Sanjay Gupta is lying. He wasn't misinformed. He toed the line for the Surgeon General's job

[nashville_brook]

You know how I know this?

Explaining his ixnay on the otpay, Sanjay Gupta explained this week that he "...mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof."

Nobody thinks that. Nobody has ever looked at the Schedule 1 designation of pot and said, "dear sir, that must be the result of sound scientific proof."




You know how else I know he's lying? We're the same age, and he characterizes it thusly: ""Maybe it's because I was born a couple of months after Woodstock and wasn't around when marijuana was as common as iPods are today, but I'm constantly amazed that after all these years -- and all the wars on drugs and all the public-service announcements -- nearly 15 million Americans still use marijuana at least once a month..."

NOBODY THINKS THAT. If you were born in the late 60s that means you lived thru the late 70s and 80s, and guess what...pot never went away. It never went away, it never went underground and it never lost any appeal. Pot WAS the iPods of those prior decades.

So, you want to know why he was against pot? Because he wanted the Surgeon General's job. Full stop. And he thought that having a mind of his own would impede that career move.

Now that popular opinion has overtaken the authoritarian fairy tale of "teh evil pot" he would like to rehabilitate his public image.

Unfortunately no one is going to remember his years-too-late confession. What he'll be remembered for is kissing up to the administration on blatantly false pretenses.

[burnodo]

1. Agree wholeheartedly

Gupta either isn't much of a academician, or he pushed propaganda in service of the overarching realpolitik on the subject. I'd bet the latter.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. He is definitely late to the party, but I guess late is better than never. He is ahead of the

President. The President absolutely refuses to address the issue except to make jokes and laugh at stoners.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. He is an important public face of establishment medicine. I'm glad he came around.

This will impress my mother and lots of other people who have little direct experience with marijuana, Gupta's perhaps Machiavellian machinations notwithstanding.

[leftstreet]

7. But think of the public influence he'd have had as SG

Just sayin, the opposite side of that coin...



While I'm glad he finally pulled his head out of his ass, I cringe to think of how he could have influenced public opinion

[Isoldeblue]

8. Well said!

I don't care about his motivation on this. Many people on the right think highly of him and this can only help the cause.

I long for the day when I won't fear arrest for getting some kind herb to make my life livable from pain and other unpleasant symptoms.

[DirkGently]

9. The Ryan Seacrest of medicine?

He's everywhere on tv. No one knows why.

[truedelphi]

125. Your explanation is as sound as any.

And how weird is it that he comes out for Marijuana the same week that Holder says that Federal Sentencing Guidelines will be revised?

[DirkGently]

130. Interesting coincidence, for sure.

[winterpark]

128. I'm sure someone paid him to change his mind. He's as greedy as all the others making their

living on the tv machine. Did ya know that Big Pharma is waiting with bated breath to get into the med marijuana biz?

[DirkGently]

4. Forgot he was angling for SG. Makes more sense now.

[KittyWampus]

27. You didn't forget, because it never happened. He turned the job down.

[DirkGently]

40. No, that's completely wrong. He withdrew his name after public debate.

What you said doesn't even make sense. Withdrawing his name in the midst of controversy doesn't mean he wasn't interested in the job, for Pete's sake.

Surgeon General candidate[edit source | editbeta]
On January 6, 2009, CNN announced that Gupta had been considered for the position of Surgeon General by President Barack Obama.[17]
Some doctors said that his communication skills and high profile would allow him to highlight medical issues and prioritize medical reform. However, others raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest with drug companies who have sponsored his broadcasts and his lack of skepticism in weighing the costs and benefits of medical treatments.[18][dead link]
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), wrote a letter opposing Gupta's nomination. Conyers supports a single-payer health care system, the sort that Conyers' filmmaker friend Michael Moore advocated in his documentary Sicko; Gupta has criticized Moore and the film.[19]
Others, such as[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Gupta

[MADem]

77. No, he withdrew his name after Tom Daschle got knocked out of the HHS gig.

It's in post sixty seven, at the link.

The job was his, if he wanted it--he didn't want it without Daschle to team with, to craft nationwide health reform. His clout would only have been realized if TD was in the HHS job. It just wasn't worth it when he did a cost/benefit analysis.

One more time--John Conyers is not a senator. He has no authority to advise and consent. The guy he wanted for the job didn't get picked either, so that's how we know how much clout he had over this issue.

The Senate would have confirmed Gupta--they were still in the honeymoon phase with Obama and they had enough votes. Most of them take money from Big Pharma, that would not have been ANY impediment whatsoever.

Can't help but notice your "creative snipping." From YOUR link:

Others, such as liberal commentator Jane Hamsher, defended the appointment, noting that Gupta's responsibilities as a surgeon general would be not that different from those of his CNN position, and that Gupta's media presence would make him ideal for the position.[20] From the medical community, Donna Wright, of Creative Health Care Management, a regular commentator on medicine and politics, also defended the appointment on the grounds of his media presence, combined with his medical qualifications, which she viewed as an ideal combination for the post of surgeon general.[21] Likewise, Fred Sanfilippo, executive vice president for health affairs at Emory University, supported Gupta's nomination by issuing a press release saying: "He has the character, training, intelligence and communications skills needed to help the United States improve its health and health care delivery systems in the next Administration."[22] The American Council on Exercise, listed by PR Newswire as "America's leading authority on fitness and one of the largest fitness certification, education and training organizations in the world", endorsed the nomination of Gupta "because of his passion for inspiring Americans to lead healthier, more active lives". The ACE sent a letter of support to senator Edward M. Kennedy.[23] Former surgeon general Joycelyn Elders also supported Gupta's nomination, saying: "He has enough well-trained, well-qualified public health people to teach him the things he needs to do the job."[24] In March 2009 Gupta withdrew his name from consideration for the post, citing his family and his career.[4]

I think this whole "Beat up Sanjay" tag team game is VERY strange. It's inventing a fight using false and incomplete information for purposes that are entirely unclear. It's also lame and in the big picture, unimportant.

[DirkGently]

89. Yet you are picking the fight. Because he embarrassed Obama?

The OP just points out Gupta is a tool who is lying about just discovering the research on MJ. Which he obviously is, because that is news to exactly no one.

Your'e the one who dug up the whole controversy where Gupta got beaten to a pulp for lying and going to bat for big pharma.

Heck, before you started your hair-pulling ragefest, I didn't even recall he'd backed autism / vaccine nuttery or fudged the risks of Vioxx. I do recall him getting nailed lying about Michael Moore and Sicko.

But it was quite a mess, wasn't it, picking this guy? Jesus, I guess it was a pretty horrible call. A TV talking head with no National Health experience, carrying water for dangerous prescription drugs and lying to smear single-payer healthcare?

1) First consider Gupta's extensive coverage of autism, in which Gupta gave inappropriate credibility to those who believe that vaccines cause autism, thereby supporting controversy around the issue.


(snip)

3) Although an ardent supporter of new tests and treatments, especially pharmaceuticals, Gupta downplays safety risks. Many have criticized him for his reporting on Vioxx, a pain medication used for arthritis that was voluntarily withdrawn from the market in 2004 because it causes heart attacks. Although the drug's cardiac risk was well-known prior to its removal from the market, Gupta minimized these concerns by citing the lowest possible estimate for the increase in risk of heart attacks, 39 percent, rather than the middle (and most appropriate) estimate of 425 percent.

Moreover, he parroted Merck's response that the number of people with heart attacks was small and that further studies were needed. No doubt further studies were needed to allow the drug to remain on the market for five years while bringing in over $2 billion annually in sales for Merck and causing tens of thousands of excess heart attacks, according to an estimate from the FDA.

(snip)

5) Lastly, one cannot forget his hack job on Michael Moore's movie Sicko, which exposed some of the root causes of our national health care crisis and pointed toward a national single-payer health system as the solution. In a highly publicized on-air debate with Moore, Gupta made many erroneous statements about facts and figures, essentially calling Moore a liar, and then failed to correct himself or apologize after being revealed as wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-floyd-md/cnns-gupta-not-what-the-d_b_163330.html

By all means, check the FULL CONTEXT of this piece, lest you feel something positive has been left out. The snips hit just as hard.

And hey, if if makes you feel better, it's seems just as likely that Obama "encouraged" him to get out before things got any uglier for either of them. Seriously, when I saw the OP, it hadn't crossed my mind this topic would draw Obama partisan swarms.

Maybe you guys are just kind of on a hair-trigger, with the recent Snowden PR disaster and everything? This really is a silly hill to die on. No one was thinking "Obama fuckup" until you rode in protesting too much.

[MADem]

105. You are the one characterizing a simple refutation of false assertions as "a fight."

You're the only one talking about a "silly hill to die on." You're the only one rattling on like a schoolyard bully about "hair triggers." Isn't that interesting?

You don't have a right to your own invented scenarios. You can repeat them all you'd like, but history and reality do not bear you out.


And they never will, no matter how desperately you snark, goad and bait.

Your modus operandi is showing.

[DirkGently]

111. So which part is false? Are you claiming Gupta didn't get nailed for lying

about Michael Moore and single-payer? He didn't face criticism from Democrats like Conyers? The medical community didn't write articles and open letters opposing his possible appointment on the basis of his dishonest schlepping for Vioxx?

If you're just insisting none of that mattered, first of all, that's bullshit, and second of all, why is it so important to you?

This is how I'm arriving at the conclusion you think this is some critical piece of Obama reputation you need to defend.

[MADem]

112. Your entire narrative is a perverse prevarication. Your agenda is bizarre. nt

[DirkGently]

115. You keep saying that, but without factual support. Why?

Your entire encylopedia of evidence here is Gupta's own explanation for his rapid departure. Family reasons, wanted to work with the disgraced tax dodger, etc.

But surely you acknowledge that such excuses are always made when a potential appointment wilts under public pressure, right?

And I haven't seen you take issue with the damning publicity Gupta received for smearing single-payer healthcare and Michael Moore with made-up facts on national television, critiques from a Democratic member of Congress over his lack of experience in national health, his evisceration by Paul Krugman, or critiques from the medical community over his squishy covering for Vioxx and special interest in the autism / vaccine hoax.

If you're just going to stand and scream that the official P.R. line is the only possible reality, okay, but to quote the OP,

"Nobody thinks that."

[MADem]

117. You're the one who hasn't provided any "factual support"--just your uninformed opinion.

I've provided proof, and you haven't because you can't. You keep babbling about Michael Moore and John Conyers, neither of whom have "advise and consent" authority in the Senate.

And then you keep doubling down, goading, baiting, like you think that repeating nonsense turns it into fact. Doesn't work.

Obama offered him the job, the Senate would have confirmed him. He wanted to work with Daschle, and when Daschle was sidelined due to his tax mess, he decided he didn't want to play on a different team. That's the truth, even if you don't like it and need to invent a conspiracy theory for some odd reason.

I think you're holding on to some seething anger about this guy--did Sanjay snub you in an elevator, or fuck up a neurological operation on you, or something? Your focus on him--bordering on visceral hatred, it would seem-- is strange and really rather pointless. He's just a cable TV medical pundit, and your repetitive dragging him over the coals is, in itself, unusual, to put it kindly. You can make him go away with your remote, you know...

[DirkGently]

118. Heck, no. I'd forgotten half of his controversies until

you charged in attacking everyone with this silly line about how he just quit over "family matters" and then, not wanting to work without the guy with the tax problems.

So I guess the core fallacy you're holding on to is that somehow the Obama administration ignored the pressure over Gupta's lies about single-payer, ignored Paul Krugman crucifiying him for much of the same thing, ignored Conyers' letter to his colleagues about Gupta's complete lack of experience in national health, and ignored commentary from the medical community exposing his fudging in favor of Vioxx and weird interest in the vaccine / autism hoax?

See, this is why I can't help thinking you're trying to defend YOUR perception that floating the nomination was some huge, humiliating fuckup for the Obama administration. Otherwise, why the vehemence?

Not that it necessarily was, mind you. An Obama fuckup, that is. I mean, potentially, sure, it's kind of embarrassing to pick a flyweight industry stooge best known for slandering single-payer healthcare on national television, but I don't think it hurt Obama. Hell, I didn't even remember until you went all screechy about it on this page.

I just can't think of another reason it would be so important for you to insist that huge, embarrassing public criticisms of a nominee couldn't possibliy have anything to do with the person withdrawing, or being privately asked to withdraw.

Are you saying that public pressure / controversy / getting caught in lies on national television NEVER impacts a potential appointment? And I'm not saying you would argue anything that stupid, but bear with me.

If it DOES happen that way, much of the time, what makes you so adamant it didn't happen here?

Also, you understand that screaming "He had the votes in the Senate!" repeatedly does not in any way eliminate the likelihood that the proposed appointment had become a sufficient political headache that it didn't make practical sense, right? I mean, you Presidents DO drop embarrassing nominees for political reasons all the time, don't they?

Why do you insist THIS particular embarrassing person was immune to such a thing?

[MADem]

119. You have a nice day--I'm tired of reading the same inventions from you, over and over.

Your comments are fact-free and you are plainly prosecuting an agenda that most people could give a crap about.

I have a life, and I really just don't want to indulge your Sanjay hatred anymore. It's silly and unimportant.

Knock yourself out, now...!

[DirkGently]

120. Take care. FYI, here's the same thing you call "inventions" from the LA Times.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/06/nation/na-gupta6

WASHINGTON — CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta withdrew Thursday from consideration to be the next surgeon general, with the network and Obama administration officials attributing his decision to professional and family reasons amid a campaign by some liberal interest groups to block his selection.

(snip)

Gupta's withdrawal was the latest in a series of unexpected problems the administration has encountered in filling senior positions -- problems that have consumed time, energy and political capital. Some of the problems have involved such issues as failure to pay taxes or meet other legal obligations.


This nomination fell into the latter category: Just days after Gupta's name was disclosed as a possible choice for surgeon general, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), a supporter of universal healthcare, mounted a public campaign to mobilize opposition in Congress.

(snip)

Dr. Quentin Young -- who heads Physicians for a National Health Program, a group that advocates for single-payer, Canadian-style national health insurance and other changes in the present system -- and other critics cited occasions when Gupta favorably mentioned sponsors' brand-name drugs.

Seriously, it was it was. It's not some conspiracy to "prosecute an agenda" to simply point out there was a wee bit more to it than Gupta deciding, two months in, that he was too busy, or too rich, to be Surgeon General. There were people who believed his proferred reasons, but those people were pretty much the Obama administration and his employer, CNN.

[MADem]

121. Lather, rinse, repeat. Post 119.

[DirkGently]

122. Just another of several articles refuting your position entirely.

Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2013, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Obama and Gupta cited "family reasons," the oldest excuse in the book, for Gupta's withdrawal after staying in the nomination for two months, and while some -- especially his employer, CNN -- went along with that, much of the press observed that the dropout came in the midst of heavy criticism from Democrats and doctors. It was one of many such nomination setbacks for the administration.

Certainly you can prefer the administration's PR line, for whatever reason, but instead of arguing that, you burst in here shouting at everyone that things could only have happened the way you prefer, and any expressions to the contrary were false.

This is what occurred. Continuing to sputter that it isn't true because you say it isn't true just isn't helpful to the conversation.

[chimpymustgo]

98. Thank you for that reminder. Gupta exposed himself as a tool.

[DirkGently]

106. I had forgotten half of his awfulness until

some weirdly angry people charged into the thread calling everyone liars and muttering about "agendas." I couldn't figure out where the rage was coming from until I dug around a little and was reminded of all the stuff that was discussed when they floated Gupta for SG.

Apparently he did a lot of friendly reporting on autism / vaccine links and carried water for Vioxx while it was literally killing people, all in addition to that embarrassing episode where he was caught out citing fake numbers to attack single-payer healthcare and Michael Moore. Him pretending to not understand "the science" that has been available for decades regarding MJ having some medical application and not belonging on Schedule I is just kind of the icing on his monied interest stooge cake, I guess.

I never saw it as any kind of failure for the Obama administration, but based on all the flailing attacks on the topic, apparently it's HUGE sore spot for some who are overly defensive on that score.

[chimpymustgo]

141. Gupta was one of the early visible cracks in the Obama facade.

We wondered, why him, why now? it's all quite clear in retrospect, if it wasn't then.

[lumpy]

134. You don't have a chance with know-it alls who have the answer for everything.

n

[Aerows]

5. He came around

that's all that counts with me. You can bash supporters to hell and back for not supporting you sooner, but it pretty much diminishes the supporter pool and the credibility of your cause.

[PoliticAverse]

6. He sees the train leaving the station and he's gonna jump on it and pretend he's driving. n/t

[jberryhill]

10. Peak graduation year for high school MJ use was something like 1978

[napoleon_in_rags]

11. I'm not gonna blast Gupta.

Because there are so many people STILL ignoring the scientific evidence, Gupta is still taking a bold stance. Need I remind people that there are only 2 states where its legal, and in the majority of states medical marijuana is still illegal? Jumping on the train is saying this when its legal in the majority of states support it.

[DirkGently]

12. How many doctors still claim MJ belongs with heroin though?

The *politics* still has a lot of conservative support. Doctors have not, as a group, seriously argued pot was a horrifically dangerous substance for a long time.

He took a political position and pretended it was his medical opinion.

So yes, it's great he "switched." But he's a spineless tool, and he was lying when he suggested he made a mistake in good faith, and he's lying now when he says he's just discovered the truth.

Worth noting.

[rhett o rick]

13. He is a political opportunist. nm

[liberal_at_heart]

14. there are 20 states where medical marijuana is legal and more pending.

[napoleon_in_rags]

25. Which is still the minority of states, last I checked.

This fight is by no means over, that's all I'm saying.

[tridim]

124. This documentary is going to open the MMJ floodgates...

Charlotte's story is impossible to ignore.

It is plainly immoral to not allow people in your state to use Cannabis to treat serious illness.

[KittyWampus]

15. Ah, you're a mind reader? He probably didn't want the pay cut>>>

Sanjay Gupta says he is no longer in the running to be the nation's next surgeon general, CNN reported today, as President Obama brought health care to center stage.

CNN cited his desire to continue working instead as a neurosurgeon and CNN medical analyst. His wife is pregnant with their third child.

snip
For starters, Gupta would have likely taken a pay cut as he moved from television personality and neurosurgeon to federal employee. As CNN's chief medical correspondent, a practicing neurosurgeon and associate chief of neurosurgery at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, and an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the Emory University School of Medicine, Gupta likely earns much more than he would have as surgeon general.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7017435&page=1

[physioex]

74. Not that I disagree.....

But many people take that pay cut on purpose for a later more lucrative positions say a corporate board.

[marble falls]

16. Agree 100%. He was willfully ignorant because he was looking for a career in guvmint.

[KG]

17. yawn. still hiding behind a limited hangout.

IM me when he come out in favor of decriminalization

[malaise]

18. I'll never forget Gupta's lies after Michael Moore's Sicko

was being promoted. Nothing he says matters.

[catzies]

29. I'm with you on that. He had no credibility to lose with me. n/t

[calimary]

19. I thought he turned down the job of Surgeon General when it was offered to him.

In the first few days of the first Obama term.

I remember being a bit pissed off about it - "you TURNED YOUR NOSE UP at Your new President when he asked you to serve? Who the fuck do you think you are, pal? Oh yeah - I forgot. It was far more important for you you to keep your mug on TV all the time than to serve your country, and the exposure the Surgeon General's job would offer doesn't match your ego stroking on CNN..."

Ol' Sanjay went way down in my estimation when that happened. When your president calls and asks for your help, by God you should stand up and answer. Or something like that. I used to like him. But that kinda killed it for me.

[KittyWampus]

22. He did. However, making shit up is the new normal for DU.

[lamp_shade]

31. ^ ^ What KittyWampus said.

[DirkGently]

44. Oh, bullshit Kitty. He didn't reject the nomination.

But rather dropped out, in the midst of controversy over his ties to big pharma, and going after Michael Moore on Sicko, during which Gupta lied about the film and had to apologize.

If didn't want the job in the first place, he wouldn't have been under consideration at all.

Your silly attacks in this thread are completely dishonest

CNN aired a report by Gupta in which he challenged Moore's portrayal of the US health insurance system, arguing there was no such thing as free universal healthcare in countries such as the UK because people pay higher taxes. But what really got Moore's back up was Gupta's claim that he had "fudged the facts", which culminated in an angry exchange between the two on the Larry King show.

The CNN anchor was forced to concede he had misquoted some of the figures cited in Moore's film and the row led to accusations that he was too much of a healthcare industry insider to recognise the flaws in the US system.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2009/jan/07/sanjay-gupta-barack-obama-surgeon-general

[MADem]

53. The job was HIS if he wanted it. He didn't want it. His wife was getting ready to have their 3rd

child, and it would have meant a pay cut.

[DirkGently]

54. Then why did he let Obama nominate him?

Surely you don't think the President of the United States announces someone for consideration for appointment as Surgeon General without asking them first?

So apparently he DID want it at some point. He dropped out during the ensuing controversy, while he was being called out for his lies about Michael Moore and Vioxx, among other things.

Of course he spun it as "family reasons." It's the oldest excuse in politics. But you'd have to have taken a recent plunge off a turnip truck to believe that was his sole motivation.

[MADem]

67. He wanted to work with Daschle, and as the Washington Post reported, he

thought he'd have a bigger say in the whole health care reform debate.

When Tom Daschle got sidelined, he lost enthusiasm. He knew he would not have the clout alone that he would have had, had he been able to tag team with TD.

The job was HIS. He decided that the pay cut and the muzzling and the diminished profile wasn't worth it.

I think the one who fell off the turnip truck here isn't me.

To put it KINDLY.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030503310_pf.html

"It really came down to a sense of timing more than anything else," Gupta told King on the show. "This job that we have collectively takes us away from our children. . . . I just didn't feel like I should do that now."

He said the surgeon general "has to have a little bit of a higher profile. Whoever takes this job has to be out there really advocating the issues of public health. At no time is it probably more important than right now, as we're dealing with health-care reform. These issues really go hand in hand."

The decision means that the often low-profile job will not get the mass-media jolt from the appointment of the television celebrity. Gupta, a journalist and neurosurgeon who continues to practice medicine, has become ubiquitous on CNN, where he hosts a half-hour show called "House Call" and appears on numerous other programs.....Sources had confirmed weeks ago that Obama had offered the job to Gupta and that the neurosurgeon had intended to take it and would leave his network job. But no further progress was evident, especially after Obama's first choice for secretary of health and human services, former senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), was derailed by tax problems.

....But one source close to him said Gupta was very disheartened by Daschle's fate and fearful he was not going to get a prominent role in the health-care reform process. Gupta has built a lucrative media empire that includes appearances on CBS as well as CNN and book deals. Soon after his interest in the job became public, he had expressed concern to friends about the financial impact on his wife and children.

Gupta last night played down the financial impact.....He also waved aside questions about what happened to Daschle. But his answers hinted at his expectation that helping Daschle to revamp the nation's health-care system had been part of his discussions with the White House.

[Little Star]

101. This is just a question. I wasn't paying any attention to Gupta's nomination....

Is everyone sure PBO didn't ask him to decline the nom for some reason or other?

I ask this because I think others have not accepted a president's nom before. I could be mistaken. Susan Rice was one I think?

Again this is just a question and I am not disagreeing with all those other things you said about Gupta because I really don't know jack shit about this subject.

Thanks, LS

[lumpy]

136. No shit. We have the benefit (?) of being inundated by mind readers who can analyse

anyone's thoughts whether or not they even know anything about them.

[napoleon_in_rags]

32. Yes, link: Gupta opts out of surgeon general consideration

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/05/gupta.surgeon.general/

This is one of those threads that just leaves me shrugging and "asking what the hell?"

[DirkGently]

46. Not quite, link: The Controversy about Gupta as Surgeon General

Not everyone sees the charismatic 39-year-old as the country's "most trusted health care authority." Indeed, the question of "trust" is central to the debate. Gary Schwitzer, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communications and the mind behind the excellent Schwitzer health news blog, said he was "shocked" when he heard that Gupta has been tapped. Schwitzer has written frequently about Gupta, citing his "entanglement" with drugmakers; his "unquestioning – almost cheerleading – approach to health news coverage" ; and "some laughable, some dangerous coverage on Gupta's 'Housecall' program;" . (This last post ran under the headline "Molly Ivins would have loved this one.&quot

Schwitzer is not alone. Drs. Lisa Schwartz and Steven Woloshin of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (and home to Jack Wennberg's famed research on overtreatment) economist Paul Krugman, respected bloggers Kevin M.D. Dr. Val, Christine Gorman and Joe Paduda as well as Boston Post columnist Peter Canellos and Chicago Tribune columnist Judy Deardoff all have raised questions about whether Gupta has the "substance," the "independent voice" the "freedom from conflict of interest," the "qualifications" the respect for "facts" and medical "evidence" that we need in a Surgeon General.

Now, the debate has taken a new turn: Earlier this week, HealthBeat reader Dr. Rick Lippin posted an open letter to President Obama and Secretary Tom Daschle on Facebook, urging them to seriously consider Secretary Dr. George Lundberg as the nation's next Surgeon General. Today, Lippin's letter became the subject of a post by Brian Klepper on The Healthcare Blog (THCB. The Gupta controversy may be heating up.

-

http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/01/the-controversy-about-dr-gupta-as-surgeon-general-takes-a-new-turn-part-1/

[jtuck004]

20. "NOBODY THINKS THAT. If you were born in the late 60s..." True dat. But I am glad

that he is publicly renouncing his position - it will bring some others around and give them cover, and maybe one day we can be grown ups about this, instead of the nasty little children we've been rewarded to be.

[nashville_brook]

41. he's come around as a face-saving measure. good on him

for coming around. but unfortunately his prior position shows it's a sign of the times rather than a sign of his moral compass.

[adieu]

21. And how is this any different

that Obama's switch from being neutral or slightly anti-LGBT to being pro-LGBT when Biden and many others moved in that direction?

It's political calculus to be sure, and I rather have people who are solid on their beliefs (as long as those beliefs are based on sound reasoning: the Tea Party are pretty solid on their beliefs, but those beliefs are totally whacko-nutjob-crazy).

It takes balls to hold a sound, but unpopular or politically dangerous position. That's why I like people like Elizabeth Warren and Kucinich and others.

[90-percent]

23. Zappa has a song about that

Promiscuous; about Dr. Koop and his "phony Dr. God get-up."

-90% Jimmy

[nashville_brook]

42. that reminds me of Bill Hicks...

Rock against drugs (explicit).

[DesertFlower]

24. he didn't want the surgeon generals job.

it would have been a cut in pay for him. my stepdaughter works for CNN as a videotape operator/producer. she went to sanjay's house. he had a party for those who worked on one of his specials. she said it's a mansion.

[nashville_brook]

47. not the first Gupta forced to re-invent his position: Michael Moore's Sicko

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-07-16-sicko-CNN_N.htm

[Warren DeMontague]

26. better late than never.

[Recursion]

28. I was born in the 1970s. Most of us thought of pot as an old people's drug

Not dangerous so much as lame

[totodeinhere]

30. I am happy to support his changed attitude about pot. We need to be celebrate

those who see the light and come around to the correct position on this issue, not criticize them.

[burnodo]

34. let's see how long it lasts

and what the real repercussions of his "epiphany" really are

[lumpy]

137. It's an evil plot to destroy pot smokers.

n

[Egnever]

38. Agreed

I have doubts about his reasoning but I dont really care. I am happy he finally saw the light .

[nashville_brook]

43. the fact that he's come around proves that his support is no longer needed. or relevant.

[bravenak]

33. I agree.

Pot never went any where. It just got better.

[nashville_brook]

39. +1

[madrchsod]

81. mr natural agrees

.

[sabrina 1]

35. Gupta lost all credibility when he joined the Private Health Ins. smear campaign against

Michael Moore's movie 'Sicko' exposing the corrupt Health Care System in the US. Moore would not let him off the hook and demanded a one on one rebuttal to his lies. In the end he backed off and admitted he had been 'mistaken'.

Wendell Potter, Whistle Blower (thank the GODS for Whistle Blowers) confirmed that hundreds of millions were spent to destroy Moore's credibility when they learned he was making that movie.

Gupta is a Corporate Shill as are all Corporate Media 'reporters'. He keeps making these 'mistakes', maybe he should go back to just being a surgeon. He's not doing too well as a Corporate shill.

[DirkGently]

45. Love the attempt in the thread to suggest it was the "pay cut" that made him run.

Democratic Rep. John Conyers has sent a letter to his Democratic colleagues to rally opposition to CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta being nominated for Surgeon General. Conyers opposes Gupta because he is against single payer universal health care and Conyers has his own candidate in mind.

http://archives.politicususa.com/2009/01/08/Gupta-Surgeon-General.html

[valerief]

36. He's a paid whore like all the teevee talking heads. nt

[SleeplessinSoCal]

37. please explain link to "surgeon general's job"

I'm puzzled by this claimed line toeing. He declined the job.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/05/gupta.surgeon.general/

[DirkGently]

48. He didn't decline the nomination. He fled a controversy.

He loved Vioxx. Opposed Single-Payer. Attacked Michael Moore with lies and had to apologize. He's a corporate shill.

The Controversy about Dr. Gupta as Surgeon General Takes a New Turn – Part 1
Not everyone sees the charismatic 39-year-old as the country's "most trusted health care authority." Indeed, the question of "trust" is central to the debate. Gary Schwitzer, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communications and the mind behind the excellent Schwitzer health news blog, said he was "shocked" when he heard that Gupta has been tapped. Schwitzer has written frequently about Gupta, citing his "entanglement" with drugmakers; his "unquestioning – almost cheerleading – approach to health news coverage" ; and "some laughable, some dangerous coverage on Gupta's 'Housecall' program;" . (This last post ran under the headline "Molly Ivins would have loved this one.&quot

Schwitzer is not alone. Drs. Lisa Schwartz and Steven Woloshin of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (and home to Jack Wennberg's famed research on overtreatment) economist Paul Krugman, respected bloggers Kevin M.D. Dr. Val, Christine Gorman and Joe Paduda as well as Boston Post columnist Peter Canellos and Chicago Tribune columnist Judy Deardoff all have raised questions about whether Gupta has the "substance," the "independent voice" the "freedom from conflict of interest," the "qualifications" the respect for "facts" and medical "evidence" that we need in a Surgeon General.

http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/01/the-controversy-about-dr-gupta-as-surgeon-general-takes-a-new-turn-part-1/

Meanwhile, the prospect of Gupta taking the job had also proven controversial.

Dr. James Floyd, researcher at consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said several of Gupta's broadcast reports "undermine his credibility," whether reporting on autism or screening tests and prevention.

For instance, Floyd is among those who said Gupta was too soft on Merck's Vioxx drug before it was removed from the market, explaining, "He completely just misinterpreted how the data was reported.

"He seems a lot of times like a spokesperson for the latest and greatest drugs or technology," Floyd said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7017435&page=1

[napoleon_in_rags]

50. If it follows recent trends on DU, some one is pissed he stopped towing the line.

And advocated medical pot.

I have 100% respect for anyone making these points, even if I don't agree, about Gupta being a political hack if they can point to one post they made saying the same thing before he came out in support of medical marijuana. But my bet is most of them can't, their outrage is directed at his new stance, not his old stance.

The most grotesque claims being made are that he is a slave to big pharma... When he just made a statement that many things can be more effectively treated with an herb big pharma does not control.

Nah, Gupta said some things I REALLY don't agree with, but seeing this, and remembering his actions in Haiti after the quake, the guy in my mind leans toward being a class act.

[DirkGently]

56. I'm sorry, you're claiming the OP is critical of medical marijuana?

I've been on the site a while, and I'm familiar with the OP's views on this topic. You are galaxies off base here.


And it's "toeing the line," for Pete's sake.

[napoleon_in_rags]

58. Well, its a funny way to show his support for it...

Attacking one of the most visible, respected medical professionals right after he comes out in support of medical marijuana.

[DirkGently]

62. He's not respected. He's popular. Not the same.

He's an opponent of single-payer healthcare who defends dangerous pharmaceuticals and smears liberals on CNN. He is not taken seriously by the medical community.

Meanwhile, the prospect of Gupta taking the job had also proven controversial.

Dr. James Floyd, researcher at consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said several of Gupta's broadcast reports "undermine his credibility," whether reporting on autism or screening tests and prevention.

For instance, Floyd is among those who said Gupta was too soft on Merck's Vioxx drug before it was removed from the market, explaining, "He completely just misinterpreted how the data was reported.

"He seems a lot of times like a spokesperson for the latest and greatest drugs or technology," Floyd said.

Gupta also found himself at the center of a very public flap about getting his facts wrong in critiquing filmmaker Michael Moore's documentary "Sicko," which was about America's health care problems. The filmmaker and the doctor hashed it out on "Larry King Live."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7017435&page=1

[napoleon_in_rags]

63. Okay, so he's popular. Why are you critiquing him right after he comes out in support of medical MJ?

I could understand the critique right after he made statements against single payer or Moore, but why now?

[DirkGently]

66. I agree with the OP he is lying claiming he was "misinformed."

He was not misinformed. No doctor has been "confused" about whether MJ is comparable to Schedule I drugs for a long time. He wasn't somehow tricked or misled into his former point of view. And he's not just discovering the truth now. He's scrambling for political position for his own selfish interests.

[KittyWampus]

68. Because for many DU'ers it's about somehow proving you are more liberal/intelligent/cynical

than anyone else.

[napoleon_in_rags]

79. Well, I'm not going to do that with Gupta.

I think I'm a decently smart guy, but I know to have a little humility, and do a little listening when I'm sitting across from an award winning, globally renowned brain surgeon.

Common sense is this: The benefits of marijuana have been presented as negligible for a long time in the US, and most scientists accept common scientific wisdom as doctrine, because most of the time its a good idea to do so. However the "evils" of marijuana, it turns out, is not based on sound science but on political manipulations inserted into scientific data, and a trove of new data shows this. Gupta accepted convention at first, as many would, but when he saw the evidence to the contrary, he stood up and said something. That makes him a good and ethical scientist, period. I've had reasons to disagree with things he said in the past, but I'm not going to do it now. The majority of America STILL believes MJ is more harmful than good, (as evidenced by its illegality in the majority of states) and that tells me Gupta isn't sniffing the political winds and following the pack, he's following his principles, and standing up for what he believes. And that's respectable.

[nashville_brook]

65. Gupta's Haiti trip highlighted the danger of self-promotion in reporting this tragedy.

http://www.imediaethics.org/News/717/Gupta_in_haiti_raisies_ethical_questions_of_cnns_coverage.php

[lumpy]

139. Some people enjoy throwing barbs whether it is the truth or not.

It's true that the new trend on DU is to take sides even if there at no sides to be taken.

[aikoaiko]

49. I care little that he may be lying and just glad he's getting on track...

...with better information.

[Nevernose]

51. It's a little tacky to disparage him

For saying, "I was wrong and you were right about medical marijuana."

He's got a long way to go, obviously, before he regains credibility, but it's tacky to not accept someone's change of heart.

[nashville_brook]

57. actually, what's tacky is talking money from pharma to sell their products and

calling it journalism.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/06/nation/na-gupta6

[Nevernose]

97. I agree

But that's also a separate criticism.

[DirkGently]

61. It's more stupid to take a lying hack at face value.

This is the guy who had to apologize to Michael Moore for lying about his film on CNN. He's a flyweight talking head who has demonstrated a pattern of going whichever way the winds blow.

I'll take tacky over "easily fooled" any day of the week.

Tacky my ass.

[MADem]

52. He TURNED DOWN the Surgeon General's job. Jeez, what poor memories people have.

He was OFFERED the Surgeon General's job.

HE REFUSED IT.

If he "lied" because he "wanted" the job, he'd be wearing the uniform today. The job was HIS.

He REJECTED it.

Why do people make stuff up?

His wife was expecting, and he was making good scratch as a sawbones and at CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/05/gupta.surgeon.general/

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, has withdrawn his name from consideration as surgeon general of the United States, he said Thursday.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta will continue his work as a surgeon and for CNN.

"This is more about my family and my surgical career," Gupta told CNN's "Larry King Live."

The neurosurgeon said he would likely have had to give up practicing had he taken the job as the nation's top doctor.

In addition, the 39-year-old and his wife are expecting their third daughter any time, and the government job would have meant long periods away from his family, he said.

"I think, for me, it really came down to a sense of timing more than anything else," he said. "I just didn't feel I should do that now."

This is an embarrassing OP, you should delete it.

[nashville_brook]

55. what's embarrassing is that you can't tell the difference between him wanting it and being unfit

if he wasn't in the running he wouldn't have been in the running. he had to withdraw.

"it was for family. it was because it was too little money."

how about because he was too beholden to health care interests.


http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/03/dr-sanjay-gupta-withdraws/

[MADem]

59. Bull. He would have been confirmed.

You actually think the SENATE gives a shit about "beholden to health care interests?"

That's where most of them get their campaign cash.

He would have been confirmed with a great deal of smiling and backslapping; it probably would have been a voice vote.

You should try reading the links you offer as some sort of "proof" to back up your assertions:

Yesterday, the announcement became official: “Gupta has withdrawn his name from consideration.” According to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer “Dr. Gupta’s wife, Rebecca Olson Gupta, is expecting a child, and Dr. Gupta wants to spend more time with his family and continue practicing medicine."

The Washington Post added another piece to the story: “one source close to him said Gupta was very disheartened by Daschle's fate and fearful he was not going to get a prominent role in the health-care reform process. Gupta has built a lucrative media empire that includes appearances on CBS as well as CNN and book deals. Soon after his interest in the job became public, he had expressed concern to friends about the financial impact on his wife and children.”

- See more at: http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/03/dr-sanjay-gupta-withdraws/#sthash.11jtem4j.dpuf

[DirkGently]

64. No, the bull is yours. Why did he agree to the nomination?

It's not like Obama sprang it on him. These things are discussed. Did he suddenly remember he was married, while he was coincidentally being criticized by the medical community and apologizing for lying about his attacks on Michael Moore and Sicko?

Krugman, among others, was tearing him apart

The trouble with Sanjay Gupta
So apparently Obama plans to appoint CNN’s Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General. I don’t have a problem with Gupta’s qualifications. But I do remember his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko. You don’t have to like Moore or his film; but Gupta specifically claimed that Moore “fudged his facts”, when the truth was that on every one of the allegedly fudged facts, Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong.

[snip]

Update: Many commenters don’t seem to get the point. Gupta didn’t say “Michael Moore is an annoying blowhard”; he didn’t say “We question his interpretation of the evidence”; he said he “fudged the facts”. In other words, he accused Moore of lying. That’s a very strong accusation, which had better be backed by solid evidence. Instead, we had CNN misreading a number from Moore; CNN objecting to Moore using a projected health care spending number for 2007 instead of an actual number for 2005 (and the projection was right, by the way); CNN accusing Moore of not showing a number that was in fact right there in the movie. And Gupta did not apologize, except for the misread number.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/the-trouble-with-sanjay-gupta/?_r=0

[MADem]

69. Your attention is invited--AGAIN--to post sixty seven.

Obama HAD offered the job to him. He would have been confirmed UNANIMOUSLY.

Michael Moore is not a sitting US senator, a fact that perhaps escapes you?

[DirkGently]

71. Dems in Congress opposed him as well. And "AGAIN"

For the third time, why did Gupta allow Obama to nominate him if he didn't want the job? Do you contend Obama sprang it on him as a surprise?

He obviously agreed to it, wanted it, and fled the controversy. So sorry that doesn't fit whatever agenda you have in mind here.

Democratic Rep. John Conyers has sent a letter to his Democratic colleagues to rally opposition to CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta being nominated for Surgeon General. Conyers opposes Gupta because he is against single payer universal health care and Conyers has his own candidate in mind.

According to The Hill newspaper Conyers crouched his criticism in concerns about Gupta’s experience, “It is not in the best interests of the nation to have someone like this who lacks the requisite experience needed to oversee the federal agency that provides crucial healthcare assistance to some of the poorest and most underserved communities in America.”

Rep. John Conyers

According to The Detroit Free Press, Conyers has his own candidate in mind, Dr. Herb Smitherman Jr., who is a Detroit public health advocate and assistant dean at the Wayne State University School of Medicine. I think it is fair to raise questions about whether Dr. Gupta is qualified to be Surgeon General.

http://archives.politicususa.com/2009/01/08/Gupta-Surgeon-General.html

[MADem]

72. The answer to your question is in Post sixty seven, which, plainly you did not read.

And, on edit, Conyers' guy didn't make the cut, did he...?

Conyers didn't have a vote, either--he's NOT A SENATOR. He doesn't DO "advise and consent."

It's helpful to know how the nomination process works...

[DirkGently]

75. Oh, so now it's not "family concerns" after all?

You're hilarious, hopping from foot to foot and now citing your brand-new fallback theory as authority.

Gupta was getting his ass handed to him in the press and by Democrats. You know, those guys who favor single-payer healthcare and so forth? His reputation as a corporate-friendly yes man and a lightweight is what sank him. Of COURSE he made excuses, but no one believed them.

Conyers, the veteran Judiciary Committee chairman, writes that Gupta "lacks the requisite experience needed to oversee the federal agency that provides crucial health care assistance," and requests that fellow Democrats join him "in signing a letter to President-Elect Barack Obama that Dr. Sunjay Gupta not be nominated for the post."

Here's the bulk of the Dear Colleague letter:

I join in opposition with respected Noble Peace Prize award wining economist Paul Krugman, who has very serious concerns with having Dr. Gupta be the nation's Surgeon General. [...]

Also, there are highly experienced medical professionals who question whether Dr. Gupta has the necessary experience or even the medical background to be in charge of some 6,000 physicians or more who work in the United States Public Health Service. Gerard M. Farrel, Executive Director of the Commissioned Officers Association, stated in the January 7, 2008 Washington Post that Dr. Gupta will certainly face a "credibility gap" because he never served in the National Health Service Corp, and furthermore, does not have the "experience or qualifications to be the leader of the nation's public health service." Clearly, it is not in the best interests of the nation to have someone like this who lacks the requisite experience needed to oversee the federal agency that provides crucial health care assistance to some of the poorest and most underserved communities in America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/conyers-to-obama-do-not-n_n_156298.html

[MADem]

76. Hello? Can't you read? Conyers does NOT HAVE "advise and consent" authority.

His gripes have only slightly more weight than yours in this context. He had zero role in the appointment process.

All of those factors--no Daschle to team up with, less money, wife having a baby, lower profile without Daschle--all fed into his decision.

Obama GAVE him the job.

The Senate--even though this seems to infuriate you, for some odd reason-- WOULD HAVE confirmed him.

[DirkGently]

82. I'm not infuriated. Just pointing out Gupta fled a controversy.

Not sure why it bothers you so much. By your vehemence and determined spinning, though, I'm starting to assume you're on some kind of Obama ass-covering mission here. Not much else brings out this sort of spittle-flecked rage posting around here.

So what's the Obama partisan angle -- is it just that he wanted a corporate tool, single-payer opposing, Michael Moore smearing Yes-man, and then everyone pointed that out, and then it blew up?

I don't think that reflects too badly on Obama, if that's what you need to get at. He likely did the right thing and asked him to withdraw.

Whichever, it was the right thing to do dumping the guy.

[MADem]

87. Obama didn't dump the guy, either. Not sure why you have this need to tell stories.

Obama gave him the job. The Senate would have confirmed him.

Gupta didn't think that working in the job without his friend Daschle's clout as HHS was worth it.

You're going to have to ask Obama--and Tom Daschle--why Sanjay was a good pick for them. That's how the decision got made, the two of them made the pick, and Sanjay was clearly eager to work with TD, by all accounts from all sources with knowledge.

If I had to speculate, I would guess that TD was probably more than content to let SG do the day-to-day touting of the HHS agenda, and he'd hold back for bigger announcements. However, the tax man intervened. SG didn't want to work for a pig in a poke, or be subordinate to anyone who wasn't on his same page. He took the job BECAUSE of TD, and without him, it wasn't a good fit for him. Obama didn't ask him to withdraw--the WH wanted Gupta, with or without Daschle.

You are just not entitled to your own facts, sorry:

CNN’s Sanjay Gupta withdrew his name from consideration for surgeon general Thursday, denying President Barack Obama a popular pitchman for his effort to sell a major health-care overhaul effort to the American people.

Gupta’s withdrawal is yet another blow to Obama’s effort to expand health coverage this year – a push that already has seen the departure of Obama’s first choice for health secretary, Tom Daschle, over back-tax problems.

Gupta’s name surfaced as the leading candidate when Daschle was still expected to take the health secretary post. When Daschle stepped aside, Gupta reportedly had second thoughts, and questioned how he would fit into the new regime at the White House and Health and Human Services department. Obama named Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as health secretary on Monday.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19688.html

[DirkGently]

92. Just trying to help. If you need it to be an Obama failure ... okay?

From your link:

Gupta’s withdrawal is yet another blow to Obama’s effort to expand health coverage this year – a push that already has seen the departure of Obama’s first choice for health secretary, Tom Daschle, over back-tax problems.

So your big outrage here is that this was a political blow to Obama, when he was trying to appease Big Pharma during the healthcare reform? Single-payer opponent, willing to fudge for Vioxx and lie about Michael Moore?

Had I known this was a hot-button issue for Obama Can Do No Wrong-ists, I would have come more prepared. Pepper-spray, maybe.

I swear to you, I had no idea the Gupta thing was such a colossal fuckup for the administration. If you hadn't cannonballed into a simple OP about the fact Gupta is clearly lying about just "discovering" that MJ isn't the deadly, Schedule I drug he said it deserved to be a few years ago, I wouldn't have even noticed.

But you've really drawn my attention to it. Now I sort of understand your panicked response to a basic, unassailable criticism of a guy who clearly sensed the winds of change and copped the more politically viable point of view.

Still, if that's your angle, I'd go with Obama dumping him. It would be far more flattering than trying to rehabilitate a corporate shill who's best known for lying to smear Michael Moore.

[MADem]

104. Again, you'll have to ask Obama and Daschle what their plans were.

For all you know--or more likely, do not know--everything shook out pretty much the way POTUS planned when it came down to ACA.

It wasn't a "colossal fuckup" but you sure do have an interesting way of waving that fishing pole around.

You won't catch anything, but your "style" --such as it is-- is noted (obvious, too).

Life is good--you should try it.

[lumpy]

140. Where is your proof that Obama withdrew the nomination ? And why do you believe the poster

is on an Obama 'ass-covering' mission ? Lastly, what is you interest in smearing Gupta ?

[MADem]

70. That is just flat-out untrue. You don't have a right to your own made-up "factoids."

You need to have a look at the link in post sixty seven.

Obama offered him the job. He initially told Obama he would take it, but he expected to work with Tom Daschle. When Daschle got sidelined, Gupta lost enthusiasm.

That's the way it shook out. Your scenarios are an invention for reasons that are a) UNCLEAR, and b) Very Curious, Indeed.

[DirkGently]

107. No, that's just the interpretation you prefer. Why

are you so angry about it? You don't have any basis to accuse people of not arguing honestly when you won't even acknowledge the fact that Gupta was an embarassing fool who was caught up in any number of very damaging controversies over his own bad conduct.

Given all that occurred, it's pretty silly to insist that the standard "family matters" excuses made at the time are the only possible explanation.

Again, no one's attacking Obama here. Apparently you think Gupta's withdrawal in the face of withering criticism of his terrible record as a dishonest huckster for pharmaceuticals and against single-payer health care has to be furiously denied, lest it reflect poorly on the President, but there's no indication Obama himself backed all of Gupta's vacuous positions, so it's hardly his fault.

[MADem]

113. The one who is "angry" is you. I just can't understand why you have a need to invent history, all

these years later. It's very strange. Kind of obvious and over the top, too--your verve to change the facts of an old story.

[HiPointDem]

60. yep, he's a big fat liar. & if he's saying now pot is ok, it's only because the political winds are

changing somewhere.

gupta = made man & council of foreign relations

[SamKnause]

73. Gupta

He is a lying opportunist.

[Life Long Dem]

78. I agree

Unless he was born on another planet.

It never went away, it never went underground and it never lost any appeal.

[Zen Democrat]

80. Wrong. Gupta was offered the Surgeon General job and famously turned it down.

[DirkGently]

85. Famously ran away from the embarrassing controversy, you mean?

Liberals were kind of kicking his ass over all that Michael Moore smearing and Vioxx defending and so forth, weren't they?

1) First consider Gupta's extensive coverage of autism, in which Gupta gave inappropriate credibility to those who believe that vaccines cause autism, thereby supporting controversy around the issue.


(snip)

3) Although an ardent supporter of new tests and treatments, especially pharmaceuticals, Gupta downplays safety risks. Many have criticized him for his reporting on Vioxx, a pain medication used for arthritis that was voluntarily withdrawn from the market in 2004 because it causes heart attacks. Although the drug's cardiac risk was well-known prior to its removal from the market, Gupta minimized these concerns by citing the lowest possible estimate for the increase in risk of heart attacks, 39 percent, rather than the middle (and most appropriate) estimate of 425 percent.

Moreover, he parroted Merck's response that the number of people with heart attacks was small and that further studies were needed. No doubt further studies were needed to allow the drug to remain on the market for five years while bringing in over $2 billion annually in sales for Merck and causing tens of thousands of excess heart attacks, according to an estimate from the FDA.

(snip)

5) Lastly, one cannot forget his hack job on Michael Moore's movie Sicko, which exposed some of the root causes of our national health care crisis and pointed toward a national single-payer health system as the solution. In a highly publicized on-air debate with Moore, Gupta made many erroneous statements about facts and figures, essentially calling Moore a liar, and then failed to correct himself or apologize after being revealed as wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-floyd-md/cnns-gupta-not-what-the-d_b_163330.html

Check out the link for the rest of the piece. Pretty blistering. No wonder Gupta lit out for the hills.

[madrchsod]

83. actually pot did go away in the 80`s

it was coke that got the headlines in the 80`s. pot usage never went away it just was`t the headline grabber it was in the late 60 and early 70`s. by the late 70`s coke replaced heroin as the major powder.in the 80`s it was crack.in the 90`s and into the 2000`s it was meth. it was the only reason pot is back in the news is the legalization movement and the medical usage. the other factor is most people in the usa could give a shit less about pot.

i wonder why my local bookstore carriers all the magazines that feature for home grown marijuana? could it be that there is a large home growing movement across the country?

no matter what you or i think about him he`s still a very good voice to have out there.

[Go Vols]

91. The mags were there in the '70s too,

Just wasn't that in-depth tho.There were books to order out of those mags tho, and ...

[madrchsod]

94. during the 60`s and 70`s i had to drive 100 miles to buy a book or magazine

now i drive a couple of miles. plus i was`t ...at that time

[Go Vols]

84. I appreciate anyone who says

marijuana is not an evil/demon weed.Then goes on to tout the benefits of said weed.

[Dreamer Tatum]

86. I guess I'm obtuse...why exactly do you care how he got there?

He's in favor of it NOW. What else could possibly matter? It's public policy, not a personal relationship. Get over it.

[MADem]

88. His assertions aren't true either.

If Sanjay wanted the Surgeon General job, he could have had it. Obama wanted him. The Senate would have confirmed Obama's pick.

He wanted to work with Daschle, maybe he didn't really know Sebelius....he didn't think he'd have the same profile under her, from all accounts.

[JI7]

90. this makes no sense at all, i remember when news came out about him being in consideration for the

job. and he turned it down because he would not have been able to continue working as a doctor . money probably played a part in it also.

[DirkGently]

93. He apparently ran away (or was dumped) due to criticism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-floyd-md/cnns-gupta-not-what-the-d_b_163330.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7017435&page=1

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/the-trouble-with-sanjay-gupta/?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/conyers-to-obama-do-not-n_n_156298.html

At the time, he espoused every pro-corporate POV there was. I think the OP is just arching an eyebrow at his claim to having just "discovered" that opposition to medical MJ is nonsense.

Apparently that enrages a couple of people on the basis it was politically inconvenient for Obama. Jesus, you can't swing a cat around here without someone taking it as Obama-averse somehow.

Wonder if Gupta will switch his opposition to single-payer when that becomes inevitable too?

[KittyWampus]

110. No matter how many bullshit blog posts you pull up- you are still wrong and facts prove you wrong.

[DirkGently]

116. So, ABC News, Michael Moore, Paul Krugman & John Conyers, = "bullshit?"

By all means, please explain which parts of their comments are "bullshit."

[On the Road]

95. I Think You're Undoubtedly Correct

that Gupta adopted his former position for political reasons, but most people in Washington do the same with an issue like this.

Gupta's CNN performance *is* the political way of saying that he's changed his public position and providing the reasons for it.

As far as your prediction:

Unfortunately no one is going to remember his years-too-late confession. What he'll be remembered for is kissing up to the administration on blatantly false pretenses.

People are going to remember this. It is extremely important for a figure like Gupta to make a public statement like this on CNN ath this particular time, when public support for legalization might be reaching a tipping point. You may say he's piggybacking or jumping on the train, but conversions like this are one of things that are driving the process of greater acceptance. Marijuana is still illegal in most places and a lot more people like Gupta are still needed.

[Sgent]

96. I actually

believe that he didn't see much pot while in his teens and twenties.

Remember, he's a neurosurgeon which is probably the single hardest professional program to get into in any field, period. He needed an immaculate undergrad and medical school grades / evaluations, and probably published a dissertations worth of research while in medical school. He then completed 7-8 years of residency at a program where he was working 110+ hrs / week. In between this published enough to get an honorary Ph.D., an appointment to a professorship, and was a Whitehouse Fellow.

He and his immediate peers probably never did any significant amounts of weed, and he may not have even seen it.

[MannyGoldstein]

99. You may be right

But isn't it good that he's batting for the right side now?

So many are so wrong about so much today. If we can't welcome them when they get a clue, we go nowhere.

[Fumesucker]

100. I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction

Gupta will be very much against full legalization, he'll be fine with the medical community controlling pot but draw the line at killing the cash cow it will become for the doctors.

I watched Gupta get sliced and diced by Michael Moore and just sit there mute, the man does not have an honest bone in his body, there is no doubt in my mind Gupta has an ulterior motive what what he just said.

Here's my OP from Moore and Gupta's little fracas.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4782588

[DirkGently]

108. I'm going to quote you here, because it's good stuff

At 7:30 Gupta says France is "drowning in taxes" and implies Moore didn't mention high French taxes in the film Sicko.

At 7:50 Michael says "that's my line".

Gupta is utterly speechless, will not address it.

The microexpressions on Moore and Gupta at those moments are interesting too..

Gupta knew he'd been pwn3d, it is beautiful, and Moore knew he had him too, which makes it even better.

Edited to add: I forgot to mention that the exchange began with Gupta admitting he had misquoted Moore the day before, the whole thing is worth watching.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4782588

Think Gupta will ever backfill his way to supporting single-payer? Once it starts to look inevitable, of course?

The guy's got a very Mitt Romney-esque way of morphing into whatever the times require.

[MannyGoldstein]

109. I remember it well

IIRC I wrote to Gupta and CNN to bitch about his lying.

I guess I'm an eternal optimist, if a cynical one.

[KharmaTrain]

102. 40 Years On...

...I know some friends who've been toking almost non-stop since the early 70s...they've had very successful careers (how else do you pay for the stuff?) with long marriages and very few, if any, health problems. I compare that to those who I've known who've spent the same number of years poppin' a sixer every night or tootin' the Peruvian marching powder...many now displaying health problems that I'm sure are tied to their abuse.

Unlike the 70s, where the line was "we need more studies"...the facts are starting to become clear that marijuana isn't this evil of "Reefer Madness" fame and we're not seeing a lot of long-term health problems attributed to pot smoking. I'm glad Dr. Gupta has changed his position...and glad that we're starting to see the old myths of marijuana being debunked and rational legalization happening...

[Ed Suspicious]

103. It doesn't matter where he came from, the packaging is simply this:

he was misinformed and he's an intelligent doctor. He was lead to believe things that were not true therefore, American citizens, even the smartest among us were sold a narrative on this cannabis thing. It's ok. You were wrong but it was only because the powers that be were feeding you a line of BS that was undetectable by even the smartest among us. Now follow the good doctors lead and acknowledge that you were mislead by proclaiming loudly that cannabis is useful and should not be a Schedule 1 narcotic. It gives the American people an out without having to eat crow.

[DirkGently]

114. Precisely. PACKAGING (bullshit). Perhaps helpful bullshit.

But it's certianly worthwhile, especially for those who don't require bullshit in order to understand the world, to identify the bullshit, and the bullshitter.

It would be a mistake, for example, to misinterpret this self-serving adoption of an increasingly inevitable political position, as Gupta suddently deciding to be more thoughtful or honest. His opinion simply switched from the one he thought would help him then, to the one he thinks will help him now.

Going forward, should he have any other revelations about things he "misunderstood," it would be foolish to assume that's what he actually means.

Just basic critical thinking, is all.

[stevenleser]

123. Even if we accept what you say as true, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt...

I don't think it matters to his reputation or public image either way. 99% of the public is not going to care how he felt before or what he used to justify that position. In fact, they may identify with him even more because a large percentage of the population used to be against legalization of marijuana in any form too.

I think this is one of those cases where you accept that this prominent person is now on your side and can help the effort and move on.

People reverse positions in politics and try to rewrite the history of their past all the time and on much more serious issues like war, equality, etc.

[spanone]

126. uh, he TURNED DOWN the sg job.

[DirkGently]

131. He (uh) gave the traditional spin when the controversy killed him.

C'mon. No one outside of his employer CNN thought he suddenly remembered he was too busy or too rich to be Surgeon General.

Given he hung around for two months until the public controversy built up, it looked rather more likely he fled, or was asked to drop out.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/06/nation/na-gupta6

WASHINGTON — CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta withdrew Thursday from consideration to be the next surgeon general, with the network and Obama administration officials attributing his decision to professional and family reasons amid a campaign by some liberal interest groups to block his selection.

(snip)

Gupta's withdrawal was the latest in a series of unexpected problems the administration has encountered in filling senior positions -- problems that have consumed time, energy and political capital. Some of the problems have involved such issues as failure to pay taxes or meet other legal obligations.


This nomination fell into the latter category: Just days after Gupta's name was disclosed as a possible choice for surgeon general, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), a supporter of universal healthcare, mounted a public campaign to mobilize opposition in Congress.

(snip)

Dr. Quentin Young -- who heads Physicians for a National Health Program, a group that advocates for single-payer, Canadian-style national health insurance and other changes in the present system -- and other critics cited occasions when Gupta favorably mentioned sponsors' brand-name drugs.

[spanone]

132. as your um post stated....he withdrew

[DirkGently]

133. Once he (um) became an embarrassment, he had to.

Seriously, on what planet does the polite cover story given by all nominees who withdraw due to controversy get treated as fact?

Of course he wanted to be SG. He wouldn't have let them name him in the first place if he hadn't. Then he hung around for two months, as the objections built. To his embarrassing episode lying about Michael Moore's Sicko. To his lack of national health experience. To his apparent tendency to fudge in favor of dangerous-but-profitable pharmaceutical products.

It's not like he just up and changed his mind with no tidal wave of criticism bearing down on him.

[lunasun]

127. Thought that having a mind of his own would impede that career move. Now he just gives props

for the medical marijuana market - still no mind of his own and still morphing for $
hypocritic hippocrat!

[ecstatic]

129. I thought weed calmed people down?

But in all seriousness, I think your venom is misplaced. I have no idea why the government is determined to keep mj illegal, but there's obviously something going on that has nothing to do with science. How can it be any worse than all the prescription crap out there--especially narcotics?

If I were in charge, I'd make it available with a prescription, like every other drug. Why a prescription (you might be asking?)? Because I've seen people with negative side effects including addiction, chronic procrastination, and severe panic attacks (one that required a trip to the ER).

[dreamnightwind]

135. And nobody ever went to the ER from alcohol abuse, eh?

I've never heard of or known anyone that went to the ER from pot, not saying you're lying just saying that very unusual and shouldn't have such a prominent place in your logic. If it happened, it was a very unusual occurrence.

If you look at the obvious comps for pot, which are alcohol and nicotine, it's not possible to have any other conclusion than pot is much much safer, with far fewer negative effects, than either of them. One is illegal, the others are not. The safer one is the illegal one.

Unless you're willing to advocate for the outlawing of both of those chemicals (tobacco and alcohol), it's not possible to intelligently argue for pot's illegality.

[ecstatic]

138. I am for legalization of all drugs

I also think that the drugs should be regulated for quality, and some should require a prescription. At the very least, people should be aware of the exact amount of thc in their stash, with the proper warnings about interactions and safety (just like the standard warnings on cigarettes and alcohol).

[dreamnightwind]

143. It's a very harmless plant

that doesn't need to be micromanaged the way you are saying.

"If I were in charge, I'd make it available with a prescription, like every other drug."

Let's see all of those RX's for alcohol and tobacco.

You exaggerated the downsides of cannabis, and clearly, from the above statement you made, you reflexively don't think of alcohol and tobacco as drugs, even though they are infinitely more harmful drugs than cannabis.

I have nothing against you, so no need to run this into the ground, I just see some inconsistencies that I'm tired of seeing. Sorry to get into this with you, have a good one.

[liberal_at_heart]

142. One of the things brought up in the special got me thinking. If our reward center in our brain

is develped by the time we are 13 but the prefrontal cortex that helps us behave like an adult is not fully developed until we are 24, why did we as a society decide that 18 was the magical number that we are all of sudden grown up?