The Gary Null Show - 02.12.19

Voicemail Line 862-800-6805
 
This new feature will allow listeners to call in and leave a voicemail question to all their favorite shows. All you have to do is call the number, Say your name, what show and what your question is. This will allow your voice to be heard on your favorite PRN shows and will allow a better host/listener connection.
 
Part 1: The US’ Healthcare System is Predatory – It’s Time for Universal Medical Coverage
Richard Gale and Gary NullProgressive Radio Network, February 12, 2019For a nation that prides itself on being the world’s wealthiest, most innovative, and most technologically advanced, the US’ healthcare system is nothing less than a disaster and disgrace. Not only are Americans the least healthy among the most developed nations, but the US’ health system also ranks dead last among high-income countries.[1] Despite rising costs and our unshakeable faith in American medical exceptionalism, average life expectancy in the US has remained lower than other OECD nations for many years and has continued to decline for the past three years. On the other hand, countries with universal healthcare coverage find their average life expectancy stable or slowly increasing. The fundamental problem in Washington is that both parties are beholden to the pharmaceutical and private insurance industries. Neither has the courage or will to spurn their corporate donors to do what is sensible, financially feasible and morally correct to improve Americans’ quality of health and well-being.
 
Read More
Part 2: 
Rapidly changing conditions in the Arctic and their larger impact on global climate and weather conditions
 
Prof. Peter Wadhams is a professor emeritus of ocean physics and head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University. He is also the former director of the Scott Polar Research Institute  Prof. Wadhams is a recognized and renowned scientist in the field of Arctic region, the impacts of climate change and the rapid loss of polar ice. He has participated in 50 polar expeditions  His book “A Farewell to Ice,” is a front line report from a world leader in Arctic polar sciences that outlines his dire warnings about an ice free world in the event humanity fails to meet the climate challenges face it today. It is a must-read for gaining a thorough understanding of our dangerous climate crisis.

The Gary Null Show - 02.11.19

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

The Gary Null Show - 02.08.19

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

The Gary Null Show - 02.07.19

Eating Organic Food Reduces Cancer Risk
Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (France), February 2, 2019 
 
To investigate the association between organic food consumption and cancer risk in a large prospective study
This was a prospective cohort study of 68,946 French adults who reported their frequency of organic food consumption. Volunteers were asked to provide information on their consumption frequency of 16 organic products (fruits; vegetables; soy-based products; dairy products; meat and fish; eggs; grains and legumes; bread and cereals; flour; vegetable oils and condiments; ready-to-eat meals; coffee, tea, and herbal tea; wine; biscuits, chocolate, sugar, and marmalade; other foods; and dietary supplements). Dietary intake was assessed using three 24-hour records randomly allocated over a 2-week period, including 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day. Participants were followed for a mean of 4.5 years.
The data were adjusted for confounding factors such as sociodemographics, lifestyle, and dietary patterns. Baseline age, sex, occupation, educational level, marital status, monthly income per household, number of children, and smoking status were collected.
Participants self-declared health events through a yearly health status questionnaire or an interface on the study website. Medical records were obtained for more than 90% of self-reported cancer cases. The French national health insurance system database and the French mortality epidemiology database were used to collect and verify reported health records and mortality data.
Participants
There were 68,946 participants, 78% of whom were female. Mean age at beginning of the study was 44.2 years.
Study Parameters Assessed
The authors assessed both the frequency of organic food consumption and the quality of the food consumed; quality of the diet was based on nutrient density.
An organic food score was computed based on the participant reports, ranging from 0 to 32 points. Consumption frequencies were reported with the following options: (1) most of the time; (2) occasionally; (3) never “too expensive”; (4) never “product not available”; (5) never “I’m not interested in organic products”; (6) never “I avoid such products”; (7) never “for no specific reason”; and (8) I don’t know.
Nutrient intake was derived from the self-reported diet diaries and was calculated using the NutriNet-Santé food composition table. To assess dietary quality, these intake values were compared to the official French nutritional guidelines.
Outcome Measures
The primary outcome measure was the number of incident cancer cases in the follow-up period.
Key Findings
A total of 1,340 first incident cancer cases were identified during follow-up; the most prevalent were breast cancer (459; 34.3%), prostate cancer (180; 13.4%), skin cancer (135; 10.1%), colorectal cancer (99; 7.4%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (47; 3.5%), and other lymphomas (15; 1.1%). High organic food scores were inversely associated with the overall risk of cancer (hazard ratio for the fourth quartile compared to the first quartile, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-0.88; P for trend=0.001; absolute risk reduction, 0.6%; hazard ratio for a 5-point increase, 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88-0.96).
Higher organic food scores were linearly and inversely associated with the overall risk of cancer. Significant risk reduction was seen for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (hazard ratio for a 5-point increase, 0.75; CI: 0.6-0.93; P=0.009) and for other lymphomas (hazard ratio for a 5-point increase, 0.75; CI: 0.6-0.93; P=0.03). There were trends of risk reduction for post-menopausal breast cancer (hazard ratio for a 5-point increase, 0.91; CI: 0.83-1.01; P=0.07), and skin cancer (hazard ratio for a 5-point increase, 0.89: CI: 0.78-1.01; P=0.06).
Accounting for other additional dietary factors did not modify the factors.
Higher organic food scores were positively associated with female sex, monthly income, education level, physical activity, and former smoking status. Higher organic food scores were also associated with a healthier diet rich in fiber, vegetable proteins, and micronutrients (ie, a higher intake of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes), and with a lower intake of processed meat, other meat, poultry, and milk.
 
Being kind to yourself has mental and physical benefits, research shows
University of Exeter, February 6, 2019
 
Taking time to think kind thoughts about yourself and loved ones has psychological and physical benefits, new research suggests.
A study by the Universities of Exeter and Oxford has found that taking part in self-compassion exercises calms the heart rate, switching off the body's threat response. Previous studies have shown that this threat response damages the immune system. Researchers believe the ability to switch off this response may lower the risk of disease.
In the study, published in the journal Clinical Psychological Science, 135 healthy University of Exeter students were divided into five groups, and members of each group heard a different set of audio instructions. The team took physical measurements of heart rate and sweat response, and asked participants to report how they were feeling. Questions included how safe they felt, how likely they were to be kind to themselves and how connected they felt to others.
The two groups whose instructions encouraged them to be kind to themselves not only reported feeling more self-compassion and connection with others, but also showed a bodily response consistent with feelings of relaxation and safety. Their heart rates dropped and the variation in length of time between heartbeats - a healthy sign of a heart that can respond flexibly to situations. They also showed lower sweat response.
Meanwhile, instructions that induced a critical inner voice led to an increased heart rate and a higher sweat response - consistent with feelings of threat and distress.
First author Dr Hans Kirschner, who conducted the research at Exeter, said: "These findings suggest that being kind to oneself switches off the threat response and puts the body in a state of safety and relaxation that is important for regeneration and healing."
Lead researcher Dr Anke Karl, of the University of Exeter, said: "Previous research has found that self-compassion was related to higher levels of wellbeing and better mental health, but we didn't know why.
"Our study is helping us understand the mechanism of how being kind to yourself when things go wrong could be beneficial in psychological treatments. By switching off our threat response, we boost our immune systems and give ourselves the best chance of healing. We hope future research can use our method to investigate this in people with mental health problems such as recurrent depression."
The recordings that encouraged self-compassion were a "compassionate body scan" in which people were guided to attend to bodily sensations with an attitude of interest and calmness; and a "self-focused loving kindness exercise" in which they directed kindness and soothing thoughts to a loved one and themselves.
The three other groups listened to recordings designed to induce a critical inner voice, put them into a "positive but competitive and self-enhancing mode", or an emotionally neutral shopping scenario.
All the audio recordings were 11 minutes long.
While people in both the self-compassion and positive but competitive groups reported greater self-compassion and decreased self-criticism, only the self-compassion groups showed the positive bodily response.
The signs of this were reduced sweat response and heart rate slowed by two to three beats per minute on average, compared to the groups listening to critical voice recordings. The self-kindness groups also showed increased hear rate variability - a sign of a healthy heart that is able to adapt to a range of situations.
Co-author Willem Kuyken, Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Oxford, said: "These findings help us to further understand some of our clinical trials research findings, where we show that individuals with recurrent depression benefit particularly from mindfulness-based cognitive therapy when they learn to become more self-compassionate.
"My sense is that for people prone to depression, meeting their negative thoughts and feelings with compassion is a radically different way - that these thoughts are not facts.
"It introduces a different way of being and knowing that is quite transformative for many people."
The researchers now plan to extend their research by studying the physiological responses in individuals with recurrent depression.
The researchers stress that the study was conducted in healthy people, so their findings do not mean that people with depression would experience the same improvements from one-off exercises. They did not investigate another important feature of self-compassion, the ability to directly repair mood or distress. Further research is necessary to address these two open points.
 
Vitamin D helps treat lethal drug-resistant TB
Queen Mary University at London, February 6, 2019
 
Vitamin D has been found to speed up the clearance of tuberculosis (TB) bacteria from the lungs of people with multi-drug resistant TB, according to a study of 1,850 patients receiving antibiotic treatment, led by Queen Mary University of London.
Lead researcher Professor Adrian Martineau from Queen Mary University of London said: "Multi-drug resistant TB is on the rise globally. It's notoriously difficult to treat, and it carries a much worse prognosis than standard TB.
"Our study raises the possibility that vitamin D - which is very safe and inexpensive - could benefit this hard-to-treat group of patients by taking a novel approach to their treatment. By adding vitamin D to antibiotic treatment, we can boost the immune system to help the body to clear TB bugs, rather than relying on antibiotics on their own to kill the bacteria directly.
"This is a novel approach, as it contrasts with the conventional tactic of developing new antibiotics in an attempt to 'keep up' with the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria - an arms race that is proving hard for us to win."
The World Health Organisation estimates that 10.0 million people developed active tuberculosis in 2017, and that 1.6 million people died of this disease. Multi-drug resistant (MDR) TB is caused by bacteria that are resistant to treatment with at least two of the most powerful first-line anti-TB drugs, causing around 500,000 cases and 150,000 deaths per year worldwide. Existing antibiotic treatments for MDR TB are lengthy, costly and often toxic due to their serious side effects.
Vitamin D has shown potential in boosting the immune system, but randomised controlled trials of vitamin D in TB treatment have yielded conflicting results.
In the new study, published in European Respiratory Journal, the research team pooled data from 1,850 TB patients who took part in clinical trials of vitamin D in eight countries (the UK, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Republic of Georgia and Guinea Bissau). They then ran an analysis to see whether there were particular groups of patients who responded better to vitamin D than others.
When added to antibiotic treatment, vitamin D was found to accelerate TB clearance specifically in patients with MDR TB, even though no acceleration of TB clearance was seen when looking at the entire study population as a whole.
The vitamin D supplementation was also found to be safe at the doses administered, with no links to serious adverse events.
The researchers say these results illustrate the potential for so-called 'host-directed therapies' - treatments that boost the immune system - to improve outcomes in patients with drug-resistant bacterial infections.
The researchers caution that the analysis is not sufficient on its own to justify a clinical recommendation of the use of vitamin D in the treatment of MDR TB, as it is based on a relatively small number of participants. However, they say these results now provide a rationale to carry out new clinical trials to see if vitamin D really can benefit patients who are taking standard antibiotics for MDR TB.
The findings add to a growing list of health benefits for the 'sunshine vitamin'. While vitamin D is best known for its effects on bone health, previous studies by Queen Mary researchers have revealed its role in protecting against colds, flu, asthma attacks, and last month, that it can protect COPD patients from deadly lung attacks.
 
