No industry, organization, or cause tasked with solving a problem will actually solve it, because the problem disappearing threatens their economic livelihood or political power—a dynamic visible everywhere from non-profits which constantly seek donations but never produce results to dating apps that deliberately prevent users from finding partners and leaving the platform.
The pharmaceutical industry has perfected this model: drugs are designed to be taken perpetually rather than cure, side effects create demand for additional drugs, and the entire regulatory apparatus is structured to protect this status quo by suppressing affordable natural therapies like DMSO that challenge it.
SSRIs epitomize this dynamic—massively overprescribed, frequently life-ruining, and nearly impossible to withdraw from—yet for decades, the industry successfully kept all criticism of them out of mainstream discourse.
Recently, efforts to connect SSRIs to mass shootings shifted the Overton window, making SSRI injuries gradually become acceptable to discuss, culminating in Secretary Kennedy recently holding a panel where victims shared devastating testimonies of what SSRIs had done to their lives.
Kennedy then announced a multiagency federal effort to combat inappropriate SSRI prescribing, train providers in how to correctly taper patients off antidepressants, and provide non-pharmaceutical alternatives—marking the first time in memory a federal health initiative has aimed to help get patients off a major drug class rather than on one.
Conversely, those who embrace the constant challenge of actually solving problems rather than managing them—in medicine and elsewhere—consistently find it is the most fulfilling way to practice, which is why Kennedy’s approach of giving physicians a supportive framework to break from the status quo holds so much promise.
When I was in high school, I observed a few discouraging events which led me to postulate: “no industry, organization or cause tasked with solving a problem will actually solve it because the problem disappearing threatens their economic livelihood or political power.” Since that time, I have observed more examples than I can count in so many different spheres that I’ve accepted this dynamic is a common feature of society, and likewise, have come across many similar observations by others, my favorite of which was:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program—Milton Friedman
Recently two noteworthy examples of this principle came to my attention.
First, a frustrated patient shared with me they’d recently learned all of the online dating apps had switched from formats which allowed people to find suitable long term partners (e.g., with lengthy compatibility surveys) to ones which prevented people from matching because if someone found a good match on a platform, they would then stop paying more money for the service, whereas if they were hooked on it and spending hours each day trying to find someone, they would be a sustainable source of revenue. More remarkably, once one company figured out this approach made more money, they bought out all of their competitors (sometimes with threats of spurious lawsuits) and shifted them all over to this predatory model as well (all of which is detailed in these six articles1,2,3,4,5,6). I found this example noteworthy as:
One of the greatest sources of distress I find in patients (particularly now) are relationship challenges, particularly a lack of one, and I believe much of this traces back to apps taking over courtship.
Beyond the personal cost this dynamic creates, one of the largest challenges most developed countries are facing is a low birthrate which is primarily due to low marriage rates. My belief, in turn, is that many of the heavily contested policies we are seeing (e.g., reducing social support for the elderly, mass migration, or replacing workers with robots or AI) ultimately are due to the fact policy makers believe the declining birthrate means it will not be viable for the younger generation to support the society (particularly the elderly) so alternatives need to be found regardless of how objectionable they are.
A common cycle predatory industries in America follow is presenting a “superior” way to meet an essential need of humanity that replaces the traditional one that’s worked, then once the old one is completely displaced, tightening the screws with the new one (to milk as much out of the population as possible) until things are far worse than what preceded it and massive social cost is accrued (e.g., the Rockefellers did this in various ways with food, energy, and medicine).
Second, a federal DOJ indictment recently charged the SPLC (one of the country’s leading civil rights groups that built its reputation fighting hate) with wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. Prosecutors alleged it paid over $3 million in donor funds to informants embedded in white supremacist groups (including the KKK and National Alliance) while soliciting donations to “end hate,” and that one paid informant participated in planning chats, attended, and helped with logistics for the 2017 Charlottesville Unite the Right rally. Many, in turn, were outraged about this, in part because of how much political capital was extracted from the event (e.g., Biden made opposing it a central justification for his 2020 presidential campaign and Harris to a lesser extent did so as well in 2024) but also because of just how much money it made:
Unfortunately, these are far from isolated examples, and it would be impossible for me to cover even a sliver of them here. As such, this article will focus on how this principle applies to medicine and why I believe beyond greed, complacency also plays a central role in the continual recurrence of this dynamic across societies.
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, click here!
Is Money The Root Of All Evil?
The origins of our faith and devotion to money have raised many questions throughout the ages. The love of money, in turn, has long been recognized as one of the most powerful forces for twisting human hearts towards evil (which often results in immense destruction to the people or the environment), while simultaneously, its value is often completely arbitrary—money gets printed and then assumes value because everyone holds a collective faith in it the ruling class controls us through. At the same time, money is a remarkable force for both developing and organizing society, and many of the things we depend upon are only available to us because of the economic system we live within.
When the question of money is looked at, it is often seen through a lens of greed being a deadly sin. However, I would argue the core issue is that for many people, effectively accumulating money becomes the foundational axiom (guiding principle) used to navigate life, causing them to rationalize a variety of unethical positions (they often lie about) to make money, because their internal algorithm will frequently default to the choice that acquires more money. Recognizing this, in turn, provides an invaluable tool for understanding the world around you, as the motivations of others often become far clearer once you cut through all their rhetoric and view things strictly through what they stand to profit from.
Algorithms of Business
In the same way that a default behavior to seek the most profitable choice helps to explain many of the individual actions we observe around us, businesses also follow a relatively predictable set of behaviors aimed at optimizing profit, which you can see in a wide range of industries.
In general, most large businesses aim for the following, prioritizing whichever are most feasible:
Continual growth
High markups on their product
The widest possible market
Market exclusivity (to protect and maximize sales)
Repeating sales far into the future
The main problem with this framework, which society largely applauds and equates with success, is that businesses routinely prioritize profit, even when it conflicts with the interests of customers or society. Because of this, we frequently see:
Artificial “needs” being created through marketing, making unnecessary products seem essential.
Harmful products (environmentally damaging or toxic to humans) being aggressively marketed and kept on the market despite the damage.
Extreme markups on essential products, pushing dependent customers closer to poverty.
Monopolies and exclusivity tactics used to block competing (and often better) solutions from entering the market.
Products deliberately designed for repeat purchases rather than full solutions, such as planned obsolescence or proprietary consumables (e.g., Gillette’s classic “razor-and-blades” sales model, and its modern equivalents like Amazon’s sinus irrigator that only works with its expensive proprietary pods that you quickly run out of).
The pharmaceutical industry, not surprisingly, excels in all of these, which helps to explain why they have managed to sustain steady growth for decades, and why one-fifth of all money spent in the United States goes to healthcare despite our country receiving very poor returns on that investment.
Note: annual adult vaccines (which frequently do nothing. particularly because they are often for the wrong strain) are an excellent example of an unsafe, unproven and ineffective product that is pushed on everyone because it fulfills the need for perpetually recurring sales.
to read the rest of the article (Concernning such things as “Lifelong Patients”, DMSO, Antidepressants, etc.) go to: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-medicine-wont-cure-you-and-whats?publication_id=748806&post_id=197079403&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
As decisions always have pros and cons, making the correct one is often quite challenging. One framework, “expected value” (EV), solves this puzzle by calculating the relative probability of a good (positive) and bad (negative) outcome.
In medicine, while frameworks like EV should be used to guide medical policies and clinical decisions, they frequently are not, resulting in practices like mass COVID vaccination which have explicitly negative EVs being adopted and then held to regardless of public pushback or evidence to the contrary.
Much of this stems from our widespread societal faith that large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the definitive arbiter of scientific truth, despite their numerous shortcomings. In contrast, valid and affordable approaches for determining scientific truth are continually marginalized, making it nearly impossible to “prove” competing therapies work or that sanctioned therapies have serious harms.
Much of this originated from two subjective linguistic interpretations which the FDA then used to prohibit the public’s access to life-changing (but non-commercializable) therapies like DMSO and protect its industry sponsors—which as DMSO stories in this article show, has created profound consequences that have been well-hidden from all of us.
This article will explore how this dysfunctional dynamic has harmed the health of America, meaningful changes that could preserve the vital functions of the FDA while simultaneously preventing it from sabotaging America’s health, and the changing political winds we’ve helped create which are gradually forcing those changes to happen.
The majority of decisions in life aren’t clear cut as they have both an upside and a downside (or multiple upsides and downsides). However, rather than being fully cognizant of the complexity of the decision, the human mind will typically narrow the picture and see only one side of the coin to reduce this large cognitive load. Many perpetually unresolved political conflicts essentially result from this, as each side emotionally primes their adherents to focus on the arguments in favor of their position and those which undermine the other side, resulting in both sides having a view of reality where their side is correct and the other is irredeemably wrong—which in some cases holds true, but typically is not.
One of my favorite frameworks for encapsulating this paradigm is the biostatistics concept of “sensitivity and specificity,” which denote how likely a test is to catch something that is there (sensitivity) and how likely it is not to overshoot and only identify things that are actually there (specificity). The value of this framework (beyond providing an informed way to choose medical tests) is that it emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between the two, as if one is increased (e.g., more aggressively screening for something), the other decreases (e.g., that screen will have a higher rate of false positives).
Because of this, ideally, the sensitivity and specificity of a test (and what will then be done with either result) should be appropriate to a patient’s clinical situation and in parallel, work is always done to improve the tests themselves so better balances between sensitivity and specificity can be met. In contrast, in overly politicized issues (e.g., criminal justice), the focus always ends up being on maximizing sensitivity OR specificity rather than finding a reasonable compromise between the two, which maximizes both as much as is feasible.
However, the reality is that you will frequently be confronted with situations where there is a less than ideal balance of upsides and downsides (e.g., sensitivity and specificity) between the two options, but a choice nonetheless must be made. Fortunately, due to how common these situations are, effective decision making strategies have been developed and refined.
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, click here!
Predicting Expected Values
The classic mathematical formula used to “solve” these situations is expected value (EV), which essentially calculates “on average, how much will this situation benefit or harm me.”
This translates to (magnitude of outcome 1 * probability of outcome 1) + (magnitude of outcome 2 * probability of outcome 2), and this is repeated for all possible outcomes (e.g., it could go to calculating outcome 10) so that the total probabilities add up to 1. So for example, if you had a situation where you paid a dollar to flip 2 coins and then got 99 cents for each “heads” you got, the EV for the four outcomes (HH, HT, TH, TT) would be (1.98*0.25)+(0.99*0.25)+(0.99*0.25)+(0*0.25) or $0.99. Given that your cost to play this game is $1.00, it is hence “not a good idea” to play the game as there is a negative DV (on average you will lose money).
Many businesses (beyond just casinos), in turn, are essentially structured so that the EV of the transactions they make are positive for them (and negative for the customer) hence (excluding highly unusual circumstances) ensuring a steady stream of profit which sustains the business or industry.
While everyone has a general grasp of EV (e.g., if you saw a dollar bill fly into the freeway, almost no one runs onto the highway to try to grab it as the risk of being hit by a car makes the EV very bad there), a few points are critical to understand about it:
First, most people do not have a strong grasp of probabilities, and as such, predatory industries will frequently mislead them about the actual probabilities, leading them to believe bad EV choices are actually good EV choices.
Second, rather than being a simple binary calculation, EV calculations are often complicated because there are many potential outcomes (variables).
Third, EV can encompass a variety of outcomes beyond financial gains or losses, at which point it becomes harder to fit into a numerical formula.
For example, many of the policies that were pushed on us during COVID-19 essentially arose from people being implicitly presented with erroneous EV formulas by the mass media, and then extrapolating decisions off those formulas which appeared beneficial (positive EV) but in reality were harmful (negative EV) with a correct formula.
To illustrate, the odds of a child dying from COVID-19 were effectively 0 (and in the small number who died, there was almost always a severe underlying condition), so no real benefit could be derived from vaccinating, whereas injuries (including fatal ones) routinely occurred. So, the EV of a child taking the COVID vaccine was always negative (as there was no “positive” outcome, whereas a negative one could occur).
Likewise, when the Pfizer NEJM paper came out (which made many, including most of the medical profession, decide they had to get the vaccine no matter what since it was “95% effective!” and would end the pandemic), the paper itself stated:
Adverse reactions were much more common in the vaccine than the placebo group (27% vs 12% for a direct event and 21% vs. 5% for an unrelated adverse event)
Similar reaction rates were reported in the other age groups. Additionally, “severe fatigue” was reported in 4% of recipients.
In contrast, for COVID infections, those same symptoms occurred, typically 1-2 times as frequently (sometimes 3x).
8/18,198 (0.044%) vaccinated developed COVID and 162/18,325 (0.88%) of the unvaccinated developed COVID (a 20-fold decrease).
Seven days after the initial dose, 1/18,198 vaccinated and 9/18,325 unvaccinated developed severe COVID (COVID typically requiring hospital care). Note: this metric was changed to after the first vaccine (whereas the primary efficacy measurement ones were after the second vaccine), since 5 of the severe infections in the placebo group happened prior to the seven day post vaccine cut-off (which was hidden in the appendix). Had this standard been used for all COVID infections too, it would have been (39+8)/18,198 vs. (82+162)/18,325 (a 5.16 fold decrease falling far short of the “95% effective” benchmark), whereas had the study’s primary criteria been used here, it would have been1/18,198 vs. 4/18,325 (a 4-fold rather than 9-fold decrease)—illustrating how studies always change their metrics and criteria in whatever manner makes the product look best.
4 serious adverse events attributed to vaccination were reported (shoulder injury from injection, right axillary lymphadenopathy, paroxysmal ventricular arrhythmia, and right leg paresthesia).
2 vaccine recipients died and 4 placebo recipients died (all from causes unrelated to COVID-19).
Nothing in this study evaluated transmission.
When I read this paper, I was jaw dropped, as it was blatantly stating there was an extremely negative EV for the vaccine as you were trading the symptoms from a COVID infection for a 1/119 chance (0.88%-0.044%) of not getting COVID, so if you assumed COVID-19 symptoms on average were twice as frequent as vaccine symptoms you were increasing your likelihood of getting ill 60-fold by vaccinating (along with the injection site specific symptoms only seen from the vaccine) in return for a possible halving of COVID symptoms (although in reality, people often felt far worse post-vaccine than during COVID). If you attempted to counterweight that by the major benefits of vaccine, the most important one, death, was not prevented, while the medium one “severe COVID” had required between 2,293 to 6,123 vaccinations to prevent one instance (with the higher figure arising if a consistent metric had been used by Pfizer), and the only other possible justification for vaccinating (reducing transmission) had not been tested in the paper.
Furthermore, since fairly consistent methods are used to doctor papers, I was relatively certain:
•Vaccine efficacy had been overstated (e.g., COVID cases in vaccine recipients were not reported) and severe injuries in vaccine recipients also were not reported—both of which were later corroborated by numerous trial participants and trial researchers.
Note: while the trials were happening (inspired by what I’d learned happened in the Gardasil trials where many of the reported adverse events were magically erased), I joined online support groups for the trial participants and noted that many of the adverse events they reported did not appear in the final trial report, and that the overall severity from a reaction to the vaccine was significantly worse than what I typically saw people experience with COVID-19. My suspicion adverse reactions were covered up in the trial solidified once the vaccine hit the market, because almost immediately, I had multiple patients each day seeking help for severe and unusual vaccine reactions and people I knew from around the country began contacting me to ask if the vaccine could cause strokes or heart attack (as it had happened to someone they knew)—and most importantly, my sample size for these early reports was far smaller than the 18,198 vaccine recipients in the trial.
•Any benefits not reported in this paper (e.g., transmission or reducing death) would never be found for this vaccine as every possible attempt had been made to exaggerate the benefits and they could only decline from this point forward (e.g., before long everyone would have immunity to the original strain and COVID-19 would mutate to something no longer covered by the vaccine). Note: at a six month follow up, deaths were slightly higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated group. Likewise, despite there being no evidence that the vaccine prevented transmission (and its symptom-reducing design arguing against this even being possible) health authorities and the media widely promoted the vaccine as preventing transmission to pressure people to vaccinate, until real life data forced them to backtrack on their claim.
•Flipping the criteria for severe COVID-19 (compared to minor COVID) to make the vaccine look better demonstrated that data manipulation was occurring in the paper (hence casting everything else into doubt). Later, as I started noticing a lot of people become severe ill with COVID-19 (and in many cases dying) immediately after vaccinating (including individuals who had minor PCR confirmed asymptomatic infections), I realized this issue had most likely been detected by Pfizer and hence why the criteria for evaluating COVID hospitalizations was changed to “seven days post the second vaccination” (which resulted in many vaccine COVID-19 deaths being labeled as “unvaccinated” deaths). Note: “disease provocation” due to vaccine-induced immune suppression is a longstanding problem with vaccination (e.g., a good case can be made many of the pre-polio vaccine polio outbreaks were due to vaccination, COVID-19 was the two most common fatal COVID vaccine reactions reported to VAERS and longitudinal data showed the more COVID vaccines you got the more likely you were to get COVID-19)—all of which is discussed here.
Put differently, my immediate thought after looking at the paper was that if after all their best attempts to make the vaccine look as good as possible, it was still this bad, it meant the actual data was likely appalling. Remarkably however, when I discussed this paper my physician colleagues, they could only “see” the 95% effective figure (the 20-fold relative reduction) and all the other points I raised, which were in the paper, went in one ear and out the other, hence illustrating that most people simply do not have a good grab on probabilistic reasoning (outside of those in competitive fields where optimizing EV choices is necessary for success).
Note: the formula which goes hand in hand with EV is Bayes’ theorem [P(A|B) = [P(B|A) × P(A)] / P(B)], which provides a method for updating the probability of something being true as new evidence becomes available. In medicine, it is essential for correctly interpreting diagnostic tests (e.g., understanding that a positive result from a screening test in a low-risk population is more likely to be a false positive than a true one), yet remarkably few physicians actively apply it in their clinical reasoning1,2—which in turn leads to a significant amount of overtesting (some of which in fairness, they know is not justified but is done to avoid potentially being sued), overdiagnosis, and unnecessary treatment.
Finally, it should be noted that the EV of the COVID vaccines was much easier to calculate than that of most other vaccines in use (because there was a much smaller set of variables and much more available data on those variables). For example, to begin calculating the benefit of a routine vaccination, you first need to start with:
Then you need to weigh that against the risks of each vaccine in the series (as later ones typically cause more injuries), with separate calculations done for each degree of injury severity, along with subgroup susceptibility (as some people are much more sensitive to vaccine injury than others) and then once that is done, somehow assess the cumulative effect of all the different vaccines being taken (as vaccine toxicity and immune dysregulation are cumulative). However, rather than try to engage in that complex calculation, the medical industry’s solution has been to assume all vaccines are “magically safe and effective” and like the COVID vaccine, give both incredibly optimistic models of efficacy while only focusing on a few inconsequential reactions (e.g., temporary injection site reactions).
As such, much in the same way doctors were convinced the COVID-19 vaccines would end COVID because it was “95% effective” (when nothing of the sort then happened) and that the vaccine was much safer than getting COVID (despite trial data indicating the opposite), virtually no knowledge exists on the actual EV of most vaccines because they were given a simplified formula to calculate them which only highlights a few key variables industry wants people to focus (which arrive at a high EV). This sales strategy, in turn, is quite effective as it allows people to avoid the hard mental work of having to complete a complex calculation (hence appealing to human laziness), while simultaneously appealing to the human ego by providing the illusion of mastery and authority in the area (by regurgitating the simple arguments used to authoritatively enshrine a positive EV for the vaccines).
Note: a while back I tried to calculate the risks and benefits of each childhood vaccine (as they vary immensely with some being much worse than others)—all of which is detailed here.
Lastly, it should be acknowledged that the original emergency use authorizations for the COVID vaccines were granted under the premise that no other treatment existed, the vaccine’s massive potential benefit justified the existing uncertainty over its effectiveness, and that authorization could be modified as more data emerged. However, not only did other treatments already exist, the FDA then shredded the EV of the vaccines by continually doubling down as more and more evidence of ineffectiveness and harm accumulated.
Stagnating Science
The following holds true for our current society:
•It highly values science and scientific truth to the point that many people worship it in place of religion.
•In order for science to be “valid” (and widely promoted by the media) two bars typically must be cleared—a large randomized control trial is conducted that arrives at a statistically significant corroborating outcome and the scientific authorities must bless a given scientific conclusion.
In some cases, this is a very helpful framework, but in many instances, it is extremely vulnerable to abuse. This is because:
•Large RCTs are extremely expensive (tens of millions of dollars), to the point that they typically can only be financed by national governments, massive pseudo-non profits (e.g., the Gates Foundation), or pharmaceutical companies.
•Any controversial study that somehow makes it through that ideological filter will still often be routinely dismissed by the medical authorities (and in many cases retracted once too many people start citing it).
•Studies that do not meet this threshold are very easy to dismiss, and will virtually always be dismissed if they arrive at a conclusion that threatens a major interest. Note: it is very common for the abstract or conclusion of a study to provide a summary which contradicts the study’s results if the actual data is “politically incorrect” or “undesirable” (as most people only ever read summaries). Fortunately, AI now makes it very easy to expose this tactic.
•Since most scientists are dependent upon either grants or pharmaceutical funding (the only two sources of funding for costly research), they quickly learn they cannot pursue “controversial research” and hence do not produce research that will tank the rest of their career.
Because of this, we’ve run into a situation where most research is highly conservative and incrementally builds upon existing discoveries rather than making new revolutionary discoveries which advance science and change paradigms. For example, this is how Gerald Pollack aptly described our current situation.
•After the COVID-19 vaccines hit the market, stories began emerging of unvaccinated individuals becoming ill after being in proximity to recently vaccinated individuals. This confused many, as the mRNA technology in theory should not be able to “shed.”
•After seeing countless patient cases which can only be explained by COVID vaccine shedding, a year ago, I initiated multiple widely seen calls for individuals to share suspected shedding experiences.
•From those 1,500 reports, clear and replicable patterns have emerged which collectively prove “shedding” is a real and predictable phenomenon that can be explained by known mechanisms unique to the mRNA technology.
•Likewise, after being blocked from publication for over a year, recently, a scientific study corroborating the shedding phenomenon was finally published.
•This article will map out everything that is known about shedding (e.g., what are the common symptoms, how does it happen, who does it affect, does it occur through sexual contact, can it cause severe issues like cancer) along with strategies for preventing it.
When doctors in this movement speak at events about vaccines, by far the most common question they still receive is, “Is vaccine shedding real?”
This is understandable as COVID-19 vaccine shedding (becoming ill from vaccinated individuals) represents the one way the unvaccinated are also at risk from the vaccines and hence still need to be directly concerned about them.
Simultaneously, it’s a challenging topic as:
•We believe it is critical to not publicly espouse divisive ideas (e.g., “PureBloods” vs. those who were vaccinated) that prevent the public from coming together and helping everyone. The vaccines were marketed on the basis of division (e.g., by encouraging immense discrimination against the unvaccinated), and many unvaccinated individuals thus understandably hold a lot of resentment for how the vaccinated treated them. We do not want to perpetuate anything similar (e.g., discrimination in the other direction).
•We don’t want to create any more unnecessary fear—which is an inevitable consequence of opening up a conversation about shedding.
•In theory, shedding with the mRNA vaccines should be “impossible,” so claiming otherwise puts one on very shaky ground.
Conversely, if shedding is real, we believe it is critical to expose as:
•Those being affected by it are in a horrible situation, particularly if everyone is gaslighting them about it and insisting it’s all in their head.
•It provides one of the strongest arguments to pull the mRNA vaccines from the market and prohibit the widespread deployment of mRNA technologies in the future.
For those reasons, Pierre Kory and I have spent almost three years trying to collect as much evidence as possible to map out this phenomenon with the following data sets:
•Dozens of extremely compelling patient histories1,2,3 from Kory and Marsland’s medical practice, including many responding to spike protein treatment.
•My own experience with patients and friends affected by shedding.
• I read large numbers of reports of shedding in (now deleted) online support groups.
•Roughly 1,500 reports from individuals affected by shedding we were able to collect.
•Extensive menstrual data compiled by MyCycleStory.
•A peer-reviewed study indicating COVID vaccine shedding affects menstruation (which was almost impossible to get published).
From that and the hundreds of hours of work that went into it (particularly reviewing and sorting the 1,500 reports), we can state the following with relative certainty:
1. Shedding is very real (e.g., each of those datasets is congruent with the others), and many of the stories of those affected by it are very sad.
2. People’s sensitivity to it dramatically varies.
3. Most of the people who are sensitive to shedding have already figured it out.
4. Mechanistically, shedding is very difficult to explain. However, now that new evidence has emerged, a much stronger case can be made for the mechanisms I initially proposed a year ago.
Note: if you have a shedding experience you would like to share (or wish to read through them), please do so here, where they are compiled.
To Read the Rest of the Story and Support A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR, go to the source: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-we-now-know-about-covid-vaccine?publication_id=748806&post_id=189534063&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
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 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.
•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.
This newsletter was created with the goal of helping others, and over time, I’ve received many messages from people with important questions I’d love to answer. However, writing each article takes a considerable amount of time—just as an example, I’ve spent the past month working on the final installment of the DMSO series, and it’s still not quite finished. Because of this, I’m not always able to respond individually to every inquiry I get.
While I truly wish I could, the most practical solution I’ve found is to host monthly open threads. These provide readers with a space to ask any outstanding questions—especially those left over from previous content—and I make it a priority to respond. Having all the questions in one place also makes it easier for others to benefit from those answers as well.
For each of these open threads, I like to tie in a topic I’ve been meaning to discuss—usually something I’ve been thinking about but haven’t felt warrants a full-length article. This time, I want to focus on a topic near and dear to my heart, healthy children.
The Chronic Disease Epidemic
One of RFK’s rallying cries has been that our children are being stricken by an onslaught of chronic diseases and that this is undermining the strength that is our future, and his organization, the Children’s Health Defense frequently references this chart:
Since trends in motion tend to persist unless significant measures are taken to shift them, as a recently published study confirmed, this problem has continued to worsen.
Nearly half of all children receiving care in the PEDSnet multicenter network had a chronic health condition, while one-third of children in the general population experience from 1 to 15 parent-reported chronic conditions. Furthermore, obesity now affects 20% of children, and early puberty is increasingly common among girls, with 1 in 7 beginning menstruation before age 12 years. Temporal trends also showed deterioration in sleep health and increasing limitations in activity, alongside worsening of an extensive range of physical and emotional symptoms.
In turn, the study’s data shows that the rates of these conditions have roughly doubled over the last 12 years.
Likewise, many other things have rapidly gone awry
Note: this study also highlighted a myriad of other issues, such as our children being more likely to die than other developed nations, in large part due to sudden infant death syndrome (a condition strongly linked to vaccination).
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
The Other Half of The Picture
While I agree with the gravity of these findings and the urgency to re-evaluate our vaccination program, I feel they only tell half of the story. That is because:
•There are many other factors besides vaccines that also adversely affect children’s health.
•All illnesses (particularly those which result from being poisoned) tend to distribute on a bell curve, so that the severe, easy to spot reactions are only a minority, whereas less severe (and harder to spot) reactions are much more common.
On the one hand, this is due to the “measurement” problem in science, where scientific studies can generally only be conducted if they have a clear metric by which to measure things, thereby creating clear, reproducible data. This becomes an issue when an agent has so many different symptoms that it can make (many of which are quite subtle), they typically will be written off as anecdotal unless they are deliberately traced, and as a result, many common side effects of vaccines are never formally associated with them. Note: the most recent glaring example of this happened with the COVID vaccines where trial participants were only given a small list of (relatively benign) symptoms they could check off (e.g., fevers or fatigue) so as a result, those were the side-effects that appeared in the published trial reports. Likewise, V-Safe, the CDC program designed to monitor vaccine side effects, did the same; however fortunately, it also included a free text field where participants could enter other symptoms—most of which were never publicly analyzed (and which the government fought in court to avoid disclosing). Because of all of this, the majority of the medical field assumed most of the side effects patients reported from the vaccines (despite many others experiencing the same symptoms) were anecdotal and had nothing to do with the vaccines).
On the other hand, it’s because many of these pathological changes are more subtle and more complex to spot, so since people aren’t trained to notice them, and have gradually become habituated to all of it “being normal” they don’t realize how much things have changed. Note: doctors are virtually never trained to recognize the subtle neurological injuries which follow vaccination (which indicate damage has also occurred within the brain).
The Hidden Chronic Disease Epidemic
For as long as I can remember, many natural healers have told me that they can normally spot the unvaccinated children as they are much healthier and vibrant than their peers. For example, after I explained some of the ways this can be identified, two readers shared:
Thanks to this substack, I am now the unofficial medical godfather of 4 unvaccinated babies across several families. All are incredibly healthy with none of the typical problems associated with the microstrokes. All have been described by strangers and family as, “wow, your baby is really aware and paying attention. It’s like they’re sentient, I don’t know how else to say it”. And I am sad when I see those other people’s babies because I know they were supposed to be more, undergo less suffering when I hear their random high pitched shrieks.
Last year I attended a fundraiser auction to raise money for local Mennonite schools. Many families, many children. I was struck by the fact that there was a light, a brightness, in these children’s eyes that I had not seen for decades in other children. The Mennonites here do not vaccinate. Now I understand. It hurts my heart.
Likewise, I received this email a few weeks ago from a mother who followed all of my suggestions for a healthy child:
Other than a minor rash, my daughter has never had any health issues. She’s been ahead on all her developmental milestones, and from the very beginning, she’s been incredibly alert and engaged with her surroundings. She’s always exploring, and only cries when there’s a clear reason—if she’s hungry, tired, hurt, or not getting the attention she wants.
When we’re out in public, she smiles at everyone and tries to make friends. People constantly stop us to comment on how beautiful and full of life she is—some even ask if they can hold her. It wasn’t until I had her that I realized how unusual that kind of energy is in a baby. So many infants I see seem withdrawn, like they’re in a kind of daze, avoiding eye contact, and often looking genuinely sickly.
I’m incredibly grateful we were spared that, but at the same time, I’ve started to feel increasingly unsettled by what I see around me. I think a lot about what other parents must be going through—especially single mothers trying to raise kids on limited incomes—and I honestly don’t know how they manage.
One of the most challenging things when you “step out of the matrix” is becoming able to see (fairly disturbing) things all around you, and one of the key reasons why I appreciate stories like these three is because they illustrate that’s what’s been hidden right in front of us is at last becoming more and more visible.
Screens and Children
As cell phones and tablets became widely available, I would see more and more parents (who had their children with them) at medical visits using devices to keep their children content. In many cases, if a device was withdrawn, the children would have a fit (at which point the device was returned to them).
This greatly concerned me, as I could see that the way the screens pulled them in was not having a healthy effect on the child’s developing nervous system (which is why I advise parents to use audio-only media, such as small devices that play children’s songs).
Note: quite a few social media executives have said they have tremendous regret about what their products (intentionally designed to be addictive) have neurologically done to our children. Likewise, many articles have been written about how Silicon Valley tech executives send their kids to an alternative school where phones and screens are banned.1,2,3,4,5
In this publication, I’ve written numerous articles on the mass neurological damage being caused by vaccination.
In one, I showed that neurologic damage from vaccination has been a well-known problem for over a century (that previously was widely reported in the medical literature) and that conditions like autism used to be widely referred to as “mentally retarded,” a change I strongly suspect was done to obfuscate the issue (as autism exists on a wide spectrum, so hearing that someone “became autistic” is much easier to push into the back of one’s mind than if a child rapidly “becomes retarded” after a vaccine).
In the other, I highlighted that the original pertussis (DPwT) vaccine was particularly problematic as it would often cause encephalitis (which was often accompanied by piercing screams) and then leave the child with lasting brain damage. One author who studied this extensively made the fascinating observation that after the DPwT vaccine entered the market in the 1940s, a variety of societal changes followed which matched when the initial cohort who received the DPwT vaccine reached each age bracket.
For example, in the 1950s, a condition termed “minimal brain damage” [MBD] was coined (with the defining characteristic of it being hyperactivity), which before long became “perhaps the most common, and certainly one of the most time-consuming problems in current pediatric practice”. The symptoms of MBD (as defined by America’s Public Health Service and the American Psychiatric Association) had a significant overlap with what was seen after encephalitis, DPT injuries, and what was associated with autism.
In the 1960s, Ritalin came into use for treating attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity, and minimal brain damage was gradually phased out and replaced with ADHD (a condition independent studies show a 3-20 fold increase from vaccination).
I mention all of this because I have had a nagging suspicion that something similar is happening with screens, as they both draw in and pacify neurologically injured children. Furthermore, patterns set in childhood are very difficult to shake for life, and as we are now starting to see a variety of signs the first generation raised on technology has a variety of mental health issues linked to their technology exposure, which further argues for avoiding screens at an early age.
Note: the mother I mentioned above said one of their major challenges with her daughter has been keeping her away from screens (as she is drawn to them whenever they are left open), and as a result they are using screens less now.
Raising a Healthy Child
\As I’ve shown throughout this publication, there is significant evidence that vaccines are damaging to a child’s neurological development, particularly as more and more are given closely together. However, while I believe vaccines are the primary issue, there are a lot of things I think merit serious consideration (e.g., avoiding screens) for parents wishing to have healthy children—most of which essentially equate to “do what people did 100 years ago,” and in the mothers I’ve counseled through the child birth process, I found the best results came from doing all of them. As such, over the last year, I’ve worked on compiling a series about all the most critical aspects I believe deserve attention before, during, and after pregnancy.
In the final part of this article (which exists as an open forum for you to ask any questions you may have), I will cover the key points from each of those that you can directly incorporate into raising a healthy child.
Continue reading this post for free, courtesy of A Midwestern Doctor.
The Grotesque Bird Flu Scam and How to Actually Treat Colds and Flus
How the cruelty and mismanagement we are seeing with avian influenza is directly reflected within the practice of medicine
FEB 23, 2025
Story at a Glance:
•A massive industry exists to protect us from pandemics. Unfortunately, this industry is largely a grift which receives billions for failed cures, routinely suppresses competing therapies that could end pandemics and frequently causes the pandemics it is supposed to prevent.
•This industry routinely engages in cruel and completely unnecessary animal experimentation (which often then shapes the mentality of modern medical practices). Because of this, one group has recently been able to shift this longstanding cruelty by connecting it to the immensely wasteful spending which often accompanies that research.
•The current “war against bird flu” embodies many of the major problems in the pandemic prevention industry, as over the last few years, we’ve spent billions of dollars killing over a hundred million birds, but all this has accomplished is significantly raising the price of eggs.
•While viruses are typically treated as being “incurable” by modern medicine, many highly effective, frequently over the counter, and unpatentable treatments exist for viral illnesses that have been used for over a century (including for some of the most severe and “incurable” ones). This article will review those therapies and how they can both be used for severe illnesses and to rapidly eliminate common viral conditions (e.g., flus and colds).
In late 2019, I predicted that COVID-19 would turn into a disaster. I told many of my colleagues, who all thought I was crazy and simultaneously were confused by these remarks as I was typically the dissenting voice against getting worked up over the annual “pandemic.” While many things at work by late 2019 suggested this could happen, the primary reason I was willing to put my reputation on the line to claim this was due to the media coverage surrounding the pandemic.
Specifically, it’s a longstanding tradition for both the media and federal health apparatus to massively hype up each potential “pandemic,” but in the case of COVID (called Sars-Cov-2 at the time), the exact opposite happened. There was a consistent push to downplay it (e.g., “it’s just a flu bro” flooded the internet at that time) to the point many of my colleagues who typically got the most up in arms about (minor) infectious diseases laughed me off when I suggested COVID was something to be concerned about.
All of this was a red flag to me as I initially could not believe the pandemic industrial complex would be silent when the pandemic they had been waiting decades for finally arrived. Then, once it became very clear (from reports circulating on the internet in Dec 2019) that COVID was very different and actually had a high likelihood of causing a true pandemic, I inferred that only two things could explain why it was being suppressed—either it was known that it would turn into a huge problem and health authorities wanted time to prepare for it before the public panicked, or they wanted it to spread under the radar as much as possible so it could turn into an actual global disaster.
In my eyes, there are four central reasons why pandemics are always hyped up:
•They give federal agencies (e.g., the CDC) a way to justify their necessity and get Congressional funding (which is most likely the primary motivation).
•The ideal content for the media are things that emotionally agitate and hook viewers but do not challenge any vested interests that do not want to be exposed (e.g., major media advertisers like the pharmaceutical industry). Fear-mongering about the next pandemic hence is an excellent way to sustain those companies.
•A multibillion-dollar industry has been created around pandemic preparedness (e.g., lots of virology research and making vaccines) that succeeds because it has no accountability for abjectly failing to prevent pandemics. In turn, hyping up pandemics is vital for this industry.
•Tackling many of the real health issues facing our country requires confronting the vested interests responsible for those issues existing (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) and addressing the underlying causes of chronic illnesses in the country—all of which is a lot of work and gets a lot of pushback. In contrast, having an aggressive and drastic top-down response to an infectious disease takes relatively little effort to do and allows the government to present the facade of safeguarding our health.
As such, we will constantly see “pandemics” that are hyped up by the media and typically are accompanied by mass slaughtering of livestock along with a variety of aggressive sales pitches for that year’s vaccine and in certain years, Tamiflu as well. Inevitably however, in one way or another, the whole thing ends up being a scam (e.g., the pandemic never materializes or the therapies for it don’t really work).
Note: as I show here, Tamiflu is a scam, as despite governments having spent billions stockpiling it, there is no evidence it works (but significant evidence it frequently has side effects).
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, click here!
The Biodefense Industry
To read the rest of the article, go to: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-grotesque-bird-flu-scam-and-how?publication_id=748806&post_id=157417609&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
•After the COVID-19 vaccines hit the market, stories began emerging of unvaccinated individuals becoming ill after being in proximity to recently vaccinated individuals. This confused many, as the mRNA technology in theory should not be able to “shed.”
•After seeing countless patient cases which can only be explained by COVID vaccine shedding, a year ago, I initiated multiple widely seen calls for individuals to share suspected shedding experiences.
•From those 1,500 reports, clear and replicable patterns have emerged which collectively prove “shedding” is a real and predictable phenomenon that can be explained by known mechanisms unique to the mRNA technology.
•Likewise, after being blocked from publication for over a year, recently, a scientific study corroborating the shedding phenomenon was finally published.
•This article will map out everything that is known about shedding (e.g., what are the common symptoms, how does it happen, who does it affect, does it occur through sexual contact, can it cause severe issues like cancer) along with strategies for preventing it.
When doctors in this movement speak at events about vaccines, by far the most common question they receive is, “Is vaccine shedding real?”
This is understandable as COVID-19 vaccine shedding (becoming ill from vaccinated individuals) represents the one way the unvaccinated are also at risk from the vaccines and hence still need to be directly concerned about them.
Simultaneously, it’s a challenging topic as:
•We believe it is critical to not publicly espouse divisive ideas (e.g., “PureBloods” vs. those who were vaccinated) that prevent the public from coming together and helping everyone. The vaccines were marketed on the basis of division (e.g., by encouraging immense discrimination against the unvaccinated), and many unvaccinated individuals thus understandably hold a lot of resentment for how the vaccinated treated them. We do not want to perpetuate anything similar (e.g., discrimination in the other direction).
•We don’t want to create any more unnecessary fear—which is an inevitable consequence of opening up a conversation about shedding.
•In theory, shedding with the mRNA vaccines should be “impossible,” so claiming otherwise puts one on very shaky ground.
Conversely, if shedding is real, we believe it is critical to expose as:
•Those being affected by it are in a horrible situation, particularly if everyone is gaslighting them about it and insisting it’s all in their head.
•It provides one of the strongest arguments to pull the mRNA vaccines from the market and prohibit the widespread deployment of mRNA technologies in the future.
For those reasons, Pierre Kory and I have spent the last year and a half trying to collect as much evidence as possible to map out this phenomenon with the following data sets:
•Dozens of extremely compelling patient histories1,2,3 from Kory and Marsland’s medical practice, including many responding to spike protein treatment.
•My own experience with patients and friends affected by shedding.
• I read large numbers of reports of shedding in (now deleted) online support groups.
•Roughly 1,500 reports from individuals affected by shedding we were able to collect.
•Extensive menstrual data compiled by MyCycleStory.
From that and the hundreds of hours of work that went into it (particularly reviewing and sorting the 1,500 reports), we can state the following with relative certainty:
1. Shedding is very real (e.g., each of those datasets is congruent with the others), and many of the stories of those affected by it are very sad.
2. People’s sensitivity to it dramatically varies.
3. Most of the people who are sensitive to shedding have already figured it out.
4. Mechanistically, shedding is very difficult to explain. However, now that new evidence has emerged, a much stronger case can be made for the mechanisms I initially proposed a year ago.
Note: if you have a shedding experience you would like to share (or wish to read through them), please do so here, where they are compiled.
Shedding Overview:
By far, the most common symptom of shedding is unusual and disrupted menstrual bleeding (which is also the most common COVID vaccine injury). This in turn, was the first thing that alerted me to the inconceivable possibility the vaccines could shed, as I quickly received many similar reports of highly unusual menstrual bleeding, which appeared to be due to exposure to someone who was vaccinated.
After this, the most common symptoms were headaches, flu-like illnesses, nosebleeds, fatigue, rashes, tinnitus, sinus or nasal issues, and shingles. Other less frequent symptoms are also repeatedly seen (e.g., palpitations, herpes outbreaks, and hair loss).
Additionally, many noticed they could immediately tell when they were in the vicinity of a shedder, typically either due to noticing a unique odor or symptoms immediately onsetting.
Generally speaking, the character of shedding symptoms were quite similar to long COVID and vaccine injuries, but typically were more superficial in nature, suggesting the body was reacting to a harmful external pathogenic factor rather than one already deep inside the body. More severe issues (e.g., cancers or heart attacks) also occurred, but these were much rarer than what you saw in the vaccine injured population, again suggesting shedding was primarily an external reaction. Interestingly, most of the (fairly varied) shedding symptoms overlap with the conditions DMSO treats (e.g., strokes), suggesting that DMSO’s key mechanisms of action (e.g., increasing blood flow, eliminating large and small blood clots, being highly anti-inflammatory, and rescuing cells from the cell danger response) are the exact opposite of what shedding does to the body.
Note: in the following sections, each superscript citation links to individual reports I’ve received about the phenomenon. I provided these citations to show how frequent many of these effects were, so that those who’d experienced them could see many others had too, and so that anyone who wants to research this has access to the primary data. The only shedding symptom I avoided comprehensively citing was abnormal menstruation, as so many reports were received, it was not feasible to compile all of them.
Shedding Patterns
In the same manner that there is a fairly high replicability in the symptoms individuals who are affected by shedding experience, there is also a fairly high congruency in the patterns of how they are affected. Specifically:
1. Some individuals are hypersensitive to shedders and can immediately detect when they are in the presence of a shedder or are on their way to developing harmful symptoms.
2. Others are less sensitive, but quickly notice specific characteristic symptoms consistently occur following shedding exposures (e.g., always feeling ill when a vaccinated husband returns from a long trip away, when going to church each week, when singing with their choir, or when taking a crowded route to work).
In some cases, they are able to identify a “super shedder” (amongst a group) who consistently made them ill, and in many cases they can identify the exact shedding incident that made them ill. Likewise, through tracking serial spike protein antibody levels (e.g., for patients undergoing treatment for long Covid or a vaccine injury) we’ve objectively corroborated that shedding exposures repeatedly worsen these patients (providing an explanation for why their symptoms “inexplicably” ebb and flow), that this can be seen objectively in their lab work and that spike protein treatments after shedding exposures clinically improve these patients.
Note: Pierre Kory’s practice has been able to determine that those they suspect are a shedder (e.g., a husband) test positive (through an antibody test) for a high spike protein levels and that eliminating the shedder from the patient’s life or treating the (asymptomatic) shedder with a vaccine injury protocol frequently significantly improves their patient’s recovery. Likewise, readers here have reported significant improvements from avoiding shedders—which sadly in some cases has required the more sensitive individuals to isolate themselves from society.
3. In the majority of cases, the effects of shedding are temporary and go away, but in a subset of people, they can last for months if not years.
4. Recognition of the shedding phenomenon has forced many to significantly change their lives. This included regretfully terminating a long-term romantic relationship, leaving their line of work (e.g., some massage therapists can no longer handle working on vaccinated clients), or only seeing unvaccinated healthcare providers (e.g., numerous people reported getting ill from vaccinated chiropractors or massage therapists, and we now periodically will have patients state they can only see us if we are unvaccinated).
5. The “stronger” the shedding exposure, the more likely shedding is to cause issues, but conversely, for more sensitive patients, “weaker” exposures also will. More substantial exposures include being around someone who was recently vaccinated or boosted (as shedding is strongest initially), being around more shedders, being in a confined space (e.g., a car) with a shedder for a prolonged period, or having close physical contact with a shedder. Note: given all of this, I thought flying on airlines would be a significant issue, but I have only received two reports from readers where this was the case.
6. There appear to be some unexplained symptoms otherwise healthy patients now experience that are tied to shedding. However, it’s still often very challenging to tease out when shedding is the culprit due to how many variables are involved and the ambiguity of the subject (which is part of why so much detail has gone into this post so each of you can figure out if you are being affected by shedding).
Susceptibility to Shedding
In general, there are three categories of people who are susceptible to shedding (and in many cases these categories overlap).
The first are the sensitive patients (e.g., those who frequently react to chemicals or get injured by pharmaceuticals). For example, near the start of the vaccine rollout (before I was aware that shedding was an issue), I saw this video and genuinely wondered if it was real as many of its claims were quite extraordinary but at the same time, were somewhat in line with what a highly sensitive patient (of whom I know many) would describe.
•SSRI antidepressants have a variety of horrendous side effects. These include sometimes causing the individual to become agitated, feeling they can’t be in their skin, turning psychotic, and occasionally becoming violently psychotic.
•During these psychoses, individuals can have out of body experiences where they commit lethal violence either to themselves or others.
•As lawsuits later showed, this violent behavior (and the frequent suicides that followed it) were observed throughout the SSRI clinical trials, but were covered up by the SSRI manufacturers and then the drug regulators (e.g., the FDA).
•Once the SSRIs entered the market, there has been a wave of SSRI suicides and unspeakable acts of violence—which continue to this day.
•Sadly, the idea that SSRIs could cause any of this has always been viewed as a “conspiracy theory” or “mistaking correlation with causation” because very few are aware of the extensive evidence linking SSRIs to violent and psychotic behavior—despite it now being on the warning label of those drugs.
Most holistic doctors consider Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) anti-depressants to be one of most harmful mass-prescribed drugs on the market (it typically makes their top 5—which typically also includes the NSAIDs, Statins, and Acid Reflux PPIs). However unlike the other drugs, which are just unsafe and ineffective, SSRIs also have a fairly unique problem—they can kill people who are not even taking the drugs.
Note: the only other examples I know of where a drug hurts non-users are birth control pills (which are designed to not break down) being recycled in certain municipal water supplies and shedding of the COVID-19 vaccines—something which theoretically should not be possible but nonetheless is happening and harming the more sensitive members of society.
What follows is a revised and updated article summarizing the extreme dangers of those drugs I was requested by a few readers to write in light of recent tragic events and what was recently uncovered from the 2023 shooting at a Christian elementary school.
Before we go any further, I want you to consider something. Mass school shootings have become so common, many Americans (outside those in the community directly affected by a shooting) barely take notice of them now. However, despite the fact the media has now habituated us to viewing this as an normal facet of life, in the not too distant past, teenagers did never shot up their schools (rather the idea was so inconceivable, they’d frequently bring a rifle to school to use for sports). What then was it, and why has it never been publicly discussed?
The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. To see how others have benefitted from this newsletter, click here!
Since SSRIs first entered the market, many have noticed the unusual correlation between their consumption and completely out of character violently psychotic behavior, such as extremely disturbing homicides or suicides being committed by the individual. As the years have gone by, more and more evidence has accumulated (e.g., through lawsuits against the drug companies) that SSRIs cause psychotic violence, and in parallel, as the usage of these drugs has spiked, more and more grisly killings have occurred.
Note: a minority of people who take SSRIs greatly benefit from them (particularly those who have deficient methylation), while others (particularly those who have excessive methylation or deficient liver metabolism of SSRIs) tend to have the worst reactions (e.g., violent psychosis). While this is relatively easy to screen for, because there is a general unwillingness to acknowledge that SSRIs could be dangerous, almost no one in the medical field assess for this prior to starting the drugs or changing their dosages. That subject is discussed further here.
As you might imagine, there are many taboo areas in medicine (e.g., suggesting that vaccines can cause neurological damage to children). However, out of all of them, I’ve found by far the most hostility is directed towards anyone who insinuates mass shootings may be linked to SSRIs (e.g., I got in quite a bit of professional trouble for doing this in the past).
One of the first articles I wrote on Substack (on 5-27-22) was an attempt to provide the mountain of evidence showing there was a direct link between SSRIs and psychotic violence. It went viral and since then I’ve noticed there has gradually been more and more people who have been willing to speak out on it. I attribute this to the current political climate (the Trump presidency and the vaccine mandates has made conservatives much more willing to question both big media and big Pharma) being one where this message wanted to be heard and other conservative commentators seeing a large audience for it existed.
Two months later (on 7-25-22), Tucker Carlson aired what I believe to be the first segment I’ve seen in the mainstream media discussing this taboo topic:
Note: I edited out the political commentary from this segment. The full version of it can be viewed here.
Since that time, other prominent conservatives have spoken out on this issue (e.g., Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene). Conversely, the horror of the “far-right hysteria against SSRIs” has become a talking point of the left (e.g., see this Huffington Post piece and this Slate piece)—something I suspect is due to the high rates of psychiatric medication usage in the modern left and big Pharma buying out the Democratic party during Obama’s presidency.
Fortunately, those attacks did not work, and the violent risks of SSRI’s have gradually become more acceptable to talk about (e.g., RFK Jr. has mentioned this article during his presidential campaign and since then has successfully created the “Make America Healthy Again” movement):
Note: The above image has been updated for this article.
One of the immensely depressing things for someone who is awake to this issue is watching the same script be repeated (we need to ban all guns and have more mental health care [i.e. psyche meds] for everyone) each time one of these shooting happens. Fortunately, this script is losing its appeal and SSRIs are more and more frequently being brought to the public’s attention.
Recently Matt Walsh also did a segment on this topic, which like Tucker’s segment was seen by millions of people
Note: the full version of this episode can be viewed here.
Having watched this dynamic play out for decades, it’s hard for me to put into words how monumental of a change this newfound awareness of the dangers of SSRIs is. The only comparable example I can think of are many people now being open to considering the dangers of childhood vaccination—something which has taken a century to bring into the public awareness (e.g., my friends who gave everything they had to speak out in the 1980s and 1990s on vaccine safety were almost completely alone and cannot believe just how much the public’s receptivity to this message has changed in the last few years).
Correlation or Causation?
One of the most common arguments used to dismiss the link between SSRIs and psychotic violence is that people who are mentally ill are more likely to be on psyche meds, so the “correlation” between psyche meds and psychotic violence is simply a product of pre-existing mental illness and would have happened independently of the psyche med.
However, while claiming “correlation is not causation” makes it possible to refute this link while sounding intelligent in the process, there are a few major problems with this argument.
First, there is a lot of evidence tying SSRI usage to these events, including clinical trial data that was hidden from the public (until it was obtained through discovery). Since that evidence was not covered in Tucker or Walsh’s presentation, it will be the focus of this article.
Second, there is a black-box warning on the SSRIs for them increasing the risk of suicide, something which can only be possible if some degree of causation does in fact exist.
Third, these psychotic events are completely out of character for the individuals who commit them, and in many cases they report a very similar (and disconcerting) narrative of what they experienced prior to and during the shooting.
Note: Big Pharma,working hand in hand with the FDA fought tooth and nail for decades to prevent a warning from ever being added to the SSRIs. I believe this is in part due to how much money is made off of these drugs (presently SSRIs make over 17 billion dollars per year).
The SSRI era
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have a similar primary mechanism of action to cocaine. SSRIs block the reuptake of Serotonin, SNRIs, also commonly prescribed block the reuptake of Serotonin and Norepinephrine (henceforth “SSRI refers to both SSRI and SNRI), and Cocaine blocks the reuptake of Serotonin, Norepinephrine, and Dopamine. SSRIs (and SNRIs) were originally used as anti-depressants, then gradually had their use marketed into other areas and along the way have amassed a massive body count.
Once the first SSRI entered the market in 1988, Prozac quickly distinguished itself as a particularly dangerous medication and after nine years, the FDA had received 39,000 adverse event reports for Prozac, a number far greater than for any other drug. This included hundreds of suicides, atrocious violent crimes, hostility and aggression, psychosis, confusion, distorted thinking, convulsions, amnesia, brain-zaps, a feeling that your brain no longer works right, and sexual dysfunction (long-term or permanent sexual dysfunction is one of the most commonly reported side effects from anti-depressants, which is ironic given that the medication is supposed to make you less, not more depressed).
Note: I and many colleagues also believe the widespread adoption of psychotropic drugs has significantly distorted the cognition of the demographics of the country that frequently utilize them (which to some extent stratifies by political orientation), which in turn has created a wide range of detrimental shifts in our society.
SSRI homicides are common, and a website exists that has compiled thousands upon thousands of documented occurrences. As far as I know (there are most likely a few exceptions), in all cases where a mass school shooting has happened, and it was possible to know the medical history of the shooter, the shooter was taking a psychiatric medication that was known for causing these behavioral changes. After each mass shooting, memes illustrating this topic typically circulate online (often citing many of the same individuals in the picture in the previous section).
Note: while the media initially reported this link, as the media became more corrupt (due to Bill Clinton legalizing direct to consumer drug advertising in 1997—allowing the pharmaceutical industry to become the largest media advertiser and thus buy its silence), the SSRI status of shooters stopped being reported. Because of this, we now rarely hear any of the shooter’s medical history (with the only exception I know of being the recent 2023 shooting).
However, as mentioned above, the idea that “SSRIs cause mass shootings” is treated with widespread ridicule and animosity in a manner not that different from how anyone who claimed the “COVID vaccines were NOT safe and effective” was treated in 2020. For instance, the argument to debunk both was always “correlation is not causation” (e.g., the young healthy lady who had a fatal heart attack immediately after a vaccine might have had that happen anyways), and when data to support this contention is presented, it is always ignored by the other side.
Since there are many serious issues with psychiatric medications, to avoid being too long, this article will exclusively focus on their tendency to cause horrific violent crimes, something which was known long before they entered the market by both the drug companies and the FDA.
Lastly, for anyone who reads this article is presently taking an SSRI or SNRI, it is critically important to NOT suddenly stop taking them. Because their manufactures dose them at excessively high levels, these drugs are very addictive and produce very strong (and longlasting) withdrawal symptoms that many (including numerous readers here) have shared. More importantly, there are also many cases of catastrophic events (e.g., a suicide or mass murder) that followed the abrupt discontinuation of an SSRI or a change in its dose. If this is something you choose to do, you need to gradually taper down the dosage (sometimes to the point you use sandpaper to slowly shrink a pill) with a professional who has experience in this area.
However, since doctors who help can you safely withdraw from an SSRI are difficult to find, we put together a guide on the (incredibly unfair) withdrawal process which can be viewed in the second half of this article.
Note: Many of the stories I will share in this article are similar to those I have received from numerous readers (e.g., see the comments on the first article, second article, third article, and fourth article along with numerous comments on Twitter)—which I believe highlights how common SSRI injuries are. Many of these stories are very difficult to read through, but I nonetheless believe need to be heard.
Akathisia
One of my relatives grew up in a big city during a particularly bad crime wave. One of his most notable memories from the time was looking up and seeing a man who was screaming “the ants are trying to get me” frantically tying bedsheets together (so he could flee down the fire escape) as armed men were rushing to his location yelling “get that mother******.” My relative ran out of the area to avoid getting shot, but from the brief look he had at the fleeing man, was almost certain that man was high on cocaine, and experiencing coke (or crack) bugs, one form of Akathisia and a well-documented effect of those drugs.
Akathisia, an extreme form of restlessness is defined as a psycho-motor disorder where it is extremely difficult to stay still. What this definition omits to mention is that akathisia is incredibly unpleasant to the degree that many individuals who experience it frequently commit suicide or homicide (or both). One of the earliest reports from patients with drug-induced akathisia was:
They reported increased feelings of strangeness, verbalized by statements such as ‘I don’t feel myself or ‘I’m afraid of some of the unusual impulses I have.’
Akathisia is much more common than most people realize. To share a personal anecdote—I occasionally discuss this topic with medical students and a few have confided they previously experienced akathisia after using a psychiatric medication and it was so excruciating that one told me they seriously contemplated suicide at the time.
Akathisia (and psychosis) are known side effects of cocaine, methamphetamine, SSRIs, antipsychotics, and ADHD stimulant medications. However, while the common triggers have been identified, the actual mechanism for akathisia is still poorly understood and theorized to result from alterations in the center of the brain involved in movement. These behavioral changes are so unusual and disturbing there are often simply described as the individual appearing to be possessed. Note: numerous patients I’ve talked to (with or without akathisia) who had bad reactions to SSRIs have shared that they felt as though some type of dark force was trying to take over their body.
