Podcast appearances and mentions of Robert Gallo

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 “

Virology vanguard Dr. Bob Gallo is far from ready to slow down. Now in his seventh decade as one of America's top scientists, he could easily sit back and enjoy the fruits of his numerous and pioneering achievements. His groundbreaking work began in the 1970s with research into human retroviruses, including the discovery of the T-cell growth factor (IL-2) and the identification of the Human T-Cell Lymphotropic Virus (HTLV-1) in 1980, earning him his first Lasker Award, often referred to as “America's Nobel Prize.” His subsequent research led to the identification of HIV-1 as the cause of AIDS, securing him a second Lasker Award. In the 1980s, he was the world's most cited scientist. Along with his team, he developed the first HIV blood test, crucial for understanding the spread of AIDS and managing HIV patients. In the mid 1990's Gallo and his collaborators discovered chemokines, naturally occurring compounds that were essential for understanding how HIV infects cells. Dr. Gallo later founded the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in 1996 and co-founded the Global Virus Network (GVN) in 2011 to enhance global virus detection and management. Recently, Dr. Gallo and his team moved to Tampa, the new global headquarters for GVN, where he now serves as director of the University of South Florida (USF) Virology Institute and Head of the Microbial Oncogenesis Program at the Cancer Institute at Tampa General Hospital (TGH).   In the first part of this wide-ranging interview, Dr. Gallo shares insights into his entry into virology and his initial research into the etiology of certain cancers. This work included crucial discoveries around T cell growth factors, paving the way for identifying HTLV-1. He discusses his collaboration with CDC epidemiologists, which led to recognizing AIDS as being caused by a retrovirus. Once the HIV virus was identified as the cause, creating the first blood test for HIV had profound impacts on the epidemic and patient care.   In the second segment, Dr. Gallo discusses the origins of the HIV virus and its early global spread. He also reflects on the COVID-19 pandemic, why the focus on its origins is irrelevant and reflects on how to rebuild public trust in science and medicine, which may have been damaged during the pandemic.   In the concluding segment, Dr. Gallo talks about his reasons for joining USF Health and TGH and the research areas he finds most promising going forward. He speculates on the prospects for an HIV vaccine, the impact of artificial intelligence on virology, and why he doesn't necessarily worry about the threat of the next global pandemic. Finally, Dr. Gallo opens up about how the early loss of his young sister deeply affected his life and his desired legacy. Dr Vega would like to thank her friend Job Meiller, her YES Man, for the wonderful musical contributions and coming through on every idea she has. This time he contributes his renditions of Bruce Springsteen's "Streets of Philadelphia" and "Your Song," by Elton John. Thank you Job! Thanks also to Dr. Ana Velez, our artistic contributor, for her painting, "HIV," used in our episode thumbnail.

On today's episode we're focusing on medial collateral ligament injuries with Dr. Brett Owens. We'll start off our discussion today with an article authored by our guest, Dr. Brett Owens, titled “The Epidemiology of Medial Collateral Ligament Sprains in Young Athletes” from the 2014 issue of AJSM.The authors performed a longitudinal cohort study of US military cadets and found that MCL injuries are relatively common in the athletic population. Male athletes are at significantly greater risk than females –of the 128 injuries in this study, 89% occurred in males. Intercollegiate athletes are also at greater risk than athletes participating in intramural sports. The incidence of MCL injury was highest in wrestling and hockey. In terms of time missed, the average amount of time was 23 days but this differed based on the grade of injury – with grade I sprains only missing a median of 13.5 days.Up next is a Current Concepts Review article from JBJS authored by Robert LaPrade and colleagues at the University of Minnesota. Some takeaways from this paper: First, the medial structures of the knee (including the superficial and deep MCL as well as the posterior oblique ligament) are the most commonly injured ligamentous structures of the knee. The majority of medial knee ligament tears are isolated injuries. Physical examination is the initial method of choice for diagnosis and includes application of a valgus load to the knee in both full extension as well as in 20 to 30 degrees of knee flexion. In terms of imaging, valgus stress radiographs and MRI are useful to confirm and grade the injury.We wrap up Part I with a discussion on the prevention of MCL injury and review an article from the August issue of OJSM this year titled “Prophylactic Knee Bracing in Offensive Lineman of the NFL – A Retrospective Analysis of Usage Trends, Player Performance and Major Knee Injury.” Dr. Robert Gallo and team at Penn State found that brace wears had a significantly lower rate of major knee injury, defined as an injury requiring time missed. The most common knee injury in nonbracers was an isolated MCL injury. There was no difference in player performance between bracers and nonbracers. Interestingly, despite this data, brace usage has steadily declined – from 16.3% in 2014 to 5.6% in 2020 – specifically at the rookie level.We are joined today by Dr. Brett Owens, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon at University Orthopaedics in Providence Rhode Island, who specializes in complex shoulder, knee and sports medicine. He is the Chief of Sports Medicine at the Miriam Hospital in Providence, RI and the Director of the Rhode Island Cartilage Repair Center. He is a Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at Brown University Alpert Medical School and is currently a Team Physician for Brown University and the Providence Bruins. Prior to joining University Orthopaedics, Dr. Owens served as the Chief of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine at Keller Army Hospital at West Point New York, where he cared for soldiers and cadets at the US Military Academy and was the Team Physician for Army lacrosse, rugby, and football teams. While deployed in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Dr. Owens served as Chief of Orthopedics at the 86th Combat Support Hospital. He has also served as Team Physician for US Lacrosse like Catherine! Needless to say, he is a very accomplished person and we are excited to have him join us today.

We're coming to you live from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons annual meeting in Las Vegas, our largest orthopaedic conference. This year, over 20,000 orthopedic professionals gathered at the AAOS meeting to take part. The educational program is comprised of instructional course lectures, video theater, live surgeries, podium presentations and research posters.Over the next several episodes we're going to be reviewing five sports medicine posters that were presented at the AAOS meeting. On this podcast we try to review the most updated literature on different sports medicine topics. So, reviewing some of the posters that were just presented at AAOS is particularly exciting for us because this is very new data. So new that most of this data has not even been published yet.We're joined by Dr. Brian Waterman to get his take on these poster presentations.Dr. Brian Waterman is a board-certified, orthopedic surgeon specializing in adult and pediatric sports medicine, cartilage restoration and joint preservation, complex knee surgery and shoulder and elbow care. He is the Chief of sports medicine at Wake Forest University and the Director of their sports medicine fellowship program. Dr. Waterman completed his orthopedic surgery residency at William Beaumont Army Medical Center and served 13 years in the U.S. Army, earning multiple honors including the Meritorious Service Medal and Army Commendation Medal.Dr. Waterman then went on to complete a sports medicine fellowship at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago. He is the team physician for Wake Forest University, the Winston-Salem Dash, U.S. Ski and Snowboard and several local high schools.Dr. Waterman is an associate editor for the Arthroscopy Journal and is on the Board of Directors for Arthroscopy Association of North America. Given his extensive experience with orthopedic research, Dr. Waterman led the sports medicine poster tour at AAOS this year, so we're looking forward to getting his unique perspective on these poster presentations.Featured Poster:Should NFL Offensive Linemen Use Prophylactic Knee Braces? A Retrospective Analysis of Usage Trends, Player Performance, and Major Knee Injury. Offensive linemen in American football are prone to high-energy valgus forces to the knee and associated ligament injuries.Use of prophylactic knee braces has been hypothesized to protect against these injuries but the evidence backing this up has been inconclusive at best.Robert Gallo and his colleagues at Penn State performed a prospective cohort study from 2014 to 2020, comparing NFL offensive lineman who chose to wear prophylactic knee braces to lineman who did not. They evaluated injury rates as well as performance metrics. Interestingly, the authors reported that from 2014 to 2020, the prevalence of knee brace usage declined linearly, from 16% in 2014 to 5% in 2020.

VIDEO: Descrizione in minuscolo ➜ https://rumble.com/embed/vq2l0hTESTO DELL'ARTICOLO ➜ www.bastabugie.it/it/articoli.php?id=7325MONTAGNIER, UNO DEI PIU' GRANDI VIROLOGI DEL XX SECOLO di Paolo GulisanoUn anno fa, l'8 febbraio 2022, si spegneva Luc Montagnier, uno dei più grandi virologi del XX secolo. Diresse il Centre national de la recherche scientifique, e l'Unità di Oncologia Virale dell'Istituto Pasteur di Parigi dove nel 1983 assieme a Françoise Barré scoprì il virus HIV: tale traguardo scientifico valse ai due il Premio Nobel per la medicina del 2008. Oltre a questo, produsse migliaia di pubblicazioni scientifiche.Nonostante questa straordinaria carriera, nel corso degli ultimi due anni lo scienziato francese venne pesantemente e spesso volgarmente colpito per aver espresso dubbi di carattere scientifico sulla gestione politica della pandemia. Venne trattato dai media mainstream come un povero vecchio che proponeva teorie complottiste. In realtà, il professore fin dagli inizi della crisi pandemica da Covid-19 studiò con attenzione vari suoi aspetti, tra cui i possibili effetti collaterali dei vaccini, la predominanza degli aspetti economici e di marketing su quelli sanitari, e la disponibilità di cure alternative più efficaci e meno costose.Nonostante i media gli avessero attaccato l'etichetta di "no vax", etichetta quantomeno ridicola perché per decenni si era dedicato alla ricerca di un vaccino per l'AIDS, e forse proprio per aver condotto a lungo questo tipo di ricerca, si era insospettito per la facilità con cui in 5-6 mesi erano stati prodotti questi farmaci genici. Nel corso di decenni, invece né Montagnier né altri valenti scienziati sono mai riusciti a realizzare un vaccino per quella che era stata definita "la peste del XX secolo". Ciò non è strano, dal momento che non sempre si riesce a realizzare un vaccino per una determinata malattia: altri esempi di fallimenti sono l'Epatite C o la tubercolosi.NON SONO VERI VACCINIAlla luce delle evidenze scientifiche Montagnier aveva messo in discussione le modalità con cui si era arrivati a questi prodotti, e inoltre contestò l'obbligatorietà del trattamento, sulla base della dichiarata mancanza di studi sperimentali che ne potessero garantire efficacia e sicurezza.Ebbe modo, inoltre di sottolineare - tra i primi - che non si era in presenza di veri vaccini, ma di «montaggi complicati di biologia molecolare, che possono arrivare anche ad essere pericolosi, oltre che inefficaci».Questo suo scetticismo nei confronti di quella che era la narrazione ufficiale sui vaccini, visti come l'unica soluzione al problema della pandemia, gli veniva dal suo essere uno scienziato autentico. Lo aveva applicato anche alle sue stesse scoperte: ebbe la volontà di rimetterle sempre in discussione, quando sarebbe stato molto più facile e gratificante cavalcare l'onda dell'industria farmaceutica e delle grandi autorità governative che volevano prendersene il merito, il credito per aver risolto il problema dell'AIDS vendendo farmaci specifici per l'HIV.Montagnier continuò per anni a studiare questa malattia, che non è mai stata risolta definitivamente. Ed è significativo il fatto che molte perplessità sul Covid siano state espresse proprio dai grandi scienziati che si sono dedicati in precedenza all'AIDS: Montagnier, Robert Gallo e Angus Dalgleish. Il virologo francese nella sua vita e nel suo lavoro sembra aver seguito un metodo di ricerca reso celebre da un suo famoso collega dell'inizio del secolo scorso, anch'egli Premio Nobel, Alexis Carrell, che aveva affermato che «molto ragionamento e poca osservazione portano all'errore; molta osservazione e poco ragionamento conducono alla verità».UNA GRANDE EREDITÀ INTELLETTUALELa verità fu la preoccupazione di tutta la sua vita, per questo rimetteva in discussione le sue scoperte dicendo «questa è una scoperta molto importante, ma facciamo in modo di sviscerarne tutti gli aspetti, senza cedere a grandi dichiarazioni e semplificazioni». Proprio perché continuò ad esercitare il suo scetticismo, per integrità personale, diventò motivo di imbarazzo per coloro che incassavano i profitti e la fama delle sue scoperte.Pochi giorni prima di morire, tenne un incontro pubblico in Italia, e lanciò un appello ai colleghi medici perché facessero fino in fondo il loro dovere: informarsi e ricercare, e scoprire che erano già disponibili dei farmaci attivi, in grado di portare a guarigione il malato Covid se utilizzati all'inizio dell'infezione. Parlò di «metodi alternativi per curare questa infezione che sono meno rischiosi e anche meno costosi per il sistema sanitario, e che permetterebbero di liberarci di questo virus».Lo scienziato francese non si occupò solo del virus, ma anche e soprattutto delle strategie che a livello internazionale erano state adottate per fronteggiarlo, strategie - a detta di Montagnier - del tutto inadeguate. Cercò di spiegare che non era il vaccino che poteva fermare l'epidemia, ma una combinazione di cure. Parlò anche dell'emergere di dati che documentavano degli effetti collaterali di tipo vascolare e neurologico molto importanti. Di lì a pochi giorni l'anziano scienziato si spense, lasciando una testimonianza che a distanza di un anno non può non apparire come profetica, e lasciando una grande eredità intellettuale che deve essere raccolta e sviluppata.

December is HIV/AIDS Awareness month. How far has treatment and prevention come? Why is there still no vaccine against HIV, when it was possible to develop a vaccine against COVID so quickly? What is it about the human immunodeficiency virus that has thwarted scientists for almost 40 years? For that, we turn to Dr. Robert Gallo, who the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and co-founded the Global Virus Network. Then, infections and hospitalizations for RSV - respiratory syncytial virus - caught hospital systems across the country off guard. A Maryland Department of Health dashboard tracking RSV shows hospitalizations climbed rapidly from September to October, soaring from the high thirties to a peak of 263. In the last week of November, hospitalizations were down to 76 children. We speak with Dr. Jason Custer, medical director of the pediatric intensive care unit at the University of Maryland Children's Hospital, and an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Robert Gaynes, distinguished physician and professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, joins Meet the Microbiologist for a unique episode, in which we share the story of Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, the French, female scientist who discovered HIV and found herself at the heart of one of the most bitter scientific disputes in recent history. Subscribe (free) on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Android, RSS or by email. Ashley's Biggest Takeaways The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report first reported on a cluster of unusual infections in June of 1981, which would become known as AIDS. Evidence suggested that the disease was sexually transmitted and could be transferred via contaminated blood supply and products, as well as contaminated needles, and could be passed from mother to child. All hemophiliacs of this generation acquired AIDS (15,000 in the U.S. alone). The fact that the microbe was small enough to evade filters used to screen the clotting factor given to hemophiliacs indicated that the etiologic agent was a virus. AIDS patients had low counts of T-lymphocytes called CD4 cells. By 1993, the most likely virus candidates included, a relative of hepatitis B virus, some kind of herpes virus or a retrovirus. Howard Temin discovered reverse transcriptase, working with Rous sarcoma in the 50s and 60s. His work upset the Central Dogma of Genetics, and at first people not only did not believe him, but also ridiculed him for this claim. Research conducted by David Baltimore validated Temin's work, and Temin, Baltimore and Renato Dulbecco shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery in 1975. Robert Gallo of the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH), discovered the first example of a human retrovirus—human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV-1). Françoise Barré-Sinoussi worked on murine retroviruses in a laboratory unit run by Luc Montagnier, where she became very good at isolating retroviruses from culture. In 1982, doctors gave lab Montagnier's lab a sample taken from a with generalized adenopathy, a syndrome that was a precursor to AIDS. Barré-Sinoussi began to detect evidence of reverse transcriptase in cell culture 2 days after the samples were brought to her lab. Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier were recognized for the discovery of HIV with the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Links for the Episode: From the ancient worlds of Hippocrates and Avicenna to the early 20th century hospitals of Paul Ehrlich and Lillian Wald to the modern-day laboratories of François Barré-Sinoussi and Barry Marshall, Germ Theory brings to life the inspiring stories of medical pioneers whose work helped change the very fabric of our understanding of how we think about and treat infectious diseases. Germ Theory: Medical Pioneers in Infectious Diseases The second edition of Germ Theory, which will include chapters on Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, Barry Marshall and Tony Fauci, will publish in Spring 2023.

In this episode of Truthiverse I jumped into the snake venom controversy (initiated by Dr Bryan Ardis) with Dawn Lester, co-author of What Really Makes You Ill? Dawn and I ask: Is Remdesevir made of snake venom? Does it contain it? Would it matter if snake venom been dumped in the public water supply? Does any of this have anything to do with symptoms grouped under the “covid” banner? Is Ardis on the right track or not? Is the whole thing a distraction? This turned into a sweeping conversation that went far beyond the snake venom conjecture. We also discussed the depopulation lobby's attack on the people of Africa, the WHO's interest in spruiking antivenom in Africa, the bogus HIV theory of Robert Gallo and his lack of evidence (Luc Montagnier too), AZT, common childhood “diseases,” the fallacy of infectious viruses, living conditions in the role of disease, the broken peer review system in medicine, snake symbolism, the covid illusion, and more. In researching for their monumental book over 10 years, wherever Dawn and her co-author David Parker looked for evidence to support Germ Theory and Establishment fear-mongering around "pandemics", they found only the opposite: nothing was as we have been led to believe. Perhaps more than anyone else, it is doctors and medical personnel in general who need to hear conversations like this so we can provide appropriate health interventions based on a more accurate understanding of what causes symptoms in the first place...because it clearly isn't “viruses.” Special Guest: Dawn Lester.

Heute vor 85 Jahren wurde der Entdecker des AIDS-Virus, der Virenforscher Robert Gallo geboren.

Famed AIDS Researcher Dr. Robert Gallo, co-discoverer of the HIV virus, which led to the first tests and treatments for AIDS. He is Director of the Institute for Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and Co-founder of the Global Virus Network, a consortium of research centers of excellence in 66 countries around the world, a nongovernmental agency collaborating on emerging virus research. Dr. Gallo says their network of scientists knew early in the COVID-19 pandemic that the mRNA vaccines would be effective, but for a limited time, and that boosters will be required until the global outbreak is brought under control. He says it's too soon to predict the full impact of the omicron variant, but that it is likely to overwhelm many countries. Find all of our network podcasts on your favorite podcast platforms and be sure to subscribe and like us. Learn more at www.healthcarenowradio.com/listen/

This week, hosts Mark Masselli and Margaret Flinter welcome famed AIDS Researcher Dr. Robert Gallo, co-discoverer of the HIV virus, which led to the first tests and treatments for AIDS. He is Director of the Institute for Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and Co-founder of the Global Virus Network, a consortium of research centers of excellence in 66 countries around the world, a nongovernmental agency collaborating on emerging virus research. Dr. Gallo says their network... Read More Read More The post Robert Gallo, Scientist Who Co-Discovered HIV Offers Guidance to Patients as Omicron Increases appeared first on Healthy Communities Online.

Dr. Marc Siegel talks to the Co-founder & Director of the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and Co-founder for the Global Virus Network, Dr. Robert Gallo,  as well as the President of the Global Virus Network, Dr. Christian Brechot, about COVID-19 Origin, Immunity, Vaccines, and Variants.  And, Dr. Gallo offers some insight into his role in discovering HIV, as well as pioneering the development of the HIV blood test.

What has COVID-19 taught us about preparing for future epidemics? Can we trigger innate immune responses – our first lines of defense - to mitigate novel infections? Can we use live-attenuated vaccines (LAV) meant for other infections to protect us while we develop specific vaccines for new pathogens? On this episode, we talk to virologists Konstantin Chumakov and Robert Gallo about their recent paper entitled “Old vaccines for new infections”. They and their colleagues argue that we can fight novel pathogens, like SARS-COV2, by stimulating our innate immune systems with live-attenuated vaccines developed for other pathogens (e.g., measles, rubella, polio). Such an approach might buy us time, particularly for front-line health workers or the most vulnerable among us, while pathogen-specific vaccines are developed. Many LAVs are cheap, easy to distribute, and already available where SARS-COV2 is common but its vaccine is not. We talked with Chumakov and Gallo about the prospects of using the LAV approach for future pandemics, why we didn't use them to control COVID, and the possible mechanisms by which these old vaccines wield their surprising power. Image: Number of people fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of June 16, 2021 (collated by Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus). Total number of people who received all doses prescribed by the vaccination protocol. This data is only available for countries which report the breakdown of doses administered by first and second doses. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/bigbiology/message

Greetings Glocal Citizens! This week my guest is a social entrepreneur that is on the cutting edge of solving for some of our most pressing global challenges. In this timely conversation I meet with Jaykumar Menon, an international human rights lawyer plying his craft at the intersection of human rights and global health. He is a founder of the Open Source Pharma Foundation (https://www.opensourcepharma.net/), which aims to create a new paradigm for drug discovery, and generate affordable new cures in areas of great health need. He is also a founder of The India Nutrition Initiative, which is developing “DFS”, a salt that is double-fortified with iron and iodine, to address malnutrition caused by iron deficiency. DFS has reached millions of people. In his work as a lawyer, he has represented the student leaders of Tiananmen Square, victims of the Bosnian genocide, freed a man from death row, and helped free an innocent man serving life for murder as the fifteenth lawyer to take up the case. He is a recipient of the Brown Alumni Association’s highest honor, given to one graduate per year. A Visiting Scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health, a Senior Fellow at the Harvard Global Health Institute, and a Research Fellow at the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law at McGill University. Jaykumar holds a JD and a Master of International Affairs from Columbia University and a BA from Brown University. I am sure this discussion will be plenty of food for thought and practice; I encourage you to read on, visit and get involved with this pioneering work! Where to find Jaykumar: www.ospfound.org (https://www.ospfound.org/) On LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaykumar-menon-5709a/) On Twitter (https://twitter.com/jaykumar_menon?lang=en) On Facbook (https://www.facebook.com/opensourcepharma/) What's Jaykumar reading? The Stoics (https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/the-great-philosophers-the-stoics/) and Marcus Aurelius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius) Joan Dideon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Didion) Ernest Hemingway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway) Sherwood Anderson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_Anderson) Tom Wolfe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wolfe) Bruce Chatwin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Chatwin) Arundhati Roy (https://www.amazon.com/Arundhati-Roy/e/B000AP7ZT4) Other topics of interest: XPRIZE Foundation (https://www.xprize.org/) Dr. Robert Gallo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gallo) March of Dimes (https://www.marchofdimes.org/mission/who-we-are.aspx) University of Trans-Disciplinary Health Sciences and Technology (https://tdu.edu.in/) The Institute of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine (I-AIM) (https://www.iaimhealthcare.org/) 8 Limbs of Yoga (https://liforme.com/blogs/blog/8-limbs-yoga-explained) The Five Tibetan Rites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Tibetan_Rites) Special Guest: Jaykumar Menon.

2021-01-26 / Dr. Robert Gallo is an experienced scientist who has made groundbreaking discoveries since the Nixon era. Robert Gallo began his career by fighting the established orthodoxy to prove that retroviruses exist in humans, and he was the first to identify a human retrovirus – human T cell leukemia virus, the only virus known to cause leukemia. This paved the way to his most notorious accomplishment: the discovery that HIV was the cause of AIDS, and the further development of HIV blood test. Gallo, who is the director of the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, continues to search for answers to the mysteries that have vexed him for decades – he now oversees several ongoing studies, including a promising HIV vaccine trial in humans. Dr. Robert Gallo was joined by three panelists: Prof, Anders Vahlne, Prof. Jan Lötvall and Assoc. Prof Peter Horal. Vill du stötta vårt arbete? Du kan bli medlem i Vetenskapsforum Covid-19 här: vetcov19.se/bli-medlem/ Du kan även donera till vårt arbete: vetcov19.se/donera/

The final day of Death by DVD's exploration into the death of slasher films with Trick Or Treats (1982) & Hollow Gate (1988) discussed

Rien n’est plus angoissant qu’un mal qui arrive sans raison. Dans cet épisode, Gaël et Geoffroy reviennent sur l’une des plus tragiques catastrophes médicales de notre temps et retracent les multiples théories qui ont germé depuis son apparition. Fabrication secrète de la CIA dans un but génocidaire envers des minorités ciblées, mensonge des puissantes industries pharmaceutiques, accident sanitaire inavoué, le sida est le virus qui a tracé la voie à toutes les théories du complot qui accompagnent désormais l’éruption de chaque nouvelle épidémie. Musique : Thibaud R. Habillage sonore / mixage: Alexandre Lechaux Contact: tousparano@gmail.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Tous-Parano-106178481205195/

A safe, effective vaccine against Covid-19 could resurrect jobs, send kids back to classrooms--change our lives. But how safe and effective? And how quickly can we have it? Dr. Robert Gallo, the AIDS-research pioneer now leading virus science at the University of Maryland----argues we could get much of the benefit by inoculating people with an old, very cheap drug--the oral polio vaccine developed seven decades ago. Gallo contends it would trigger our ‘innate immunity’--the body’s emergency response when a threat shows up.

The title of this episode was inspired by Dr. Robert Gallo talking about the prospects of a COVID-19 vaccine during an episode of the Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper Rolling Stone podcast Useful Idiots.

Leading biomedical researcher Dr. Robert Gallo shares his thoughts on the various theories for potential covid-19 vaccines. Matt and Katie caution against overconfidence by the left heading into the presidential election. Katie decries a 'Sharkaganda' story from Australia

TESTO DELL'ARTICOLO ➜http://www.bastabugie.it/it/articoli.php?id=6226CORONAVIRUS: IL PERICOLO DI UN VACCINO SENZA SPERIMENTAZIONI di Paolo GulisanoIl noto scienziato americano Anthony Fauci lo ha annunciato due giorni fa: un vaccino per il coronavirus dovrebbe essere pronto "entro il prossimo anno, anno e mezzo". Lo riportano i media Usa. L'immunologo ha riferito di aver avuto rassicurazioni dalle aziende produttrici che saranno in grado di realizzare sino ad un miliardo di dosi, consentendo di distribuirlo in tutto il mondo.In Europa tuttavia c'è ancora più urgenza: negli scorsi giorni l'Agenzia europea del farmaco ha dato delle anticipazioni sulla ricerca in atto in Inghilterra, che sarebbe a buon punto. "Il vaccino funziona", è stato annunciato. "L'obiettivo è distribuirlo senza sperimentazione". Ovvero ottenendo dall'Unione Europea un'autorizzazione speciale per poter mettere in commercio un vaccino fin dal prossimo inverno. Si tratta quindi di forzare tutte le normali procedure attraverso le quali si arriva all'approvazione di un farmaco. Si tratta di saltare tutta una serie di passaggi tecnici ritenuti normalmente indispensabili.Quello dell'agenzia europea appare come un atteggiamento quantomeno strano: tutti ricordano come si sono comportate alcune agenzie nazionali (tra cui l'italiana Aifa) nei confronti dei farmaci anti-Covid: un'intransigenza assoluta, per esempio nel caso della Clorochina o della terapia con il plasma, con richieste di studi, di trials clinici, di prove incontrovertibili di efficacia. Nel caso del vaccino invece si richiede di trascurare fondamentali passaggi, di introdurre un farmaco privo delle necessarie sperimentazioni, che normalmente richiedono tempo, mesi, anni.FARE IN FRETTA È LA SCELTA SBAGLIATAPer il vaccino anti Covid la parola d'ordine è una e netta: fare in fretta. Non a caso tra gli addetti ai lavori si parla di "corsa al vaccino". Ma in Medicina, come in altre scienze, la fretta è un atteggiamento anti-scientifico. Questa fretta viene giustificata dallo stato di emergenza, ma ormai è chiaro che i vari focolai epidemici hanno un decorso tipico, che porta in conclusione all'azzeramento dei morti e dei contagi. Ma è in corso - lo sappiamo bene - una fortissima campagna propagandistica tendente a mantenere uno stato di paura del ritorno del virus. Per questo, si dice, bisognerebbe fare in fretta a trovare il vaccino, trascurando tutte le altre ipotesi terapeutiche che pure vengono sostenute da vari scienziati.Solo pochi giorni fa abbiamo presentato l'interessante tesi del professor Robert Gallo, uno dei più grandi virologi al mondo, che sembra essere totalmente ignorata. Ormai sembra tutto scritto e deciso: si deve arrivare al vaccino anti Covid. Una scelta che lascia molto perplessi. E i dubbi sono di ricercatori e di scienziati, non di sedicenti "No Vax". Questo termine, tra l'altro, sta diventando una categoria ideologica con cui screditare a priori coloro che si pongono dele domande sull'efficacia e sulla sicurezza delle vaccinazioni. Una parola magica, come "fascista" o "razzista".In realtà anche molti ricercatori impegnati nello sviluppo di vaccini vogliono proteggere i pazienti, senza però innescare un fenomeno immunologico che è noto da tempo e che in seguito alla vaccinazione potrebbe esacerbare la malattia invece di combatterla. Questo serio e grave problema, di cui né Fauci né tantomeno gli eurocrati impazienti di avere un vaccino parlano, si chiama ADE.GRAVISSIMI DANNI ALL'ORGANISMOSe alcuni degli anticorpi prodotti dall'organismo in risposta alla vaccinazione non si legano abbastanza bene al virus - o non sono presenti nella giusta concentrazione - possono "aggrapparsi" a esso ed esacerbare la malattia tramite un processo noto come potenziamento dipendente da anticorpi (antibody-dependent enhancement, ADE).Nell'ADE, che tra l'altro era l'antica divinità greca degli Inferi, i virus rivestiti di anticorpi ottengono un ingresso tramite i recettori anticorpali sui macrofagi e su altre componenti delle difese immunitarie, neutralizzando le cellule stesse che avrebbero invece eliminato quei virus. In alcuni casi, inoltre, questo processo può innescare una forte reazione infiammatoria, che come abbiamo visto negli scorsi mesi, grazie ai reperti delle autopsie, è estremamente pericolosa perché può innescare fenomeni di vasculite e di tromboembolie diffuse.Tramite l'ADE il virus può avviare una sovrapproduzione di proteine di segnalazione infiammatoria chiamate citochine, portando a "tempeste di citochine" che possono promuovere la sindrome da distress respiratorio acuto e danneggiare il tessuto polmonare. Quindi, non basta che un vaccino possa indurre la produzione di anticorpi, ma si deve trattare di anticorpi "giusti", e per arrivare a questo obiettivo ci vuole molto tempo e molta prudenza.Al contrario, un vaccino che determinasse l'ADE porterebbe a danni anche gravissimi all'organismo. L'ADE è già emerso come un problema anche per altri vaccini.Ci sono ormai chiare evidenze che il Covid-19 è un virus neurotrofico, cioè che svolge un'azione sul sistema nervoso centrale. Se un vaccino venisse realizzato senza criteri di assoluta sicurezza, i meccanismi che abbiamo sopra descritto potrebbero portare a danni cerebrali in un numero imprecisato di persone. Un vero disastro umanitario.Ma se nonostante tutto un vaccino del genere fosse messo in commercio, e la gente decidesse di sottoporvisi, spinta dalla paura di dover prendere una polmonite da Coronavirus - peraltro curabile con molti tipi di terapie - ritenendola preferibile ad una encefalopatia, crediamo che tuttavia questa scelta debba essere libera e personale, e non obbligatoria e coercitiva.

We firstly speak to Dr. Robert Gallo, co-founder of the Global Virus Network, director of the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He discusses the similarities between HIV and the coronavirus and why it always meant ‘herd immunity’ would be a futile endeavor, why the Oxford Covid-19 vaccine is promising compared to other vaccines, the importance of a vaccine focusing on the T-cell instead of the spike, why a Polio vaccine could massively reduce coronavirus mortality rates as we search for a specific coronavirus vaccine and more! Next, we speak to consultant editor of the Daily Mail Andrew Pierce about the newly-released Russia Report in the UK. He discusses how the report didn’t live up to many people’s expectations regarding Russian influence in the Brexit referendum, why the report was suppressed and wasn’t released earlier, why the new committee chairman, Julian Lewis, may aim to be a thorn in the side of Boris Johnson, allegations by the UK press that Jeremy Corbyn was Russia’s ‘useful idiot’ and why it was ultimately proven false, the Conservative Party voting down an amendment to protect the NHS from being up for sale in a US trade deal, worsening UK-China relations and more! Finally, Going Underground’s social media producer, Farhaan Ahmed, speaks to fashion icon and activist Vivienne Westwood about the persecution of Julian Assange by the US, which seeks to extradite and jail the WikiLeaks founder for 175 years. She discusses her stunt outside the Old Bailey, where she got into a giant bird cage in support of Julian Assange, what it means and allegations that Assange is a Russian agent.

Dr. Hayes interviews Dr. Mayer on his training at NCI and running DFCI’s fellowship.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories-- The Art of Oncology, brought to you by the ASCO podcast network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the role of cancer care. You can find all of these shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. Today, my guest on this podcast is Dr. Robert J. Mayer. Dr. Mayer is the Stephen B. Kay Family Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School where he is also the Faculty Associate Dean of Admissions, in addition, the faculty Vice President for Academic Affairs for Medical Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Dr. Mayer was raised in Jamaica, New York. And, Bob, I always thought you were raised in Brooklyn, but I looked it up on the map. And it looks like Jamaica is about two blocks in the middle of Brooklyn. So we'll say you're from Jamaica. Actually, I was a little bit to the east of there in Nassau County. That counted a lot then, Queens versus Nassau, but anyway. So it gets even more esoteric. Bob received his undergraduate degree in 1965 from Williams College, which is way out west in Massachusetts, and then went to Harvard where he got his MD in 1969. He did his residency in internal medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City and then was a clinical associate in the medicine branch of the National Cancer Institute from 1971 to 1974. He served a fellowship in medical oncology at what was then the Sidney Farber Cancer Institute. And then he joined the faculty in 1975. He has spent much of his career at leading clinical research in leukemia and GI malignancies. He was the chair of the CALGB, now called the Alliance TI Cancer Committee for years. But, perhaps more importantly, he was director of the fellowship program at, originally, the Sidney Farber and then the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute for 36 years. And then he was also head of the fellowship program at the Dana-Farber/Partners cancer program from 1995 until 2011. And, frankly, he was my fellowship director from 1982 to 1985. So I owe a great part of my career to Dr. Mayer. He's co-authored over 400 peer-reviewed papers and another 130 chapters and reviews. He serves as associate editor for both the Journal of Clinical Oncology and The New England Journal of Medicine. And, as have many guests on this program, he served as president of ASCO, in his case, in 1997, 1998. And he received the ASCO Distinguished Achievement Award in 2019 for his ongoing leadership in our society. Dr. Mayer, welcome to our program. Pleasure to be with you, Dan. So I have a lot of questions. And, again, I usually do this, you know, two guys in a cab. How did you do that in the first place? What got you interested in oncology coming out of Williams and at Harvard? And, at that time, there wasn't much in oncology. What made you want to take care of cancer patients? Well, I was a third-year medical student at Harvard sort of sleepwalking through the curriculum, undecided what my life was going to be, planning to go back to New York, and I came across an attending physician on a pediatrics rotation, a hematologist by the name of David Nathan. And we hit it off. And I became really interested in blood cells and how looking at smears and bone marrow morphology could tell you a lot about the status and health and nutrition of individual patients. Nathan took a shine to me. And, when I was a fourth-year student and was going to face probably a military service, and there were military actions going on in Southeast Asia, he called me to his home one night and shoved a whole pile of paper in front of me, said fill this out. I want it back tomorrow. And this was an application to be a clinical associate at the National Cancer Institute where he had spent several years I guess a decade before. So I did what I was told. And, when I was a intern, I guess my first day as an intern, I got an overhead page from the-- in the hospital, call from Bethesda informing me that I had been accepted. I had had 10 or 11 interviews. One of them turned out to be a person who would be important in my life as a friend and a mentor, George Canellos, who was first time I met him. And, in 1971, I found myself at the NIH. That's quite a story. And Dr. Nathan, of course, went on to start the Jimmy Fund, probably had already started the Jimmy Fund Clinic at the time, and became the CEO, I think, of Children's Hospital in Boston. He became the CEO of Dana-Farber actually. I do want to just recollect with you my first day or two in Bethesda because some of the people who found themselves there took it more seriously than others. And I was assigned to the medicine branch. And the medicine branch had a chief who was a breast cancer-oriented investigator by the name of Paul Carbone who went on from there to an illustrious career as the founding head of the Cancer Center at the University of Wisconsin and the leader of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. And Paul, at that point, the first day I met him, told us that, if we messed around, moonlighted, didn't show up, we'd be on a Coast Guard Cutter as fast as he could do the paperwork because, technically, we had a position in the Public Health Service. Under Carbone, there were two branches. One was leukemia, and that was headed by Ed Henderson. He was a lanky guy from California, a wonderful man, went on to a career with Cancer and Leukemia Group B and with the Roswell Park in Buffalo for many years. And he was my branch chief. And the other branch was solid tumors. They weren't solid tumors like we think of them today. They were lymphomas. And that was headed by Vince DeVita and had Bob Young, George Canellos, Bruce Chabner, and Phil Schein, all illustrious founders of so much that has become oncology. So that was the setting. And the last thing I'll mention was about this. I came there as a trained internist, but I was assigned to pediatric leukemia. And I learned very quickly that what separated the wheat from the chaff, in terms of families, parents thinking that you were a good doctor, was your ability to maintain the 25 gauge scalp vein as venous access in these children because there were no port-a-caths, no Hickman lines, and, obviously, access was something that was critically important. You know, I think everybody who is listening to this needs to understand that what you just described started out really with just Gordon Zubrod who then brought in Frei, Holland-- or Holland first and then Freireich. And then they brought in the next group, which I believe you would agree is Canellos, DeVita, Bob Young, and others. And then you were sort of in the third wave. And you could just see it began to expand the whole field of oncology really just from a few people going out. Do you agree with that? I do. I do. When I came to the NIH in 1971, there was no defined, certified subspecialty of medical oncology. The first time the medical oncology board examination was given was in 1973. It was given every other year. I was in the group that took it the second time in 1975, but this really wasn't a subspecialty. In 1973 also was the time that the first comprehensive multi-authored textbook on medical oncology was published by Jim Holland and Tom Frei, Cancer Medicine. And I remember devouring that as I prepared for the board examination, but there was no book like that. There was no reference, no UpToDate, no computer to surf the web and find information. And so this was all brand new. It was quite exciting to be there as part of the action. You sort of jumped ahead on what I wanted to ask you, but I'm interested in the establishment of medical oncology as a subspecialty. Can you maybe talk about Dr. BJ Kennedy and his role in that? I think he was pretty instrumental. Was he not? BJ was at the University of Minnesota. He was an extraordinarily decent man. And, somehow, the internal medicine establishment viewed him as a peer and a colleague, which I would have to say was not what they considered many of the pioneers, if you will, in medical oncology. I can remember, in my second or third year at the NIH, traveling around the country to look at fellowship programs. And I was always being met by senior established hematologists who arched their eyebrows and said now where's the pathophysiology. Where is the science here? They really thought that the animal models, the mouse models, the Southern Research Institute that Gordon Zubrod had been such a pioneer in fostering was pseudoscience. I can also remember, when I found myself back in Boston, the establishment of Harvard Medical School didn't initially take oncology very seriously, but there were patients. And there was optimism. And all of us in that generation really believed that we could make a difference, and we could learn a lot and do good for patients and for medicine. And I think we have. So, in my opinion, now, appropriately, our fellows have a very strict curriculum of what they're supposed to learn and how and when and why laid out, again, in a pretty rigorous formal manner. You told me before, at the NCI, it was just sort of learn it. It's up to you. Can you talk about that training? And then, when you went to the Sidney Farber, you then turned that into a training program. The medicine branch was fantastic training, but it was learning from taking care of patients and from your colleagues. The quality of my peers was extraordinary, but there was no formal curriculum. The faculty there each were doing research, the members of the faculty. And, for a month, they would come out of their cave, if you will, their laboratory, and they were very smart and were doing fascinating things, but they didn't have long-term patients. Or there was no real process. And the NCI was sort of like a Veterans Administration hospital in the sense that it opened around 7:30 or 8:00 in the morning, closed at 5:00 or 6:00 in the afternoon. One of us would be on call at night with a couple of nurses, but it was rather primitive in its support mechanisms. We were assigned a group of patients. And then, on rotation, those patient numbers would increase. And we were expected to do everything conceivable for that patient. And, at that time, the oncology care offered in Bethesda at the NIH or the NCI was free. It was paid for by the government. And much similar care was not available in other places. So I would have patients flying in from Omaha and New York or Norfolk or Tampa, Florida. And they would be housed in a motel that was on the edge of the NIH reservation, but, if one wants to talk about continuity of care, you knew everything about every one of those patients because you were the only person who knew them. So what were the circumstances then that you ended up in Boston? Well, that's an interesting story because it gets back to David Nathan. I was working after my clinical year in a basic laboratory as I could find. It was run by Robert Gallo, Bob Gallo, who was one of the co-discoverers years later of the HIV virus. But, one day, I got a phone call from Dr. Nathan's secretary saying that he was going to be in Washington a week from Tuesday or whatever. And he wanted to meet with me in the garden of the Mayflower Hotel. OK, fine. So I trotted over to the Mayflower Hotel, and there was Dr. Nathan. And he said, you know, Dr. Farber is getting old, but there's a new building. And there's going to be a cancer center. And he's just recruited Tom Frei to come from MD Anderson. And it's time for you to come back to Boston. Didn't say would you like to come back, would you think about coming. No, he, just applied to the NIH, shoved the papers. Here, it's time for you to come back to Boston. So, a few Saturdays after, I flew up to Boston. And, in that interim, Dr. Farber passed away. He had a heart attack, an MI. And there was Tom Frei who I met for the first time, made rounds with him. We hit it off. And he told me that he would like me to spend one year as a fellow and then join the faculty and become an assistant professor. Well, I didn't need a plane to fly back to Washington. I thought this was tremendous because I was looking at hematology scholarships around the country. And there was no career path. And this seemed to be a career path in a field that I was really interested in. And he talked to me really about coming back to do leukemia because that's what I had been doing at the NIH. And, a year later, I found myself, July 1, 1974, being part of the second fellowship class at what's now Dana-Farber. There were six of us. There were six the year before. We were piecing it together step by step. There, again, was nothing chiseled in marble. There was no tradition. This was try to make it work and learn from what works. And, what doesn't work, we'll change. You must have had a lot of insecurity coming into a program that really had just started. There had to be chaos involved in that. Well, there was a little chaos, but, to be honest, I was really engaged in it because it was exciting. I thought that oncology, as I still do, is this marvelous specialty or subspecialty that unites science and humanism. And, because other people weren't interested or maybe weren't capable of providing what we thought was the right level of care, to be able to sort of write the playbook was a terrific opportunity. We sort of-- and it extended into the year that you were a fellow as well-- followed the medicine branch mantra in the sense that we assigned fellows patients. And they took care of those patients and were expected to do everything that was necessary for them. There weren't rotations at that time that you would spend a month on the breast cancer service and then a month doing lymphoma. You would see new patients or follow-up patients. We didn't really have enough patients or enough faculty at that point to be smart enough to think about that being a better way or an alternative way to structure a trainee's time. I remember, at the end of my first year, when I finished that year as what I think Tom Frei called a special fellow, I was the attending on the next day, which was July 1. And I remember that a fellow, a first-year fellow who was just starting, Bob Comis who became also the chairman of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group years later, a marvelous lung cancer investigator, was the trainee. And, on that day, we went ahead and did a bone marrow on a patient with small cell lung cancer and being a fellowship director just started because there was no one doing it. And Frei said please move ahead. I have to say, when I started in 1982, I just assumed this was the way everybody in the country was training fellows in oncology. It really didn't occur to me that that was only a few years old and the way you had set it up. A few years ago, the Dana-Farber had a banquet to celebrate the 48-year career of a guy named Robert J. Mayer. And I was asked to speak. And I got up. There were over 300 people in the audience, all of whom had been trained there. And, as I looked around, I sort of put my prepared words aside and said look at the people sitting next to you. They are either former or to be presidents of ASCO, ACR. They're cancer center directors, department chairs, division chiefs, and a bunch of really terrifically trained oncologists all due to one guy, and you're the one. So you started with Bob Comis-- I've never heard you tell that story-- to really training some of the greatest oncologists in the world in my opinion, myself excluded in that regard, but, nonetheless, you must be quite proud of that. Well, yes, but I want to flip it around the other way because, for me, this became a career highlight, the opportunity to shape the patterns, to make the people who trained here leaders, and to have them-- right now, the director of the NCI is a Dana-Farber alumnus. To have people who are of that quality-- and you certainly represent that, as an ASCO president and one of the hallmark leaders of the breast cancer community-- this is what a place like Dana-Farber and Harvard Medical School, hopefully, not too much arrogance, is supposed to be doing. And to have that opportunity, to be able to fill a vacancy that nobody even appreciated was a vacancy, and then to develop it over enough time that one could really see what worked and see what didn't work is an opportunity that most people don't have. And I'm so grateful for it. Now, Bob, I want to just, in the last few minutes here, you've obviously been a major player in ASCO. Can you kind of reflect over the last 25 years since you were ASCO president, the changes you've seen, and what you think of your legacy? I know you don't like to brag too much, but I think there's a reason you got the Distinguished Service Award. And can you just reminisce a bit about what's happened and then where you think we're going as a field? Well, ASCO has been my professional organization. The first meeting I went to was in a hotel ballroom in Houston, the Rice Hotel, which doesn't exist anymore. And it was a joint meeting of ACR and ASCO in 1974. There were 250 people. And everybody was congratulating each other at the large number of attendees. I had the opportunity, in large part because of Tom Frei and George Canellos and other people, to become involved in picking abstracts for leukemia presentations, being part of the training committee, and then chairing the training committee. I actually had the opportunity to be one of the four people who started the awards program, which now has the Young Investigator Award and Career Development Award and things of that sort. These are just opportunities because they weren't there before. And, if you're willing, and you put in the time, I guess people come back to you and give you the chance to do these things. I became then involved in the JCO, the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I became involved in the debate about physician-assisted suicide and palliative care that led to some very educational debates and probably spawned the field, to some degree, of palliative care. I had the opportunity to be at the forefront of starting the Leadership Development Program that was really Allen Lichter's idea, but I was able to devote the time to make that happen. And, most recently, I've been on the Conquer Cancer Foundation now for almost two decades. And watching that grow has been a joy. ASCO, when I came, was a very small trade organization, if you will, didn't quite know the questions to ask, had a hired office, a management office, that was based in Chicago, came to Alexandria in about 1994 or somewhere in that range with its own office and its own staff, and now is the world organization for oncology. And I think that that growth, that expansion, that international, multidisciplinary pattern, if you will, is a reflection of the growth of oncology in medicine. I have to say, if you take a look at the popularity poll of what the best and the brightest young physicians choose in their careers, when I was in training and, Dan, when you were in training, most went into cardiology. Maybe some went into GI. Now there are more people going into oncology than any other medical subspecialty. Maybe that'll change after COVID, but that's the way it's been. And our hospitals now are filled with cancer patients, and those hospitals are very dependent on the care that we provide cancer patients. I guess the other thing I would say is, looking from a guy with some hair left, although gray, but looking at it from afar, all of those high-dose chemotherapy programs, the notion of dose, of cell poisons, alkylating agents, the solid tumor autologous marrow programs that were so fashionable in the 1980s, have been, in large part, replaced by such elegant, targeted therapy, now immunotherapy, circulating DNA. Who would have thunk any of that when I was taking care of those children with leukemia 45 years ago? So I think this is such an exciting field. I'm so-- continue to be so pleased and proud of the quality of the trainees. Last night, we had a virtual graduation session for the people completing their fellowship here. And I hate to say it. They're as good as ever. And, if we thought and, Dan, if you thought your colleagues that you all and we all were the best, they're all phenomenal. And it's really a reflection on how the pioneers in this field had a vision, how the need for science to understand cancer was so important, and how medicine has changed and how oncology now is a respected and acknowledged discipline of scholarly work. Well, you had two things that I'm fond of commenting on. One of those is I frequently say publicly I wish I was 30 years younger for a lot of reasons, but because of the scientific excitement that's going into oncology and, also, so that I could run the way I used to, but I can't. That's one. The second is I don't think I would choose me to be a fellow. I'm really intimidated when I do interviews with our residents and say, you know, I wasn't nearly in that kind of category of the people we're interviewing now, which is great. I think our field is in good hands, going to move forward, and things are going. Bob, we've talked about a lot of your contributions to training and education, but you've also had a major influence on the way patients with leukemia are treated. Can you talk more about where the 7 and 3 regimen came from? The 7 and 3 or 3 and 7 regimen-- 3 days of an anthracycline, 7 days of continuous infusional cytosine arabinoside, was developed in the early 1970s. And it was developed by Jim Holland, more than anyone else, when he was at Roswell Park. And it emerged from a series of randomized, phase III trials conducted by what was then called the Acute Leukemia Group B, what became CALGB and then the Alliance. In the early 1980s, the late Clara Bloomfield, who I considered a giant in the world of leukemia, invited me to write a review of the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia for seminars in oncology that she was editing. And, in preparing that, I started reading a series of manuscripts published in the early 1970s, which meticulously, step by step, examined the value of two versus three days of anthracycline subq versus IV push versus infusional cytosine arabinoside, 3 days, 5 days, 7 days, 10 days of infusional cytosine arabinoside. And this was all really work of Jim Holland. He was a magnificent scholar, a humanist, and a tremendous booster too and giant in the start of this field. Thank you. I agree. Bob, we've run out of time, but I want to just thank you for taking time today to speak to me and our listeners, but also thank you for what I consider the many contributions you've made, both scientifically-- we didn't really even get into that, your work on leukemia and GI-- but I think, more importantly, establishing a training program that's been the model for, probably worldwide, how to train people in oncology and the contributions you've made to ASCO. So, for all that, I and everybody else are very appreciative. Thanks a lot. My pleasure. It's a pleasure to be here with you. Until next time, thank you for listening to this JCO's Cancer Stories-- The Art of Oncology podcast. If you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. While you're there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. JCO's Cancer Stories-- The Art of Oncology podcast is just one of ASCO's many podcasts. You can find all the shows at podcast.asco.org.

The COVID-19 pandemic has scientists considering a few less-conventional options while vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are being developed. One option might be the oral polio vaccine. We chatted with one of the researchers proposing the idea—Dr. Robert Gallo—to understand why a vaccine that hasn’t been used in the US for two decades might provide short-term protection against this coronavirus.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Robert Gallo, MD, the Homer & Martha Gudelsky Distinguished Professor in Medicine, co-founder and director of the Institute Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and co-founder and international scientific adviser of the Global Virus Network.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Robert Gallo, MD, the Homer & Martha Gudelsky Distinguished Professor in Medicine, co-founder and director of the Institute Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and co-founder and international scientific adviser of the Global Virus Network.What would you think if someone told you that we already have a vaccine that at least helps fight Covid-19? That may already be the case. Two American scientists, Dr. Robert Gallo and Dr. Konstantin Chumakov, are positing that decades-old live vaccines for things like polio and tuberculosis strengthen the immune system’s first line of defense a more general way to fight infection. And the history books show us that that sometimes translates into at least some cross-protection against completely different viruses. President Trump over the weekend gave a threatening and incendiary speech at Mount Rushmore that dispensed with any questions about whether he was going to launch a war on progressives in the presidential campaign. The event was protested by Native Americans whose land Mt. Rushmore is carved into. Among other things, Trump said that, “Angry mobs are seeking to unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities” and that those seeking to deface monuments want to “end America.” He called protestors, “members of the radical left, the Marxists, the anarchists, the agitators, the looters, and people who have absolutely no clue what they are doing.” Jim Kavanagh, the editor of thepolemicist.net, whose latest article on CounterPunch and The Polemicist titled “Over the Rainbow: Paths of Resistance after George Floyd,” joins the show. Monday’s segment “Education for Liberation with Bill Ayers” is where Bill helps us look at the state of education across the country. What’s happening in our schools, colleges, and universities, and what impact does it have on the world around us? Bill Ayers, an activist, educator and the author of the book “Demand the Impossible: A Radical Manifesto,” joins Brian and John. In this segment, The Week Ahead, the hosts take a look at the most newsworthy stories of the coming week and what it means for the country and the world, including coronavirus numbers exploding, what President Trump said in his inciting and racist speech at Mount Rushmore over the weekend and what effects it may have, and more. Sputnik News analysts and producers of this show Nicole Roussell and Walter Smolarek join the show.Monday’s regular segment Technology Rules is a weekly guide on how monopoly corporations and the national surveillance state are threatening cherished freedoms, civil rights and civil liberties. Web developer and technologist Chris Garaffa and software engineer and technology and security analyst Patricia Gorky join the show.

What happened to George Floyd has unfortunately been happening to black men pretty much since the founding of the United States.  Things were supposed to change after the civil rights movement of the 1960's, but they didn't.  Again we expected things to change after the beating of Rodney King and the resulting L.A. riots.......and again, nothing fundamentally changed. The deaths of Michael Brown, Philando Castile, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and so many more black men within just the past few years were all supposed to bring about changes......and they didn't.  So this time, in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd, can institutional racism be changed in this country.......can this time be different?  We'll check in on Minneapolis where friends and family have been honoring George Floyd in a very emotional memorial service.  And we'll head to Washington D.C. where the White House has been turned into a fortress of sorts with layers of fencing and security. And the last time we checked in on Dr. Robert Gallo, one of the pioneers of HIV-AIDS research in the 1980's, he was hard at work trying to develop a coronavirus vaccine based on an old polio drug.  Dr. Gallo is back with us to give an update and talk about the challenges of manufacturing and distributing a vaccine to hundreds of millions of people. See omnystudio.com/policies/listener for privacy information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Who knew that face masks would become such a political flashpoint in the midst of a pandemic?! But that seems to be the case in several parts of the country where elected officials have had to backtrack over making the masks mandatory in public. There was an aggressive backlash.  Are masks symbols of tyranny, or a small but necessary step to slow the spread of coronavirus?  We'll go In Depth. The man who helped discover HIV has turned his attention toward defeating COVID-19, and he's taking an unusual approach in the effort.  We'll talk with Dr. Robert Gallo, an instrumental researcher into the AIDS epidemic in the 1980's, who's working now to develop a coronavirus vaccine. A small school in rural Montana finds itself making history:  it will become what is believed to be the first school in the country to reopen its classrooms to students, starting tomorrow.  Why are they so intent on finishing the last two-and-a-half weeks of the academic year with in-person instruction?  We'll ask. And today is national nurses day.......if it wasn't already evident how nurses are the backbone of this country's healthcare system, this outbreak has made it clear.  See omnystudio.com/policies/listener for privacy information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In episode three, world renowned virologist and scientist credited with co-discovering HIV, Dr. Robert Gallo joins host Damian O'Doherty to talk about his journey co-founding both the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Global Virus Network. Doctor Gallo also makes the case for Baltimore's powerful international medical and biotechnology reputation, and discusses his recent observations in USA Today. Join us for our third episode. 

Ryan talks to Co-Founder & Director of the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine Dr. Robert Gallo about why the virus is deadly for some people, but others can be asymptomatic.

Christiane Amanpour is joined by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman to discuss how he thinks the global economy will fare as some countries begin to ease their lockdown measures. Walter Isaacson talks to Dr Robert Gallo, a world-renowned virologist who helped discover the HIV virus. He's now leading an initiative to repurpose the oral polio vaccine which he believes could provide some months of immunity. And Christiane speaks to Caroline Criado Perez, author of "Invisible Women" and Dr Sharon Moalem, author of "The Better Half" about why early statistics suggest that the coronavirus is killing more men than women.

Dr. Robert Gallo has been getting to know viruses, their targets and their weaknesses--for decades, even before he co-discovered the virus that causes AIDS in the 1980s. At the University of Maryland’s Institute for Human Virology, which he heads, Gallo is looking at the novel coronavirus; he joins us to share his thoughts.

«L’epidemia in corso in Italia non è esattamente come quella che si è verificata in Cina. E non credo sia scontato che il nuovo coronavirus si diffonderà in maniera sostenuta anche al Sud perché, mappamondo alla mano, stiamo notando una diffusione da Est a Ovest e viceversa, piuttosto che da Nord a Sud. Se guardiamo appunto il globo, vediamo che il virus, ad esempio, non si è diffuso in Russia, come nemmeno in Africa. Non sappiamo ancora perché, forse è un fattore legato alle temperature, forse no. Ma è un elemento che ha senso tenere in considerazione». Lo ha detto in un’intervista all’Adnkronos Salute Robert Gallo, fra gli scopritori, negli anni ’80, del virus dell’Aids e del primo test per diagnosticare l’Hiv, oggi direttore dell’Institute of Human Virology presso la University of Maryland (Usa).

In this episode of CATG,we discuss the latest super viruses sweeping across the globe. The recent photo of and actual black hole and the work of the late Dr. Robert Gallo. All this and more on the latest episode of Chico and The Grin.   Be sure to keep up with us on our social media as well! Presented by Chico aka Stephen Gomez and The Grin aka John Smalls If you want to find Stephen's photography work you can check http://www.sgomezphoto.com For a glimpse at the illustrative and visual art work of J. Smalls visit http://www.johnsmalls.com Email us with comments or questions ChicoandTheGrin@gmail.com Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thechicoandthegrinpodcast/ Connect with us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chicoandthegrin/ Tweet us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/chicoandthegrin

While thousands of previously healthy people were suddenly falling ill and dying throughout the '80s and '90s, everyone was looking for answers. Some of these answers might be found in the resume of Robert Gallo, a U.S. military contractor who developed bioweapon viruses in the late '60s and early '70s...and was one of the first people to identify the HIV virus in 1983. Parcasters - Check out our new show, Survival! In our first episode we covered Shin Dong-hyuk’s escape from a North Korean internment camp. Available now at parcast.com/survival

While thousands of previously healthy people were suddenly falling ill and dying throughout the '80s and '90s, everyone was looking for answers. Some of these answers might be found in the resume of Robert Gallo, a U.S. military contractor who developed bioweapon viruses in the late '60s and early '70s...and was one of the first people to identify the HIV virus in 1983. Parcasters - Check out our new show, Survival! In our first episode we covered Shin Dong-hyuk’s escape from a North Korean internment camp. Available now at parcast.com/survival

While thousands of previously healthy people were suddenly falling ill and dying throughout the '80s and '90s, everyone was looking for answers. Some of these answers might be found in the resume of Robert Gallo, a U.S. military contractor who developed bioweapon viruses in the late '60s and early '70s...and was one of the first people to identify the HIV virus in 1983. Parcasters - Check out our new show, Survival! In our first episode we covered Shin Dong-hyuk’s escape from a North Korean internment camp. Available now at parcast.com/survival

While thousands of previously healthy people were suddenly falling ill and dying throughout the '80s and '90s, everyone was looking for answers. Some of these answers might be found in the resume of Robert Gallo, a U.S. military contractor who developed bioweapon viruses in the late '60s and early '70s...and was one of the first people to identify the HIV virus in 1983. Parcasters - Check out our new show, Survival! In our first episode we covered Shin Dong-hyuk’s escape from a North Korean internment camp. Available now at parcast.com/survival

In this episode of apicsAU’s Thought Leader series, Robert Gallo, skills adviser for the Industry Skills Fund, explains the process involved in accessing training funding and offers tips for successful submissions.

Le dernier épisode a traité du livre “Laser: 50 ans de découvertes” de Fabien Bretenaker et Nicolas Treps. Avec eux nous avons appris quasiment tout ce qui est possible de savoir à propos des lasers et de leurs applications, de celles que nous rencontrons dans notre vie de tous les jours à celles incroyables des laboratoires de recherche dans le travaux de pointe sur la fusion, la chimie, etc.Aujourd’hui nous allons parler du livre de Michel de Pracontal “L’imposture scientifique en dix leçons”. J’en avais parlé dans l’épisode 5 de LisezLaScience comme un livre que j’aimerais lire. Et bien je l’ai lu ! Grâce à ce livre on se retrouve plongé dans cette zone grise de la science où il est parfois compliqué de prime abord de savoir à quoi l’on a affaire: science, pseudo-science, charlatanisme, manipulation politico-industrielle ? C’est de tout cela dont nous parle Michel de Pracontal, et à propos duquel il nous entraîne à mieux comprendre ce qu’il en a été d’évènements passés important et à mieux les identifier (les manipulations) quand ils surgiront peut-être demain.L'imposture scientifique en dix leçons - crédit : http://www.amazon.fr - http://goo.gl/mJJ9wESommaireQuelques mots sur Michel de PracontalLe livre “L’imposture scientifique en 10 leçons”Un livre qui n’a rien à voirUn livre que j’aimerais lireUne quotePlugsUn auteurMichel de Pracontal - crédit : http://nouvelobs.com - http://goo.gl/fwgKciMichel de Pracontal est un journaliste qui publie des articles aujourd’hui principalement pour Médiapart où il possède notamment un blog. En tant que spécialiste des sciences et de vulgarisation il y opère en décryptant des sujets scientifiques, des idées reçues et il rend les concepts et les théories compréhensibles aux simples mortels que nous sommes tous face à ces sujets, parfois polémiques, qui défrayent chaque jour un peu plus la chronique dans les médias en quête de sensationalisme.Michel de Pracontal est cannois de naissance. Né en 1954, il possède une formation scientifique avec notamment une maîtrise en mathématiques. Sûrement rapidement attiré par la vulgarisation et le journalisme scientifique il obtient aussi un doctorat en science de l’information sur la vulgarisation scientifique.Médiapart n’est pas le premier média pour lequel il a travaillé. Il a aussi en effet publié pour Science et Vie, L’évènement du Jeudi (pour lequel il avait d’ailleurs couvert l’histoire du sang contaminé) et pour le Nouvel Observateur pendant presque 20 ans (de 1990 à 2009).Mais Michel de Pracontal ne s’est pas arrêté au journalisme et il a aussi été essayiste et romancier. À son crédit on peut citer les ouvrages suivants : “La Mémoire de l’eau” (un livre de vulgarisation paru en 1990 chez La Découverte), “La femme sans nombril” (un polar publié au Cherche Midi en 2005), “Les gènes de la violence” (autre polar publié en 2008 chez le même éditeur), “Kaluchua - Cultures, techniques et traditions des sociétés animales” (un livre de vulgarisation publié chez le Seuil en 2010) ou encore, le livre dont nous allons parler aujourd’hui : “L’imposture scientifique en 10 leçons” publié chez La Découverte en 2001.Comme on peut déjà le pressentir avec ces différents ouvrages dont il est l’auteur, Michel de Pracontal est un amateur des sciences au sens large. C’est une chose que l’on retrouve d’ailleurs dans les sujets qu’il aborde dans ses articles pour Médiapart ou sur son blog : biologie, évolution, météorologie, neuro-sciences, rien ne l’arrête et il arrive à parler de ces sujets sans perdre son lectorat. Qualité incomparable pour quelqu’un qui cherche à vulgariser les sciences pour aider le quidam à s’y retrouver et à ne pas se faire berner par des imposteurs.Un livreAvant-proposAvant de lire ce livre, je ne m’étais pas rendu compte à quel point “L’Imposture scientifique en 10 leçons” de Michel de Pracontal était une oeuvre qu’il était indispensable de connaître quand on s’intéresse aux sciences et au traitement qui leur est offert par la société et les médias.Le style de Michel de Pracontal peut paraître déroutant au premier abord (j’ai été dérouté pour ma part lors de la lecture des premières pages), car il alterne un ton moqueur voire sarcastique dans certains cas (quand les sujets sont légers) avec un ton strict, méthodique et implacable (quand il s’agit d’énoncer des faits et de révéler des impostures qui ont détruit des vies). Il sait aussi garder un fil conducteur entre toutes les impostures qu’il met en lumière (et je ne parle pas ici de cette histoire récurrente d’hémorroïdes) avec cette idée que la science est parfois utilisée à de mauvaises fins en ne servant que de prétexte pour des idées plus noires.Il est bon de noter que la version que j’ai entre mes mains est la version revisitée de 2001. La première édition était sortie en 1986 et celle-ci ajoute un grand nombre de mises à jour et de nouveaux faits concernant des impostures qui ont été révélées entre temps.La revueMichel de Pracontal débute son livre avec tout un passage sur le fait que les imposteurs de la science sont là pour révéler la vérité sur les vraies questions que l’Humanité se pose. Et on comprend que la science ne répond qu’aux questions qu’elle peut tester dans le monde réel par l’expérience et pas à des questions qui restent sans réponse testée, validée et approuvée. On découvre aussi que souvent les imposteurs justifient leurs théories en supposant des causes qui vont permettent d’aboutir à ce qu’ils veulent trouver. Quoi de mieux pour justifier quelque chose que d’en supposer la cause après tout? Qu’elle soit aussi peut existante que le résultat n’est pas grave d’ailleurs … Ces imposteurs sont d’ailleurs capables de tout relier, dans une théorie holiste dont personne n’aurait compris l’existence avant eux et ceci même si ils n’ont pas de preuve “en béton” pour le prouver. Ceci fait d’ailleurs souvent d’eux, les nouveaux Gallillée, Einstein ou Darwin (et ceci même si ils cherchent à les détruire soit-dit en passant).Dans sa leçon suivante, Michel de Pracontal donne différents exemples qui naviguent du loufoques au très sérieux (et dangereux) comme par exemple les Isolation Tanks de John Lilly permettant de réaliser des Out Of Body Experiences. Richard Feynman en parle d’ailleurs dans son livre “Surely, you’re joking Mister Feynman où il explique son expérience de ces Isolation Tanks et ce qu’il a ressenti.De cet exemple Michel de Pracontal ressort différentes règles qu’il arrive à valider avec les autres cas qu’il décrit comme par exemple l’usage du QI pour la sélection des immigrants en Angleterre ou aux États-Unis (halluciant), ou pire, pour la stérilisation des plus “bêtes et ignares” aux États-Unis (encore plus dingue).Dans la troisième leçon, Michel de Pracontal aborde un sujet cher à certains des Alter-scientifiques que décrit Alexandre Moatti dans son livre au nom quasiment éponyme “Alterscience” : le rejet de la science dite “officielle”. On découvre ainsi des théories aussi variées que farfelues à propos de l’évolution de la Terre, la sempiternelle remise en cause des idées de Darwin à propos de l’évolution et de la sélection naturelle ou encore la magnifique mémoire de l’eau. “Découverte”, et je mets des guillemets, du Docteur Benveniste qui revient encore aujourd’hui à la télé avec un reportage passé sur France 5 un soir très tard dont j’ai vu la fin vers 1h du matin une nuit où je ne dormais pas dans lequel le fait Luc Montagnier s’y intéresse justifie la véracité de ce qui est expliqué dans le documentaire.Dans la quatrième leçon on apprend que les imposteurs s’adressent plutôt à leurs concitoyens à travers des médias de masse comme la télé par exemple, plutôt qu’à leurs pairs à travers des revues à comité de lecture. Parfois cela vient du fait que les scientifiques remettraient en cause ce qui est dit et qu’il serait dommage de devoir justifier ce qui ne peut l’être. D’autres fois c’est pour poursuivre une quête de reconnaissance qu’il est compliqué d’acquérir avec les pairs et de pouvoir affirmer au monde qu’on est le meilleur.On découvre ainsi comme a été annoncée l’histoire de la Fusion Froide découverte par Fleischmann et Pons et comment le soufflet est retombé. Enfin pas complètement, il existe encore aujourd’hui des conférences sur le sujet malgré les preuves d’impossibilité du phénomène présenté qui ont été données de par le monde depuis. On peut aussi s’interroger, comme le fait Alexandre Moatti, dans son livre que des hommes politiques de la stature de Kofi Annan, à l’époque où il était secrétaire général de l’ONU, puissent tomber dans de telles supercheries.Quand on arrive à la cinquième leçon on apprend aussi qu’une bonne façon de devenir un imposteur en science est tout simplement de modifier les faits pour qu’ils collent à la théorie. Michel de Pracontal en parlait déjà dans une leçon précédente concernant le QI, il en parle ici plus précisément concernant l’histoire de l’Homme de Piltdown découvert en Angleterre par Charles Dawson, Arthur Smith Woodward et aussi Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Enfin découvert. Plutôt inventé! Car il s’est finalement avéré que les preuve fournies étaient fausses. Michel de Pracontal fait d’ailleurs extensivement référence à l’ouvrage de Stephen Jay Gould où ce dernier traite longuement du sujet : “Quand les poules auront des dents”.Autre fait intéressant associé, on découvre aussi les manipulations sur les données qui ont été réalisées autour des recherches de Mendel concernant les gènes qu’il réalisa grâce à l’étude de caractères morphologiques des pois et leur transmission. C’est un point que Vincent Guidice décrit d’ailleurs assez bien dans l’épisode 161 de Podcastscience sur l’ADN qu’il avait réalisé. Les données étaient ici à priori modifiées pour coller au mieux à la théorie. Mais à la différence de l’Homme de Piltdown, ici la théorie était correcte. Je vous laisse écouter le podcast pour en savoir plus.Dans la sixième leçon, Michel de Pracontal prend du temps pour nous parler de l’histoire du SIDA et du sang contaminé qu’il couvrit pour le compte de l’Évènement du Jeudi pour lequel il travaillait à l’époque de l’affaire en temps que chroniqueur scientifique. Il nous explique en détail la découverte de la maladie, le travail des équipes américaines et notamment celle menée par Bob Gallo et celle de l’équipe française de Luc Montagnier, François Barré-Sinoussi et consort. On apprend les coups sous la ceinture qui ont été donnés, comment la politique s’en est mêlée autant aux États-Unis qu’en France (avec un impact plus négatif en France). Robert Gallo ne semble pas tout blanc dans son traitement des échanges qu’il a pu avoir avec l’équipe française quand à la découverte du SIDA et de l’annonce correspondante.Et puis il y a les tests de dépistage. Parce que découvrir le SIDA en laboratoire c’est bien. Pouvoir dépister les porteurs du virus pour qu’ils puissent recevoir des traitements qui restent encore à mettre en place et limiter la propagation du SIDA sont des choses indispensables. Pour une problématique de santé publique, mais aussi et surtout pour une problématique industrielle et financière. Et malheureusement c’est cette dernière qui va être retenue et qui va mener à l’affaire du sang contaminé en France. Michel de Pracontal explique en effet (ou tout du moins c’est ce que j’ai compris) que le retard de l’Institut Pasteur par rapport aux américains dans la mise au point d’un test fonctionnel, vendable et dont la production serait industrialisable, à empêcher le dépistage de poches de sang contaminées par le VIH, malgré le fait que le Centre National de Transfusion Sanguine sache qu’un risque existât à l’époque.Dans la septième leçon, Michel de Pracontal nous parle du lien qu’il existe entre certains imposteurs scientifiques et la religion. On apprend comment certains phénomènes poussent certaines personnes à supposer des choses impossibles afin de faire rentrer des carrés dans des ronds avec la science et la religion. Que ce soit en biologie avec les notions de plan de construction pour les êtres vivants, le Tao de la Physique de Frank Capra, l’Ordre impliqué remise au goût du jour grâce à la notion d’Univers Holographique, l’hypothèse Gaïa de Lovelock, la Noogenèse de Teilhard de Chardin, ou encore le principe anthropique avec l’Homme comme objectif de l’Univers.Avec sa huitième leçon, Michel de Pracontal nous plonge dans le monde fantastique du paranormal que décortique d’ailleurs avec succès Jean-Michel Abrassart dans son podcast “Scepticisme Scientifique”. On découvre ainsi l’histoire d’Eusapia Palladino, qui savait faire voler des tables et qui en aura mystifié plus d’un grâce à ses prétendus pouvoir spiritiques. Ou encore Joseph Rhine et la parapsychologie qu’il tenta de rendre scientifique tout en se faisant, selon les mots même de Pracontal, “rouler dans la farine par des collaborateurs sans scrupules”. Michel de Pracontal présente d’ailleurs les travaux réalisés par Henri Broch sur le psi et le fait que plus on fait d’étude, moins il existe (ou plus on se rend contre des supercheries peut-être ?). Il est d’ailleurs intéressant de voir comment l’aspect non-intuitif de la mécanique quantique a fait ressusciter certaines théories paranormales qui voit dans cette physique déroutante la source de tout ce que ces théories n’arrivaient pas à prouver jusque-là. Ceci malgré le fait que la plupart des physiciens rapprochent l’idée des psiristes selon laquelle l’esprit pourrait influencer les mesures réalisées à celle “des tables tournantes du XIXème siècle”.Dans sa neuvième leçon, Michel de Pracontal présente l’un des plus importants ressorts des imposteurs : l’usage exagéré de termes scientifiques à tout va, créant un galimatias incompréhensibles qui permet de couvrir d’une couche scientifique un discours qui s’avère, au mieux vide de sens, au pire totalement faux et contraire à ce que la science énonce comme faits prouvés par l’expérience. Ainsi on navigue entre mots ayant des doubles sens, métaphores abusives, analogie incongrues, référence au sens commun pour justifier n’importe quoi, utilisation de termes du langage courant dans des sciences qui leur donnent un sens tout autre. Michel de Pracontal fait d’ailleurs référence au livre “L’âge du capitaine” de Stella Baruk concernant le cas particulier des mathématiques pour ce dernier point.Michel de Pracontal fait aussi référence au fameux article d’Alain Sokal qu’il avait fait publié dans une revue américaine nommée SocialText malgré le fait qu’il fut vide de sens et rempli de termes utilisés de manière abusive. Le but de l’article de Sokal était justement de démontrer les torts possibles quand la science est utilisée pour donner une assurance de valeur. C’est d’ailleurs quelque chose qu’Alain Sokal et Jacques Bricmont ont par la suite dénoncé (l’usage par l’article) dans un ouvrage intitulé “Impostures intellectuelles” qu’il me semble indispensable d’ajouter à ma liste de lectures.Dans la dernière leçon de son ouvrage, Michel de Pracontal nous parle de la non-réfutabilité des théories des imposteurs scientifiques. Il ne faudrait pas en effet qu’ils puissent être remis en cause! Il parle ainsi de ce que Karl Popper appelle la réfutabilité. Que l’expérience ne suffit pas et que par exemple un mauvaise prédiction en astrologie n’invalide par, selon les tenants de cette pseudo-science, les principes sur laquelle elle est basée. Termes vagues, raison cachée non prise en compte, etc il y a forcément quelque chose qui va permettre de retomber sur ses pattes. Mais il faut faire attention, il existe en science de vraies théories qui ne sont pas pour autant réfutable, et la Théorie des Cordes en est un bon exemple. Pour l’instant les développements théoriques réalisés ne permettent pas de la tester pour la valider ou l’invalider. Ceci n’en fait pas, bien sûr, une théorie aussi farfelue que l’astrologie, car elle n’est pas impossible dans le principe. Elle englobe les théories physiques actuelles et repose sur de solides édifices mathématiques. Michel de Pracontal pointe ensuite le fait qu’il existe des domaines de recherche qui ne peuvent pas être jugées à l’aune des critères de Popper comme l’Histoire par exemple. Pour citer Pracontal : “Le modèle des sciences de la nature ne s’applique pas à toutes les formes de connaissances et de théories”.Une question reste en suspend : une autre science reste-t-elle possible ? Selon les pseudo-scientifiques ou les alter-scientifiques : oui. Mais c’est là la graine qui nourrit les imposteurs, car finalement, si tout ceci devient prouvé, ceci devient une science … Pour paraphraser Groucho Marx et citer Michel de Pracontal, “l’imposteur scientifique ne voudrait pour rien au monde faire partie d’un club scientifique qui serait disposé à l’accepter comme membre”.En conclusionAprès la lecture de ce livre, j’ai pu découvrir qu’il fait partie des fondamentaux de beaucoup quand à la critique (dans son sens le plus classique) de la science d’hier et d’aujourd’hui. J’ai appris énormément sur tous ces moments de l’Histoire de la Science où certains ont tenté d’apporter des choses, bonnes ou mauvaise avec la science comme arme. Sur leurs méthodes, sur les résultats bons ou mauvais qui en sont ressortis. On grandit en tant que citoyen baignant dans cet univers trop complexe pour être compris, mais indispensable à nos vies.Et, outre la lecture même du livre qui donne une vision, non pas pessimiste, mais équivalent à celle d’un néon blanc qui révèlerait les failles et le teint blafard de certaines facettes de ce que l’on appelle de la science au sens large, ces différentes histoires me font dire qu’il est très complexe de se faire une idée concrète d’un sujet sans faire des recherches extensives sur ce à quoi l’on s’intéresse. Il est en effet très rapide de se faire berner par des imposteurs en mal de reconnaissance, par des scientifiques de qualité qui se sont fait bernés ou qui auraient besoin de recouvrer un prestige disparu avec les années ou jamais atteint.Cela me laisse une sorte d’amertume car ce livre révèle ce qu’est finalement une facette de la science et son traitement et retire ce vernis qu’on nous fait lui donner à travers les merveilles qu’elle a pu réaliser.Ne vous méprenez pas, c’est un très bon livre et une œuvre indispensable à lire, mais elle aura tendance à remuer certaines de vos préconceptions ou idées et d’éclairer certains évènements sous un regard nouveau et implacable.Ce livre fait partie d’une sorte de corpus (avec “Denialism” de Michael Specter, “Alterscience” de Alexandre Moatti, “La croyance au paranormal: Facteurs prédispositionnels et situationnels” de Jean-Michel Abrassart et d’autres bien sûr) qui est un mal nécessaire pour toute personne souhaitant pouvoir comprendre ce qui est réellement scientifique, et ce qui ne l’est pas. La science est en effet devenue le cœur de toutes les avancées technologiques et presque sociétales de notre temps et il ne fait pas oublier ou se situe la limite que certains voudraient voir disparaître (consciemment ou non) entre science, pseudo-science, alter-science, science-fiction, fantastique, miracles, etc.Un livre qui n’a rien à voirLa Nuit des Temps - crédit : goodreads.com - http://goo.gl/JUvtSI Comme livre qui n’a rien à voir, j’ai décidé de choisir l’un des romans les plus connus de René Barjavel : La nuit des temps. Il s’agit selon moi d’un chef d’œuvre du fantastique paru en 1968 aux Presses de la Cité. On peut d’ailleurs le retrouver en poche pour ceux qui préfèreraient un format plus petit.L’histoire est celle d’un journaliste qui participe à la couverture d’une découverte sensationnelle au pôle sud : la découverte d’une anomalie sous la glace et qui s’avère être une capsule ayant plus de 400000 ans et hébergeant deux personnes : une homme et une femme. La femme est réveillée et elle fait découvrir un monde inconnu où les règles sont différentes, la science plus avancée qu’aujourd’hui et le véritable amour impossible. René Barjavel nous raconte cette histoire de manière haletante, en mélangeant histoire d’amour, science-fiction et il nous livre ici un chef d’œuvre de la littérature fantastique du XXème siècle. Pour vous dire à quel point ce livre se dévore : j’ai du lire les presque 400 pages de ce livre en un peu plus de 3 heures. Et ceci plusieurs fois … Je ne peux donc que vous le recommander très chaudement !Un livre que j’aimerais lireGödel Escher Bach : Les brins d'une guirlande éternelle - crédit : amazon.fr - http://goo.gl/rl5gIv À force d’écouter des épisodes de Podcastscience où les mathématiciens en chef que sont NicoTupe et Robin parlent du livre “Gödel Escher Bach : Les brins d’une Guirlande Éternelle” ou GEB pour les intimes, de Douglas Hofstadter, je me dis de plus en plus que je ne peux pas y échapper et qu’il va falloir que je le lise à un moment ou à un autre. De ce que je peux comprendre des résumés, ce livre est culte, et ce pour une très bonne raison : il est capable d’embrasser différents domaines de la science et de montrer de quelle manière les mathématiques permettent de les relier de manière harmonieuse et notamment comment, et c’est ce qui fait le nombre du livre, on peut relier la musique de Bach, les gravures d’Escher et la logique mathématique sur laquelle travaillait Gödel.Un programme pour le moins alléchant ! Ce livre intègre donc la longue liste de livre que j’aimerais vraiment lire. Ne vous y trompez pas, il ne s’agit pas juste de le lire pour l’avoir fait, mais de le lire pour mieux comprendre le monde qui nous entoure.QuoteQuoi de mieux qu’une citation de monsieur Karl Popper en ce qui concerne la science, les impostures et un moyen de réfuter la non-science ?Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.Karl Raimund PopperEssay, 'On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance', in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1962), 28.Plugs et liens évoquésDavid Medernach, alias Xilrian sur le web, nous fait profiter à travers Xil’cast, sa chaîne Youtube de vidéos sur des sujets variés et vous pouvez ainsi découvrir “Les 9 vies de Timothy Leary” et dernièrement “Les 8 travaux de John Van Neumann”. C’est bien fait, fun et informatif à la fois. Si jamais nous ne connaissez pas, jetez-vous sur ses vidéos, cela vaut le détour!”.PodcastScience organise avec Xavier Durussel, CM de Podcastsuisse, une soirée radio-dessinée le 23/08 sur le thème “Instruments scientifiques : Cathédrales du XXIe siècle”. Cela va se passer à Genève, je ne peux que vous enjoindre à vous y rendre ! Vous pourrez m’y retrouver ainsi que la bande de PodcastScience et de StripScience. Ce sera l’occasion d’apprendre plein de choses et de passer une bonne soirée :) Si vous voulez y participer, un seul lien: http://www.podcastscience.fm“L’imposture scientifique en dix leçons” de Michel de Pracontal dans la rubrique “Un livre que j’aimerais lire” de l’épisode 5 de LisezLaScience: http://lisezlascience.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/lisezlascience-5-le-beau-livre-de-la-medecine-de-clifford-pickover/Page wikipédia consacrée à Michel de Pracontal: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_de_PracontalLa page de Médiapart avec les articles de Michel de Pracontal : http://www.mediapart.fr/biographie/119420Le blog de Michel de Pracontal chez Médiapart : http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/michel-de-pracontalÉpisode 161 de Podcastscience sur l’ADN par Vincent Guidice : http://www.podcastscience.fm/emission/2014/02/09/podcast-science-161-ladn/Podcast Scepticisme Scientifique : http://scepticismescientifique.blogspot.frConclusionQue vous ayez aimé ou pas, surtout, ne restez pas à regarder les championnats d’Europe d’Athlétisme. Envoyez-moi des courrier, des commentaires, de like sur la page Facebook, des tweets, des retweets, de l’enduit à joint, j’en ai besoin pour finir de plâtrer un mur ou l’oeuvre complète de Jean-Paul Delahaye si jamais vous avez assez des livres bien écrits.Vous pouvez retrouver LisezLaScience sur son site web http://lisezlascience.wordpress.com et vous pouvez me contacter sur twitter sur @LisezLaScience ou sur la page Facebook associée https://www.facebook.com/LisezLaScience et le podcast est accessible sur podcloud http://lisezlascience.podcloud.fr/ et sur podcastfrance http://podcastfrance.fr/podcast-lisez-la-science .Vous pouvez aussi m’envoyer des e-mails à lisezlascience@gmail.comVous pouvez d’ailleurs retrouver l’ensemble des livres cités sur la liste goodreads associée à ce podcast sur le compte de LisezLaScience. Les livres seront placés sur des “étagères” spécifiques par épisode et ceux de celui-ci sont sur l’étagère “lls-7”Prochain épisodeOn se retrouve le 31/08/2014 pour un nouvel épisode sur “Désir d’Infini” de Trinh Xuan Thuan.D’ici là bonne quinzaine à toutes et à tous.Les références des livres évoquésLa Mémoire de l’eauISBN : 270711894X (ISBN13 : 978-2707118943)Auteur : Michel de PracontalNombre de pages : 227 pagesDate de parution : 02/03/1999 chez La DécouvertePrix : 15,00 € chez Amazon ou 27,00 € à la FnacLa femme sans nombrilISBN : 2749103517 (ISBN13 : 9782749103518)Auteur : Michel de pracontalNombre de pages : 229 pagesDate de parution : 01/02/2005 chez Le Cherche MidiPrix : 2,79 € chez Amazon ou 3,70 € chez la FnacLes gènes de la violenceISBN : 2749111137 (ISBN13 : 9782749111131)Auteur : Michel de PracontalNombre de pages : 285 pagesDate de parution : 09/10/2008 chez Le Cherche MidiPrix : 24,00 € chez Amazon ou la FnacKaluchua - Cultures, techniques et traditions des sociétés animalesISBN : 2020513064 (ISBN13 : 9782020513067)Auteur : Michel de PracontalNombre de pages : 187 pagesDate de parution : 14/10/2010 chez le SeuilPrix : 17,20 € chez Amazon ou la FnacL’imposture scientifique en 10 leçonsISBN : 2020639440 (ISBN13 : 978-2020639446)Auteur : Michel de PracontalNombre de pages : 378 pagesDate de parution : 08/04/2005 chez le SeuilPrix : 9,60 € chez Amazon ou la FnacSurely you’re joking Mister FeynmanISBN : 0393316041 (ISBN13: 9780393316049)Auteur : Richard P FeynmanNombre de pages : 350 pagesDate de parution : 12/05/1997 chez W. W. Norton & CompanyPrix : 13, 26 € chez Amazon ou 7,98€ chea la FnacAlterscience. Postures, Dogmes, IdéologiesISBN : 2738128874 (ISBN13 : 9782738128874)Auteur : Alexandre MoattiNombre de pages : 336 pagesDate de parution : 17/01/2013 chez Odile JacobPrix : 23,90 € chez Amazon ou la FnacQuand les poules auront des dentsISBN : 2020128861 (ISBN13: 9782020128865)Auteur : Stephen Jay GouldNombre de pages : 478 pagesDate de parution : 17/05/1991 chez le SeuilPrix : 10,10 € chez Amazon ou la FnacL’âge du capitaineISBN : 2020183013 (ISBN13: 9782020183017)Auteur : Stella BarukNombre de pages : 355 pagesDate de parution : 01/01/1998 chez le SeuilPrix : 8,10 € chez Amazon ou la FnacImpostures IntellectuellesISBN : 2738105033 (ISBN13 : 978-2738105035)Auteur : Alain Sokal, Jean BricmontNombre de pages : 276 pagesDate de parution : 02/10/1997 chez Odile JacobPrix : 22,90 € chez Amazon ou la FnacLa croyance au paranormal: Facteurs prédispositionnels et situationnelsISBN : 613154901X (ISBN13: 9786131549014)Auteur : Jean-Michel AbrassartNombre de pages : 104 pagesDate de parution : 19/11/2010 chez Editions Universitaires EuropeennesPrix : 39,00 € chez AmazonDenialsm : How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our LivesISBN : 1594202303 (ISBN13: 9781594202308)Auteur : Michael PsecterNombre de pages : 304 pagesDate de parution : 26/10/2010 chez Penguin BooksPrix : 12,48 € chez Amazon ou 6,65 € chez la FnacLa Nuit des TempsISBN : 2266023039 (ISBN13: 9782266023030)Auteur : René BarjavelNombre de pages : 394 pagesDate de parution : 01/01/1988 chez PocketPrix : 7,30 € chez Amazon ou la FnacGödel Escher Bach : Les brins d’une Guirlande ÉternelleISBN : 2100523066 (ISBN13: 978-2100523061)Auteur : Douglas Hofstadter, Traducteurs : Jacqueline Henry, Robert FrenchNombre de pages : 883 pagesDate de parution : 05/11/2008 chez DunodPrix : 50,00 € chez Amazon ou la FnacVous pouvez retrouver la liste des livres dans goodreads à l’adresse suivante : https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/30797714-lisezlascience?shelf=lls-7

The Invention Of AIDS By Boyd E. Graves, J.D. boyded2001@yahoo.com 8-28-1 Do people with HIV/AIDS owe royalties to the patent holder of the AIDS virus? In April 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo filed a United States patent application for his invention, the HIV/AIDS Virus. Normally, when a patent is filed and approved, as Dr. Gallo's was, anyone who uses the product or invention owes a royalty payment to the inventor. Thus, holding the intellectual property laws to their fullest interpretations, one must only wonder why Dr. Gallo has yet to file a lawsuit seeking to recover damages from the usage of his invention? As odd as this scenario may sound, it bears need for additional scrutiny. The scientific evidence is complete and compelling, the AIDS Virus is a designer bi-product of the U.S. Special Virus program. The Special Virus program was a federal virus development program that persisted in the United States from 1962 until 1978. The U.S. Special Virus was then added as 'compliment' to vaccine inoculations in Africa and Manhattan. Shortly thereafter the world was overwhelmed with mass infections of a human retrovirus that differed from any known human disease, it was highly contagious and more importantly, it could kill. A review of the Special Virus Flow Chart ("research logic") reveals the United States was seeking a 'virus particle' that would negatively impact the defense mechanisms of the immune system. The program sought to modify the genome of the virus particle in which to splice in an animal "wasting disease" called "Visna". According to the Proceedings of the United States of America, AIDS is an evolutionary, laboratory development of the peculiar Visna Virus, first detected in Icelandic sheep. Recently, American and world scientists confirm with 100% certainty the laboratory genesis of AIDS. This fact is further underscored when one reviews the 'multiply-spliced' nature of the HIV 'tat' gene and Dr. Gallo's 1971 Special Virus paper, "Reverse Transcriptase of Type-C virus Particles of Human Origin". Dr. Gallo's 1971 Special Virus paper is identical to his 1984 announcement of AIDS. Upon further review the record reveals that he filed his patent on AIDS, before he made the announcement with Secretary Heckler. Earlier this year, Dr. Gallo conceded his role as a 'Project Officer' for the federal virus development program, the Special Virus. The Flow Chart of the program and the 15 progress reports are irrefutable evidence of the United States' secret plan to cull world populations via the unleashing of a stealth biological microorganism that would 'waste' humanity. In light of this true genesis of the world's most divesting biological scourge, it is the United States that owes 'royal' payments to the innocent victims. Each and every victim of AIDS is deserving of a formal apology and a sense of economic closure for an invention of death and despair, perpetrated by the United States. The eyes of the world are upon the General Accounting Office's Health Care Team, under the direction of William J. Scanlon. Between 1964 and 1978, the secret federal virus program spent $550 million dollars of taxpayer money to invent AIDS. It is now necessary to spend whatever it takes to dismantle an invention that has led to the greatest crime against humanity in the history of the world. Additional Resources VIEW Web Archives: http://www.boydgraves.com DOWNLOAD US SVCP Flow Chart: http://www.boydgraves.com/flowchart SIGN Review Petition: http://www.boydgraves.com/petition DONATE On-line: http://www.boydgraves.com/donate CONTACT: http://www.boydgraves.com/contact WRITE To Congress: http://www.congress.org RESEARCH Archives: : http://www.boydgraves.com/order/order.html "We must let nature determine the finish line, not man. We are greater than any federal virus program, we are the human race." --Dr. Boyd E. Graves, Lead Plaintiff for Global AIDS Apology U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 00-9587

Vincent, Alan, and Angela discuss Kuru, prions in milk, ancient lentiviruses found in the chromosomes of lemurs, a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine failure in the 1960s, and recent outbreaks of H5N1 influenza in chickens. Links for this episode: D. Carleton Gajdusek obituary in the NY Times. We forgot to mention that he won the 1976 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on Kuru. PLoS Pathogens article on prions in sheep milk. PNAS article on endogenous lemur lentivirus Nature Medicine article on the failed respiratory syncytial virus vaccine. December 18 was the 100th anniversary of the discovery of poliovirus. Science podcast pick of the week: Skepticality. Science book of the week: Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, a Massive Cover-up and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo by John Crewdson.

This is a sequel to an interview on Dynamic Health, CFRO-FM Radio in Vancouver, Canada, with John Pranger, featuring David Crowe founder of Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society. Mr. Crowe discusses his research on so-called infectious diseases, including AIDS and SARS; the testimony of Dr. Robert Gallo in the on-going Austrialian HIV trial; and the problems with the HIV tests. For more information, please visit the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society.  

This is Part 1 of an interview on The Edge with Daniel Ott, featuring Stephen Davis, author of Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial, recorded February 10, 2007. Davis discusses the four different kinds of AIDS and the causes of each, the "perfect storm" in 1984 that allowed Dr. Robert Gallo to get away with calling HIV the cause of AIDS at a press conference, and the emotional and psychological trauma inflicted on those wrongly diagnosed HIV-Positive as a result of the arbitrary and capricious so-called HIV tests. For more information, go to www.HelpForHIV.com.

This is Part 2 of an interview on The Edge with Daniel Ott, featuring Stephen Davis, author of Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial, recorded February 10, 2007. Davis discusses the four different kinds of AIDS and the causes of each, the "perfect storm" in 1984 that allowed Dr. Robert Gallo to get away with calling HIV the cause of AIDS at a press conference, and the emotional and psychological trauma inflicted on those wrongly diagnosed HIV-Positive as a result of the arbitrary and capricious so-called HIV tests. For more information, go to www.HelpForHIV.com.  

Leading biomedical researcher Dr. Robert Gallo shares his thoughts on the various theories for potential covid-19 vaccines. Matt and Katie caution against overconfidence by the left heading into the presidential election. Katie decries a 'Sharkaganda' story from Australia Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices