The Gary Null Show Gary takes on the real issues that the mainstream media is afraid to tackle. Tune in to find out the latest about health news, healing, politics, and the economy.

July 31, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. Tickle' therapy could help slow ageing, Antioxidant compound from soybeans may prevent marijuana-induced blood vessel damage, High dietary total antioxidant capacity is associated with a reduced risk of hypertension in French women, Change in Plant-Based Diet Quality Is Associated with Changes in Plasma Adiposity-Associated Biomarker Concentrations in Women, Soy Isoflavone Improved Female Sexual Dysfunction Via Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Pathway, Study shows mango consumption has positive impact on inflammatory bowel disease, Energy Drinks Induce Acute Cardiovascular and Metabolic Changes Pointing to Potential Risks for Young Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial, Artificial light from digital devices lessens sleep quality.   

July 30, 2019  

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. In this episode Gary breaks down the Muller report hearings and what to look for moving forward. 

 
 
 
 
July 26, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. 

July 25, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment. 

July 24, 2019  

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.
July 22, 2019  

July 23, 2019

 

Office of

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

 

Dear Senator:

It is time for Congress take action and remove immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"). The immunity has allowed the big tech companies—the companies that control the information received by the American public—to shield themselves from liability while they abuse their power to censor viewpoints they disagree with. The immunity has left big tech companies no motivation to follow their policies or have a neutral point of view, no motivation to protect the First Amendment right to free speech, no motivation to protect a person’s right not to be defamed. Congress has a responsibility to the American public to remove an immunity that hinders rather than protects their First Amendment right to free speech, to protect them from defamation. And for decades Congress has neglected that responsibility.

I. History

The CDA was passed in 1996 to address problems surrounding the regulation of obscene speech on the internet, primarily minors' access to pornography. Surely it was not Congress’s intention to shield “internet computer servicers” from liability and interpretating the law as if it was has yielded devastating consequences.

In an article published in Berkeley Technology Law Journal in 2002, Paul Ehrlich discusses the legislative record. He notes that the plain text of the immunity provision does not "expressly preclude distributor liability" and that the law was a response to confusion among the courts. (409) 

Ehrlich also discusses the impact that immunity will have on defamation law, writing, "While immunity is a good solution to the problem of obscenity generally, the problem of defamation can only be solved either through a return to distributor liability (costly to free speech) or, more preferably, the weakening of anonymity for defamatory posters.” (408)

That was 2002. And the same issues that Ehrlich addressed then, are present today, 2019, seventeen (17) years later, and have magnified, and will continue to magnify if Congress does not take action.

II. Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act

Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) recently introduced a Bill that would remove automatic immunity for big tech companies with respect to political viewpoints. Senator Hawley recognized that “There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with. Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.” 

Hawley’s bill would require big tech companies to prove “by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral.” Requiring big tech companies to prove “their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral” hardly seems unreasonable in exchange for an immunity that they have enjoyed for decades, an immunity that is not offered to other media organizations, an immunity that stifles public debate. And as Justice William Brennan wrote in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964, the First Amendment provides that “debate on public issues … [should be] … uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

 

In the wake of Josh Hawley’s bill, lobbying on behalf of big tech companies is only increasing. According to NBC, “the fervor over Hawley’s bill has revealed just how well powerful companies have laid the foundation in Washington to fight efforts to rein them in.” The same article discusses the “think tanks and other Washington influencers, who help shape discussion about policies that affect those companies.” It is time Congress stop allowing big tech companies shape that discussion about policies because those policies do not only affect those companies, they affect the American public, an American public that is forgotten in the process.

 

III. Big Tech Companies, Wikipedia

 

In U.S. Code Section 230(a)(5), Congress found that “Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.” While immunity should be withdrawn for all big tech companies, Google, Facebook, etc. so that they are no longer to abuse their power to censor viewpoints they disagree with, Wikipedia, and big tech companies that recommend it, may be among the most dangerous.

 

Today, Wikipedia, is the fifth most popular site in the world. A search in Google, the most popular site in the world, will often return Wikipedia as one of the top results for a search conducted in its engine. And the American public relies on Wikipedia for facts. Why shouldn’t they? It is, after all, an encyclopedia. Even Wikipedia’s own entry for “Wikipedia” refers to itself as such. And the website’s entry for “Encyclopedia” states that “encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title.”

If you don’t want to take Wikipedia’s word for it (totally reasonable under the circumstances), the court in Pitale v. Holstine writes, “Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, primarily serving (or at least intending to serve) as a source of factual information rather than as a forum for expressing opinion. Wikipedia strives to be a repository of facts, not opinions.” In a footnote, the court acknowledges Wikipedia’s “neutral point of view” as one of its “three core content policies.”

But is Wikipedia following its stated policies? Does it have a neutral point of view? Do any of the big tech companies? Josh Hawley is aware of evidence that big tech companies “censor viewpoints they disagree with.” And where such censorship exists, there can be no neutrality.  

IV. Immunity and Motivation

Shielded by immunity, big tech companies have no motivation to follow their policies or have a neutral point of view. In the case of Wikipedia, editors are free to remove good faith corrections by other users and then “protect” a page so only a handful of editors are able to make edits. The editors may not even be experts on the subjects of the pages they are editing. They have free rein to target individuals, professions, with whom/which, they disagree. They are able to choose sources that are not objective, take quotes from objective sources out of context, use only negative quotes from objective sources, mischaracterize sources to the point that the information leaves a false impression on a massive audience—a massive audience that is relying on the website for factual information. And so on, and so on, and so on, forever… Such editorial decisions render the big tech companies active, not passive, in their role.

Shielded by immunity, big tech companies have no motivation to give an individual harmed by such biased editorial decisions the opportunity to make a correction. They have no motivation to reveal the identities of their anonymous editors. They have no motivation to consider the American public, their right to free speech, their right not to be defamed. These companies are corporations, so are not held to First Amendment standards, and when editorial decisions render the information biased, these companies are hindering, rather than furthering speech. 

Shielded by immunity, big tech companies are denying the American public the opportunity to make informed decisions about a subject. Imagine a person exercising his or her right to vote after relying on biased biographies of candidates that hold themselves out to be factual. Imagine a person making a medical decision after relying on an entry that mentions one peer-reviewed point of view, but not a peer-reviewed point of view that contradicts it because the editors, qualified or unqualified, disagreed with the latter study.

If the big tech companies could be sued, perhaps they would find the motivation to consider the rights of the American public. Perhaps they would follow their policies and have a neutral point of view, perhaps they would protect the First Amendment right to free speech, a person’s right not to be defamed.

V. Immunity v. Defamation

 

Many individuals who have ideas that do not align with the views of a particular big tech company community are suffering irreparable harm to their reputations and financially as a result of this immunity. They are being defamed with no avenue to repair their reputations and recover their losses. The “internet computer services” can hide behind the automatic immunity, anonymous editors, and a lack of transparency as to their role in the publication and republication of the information.

And while there are obstacles to defamation claims such as a statute of limitations and what constitutes republication, there is no such limitation to the amount of time libelous material will spread through big tech companies to their worldwide audience. The harm goes on indefinitely. In essence, the law as interpreted sentences individuals to an electronic gulag in perpituity. 

In addition to removing immunity under Section 230 of the CDA, Congress might reconsider insufficient long-arm statutes and statutes of limitations for defamation claims when statements published and republished on the internet are involved.

VI. Conclusion

Perhaps Congress did not understand the issue in 1996, or read Ehrlich’s article in 2002, but in 2019 there is no excuse for elected representatives to be unfamiliar with this issue. With the introduction of his bill, Hawley has informed you. With this letter, we have informed you. It is time for Congress to acknowledge the injustice that has occurred and continues to occur and take action to remove immunity under Section 230. The American public does not want “think tanks and other Washington influencers” shaping policy. They want their elected representatives shaping policy. They want Congress to finally do what it should have done years ago—remove an immunity that does not protect their First Amendment right to free speech, their right not to be defamed. It is time. Who will Congress protect—the big tech companies or the American public?

July 19, 2019  

The "Unscientific" Scientific American 

Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD
Progressive Radio Network, July 19, 2019


"A democracy depends on the individuals making an intelligent and rational choice in what he regards as enlightened self-interest in any given circumstance. But...  the purposes of selling goods and the dictatorial propaganda is to try to bypass the rational side of man and to appeal directly to the unconscious forces below the surface so that you are in a way making nonsense of the whole democratic procedure which is based on a conscious choice on rational grounds."

- Aldous Huxley (Interviewed by Mike Wallace, 1958)


Many professionals and well-educated people read publications such as The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Forbes, Mother Jones, and leading newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, with the assumption that their chief editors hold a high standard of journalistic integrity and objectivity. We assume these publications are not compromised by conflicts of interest and institutional indoctrination. It was in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq that New York Times writer Judith Miller promoted the falsehood of Sadaam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Readers believed that if such a story appeared in the Times, it must be credible. In effect, Miller became a principal opinion leader for the Washington establishment and the neocons to push forward with regime change. The media would play the role in convincing the public in the righteousness of this effort. Although the lie about Iraq's WMDs was fabricated by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other leading neocons behind closed doors and subsequently leaked to the Times, the Bush administration was able to viably state, "see, even the New York Times has reported on Hussein's nuclear capabilities. Believe us, we are correct."

But there were many credible and independent voices, such as former New York Times bureau chief in Cairo Chris Hedges, Robert Parry, Sy Hersh, Professors Michel Chossudovsky in Canada and Noam Chomsky, and many more who had conducted in depth and unbiased research to question the White House's and Miller's WMD claims. But their voices could never reach the mainstream media which was at least in principle "commissioned" to promulgate the government's lies. 

This is how circular self-serving propaganda operates between official authorities and the media. Today we are witnessing this same strategy being used  on a national scale for the roll out of 5G wireless technology, genetically modified foods, and the push for national and state vaccination mandates.  In every case the message is highly biased, compromised by ulterior motives, and intentionally ignores volumes of sound scientific literature and analysis that undermine their falsehoods. With respect to advancing vaccination mandates, the mainstream magazines and newspapers use similar talking points to reinterpret and/or misrepresent facts to strengthen the agendas of private interests at the expense of bolstering public knowledge that might make society more immune to propaganda serving private commercial interests. Lie repeatedly enough to readers and you will win their allegiance. 

The circular reasoning of vaccination policy begins with the government health agencies announcing there is no connection whatsoever between vaccines and autism or other neurological disorders.  The science we are told is conclusive. All vaccines are thereby rubber stamped as safe and this is the fundamental message in the CDC's educational campaign to journalists and health reporters.  Anyone who questions this commandment is mistaken; and anyone who actively disseminates information to the contrary is an enemy to public health.  Dutifully, the media chants the CDC's screed.  Health officials and private vaccine makers' public relations efforts then reference the media to further validate their disinformation campaign.   The CDC and FDA decide who are the acceptable spokespersons, such as Paul Offit and law professor Dorit Reiss, to be invited onto the mainstream media to warn the public about the dangers of vaccine opponents. There is no debate. Overarching ambiguous pronouncements are made about so-called "scientific consensus" about vaccine safety, and rarely is any substantial scientific research referenced.  We are not told that over $4 billion dollars have been awarded to victims of vaccine injuries and deaths, including neurological disorders such as autism. This reveals the influential power that the federal health agencies have in collusion with the pharmaceutical industry's financial interests to silence opposition. 

This is the same strategy that got us into war with Iraq.

The most common repeated mantra is that vaccines are safe and do not cause harm.  In 2000, the CDC's Verstraetan study concluded a relationship between the mercury preservative thimerosal used in most vaccines at the time with the onset of autistic disorders. CDC officials along with pharmaceutical executives and representatives from the World Health Organization and British health ministry secretly convened at the Simpsonwood retreat center near CDC headquarters in Atlanta to devise a scheme to respond to Verstraetan's disturbing findings. It was only after civil rights attorney Robert Kennedy Jr made public the Simpsonwood transcripts after filing a Freedom of Information request that we can now acknowledge the CDC acted with criminal intent. 

Years later, a senior scientist at the CDC, Dr. William Thompson, admitted to an independent biology professor with a vaccine-injured son, Prof. Brian Hooker, that the federal agency had been engaging in an egregious cover-up of medical evidence that the measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccine contributed to a higher rate of autism in African American boys and that the thimerosal-laced flu vaccine was associated with a higher incidence in neurological tics, involuntary twitches and spasms that are a defining symptom in Tourette's syndrome. Several published studies, including one authored by Dr. Thompson himself and published in a 2007 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine have shown this relationship. A subsequent 2012 study confirming the same was published in the journal Pediatric Psychology in 2012. 

