Monthly Archive for June, 2009

Soros Goon Attacks Dead Mother with Dead Baby

After decades of decline, the war on infectious disease was all but over by 1981. Faced with severe budget cuts, scientists had to make up a pandemic or sell shoes at Macy’s. So when a tiny group of gay men succumbed to their toxic misbehavior the scientists had their pretext.

After nearly three decades of self-serving research and a trillion wasted tax dollars, AIDS has never been identified as a leading medical cause of death and two large prizes for proof of HIV and AIDS causation remain unclaimed.

In the latest sign that the wheels are falling from NIAID’s little red propaganda wagon, Apartheid’s mercenary offspring are starting to get reckless.

In the past 45 days I have reported that:

Because of these revelations, investors who support groups like TAC and AIDSTruth are pressuring other financially-compromised university researchers like Seth Kalichman, Steven Siegelbaum and Cornell’s John Moore to promote the propaganda.

In the latest attack, TAC-funder George Soros directed Jonny Steinberg (one of Soros’ well-paid but scientifically incompetent South African shills) to propagandize AIDS in the pseudoscientific magazine New Scientist. Soros appears to have chosen Steinberg and NS for the same reasons that Gallo picked a security guard to investigate his career in HIV research.

NS’ reporting is so sloppy that when science fiction writer Greg Egan noted its combination of a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers, the editor admitted that NS is “an ideas magazine (that writes) about hypotheses as well as theories.” Unfortunately, NS rarely makes that distinction for readers who must speculate about the accuracy of its reports and the qualifications of its guest writers.

Like Nick Kontaratos, Kalichman, Bergman and the rest, Steinberg parrots the milk-fed propaganda – this time blaming the death of Christine Maggiore and her daughter on her scientific skepticism. It was no surprise that the truthers reflexively praised Steinberg – just as Gallo’s esteemed scientists praised Gallo’s security guard.

This incompetence was NOT an “accidental oversight” by NS.

Although the story and shills like Kalichman and truther Nick “Snout” Bennett accused Maggiore of killing her baby (160+ comments now), investigative journalist Liam Scheff posted a comment that NS viewed as unfit for its pages.

Ask yourself what was inappropriate about Scheff’s remarks?

I am wondering why the writer, Jonny Steinberg, focuses on one mother, who may have simply been a bad mother, or someone who didn’t know much about health, instead of focusing on the dozens to hundreds of deaths buried in the AIDS drug Uganda trials?
Or in the death by AIDS drug of tens of thousands of people over the years, as the drugs have been cycled down and down and down in dose, (often to no improvement in health, that is they still kill the patient)?
Mr. Steinberg, will you try, for your next article, to contact Jonathan Fishbein, who lost his job and career for blowing the whistle on the NIH fraud in Uganda? Will you talk to the family of Joyce Ann Hafford, who was killed by Nevirapine, or by anyone whose friend or relative died on any AIDS drug?You paint a one-sided picture, and it reeks of pay-for-play. You have no previous articles in New Scientist, and one is left to wonder what your motives are?
The political attack arm of the AIDS industry infiltrates media and creates smear campaigns in order to deflect from the hundreds and thousands of tragedies, errors and crimes perpetrated by the AIDS pharma industry, in selling its wares to the public.
Journalism is supposed to serve the public good by putting a light on the dishonesty of institutions. You have uncovered, badly, what was already in public view – a woman with some health issues and many enemies has died. There are sufficient political reasons to think that she was killed, but that question is never raised.
She was hounded by the AIDS pharmaceutical industry, and many prayed loudly and openly for her demise and downfall, and death, for over a decade.What effect will that have on a human body?

I do not have the details necessary to answer the questions of Christine Maggiore’s fitness or lack of fitness as a parent. I would say she was perhaps too zealous or highly naive in taking such a political stand against such a juggernaut.

On the other hand, please see the cases of the tens of thousands who died on high dose AIDS drugs in the 80s and 90s. Please review the Uganda trial. Please review the case of Joyce Ann Hafford, among others, and put some perspective in your histrionic and political article.

Dangerous words indeed.

In this case, NS found it easier to kill Scheff’s comment than admit their magazine posts unproven and unscientific hypotheses and theories.

If HIV/AIDS was a scientific disease, the proof would speak for itself. But as a political disease, US Government agencies like NIAID refer inquiries to AIDSTruth in the land of Apartheid, where the mountains of Africa’s dead miners continue to grow. So much is at stake that hedge fund managers like Soros now pay the offspring of Apartheid to beat the dead woman with her dead child.

The role of the Ford and Tides foundations and Soros Hedge Fund also explains why pro-Soros websites like Huffington, Daily Kos, TruthOut and MoveOn entirely ignore this 30-year controversy and their complicity in the mine-related genocide of Africa’s poorest and most vulnerable people.

Is Healthcare Asleep at the Wheel?

Dateline: Redding California, 2002 – A jetliner carrying 700 passengers crashed into Mount Shasta killing 69 and injuring most of the remainder. Pilot error caused the crash. The FAA ignored the incident.
If this story were true, we would be outraged and demand a full government investigation of the FAA’s negligent failure to investigate. Yet the story is partially true: all the “passengers” were patients at Redding Medical Center in Redding, California between 1993 and 2002. The two “pilots” were Drs. Fidel Realyvasquez, a cardiac surgeon, and Chae Moon, a self-proclaimed cardiologist.
In late 2002, the FBI “busted” this conspiracy of negligence. The two physicians have lost their license to practice in California.  The hospital administrators who helped hide the doctors from public scrutiny have relocated to foreign countries to find work.
But “busting” the “bad guys” for unnecessary heart procedures and surgery on healthy patients was not good enough for my team, or for the people, so we set out to discover how this gross and near criminal medical negligence could possibly be tolerated for 10 years at a well respected, accredited, and licensed hospital.
Based on our investigation and report gleaned from public documents and private testimony, we found that government officials failed to enforce our laws: laws necessary to assure hospitals are safe for the public.
Both State and federal health care officials knew as early as 1999 that RMC and its medical staff could not assure patient safety for cardiac services. These officials knew the hospital and medical staff provided no oversight or review of the quality of care provided by Moon and RV. In fact, both of these physicians were in charge of their own reviews. Moreover, our main hospital accreditation organization, the Joint Commission, also knew in 1999 of the danger Moon and RV posed to patients because their patient care services were hidden from review by their peers. The JC accredited RMC anyway. The first peer review provided for Moon and RV was performed by outside medical experts hired by the FBI in 2002.
Now that we know hospital peer review requirements are not enforced, the California legislature refuses to give our enforcement agency, Licensing and Certification, the power it needs to enforce our laws.
Professional stakeholders, but not the public, oppose law enforcement penalties that would compel effective peer review. L&C does have the power to impose fines of $50,000 to $100,000 against hospitals for allowing imminent danger to patients. But the absence of peer review is not an imminent danger, even though hundreds of patients can be harmed over time.  Patients at many California hospitals are vulnerable to unmitigated medical negligence which can only be prevented by brave conscientious physicians who have the professional courage to voluntarily identify physicians who allegedly endanger patients and hold them accountable through the peer review process. In hospitals where peer review is absent or ineffective, there is no mechanism to cull out negligent physicians until after many patients are damaged.
When peer review is properly performed, suspected physician errors are discovered timely, through analysis of various triggers, such as unexpected return to the operating room or unexpected blood loss. Promoted by these triggers, specific patient cases are reviewed by other physicians at the same hospital. The care provided may be acceptable or problematic. If physician negligence is discovered, corrective action is taken. A physician may be instructed to take more education, limit performance of certain services, or could be discharged from the medical staff for egregious acts. The result is safer care for future patients.
The California Legislature ordered a report on California peer review and hired Lumetra, a private company to write it. Lumetra published its report in 2008. Lumetra found that peer review in California is unacceptable, inadequate, and ineffective: patient safety cannot be assured. RMC is the “poster child” for what goes wrong too often. Now, seven years after the FBI “busted” Moon and RV, and after the Department of Justice and CMS kicked RMC out of the Medicare Program, our peer review laws remain unenforced throughout California. 
In the 2009 legislative session, the California Legislature has taken up the peer review issue (SB 58, SB 700, AB 120, AB 245, and AB 834). But current proposals will not enact penalties L&C requires to enforce our laws. Experts believe L&C needs the power to impose intermediate sanctions against hospitals and medical staffs for repeat failure to conduct peer review. Currently, the only power L&C has is to revoke the license of the entire hospital, which the Agency rarely does. By contrast, intermediate sanctions could remove the license of a hospital for certain elective services only in those clinical departments (e.g. cardiac services) where peer review is not provided or is ineffective on repeat audit. With this power, a negligent hospital and medical staff would face huge financial losses and, therefore, would provide the missing peer review immediately. Without the enforcement power of intermediate sanctions, hospitals and medical staffs can continue to flaunt our laws knowing the State has no power to enforce them.
In other words, currently peer review is self-administered, not audited for effectiveness, and when not done, there is no power to enforce the requirement. Self-administered peer review in hospitals works as well as self-administered regulation compliance did on Wall Street in 2008. Doctors who need help are not identified, and future patients continue to suffer the consequences.
In 2009, patient safety will remain a goal, not a reality; except, perhaps, in a few self-proclaimed centers of quality. To change this unacceptable situation, you must write to your California legislator and demand enactment of intermediate sanctions to enforce the peer review laws in California.
Good luck next time you are admitted to a hospital in California. You will need it because patient safety cannot be assured. It is safer to fly.
Dr. Rogan is a family and emergency physician who served as the Medicare Medical Director in California from 1997-2003. In 2002, he assisted law enforcement with the RMC investigation. Currently, he is an
independent consultant to health services companies.
 

Why Do Americans Want Government Healthcare?

Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute David Gratzer MD asks: 

In Canada, private-sector health care is growing. Dr. Day estimates that 50,000 people are seen at private clinics every year in British Columbia. According to the New York Times, a private clinic opens at a rate of about one a week across the country. Public-private partnerships, once a taboo topic, are embraced by provincial governments.
In the United Kingdom, where socialized medicine was established after World War II through the National Health Service, the present Labour government has introduced a choice in surgeries by allowing patients to choose among facilities, often including private ones. Even in Sweden, the government has turned over services to the private sector.
Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?  http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=6173