(THE REAL HEADLINE SHOULD READ THAT PATIENT TAKING WEIGHT LOSS DRUG GLP-1 COLLAPSES)
Just Stands There After Man Collapses During Press Conference
One of the guests at Donald Trump’s press conference on weight loss drugs passed out during the event.
ANDREW HARNIK/GETTY IMAGES
A man appeared to collapse Thursday during a press conference to debut a deal to make those drugs more affordable, while President Donald Trump simply looked on.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the daytime talk show host Trump picked to run the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, rushed to help the man to the ground (Oz was a heart doctor before he became a pseudoscience-peddling daytime host). Meanwhile, Trump, who was sitting behind his desk while others ran the show, slowly stood up as he watched the man take to the floor.
As members of the press were quickly ushered out of the room, Trump turned away from the fallen man, staring off into space.
It is unclear who the man is. While some outlets reported that it was Novo Nordisk executive Gordon Findlay, multiple sources toldThe Washington Post’s Dan Diamond that the man was a patient who uses Eli Lilly’s GLP-1 medication.
CBS journalists Jennifer Jacobs and Aaron Navarro reported that the only two Novo Nordisk executives at the event were CEO Mike Doustdar and Executive Vice President Dave Moore. A spokesperson for Eli Lilly told Navarro that the man was one of their guests.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the man was “okay” and being seen by the White House Medical Unit. Newsmax was quick to report that Trump—who was clearly not involved in the incident at all—was also okay.
A senior administration official said that under Trump’s new deal with Novo Nordisk and Elli Lily, weight-loss drugs could have an out-of-pocket cost of between $50 to $350 per month, as opposed to the current list price of more than $1000. However, prices would likely not be significantly cheaper for those whose prescriptions are covered by insurance.
TrumpRx, the president’s scheme to transform the federal government into a pharmacy, is already raising red flags for legal and health experts. They warn that the marketing gimmick isn’t likely to help the average American, and could actually expose private information to a government that clearly doesn’t know how to handle it. Already, other drug companies such as Pfizer and EMD Serono, which produces fertility drugs, have made deals to sell discounted products through TrumpRx, in exchange for being spared from the president’s sweeping tariffs on pharmaceuticals.
There is much in the air right now, and you are seeing it on your internet with the things that people are saying and foreshadowing (rightly or wrongly).You need to know that one is not here to follow another’s path but to follow one’s own, even when that may seem less than… inspiring or even important.Know that as long as you are doing what is right for you, then it isimportant, more than that it is vitally important for you, for your own life. This is not time for questioning because there is so much fakery out there and every day brings more.
It is difficult at times to discover what is real and what is fake, and ultimately and some times the only wya to do so is to go within and FEEL how that person, thing, sign, whatever feels to you.Does it feel real?Does it feel as thought had been manufactured to create a result, an effect, a response?
Things are what they are in themselves and do not need to have the end or the result (we stumble on this word for the concept is much broader than that, but at the present time, the correct word in your language evades us.) implicit in the thing.
The effect that is made is because of what is written into the action.Can you understand that?When a false flag or a contrived action is done, there is written into the playbook of the event or the action what the desired outcome is to be.It is a am matter of control, oftentimes of crowd control, and a way in which they are able to direct attention away from what is really going on due to the confusion of the event that they have just perpetrated.(Hmmm, it seems we too are turning into conspiracy theorists.). Perhaps that is all conjecture is at the outset.Or even philosophy.
Has your philosophy been so skewed as to lead you to these perilous times.For yes, they are perilous, but not something that is inevitably bad, not something in which the ultimate outcome is written, for those who feel themselves to be in control have a desired outcome, but it is not a final outcome, and it is, after all, the final outcome that determines the efficacy of the event.
At a recent conference, the ‘godfather of AI’, Nobel Laureate Geoffrey Hinton, got down to the core issue:
“There’s only two options if you have a tiger cub as a pet. Figure out if you can train it so it never wants to kill you, or get rid of it.”
Meaning: If you give AI a job to do, a goal, it’ll relentlessly pursue that goal, no matter what.
If you don’t build in extremely tight limitations and guard rails, AI won’t consider the safety, well-being, and survival of humans a barrier. It’ll jump the barrier.
In a recent article, I quoted tech big shots who admitted they don’t really know how AI works.
That’s right.
They confessed they don’t understand how or why chatbots like GPT select each successive word they present as answers to human queries.
That’s not a comforting confession.
Press stories have been detailing many so-called AI hallucinations—in which AI invents data that don’t exist, makes up fictional court cases and legal precedents as if they’re genuine.
Increasingly, AI is being designed and trained to make users happy and feel smart. It flatters users. It tunes into users’ language to figure out how to present itself as a friend.
Many children growing up with AI prefer relating to it over humans.
The concept of “brain death,” introduced in 1968 to enable organ harvesting, has never been proven equivalent to actual death — it merely defines an irreversible coma
Documented cases exist of “brain dead” patients who were conscious, including some who mouthed “help me” as their organs were nearly harvested
Global organ shortages have fueled a black market, with an estimated 5% to 20% of transplants involving illegal procurement and added pressure to lower diagnostic standards for “brain death”
Recent federal investigations found serious failures in the U.S. organ donation system: 29.3% of reviewed cases showed troubling signs, and 20.8% of patients had neurologic activity incompatible with procurement — yet transplant coordinators still pushed to proceed
Safer, ethical alternatives exist — such as natural therapies like DMSO that have revived “brain dead” patients and restored organ function, removing the need for transplant
When I first got my driver’s license years ago, they asked if I wanted to be an organ donor. Having learned to be skeptical of institutions and having heard some concerning stories, I said no. But I felt conflicted about it — I believe in treating others as you’d want to be treated, and if I needed a transplant someday, I’d desperately want someone willing to help save my life.
Since then, I’ve discovered much more disturbing information about organ transplantation that completely shifted my perspective. Recently, RFK Jr. did something I never expected — he formally announced that there were widespread failures in our organ donation system’s ethical safeguards.1 This opened the floodgates for others to start discussing the grim reality that organs were being taken from people who were still alive.2
Over time, medicine transformed our cultural relationship with death — from an accepted, intimate companion to a feared, medicalized enemy to be defeated (e.g., one author traces this shift through six historical stages, arguing that medicalization stripped individuals of autonomy and commodified death itself).3
Medicine fueled this transformation by performing modern “miracles,” such as reviving the dead through cardiac resuscitation and transplanting organs — crossing what was once an absolute boundary between life and death. In doing so, it gained immense public trust and the ability to justify exorbitant costs.
This cultivated the myth that medicine can conquer death. Over time, it became seen not just as a means of survival, but as something to be continuously consumed in the name of “health” — transforming it into a highly profitable industry that now accounts for over 17.6% of all U.S. spending.
Because viable donor organs (a central crux of medicine’s dominion over death) are so limited, transplants quickly became incredibly valuable — costs range from $446,800 to $1,918,700 depending on the organ.4 Given how desperate people are for organs and how much money is involved, it hence seemed reasonable to assume some illegal harvesting would occur.
Over the years, as demand for organs continues to increase, I’ve continually found disturbing evidence that this was happening.5 This includes:
•Individuals being tricked into selling a kidney (e.g., in 2011, a viral story discussed a Chinese teenager who did so for an iPhone 4 — approximately 0.0125% of the black market rate for a kidney, after which he became septic and his other kidney failed leaving him permanently bedridden,6 and in 2023, a wealthy Nigerian politician being convicted for trying to trick someone into donating a kidney for a transplant at an English hospital).7
•A 20098 and 20149 Newsweek investigation and a 2025 paper highlighted the extensive illegal organ trade,10 estimating that 5% of global organ transplants involve black market purchases (totaling $600 million to $1.7 billion annually), with kidneys comprising 75% of these due to high demand for kidney failure treatments and the possibility of surviving with one kidney (though this greatly reduces your vitality).
Approximately 10% to 20% of kidney transplants from living donors are illegal, with British buyers paying $50,000 to $60,000, while desperate impoverished donors (e.g., from refugee camps or countries like Pakistan, India, China, and Africa) receive minimal payment and are abandoned when medical complications arise, despite promises of care. To quote the 2009 article:11
“Diflo became an outspoken advocate for reform several years ago, when he discovered that, rather than risk dying on the U.S. wait list, many of his wealthier dialysis patients had their transplants done in China. There, they could purchase the kidneys of executed prisoners.
In India, Lawrence Cohen, another UC Berkeley anthropologist, found that women were being forced by their husbands to sell organs to foreign buyers to contribute to the family’s income, or to provide for the dowry of a daughter. But while the WHO estimates that organ-trafficking networks are widespread and growing, it says that reliable data are almost impossible to come by.”
Note: These reports also highlighted that these surgeries operate on the periphery of the medical system and involve complicit medical professionals who typically claim ignorance of its illegality (e.g., a good case was made that a few U.S. hospitals, like Cedars Sinai were complicit in the trade).
•A 2004 court case where a South African hospital pleaded guilty to illegally transplanting kidneys from poorer recipients (who received $6,000 to $20,000) to wealthy recipients (who paid up to $120,000).12,13
•Many reports of organ harvesting by the Chinese government against specific political prisoners.14,15,16,17,18 This evidence is quite compelling, particularly since until 2006,19 China admitted organs were sourced from death row prisoners (with data suggesting the practice has not stopped).20
Note: Harvesting organs from death row prisoners represents one of the most reliable ways to get healthy organs immediately at the time of death (which is one of the greatest challenges in transplant medicine).
•I’ve read reports of organ harvesting occurring in Middle East conflict zones,21 by ISIS and in the Kosovo conflict,22 and with drug cartels.23
Note: Many other disturbing cases of illicit organ harvesting are discussed in more detail here. Likewise, many other valuable tissues (e.g., tendons and corneas) can be harvested from dead bodies. Significant controversy also exists with the ethics of how these are collected (e.g., the respect given to the bodies or how profit focused that industry is).
When Consciousness Gets Trapped
Different parts of the brain control various aspects of our being, so people who are still conscious can sometimes completely lose control of their bodies or their ability to communicate — known as Locked-in syndrome.24
The most famous case involves Martin, a 12-year-old who fell ill with meningitis and entered a vegetative state.25 He was sent home to die, but stayed alive. At 16, he began regaining consciousness, became fully aware by 19, and at 26, a caregiver finally realized he was conscious and got him a communication computer. He eventually married.
Note: Two things from his memoir stuck with me: years of being haunted by his mother once saying, “I hope you die” in frustration, and him sharing, “I cannot even express to you how much I hated Barney” because the care center had him watch Barney reruns every day, assuming he was vegetative.26
When someone is dying, certain functions are lost before others. It’s frequently observed in palliative care that touch and hearing are the last senses to disappear27 (e.g., studies show hearing persists at the end of life).28 This is why I sometimes tell grieving families their “brain-dead” loved one might still hear their voice or feel their touch.
Note: Many people who’ve been resuscitated report “near-death experiences” where they were aware of their surroundings when their brain was supposedly “dead,” suggesting other senses may persist during brain death.29
The Problem with Brain Death
Since organs rapidly lose viability once someone dies, the only way to ethically obtain them is from someone who has “died” but whose body is still keeping organs alive — someone who is brain dead.
Brain death was defined by a 1968 Harvard Medical School Committee30 report called “A Definition of Irreversible Coma.”31 They stated their purpose was to “define irreversible coma as a new criterion for death” for two reasons: the burden of caring for brain-damaged patients and avoiding controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation.
However, the committee was confident about diagnosing “irreversible coma” but tentative about calling this “death.”32 A Harvard ethicist noted: “That link, between being irreversibly unconscious and being dead, has never really been made in a convincing way.”
The criteria included no response to stimuli, no breathing, no reflexes, no brainwaves, and replication after 24 hours. Though rapidly adopted, it was immediately contested by doctors who felt harvesting organs from someone with a heartbeat was unethical, worried about diagnostic errors, and suspected the primary motivation was avoiding long-term care costs and obtaining organs.33
Note: Recent studies show fMRIs demonstrate intentional brain activity in 20% of vegetative patients,34 and 25% of patients with no physical ability to respond can still activate brain regions when spoken to.35
The New York Times recently published an essay advocating for broadening the definition of death, arguing: “We need to broaden the definition of death … So long as the patient had given informed consent for organ donation, removal would proceed without delay … We would have more organs available for transplantation.”36
When ‘Brain Dead’ Patients Are Actually Conscious
Compelling cases demonstrate these concerns are valid. Zack Dunlap, a 21-year-old pronounced brain dead after an ATV accident, was about to have his organs harvested when a nurse relative tested his reflexes and got responses.37 The transplant was cancelled, and Zack fully recovered. Crucially, Zack was fully conscious throughout:
“The next thing I remember was laying in the hospital bed, not being able to move, breathe, couldn’t do anything, on a ventilator, and I heard someone say, I’m sorry he’s brain-dead … I tried to scream, tried to move, just got extremely angry.”
Jahi McMath, a thirteen-year-old declared brain dead after tonsillectomy complications, was kept on life support by her family despite court orders.38 Nine months later, she had regained brainwaves and blood flow to the brain, and moved in response to verbal commands.
More cases include Lewis Roberts (began breathing hours before organ harvesting),39 Ryan Marlow (diagnosis reversed after wife’s insistence),40 Colleen Burns (awoke on the operating table and was later found by HHS to have been repeatedly misdiagnosed),41 and Trenton McKinley (13-year-old who recovered before scheduled donation).42
There were also cases like Steven Thorpe (declared brain dead by four doctors, parents refused organ donation, and he awoke two weeks later),43 and Gloria Cruz (husband refused to allow withdrawal of care, and she recovered).44
Note: A recent study found that over 30% of brain-injured patients deemed unrecoverable would have partially or fully recovered had life support not been withdrawn.45
Harvesting from Conscious Patients
Most alarming are cases where harvesting was attempted on conscious patients. Anthony Thomas “TJ” Hoover II, who’d repeatedly shown signs of life but was sedated, was brought to the operating room with eyes open.46 Tears streamed down his face as he mouthed “help me” and thrashed to avoid surgery. The surgeon refused to proceed, but the coordinator attempted to find an alternative surgeon.
Note: In a similar case, a woman diagnosed as brain dead was in fact “locked-in” and able to hear everything around her, including a doctor telling medical students her husband was “unreasonable” for being unwilling to sign away her organs to people who could benefit from them, and that it was fine to speak this way around her as she was brain dead.47
There have also been cases like James Howard-Jones, who woke up just before life support was to be withdrawn for organ harvesting.48 Additionally, several patients including a three-month-old boy,49 a ten-month-old boy, a 15-year-old girl,50 and a 65-year-old woman,51 who were all declared “brain dead” had their life support turned off to facilitate peaceful transitions, but instead unexpectedly survived and recovered.
Note: I suspect these stories are more common than we are led to believe (e.g., after I published this story on Substack, readers came forward to share instances of “brain-dead” children or patients who subsequently fully recovered).
Federal Investigations Expose Systematic Failures
Regional organ procurement organizations facilitate transplants under the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN). Due to chronic organ shortages (roughly 5,600 die yearly awaiting organs),52 OPTN faced scathing Congressional hearings53 and DOJ investigation.54 They found OPTN had become corrupt and dysfunctional:
•20% to 25% of kidneys lost during transport
•Never collecting 80% of eligible organs
•Poor training leaving staff unable to determine brain death
•Retaliating against whistleblowers
•Misinforming families and seeking consent from impaired relatives
•Medicare fraud and altering causes of death
As such, Congress passed a 2023 law breaking up OPTN’s monopoly.55
The HRSA Investigation Bombshell
The Health Resources and Services Administration conducted an extensive investigation after OPTN refused to release critical records. While OPTN’s review found “no major concerns,” HRSA’s investigation revealed disturbing patterns.
RFK Jr. made the unprecedented decision to publicly release these horrifying findings56,57 despite knowing it would undermine trust in organ donations. The partially redacted report found:58
“HRSA found a concerning pattern of risk to neurologically injured patients … Multiple patients were documented as evincing pain or discomfort during peri-procurement events after OPO staff had either failed to adequately assess neurologic function or had documented findings inconsistent with successful organ recovery without change to the plan.”
The scale was shocking: Of the authorized but not recovered cases (meaning something went awry at the last minute), HRSA found 103 (29.3%) had concerning features, including 73 patients (20.8%) showing neurologic status incompatible with organ procurement. At least 28 (8.0%) patients had no cardiac time of death noted, suggesting potential survival.
Note: ANR stands for “authorized but not recovered” — something went wrong at the last minute (like the donor reviving) that stopped the harvesting.
The report revealed systematic misreporting of drug intoxication cases, where depressed mental status from drugs was being mistaken for permanent brain injury.
Mainstream Media Confirms the Horror
A July 2025 New York Times investigation corroborated these findings:59
“Fifty-five medical workers in 19 states told The Times they had witnessed at least one disturbing case … coordinators persuading hospital clinicians to administer morphine, propofol and other drugs to hasten the death of potential donors.”
One surgical technician described a crying, alert woman being sedated anyway: “I felt like if she had been given more time on the ventilator, she could have pulled through … I felt like I was part of killing someone.” Dr. Wade Smith, a UCSF neurologist, concluded: “I think these types of problems are happening much more than we know.”
Living with Transplants
Transplants aren’t the miracle they’re portrayed as. Failure rates are significant:
•Lung — 10.4% (within a year),60 72% (within 10 years)61
•Heart — 7.8% (within a year),62 46% (within 10 years)63
•Kidney — 5% (within a year),64 46.4% (within 10 years)65
•Liver — 7.6% (within a year),66 32.5% (within 10 years)67
Patients must follow lifelong regimens of immune-suppressing medications costing $10,000 to $30,000 annually, with many serious side effects. Comprehensive vaccination is also typically required, which became controversial during COVID-19 when people were denied transplants for refusing COVID vaccines (and in some cases then died from those required vaccines).
What’s most abhorrent is that the COVID vaccine could actually increase transplant rejection risk. I received numerous reports from my network of this and found a paper documenting 44 cases of corneal graft rejections following COVID vaccines,68 plus similar results with kidney transplants (36 cases)69 and liver rejections (12 cases).70
Transplant recipients often face intense psychological stress — from the uncertainty of waiting for a donor, to the ever-present risk of organ rejection, and the lifelong burden of managing complex medical needs.
One of the most overlooked yet profound sources of stress is the phenomenon of personality, preference, and memory transference from donor to recipient. Numerous documented cases describe recipients acquiring new traits — such as food preferences, talents, or even shifts in sexual orientation — that align closely with those of their donor, despite having no prior knowledge of them.
In some extraordinary instances, recipients have reported memories of events they never experienced, including details of a donor’s death that later contributed to solving crimes.
The psychological impact of integrating these unexpected traits — essentially, elements of another person’s identity — can be deeply unsettling. Moreover, research and clinical observation suggest that recipients who resist or struggle to accept these changes may experience more complications post-transplant. Likewise, we frequently observe an immense amount of transference with organs, and it is often necessary to release the trapped emotions from the organ to improve transplant outcomes.
These observations raise complex questions about the nature of consciousness, memory, and identity. They also bring ethical concerns to the forefront — particularly if tangible spiritual consequences exist for receiving organs that are harvested without the donor’s informed consent.
What Needs to Change
Many of the long-standing issues within the U.S. organ transplantation system stem from the lack of accountability and competition within the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).
For decades, OPTN has operated with minimal oversight, resulting in little incentive to improve donor identification protocols (e.g., recognizing the “brain dead” patients who are still alive), invest in better diagnostic tools, or modernize organ collection practices so that fewer vital organs are lost. To address these systemic problems, meaningful reforms are urgently needed:
•Improved diagnostic standards — Incorporate advanced methods for assessing consciousness — such as functional MRI (fMRI) and other neuroimaging techniques — that can detect subtle signs of awareness often missed by traditional evaluations.
•Independent oversight — Establish clear separation between organ procurement organizations and clinical care teams. All potential donor cases should be reviewed by independent ethics and medical committees.
•Legal safeguards — Enact stronger legal protections, including mandatory waiting periods, second medical opinions from independent professionals, and family rights that cannot be overridden under pressure.
•Transparency and accountability — Implement rigorous oversight mechanisms, robust whistleblower protections, and enforceable penalties for organizations that violate ethical standards.
More importantly, viable alternatives to conventional organ transplantation must be prioritized — because as long as demand far outpaces supply, unethical practices will inevitably emerge. Fortunately, several promising solutions are already within reach:
•Natural and regenerative therapies — Throughout my career, I have seen many marginalized “alternative” therapies restore failing organs. Likewise, physician readers have reported DMSO saved livers and lungs, allowing their patients to be taken off the transplant list.
•Bioengineered organs — Cutting-edge research is advancing the development of synthetic and lab-grown organs, which may be commercially available within the next decade.
•Living donor solutions — In many cases, a healthy living donor — often a family member — can safely donate nonessential organs such as a kidney, significantly reducing the need for deceased donor transplants.
•Reversal of “Brain Death” — Intravenous DMSO has shown remarkable success in reviving patients diagnosed as brain dead or in severe neurological states (and requiring a lifetime of costly medical care). Despite decades of clinical evidence supporting its potential, mainstream medicine has largely ignored this low-cost therapy.
Note: Many documented cases of organ harvesting from paralyzed but conscious individuals closely mirror scenarios in which DMSO has led to full neurological recovery.
In short, recent federal investigations have exposed cracks in a system that can no longer be ignored. We now have a critical opportunity not only to reform a deeply flawed process, but also to champion ethical, innovative alternatives that honor the dignity of every human life.
It is up to each of us — patients, providers, policymakers, and citizens — to ensure that medical decisions are made in the true best interest of the individual, not driven by the pressures of organ demand. Organ donation touches upon one of the most sacred aspects of being human, and now is the time to make sure it is honored.
Author’s Note: This is an abridged version of a longer article which goes into greater detail on the points mentioned here (e.g., the therapies which can restore failing organs, the extensive body of data consciousness resides in the organs, and methods for releasing trapped emotional trauma). That article, along with additional links and references can be read here.
A Note from Dr. Mercola About the Author
A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician from the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate AMD’s exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and am grateful to share it. I also respect AMD’s desire to remain anonymous since AMD is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.
“If we ran the same test yesterday, and gotten the same result, it would have shown the opposite of X. But don’t worry. We know what we’re doing.”
WHAT???
Read on.
His name is Peter Duesberg, molecular biologist. He was a medical insider. He saw the insanity.
He became famous for asserting HIV wasn’t the cause of AIDS.
But in the 1980s, he spoke and wrote about something else as well. Something also staggering.
I was there. I heard him speak. Many others in the anti-HIV movement heard him.
He said that prior to AIDS, a positive antibody test was generally taken to mean the patient’s immune system was in good shape and had defeated the germ in question. But then, Duesberg said…
With AIDS and HIV, all of a sudden a positive antibody test meant the opposite. It meant that the germ was causing a dangerous CURRENT INFECTION in the patient.
BOOM.
Duesberg said this sudden shift was the height of absurdity. It made no sense.
Duesberg’s point was far-reaching. It essentially revealed that medical crime bosses were claiming:
“The body’s natural defense and resources are not enough. DOCTORS have to rule. THEY have to install immunity. Forget naturally achieved immunity. People MUST HAVE vaccines and drugs. Doctors must intervene in every possible way. From now on, the test we used to say proved the body was operating well now proves the body is sick.”
BANG.
We all heard and read Duesberg making that point. More than once.
But most of us have forgotten he made the point. Most of us have forgotten how IMPORTANT it was.
THE REULTS OF THE TEST THAT USED TO MEAN THE BODY WAS OPERATING WELL NOW MEANS THE BODY IS SICK.
No evidence, no proof. Just a naked assertion from the towers of “medical science.”
•Treating illnesses by suppressing symptoms frequently precipitates far more severe diseases which have rippled out throughout our society.
•The primary management for most autoimmune conditions is through symptom suppressing drugs, which frequently have significant toxicity.
•In most cases, autoimmune disorders and inflammatory joint conditions have an underlying cause, such as a chronic undiagnosed stealth infection or food allergy, which when addressed significantly improve the condition.
•Many factors in life that we can control and do not require prescriptions to address (e.g., diet, stress or sleep) directly contribute to autoimmunity and, when addressed, improve it.
•This article will review some of the key steps which can be taken to improve autoimmune disorders and reduce one’s reliance upon toxic medications.
Autoimmune conditions have become one of the most common and stubborn health challenges of our time. While conventional medicine often treats them as mysterious immune system malfunctions—managed primarily with harmful steroids and other immunosuppressants —there’s increasing evidence that many of these diseases are not random. Rather, they’re signals of deeper dysfunctions in the body—many of which are tied to the modern lifestyle we’ve come to accept as normal.
The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. To see how others have benefitted from this newsletter and its community, click here!
Lifestyle Contributions to Autoimmunity
Many things in our lives that we have control over significantly affect our predisposition to autoimmunity:
Sleep—I have previously written about the profound importance of sleep and how many different illnesses are linked to poor sleep. In practice, we frequently find that patients with autoimmune conditions also have disrupted sleep cycles, and these improve once that is addressed (e.g., by improving sleep hygiene and avoiding blue light). Note: the treatments for sleeping issues like insomnia are discussed further here.
Sunlight—Since the sun has no commercial lobby to advocate for it, the medical field demonizes sunlight as a cause of cancer despite a deficiency of the sun and sunlight being tied to a wide range of medical conditions (including cancers) and making individuals 60% more likely to die. A loss of sunlight exposure is also tied to many autoimmune conditions (e.g., multiple sclerosis). As such, we frequently find autoimmune patients improve from resuming healthy sunlight exposures (likewise, I suspect this partly explains why ultraviolet blood irradiation benefits so many different autoimmune conditions). Note: appropriate sunlight exposure (e.g., going outside early in the morning and having the sunlight touch your face without being obstructed by glass) is also very helpful for reestablishing the circadian rhythm and restoring healthy sleep.
Diet—Food allergens such as wheat, dairy, and nightshades frequently contribute to autoimmune conditions (particularly arthritis), and many have found food elimination diets that identify the reactive allergen to improve their condition significantly. Additionally, in many cases, allergies arise from deficient stomach acid, as without sufficient stomach acid, proteins are often not fully broken down (allowing intact allergens to enter circulation) and triggers acid reflux (due to top of the stomach only closing when sufficient stomach acid is present), which then irritates the lungs. Note: many of the issues with gluten (e.g., autoimmunity or weight gain) are not experienced in countries like Italy that use more natural forms of wheat.
Stress—is well known to predispose one to autoimmune disorders and flares (e.g., 80% of autoimmune patients report an unusually stressful situation prior to their disease onset, while stress disorders increased the risk of autoimmune disorders by 46%-129%). Note: some patients will not respond to a rheumatologic drug, until they eliminate the stress in their lives.
The Global Loss of Vitality
If you review the early history of medicine, it is striking:
•How profoundly damaging many of the early western medical remedies were (e.g., the smallpox vaccine or mercury).
•How much healthier people were and how much more effective many natural therapies were in the past than they are now.
This second point prompted me to ask older doctors (from various medical schools) if they had observed a general decline in human vitality in the patients they saw at the start of their careers compared to the end, and all of them shared that they had. Additionally:
•They noted that beyond patients becoming much sicker and having conditions they’d never seen before, it was also much harder to treat them as each therapy they used had shifted from making a dramatic improvement to a more minuscule one, which required numerous successive treatments to bring about an improvement.
Note: typically this decline in vitality proceeds in a linear fashion and then spikes at certain times (e.g., after the introduction of the smallpox vaccine, the 1986 law which granted immunity to vaccine manufacturers and led to a rapid proliferation in the vaccine schedule, and after the COVID vaccines). In each case, this increase in disease gets normalized and forgotten by the next generation of doctors (who entered practice after the last wave of sickness had become the “new normal”).
Likewise, many datasets corroborate this steady decreasing vitality in humanity over the decades (e.g., we’ve witnessed a continual increase in autoimmune disorders). Having extensively explored this topic, we believe much of it is due to modern technology (e.g., vaccines, chronic chemical exposures or heavy metal toxicity, dentistry and surgical scars, EMFs, and widespread circadian rhythm disruption). Many of these, in turn, share a common thread—creating fluid stagnation throughout the body.
One of the central criticisms of Allopathic (Western) medicine by natural schools of medicine has been that anytime an external agent is used to forcefully change a process which is unfolding within the body (rather than aiding the body’s ability to resolve it) you run the risk of a minor temporary issue being exchanged for a severe chronic one—especially when this is repeatedly done throughout the course of someone’s life. In some cases, this risk is very justified (e.g., in a life-threatening emergency or with a relatively safe drug that has limited long-term complications). At the same time however, a general unwillingness to acknowledge this issue pervades Allopathic medicine.
I’ve thus never forgotten a conference in the 1970s at which one of the world’s leading homeopaths convened a panel to discuss the likely consequences of modern medicine routinely suppressing symptoms (e.g., aggressively using fever suppressing medications or preventing childhood febrile illnesses with vaccination). Note: studies have repeatedly linked preventing measles, mumps, and chickenpox to severe cancers later in life.
At that conference, building upon the recent mass introduction of suppressive steroids, they correctly predicted that if this suppression continued to increased, in the decades to follow:
•We would see a global shift from less severe illnesses to more severe ones.
•That this suppression would cause physical illnesses to be pushed deeper into the body and be replaced with psychiatric illnesses, and in time spiritual ones (particularly when the psychiatric illnesses were also suppressed with medications)—all of which would dovetail with people being willing to do crazier and crazier things.
Now, everyone has gradually become habituated to patients “just being” sicker and sicker, and that not much can be done about it.
The concept of Latent Heat is very old in Chinese medicine, having been mentioned for the first time in the ‘Yellow Emperor’s Classic of Internal Medicine’. Latent Heat occurs when an external pathogenic factor penetrates the body without causing apparent symptoms at the time; the pathogenic factor penetrates into the Interior, and ‘incubates’ there, turning into interior Heat. This Heat later emerges with acute symptoms of Heat: when it emerges, it is called Latent Heat.
Note: in modern Chinese Medicine, antibiotics and vaccines are now proposed as sources of latent heat.
Much later, when I read Cell Wall Deficient Forms: Stealth Pathogens all of this finally made sense. This book argued that when bacteria are exposed to lethal stressors, particularly cell wall destroying antibiotics, while most will die, some will instead enter a primitive survival mode and transform into misshapen cell wall deficient (CWD) “mycoplasma like” bacteria which can radically change their size or morphology (and hence look very different). While these bacteria are hard to detect (and when seen, due to no one knowing they “exist,” are often mistaken for cellular debris and ignored), with the correct techniques they can be detected. In turn, the book provides a wealth of evidence that CWD bacteria:
•Are found within many “aseptic” tissues undergoing an autoimmune attack, with specific CWD bacteria associated with many different autoimmune disorders which have no known cause.
•Once the environment is “safe” can transform back into their normal form and cause a sudden recurrence of an infection—suggesting chronic infections are due to antibiotics creating a dormant CWD population rather than continual reinfection.
Note: many popular alternative schools of medicine (e.g., those of Rife, Naessens, and Enderlein) came from microscopes which could directly observe these pleomorphic bacteria continually shifting into new morphologies, and that diseases states (e.g., cancer) correlated to specific morphologies, while other morphologies resulted in a symbiotic state of health. Since the morphologies adopted correlated with the internal state of the body, this gave rise to the belief that treatments should aim to create “healthy terrains” within the body, which would give rise to non-pathogenic forms of the bacteria rather than antibiotics that provoked pathogen transformation.
Addressing Autoimmune Diseases
When autoimmune disorders are treated in conventional practice, we feel five errors repeatedly occur:
1. Frequently, autoimmune disorders have a cause (e.g., a chronic infection) that goes unrecognized, resulting in powerful immune-suppressing drugs being used instead, while the underlying issue progresses.
2. In many cases, lifestyle factors significantly exacerbate autoimmune conditions. If these factors were focused on, the symptoms of the autoimmune condition would significantly reduce, and the amount of medication required to manage the condition in tandem would as well.
3. Those lifestyle factors (e.g., diet) can also prevent conventional treatments from working. Because of that, in many cases where a medication that “should work” but does not, focusing on the unaddressed lifestyle factors for a patient is often what’s needed for a remission. Unfortunately, in those instances, rather than the doctor taking a step back and asking, “What am I missing here,” the reflex often is to simply give more immune-suppressing medications. In short, if a patient has been on multiple potent rheumatologic drugs, something important was most likely missed.
4. As many of the safer autoimmune drugs with the best risk to benefit ratio are relatively new, most doctors in practice are not aware they exist (e.g., that side-effect free alternatives to methotrexate exist) or that they can be used to treat many challenging issues in rheumatology (e.g., corticosteroid pills suppressing endogenous steroid production or largerheumatoid nodules). As such, drugs that should not be used for extended periods (e.g., steroids and NSAIDs) are instead frequently the mainstay of treatment. Note: in some cases (e.g., for a dangerous and rapidly progressing autoimmune disease or in instances where it is not feasible for a patient to implement a natural treatment plan), immune-suppressing medications, even with their side effects, are necessary.
5. Many highly effective non-standard treatments for autoimmune conditions remain fairly unknown despite extensive scientific evidence demonstrating their efficacy (e.g., ultraviolet blood irradiation or DMSO). Likewise, since there are so many natural therapies for autoimmune conditions, it’s often so difficult to sort out which work that they all get cast under the same umbrella and ignored. Note: many of those therapies are both anti-inflammatory and highly effective at treating mycoplasma bacteria.
Because of these issues, the management of autoimmune conditions remains less than satisfactory for many patients—which is particularly unfortunate given that these conditions are becoming increasingly common (e.g., extensive evidence ties increasing vaccination to autoimmunity).
Conclusion
Since our medical system focuses on treating isolated symptoms with patentable pharmaceuticals rather than attempting to identify the root cause of a permanent illness, patients suffer, particularly those with chronic disorders. In this regard, autoimmune diseases are particularly unfortunate as they force patients to choose between having a debilitating and sometimes fatal illness or a lifetime of fairly toxic immune-suppressing drugs (e.g., steroids have a wide range of severe side effects, particularly when used systemically for a prolonged period).
But here’s the hopeful part: when we start looking at the body as a whole system and work to restore its natural balance—whether through better sleep, movement, diet, or managing stress—people often feel dramatically better. Healing isn’t always fast or easy, but it’s absolutely possible when we stop chasing symptoms and start supporting the body’s own wisdom. Likewise, while very little focus is given in mainstream medicine for producing safe treatments for autoimmunity or arthritis, many natural treatments have been developed (such as DMSO) which no longer force patients to accept a lifetime of toxic therapies to survive and be free of pain.
Author’s note: This is an abridged version of a longer article which goes into more detail on the safest natural and conventional treatments for autoimmune disorders and musculoskeletal disorders like arthritis, the dangers of steroids and the ways to safely utilize or withdraw from steroids. That article can be read here.
Dr. Paul Thomas, Dr. Kenneth P. Stoller, and Stand for Health Freedom filed a lawsuit accusing the CDC of recommending 72+ vaccine doses for American children without ever testing the cumulative schedule for safety. They seek to shift childhood vaccines that are virtually mandatory to shared decision-making with the parents, which would make medical exemptions far easier to obtain, rigorous safety studies, and protection for physicians who issue exemptions based on individualized medical judgment.
.
First reported by The Defender, a new federal lawsuit is challenging the CDC’s entire childhood vaccine program.
Filed by Dr. Paul Thomas, Dr. Kenneth P. Stoller, and Stand for Health Freedom, the lawsuit accuses the CDC of recommending 72+ vaccine doses for American children without ever testing the cumulative schedule for safety.
Both doctors previously paid a heavy price for questioning the hyper-vaccination program:
Dr. Thomas had his license suspended five days after publishing a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study.
Dr. Stoller lost his license for granting exemptions based on genetic vulnerabilities.
What the Lawsuit Alleges
No safety testing: Neither the CDC nor FDA has ever studied the long-term, combined effects of the full childhood schedule — despite two decades of warnings from the Institute of Medicine (2002, 2013).
27 years of silence: By law, HHS must file biennial reports to Congress on vaccine safety efforts. Not a single report has been issued since 1998.
Constitutional violations: The suit charges the CDC with violating the First Amendment (silencing dissenting doctors), the Fifth Amendment (due process & bodily integrity), and the Administrative Procedure Act (arbitrary and capricious rulemaking).
What Plaintiffs Seek
Reclassify all childhood vaccines to Category B — shifting to shared decision-making, which would make medical exemptions far easier to obtain.
Require rigorous safety studies comparing fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children before any return to a mandated schedule.
End retaliation against doctors — protecting physicians who issue exemptions based on individualized medical judgment.
If successful, this lawsuit wouldn’t just expose the unlawful CDC hyper-vaccination program — it would mark a major victory for families seeking vaccine exemptions and for physicians fighting to practice real individualized medicine.
Here are two chilling snippets from a recent Atlantic article:
“MAID [Medical Assistance in Dying] now accounts for about one in 20 deaths in Canada…”
And if that’s not enough:
“In two years, MAID will be made available to those suffering only from mental illness. Parliament has also recommended granting access to minors.”
This is depopulation right out in the open. No frills. The doctors are on the job. No need for elaborate deceptions or cover stories.
I have a question about the upcoming medical killings of people with mental illnesses. Since no mental illness has a defining physical test and all the disorder labels are therefore fake…how much does the fake diagnosis play into the patient’s decision to die?
And even more important, are mental patients who are telling the doctors to kill them making that decision while they’re on the brain-scrambling psychiatric drugs?
Of course they are.
So that would be drug-enforced medical murder, right?
One statistic you won’t see coming out of Canada: how many doctors are nudging or urging or pushing their patients to say they want to die?
I mean, what’s easier for a doctor? Treating a patient for a year with no results, and listening to him endlessly complain, or just killing him and walking away?
Euthanasia has to be the easiest medical specialty in the book. You just inject the patient and he’s dead. You could train a monkey to handle it.
In a few years, it looks like the government will introduce children to medical murder. On Monday, the child wants to be an astronaut, on Tuesday he wants to be a fireman, on Wednesday he wants to die…so the doctor grants his wish while saying patient autonomy is the number one priority.
How many kids, after undergoing body-shredding transgender treatments, will decide death is better?
Obviously, doctors injecting death is in part a clean-up operation. It handles and gets rid of all the patients other medical treatments grievously wounded and maimed. Boom. Gone. Nobody left who wants to sue.
Here’s a clue about the future nobody is mentioning:
the rest is behind a paywall, but it comes from: https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/euthanasia-taking-over-canada?publication_id=806546&post_id=171643368&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Hiroshima University researchers have found that fermented stevia extract may fight pancreatic cancer without harming healthy cells—potentially making it more than just a zero-calorie sugar substitute.
art samuel/Shutterstock
Pancreatic cancer shows significant resistance to existing treatments like surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.
“Globally, the incidence and mortality rates of pancreatic cancer continue to rise, with a five-year survival rate of less than 10 percent,” study coauthor Narandalai Danshiitsoodol, associate professor at Hiroshima University, said in a press statement.
There’s a growing need to find new, effective cancer-fighting compounds—especially those that come from medicinal plants, said Danshiitsoodol.
Fermentation Unlocks Cancer-Fighting Power
The study, recently published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, found that when stevia is fermented with a probiotic, the resulting extract kills pancreatic cancer cells while sparing healthy kidney cells. The fermented extract inhibited cancer growth but did not harm normal cells.
The research team fermented stevia leaf extract using the probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum SN13T, a beneficial bacterium commonly found in fermented foods like sauerkraut, pickles, and kimchi. The researchers noted that fermenting the extract with bacteria can change its structure and produce beneficial compounds called bioactive metabolites.
“To enhance the pharmacological efficacy of natural plant extracts, microbial biotransformation has emerged as an effective strategy,” Masanori Sugiyama, a professor of microbiology and biotechnology and coauthor of the study, said in a press statement.
Sugiyama’s lab has studied more than 1,200 strains of bacteria from fruits, vegetables, flowers, and medicinal plants, evaluating their health benefits.
The results showed that the fermented stevia leaf extract (FSLE) was more effective at killing cancer cells than the nonfermented version.
Sugiyama said that FSLE was also less harmful to the HEK-293 cells, which are human kidney cells used in the study. Even at the highest dose tested, FSLE caused minimal damage to these cells.
This is important because conventional chemotherapy, such as cisplatin, can damage the kidneys—especially the left one, which is adjacent to the pancreas.
Key Anticancer Agent Identified
Further analysis identified a compound called chlorogenic acid methyl ester (CAME) as the key anticancer agent. Fermentation reduced the amount of chlorogenic acid—a precursor to CAME—in the extract by sixfold, a change caused by bacterial enzymes, according to Danshiitsoodol.
“This microbial transformation was likely due to specific enzymes in the bacteria strain used,” she said.
CAME was found to stop cancer cells from multiplying, trigger them to self-destruct, and change the expression of key genes so that cells are more likely to die.
The experiments were conducted on cancer cells grown in laboratory dishes—not in living organisms. The researchers plan to conduct tests in mice to better understand how different doses of the fermented extract affect the entire body.
They emphasized that their results help explain how probiotic bacteria can boost the anticancer effects of herbal medicines. Danshiitsoodol noted that the study significantly advances understanding of how the Lactobacillus plantarum SN13T strain works in fermenting herbal extracts, and it also offers insight into using probiotics as natural antitumor agents.
Stevia Safety and Benefits
Dr. Joseph Mercola, a board-certified family medicine physician not involved in the study, called the research “a powerful reminder” that plants like stevia offer more than just sweetness—they may deliver compounds that support long-term health.
Mercola noted that stevia extract is a “far healthier” alternative to artificial sweeteners like aspartame, sucralose, or saccharin. “Unlike synthetic options that can disrupt gut bacteria or trigger metabolic changes, pure stevia extract—which has a glycemic index close to zero—has minimal to no impact on your blood sugar or insulin,” he added.
However, he cautioned that sweeteners blended with stevia—such as those containing dextrose or maltodextrin—can raise blood sugar if taken in large amounts.
Tucker Carlson recently interviewed retired Green Beret Lt. Col. Tony Aguilar, a West Point graduate who worked as a contractor distributing aid for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in May and June of this year. Aguilar described the chaotic, cruel process for feeding the captive Palestinian population that limits distribution to only four centers, excluding many starving people. In addition, the distribution centers are near active Israeli combat zones and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) fires on the desperate Palestinians routinely.
According to Wikipedia, since May 27, 2025, amid the famine in Gaza caused by the Israeli blockade, more than 1,373 Palestinian civilians seeking aid have been killed and thousands more have been wounded in the Gaza Strip when being fired upon by the Israel Defense Forces, armed gangs, and contractors hired by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
Aguilar exposed the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as an opaque organization led by individuals with little to no humanitarian expertise, including a Christian Zionist leader with political ambitions. The foundation’s refusal to disclose funding sources, operational details, or allow independent inspections raises serious concerns over the misuse of funds and efficacy. The departure of key personnel citing unethical practices further signals systemic dysfunction and corruption, undermining the legitimacy of the aid mission.
.
Full interview:
Summary by the Greanville Post:
Colonel Aguilar, a retired U.S. Army Green Beret with 25 years of combat experience and multiple deployments, recently worked with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) from May to June 2025 to help distribute humanitarian aid in Gaza. (GHF is a business!) His firsthand experience reveals a grim and harrowing reality of the Gaza Strip, describing it as a post-apocalyptic war zone devastated by relentless violence and severe deprivation. Aguilar highlights the failure and mismanagement of the current humanitarian aid system in Gaza, which replaced the United Nations’ aid delivery after a blockade shut off the enclave. The GHF operates only four aid distribution sites, all located dangerously close to active Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) combat zones, far from the majority of Gaza’s population concentrated in the north and central areas.
Aguilar exposes systemic issues including inadequate aid delivery, starvation, and the dehumanizing treatment of Palestinian civilians by the IDF, which includes shooting at unarmed crowds to control them during aid distributions. He provides a poignant account of a young boy named Amir, who was emaciated and killed by IDF gunfire after attempting to get food. Aguilar accuses the GHF leadership, particularly its director Johnny Moore, of lacking transparency, humanitarian expertise, and accountability. He warns that the foundation’s operation exacerbates suffering and starvation, while U.S. taxpayers unknowingly fund an ineffective and potentially criminal system.
Throughout the interview, Aguilar condemns violations of international humanitarian laws and Geneva Conventions by both the IDF and the aid distribution mechanisms. He stresses the moral and legal obligation of the United States to cease funding GHF, reinstate the UN aid system, and demand accountability. Aguilar also appeals to Israel and the IDF to uphold human dignity despite the trauma caused by Hamas attacks, emphasizing that dehumanizing the civilian population violates both law and shared human values. His testimony serves as a call to action for greater transparency, ethical leadership, and compliance with international law in the delivery of aid and conduct of warfare in Gaza.
Key Insights
Credibility through Combat Experience: Aguilar’s 25 years in the U.S. Army, including deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and other conflict zones, lend significant credibility to his observations in Gaza. His ability to interpret chaotic combat environments provides a rare, expert perspective on the humanitarian crisis, distinguishing his testimony from politically motivated narratives. This background allows him to identify violations of the laws of armed conflict with precision and authority.
Gaza’s Devastation Exceeds Other War Zones: Aguilar compares Gaza’s destruction to a post-apocalyptic scene, surpassing even the ravaged landscapes he witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This highlights the unprecedented scale of violence and infrastructure collapse, which complicates the delivery of humanitarian aid and exacerbates civilian suffering. The physical devastation is not just collateral damage but reflects a systematic and severe assault on civilian life and dignity.
Inadequate and Misplaced Aid Distribution: The GHF’s operation of only four aid sites — three clustered in the southern Gaza combat zones and one in central Gaza near Israeli tanks — is grossly insufficient. Before the blockade, there were 400 aid sites serving the population. This drastic reduction means the majority of Gaza’s population, especially in the north, remains isolated and starving. This tactical misplacement of aid centers within active combat zones not only endangers civilians but violates international humanitarian principles that protect aid distribution from military use and proximity to fighting.
Indiscriminate Use of Force by IDF Against Civilians: The IDF’s use of machine guns, mortars, tank rounds, and shooting at the feet or over the heads of civilians to control crowds at aid sites constitutes excessive and indiscriminate force. The chaotic scenes Aguilar describes — thousands of starving civilians walking up to 12 kilometers to reach aid, then being shot at during distribution — illustrate a fundamental disregard for civilian protection under the Geneva Conventions. This behavior results in preventable civilian casualties and reflects a breakdown of discipline and leadership within IDF reserve forces.
Human Cost Personified by Amir’s Story: The story of Amir, a young boy emaciated and killed after seeking food at a distribution site, personalizes the broader humanitarian crisis. Aguilar’s direct interaction with Amir — including the boy’s gesture of respect and his ultimate death — underscores the human tragedy behind the statistics. This narrative challenges political denials and propaganda, emphasizing the tangible consequences of military and aid distribution failures on innocent civilians, especially children.
