We mentioned DR OZ when we questioned the veracity of a DR RACHAEL ---TV doctors are as bad as global 1% HOLLYWOOD/MUSIC/SPORTS STARS====they are on TV to promote global corporations. DR OZ promotes natural medicines------vitamins et al while giving basic medical education. As with organic foods------our natural medicines have been corrupted by global corporations selling a product for profit.
The 1990s saw several global 3 Phase clinical trials looking at the efficacy of vitamins and supplements being added to US foods and sold in stores. These were some of the last developed nation quality clinical trials done as CLINTON ERA corporatized and dismantled all patient and public protections from profiteering medicine. What was found in almost every case-------manufactured vitamins and minerals do not enter the human body as does vitamins and minerals from food sources. There was no benefit from Vitamin A/beta carotene in supplements as shown below-----and the results had doctors recommending citizens get their vitamins from FOOD SOURCES.
This is the same time DR OZ hit the TV stage via OPRAH-----what does he sell? Natural supplements and vitamins. This article is telling us nothing new---we have known these few decades that almost all of the products tied to vitamin/mineral/natural food supplements were CORRUPT----just as our ORGANIC FOOD industries have become.
IT IS AMAZING THE AMOUNT OF DISPOSABLE INCOME OUR US MIDDLE-CLASS SPENT ON FLINTSTONES VITAMINS AND SPECIAL K CEREAL.....AND DR OZ'S NATURAL SUPPLEMENTS.
As we segue away from vaccines please know that moving vaccinations from a doctor's office to a RITE AID is opening the door to placebo shots, diluted shots all in an effort to pad global corporate profits.
Studies of Antioxidants and Disease Prevention: Little Supportive Evidence
Randomized, placebo-controlled trials—which, when performed well, provide the strongest evidence—offer little support that taking vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, or other single antioxidants provides substantial protection against heart disease, cancer, or other chronic conditions. The results of the largest such trials have been mostly negative.
BETA-CAROTENE Overview Information
Beta-carotene is one of a group of red, orange, and yellow pigments called carotenoids. Beta-carotene and other carotenoids provide approximately 50% of the vitamin A needed in the American diet. Beta-carotene can be found in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. It can also be made in a laboratory.
Beta-carotene is used to decrease asthma symptoms caused by exercise; to prevent certain cancers, heart disease, cataracts, and age related macular degeneration (AMD); and to treat AIDS, alcoholism, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, epilepsy, headache, heartburn, high blood pressure, infertility, Parkinson’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, schizophrenia, and skin disorders including psoriasis and vitiligo.
Beta-carotene is also in used in malnourished (underfed) women to reduce the chance of death and night blindness during pregnancy, as well as diarrhea and fever after giving birth.
Some people who sunburn easily, including those with an inherited disease called erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP), use beta-carotene to reduce the risk of sunburn.
There are many authorities – including the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the World Cancer Research Institute in association with the American Institute for Cancer Research, and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer – that recommend getting beta-carotene and other antioxidants from food instead of supplements, at least until research finds out whether supplements offer the same benefits. Eating 5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily provides 6-8 mg of beta-carotene.
How does it work?
Beta-carotene is converted to vitamin A, an essential nutrient. It has antioxidant activity, which helps to protect cells from damage.
__________________________________________
REAL left social progressive scientists shout loudly when health care and medicine takes a turn to global 1% profiteering and DOING HARM. We have known since the 1990s when DR OZ was introduced via the OPRAH show he was shilling products for profit ignoring what was widely accepted research these products had no benefit and indeed much of these supplements were simply processed by kidneys and excreted. If we have high levels of prescription and over-counter drugs in our water systems-----thank the pushers of manufactured vitamins/minerals/natural supplements.
Some do pose risk-----some may bring benefit------a super-majority did nothing. So, where was the shouting in the 1990s? Why are we hearing it today? Because 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are no longer having disposable income to spend on FAKE MEDICINE ----we are MOVING FORWARD to United Nations Universal single payer ----preventative health care for all. No US middle-class no need for FAKE HEALTH PRODUCTS.
Please do not get health information from TV----whether infomercials tied to morning news programs or these daytime soap operas. So, we can be sure today's soap opera on TV---THE DOCTORS will offer the same global 1% propaganda in medicine and health.
AND YES, FOR SHAME IN PROMOTING JOSEPH MERCOLA ON YOUR FAKE HEALTH SHOW.
'For shame, Dr. Oz, for promoting Joseph Mercola on your show ...
sciencebasedmedicine.org/for-shame-dr-oz
I’ve been highly critical of Dr. Mehmet Oz, ... in Italy for fraud and patient deaths and has ... he promotes “healthy natural supplements.” Dr. Oz eats '...
Remember, hyper-global 1% neo-liberal doctors are the same lying, cheating, stealing no morals or ethics no US Rule of Law no God's Natural Law as our 5% to the 1% global Wall Street pols and players allowing US citizens to be harmed these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
Congressional pols have known since the 1990s all these TV doctors' programs were selling fraud-----the idea a Congressional health committee was holding anyone accountable is ridiculous------OZ has his fortune and is ready to go to TELEMEDICINE, MICROCHIPS, AND NANOBOTS.
Of course DR OZ promotes a DR Mercola who promotes vaccine scare harming yet again US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE
'Subscribe to Dr. Mercola's Natural Health Newsletter
Groundbreaking Study: Vaccines Cause Children More Adverse Reactions Than Any Other Drug'
Congressional hearing investigates Dr. Oz 'miracle' weight loss claims
By Jen Christensen and Jacque Wilson, CNN
Updated 9:54 AM ET, Thu June 19, 2014
Dr. Mehmet Oz, host of "The Dr. Oz Show," faced grilling by senators on Capitol Hill about the promotion of weight loss products on his show.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Insurance, led the panel that on Tuesday looked at false advertising for weight loss products. Subcommittee members took issue with assertions that Oz has made on his show about products that don't have a lot of scientific evidence to back them up, such as green coffee beans.
"The scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of the three products you called 'miracles,' " said McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat. She said she was discouraged by the "false hope" his rhetoric gives viewers and questioned his role "intentional or not, in perpetuating these scams."
"I don't get why you need to say this stuff when you know it's not true. When you have this amazing megaphone, why would you cheapen your show? ... With power comes a great deal of responsibility."
The Federal Trade Commission is in charge of protecting consumers from "unfair or deceptive advertising and marketing practices that raise health and safety concerns." In May, the FTC sued the sellers of Green Coffee Beans for deceiving consumers through fake news sites and invented health claims.
The commission said that weeks after "The Dr. Oz Show" promoted the benefits of Pure Green Coffee, some companies that marketed the product used video from his show to increase sales.
Dr. Oz: I've never sold supplements 02:41
Dr. Oz: I'm not selling magic diet pills 02:09
The scientific evidence supporting green coffee bean extract as a weight loss supplement is weak.
A small study published in 2012 found chlorogenic acid, the main ingredient in green coffee beans, helped 16 human participants lose, on average, 18 pounds over 22 weeks. But another study on chlorogenic acid in mice found that the acid did not help mice lose weight and in fact, increased their insulin resistance.
A 2011 meta-analysis of three studies on green coffee extract found the supplement produced, on average, a five-pound loss among study participants. But all three studies were short term and included a small number of participants, leading the meta-analysis authors to conclude: "More rigorous trials are needed to assess the usefulness of GCE as a weight loss tool."
Oz told the panel that he does use "flowery language" to describe certain products on his show but added he believes in them so much he has given them to his family.
"My job, I feel, on the show is to be a cheerleader for the audience, and when they don't think they have hope, when they don't think they can make it happen, I want to look, and I do look everywhere, including in alternative healing traditions, for any evidence that might be supportive to them," Oz said.
In addition to green coffee beans, McCaskill called out Garcinia cambogia as another weight loss product Oz has promoted.
"Thanks to brand new scientific research, I can tell you about a revolutionary fat buster," Oz said on his show in November 2012 with the words "No Exercise. No Diet. No Effort" on the screen behind him. "It's called Garcinia cambogia."
A 1998 study of 135 participants found Garcinia cambogia did not significantly help people lose weight any more than a placebo. But a 2013 meta-analysis of Garcinia cambogia studies hedged on the supplement's ineffectiveness, saying its weight loss benefits "remain to be proven in larger-scale and longer-term clinical trials." Whether it helps people lose weight or not, the Garcinia cambogia does not seem to be unsafe to use, some other studies say.
Oz testified Tuesday that he could not be held responsible for what certain companies say online about the products. He said he's toned down some of his language and will publish a list of products he thinks really can help people lose weight.
"To not have the conversation about supplements at all however would be a disservice to the viewer," Oz said in a prepared statement after the hearing. "In addition to exercising an abundance of caution in discussing promising research and products in the future, I look forward to working with all those present today in finding a way to deal with the problems of weight loss scams."
The Food and Drug Administration does not regulate weight loss supplements. Under current law, companies selling these products do not need FDA approval before marketing them to the public.
"Just because you see a supplement product on a store shelf does NOT mean it is safe or effective," the FDA website says. "When safety issues are suspected, FDA must investigate and, when warranted, take steps to have the product removed from the market. However, it is much easier for a firm to get a product on the market than it is for FDA to take a product off the market."
These weight loss products, even those that claim to be all natural, may contain toxic ingredients, the FDA says, or they may interact badly with other medications. Make sure to check with your doctor before taking any supplement.
Hidden dangers in vitamins, supplements?
The FTC told Elizabeth Cohen, CNN senior medical correspondent, that there are just "too many" weight loss products using deceptive advertising to sue them all. But consumers should be wary of certain phrases that are most certainly false, the FTC said, including any that claim to help you lose weight without diet and exercise.
Bottom line -- don't believe everything you see. Do your homework online and make sure any claim about a weight loss product is backed up by scientific evidence.
____________________________________________
Chemotherapy was one of the earliest treatments for cancer and never a pleasant treatment.
'Misinformation and demonization aside, it is also important to realize that the term “chemotherapy,” which was originally coined by German chemist Paul Ehrlich, was originally intended to mean the use of chemicals to treat disease. By this definition, virtually any drug is “chemotherapy,” including antibiotics'.
SCIENCE-BASED MEDICINE----this is the theme behind AFFORDABLE CARE ACT------US citizens are now to believe all the corruption and profiteering in US medicine these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA is now on the mend and global 1% corporate health care systems tied to predatory and profiteering medicine are going to fix this.
As the quote above states----the phrase CHEMOTHERAPY was assigned to all treatment of disease vectors with CHEMICALS. This has been our modern 20th century medicine---treatment with CHEMICALS. What MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL 1% HEALTH SYSTEMS has done is to move away from CHEMICAL TREATMENTS to BIOLOGICS------TECHNOLOGICAL TREATMENTS and there is no desire by global health corporations to manufacture CHEMICAL treatments as patents have expired.
What does Affordable Care Act do with cancer treatments? It creates a tiered access to these treatments----outpatient treatment with chemotherapy and radiation while US citizens with the best health plans are moving to BIOLOGIC TARGETED TREATMENTS. Biologic cancer treatments have absolutely no data showing any more benefit than chemo and radiation----they are simply the NEW PATENTED MEDICAL TREATMENT.
This is why NOW we are hearing what was standard treatment for several decades is all a fraud. Global 1% do not want to use anything other than TELEMEDICINE AND BIOLOGICS----THEY ARE PATENTED AND EXPENSIVE ---LOT OF PROFITEERING.
HOW DO GLOBAL 1% END CANCER TREATMENT FOR US 99% OF CITIZENS? IT MAKES THE ONLY AFFORDABLE ROUTE FOR CANCER TREATMENT DEEMED UNSUCCESSFUL.
We shared the video of a doctor discussing how CHEMO is a fraud----and we have tons of medical data over several decades showing these Chemo and radiation treatments had success.
As Cancer Drugs' Prices Skyrocket, Experts Worry About Burden On Patients, Health Systems
04:59Play
January 30, 2017 Updated January 30, 2017 12:41 PM
This week we're examining fast-moving changes in cancer research and treatment in a series we're calling, "This Moment In Cancer."
Leaders in cancer research say the field has reached a pivotal moment, including the discovery of new treatments. But, these new treatments come with a price tag that many experts believe is unsustainable.
Nov 10, 2017Richard Knox joined Morning Edition to discuss the rising costs associated with cancer drugs. Below is a transcription of our conversation with him.
Richard Knox: New cancer drugs are being approved at a fast pace: dozens a year. And many more are in the pipeline. In the past, these drugs might cost around $10,000 for a year’s treatment. But one recent study found newly-approved cancer drugs carry price tags between $120,000 and $170,000.
Bob Oakes: What's behind this enormous increase?
Knox: It’s complicated, and drug companies don’t reveal what goes into their pricing decisions. But one factor is a 2003 federal law that bars Medicare from negotiating over drug prices. And Medicare Part D — the drug benefit which went into effect 11 years ago — requires Medicare to pay for all approved drugs. Taken together, this means drug companies can charge whatever they want.
Oakes: Big picture, Dick, what are the implications of this trend?
Knox: They’re big – for the health care system and for cancer patients and their families.
One recent study looked at what’s happened with just one treatment for a blood cancer called CLL. Last year, the FDA approved a two-drug combination that’s revolutionized the treatment of CLL. Newly-diagnosed patients on this regimen can now expect to live seven years, and often much longer. And side effects are greatly reduced. But the price tag for each drug is about $130,000, and patients need to take them for the rest of their lives.
Jagpreet Chhatwal of Mass General Hospital, who led the study, tells me the new treatment has tripled the cost of treating a patient with this one type of cancer.
Chhatwal: We find that on average the lifetime cost of treatment with these new therapies would be $600,000.
Knox: And because patients will live much longer, the total number of patients with CLL — all needing lifetime treatment — is rising rapidly. So the total cost burden for the health care system is soaring too.
Oakes: What about the implications for patients?
Knox: Chhatwal says the out-of-pocket costs for patients has gone up even faster.
Chhatwal: That cost is substantial, it's more than $50,000. And if you compare treatments with previous therapies, out-of-pocket cost was around $10,000. So we're talking about a 500 percent increase in out-of-pocket cost of treatment.
Knox: And keep in mind, Bob, that this is just one cancer among at least 200 different types, many of which are being treated with more effective — but more expensive — new drugs.
Chhatwal: We think this is just the tip of the iceberg. The trend is very disturbing.
Knox: It’s a trend that could affect almost every family. Two out of every five Americans will get a cancer diagnosis at some point in their lives.
Oakes: Are skyrocketing drug costs preventing some people from getting potentially life-saving cancer treatment?
Knox: Probably. But, Bob, that’s hard to pin down. People at leading cancer centers tell me they’re able to find a way to treat nearly everybody, so far. But Dr. Otis Brawley, the medical director of the American Cancer Society, tells me that many people don’t ever make it to a leading center.
Brawley: I actually know people who have decided to forego a treatment, because they cannot afford it. And I'm sure there are people who are giving up the option for a cure, because they can't afford it right now. It's just incredibly shameful that this would happen in the United States.
Oakes: That's horrible, Dick. Is there anything that can be done about it?
Knox: That’s not clear, Bob. You may have noticed that our new president declared recently that he was going to demand that drug companies negotiate prices. That would take a change in federal law, at least to allow Medicare to negotiate — and most cancer patients are on Medicare. Drug companies will surely fight that. And then there’s the expected repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Will its replacement will address skyrocketing drug costs, or put the cost of cancer treatment further out of reach? Nobody knows.
This segment aired on January 30, 2017.
__________________________________
So, now US citizens need to be fearful of vaccines, cancer treatments, vitamin and natural supplements----but don't worry about all that TELEMEDICINE----MICROCHIPS, NANOBOTS, =====that is REAL MEDICAL SCIENCE.
We want our global labor pool filling US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and our new immigrant citizens to understand that today we have SECOND-RATE PREDATORY HEALTH CARE ---the OPPOSITE of 300 years of US quality public health. These are health policies we do NOT WANT TO SUPPORT. Baltimore City Council and Baltimore's MAYOR PUGH will MOVE FORWARD all these telemedicine biologics while allowing access to ordinary health care that we knew WORKED to be denied because CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA GLOBAL 1% are allowing these treatments to NOT BE FUNDED in MEDICARE/MEDICAID-----how many US citizens will be losing their private health insurance plans next decade? 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE will be on UNITED NATIONS PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE ONLY.
THIS IS IMPORTANT HEALTH CARE BECAUSE IT IS A NEW PATENT....LOTS OF PROFIT.
This delivery system is being developed for other medical reasons and is being tested on our mentally ill patients. IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL? YOU BETCHA.
What could go wrong?
--Experts raise eyebrows at digital pill to monitor patients with schizophrenia
Pill reports when it’s ingested in patients who may have delusions of being spied on.
Beth Mole - 11/14/2017, 11:55 AM
The Food and Drug Administration announced its approval Monday for the first digital medicine—a melding of a long-standing drug for schizophrenia—Abilify (aripiprazole tablets)—with an edible sensor that reports when it’s ingested. Together, they make Abilify MyCite.
Though the approval is a long time coming, the choice of an antipsychotic medicine for this advance is raising the eyebrows of some experts.
The digital ingestion tracking system works by embedding each Abilify tablet with a sensor “the size of a grain of sand,” according to the company behind it, Proteus Digital Health. The ingestible sensor is activated by gastric juices and sends a unique, identifying signal to a wearable patch. That patch automatically logs the date and time of the signal (as well as other basic health information) and can transmit that information via Bluetooth to a paired mobile device. The patient can sign consent forms to allow their doctors and up to four other people to receive the data. But the app that works with the digital drug system allows patients to revoke access to data at any time.
Proteus, a Silicon Valley company, has been working on the system for years and received FDA approval to market it in 2012. For this digital pill combination, it partnered with Japanese drugmaker Otsuka Pharmaceutical, which makes Abilify. The widely used drug has recently gone off patent, with generic aripiprazole tablets now available. However, Abilify MyCite is the only version currently approved with the digital tracking system.
Proteus isn’t the only firm working on such a digital drug system—they have a lot of company. Tech developers and some health experts say that the systems will improve patient outcomes by helping patients stick to their meds and take them properly. They may even help track participants of clinical trials who are testing experimental drugs. And digital systems could spare time and resources by replacing current practices of having doctors or nurses supervise certain patients taking their medications, which is a common practice for patients taking antibiotics for tuberculosis, for example.
But so far, there’s no evidence that Abilify MyCite improves drug adherence, the FDA emphasizes. Previous trials of the digital drug simply demonstrated usability.
And there are potential downsides, too. For instance, patients could feel pressured to use the brand-name digital tracking drugs by doctors or insurance companies.
Then there’s the question of which patients would benefit—and if any would be harmed.
Several experts were concerned and puzzled that a treatment for schizophrenia was chosen for the first digital drug system. The chronic and severe mental disorder can cause hallucinations, disordered thinking, and delusions, such as hearing voices and believing that other people are reading their minds or spying on them.
“Many of those patients don’t take meds because they don’t like side effects, or don’t think they have an illness, or because they become paranoid about the doctor or the doctor’s intentions,” Dr. Paul Appelbaum, director of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University’s psychiatry department told the New York Times. “A system that will monitor their behavior and send signals out of their body and notify their doctor?” You would think that, whether in psychiatry or general medicine, drugs for almost any other condition would be a better place to start than a drug for schizophrenia.”
Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, chairman of psychiatry at Columbia University and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, echoed the sentiment to the Times, saying, “There’s an irony in it being given to people with mental disorders than can include delusions. It’s like a biomedical Big Brother.”
Abilify MyCite is expected to hit the market next year, but the price has not yet been set.
________________________________________
'Parlock will be overseeing CitiStat/CitiSmart as director of the Office of Sustainable Solutions. This brand-new office at City Hall is inspired by Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire philanthropist and ex-New York City mayor who is handing out $1.5 million to urban mayors (including Pugh) to establish “Innovation Teams” to analyze and solve urban problems'.
MEANWHILE while all of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE KILLING US STANDARDS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICINE-----all US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones have deliberately set the public policy discussion on nothing but crime-fighting---NOT THE WHITE COLLAR AND POLITICAL CRIME FIGHTING moving tens of trillions of dollars to the global 1%---but street crime---violence and black market that ROBBER BARON pols like PUGH installed to replace a real economy these few decades. We are all supposed to be fed up with Baltimore's 99% left unemployed for decades forced into black market ---and not fed up with continuing floods of global labor pool ---global corporate campus stagnation of local US hiring.
PUGH campaigned in 2016 to extend global slave trading system from MONTGOMERY COUNTY into Baltimore so more and more and more global labor pool would fill any new jobs created in building global corporate campuses and global factories.
CRIME-FIGHTING STRATEGIES FROM AN INSIDER TIED TO MARYLAND'S O'MALLEY-----KING OF ROBBER BARON FEW DECADES OF MASSIVE FRAUDS?
Above we see a quote identifying when global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE Johns Hopkins went from right wing conservative private medical college to BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH which of course had nothing to do with public health---it started the movement and frauds connected to our Federal Medicare and Medicaid Trusts to expanding Hopkins corporation globally. BLOOMBERG IS GOING TO ANALYZE THE PROBLEM WITH MASSIVE CORPORATE FRAUDS AND WHITE COLLAR POLITICAL CORRUPTION as the source of violence and street crime in Baltimore.
Crime & Justiceby Mark Reutter4:00 pm
Aug 11, 2017
Can a novice and an insider bring clarity to the mayor’s crime-fighting strategy?
For the new CitiStat director, reinvention and rebranding – but no experience in law enforcement. An analysis of Mayor Pugh’s picks for two key jobs.
Above: Mayor Catherine Pugh announces the appointments of Kendra Parlock (right) and Drew Vetter. (Charm TV)
More than once Mayor Catherine Pugh asserted “I cannot be more proud” as she announced on Wednesday the appointments of Kendra Parlock and Andrew G. “Drew” Vetter to two of the most important positions in public safety outside of the Police Department itself.
Parlock and Vetter will each be paid $165,000 a year to serve as Pugh’s “eyes and ears” to implement, evaluate, coordinate and analyze a violence reduction plan, which was also unveiled this week in 20-page-booklet form.
With colorful graphics and uplifting pictures, the booklet stitched together Pugh’s ideas (summarized here) about how she plans to reduce violence and crime that has surged under her watch.
The statistical context for her plan could scarcely be more grim.
So far in 2017, homicides are running 19% above last year’s already-high toll.
Robberies have increased by 16%, aggravated assault rose 18%, common assault are up 30% and carjackings have jumped a breathtaking 49%.
Lofty Goals
So how does the mayor’s new team plan to stem the tide?
“I’ll be reinventing the office,” Parlock breezily told reporters after she was introduced as the new person in charge of CitiStat.
Her first step, she said, would be to rebrand CitiStat’s name to CitiSmart. (CitiStat was developed by former Mayor Martin O’Malley as an analytic tool to track crime and hold police brass accountable; it’s been considered highly successful and been copied by other cities.)
Parlock will be overseeing CitiStat/CitiSmart as director of the Office of Sustainable Solutions. This brand-new office at City Hall is inspired by Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire philanthropist and ex-New York City mayor who is handing out $1.5 million to urban mayors (including Pugh) to establish “Innovation Teams” to analyze and solve urban problems.
Vetter has not been given a new title.
As director of the long-troubled Mayor’s Office on Criminal Justice (high staff turnover, few concrete accomplishments), he said his top priority was to craft its mission.
He clicked off a number of activities such as “rebuild the office, engage law enforcement leaders, data analysis and tracking.”
He declared that he, too, would be performance driven and was determined to “really define what things the city can do” about crime and violence reduction.
Limited ExperienceIn terms of direct experience in the fields of law enforcement and public safety policymaking, Parlock and Vetter have, respectively, zero and 2½ years.
Parlock has spent her entire career as a marketer and manager of chemical products (as befits her undergraduate degree in microbiology at the University of Florida).
According to her Linked-In profile, she has never worked in the public sector.
The last job listed in her profile ended in October 2016, when she left Cabot Corporation, a Boston-based chemical company, after one year and six months as global segment manager for the Purification Solutions Division.
According to the mayor’s office, “Kendra brings a wealth of experience in strategy, business development and innovation. She comes from the private sector where she used market and operations data to develop new product and services and to transform organizational processes.”
(At Wednesday’s press conference, Mayor Pugh hailed Parlock’s achievement as a Six Sigma Black Belt, which the mayor described as “an exceptional certificate in driving performance with data.” According to a Six Sigma website, the title is given to participants who complete four or more weeks of management training in the Six Sigma principles, including team building, knowledge of lean enterprise concepts and use of analytic tools.)
On the other hand, Vetter has some grounding in law enforcement.
Since February 2015, he’s occupied two managerial areas in the Baltimore Police Department, first as director of government affairs, then as chief of staff to Police Commissioner Kevin Davis.
Friends in High PlacesIn terms of political connections, however, Parlock and Vetter seem to have what it takes.
For example, Parlock on December 18 posted a snapshot of herself and Mayor Pugh beaming in front of a Christmas tree at her Bolton Hill home.
“Happy to have our friend Mayor Pugh at our home for Christmas,” she wrote (to which she got this reply from another commenter: “Friends in high places”).
Election board records show that Parlock contributed $50 to Pugh’s election campaign last year.
We sent the photo to the mayor’s office and received a reply from spokesman Anthony McCarthy:
“This photo was taken at an annual Christmas party that Kendra and her husband host for about 100 of their neighbors and friends. She is an active board member of the Mt. Royal Improvement Association. Mayor Pugh represented Bolton Hill as senator. Numerous other elected officials were also present. The mayor and Kendra had no formal relationship before Kendra came to work for the administration.”
A Curran who worked for O’MalleyVetter’s role in the Police Department paralleled his prior duties as a political operative and data wonk for O’Malley.
The grandson of the late Delegate Gerald J. Curran and a relation to O’Malley wife, Catherine Curran O’Malley, Vetter’s first job out of college was as an analyst at CitiStat in 2004.
In 2005-06, he coordinated the O’Malley transition team after O’Malley was elected Maryland’s governor, according to his Linked-In profile.
He went on to serve as special assistant for the governor’s deputy chief of staff, then worked for Maryland Economic Development Secretary Christian Johansson and finally returned to O’Malley’s side as director of government affairs.
With his extensive ties to state government, Vetter’s role in the Pugh administration clearly will be to keep the money flowing to the Baltimore Police Department, especially from the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention that ponies up millions for BPD technology upgrades and crime prevention programs.
Whether Vetter will act as a voice independent of the views of his former boss, Commissioner Davis, is not so clear. Vetter’s longtime role as an “inside player” worried a police source who spoke with The Brew yesterday:
“Just going along with what your commissioner says isn’t the way to go. Now that Vetter’s in this new position, can he push away the relationship he has built with Davis over the last two years and say to him, ‘This is unacceptable,’ and then tell the mayor she’s got to fix it? I honestly don’t know if that’s going to happen.”
Looking Beyond CrimeVetter, of course, has the institutional knowledge to serve as the new CitiStat director, but Mayor Pugh has much higher ambitions for that post.
In answer to Brew questions, the mayor’s spokesman outlined the duties that will fall to Parlock:
“The mission of the Office of Sustainable Solutions is to make Baltimore more resilient by using data, innovation and technology to create solutions with results that will be sustained beyond the current administration and teams that are currently in place.”
The goals of the Office of Sustainable Solutions will include, according to McCarthy:
• Launch of an expanded CitiStat program that is focused on violence reduction as the priority.
• Development of additional performance metrics for economic development, homelessness, blight and student tracking.
• Creation of a Performance Dashboard to monitor results and track performance.
• Foster cross-agency collaboration and innovation.
• Improve communication of progress and performance results.
“Mayor Pugh has enormous confidence in both Ms. Parlock and Mr. Vetter to meet the expectations she has for their positions,” McCarthy added.
________________________________________________
It is our local pols at city/county and state levels allowing state health systems with goals of being purely profit and extreme wealth -------there is no intent to have AFFORDABLE HEALTH PLANS---there is no intent to continue MEDICARE AND MEDICAID now that ROBBER BARON few decades have allowed frauds to expand global health corporations.
The prices the global 1% health system executives are setting as SCIENCE-BASED and market rate-----will be whatever a market of global 1% and their 2% will pay for the latest GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT IN MEDICINE will bring----these are 99% of geeks and geniuses handing medical patents to global 1% and 99% of WE THE PEOPLE handing our tax revenue for medical treatments we will not be allowed to access.
LET'S CROWD-SOURCE FUNDS FOR LITTLE JOEY'S OPERATION!
These media events are by 5% to the 1%----they will not have real solutions as they are led by 5% players.
‘It’s the Prices, Stupid’: How sky-high prices are crippling our health care system
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA---ANNENBERG FOUNDATION.
The numbers are eye-popping: $25,000 MRIs, the $1,000-a-day hepatitis B drug, $629 for an ER visit that only delivered a Band-Aid. As leading health care economists bluntly put it in a famous research paper, “It’s the prices stupid.” Experts increasingly point to the high cost of care in America — not necessarily the overuse of care — as the chronic illness of the U.S. system. Health systems in other developed countries pay nowhere near these prices for the same services. And while the Affordable Care Act changed who pays for health care, it has done little to curb rising costs. Recent Republican replacement plans didn’t tackle prices either. For reporters and patients, getting at the issues can be challenging in a world where pricing is often opaque — or deliberately kept secret. This webinar will offer an overview of our health system’s Achilles’ heel, and provide journalists with one ace health reporter’s toolkit for covering the issue in their community — including strategies, data sources and crowdsourcing tips.
*****************************************************
As Cancer Drugs' Prices Skyrocket, Experts Worry About Burden On Patients, Health Systems04:59Play
January 30, 2017 Updated January 30, 2017 12:41 PM
Share
This week we're examining fast-moving changes in cancer research and treatment in a series we're calling, "This Moment In Cancer."
Leaders in cancer research say the field has reached a pivotal moment, including the discovery of new treatments. But, these new treatments come with a price tag that many experts believe is unsustainable.
Nov 10, 2017Richard Knox joined Morning Edition to discuss the rising costs associated with cancer drugs. Below is a transcription of our conversation with him.
Richard Knox: New cancer drugs are being approved at a fast pace: dozens a year. And many more are in the pipeline. In the past, these drugs might cost around $10,000 for a year’s treatment. But one recent study found newly-approved cancer drugs carry price tags between $120,000 and $170,000.
Bob Oakes: What's behind this enormous increase?
Knox: It’s complicated, and drug companies don’t reveal what goes into their pricing decisions. But one factor is a 2003 federal law that bars Medicare from negotiating over drug prices. And Medicare Part D — the drug benefit which went into effect 11 years ago — requires Medicare to pay for all approved drugs. Taken together, this means drug companies can charge whatever they want.
Oakes: Big picture, Dick, what are the implications of this trend?
Knox: They’re big – for the health care system and for cancer patients and their families.
One recent study looked at what’s happened with just one treatment for a blood cancer called CLL. Last year, the FDA approved a two-drug combination that’s revolutionized the treatment of CLL. Newly-diagnosed patients on this regimen can now expect to live seven years, and often much longer. And side effects are greatly reduced. But the price tag for each drug is about $130,000, and patients need to take them for the rest of their lives.
Jagpreet Chhatwal of Mass General Hospital, who led the study, tells me the new treatment has tripled the cost of treating a patient with this one type of cancer.
Chhatwal: We find that on average the lifetime cost of treatment with these new therapies would be $600,000.
Knox: And because patients will live much longer, the total number of patients with CLL — all needing lifetime treatment — is rising rapidly. So the total cost burden for the health care system is soaring too.
Oakes: What about the implications for patients?
Knox: Chhatwal says the out-of-pocket costs for patients has gone up even faster.
Chhatwal: That cost is substantial, it's more than $50,000. And if you compare treatments with previous therapies, out-of-pocket cost was around $10,000. So we're talking about a 500 percent increase in out-of-pocket cost of treatment.
Knox: And keep in mind, Bob, that this is just one cancer among at least 200 different types, many of which are being treated with more effective — but more expensive — new drugs.
Chhatwal: We think this is just the tip of the iceberg. The trend is very disturbing.
Knox: It’s a trend that could affect almost every family. Two out of every five Americans will get a cancer diagnosis at some point in their lives.
Oakes: Are skyrocketing drug costs preventing some people from getting potentially life-saving cancer treatment?
Knox: Probably. But, Bob, that’s hard to pin down. People at leading cancer centers tell me they’re able to find a way to treat nearly everybody, so far. But Dr. Otis Brawley, the medical director of the American Cancer Society, tells me that many people don’t ever make it to a leading center.
Brawley: I actually know people who have decided to forego a treatment, because they cannot afford it. And I'm sure there are people who are giving up the option for a cure, because they can't afford it right now. It's just incredibly shameful that this would happen in the United States.
Oakes: That's horrible, Dick. Is there anything that can be done about it?
Knox: That’s not clear, Bob. You may have noticed that our new president declared recently that he was going to demand that drug companies negotiate prices. That would take a change in federal law, at least to allow Medicare to negotiate — and most cancer patients are on Medicare. Drug companies will surely fight that. And then there’s the expected repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Will its replacement will address skyrocketing drug costs, or put the cost of cancer treatment further out of reach? Nobody knows.
This segment aired on January 30, 2017.
The 1990s saw several global 3 Phase clinical trials looking at the efficacy of vitamins and supplements being added to US foods and sold in stores. These were some of the last developed nation quality clinical trials done as CLINTON ERA corporatized and dismantled all patient and public protections from profiteering medicine. What was found in almost every case-------manufactured vitamins and minerals do not enter the human body as does vitamins and minerals from food sources. There was no benefit from Vitamin A/beta carotene in supplements as shown below-----and the results had doctors recommending citizens get their vitamins from FOOD SOURCES.
This is the same time DR OZ hit the TV stage via OPRAH-----what does he sell? Natural supplements and vitamins. This article is telling us nothing new---we have known these few decades that almost all of the products tied to vitamin/mineral/natural food supplements were CORRUPT----just as our ORGANIC FOOD industries have become.
IT IS AMAZING THE AMOUNT OF DISPOSABLE INCOME OUR US MIDDLE-CLASS SPENT ON FLINTSTONES VITAMINS AND SPECIAL K CEREAL.....AND DR OZ'S NATURAL SUPPLEMENTS.
As we segue away from vaccines please know that moving vaccinations from a doctor's office to a RITE AID is opening the door to placebo shots, diluted shots all in an effort to pad global corporate profits.
Studies of Antioxidants and Disease Prevention: Little Supportive Evidence
Randomized, placebo-controlled trials—which, when performed well, provide the strongest evidence—offer little support that taking vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, or other single antioxidants provides substantial protection against heart disease, cancer, or other chronic conditions. The results of the largest such trials have been mostly negative.
BETA-CAROTENE Overview Information
Beta-carotene is one of a group of red, orange, and yellow pigments called carotenoids. Beta-carotene and other carotenoids provide approximately 50% of the vitamin A needed in the American diet. Beta-carotene can be found in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. It can also be made in a laboratory.
Beta-carotene is used to decrease asthma symptoms caused by exercise; to prevent certain cancers, heart disease, cataracts, and age related macular degeneration (AMD); and to treat AIDS, alcoholism, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, epilepsy, headache, heartburn, high blood pressure, infertility, Parkinson’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, schizophrenia, and skin disorders including psoriasis and vitiligo.
Beta-carotene is also in used in malnourished (underfed) women to reduce the chance of death and night blindness during pregnancy, as well as diarrhea and fever after giving birth.
Some people who sunburn easily, including those with an inherited disease called erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP), use beta-carotene to reduce the risk of sunburn.
There are many authorities – including the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the World Cancer Research Institute in association with the American Institute for Cancer Research, and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer – that recommend getting beta-carotene and other antioxidants from food instead of supplements, at least until research finds out whether supplements offer the same benefits. Eating 5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily provides 6-8 mg of beta-carotene.
How does it work?
Beta-carotene is converted to vitamin A, an essential nutrient. It has antioxidant activity, which helps to protect cells from damage.
__________________________________________
REAL left social progressive scientists shout loudly when health care and medicine takes a turn to global 1% profiteering and DOING HARM. We have known since the 1990s when DR OZ was introduced via the OPRAH show he was shilling products for profit ignoring what was widely accepted research these products had no benefit and indeed much of these supplements were simply processed by kidneys and excreted. If we have high levels of prescription and over-counter drugs in our water systems-----thank the pushers of manufactured vitamins/minerals/natural supplements.
Some do pose risk-----some may bring benefit------a super-majority did nothing. So, where was the shouting in the 1990s? Why are we hearing it today? Because 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are no longer having disposable income to spend on FAKE MEDICINE ----we are MOVING FORWARD to United Nations Universal single payer ----preventative health care for all. No US middle-class no need for FAKE HEALTH PRODUCTS.
Please do not get health information from TV----whether infomercials tied to morning news programs or these daytime soap operas. So, we can be sure today's soap opera on TV---THE DOCTORS will offer the same global 1% propaganda in medicine and health.
AND YES, FOR SHAME IN PROMOTING JOSEPH MERCOLA ON YOUR FAKE HEALTH SHOW.
'For shame, Dr. Oz, for promoting Joseph Mercola on your show ...
sciencebasedmedicine.org/for-shame-dr-oz
I’ve been highly critical of Dr. Mehmet Oz, ... in Italy for fraud and patient deaths and has ... he promotes “healthy natural supplements.” Dr. Oz eats '...
Remember, hyper-global 1% neo-liberal doctors are the same lying, cheating, stealing no morals or ethics no US Rule of Law no God's Natural Law as our 5% to the 1% global Wall Street pols and players allowing US citizens to be harmed these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
Congressional pols have known since the 1990s all these TV doctors' programs were selling fraud-----the idea a Congressional health committee was holding anyone accountable is ridiculous------OZ has his fortune and is ready to go to TELEMEDICINE, MICROCHIPS, AND NANOBOTS.
Of course DR OZ promotes a DR Mercola who promotes vaccine scare harming yet again US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE
'Subscribe to Dr. Mercola's Natural Health Newsletter
Groundbreaking Study: Vaccines Cause Children More Adverse Reactions Than Any Other Drug'
Congressional hearing investigates Dr. Oz 'miracle' weight loss claims
By Jen Christensen and Jacque Wilson, CNN
Updated 9:54 AM ET, Thu June 19, 2014
Dr. Mehmet Oz, host of "The Dr. Oz Show," faced grilling by senators on Capitol Hill about the promotion of weight loss products on his show.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Insurance, led the panel that on Tuesday looked at false advertising for weight loss products. Subcommittee members took issue with assertions that Oz has made on his show about products that don't have a lot of scientific evidence to back them up, such as green coffee beans.
"The scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of the three products you called 'miracles,' " said McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat. She said she was discouraged by the "false hope" his rhetoric gives viewers and questioned his role "intentional or not, in perpetuating these scams."
"I don't get why you need to say this stuff when you know it's not true. When you have this amazing megaphone, why would you cheapen your show? ... With power comes a great deal of responsibility."
The Federal Trade Commission is in charge of protecting consumers from "unfair or deceptive advertising and marketing practices that raise health and safety concerns." In May, the FTC sued the sellers of Green Coffee Beans for deceiving consumers through fake news sites and invented health claims.
The commission said that weeks after "The Dr. Oz Show" promoted the benefits of Pure Green Coffee, some companies that marketed the product used video from his show to increase sales.
Dr. Oz: I've never sold supplements 02:41
Dr. Oz: I'm not selling magic diet pills 02:09
The scientific evidence supporting green coffee bean extract as a weight loss supplement is weak.
A small study published in 2012 found chlorogenic acid, the main ingredient in green coffee beans, helped 16 human participants lose, on average, 18 pounds over 22 weeks. But another study on chlorogenic acid in mice found that the acid did not help mice lose weight and in fact, increased their insulin resistance.
A 2011 meta-analysis of three studies on green coffee extract found the supplement produced, on average, a five-pound loss among study participants. But all three studies were short term and included a small number of participants, leading the meta-analysis authors to conclude: "More rigorous trials are needed to assess the usefulness of GCE as a weight loss tool."
Oz told the panel that he does use "flowery language" to describe certain products on his show but added he believes in them so much he has given them to his family.
"My job, I feel, on the show is to be a cheerleader for the audience, and when they don't think they have hope, when they don't think they can make it happen, I want to look, and I do look everywhere, including in alternative healing traditions, for any evidence that might be supportive to them," Oz said.
In addition to green coffee beans, McCaskill called out Garcinia cambogia as another weight loss product Oz has promoted.
"Thanks to brand new scientific research, I can tell you about a revolutionary fat buster," Oz said on his show in November 2012 with the words "No Exercise. No Diet. No Effort" on the screen behind him. "It's called Garcinia cambogia."
A 1998 study of 135 participants found Garcinia cambogia did not significantly help people lose weight any more than a placebo. But a 2013 meta-analysis of Garcinia cambogia studies hedged on the supplement's ineffectiveness, saying its weight loss benefits "remain to be proven in larger-scale and longer-term clinical trials." Whether it helps people lose weight or not, the Garcinia cambogia does not seem to be unsafe to use, some other studies say.
Oz testified Tuesday that he could not be held responsible for what certain companies say online about the products. He said he's toned down some of his language and will publish a list of products he thinks really can help people lose weight.
"To not have the conversation about supplements at all however would be a disservice to the viewer," Oz said in a prepared statement after the hearing. "In addition to exercising an abundance of caution in discussing promising research and products in the future, I look forward to working with all those present today in finding a way to deal with the problems of weight loss scams."
The Food and Drug Administration does not regulate weight loss supplements. Under current law, companies selling these products do not need FDA approval before marketing them to the public.
"Just because you see a supplement product on a store shelf does NOT mean it is safe or effective," the FDA website says. "When safety issues are suspected, FDA must investigate and, when warranted, take steps to have the product removed from the market. However, it is much easier for a firm to get a product on the market than it is for FDA to take a product off the market."
These weight loss products, even those that claim to be all natural, may contain toxic ingredients, the FDA says, or they may interact badly with other medications. Make sure to check with your doctor before taking any supplement.
Hidden dangers in vitamins, supplements?
The FTC told Elizabeth Cohen, CNN senior medical correspondent, that there are just "too many" weight loss products using deceptive advertising to sue them all. But consumers should be wary of certain phrases that are most certainly false, the FTC said, including any that claim to help you lose weight without diet and exercise.
Bottom line -- don't believe everything you see. Do your homework online and make sure any claim about a weight loss product is backed up by scientific evidence.
____________________________________________
Chemotherapy was one of the earliest treatments for cancer and never a pleasant treatment.
'Misinformation and demonization aside, it is also important to realize that the term “chemotherapy,” which was originally coined by German chemist Paul Ehrlich, was originally intended to mean the use of chemicals to treat disease. By this definition, virtually any drug is “chemotherapy,” including antibiotics'.
SCIENCE-BASED MEDICINE----this is the theme behind AFFORDABLE CARE ACT------US citizens are now to believe all the corruption and profiteering in US medicine these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA is now on the mend and global 1% corporate health care systems tied to predatory and profiteering medicine are going to fix this.
As the quote above states----the phrase CHEMOTHERAPY was assigned to all treatment of disease vectors with CHEMICALS. This has been our modern 20th century medicine---treatment with CHEMICALS. What MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL 1% HEALTH SYSTEMS has done is to move away from CHEMICAL TREATMENTS to BIOLOGICS------TECHNOLOGICAL TREATMENTS and there is no desire by global health corporations to manufacture CHEMICAL treatments as patents have expired.
What does Affordable Care Act do with cancer treatments? It creates a tiered access to these treatments----outpatient treatment with chemotherapy and radiation while US citizens with the best health plans are moving to BIOLOGIC TARGETED TREATMENTS. Biologic cancer treatments have absolutely no data showing any more benefit than chemo and radiation----they are simply the NEW PATENTED MEDICAL TREATMENT.
This is why NOW we are hearing what was standard treatment for several decades is all a fraud. Global 1% do not want to use anything other than TELEMEDICINE AND BIOLOGICS----THEY ARE PATENTED AND EXPENSIVE ---LOT OF PROFITEERING.
HOW DO GLOBAL 1% END CANCER TREATMENT FOR US 99% OF CITIZENS? IT MAKES THE ONLY AFFORDABLE ROUTE FOR CANCER TREATMENT DEEMED UNSUCCESSFUL.
We shared the video of a doctor discussing how CHEMO is a fraud----and we have tons of medical data over several decades showing these Chemo and radiation treatments had success.
As Cancer Drugs' Prices Skyrocket, Experts Worry About Burden On Patients, Health Systems
04:59Play
January 30, 2017 Updated January 30, 2017 12:41 PM
This week we're examining fast-moving changes in cancer research and treatment in a series we're calling, "This Moment In Cancer."
Leaders in cancer research say the field has reached a pivotal moment, including the discovery of new treatments. But, these new treatments come with a price tag that many experts believe is unsustainable.
Nov 10, 2017Richard Knox joined Morning Edition to discuss the rising costs associated with cancer drugs. Below is a transcription of our conversation with him.
Richard Knox: New cancer drugs are being approved at a fast pace: dozens a year. And many more are in the pipeline. In the past, these drugs might cost around $10,000 for a year’s treatment. But one recent study found newly-approved cancer drugs carry price tags between $120,000 and $170,000.
Bob Oakes: What's behind this enormous increase?
Knox: It’s complicated, and drug companies don’t reveal what goes into their pricing decisions. But one factor is a 2003 federal law that bars Medicare from negotiating over drug prices. And Medicare Part D — the drug benefit which went into effect 11 years ago — requires Medicare to pay for all approved drugs. Taken together, this means drug companies can charge whatever they want.
Oakes: Big picture, Dick, what are the implications of this trend?
Knox: They’re big – for the health care system and for cancer patients and their families.
One recent study looked at what’s happened with just one treatment for a blood cancer called CLL. Last year, the FDA approved a two-drug combination that’s revolutionized the treatment of CLL. Newly-diagnosed patients on this regimen can now expect to live seven years, and often much longer. And side effects are greatly reduced. But the price tag for each drug is about $130,000, and patients need to take them for the rest of their lives.
Jagpreet Chhatwal of Mass General Hospital, who led the study, tells me the new treatment has tripled the cost of treating a patient with this one type of cancer.
Chhatwal: We find that on average the lifetime cost of treatment with these new therapies would be $600,000.
Knox: And because patients will live much longer, the total number of patients with CLL — all needing lifetime treatment — is rising rapidly. So the total cost burden for the health care system is soaring too.
Oakes: What about the implications for patients?
Knox: Chhatwal says the out-of-pocket costs for patients has gone up even faster.
Chhatwal: That cost is substantial, it's more than $50,000. And if you compare treatments with previous therapies, out-of-pocket cost was around $10,000. So we're talking about a 500 percent increase in out-of-pocket cost of treatment.
Knox: And keep in mind, Bob, that this is just one cancer among at least 200 different types, many of which are being treated with more effective — but more expensive — new drugs.
Chhatwal: We think this is just the tip of the iceberg. The trend is very disturbing.
Knox: It’s a trend that could affect almost every family. Two out of every five Americans will get a cancer diagnosis at some point in their lives.
Oakes: Are skyrocketing drug costs preventing some people from getting potentially life-saving cancer treatment?
Knox: Probably. But, Bob, that’s hard to pin down. People at leading cancer centers tell me they’re able to find a way to treat nearly everybody, so far. But Dr. Otis Brawley, the medical director of the American Cancer Society, tells me that many people don’t ever make it to a leading center.
Brawley: I actually know people who have decided to forego a treatment, because they cannot afford it. And I'm sure there are people who are giving up the option for a cure, because they can't afford it right now. It's just incredibly shameful that this would happen in the United States.
Oakes: That's horrible, Dick. Is there anything that can be done about it?
Knox: That’s not clear, Bob. You may have noticed that our new president declared recently that he was going to demand that drug companies negotiate prices. That would take a change in federal law, at least to allow Medicare to negotiate — and most cancer patients are on Medicare. Drug companies will surely fight that. And then there’s the expected repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Will its replacement will address skyrocketing drug costs, or put the cost of cancer treatment further out of reach? Nobody knows.
This segment aired on January 30, 2017.
__________________________________
So, now US citizens need to be fearful of vaccines, cancer treatments, vitamin and natural supplements----but don't worry about all that TELEMEDICINE----MICROCHIPS, NANOBOTS, =====that is REAL MEDICAL SCIENCE.
We want our global labor pool filling US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and our new immigrant citizens to understand that today we have SECOND-RATE PREDATORY HEALTH CARE ---the OPPOSITE of 300 years of US quality public health. These are health policies we do NOT WANT TO SUPPORT. Baltimore City Council and Baltimore's MAYOR PUGH will MOVE FORWARD all these telemedicine biologics while allowing access to ordinary health care that we knew WORKED to be denied because CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA GLOBAL 1% are allowing these treatments to NOT BE FUNDED in MEDICARE/MEDICAID-----how many US citizens will be losing their private health insurance plans next decade? 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE will be on UNITED NATIONS PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE ONLY.
THIS IS IMPORTANT HEALTH CARE BECAUSE IT IS A NEW PATENT....LOTS OF PROFIT.
This delivery system is being developed for other medical reasons and is being tested on our mentally ill patients. IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL? YOU BETCHA.
What could go wrong?
--Experts raise eyebrows at digital pill to monitor patients with schizophrenia
Pill reports when it’s ingested in patients who may have delusions of being spied on.
Beth Mole - 11/14/2017, 11:55 AM
The Food and Drug Administration announced its approval Monday for the first digital medicine—a melding of a long-standing drug for schizophrenia—Abilify (aripiprazole tablets)—with an edible sensor that reports when it’s ingested. Together, they make Abilify MyCite.
Though the approval is a long time coming, the choice of an antipsychotic medicine for this advance is raising the eyebrows of some experts.
The digital ingestion tracking system works by embedding each Abilify tablet with a sensor “the size of a grain of sand,” according to the company behind it, Proteus Digital Health. The ingestible sensor is activated by gastric juices and sends a unique, identifying signal to a wearable patch. That patch automatically logs the date and time of the signal (as well as other basic health information) and can transmit that information via Bluetooth to a paired mobile device. The patient can sign consent forms to allow their doctors and up to four other people to receive the data. But the app that works with the digital drug system allows patients to revoke access to data at any time.
Proteus, a Silicon Valley company, has been working on the system for years and received FDA approval to market it in 2012. For this digital pill combination, it partnered with Japanese drugmaker Otsuka Pharmaceutical, which makes Abilify. The widely used drug has recently gone off patent, with generic aripiprazole tablets now available. However, Abilify MyCite is the only version currently approved with the digital tracking system.
Proteus isn’t the only firm working on such a digital drug system—they have a lot of company. Tech developers and some health experts say that the systems will improve patient outcomes by helping patients stick to their meds and take them properly. They may even help track participants of clinical trials who are testing experimental drugs. And digital systems could spare time and resources by replacing current practices of having doctors or nurses supervise certain patients taking their medications, which is a common practice for patients taking antibiotics for tuberculosis, for example.
But so far, there’s no evidence that Abilify MyCite improves drug adherence, the FDA emphasizes. Previous trials of the digital drug simply demonstrated usability.
And there are potential downsides, too. For instance, patients could feel pressured to use the brand-name digital tracking drugs by doctors or insurance companies.
Then there’s the question of which patients would benefit—and if any would be harmed.
Several experts were concerned and puzzled that a treatment for schizophrenia was chosen for the first digital drug system. The chronic and severe mental disorder can cause hallucinations, disordered thinking, and delusions, such as hearing voices and believing that other people are reading their minds or spying on them.
“Many of those patients don’t take meds because they don’t like side effects, or don’t think they have an illness, or because they become paranoid about the doctor or the doctor’s intentions,” Dr. Paul Appelbaum, director of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University’s psychiatry department told the New York Times. “A system that will monitor their behavior and send signals out of their body and notify their doctor?” You would think that, whether in psychiatry or general medicine, drugs for almost any other condition would be a better place to start than a drug for schizophrenia.”
Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, chairman of psychiatry at Columbia University and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, echoed the sentiment to the Times, saying, “There’s an irony in it being given to people with mental disorders than can include delusions. It’s like a biomedical Big Brother.”
Abilify MyCite is expected to hit the market next year, but the price has not yet been set.
________________________________________
'Parlock will be overseeing CitiStat/CitiSmart as director of the Office of Sustainable Solutions. This brand-new office at City Hall is inspired by Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire philanthropist and ex-New York City mayor who is handing out $1.5 million to urban mayors (including Pugh) to establish “Innovation Teams” to analyze and solve urban problems'.
MEANWHILE while all of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE KILLING US STANDARDS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICINE-----all US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones have deliberately set the public policy discussion on nothing but crime-fighting---NOT THE WHITE COLLAR AND POLITICAL CRIME FIGHTING moving tens of trillions of dollars to the global 1%---but street crime---violence and black market that ROBBER BARON pols like PUGH installed to replace a real economy these few decades. We are all supposed to be fed up with Baltimore's 99% left unemployed for decades forced into black market ---and not fed up with continuing floods of global labor pool ---global corporate campus stagnation of local US hiring.
PUGH campaigned in 2016 to extend global slave trading system from MONTGOMERY COUNTY into Baltimore so more and more and more global labor pool would fill any new jobs created in building global corporate campuses and global factories.
CRIME-FIGHTING STRATEGIES FROM AN INSIDER TIED TO MARYLAND'S O'MALLEY-----KING OF ROBBER BARON FEW DECADES OF MASSIVE FRAUDS?
Above we see a quote identifying when global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE Johns Hopkins went from right wing conservative private medical college to BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH which of course had nothing to do with public health---it started the movement and frauds connected to our Federal Medicare and Medicaid Trusts to expanding Hopkins corporation globally. BLOOMBERG IS GOING TO ANALYZE THE PROBLEM WITH MASSIVE CORPORATE FRAUDS AND WHITE COLLAR POLITICAL CORRUPTION as the source of violence and street crime in Baltimore.
Crime & Justiceby Mark Reutter4:00 pm
Aug 11, 2017
Can a novice and an insider bring clarity to the mayor’s crime-fighting strategy?
For the new CitiStat director, reinvention and rebranding – but no experience in law enforcement. An analysis of Mayor Pugh’s picks for two key jobs.
Above: Mayor Catherine Pugh announces the appointments of Kendra Parlock (right) and Drew Vetter. (Charm TV)
More than once Mayor Catherine Pugh asserted “I cannot be more proud” as she announced on Wednesday the appointments of Kendra Parlock and Andrew G. “Drew” Vetter to two of the most important positions in public safety outside of the Police Department itself.
Parlock and Vetter will each be paid $165,000 a year to serve as Pugh’s “eyes and ears” to implement, evaluate, coordinate and analyze a violence reduction plan, which was also unveiled this week in 20-page-booklet form.
With colorful graphics and uplifting pictures, the booklet stitched together Pugh’s ideas (summarized here) about how she plans to reduce violence and crime that has surged under her watch.
The statistical context for her plan could scarcely be more grim.
So far in 2017, homicides are running 19% above last year’s already-high toll.
Robberies have increased by 16%, aggravated assault rose 18%, common assault are up 30% and carjackings have jumped a breathtaking 49%.
Lofty Goals
So how does the mayor’s new team plan to stem the tide?
“I’ll be reinventing the office,” Parlock breezily told reporters after she was introduced as the new person in charge of CitiStat.
Her first step, she said, would be to rebrand CitiStat’s name to CitiSmart. (CitiStat was developed by former Mayor Martin O’Malley as an analytic tool to track crime and hold police brass accountable; it’s been considered highly successful and been copied by other cities.)
Parlock will be overseeing CitiStat/CitiSmart as director of the Office of Sustainable Solutions. This brand-new office at City Hall is inspired by Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire philanthropist and ex-New York City mayor who is handing out $1.5 million to urban mayors (including Pugh) to establish “Innovation Teams” to analyze and solve urban problems.
Vetter has not been given a new title.
As director of the long-troubled Mayor’s Office on Criminal Justice (high staff turnover, few concrete accomplishments), he said his top priority was to craft its mission.
He clicked off a number of activities such as “rebuild the office, engage law enforcement leaders, data analysis and tracking.”
He declared that he, too, would be performance driven and was determined to “really define what things the city can do” about crime and violence reduction.
Limited ExperienceIn terms of direct experience in the fields of law enforcement and public safety policymaking, Parlock and Vetter have, respectively, zero and 2½ years.
Parlock has spent her entire career as a marketer and manager of chemical products (as befits her undergraduate degree in microbiology at the University of Florida).
According to her Linked-In profile, she has never worked in the public sector.
The last job listed in her profile ended in October 2016, when she left Cabot Corporation, a Boston-based chemical company, after one year and six months as global segment manager for the Purification Solutions Division.
According to the mayor’s office, “Kendra brings a wealth of experience in strategy, business development and innovation. She comes from the private sector where she used market and operations data to develop new product and services and to transform organizational processes.”
(At Wednesday’s press conference, Mayor Pugh hailed Parlock’s achievement as a Six Sigma Black Belt, which the mayor described as “an exceptional certificate in driving performance with data.” According to a Six Sigma website, the title is given to participants who complete four or more weeks of management training in the Six Sigma principles, including team building, knowledge of lean enterprise concepts and use of analytic tools.)
On the other hand, Vetter has some grounding in law enforcement.
Since February 2015, he’s occupied two managerial areas in the Baltimore Police Department, first as director of government affairs, then as chief of staff to Police Commissioner Kevin Davis.
Friends in High PlacesIn terms of political connections, however, Parlock and Vetter seem to have what it takes.
For example, Parlock on December 18 posted a snapshot of herself and Mayor Pugh beaming in front of a Christmas tree at her Bolton Hill home.
“Happy to have our friend Mayor Pugh at our home for Christmas,” she wrote (to which she got this reply from another commenter: “Friends in high places”).
Election board records show that Parlock contributed $50 to Pugh’s election campaign last year.
We sent the photo to the mayor’s office and received a reply from spokesman Anthony McCarthy:
“This photo was taken at an annual Christmas party that Kendra and her husband host for about 100 of their neighbors and friends. She is an active board member of the Mt. Royal Improvement Association. Mayor Pugh represented Bolton Hill as senator. Numerous other elected officials were also present. The mayor and Kendra had no formal relationship before Kendra came to work for the administration.”
A Curran who worked for O’MalleyVetter’s role in the Police Department paralleled his prior duties as a political operative and data wonk for O’Malley.
The grandson of the late Delegate Gerald J. Curran and a relation to O’Malley wife, Catherine Curran O’Malley, Vetter’s first job out of college was as an analyst at CitiStat in 2004.
In 2005-06, he coordinated the O’Malley transition team after O’Malley was elected Maryland’s governor, according to his Linked-In profile.
He went on to serve as special assistant for the governor’s deputy chief of staff, then worked for Maryland Economic Development Secretary Christian Johansson and finally returned to O’Malley’s side as director of government affairs.
With his extensive ties to state government, Vetter’s role in the Pugh administration clearly will be to keep the money flowing to the Baltimore Police Department, especially from the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention that ponies up millions for BPD technology upgrades and crime prevention programs.
Whether Vetter will act as a voice independent of the views of his former boss, Commissioner Davis, is not so clear. Vetter’s longtime role as an “inside player” worried a police source who spoke with The Brew yesterday:
“Just going along with what your commissioner says isn’t the way to go. Now that Vetter’s in this new position, can he push away the relationship he has built with Davis over the last two years and say to him, ‘This is unacceptable,’ and then tell the mayor she’s got to fix it? I honestly don’t know if that’s going to happen.”
Looking Beyond CrimeVetter, of course, has the institutional knowledge to serve as the new CitiStat director, but Mayor Pugh has much higher ambitions for that post.
In answer to Brew questions, the mayor’s spokesman outlined the duties that will fall to Parlock:
“The mission of the Office of Sustainable Solutions is to make Baltimore more resilient by using data, innovation and technology to create solutions with results that will be sustained beyond the current administration and teams that are currently in place.”
The goals of the Office of Sustainable Solutions will include, according to McCarthy:
• Launch of an expanded CitiStat program that is focused on violence reduction as the priority.
• Development of additional performance metrics for economic development, homelessness, blight and student tracking.
• Creation of a Performance Dashboard to monitor results and track performance.
• Foster cross-agency collaboration and innovation.
• Improve communication of progress and performance results.
“Mayor Pugh has enormous confidence in both Ms. Parlock and Mr. Vetter to meet the expectations she has for their positions,” McCarthy added.
________________________________________________
It is our local pols at city/county and state levels allowing state health systems with goals of being purely profit and extreme wealth -------there is no intent to have AFFORDABLE HEALTH PLANS---there is no intent to continue MEDICARE AND MEDICAID now that ROBBER BARON few decades have allowed frauds to expand global health corporations.
The prices the global 1% health system executives are setting as SCIENCE-BASED and market rate-----will be whatever a market of global 1% and their 2% will pay for the latest GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT IN MEDICINE will bring----these are 99% of geeks and geniuses handing medical patents to global 1% and 99% of WE THE PEOPLE handing our tax revenue for medical treatments we will not be allowed to access.
LET'S CROWD-SOURCE FUNDS FOR LITTLE JOEY'S OPERATION!
These media events are by 5% to the 1%----they will not have real solutions as they are led by 5% players.
‘It’s the Prices, Stupid’: How sky-high prices are crippling our health care system
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA---ANNENBERG FOUNDATION.
The numbers are eye-popping: $25,000 MRIs, the $1,000-a-day hepatitis B drug, $629 for an ER visit that only delivered a Band-Aid. As leading health care economists bluntly put it in a famous research paper, “It’s the prices stupid.” Experts increasingly point to the high cost of care in America — not necessarily the overuse of care — as the chronic illness of the U.S. system. Health systems in other developed countries pay nowhere near these prices for the same services. And while the Affordable Care Act changed who pays for health care, it has done little to curb rising costs. Recent Republican replacement plans didn’t tackle prices either. For reporters and patients, getting at the issues can be challenging in a world where pricing is often opaque — or deliberately kept secret. This webinar will offer an overview of our health system’s Achilles’ heel, and provide journalists with one ace health reporter’s toolkit for covering the issue in their community — including strategies, data sources and crowdsourcing tips.
*****************************************************
As Cancer Drugs' Prices Skyrocket, Experts Worry About Burden On Patients, Health Systems04:59Play
January 30, 2017 Updated January 30, 2017 12:41 PM
Share
This week we're examining fast-moving changes in cancer research and treatment in a series we're calling, "This Moment In Cancer."
Leaders in cancer research say the field has reached a pivotal moment, including the discovery of new treatments. But, these new treatments come with a price tag that many experts believe is unsustainable.
Nov 10, 2017Richard Knox joined Morning Edition to discuss the rising costs associated with cancer drugs. Below is a transcription of our conversation with him.
Richard Knox: New cancer drugs are being approved at a fast pace: dozens a year. And many more are in the pipeline. In the past, these drugs might cost around $10,000 for a year’s treatment. But one recent study found newly-approved cancer drugs carry price tags between $120,000 and $170,000.
Bob Oakes: What's behind this enormous increase?
Knox: It’s complicated, and drug companies don’t reveal what goes into their pricing decisions. But one factor is a 2003 federal law that bars Medicare from negotiating over drug prices. And Medicare Part D — the drug benefit which went into effect 11 years ago — requires Medicare to pay for all approved drugs. Taken together, this means drug companies can charge whatever they want.
Oakes: Big picture, Dick, what are the implications of this trend?
Knox: They’re big – for the health care system and for cancer patients and their families.
One recent study looked at what’s happened with just one treatment for a blood cancer called CLL. Last year, the FDA approved a two-drug combination that’s revolutionized the treatment of CLL. Newly-diagnosed patients on this regimen can now expect to live seven years, and often much longer. And side effects are greatly reduced. But the price tag for each drug is about $130,000, and patients need to take them for the rest of their lives.
Jagpreet Chhatwal of Mass General Hospital, who led the study, tells me the new treatment has tripled the cost of treating a patient with this one type of cancer.
Chhatwal: We find that on average the lifetime cost of treatment with these new therapies would be $600,000.
Knox: And because patients will live much longer, the total number of patients with CLL — all needing lifetime treatment — is rising rapidly. So the total cost burden for the health care system is soaring too.
Oakes: What about the implications for patients?
Knox: Chhatwal says the out-of-pocket costs for patients has gone up even faster.
Chhatwal: That cost is substantial, it's more than $50,000. And if you compare treatments with previous therapies, out-of-pocket cost was around $10,000. So we're talking about a 500 percent increase in out-of-pocket cost of treatment.
Knox: And keep in mind, Bob, that this is just one cancer among at least 200 different types, many of which are being treated with more effective — but more expensive — new drugs.
Chhatwal: We think this is just the tip of the iceberg. The trend is very disturbing.
Knox: It’s a trend that could affect almost every family. Two out of every five Americans will get a cancer diagnosis at some point in their lives.
Oakes: Are skyrocketing drug costs preventing some people from getting potentially life-saving cancer treatment?
Knox: Probably. But, Bob, that’s hard to pin down. People at leading cancer centers tell me they’re able to find a way to treat nearly everybody, so far. But Dr. Otis Brawley, the medical director of the American Cancer Society, tells me that many people don’t ever make it to a leading center.
Brawley: I actually know people who have decided to forego a treatment, because they cannot afford it. And I'm sure there are people who are giving up the option for a cure, because they can't afford it right now. It's just incredibly shameful that this would happen in the United States.
Oakes: That's horrible, Dick. Is there anything that can be done about it?
Knox: That’s not clear, Bob. You may have noticed that our new president declared recently that he was going to demand that drug companies negotiate prices. That would take a change in federal law, at least to allow Medicare to negotiate — and most cancer patients are on Medicare. Drug companies will surely fight that. And then there’s the expected repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Will its replacement will address skyrocketing drug costs, or put the cost of cancer treatment further out of reach? Nobody knows.
This segment aired on January 30, 2017.
RSS Feed
