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.

January 29, 2021  

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.

Meta-analysis finds dietary supplements improve sleep quality

Hong Kong Polytechnic University, January 27 2021. 

 

A systematic review and meta-analysis published on January 13, 2021 in Postgraduate Medical Journal found benefits for supplemental vitamin D, melatonin and amino acids in improving the quality of sleep among men and women. 

The meta-analysis included 15 randomized, controlled trials that examined the association between subjective sleep quality as assessed by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and supplementation with amino acids, the hormone melatonin, omega 3 fatty acids and vitamin D. Pooled data for the two studies involving amino acid supplements, seven studies involving melatonin, and four studies involving vitamin D each showed significant differences between supplemented and control groups, with more favorable PSQI scores occurring among those who received the supplements. The two studies that evaluated omega 3 did not reveal significant differences between the treatment and control groups.

Two reviewed trials that were not eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis added evidence to the benefit of melatonin in sleep quality. Other non-included trials found a benefit for nitrate-containing beetroot juice, resveratrol and zinc supplements. Co-supplementation with melatonin, magnesium and zinc was also associated with a significant benefit in comparison with a placebo. 

“Although we found a significant improvement in sleep quality by dietary supplementation, randomized, controlled trials with longer duration and larger sample size should be conducted to verify our findings,” noted authors Vicky Chan and Kenneth Lo of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. “Furthermore, dose–response effect of different supplements on sleep quality has not yet been evaluated.”

“Amino acids, vitamin D and melatonin supplements were significantly beneficial to improve sleep quality,” they concluded. “Further research on the effect of magnesium, zinc, resveratrol and nitrate supplementation on improving sleep quality is required.”

 

 

Green coffee extract and silymarin protect against carbon tetrachloride-induced liver toxicity

University of Tabuk (Saudi Arabia), January 26, 2021

 

According to news originating from the University of Tabuk research stated, “During the last few decades, patients worldwide have been interested in using alternative medicine in treating diseases to avoid the increased side effects of chemical medications. Green coffee is unroasted coffee seeds that have higher amounts of chlorogenic acid compared to roasted coffee.”

Our news journalists obtained a quote from the research from University of Tabuk: “Green coffee was successfully used to protect against obesity, Alzheimer disease, high blood pressure and bacterial infection. This study aimed to investigate the probable protective activity of the green coffee methanolic extract, silymarin and their combination on CCl4-induced liver toxicity in male rats. Thirty Sprague - Dawley male albino rats were divided into 5 groups; control negative (G1) just got the vehicle (olive oil) and the other four groups received CCl4 dissolved in olive oil through an intraperitoneal injection and were divided into untreated control positive group (G2), the third group (G3) was treated with green coffee methanolic extract, the fourth group (G4) was treated with silymarin, and the fifth group (G5) was treated with a combination of green coffee methanolic extract and silymarin. In the positive control group treated with CCl4 (G2), the CCl4-induced toxicity increased lipid peroxidation, IL-6, kidney function parameters, liver function enzymes, total cholesterol, triglycerides and low-density lipoproteins, and decreased irisin, antioxidants, CYP450 and high-density lipoprotein levels. Hepatic tissues were also injured. However, treating the injured rats in G3, G4 and G5 significantly improved the altered parameters and hepatic tissues.”

According to the news reporters, the research concluded: “Green coffee methanolic extract, silymarin, and their combination succeeded in protecting the male rats against CCl4 hepatotoxicity due to their antioxidant activity. Effect of green coffee methanolic extract mixed with silymarin in G5 was more efficient than that of green coffee methanolic extract in G3 or silymarin in G4.”

 

 

Vitamin D status and outcomes for hospitalised older patients with COVID-19

NHS Foundation Trust and University of Cyprus, January 21, 2021

 

Purpose Older adults are more likely to be vitamin D deficient. The aim of the study was to determine whether these patients have worse outcomes with COVID-19.

Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study between 1 March and 30 April 2020 to assess the importance of vitamin D deficiency in older patients with COVID-19. The cohort consisted of patients aged ≥65 years presenting with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (n=105). All patients were tested for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels during acute illness. Diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed via viral reverse transcriptase PCR swab or supporting radiological evidence. COVID-19-positive arm (n=70) was sub-divided into vitamin D-deficient (≤30 nmol/L) (n=39) and -replete groups (n=35). Subgroups were assessed for disease severity using biochemical, radiological and clinical markers. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were laboratory features of cytokine storm, thoracic imaging changes and requirement of non-invasive ventilation (NIV).

Results COVID-19-positive arm demonstrated lower median serum 25(OH)D level of 27 nmol/L (IQR=20–47 nmol/L) compared with COVID-19-negative arm, with median level of 52 nmol/L (IQR=31.5–71.5 nmol/L) (p value=0.0008). Among patients with vitamin D deficiency, there was higher peak D-dimer level (1914.00 μgFEU/L vs 1268.00 μgFEU/L) (p=0.034) and higher incidence of NIV support and high dependency unit admission (30.77% vs 9.68%) (p=0.042). No increased mortality was observed between groups.

Conclusion Older adults with vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 may demonstrate worse morbidity outcomes. Vitamin D status may be a useful prognosticator.

 

Mental Disorders Forecast Chronic Physical Diseases, Premature Death

University of Michigan, January 22, 2021

Poor early-life mental health may jeopardize later-life physical health, according to a new study led by a University of Michigan researcher.

The study, published in the journal JAMA Network Open, indicates that people who experience psychiatric conditions when they are young are likely to experience excess age-related physical diseases when they are older.

Leah Richmond-Rakerd, U-M assistant professor of psychology, and colleagues found that this association cannot be explained by preexisting physical illness; they ruled out the possibility of reverse causation in which having a physical illness precipitates mental health problems. Prior studies had not taken this into account. This association is present across different mental disorders and different physical diseases, she said.

The researchers conducted a nationwide hospital-register study of 2.3 million New Zealanders—aged 10-60 years at baseline—followed across three decades (1988 to 2018). They tested whether individuals with mental disorders are at increased risk for subsequent chronic physical diseases and premature mortality.

