Podcast appearances and mentions of Ezekiel Emanuel

FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Dan Bongino vow to expose Crossfire Hurricane's corruption, promising unredacted documents to restore trust in the FBI. Yuval Noah Harari's World Economic Forum post links Darwin to sexual liberation, and Dr. Drew Pinsky and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel question the timeline of Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis, hinting at a major scandal. Plus, a disturbing New Mexico incident involving young boys with a loaded gun raises tough questions about police tactics and parental responsibility.   news, politics, FBI, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, Crossfire Hurricane, Yuval Noah Harari, World Economic Forum, Darwin, sexual liberation, Joe Biden, cancer diagnosis, Dr. Drew Pinsky, Ezekiel Emanuel, parenting, babies never cry, police, On Patrol Live, New Mexico, gun violence, current events

(00:00:40) "On trouve des soins de très grande qualité sans que les prix soient excessifs": interview de Ezekiel Emanuel (00:09:07) Ce que les Ukrainiens pensent des négotiations de paix - Carnets d'Ukraine #15 - Maurine Mercier

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: 6:05pm- While appearing on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo, FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino explained they have reviewed all evidence and concluded that Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death was, as originally reported, a suicide. During the interview, Bongino also revealed that there is no evidence suggesting a larger conspiracy surrounding the assassination attempt against Donald Trump in Butler, PA. 6:15pm- Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is now blaming DOGE for everything—including a Mexican naval ship crashing into the Brooklyn Bridge. 6:20pm- Rich receives ANOTHER invitation to the White House! Hillary Clinton is BACK—and she hates the nuclear family! AND Commissioner Marty Makary announces that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is removing ingestible fluoride from prescription drugs for children. 6:40pm- In a statement on Sunday, former President Joe Biden's office announced that he has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer with metastasis to the bone. In response to the news, President Donald Trump posted to Truth Social: “Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden's recent medical diagnosis. We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.” 6:45pm- While appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel—an oncologist and bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania—said that “there is no disagreement” within the medical community, Joe Biden had cancer while he was president of the United States even if he was only diagnosed last Friday. 6:50pm- Jake Tapper's new book, “Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” which is critical of the Biden Administration for covering up the president's physical and cognitive decline is due to be released later this week—but many Democrats and mainstream media members, including David Axelrod and Brian Steltzer, are saying the conversation regarding the “cover-up” should be paused given Biden's cancer diagnosis.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (05/19/2025): 3:05pm- In a statement on Sunday, former President Joe Biden's office announced that he has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer with metastasis to the bone. In response to the news, President Donald Trump posted to Truth Social: “Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden's recent medical diagnosis. We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.” 3:15pm- While appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel—an oncologist and bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania—said that “there is no disagreement” within the medical community, Joe Biden had cancer while he was president of the United States even if he was only diagnosed last Friday. 3:20pm- Jake Tapper's new book, “Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” which is critical of the Biden Administration for covering up the president's physical and cognitive decline is due to be released later this week—but many Democrats and mainstream media members, including David Axelrod and Brian Steltzer, are saying the conversation regarding the “cover-up” should be paused given Biden's cancer diagnosis. 3:30pm- On Monday, President Donald Trump signed the “Take It Down Act”—a bill designed to halt the disturbing rise of revenge porn and deep fake imagery. 3:40pm- Ukraine-Russia Peace Negotiations: In a post to Truth Social, President Trump wrote: “Just completed my two-hour call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. I believe it went very well. Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations toward a Ceasefire and, more importantly, an END to the War. The conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be, because they know details of a negotiation that nobody else would be aware of. The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent. If it wasn't, I would say so now, rather than later. Russia wants to do large scale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic ‘bloodbath' is over, and I agree. There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth.” 3:45pm- On Friday, audio of former President Joe Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur was published by Axios. The audio, from interviews that took place in October 2023, was supposed to determine whether Biden's mishandling of classified documents was criminal. In his final report, Hur decided not to charge Biden with a crime, reasoning: “We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” 4:05pm- Bill D'Agostino—Senior Research Analyst at Media Research Center—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown some of the best (and worst) clips from corporate media including David Axelrod imploring the media to pause all conversations about the Biden Administration's health “cover-up” given the former president's recent cancer diagnosis. 4:40pm- While appearing on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo, FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino explained they have reviewed all evidence and concluded that Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death was, as originally reported, a suicide. During the interview, Bongino also revealed that there is no evidence suggesting a larger conspiracy surrounding the assassination attempt against Donald Trump in Butler, PA. 5:00pm- At a press conference from the Oval Office, President Donald Trump awarded the Medal of Sacrifice—honoring law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty and their families. President Trump was joined by Congressmen Byron Donalds and Brian Mast. 5:15pm- On Sunday night, the House Budget Committee successfully advanced a Republican tax and spending bill through the committee vote—with the final vote being 17-16 in favor. The One ...

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, the audio cut of the day from Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel on "Morning Joe" on Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis stating the former President most assuredly had cancer when he was in office. Also Washington Republicans need to wake up on deficit, deportation and the authority of the SCOTUS, tornadoes in the mid-west last week blamed on FEMA cuts, breaking down the numbers on the national debt, audio from Hilary Clinton with advice for a female President, house republicans in an overnight effort to pass the President's tax reduction bill and much more. For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: 3:05pm- In a statement on Sunday, former President Joe Biden's office announced that he has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer with metastasis to the bone. In response to the news, President Donald Trump posted to Truth Social: “Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden's recent medical diagnosis. We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.” 3:15pm- While appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel—an oncologist and bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania—said that “there is no disagreement” within the medical community, Joe Biden had cancer while he was president of the United States even if he was only diagnosed last Friday. 3:20pm- Jake Tapper's new book, “Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” which is critical of the Biden Administration for covering up the president's physical and cognitive decline is due to be released later this week—but many Democrats and mainstream media members, including David Axelrod and Brian Steltzer, are saying the conversation regarding the “cover-up” should be paused given Biden's cancer diagnosis. 3:30pm- On Monday, President Donald Trump signed the “Take It Down Act”—a bill designed to halt the disturbing rise of revenge porn and deep fake imagery. 3:40pm- Ukraine-Russia Peace Negotiations: In a post to Truth Social, President Trump wrote: “Just completed my two-hour call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. I believe it went very well. Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations toward a Ceasefire and, more importantly, an END to the War. The conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be, because they know details of a negotiation that nobody else would be aware of. The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent. If it wasn't, I would say so now, rather than later. Russia wants to do large scale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic ‘bloodbath' is over, and I agree. There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth.” 3:45pm- On Friday, audio of former President Joe Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur was published by Axios. The audio, from interviews that took place in October 2023, was supposed to determine whether Biden's mishandling of classified documents was criminal. In his final report, Hur decided not to charge Biden with a crime, reasoning: “We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

The Trump administration pledged this week to withhold millions from various colleges and universities, including the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University and Harvard University. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the vice provost for global initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania, says the administration's move to cut funding amounts to a war on higher education. He speaks to NPR's Ailsa Chang. Support NPR and hear every episode sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Vice Provost for Global Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania and Professor of Health Care Management at the Wharton School, examines what the healthcare sector has learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and where it continues to fall short in preparing for future crises. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr. Gary Null provides a commentary on "Universal  Healthcare"       Universal Healthcare is the Solution to a Broken Medical System Gary Null, PhD Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For over 50 years, there has been no concerted or successful effort to bring down medical costs in the American healthcare system. Nor are the federal health agencies making disease prevention a priority. Regardless whether the political left or right sponsors proposals for reform, such measures are repeatedly defeated by both parties in Congress. As a result, the nation's healthcare system remains one of the most expensive and least efficient in the developed world. For the past 30 years, medical bills contributing to personal debt regularly rank among the top three causes of personal bankruptcy. This is a reality that reflects not only the financial strain on ordinary Americans but the systemic failure of the healthcare system itself. The urgent question is: If President Trump and his administration are truly seeking to reduce the nation's $36 trillion deficit, why is there no serious effort to reform the most bloated and corrupt sector of the economy? A key obstacle is the widespread misinformation campaign that falsely claims universal health care would cost an additional $2 trillion annually and further balloon the national debt. However, a more honest assessment reveals the opposite. If the US adopted a universal single-payer system, the nation could actually save up to $20 trillion over the next 10 years rather than add to the deficit. Even with the most ambitious efforts by people like Elon Musk to rein in federal spending or optimize government efficiency, the estimated savings would only amount to $500 billion. This is only a fraction of what could be achieved through comprehensive healthcare reform alone. Healthcare is the largest single expenditure of the federal budget. A careful examination of where the $5 trillion spent annually on healthcare actually goes reveals massive systemic fraud and inefficiency. Aside from emergency medicine, which accounts for only 10-12 percent of total healthcare expenditures, the bulk of this spending does not deliver better health outcomes nor reduce trends in physical and mental illness. Applying Ockham's Razor, the principle that the simplest solution is often the best, the obvious conclusion is that America's astronomical healthcare costs are the direct result of price gouging on an unimaginable scale. For example, in most small businesses, profit margins range between 1.6 and 2.5 percent, such as in grocery retail. Yet the pharmaceutical industrial complex routinely operates on markup rates as high as 150,000 percent for many prescription drugs. The chart below highlights the astronomical gap between the retail price of some top-selling patented pharmaceutical medications and their generic equivalents. Drug Condition Patent Price (per unit) Generic Price Estimated Manufacture Cost Markup Source Insulin (Humalog) Diabetes $300 $30 $3 10,000% Rand (2021) EpiPen Allergic reactions $600 $30 $10 6,000% BMJ (2022) Daraprim Toxoplasmosis $750/pill $2 $0.50 150,000% JAMA (2019) Harvoni Hepatitis C $94,500 (12 weeks) $30,000 $200 47,000% WHO Report (2018) Lipitor Cholesterol $150 $10 $0.50 29,900% Health Affairs (2020) Xarelto Blood Thinner $450 $25 $1.50 30,000% NEJM (2020) Abilify Schizophrenia $800 (30 tablets) $15 $2 39,900% AJMC (2019) Revlimid Cancer $16,000/mo $450 $150 10,500% Kaiser Health News (2021) Humira Arthritis $2,984/dose $400 $50 5,868% Rand (2021) Sovaldi Hepatitis C $1,000/pill $10 $2 49,900% JAMA (2021) Xolair Asthma $2,400/dose $300 $50 4,800% NEJM (2020) Gleevec Leukemia $10,000/mo $350 $200 4,900% Harvard Public Health Review (2020) OxyContin Pain Relief $600 (30 tablets) $15 $0.50 119,900% BMJ (2022) Remdesivir Covid-19 $3,120 (5 doses) N/A $10 31,100% The Lancet (2020) The corruption extends far beyond price gouging. Many pharmaceutical companies convince federal health agencies to fund their basic research and drug development with taxpayer dollars. Yet when these companies bring successful products to market, the profits are kept entirely by the corporations or shared with the agencies or groups of government scientists. On the other hand, the public, who funded the research, receives no financial return. This amounts to a systemic betrayal of the public trust on a scale of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Another significant contributor to rising healthcare costs is the widespread practice of defensive medicine that is driven by the constant threat of litigation. Over the past 40 years, defensive medicine has become a cottage industry. Physicians order excessive diagnostic tests and unnecessary treatments simply to protect themselves from lawsuits. Study after study has shown that these over-performed procedures not only inflate costs but lead to iatrogenesis or medical injury and death caused by the medical  system and practices itself. The solution is simple: adopting no-fault healthcare coverage for everyone where patients receive care without needing to sue and thereby freeing doctors from the burden of excessive malpractice insurance. A single-payer universal healthcare system could fundamentally transform the entire industry by capping profits at every level — from drug manufacturers to hospitals to medical equipment suppliers. The Department of Health and Human Services would have the authority to set profit margins for medical procedures. This would ensure that healthcare is determined by outcomes, not profits. Additionally, the growing influence of private equity firms and vulture capitalists buying up hospitals and medical clinics across America must be reined in. These equity firms prioritize profit extraction over improving the quality of care. They often slash staff, raise prices, and dictate medical procedures based on what will yield the highest returns. Another vital reform would be to provide free medical education for doctors and nurses in exchange for five years of service under the universal system. Medical professionals would earn a realistic salary cap to prevent them from being lured into equity partnerships or charging exorbitant rates. The biggest single expense in the current system, however, is the private health insurance industry, which consumes 33 percent of the $5 trillion healthcare budget. Health insurance CEOs consistently rank among the highest-paid executives in the country. Their companies, who are nothing more than bean counters, decide what procedures and drugs will be covered, partially covered, or denied altogether. This entire industry is designed to place profits above patients' lives. If the US dismantled its existing insurance-based system and replaced it with a fully reformed national healthcare model, the country could save $2.7 trillion annually while simultaneously improving health outcomes. Over the course of 10 years, those savings would amount to $27 trillion. This could wipe out nearly the entire national debt in a short time. This solution has been available for decades but has been systematically blocked by corporate lobbying and bipartisan corruption in Washington. The path forward is clear but only if American citizens demand a system where healthcare is valued as a public service and not a commodity. The national healthcare crisis is not just a fiscal issue. It is a crucial moral failure of the highest order. With the right reforms, the nation could simultaneously restore its financial health and deliver the kind of healthcare system its citizens have long deserved. American Healthcare: Corrupt, Broken and Lethal Richard Gale and Gary Null Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For a nation that prides itself on being the world's wealthiest, most innovative and 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 ranks dead last among high-income countries. 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 continues to decline. The United Nations recognizes healthcare as a human right. In 2018, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon denounced the American healthcare system as "politically and morally wrong." During the pandemic it is estimated that two to three years was lost on average life expectancy. On the other hand, before the Covid-19 pandemic, countries with universal healthcare coverage found their average life expectancy stable or slowly increasing. The fundamental problem in the U.S. is that politics have been far too beholden to the pharmaceutical, HMO and private insurance industries. Neither party has made any concerted effort to reign in the corruption of corporate campaign funding and do what is sensible, financially feasible and morally correct to improve Americans' quality of health and well-being.   The fact that our healthcare system is horribly broken is proof that moneyed interests have become so powerful to keep single-payer debate out of the media spotlight and censored. Poll after poll shows that the American public favors the expansion of public health coverage. Other incremental proposals, including Medicare and Medicaid buy-in plans, are also widely preferred to the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare mess we are currently stuck with.   It is not difficult to understand how the dismal state of American medicine is the result of a system that has been sold out to the free-market and the bottom line interests of drug makers and an inflated private insurance industry. How advanced and ethically sound can a healthcare system be if tens of millions of people have no access to medical care because it is financially out of their reach?  The figures speak for themselves. The U.S. is burdened with a $41 trillion Medicare liability. The number of uninsured has declined during the past several years but still lingers around 25 million. An additional 30-35 million are underinsured. There are currently 65 million Medicare enrollees and 89 million Medicaid recipients. This is an extremely unhealthy snapshot of the country's ability to provide affordable healthcare and it is certainly unsustainable. The system is a public economic failure, benefiting no one except the large and increasingly consolidated insurance and pharmaceutical firms at the top that supervise the racket.   Our political parties have wrestled with single-payer or universal healthcare for decades. Obama ran his first 2008 presidential campaign on a single-payer platform. Since 1985, his campaign health adviser, the late Dr. Quentin Young from the University of Illinois Medical School, was one of the nation's leading voices calling for universal health coverage.  During a private conversation with Dr. Young shortly before his passing in 2016, he conveyed his sense of betrayal at the hands of the Obama administration. Dr. Young was in his 80s when he joined the Obama campaign team to help lead the young Senator to victory on a promise that America would finally catch up with other nations. The doctor sounded defeated. He shared how he was manipulated, and that Obama held no sincere intention to make universal healthcare a part of his administration's agenda. During the closed-door negotiations, which spawned the weak and compromised Affordable Care Act, Dr. Young was neither consulted nor invited to participate. In fact, he told us that he never heard from Obama again after his White House victory.   Past efforts to even raise the issue have been viciously attacked. A huge army of private interests is determined to keep the public enslaved to private insurers and high medical costs. The failure of our healthcare is in no small measure due to it being a fully for-profit operation. Last year, private health insurance accounted for 65 percent of coverage. Consider that there are over 900 private insurance companies in the US. National Health Expenditures (NHE) grew to $4.5 trillion in 2022, which was 17.3 percent of GDP. Older corporate rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans argue that a single-payer or socialized medical program is unaffordable. However, not only is single-payer affordable, it will end bankruptcies due to unpayable medical debt. In addition, universal healthcare, structured on a preventative model, will reduce disease rates at the outset.    Corporate Democrats argue that Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a positive step inching the country towards complete public coverage. However, aside from providing coverage to the poorest of Americans, Obamacare turned into another financial anchor around the necks of millions more. According to the health policy research group KFF, the average annual health insurance premium for single coverage is $8,400 and almost $24,000 for a family. In addition, patient out-of-pocket costs continue to increase, a 6.6% increase to $471 billion in 2022. Rather than healthcare spending falling, it has exploded, and the Trump and Biden administrations made matters worse.    Clearly, a universal healthcare program will require flipping the script on the entire private insurance industry, which employed over half a million people last year.  Obviously, the most volatile debate concerning a national universal healthcare system concerns cost. Although there is already a socialized healthcare system in place -- every federal legislator, bureaucrat, government employee and veteran benefits from it -- fiscal Republican conservatives and groups such as the Koch Brothers network are single-mindedly dedicated to preventing the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. A Koch-funded Mercatus analysis made the outrageous claim that a single-payer system would increase federal health spending by $32 trillion in ten years. However, analyses and reviews by the Congressional Budget Office in the early 1990s concluded that such a system would only increase spending at the start; enormous savings would quickly offset it as the years pass. In one analysis, "the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."    Defenders of those advocating for funding a National Health Program argue this can primarily be accomplished by raising taxes to levels comparable to other developed nations. This was a platform Senator Bernie Sanders and some of the younger progressive Democrats in the House campaigned on. The strategy was to tax the highest multimillion-dollar earners 60-70 percent. Despite the outrage of its critics, including old rank-and-file multi-millionaire Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, this is still far less than in the past. During the Korean War, the top tax rate was 91 percent; it declined to 70 percent in the late 1960s. Throughout most of the 1970s, those in the lowest income bracket were taxed at 14 percent. We are not advocating for this strategy because it ignores where the funding is going, and the corruption in the system that is contributing to exorbitant waste.    But Democratic supporters of the ACA who oppose a universal healthcare plan ignore the additional taxes Obama levied to pay for the program. These included surtaxes on investment income, Medicare taxes from those earning over $200,000, taxes on tanning services, an excise tax on medical equipment, and a 40 percent tax on health coverage for costs over the designated cap that applied to flexible savings and health savings accounts. The entire ACA was reckless, sloppy and unnecessarily complicated from the start.    The fact that Obamacare further strengthened the distinctions between two parallel systems -- federal and private -- with entirely different economic structures created a labyrinth of red tape, rules, and wasteful bureaucracy. Since the ACA went into effect, over 150 new boards, agencies and programs have had to be established to monitor its 2,700 pages of gibberish. A federal single-payer system would easily eliminate this bureaucracy and waste.    A medical New Deal to establish universal healthcare coverage is a decisive step in the correct direction. But we must look at the crisis holistically and in a systematic way. Simply shuffling private insurance into a federal Medicare-for-all or buy-in program, funded by taxing the wealthiest of citizens, would only temporarily reduce costs. It will neither curtail nor slash escalating disease rates e. Any effective healthcare reform must also tackle the underlying reasons for Americans' poor state of health. We cannot shy away from examining the social illnesses infecting our entire free-market capitalist culture and its addiction to deregulation. A viable healthcare model would have to structurally transform how the medical economy operates. Finally, a successful medical New Deal must honestly evaluate the best and most reliable scientific evidence in order to effectively redirect public health spending.    For example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama healthcare adviser, observed that AIDS-HIV measures consume the most public health spending, even though the disease "ranked 75th on the list of diseases by personal health expenditures." On the other hand, according to the American Medical Association, a large percentage of the nation's $3.4 trillion healthcare spending goes towards treating preventable diseases, notably diabetes, common forms of heart disease, and back and neck pain conditions. In 2016, these three conditions were the most costly and accounted for approximately $277 billion in spending. Last year, the CDC announced the autism rate is now 1 in 36 children compared to 1 in 44 two years ago. A retracted study by Mark Blaxill, an autism activist at the Holland Center and a friend of the authors, estimates that ASD costs will reach $589 billion annually by 2030. There are no signs that this alarming trend will reverse and decline; and yet, our entire federal health system has failed to conscientiously investigate the underlying causes of this epidemic. All explanations that might interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's unchecked growth, such as over-vaccination, are ignored and viciously discredited without any sound scientific evidence. Therefore, a proper medical New Deal will require a systemic overhaul and reform of our federal health agencies, especially the HHS, CDC and FDA. Only the Robert Kennedy Jr presidential campaign is even addressing the crisis and has an inexpensive and comprehensive plan to deal with it. For any medical revolution to succeed in advancing universal healthcare, the plan must prioritize spending in a manner that serves public health and not private interests. It will also require reshuffling private corporate interests and their lobbyists to the sidelines, away from any strategic planning, in order to break up the private interests' control over federal agencies and its revolving door policies. Aside from those who benefit from this medical corruption, the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with this criticism. However, there is a complete lack of national trust that our legislators, including the so-called progressives, would be willing to undertake such actions.    In addition, America's healthcare system ignores the single most critical initiative to reduce costs - that is, preventative efforts and programs instead of deregulation and closing loopholes designed to protect the drug and insurance industries' bottom line. Prevention can begin with banning toxic chemicals that are proven health hazards associated with current disease epidemics, and it can begin by removing a 1,000-plus toxins already banned in Europe. This should be a no-brainer for any legislator who cares for public health. For example, Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, notes that "the policy approach in the US and Europe is dramatically different" when it comes to chemical allowances in cosmetic products. Whereas the EU has banned 1,328 toxic substances from the cosmetic industry alone, the US has banned only 11. The US continues to allow carcinogenic formaldehyde, petroleum, forever chemicals, many parabens (an estrogen mimicker and endocrine hormone destroyer), the highly allergenic p-phenylenediamine or PBD, triclosan, which has been associated with the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria, avobenzone, and many others to be used in cosmetics, sunscreens, shampoo and hair dyes.   Next, the food Americans consume can be reevaluated for its health benefits. There should be no hesitation to tax the unhealthiest foods, such as commercial junk food, sodas and candy relying on high fructose corn syrup, products that contain ingredients proven to be toxic, and meat products laden with dangerous chemicals including growth hormones and antibiotics. The scientific evidence that the average American diet is contributing to rising disease trends is indisputable. We could also implement additional taxes on the public advertising of these demonstrably unhealthy products. All such tax revenue would accrue to a national universal health program to offset medical expenditures associated with the very illnesses linked to these products. Although such tax measures would help pay for a new medical New Deal, it may be combined with programs to educate the public about healthy nutrition if it is to produce a reduction in the most common preventable diseases. In fact, comprehensive nutrition courses in medical schools should be mandatory because the average physician receives no education in this crucial subject.  In addition, preventative health education should be mandatory throughout public school systems.   Private insurers force hospitals, clinics and private physicians into financial corners, and this is contributing to prodigious waste in money and resources. Annually, healthcare spending towards medical liability insurance costs tens of billions of dollars. In particular, this economic burden has taxed small clinics and physicians. It is well past the time that physician liability insurance is replaced with no-fault options. Today's doctors are spending an inordinate amount of money to protect themselves. Legions of liability and trial lawyers seek big paydays for themselves stemming from physician error. This has created a culture of fear among doctors and hospitals, resulting in the overly cautious practice of defensive medicine, driving up costs and insurance premiums just to avoid lawsuits. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests and prescribe more medications and medical procedures just to cover their backsides. No-fault insurance is a common-sense plan that enables physicians to pursue their profession in a manner that will reduce iatrogenic injuries and costs. Individual cases requiring additional medical intervention and loss of income would still be compensated. This would generate huge savings.    No other nation suffers from the scourge of excessive drug price gouging like the US. After many years of haggling to lower prices and increase access to generic drugs, only a minute amount of progress has been made in recent years. A 60 Minutes feature about the Affordable Care Act reported an "orgy of lobbying and backroom deals in which just about everyone with a stake in the $3-trillion-a-year health industry came out ahead—except the taxpayers.” For example, Life Extension magazine reported that an antiviral cream (acyclovir), which had lost its patent protection, "was being sold to pharmacies for 7,500% over the active ingredient cost. The active ingredient (acyclovir) costs only 8 pennies, yet pharmacies are paying a generic maker $600 for this drug and selling it to consumers for around $700." Other examples include the antibiotic Doxycycline. The price per pill averages 7 cents to $3.36 but has a 5,300 percent markup when it reaches the consumer. The antidepressant Clomipramine is marked up 3,780 percent, and the anti-hypertensive drug Captopril's mark-up is 2,850 percent. And these are generic drugs!    Medication costs need to be dramatically cut to allow drug manufacturers a reasonable but not obscene profit margin. By capping profits approximately 100 percent above all costs, we would save our system hundreds of billions of dollars. Such a measure would also extirpate the growing corporate misdemeanors of pricing fraud, which forces patients to pay out-of-pocket in order to make up for the costs insurers are unwilling to pay.    Finally, we can acknowledge that our healthcare is fundamentally a despotic rationing system based upon high insurance costs vis-a-vis a toss of the dice to determine where a person sits on the economic ladder. For the past three decades it has contributed to inequality. The present insurance-based economic metrics cast millions of Americans out of coverage because private insurance costs are beyond their means. Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University political economist, has called our system "brutal" because it "rations [people] out of the system." He defined rationing as "withholding something from someone that is beneficial." Discriminatory healthcare rationing now affects upwards to 60 million people who have been either priced out of the system or under insured. They make too much to qualify for Medicare under Obamacare, yet earn far too little to afford private insurance costs and premiums. In the final analysis, the entire system is discriminatory and predatory.    However, we must be realistic. Almost every member of Congress has benefited from Big Pharma and private insurance lobbyists. The only way to begin to bring our healthcare program up to the level of a truly developed nation is to remove the drug industry's rampant and unnecessary profiteering from the equation.     How did Fauci memory-hole a cure for AIDS and get away with it?   By Helen Buyniski   Over 700,000 Americans have died of AIDS since 1981, with the disease claiming some 42.3 million victims worldwide. While an HIV diagnosis is no longer considered a certain death sentence, the disease looms large in the public imagination and in public health funding, with contemporary treatments running into thousands of dollars per patient annually.   But was there a cure for AIDS all this time - an affordable and safe treatment that was ruthlessly suppressed and attacked by the US public health bureaucracy and its agents? Could this have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars spent on AZT, ddI and failed HIV vaccine trials? What could possibly justify the decision to disappear a safe and effective approach down the memory hole?   The inventor of the cure, Gary Null, already had several decades of experience creating healing protocols for physicians to help patients not responding well to conventional treatments by the time AIDS was officially defined in 1981. Null, a registered dietitian and board-certified nutritionist with a PhD in human nutrition and public health science, was a senior research fellow and Director of Anti-Aging Medicine at the Institute of Applied Biology for 36 years and has published over 950 papers, conducting groundbreaking experiments in reversing biological aging as confirmed with DNA methylation testing. Additionally, Null is a multi-award-winning documentary filmmaker, bestselling author, and investigative journalist whose work exposing crimes against humanity over the last 50 years has highlighted abuses by Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, the financial industry, and the permanent government stay-behind networks that have come to be known as the Deep State.   Null was contacted in 1974 by Dr. Stephen Caiazza, a physician working with a subculture of gay men in New York living the so-called “fast track” lifestyle, an extreme manifestation of the gay liberation movement that began with the Stonewall riots. Defined by rampant sexual promiscuity and copious use of illegal and prescription drugs, including heavy antibiotic use for a cornucopia of sexually-transmitted diseases, the fast-track never included more than about two percent of gay men, though these dominated many of the bathhouses and clubs that defined gay nightlife in the era. These patients had become seriously ill as a result of their indulgence, generally arriving at the clinic with multiple STDs including cytomegalovirus and several types of herpes and hepatitis, along with candida overgrowth, nutritional deficiencies, gut issues, and recurring pneumonia. Every week for the next 10 years, Null would counsel two or three of these men - a total of 800 patients - on how to detoxify their bodies and de-stress their lives, tracking their progress with Caiazza and the other providers at weekly feedback meetings that he credits with allowing the team to quickly evaluate which treatments were most effective. He observed that it only took about two years on the “fast track” for a healthy young person to begin seeing muscle loss and the recurrent, lingering opportunistic infections that would later come to be associated with AIDS - while those willing to commit to a healthier lifestyle could regain their health in about a year.    It was with this background that Null established the Tri-State Healing Center in Manhattan in 1980, staffing the facility with what would eventually run to 22 certified health professionals to offer safe, natural, and effective low- and no-cost treatments to thousands of patients with HIV and AIDS-defining conditions. Null and his staff used variations of the protocols he had perfected with Caiazza's patients, a multifactorial patient-tailored approach that included high-dose vitamin C drips, intravenous ozone therapy, juicing and nutritional improvements and supplementation, aspects of homeopathy and naturopathy with some Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic practices. Additional services offered on-site included acupuncture and holistic dentistry, while peer support groups were also held at the facility so that patients could find community and a positive environment, healing their minds and spirits while they healed their bodies.   “Instead of trying to kill the virus with antiretroviral pharmaceuticals designed to stop viral replication before it kills patients, we focused on what benefits could be gained by building up the patients' natural immunity and restoring biochemical integrity so the body could fight for itself,” Null wrote in a 2014 article describing the philosophy behind the Center's approach, which was wholly at odds with the pharmaceutical model.1   Patients were comprehensively tested every week, with any “recovery” defined solely by the labs, which documented AIDS patient after patient - 1,200 of them - returning to good health and reversing their debilitating conditions. Null claims to have never lost an AIDS patient in the Center's care, even as the death toll for the disease - and its pharmaceutical standard of care AZT - reached an all-time high in the early 1990s. Eight patients who had opted for a more intensive course of treatment - visiting the Center six days a week rather than one - actually sero-deconverted, with repeated subsequent testing showing no trace of HIV in their bodies.   As an experienced clinical researcher himself, Null recognized that any claims made by the Center would be massively scrutinized, challenging as they did the prevailing scientific consensus that AIDS was an incurable, terminal illness. He freely gave his protocols to any medical practitioner who asked, understanding that his own work could be considered scientifically valid only if others could replicate it under the same conditions. After weeks of daily observational visits to the Center, Dr. Robert Cathcart took the protocols back to San Francisco, where he excitedly reported that patients were no longer dying in his care.    Null's own colleague at the Institute of Applied Biology, senior research fellow Elana Avram, set up IV drip rooms at the Institute and used his intensive protocols to sero-deconvert 10 patients over a two-year period. While the experiment had been conducted in secret, as the Institute had been funded by Big Pharma since its inception half a century earlier, Avram had hoped she would be able to publish a journal article to further publicize Null's protocols and potentially help AIDS patients, who were still dying at incredibly high rates thanks to Burroughs Wellcome's noxious but profitable AZT. But as she would later explain in a 2019 letter to Null, their groundbreaking research never made it into print - despite meticulous documentation of their successes - because the Institute's director and board feared their pharmaceutical benefactors would withdraw the funding on which they depended, given that Null's protocols did not involve any patentable or otherwise profitable drugs. When Avram approached them about publication, the board vetoed the idea, arguing that it would “draw negative attention because [the work] was contrary to standard drug treatments.” With no real point in continuing experiments along those lines without institutional support and no hope of obtaining funding from elsewhere, the department she had created specifically for these experiments shut down after a two-year followup with her test subjects - all of whom remained alive and healthy - was completed.2   While the Center was receiving regular visits by this time from medical professionals and, increasingly, black celebrities like Stokely Carmichael and Isaac Hayes, who would occasionally perform for the patients, the news was spreading by word of mouth alone - not a single media outlet had dared to document the clinic that was curing AIDS patients for free. Instead, they gave airtime to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, who had for years been spreading baseless, hysteria-fueling claims about HIV and AIDS to any news outlet that would put him on. His claim that children could contract the virus from “ordinary household conduct” with an infected relative proved so outrageous he had to walk it back,3 and he never really stopped insisting the deadly plague associated with gays and drug users was about to explode like a nuclear bomb among the law-abiding heterosexual population. Fauci by this time controlled all government science funding through NIAID, and his zero-tolerance approach to dissent on the HIV/AIDS front had already seen prominent scientists like virologist Peter Duesberg stripped of the resources they needed for their work because they had dared to question his commandment: There is no cause of AIDS but HIV, and AZT is its treatment. Even the AIDS activist groups, which by then had been coopted by Big Pharma and essentially reduced to astroturfing for the toxic failed chemotherapy drug AZT backed by the institutional might of Fauci's NIAID,4 didn't seem to want to hear that there was a cure. Unconcerned with the irrationality of denouncing the man touting his free AIDS cure as an  “AIDS denier,” they warned journalists that platforming Null or anyone else rejecting the mainstream medical line would be met with organized demands for their firing.    Determined to breach the institutional iron curtain and get his message to the masses, Null and his team staged a press conference in New York, inviting scientists and doctors from around the world to share their research on alternative approaches to HIV and AIDS in 1993. To emphasize the sound scientific basis of the Center's protocols and encourage guests to adopt them into their own practices, Null printed out thousands of abstracts in support of each nutrient and treatment being used. However, despite over 7,000 invitations sent three times to major media, government figures, scientists, and activists, almost none of the intended audience members showed up. Over 100 AIDS patients and their doctors, whose charts exhaustively documented their improvements using natural and nontoxic modalities over the preceding 12 months, gave filmed testimonials, declaring that the feared disease was no longer a death sentence, but the conference had effectively been silenced. Bill Tatum, publisher of the Amsterdam News, suggested Null and his patients would find a more welcoming audience in his home neighborhood of Harlem - specifically, its iconic Apollo Theatre. For three nights, the theater was packed to capacity. Hit especially hard by the epidemic and distrustful of a medical system that had only recently stopped being openly racist (the Tuskegee syphilis experiment only ended in 1972), black Americans, at least, did not seem to care what Anthony Fauci would do if he found out they were investigating alternatives to AZT and death.    PBS journalist Tony Brown, having obtained a copy of the video of patient testimonials from the failed press conference, was among a handful of black journalists who began visiting the Center to investigate the legitimacy of Null's claims. Satisfied they had something significant to offer his audience, Brown invited eight patients - along with Null himself - onto his program over the course of several episodes to discuss the work. It was the first time these protocols had received any attention in the media, despite Null having released nearly two dozen articles and multiple documentaries on the subject by that time. A typical patient on one program, Al, a recovered IV drug user who was diagnosed with AIDS at age 32, described how he “panicked,” saw a doctor and started taking AZT despite his misgivings - only to be forced to discontinue the drug after just a few weeks due to his condition deteriorating rapidly. Researching alternatives brought him to Null, and after six months of “detoxing [his] lifestyle,” he observed his initial symptoms - swollen lymph nodes and weight loss - begin to reverse, culminating with sero-deconversion. On Bill McCreary's Channel 5 program, a married couple diagnosed with HIV described how they watched their T-cell counts increase as they cut out sugar, caffeine, smoking, and drinking and began eating a healthy diet. They also saw the virus leave their bodies.   For HIV-positive viewers surrounded by fear and negativity, watching healthy-looking, cheerful “AIDS patients” detail their recovery while Null backed up their claims with charts must have been balm for the soul. But the TV programs were also a form of outreach to the medical community, with patients' charts always on hand to convince skeptics the cure was scientifically valid. Null brought patients' charts to every program, urging them to keep an open mind: “Other physicians and public health officials should know that there's good science in the alternative perspective. It may not be a therapy that they're familiar with, because they're just not trained in it, but if the results are positive, and you can document them…” He challenged doubters to send in charts from their own sero-deconverted patients on AZT, and volunteered to debate proponents of the orthodox treatment paradigm - though the NIH and WHO both refused to participate in such a debate on Tony Brown's Journal, following Fauci's directive prohibiting engagement with forbidden ideas.    Aside from those few TV programs and Null's own films, suppression of Null's AIDS cure beyond word of mouth was total. The 2021 documentary The Cost of Denial, produced by the Society for Independent Journalists, tells the story of the Tri-State Healing Center and the medical paradigm that sought to destroy it, lamenting the loss of the lives that might have been saved in a more enlightened society. Nurse practitioner Luanne Pennesi, who treated many of the AIDS patients at the Center, speculated in the film that the refusal by the scientific establishment and AIDS activists to accept their successes was financially motivated. “It was as if they didn't want this information to get out. Understand that our healthcare system as we know it is a corporation, it's a corporate model, and it's about generating revenue. My concern was that maybe they couldn't generate enough revenue from these natural approaches.”5   Funding was certainly the main disciplinary tool Fauci's NIAID used to keep the scientific community in line. Despite the massive community interest in the work being done at the Center, no foundation or institution would defy Fauci and risk getting itself blacklisted, leaving Null to continue funding the operation out of his pocket with the profits from book sales. After 15 years, he left the Center in 1995, convinced the mainstream model had so thoroughly been institutionalized that there was no chance of overthrowing it. He has continued to counsel patients and advocate for a reappraisal of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis and its pharmaceutical treatments, highlighting the deeply flawed science underpinning the model of the disease espoused by the scientific establishment in 39 articles, six documentaries and a 700-page textbook on AIDS, but the Center's achievements have been effectively memory-holed by Fauci's multi-billion-dollar propaganda apparatus.     FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE   To understand just how much of a threat Null's work was to the HIV/AIDS establishment, it is instructive to revisit the 1984 paper, published by Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, that established HIV as the sole cause of AIDS. The CDC's official recognition of AIDS in 1981 had done little to quell the mounting public panic over the mysterious illness afflicting gay men in the US, as the agency had effectively admitted it had no idea what was causing them to sicken and die. As years passed with no progress determining the causative agent of the plague, activist groups like Gay Men's Health Crisis disrupted public events and threatened further mass civil disobedience as they excoriated the NIH for its sluggish allocation of government science funding to uncovering the cause of the “gay cancer.”6 When Gallo published his paper declaring that the retrovirus we now know as HIV was the sole “probable” cause of AIDS, its simple, single-factor hypothesis was the answer to the scientific establishment's prayers. This was particularly true for Fauci, as the NIAID chief was able to claim the hot new disease as his agency's own domain in what has been described as a “dramatic confrontation” with his rival Sam Broder at the National Cancer Institute. After all, Fauci pointed out, Gallo's findings - presented by Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler as if they were gospel truth before any other scientists had had a chance to inspect them, never mind conduct a full peer review - clearly classified AIDS as an infectious disease, and not a cancer like the Kaposi's sarcoma which was at the time its most visible manifestation. Money and media attention began pouring in, even as funding for the investigation of other potential causes of AIDS dried up. Having already patented a diagnostic test for “his” retrovirus before introducing it to the world, Gallo was poised for a financial windfall, while Fauci was busily leveraging the discovery into full bureaucratic empire of the US scientific apparatus.   While it would serve as the sole basis for all US government-backed AIDS research to follow - quickly turning Gallo into the most-cited scientist in the world during the 1980s,7 Gallo's “discovery” of HIV was deeply problematic. The sample that yielded the momentous discovery actually belonged to Prof. Luc Montagnier of the French Institut Pasteur, a fact Gallo finally admitted in 1991, four years after a lawsuit from the French government challenged his patent on the HIV antibody test, forcing the US government to negotiate a hasty profit-sharing agreement between Gallo's and Montagnier's labs. That lawsuit triggered a cascade of official investigations into scientific misconduct by Gallo, and evidence submitted during one of these probes, unearthed in 2008 by journalist Janine Roberts, revealed a much deeper problem with the seminal “discovery.” While Gallo's co-author, Mikulas Popovic, had concluded after numerous experiments with the French samples that the virus they contained was not the cause of AIDS, Gallo had drastically altered the paper's conclusion, scribbling his notes in the margins, and submitted it for publication to the journal Science without informing his co-author.   After Roberts shared her discovery with contacts in the scientific community, 37 scientific experts wrote to the journal demanding that Gallo's career-defining HIV paper be retracted from Science for lacking scientific integrity.8 Their call, backed by an endorsement from the 2,600-member scientific organization Rethinking AIDS, was ignored by the publication and by the rest of mainstream science despite - or perhaps because of - its profound implications.   That 2008 letter, addressed to Science editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts and copied to American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Alan Leshner, is worth reproducing here in its entirety, as it utterly dismantles Gallo's hypothesis - and with them the entire HIV is the sole cause of AIDS dogma upon which the contemporary medical model of the disease rests:   On May 4, 1984 your journal published four papers by a group led by Dr. Robert Gallo. We are writing to express our serious concerns with regard to the integrity and veracity of the lead paper among these four of which Dr. Mikulas Popovic is the lead author.[1] The other three are also of concern because they rely upon the conclusions of the lead paper .[2][3][4]  In the early 1990s, several highly critical reports on the research underlying these papers were produced as a result of governmental inquiries working under the supervision of scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements,” and that the “ORI believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records...reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.”[5] Further, a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led by US Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan produced a staff report on the papers which contains scathing criticisms of their integrity.[6]  Despite the publically available record of challenges to their veracity, these papers have remained uncorrected and continue to be part of the scientific record.  What prompts our communication today is the recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo to the lead paper. There are several documents originating from Gallo's laboratory that, while available for some time, have only recently been fully analyzed. These include a draft of the lead paper typewritten by Popovic which contains handwritten changes made to it by Gallo.[7] This draft was the key evidence used in the above described inquiries to establish that Gallo had concealed his laboratory's use of a cell culture sample (known as LAV) which it received from the Institut Pasteur.  These earlier inquiries verified that the typed manuscript draft was produced by Popovic who had carried out the recorded experiment while his laboratory chief, Gallo, was in Europe and that, upon his return, Gallo changed the document by hand a few days before it was submitted to Science on March 30, 1984. According to the ORI investigation, “Dr. Gallo systematically rewrote the manuscript for what would become a renowned LTCB [Gallo's laboratory at the National Cancer Institute] paper.”[5]  This document provided the important evidence that established the basis for awarding Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Francoise Barré-Sinoussi the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of the AIDS virus by proving it was their samples of LAV that Popovic used in his key experiment. The draft reveals that Popovic had forthrightly admitted using the French samples of LAV renamed as Gallo's virus, HTLV-III, and that Gallo had deleted this admission, concealing their use of LAV.  However, it has not been previously reported that on page three of this same document Gallo had also deleted Popovic's unambiguous statement that, "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified,” replacing it in the published paper with a statement that said practically the opposite, namely, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”  It is clear that the rest of Popovic's typed paper is entirely consistent with his statement that the cause of AIDS had not been found, despite his use of the French LAV. Popovic's final conclusion was that the culture he produced “provides the possibility” for detailed studies. He claimed to have achieved nothing more. At no point in his paper did Popovic attempt to prove that any virus caused AIDS, and it is evident that Gallo concealed these key elements in Popovic's experimental findings.  It is astonishing now to discover these unreported changes to such a seminal document. We can only assume that Gallo's alterations of Popovic's conclusions were not highlighted by earlier inquiries because the focus at the time was on establishing that the sample used by Gallo's lab came from Montagnier and was not independently collected by Gallo. In fact, the only attention paid to the deletions made by Gallo pertains to his effort to hide the identity of the sample. The questions of whether Gallo and Popovic's research proved that LAV or any other virus was the cause of AIDS were clearly not considered.  Related to these questions are other long overlooked documents that merit your attention. One of these is a letter from Dr. Matthew A. Gonda, then Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, which is addressed to Popovic, copied to Gallo and dated just four days prior to Gallo's submission to Science.[8] In this letter, Gonda remarks on samples he had been sent for imaging because “Dr Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication because they contain HTLV.” He states, “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are of HTLV-I, II or III.” According to Gonda, one sample contained cellular debris, while another had no particles near the size of a retrovirus. Despite Gonda's clearly worded statement, Science published on May 4, 1984 papers attributed to Gallo et al with micrographs attributed to Gonda and described unequivocally as HTLV-III.  In another letter by Gallo, dated one day before he submitted his papers to Science, Gallo states, “It's extremely rare to find fresh cells [from AIDS patients] expressing the virus... cell culture seems to be necessary to induce virus,” a statement which raises the possibility he was working with a laboratory artifact. [9]  Included here are copies of these documents and links to the same. The very serious flaws they reveal in the preparation of the lead paper published in your journal in 1984 prompts our request that this paper be withdrawn. It appears that key experimental findings have been concealed. We further request that the three associated papers published on the same date also be withdrawn as they depend on the accuracy of this paper.  For the scientific record to be reliable, it is vital that papers shown to be flawed, or falsified be retracted. Because a very public record now exists showing that the Gallo papers drew unjustified conclusions, their withdrawal from Science is all the more important to maintain integrity. Future researchers must also understand they cannot rely on the 1984 Gallo papers for statements about HIV and AIDS, and all authors of papers that previously relied on this set of four papers should have the opportunity to consider whether their own conclusions are weakened by these revelations.      Gallo's handwritten revision, submitted without his colleague's knowledge despite multiple experiments that failed to support the new conclusion, was the sole foundation for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Had Science published the manuscript the way Popovic had typed it, there would be no AIDS “pandemic” - merely small clusters of people with AIDS. Without a viral hypothesis backing the development of expensive and deadly pharmaceuticals, would Fauci have allowed these patients to learn about the cure that existed all along?   Faced with a potential rebellion, Fauci marshaled the full resources under his control to squelch the publication of the investigations into Gallo and restrict any discussion of competing hypotheses in the scientific and mainstream press, which had been running virus-scare stories full-time since 1984. The effect was total, according to biochemist Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure. In a 2009 interview, Mullis recalled his own shock when he attempted to unearth the experimental basis for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Despite his extensive inquiry into the literature, “there wasn't a scientific reference…[that] said ‘here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.' There was nothing out there like that.”9 This yawning void at the core of HIV/AIDS “science" turned him into a strident critic of AIDS dogma - and those views made him persona non grata where the scientific press was concerned, suddenly unable to publish a single paper despite having won the Nobel Prize for his invention of the PCR test just weeks before.  10   DISSENT BECOMES “DENIAL”   While many of those who dissent from the orthodox HIV=AIDS view believe HIV plays a role in the development of AIDS, they point to lifestyle and other co-factors as being equally if not more important. Individuals who test positive for HIV can live for decades in perfect health - so long as they don't take AZT or the other toxic antivirals fast-tracked by Fauci's NIAID - but those who developed full-blown AIDS generally engaged in highly risky behaviors like extreme promiscuity and prodigious drug abuse, contracting STDs they took large quantities of antibiotics to treat, further running down their immune systems. While AIDS was largely portrayed as a “gay disease,” it was only the “fast track” gays, hooking up with dozens of partners nightly in sex marathons fueled by “poppers” (nitrate inhalants notorious for their own devastating effects on the immune system), who became sick. Kaposi's sarcoma, one of the original AIDS-defining conditions, was widespread among poppers-using gay men, but never appeared among IV drug users or hemophiliacs, the other two main risk groups during the early years of the epidemic. Even Robert Gallo himself, at a 1994 conference on poppers held by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, would admit that the previously-rare form of skin cancer surging among gay men was not primarily caused by HIV - and that it was immune stimulation, rather than suppression, that was likely responsible.11 Similarly, IV drug users are often riddled with opportunistic infections as their habit depresses the immune system and their focus on maintaining their addiction means that healthier habits - like good nutrition and even basic hygiene - fall by the wayside.    Supporting the call for revising the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to include co-factors is the fact that the mass heterosexual outbreaks long predicted by Fauci and his ilk in seemingly every country on Earth have failed to materialize, except - supposedly - in Africa, where the diagnostic standard for AIDS differs dramatically from those of the West. Given the prohibitively high cost of HIV testing for poor African nations, the WHO in 1985 crafted a diagnostic loophole that became known as the “Bangui definition,” allowing medical professionals to diagnose AIDS in the absence of a test using just clinical symptoms: high fever, persistent cough, at least 30 days of diarrhea, and the loss of 10% of one's body weight within two months. Often suffering from malnutrition and without access to clean drinking water, many of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fit the bill, especially when the WHO added tuberculosis to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses in 1993 - a move which may be responsible for as many as one half of African “AIDS” cases, according to journalist Christine Johnson. The WHO's former Chief of Global HIV Surveillance, James Chin, acknowledged their manipulation of statistics, but stressed that it was the entire AIDS industry - not just his organization - perpetrating the fraud. “There's the saying that, if you knew what sausages are made of, most people would hesitate to sort of eat them, because they wouldn't like what's in it. And if you knew how HIV/AIDS numbers are cooked, or made up, you would use them with extreme caution,” Chin told an interviewer in 2009.12   With infected numbers stubbornly remaining constant in the US despite Fauci's fearmongering projections of the looming heterosexually-transmitted plague, the CDC in 1993 broadened its definition of AIDS to include asymptomatic (that is, healthy) HIV-positive people with low T-cell counts - an absurd criteria given that an individual's T-cell count can fluctuate by hundreds within a single day. As a result, the number of “AIDS cases” in the US immediately doubled. Supervised by Fauci, the NIAID had been quietly piling on diseases into the “AIDS-related” category for years, bloating the list from just two conditions - pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma - to 30 so fast it raised eyebrows among some of science's leading lights. Deeming the entire process “bizarre” and unprecedented, Kary Mullis wondered aloud why no one had called the AIDS establishment out: “There's something wrong here. And it's got to be financial.”13   Indeed, an early CDC public relations campaign was exposed by the Wall Street Journal in 1987 as having deliberately mischaracterized AIDS as a threat to the entire population so as to garner increased public and private funding for what was very much a niche issue, with the risk to average heterosexuals from a single act of sex “smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning.” Ironically, the ads, which sought to humanize AIDS patients in an era when few Americans knew anyone with the disease and more than half the adult population thought infected people should be forced to carry cards warning of their status, could be seen as a reaction to the fear tactics deployed by Fauci early on.14   It's hard to tell where fraud ends and incompetence begins with Gallo's HIV antibody test. Much like Covid-19 would become a “pandemic of testing,” with murder victims and motorcycle crashes lumped into “Covid deaths” thanks to over-sensitized PCR tests that yielded as many as 90% false positives,15 HIV testing is fraught with false positives - and unlike with Covid-19, most people who hear they are HIV-positive still believe they are receiving a death sentence. Due to the difficulty of isolating HIV itself from human samples, the most common diagnostic tests, ELISA and the Western Blot, are designed to detect not the virus but antibodies to it, upending the traditional medical understanding that the presence of antibodies indicates only exposure - and often that the body has actually vanquished the pathogen. Patients are known to test positive for HIV antibodies in the absence of the virus due to at least 70 other conditions, including hepatitis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, syphilis, recent vaccination or even pregnancy. (https://www.chcfl.org/diseases-that-can-cause-a-false-positive-hiv-test/) Positive results are often followed up with a PCR “viral load” test, even though the inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis famously condemned its misuse as a tool for diagnosing infection. Packaging inserts for all three tests warn the user that they cannot be reliably used to diagnose HIV.16 The ELISA HIV antibody test explicitly states: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV antibody in human blood.”17   That the public remains largely unaware of these and other massive holes in the supposedly airtight HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm is a testament to Fauci's multi-layered control of the press. Like the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration and other Covid-19 dissidents, scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma have been brutally punished for their heresy, no matter how prestigious their prior standing in the field and no matter how much evidence they have for their own claims. In 1987, the year the FDA's approval of AZT made AIDS the most profitable epidemic yet (a dubious designation Covid-19 has since surpassed), Fauci made it clearer than ever that scientific inquiry and debate - the basis of the scientific method - would no longer be welcome in the American public health sector, eliminating retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, then one of the most prominent opponents of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, from the scientific conversation with a professional disemboweling that would make a cartel hitman blush. Duesberg had just eviscerated Gallo's 1984 HIV paper with an article of his own in the journal Cancer Research, pointing out that retroviruses had never before been found to cause a single disease in humans - let alone 30 AIDS-defining diseases. Rather than allow Gallo or any of the other scientists in his camp to respond to the challenge, Fauci waged a scorched-earth campaign against Duesberg, who had until then been one of the most highly regarded researchers in his field. Every research grant he requested was denied; every media appearance was canceled or preempted. The University of California at Berkeley, unable to fully fire him due to tenure, took away his lab, his graduate students, and the rest of his funding. The few colleagues who dared speak up for him in public were also attacked, while enemies and opportunists were encouraged to slander Duesberg at the conferences he was barred from attending and in the journals that would no longer publish his replies. When Duesberg was summoned to the White House later that year by then-President Ronald Reagan to debate Fauci on the origins of AIDS, Fauci convinced the president to cancel, allegedly pulling rank on the Commander-in-Chief with an accusation that the “White House was interfering in scientific matters that belonged to the NIH and the Office of Science and Technology Assessment.” After seven years of this treatment, Duesberg was contacted by NIH official Stephen O'Brien and offered an escape from professional purgatory. He could have “everything back,” he was told, and shown a manuscript of a scientific paper - apparently commissioned by the editor of the journal Nature - “HIV Causes AIDS: Koch's Postulates Fulfilled” with his own name listed alongside O'Brien's as an author.18 His refusal to take the bribe effectively guaranteed the epithet “AIDS denier” will appear on his tombstone. The character assassination of Duesberg became a template that would be deployed to great effectiveness wherever Fauci encountered dissent - never debate, only demonize, deplatform and destroy.    Even Luc Montagnier, the real discoverer of HIV, soon found himself on the wrong side of the Fauci machine. With his 1990 declaration that “the HIV virus [by itself] is harmless and passive, a benign virus,” Montagnier began distancing himself from Gallo's fraud, effectively placing a target on his own back. In a 1995 interview, he elaborated: “four factors that have come together to account for the sudden epidemic [of AIDS]: HIV presence, immune hyper-activation, increased sexually transmitted disease incidence, sexual behavior changes and other behavioral changes” such as drug use, poor nutrition and stress - all of which he said had to occur “essentially simultaneously” for HIV to be transmitted, creating the modern epidemic. Like the professionals at the Tri-State Healing Center, Montagnier advocated for the use of antioxidants like vitamin C and N-acetyl cysteine, naming oxidative stress as a critical factor in the progression from HIV to AIDS.19 When Montagnier died in 2022, Fauci's media mouthpieces sneered that the scientist (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of HIV, despite his flagging faith in that discovery's significance) “started espousing views devoid of a scientific basis” in the late 2000s, leading him to be “shunned by the scientific community.”20 In a particularly egregious jab, the Washington Post's obit sings the praises of Robert Gallo, implying it was the American scientist who really should have won the Nobel for HIV, while dismissing as “

President Trump met with Jordan's King Abdullah today as the region faces yet another moment of crisis over the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Meanwhile, the US president is doubling down on his controversial proposal to permanently relocate the majority of Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan. Correspondent Jeremy Diamond has the latest from Tel Aviv.  Also on today's show: veteran Egyptian diplomat Hossam Zaki; former White House health policy adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel; Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman; director Mohammad Rasoulof ("The Seed of the Sacred Fig")  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Continuing with our series of subject-specific episodes to gear up for Trump 2.0, a great panel of healthcare policy experts—Dan Diamond, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Kavita Patel—sizes up the critical series of issues about to confront the country. RFK Jr's potential confirmation to head HHS is an issue in itself, given the huge challenges of the $2 trillion agency. Then there are a serious of potential overhauls in different medical areas to consider, especially vaccines but also ACA, abortion, more.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In a wide-ranging conversation with Ezekiel Emanuel, the policymaking physician and medical gadfly, we discuss the massive effects of GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro. We also talk about the state of cancer care, mysteries in the gut microbiome, flaws in the U.S. healthcare system — and what a second Trump term means for healthcare policy. SOURCES:Ezekiel Emanuel, vice provost for Global Initiatives, co-director of the Health Transformation Institute, and professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. RESOURCES:"Obesity Drugs Would Be Covered by Medicare and Medicaid Under Biden Proposal," by Margot Sanger-Katz (The New York Times, 2024)."International Coverage of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: A Review and Ethical Analysis of Discordant Approaches," by Johan L. Dellgren, and Govind Persad, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel (The Lancet, 2024).The Coming Wave: Technology, Power, and the Twenty-first Century's Greatest Dilemma, by Mustafa Suleyman (2023)."The Significance of Blockbusters in the Pharmaceutical Industry," by Alexander Schuhmacher, Markus Hinder, Nikolaj Boger, Dominik Hartl, and Oliver Gassmann (Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2022).Reinventing American Health Care: How the Affordable Care Act Will Improve Our Terribly Complex, Blatantly Unjust, Outrageously Expensive, Grossly Inefficient, Error Prone System, by Ezekiel J. Emanuel (2014)."Why I Hope to Die at 75," by Ezekiel J. Emanuel (The Atlantic, 2014)."Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceuticals," by Ziad F. Gellad and Kenneth W. Lyles (The American Journal of Medicine, 2014).Brothers Emanuel: A Memoir of an American Family, by Ezekiel J. Emanuel (2013)."Bounds in Competing Risks Models and the War on Cancer," by Bo E. Honoré and Adriana Lleras-Muney (Econometrica, 2006). EXTRAS:"How to Fix Medical Research," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2024)."The Suddenly Diplomatic Rahm Emanuel," by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."Ari Emanuel Is Never Indifferent," by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."Who Pays for Multimillion-Dollar Miracle Cures?" by Freakonomics, M.D. (2023)."Who Gets the Ventilator?" by Freakonomics Radio (2020).

Right, left, center? What is the "mainstream media"? Turns out the right answer probably is, no longer in existence. Our own Kevin Lerner, Marist Department of Communication Chair and an expert in journalism history, joins to help us figure out what dramatic changes in media and news means for democracy.Then, doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia, have been controversial topics for decades, leading to ethical, religious, and medical debates. But, decades after Dr. Kevorkian put a name and face on the practices, they're much more widespread and accepted. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, bioethicist, oncologist, and professor at Penn, tells us why public opinion about the options is not really based on reality.Finally, with Thanksgiving right around the corner, we compared our turkey cooking expertise. Whether you're a master chef or just hoping not to burn the house down, this week's fun fact will have you gobbling and ready for the holiday.

In this episode of The Health Literacy 2.0 Podcast, Seth Serxner is joined by Dr. Ari Hoffman, SVP Product at Collective Health, a workforce benefits platform that integrates various benefit levers to deliver streamlined and holistic benefits administration.Their in-depth discussion covers a range of critical topics affecting the healthcare landscape today—from health literacy and value-based care to digital health solutions and AI's potential role in transforming healthcare.Dr. Ari Hoffman is an accomplished graduate of Stanford University and UCSF Medical School. Before joining Collective Health, he held various clinical and academic leadership roles at UCSF, including his most recent position as Value Improvement Director for Hospital Medicine. His contributions have earned him several prestigious awards, such as the 2012 Quality & Safety Innovation Challenge and the 2010 Innovative Teaching Award. With a robust background in health policy, Dr. Hoffman has been mentored by notable figures like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a healthcare adviser during the Obama administration, and Dr. Steve Pearson, founder and President of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Though he has spent years on the UCSF faculty teaching health policy and value, this focus evolved over time.In a wide-ranging conversation, Ari and Seth discuss:☑️ The crucial role of data in helping members make informed healthcare decisions.☑️ The significance of health literacy in guiding members through benefit selection and plan design to avoid financial pitfalls.☑️ Measuring and agreeing on parameters for value-based care and contracting.☑️ The need for clear and transparent tools for navigating healthcare structures, focusing on health literacy, simplicity, transparency, and intuitiveness☑️ The importance of data-driven and evidence-based approaches in healthcare, chronic disease management, and the role of delivery systems in providing appropriate and cost-effective care.☑️ And much more.Learn About EdLogicsWant to see how EdLogics' gamified platform can boost health literacy, drive engagement in health and wellness programs, and help people live happier, healthier lives? Visit EdLogics.

Start the week’s headlines with Boyd Matheson! Asma Uddin dives into how the Supreme Court can be the unifier we need in society. See how the liberal arts spirit needs to be reignited in higher education. Jess Craig joins to talk about the gap in humanitarian aid funding. Boyd breaks down what is happening in the Middle East currently and the upcoming presidential debates and More!

We are returning to a conversation we had with Ezekiel Emanuel a few weeks ago about how the liberal arts tradition of broad-based learning can cultivate engaged citizens and analytical thinkers. As universities face mounting pressures from career-focused agendas, cultural battles, and skepticism, they must firmly reassert the timeless value of a well-rounded liberal arts foundation. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel emphasizes that revitalizing these democratic discussions and values is vital not just for individual flourishing, but for equipping the next generation of leaders to forge a more united society.

Join Boyd in delving into Friday’s news. Hear about the public sentiment towards the upcoming presidential debates and what we should do to reinforce the traditional values with J.D. Tuccille. Rep. Burgess Owens shares new policies and hearing he has been involved in . Learn about the devalued tradition of the liberal arts in higher education with Ezekiel Emanuel. See how religion influences stronger communities as Bill Duncan and Boyd talk and More!

At the heart of American higher education lies a longstanding tradition - the liberal arts. This broad-based approach to learning, emphasizing critical thinking, and cultivation of democratic values, has been a defining strength of our universities. Ezekiel Emanuel from University of Pennsylvania analyzes how the liberal arts have been devalued as career training and narrow specialization have taken precedence. As we contend with growing political polarization and a public discourse lacking nuance, it is vital that we rediscover and reinvigorate the liberal arts ideals that foster reasoned debate, intellectual curiosity, and cross-cultural understanding.

A new study has found that 41 percent of cancer drugs receiving accelerated government approval do not improve survival or quality of life.一项新研究发现，41% 获得政府加速批准的抗癌药物并不能改善生存或生活质量。The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) accelerated approval program aims to get new drugs to patients as quickly as possible. But the effectiveness of the drugs differs.美国食品和药物管理局 (FDA) 的加速审批计划旨在尽快为患者提供新药。 但药物的功效不同。The program was created in 1992 to speed up the approval of HIV drugs. Today, about 85 percent of accelerated approvals go to cancer drugs.该计划创建于 1992 年，旨在加快艾滋病毒药物的审批速度。 如今，大约 85% 的加速批准用于抗癌药物。The program helps the FDA collect data on early results of approved drugs. In exchange, drug companies are expected to use the data to do additional testing. They are to produce better evidence before drugs receive normal approval.该计划帮助 FDA 收集已批准药物的早期结果数据。 作为交换，制药公司预计将使用这些数据进行额外的测试。 他们将在药物获得正常批准之前提供更好的证据。The new study suggests most cancer drugs given accelerated approval do not improve or extend patients' lives within five years.这项新研究表明，大多数加速批准的癌症药物在五年内不会改善或延长患者的生命。Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is a cancer specialist and bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. He was not involved in the research.Ezekiel Emanuel 博士是宾夕法尼亚大学的癌症专家和生物伦理学家。 他没有参与这项研究。Emanuel told The Associated Press (AP) he thinks five years should be enough time to examine the effectiveness of new drugs. “Thousands of people are getting those drugs. That seems a mistake if we don't know whether they work or not," he added.伊曼纽尔告诉美联社（美联社），他认为五年应该有足够的时间来检验新药的有效性。 “成千上万的人正在服用这些药物。 如果我们不知道它们是否有效，那似乎是一个错误，”他补充道。It is up to the FDA or the drug company to withdraw drugs that do not perform well. Sometimes the FDA decides that less clear evidence is good enough to give full approval.FDA 或制药公司有权撤回表现不佳的药物。 有时 FDA 认为不太明确的证据足以给予完全批准。The new study found that between 2013 and 2017, 46 cancer drugs were given accelerated approval. Of those, 63 percent were moved to normal approval. Forty-three percent demonstrated a good medical result in tests.新研究发现，2013年至2017年间，有46种抗癌药物获得加速批准。 其中，63% 转为正常批准。 百分之四十三的人在测试中表现出良好的医疗结果。The study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It was also discussed at the recent meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in San Diego, California.该研究发表在《美国医学会杂志》上。 最近在加利福尼亚州圣地亚哥举行的美国癌症研究协会会议上也讨论了这一问题。Dr. Edward Cliff of Harvard Medical School was a co-writer of the study. He told the AP it is unclear how much cancer patients understand about drugs with accelerated approval. “We raise the question: Is that uncertainty being conveyed to patients?” he said.哈佛医学院的爱德华·克里夫博士是该研究的合著者。 他告诉美联社，目前尚不清楚癌症患者对加速批准药物的了解程度。 “我们提出一个问题：这种不确定性是否传达给了患者？” 他说。Drugs that received accelerated approval may be the only chance for patients with rare or advanced cancers, said Dr. Jennifer Litton. She is with the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. Litton, who was not involved with the study, said it is important for doctors to carefully explain the evidence.Jennifer Litton 博士表示，获得加速批准的药物可能是罕见或晚期癌症患者的唯一机会。 她在德克萨斯州休斯顿的 MD 安德森癌症中心工作。 利顿没有参与这项研究，他说医生仔细解释证据很重要。“It might be shrinking of tumor. It might be how long the tumor stays stable,” Litton said. “You can provide the data you have, but you shouldn't overpromise.”“这可能是肿瘤缩小了。 这可能是肿瘤保持稳定的时间，”利顿说。 “你可以提供你所拥有的数据，但你不应该过度承诺。”Congress recently changed the program to give the FDA more power and to simplify the process of withdrawing drugs when companies do not meet their commitments.国会最近修改了该计划，赋予 FDA 更多权力，并简化公司未履行承诺时撤回药品的流程。The changes permit the FDA “to withdraw approval for a drug approved under accelerated approval, when appropriate, more quickly,” said FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones. The agency can now require that confirmatory tests be started when the agency gives the first approval. This can speed up the process of confirming how effective a drug is, Duvall-Jones said.FDA 发言人 Cherie Duvall-Jones 表示，这些变化允许 FDA“在适当的情况下，更快地撤回对加速审批下批准的药物的批准”。 该机构现在可以要求在首次批准时开始验证性测试。 杜瓦尔-琼斯说，这可以加快确认药物有效性的过程。

Jacob sits down with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel again to discuss the future of health policy and care delivery, hyped innovations in healthcare, market trends among payers and providers, and more.  (0:00) intro(0:57) generative AI(4:08) the ethics of NOT using AI(7:04) ML-based risk adjustment(11:46) why didn't hospitals become payers?(19:37) what does the future of hospitals look like?(26:15) can insurance cover mental health treatment for everybody?(29:45) GLP-1s(35:02) the future of healthcare policy(41:07) what should we be learning from the way other countries do healthcare?(45:57) Ben Franklin(49:37) Zeke Bar update Out-Of-Pocket: https://www.outofpocket.health/

Host Claire Stinson welcomes you to a special year-end episode of Contagious Conversations focused on highlights from the 2023 season! Listen to selections from the year's episodes on topics as diverse as heath threats facing Black women; training the next generation of public health professionals; and the respiratory triple threat posed by COVID-19, influenza and RSV. Highlights featured include the groundbreaking vaccination approach that led to the eradication of smallpox in 1980; how investigators zeroed in on the cause of an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of pseudomonas aeruginosa found in contaminated eye drops; the health threats most common to women, and the particular challenges faced by Black women; a conversation with new CDC director Dr. Mandy Cohen; and more. For full episode transcription, visit Contagious Conversations.   Key Takeaways: [1:25] Drs. Bill Foege and Mark Rosenberg codeveloped a project called “Becoming Better Ancestors: Nine Lessons to Change the World”. Dr. Foege talks about his inspiration for this project. [3:09] Dr. Laura Evans discusses the triple threat of COVID-19, influenza and RSV, and shares with the audience her thoughts on how to stay healthy and the importance of vaccines against respiratory threats. [4:37] April was National Minority Health Month and for that occasion Dr. Judy Monroe spoke with Dr. Melody McCloud, an Atlanta-based obstetrician/gynecologist, who shared her insight into the most common health threats women face. [6:22] CDC epidemiologist Dr. Danielle Rankin talks about her role investigating the cause of the outbreak of a drug resistant strain of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa. [7:21] CDC director Dr. Mandy Cohen speaks with Dr. Judy Monroe about the experience she brings to her position and CDC's priorities going forward. [8:59] Drs. Ezekiel Emanuel and Jerome Adams discuss hypertension in America and the risks it poses to almost half of U.S. adults. In this episode, Dr. Adams highlights the ethnic inequities in diagnosing and controlling this silent killer.

Why a US professor is calling for compulsory ethics to be taught in higher education, in the wake of the Gaza war.

Doctors have long known that hypertension, or high blood pressure, is a leading risk factor for heart attack and stroke. Yet today, nearly half of all adults in the United States have hypertension, creating a silent public health threat. Host Dr. Judy Monroe is joined by Dr. Jerome Adams and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Adams is a former U.S. Surgeon General of the United States and now serves as the executive director of Purdue University's Health Equity Initiatives. Dr. Emanuel is vice provost for global initiatives and the Diane v.S. Levy and Robert M. Levy University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. In this episode, the doctors discuss the health risks posed by hypertension, reasons why it is so prevalent in the U.S. and the steps we can all take to stay healthy. For full episode transcription, visit Contagious Conversations.   Key Takeaways: [1:46] Why is hypertension so prevalent?  [2:20] Dr. Emanuel discusses the lack of exercise as a contributing factor to high hypertension rates in the U.S. adult population. [2:52] Dr. Emanuel addresses the issues of poor diet, processed food and high sodium intake as they relate to hypertension. [3:13] Obesity is a major factor for hypertension. [3:50] Alcohol consumption as a contributor to high rates of hypertension. [4:23] Dr. Adams highlights the impact of poor hypertension control among those impacted.  [7:14] What steps can Americans take to address the higher impact of hypertension among the Black community? [8:53] Dr. Adams discusses systemic racism and its impact on hypertension control. [9:30] Dr. Emanuel emphasizes what he calls ‘huge' health inequities in hypertension. [10:44] The lack of awareness regarding hypertension is part of the problem. [12:50] During the pandemic, more people were lost each year to hypertension than to COVID-19. [13:06] Dr. Adams explains the three goals of the Surgeon General's call to action.   Mentioned in This Episode: Surgeon General's Call to Action  

The pandemic changed health care forever. In a special live episode taped with a virtual panel of expert listeners, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel lays out some of the biggest and most radical changes we will face over the next few years. From how and where we access our coverage to who owns the hospitals and how we will pay for care, nothing will ever be the same. Dr. Emanuel explains why and answers questions from our panelists about a couple of unique and personal topics.  Keep up with Andy on Post and Twitter and Post @ASlavitt. Follow @ZekeEmanuel on Twitter. Joining Lemonada Premium is a great way to support our show and get bonus content. Subscribe today at bit.ly/lemonadapremium.  Support the show by checking out our sponsors! Click this link for a list of current sponsors and discount codes for this show and all Lemonada shows: https://lemonadamedia.com/sponsors/  Check out these resources from today's episode:  Read Dr. Zeke Emanuel's “Nine Health Care Megatrends” that inspired this conversation Find vaccines, masks, testing, treatments, and other resources in your community: https://www.covid.gov/ Order Andy's book, “Preventable: The Inside Story of How Leadership Failures, Politics, and Selfishness Doomed the U.S. Coronavirus Response”: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250770165  Stay up to date with us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram at @LemonadaMedia.  For additional resources, information, and a transcript of the episode, visit lemonadamedia.com/show/inthebubble.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When KFF Health News' “What the Health?” podcast launched in 2017, Republicans in Washington were engaged in an (ultimately unsuccessful) campaign to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. The next six years would see a pandemic, increasingly unaffordable care, and a health care workforce experiencing unprecedented burnout. In the podcast's 300th episode, host and chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner explores the past and possible future of the U.S. health care system with three prominent “big thinkers” in health policy: Ezekiel Emanuel of the University of Pennsylvania, Jeff Goldsmith of Health Futures, and Farzad Mostashari of Aledade. Click here for a transcript of the episode.Further reading by the panelists from this week's episode: Health Affairs' “Nine Health Care Megatrends, Part 1: System and Payment Reform,” by Ezekiel J. Emanuel.Health Affairs' “We Have a National Strategy for Accountable Care, So What's Next?” by Sean Cavanaugh, Mandy K. Cohen, and Farzad Mostashari. The Health Care Blog's “What Can We Learn From the Envision Bankruptcy?” by Jeff Goldsmith. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Dr. Osterholm and Chris Dall discuss the state of the pandemic in the U.S. and around the world, the end of the COVID Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and the potential for a surge in mpox cases in the coming months.We worked on the U.S. pandemic response. Here are 13 takeaways for the next health emergency (Ezekiel Emanuel et al., New York Times)Podcast Feedback Survey

Jacob and Nikhil sit down with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and discuss his reflections on his “Why I want to Die at 75” piece, how publishing/financial incentives harm research, doctors' increasing social isolation and his love of chocolate-making.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is someone who understands how medicine can both save lives and improve the quality of it. That's why it came as a shock to many when he wrote in 2014 that he would decline all medical treatment after age 75. He explained that here in the U.S., we chase longevity without asking whether those extra years are worth it. “Here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss,” he said at the time. “It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived.” Right now, Dr. Emanuel is 65. He talked to Diane on this week's episode of On My Mind to revisit his essay – and also debate a topic close to Diane's heart – medical aid in dying.

ASCO: You're listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guests' statements on this podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses. Brielle Gregory Collins: Hi, everyone. I'm Brielle Gregory Collins, a member of the Cancer.Net content team, and I'll be your host for today's Cancer.Net Podcast. Cancer.Net is the patient information website of ASCO, the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Today, we're going to be talking about what health equity and quality care mean in the context of cancer care and discuss highlights from the 2022 Quality Care Symposium in these areas. Our guests today are Dr. Fay Hlubocky and Dr. Manali Patel. Dr. Hlubocky is a licensed clinical health psychologist with an expertise in psychosocial oncology and a health care ethicist at the University of Chicago. She's also the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Psychosocial Oncology. Thanks for joining us today, Dr. Hlubocky. Dr. Fay Hlubocky: Thank you, Brielle. Hello, everyone. So wonderful to be with you all today. Brielle Gregory Collins: Thank you so much. And Dr. Patel is an assistant professor at Stanford University in the division of oncology and a staff thoracic oncologist at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. She's also the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Health Equity. Thanks for joining us today, Dr. Patel. Dr. Manali Patel: Of course. And thanks for hosting both me and Fay to discuss this really fun topic. Brielle Gregory Collins: Of course, we're looking forward to it. Before we begin, we should mention that Dr. Hlubocky and Dr. Patel do not have any relationships to disclose related to this podcast, but you can find their full disclosure statements on Cancer.Net. So to start, Dr. Patel, can you first describe what the term health equity means and how it relates to cancer care? Dr. Patel: Great question. Nice one to start off this podcast. So I think we've always been really focused on health disparities. So I love that you've asked, what is health equity? Health equity is really reframing disparities or differences in cancer outcomes with more of a justice lens. And the full definition, which I love from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, describes health equity as meaning that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible. This means that you remove obstacles that may impede people's ability to attain their highest health, such as poverty, discrimination, and the consequences of such powerlessness, lack of access to good jobs, having fair pay, quality education and housing, safe environments, and health care. And as it relates to cancer care, it means that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible, even with a cancer diagnosis. This means having a fair and just opportunity to receive all of the evidence-based care that we know makes a difference, as well as high quality care that matters from screening to the end of life. Brielle Gregory Collins: Thank you so much for explaining that. And Dr. Hlubocky, talking about quality care, what does quality care mean in the context of cancer care? Dr. Hlubocky: Thank you, Brielle. So according to the Institute of Medicine, now known as the National Academy of Medicine, quality care requires the safety, the efficacy, and the efficiency of care delivery. It's also timeliness and a patient-centered approach that's coordinated by an inter-professional oncology team with the integration of evidence-based or research-based practices to continually improve cancer care. It's a very comprehensive, a very value-based form of care that adheres to evidence-based guidelines. It assures the treatment of symptoms, and the side effects of cancer, and the cancer treatment. And it's also coordinated care with strong communication amongst all clinicians and patients, which might involve a written care plan that details all of cancer care, the care in a clinical trial, if that's a potential option for patients. And it also involves shared decision-making, including honest and frank discussion about prognosis, the intensive therapy, patient's values, and also preferences regarding care. As well, it's a research-based support for psychosocial needs. It provides palliative care throughout the course of treatment from diagnosis through the end of life, and end of life care involving hospice. So quality cancer care was first coined by Dr. Joseph Simone, who was a pediatric oncologist and was the first, really, to advocate for quality-based cancer programs in pediatric oncology for both leukemia and lymphoma. And he was the one who truly started this movement that involves centering on every patient with cancer and every care program. So this year in Chicago at the Quality Care meeting, these interdisciplinary experts really highlighted the latest quality improvement research, as well as guidelines that helps us to improve the quality of cancer care from diagnosis through treatment to survivorship, and again, through end of life care. Brielle Gregory Collins: Great. Thank you so much for walking through that. And yeah, we're excited to discuss more research from the Quality Care Symposium, too, a little later in this podcast. Dr. Patel, we know that health equity and quality care are linked. So how do health equity and quality care relate to better overall cancer care? Dr. Patel: Great question. I love the fact that you brought up the Institute of Medicine's definition of quality because in my mind, doing work in health equity for over a decade now, really looking at health equity and quality, I've always thought of them as being intricately linked. But what I loved about the ASCO symposium and now some of the word choices that we're using, really does think that equity is not just a single component of quality, which previously it was. And now, the Institute of Medicine moved equity into being more of a cross-cutting dimension where it is an underpinning of all aspects of what Fay just outlined, in terms of effectiveness, safety, timeliness of care, etc. I think equity, in order to actually achieve high quality care, especially in the cancer realm, health equity has to be a fundamental component of such care. And so now, I'm going to take a step back because I think for years, we've been looking at equity as more of an issue of just access. But you heard in Fay's definition, and the definitions that are out there, that exist for quality, that equity and quality are not really just about access. In other words, differences in cancer care and inequity in cancer care is due to the fact that some populations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, for example, have poorer access to care than others. That is true, but this is just one factor, and it's not the only factor. Even when access is equal, we know that some populations tend to receive lower quality cancer care than others, be it by race and ethnicity, be it by socioeconomic status, gender identity and sexual orientation, or even age. So really, equal access does not equate to equitable care. What's nice about linking quality and equity and this intricate linkage of the 2 means that you're addressing the effectiveness of the care. You're ensuring that, when you think of quality in terms of equity, the outcomes you're thinking about in terms of race and ethnicity and actually moving towards considering, for example, what different things mean to different patients in terms of effectiveness, safety, timeliness of care, and ensuring that not only are people receiving the care, but that they're all receiving high quality care. I hope that makes sense. Brielle Gregory Collins: It absolutely does, and I appreciate you, again, walking through that and just explaining how those 2 are connected. And I want to go into some of the research that was presented at this year's Quality Care Symposium. So Dr. Hlubocky, can you introduce some of the key studies or themes that came out of this year's symposium that addressed quality care? Dr. Hlubocky: Thank you. Absolutely. There were several key quality cancer care themes that had to illuminate the cutting-edge research that is being conducted today and the advances by noted experts in the field, specifically at the symposium. The first being financial toxicity, or financial hardship, and problems that patients may encounter that's caused by the cost of treatment. This was identified as a major thematic session, where multidimensional approaches to addressing financial toxicity were presented, things like screening interventions, survivorship advocacy, and policy. Additional interventions to address financial toxicity were presented. And Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, from the University of Penn, he's Vice Chair of Global Affairs, but a well-known ethicist in the country. He actually launched the meeting with a phenomenal keynote that was entitled, “New Directions for Cancer Care in the U.S.: Building a Transformational Research and Development Ecosystem and Healthy Payment Landscape That Better Supports Our Patients.” We then heard about how screening tools add value to identify patients with financial hardship and how to best implement them. We learned what other cancer centers have implemented regarding financial toxicity programs, and how any cancer center or any practice can implement these tools and interventions aimed at helping our patients with financial toxicity or hardship. Additionally, smart solutions like leveraging digital health tools to improve cancer care delivery, this also included a study on how health technology can be utilized to improve the delivery of cancer care today and the future, which evaluated the use of web versus mobile devices for ePRO reporting [electronic patient-reported outcomes reporting] and severe symptom responses. I believe it was 6 cancer centers. Symptom monitoring and what we refer to as patient-reported outcomes was also a key topic. And we heard about severe symptom reporting in medical oncology patients at a community center that was assessed through a platform, as well as severe symptom reporting and surgical patients assessed through an EHR-integrated ePRO questionnaire, again, at 6 centers by Dr. Wong at Dartmouth. Physical impairment, pain, and fatigue were top concerns that were identified, and Dr. Wong and her team also identified predictors of severe symptoms so that population surveillance should be considered a priority. And she also encouraged that interventions are really needed to address common severe symptoms and that these future studies should define what is the most effective migration strategies for these symptoms. Successful integration of health care and health services research interventions in oncology was also another thematic session, and it offered a framework for leveraging health care services research to improve cancer care delivery across the diverse populations. And we know that leaders in the field discussed a variety of these interventions, including hospital at home and geriatric assessment. For example, guidance and geriatric assessment and clinical practice was also presented by the former Cancer.Net geriatrics editor, Dr. William Dale, which included a need to use to inform treatment decisions which would systematically change cancer care delivery. And finally, an interactive roundtable on rethinking advanced care planning was also held here. These panel experts examined the current model of advanced care planning. What is the merits? How can it be reimagined? And how do we measure outcomes and tools, and what is the impact on caregivers? And finally, regarding the smart solutions, leveraging the digital health tools, we looked at big-tech solutions to common care delivery obstacles, leveraging electronic health records to support treatment and achieving equitable screening. Especially, for example, lung cancer was discussed. I think that hit most of the studies that were presented. What do you think, Manali? Did I miss anything? Dr. Patel: You did a really nice job of highlighting all of them. There were so many exciting studies that were presented, and it was really a fun meeting not only to spend time with you, Fay, but then also to meet up with colleagues and to see the cross-cutting research across both equity and quality, and the linkage between the 2. On that note, I think I can talk about the different ones that were kind of more focused on equity. And the opening theme was a really nice theme about the structural barriers to equitable care delivery. And again, when you think about quality and equity as being intricately linked, if people are unable to get the highest evidence-based care, providing care-- we can provide care, but if it's not evidence-based care, then are you really moving the quality needle forward? And so the opening theme really looked at, I think, reframing and shifting our views of the focus on the patient as the reason for disparities and inequities to really thinking about structural barriers and barriers that may exist not only at the policy level, but also barriers that exist just in the way that our system is set up with structural racism, ways to overcome structural racism through system-level changes. Another theme that I thought was really nice that was highlighted was the impact of social determinants and complications from social determinants of health on being able to achieve the highest quality of cancer care for patient populations. And a lot of studies looked at associations of the impact of housing and other health-related social needs such as transportation aspects, which we all know are a clear indicator and a clear barrier for some in terms of being able to achieve the highest quality care. We also saw a lot of abstracts both in the poster discussion, as well as in the main plenary session, including Dr. Otis Brawley's presentation that talked about this very question really here that you're asking us, which is about the linkage between quality and equity. And that entire plenary session that I would love for others to go back and to listen to had some very key poignant takeaways about the linkage, and how that has changed and morphed over time, and also, how our view of equity and this intricate linkage-- again, I know I keep saying intricate linkage, but that's because that's what it is. But this component being more of an underpinning, looking at quality from a whole, from the lens of equity, he did a really nice job of shedding light on this topic. Brielle Gregory Collins: And Dr. Patel, I do want to ask one follow-up question. So you mentioned this term, social determinants of health. Can you just briefly describe for our audience what that term means? Dr. Patel: Yeah, very good question. And I think there's a lot being done at ASCO, but also at the national level. And the social determinants of health are these structures that are set up within the way that our social system is set up. So things like housing, transportation, food. Interpersonal violence, for example, is one kind of health-related social need that can come out of not having access. But these are the social structures that are set up that determine how healthy you can be. So if you take a step back and you think about cancer care, for example, and you look at individuals that may not have a home and may have homelessness, and you think about how our treatments may impact. So many of our treatments may cause people's white blood counts to lower during periods of their treatment where we hope they aren't living in congregated areas such as homeless shelters, for example, where they can then become really infected with what we call opportunistic or other infections during treatment. How the homelessness situation impacts someone's health. We know that it not only impacts their ability to receive and our ability, as clinicians, to provide the highest evidence care for individuals living in those situations, but it also impacts other health. And we know that homelessness really does impact an ability for one to be able to be as healthy as possible. The same with food. We know that the pandemic and some of the work that we've done, Fay and I together, as well as others, have looked at the impact of the pandemic on food insecurity. Now, food insecurity has been a large issue for people, and a determinant of health is what I call it, a social determinant of health. But we know that food is medicine, and for people during the pandemic, we saw food insecurity significantly rise due to wage loss, due to other issues regarding income loss. And that then led to being unable to be able to eat as healthily as possible. If you don't have access to the right food, we know that that makes a difference in terms of your ability to make it through particular cancer treatments. For example, if you're unable to get enough magnesium, calcium, potassium, that can influence what we call your electrolytes and your labs, and make it very difficult for us to give treatment. But even prior to a cancer diagnosis, we know that food determines how healthy you are. And if you're unable to attain food sustenance even from an early age, that can really lower your ability - if you go back to the definition of health equity - your ability to be as healthy as possible. And these social structures then, which I loved about the ASCO Meeting this year, is-- I've been going to the ASCO Quality Meeting for many years and have kind of been-- Fay knows, right? We've kind of been like these lone people out in our little group of people that come to the ASCO Meeting and the Quality Meeting. We all speak the same language, but there was a real emphasis on interventions this time around, and how can you overcome what, traditionally in the medical realm, we don't think of as being linked with health or at least in oncology? I think primary care physicians and pediatricians have been focused on this for many years. But for us, in oncology, it hasn't really been first and foremost as part of our problem that as oncologists, if we know that people cannot get to our clinic, we need to intervene on transportation. But these other issues like homelessness and food insecurity and poverty really are also in our realm as well in terms of impacting one's ability to achieve health equity. Brielle Gregory Collins: Thank you so much. That's a really helpful explanation. And too, I want to get into-- there was all this great research to come out of quality, but I want to talk a little bit about what changes are happening in cancer care to improve health equity and quality care. So Dr. Hlubocky, we can start with you. Can you talk a little bit about some of the changes you're seeing happening in cancer care to improve health equity and quality care? Dr. Hlubocky: Well, I love what Manali has said about coming together first as a community at the meeting, where we're not just friends and colleagues, but we're collaborators and mentors to one another, and we are stimulated by one another's presentations to truly design research that optimizes care for every patient everywhere. And I think that's now the priority in that. And it's important to learn about some of the best practices that can help clinicians really reshape strategies and make key decisions to improve, as we said, that quality, that safety, and the efficiency of cancer care delivery. Certainly at ASCO, we're doing quite a bit with the QOPI Initiatives, the Quality Practice Initiatives, where every cancer center or practice has access to measures that are evidence-based, so we can identify what are the key symptom issues that patients are experiencing so we can use these measures. And ASCO has really been a wonderful partner for many practices along the way. So it's really, really seeing this research is such a motivator. And I wonder, Manali, what additional highlights stick in your mind as to what is the future when it comes to cancer care? Dr. Patel: Yeah. I mean, that's a fantastic question. I love this question, Brielle, that you're asking us to reflect on. As I mentioned, I really do think that there's been a real shift. And sadly, I think it took George Floyd's murder to link us to the huge discourse. Now that's happening not only in our own small circles locally, but also at the national and policy level, that equity, more so than I've ever seen at a meeting, even at our annual meetings in ASCO, has really become the forefront. And I've started to see meaningful change of not just talking about equity, but also thinking about interventions. I certainly, we think that we're seeing more discussion about equity, more awareness of the importance of equity. The question that you just asked about social determinants of health now is now part of our vernacular and our lingo now, which is wonderful, that we don't always have to describe the impact that social structures and our systems set up for us to be either healthy or not. But what we're also seeing are more dollars being put into incorporating equity, not just research dollars. I think what we saw at the ASCO Quality Meeting was there's a lot of research in this area and there are a lot of like-minded folks that are collaborating together to try to overcome this. But there are also programmatic dollars. And I think even within ASCO and within other organizations that are traditionally medically focused, there's a highlight of equity as part of the mission statement now, which is hugely different than where we were just a couple of years ago when both Fay and I were on the Health Equity Committee, that was not part of the mission statement. So the fact that that's being applied in a visual statement is really different. We're also seeing policies being made both at the local level. For example, in California, lots of policies being made for MediCal organization.  We're starting to see more of a reflection of inequities in care and really, interventions to try to move that on the ground, both within clinics reporting on data, like Fay mentioned, I think is extremely important. A basic step, yes, but one that just has not-- it's been lacking. We conducted a project that was led by Lori Pierce and others through ASCO that looked at just who are the people that are coming into your center? And how many are being enrolled on clinical trials? And what are the race and ethnicity and income and social status of these individuals? And many centers just are unable to report that because we don't collect data on it. So Fay mentioned that something that does seem very basic now is becoming part of the fabric and there's now more understanding as to why these things are important, and why we need to measure them. And what are we going to do about it? So I really like that there's research happening in parallel where, again, as I mentioned, there were a lot of abstracts that were focused on the association of housing. But at the same time, then you've got interventions that address housing. People that are working with housing authority, or even at the VA, for example, creating safe housing for people during treatment. It doesn't address the whole issue of homelessness, but it does try to band-aid the situation until we have national policy that can provide better housing for individuals overall, or to address some of these issues. And I think that it's been really refreshing-- I don't know about you, Fay, but just for me, refreshing to see interventions that are solution-focused. And what can we take away from these abstracts and really try to implement at home? Or what are some novel ideas that we can do to overcome some of these issues? I hate being stuck in the description paradox of disparities, disparities, inequity, but no real solution as to what we can try to do at home. Dr. Hlubocky: I fully 100% agree with Manali's statement right there. Brielle Gregory Collins: Absolutely. And it's so exciting to hear about improvements being made and the needle being moved forward in these areas. I'm sure it's very reassuring for patients to hear that. And speaking of that, there's so much information in this area. For both of you, where do you recommend patients can go online to learn a little bit more about health equity and quality care? Dr. Hlubocky: Yeah. First and foremost, Cancer.Net. Of course, we have such wonderful content associated with many of the topics that we discussed today, such as financial toxicity, and various symptoms, and psychosocial issues, depression, anxiety, palliative care, end-of-life care. So that's definitely the first stop. As well as the American Cancer Society would be the next one. And the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. And of course, the National Cancer Institute, which centers-- they all center on quality care issues, such as those we just discussed today. And of course, I don't know about you, Manali, but really talking also to your cancer team. So that's the first step. But really, I think so many patients are fearful to address some of these issues with the team, [and think that] that we don't have time, and we make time. We make time. Our patients are very important to us, and we really want to optimize care the best that you can. So if any of these issues are a burden and barriers to getting the best care, please reach out to us. There are financial navigators, there's palliative care clinicians, psychosocial clinicians, and many cancer centers, as well as some practices in that. So talking to your oncologist, talking to your nurse practitioner, and they are great resources as the first step to attaining care after you've read some of these resources. Are there others that come to your mind, Manali? Dr. Patel: Yeah. I mean, great question. I love how you brought it back to the local teams. In terms of thinking about resources, I agree, there are a lot of resources that are local. And so ask your clinical teams, but then also other patient advocacy groups may have more information about resources to overcome some of the barriers that some patients are having, particular barriers, just to get general information about health equity. As Fay mentioned, we love Cancer.Net. I mean, I think it's one of the best resources that I've seen. In fact, my mother and my father go to the website pretty often. They are both cancer survivors as well. But there's a nice piece, again, about health equity and how it integrates into all facets of care and all facets of one's journey through cancer. I think, as I mentioned before, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation really has nice resources on health equity and also other web-based portals that you can delve into. So there's as much information as you want to learn about health equity, and also solutions focused more on the general picture that's maybe not related to cancer, but again, is linked to cancer. The American Public Health Association is also another really nice website that has a broad swath of how health equity and the issues that we talked about today, the social and economic structures, impact one's health overall. Again, not cancer-related, but everything is cancer-related. And so you can bring back some of those take-home messages to how it may impact one's cancer care. And then I really love-- for me, personally, the University of California Berkeley is a nice, free resource that has publications, depending on how deeply you want to delve into the questions and some of the brief topics that we've talked here, that are all focused on health equity. And it's a really nice website that hopefully, we can put into the link of the podcast description. Brielle Gregory Collins: Absolutely. Those are great resources. Thank you both for sharing those. And thank you again for your time and for sharing your expertise today. This was such a great discussion. It was really great having you both. Dr. Patel: Well, thank you for even highlighting this important topic of health equity and quality. Again, for me, it seems just completely, almost a no-brainer, that these 2 go together. But it's not always as easy as you think to link the 2. And so it's really nice that you all have come up with this podcast idea and also brought wonderful Fay and me together to do this. [laughter] There's so much admiration for what Fay is doing, and it was really humbling to be on a podcast with you, Fay. Dr. Hlubocky: Oh, it's an honor and a pleasure to be with you, Manali. You truly are an advocate and a guru, a wisdom when it comes to equity and equity issues and illuminating the issues nationally. So such an honor and pleasure to be with you. And of course, with Claire and Brielle, and to all the patients and caregivers and our colleagues, we're here for you. So don't forget to reach out to your oncology team and here with us at Cancer.Net. Brielle Gregory Collins: Thank you both so much. ASCO: Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care. And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology. Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

Here's a big thing that Betsy Seals makes clear in this show: Big companies can be successful in Medicare Advantage (MA)—and I mean success in all of its financial glory—because they have experience and the scale and also the specialized departments who keep track of all kinds of intricacies that are rate critical to MA success. Specifically, things Betsy Seals talks about as critical success factors, for example, are having relationships with brokers and health systems and other provider organizations. She also makes it clear how much local market knowledge is necessary. A benefit design working great in one local market might be a medical trend disaster in another area with different levels of social determinants of health (SDoH) or different disease patterns, so scaling into new areas isn't a matter of just cutting and pasting. History has shown it's easy enough to go down in a flaming ball of unanticipated medical trend and/or OIG/DOJ scrutiny. So, this is one thing that big MA carriers can get right and potentially, for sure, benefit patients in their plans. Now I say this knowing full well that there's a brouhaha afoot in which there are some who are really pro-MA and there are some who are really not. In this show with Betsy Seals today, we do not get into this (ie, Do patients in MA plans fare better than patients in traditional Medicare?). But I have a point to make, and I'm just gonna make it here. Like most “Is this better than that?” questions in healthcare, there is not one answer; and anyone running around espousing pretty much anything as a broad-stroke holy grail is pretty much full of it—and I would say that as a general statement. Whether MA is better than traditional Medicare depends on who the patient is and also which MA plan we're talking about here. So, starting on the “not a fan” side of the house, Wendell Potter has said (with evidence) that if a patient is toward the end of his or her life or acutely ill or needs to go to an NCI-designated cancer center, it could easily be deduced that traditional Medicare is going to be better. On the other hand, there seems to be evidence, including a recent JAMA article by Ravi Parikh, MD, MPP, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, that concludes MA produces a 22% to 26% reduction in costs compared to MSSP (Medicare Shared Savings Program) arrangements. And this is across just a general patient population of all age ranges, if I'm reading the study right. The great results that are discussed in that JAMA article are what can happen when payers and providers align to tackle SDoH and preventative stuff and are willing to go out into the community to curb potentially avoidable downstream acute events. David Carmouche, MD, by the way, on episode 343 talked at length about this. But there are variables here, and let me mention one of them: how good the Medicare Advantage plan is at risk-based contracting with physician groups. How good are they at putting patients into accountable relationships with provider organizations who are getting paid to keep patients healthy, meaning the MA plan is offering budget-based prospective payment contracts to physician groups? This is the case in that Ochsner/JAMA article example that Dr. David Carmouche was talking about. Ochsner, the health system in Louisiana, and MA plans were working together; and both assumed risk for this population. Susan Dentzer, president and CEO over at America's Physician Groups (APG), does a great job at covering a bunch of these topics on the Race to Value podcast. Another thing that will impact care quality is how good the plan leadership is at balancing patient care and shareholder demand for profit. Bottom line, it is not productive to be indiscriminately pie-eyed about pretty much anything in healthcare or throw babies out with bathwater on a regular basis. As Ge Bai, PhD, CPA, has said on this show (and others have said), there's no angels and no devils in healthcare. Everybody is some combination of both. And, in general, the only reason anybody does anything in healthcare is because it appeals to their self-interest. So, not working with some other healthcare stakeholder because we perceive them as greedy or “industry” or whatever is gonna mean that nobody is working with anybody. Just keep your eyes wide open, check the math, and in your contracts, get actual dollar amounts and not discounts. In this healthcare podcast, as mentioned a few times now, I am speaking with Betsy Seals. Betsy Seals is CEO and cofounder of Rebellis Group, a managed care consulting firm working with Medicare Advantage plans. Oh, and one acronym alert before we dive in here: SNP stands for special needs plan. A special needs plan is a Medicare Advantage coordinated care plan that is specifically designed to provide targeted care and limit enrollment to special needs individuals. So, a special needs individual could be any one of the following: An institutionalized individual A dual eligible, meaning somebody who has Medicare and Medicaid An individual with a severe or disabling chronic condition, as specified by CMS SNPs are becoming a bit of thing in the MA space this year, and Betsy talks about this trend. You can learn more at rebellisgroup.com. Betsy Seals is the CEO and cofounder of Rebellis Group, a consulting firm established to provide advisory and hands-on services to Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) and their subcontractors. Betsy is a nationally recognized leader in the managed care industry with over 20 years of experience. Betsy brings to the table a solid mix of leadership and business acumen, as well as regulatory and strategic knowledge within the managed care landscape. Betsy's expertise is focused in the areas of mergers and acquisitions, compliance, sales and marketing, strategy, supplemental benefit landscape, innovative benefit design that address social determinants of health, and health plan operations. Prior to founding Rebellis Group, Betsy served as the chief consulting officer for Gorman Health Group (GHG). In this role, Betsy managed the Medicare consulting practice, including implementation of strategic initiatives, development of new practice areas, and oversight of day-to-day consulting operations. Prior to her role as chief consulting officer, Betsy served as senior vice president, compliance operations, where she assisted MAOs and Part D sponsors to attain and maintain compliance with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regulations and guidance by conducting risk assessments, preparing organizations for CMS audits, performing mock CMS audits, and creating and implementing internal and delegated entity oversight programs. Before joining GHG, Betsy worked for MAOs, where she served in customer service and compliance with responsibility for creation and implementation of oversight programs, CMS audit preparation, implementation of internal corrective action plans, and the day-to-day management of compliance operations. Betsy has also worked as a CMS subcontractor to conduct CMS Compliance Program audits. 06:16 Is Medicare Advantage still a cash cow? 06:42 Why should Medicare Advantage be the most lucrative line of business? 07:07 “If there weren't a lot of money in it, nobody would do it.” 07:29 What should you know before jumping into the Medicare Advantage market? 14:04 What issues do upstarts overlook when getting into Medicare Advantage? 17:07 What is one of the next areas that Betsy thinks CMS will crack down on? 18:24 “Look at the data.” 19:53 “I think there's a lot of lessons that you could see over the past years in the industry.” 20:52 “That's what we see a lot of times is expansion without enough due diligence and thought put behind it.” 21:02 Why don't common business models always work in healthcare businesses? 22:29 What are the new key trends coming out of the Medicare Advantage space? 26:04 Why is it important to bring in your clinicians when entering a dual market? 27:52 What's going on in the chronic conditions space? 32:14 What's necessary to the infrastructure with any kind of SNP product? 32:56 What's Betsy's forecast for the future of Medicare Advantage? You can learn more at rebellisgroup.com. @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast Is Medicare Advantage still a cash cow? @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast Why should Medicare Advantage be the most lucrative line of business? @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast “If there weren't a lot of money in it, nobody would do it.” @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast What should you know before jumping into the Medicare Advantage market? @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast What issues do upstarts overlook when getting into Medicare Advantage? @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast What is one of the next areas that Betsy thinks CMS will crack down on? @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast “Look at the data.” @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast “I think there's a lot of lessons that you could see over the past years in the industry.” @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast “That's what we see a lot of times is expansion without enough due diligence and thought put behind it.” @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast Why don't common business models always work in healthcare businesses? @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast What are the new key trends coming out of the Medicare Advantage space? @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast Why is it important to bring in your clinicians when entering a dual market? @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast What's going on in the chronic conditions space? @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast What's necessary to the infrastructure with any kind of SNP product? @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast What's Betsy's forecast for the future of Medicare Advantage? @betsyseals of @GroupRebellis discusses #medicareadvantage on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast Recent past interviews: Click a guest's name for their latest RHV episode! Stacey Richter (INBW36), Dr Eric Bricker (Encore! EP351), Al Lewis, Dan Mendelson, Wendell Potter, Brian Klepper (Encore! EP335), Dr Aaron Mitchell (EP382), Karen Root, Mark Miller, AJ Loiacono, Josh LaRosa, Stacey Richter (INBW35), Rebecca Etz (Encore! EP295), Olivia Webb (Encore! EP337), Mike Baldzicki, Lisa Bari, Betsy Seals (EP375), Dave Chase, Cora Opsahl (EP373), Cora Opsahl (EP372), Dr Mark Fendrick (Encore! EP308), Erik Davis and Autumn Yongchu (EP371), Erik Davis and Autumn Yongchu (EP370), Keith Hartman, Dr Aaron Mitchell (Encore! EP282), Stacey Richter (INBW34), Ashleigh Gunter

On Oct. 13, 2021, at 7:27 pm, beautiful Grace Schara—an inquisitive young woman with Down-Syndrome—died a tragic and preventable death at a Wisconsin hospital. Rather than using treatments proven to combat COVID-19, Ascension's St. Elizabeth's Hospital followed the U.S. government's ineffective COVID-19 treatment protocols, for which they reap significant financial rewards. On the final day of Grace's life, as her doctor assured her parents she was doing well, Dr. Gavin Shokar also “unilaterally labeled Grace a DNR and ordered a lethal combination of IV sedatives and narcotics”—a fatal combination of the drugs Precedex, Lorazepam, and Morphine—which were administered over an incredibly short period of time. Notably, all three drugs are manufactured by mRNA “vaccine” maker and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.Who Was Grace Schara?Grace Schara was full of love. Properly describing the magical impact Grace had on every life she touched—especially her mom, dad, and sister—would require more space than this. Her family and all those who knew and loved Grace were clearly blessed to have her in their lives for 19 years. Besides bringing an incredible amount of joy everywhere she went, Grace could read and write, drive a car, ride a horse, play the violin, and drive her riding lawnmower, and so much more. Truly, Grace loved absolutely everything about the life she was living. UncoverDC spoke at length with Scott Schara, Grace's father, about the tragic and immoral circumstances leading up to his daughter's death. Describing Grace, Scott recently wrote:“Grace was our bright, beautiful, fun-loving 19-year-old daughter with Down Syndrome. Her precious life was taken from us at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Appleton, Wisconsin, on Oct. 13, 2021. She was an angel who loved her Lord and Savior, Jesus. Everyone knew Grace. I was known only as ‘Grace's dad.' She had a sense of her Heavenly Father that very few people ever have. She called me her ‘Earthly dad.' Who does that?”Note:Per Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, President and CEO of Truth for Health Foundation, (Published in Wisconsin Christian News, Volume 22 No 7) The COVID Protocol hospital physicians must follow, in lockstep across the U.S., appears to be the implementation of the 2009-2010 “Complete Lives System” developed by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel for rationing medical care for people older than 50. Dr. “Zeke” Emanuel, who was the senior White House health policy adviser to President Obama and has been advising President Joe Biden about COVID-19, stated in his classic 2009 Lancet paper: “When implemented, the Complete Lives System produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” “Attenuated” means rationed, restricted, or denied medical care that commonly leads to premature death. In 2021, whistleblower doctors, nurses, attorneys, patient advocates and journalists have exposed egregious hospital abuses, neglect of patients, and denial of vital intravenous fluids and basic medicines to hospitalized COVID patients across the U.S. The Complete Lives Protocol apparently derives from the 1990s U.K. National Health Service “Liverpool Pathway,” which in effect constituted euthanasia.Scott Schara can be contacted at https://www.ouramazinggrace.net/home

Dr. Cardinale Smith, of the Mt. Sinai Health System, and Dr. Stephanie Wheeler, of the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, discuss key research featured at the 2022 ASCO Quality Care Symposium, including practical solutions to advance equity, new trends in cancer care delivery, and novel approaches in palliative and supportive care.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Cardinale Smith: Welcome to the ASCO Daily News podcast. I'm Dr. Cardinale Smith, a professor in the division of Hematology and Medical Oncology and Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and the chair-elect of the 2022 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. I'm your guest host today and delighted to welcome the chair of the Symposium, Dr. Stephanie Wheeler. Dr. Wheeler is a professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management and associate director of Community Outreach and Engagement at the University of North Carolina Leinberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. We'll be discussing practical solutions and key research to advance equity and quality in cancer care, new trends in cancer care in the home and local community, novel approaches in palliative and supportive care, and other key takeaways from the meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures relating to all episodes of the ASCO Daily News podcast are available on our transcripts at: asco.org/podcasts. Dr. Wheeler, it's great to be speaking with you today. Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Thank you, Dr. Smith. I'm excited to be here. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Well, I'm super excited that I just got to see you, and it was fantastic that we had a hybrid event that really allowed our participants to meet in person and allowed folks who couldn't be in person to participate virtually. Cancer health equity was a major theme this year with sessions that explored how to incorporate equity into our work. Can you highlight a few takeaways for us? Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Absolutely. And yes, it was such a delight to see you in person. And I'll just note that at this 10th anniversary of the Quality Care Symposium, we had record attendance - over 700 participants. So, I was really excited to have that level of engagement in this meeting. So, you know that as a planning committee, we really prioritized centering equity in our content this year, and I think it was reflected in every session at the meeting. Our very first educational session featured Drs. Chanita Hughes Halbert, Meera Vimala Ragavan, Victoria Blinder, and Sam Cykert, as well as community advocate, Terrence Muhammad, from the Greensboro Health Disparities Collaborative. Together, they provided important foundational and conceptual context to really set the stage for the rest of the meeting. Most importantly, they discussed specific evidence-based interventions designed to improve racial, socioeconomic, and rural health equity. These included the Accure Realtime Health Alerts Intervention with Navigation and Bias Training and Financial Hardship screening. Later in the meeting, we heard from Dr. Joannie Ivory presenting Abstract 68, who shared that we really need to take our trials where minoritized and historically disadvantaged populations live. In that study, geographic areas with greater numbers of black residents did a better job recruiting black participants to clinical trials, and the trial itself built in structural factors designed to ensure that at least 30% black participants were accrued. I also want to shine a light on the wonderful abstracts that were presented by Drs. Qasim Hussaini and Qinjin Fan, Abstract 69 and 3, which focused on association between historical housing discrimination and modern-day mortgage discrimination in colon and lung cancer treatments and outcomes respectively. I think this work just further underscores that racism is structural and societal and that we need to be paying attention to not only how we deliver oncology care, but policy in the banking world, the housing world, education, transportation infrastructure, and so much more, if we're serious about undoing disparities in cancer. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah, and I'm probably biased since I had a role in planning this meeting. I definitely appreciate the focus on not just calling out these issues, but really thinking about how we start implementing interventions to really overcome them. Thank you for that really wonderful summary. The symposium also featured many trends in quality care, such as patient-reported outcomes measurement to monitor quality and patients' experiences. What are the sessions and abstracts that you think will give our listeners new ideas about how to integrate patient-reported outcomes into real-world settings? Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Well, as you know, this continues to be an ongoing theme of the ASCO Quality Symposium. And I was really particularly encouraged this year that the focus was on implementation of PRO monitoring in real-world settings. So, just to highlight a few of the sessions that stood out to me were, dual abstracts 243 and 242 that were presented by Drs. Sandra Wong and Jessica Bian, showing symptom-reporting implementation in the medical oncology space, as well as the surgical oncology space, participating in the eSyM study at multiple cancer centers. In addition, we had an educational session that followed in which Drs. William Dale, Manali Patel and Sarah Hawley, presented work describing their efforts to implement geriatric assessment, multimodal symptom-control monitoring interventions in racially diverse populations, and a prostate cancer symptom-focused self-management intervention respectively. Then towards the end of the meeting, we also heard from Mike Hassett, presenting Abstract 241, who talked about differences in web versus mobile devices for ePRO reporting, and how those can really elicit different types of symptoms that are reported by different types of patients. We know that the digital divide is real in America, and so as we think about how to get patients to report their symptoms in meaningful, actionable ways in real-time, we have to be mindful of the modalities in which we're eliciting those symptoms. So, it's clear to me that the discussion has really moved beyond why we need to monitor patient-reported outcomes. I think Ethan Basch's work and others has really demonstrated that clearly to how best we can optimize it for patients' benefits while working within the constraints of existing EHRs and workflows, and of course, the constraints of our Wi-Fi connectivity in rural communities. Let me ask you a question. How about that? So, the palliative care abstract track was a new feature this year, and I was really excited about it. And I'd really love to know from your perspective as a specialist in Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, how do new approaches that are going to be important in oncology best meet the needs of our patients? And how did this year's session content advance that field directly? Dr. Cardinale Smith: In addition to the implementation of patient-reported outcomes, which you spoke about, which I think is really incredibly critical, especially because we know that the data suggests that that's also associated with not only improvement of quality of life, but also survival. I was really excited to help moderate a session along with Dr. Shanthi Sivendran on the panel focused around advanced care planning, and really thinking about, "Is it time for a change?" And so, on that panel with us, were experts leading advanced care planning, Drs. Alcorn, Hickman, Montgomery, Paladino, and Rhodes. And really the topic of the conversation centered on changing the frame of thinking away from focusing just on documentation, but more about the conversation itself, and the focus on goal-concordant care, and how do we align goals and values with the cares received, and how do we talk about that? We also talked about how we align that with measurement. So, as we move towards value-based care in Oncology, how do we have better outcome measurements to capture impact? Like recently approved measures in the palliative care space of being seen and heard that was discussed. And shifting gears a little bit, we heard in an oral abstract presentation number 300 by Dr. Riaz, talking about outcomes of hospitalized patients with solid cancers receiving immunotherapy. We know that that is a group who are often receiving treatment closer to the end of their life in the hospital setting, and we don't have lots of data about how successful those treatments are. And what that data demonstrated among 159 patients over four academic medical centers, is that about approximately 30% of them who received inpatient immunotherapy actually died in the hospital. And so, I think that has really important implications as we think about the quality of life for these patients, as we also think about those quality metrics that we have to be adherent to. Continuing to think about how that impacts financial stressors for patients. You know, financial toxicity is a recurring theme at many of our ASCO meetings, and at this Quality meeting, we had a session that featured a multi-layered approach to financial toxicity solutions. Can you tell us about some of the key features of this approach? Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Of course. Yeah. This was a wonderful session. I just have to note that the session on advanced care planning, one of the things that I really loved about that, before I talk about financial toxicity, was that the roundtable focus of that session, that particular modality, I think, just lent itself so well to the type of discussion that we were having, and it just felt very interactive. We had lots of great input from the audience, and I've continued to hear, since the meeting, that people really appreciated that. And I have to attribute your leadership there to thinking carefully about how to do that session. So, we should think about that more in the future as well. Turning to financial toxicity, this, like equity, I think, was a recurring theme of this meeting. And in particular, I think the poster sessions also covered a lot of content in the financial hardship space. So, you mentioned the educational session focused on multi-layered approaches to solutions here. And this session featured new work from folks like Dr. Maria Pisu, Samilia Obeng-Gyasi, and Emeline Aviki, and they were all talking about interventions in their cancer centers that were focused on timely identification of financial hardship, and different ways in which it can be screened for and that it can be actionably responded to. And then, Dr. Aviki described approaches that their center has used to really develop a multidisciplinary financial working group to address concerns. And I thought that was really creative and showed that all of the right stakeholders were at the table at Memorial Sloan Kettering. And then that session finished with remarks by Joanna Morales about the legal parameters of financial hardship, which I think are increasingly being understood as a really important determinant of poor outcomes. And we all know the legal system is incredibly difficult to navigate for people who don't have a legal background, and I love that she described some of the actionable ways in which people can do things like: better understand their employment protections, better advocate for themselves to be sure that their workplace accommodations are being responded to, and also thinking about their ability to advocate more for themselves when it comes to things like social security, disability insurance applications, and the legal parameters there. She also talked about policy options, and so I think this is a must-listen-to session for anybody who's interested in thinking about screening for and developing institution-wide efforts to address financial hardship through identification, and through legal approaches and levers that can mitigate and hopefully prevent it. By next year, I think it's important that we know that there are at least five NCI-funded clinical trials underway that are testing additional navigation and insurance literacy interventions in multi-sites across the country. And so, I think it'll be really important to see what happens with those studies as they move forward. And there is an NCI-supported financial hardship session and workshop that is happening later this week that Dr. Janet De Moor invited all ASCO Quality attendees to come to. So, more on this, I think in the future, but I don't see this as a topic that will be left off the agenda for the ASCO Quality Symposium for many years to come. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah, and hopefully we'll be able to have some of that data presented at the next meeting next year. And just following up on that theme of financial burdens for our patients, I really would like to encourage anyone who didn't get a chance to hear this year's keynote lecture from Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel of The University of Pennsylvania, to really take some time and go take a listen to it. Dr. Emanuel focused on payment structure and models and had several key takeaways that I thought were really important. His main conclusions were that we need to think through new policies related to drug pricing and accelerated approval, as these have really important implications for the cost of cancer care. He also talked about how oncologists and those of us in the cancer care space and cancer care delivery space, have an increasing role to sort of nudge the NIH to think about their role in the research and development process for drugs, and to boost clinical trial enrollment. Specifically thinking about the enrollment of minoritized populations. And then lastly, and probably most provocative, which is one of the reasons why we really wanted him to come and to speak at this meeting, is that we know financial toxicity is significant and needs to be addressed. And he proposed that once a person is diagnosed with cancer, insurance companies, Medicare, should eliminate any deductibles, co-payments, or co-insurance, and other types of cost-sharing for our cancer patients, which I think is an interesting viewpoint. Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And as a health policy scholar, I was sort of jumping in my seat with excitement over some of the bold and innovative solutions that he put forward. I think another compelling speaker, and I know you'll agree with me, is Dr. Otis Brawley. He's the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Oncology and Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, and he was honored with the Joseph Simone Quality Care Award, which of course, is focused on, really, lifetime achievements in the areas of quality care delivery in cancer. He's been such a champion of cancer care equity, and really has devoted his whole career to advancing cancer prevention, screening, and treatment strategies, to end the racial, socioeconomic, and rural disparities that we see in prevention, detection, and treatment of cancer. One of the things that he really emphasized that I appreciated is that we have to be more thoughtful about the ways in which we think about cancer health disparities, recognizing that more treatment is not always good treatment, and the more money that we spend on futile treatments and unnecessary treatments, and unnecessary care, that actually wastes resources that we could have otherwise distributed more fairly to our marginalized and minoritized populations. And so, he made a very direct argument between overspending, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment in cancer, and how that actually contributes to disparities in care, and disparities in outcomes. And I think that that really motivates us to not only look at the national movements in health policy reforms as important to do from an efficiency perspective and from a cost-control perspective because we know that healthcare costs in America are wildly out of sync with the rest of the world and unsustainable, but also because they're a key contributor to differences and outcomes that we see, and that we have a moral imperative to address. So, I was just really inspired by his talk. He covered so much territory in a small amount of time, and I think his talk in particular, combined with Dr. Emanuel's talk, really set the stage for us to think about the integration of policy, and equity, and care delivery together as we move forward in this field. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah, I am definitely a fan, and I think to highlight both of them, there are tangible things that we can all walk away in our everyday lives and start putting into practice, which I think is key for us to move the needle on any of these things. Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Yes. And I might say just in response to that, that towards the end of the session, we had that great oral abstract session that Melissa Simon and Blase Polite were the discussants for, and they really continued this theme of not just really unpacking these deeply-rooted social and historical root determinants of differences in outcomes, differences in quality, and problematic equity issues in cancer care delivery. But I think that they also gave us a number of things, as you said, that each of us can do in a more meaningful way on a daily basis. You know, being more aware, promoting others, sponsoring others from different backgrounds, really standing aside and allowing others to shine, and that has been a theme of this meeting. It's something that we wrote about last year, that this meeting is a place where junior scholars and trainees can come and connect and can really find not only a place here but can find a stage here. And so, I think some of the comments that they encouraged us to think about were specifically related to professional development and lifting up others, and paying it forward, and it resonated with me, in addition to the many other things they suggested around just how our healthcare systems are designed, and how we need to break down barriers. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Well said. I could not have said it any better. Thank you, Dr. Wheeler, for coming on the podcast to give us these highlights from the 2022 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. Our listeners can find the links to the abstracts we've discussed on the transcript of this episode. Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Thank you, Dr. Smith. It's my pleasure to be here with you today and to have co-hosted this planning committee and this meeting with you, and I am so thrilled for your leadership next year as you take the gavel, take the stage, and lead us forward. Dr. Cardinale Smith: I can't wait to get started. And to you, our listeners, thank you for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Cardinale Smith @cardismith  Dr. Stephanie Wheeler @StephWheelerUNC Want more related content? Listen to our podcasts on interventions to address financial toxicity. A Novel Approach to Address Financial Toxicity Dr. Derek Raghavan Has a Remedy to Mitigate Financial Toxicity in Cancer Treatment Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Research Funding (institution): Pfizer Foundation Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Dr. Cardinale Smith: None to disclose

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has spent a lifetime challenging the establishment. He says that tendency is very much a part of his family's heritage. “My mother, not infrequently, would have to ... The post FHC #67: Dr. Zeke Emanuel on the virtues of rule breaking appeared first on Fixing Healthcare.

Joining our hosts to discuss the history of U.S. Health Insurance and how it compares to other countries is Julia Lynch, Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and Jamila Michener, associate professor in the department of Government at Cornell University about the connections between health inequities and our insurance system. We also take a look at the creation of the Affordable Care Act with one of its architects Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel who currently serves as Vice Provost of Global Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania. Peter Suderman, features editor at Reason, joins us to discuss the current state of healthcare and health insurance and how both parties could make changes to their approaches on both. Finally, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal discusses expanding health insurance for Americans with her Medicare for All Plan and how it will restore dignity to every American through adequate health insurance coverage.   

Are we moving "out of the pandemic phase" of COVID-19? Today we talk with the Director of the Human Nature Lab at Yale University, Nicholas Christakis, and Special Advisor to the Director General of the World Health Organization, Ezekiel Emanuel, about what we've learned over the past two years and where we can go from here. What Could Go Right? is produced by The Progress Network and The Podglomerate.

Howie and Harlan are joined by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a leading expert on health policy and medical ethics, for a conversation about how to bring greater efficiency and agility to the generation of healthcare knowledge.

The coronavirus pandemic isn't over, but certain corners of Congress don't want to spend a penny more on it. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel argues for $100 billion in new spending to fight Covid-19. This episode was produced by Will Reid, edited by Matt Collette, engineered by Efim Shapiro, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A panel of experts joins Fareed to discuss the Russian, Ukrainian, and German perspectives on the crisis on the Russian-Ukrainian border and what's at stake for each player in the region. Then, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel on why China's "Zero-Covid" policy might be a recipe for disaster. Plus, why is Biden polling so low? To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Six former advisers to President Biden are calling for new measures to move toward a "new normal" with endemic Covid-19. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is a former member of Biden's Transition Covid-19 Advisory Board. He joins AC360 to discuss what the future of masking, testing and vaccines might look like, and says that Covid is "just not going to go away." Plus, all three men convicted in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery were sentenced to life in prison, with two having no possibility of parole. CNN National Correspondent Ryan Young joins Anderson Cooper to discuss the sentencing. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

In this episode we catch up on our project cars and get some background info on Chicago politics. Mostly about how Rahm Emanuel sucks* and how Lori Lightfoot isn't much better, with tangents on Rahm's brother Ezekiel who wants to do Logan's Run IRL, and how leaded gasoline might've melted Joe Biden's brain. *for legal reasons this is a joke A retrospective on Rahm Emanuel's many failures, including that time he tried to cover up the murder of Laquan McDonald: https://theintercept.com/2019/05/20/chicago-mayor-rahm-emanuel-failures/ Ezekiel Emanuel's death cult: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/ More on leaded gasoline: https://allthingscomedy.com/podcasts/393---thomas-midgley Drop us a line: carsandcomrades@gmail.com Follow us on social media: https://www.instagram.com/carsandcomrades_podcast/ https://twitter.com/CarsAndComrades https://www.facebook.com/Cars-Comrades-Podcast-101908671824034All music from the free album Polygondwanaland by King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard: https://kinggizzardandthelizardwizard.com/polygondwanaland

Are health care workers more obligated than others to get a Covid-19 vaccine? In this week's episode, physician and bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel argues that hospitals and healthcare facilities nationwide need to issue vaccine mandates for all employees in order to prevent further deaths from Covid-19.

Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., discusses her efforts to bring the world's attention back to Syria. Finn Lau, an exiled Hong Kong pro-democracy activist, and Wu'er Kaixi, a Chinese dissident, talk about the Hong Kong police's attempt to block commemorative gatherings on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Hari Sreenivasan talks to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and oncologist, about vaccine hesitancy and the uphill battle to get 70% of all American adults vaccinated with at least one dose by July 4th. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (11/12/20), Hank addresses an article in National Review, “Biden's Pick for Coronavirus Task Force: ‘Living Too Long is Also a Loss'” by Jim Geraghty. President-elect Joe Biden announced that his coronavirus task force will include Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. According to Dr. Emmanuel, it's morally problematic to live past the age of 75. Whether one is feeble or not is irrelevant—and a calculation of consumption over contribution is equally irrelevant. The meaning of one's life should not be bound up in one's autonomy, personal happiness, or engagement in a particular activity that brings satisfaction. Rather, our purpose, and where we find our meaning in life, is in glorifying, loving, and serving the Triadic One—entering into the life of the Trinity, in which the omnipotent Father engrafts the life of His Son into us by His Spirit so that we may become partakers of the divine nature.Hank also answers the following question:I am both a Muslim and a Christian. I believe that if we're going to follow Jesus, we need to submit our will to God, which falls into the definition of Muslim. What are your thoughts?

Health care is top of mind for voters nationwide — and it's easy to see why. In the midst of a raging public health crisis, as millions consider how they will access affordable health coverage, and as the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) future remains uncertain, it's clear that there's a ton on the line this election and beyond. In this week's episode of Healthy Dialogue, ACHP's Ceci Connolly sits down with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the architects of the ACA, to discuss the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and what health care might look like post-election. Guest: https://hcmg.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/zemanuel/ (Ezekiel Emanuel), Vice Provost for Global Initiatives and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania

Welcome to episode #105, Season 4 of Creating a New Healthcare. Today we welcome one of the most prolific and influential healthcare policy experts of our era. Professor Ezekial Emanuel ...

Airdate October 4, 2020: President Trump, the first lady, and staffers all contracted Covid-19. How ill is he and what will the coming days bring? Fareed asks Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, former adviser to the Obama White House on health policy and the present advisor to the Biden campaign. And, what can we learn from past U.S. presidents who have fallen ill? CNN presidential historian Tim Naftali tells Fareed. Then, the U.S., Brazil, and the U.K. all rank in the top five nations with the highest Covid-19 death counts AND now all three have also seen their leaders infected. A panel of top reporters dive into what we can learn from responses abroad. Finally, what does Trump's illness mean for the upcoming election and his race against Biden? Nate Cohn of the New York Times tells Fareed what he's seeing in the polls.  GUESTS: Ezekiel Emanuel, Timothy Naftali, Anne McElvoy, Shasta Darlington, Anton Troianovski, Nate Cohn To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Airdate July 12 2020:Where did America's response to Covid-19 go so wrong? Pre-eminent physician Ezekiel Emanuel diagnoses the problem…then Harvard scholar Danielle Allen offers some solutions. And, China's new draconian law threatens Hong Kong's fundamental freedoms. Protest leader Nathan Law tells Fareed what will become of his movement. Then, if Trump's Middle East peace plan put the final nail in the coffin of the two-state solution, what is the alternative? Peter Beinart tells Fareed about his controversial idea.   GUESTS: Ezekiel Emanuel, Danielle Allen, Nathan Law, Peter Beinart To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

(00:00-09:20): A doctor and medical ethicist argues life after 75 is not worth living. The brother of former Chicago mayor Ezekiel Emanuel proposes objective truth to his arguments, Brian and Ian respond. They also read comments from listeners who chime in on both ends of the spectrum. (09:20-18:39): Darryl Dash writes in the Gospel Coalition, “Thank you, Ray Ortlund”. Brian and Ian touch on this piece as well as “finishing well”. They discuss what their final sermons would be. (18:39-27:44): Starbucks to offer mental health services as new employee benefit. Brian and Ian touch on the important topic of mental health and how the stigma of it needs to stop. (27:44-36:58): Dan White tweeted talking about the social see-saw in which people go back and forth between conservatism and progressivism. Brian and Ian discuss how both have their benefits, and flaws. (36:58-47:39): Jerry Fallwell Jr. is in the hot seat as a Politico Magazine article was published. It exposed his behavior around staff and colleagues as fear-mongering and sexually explicit. Brian and Ian discuss their reactions to the new information. (47:39-57:58): Today is Suicide Awareness and Prevention Day. Brian and Ian touch on this tough topic and offer options of help. They emphasize that if you are struggling with depression, anxiety, loneliness, or any of the sort, that you are not alone. Ian talks about an organization called Anthem of Hope and their mission to fight causes of suicide. (57:58-1:08:05): Brewers fan with Cubs fan’s heart meets donor’s family at Miller Park. We love these stories of hope at The Common Good. The icing on the cake is that from a tragedy, came a life-giving experience. As a result, created an everlasting bond between two families. (1:08:05-1:15:14): Brian and Ian’s “Weird Stuff We Found on the Internet”: I swear to drunk I’m not a raccoon! I promise, just as pythons are not allowed in Wisconsin schools. Apparently boats are worthless in California, and banjo stocks are plummeting. Meanwhile, Sweden is proposing cannibalism...no seriously, that’s what they want.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In his new book Obamacare advisor and Penn professor Ezekiel Emanuel looks at innovative solutions for the health care crisis. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today, as our capacity to prolong life increases, people dispute whether indefinite prolongation could possibly be good. A leading bioethicist, Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm) has written that we should all want to die at 75! I'll approach this question by drawing on ancient Greek arguments about why immortal life is undesirable -- arguments that I find fatally flawed. I then turn to two more recent philosophers who try to reconcile us to finite and reasonably short mortal lives: "Younger Martha" (i.e. me in 1994), and my teacher Bernard Williams, who wrote about the "tedium of immortality." I find those consolatory arguments flawed too. But a better argument is found in the Roman philosopher Lucretius, and it applies to indefinite prolongation as well as to outright immortality. Martha Nussbaum is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics. Presented on April 5, 2016, at the University of Chicago Law School.