Is Paranoia in American Politics Diagnosable?
Posted on | May 26, 2021 | Comments Off on Is Paranoia in American Politics Diagnosable?
Mike Magee
“The Presidency should not be used as a platform for proving one’s manhood ..”
“Inwardly he is a frightened person who sees himself as weak and threatened by strong virile power around him . . .”
“Since his nomination I find myself increasingly thinking of the early 1930s…”
“Unconsciously he seems to want to destroy himself. He has a good start, for he has already destroyed the Republican party . . .”
At first glance, the remarks above appear to have been made about Donald Trump. In fact, they are part of written survey responses to a September, 1964, Fact Magazine survey sent to 12,300 psychiatrists asking, “Do you believe that Barry Goldwater is psychologically fit to serve as President of the United States?” Of the 2400 responses, half replied “No.”
That was a bridge too far for the American Psychiatric Association, which in 1973 adopted Section 7.3 in their Ethics Rules which states, “[I]t is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement”
That rule held until Donald Trump descended his Trump Tower spiral staircase in 2016. As he approached a possible second term, the nation’s mental health professionals were in full revolt. For example, the June, 2018 article appearing in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law was titled “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”
In the age of Marjorie Greene, mass paranoia and open insurrection, we Americans may be excused if it appears that our national experiment in self-governance is coming apart at the seams. It is also natural to give way to the notion that what we are experiencing is uniquely different, and therefore poses a greater risk than we’ve encountered in the past.
Under such moments of self-inflicted crises of conscience, history often comes to the rescue. Let me introduce you to a young boy, born in Chowan County, North Carolina, in 1899. Raised by devout Baptists, and homeschooled by his mother until age 10, when he entered high school.
He was self-described in later years as “a gifted child”, a rabid and early anti-communist, and an “insufferable” advocate of Christian conversion. He was also a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and Harvard Law School.
You may not have ever heard of him, but certainly know him by his products if you were a child of the ‘50’s or 60’s. He created Sugar Daddies, Sugar Babies, Junior Mints and Pom Poms. He also created the John Birch Society.
When he took early retirement at the age of 50, Robert W. Welch, Jr. was already a wealthy man. He could well afford to focus on rescuing the souls of Americans for whom he apparently held deep contempt, describing them as ignorant and ill-informed, and therefore in danger of being converted by communists who he found hidden in every crack and around every corner.
His earliest foray into electoral politics, a run for Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts in 1950, ended poorly. But it did allow him to get close to the 1952 Republican candidate for President, Robert A. Taft, the champion of “Fortress America” and smearer of internationalism in the form of NATO and the United Nations.
Taft of course lost. But in the wings, Welch embraced another like-minded cold warrior, Senator Joe McCarthy, who was running for re-election in Wisconsin, who happily agreed to accept donations from the retired candy striper. McCarthy of course went down in ashes.
But Welch more than picked up the mantle when McCarthy succumbed to alcohol and opioid addiction on May 2, 1957. One year later, he convened a group of like-minded conspiracists for a two-day session in Indianapolis, Indiana. On the agenda was a discussion of the life of one relatively unknown World War II soldier who had been the subject of Welch’s first book in 1954, a biography of the “first casualty of World War III.” The book’s title was The Life of John Birch.
Welch shared a common passage with Birch. Beyond their military experience, both grew up in the deep “Jim Crow” south (Welch in North Carolina, Birch in Georgia), both intellectually gifted, both products of missionary oriented Baptist parents, and early radicalized with equal measures of paranoia and hyperbole. A classmate at Mercer University, an affiliate of Georgia Baptist, later recalled that “He was always an angry young man, always a zealot, felt he was called to defend the faith, and he alone knew what it was.”
What made Birch Welch’s hero however was that he died at the hands of Chinese Communists in Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China, as a member of the Army’s fledgling intelligence service on August 25, 1945, seven days before Japan officially surrendered. Jimmy Doolittle, US ARMY WWII pilot extraordinaire, said of this man others made a hero posthumously, “I feel sure he would not have approved.” While Birch may have preferred to remain anonymous, Welch chose to elevate him. By 1960, Birch was the face of a hard-right, anti-communist organization with a staff of 28, and approaching 100,000 members.
Members kept busy writing letters of protest. For example, when supporters of the U.N. created a four part documentary television series celebrating the United Nations, Xerox, their primary sponsor, received 51,279 letters of protest from John Birch Society members. The Society’s president at the time said “We hate to see a corporation of this country promote the U.N. when we know that it is an instrument of the Soviet Communist conspiracy.” They also actively opposed the civil rights movement, and lined up to help secure the candidacy of Barry Goldwater for President in 1964.
Columbia University’s Pulitzer Prize Winning Professor of History,Richard Hofstadter, labeled the unique political approach of Welch, and Goldwater, and all the rest leading up to Trump as “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” As he wrote in 1964, “I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.”
In fleshing out his theory, Hofstadter recounts a 1951 speech by McCarthy in which he states, “This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, which it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.”
Later in the article, Hofstadler comes eerily close to defining our current predicament with this: “Perhaps the central situation conducive to the diffusion of the paranoid tendency is a confrontation of opposed interests which are (or are felt to be) totally irreconcilable, and thus by nature not susceptible to the normal political processes of bargain and compromise. The situation becomes worse when the representatives of a particular social interest—perhaps because of the very unrealistic and unrealizable nature of its demands—are shut out of the political process. Having no access to political bargaining or the making of decisions, they find their original conception that the world of power is sinister and malicious fully confirmed.”
Finally, there are these words, which certainly must resonate with the many psychiatrists who felt compelled to break their own “Goldwater Rule” as a patriotic gesture in defense of their nation against Trump and his enablers. Hofstadler writes, “We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.”
Tags: APA > Goldwater > Goldwater Rule > John Birch Society > Paranoia > trump > US Presidency
Is Universal Health Care An Economic Tool Whose Time Has Come?
Posted on | May 19, 2021 | 6 Comments
Mike Magee
John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist, was born and raised in Cambridge, England, and taught at King’s College. He died in 1946. He is widely recognized today as the father of Keynesian economics that promoted a predominantly private sector driven, market economy, with an activist government sector hanging in the wings ready to assume center stage during emergencies.
Declines in demand pointed to recession. Irrationally exuberant spending signaled inflationary increases in pricing, eroding the value of your money. Under these conditions, Keynes encouraged the government and central bank to adjust fiscal and monetary policy to dampen the highs and lows of the business cycles.
Keynesian economics were popularized in America in the 1930’s by a University of Minnesota economist who would go on to become Chairman of Economics at Harvard. For this, he is often referred to as “The American Keynes”, and was highlighted this week in the New York Times by Nobel economist, Paul Krugman, for his association with another tagline, “Secular Stagnation.”
When that economist, Alvin Hansen, first described the condition, he was working on FDR’s Social Security Plan. He defined it as “persistent spending weakness even in the face of very low inflation.” Krugman’s modern-day description? “What we’re looking at here is a world awash in savings with nowhere to go.”
Krugman is not the only economist sounding the alarm. Larry Summers, Harvard economist and Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, recently wrote, “The relevance of economic theories depends on context.” On the top of his list of current environmental concerns restricting investment and growth is the strong belief that the number of available workers is in steep decline.
Just days ago the CDC added fuel to the fire when they reported a 2020 birth rate in the U.S. of 55.8 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. That was 4% lower than in 2019, and the lowest recorded rate since we started collecting these numbers in 1909. Our lower birthrate is further aggravated by declines in numbers of immigrants and a flattening of the movement of women into the workforce. Add to this the general aging of our population. To put it in perspective, Americans over 80 now outnumber Americans 2 and under.
But Summers’ concerns extend well beyond worker and product line shortages. More significant in his view are two other factors. The first is low demand fueled by population stasis. As he states, “These demographic developments eliminate the demand for new capital goods to equip and house a growing workforce.” Or stated in a different way, growing families buy things – lots of things. Shrinking families do not.
The second trend that concerns him is information technology enabled efficiencies that further dampen demand. Why? Because products today work much better and for much longer. Just one example – today’s $500 iPhone has the power of a Cray supercomputer from a generation ago. And, with no end in sight, Summers says consumers will likely continue to withhold spending in anticipation of lower prices in the future.
To make matters worse, IT connectivity has also increased renting and sharing opportunities. You don’t need to own everything (or anything) yourself. There appear to be few limits on what you can share.
What Krugman and Summers agree on is that there is plenty of money in the system, and more to come, through government infusions. But growth requires participation, not sitting on the sideline. Hansen’s “secular stagnation” suggests a reluctance to invest in the immediate future. If unchecked, it can lead to a prolonged, Japan-like, period of deflation and hardship.
Krugman’s prescription is to spend, and spend big, in government-sponsored projects that draw out citizen participation, and encourage mobility, productivity, and confidence in the future. He says we need to ignore “deficit hawks”, noting that the current deficit (twice as large as in 1990) is carrying an interest payment burden only half as large as three decades ago because of persistent low interest rates.
Krugmen believes “cheap money” should be advantaged, but in a purposeful and targeted manner. What are his two top priorities?
1) Infrastructure projects – to create immediate jobs in and for the communities they serve.
2) Universal Health Care – to promote mobility, productivity and confidence in our combined and interdependent futures.
Alvin Hansen died at the age of 87 in 1975. Hansen’s first book, Full Recovery or Stagnation, published in 1938, was prescient in suggesting that, if employment and growth are stagnant, in an economic cycle, government intervention may be required to stimulate demand.
A few years before his death, Paul McCracken, chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under LBJ, said of Hansen: “It is certainly a statement of fact that you have influenced the nation’s thinking about economic policy more profoundly than any other economist in this century.”
Now, a half-century later, it appears that Full Recovery or Stagnation deserves a careful reread.
Tags: Alvin Hansen > John Keynes > Larry Summers > Paul Krugman > secular stagnation
The Night Biden and Bernie Channeled FDR and MLK.
Posted on | May 10, 2021 | Comments Off on The Night Biden and Bernie Channeled FDR and MLK.
Mike Magee
In my research up to last week’s speech on “The Right to Health Care and the U.S. Constitution” (transcript here), I came across this Emily Dickinson poem that could easily have been a forward looking tribute to two American Presidents – one from the 20th, the other the 21st century.
Dickinson’s poem “A WORD is dead” is hardly longer than its title.
“A WORD is dead
When it is said,
Some say.
I say it just
Begins to live
That day.”
She certainly was on the mark when it came to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s signature legislation. FDR’s New Deal, extending from 1933 to 1939, ultimately came down to just three words – the 3R’s – Relief , Recovery, and Reform.
He promised “Action, and action now!” This included a series of programs, infrastructure projects, financial reforms, a national health care program and industry regulations, protecting those he saw as particularly vulnerable including farmers, unemployed, children and the elderly. And he wasn’t afraid to make enemies. Of Big Business, he said in a 1936 speech in Madison Square Garden, “They are unanimous in their hate for me – and I welcome their hatred.”
But he was also a political realist. And by his second term of office Justice Hughes and his Conservative dominated Supreme Court had begun to undermine his legislative successes and were threatening his signature bill- the Social Security Act. So FDR compromised, and in the face of withering criticism from the AMA, postponed his plans for national health care.
By June 11, 1944, a supremely popular 4th term President had found his voice again, and knew the words to use as he promised a “Second Bill of Rights” stating that the original was now “inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.”
Turning a phrase that is as lasting as it is powerful, he said, “Necessitous men are not free men.” And in his list of economic rights that he pledged to pursue, these two appeared:
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
Now, three quarters of a century later, a new President, pragmatic and opportunistic, is signaling once again that the time is right for change.
Following his recent address to Congress on April 29, 2021, President Joe Biden spent a good deal of time on the aisle in private conversation with Sen. Bernie Sanders. They’ve been talking a lot lately. In his speech he waded into health care with both feet, and found a way to link the ACA and Medicare.
President Biden said, “The Affordable Care Act has been a lifeline for millions of Americans …And the money we save, which is billions of dollars, can go to strengthening the Affordable Care Act and expand Medicare benefits without costing taxpayers an additional penny. It is within our power to do it. Let’s do it now…We’ve talked about it long enough, Democrats and Republicans. Let’s get it done this year. This is all about a simple premise: Health care should be a right, not a privilege in America.”
Those last words, as Emily Dickinson would remind, “began to live” in 2009, when first delivered by the man on the aisle, Bernie Sanders.
Earlier in his speech, Biden reflects on an image he recently observed in Florida. “One of the defining images, at least from my perspective, in this crisis has been cars lined up, cars lined up for miles (in food lines)…I don’t know about you, but I didn’t ever think I would see that in America. And all of this is through no fault of their own. No fault of their own, these people are in this position. That’s why the rescue plan is delivering food and nutrition assistance to millions of Americans facing hunger.”
Those words also “began to live” many years earlier. On June 11, 1944, FDR said, “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. ‘Necessitous men are not free men.’ People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
Roughly two decades later in 1966, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. mirrored the same words and linked poverty and health care, at the Poor People’s Campaign when he said, “of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”
Those words continued to live a half century later, appearing in a 2017 New Yorker piece penned by celebrity physician author, Atul Gawande. The words were uttered by two former neighbors of his still living in Athens, Ohio, the hardscrabble town where he grew up in the Appalachian foothills.
The first said, “basic rights include physical security, water, shelter, and health care. Meeting these basics is, he maintained, among government’s highest purposes and priorities.”
A second voice added, “I think the goal should be security – knowing that, no matter how bad things get, health shouldn’t be what you worry about.”
Wednesday at 1:30 PM EST – Join Me For the Most Important Health Debate of the Year.
Posted on | May 2, 2021 | 2 Comments
Mike Magee
This Wednesday afternoon, May 5th, from 1:30 to 3:00 has been 3 months in the making. Last week, President Biden said, “We’ve talked about it long enough, Democrats and Republicans. Let’s get it done this year. This is all about a simple premise: Health care should be a right, not a privilege in America.”
Is he right? What are the legal, political and cultural dimensions of this debate?
To find out, I hope you’ll reserve May 5, 2021, from 1:30 to 3:00 PM, for a fascinating online lecture: “The Constitution and Your ‘Right’ to Health Care.” Best of all, the $20 fee helps support the lifelong learning programs at the University of Hartford. These virtual programs are open to all comers and are an invaluable resource to help combat the isolation, fear and worry that has affected all of our citizens over the past year.
This 90-minute slide lecture explores the recent political history and legal controversy surrounding attempts to establish universal health coverage in America. “Is health care a right?” viewed within the context of the Bill of Rights and especially the 9th and 10th Amendments? What are the legal arguments advanced over the past decade to challenge the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? And does the Covid-19 pandemic make it more or less likely that “Medicare for All” will pass legal muster in the future?
Join me for this stimulating interactive session, including time for audience participation, and contribute $20 to a great cause. You can register online HERE.
Historic Cultural Clashes and Access to Health Care: Griswold v. Connecticut.
Posted on | April 29, 2021 | Comments Off on Historic Cultural Clashes and Access to Health Care: Griswold v. Connecticut.
Mike Magee
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021, I hope you’ll join me from 1:30 – 3:00 PM for a virtual lecture that President Biden highlighted in his speech to Congress this week – “Health Care ‘Right’ and the U.S. Constitution”. Register HERE. (Here is a small segment.)
____________________________________________________
It began on March 7, 1844, with the birth of one man, Anthony Comstock, in New Canaan, Connecticut. Raised in a strict Christian home, his religiosity intensified during a two-year stint in the Union Army during the Civil War.
A member of the 17th Connecticut Infantry, he took great offense to the profanity and debauchery he witnessed in and among his fellow soldiers. With the strong support of church-based groups of the day, and as the self-proclaimed “weeder in God’s garden”, he sought out a purpose and found a political vehicle in New York City’s Young Men’s Christian Association, which he parlayed into a post as the United States Postal Inspector.
His overarching goal was to advance Victorian morality by stamping out smut. The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, was chartered at his insistence by the New York state legislature in 1873, and included the twin mottos of “Morals, not Art and Literature” and “Books are feeders for brothels.”
Using local postal agents, his searches and seizures, whose subsequent sales were shared 50/50 with his own organization, bankrolled the lobbying of Congress necessary to pass the “Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use”, otherwise known as the Comstock Laws.
Pornography, contraceptive equipment, reproductive health literature, and books deemed risque’ or suggestive all fell into his cross-hairs. By his own account, prior to his untimely death on September 21, 1915, he had prosecuted 3600 defendants, seized 160 tons of obscene literature, enjoyed the active support of industry, the AMA, and the Catholic Church among others, and sparked equally restrictive and intrusive legislation in 24 states – one of those being Connecticut.
Along the way, he made powerful enemies. For example, in 1905 George Bernard Shaw, on hearing in London that his new play, “Man and Superman” had been removed from the New York Public Library, had this to say in a public letter published in the New York Times: “Dear Sir – Nobody outside of America is likely to be in the least surprised. Comstockery is the world’s standing joke at the expense of the United States. Europe likes to hear of such things. It confirms the deep-seated conviction of the Old World that America is a provincial place, a second-rate country-town civilization after all.”
A decade later, arch-enemy Margaret Sanger, laid him bare with these words, “We know the capitalist class must have a slave class, bred in poverty and reared in ignorance. That is why it is quite consistent with their laws that there should be a heavy penalty of five years’ imprisonment for imparting information as to the means of preventing conception. Industry…(must) under sell its rival competitors. They have only one way to do this, and that is to get labor cheap. The cheapest labor is that of women and children; the larger the number of children in a family, the earlier they enter the factory.”
Two decades later, with World War II looming FDR and Justice Hughes weighed priorities and decided indecency was less of a threat to the country than venereal disease among the troops. The AMA lent its support as well.
But the final nail in the Comstock coffin was fittingly delivered nearly 50 years after his death in the crusader’s home state where Comstock Laws were still on the books. The protagonist was Estelle Griswold, Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League. In 1961, Griswold was arrested and fined $100 for providing contraceptives and birth control advice in their New Haven office. That arrest led to a landmark suit (Griswold v. Connecticut) in the Supreme Court with effects far beyond Comstock.
On June 7, 1965, in a 7 to 2 decision, Justice William O. Douglas wrote: “Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship. We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system.”
Arthur Sackler – On Trial.
Posted on | April 20, 2021 | Comments Off on Arthur Sackler – On Trial.
Mike Magee
Former Wall Street Journal reporter, John Carreyrou, in a New York Times review of New Yorker columnist, Patrick Radden Keefe’s new book, Empire of Pain, decries the author’s early focus on Arthur Sackler, the patriarch of the clan who died in 1987, a decade prior to the FDA approval of OxyContin. Any who have read my book, Code Blue: Inside the Medical Industrial Complex, will not be surprised that I side with Keefe on this one.
Carreyrou makes this case: “While Arthur’s life makes for fascinating reading — he had three wives and became an avid collector of Asian art, negotiating a secret deal with the Met to store his coveted collection in one of the museum’s wings free of charge — he played no role in the OxyContin saga, which made me question Keefe’s decision to devote fully one-third of the book to him.”
Here’s why he is wrong.
The official narrative, as it exists today, oft repeated by premier medical and cultural organizations, who maintained schools, exhibit halls, and colloquia that beared his name, features:
1. A remarkably industrious boy who, from an early age, supported his parents (who lost everything in the Depression), put himself through college and medical school at NYU, doing the same for two younger brothers who sought medical school overseas to escape prejudice.
2. A boy who grew up in “hard times”, whose parents were grocers in Brooklyn, chose medicine as a vocation at the age of four, but whose passion drew him more than equally to Art, pursuing art and sculpture lessons as a teen, and taking courses at New York’s famed Coopers Union while attending college and funding the family besides.
3. A committed physician and researcher who generated 140 science related papers, dealing primarily with exploring biologic approaches to psychiatric illness in the 1950’s.
4. A remarkably prolific philanthropist focused on brand name institutions in Medicine and the Arts.
5. A very successful business man, whose extended family fortune was pegged in 2015, at $14 billion, 18 years after his untimely death at age 73 from a heart attack on May 26, 1987.
Yet, the details that tie Arthur M. Sackler to the Man-made Opioid Epidemic, and the well-established tactics that helped consummate the Medical Industrial Complex in the second half of the 20th century are largely hidden from public view.
The truth diverges dramatically from the varnished version, and reveals a rich kid who set his sites early on becoming the marketing poster boy for a wildly profitable Medical-Industrial Complex (MIC) and laid the seeds for the Opioid Epidemic.
The story continues HERE.
Is Health Care a “Right”, a “Privilege” – or Simply a “Necessity?”
Posted on | April 8, 2021 | 8 Comments
Mike Magee
I am currently knee-deep into preparations for an online lecture at the Presidents College at the University of Hartford on Wednesday, May 5th, at 1:30 PM titled “The Constitution. and Your “Right” to Health Care in America.”
I’ve been at it for over a month. The classic debate centers on the Constitution’s emphasis on negative rights (that is protection of citizen prerogatives from overreaching of their federal and state governments), rather than positive enumerated rights, which carry with them implied obligations of enactment or enforcement (as in The Bill of Rights).
On a practical level, the same debate– from high schoolers to policy elites – reads from one source like this:
“Proponents of the right to health care say that no one in one of the richest nations on earth should go without health care. They argue that a right to health care would stop medical bankruptcies, improve public health, reduce overall health care spending, help small businesses, and that health care should be an essential government service.”
“Opponents argue that a right to health care amounts to socialism and that it should be an individual’s responsibility, not the government’s role, to secure health care. They say that government provision of health care would decrease the quality and availability of health care, and would lead to larger government debt and deficits.”
The 90-minute lecture, presaging a full-blown course this Fall, will place me in the middle of this debate – part practical, part esoteric, legal and nuanced. But the reality that I’m fast approaching is that it really doesn’t matter. That’s because – whether a “right” or “privilege”, universal, accessible, affordable and effective health care in America is now a “necessity.”
Here are three reasons why this is true:
1. Performance: By any measure available, our predatory and profit-driven approach is a 70-year old historic misstep that is roughly twice as expensive and half as effective as most of the 36 OCED comparator nations.
2. Economic: This highly inequitable and remarkably variable system now accounts for roughly 1/5 of our entire GDP, powered by a bureaucratic workforce with 16 workers for every physician, half of which have absolutely no clinical function. The resultant corporatized Medical Industrial Complex supports opaque pricing, legal kickbacks, and an integrated career ladder where medical scientists actively collude with CEOs from health insurance, hospital, pharmaceutical and research arenas.
3. Strategic: Our decentralized approach to care lacks any coordinated national strategic public health apparatus. There is no national plan. When stressed by the current pandemic, it failed on a massive scale resulting in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens, vast damage to our economy, and near collapse of our major hospitals nationwide. In the process, it revealed historic underfunding of public health, prevention, and the social determinants of health, preferring instead to rely on last minute, high science intervention come to the rescue.
The question we need to be asking ourselves – whether you align with “right” or “privilege” – is no longer a philosophical debate, but rather a practical question.
“What kind of system do we need to create to make America and all Americans healthy?”
"Code Blue INDEX online"
Prospective Health Blog
BIOGRAPHY
Homegrown Friends
BIOGRAPHY
NIH Precision Medicine
BIOGRAPHY
Health in 30
BIOGRAPHY
Larry's Letters
BIOGRAPHY
Precision Medicine, Euthanasia, Abortion, Communism, Trillions of Dollars, Losing Freedom, and Town Hall Mobs BIOGRAPHY
Yearning for Universal Coverage Is Not Universal
BIOGRAPHY
