As one gains a broader view of the world, they gain the appreciation for the fact people will do the same things again and again regardless of the era.

Within the context of medicine, I’ve in turn tried to make the case that rather than the best existing scientific evidence dictating how medicine is practiced (e.g., the standard of care) much of it instead is a result of business considerations. This I believe is due three things:

•Those with the most influence in healthcare have personalities that consistently place profits over people.

•Most human beings lack the ability to perceive everything around them, so they typically default to selectively filtering for the aspects of reality which (consciously or unconsciously) hold value to them. I believe much of money’s “power” comes from the fact it often serves as the primarily filterpeople use to navigate a complex web of information, and hence “whatever makes the most money” often ends up being the basis for the decisions they make—which can be immensely frustrating for people working under bureaucrats who make finances the bottom line.
Note: I also think this is why money so corrosive to the human soul, as adopting its filter effectively takes away your free will and ability to make the most fulfilling decision each situation presents you with the opportunity for. Likewise, I also despise how easy financial incentives make it to manipulate the public into doing things that go against their own self-interests.

•People are creatures of habit, so if something worked for them (or others) in the past, they will typically copy it rather than innovating a better approach.

Common Sales Strategies

Because of these three things, I in turn see the same strategies used in business to drive profits again and again shape the practice of medicine.

For example, a profitable business is built around ensuring recurring sales of high margin products. One way to describe the vaccine program is that the CDC’s schedule is a vehicle for ensuring that, as once a vaccine is on the CDC’s schedule, millions of annual sales are guaranteed in the US alone.
Note: typically the most aggressive promotion is for the vaccines with the highest profit margins (e.g., the annual adult vaccines or the HPV vaccine).

Similarly, much of business revolves around creating sales funnels where a low entry (and often free) product is offered, to gradually pull customers into buying progressively more expensive ones. In healthcare, I’ve gradually gained appreciation for how much of the practice of medicine are simply regimented sales funnels (e.g., one of the primary purposes of “wellness” bloodwork screenings are to sell harmful drugs like statins to patients), and likewise, many drugs have a myriad of side effects which then require progressively more expensive drugs to treat. For example, as I discussed in a recent article about the danger of antidepressants, this is a common sales funnel I see affect many girls in America:

Note: a strong case (discussed further here) can also be made that the childhood vaccine program is responsible for many of the chronic illnesses in America—which coincidently is also one of the largest markets for the pharmaceutical industry. Likewise, we are now seeing that companies like Pfizer are focusing on developing new drugs which treat the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.

Another common strategy is to protect large potential markets by keeping any product that could threaten it off the market. Most recently, we witnessed the government (and many others) do this by demonizing affordable and effective COVID-19 treatments so that a myriad of ineffective, costly and often harmful products (e.g., remdesivir and the vaccines) could monopolize the COVID-19 market. However, this sadly is by no means an isolated incident. For example, I’ve previously discussed how:

•In the 1940s, Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation, a miraculous therapy was rapidly adopted by hospitals throughout America because it made a variety of otherwise fatal and incurable illnesses curable. After its inventor refused to give away the rights for it to the American Medical Association, the AMA buried it so that a competing therapy, antibiotics, could take over the market place.

•During the AIDS crisis, Fauci (and the FDA) did everything they could (including defying Congress) to prevent effective treatments for AIDS from hitting the market so that he could instead get a lucrative (but dangerous and ineffective) pharmaceutical approved and enshrined as the definitive “treatment” for AIDS.

•In the early 1990s, a remarkably safe and effective treatment for insomnia (GHB) began being used throughout America and frequently produced life changing results for patients with a variety of chronic illnesses (as healthy sleep is essential for health)—which unfortunately meant it was an existential threat to the multibillion sleeping pill industry. Since the evidence for GHB was very strong and it was a natural supplement (meaning the FDA had no statutory authority over it), the FDA instead decided to remove by conducting a series of illegal raids against suppliers of it, and then once the courts stopped that, the FDA pivoted to creating a non-sensical (and false) hysteria which resulted in Congress passing a law outlawing GHB which subjected the harshest penalties we have against anyone in possession of it.

•Almost all the research on the Alzheimer’s (which amounts to billions of dollars each year) is aimed at finding ways to eliminate the abnormal brain proteins found in Alzheimer’s disease, despite none of that research ever yielding anything which benefits patients, the pivotal paper in that field which justified all that research being proven to have been fraudulent and many researchers unsuccessfully petitioning for other lines of research. Likewise, there has been only one (un-patentable) therapy which was ever proven to reverse (cure) Alzheimer’s—yet almost no one knows it exists, despite Alzheimer’s costing the US over 300 billion dollars annually (making it the most expensive disease in America). Hence, that market has been “preserved,” best shown by the FDA recently pushing through two expensive drugs which were so ineffective and unsafe the FDA had to overrule its own panel to approve one (and backdoor the approval process of the other), which was immediately followed by the head of the FDA being the keynote speaker at the annual pharmaceutical investor’s conference (which focused on the immense future profitability of the Alzheimer’s drugs).

Likewise, consider these recent events:

For the past two decades, scientists, researchers, and veteran advocates have sought the answer to a burning question: Can MDMA-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT) provide a significantly better treatment option for PTSD than currently available treatments?

The urgency of this question is fueled by the fact that billions of dollars and over 20 years of research have done absolutely nothing to curb, much less end, our veteran suicide epidemic. Over 6,000 veterans, most of whom suffered from PTSD, have taken their own lives each and every year since 9/11. The cumulative loss to suicide is more than 130,000 veteran lives and climbing, a number 18 times greater than the 7,054 U.S. servicemembers’ who lost their lives in post-9/11 combat zones.
Note: PTSD also leads to many veterans being homeless.

The answer to the question of MDMA-AT’s efficacy thus provides a much-needed surge of hope: Phase Three clinical trial results have demonstrated that this treatment is both safe and efficacious. Seventy-one percent of trial participants, who suffered an average of 14 years from debilitating PTSD, no longer qualified for a PTSD diagnosis, while 86.5% experienced clinically significant improvement in their symptoms. These results are “almost double” the efficacy of existing treatments. If these results hold up outside clinical studies, it would render MDMA-AT the most effective PTSD treatment ever developed.

Over the past year and a half, MDMA-AT’s efficacy has garnered a slew of positive press, FDA “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and fast-tracked approval consideration, bipartisan support from policymakers, and government funding through both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. MDMA-AT’s FDA approval, slated for August 11, 2024, thus seemed to be on the verge of materializing to the relief of millions of suffering veterans.

But earlier this spring, something changed in the media narrative. Articles with suspicious origins and strikingly similar narratives raised unfounded and almost laughable rumors, alleging that the 20-plus years of scientific research by the NIH, VA, prominent universities, and researchers were the work of a “cult.”

Surprisingly, these rumors emerged publicly at the June 4, 2024, meeting of an external FDA Advisory Committee, empaneled by the FDA to consider MDMA-AT’s merits. Rather than assess the data at hand, the Committee devolved into what one expert called a “dumpster fire.” The group strayed from analyzing the safety and efficacy of the treatment to asking bizarre questions about the diversity of the trials, the types of therapy used, and questions regarding whether MDMA-AT would lead to cocaine usage. No mention was made of the veteran suicide epidemic or the soundness of the clinical trials’ results. Consequently, the committee voted against recommending FDA approval of this FDA-designated “breakthrough therapy” that would provide life-saving relief to the 13 million Americans who suffer from PTSD today.

Leading scientists, policymakers, and veteran advocates watched the advisory committee meeting with confusion and disbelief. According to the BBC, Dr. Franklin King, a psychiatrist at Mass General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, observed that “advisory committee members really showed a kind of astounding lack of knowledge about the subject matter.” Dr. Natalie Gukasyan, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, stated: “It’s almost like this came as a total surprise that this was the study design, when in fact the FDA approved this design.” Republican Congressman and retired Lieutenant General Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI) said, “I’m disappointed that the FDA advisory committee chose to ignore the voices and testimonies of Veterans whose lives have been forever improved by MDMA-assisted therapy, and instead voted in favor of those who have been on a mission to discredit this promising treatment at all costs.” And former Navy SEAL, Republican Congressman Morgan Luttrell (R-TX), slammed the Committee’s vote as “stemming from a lack of education and experience around the clinical use of psychedelics.” 

The question that needs to be asked is: who influenced the Advisory Committee, and why?

Weeks before the meeting, a group called ICER, which claims to “conduct evidence-based reviews of health care interventions,” published a draft report of a study that is critical of MDMA-Assisted Therapy and its sponsoring company, Lykos. ICER’s funders include insurance and pharmaceutical companies with a vested interest in preserving the status quo of healthcare. Its opposition to MDMA-AT is thus likely influenced by Big Pharma, which makes billions of dollars on antidepressants ($16.6Bn in 2023), which are largely ineffective treatments for PTSD.

Furthermore, one of the “experts” ICER relied on in drafting its report is an individual closely associated with a little-known group called Psymposia. This Individual has made it their stated mission to prevent MDMA-AT’s FDA approval due to their personal antipathy towards the therapy’s sponsor, Lykos. After the Advisory Committee’s vote, they publicly claimed victory as the engineer of ICER’s public crusade against MDMA-AT.

The motivation of many of the people associated with Psymposia for opposing MDMA-AT lies in their belief that treating veterans suffering from PTSD “perpetuates the logic of white supremacism, capitalism, and imperialism.” They openly refer to veterans as imperialists, white supremacists, and murderers on their website, in public speeches, and on their social media feeds. This hateful, anti-veteran rhetoric infiltrated the media and the Advisory Committee’s psyches through ICER’s draft report, as evidenced by how often committee members raised the issue of a perceived “lack of diversity” in MDMA-AT’s Phase 3 clinical trials. Moreover, they clung to this narrative despite the fact that over half of confirmatory Phase 3 trial participants self-identified as a race or ethnicity other than white or non-Hispanic Latino.

As veterans, PTSD advocates, and Americans, it is our responsibility to expose the underlying motives for the carefully coordinated, unscientific, anti-MDMA smear campaign. The Individual and their colleagues at ICER and Psymposia have successfully manipulated the media and infiltrated the FDA’s regulatory process to the detriment of millions. Psymposia’s involvement in ICER’s report should have rendered its “findings” null and void. Instead, it may single-handedly dash the hopes of thousands of veterans who continue to take their own lives due to their suffering from PTSD.

For this reason, and because of the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of MDMA-AT’s efficacy, we urge the FDA and members of the media to take the Advisory Committee’s vote with a grain of salt. Too many lives are at stake for anything other than science to guide the FDA’s decision. Veterans’ lives are now dependent on the FDA’s ability to separate fact from opinion – especially ones that attack, rather than support, those who’ve risked their lives to protect and defend ours.

Note: a longstanding problem is how poorly America treats its veterans (e.g., I have friends who served in Vietnam who were left with severe PTSD or a myriad of Agent Orange induced cancers that unsuccessfully fought for decades to get help from the government and much of what they experienced is identical to what I now hear from Iraq and Afghanistan vets). Since the government frequently won’t help them with the basic things they need to function or heal, they often have to turn to the black market to get it instead (e.g., there are veteran networks for MDMA psychotherapy or GHB as both really help them). Conversely, colleagues for years have been working to advance the research showing MDMA (ecstasy) helps veterans with PTSD (as they recognize how great the need is here), but as the above example shows, all of that work is essentially irrelevant once a pharmaceutical company decides its turf has been threatened.

As best as I can tell, the reason the FDA always does this relates to another principle of business—to get investors, you need to be able to demonstrate that it is likely your investment with produce a return. Because of this, marginal products which have an established sales pipeline are the most frequent to enter the market, whereas unorthodox ones rarely gain support, regardless of their potential merit. For example, in Hollywood, because they are so many ways to make money from a movie (e.g., film merchandise or cable re-runs) a movie that fits into an existing franchise will easily attract investors (e.g., they are currently making Fast & Furious XI), whereas creative and non-standard scripts with the potential to be real blockbusters instead struggle to attract investors and get off the ground.

In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, a business friendly climate needs to exist where established pharmaceutical companies know that if they pay for an expensive clinical trial and pay the FDA to “evaluate” their drug (along with offering other payoffs to members of the government such as royalties for the drug, a future position at the company or “research” grants) that it’s guaranteed the drug will be approved and turn a profit, regardless of how ineffective, unneeded or unsafe the drug is. Conversely, the FDA also needs this climate to exist (as 75% of the FDA’s core budget comes from pharmaceutical companies paying the FDA to “evaluate” their drugs), so any time a revolutionary therapy comes along which destroys the market for competing pharmaceuticals, the FDA has an inherent interest in squashing it.
Note: Goldman Sach’s recently published a report (that was given front page coverage throughout the mainstream media—something I took as a sign it was meant to be a warning for everyone in the biotech sector to see) that stated producing a pharmaceutical which cured an illness (rather than perpetually “treating” it) was a bad business model that was not financially sustainable and should not be followed.

Pump and Dump

Another common strategy for making money is to convince investors you have an incredibly valuable product that is being offered for much less than it’s worth, thereby pumping up the value of your stock, and then to sell (dump) your holdings in it before people realize it’s worthless and the value crashes. Because this works, it’s been done for a long time (e.g., since here’s an example from the early 1700s), and a variety of laws have been created that were designed to make this practice illegal. Nonetheless, it still persists. For example, here Dr. Malone concisely explains how this practice underlies a large part of the biotech and vaccine industry:

Briefly, Malone shares that once the public health authorities and then the media announce that a new “threat” is on the horizon, if a biotech company comes forward claiming they have the cure to it, their stock price will quickly balloon, allowing the company to quickly capture the investor’s money before the company’s value collapses (e.g., because the threat never materialized or their product doesn’t work). The key point is that since this is a tried and true business model, it happens a lot.

Likewise, when a new vaccine is brought to market, in order to sell the public on it, the industry has to portray the vaccine as being the greatest thing imaginable—both so that it can attract investors to pump up the stock, but also so that it can attract members of the public to buy it. However, in most cases, those claims are false and they must be progressively back tracked as this becomes clear. This process is often referred to as “moving the goal posts” and was best encompassed by this meme which subsequently predicted the future:

Likewise, here’s a montage of Fauci progressively backtracking on the COVID vaccine’s efficacy:

As Fauci’s montage showed, before long we learned the vaccines had an inconvenient feature (which sadly was also something many of us who understood how vaccines worked had predicted)—over time their efficacy would wane…until eventually the vaccinated became more likely than the unvaccinated to catch COVID. This should have been a sign to stop the shots, but instead it was interpreted as a need for more boosters—something which only accelerated this downhill spiral. For example, consider what this study found:

Similarly, I long suspected the claim the vaccines reduced hospitalizations and death from COVID was a lie, and instead simply another attempt to move the goal posts. This was because reduced deaths and hospitalizations was not a benefit shown in Pfizer’s original trial, we consistently saw COVID-19 mortality rates increase rather than decrease after COVID-19 vaccine campaigns, the above Cleveland clinic study (which showed multiple shots made one more likely rather than less likely to get COVID-19) and because vaccinated hospitalizations was actually a fairly easy metric to rig. For example, one could deliberately give the unvaccinated inferior care (something Dr. James Miller recently attested to witnessing). Likewise hospitals could falsely claim those who died from COVID-19 were unvaccinated, something I personally came across instances of and which multiple whistleblowers testified was built into the electronic medical record systems.

Furthermore, many still do not know that another large dataset showed that much in the same way the vaccines’ efficacy against COVID-19 infections waned, their efficacy against deaths did as well.

Note: as this dataset was using the faulty EMR data, the actual deaths in the vaccinated were most likely even higher that it indicated.

Most recently, a study came out, which clearly showed the vaccinated (once they reached the hospital) indeed had a higher risk of dying from COVID-19. However, since that went against the narrative, most people are not aware this study was done and we still hear the “vaccine saved lives” talking point from our politicians—despite the fact there was a large increase in excess deaths within America after the vaccines rolled out which correlated to the groups who received the vaccines.

It is thus extraordinary to compare what our health authorities told us with what that the data actually showed.

In my eyes, the important thing to recognize about this was that many of us knew from the start the claims about the COVID-19 vaccines were being wildly exaggerated. This we believe was done both to attract investors and to get enough people to vaccinate that progressively more draconian mandates could be enacted (e.g., if only 5% of the population had vaccinated, restaurants and concerts would not be willing to forbid 95% of the population from being their customers) until a climate was created which allowed the draconian and unprecedented mandates inflicted upon millions of Americans.

I hence operated from the standpoint most of the initial sales pitches being given for the vaccine were a lie, and quickly discovered that (per Pfizer’s published study) the actual benefit of their vaccine was negligible, no research existed which had determined if the vaccines prevented transmission, and (again per Pfizer’s study) the admitted harms of the vaccine outweighed the published benefits. Furthermore, given the pharmaceutical industry’s habitual tendency to rig large clinical trials so that both safety and efficacy are artificially inflated, if that was the best Pfizer could do, I assumed that the actual data was much worse.

This in turn was later confirmed by numerous whistleblowers who showed serious injuries were deliberately covered up across the research sites, that the trial was not blinded, and that the vaccinated (once ill) were not tested for COVID-19, which in effect negated any value of the trial. However, despite the whistleblowers petitioning the FDA to address the overt fraud in these clinical trials, nothing was ever done (besides the FDA telling Pfizer to retaliate against the whistleblowers). Likewise, a senior FDA scientists have recently testified that they were forced to cut corners with approving the COVID-19 vaccines by the FDA’s leadership:

A more detailed summary of the events is as follows:

Note: there are many other instances of the FDA silencing its scientists who warned about the dangers of their products to the public. For example, after the SSRI antidepressants hit the market, they quickly became the most complained about drug in America (due to them causing many instances of violent psychosis and suicide), but rather than listen to the public or Congress, the FDA did everything they could to cover it up. After one of the FDA’s safety officers investigated the issue, he discovered that SSRIs nearly doubled the rate of childhood suicide, but his superiors buried it and then conducted a criminal investigation when the report was nonetheless leaked a year later. Previously, I covered these events in detail because I believe they provide a precedent for the FDA’s otherwise inexplicable conduct throughout COVID-19.

Furthermore, from understanding how vaccines worked, it seemed highly likely that the vaccine would be dangerous (as the spike protein was toxic so mass producing it within the body did not seem wise), the vaccine would rapidly stop working (as its design provoked the evolution of variants that were resistant to it) and the vaccine would not prevent transmission (as it created immunity within the blood stream rather than within the nasal mucosa). As these concepts are fairly unknown within the medical field (which is just taught that vaccines are “safe and effective”) I tried to explain then in detail here.
Note: a few months before the Pfizer vaccine hit the market, the editor of a top medical journal warned that the vaccine trials had not been designed to determine if the COVID vaccines stopped transmission. Likewise, once the vaccines hit the market, our healthcare authorities continued to insist the vaccines stopped transmission despite receiving data which demonstrated that was not the case. This I would argue was because the vaccines “preventing” transmission was one of the strongest arguments for compelling those who didn’t want to vaccinate to vaccinate.

Sadly, due to how much the irrational exuberance was created about the vaccines (something you commonly observe during the “pump” phase of this process), it was a lost cause to convince anyone of these clear red flags. Fortunately, the public has gradually become aware of them (due to the tsunami of injuries we’ve seen during the “dump” phase) and we are witnessing gradually increasing admissions of this. For example, at a recent hearing where Fauci was grilled by Congress, he made an interesting admission:

Fauci, who had continually promoted the COVID vaccines as our salvation from the pandemic, chose to defend his actions by stating: “I don’t believe any vaccine is 100% effective.”

This is an important admission because the process of pumping up a bubble always depends upon creating the impression a vaccine is 100% safe, effective, and necessary. Since no product can ever meet that threshold, creating that impression thus requires both overt lies (e.g., claiming the vaccine prevented transmission when it didn’t) and making a series of implications that aren’t actually true. For example, the phrase “safe and effective” is so vague it’s meaningless, but it is always used in a manner that implies “this vaccine is 100% safe and effective.” In turn, my hope is that Fauci’s admission will lead to conversations like this in the future.

Vaccine Promoter: You have no excuse to get the vaccine, it’s safe and effective.

Everyday Citizen: Well, Fauci said no vaccine is 100% effective.

Vaccine Promoter: Well of course, nothing is 100% effective.

Everyday Citizen: Then how safe and effective is it?

Vaccine Promoter: ….

Safe and Effective

Because of how effective this linguistic trick is, “Safe and Effective” has been one of the oldest tactics to promote vaccines. For example, at the time the smallpox vaccine (made from cowpox) was promoted by Jenner (who falsely took credit for inventing it), it was met with widespread skepticism by the medical community as they had seen many cases of individuals contracting cowpox and then get smallpox. Nonetheless, Jenner (who faked his medical degree) relentlessly promoted his “miraculous” vaccine, and eventually petitioned England’s Parliament to give him a lot of money:

“That your petitioner having discovered that a disease which occasionally exists in a particular form among cattle, known by the name of cow-pox, admits of being inoculated [vaccinated] on the human frame with the most perfect ease and safety, and is attended with the singularly beneficial effect of rendering through life the person so inoculated perfectly secure from the infection of small-pox… [vaccination] has already checked the progress of small-pox, and, from its nature, must finally annihilate that dreadful disorder.” — Edward Jenner, 17 March 1802 to Parliament [John Baron, The Life of Edward Jenner, pp. 490–491].

Once Jenner’s vaccine hit the market, it repeatedly failed to work (and often made people quite sick) so Jenner gradually moved the goal posts and concocted a variety of excuses (e.g., that the vaccinator had applied the vaccine incorrectly, that his vaccine didn’t prevent the disease but rather created a “milder disease,” or that boosters were needed), which the public was of course highly skeptical of:

In 1829, William Cobbett, a farmer, journalist, and English pamphleteer, wrote, in addressing the failures of vaccination: “Why, that in hundreds of instances, persons cow-poxed by JENNER HIMSELF, have taken the real small-pox afterwards, and have either died from the disorder, or narrowly escaped with their lives!”

Unfortunately, before long, medical professionals who had previously expressed immense skepticism towards the vaccine became ardently committed to the vaccination program (likely due to them becoming economically dependent on administering it) and soon began colluding to cover up the injuries of their injection:

Mr. Henry May, writing to the Birmingham Medical Review, in January, 1874 reported that deaths as a result of vaccination were often not reported because of an allegiance to the practice. Often a vaccinated person was recorded as having died from another condition such as chicken pox or erroneously listed as unvaccinated.

Note: nonetheless, many doctors at the time spoke out about the severe injuries they witnessed from smallpox vaccination.

Worse still, Jenner’s vaccine would frequently cause smallpox outbreaks. Unfortunately, as governments around the world had become committed to their vaccination programs, these failures would always be taken as a sign not enough people were vaccinated and harsher and harsher mandates were enacted to meet their vaccination quotas (which frequently resulted in riots breaking out as the public resisted these vaccination drives). For example, this 1874 quote from Professor F. W. Newman encapsulates the mood of the time:

Decorous and admissible language fails me, in alluding to that which might have seemed incredible thirty years ago—the commanding of vaccination on a second child of a family, when vaccination has killed the first; and then sending the father to prison for refusal.

Eventually a historic protest broke out, which resulted in an English city replacing its government with one which ended the mandates and instead addressed smallpox by improving public sanitation and quarantining sick individuals or those they had been in contact with. The medical profession predicted this would result in a wave of deaths and the world forever learning the folly of not vaccinating but instead, the approach worked, and before long, the rest of the world began utilizing their method (albeit with vaccination as well)—which was actually what eliminated smallpox.

Note: all the above, and the immense wave of illness created by the smallpox vaccines is discussed in further detail here.

Ever since that time, “safe and effective” has been the mantra used to sell vaccines, regardless of what was actually known about them. For example, in 1954, the US Government’s own scientist warned the National Institute of Health that their polio vaccines were defective and contaminated with live polio viruses that would likely severe injure many of the recipients. Rather than be listened to, her report was covered up and she was taken off the safety team. The next year, 120,000 of those defective vaccines were released, with 40,000 of the recipients developing abortive poliomyelitis, 51 developing paralytic poliomyelitis (5 of whom died) along with shedding of that vaccine creating a secondary polio epidemic that killed 5 children and paralyzed 113 others.

A committee was then formed to evaluate the incident. There, to quote Turtles All the Way Down:

“Perhaps the most disturbing element of the entire program,” he notes, “has been the disparity between the risks that were known to be involved and the repeated assurances of safety.” The National Foundation, in a memo sent to doctors, also stated emphatically that the vaccine was completely safe and that the risk of ensuing paralysis was “zero”.

When participating in the expert panel convened by Dr. Ratner three years later, Professor Meier’s opinion on the subject was no different. “How is it that today you hear from the members of this panel that the Salk vaccine situation is confused; yet, what everybody knows from reading the newspapers, and has been known since the vaccine was introduced, is that the situation as far as the Salk vaccine is concerned was and is marvelous?” he asks. He then answers [sarcastically], “The best way to push forward a new program is to decide on what you think the best decision is and not question it thereafter, and further, not to raise questions before the public or expose the public to open discussion of the issue.”

Fortunately, the degree of dishonesty we saw with “safe and effective” throughout COVID-19 has led many to begin seeing those who monotonously recite it as nothing more than liars. For example, a third of Americans now believe the vaccines are killing a large number of people, and a quarter of those who were vaccinated regret having done so, and many officials are beginning to admit “mistakes may have been made.” Nonetheless, the most ardent promoters of the vaccine are still doubling down on their past conduct:

However, many other politicians are now seeing that this slogan can’t protect them anymore, and they instead pivoting to phrases like it was “the best solution” we had (whereas in reality highly effective COVID-19 treatments existed which were routinely suppressed). Consider this recent testimony from Andrew Briggen, the English member of parliament who took on the risk to be one of the first to speak out about the COVID vaccines.

Bird Flu

Now that the COVID vaccine bubble has largely burst (as very few still want the vaccines and outrage is building against the vaccine), a new “plague” is being pumped up to create the next pump and dump. This time it’s a “dangerous” epidemic of bird flu.

As best as I can tell, this all started in late May after 1 man in Mexico died from what was believed to have been bird flu. Later it was determined he actually died from his underlying health issues, but that fell to the wayside as the train to pump up a new pandemic and vaccine was already in motion. This in turn reminds me of the 1976 Swine Flu, where after a single soldier at a fort died of what was suspected to be the Swine flu, an emergency immunization campaign was mobilized across America, during which the government’s leading scientists again warned them against deploying, many were injured from the vaccine (including quite a few of our patients), and most importantly, no one besides that soldier ever died from swine flu.
Note: the former CDC director (who as far as I know is the only CDC director who has not retired into an extravagant position—instead he now treats vaccine injured patients) recently stated that the only way bird flu could become dangerous is through gain of function research—which sadly we have not stopped (as bioweapons research is an incredibly lucrative field). Additionally, one point the former director didn’t mention is that one of the worst flu pandemics in recent history (the 1977 flu) was ultimately traced to a lab leak.

In turn, we are gradually seeing the public health experts who spearhead these pump and dump campaign beginning to promote the fear they depend upon on national television.

For example, as I previously discussed, Deborah Birx was largely responsible for our disastrous COVID-19 response because she 100% committed to needing to test everyone for COVID-19 as many times as possible (regardless of how many people were getting ill) so that the positive cases those tests yielded could be used to justify never-ending lockdowns across the country. Recently, on CNN, she shared that we needed to be testing every cow in America on a weekly basis for traces of bird flu so that a pandemic could be prevented:

Likewise we are now killing millions of American chickens to “stop the spread.”
Note: it has been repeatedly demonstrated that exposing chickens to full spectrum lighting not only makes them lay more eggs, but also prevents the spread of infectious diseases in the herds.

Similarly, Europe just bought 40 million doses of bird flu vaccine, which is remarkable given that no one has died from this infection and that one of the leading bird flu vaccine candidates has been shown to kill approximately 1 in 200 recipients.

Conclusion

In this publication, I periodically have whistleblowers reach out to me. One, a pharmaceutical executive shared that they believed the only thing which stops this type of conduct are corporate executives knowing they will face criminal penalties (e.g., prison terms) for this conduct. Unfortunately, the structure of a corporation shields its management from any type of accountability for their conduct and instead encourages it. For example, consider this decade old quote from a Pfizer executive, who due to a series of remarkable circumstances, decided to blow the whistle on the rotten conduct he saw throughout Pfizer’s management:

It is scary how many similarities there are between this industry and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money, as does this industry. The side effects of organized crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does the drug industry—which has been proven in different cases. You could go though a 10-point list discussing similarities between the two. The difference is, all these people in the drug industry look upon themselves—well, I’d say 99 percent, anyway—look upon themselves as law-abiding citizens, not as citizens who would ever rob a bank. Not as citizens who would ever go out and shoplift.

And the individuals who run these companies would probably not do such things. However, when they get together as a group and manage these corporations, something seems to happen. Just look at all of these billion-dollar fines—Schering Plough, I think is in the lead now with $1.2 or $1.3 billion in fines; and number two is Bristol-Myers Squibb. It’s pretty scary that they’re committing crimes that cause [the government] to levy those enormous amounts of fines against them. So there’s something that happens to otherwise good citizens when they are part of a corporation. It’s almost like when you have war atrocities; people do things they don’t think they’re capable of. When you’re in a group, people can do things they otherwise wouldn’t, because the group can validate what you’re doing as okay.

However, while corporate crime that harms others goes unpunished, the legal system will enforce financial crimes against investors. Likewise, while it is almost impossible for an individual who was harmed by a corporation to get justice against them (especially for liability free vaccines), the pharmaceutical companies are not immune to being charged with fraud. In turn, enough public outrage has now built against the vaccine manufacturers that State Attorney Generals are now springing into action. For example, recently Kansas’s AG filed suit against Pfizer for fraud—specifically Pfizer’s choice to state the vaccine was “safe” when they clearly knew it was not.

Note: other states are also planning to file suit against Pfizer.

While it is immensely frustrating for many that it has taken this long to get to that point (especially for those who were injured and “dumped” by the COVID-19 campaign), in my eyes it’s actually miraculous we’ve come this far as the media and political system is now so corrupt, it is almost impossible to hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable for their actions (e.g., nothing was ever done for the thousands of Gardasil victims despite it being proven that their clinical trials were fraudulent).

Initially, I had expected it would take around a decade to begin holding the government and the pharmaceutical industry accountable for their actions during COVID-19. Instead, due to just how out of line everything with the pandemic response was and the internet’s ability to allow the free dissemination of information, a large group of dedicated activists have rapidly shifted the public’s opinion on the COVID vaccines, and furthermore, the public is now becoming highly skeptical of the “safe and effective” grift that is used to sell each new vaccine.

Much of that is thanks to people like you and I am incredibly grateful for both what each of you has done to bring us to this point and the support each of you has given to this publication that has allowed me to be part of that change.

To learn how other readers have benefitted from this publication and the community it has created, their feedback can be viewed here. Additionally, an index of all the articles published in the Forgotten Side of Medicine can be viewed here.