 
Curcumin for Cognitive Function in Aging Adults
UCLA Longevity Center, February 5, 2019
 
Randomized, double-blind, 2-group parallel design comparing placebo to proprietary form of curcumin (Theracurmin)
To assess whether a proprietary curcumin formula has a measurable effect on cognitive performance in older adults without frank dementia.
Forty-six adults aged 50 to 90 years with objective cognitive performance scores and clinical histories consistent with normal aging or mild neurocognitive disorder and inconsistent with dementia (major neurocognitive disorder) were randomized to receive curcumin or placebo; all agreed to participate for the entire study duration (18 months), had adequate visual and auditory acuity for neuropsychological testing, and had screening laboratory tests and electrocardiograms that did not show significant medical abnormalities that might interfere with the study. A total of 40 participants (age 51-84 years; 21 in the experimental group and 19 in the placebo group) ultimately completed the trial and were included in the data analysis.
The experimental group took Theracurmin (containing 90 mg of curcumin) twice a day (ie, 180 mg curcumin/day) for 18 months.
The following tests were used to assess cognitive performance:
Verbal performance—Buschke Selective Reminding Test (SRT)
Visual performance—Brief Visual Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R)
Attention—Trail Making A (secondary outcome measure)
To assess brain effects, investigators used a specific type of positron emission tomography (PET) scan that provides in vivo images of brain plaques and tangles: 2-(1-{6-[(2-[F-18]fluoroethyl)(methyl)amino]-2-naphthyl}ethylidene)malononitrile positron emission tomography (FDDNP-PET). Thirty participants, 15 in the intervention group and 15 in the placebo group, completed the FDDNP-PET testing.
All assessments were performed at baseline (before intervention) and at the end of the 18-month intervention.
Outcome Measures
Improvement in cognitive performance tests from baseline; changes in brain amyloid and tau accumulation as determined by PET testing (for 30 participants) from baseline.
Key Findings
Significant differences between groups were seen on a number of the tests. Long-term memory retrieval improved in the curcumin group but not in the placebo group. Total long-term memory recall, visual memory, and attention also improved significantly in the curcumin group, with no significant improvement in the placebo group. The FDDNP testing showed significantly decreased binding in the amygdala in participants on curcumin compared to those on placebo. (Higher FDDNP binding values have been positively associated with dementia.) In the hypothalamus, FDDNP binding did not change with curcumin but increased with placebo
 
NSAID impairs immune response in heart failure, worsens heart and kidney damage
University of Alabama Birmingham, February 6, 2019
 
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, are widely known as pain-killers and can relieve pain and inflammation. However, prolonged use raises the risk of heart and kidney failure events. A heart attack causes death of heart muscle cells by lack of oxygen, and it also significantly injures the kidneys.
To understand the molecular and cellular mechanisms of action that damage the heart and kidneys at the same time -- known as cardiorenal syndrome -- University of Alabama at Birmingham researchers pretreated animals with the NSAID carprofen in a mouse-heart attack model. Basic research on heart disease is needed because heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Ganesh Halade, Ph.D., associate professor in the UAB Department of Medicine's Division of Cardiovascular Disease, wanted to see if carprofen affected either of the two steps the immune system takes to repair heart attack damage. First is an immediate acute inflammation, where leukocytes rush into heart muscle to remove dead cells and cell debris. Second is the subsequent resolution phase to dampen the excess inflammation caused by those activated leukocytes, which otherwise would further damage the heart and kidneys.
In a study published in the journal Life Sciences, Halade and colleagues found that carprofen treatment alone triggered subtle low-grade inflammation in the heart and kidneys. The combination of carprofen pretreatment and heart attack magnified this impact by dysregulating the acute inflammatory response, amplifying inflammation and intensifying the cardiorenal syndrome.
Specifically, the UAB researchers first found that carprofen without heart attack triggered kidney inflammation, as measured by increased levels of plasma creatinine, NGAL and KIM-1, all biomarkers of kidney injury. They also found inflamed proximal convoluted tubules and compromised glomerular structure integrity in the kidneys.
Second, they found that carprofen without heart attack caused increased levels of the inflammatory cytokines TNF-alpha and IL-1 beta, and increased levels of the enzyme COX-2, which normally is induced at the start of the inflammation process after injury to produce chemoattractants that recruit immune cells. The carprofen also induced the protein MRC-1 prior to injury. MRC-1 is involved in the resolution of inflammation, suggesting that both the acute inflammation phase and the resolution of inflammation phase are falsely activated during carprofen pretreatment before any heart injury.
Third, when the pretreatment with carprofen was followed by heart attack, the proinflammatory cytokines TNF-alpha and IL-1-beta decreased, rather than increasing as they do in response to heart attacks without carprofen pretreatment. KIM-1 showed a similar dysfunction -- it stayed at similar levels at both pre- and post-heart attack after carprofen pretreatment, rather than increasing as it does in response to a heart attack without carprofen pretreatment. This KIM-1 dysfunction led to less clearance of dead cells from the heart. Also, carprofen pretreatment and heart attack amplified subsequent kidney tissue damage, as compared with kidney damage after heart attack alone.
 
Mountain ginseng found to have immunostimulating, antioxidant, anticancer and anti-aging properties
Kyung Hee University (S Korea), February 6, 2019  
There are many kinds of ancient Chinese medicine that are known to be effective yet still not commonly understood. One example of this is the root of mountain ginseng (Panax ginseng Meyer), which is popular for its enhanced pharmacological-like properties. Although known for its many benefits, most people do not think of it as a readily available item mainly because of its expensive price tag. At the same time, it is also quite scarce, which makes it a bit inaccessible for potential users who could benefit from it.
Fortunately, there are known alternatives for it. In particular, cultured roots from mountain ginseng tissue have been identified as viable replacements for larger and cheaper production of the highly sought-after ginseng roots. With this in mind, a team of researchers worked on finding out exactly how effective these alternative materials can be when it came to providing similar benefits.
A new study titled, “Novel application of cultured roots of mountain ginseng and ginsenoside Re as safe antimelanogenic cosmeceutical components,” was authored by a team of researchers who worked together to determine the effects of the water extract of cultured roots of mountain ginseng (CRMG) and its major compound ginsenoside Re (Re) on melanin synthesis in ?-MSH-stimulated mouse melanoma B16BL6 cells (B16). That is to say, how it might affect the well-being of individuals who use them in certain amounts.
What the researchers found was that both CRMG and Re possess potential melanogenic activities and can both be used as antimelanogenic cosmeceutical agents, just as their hypothesis predicted. To be more specific, the researchers performed a number of tests to determine both the adverse as well as the positive effects of the two, and later found that neither of them have any significant cytotoxic effect at 100 ?g/mL and 100 ?M respectively.
There have already been previous studies that reported on the fact that mountain ginsengand Re both have anti-cancer properties, and now the researchers are hoping to add to the growing body of evidence that supports this hypothesis. They note in their study that further studies are going to be necessary to provide conclusive proof.
For now, the consensus is as it always has been: Ginseng has some risks as a supplement, but does indeed offer a long list of health benefits. Some of the more well-known positive effects of taking ginseng including getting a boost of energy, improved mental focus and brain function, cancer prevention, improved performance in the bedroom, enhanced activity of the immune system, lower blood sugar levels, weight control, and even the alleviation of menstrual pain.
Ginseng wouldn’t have survived as a supplement for literally several thousand years if it weren’t truly effective. People have been taking it for many centuries now and it is still being referred to as a very effective tool for improving individual moods, boosting overall health, and creating a much better sense of overall well-being.
Of course, as a supplement, ginseng is only meant to be taken if it is something that works with your past or present medical condition. For that reason, it’s always best to consult a healthcare professional for advice before taking ginseng or any other supplements. That way, you can make sure that you enjoy all of the health benefits without running into any issues afterward.
 
Heavy drinking in teens causes lasting changes in emotional center of brain
University of Illinois, February 6, 2019
 
Binge drinking in adolescence has been shown to have lasting effects on the wiring of the brain and is associated with increased risk for psychological problems and alcohol use disorder later in life.
Now, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago Center for Alcohol Research in Epigenetics have shown that some of these lasting changes are the result of epigenetic changes that alter the expression of a protein crucial for the formation and maintenance of neural connections in the amygdala -- the part of the brain involved in emotion, fear and anxiety. Their results, which are based on the analysis of postmortem human brain tissue, are published in the journal Translational Psychiatry.
Epigenetics refers to chemical changes to DNA, RNA or specific proteins associated with chromosomes that change the activity of genes without changing the genes themselves. Epigenetic modifications are involved in the normal development of the brain, but they can be influenced by environmental or even social factors, such as alcohol and stress. These kinds of epigenetic alterations have been linked to changes in behavior and disease.
The researchers looked at postmortem human amygdala tissue obtained from the New South Wales Brain Tissue Resource Center in Sydney, Australia. The amygdala is the part of the brain involved in emotional regulation. The specimens were from the brains of 11 individuals who started drinking heavily before the age of 21 or early-onset drinkers; 11 individuals who started drinking seriously after the age of 21, known as late-onset drinkers; and 22 individuals with no history of alcohol use disorder. The average age of death of the individuals from whom the samples were taken was 58 years old for those without alcohol use disorder; 55 years old for early-onset drinkers; and 59 for late-onset drinkers.
Amygdalae of individuals who were early-onset drinkers had about 30 percent more of a molecule called BDNF-AS, a large non-coding RNA. Usually, RNA is involved in the production of proteins from DNA, but this one is not. BDNF-AS regulates a gene that produces a protein called BDNF. This protein is a growth factor and is crucial for the normal formation and maintenance of synapses throughout the brain. When there is more BDNF-AS, there is less BDNF. The brain tissue of early-onset drinkers had 30 percent to 40 percent less BDNF compared with brain tissue from people with no history of alcohol use disorder. This reduction in BDNF was not seen in brain samples from late-onset drinkers or from people with no alcohol use disorder.
Subhash Pandey, professor of psychiatry and director of the UIC Center for Alcohol Research in Epigenetics, and corresponding author on the paper, believes that epigenetic changes to BDNF-AS are the reason BDNF is lower in the amygdalae from people who started drinking early in life. In the amygdala from people who started drinking after age 21, there were no such changes.
"BDNF is needed for normal development in the brain and for connections to form between neurons," said Pandey, who is also a senior research career scientist at Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago. "If levels are lowered due to alcohol exposure, then the brain will not develop normally, and we see that in these brain samples where there are abnormalities in another synaptic gene, Arc, possibly making abnormal connections between neurons."
Pandey and his colleagues found that the increase in BDNF-AS in the early-onset drinkers is caused by decreased methylation of BDNF-AS. Methylation is a type of epigenetic change where a molecule containing a methyl group is added to another molecule and results in a change in genetic expression. The decreased methylation of BDNF-AS is believed to be caused by early-onset drinking and appears to be a long-lasting change.
"The epigenetic changes we saw in the amygdala of early-onset drinkers can alter the normal function of the amygdala, which helps regulate our emotions, and may cause individuals to be more susceptible for things like anxiety, which we have shown in other studies, or the development and maintenance of alcohol use disorder later in life," Pandey said.
 
 
Architect shares his experience of how magnet therapy cured his OCD
Daily Mail, November 17, 2019
 
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) can be challenging to deal with, especially for sufferers. Scientists have not yet fully understood the underlying causes of the condition, although they have said that it could be a brain dysfunction.
However, an architect has reportedly been cured of OCD – all thanks to magnets.
In an interview, Alex Jones, a 46-year old architect from England, had been battling with OCD for over 28 years. During these times, he went around his day thinking that he had harmed others because of his actions – which has led Alex even to imagine that he had run people over with his car or beaten up strangers.
The thoughts would haunt his mind throughout the day. This would cause him great anxiety and stress, and sometimes, he would retrace his steps to check if there were any “victims” of his actions. This behavior, which included washing his hands for up to 50 times a day, put a burden on his relationship with his wife, Paulette.
After his OCD brought him to a nervous breakdown, he discovered magnetic pulse theory soon after, and he claimed to feel like a “normal person” after the first transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) session.
According to him, “I had experienced these obsessive, intrusive thoughts since I was a teenager. They were pretty much constant. I was in a perpetual state of anxiety, and it was really mentally draining, and hard on my wife too. But then after leaving the clinic after mt first TMS session, I felt like a completely ‘normal’ person.”
Running out of options, Alex visited a TMS clinic in London in July 2017 and was amazed at the results. He claims that he went to the clinic after being anxious around people, thinking that he would harm them. However, after a 30-minute session at the clinic, he felt that his mind has been cleared of all those impulses that gave him a hard time. After two sessions, he claims to be symptom-free, except a minor relapse.
Fast facts on TMS
TMS is defined as “a noninvasive procedure that uses magnetic fields to stimulate nerve cells in the brain to improve symptoms of depression.” The method is typically used for depression treatment when forms are already ineffective.
When a person undergoes a TMS session, electromagnetic coils are placed around the person’s scalp, near the forehead. The coils will then deliver a painless magnetic pulse that will stimulate the nerves in the person’s brain region that affects mood and depression. Moreover, TMS is believed to trigger parts of the brain that have diminished function because of depression. 
It is also known as rTMS since the pulses emitted are repetitive.
As TMS is a non-invasive way to stimulate your brain, there are no risks for this therapy, as against other conventional forms which require surgery or implants. Moreover, it does not cause any seizure or require sedation with anesthesia.
Some side effects that may occur after TMS are noted to be mild to moderate and may decrease over time. These would include headaches, scalp discomfort, lightheadedness, and some tingling in the facial muscles.
Earlier studies have already found TMS to be effective in providing relief for people who suffer from tinnitus, with more than 50 percent of the samples felt a significant improvement.

The Gary Null Show - 2.06.19

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

The Gary Null Show - 2.05.19

Death by Medicine, Revisited – Part III
Death by Medicine, Revisited – Part IIIby Gary Null, PhD.; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Carolyn Dean, MD, ND; edited by Helen Buyniski
Medically Induced Death: The Equivalent of Seven Jumbo Jets Falling Out of the Sky Each Day
Never before have complete statistics on the multiple causes of iatrogenesis been combined in one book. Medical science amasses tens of thousands of papers annually, each representing a tiny fragment of the whole picture. To look at only one piece and try to understand the benefits and risks is like standing an inch away from an elephant and trying to describe everything about it. You have to step back to see the big picture, as we have done here. Each specialty, each division of medicine, keeps its own records and data on morbidity and mortality. We have now completed the painstaking work of reviewing thousands of studies and putting the pieces of the puzzle together.
Is American Medicine Working?
US healthcare spending reached $3.5 trillion in 2017, representing 18% of the nation’s gross national product.1 Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. We should be preventing and reversing disease, and doing minimal harm. Careful and objective review, however, shows we are doing the opposite. Because of the extraordinarily narrow, technologically driven context in which contemporary medicine examines the human condition, we are completely missing the larger picture.
Medicine is not taking into consideration the following critically important aspects of a healthy human organism:■ stress, and how it adversely affects the immune system and life processes;■ insufficient exercise;■ excessive calorie intake;■ highly processed and denatured foods, grown in denatured and chemically damaged soil; and■ exposure to tens of thousands of environmental toxins.
Instead of minimizing these disease-causing factors, we cause more illness through medical technology, diagnostic testing, overuse of medical and surgical procedures, and overuse of pharmaceutical drugs. The huge disservice of this therapeutic strategy is the result of little effort or money being spent on preventing disease, as evidenced by efforts to curtail use of effective vitamins and supplements.
Then-Congressional Budget Director Peter Orszag made headlines in 2009 when he claimed the US spends $700 billion on unnecessary medical tests. “The unreasonably high cost of healthcare in the United States is a deeply entrenched problem that must be attacked at its root,” he wrote in a Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) report.2 Researchers have demonstrated that if anything, he didn’t go far enough: a Reuters report released later that year found the number could be closer to $850 billion,3 while a 2012 RAND Corporation study found that up to $1.263 trillion of healthcare spending was wasted yearly.4 In addition to administrative complexity, pricing and delivery failures, and out-and-out fraud, “overtreatment” tops these reports’ list of what’s causing the waste. Moreover,
“Some medical experts say the American devotion to the newest, most expensive technology is an important reason that the United States spends much more on healthcare than other industrialized nations. . . without providing better care. [A] Rand Corporation study estimated that one- third or more of the care that patients in this country receive could be of lit- tle value. If that is so, hundreds of billions of dollars each year are being wasted on superfluous treatments.[There is] a much larger trend in American medicine…A faith in innovation, often driven by [quick] financial incentives, encourages American doctors and hospitals to adopt new technologies even without proof that they work better than older techniques…The problem is not that newer treatments never work. It is that once they become available, [too often prematurely,] they are often used indiscriminately, in the absence of studies to determine which patients they will benefit…And sometimes, the new technologies prove harmful. [Some] doctors in private practice who own their [CT] scanners, use the tests aggressively . . . [as if it were] a new toy in the office5
—endangering asymptomatic patients for whom the scan may be inappropriate.
Health Insurance
To determine whether american medicine is working, we also need to know if enough people have access to the American healthcare system. About 28 million Americans, or 15.5 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2017, the latest government data available.”6 7
The number of uninsured children in 2017 was 3.9 million—5 percent of all children in the US.8 The large majority of the uninsured (69.2 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.9
The number of uninsured rose 4 million between 2016 and 2018, creeping back up after the steady decline set in motion by the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010.10
A study found that 28 percent of working adults who had health insurance were “underinsured” with coverage so meager they often postponed medical care because of costs. Nearly 50 percent overall, and 52 percent of people with health coverage said they had medical bill problems, and 45 percent had foregone needed healthcare due to costs. More than 56 percent of the underinsured receive their coverage through an employer. Nearly half (47 percent) of those who had problems paying their medical bills had used up their savings doing so, and 40 percent said they received a lower credit rating because of those bills.11
Compounding the problem is the issue of insurance fraud. When doctors bill for services they do not render, advise unnecessary tests, or screen everyone for a rare condition, they are committing insurance fraud. The US GAO estimated that $36.7 billion was lost to fraudulent or unnecessary claims in 2017,12 and reclaimed $2.6 billion in judgments that year.13
Underreporting of Iatrogenic Events
As little as 5% and no more than 20% of iatrogenic events are ever reported.14 15 16 17 This implies that if medical errors were completely and accurately reported, we would have an annual iatrogenic death toll much higher than the 987,507 figure we arrived at earlier. In 1994, Leape said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes resulting in death annually was equivalent to three jumbo jet crashes every two days.18 Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to seven jumbo jets falling out of the sky each day.
What we must deduce from this report is that medicine is in need of complete and total reform—from the curriculum in medical schools to protecting patients from excessive medical intervention. It is obvious that we cannot change anything if we are not honest about what needs to be changed. This report simply shows the degree to which change is required.
We are fully aware of what stands in the way of change: powerful pharmaceutical and medical technology companies, along with other powerful groups with enormous vested interests in the business of medicine. They fund medical research, support medical schools and hospitals, and advertise in medical journals. With deep pockets, they entice scientists and academics to support their efforts. Such funding can sway the balance of opinion from professional caution to uncritical acceptance of new therapies and drugs. You have only to look at the people who make up the hospital, medical, and government health advisory boards to see conflicts of interest.
For example, a 2003 study found that nearly half of medical school faculty who serve on institutional review boards (IRBs) to advise on clinical trial research also serve as consultants to the pharmaceutical industry.19 The study authors were concerned that such representation could cause potential conflicts of interest. In a news release, Dr. Erik Campbell, the lead author, wrote, “Our previous research with faculty has shown us that ties to industry can affect scientific behavior, leading to such things as trade secrecy and delays in publishing research. It’s possible that similar relationships with companies could affect IRB members’ activities and attitudes.”20 The public is mostly unaware of these interlocking interests.
A 2014 study examining the prevalence of IRB members with life science industry connections found about a third (32.1 percent) had some kind of industry relationship. One in ten respondents felt pressure from their department or institution to approve a protocol, and a quarter of respondents admitted to voting on a protocol even when they had a conflict of interest.21
Government medical advisors play a role in adequate reporting of iatrogenic events. The FDA announced in March 2007:
“Expert advisers to the government who receive money from a drug or device maker would be barred for the first time from voting on whether to approve that company’s products under new rules . . . for the FDA’s powerful advisory committees. Indeed, such doctors who receive more than $50,000 from a company or a competitor whose product is being discussed would no longer be allowed to serve on the committees, though those who receive less than that amount in the prior year can join a committee and participate in its discussions. A “significant number” ofthe agency’s present advisers would be affected by the new policy, said the FDA acting deputy commissioner, Randall W. Lutter, though he would not say how many.”22
The First Study of Iatrogenesis
Dr. Lucian Leape opened medicine’s Pandora’s box in his 1994 paper, “Error in Medicine,” which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). He noted that Schimmel reported in 1964 that 20% of hospital patients suffered iatrogenic injury, with a 20% fatality rate. In 1981, Steel reported that 36% of hospitalized patients experienced iatrogenesis, with a 25% fatality rate, and adverse drug reactions were involved in 50% of the injuries. In 1991, Bedell reported that 64% of acute heart attacks in one hospital were preventable and were mostly due to adverse drug reactions.23
Leape focused on a Harvard Medical Practice Study published in 1991 which found a 4% iatrogenic injury rate for patients, with a 14% fatality rate, in 1984 in New York State.24
From the 98,609 patients injured and the 14% fatality rate, he estimated that in the entire US, 180,000 people die each year partly as a result of iatrogenic injury.
Why Leape chose to use the much lower figure of 4% injury for his analysis remains in question. Using instead the average of the rates found in the three studies he cites (36%, 20%, and 4%) would have produced a 20% medical error rate. The number of iatrogenic deaths using an average rate of injury and his 14% fatality rate would be 1,189,576.
Leape acknowledged that the literature on medical errors is sparse and represents only the tip of the iceberg, noting that when errors are specifically sought out, reported rates are “distressingly high.” He cited several autopsy studies with rates as high as 35–40% of missed diagnoses causing death. He also noted that an intensive care unit reported an average of 1.7 errors per day per patient, and 29% of those errors were potentially serious or fatal.
Leape calculated the error rate in the intensive care unit study. First, he found that each patient had an average of 178 “activities” (staff/ procedure/medical interactions) a day, of which1.7 were errors, which means a 1% failure rate. This may not seem like much, but Leape cited industry standards showing that in aviation, a 0.1% failure rate would mean two unsafe plane landings per day at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport; in the US Postal Service, a 0.1% failure rate would mean 16,000 pieces of lost mail every hour; and in the banking industry, a 0.1% failure rate would mean 32,000 bank checks deducted from the wrong bank account.
At the same time, Leape acknowledged the lack of reporting of medical errors. Medical errors occur in thousands of different locations and are perceived as isolated and unusual events. But the most important reason that the problem of medical errors is unrecognized and growing, according to Leape, is that doctors and nurses are unequipped to deal with human error because of the culture of medical training and practice.
Doctors are taught that mistakes are unacceptable. Medical mistakes are therefore viewed as a failure of character and any error equals negligence. No one is taught what to do when medical errors do occur. Leape cites McIntyre and Popper, who said the “infallibility model” of medicine leads to intellectual dishonesty with a need to cover up mistakes rather than admit them.
There are no Grand Rounds on medical errors, no sharing of failures among doctors, and no one to support them emotionally when their error harms a patient. Leape hoped his paper would encourage medical practitioners “to fundamentally change the way they think about errors and why they occur.”
It has been more than two decades since this groundbreaking work, but the mistakes continue to pile up, and it’s debatable whether methods for detecting and tracking them have improved.
In a 2017 survey conducted by the University of Chicago in partnership with the Lucian Leape Institute, more than one fifth of Americans reported they had personally experienced a medical error, and 31% reported they had been involved in caring for someone who experienced an error. The most commonly-cited reason for the error given (out of a list of 23 factors) was “healthcare providers who do not pay attention to detail.” The most common errors involved diagnoses, with 59% of respondents reporting either a failure to diagnose, an incorrect diagnosis or a delayed diagnosis. Even then, only 45% of those who experienced an error notified medical personnel! Asked how patient safety had improved over the past five years, 39% of respondents said it had stayed the same, and 29% reported improvement, but 12% claimed it had gotten worse.25
A 2008 study found as many as half of adverse events reported by patients did not make it into their hospital charts,26 while another conducted that year found patients were aware of three times as many medical errors in their treatment as doctors had recorded in their charts.27
As of 2017, studies continue to find that less than 10% of medical errors are reported.28 This number varies depending on the specialty – a 2008 study found that almost two thirds of cardiologists had recently refused to report a serious error they had direct personal knowledge of to an authority. 29
The Patient and Family Relations error reporting model has shown some promise, providing a novel perspective and valuable context by soliciting “second opinions” from those close to the patient. PFR reports demonstrated little overlap with standard error-reporting models when compared to AHRQ reporting in a 2017 study.30
Leape’s own NPSF recommends the creation of “safety data sets” at multiple levels – department, institution, system, state, and national – to catch errors and identify their cause.31
Dr. John T. James, whose 2013 paper in the Journal of Patient Safety calculated 440,000 deaths yearly from inpatient medical errors, founded his own patient advocacy group, Patient Safety America, after losing his son to medical incompetence in 2002. PSA lobbies for a “Patient Bill of Rights” – a dramatic expansion of informed consent in which patients are entitled to absolute transparency regarding their medical records, itemized and fully explained billing, the track record of the facility and doctors treating them, and the success rate of any procedure or drug treatment (as well as its possible adverse effects).32
Only a Fraction of Medical Errors Are Reported
“If the medical system were a bank, you wouldn’t deposit your money here, because there would be an error every one-in-two to one-in-three times you made a transaction.”— Stephen Persell, MD, Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine33
In 1994, Leape said he was well aware that medical errors were not being reported.34 A study conducted in two obstetrical units in the UK found that only about one quarter of adverse incidents were ever reported, to protect staff, preserve reputations, or for fear of reprisals, including lawsuits.35
An analysis by Wald and Shojania found that only 1.5% of all adverse events result in an incident report, and only 6% of adverse drug events are identified properly. The authors learned that the American College of Surgeons estimates that surgical incident reports routinely capture only 5–30% of adverse events. In one study, only 20% of surgical complications resulted in discussion at morbidity and mortality rounds.36 From these studies, it appears that all the statistics gathered on medical errors may substantially underestimate the number of adverse drug and medical therapy incidents. They also suggest that our statistics concerning mortality resulting from medical errors may be in fact conservative figures.
An article in Psychiatric Times (April 2000) outlines the stakes involved in reporting medical errors. The authors found that the public is fearful of suffering a fatal medical error, and doctors are afraid they will be sued if they report an error.37 This brings up the obvious question: who is reporting medical errors? Usually it is the patient or the patient’s surviving family. If no one notices the error, it is never reported. Janet Heinrich, an associate director at the US General Accountability Office responsible for health financing and public health issues, testified before a House subcommittee hearing on medical errors that “the full magnitude of their threat to the American public is unknown” and “gathering valid and useful information about adverse events is extremely difficult.” She acknowledged that the fear of being blamed, and the potential for legal liability, played key roles in the underreporting of errors.
The Psychiatric Times noted that the AMA strongly opposes mandatory reporting of medical errors.38 If doctors are not reporting, what about nurses? A survey of nurses found that they also fail to report medical mistakes for fear of retaliation.39
Indeed, a 2008 study of the reporting practices of hospital personnel found that more than half of error reports came from “other hospital employees” that were not doctors or nurses. Doctors were more likely to report more severe adverse events, but their reports comprised only 1.1 percent of the total.40
No Improvement in Error Reporting
A 2003 survey is all the more distressing because there seemed to be no improvement in error reporting, even with all the attention given to this topic following the publication of Leape’s study and the Institute of Medicine’s widely-published “To Err is Human” report. Dr. Dorothea Wild surveyed medical residents at a community hospital in Connecticut and found that only half were aware that the hospital even had a medical error-reporting system, and that the vast majority did not use it at all. Dr. Wild says this does not bode well for the future. If doctors do not learn error reporting in their training, they will never use it. Wild adds that error reporting is the first step in locating the gaps in the medical system and fixing them.41
Peer-review error reporting systems can and do fail spectacularly, as was the case at Redding Medical Center from 1992 to 2002. A 2008 investigation revealed that the directors of the cardiology and cardiac surgery programs at the hospital completely blocked peer review in those programs, permitting at least 600 patients to undergo unnecessary bypass and valve surgery – procedures which caused hundreds of injuries and deaths. Redding’s unusually high rates of coronary bypass operations and catheterizations were known to both federal and state officials and even reported annually in the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, and outside physicians had filed seven complaints with the California Medical Board based on findings from patients mistreated at Redding Medical Center, yet it was not until a “skeptical heart patient” contacted the FBI independently that anyone bothered to investigate.
In their report to Congress on the Redding disaster, Drs. Gerald Rogan, Frank Sebat and Ian Grady denounced the hospital peer-review process and associated legal checks and balances as “so riddled with crippling flaws and the legislation governing the federal and state regulatory agencies so inadequate that prompt amendment of laws and regulations to protect the public is imperative.” Rogan and his colleagues claimed in their report that existing peer review processes actually penalize reviewers, who lose referrals (and trust) from colleagues they review negatively and may be blackballed by hospital administration if a doctor they review negatively is a strong revenue generator.
Analyzing the National Practitioner Data Bank, they found that peer review’s failure was so pervasive that moderate- and high-culpability physician events were eight times more likely to be reported through malpractice awards than through peer review actions! Lawsuits from damaged patients also greatly exceeded peer review reports.
The Redding committee recommended stricter penalties for peer review failures. “Government regulators rarely revoke a hospital’s license or provider status and have no intermediate penalties to tip the balance toward peer review. For peer review to work, the penalties for not doing it must exceed the benefits […] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services must impose penalties severe enough to ensure that peer review is not profitable to suppress,” they wrote. Other suggestions included independent and/or anonymous peer review, improving communication between agencies, and the establishment of a National Patient Safety Board – a suggestion Leape has also made.42
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reports that a 2004 study in Pediatrics discovered that most medical errors made by nurses and physicians treating children are never reported.43 44 Dr. John T. James, whose Patient Safety America advocates for expanded transparency and accountability in medical care, says the former president of the American Board of Medical Specialties personally told him that even patients themselves are only aware of 1% of the medical errors they suffer.45 Less than 5% of patients who die in hospitals are even autopsied – doctors worry they may reveal malpractice, insurers won’t pay for them, and hospitals are not even required to offer – let alone perform – them. As a result, patients regularly take diagnostic errors with them to the grave. A 2002 AHRQ review found one in four autopsies uncovered a major error – either in diagnosis or in underlying cause of death – and 10% revealed an error that could have caused the patient’s death.46
On February 17, 2008, Indiana University School of Medicine aired a revealing radio interview with Lauris Kaldjian, MD, PhD, of the Dept. of Internal Medicine and Program in Biomedical Ethics at the University of Iowa’s Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine.
“Let’s say you’re a doctor—a heart surgeon. And you make a mistake. Maybe you prescribe the wrong medicine.Maybe you cut something you’re not supposed to. And it might not be a big deal. But then again, it might. The question is: do you admit your mistake and report it to the higher ups?”Lauris Kaldjian directs the bioethics program at the University of Iowa. According to his recent study, the answer to that question is probably no. Most doctors he surveyed agree in theory that’s it’s a good thing to report medical errors. But few actually do it.47
Public Suggestions on Iatrogenesis
In a telephone survey conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, 1,207 adults ranked the effectiveness of the following measures in reducing preventable medical errors that result in serious harm. Following each measure is the percentage of respondents who ranked the measure as “very effective.”■ Giving doctors more time to spend with patients (78%)■ Requiring hospitals to develop systems to avoid medical errors (74%)■ Better training of health professionals (73%)■ Using only doctors specially trained in intensive care medicine on intensive care units (73%)■ Requiring hospitals to report all serious medical errors to a state agency (71%)■ Increasing the number of hospital nurses (69%)■ Reducing the work hours of doctors in training to avoid fatigue (66%)■ Encouraging hospitals to voluntarily report serious medical errors to a state agency (62%)48
Various initiatives are under way to address these problems. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 “was enacted in response to growing concern about patient safety in the United States. The goal of the Act is to improve patient safety by encouraging voluntary and confidential reporting of events that adversely affect patients.”49 The law created Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs) tasked with collecting and analyzing confidential information reported by healthcare providers – groups that provided legal privilege and confidentiality protection to any information aggregated for patient safety purposes. The AHRQ reported it had listed 81 organizations as PSOs by the end of 2014. 50
A new specialty in modern medicine that is developing in part from the focus on the need for improved quality of hospital care is Hospital Medicine. It trains physicians as “hospitalists” to devote themselves to the safety of hospital patients. These would be the doctors referred to above who are “specially trained in intensive care medicine on intensive care units.” These would also be the physicians who are there to relieve doctors in training, which would allow doctors’ shifts to be reduced in order to combat fatigue and reduce errors. In 2009, The American Board of Hospital Medicine (ABHM) was founded as the first board of certification for Hospital Medicine in North America. The specialized training of “hospitalists” and the increase in their future numbers may enable them to spend more time with patients, which appears to be a priority with the public. There are also campaigns to increase the number of hospital nurses and to educate them regarding hospital errors.
A systematic review of studies focusing on nurses’ error-reporting practices found that barriers to reporting included fear of being investigated or held responsible, negative reactions from the person in charge or peers, impacts on time and workload, and a lack of understanding regarding the benefits of reporting near-misses. Many studies have recommended the adoption of anonymous, uncomplicated, and efficient reporting systems that stress the reporting of near-misses in addition to errors that cause harm as a valuable tool in reducing iatrogenesis.51 52NOTES:
1 “American Health Care: Health Spending and the Federal Budget.” Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 16 May 2018. http://www.crfb.org/papers/american-health-care-health-spending-and-federal-budget2 Shafrin, J. “U.S. spends $700 billion on unnecessary medical tests.” Healthcare Economist. 7 November 2008. http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/11/07/us-spends-700-billion-on-unnecessary-medical-tests/3 Fox, Maggie. “Healthcare system wastes up to $800 billion a year.” Reuters. 26 Oct 2009. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-waste/healthcare-system-wastes-up-to-800-billion-a-year-idUSTRE59P0L3200910264 Nelson, Bryn. “Healthcare’s Main Contributors to Wasteful Spending.” The Hospitalist. Jun 2015. https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/122351/healthcares-main-contributors-wasteful-spending5 Berenson, A. and R. Abelson. “The Evidence Gap: Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan’s Look Inside the Heart.” New York Times. 29 Jun 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/business/29scan.html6 Konrad, Walecia. “More Americans are going without health insurance.” 4 May 2018. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-are-going-without-health-insurance/7 Berchick, Edward. “Most Uninsured Were Working-Age Adults.” US Census Bureau. 12 Sep 2018. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/who-are-the-uninsured.html8 Scott, Dylan. “Under Trump, the number of uninsured kids is suddenly rising.” Vox. 29 Nov 2018. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/29/18116371/uninsured-rate-children-health-insurance-medicaid-trump9 “Selected Characteristics of the Uninsured in the United States: Table S2702.” US Census Bureau. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk10 Konrad, Walecia. “More Americans are going without health insurance.” 4 May 2018. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-are-going-without-health-insurance/11 “Underinsured Rate Increased Sharply In 2016; More Than Two Of Five Marketplace Enrollees And A Quarter Of People With Employer Health Insurance Plans Are Now Underinsured.” Commonwealth Fund. 18 Oct 2017. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/press-release/2017/underinsured-rate-increased-sharply-2016-more-two-five-marketplace-enrollees-and12 Dodaro, Gene L. “Actions Needed to Mitigate Billions in Improper Payments and Program Integrity Risks.” Testimony before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, US Senate. US Government Accountability Office. 27 Jun 2018. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692821.pdf13 “Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice Return $2.6 Billion in Taxpayer Savings from Efforts to Fight Healthcare Fraud.” US Department of Health and Human Services. 6 Apr 2018. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018/04/06/hhs-and-department-justice-return-26-billion-taxpayer-savings-efforts-fight-healthcare-fraud.html14 Leape, L. L. 1994. Error in medicine. JAMA 272 (23):1851–7.15 Levinson, Daniel R. “Hospital Incident Reporting Systems Do Not Capture Most Patient Harm.” US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. Jan 2012. https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-09-00091.pdf16 Nuckols, Teryl K. “Incident Reporting: More Attention to the Safety Action Feedback Loop, Please.” Perspectives on Safety. Sep 2011. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/perspectives/perspective/108/Incident-Reporting-More-Attention-to-the-Safety-Action-Feedback-Loop-Please17 Classen, D.C. et.al. “Global Trigger Tool Shows That Adverse Events In Hospitals May Be Ten Times Greater Than Previously Measured.” Health Affairs. 2011:30(4):581-589. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a75a/54317e9c698fbfc8e2899cdb606bf047b8cc.pdf18 Leape, op.cit.19 Campbell, E. G., J. S. Weissman, B. Clarridge, R. Yucel, N. Causino, and D. Blumenthal. 2003. Characteristics of medical school faculty members serving on institutional review boards: results of a national survey. Acad Med 78 (8):831–6.20 138. HealthDayNews. Possible conflict of interest within medical profession. August 15, 2003.21 Campbell, E.G. et.al. “Industry Relationships Among Academic Institutional Review Board Members. Changes From 2005 Through 2014.” JAMA Internal Medicine. 2015;175(9):1500-1506. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/237517122 Harris, G. “F.D.A. Limits Role of Advisers Tied to Industry.” New York Times. 22 March 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washington/22fda.html23 Leape, op.cit.24 Brennan, T. A., L. L. Leape, N. M. Laird, L. Hebert, A. R. Localio, A. G. Lawthers, J. P. Newhouse, P.C. Weiler, and H. H. Hiatt. 1991. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 324 (6):370–6.25 Institute for Healthcare Improvement, NORC at the University of Chicago. “Americans’ Experiences with Medical Errors and Views on Patient Safety: Final Report.” Institute for Healthcare Improvement and NORC at the University of Chicago; 2017. http://www.ihi.org/about/news/Documents/IHI_NPSF_NORC_Patient_Safety_Survey_2017_Final_Report.pdf26 Weissman, JS et.al. “Comparing patient-reported hospital adverse events with medical record review: do patients know something that hospitals do not?” Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008 Jul 15;149(2):100-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1862604927 James, John T. “A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated with Hospital Care.” Journal of Patient Safety. Sep 2013;9(3):122-128. https://journals.lww.com/journalpatientsafety/Fulltext/2013/09000/A_New,_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.aspx28 Anderson, JG et.al. “Your Health Care May Kill You: Medical Errors.” Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2017;234:13-17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2818600829 James, op.cit30 Couture, B. et.al. “Towards Analytics of the Patient and Family Perspective: A Case Study and Recommendations for Data Capture of Safety and Quality Concerns.” AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings Archive. 2017;2017:615-624. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977637/31 ibid.32 “Legislative Goals.” Patient Safety America. http://patientsafetyamerica.com/legislative-goals/ Retrieved 25 Jan 2019.33 Kotulak, R. “Doctors’ haste seen hurting patient: study says the push for quick treatment detracts from care.” Chicago Tribune 10 May 2005. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-05-10-0505100152-story.html34 Leape, L. L. 1994. Error in medicine. JAMA 272 (23):1851–7.35 Vincent, C., N. Stanhope and M. Crowley-Murphy. “Reasons for not reporting adverse incidents: an empirical study.” J Eval Clin Pract. 1999 Feb;5(1):13–21.36 148. Wald, H., Shojania, K.G. Incident reporting. In: Shojania, K.G., Duncan, B.W., McDonald, K.M., et al, eds. Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2001:chapter 4. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 43. AHRQ publication 01-E058.37 Grinfeld, M.J. “The debate over medical error reporting.” Psychiatric Times. April 2000.38 ibid.39 King, G. III, A. Hermodson. 2000. Peer reporting of coworker wrongdoing: a qualitative analysis of observer attitudes in the decision to report versus not report unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research (28), 309–29.40 Rowin, EJ et.al. “Does error and adverse event reporting by physicians and nurses differ?” Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1879265841 Stenson, J. “Few residents report medical errors, survey finds.” Reuters Health. 21 February 2003.42 Rogan, G.N. et.al. “How Peer Review Failed at Redding Medical Center, Why It Is Failing Across the Country, and What Can Be Done About It.” Alliance for Patient Safety. 1 Jun 2008. http://www.allianceforpatientsafety.org/redding-failure.pdf43 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “Underreporting of medical errors affecting children is a significant problem, particularly among physicians.” http://www.ahrq.gov/research/dec04/1204RA7.htm (accessed January 29, 2009)44 Taylor, J.A., D. Brownstein, D.A. Christakis, S. Blackburn, T.P. Strandjord, E.J. Klein and J. Shafii. Use of incident reports by physicians and nurses to document medical errors in pediatric patients. Pediatrics 114(3):Sept 2004, pp. 729–735; http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/114/3/729 (accessed January 29, 2009)45 “The Truth About Healthcare.” Patient Safety America. http://patientsafetyamerica.com/truth-about-healthcare/ Retrieved 25 Jan 2019.46 Allen, Marshall. “Without Autopsies, Hospitals Bury Their Mistakes.” ProPublica. 15 Dec 2011. https://www.propublica.org/article/without-autopsies-hospitals-bury-their-mistakes47 Indiana University School of Medicine, WFYI 90.1 FM radio program, “Doctors Don’t Report Medical Errors,” interview with Lauris Kaldjian, M.D., Ph.D. on “Sound Medicine Checkup,” aired 17 February 2008. http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/segment.php4?seg=1522 (accessed January 28, 2009).48 “4 in 10 of Public, More than One-Third of Physicians Say They Have Personally Experienced Medical Errors.” Harvard School of Public Health. 11 Dec 2002. http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/press-releases/archives/2002-releases/press12112002.html49 159. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005. Overview, June 2008. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http:// www.ahrq.gov/qual/psoact.htm (accessed January 29, 2009).50 “Patient Safety Organizations: A Summary of 2014 Profiles.” Network of Patient Safety Databases. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.pso.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/npsd_portfolios-summary-profile-2014.pdf Retrieved 25 Jan 201951 Vrbnjak, Dominika et.al. “Barriers to reporting medication errors and near misses among nurses: A systematic review.” International Journal of Nursing Studies. Nov 2016;63:162-178.52 Koohestani, H.R. et.al. “Barriers to the reporting of medication administration errors among nursing students.” Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing. Sep 2009;27(1):66-74. http://ajan.com.au/Vol27/Koohestani.pdf

The Gary Null Show - 2.04.19

VITAMIN C, The Universal Necessary Nutrient
VITAMIN C, The Universal Necessary Nutrient
By Gary Null
Wikipedia claims that a role for vitamin C as prevention or treatment for various diseases is disputed, with reviews reporting conflicting results. On the contrary, it is my opinion that vitamin C is the universal necessary nutrient. Go back to 1747, when a British naval surgeon named James Lind offered citrus fruit to 12 men suffering from scurvy on the HMS Salisbury. For the first time, men recovered. Historically, it was frequently fatal, especially for those who were at sea for months at a time where there were no fresh fruits or vegetables and they were vitamin C deficient. To everyone’s surprise, all 12 men recovered quickly. It would not be for another 50 years in 1795 when a British physician, Gilbert Blane, argued to the admiralty that they must now include citrus juice as a part of the daily ration on every British ship. And once again, to everyone’s surprise, the scurvy scourge vanished.
But it was not ‘til 1932 that a respected British chemist named Walter Haworth was able to identify the molecular structure of hexuronic acid, an organic reducing agent found in plants and animal tissue. He named it ascorbic acid.  Today it is known as simply vitamin C. However, at the same time that Haworth was identifying vitamin C, independent of him, Albert Szent Gyorgyi discovered vitamin C. The next year, the Swiss laboratory synthesized ascorbic acid identical to vitamin C and it began to be produced in the general population in 1935. In 1937, in honor of the two great scientists’ work on vitamin C, they both received the Nobel Prize: Albert Szent Gyorgyi for discovering vitamin C and Haworth for his work with vitamin C and carbohydrates.
In 1970, Linus Pauling’s publication of “Vitamin C and the Common Cold” became a bestseller. It was he, a highly respected scientist who had won two unshared Nobel Prizes, who’d published in hundreds of peer reviewed journals in chemistry, who stated that we needed a minimum of 3 grams or 3000 mg a day of vitamin C in order to prevent the common cold. It was at this time also that Linus Pauling met a Canadian physician, Dr. Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD. Hoffer had been working with vitamins and helping people with schizophrenia and had published the first work showing that high levels of vitamin C could help people with schizophrenia. He then met with Linus Pauling and that was the beginning of what would come to be known as the orthomolecular medicine movement. In 1971, Linus Pauling began work with Dr. Ewen Cameron, a respected Scottish physician and scientist who was using intravenous vitamin C to treat terminal cancer patients. He was not using high doses, 10,000mg, but they were getting positive results. They did not cure anyone, but they substantially prolonged the life and lessened suffering while improving quality of life.
For a nearly 4-year period, from 1974 to 1979, Pauling was using experimental doses to study the anti-oxidants and oxygen quenching properties of vitamin C in vitro. in 1979, Dr. Lester Packer was the first to note the free radical reaction between vitamin E and vitamin C – hence the idea that many supplements should be taken together because synergistically they have a greater impact than taking either substance alone.
In the early 1980s, the Mayo Clinic conducted studies with the intent of discrediting Pauling’s cancer findings. However, it was not an accurate study. It did not follow Pauling’s protocol. The Mayo Clinic used oral supplements, not intravenous; also, the controls in the Mayo study were taking vitamin C supplements as well as other substances. In addition, Pauling personally called me and told me this study was a fraud because it was much too short. In fact, he came on my radio program in the early 1970s to discuss that he had increased the amount to 18,000 mg per day orally if you had a cold, the flu, or cancer.
In 1988, the National Cancer Institute recognized the inverse relationship between vitamin C intake and various forms of cancer and issued guidelines to increase vitamin C in the diet. Then, in 1989, the recommended daily allowance of 60mg for the average healthy adult was established. This was the first RDA to take into account the importance of environment and lifestyle factors in establishing the need for a vitamin. In the late 1980s, Linus Pauling found the role of vitamin C along with lysine to prevent atherosclerosis and relieve angina pectoris. That became known as the Pauling therapy for treating heart disease. In 2007, there was the discovery of the previously undiscovered enzyme associated with the vitamin C production pathway. From my own experience, I developed what I called the laws of compensation, which meant to the degree you have any physical or mental imbalance, trauma, virus, bacteria, parasite, or any other pathogen – nutritional deficiency, genetic predisposition, illness – you must exceed the level of that imbalance in order to correct it. So I began to encourage the people I was working with on a daily basis (starting as early as 1968) to take 10,000mg in divided doses of a buffered vitamin C.
In the mid to late 1970s, I was communicating with a physician who was using high dose vitamin C – Dr. Frederic Kleener. He was working with the full spectrum of diseases and he was getting remarkable results that he had not previously been able to get in his career using just standard orthodox therapies. He was using up to 50,000mg intravenous, once or twice a week. I then began to help people working with a very popular gay physician, Dr. Steven Caazi. In the early to mid 1970s, he was treating gay men who were showing gastrointestinal challenges. He was not sure how to help them and that’s when he called me; I worked for 300 to 400 of these individuals and was able in the vast majority of cases to reverse their conditions. Later, these same symptoms would be called AIDS. Over a 10 year period, from 1974 to 1984, we worked together on a weekly basis. Then I began to work with the first AIDS patients – I worked with a total of 1200. I saw normal and even higher amounts of vitamin C wasn’t making a difference, but the moment they were taking glutathione, B12, and very high doses of vitamin C, and then supplementing with a very strong cleansing, immune-enhancing, detoxifying diet, their conditions improved tremendously.
I had them coming in six days a week. They started out with a lower amount and over a period of months got up to 200,000 mg this is the same protocol our medical team had used to reduce or improve breast cancer, ovarian cancer, occluded arteries, and lots of different herbs and juices and lots of vitamin C we had the best improvement in the world that I know of when it comes to working with aids patients. People who volunteered were not charged for their treatment at the Tri-State Healing Center. Eight people said they’d do the full protocol – they came six days a week for about 16 months and we were able to completely reverse their HIV status, from positive to negative. All their AIDS-defining illnesses were eliminated – Kaposi’s sarcoma, thrush, pneumocystis pneumonia, all these conditions reversed.
Our success was such that we held a massive press conference with hundreds of doctors, scientists and patients. No press came. It was as if there as a fear that if we were getting people healthy who had full blown AIDS that somehow we would challenge them financially and we weren’t doing this for any money. During this period of time, a Robert Cathcart from California had principally people with AIDS-defining illnesses and he had read an article in the Townsend letter that I’d written about natural approaches to treating AIDS giving specific case histories. He spent a week interviewing hundreds of people at the Tri State Healing Center. He went home and began administering 50,000mg, and his patients stopped dying of pneumocystis pneumonia.
All eight people whose AIDS I was able to reverse were interviewed by Bill Tatum, publisher of the Amsterdam News, and individuals such as Stokely Carmichael, Arthur Ashe, and dozens of African American physicians and scientists who would come to the center and interview people with AIDS and review their medical records to see their progress over the years – from full blown disease to complete cure. So where the natural and no- toxic approach to treating AIDS was well-known within the African American community, it was absolutely blacklisted within the Caucasian community. The politics and profiteering of the AIDS epidemic has never to this day been exposed, and it should be.
Linus Pauling was ridiculed and vilified by the medical establishment. In private conversations with me at the Institute of Applied Biology where I was a research fellow for 33 years in anti-aging medicine, nutrition and lifestyle and he told me he could not believe how powerful the pharmaceutical industry and the medical-industrial complex were in preventing quality information from being disseminated. He told me they acted more like organized crime than the healing profession. He was saddened. But he was a realist. It was because of Linus Pauling that many of the doctors who were not succeeding as they’d hoped began to use vitamin C in treating their patients.
The people who are the most critical of vitamin C would have you think there is no evidence supporting its usage. For those of us who are seeing patients, conducting studies, publishing peer-reviewed literature, and respecting the outstanding contributions of thousands of researchers to the peer-reviewed literature, we have one statement. Until such time as you do your own homework and save lives, being an uneducated misinformed ideologically-minded skeptic should not hold the same weight as the 61,707 studies that are published in the government’s own medical database.
Just a few of the conditions that benefit from vitamin C treatment include Pneumonia, Encephalitis, Shingles, Herpes, Mononucleosis, Pancreatitis, Hepatitis, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Bladder Infection, Alcoholism, Arthritis, Some Cancers, Leukemia, Atherosclerosis, Ruptured Intervertebral Disc, High Cholesterol, Corneal Ulcer, Diabetes, Glaucoma, Schizophrenia, Burns and secondary infections, Heat Stroke, Radiation Burns, Heavy Metal Poisoning (Mercury, Lead), Venomous Bites (insects, snakes), Multiple Sclerosis, and Chronic Fatigue.

The Gary Null Show - 2.01.19

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

The Gary Null Show - 1.31.19

Energy psychology and why skeptics and wikipedia hate it so
Rick Leskowitz, MD is a board certified psychiatrist specializing in energy psychology and pain management. He practiced at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital in Boston that advocates a body-mind-spirit approach. He was also an instructor in the Department of Psychiatry of Harvard Medical School where he directed the hospital’s Integrative Medicine Task Force and he held appointments at Tufts Medical School. Over the years Rick has organized several conferences on the topic of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in rehabilitation.  After traveling through India in the mid-1970s, he became interested in subtle energy and its relationships to anatomy, health and mental well being, as well as the benefits of meditation and spiritual practice. This led Rick to becoming one of the leaders in energy psychology. And he is the author of "Sports, Energy and Consciousness" (co-written with Ken Wilber) and "Transpersonal Hypotherapy: Gateway to Body, Mind and Spirit." 

The Gary Null Show - 1.30.19

Part 2: Autism, Made in the USA: the Undeniable Connection Between Vaccines and Autism Spectrum Disorder
Autism, Made in the USA: the Undeniable Connection Between Vaccines and Autism Spectrum Disorder
By Gary Null and Helen Buyniski
 
Millions of parents believed that vaccines were safe and trusted that they were effective in protecting their children from various communicable illnesses. As a result, they willingly took their children to the doctor’s office time and time again to receive the full range of vaccines. The doctors, nurses and pharmacists proffering these vaccines also believed in their safety and efficacy – after all, scientists in the federal agencies comprising the US public health service, including the FDA and CDC, had decades of experience working hand in hand with pharmaceutical companies and their scientists to make sure that vaccines were safe and effective. The idea that autism or any other brain abnormality could result from the vaccines was considered anathema – simply not possible. Worse still, those people considered anti-vaccine advocates were irresponsible and uneducated shrills who had no peer review-quality science to support their impudent questioning of the safety or efficacy of vaccines. However, 10 physicians and scientists spending approximately 15,000 hours reviewing in detail every scientific study available on vaccine safety and efficacy have found that contrary to accepted wisdom, there is absolutely a connection between vaccines and brain damage, including autism spectrum disorder. The issue is no longer based upon science – it is based upon ideology, economics, and politics.
What follows are actual studies from the peer reviewed literature that were not publicized in the mainstream media and not discussed in any government committees proving the lack of safety and efficacy of these vaccines and their impact upon children’s brains. Our information is not based on politics, profits, or proprietary interests but instead represents one of the most scandalous public health debacles since the Tuskegee experiment. This should not happen – ever. But it has, due to the enormous power and influence that special interest groups, pharmaceutical companies, and their vaccine divisions have within the federal agencies; their control over the stories the media presents, which leads to enormous bias from journalists and medical magazines, and what is taught to physicians, nurses and pharmacists. We’re concerned that we are inundated with propaganda. And what about the “believe all women” movement? Why hasn’t this movement believed more than 2 million mothers who say they saw completely normal development in a child reverse following a vaccine, who saw their children regressing into autism spectrum disorder? We will present the case that indeed there is a connection between vaccines and autism and it’s in the government’s own files. It’s in the government library of medicine a hundred times over. This conclusion comes from independent investigations and respected institutions. Additionally, we will show you the dark side of science, the corruption of ethics at the CDC and the FDA. We will inform you of the Thompson cover-up at the CDC, as well as the Verstraeten collusion in the secret enclave in Georgia that was uncovered by Robert F Kennedy Jr. We have pulled together all these strands to prove our point, and everything we say is fully documented and footnoted.
While researching the controversial link between vaccines and autism – which despite repeated dismissal by all public health authorities continued to persist among parents and in-the-know doctors as autism rates skyrocketed, public health advocate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stumbled upon a massive coverup that had taken place in June 2000 in Norcross, Georgia.  The Simpsonwood conference – officially the Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information – included top scientists and health officials from the FDA, the CDC, the British health ministry, and pharmaceutical industry execs, all gathered to discuss the results of a major study evaluating the negative effects of thimerosal, a commonly-used mercury-based preservative used in vaccines. CDC epidemiologist Dr. Tom Verstraeten presented his findings to the assembled luminaries, concluding, “the screening analysis suggests a possible association between certain neurologic  developmental disorders. Namely Tics, attention deficit disorder, speech and language disorders and exposure to mercury from Thimerosal containing vaccines before the age of six months.”1 The transcript Kennedy unearthed through a Freedom of Information Act request bears witness to the mild panic that set in among the audience after Dr. Verstraeten dropped that bomb – they speak over one another with questions, try to minimize the results, and WHO director John Clements even expresses result that the study was conducted at all – since “the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted…I know how we handle it from here is extremely problematic.” While the doctors agree the matter merits further investigation, and even admit it raises “some perhaps disquieting possibilities,” they agree to “embargo” the information until a meeting scheduled for later that month – and then never released it at all. Verstraeten’s study wasn’t even published until 2003, after the conclusion had been rewritten from
“This analysis suggests that high exposure to ethyl mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines in the first month of life increases the risk of subsequent development of neurologic development impairment, but not of neurologic degenerative or renal impairment. Further confirmatory studies are needed.” 2
to
“No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed.” 3
This was his fourth attempt to conduct the study to produce the desired data after the first three had stubbornly showed the correlation he was trying to disprove. After firing off a despairing email to a colleague (“I do not wish to be the advocate of the anti-vaccine lobby and sound like being convinced that thimerosal is or was harmful, but at least I feel we should use sound scientific argumentation and not let our standards be dictated by our desire to disprove an unpleasant theory”), Verstraeten was able to tweak the results by adding patient data from an HMO with younger patients, different diagnosis codes, and dubious recordkeeping thanks to a recent state takeover. It was enough to obfuscate the damning results of the first three “phases” and render the original study meaningless (and therefore publication-worthy). Problem solved! If only it weren’t for that meddling Kennedy…4
It’s worth noting that Dr. Johnson expresses reservations at having his newborn grandson vaccinated with a thimerosal-containing vaccine, but has no such concern for the rest of the country, whose children were injected with toxic mercury for a full two years after he learned of the connection between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders. Worse, while the drug companies that manufactured the thimerosal-containing vaccines offered to remove the offending substance in September 1999, the CDC declined their offer,5 instead waiting until all thimerosal-containing vaccine lots expired in 2002 to officially end its use – lest they lose a few dollars by having to throw away already-purchased doses.6
Kennedy published his Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak in 2014, collecting 400 peer-reviewed studies on the toxic mercury-based preservative. By that time, the number of vaccines that contain the toxic mercury-based preservative had dwindled, reduced to multi-dose flu vaccines, largely due to public protest (the CDC still mandates that dosing children with mercury is safe). Yet the vaccines that still contain thimerosal are regularly administered to pregnant women – posing an even greater threat to the fetus than they did to the newborn child. The FDA warns pregnant women to limit their consumption of tuna fish because of high mercury levels, but sees no contradiction in pushing flu shots on the same women. Eli Lilly itself – manufacturer of thimerosal – called it a neurotoxin and warned maternal exposure could result in “fetal changes” and mercury poisoning, while exposure in children could cause “mild to severe mental retardation.”7 Yet parents are targeted with a barrage of propaganda every year in an effort to shame them into bringing their children in for the flu shot, a vaccine even the CDC admits doesn’t work.8
A 2006 study by Patterson et.al. actually links the development of neurodevelopmental disorders (including autism) to “maternal immune activation,” which would suggest that pregnancy is the worst time to get vaccinated9 – especially with a flu shot that as often as not causes the flu it’s supposed to prevent.10 Patterson confirmed that conclusion in an article that accompanied the study’s publication, warning that “universal vaccination of pregnant women could get us into a whole new set of problems.” A 2012 study confirmed those findings – yet the CDC continues to recommend delivering a double-whammy of embryotoxic mercury and maternal inflammatory activity to helpless fetuses as a matter of policy – “for their own good.”11
The discontinuation of thimerosal and its failure to halt the rise in autism diagnoses (now 1 in 45, according to the CDC12) have been used against vaccine awareness advocates to claim that there was never any link – that not only was the mercury preservative actually safe, but that no other ingredient could be responsible for triggering the condition either. Yet a quick rundown of the ingredients on many vaccines – aluminum adjuvant, formaldehyde, and chicken embryos – is enough to set off alarm bells, and their sheer number – more than 40 on the current CDC schedule13 – seems excessive even to the most trusting among us.
The aluminum compounds used as adjuvants in vaccines are selected for their immune-system-stimulating effects despite known neurotoxicity and a preponderance of evidence that they cause brain inflammation and other autoimmune symptoms. Dr. Roman Gherardi has found that aluminum is extremely biopersistent and that far from remaining localized at the site of injection, aluminum adjuvant is taken up in the bloodstream and travels all over the body, building up in the brain over the course of years of vaccinations instead of being quickly eliminated as vaccine apologists claim.14 A 2018 study by Mold et.al. found “some of the highest values for aluminum in human brain tissue yet recorded” in the teenage autistic patients the researchers examined – rates 10 times higher than what would be expected in an adult, let alone a child. The location of the aluminum within the brain also suggested it had traveled there via immune pathways, appearing in inflammatory non-neuronal cells called microglia.  The researchers concluded this unusual distribution was a “standout observation” in autistic brain tissue and likely played a role in the development of the disorder.15
Drs. Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw have studied aluminum in vaccines extensively. In a 2011 study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, their team found a significant correlation between exposure to aluminum in vaccines and prevalence of autism spectrum disorder. Applying a statistical measure used to assess the causation inherent in a correlation, they were able to confirm that “the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal.”16 In a comprehensive overview of the literature on aluminum adjuvants, Tomljenovic and Shaw bring together studies confirming these molecules are not only neurotoxic but also endocrine disruptors, genotoxins, immunotoxins, and pro-inflammatories; they also interfere with glucose metabolism, membrane receptor signaling, mitochondrial function and ATP energy transfer, among other homeostatic functions.17 While aluminum’s environmental ubiquity is a source of harms on its own, the body is able to excrete much of what it consumes through food and drink. When injected, however, the human brain doesn’t stand a chance: dozens of studies have confirmed that aluminum adjuvant particles can cross the blood-brain barrier, triggering a devastating inflammatory response in brain tissue. During infancy and childhood, the blood-brain barrier is at its most permeable, rendering the administration of adjuvant-containing vaccines especially destructive. Vargas et.al. published a paper on the link between microglial activation and autism in 2004, demonstrating that autistic patients suffered from lifelong low-level immunoexcitation of the brain, in a study that has been replicated many times.18
A 2017 study by Crépeaux et.al. required a wholesale reevaluation of everything we know about aluminum adjuvants. The researchers found, counterintuitively, that it was actually the smallest doses of the adjuvant Alhydrogel (brand name for aluminum oxyhydroxide, the most common adjuvant used in vaccines) that produced the worst neurotoxic effects. Higher doses were seen to trigger the formulation of protective “granulomas” – a function of the body’s natural immune defenses against hostile foreign intruders – but in small doses the aluminum nanoparticles were taken up by monocytes (white blood cells) as part of the immune response to the vaccine, riding those cells all the way to the brain. The low-dose subjects were those who displayed marked neurobehavioral deterioration.19
No studies were ever conducted to evaluate the safety of aluminum adjuvants before drugmakers decided to use them in vaccines – indeed, the FDA’s ceiling on how much aluminum a vaccine can contain is based on the substance’s efficacy in enhancing the vaccine’s antigenicity, not how it is tolerated in the body. The mechanism by which aluminum acts as an immune adjuvant is poorly understood,20 yet its use is considered safe beyond question as a matter of faith, even though the CDC limits aluminum in parenteral feeding solutions for safety reasons.21 With a vaccine schedule that only expands, never contracts, children today are injected with many times the aluminum load of children 30 years ago, and the weight of the evidence that this substance is toxic cannot be ignored.
A study published in 2018 points to fluoride as another possible trigger for the immunoexcitotoxicity that has been indisputably linked to autism. Strunecka et.al. discovered that the synergistic effects of aluminum and fluoride exposure resulted in far worse inflammation in neural tissue than aluminum or fluoride alone. Worse, the combination of the two neurotoxins has a marked effect on cell signaling, nervous system function, and neurodevelopment when present in lower concentrations than either substance alone. Because the US is one of the dwindling number of countries that persists in adding the industrial byproduct fluoride to its drinking water despite the overwhelming burden of scientific proof of its negative health effects, most children exposed to excessive aluminum through their vaccination schedules are also consuming excessive fluoride – doubly dangerous in conjunction with the biopersistent adjuvant.22
The CDC knows aluminum adjuvants are as toxic and damaging as thimerosal and has exploited this knowledge in the studies it has conducted to “prove” vaccines have no connection to autism. The agency’s scientists administer a “placebo” to the control group that still contains the deadly adjuvant, ensuring they too will be poisoned and thus not differ noticeably in autism rates from the active-vaccine group. At this point, with so many papers in the peer-reviewed literature proving the neurotoxicity of aluminum adjuvants, such a “mistake” in research methodology can only be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the reality.23 To administer an inert placebo would be to open up the trial to the possibility of meaningful results, a mistake they vowed never to make again at Simpsonwood.
The indictment of aluminum adjuvants should have been complete with a 2015 Chinese study published in the Journal of Neuroimmunology. The study compared three groups – one receiving a tuberculosis vaccine that contained no aluminum adjuvant; one receiving the aluminum-containing hepatitis B vaccine typically given to babies on their first day outside the womb; and one control group. The hepatitis B group manifested heightened levels of IL-6, the cytokine marker for autism, and impeded synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus, a brain area particularly sensitive to the effects of neuroinflammation. The tuberculosis group showed lower levels of IL-6 and increased synaptic plasticity.24  The study seems to confirm that it is not the vaccines as such that have caused such a devastating increase in neurodevelopmental disorders, but medical authorities’ refusal to address the presence of a neurotoxic adjuvant in one of their most lucrative products.  
Japan discontinued the MMR vaccine in 1993, four years after imposing it on its citizens on a mandatory basis. The rate of adverse events – including meningitis, limb loss, and death – was 2,000 times higher than expected, and the shot was pulled after doctors confirmed it had entered at least one child’s nervous system and probably at least three. Japan, not coincidentally, has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.25 Meanwhile, in the US, California has now mandated child vaccination, and several other states have proposed similar compulsory-vaccination laws while their constituents are bombarded with news stories playing up every measles case as the new bubonic plague. The Idaho Department of Health public information officer Tom Shanahan expressed his regret that his state was unlikely to pass such a measure, complaining to Reuters that in Idaho, “there’s a pretty strong culture of individual rights.”26
In the ongoing debate over the link between vaccines and autism, pediatric neurologist Andrew Zimmerman is the latest pro-vaccine figure to publicly defect, allowing the release of 12-year-old court proceedings in which he testified that vaccines can, in fact, cause autism. In the sworn affidavit, Zimmerman told Department of Justice lawyers with whom he was working to defend vaccines against thousands of claims that he’d “discovered exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism.” Citing his own experiences with vaccine-damaged and autistic patients, as well as “scientific advances,” Zimmerman told the court that “in a subset of children, vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation did cause regressive brain disease with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
His timing couldn’t have been more disastrous for the vaccine-industrial complex. Not only did it throw a monkeywrench into the case in which he was serving as an expert witness – cases, to be more accurate, as a cluster of 5,000 vaccine-autism cases were being heard in the vaccine court on June 15,2007 – but as the CDC’s expert witness, his word carried serious gravity and would have opened a Pandora’s box of legal action.
It’s not surprising, then, that Zimmerman’s testimony was covered up for almost 12 years. He was promptly fired, and DoJ attorneys spoke for him in court, describing his position in terms he calls “highly misleading” by claiming there was zero evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. certainly thought it was more than misleading, calling the substitution “one of the most consequential frauds, arguably in human history” and filing a fraud complaint with the DOJ’s Inspector General against the attorneys who covered up his explosive admission.27 But the DoJ attorney who lied to the court is no longer with the department, and to look at the CDC’s website, Zimmerman may as well not have existed – nor anyone like him, or like the children he has studied. His testimony and work have been memory holed, and the CDC categorically denies any and all allegations that vaccines could influence or contribute to – let alone trigger or cause – the development of autism.
Had investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson not surfaced his testimony in her explosive report on the “vaccine debate” earlier this month, weaving another scrap of evidence into what has become a very convincing tapestry, perhaps no one would have heard of it at all. Attkisson has doggedly pursued the vaccine-autism story for over a decade, speaking to whistleblowers, activists, parents, and others affected by the epidemic and refusing to shy away from the topic despite personal repercussions that would dissuade many lesser reporters. Hacked by the government, smeared on Wikipedia, and demonized in anti-“antivaxxer” blogs, she persists in illuminating the dark corners of power.
It is almost a truism at this point to say that the pharmaceutical lobby has Congress and the CDC in its pockets, but congressional lawmakers and their staffers interviewed on the program agree. Rep. Dan Burton, who attempted to investigate vaccines in the early 2000s, and his staffers told Attkisson about the coordinated bullying and intimidation they faced by pharmaceutical lobbyists who “put money everywhere” to ensure no obstacles stood in their profit path, while former Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon confirms that “if you as an individual member [of Congress] want to take on the pharmaceutical industry, it’s ‘forget it.’” The institutional stonewalling has not shaken his faith in the need for an investigation into vaccine safety, and he is certain that “some children can get an autism spectrum disorder from a vaccine.”
Perhaps weighed down by troubled consciences, or merely encouraged by the rising tide of similar revelations, many formerly pro-vaccine insiders have gone on the record to admit that decades of parental suspicions have been justified. Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former director of the National Institutes of Health who died in 2011, admitted in 2008 that she thought the government was “too quick” to dismiss the concerns of the families of vaccine-injured children “without sufficient studies of causation.” Healy told Attkisson about a 2004 Institute of Medicine report that “basically said, ‘Do not pursue susceptibility groups, don’t look for those patients whose children who may be vulnerable.” Confirming the suspicions of every vaccine choice advocate, Healy admitted “the reason why they didn’t want to look for those susceptibility groups is because they are afraid is that if they found them, however big or small they were, that that would scare the public away.” As for the link between vaccines and autism, she said, “the question has not been answered.”28
Thanks to the widely-seen film Vaxxed, the most well-known (and perhaps controversial) whistleblower remains Dr. William Thompson, the senior CDC scientist who leaked thousands of pages of internal documents to Rep. Bill Posey suggesting that the agency lied about links between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders and links between the MMR vaccine and autism – particularly in black males. The latter link – discovered in November 2001 – was memory-holed, according to a conversation between Thompson and researcher Brian Hooker, with evidential data destroyed the following year, facts Thompson confirmed via affidavit to Posey. When Thompson tried to alert then-CDC director Dr. Julie Geberding of the unpublished findings in 2004, he was replaced with Dr. Frank DeStefano and threatened with termination for “insubordination.” When he tried to leave before they could fire him, they instead paid him a “retention bonus,” which he saw as an attempt to purchase his silence. Two papers Thompson subsequently published connecting thimerosal in vaccines to “tics” in boys were eviscerated before publication, with a 2012 study withheld from publication until he removed the tic data – even though that was the study’s only conclusive result.29 His conversation with Hooker has been attacked by pharmaceutical advocates who claim he didn’t actually expose any wrongdoing but fail to explain why he would have felt it necessary to leak thousands of pages of documents to a sympathetic congressman if he was just discussing business as usual at the CDC.
DeStefano himself acknowledged the possibility that vaccines might play a role in triggering some children’s autism in 2014, choosing his words very carefully in an interview with – once again – Sharyl Attkisson. “It’s hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, individual cases can be studied…” he said, the absence of a blanket denial speaking volumes.30 To conduct such a study would be professional suicide, of course, which is probably why none have been attempted, but the records of the vaccine court itself – which has paid over $4 billion since its launch in 1988 to indemnify vaccine producers against the inevitable lawsuits from parents whose kids went to the doctor healthy and came home irreversibly damaged31 – speak for themselves. Using the less-radioactive term “encephalopathy,” vaccine court records show some children whose autism onset immediately followed vaccination had preexisting conditions that could render them susceptible to negative effects, including mitochondrial disorders and Tuberous Sclerosis, and the connection between vaccines, these conditions, and autism has been officially acknowledged in multiple cases.
When the government settled the historic case of Hannah Poling in 2010, paying out $1.5 million plus yearly payments that could amount to $20 million over the course of her life after Poling became autistic following a nine-shot vaccination visit, they qualified their seeming admission of guilt by stating that Poling had an underlying mitochondrial disorder that made her vulnerable to vaccine damage and “resulted” in her autism. Hers was the first courtroom admission of any vaccine role in the development of autism, and opened the door to the 4,800 autism cases then awaiting deposition in vaccine court.32 So – of course – they sealed the case. It leaked out anyway, complete with diagnosis of vaccine-related “autistic encephalopathy,” and complete with Zimmerman’s opinion: he had “personally witnessed [Poling’s] developmental regression” after “vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation.” They may not have “caused” her autism – he wouldn’t go that far – but they certainly “triggered” it.33
It wasn’t the first financial award to the family of an autistic child that admitted some culpability – that was paid out in the first year of the vaccine court’s existence. In 1986, the court ruled a child’s seizures – a result of Tuberous Sclerosis – were triggered by the DPT vaccine, resulting in his mental retardation and autism. They did not admit the vaccine was entirely to blame, but acknowledged that it was a triggering factor in worsening his prognosis, since the age of seizure onset is directly related to quality of life for individuals with TS.34 These cases have quietly piled up among the millions, many likely saddled with gag orders that prevent parents from speaking up about their experience.
No matter how many whistleblowers go on the record, how many books and articles investigators like Attkisson and Kennedy publish, the CDC have repeatedly held their hands over their ears and screamed at the top of their lungs that they know of no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism, and to study such a thing would be a preposterous waste of time. Aiding and abetting their denial has been the FDA, too busy signing off on untested, unsafe drugs to care about the effects of those it has already approved; and the government itself, confident that money will always oil the wheels of justice.
 
NOTES
 
1 Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information (transcript). 7-8 Jun 2000. http://thinktwice.com/simpsonwood.pdf Retrieved 18 Jan 2019
2 Verstraeten, TM et.al. “Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine in first month of life.” (original abstract submission). 1999. http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/00mmdd_EISAbstractSubmission_IncreasedRiskOfDevelopmentalNeurologicImpairmentAfterHighExposureToThimerosal-containingVaccine_.pdf Retrieved 18 Jan 2019.
3 Verstraeten, TM et.al. “Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases.” Pediatrics. 2003 Nov;112(5):1039-48. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14595043
4 Hooker, Brian et.al. “Methodological Issues and Evidence of Malfeasance in Research Purporting to Show Thimerosal in Vaccines Is Safe.” BioMed Research International. 2014; Article ID 247218. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/247218/
5 Chapter II: 1999-2000: Simpsonwood. Put Children First. http://putchildrenfirst.org/chapter2.html Retrieved 18 Jan 2019.
6 Hurley, AM et.al. “Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Autism: A Review of Recent Epidemiologic Studies.” Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2010 Jul-Sep; 15(3):173-181. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018252/
7 Keim, Brandon. “Thimerosal removal from vaccines: the right move despite new study.” Wired. 27 Sep 2007. https://www.wired.com/2007/09/vaccine-experts/
8  Welch, Ashley. “This year’s flu vaccine may only be 10% effective, experts warn.” CBS News. 5 Dec 2017. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/this-years-flu-vaccine-may-only-be-10-effective-experts-warn/
9 Smith, SE et.al. “Maternal immune activation alters fetal brain development through interleukin-6.” Journal of Neuroscience. 2007 Oct 3;27(40):10695-702. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17913903
10 Magalhaes, Isabelle et.al. “Difference in immune response in vaccinated and unvaccinated Swedish individuals after the 2009 influenza pandemic.” BMC Infectious Diseases. 2014;14:319. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067073/
11 Malkova, NV et.al. “Maternal immune activation yields offspring displaying mouse versions of the three core symptoms of autism.” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 2012 May;26(4):607-16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22310922
12 Cha, Ariana Eunjung. “7 things about vaccines and autism that the movie ‘Vaxxed’ won’t tell you.” Washington Post. 25 May 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/25/7-things-about-vaccines-and-autism-that-the-movie-vaxxed-wont-tell-you/
13 Recommended Immunization Schedule for Children and Adolescents Aged 18 Years or Younger, United States, 2018. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent-compliant.html Retrieved 18 Jan 2019.
14 Gherardi, RK et.al. “Macrophagic myofasciitis: characterization and pathophysiology.” Lupus. 2012 Feb;21(2):184-189. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3623725/
15 Mold, Matthew et.al. “Aluminium in brain tissue in autism.” Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. 2018 Mar;46:76-82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763
16 Tomljenovic, L. et.al. “Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?” Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159
17 Tomljenovic, Lucija. “Answers to Common Misconceptions Regarding the Toxicity of Aluminum Adjuvants in Vaccines.” Vaccines and Autoimmunity. 2015. pp:43-56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300631720_Answers_to_Common_Misconceptions_Regarding_the_Toxicity_of_Aluminum_Adjuvants_in_Vaccines
18 Vargas, DL et.al. “Neuroglial activation and neuroinflammation in the brain of patients with autism.” Annals of Neurology. 15 Nov 2004;57(1). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ana.20315
19 Crépeaux, G. et.al. “Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: Selective low dose neurotoxicity.” Toxicology. 2017 Jan 15;375:48-57. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27908630
20 Masson, JD et.al. “Critical analysis of reference studies on the toxicokinetics of aluminum-based adjuvants.” Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 2018 Apr;181:87-95. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29307441
21 Tomljenovic, op.cit.
22 Strunecka, A. et.al. “Immunoexcitotoxicity as the central mechanism of etiopathology and treatment of autism spectrum disorders: A possible role of fluoride and aluminum.” Surgical Neurology International. 2018;9:74. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909100/
23 Shardlow, Emma et.al. “Unraveling the enigma: elucidating the relationship between the physicochemical properties of aluminium-based adjuvants and their immunological mechanisms of action.” Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology. 2018;14:80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223008/
24 Li, Q. et.al. “Neonatal vaccination with bacillus Calmette-Guérin and hepatitis B vaccines modulates hippocampal synaptic plasticity in rats.” Journal of Neuroimmunology. 2015 Nov 15;288:1-12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26531688
25 Hope, Jenny. “Why Japan banned the MMR vaccine.” Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-17509/Why-Japan-banned-MMR-vaccine.html Retrieved 18 Jan 2019.
26 Abutaleb, Yasmeen. “Tougher laws a likely legacy of the Disneyland measles outbreak.” Reuters. 3 Mar 2015. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-measles-vaccines-insight/tougher-laws-a-likely-legacy-of-the-disneyland-measles-outbreak-idUSKBN0LZ15Q20150303
27 Attkisson, Sharyl. “How a pro-vaccine doctor reopened debate about link to autism.” The Hill. 13 Jan 2019. https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/425061-how-a-pro-vaccine-doctor-reopened-debate-about-link-to-autism
28 “NIH Director Dr Bernadine Healy speaks to Sharyl Attkisson about autism susceptibility.” (video) Children’s Health Defense (YouTube). 27 Apr 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZFPpHBNp2M
29 Hooker, Brian. “Dr. Brian Hooker’s official statement regarding William Thompson.” Focus for Health. 26 Apr 2016. https://www.focusforhealth.org/dr-brian-hooker-statement-william-thompson/
30 Attkisson, Sharyl. “CDC: ‘Possibility’ that vaccines rarely trigger autism.” Sharyl Attkisson (blog). 10 Dec 2018. https://sharylattkisson.com/2018/12/10/cdc-possibility-that-vaccines-rarely-trigger-autism/
31 Wolfe, Eli. “Federal Vaccine Court Quietly Pays Billions.” Fair Warning. 12 Dec 2018. https://www.fairwarning.org/2018/12/vaccine-court-pays-billions/
32 Attkisson, Sharyl. “Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award.” CBS News. 10 Dec 2010. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/
33 Zimmerman, Andrew. “RE: Hannah Poling (DOB: 12/27/98); Report of the Office of Special Masters, United States Court of Federal Claims, November 9, 2007.” (letter). 30 Nov 2007. https://www.rescuepost.com/files/rh-4.pdf Retrieved 19 Jan 2019.
34 Attkisson, Sharyl. “Learning from a Previous Vaccine-Autism Case?” CBS News. 8 Aug 2008. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/learning-from-a-previous-vaccine-autism-case/