Richmond-Rakerd and colleagues collected information about hospital admissions for different mental disorders, such as substance use disorders, psychotic disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders and self-harm behavior. In addition, researchers collected information about hospital admissions for different chronic physical diseases, ranging from coronary heart disease to cancer.

Across the 30-year period, individuals with mental disorders were more likely to develop subsequent physical diseases and they also died earlier than people without mental disorders, the study showed. They also experienced more medical hospitalizations, spent more time in hospitals for physical-disease treatment and accumulated more associated health care costs. These associations were present across all age groups and in both men and women.

The findings indicate that addressing mental health problems in early life might be a window of opportunity for preventing future physical diseases, Richmond-Rakerd said. They also suggest the importance of joined-up services, or integrated care.

“Our health care system often divides treatment between the brain and the body,” she said. “Integrating the two could benefit population health.”

Richmond-Rakerd said they chose New Zealand because there it is possible to link hospital registers and other administrative databases for the entire population of the country.

The study’s co-authors are Stephanie D’Souza and Barry Milne of the University of Auckland, Avshalom Caspi and Terrie Moffitt of Duke University and King’s College London.

 

'Aging well' greatly affected by hopes and fears for later life, study finds

Oregon State University, January 21, 2021

 

If you believe you are capable of becoming the healthy, engaged person you want to be in old age, you are much more likely to experience that outcome, a recent Oregon State University study shows.

"How we think about who we're going to be in old age is very predictive of exactly how we will be," said Shelbie Turner, a doctoral student in OSU's College of Public Health and Human Sciences and co-author on the study.

Previous studies on aging have found that how people thought about themselves at age 50 predicted a wide range of future health outcomes up to 40 years later -- cardiovascular events, memory, balance, will to live, hospitalizations; even mortality. 

"Previous research has shown that people who have positive views of aging at 50 live 7.5 years longer, on average, than people who don't," said Karen Hooker, co-author of the study and the Jo Anne Leonard Petersen Endowed Chair in Gerontology and Family Studies at OSU. 

Because self-perceptions of aging are linked to so many major health outcomes, Hooker and Turner wanted to understand what influences those perceptions. Their study looked specifically at the influence of two factors: self-efficacy associated with possible selves, meaning a person's perceived ability to become the person they want to be in the future; and optimism as a general personality trait. 

The researchers measured self-perception of aging by having respondents say how strongly they agreed or disagreed with statements such as, "Things keep getting worse as I get older," "I have as much pep as I had last year," "As you get older, you are less useful." They measured optimism in a similar way, with respondents ranking their agreement with statements like "In uncertain times I usually expect the best." 

To measure self-efficacy, the study used a dataset that compiled survey responses from older adults where they listed two "hoped-for" future selves and two "feared" future selves, and ranked how capable they felt of becoming the person they hoped to be and avoiding becoming the person they feared to be. 

Among the "hoped for" selves were things like "A social person with a strong network of friends" and "A healthy, active person." Examples of "feared" selves were "Chronically sick and in pain," "Being dependent on others for my day-to-day needs" and "A cranky, angry old woman." 

Results showed that, as predicted, higher optimism was associated with more positive self-perception of aging. Both "hoped-for" self-efficacy and "feared" self-efficacy were also significantly associated with self-perception of aging, above and beyond optimism as a trait. 

A major factor in how people see their own aging selves is internalizing ageist stereotypes, the researchers said. Examples of such stereotypes include assumptions that older adults are bad drivers, or suffer memory problems, or are unable to engage in physical activity anymore. 

"Kids as young as 4 years old already have negative stereotypes about old people," Hooker said. "Then, of course, if you're lucky enough to live to old age, they eventually apply to you." 

Those stereotypes get reinforced every time an older adult forgets something and jokes, "Another senior moment!" But the researchers say these thought patterns can do real harm.

"People need to realize that some of the negative health consequences in later life might not be biologically driven. The mind and the body are all interwoven," Hooker said. "If you believe these bad things are going to happen, over time that can erode people's willingness or maybe even eventually their ability to engage in those health behaviors that are going to keep them as healthy as they can be." 

A way to mitigate those negative stereotypes about aging is to promote intergenerational relationships, so younger people can see older adults enjoying happy, healthy lives. 

"The more you're around older people, the more you realize that it's not all bad," Turner said. "Older people can do some things better than young people do. Increasing opportunities for intergenerational relationships is one way we can make people more optimistic about aging."

 

Over half of cannabis users with Parkinson's disease report clinical benefits

University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), January 26, 2021

 

With medicinal cannabis now legalized in many parts of the world, there is growing interest in its use to alleviate symptoms of many illnesses including Parkinson's disease (PD). According to results of a survey of PD patients in Germany in the Journal of Parkinson's Disease, over 8% of patients with PD reported using cannabis products and more than half of those users (54%) reported a beneficial clinical effect.

Cannabis products containing THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive compound of cannabis) can be prescribed in Germany when previous therapies are unsuccessful or not tolerated, and where cannabis can be expected with not a very unlikely chance to relieve disabling symptoms. CBD (pure cannabidiol, derived directly from the hemp plant, a cousin of the marijuana plant) is available without a prescription from pharmacies and on the internet.

"Medical cannabis was legally approved in Germany in 2017 when approval was given for therapy-resistant symptoms in severely affected patients independent of diagnosis and without clinical evidence-based data," explained lead investigator Prof. Dr. med. Carsten Buhmann, Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. "PD patients fulfilling these criteria are entitled to be prescribed medical cannabis, but there are few data about which type of cannabinoid and which route of administration might be promising for which PD patient and which symptoms. We also lack information about the extent to which the PD community is informed about medicinal cannabis and whether they have tried cannabis and, if so, with what result."

Investigators aimed to assess patient perceptions of medicinal cannabis as well as evaluate the experiences of patients already using cannabis products. They performed a nationwide, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey among members of the German Parkinson Association (Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V.), which is the largest consortium of PD patients in German-speaking countries with nearly 21,000 members. Questionnaires were sent out in April 2019 with the association's membership journal and were also distributed in the investigators' clinic.

