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

The Wearables Trap: How the Government Plans to Monitor, Score, and Control You

Bodily autonomy—the right to privacy and integrity over our own bodies—is rapidly vanishing. The debate now extends beyond forced vaccinations or invasive searches to include biometric surveillance, wearable tracking, and predictive health profiling.

We are entering a new age of algorithmic, authoritarian control, where our thoughts, moods, and biology are monitored and judged by the state.

This is the dark promise behind the newest campaign by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, to push for a future in which all Americans wear biometric health-tracking devices.

Under the guise of public health and personal empowerment, this initiative is nothing less than the normalization of 24/7 bodily surveillance—ushering in a world where every step, heartbeat, and biological fluctuation is monitored not only by private companies but also by the government.

In this emerging surveillance-industrial complex, health data becomes currency. Tech firms profit from hardware and app subscriptions, insurers profit from risk scoring, and government agencies profit from increased compliance and behavioral insight.

This convergence of health, technology, and surveillance is not a new strategy—it’s just the next step in a long, familiar pattern of control.

Surveillance has always arrived dressed as progress.

Every new wave of surveillance technology—GPS trackers, red light cameras, facial recognition, Ring doorbells, Alexa smart speakers—has been sold to us as a tool of convenience, safety, or connection. But in time, each became a mechanism for tracking, monitoring, or controlling the public.

What began as voluntary has become inescapable and mandatory.

Keep reading

Organ donors’ lives endangered by rushed transplant procedures, investigation finds

As a new report claims that premature organ transplants have endangered donors, HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has announced plans for a new initiative to reform the system.

Several families have stated that surgeons attempted to initiate organ retrievals while patients were still alive or improving, as noted in a July 20 report from The New York Times.

Amid a growing push for increased transplants, “a growing number of patients have endured premature or bungled attempts to retrieve their organs,” according to the report, which painted a picture of “rushed decision-making” and organ demand taking priority over donor safety.

In a recent investigation by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), there were more than 70 canceled organ removals in Kentucky alone “that should have been stopped sooner” because the patients showed signs of revival, the report stated.

The problem appears to be linked to an increase in “donation after circulatory death,” which is when the patient has not been declared “brain dead” but is critically ill or injured.

Keep reading

How Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine

I. Introduction

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) is a relatively recent phenomenon. The term itself was not coined until 1991. It began with the best of intentions — to give frontline doctors the tools from clinical epidemiology to make science-based decisions that would improve patient outcomes. But over the last three decades, EBM has been hijacked by the pharmaceutical industry to serve the interests of shareholders rather than patients.

Today, EBM gives preference to epistemologies that favor corporate interests while instructing doctors to ignore other valid forms of knowledge and their own professional experience. This shift disempowers doctors and reduces patients to objects while concentrating power in the hands of pharmaceutical companies. EBM also leaves doctors ill-equipped to respond to the autism epidemic and unable to produce the sorts of paradigm-shifts that would be necessary to address this crisis.

In this article I will:

  • provide a brief history of EBM;
  • explain how evidence hierarchies work;
  • explore ten general and technical criticisms of EBM and evidence hierarchies;
  • examine the American Medical Association’s 2002, 2008, and 2015 evidence hierarchies;
  • highlight the corporate takeover of EBM; and
  • explore the implications of these dynamics for the autism epidemic.

Keep reading