Podcast

Kamira/Shutterstock

Dave Janda: Bad Medicine

A doctor's reasons for quitting the profession
Sunday, May 15, 2016, 1:57 PM

In our ongoing discussion of how our Health Care system (or more aptly-named "Sick Care" system) has been hijacked by those who profit most from it, we interview Dr. Dave Janda this week, who recently and very publicly announced he was walking away from his clinical practice in protest of how poorly the quality-to-cost ratio has dropped in his profession.

Dr. Janda's perspective is informed not just from his years as a practicing surgeon and researcher, but also through his involvement with health initiatives for the Reagan and Bush I administrations, as well as the National Institute of Health. His overall conclusion is that the health system now exists to serves its corporate and administrative owners, to the detriment of patients and practitioners: 

I decided I needed to retire from medicine the clinical practice of medicine because I truly felt that I could no longer take care of people the way I was trained to take care of people in a high quality manner. Now I have been involved 27 years in the clinical practice of medicine. I have battled insurance companies every day of my professional career since I got done with my residency program 27 years ago. The formula that insurance companies use and government uses to cut healthcare costs is the most inhumane and unethical means of cutting costs; and that's the rationing and denying of care. It's what I have fought against my entire career. My approach is, if you are really sincere about cutting healthcare costs, quit trying to deny the availability and access to care -- which is what insurance companies try to do. If you're really sincere about cutting healthcare costs prevent healthcare needs. It's the single greatest bang for the buck.

Now you're not going to learn that in medical school. I didn’t. And here is the bottom line – prevention is not stressed in medical school and internship and residency and post residency activities because there is no money in it. Where all the money comes is waiting for the injury to happen, waiting for cancer to happen, waiting for the cardiovascular event to happen and then dealing with it. Let’s face it – in the west and in particular the United States and Canada, we're good at dealing with problems once they occur. But when it comes to prevention, I can tell you the blowback I have gotten over the past 30 years in working in prevention is enormous.

You would also think that the insurance companies would love prevention. I mean when I first started on this 30 years ago, I was pretty naïve. I thought gosh, we are starting this non-profit research institute, I'm sure the insurance companies will help fund it. I can tell you, in 30 years of being in that organization the Institute for Preventative Sports Medicine, we never got one penny of funding from the insurance industry. And about 15 years ago I got a call from an insurance executive in New York who said, “I’m flying out. I want to meet with you.” Finally. They finally figured it out. They finally saw that hey look at these guys. They spend a thousand bucks one and it saves $2 billion. Finally, they're going to embrace us. There I am, sitting at the desk. This big insurance  executive walks in, looks at me and says, “Janda, let me tell you why we hate you.” Direct quote. I say "Hate me?,You should love me. I should be your poster boy for finding a way to help people and save costs". He goes, “Son, you don’t understand how the insurance industry works. Let’s say the cost of insuring you is $1000. The most -- according to the bean counters and the Feds -- that we can tack onto that is 7% so your premium is $1070, right?” I agree. He says, “Let’s say we do all those things you talk about to save costs. We figured it out with our actuaries: the actual cost of insurance is no longer $1000 bucks, it drops to $100 bucks.” He goes, “Now, son even though all doctors are morons,” -- a direct quote (when it comes to financial matters, he might be right on that) -- “7% of 100 is what? Seven” . He goes, “Well, wouldn’t you rather have $70 instead $7?” He goes, “Let me tell you how the health insurance industry works: The higher costs go, the bigger cut of the pie we get. And that’s why we will do everything in our power to shut you down and shut down your prevention work.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Dave Janda (64m:18s)

Transcript: 

Chris Martenson: Welcome to this Peak Prosperity podcast. I am your host, Chris Martenson. When you read our site you will find that Peak Prosperity has been focusing on the sick care system that dares to call itself the healthcare system in the United States. Along with many others, we at Peak Prosperity predicted that Obamacare would increase costs for most people not reduce them. Now, how did we know that? Simple. The middlemen, the insurers were left completely off the list of entities being asked to participate in controlling costs while expanding access. It didn't—or at least it shouldn't have taken a genius to work out the logical conclusion of that experiment. You have already heard me squawk about my 24.8% insurance increase last year and you are going to hear me squawk about it next year too. Most of you already know about the impact of rising healthcare insurance costs from the consumer standpoint. To talk to us about the impact of Obamacare from the physician standpoint is a very special guest, Dr. Dave Janda.

Dave Janda is a doctor. He is a clinical orthopedic surgeon. He is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan—the director and founder of the institute for preventative sports medicine (also based in Ann Arbor) which is the only healthcare cost containment organization of its kind in North America. His academic career has been highlighted by many awards and distinctions. In the early years he was one of the winners of the Westinghouse Science Talent Search Competition. I can't wait to hear about that because that is a big deal.

Dr. Janda has also distinguished himself in the research arena and was appointed by the former Bush Administration to the Board for the National Center of Injury Prevention and Control. He has authored a book and he has chronicled his efforts in the field of preventative sports medicine and has outlined his approach on how to create a more available and more affordable healthcare system, if such a thing is even possible. Can't wait to hear about that. He and his book, The Awakening of a Surgeon, have been featured guests on the Oprah Winfrey show and his research and prevention-based studies have been featured on many television, radio, newspaper, magazine presentations. Wow. Welcome, Dr. Dave Janda.

Dave Janda: Chris, thanks for having me aboard. I love all the work you've done. I am a big fan of yours and your organization and your website for years. You come at it the same way we do, or I do, and what we do at our institute and that is we are trying to look out for folks. In the process of trying to do the right thing for folks we get in a lot of trouble with the New World Order criminal banking syndicate that seems to run most industries around the world and most governments around the world. It is unfortunate. They should actually be, I believe, embracing you and embracing me. As you well know, we get a lot of blow back for pushing the axis of trying to help people and encourage people's freedom as opposed to them being oppressed by the globalists around the world.

Chris Martenson: Let's cut right to the chase. I was listening to a recent podcast of yours on your site from March 20th of 2016. You said it was time for you to step aside from practicing medicine. First off, how long have you been practicing? And then tell us about that decision.

Dave Janda: Well, the site you are talking about is DaveJanda.com. As you are aware, in addition to my work as a clinical orthopedic surgeon and a prevention researcher I also host a live radio show every Sunday from 3 to 5 EST on WAM talk 1600. I'm very fortunate that the owners of the station don't restrict content. So where we go—I don't know of any person on an AM or FM station that goes there. We out the banksters. We out the criminal national banking syndicate. We out the globalists about how they are trying to oppress every person in our country and around the world and also how they are trying to strip liberty and freedom from every person around the world and in our country. The name of our show is Operation Freedom. Folks can stream the show at DaveJanda.com every Sunday from 3 to 5 EST. We tackle many of these issues, one of which is Obamacare.

The podcast in particular you are talking about, Chris, on March 20th I announced that I will be leaving the clinical practice of medicine. When I graduated from Bucknell University, from college with degrees in Chemistry and Economics, I went to Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, then did my internship and residency at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Then I actually experienced a national healthcare approach where I did my fellowship in Canada at the University of Western Ontario in shoulder reconstructive surgery. Then I came back to Ann Arbor to a nine member orthopedic group. I have been with that group since 1989. That puts me about 27 years, outside of my residency. Including my residency, 32 years of the clinical practice of medicine.

Chris, in a nutshell I decided I needed to retire from medicine, the clinical practice of medicine, because I truly felt that I could no longer take care of people the way I was trained to take care of people in a high quality manner. Now, understand something: I have been involved, as I mentioned, 27 years in the clinical practice of medicine. I have battled insurance companies every day of my professional career since I got done with my residency program 27 years ago. And understand something: The formula that insurance companies use and government uses to cut healthcare costs is the most inhumane and unethical means of cutting costs. And that is the rationing and denying of care. It is what I have fought against my entire career.

My approach, as we outline this through the institute is if you are really sincere about cutting healthcare costs, quit trying to manipulate healthcare need by denying the availability and access to care. In other words, rationing care—which bureaucrats around the world try to do and in particular now in the United States, and what insurance companies try to do. If you are really sincere about cutting healthcare costs, prevent healthcare needs. It is the single greatest bang for the buck.

Now you are not going to learn that in medical school. I didn't. And the reason is… There is a lot of diplomatic answers I can give you, but anyone who has ever listened to my show knows I am not a diplomat. Here is the bottom line: Prevention is not stressed in medical school, in internship, in residency, in post-residency activities because Chris, there is no money in it. Where all the money comes is waiting for the injury to happen, waiting for cancer to happen, waiting for the cardiovascular event to happen and then dealing with it. Let's face it, in the west and in particular the United States and Canada, we are good at dealing with problems once they occur. But when it comes to prevention I can tell you the blowback I have gotten over the past 30 years in working in prevention is enormous.

Let me give you an example – just one of the studies that we did through the University of Michigan and then carried over to our institute, just one of the studies – we looked at sports injuries – we found a way to save 1.7 million people from getting injured every year and save $2 billion in healthcare costs every year. That study that came to those conclusions and those findings that was documented by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of the magnitude of the savings, we spent a thousand dollars once. We spent a thousand dollars and we found a way to save $2 billion every year. And when it comes to prevention, that is not the exception to the rule; it is the rule. Yet, the vast majority of folks in medicine still know minimal about prevention efforts and what to do and what they can do for their patients. The reason is there isn't any money in it.

I fought these battles… And you would also think that the insurance companies would love prevention. I mean when I first started on this 30 years ago I was pretty naïve. I thought gosh, we are starting this non-profit research institute, I am sure the insurance companies will help fund it. I can tell you, Chris, in 30 years of being in that organization, The Institute for Preventative Sports Medicine, we never got one penny of funding from the insurance industry. About 15 years ago I got a call from an insurance executive in New York, says, "I'm flying out. I want to meet with you." Finally. They finally figured it out. They finally saw that hey look at these guys. They spend a thousand bucks once and it saves $2 billion. Finally they are going to embrace. Chris, I am sitting at the desk. This executive walks in from a big insurance company. Looks at me and says, "Janda, let me tell you why we hate you." Direct quote. I said "hate me? You should love me. I should be your poster boy for finding a way to help people and save costs." He goes, "No." He goes, "We hate you. You in fact are on the most wanted list dead or alive." I go "why… where are you going here?" He goes, "Son," Son. "Son, you don't understand how the insurance industry works." He goes, "Let's say the cost of insuring you is $1000." He goes, "The most according to the bean counters and the feds that we can tack onto that is 7% so your premium is $1070, right?" I go "yea." He says, "Let's say we do all those things you talk about to save costs." He goes, "We figured it out with our actuaries. The actual cost of insuring you is no longer $1000 bucks it is $100 bucks." He goes, "Now, son even though all doctors are morons," Direct quote. "…when it comes to financial matters." He might be right on that. He said, "7% of 100 is what?" I go "7." He goes, "Well wouldn't you rather have 70 more than 7?" He goes, "Let me tell you how the health insurance industry works. The higher costs go, the bigger cut of the pie we get and that's why we will do everything in our power to shut you down and shut down your prevention work."

Chris Martenson: It's that stark isn't it? Whether we are talking about what Monsanto wants to do or – you got into medicine you naively thought that it was about… that we as humans wanted to help each other and wanted to help each other have fulfilled, connected, alive experiences while we are here on the Earth and you are finding that there are people that don't care at all about that. They would rather have money.

Dave Janda: Absolutely. And in fact there have been a number, not a lot, but a number of physicians that have come to me and said, "Dave stop this. Stop doing the prevention work because you are costing us money."

Chris Martenson: Really?

Dave Janda: Yes. Yes. Really.

Chris Martenson: I don't know why I am shocked by that, but I am.

Dave Janda: Corporations, when we have shown their products have caused injury… The first thing they do Chris, and I talk about this in my book The Awakening of a Surgeon, the first thing that they do is they call me and they said, "Guess what, we are going to sue you for putting this research out." All peer reviewed, published medical journals, over 50 articles we put out, studies. I said "you are going to sue me for telling the truth?" I go, "put your data up against my data, bring it on. I'll go to court with you." Well they never did because they didn't have anything.

The second thing they do is when the threat of lawsuit doesn't work, then you start getting the phone calls saying, "Watch your back. Bad things happen to people that keep talking." And then when that doesn't work, Chris, at one point I had to get protection for my wife and kids because the threats were coming and being directed at them.

Chris Martenson: Who do you think these threats were coming from?

Dave Janda: I know who they are coming from and they are coming from big industry, big business, the so-called globalist syndicate because all they care about, Chris—and I learned this many years ago—all they care about, Chris, is money and power and control. And when you start stepping on their feet when it comes to their revenue source because that is where their power and control comes from, they want to squash you like a bug. And that unfortunately is the way business is run – not only around our country, not only in North America, but around the world.

Chris Martenson: Right. You know, Dave the more I have looked into this… A big tour for me in the last few years has been around nutrition, right? I have lost a bunch of weight and my business partner Adam—we both started looking into nutrition in our lives and discovered "oh my gosh, it is not a hard nut to crack. People have cracked this nut many, many decades ago." I am thinking specifically around the time when that food pyramid got put out, you know, several decades ago, there was good, solid clinical data that talked about the role of carbohydrates and in particular sugars and refined sugars in creating both obesity, metabolic syndrome, atherosclerosis and other sorts of things that we could clearly point to. We had all of that data. It was clearly—not only was it not followed but it was heavily suppressed for a very long period of time. You would think just from a logical standpoint… I don't know if you have seen it, but the CDC put out this chart of obesity in America where once a state went to like 30% over the BMI recommended levels the state goes bright red. And starting late 1980s states just start going red one by one by one and we have an epidemiological disaster, probably one of the largest ones ever foisted on a population, and still it is pretty fringe topic to talk about the fact that we have been poisoning ourselves through our dietary guidelines. This should be simple, right? Shouldn't this be simple, case closed data?

Dave Janda: It should be simple case closed data, but understand something, Chris: The globalists—and that is not conspiracy theory—the globalists around the world do not want the populous to be healthy, to be happy, to be financially well off. I have heard the word used in Washington that those of us who are not part of the globalist network, they call us useless eaters. I have heard that term multiple times. They want – and this sounds sinister, and frankly it is evil what they are about. The same reason why they want to squash me from my work in prevention… because prevention is about empowerment of individuals, not empowerment of government, not empowerment of big business, but empowerment of individuals. About taking control of people – individuals taking control of their own lives and making them better. They don't want that message out there under any circumstance. And they don't want you Chris, nutritionally being healthy. Because all you have to do – I am sure you have read "Agenda 21." It is in black and white. That document is – it was brought to the United States by George H. W. Bush – George Bush the first. And in the appendix of "Agenda 21" it talks about a huge population reduction worldwide. Well guess what? The prevention model surely doesn't fit into their model and neither does being nutritionally sound. What drives all of these recommendations that are put up by governments that actually many times cause more problems than help is big money. It is the globalist money behind it. So you see it as a disaster that obesity is going through the roof, right? Does Monsanto?

Chris Martenson: Do the big pharma companies? No.

Dave Janda: No. They make a hell of a lot of money don't they? They get more money out of it. They siphon more money from us useless eaters. I know this sounds like conspiracy theory but I can tell you – one of the ramifications of the work that I have done in prevention… Back in 1988 I am in the clinic, the phone rings. My assistant comes to me and she goes "Dave you got a phone call you have to take it." I go "well I was just on the phone with the emergency room; why would they be calling me back so quickly?" She goes, "Dave, it's the White House." I go "the White House?" She goes, "Yea, there was an article on your work in prevention in one of the Washington papers and this person told me that President Reagan read it and he would like you to work on healthcare policy issues focusing on prevention." I go okay that is cute, it must be one of my buddies in DC that got someone to call and say that. I say fine. I took the call. Very nice woman. She is telling me about this. I told her "you are doing a great job; who is your boss?" She goes "my boss is Ronald Reagan." I go "I understand, this is a very good joke, tell me who your boss really is. I'll tell them they did a great job of pulling this joke off." She goes "no really." I said "fine. Give me your phone number I will call you back." Knowing full well it wasn't going to ring at the White House.

I call that number and sure enough the White House operator picks it up. I give the name of the person and it is the person there. I was thoroughly embarrassed. That led me, Chris, to come into Washington back in 1988 and, starting with Ronald Reagan, C. Everett Koop was the Surgeon General. Jack Kemp was in the cabinet at that point. I got to know Jack Kemp very well. Dr. Koop very well. Ronald Reagan's directive to myself was: You come at this differently. You care about people. Work with Koop, work with Kemp and help people. I can tell you I told Reagan's – the entire Reagan Administration was there—I said "you know this is really going to upset the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies and the ivory tower elitists that run the AMA and the like. The response from Reagan and his administration was "we don't care, just do what is right."

Unfortunately this is at the end of the Reagan term. I was working with Koop and working with Kemp. We were moving along and then George H. W. Bush becomes president and now there is this transition period. They say "what are you working on?" I am talking about the prevention stuff, free market healthcare reform such as with health savings accounts, prevention initiatives. Old man Bush's response was "we can't do that. We get a lot of support from the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies. We can't upset them."

Well, Chris, then all of a sudden our prevention efforts were put on the back burner. Then Clinton becomes president. This is even before he started talking about Hillarycare. Bring me in again, talk to me about your work in prevention – the response from the Clinton administration was "well, we can't do that because it would upset the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry and we get a lot of support from them." Same response as the Bush I administration.

Then George W. comes into power and had the same conversation and get the same response as the old man and Clinton. Right then, Chris, I realized that this is not a two party system. I am not trying to be political, it is a point of fact. And this is my experience on the ground face to face with people in the White House. There is one party and I call them the Republicrats. They are owned and operated by the globalists. Mainly the banking community who owns these guys. And it doesn't matter if they have an R or D after their name. It is more than just than just the people in the White House… What I came to realize was about 99% of them in DC are owned and operated by the globalists. They march to the tune of what the globalists want. And what the globalists want is stripping people of their freedom and liberty and oppressing as many people as possible. And the right/left axis—and this is something Reagan taught me. The first thing I learned from Ronald Reagan—the right/left axis is a sham. It is there to have people going after each other and dividing and conquering. The axis – the powers that be in the world work are in the up/down axis – up being freedom and down being oppression. Their goal is to strip freedom from as many people as possible worldwide and oppress as many people as possible and they use the right/left access to divert their attention from what they are really up to.

That was true back in 1988 and it has been true long before '88, but it is true today. It is a sham. And politically now, no matter what, love them or hate them, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders—if you love them or hate them it doesn't matter. This is not a right/left issue, but what those two guys have shown is exactly that. The powers that be look at all of us as being minions. Entities to be manipulated and whose opinions are not warranted. That they know best. That is what those two guys have exposed.

You mention I live and work in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I call it the People's Republic of Ann Arbor. It is interesting. When I was coming out with this information on my radio show five years ago when I started in October of 2010, I would get a lot of blow back, a lot of negative blow back. Now, Chris, I have all these people coming to me saying "I thought you were a conspiracy theorist. I thought you were one of those tin foil hat guys. I thought you were kind of out there. But you know what? Everything you said starting five years ago has actually been accurate and it has been on the money."

Chris Martenson: This is actually, Dave, really encouraging to me, if we can use that term, because the election fraud, which is something I track very closely… I am a science guy, right? A little bit nerdy this way. I love things like standard deviation. But in 2004 and 2008, we saw instances like in some cases where more votes were recorded in certain counties on Diebold voting machines than people lived there, let alone voters, right? The difference between exit polls and actual results being three, four, five standard deviations away says that these things should happen once every 25,000 to 1 billion years, depending on how outrageous it was. We have statistical prima facie proof that our elections were being manipulated and stolen.

Here is where I lost it. When Gore lost to Bush, principally they did this whole hanging chad thing in Florida, but if Ohio had swung that would have done it as well. There was so much grotesque, overt fraud in the Ohio election results it is astonishing. Everybody who writes about it—there is books written about it, you can download PDFs, it is all laid out in gory detail, clearly stolen. Gore tossed his hat in three hours after Ohio came in. Like he has got people that can look at that and say "this is fraud; let's contest it." But he didn't. It was like… That is when I knew that I was watching a WWF fixed fight. I wasn't watching an actual boxing match. I was watching something more fraudulent than that.

To me, seeing those same tricks being done now mostly in service of Hillary at this point against Bernie, young people are waking up to this and going "hey, wait a minute. This really stinks to high heaven here."

Dave Janda: Look at how more aware people are today with what has been going on with Hillary and Bernie. Look at what people are seeing with Cruz and Trump where all of a sudden people are going "wait a minute…" With Cruz and Trump, all of a sudden you are given – nobody takes a vote but you are giving all the votes to one guy. Back in 2004 people would say, "I think you got it wrong, you got the facts wrong, that couldn't have happened."

I agree with you, Chris. Some of this I have to give credit to actually Ron Paul because Ron Paul had a pretty big movement four years ago especially with the college kids, which—and I have college age kids myself. I can tell you they kind of locked onto what he was saying. They are like "you know, Dad, you have been saying this for a long time. Ron Paul is saying this now. It is all kind of adding up." This has been like a snowball coming down the hill and it has been gathering momentum, as much as the globalists want to slow it down. And that is why I think, Chris you are seeing some things happening around the world that to me indicate the globalists are panicking and they are desperate because they believe the populous is awakening.

Let's say there are, I don't know, a thousand in the highest echelon—the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, all those dweebs—a thousand of them. There are hundreds of millions of us. That is what they don't want people to realize, that the power is with us useless eaters. And when the power of a useless eater is generated in a positive manner against the globalist syndicate, they don't stand a chance. I think they are panicked. I think they are desperate.

I think one of the other entities that brought some of this awakening on, Chris, is Obamacare. You know when I – I had been working on healthcare policy as I mentioned for a number of years with the Reagan administration, not that Bush one or two listened to me or Clinton listened to me – but in 2009… One of the fallacies—and this is something that 99% of folks in our country do not realize—Obamacare was two parts. The second part was the healthcare bill. The first part of Obamacare was actually hidden in the stimulus bill. Over the years in Washington I had developed a network of people still in government… there are some good people in government. They are not all bad. There are some really good people in government that are trying to fight for the freedoms around our country. It just so happens the globalists have been dominant over the years. But there are still some freedom fighters within our government. There are some folks that contacted me back in 2009 before the stimulus bill came out, right after Obama was elected and took office in January 2009, and people called me up from DC and said "something is going on with healthcare because of the meetings we are seeing in the West Wing. Keep your antennae up because they are going to try something."

When they passed the stimulus bill I had enough experience in Washington where I knew there was something hidden in the stimulus bill, that it wasn't really about shovel ready jobs, because the stimulus bill was found to be a sham when it came to the creation of jobs. I knew there was something in there associated with a big, big agenda item. I had been given a heads up that the first push that Obama was going to make was in healthcare and to take control, because it is all about control—take control of healthcare delivery. What I was told by folks in Washington in a number of different circles. Look, if they can control your health they can control every aspect of your life and every business' life. That is why they were going for healthcare first.

The Congressional budget office downloaded the stimulus bill about 1:00 in the morning. I wake up, set the alarm, wake up - -my wife thinks "Dave I am sure there is not…" I go "there is something in here. I know it." And it was hundreds of pages long. I think it was around page 300 and something in the stimulus bill and all of a sudden there it was. Back in the 90s I was brought to Washington actually by Senator Dole who said to me – who was the senate majority leader at the time— "you know, Dave, you kind of look at things differently. Reagan loved you. You and another person, I want you to look at Hillarycare and tell us what is right about it and what is wrong about it." We found a couple of things that were right, Chris, and a lot of things that were wrong. And they used that to help blow apart Hillarycare—which actually led to my first interaction with the IRS, a nice audit that happened very soon after that.

So I had a background with healthcare policy and how these guys try to sneak stuff through and I am reading through the stimulus bill and I come to page 300 and something and there it is, it was like here I am looking at Hillarycare again. In particular—there are two parts. In the stimulus bill – this is something the mainstream media has never reported on, and God knows, Chris, I have tried. With all my media contacts in my prevention work I called every major news outlet about this finding. Not one of them did anything on it. They didn't deny what I was telling them. I did get feedback saying "Dave, we can't go there." Which all kind of goes to the fact that the mainstream media is owned and operated by the same globalist network, which I think is a point of fact.

In the stimulus bill here is the first thing that came out – I realized, and here it is in black and white writing, there is a rationing board created in the stimulus bill. Not in the healthcare bill. This is the stimulus bill. It was called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Chris Martenson: Say that again?

Dave Janda: Yea it was a rationing board created in the stimulus bill called the Federal Coordinating Counsel for Comparative Effectiveness Research and I will get into that in a second – there was an enforcement board created called the Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. Now how do I know that first board is a rationing board? Because of the words "comparative effectiveness." Comparative effectiveness was developed in the British healthcare model. A model I had studied extensively, and actually a model that was partly implemented in Canada where I did my fellowship. So I had experience and when I saw "comparative effectiveness" I said "bam there is a rationing board." The definition of "comparative effectiveness," Chris, is the approval or rejection of a treatment or test based on two things: The cost of the treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit. Cost of the treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit. It was a rationing formula that was developed in the British healthcare model. It was also implemented in the Canadian healthcare model. And here I was staring at it in the stimulus bill, the first part of Obamacare.

How do I know that second board, the National Coordinator's Office for Information Technology, was an enforcement board? Because here is a direct quote from the stimulus bill: The National Coordinator's Office will "guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." The Coordinator's Office will be responsible for monitoring treatments to ensure providers, doctors, and hospitals are following government protocols. It went on. Hospitals and providers that are not "meaningful users of the new system" will face penalties, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services can impose more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.

Now, that had passed in February of 2009, about three weeks after Obama took the Oath of Office twice. I was asked in July of 2009 to come to Washington and to present at a Congressional dinner as the keynote speaker to members of the House about what was happening in healthcare reform. This was scary, Chris.

Here I am supposedly in the bastion of freedom and democracy in the Capitol building at this big Congressional dinner, republicans in the room, independents in the room and some democrats in the room. Pelosi didn't make it because she was all upset that I was there because I was you know – I'm not a globalist. But there were both parties, mainly republicans, most independents and some democrats in the room. I put this information up on a PowerPoint in front of them. Now, these are the people that passed the stimulus bill, right? Chris, there are – I would say there were dozens and dozens of congressman in the room, they all had four or five staff members in this big room. There are a lot of people in the room. When I put this information up in front of them there were about two people who knew that this stuff was in what they passed. They are all looking around the room going "we passed that? We voted on that? That was in there?"

When I got to the part where I said "look, I am really troubled by all of this, but tell me what this means: 'Hospitals and providers that are not meaningful users of the system – the new system,' (Obamacare) 'will face penalties and the Secretary of Health and Human Services can impose more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.'" I go "does this mean that that coordinating council, that comparative effectiveness, will create these protocols based on the rationing of care and then if I don't follow those protocols I can be fined?" A congressman stood up, looked at me and he goes, "Dr. Janda that is exactly what it means." I go "so what are we talking about here?" When these protocols kick in—and right now it appears to be they are going to start to be phased in starting January 2017—wonder why I am going to get done in December of 2016, Chris? When the protocols start to be implemented… So a patient comes into a room, the doc comes into the room, we have our handheld devices now – electronic medical records. Remember, electronic medical records are not meant for patient benefit. They are meant for control.

We will put in a code of the diagnosis that will go to the insurance company and go to Washington. While we are still in the room it will come back with the protocol how we are supposed to treat the patient. According to this Congressman, he said—and this is back in 2009—he goes, "Dr. Janda, if you don't follow that protocol, even though you think it might be wrong, if you don't follow that protocol you are in violation of the law." I go "well what does that mean? Does that mean I am going to, you know, I am going to get fined for – I am going to get paid $20 to see the patient and you are going to fine me $100?" He said, "No, you are not going to feel that. It could mean on your first offense you are fined $100,000. It is at the discretion of the Health and Human Services Secretary and basically Janda, because you have been so outspoken about this I wouldn't doubt that they fine you $100 grand on your first offense." I go "well what happens if I keep doing this? It says in the stimulus they can impose more stringent measures. What does that mean? They are going to fine me $101,000 the second time I don't follow the protocol even though I know it is wrong?" He says, "No, Dr. Janda, you could well go to jail."

Chris, I started laughing. I thought it was a joke. I was the only one in the room laughing. They are all kind of looking at me. You know, Chris, the last question a Congressman asked me at that dinner keynote address I gave, a congressman stood up and goes, "Dr. Janda, I am going to be doing some interviews on the networks on Sunday morning." He goes, "If somebody asks me what is one word to describe Obamacare—" because remember, Pelosi and the powers that be were trying to jam the healthcare bill through before the end of July of 2009. Now that didn't happen until March 2010 because we caused such a fuss about all of this. But he said "what is the one word I should give if somebody asks me 'what is the best way to describe Obamacare and healthcare reform as it is currently being rolled out' – what is the one word to describe that to the public?" And I start thinking, Chris, malignant, cancerous – and then it came to me – my mom was a history teacher and she taught me about a system where you have authoritarian nationalism that penalizes and punishes anyone and everyone who opposes the state – that is fascism. I looked at this congressman and I said "if you are asked what the one word is sir, the answer is fascist."

Chris Martenson: Dave, let me ask you a question – the timing of all this seems – let me see if I have the dots right. So this has snuck through this stimulus bill. This is just a few weeks post inauguration. Presumably they didn't cobble this together in a few weeks, but you gave me another clue which is that you recognized the language because it had been in place in the UK. I consider the UK to be like the ultimate nanny state – millions of cameras everywhere and people very extremely locked down culturally in terms of what they can and cannot do. People there aren't even allowed to defend themselves in their own homes from break-ins. There is a very strong sense that the government needs to be providing for the "useless eaters" as you are calling them, but we might say the common person. It feels to me that whatever that agenda has gotten picked up and dropped into our shovel ready so called stimulus bill. To me it sounds like this has been in the works well before Obama obviously. Is that true and who is driving this?

Dave Janda: The globalists. And in that group I would put folks that we commonly talk about that are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the insurance industry, big pharmaceutical companies. I believe this was long in the works, Chris. And what they needed to do is they needed a puppet that was willing to lie willingly to the public to put this over the top to implement it. In fact, one of the criticisms I had when I first started talking about all of this – and this is why I believe they chose Obama, because it made it very easy for them. Most people, when they are leveled with this charge, shrink and they go away. The criticism that first came at me by the truckload was the reason why I was opposed to Obamacare was because I was a racist. Chris, I am a surgeon. I have been in clinical practice for 27 years, I was a resident for five years before that. I have been involved in surgery—and then four years before medical school – 36 years of my life I have been in an operating room.

Chris, let me tell you something, when you lay that scalpel on a person's skin, after you get through the first two millimeters, here is the revelation to people who say that: We are all pink. And I have never met a surgeon or anyone who has ever set foot in an operating room who is a racist because it becomes very apparent after the first two seconds here in an operation we are all the same.

When I came out with this criticism and expose that Obamacare had hidden in it a ration-based program, that is why I was against it. Whether it was an insurance or government bureaucrat doing it, rationing is rationing. It is the most unethical and inhuman means of cutting healthcare costs. That is what Obamacare is based on. That is what Hillarycare was based on. Let's not let the Bush's out of this – they didn't impose any meaningful healthcare reform because they were told not to because their handlers, the globalists and the insurance industry, were telling them "don't do anything. Just shut the hell up and keep things going and everything is okay."

Chris Martenson: Let's put this in perspective for people who think that the military industrial complex is strong, of course it is. Of course it is. We spend a trillion a year on it. But healthcare is $3.8 trillion, it is a very, very large number. Obviously, there is a lot of power invested in this particular angle. Dave, a lot of people this year are going to be surprised and shocked at the increases in their healthcare premiums because of course, as I mentioned in the intro, the group that got left out of needing to control their costs were the health insurers. It is shocking to me – if you pull up the top 10 CEO pay for health insurers you get some shocking numbers – people who think it is in their duty to take home 10, 20, 30 sometimes more than $100 million dollars a year in pay because they are worth it. And that is just the CEO. Let's put the rest of the C suite in there, the COO, the CFO and all the other assorted hangers on and other people. Dave, I bet I can find a super qualified person to run a healthcare business like that for no more than a million bucks. But here we are with people, just the health insurance industry… I was talking with somebody who just came out – I was talking with a Senator and the Senator had described Obamacare as the single largest giveaway to the health insurance industry in its entire existence, and that is saying something.

Dave Janda: That is correct. The reason that is correct is as I mentioned the insurance industry is who was behind writing Obamacare along with the globalist network. You see, all you have to do Chris is look at the stock prices of insurance companies. Look at the stock price of United Healthcare in February of 2009 when the first part of Obamacare passed, and look at it now – 600, 800% increase. They have made out like banshees. They have a product that has been mandated by government that people have to buy. Imagine if Chris and Dave got together and we decided we were going to make this kind of cool type of fried donut, right? Something that nutritionally isn't very good, right? You and I decide we are going to make this and you know what - -we got a couple of buddies that are in Congress. Let's get them on board and let's get them to pass a law that says that everybody has to eat a fried donut every day. And let's also get them on board to say that if people don't eat a fried donut every day, we will have the IRS come down and kick your door in because you didn't buy a fried donut every day. And that is exactly what has happened.

The insurance industry – this is beyond a giveaway, this is criminal what has occurred with Obamacare. Because what Obamacare is about is insurance companies, as you mentioned, drastically increasing premium charges. I mean all you have to do is look at these guys – Oregon announced just yesterday their healthcare just their exchange in Obamacare they are increasing their pricing 29.6%. For next year. For next year. If you look at the cost of premiums of what has happened since 2009, they have gone through the roof. In the same time, people are having higher copays, higher deductibles and it is leading to the rationing of care. Chris, it is a beautiful business model if you are a sociopath, and that is what these people are.

Chris Martenson: You mentioned Dave that you were audited once. How many times have you been audited? Are you being audited personally or business?

Dave Janda: Right after myself and another guy gave all the information to Dole that ended up taking out Hillarycare—that was in 1994—my wife and I were audited every year from 1995 through 2000, to when Clinton left office. When were audited, it was very interesting, Chris, the IRS guys were actually very nice to us and apologetic. And every year they call us up, they tell us we are being audited and they go "you realize why you are being audited?" I go "yes." They go "we are very sorry." I say "I understand. Just be fair and be honest and let's move on." And they never found a thing. Now let me tell you about the last time we were audited. Drastically different.

In June, remember I spoke in 2009 in Congress. I have been all over the media. I have this radio show that started in March or October of 2010 Operation Freedom out there pounding about the hazards of Obamacare and many other items, and going after the globalists on many different fronts. I have a YouTube out there – somebody taped me doing one of my presentations and he cut it down into six minutes. It is on YouTube. Supposedly, I am told, it is the highest rated and viewed YouTube clip on a public policy issue—that being Obamacare—over 2.9 million hits. That has driven as I am told internally within the Obama administration has driven them insane because here I am – it was from 2010, I am laying it all on the line, and everything I have said has turned out to be correct.

June of 2013 I get a notice in the mail. "You are being audited." I anticipated this was going to happen because I went through that with the Clintons. I was kind of surprised it hadn't happened before. The notice said "you are being audited for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012." Okay. We pay the IRS—my wife and I—a lot of money every year. We have no offshore investments, Chris. We pay for our kids' education, which was very expensive. We take, you know, basic vacations. We don't do a lot of business expenses or anything like that. We donate a lot of money to charity. My accountant says "I'm surprised you guys are getting audited like this." I go "I'm not." I go "when you go into the room with the auditors and the IRS, ask one question – ask them why we are being audited." He goes, "Dave, they are not going to – what do you think they are going to say?" I go "I think they are going to tell you it is because of me and my mouth and telling the truth." He goes "Dave they are not going to say that. They are already getting some heat about looking at Tea party organizations and stuff." I said "look at what they are looking at, the years 2010, 2011, 2012." I go "go ask them the question."

He meets with the IRS auditors. He calls me. He says, "So Dave, I want you to sit down." I go "why?" He said, "I am going to tell you something here that happened." I go "what happened?" He said, "I walked in the room and I did what you told me to do. I knew that they weren't going to come up with anything. I said 'you know the Jandas are wondering why they are being audited; they pay a lot of money and they don't have any weird investments or offshore – why are they being audited?'" He said, "Dave the auditor looked at me and said "it starts—" direct quote Dave: "It starts with his radio show." I go "yea." That audit, Chris, lasted from June of 2013 to March of 2014. Nine months.

Let me give you an example of what they did. Chris, I lecture around the country and other places around the world too. When I lecture around the country on Obamacare, I refuse payment. I refuse to get paid. I am doing it for my patriotic duty. But when I go to these places and I spend my own money to fly there, spend my own money to stay at a hotel, spend my own money on food and not get reimbursed, to me that is a legitimate business expense. Our accountants felt the same way. So the accountants – as the IRS guys are going through this, they go "well Janda speaks all over the country on this healthcare policy stuff." He goes "yea." "Well he doesn't report any income from that." "Well that is because he refuses to get paid." He goes, "Well we have never heard of that." He goes "well now you have." "Well why would he refuse to get paid?" "Because he believes it is his patriotic duty to inform people of what is really going on. The mainstream media refuses to talk about it." "Oh." "Well we want documentation from these organizations that he lectured to around the country for the past 2010, 2011 and 2012 that he didn't get paid." "Okay."

I save emails of people thanking me. We redacted people's names. We redacted their email addresses but we left in there the fact that in these notes that were sent to me "we really appreciate you doing this and the fact that you didn't accept any fee, speaking fee." I am not Hillary Clinton, right? "You didn't accept any speaking fee, we really appreciate that." We turned that over to the IRS. They came back and go "well, we want further proof that he spoke at all these events." "Alright, what kind of proof do you want?" "We want programs from these events at all of these places he spoke around the country for those three years." I save programs so we gave them the programs. They go "okay, okay well you have that. Well just because his name is on the program we want documentation that he actually spoke at these events." We said "you already got the letters saying that he didn't accept the speaking fee –" "well we want further corroboration." More emails, redacted names, redacted addresses, here you go. Then they got that. Here is what they said next: "We have everything now so we will approve these deductions but we need one more piece of information." "What is that?" "We want the names of every person that was in all these audiences the last three years because we want to make sure there weren't any federal officials in the crowd because if there were that means he would be lobbying federal officials and you can't claim that as a deduction." Okay? Now that is when our accountants told them to go stuff it.

This is how crazy it got, Chris. And it became very obvious as the audit went along that the way the audit could end quickly is if I stopped doing my radio show. Well, Chris that show is still going today.

Chris Martenson: Dave that is just – you know what you are making me think is maybe House of Cards ought to be nominated for the best reality show of the past few years because you are describing the Underwood's, whether it was under prior administrations. Again, equal opportunity basher in this case – this is happening, but there is a system here that is hell bent on just using and leveraging power. This is what I think people are beginning to wake up to. I am increasingly encouraged by that. I am discouraged by the degree to which still things like common sense and science do not yet have a full seat at the table.

In your mind here, as we come to the close of this, how do we begin to fix this—we call it a healthcare system, I call it a sick care system—how do we really begin to fix this system in this country? We have to tackle a seven-headed hydra or is there a way that individuals can begin to work at their level? How do we do this?

Dave Janda: Here is my approach to how this comes to an end. The people in Washington—I believe 99% of them are owned and operated by a criminal international banking syndicate, of which the insurance industry is a part of, as is big pharma. These people in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter – they are deathly afraid of two things. One, not having enough money to run for re-election. It is money that is very plentifully given to them by the criminal syndicate. They try to shake down us useless eaters because let's face it – the less money all of us useless eaters have, the harder it is for us to rebel against the syndicate, right? It is kind of like they want to, if you will, they want to pick our pockets as much as they can, whether it is taxes or donations to them because they want us poor. If we are poor then we are an easier target.

Number one, don't donate to those guys. Any of them. Here is what they are afraid of – they are afraid—because they will always have enough money given to them by the globalists. The second thing they are afraid of—this is with me having experience from 1988 to the present. The second thing they are afraid of is a populous that realizes and is awakened and knows what is going on and realizes that they are on the wrong side of it. They know no matter how the machines are rigged, if they are in such disfavor, no matter how badly those machines are rigged in their favor, it doesn't matter. Because when the public gets wise, they vote with their feet and they vote to get them out of office. That is what they are deathly afraid of. All you have to do to think about that is Eric Canner with the Republican Party. Right? You can't tell me those machines weren't rigged in his favor, yet he lost. He lost because it was such an overwhelmingly "get the bum out" that that is why he lost. And you see that is what they are all afraid of. They are petrified of that. There is only so many times, there is only so many votes the globalists can throw their way. The first thing that everybody in our country needs to do is you go to every elected official and say number one, "you need to immediately vote to repeal this law immediately. And if you don't I will talk to every family member, I will talk to every neighbor, we will mobilize in force against you and make sure that you don't even make it through the primary election. And, in fact, we will even push for you to be recalled."

Let me tell you something – many people think they don't have any power. That is what the media that is owned by the globalist syndicate, that is what the politicians, that is what the globalists want everybody to think that they don't have power. We have power in numbers and we have to use those numbers to get these scum out of there. And anyone who ever voted for Obamacare, anyone who continues to push Obamacare or any aspect of it needs to go. Let me give you a good example – there was something that passed recently called the doc fix which is supposedly going to help docs so that their payments are protected when it comes to Medicare. BS. It is called MACRA. What MACRA is is the extension arm of Obamacare. We just got the rules the other day. The printed rules of this MACRA that both republicans and democrats voted for and approved and voted into being implemented. Chris, last Thursday they came to our office and my office manager comes to me and says "Dave, everything you said, Dave… here you go again. Proven right again." She goes "we just got this book based on this MACRA legislation that was based on Obamacare. It is 962 pages of the regulations we have to implement in order to take care of patients."

Chris Martenson: 962 pages.

Dave Janda: That came on Thursday. On Friday came a 500-page manual of how to interpret the 962 pages. What it talked about, what it focused about was the use of electronic medical records. Remember we talked about them in the stimulus bill, the National Coordinators Office of Information Technology, direct extension of that, and it talked about protocols. Remember the Comparative Effectiveness Counsel. The same part of Obamacare that was talked about in the stimulus bill. The only way this ends is for people—this is not a spectator sport. They can't sit on the bench any longer. They have to be mobilized and they have to confront – I am not saying you beat up, I am not saying violence here. I am saying verbally confront every person in Congress and tell them "it is immediately repealed or you are done. You are gone. It is repealed or you are voted out in the primary." And Chris, when that starts to happen, this thing goes away. It implodes because it is imploding on itself.

The problem is what the powers that be are going to push here—this is what the insurance companies have decided. They knew this was not going to work but they are going to get a huge amount of money out of it, and the next thing they are going to push for, Chris, is a single payer system. As Obamacare falls they are going to push for a single payer system and insurance companies like United Healthcare and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Group and Humana have already divided up the country about how they are going to administer a single payer plan. And we have to make sure that because this thing has been rigged to implode, we have to make sure that what is not put in its place is a single payer system, but free market reforms that utilize health savings accounts, that utilize prevention and wellness, that utilize selling insurance across state lines. Oh my gosh can you imagine insurance companies rather than colluding actually have to compete?

Chris Martenson: That would be very good for me because there is insurance just 10 miles from me up in Vermont that I would love to get. Can't get it here. It is legislatively been forbidden that they operate here. So I totally get that.

Dave, we are unfortunately out of time. I hope we can do this again because there is so many areas we didn't even cover yet. I understand completely why it is that you are retiring this year and what I am looking forward to, if I can say it this way, that you will have more time to take your talent, your efforts and put them where they are really, really needed. I am sure you are a fantastic orthopedic surgeon but I think your talents are needed to help get us more generally and broadly out of this mess that we are in. People can find you at www.davejanda.com and your Operation Freedom can also be found there at davejanda.com/operation-freedom with a hyphen between operation and freedom. Does that about cover it for you?

Dave Janda: That covers it, Chris. I want to thank you for all your efforts over the years. As I said at the beginning I have been a big fan of you and your efforts. I really think that we have the power and we truly are awakening the public. As the public awakens I think the globalists go down for the count.

Chris Martenson: Well that is from your lips to God's ears. Of course I am a huge fan of the fact that we do have the power. That is an important message. So much money in marketing has been spent to convince us that we do not have the power, but we do have the power. Very encouraging. Dave, again thank you so much for your time and for the work that you are doing in the world.

Dave Janda: Thank you, Chris for all that you are doing as well and thank you for giving me the opportunity.

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

44 Comments

efarmer.ny's picture
efarmer.ny
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 7 2012
Posts: 63
Download Version Error

The download link gives us a version with only about 30 minutes of content.

The Youtube version is complete, so listentoyoutube.com is my friend again.

Feel free to delete this comment when the download problem is fixed.

-Casey-'s picture
-Casey-
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 12 2013
Posts: 78
A sobering conversation

That was the most difficult podcast I've heard since I joined the site, I had to sit down more than once.  This is getting beyond my ability to process. 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
talk radio voice

So while I found the guy's message interesting, I found I had to turn his audio down because his "talk radio voice" completely turned me off and was really starting to get on my nerves.  I had to work really hard to look past that and listen to what he was saying.

Specifically, I noticed that he overtalked Chris a number of times - and Chris was definitely not a hostile interviewer.  I have the sense Dr Dave might be a disagreeable dinner guest.  "Nobody else here has anything interesting to say - you all have to listen to me."  And at a high volume, too.

Its what I totally dislike about US television and talk radio these days.  As soon as I hear "that voice", I switch the station.  I really do not like being yelled at.  (Hmm.  I wonder why that triggers me so?  Something for me to look at.)

The sad thing is, I was actually pretty interested in the subject matter.  Clearly my insurance costs are going up, someone is making lots of money at it, it all seems very well-organized, and prevention doesn't seem to be high on anyone's list.  The bits and pieces of his evidence made sense to me, and it seems supported by other things I've read in other areas of the sickcare system.  And when he said it in a normal tone of voice, I found it fascinating.

 

Tim Ladson's picture
Tim Ladson
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2012
Posts: 78
Connecting the Dots

Thanks Chris,

Dave Janda is truly a "fascinating" guest who connects an incredible number of incriminating political and medical dots. The amount of first hand information he presents is overwhelming.

Dave F. - I would call him passionate, maybe because he has been on the front lines of the sausage making, been hounded relentlessly for telling the truth, and wants to awaken those of us sleeping on the cattle cars headed to the slaughter house before he is the beneficiary of further attempts at attitude adjustment.

Tim.     

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
Anecdote

My friend who practiced at Stanford and UT-SW left medicine in 2004.  He told me Medicare patients would compete against each other to see who could bill the highest.   I guess when you are obese and sick that is the only way to compete since there is no incentive to get healthy.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2041
Triangular Relationship--inevitable troubles

It seems to me that there are a couple of basic mal-incentives and maladaptive beliefs that bring lots of trouble to attempts to get medical care.  The biggest is the triangular relationship and the administrative system it is embedded in to referee the relationships.

Triangular relationship

Because the relationship and issues are so complex, an abundance of rules, procedures and bureaucracies regulate "the game."

  • The patient -- wants to be well, have medical fears allayed, not spend much effort or money have help when needed, gain access to off-work notes, narcotics, medications, treatments and tests desired.
  • The doctor -- wants to earn money, do what he/she believes is "right," be protected from liability, and (most) to feel they are caring for people.
  • The Payor -- wants to show a profit, ensure that no experimental, unproven or unnecessary treatments are utilized, continue to collect premiums from patients in the years to come, and continue to hold a contract with doctors (hospitals and medical groups) for discounted contractual care in the future.
  • Regulatory administrative systems.  The complexity of the system ensures that armies of compliance officers and analysts are employed to ensure rules are followed to the letter.  Each use statistics and  rules to gain $$.

Gone are the days when a family with a sick child would give the doctor a chicken for making a house call.

LesPhelps's picture
LesPhelps
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2009
Posts: 811
I struggled at first

I struggled with the podcast at first.  The pace of Dave's delivery bothered me more than volume.  He also threw in some tin foil hat catch phrases before he completely confirmed his credentials with content.

However, by 10 minutes into the podcast, I was captivated.  It is one of the most concerning podcasts I've listened to thus far. I do not want to live in a society where the government or the insurance companies who control the government, tell a doctor what my treatment should be.

Somewhat corollary, I have two daughters who are nurses in large North Texas hospitals.  They tell me that most of their patients are in the hospital due to self inflicted conditions, such as extreme obesity, diabetes caused by obesity and drug addiction related issues.  They also portray these patients as the worst sort of patients, who go out of their way to mistreat hospital nursing staff.

Our country has clearly lost it's way.

Kudos for this podcast Dave and Chris.  Please do it again.

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 267
Sobering Indeed

Like the others above, my better half and I found David's delivery at first too strident, too much like certain other ulcer-inducing podcasters whom I avoid. Indeed, if this hadn't been a PP podcast I might have stopped listening. But we continued to listen, accepted his Reagan White House credentials as true, and sat appalled. He is clearly an angry and worried man, and with good reason.

We fervently hope and pray that David's assurances that the people are waking up and terrifying the globalists is true. Oh please....

I live in Australia where tt is abundantly clear that this parasitical system is being pushed onto and sneaked into the Australian healthcare system. Compared to the US we still have a humane system, one that does not bankrupt its users, and is cherished by the people generally who have the clear example before them from the US of how NOT to run a healthcare system.

However it's under stress as costs rise and rise, thanks hugely to the public's chronically poor dietary habits and sedentary way of life, and our federal government is forever looking for ways to make the people pay and pay. If the TPP ever gets up, the floodgates will open.

 

H.L. Mencken observed that "every man is ashamed of his own country." That goes for me too.

 

debu's picture
debu
Status: Silver Member (Online)
Joined: Aug 17 2009
Posts: 237
TTP/TTIP

It's all of a piece with the push to have TTP/TTIP passed.

If they are indeed enacted collapse will be the only way to get out from under them.

On another note, I, too, find the up-down dichotomy much more useful than right-left. Looking at politics through an up/down prism really casts things in a different light which can be confusing initially but ulitmately clarifying.

 

 

 

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
Mal-Incentive Example

The same friend PhD, M.D., MBA I mentioned above was in the running to be president of a very well known hospital.   When he lost, he went to the President of the Selection Committee to ask why he had lost given his extremely high patient ratings.   The President said those credentials are good but aren't as important with having a plan to keep the beds full.

So if the incentive is to fill beds (my current private doctor left for the same reason of wanting to prevent sickness not treat it), health will NOT follow.

sjpandolph's picture
sjpandolph
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 23 2009
Posts: 13
Hi Tech act

I am pleased to finally hear a fellow physician tell the truth about health care. For anyone interested, the part of the stimulus bill he was referring to was called the Hi Tech act. It received little press coverage partly because all the medical societies backed it as a good idea. I did not and wrote to my two Senators outlining the problems with them. I received a form letter from one of them. The negative effects have transformed health care delivery. It has resulted in the closures of hundreds of small medical practices in this country, often forcing patients to see doctors in large health care systems. These doctors usually have their faces glued to the computer asking questions about where the guns are stored. These behaviors are strongly encouraged by the Hi Tech act. I would encourage anyone to do their own research by using the key words above. I have practiced family medicine since 1981 and I believe this piece of legislation has done incredible harm to our health care system. The purpose clearly was not to improve things, but to consolidate massive amounts of personal health data that can be accessed at any time legally by government officials. Read the HIPPA regulations if you are skeptical. The remainder of Obama Care is becoming well recognized as anchor pulling our country down to the bottom. I believe it will be the equivalent to the Smoot-Hawley  tarriff that led us into the great depression. We will be lucky if our depression lasts only 10 years.

Mots's picture
Mots
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 18 2012
Posts: 198
very good podcast

Thank you Chris for an extremely good and useful podcast.  I will now enroll and spend some more money on this site, particularly since you are doing more Charles Smith interviews.

Regarding audio etc. quality.  There clearly is overmodulation / overdrive somewhere in the audio amplifying chain. that is the only criticism.

RoseHip's picture
RoseHip
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 5 2013
Posts: 150
Health taxing

and much like the F 35s and housing crisis on we grow tossing around money taxing the healthy and lowering cost for the sickest. Accumulating and passing on genetic damages from environmental toxins, psychological traumas from war, gluttony with spiritual degradation on all fronts. All for what? So some health executive can feel superior. All Regardless of incomes, affordability, sound money or any decent incentive structure to guide investments. We are acting reckless in search of a sharp reality orienting apparatus. For forks sake, I think we all need to become a little more passionate!

berensma's picture
berensma
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 10 2011
Posts: 14
He mistook comparative effectiveness for cost-effectiveness

Fact check on one of Dr Janda's claims re health care rationing and the funding of comparative effectiveness research for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) does not take medical costs into account--it looks at the comparative clinical efficacy and safety of different treatments. You can make deeper inferences if you apply drug cost data to CER, but that is not what CER focuses on.

On the other hand, cost-effectiveness research applies efficacy + safety, cost of care, life years gained and other factors into mathematical models to determine which drugs to approve for coverage and the order in which they are used. It was developed in the UK and is used widely in Europe, Latin America and other regions where decisions for a large number of people are made at a national level.

Cost-effectiveness research findings are actually prohibited for consideration as part of US Federal healthcare decision-making, and it is made explicit that CER funding through the Affordable Care Act cannot consider cost-effectiveness parameters. Nor can Medicare or other Federal programs take cost-effectiveness into consideration (although this information can be and is used by other health care payers in the US). Here's an article about what happened:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/cost-effectiveness-analysis...

I'm also not happy with Obamacare, and agree that the HiTech Act is a disaster. But I had to offer this correction. I'll get off my geek chair now.
 

Mots's picture
Mots
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 18 2012
Posts: 198
Difficult (unpopular) but logical observation

Every medical care system is triaged and rationed by limited resources.  Rationing is a fact of life.  This is especially the case wherein most medical attention/trips to the doctor are not necessary and do not lead to an improved outcome, even potentially and there is not enough resources to satisfy every person who "wants.".  Yes, it would be wonderful if the doctor had unlimited funds (preferably his) that he can spend based on his judgment on how best to help each patient.  No restriction, unlimited resources, great.

In a world of insufficient, and limiting resources, someone has to decide when to say no to expensive treatment.  Otherwise you have a few patients sucking out all resources and a larger number dying unnecessarily due to lack of resources. This is a basic arithmetic problem.  An example is liver transplants.  There is a secret formula used to make decisions on rationing the limited resources, from what  I have heard.  

Instead of "rationing" itself being painted as evil (whoever does this will be evil, as promoting death panels, even if it is the family itself (uncle Joe can live 3 months longer if someone spends 150,000$ on life prolongation procedures: if the family had to pay this, would they?  Who will voluntarily give up their house?)  so why is this arithmetic problem suddenly evil when the question is posed at a larger community-payor level?)  It is unfair to blame the government rationers, since they have some kind of responsibility to make sure that resources provide the most help for the most people.

The evil, in my opinion is NOT rationing per se , but instead a system run by MBAs INSTEAD OF DOCTORS to avoid health prevention, keep those hospital beds full, and DIVERT the limited resources into the pockets of extensive layers of completely unnecessary highly paid "financial (insurance/billing schemes) professionals.  That 4 times excess (20% GNP and growing) "medical costs" is MOSTLY MBA driven and completely wasteful and CAUSES most of the rationing limitations.  If we had a single payor system with NO insurance companies /billionaire/millionare financial scammers interposed between the limited pot of resources and the patient, the ration limits would be much higher and the ration formulas and decisions would be more firmly in the hands of health professionals. The actual ration limits are caused by the insurance and financial racketeers, not by government death panels who seem to be doing the best they can under the circumstances.  The government rationers now indirectly serve the racketeers by default, by lowering the amount of resources available because of politics that divert most of the money to the racketeers, and thereby depriving the people of "health care" (or sick care as more correctly termed by CH Smith).  In any kind of fair, just system you will have a limit on how much the doctor is allowed to spend (unless he is spending HIS money or his patient's money, in which case the society at large is not being tapped to DENY other patients for money in a zero sum game). Life is tough, there is not enough resources to go around, but those ration limits would be MUCH higher if we get rid of the parasite racketeers.  Living and using a single payor system extensively (and exploring the costs and noticing the much higher competitive business) outside the US) is a real eye-opening experience.  

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
rationing

Mots-

Your thoughts on rationing echo mine.  It seems like a requirement - there is no blank check - and it seems as though we have evolved from a system where the doctors used to be in charge to now where sickcare profit maximization runs everything.

I don't think the answer has to be single payer.  From what I recall of times past, US healthcare was actually pretty good and we didn't have a single payer system then.

Somehow it feels like the problem once again is concentration of power and cartel operations.  If we could diffuse ownership and keep those administrators down to a smaller salary, the sociopaths couldn't do as much damage as they do now.

It reminds me of banking.  You have 4 banks with most of the US deposits - that ends up being a cartel and they control government, with grossly inflated salaries at the top.  If you have 3 insurance companies and 3 drug companies and a lot fewer hospital owners, the same thing happens.  It also brings up a lot of new "harvest opportunities" too - encouraging the whole population to become unhealthy in order to maximize profits for the industry overall.  That's not something one evil hospital admin could do on his own, but a small group controlling the entire industry certainly could.

I think its all about concentration of ownership.

While I'm not specifically against singler payer - it seems to work in other places - I suspect if we got a single payer system and we kept the current set of cartels in place, probably nothing changes and the exorbitant cost remains, paid by the "single payer."

 

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 3 2014
Posts: 637
Where are the real costs?

Another example of part of the on-going "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" syndrome. When ever you involve an agent in the delivery of any service, you 1) increase the complexity of the system and 2) decrease it's effectiveness of delivering services, cost effectively. IMO, it is due to the old adage that, "too many cooks spoil the broth".

The recent situation in Alberta shows that they have gone through 7 CEO's of Health Services in 8 years, mainly due to lack of clear objectives, political interference and the resultant delays in decision making and implementation. Many of these individuals walk away from their positions and find other positions in other health care administrations. Many of the CEO positions salaries start in $500.000 range and come with sweet severance packages. In Alberta's situation, one individual left one province's health care bureaucracy to go to Alberta and left that position to take up a job in Australia's SA health system. Look around the developed world and you will find many health care systems suffering the same problems. Add in insurance company influence, and now you have a real "duck soup".

Solutions are few and the challenges many. As PP points outs, personal responsibility for your own health is where we start.

 

aggrivated's picture
aggrivated
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2010
Posts: 574
moral hazard and 'insurance'

I use insurance in quotes because it was developed to cover catastrophic risks in the shipping  industry as the British Empire was growing. Much of what we call insurance today is a mix of routine and catastrophic 'coverage'. If health insurance were treated like life insurance as a product covering catastrophic disease with premiums depending on what risk category you were in then us everyday citizens would have some sense of connection between life style choices and our cost of insurance.  The consequence of higher insurance with poor decisions creates an incentive to avoid poor life style decisions.  Beyond that there should be a separate set of professionals (these are already out there but are not fully appreciated by the medical profession) whose primary role is to on a personal level educate/test/evaluate the everyday way each of us lives. In a perfect world this part of care could/should be the concern of the public purse with much the same rationale as public education. Right now poor life style decisions risks are socialized every bit as much as big bank risk taking. That is the moral hazard.

Now before you invite me to get my head out of the clouds I will admit this is a plan that will never be implemented as long as the current Hydra like system exists. The corruption runs too deep and the design flaws have been perpetuated by selfish people preying on our own fears of disease and death. 

It is helpful to me though to think about life this way.  I educated my kids to live this way and try to be a mentor worthy of my words by my example. I see Adam and Chris doing the same, as I would also expect of many PP participants.

The next step in this process is to explore ways to minimize  financial exposure to those who are married to the current system.  That is something I would like to see explored with some interviews with possibly some Amish or representatives of other groups who have chosen to work outside of the current health(sick)care paradigm.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2892
berensma's picture
berensma
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 10 2011
Posts: 14
More thoughts

Am really enjoying this discussion. Returning to the rationing theme--I agree with Mobs that this is actually a good idea. There are formulas that exist, and in a lot of cases they make sense. They were implemented by the United Kingdoms National Institute of Health. Chris expressed some discomfort with the NIH. It's totally true--the NIH is being privatized now, all bets are off, and things are going to get worse and worse for UK health outcomes. However, the NIH was once a really fantastic place—a public health school model of efficiency and a national system that people adored. And part of their success was because they base their decisions on economic and other types of disease-related modeling for long-term events.

Here’s a true example. The NIH asked the question: "What are the potential long-term downstream effects from mandating the chickenpox vaccine?" They developed a model comparing what it would cost to treat the chickenpox cases vs a: i) lifetime chickenpox boosters; and ii) a very high assessed potential for increased shingles incidence, across the lifespan. It looks like #ii is coming true. It’s a kind of long-term approach that we rarely touch with a 10-foot pole in the U.S. A notable exception is the liver transplant program that was mentioned previously.

That said, we TOTALLY have rationing in the U.S. The problem is, the rationing is occurring one way in Medicare, another way at private payers (and across private payers), and probably another way altogether in Medicaid (which I don’t know as much about). Then you have the VA….I could go on. The rationing is real, it’s happening right now and it has been for a while. It’s just different motivations driving different groups. My disagreement with Dr. Janda’s was that I don’t think the federal government is driving this—they are totally letting the private sector play their part. 

 

Mots's picture
Mots
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 18 2012
Posts: 198
The Solution: small community development

I have discussed this problem with older doctors who all said the same thing: that the US used to have a great system of doctor owned and operated community hospitals until something happened starting in the 60s and 70s.  The MBAs came to town and literally took over (took legal ownership by buying out and then managing) via MBA trickery to maximize profit, without knowing, learning, or caring about the industry they took over.

But the transition from professionalism to MBA driven racketeering has occurred in all other fields of economic life at the same time.  I dont have time within this internet chit chat crap session to give my specific observations as a patent attorney watching the patents and businesses over the years devolve from new advances to improve quality of life down into protecting new scam technologies for fooling and cheating and maximizing deception (seen in pharmaceuticals as well as in internet technology, computer technology) but I personally have had it.  I recently abandoned my successful K street law office because the law no longer serves the people but is completely misused by large players who push the levers with their connections and power to screw everyone else, using every possible legal angle imaginable.  Everything (from a legal perspective) has been taken over.  Whether you consider the election selection system, the main stream media, the prison system, the patent system (the laws were changed to favor the rich over the inventor, to my astonishment and surprise), the food system etc.  It is over..  Time to leave.

But this is already known to readers at Martenson's PP.  This type of thing happened in Rome after it matured as an empire and came crashing down as an over-ripe rotten organization to be replaced eventually by something else.  The exciting and worthwhile activity is to identify and develop that something else.  For many reasons all such thinking leads to the same conclusion: small community development.  
1. we have all the world's technology for free at our fingertips. For the first time in human history, we can do it ourselves, we dont need Washington DC, Geneva Switzerland, Tokyo, London, the bank of ingternational settlements, international racketeers etc to provide us things.  We can develop direct relationships with producers (such as Chinese factories-this is easy to do) or make everything locally.
2. the most important things a. food b. water, c. energy (at least solar and wind) are easier and cheaper and better to get locally
3. all the answers: the rewarding jobs, meaningful existence in a world of robots who can replace the jobs, meaningful relationships, resiliency, achievement of real health goals, etc. are found locally.and ONLY locally

Because of 1, 2 and 3, we dont need the international bankers, the internationalists who own and operate Washington DC, Tokyo with their TPP, TIPP etc, the big banks etc. We can live better lives without them and THEY need US, not the other way around.

Small community development based medical care, disease prevention, banking, food/agriculture, energy, entertainment, etc. is exciting, and is THE answer to these basic problems. Moreover, this solution is not a 100% leave it or do it decision or requirement but each person can make small baby steps in this direction and feel good improving his or her lot incrementally.  Everyone feels this or thinks it already.  In fact, this is a main reason why people come to PP and follow C Martenson's and member examples. Many others report on their progress in the group section, but we need more specific tools for measuring incremental progress.  Continuing chit chat crap on one site in the internet is not the answer, especially given the fact that 99% or more of the best information (for information's sake) is NOT found on any one site, including this one.. Small community development efforts can be measured and assayed.  Individual efforts and successes can be measured and assayed. Having a "go to" place to find others is nice and done by a number of sites in addition to this one and can facilitate feel good kumbayas, but we need a better tool founded in diagnostic measures of incremental progress.  I am working on such tool but am overwhelmed with my energy project and have no time (www.yugeshima.com).

Anyway, my two cents: every effort towards small community development is a step in the direction of if not fixing the problem, at least creating a better alternative.  The future (for the minority who get it together in time) is in small communities.  It is easy to step towards food and energy (and in some part to health- consider Adam's posts) sufficiency, and I know some physicians are working towards medical care based on small community, but we need more information and discussion of alternative (non-MBA organized) health care development efforts at the small community level.  The last time I said this, I was castigated as not appreciating how great the groups section of this blog is or how great it can become.  But we need a better tool that can allow a person to measure and check each baby step in the path towards resiliency.  Making "contacts" and "finding solutions" is not difficult, considering how big the internet is, and the notion that one site such as this one is "the answer" is rather presumptive..  But, that is is a subject for another attention time frame...........
anyway, best wishes if you are still reading this unintentionally long diatribe....

 

AaronMcKeon's picture
AaronMcKeon
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2014
Posts: 76
Great Podcast!

Apart from having to keep adjusting the volume in the car (and apart from Chris getting minimal air time), I found this podcast to be exceptional! Not sure how much was embellished, but regardless this interview was very eye-opening for me and I hope he'll be back on PP again. Thanks, Chris, for bringing him on.

Quercus bicolor's picture
Quercus bicolor
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 19 2008
Posts: 470
Time2help wrote: Academies

Check out John Michael Greer's latest fictional installment for a take on how GMOs and corporate denail/hubris could be the spark that breaks up the union ...

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
Re: GMO TPTB News

 

Complete and utter bullshit!   I give up.  Sign me up for the Mars mission.

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
Trust Authority!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-18/elizabeth-holmes-admits-theranos-technolgy-fraud-restates-voids-years-test-results

Finally, the question everyone should be asking is who enabled this fraud for so many years?

 

Waterdog14's picture
Waterdog14
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 18 2014
Posts: 136
Glyphosate - trending
Time2help wrote:

The latest issue of Mother Earth News contains an interview with a retired genetic engineer (and former soil biologist) who spent his professional career advocating pesticides and did an "about face" in retirement as a serious gardener.  He gives an indepth (yet easy to understand) explanation of how glyphosate kills plants and microbes by chelating the manganese required to build a specific essential protein.  It's one of the best explanations I've read.  

http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/glyphosate-toxicity-interview-with-thierry-vrain-zm0z16jjzkin.aspx

If you think your gut microbiome and the earth's microbial life are important, avoid glyphosate (Roundup (r)) and 90+/-% of processed foods.  Does the health of our gut microbiome affect our likelihood of developing cancer?  You bet it does!

