Podcasts about World Health Organization

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been promoting the "Make America Healthy Again" agenda since taking office nearly a month ago. During this time, he has focused on improving the nation's diet and emphasized the need for Americans to be better informed about their health and what is in their food. FOX News Senior Medical Analyst and Professor of Medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center recently spoke with FOX News Rundown host Dave Anthony to discuss some ingredients and additives in our food that RFK Jr. finds concerning and what they could be doing to our physical and mental health. Marc Siegel also discussed his recent interview with RFK Jr. and some of the topics they discussed, including the measles outbreak. This week also marked five years since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Seigel reflected on that time, what we've learned from the crisis, and some of the mistakes that were made in the months and years that followed. We often must cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full interview. Today on Fox News Rundown Extra, we will share our entire interview with Dr. Marc Siegel, allowing you to hear more about his take on the Trump administration's “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

US withdrawal from the World Health Organization will have significant implications for global health. Lawrence Gostin, JD, JAMA Legal and Global Health Correspondent and Faculty Director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, joins JAMA Health Forum Editor in Chief Sandro Galea, MD, DrPH, to discuss global health in an era of new uncertainty. Related Content: The US, the World Health Organization, and the Global Health Infrastructure

How is the Trump administration's policy legacy still shaping the global fight against HIV? This week, Sarah and Jess continue their deep dive into the lasting impact of these decisions on HIV response worldwide. Joining them is Dr. Meg Doherty, Director of the Global HIV, Hepatitis, and STIs Programmes at the World Health Organization (WHO). Tune in as we unpack the challenges, the progress, and what needs to happen next to drive global HIV efforts forward. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This season alone, there have been over 30,000 COVID-19 cases in Connecticut. That’s according to the Connecticut Department of Public Health. Measles is on the rise across the United States, and the CDC is monitoring H5 bird flu activity as well. Is it time to start preparing for the next global pandemic? Last year, the World Health Organization published a checklist to help nations update their pandemic preparedness plans. Today, physicians across our state join us to talk about what we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, and how to prepare for the next one. GUESTS: Dr. Ulysses Wu: Chief Epidemiologist at Hartford Healthcare Dr. Megan Ranney: Dean of Yale School of Public Health and Professor of Emergency Medicine Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Five years ago, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Since then, there have been lockdowns, a recession, two presidential elections and more than a million American lives lost from the disease. In many ways, life feels like it's back to normal, but David Wallace-Wells, a writer for The New York Times, argues that the pandemic still has a grip on American life, from our faith in public health institutions to the way consumers feel about the economy. On the show today, Wallace-Wells walks us through how Americans neglected to process the seismic impact of the pandemic in the rush to recover from it, and how it’s left us more self-interested and less empathetic. Plus, how this can help explain disgruntled consumers and a growing appetite for risk-taking in the economy. Then, we’ll get into how responses to public health emergencies have shifted to the realm of the private sector. And, we’ll hear listeners’ reflections on the COVID-19 pandemic, five years on. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Opinion | How Covid Remade Our America, Five Years Later” from The New York Times “30 Charts That Show How Covid Changed Everything in March 2020” from The New York Times “Gyms, pets and takeout: How the pandemic has shifted daily life” from The Washington Post “It’s Not the Economy. It’s the Pandemic.” from The Atlantic “Opinion | Covid's Deadliest Effect Took Five Years to Appear” from The New York Times “More Universities Are Choosing to Stay Neutral on the Biggest Issues” from The New York Times Got a question or comment for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

Five years ago, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Since then, there have been lockdowns, a recession, two presidential elections and more than a million American lives lost from the disease. In many ways, life feels like it's back to normal, but David Wallace-Wells, a writer for The New York Times, argues that the pandemic still has a grip on American life, from our faith in public health institutions to the way consumers feel about the economy. On the show today, Wallace-Wells walks us through how Americans neglected to process the seismic impact of the pandemic in the rush to recover from it, and how it’s left us more self-interested and less empathetic. Plus, how this can help explain disgruntled consumers and a growing appetite for risk-taking in the economy. Then, we’ll get into how responses to public health emergencies have shifted to the realm of the private sector. And, we’ll hear listeners’ reflections on the COVID-19 pandemic, five years on. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Opinion | How Covid Remade Our America, Five Years Later” from The New York Times “30 Charts That Show How Covid Changed Everything in March 2020” from The New York Times “Gyms, pets and takeout: How the pandemic has shifted daily life” from The Washington Post “It’s Not the Economy. It’s the Pandemic.” from The Atlantic “Opinion | Covid's Deadliest Effect Took Five Years to Appear” from The New York Times “More Universities Are Choosing to Stay Neutral on the Biggest Issues” from The New York Times Got a question or comment for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

Five years ago today, The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on March 11th, 2020. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Five years ago, the world met Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus. An Ethiopian Marxist plucked from obscurity by the Chinese Communist Party to run the World Health Organization declared a pandemic emergency involving a new virus dubbed COVID-19. Given his patron, it should have been no surprise that this unaccountable international bureaucrat immediately began parroting China's lies about the source of this disease, its transmissibility and the optimal response to the outbreak – from eschewing travel bans to imposing lockdowns and mandating inadequately tested vaccines.  By some estimates, about eighty percent of the more than a million American COVID casualties needlessly died from our following Dr. Tedros' malfeasant prescriptions. President Trump wisely is withdrawing us from the WHO, rejecting the idea of giving its leader sweeping new powers over our public health. We don't want Tedros and his Chinese masters killing any more of us.  This is Frank Gaffney.

In this episode of Sip Sip Hooray! we dive into the the recent declarations that no level of alcohol is safe, calls for cancer labeling, the anti-alcohol movement and the impacts on the wine industry and wine lovers. Our guest, Erlinda Doherty, a sommelier, alcohol policy expert and founder of Vinicola Consulting, sheds light on the latest health warnings, the World Health Organization's stance on alcohol, and the potential implications of new government regulations.We discuss the history of alcohol warnings and neo-prohibition movements, the WHO's "no safe level of alcohol" claim, what's motivating it and why now? We look at the science behind moderate wine consumption, how health policies and warning labels could change the wine industry, and what wine lovers and industry professionals can do to have their voices heard.

It might be hard to believe, but it's been five years since the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. The public health response that followed held a spotlight up to the flaws in our systems, and the good things that can happen when we band together. On this episode, we look back at the pandemic, and get a status check on the virus today.

Thursday Headlines: Greens unveil new plan to legalise weed, Trump tariff chaos continues, Indigenous incarceration rates have jumped 20% since 2019, and Leonardo DiCaprio criticises Australian government for mine expansions. Deep Dive: Australians consume around 17 kilograms of processed meat annually with the 4 billion dollar industry offering quick-fix meals and pushing high protein diets. Over 300 new fast-food stores opened across the country last year, making processed meat more accessible than ever, despite the World Health Organization classifying it as a group 1 carcinogen linked to bowel cancer back in 2015. In this episode of The Briefing Helen Smith is joined by Lucie Morris-Mar, an investigative journalist and author of Processed: How the Processed Meat Industry is Killing Us with the Food We Love, who was diagnosed with stage four bowel cancer at just 44. Further listening from the headlines: Malcolm Turnbull on why the US tariff deal is a huge wake-up call is available on Apple Podcast, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Follow The Briefing: TikTok: @listnrnewsroom Instagram: @listnrnewsroom @thebriefingpodcast YouTube: @LiSTNRnewsroom Facebook: @LiSTNR NewsroomSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The man who helped lead Australia's COVID-19 public health response says he's concerned about "global preparedness" for the next pandemic. On March 11th 2020, the virus was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organisation. Five years on, Professor Paul Kelly - Australia's former top doctor - believes erosion of public trust will be "a major issue" should there be another global disease outbreak. - 12 مارچ 2020 کوعالمی ادارہ صحت نے کووڈ 19 کو عالمی وبا قرار دیا تھا۔ وبا کے پانچ سال بعد ماہرین مستقبل میں کسی وبائی مرض سے نمٹنے کے لئے "عالمی تیاری" پر تحفظات کا اظہارکر رہے ہیں۔ مزید جانئے اس پوڈ کاسٹ میں۔

This week on The Broski Report, Fearless Leader Brittany Broski discusses her Italian vacation, researches the circadian rhythm of birds & Italian dialects, and updates the nation on her book club.

About 55 million people in the world have dementia. That's according to the World Health Organization. It's also the seventh leading cause of death among the global population. The most common form of dementia is Alzheimer's disease. It makes up 60 to 70 percent of cases. But it's well behind other chronic illnesses on the journey to an effective treatment.The reason may be attributed to years of research based on doctored images. Investigative reporter Charles Piller uncovered that and much more about the world of Alzheimer's research in his new book, "Doctored."We talk to Piller about this Alzheimer's, faulty research, and the search for an effective cure.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Connect with us. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Five years ago today, after the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, there was a widespread shift to remote work for many workers who were considered nonessential. And people had to get used to seeing their colleagues mainly on a screen. In recent years, some companies have required employees to return to the office full time. But remote work remains a major part of many people’s lives, far more than in 2019. Marketplace’s Stephanie Hughes spoke with Anita Blanchard, a professor of psychological and organization science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, about what’s lost when workers don’t interact in the same physical space.

Five years ago today, after the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, there was a widespread shift to remote work for many workers who were considered nonessential. And people had to get used to seeing their colleagues mainly on a screen. In recent years, some companies have required employees to return to the office full time. But remote work remains a major part of many people’s lives, far more than in 2019. Marketplace’s Stephanie Hughes spoke with Anita Blanchard, a professor of psychological and organization science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, about what’s lost when workers don’t interact in the same physical space.

Five years ago, on this day, the World Health Organization characterized COVID-19 a "pandemic." Now, the United States has started the process of withdrawing from the WHO. How do we connect the dots between these two points? A few news items for your consideration including an exclusive report from The Wall Street Journal about a potential meeting between President Trump and President Xi. SUPPORT OUR MISSION   Shop our gear!  If you'd like to help support SmartHER News' mission of a free, independent, nonpartisan press – here's how you can become a SCOOP insider: https://www.scoop.smarthernews.com/get-the-inside-scoop/    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/smarthernews/  Website: https://smarthernews.com/  YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/smarthernews     

Tuesday marks five years since the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. In a quick succession of events, schools and businesses shut down, lockdowns were put in place, travel was halted and hospitals were over capacity. Globally, COVID has killed more than 7 million people, including more than 1.2 million Americans. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Dr. Ashish Jha. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

