August 21, 2019

Medicare’s Harm to Patients, Doctors Detailed in New Book

As Medicare Turns 50 on July 30, New Book Exposes Medicare’s Problems and its Victims

“Medicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care Program Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians ” Tells Tales of Harm to Patients, Struggles by Doctors

Explains Why “Medicare-for-All,” as Proposed by Some Politicians, Won’t Work

Washington, DC – “As Medicare nears its 50th anniversary, there will no doubt be much celebrating among politicians and pundits on the left,” says Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow and health care policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Yet Medicare has a sick underbelly. Exposing the problem and reporting the true facts about this program should be the media’s main focus. There is no reason to sugarcoat this program. It’s broken and my book explains why.”

Dr. Hogberg’s new book, “Medicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care Program Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians,”* shows that Medicare often fails to provide quality health care to patients.

“The media too often overlooks the many victims of Medicare, in part because Medicare has achieved this mythic status as a wonderful government program,” says Dr. Hogberg. “This book reports on the program’s many flaws, providing the reader with a more balanced view of Medicare.”

“Medicare’s Victims” tells the intimate stories of patients and physicians who have struggled with Medicare’s policies. They include:

-Clay Bell, whose death was hastened because Medicare denied the physical therapy he needed to slow the progression of his Multiple Sclerosis.

-Sean Plomann, who suffered in agonizing pain while languishing in Medicare’s waiting period for the disabled.

-Donna Dennis, who came very close to suffering a stroke because she could not afford her medication after falling into Part D’s donut hole.

-Dr. Scott Braddock, who, despite getting stellar results with his hard-to-treat diabetes patients, had to close his practice, thanks to Medicare.

-The book also recounts how the American Hospital Association and Federation of American Hospitals used Medicare to stop competition from physician-owned specialty hospitals, although such hospitals often provided the highest quality of care.

“The book is also timely because there are some more liberal politicians who are now pushing for a ‘Medicare-for-All’ single-payer system,” says Dr. Hogberg. “Specifically, Senator Bernie Sanders recently called for such a system. The book yields insight into why such a system wouldn’t work.”

“Medicare’s Victims” shows that the beneficiaries who do get good treatment under Medicare are the ones who have the ability to influence Congress on Medicare policy. That generally includes senior citizens, who vote at rates higher than almost any other group.

“Under a system of Medicare-for-All, resources would flow to those with political power,” says Dr. Hogberg. “The problem is that people without political power will lose out, and they are likely to be some of the sickest patients.”

“For starters, there are relatively few people who get seriously ill each year, too few, in fact, to have much impact on Election Day. Second, because of their health, they aren’t going to be organizing, protesting and doing other things necessary to influence Congress. And finally, some of them are so sick that they won’t be around for the next election. Given that, it is inevitable that sicker patients are most likely to suffer under a system of Medicare-for-all.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here.

Share

The Lyme Disease Cure

An interview with author Dr. Cass Ingram

New book provides powerful natural protocols for beating a growing pandemic now infecting millions of Americans

There’s a tiny, would-be assassin hiding in North America’s fields and woodlands that goes by the name of ioxides scapularis, but is more commonly known as the black-legged deer tick. A single bite from this creature can destroy your life – and if untreated, may even kill you.

“The disease caused by this tiny biting insect is called Lyme disease, and it’s one of the most dreaded and destructive diseases known,” says medicinal spice expert and health researcher Dr. Cass Ingram, author of “The Lyme Disease Cure.” “In the USA alone there are likely a half-million new cases of disease caused by deer tick bites annually – but in many cases, the victim is entirely unaware of what has happened to them.”

Dr. Ingram says a person contracts Lyme disease when cork-screw-like bacteria called “spirochetes” are released from the mouthparts of the biting tick, and bore into the joints and connective tissues of their human hosts, where they cause significant inflammation and pain, as well as tissue damage.

“There are a wide range of other germs which may ‘co-infect’ the tick bite victim, including organisms which may attack the brain and nervous system,” says Dr. Ingram.

MULTIPLE SYMPTOMS MAKE DIAGNOSIS DIFFICULT:
Lyme disease can create a host of confusing symptoms – both immediate and delayed. The disease is frequently misdiagnosed as: fibromyalgia, arthritis, polymyositis, ‘depression,’ multiple sclerosis, ALS, schizophrenia, psychosis, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Lyme also specifically attacks the heart and nervous system. Thus, victims of Lyme and other tick bite diseases are also often told that they have Bell’s palsy, neuropathy, pericarditis, and cardiomyopathy, while tick bite diseases and Lyme as the cause are never considered.

PREVENTING EXPOSURE TO LYME DISEASE AND TICK PATHOGENS:
In 2013, the CDC reported cases of Lyme disease in 46 states. Those camping, canoeing, hiking or vacationing in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin need to take special precautions due to the exceptionally high number of confirmed Lyme disease cases in those states. Such precautions include:

o Wear the lightest-colored clothes possible, preferably white or off-white. White is the best, since the tiny tick nymphs, which are black, can be seen more readily. Larger ticks can be easily seen against such a background.
o Socks are pulled over the pant legs. The socks should be white.
o Spray the shoes, socks, and legs with the natural, potent tick repellent, Herbal Tick-X, part of Dr. Ingram’s new Lyme disease protection kit.
o Check clothes often for evidence of crawling, climbing ticks.
o Wear a hat to prevent ticks from falling from tall grass or trees onto the head.
o Be sensitive, and be aware. Have a high awareness for entities crawling on the body or in the hair. If any such sensations occur, check the body immediately.
o Upon arriving home or when in a secure place, strip down immediately; place all clothing in a plastic bag. Inspect the body fully for ticks. The head and neck should be carefully inspected. The hair should be thoroughly brushed and/or combed all the way down to the scalp. After any wilderness adventure take a shower and scrub the skin.

RESPONSE TO BEING BITTEN:
“Any tick bite, if discovered, should be treated topically. The tick itself, along with the bite area, should be saturated with the oil of wild oregano to attain constant contact, which is ideal to destroy any residual tick-related germs and the consequential local inflammation. That constant contact can also be achieved by saturating a bandage or a piece of cotton and once the tick is removed taping it against the region. This can then be changed every 12 or 24 hours and continued until all infection and inflammation is eradicated.”

BASIC PROTOCOL – TREATING LYME DISEASE WITH WILD SPICES
Wild spices in the form of oil of oregano will literally burn away the protective exterior membranes (biofilm) of viruses and pathogen transmitted by an infected tick. Many types of germ-killing spices are reviewed in the book, and readers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the healing properties and uses of each. The spices used by Dr. Ingram to cure his own Lyme infection included:

o oil of wild oregano (P73 material)
o multiple spice dried essential oil complex consisting of oils of wild oregano and sage, along with remote-source cumin and cinnamon
o juice of wild oregano
o capsules of anti-inflammatory enzymes containing bromelain, papain, and ginger

Share

Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?

Share

Introducing – WOLF: What’s to Misunderstand?

SmallWolfCoverI would like to introduce to readers the release of my latest book: WOLF: What’s to Misunderstand? The book can be purchased immediately on Amazon here. You can visit my Author Page here for a list of all my books. The book is available in paperback and a digital version for your Kindle.

If you would like a signed copy, please visit my website and preorder right now. The expected delivery date to me of books is, December 22, 2014…if all goes well. You can order now or wait. As soon as I receive my books, I will sign them and ship them immediately.

Provided on the book page here on my website, I have included: “About the Book,” “About the Author,” and an “Introduction.”

Share

‘When Man Becomes Prey’, by local author Cat Urbigkit

New predator book released
‘When Man Becomes Prey’, by local author Cat Urbigkit
by Lyons Press media release
November 9, 2014

Lyons Press is proud to announce the release of When Man Becomes Prey: Fatal Encounters with North America’s Most Feared Predators, by Cat Urbigkit ($16.95, paperback).

Sam Ives’s family set up camp in a Utah campground, cooked dinner, cleaned up and packed their gear away, and climbed into their multi-chambered tent to sleep. It was a great end to Father’s Day. Eleven-year-old Sam crawled into the smaller compartment of the two-room tent. Without his parents knowing it, Sam ate a granola bar and placed the empty wrapper in a pocket of the tent. Sometime during the night, a black bear entered the campsite, ripped open the side of the tent where Sam slept, grabbed the boy, and killed him. His parents heard a noise and got up to have a look around, but were unable to find Sam. Terrified, they immediately called for help and a search was quickly conducted, where Sam’s body was found about 400 yards from the campsite.

Unfortunately, Sam’s story is not uncommon—every year there are numerous reports of predator attacks on humans, many of them resulting in fatalities.

When Man Becomes Prey examines the details of fatal predator attacks on humans, providing an opportunity to learn about the factors and behaviors that led to attacks. The predators profiled in the book include black bears, grizzly bears, mountain lions, coyotes, and gray wolves—the first time all five species have been included in one volume. Compelling narratives of conflicts involving these top predators are accompanied by how-to information for avoiding such clashes.

Cat Urbigkit is an award-winning writer and photographer. She has written ten books, including Yellowstone Wolves: A Chronicle of the Animal, the People, and the Politics and Shepherds of Coyote Rocks: Public Lands, Private Herds, and the Natural World. She maintains the news blog, Wolf Watch [on Pinedale Online!], and contributes regularly to regional newspapers and other outdoors blogs. She lives in western Wyoming.

<<<Source>>>

Share

Sneak Preview VI – Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?

Cover290In referring back to the statement of Dr. Johnson to the Montana Environmental Quality Council, Dr. Johnson states that Droncit is “100% effective” for getting rid of tapeworms in wolves with just one treatment. If that was so, why then did he say he gave “at least twice” the number of injections that a 100% effective worm-killing drug would do.

The World Health Organization says that: “Although the efficacy of praziquantel is highly reliable in almost all cases, the possibility of low residual worm burdens in some of the treated animals cannot be excluded, notably if mistakes of drug administration occur.” Perhaps “almost” 100% would have been more accurate to describe the effectiveness of Droncit and perhaps “at least” two doses of Droncit would be responsible, if one considers the seriousness of the spread of disease. Was that the case here?

What we don’t know from Johnson’s statement is what the dosages given were for each wolf. In researching information on Droncit (praziquantel), The Food and Drug Administration(FDA) tells us1 that dosages depend on the weight of the animal. Did Dr. Johnson give injections “at least twice” because he spread out the “100% effective” dewormer into two or more injections? If so, does that render the drug ineffective?

The FDA also warns that harm or death can result to an animal that is dosed too highly. Therefore we must assume one of two things. One, that there was only really one injection divided into two or more administrations of the drug, which I think is rational to assume that was not the case, when considering the World Health Organization’s explanation that human error in administering Droncit might play a role in the effectiveness of the drug. It just doesn’t make sense that it would be done that way. Or, two, all the wolves captured in Canada were given two or more doses of Droncit at full dosage and other anti-parasitic drugs before being shipped to the U.S. Without putting the wolves in danger by following the FDA recommended dosages of Droncit, a first injection would have been given to the wolves followed by a second dosage 30 days after. And I assume 30 days after for all subsequent injections. That is my understanding.

So, were the wolves kept in crates or holding pens in Canada for 30 days, or longer, so that “at least twice” Droncit could be administered to each wolf? I’ve never seen any records that would indicate that Canada kept captured wolves for 30 days or more, but as I have said, information and records of this event are sketchy at best, and perhaps intended to be that way.

The reason this is important is because we Americans have been told on repeated occasions that “it is extremely unlikely” that any wolves came into the United States infected with Echinococcus tapeworms, i.e. those of the “northern strain.” We know this “northern strain” was readily found in Alaska and Canada, as far south as the northern border of the United States. So, trapped wolves that were caught in Canada were caught in landscapes where the more virulent strain of Echinococcus exists.

If the wolves were not kept in Canada for 30 days or more, then were all the wolves brought into the United States put into holding pens so they could be dewormed? Dr. Johnson’s statement makes less sense the more we examine it.

If Droncit is 100% effective, then why the need to offer a statement that all wolves were given Droncit at least twice? Of what was the Montana Environmental Quality Council trying to be convinced of?

Complicating the issue is that we know some wolves were brought in crates from Canada directly to their release zones and let go . We have been told that all wolves were dewormed before entering the United States. But how can we be sure?

The records I have indicated above that I possess, I had a licensed veterinary doctor examine these records. The doctor had no information about why I wanted an opinion other than I was writing a book. The doctor sent me this statement:

Share

Sneak Preview V – Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?

Cover290From this moment forward, I may annoy you but I will not allow you to forget that the Final Environmental Impact Statement, compiled by non elected personnel, told the American public that historic information about wolves, public safety, and human health was, “limited,” “poorly documented,” “not reliable,” could “never be scientifically confirmed or denied,” and “would not significantly affect human safety or health.” I intend to prove them wrong.

Only casually, since I have been reading, writing and researching about wolves globally, I began compiling studies and documentation about wolf diseases, in particular information about E.g.1 and Echinococcus multilocularis2, as well as Neospora caninum.3 All one has to do is review this information, readily available Online, and this information should be easily accessible to the most powerful nation on earth, the part of whose function is to research and document wildlife diseases BEFORE forcing coexistence between humans and animals.

When you examine the cited literature within the FEIS, it reveals many studies and scientific documentation, etc. that date well before 1995’s wolf (re)introduction. Surely then, we can reasonably assume that the wolf recovery team had access to the same studies that I have been able to access. Why then is it that it has to appear as though there was lots of cherry picking of so-called, “Best Available Science” to fit the wolf (re)introduction narrative? It is one thing to disagree on conclusions about scientific information but when it is completely ignored, except within the fraternity of those determined to get wolves, at least we should be asking questions.

Given that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the wolf recovery team were, no doubt, granted a certain degree of deference in how they approached things and decisions made as to what would and would not be considered for further evaluation for the FEIS, make no mistake about it, the agenda here was wolf recovery at any expense; monetary and/or public safety.

Let’s examine just some of the information that the FEIS and members of the wolf recovery team decided was not worthy of further investigation as well as to disprove their claims that global documentation of wolf behavior and wolf related diseases were, “limited,” “poorly documented,” “unreliable,” and “never be scientifically confirmed or denied.”

It was in 1984 when the World Health Organization published the Second Edition of, “Guidelines for surveillance, prevention and control of Echinococcosis/Hydatidosis.”4 This study, 160 pages, and all resources in reference, date prior to wolf (re)introduction in the United States.

In 1986 the World Health Organization(WHO) published a five-page information and data resource titled, “An International Study on the Serological Differential Diagnosis of Human Cystic and Alveolar Echinococcosis.”5 The very first sentence of the very first paragraph states: “Echinococcosis in humans is a serious problem of worldwide importance.” How can such a statement be labeled as “limited” information, “poorly documented,” “unreliable,” and can “never be scientifically confirmed or denied?” Incidentally, this report lists the number of patients with Hydatid disease in the United States.

Share

Sneak Preview III – Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?

Cover290Here’s another glimpse into “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?” This portion is found in Chapter II, dedicated to understanding the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

“It is vitally important that readers fully understand the power of the Endangered Species Act. For without that understanding, future discussions about wolves in the United States, or any other “threatened” or “endangered” species, can make little sense. What once began and was sold to the American people as a law that would guarantee the protection and preservation of species that might unnecessarily be destroyed due mostly to man’s efforts at growth, has morphed into a mammoth, crippling law that by some standards is the most powerful and destructive law in the world.

It took years of research and study of this law, reaching far beyond the crafted words of the law itself, to discover that the Endangered Species Act is only one small part of a global effort to cede rights, destroy sovereignty, individual and collective, control land and the resources within that land; to breed scarcity and economic strife. The ESA is not a law simply to save an animal or a plant.

Whether we like the law or not, whether we disagree or agree, whether anything I write will have an effect on you, matters not. We have the law of the Endangered Species Act and it is what we must deal with, but please, approach the Act with correct and complete knowledge of what the Act can and will do when abused and administered corruptly.”

Share

Sneak Preview II – Wolf: What’s to MISunderstand?

Cover290*Note* – It came to me the other day that I had gone ahead and made the beginnings of what I hope will be similar to what the book cover will be, and already had made a mistake. The title should be “WOLF: What’s to Misunderstand?” I forgot the “Mis.” Much the point of the book is in educating readers about the realities of wolves. In doing so, I’ve employed the statement that I’ve heard so many times that each time I hear it I want to vomit: “Wolves are just misunderstood.” WHAT’S TO MISUNDERSTAND?

The reason Americans lack in any knowledge about living with wolves is that the citizens living in the United States (Lower 48 anyway) today have never had to live with wolves, with only a handful of exceptions. Now that wolves are on people’s doorsteps – literally speaking – the education process will be long and I fear it will be hazardous and, at times, deadly, because people refuse to listen and understand. They also get very little help from government. As a matter of fact, you are going to discover that governments, i.e. federal, state and some local, actively worked to block information about wolves that might have placed the wolf in a negative light, seriously effecting the decision to (re)introduce wolves.

This education process could have had a good start had those involved with wolf (re)introduction into Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho, had not been so pigheaded and elite, done their homework on wolf history worldwide and not discarded this information because it didn’t meet today’s standards of what might constitute an official event. In researching this subject for many years, I am left hoping that our scientists of 2114 will have greater respect for historic documentations than the scientists of today have for documentation of a mere 30 years ago.

The wolf recovery team decided that most all historic documentation of wolves was not to their liking or didn’t meet their standards, and narrative, evidently, because they just plain ignored it, labeling it as “limited” and “poorly documented.” Will science and humans 100, 200, 300 years from now look back on the antiquated ways in which our present best scientists and historians documented events and disregard them because they won’t reach modern day standards? Let’s hope not.

As you will discover all throughout this book, the effort to draft an environmental impact statement, which became the bible of how wolf (re)introduction was to happen and subsequent management, was either a work of an abysmal scientific application, a bold act of corruption, with criminal intent, or both.

This chapter will look at the history of wolves as members of the wolf recovery team should have done. The best the wolf recovery team could come up with was an attempt to dispel the myth of Little Red Ridinghood. In my opinion this was quite pathetic!

Share

Sneak Preview: Wolf: What’s to Understand

Cover290Progress is coming alone with my new book Wolf: What’s to Understand. I wanted to provide a few sneak previews into what readers might look forward to. I thought that a most recent court ruling concerning wolves in Wyoming, by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, involved, in part, some discussion of the term “genetic connectivity.”

I will continue to provide readers with an occasional preview of the book. I don’t have a firm date yet for release but as soon as I am fairly confident of that date, I will make available for those interested to be able to pre-order early for a signed copy at a discounted price.

In part, here is what I have included in the upcoming book about the creation of the term “genetic connectivity” by activist Judge, Donald Molloy.

Sneak Peek:

In order for Judge Donald Molloy to allow an injunction to stand as part of a lawsuit to keep wolves under federal protection, he must find just cause. The plaintiffs in this case, Defenders of Wildlife, lay claim that the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Northern Rocky Mountain wolf (re)introduction, “specifically conditions the delisting decision on a Finding of Subpopulation Genetic Exchange.” Judge Molloy finds in agreement with the plaintiffs in his 40-page ruling.1

Molloy’s 40-page ruling to grant a temporary injunction to place the wolf back under protection of the Endangered Species Act is a laughable document. The judge manipulates the science and goes so far as to make up definitions.

Molloy bases his entire decision on two aspects. One, is that the agreement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had with the state of Wyoming on managing the wolf after delisting was “arbitrary and capricious”. The second is that “genetic exchange” must occur before delisting can be considered and further goes on to claim that the USFWS cannot prove that this “exchange” took place.

Did USFWS state in their 1994 Environmental Impact Statement, as Judge Molloy refers, that genetic exchange has to take place?

What is interesting as well as disturbing, is that in Molloy’s 40-page ruling, he uses the term “genetic exchange” 49 times and actually creates his own term, “genetic connectivity” and uses it 2 times. In the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement, the term genetic exchange is used once and that came in an appendix to the original document and the EIS never once used “genetic connectivity” to describe anything.

Molloy insists over and over again that the USFWS’ EIS demands this genetic exchange, all the while the USFWS claims it never said that.

Probably in much the same way as Ed Bangs and his band of scientists randomly selected the idea that 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in each of the three recovery areas, so too was the mention of at some future date the need for “genetic exchange.” While many a person has spent countless hours discussing both viable wolf populations and “genetic connectivity,” what shouldn’t get lost during any of this is the fact that of all the issues sold to the American people about wolf (re)introduction, none of it was true.

Even if hind site has perfect vision, it would be impossible to (re)introduce wolves and end up with 30 pairs and 300 wolves before delisting. The system within which we all must work is rigged. Judge Molloy’s ruling here about genetic exchange is but one example of how the system has and continues to fail honest people because it is rigged.

We see in this ruling of Defenders of Wildlife v. H. Dale Hall (USFWS), that a judge, hand picked by the plaintiffs because of his activist rulings and staunch support to protect wolves, can destroy the real science and seriously obstruct the proper administration of the Endangered Species Act. In addition, when we are subjected to one man or a team of like-minded people, intent on wolf (re)introduction, the power and authority granted them in determining “best available science” makes for a very powerful and rigged system.

Share