Podcasts about niaid

In this episode, I chatted with Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler, who is pushing the boundaries of biomedical science. Co-hosted with HHMI Gilliam Fellow and ChemE PhD Candidate Sydney Floryanzia, we talk about their groundbreaking research, the twists and turns of their scientific journeys, and the power of collaboration in tackling big challenges.More on Dr. Sadtler, per the NIBIB:Kaitlyn Sadtler, Ph.D. joined NIBIB as an Earl Stadtman Tenure-Track Investigator and Chief of the Section for Immunoengineering in 2019. Prior to her arrival to the NIH, she completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with Daniel Anderson, Ph.D. and Robert Langer, Ph.D., focusing on the molecular mechanisms of medical device fibrosis. During her time at MIT, Dr. Sadtler was awarded an NRSA Ruth L Kirschstein Postdoctoral Fellowship, was listed on BioSpace's 10 Life Science Innovators Under 40 To Watch and StemCell Tech's Six Immunologists and Science Communicators to Follow. In 2018, she was named a TED Fellow and delivered a TED talk which was listed as one of the 25 most viewed talks in 2018. She was also elected to the 2019 Forbes 30 Under 30 List in Science, selected as a 2020 TEDMED Research Scholar, and received multiple other awards. Dr. Sadtler received her Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine where her thesis research was published in Science magazine, Nature Methods, and others. She was recently featured in the Johns Hopkins Medicine Magazine as an alumna of note. Dr. Sadtler completed her bachelor's degree summa cum laude at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, followed by a postbaccalaureate IRTA at the Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Immunology at NIAID.

Dr. Gary Null gives a commentary on his article "It's Time for a Vaccination Reckoning"   Ask any federal health official—whether from the FDA, CDC, NIH, or National Cancer Institute—if vaccines contribute to neurological damage or autism, and their response will be unequivocal: No, there is no evidence of any association. In fact, they might find the very question offensive. After all, these agencies have access to unlimited resources, the brightest scientific minds, and cutting-edge research facilities at institutions like Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford. If there were any credible link between vaccines and neurological harm, surely, they would have found it by now. And yet, despite decades of investigation and countless opportunities, their stance remains unchanged: vaccines are safe and effective. Any claim to the contrary is dismissed as conspiracy theory and an assault on the very foundations of modern medicine. This has been the dominant narrative for the past forty years. Federal health officials and policymakers have long prioritized private pharmaceutical industry interests and upheld the belief that vaccination is the single most important tool for eradicating infectious diseases. Dissent is neither tolerated nor entertained. The agencies responsible for vaccine safety, such as HHS, FDA, NIAID and the CDC, are ruled by a rigid scientific orthodoxy that allows no room for alternative perspectives. But now, for the first time in modern history, an outsider has entered the room. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new head of the Department of Health and Human Services, is neither a scientist nor a physician. Unlike his predecessors, he has no allegiance to the status quo. His appointment signals a possible turning point to usher a new opportunity for a truly independent investigation into whether vaccines, either individually or collectively, contribute to neurological damage. If pursued earnestly, this could be one of the most consequential moments in American medical history. The stakes could not be higher. Over the past few decades, childhood chronic illnesses have skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. The rise in autism spectrum disorders (ASD), ADHD, autoimmune conditions, and other neurological and developmental disorders has been explained away as the result of better diagnostic tools or genetic predispositions. But are these explanations sufficient? What if something more fundamental has changed in children's health over the past 30 years? Federal health agencies continue to dismiss environmental factors, including vaccines, as a potential cause. But if we truly care about children's well-being, it is time to ask the hard questions. And we must ask without fear, without bias, and without ideological blinders. The dramatic increase in neurological disorders, including autism spectrum disorders that is now diagnosed in 1 in every 36 children, has often been attributed to improved definitions for ASD and diagnostic tools. However, a closer look at government statistics reveals alarming trends in children's health that go far beyond better diagnostics. Since the early 1990s, there has been a staggering increase in several chronic conditions: ADHD rates have risen by 890 percent, autism diagnoses by 2,094 percent, bipolar disease in youth by 10,833 percent, and celiac disease by 1,011 percent. These numbers beg the question—what has fundamentally changed in our children's health over the past three decades? The media plays a crucial role in reinforcing the official vaccine narrative while systematically silencing dissenting voices. This lack of transparency allows federal health agencies like the CDC, NIAID, and HHS to evade accountability. Instead of safeguarding public health, these institutions have become politically and ideologically entangled with private pharmaceutical interests. Their close ties to the industry have led to the approval of insufficiently tested vaccines, the medicalization of normal childhood behaviors, and the delivery of subpar healthcare—all at a staggering cost of $5 trillion annually. Medical authorities insist that vaccines, even when administered in multiple doses on a single day, are safe and do not cause chronic health problems. They claim that vaccine ingredients are either harmless or present in amounts too small to pose any risk. Any attempt to challenge these assertions is met with ridicule. Despite a sharp rise in childhood neurological disorders, there has been no significant push for reform or independent long-term safety studies on the effects of vaccines. For decades, concerns about vaccine safety have not only come from parents and advocacy groups but also from government investigations. A three-year congressional investigation led by Rep. Dan Burton strongly criticized the CDC, FDA, and HHS for their failure to conduct proper vaccine safety studies. The committee found that federal agencies systematically downplayed risks, ignored growing evidence of vaccine-related neurological disorders, and relied on poorly designed epidemiological studies rather than clinical research. The report also exposed the failure of vaccine manufacturers to conduct adequate safety testing, highlighting decades of negligence. Despite these damning conclusions, little has changed, and concerns about vaccine safety remain unaddressed. While thimerosal has been largely removed from childhood vaccines, it remains in some flu shots and multi-dose vials, and broader concerns about vaccine ingredients and neurological damage continue to grow. One of the most alarming revelations came from the secretive 2000 Simpsonwood meeting, where top CDC officials and vaccine industry representatives discussed an internal study linking thimerosal exposure to increased risks of tics, ADHD, speech delays, and developmental disorders. Instead of alerting the public, the attendees decided to suppress the findings and rework the data to obscure any association. This manipulation, later exposed by Robert Kennedy Jr. through a Freedom of Information Act request, exemplifies the CDC's ongoing pattern of data suppression and scientific misconduct when vaccine safety is called into question. The congressional committee later confirmed that many participants in the vaccine debate “allowed their standards to be dictated by their desire to disprove an unpleasant theory.” Rather than conducting thorough biological studies to assess vaccine safety, federal agencies have deflected scrutiny by blaming autism and other neurological conditions on genetic factors, despite a lack of conclusive evidence supporting this theory. Today's CDC childhood immunization schedule recommends over 27 vaccines by the age of two, with some visits involving up to six shots at once. Parents are expected to trust that these vaccines are rigorously tested and proven safe. However, a review of hundreds of toxicology and immunology studies fails to reveal a gold standard of long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials proving vaccine safety. There is also no comprehensive epidemiological study comparing the long-term health outcomes of fully vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. Without this research, public health officials rely on inconclusive data, which is shaped more by policy than by science. Humans possess unique biochemical makeups that make them more or less susceptible to toxins. While one child may experience minor effects from environmental toxins, another may develop autoimmune disorders, learning disabilities, or neurological impairments. Vaccine safety cannot be proven simply by stating that not every vaccinated child has autism. Given the dramatic rise in autoimmune diseases, food allergies, encephalitis, and conditions like Crohn's disease, it is imperative to investigate environmental toxins' role in childhood health. Independent research suggests that ingredients in vaccines, even in small amounts, may contribute to these illnesses, particularly as the number of required vaccines continues to grow. Ironically, the U.S. government's own Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded settlements to families whose children developed autism-like symptoms following vaccination. High-profile cases such as Hannah Poling, who developed ASD after receiving nine vaccines in one day, Ryan Mojabi, whose vaccines caused severe brain inflammation, and Bailey Banks, who suffered vaccine-induced brain inflammation leading to developmental delays, demonstrate that vaccine injury can, in some cases, result in autism spectrum disorders. A broader analysis of VICP cases revealed that 83 children with autism were compensated for vaccine-related brain injuries, primarily involving encephalopathy or seizure disorders with developmental regression. These cases contradict federal health agencies' claims that no connection between vaccines and autism has ever been recognized. The National Library of Medicine lists over 3,000 studies on aluminum's toxicity to human biochemistry. Its dangers have been known for over a century. Early FDA director Dr. Harvey Wiley resigned in protest over aluminum's commercial use in food canning as early as 1912. Today, aluminum compounds, such as aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate, are found in many vaccines, including hepatitis A and B, DTP, Hib, Pneumococcus, and the HPV vaccine (Gardasil). In the 1980s, a fully vaccinated child would have received 1,250 mcg of aluminum by adulthood. Today, that number has risen to over 4,900 mcg, a nearly fourfold increase. Aluminum exposure is further compounded by its presence in municipal drinking water due to aluminum sulfate used in purification. A 1997 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that premature infants receiving aluminum-containing intravenous feeding solutions developed learning problems at a significantly higher rate than those who received aluminum-free solutions. Dr. James Lyons-Weiler at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge has criticized vaccine aluminum levels, pointing out that dosage guidelines are based on immune response rather than body weight safety. Alarmingly, aluminum exposure standards for children are based on dietary intake studies in rodents rather than human infants. He notes that on Day 1 of life, newborns receive 17 times more aluminum than would be permitted if doses were adjusted per body weight. Despite these findings, federal agencies continue to dismiss concerns over aluminum toxicity in vaccines. The refusal to conduct comprehensive long-term safety studies, coupled with regulatory agencies' deep entanglement with the pharmaceutical industry, has led to a public health crisis. The growing prevalence of neurological and autoimmune disorders in children demands urgent, unbiased investigation into environmental and vaccine-related factors. Until federal health agencies commit to transparency and rigorous scientific inquiry, parents will be left to navigate vaccine safety decisions without the full picture of potential risks. Christopher Exley at Keele University analyzed brain tissue from children and teenagers diagnosed with ASD and found consistently high aluminum levels, among the highest recorded in human brain tissue. The aluminum was concentrated in inflammatory non-neuronal cells across various brain regions, supporting its role in ASD neuropathology. In a systematic review of 59 studies, Exley found significant associations between aluminum, cadmium, mercury, and ASD, further underscoring aluminum's neurotoxic impact. His research strongly advocates for reducing vaccine-derived aluminum exposure in pregnant women and children to help mitigate the rise in autism. Despite the CDC's consistent denials, researchers at Imperial College London found a significant correlation between rising ASD rates and increased vaccination. Their 2017 study in Metabolic Brain Disease showed that a 1% increase in vaccination rates correlated with 680 additional ASD cases, raising urgent concerns over vaccine components as environmental triggers. CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson provided thousands of pages of internal research revealing a cover-up of vaccine-autism links. His documents proved the CDC had prior knowledge that African American boys under 36 months had a significantly higher autism risk following the MMR vaccine and that neurological tics—indicators of brain disturbances—were linked to thimerosal-containing vaccines like the flu shot. Yet, instead of acknowledging this risk, federal agencies buried, in fact shredded, the findings, ensuring that vaccine safety concerns were dismissed as conspiracy theories rather than investigated as public health imperatives. The official denial of a vaccine-autism connection has become entrenched dogma, unsupported by a single gold-standard study definitively disproving such a link. Meanwhile, the health of American children continues to decline, ranking among the worst in the developed world. Neurodevelopmental disorders like autism and ADHD are at crisis levels, yet federal agencies remain unwilling to conduct the comprehensive safety studies that could expose the full impact of mass vaccination on childhood health. Now, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the helm of the Department of Health and Human Services, a long-overdue reckoning may finally be at hand. Unlike his predecessors, Kennedy is an advocate for transparency and accountability. If pursued earnestly, Kennedy's leadership could potentially reshape public health policies and exposing the truth about vaccines' role in the rise of neurological disorders, including autism. The question now is: Will the truth finally be allowed to come to light?

