be preventing and reversing disease, and doing minimal harm. Careful and objective review, however, shows we are doing the opposite. Because of the extraordinarily narrow, technologically driven context in which contemporary medicine examines the human condition, we are completely missing the larger picture.

Medicine is not taking into consideration the following critically important aspects of a healthy human organism:
■ stress, and how it adversely affects the immune system and life processes;
■ insufficient exercise;
■ excessive calorie intake;
■ highly processed and denatured foods, grown in denatured and chemically damaged soil; and
■ exposure to tens of thousands of environmental toxins.

Instead of minimizing these disease-causing factors, we cause more illness through medical technology, diagnostic testing, overuse of medical and surgical procedures, and overuse of pharmaceutical drugs. The huge disservice of this therapeutic strategy is the result of little effort or money being spent on preventing disease, as evidenced by efforts to curtail use of effective vitamins and supplements.

Then-Congressional Budget Director Peter Orszag made headlines in 2009 when he claimed the US spends $700 billion on unnecessary medical tests. “The unreasonably high cost of healthcare in the United States is a deeply entrenched problem that must be attacked at its root,” he wrote in a Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) report.2 Researchers have demonstrated that if anything, he didn’t go far enough: a Reuters report released later that year found the number could be closer to $850 billion,3 while a 2012 RAND Corporation study found that up to $1.263 trillion of healthcare spending was wasted yearly.4 In addition to administrative complexity, pricing and delivery failures, and out-and-out fraud, “overtreatment” tops these reports’ list of what’s causing the waste. Moreover,

“Some medical experts say the American devotion to the newest, most expensive technology is an important reason that the United States spends much more on healthcare than other industrialized nations. . . without providing better care. [A] Rand Corporation study estimated that one- third or more of the care that patients in this country receive could be of lit- tle value. If that is so, hundreds of billions of dollars each year are being wasted on superfluous treatments.
[There is] a much larger trend in American medicine…A faith in innovation, often driven by [quick] financial incentives, encourages American doctors and hospitals to adopt new technologies even without proof that they work better than older techniques…The problem is not that newer treatments never work. It is that once they become available, [too often prematurely,] they are often used indiscriminately, in the absence of studies to determine which patients they will benefit…And sometimes, the new technologies prove harmful. [Some] doctors in private practice who own their [CT] scanners, use the tests aggressively . . . [as if it were] a new toy in the office5

—endangering asymptomatic patients for whom the scan may be inappropriate.

Health Insurance

To determine whether american medicine is working, we also need to know if enough people have access to the American healthcare system. About 28 million Americans, or 15.5 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2017, the latest government data available.”6 7

The number of uninsured children in 2017 was 3.9 million—5 percent of all children in the US.8 The large majority of the uninsured (69.2 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.9

The number of uninsured rose 4 million between 2016 and 2018, creeping back up after the steady decline set in motion by the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010.10

A study found that 28 percent of working adults who had health insurance were “underinsured” with coverage so meager they often postponed medical care because of costs. Nearly 50 percent overall, and 52 percent of people with health coverage said they had medical bill problems, and 45 percent had foregone needed healthcare due to costs. More than 56 percent of the underinsured receive their coverage through an employer. Nearly half (47 percent) of those who had problems paying their medical bills had used up their savings doing so, and 40 percent said they received a lower credit rating because of those bills.11

Compounding the problem is the issue of insurance fraud. When doctors bill for services they do not render, advise unnecessary tests, or screen everyone for a rare condition, they are committing insurance fraud. The US GAO estimated that $36.7 billion was lost to fraudulent or unnecessary claims in 2017,12 and reclaimed $2.6 billion in judgments that year.13

Underreporting of Iatrogenic Events

As little as 5% and no more than 20% of iatrogenic events are ever reported.14 15 16 17 This implies that if medical errors were completely and accurately reported, we would have an annual iatrogenic death toll much higher than the 987,507 figure we arrived at earlier. In 1994, Leape said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes resulting in death annually was equivalent to three jumbo jet crashes every two days.18 Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to seven jumbo jets falling out of the sky each day.

What we must deduce from this report is that medicine is in need of complete and total reform—from the curriculum in medical schools to protecting patients from excessive medical intervention. It is obvious that we cannot change anything if we are not honest about what needs to be changed. This report simply shows the degree to which change is required.

We are fully aware of what stands in the way of change: powerful pharmaceutical and medical technology companies, along with other powerful groups with enormous vested interests in the business of medicine. They fund medical research, support medical schools and hospitals, and advertise in medical journals. With deep pockets, they entice scientists and academics to support their efforts. Such funding can sway the balance of opinion from professional caution to uncritical acceptance of new therapies and drugs. You have only to look at the people who make up the hospital, medical, and government health advisory boards to see conflicts of interest.

For example, a 2003 study found that nearly half of medical school faculty who serve on institutional review boards (IRBs) to advise on clinical trial research also serve as consultants to the pharmaceutical industry.19 The study authors were concerned that such representation could cause potential conflicts of interest. In a news release, Dr. Erik Campbell, the lead author, wrote, “Our previous research with faculty has shown us that ties to industry can affect scientific behavior, leading to such things as trade secrecy and delays in publishing research. It’s possible that similar relationships with companies could affect IRB members’ activities and attitudes.”20 The public is mostly unaware of these interlocking interests.

A 2014 study examining the prevalence of IRB members with life science industry connections found about a third (32.1 percent) had some kind of industry relationship. One in ten respondents felt pressure from their department or institution to approve a protocol, and a quarter of respondents admitted to voting on a protocol even when they had a conflict of interest.21

Government medical advisors play a role in adequate reporting of iatrogenic events. The FDA announced in March 2007:

“Expert advisers to the government who receive money from a drug or device maker would be barred for the first time from voting on whether to approve that company’s products under new rules . . . for the FDA’s powerful advisory committees. Indeed, such doctors who receive more than $50,000 from a company or a competitor whose product is being discussed would no longer be allowed to serve on the committees, though those who receive less than that amount in the prior year can join a committee and participate in its discussions. A “significant number” of
the agency’s present advisers would be affected by the new policy, said the FDA acting deputy commissioner, Randall W. Lutter, though he would not say how many.”22

The First Study of Iatrogenesis

Dr. Lucian Leape opened medicine’s Pandora’s box in his 1994 paper, “Error in Medicine,” which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). He noted that Schimmel reported in 1964 that 20% of hospital patients suffered iatrogenic injury, with a 20% fatality rate. In 1981, Steel reported that 36% of hospitalized patients experienced iatrogenesis, with a 25% fatality rate, and adverse drug reactions were involved in 50% of the injuries. In 1991, Bedell reported that 64% of acute heart attacks in one hospital were preventable and were mostly due to adverse drug reactions.23

Leape focused on a Harvard Medical Practice Study published in 1991 which found a 4% iatrogenic injury rate for patients, with a 14% fatality rate, in 1984 in New York State.24

From the 98,609 patients injured and the 14% fatality rate, he estimated that in the entire US, 180,000 people die each year partly as a result of iatrogenic injury.

Why Leape chose to use the much lower figure of 4% injury for his analysis remains in question. Using instead the average of the rates found in the three studies he cites (36%, 20%, and 4%) would have produced a 20% medical error rate. The number of iatrogenic deaths using an average rate of injury and his 14% fatality rate would be 1,189,576.

Leape acknowledged that the literature on medical errors is sparse and represents only the tip of the iceberg, noting that when errors are specifically sought out, reported rates are “distressingly high.” He cited several autopsy studies with rates as high as 35–40% of missed diagnoses causing death. He also noted that an intensive care unit reported an average of 1.7 errors per day per patient, and 29% of those errors were potentially serious or fatal.

Leape calculated the error rate in the intensive care unit study. First, he found that each patient had an average of 178 “activities” (staff/ procedure/medical interactions) a day, of which
1.7 were errors, which means a 1% failure rate. This may not seem like much, but Leape cited industry standards showing that in aviation, a 0.1% failure rate would mean two unsafe plane landings per day at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport; in the US Postal Service, a 0.1% failure rate would mean 16,000 pieces of lost mail every hour; and in the banking industry, a 0.1% failure rate would mean 32,000 bank checks deducted from the wrong bank account.

At the same time, Leape acknowledged the lack of reporting of medical errors. Medical errors occur in thousands of different locations and are perceived as isolated and unusual events. But the most important reason that the problem of medical errors is unrecognized and growing, according to Leape, is that doctors and nurses are unequipped to deal with human error because of the culture of medical training and practice.

Doctors are taught that mistakes are unacceptable. Medical mistakes are therefore viewed as a failure of character and any error equals negligence. No one is taught what to do when medical errors do occur. Leape cites McIntyre and Popper, who said the “infallibility model” of medicine leads to intellectual dishonesty with a need to cover up mistakes rather than admit them.

There are no Grand Rounds on medical errors, no sharing of failures among doctors, and no one to support them emotionally when their error harms a patient. Leape hoped his paper would encourage medical practitioners “to fundamentally change the way they think about errors and why they occur.”

It has been more than two decades since this groundbreaking work, but the mistakes continue to pile up, and it’s debatable whether methods for detecting and tracking them have improved.

In a 2017 survey conducted by the University of Chicago in partnership with the Lucian Leape Institute, more than one fifth of Americans reported they had personally experienced a medical error, and 31% reported they had been involved in caring for someone who experienced an error. The most commonly-cited reason for the error given (out of a list of 23 factors) was “healthcare providers who do not pay attention to detail.” The most common errors involved diagnoses, with 59% of respondents reporting either a failure to diagnose, an incorrect diagnosis or a delayed diagnosis. Even then, only 45% of those who experienced an error notified medical personnel! Asked how patient safety had improved over the past five years, 39% of respondents said it had stayed the same, and 29% reported improvement, but 12% claimed it had gotten worse.25

A 2008 study found as many as half of adverse events reported by patients did not make it into their hospital charts,26 while another conducted that year found patients were aware of three times as many medical errors in their treatment as doctors had recorded in their charts.27

As of 2017, studies continue to find that less than 10% of medical errors are reported.28 This number varies depending on the specialty – a 2008 study found that almost two thirds of cardiologists had recently refused to report a serious error they had direct personal knowledge of to an authority. 29

The Patient and Family Relations error reporting model has shown some promise, providing a novel perspective and valuable context by soliciting “second opinions” from those close to the patient. PFR reports demonstrated little overlap with standard error-reporting models when compared to AHRQ reporting in a 2017 study.30

Leape’s own NPSF recommends the creation of “safety data sets” at multiple levels – department, institution, system, state, and national – to catch errors and identify their cause.31

Dr. John T. James, whose 2013 paper in the Journal of Patient Safety calculated 440,000 deaths yearly from inpatient medical errors, founded his own patient advocacy group, Patient Safety America, after losing his son to medical incompetence in 2002. PSA lobbies for a “Patient Bill of Rights” – a dramatic expansion of informed consent in which patients are entitled to absolute transparency regarding their medical records, itemized and fully explained billing, the track record of the facility and doctors treating them, and the success rate of any procedure or drug treatment (as well as its possible adverse effects).32

Only a Fraction of Medical Errors Are Reported

“If the medical system were a bank, you wouldn’t deposit your money here, because there would be an error every one-in-two to one-in-three times you made a transaction.”
— Stephen Persell, MD, Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine33

In 1994, Leape said he was well aware that medical errors were not being reported.34 A study conducted in two obstetrical units in the UK found that only about one quarter of adverse incidents were ever reported, to protect staff, preserve reputations, or for fear of reprisals, including lawsuits.35

An analysis by Wald and Shojania found that only 1.5% of all adverse events result in an incident report, and only 6% of adverse drug events are identified properly. The authors learned that the American College of Surgeons estimates that surgical incident reports routinely capture only 5–30% of adverse events. In one study, only 20% of surgical complications resulted in discussion at morbidity and mortality rounds.36 From these studies, it appears that all the statistics gathered on medical errors may substantially underestimate the number of adverse drug and medical therapy incidents. They also suggest that our statistics concerning mortality resulting from medical errors may be in fact conservative figures.

An article in Psychiatric Times (April 2000) outlines the stakes involved in reporting medical errors. The authors found that the public is fearful of suffering a fatal medical error, and doctors are afraid they will be sued if they report an error.37 This brings up the obvious question: who is reporting medical errors? Usually it is the patient or the patient’s surviving family. If no one notices the error, it is never reported. Janet Heinrich, an associate director at the US General Accountability Office responsible for health financing and public health issues, testified before a House subcommittee hearing on medical errors that “the full magnitude of their threat to the American public is unknown” and “gathering valid and useful information about adverse events is extremely difficult.” She acknowledged that the fear of being blamed, and the potential for legal liability, played key roles in the underreporting of errors.

The Psychiatric Times noted that the AMA strongly opposes mandatory reporting of medical errors.38 If doctors are not reporting, what about nurses? A survey of nurses found that they also fail to report medical mistakes for fear of retaliation.39

Indeed, a 2008 study of the reporting practices of hospital personnel found that more than half of error reports came from “other hospital employees” that were not doctors or nurses. Doctors were more likely to report more severe adverse events, but their reports comprised only 1.1 percent of the total.40

No Improvement in Error Reporting

A 2003 survey is all the more distressing because there seemed to be no improvement in error reporting, even with all the attention given to this topic following the publication of Leape’s study and the Institute of Medicine’s widely-published “To Err is Human” report. Dr. Dorothea Wild surveyed medical residents at a community hospital in Connecticut and found that only half were aware that the hospital even had a medical error-reporting system, and that the vast majority did not use it at all. Dr. Wild says this does not bode well for the future. If doctors do not learn error reporting in their training, they will never use it. Wild adds that error reporting is the first step in locating the gaps in the medical system and fixing them.41

Peer-review error reporting systems can and do fail spectacularly, as was the case at Redding Medical Center from 1992 to 2002. A 2008 investigation revealed that the directors of the cardiology and cardiac surgery programs at the hospital completely blocked peer review in those programs, permitting at least 600 patients to undergo unnecessary bypass and valve surgery – procedures which caused hundreds of injuries and deaths. Redding’s unusually high rates of coronary bypass operations and catheterizations were known to both federal and state officials and even reported annually in the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, and outside physicians had filed seven complaints with the California Medical Board based on findings from patients mistreated at Redding Medical Center, yet it was not until a “skeptical heart patient” contacted the FBI independently that anyone bothered to investigate.

In their report to Congress on the Redding disaster, Drs. Gerald Rogan, Frank Sebat and Ian Grady denounced the hospital peer-review process and associated legal checks and balances as “so riddled with crippling flaws and the legislation governing the federal and state regulatory agencies so inadequate that prompt amendment of laws and regulations to protect the public is imperative.” Rogan and his colleagues claimed in their report that existing peer review processes actually penalize reviewers, who lose referrals (and trust) from colleagues they review negatively and may be blackballed by hospital administration if a doctor they review negatively is a strong revenue generator.

Analyzing the National Practitioner Data Bank, they found that peer review’s failure was so pervasive that moderate- and high-culpability physician events were eight times more likely to be reported through malpractice awards than through peer review actions! Lawsuits from damaged patients also greatly exceeded peer review reports.

The Redding committee recommended stricter penalties for peer review failures. “Government regulators rarely revoke a hospital’s license or provider status and have no intermediate penalties to tip the balance toward peer review. For peer review to work, the penalties for not doing it must exceed the benefits […] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services must impose penalties severe enough to ensure that peer review is not profitable to suppress,” they wrote. Other suggestions included independent and/or anonymous peer review, improving communication between agencies, and the establishment of a National Patient Safety Board – a suggestion Leape has also made.42

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reports that a 2004 study in Pediatrics discovered that most medical errors made by nurses and physicians treating children are never reported.43 44 Dr. John T. James, whose Patient Safety America advocates for expanded transparency and accountability in medical care, says the former president of the American Board of Medical Specialties personally told him that even patients themselves are only aware of 1% of the medical errors they suffer.45 Less than 5% of patients who die in hospitals are even autopsied – doctors worry they may reveal malpractice, insurers won’t pay for them, and hospitals are not even required to offer – let alone perform – them. As a result, patients regularly take diagnostic errors with them to the grave. A 2002 AHRQ review found one in four autopsies uncovered a major error – either in diagnosis or in underlying cause of death – and 10% revealed an error that could have caused the patient’s death.46

On February 17, 2008, Indiana University School of Medicine aired a revealing radio interview with Lauris Kaldjian, MD, PhD, of the Dept. of Internal Medicine and Program in Biomedical Ethics at the University of Iowa’s Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine.

“Let’s say you’re a doctor—a heart surgeon. And you make a mistake. Maybe you prescribe the wrong medicine.
Maybe you cut something you’re not supposed to. And it might not be a big deal. But then again, it might. The question is: do you admit your mistake and report it to the higher ups?”
Lauris Kaldjian directs the bioethics program at the University of Iowa. According to his recent study, the answer to that question is probably no. Most doctors he surveyed agree in theory that’s it’s a good thing to report medical errors. But few actually do it.47

Public Suggestions on Iatrogenesis

In a telephone survey conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, 1,207 adults ranked the effectiveness of the following measures in reducing preventable medical errors that result in serious harm. Following each measure is the percentage of respondents who ranked the measure as “very effective.”
■ Giving doctors more time to spend with patients (78%)
■ Requiring hospitals to develop systems to avoid medical errors (74%)
■ Better training of health professionals (73%)
■ Using only doctors specially trained in intensive care medicine on intensive care units (73%)
■ Requiring hospitals to report all serious medical errors to a state agency (71%)
■ Increasing the number of hospital nurses (69%)
■ Reducing the work hours of doctors in training to avoid fatigue (66%)
■ Encouraging hospitals to voluntarily report serious medical errors to a state agency (62%)48

Various initiatives are under way to address these problems. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 “was enacted in response to growing concern about patient safety in the United States. The goal of the Act is to improve patient safety by encouraging voluntary and confidential reporting of events that adversely affect patients.”49 The law created Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs) tasked with collecting and analyzing confidential information reported by healthcare providers – groups that provided legal privilege and confidentiality protection to any information aggregated for patient safety purposes. The AHRQ reported it had listed 81 organizations as PSOs by the end of 2014. 50

A new specialty in modern medicine that is developing in part from the focus on the need for improved quality of hospital care is Hospital Medicine. It trains physicians as “hospitalists” to devote themselves to the safety of hospital patients. These would be the doctors referred to above who are “specially trained in intensive care medicine on intensive care units.” These would also be the physicians who are there to relieve doctors in training, which would allow doctors’ shifts to be reduced in order to combat fatigue and reduce errors. In 2009, The American Board of Hospital Medicine (ABHM) was founded as the first board of certification for Hospital Medicine in North America. The specialized training of “hospitalists” and the increase in their future numbers may enable them to spend more time with patients, which appears to be a priority with the public. There are also campaigns to increase the number of hospital nurses and to educate them regarding hospital errors.

A systematic review of studies focusing on nurses’ error-reporting practices found that barriers to reporting included fear of being investigated or held responsible, negative reactions from the person in charge or peers, impacts on time and workload, and a lack of understanding regarding the benefits of reporting near-misses. Many studies have recommended the adoption of anonymous, uncomplicated, and efficient reporting systems that stress the reporting of near-misses in addition to errors that cause harm as a valuable tool in reducing iatrogenesis.51 52
NOTES:

1 “American Health Care: Health Spending and the Federal Budget.” Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 16 May 2018. http://www.crfb.org/papers/american-health-care-health-spending-and-federal-budget
2 Shafrin, J. “U.S. spends $700 billion on unnecessary medical tests.” Healthcare Economist. 7 November 2008. http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/11/07/us-spends-700-billion-on-unnecessary-medical-tests/
3 Fox, Maggie. “Healthcare system wastes up to $800 billion a year.” Reuters. 26 Oct 2009. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-waste/healthcare-system-wastes-up-to-800-billion-a-year-idUSTRE59P0L320091026
4 Nelson, Bryn. “Healthcare’s Main Contributors to Wasteful Spending.” The Hospitalist. Jun 2015. https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/122351/healthcares-main-contributors-wasteful-spending
5 Berenson, A. and R. Abelson. “The Evidence Gap: Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan’s Look Inside the Heart.” New York Times. 29 Jun 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/business/29scan.html
6 Konrad, Walecia. “More Americans are going without health insurance.” 4 May 2018. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-are-going-without-health-insurance/
7 Berchick, Edward. “Most Uninsured Were Working-Age Adults.” US Census Bureau. 12 Sep 2018. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/who-are-the-uninsured.html
8 Scott, Dylan. “Under Trump, the number of uninsured kids is suddenly rising.” Vox. 29 Nov 2018. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/29/18116371/uninsured-rate-children-health-insurance-medicaid-trump
9 “Selected Characteristics of the Uninsured in the United States: Table S2702.” US Census Bureau. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
10 Konrad, Walecia. “More Americans are going without health insurance.” 4 May 2018. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-are-going-without-health-insurance/
11 “Underinsured Rate Increased Sharply In 2016; More Than Two Of Five Marketplace Enrollees And A Quarter Of People With Employer Health Insurance Plans Are Now Underinsured.” Commonwealth Fund. 18 Oct 2017. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/press-release/2017/underinsured-rate-increased-sharply-2016-more-two-five-marketplace-enrollees-and
12 Dodaro, Gene L. “Actions Needed to Mitigate Billions in Improper Payments and Program Integrity Risks.” Testimony before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, US Senate. US Government Accountability Office. 27 Jun 2018. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692821.pdf
13 “Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice Return $2.6 Billion in Taxpayer Savings from Efforts to Fight Healthcare Fraud.” US Department of Health and Human Services. 6 Apr 2018. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018/04/06/hhs-and-department-justice-return-26-billion-taxpayer-savings-efforts-fight-healthcare-fraud.html
14 Leape, L. L. 1994. Error in medicine. JAMA 272 (23):1851–7.
15 Levinson, Daniel R. “Hospital Incident Reporting Systems Do Not Capture Most Patient Harm.” US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. Jan 2012. https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-09-00091.pdf
16 Nuckols, Teryl K. “Incident Reporting: More Attention to the Safety Action Feedback Loop, Please.” Perspectives on Safety. Sep 2011. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/perspectives/perspective/108/Incident-Reporting-More-Attention-to-the-Safety-Action-Feedback-Loop-Please
17 Classen, D.C. et.al. “Global Trigger Tool Shows That Adverse Events In Hospitals May Be Ten Times Greater Than Previously Measured.” Health Affairs. 2011:30(4):581-589. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a75a/54317e9c698fbfc8e2899cdb606bf047b8cc.pdf
18 Leape, op.cit.
19 Campbell, E. G., J. S. Weissman, B. Clarridge, R. Yucel, N. Causino, and D. Blumenthal. 2003. Characteristics of medical school faculty members serving on institutional review boards: results of a national survey. Acad Med 78 (8):831–6.
20 138. HealthDayNews. Possible conflict of interest within medical profession. August 15, 2003.
21 Campbell, E.G. et.al. “Industry Relationships Among Academic Institutional Review Board Members. Changes From 2005 Through 2014.” JAMA Internal Medicine. 2015;175(9):1500-1506. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2375171
22 Harris, G. “F.D.A. Limits Role of Advisers Tied to Industry.” New York Times. 22 March 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washington/22fda.html
23 Leape, op.cit.
24 Brennan, T. A., L. L. Leape, N. M. Laird, L. Hebert, A. R. Localio, A. G. Lawthers, J. P. Newhouse, P.C. Weiler, and H. H. Hiatt. 1991. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 324 (6):370–6.
25 Institute for Healthcare Improvement, NORC at the University of Chicago. “Americans’ Experiences with Medical Errors and Views on Patient Safety: Final Report.” Institute for Healthcare Improvement and NORC at the University of Chicago; 2017. http://www.ihi.org/about/news/Documents/IHI_NPSF_NORC_Patient_Safety_Survey_2017_Final_Report.pdf
26 Weissman, JS et.al. “Comparing patient-reported hospital adverse events with medical record review: do patients know something that hospitals do not?” Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008 Jul 15;149(2):100-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18626049
27 James, John T. “A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated with Hospital Care.” Journal of Patient Safety. Sep 2013;9(3):122-128. https://journals.lww.com/journalpatientsafety/Fulltext/2013/09000/A_New,_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.aspx
28 Anderson, JG et.al. “Your Health Care May Kill You: Medical Errors.” Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2017;234:13-17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28186008
29 James, op.cit
30 Couture, B. et.al. “Towards Analytics of the Patient and Family Perspective: A Case Study and Recommendations for Data Capture of Safety and Quality Concerns.” AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings Archive. 2017;2017:615-624. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977637/
31 ibid.
32 “Legislative Goals.” Patient Safety America. http://patientsafetyamerica.com/legislative-goals/ Retrieved 25 Jan 2019.
33 Kotulak, R. “Doctors’ haste seen hurting patient: study says the push for quick treatment detracts from care.” Chicago Tribune 10 May 2005. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-05-10-0505100152-story.html
34 Leape, L. L. 1994. Error in medicine. JAMA 272 (23):1851–7.
35 Vincent, C., N. Stanhope and M. Crowley-Murphy. “Reasons for not reporting adverse incidents: an empirical study.” J Eval Clin Pract. 1999 Feb;5(1):13–21.
36 148. Wald, H., Shojania, K.G. Incident reporting. In: Shojania, K.G., Duncan, B.W., McDonald, K.M., et al, eds. Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2001:chapter 4. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 43. AHRQ publication 01-E058.
37 Grinfeld, M.J. “The debate over medical error reporting.” Psychiatric Times. April 2000.
38 ibid.
39 King, G. III, A. Hermodson. 2000. Peer reporting of coworker wrongdoing: a qualitative analysis of observer attitudes in the decision to report versus not report unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research (28), 309–29.
40 Rowin, EJ et.al. “Does error and adverse event reporting by physicians and nurses differ?” Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18792658
41 Stenson, J. “Few residents report medical errors, survey finds.” Reuters Health. 21 February 2003.
42 Rogan, G.N. et.al. “How Peer Review Failed at Redding Medical Center, Why It Is Failing Across the Country, and What Can Be Done About It.” Alliance for Patient Safety. 1 Jun 2008. http://www.allianceforpatientsafety.org/redding-failure.pdf
43 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “Underreporting of medical errors affecting children is a significant problem, particularly among physicians.” http://www.ahrq.gov/research/dec04/1204RA7.htm (accessed January 29, 2009)
44 Taylor, J.A., D. Brownstein, D.A. Christakis, S. Blackburn, T.P. Strandjord, E.J. Klein and J. Shafii. Use of incident reports by physicians and nurses to document medical errors in pediatric patients. Pediatrics 114(3):Sept 2004, pp. 729–735; http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/114/3/729 (accessed January 29, 2009)
45 “The Truth About Healthcare.” Patient Safety America. http://patientsafetyamerica.com/truth-about-healthcare/ Retrieved 25 Jan 2019.
46 Allen, Marshall. “Without Autopsies, Hospitals Bury Their Mistakes.” ProPublica. 15 Dec 2011. https://www.propublica.org/article/without-autopsies-hospitals-bury-their-mistakes
47 Indiana University School of Medicine, WFYI 90.1 FM radio program, “Doctors Don’t Report Medical Errors,” interview with Lauris Kaldjian, M.D., Ph.D. on “Sound Medicine Checkup,” aired 17 February 2008. http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/segment.php4?seg=1522 (accessed January 28, 2009).
48 “4 in 10 of Public, More than One-Third of Physicians Say They Have Personally Experienced Medical Errors.” Harvard School of Public Health. 11 Dec 2002. http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/press-releases/archives/2002-releases/press12112002.html
49 159. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005. Overview, June 2008. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http:// www.ahrq.gov/qual/psoact.htm (accessed January 29, 2009).
50 “Patient Safety Organizations: A Summary of 2014 Profiles.” Network of Patient Safety Databases. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.pso.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/npsd_portfolios-summary-profile-2014.pdf Retrieved 25 Jan 2019
51 Vrbnjak, Dominika et.al. “Barriers to reporting medication errors and near misses among nurses: A systematic review.” International Journal of Nursing Studies. Nov 2016;63:162-178.
52 Koohestani, H.R. et.al. “Barriers to the reporting of medication administration errors among nursing students.” Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing. Sep 2009;27(1):66-74. http://ajan.com.au/Vol27/Koohestani.pdf

The Gary Null Show - 2.04.19

The Gary Null Show - 2.04.19

February 4, 2019

VITAMIN C, The Universal Necessary Nutrient

VITAMIN C, The Universal Necessary Nutrient

By Gary Null

Wikipedia claims that a role for vitamin C as prevention or treatment for various diseases is disputed, with reviews reporting conflicting results. On the contrary, it is my opinion that vitamin C is the universal necessary nutrient. Go back to 1747, when a British naval surgeon named James Lind offered citrus fruit to 12 men suffering from scurvy on the HMS Salisbury. For the first time, men recovered. Historically, it was frequently fatal, especially for those who were at sea for months at a time where there were no fresh fruits or vegetables and they were vitamin C deficient. To everyone’s surprise, all 12 men recovered quickly. It would not be for another 50 years in 1795 when a British physician, Gilbert Blane, argued to the admiralty that they must now include citrus juice as a part of the daily ration on every British ship. And once again, to everyone’s surprise, the scurvy scourge vanished.

But it was not ‘til 1932 that a respected British chemist named Walter Haworth was able to identify the molecular structure of hexuronic acid, an organic reducing agent found in plants and animal tissue. He named it ascorbic acid.  Today it is known as simply vitamin C. However, at the same time that Haworth was identifying vitamin C, independent of him, Albert Szent Gyorgyi discovered vitamin C. The next year, the Swiss laboratory synthesized ascorbic acid identical to vitamin C and it began to be produced in the general population in 1935. In 1937, in honor of the two great scientists’ work on vitamin C, they both received the Nobel Prize: Albert Szent Gyorgyi for discovering vitamin C and Haworth for his work with vitamin C and carbohydrates.

In 1970, Linus Pauling’s publication of “Vitamin C and the Common Cold” became a bestseller. It was he, a highly respected scientist who had won two unshared Nobel Prizes, who’d published in hundreds of peer reviewed journals in chemistry, who stated that we needed a minimum of 3 grams or 3000 mg a day of vitamin C in order to prevent the common cold. It was at this time also that Linus Pauling met a Canadian physician, Dr. Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD. Hoffer had been working with vitamins and helping people with schizophrenia and had published the first work showing that high levels of vitamin C could help people with schizophrenia. He then met with Linus Pauling and that was the beginning of what would come to be known as the orthomolecular medicine movement. In 1971, Linus Pauling began work with Dr. Ewen Cameron, a respected Scottish physician and scientist who was using intravenous vitamin C to treat terminal cancer patients. He was not using high doses, 10,000mg, but they were getting positive results. They did not cure anyone, but they substantially prolonged the life and lessened suffering while improving quality of life.

For a nearly 4-year period, from 1974 to 1979, Pauling was using experimental doses to study the anti-oxidants and oxygen quenching properties of vitamin C in vitro. in 1979, Dr. Lester Packer was the first to note the free radical reaction between vitamin E and vitamin C – hence the idea that many supplements should be taken together because synergistically they have a greater impact than taking either substance alone.

In the early 1980s, the Mayo Clinic conducted studies with the intent of discrediting Pauling’s cancer findings. However, it was not an accurate study. It did not follow Pauling’s protocol. The Mayo Clinic used oral supplements, not intravenous; also, the controls in the Mayo study were taking vitamin C supplements as well as other substances. In addition, Pauling personally called me and told me this study was a fraud because it was much too short. In fact, he came on my radio program in the early 1970s to discuss that he had increased the amount to 18,000 mg per day orally if you had a cold, the flu, or cancer.

In 1988, the National Cancer Institute recognized the inverse relationship between vitamin C intake and various forms of cancer and issued guidelines to increase vitamin C in the diet. Then, in 1989, the recommended daily allowance of 60mg for the average healthy adult was established. This was the first RDA to take into account the importance of environment and lifestyle factors in establishing the need for a vitamin. In the late 1980s, Linus Pauling found the role of vitamin C along with lysine to prevent atherosclerosis and relieve angina pectoris. That became known as the Pauling therapy for treating heart disease. In 2007, there was the discovery of the previously undiscovered enzyme associated with the vitamin C production pathway. From my own experience, I developed what I called the laws of compensation, which meant to the degree you have any physical or mental imbalance, trauma, virus, bacteria, parasite, or any other pathogen – nutritional deficiency, genetic predisposition, illness – you must exceed the level of that imbalance in order to correct it. So I began to encourage the people I was working with on a daily basis (starting as early as 1968) to take 10,000mg in divided doses of a buffered vitamin C.

In the mid to late 1970s, I was communicating with a physician who was using high dose vitamin C – Dr. Frederic Kleener. He was working with the full spectrum of diseases and he was getting remarkable results that he had not previously been able to get in his career using just standard orthodox therapies. He was using up to 50,000mg intravenous, once or twice a week. I then began to help people working with a very popular gay physician, Dr. Steven Caazi. In the early to mid 1970s, he was treating gay men who were showing gastrointestinal challenges. He was not sure how to help them and that’s when he called me; I worked for 300 to 400 of these individuals and was able in the vast majority of cases to reverse their conditions. Later, these same symptoms would be called AIDS. Over a 10 year period, from 1974 to 1984, we worked together on a weekly basis. Then I began to work with the first AIDS patients – I worked with a total of 1200. I saw normal and even higher amounts of vitamin C wasn’t making a difference, but the moment they were taking glutathione, B12, and very high doses of vitamin C, and then supplementing with a very strong cleansing, immune-enhancing, detoxifying diet, their conditions improved tremendously.

I had them coming in six days a week. They started out with a lower amount and over a period of months got up to 200,000 mg this is the same protocol our medical team had used to reduce or improve breast cancer, ovarian cancer, occluded arteries, and lots of different herbs and juices and lots of vitamin C we had the best improvement in the world that I know of when it comes to working with aids patients. People who volunteered were not charged for their treatment at the Tri-State Healing Center. Eight people said they’d do the full protocol – they came six days a week for about 16 months and we were able to completely reverse their HIV status, from positive to negative. All their AIDS-defining illnesses were eliminated – Kaposi’s sarcoma, thrush, pneumocystis pneumonia, all these conditions reversed.

Our success was such that we held a massive press conference with hundreds of doctors, scientists and patients. No press came. It was as if there as a fear that if we were getting people healthy who had full blown AIDS that somehow we would challenge them financially and we weren’t doing this for any money. During this period of time, a Robert Cathcart from California had principally people with AIDS-defining illnesses and he had read an article in the Townsend letter that I’d written about natural approaches to treating AIDS giving specific case histories. He spent a week interviewing hundreds of people at the Tri State Healing Center. He went home and began administering 50,000mg, and his patients stopped dying of pneumocystis pneumonia.

All eight people whose AIDS I was able to reverse were interviewed by Bill Tatum, publisher of the Amsterdam News, and individuals such as Stokely Carmichael, Arthur Ashe, and dozens of African American physicians and scientists who would come to the center and interview people with AIDS and review their medical records to see their progress over the years – from full blown disease to complete cure. So where the natural and no- toxic approach to treating AIDS was well-known within the African American community, it was absolutely blacklisted within the Caucasian community. The politics and profiteering of the AIDS epidemic has never to this day been exposed, and it should be.

Linus Pauling was ridiculed and vilified by the medical establishment. In private conversations with me at the Institute of Applied Biology where I was a research fellow for 33 years in anti-aging medicine, nutrition and lifestyle and he told me he could not believe how powerful the pharmaceutical industry and the medical-industrial complex were in preventing quality information from being disseminated. He told me they acted more like organized crime than the healing profession. He was saddened. But he was a realist. It was because of Linus Pauling that many of the doctors who were not succeeding as they’d hoped began to use vitamin C in treating their patients.

The people who are the most critical of vitamin C would have you think there is no evidence supporting its usage. For those of us who are seeing patients, conducting studies, publishing peer-reviewed literature, and respecting the outstanding contributions of thousands of researchers to the peer-reviewed literature, we have one statement. Until such time as you do your own homework and save lives, being an uneducated misinformed ideologically-minded skeptic should not hold the same weight as the 61,707 studies that are published in the government’s own medical database.

Just a few of the conditions that benefit from vitamin C treatment include Pneumonia, Encephalitis, Shingles, Herpes, Mononucleosis, Pancreatitis, Hepatitis, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Bladder Infection, Alcoholism, Arthritis, Some Cancers, Leukemia, Atherosclerosis, Ruptured Intervertebral Disc, High Cholesterol, Corneal Ulcer, Diabetes, Glaucoma, Schizophrenia, Burns and secondary infections, Heat Stroke, Radiation Burns, Heavy Metal Poisoning (Mercury, Lead), Venomous Bites (insects, snakes), Multiple Sclerosis, and Chronic Fatigue.

The Gary Null Show - 2.01.19

The Gary Null Show - 2.01.19

February 1, 2019
Vaccine update -- CDC Stefano study on MMR vaccine and other vaccine issues to be worried about

Dr. Brian Hooker is an Associate Professor of Biology at Simpson University in California, and a senior consultant for ARES Corporation, specializing in environmental restoration design. Brian is a prominent leader and board member in the organization Focus Autism, which is investigating the scientific evidence for a vaccine-autism connection. He also has a son with autism and has been active in autism community for over a decade. Over the years Brian has filed many FOIAs with federal health agencies and has received 1000s of pages of documents that support the need to question the efficacy and safety of vaccination.  He was the independent point researcher in the whistleblowing case by the CDC's Dr William Thompson who was featured in the film Vaxxed. He holds degrees from California State Polytechnic University and a doctorate in biochemical engineering from Washington State University.  Dr. Hooker's  website is FocusAutism.org

Podbean App

Play this podcast on Podbean App