Both of these revelations about the measles and flu vaccines were devastating enough to prompt CDC officials to gather all the scientific data for destruction. Professor Hooker notes, "Dr. Thompson attempted to warn the CDC Director at the time, Dr. Julie Gerberding, regarding this relationship, prior to a February 2004 Institute of Medicine meeting on vaccines and autism. Rather than allowing Dr. Thompson to present the information at this meeting, Dr. Gerberding replaced him as a speaker with Dr. Frank DeStefano, current director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, where he presented fraudulent results regarding the MMR vaccine and autism. Dr. Thompson was put on administrative leave and was threatened that he would be fired due to “insubordination.”


Dr. Thompson withheld copies of the incriminating documents, which were later provided to Prof. Hooker and Representative Bill Posey who has championed the cause of freedom for medical choice regarding vaccination. It is estimated that Thompson released 10,000 documents.  Despite efforts to have Dr. Thompson to testify before Congress, all attempts have been thwarted by the CDC.  The myth of vaccine safety today clearly trumps the health of the nation, and in the meantime serious childhood neurological disorders increase dramatically, and our federal officials scramble to find answers everywhere other than 50 vaccine doses children receive before the age of six. 


Certainly, all of these immunizations, which contain genetically altered live or inactivated bacteria and viruses, toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde, preservatives, heavy metals like aluminum, antibiotics and human, animal and insect DNA and RNA cannot be injected into a child without medical risks, either known and unknown. Frankly it is ethically irresponsible to blindly believe such a toxic stew is completely safe to inject into a young developing child. Our federal health agencies have yet to conduct or fund definitive studies with legitimate methodology to determine once and for all individual vaccine safety and whether or not vaccines as exogenous factors are contributing to the onslaught of illnesses ravishing the nation's children. Worse, history of the pharmaceutical industry's vaccine clinical trials is non-existent of viable gold-standard double-blind studies with a legitimate inert placebo. 

Yet this is exactly what a recent editorial in Scientific American's June 24th issue wants readers to believe.  The article, "The US Needs to Tighten Vaccination Mandates," states, "[T]here isn’t an iota of doubt that vaccines are a safe and effective way to prevent many diseases."  No scientific evidence whatsoever to raise doubt? Despite a Supreme Court ruling that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe?"  Perhaps more disconcerting is that the essay was written by the magazine's "Editors," meaning this is now Scientific American's official policy statement regarding vaccination rather than being the opinion of a single author. In effect, the magazine is telling its readers that it stands firmly behind the CDC propaganda machine and we should never expect to see any scientific evidence that challenges the magazine's vaccine dogma within its pages. This is one example for why on certain subjects Scientific American has become less scientific in recent years. 

The effort to silence all vaccine criticism, including attacking reputable scientists, physicians, and attorneys such as Kennedy who defend the rights of vaccine-injured children has been full throttle on Google, Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia. 
 

The article repeats many of the CDC's lead talking points to promote a medical regime that will eventually enforce mandatory vaccination upon the nation, thereby making state laws ineffective.  The magazine editors' key points are:

  • Unvaccinated children and their parents are to be blamed for recent infectious disease epidemics, notably the 2019 measles outbreaks;
  • Unvaccinated persons and those who oppose vaccine mandates are a national threat to public health;
  • The nation must achieve herd immunity in order to once and for all eradicate infectious diseases;
  • Herd immunity can only be reached by full compliance to the CDC's vaccination schedule and religious and philosophical exemptions are an obstacle for reaching this goal;
  • The internet is the main source for the proliferation of information that questions vaccine efficacy and safety;
  • Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a former gastroenterological researcher at the Royal Hospital in London, is largely to be blamed for the increase in vaccine hesitancy.


Behind these messages, the Scientific American is softly advocating widespread censorship of information that questions vaccine safety. This would have to include numerous peer-reviewed  studies and analyses that show vaccines in fact cause a large variety of mental and physical adverse effects, and the biological pathways behind the cause of these injuries are known. If vaccine opponents can be silenced or blacklisted from search engines and social media, then the public would never know about the scientific literature that exposes vaccines' flaws and a mythic herd immunity can be reached unimpeded. The medical and immunological research that uncovers vaccine injury causation would be buried in obscurity because no pro-vaccine advocate who agrees with the Scientific American's official policy would ever reference them.  It is therefore inconceivable that the Scientific American and numerous other popular publications and the major media networks that are fully beholden to the CDC and the drug industry would print new research challenging politically correct claims about vaccine safety. This is one reason why the anti-vaccination community is so essential at this time to keep the public debate on vaccine efficacy and safety alive and to prevent a national vaccination mandate being implemented and based upon biased and unsound scientific findings. It has only been through the diligent motivations of vaccine truth seekers, who perform exhaustive research in the scientific literature, that an alternative vaccine story reaches public light.  

Readers are encouraged to visit any of the leading anti-vaccine websites and read the articles in the archives that consistently analyze, and reference very specific peer-reviewed studies buried in the esoteric world of medical literature that raises serious concerns about the medical establishment's vaccination rhetoric. You will never learn about these studies by reading mainstream journals, such as Scientific American, and major news sources. 

The editorial revisits the old yarn to condemn Dr. Andrew Wakefield in the typical fashion of misrepresenting the facts of both the court case and his research in the medical journal The Lancet. On no occasion during the lead up to his being discredited by the British court did Dr. Wakefield make the claim that the measles vaccine caused autism in any of the children enrolled in his research. His Lancet paper focused on gastrointestinal inflammation that is not an uncommon condition in autistic children. Wakefield's study reported on the presence of MMR's viral component embedded in the children's gut. His conclusion was that this may be the causal factor for the GI disorders in certain children on the autism spectrum scale.  However, today, with the US' latest autism rate at roughly 1 in 40 children (the state of New Jersey having the high of 1 in 34), parents of vaccine injured children are increasing dramatically. And they will seek out answers to understand why their children are damaged. This is a crisis our federal health agencies are criminally ignoring. However, any qualified reporter or journal editor could have determined that Dr. Wakefield was only one among a team of scientists, and none had stated the MMR caused autism but recommended further research be performed. Collectively, The Lancet paper's authors had published numerous papers earlier and were all vaccine advocates. 

The paper was retracted and the two lead authors, Dr. Wakefield and his superior Dr. John Walker Smith, were subsequently charged with scientific fraud and had their medical licenses revoked. Dr. Walker-Smith appealed, and the highest British court exonerated him and stated its disapproval the British medical board's behavior and the court ruling. The court's ruling in effect said that the entire case against Wakefield was unfounded. And yet today, Scientific American clearly did not get the message. 

The irony is that Dr. Wakefield's research is rarely mentioned or referenced any longer within the anti-vaccination community. That was an earlier generation. Yet the corporate friendly media continues to highlight it repeatedly as central to its arsenal of propagandist fodder. The new generation of parents with vaccine-injured children is far savvier and more educated; they mine the body of scientific literature incessantly. They know far more about vaccine ingredients and their toxicological properties than their pediatricians and primary doctors. If an honest public debate on vaccine safety were to be held, many of these parents would turn the Scientific American's pro-vaccine editors into biased amateurs. They have independent science, uncontaminated with conflicts of interest, on their side.  If the CDC and other federal agencies want to know why anti-vaccine sentiments continue to grow and are unswerving, here is the answer. There is a large body of science that validates their early experiences and suspicions after their healthy child changed for the worse after receiving a vaccine or multiple vaccines.  This is a reason why you will rarely, if ever, see or hear a leading pro-vaccine advocate such as Dr Paul Offit at Children’s' Hospital of Philadelphia participate in an honest public debate about the pros and cons found in the scientific literature. Pro-vaccine advocates are strongest and most effective while tucked away in their institutional and media citadels that remove them from the pubic commons.  Their primary strategy is denialism. In short, pro-vaccine advocacy is a culture of unscientific cowardice and breeds the same. And Scientific American's editors should be shamed for its irrational treatment of the subject.

It  may also be noted that the Scientific American's Chief Editor Mariette DiChristina has some relationships that raise serious questions about her scientific objectivity. She has been lauded praise by the small medical cult of radicalized, militant Skeptics in the Science Based Medicine group for promptly taking charge to discredit a story in the magazine's Brazilian issue that was favorable towards agricultural homeopathy.  As the magazine's Chief Editor, she is on record for stating that homeopathy is a "pseudoscience", a common term used by followers of Skeptical medical materialism to denounce non-conventional medical theories and therapeutic practices. She is also favorable towards the Gates Foundation, the world's wealthiest and most aggressive philanthropic funder of vaccine research and development and for founding vaccination programs in developing countries. This year DiChristina attended the World Economic Forum in Davos and interviewed the Foundation's president of global health, Trevor Mundel, about the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the largest international endeavor of its kind to create vaccine platforms for rapid responses to infectious disease outbreaks.  Another managing editor for the magazine, Curtis Brainard, has written articles to demonize Dr. Wakefield for spearheading anti-MMR frenzy. 

If we were to peak into the minds of Scientific American's editors, we might discover a dangerous world view that embraces scientific materialism, and the ideology that humans are nothing but machines. Human society is no different than a corral of cattle, all undergoing the same medication regime before going to slaughter. The editors write, "we need to consider the needs of the herd over the individual." We believe this statement would find a home in fascism, and it hearkens to Nobel Prize winner Bertrand Russell's warnings about scientific materialism's threats to civilization and democracy. 
 
By suppressing the scientific data that warns us about vaccine risks, the magazine's editors are either intentionally or unknowingly supporting the creation a doctrinal medical regime that will deprive citizens of any right to medical interventions of their choice.  Later, if and when such a regime is nationally operative and enforced, it is predicable that the journal's editors may also advocate for fines for liability damages during infection outbreaks and even imprisonment. Similar recommendations have already been made by the rabid pro-vaccine advocate Arthur Caplan, a professor of Medical Ethics at New York University's School of Medicine and an adviser to the US Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency on synthetic biology. In a worse scenario, we could witness Gestapo-like forced vaccination of children at their homes or schools against their parents' will. Would the editors of Scientific American stand by and support such draconian measures? This is not a scientific question; it is a deeply moral one, especially when there are other viable preventative means to protect oneself from infectious diseases that do not require a vaccine. But for those who have buried their heads in the black hole of medical materialism they are unable to recognize nor evaluate the alternatives. 

July 18, 2019  

Sin Hang Lee, M.D. is a graduate from Wuhan Medical College in China. After completing his residencyat Cornell-New York Hospital and Memorial Hospital for Cancer, Dr. Lee was certified by the American Board of Pathology and obtained his FRCP degree. Between 1968 and 2004, he taught on the pathology faculties of McGill University in Montreal and Yale University from 1968-2004 while serving as a pathologist at hospitals.  Dr. Lee is currently the director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics in Milford, Connecticut. He developed the Sanger genetic sequencing-based testing methods for HPV, gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, Lyme disease borreliae and Ebola virus implementable in community hospitals. In recent years, Dr. Lee has been addressing the genetic and ingredient anomalies over the health risks and safety factors in the HPV vaccine, notably Gardasi.  and recently received confirmatory evidence through a Freedom of Information Act that there has been a coverup about the vaccine’s dangers among high ranking medical officials.  

July 17, 2019  

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.
July 16, 2019  

The Gary Null Show is here to inform you on the best news in health, healing, the environment.

Part 1 - Environmentalists have long promoted renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind farms to save the climate. But what about when those technologies destroy the environment? In this provocative talk, Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and energy expert, Michael Shellenberger explains why solar and wind farms require so much land for mining and energy production, and an alternative path to saving both the climate and the natural environment. Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine Hero of the Environment and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. A lifelong environmentalist, Michael changed his mind about nuclear energy and has helped save enough nuclear reactors to prevent an increase in carbon emissions equivalent to adding more than 10 million cars to the road. He lives in Berkeley, California. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community

 

 

 

Part 2 - This “Enviro Close-Up with Karl Grossman” demolishes the hoax that nuclear power is green. The program features actor Alec Baldwin who has long challenged nuclear power; former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman Gregory Jaczko who declares that nuclear power “is not the right way forward” and not “a solution to climate change;” Joseph Mangano, executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, who tells of releases to the environment by nuclear power; attorney Susan H. Shapiro now in court taking on the $7.6 billion New York State bail-out of nuclear plants based on the no-emissions claim—a bail-out being imitated by other states; Dr. Mark Cooper of the Vermont School of Law who says continuing with nuclear power “will delay the transition to a clean energy future:’ New York State Assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee who blasts the $7.6 billion bail-out; and Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, energy analyst at Stanford University who emphasizes how “nuclear is not zero carbon at all." The program was filmed at a New York City conference organized by the Radiation and Public Health Project.

- Older Posts »