Tag: health care

Hospitals Turned Into Killing Centers During Pandemic — Will We Learn From the Mistakes?

When historians one day sift through the wreckage of the COVID-19 pandemic, the central question won’t be how many lives the virus claimed. It will be: how many were lost to a system that collapsed into fear, censorship and fatal conformity?

At TrialSite News, we chronicled the crisis as it unfolded. We reported — early, relentlessly, and despite immense pushback — that the majority of COVID-19 infections were mild to moderate.

Peer-reviewed research later affirmed what we knew by spring 2020: roughly 90–95% of infections did not require hospitalization, and those at real risk were predominantly the elderly or chronically ill.

Even Bill Gates eventually admitted the fatality rate was relatively low and the disease pattern was akin to the flu. Just think of the implications.

But public health leaders didn’t follow the data — they followed panic and centralized narrative control promulgated by a confluence of government, industry and academia. And the price was paid in hospital wards across America.

A misdiagnosed disease met with misguided protocols

Ventilators became the instrument of tragedy. Early guidance — mirroring protocols from China — promoted rapid intubation. In New York’s spring 2020 surge, nearly nine out of 10 intubated patients died.

Though that number softened as more data emerged, the damage was done. Hospitals, misreading COVID pneumonia as typical ARDS, deployed invasive mechanical ventilation far too aggressively.

Patients with “silent hypoxia” — low oxygen but no distress — were sedated and intubated when non-invasive oxygen support might have sufficed.

What followed was a cascade of preventable deaths: ventilator-associated pneumonia, sedation complications, ICU delirium and multi-organ failure. We heard the stories. We saw the data. Too many walked in with breathlessness and left in body bags. It was a tragic disaster.

This wasn’t just clinical failure; it was bureaucratic blindness and potential criminality. Across hospital systems, the practice of “homogenized care” erased the art of medicine in favor of algorithmic treatment pathways.

Individual patient context vanished. And families — banned from the bedside — couldn’t intervene.

The forgotten treatments — cheap, effective, ignored

As thousands perished under sedation, treatments that could have helped were either dismissed or demonized. The RECOVERY trial in June 2020 showed that dexamethasone — a low-cost steroid — cut deaths by one-third in ventilated patients.

But months had already passed. Why didn’t we try anti-inflammatory therapies sooner?

Remember the ICAM protocol TrialSite reported on? Early on in the pandemic, a pharmacist for a southern health system was saving lives with a combination of steroids, blood thinners and the like. Yet this was shut down, we were told to due to a Pfizer contract with the health system.

Meanwhile, the government rushed emergency use approval for remdesivir, a drug that shortened hospital stays but did not reduce mortality — and carried notable toxicity risks. The opportunity cost was tragic. Time and attention were stolen from better solutions.

Frontline doctors proposing repurposed drugs like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, in carefully designed early protocols, were silenced or sanctioned.

TrialSite News, remember, scooped ivermectin itself, then gave these doctors a platform — from Peter McCullough to Pierre Kory-publishing observational data, real-world insights and field-tested regimens.

But the Dr. Anthony Fauci-led National Institutes of Health dismissed outpatient care entirely. Americans were told to stay home, take nothing and seek help only once they couldn’t breathe. For many, that was too late.

Keep reading

Origins of Medical Harm

The level of compensation doctors receive from Medicare is currently under renewed scrutiny; these standards are mirrored by health insurers. The quantity of reimbursement weighted to specialists is likely to shift towards primary care physicians. Reconfiguration of doctors’ fees is overdue, although they are determined by a secretive American Medical Association committee. 

Analysis and debate about the ongoing healthcare crisis emphasize misdirected funding rather than considering how to revitalize the ethics of medicine. The Hippocratic Oath clarifies the priorities essential for the mindset of a physician. Despite its primary warning, first, do no harm, damage done to patients is rampant. Resolution of this tragic dynamic appears insoluble. 

When decisions are made by any medical organization with financial interests, the primary impetus of the Oath is lost; the AMA’s control over payment schedules reinforces and exemplifies a corrupt institutional flaw. The harm done by the business of medicine needs to be evaluated and controlled.

The seemingly intractable conflict of interest undermining medical care is directly tied to a profit-oriented model in mitigating human suffering. Dispensing treatments with earnings in mind is a form of profitable planned obsolescence and ultimately a methodology that degrades patient autonomy and vitality. 

Although there is often consensus among critics of the healthcare system about its numerous faults, approaching the central issue of profiting from illness is virtually avoided. 

In an attempt to broach the topic of money and medicine, the AMA’s Journal of Ethics presents a self-justifying analysis. The following excerpt exposes how this inherently conflicted view of healthcare depends on the illness of the nation. 

Keep reading

Are Vaccines Big Money-Makers for Pediatricians? RFK Jr. Comment on Tucker Carlson Sparks New Debate

Do pediatricians generate a significant portion of their profits by pushing vaccines? If so, what role do insurance companies play in that scheme?

Or, as The New York Times recently reported, is the opposite true — are vaccines a “money pit” for doctors?

In a July 15 article, the Times took issue with a comment made by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., during a June 30 interview with Tucker Carlson. Kennedy told Carlson that there are “perverse incentives” for pediatricians to push vaccines.

The Times article featured a doctor who couldn’t afford to offer vaccines, and comments from leadership at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) who said statements like the one Kennedy made during his interview with Carlson are “misleading and dangerous.”

The AAP also responded on X, linking to the Times article, with a picture of Kennedy and the comment: “Pediatricians do not profit off vaccines.” In a Facebook post, the AAP said, “As The New York Times explains, most pediatricians either break even or even lose money when they offer vaccines.”

Ryan Champlin, who coordinates vaccine purchasing contracts for doctors at Cook Children’s Health Care System in Texas, told The Defender that incentives for vaccination are typically linked to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) childhood immunization schedule.

Champlin said doctors get the extra payments when a certain percentage of their patients — typically 80% or more — take all of the vaccines on the schedule.

The Times article, despite its criticism of Kennedy’s “perverse incentives” comment, acknowledged that about half of pediatricians have “value-based contracts” with insurers, an insurance reimbursement model that rewards providers with extra payments for hitting specific metrics that are considered markers for “quality of care.”

According to Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland, these types of incentives have “completely distorted pediatric care in America.”

Keep reading

The American Academy of Pediatrics: Mining Children for Profit

American healthcare is currently providing us with an excellent lesson in what capitalism looks like in the absence of a moral framework. The biggest losers are America’s children.

The Union Profiting from Childhood Sickness

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the major professional association of North American pediatricians, has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. With 67,000 members in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, AAP distinguished itself during Covid-19 for its strident insistence that children’s faces should be covered and they should be injected with modified RNA vaccines, despite knowing from early 2020 that severe Covid-19 was very rare in healthy children. 

Funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, the AAP’s members are the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing pediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region. As a professional organization dedicated to ensuring income for its members, the AAP is like any similar professional association or union and acts in this manner.

The loss of trust in the medical profession since 2020 is fortunately removing the misconception that AAP-like medical societies were primarily altruistic, dedicated to the welfare of others rather than their members. The recent publication of AAP priorities, developed by its membership, should reinforce this loss of trust and so, despite its unusual callousness of approach, serve ultimately to strengthen public health by exposing more clearly the motivations of those profiting from rising illness.

Setting Priorities to Ensure Long-Term Profit

The AAP’s first stated priority is to remove parents from any authority when it comes to decisions on whether to inject their children with various substances produced commercially by its sponsors. While this should be ridiculous, it has some chance of succeeding as the ultimate beneficiaries, apart from pediatricians, are the same pharmaceutical manufacturers who heavily sponsor the election campaigns of most members of the US Congress.

Of relevance, promoting or abetting chronic disease in children ensures almost certain chronic disease through adulthood. The AAP is therefore helping to set up lifelong pharmaceutical consumers. Pharma companies are purely for-profit entities, and this is exactly what their CEOs and executives are charged by their shareholders with promoting. The AAP is simply acting as a very willing enabler.

The AAP considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and that the post-World War II human rights of non-coercion and informed consent are subservient to the opinion of someone receiving money to perform an injection. Its approach coincides with the pre-War technocracy movement or medical fascism (in which a declared ‘expert’ decides on imposing healthcare measures rather than the patient themselves choosing it).

However, before discussing bodily autonomy and coerced medicine further, it is worth commenting on the priority list of the AAP overall, as it is fascinating, coming from a group that insists publicly on prioritizing the health of children.

Firstly, what is not there. Among the ten priorities of the AAP of which the elimination of parental rights or religious or cultural exemptions over vaccination of children is the highest, there is not a single mention of what are perhaps the three most prominent issues facing children today, and widely discussed publicly; increasing obesity and the epidemic of autism that the CDC heralds as of extraordinary proportions. While the AAP notes this problem elsewhere, it concentrates on identification and management rather than cause identification. Nowhere among its ten priorities is there any expression of interest in identifying and addressing the causes of rising chronic illness. The closest is a mention of lower costs for childhood insulin injections. The AAP’s priority list ignores diet and reducing levels of physical activity while actively promoting medicalization, seemingly oblivious to the quite catastrophic reduction in health status of the very populations they claim to be serving.

Unsurprisingly for a purely marketing organization, but inconsistent with a science-based healthcare body, the priorities include nothing regarding very obvious concerns of the impact of over 70 vaccinations, with their associated adjuvants and preservatives, now given to children by ten years of age. This number has grown from just a few 40 years ago in association with the deterioration in child health outcomes. The only interest expressed in vaccines is to remove choice from those concerned about such things, and force compliance. For a society of thinking, truth-seeking people this would be extraordinary.

Keep reading

Military General Surgeons Are Not Adequately Prepared for Saving the Lives of Wounded Service Members in Large-Scale Combat Operations

The United States military may be ill-prepared to treat those wounded in a large-scale combat operation. As it stands, the Military Health System (MHS) would find itself caught off guard with limited manpower and proficiency to save lives.

On March 11, 2025, the Senate Committee on Armed Services (SASC) held a hearing “to receive testimony on stabilizing the Military Health System to prepare for large-scale combat operations.” Three retired Air Force senior officers, to include Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Douglas Robb, Maj. Gen. (Dr.)  Paul Friedrichs, and Col. (Dr.) Jeremy Cannon, provided witness testimony.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to retired Air Force Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Paul Carlton. The former Surgeon General of the Air Force and board advisor for Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS) said he is gravely concerned that “military surgeons are not ready to go to war as a result of the criteria the Military Health System (MHS) has established and tried to abide by for the last 20 years.”

Carlton pointed to what he considers one of the most concerning statements of the one-and-a-half-hour committee hearing where Col. (Dr.) Cannon, Professor of Surgery at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, stated “only 10 percent of military general surgeons get the patient volume, acuity, and variety they need to remain combat ready.”

Keep reading

Technocrat Sweep: US Health Officials, Tech Executives To Launch Data-Sharing Plan

Why would Technocrats care about your health data? When they see the public as a herd of cattle, they naturally move to “manage the herd.” RFK, Jr. earlier bragged that he wants all citizens to don wearable medical devices within four years, to collect mountains of data. This initiative is headed by AMY GLEASON, the Administrator of DOGE.

Amy Gleason worked at the predecessor of DOGE from 2018-2021 during the first Trump administration, where she played a key role on the White House Coronavirus Task Force’s data team managing critical pandemic data. She was named an Obama-era “Champion of Change” for her work in patient advocacy and precision medicine. She has emerged as a key Technocrat with her association with Elon Musk. Court records clearly show that Musk was never in charge of DOGE, but rather Amy Gleason.

Keep reading

American Academy of Pediatrics DECLARES WAR on parental rights, demands end to vaccine exemptions

As the corrupt empire of mainstream medicine crumbles, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has launched a last-ditch effort to tighten its stranglehold on American families. In a tyrannical move straight from the playbook of medical fascism, the AAP is doubling down on its draconian push to eliminate non-medical vaccine exemptions — effectively stripping parents of their right to refuse toxic injections for their children. Behind the slick veneer of “public health” lies a much darker agenda: forcing compliance, silencing dissent, and consolidating power under the ruthless thumb of Big Pharma-controlled pediatricians.

Key points:

  • The AAP is pushing states to eliminate religious and philosophical exemptions, leaving only narrowly defined (and increasingly denied) medical exemptions for school attendance.
  • Pediatricians are being urged to refuse any cooperation with families seeking non-medical exemptions, effectively turning doctors into enforcers of state-mandated medical tyranny.
  • School immunization rates are dropping as parents wake up to the dangers of vaccines — yet the AAP’s solution isn’t transparency or informed consent, but coercion.
  • Vaccine failures and injuries are surging (measles outbreaks in vaccinated populations, skyrocketing autism rates), yet the AAP continues to peddle lies about vaccine “safety.”
  • Parents must fight back by knowing their rights — resources like the National Vaccine Information Center and Vax Freedom Guide are critical tools in resisting this medical mafia.

Key AAP recommendations include

  • Backing laws requiring immunization certification for child care and school attendance, effectively eliminating religious and philosophical exemptions that parents are increasingly using to avoid having their child poisoned.
  • Supporting equitable vaccine access to maintain in-person schooling through medical homes, public health, and school programs.
  • Permitting only “justified” medical exemptions, regularly re-certified by pediatric providers in line with “Red Book standards.”
  • Eliminating all non-medical exemptions for school attendance and ensuring medical exemptions are “evidence based.”
  • Advising pediatricians to counsel (coerce) families seeking non-medical exemptions but not to endorse such exemptions.
  • Ensuring child care centers and schools comply with state immunization documentation laws uniformly.
  • Urging public health authorities to disclose immunization rates to assess outbreak risks and determine who should be segregated.

The AAP’s war on parental rights

Fueled by Pharma dollars and a pathological disdain for individual freedom, the AAP has openly declared war on parental choice. Their updated policy statement (Pediatrics, 2025) demands that states remove all non-medical exemptions, reducing parents to beggars pleading for rare medical waivers. Worse still, doctors are being instructed to deny families’ requests for exemptions — essentially acting as gatekeepers for state coercion.

Jesse Hackell, AAP’s puppet mouthpiece, had the gall to claim: “We recommend that vaccination is required for participation in certain public activities… If you choose not to vaccinate, you’re essentially choosing to exclude yourself.” Translation: Submit or be exiled. This isn’t “science” — it’s medical apartheid, segregating children whose parents dare question the sacred vaccine dogma.

Keep reading

FDA allows distribution of muscular dystrophy drug again after public criticism

After blocking a new muscular dystrophy therapy in order to investigate patient deaths, the Federal Drug Administration reversed course after criticism and restored hope to parents seeking a treatment to aid children affected by the debilitating disease. 

The FDA’s initial decision to freeze distribution of the therapy, marketed as Elevidys, following at least three patient deaths potentially connected to the therapy, stirred criticism from advocates for muscular dystrophy patients and from health policy experts. Added to the mix of criticism about the initial decision were the attacks and defenses of Dr. Vinay Prasad, the agency’s top biologics official, who supported progressive candidates and criticized several of President Trump’s key health policies in the past. 

The company that produced the therapy, Sarepta Therapeutics, initially resisted the freeze, but eventually paused shipments of its innovative product, opening its stocks up to a hammering that threatened to put the company’s future in serious jeopardy. According to financial analytics website companiesmarketcap.com, Sarepta’s market cap fell yesterday to $1.56 billion from $14 billion a year ago. Market capitalization, commonly called market cap, is the total market value of a publicly traded company’s outstanding shares — held by institutional investors and the public at large — and is commonly used to measure how much a company is worth.

The “Right-to-try”

The reversal of the pause aligns with President Donald Trump’s longtime advocacy for the right-to-try. During his first term, the president signed a new law giving terminally ill patients the opportunity to seek new or experimental treatments without obtaining the approval of the FDA, which had been required in the past. 

The FDA demanded on July 18 that Sarepta pull Elevidys from the market and halt all shipments to patients after reports of two deaths connected to the treatment. Elevidys is not an experimental drug, and was approved by the FDA under certain circumstances in 2024. It is a prescription gene therapy designed to treat patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a genetic disorder that leads to the breakdown and decay of muscles over time and mostly impacts male children. 

Despite initially refusing to voluntarily pause shipments of the therapy, Sarepta eventually agreed to a “temporary pause” to allow “the necessary time to respond” to the FDA and to finish the “safety labeling supplement process.” 

The reaction was immediate. After the pause was announced, the Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending the disease by supporting research and advocating for care, criticized the decision. 

“These reports are profoundly upsetting and raise serious concerns for our entire community,” PPMD said in a statement. “Families who have fought tirelessly for access to this therapy, those who have already received it, and those who are in line to receive it are now left with more questions than answers.” 

Keep reading

China: Robot doctors at world’s 1st AI hospital can treat 3,000 a day

The world is making significant inroads into utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) technology to advance functions in various domains, especially healthcare.

We have seen AI technologies helping to advance personalized medicine, predictive analytics, drug discovery and development, smart virtual health assistants, and furthering medical imaging and diagnostics.

Now, a Chinese state media outlet reports that the country has developed its first AI hospital town, a concept in which virtual patients are attended to by AI doctors.

The system, developed by a team at Tsinghua University in Beijing, aims to advance medical consultation by training doctor agents in a simulated environment. The team says this will equip them to evolve independently and enhance their ability to treat diseases.

According to Global Times, researchers claim the model will help further AI doctors’ diagnostic capabilities from the virtual realm to real-world applications and the potential for high-quality, affordable, and convenient healthcare services for the public.

Virtual patient simulation

The Agent Hospital concept enables real doctors to treat virtual patients, offering medical students advanced training opportunities. By simulating a diverse array of AI patients, medical students can confidently devise treatment plans without the risk of harming real patients due to decision-making errors.

In this virtual world, all doctors, nurses, and patients are driven by large language model (LLM)–powered intelligent agents capable of autonomous interaction.

According to Global Times, evolved AI doctor agents in the Agent Hospital have achieved an impressive 93.06 percent accuracy rate on a MedQA dataset (US Medical Licensing Exam questions) covering major respiratory diseases.

These intelligent agents can simulate the entire process of diagnosing and treating patients, from consultation and examination to diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.

According to the team, AI doctors can treat 10,000 patients in just a few days—a task that would take humans at least two years to complete.

The university team points out that AI hospital town can simulate and forecast various medical situations, including the emergence, spread, and containment of infectious diseases within an area.

Keep reading

Antidepressants During Pregnancy Raise Risk of Birth Defects, Doctors Tell FDA

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs to do a better job of warning pregnant women that taking SSRIs, a type of antidepressant, may harm them and their developing baby, doctors told the agency Monday.

The FDA hosted an expert panel of developmental biologists, psychiatrists, epidemiologists, obstetricians and mental health experts who discussed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and pregnancy. The agency livestreamed the two-hour conversation on YouTube and X.

SSRIs have been “implicated in different studies to be involved in postpartum hemorrhage, pulmonary hypertension and cognitive downstream effects in the baby, as well as cardiac birth defects,” said FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who opened the event.

Nearly 1 in 4 middle-aged women and up to 5% of pregnant women are on an antidepressant, Makary said.

“Antidepressants like SSRIs can be an effective treatment for depression, but we have to stop and also look at the big picture,” he said. “The more antidepressants we prescribe, the more depression there is. … We have to start talking about root causes.”

SSRIs in particular warrant scrutiny as serotonin “may play a crucial role in the development of organs of a baby in utero,” he said.

Keep reading