nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug
POPULARITY
14 episodes with vioxx
8 episodes with vioxx
6 episodes with vioxx
3 episodes with vioxx
2 episodes with vioxx
2 episodes with vioxx
2 episodes with vioxx
2 episodes with vioxx
2 episodes with vioxx
If you're struggling, consider therapy with our sponsor. Visit https://betterhelp.com/almanac for a discount on your first month of therapy.If you have questions about the brand relating to how the therapists are credentialed, their privacy policy, or therapist compensation, here is an overview written by the YouTube creators behind the channel Cinema Therapy that goes into these topics: https://www.reddit.com/r/cinema_therapy/comments/1dpriql/addressing_the_betterhelp_concerns_headon_deep/ Hey Poison Friends! I thought we could use an episode free from prions and other deadly viruses and diseases, so let's talk about some medications that turned out to be toxic. We have discussed how some toxins became useful in the world of medicine, so why not the other way around? While discussing this topic, I thought it would be informative to include some basics on what clinical trials look like (at least here in America).I have had many requests for one drug in particular: Thalidomide. We did briefly discuss this one in a bonus episode, but I dug a little deeper and wanted to include how it affected food and drug acts in the countries it affected. While not approved in America during its time, samples were given out and there were quite a few still affected here. This particular drug led to some horrific birth defects as well as many of miscarriages and stillbirths. Other medications we need to discuss include a couple of NSAIDs (non steroidal anti inflammatory drugs) called Vioxx and Bextra. These caused higher risks of heart attack and stroke, injuring and killing many who had taken them. Bextra was also linked to a higher risk for Stevens-Johnsons Syndrome, a serious skin condition that was painful and could lead to further complications. Lastly, if you grew up in the 90s like we did, you'll remember the influx of amphetamine or caffeine based weight loss drugs. Some were prescribed but some were also over the counter. You could buy some "supplements" like these at any convenient store. One medication prescribed to patients was a combination drug, called Fen-Phen by many, and it caused pulmonary hypertension, proving fatal to some who took it and leaving others with longterm heart valve and respiratory problems. Thank you to all of our listeners and supporters! Please feel free to leave a comment or send us a DM for any questions, suggestions, or just to say, "hi."Support us on Patreon:patreon.com/thepoisonersalmanacMerch-https://poisonersalmanac.com/Follow us on socials:The Poisoner's Almanac on IG-https://www.instagram.com/poisoners_almanac?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=ZDNlZDc0MzIxNw==YouTube-https://youtube.com/@thepoisonersalmanac-m5q?si=16JV_ZKhpGaLyM73Also, look for the Poisoner's Almanac TikTok- https://www.tiktok.com/@poisonersalmanacp?_t=ZT-8wdYQyXhKbm&_r=1Adam-https://www.tiktok.com/@studiesshow?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pcBecca-https://www.tiktok.com/@yobec0?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc
Apple said no jab, no job. The actor sued. The Court of Appeal holds the jab policy is expressive conduct, and thus the suit was a SLAPP.Apple Studios dropped an actor from its Manhunt miniseries over a COVID vaccine mandate. The actor sued. Apple filed an anti-SLAPP motion—and won. Jeff and Tim break down Sexton v. Apple Studios and ask:Is a vaccine mandate a creative decision?Do logistical decisions become “expressive” just because they are part of making a film?The court held that following “contemporary conventional wisdom” was reasonable, but what happens when that wisdom was arrived at suddenly in a matter of a few months—and then is abandoned just as suddenly?And recall past “contemporary conventional wisdom” that is now abandoned: smoking was safe (even good for you!); thalidomide was good for pregnant women; Fen-Phen and Vioxx were promoted. Tim notes that much medical orthodoxy has a short shelf life and the law needs to allow room for individual choice. Jeff notes that in emergency situations the law needs to defer to coalescing expert opinion and best practices. We discuss, you decide.Also:A pro se litigant tricks a New York court into letting his AI avatar argue for him. (Spoiler: it did not go well.)Plus, updates on shadow docket misadventures and deportation do-overs.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Apple's mandatory vaccine is “creative” expression—employee's lawsuit held a SLAPP
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 “
Robert and Kaveh conclude the thrilling sort of how Merck killed 55,000 Americans with Vioxx and then convinced the media they were the good guys somehow. Sources: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-medical-madoff-anesthestesiologist-faked-data/ https://archive.is/Trdy2#selection-695.1-723.182 https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/merck-manipulated-science-about-drug-vioxx https://web.archive.org/web/20170409143210/https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdf https://www.masslive.com/news/2010/06/scott_reuben_a_former_baystate.html https://www.jci.org/articles/view/38430 https://archive.is/Yjj91#selection-835.0-993.212 https://www.vice.com/en/article/fraud-misconduct-mistakes-this-blog-finds-the-stories-behind-retracted-papers/ https://www.anesthesiologynews.com/Policy-Management/Article/03-09/Fraud-Case-Rocks-Anesthesiology-Community/12634?ses=ogst https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2019/the-pain-gap/ https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=jcred https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=lclr Nesi, Tom. Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Drug Scandal (p. 31). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Robert sits down with Dr. Kaveh Hoda to talk about Vioxx, a pain medication released by pharmaceutical giant Merck even though they knew it caused fatal heart attacks. (2 Part Series)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
David Matthews is the Firm Founder of Matthews and Associates. David has been chosen through US News & World Report as one of the Best Lawyers in America from 2016-2023 and repeatedly voted by his peers as one of the top trial lawyers in the country. He has tried more than 175 cases to verdict and helped injured people across the country attain some of the largest verdicts or settlements in pharmaceutical litigation against the makers of such drugs as Phen-Fen, Rezulin, Vioxx, and Bextra-Celebrex. Connect with David on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-matthews-a3a51811b/ Visit Matthews and Associates: https://www.thewagstafflawfirm.com/ On This Episode, We Discuss…How the Landscape of Mass Tort Litigation has Evolved Over the YearsComplexities of Pharmaceutical LitigationStrategic Elements of Mass Tort LitigationCamp Lejeune Water Contamination Case
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: On Fables and Nuanced Charts, published by Niko McCarty on September 9, 2024 on LessWrong. Written by Spencer Greenberg & Amber Dawn Ace for Asimov Press. In 1994, the U.S. Congress passed the largest crime bill in U.S. history, called the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The bill allocated billions of dollars to build more prisons and hire 100,000 new police officers, among other things. In the years following the bill's passage, violent crime rates in the U.S. dropped drastically, from around 750 offenses per 100,000 people in 1990 to under 400 in 2018. But can we infer, as this chart seems to ask us to, that the bill caused the drop in crime? As it turns out, this chart wasn't put together by sociologists or political scientists who've studied violent crime. Rather, we - a mathematician and a writer - devised it to make a point: Although charts seem to reflect reality, they often convey narratives that are misleading or entirely false. Upon seeing that violent crime dipped after 1990, we looked up major events that happened right around that time - selecting one, the 1994 Crime Bill, and slapping it on the graph. There are other events we could have stuck on the graph just as easily that would likely have invited you to construct a completely different causal story. In other words, the bill and the data in the graph are real, but the story is manufactured. Perhaps the 1994 Crime Bill really did cause the drop in violent crime, or perhaps the causality goes the other way: the spike in violent crime motivated politicians to pass the act in the first place. (Note that the act was passed slightly after the violent crime rate peaked!) Charts are a concise way not only to show data but also to tell a story. Such stories, however, reflect the interpretations of a chart's creators and are often accepted by the viewer without skepticism. As Noah Smith and many others have argued, charts contain hidden assumptions that can drastically change the story they tell. This has important consequences for science, which, in its ideal form, attempts to report findings as objectively as possible. When a single chart can be the explanatory linchpin for years of scientific effort, unveiling a data visualization's hidden assumptions becomes an essential skill for determining what's really true. As physicist Richard Feynman once said: In science, "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."What we mean to say is - don't be fooled by charts. Misleading Charts Bad actors have long used data visualizations to deliberately manipulate and mislead. How to Lie with Statistics, a classic book from 1954, describes tricks that unscrupulous actors use to distort the truth without fabricating results, such as by truncating the y-axis of a chart to make an effect look much larger than it is or by cherry-picking data. Drug companies and special interest groups have employed these techniques for decades to win public support. Merck, for example, was accused of publishing misleading data about the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx to hide the fact that it could cause heart attacks and strokes, ultimately resulting in a multi-billion dollar settlement. But even when no one is intentionally trying to mislead or manipulate, charts designed to make information clear can still lead to erroneous conclusions. Just consider the U.S. maternal mortality statistics, which seem to show maternal deaths rising from 0.4 deaths per 100,000 women in 2003 to close to 1 per 100,000 in 2020. This graph is worrisome, particularly if you or your partner is pregnant (or expect to be). Why are so many more expectant and new mothers dying? Is there some new danger? Is the healthcare system getting worse? Coverage in Scientific American, NPR, and elsewhere suggested t...
Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: On Fables and Nuanced Charts, published by Niko McCarty on September 9, 2024 on LessWrong. Written by Spencer Greenberg & Amber Dawn Ace for Asimov Press. In 1994, the U.S. Congress passed the largest crime bill in U.S. history, called the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The bill allocated billions of dollars to build more prisons and hire 100,000 new police officers, among other things. In the years following the bill's passage, violent crime rates in the U.S. dropped drastically, from around 750 offenses per 100,000 people in 1990 to under 400 in 2018. But can we infer, as this chart seems to ask us to, that the bill caused the drop in crime? As it turns out, this chart wasn't put together by sociologists or political scientists who've studied violent crime. Rather, we - a mathematician and a writer - devised it to make a point: Although charts seem to reflect reality, they often convey narratives that are misleading or entirely false. Upon seeing that violent crime dipped after 1990, we looked up major events that happened right around that time - selecting one, the 1994 Crime Bill, and slapping it on the graph. There are other events we could have stuck on the graph just as easily that would likely have invited you to construct a completely different causal story. In other words, the bill and the data in the graph are real, but the story is manufactured. Perhaps the 1994 Crime Bill really did cause the drop in violent crime, or perhaps the causality goes the other way: the spike in violent crime motivated politicians to pass the act in the first place. (Note that the act was passed slightly after the violent crime rate peaked!) Charts are a concise way not only to show data but also to tell a story. Such stories, however, reflect the interpretations of a chart's creators and are often accepted by the viewer without skepticism. As Noah Smith and many others have argued, charts contain hidden assumptions that can drastically change the story they tell. This has important consequences for science, which, in its ideal form, attempts to report findings as objectively as possible. When a single chart can be the explanatory linchpin for years of scientific effort, unveiling a data visualization's hidden assumptions becomes an essential skill for determining what's really true. As physicist Richard Feynman once said: In science, "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."What we mean to say is - don't be fooled by charts. Misleading Charts Bad actors have long used data visualizations to deliberately manipulate and mislead. How to Lie with Statistics, a classic book from 1954, describes tricks that unscrupulous actors use to distort the truth without fabricating results, such as by truncating the y-axis of a chart to make an effect look much larger than it is or by cherry-picking data. Drug companies and special interest groups have employed these techniques for decades to win public support. Merck, for example, was accused of publishing misleading data about the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx to hide the fact that it could cause heart attacks and strokes, ultimately resulting in a multi-billion dollar settlement. But even when no one is intentionally trying to mislead or manipulate, charts designed to make information clear can still lead to erroneous conclusions. Just consider the U.S. maternal mortality statistics, which seem to show maternal deaths rising from 0.4 deaths per 100,000 women in 2003 to close to 1 per 100,000 in 2020. This graph is worrisome, particularly if you or your partner is pregnant (or expect to be). Why are so many more expectant and new mothers dying? Is there some new danger? Is the healthcare system getting worse? Coverage in Scientific American, NPR, and elsewhere suggested t...
Professor Joseph Allen directs the Healthy Buildings Program at Harvard Chan School of Public Health. His expertise extends far beyond what makes buildings healthy. He has been a leading voice and advocate during the Covid pandemic for air quality and ventilation. He coined the term “Forever Chemicals” and has written extensively on this vital topic, no less other important exposures, which we covered In our wide-ranging conversation. You will see how remarkably articulate and passionate Prof Allen is about these issues, along with his optimism for solutions.A video snippet of our conversation: buildings as the 1st line of defense vs respiratory pathogens. Full videos of all Ground Truths podcasts can be seen on YouTube here. The audios are also available on Apple and Spotify.Transcript with External Links and Links to AudioEric Topol (00:00:06):Well, hello. It's Eric Topol from Ground Truths and I am just delighted to have with me, Joseph Allen from the Harvard School of Public Health, where he directs the Healthy Buildings Program that he founded and does a whole lot more that we're going to get into. So welcome, Joe.Joseph Allen (00:00:24):Thanks. It's great to be here. I appreciate the invitation.Joe Allen's Background As A DetectiveEric Topol (00:00:28):Well, you have been, as I've learned, rocking it for many years long before the pandemic. There's quite a background about you having been a son of a homicide detective, private eye agency, and then you were going to become an FBI agent. And the quote from that in the article that's the Air Investigator is truly a classic. Yeah, you have in there, “I guarantee I'm the only public health student ever to fail an FBI lie detector polygraph in the morning and start graduate school a few hours later.” That's amazing. That's amazing.Joseph Allen (00:01:29):All right. Well, you've done your deep research apparently. That's good. Yeah, my dad was a homicide detective and I was a private investigator. That's no longer my secret. It's out in the world. And I switched careers and it happened to be the day I took the polygraph at the FBI headquarters in Boston, was the same day I started graduate studies in public health.Sick vs Healthy Buildings (Pre-Covid)Eric Topol (00:01:53):Well, you're still a detective and now you're a detective of everything that can hurt us or help us environmentally and my goodness, how grateful we are that you change your career path. I don't know anyone who's had more impact on buildings, on air, and we're going to get into chemicals as well. So if we go back a bit here, you wrote a book before the pandemic, talk about being prescient. It's called Healthy Buildings: How Indoor Spaces Can Make You Sick - or Keep You Well with John Macomber, your co-author. What was it that gave you the insight to write a book before there was this thing called Covid?Joseph Allen (00:02:41):Yeah, well, thanks for making the connection too, my past career to current career. For many years, I thought there wasn't a connection, but I agree. There's actually a lot of similarities and I also am really appreciative. I am lucky I found the field of Public Health, it's clearly where I belong. I feel like I belong here. It's a place to make an impact that I want to make in my career. So yeah, the Healthy Buildings book, we started writing years before the pandemic and was largely motivated by, I think what you and others and other people in my field have known, is that buildings have an outsized impact on our health. Yet it's not something that comes to the forefront when you ask people about what matters for their health. Right, I often start presentations by asking people that, what constitutes healthy living? They'll say, I can't smoke, I have to eat well.(00:03:30):I have to exercise. Maybe they'll say, outdoor pollution's bad for you. Very few people, if any, will say, well, the air I breathe inside my building matters a lot. And over the years I had started my public health career doing forensic investigations of sick buildings. People really can get sick in buildings. It can be anything from headaches and not being able to concentrate all the way to cancer clusters and people dying because of the building. And I've seen this in my career, and it was quite frustrating because I knew, we all knew how to design and operate buildings in a way that can actually keep people healthy. But I was frustrated like many in my field that it wasn't advancing. In other words, the science was there, but the practice wasn't changing. We were still doing things the wrong way around ventilation, materials we put in our building, and I would lecture over and over and give presentations and I decided I want to try something new.(00:04:22):I do peer-reviewed science. That's great. I write pieces like you for the public, and I thought we'd try a longer form piece in a book, and it's published by Harvard Press. John Macomber for those who know is a professor at Harvard Business School who's an expert in real estate finance. So he'd been talking about the economic benefits of healthier buildings and some hand waving as he describes around public health. I've been talking about the public health benefits and trying to wave an economic argument. We teamed up to kind of use both of our strengths to, I hope make a compelling case that buildings are good for health and they're also just good business. In other words, try to break down as many barriers as we can to adoption. And then the book was published right as Covid hit.Indoor Air Quality and CognitionEric Topol (00:05:05):Yeah. I mean, it's amazing. I know that typically you have to have a book almost a year ahead to have it in print. So you were way, way ahead of this virus. Now, I'm going to come back to it later, but there were two things beyond the book that are pretty striking about your work. One is that you did all these studies to show with people wearing sensors to show that when the levels of CO2 were high by sensors that their cognition indoors was suffering. Maybe you could just tell us a little bit about these sensors and why aren't we all wearing sensors so that we don't lose whatever cognitive power that we have?Joseph Allen (00:05:56):Well, yeah. First I think we will start having these air quality sensors. As you know, they're starting to become a lot more popular. But yeah, when I first joined the faculty full-time at Harvard, one of the first studies I conducted with my team was to look at how indoor air quality influences cognitive function. And we performed a double-blind study where we took people, office workers and put them in a typical office setting. And unbeknownst to them, we started changing the air they were breathing in really subtle ways during the day, so they didn't know what we were doing. At the end of the day, we administered an hour and a half long cognitive function battery, and like all studies, we control for things like caffeine intake, baseline cognitive performance, all the other factors we want to account for. And after controlling for those factors in a double-blind study, we see that indoor air quality, minor improvements to indoor air quality led to dramatic increases in cognitive function test scores across domains that people recognize as important for everyday life.(00:06:59):How do you seek out and utilize information? How do you make strategic decisions? How do you handle yourself during a crisis and importantly recover after that crisis? I don't mean the world's ending crisis. I mean something happens at work that's stressful. How do you handle that and how do you respond? Well, it turns out that amongst all the factors that influence how we respond there, indoor air quality matters a lot. We call that study the COGfx Study for cognitive function. We replicated it across the US, we replicated it across the world with office workers around the world, and again, always showing these links, the subtle impact of indoor air quality on cognitive function performance. Now, that also then starts to be the basis for some of the economic analysis we perform with my colleague at Harvard Business School. We say, well, look, if you perform this much better related to air quality, what would happen if we implemented this at scale in a business?(00:07:51):And we estimate that there are just massive economic gains to be had. On a per person basis, we found and published on this, that's about $6,000 to $7,000 per person per year benefit across a company. It could lead to 10% gains to the bottom line performance of the company. And again, I'm a public health professor. My goal is to improve people's health, but we add a lens, mental health, brain health is part of health, and we add the economic lens to say, look, this is good for a worker of productivity and the costs are downright trivial when you compare it against the benefits, even just including the cognitive function benefits, not even including the respiratory health benefit.Eric Topol (00:08:33):And I mean, it's so striking that you did these studies in a time before sensors were, and they still are not widely accepted, and it really helped prove, and when we start to fall asleep in a group session indoors, it may not just be because we didn't have enough sleep the night before, right.Joseph Allen (00:08:56):It's funny you say that. I talk about that too. It's like, do we actually need the study to tell us to quantify what we've all experienced these bad conference rooms, you get tired, you can't concentrate, you get sleepy while you're driving your car. Yeah, a whole bunch of other factors. Maybe the speaker's boring, but a key factor is clearly indoor air quality and things like good ventilation, the chemical load in the space are all contributing.Eric Topol (00:09:20):Yeah. No, it's pretty darn striking. Now we're going to get into the pandemic, and this of course is when your work finally crystallized that you've been working on this for years, and then finally your collaboration with some of the aerosol experts. It was a transdisciplinary synergy that was truly extraordinary. And when you were on 60 Minutes last October, you said, “Think about the public health gains we've made over the past hundred years. We've made improvements to water quality, outdoor air pollution, our food safety, we've made improvements to sanitation: absolute basics of public health. Where has indoor air been in that conversation?” You brought it to us. I mean, you led the Lancet Commission on this. You've done a White House Summit keynote. You had a lot of influence. Why did it take us to finally wake up to this issue that you've been working on for years?Covid is Airborne, DenialJoseph Allen (00:10:31):Yeah. Well, I appreciate that, but I also liked what you started with. I mean, there's been a lot of us pulling on this, and I think one of the magical moments, if you could say that when the pandemic happened was that it forced these collaborations and forced a lot of us in our field to be a bit more vocal. And even that comment about the gains we made in public health, that comes from an article that we co-authored with 40 plus scientists around the world in science, trying to drive home the point that we've ignored one of the key factors that determines our health. We were all frustrated at the beginning of the pandemic. The first piece I wrote was January 2020, talking about healthy buildings as the first line of defense, airborne spread, ventilation, filtration. I could not get it published. I could not get it published.(00:11:20):So I moved it to an international paper. I wrote it in the Financial Times in early February, but it wasn't until mid-March that the Times took my piece on this airborne spread buildings ventilation. At the same time, we know people like Linsey Marr, Rich Corsi, many others, Shelly Miller out there publishing, doing the fundamental research, all trying to elevate, and I think we started to find each other and say, hey, someone's trying to hit the medical journals. We're not landing there. I'm trying to hit the Times, and we're not landing there. We're trying to get the reporters to pay attention. It's not landing there. Let's team up. Let's write these joint pieces. And I think what happened was you saw the benefit of the collective effort and interdisciplinary expertise, right? We could all start to come together, start instead of having these separate voices, a little bit of a unified voice despite important scientific minor disagreements, but start to say, hey, we started elevate each other and said, this is really important. It's the missing component of the messaging in the early days of the pandemic, and to know how to defend yourself.Eric Topol (00:12:20):Well, I think a lot of people think the big miss, and I know you agree, was the lack of recognition of aerosol transmission instead of just liquid droplets. But what you brought to this was really your priors on the buildings themselves and the ventilation systems and air quality that was highly, I mean, critical to it isn't just the aerosol, it's obviously how buildings are set up. Now, there's an amazing piece of course that appeared in the summer of 2021 called the Air Investigator, which profiled you, and in it brings up several things that finally are, we're starting to get our act together. I mean, ultimately there was in May 2023 years later, the CDC says, we're going to do something about this. Can you tell us what was this very distinct new path that the CDC was at least saying? And also couple that with whatever action if or not action has been taken.Joseph Allen (00:13:33):Yeah. So there really was a monumental shift that took, it was years in development, but we finally won the argument, collectively that airborne spread was the dominant mode of transmission. Okay, we got that. Then the question is, well, what changes? Do we actually get guidance here? And that took a little bit longer. I give Rochelle Walensky a lot of credit when she came into the CDC, we talked with her about this. That's when you start to first see ventilation starts showing up and the guidance, including guidance for schools. So I think that was a big win, but still no one was willing to set an official target or standard around higher ventilation rates. So that's important. Early in the pandemic, some people started to hear a message, yes, ventilation is important. What's the obvious next question, well, how much, what do I need? So in the summer of 2020, actually Shelly Miller and I collaborated on this.