Posted by .

SUSA on Street


A trip to the hospital can be dangerous
  • Every year nearly two million hospital-acquired infections claim roughly 100,000 lives.
  • Heart attacks are misdiagnosed 47 percent of the time. Why are women the common victims?
  • Hospital death rates increase up to 34% in July.

Why do these things happen? What can you do about them? How can you be safe? The book tells all.


Listen each week as Pat shares little known healthcare and hospital hazards in a fast-paced and entertaining format. World class and good looking guest experts – fun and lighthearted games – the Healthcare Hazard of the Week where Pat goes – “beyond the bull” – all guaranteed to keep you safe during any healthcare or hospital encounter.


Book Pat to speak at your next meeting or conference. A powerful presence. Pat’s perspective is perfect for the patient, advocate, or family audience as well as the provider – healthcare organizations, hospitals, physicians, and nurses.

She’s informed but not stuffy ~ Honest but not brutal ~ A quick smile and a ready laugh yet passionate about her message. And for added value – she will interview audience members and promote the event on her radio shows!

Read the book – listen to the radio shows and schedule a presentation that will save your audience from little known hospital hazards and share the patient’s perspective. Fun, fast paced, and jam packed with serious information, delivered with a light touch of humor and wit. Your crowd will love it.
Jon Voight3
Even Jon Voight bought the book – Speak Up and Stay Alive


Please note – All content on this website is for information only and is not intended to diagnose or treat any illness, disease, or to replace medical advice.

9 Responses to “Home”

  1. Jennifer Cline

    Great presentation last week at our annual meeting. FANTASTIC!

  2. Jordan Cantru

    You have a unparalled lineup of guests and that is one of the reasons we listen to the show every week. Also really enjoy your healthcare hazard of the week. Thanks for doing what you do, Pat.

  3. Diane Henry

    Just booked you for September and sent the invites. 150 attendees so far and we might have to come up with an additional date to accommodate. Do you have time to do that during the same week?

  4. Ken Larson

    Some speakers educate and some entertain. Pat does both. I’ve had the pleasure of attending one of her events and listening to the radio shows and always leave with information that I can understand and actually use as well as a few laughs. So happy to read that the show is now syndicated.
    Ken Larson – Glendale, Arizona

  5. Ronald Smith

    Hello Patricia,

    I listen to your radio shows every week and appreciate how you have the ability to pair substance with storytelling with humor. And I most value that you speak from a place that allows your listeners to understand a sometimes complex topic. You are a listener’s speaker. Thank you for breaking down a difficult topic and for setting a positive tone and reinforcing ways that ultimately prove empowering both to patients and providers. Happy to see that you are syndicated.

    Ronald Smith PhD
    a loyal listener

  6. Dr. Sara Speaks Up - Vaccines & Flu Shots

    Vaccination Information: Measles, for example
    Sara Reynolds MD

    Cases of Autism Dwarf Risk from Measles
    When the number of children who get measles is compared with the number who get autism, and then you consider the relative degree of harm from each, it becomes obvious that there’s an agenda behind the measles fear mongering.

    Here we go again. Fear mongering over measles is in full swing. To listen to the hype from the medical establishment, you’d think it was smallpox, not the relatively mild disease that doesn’t begin to compare with the harm done by the so-called cure for measles, vaccinations. The reality is that the autism epidemic dwarfs the risk of measles in every sense.

    First, though, let’s get a sense of the measles hysteria being mounted by seeing what the papers are saying. The Telegraph refers to the people who’ve contracted measles as “struck down”. The Guardian refers to the head of the Health Protection Agency, Mary Ramsay, who focuses on “reminding parents and young adults of the importance of immunisation. Although MMR coverage has improved over the last few years, we cannot stress enough that measles is serious and, in some cases, it can be fatal. Measles is a highly infectious and potentially dangerous illness which spreads very easily.” We’ll see how seriously that warning should be taken! Then, the Los Angeles Times gives dire warning with, “This could bode ill for infants, who are generally too young to get the vaccine.”

    Always, the implication is that parents who don’t vaccinate their children are guilty, not only for harm to their own children, but also for putting everyone else at risk. Never are the risks of the vaccinations considered. And there’s a reason for that: If the dangers and likelihood of harm from vaccines were compared with those of measles, the truth would result in widespread resistance to it and other vaccines.

    So, let’s do a comparison and see the relative risks from measles and vaccinations.

    United Kingdom
    According to The Guardian, in the first three months of this year, there were 330 cases of measles in the UK. Apparently, that’s supposed to strike fear in the hearts of parents, though not a single child has died.

    Let’s assume that rate continues, so that a total of 1,320 children come down with measles. According to the UK’s Office of National Statistics, the number of live births in the UK over the last few years has been around 790,000 per year. Most of those children are vaccinated. Let’s assume a very conservative number actually received vaccinations for most childhood diseases, and put the number vaccinated at 80%, or about 632,000. Then, let’s round that downwards, just to be sure we err on the side of caution, and make that figure 630,000 new children who receive their vaccinations each year.

    Now, the rate of autism is debated, but a commonly-accepted figure is that around 1 in 100 children develop it. That’s 1% of all children, and so far, it appears that only vaccinated children suffer from the disease. (Try to find an unvaccinated autistic child!) So, if we refer to the conservative figure of 630,000 new children who are vaccinated each year, that brings the number of newly-autistic children to about 6,300! That’s 6,300 chronically ill children whose potential in life has been devasted added to all those from previous years.

    Compare 6,300 newly autistic children every year with 1,320 children coming down with measles! Multiply the number of measles cases tenfold, and even then, it’s minor compared to children thrust into lives of pain and limitation from autism—not to mention the drain on their families and society as a whole. A few days, even weeks, of illness simply don’t compare with a lifetime of destroyed hopes and options, full of pain and debility.

    Let’s take a look at France, using a similar approach. France is a worst-case scenario for the incidence of measles in the industrialized world. According to The Guardian, during the same period of time that the UK noted 330 cases of measles, France reported 5,000, with one measles-related death.

    The number of live births in France is a little greater than the UK’s, at 796,000 in a year. Using the conservative 80% vaccination rate, that’s 636,800 vaccinated children. As with the UK, we’ll be extra conservative and round downwards to 630,000 new vaccinated children each year—about the same number as in the UK. [Note that the French vaccination rate is actually high, with the MMR vaccine required of every child before entering school. Nonetheless, we’ll assume a much lower rate and use the 80% vaccination rate that we used for the UK.]

    So, conservatively, we can assume that 6,300 French children become autistic each year. Compare that with the worst-case scenario that France presents today. 5,000 cases of measles extrapolated over the entire year would be 20,000 cases, a significant number. Then, 1 death extrapolated over the entire year would be 4 deaths.

    Next, let’s also consider the number of babies dying from cot death (also called crib death or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) each year. This is not unreasonable, since a close correlation between cot death and the DPaT vaccine exists. The number of cot deaths in the UK is around 300 a year, and the rate is similar in France. So, we can compare about 300 cot deaths with 4 measles deaths in a year. The number of deaths associated with measles pales in comparison to cot deaths.

    Now, let’s take one last jab (pun intended) at the claim that nonvaccinated people are to blame for the pseudo-epidemic of measles. France vaccinates as much as the UK. Yet, France’s outbreak of measles is far bigger, more than 15 times bigger. It has been much larger for the last couple of years, too, so this year is not an anomaly. If the unvaccinated are to blame for measles outbreaks, then why is France’s outbreak so much larger than anywhere else?

    Why All the Fear Mongering About Measles?
    In even the worst-case scenario, measles cannot compare with autism and cot death for either severity of risk or numbers involved. Even if we discount the obvious connection between vaccinations and both autism and cot death, where is the sense of proportion in the news media and our public health institutions?

    If we consider the overall effects and losses from autism alone, it’s obvious that measles isn’t even in the same ballgame. However, instead we have massive resources thrown at measles. An enormous fear mongering campaign has been launched, with the goal of pressing everyone, parents and adults alike, to have more and more vaccinations.

    The question must be asked: Why? Why are so much energy and resources being put into scaring people to get vaccinated for a disease that causes a tiny fraction of the harm, both fiscally and in human terms, that measles does?

    Surely it’s obvious that this is a misdirection program, propaganda to keep people’s attention away from the truly serious issues. That’s the best possible spin to place on it.

    However, it seems obvious to me, and to all those who have personally gone to the effort of reading the research themselves, that there’s an even more insidious campaign of misdirection going on. Its purpose is to promote the belief that vaccines are more beneficial than harmful, to literally scare and shame people into vaccinating both their children and themselves—no matter what the personal or societal cost.

    Frankly, I don’t have the words to describe my disgust at the depths of depravity that Big Pharma, Big Medicine, and Big Government have stooped to cover up the autism pandemic and its likely cause, vaccinations.

    by Heidi Stevenson

    Originally circulated 2011

    Forced Flu Shots Are Outrageous: Top Doctor
    Although you can refuse to take an annual flu shot, your doctor may not have that privilege. More and more hospitals and other healthcare facilities across the United States require that all employees get flu shots, and some workers are fired if they refuse.

    Even local and state governments are demanding mandatory routine flu shots. Last week, all Los Angeles county healthcare workers who come in contact with patients were ordered to get the shot or wear a protective mask throughout the entire flu season.

    “This is absolutely outrageous,” says holistic family physician Dr. David Brownstein, editor of Dr. David Brownstein’s Natural Way to Health. “In fact, it’s beyond outrageous. They are forcing workers to take a vaccine that has been shown to be worthless.

    “Protecting the patients should be the No. 1 goal of any hospital,” Dr. Brownstein tells Newsmax Health. “However, mandating that every single hospital worker receive the flu vaccine or face termination is not the correct way to improve patient care.

    “Studies have shown that if you vaccinate every single healthcare worker in a hospital, it doesn’t decrease the numbers of cases of flu at all … zero decrease,” says Dr. Brownstein.
    The vaccine is promoted to protect the most vulnerable groups — the elderly, young children, and the chronically ill. But evidence shows it fails on all three counts.
    Dr. Brownstein trusts the information provided by the non-profit Cochrane Collaboration which summarizes healthcare studies, examining the way they are conducted and analyzed. “They don’t take Big Pharma money.” A review of 51 studies by the Cochrane group found that there was no evidence that flu shots prevented flu in children 6 to 24 months of age any more than a placebo.

    In 2010, the Cochrane group analyzed four randomized controlled trials and one cohort study (a type of observational study) to determine whether the vaccination of hospital personnel had any effect on the incidence of laboratory-proven flu, pneumonia, admissions to the hospital, and death from pneumonia. “There is insufficient evidence to support the vaccination of health care workers as a measure to protect older patients from influenza,” they concluded.

    In addition, a study presented at a meeting of the American Thoracic Society found that not only did flu shots not prevent health problems in asthmatic children, those who got the vaccine were three times more likely to be hospitalized than children who didn’t get the vaccine.

    “The flu vaccine was developed in the 1970s and promoted to prevent death from the flu in the most vulnerable people in the population, the sick and elderly,” says Dr. Brownstein. “But the same number of people die from the flu now as in the 1970s. There has been no decrease in deaths even though more and more people are getting the vaccine. And the elderly don’t respond to it because their immune systems don’t function well.

    “A Cochrane Review of 50 studies with over 70,000 adults found that when the vaccine was poorly matched for the circulating influenza virus — which is usually the case — 100 people need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of the flu,” says Dr. Brownstein.

    “In other words, the flu vaccine had a 99 percent failure rate — 99 out of 100 patients received no benefit from the vaccine. When the vaccine matched the circulating viral strain, 33 patients had to be vaccinated to prevent one case of the flu — a 96 percent failure rate since 32 of 33 subjects received no benefit.”

    The latest study to defend flu vaccines made headlines last month when a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Vanderbilt university admitted that the vaccine was less effective in seniors, but still advised vaccination and touted a 77 percent reduced risk in hospitalizations among those who had been vaccinated. But a reading of the actual study revealed that only 17 people had been vaccinated.

    “That’s much too small to make any judgment,” said Dr. Brownstein. “Furthermore, the group that wasn’t vaccinated smoked more than the vaccinated group. No wonder they did worse.”

    The portion of the population that may receive some benefit are younger adults, says Dr. Brownstein. “Some studies show a 30 percent decrease in flu in younger people who get the vaccine, but some studies show there’s no benefit even for them.

    “As a population, the flu vaccine has never been shown to decrease deaths or decrease the incidence of flu,” he says.
    “There is no reason to force mandatory flu vaccines on healthcare workers,” he says. “It’s a ridiculous idea that should be put in the trash bin. It’s just terrible.

    “I feel sorry for hospital workers,” he said. “They are caught between a rock and a hard place, and they will be fired if they don’t comply. It might be different if they had a good study that showed that vaccinating hospital workers reduced the incidence of flu, but they don’t.

    “It’s a sad day when something like this can happen,” says Dr. Brownstein. “No one should be forced to get a flu shot.”

    Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/Headline/forced-vaccination-flu-vaccine-annual-flu-shot-healthcare-workers/2013/10/24/id/532938#ixzz2je9anPuW

    Johns Hopkins Scientist Slams Flu Vaccine
    A Johns Hopkins scientist has issued a blistering report on influenza vaccines in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Peter Doshi, Ph.D., charges that although the vaccines are being pushed on the public in unprecedented numbers, they are less effective and cause more side effects than alleged by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Further, says Doshi, the studies that underlie the CDC’s policy of encouraging most people to get a yearly flu shot are often low quality studies that do not substantiate the official claims.

    Promoting influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies in the United States, says Doshi of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Drug companies and public officials press for widespread vaccination each fall, offering vaccinations in drugstores and supermarkets. The results have been phenomenal. Only 20 years ago, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States on an annual basis. Today, the total has skyrocketed to 135 million doses.

    “The vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza seems to be overstated,” Doshi says. Mandatory vaccination polices have been enacted, often in healthcare facilities, forcing some people to take the vaccine under threat of losing their jobs.

    The main assertion of the CDC that fuels the push for flu vaccines each year is that influenza comes with a risk of serious complications which can cause death, especially in senior citizens and those suffering from chronic illnesses. That’s not the case, said Doshi.

    When read carefully, the CDC acknowledges that studies finding any perceived reduction in death rates may be due to the “healthy-user effect” — the tendency for healthier people to be vaccinated more than less-healthy people. The only randomized trial of influenza vaccine in older people found no decrease in deaths. “This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes,” says Doshi.

    Even when the vaccine is closely matched to the type of influenza that’s prevalent, which doesn’t happen every year, randomized, controlled trials of healthy adults found that vaccinating between 33 and 100 people resulted in one less case of influenza. In addition, says Doshi, no evidence exists to show that this reduction in the risk of influenza for a specific population — here in the United States, among healthy adults, for example — extrapolates into any reduced risk of serious complications from influenza, such as hospitalizations or deaths, among seniors.

    “For most people, and possibly most doctors, officials need only claim that vaccines save lives, and it is assumed there must be solid research behind it,” says Doshi. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, he says.

    Although the CDC implies that flu vaccines are safe and there’s no need to weigh benefits against risk, Doshi disagrees. He points to an Australian study that found one in every 110 children under the age of five had convulsions following vaccinations in 2009 for H1N1 influenza. Additional investigations found that the H1N1 vaccine was also associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents.

    Doshi’s concerns echo those of Dr. Russell Blaylock, a neurosurgeon and author of “The Blaylock Wellness Report” who has deep concerns over the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccine.

    Not only is the vaccine not safe, Dr. Blaylock tells Newsmax Health, it doesn’t even work. “The vaccine is completely worthless, and the government knows it,” he says. “There are three reasons the government tells the elderly why they should get flu shots: secondary pneumonia, hospitalization, and death. Yet a study by the Cochrane group studied hundreds of thousands of people and found it offered zero protection for those three things in the general community. It offered people in nursing homes some immunity against the flu — at best one-third — but that was only if they picked the right vaccine.”

    A study released in February found that the flu shot was only 9 percent effective in protecting seniors against the 2012-2013 season’s most virulent influenza bug.
    What’s even worse is that small children who are given the flu vaccine get no protection from the disease. “The government also says that every baby over the age of six months should have a vaccine, and they know it contains a dose of mercury that is toxic to the brain,” says Dr. Blaylock. “They also know the studies have shown that the flu vaccine has zero — zero — effectiveness in children under five.”

    For most people, says Dr. Blaylock, flu vaccines don’t prevent the flu but actually increase the odds of getting it. The mercury contained in vaccines is such a strong immune depressant that a flu shot suppresses immunity for several weeks. “This makes people highly susceptible to catching the flu,” he says. “They may even think the vaccine gave them the flu, but that’s not true — it depressed their immune system and then they caught the flu.”

    Mercury overstimulates the brain for several years, says Dr. Blaylock, and that activation is the cause of Alzheimer’s and other degenerative diseases. One study found that those who get the flu vaccine for three to five years increase their risk of Alzheimer’s disease 10-fold.

    Doshi asserts that influenza is a case of “disease mongering” in an effort to expand markets. He points to the fact that deaths from flu declined sharply during the middle of the 20th century, long before the huge vaccine campaigns that kicked off the 21st century.

    Why do drug companies push the flu vaccine? “It’s all about money,” says Dr. Blaylock. “Vaccines are a pharmaceutical company’s dream. They have a product that both the government and the media will help them sell, and since vaccines are protected, they can’t be sued if anyone has a complication.”

    Doshi’s article “is a breath of fresh air,” says Dr. Blaylock. “This article exposes in well-defined and articulate terms what has been known for a long time — the flu vaccine promotion is a fraud.

    “Here’s the bottom line,” says Dr. Blaylock. “The vast number of people who get the flu vaccine aren’t going to get any benefit, but they get all of the risks and complications.”

  7. A.S. Sorsby

    fantastic site – very informative. I’m wondering why the opposite specialists of this sector don’t understand this. You must continue your writing. I am confident, you have a huge readers’ base already!

  8. Dr Sara

    War on Integrative Medicine, Part II: Eliminate Supplements
    Posted by Live in the Now

    This is a great article to help explain why ‘traditional’ medicine creates more problems than it solves. And why I keep working to get the message to as many as I can.
    Sara Reynolds MD

    By now anyone not living in a cave has heard Big Medicine’s message loud and clear: Don’t use supplements. Either they are a harmless waste of money, they say, or they’re a harmful threat to your health (note that these points are contradictory). This message has been repeated over and over, both in journals and in conventional media outlets. It is, with very few exceptions, junk science. Even in the few instances when it is right, it is wrong.

    Here’s an example of what we mean by being right and wrong at the same time. Journals and the media keep insisting on calling alpha-tocopherol “vitamin E.” This is incorrect.

    Vitamin E is comprised of mixed tocopherols and tocotrienols. Too much alpha-tocopherol can interfere with your body’s use of the arguably more important gamma form. Hence studies that supplement alpha alone — not to mention the synthetic form — and call it vitamin E are both inaccurate and doing something that does not occur in nature. In addition, in most instances the alpha-tocopherol being tested is dl-alpha-tocopherol, which is the fully synthetic form, also not something you will ever find in nature.

    Similarly, studies suggesting there is a heart risk associated with supplementing calcium are both right and wrong. They are right because calcium needs some essential co-factors to move into the bones instead of the circulatory system. These include vitamin K2 in particular, along with vitamin D3 and other less important factors. This is one reason (among others) why the World Health Organization’s 2010 proposal to put calcium in the water supply was simply crazy.

    Another way to be right and wrong simultaneously is to use a tiny bit of a supplement and say that it had no measurable effect. This is spending a great deal of money in order to state what should have been obvious. There is no point studying supplements if you don’t test meaningful doses. To do this, you have to do what researchers least want to do: actually consult with integrative doctors, the people with clinical experience using supplements.

    Not understanding co-factors and proper dosages is perhaps excusable. The other tricks used to make supplements look dangerous are really dubious: the intentional cherry picking of studies, most of them with very questionable data, followed by all kinds of “clever” statistical manipulations, among other underhanded techniques.

    For example, if you are allowed to see the underlying data (often not the case) and dig into it deeply enough, you find that people using supplements lived longer. But the researchers then “corrected” for lifestyle habits (e.g., diet), throwing in as many factors as they liked, until they could force the remaining data into a weak statistical result that now seemed to say the supplements actually hurt. Why does the researcher bother to go to all this trouble when he or she clearly had already decided on the answer?

    Recently, more and more researchers have been going to more and more trouble to find evidence—any evidence, no matter how weak or falsified—to shore up conclusions they have already reached. Why? And why have reporters more or less done the opposite, going to no trouble at all, just parroting press releases? In the latter case, it can’t just be laziness.

    This increasing phenomenon of underhanded attacks amplified mindlessly by the mass press suggests that the natural health idea, based on diet and lifestyle, not just supplements, must be reaching people. This seems to be a campaign of push-back, and it is getting bigger and bigger.

    There is the old story about how new ideas emerge. First, they are scoffed at: “What a complete joke!” As the ideas advance, the entrenched interests who benefit from the old ideas lapse into a stony silence: “Shh! Don’t let any more people hear about this!” In phase three, there is a very vocal campaign of push-back from the entrenched interests.

    Stage three seems to be where we are at now. Do you know how to tell we have reached the final, fourth stage, the stage in which the new ideas are finally accepted? It is when the former opponents of the new ideas say, “Oh, we knew that all along!”

    During our current third stage of vocal attack on natural health, one of the oft-heard arguments against supplements is, “Hey, just eat well. You can get everything you need from food.” That seems reasonable. It at least nods in the direction of natural health ideas, because we do believe that diet is vital. But it is wrong, for a number of reasons.

    Studies suggest that Americans are short of many essential nutrients. Dr. Bruce Ames, emeritus professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of California at Berkeley, points out that 60 percent of Americans get too little magnesium, one of our most important nutrients. Magnesium alone is needed for over 300 biochemical reactions, according to the Life Extension Foundation. Dr. Ames estimates that not getting enough of the right nutrients in general is shortening the average lifespan by eight to ten years.

    Partly this is because many of us don’t eat well. But there are numerous other reasons why we might not get sufficient nutrients from food alone. One of them is conventional medical treatment, especially medical mistakes. One of the gravest mistakes of modern medicine appears to be blocking the acid in people’s stomachs in the mistaken belief that this will control acid reflux or stomach pain over the long run.

    As we have often pointed out, the evidence has always existed that people lose stomach acid as they age and it is often the lack of acid that contributes both to reflux and stomach pain. Even the FDA has only authorized the use of acid blockers for short periods of time. Yet doctors routinely prescribe them for years.

    And what does the lack of stomach acid lead to—in addition to steadily worsening stomach problems for millions of sufferers? Malnutrition, of course (one example of which is vitamin B12 deficiency). How can we properly digest protein and especially minerals without the acid that is supposed to be in our stomachs? And don’t forget pneumonia: lack of acid lets the bugs through and has been shown by creditable researchers to lead to more serious illness and even death.

    The culprit is often the class of gastric acid-suppressing drugs known as PPIs, or proton pump inhibitors, like Nexium and Prevacid, among the most widely prescribed drugs in the US, with nearly 110 million prescriptions and $13.9 billion in sales in 2010, in addition to over-the-counter sales. In other words, a huge number of Americans are malnourished from PPIs alone.

    Think about a doctor who both prescribes acid blockers for years and tells his patient not to take supplements. He or she may be literally starving the patient to death, however many years it takes to play out. Other drugs may also interfere with nutrition in ways that are barely understood, and surgical trauma certainly requires extra nutrients to heal.

    In our next article, we’ll cover some particularly egregious recent attacks on supplements coming both from a medical journal published by—who else—the American Medical Association and amplified by the mainstream media.

    This article was republished with permission from the Alliance for Natural Health newsletter.
    Go straight to the source

  9. David Lancaster

    I realize the great need for basic healthcare education that my patients have, and what a great service it is to make this information available to the wider public; so that they may be equipped to fend for themselves in healthcare settings. Great program on 1220 AM!