Podcasts about obamacare

Jennifer Finkelstein is not here for your pity, your pinkwashed slogans, or your performative awareness campaigns. She's a 20-year young adult breast cancer survivor who turned trauma into a blueprint for action and built 5 Under 40, a no-BS nonprofit supporting women diagnosed with breast cancer under 40.In this episode, we go full Gen X therapy session—from SNL nostalgia and cold caps to the absurdity of finding out you have cancer while looking for the remote. Jen drops real talk about founding a nonprofit when nothing existed for her age group, why mental health support isn't optional, and how passing down designer scarves can mean arming someone for battle.If you're looking for honesty, grit, and a few inappropriate jokes about gastroenterology, this one's for you. You'll laugh, you might cry, and you'll definitely leave knowing why Jennifer Finkelstein is a survivor, a fighter, and a damn legend.RELATED LINKS5 Under 40 FoundationJennifer Finkelstein on LinkedInAbout 5 Under 40: Board of DirectorsDan's Papers: 5 Under 40 Supports Young Breast Cancer SurvivorsFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.Let me know if you want shorter pull quotes, audiogram text, or promotional copy for LinkedIn, Instagram, or your newsletter.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

From shock jock to The Man Show -- to elder statesman of late night tv? That's the path Jimmy Kimmel has taken on his way to a legendary career. Along the way, Jimmy has also become a reliable and popular host for the Oscars and the Emmy -- as well as helping bring to the screen the Crank Yankers prank phone call show. A pretty diverse resume! As Kimmel has matured he has also developed a political voice which he deploys to great effect on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, most notably when he helped galvanize opposition to repealing Obamacare during the first Trump administration. Not to fear, Jimmy shows no signs of hanging up his microphone for a political career any time soon. As always find extra clips below and thanks for sharing our show. Want more Kimmel? Every comic needs a faux running "feud" and Jimmy has a great one with Matt Damon -- and here is one of the videos that made it a comedy hit. https://youtu.be/eSfoF6MhgLA?si=kpspFQK___c54SG9 Jimmy got his start in commercial radio at just 22 -- and it didn't go great as he recently told Kelly and Mark. https://youtu.be/J3mmVviKRpg?si=rBb85ZDFmZg_xW5h This is a great bit! From the 20th anniversary show of Jimmy Kimmel Live! 2023 Jimmy chats with 2003 Jimmy.https://youtu.be/oqZvxAQRU9A?si=F0RXi8oOnCJUw5e_ You know you are a big dog in Hollywood when you get to host the Oscars -- and for Jimmy Kimmel it was a comic's dream, especially helming the show after Will Smith infamously clocked Chris Rock. Here's Jimmy's monologue highlights from that show. https://youtu.be/Ylj_Omeqg0I?si=xgIyygmXxV950kiS

2:30 New Hope for a Nuclear Wasteland: Swiss Breakthrough Slashes Chernobyl Radiation by 47% A Swiss company claims to have tamed the radioactive scars of Chernobyl, promising to restore the test site to natural radiation levels in a mere 5 years instead of 24,000 years!  4:15 Medieval Warming—And Wind Power Costs You 7X's More—Proves It's All a Scam     The Medieval Warm Period—real, undeniable, and inconvenient—reveals that global warming isn't new, and it was great for agriculture     Meanwhile, their “green” solutions like wind and solar are a disastrous rip-off yet Dartmouth's latest fantasy is $28 Trillion in “climate damage” claims  20:25 Prayer request  27:25 How Obamacare Corrupted Medicine and Made It Big Pharma's Drug Pusher           Whether it's prescribing SSRIs to teens for normal mood swings, ignoring black box warnings of doubled suicide risks, or pushing dozens of vaccines — it's all to meet corporate quotas     HOW Obamacare crushed independent practices, forcing doctors into compliance with Big Pharma protocols, turning them into “glorified drug dealers” who prioritize protocols over patients.47:00 States Go In Opposite Directions on Parental Rights and Informed Consent in Medicine Comparing Massachusetts to West Virginia is an example of why we should strive to fix problems at the STATE LEVEL.  1:02:14 AI: Dangerously Stupid and Amazingly Arrogant Hilariously wrong but NOT funny if it happens to you. DO NOT turn to AI for financial or legal advice!  Researchers tested the state-of-the-art AI Chatbots on financial advice and Mike Lindell's lawyer unfortunately turned to AI to write his brief  1:10:22 Palantir Founder Virtue Signals About AI-Powered Surveillance State      Palantir, the data-mining behemoth backed by Peter Thiel and led by Alex Karp, is pushing a terrifying agenda to weaponize AI for a global surveillance state—under the guise of “moral purpose”     Karp, raking in billions from the military-industrial complex, hypocritically slams Silicon Valley for chasing consumer profits while his company builds the backbone of a police state, tracking your every move with anticipatory and geospatial intelligence.     Meanwhile, a 19-year-old double amputee showcases the positive side of tech with the world's first wireless bionic arm — where the hand can be controlled by her EVEN WHEN NOT ATTACHED TO THE ARM!  1:32:01 Golden Eye Nanotech: Doctors Inject Gold to Restore VisionNanotech gold offering a potential lifeline for the 20 million Americans with macular degeneration and lab-grown teeth signal a dental revolution.    But what does the complex design of the eye tell us and WHY/HOW  are cells mysteriously communicating to form new teeth?  1:49:57 LIVE audience comments  1:54:19 Big Bang Blown Apart: Requires Blind Faith in Imaginary Dark MatterThe Big Bang theory is pure faith, not science! And Hoyle's alternative naturalistic explanation defies the second law of thermodynamics.  2:00:03 ‘Seminaries of Satan': Public Schools Transgender Lies Push Teen to the Brink of SuicideWhy are we paying for this demonic child abuse we call “public schools”? Far from preventing suicide, the transgender agenda in “public” schools pushes many children to suicidal self-harm as this mother-daughter duo reveals  2:18:13 Elon Musk's “Pro-Natalist” Vision of Fatherhood is NOT What Children Need or WantMusk's not a dad, but a eugenicist sperm donor, fathering 14 kids with four women to “save humanity” with his “superior” genes! Far from pro-family, Musk's so-called “pro-natalist” is no different from the absentee father that has destroyed families and society for decades. 2:33:05 LIVE audience comments  2:39:03 Anti-Christian Hypocrisy: Biden Attacked Pro-Life Protesters, Now Trump Attacks Pro-Life Protesters      We all saw Biden's outrageous persecution of pro-life Christians for the benefit of Planned Parenthood but can the “right” see the hypocrisy of The Trump administration's Anti-Christian Bias Task Force that turns a blind eye to the mass murder of civilians in Gaza and prosecutes those who protest the slaughter of children?      Meanwhile, five nations ditch the landmine treaty, threatening civilians with deadly remnants of war, as experts warn of a global rollback on protecting innocents. If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show   Or you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764 Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.com Cash App at: $davidknightshow BTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7 Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT For 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