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 “

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R, CO-4) joins Dan to discuss a recent hearing in which it was confirmed experiments were being authorized by Dr. Anthony Fauci's NIH (NIAID - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) using fetal tissue purchased from universities on animals.Also, Rep. Boebert recently sent a letter to Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright with the subject headline: 'Urgent Opposition to NIETC Designation in Colorado.' This action by the Biden administration would commandeer nearly 2.5 million acres of private property in New Mexico and Colorado, using eminent domain, to comply with the Left's 'Green New Deal' agenda.CLB Letter to DOE Secretary Chris Wright re NIETC.pdfRep. Ty Winter (R-47), assistant House minority leader in the Colorado General Assembly, joins Dan with an update on the Democrats' magazine ban bill for semiautomatic weapons and other developments in the current legislative session.George Brauchler, district attorney for Colorado's 23rd judicial district, joins Dan to discuss Saturday's shooting at Main Event in Highlands Ranch. The suspect (Nevaeha Crowley-Sanders, 23) was apprehended and held over for bond in court on Monday.Woman accused in Highlands Ranch Main Event shooting appears in court | FOX31 Denver

Raziskovalci spremljajo 18 različnih respiratornih virusov iz sedmih virusnih družinVirologinja Monika Jevšnik Virant je raziskovalka in predavateljica na Inštitutu za mikrobiologijo in imunologijo Medicinske fakultete v Ljubljani. Njeno področje so respiratorni virusi. Za doktorsko nalogo je še pred epidemijo novega koronavirusa preučevala značilnosti okužb s humanimi koronavirusi pri otrocih. Pravi, da ni nenavadno, da se človek okuži z več različnimi povzročitelji okužb dihal hkrati. Dodaja, da so virus SARS-CoV2, ki povzroča covid, respiratorni sincicijski virus, kratko RSV, in virus gripe najbolj znani respiratorni virusi; še zdaleč pa niso najbolj pogosti. Poznamo namreč kar 18 različnih respiratornih virusov iz 7. družin. Več v Ultrazvoku. Z asist. dr. Moniko Jevšnik Virant se je srečal Iztok Konc. Foto: Flickr, cc/ NIAID Spremljanje gripe (NIJZ) TUKAJ RSV (NIJZ) TUKAJ Kako ukrepati, če zbolimo? (NIJZ) TUKAJ

A colorized transmission electron micrograph of H5N1 virus particles (purple). Photo courtesy of NIAID and CDC. As wildfires continue smoldering in Los Angeles, looming over the horizon is another worrying development — the growing spread of bird flu. This strain of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) — first detected in the United States in February 2022 — has swept through poultry and dairy farms across the country and has jumped over to infecting humans as well. In December, the first fatal human case of the H5N1 virus was reported in Louisiana. According to latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control, so far there have been 67 human cases of bird flu nationwide since 2024, 38 of which occurred in California, the most out of any state. Yesterday, the CDC confirmed that a San Francisco child was the second child in the Bay Area, and the country, to contract the virus. So how serious is the situation? How worried should we be? What should we be doing to safeguard ourselves and animals? To answer these questions, Earth Island Journal editor-in-chief and Terra Verde cohost Maureen Nandini Mitra talks with the two experts, Dr. Maurice Pitesky from the University of California, Davis' School for Veterinary Medicine, and Dr. William Schaffner of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Note: Here is an interactive map from UC Davis School for Veterinary Medicine that shows the entire outbreak in the Americas.   The post Bird Flu has Spread to Humans. How Worried Should We Be? appeared first on KPFA.

Send us a textDr. Ian Simon, Ph.D. is the Director for the Office of Long COVID Research and Practice ( https://www.hhs.gov/longcovid/index.html ), in the Office of Science and Medicine, in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.The Office of Science and Medicine harnesses the power of collaboration, scientific analysis, data-driven innovation, and emerging technologies for advancing initiatives across the Department, including not just Long COVID, but in the areas of behavioral health, health equity, kidney disease, infection-associated chronic conditions, mother-infant dyad, sickle cell disease, and traumatic brain injury. Previously Dr. Simon was the Assistant Director for Health Strategy and Biopreparedness at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, where he led pandemic prevention and biosecurity policy priorities. Most recently, he was the Senior Advisor to the Director of NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).Prior to working at NIAID, Dr. Simon was the Assistant Director of the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) Science and Technology Policy Institute. In that role, he specialized in developing policy initiatives including bioeconomy, STEM education, pandemic preparedness, biosecurity, and international S&T cooperation. A virologist by training, Dr. Simon has also held health and science advisor positions at the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Senate, including serving as the Health and Science Advisor to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as part of the American Society for Microbiology Congressional Science Fellowship. He earned his B.S. from the University of Maryland and his Masters and Ph.D. from Yale University.Important Episode Link - Secretary's Advisory Committee on Long COVID - https://www.hhs.gov/ash/advisory-committees/long-covid/index.html#LongCovid #InfectiousDiseases #Virology #HHS #Policy #Biopreparedness #OSTP #USDepartmentOfHealthAndHumanServices #Epidemics #Pandemics #ProgressPotentialAndPossibilities #IraPastor #Podcast #Podcaster #ViralPodcast #STEM #Innovation #Technology #Science #ResearchSupport the show

On this episode of the podcast, Justin Goodman, Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Public Policy at White Coat Waste Project, joins Amanda Head to discuss the fight against government-funded animal testing. Goodman sheds light on a shocking $20 billion spent annually on these experiments, with 60,000 dogs and cats still trapped in labs. He shares insights from a recent congressional briefing with figures like Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), focused on defunding these cruel practices.Head and Goodman dive into the darker side of Dr. Anthony Fauci's ‘legacy,' including a $22 million USDA cannibalism project, while also taking time to celebrate victories like ending kitten experiments at UC Davis and dog and cat testing at Department of Veterans Affairs. Goodman also outlines ambitious plans to cut funding to Chinese labs and abolish animal testing by NIAID.Be sure to follow Justin Goodman on X by searching his handel: @JustinGoodman. You can also help fund his organization's efforts to stop animal cruelty and testing by clicking here: https://www.whitecoatwaste.org/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A version of this essay was published by firstpost.com at https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/shadow-warrior-comrade-kirillov-and-the-art-of-whistleblowing-13846569.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialOne of the great Raja Rao's slighter works is called Comrade Kirillov: it is what Graham Greene would have called an ‘entertainment', as opposed to the ‘novels' he wrote on themes of some gravity. I was reminded of the title in an altogether inappropriate way when I read of the assassination of General Kirillov in Moscow, allegedly by Ukrainian secret agents.Then I read of the tragic suicide of Suchir Balaji, a whistleblower and former employee at OpenAI, surely the most glamorous company in Silicon Valley these days.There is a thread here: it is not good for your health if you expose certain people or certain companies. You will pay a price.You may just be minding your own business, but you happen to be in the way. This is what happened to Indian nuclear and space scientists over the last few decades. Homi Bhabha's plane crashed in the Swiss Alps. Vikram Sarabhai died mysteriously at Halcyon Castle, Trivandrum, close to the space center that now bears his name.Dozens of lesser-known Indian space and nuclear scientists and engineers died too, inexplicably. The same thing happened to Iranian nuclear scientists. Nambi Narayanan was lucky to escape with his life (“Who killed the ISRO's cryogenic engine?”), though his career and reputation were ruined.My friend Dewang Mehta of NASSCOM died quite suddenly too. I wrote a tribute to him years ago, “The man who knew marketing”. In hindsight, I think he was a friend, not just an acquaintance. I remember some very human details about him: eg. he asked a mutual friend to introduce eligible women to him, just as I did. But I digress: I believe Dewang was as important to the Indian IT story as Bhabha and Sarabhai to nuclear and space: they made us believe, and we rose to the occasion. Then there was Lal Bahadur Shastri. The circumstances of his sudden death remain murky.And Sunanda Pushkar, Shashi Tharoor's wife, whom I was following on Twitter in real time. One night, she promised to make some startling revelations the next morning, presumably about dubious dealings in Dubai by the D Company. And lo! she was dead the next morning.It is hard not to think that there is a pattern. Not only here, but in the trail of dead bodies that follows the Clinton dynasty around. The Obama chef who drowned. The whistleblowing CIA and FBI agents who… just died. The list is long. People who are inconvenient end up in body bags. I remember reading that when Sarabhai died, his family did not even ask for a post-mortem.There are two broad patterns: geo-political assassinations and those for commercial reasons.In Kirillov's case, it was probably both.General Kirillov claimed that there were bio-labs in Ukraine, etc. where the Deep State was cooking up banned biological weapons, in an eerie echo of Peter Daszcak's Ecohealth Alliance and Anthony Fauci's NIAID allegedly aiding and abetting prohibited gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He claimed biological crises were manufactured on demand to generate profits and increase government control. Presumably he opened a can of worms that the Deep State and Big Pharma didn't want opened. Off with his head!There is the ‘conspiracy theory' that the entire COVID-19 circus was a bioweapons project that went awry. It was intended to depopulate the world, especially of black and brown people, to which the IITD paper (that was forcibly withdrawn) alludes: the genes that seemed to have been inserted into the original virus were from India, Southeast Asia, and Kenya, if I remember right. Of course, the powers that be do not want shocking stuff like this to come out.It is straightforward to make it a false-flag operation with the Ukrainian SBU secret service to provide plausible deniability: much like the bombing of the NordStream pipeline. So exit, stage left, for Kirillov. As Sherlock Holmes might have said, “Follow the money”, or words to that effect. Cui bono?I really don't mean to trivialize human suffering, but to focus on the shadowy forces that organize and execute targeted assassinations. In particular, decapitation strikes can be devastating. In our own history, the loss of Hemachandra Vikramaditya in the Second Battle of Panipat, in 1526, to a stray arrow that hit him in the eye, was a point of inflexion.Similarly, at the Battle of Talikota in 1565, the capture and beheading of the aged Ramaraya by his own troops that had gone rogue turned the winning position of the Vijayanagar Empire into a headlong rout and obliteration for the city-state.The assassination of Ahmed Shah Masoud, the Commander of the Northern Alliance, with a bomb hidden in a news camera, turned the tide in Afghanistan in 2001. The American assassination of Qasem Soleimani of Iran in 2020 led to a significant erosion of Iran's position, for example in Syria.The silencing of whistle-blowers has, alas, become all too common. There were the allegations about Karen Silkwood in 1974, who died in a mysterious car crash as she was driving to meet a NYTimes reporter regarding problems at a plutonium processing plant run by Kerr-McGhee in Oklahoma.In 2003, David Kelly, a British weapons inspector who claimed there were indeed no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was found dead. The verdict was suicide.In 2015, Alberto Nisman, an Argentine prosecutor known for his work on terrorism cases, was found dead days after he accused Iran of involvement in a car-bombing on a Jewish center.In March 2024, John Barnett, a former Boeing employee, was found dead from a gunshot wound in his truck, just before he was scheduled to testify in a whistleblower lawsuit. There was also Joshua Dean, who died of a strange infection in May 2024, shortly after Barnett's death. He worked for a company supplying parts to Boeing.In November 2024, Suchir Balaji, all of 26 years old, was found dead in his San Francisco apartment. In October, he had made allegations about OpenAI violating copyright laws.The bottom line: if you know something, just keep quiet about it. If you are a person of substance, take no risks, and be paranoid about your security. It's a pretty nasty world out there.The AI-generated podcast about this essay courtesy Google NotebookLM: 1050 words, 19 Dec 2024 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Paul Alexander Liberty Hour – Can the choices/picks be the medicine that America needs now? This is left to be seen, but I do have confidence in RFK Jr. in stopping the corrupted, conflicted reach that Big Pharma has into the alphabet health agencies; we must hold ALL agency heads to the fire at the FDA, CDC, NIH, and NIAID...

A leader for conducting rigorous randomized trials of humans along with animal models for understanding nutrition and metabolism, Dr. Kevin Hall is a Senior Investigator at the National Institutes of Health, and Section Chief of the Integrative Physiology Section, NIDDK. In this podcast, we reviewed his prolific body of research a recent publications. The timing of optimizing our diet and nutrition seems apropos, now that we're in in the midst of the holiday season!Below is a video snippet of our conversation on his ultra-processed food randomized trial.Full videos of all Ground Truths podcasts can be seen on YouTube here. The current one is here. If you like the YouTube format, please subscribe! The audios are also available on Apple and Spotify.Note: I'll be doing a Ground Truths Live Chat on December 11th at 12 N EST, 9 AM PST, so please mark your calendar and join!Transcript with links to publications and audioEric Topol (00:05):Well, hello. This is Eric Topol with Ground Truths, and I'm really delighted to have with me today, Dr. Kevin Hall from the NIH. I think everybody knows that nutrition is so important and Kevin is a leader in doing rigorous randomized trials, which is not like what we usually see with large epidemiologic studies of nutrition that rely on food diaries and the memory of participants. So Kevin, it's really terrific to have you here.Kevin Hall (00:34):Thanks so much for the invitation.Ultra-Processed FoodsEric Topol (00:36):Yeah. Well, you've been prolific and certainly one of the leaders in nutrition science who I look to. And what I thought we could do is go through some of your seminal papers. There are many, but I picked a few and I thought we'd first go back to the one that you published in Cell Metabolism. This is ultra-processed diets cause excessive caloric intake and weight gain. (Main results in graph below.) So maybe you can take us through the principle findings from that trial.Kevin Hall (01:10):Yeah, sure. So that was a really interesting study because it's the first randomized control trial that's investigated the role of ultra-processed foods in potentially causing obesity. So we've got, as you mentioned, lots and lots of epidemiological data that have made these associations between people who consume diets that are very high in ultra-processed foods as having greater risk for obesity. But those trials are not demonstrating causation. I mean, they suggest a strong link. And in fact, the idea of ultra-processed foods is kind of a new idea. It's really sort of appeared on the nutrition science stage probably most prominently in the past 10 years or so. And I first learned about this idea of ultra-processed foods, which is really kind of antithetical to the way most nutrition scientists think about foods. We often think about foods as nutrient delivery vehicles, and we kind of view foods as being the fraction of carbohydrates versus fats in them or how much sodium or fiber is in the foods.Kevin Hall (02:17):And along came this group in Brazil who introduced this new way of classifying foods that completely ignores the nutrient composition and says what we should be doing is classifying foods based on the extent and purpose of processing of foods. And so, they categorize these four different categories. And in the fourth category of this so-called NOVA classification scheme (see graphic below) , they identified something called ultra-processed foods. There's a long formal definition and it's evolved a little bit over the years and continues to evolve. But the basic ideas that these are foods that are manufactured by industries that contain a lot of purified ingredients made from relatively cheap agricultural commodity products that basically undergo a variety of processes and include additives and ingredients that are not typically found in home kitchens, but are typically exclusively in manufactured products to create the wide variety of mostly packaged goods that we see in our supermarkets.Kevin Hall (03:22):And so, I was really skeptical that there was much more about the effects of these foods. Other than that they typically have high amounts of sugar and saturated fat and salt, and they're pretty low in fiber. And so, the purpose of this study was to say, okay, well if there's something more about the foods themselves that is causing people to overconsume calories and gain weight and eventually get obesity, then we should do a study that's trying to test for two diets that are matched for these various nutrients of concern. So they should be matched for the macronutrients, they should be matched for the sugar content, the fat, the sodium, the fiber, and people should just be allowed to eat whatever they want and they shouldn't be trying to change their weight in any way. And so, the way that we did this was, as you mentioned, we can't just ask people to report what they're eating.Kevin Hall (04:19):So what we did was we admitted these folks to the NIH Clinical Center and to our metabolic ward, and it's a very artificial environment, but it's an environment that we can control very carefully. And so, what we basically did is take control over their food environment and we gave them three meals a day and snacks, and basically for a two-week period, they had access to meals that were more than 80% of calories coming from ultra-processed foods. And then in random order, they either received that diet first and give them simple instructions, eat as much as little as you want. We're going to measure lots of stuff. You shouldn't be trying to change your weight or weight that gave them a diet that had no calories from ultra-processed foods. In fact, 80% from minimally processed foods. But again, both of these two sort of food environments were matched for these nutrients that we typically think of as playing a major role in how many calories people choose to eat.Kevin Hall (05:13):And so, the basic idea was, okay, well let's measure what these folks eat. We gave them more than double the calories that they would require to maintain their weight, and what they didn't know was that in the basement of the clinical center where the metabolic kitchen is, we had all of our really talented nutrition staff measuring the leftovers to see what it was that they didn't eat. So we knew exactly what we provided to them and all the foods had to be in our nutrition database and when we compute what they actually ate by difference, so we have a very precise estimate about not only what foods they chose to ate, but also how many calories they chose to eat, as well as the nutrient composition.And the main upshot of all that was that when these folks were exposed to this highly ultra-processed food environment, they spontaneously chose to eat about 500 calories per day more over the two-week period they were in that environment then when the same folks were in the environment that had no ultra-processed foods, but just minimally processed foods. They not surprisingly gained weight during the ultra-processed food environment and lost weight and lost body fat during the minimally processed food environment. And because those diets were overall matched for these different nutrients, it didn't seem to be that those were the things that were driving this big effect. So I think there's a couple of big take homes here. One is that the food environment really does have a profound effect on just the biology of how our food intake is controlled at least over relatively short periods of time, like the two-week periods that we were looking at. And secondly, that there's something about ultra-processed foods that seem to be driving this excess calorie intake that we now know has been linked with increased risk of obesity, and now we're starting to put some of the causal pieces together that really there might be something in this ultra-processed food environment that's driving the increased rates of obesity that we've seen over the past many decades.Eric Topol (07:18):Yeah, I mean I think the epidemiologic studies that make the link between ultra-processed foods and higher risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, neurodegenerative disease. They're pretty darn strong and they're backed up by this very rigorous study. Now you mentioned it short term, do you have any reason to think that adding 500 calories a day by eating these bad foods, which by the way in the American diet is about 60% or more of the average American diet, do you have any inkling that it would change after a few weeks?Kevin Hall (07:54):Well, I don't know about after a few weeks, but I think that one of the things that we do know about body weight regulation and how it changes in body weight impact both metabolism, how many calories were burning as well as our appetite. We would expect some degree of moderation of that effect eventually settling in at a new steady state, that's probably going to take months and years to achieve. And so the question is, I certainly don't believe that it would be a 500 calorie a day difference indefinitely. The question is when would that difference converge and how much weight would've been gained or lost when people eventually reached that new plateau? And so, that's I think a really interesting question. Some folks have suggested that maybe if you extrapolated the lines a little bit, you could predict when those two curves might eventually converge. That's an interesting thought experiment, but I think we do need some longer studies to investigate how persistent are these effects. Can that fully explain the rise in average body weight and obesity rates that have occurred over the past several decades? Those are open questions.Eric Topol (09:03):Yeah. Well, I mean, I had the chance to interview Chris van Tulleken who wrote the book, Ultra-Processed People and I think you might remember in the book he talked about how he went on an ultra-processed diet and gained some 20, 30 pounds in a short time in a month. And his brother, his identical twin brother gained 50, 60 pounds, and so it doesn't look good. Do you look at all the labels and avoid all this junk and ultra-processed food now or are you still thinking that maybe it's not as bad as it looks?Kevin Hall (09:38):Well, I mean I think that I certainly learned a lot from our studies, and we are continuing to follow this up to try to figure out what are the mechanisms by which this happen. But at the same time, I don't think we can throw out everything else we know about nutrition science. So just because we match these various nutrients in this particular study, I think one of the dangers here is that as you mentioned, there's 60% of the food environment in the US and Great Britain and other places consist of these foods, and so they're unavoidable to some extent, right? Unless you're one of these privileged folks who have your backyard garden and your personal chef who can make all of your foods, I'm certainly not one of those people, but for the vast majority of us, we're going to have to incorporate some degree of ultra-processed foods in our day-to-day diet.Kevin Hall (10:24):The way I sort of view it is, we really need to understand the mechanisms and before we understand the mechanisms, we have to make good choices based on what we already know about nutrition science, that we should avoid the foods that have a lot of sugar in them. We should avoid foods that have a lot of saturated fat and sodium. We should try to choose products that contain lots of whole grains and legumes and fruits and vegetables and things like that. And there's some of those, even in the ultra-processed food category. I pretty regularly consume a microwavable ready meal for lunch. It tends to be pretty high in whole grains and legumes and low in saturated fat and sugar and things like that. But to engineer a food that can heat up properly in a microwave in four minutes has some ultra-processing technology involved there. I would be pretty skeptical that that's going to cause me to have really poor health consequences as compared to if I had the means to eat homemade French fries every day in tallow. But that's the kind of comparison that we have to think about.Eric Topol (11:36):But I think what you're touching on and maybe inadvertently is in that NOVA class four, the bad ultra-processed foods, there's a long, long list of course, and some of those may be worse than others, and we haven't seen an individual ranking of these constituents. So as you're alluding to what's in that microwave lunch probably could be much less concerning than what's in these packaged snacks that are eaten widely. But I would certainly agree that we don't know everything about this, but your study is one of the most quoted studies ever in the ultra-processed food world. Now, let me move on to another trial that was really important. This was published in Nature Medicine and it's about a plant-based diet, which is of course a very interesting diet, low-fat versus an animal-based ketogenic diet. Also looking at energy intake. Can you take us through that trial?Plant-Based, Low Fat Diet vs Animal-Based, Low Carbohydrate Ketogenic DietKevin Hall (12:33):Sure. So it's actually interesting to consider that trial in the context of the trial we just talked about because both of these diets that we tested in this trial were relatively low in ultra-processed foods, and so both of them contained more than a kilogram of non-starchy vegetables as a base for designing these, again, two different food environments. Very similar overall study design where people again were exposed to either diets that were vegan plant-based diet that was really high in starches and was designed to kind of cause big insulin increases in the blood after eating the meals. And the other diet had very, very few carbohydrates of less than 10% in total, and we built on that kind of non-starchy vegetable base, a lot of animal-based products to kind of get a pretty high amount of fat and having very low carbohydrates. Both diets in this case, like I mentioned, were pretty low in ultra-processed foods, but what we were really interested in here was testing this idea that has come to prominence recently, that high carbohydrate diets that lead to really large glucose excursions after meals that cause very high insulin levels after meals are particularly obesogenic and should cause you to be hungrier than compared to a diet that doesn't lead to those large swings in glucose and insulin and the prototypical case being one that's very low in carbohydrate and might increase the level of ketones that are floating around in your blood, which are hypothesized to be an appetite suppressant. Same sort of design, these minimally processed diets that one was very high in carbs and causes large swings in insulin and the other that's very low in carbs and causes increases in ketones.Kevin Hall (14:22):We ask people, again, while you're in one food environment or the other, don't be trying to gain weight or lose weight, eat as much or as little as you'd like, and we're going to basically measure a lot of things. They again, don't know what the primary outcome of the study is. We're measuring their leftovers afterwards. And so, the surprise in this particular case was that the diet that caused the big swings in glucose and insulin did not lead to more calorie consumption. In fact, it led to about 700 calories per day less than when the same people were exposed to the ketogenic diet. Interestingly, both food environments caused people to lose weight, so it wasn't that we didn't see the effect of people over consuming calories on either diet, so they were reading fewer calories in general than they were when they came in, right. They're probably eating a pretty ultra-processed food diet when they came in. We put them on these two diets that varied very much in terms of the macronutrients that they were eating, but both were pretty minimally processed. They lost weight. They ended up losing more body fat on the very low-fat high carb diet than the ketogenic diet, but actually more weight on the ketogenic diet than the low-fat diet. So there's a little bit of a dissociation between body fat loss and weight loss in this study, which was kind of interesting.Eric Topol (15:49):Interesting. Yeah, I thought that was a fascinating trial because plant-based diet, they both have their kind of camps, you know.Kevin Hall (15:57):Right. No, exactly.Immune System Signatures for Vegan vs Ketogenic DietsEric Topol (15:58):There are people who aren't giving up on ketogenic diet. Of course, there's some risks and some benefits and there's a lot of interest of course with the plant-based diet. So it was really interesting and potentially the additive effects of plant-based with avoidance or lowering of ultra-processed food. Now, the more recent trial that you did also was very interesting, and of course I'm only selecting ones that I think are particularly, there are a lot of trials you've done, but this one is more recent in this year where you looked at vegan versus ketogenic diets for the immune signature, immune response, which is really important. It's underplayed as its effect, and so maybe you can take us through that one.[Link to a recent Nature feature on this topic, citing Dr. Hall's work]Kevin Hall (16:43):Yeah, so just to be clear, it's actually the same study, the one that we just talked about. This is a secondary sort of analysis from a collaboration we had with some folks at NIAID here at the NIH to try to evaluate immune systems signatures in these same folks who wonder what these two changes in their food environment. One is vegan, high carbohydrate low-fat diet and the other, the animal-based ketogenic diet. And again, it was pretty interesting to me that we were able to see really substantial changes in how the immune system was responding. First of all, both diets again seem to have improved immune function, both adaptive and innate immune function as compared to their baseline measurements when they came into the study. So when they're reading their habitual diet, whatever that is typically high in ultra-processed foods, they switched to both of these diets.Kevin Hall (17:39):We saw market changes in their immune system even compared to baseline. But when we then went and compared the two diets, they were actually divergent also, in other words, the vegan diet seemed to stimulate the innate immune system and the ketogenic diet seemed to stimulate the adaptive immune system. So these are the innate immune system can be thought of. Again, I'm not an immunologist. My understanding is that this is the first line defense against pathogens. It happens very quickly and then obviously the adaptive immune system then adapts to a specific pathogen over time. And so, this ability of our diet to change the immune system is intriguing and how much of that has to do with influencing the gut microbiota, which obviously the gut plays a huge role in steering our immune system in one direction versus another. I think those are some really intriguing mechanistic questions that are really good fodder for future research.Eric Topol (18:42):Yeah, I think it may have implications for treatment of autoimmune diseases. You may want to comment about that.Kevin Hall (18:51):Yeah, it's fascinating to think about that the idea that you could change your diet and manipulate your microbiota and manipulate your gut function in a way to influence your immune system to steer you away from a response that may actually be causing your body damage in your typical diet. It's a fascinating area of science and we're really interested to follow that up. I mean, it kind of supports these more anecdotal reports of people with lupus, for example, who've reported that when they try to clean up their diet for a period of time and eliminate certain foods and eliminate perhaps even ultra-processed food products, that they feel so much better that their symptoms alleviate at least for some period of time. Obviously, it doesn't take the place of the therapeutics that they need to take, but yeah, we're really interested in following this up to see what this interaction might be.Eric Topol (19:46):Yeah, it's fascinating. It also gets to the fact that certain people have interesting responses. For example, those with epilepsy can respond very well to a ketogenic diet. There's also been diet proposed for cancer. In fact, I think there's some even ongoing trials for cancer of specific diets. Any comments about that?Kevin Hall (20:10):Yeah, again, it's a really fascinating area. I mean, I think we kind of underappreciate and view diet in this lens of weight loss, which is not surprising because that's kind of where it's been popularized. But I think the role of nutrition and how you can manipulate your diet and still you can have a very healthy version of a ketogenic diet. You can have a very healthy version of a low-fat, high carb diet and how they can be used in individual cases to kind of manipulate factors that might be of concern. So for example, if you're concerned about blood glucose levels, clearly a ketogenic diet is moderating those glucose levels over time, reducing insulin levels, and that might have some positive downstream consequences and there's some potential downsides. Your apoB levels might go up. So, you have to kind of tune these things to the problems and the situations that individuals may face. And similarly, if you have issues with blood glucose control, maybe a high carbohydrate diet might not be for you, but if that's not an issue and you want to reduce apoB levels, it seems like that is a relatively effective way to do that, although it does tend to increase fasting triglyceride levels.Kevin Hall (21:27):So again, there's all of these things to consider, and then when you open the door beyond traditional metabolic health markers to things like inflammation and autoimmune disease as well as some of these other things like moderating how cancer therapeutics might work inside the body. I think it's a really fascinating and interesting area to pursue.Eric Topol (21:55):No question about it. And that also brings in the dimension of the gut microbiome, which obviously your diet has a big influence, and it has an influence on your brain, brain-gut axis, and the immune system. It's all very intricate, a lot of feedback loops and interactions that are not so easy to dissect, right?Kevin Hall (22:16):Absolutely. Yeah, especially in humans. That's why we rely on our basic science colleagues to kind of figure out these individual steps in these chains. And of course, we do need human experiments and carefully controlled experiments to see how much of that really translates to humans, so we need this close sort of translational partnership.On the Pathogenesis of Obesity, Calories In and Calories OutEric Topol (22:35):Yeah. Now, you've also written with colleagues, other experts in the field about understanding the mechanisms of pathogenesis of obesity and papers that we'll link to. We're going to link to everything for what we've been discussing about calories in, calories out, and that's been the longstanding adage about this. Can you enlighten us, what is really driving obesity and calories story?Kevin Hall (23:05):Well, I co-organized a meeting for the Royal Society, I guess about a year and a half ago, and we got together all these experts from around the world, and the basic message is that we have lots of competing theories about what is driving obesity. There's a few things that we all agree on. One is that there is a genetic component. That adiposity in a given environment is somewhere between 40% to 70% heritable, so our genes play a huge role. It seems like there's certain genes that can play a major role. Like if you have a mutation in leptin, for example, or the leptin receptor, then this can have a monogenic cause of obesity, but that's very, very rare. What seems to be the case is that it's a highly polygenic disease with individual gene variants contributing a very, very small amount to increased adiposity. But our genes have not changed that much as obesity prevalence has increased over the past 50 years. And so, something in the environment has been driving that, and that's where the real debates sort of starts, right?Kevin Hall (24:14):I happen to be in the camp that thinks that the food environment is probably one of the major drivers and our food have changed substantially, and we're trying to better understand, for example, how ultra-processed foods which have risen kind of in parallel with the increased prevalence of obesity. What is it about ultra-processed foods that tend to drive us to overconsume calories? Other folks focus maybe more on what signals from the body have been altered by the foods that we're eating. They might say that the adipose tissue because of excess insulin secretion for example, is basically driven into a storage mode and that sends downstream signals that are eventually sensed by the brain to change our appetite and things like that. There's a lot of debate about that, but again, I think that these are complementary hypotheses that are important to sort out for sure and important to design experiments to try to figure out what is more likely. But there is a lot of agreement on the idea that there's something in our environment has changed.Kevin Hall (25:17):I think there's even maybe a little bit less agreement of exactly what that is. I think that there's probably a little bit more emphasis on the food environment as opposed to there are other folks who think increased pollution might be driving some of this, especially endocrine disrupting chemicals that have increased in prevalence. I think that's a viable hypothesis. I think we have to try to rank order what we think are the most likely and largest contributors. They could all be contributing to some extent and maybe more so in some people rather than others, but our goal is to try to, maybe that's a little simple minded, but let's take the what I think is the most important thing and let's figure out the mechanisms of that most important thing and we'll, number one, determine if it is the most important thing. In my case, I think something about ultra-processed foods that are driving much of what we're seeing. If we could better understand that, then we could both advise consumers to avoid certain kinds of foods because of certain mechanisms and still be able to consume some degree of ultra-processed foods. They are convenient and tasty and relatively inexpensive and don't require a lot of skill and equipment to prepare. But then if we focus on the true bad guys in that category because we really understand the mechanisms, then I think that would be a major step forward. But that's just my hypothesis.Eric Topol (26:43):Well, I'm with you actually. Everything I've read, everything I've reviewed on ultra-processed food is highly incriminating, and I also get frustrated that nothing is getting done about it, at least in this country. But on the other hand, it doesn't have to be either or, right? It could be both these, the glycemic index story also playing a role. Now, when you think about this and you're trying to sort out calories in and calories out, and let's say it's one of your classic experiments where you have isocaloric proteins and fat and carbohydrate exactly nailed in the different diets you're examining. Is it really about calories or is it really about what is comprising the calorie?Kevin Hall (27:29):Yeah, so I think this is the amazing thing, even in our ultra-processed food study, if we asked the question across those people, did the people who ate more calories even in the ultra-processed diet, did they gain more weight? The answer is yes.Kevin Hall (27:44):There's a very strong linear correlation between calorie intake and weight change. I tend to think that I started my career in this space focusing more on the metabolism side of the equation, how the body's using the calories and how much does energy expenditure change when you vary the proportion of carbs versus fat, for example. The effect size is there, they might be there, but they're really tiny of the order of a hundred calories per day. What really struck me is that when we just kind of changed people's food environments, the magnitude of the effects are like we mentioned, 500 to 700 calories per day differences. So I think that the real trick is to figure out how is it that the brain is regulating our body weight in some way that we are beginning to understand from a molecular perspective? What I think is less well understood is, how is that food intake control system altered by the food environment that we find ourselves in?The Brain and GLP-1 DrugsKevin Hall (28:42):There are a few studies now in mice that are beginning to look at how pathways in the brain that have been believed to be related to reward and not necessarily homeostatic control of food intake. They talk to the regions of the brain that are related to homeostatic control of food intake, and it's a reciprocal sort of feedback loop there, and we're beginning to understand that. And I think if we get more details about what it is in our foods that are modulating that system, then we'll have a better understanding of what's really driving obesity and is it different in different people? Are there subcategories of obesity where certain aspects of the food environment are more important than others, and that might be completely flipped in another person. I don't know the answer to that question yet, but it seems like there are certain common factors that might be driving overall changes in obesity prevalence and how they impact this reward versus homeostatic control systems in the brain, I think are really fascinating questions.Eric Topol (29:43):And I think we're getting much more insight about this circuit of the reward in the brain with the food intake, things like optogenetics, many ways that we're getting at this. And so, it's fascinating. Now, that gets me to the miracle drug class GLP-1, which obviously has a big interaction with obesity, but of course much more than that. And you've written about this as well regarding this topic of sarcopenic obesity whereby you lose a lot of weight, but do you lose muscle mass or as you referred to earlier, you lose body fat and maybe not so much muscle mass. Can you comment about your views about the GLP-1 family of drugs and also about this concern of muscle mass loss?Kevin Hall (30:34):Yeah, so I think it's a really fascinating question, and we've been trying to develop mathematical models about how our body composition changes with weight gain and weight loss for decades now. And this has been a long topic, one of the things that many people may not realize is that people with obesity don't just have elevated adiposity, they also have elevated muscle mass and lean tissue mass overall. So when folks with obesity lose weight, and this was initially a pretty big concern with bariatric surgery, which has been the grandfather of ways that people have lost a lot of weight. The question has been is there a real concern about people losing too much weight and thereby becoming what you call sarcopenic? They have too little muscle mass and then they have difficulties moving around. And of course, there are probably some people like that, but I think what people need to realize is that folks with obesity tend to start with much higher amounts of lean tissue mass as well as adiposity, and they start off with about 50% of your fat-free mass, and the non-fat component of your body is skeletal muscle.Kevin Hall (31:45):So you're already starting off with quite a lot. And so, the question then is when you lose a lot of weight with the GLP-1 receptor agonist or with bariatric surgery, how much of that weight loss is coming from fat-free mass and skeletal muscle versus fat mass? And so, we've been trying to simulate that using what we've known about bariatric surgery and what we've known about just intentional weight loss or weight gain over the years. And one of the things that we found was that our sort of expectations for what's expected for the loss of fat-free mass with these different drugs as well as bariatric surgery, for the most part, they match our expectations. In other words, the expected amount of fat loss and fat free mass loss. The one outlier interestingly, was the semaglutide study, and in that case, they lost more fat-free mass than would be expected.Kevin Hall (32:44):Now, again, that's just raising a little bit of a flag that for whatever reason, from a body composition perspective, it's about a hundred people underwent these repeated DEXA scans in that study sponsored by Novo Nordisk. So it's not a huge number of people, but it's enough to really get a good estimate about the proportion of weight loss. Whether or not that has functional consequences, I think is the open question. There's not a lot of reports of people losing weight with semaglutide saying, you know what? I'm really having trouble actually physically moving around. I feel like I've lost a lot of strength. In fact, it seems to be the opposite, right, that the quality of the muscle there seems to be improved. They seem to have more physical mobility because they've lost so much more weight, that weight had been inhibiting their physical movement in the past.Kevin Hall (33:38):So it's something to keep an eye on. It's an open question whether or not we need additional therapies in certain categories of patients, whether that be pharmacological, there are drugs that are interesting that tend to increase muscle mass. There's also other things that we know increase muscle mass, right? Resistance exercise training, increase this muscle mass. And so, if you're really concerned about this, I certainly, I'm not a physician, but I think it's something to consider that if you go on one of these drugs, you might want to think about increasing your resistance exercise training, maybe increasing the protein content of your diet, which then can support that muscle building. But I think it's a really interesting open question about what the consequences of this might be in certain patient populations, especially over longer periods of time.Dietary Protein, Resistance Exercise, DEXA ScansEric Topol (34:30):Yeah, you've just emphasized some really key points here. Firstly, that resistance exercise is good for you anyway. And get on one of these drugs, why don't you amp it up or get it going? The second is about the protein diet, which it'd be interesting to get your thoughts on that, but we generally have too low of a protein diet, but then there are some who are advocating very high protein diets like one gram per pound, not just one gram per kilogram. And there have been studies to suggest that that very high protein diet could be harmful, but amping up the protein diet, that would be a countering thing. But the other thing you mentioned is a DEXA scan, which can be obtained very inexpensively, and because there's a variability in this muscle mass loss if it's occurring, I wonder if that's a prudent thing or if you just empirically would just do the things that you mentioned. Do you have any thoughts about that?Kevin Hall (35:32):Yeah, that's really a clinical question that I don't deal with on a day-to-day basis. And yeah, I think there's probably better people suited to that. DEXA scans, they're relatively inexpensive, but they're not readily accessible to everyone. I certainly wouldn't want to scare people away from using drugs that are now known to be very effective for weight loss and pretty darn safe as far as we can tell, just because they don't have access to a DEXA scanner or something like that.Eric Topol (36:00):Sure. No, that makes a lot of sense. I mean, the only reason I thought it might be useful is if you're concerned about this and you want to track, for example, how much is that resistant training doing?Kevin Hall (36:13):But I think for people who have the means to do that, sure. I can't see any harm in it for sure.Continuous Glucose Sensors?Eric Topol (36:19):Yeah. That gets me to another metric that you've written about, which is continuous glucose tracking. As you know, this is getting used, I think much more routinely in type one insulin diabetics and people with type 2 that are taking insulin or difficult to manage. And now in recent months there have been consumer approved that is no prescription needed, just go to the drugstore and pick up your continuous glucose sensor. And you've written about that as well. Can you summarize your thoughts on it?Kevin Hall (36:57):Yeah, sure. I mean, yeah, first of all, these tools have been amazing for people with diabetes and who obviously are diagnosed as having a relative inability to regulate their glucose levels. And so, these are critical tools for people in that population. I think the question is are they useful for people who don't have diabetes and is having this one metric and where you target all this energy into this one thing that you can now measure, is that really a viable way to kind of modulate your lifestyle and your diet? And how reliable are these CGM measurements anyway? In other words, do they give the same response to the same meal on repeated occasions? Does one monitor give the same response as another monitor? And those are the kinds of experiments that we've done. Again, secondary analysis, these trials that we talked about before, we have people wearing continuous glucose monitors all the time and we know exactly what they ate.Kevin Hall (37:59):And so, in a previous publication several years ago, we basically had two different monitors. One basically is on the arm, which is the manufacturer's recommendation, the other is on the abdomen, which is the manufacturer's recommendation. They're wearing them simultaneously. And we decided just to compare what were the responses to the same meals in simultaneous measurements. And they were correlated with each other thankfully, but they weren't as well predictive as you might expect. In other words, one device might give a very high glucose reading to consuming one meal and the other might barely budge, whereas the reverse might happen for a different meal. And so, we asked the question, if we were to rank the glucose spikes by one meal, so we have all these meals, let's rank them according to the glucose spikes of one device. Let's do the simultaneous measurements with the other device.Kevin Hall (38:53):Do we get a different set of rankings? And again, they're related to each other, but they're not overlapping. They're somewhat discordant. And so, then the question becomes, okay, well if I was basically using this one metric to kind of make my food decisions by one device, I actually start making different decisions compared to if I happen to have been wearing a different device. So what does this really mean? And I think this sort of foundational research on how much of a difference you would need to make a meaningful assessment about, yeah, this is actionable from a lifestyle perspective, even if that is the one metric that you're interested in. That sort of foundational research I don't think has really been done yet. More recently, we asked the question, okay, let's ignore the two different devices. Let's stick to the one where we put it on our arm, and let's ask the question.Kevin Hall (39:43):We've got repeated meals and we've got them in this very highly regimented and controlled environment, so we know exactly what people ate previously. We know the timing of the meals, we know when they did their exercise, we know how much they were moving around, how well they slept the night before. All of these factors we could kind of control. And the question that we asked in that study was, do people respond similarly to the same meal on repeated occasions? Is that better than when you actually give them very different meals? But they match overall for macronutrient content, for example. And the answer to that was surprisingly no. We had as much variability in the glucose response to the same person consuming the same meal on two occasions as a whole bunch of different meals. Which suggests again, that there's enough variability that it makes it difficult to then recommend on for just two repeats of a meal that this is going to be a meal that's going to cause your blood glucose to be moderate or blood glucose to be very high. You're going to have to potentially do this on many, many different occasions to kind of figure out what's the reliable response of these measurements. And again, that foundational research is typically not done. And I think if we're really going to use this metric as something that is going to change our lifestyles and make us choose some meals other than others, then I think we need that foundational research. And all we know now is that two repeats of the same meal is not going to do it.Eric Topol (41:21):Well, were you using the current biosensors of 2024 or were you using ones from years ago on that?Kevin Hall (41:27):No, we were using ones from several years ago when these studies were completed. But interestingly, the variability in the venous measurements to meal tests is also very, very different. So it's probably not the devices per se that are highly variable. It's that we don't really know on average how to predict these glucose responses unless there's huge differences in the glycemic load. So glycemic load is a very old concept that when you have very big differences in glycemic load, yeah, you can on average predict that one kind of meal is going to give rise to a much larger glucose excursion than another. But typically these kind of comparisons are now being made within a particular person. And we're comparing meals that might have quite similar glycemic loads with the claim that there's something specific about that person that causes them to have a much bigger glucose spike than another person. And that we can assess that with a couple different meals.Eric Topol (42:31):But also, we know that the spikes or the glucose regulation, it's very much affected by so many things like stress, like sleep, like exercise. And so, it wouldn't be at all surprising that if you had the exact same food, but all these other factors were modulated that it might not have the same response. But the other thing, just to get your comment on. Multiple groups, particularly starting in Israel, the Weizmann Institute, Eran Segal and his colleagues, and many subsequent have shown that if you give the exact same amount of that food, the exact same time to a person, they eat the exact same amount. Their glucose response is highly heterogeneous and variable between people. Do you think that that's true? That in fact that our metabolism varies considerably and that the glucose in some will spike with certain food and some won't.Kevin Hall (43:29):Well, of course that's been known for a long time that there's varying degrees of glucose tolerance. Just oral glucose tolerance tests that we've been doing for decades and decades we know is actually diagnostic, that we use variability in that response as diagnostic of type 2 diabetes.Eric Topol (43:49):I'm talking about within healthy people.Kevin Hall (43:53):But again, it's not too surprising that varying people. I mean, first of all, we have a huge increase in pre-diabetes, right? So there's various degrees of glucose tolerance that are being observed. But yeah, that is important physiology. I think the question then is within a given person, what kind of advice do we give to somebody about their lifestyle that is going to modulate those glucose responses? And if that's the only thing that you look at, then it seems like what ends up happening, even in the trials that use continuous glucose monitors, well big surprise, they end up recommending low carbohydrate diets, right? So that's the precision sort of nutrition advice because if that's the main metric that's being used, then of course we've all known for a very long time that lower carbohydrate diets lead to a moderated glucose response compared to higher carbohydrate diets. I think the real question is when you kind of ask the issue of if you normalize for glycemic load of these different diets, and there are some people that respond very differently to the same glycemic load meal compared to another person, is that consistent number one within that person?Kevin Hall (45:05):And our data suggests that you're going to have to repeat that same test multiple times to kind of get a consistent response and be able to make a sensible recommendation about that person should eat that meal in the future or not eat that meal in the future. And then second, what are you missing when that becomes your only metric, right? If you're very narrowly focused on that, then you're going to drive everybody to consume a very low carbohydrate diet. And as we know, that might be great for a huge number of people, but there are those that actually have some deleterious effects of that kind of diet. And if you're not measuring those other things or not considering those other things and put so much emphasis on the glucose side of the equation, I worry that there could be people that are being negatively impacted. Not to mention what if that one occasion, they ate their favorite food and they happen to get this huge glucose spike and they never eat it again, their life is worse. It might've been a complete aberration.Eric Topol (46:05):I think your practical impact point, it's excellent. And I think one of the, I don't know if you agree, Kevin, but one of the missing links here is we see these glucose spikes in healthy people, not just pre-diabetic, but people with no evidence of glucose dysregulation. And we don't know, they could be up to 180, 200, they could be prolonged. We don't know if the health significance of that, and I guess someday we'll learn about it. Right?Kevin Hall (46:36):Well, I mean that's the one nice thing is that now that we have these devices to measure these things, we can start to make these correlations. We can start to do real science to say, what a lot of people now presume is the case that these spikes can't be good for you. They must lead to increased risk of diabetes. It's certainly a plausible hypothesis, but that's what it is. We actually need good data to actually analyze that. And at least that's now on the table.Eric Topol (47:04):I think you're absolutely right on that. Well, Kevin, this has been a fun discussion. You've been just a great leader in nutrition science. I hope you'll keep up your momentum because it's pretty profound and I think we touched on a lot of the uncertainties. Is there anything that I didn't ask you that you wish I did?Kevin Hall (47:23):I mean, we could go on for hours, I'm sure, Eric, but this has been a fascinating conversation. I really appreciate your interest. Thank you.Eric Topol (47:30):Alright, well keep up the great stuff. We'll be following all your work in the years ahead, and thanks for joining us on Ground Truths today.**************************************Footnote, Stay Tuned: Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall have a book coming out next September titled “WHY WE EAT? Thank you for reading, listening and subscribing to Ground Truths.If you found this fun and informative please share it!All content on Ground Truths—its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts, are free, open-access.Paid subscriptions are voluntary. All proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years. I welcome all comments from paid subscribers and will do my best to respond to them and any questions.Thanks to my producer Jessica Nguyen and to Sinjun Balabanoff for audio and video support at Scripps Research.Note on Mass Exodus from X/twitter:Many of you have abandoned the X platform for reasons that I fully understand. While I intend to continue to post there because of its reach to the biomedical community, I will post anything material here in the Notes section of Ground Truths on a daily basis and cover important topics in the newsletter/analyses. You can also find my posts at Bluesky: @erictopol.bsky.social, which is emerging as an outstanding platform for sharing life science. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of HIV unmuted, host Juan Michael Porter II sits down with Jeanne Marrazzo, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), in a conversation that goes beyond the headlines and deep into the heart of HIV research and advocacy. Dr Marrazzo, a leader with decades of experience in infectious disease research, shares her inspiring journey from her roots in Scranton, Pennsylvania, to her groundbreaking work in HIV prevention and care. Through this intimate conversation, listeners will discover what drives Dr. Marrazzo's commitment to equity, diversity and community-centered research, and how her personal and professional experiences shape her vision for the future of HIV science. From the challenges of addressing global health inequities to the optimism surrounding new HIV prevention methods, Dr Marrazzo offers valuable insights into the importance of inclusive messaging, the power of collaboration, and why putting people first remains at the core of her mission. Tune in to hear how Jeanne Marrazzo plans to navigate the evolving landscape of global health as she leads NIAID into a new era, and why she believes that hope, innovation, and community are key to overcoming the ongoing challenges in the HIV response. Meet our guest: Jeanne Marrazzo   Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, FACP, FIDSA, is the Director of NIAID at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), where she oversees a USD 6.3 billion budget that supports research to advance understanding, diagnosis and treatment of infectious, immunologic and allergic diseases. She was previously the C. Glenn Cobbs Endowed Chair and Director of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine. She is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and was Treasurer of the IDSA from 2021 to 2023, having served on the board since 2018. She researches the vaginal microbiome, sexually transmitted infections and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. She has had leadership roles in the NIH HIV Prevention Trials Network and the Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium. She was a leading voice in communicating science during the COVID-19 pandemic.   Meet our host: Juan Michael Porter II  Juan Michael Porter II is a health journalist, HIV advocate, culture critic, educator and the host of HIV unmuted, the IAS podcast. He is the Senior Editor of TheBody.com and TheBodyPro – and the first person openly living with HIV to hold the position. Juan Michael's reportage combines data dives, personal narratives and policy analyses to address the real-world consequences of ever-shifting legislation on people's health outcomes. He has written for the Public Broadcasting Service, SF Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Christian Science Monitor, NY Observer, TDF Stages, Playbill, American Theatre, Time Out NY, Queerty, Anti-Racism Daily, Positively Aware, Documentary Magazine, SYFY Wire, Scholastic and Dance Magazine. 

Today, we have the honor of speaking once again with Sheila Ames, a registered nurse in Northern California who has been diagnosed with a rare type of a primary immunodeficiency known as common variable immunodeficiency or CVID for short. How did she fare during the recent Pandemic?  Tune in now to find out! At the time of her diagnosis she was working as an ICU nurse and her first doctors order was: no more exposure to infectious patients.  This diagnosis not only changed her career dramatically, it led her to following her life's purpose in opening her own health & wellness online coaching business to help others continue to find and work towards their life's purpose despite the hurdles that life gives us. ​Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) is a primary immune deficiency disease characterized by low levels of protective antibodies and an increased risk of infections. Although the disease usually is diagnosed in adults, it also can occur in children. CVID also is known as hypogammaglobulinemia, adult-onset agammaglobulinemia, late-onset hypogammaglobulinemia, and acquired agammaglobulinemia. NIAID supports research to determine genetic causes of CVID that may lead to therapeutic approaches to address the disease. Researchers also are exploring how antibody-based drugs may lessen the severity of the condition. ​Causes CVID is caused by a variety of different genetic abnormalities that result in a defect in the capability of immune cells to produce normal amounts of all types of antibodies. Only a few of these defects have been identified, and the cause of most cases of CVID is unknown. Many people with CVID carry a DNA variation called a polymorphism in a gene known as TACI. However, while this genetic abnormality confers increased risk of developing CVID, it alone is not capable of causing CVID. CVID is also linked to IgA deficiency, a related condition in which only the level of the antibody immunoglobulin A (IgA) is low, while levels of other antibody types are usually normal or near normal. IgA deficiency typically occurs alone, but in some cases it may precede the development of CVID or occur in family members of CVID patients. ​Symptoms & Diagnosis People with CVID may experience frequent bacterial and viral infections of the upper airway, sinuses, and lungs. Acute lung infections can cause pneumonia, and long-term lung infections may cause a chronic form of bronchitis known as bronchiectasis, which is characterized by thickened airway walls colonized by bacteria.   People with CVID also may have diarrhea, problems absorbing food nutrients, reduced liver function, and impaired blood flow to the liver. Autoimmune problems that cause reduced levels of blood cells or platelets also may occur. People with CVID may develop an enlarged spleen and swollen glands or lymph nodes, as well as painful swollen joints in the knee, ankle, elbow, or wrist. In addition, people with CVID may have an increased risk of developing some cancers. Doctors can diagnose CVID by weighing factors including infection history, digestive symptoms, lab tests showing very low immunoglobulin levels, and low antibody responses to immunization. ​Treatment CVID is treated with intravenous immunoglobulin infusions or subcutaneous (under the skin) immunoglobulin injection to partially restore immunoglobulin levels. The immunoglobulin given by either method provides antibodies from the blood of healthy donors. The frequent bacterial infections experienced by people with CVID are treated with antibiotics. Other problems caused by CVID may require additional, tailored treatments. To learn more about CVID, visit the National Library of Medicine, Genetics Home Reference CVID site  (Credits to NIH) ​ If you would like to reach out to our guest: Sheila Ames BSN, RN, PHN Holistic Health Coach Business FB page:  https://www.facebook.com/JourneyIntoWellness1 ​PID (primary immunodeficiency) group:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/journeyintowellnesspid ​Instagram:  @journeyintowellnesscoaching My website:  journeyintowellness.net

What if Anthony Fauci isn't the hero the media portrays him to be? In our latest episode of Paratruther, we tackle the controversial rise of Fauci during the COVID-19 pandemic, likening his sudden prominence to a horror movie villain coming into the limelight. Through an eye-opening conversation with Mr. Anderson, we peel back the layers of Fauci's extensive career at the NIH and NIAID, spotlighting his involvement in significant, yet contentious events such as the 1986 act shielding pharmaceutical companies and the controversies of the AIDS crisis. We don't shy away from critiquing mainstream narratives, drawing parallels between Fauci's ascent and other political figures, and questioning the media's role in shaping public perception.Gain-of-function research, Fauci's alleged deceit, and the ethical implications of risky scientific endeavors are at the heart of our discussion. We dissect Fauci's public statements and private communications during the COVID-19 pandemic, scrutinizing inconsistencies and the potential cover-ups surrounding the virus's origins. From Operation Paperclip to the weaponization of diseases like Lyme disease, our critical analysis seeks to uncover the hidden motives and broader implications of Fauci's decisions on public health policies. This chapter is sure to leave you questioning the integrity of those in power and their true agendas.We wrap up with reflections on influential figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kary Mullis, examining their criticisms and the broader societal impact of the pandemic response. The discussion touches on everything from early COVID-19 predictions and the mysterious vaping illnesses of 2019 to the more conspiratorial aspects like cryptocurrency patents and 5G technology. With a blend of skepticism, humor, and critical inquiry, we challenge you to rethink the narratives and consider the deeper, often unsettling truths shaping our world today. Tune in for a thought-provoking and engaging exploration of one of the most significant health crises of our time.

Dr. Paul Alexander Liberty Hour – I expose the shocking lack of accountability in government agencies like NIH, NIAID, and CDC. Highlighting dangerous monkeypox research and COVID-19 mismanagement, I call for thorough investigations and severe consequences for those responsible. This report reveals the incompetence and criminality under leaders like Fauci and Collins, demanding urgent and drastic reforms.

TWiV reviews criticism of NIAID monkeypox virus experiments by House Republicans, spread of wild poliovirus across Afghanistan and Pakistan, plan to overhaul NIH by House lawmakers, and the potential pandemic risk of circulating swine H1N2 influenza viruses. Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Dickson Despommier, Brianne Barker, and Angela Mingarelli Subscribe (free): Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, RSS, email Become a patron of TWiV! Links for this episode MicrobeTV Discord Server 2024 International HBV Meeting House Republicans fault NIH for evasive answers on monkeypox virus study (Science) Report on MPX experiments at NIAID (pdf) Wild poliovirus spreads across Pakistan and Afghanistan (Science) Plan to overhaul NIH (Science) Reforming NIH (pdf) Potential pandemic risk of circulating swine H1N2 influenza viruses (Nat Comm) Timestamps by Jolene. Thanks! Weekly Picks Angela – Staring at the Sun — close-up images from space rewrite solar science Brianne – Water frost detected on Mars Volcanos Dickson – Best view yet of the Crab Nebula Vincent – Will Your Tattoo Give You Cancer: Probably Not…but Maybe? Listener Picks Jessica – Manchurian plague Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees Send your virology questions and comments to twiv@microbe.tv Content in this podcast should not be construed as medical advice.

In today's Hot Topics, the co-hosts weigh in on the passing of a controversial bill requiring Louisiana public schools and colleges to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Dr. Anthony Fauci discusses advising the former Pres. Trump during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, serving under seven presidents as NIAID director and more from his new memoir, "On Call." Jessica Alba joins and talks producing and starring in the new action flick “Trigger Warning,” stepping away from The Honest Company and her advice for raising teenagers as a mom of three. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Episode 178, Dave starts the show by providing additional info on the precarious nature of the financial sector and a new theory about the Dem ticket for November. From there, he discusses Pelosi's own admission that she was responsible for the chaos on January 6th before he turns his attention to European elections. After all of that fun, Dave pivots to the ex-intel officials regretting nothing, the human rumba, the border, and terrorism threats. He closes the show with his favorite punching bag in Newsom and California! Article discussed: Nancy Pelosi panics when new Jan. 6 footage shows her make damning admission about Capitol security: 'Directly contradicts' by Chris Enloe from Blaze Media Belgium's Anti-Trump Prime Minister Resigns After Suffering Right Wing Election Victory by Oliver JJ Lane from Breitbart Macron Trounced by Le Pen's Populists at EuroParl Elections, Immediately Dissolves Parliament for Snap National Election by Oliver JJ Lane from Breitbart Ex-Intel Officials Don't Regret Suggesting Hunter's Laptop Was Russian Disinformation by Wendell Husebo from Breitbart Border patrol agent tells CNN he has to allow illegal border crossings or lose his job by Jeffrey Clark from Fox News Biden's 'pre-9/11 posture' to blame for ISIS migrants slipping through cracks: expert by Michael Lee from Fox News Italian Paper Reports on Videos of Joe Biden's Declining Health, ‘Rigid Movements' by Wendell Husebo and Alana Mastrangelo from Breitbart British Paper: Joe Biden ‘Losing Focus' and ‘Concentration' at G7 Summit by Wendell Husebo from Breitbart Fan-favorite pizza chain flees California as state's $20-an-hour minimum wage controversy rages by Kamal Sultan from The Daily Mail 'NIAID cannot be trusted': Fauci's agency planned to make monkeypox more deadly, says congressional report by Joseph MacKinnon from Blaze Media Support Dave by visiting his Etsy shop at DesignsbyDandTStore Available for Purchase - Fiction: When Rome Stumbles | Hannibal is at the Gates | By the Dawn's Early Light | Colder Weather | A Time for Reckoning (paperback versions) | Fiction Series (paperback) | Fiction Series (audio) Available for Purchase - Non-Fiction: Preparing to Prepare (electronic/paperback) | Home Remedies (electronic/paperback) | Just a Small Gathering (paperback) | Just a Small Gathering (electronic) --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contra-radio-network/support

 “Hamas is Stealing the Aid” “Nothing is Too Good for Hamas” “Fauci's NIAID Caught with Monkey Pocks” “Biden Threatens F-15's”

On this episode of the podcast, show host Amanda Head gets reaction from Yale School of Public Health Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology Dr. Harvey Risch regarding former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony Fauci's most recent testimony given before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. In his initial reaction, Dr. Risch agrees with Head on her characterization of the hearing — Members of Congress questioning Dr. Fauci were not as prepared as they could have been and the hearing felt ‘underwhelming' after being ‘hyped and billed' as a hearing that would consist of hard-hitting questions driven directly at Fauci. Dr. Risch then reveals that he and others in the medical and scientific community reached out to Congress ahead of Fauci's hearing to offer advice and expertise. The response to their offer was basically, “that's okay. We don't need you. We have our own experts.” Clearly, they did not. Dr. Risch is a staunch advocate for justice, but says there is no legal recourse for big government bueacurats like Dr. Fauci because the ‘managerial totalitarian society' that's run by this ‘managerial class of people' continuously make decisions that exist to preserve itself, rather than existing to serve our country. Moreover, despite many people dying or losing their job during the COVID pandemic, individuals who are derlict in their duty like Dr. Fauci either fail up into more lucrative positions, or the justice system chalks up their disconcerted actions, manipulations, lies and corruption, as someone just doing ‘a bad job in their job.'Furthermore, Dr. Risch said he believes the country lost after the latest Fauci hearing. Risch said, “there is very low likelihood that anything will be used from Fauci's testimony to try him for contempt of Congress. Fauci has lied repeatedly in his testimony under oath to Congress. Fauci said that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) never funded a gain of function research in Wuhan. However, Dr. Risch has the smoking gun evidence to show Dr. Fauci lied the whole time. He shares an email with an associated grant number as proof where the University of North Carolina was sponsored by NIH and their specific grant from NIAID says the government organization determined that the reference grant within the correspondence may include gain of function research. Despite the high risk of this research — which is why then-President Barack Obama put a government funding pause on this type of research into effect, the NIH let them get away with it even when they knew they were doing it.Head goes on to ask Dr. Risch about what he thought of the Democrats' questioning of Dr. Fauci, and what he personally thinks about gain of function research. The duo also continues to talk about the ramifications from the COVID pandemic and the United States' lackluster response, as well as how Dr. Fauci did nothing but ruin lives and push people toward vaccination, including through mandates.This conversation was revealing, telling, and honest. If you want to support more of Amanda's work be sure to go onto your favorite podcast streaming service and “follow” the podcast. Amanda can also be found on social media by searching @AmandaHead.Moreover, Dr. Risch continues his scholarly work by contributing to The Wellness Company as their Chief Epidemiologist. You can check out their website and become a member, or just get your important emergency readiness kits at TWC.HEALTH. You can also read Dr. Risch's latest work on his Telegram https://t.me/s/HarveyRischMDPhD or by following him on ‘X': @DrHarveyRischSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Ohio Congressman Brad Wenstrup takes a swipe at Anthony Fauci over royalty payments and says he's not sure it was former NIAID director's job was to assume authority over COVID pandemic rules. “I think social distancing made sense. We always try to stay away from infectious people as best we can. That's like a common rule, even with the cold. But to say this was a distance that was required, and no science behind it and not tell the American people there wasn't science behind it is wrong,” he says. “Because remember, at one point he said ‘everything I've been telling you has been based on science.'” Additional interview with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith on seeking a criminal referral against Hunter Biden for allegedly lying to Congress during President Joe Biden's impeachment inquiry.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

News

As America faces an unlikely bird flu ‘outbreak' in chickens and cows, many are speculating on when this rare illness will jump to humans. Jefferey Jaxen looked into the previous gain-of-function lab work on H5N1 funded by Tony Fauci and NIAID, and found something very interesting. 

In this 222nd in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we talk about the state of the world through an evolutionary lens.In this episode, we discuss evolution, and how we know that it is true. We discuss the different kinds of beliefs that people have—beliefs that attempt to reconcile with reality, vs beliefs that reconcile with social standing and comfort. If your beliefs put you on the outs with your friends, do you change your beliefs, or your friends? Are you willing to give up the cocktail party for reality? We also discuss research published in 2000 and funded by Fauci's NIAID, which demonstrated that it was possible to make chimeric coronaviruses, swapping the spike protein from one to a different species entirely. Finally: sex-biased gene expression, in which genes are expressed differently in the two sexes, in anatomical systems as varied as brain, kidneys, and liver.*****Our sponsors:Listening.com: Listen to academic papers, books, pdfs and more—on the go! Go to listening.com/DARKHORSE for a whole month free.Maui Nui Venison: healthiest wild red meat on the planet, from steaks to bone broth to jerky. Go to mauinuivenison.com/darkhorse to get 20% off your first order.Sundays: Dog food so tasty and healthy, even husbands swear by it. Go to www.sundaysfordogs.com/DARKHORSE to receive 35% off your first order.*****Join us on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.com/Heather's newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.comOur book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://a.co/d/dunx3atCheck out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.org*****Mentioned in this episode:Kennedy 2023. The Wuhan Cover-Up and the Terrifying Bio-Weapons Arms Race: https://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/9781510773981/the-wuhan-cover-up/Kuo et al 2000. Retargeting of coronavirus by substitution of the spike glycoprotein ectodomain: crossing the host cell species barrier. Journal of virology, 74(3):1393-1406: https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/jvi.74.3.1393-1406.2000Rodríguez-Montes et al 2023. Sex-biased gene expression across mammalian organ development and evolution. Science 382(6670), p.eadf1046: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1046Support the Show.

* Sen. Rand Paul: Newly Obtained Documents Show 'Alarming' Extent of 'The Great Covid Cover-up'! “Disturbingly, not one of these 15 agencies spoke up to warn us that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been pitching this research,” Paul wrote. “Not one of these agencies warned anyone that this Chinese lab had already put together plans to create such a virus.” * Paul wrote that officials at the agencies are stonewalling and that the “15 agencies with knowledge of this project have continuously refused to release any information concerning this alarming and dangerous research.” * “Millions of people died from COVID-19. We now know that over 15 government agencies, as well as the investigators Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric, Ian Lipkin and scientists at NIAID's Rocky Mountain Lab, all knew of the Wuhan Institute of Virology's desire to create a coronavirus with a furin cleavage site, a virus pre-adapted for human transmission.” Paul noted that it seems likely that literally hundreds of people in the US government have known all these facts for years, yet, “every one of these people chose to keep quiet, to obscure, and ultimately to conceal information that might have saved lives by letting the world know this was no sleepy animal virus with poor transmission.” * It is clear that “all evidence suggests COVID-19 was a laboratory-enhanced virus purposefully adapted for human transmission.” * Sunny Hostin Gets Fact-check from ‘The View' Co-hosts After Linking Solar Eclipse and Earthquake to Climate Change - ‘Earthquakes Occur Underground, It Can't Be Climate Change'. * Arizona Supreme Court upholds 1864 abortion law, banning nearly all abortions in the state. * Biden's DOJ Sentence Aimee Harris to Prison for Allegedly Stealing Ashley Biden's Diary that Revealed Old Joe's Perverted Acts. * Another ‘Disgrace' – Trump Attorney Habba Lashed Out At Hush-Money Case * 42 Questions Judge Merchan will Ask Potential Jurors For Stormy Daniels ‘Hush Money' Trial.

POINTS COVERED

Where do you begin with mast cell disease treatment when there is such variation among patients?  Dr. Milner is back with us to discuss the difficulties in treating mast cell activation syndrome and mastocytosis. We will discuss the different approaches to treating mast cell disease and the medications used for mastocytosis treatment. Since no single treatment plan works for everyone, we will explore multiple strategies that can be helpful in managing this condition. A note: when you hear MCAS mentioned, it stands for Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. What we cover in our episode about treating mast cell diseases: What are the steps taken to treat mast cell diseases? Histamine blockers: antihistamines for mast cell disease and H2 blockers Mast cell stabilizers: Cromolyn and Ketotifen Xolair  Other medications that have been used but not recommended: aspirin, steroids, Singulair Epinephrine and anaphylaxis Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) for Mastocytosis: Avapritinib, Midostaurin Safety concerns and side effects of Tyrosine kinase inhibitors  Multidisciplinary approach to managing mast cell disease About our guest - Dr. Josh Milner Joshua Milner, MD, is a renowned leader in discovering and understanding genetic diseases leading to allergic symptoms, including Hereditary Alpha Tryptasemia Syndrome, PLAID, PGM3 deficiency, ERBIN mutation, and others. With a background in biology from MIT and an MD with distinction in immunology from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Dr. Milner has extensive experience in pediatrics and allergy and immunology, serving as chief of the Laboratory of Allergic Diseases at NIAID. His vision is to leverage genetic variation to improve diagnosis and care for patients with allergic diseases through comprehensive genetic sequencing and functional studies, aiming for personalized medicine and interdisciplinary collaboration in pediatric allergy, immunology, and rheumatology. More about Dr. Milner:  https://www.pediatrics.columbia.edu/profile/joshua-milner-md More resources about mast cell disease: Mast Cell Disease Overview: https://allergyasthmanetwork.org/health-a-z/mast-cell-diseases/ What is Anaphylaxis? https://allergyasthmanetwork.org/anaphylaxis/ What is Epinephrine? https://allergyasthmanetwork.org/anaphylaxis/what-is-epinephrine/ The Mast Cell Disease Society: https://tmsforacure.org/ FDA Approves AYVAKIT® (avapritinib) as the First and Only Treatment for Indolent Systemic Mastocytosis: https://ir.blueprintmedicines.com/news-releases/news-release-details/fda-approves-ayvakitr-avapritinib-first-and-only-treatment

How will new study results inform HIV prevention in the US and globally? JAMA Deputy Editor Preeti Malani, MD, MSJ, and author Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of NIAID, discuss these study findings and more. Related Content: HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis With Emtricitabine and Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Among Cisgender Women

Put on your detective hat because we will be diving into how to diagnose mast cell disease! Dr. G and Kortney are joined by Dr. Josh Milner, one of the top experts in the field of mast cell disease, as they dive into the complexities of diagnosing mast cell disorders, focusing on cases of unexplained anaphylaxis and using this as our guide to understanding all of the tests that doctors do to figure out what is happening with your mast cells.  From histories to blood and urine tests to Darier's sign, bone marrow biopsies and more, we dig into the many tests needed for the detective work diagnosing mast cell disease. We learn that a nuanced approach is required to diagnose mast cell disorders and the importance of thorough evaluation to differentiate between potential causes. This podcast was made in partnership with Allergy & Asthma Network. We thank Blueprint Medicines for sponsoring this podcast. What we cover in our episode about diagnosing mast cell disease: Unexplained anaphylaxis could be linked to mast cell disorders. Diagnostic tools: Blood tryptase test (fast but time-sensitive) Urine metabolite tests (easier, longer window) Skin rash assessment (urticaria pigmentosa) Bone marrow biopsy (serious cases) Symptoms: Sudden episodes, chronic issues like fatigue, depression. About our guest - Dr. Josh Milner Joshua Milner, MD, is a renowned leader in discovering and understanding genetic diseases leading to allergic symptoms, including Hereditary Alpha Tryptasemia Syndrome, PLAID, PGM3 deficiency, ERBIN mutation, and others. With a background in biology from MIT and an MD with distinction in immunology from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Dr. Milner has extensive experience in pediatrics and allergy and immunology, serving as chief of the Laboratory of Allergic Diseases at NIAID. His vision is to leverage genetic variation to improve diagnosis and care for patients with allergic diseases through comprehensive genetic sequencing and functional studies, aiming for personalized medicine and interdisciplinary collaboration in pediatric allergy, immunology, and rheumatology. More about Dr. Milner:  https://www.pediatrics.columbia.edu/profile/joshua-milner-md More resources about mast cell disease: Mast Cell Disease Overview: https://allergyasthmanetwork.org/health-a-z/mast-cell-diseases/ What is Anaphylaxis? https://allergyasthmanetwork.org/anaphylaxis/ What is Epinephrine? https://allergyasthmanetwork.org/anaphylaxis/what-is-epinephrine/ The Mast Cell Disease Society: https://tmsforacure.org/

The North District Court of Texas has denied Pfizer's motion to move the case to federal court against Pfizer for deceptive promotion and marketing. Texas petitioners can join the case until May 15, 2024, according to Karen Kingston, an independent medical-legal advisor and biotech analyst. The trial is scheduled for July 2025.   After the court decision, large losses in the value of their stocks befell Pfizer and their Chinese mRNA manufacturing partner (WuXi Biologics) and other Chinese biotech stocks. Pfizer has worked with these companies despite the well-known fact that they share data and intellectual property with the Chinese Community Party (CCP) and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in what the Chinese call the military-civil fusion.   Because vaccine research always has vast implications for biological warfare, vaccine research contributes to a nation's capacity to initiate this kind of attack. Anthony Fauci's former institute, NIAID, has also funded treasonous bioweapons research collaborations between U.S. and CCP-dominated universities and bio labs and has directly supported the Wuhan Institute, which is also controlled by the CCP.   One of many revelations:  Did you know that the worthless PCR tests they stick up your nose have a much greater purpose? Often, the test swabs are sent back to their Chinese manufacturers, giving the Chinese Communist military an opportunity to study the DNA of Americans to tailor future biological weapons to our genetic makeup.   Kingston's interview with Peter and Ginger Breggin is a brilliant display of insight into the global takeover of America as, one after another, American institutions betray our country in the interest of international business and, with it, growing international governance.   A remarkable interview with a stunning sweep from the nuts and bolts of the attack on our nation's well-being and spirit of freedom to the soaring issue of the place of God in our lives in this time of crisis. Karen Kingston deserves hero status, from which we all are the beneficiaries.     Learn more about Dr. Peter Breggin's work: https://breggin.com/   See more from Dr. Breggin's long history of being a reformer in psychiatry: https://breggin.com/Psychiatry-as-an-Instrument-of-Social-and-Political-Control   Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal, the how-to manual @ https://breggin.com/a-guide-for-prescribers-therapists-patients-and-their-families/   Get a copy of Dr. Breggin's latest book: WHO ARE THE “THEY” - THESE GLOBAL PREDATORS? WHAT ARE THEIR MOTIVES AND THEIR PLANS FOR US? HOW CAN WE DEFEND AGAINST THEM? Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey Get a copy: https://www.wearetheprey.com/   “No other book so comprehensively covers the details of COVID-19 criminal conduct as well as its origins in a network of global predators seeking wealth and power at the expense of human freedom and prosperity, under cover of false public health policies.”   ~ Robert F Kennedy, Jr Author of #1 bestseller The Real Anthony Fauci and Founder, Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel for Children's Health Defense.

POINTS COVERED

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (1/13/24). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant. !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");   Rumble("play", {"video":"v448t13","div":"rumble_v448t13"}); Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): (9) Scott C. Smith on X: ".@elonmusk & @joerogan - want to C what is really happening in #eastpalestine with @EPA @EPAGreatLakes ? Is the EPA effectively the PR machine for @nscorp & working to violate my constitutional rights? C screenshots of @GovtAccess / @lesleyfpacey FOIA lawsuit related to… https://t.co/Y514rfzeNE" / X Investigation Found East Palestine "Controlled Burn" Unnecessary (Norfolk Lied) & Israel Bombs Syria Up To 14,000% More Dioxins In East Palestine Homes Compared To Control & The France Psyop New Tab (10) Brook Jackson

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Peter McCullough and Malcolm – Chairman Brad Wenstrup issued a statement: "Dr. Fauci's testimony today uncovered drastic and systemic failures in America's public health systems," he said. "While leading the nation's COVID-19 response and influencing public narratives, he simultaneously had no idea what was happening under his own jurisdiction at NIAID...

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Peter McCullough and Malcolm – Chairman Brad Wenstrup issued a statement: "Dr. Fauci's testimony today uncovered drastic and systemic failures in America's public health systems," he said. "While leading the nation's COVID-19 response and influencing public narratives, he simultaneously had no idea what was happening under his own jurisdiction at NIAID...

Listen to Len Bacharier, MD and Sharon Dell, MD, FRCPC, as they highlight the natural course of pediatric asthma progression over time, discuss differences between spontaneous remission and on-treatment clinical remission, and provide a commentary on what we have learned from the recent developments around remission in adults and how it could relate more specifically to pediatric populations.   ADVENT is a medical education non-promotional resource for healthcare professionals organized by Sanofi and Regeneron. Learn more at ADVENTprogram.com. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. Disclaimer:  This program is non-promotional and is sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The speakers are being compensated and/or receiving an honorarium from Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with this program The content contained in this program was jointly developed by the speakers and Sanofi and Regeneron and is not eligible for continuing medical education (CME) credits Speaker disclosures: Len Bacharier, MD has served as an advisor, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for AstraZeneca, Avillion, DBV Technologies, Genentech/Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Kinaset, OM Pharma, Recludix, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Vertex; has provided grant and/or research support for NIH (NHLBI, NIAID), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi; and has provided other support for DBV Technologies Sharon Dell, MD has served as an advisor, consultant, and/or speaker for  AstraZeneca, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi; and has provided grant and/or research support for Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Parion Sciences, Sanofi, Vertex Pharmaceuticals © 2023 Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. All Rights Reserved. MAT-GLB-2305935 v1.0 12/2023 MAT-US-2305475 v1.0 - P Expiration Date: 12/22/2025

Episode 4 - A Deep Dive into Vaccine Development with Dr Richard Koup, Deputy Director Chief, Immunology Laboratory Vaccine Research Center, NIAID, NIH. This special episode was recorded live from the 2023 Ryan White CLINICAL CONFERENCE in Portland, OR, December 2nd, 2023In this special episode of Going anti-Viral, recorded live from the 2023 Ryan White CLINICAL CONFERENCE in Portland, OR, we explore the challenges and progress in developing vaccines for HIV and COVID-19. Dr Saag discusses with Dr Richard Koup, Deputy Director Chief, Immunology Laboratory Vaccine Research Center, NIAID, NIH, about vaccine development for HIV and its associated challenges and how pre-existing knowledge of similar viruses expedited COVID-19 vaccine development. The conversation also touches upon cellular immunity, broadly neutralizing antibodies, and the potential future of HIV vaccine development.00:08 Introduction and Welcome00:44 Interview with Dr Richard Koup01:05 The History of HIV Vaccine Development02:26 The Challenges of HIV Vaccine Development06:33 The Role of Broadly Neutralizing Antibodies in HIV Vaccine Development14:30 The Potential of Cellular Immunity in HIV Vaccine Development16:08 The Miraculous Development of the COVID-19 Vaccine26:37 The Future of HIV Vaccine Development28:13 Conclusion and Closing Remarks__________________________________________________Produced by IAS-USA, Going anti–Viral is a podcast for clinicians involved in research and care in HIV, its complications, and other viral infections. This podcast is intended as a technical source of information for specialists in this field, but anyone listening will enjoy learning more about the state of modern medicine around viral infections. Going anti-Viral's host is Dr Michael Saag, a physician, prominent HIV researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and volunteer IAS–USA board member. In most episodes, Dr Saag interviews an expert in infectious diseases or emerging pandemics about their area of specialty and current developments in the field. Other episodes are drawn from the IAS–USA vast catalogue of panel discussions, Dialogues, and other audio from various meetings and conferences.

POINTS COVERED

Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIH and NIAID is getting an ethics award from Case Western Reserve University after lying to Congress, lying to the public, lying about origins of COVID-19, lying about masks. What does an ethics award to him really mean? That ethics is really about the money, fame, and nothing about well, ethics.WorldCoin convinces Kenyans to give up their biometrics for the equivalent of US$50. Would you give an iris scan for $50? What do digital currencies mean for privacy? Amazon already pays some works with tokens. That can only be spent on the Amazon store. Central banks' desire to issue digital currencies is about control of the population. Convenient? Sure. But ask Chinese citizens how that social score system works for them.

I do not say this lightly, but the New York Times must be punished for what they did in lying about the hospital bombing in Gaza. They did not just lie, they aided and abetted the enemy. The photo of the hospital they displayed in their article was not even that of the hospital bombed and they had to have known that. In this episode, we examine the elements of censorship in America today in which the NY Times can produce enemy propaganda, but a satirical meme can land you a seven month jail sentence. We take a look at the censorship taking place in Europe and a US Senator who wants these policies to make their way to the US. Additionally, in a conversation with Meagan Kelly, Dr. Drew marvels at the numbers of myocarditis in young men following their Covid-19 vaccine injection, which leads us into a conversation of why Big Pharma wants us to be censored.What does God's Word say? Exodus 20:16 You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.Exodus 20:13You shall not murder.Luke 12:3What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.Episode 1,168 Links:Client Side Scanning: a loophole for mass surveillance; 19 October 2023 | Forum for Democracy IntlPress Must Be Held Accountable For Fake Gaza Story That Instigated Violence WorldwideMedia Corruption On Full Display As NYT Tries To Justify Publishing Terrorist Propaganda As NewsUS Senator Michael Bennet Invokes EU's Censorship Demands, Calls For Big Tech to Censor “Misinformation”Spoke with @SenSchumer yesterday about the importance of getting vaccinated! “It took my breath away.” —Dr. Drew on the new study shows 50% of young men who got myocarditis after the vaccine now have permanent heart damage and he doesn't understand why this isn't front page news. And he recommends injured students sue any school that mandated it.Cancer is rising in young people and, according to Ethical Skeptic, it will continue to rise for 5 decades and will effect their as yet unborn children. His data comes from the government database known as WONDEROct 12, 2023 - European Members of Parliament asked questions of the EMA (European Medicines Agency), revealing that the EU illegally approved the use of Covid-19 vaccinations. FVD International director John Laughland discusses the revelations with MEP Marcel de Graaff, MEP Joachim Kuhs, and Willem Engel. MEP Marcel de Graaff spoke about Pfizer's bait and switch where the experimental vaccine that was tested in clinical trial were different from the experimental vaccine that was injected to the population.The biggest doozy is the 80-84 cohort, which saw an almost DOUBLING of the rate of fracture deaths/100K. Notice here how the rate actually went DOWN during 2020, the year where they got crushed with covid (or covid policies)Fauci says threats from 'extreme radical right' justify his taxpayer-funded chauffeur and security detail; The "retired" NIAID chief continues to benefit from public assistance, in an arrangement that costs taxpayers millions of dollars, but remains hidden from scrutiny.4Patriots https://4patriots.com Protect your family with Food kits, solar generators and more at 4Patriots. Use code TODD for 10% off your first purchase. Alan's Soaps https://alanssoaps.com/TODD Use coupon code ‘TODD' to save an additional 10% off the bundle price. American Financing https://americanfinancing.net Visit to see what American Financing can do for you or call 866-887-2275 BiOptimizers https://bioptimizers.com/todd Use promo code TODD for 10% off your order. Bonefrog https://bonefrog.us Enter promo code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your subscription. Bulwark Capital http://KnowYourRiskRadio.com Find out how Bulwark Capital Actively Manages risk. Call 866-779-RISK or visit KnowYourRiskRadio.com Patriot Mobile https://patriotmobile.com/herman Get free activation today with offer code HERMAN. Visit or call 878-PATRIOT. SOTA Weight Loss https://sotaweightloss.com SOTA Weight Loss is, say it with me now, STATE OF THE ART! Sound of Freedom https://angel.com/freedom Join the two million and see Sound of Freedom in theaters July 4th. GreenHaven Interactive https://greenhaveninteractive.com Digital Marketing including search engine optimization and website design.

A House subcommittee revealed this week that Dr. Anthony Fauci was smuggled into CIA headquarters to influence the agency's investigation into the origins of COVID-19. 5) Media admits Ukraine cannot win war with Russia; 4) Biden supports UAW, whose jobs are threatened by Biden's EV agenda; 3) Chaos grows in US cities; 2) Fauci's NIAID funded research in China by “CIA front organization”; 1) Michigan bans child marriage but supports child sterilization and mutilation (gender “therapy”). FOLLOW US! Twitter X: @SkyWatch_TV YouTube: @SkyWatchTVnow @SimplyHIS @FiveInTen Rumble: @SkyWatchTV Facebook: @SkyWatchTV @SimplyHIS @EdensEssentials Instagram: @SkyWatchTV @SimplyHisShow @EdensEssentialsUSA TikTok: @SkyWatchTV @SimplyHisShow @EdensEssentials SkyWatchTV.com | SkyWatchTVStore.com | EdensEssentials.com | WhisperingPoniesRanch.com

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the NIAID, is no longer on the government payroll, but continues to receive taxpayer funded limousines, drivers and a security detail provided by the US Marshal's service, all while working as a professor at Georgetown University.Finally some members of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives are asking questions are attempting to defund these unjustified perks.

POINTS COVERED

Description: Shannon covers the most important stories of the week including the raw corruption & greed running rampant through NIH & NIAID.Keep The Shannon Joy Show ON THE Air By Supporting The Sponsors!Buy Physical gold and Silver with Augusta at a GREAT price!!!

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Thursday, July 27th, 2023. Olive Tree Biblical Software: Discover why more than a million people use the free Olive Tree Bible App as their go-to for reading, studying, and listening to the God’s Word. Start by downloading one of many free Bibles and start taking notes, highlighting verses, and bookmarking your favorite passages. You can read at your own pace, or choose from a large selection of Reading Plans, including the Bible Reading Challenge. When you are ready to go deeper into your studies, Olive Tree is right there with a large selection of study Bibles, commentaries, and other helpful study resources available for purchase. There’s also an extensive bookstore allows you to build your digital library one book at a time and Olive Tree’s sync technology lets you pick up where you left off on your tablet, pc or phone and get right to studying on another supported device. Now here's the best part – You can start with the Olive Tree Essentials Bundle for FREE. Visit www.olivetree.com/FLF and download it today!  https://apnews.com/article/ufos-uaps-congress-whistleblower-spy-aliens-ba8a8cfba353d7b9de29c3d906a69ba7 Whistleblower tells Congress the US is concealing ‘multi-decade’ program that captures UFOs The U.S. is concealing a longstanding program that retrieves and reverse engineers unidentified flying objects, a former Air Force intelligence officer testified Wednesday to Congress. The Pentagon has denied his claims. Retired Maj. David Grusch’s highly anticipated testimony before a House Oversight subcommittee was Congress’ latest foray into the world of UAPs — or “unidentified aerial phenomena,” which is the official term the U.S. government uses instead of UFOs. While the study of mysterious aircraft or objects often evokes talk of aliens and “little green men,” Democrats and Republicans in recent years have pushed for more research as a national security matter due to concerns that sightings observed by pilots may be tied to U.S. adversaries. Grusch said he was asked in 2019 by the head of a government task force on UAPs to identify all highly classified programs relating to the task force’s mission. At the time, Grusch was detailed to the National Reconnaissance Office, the agency that operates U.S. spy satellites. “I was informed in the course of my official duties of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program to which I was denied access,” he said. Asked whether the U.S. government had information about extraterrestrial life, Grusch said the U.S. likely has been aware of “non-human” activity since the 1930s. The Pentagon has denied Grusch’s claims of a coverup. In a statement, Defense Department spokeswoman Sue Gough said investigators have not discovered “any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently.” The statement did not address UFOs that are not suspected of being extraterrestrial objects. Grusch says he became a government whistleblower after his discovery and has faced retaliation for coming forward. He declined to be more specific about the retaliatory tactics, citing an ongoing investigation. https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/07/26/swiss-study-heart-injuries-from-covid-vaccine-3000x-higher-than-thought-n567151 Swiss study: heart injuries from COVID vaccine 3000x higher than thought It is a small study, but a very disturbing one. In fact, in a study with only 777 participants with a median age of 37--all medical professionals getting the COVID vaccine–the incidence of elevated cardiac enzymes 3 days after injection was pretty substantial, at almost 3%. The CDC did a study and from that, they claimed the rate was 0.001%, or one out of 100,000. 2.8% is a lot higher than 0.001%. Another 0.3% had “probable myocarditis,” putting the total at over 3%. That is 3000 times higher than the US government claimed. In this small study, nobody had serious complications, but with a myocarditis complication rate of 3%, you would have to expect that giving out hundreds of millions of doses is a pretty risky proposition. I think we all knew that already, but this study seems to put the nail in the coffin of “vaccine injuries are super rare” from COVID-19 shots. One oddity was that the rate of myocarditis among the participants was heavily weighted toward women, not men. That could be an artifact of the sample, or it could indicate that women are more likely to get a complication, but the complications are more likely to be serious among men. One reason the researchers posit for the vast difference between their results–which are based upon blood tests looking for cardiac enzymes in all participants–and the commonly asserted claim that vaccine-induced myocarditis is rare is that the only cases that are diagnosed without looking specifically for it are severe. In other words, most people don’t go to the doctor until there is a serious problem, so many people suffer from myocarditis without ever getting diagnosed. This suggests that there is a very large group of people who were afflicted but never treated. This in most cases would not be a huge problem, as the inflammation resolves on its own, but in some cases, actual damage to the heart was done without it ever being caught. In any case, this study sheds quite a light on just how deceptive the CDC, the FDA, and NIAID have been about vaccine safety. And also how intentionally ignorant they have chosen to be. This was not a complicated study to do. The researchers chose a cohort easy to recruit, tested them both before and after vaccination to create a baseline and comparison, and analyzed the data. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-plea-deal-appears-fall-apart-first-court-appearance Hunter Biden pleads 'not guilty' as plea deal falls apart during Delaware court appearance Hunter Biden's plea deal fell apart during his first court appearance Wednesday morning and pleaded "not guilty" as federal prosecutors confirmed the president's son is still under federal investigation. The president's son was expected to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax, as part of plea deal to avoid jail time on a felony gun charge. But Judge Maryellen Noreika did not accept the plea agreement, questioning the constitutionality--specifically the diversion clause and the immunity Hunter Biden would receive. Hunter Biden was also expected to enter into a pretrial diversion agreement regarding a separate felony charge of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith filed an amicus brief to the court, requesting that testimony be considered ahead of accepting the planned plea deal, saying Hunter Biden "appears to have benefited from political interference which calls into question the propriety of the investigation of the U.S. Attorney’s Office." "In the interest of full transparency and fairness for all citizens, it is critical for the Court to have this relevant information when evaluating the Plea Agreement," Smith wrote in the brief. Meanwhile, on the eve of the court appearance, the judge threatened to sanction Hunter Biden's legal team after one of his attorneys allegedly lied about who she was while asking to remove IRS whistleblower testimony from the court docket. The defense, though, denied the allegations and called the incident "an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-york-city-crane-falls-engulfed-flames New York City crane collapse: Construction equipment tumbles to ground as it is engulfed in flames A crane fell near the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan on Wednesday after a fire broke out on the construction equipment, but officials say it could have been much worse. The crane was engulfed in flames before part of it fell to the ground, hitting a nearby building in the process. The New York City Fire Department said that six people, including two firefighters, have injuries. The injuries to the two firefighters are "non-life threatening," while the four civilian injuries are "minor," according to the department. "As you see from the debris on the street, this could have been much worse. We are extremely fortunate, No. 1, that [it was] not during the busy time of the day — as you know, the Port Authority is here. Many of the buses move through here. We were extremely fortunate," New York City Mayor Eric Adams said at a press conference. The first report of the fire to FDNY came at 7:25 a.m. local time, with officials saying the fire started in the engine compartment of the crane. The top part of the crane and a 16-ton load collapsed as firefighters were arriving at the scene. One of the injuries was described as "chest pains" for one of the firefighters. At a news conference Wednesday morning, fire officials said the fire had been mostly extinguished but that operations are still ongoing. Fifty units, totaling 220 fire personnel, responded to the scene of the fire, according to FDNY. New York City Department of Buildings Commissioner Jimmy Oddo said the building where the crane fire occurred was an under-construction 54-story mixed-use building, which had all proper permits filed. Oddo said the only previous incident at the site was when construction workers hit a vault during excavation for the building. City officials also said the crane operator had attempted to put out the fire when he noticed it, but when he was unable to do so safely, he evacuated from the crane and is OK. https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/07/25/accept-deadly-blackouts-to-fight-climate-change-says-paper/ Accept Deadly Blackouts to Fight ‘Climate Change’, Says Paper The Los Angeles Times says that blackouts have to increase in order to combat climate change, while stunningly acknowledging the policy may cost people’s lives. The newspaper has asked its dwindling audience to consider “a larger conversation” in which people become more accustomed to changing their expectations, including the idea of living without electricity for large parts of their lives so as to prevent “climate catastrophe.” The piece also insists that “fossil-funded lies,” apparently spread by Republicans – such as the overall uselessness of solar farms and wind turbines – should not be considered within the discussion on how to address climate change. Instead, the conversation must be orientated towards adding “solar panels, wind turbines and all kinds of energy storage to the grid as fast as possible.” The newspaper also recognizes the risk of such a policy as it reports that someone dies every time there is a blackout, and includes a quote from the director of reliability assessment and performance analysis at the North American Electric Reliability Corp, John Moura, that “it’s not really about keeping the lights on. It’s about keeping people alive.” Accepting increased blackouts is yet another extreme measure being suggested to tackle climate change. One recent study suggested changing working hours from 9 am to 5 am to 6 am to 2 pm. Speaking of climate change… https://www.theblaze.com/news/npr-ridiculed-for-regurgitating-claim-that-the-movement-to-push-bug-food-on-the-masses-is-a-racist-conspiracy-theory NPR ridiculed for regurgitating claim that the movement to push bug food on the masses is a 'racist' conspiracy theory NPR's race-obsessed and taxpayer-subsidized show "Code Switch" recently peddled the notion that it is conspiratorial thinking to take proponents of the bug-food movement at their word. What's more, host Gene Demby's guest on the July 19 episode, entitled "This right wing conspiracy theory about eating bugs is about as racist as you think," has intimated that criticism both of bug food and of those technocrats who seek to alter consumer behavior may be racist. NPR has since been met with ridicule by those aware that the desire to supplement or replace normal food with bugs is not a conspiracy theory but rather a real initiative with substantial momentum, which has been long detailed and defended in academic journals, trusted publications, and even on NPR. NPR reporter Huo Jingnan joined "Code Switch" host Gene Demby on last week's episode to regurgitate talking points from his April NPR article, wherein he simultaneously held that the claim that "elites want people to eat bugs" was a right-wing conspiracy theory while also acknowledging the inclusion of bugs in human food was "an emerging, but still marginal, idea among climate scientists and food security experts." Jingnan hinted both in his article and on Demby's show there must also be a racial component to the growing concerns about the bug-food movement and the motivations driving it. While Demby appeared keen to write off the bug-food movement as "not that big a deal," and Jingnan intimated that it might just the MAGA crowd who are paying attention, critics have pointed that NPR's publication history suggests otherwise. Here are the titles of just a few NPR features in recent months and years: "These Pictures Might Tempt You To Eat Bugs" — July 18, 2013; "Making Food From Flies (It's Not That Icky)" — Sept. 19, 2013; "Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson Is Now Munching On Bugs" — March 23, 2015; "Street Food No More: Bug Snacks Move To Store Shelves In Thailand" — April 15, 2015; "Are Insects The Future Of Food?" — Nov. 17, 2016; "At Bug-Eating Festival, Kids Crunch Down On The Food Of The Future" — Sept. 14, 2017; "Your Ancestors Probably Ate Insects. So What's Bugging You?" — July 16, 2018; "VIDEO: 4 Ways That Wild Edibles, Including Insects, Will Wow You" — Dec. 20, 2018; and "Should Hyping Edible Bugs Focus On The Experience Instead Of The Environment?" — Jan. 10, 2019. The food of the future indeed…

A new unredacted email from Fauci sees the former NIAID head admitting to gain-of-function research in Wuhan. What about other biosafety labs around the world? The media is now in fear mode over a new tick-borne illness being called the ‘greatest public health threat.' Does this have lab-tinkering fingerprints on it? #Fauci #LabLeak #Wuhan #GainOfFunction

The UN plans to introduce a global digital ID system linked to individuals' bank accounts that would be governed by an as yet undefined “apex body,” presumably a labyrinthine network of unelected bureaucrats. What can possibly go wrong? 5) Ukraine's counteroffensive against Russia compared to disastrous Charge of the Light Brigade; 4) UN wants us to carry a digital ID linked to our bank accounts; 3) Patient Zero for COVID was researcher on $41 million grant from Fauci's NIAID; 2) US Coast Guard confirms debris found in North Atlantic from deep-water submersible missing since Sunday; 1) American Medical Association declares Body Mass Index racist.

A freedom of information act request (despite heavy CDC redactions) proves the CDC, NIH and NIAID all knew as early as January of 2021 that the Covid shots didn't stop people from getting sick, but they  PUSHED THE JABS ANYWAY! Plus, "scientists" who can't defend their positions (that they shoved down our throats) say they're being bullied. Yawn. Podcast Production: Bob Slone Audio Productions 

POINTS COVERED

DeSantis upstages Trump in Iowa. Joe Biden is only sentient when he's articulating evil. Good is evil, and evil is good in NYC. The great replacement gives and takes away in Chicago. "Never forget" has new meaning after an astonishing montage. NIAID scientist slams federal pandemic response. The kids were always the endgame, example 666. And why Twitter won't reall change with the new CEO. 

In today's episode, Andy & DJ discuss the suspect from the Highland Park shooting wearing women's clothing after the mass shooting, a Universal Music Group employee refusing to work over the Roe v. Wade ruling, and Fauci's NIAID spending $500,000 to turn monkeys transgender.