Does the sick care industry give a darn about this?  No.  More glyphosate = more cancer = more money for the sick care industry.   

Edwardelinski's picture
Edwardelinski
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2012
Posts: 338
Monsanto.What to believe?

Sharon Lerner wrote an investigative piece for the Intercept the other day stating the opposite.Maybe the science and environmental folks on this site could weigh in?Would be helpful.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5979
Worse than that!
Waterdog14 wrote:

The latest issue of Mother Earth News contains an interview with a retired genetic engineer (and former soil biologist) who spent his professional career advocating pesticides and did an "about face" in retirement as a serious gardener.  He gives an indepth (yet easy to understand) explanation of how glyphosate kills plants and microbes by chelating the manganese required to build a specific essential protein.  It's one of the best explanations I've read.  

http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/glyphosate-toxicity-interview-with-thierry-vrain-zm0z16jjzkin.aspx

If you think your gut microbiome and the earth's microbial life are important, avoid glyphosate (Roundup (r)) and 90+/-% of processed foods.  Does the health of our gut microbiome affect our likelihood of developing cancer?  You bet it does!

Does the sick care industry give a darn about this?  No.  More glyphosate = more cancer = more money for the sick care industry.   

I stopped my bolding of your sentence before the word 'cancer' because our gut biome is responsible for maintaining all sorts of homeostasis within our complex systems.  Wrecked and ineffective gut biomes are linked to:

  • Cancer
  • Obesity
  • Mental health
  • Autoimmune disorders
  • Autism

We are learning more and more every day.  as the excellent linked article explains Glyphosate inhibits the Shikimate protein pathway and that is found in plants and many bacteria.

Farmers spray Glyphosate on oats just prior to harvesting because it is an awesome drying agent.  Then they are harvested and go to market and people eat them.

But the heavily co-opted system of ""science"" in the US ignores such complex issues, tests Glyphosate on mammalian cells, sees no overt toxicity and declares it safe.  It's rubbish "science" and the people involved are all sell-out hacks.

But I digress.

The Glyphosate story is a prefect microcosm of everything that's wrong with the state of 'health' and science in the US today, but also many other places across the globe.  Money and globalism have won the day.

karenf's picture
karenf
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2010
Posts: 25
Dr. Janda

You guys continue to blow me away with the depth and breadth of your interviews.  I have listened to Dr. Janda over the years agreeing and not agreeing with some of his viewpoints.  Part of the reason I have not always been open to what he is saying is the way he says it  i.e. with the jargon of conspiracy and religion.   But you have taught me a lesson.  I should not let my filters limit me.  I thought I was pretty good at being open minded but you have taught me that there is a whole other level of looking past my triggers and listening and learning.  Thank you!

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2892
Re: GMO TPTB News
KugsCheese wrote:

Complete and utter bullshit!   I give up.  Sign me up for the Mars mission.

#Triggered wink

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2041
Old Friends: The Immune Modulating Effects of Gut Flora

Some of the best lectures on the impact of the gut microbiome on the immune system are sequestered behind paywalls at the Institute of Functional Medicine and Prothera.

But a lot is known and the literature supporting the impact of friendly bacteria on immune moderation is abundant (perhaps >10,000 research articles).

I am no immunologist, but a few slides summarize the big themes.  Gut bacteria can calm or activate the immune system.  Old Friends, the commensal populations that we humans co-evolved with, calm the immune system by activating the TReg (T Lymphocyte Regulatory Cells).  Other populations over activate the Th2 and Th1 segments (not good) giving allergic and autoimmune disease.

Human immune disturbances have played an increasing role in chronic disease.

And for the gluttons for punishment who crave information overload, a slide from this summary article

 

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2892
For Future Reference

TPTB News:

Mots's picture
Mots
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 18 2012
Posts: 198
glyphosate kills plants and microbes by chelating the manganese

I dont have time to digest all the studies and anyway, I agree with the conclusion of not using glyphosate.  However the basic "science" presented here is quack.  Glyphosate is not a great chelator (citric acid and tons of other stuff we use everyday in our shampoos and put into our mouths are probably better).  Glyphosate works as a very specific inhibitor of an enzyme involved in synthesizing certain branched chain amino acids.  This is because glyphosate chemically looks like an intermediate (transition state of a glycine substrate) and inactivates this specific enzyme by appearing to look like an intermediate in a reaction (binds the mouth part of the enzyme).  This is very analogous to how carbon monoxide destroys hemoglobin (carbon monoxide looks like CO2 and binds the active site of hemoglobin but does not let go, thereby gumming up and essentially destroying the molecule, and preventing oxygen transport).  Monsanto makes soybeans resistant to this specific inhibitor by putting in a new gene for a modified enzyme that does not bind this glycine-amino acid analogue in its active site.

If glyphosate were such a great chelator then it would at least be used as a chelator for some purpose somewhere in industry.  The fact that someone first made it in a search for improved chelators does not mean that it is a great chelator, and anyway all such small molecules are not specific and would bind calcium/copper/zinc and other things long before getting into a cell.  We use and eat humongous amounts of chelators that (as far as I can tell from my search on glyphosate chemistry) work to chelate metals better than glyphosate.    

I think that the science focus should be on the fact that synthesis of these branched chain amino acids is inhibited in gut flora, and that gut bacteria that are exposed to high enough levels of glyphoate are killed off.  A different flora result and change in immunomodulation etc. follows.  Just my two cents on where any informed discussion should go.

But the extreme effects of glyphosate on the environment in my opinion are much more damaging than effects on human health and are a bigger reason to shut down the Monsanto machine.  Anyone so interested in human health should be thousands of times more interested in attacking hedonism and gluttony as a way to prevent harm to human health.  But no one likes to look in the mirror and it is easy to blame our health problems on a known devil.

A major reason why Monsanto gets away with this crap is because so many of their detractors and attackers rely on junk science arguments, that are easy to disprove in a public forum, thereby painting silver caps on the opposition.  The more important story is how the soils have been changed for the worse, how biodiversity has been changed for the worse, use of legal machinery by Monsanto to destroy native biology (astounding how Monsanto is using the USDA to destroy native seed and other biology) and how microbes (to what extent and where) have been transformed.  

The glyphosate saga is repeated many times in many ways in other related industries.  Chlorination of public water for example causes much well documented cancer, which far exceeds the hypothesized damage of glyphosate, but is justified because:    a. originally public water chlorination saved many more lives than (we now know) are caused by the cancer;   and    b. governments dont want to spend the money  on better but expensive alternatives such as ozone or natural processes.  (these are rationing arguments and are real issues of cost/benefit that internet arm chair chit chat crappers ignore)

Much of this boils down to rationing of resources: the best ways of doing things (growing food in a world where no one wants to hoe weeds but wants cheapo food, cleaning water where supplies are stretched to the limit etc.) are not pursued because we need a cheap chemical fix.  Even after cancer from glyphosate is proven, Monsanto will continue, based on the argument that preventing starvation of millions by this alleged chemical savior is worth it.  Last I checked, the US government evaluates and makes decisions on public safety regulations based on a human life being worth 3,500,000$.  If a proposed regulation costs more than 3500000$ per life saved, it will not be implemented.  This rationing issue is the bottom line and trumps all facts and arguments about causing cancer etc. Even if a cancer is conjectured or proven, such fact does not settle the issue.  Eventually the arguments turn into cost/benefit and many things are ignored (your car's exhaust in front of my house is an example) based on this calculus. Best to walk away from the system.  


Quote:

Time2help wrote:

Academies of Science report: GMOs not harmful to human health (USA Today)

WHO: Glyphosate ‘Unlikely’ To Cause Cancer (CropLife)

UN Says Glyphosate ‘Unlikely’ to Cause Cancer (EcoWatch)

The latest issue of Mother Earth News contains an interview with a retired genetic engineer (and former soil biologist) who spent his professional career advocating pesticides and did an "about face" in retirement as a serious gardener.  He gives an indepth (yet easy to understand) explanation of how glyphosate kills plants and microbes by chelating the manganese required to build a specific essential protein.  It's one of the best explanations I've read.  

http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/glyphosate-toxicity-interview-with-thierry-vrain-zm0z16jjzkin.aspx

If you think your gut microbiome and the earth's microbial life are important, avoid glyphosate (Roundup (r)) and 90+/-% of processed foods.  Does the health of our gut microbiome affect our likelihood of developing cancer?  You bet it does!

Does the sick care industry give a darn about this?  No.  More glyphosate = more cancer = more money for the sick care industry.   

VeganDB12's picture
VeganDB12
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Posts: 757
Dr.Janda you chose the better way...

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2016/05/driving-doctors-suicide.html

Substitute "doctors" with nurses, therapists of various sorts, overwhelmed family with no supports, and other overburdened caregivers as it speaks to you. 

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
CDC Withheld Data on MMR Vaccine

http://www.ageofautism.com/cdc-whistleblower/

Well, when you dumb down the population they are easier to control...

Waterdog14's picture
Waterdog14
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 18 2014
Posts: 136
Glyphosate chelates Mn to disrupt the shikamate pathway

Mots - I wholeheartedly agree with 98% of what you wrote about glyphosate, cheap food, and the current system's cost/benefit analysis that "justifies" the rationing of resources.  However, I disagree that Mn chelation is "quack science".  Mn chelation is, in fact, the mechanisms by which glyphosate disrupts the synthesis of EPSPS, an essential amino acid required by plants, bacteria, and fungi to manufacture proteins. 

Mots wrote:

I dont have time to digest all the studies and anyway, I agree with the conclusion of not using glyphosate.  However the basic "science" presented here is quack.  Glyphosate is not a great chelator (citric acid and tons of other stuff we use everyday in our shampoos and put into our mouths are probably better).  Glyphosate works as a very specific inhibitor of an enzyme involved in synthesizing certain branched chain amino acids...." 

"Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine) is a highly effective herbicide because of its potent and specific inhibition of 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate 3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), an enzyme of the shikimate pathway that governs the synthesis of aromatic amino compounds in higher plants, algae, bacteria and fungi [2]. Its herbicidal action is generated by chelating manganese required in the reduction of the flavin mononucleotide (FMN) co-factor EPSPS [12]."  [Emphasis added]

Source:  http://www.nvlv.nl/downloads/2012-Krueger,%20M-glyphosate%20effects.pdf

The point is not that glyphosate is necessarily a strong chelator of Mn in soil and water (although the sorption coefficient [Kd] indicates strong chelation/sorption/complexation with iron and aluminum oxides and silcates in soil).  The point, on which I believe we agree, is that glyphosate disrupts the formation of essential amino acids and therefore proteins in plants, fungi, and bacteria - including our own gut bacteria. 

It's not "junk science".  I believe we are on the same side of the issue.

Waterdog14's picture
Waterdog14
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 18 2014
Posts: 136
Glyphosate chelates Mn to disrupt the shikamate pathway

Duplicate post

Mots's picture
Mots
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 18 2012
Posts: 198
glyphosate chelator not science

This is not a scientific discussion and as a matter of basic chemistry you are wrong.  Citing an offhand comment (your quoted material you rely on) by a scientist outside of the specific specialty (the research paper is not a chemical or biochemical) does not make something true.  This is an example of how people who are not experts in something repeat inaccuracies. At some point someone relies on this fact to do something like sell snake oil or misdirect.

The paper you cited does not explain or go into any chemistry at all but mere cites a review article by yet other biologist or non-chemists that also provide no explanation or chemistry at all. No basis in reality anywhere in the liternature chain by non-chemical publishers.

If you want to debate chemistry, start with chemistry, where you can quote more accurate statements such as "Structural similarities to phosphoenol pyruvate enable glyphosate to bind to the substrate binding site of the EPSPS, inhibiting its activity and blocking its import into the chloroplast."  or "Glyphosate occupies the binding site on EPSPS for phosphoenol pyruvate, a substrate of EPSPS, by mimicking an intermediate state of the enzyme-substrates complex."http://ncwss.org/proceed/2006/abstracts/94.pdf

The main guy behind this "metal chelation" stuff is a retired emeretus (sp) pofessor of soil science from Purdue: Don Huber who is pushing this idea.  I went to his lecture in February, where he explained that all medical antibiotics work by chelating metals.  It is easy to call him a quack based on such proclamations.  Later I spend at least an hour with him socially and got to know a little about him, and convinced myself that he  does not understand basic chemistry or biochemistry.

This is further proof that most issues arise from the lack of chemistry understanding. You threw out a dissociation constant (totally different from association constant and lacking any conditions of its determination) without an explanation of its relevance to anything.  Getting the science and reality right does have repercussions. For example the big aquatic problem with roundup these days is because of the horrible added chemicals which are added (to improve sticking to the leaf and to extend patent protection I assume as well) (could these non 'chelators' cause drying?  I observe that global warming issues mostly arise from lack of understanding of chemistry, and in particular the "scientists" "against" global warming that I looked up, were mathematicians and physicists that clearly did hot understand basic chemistry, as far as I could determine.

I dont have  a dog in this fight and I really dont care.  I was just trying to be helpful and have better things to do than internet chit chat crap based on substituting word searches on google and an occasional one minute you tube video for an extensive understanding of reality.  Most issues lack a reality check. This one does . 

I will not respond any further to postings.

Waterdog14's picture
Waterdog14
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 18 2014
Posts: 136
Mots - thanks for the clarification

Mots,

Thanks for the clarification.  The article from USDA-ARS is particularly informative, and (as you've pointed out) does not mention Mn chelation as a mechanism for the disrupting the synthesis of the EPSPS enzyme.  Although I would have expected the peer-reviewed journal that I quoted, Springer's  Current Microbiology, to be an accurate source of information, it is clear that some misinformation can be propagated through the scientific community through "quotes and soundbites" without thorough vetting.  

It is not my intent to debate chemistry and microbiology - I'm a hydrologist, not a microbiologist.  I do a fair bit of aquatic geochemistry in my profession (thus the skimming over of Kd - a lumped parameter that "implies" sorption, chelation, and/or complexation in soil but is not necessarily relevant to microbiology). 

I will point out that a number of journal articles discuss metal chelation by glyphosate as a potential factor (or cause) of toxicity to humans.  Those articles include a 2015 paper in Surgery Neurology International (available through NIH):

Metal chelation and inactivation of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes (which contain heme) play important roles in the adverse effects of glyphosate on humans. A recent study on rats showed that both males and females exposed to Roundup® had 50% reduction in hepatic CYP enzyme levels compared with controls.[156] CYP enzyme dysfunction impairs the liver's ability to detoxify xenobiotics. A large number of chemicals have been identified as being porphyrinogenic.[77] Rossignol et al.[242] have reviewed the evidence for environmental toxicant exposure as a causative factor in autism, and they referenced several studies showing that urinary excretion of porphyrin precursors to heme is found in association with autism, suggesting impaired heme synthesis. Impaired biliary excretion leads to increased excretion of heme precursors in the urine, a biomarker of multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome.[77] We later discuss the ability of glyphosate to disrupt bile homeostasis, which we believe is a major source of its toxic effects on humans.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392553/

 

The NIH article also states that there are multiple pathways by which glyphosate may be toxic to humans:

 

There are multiple pathways by which glyphosate could lead to pathology.[248] A major consideration is that our gut bacteria do have the shikimate pathway, and that we depend upon this pathway in our gut bacteria as well as in plants to supply us with the essential aromatic amino acids, tryptophan, tyrosine, and phenylalanine. Methionine, an essential sulfur-containing amino acid, and glycine, are also negatively impacted by glyphosate. Furthermore, many other biologically active molecules, including serotonin, melatonin, melanin, epinephrine, dopamine, thyroid hormone, folate, coenzyme Q10, vitamin K, and vitamin E, depend on the shikimate pathway metabolites as precursors. Gut bacteria and plants use exclusively the shikimate pathway to produce these amino acids. In part because of shikimate pathway disruption, our gut bacteria are harmed by glyphosate, as evidenced by the fact that it has been patented as an antimicrobial agent.[298].

So I think we may need to differentiate between what makes glyphosate an effective herbicide vs. what makes it toxic to human gut microbes and other microbes.  To be clear, other research papers denounce the effectiveness of glyphosate as an antimicrobial agent.  Or as an effective chelator.

Mots, I feel sufficiently chastised for seeking a "simple" explanation for glyphosate toxicity.  Thanks for setting me straight.  I'll stop repeating the claim that Mn chelation is the mechanism for the disrupting the synthesis of EPSPS.  Instead, I now understand that glyphosate binds to the phosphoenol pyruvate sites, and thus disrupts the synthesis of EPSPS.  I've lost a simple sound bite, but gained understanding, and I thank you for that, Mots.

It may be that Mn chelation by glyphosate is a factor in human toxicity.  I'm not qualified to debate that, nor do I enjoy these debates.  So I'll shut up about it. 

I would also like to say that "I don't have a dog in this fight", but perhaps I do.  I earned a lot of money a decade ago working as a hydrologic consultant for Monsanto, helping them acquire permits to mine elemental phosphorus for use in glyphosate and other products.  I also have an autistic 21-year old nephew living with me - he's a highly intelligent kid with a severe developmental disorder that affects socialization, executive function, motor coordination, anxiety, and other social functions.  It is heartbreaking to see a kind, intelligent, young man be so socially and developmentally "crippled".  I'm convinced that gut dysbiosis is a significant factor in autism spectrum disorder.  Glyphosate appears to be a significant factor in gut dysbiosis.

Some of the guilt that I feel for being part of the "system" of mining, environmental damage, glyphosate production, uranium extraction, etc. is assuaged by working on my 4-acre organic farm.  We make our own organic bone meal from local grass fed cattle, instead of using mined elemental phosphorus (for the essential "P" in N-P-K).   I buy non-GMO feed for my 112 chickens, at three times the cost of conventional feed.  We're using no till methods with lots of organic mulch.  We are pumping our water with solar power and using our diesel-powered tractor only when necessary.  One of my employees brings her 4-week old baby to work with her.  Although I still have one foot in my professional career, I'm moving away from the "system" and hope to bring my community along.  Perhaps local families eating fresh food from our farm will experience an increase in health and a reduction in autism rates.  (...and cancer, and diabetes, and...and...and...)   

Mots's picture
Mots
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 18 2012
Posts: 198
insufficient reality checks/integrity in science

In the field of biochemistry EVERYTHING that dissolves in water chemically reacts with EVERYTHING else because touching by itself is a reaction, which can be "studied" by measuring, (the quoted "dissociation constant" is merely the second half of "touching" between two of anything that someone purposely put together in solution) and can generate a good contrived story if you malign conditions enough by selecting a limited set of components and conditions.  Thus, in a test tube or petri dish, you can make anything happen between any two things, by merely adjusting concentrations and types etc . This is why so much nonsense exists and why in my opinion so much so called science these days is meaningless bullshit and why I left the field..  I have seen so much real solid data on cancer cures over the years, for example, by "scientists" who contrive nonsensical conditions in a test tube or cell culture.  Some publish hundreds of papers showing reactions (more often than not, merely "touching") and extrapolating how that touching or even a forced reaction causes cancer, killing cancer, etc. without understanding the real system.  Economics is unmoored from reality by lack of reality checks.  So is most of science. 

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
Mots wrote:This is not a
Mots wrote:

This is not a scientific discussion and as a matter of basic chemistry you are wrong.  Citing an offhand comment (your quoted material you rely on) by a scientist outside of the specific specialty (the research paper is not a chemical or biochemical) does not make something true.  This is an example of how people who are not experts in something repeat inaccuracies. At some point someone relies on this fact to do something like sell snake oil or misdirect.

The paper you cited does not explain or go into any chemistry at all but mere cites a review article by yet other biologist or non-chemists that also provide no explanation or chemistry at all. No basis in reality anywhere in the liternature chain by non-chemical publishers.

If you want to debate chemistry, start with chemistry, where you can quote more accurate statements such as "Structural similarities to phosphoenol pyruvate enable glyphosate to bind to the substrate binding site of the EPSPS, inhibiting its activity and blocking its import into the chloroplast."  or "Glyphosate occupies the binding site on EPSPS for phosphoenol pyruvate, a substrate of EPSPS, by mimicking an intermediate state of the enzyme-substrates complex."http://ncwss.org/proceed/2006/abstracts/94.pdf

The main guy behind this "metal chelation" stuff is a retired emeretus (sp) pofessor of soil science from Purdue: Don Huber who is pushing this idea.  I went to his lecture in February, where he explained that all medical antibiotics work by chelating metals.  It is easy to call him a quack based on such proclamations.  Later I spend at least an hour with him socially and got to know a little about him, and convinced myself that he  does not understand basic chemistry or biochemistry.

This is further proof that most issues arise from the lack of chemistry understanding. You threw out a dissociation constant (totally different from association constant and lacking any conditions of its determination) without an explanation of its relevance to anything.  Getting the science and reality right does have repercussions. For example the big aquatic problem with roundup these days is because of the horrible added chemicals which are added (to improve sticking to the leaf and to extend patent protection I assume as well) (could these non 'chelators' cause drying?  I observe that global warming issues mostly arise from lack of understanding of chemistry, and in particular the "scientists" "against" global warming that I looked up, were mathematicians and physicists that clearly did hot understand basic chemistry, as far as I could determine.

I dont have  a dog in this fight and I really dont care.  I was just trying to be helpful and have better things to do than internet chit chat crap based on substituting word searches on google and an occasional one minute you tube video for an extensive understanding of reality.  Most issues lack a reality check. This one does . 

I will not respond any further to postings.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Discovery:

Glyphosate was first synthesized in 1950 by Swiss chemist Henry Martin, who worked for the Swiss company Cilag. The work was never published.[16]:1 Stauffer Chemical patented the agent as a chemical chelator in 1964 as it binds and removes minerals such as calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper, and zinc.[17]

pyranablade's picture
pyranablade
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 8 2010
Posts: 206
Old Friends?

I hadn't heard the term "Old Friends" before, Sandpuppy, but perhaps a knowledge of them would help a person have a healthier diet?

eexpo's picture
eexpo
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 30 2011
Posts: 51
Old friends

"The drive for absolute control leads to unanticipated forms of disorder."  Micheal Pollan

Dont mess with Old Friends

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1469
Food is Medicine

Since I have shifted to organic and non-gmo food I find it hard to eat at restaurants.   It is now so obvious the industrial food stuffs are close to soylent green quality.   

The letters I wrote to my political representatives to urge them to ban gmo and its chemicals got not one response.   If our food is corrupted then why care about anything else?  Including voting.   Food is medicine.  

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments