Recently, Elon Musk unveiled Tesla’s humanoid robots (which in full disclosure are not yet ready for public use). As I watched his presentation, a few things suddenly clicked to me about the direction Musk and Trump want to take the country in, and the immense implications they have for everyone. In this article, I will explain them and how all of that relates to the current state of medicine.

Creating Wealth

Throughout history, there have always been two ways to accumulate significant wealth:

1. By producing things of value.
2. By stealing wealth from someone else.

In turn, I believe almost all empires follow a similar cycle—initially an empire creates its own wealth (allowing it to rapidly ascend as a superpower), but gradually, transitions to using its newfound power to steal wealth from others until eventually, the foundation which underlies the empire (e.g., its ability to create wealth) becomes unstable, the empire crumbles and its replaced with a new empire in its ascendancy phase.

While the above is a simplified description of wealth accumulation, I believe this paradigm very much describes the current state of our society. For instance, many of our institutions have transitioned from having to earn their value to simply being given it either through government subsidies (e.g., a key reason why education is so bad now is because the government gives unconditional student loans to everyone to attend college which in turn incentivizes colleges to focus on retaining as many students as possible rather than on ensuring they get a worthwhile education) or by them having a market monopoly that prevents competition from forcing them to produce something of value.

One of the best illustrations of this has been the relentless promotion of diversity equity and inclusion (DEI), where rather than selecting applicants or employees on the basis of merit, it’s done on the basis of their race (or sexual orientation) and their commitment to social justice. Because of this, many corporations and institutions are producing lower and lower quality outputs, but thus far they have gotten away with it due to the monopoly they (and by extension the US dollar) have.

Medical Monopolies

Consider that as the years have gone by, medical education has had a greater and greater focus on DEI. Because of this, I have seen numerous unqualified diverse applicants be admitted to medical school over more qualified non-diverse applicants, and numerous poorly performing diverse applicants be retained by their medical schools so that the graduating class has diversity. Despite the fact this lowers the quality of the graduating class, nothing has been done to stop it as the accreditors place immense pressure on the medical schools to maintain DEI in their classes.

Likewise, originally, medicine “earned” its reputation on doctors being the pinnacle of what society could produce. However, as the years went by and a medical monopoly was established based on the prestige afforded to doctors, medicine became more and more about forcing doctors to follow standardized protocols (that could not get to the root of each patient’s issues but could sell a lot of products for the medical industry). As such, having substandard medical graduates isn’t actually an issue for the medical industry because they simply are cogs in a system where there’s now minimal room for doctors to make independent decisions.

If you take a step back, it’s clear our medical system has failed disastrously as the cost for it keeps going up (on average 4.8% per year), but the quality of care gets worse (e.g., despite spending far more than any other country, currently we rank 69^th in healthcare outcomes)

I would argue that this trend is a result of the fact there is no incentive in medicine to produce a good outcome (e.g., consider how many diseases like Alzheimer’s we’ve spent billions on research for over decades yet still have no cure for—despite proven ones already existing, and how many diseases we manage with decades of costly therapies which do very little and often create far more problems). Rather, the “incentive” in medicine is to produce expensive products that can get an approval to be sold within America’s medical monopoly, which lobbyists can then get insurance companies to subsidize.

To a large extent, I believe this resulted from a misguided attempt by Congress in 1962 to prevent toxic drugs from entering America where they not only gave the FDA the power to block anything they deemed unsafe, but also gave the FDA the discretion to determine what constituted a pharmaceutical being “effective.” In turn, the FDA decided that extensive and costly (and not necessarily relevant) data needed to be compiled, which resulted in the cost of drugs skyrocketing and the number of new drugs reaching the market grinding to a halt.

Note: as best as I can tell (as I have to infer the number from incomplete data), the 1962 law caused the cost of bringing a drug to market to go up roughly 1000 times and take almost 10 times as long.

This was a huge problem as (due to the immense cost of developing new drugs) it effectively created a “pay-to-play” system that:

•Encouraged pharmaceutical companies to doctor trials and bribe drug regulators to get their drugs approved (as otherwise they could not afford to risk sinking that much money into developing them).

•Encouraged pharmaceutical companies to doctor trials and bribe drug regulators to get their drugs approved (as otherwise, they could not afford to risk sinking that much money into developing them).

•Encouraged pharmaceutical companies to pursue drugs that were likely to get approved (e.g., by being very similar to an existing drug or by having a very minor specific benefit that could be “proven”) rather than maverick ones that could significantly improve the standard of care (particularly since doing so would displace other costly drug franchises and hence motivate their manufacturers to lobby against the novel drug’s approval).

•Changed the pharmaceutical business to revolve around sales rather than drug efficacy, as this was something that could be reliably implemented (regardless of how ineffective or unneeded the drug was) and hence made the business remain sustainable.

•Incentivized the pharmaceutical companies to spend a lot of money eliminating “unapproved” competitors from the marketplace (e.g., by lobbying the government to target those who didn’t pay to play).

Note: I tried to summarize the corruption that pervades the medical regulatory process here (e.g., the NIH invested 162 million into remdesivir, and then the panel that was appointed to chose the COVID-19 treatments was comprised of people who’d taken money from remdesivir—and not surprisingly kept on voting for it to be the treatment for COVID-19 despite it being far more unsafe and ineffective than the off-patent options) .

In turn, if you compare the pre-1962 era to now, there are far fewer drugs or medical therapies entering the medical field that change the practice of medicine or significantly improve healthcare outcomes. At the same time, many (if not far more) dangerous drugs are hitting the market. As a result, many of the therapies we use (e.g., numerous remarkable cancer therapies) actually were developed prior to the 1962 law being passed—which is insane as the scientific capabilities we have now are incomparable to what existed back then and hence should be producing far more impressive medical treatments and tech now.

Likewise, the key point I’ve been trying to illustrate with DMSO is that not only does it produce dramatically better results for illnesses than almost any therapy we’ve developed in the 63 years since it was discovered, but the results it produces are immediate and obvious (which is why it spread like wildfire across the country and such a national uproar occurred when the FDA banned it).

Because of this, I believe that the FDA’s primary responsibility should be to regulate safety, not efficacy (unless the drug is so dangerous it needs to have a clear benefit to justify its risk) and that the market should then select for the most effective therapies because patients will rapidly adopt the things that work and reject the ones that are ineffective. However, rather than do that, a very creative ideology has been erected that tells us we can’t trust our own “biased” observations and instead must let “the science” tell us what is safe and effective.

Note: the 2018 Right to Try Law was an attempt to fix this issue by allowing patients in certain cases to take medications that had only undergone safety but not efficacy testing (but unfortunately did not go far enough to actually address this issue).

In DMSO’s case, this logic is particularly astounding as the FDA was confronted with thousands of cases of people, who within minutes had their issues (e.g., decades of chronic pain or a recent sprain) improve from DMSO, yet in each case, claimed those improvements were “anecdotal” and likely instead were due to the placebo effect or would have happened anyways.

Note: in 1899, allopathic (conventional) medicine was rapidly falling out of favor due to it being unsafe and ineffective). The American Medical Association (AMA) decided to rescue allopathy by unconditionally promoting industry products (e.g., cigarettes) in return for cash, using the media to aggressively go after every competing school of medicine (e.g., by labeling them as quacks) and blackmailing each new medical product to sell out to them or be branded as quackery. Due to the media’s complicity, this worked. Before long, numerous promising therapies (that owing to their remarkable results were rapidly being adopted across America) were told they could either sell their rights to the AMA or be buried—and then, again and again, were systematically canceled. (e.g., I’ve summarized how the AMA did this to ultraviolet blood irradiation once hospitals across America began using it to rescue numerous hopeless cases and how they likewise they did it to the cancer cure Krezbiozen—but sadly there are many other examples too, the most recent of which was the AMA attacking ivermectin’s use for COVID-19).

Media Monopolies

As the years have gone by, the mainstream media has been gradually transformed from something that tried to inform the public about topics the government didn’t want the American people to know about (e.g., Vietnam’s Pentagon Papers) to a state mouthpiece which only presents the political establishment’s talking points.

In my eyes, one of the most significant changes was Clinton, in 1997, legalizing television pharmaceutical advertising (something that every other nation except New Zealand has banned). This allowed the pharmaceutical industry to become the largest television advertiser and then leverage that sponsorship to have television stations no longer expose the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs. In turn, over the years I’ve heard numerous journalists testify that once this happened they stopped being able to air criticisms of pharmaceutical products (e.g., Sharyl Attkisson provided one of the most clear-cut illustrations of this in her memoir, and here RFK Jr. shares how his friend, the CEO of Fox News [along Jake Tapper of ABC News], wanted to air RFK’s program on the dangers of mercury in vaccines but nonetheless was forced to not to air it).

Likewise, here Megyn Kelly discussed with Nicole Shanahan how the leaders of our regulators are now throughly corrupt (making them sabotage public health rather than uphold it) and how on television, she was banned from ever airing any criticisms of vaccines:

In turn, there is a remarkable contrast in what was aired on American television before and after the 1997 advertising change went into effect, as beforehand, serious exposés on the danger vaccines would occasionally be aired on national television, whereas now, despite the majority the Americansbeing outraged over the wave of injuries (and deaths) from the COVID vaccines, excluding a few mentions by Tucker Carlson (e.g., this segment that aired immediately before he was taken off air) nothing has appeared in the mainstream media.

In contrast, consider for instance, this scathing 60 Minutes program on the government’s role in the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccine disaster (which injured far fewer Americans than the COVID vaccines):

Or this 1982 NBC program on the dangers of the DPT vaccine (which frequently caused brain damage and infant deaths):

Or this 2002 CBS program about the significant risks and questionable benefits of Bush’s plan to vaccinate America for smallpox “terrorists were going to unleash upon America” (which before long was canceled because it caused too many injuries—but nonetheless featured many of the same vaccine promoters we saw 20 years later during COVID-19).

Note: one of the most amazing things about this sales campaign is that it featured the line “their sense of urgency is, they don’t want their children getting destroyed the way the World Trade Center was destroyed,” and mainstream networks aired it.

Similarly, in a recent article, I also included a 60 Minutes program that aired in 1980 about the miraculous benefits of DMSO that exposed the FDA’s unconscionable decision to stonewall it for decades and a 1964 television program about how they did very something similar to a remarkable cancer treatment promoted by the most one of the most prestigious doctors in America (e.g., the AMA sent him as their representative to Nuremberg and he co-wrote the Nuremberg code).

Note: there is more and more public awareness about the problems with the pharmaceutical industry being allowed to pay off the mainstream media into not covering the dangers of their products (e.g., recently Joe Rogan discussed this problem with JD Vance), and a real chance this may at last change in the near future.

Overturning Monopolies

With both the mass media and the medical industry, a very similar pattern has occurred. Initially, they had immense trust from the public that they to some extent had earned, but gradually, they shifted from producing results that made the public want to support them to simply trying to enforce their monopolies. As such, as the years went by, dissent against them gradually increased, which in turn was met with harsher and harsher monopolistic tactics—which in many cases ultimately backfired (e.g., the suppression of effective COVID-19 treatments and mandating dangerous and ineffective vaccines has made a large segment of America no longer trust the medical system or the media that relentlessly promoted these talking points).

Because of this, those industries have effectively been stuck in a downhill spiral where to cover up the loss of trust which results from their lies (e.g., the COVID vaccine mandates were justified by the fact the vaccines would prevent you from getting COVID or giving it to anyone), they have to make even more audacious lies, and in time, the absurdity of those lies eventually hits the point each successive one makes the public trust them even less

Note: I believe the hostile media coverage Trump received throughout his presidency was the primary factor responsible for this rapid decline in public trust in the media, and had it not cemented that mistrust in the public, the global resistance against the COVID-19 vaccine mandates would have likely never occurred—which again illustrates the downhill spiral the propaganda apparatus has found itself trapped within.

In my eyes, one of the most remarkable illustrations of this came from the Washington Post’s recent decision not to endorse a candidate for president because its owner (Jeff Bezos) overruled the paper’s left-wing editorial board. This in turn, led to three editors resigning and a wave of subscribers canceling, after which Bezos published an editorial that stated he did not think an endorsement was appropriate because it would not have a meaningful influence on the election (e.g., the only people who would listen to it were people who were already voting for Harris). Rather, it would further erode the public’s trust in the paper’s objectivity, which was a bad idea since public trust in the mainstream media was now at a record low.

What I found fascinating about this (reasonable) position was that it received 25,000 comments, and in the couple hundred I skimmed, they were allincredibly hostile toward Bezos’s position. Four days later, the Washington Post then aired one of the most remarkable media exchanges we’ve seen in recent memory:

Note: I’ve witnessed election fraud occur throughout my lifetime (especially after the electronic voting machines were introduced). The earliest documented example I know of was “Bleeding Kansas” (the event which arguably started the Civil War). There, as a compromise on the slavery issue, it was decided that the legality of slavery in Kansas would be decided by the settlers there. However, pro-slavery forces in Missouri crossed the border to flood the election with illegal votes, resulting in a pro-slavery legislature being elected (which everyone knew was due to fraud). Following this, that legislature outlawed any criticism of slavery, kicked the anti-slavery legislators out, and began arresting or covertly killing anti-slavery citizens. The anti-slavery forces that resisted this encroachment were labeled as insurrectionists. Before long, the pro-slavery government mobilized the army against them to eliminate everyone who would not submit to them (along with destroying pro-freedom newspapers). This spiraled into a year of violence (a mini-civil war), and less than two years after it concluded (but minor conflict still continued), the American Civil War began.