(00:14:23):We published some guidance on ventilation targets for schools. We said four to six air changes per hour (ACH) and target that. Well, it wasn't until 2023, spring of 2023 that you mentioned that CDC published target ventilation rates, and they went with five air changes per hour, which is right where we were talking about in summer 2020. It's what the Lancet of COVID-19 Commission adopted, but it's momentous in this way. It's the first time in CDCs history they've ever published a ventilation rate target for health. Now, I know this seems slow at the time, and it was, but if we think about some of the permanent gains that will come out of the pandemic. Pandemic changes society and science and policy and practice this, we are never going back. Now buildings will be a first line of defense for respiratory pathogens going forward that can no longer be ignored. And now we have the published target by CDC. That's a big deal because it's not just a recognition, but there's actually something to shoot for out there. It's a target I happen to like, I think there are differences between different scientists, but ultimately we've lifted the floor and said, look, we actually have to raise ventilation rates and we have something to shoot for. The public needed that kind of guidance a lot earlier, of course, but it was a big deal that it happened. It's just too bad it took until spring 2023.Eric Topol (00:15:46):Yeah, I certainly agree that it was momentous, but a year plus later, has there been any change as a result of this major proclamation, if you will?Joseph Allen (00:15:59):Well, I actually see a lot of change from a practitioner level, but I want to talk about it in two aspects. I see a lot of schools, universities, major companies that have made this shift. For example, in the 60 Minutes piece, I talk that I advised Amazon and globally they're measuring indoor air quality with real-time sensors in their buildings. I've worked with hundreds of school districts that have made improvements to indoor air quality. I know companies that have shifted their entire approach to how they design and operate their buildings. So it's happening. But what really needs to happen, Eric, if this movement is going to benefit everyone, is that these targets need to be codified. They need to go into building codes. It can't just be, oh, I've heard about this. So I made the decision. I have the resources and the money to make this improvement.(00:16:44):To create a healthy building or a healthy school, we need to be sure this gets built into our code. So it just becomes the way it's done. That is not happening. There are some efforts. There are some bills at the national level. Some states are trying to pass bills, and I have to say, this is why I'm optimistic. It feels very slow. I'm as frustrated as anybody. I wanted this done before the pandemic. As soon as the pandemic hit, we saw it. We knew what we needed to get done. It didn't happen. But if we think about the long arc here and the public health gains we're actually, it's remarkable to me that we actually have bills being introduced around indoor air quality that ASHRAE has set a new health focused target for the first time really in their history. CDC, first time. New buildings going up in New York City designed to these public health targets. That's really different. I've been in this field for 20 plus years. I've never seen anything like it. So the pace is still slow, but it really is happening. But it has to reach everybody, and the only way that's going to happen is really this gets into building codes and performance standards.The Old Efficient Energy BuildingsEric Topol (00:17:52):Yeah. Well, I like your optimistic perspective. I do want to go back for a second, back decades ago there was this big impetus to make these energy efficient buildings and to just change the way the buildings were constructed so that there was no leak and it kind of set up this problem or exacerbated, didn't it?Joseph Allen (00:18:19):Yeah. I mean, I've written about this a lot. I write in the book our ventilation standards, they've been a colossal mistake. They have cost the public in terms of its health because in the seventies, we started to really tighten up our building envelopes and lower the ventilation rates. The standards were no longer focused on providing people with a healthy indoor space. As I write in the book, they were targeted towards minimally acceptable indoor air quality, bare minimums. By the way that science is unequivocal, is not protective of health, not protective against respiratory pathogens, doesn't promote good cognitive function, not good for allergies. These levels led to more illness in schools, more absences for teachers and students, an absolute disaster from a public health standpoint. We've been in this, what I call the sick building era since then. Buildings that just don't bring in enough clean outdoor air. And now you take this, you have a building stock for 40 years tighter and tighter and tighter bumps up against a novel virus that spread nearly entirely indoors. Is it any wonder we had, the disaster we had with COVID-19, we built these bills. They were designed intentionally with low ventilation and poor filtration.Optimal Ventilation and FiltrationEric Topol (00:19:41):Yeah. Well, it's extraordinary because now we've got to get a reset and it's going to take a while to get this done. We'll talk a bit about cost of doing this or the investment, if you will, but let's just get some terms metrics straight because these are really important. You already mentioned ACH, the number of air changers per hour, where funny thing you recommended between four and six and the CDC came out with five. There's also the minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV). A lot of places, buildings have MERV 8, which is insufficient. We need MERV 13. Can you tell us about that?Joseph Allen (00:20:23):Yeah, sure. So I think when we think about how much, you have two ways to capture these respiratory particles, right? Or get rid of them. One is you dilute them out of the building or you capture them on filters. You can inactivate them through UV and otherwise. But let's just stay on the ventilation and filtration side of this. So the air changing per hour is talking about how often the air is change inside. It's an easy metric. There are some strengths to it, there's some weaknesses, but it's intuitive and I'll you some numbers so you can make sense of this. We recommended four to six air changes per hour. Typical home in the US has half an air change per hour. Typical school designed to three air changes per hour, but they operate usually at one and a half. So we tried to raise this up to four, five, or six or even higher. On the filtration side, you mentioned MERV, right? That's just a rating system for filters, and you can think about it this way. Most of the filters that are in a building are cheap MERV 8 filters, I tend to think of them as filters that protect the equipment. A MERV 13 filter may capture 80 or 90% of particles. That's a filter designed to protect people. The difference in price between a MERV 8 and a MERV 13 is a couple of bucks.(00:21:30):And a lot of the pushback we got early in the pandemic, some people said, well, look, there's a greater resistance from the better filter. My fan can't handle it. My HVAC system can't handle it. That was nonsense. You have low pressure drop MERV 13 filters. In other words, there really wasn't a barrier. It was a couple extra bucks for a filter that went from a MERV 8 might capture 20 or 30% to a filter, MERV 13 that captures 80 or 90% with very little, if any impact on energy or mechanical system performance. Absolute no-brainer. We should have been doing this for decades because it also protects against outdoor air pollution and other particles we generate indoors. So that was a no-brainer. So you combine both those ventilation filtration, some of these targets are out there in terms of air change per hour. You can combine the metric if we want to get technical to talk about it, but basically you're trying to create an overall amount of clean air. Either you bring in fresh outdoor air or you filter that air. It really is pretty straightforward, but we just didn't have some of these targets set and the standards we're calling for these minimum acceptable levels, which we're not protective of health.Eric Topol (00:22:37):So another way to get better air quality are these portable air cleaners, and you actually just wrote about that with your colleagues in the Royal Society of Chemistry, not a journal that I typically read, but this was an important article. Can you give us, these are not very expensive ways to augment air quality. Can you tell us about these PACs ?Joseph Allen (00:23:06):These portable air cleaners (PACs), so the same logic applies if people say, well, I can't upgrade my system. That's not a problem for very low cost, you could have, these devices are essentially a fan and a filter, and the amount of clean air you get depends on how strong the fan is and how good the filter is. Really pretty simple stuff here, and you can put one of these in a room if it's sized right. My Harvard team has built tools to help people size this. If you're not quite sure how to do it, we have a technical explainer. Really, if you size it right, you can get that four, five or six air changes per hour, very cheap and very quickly. So this was a tool I thought would be very valuable. Rich Corsi and I wrote about this all through the summer of 2020 to talk about, hey, a stop gap measure.(00:23:50):Let's throw out some of these portable air cleaners. You increase the air changes or clean air delivery pretty effectively for very low cost, and they work. And now the paper we just published in my team a couple of days ago starts to advance this more. We used a CFD model, so computational fluid dynamics. Essentially, you can look at the tracers and the airflow patterns in the room, and we learn a couple things that matter. Placement matters, so we like it in the center of the room if you can or as close as possible. And also the airflow matters. So the air cleaners are cleaning the air, but they're also moving the air, and that helps disperse these kind of clouds or plumes when an infected person is breathing or speaking. So you want to have good ventilation, good filtration. Also a lot of air movement in the space to help dilute and move around some of these respiratory particles so that they do get ventilated out or captured in a filter.Eric Topol (00:24:40):Yeah. So let me ask you, since we know outdoors are a lot safer. If you could do all these things indoors with filtration, air changing the quality, can you simulate the outdoors to get rid of the risk or markedly reduce the risk of respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-2 and others?Joseph Allen (00:25:04):Yeah, you can't drop it to zero. There's no such thing as zero risk in any of these environments. But yeah, I think some of the estimates we've seen in my own team has produced in the 60-70% reduction range. I mean, if you do this right with really good ventilation filtration, you can drop that risk even further. Now, things like distancing matter, whether or not somebody's wearing a mask, these things are all going to play into it. But you can really dramatically drop the risk by handling just the basics of ventilation and filtration. And one way to think about it is this, distance to the infector still matters, right? So if you and I are speaking closely and I breathe on you, it's going to be hard to interrupt that flow. But you can reduce it through good ventilation filtration. But really what it's doing also is preventing super spreading events.(00:25:55):In other words, if I'm in the corner of a room and I'm infectious and you're on the other side, well if that room is sealed up pretty good, poor ventilation, no filtration, the respiratory aerosols are going to build up and your risk is going to increase and we're in there for an hour or two, like you would be in a room or office and you're exposed to infectious aerosol. With good ventilation filtration, those respiratory particles don't have a chance to reach you, or by the time they do, they're much further diluted. Linsey Marr I think was really great early in the pandemic by talking about this in terms of cigarette smoke. So a small room with no ventilation filtration, someone smoking in the corner, yeah, it's going to fill up over time with smoke you're breathing in that secondhand smoke. In a place with great ventilation filtration, that's going to be a lot further reduced, right? You're not going to get the buildup of the smoke and smoke particles are going to operate similarly to respiratory particles. So I think it's intuitive and it's logical. And if you follow public health guidance of harm reduction, risk reduction, if you drop exposure, you drop risk.(00:26:58):The goal is to reduce exposure. How do we do that? Well, we can modify the building which is going to play a key role in exposure reduction.Eric Topol (00:27:06):Now, to add to this, if I wear a sensor or have a sensor in the room for CO2, does that help to know that you're doing the right thing?Joseph Allen (00:27:17):Yeah, absolutely. So people who are not familiar with these air quality sensors. They're small portal air quality sensors. One of the things they commonly measure is carbon dioxide. We're the main source of CO2 inside. It's a really good indicator of ventilation rate and occupancy. And the idea is pretty simple. If the CO2 is low, you don't have a buildup of particles from the respiratory tract, right? And CO2 is a gas, but it's a good indicator of overall ventilation rate. This room I'm in right now at the Harvard School of Public Health has air quality sensors. We have this at Harvard Business School. We have it at the Harvard Health Clinics. Many other places are doing it, Boston Public schools have real-time air quality monitors. Here's the trick with CO2. So first I'll say we have some guidance on this at the Harvard Healthy Buildings page, if people want to go look it up, how to choose an air quality sensor, how to interpret CO2 levels.Carbon Dioxide Levels(00:28:04):But here's a way to think about it. We generally would like to see CO2 levels less than 800 parts per million. Historically, people in my field have said under 1,000 is okay. We like to see that low. If your CO2 is low, the risk is low. If your CO2 is high, it doesn't necessarily mean your risk is high because that's where filtration can come in. So let me say that a little bit better. If CO2 is low, you're diluting enough of the respiratory particles. If it's high, that means your ventilation is low, but you might have excellent filtration happening. Either those MERV 13 filters we talked about or the portable air cleaners. Those filters don't capture CO2. So high CO2 just means you better have a good filter game in place or the risk is going to be high. So if you CO2 is low, you're in good shape. If it's high, you don't quite know. But if you have bad filtration, then the risk is going to be much higher.Eric Topol (00:29:01):I like that 800 number because that's a little lower than some of the other thresholds. And why don't we do as good as we can? The other question about is a particulate matter. So we are worried about the less than 5 microns, less than 2.5 microns. Can you tell us about that and is there a way that you can monitor that directly?Joseph Allen (00:29:25):Sure. A lot of these same sensors that measure CO2 also measure PM 2.5 which stands for particular matter. 2.5 microns is smaller, one of the key components of outdoor air pollution and EPA just set new standards, right? WHO has a standard for 5 microgram per cubic meter. EPA just lowered our national outdoor limit from 12 to 9 microgram per cubic meter. So that's a really good indicator of how well your filters are working. Here again, in a place like this or where you are, you should see particle levels really under 5 microgram per cubic meter without any major source happening. What's really interesting about those like the room I'm in now, when the wildfire smoke came through the East coast last year, levels were extraordinary outside 100, 200, 300 microgram per cubic meter. But because we have upgraded our filters, so we use MERV 15 here at Harvard, the indoor levels of particles stayed very low.(00:30:16):So it shows you how the power of these filters can actually, they do a really good job of capturing particles, whether it be from our lungs or from some other source. So you can measure this, but I'll tell you what's something interesting, if you want to tie it into our discussion about standards. So we think about particles. We have a lot of standards for outdoor air pollution. So there's a national ambient air quality standard 9 microgram per cubic meter. We don't have standards for indoor air quality. The only legally enforceable standard for indoor particles is OSHA's standard, and it's 5,000 microgram per cubic meter 5,000.(00:30:59):And it's absurd, right? It's an absurdity. Here we are EPAs, should it be 12, should it be 9, or should it be 8? And for indoors, the legally enforceable limit for OSHA 5,000. So it points to the big problem here. We talked about earlier about the need for these standards to codify some of this. Yes, we have awareness from the public. We have sensors to measure this. We have CDC now saying what we were saying with the Lancet COVID-19 Commission and elsewhere. This is big movement, but the standards then need to come up behind it and get into code and new standards that are health focused and health based. And we have momentum, but we can't lose it right now because it's the first time in my career I felt like we're on the cusp of really getting this and we are so close. But of course it's always in danger of slipping through our fingers.Regulatory Oversight for AirEric Topol (00:31:45):Well, does this have anything to do with the fact that in the US there's no regulatory oversight over air as opposed to let's say Japan or other places?Joseph Allen (00:31:57):Yeah, I mean, we have regulatory oversight of outdoor air. That's EPA. There's a new bill that was introduced to give EPA more resources to deal with indoor air. EPA has got a great indoor air environments division, but it doesn't have the legally enforceable mandate or statute that we have for outdoor. So they'd give great guidance and have for a long time. I really like that group at EPA, but there's no teeth behind this. So what we have is worker health protections at OSHA to its own admission, says its standards are out of date. So we need an overhaul of how we think about the standards. I like the market driven approach. I think that's being effective, and I think we can do it from voluntary standards that can get adopted into code at the municipal level. I think that's a real path. I see it happening. I see the influence of all this work hitting legislators. So that's where I think the most promising path is for real change.The Risks of Outdoor Air Pollution Eric Topol (00:33:03):Yeah, I think sidestepping, governmental teeth, that probably is going to be a lot quicker. Now, before we get to the cost issue, I do want to mention, as you know very well, the issue of air pollution in Science a dedicated issue just a few weeks ago, it brought up, of course, that outdoor air pollution we've been talking about indoor is extraordinary risk for cancer, dementia, diabetes, I mean everything. Just everything. And there is an interaction between outdoor pollution and what goes on indoor. Can you explain basically reaffirm your concern about particulate matter outdoors, and then what about this interaction with what goes on indoors?Joseph Allen (00:33:59):Yeah, so it's a great point. I mean, outdoor pollution has been one of the most studied environmental pollutants we know. And there's all of these links, new links between Alzheimer's, dementia, Parkinson's disease, anxiety, depression, cardiovascular health, you named it, right? I've been talking about this and very vocal. It's in the book and elsewhere I called the dirty secret of outdoor air pollution. The reality is outdoor air pollution penetrates indoors, and the amount depends on the building structure, the type of filters you have. But let's take an infiltration value of say 50%. So you have a lot of outdoor air pollution, maybe half of that penetrates inside, so it's lower, the concentration is lower, but 90% of the breaths you take are indoor. And if you do the math on it, it's really straightforward. The majority of outdoor air pollution you breathe happens inside.(00:34:52):And people, I think when they hear that think, wait, that can't be right. But that's the reality that outdoor pollution comes inside and we're taking so many breaths inside. Your total daily dose of outdoor air pollution is greater from the time you spend inside. I talk about this all the time. You see any article about outdoor air pollution, what's the cover picture? It's someone outside, maybe they're wearing a mask you can't really see. It's smoky hazy. But actually one of the biggest threats is what's happening inside. The nice thing here, again, the solutions are pretty simple and cost-effective. So again, upgrade from MERV 8 to MERV 13, a portable air cleaner. We are just capturing particles on a filter basic step that can really reduce the threat of outdoor air pollution inside. But it's ignored all the time. When the wildfire smoke hit New York City. New York City's orange, I called colleagues who are in the news business.(00:35:48):We have to be talking about the indoor threat because the guidance was good, but incomplete. Talk about Mayor Adams in New York City. Go inside, okay, that's good advice. And go to a place that has good filtration or they should have been giving out these low cost air cleaners. So just going inside isn't going to protect your lungs unless you're actually filtering a lot more of that air coming in. So trying to drive home the point here that actually we talk about these in silos. Well, wildfire smoke and particles, Covid and respiratory particles, we're all talking about these different environmental issues that harm our health, but they're all happening through or mediated by the building performance. And if we just get the building performance right, some basics around good ventilation, good filtration, you start to address multiple threats simultaneously. Outdoor air pollution, wildfire smoke, allergens, COVID-19, influenza, RSV, better cognitive function performance, anxiety. You start addressing the root cause or one of the contributors and buildings we can then start to leverage as a true public health tool. We have not taken advantage of the power of buildings to be a true public health tool.Eric Topol (00:36:59):Oh, you say it so well, and in fact your Table on page 44 in Healthy Buildings , we'll link it because it shows quantitatively what you just described about outdoor and indoor cross fertilization if you will. Now before leaving air pollution outdoors, indoors, in order for us to affect this transformation that would markedly improve our health at the public health individual level, we're talking about a big investment. Can you put that in, you did already in some respects, but if we did this right in every school, I think in California, they're trying to mandate that in schools, in the White House, they're mandating federal buildings. This is just a little piece of what's needed. This would cost whatever trillions or hundreds of billions of dollars. What would it take to do this? Because obviously the health benefits would be so striking.What's It Gonna Cost?Joseph Allen (00:38:04):Well, I think one of the issues, so we can talk about the cost. A lot of the things I'm talking about are intentionally low cost, right? You look at the Lancet of COVID-19 Commission, our report we wrote a report on the first four healthy building strategies every building should pursue. Number one commission your building that's giving your building a tune-up. Well, guess what? That not only improves air quality, it saves energy and therefore saves money. It actually becomes cost neutral. If not provides an ROI after a couple of years. So that's simple. Increase the amount of outdoor air ventilation coming in that has an energy cost, we've written about this. Improved filtration, that's a couple bucks, really a couple bucks, this is small dollars or portable air cleaners, not that expensive. I think one of the big, and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has written this famous paper people like to cite that shows there's $20 billion of benefits to the US economy if we do this.(00:38:59):And I think it points to one of the problems. And what I try to address in my book too, is that very often when we're having this conversation about what's it going to cost, we don't talk about the full cost benefit. In other words, we say, well, it's going to cost X amount. We can't do that. But we don't talk about what are the costs of sick buildings? What are the costs of kids being out of school for an entire year? What are the costs of hormonal disruption to an entire group of women in their reproductive years due to the material choices we make in our buildings? What are the costs to outdoor air pollution and cardiovascular disease, mental health? Because we don't have good filters in our buildings that cost a couple dollars. So in our book, we do this cost benefit analysis in the proforma in our book, we lay out what the costs are to a company. We calculate energy costs. We say these are the CapEx costs, capital costs for fixed costs and the OpEx costs for operating expenditures. That's a classic business analysis. But we factor in the public health benefits, productivity, reduced absenteeism. And you do that, and I don't care how you model it, you are going to get the same answer that the benefits far outweigh the cost by orders of magnitude.Eric Topol (00:40:16):Yeah, I want to emphasize orders of magnitude. Not ten hundred, whatever thousand X, right?Joseph Allen (00:40:23):What would be the benefit if we said we could reduce influenza transmission indoors in schools and offices by even a small percent because we improve ventilation and filtration? Think of the hospitalization costs, illness costs, out of work costs, out of school costs. The problem is we haven't always done that full analysis. So the conversation gets quickly to well, that's too much. We can't afford that. I always say healthy buildings are not expensive. Sick buildings are expensive. Totally leave human health out of that cost benefit equation. And then it warps this discussion until you bring human health benefits back in.Forever ChemicalsEric Topol (00:40:58):Well, I couldn't agree more with you and I wanted to frame this by giving this crazy numbers that people think it's going to cost to the reality. I mean, if there ever was an investment for good, this is the one that you've outlined so well. Alright, now I want to turn to this other topic that you have been working on for years long before it kind of came to the fore, and that is forever chemicals. Now, forever chemicals, I had no idea that back in 2018 you coined this term. You coined the term, which is now a forever on forever chemicals. And basically, this is a per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), but no one will remember that. They will remember forever chemicals. So can you tell us about this? Because this of course recently, as you know well in May in the New Yorker, there was an expose of 3M, perhaps the chief offender of these. They're everywhere, but especially they were in 3M products and continue to be in 3M products. Obviously they've been linked with all kinds of bad things. What's the story on forever chemicals?Joseph Allen (00:42:14):Yeah, they are a class of chemicals that have been used for decades since the forties. And as consumers, we like them, right? They're the things that make your raincoat repel rain. It makes your non-stick pan, your scrambled eggs don't stick to the pan. We put them on carpets for stain resistance, but they came with a real dark side. These per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, as I say, a name only a chemist could love have been linked with things like testicular cancer, kidney cancer, interference with lipid metabolism, other hormonal disruption. And they are now a global pollutant. And one of the reasons I wrote the piece to brand them as forever chemicals was because I'm in the field of environmental health. We had been talking about these for a long time and I just didn't hear the public aware or didn't capture their attention. And part of it, I think is how we talk about some of these things.(00:43:14):I think a lot about this. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, no one's going to, so the forever chemicals is actually a play on their defining feature. So these chemicals, these stain repellent chemicals are characterized by long chains of the carbon fluorine bond. And when we string these together that imparts this and you put them on top of a product that imparts the property of stain resistance, grease resistance, water resistance, but the carbon fluorine bond is the strongest in all of organic chemistry. And these chains of the carbon fluorine bond never fully break down in the environment. And when we talk in my field about persistent organic pollutants, we talk about chemicals that break down on the order of decades. Forever chemicals don't break down. They break down the order of millennia. That's why we're finding them everywhere. We know they're toxic at very low levels. So the idea of talking about forever chemicals, I wanted to talk about their foreverness.(00:44:13):This is permanent. What we're creating and the F and the C are the play on the carbon-fluorine bond and I wrote an article trying to raise awareness about this because some companies that have produced these have known about their toxicity for decades, and it's just starting the past couple of years, we're just starting to pay attention to the scale of environmental pollution. Tens of millions of Americans have forever chemicals in their drinking water above the safe limit, tens of millions. I worked as an expert in a big lawsuit for the plaintiffs that were drinking forever chemicals in their water that was dumped into the drinking water supply by a manufacturing company. I met young men with testicular cancer from drinking forever chemicals in their water. These really has escaped the public's consciousness, it wasn't really talked about. Now of course, we know every water body, we use these things in firefighting foams or every airport has water pollution.(00:45:17):Most airports do. Firefighters are really concerned about this, high rates of cancer in the firefighter population. So this is a major problem, and the cleanup is not straightforward or easy because they're now a global pollutant. They persist forever. They're hard to remediate and we're stuck with them. So that's the downside, I can talk about the positives. I try to remain an optimist or things we're doing to try to solve this problem, but that's ultimately the story. And my motivation was I just to have people have language to be able to talk about this that didn't require a degree in organic chemistry to understand what they were.Eric Topol (00:45:52):Yeah, I mean their pervasiveness is pretty scary. And I am pretty worried about the fact that we still don't know a lot of what they're doing in terms of clinical sequela. I mean, you mentioned a couple types of cancer, but I don't even know if there is a safe threshold.Joseph Allen (00:46:16):Eric, I'll tell you one that'll be really interesting for you. A colleague of mine did a famous study on forever chemicals many years ago now and found that kids with higher levels of forever chemicals had reduced vaccine effectiveness related to these chemicals. So your point is, right, a lot of times we're using these industrial chemicals. We know a couple endpoints for their affecting our bodies, but we don't know all of them. And what we know is certainly alarming enough that we know enough to know we shouldn't be using them.Eric Topol (00:46:51):And you wrote another masterful op-ed in the Washington Post, 6 forever chemical just 10,000 to go. Maybe you could just review what that was about.Joseph Allen (00:47:02):Yeah, I've been talking a lot about this issue I call chemical whack-a-mole. So forever chemical is the perfect example of it. So we finally got people's attention on forever chemicals. EPA just regulated 6 of them. Well, guess what? There are 10,000 if not many more than that. Different variants or what we call chemical cousins. Now that's important for this reason. If you think about how we approach these from a regulatory standpoint, each of the 10,000 plus forever chemicals are treated as different. So by the time EPA regulates 6, that's important. It does free up funding for cleanup and things like this. But already the market had shifted away from those 6. So in other words, in the many thousand products that still use forever chemicals, they're no longer using those 6 because scientists have told people these things are toxic years ago. So they switch one little thing in the chemical, it becomes a new chemical from a regulatory perspective.(00:47:57):But to our bodies, it's the same thing. This happens over and over. This has happened with pesticides. It happens with chemicals and nail polish. It happens in chemicals in e-cigarettes. It happens with flame retardant chemicals. I wrote a piece in the Post maybe six years ago talking about chemical whack-a-mole, and this problem that we keep addressing, these one-off, we hit one, it changes just slightly. Chemical cousin pops up, we hit that one. Five years later, scientists say, hey, the next one doesn't look good either. We're doing this for decades. It's really silly. It's ineffective, it's broken, and there are better ways to handle this going forward.Eric Topol (00:48:31):And you know what gets me, and it's like in the pharma industry that I've seen the people who run these companies like 3M that was involved in a multi-decade coverup, they're never held accountable. I mean, they know what they're doing and they just play these games that you outlined. They're still using 16,000 products, according to the New Yorker, the employee that exposed them, the whistleblower in the New Yorker article.Joseph Allen (00:48:58):That was an amazing article by Sharon Lerner talking to the people who had worked there and she uncovered that they knew the toxicity back in the seventies, and yes, they were still making these products. One of the things that I think has gotten attention of some companies is while the regulations have been behind, the lawsuits are piling up.Joseph Allen (00:49:21):The lawsuit I was a part of as an expert for that was about an $800 million settlement in favor of the plaintiffs. A couple months later is another one that was $750 million. So right there, $1.5 billion, there's been several billion dollars. This has caught the attention of companies. This has caught the attention of product manufacturers who are using the forever chemicals, starting to realize they need to reformulate. And so, in a good way now, that's not the way we should be dealing with this, but it has started to get companies to wake up that maybe they had been sleeping on it, that this is a major problem and actually the markets have responded to it.Eric Topol (00:50:02):Well, that's good.Joseph Allen (00:50:03):Because these are major liabilities on the books.Eric Topol (00:50:05):Yeah, I mean, I think what I've seen of course with being the tobacco industry and I was involved with Vioxx of course, is the companies just appeal and appeal and it sounds really good that they've had to pay $800 million, but they never wind up paying anything because they basically just use their muscle and their resources to appeal and put it off forever. So I mean, it's one way to deal with it is a litigation, but it seems like that's not going to be enough to really get this overhauled. I don't know. You may be more sanguine.Joseph Allen (00:50:44):No, no, I agree with you. It's the wrong way. I mean, we don't want to, the solution here is not to go after companies after people are sick. We need get in front of this and be proactive. I mentioned it only because I know it has made other companies pay attention how many billion does so-and-so sue for. So that's a good signal that other companies are starting to move away from forever chemicals. But I do want to talk about one of the positive approaches we're doing at Harvard, and we have a lot of other partners in the private sector doing this. We're trying to turn off the spigot of forever chemicals entering the market in the first place. As a faculty advisor to what we call the Harvard Healthier Building Materials Academy, we publish new standards. We no longer buy products that have forever chemicals in them for our spaces.(00:51:31):So we buy a chair or carpet. We demand no forever chemicals. What's really neat about this is we also say, we treat them as a whole class. We don't say we don't want PFOA. That's one of the regulated chemicals. We say we don't want any of the 10,000. We are not waiting for the studies to show us they act like the other ones. We've kind of been burned by this for decades. So we're actually telling the suppliers we don't want these chemicals and they're delivering products to us without these chemicals in them. We have 50 projects on our campus built with these new design standards without forever chemicals and other toxic chemicals. We've also done studies that a doctoral student done the study. When we do this, we find lower levels of these chemicals in air and dust, of course. So we're showing that it works.(00:52:19):Now, the goal is not to say, hey, we just want to make Harvard a healthier campus and the hell with everybody else. The goal is to show it can be done with no impact to cost, schedule or product performance. We get a healthier environment, products look great, they perform great. We've also now partnered with other big companies in the tech industry in particular to try and grow or influence the market by saying, look how many X amount of purchasing dollars each year? And it's a lot, and we're demanding that our carpets don't have this, that our chairs don't have it, and the supply chain is responding. The goal, of course, is to just make it be the case that we just have healthy materials in the supply chain for everybody. So if you or I, or anybody else goes to buy a chair, it just doesn't have toxic chemicals in it.Eric Topol (00:53:06):Right, but these days the public awareness still isn't there, nor are the retailers that are selling whether it's going to buy a rug or a chair or new pots and pans. You can't go in and say, does this have any forever chemicals? They don't even know, right?Joseph Allen (00:53:24):Impossible. I study this and it's hard for me when I go out to try and find and make better decisions for myself. This is one of the reasons why we're working, of course, trying to help with the regulatory side, but also trying to change the market. Say, look, you can produce the similar product without these chemicals, save yourself for future lawsuits. Also, there's a market for healthy materials, and we want everybody to be a part of that market and just fundamentally change the supply chain. It's not ideal, but it's what we can do to influence the market. And honestly, we're having a lot of impact. I've been to these manufacturing plants where they have phased out these toxic chemicals.Eric Topol (00:54:03):That's great to hear.Joseph Allen (00:54:06):And we see it working on our campus and other companies' campuses.Eric Topol (00:54:10):Well, nobody can ever accuse you of not taking on big projects, okay.Joseph Allen (00:54:15):You don't get into public health unless you want to tackle the big ones that are really going to influence.Micro(nano) PlasticsEric Topol (00:54:20):Well, that's true, Joe, but I don't know anybody who's spearheading things like you. So it's phenomenal. Now before we wrap up, there's another major environmental problem which has come to the fore, which are plastics, microplastics, nanoplastics. They're everywhere too, and they're incriminated with all the things that we've been talking about as well. What is your view about that?Joseph Allen (00:54:48):Well, I think it's one, well, you see the extent of the pollution. It's a global pollutant. These are petrochemicals. So it's building up, and these are fossil fuel derivatives. So you can link this not just to the direct human health impacts, the ecosystem impacts, but also ecosystem and health impacts through climate change. So we've seen our reliance on plastics grow exponentially over the past several decades, and now we're seeing the price we're paying for that, where we're seeing plastics, but also microplastics kind of everywhere, much like the forever chemicals. Everywhere we look, we find them and we're just starting to scratch a surface on what we know about the environmental impacts. I think there's a lot more that can be done here. Try to be optimistic again, at least if you find a problem, you got to try and point to some kind of solution or at least a pathway towards solutions.(00:55:41):But I like some of the stuff from others colleagues at Yale in particular on the principles of green chemistry. I write about them in my book a little bit, but it's this designing for non-permanence or biodegradable materials so that if we're using anything that we're not leaving these permanent and lasting impacts on our ecosystem that then build up and they build up in the environment, then they build up in all of us and in our food systems. So it seems to me that should be part of it. So think about forever chemicals. Should we be using chemicals that never break down in the environment that we know are toxic? How do we do that? As Harvard, one of the motivating things here for forever chemicals too, is how are we ignoring our own science? Everyone's producing this science, but how do we ignore even our own and we feel we have responsibility to the communities next to us and the communities around the world. We're taking action on climate change. How are we not taking action on these chemicals? I put plastics right in there in terms of the environmental pollutants that largely come from our built environment, food products and the products we purchase and use in our homes and in our bodies and in all the materials we use.Eric Topol (00:56:50):When you see the plastic show up in our arteries with a three, four-fold increase of heart attacks and strokes, when you see it in our testicles and every other organ in the body, you start to wonder, are we ever going to do something about this plastic crisis? Which is somewhat distinct from the forever chemicals. I mean, this is another dimension of the problem. And tying a lot of this together, you mentioned, we are not going to get into it today, but our climate crisis isn't being addressed fast enough and it's making all these things exacerbating.Joseph Allen (00:57:27):Yeah, let me touch on that because I think it is important. It gets to something I said earlier about a lot of these problems we treat as silos, but I think a lot of the problems run through our buildings, and that means buildings are part of the solution set. Buildings consume 40% of global energy.(00:57:42):Concrete and steel count for huge percentages of our global CO2 emissions. So if we're going to get climate solved, we're going to have to solve it through our buildings too. So when you start putting this all together, Eric, right, and this is why I talk about buildings as healthy buildings could potentially be one of the greatest public health interventions we have of this century. If we get it right, and I don't mean we get the Covid part, right. We get the forever chemicals part, right. Or the microplastics part, right. If you start getting this all right, good ventilation, better filtration, healthy materials across the board, energy efficient systems, so we're not drawing on the energy demand of our buildings that are contributing to the climate crisis. Buildings that also address climate adaptation and resilience. So they protect us from extreme heat, wildfire smoke, flooding that we know is coming and happening right now.(00:58:37):You put that all together and it shows the centrality of buildings on our collective health from our time spent indoors, but also their contribution to environmental health, which is ultimately our collective human health as well. And this is why I'm passionate about healthy buildings as a real good lens to put this all under. If we start getting these right, the decisions we make around our buildings, we can really improve the human condition across all of these dimensions we're talking about. And I actually don't think it's all that hard in all of these. I've seen solutions.Eric Topol (00:59:12):I'm with you. I mean, there's innovations that are happening to take the place of concrete, right?Joseph Allen (00:59:20):Sure. We have low emission concrete right now that's available. We have energy recovery ventilation available right now. We have real time sensors. We can do demand control ventilation right now. We have better filters right now. We have healthy materials right now.(00:59:33):We have this, we have it. And it's not expensive if we quantify the health benefits, the many, many multiple benefits. So it's all within our reach, and it's just about finding these different pathways. Some of its market driven, some of it's regulatory, some of it's at the local level, some of it's about raising awareness, giving people the language to talk about these things. So I do think it's the real beginning of the healthy buildings era. I really, truly believe it. I've never seen change like this in my field. I've been chasing sick buildings for a long time.Joseph Allen (01:00:11):And clearly there's pathways to do better.Eric Topol (01:00:13):You're a phenom. I mean, really, you not only have all the wisdom, but you articulate it so well. I mean, you're leading the charge on this, and we're really indebted to you. I'm really grateful for you taking an hour of your busy time to enlighten us on this. I think what you're doing is it's going to keep you busy for your whole career.Joseph Allen (01:00:44):Well, the goal here is for me to put myself out of business. We shouldn't have a healthy buildings program. It just should be the way it's done. So I'm looking forward to the time out of business, hopefully have a healthy building future, then I can retire, be happy, and we'll be onto the next big problem.Eric Topol (01:00:57):We'll all be following your writings, which are many, and fortunately not just for science publications, but also for the public though, they're so important because the awareness level as I can't emphasize enough, it's just not there yet. And I think this episode is going to help bring that to a higher level. So Joe, thank you so much for everything you're doing.Joseph Allen (01:01:20):Well, I appreciate it. Thanks for what you're doing too, and thanks for inviting me on. We can't get the word out unless we start sharing it across our different audiences, so I appreciate it. Thanks so much.Eric Topol (01:01:28):You bet.***********************************************A PollThanks for listening, reading or watching!The Ground Truths newsletters and podcasts are all free, open-access, without ads.Please share this post/podcast with your friends and network if you found it informative!Voluntary paid subscriptions all go to support Scripps Research. Many thanks for that—they greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for 2023 and 2024.Thanks to my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff for audio and video support at Scripps Research.Note: you can select preferences to receive emails about newsletters, podcasts, or all I don't want to bother you with an email for content that you're not interested in. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe
In the third episode of the NSAIDs saga, we focus on COX-2 inhibition! Did the hopes and dreams of selective COX-2 inhibition pan out? What can the rise and fall of VIOXX teach us about physiology? Intro 0:11 Recap of part 1 & 2 0:28 In this episode 1:44 Cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) and the rat experiment 3:12 What do we know about the prostaglandins? And what about COX-2 7:54 What does prostacyclin do? 10:33 The first COX-2 inhibitor: VIOXX 10:56 What is COX-2 doing?: Pfizer and Merck 12:15 Two more NSAID studies: colon cancer, Alzheimer's disease and COX-2 inhibitors 18:41 VIOXX: Why is myocardial infarction risk occurring? 22:34 Animal models and the Goldilocks theory of thromboxane and prostacyclin 23:49 PRECISION trial 30:25 Rheum + Boards 37:14 Thanks for listening 37:32 We'd love to hear from you! Send your comments/questions to Dr. Brown at rheuminationspodcast@healio.com. Follow us on Twitter @HRheuminations @AdamJBrownMD @HealioRheum. References: Anderson GD, et al. J Clin Invest. 1996;doi:10.1172/JCI118717. Funk CD, et al. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2007;doi:10.1097/FJC.0b013e318157f72d. Hennan JK, et al. Circulation. 2001;doi:10.1161/hc3301.092790. Krumholz HM, et al. BMJ. 2007;doi:10.1136/bmj.39024.487720.68. Nissen SE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1611593. Disclosures: Brown reports no relevant financial disclosures.
Shownotes and Transcript Dr. Andy Wakefield joins Hearts of Oak to discuss his transition from mainstream physician to medical industry whistle-blower, sharing with us his findings on the MMR vaccine's link to autism. He talks about facing backlash, making films like "Vaxxed" and the recently released "Protocol 7" to address vaccine safety and pharmaceutical fraud. Despite challenges like losing his license, Andy stresses the importance of revealing the truth to the public. He highlights the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry's negligence towards patient safety, legal protections shielding companies from vaccine injury liability, and the need for public involvement in spreading awareness and demanding accountability. PROTOCOL 7 - An Andy Wakefield Film WEBSITE protocol7.movie X/TWITTER x.com/P7Movie INSTAGRAM instagram.com/protocol7movie Andy Wakefield has been likened to the Dreyfus of his generation -- a doctor falsely accused of scientific and medical misconduct, whose discoveries opened up entirely new perceptions of childhood autism, the gut-brain link, and vaccine safety. As an ‘insider,' the price for his discoveries and his refusal to walk away from the issues they raised, was swift and brutal, with loss of job, career, reputation, honours, colleagues, and country. And yet he enjoys a huge and growing support from around the world. Wakefield's stance made him a trusted place for whistle-blowers -- from government and industry to confess and ‘download.' He has extraordinary stories to share. Wakefield is now an award-winning filmmaker. Despite elaborate attempts at censorship, his documentary VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe – the revelations of a vaccine scientist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- changed the public mindset on the truth about vaccine safety. Wakefield's is a story that starts with professional trust in the instincts of mothers, choice and consequences, a quest for truth, and perseverance against overwhelming odds. Andy has long pursued the scientific link between childhood vaccines, intestinal inflammation, & neurological injury in children. Dr. Wakefield is the co-founder of the Autism Media Channel & the founder of 7th Chakra Films. He is the director of his first major narrative feature, the recently released #Protocol7, co-written with Terry Rossio (Aladdin, Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean, Fast and Furious, Godzilla vs. King Kong). Connect with Andy... WEBSITE 7thchakrafilms.com INSTAGRAM instagram.com/andrewjwakefield X/TWITTER x.com/DrAndyWakefield Interview recorded 25.6.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript (Hearts of Oak) I am delighted to have Dr. Andrew Wakefield with us today. Andrew, thank you so much for joining us today. (Dr Andy Wakefield) Peter, my pleasure. Great to be here. Great to have you. And your name will be well known, certainly to many Brits. And I live through what you faced just as a Brit consuming news. And we'll get into all of that. People can follow you @DrAndyWakefield on Twitter. And we're going to talk about your latest film, Protocol7.Movie. All the links will be in the description. So we will get to that. But I encourage people to not only look at your Twitter feed, but also look at the website for the film, which is literally just out. But you're the award-winning filmmaker of Vaxxed and many other films. And of course, the latest one just came out. Doctor, if I can bring us back a little bit, because you had a certain time where your name was massively out there and that was simply asking questions. I think a lot of us have woken up to maybe big pharma, have woken up to vaccines and their role over the last four years. And you were much earlier than many people in the public. But that Lancet MMR autism, and I think your Wikipedia probably says fraud more than any other Wikipedia I've ever read. But you talked about that link between MMR, mumps, measles and rubella vaccine and autism. Maybe you could just go back and let us know your background, your medical background, and then what led up to you putting that out and maybe give us an insight into the chaos that ensued? Certainly, Peter. I was an entirely mainstream physician. I graduated at St. Mary's Hospital in London, part of the University of London, one of six generations of doctors in my family to have graduated there. And I ran a research team in gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in North London and our principal interests were Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis inflammatory bowel disease, and in 1995 parents started contacting me and saying my child was perfectly fine they had an MMR vaccine in many cases and they regressed rapidly into autism, had seizures, lost speech, and language interaction with their siblings. And ultimately they were diagnosed with autism, well I know I knew nothing about autism. It was so rare when I was at medical school we weren't taught about it and I said you must have got the wrong number,. They said the reason we're contacting you is my child has intractable bowel problems, failure to thrive, they're in pain, I know they're in pain even though they've lost the ability to communicate. And the doctors and nurses that I've spoken to about this have said that's just part of autism, get over it, put them in a home, move on have another child. It's an extraordinary situation and so we investigated these children I put together a very eminent team of physicians. Who investigated these children and confirmed that the parents were right the children had I had an inflammatory bowel disease, and that's now been confirmed in multiple studies worldwide. When we treated that bowel disease, then not only did the gastrointestinal symptoms improve, but the autism improved. We didn't cure it, but the children, for example, started using words they hadn't used for five years. It was quite extraordinary. And so as academics, we said that didn't happen, and we did it 183 times, and it happened pretty much every time. So, we then began to believe that there was something really very, very interesting. So, when the parents said my child regressed after a vaccine, we had a professional and moral obligation to take that very seriously. But that really flew in the face of government policy and pharmaceutical industry profiteering. And that was really the beginning of the end of my career. The dean, Harry Zuckerman, took me aside and said, if you continue this vaccine safety research, it will not be good for your career. In that, at least he was correct. And when you offend government policymaking and the bottom line for the pharmaceutical industry, really, there's no price you will not pay. And people are now familiar with that. In the context of COVID, it's happened to many, many eminent doctors and scientists. But at the time, this was was a novelty, the cancel culture was a novelty, the ability of the system to destroy your career if you stepped out of line was something really quite new. And... So, I moved to America, set up a centre there for here in Austin, Texas for autism. They eventually destroyed my career there. And so I thought, well, how can I continue to help this population? And I'd been fascinated by filmmaking for a long time, screenwriting for a long time. And what had happened, Peter, is that over the years, because of the position I'd taken, And people had come to me from the Department of Health in the UK or from regulatory agencies such as the CDC in the US or the industry, the vaccine manufacturers, and said, we've done a terrible thing. Here is the evidence. We've committed fraud. And so I became a repository, if you like, for whistle-blowers. And this story, the latest story, Protocol 7, I mean, my films have been made about these whistle-blowers, some of them. And the latest story, Protocol 7, is one such whistle-blower, who came to me many years ago and presented to me the compelling story that ultimately we've turned into a major narrative feature film. Well, we'll get into that, but the role of media, I mean, you had BBC Channel 4 with hit pieces against you and I'm sure many others. What was that like? Because you said you were kind of mainstream. I remember that time as well, whenever I was mainstream, probably six years ago. So, it was a little bit later due. And you believe these institutions are positive. They're about actually reporting the news. And then you realize, actually, they're not. What was that like whenever you had all these media outlets suddenly make you a target of their reporting? Well, I think it really, part of it was Rupert Murdoch, his son, James Murdoch, was put onto the board of GlaxoSmithKline, Europe's biggest manufacturer of MMR, with the objective as a non-executive director of protecting that company's interests in the media, certainly the Murdoch media. And his target was me and they came after me in the biggest way and in the wake of that you know channel 4 as you say and others followed suit. It was very tricky. It was very difficult, because you didn't get to put the other side of it everything was heavily edited and it was just a relentless attack they were determined utterly determined that I committed fraud never committed scientific fraud in my life. But you can destroy the career of a physician or scientist in five minutes, literally five minutes. All you need is the headline and that's it. And then you spend the rest of your life trying to. Get back your reputation if ever. And I abandoned that idea because it was, the issue wasn't about me. It was about something far more important. And as soon as I, you know, I stopped worrying about what the media might say about me and simply got on with the job of doing what I could to help these children, then a huge weight was lifted from my shoulders. I just didn't worry about that anymore. Say what they like. I've got a job to do while I still have time on this planet. And that was to advocate on behalf of these children and try and move the needle on the real pandemic, which is of childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. I mean, it's in the media in the UK every day. We're talking about one in just over 20 children in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, in the UK. And this is an extraordinary level of a permanent serious neurological condition. When I was at medical school, it was one in 10,000. So what has happened? Just to bring your listeners up to date, your viewers up to date. The CDC performed a study at my behest. I told them, I said, look, I think that age of exposure is a major factor. The younger you are when you get the MMR, the greater the risk. It's not simply you get the MMR, you get autism. That's not it. There's got to be a co-factor associated with it. And age of exposure is one, I believe. Now, everybody is now familiar that the outcome from a viral infection, for example, COVID, is age-related. The older you are with COVID, the greater the risk. So everybody gets that now. And I said this to them. I said, I think that younger of age, your exposure is a major risk. Why? Because with natural measles, if you get it under one, you're at greater risk of a severe outcome than you are if you're over one. There is an age-related risk. So, they went away, they tested that hypothesis, and they confirmed that it was absolutely true. And they spent the next 14 years covering up, destroying the data, destroying the documents and changing the results to say that MMR vaccine was safe. And it was only when William Thompson, the senior scientist at the CDC who had designed the study, collected the data and analysed the data, had written the paper, came to me, came to a colleague of mine who came to me and said, we have done this terrible thing. I can no longer live with it. Here is the truth. And that was the basis of the film Vaxxed. And it wasn't my opinion. It wasn't my producer's opinion. This was the senior scientist from the CDC responsible for the study confessing to this fraud. What happened? Nothing. No one was held accountable. Absolutely appalling. These people, these five scientists at the CDC and their superiors had. Committed fraud and put millions of children at risk of serious permanent neurological disease and done so wilfully, knowing that there was a risk. And so I was appalled. And beyond that, I thought my filmmaking is going to expose people. It's going to actually hold people accountable for what they've done. Your study was, it was a small study, wasn't it? I think it was what like a dozen or 16. You're simply saying there does seem to be a link and it's surprising it could have been surprised, one time it should have been surprising, that actually a doctor who raises a concern that should surely be looked at and checked over instead of attacking but it wasn't a massive. You were simply saying these this is the pattern that I'm seeing in the small number of patients that I'm looking at in this study. That's absolutely right. The way in which human disease syndromes are described is usually in a handful of patients who present with... It's such a consistent pattern of signs and symptoms of clinical measures that they merit reporting in their own right. And that's exactly what this was. It couldn't test any hypothesis. It couldn't come to any conclusions other than more research was needed. It actually said this study does not confirm an association between the vaccine. It doesn't. It couldn't do. It is merely reporting the parent's story. And it was a very sober paper. But of course, the media blew it up to claim that I had said MMR vaccine causes autism. No, I didn't. However, I would say that now in light of the CDC study, I would most certainly. And it's their behaviour. It's their need to commit the fraud and hide the data that is the most compelling evidence that there is this clear link. They know there's a link, and rather than do something responsible about it they have put the children at continued risk. In fact they've expanded the vaccine program dramatically, so they've put even more children at risk in my opinion. No, completely and where many of us maybe may not have been anti-vaxxers five years ago we sure as hell are now so it's changed completely, but can I just ask you; you were up against the UK General Medical Council. They're the ones that allow you to practice. They're a judge and jury. It was like a few years investigation. Then in 2010, they decided that you were no longer acceptable. They struck you off. Tell us about that, because I've talked to doctors recently during the COVID chaos who have fought for their right to continue to practice as doctors and they've struggled. You were doing this 14 years ago. What was that experience at the General Medical Council? It was difficult. It was really difficult because there needn't have been a hearing. They'd made up their minds before we even walked through the door. The General Medical Council were under threat from the government of having their powers taken away and the government dictating policy such as right to practice and medical sort of ethics. And they therefore were under scrutiny from the government. They had to deliver on a decision, and they did. Now, the reason I can say that is that their decision was contrived and indeed made up their minds before they even come to the hearing is that when it came for the first time before a proper judiciary, before the UK's sort of senior courts, if you like. The judge was appalled by the GMC's behaviour. He said, and this is in the trial of John Walker Smith, my colleague's appeal against the decision to strike him off, he said, this must never happen again. It was really a political tool to destroy dissent. Now, I appealed as well as John Walker Smith, but I was told by my lawyers that it would cost me half a million pounds to pursue that appeal. I didn't have half a million pounds. I didn't have anything. So, the law belongs to those who can afford it. And that's a fact, whether you live in America or whether you live in the UK. Justice belongs to those who can pay for it. And so there was no opportunity for me to have my case heard on its merits it was simply thrown out. What we did do though when Brian Dear a journalist published in the British medical journal now claiming that I had committed fraud which is absolute nonsense. We sought to sue him and the British Medical Journal in the state of Texas. Now, that's where I lived. That's where my reputation was damaged. And that's where there was legal precedent that allowed us to sue them. Because the BMJ is a journal, sells its wares, its journal, to Texas medical schools. It profits from Texas medical schools. And there is a long-arm statute in Texas that allows us to sue them for defamation. Why would you, it costs about $3 million to sue someone for defamation. Why would you even think of doing that in a situation where all of the evidence is going to be laid bare for the public to scrutinize? Why would you do that if you committed fraud? You wouldn't do it. There was no fraud and therefore we had an extremely strong case and they knew it. They absolutely knew it and and they did everything they could to get out of it. Ultimately, the judge, the appeal court judges here ruled that we did not have jurisdiction. That went in the face of all of the legal precedent. We did not have jurisdiction. Indeed, the BMJ lawyers invoked Texas law in an attack on us. I mean, it was extraordinary that we weren't allowed to sue them here in Texas. This was a political decision from the highest level. They did not want this case to go forward. They They knew we were going to prevail, we were going to win, and that would have undermined their entire sort of years and years and years attacking me and others for suggesting that MMR vaccine might not be safe. And so we were denied the opportunity to have the case heard on its merits, and that's where it remains. Tell us about Vaxxed in 2016 from cover-up to catastrophe. And that talks about the CDC and others destroying evidence to show that there could be a link between MMR and autism. That's something which I think many of us over the last four years would probably accept that sounds plausible, definitely that makes sense, because of what we've seen with big pharma and the collusion with media and governments. But this, you put this out prior to that happening probably in a world where maybe people may not accept that as much because there was more were trusting institutions. But tell us about that film and the authorities wanting to destroy any evidence which would show there was a link. Yes, that was a fascinating film because, as I say, it was an insider from the CDC who was intimately involved in the study that looked at age of exposure to MMR and autism. And it clearly showed that the younger you were when when you've got the vaccine, the greater the risk of autism. And that was in... All children, boys in particular, and black boys above all. For some reason, black children seem to be highly susceptible to this adverse vaccine reaction. Now, we don't know the reason for that. Further follow-up studies should have been done. Now, when the CDC found this association, they had some clear options that would have been there available to them in the interests of the the American public. They could have said, right, we can delay. Let's suggest delaying this vaccine until it's safer. And we have done a bigger, better study to confirm it or refute it. That's what they should have done, to give parents the information, to give them the option. But they didn't. They trashed all of the documents. They trashed the data. They altered the results. And they, for 14 years deceived the public, doctors, the government, everybody, and so it was a very powerful story and we made the documentary it got into the Tribeca film festival which for us was one of the sort of preeminent film festivals and then it was withdrawn, it was censored. And I think that occurred because one of the sponsors of the film was involved in money management on Wall Street involving the pharmaceutical companies and also perhaps a sponsor of the Tribeca Film Festival. And so, you know, this is what I hear, whether it's true or not, that remains to be seen. But we were censored. This is the first time this had ever happened at Tribeca Film Festival. And it was a bad few days. And then De Niro went on the television on the what's called Good Morning America and the Today Show, the big national shows and said, we should never have done that. We should have played this film, everybody should have seen it and made up their own minds. And suddenly there was an explosion of interest in this film that people had been banned from seeing. And every attempt by the media to cover it up or De Niro's partner, Jane Rosenthal, to shut him down during interviews failed. He was very angry, very angry. And it had the impact of spreading the news of this film worldwide. And so what we saw at that point, which should have pre-empted COVID, was a major shift in people's perception. They came to the movie theatre, they watched the movie, and they said, wow. There is something, there's a problem here. And then, of course, we had the COVID experience and the extraordinary mishandling and misconduct and lies and deception, about the disease, its origins, and the vaccines, so-called vaccine. And public trust in the public health authorities has never been at such a low. And it will never recover and the point peter is this is that they only have themselves to blame. That is the truth. It's no good then coming after me, or after you, or people who bring them the message or come from the clinic and saying this is what I see in these children. They only have themselves to blame for their arrogance and their stupidity. Now, 2016 it was about that specific link MMR and autism 2019 you widened it in vax 2and to look at actually side effects, vaccine harms, across a range. And certainly the issue does not seem to just be one vaccine, there seems to be a range and we've seen that, and I know any parent will have had this conversation thought, any parent that actually is aware of conversations happening, and they will maybe have questioned the rush to jab children. I will touch on the amount of jabs children now get, which is quite concerning, the rise of jabs. But 2019, yeah, you widen it away from just MMR and concerns of side effects to this seems to be in many vaccinations. Was that received differently or do you still have the the same uphill struggle. Now, that film was not mine. It was made by Brian Burrows and Polly Tommy. And I was interviewed for that film, but it wasn't my movie. But what happened, it was based upon a series of interviews. After Vaxxed, we went off across the country, principally Polly Tommy, interviewing thousands of parents about their experience. And it emerged that other vaccines were involved as well. And I'd come to this via a different route. I came over to America to testify before Congress on the vaccine autism issue. And there I became aware that the mercury in vaccines was a problem. I wasn't aware of it before, that aluminium in vaccines was a problem. And so it became clear that it is very likely that it's the actual toxic load that a child is presented with at a very early stage, rather than just being one vaccine or another. Now, we'll never be able to discern the truth of that. We know which vaccines are involved, which are more important or less important. And this comes to a point you've made, is that they have so many vaccines now that how do you even begin to untangle the complexity, the permutations of how was it this vaccine or this one and this one together or these three or these 15? We just don't know. And I think there's almost been a deliberate attempt to expand the program without doing the appropriate safety research in order to make it virtually impossible possible to target any specific vaccine. So, I think that my sort of current thinking on it, and had we been allowed to conclude our research without it being sabotaged, is that it is related to the toxic load. And there is a study that has literally just come out from Brian Hooker. Scientist with an affected child, that shows that there is an exponential increase in severe adverse reactions like autism with increasing load of vaccines. The more you're given at one time, the greater the risk of an adverse reaction. This dose response effect is very plausible and is very strong evidence of causation. So, the field is highly complex. I'm quite certain that the sheer volume of vaccines that are given to children is way in excess of being safe. I mean, way in excess. And it has never been subjected to any formal clinical trial. You know, is it safe to give multiple vaccines at the same time? Hasn't been done. Well, yeah let me poke, because the issue is supposedly we have had a vaccine that's tested over a 10-year period or whatever and then it's decided safe, but the amount of vaccines that children are given; there is absolutely no way you could do any long-term study on that number of combinations of vaccines. So, it's completely into the unknown. It is. Now and here's the dilemma lemma is that when you take a pharmaceutical agent in the United States, for example. Then it goes through years, literally sort of 10, 15 years of clinical trials, randomized control clinical trials using a placebo, an inert placebo, before it's deemed to be safe. And yet with vaccines, that doesn't apply. They're classified as biologics, and the bar is set very much lower for safety. And so for the childhood vaccines, there has never been a proper long-term placebo-controlled randomized trial of safety. And therefore, it is deceptive, entirely deceptive to say that these vaccines are safe. They're not because they've never been subjected to the appropriate safety studies. And people need to know that. People need to realize that. It just has not been done. And it's now, you know, it's too late to close the gate. The horse has bolted. The vaccine safety studies are very difficult to do now, certainly prospectively. Well, one thing I just, before I get into Protocol 7, one thing I realized traveling the States so much over the last couple of years is that you turn on a TV, so different from Britain, and you see an advert for medication and it tells you how wonderful this medication is. And then half the advert is telling you the possible side effects and usually ends up with death. And you're thinking, that's the last thing I want to have. But that's a world away, and that's just kind of pushed through and accepted that actually the side effect could be much worse than the disease or the issue that it's trying to address. And you think, I sit and watch some of those adverts when I'm over in the States and think, how do we get to this situation where death is seemingly better than a headache? It is bizarre and this direct consumer advertising that happens in America and the other the only other place it happens is New Zealand. We don't, you know it doesn't happen in the UK, but it it's it's there's something more insidious about it, and that is the fact that the nightly news networks here way in excess of 70% of their income comes from the pharmaceutical industry advertising. They could not sustain their operation, a news operation, in the absence of that pharmaceutical industry sponsorship. And so, the industry controls the narrative the industry controls the editorial the headline they're not going to publish something and this happened to me I was interviewing with a girl called Cheryl Ackerson outstanding journalist who was at the the time at CBS. And she said, Andy, when we have finished editing this sequence about vaccines and autism, I will get a call within, you know, in 15 minutes, I'll get a call from the money men on the top story, a top floor saying, you will not play this segment because our sponsors have said they'll pull their money. Well, she was wrong. It was five minutes later. It came five minutes later. And that's the way they operate, I'm afraid. So there is, over and above advertising their drugs, there is something far more sinister about the control, the influence that these drug companies have over American mainstream media. Fortunately, in the UK, that direct-to-consumer advertising does not exist. So I want to jump on, which fits perfectly into Protocol 7, which seems to be about someone, a lawyer, small town, sees issues with Big Pharma, with the industry and wants to challenge. And it is a David and Goliath, something I guess, as you alluded to, we're all up against with Big Pharma. But tell us about this film, which is a story about a whistle-blower, but also going up against Big Pharma. This is based on a true story whistle-blower who came to me many years ago at a meeting in Chicago and revealed this fraud within Merck in respect of its mumps vaccine. And it's really a story more about the behaviour, how the industry behaves when confronted with a threat to its profiteering and its monopolistic sort of control of a vaccine in a country like America. And it's against sort of set against the love and devotion the um intuition of a mother who happens to be a lawyer who fights who battles against the power of the industry. And I'm not going to spoil the end for anyone but I urge people to see this film. It is it's now won 27 film awards it's only just really come out. It's got some wonderful reviews. Very, very high scores on rotten tomatoes and IMDb, so the key to the success of this film is its dissemination is people watching it and we're planning our UK release our European release as well right now So when it comes, please support it. Please get your friends and family to it. Merck realized in the 90s that the Mumps vaccine wasn't working and they took, many, many steps to cover that up and to essentially defraud the American public, the medical profession and others. And that's what the story is about. And it's based upon documents, actual documents obtained from that company that confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened. It's important in the context of safety. And you may say, why is it? The film really is about, or Merck's fraud, was about the efficacy, the protectiveness of the vaccine. It wasn't working as well as they said it was working. And that made it dangerous. Why? Because mumps in children is a trivial condition. That's acknowledged by the CDC. Mumps in post-pubertal adults is not trivial. You risk suffering testicular inflammation and sterility or or ovarian inflammation, brain inflammation. And so a vaccine that doesn't work or only works for a limited amount of time will make you susceptible to mumps again when you're past puberty, when you're in that at-risk period. And so a vaccine that doesn't work makes it a dangerous vaccine. It makes mumps a more dangerous disease. And this is a very important thing to understand within the context of mumps. Merck certainly knew about it and continued to defraud the public despite that. So yeah, it's a very, very important film over and above the issue of mumps. It's about how the industry responds to threats that really sort of compromise its ability to earn revenue, make profits, and maintain a monopoly. Because I think people often forget, and maybe have woken up during the COVID tyranny, that these institutions, they exist to make money for their shareholders. They don't really exist to make a product which makes you better. Their primary aim is the share price for shareholders, just like any company. And if they make a product that actually helps you, then to me, that's a bonus. Is that too cynical a view of the industry? No, it's absolutely true. And they wouldn't deny that. They would say, we're here as a business to make money. We're here as a business to serve our shareholders, our stockholders, first and foremost. That's not ambiguous at all. They would admit to that. The problem comes when everything's fine and they're making good drugs and they're benefiting people. That's fine. It's how the industry responds when something goes wrong. And for example, with Merck and Vioxx, the drug that, you know, was notoriously unsafe. But, you know, they knew at the time of licensing that there were problems. It was causing strokes and heart attacks. It was estimated, I think, that many hundreds or thousands of people suffered as a consequence of that drug. In the litigation in Australia, where Merck were, really, their heads were on the block about this. They uncovered some, in discovery, they uncovered documents which were an exchange between Merck employees about what to do about doctors who criticized their drug. And they said, we may have to seek them out and destroy them where they live. This is not conspiracy theory. This is company policy. There you have these guys saying, we may have to seek them out and destroy them where they live. Okay, so these are the kind of people with whom you're dealing. Tell us, because we hear that these companies are beyond the legal sphere. They have protections and safeguards within countries, and it doesn't matter what side effects that the drug causes, they have this legal protection. I mean, is that the case, or is there a way of actually using the legal system to actually go after these companies? Or is it a slap on the wrist? Sometimes they pay out money to different governments and they say: oops Well there there is and it's interesting the national childhood vaccine injury act in this country in America in 1986 took away liability financial liability from the drug companies for death and injury caused by childhood vaccines on the recommended schedule. Now, that was a gold mine for the industry because they had mandatory markets. Kids had effectively to get vaccinated to go to school and no liability. All they could do was make a profit. But the legal system does work sometimes. And in the context of COVID and the so-called COVID vaccine. There's just been a ruling, I think, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that has said COVID vaccine is not a vaccine. It doesn't protect against disease and it doesn't stop transmission. Ergo, it is not a vaccine. Now, once it's not a vaccine, by ruling of the court, it's not covered by the indemnity. It's not covered by the government protecting the industry. Suddenly, they're on their own. And that really raises some very interesting legal possibilities that is for litigation in this country. So, we'll see what happens. But there will be every effort by the government to side with the pharmaceutical industry to prevent them being sued, I'm quite sure, because that's what happened. But let's hope that the judges see it differently. I just want to end off on people's response to you because you were maligned, attacked. The media tried to discredit you. You then moved to the US. You lost your medical license. But these films you're putting out, they tell a compelling story. Tell us about how you feel these films have woken people up, maybe in a way that back whenever this happened to you 25 years ago, the opening was not there for the same ability to win people over. The opening does seem to be here now, maybe because of COVID, maybe people are more aware, maybe because of alternative media. But tell us about the message you're putting out in these films and kind of the response you're getting. Thing well really the films are made in a way that they're entirely up to the protocol seven, these were entirely factual documentary films and so vax for example if there'd been any word of a lie, if we'd got something wrong, we would have we've accused these scientists at the CDC of the worst sort of humanitarian crime. Their job was to protect these children they did completely the opposite. The hypocrisy goes way beyond what we've seen before and so if there had been a problem. We would have been sued to the moon and back again and there wasn't and they why because they know that it's true. And that's a very powerful thing and the same comes now with protocol 7 even though it's a narrative feature film. If there was something in that film that was defamatory of Merck, then they would come after us. They may well do because they're big and rich and powerful, certainly far more powerful than we are. But that's not a reason. Not to get the story out. My commitment is, my duty is to the public, not to Merck or to the government or indeed to the whistle-blower, but to the public who are being harmed. And so never make a decision based in fear. This is something I've learned over the years. If the story has merit, if it's honest, if it's true, if it has integrity, then you get it out there and, you know, let the cards fall where they may. Yeah completely. I want to ask you about funding, because it's everything costs money. It is actually, it takes a lot of work not only finance but expertise and research to put anything like this out and you know you're going up against an industry that will attack you in any opening any any chink in your armour. Was it difficult to actually raise funding to put these films together? Initially, it was. You know, this is my fifth film, and initially it was difficult, because people said, well, you're a physician. You know, what are you doing making films? Now they say, they're much more inclined to say, you've proven you can do it. Get on and make the next one. It's not easy, particularly in the current climate, I mean, Hollywood itself is in the doldrums; filmmaking, but the people still want meaningful films they want films that count films like Sound of Freedom and others that they really mean something that are worth going to the movie theatres to watch. And so that's the kind of film that we're making and hopefully we'll be able to continue to do it. I just can ask you about the last last thing about those who want to be part of what's happening, supporting the film as it comes out. I mean, how do they play a part? They can go, obviously, to the website, protocol7.movie, make sure and follow that, and they can follow your Twitter. But if they want to say, actually, I believe this message, it's so true, I have friends, family, actually suffering side effects, not only MMR, but across the board, and I want to make sure this message gets out. How can they play a part in doing that? One thing they can do, I mean, if they're immensely rich, they can fund the next film. If they're not, then they can help. People can help by going to the website and clicking on Pay It Forward. And this is a way of, we saw it with Sound of Freedom. It was very successful, a way of providing tickets for people who might not otherwise be able to afford a ticket to go and watch the movie, or for people who might not be inclined otherwise to go. In other words if there if there is an incentive to get a free ticket they may go and then be persuaded. And so it's a way of helping other people to access the film. When they might not otherwise be able to or be inclined to do that so pay it forward is a very useful device. And of course on the website you can pass on the trailer and make sure people watch that and get ready for it. Please do. Now, the success of the film comes down to the public. And that means, you know, your listeners, your viewers. So, we're very, very grateful for any help in that respect. And Sound of Freedom did that to a degree we hadn't seen before. And I encourage the viewers and listeners to do the same for Protocol 7. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, it is an honour to have you on and someone who I read all the stuff. In the late 90s and probably believed a lot of it that uh how times change and it's great to have you on and thank you for what you're doing on getting the message out on the link between the pharmaceutical industry and side effects. Well thank you so much. My pleasure thank you for having me on.
HISTÓRIAS CHOCANTES de 5 MEDICAMENTOS que DESTRUÍRAM VIDAS Apesar dos avanços que trouxeram medicamentos salvadores como a penicilina e a adrenalina, é vital reconhecer as falhas que resultaram em tragédias e mortes. Neste vídeo, compartilharei com vocês cinco casos onde medicamentos foram banidos ou severamente restringidos devido a seus efeitos nocivos. Estes exemplos realçam a importância de uma vigilância rigorosa e de uma ética inabalável no campo da medicina. Vamos aprender juntos como a incessante busca por lucro pode comprometer não só a integridade científica mas também a vida de milhares de pessoas. Capítulos: 00:00 Introdução 01:30 Talidomida - O Legado de um "Remédio Mágico” 04:02 Vioxx - Um Escândalo 06:54 Avandia - De Esperança a Desilusão 09:26 Trovan - Experimento Terrível na África
The Real Truth About Health Free 17 Day Live Online Conference Podcast
Howie and Harlan discuss health and healthcare headlines, including a cheating scandal that has led to the invalidation of hundreds of scores from Nepal on the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, the problem of research that never sees the light of day, new anti-obesity medications, and Florida's unorthodox approach to measles. Links: Standardized Testing “Cheated out of the American Dream” “MCAT scores and medical school success: Do they correlate?” ”Reducing Medical School Admissions Disparities in an Era of Legal Restrictions: Adjusting for Applicant Socioeconomic Disadvantage” “Medical School Admissions — A Movable Barrier to Ending Health Care Disparities?” “Yale Reinstates Standardized Test Score Requirement For Admissions” “New SAT Data Highlights the Deep Inequality at the Heart of American Education” Research at Universities Good Science Project: Stuart Buck “Why Are We Screwing Over Researchers Who Make Innovative Discoveries?” Intellectual Property: Ownership and Protection in a University Setting Measles in Florida “From COVID-19 to Measles, Florida's War on Public Health” CDC: About Measles “Additional measles case reported at Florida elementary school as lawmaker urges public health emergency” Obesity Drugs “Heard on the Street: Viking Therapeutics Invades Eli Lilly's Obesity Territory” Unreleased Research Data “The Ghost Research Haunting Nordic Medical Trials” “Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis” Harlan Krumholz: “What have we learnt from Vioxx?” A Transformative Gift “$1 Billion Donation Will Provide Free Tuition at a Bronx Medical School” IVF in Alabama The Alabama Supreme Court's Ruling “Florida Suspends Bill to Protect ‘Unborn Child' After I.V.F. Ruling” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: The Alabama Supreme Court's Ruling on Frozen Embryos Faculty for Yale Faculty for Yale “The Need For Institutional Neutrality At Universities” “Yale faculty sign letter addressed to Yale's future president, affirms commitment to social justice” Learn more about the MBA for Executives program at Yale SOM. Email Howie and Harlan comments or questions.
Howie and Harlan discuss health and healthcare headlines, including a cheating scandal that has led to the invalidation of hundreds of scores from Nepal on the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, the problem of research that never sees the light of day, new anti-obesity medications, and Florida's unorthodox approach to measles. Links: Standardized Testing “Cheated out of the American Dream” “MCAT scores and medical school success: Do they correlate?” ”Reducing Medical School Admissions Disparities in an Era of Legal Restrictions: Adjusting for Applicant Socioeconomic Disadvantage” “Medical School Admissions — A Movable Barrier to Ending Health Care Disparities?” “Yale Reinstates Standardized Test Score Requirement For Admissions” “New SAT Data Highlights the Deep Inequality at the Heart of American Education” Research at Universities Good Science Project: Stuart Buck “Why Are We Screwing Over Researchers Who Make Innovative Discoveries?” Intellectual Property: Ownership and Protection in a University Setting Measles in Florida “From COVID-19 to Measles, Florida's War on Public Health” CDC: About Measles “Additional measles case reported at Florida elementary school as lawmaker urges public health emergency” Obesity Drugs “Heard on the Street: Viking Therapeutics Invades Eli Lilly's Obesity Territory” Unreleased Research Data “The Ghost Research Haunting Nordic Medical Trials” “Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis” Harlan Krumholz: “What have we learnt from Vioxx?” A Transformative Gift “$1 Billion Donation Will Provide Free Tuition at a Bronx Medical School” IVF in Alabama The Alabama Supreme Court's Ruling “Florida Suspends Bill to Protect ‘Unborn Child' After I.V.F. Ruling” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: The Alabama Supreme Court's Ruling on Frozen Embryos Faculty for Yale Faculty for Yale “The Need For Institutional Neutrality At Universities” “Yale faculty sign letter addressed to Yale's future president, affirms commitment to social justice” Learn more about the MBA for Executives program at Yale SOM. Email Howie and Harlan comments or questions.
The FDA drug approval process is known to be a lengthy and rigorous one. But the FDA-approved ingredient phenylephrine — found in common cold medicines like Sudafed, Mucinex, and NyQuil — was recently found to be no better than a placebo. Phenylephrine has been on store shelves for nearly 90 years. How could that happen?In this episode of Tiny Matters, Sam and Deboki are joined by none other than Deboki's dad, Deb Chakravarti. Deb is a professor with years of industry experience and the current director of the York College FDA Partnership. He helps dissect the FDA's recent findings and how its history and ever-evolving role in the pharmaceutical industry contributed to phenylephrine being used in oral cold medicines for so long.Deb, Deboki and Sam also unpack pharmaceutical ethics cases, like thalidomide in the 1950s and 60s, and the case of Vioxx in the early 2000s, which led to tens of thousands of deaths. Sam and Deboki cap off the episode with tiny show and tells about how the nose is really 2 noses (!) and the story of a new, ingestible, vitamin-sized capsule that could protect people from dying of an opioid overdose, sleep apnea, or other conditions that depress breathing.Check out PNAS Science Sessions here and wherever you listen to podcasts. Links to the Tiny Show & Tell stories are here and here. Pick up a Tiny Matters mug here! All Tiny Matters transcripts are available here.
La industria farmacéutica desempeña un papel crucial en la sociedad al proporcionar medicamentos y tratamientos que mejoran y salvan vidas. Sin embargo, como en cualquier industria, también ha sido escenario de casos de fraude, estafas y mala praxis. Estos incidentes no solo erosionan la confianza del público en la industria, sino que también plantean cuestionamientos éticos sobre la priorización de las ganancias por encima de la salud y el bienestar de los pacientes. En este artículo, exploraremos algunos ejemplos notorios de fraudes, estafas y mala praxis en la industria farmacéutica, así como las implicaciones y las medidas tomadas para abordar estos problemas. Casos Emblemáticos de Fraude y Estafas Caso Turing Pharmaceuticals y el aumento de precios de Daraprim: En 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals, dirigida por Martin Shkreli, adquirió los derechos del medicamento Daraprim, utilizado en el tratamiento de infecciones parasitarias. La compañía aumentó drásticamente el precio del medicamento en un 5,000%, lo que generó indignación pública y puso de relieve las prácticas de fijación de precios abusivas en la industria. Caso Insys Therapeutics y el opioidi OxyContin: Insys Therapeutics promovió de manera agresiva su fentanilo de acción rápida, Subsys, para el tratamiento del dolor, incluso cuando no estaba indicado. La compañía se enfrentó a acusaciones de sobornar a médicos para recetar el medicamento y participar en tácticas de marketing engañosas, lo que contribuyó a la crisis de opioides en Estados Unidos. Caso GlaxoSmithKline y el escándalo del Paxil: La compañía farmacéutica GlaxoSmithKline fue acusada de ocultar datos sobre la seguridad y eficacia del antidepresivo Paxil en pacientes jóvenes. También se reveló que GSK había sobornado a médicos y manipulado la información en beneficio propio. Casos de Mala Praxis y Fallos en la Investigación Retiro de medicamentos después de la aprobación: En ocasiones, medicamentos que han sido aprobados por las agencias reguladoras se retiran del mercado debido a problemas de seguridad que no se identificaron durante los ensayos clínicos. Ejemplos notables incluyen el retiro del medicamento Vioxx de Merck por aumentar el riesgo de ataques cardíacos y accidentes cerebrovasculares. Estudios clínicos sesgados: Se han documentado casos en los que los resultados de estudios clínicos son manipulados o sesgados para favorecer los intereses de la empresa farmacéutica patrocinadora. Esto puede llevar a la aprobación de medicamentos que en realidad no son tan seguros o efectivos como se afirma. Implicaciones y Medidas Correctivas Los casos de fraude, estafas y mala praxis en la industria farmacéutica tienen implicaciones graves para la salud pública y la confianza en el sistema de atención médica. Para abordar estos problemas, se han tomado y se siguen tomando diversas medidas: Mayor transparencia: Las agencias reguladoras y las empresas farmacéuticas están bajo presión para aumentar la transparencia en la divulgación de datos de ensayos clínicos y en la presentación de informes sobre la seguridad y eficacia de los medicamentos. Regulaciones más estrictas: Se están implementando regulaciones más estrictas para prevenir la fijación de precios abusivos y para garantizar que los medicamentos se receten de manera adecuada y segura. Control de conflictos de interés: Se están adoptando medidas para controlar los conflictos de interés en la relación entre médicos y la industria farmacéutica, como la divulgación pública de las relaciones financieras. Mayor supervisión y sanciones: Las empresas y personas involucradas en prácticas fraudulentas o de mala praxis están siendo investigadas y, en algunos casos, enfrentan sanciones legales y multas significativas. Conclusión Si bien la mayoría de las empresas farmacéuticas están comprometidas con el desarrollo y la comercialización de tratamientos que mejoran la salud humana, los casos de fraude, estafas y mala praxis han sacudido la confianza del público en la industria. Es esencial continuar trabajando en la implementación de regulaciones más estrictas, la promoción de la transparencia y la ética, y la vigilancia constante para garantizar que los pacientes reciban medicamentos seguros y efectivos sin que se comprometa su bienestar en aras de las ganancias. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Antena Historia te regala 30 días PREMIUM, para que lo disfrutes https://www.ivoox.com/premium?affiliate-code=b4688a50868967db9ca413741a54cea5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Produce Antonio Cruz Edita ANTENA HISTORIA Antena Historia (podcast) forma parte del sello iVoox Originals ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- web……….https://antenahistoria.com/ correo.....info@antenahistoria.com Facebook…..Antena Historia Podcast | Facebook Twitter…...https://twitter.com/AntenaHistoria Telegram…...https://t.me/foroantenahistoria DONACIONES PAYPAL...... https://paypal.me/ancrume ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¿QUIERES ANUNCIARTE en ANTENA HISTORIA?, menciones, cuñas publicitarias, programas personalizados, etc. Dirígete a Antena Historia - AdVoices Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals
La industria farmacéutica desempeña un papel crucial en la sociedad al proporcionar medicamentos y tratamientos que mejoran y salvan vidas. Sin embargo, como en cualquier industria, también ha sido escenario de casos de fraude, estafas y mala praxis. Estos incidentes no solo erosionan la confianza del público en la industria, sino que también plantean cuestionamientos éticos sobre la priorización de las ganancias por encima de la salud y el bienestar de los pacientes. En este artículo, exploraremos algunos ejemplos notorios de fraudes, estafas y mala praxis en la industria farmacéutica, así como las implicaciones y las medidas tomadas para abordar estos problemas. Casos Emblemáticos de Fraude y Estafas Caso Turing Pharmaceuticals y el aumento de precios de Daraprim: En 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals, dirigida por Martin Shkreli, adquirió los derechos del medicamento Daraprim, utilizado en el tratamiento de infecciones parasitarias. La compañía aumentó drásticamente el precio del medicamento en un 5,000%, lo que generó indignación pública y puso de relieve las prácticas de fijación de precios abusivas en la industria. Caso Insys Therapeutics y el opioidi OxyContin: Insys Therapeutics promovió de manera agresiva su fentanilo de acción rápida, Subsys, para el tratamiento del dolor, incluso cuando no estaba indicado. La compañía se enfrentó a acusaciones de sobornar a médicos para recetar el medicamento y participar en tácticas de marketing engañosas, lo que contribuyó a la crisis de opioides en Estados Unidos. Caso GlaxoSmithKline y el escándalo del Paxil: La compañía farmacéutica GlaxoSmithKline fue acusada de ocultar datos sobre la seguridad y eficacia del antidepresivo Paxil en pacientes jóvenes. También se reveló que GSK había sobornado a médicos y manipulado la información en beneficio propio. Casos de Mala Praxis y Fallos en la Investigación Retiro de medicamentos después de la aprobación: En ocasiones, medicamentos que han sido aprobados por las agencias reguladoras se retiran del mercado debido a problemas de seguridad que no se identificaron durante los ensayos clínicos. Ejemplos notables incluyen el retiro del medicamento Vioxx de Merck por aumentar el riesgo de ataques cardíacos y accidentes cerebrovasculares. Estudios clínicos sesgados: Se han documentado casos en los que los resultados de estudios clínicos son manipulados o sesgados para favorecer los intereses de la empresa farmacéutica patrocinadora. Esto puede llevar a la aprobación de medicamentos que en realidad no son tan seguros o efectivos como se afirma. Implicaciones y Medidas Correctivas Los casos de fraude, estafas y mala praxis en la industria farmacéutica tienen implicaciones graves para la salud pública y la confianza en el sistema de atención médica. Para abordar estos problemas, se han tomado y se siguen tomando diversas medidas: Mayor transparencia: Las agencias reguladoras y las empresas farmacéuticas están bajo presión para aumentar la transparencia en la divulgación de datos de ensayos clínicos y en la presentación de informes sobre la seguridad y eficacia de los medicamentos. Regulaciones más estrictas: Se están implementando regulaciones más estrictas para prevenir la fijación de precios abusivos y para garantizar que los medicamentos se receten de manera adecuada y segura. Control de conflictos de interés: Se están adoptando medidas para controlar los conflictos de interés en la relación entre médicos y la industria farmacéutica, como la divulgación pública de las relaciones financieras. Mayor supervisión y sanciones: Las empresas y personas involucradas en prácticas fraudulentas o de mala praxis están siendo investigadas y, en algunos casos, enfrentan sanciones legales y multas significativas. Conclusión Si bien la mayoría de las empresas farmacéuticas están comprometidas con el desarrollo y la comercialización de tratamientos que mejoran la salud humana, los casos de fraude, estafas y mala praxis han sacudido la confianza del público en la industria. Es esencial continuar trabajando en la implementación de regulaciones más estrictas, la promoción de la transparencia y la ética, y la vigilancia constante para garantizar que los pacientes reciban medicamentos seguros y efectivos sin que se comprometa su bienestar en aras de las ganancias. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Antena Historia te regala 30 días PREMIUM, para que lo disfrutes https://www.ivoox.com/premium?affiliate-code=b4688a50868967db9ca413741a54cea5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Produce Antonio Cruz Edita ANTENA HISTORIA Antena Historia (podcast) forma parte del sello iVoox Originals ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- web……….https://antenahistoria.com/ correo.....info@antenahistoria.com Facebook…..Antena Historia Podcast | Facebook Twitter…...https://twitter.com/AntenaHistoria Telegram…...https://t.me/foroantenahistoria DONACIONES PAYPAL...... https://paypal.me/ancrume ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¿QUIERES ANUNCIARTE en ANTENA HISTORIA?, menciones, cuñas publicitarias, programas personalizados, etc. Dirígete a Antena Historia - AdVoices Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals
Join Ben and Rahul for their discussion with legendary trial lawyer Brian Panish, founding partner of Los-Angeles-based trial firm, Panish Shea Boyle and Ravipudi (PSBR). Brian discusses how the values he learned growing up and playing competitive sports through college shaped his work ethic and approach to the competition of trial practice. Brian shares keys to success at trial and in building a world-class trial law firm. Brian is the G.O.A.T. You don't want to miss this episode! About Brian PanishOne of the country's leading trial attorneys, Los Angeles personal injury lawyer Brian Panish has obtained some of the most significant jury verdicts in United States history on behalf of plaintiffs. His courtroom victories include a $4.9 billion record verdict in the landmark products liability case Anderson v. General Motors, over 100 verdicts and settlements in excess of $10 million, six verdicts in excess of $50 million, and more than 500 verdicts and settlements over one million dollars in personal injury, car accident, wrongful death and business litigation cases. Mr. Panish consistently serves in a leading role in the largest personal injury cases in California and the country. He currently serves as Plaintiffs Co-Lead Counsel in the Woolsey Fire litigation, Plaintiffs Co-Lead Counsel in the Southern California Fire Cases litigation arising from the 2017 Thomas Fire and subsequent debris flows in Montecito, California, and serves on the Plaintiffs Executive Committee for the 2017 North Bay Fires in Northern California. Mr. Panish also serves as Lead Trial Counsel in the Southern California Gas Leak Cases where he led a team of lawyers in obtaining a $1.8 billion settlement from Southern California Gas Company and Sempra Energy. He previously served in leadership roles in the Asiana Airlines Crash Litigation, the Olympus Superbug CRE Litigation and DePuy ASR Hip Implant Litigation, among others. Most recently, Mr. Panish has been retained to represent the husband and son of Halyna Hutchins, a cinematographer who was fatally shot and killed by Alec Baldwin on the movie set of ‘Rust' in October 2021. Since 2011, Mr. Panish has obtained more than $500 million in verdicts including, among others, a $23,720,996 bench trial award for a Southern California man and his wife after the man suffered a lower leg amputation as a result of being struck by a 28-foot utility truck while riding his motorcycle, a $21,503,420.48 verdict for a man who suffered catastrophic injuries after a vehicle illegally exiting the 405 Freeway HOV lane struck his motorcycle, a landmark $53,745,374 verdict for two Southern California brothers who were severely injured following a head-on collision with CRST big rig, a $41,864,102 jury verdict and subsequent $46,000,000 settlement for a United States Air Force Captain who suffered catastrophic injuries after being struck from behind while on his motorcycle and then dragged the length of a football field and a half by a Southern California Gas Company truck, a $36.5 million jury verdict against Schneider National for a big-rig crash that left a woman with severe spinal cord injuries, a $34.5 million verdict for a man who suffered a below the knee amputation after being hit by a tractor trailer, a $21,503,420.48 jury verdict for a Southern California man who suffered catastrophic injuries after a vehicle illegally exiting the 405 Freeway HOV lane struck his motorcycle and sent him careening across three lanes of traffic and into a passing flatbed trailer, a $17.4 million verdict for a Ph.D. student who suffered brain and jaw injuries during a rear end chain collision accident, a $17 million jury verdict against the Los Angeles MTA in the wrongful death of a visually impaired passenger, a $17.845 million award in a wrongful death case involving four family members killed when a Marine jet crashed into their home, a $20 million jury verdict for a woman who suffered a brain injury in a hit-and-run accident involving a J.B. Hunt tractor trailer, a $17 million jury verdict for a 84-year old man hit by a bus resulting in a leg amputation, a $15.3 million jury verdict for a woman and her daughter after the woman was severely injured on a negligently driven Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District bus, a $10.45 million jury verdict for the family of a security guard killed on the CBS studio lot and a $8.3 million jury verdict in the first DePuy ASR Hip Implant case to go to trial. Because of his expertise in personal injury, wrongful death, mass tort and product liability cases, Mr. Panish has been appointed to serve on the Plaintiffs' Steering and Executive committees in numerous high profile mass torts and major disaster cases, including litigation involving train crashes (co-lead counsel in the the Chatsworth Metrolink disaster, the Glendale Metrolink crash, and the Placentia Metrolink collision), airplane disasters (Alaska Airlines Flight 261 and Singapore Airlines Flight 006 crashes), pharmaceuticals (Vioxx and diet drugs), and defective product cases (Welding Rods, DePuy ASR Hip Implant Litigation, and Toyota Unintended Acceleration cases.) He is currently handling numerous cases involving the Asiana Flight 261 plane crash as well as serving as Plaintiffs Co-lead Trial Counsel, representing over 7,000 clients in the Porter Ranch Gas Leak litigation. Mr. Panish has been recognized by numerous publications and organizations as being among the top trial lawyers in the country. Some of the honors he has received include the following:2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America2023 Leading Commercial Litigators – Daily Journal2022 Finalist for CAOC Consumer Attorney of the Year2022 West Trailblazer – The American Lawyer2022 Top 100 Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2022 LA 500 – Los Angeles Business Journal2022 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America2022 Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2022 Top 100 Lawyers – Los Angeles Business Journal2022 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America2022 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers2022 California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award in the area of Personal Injury2022 Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar – Law3602021 Leaders of Influence: Litigators & Trial Attorneys – Los Angeles Business Journal2021 Top 100 Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2021 Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2021 LA 500 – Los Angeles Business Journal2021 Lawdragon Leading Lawyers in America2020 Top 100 Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2021 Best Lawyers® Lawyer of the Year – Mass Tort Litigation / Class Action – Plaintiffs – Los Angeles2020 Lawdragon Leading Lawyers in America2020 Plaintiffs Lawyer Trailblazer – National Law Journal2020 Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2020 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers2019 Top 100 Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2019 Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2019 Plaintiffs Lawyer Trailblazer – National Law Journal2019 Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar – Law3602019 California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award in the area of Personal Injury2019 Best Lawyers® Lawyer of the Year – Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs – Los Angeles2018 Finalist for CAOC Consumer Attorney of the Year2018 Top 100 Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2018 Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2018 Daniel O'Connell Award – by Irish American Bar Association-Los Angeles2018 Best Lawyers® Lawyer of the Year – Aviation Law – Los Angeles2017 Top 100 Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2017 Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2017 Civil Advocate Award – by the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC)2017 Finalist (2) for CAOC Consumer Attorney of the Year2016 Outstanding Litigator – by Southwestern Law School2016 Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2016 Best Lawyers® Lawyer of the Year – Plaintiff's Personal Injury Litigation – Los Angeles2015 National Law Journal's Elite Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame2015 Best Lawyers® Lawyer of the Year – Product Liability Litigation – Los Angeles2015 Top 25 Plaintiff Lawyers in California – Daily Journal2015 Robert E. Cartwright Sr. Award (given by the Consumer Attorneys of California in recognition of excellence in trial advocacy and dedication to teaching trial advocacy to fellow lawyers and to the public.)2014 Consumer Attorney of the Year – by the Consumer Attorneys of California2013 California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award in the area of Personal InjuryThe National Law Journal's 100 Most Influential Lawyers In AmericaDaily Journal's Top 100 Most Influential Attorneys in California2012 Top 20 Lawyers in California by The Recorder2010 Trial Lawyer of the Year by the California Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA)2010 Champions of Justice award from Loyola Law School2010 Best Lawyers® Lawyer of the Year – Product Liability Litigation – Los Angeles2009 Best Lawyers® Lawyer of the Year – Personal Injury Litigation – Los Angeles1999 Trial Lawyer of the Year – by Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA)Top 500 Attorneys and Litigators in the United States by LawdragonTop 10 Southern California Super Lawyers® (various years, including from 2009-2017)Listed in Best Lawyers® since 2001Listed in Southern California Super Lawyers® since 2004 In addition to his numerous honors, Mr. Panish currently serves as immediate past president of the prestigious Inner Circle of Advocates, comprised of 100 of the nation's top plaintiffs' lawyers. He is also a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers (including serving on the State Selection Committee), the International Society of Barristers, the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), and was the 2011 President of the Los Angeles Chapter of ABOTA. He is a member of the American Bar Association (formerly a Litigation Section Board Member), the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (formerly on the Board of Governors), and the Consumer Attorneys of California (formerly on the Board of Governors). He also serves on the Best Lawyers® Board of Advisors. Mr. Panish received his law degree, with honors, from Southwestern Law School, and received an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Southwestern in 2011. He received his B.S. from California State University Fresno, where he was named Scholar Athlete, was the recipient of the Athletic Directors Award and was named an outstanding alumnus at the school's Centennial Celebration in 2010. Mr. Panish is licensed to practice in California, Nevada, and Texas. Submit our online contact form to request legal assistance with your claim. Verdicts and Settlements:The following is a list of just some of the landmark cases that Brian Panish has been involved in:$4.9 Billion – Anderson v. General Motors Corp.$3.3 Billion – LA County v. Tobacco Industry$58 Million – Griggs v. Caterpillar, et al.$55.4 Million – Lampe v. Continental General Tire$53.745 Million – Lennig v. CRST$46 Million – Lo v. Southern California Gas Company$39.5 Million – Freeman v. Board of the Trustees of the California State University$36.5 Million – Sheth v. Schneider National$34.5 Million – Casillas v. Landstar Ranger, Inc.$32.5 Million – Johnson/Allen/Cascio v. City of Beverly Hills$32 Million __ J.G. v. Tulare County Child Welfare Services$27 Million – Dominguez v. San Francisco$25.5 Million – Sherman v. Courrege$23.7 Million– Rojas v.Hajoca Corporation$23.5 Million – Lee v. Pupil Transportation Cooperative$22 Million – Pogosyan v. SCRTD$21 Million – Nelsen v. Hillyard, Inc., et al.$17.845 Million – Yoon v. United States$17. 4 Million – Sheaffer v. NuCO2$17 Million – Cuthberton v. LACMTA$15.75 Million – Doe v. Alaska Airlines$15.3 Million – Francisco v. AC Transit$15 Million – Tilton v. Southern California Gas & Electric$15 Million – Wu v. Singapore Airlines$14.5 Million — Montanez v. Sunrise Farms, LLC$11 Million – Witham v. Avjet$10.45 – Villamariona v. CBS$10 Million – Doe v. Alaska Airlines$9.5 Million – Ledesma v. Patel$9.3 Million – Cedillo v. The Efim Sobol Trust$8.3 Million – Kransky v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.$8 Million – Rastello v. City of Torrance$7.5 Million – Rennie v. FedEx Brian Panish in the News: The following is a list of some of the articles in which Brian Panish is featured:What is the value of a poor man's life?Brian Panish addresses The Senate Judiciary CommitteeBrian Panish of Panish | Shea | Boyle | Ravipudi LLP Top Vote Getter Among Southern California's Personal Injury Super LawyersFormer Fresno State footballer (Panish) gives generously to Dan Brown Legacy Fund – MedWatch Today, 9/2/10Brian Panish and the Toyota Recall – Press Release, 6/7/10Judge Agrees to Expand Plaintiffs Committees in Toyota MDL – The National Law Journal, 5/17/10Brian Panish Receives #3 Ranking in 2010 List of Top 10 Southern California Super Lawyers – Press Release, 2/2/10Personal Injury Litigators of 2010 – The National Law Journal, 2010 View PDF of ArticleBrian Panish and Kevin Boyle Talk About Their Numerous Wins in Air Disaster Cases – The National Law Journal, 2010 View PDF of ArticleThe Los Angeles Area's Best Lawyers 2006 Survey Results – West – Los Angeles Times Magazine, 11/12/06The Top 100: California's Leading Lawyers – The Daily Journal, 9/21/06Profiles in Power: The 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America – The National Law Journal, 6/19/06View PDF of ArticleLawyering Up Pellicano's Victims – Deadline Hollywood Daily, 3/9/06Does Brian Panish Ever Lose? – Super Lawyers Magazine, 2006The Plaintiffs' Hot List – The National Law Journal, 10/10/05View PDF of ArticleOne of America's Top Trial Lawyers Opens New Law Firm – Press Contact, 4/18/05Top 10 LA County Super Lawyers – Southern California Super Lawyers, 2/05A Report On The Lawsuit Industry In California 2005 – Trial Lawyers Inc., 2005Jury Trials in The US – Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong, 10/11/04The Top 100 – The Daily Journal, 10/27/03Brian Panish Interview – California Civil Jury Instructions, 2003The Top 100…Reasons Why It's Good That Lawyers Have Power – The Daily Journal, 9/30/02The Top 100 – The Daily Journal, 10/29/01WINNING – Successful Strategies from 10 of the Nation's Leading Litigators – The National Law Journal, 2001The Top 100: California Law Business Ranks the State's Most Influential Attorneys for 2000 – The Daily Journal, 10/30/00The Top 100: California Law Business Ranks the State's Most Influential Attorneys for 1999 – The Daily Journal, 9/13/99To Panish, Client's Most Important – Verdicts & Settlements, 2/16/96Brian Panish named TLPJ's Trial Lawyer of the Year – TLPJ Foundation Letter, 8/6/90ATLA Meeting This Week in San Diego – California Law Business, 7/23/90LA's Top Attorneys & Law Firms – Angeleno MagazinePanish Leaves Greene Broillet For Own Firm – The Daily JournalPanish Among 500 Leading Lawyers – LawdragonPanish Among 500 Leading Litigators – Lawdragon
In this second episode of our Voices of CEO Excellence interview with Ken Frazier, the former executive chairman and CEO of Merck candidly reflects on how he managed past crises. Frazier discusses his decision-making process around the litigation trial concerning Merck's pain-relief drug Vioxx, and how his employees ensured that a potentially crippling cyber attack did not stop production of critical medicines. He also speaks about how his most important advisor, his wife Andrea, has kept him grounded. Frazier spoke with Vik Malhotra, former chairman of McKinsey's Americas region and co-author of last year's New York Times bestseller, CEO Excellence: The Six Mindsets That Distinguish the Best Leaders from the Rest and Steve Van Kuiken, a former leader in our Life Sciences Practice and global leader of McKinsey Technology. Listen to other episodes in our Voices of CEO Excellence series: Blackstone's chairman, CEO, and cofounder, Stephen Schwarzman Morgan Stanley's chairman and CEO, James Gorman Join our LinkedIn community of more than 89,000 members and follow us on Twitter at @McKStrategy. Explore our collection of Inside the Strategy Room episode transcripts on McKinsey.com Take a masterclass with 67 of the world's highest-performing CEOs and order your copy of the New York Times bestseller, CEO Excellence: The Six Mindsets That Distinguish the Best Leaders from the Rest. See www.mckinsey.com/privacy-policy for privacy information
In this second episode of our Voices of CEO Excellence interview with Ken Frazier, the former executive chairman and CEO of Merck candidly reflects on how he managed past crises. Frazier discusses his decision-making process around the litigation trial concerning Merck's pain-relief drug Vioxx, and how his employees ensured that a potentially crippling cyber attack did not stop production of critical medicines. He also speaks about how his most important advisor, his wife Andrea, has kept him grounded. Frazier spoke with Vik Malhotra, former chairman of McKinsey's Americas region and co-author of last year's New York Times bestseller, CEO Excellence: The Six Mindsets That Distinguish the Best Leaders from the Rest and Steve Van Kuiken, a former leader in our Life Sciences Practice and global leader of McKinsey Technology. Listen to other episodes in our Voices of CEO Excellence series: Blackstone's chairman, CEO, and cofounder, Stephen Schwarzman Morgan Stanley's chairman and CEO, James Gorman Join our LinkedIn community of more than 89,000 members and follow us on Twitter at @McKStrategy. Explore our collection of Inside the Strategy Room episode transcripts on McKinsey.com Take a masterclass with 67 of the world's highest-performing CEOs and order your copy of the New York Times bestseller, CEO Excellence: The Six Mindsets That Distinguish the Best Leaders from the Rest. Join 90,000 other members of our LinkedIn community: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/mckinsey-strategy-&-corporate-finance/See www.mckinsey.com/privacy-policy for privacy information
Merck is a pharmaceutical company that develops and markets prescription drugs, vaccines, and other healthcare products. Merck has been involved in several controversies related to its marketing practices. In the early 2000s, the company was accused of pushing its painkiller Vioxx despite knowing about its potentially deadly side effects. Merck ultimately settled lawsuits related to Vioxx for billions of dollars.Join our Exclusive Patreon!!! Creating Financial Empowerment for those who've never had it. https://www.patreon.com/WallstreetlookslikeusnowIt's worth noting that Merck, like other pharmaceutical companies, also plays an important role in developing and bringing life-saving medications to market. The industry faces complex challenges in balancing profit motives with public health concerns, and opinions on the ethics of drug marketing can be varied. Exclusive Trapper Apparel: https://trapperapparelinc.com The Stock Market is a Money Machine that Prints Money. You are more than capable of operating the machine. This is the Story that you Need to Tell Yourself Daily,... Not Just on Tuesdays. We Breaking Chains!!!The Pilgrimage to a New Life | Wallstreet Trapper (Episode 33) Trappin Tuesday's Orginal Video: https://youtube.com/live/JuQAPHJID0g From the streets to the stock market. Every Tuesday we bring financial empowerment to those who feel like they don't have the power. We are Trailblazing our way to Wealth. Ride with me. History in the Making!! Trappers Anonymous Group: https://join.trappersanonymous.com/ https://www.thetrapperuniversity.com #wallstreettrapper #WallstreetLooksLikeUsNow #StockMarketThis is the First of Many Shows so Make sure you're Locked in. Wallstreet Looks Like Us Now!! #Stocks #Trading #wallstreettrapper
Brandy Vaughan was a former sales executive for the pharmaceutical company Merck and the founder of learntherisk.org, a website dedicated to educating people on the risks associated with vaccines. Vaccine safety has come under scrutiny during the coronavirus outbreak, with pro-lifers expressing concern about the connection of vaccines to abortion, among other concerns.Brandy was a valient truther who dedicated her life to exposing the medical industrial complex.This episode is dedicated to the life of Brandy Vaughan. Email us: thefacthunter@mail.comWebsite: thefacthunter.com
This week Steve and Yvonne interview Jake Zimmerman of The Zimmerman Firm (http://zimmerman-firm.com/) and Genevieve Zimmerman of MeshBesher and Spence (https://www.meshbesher.com/). Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review View/Download Trial Documents Guest Bios: Jake Zimmerman Jake Zimmerman has litigated on behalf of plaintiffs whose total recoveries approach a billion dollars. Much of his practice focuses on intellectual property disputes, and on patent litigation and licensing in particular. He has also litigated high-stakes cases on behalf of personal injury plaintiffs and defendants. He was selected as a 2019 Attorney of the Year in Minnesota for his groundbreaking work on behalf of a parent whose son was killed at Sandy Hook. He was again selected as an Attorney of the Year in Minnesota in 2021 for his role in appeals from the Bair Hugger MDL litigation against 3M. Jake graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Minnesota School of Law. He lives in Saint Paul, Minnesota with his wife, Genevieve, and two wonderful children. Read Full Bio Genevieve Zimmerman Genevieve presently serves as court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in MDL 2666: In re Bair Hugger Products Liability Litigation. Genevieve was trial counsel in the only bellwether trial. The Bair Hugger MDL includes claims brought by patients who allege the Bair Hugger patient warming system caused deep joint infections following total hip and total knee replacement surgeries. Genevieve is also Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in MDL 2775: In re Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Products Liability pending in the District of Maryland. The MDL includes claims brought on behalf of patients who required revision surgery as a result of defective BHR products. Plaintiffs have successfully defeated a motion to dismiss based on preemption and tried the first MDL bellwether case in July 2021. After a three-week trial, the jury agreed Smith & Nephew was negligent for its false or misleading communications to orthopedic surgeons. Since 2013, Genevieve has served as a court-appointed member of the Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel Committee for MDL 2441: In re Stryker Rejuvenate and ABGII Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, and is also one of four attorneys appointed to the Settlement Committee for the Stryker MDL, which helped to negotiate a settlement in excess of $1.43 billion. Additionally, in May of 2019, Genevieve was appointed to the Plaintiff's Executive Committee of the 3M Combat earplug litigation MDL. She is one of 14 lawyers appointed by Judge Englehardt to MDL 2740, In re Taxotere, which includes claims brought by women who have suffered permanent baldness as a result of the use of Taxotere. She was court appointed to the PSC for the Biomet MDL in the Northern District of Louisiana, and helps patients suffering from hips made by Smith & Nephew, DePuy, Wright/MicroPort, and Zimmer. Genevieve's past work includes helping heart defibrillator patients after a Guidant recall in 2006. She represented patients who suffered serious injuries and death following the use of the recalled prescription drug Vioxx. She has assisted hundreds of clients in obtaining settlements for defective products including Yaz, transvaginal mesh, hernia mesh, Actos, to name a few. During 2007-2009, Genevieve spent nearly 75% of her time providing pro bono legal services to the survivors and families who lost loved ones as a result of the I-35W Bridge Collapse. The consortium was successful in obtaining recoveries exceeding $75 million. Genevieve serves the community through ongoing pro bono work where she has represented victims of domestic violence seeking to obtain court orders for protection, immigrants seeking to update immigration documents, and high school students seeking protection of their first amendment rights to equal access to school facilities. Genevieve is currently the immediate Past President of the Minnesota Association for Justice, having served on the Board of Governors since 2009, and was proud to receive the “Member of the Year” award in 2012, and the “Star” award in 2021. She is a past member of the Board of Governors for the American Association for Justice. Genevieve has been rated by SuperLawyers as a Super Lawyer since 2014. On a personal note, Genevieve volunteers and raises money for scholarship funds for her alma mater, St. Paul Central High School. In whatever free time she has left, she enjoys travel, skiing, recreational marathons, teaching her kids how to swing a hammer, shovel class five, and cheering for her Minnesota sports teams. Read Full Bio Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2
Leigh O'Dell serves as Co-Lead Plaintiff Counsel in MDL 2738 against Johnson & Johnson. The litigation centers on J&J's marketing and distributing talcum powder and the powder's link to the development of ovarian cancer in users. According to Beasley Allen, nearly 35,000 plaintiffs remain pending in the MDL and five plaintiff settlements totalling in $2.9 billion. Leigh also represents plaintiffs of litigations including transvaginal mesh, Gardasil, and Vioxx. Leigh works closely with the Emory University School of Law's Institute for Complex Litigation, by co-chairing the Institute's Bridge to Practice and Next Generation Programs, which help attorneys new to complex litigation better understand the principles and strategies of the practice. She also leads in a number of non-profit organizations, sitting on the Board of Directors for Children's Hope Ministry, Telling the Truth Ministries, Joni and Friends, and the Jimmy Hitchcock Award. Outside of the courtroom, Leigh serves on the Executive Committee for the National Trial Lawyers Association and holds memberships with the Federal Court Practice Section, the Montgomery County Trial Lawyers Association, the American Bar Association, the Christian Legal Society, the Federal Bar Association, and Public Justice. Leigh also serves on the Transvaginal Mesh and Talcum Powder Litigation Groups within the American Association for Justice. Leigh received mention on Best Lawyers' 2022 Women in the Law list for her work in Health Care, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions, and Personal Injury Litigation. She received mention the previous year on Best Lawyers 2021 Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions list in the Plaintiffs category. Leigh also received selection for the National Trial Lawyers' Mass Tort Trial Lawyers Association Top 25 list, The National Trial Lawyers Association Top 100 Trial Lawyers list, and The Trial Lawyers' RoundTable 50 Most Influential Trial Lawyers list. Leigh has received mention on the Best Lawyers in America list since 2011, Super Lawyers (Mid South region) since 2017, and Lawdragon 500 in 2019 and 2020. Leigh O'Dell LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/leigh-odell-5337bb4/ Beasley Allen Social Media LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/beasley-allen-law-firm/ Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/BeasleyAllen Twitter - https://twitter.com/BeasleyAllen Remember to subscribe and follow us on social media… LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/mass-tort-news Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/masstortnewsorg Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/masstortnews.org
For this episode we explore the evolution of the collaboration and partnership structure between sponsors, CROs and technology vendors in life sciences with Temitope Keyes, Executive Director of Encapsia. Temitope has had a front row seat to the digitization of the clinical trial process. We speak about the paper handling system that used to characterise clinical processes, and how “validation” that we now use to refer to systems validation used to refer to the validation of the printed paper. An entire ecosystem of vendors was required to make the paper ecosystem function, and the debate back then was whether to in-source or out-source, say, printing. The evolution away from paper was absolutely necessary to get an overview of what was actually happening in the trial. The safety issues with Vioxx is an example of how data buried in paper can endanger patients. Data submitted on paper also makes it prohibitive to find trends across trials and drug profiles. Temitope takes us through the digitization arc of the clinical process starting from the phone-based IVR systems to manage drug supply. Next came the development of the clinical database. Pharmaceutical companies attempted to build them themselves, but the complexity also forced specialisation in the industry and the creation of many of the technology vendors we work with today. Clinical operations is the most expensive part of a clinical trial budget, because it is human-intensive and humans are expensive. CTMS attempts to help provide an overview of the many people involved in a clinical trial. As more and more systems started supporting the clinical processes, the cost became prohibitive. CROs entered the space to offer pieces of systems to sponsors for a lower price, and in that way became technology companies themselves. We also speak about how we brought all the technology together to end-to-end solutions that allow decentralized clinical trials. Guest: Temitope Keyes: https://www.linkedin.com/in/temitopekeyes/ Encapsia: https://encapsia.com/
Episode 1861 - How doctors are compromised? The Vioxx debacle. 80 young Canadian doctors are dead after jab? Be careful when buying a used car. Don't believe the race baiting media. Why legacy did Hoover leave? Are people going blind after shot? Nuclear war will not happen? Avoid the fear porn! This is a high energy must listen show!
Today on the podcast, Paul talks with John Abramson, American physician, lecturer at Harvard, and author of the books, Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine and Sickening: How Big Pharma Broke American Health Care and How We Can Repair It. They have the important conversation about the problems with profit-driven pharmaceutical companies, conflicts of interest in the medical world, and how changing medical education and the system at large is integral for a patient-focused path forward. A note from Paul: Throughout my training and practice as a physician I have come to one very disappointing conclusion: Western medicine isn't helping people lead better lives. Now that I've realized this, I've become obsessed with understanding what makes us healthy or ill. I want to live the best life I can and I want to be able to share this knowledge with others so that they can do the same. This podcast is the result of my relentless search to understand the roots of chronic disease. If you want to know how to live the most radical life possible I hope you'll join me on this journey. Time Stamps: 00:09:57 Podcast begins 00:10:58 John's backstory as a physician 00:17:40 The inner workings of pharmaceutical companies 00:28:00 John's experience with the FBI 00:29:30 Details on the Vioxx case 00:37:35 Directed consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals 00:44:10 Details about the most recent Vioxx trial 00:46:10 Conflicts of interest in the medical world and thoughts on Statins 00:51:30 The Diabetes Prevention Program 00:59:45 Pharmaceutical companies' spending 01:10:10 What is the way forward and how can we change medical education? Get in touch with John at john_abramson@hms.harvard.edu Sponsors: Heart & Soil: www.heartandsoil.co Carnivore MD Merch: www.kaleisbullshit.shop Make a donation to the Animal Based Nutritional Research Foundation: abnrf.org White Oak Pastures: www.whiteoakpastures.com, use code CarnivoreMD for 10% off your first order or Carnivore5 for 5% off subsequent orders Higher Dose: www.higherdose.com/paul, or use code PAUL for 15% off your order Lets Get Checked: 20% off your order at www.TRYLGC.com/paulsaladino for 25% off Colima Salt: drpaulsalt.com, for a free bag of Colima Sea Salt
In the arena of political discourse, many can regard political commentator Bill Maher as an influential figure in mainstream television. Known for combining politics and comedy, Bill Maher has never shied away from controversy. However, in recent years, many on the political left have noticed a swift change in his rhetoric. Now filled with misinformation about medical science, a recurrent theme that has become more apparent since COVID-19 policies were implemented in the U.S. In today's episode, we assess the logical fallacies in Bill Maher's assessment of vaccines, anti-depressants, and medical science in his podcast Club Random with Bill Maher ft Aaron Rodgers. FacebookThe Social Chemist | FacebookInstagramThe Social Chemist (@socialchemistig) • Instagram photos and videosReferencesAaron Rodgers | Club Random with Bill Maher - Club Random with Bill Maher | Podcast on SpotifyThe serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence | Molecular Psychiatry (nature.com)The Serotonin Fixation: Much Ado About Nothing New (psychiatrictimes.com)Psychosurgery for schizophrenia: history and perspectives - PMC (nih.gov)Merck ordered to pay $321 million in criminal Vioxx probe | ReutersU.S. Pharmaceutical Company Merck Sharp & Dohme Sentenced in Connection with Unlawful Promotion of Vioxx | OPA | Department of JusticeRecommended Social Chemist EpisodesThe Conspiratorial Mindset of Dr. Peter McCullough (buzzsprout.com)The Transactional Relationship Between Conspiracy Theory Producer & Consumer (buzzsprout.com)
Emma hosts Dr. John Abramson, lecturer of health care policy at Harvard University, to discuss his recent book Sickening: How Big Pharma Broke American Healthcare and How We Can Repair It. First, Emma walks through Donald Trump's opening up of a lawsuit against the US Government, ICE officials' requirement to wipe phones upon leaving, and updates for today's primaries in Oklahoma, New York, and Florida. Then, Dr. John Abramson joins as he gets right into contextualizing his recent book within his greater work over these last few decades, walking back to his research in the late 1990s – while a family doctor and visiting lecturer at Harvard – that lead him to discover the overwhelming sway that Big Pharma held over determining what the medical community consensus was, particularly around the implementation of more expensive prescriptions. Next, he gets right into the role of pharmaceutical company Merck's drug “Vioxx,” in his research; advertised as an arthritis drug without adverse GI bleeds, Vioxx was approved in 1999 with a particularly influential spread in the New England Journal of Medicine, only for Abramson to dive into the proper FDA data (incredibly difficult to actually get one's hands on) and find that Merck had seen (consciously) a doubled risk of Cardiovascular complications. This brings Dr. Abramson to the climax that lead to his first book, Overdosed America, which was his lectures to Harvard Medical students on how and WHY there was this disconnect between Merck and NEJM, with the journal only provided with the peer-reviewed SUMMARY of data (8/13 peers were Merck employees), only to be confronted by lead editors of the Journal attempting to pressure him OUT of revealing this research – not because he hoped to correct it, but because it upset him that Harvard students were questioning his work. Wrapping up, Dr. John Abramson first dives into other forms of Big Pharma control over the US medical industry, looking at how cost-effectiveness studies and price-control are considered illegal allowing for Big Pharma to promote more-expensive less-effective pharmaceuticals, even with high-profile drugs such as insulin, all providing incredible price-gouging abilities for the industry, and the sway over medical journals that helps them back it up. And in the Fun Half: Emma and the crew take on Donald Trump Jr.'s coked-up defense of his father, Brennan from Kentucky dives into the massive ecological disasters caused by the bourbon industry in the region, and watch DeSantis' “Top Gun” parody. They take on the legacy of Stanley Kubrick before Benny Boy from Iowa provides background on today's interview, Tucker Carlson and Newsmax reflect on the life and legacy of Anthony Fauci, and then watch a haunting school-board meeting on CRT and the livelihoods of queer students. Ron Johnson talks about how safe gay marriage is (soo safe, nothing like abortion), and Tony from Fort Worth dives deep into the legendary depth of the Mean Girls cast, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out John's book here: https://www.harpercollins.com/products/sickening-john-abramson?variant=39935390089250 Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/
Occasionally, you come across an interview or subject that blows you away with incredible claims that are both out in the open - and yet invisible. Today's guest is an author and expert witness for some of the biggest pharmaceutical cases of this century, Dr. John Abramson. He reveals the rot that centers not only in the pharmaceutical industry but also the institutions that are constructed to serve as its guardrails - the medical journals, federal agencies, and guideline committees. In some What Would Physicians Say if They Knew Medical Journals Had No Access to Data for Peer Review?The most stunning aspect of the whole conversation centered around how the most prestigious medical journals conducted peer review without all of the clinical data. This means if anything was misrepresented or omitted there is no check on the truth of the claims from the study. Essentially, the journal and its reviewers are relying on the good faith submission of all important details from the study designers who are usually paid employees or have research paid for by the pharmaceutical manufacturers. The most famous landmark case was with Pfizer withholding adverse event data (or misclassifying them to avoid statistical significance) on cardiovascular events (heart attacks and strokes) with their medication, Vioxx. Only when Pfizer was sued in a huge class action lawsuit did the actual clinical data get revealed showing that they had seen a signal for adverse events but intentionally did not disclose it (or the raw data) to the medical journal reviewers. Worse yet, once the error was presented, the medical journals spent very little time discussing the error. According to Dr. Abramson, this is in large part because up to 40% or more of medical journal revenue comes from study reprints. This financial incentive to find positive results and publish makes for a twisted system that incentivizes the promotion of new medications and devices when they may not be safe or very useful. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Common Collagen Claims (taken from actual websites selling collagen supplements): “improves skin elasticity,” “support bone and joint health,” “strengthen hair, skin, and nails,” “may benefit the bodies cellular structure,” “support healthy skin, bone, and joints.” “will feed your skin health” “will improve nail appearance and strength” “lead to a noticeable hair thickness” Collagen as a supplement is not regulated by the Drug division of The Food and Drug Administration If you look at the bottom of the websites, or on the bottles, you will see a disclaimer that the claims “have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. ” More telling is “these products are not intended to treat, diagnose, cure, or prevent any disease.” Such a disclaimer is provided by the lawyers because if one claims to cure, treat, or diagnose an actual medical condition then it must have passed a rigorous FDA approval. To be clear, there have been no FDA studies that show collagen as a supplement treats any disease. Supplements commonly will use “support xyz health” – where you can fill in the blank with hair, nails, joints, skin – in the case of collagen. One of the main issues with supplements is “If the composition and quality of ingredients cannot be reliably ensured, the validity of research on dietary supplements is questionable. Moreover, the health of the US public is put at risk.” Starr RR. Too little, too late: ineffective regulation of dietary supplements in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(3):478-485. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302348 As such, even when you look at the studies which promote collagen, or collagen byproducts, they do not meet the most basic of studies which are done to evaluate pharmaceuticals. In order to have an evaluation of a pharmaceutical you must have three phases in the trial: phase one is determining the dose for safety. While the supplement industry is happy if you think all supplements are good and all pharmaceuticals are evil – everything, every drug, every chemical from water to salt to formaldehyde has a toxic dose phase two is to test the drug for efficacy and side effects. Some people will react poorly to a supplement just as they will a drug. WE need to know what those side effects are. With a supplement people who don't feel well often just stop it – or, like my cousin, die (yes, I had a cousin who died from a supplement). phase three testing is to determine if there is truly efficacy, what is the effectiveness and what is the safety. phase four is post-marketing surveillance in the public because even though you have gone through trials with a number of phases and under strict supervision when a drug is released to the public you have the chance to see millions of reactions. Thalidomide, for example, was released in Europe and even had two drug trials in the United States but was NEVER approved in the United States by the FDA because of insufficient data. Vioxx was a drug used worldwide and was taken off the market in 2004 because of the risk of a fatal heart attack, but was taken off after it had passed multiple drug tests previously. FDA testing is rigorous and specific, with the highest standards in the world. Collagen has NEVER had such rigorous testing performed. These tests have not risen to the level and in 2022 one report noted “More research is needed to establish knowledge of the effects and physiologic mechanism of collagen supplementation. Dermatologists should be aware of the unsubstantiated proclamations of collagen made by companies and in social media, as well as what evidence is established thus far, to be equipped to discuss collagen supplementation with patients.” Rustad AM, Nickles MA, McKenney JE, Bilimoria SN, Lio PA. Myths and media in oral collagen supplementation for the skin, nails, and hair: A review. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Feb;21(2):438-443. doi: 10.1111/jocd.14567. Epub 2021 Oct 25. PMID: 34694676. One of the most...
In this episode, I review an article on alternatives to Ibuprofen. This episode is sponsored by McNeese Construction. You can also read this episode on our blog at https://yopistudio.blogspot.com/2022/03/natural-alternatives-for-ibuprofen.html To keep this podcast going please feel free to donate at www.paypal.me/yopistudio If you would like to read more on this topic or any other previous topics, you can do so by checking out our blog at https://yopistudio.blogspot.com/ Feel free to see what we are up to by following us at: https://twitter.com/Dauricee https://parler.com/profile/Daurice/ https://www.facebook.com/yopistudio/ https://www.facebook.com/LouisianaEntertainmentAssociation/ To listen to the podcast, watch creative videos and skits go to https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvn6tns6wKUwz9xZw11_vAQ/videos Interested in projects Daurice has worked on in the movie industry you can check it out at www.IMDb.com under Daurice Cummings. Please add us to your RSS Feed, & iTunes, iHeart, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Pod, Sound Cloud, and our favorite Podbean! For comments or questions, you can reach us at yopi@post.com To read more about today's topic check out the references below. References: https://www.forbes.com/2004/12/13/cx_mh_1213faceoftheyear.html?sh=7432b7776d57 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-painkillers-risks/high-doses-of-common-painkillers-increase-heart-attack-risks-idUSBRE94S1FV20130529?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/ibuprofen-kills-more-pain-so-what-alternatives https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/ibuprofen-can-stop-your-heart-31-increase-cardiac-arrest-risk https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/ibuprofen-deadly-vioxx https://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-ingredient/ibuprofen https://www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/arnica https://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/topical-treatment-arnica-effective-ibuprofen-hand-osteoarthritis https://www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/ginger https://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/ginger-effective-mefenamic-acid-and-ibuprofen-relieving-pain-women-primary-dys https://www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/turmeric https://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/efficacy-and-safety-curcuma-domestica-extracts-compared-ibuprofen-patients-kne https://www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/thyme https://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/thymus-vulgaris-least-effective-ibuprofen-reducing-severity-pain-and-spasm-pri https://www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/omega-3-fatty-acids https://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/omega-3-fatty-acids-are-effective-alternative-ibuprofen-reducing-arthritic-pai https://www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/cinnamon https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/cinnamon-beats-ibuprofen-pain-study-reveals-2 https://www.greenmedinfo.com/pharmacological-action/anti-inflammatory-agents https://www.greenmedinfo.com/pharmacological-action/analgesics https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/powerful-aspirin-alternative-grows-trees-1 https://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-ingredient/non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory-drugs-nsaids Fitzgerald, G.A. (2001). The coxibs, selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase-2. New England Journal of Medicine, 345, 433-442. Fitzgerald, G.A. (2004). Coxibs and cardiovascular disease. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351(17), 1709-1711. Coxib and traditional NSAID Trialists' (CNT) Collaboration et al. (2013). Vascular and upper gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet, 382(9849), 769-779. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60900-9 Mukherjee, D., Nissen, S.E., & Topol, E.J. (2001). Risk of Cardiovascular Events Associated With Selective COX-2 Inhibitors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(8), 954-959. doi:10.1001/jama.286.8.954doi:10.1001/jama.286.8.954 Singh, D. (2004). Merck withdraws arthritis drug worldwide. The British Medical Journal, 329. doi: link. Berenson et al. (2004). Despite Warnings, Drug Giant Took Long Path to Vioxx Recall. The New York Times. Retrieved from here. Tanne, J.H. (2008). Merck used ghostwriters and selective data in Vioxx publications, JAMA says. British Medical Journal, 336(849). doi: link. Steenhuysen, J. (2009). Vioxx risks could have been detected earlier: study. Reuters. Retrieved from here. Willson, D. (2011). Merck to Pay $950 Million Over Vioxx. The New York Times. Retrieved from here. The Associated Press. (2010). Supreme Court Allows Investors to Sue Merck Over Vioxx. The New York Times. Retrieved from here. ConsumerAffairs. (2004). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that Vioxx may have contributed to 27,785 heart attacks. Retrieved from here. Kearney et al. (2006). Do selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug increase the risk of atherothrombosis? Meta-analysis of randomised trials. British Medical Journal, 332, 1302-1308. McGettigan, P., & Henry, D. (2011). Cardiovascular risk with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: systematic review of population-based controlled observational studies. PLoS Medicine, 8, e1001098. Trelle et al. (2011). Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 342, c7086. Sostres, C., Gargallo, C.J., & Lanas, A. (2013). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and upper and lower gastrointestinal mucosal damage. Arthritis Research Therapies, 15(Suppl 3), S3. Marlicz et al. (2014). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, proton pump inhibitors, and gastrointestinal injury: contrasting interactions in the stomach and small intestine. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 89(12), 1699-1709. Maiden et al. (2005). A quantitative analysis of NSAID-induced small bowel pathology by capsule endoscopy. Gastroenterology, 128(5), 1172-1178. Goldstein et al. (2005). Video capsule endoscopy to prospectively assess small bowel injury with celecoxib, naproxen plus omeprazole and placebo. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 3(2), 133-141. Shiotani et al. (2010). Randomized, double-blind pilot study of gnarly geranylacetone versus placebo in patients taking low dose enteric-coated aspirin: low-dose aspirin-induced small bowel damage. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 45(3), 292-298. Caunedo-Alvarez et al. (2010). Macroscopic small bowel mucosal injury caused by chronic non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) use as assessed by capsule endoscopy. Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 102(2), 80-85. Kent, T.H., Cardelli, R.M., & Stamler, F.W. (1969). Small intestinal ulcers and intestinal flora in rats given indomethacin. American Journal of Pathology, 54(2), 237-249. Uejima et al. (1996). Role of intestinal bacteria in ileal ulcer formation in rats treated with a non steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Microbiology and Immunology, 40(8), 553-560. Watanbe et al. (2008). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced intestinal damage is Toll like 4 receptor dependent. Gut, 57(2), 181-187. Fasano, A. (2012). Leaky gut and autoimmune disease. Clinical Reviews in Allergy and Immunology, 42(1), 71-78. Lanza, F.L., Chan, F.K., & Quigley, E.M. (2009). Practice parameters committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Guidelines for prevention of NSAID-related ulcer complications. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 104(2), 728-238. Bhatt et al. (2008). ACCF/ACG/AHA 2008 expert consensus document on reducing the gastrointestinal risks of anti platelet therapy and NSAID use: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. Circulation, 118(18), 1894-1909. American College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Rheumatoid Arthritis Guidelines. Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2002 update. Arthritis and Rheumatology, 46(2), 328-346. Wallace et al. (2011). Proton pump inhibitors exacerbate NSAID-induced small intestinal injury by inducing dysbiosis. Gastroenterology, 141(4), 1314-1322. Endo et al. (2011). Efficacy of Lactobacillus casei treatment on small bowel injury in chronic low-dose aspirin users: a pilot randomized controlled study. Journal of Gastroenterology, 46(7), 894-905. Bhala et al. (2013). Vascular and upper gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials. The Lancet, 382(9894), 769-779. Montenegro et al. (2014). Non steroidal anti-inflammatory drug induced damage on lower gastro-intestinal tract: is there an involvement of microbiota? Current Drug Safety, 9(3), 196-204. Ozgoli, G., Goli, M., & Moattar, F. (2009). Comparison of effects of ginger, mefenamic acid, and ibuprofen on pain in women with primary dysmenorrhea. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 15(2), 129-132. doi: 10.1089/acm.2008.0311. Salmalian et al. (2014). Comparative effect of thymus vulgaris and ibuprofen on primary dysmenorrhea: A triple-blind clinical study. Caspian Journal of Internal Medicine, 5(2), 82-88. Levy et al. (2009). Flavocoxid is as effective as naproxen for managing the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee in humans: a short-term randomized, double-blind pilot study. Nutrition Research, 29(5), 298-304. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2009.04.003. Conrozier et al. (2014). A Complex of Three Natural Anti-inflammatory Agents Provides Relief of Osteoarthritis Pain. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 20(Suppl 1), 32-37. Chiu et al. (2016). Effects of Intravenous and Oral Magnesium on Reducing Migraine: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Pain Physician, 19(1), E97-E112. Diener et al. (2005). Efficacy and safety of 6.25 mg tid feverfew CO2‐extract (MIG‐99) in migraine prevention—a randomized, double‐blind, multicentre, Placebo‐controlled study. Cephalalgia, 25(11), 1031–1041. Lipton et al. (2004). Petasites hybridus root (butterbur) is an effective preventive treatment for migraine. Neurology, 63(12), 2240-2244. Shara, M., & Stohs, S.J. (2015). Efficacy and Safety of White Willow Bark (Salix alba) Extracts. Physiotherapy Research, 29(8), 1112-1116. doi: 10.1002/ptr.5377. Vlachojannis, J.E., Cameron, M., & Chrubasik, S. (2009). A systematic review on the effectiveness of willow bark for musculoskeletal pain. Phytotherapy Research, 23(7), 897-900. doi: 10.1002/ptr.2747. Wesolowska et al. (2006). Analgesic and sedative activities of lactucin and some lactucin-like guaianolides in mice. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 107, 254-258. Gupta, S.K., & Ansari, S.H. (2005). Review on phytochemical and pharmacological aspects of Cichorium intybus L. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 17, 33-36. Tall et al. (2004). Tart cherry anthocyanins suppress inflammation-induced pain behavior in rat. Brain and Behavior Research, 153(1), 181-188. Seeram et al. (2001). Cyclooxygenase inhibitory and antioxidant cyanidin glycosides in cherries and berries. Phytomedicine, 8(5), 362-369. Kuehl et al. (2010). Efficacy of tart cherry juice in reducing muscle pain during running: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of International Society of Sports Nutrition, 7, 17. doi: 10.1186/1550-2783-7-17. Illich, I. (1974). Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health. New York: Pantheon Books. Capone et al. (2004). Clinical pharmacology of platelet, monocyte, and vascular cyclooxygenase inhibition by naproxen and low-dose aspirin in healthy subjects.
This episode is brought to you by BiOptimizers, InsideTracker, and Eight Sleep.The United States spends an excess of $1.5 trillion annually on health care compared to other wealthy countries—yet the amount of time that Americans live in good health ranks at 68th in the world. At the heart of the problem is Big Pharma, which funds most clinical trials and therefore controls the research agenda, withholds the real data from those trials as corporate secrets, and shapes most of the information relied upon by health care professionals.This week on The Dhru Purohit Podcast, Dhru sat down with Dr. John Abramson to talk about the inside story of how Big Pharma's relentless pursuit of ever-higher profits corrupts medical knowledge—misleading doctors, misdirecting American health care, and harming our health. Dr. Abramson is the author of the new book, Sickening, and has been on the faculty of Harvard Medical School for twenty-five years, where he teaches health care policy. He also served as a family physician for 22 years, during which he was named a “top doctor” six times in local, state, and national surveys. He served as an unpaid consultant to the FBI and Department of Justice, including in a case that resulted in the largest criminal fine in U.S. history. He is also the author of Overdo$ed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine. In this episode, we dive into: -Big Pharma's best-kept secret (10:25)-The first trial of a drug company found guilty of fraud and racketeering (25:34) -Insulin and the exploitation of diabetes (26:37) -The core relationship between pharmaceutical companies and doctors (27:39) -Understanding absolute risk vs. relative risk for pharmaceutical drugs (31:16)-How data manipulation led to excess deaths from the drug Vioxx (40:39)-Why pharmaceutical companies are able to skirt accountability (44:09) -Where the budget for the FDA to oversee human products comes from (49:52)-Vaccines for children, boosters, political inputs, and FDA resignations (58:16)-What we can do to actually change the system (1:24:00) This episode is brought to you by BiOptimizers, InsideTracker, and Eight Sleep.Magnesium Breakthrough from BiOptimizers really stands out from the other magnesium supplements out there. It contains 7 different forms of magnesium, which all have different functions in the body. There isn't anything else like it on the market. BiOptimizers is offering my community 10% off, just head over to magbreakthrough.com/dhru, with code DHRU10.InsideTracker provides detailed nutrition and lifestyle guidance based on your individual needs. Right now, they're offering my podcast community 25% off. Just go to insidetracker.com/DHRU to get your discount code and try it out for yourself.Eight Sleep's Pod Pro mattress is so smart that it adjusts your temperature and also gives you individualized recommendations on how to sleep better the next night. To get yours, go to eightsleep.com/dhru to check out the Pod Pro mattress or mattress cover and save $150 at checkout. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Den vollständigen Standpunkte-Text (inkl. ggf. Quellenhinweisen und Links) finden Sie hier: https://apolut.net/parallelen-zum-kleinen-piks-von-anke-behrendSchlafmittel des Jahrhunderts , harmlos wie Zuckerplätzchen . Contergan war als freiverkäufliches Mittel gegen Übelkeit und Schlafstörungen besonders für Schwangere angepriesen worden. Als immer mehr schreckliche Folgewirkungen zu Tage traten, hieß es, es sind nur Vermutungen.Ein Standpunkt von Anke Behrend,Wann immer es in Deutschland Probleme mit Medikamenten gibt, ob Duogynon, Lipobay, Vioxx oder HIV-verseuchte Blutkonserven und viele andere mehr: Eine Blaupause wird als Referenz herangezogen. Der Contergan-Skandal der 1950er und 1960er Jahre. Die historische Betrachtung muss vom damaligen Wissen und Standpunkt aus erfolgen. Parallelen zu heutigen Ereignissen sind allerdings augenfällig.Contergan-Skandal könnte um Vielfaches übertroffen werdenContergan, das thalidomidhaltige Schlaf- und Beruhigungsmittel war von 1957 bis 1961 auf dem deutschen und internationalen Markt. Entwickelt worden war der Wirkstoff Thalidomid, ein teratogener – das heißt, Missbildungen verursachender – Stoff, 1954 von Wilhelm Kunz und Herbert Keller unter der Leitung des deutschen Pharmakologen und ehemaligen KZ-Arztes Heinrich Mückter (vgl. Kirk, Contergan-Fall, 1999). ... hier weiterlesen: https://apolut.net/parallelen-zum-kleinen-piks-von-anke-behrend+++Apolut ist auch als kostenlose App für Android- und iOS-Geräte verfügbar! Über unsere Homepage kommen Sie zu den Stores von Apple, Google und Huawei. Hier der Link: https://apolut.net/app+++Abonnieren Sie jetzt den apolut-Newsletter: https://apolut.net/newsletter/+++Ihnen gefällt unser Programm? Informationen zu Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten finden Sie hier: https://apolut.net/unterstuetzen/+++Unterstützung für apolut kann auch als Kleidung getragen werden! Hier der Link zu unserem Fan-Shop: https://harlekinshop.com/pages/apolut+++Website und Social Media: Website: https://apolut.net/ Odysee: https://odysee.com/@apolut Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/apolut_net/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/apolut_net Telegram: https://t.me/s/apolut Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/apolut/ Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/apolut See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Robert is joined by Matt Lieb to discuss the Food And Drug Administration. FOOTNOTES: Blum, Deborah. The Poison Squad (pp. 84-85). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/obituaries/archives/upton-sinclair-meat-industry https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/19th-century-fight-bacteria-ridden-milk-embalming-fluid-180970473/ Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat Marion Nestle Basic (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07038-0 https://today.uconn.edu/2021/05/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-part-by-the-companies-it-regulates-2/# https://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294967770 https://www.npr.org/2007/11/10/5470430/timeline-the-rise-and-fall-of-vioxx https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5462419 https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/health/fda-approval-drug-events-study/index.html https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-the-drug-based-approach-to-mental-illness-failed/ https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failures-contributed-opioid-crisis/2020-08 https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/when-and-why-was-fda-formed#:%7E:text=Though%20FDA%20can%20trace%20its,Pure%20Food%20and%20Drugs%20Act. https://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Article/2005/05/30/Whistleblowers-reveal-FDA-exacerbated-Vioxx-scandal https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/14/399591292/why-the-fda-is-clueless-about-some-of-the-additives-in-our-food https://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/09/23/fdas-failure-food-chemical-safety-chronic-diseases/ Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The United States spends more on healthcare than any other country, yet our citizens are sicker than ever. There's clearly a disconnect between what's happening inside the healthcare system and the treatment that patients receive. While most healthcare practitioners set out on a career path to help folks, they too are caught in a system of standards of care that prohibit true change, health, and vibrancy. There's no one better suited to speak on this issue than Dr. John Abramson. He is a former family physician, a Harvard Medical School faculty member, and an expert in pharmaceutical litigation. Dr. Abramson is also the author of Sickening, a book written from his experience behind the scenes of the medical industry. Sickening exposes the far-reaching deception and greed of the American healthcare system. This episode contains conversations on lawsuits in the pharmaceutical industry, how insulin costs have skyrocketed in recent decades, and how big pharma prevents well-meaning physicians from actually helping patients. While most of this information is saddening, Dr. Abramson's underlying message provides solutions for American healthcare reform and true healing through personal responsibility. So listen in and enjoy this episode with the one and only, Dr. John Abramson. In this episode you'll discover: How much money the United States spends on healthcare. Dr. Abramson's career path from family doctor to expert in pharmaceutical litigation. What happened in the Vioxx lawsuits. Why doctors don't have access to important medical data about drug efficacy. The history of insulin and its rising costs. What percentage of insulin is used by type 2 diabetics. The sad history of how insulin guidelines changed to accommodate economic hardships. What you should know about the FDA's role in approving drugs. How diabetes rates have risen over the past few decades. The socioeconomics of type 2 diabetes. How we can improve diabetes rates through prevention and lifestyle. The role of the pharmaceutical industry in the opioid crisis. A comparison of American healthcare to other countries. Three constituents who suffer from our broken healthcare system. How we can create change and take responsibility for our health. Items mentioned in this episode include: Beekeepersnaturals.com/model -- Save 25% on raw honey & other natural remedies! Foursigmatic.com/model -- Get an exclusive discount on your daily health elixirs! The Truth About the FDA – Episode 512 Sickening: How Big Pharma Broke American Healthcare by Dr. John Abramson Overdosed America by Dr. John Abramson Dopesick on Hulu The Crime of the Century on HBO Join TMHS Facebook community - Model Nation Be sure you are subscribed to this podcast to automatically receive your episodes: Apple Podcasts Stitcher Spotify Soundcloud *Download Transcript
Howdy! I've got some passion flowing in this one folks- let's call it a structured rant! Today some of our countries brightest and bravest physicians were hosted by Senator Johnson for a discussion on U.S. COVID-19 response, and much of what I was writing about in my 2013 book, Whole Pharmacy, in Chapter 4, pg. 33 The Extension of Sick Care- is the same crap that is going on today...but worse. Why worse? More lives are paying the ultimate price- their health and their freedom. In my book I talk about publication bias...drug companies cherry picking on the positive studies and burying the negative studies...we are seeing it with CV Vax In my book I talk about Vioxx- burying data that lead to tens of thousands of heart disease...we are seeing it with CV Vax In my book I talk about agencies recommending Tamiflu while data from phase III trials were never released- EVEN 10 YEARS AFTER APPROVAL`... we are seeing it with the CV Vax Tune in folks! Yours in health and freedom, Rob --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
Welcome to another episode of Truthzilla. We sat down with Tina Marie from LearnTheRisk.org for an update about Brandy Vaughan's case. Brandy was a former employee at Merck, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. Brandy went public with information showing that Merck had fraudulently covered up safety data related their drug Vioxx, which was eventually pulled from the market after it was determined that it was killing people. 2015, Brandy formed Learn The Risk, which seeks to educate the public about the "unavoidably unsafe" risks involved with vaccination. On December 7, 2020, Brandy was found dead in her home. In the weeks and months leading up to her death, she was very public about the stalking, harassment, threats and intimidation that she was experiencing. She stated “If something were to happen to me, it's foul play and you know exactly who and why — given my work and mission in this life. I'm also NOT accident prone. And I got the highest health rating possible when I went through a battery of medical tests a couple of years ago for my life insurance policy" Following her death, her best friend, Tina Marie, took over Learn The Risk and has spearheaded the investigations into what happened with Brandy. We commend Tina for her fearlessness in the face of relentless attacks and for keeping Brandy's legacy alive. Please support Learn the Risk by Visiting http://LearnTheRisk.org and please go out and represent on this coming Tuesday, December 7th. How to Follow and Support the Truthzilla Podcast: WEBSITE: https://Truthzilla.org ORIGINAL SHIRTS: https://Truthzilla.org/shirts VALUE-FOR-VALUE: https://Truthzilla.org/Donate CROWDFUNDING: https://GiveSendGo.com/NoVaxx PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/Truthzilla MONTHLY RE-OCCURING DONATION https://BuyMeACoffee.com/Truthzilla PAYPAL: https://PayPal.me/Truthzilla CASHAPP: $Truthzilla VENMO: $Truthzilla ROKFIN: https://Rokfin.com/Truthzilla TELEGRAM: @Truthzillapod https://t.me/truthzillapod DISCORD: https://discord.gg/WQTstB4YbB **************** This Episode Brought To You By Our Sponsors https://TruthTRS.com - Start your Heavy Metal Detox Journey today! @Codys_Crystals on Instagram - Your source for the COOLEST crystals ever, you gotta go check it out! **************** Join our {Patreon} for ]PREMIUM] Audio episodes: https://www.patreon.com/Truthzilla https://Rokfin.com/Truthzilla Create a FREE account and watch all our videos on Rokfin.com. We get crypto just for your clicks! Become a subscriber and you get exclusive PREMIUM content from Truthzilla and EVERY other content creator on the site! https://Rokfin.com/Truthzilla Support Truthzilla and your personal health by shopping with our friends, Chemical Free Body: https://chemicalfreebody.com/?ref=Truthzilla Lose Weight, Transform your Health and take Your Fitness to the Next Level!
The pharmaceutical industry is full of money, greed, omission, and death. Many, many, deaths. This episode looks into Vioxx, a pharmaceutical industry scandal that cost billions of dollars, and killed up to an estimated 55,000-60,000 people across the United States. Get ready to be mad. Show Notes
Anne Andrews is a luminary in the world of mass torts. She has gone up against Vioxx, Perdue, and other major pharmaceutical companies. She is currently representing 10,000 clients in a bitter legal fight with the Boy Scouts of America over accusations of sexual assault by troop leaders.Anne remains one of the few women to found her own prominent law firm. She has never stopped fighting to make the legal profession equitable for women — especially mothers. Over the years, her indomitable spirit and outspoken manner often put her at odds with establishment norms.In this episode, Luke and Anne draw connections between her personal story and professional successes, from the gunshot that set her career in motion to making room for mothers in a heavily male-dominated profession. If we listen closely, Anne's compassion for her clients and passion for the art of law will remind us just how much good lawyers can do in this world. Law Firm SEO by Jason HennesseyGet it on AmazonDownload on AudibleSupport the show
https://make-your-pitch.com The Co-Sponsor for this Episode is B.E.T. A business platform that gives you all the information and tools you need to advance your business as well as the understanding of how to run your business most effectively and profitably. To learn more check out the: Video: https://bit.ly/368rSKk Website: www.yvrbet.com The Co-Sponsor for this episode is CRM Engine. A Customer Relation Management system that provides a 4 Module Solution, Standard Customization by the CRM Engine Team, Unlimited Users, Unlimited Data, Unlimited Records, Cloud Hosting, Security Updates, and Daily Backups as well as On-Going support (Usually Same Day) Go Here to Learn More: Website: CRMEngine.co.uk/makeyourpitch Our guest is Alvin Sun Thank you, Christopher. Thank you, Ellen, for inviting me here today to on speak your podcast. So truly an honor. Yeah. So my name is Alvin. I am the CEO of ore brains and we are dedicated to creating a sustainable eco-friendly PPE, specifically face masks made here in the US. The technology behind our masks was born from a material science research company, Vioxx that came from a UC Berkeley accelerator. And later on into an indie bio cohort, we have been focused on developing eco-friendly everyday products in filtration, specifically in filtration products. So that is with air and water filtration. When the pandemic came early year, last we had an opportunity to incorporate some of our technology into creating a better product to service the demand of face masks from last year. You know, we saw the huge disruption in the supply chain, both on the medical field and the on consumer end, something that we've always covered is world-class here in America. We saw that disrupted greatly, and that there was a huge issue to get quality products and quality information out there year. last You know, people were getting a lot of different mixed messages. What should we be wearing? What be we should doing to protect ourselves from this virus? We were able to do, bring, bring a market, a product to market largely through a Kickstarter online platform, and really build out a brand and a presence last year, fast forward to right now, we do with the success that we've seen on the consumer end with our online market. We are doubling down on our production, our capability to produce single-use disposables using the same filter technology our, and we're our goal is to really introduce our tech, which is more efficient at the filtration, more breathable and more lightweight than the average N95 respirator that you see in hospitals and et cetera. So our mission right now is to really build out our capability to produce these N99 masks and provide them to all the markets and the consumer market that is in need of these products. Did we, or it's still mine. Now you have, you've developed this over a period of time. What is the development process? Why is yours different from anybody else's? Is it a disruptive product or is it one that's that you've engineered? That just is a tad bit better. Tell me, tell me a little better wine. Sure. So yes, this is a, when, when COVID came out and we saw like a huge influx of a lot of mass-based big smash products, what really allows us to stand above the crowd is we, we are scientists at heart, essentially, at least the founder of the company. When we designed this product with the technology, with the ethnicity in mind, it wasn't just another cutesy product that you can put over the face and cover and fulfill requirements to be able to enter buildings or to be able to move around freely. But we, what we wanted to do is really create the best product out there. And we believe we had that with the technology that we have, the material in the way that it is woven allows for 99% of filtration of airborne particles. Whereas the standard N 95 is only filtering out larger particles at a 95% efficiency. The reasoning for that is, you know, the traditional respirator at the N95 is what we considered the gold standard these days. Those weren't developed with a consumer, consumer use in mind, you know, these are, we're back developed in the 19 hundreds, early 19 hundreds for chemical warfare, for industrial work, for medical work. it And wasn't really designed with an idea a of everyday American, everyday person wearing it throughout the day, whether it's in the office or out, out, out in public. So on that end, you know, there wasn't much design or thought in terms of the usability or the comfort of everyday use. So we developed, we, we thought that there was a huge opportunity to be able to innovate upon a decades-old design and bring out something better for the consumer and for the traditional industrial commercial applications well. as Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry, please. Go ahead. Okay. I was going to say one of the first things I noticed about your mask is that it's stylish. Okay. It doesn't sit on the nose like current masks do. There seems to be something inside that helps it sit up off of the nose so that you're able to breathe while you're still wearing the mask. Was that purposeful in your design? Yeah. So every part of it was done designed for the purpose of having an efficient mask without sacrificing the aesthetic and the comfort. The idea is that this is a mask that you will be able to wear throughout the day without feeling the need to adjust or play around with it because it's uncomfortable. So the nose bridge, we have a medical grade nose bridge and the top of the mask so that it will hold it to contour fit to your face. However, it is put behind a mesh layer so that it's not uncomfortable, like pinching answered knows throughout the day. Okay. Mr. Fair. Have you had any, Oh, testing is done as far as its reliability, its percentage. Do you have any real, real-life testing from a lab or anything yet? Sure. So we've had some independent testing from third-party testing from labs, such as Nelson lab Intertech. And so we have the L we've put them through the ringer essentially, you know, we send, we've had samples tested or destroyed and just put through, put through a lot of rigorous tests. We are currently undergoing certifications with Nyasa and FDA, and we're confident to able be we that will surpass it, to fulfill the requirements, to get the certifications of the N 95. It's just a matter the of going the red tape had going through the process. Currently, the CDC, the FDA, they're all, they've all been notoriously slow in the process. And with the crisis of last year, it just adds a few more in months the process. However, fortunately, we are able to sell these more regulated products under what's called the EUA emergency use authorization, which is what was announced and what was declared early last year. And that allows a lot of mass products to be introduced to the market. Unfortunately, you also have a lot of bad actors which have made it difficult for more legitimate enterprises to really saturated the market. However, that's the case with any crisis, so to speak? Well, I, I often wonder not, not often wonder, but I wonder when we're talking about this type of product, of course, there's a, there's a lessening demand in the general population. And so how's that going to affect your sales, your sales projections, have you, have you decided which direction to take it in order to maintain profitability? Sure. So understandably, you know, with increased vaccinations throughout the world, there will be a lessening of demand. However, we still foresee that for the next couple of years, there will still be an inflated demand for face masks, you know, and I think there's a larger consumer awareness in terms of air filtration, air quality, and that will still be here like there. That will still be the case after the worst has passed, you know, people going on air travel, there will probably be a need for, or a want, a demand for protection while in these enclosed spaces. Because if it's not, COVID, there's always to going be something that, that is out there. That's just the nature of, this is the reality of the world. You know, we've seen it in the past decade that there been has multiple diseases, although not any as impactful or as harmful in terms of like the global scale as COVID, but you've seen for the last year, you know, Zika, H one, None, SARS, there has always been harmful. There's always been a need for this kind of protection. And especially in certain areas, such as traveling air travel, I do not foresee that those requirements will go away. Even if the general population like you don't to have be wearing one to be outside or to be in enclosed spaces. I still see there will be a huge demand at that respect, but that being said, you know, we are, as I mentioned, we were not originally a mass company, right? We, we were a science or research development company and we just so happened with the timing of our first launch to release this mass product. That being said, we're committed to being the best bet best mask product. There is out there. One of the products that we are excited to continue to work on and to launch in the near future is our biodegradable bile Palmer plastics, which has huge applications in the food and the packaging industry. That was something that we were very excited and very close to launching prior to COVID, which forced us to make a bit of a shift in our go to market strategy, you know, but we are excited to continue to fund and redevelop our research and development side to develop this biopolymer plastic, which we will plan to also incorporate within our own product line and make an effort towards our sustainability mission of creating a zero waste product. Well, I can see it as Helen was talking about your background, And so forth. I, I assume it's not in science, right? That's correct. Yeah. So the founder of the company and my business partner and or brands, she comes from a science background, she has a master's in material science from UC Berkeley, and she was the founder of, or brands and bikes technologies, which is the research and development arm of the current venture. Okay. And who else is on your team right now? Alvin? Sure. So currently it's Vivian and me. We have built out our manufacturing capacity here in Nevada. And so we've built out an engineering staff and team as well to manufacture and fulfill our mass orders. And right now we have a team of about 8 people and that's spread out between the engineering, the manufacturing, marketing, and sales, and just administrative stuff. Okay. Now, With that being said, now let's move over into, are you pre or post-revenue right now? We are post-revenue. So a lot of last year, we've been focused on doing a lot of the research and development in terms of the product design. And we've, we're able to do a couple of hundred thousand in sales last year on our consumer product alone. This year we're continuing that trend of strong demand for our consumer product while also introducing our disposable products, which we hope, we believe we'll have a lot of higher demand and application and more traditional industries. As I mentioned that have used PPE in the past and are interested in a better alternative. So you have your construction companies, hospitality and food packaging industry. Those are current customers in those, in, in the commercial space. Now Alvin, for people who are just becoming familiar with the aura brand on your website, you show the mass structure and the design of it. My question is what happens when a person comes to the website and they're interested in investing or purchasing a mask. So, and that's something that we should probably add to our website as well, but you can reach out to me directly. And as you mentioned before, my email is alvin@auramasksorataurabrands.com and happy to have the conversation to be a part of the team is join our efforts here. Okay, good. It's, it's a unique construction that you've, your company has created. What other things are in your pipeline that you can talk about? Sure. As I mentioned before, we are largely an eco-friendly green tech filtration at company our, at its core. And on the, in that direction, we are excited to be working on a fully compostable face graphs product. Obviously, that isn't something that's going to be used in a medical or more, more industrial setting. However, for a very socially conscious environmentally conscious consumer, you know, this is what we're very excited to offer this product in the near future, you know, with the increase of usage of face mask for the past year, we see that all over the place. You know, you see that in our parts and see that in our oceans, a there's a huge impact in the plastics and other harmful polymers out in our We environment. hope to use some of our material, right, dairy milk to material, to create safe and effective mask that can also be biodegradable and compostable. So after someone is done using it, they can, you dispose of it properly. And then basically it go will back the into earth it where came from essentially. Wow. Interesting. Yeah. How long have you been in this field without having a science degree? So in terms of this mentoring manufacturing, this space, it's been about a year, you know, previously my business partner brought me in to operate, be on more of the operational and the finance and to run the day-to-day mechanisms of the company. So that was sort of my background in my previous career and what I'm working on to continue to grow the business in that sense. Okay. All right. Do you have any, well, I know you must sales projections on what you think the masks will bring in terms of revenue in the next year? Yeah. So we've set a goal to sell 5 million masks this year. And we think with our current projection, we will be able to hit that in terms of production and sales. Our short-term goal is to be able to achieve a quarter million in sales, selling a quarter-million masks a month by the beginning of Q3. So that's currently what we're targeting for and aiming to achieve. Now, when you said the masks are contoured to the face, I immediately thought of people who do gardening or people who are susceptible to allergies, like pollen and that kind of thing. And it seems like your mask would fit that solution for people who have allergies. Yes. You know, obviously, you know, it's, it was designed with the idea of having, having the effectiveness without sacrificing the comfort and the aesthetic as I mentioned before, and additionally, to the way that most masks are designed or woven, it does not really filter out many parts well. It would probably be effective enough to filter out most like pollens or larger particles such as that. But what's great about what we have done is we have a non-woven material that will do what's called surface filtration, meaning it will be blocking any incoming harm, potentially harmful particles from entering or coming in through the mask. You know, a lot of the guidance that we have been receiving is that these mats, the mask mandate, isn't so much to protect the mask wear in terms of, you know, these masks are designed to stop viral particles. It's more to prevent the mask wear from transmitting through coughing or like sneezing part of harmful particles into the, their environment, into people they're associated with. What we have created with the non-woven build is that it is filtering it at the surface so that the harmful particles are not coming in and affecting the mask Interesting what's on the horizon for your company. Well, currently, you know, we're working on building out our manufacturing capability and our sales channels through to these companies so that we can provide people with a safe, alternative, safe option to get back to work, essentially. And again, once we get our research and development backup in full gear, we are looking to continue to build out the compostable products and find different applications for our technology. You know, there's a filter tech is also has great applications in HVAC and home filtration as well. So we're exploring some options of incorporating our filters into an HVAC product. Additionally, we are also working on some water filtration technology that we will probably be exploring more further down the line, Quite a mix of products. And of course, I think when we talk the first time, my, my suggestion was can you make grocery Bags, plastic grocery bags with your biodegradable products. So, you know, when you decide to do that, let me know. I'll be happy to be your representative For sure. Yeah. I mean, like I said, with the bio, biodegradable plastic biopolymer plastic, there are multiple applications in multiple industries. So we're really excited to dedicate our efforts to building that out in the near future. Right now. You're, you're asking for what now? What do you, what do you want to, what do you need, what's your ass? I, I'm digressing a little bit, but I'm sort of touching a little bit on my motivation and what insight, insight excited me about working with this opportunity with my business partner in this mass product, in this manufacturing project as a whole. Okay. But did you, didn't, you didn't talk numbers with me though. I need to know the numbers and what's in it for them and what are you gonna spend it on? Gotcha. So we are currently raising about a million, 1.5 million. And what that will do is that will allow us to continue to build out our sales and marketing, to put our message out there, to build brave awareness, and to increase our sales channels. Part of it will be dedicated to our manufacturing capability. We have some equipment that we have on hand that we're looking to acquire that will bring down our cost of goods. If are we able to bring our supply chain fully in-house vertically integrated in-house. We're looking to increase, decrease our cost of goods by half. And that requires a substantial capital investment at the beginning. But however, that will allow us to achieve our revenue goals early in the year. And additionally, as I mentioned in the past, we are looking to jumpstart our research and development division to be able to introduce new products, product cool lines to, for the Okay. And your, your investment is structured, how We're currently using a safe note or convertible note based on our current evaluation. Okay. And your current evaluation is what We are currently evaluating it based of, on our previous pre-seed angel investment round at 5.5 million. Okay. And we think that's a discounted valuation rate. It's just currently, it's early stage discount evaluation. Okay. All right. Very good. Very good. All right. Ellen, anything there from your side? No, I, I like the company. I like the product and I think they have an interesting future ahead. Yeah. I agree to that because of that diversity of the product area, although it falls in the same basic categories, it's a very diverse selection of various types of things that they can do with the same type of technology. Now, yeah. Alvin, is there anything you'd like to say to the investors before we close out this episode of make your pitch anything you'd like to say to them that you think will make them want to take a closer Yeah. I think we're in a great space here with the manufacturing mass here in the US you know, there's a lot of cool things that we're doing here with our product. And we believe that that truly has the opportunity to really disrupt a very archaic industrial sector. And with that, there's a lot of opportunities once we get the word out, essentially, that there is a better alternative to what's currently the gold standard. And we are looking to replace it, disrupt that in many places, more places than one. And we are very excited for the opportunity to build this operation here in the US and remain competitive to through automation, supply chain efficiencies, and just continue to innovate on a superior product. So that's Very, very, very good, very good. You know, there are, as we, as we wrap up this episode, Alvin, thank you so much for being a part of a baker pitch. We appreciate your joining us and spending some time with us and telling us about what you have going on because it is, it is a disruptive product and Ellen and I love disruptive products. So thank you for being a part of this podcast today, Alvin. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Ellen. Have a good one. You too, Be definitive when you make your pitch.
The late Dr. Stan Monteith had been speaking on the establishment conspiracy for over 40 years up until his death in 2014. He authored two books and hosted a five-hour radio talk show each day! Topics include: Vioxx, artificial fertilizers, pesticide, injections, immunizations, vaccinations, genetically altered seeds, cell phones, diet drinks, soy products, mercury preservatives, MSG, aspartame, fluoridated water, suppressed cures, chemtrails, anthrax, cancer treatments, created diseases, DDT
The late Dr. Stan Monteith had been speaking on the establishment conspiracy for over 40 years up until his death in 2014. He authored two books and hosted a five-hour radio talk show each day! Topics include: Vioxx, artificial fertilizers, pesticide, injections, immunizations, vaccinations, genetically altered seeds, cell phones, diet drinks, soy products, mercury preservatives, MSG, aspartame, fluoridated water, suppressed cures, chemtrails, anthrax, cancer treatments, created diseases, DDT
The late Dr. Stan Monteith had been speaking on the establishment conspiracy for over 40 years up until his death in 2014. He authored two books and hosted a five-hour radio talk show each day! Topics include: Vioxx, artificial fertilizers, pesticide, injections, immunizations, vaccinations, genetically altered seeds, cell phones, diet drinks, soy products, mercury preservatives, MSG, aspartame, fluoridated water, suppressed cures, chemtrails, anthrax, cancer treatments, created diseases, DDT
The late Dr. Stan Monteith had been speaking on the establishment conspiracy for over 40 years up until his death in 2014. He authored two books and hosted a five-hour radio talk show each day! Topics include: Vioxx, artificial fertilizers, pesticide, injections, immunizations, vaccinations, genetically altered seeds, cell phones, diet drinks, soy products, mercury preservatives, MSG, aspartame, fluoridated water, suppressed cures, chemtrails, anthrax, cancer treatments, created diseases, DDT
The late Dr. Stan Monteith had been speaking on the establishment conspiracy for over 40 years up until his death in 2014. He authored two books and hosted a five-hour radio talk show each day! Topics include: Vioxx, artificial fertilizers, pesticide, injections, immunizations, vaccinations, genetically altered seeds, cell phones, diet drinks, soy products, mercury preservatives, MSG, aspartame, fluoridated water, suppressed cures, chemtrails, anthrax, cancer treatments, created diseases, DDT
The late Dr. Stan Monteith had been speaking on the establishment conspiracy for over 40 years up until his death in 2014. He authored two books and hosted a five-hour radio talk show each day! Topics include: Vioxx, artificial fertilizers, pesticide, injections, immunizations, vaccinations, genetically altered seeds, cell phones, diet drinks, soy products, mercury preservatives, MSG, aspartame, fluoridated water, suppressed cures, chemtrails, anthrax, cancer treatments, created diseases, DDT
The late Dr. Stan Monteith had been speaking on the establishment conspiracy for over 40 years up until his death in 2014. He authored two books and hosted a five-hour radio talk show each day! Topics include: Vioxx, artificial fertilizers, pesticide, injections, immunizations, vaccinations, genetically altered seeds, cell phones, diet drinks, soy products, mercury preservatives, MSG, aspartame, fluoridated water, suppressed cures, chemtrails, anthrax, cancer treatments, created diseases, DDT
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
