• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Full Measure
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • "Slanted" Preorder here

Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

  • US
  • World
  • Business
  • Health
    • Vaccine, Medical links
  • Special Investigations
    • Attkisson v. DOJ
    • Benghazi
    • "Collusion v. Trump" TL
    • Fake News
    • Fast and Furious
    • Media Mistakes on Trump
    • Obama Surveillance TL
    • Obamacare

US

"Outing" the medical centers that have contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement

By U.S. Customs and Border Protection - CBP Processing Unaccompanied Children, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51178811

The following is a news analysis.

It's a new phenomenon in the era of Trump.

First, illegal immigrant supporters have worked hard-- using political figures, advocacy groups, news organizations and social media-- to controversialize Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its work.

ICE defines its mission as protecting America from "the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety" by enforcing federal laws.

As part of this effort to controversiaize ICE, the illegal immigrant supporters point to what they call inhumane conditions and treatment of the migrants in federal custody as the system has been overwhelmed.

That's where part two of the phenomenon comes into play. At the same time they complain ICE isn't providing the illegal immigrants proper medical treatment, shelter, food and care-- the activists are working to discourage companies and contractors that are doing just that.

A new article on the website Medscape, which is owned by Web MD, "outs" medical centers that have contracts with ICE, as if the business relationship something to be considered controversial.

Some of the medical centers say they are doing the humane thing to assist with care of the illegal immigrants. But other medical officials say the business ties are wrong because it enables ICE.

The title of the Medscape article is: "Does Your Medical Center Have a Contract With ICE? These Do."

You can read an excerpt below, followed by a link to the full article.

Does Your Medical Center Have a Contract With ICE? These Do.

As controversy swirls around physician involvement with migrant detention centers, a Medscape analysis has found that four major medical centers have contracts with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide services they say will improve conditions for migrants at the US-Mexico border, including developing medical and triage protocols for adults and children.

Medscape Medical News' analysis found that Brigham and Women's Hospital, Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center have or have had contracts ranging from just under $10,000 up to $2 million for medical services. For both medical and nonmedical services, a dozen institutions were found to have 17 contracts total, and some institutions have multiple contracts.

Medical centers have had contracts with CBP and ICE in the past, but of the currently running contracts, all but one of the 17 began in 2017, after the Trump administration took a more hardline approach to immigration.

At least one institution, Harvard Medical School-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital, has said it is canceling its contract with CBP to provide "guidance for medical triage protocols at the southern border," Medscape Medical News has learned.

The institutions have contracted to provide a variety of services, including tactical medical training, university-level education and training services, strategic planning facilitation services, and medical direction services.

Hospital administrators and many physicians say they have a moral obligation to do what they can to help ease the suffering at the southern US border, but other physicians and healthcare workers contend it is wrong to support a system they believe abuses detainees attempting to seek asylum in the United States.

In a commentary published online August 30 in JAMA, Paul Spiegel, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Johns Hopkins University provide recommendations for how clinicians should work with migrants at the border. "Whatever the future of US immigration policy, decent and humane treatment of children, as well as all other detainees, and preservation of the independence of physicians and other health professionals to meet patients' medical and psychological needs are essential," they write. "Now is not a time to change the commitments, reputation, and integrity of physicians and the medical profession."

In response, an ICE spokesperson told Medscape Medical News in an emailed statement that the agency has "several levels of oversight in order to ensure that residents in ICE custody reside in safe, secure and humane environments."

Those levels of oversight include receiving "a comprehensive physical exam within 14 days of arrival to identify medical, mental health and dental conditions that require monitoring or treatment." In addition, all detainees should expect "timely and appropriate responses to emergent medical requests, and timely medical care appropriate to the anticipated length of detention. At no time during detention will a detainee be denied emergent care," the statement continues.

CBP did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Read the rest of the Medscape article by clicking the link below.

Medscape Article

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

5G and cell phone safety: What's the truth?

5G technology promises to make our mobile phones faster and better than ever. It's now being deployed across the U.S.

But some scientists argue there are serious safety concerns from cancer to reproductive issues.

This week on Full Measure, we set out to separate fact from fiction. We consulted scientific studies, top scientists and the best wireless industry representatives.

See what we found out Sunday in our cover story.

Also this week, Joce Sterman looks into an interesting health problem looming in America: a future shortage of doctors.

Scott Thuman goes to the iconic Iowa fair to talk political turkey.

And I'll have some new information regarding my Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein death.

We always promise original, off-narrative reporting that invites you to make up your own mind.

How to watch Full Measure

Seven of nine Supreme Court justices greenlight Trump policy limiting asylum seekers

By David Dugan, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60011911

Two liberal-appointed justices sided with five conservative-appointed justices tonight in allowing a Trump administration asylum policy to be implemented while challenges work through the court system.

The White House win means that for now, people seeking asylum in the U.S. must seek safe haven in the first "safe" country they arrive in.

That effectively means that immigrants traveling from Central America who pass through Mexico will have to seek asylum in Mexico rather than farther north in the United States.

The decision rolls back a lower-court ruling intended to block the policy in some southern border states.

BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!

President Donald Trump tweet, Wed. Sept. 11, 2019

The liberal-leaning judges who went along with the conservative-leaning majority are Elana Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

The two dissenting justices who disagreed with the court's decision are liberal-leaning Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution.

Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

[We are] pleased that the Supreme Court intervened in this case... This action will assist the Administration in its objectives to bring order to the crisis at the southern border, close loopholes in our immigration system, and discourage frivolous claims.

Alexei Woltornist, Department of Justice spokesman

If you're interested in a timeline regarding this topic, read more by clicking here.

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

Google under investigation in nearly every state

Forty-eight states, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico have launched joint investigations into Google for alleged violations of antitrust law.

Attorney Generals in Texas and Washington, D.C. are leading the way in the probe honing in on Google's dominance as an internet search engine and advertiser.

We have 50 attorneys general from across the nation who are involved in this investigation that we're leading from Texas. [Google] is a company that dominates all aspects of advertising on the internet and searching on the internet as they dominate the buyers' side, the sellers' side, the auction side and even the video side with YouTube.

Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General

California and Alabama are the only two states that have not joined in the effort. California is the home base for Google, its parent company Alphabet, Inc., and other tech giants.

In the last presidential election, Alphabet was a top contributor to both Democrat Hillary Clinton and Socialist Democrat Bernie Sanders. Alphabet's CEO at the time, Eric Schmidt, was a Clinton volunteer and adviser.

Prior to the election, Google funded a new nonprofit, First Draft, that first introduced the popular use of the phrase "fake news" and led the effort to convince the public that news should be "curated" by third parties.

Ultimately, Donald Trump co-opted the "fake news" phrase.

This past week, Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson highlighted the high-stakes lobbying efforts by Google and other big tech companies facing scrutiny over their dominance, privacy practices and alleged bias. You can watch that report here.

To read more about the investigation, click the link below:

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/460550-states-launch-antitrust-investigation-into-google

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

MRI dye safety warnings: what you need to know but probably don't

  • After our first report, Europe and Japan banned most uses and types of the most problematic gadolinium MRI dyes.
  • The FDA decided not to issue a ban in the U.S. saying benefits outweigh risks.
  • The FDA issued a warning, instead.
  • The FDA says there's more risk with Omniscan or OptiMARK than Eovist, Magnevist, or MultiHance.
Chuck and Gena Norris, and two of their children

Since 2017, I've reported on the increasing safety issues surrounding some commonly-used MRI dye known as "gadolinium." I told the story with help from the wife of Chuck Norris who almost died from gadolinium toxicity after a series of MRIs.

After my initial report on Full Measure, the questionable dyes were banned in many countries. However, the FDA chose instead to issue a warning.

The problem is, not many people have heard of the warning and it's not easy to find on the FDA website, as I reported.

Many doctors are also unaware. One expert explained to me that the medical doctors who refer patients for MRIs count on the radiologist to know about the dye warnings and risks. However, the radiologists who do know typically don't see or consult with the patients, so the information is not transmitted.

My Full Measure story below is the only place I know of where the safety information-- by brand, according to the FDA-- is easily accessible.

You can watch the video at the end of the text below.

Three decades of scientific thought regarding the safety of dye commonly used in MRIs has been upended but odds are you haven't heard much about it. Today we begin with an important follow up to a story we first brought you last year. We told the distressing case of Chuck Norris and his wife Gena, who became critically ill after her MRIs. After our original report aired, health bodies in the U.S. and many other countries made major changes. So why don't you know more about them?

Chuck Norris and his wife Gena are now suing McKesson Corporation and other companies related to gadolinium MRI dye. Dozens of gadolinium poisoning claims have been filed nationwide.

Gena Norris: I want to try this case in the public because they would love for it to remain in the shadows and not be talked about.

Chuck Norris: Windy today, but it's beautiful.

We first told you their story last June. Their nightmare began when Gena had three MRIs in one week to evaluate her rheumatoid arthritis and ended up in the ER over and over.

Gena Norris: And by the fourth, fifth, sixth night, the burning just kept traveling and I would go in and they'd say, well what's wrong with you? And I'm like I, I don't know. I don't feel good. And I'm just, I'm burning. I, that's all I can tell you is I'm burning all over. I feel like I have acid everywhere in my tissues, I'm just, I'm on fire.

Doctors didn't consider that Gena might have been poisoned by gadolinium, the toxic heavy metal in the dye injected into her for the MRIs. After researching scientific literature and connecting to patients online, Gena told her husband she knew what was wrong.

Gena Norris: When we got to the hospital in Houston, I said I'm only going to be able to tell you one time this last time and I need you to listen to me very closely. I have been poisoned with gadolinium or by gadolinium and we don't have much time to figure out how to get this out of my body or I am going to die.

Chuck Norris: I can take her anywhere in the world. I'm blessed enough to have the money to do that, but where do I take her?

They only found help with alternative medicine doctors who discovered Gena's gadolinium levels were literally off the charts. Healing has taken several years and two million dollars of treatments not covered by insurance. We caught up with the Norris' again at their Texas ranch where Gena is still in intensive treatment.

Gena Norris: Like I've said before, we're all broken. We are broken. If I were to stop any of those things with gadolinium deposition disease, it's lurking in my body and it talks to me. If I am exposed to things or under too much stress, I can feel very, very symptomatic. But I'm still healing.

Sharyl Attkisson: If you had to explain in just a paragraph or so what this lawsuit is about, what would you say?

Todd Walburg: This lawsuit is about a big cover up by the drug companies that has resulted in a whole population of people who had been poisoned by Gadolinium. There's internal documents that go back decades that show that the companies knew about the risks of Gadolinium.

Todd Walburg is the Norris' attorney. He attended an FDA safety meeting that was scheduled shortly after our story aired; one advocates had pressed for for years. Gena's case was brought up.

Voice of FDA Advisor Alicia Toledano: The disconnect noted in Gena Norris' statement is so true all across this country every single day.

Todd Walburg: At the conclusion of that September hearing, there was a vote held and the FDA committee voted 13 to one in favor of requiring additional warnings.

The only "no" vote came from one FDA adviser who said the recommended warnings weren't strong enough.

Alicia Toledano: When a patient finally does get tested and is found to have gadolinium retention, but there is no FDA approved antidote. What does that patient do?

There's been a dramatic evolution in thought since MRI dye was introduced 30 years ago. Doctors and the FDA used to insist gadolinium was quickly urinated out of the body. But in 2006, internal FDA documents show, scientists recognized gadolinium was linked to a deadly disease that causes thickening and tightening of the skin and organs: nephrogenic systemic fibrosis or NSF. In 2007, the FDA added a serious "black box" warning, but only for patients with weak kidneys. In 2010, an expanded warning about repeat MRIs. Then, in 2015, the FDA also acknowledged, there could be risks to people with normal kidneys.

FDA video: Recent studies conducted in people and animals have confirmed that gadolinium can remain in the brain even in individuals with normal kidney function. Available information does not identify any adverse health effects.

By then, injured patients like Sharon Williams were networking online. She had five MRIs with gadolinium over several years and got sicker each time.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Sharon Williams: So my symptoms got dramatically worse after dose 4. We thought there had to be something wrong with my brain, so I had dose 5 for a brain MRI. And literally all hell broke loose after that. I mean, it was terrible.

Sharyl Attkisson: Meaning what?

Sharon Williams: Meaning that's when all the symptoms went crazy. I mean, I couldn't begin to tell you how severe some of the symptoms were as far as pain, spasms, problems with my blood pressure.

Sharyl Attkisson: How did you figure out it was this gadolinium?

Sharon Williams: In 2014, I had part of my thyroid gland removed and gadolinium was in it, 51 months after my last MRI.

Williams contacted the FDA regularly starting in 2012, presenting scientific research and asking for help, only to be told the matter was under study.

It's taken years for major health bodies to acknowledge major issues. In May of last year, the FDA stepped up warnings again, saying gadolinium is not only retained in the brain but in body organs, too. But it downplayed any risks. Shortly after, Europe and Japan banned most uses and types of the most problematic gadolinium dyes. The FDA decided on a different approach last December, deciding not to issue a ban in the U.S.; insisting gadolinium benefits outweigh any risks. Instead, the FDA ordered new safety studies. According to the FDA, the bigger problem occurs with the types of dyes called "linear," which stay in the body longer and in larger amounts. The FDA says there's more risk with Omniscan or OptiMARK than Eovist, Magnevist, or MultiHance. The lowest levels remain in the body after Dotarem, Gadavist and ProHance, according to the FDA.

You might think all of this would make national headlines since MRIs are so common. There are 30 million MRIs in the US each year. But we had to hunt pretty hard to find the latest safety information on the FDA website. It wasn't on the main MRI page. When we clicked over to MRI safety, it wasn't there either. And it didn't show up when we searched "MRI dye safety" or "MRI dye." We finally found it when we searched "Gadolinium safety."

Gadolinium manufacturers say they're following all FDA recommendations. Some are phasing out so-called "linear" gadolinium dyes. The makers firmly deny any cover up and say they've taken action and followed FDA rules as soon as they've learned of any safety concerns.

The Norris' say the FDA hasn't done enough.

Gena Norris: Well, they made some acknowledgement. They've moved the needle a little bit, but they haven't moved it enough.

Sharyl Attkisson: Some people think because your name is on this cause, that's what's helped it get attention and maybe that's what even helped spur the FDA action after so many years.

Chuck Norris: I really don't think so. I think it's her because she had a good way of explaining what is going on. I am just her companion. I am trying to keep her healthy and that's what I've been doing for five years.

Gena Norris: Five years. Five Years.

Chuck Norris: But the thousands of others who can't afford this, and this is what bothers me is seeing, see, I'm so grateful for my wife, but I want to see these people being taken care of too.

Gena Norris: I don't need this stress, but it's become so personal to the victims, that either died or that are suffering in silence and that don't have a voice. Thankfully we have a platform and as far as I'm concerned, I'll be their worst nightmare until they do the right thing. I'm not going away. I'm just, I'm not going away.

McKesson told us that since it distributes but doesn't manufacture gadolinium, it's never been involved in the FDA-approval process.

Watch the video by clicking the link below:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/mri-changes-08-07-2018

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Most say current polls about 2020 are "pretty inaccurate"

A strong majority of respondents say current polls about the 2020 race are not to be believed.

That's according to the latest poll at SharylAttkisson.com.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) said such polls are "pretty inaccurate."

Only two percent of those asked say they think the polls are "pretty accurate."

The full results are below. Meantime vote in our new poll on the home page of SharylAttkisson.com. Look for the black box on the right sidebar or scroll way down on the mobile site!

I think current polls about 2020 race are:

2% Pretty accurate

87% Pretty inaccurate

11% I don't know/don't care

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Campaign 2020... and a trip down short-term memory lane

The following is an excerpt from an article in The Hill

As the presidential battle among Democrats heats up, there are new polls and predictions every day as to how it will turn out. A recent Marquette University Law poll finds both former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would beat President Trump in Wisconsin.

Some news reporters and pundits seem to use polls to try to shape public opinion, rather than report on a snapshot in time.

“Biden is the only Democrat who can beat Trump,” say some. “All the polls show him in first place.” Everyone else might as well hang it up.

“Biden is doomed as a candidate,” insist others. He should bow out.

Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)? Too far left. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)? Not left enough. Former congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas)? Dead in the water.

Or, how about this recent finding from Quinnipiac University: Every top major Democrat beats Trump by at least nine points.

It’s time for a friendly intervention — in the form of a look back at some predictions and punditry about this time in Campaign 2016. We’ll call it a trip down short-term memory lane. Many polls ultimately turned out to be poor predictors — early and often.

Going back to May of 2015, a Quinnipiac poll found Donald Trump topped the “no way” list among Republicans, with 21 percent of GOP voters saying they would definitely not support him.

And on June 22, 2015, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll put Trump at 1 percent, behind 10 Republican candidates: former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, retired surgeon Ben Carson, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and businesswoman Carly Fiorina. The same poll put Trump at rock bottom among 16 candidates when Republican voters were asked: “Could you see yourselves supporting this candidate?”

On June 24, 2015, Politico’s Daniel Strauss tried to tamp down fears that Trump actually could be a winner. “Whispers of a Trump surge are making the rounds,” wrote Strauss. “It might be wise to take a deep breath. … Nationally, Trump’s polling has been on the decline.” Strauss quoted a Suffolk University pollster as saying Trump’s favorable polling means people have seen him on TV but, “That doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for him. … Everybody should calm down.” 

Former New Hampshire Republican Party chairman Fergus Cullen declared there was “no visible grassroots movement for Trump” in New Hampshire. And Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said, “At the end of the day, it’s quite possible that Donald Trump will get 11 percent in New Hampshire, but that might be his cap.” (Trump won the Republican primary in New Hampshire with just over 35 percent of the vote.)

Read the article by clicking the link below:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/460458-campaign-2020-a-trip-down-short-term-memory-lane

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Military construction money to be used to build additional border wall

A scene along the U.S.- Mexico border (in Texas)

As campaign 2020 heats up, President Trump is finding additional ways to fund miles of U.S. Southwest border wall.

This week, it was announced that $3.6 billion in tax money earmarked for military construction will be used to construct 175 miles of wall.

Congress has continually refused to approve the billions of dollars in funding President Trump has asked for to pay for the wall project along the U.S. -Mexico border.

There's no word yet on which military projects are now unfunded in order that the money be moved. However, the Pentagon says the projects are deferred, not cancelled.

Read more about the story by clicking the link below:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/04/pentagon_approves_military_construction_cash_for_border_wall_141166.html

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Coming Soon

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Follow Sharyl Attkisson

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent Comments

  • Mickey Pullen on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Mike Marinak on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Debunking “The Hotchkiss Republicans Report” - The Hotchkiss Record on "Collusion against Trump" timeline

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Footer

Pages

  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Support
  • Contact

2ndary Pages

  • Full Measure Stations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Subscribe to SharylAttkisson.com

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

  • Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI
  • Benghazi
  • Fake News
  • Fast & Furious
  • Obamacare

Ad

Ad