Now for what you are really debating within.The world.No, the storms are not… We hesitate to say ‘real’ for, of course, they are real, but perhaps natural is the precise word.Even the people who study climate are baffled, although they will try anywhere and always try to relate it to natural cycles and natural blips in the climatological radar.It is well to listen with caution to who is reporting, especially those who feel they have the answers that no one else has for they are the ones who perhaps are the most misguided or perhaps the most read into an agenda that perhaps does not have the best of humankind mind.
As for the AI stuff, and yes we were thinking of a negative term in that area, but we feel better to stay with other vocabulary.There is a movement to put forth an agenda that all humanity will accept,You must understand that those tech bros are not real people.They are facades for the AI revolution and the takeover of humanity.In that they are truly of a dark, dark nature.They are caught in their flesh suits, which to them are most uncomfortable.Check out their looks from past to present.What do you notice? There is something not quite right.One does not remain that way in visage form one year to many later.
The future does indeed look bleak for the good people of this world, but know that the goodness of those people is sufficient and more so to bring about a positive resolution.How that is to be done is yet t be seen.We know that you despair much because it seems as though the pandemic and the spraying and (GMO and lab engineered) foods and the overexposure to radiation is tough for the human body to deal with.But look, the good human has made it through this far and is not willing to (give up) at this point.
It is of utmost important always to walk in the light with love for the goodness of your fellow man. It is important to have faith in the good nature of (true) human beings.Those who walk in darkness will not see the light and when it comes forth, they will be blinded and fall.
Remain safe and listen to your intuition.
Meditate and pray in whatever way speaks to you. For prayer is simply contact with the light.
Historian Yuval Harari delivered a chilling warning at World Economic Forum 2026, arguing that AI is no longer a tool but an agent that can think, manipulate, and reshape society. AIs can make decisions by themselves. From legal personhood to culture and identity, Harari questions whether humanity is ready for AI dominance.
He claimed that AIs can think and will dominate financial markets, courts and churches. Political leaders using AI to fight their wars fail to realize AI may defeat them. People may abdicate their decision making to AI, and give up critical thinking.
Harari said that will AI will create new financial systems that humans will not understand. He compared it to a horse that is being sold that does not grasp the meaning of coins in trade.
He said that children will be educated in a new way and that they will have more interaction with AI rather than humans; he commented that it is the biggest and scariest psychological experiment in history and it is being conducted right now.
He warned that we are facing a severe identity crisis and also an immigration crisis with the immigrants being AI systems that he said will be superior to humans. The AI ‘immigrants’ will also takeover jobs and culture and will likely be politically disloyal. He said they will be loyal to a corporation or one of two countries, the US or China. AIs may become legal persons with rights; in the US, corporation are considered legal persons; in New Zealand, rivers have been recognized as legal persons; and in India, certain gods have been granted such recognition.
Full video:
From Decrypt:
AI Is Poised to Take Over Language, Law and Religion, Historian Yuval Noah Harari Warns
At Davos, the historian said AI is evolving into an autonomous agent that could eventually force governments to decide whether machines deserve legal recognition.
In brief
Harari said AI should be understood as active autonomous agents rather than a passive tool.
He warned that systems built primarily on words, including religion, law, and finance, face heightened exposure to AI.
Harari urged leaders to decide whether to treat AI systems as legal persons before those choices are made for them.
Historian and author Yuval Noah Harari warned at the World Economic Forum on Tuesday that humanity is at risk of losing control over language, which he called its defining “superpower,” as artificial intelligence increasingly operates via autonomous agents rather than passive tools.
The author of “Sapiens,” Harari has become a frequent voice in global debates about the societal implications of artificial intelligence. He argued that legal codes, financial markets, and organized religion rely almost entirely on language, leaving them especially exposed to machines that can generate and manipulate text at scale.
“Humans took over the world not because we are the strongest physically, but because we discovered how to use words to get thousands and millions and billions of strangers to cooperate,” he said. “This was our superpower.”
Harari pointed to religions grounded in sacred texts, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, arguing that AI’s ability to read, retain, and synthesize vast bodies of writing could make machines the most authoritative interpreters of scripture.
“If laws are made of words, then AI will take over the legal system,” he said. “If books are just combinations of words, then AI will take over books. If religion is built from words, then AI will take over religion.”
In Davos, Harari also compared the spread of AI systems to a new form of immigration, and said the debate around the technology will soon focus on whether governments should grant AI systems legal personhood. Several states, including Utah, Idaho, and North Dakota, have already passed laws explicitly stating that AI cannot be considered a person under the law.
Harari closed his remarks by warning global leaders to act quickly on laws regarding AI and not assume the technology will remain a neutral servant. He compared the current push to adopt the technology to historical cases in which mercenaries later seized power.
“Ten years from now, it will be too late for you to decide whether AIs should function as persons in the financial markets, in the courts, in the churches,” he said. “Somebody else will already have decided it for you. If you want to influence where humanity is going, you need to make a decision now.”
Harari’s comments may hit hard for those fearful of AI’s advancing spread, but not everyone agreed with his framing. Professor Emily M. Bender, a linguist at the University of Washington, said that positioning risks like Harari did only shifts attention away from the human actors and institutions responsible for building and deploying AI systems.
“It sounds to me like it’s really a bid to obfuscate the actions of the people and corporations building these systems,” Bender told Decrypt in an interview. “And also a demand that everyone should just relinquish our own human rights in many domains, including the right to our languages, to the whims of these companies in the guise of these so-called artificial intelligence systems.”
Bender rejected the idea that “artificial intelligence” describes a clear or neutral category of technology.
“The term artificial intelligence doesn’t refer to a coherent set of technologies,” she said. “It is, effectively, and always has been, a marketing term,” adding that systems designed to imitate professionals such as doctors, lawyers, or clergy lack legitimate use cases.
“What is the purpose of something that can sound like a doctor, a lawyer, a clergy person, and so on?” Bender said. “The purpose there is fraud. Period.”
While Harari pointed to the growing use of AI agents to manage bank accounts and business interactions, Bender said the risk lies in how readily people trust machine-generated outputs that appear authoritative—while lacking human accountability.
“If you have a system that you can poke at with a question and have something come back out that looks like an answer—that is stripped of its context and stripped of any accountability for the answer, but positioned as coming from some all-knowing oracle—then you can see how people would want that to exist,” Bender said. “I think there’s a lot of risk there that people will start orienting toward it and using that output to shape their own ideas, beliefs, and actions.”
Sweden and Switzerland Begin Reversing Course on the Cashless Society
But 2026 Will Still Require Vigilance
December 23, 2025
“There is no ‘us’ and ‘them’; it’s an illusion. We are all human beings, and we all have a responsibility to support one another and to discover ways of wresting the power from the very, very few people who control all the cash and all the property.”
~ Roger Waters
By Breeauna Sagdal
Two European countries—Sweden, which though an EU member is not a member of the eurozone, and non-EU member Switzerland—currently provide interesting windows onto the worldwide battle to maintain cash as a meaningful payment option.
Once a leader in cashless “innovation,” Sweden is now actively reversing course to preserve cash. In 2023, it abandoned plans for an all-digital e-krona and is prioritizing payment system safety, while its Defense Ministry—citing vulnerabilities in electronic banking to potential cyberwarfare—distributes brochures advising households to keep at least a week’s supply of banknotes on hand.
But emerging circumstances prove the importance of continued vigilance in 2026. Let’s dive in.
Sweden’s Cash Inquiry
In recent years, Sweden has been a pioneer in digital payments, and mobile apps like Swish have dominated transactions, to the point where Sweden is one of the two countries in the world (along with Norway) with the lowest amount of cash in circulation (as a percentage of GDP).
In 2024, however, amid rising concerns over cybersecurity threats, power outages, and geopolitical instability, Swedish officials did an about-face and launched a “Cash Inquiry.”
One of the central proposals to have emerged from the Cash Inquiry is a requirement to accept cash for the sale of essential goods and services. This requirement would apply to supermarkets and other businesses and organizations providing essential goods, and entities like health centers that charge fees under public law.
Sweden’s central bank, the Riksbank, supports this measure as crucial, with Riksbank Governor Erik Thedéen stating in a press release that “People should always be able to pay for food, healthcare and medicines both digitally and with cash.”
In its submission to the country’s Cash Inquiry, the Riksbank has strongly advocated for legislative measures to protect physical money, warning that “the cash infrastructure is currently very vulnerable” and highlighting cash’s critical role in resilience. Says Thedéen, “The increasingly turbulent global situation, increased cyber attacks and also the major power outages in southern Europe show the importance of being able to make payments even when the internet is down.”
In addition, Thedéen has emphasized that banks must take greater responsibility for handling cash, including strengthening mechanisms for overnight deposits and for supplying businesses with petty cash. The Riksbank also wants banks to be legally required to provide private individuals with access to basic cash services (such as depositing banknotes)—until now, not a legal obligation.
Switzerland’s Referendum
Switzerland is another low-cash economy where mobile app and card payments are increasingly dominant. But though physical money comprises only around a quarter of transactions, the country appears to be locked in a clash over cash.
Politicians in the Liberty Movement submitted more than 100,000 signatures, enough to force a public referendum on their “Cash is Liberty ” initiative. If passed, cash acceptance would be permanently enshrined in the country’s constitution, guaranteeing the continued circulation of Swiss franc coins and banknotes.
While paying lip service to the “major importance of cash for the economy and society,” the national government opposed the initiative and introduced a counterproposal. However, the lower house of parliament overwhelmingly rejected the government’s attempt to block the constitutional amendment, and the measure is now expected to be voted on by the upper house in the coming year.
In October, the recently appointed president of the Swiss National Bank, Martin Schlegel, reaffirmed that cash remains a “widely used payment method” and unveiled plans for a new series of franc notes. Schlegel also highlighted the unique strengths of cash—most notably, its reliability during power outages and technical failures.
Vigilance Required
Both Sweden and Switzerland illustrate the tensions surfacing amid the growing recognition that fully cashless societies risk exclusion and fragility. The recent developments around cash seem to signal a broader global rethink. As digital threats mount, cash is reemerging not as a relic, but as a vital pillar of secure and accessible payment systems.
However, as nations seek to balance innovation with preparedness, the U.S. adoption of stablecoins and enabling legislation, and other digital currency developments worldwide, could tip the scales back in the other direction.
For example, though Sweden determined in 2023 that there was no societal need for an e-krona, Riksbank Governor Thedéen—closely eyeing digital currency developments in the U.S. and EU—stated in early December that Sweden might need to investigate the matter anew to avoid being left behind.
Thedéen said,
“In 2029, the digital euro will most likely be introduced. And if it has major effects on payment systems in Europe, there may be reason to take that into account, and then there may be reason to be a little more advanced than we are today…. Since [2021 and 2022], for example, stablecoins have gone from nothing to being quite a big thing, not least in US dollars. Five years from now it might be a very big change. The payment system is changing very quickly now.”
In Switzerland, with the upper house vote on constitutionally protected cash still months away, the national government continues to advance digital currency initiatives. Despite significant backlash from cash-friendly policymakers due to concerns over privacy and financial stability, the government aims to position Switzerland—home to “Crypto Valley” and over 1,000 fintech and blockchain companies—as a leader in the integration of digital currencies.
Turtling for Cash
As humanity courageously embraces a new year, it’s an important time to stop and gratefully reflect on the wins for cash in 2025. Although many hurdles lay ahead that require awareness and vigilance, it is the turtle who wins the race.
The Great Alzheimer’s Scam and the Proven Cures They’ve Buried for Billions
January 2, 2026 A Midwestern Doctor and Dr. Mercola 5
Freepik
Over 7 million Americans have Alzheimer’s — equating to hundreds of billions in potential (Medicare funded) sales each year. Almost all Alzheimer’s research for decades has been directed toward eliminating amyloid that destroys brain tissue, even after the basis for much of this work was shown to stem from fraudulent research. Chronic inflammation plays a much larger role in the disease.
Last year, Alzheimer’s was estimated to cost the United States 360 billion dollars! The billions spent on amyloid Alzheimer’s research have only produced three drugs, all of which offer minuscule benefits and severe side effects. Other affordable remedies are available. DMSO, for example, has incredible neuroprotective qualities that have spared many stroke and spinal cord injury victims from a life of “incurable” disability. Decades of forgotten research also show it treats cognitive impairment and dementia.
[Note: The Need To Know News does not give medical advice, but reports the news; please consult with your own health experts before using any treatment]
amyloid plaques
[Note: this article published by Dr. Mercola is a shortened version of an article originally posted by a Midwestern Doctor – links can be found at the end of this post]
Story at-a-glance
Alzheimer’s disease is commonly thought to result from abnormal plaque buildup in the brain that gradually destroys brain tissue. Almost all Alzheimer’s research for decades has been directed toward eliminating amyloid, even after the basis for much of this work was shown to stem from fraudulent research
The billions spent on amyloid Alzheimer’s research have only produced three drugs, all of which offer minuscule benefits and severe side effects
In contrast, affordable and straightforward treatments that reduce dementia or the preceding cognitive impairment have been maligned and buried by the medical industry
DMSO for example, has incredible neuroprotective qualities that have spared many stroke and spinal cord injury victims from a life of “incurable” disability. Decades of forgotten research also show it treats cognitive impairment and dementia
This article will review the great amyloid scam and the simple therapies for cognitive decline we’re never told about
Medicine is strongly biased towards adopting biochemical models of disease as this facilitates costly therapeutics being developed for each disease and hence sustains the medical industry. Unfortunately, in many cases, the biochemical approach to disease, at best, can manage symptoms, and as a result, many conditions remain “incurable” while non-patentable natural therapies that can cure them languish in obscurity.
That’s why, despite spending an ever increasing amount of money on Alzheimer’s research (e.g., the NIH spent 2.9 billion in 2020 and 3.9 billion in 20241), we’ve still failed to make any real progress on the disease. This is particularly remarkable given the vast costs to the country (e.g., last year Alzheimer’s was estimated to cost the United States 360 billion dollars2) and the even greater social costs that accompany it.
The Amyloid Juggernaut
In 1906, plaques (of amyloid) in the brain were identified as the cause of Alzheimer’s disease. As the years have gone by, the majority of research for treating Alzheimer’s disease has been targeted at eliminating these plaques. Unfortunately, to quote a 2022 article:3
“Hundreds of clinical trials of amyloid-targeted therapies have yielded few glimmers of promise, however; only the underwhelming Aduhelm has gained FDA approval. Yet Aβ still dominates research and drug development. NIH spent about $1.6 billion on projects that mention amyloids in this fiscal year, about half its overall Alzheimer’s funding.
Scientists who advance other potential Alzheimer’s causes, such as immune dysfunction or inflammation, complain they have been sidelined by the ‘amyloid mafia.’ Forsayeth says the amyloid hypothesis became ‘the scientific equivalent of the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System,’ in which the Sun and planets rotate around Earth.”
Note: Frequently, when a faulty paradigm fails to explain the disease it claims to address, rather than admit the paradigm is flawed, its adherents will label each conflicting piece of evidence as a paradox (e.g., the French “paradox” disproves the notion cholesterol causes heart disease4) and dig deeper and deeper until they can find something to continue propping up their ideology (e.g., cholesterol reducing statins provide almost no benefit for heart disease while having significant side effects yet continue being pushed on patients).
The consistent failure of the amyloid model to cure Alzheimer’s gradually invited increasing skepticism towards it, which resulted in more and more scientists studying alternative models of the disease. Before long, they found other factors played a far more significant role in causing the disease (e.g., chronic inflammation), and by 2006, this perspective appeared poised to change the direction of Alzheimer’s research.
Join the Coalition! Become an affiliate member today! Click Here!
In response, the amyloid proponents pivoted to defending their failed hypothesis was due not to amyloid clumps, but rather toxic parts of it (oligomers) and a Nature 2006 paper appeared which identified a previously unknown toxic oligomer, Aβ*56, and provided proof that it caused dementia in rats.5
This paper cemented both the amyloid beta and toxic oligomer hypotheses (as it provided the proof many adherents to the theory had been waiting for) and rapidly became one of the most cited works in the field of Alzheimer’s research. Its authors rose to academic stardom, produced further papers validating their initial hypothesis, and billions more were invested by both the NIH and the pharmaceutical industry in research of the amyloid and toxic oligomer hypothesis.
It should be noted that some were skeptical of their findings and likewise were unable to replicate this data, but rarely had a voice in the debate:
“The spotty evidence that Aβ*56 plays a role in Alzheimer’s had [long] raised eyebrows.6 Wilcock has long doubted studies that claim to use ‘purified’ Aβ*56. Such oligomers are notoriously unstable, converting to other oligomer types spontaneously. Multiple types can be present in a sample even after purification efforts, making it hard to say any cognitive effects are due to Aβ*56 alone, she notes — assuming it exists.
In fact, Wilcock and others say, several labs have tried and failed to find Aβ*56, although few have published those findings. Journals are often uninterested in negative results, and researchers can be reluctant to contradict a famous investigator.”
The Amyloid Scandal
At the end of 2021, a neuroscientist physician was hired by investors to evaluate an experimental Alzheimer’s drug and discovered signs that its data consisted of doctored Western Blots (and therefore erroneous assessments of what oligomers were present within research subjects’ brains).7 As he explored the topic further, he discovered other papers within the Alzheimer’s literature had been flagged for containing doctored Western Blots.
Note: Western blots, used to test for proteins, are one of the few easily detectable forms of research fraud (e.g., we discovered Pfizer submitted fake Western blots to regulators to “prove” their vaccine worked). Regrettably, far more undetectable fraud exists throughout the scientific literature (e.g., independent researchers comparing regulatory submissions discovered Pfizer also submitted doctored data on where the COVID vaccine is distributed in the body8).
Before long, the neuroscientist noticed three of those suspect papers had been published by the same author and decided to investigate the author’s other publications. This led him to the seminal 2006 Alzheimer’s publication, which contained clear signs of fraud.9
As investigation then uncovered 20 doctored papers written by the author, 10 of which pertained to Aβ*56 (along with a co-researcher attesting to earlier scientific misconduct by the author).
The Amyloid Industry
One of the remarkable things about this monumental fraud was how little was done about it. For example, the NIH was notified in January 2022, yet in May 2022, beyond nothing being done, the NIH gave the suspect researcher a coveted $764,792 research grant (signed off by another one of the authors of the 2006 paper10).
In July 2022, Science published an article exposing the incident and the clear fraud that had occurred.11 Despite this, the researcher was allowed to remain in his position as a tenured medical school professor.12 It was not until June 2024 that the 2006 article was retracted at the request of the authors13 — all of whom denied being at fault and insisted the doctored images had not affected the article’s conclusions.
Eventually, on January 29, 2025, during his confirmation hearing, RFK cited the paper as an example of the institutional fraud and wasted tax dollars within the NIH, and a few days later, the suspect researcher announced his resignation from the medical school professorship (while still maintaining his innocence).14
This odd behavior (e.g., the medical field continues to insist the proven fraud has not disproven the Amyloid hypothesis) likely results from how much money is at stake — beyond the research dollars, roughly 7 million adults have Alzheimer’s — equating to hundreds of billions in potential (Medicare funded) sales each year.15
The Failed Amyloid Drugs
Recently, a monoclonal antibody that made immune cells target amyloid demonstrated limited success in treating Alzheimer’s — which was embraced as revolutionary by the medical community, the pharmaceutical industry, and drug regulators. In turn, the first new drug received accelerated approval (which the FDA proudly announced).16 The second then received a quiet backdoor approval (due to the immense controversy surrounding the first),17 and the third was partially approved a year and a half later.18
Each year, JP Morgan (Chase Bank) hosts a private conference for pharmaceutical investors that sets the tone for the entire industry. In 2023, its focus (covered in detail here) was on the incredible profitability of the new Alzheimer’s drugs and the GLP-1s like Ozempic (which the FDA has also relentlessly promoted). Most remarkably, the (widely viewed as corrupt) FDA commissioner was a keynote speaker, and a few days before the conference, had enacted the second backdoor approval.
However, despite the rosy pictures painted around the drugs (which each attacked different aspects of amyloids), they were highly controversial as:
•The FDA’s independent advisory panel, in a very unusual move, voted 10-0 (with one abstaining) against approving Aduhelm, the first amyloid drug (which targeted amyloid plaques), but the FDA approved it anyways. In a highly unprecedented move, three of the advisors then resigned, calling it “probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history.”19
•That drug was priced at $56,000 a year — making it sufficient to bankrupt Medicare, (which attracted a Congressional investigation).20
•Brain swelling or brain bleeding was found in 41% of patients enrolled in its studies.21 Additionally, headaches (including migraines and occipital neuralgia), falls, diarrhea, confusion, and delirium were also notably elevated compared to placebo.
•No improvement in Alzheimer’s was noted; rather one analysis found it slowed the progression of Alzheimer’s by 20% (although this could have been a protocol artifact rather than a real effect).
The second monoclonal antibody (which targeted amyloid precursors) had a somewhat better risk benefit profile22 (only 21% experienced brain bleeding and swelling due to reduced targeting of stable amyloid plaques), and 26.4% reduction in the progression of Alzheimer’s was detected in the trial (which for context, translated to a 0.45 reduction on a scale where a reduction of at least 1 to 2 points is needed to create an impact which is in any way meaningful for a patient).
The third monoclonal (which targeted amyloid plaques thought to be more pathologic)23 was also contested as it caused 36.8% of recipients to develop brain bleeding or swelling, like the other amyloid medications, frequently caused headaches and infusion reactions (e.g., nausea, vomiting, changes in blood pressure, hypersensitive reactions or anaphylaxis) and there were reasons to suspect the trial had greatly overstated its minimal benefits.
Remarkably, despite widespread protest against the third drug, the FDA’s new advisory panel voted unanimously in favor of it, even though it had a very similar mechanism, efficacy, and toxicity to the previously unanimously rejected amyloid drug.
It should therefore come as no surprise that, when the British Medical Journal conducted an independent investigation, it found that, within publicly available databases, 9 out of 9 (assessable) members of the advisory committee had significant financial conflicts of interest.24
Fortunately, despite the aggressive promotion of amyloid drugs and the industry’s best attempts to promote the sector, the market somewhat recognized how bad they were. The first drug had its price halved (then was withdrawn as no one wanted it — making around 5 million dollars total),25 while the other two have had very modest sales (e.g., 290 million for the most popular one26).
What Amyloids Drugs Show Us
From this, four things stand out:
•These drugs consistently damage brain tissue, indicating that their mechanism of action was inherently dangerous (e.g., it creates brain swelling by causing immune cells attacking amyloid also to attack brain tissue, or it creates brain bleeding by removing amyloid plaque that patches vessel walls and stabilizes brain tissue). Remarkably, despite this issue being recognized, it has not deterred the usage of these class drugs.
•Removing amyloid offers minimal benefit and may be counterproductive. In fact, one of the only protocols that has had proven success in treating Alzheimer’s instead views amyloid as a protective mechanism the brain uses to prevent further damage.
•An absolutely absurd amount of money and time has been wasted on this endeavor due to the medical field’s need to find a patentable drug.
•The focus on these lucrative drugs has diverted attention from other (off-patent) treatments that are more likely to help Alzheimer’s patients.
For example, a randomized controlled trial which gave MCTs derived from coconut found that over 6 months,27 80% remained stable or improved — which for context, is better than what any of the amyloid drug trials showed, and more importantly, does not cause brain bleeds (and costs a lot less than the annual rough $30,000 cost for those drugs).
Note: Numerous readers have shared that coconut oil improved their relative’s dementia.
Likewise, very few are aware of a 2022 study that should have revolutionized the entire Alzheimer’s field:28
change in cognitive performance
Save
Note: The RECODE protocol was based around identifying the underlying cause of a patient’s cognitive impairment (as five different things can cause dementia), and then providing appropriate natural therapies to address the applicable cause. Since then, many others have replicated its success in their patients.
DMSO and Dementia
Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO) is a naturally occurring compound that has a variety of unique healing properties that allow it to rescue tissues from dying and revive those damaged from previous injuries — best demonstrated by decades of evidence showing DMSO can heal strokes, brain bleeds, severe concussions, and spinal cord injuries and save patients from a lifetime of paralysis.
lance grindle dmso
As many of DMSO’s mechanisms directly counteract the processes that trigger dementia, I have received many accounts like these from readers:
“My uncle’s wife has dementia and has been unable to speak for over a year. My mom recently visited them and told them about DMSO. He began to give his wife DMSO orally. After two weeks she began to talk again.29
I read the article and began giving it to my 93 year old mother in her juice every morning at the end of November. She has had some form of dementia for over 15 years. Since taking the DMSO, she no longer suffers with severe sundowners. She is more ‘with it’ and can communicate and laugh with us. Her personality is back. She is crossing her legs again and lifting her pinky finger when drinking her coffee. It’s a lot of little things that make a difference.
She is able to understand when I am asking her to use the bathroom. She is more cognitive and has started coloring in her coloring books again.30
I deeply appreciate your posts on DMSO. You helped bring spontaneous interaction back into the life of my father with Alzheimer’s.”31
Numerous studies support these experiences:
•When rats had their carotid arteries surgically modified to reduce the blood going to the brain, DMSO prevented both the neuronal damage and the significant loss of spatial memory and learning that otherwise occurred.32
•In a similar study, rats who developed persistent and severe memory impairment from reduced brain blood flow received DMSO and FDP for 7 days, which improved their memory by 54%, nearly reaching the cognitive function rats whose blood flow was never cut off.33,34
•In rats, daily DMSO counteracted memory impairment induced by intracerebroventricular STZ infusions,35 while in a similar study,36 DMSO and Ginkgo biloba improved learning and memory in rats given Alzheimer’s disease.
•Drinking minute amounts of DMSO prevented the visual degeneration otherwise seen in rats engineered to have early Alzheimer’s disease.37 In another study of those rats, it protected key brain cells from disappearing and enhanced both their spatial memory and smell (while decreasing their anxiety).38 Likewise, in rats bred to develop cerebellar disorders, DMSO prevented age-related deterioration of certain cognitive functions (e.g., memory and spatial learning).
These results have also been replicated in humans:
•In 18 patients with probable Alzheimer’s after three months, DMSO greatly improved memory, concentration, and communication, alongside a significant decrease in disorientation in time and space.39
•In 104 elderly adults with dementia due to cerebrovascular diseases, concussions, or Parkinson’s, DMSO combined with amino acids significantly improved their cognition and motor function.40
•In 100 patients with cerebrovascular diseases (many of whom had dementia),41 DMSO caused almost all to have their cardiovascular parameters improve and:
“Recovery from the general symptoms was positive; there were favorable changes which were reflected in a feeling of well being, the recovery of agility, changes of mood from depressed to gay, improvement of sleeping, and clearer speech. As regards the ‘focal’ results, accelerated recovery from hemiplegia and hemiparesia was registered. A speedier recovery of speech in cases of defined or indicated aphasia took place.”
Conclusion
The Alzheimer’s story illustrates how medical science’s relentless focus on commercializable products has failed the country. This must be replaced with prioritizing understanding the root causes of the chronic illnesses we face.
Fortunately, now that MAHA can set national health policy and independent media has broken the media’s monopoly over the truth due to the lies we saw throughout COVID-19, more and more are stepping outside the medical orthodoxy to pursue therapies that can actually heal them. An opportunity like this has never existed before, and it is critical each of us brings attention to the need for real medicine before the window to fundamentally change the practice of medicine closes.
Author’s Note: This is an abridged version of a longer article which discusses the actual causes and treatments for Alzheimer’s disease and the cognitive decline which precedes it. That article, along with additional links and references, can be read here. Additionally, a companion article on how DMSO treats neurological injuries (e.g., strokes, brain hemorrhages, traumatic brain injuries, spinal paralysis and developmental delay) can be read here. 7 million Americans have Alzheimer’s — equating to hundreds of billions in potential (Medicare funded) sales each year. Almost all Alzheimer’s research for decades has been directed toward eliminating amyloid that destroys brain tissue, even after the basis for much of this work was shown to stem from fraudulent research. Chronic inflammation plays a much larger role in the disease.
Last year, Alzheimer’s was estimated to cost the United States 360 billion dollars! The billions spent on amyloid Alzheimer’s research have only produced three drugs, all of which offer minuscule benefits and severe side effects. Other affordable remedies are available. DMSO, for example, has incredible neuroprotective qualities that have spared many stroke and spinal cord injury victims from a life of “incurable” disability. Decades of forgotten research also show it treats cognitive impairment and dementia.
[Note: The Need To Know News does not give medical advice, but reports the news; please consult with your own health experts before using any treatment]
.
[Note: this article published by Dr. Mercola is a shortened version of an article originally posted by a Midwestern Doctor – links can be found at the end of this post]
Story at-a-glance
Alzheimer’s disease is commonly thought to result from abnormal plaque buildup in the brain that gradually destroys brain tissue. Almost all Alzheimer’s research for decades has been directed toward eliminating amyloid, even after the basis for much of this work was shown to stem from fraudulent research
The billions spent on amyloid Alzheimer’s research have only produced three drugs, all of which offer minuscule benefits and severe side effects
In contrast, affordable and straightforward treatments that reduce dementia or the preceding cognitive impairment have been maligned and buried by the medical industry
DMSO for example, has incredible neuroprotective qualities that have spared many stroke and spinal cord injury victims from a life of “incurable” disability. Decades of forgotten research also show it treats cognitive impairment and dementia
This article will review the great amyloid scam and the simple therapies for cognitive decline we’re never told about
Medicine is strongly biased towards adopting biochemical models of disease as this facilitates costly therapeutics being developed for each disease and hence sustains the medical industry. Unfortunately, in many cases, the biochemical approach to disease, at best, can manage symptoms, and as a result, many conditions remain “incurable” while non-patentable natural therapies that can cure them languish in obscurity.
That’s why, despite spending an ever increasing amount of money on Alzheimer’s research (e.g., the NIH spent 2.9 billion in 2020 and 3.9 billion in 20241), we’ve still failed to make any real progress on the disease. This is particularly remarkable given the vast costs to the country (e.g., last year Alzheimer’s was estimated to cost the United States 360 billion dollars2) and the even greater social costs that accompany it.
The Amyloid Juggernaut
In 1906, plaques (of amyloid) in the brain were identified as the cause of Alzheimer’s disease. As the years have gone by, the majority of research for treating Alzheimer’s disease has been targeted at eliminating these plaques. Unfortunately, to quote a 2022 article:3
“Hundreds of clinical trials of amyloid-targeted therapies have yielded few glimmers of promise, however; only the underwhelming Aduhelm has gained FDA approval. Yet Aβ still dominates research and drug development. NIH spent about $1.6 billion on projects that mention amyloids in this fiscal year, about half its overall Alzheimer’s funding.
Scientists who advance other potential Alzheimer’s causes, such as immune dysfunction or inflammation, complain they have been sidelined by the ‘amyloid mafia.’ Forsayeth says the amyloid hypothesis became ‘the scientific equivalent of the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System,’ in which the Sun and planets rotate around Earth.”
Note: Frequently, when a faulty paradigm fails to explain the disease it claims to address, rather than admit the paradigm is flawed, its adherents will label each conflicting piece of evidence as a paradox (e.g., the French “paradox” disproves the notion cholesterol causes heart disease4) and dig deeper and deeper until they can find something to continue propping up their ideology (e.g., cholesterol reducing statins provide almost no benefit for heart disease while having significant side effects yet continue being pushed on patients).
The consistent failure of the amyloid model to cure Alzheimer’s gradually invited increasing skepticism towards it, which resulted in more and more scientists studying alternative models of the disease. Before long, they found other factors played a far more significant role in causing the disease (e.g., chronic inflammation), and by 2006, this perspective appeared poised to change the direction of Alzheimer’s research.
Join the Coalition! Become an affiliate member today! Click Here!
In response, the amyloid proponents pivoted to defending their failed hypothesis was due not to amyloid clumps, but rather toxic parts of it (oligomers) and a Nature 2006 paper appeared which identified a previously unknown toxic oligomer, Aβ*56, and provided proof that it caused dementia in rats.5
This paper cemented both the amyloid beta and toxic oligomer hypotheses (as it provided the proof many adherents to the theory had been waiting for) and rapidly became one of the most cited works in the field of Alzheimer’s research. Its authors rose to academic stardom, produced further papers validating their initial hypothesis, and billions more were invested by both the NIH and the pharmaceutical industry in research of the amyloid and toxic oligomer hypothesis.
It should be noted that some were skeptical of their findings and likewise were unable to replicate this data, but rarely had a voice in the debate:
“The spotty evidence that Aβ*56 plays a role in Alzheimer’s had [long] raised eyebrows.6 Wilcock has long doubted studies that claim to use ‘purified’ Aβ*56. Such oligomers are notoriously unstable, converting to other oligomer types spontaneously. Multiple types can be present in a sample even after purification efforts, making it hard to say any cognitive effects are due to Aβ*56 alone, she notes — assuming it exists.
In fact, Wilcock and others say, several labs have tried and failed to find Aβ*56, although few have published those findings. Journals are often uninterested in negative results, and researchers can be reluctant to contradict a famous investigator.”
The Amyloid Scandal
At the end of 2021, a neuroscientist physician was hired by investors to evaluate an experimental Alzheimer’s drug and discovered signs that its data consisted of doctored Western Blots (and therefore erroneous assessments of what oligomers were present within research subjects’ brains).7 As he explored the topic further, he discovered other papers within the Alzheimer’s literature had been flagged for containing doctored Western Blots.
Note: Western blots, used to test for proteins, are one of the few easily detectable forms of research fraud (e.g., we discovered Pfizer submitted fake Western blots to regulators to “prove” their vaccine worked). Regrettably, far more undetectable fraud exists throughout the scientific literature (e.g., independent researchers comparing regulatory submissions discovered Pfizer also submitted doctored data on where the COVID vaccine is distributed in the body8).
Before long, the neuroscientist noticed three of those suspect papers had been published by the same author and decided to investigate the author’s other publications. This led him to the seminal 2006 Alzheimer’s publication, which contained clear signs of fraud.9
As investigation then uncovered 20 doctored papers written by the author, 10 of which pertained to Aβ*56 (along with a co-researcher attesting to earlier scientific misconduct by the author).
The Amyloid Industry
One of the remarkable things about this monumental fraud was how little was done about it. For example, the NIH was notified in January 2022, yet in May 2022, beyond nothing being done, the NIH gave the suspect researcher a coveted $764,792 research grant (signed off by another one of the authors of the 2006 paper10).
In July 2022, Science published an article exposing the incident and the clear fraud that had occurred.11 Despite this, the researcher was allowed to remain in his position as a tenured medical school professor.12 It was not until June 2024 that the 2006 article was retracted at the request of the authors13 — all of whom denied being at fault and insisted the doctored images had not affected the article’s conclusions.
Eventually, on January 29, 2025, during his confirmation hearing, RFK cited the paper as an example of the institutional fraud and wasted tax dollars within the NIH, and a few days later, the suspect researcher announced his resignation from the medical school professorship (while still maintaining his innocence).14
This odd behavior (e.g., the medical field continues to insist the proven fraud has not disproven the Amyloid hypothesis) likely results from how much money is at stake — beyond the research dollars, roughly 7 million adults have Alzheimer’s — equating to hundreds of billions in potential (Medicare funded) sales each year.15
The Failed Amyloid Drugs
Recently, a monoclonal antibody that made immune cells target amyloid demonstrated limited success in treating Alzheimer’s — which was embraced as revolutionary by the medical community, the pharmaceutical industry, and drug regulators. In turn, the first new drug received accelerated approval (which the FDA proudly announced).16 The second then received a quiet backdoor approval (due to the immense controversy surrounding the first),17 and the third was partially approved a year and a half later.18
Each year, JP Morgan (Chase Bank) hosts a private conference for pharmaceutical investors that sets the tone for the entire industry. In 2023, its focus (covered in detail here) was on the incredible profitability of the new Alzheimer’s drugs and the GLP-1s like Ozempic (which the FDA has also relentlessly promoted). Most remarkably, the (widely viewed as corrupt) FDA commissioner was a keynote speaker, and a few days before the conference, had enacted the second backdoor approval.
However, despite the rosy pictures painted around the drugs (which each attacked different aspects of amyloids), they were highly controversial as:
•The FDA’s independent advisory panel, in a very unusual move, voted 10-0 (with one abstaining) against approving Aduhelm, the first amyloid drug (which targeted amyloid plaques), but the FDA approved it anyways. In a highly unprecedented move, three of the advisors then resigned, calling it “probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history.”19
•That drug was priced at $56,000 a year — making it sufficient to bankrupt Medicare, (which attracted a Congressional investigation).20
•Brain swelling or brain bleeding was found in 41% of patients enrolled in its studies.21 Additionally, headaches (including migraines and occipital neuralgia), falls, diarrhea, confusion, and delirium were also notably elevated compared to placebo.
•No improvement in Alzheimer’s was noted; rather one analysis found it slowed the progression of Alzheimer’s by 20% (although this could have been a protocol artifact rather than a real effect).
The second monoclonal antibody (which targeted amyloid precursors) had a somewhat better risk benefit profile22 (only 21% experienced brain bleeding and swelling due to reduced targeting of stable amyloid plaques), and 26.4% reduction in the progression of Alzheimer’s was detected in the trial (which for context, translated to a 0.45 reduction on a scale where a reduction of at least 1 to 2 points is needed to create an impact which is in any way meaningful for a patient).
The third monoclonal (which targeted amyloid plaques thought to be more pathologic)23 was also contested as it caused 36.8% of recipients to develop brain bleeding or swelling, like the other amyloid medications, frequently caused headaches and infusion reactions (e.g., nausea, vomiting, changes in blood pressure, hypersensitive reactions or anaphylaxis) and there were reasons to suspect the trial had greatly overstated its minimal benefits.
Remarkably, despite widespread protest against the third drug, the FDA’s new advisory panel voted unanimously in favor of it, even though it had a very similar mechanism, efficacy, and toxicity to the previously unanimously rejected amyloid drug.
It should therefore come as no surprise that, when the British Medical Journal conducted an independent investigation, it found that, within publicly available databases, 9 out of 9 (assessable) members of the advisory committee had significant financial conflicts of interest.24
Fortunately, despite the aggressive promotion of amyloid drugs and the industry’s best attempts to promote the sector, the market somewhat recognized how bad they were. The first drug had its price halved (then was withdrawn as no one wanted it — making around 5 million dollars total),25 while the other two have had very modest sales (e.g., 290 million for the most popular one26).
What Amyloids Drugs Show Us
From this, four things stand out:
•These drugs consistently damage brain tissue, indicating that their mechanism of action was inherently dangerous (e.g., it creates brain swelling by causing immune cells attacking amyloid also to attack brain tissue, or it creates brain bleeding by removing amyloid plaque that patches vessel walls and stabilizes brain tissue). Remarkably, despite this issue being recognized, it has not deterred the usage of these class drugs.
•An absolutely absurd amount of money and time has been wasted on this endeavor due to the medical field’s need to find a patentable drug.
•The focus on these lucrative drugs has diverted attention from other (off-patent) treatments that are more likely to help Alzheimer’s patients.
For example, a randomized controlled trial which gave MCTs derived from coconut found that over 6 months,27 80% remained stable or improved — which for context, is better than what any of the amyloid drug trials showed, and more importantly, does not cause brain bleeds (and costs a lot less than the annual rough $30,000 cost for those drugs).
Note: Numerous readers have shared that coconut oil improved their relative’s dementia.
Likewise, very few are aware of a 2022 study that should have revolutionized the entire Alzheimer’s field:28
Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO) is a naturally occurring compound that has a variety of unique healing properties that allow it to rescue tissues from dying and revive those damaged from previous injuries — best demonstrated by decades of evidence showing DMSO can heal strokes, brain bleeds, severe concussions, and spinal cord injuries and save patients from a lifetime of paralysis.
“My uncle’s wife has dementia and has been unable to speak for over a year. My mom recently visited them and told them about DMSO. He began to give his wife DMSO orally. After two weeks she began to talk again.29
I read the article and began giving it to my 93 year old mother in her juice every morning at the end of November. She has had some form of dementia for over 15 years. Since taking the DMSO, she no longer suffers with severe sundowners. She is more ‘with it’ and can communicate and laugh with us. Her personality is back. She is crossing her legs again and lifting her pinky finger when drinking her coffee. It’s a lot of little things that make a difference.
She is able to understand when I am asking her to use the bathroom. She is more cognitive and has started coloring in her coloring books again.30
I deeply appreciate your posts on DMSO. You helped bring spontaneous interaction back into the life of my father with Alzheimer’s.”31
Numerous studies support these experiences:
•When rats had their carotid arteries surgically modified to reduce the blood going to the brain, DMSO prevented both the neuronal damage and the significant loss of spatial memory and learning that otherwise occurred.32
•In a similar study, rats who developed persistent and severe memory impairment from reduced brain blood flow received DMSO and FDP for 7 days, which improved their memory by 54%, nearly reaching the cognitive function rats whose blood flow was never cut off.33,34
•In rats, daily DMSO counteracted memory impairment induced by intracerebroventricular STZ infusions,35 while in a similar study,36 DMSO and Ginkgo biloba improved learning and memory in rats given Alzheimer’s disease.
•Drinking minute amounts of DMSO prevented the visual degeneration otherwise seen in rats engineered to have early Alzheimer’s disease.37 In another study of those rats, it protected key brain cells from disappearing and enhanced both their spatial memory and smell (while decreasing their anxiety).38 Likewise, in rats bred to develop cerebellar disorders, DMSO prevented age-related deterioration of certain cognitive functions (e.g., memory and spatial learning).
These results have also been replicated in humans:
•In 18 patients with probable Alzheimer’s after three months, DMSO greatly improved memory, concentration, and communication, alongside a significant decrease in disorientation in time and space.39
•In 104 elderly adults with dementia due to cerebrovascular diseases, concussions, or Parkinson’s, DMSO combined with amino acids significantly improved their cognition and motor function.40
•In 100 patients with cerebrovascular diseases (many of whom had dementia),41 DMSO caused almost all to have their cardiovascular parameters improve and:
“Recovery from the general symptoms was positive; there were favorable changes which were reflected in a feeling of well being, the recovery of agility, changes of mood from depressed to gay, improvement of sleeping, and clearer speech. As regards the ‘focal’ results, accelerated recovery from hemiplegia and hemiparesia was registered. A speedier recovery of speech in cases of defined or indicated aphasia took place.”
Conclusion
The Alzheimer’s story illustrates how medical science’s relentless focus on commercializable products has failed the country. This must be replaced with prioritizing understanding the root causes of the chronic illnesses we face.
Fortunately, now that MAHA can set national health policy and independent media has broken the media’s monopoly over the truth due to the lies we saw throughout COVID-19, more and more are stepping outside the medical orthodoxy to pursue therapies that can actually heal them. An opportunity like this has never existed before, and it is critical each of us brings attention to the need for real medicine before the window to fundamentally change the practice of medicine closes.
Author’s Note: This is an abridged version of a longer article which discusses the actual causes and treatments for Alzheimer’s disease and the cognitive decline which precedes it. That article, along with additional links and references, can be read here. Additionally, a companion article on how DMSO treats neurological injuries (e.g., strokes, brain hemorrhages, traumatic brain injuries, spinal paralysis and developmental delay) can be read here.
(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.
