Free Courses
Free Videos                                      Free Articles

Science, Health, and Healing Encyclopedia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ali

 

 

Ali Oxygen Library
Ali Recipes

Ali SHH-Pedia

ADHD

Adrenals

Aging

Alcholism

Allergy

Anger

Anxiety Course

 

 

  Asthma

 

  Autism

 

  Autoimmune Disorders

  Autonomic System

 Bladder, Urinary

 

 BLOOD
 
 BONES

 

  BRAIN

 

 BREAST Health.diseases

Breathing for Healing

 

BONES, Joints, and Muscles

 

 

CANCER

Children's Readings

 

CardiovascularDisease

 

Cancer
Chemotherapy

Avastin
 

 

Cholesterol

Climate Chaos

Collagen Disorders

COLON

Current Topics

Cystitis

 

Dialysis

DIABETES & INSULIN Toxicity

PRE-DIABETES

 

EARS

Emotions

Energy Healing

 

Endocrine
 

 

Eyes

Estrogens

 

Ethics

Exercise

Fermentation

Foods

Gall BladderStones

Genetics

GERD

Gluten

GUT Evolution
 

Genetics

GUT

     Mouth
      Esophagus
      Stomach
      Small Intestine
      Colon
      Rectum and Anus

Healing

Healing Stories

Heart

Hepatitis

Herbs

 

History

Hormones

Immune System

 

Inflammation

Infections

INSULIN TOXICITY

Joints

Kidneys

Kitchen Matters

 

Lap Dog Journalists

Leukemia

LIVER

Lou Gehrig ALS

 

Lungs

Lyme Disease, Acute


Lyme Disease, Chronic

Lymphatic System

 

 

 

Memory

Mental Health

 

Metabolism

 

Microbiology

Minerals

Mouth

Multiple Sclerosis

 

MUSCLES

Nose

 

Nutrition

Obesity

 

Oxygen
Basic Course Advanced Course
Oxygen and Aging
Oxygen Therapeutics
Oxygen -Environment
Oxygen and 9/11
Oxygen Models of Diseases
Oxygen and Origin of Life

 

 Ovaries

Pancreas Pancreatitis

Parkinson's Disease

Philosophy of Healing

Poems Drone Democracy
Selected Poems

Polycystic Ovarian Synd

Poetry of Dr.Ali

Potassium

Progesterone

 

Rectum

Recipes

Respiratory System

 

ReproductiveSystem
 
 

SHH-Pedia

Sinusitis & Polyps

 

Skin

Sodium Salt

Spices

Spleen

Small Intestine

Stomach

 

  Stories of Soul's Sweat

 

Stress

Stroke

Throat

Thyroid

Tongue

Tonsil

 

Toxic Womb State

Pre-birth PTSD

 

Testosterone
 

 

Urinary System

 

Uterus

Video Seminars on Natural Healing

Viral Infections

Recent Videos

 
Store DVD/Books
   
  Water

War

Weight Loss

Yeast Syndromes

Zinc

 

 

 



The Untold Story of 9/11 Toxicity, Politicians, and the City’s Medical Examiner


Majid Ali, M.D.



In cases of people severely injured by the consequences of the 9/11 infernos, the New York City Medical Examiner, under the influence of politicians, made grievous errors. I say this as a pathologist with 29 years of experience of performing autopsies. The Medical Examiner pronounced that the death of one rescue worker could not have been caused by 9/11 dust and that the death of another person exposed to the dust was definitely caused by it. I present these cases to show that the Medical Examiner failed to uphold the basic standards of autopsy pathology. This issue is important because he is likely to make additional serious mistakes in future 9/11 cases unless he acknowledges his past mistakes and is not swayed by political or compensation issues. To present the two cases and marshal my arguments, I first address the crucial matters of certainty and its absence in the work of pathologists and medical examiners.
.
Science seeks to eliminate uncertainty. Consciousness concedes uncertainty and strives to reduce it. A crucial difference between reason and belief is: reason is open to uncertainty while belief is not. In biology, there is an irreducible uncertainty that must be acknowledged and duly considered. Adopting the concept of physics, we can designate this as the uncertainty principle in medicine. This principle compels us to be open to the possibility that new observations about natural phenomena will require a reconsideration of the meanings of old observations—and a change in thinking when that is deemed necessary. In 2002, I wrote September 11, 2005 not only to predict the scale of suffering caused by the 9/11 dust but also to warn the medical profession that the problems caused by the unprecedented terror and toxicity cannot be addressed by the prevailing one-disease-one-cause-one-drug model of medical thinking.


Ten years later, the consequences of September 11, 2001 offer a unique opportunity to examine society’s need for certainty through the responses to the 9/11 catastrophe by the news media, government officials, medical examiners, doctors, lawyers, and politicians. Society is not served well when medical examiners fabricate “facts” to foster finanicial or political interests, nor when they do so in response to the public’s clamor for certainty and quick pronouncements. The true victims of massive deceptions perpetrated by many among these groups were people sickened by darkening clouds of terror and toxicities unleashed by the World Trade Center (WTC) inferno.

A Pathologist Is a Journalist

A pathologist, at the core, is a journalist who reports—with authenticity that is assured by his professional independence—what he observes, and no more. This is as true of autopsy specimens as it is of surgical specimens. A pathologist has no stake in the consequences of his reporting. For example, whether a cancer diagnosed by him is treated with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or with nondrug integrative therapies should not influence him. He must not be swayed by considerations of what clinical uses his findings might be put to, whether it be in intensive care units of hospitals or in doctors’ offices. His judgement must not be clouded by concerns of insurance, liability, litigation, or political fallout.

Medical examiners train as pathologists. However, the law confers enormous power on them. Their findings are not challenged by prosecutors, police, juries, judges, or the accused. I have not seen a case in which the news media made a serious effort to do so in any specific case. This gives medical examiners a special exalted status in the society that should not, but often does, create a false sense of immunity to vigorous standards of evidence adopted and abided by the general pathologist community. Society considers them impartial arbiters for the halls of justice. The reality, however, is different. Knowingly or inadvertently, medical examiners fall into collusion with prosecutors. Do medical examiners sometimes bend over backward to find pathologic evidence that exonerates the accused and frustrates prosecutors? Perhaps, but not often. And this is where sometimes the work of medical examiners fails the society.

Political Lives of Medical Examiners

Regrettably, medical examiners also live political lives. Needless to point out, politics is the high art of obfuscation—saying one thing and meaning another. When medical examiners fall under the influence of politicians, truth and justice suffer, as I clearly document later in review of the two cases mentioned earlier.

For the above and other reasons, medical examiners sometimes act as if they are not subject to the professional and ethical standards imposed on other pathologists. They fail to resist the enormous temptation to become a prosecutor, jury, and judge, all at the same time. In times of crisis, public clamors for quick pronouncements and certainty. Medical examiners’ fidelity to truth and authenticity becomes a victim. This may seem as unjustified criticism of a profession held in high esteem by the public, the judicial system, the news media, and the public at large. In the context of 9/11 events, however, it is entirely justified, as I explain below in the case of the New York City Medical Examiner. Specifically, I cite the cases of James Zadroga and Felicia Dunn-Jones to show how in the numbing 9/11 tragedy and the glare of heightened passions in its wake, the Medical Examiner became a pathologist-politician whom people mistook for an unbiased pathologist. First brief comments on the essential uncertainty of biology and public’s adamant demands for certainty.

Death Could Not Be Due to 9/11 Toxicity: The Zardoga Case

James Zadroga, a police detective who worked at Ground Zero, died at age 34. The family and supporters of Zadroga, the detective for whom the bill is named, claimed that he had died from respiratory disease contracted at Ground Zero. They demanded that his name be included among those who lost their lives at Ground Zero and that his family be accordingly compensated. Initially, a New Jersey pathologist performed the autopsy and officially attributed his death to World Trade Center (WTC) exposures. Then politics happened. New York City's Medical Examiner reviewed the autopsy files and tissues and pronounced that Zadroga could not have died of WTC toxicity. He claimed Zadroga’s death resulted from his lung condition (pulmonary fibrosis) caused by drug abuse. The Medical Examiner’s conclusion was utterly untenable in light of established standards of pathologic evidence. I return to this subject later.

Death Definitely Was Due to 9/11 Toxicity: The Dunn-Jones Case

Felicia Dunn-Jones was a 42-year-old black lawyer who was heavily exposed to 9/11 dust. Five months after the exposure, she died of lung disease. Five years later, Dunn-Jones' family requested the New York City Medical Examiner to add her name to the death toll of the attacks. He declined saying he could not link her death to the exposure "with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt". Again the Medical Examiner’s conclusion was utterly untenable in light of established standards of pathologic evidence. Then came his stunning reversal. Several months later, he changed his mind and Dunn-Jones was added to the medical examiner's list of attack victims, making her the first person that the City officials have linked to the toxic dust caused by the WTC's collapse. This case illuminates well the dark corridors of a medical examiner’s world when politicians and news media force an entry into it. What were the basis of his first decision—her death could not be linked to the dust "with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt"? What were the basis of his second decision—her death was linked to the dust"with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt? Did he change his opinion in light of new information? If so, what was that new information? If there was no new information, what were the elements that compelled him to reverse his opinion?

Windows to the World of Medical Examiner

To present the cases of Zadroga and Dunn-Jones and to expose the serious lapses in the judgement of the New York City Medical Examiner, I offer readers an insider’s view of the world of pathology and medical examiners. In the mid- 1970s, an oral surgeon, a friend of mine, brought me a surgical container with biopsy tissue taken from a lymph node in his neck. The next day, I examined the slides prepared with that tissue and diagnosed Hodgkin’s disease. Four days later, I returned from a conference and my administrative assistant informed me that my friend had been admitted in the intensive care unit. Alarmed at the news, I went up. I saw death on his face as soon I stepped into his room. Recently diagnosed Hodgkins disease does not kill in a week. So I knew he was dying of the treatment—high-dose chemotherapy, in this case. He died three days later. I performed the autopsy and put pulmonary edema (fluid in lungs) as the cause of death on his death certificate. Most individuals who die of chemotherapy develop fluid in the lungs as one of the terminal changes associated with the dying process. None of my professors ever listed chemotherapy as the cause of death on many occasions when that indeed was the case—not uncommon in those days. Pathologists prudently listed pulmonary edema as the cause of death. Oncologists were comfortable with that arrangement.
These days pathologists rarely face the problem of how to sign death certificates of persons dying from chemotherapy. Years ago, oncologists solved the problem. They do not obtain autopsy consents and spare the pathologists. Now there is no uncertainty and so pathologists do not suffer qualms of consciousness.

Uncertainty in Dying and Death

Uncertainty commonly shrouds both the process of dying and the molecular and tissue insults that preceded the death by months or years and set the stage for subsequent death. Take, for instance, the case of a woman who dies suddenly with lesions of sarcoidosis. In 1958 I joined King Edward Medical School, Lahore and learned that sarcoidosis is an immune disorder of unknown cause. Fifty-two years later, sarcoidosis is still deemed an enigma without a known cause and a satisfactory treatment. The myth of unknown causality of sarcoidosis persists because immunologists almost never test for environmental pollutants, toxic metals (mercury, lead , aluminum, and others), gut fermentation, food and mold allergies, and adrenal stress—elements that are the common causes of chronic immune disorders, such as sarcoidosis. When pathologists perform autopsies on individuals with sarcoidosis nodules, they attribute death to sarcoidosis. Pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), pneumonitis (pneumonia), and liver congestion are other common diagnoses listed on the death certificates. This is an example of a pathologist-immunologist collusion—a clear case of conspiracy of silence.

What I write here of individuals dying with lesions of sarcoidosis is also true of those who die with lesions of lupus, vasculitis, Parkinson’s disease, disseminated muscle cell deaths associated with statin drugs used to lower blood cholesterol levels, and people dying of other drug reactions. I do not know of a pathologist who ever listed Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor or any other statin drug as the cause of death in such cases. Do statin drugs sometimes kill? The readers can use Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) to fact-check this statement.

The Oracle of Manhattan

In the cases of Zadroga and Dunn-Jones, New York City Medical Examiner made pronouncement like Oracle of Delphi might have, not as an experienced and thoughtful pathologist. He used his enormous power—neither The New York Times nor The New England Journal of Medicine, to my knowledge, have ever dared to challenge his exalted position—to declare that James Zardoga could not have died of 9/11 dust and Felicia Dunn-Jones could not have died of anything but 9/11 dust. I will first examine the case of Zadroga, whose name identifies the $7.4 billion bill for ongoing research into 9/11 toxicity, as well as for ongoing support of WTC victims, which is pending passages in Congress.

The assertion of New York City's Medical Examiner that Zadroga could not have died of 9/11 toxicity raises several crucial issues, none of which apparently concerned him. He based his opinion on finding chalk in the tissue samples of Zardoga taken at autopsy, which he interpreted as a clear evidence that Zadroga had been “main-lining” drugs. He found scarring in Zadroga’s lung tissues that he accepted as valid evidence for his belief—and a belief, it most assuedly, was.

A Principle in Pathology

A principle in pathology is that the presence of one pathologic lesions cannot be used to assert that other lesions do not coexist. We know that the Twin Towers dust contained a very large number of toxic materials used in the construction. Equally important, the extreme temperature of the WTC inferno created additional toxins by triggering chemical reactions among the preexisting ones. The Medical Examiner had no way of knowing what those toxins might have been, or in what amounts they might have been present. He could not have performed the needed tests on Zadroga’s autopsy tissues.

The Medical Examiner and 9/11 Dust

If the Medical Examiner had performed tests for 9/11 dust in Zadroga’s cells and used that information to support his assertion that the victim could not have died of them, he would have faced many ugly and embarrassing questions from pathologists worldwide: (1) How can anyone claim that the dust toxins had not injured the lung tissues if the tests had not been performed to detect their presence; (2) How can anyone assert 9/11 dust did not contribute to Zadroga’s death if the tests were performed years after the exposure; (3) The toxic levels of construction toxins (non-9/11) indicating fatal exposures to all forms of construction dust have not been established; (4) The amounts of toxins (in 9/11 dust ) that might be considered fatal exposures are not known, making its utterly unscientific for anyone to claim that those exposures could have not caused tissue scarring in the lungs; (5) The potent proinflammatory effects of 9/11 dust are now established beyond doubt, and those effects would be expected to add to Zadroga’s lung scarring(ongoing inflammation in such cases results from all existing proinflammatory influences); and (6) Neither New York City's Medical Examiner or anyone else since 2001 has presented acceptable scientific evidence of how much and under what condition such toxins do or do not cause tissue injury with severe delayed consequences.

I discussed these questions with three pathologists with over 35 years of experience. None of them thought that New York City's Medical Examiner can counter any of these arguments. Why has his opinion not been challenged in the last ten years? The answer: The news media do not understand the elements of uncertainty in the practice of pathology. They uncritically accept the words of medical examiners. Pathologists at large, on the other hand, are intimidated by medical examiners everywhere and do not like to tangle with them.

In the Zardoga case, the New York Medical Examiner should have been immune to all considerations of the City liability, victim compensation, governmental expediences, and pressure from the news media. Did he act as if he were? He should have been a true reporter who reported only on what he had observed. Was he? He should have ignored public’s clamor for quick answers and certainty. Did he?

I anticipate the New York medical examiner’s response, perhaps scornful: Dr. Ali is a pathologist but he is not a forensic pathologist. My response: A forensic pathologist must first be a pathologist and only then a forensic pathologist. He must only report what he observes. If he does not have the technology to detect and precisely quantify all the relevant toxins—he certainly did not claim to have done that—he must not wear the mantle of a diviner of biochemistry and take positions that are utterly untenable.

The Manhattan Oracle Bows to Politicians and Reverses Himself

Felicia Dunn-Jones died on Feb. 10th, in 2002. The official cause of death was sarcoidosis, an immune disorder of unknown cause which, as I explained earlier, causes inflammation, nodule formation, and scarring in the lungs, lymph nodes, and less commonly in other body organs. In 1958, some pathologist considered it to be an atypical form of tuberculosis since its primary diagnostic microscopic feature—a round-to-oval aggregate of large pink-staining cells called a granuloma—was eerily similar to lesions seen in tuberculosis. There were other speculations as to the cause of sarcoidosis then, including the amusing suggestion that swallowed tooth paste material triggered the disease.


Sarcoidosis and 9/11 Dust

Fifty-two years after my introduction to sarcoidosis, medical textbooks still teach that the cause of sarcoidosis in unknown. Basic knowledge of sarcoidosis is crucial to my comments on the reversal of the medical examiner’s official report about the cause of Dunn-Jones’s death. The term sarcoidosis is drawn from sarc meaning flesh, -oid meaning like, and -osis meaning process. It leads to the formation of discrete aggregates of pink-staining inflammatory cells called epitheloid cells. The aggregates of such cells are called. granulomas and form nodules in the lungs, lymph nodes, and less commonly in the various organs of the body. Most notably, sarcoidosis if often silent (asymptomatic ) for several months, even years, and is incidentally found during chest x-rays or in tissues biopsied for other reasons. It commonly improves or clears up spontaneously. In some reports, more than 2/3 of people with lung sarcoidosis were free of symptoms 9 years after the diagnosis. About ten percent of individuals with the sarcoid lesions develop serious disability, when not optimally cared for—which is nearly always since doctors either treat them with steroids or simply watch them getting sicker with time.

Sarcoidosis Deaths

The term sarcoidosis death appears commonly in 9/11 medical literature. It conjures images of scientific validity and authoritative pronouncements. A pathologist who uses the term implies that he knows what killed the individual with sarcoid lesions. In reality he does not. In facts, when he admits—as he must to avoid ridicule from his peers—that the cause of sarcoidosis is unknown, he acknowledges that he has no idea of the cause of the death.

How can any pathologist claim that the death of a given individual is due to certain toxins when the deceased dies of a disease of unknown origin? Specifically, how can a pathologist claim that an individual died due to exposure to 9/11 dust when that individual died of a sarcoidosis which is of unknown origin? Of course, an omniscient and omnipotent medical examiners do attribute deaths on certain occasions to any or all causes of his choosing. They are secure in the knowledge that the blind law is on their side and people mis-served by them are in no position to hire other pathologists to challenge them.

Individuals who are regularly exposed to toxic dusts and smoke develop sarcoid lesions with greater frequency than the general pubic. For example, the incidence of sarcoid nodules is higher among fire fighters. Specifically, in May 2007, a review of New York City death certificate records for fire fighters for 10 years prior to 2001 revealed an average of 32 deaths of individuals with sarcoid nodules per year. That number had not changed since the WTC attacks. During the ten pre-2001 years, there were between 362 and 439 sarcoidosis-related hospitalizations per year in New York City. Those numbers did not change either after 2001 until 2007. ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/wtc/html/know/physical.shtml)

In 2007, five years after her death, the New York City Chief Medical Examiner determined that Dunn-Jones had died of sarcoidosis. Of course, he did not know what causes sarcoidosis. He based his pronouncement on a most extraordinary and convoluted logic. He cited epidemiologic evidence for sarcoidosis among exposed firefighters—Dunn-Jones was an attorney, not a fire fighter. He conveniently omitted the fact that fire fighters develop sarcoid lesions after years of service and exposure—Dunn-Jones died within five months of 9/11. There are two other notable aspects of the Dunn-Jones case: (1) some scarring found in her heart was considered to represent old and healed lesions—not uncommon for sarcoid nodules—indicating their existence prior to 9/11; and (2) Dunn-Jones was well enough to have driven her children around two days before her death. Just like individuals with Hodgkins disease do not die within a week of diagnosis of limited disease in lymph nodes, persons with sarcoid lesions do not drive automobiles one day and keel over and die on the following day. I did not see a single such case in my 29 years of performing autopsies. Nor did the two pathology associates whom I asked about it.

A close reading of the details of Dunn-Jones suggests that she developed a heart rhythm episode—most likely due to sever stress—that caused her sudden death. But medical examiners are ill at ease with such uncertainty of biology. They would rather make up something up. After all they know no one will dare question their legal opinion.

What Might Have Changed the Oracle’s Mind

Now to what might we attribute to the reversal of the opinion of the Medical Examiner. Consider the following quote from a CBS news report: "Sadly, we have known that Felicia is not alone and that others have died from ailments caused by 9/11," said U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. "I hope that the medical examiner is no longer in denial about the trade center dust. Dr. Hirsch must review the cases of other 9/11 heroes who, like Felicia, died in the prime of their lives."..”New York lawmakers, some of whom urged the city to add Dunn-Jones to the death toll last year, said more should be added in the future.”

A Thought Experiment

I offer a thought experiment. Suppose you occupy a highly esteemed position in society. People everywhere are in awe of you. When you are a guest on a TV show, the host and other guests are most reverential to you. They and your audience fully expect deep wisdom and guidance in your comments and expositions. You are considered to be an expert not only of crime psychology but also of human nature. Judges, prosecutors, and members of juries defer to your judgements uncritically. Police officers look to you for definitive answers and validation of their work. Simply stated, you live an exalted life. Now suppose there is a national catastrophe of unprecedented scale of terror, toxicity, and suffering. Your status in life and your work puts you at the center stage. All eyes are on you. There is an avalanche of new scientific information that compels you to think differently to cope with the immediate and delayed consequences of the catastrophic event. And yet, you recognize that many others also need to radically alter their ideas of responding to the catastrophe. Otherwise there will be inestimable pain, illness, and suffering. You also recognize that you will put in serious jeopardy your exalted status in the society if you either expressed your altered perception or tried to influence others.
Next suppose that you kept your doubts to yourself.. Your worst fears came true. Year after year, you witnessed a growing number of people sicken and suffer. You go on living with your secret that things could have been changed. Your shame deepens. On the tenth anniversary of the catastrophe, you are invited to a TV show. Now, try to imagine your inner state as you put on a brave face. Imagine!

Terror and Toxicity at the Cell Membrane

In my book September 11, 2005 (2002), I addressed the crucial issue of how terror and toxicity feed upon each other and cause sickness and suffering. This was the needed shift in medical thinking which I recognized then. Needless to point out, my pleas fell on deaf ears of City doctors, as well as on the ears of the New York City Chief Medical Examiner. They persisted with the one-disease-one-cause-one-drug model. Below, I reproduce some text from September 11, 2005 in which I discuss how at the cell membrane level, terror turns into toxicity and toxicity into terror to initiate and perpetuate cellular injury, which sets the stage for various symptom-complexes experienced by the patient:
The cell membrane is an astounding paradox of fragility and resilience. The September Eleven morning abraded and lacerated the cell membranes of everyone in the City. The terror and toxicity of the Twin Towers turned into terror and toxicity at the cellular level. The resilient cell membranes of most people recovered from the massive trauma, but the fragile membranes of human canaries could not.
The cell membrane separates internal order from external disorder. It permits entry of what is needed inside (nutrients) and facilitates discharge of what is unneeded (waste). It keeps what is outside the cell from flooding the cell innards. It prevents what is inside the cells from hemorrhaging out. It converts physical changes in the fluid that bathes it (lymph) into chemical changes within. To do all that, cell membranes have many different types of communication molecules called receptors, which are especially vulnerable to environmental and metabolic poisons.
Cell membrane receptors are generally classified in the following five basic types: (1) those that detect and respond to mechanical factors (mechanoreceptors); (2) those that detect changes in temperature (cold and heat thermoreceptors); (3) those that are involved in pain sensation (nociceptors); (4) those that respond to chemicals (chemoreceptors); and (5) electromagnetic receptors, which are poorly understood and include light-sensitive receptors. I hold that the functions of all such receptors are regulated first and foremost by oxygen, though I recognize that evidence for that in some areas is lacking at this time.


The injured cell membranes hurt the September canaries in many ways. The two most serious consequences were:


1. The membranes of the canaries became leaky—what was inside the cells hemorrhaged out and what was outside flooded the cell innards; and
2. The membrane receptors, channels, and enzymes of membranes were structurally damaged and functionally impaired.


The above mechanisms explain the myriad clinical faces of the September canaries. Their muscles were weak and hurtful because magnesium within the muscle cells had hemorrhaged out. They felt 'dried out' because calcium in the blood had flooded their cell innards, switching on many destructive messenger systems of the cells. They suffered air hunger because their cellular oxygen enzymes could not survive the cumulative toxic overload. The female September canaries had irregular menses —many of them lost menstrual cycles completely—because their hormone receptors were blocked and damaged by chemicals that were structurally very similar to the natural hormones.
The basic question of what were the initial triggers for their cell channel operations (closing and opening) and receptor activation received little, if any, consideration from the City doctors. They had long abandoned their search for a specific entity—a disease—in the September canaries.”

The Cost of a Missed Opportunity

What might have Zardoga and Dunn-Jones taught! What they couldn’t! Both Zardoga and Dunn-Jones were sickened by toxic brews of terror and toxicities. Both were treated with drugs. None of their doctors had learned how to use effective nondrug remedies to restore health. So, what do the Zardoga-Dunn-Jones tragedies teach me?
☞ People sickened by chemicals cannot be treated with yet more chemicals in the form of drugs.
☞ Injured tissues heal with nutrients, not with drugs.
☞ The work of medical examiners is not about the health of the living and so a society is better served if their opinions are not used to set standards for the case of the living victims of the WTC tragedy.
☞ The New York Medical Examiner should have diligently resisted the pressure from politicians and the news media and forcefully acknowledged the deep uncertainty about the evidence available to him. He should have refrained from asserting that Zardoga could not have died of 9/11 dust and that Dunn-Jones definitely did.
☞ Looking ahead, the New York Medical Examiner must inform the public that he would not participate in any future efforts to decide who did and who did not die of 9/11 dust. His opinions must not be allowed to enter into larger societal issues of how to support close to 80,000 people in the registeries, many of whom will certainly die, directly or indirectly, from tissue insults suffered on September 11, 2001.

Privilege in society calls for an acute sense of civic responsibility. In the matters related to the health consequences of the WTC inferno, the New York Medical Examiner had a rare opportunity to take the high road of a thoughtful pathologist willing and able to look at the integrated immediate and delayed effects on human health of an unprecedented scale of terror and environmental toxicity. He could have used his high office to force his way through the prevailing and toxicity-denying model of illness that admits only one cause for one disease, a model that is rarely, if ever, truly valid.

Will Some 9/11 Cancer Deaths Be Denied?

New York City insists that no cancers have developed due to exposures to the 9/11 dust. It does admit that many people in the 9/11 registeries have developed a bone marrow disorder called atypical protein spike. Does this disorder eventually evolve into a full blown bone cancer? Yes, it does. The pathology textbooks are unequivocal on this subject. Years from now when some people in the registeries die from such cancers, what will the Medical Examiner say? I leave that to the reader’s imagination.

9/11 Dust, Journalistic Lap Dogs and Medical Examiners

The problem of medical examiners not abiding established autopsy standards, of course, is much larger than might appears from my accounts of the New York City Medical Examiner. Justice is mis-served by callous disregard of such standards with disturbing frequency. The watch dogs of news media in this matter nearly always act as journalistic lap dogs, not watch dogs. I illustrate another dark side of this practice in a companion article entitled ”Hydrogen Peroxide, Journalistic Lap Dogs, and Medical Examiners.”

In closing, people everywhere are awed by medical examiners. Next time you see a medical examiner on a TV show, observe closely the host and other guests. Everyone is reverential to them and fully expects deep wisdom in their comments and expositions. They are considered to be experts of not only crime psychology but also human nature. Judges, prosecutors, and members of juries defer to their judgements uncritically. Police officers look to them for answers and guidance. So, it is not surprising that medical examiners live exalted lives—and are often responsible for gross injustice by their ethical lapses.

Related Articles

Related Tutorials

* Environmental Health

*  9/11 — A Tragic Story of Neglected Ethics

* The Untold Story of 9/11 Toxicity, Politicians, and the City’s Medical Examiner

* 9/11 Dust, Air Hunger, and City’s Lung Specialist

 

 

Welcome  

Who Is Dr. Ali?

Dr. Ali's Full CV

Peer Reviews of Dr. Ali' Work

 

Dr. Ali's Philosophy

 
 

 

VIDEO Courses

Philosophy of Integrative medicine 

Dr. Ali's Recent Videos

Click here to order Prof. Ali's Video Courses, digital aand print books, DVD seminars, and lectures on CD sets.

 

Now Available as
Instant Download

Integrative Protocols -
Vol 12 Principles and Practices
of Integrative Medicine

Includes
Dr. Ali's
IV and IM formulations

E-Book 12



Integrative Protocols -
Vol 11 Principles and Practices
of Integrative Medicine
E-Book 11


Dr. Ali discusses Dysoxygenosis and varying chronic diseases.

NEW BOOK!

Book Diabetes

OR
Instant Download