Over 1,300 questionnaires were analyzed; results showed that interest in the PD community in medical cannabis was high, but knowledge about different types of products was limited. Fifty-one percent of respondents were aware of the legality of medicinal cannabis, and 28% were aware of the various routes of administration (inhaling versus oral administration), but only 9% were aware of the difference between THC and CBD. 

More than 8% of patients were already using cannabinoids and more than half of these users (54%) reported that it had a beneficial clinical effect. The overall tolerability was good. Over 40% of users reported that it helped manage pain and muscle cramps, and more than 20% of users reported a reduction of stiffness (akinesia), freezing, tremor, depression, anxiety, and restless legs. Patients reported that inhaled cannabis products containing THC were more efficient in treating stiffness than oral products containing CBD but were slightly less well tolerated. 

Patients using cannabis tended to be younger, living in large cities, and more aware of the legal and clinical aspects of medicinal cannabis. Sixty-five percent of non-users were interested in using medicinal cannabis, but lack of knowledge and fear of side effects were reported as main reasons for not trying it. 

"Our data confirm that PD patients have a high interest in treatment with medicinal cannabis but lacked knowledge about how to take it and especially the differences between the two main cannabinoids, THC and CBD," noted Prof. Dr. med. Buhmann. "Physicians should consider these aspects when advising their patients about treatment with medicinal cannabis. The data reported here may help physicians decide which patients could benefit, which symptoms could be addressed, and which type of cannabinoid and route of administration might be suitable."

"Cannabis intake might be related to a placebo effect because of high patient expectations and conditioning, but even that can be considered as a therapeutic effect. It has to be stressed, though, that our findings are based on subjective patient reports and that clinically appropriate studies are urgently needed," he concluded. 

Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, Director, Radboudumc Center of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and Co-Editor-in Chief of the Journal of Parkinson's Disease, added: "These findings are interesting in that they confirm a widespread interest among patients in the use of cannabis as a potential treatment for people living with PD. It is important to emphasize that more research is needed before cannabis can be prescribed as a treatment, and that guidelines currently recommend against the use of cannabis, even as self-medication, because the efficacy is not well established, and because there are safety concerns (adverse effects include among others sedation and hallucinations). As such, the present paper mainly serves to emphasize the need for carefully controlled clinical trials to further establish both the efficacy and safety of cannabis treatment."

 

Covid lockdown loneliness linked to more depressive symptoms in older adults

University of Exeter (UK), January 22, 2021

 

Loneliness in adults aged 50 and over during the COVID-19 lockdown was linked to worsening depressive and other mental health symptoms, according to a large-scale online study. 

Loneliness emerged as a key factor linked to worsening symptoms of depression and anxiety in a study of more than 3,000 people aged 50 or over led by the University of Exeter and King's College London, and funded by The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) . 

Researchers had access to data going back to 2015 for participants of the PROTECT online study. They also found that a decrease in physical activity since the start of the pandemic was associated with worsening symptoms of depression and anxiety during the pandemic. Other factors included being female and being retired. 

Dr Byron Creese, of the University of Exeter Medical School, who led the study, said: "Even before the pandemic, loneliness and physical activity levels were a huge issue in society, particularly among older people. Our study enabled us to compare mental health symptoms before and after COVID-19 in a large group of people aged 50 and over. We found that during lockdown, loneliness and decreased physical activity were associated with more symptoms of poor mental health, especially depression. It's now crucial that we build on this data to find new ways to mitigate risk of worsening mental health during the pandemic."

The study found that before the pandemic, lonely people would report an average of two symptoms of depression for at least several days over the previous last two weeks. During lockdown, lonely people reported either an increase in frequency of depressive symptoms, to more than half the days in the two week period, or a new symptom for at least several days in that timeframe. In people who were not lonely, levels of depressive symptoms were unaffected. 

PROTECT began in 2011, and has 25,000 participants signed up. Designed to understand the factors involved in healthy ageing, the innovative study combines detailed lifestyle questionnaires with cognitive tests that assess aspects of brain function including memory, judgment and reasoning over time. In May, researchers included a new questionnaire designed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on health and wellbeing. Running from May 13 to June 8, the questionnaire was completed by 3,300 people, of which 1,900 were long-standing PROTECT participants. The study is continuing to run so that longer term outcomes can be assessed. 

Zunera Khan, Research Portfolio Lead at Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience said "We've found links between loneliness and a drop in physical exercise and worsening mental health symptoms. It should be within our power to find ways of keeping people socially engaged and active. Our online PROTECT platform ultimately aims to find new ways to engage people in their homes, however, technology can only be part of the picture. We need to ensure we can find new ways to help people stay active and social, whether they are online or not."

Professor Clive Ballard, Executive Dean and Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University of Exeter Medical School, who leads PROTECT, said: "We are only just beginning to learn the impact that COVID-19 is having on the health and wellbeing of older people. For example, the effect of any economic impact may not yet have emerged. Our large scale study will span a number of years, and will help us understand some of the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health and wellbeing, and ultimately, on whether this has any knock-on effect on aspects of ageing, such as brain function and memory. "

The study plans to conduct further analysis on groups at particularly high risk, such as people with cognitive impairment and those with caring rolesG

January 28, 2021  

Statement of Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD
Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health
Senators and colleagues: thank you for convening this hearing. We all understand the endemic
disease that we are facing, that we have to face it head-on and not hide from it hoping that it
will go away. I want to give you my perspective.
In May of this year I observed that results of studies of a drug suggested to treat Covid,
hydroxychloroquine, were being misrepresented by what I thought at the time was sloppy
reporting. We have heard from Dr. McCullough how Covid disease progresses in phases, from
viral replication, to florid pneumonia to multi-organ attack. Viral replication is an outpatient
condition, but the pneumonia that fills the lungs with immune-system debris is hospitalizable
and potentially life-threatening. We have also heard how each phase, each pathologic aspect
of the disease, has to have its own specific treatments that apply to its own biologic
mechanisms. Thus, I was frankly astounded that studies of hospital treatments were being
represented as applying to outpatients, in violation of what I learned in medical school about
how to treat patients.
We are now finally coming to address why over the last six months, our government research
institutions have invested billions of dollars in expensive patent medication and vaccine
development but almost nothing in early outpatient treatment, the first line of response to
managing the pandemic. It is not that we lacked candidate medications to study, we have had
a number of promising agents. But I believe that the early-on conflation of hospital with
outpatient disease served to imply that treatment of outpatient disease had been studied and
found ineffective. This illogical premise motivated me to look at the evidence for outpatient
treatment.
I reiterate: we are considering the evidence for early treatment of high-risk outpatients to
prevent hospitalization and mortality. That is it. Treatment starting in the first five days or so
after the onset of symptoms. Treatment of older patients or patients with chronic conditions
such as diabetes, obesity, heart diseases, lung diseases, kidney diseases, immune-system
diseases, survivors of cancer etc. These are the people most likely to die from Covid, and they
are the people most needing protection. I have sought to obtain reports of every study of
every medication pertaining to early treatment of high-risk outpatients. I monitor the literature
daily. And what I have found is actually quite remarkable. What I have observed is that while
there have been positive reports about a number of drugs, every study of outpatient use of one
drug, hydroxychloroquine, with or without accompanying agents, has shown substantial benefit
in reducing risks of hospitalization and mortality.
These studies break down into two major types. The first is double-blinded, randomized
controlled trials, and the second is non-randomized but still controlled trials. You have heard
from various government and scientific personalities that randomized controlled trials provide
the strongest form of evidence. Many of these people have also claimed that randomized trials 
provide the only trustworthy form of evidence. There is some truth in these assertions, but
there is also lots of falsehood. We know for example that the great majority of drugs used to
treat heart diseases were established with non-randomized trials. Cholesterol-lowering drugs
were in widespread use before randomized trials were ever done. Azithromycin, the most
commonly used antibiotic in children, was not established by randomized trials. The idea that
only randomized trials provide trustworthy evidence is a simplistic notion that may sound good
in theory, but the comparison between randomized and non-randomized trials is something
that has actually been extensively studied in the medical literature. I am an epidemiologist
because even though I love biological theories, I develop them all the time to study how nature
works, but it is from the human empirical data that we learn how indeed nature works.
And we have huge amounts of empirical data to show that randomized trials and their
corresponding non-randomized trials give the same answers. Dr. Tom Frieden, previously
Director of the CDC, in 2017 wrote an extensive essay in the New England Journal of Medicine
showing that non-randomized trials can provide fully compelling evidence, especially when they
are done carefully to account for reasons why patients received the drugs, and importantly,
when circumstances are such that the cost of waiting for randomized trials involves major
sickness and mortality as we have been experiencing this year. But Dr. Frieden’s essay, as
authoritative as it is, provides only snapshots of the empirical evidence for his observations.
The real evidence comes from a meta-analysis of meta-analyses done by the Cochrane Library
Consortium, a British international organization formed to organize medical research findings to
facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions. The Cochrane investigators
examined what involve tens of thousands of comparisons between randomized trials and their
non-randomized counterparts and found that the two types of studies arrived at virtually
identical conclusions. This is the real evidence about why good non-randomized trials comprise
evidence every bit as important as randomized trials. Large amounts of consistent empirical
data are the evidence, not plausible but simplistic assumptions, no matter who says them.
So what did I find about hydroxychloroquine in early use among high-risk outpatients? The first
thing is that hydroxychloroquine is exceedingly safe. Common sense tells us this, that a
medication safely used for 65 years by hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses
worldwide, prescribed without routine screening EKGs, given to adults, children, pregnant
women and nursing mothers, must be safe when used in the initial viral-replication phase of an
illness that is similar at that point to colds or flu. In fact, a study by researchers at the
University of Oxford showed that in 14 large international medical-records databases of older
rheumatoid arthritis patients, no significant differences were seen in all-cause mortality for
patients who did or did not use hydroxychloroquine. The Oxford investigators also looked at
cardiac arrhythmias and found no increase for hydroxychloroquine users. This was in more
than 900,000 hydroxychloroquine users. This is examined at length in my paper in the
American Journal of Epidemiology in May. Now, the FDA posted a warning on July 1 on its
website about hydroxychloroquine used in outpatients, but we can discuss this later; the FDA 
has had no systematic evidence in outpatients and erroneously extrapolated from hospital
inpatients to outpatients, what I said earlier was invalid.
About studies of hydroxychloroquine early use in high-risk outpatients, every one of them, and
there are now seven studies, has shown significant benefit: 636 outpatients in São Paulo, Brazil;
199 clinic patients in Marseille, France; 717 patients across a large HMO network in Brazil; 226
nursing-home patients in Marseille; 1,247 outpatients in New Jersey; 100 long-term care
institution patients in Andorra (between France and Spain); and 7,892 patients across Saudi
Arabia. All these studies pertain to the early treatment of high-risk outpatients—and all
showed about 50 percent or greater reductions in hospitalization or death. The Saudi study
was a national study and showed 5-fold reduction in mortality for hydroxychloroquine plus zinc
vs zinc alone. Not a single fatal cardiac arrhythmia was reported among these thousands of
patients attributable to the hydroxychloroquine. These are the non-randomized but controlled
trials that have been published.
Now we also know that all of the outpatient randomized controlled trials this year also together
show statistically significant benefit. These six studies comprised generally much younger
patients, only a fraction of whom were at high risk, so they individually had too few
hospitalizations or deaths to be statistically significant. But they all suggested lower risks with
hydroxychloroquine use, and when they were analyzed together in meta-analysis as my
colleagues and I found, this lower risk was statistically significant across the studies.
We have spent the last six months with formal government policies and warnings against early
outpatient treatment, with large government investments in vaccines and expensive new
treatments yet to be proven and almost no support of inexpensive but useful medications, and
a quarter of a million Americans have died from this mismanaged approach. Even with newly
promising vaccines, we have almost no information about how they will perform in older and
high-risk patients, in whom respiratory virus vaccines are known to have weak efficacy; it will
be a number of months before they become widely available; and we don’t know how long
vaccine immunity will last, or even if the vaccines will work for the newly increasing mutant
strains of the virus. As I have said on many occasions, the evidence for benefit of
hydroxychloroquine used early in high-risk outpatients is extremely strong, and the evidence
against harm is also equally strong. This body of evidence dramatically outweighs the
risk/benefit evidence for remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies or the difficult to use
bamlanivimab that the FDA has approved for emergency use authorizations while denying the
emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine. This egregious double standard for
hydroxychloroquine needs to be overturned immediately and its emergency use authorization
application approved. This is how we will get on the road to early outpatient treatment and the
major curtailment of mortality. Thank you.
References
Barbosa Esper R, Souza da Silva R, Teiichi Costa Oikawa F, et al. Empirical treatment with
hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for suspected cases of COVID-19 followed-up by
telemedicine. April 15, 2020. Accessed April 30, 2020.
https://pgibertie.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/2020.04.15-journal-manuscript-final.pdf
Heras E, Garibaldi P, Boix M, et al. COVID-19 mortality risk factors in older people in a longterm care center. Preprints September 9, 2020. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-70219/v2
Ip A, Ahn J, Zhou Y, et al. Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of outpatients with mildly
symptomatic COVID-19: A multi-center observational study. Preprints August 25, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.20.20178772
Ladapo JA, McKinnon JE, McCullough PA, Risch HA. Randomized Controlled Trials of Early
Ambulatory Hydroxychloroquine in the Prevention of COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and
Death: Meta-Analysis. Preprints September 30, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.30.20204693
Lagier JC, Million M, Gautret P, et al. Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with
hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective
analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis 2020 Jun 25:101791.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302817
Ly TDA, Zanini D, Laforge V, Arlotto S, Gentile S, Mendizabal H, Finaud M, Morel D, Quenette O,
Malfuson-Clot-Faybesse P, Midejean A, Le-Dinh P, Daher G, Labarriere B, Morel-Roux AM,
Coquet A, Augier P, Parola P, Chabriere E, Raoult D, Gautret P. Pattern of SARS-CoV-2 infection
among dependant elderly residents living in long-term care facilities in Marseille, France,
March-June 2020. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Nov 6:106219.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304301
Risch HA. Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients That
Should Be Ramped Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis. Am J Epidemiol. 2020 Nov
2;189(11):1218-1226. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/189/11/1218/5847586
Sulaiman T, Mohana A, Alawdah L, et al. The effect of early hydroxychloroquine-based therapy
in COVID-19 patients in ambulatory care settings: A nationwide prospective cohort study.
Preprints September 13, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.09.20184143
Szente Fonseca SN, de Queiroz Sousa A, Wolkoff AG, Moreira MS, Pinto BC, Valente Takeda CF,
Rebouças E, Vasconcellos Abdon AP, Nascimento ALA, Risch HA. Risk of hospitalization for
Covid-19 outpatients treated with various drug regimens in Brazil: Comparative analysis. Travel
Med Infect Dis. 2020 Oct 31;38:101906.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920304026

January 27, 2021  

The loss of the individual and diversity in the wake of increasing cultural uniformity

Prof. Russell Jacoby is a professor of History at the University of California at Los Angeles and the holder of the Moishe Gonzales Chair of Critical Thinking at the University of California at Los Angeles where he teaches twentieth century European and American intellectual history.  He was featured in the documentary "Velvet Prisons: Russell Jacoby on American Academia"   He has published about ten books addressing the culture wars in education, multiculturalism, the politics of apathy, the history of violence, the decline of the intellectual class, and utopian idealism. His most recent book is "On Diversity: The Eclipse of the Individual in a Global Era" (Seven Stories Press), which warns us about the soulless uniformity that is being framed beneath the banner of diversity. Russell's work has earned him many notable fans including Howard Zinn and Gore Vidal. He holds degrees from the University of Chicago, the University of Wisconsin and earned his doctorate from the University of Rochester. 

 

January 26, 2021  

The Rise of the Democratic Party and the backlash against free speech

Danny Sheehan is one of our nation’s most important and influential Constitutional and public interest lawyers.  During the past 45 years he has handled such public interest cases as the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate Break In, Iran Contra and the Silkwood murder case.  He has represented victims of he Three Mile Island nuclear disaster and fought against the American Nazi Party on hate crimes. He has been a lead attorney on behalf of the Native nations at Standing Rock and handling the dismissal of a federal case against Chase Iron Eyes for inciting a riot and felony trespassing. Danny is the founder of the Romero Institute, a nonprofit public policy center in Santa Cruz California. And more recently he founded the New Paradigm Institute which explores new pathways to world peace. He holds a law degree and divinity degrees from Harvard University.  Danny is the author of “The People’s Advocate: The Life and Legal History of America’s Most Fearless Public Defence Lawyer,”   And his websites are DanielPSheehan.com   AND   RomeroInstitute.org

January 25, 2021  

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.

 

The Covid-19 Pandemic as a Psychological Coup d’Etat

 

Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD

Progressive Radio Network, January 25, 2021

 

 

We have almost reached a full year since the spread of SARS-Cov2 was proclaimed a pandemic.  If we are to believe the World Health Organization’s and individual governments’ official statistics, the number of confirmed cases is reaching 100 million with over 2 million deaths. Indeed, if these numbers can be relied upon, we can surely acknowledge there is a real pandemic. It would be common sense, therefore, to expect, in fact demand, international health agencies and governments to make every effort to identify the virus’ origin.  Suspicions that the virus, now responsible for the spectrum of medical symptoms known as Covid-19, may have been bioengineered and escaped from a maximum security BSL-4 lab in Wuhan, China, were already voiced within a month after its identification was first reported.   Several highly respected medical experts, including Dr. David Relman at Stanford University, have suggested there is a strong likelihood that the virus escaped the Wuhan facility. To date, early queries about its origins remain unanswered and new questions are mounting. 

 

Recently, Jamie Metzl, a WHO advisor who earlier served under Biden in the Senate and in Bill Clinton’s National Security Council and State Department, told the Toronto Sun that the hypothesis of the virus’ natural origin in a Wuhan wet market is “a lie.”  It is no secret, Metzl noted, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was heavily engaged in “gain of function” research to “amplify the virility of viruses.”

 

That there is very reasonable evidence that coronaviruses were being engineered in a laboratory goes back to 2003 and perhaps earlier.  That year, many Russian medical scientists, including Moscow’s head epidemiologist Dr. Nikolai Filatov, shared their opinions that the first SARS outbreak originated from a bioweapons lab.

 

In January 2020, less than a month since the first reported case in Wuhan, Dr. Igor Nikulin, a former member of the United Nation’s Commission on Biological and Chemical Weapons, stated in an interview that the US has been funding biolaboratories throughout the world, such as Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taiwan, Philippines, etc, and “wherever there are these American biolaboratories, or near them, there are outbreaks of new diseases, often unknown.” This was also confirmed by the founding president of EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Peter Daszak, a fundamental player in the saga of “gain of function” research on coronavirus and other viral pathogens.  During an interview at a scientific conference in Singapore in early December 2019, Daszak, less than a month before the first Covid-19 case in Wuhan, stated,

 

“You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily… Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus. Zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein — and we work with Ralph Baric at [the University of North Carolina] to do this — and insert the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab.”

 

Baric, by the way, told New York Magazine, “Can you rule out a laboratory escape? The answer in this case is probably not.”  Baric has first hand knowledge of this probability. In 2016, one of the researchers in his University of North Carolina biosafety Level 3 lab was bitten by a mouse infected with a bioengineered SARS coronavirus strain.  Worse, according to records obtained by ProPublica, the scientist was permitted to resume her life without quarantine.   Baric’s lab also encountered other incidents that could have potentially released its engineered viruses upon the American public, however the university has refused to provide details.  Back in 2015, Baric had warned that a bat virus could jump species and infect humans. 

 

In a study published in October 2003 for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Baric and his colleagues had “assembled a full-length cDNA of the SARS-CoV Urbani strain, and have rescued molecularly cloned SARS viruses (infectious clone SARS-CoV) that contained the expected marker mutations inserted into their component clones.”  This infectious coronavirus clone was subsequently patented but only after the CDC overruled the US Patent Office’s denial of issuance. That same year, Bill Gates appointed Anthony Fauci to serve on his foundation’s Global Grand Challenges Scientific Advisory Board.  Shortly thereafter efforts commenced to develop a SARS-CoV vaccine, which included Moderna and Johnson and Johnson. To date, Moderna has been granted over 130 federal US patents to develop a vaccine against SARSCoV-2, including a military DARPA grant for mRNA vaccine technology in 2013.

 

EcoHealth Alliance, according to Alexis Baden-Mayer, lead attorney and director for the Organic Consumers Association, has conducted remarkable investigative research into the “gain of function” studies and the primary individuals behind the overseeing and funding this research. She has discovered that the majority of EcoHealth’s funding derives from the US Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health and Anthony Fauci.  Baden-Mayer’s probing inquiries uncovered a cabal of controversial figures, including Daszak, Baric and his Chinese colleague Dr. Shi Zheng-li at the Wuhan lab, Bill Gate’s Foundation director Scott Dowell, former Human and Health Services’ director Dr. Robert Kadlec and Anthony Fauci.  Together this group – a part of what journalist Brian Berletic has called the Pandemic Industrial Complex- has been engaged in private contracts with military bioweapons projects and virus hunting in the wild for “gain of function” studies for a couple decades. 

 

Curiously, there is another character deeply connected with Daszak and the “gain of function” studies sponsored by EcoHealth: David R Franz.  Franz serves as EcoHealth’s policy health advisor. According to Baden-Mayer, who has investigated Franz’s history and background, he was formally a commander at Ft. Detrick’s bioweapons laboratory that was working on “gain of function” studies on pathogens for developing bioweapons. He was also involved in the anthrax investigations shortly after 911, and was a colleague of Dr. Bruce Ivin who was accused for the release of encapsulated anthrax aerosol mailed to Congressional legislators shortly after his mysterious death. 

 

Recently, Dr. David Martin – founder of the company M-CAM and a fellow at the University of Virginia’s School of Business Management – released his dossier on Anthony Fauci summarizing over two decades of investigations into the very disturbing research and patents filed for “synthetically altering the Coronaviridae (the coronavirus family) for the express purpose of general research, pathogenic enhancement, detection, manipulation and potential therapeutic interventions.” Before the first SARS outbreak in 2003, Baric filed a patent for producing “an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus.” In other words, the University the North Carolina, with federal grants, was amplifying a coronavirus to make it more infectious. 

 

Despite the questionable nature of this patent’s and others’ filing status by the CDC, and because patent law forbids patenting any life form, the government and its laboratories sealed under contract, cornered the coronavirus market. In the event of a coronavirus outbreak, only those corporations or institutions that acquired licensure from the NIH would be permitted to work with these bioengineered viruses for developing therapeutic drugs and vaccines.

 

Controversy has arisen over the confusion about the actual number of Covid-19 deaths and whether or not many if not most deaths are due to other causes.  Deaths in the presence of SARS2 are not the same as deaths due to the virus.  We heard this narrative repeated before and stated directly by the CDC back in 2003.  During the first SARS outbreak, the CDC in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report dated April 4, 2003 stated that “anyone showing signs of fever or respiratory symptoms who travelled in or near areas affected by the virus would be labeled a SARS patient despite many of these individuals being diagnosed with other respiratory illnesses.” 

 

David Martin has released his “The Fauci/Covid-19 Dossier,” a 205 page document citing specific charges against the CDC, Dr. Anthony Fauci and his National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, and individuals engaged in coronavirus “gain of function” research for funding and allegedly conspiring to commit acts of terror, lying to Congress, conspiring to engage in criminal commercial activity, illegal clinical trials and market manipulation and allocation. These are serious charges and the data Martin has collated is near conclusive and deeply disturbing. The Dossier has been filed with the US Attorney General, and is essential reading for everyone to understand the details about how the current pandemic may be an orchestrated strategy unraveling over the course of twenty years.  

 

During a recent video appearance, Dr. Martin condensed the background of alleged corruption, illegal patents and preparatory planning for the pandemic long before the outbreak. Speaking at the February 2016 Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events, Daszak stated,

 

“… until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs [Medical Counter Measures] such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process.” 

 

It is important to observe how Daszak lays out a strategy for a coronavirus or influenza pandemic to be framed as a commercial opportunity for the benefit of corporations and their investors, and the role the media will play in maximizing such profit.  In retrospect, Daszak’s scenario has played out accurately according to plan. Worse, the pandemic is now being manipulated by the World Economic Forum, the IMF, Bill Gates and the transnational class of corporate and banking elites, as well as the Biden administration and the Chinese, British, Canadian and German governments, as an opportunity to completely restructure the global economy. This will necessitate a thorough overall of the entire economic system thereby strengthening the global institutionalization of commercial oversight that will eventually nullify the independence of the modern nation state.

 

Martin’s Dossier continues to outline a series of purported illegal actions to deal with the pandemic that Fauci has undertaken as head of NIAID. These include 1) acting against the American Medical Association’s April 2020 recommendation that “face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals from acquiring respiratory infections because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.” 2) acting against existing published studies that show “to date, not a single study has confirmed that social distancing of any population prevented the transmission of, or the infection by SARS CoV-2.” And 3) in violation of FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 41, no product or service can be advertised to “prevent, treat or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable evidence… substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”  This third point applies to NIAID’s promotion of face masks as well as Fauci’s aggressive push to make the drug Remdesivir, which Fauci is personally financially invested in, as a first line for treatment. 

 

If these charges of illegal activity against sound scientific evidence, are true, they warrant a thorough investigation in an international criminal court to determine their motivations.  The mishandling of the pandemic has caused enormous suffering and deaths for billions of people. Lives and livelihoods have been completely upended and our leaders are telling us things will never return to the old normal. In the meantime, the dominant forces of capitalism, aside from profiting over this catastrophe, are now framing the pandemic as an opportunity that will further reconfigure all of our social structures, including commerce, education, transportation and monitoring healthcare. It is a coup d’état against civilization’s collective psyche to foment a regime change in behavior that will eventually turn humanity into the slaves of technology as a means for social conditioning. Our only weapon against the likes of Fauci, Gates, and the transnational class of elites is educating ourselves of the damning investigations being conducted by individuals such as Dr. David Martin, Alexis Baden-Mayer, Reiner Fuellmich, Robert Kennedy Jr and others who are making every effort to shed light on the darkness in Washington and governments around the world determined to launch a Brave New World.  

January 22, 2021  

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. https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The_Fauci_COVID-19_Dossier.pdf

January 21, 2021  

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. Research suggests amino acid L-cysteine may help reverse early onset Alzheimer disease. Study: Light, magnetic field, and ultrasound could help fight COVID-19. Psychological well-being declined during second wave of the pandemic - especially for men. MIND and Mediterranean diets associated with later onset of Parkinson's disease. 

January 20, 2021  

Reasons to Question the Covid-19 Vaccination Narrative Gary Null PhD Progressive Radio Network, January 21, 2021 At this moment, hundreds of millions of people worldwide eagerly await the chance to be vaccinated against the SARS-2 virus. They have been given the assurance, through an endless barrage of media reports and commentaries, that these vaccines are safe and will prevent serious infection.  We are told they are 95 percent effective, so how can we do much better than that? However, after examining the documentation that has been made available so far, there are very clear and legitimate challenges to this massive global propaganda campaign.  Moreover, now that aggressive efforts are underway by governments and national health ministries for rapid vaccine deployment, we are beginning to receive a steady flow of reports about serious life-threatening injuries and deaths among people already receiving the first of two shots. The state of California’s head epidemiologist has called for halting the distribution of a specific lot number of Moderna’s vaccine after a series of concerning allergic reactions started occurring in clusters at various inoculation sites. Deaths in Norway after vaccination have risen to 33.  Norway is now warning against vaccinating older patients with pre-existing illnesses.  Last week a probe by the Paul Ehrlich Institute was launched after 10 elderly Germans died within 4 days of vaccination. Germany is also reporting many other severe side effects including anaphylaxis. In Israel, conditions of facial paralysis associated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine are worrying health authorities. One 23-year Israeli man was rushed to a hospital with a rare multisystem inflammatory syndrome within 24 hours of receiving the vaccine. Seemingly the man was already asymptomatic with the virus; this raises the question of whether the vaccine is more dangerous in people already infected – a medical concern that none of the SARS-Cov2 trials investigated nor were they ever designed to.  Israelis are becoming increasingly wary and suspicious of these new vaccines. Opinions in the Israel National News are stating that Pfizer has been using the nation as a staging ground for rolling out its Covid-19 vaccine, the first country to have done so. Netanyahu in effect signed up seven million citizens to unwittingly be participants in a grand experiment. Consequently, the Israeli people were deprived of sufficient information about Pfizer’s vaccine to make a personal risk-benefit analysis.  “What they [Israeli citizens] are being asked to inject is not a vaccine defined by the CDC as a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease,” writes Jerusalem Health Wellness counselor Ilana Rachel Daniel in her oped, “rather it is an experimental and novel technology…. It is in fact a medical device, a physical device that comes in a molecular sized package.”  Pfizer, Moderna and Anthony Fauci have already made it abundantly clear that these vaccines are not intended to stop transmission but only to prevent serious illness. In the US, as of January 19th, 6,741 Americans having had serious enough vaccine adverse effects, with a total number of 29,081 events, that required special medical assistance or hospitalization after receiving the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.  However this is only what has been recorded in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), which the public can access; it does not include adverse events reported in the separate Data Link reporting system, which is private and regarded as more thorough. These incidents and the new data being released about the vaccines compel us to return to an earlier question. How accurate were Moderna’s and Pfizer’s headlines last autumn proclaiming 95 percent effectiveness amidst great fanfare? The question has been readdressed even by the prestigious British Medical Journal.  Two weeks ago, the vaccine makers released more of their summary data.  The journal’s associate editor Peter Doshi has recently challenged the trustworthiness of the companies’ results.  The 95 percent efficacy was based solely on confirmed PCR tests, which itself is dubious because PCR was never developed to confirm nor diagnostically identify a live active viral infection.  What was not reported in the original press releases were the “suspected” and “unconfirmed” Covid-19 cases in both the vaccinated and placebo groups. After these cases are included in the calculation, the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness nosedives to approximately 19 percent, far below the 50 percent threshold to authorize its use, according to Doshi.  Evidently, Pfizer seemingly ignored the 3,410 unconfirmed Covid-19 cases from its original press release. Is this perhaps to increase stock price?  Or perhaps to raise Fauci’s and the nation’s adrenaline levels for a miracle on the horizon?  You decide. Another red flag in Pfizer’s initial report was the exclusion of 371 trial participants from their efficacy analysis.  Pfizer fails to explain the rationale for excluding these individuals. In the meantime, distribution of Moderna’s and Pfizer’s vaccines have entered warp speed. Not all of the data to support their efficacy and safety has been publicly released. Pfizer states it will do so upon request. Moderna will provide its raw data only after all of its cinical trials have been completed. But, nevertheless, we are persuaded to roll up our sleeves without hesitation. The British Medical Journal’s article warrants first page headlines on newspapers across the country. It raises a very serious issue that should scientifically thwart false hopes and dreams that these Covid-19 vaccines will save us. They may be far more effective as cash cows instead of effective prophylaxes. However, no major press has bothered to give it a nod. What should this tell us? How necessary are these vaccines in this war against SARS-Cov2?  Since we now have reliable evidence based upon the vaccine makers’ own data that they are likely far less effective than we have been led to believe, they will not prevent asymptomatic infection nor transmission. They carry certain risks. So should we believe that they will make life any better?  There is mounting data that the vaccine will not prevent infection. Over 12,000 Israelis have tested positive within two weeks after receiving the first vaccine dose, and cases are increasing for those who received a second dose as well. In addition, there is still no certainty for how long immunity will last, and we are being told that vaccinated persons will still need to wear masks and social distance. Ergo, what good are these vaccines? What we do know is that living a healthy lifestyle will strengthen our immune systems and help ward off serious infections of any kind. Second, there are safe, effective and very inexpensive drug regimens that can be followed during the early onset of symptoms.  Both hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin have been safely used for half century. Hundreds of studies document their efficacy.  Thousands of physicians worldwide are coming forward to share their personal clinical experiences in their use to save lives and prevent unnecessary hospitalization.  What is remarkable is that Anthony Fauci, the federal health agencies and the media know this is true. This is not subjective or speculative hearsay. It is well documented in the National Library of Medicine and accessible to everyone after several mouse clicks on the Library’s website. It is not conspiracy, therefore, to suggest something foul has been unfolding. Not only were HCQ and Ivermectin unsoundly ridiculed as a first line of defense to treat Covid-19 infections, there was absolutely nothing offered in their stead.  In the case of HCQ, many states, such as New York, have made the drug unavailable even if doctors wish to prescribe it.  What can be the motive for this bizarre, surreal scenario that contradicts the very moral basis upon which the practice of medicine is founded?  It has also been shown that the dominant medical establishment efforts to prevent HCQ’s use included the publication of studies in major medical journals such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine attempting to conclude the drug was dangerous and posed serious risks. Yet these papers were later proven to be based on ill-founded data and research gathered by a shady private enterprise with no previous medical credibility. The studies were subsequently retracted. But the official recommendations against HCQ’s use were never lifted.  And not a single member of the mainstream media has broke ranks with any of Fauci’s latest statements. The fact that the US has failed to recommend and institute effective preventative protocols, other than masks, social distancing and lockdowns, is a definitive sign of gross, and perhaps intentional, negligence and very likely incompetence.  If a person tests positive, despite being asymptomatic, she or he is treated no different than those who exhibit signs of illness.  Yet humans have carried and spread infectious microbes throughout history without indications of illness.  Fortunately, a growing number of physicians, scientists and healthcare professionals are stating publicly their opposition to Washington’s draconian pandemic policies.  And these are otherwise conservative, mainstream doctors, by no means conspiracy theorists, who are also voicing concerns over the new generation of vaccines that are frankly unwarranted and will likely barely make a dent in changing anything.  Or, we may ask whether halting the pandemic is these vaccines’ real intention? Given governments’ horrendous track record of corruption and deceit, nothing should be left off the table as a possibility.  This is a lesson for everyone without hesitation to become wise, alert and discern everything that is being stated about the virus, the pandemic and our federal and corporate responses to curtail it.

January 19, 2021  

The rapid decay of journalism and the rise of media censorship

Sharyl Attkisson is a five time Emmy Award winning journalist, author and now host of the TV program Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, which airs on various ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC stations around the nation. Earlier she worked with CNN, PBS, and eventually CBS for 21 years, where she also did a stint as an anchor for the CBS Evening News. Sharyl is also the recipient of the prestigious Edward Murrow award from the Radio Television News Association.  She is one of the few honest journalists who has won respect from the left, right and independents. She is the author of three New York Times best selling books dealing with her personal career and challenges in broadcasting and corporate and political operatives in the media. Her most recent publication is "Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism."  Her website is SharylAttkisson.com and her TV program Full Measure can be heard Sundays at 9:30 am Eastern time. 

 

January 18, 2021  

What is not be discussed and investigated in covid pandemic  

Dr. David Martin is a businessman,  public speaker, researcher and professor. He is the founding chairman of M-CAM Inc, an innovative leader in banking intangible asset finance that operates in over 160 countries and ethical economic development. He has been a consultant on innovative finance and humanitarian investment for nations throughout the world.  David is also the managing partner of Purple Funds and is a fellow and professor at the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia. In the past he has served as the the chair for economic innovation at the UN-Affiliated Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization and has been advisor for numerous central banks, the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation. Those who have watched the film Plandemic 2 will recognize Dr. Martin, who along with Bobby Kennedy provided the film with its real substance.  More about David and his companies and activities can be found at DavidMartin.World and M-CAM.com. He has also authored several books including "Coup d'Twelve: The Enterprise that Bought the Presidency" and "Lizards Eat Butterflies: An Antidote to the Self-Help Addiction."

 

- Older Posts »

Podbean App

Play this podcast on Podbean App