--- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@> wrote: > > What really are the merits of drink dehydrated wheat grass juice > when you're dying of cancer? Kevin asks derisively what are the benefits of ingesting dehydrated wheat grass juice, but he never has responded to my calling him on his ignorant dismissal of veggie juices in general, a few months ago. There's not an awful lot of research on the topic of wheat grass juice, and the final assessment is yet to come, but there's enough evidence already to make it a not unreasonable thing to advocate. I recommend ingesting at least one or two of these reports before popping off again (Bar-Sela et al. seems particularly relevant): Ben-Arye E, Goldin E, Wengrower D, Stamper A, Kohn R, Berry E. Wheat grass juice in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2002 Apr;37(4):444-9. PMID: 11989836 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Marawaha RK, Bansal D, Kaur S, Trehan A. Wheat grass juice reduces transfusion requirement in patients with thalassemia major: a pilot study. Indian Pediatr. 2004 Jul;41(7):716-20. PMID: 15297687 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Bar-Sela G, Tsalic M, Fried G, Goldberg H. Wheat grass juice may improve hematological toxicity related to chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a pilot study. Nutr Cancer. 2007;58(1):43-8. PMID: 17571966 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Shyam R, Singh SN, Vats P, Singh VK, Bajaj R, Singh SB, Banerjee PK. Wheat grass supplementation decreases oxidative stress in healthy subjects: a comparative study with spirulina. J Altern Complement Med. 2007 Oct;13(8):789-91. PMID: 17983333 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] There's another one which is far, far away from any immediate clinical application, but some aspects of it provoke some speculations of my own, for reasons I'll not take the trouble to explain: Regand A, Goff HD. Ice recrystallization inhibition in ice cream as affected by ice structuring proteins from winter wheat grass. J Dairy Sci. 2006 Jan;89(1):49-57. PMID: 16357267 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] I had an experience perhaps similar to Kevin's when I heard Null enthusing over mushrooms, thinking he was indulging a pet fantasy, but found that there was indeed a small but growing body of research into previously neglected aspects of mushrooms and their potential for beneficial physiological effects. In general, Null's dietary advice is sound. Some of his "supplement" recommendations are questionable (because of expense, or --- in one case, I think --- poor absorption), but most of them are well-supported by current research. I think he is dead wrong about some other things (AIDS, vaccinations), and a little "weird" about some other things (his notions about "energy" and "life" as concepts divorced of any reference to mechanisms or measurements, i.e. rather "mystical"). But in any case (just to repeat one more time), I protest the manner of his dismissal and the general lack of systematic and even quasi-objective review of programs and producers at WBAI. --Frank LeFever --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Frank LeFever" <fflefever@...> wrote: > > --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@> wrote: > > > > Sure, Dr. LeFever, you don't endorse the kind of snake oil amateur > medicine show that Null produces? > > I'm sure the opinion of a "bitter old health-care worker" (your > frequently-repeated amateur diagnosis-at-a-distance) means less than > nothing to you (yes, less than nothing: i.e. you will automatically > treat information as disinformation). > > [Indeed, it is my observation that you react badly to ANYONE who has > expertise and solid information, regardless of the area--whether it is > the condition of black slaves in the US or geopolitics or...I'm > recalling your posting, for want of anything else to comment on that > day, a whole list of things you asserted had been "debunked", almost > all of them "debunked" only in the patter of talk-show hosts.] > > However, I am always glad to set the record straight for those out > there who may be momentarily confused by your putting words in other > peoples' mouths (cf. for example your mis-stating what Terry Goodman > says--a paragon of verbal precision--and then attacking the strawman > you thereby slapped together). > > Those who follow what I have said about the CONTENT of Null's show, > over several years (in this forum and in another forum I hesitate to > name lest you infect it) know what my GRADED appraisal has been: there > are some things he says that are dead wrong, some things that are > solidly founded, and yet other things which are debatable but not > without scientific support. > > Those people who are not so easily confused by your strawman > diversions (saying I have said something I have not said) will have > noticed (and, I trust, remembered) that my reply was addressed to the > legitimacy of Null's complaint of improper dismissal, and the > reasonableness of the remedy he sought. > > This is, bytheway, the principled stand that many others have taken, > some buying Null's spiel whole-hog, some rejecting it entirely, but > all agreeing that proper procedure was not followed, the way he was > dismissed set a bad precedent for future dismissals (cf. Robert > Knight), and satisfying Null's complaint would set a GOOD precedent > for station management, as well as serving justice. > > Incidently, Bernard White replaced Null mostly with his OWN favorite > "snake oil salesman". In some ways the replacement is better, but in > other ways much worse. In any case, the dismissal did not represent > ANY kind of "quality control" or "program review" but was an exercise > in petty despotism. > > Bytheway (just for the rest of you): yes, I am licensed to practice > Psychology, and yes I have been on staff at a hospital, but "health > care worker" mis-describes my lifelong values and occupational role > somewhat. My focus has always been on research, not on "telling > patients what to do" or (for that matter) even on "service" to > patients. I talked with patients informally and when required to (not > very often) examined them formally, sharing with them and their > therapists as much understanding of what their conditions and > situations were (I dealt with traumatic brain injury most often, but > also stroke, epilepsy, MS, etc.). > > I was not "bitter", inasmuch as I had free reign to investigate any > phenomenon or idea that caught my interest. I was disappointed in the > poor financial support my hospital provided for my research but > grateful for the trade-off which gave me plenty of time and freedom to > pursue my research interests. > > In my retirement, I continue to follow what interests me, taking > advantage of my role in the NY Neuropsychology Group (which I helped > found, in 1979: http://nyng.org) and in the Psychology Section of the > NY Academy of Sciences, for example (http://nyas.org). > > Accordingly, I have little experience with "bitter", but apparently > Kevin does. > > --Frank LeFever > > > > > > --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@> wrote: > > > > Sure, Dr. LeFever, you don't endorse the kind of snake oil amateur > medicine show that Null produces? > > > > What really are the merits of drink dehydrated wheat grass juice > when you're dying of cancer? > > > > I'd have thought that at least you for one would want Pacifica to > stop practicing medicine without a license. > > > > Please correct me if I am wrong. > > > > Kevin White > > (Still Alive Despite Blue Cross Blue Shield) > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Frank LeFever <fflefever@> > > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 3:15:51 AM > > Subject: [NewPacifica] Gary Null's "deal" (Re: On the Proposed WBAI > Budget and Worker Layoffs) > > > > > > > --- In NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com, evan davis <evan@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ex-key-oooooze me?! > > > > Gary Null wants 5 hours of un-restricted air time in > > exchange for > > > > dropping his legal actions against Pacifica? Explain to me how that > > > > ISN'T what it looks like; blackmail. > > > > It looks to me like no more than restoration of what he was entitled > > to when he was summarily dismissed, turning back the clock to follow > > normal procedure. > > > > As I understand it, producers are to be given notice that they will be > > dismissed--is it perhaps one week's notice? (I'd have to research > > that to get the exact provisions, but certainly it is more than 24 > > hours' notice.) Presumably, had Null been given one-week's notice of > > intent to cancel his program, and if no new restrictions (i.e. > > censorship) were placed on what he could say, he would have been given > > what he has asked for in his suit. > > > > For those who do not know the history, let me point out that: > > > > (1) Null was silenced for a month on the grounds that he had made > > on-air statements supportive of one or more candidates for the LSB, a > > one-time event, and a rather brief one (2 or 3 minutes?); > > > > (2) Some thought this was excessive inasmuch as he was trying to > > refute things broadcast (the day before, I think) impugning the > > candidate or candidates he tried to defend, especially inasmuch as > > there was no penalty for the offense that triggered his fair-campaign > > violation. > > > > (3) Null was "assured" (dare I say "promised"?) that he could resume > > his regular broadcast schedule was soon as the election ended. > > > > (4) Instead, as SOON as the results were in, showing that the JUC had > > won a majority, Null was summarily dismissed. Immediately. That same > > day, I believe. > > > > Not surprisingly, a large group of listeners felt "dismissed" and > > followed Null elsewhere, taking what would have been their donations in > > subsequent fund drives with them. To the extent that this has > > contributed to the fiscal melt-down WBAI has moved inexorably towards, > > it's not unreasonable to say that (in effect) by arbitrarily and > > abruptly dismissing Null they (primarily Bernard White) laid off paid > > staff after a delay -- at least one or two of the staff who are > > scheduled to be laid off in the next few weeks or months. > > > > Some of them may have medical problems and no better health insurance > > than Bernard, but unlike Bernard, they are not beneficiaries of > > fund-raising events for their personal needs. > > > > --Frank LeFever > > > > --- In NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com, "mitchelcohen2001" > > <mitchelcohen@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > --- In NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com, evan davis <evan@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ex-key-oooooze me?! > > > > Gary Null wants 5 hours of un-restricted air time in > > exchange for > > > > dropping his legal actions against Pacifica? Explain to me how that > > > > ISN'T what it looks like; blackmail. > > > > > > As I understand it, that's what the USOC "contract" says. Hey, _I_ > > didn't write or sign that > > > document. > > > > > > Pacifica's primary way of fighting Gary Null in court is to claim > > that the USOC contract is > > > not valid, that it hasn't been signed for 5 years, etc. But to do so > > would undermine their > > > other claims, one of which ordered the local management to treat the > > contract written by > > > Mimi Rosenberg as valid. (It's filled with all sorts of insanities.) > > > > > > Mitchel > > > > > > Besides; Null has barely concealed > > > > rage about him that, in the past, has erupted in to profanity. > > Just one > > > > (more) "fleeting" expletive from Null could plunge the network in > > to a > > > > much deeper financial peril. Or perhaps he'd use those 5 hoursto > bash > > > > gay people and proclaim that AIDS is a consequence of their > > lifestyles ( > > > > a common thesis of Null's that I first heatrd on WBAI). > > > > > > > > You say that eliminating the Program Director position will > > save > > > > $80,000 in just 6 months?! If that is the case then how in the > > hell did > > > > the salary associated with that position get to be $160,000 a > year?! > > > > Most non-commercial station managers don't even make that much - > even > > > > the ones with actual talent! Maybe litigation could be brought > by the > > > > PNB against its CFO and itself for gross malfeasance. > > > > I recall a fund raiser once in NYC that generated more than > > > > $10,000 - not to be shared among all the programmers unjustly > > fired at > > > > that time by Bessie Wash and crew, but all for just one individual > > who > > > > happened to own his own house at the time. Other activists > > fighting to > > > > reclaim Pacifica were sleeping on floors and working 'round the > > clock to > > > > save the network yet this individual was the fund raiser's sole > > > > beneficiary? Obscene! And to think that this person, as PD at WBAI > > now > > > > gets paid $160,000 a year? He's like Pacifica's own in-house > > Haliburton! > > > > Evan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitchel Cohen wrote: > > > > > Dear Pacifica, > > > > > > > > > > Although the LSB has not yet seen the amended proposed budget > > for WBAI for 2008 > > > -2009, we have been told that it will include a reduction of funds > > for staff salaries, > > > equivalent to 6 or 6-1/2 Full-Time Equivalents. > > > > > > > > > > The LSB is expected to vote on this budget within the next few > > weeks. > > > > > > > > > > I and other LSB members have proposed a number of fundraising > > and cost-cutting > > > measures, but they have not been implemented by management, under > > directions of > > > Pacifica national. And so, the staff at WBAI are being told to > > accept the layoffs of 6 full > > > time personnel. > > > > > > > > > > Over the last few years, the CFO of Pacifica and the national > > board had imposed > > > ridiculously inflated budgets on WBAI, over the objections of the > > independent members of > > > the Local Station Board, including myself. These budgets were based > > both on false > > > information provided by the CFO and on the irresponsibilities of > > management, the > > > National Board, and the JUC majority that for those years ran the > > local board. Those > > > decisions -- and the people who made them (need we start naming > > names?) are > > > responsible for the fix we're in today. > > > > > > > > > > It is unfair that the paid staff at WBAI are now about to be > > forced to pay for the > > > recklessness of those who imposed those inflated budgets upon us -- > > especially since > > > other remedies to cut expenses and to raise funds have not been > > implemented. > > > > > > > > > > Let me list some of the alternatives here that I and others have > > proposed, which in my > > > opinion would remedy the immediate shortfall without the need to cut > > paid staff, and > > > begin to address the systemic or longterm situation as well: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Immediately reach out to Gary Null, Robert Knight, Mike Feder > > and other former > > > producers at WBAI, who were either arbitrarily fired or forced out, > > and return them to the > > > airwaves at WBAI. These producers were part of our community. When > > management fired > > > them -- and did so in such a cowardly and capricious manner -- > > several years ago, it tore > > > apart the heart of the listenership to WBAI. More than 9,000 > > *members* left the station > > > outright over the last 5 years (some new members joined to partially > > offset the vacuum > > > created). > > > > > > > > > > It is most important that the National Board and office > > understand that a large > > > number of listener-members felt personally betrayed by those > > firings, and the way they > > > were done -- every bit as much as many of us felt betrayed by the > > actions of Utrice Leid > > > and Bessie Wash 8 years ago, in what has become known as the > > "Christmas Coup" at WBAI. > > > Back then, Juan Gonzalez and others organized a financial boycott of > > WBAI that succeeded > > > in bringing the station to the edge of financial ruin unless fired > > staff and management > > > were returned to their jobs. This time around, there is no organized > > opposition; but > > > listeners and donors are nevertheless voting with their feet and > > with their wallets, refusing > > > to contribute the funds needed to sustain WBAI until Knight and Null > > are treated properly, > > > apologies made, and they are returned to the air. > > > > > > > > > > Please note that I am NOT claiming here that Gary Null, > > especially, will be the savior of > > > WBAI, riding in on a white horse, etc. I am talking about restoring > > the faith and good-spirit > > > -- the COMMUNITY -- of listeners, so that they feel that these sort > > of past reckless > > > actions will be ameliorated, and the healing process will not only > > be allowed to begin but > > > will be facilitated by management. When that happens, just like they > > did in 2003, listeners > > > will come pouring back with open credit cards, havig been made to > > feel welcome, made to > > > feel that their concerns are being listened to. > > > > > > > > > > This is the one issue that MUST be resolved if the station is to > > survive, let alone thrive. > > > To the extent that it goes unrepaired, no other funding mechanisms > > will matter, and the > > > station will sink. > > > > > > > > > > I have attempted to reach out, as LSB Chair, to learn from Gary > > Null and his lawyers > > > what will help to heal the damage. I am stunned that it is SO > > SIMPLE, and yet WBAI > > > management is so recalcitrant (on very bad advice from Dan Siegel, > > apparently) to redress > > > his grievance. All Gary Null is asking is to be allowed to do the > > five "goodbye" shows in his > > > old time slot on five consecutive days, as written in the USOC > > "contract," without > > > censorship. AND, for Pacifica to pay his legal fees of $59,000. > > That's it! We should GRAB > > > THIS OPPORTUNITY. > > > > > > > > > > Gary Null and WBAI had agreed to this arrangement (not the legal > > fees -- this was > > > before they were incurred) several years ago, but Pacifica's lawyers > > intervened at the last > > > minute and demanded that he sign what can only be considered a > > "censorship" clause, > > > stipulating out-of-the-blue what views he could and could not say on > > the air. Pacifica's > > > lawyers, in other words, scuttled the agreement. WHO AT PACIFICA > > NATIONAL WAS > > > RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECTING THE LAWYERS TO TAKE THIS STANCE, OR DID > > THEY DO SO > > > ON THEIR OWN? If they did so on their own, they should be fired > > immediately. And so Gary > > > Null sued in court, and after Pacifica's lawyers elicited fines for > > not providing documents in > > > a timely fashion, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees -- > > paid for by listeners -- > > > Gary Null's case was thrown out on a technicality that, many > > believe, will be reversed > > > should this be appealed. > > > > > > > > > > As it stands right now, there is no legal action involved in > > Null's case, although there > > > may be very soon. I am urging Pacifica to use this short window to > > set matters right by > > > Gary Null and Robert Knight, and to direct Pacifica's lawyers to > > STAY OUT OF IT, and to > > > untie the hands of the new management at WBAI. > > > > > > > > > > As to Gary Null's demand that Pacifica pay his legal fees in > > this matter, Pacifica is > > > shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars in all sorts of > > settlements of lawsuits. The > > > amount requested to go to Gary Null's lawyers in defending against > > management's actions > > > IS A PITTANCE, comparatively, to the other lawsuit settlements as > > well as to the amount of > > > funds that will be brought into the station in a matter of days as a > > result of rectifying this > > > matter. So why is Pacifica not allowing Tony Riddle to heal this > wound? > > > > > > > > > > 2) Implement Steve Brown's proposals for professionalizing the > > way fundraising is > > > done and getting more listeners to pay their pledges with credit > > cards, which > > > conservatively will net $100K within a few months and perhaps $1 > > million over a year if > > > properly and fully implemented. > > > > > > > > > > 3) Settle the lawsuit over the WBAI elections, immediately. > > Pacifica's lawyers have > > > already cost the corporation between $60,000 and $100,000 in this > > case, to defend .... > > > WHAT, exactly? That members who are entitled to receive ballots and > > vote in the LSB > > > elections should have received them, and their votes should have > > been counted? WHY is > > > Pacifica continuing to fight this no-brainer, and rack up perhaps > > $100-150K more in > > > expenses, let alone Plaintiff's legal fees, over the next year? WHAT > > IS WRONG WITH THE > > > NATIONAL MANAGEMENT AND BOARD THAT IT REFUSES TO END THIS, NOW, and > > save all > > > of that money? > > > > > > > > > > 4) Remove the position of Program Director at WBAI for 1/2-year > > (worth $80K over > > > next six months, including benefits), and replace it with a > > committee of department heads > > > -- a resolution I introduced to the LSB a year ago in more detail. > > > > > > > > > > 5) Fire Pacifica's lawyers, particularly Dan Siegel. They have > > for too long been working > > > against the best interests of the corporation on issue after issue, > > cost Pacifica MILLIONS of > > > dollars, and have been wrecking legitimate attempts to heal the > > damage done by prior > > > management with their legal "guidance". > > > > > > > > > > 6) Direct that equipment that had been "misappropriated" from > > the station by > > > management and staff be immediately returned, and that the PNB > > re-open the > > > investigation into this matter. > > > > > > > > > > Conservatively, and not including the last two items, these > > measures would net WBAI > > > more than $1.5 million in additional income over the next year ..... > > > > > > > > > > How can management be so insensitive, so foolish, as to order > > that workers be fired > > > for lack of funds when it hasn't taken these other, more sane and > > less drastic actions first? > > > > > > > > > > Until it does so, let's not take out on the workers the results > > of the reckless past > > > policies of the JUC, Pacifica management and CFO. Such actions > > contemplated by > > > management in the proposed budget -- the firing of staff due to > > shortage of funds -- > > > would completely wreck the network altogether, destroy the faith of > > listeners, and send > > > people with mouths to feed out onto the streets. The alternatives to > > that are simple, > > > effective, and yet you continue to refuse to enact them. Why? > > > > > > > > > > Mitchel Cohen > > > > > Chair, WBAI Local Station Board > > > > > > > > > >> > > >