On this day five years ago, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, shutting down daily life, crippling the economy and reshaping public health. More than 1.1 million Americans died by the time the WHO said it was no longer a global health emergency in May 2023. Dr. Ashish Jha, former White House COVID-19 response coordinator, joins "CBS Mornings" to reflect on the impact and progress since. Tesla shares have plunged more than 47% since President Trump's inauguration as criticism mounts over Elon Musk's involvement in the administration and his statements backing far-right views. Meanwhile, vandalism targeting Tesla dealerships and vehicles is on the rise. Adam Yamaguchi reports. In a major policy shift, Southwest Airlines will begin charging for some checked bags starting May 28. This marks the first time in the airline's 54-year history that passengers will face baggage fees. Kris Van Cleave has the details. Sen. Mark Kelly, a Democratic lawmaker and Navy combat veteran, is standing by his call for continued U.S. support for Ukraine after visiting the country. His remarks drew criticism from Elon Musk, who called him a "traitor" on X. Kelly joins "CBS Mornings" exclusively from Capitol Hill. Authorities in the Dominican Republic are expanding their search for 20-year-old Sudiksha Konanki, last seen on a beach early Thursday morning. The FBI is now assisting, and police are re-interviewing those with her before she vanished. Her family is pleading for answers as the search intensifies. CBS News' Manuel Bojorquez reports from the Dominican Republic. In an exclusive reveal on "CBS Mornings," Oprah Winfrey names "The Tell" by Amy Griffin as her latest book club selection. The memoir details Griffin's experience with psychedelic-assisted therapy, which led to the shocking discovery of hidden childhood trauma. Oprah and Griffin join us to discuss the book. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Headlines: Five Years Since COVID-19 Was Declared a Global Pandemic Wendy Williams Taken by Ambulance After Dropping a Desperate Note Innovative Solution to Banana Waste: The 12-Hour Fresh Banana Five Years Since COVID-19 Was Declared a Global PandemicOn March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, marking a significant turning point in modern history. The virus, which originated in Wuhan, China, rapidly spread worldwide, leading to unprecedented measures such as lockdowns, travel restrictions, and the widespread adoption of remote work and virtual communication tools. Over the past five years, COVID-19 has profoundly impacted global health, economies, and daily life, with over 7 million reported deaths worldwide, including 1.2 million in the United States. While the WHO declared the end of the global health emergency on May 5, 2023, the pandemic's effects continue to influence society today.

Send us a message (& include the best way to reach you)Sunlight might be the missing link to your energy, focus, and performance as an entrepreneur, yet most of us spend our days trapped indoors under artificial light while ignoring the consequences to our health. Jeffrey Mort shares his personal journey of how chronic light deficiency contributed to his nervous system dysfunction and made him vulnerable to long COVID, and how prioritizing sunlight exposure became crucial to his recovery.• Sunlight is a critical nutrient that regulates circadian rhythm and nervous system function• Three common sunlight myths: always wearing sunglasses, always using sunblock, and believing artificial light is equivalent to natural light  • The World Health Organization classified shift work as a carcinogen in 2012 due to disrupted light exposure• Morning sunlight exposure without sunglasses helps set proper cortisol patterns and improves energy• Testing vitamin D levels is essential - functional medicine recommends 50-80 ng/ml versus conventional medicine's 30 ng/ml standard• Three actionable steps: get morning sunlight, test vitamin D levels, supplement wisely with D3 and K2 when neededSchedule your free health consultation through the link in the show notes to get to the root cause of what's holding you back.Now through Sunday, get a FREE bottle of EquiLife Cell Boost with any qualifying order. This powerhouse formula supports mitochondrial health, enhances cellular energy, and promotes anti-aging. Don't miss out on this exclusive deal—shop now and claim your free bottle before it's gone! Shop here

This is the Catchup on 3 Things by The Indian Express and I'm Flora Swain. Today is the 11th of March and here are the headlines. Prime Minister Narendra Modi received a warm welcome from the Indian diaspora upon his arrival in Mauritius on Tuesday. Women performed the traditional Bihari cultural dance, Geet Gawai, to honor him. He was greeted by Mauritian PM Navinchandra Ramgoolam, who presented him with a garland at Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam International Airport. Modi is in Mauritius for a two-day visit as the chief guest at the National Day celebrations. His trip includes inaugurating 20 India-funded projects, ranging from capacity building to community-linked infrastructure. Both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha resumed today at 11 am, with discussions centered around new bills and the Manipur budget. The Lok Sabha is set to discuss President's Rule in Manipur and hear the presentation of the Manipur budget by Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. A new bill on immigration services was also introduced, sparking opposition debate. Congress leader Manish Tewari called the Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025, unconstitutional, while the government defended its legislative competence to introduce the bill under the Union list.Delhi remains the world's most polluted capital for the sixth consecutive year, with an average PM 2.5 concentration of 91.8 μg/m3, according to the 2024 World Air Quality Report. The report reveals that 13 of the 20 most polluted cities globally are in India, including Byrnihat and Faridabad. India ranks as the fifth most polluted country, with a concerning average Air Quality Index (AQI) of 50.6 μg/m3. This is ten times higher than the World Health Organization's annual PM2.5 guideline, highlighting India's ongoing air quality crisis.Gangster Aman Sahu was killed in an encounter on Tuesday morning in Jharkhand's Palamu district. Authorities said Sahu's gang attempted to free him while he was being transported from Raipur jail to Ranchi. Sahu was involved in over 100 criminal cases, including murder and extortion. Police also suspected ties to the Lawrence Bishnoi gang. His death follows several convictions in criminal cases. The encounter occurred after an attempt to break him free from police custody during his transfer. Shares on Wall Street plunged on Monday, marking one of the worst trading days since 2022, fueled by concerns about President Donald Trump's trade policies. Investors are worried that a trade war could push the US economy into a recession, with Trump expressing ambivalence about the prospect. Despite earlier responses to market movements, Trump now hints at economic pain in the short term. The tech-heavy NASDAQ dropped over 4%, with Tesla suffering the most, falling more than 10%, marking a sharp decline from its December peak.This was the Catch Up on 3 Things by the Indian Express.

Today marks five years since the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a pandemic. To help us look back, Sandra Lindsay, RN, spoke with two leaders who were at the forefront of Northwell Health's response: Mangala Narasimhan, DO, director of critical care services for Northwell and medical director of the acute lung injury ECMO program John D'Angelo, MD, is the executive vice president and market president for Northwell Health's Central Market Like Dr. Narasimhan, Sandra was based out of Long Island Jewish Medical Center when Covid hit New York. At the time, she was head of critical care nursing at the flagship hospital. In this conversation, you'll hear all three share their memories of what it was like inside some of the first U.S. hospitals to receive Covid patients in March 2020; how staff coped with this global pandemic and what measures and innovations helped turn the tide.  This is part 1 of their conversation. Check back for Part 2 Wednesday, March 12, and Part 3 on Thursday, March 13. 

The Knesset Health Committee held a special debate on Monday to discuss the possibility Israel’s withdrawal from World Health Organization. Coalition MKs accused the WHO of antisemitism and discrimination against Israel, and noted that the UN agency has failed to condemn the use of hospitals and other medical facilities by Hamas during the Gaza war. Professor Dorit Nitzan, a representative of the Israel Medical Association and former WHO official, opposed Israel's withdrawal, arguing that leaving the organization could significantly harm national security, public health, and global cooperation. KAN's Mark Weiss spoke with Professor Nadav Davidovitch from Beersheva’s Ben Gurion university, chair of the Taub Center’s Health Policy program and an executive board member at ASPHER, the Association of Schools of Public Health in the European region. (Photo: Reuters)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was 5 years ago today the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic because of the novel coronavirus.It marked the start of a very different way of life, disrupting almost every part of our society, including our concept of time. What have we learned from that fateful day 5 years ago, and what has been the impact on society and on public health? Host Gurdeep Ahluwalia speaks with Infectious Disease Specialist Dr. Isaac Bogoch, @BogochIsaac, about his recollections and thoughts on how we changed as a society because of Covid-19. We love feedback at The Big Story, as well as suggestions for future episodes. You can find us:Through email at hello@thebigstorypodcast.ca Or @thebigstoryfpn on Twitter

Five years ago today, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. Since then, there have been over a million COVID-19 deaths in the United States alone. It can be challenging to recall a time with so much fear, trauma and loss. But today, we’re revisiting the earliest days of the pandemic and asking you, what do you remember? We’ll hear from the Pandemic Journaling Project out of UConn, and from Marked By COVID. This is a survivors-led organization working to establish a permanent National COVID memorial. What are your earliest memories of the first days of the COVID-19 pandemic? GUESTS: Kristin Urquiza: Co-founder of Marked By COVID Sarah Willen, PhD, MPH: Co-founder of the Pandemic Journaling Project and Professor of Anthropology at University of Connecticut Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The man who helped lead Australia's COVID-19 public health response says he's concerned about "global preparedness" for the next pandemic. On March 11th 2020, the virus was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organisation. Five years on, Professor Paul Kelly - Australia's former top doctor - believes erosion of public trust will be "a major issue" should there be another global disease outbreak.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sprawling 927-page blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I am struck by the sheer ambition and far-reaching implications of this conservative initiative. Designed as a transition and policy guide for a potential second Donald Trump presidency, Project 2025 is more than just a set of policy proposals; it is a vision for a fundamentally transformed American government.At its core, Project 2025 aims to "destroy the Administrative State" by radically restructuring the federal government. This involves replacing merit-based civil service workers with loyalists to the president, a move that critics argue would undermine the independence and integrity of key government agencies. The plan calls for the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission, among others, to be brought under direct presidential control, aligning with a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory[1][2][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle or abolish several federal agencies. The Department of Education, for instance, would be eliminated entirely, a move that would gut federal education funding and have devastating consequences for public schools. The plan suggests replacing Title I funding, which has been critical for high-poverty schools since 1965, with no-strings-attached block grants to states. This change would further strain already tight education budgets and undermine the academic outcomes of millions of vulnerable students[3].The Department of Homeland Security is another target, with Project 2025 advocating for the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. This policy aligns with Trump's long-standing stance on immigration but takes it to an extreme level, proposing the deployment of the military for domestic law enforcement[1][4].Healthcare is another area where Project 2025's proposals are particularly contentious. The plan calls for cutting Medicare and Medicaid, stripping away healthcare coverage for pre-existing conditions, and slashing Social Security. These changes would have a profound impact on the most vulnerable segments of American society, leaving many without the safety net they rely on[3][4].Environmental regulations are also in the crosshairs. Project 2025 proposes reducing these regulations to favor fossil fuels, a move that would reverse many of the environmental protections put in place by previous administrations. Additionally, the plan suggests making the National Institutes of Health less independent and defunding its stem cell research, which could have significant implications for medical advancements[1].The project's social policy agenda is equally radical. It includes criminalizing pornography, removing legal protections against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, and ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The Department of Justice would be tasked with prosecuting anti-white racism instead, a shift that many see as a dangerous and divisive move[1].In the realm of media and communication, Project 2025 proposes defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports PBS and NPR, and revoking NPR stations' noncommercial status. This would force these stations to relocate on the FM dial, potentially making way for religious programming. The plan also advocates for more media consolidation and changes to FCC rules that would allow local news programs to be converted into national ones[1].The project's stance on social media is also noteworthy. It proposes legislation requiring social media companies not to remove "core political viewpoints" from their platforms and banning TikTok. Furthermore, it would prevent the Federal Elections Commission from countering misinformation or disinformation about election integrity[1].Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from Project 2025, the overlap between his policies and the project's proposals is undeniable. Trump's recent actions, such as establishing a review council to advise on FEMA's disaster response capabilities and withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization, mirror key recommendations in the project's blueprint[5].Experts and critics alike have sounded the alarm about the potential impacts of Project 2025. The plan's reliance on Schedule F, a scheme to hire unlimited political appointees without civil service protections, raises concerns about corruption, political overreach, and the abuse of power. This would allow a president and their loyalists to have unchecked control over the executive branch, undermining the very fabric of American governance[2][3].As Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, ominously stated, "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." This rhetoric, coupled with the project's sweeping policy proposals, paints a picture of a future where the balance of power in the U.S. government is dramatically altered[4].The American public's response to Project 2025 has been overwhelmingly negative. Polls indicate that a significant majority, including many non-MAGA Republicans, oppose the plan. The more people learn about it, the more they dislike it, with concerns ranging from the firing of civil service employees to the slashing of healthcare and social security benefits[3].As we move forward, the implications of Project 2025 will continue to be a focal point in American politics. With Trump having nominated several of the plan's architects and supporters to positions in his administration, it is clear that many of these proposals are already being implemented. The coming months will be crucial as the nation watches to see how far these reforms will go and what the long-term consequences will be for American governance and society.In the words of Vice-President Kamala Harris, "It is a plan to return America to a dark past." Whether this vision of the future becomes a reality remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in the way the U.S. government operates, and its impact will be felt for generations to come.

March 11 marks five years since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 virus officially a pandemic. Tracking the virus has been key to understanding where outbreaks are occurring and one tracking tool that had been mostly on the shelf prior to the pandemic is wastewater surveillance. That’s pretty much what it sounds like — testing what we flush down the toilet which eventually lands in what’s known as a sewer shed. Marketplace’s Stephanie Hughes spoke with molecular virologist Marc Johnson at the University of Missouri about the advantages of wastewater surveillance. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

March 11 marks five years since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 virus officially a pandemic. Tracking the virus has been key to understanding where outbreaks are occurring and one tracking tool that had been mostly on the shelf prior to the pandemic is wastewater surveillance. That’s pretty much what it sounds like — testing what we flush down the toilet which eventually lands in what’s known as a sewer shed. Marketplace’s Stephanie Hughes spoke with molecular virologist Marc Johnson at the University of Missouri about the advantages of wastewater surveillance. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

Congress & state legislature eye new laws to keep (or stop) daylight saving time. (Yes, you can also say "daylights savings" ... Merriam-Webster says it's ok) Plus ~ What Pres. Trump really said about our chances of recession; what to know about your $20 million in taxpayer money for Sesame Street in the Middle East; an important constitutional caveat when it comes to the Department of Education. And five years since the World Health Organization declared a pandemic for COVID-19. Show Notes: Podcast mention: All In SUPPORT OUR MISSION   Shop our gear!  If you'd like to help support SmartHER News' mission of a free, independent, nonpartisan press – here's how you can become a SCOOP insider: https://www.scoop.smarthernews.com/get-the-inside-scoop/    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/smarthernews/  Website: https://smarthernews.com/  YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/smarthernews 

Andrew Walworth, Tom Bevan, and Carl Cannon discuss the fifth anniversary of World Health Organization's declaration that COVID-19 was a pandemic. They also talk about the ascension of Prime Minister Mark Carney, who replaces Justin Trudeau as prime minister of Canada. AND - Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that 83 percent of US AID contracts have been cancelled, while violent protests against Elon Musk hit Tesla showrooms and facilities. Plus, the chatter over sports commentator Steven A. Smith's possible run for the Democratic presidential nomination, and a recent Atlantic article on the explosion of memes featuring photoshopped images of Vice President J.D. Vance. And lastly, Tom Bevan talks to RCP White House correspondent Phil Wegmann about the week ahead for Donald Trump.

In this episode, Patricia D. Jones, MD, MSCR; Mindie H. Nguyen, MD, MAS, AGAF, FAASLD; and patient advocate, Jennifer Wild, MS, RN, OCN, discuss practical strategies to overcome barriers to hepatitis B virus (HBV) care, including: Overcoming health insurance navigation Improving access to HBV care in immigrant communitiesDispelling HBV myths and stigmaSolutions to language barriersCommunity-based interventionsPresenters:Patricia D. Jones, MD, MSCRAssociate Professor of Clinical MedicineDirector of Clinical Operations-HepatologyDivision of Digestive Health and Liver DiseasesDepartment of MedicineUniversity of Miami Miller School of MedicineSylvester Comprehensive Cancer CenterMiami, FloridaMindie H. Nguyen, MD, MAS, AGAF, FAASLDProfessor of Medicine (GI & Hepatology,Liver Transplant)Professor of Epidemiology & Population Health(by Courtesy)Director of Hepatology ClerkshipFaculty Search LENS Advocates,Stanford Department of MedicineFaculty Fellow, Stanford Center for Innovationin Global HealthMember, Stanford Cancer Institute, Maternal &Child Health Research Institute, & Stanford Bio-CStanford, CaliforniaPast Chair: HBV SIG, The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD)28th President: The International Association for the Study of the Liver (IASL)Jennifer Wild, MS, RN, OCNClinical Nurse – GI Medical OncologyUCSF Cancer CenterSan Francsico, CaliforniaLink to full program: https://bit.ly/4j973TNDownloadable slides: https://bit.ly/3WQkIWlGet access to all of our new podcasts by subscribing to the CCO Infectious Disease Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or Spotify.

It’s been five years since the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. What began as a mysterious “flu-like” illness spread rapidly, killing over one million people in the United States and over seven million worldwide. That’s according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. And while half a decade has passed, many frontline workers remember the months of fear and uncertainty as though it was yesterday. This hour, hospital workers and a grocery store worker reflect on how the pandemic forever changed their jobs, what lessons they continue to carry forward today, and how they resist “collective forgetting” when it feels like the world has moved on. GUESTS: Sarah Peltier: Grocery at Stop & Shop in Simsbury, CT Audrey Silver: Senior Clinical Operations Manager at Hartford Healthcare Chaplain Rolando Hernandez Lizcano: Chaplain, Hartford Hospital Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Canada has a new Prime Minister who isn't even a sitting MP, US and Ukrainian officials are set to meet in Saudi Arabia to discuss a framework for peace between Ukraine and Russia and It's been five years since the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a pandemic.

Five years ago this week, the World Health Organization called the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic. In the United States, officials declared a national emergency, triggering travel bans for non-U.S. citizens and shutdowns nationwide. Now, many who lived through the pandemic, including those who treated infected patients, are still dealing with the fallout. Ali Rogin reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Five years ago this week, the World Health Organization called the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic. In the United States, officials declared a national emergency, triggering travel bans for non-U.S. citizens and shutdowns nationwide. Now, many who lived through the pandemic, including those who treated infected patients, are still dealing with the fallout. Ali Rogin reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

BUFFALO, NY - March 11, 2025 – A new #editorial was #published in Oncotarget, Volume 16, on March 10, 2025, titled “EXPOSOMES and GENES: The duo influencing CANCER initiation and progression." In this editorial, Drs. Uzma Saqib, Katherine E. Ricks, Alexander G. Obukhov, and Krishnan Hajela from Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya (DAVV) in Indore, India, discuss how environmental factors, known as exposomes, interact with genes to influence cancer risk. The authors highlight how pollution, diet, infections, and chronic stress can trigger genetic alterations that may lead to cancer. Understanding these connections could play a crucial role in cancer prevention and public health strategies. Genes store the instructions for how the body functions, but they can be damaged by harmful exposures. Polluted air, radiation, tobacco smoke, and processed foods can lead to DNA damage, interfering with the body's natural ability to repair itself. Over time, these genetic changes can increase the risk of cancer development. The authors emphasize that nearly everyone is exposed to cancer risk factors daily. “According to the Global Air Quality Guidelines of World Health Organization (WHO), nearly all of the global population (>99%) breathes polluted air that exceeds guideline limits.” For example, air pollution has been linked to lung cancer, while UV radiation is a leading cause of skin cancer. Processed meats contain harmful chemicals that can damage DNA, and excessive alcohol consumption has been shown to raise the risk of liver cancer by causing toxic buildup in cells. Even chronic stress and hormone imbalances can weaken the body's natural defenses against cancer by altering key genetic pathways. Infections also play a critical role in cancer risk. The Helicobacter pylori bacterium can cause stomach cancer by damaging stomach cells, while human papillomavirus (HPV) is strongly linked to cervical cancer. Other bacteria, viruses, and fungi can introduce genetic instability that contributes to tumor growth. Despite these risks, scientists estimate that up to 40% of cancers could be prevented through lifestyle changes such as a healthy diet, regular exercise, and avoiding harmful exposures. Advances in research technology are helping scientists better understand how environmental factors alter genes, leading to new strategies for cancer detection and prevention. “Understanding the exposome-gene-cancer research axis will have a significant impact on public health and the development of more effective strategies for prevention and treatment of diseases.” The editorial underscores the urgent need for greater public awareness and policy action to reduce exposure to harmful environmental risks. As scientists continue to explore the connection between exposomes and genetic changes, their findings could revolutionize public health efforts and cancer prevention strategies. By recognizing the long-term impact of environmental exposures, individuals, communities, and policymakers can take meaningful steps toward reducing cancer risk and promoting healthier environments for future generations. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28696 Correspondence to - Krishnan Hajela - hajelak@gmail.com Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE4XX9ULHBQ To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

The World Health Organisation observes World Hearing Day on 3 March each year. Similarly, in Australia, the first week of March is recognised as Hearing Awareness Week to raise awareness about hearing loss and deafness. Sydney-based GP Prabin Pathak spoke to SBS Nepali about the prevalence of hearing loss in the Nepali community and ways to prevent it. - हरेक वर्ष विश्व स्वास्थ्य संगठनले तीन मार्चलाई विश्व श्रवण दिवसको रुपमा मनाउने गरेको छ। त्यस्तै, यता अस्ट्रेलियामा मार्च महिनाको पहिलो हप्तालाई श्रवण शक्ति सम्बन्धी जनचेतनामूलक सप्ताहको रूपमा लिइन्छ। सुन्ने क्षमता गुम्ने समस्या अस्ट्रेलियामा बस्ने नेपाली समुदायमा पनि देखिने गरेको सिड्नीका जीपी डा. प्रबिन पाठक बताउँछन्। श्रवण शक्ति गुम्न नदिन के गर्न सकिन्छ त? डा. पाठकसँग एसबीएस नेपालीले गरेको कुराकानी सुन्नुहोस्।

In the News with Mike Dakkakwww.itnshow.comReggie Littlejohn joins ITN to discuss President Trump's withdrawal from the World Health Organization and the dangers of Larry Ellison's Stargate project.Support Reggie's work at https://www.antiglobalist.net.Cue Streaming: Network + Premium Channels for $59.99/mo. No Contracts. https://Inthenews.mycuestreaming.com/apply.Purchase Dr. Stella Immanuel's products at https://marketplace.drstellamd.com. Use promo code ITN and save.Shop Richardson Nutritional Center anti-cancer products now and save at https://rncstore.com/itn. Discount code for ITN viewers will be applied at checkout.We are financing the war against us. Give your money instead to companies that care about America and Americans. http://patriotsmade.com/Kim.Your support allows me to cover the news the MSM tries to suppress. https://www.buymeacoffee.com/itnshow.Stream Patrick Byrne's new blockbuster docuseries The Enemy Within at https://enemywithindocuseries.com/ref/ITN/. 

What if your daily glass of wine, previously celebrated for its health benefits, is now viewed through a critical lens that labels it a health risk and labelling it as cancerous? Today, we unpack the complexities of this narrative with Felicity Carter, exploring the science, media influence, and industry responses that shape our understanding of wine's place in a healthy lifestyle.Today, we are excited to welcome Felicity Carter, a distinguished journalist and editor based in Europe. As the Editorial Director of ARENI Global and co-founder of Business of Drinks, Felicity's expertise is unmatched. She formerly served as Editor-in-Chief of Meininger's Wine Business International, transforming it into an essential resource for wine professionals worldwide. Felicity's insights have graced major media platforms, including CNN and The New York Times, positioning her at the forefront of key discussions within the wine industry.In today's episode, we will dive into the changing narratives surrounding wine and health. We'll examine how these perceptions are evolving and their implications for both consumers and the industry. We'll tackle common myths about wine, including the contentious idea that "there's no safe level of alcohol," and scrutinize the French Paradox.Additionally, Felicity will share her insights on the recent anti-alcohol messaging from the World Health Organization, including the motivations behind this movement and what the wine industry can do to advocate for itself. Finally, we'll discuss the rise of non-alcoholic options and whether this trend is here to stay, particularly in the contrasting markets of Europe and Asia. Make sure to tune into Felicity's podcast Drinks Insider and find out more her expertise here.  Since 2016, Bottled in China brings you into the food and drink scene through conversations with the some of the most happening personalities. Hosted by Emilie Steckenborn, the show is your one spot for all things food, beer, wine and spirits from across the world. Connect with us on LinkedIn or Instagram @bottled.in.china Podcast available on iTunes, Spotify , online or wherever you listen to your episodes! Subscribe to Bottled in China to follow the journey!Check out our new website & find out more at https://www.thebottledshow.com

Dr Margaret Harris, Spokesperson for the World Health Organization, discusses the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza and US funding cuts to programmes such as tuberculosis prevention.

“The outcome of the American election will have huge implications both for American institutions and for the world,” Francis Fukuyama wrote in September of last year. Just a few weeks into his second term, with a slew of executive orders and controversial appointments, President Donald Trump seems determined to refashion the fabric of American politics and society with the aim of aggrandizing presidential power at the expense of Congress and the courts. Globally the new administration is worrying allies by withdrawing from the Paris Climate agreement and the World Health Organization, suspending foreign assistance, and imposing tariffs on key trading partners.How will these efforts impact America's political system? Will the checks and balances the framers envisioned to constrain the abuse of power hold? What impact will the foreign and domestic policies of the new Administration have on America's role and image in the world? Join Aaron David Miller as he engages in conversation with Francis Fukuyama, a nonresident scholar in the Carnegie Endowment's Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, to discuss these and other issues. 

Last night, Donald Trump laid out an extraordinary blueprint for renewing the USA. Unlike most such addresses to Congress that are long on promises, few of which are ever fulfilled, this president has already acted in myriad ways on what he calls “the liberation of America.” Notably, Mr. Trump immediately closed our borders. As he quipped, it didn't take new laws; it just took a new president. Ditto, among many other examples, his protecting our sovereignty by withdrawing from the World Health Organization and excising cultural Marxist subversion by ridding “Wokism” from federal civilian agencies and the military. To be sure, some Trump initiatives for Making America Great Again are still in the offing, or awaiting congressional action. But with this president's leadership, we are well on our way to an unprecedented, vitally needed, and truly golden national renewal. This is Frank Gaffney.

This week on The Broski Report, Fearless Leader Brittany Broski discusses her visit to the New York City Ballet, dissects the Iron Man trilogy, and recounts her visit to NASA. 

Dr. Aditi Nerurkar is a Harvard physician, nationally recognized stress expert, and author of “The 5 Resets: Rewire Your Brain and Body For Less Stress and More.” She is also an in-demand multi-media personality, high profile medical correspondent, internationally renowned Fortune50 speaker, and podcaster. Uniquely fulfilling her original career ambition to be a journalist, Dr. Nerurkar has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Oprah Magazine, Architectural Digest and Elle – in addition to being a columnist for Forbes and writing for The Atlantic. She has made more than 300 appearances as a medical commentator on MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS News; and has spoken at the “Forbes 30 Under 30 Summit” and Harvard Business School Women's Conference. Dr. Nerurkar also co-hosts the popular and influential “Time Out: A Fair Play Podcast” with New York Times best-selling author Eve Rodsky. Dr. Nerurkar's first brush with intense media demand came in 2011 – when she was a Research Fellow at Harvard – with the publication of a study she conducted in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) titled: “When Conventional Medical Providers Recommend Unconventional Medicine”; followed by her first interview with Diane Sawyer on World News Tonight, and attention from NPR.Dr. Nerurkar's expertise on stress comes from working with thousands of patients throughout her years as a primary care physician and director of an integrative medicine program at Harvard's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, from 2012-2020. She is now a lecturer at Harvard Medical School in the Division of Global Health & Social Medicine and serves as the Co-Director of the Clinical Clerkship in Community Engagement. She has also worked in global public health at a World Health Organization collaboration center in Geneva, Switzerland. Though she entered Barnard College at Columbia University with an eye toward studying journalism, Dr. Nerurkar's family DNA all but dictated a future in medicine. In India, her grandfather was a surgeon and her grandmother, one of only three women in her medical school, was an OB/GYN. She was raised by her grandparents in Mumbai until the age of six while her parents were in the U.S. studying medicine themselves. She then came to the States, where she grew up outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Even as she thrived as a researcher and practicing physician, she developed a love for media and health communication and knew she would eventually use her creative and journalistic talents to facilitate action. Her first published article in The Huffington Post, “Medication or Meditation: Which Should You Choose?” launched this side of her career. During the pandemic, her speaking career took off as a speaker with The Leigh Bureau Speaking Agency.  Topics covered in this episode:Food choices and HealthImportance of SleepMindfulness and MeditationDigital Detox and Social MediaExercise Building ResiliencePersonal Well-Being JourneyHabits for a Healthy LifeSelf-CareStrategies for Stress ReliefBalancing Information ConsumptionCultivating Self-CompassionOvercoming BurnoutHuman Connection and StressReferenced in the episode:The Lindsey Elmore Show Ep 216 | Pulling Back The Curtain: How Medicine is Really Practiced in the U.S. | Otis BrawleyTo learn more about Dr. Aditi Nerurkar and her work, head over to https://www.draditi.com/____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________We hope you enjoyed this episode. Come check us out at https://www.spreaker.com/show/the-lindsey-elmore-showBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-lindsey-elmore-show--5952903/support.

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 “

Humiliating the president of Ukraine in the Oval Office. Admonishing European leaders about migration and free speech. Voting alongside Russia against a UN resolution to condemn the invasion of Ukraine. Withdrawing from the World Health Organization and UN Human Rights Council. They are all signs from the Trump administration that point to a massive shift in America's foreign policy and alignment with the very “rules-based” international order the U.S. led after WWII.But how did the world order as we know it come to be? And if it comes to an end, what could the future look like? Dominic Sandbrook, co-host of The Rest is History, takes us through the last 70 years of global politics and how we got to this turning point. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

Janet A. Jokela, an infectious disease physician, discusses her article, "Doctors, grounded in our oath, must act now more than ever," reflecting on the physician's solemn commitment to patient care, integrity, and advocacy. With increasing challenges to public health institutions like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and World Health Organization (WHO), physicians must decide how to uphold their oath amid political and systemic disruptions. The conversation explores the role of medical professionals in defending science, advocating for patients, and maintaining ethical standards in health care. Listeners will gain insights into actionable steps, from professional advocacy to public communication, that reinforce the vital responsibility physicians carry both inside and outside the clinical setting. Our presenting sponsor is Microsoft Dragon Copilot. Microsoft Dragon Copilot, your AI assistant for clinical workflow, is transforming how clinicians work. Now you can streamline and customize documentation, surface information right at the point of care, and automate tasks with just a click. Part of Microsoft Cloud for Healthcare, Dragon Copilot offers an extensible AI workspace and a single, integrated platform to help unlock new levels of efficiency. Plus, it's backed by a proven track record and decades of clinical expertise—and it's built on a foundation of trust. It's time to ease your administrative burdens and stay focused on what matters most with Dragon Copilot, your AI assistant for clinical workflow. VISIT SPONSOR → https://aka.ms/kevinmd SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST → https://www.kevinmd.com/podcast RECOMMENDED BY KEVINMD → https://www.kevinmd.com/recommended GET CME FOR THIS EPISODE → https://www.kevinmd.com/cme I'm partnering with Learner+ to offer clinicians access to an AI-powered reflective portfolio that rewards CME/CE credits from meaningful reflections. Find out more: https://www.kevinmd.com/learnerplus

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” Sara lambasts Dan Crenshaw, who, after an interview with GB News, was captured on a hot mic threatening to kill Tucker Carlson if he ever met him. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention appears to be defying President Donald Trump's executive order to withdraw from the World Health Organization, as the CDC and FDA plan to attend a global meeting with the WHO. Democrats continue to push the narrative that Donald Trump's approval rating is plummeting, but their own disapproval is at an eight-year high. The episode concludes as Joy Reid bawls her eyes out over her firing and Rachel Maddow suggests that her own network, MSNBC, is racist for firing two non-whites. GUESTS: Sara is joined by Del Bigtree, CEO of MAHA Action and MAHA Alliance. She is also joined by Bo French, chairman of the Tarrant County GOP, and Matthew Marsden, BlazeTV contributor.   Sponsors:   Jase Medical: Go to http://www.jase.com to enter their giveaway or to purchase your own case. Enter promo code “SARA” at checkout for a discount on your order.   Fearless Army Roll Call: Blaze subscribers get first access to early bird tickets—on sale now at http://www.FearlessRollCall.com. Go there now to secure your seat before tickets sell out.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices