Tag: health care

Uncovering Medical Establishment Dark Secret Operations for Your Health Protection!

Medical establishment is one entity; and remember, you have to identify the real problem to be able to focus your attention on the solution. When seeing the “big picture” in relation to how the medical establishment operates (refer to image), you’ll have a definite vantage point when you would have uncovered its coordinated dark secret operations. 

From your research, the listed harsh realities from what you would have gleaned will serve as a launching point towards finding the solution for your health protection: Remember, the white hat you’re looking for is in the mirror!

The corruption and how it works

The money trails, the corrupt entanglement, dirty dealing, interlocking directorates married into unholy alliances… have been well-documented, but many fail to make the connections between the different cause and effect relationships and how they are affected. 

This can  be  likened  to the analogy of looking at separated pieces of jigsaw puzzle and not having the realization that they are somehow all connected and therefore not carrying out the task of joining up the pieces to see the big picture. 

This is how the corruption still continues and why the villains are allowed to get away with it undetected. 

In order to see how the corruption works, it is necessary to make the interlocking connections so that we can step back and see the ‘big picture’ of what’s really going on and why certain things occur. 

For example, covid was a lie. There was no covid, but it can only be seen as a massive medical fraud for power, profit and political gains when its pieces of the jig-saw puzzle are interlocked and you are able to see the big picture.

Bear in mind, a variation on a theme of the fake disease “script” with all its common-patterns could be ran again by scoundrels wanting to enforce mandates on us, as, for example, in the ongoing push for the global pandemic treaty by the WHO (World Death Organization) which has not been opposed by many countries. 

The sad thing is that Operation Warp Speed has still not been taken down… Don’t call the mRNA shots vaccines because that’s not what they are. They are, in fact, military industrial grade weapons…

After doing your research and seeing the “Big Picture,” refuse the masking, fake tests and so-called vaccinations at all costs.

Keep reading

The Moral Cost of Modern Transplant Medicine

In a time when trust in public health is already hanging by a thread, recent revelations from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have delivered another blow—one that strikes at the very heart of medical ethics. 

“Our findings show that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,” Secretary Kennedy said. “The organ procurement organizations that coordinate access to transplants will be held accountable. The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor’s life is treated with the sanctity it deserves.”

Hidden beneath the surface and quietly ignored by corporate media is a story that should horrify every physician, patient, and policymaker: the commodification of human life in the American transplant system.

The Independent Medical Alliance (IMA), a coalition of physicians dedicated to restoring transparency and patient-centered care, has publicly denounced the findings of a recent HHS report. As President of IMA, I can tell you this: what we’ve uncovered is not a case of benign negligence. It is a deliberate erosion of the most sacred values in medicine—consent, dignity, and the inviolability of the human body.

A System That No Longer Sees the Patient

Organ transplantation is, in theory, one of the great achievements of modern medicine. When practiced ethically and transparently, it has saved countless lives. But like so many institutions corrupted by profit and policy, it has drifted far from its original mission.

In 2024 alone, over 45,000 organ transplants were performed in the United States. That number should inspire hope—but instead, it invites scrutiny. A substantial portion of those organs were harvested under ethically ambiguous conditions, including donation after circulatory death (DCD) and questionable determinations of brain death. The line between patient and donor is blurring—and not in a way that honors either.

Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) are incentivized not by patient outcomes, but by volume. The more organs they harvest, the more funding they receive. Hospitals, too, receive significant reimbursement for transplant procedures, creating a perverse system where terminal patients are seen less as individuals with complex medical stories and more as reservoirs of reusable parts. The New York Times has published a piece that urges standards of death to be liberalized even further. “We need to figure out how to obtain more healthy organs from donors… We need to broaden the definition of death.”

Where Are These Organs Coming From?

The public assumes, understandably, that most organ donors are willing participants—cadaveric donors who’ve signed cards or checked boxes. But the data doesn’t support that rosy picture. A growing percentage of organ procurement comes from patients who are not dead in the traditional sense but are declared brain dead or transitioned to DCD protocols under murky guidelines.

Let’s talk plainly: Who decides when a person is truly dead? And how confident are we, as physicians, that our criteria are airtight?

Keep reading

Comatose woman woke up moments before organ harvesting surgery… but pushy donor boss ‘told doctors to operate anyway’

An organ harvesting organization has faced allegations that it urged doctors to remove body parts from a comatose woman – who went on to make a full recovery after medics insisted she showed signs of life. 

Danella Gallegos said she feels lucky to be alive after her organs were almost taken by ‘pushy’ donor bosses when she fell into a coma in 2022.

Gallegos, who was 38 at the time, was homeless when she suffered an unspecified medical emergency, and doctors at Presbyterian Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico told her family she would never recover. 

Without any hope, her family agreed to donate her organs and preparations were made with procurement organization New Mexico Donor Services. 

In her final days, Gallegos’ family said they saw tears in her eyes – a sign that they say donation coordinators quickly brushed off, claiming watery eyes were just a reflex.

On the day her organs were set to be taken, one of Gallegos’ sisters said she was adamant Danella was still sentient because she saw her move while holding her hand.

Doctors in a pre-surgery room were left stunned when Gallegos, deep in a coma but still medically alive, was able to blink her eyes on the medic’s command.

But the organ coordinator in the room told doctors that they should ply the patient with morphine and move ahead anyway, according to a New York Times report.

Keep reading

Cancer Patient Denied Treatment Because of Her Conservative Christian Views

An Oregon hospital refused a Catholic cancer patient treatment because she voiced her views on “transgenderism.”

The staff at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) disregarded Marlene Barbera’s concerns when she commented on the office’s prominently-displayed “transgender” flag. After she had a disagreement over the phone with a staff member, the clinic dropped her as a patient, informing her in an email:

“Effective immediately, you are discharged from receiving medical care at the Richmond Family Medicine Clinic. This action is being taken because of ongoing disrespectful and hurtful remarks about our LGBTQ community and staff… Please note that you are also now dismissed from all OHSU Family Medicine clinics, including Immediate Care clinics.”

In a message to her doctor last year, Barbera had written this:

I have been threatened on Twitter by trans activists with rape and death — so it is daunting to go for medical treatment with that banner proclaiming that what I am, an adult human female, is a mere opt-in category for any gender non-conforming male and not a reality. May I please have a telephone appointment to discuss how I may access your medical care without walking under a banner that seeks to negate all I am?

Barbera thought the message was private, but it was shared with other staff. When she tried to leave a message for her doctor about her medical situation, the receptionist refused and insisted she make an appointment. When she called back, she was still refused service.

“I asked, guessing ‘Did I hurt the trans person’s feelings?’ And the receptionist took offense to the question, asking ‘What did you say?’ slowly and with great emphasis,” Barbera told Reduxx.

A few weeks later, on June 29, the practice manager, Stein Berger, messaged her to say that she had made “transphobic remarks” that harmed the staff of the “inclusive” clinic. That day, the clinic notified her that she could no longer get care at the clinic, effective July 29.

Keep reading

Dr. Oz exposes the nonprofit lie at the heart of US health care

American health care is a paradox. We spend more than any nation in history — nearly 20% of our GDP — yet our outcomes remain stubbornly mediocre.

New hospitals rise like monuments to excess. Their parking lots fill with luxury cars. Tax dollars pour in from every level of government. Private spending remains sky-high. But while the profits flow, patient satisfaction and results don’t keep pace.

That’s because the system doesn’t reward quality. It rewards short-term financial performance.

Health care costs keep rising faster than inflation. Voters resist higher taxes, so deficits explode. The federal government now routinely runs annual shortfalls exceeding 6% of GDP — even during boom times. Something’s got to give.

Enter Dr. Mehmet Oz. Once a fixture on daytime TV, now head of Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Trump, Oz has zeroed in on the real source of bloat: hospital executives enriching themselves under the guise of nonprofit care.

Oz recently urged Americans to review tax filings and publicly “shame” hospital administrators pulling down massive salaries. He’s right to sound the alarm.

Most hospitals claim nonprofit status — but their leadership rakes in pay packages in the tens of millions, complete with bonuses, stock perks, and golden parachutes. Those compensation schemes only make sense because the IRS grants nonprofits huge tax breaks. And the standards for maintaining that status? Laughably weak.

As a result, the federal government forfeits tens of billions of dollars annually — revenue that could support real health care reform or reduce the deficit.

Consider Nazareth Hospital in Philadelphia. It belongs to Trinity Health Mid-Atlantic, a large nonprofit chain. Trinity’s CEO earns over $1.4 million a year. Yet, Nazareth carries a dismal one-star Medicare rating, charges high prices, and provides very little charity care. Despite funneling more than $160 million annually through its doors, it contributes almost nothing in taxes — while local, state, and federal governments foot the bill for many of its patients.

It’s a rigged system: Taxpayers pay, executives profit, and patients suffer.

Keep reading

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