When a public school adds stories with LGBT themes to its elementary reading curriculum, do religious parents have a First Amendment right to opt out? And did ObamaCare evade a constitutional check when it delegated power to the Preventive Services Task Force? The Supreme Court debates those points in Mahmoud v. Taylor and Kennedy v. Braidwood Management. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's a busy week at the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, the justices heard oral arguments in yet another legal attack on Obamacare, this time over requirements that insurers cover some preventative care services at no cost to patients. Today, they'll weigh a parental rights case over LGBTQ-themed children's books in public schools. And tomorrow, they'll hear a challenge to California's ability to set stricter emission standards for new cars. All the while, the court is facing serious questions over whether it's prepared to stand up to the Trump administration's assault on rule of the law. Leah Litman, co-host of Crooked's legal podcast 'Strict Scrutiny,' tells us what we need to know about this week's big cases and the big-picture debate over the court's ability to protect our rights.And in headlines: The Catholic Church began the search for a new leader after Pope Francis' death early Monday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly shared military plans on a second private Signal chat, and U.S. stocks slumped again amid Trump's repeated attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.Show Notes:Check out Strict Scrutiny – crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

What happens when a black belt, sword-slinging fitness icon gets cancer—twice? She picks up a camera and dares the universe to test her again.Ilaria Montagnani is not your average anything. She's been building strong bodies (and stronger minds) for over 30 years as the founder of Powerstrike. She's part Jane Fonda, part Uma Thurman, and very much the action hero you wish was your personal trainer.In this episode, we talk about what happens when everything you built your life on—movement, strength, purpose—gets sideswiped by disease. Twice. Ilaria opens up about diagnosis shock, bad doctor vibes, wielding swords post-mastectomy, and why working out through treatment is the best revenge.We get into scanxiety, menopause side effects, nutrition spirals, and the moment she realized the fitness industry needed more truth—and less bullshit.This one's real, raw, and will either guilt you into planking or inspire you to finally cancel that gym membership you've never used. Either way, you're gonna feel something.RELATED LINKSStronger for Life documentaryPowerstrike official siteIlaria on InstagramIlaria on LinkedInWorkout programs and DVDsForza Sword Workout on AmazonFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On today's episode: The latest on the death of Pope Francis and the what is still to come; the White House is standing behind Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; the NCAA passes a series of rules that sets the table for schools to pay athletes; and Harvard is suing the Trump administration. US Supreme Court appears likely to uphold Obamacare's preventive care coverage mandate. Trump says gray skies for the White House Easter egg roll mean no worries about sunburn. Homeland Security Secretary Noem's purse stolen at DC restaurant, officials say. Wife of former US Sen. Bob Menendez convicted in bribery scheme. Sarah Palin tells defamation trial jury that Times editorial 'kicked the oomph' out of her. Abortions are resuming at a Wyoming clinic after judge suspends laws. Montana has a measles outbreak with its first cases in 35 years. Here's what you should know. Gunman who killed 23 in a racist attack at a Walmart in El Paso pleads guilty to capital murder. Delta plane catches fire at Orlando airport, forcing passenger evacuations. Wall Street and the dollar tumble as investors retreat further from the United States. Trump renews attack on Federal Reserve Chair Powell, Dow Jones tumbles 1,000 points. Long journey to the NFL draft is only the beginning for college prospects aiming to make the pros. A historic losing streak ends and a nail-biter in the NBA Playoffs, the NHL’s all-time leading goal scorer notches a first and another overtime thriller in the Stanley Cup Playoffs and two Kenyan runners prevail in the Boston Marathon. Duke freshman Cooper Flagg is headed to the NBA as the favorite to be the No. 1 overall draft pick. Sharon Lokedi breaks Boston Marathon course record. John Korir joins his brother as a Boston winner. China warns countries against making trade deals with the US unfavorable to Beijing. —The Associated Press About this program Host Terry Lipshetz is managing editor of the national newsroom for Lee Enterprises. Besides producing the daily Hot off the Wire news podcast, Terry conducts periodic interviews for this Behind the Headlines program, co-hosts the Streamed & Screened movies and television program and is the former producer of Across the Sky, a podcast dedicated to weather and climate. Theme music The News Tonight, used under license from Soundstripe. YouTube clearance: ZR2MOTROGI4XAHRX

Yes — Obamacare is before the Supreme Court, again. This time, the case centers on the legality of an advisory task force. Experts worry it could spell the end of an ACA mandate requiring insurers to cover certain preventative care services at no cost. But first: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is caught up in another Signal group chat scandal. Plus, Paul Revere wasn't the only midnight rider to warn that the British were coming.Here's everything we talked about today:"‘An amateur person': GOP Rep. Bacon says Hegseth should go" from Politico"Obamacare returns to SCOTUS, with preventive care on the line" from Politico"Court to hear challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage" from Scotus Blog "Kristi Noem's Purse, With Security Badge and $3,000, Is Stolen" from The New York Times"Paul Revere Wasn't the Only Midnight Rider Who Dashed Through the Darkness to Warn the Patriots That the British Were Coming" from Smithsonian Magazine "April 18, 2025" from Heather Cox Richardson Got a question for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

On the DSR Daily for Monday, we discuss the death of Pope Francis, Defense Secretary Hegseth sharing yet more sensitive information over Signal, the Supreme Court hearing a challenge to Obamacare, and more.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Yes — Obamacare is before the Supreme Court, again. This time, the case centers on the legality of an advisory task force. Experts worry it could spell the end of an ACA mandate requiring insurers to cover certain preventative care services at no cost. But first: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is caught up in another Signal group chat scandal. Plus, Paul Revere wasn't the only midnight rider to warn that the British were coming.Here's everything we talked about today:"‘An amateur person': GOP Rep. Bacon says Hegseth should go" from Politico"Obamacare returns to SCOTUS, with preventive care on the line" from Politico"Court to hear challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage" from Scotus Blog "Kristi Noem's Purse, With Security Badge and $3,000, Is Stolen" from The New York Times"Paul Revere Wasn't the Only Midnight Rider Who Dashed Through the Darkness to Warn the Patriots That the British Were Coming" from Smithsonian Magazine "April 18, 2025" from Heather Cox Richardson Got a question for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

The Vatican has announced Pope Francis' cause of death. Wall Street is on edge over Trump's feud with the Federal Reserve chairman. We'll tell you why the DOJ is defending Obamacare at the Supreme Court today. A new report sheds light on cancer rates in the US. Plus, a college basketball star is headed for the NBA. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On the DSR Daily for Monday, we discuss the death of Pope Francis, Defense Secretary Hegseth sharing yet more sensitive information over Signal, the Supreme Court hearing a challenge to Obamacare, and more.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On the DSR Daily for Monday, we discuss the death of Pope Francis, Defense Secretary Hegseth sharing yet more sensitive information over Signal, the Supreme Court hearing a challenge to Obamacare, and more.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Comprehensive coverage of the day's news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice. Barbara Lee (photo by Gage Skidmore) Supreme Court hears arguments challenging preventive care coverage under Obamacare, as Trump administration defends Affordable Care Act provision Former congressmember Barbara Lee becomes Oakland's first black woman mayor, vows to stand against Trump administration State Assembly considers bill to target sex trafficking from demand side, criminalizing loitering with intent to purchase sex and strengthening victim services Pope Francis dies of stroke a day after Easter address calls for helping vulnerable, marginalized and migrants Theologian Matthew Fox on Pope's legacy of environmentalism and support for migrants amidst more controversial aspects of papacy. President Trump sends Easter message to all, including “the radical left lunatics” and “all of the people who cheated in the 2020 presidential election” The post Supreme Court hears case challenging preventive care coverage under Obamacare; Former congressmember Barbara Lee becomes Oakland's first black woman mayor – April 21, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

AP correspondent Ed Donahue reports on a challenge to Obamacare.

This Day in Legal History: Maryland Toleration Act PassedOn April 21, 1649, the Maryland Assembly passed the Maryland Toleration Act, a landmark piece of colonial legislation that granted freedom of worship to all Christians in the colony. Also known as the Act Concerning Religion, it was one of the first legal efforts in the American colonies to protect religious liberty through statutory law. The act was enacted under the leadership of Cecil Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, who sought to maintain peace in Maryland's religiously diverse population, which included both Catholics and Protestants.The law's preamble acknowledged the dangers of religious coercion, stating that "the inforceing of the conscience in matters of Religion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence." To preserve harmony, it declared that no Christian should be "troubled, Molested or discountenanced" for practicing their faith, provided they did not threaten the colony's civil government or the authority of the Lord Proprietor.While progressive for its time, the Act's protections were limited to those who professed belief in Jesus Christ, excluding Jews, atheists, and other non-Christians. Violators of the law's religious tolerance provisions faced harsh penalties, including fines, public whipping, or even death for blasphemy.The Act was repealed just five years later during a period of Protestant ascendancy, reflecting the fragile nature of religious tolerance in colonial America. Nonetheless, it remains significant as an early attempt to codify the principle that faith should not be a basis for persecution.A federal judge has ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) can no longer direct the termination of probationary federal workers based on performance-related justifications that were, according to the court, misleading. U.S. District Judge William Alsup called OPM's use of standardized termination letters citing performance as the reason for firing thousands of employees a “total sham.” He emphasized that falsely attributing the dismissals to performance could harm the affected workers' reputations and career prospects for years to come.The ruling affects employees at six federal agencies and prohibits further terminations under these pretenses. Judge Alsup's decision underscores that these workers were dismissed under false narratives while still in their probationary period—either newly hired or recently promoted—and should not have been labeled as underperformers without proper evaluation or process.Though Alsup's ruling offers protection against future actions, he declined to issue a preliminary injunction requested by the state of Washington, stating the state lacked standing because it could not show concrete harm from the federal firings, such as a clear loss of federal services.This legal challenge comes amid a broader judicial tug-of-war. In March, Alsup had initially ordered the reinstatement of 16,000 workers pending resolution of a lawsuit. However, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that injunction on April 8, suggesting that nonprofit organizations representing federal workers may lack the legal standing to sue on their behalf. Following that, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also halted a separate injunction from a Maryland judge that would have reinstated probationary employees in 19 states and Washington, D.C.Despite the limits imposed by the higher courts, Alsup's decision focuses on the reputational harm caused by labeling the dismissals as performance-based, rather than procedural or administrative. He signaled that the government must correct the record for those terminated workers.Performance-Based Federal Worker Layoffs a ‘Sham' Judge RulesThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a major challenge to a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, that mandates insurers cover certain preventive medical services—like cancer screenings and diabetes testing—without cost-sharing by patients. The case centers on the constitutional validity of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a panel of medical experts that identifies which services should be covered. The panel's 16 members are appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) but are not confirmed by the Senate.A group of Texas-based Christian individuals and businesses filed the lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the USPSTF wields too much authority and must therefore comply with the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause. This clause requires that significant federal officers—known as "principal officers"—be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The plaintiffs claim the task force has evolved from a purely advisory body to one that effectively imposes binding legal obligations on insurers, all without proper accountability.In 2024, the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling the task force's structure unconstitutional. The federal government appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. The Biden administration originally filed the appeal, and it was later continued by the Trump administration. Government lawyers argue that the task force should be classified as comprising "inferior officers," since their recommendations are only made binding when approved by the HHS Secretary, who can remove task force members at will.The plaintiffs, however, maintain that the Secretary lacks actual power to stop recommendations from taking effect, making the task force's authority effectively unchecked. They also argue that this lack of oversight elevates the members to principal officer status, necessitating Senate confirmation.Before narrowing the lawsuit to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs also challenged the ACA's requirement to cover HIV prevention medication on religious grounds, asserting it promoted behaviors they opposed. The appeals court declined to sever portions of the law that might otherwise save the provision, another aspect now before the Supreme Court.If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's decision, key preventive healthcare services could become subject to out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-pays, potentially deterring millions from accessing early detection and prevention tools. The Court's decision, expected by the end of June, could reshape how health policy is implemented under the ACA and may further weaken one of its core patient protections.US Supreme Court to hear clash over Obamacare preventive care | ReutersIn a rapidly unfolding legal confrontation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of a group of Venezuelan migrants from Texas, sparking a strong dissent from Justice Samuel Alito. The court intervened early Saturday morning, acting on urgent filings by detainees' lawyers who said the migrants were already being loaded onto buses for imminent deportation to El Salvador. The migrants were accused of gang affiliation, but their legal team argued they hadn't been given fair notice or time to challenge their removal. The administration attempted to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law, to justify these expulsions.Justice Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, sharply criticized the majority's decision, calling it "unprecedented and legally questionable." He argued that the Court acted without giving lower courts adequate time to review the claims and issued its order with limited evidence and no explanation. The justices' ruling paused deportations “until further order of this Court,” leaving room for future legal developments.The Trump administration quickly responded, filing a motion urging the Court to reverse its stay. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the detainees' lawyers bypassed proper procedure by going directly to the Supreme Court and that lower courts had not yet had a chance to establish key facts. He maintained that the migrants received legally sufficient notice, though reports suggested the notices were in English only and lacked clear instructions.The administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members is highly controversial. Originally passed in 1798 during hostilities with France, the law has been used sparingly and almost exclusively during wartime. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether its application in this immigration context is constitutional. Migrants' advocates, including the ACLU, maintain that many of the men deported or at risk of deportation are not gang members and were denied due process.The legal conflict reflects a broader tension between Trump's immigration enforcement efforts and judicial oversight. Last month, Trump ordered the deportation of more than 200 men to a Salvadoran maximum-security prison, reportedly ignoring a judge's oral order to halt at least two flights. The White House has not signaled any intent to defy the current Supreme Court stay but remains committed to its immigration crackdown.The case, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, now becomes a focal point in ongoing disputes about executive authority, due process rights for detainees, and the scope of immigration enforcement under rarely invoked legal provisions. As the Court weighs further action, the lives of dozens of migrants hang in the balance, caught between legal technicalities and broader political pressures.Supreme Court's Alito Calls Block of Deportations ‘Questionable' - BloombergAlito criticizes US Supreme Court's decision to 'hastily' block deportations | ReutersTrump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Lift Deportation Halt - BloombergA federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration's passport policy targeting transgender and nonbinary individuals is likely unconstitutional. The policy, which followed an executive order signed by President Trump immediately after returning to office, required passport applicants to list their biological sex at birth and allowed only "male" or "female" markers. This reversed prior policies that permitted self-identification and, under the Biden administration, had allowed the use of a gender-neutral "X" option.U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick issued a preliminary injunction that bars enforcement of the policy against six of the seven plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit. She held that the policy discriminates based on sex and reflects a bias against transgender individuals, violating the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Kobick described the administration's approach as rooted in "irrational prejudice" and said it runs counter to the Constitution's promise of equality.Despite finding the policy likely unconstitutional, Kobick declined to issue a nationwide injunction, stating that the plaintiffs did not justify the need for broad relief. Still, the ruling marks a significant legal setback for the administration's broader effort to redefine federal gender recognition policies.The executive order at the center of the case mandated all federal agencies, including the State Department, to recognize only two sexes—male and female—based on biology at birth. The State Department then revised its passport application process to align with this directive.The case is part of a wave of legal challenges to Trump's rollback of gender recognition policies. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, vowed to continue fighting to expand the ruling's protections to all affected individuals.Trump passport policy targeting transgender people likely unconstitutional, judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Obamacare is back before the Supreme Court in a challenge to its no-cost coverage requirements for certain preventive health services. The justices will weigh the constitutionality of the US Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends the tests and treatments insurers should cover, when they return to the bench on Monday for the April sitting. If the lower court's decision is upheld, "it is possible, given the posture of the case, that over 150 million Americans lose free coverage of hundreds of benefits," said Sara Rosenbaum, an emerita professor of health law and policy at George Washington University. Rosenbaum joins Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler to talk about why the case is more about power than it is public health and what's at stake if the court does away with the insurance coverage that's caught in its crosshairs. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Our health care system sucks, and we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix it. Yet Republicans are promising to keep every penny of Medicaid and Obamacare. Meanwhile, district judges continue to halt the immigration agenda. So what are we accomplishing? We're joined today by health care regulatory compliance expert Reg Hislop for an important health care discussion. Hislop notes that there is a $1 trillion annual tab just on administrative compliance with government health care. He also paints a picture of what true health care reform, particularly Medicaid, looks like and why, absent such reforms, we will never solve the health care crisis or the budget crisis.  Waste, fraud, and abuse are not bugs in the cog but a feature of the program that must be reformed.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The latest threat to the Affordable Care Act could strike down a popular provision that gives 180 million Americans access to free preventive care for conditions including HIV and cancer.Guest:Nicholas Bagley, JD, Professor of Law, University of MichiganLearn more and read a full transcript on our website.Want more Tradeoffs? Sign up for our free weekly newsletter featuring the latest health policy research and news.Support this type of journalism today, with a gift. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join Liz Cruz M.D. and Tina Nunziato, Certified Holistic Nutrition Consultant, as they discuss Dr. Oz, what he's up to today and what his take is on probiotics.  Find out why Dr. Oz should be on the top of your radar when it comes to Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.  Watch us on YouTube: https://youtu.be/fX1RLqM4V1s Dr. Cruz is a Board Certified Gastroenterologist who practices in Phoenix, AZ. Along with her wife Tina Nunziato, a Certified Holistic Nutritionist, they have helped tens of thousands of individuals get well from a more holistic standpoint. They focus on issues such as constipation, diarrhea, acid reflux, heartburn, gas, bloating, food sensitivities, IBS, Crohn's disease, and diverticulitis in addition to a person's general overall health. They do this by teaching about real food, water, digestive enzymes, probiotics, detox, greens, electrolytes, food sensitivity testing, and so much more. If you're struggling with finding the answers to your issues, tired of not feeling well, and sick of taking over the counter and prescription medicines, schedule a FREE 30 minute phone consult at www.drlizcruz.com.For more information visit www.digestthispodcast.com or www.drlizcruz.com. Enjoy the show! Dr. Liz Cruz and Tina Nunziato, CHNC

Helene M. Epstein is not here to make friends with the healthcare system. She's here to dismantle the bullshit, one catastrophic medical error at a time. A marketing agency veteran turned patient safety firebrand, Helene's journey from copywriter to cancer misdiagnosis survivor, to “badass queen of patient safety,” is one hell of a ride.We talk about how her son was misdiagnosed over 15 times (yes, really), why some doctors should come with warning labels, and how American healthcare gaslights patients like it's a competitive sport. She also explains why she's giving away her new book for free, one chapter at a time, and how AI might actually be useful—if it stops hallucinating citations.This is not a light listen. It's the real deal. You'll walk away angry, inspired, and a lot more dangerous as a patient.RELATED LINKSHelene's Substack: https://helenemepstein.substack.comPatient Safety Resources: https://www.pfps.usSociety to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine: https://psnet.ahrq.gov/issue/society-improve-diagnosis-medicineHelene's Website: https://www.hmepstein.com/meet-heleneLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hmepsteinFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform.For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Despite progressive policy strides in health care reform, immigrant communities continue to experience stark disparities across the United States. In Not All In: Race, Immigration, and Health Care Exclusion in the Age of Obamacare (Johns Hopkins UP, 2025), Tiffany D. Joseph exposes the insidious contradiction of Massachusetts' advanced health care system and the exclusionary experiences of its immigrant communities. Joseph illustrates how patients' race, ethnicity, and legal status determine their access to health coverage and care services, revealing a disturbing paradox where policy advances and individual experiences drastically diverge. Examining Boston's Brazilian, Dominican, and Salvadoran communities, this book provides an exhaustive analysis spanning nearly a decade to highlight the profound impacts of the Affordable Care Act and subsequent policy shifts on these marginalized groups. Not All In is a critical examination of the systemic barriers that perpetuate health care disparities. Joseph challenges readers to confront the uncomfortable truths about racialized legal status and its profound implications on health care access. This essential book illuminates the complexities of policy implementation and advocates for more inclusive reforms that genuinely cater to all. Urging policymakers, health care providers, and activists to rethink strategies that bridge the gap between legislation and life, this book reminds us that in the realm of health care, being progressive is not synonymous with inclusivity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Jonathan and Jennifer Wall didn't choose this path, but they're walking it with purpose. After losing their son, Zach, they turned their grief into action, founding Zach's Bridge, a lifeline for families navigating pediatric cancer. This episode isn't about platitudes or silver linings—it's about the raw, unfiltered reality of love and loss, the relentless unfairness of childhood cancer, and how the Walls are refusing to let their son's memory fade into the void.Jon and Jenn open up about what Zach taught them, how they've reshaped their lives in his honor, and why “Be Like Zach” isn't just a phrase—it's a call to action. We talk about the power of community, the frustrating gaps in pediatric cancer care, and how they're making sure no other family has to walk this road alone. If you've ever wondered what real resilience looks like, this is it.RELATED LINKS:Zach's BridgeZach's Rules for LifeBe Like Zach - SubstackJonathan Wall on LinkedInJon's Post: What Cancer Taught Me About WorkRett's Roost Blog - Jonathan's WritingZach's Story - OSIFEEDBACK:Like this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Once a policy lightning rod that ended political careers, the Affordable Care Act (aka, “Obamacare”) has proven to be remarkably resilient with last month marking the 15th anniversary of its being signed into law. Lanhee Chen, the Hoover Institution's David and Diane Steffy Fellow in American Public Policy Studies and co-chair of Hoover's Healthcare Policy Working Group, explains how the ACA managed to survive despite power shifts in Washington, what areas of healthcare Congress should address in 2025, and California's inability to cover the cost of its Medi-Cal program (the state equivalent of Medicaid) due to rising demand among seniors and undocumented residents.   Recorded on April 3, 2025. RELATED SOURCES Fifteen Years Later: The ACA Has an HSA Problem by Lanhee J. Chen Tom Church Daniel L. Heil

Despite progressive policy strides in health care reform, immigrant communities continue to experience stark disparities across the United States. In Not All In: Race, Immigration, and Health Care Exclusion in the Age of Obamacare (Johns Hopkins UP, 2025), Tiffany D. Joseph exposes the insidious contradiction of Massachusetts' advanced health care system and the exclusionary experiences of its immigrant communities. Joseph illustrates how patients' race, ethnicity, and legal status determine their access to health coverage and care services, revealing a disturbing paradox where policy advances and individual experiences drastically diverge. Examining Boston's Brazilian, Dominican, and Salvadoran communities, this book provides an exhaustive analysis spanning nearly a decade to highlight the profound impacts of the Affordable Care Act and subsequent policy shifts on these marginalized groups. Not All In is a critical examination of the systemic barriers that perpetuate health care disparities. Joseph challenges readers to confront the uncomfortable truths about racialized legal status and its profound implications on health care access. This essential book illuminates the complexities of policy implementation and advocates for more inclusive reforms that genuinely cater to all. Urging policymakers, health care providers, and activists to rethink strategies that bridge the gap between legislation and life, this book reminds us that in the realm of health care, being progressive is not synonymous with inclusivity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Today on Upstream, Erik Torenberg and Noah Smith discuss the Abundance Agenda by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, the impact of the 2008 recession, Obama's presidency, and shifts in political ideology, focusing on the 'New Right' and its cultural and economic implications, while also touching upon the economic recovery strategies post-2008. This episode originally aired on Econ102 (April 1, 2025) —

Send us a textIn this episode of Going Under: Anesthesia Answered with Dr. Brian Schmutzler, Brian and Vahid discuss The Affordable Care Act (ACA) - AKA Obamacare and what's happened to medicine in the 15 years since the law was enacted.Have a question for Dr. Brian Schmutzler? Submit them to any of the social media pages below or on his website at https://www.drbrianschmutzler.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/drbrianschmutzlerInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/drbrianschmutzlerTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@drbrianschmutzler?lang=enProvider or Medical Student?? Subscribe to his Patreon Page to get exclusive content and access to Medical Blocks:https://www.patreon.com/user?u=89356957&utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=join_linkThanks to our show sponsor: Butterfly Networkhttps://store.butterflynetwork.com/us/en/?rsCode=BRIAN25Support the show

Despite progressive policy strides in health care reform, immigrant communities continue to experience stark disparities across the United States. In Not All In: Race, Immigration, and Health Care Exclusion in the Age of Obamacare (Johns Hopkins UP, 2025), Tiffany D. Joseph exposes the insidious contradiction of Massachusetts' advanced health care system and the exclusionary experiences of its immigrant communities. Joseph illustrates how patients' race, ethnicity, and legal status determine their access to health coverage and care services, revealing a disturbing paradox where policy advances and individual experiences drastically diverge. Examining Boston's Brazilian, Dominican, and Salvadoran communities, this book provides an exhaustive analysis spanning nearly a decade to highlight the profound impacts of the Affordable Care Act and subsequent policy shifts on these marginalized groups. Not All In is a critical examination of the systemic barriers that perpetuate health care disparities. Joseph challenges readers to confront the uncomfortable truths about racialized legal status and its profound implications on health care access. This essential book illuminates the complexities of policy implementation and advocates for more inclusive reforms that genuinely cater to all. Urging policymakers, health care providers, and activists to rethink strategies that bridge the gap between legislation and life, this book reminds us that in the realm of health care, being progressive is not synonymous with inclusivity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/latino-studies

Despite progressive policy strides in health care reform, immigrant communities continue to experience stark disparities across the United States. In Not All In: Race, Immigration, and Health Care Exclusion in the Age of Obamacare (Johns Hopkins UP, 2025), Tiffany D. Joseph exposes the insidious contradiction of Massachusetts' advanced health care system and the exclusionary experiences of its immigrant communities. Joseph illustrates how patients' race, ethnicity, and legal status determine their access to health coverage and care services, revealing a disturbing paradox where policy advances and individual experiences drastically diverge. Examining Boston's Brazilian, Dominican, and Salvadoran communities, this book provides an exhaustive analysis spanning nearly a decade to highlight the profound impacts of the Affordable Care Act and subsequent policy shifts on these marginalized groups. Not All In is a critical examination of the systemic barriers that perpetuate health care disparities. Joseph challenges readers to confront the uncomfortable truths about racialized legal status and its profound implications on health care access. This essential book illuminates the complexities of policy implementation and advocates for more inclusive reforms that genuinely cater to all. Urging policymakers, health care providers, and activists to rethink strategies that bridge the gap between legislation and life, this book reminds us that in the realm of health care, being progressive is not synonymous with inclusivity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Despite progressive policy strides in health care reform, immigrant communities continue to experience stark disparities across the United States. In Not All In: Race, Immigration, and Health Care Exclusion in the Age of Obamacare (Johns Hopkins UP, 2025), Tiffany D. Joseph exposes the insidious contradiction of Massachusetts' advanced health care system and the exclusionary experiences of its immigrant communities. Joseph illustrates how patients' race, ethnicity, and legal status determine their access to health coverage and care services, revealing a disturbing paradox where policy advances and individual experiences drastically diverge. Examining Boston's Brazilian, Dominican, and Salvadoran communities, this book provides an exhaustive analysis spanning nearly a decade to highlight the profound impacts of the Affordable Care Act and subsequent policy shifts on these marginalized groups. Not All In is a critical examination of the systemic barriers that perpetuate health care disparities. Joseph challenges readers to confront the uncomfortable truths about racialized legal status and its profound implications on health care access. This essential book illuminates the complexities of policy implementation and advocates for more inclusive reforms that genuinely cater to all. Urging policymakers, health care providers, and activists to rethink strategies that bridge the gap between legislation and life, this book reminds us that in the realm of health care, being progressive is not synonymous with inclusivity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Despite progressive policy strides in health care reform, immigrant communities continue to experience stark disparities across the United States. In Not All In: Race, Immigration, and Health Care Exclusion in the Age of Obamacare (Johns Hopkins UP, 2025), Tiffany D. Joseph exposes the insidious contradiction of Massachusetts' advanced health care system and the exclusionary experiences of its immigrant communities. Joseph illustrates how patients' race, ethnicity, and legal status determine their access to health coverage and care services, revealing a disturbing paradox where policy advances and individual experiences drastically diverge. Examining Boston's Brazilian, Dominican, and Salvadoran communities, this book provides an exhaustive analysis spanning nearly a decade to highlight the profound impacts of the Affordable Care Act and subsequent policy shifts on these marginalized groups. Not All In is a critical examination of the systemic barriers that perpetuate health care disparities. Joseph challenges readers to confront the uncomfortable truths about racialized legal status and its profound implications on health care access. This essential book illuminates the complexities of policy implementation and advocates for more inclusive reforms that genuinely cater to all. Urging policymakers, health care providers, and activists to rethink strategies that bridge the gap between legislation and life, this book reminds us that in the realm of health care, being progressive is not synonymous with inclusivity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Despite progressive policy strides in health care reform, immigrant communities continue to experience stark disparities across the United States. In Not All In: Race, Immigration, and Health Care Exclusion in the Age of Obamacare (Johns Hopkins UP, 2025), Tiffany D. Joseph exposes the insidious contradiction of Massachusetts' advanced health care system and the exclusionary experiences of its immigrant communities. Joseph illustrates how patients' race, ethnicity, and legal status determine their access to health coverage and care services, revealing a disturbing paradox where policy advances and individual experiences drastically diverge. Examining Boston's Brazilian, Dominican, and Salvadoran communities, this book provides an exhaustive analysis spanning nearly a decade to highlight the profound impacts of the Affordable Care Act and subsequent policy shifts on these marginalized groups. Not All In is a critical examination of the systemic barriers that perpetuate health care disparities. Joseph challenges readers to confront the uncomfortable truths about racialized legal status and its profound implications on health care access. This essential book illuminates the complexities of policy implementation and advocates for more inclusive reforms that genuinely cater to all. Urging policymakers, health care providers, and activists to rethink strategies that bridge the gap between legislation and life, this book reminds us that in the realm of health care, being progressive is not synonymous with inclusivity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Armstrong—forever Sarah Oakden to me, no matter what the legal documents say—isn't just my best friend. She's my first college friend, my musical theater soulmate, and the first person who truly saw me as an artist. She was there when I walked onto Binghamton's campus, and she was there when I walked into cancer hell. And, because we're nothing if not in sync, a few decades later, she got her own cancer badge of honor, and I was right there with her every step of the way.This episode is a love letter to friendship, music, and those moments that change your life forever. We nerd out over Sondheim, Binghamton's infamous "Theater 101 with Dr. Susan Peters." and the weird and wonderful rabbit holes that turn into entire alternate realities across decades of aging gracefully and falling with style.We talk about how cancer is the worst club with the best people and how surviving it together just adds another verse to the song we've been singing for 30 years. It's funny. It's real. It's a master class in love, laughter, and musicals that should have been bigger; with a big tip of the hat to Nancy Ford and Gretchen Cryer for their acclaimed musical "I'm Getting My Act Together and Taking It on the Road"Oh, and RIP to the legendary Denny's on Vestal Parkway. You will be missed.FEEDBACK:Like this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of The Progress Report, Zachary and Emma discuss recent bipartisan agreements on U.S. gun laws including the Supreme Court's upholding of Biden-era rule on ghost guns, the impact of Obamacare on healthcare access, and Uganda's record-breaking rapid response to an Ebola outbreak. What Could Go Right? is produced by The Progress Network and The Podglomerate. For transcripts, to join the newsletter, and for more information, visit: theprogressnetwork.org Watch the podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/theprogressnetwork And follow us on X, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok: @progressntwrk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Food for Thought: Cancer, Calories, and Kicking AssVanessa Rissetto is back, and she's bringing the same energy, wit, and unapologetic realness that made her a fan favorite. Last time, we talked nutrition and the rise of Culina Health. This time, life threw her a plot twist—breast cancer. Because, you know, irony.Vanessa was busy building a nutrition empire when she got diagnosed. So, naturally, she texted, “WTF do I do now?” to her closest cancer Sherpas—yours truly included. Spoiler alert: She powered through, beat cancer, and kept scaling Culina Health to new heights.We get into it all—being a cancer patient when you're supposed to be the health expert, the emotional whiplash of survivorship, the absolute clown show that is American food regulation, and why European Oreos are apparently less cancerous than ours. Also, parenting, loneliness, and why the healthcare system still makes zero sense.Get ready for a wild ride of truth bombs, wisdom, and laughter with one of the sharpest voices in nutrition and entrepreneurship.RELATED LINKSVanessa on LinkedInCulina HealthVanessa's WebsiteVanessa's Story on HLTHVanessa on Breast Cancer - TODAYWhat Vanessa Learned About Food After CancerDaily Mail: Vanessa on an Unexpected SymptomSurvivorNet: Vanessa on Nutrition and CancerFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Chris marks Obamacare's 15th anniversary, slamming Obama's “50M insured” boast as a lie. Costs soared from $2K (2010) to $4,300 per household, care's substandard, and doctors hate it—pushing us to socialized medicine. www.watchdogonwallstreet.com

The Hake Report, Monday, March 24, 2025 ADTIMESTAMPS* (0:00:00) Start, small talk* (0:07:06) Hey, guys!* (0:08:55) Libs want Democrats angry!* (0:12:24) News… Food banks DOGED* (0:18:11) News… Peace by Easter? Deportations* (0:24:10) Jasmine Mooney long sob story* (0:32:01) Super: LYC* (0:35:11) JAIME, MN: Tesla… Short women in power* (0:41:14) JAIME: Tesla vs emotions* (0:42:45) Respect for the worldly powerful* (0:47:59) Coffee: Hakenomics and slavery kids abused* (1:02:01) Coffee: Ukraine nuclear? …* (1:08:51) Obamacare communism* (1:20:25) Non-political gals… (Censored)* (1:26:01) Rumble: Shoutout B-day, Joel Friday TV, talking to girls* (1:29:24) Weed, drinking, shmorn, etc…* (1:32:24) SpaceX splashdown: Astronauts home!* (1:36:17) Is this Mars?* (1:38:05) RICK, VA: DEI vs earning it…* (1:42:30) RICK: Projecting their issues on us!* ​​(1:47:10) RICK: Whites and J's* (1:48:35) Virus - Luna de Miel en la Mano - 1985, LocuraLINKSBLOG https://www.thehakereport.com/blog/2025/3/24/the-hake-report-mon-3-24-25PODCAST / Substack HAKE NEWS from JLP https://www.thehakereport.com/jlp-news/2025/3/24/rip-george-foreman-hake-news-mon-3-24-25Hake is live M-F 9-11a PT (11-1CT/12-2ET) Call-in 1-888-775-3773 https://www.thehakereport.com/showVIDEO YouTube - Rumble* - Facebook - X - BitChute - Odysee*PODCAST Substack - Apple - Spotify - Castbox - Podcast Addict*SUPER CHAT on platforms* above or BuyMeACoffee, etc.SHOP - Printify (new!) - Spring (old!) - Cameo | All My LinksJLP Network: JLP - Church - TFS - Nick - Joel - Punchie Get full access to HAKE at thehakereport.substack.com/subscribe

Ryan Walters pays the piper, politicians don't want Oklahomans to propose ballot initiatives, and we discuss how well the parties are (or are not) connecting with voters.Links mentioned: Walters settled with Ethics Commission for social media violationsBut…a lawmaker, Ellen Pogemiller, has asked the Attorney General to weigh in on Walters' connection to a new “professional association” called “Teacher Freedom Alliance.“ She asked AG Drummond to “clarify the legality” of Walters' conduct concerning the new “Teacher Freedom Alliance.” She also asked Drummond to “investigate the financial ties and contacts (Walters) has with TFA.” A law passed last year creating a new penalty for what it called “impermissible occupation” has been mostly cleared for enforcement by the US DOJ. A federal judge put a stay on the bill under Biden, but now the Trump Administration has dismissed it. Speaking of changes to federal policy, the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner, Glen Mulready, who most of us forget exists, has issued a warning or a heads up to Oklahomans who have health insurance through the Marketplace (aka Obamacare) that their premiums will likely increase dramatically for 2026 if the federal enhanced Advanced Premium Tax Credits aren't extended by December. David Shor, head of data science at Blue Rose Research, was on The Ezra Klein Show this week, and it's fascinating to hear / watch.

The JFK files were finally released and in some ways it confirms exactly what we already knew and in other ways it shows even more than we thought it would. 9 Shooters. Mossad funding. Our part in government is not as it seems.Opening Segment (00:00:00 - 00:07:06)* Introduction:* Hosts introduce themselves as the "two kings of the Rube Empire," identifying as right-wing extremists, supernaturalists, and Christian bigots.* Philosopher King (51% power) and Iron King (the people's champ) humorously acknowledge their bombastic style.* Dusty, the producer, is introduced as the "Aviary King" and "Hoosier."* Apology for Fake News:* Iron King apologizes for falling for a QAnon-related story claiming Obama profited from Obamacare, admitting it was debunked.* Reflects on past mistakes (e.g., predicting California would vote red) and vows to stick to "real stuff."* Podcast Purpose:* Over six years and 378 episodes, the show aims to provide tangible information from a biblical worldview, avoiding mainstream "BoomerCon" or liberal narratives.* Hosts thank listeners for feedback, emphasizing their impact and commitment to truth.Main Topics (00:07:15 - 01:27:32)* Yemen Bombing (00:07:15 - 00:12:15)* Story: U.S. bombed Yemen, killing 53 people (including 5 women and 3 children) this week, targeting Houthi rebels.* Discussion:* Hosts question the "America First" narrative, noting no direct Houthi attacks on U.S. soil.* Critique U.S. involvement, suggesting it benefits Saudi Arabia (petrodollar ally) rather than American interests.* Highlight lack of mainstream media coverage, attributing it to public anti-war sentiment.* Gaza Ceasefire Collapse (00:12:15 - 00:18:00)* Story: Ceasefire in Gaza ended three days ago, with Israel resuming attacks, claiming Hamas didn't release all hostages.* Discussion:* Hosts challenge Israel's credibility, citing alleged lies about October 7th.* Argue U.S. weapons fuel the conflict, questioning why America is involved.* Note media silence, contrasting it with Ukraine coverage as a distraction.* Trump vs. Thomas Massie (00:18:00 - 00:21:57)* Story: Trump criticized Rep. Thomas Massie, comparing him to Liz Cheney, despite Massie's principled stance.* Discussion:* Praise Massie as the only House member not taking AIPAC money, opposing foreign entanglements and government waste.* Criticize Trump for attacking Massie while sending $3 billion to Israel and allowing U.S. weapons use abroad.* Note public support rallied around Massie, not Trump.* "Christ is King" Controversy (00:21:57 - 00:27:46)* Story: Daily Wire (Jordan Peterson et al.) labeled "Christ is King" as offensive, linking it to Christian nationalism or BLM tactics.* Discussion:* Philosopher King critiques its use as a purity test (e.g., Jack Posobiec's exchange), but denies it's anti-Semitic.* Iron King rejects BLM comparison, emphasizing "Christ is King" is a truth, not a violent movement.* See it as a distraction from Yemen/Gaza killings.Final Thoughts (01:41:49 - 02:09:07)* Iron King (01:41:49 - 01:52:28)* Topic: Cultural infiltration of churches.* Points: Contrasts Christians saving others with external groups (e.g., LGBTQ) targeting kids in church spaces, citing First Baptist Orlando's controversy and ex-Gateway Church pastor Robert Morris.* Dusty (01:52:28 - 02:03:20)* Topic: Companies prioritizing profit over value.* Points: Examples like Uber, Netflix, and Amazon show initial problem-solving turning into exploitative pricing (surge fees, subscriptions, commercials), driven by shareholder demands.* Philosopher King (02:03:20 - 02:09:07)* Topic: Federal judges blocking Trump's agenda.* Points: Obama-appointed judges obstruct justice (e.g., DOGE access, deportations), proving the system's corruption. Debates burning it down vs. preserving principles, suggesting a breakup into smaller unions (e.g., Florida Alliance).Closing (02:09:23 - 02:11:34)* Verse of the Day: Hebrews 13:16 - "Do not neglect to do what is good and to share, for God is pleased with such sacrifices."* Prayer: Dusty prays for guidance and glorification of God through the podcast.* Outro: Encourages listeners to like, share, subscribe, and comment at kingsplaining.com, emphasizing their service to Christ, the King of Kings.Key Themes: Anti-war sentiment, distrust of government and media, biblical worldview, principled conservatism, critique of corporate greed and cultural shifts. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kingsplaining.substack.com/subscribe

A closer look at the surgeon-turned-TV-star President Trump wants in charge of Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.Guests:Tara Bannow, Reporter, STAT NewsTom Scully, CMS Administrator (2001-2004)Learn more and read a full transcript on our website.Want more Tradeoffs? Sign up for our free weekly newsletter featuring the latest health policy research and news.Support this type of journalism today, with a gift. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump is moving fast, yet one big question is how his more populist GOP will handle the pressing issue of healthcare. On this episode of All Things, Sally Pipes--healthcare aficionado and author of "The World's Medicine Chest"--lays out the risks of Joe Biden's coming drug price controls, the need to cut billions in waste and fraud from Medicaid, the fading chances for replacing ObamaCare, and the upsides and downsides of some of Trump's health cabinet picks, including HHS Secretary RFK, Jr. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

EPISODE DESCRIPTIONLillian Kreppel doesn't hold back. A seven-year anal cancer survivor and co-founder of the HPV Cancers Alliance, she has made it her mission to challenge stigma, fight misinformation, and push for better awareness of HPV-related cancers. In this episode, she sits down with Matthew Zachary to talk about her journey from high-powered sales to full-time advocacy, the absurd misconceptions surrounding HPV, and why more doctors should be doing rectal exams—but aren't. With her signature humor and relentless drive, Lillian shares how she turned her diagnosis into a movement, what it takes to make people uncomfortable for the right reasons, and why she refuses to stop talking about the HPV vaccine. It's an eye-opening, unfiltered, and surprisingly hilarious conversation about a serious issue too many people ignore.RELATED LINKSHPV Cancers Alliance: https://hpvca.org/Lillian's Story (MSKCC): https://www.mskcc.org/experience/hear-from-patients/lillianInterview on HPVWorld: https://www.hpvworld.com/articles/anal-cancer-and-hpv-a-history-of-awareness-and-stigma-interview-with-lillian-kreppel/Speaking With Lillian Kreppel (Ask About HPV): https://www.askabouthpv.org/stories/speaking-with-lillian-kreppel-co-founder-of-the-hpv-cancers-allianceEuropean Cancer Organization Feature: https://www.europeancancer.org/content/lillian-kreppel.htmlAnal Cancer Survivor Feature (Patient Resource):https://www.patientresource.com/Anal_Cancer_Survivor_Lillian_KreppelFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Can you believe the Affordable Care Act is turning 15 years old this weekend?! And oh boy, it's acting like a moody teenager.Join me as I sit down with super lawyer Marilyn Monahan, widely considered an expert on the ACA—whether you call it PPACA, Obamacare, or the Health Care Reform Bill. We're diving into the biggest mistakes that are still tripping up employers, including some sneaky ERISA and benefits law landmines.About the Show:The H.I.T. Podcast (Powered by Montage Insurance Solutions): A thought leader in the space, curating the top news and information to deliver a brief, high impact overview designed specifically for the Human Resources professional, business person, and company executive.Find out more here: www.hitpodcast.comSpecial thanks to our Platinum Sponsors: TruHu AND Excel Health PlansThank you to Rula. Visit: www.rula.com/HITpodcastThank you to our Gold Sponsors: Kingdom Legacy Benefits (KLB) AND CignaDon't forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more game-changing insights!

What has happened in the past 50 years, and how much of it has come through the church? Obamacare, the environmental movement, loss of property rights, etc. A Friend of Medjugorje talks all about it.

Grace Charrier—a powerhouse advocate, author, and cancer survivor—whose journey from a Stage 3 triple-negative breast cancer diagnosis to global advocacy is nothing short of extraordinary. Originally from Nigeria, Grace's life was upended when she was diagnosed following an unexpected health scare. Instead of retreating, she turned her experience into action, launching Cancer Convos with Grace B, writing the memoir IMPOSSICANT!, and becoming a voice for patients navigating the complexities of cancer care worldwide.Matthew and Grace dive into the realities of living with cancer, from the absurdities of the U.S. healthcare system to the deeply ingrained stigmas surrounding the disease in Africa. They explore the critical role of doctor empathy, the perils of consulting “Dr. Google,” and the relentless frustration of dealing with insurance providers. The conversation is raw, unfiltered, and filled with humor, as they trade stories about survivorship, advocacy, and the power of storytelling in making sense of the chaos.This episode delivers a mix of inspiration, honesty, and irreverence—showcasing Grace's unwavering determination to change the cancer narrative, one conversation at a time.RELATED LINKS:Grace Charrier on LinkedInCancer Convos with Grace B on YouTubeGrace's Memoir: IMPOSSICANT! on AmazonBlue Note TherapeuticsRare Patient VoiceImerman AngelsAmerican Cancer Society Cancer Action NetworkRed Door CommunityHealth UnionAdvocates for Collaborative EducationFEEDBACK:Like this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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 “

Buckle up, because Amy Gittelman is back, and this episode is one for the ages. A fellow SUNY Binghamton (yes, we still call it that) alum, Amy joins me for a hilarious and brutally honest deep dive into the absurdities of healthcare, insurance fuckery, and the general nonsense that plagues the system. From dodging medical debt landmines to battling insurance companies that seem hellbent on denying care, we go all in.But wait—there's more! We reminisce about our Binghamton days, debate the superiority of Wegmans over every downstate grocery store, and expose the dark art of healthcare billing fraud (spoiler: it's as bad as you think). Amy, a seasoned healthcare badass, drops wisdom bombs on why the industry is broken, what we can do about it, and why she's basically a mix of Miranda Priestly, Leslie Knope, and Dolly freakin' Parton.If you've ever yelled at your insurance company, fought a medical bill, or just wanted to flip a table over the state of American healthcare, this episode is for you.RELATED LINKS:Amy Gittelman on LinkedInAmy's Odyssey Feature on PM360Amy's Profile on OncoDailyVeradigm Healthcare SolutionsFEEDBACK:Like this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Sixteen years ago, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli stood on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and delivered an impassioned rant against federal plans to bail out struggling homeowners. “Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages?” he shouted, calling for a “Chicago Tea Party” to protest government intervention.That moment became the rallying cry for a movement that would reshape conservative politics, define opposition to the Obama presidency, and eventually evolve into the MAGA movement that has since won the White House twice.Lately, the Tea Party has been on my mind because of the way political movements are often dismissed by their opponents. In liberal circles, one word was frequently used to wave off the Tea Party: astroturf.“This isn't a grassroots movement,” critics insisted. “It's funded by billionaires to look like a populist uprising.” After all, it started on CNBC—hardly a blue-collar favorite.But that's not the whole story. And now, in 2024, astroturfing accusations are being hurled in the opposite direction.Last week, Republican Rep. Rich McCormick of Georgia faced a hostile crowd at a town hall in Roswell. The moment (captured in a widely circulated video) showed Democrats in his district voicing their frustration, pushing back forcefully against GOP policies.In response, conservatives dismissed the backlash as manufactured outrage, a coordinated effort by the so-called “deep state” to rattle the Republican establishment.Sound familiar?To understand whether today's Democratic anger is real or manufactured, it's worth looking back at how the Tea Party took shape.While Santelli's on-air rant is widely credited with sparking the Tea Party, grassroots opposition to Obama's policies had already begun. Keli Carender, a blogger in Seattle, organized an anti-stimulus protest even before Santelli's speech. Her February 2009 demonstration—dubbed the “Porkulus Protest”—drew about 100 people.But once Santelli's rant went viral, Tea Party protests exploded across the country. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter helped coordinate events, and by April's Tax Day, an estimated quarter-million people took to the streets in organized demonstrations. Conservative media played a crucial role in amplifying the movement. Fox News hosts like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity championed Tea Party causes, helping grow its ranks. Soon, prominent Republican figures lent their support, though the movement remained largely decentralized.By the summer of 2009, as Obamacare made its way through Congress, Tea Party activists shifted their strategy. Instead of street protests, they flooded town halls, confronting Democratic lawmakers with fiery opposition. Videos of these clashes—angry constituents challenging their representatives—became a defining image of the movement.And electorally, the Tea Party had teeth. While it failed to topple the Republican establishment entirely (Mitt Romney still won the 2012 nomination), it helped flip House seats and push the GOP further to the right.What does the Tea Party teach us about today's Democratic opposition?* It's never too early to be angry. Santelli's rant came barely a month after Obama took office. Right now, Trump's disapproval ratings are rising, but Democrats haven't yet rallied around a singular issue.* Movements can make an impact—especially in the House. The Tea Party didn't need to control the White House to change the political landscape. A handful of flipped seats can shift the balance of power.* Dismissing protests as ‘astroturf' is risky. If the same kind of town hall showdowns seen in McCormick's district begin happening elsewhere, they could turn into a trend.The Tea Party was fueled by a raw, pent-up anger over fiscal conservatism. Many conservatives felt betrayed by their own party—George W. Bush had campaigned on balanced budgets, only to expand deficits through wars and bailouts. Obama's presidency, with its ambitious government programs, only amplified those frustrations.The question for Democrats now is: What's their version of that anger?If it's simply opposition to Trump, that's not enough. Even figures like Elon Musk—despised by many progressives—aren't sustainable political villains. “Musk sent another email” isn't a battle cry that will mobilize voters in the long run.That's why Democratic strategists should be tickled by what just happened in the House. They (impressively) passed a budget that, while avoiding direct mention of Medicaid, includes $880 billion in cuts overseen by the Energy and Commerce Committee—which just happens to control Medicaid.Why the cuts? Because fiscal hawks in the House need a way to offset the Trump tax cuts.For Democrats, that's a classic, politically potent message: Republicans are cutting your Medicaid to give tax cuts to the rich.If they can harness that into a movement—one that gets people angry enough to show up at town halls, knock on doors, and vote—then history might just be repeating itself.Podcast Chapters & Timecodes* 00:00:00 – Introduction* 00:01:58 – The Tea Party's Legacy and Lessons for Democrats* 00:14:55 – Dan Bongino Becomes FBI's Second-in-Command* 00:19:15 – MSNBC's Prime-Time Shake-Up & Network Struggles* 00:22:58 – NYC Mayor Eric Adams' Re-Election Challenges* 00:26:27 – Interview with Brian Sack on Ukraine & DEI Policies* 01:05:28 – Wrap-Up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

We begin by discussing how Congress is proving that they have no interest in cutting spending.  The problem is that Trump doesn't realize the mutual exclusivity of his desire to cut inflation with his concurrent desire to cut noting but “waste, fraud, and abuse.” I explain how this is similar to the Obamacare fight of 2017.  This is why transactional gold is the only solution. We're joined by Kevin Freeman, author of Pirate Money and one of the leaders of the movement, for an amazing update on the transactional gold bills moving through the states. He believes some states beginning with Utah, Oklahoma, and Florida will adopt the plan this year. Kevin explains how marrying the gold rush with transactional and liquid currency is the perfect balance between the status quo of a bankrupt, inflationary dollar mixed with people buying non-functional bars of gold to be stored rather than spent.  This is the single most important movement of our time. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices