Tag: health care

American College of Pediatricians Blasts All Major Medical Associations for Pushing Radical Gender Transition Agenda on Children

In a bold defiance of mainstream medical tyranny, the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) has delivered a blistering condemnation of America’s leading medical institutions.

This coalition of healthcare professionals launched the “Doctors Protecting Children Declaration” on Thursday at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

This declaration, which is spearheaded by Dr. Jill Simons, Executive Director of the American College of Pediatricians, is an urgent plea to halt the radical gender transition protocols being imposed on vulnerable children.

The coalition, which includes a diverse group of physicians, nurses, behavioral health clinicians, and scientists, has raised the alarm about the severe physical and mental health risks associated with so-called “gender-affirming” care.

“We have serious concerns about the physical and mental health effects of the current protocols promoted for the care of children and adolescents in the United States who express discomfort with their biological sex,” said Dr. Simons during the press conference.

“This declaration was authored by the American College of Pediatricians, but really it was developed from the expertise of hundreds of doctors, researchers, and other health care workers and leaders who, for years, have been sounding the alarm on the harmful protocols that continue to be promoted by the medical organizations in the United States. Despite recent revelations from the leaked WPATH Files and the recent release of the final report from the Cass Review, these medical organizations have not changed course.”

Dr. Simons specifically named each of the major medical associations, criticizing them for promoting the gender transition agenda among vulnerable children.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rules That US Government Must Cover Native American Health Care

The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 on June 6 that the federal government will have to cover Indian tribes’ costs incurred in operating tribal health care programs.

The majority opinion in Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe and Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by all three liberal justices and one conservative.

U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra was the petitioner in both cases. He appealed unfavorable rulings by lower courts.

The respondent, the San Carlos Apache Indian Tribe, is based in Arizona. The other respondent, the Northern Arapaho Tribe, is based in Wyoming.

The ruling means the U.S. government will have to pay for overhead costs related to health care that the tribes provide under a federal law intended to give Native Americans greater control.

“Aside from being inconsistent with the statute’s text, [the government’s] failure to cover contract support costs for healthcare funded by program income inflicts a penalty on tribes for opting in favor of greater self-determination,” the majority opinion states.

Keep reading

“On Hospital and Nursing Home Death Protocols”

For our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, I interviewed several people who’d lost a family member after he or she was admitted to hospital with severe COVID-19 symptoms.

The typical scenario they described was that the family member had started off with mild flu-like symptoms that worsened around day 7 or 8 ,with steadily increasing difficulty in breathing. At the time, many were completely unaware of even the possibility of early treatment because their primary doctors mentioned nothing about it. And so, with panic setting in or with a blood oxygen level below 90, the decision was made to admit the family member to hospital.

Though the witnesses I interviewed were from all over the country, their experiences with hospitals were all the same—namely, no treatment was offered to their sick family members apart from supplemental oxygen, Remdesivir, and then intubation and ventilation, ultimately resulting in death.

Several witnesses heard about treatment modalities such as methylprednisolone, ivermectin, and anti-coagulants only after their family members were languishing in hospital. To their astonishment, hospital doctors steadfastly refused to administer these drugs to their dying family members, and hospital administrators even fought court orders to do so.

After hearing several of these stories, I began to suspect what initially seemed unthinkable, but increasingly struck me as that only plausible explanation for the conduct of these hospitalists—namely, that they had, for some dreadful reason, agreed to play along with a systematic euthanasia program.

My suspicion grew when I interviewed witnesses who told me of smuggling ivermectin into hospital rooms and clandestinely giving it to their family members, some of whom then quickly improved. One woman told me a terrifying story of receiving a call from an angry doctor who was dumbfounded by her husband’s recovery, as it was apparently incongruous with the usual inexorable demise he had observed in other patients.

“The doctor suspected I’d given my husband something and he angrily demanded to know what it was,” the woman related. “He said he wanted to know if it was a prescription drug and which pharmacy had prescribed it. It was like he wanted to get the pharmacist into trouble.”

I was reminded of these stories this afternoon when I read a post by fellow Substack author, Katharine Watt, in which she argues that nihilistic hospital protocols were not only the result of stupidity, groupthink, and perverse financial incentives provided for by the PREP and CARES Acts.

Keep reading

“I Was Offered Assisted Dying Over Cancer Treatment”: Broken Canadian Healthcare System Is Killing Patients

Two years ago, over the Thanksgiving holiday, Allison Ducluzeau started to feel pain in her stomach. At first, she assumed she had eaten too much turkey, but the pain persisted. A couple of weeks later, she saw her family doctor who requested CT scans, although none were sorted. Soon after, as the agony worsened, her partner insisted she went to the emergency unit at their local hospital on Vancouver Island. Finally, doctors confirmed the couple’s worst fears: she was almost certainly suffering from advanced abdominal cancer.

Allison, then 56, later learned that she had stage 4 peritoneal carcinomatosis, an aggressive condition. By the time she saw a specialist early last year, he warned that she might only live a few months longer: chemotherapy tended to be ineffective for her cancer, buying a bit more time at best, and she was inoperable. Instead, she was told to go home, sort out her papers, and decide if she wanted medical assistance in dying.

Unsurprisingly, Allison was devastated. “I could barely breathe — I went in there hoping to come out with a treatment plan but was just told to get my will in order.” That night was the worst of her life as she broke the shattering news to her son and daughter at her home in Victoria. “I told them I might only live for another two months,” she recalled. “If I’d not had my children, I might have accepted MAID [medical assistance in dying] — but when I saw the effect on them, having just been through the deaths of my own parents, it made me dig really deep.”

So, determined to find help, she researched her condition, spoke to doctors as far away as Taiwan, flew to California for scans and eventually travelled to Baltimore for treatment. She had discovered that patients could be given debulking surgery to reduce their cancer, followed by targeted use of heated chemotherapy — yet back in Canada, she could not get even an initial telephone chat with a surgeon who performed such operations for two months. Aided by her tight circle of friends and relatives, she raised almost half the $200,000 cost for the operation by crowdfunding. By the time she managed to see an oncologist in her home province of British Columbia, she was already on the road to recovery.

Today, Allison is in remission. She lifts weights daily, and goes running and cycling. She recently married her partner on a beach in Hawaii in front of her children. But she remains infuriated that Canadian doctors offered to kill rather than treat her. “The way it was presented was shocking,” she told me. “I was disgusted to be offered MAID twice. Once I was even on the phone, when I was on my own having just come back from Baltimore. It left me sobbing.”

As the debate over assisted dying heats up in Britain, with Keir Starmer promising a free vote on the matter if he wins the general election, and with politicians in Jersey approving plans for its use only last week, we should take notice of Allison’s case. For she does not share the ethical or religious concerns held by many opponents of euthanasia. Nor does she oppose Canada’s 2016 MAID reform; she agreed with her father five years later that it was an “appropriate” option for his intensifying pain after many years of prostate cancer.

But she has deep worries about assisted dying being offered by doctors in a health system that is floundering — especially with inadequate and overwhelmed oncology services when cancer patients comprise almost two-thirds of the soaring numbers of citizens opting for MAID. “We do not have a good standard of care here, especially for cancer — and that is why it is so dangerous to have MAID, especially when it can be used to take a bit of pressure off physicians and the government.” She knows of three other cancer patients whose families fear they died needlessly — including the person whose home she bought after downsizing to pay her medical bills in the US.

Allison’s very existence challenges those who argue that Britain — with its flailing health and social care systems, shamefully long waiting lists and historically poor cancer survival rates — should rush headlong into legalisation of assisted death. So, what would she tell those advocating for the reform? “I would tell Britain to only accept assisted dying when the health service is fixed — otherwise it is a very dangerous step to take. We deserve decent and timely care rather than offers of faster death.”

“I would tell Britain to only accept assisted dying when the health service is fixed.”

Keep reading

Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act Screws Seniors with the Biggest Medicare Premium Increase Ever

One of the classic strategies in the Obama/Biden playbook is policy that sounds good in the short-term, but whose long-term consequences won’t be felt until after an election. That way if Democrats win, they’re insulated from voters holding them accountable; but if they lose, they can blame Republicans when things go south.

This was undoubtedly one of the plays the Biden administration had in mind for the gallingly misnamed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). But this disastrous legislation hasn’t just sabotaged Americans’ wallets, it’s sabotaged their health as well.

Snuck into the IRA was a poorly drafted provision that attempted to lower out-of-pocket expenses on prescription drugs. The IRA lowers the out-of-pocket maximum for seniors from about $3,300 to $2,000 by shifting the responsibility for the $1,300 difference to insurance companies. To no one’s surprise, the insurance companies pass that cost to consumers in the form of higher premiums and restricted access to prescription drugs.

This year, premiums for Medicare Part D are up more than 20 percent for the more than 50 million Americans enrolled. In 2025, they could increase again by more than 50 percent! We hope people are paying close enough attention during open enrollment in October to compare this price spike as President Biden campaigns on how he “fought Big Pharma to lower drug costs!”

The brilliant design of the Medicare Part D program 20 years ago was harnessing competition. Deploying the free-market principle that competition leads to lower prices, Part D allowed private insurance plans to compete for Medicare dollars to keep costs low and save seniors money.

Keep reading

Chemotherapy kills cancer patients faster than no treatment at all

Wishful thinking simply won’t deter from the fact that the cancer industry is just that: an industry. Doctors, drug companies, hospitals and other key stakeholders profit heavily each time a cancer patient submits to the conventional treatment model, which typically involves injecting chemotherapy poisons into the body, blasting it with ionizing radiation or cutting off body parts — or some barbaric combination of all three.

It might rub some people the wrong way to state this, especially those who’ve had to watch a loved one die from conventional cancer treatment, but each of these supposed treatments don’t actually work, in many cases. Little-known science, which the medical-industrial complex has made it a practice to ignore or cover up, reveals that, despite what the medical industry often claims, chemotherapy in particular just isn’t an effective cancer treatment.

Dr. Hardin B. Jones, a former professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California, Berkeley, had been studying the lifespans of cancer patients for more than 25 years when he came to the conclusion that, despite popular belief, chemotherapy doesn’t work. He witnessed a multitude of cancer patients treated with the poison die horrific deaths, many of them meeting their fate much earlier than other patients who chose no treatment at all.

After investigating this further, Dr. Jones found that cancer patients who underwent chemotherapy actually died more quickly, in most cases, than those who followed their doctors’ recommendations by getting the treatment. A few number-crunching efforts later and Dr. Jones exposed a fact that the conventional cancer industry doesn’t want the world to know about its multi-billion-dollar cash cow.

“People who refused treatment lived for an average of 12 and a half years,” stated Dr. Jones about his study’s findings, which were published in the journal Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences. “Those who accepted other kinds of treatment lived on an average of only 3 years.”

Keep reading

Atlanta Could Add Psilocybin And Ketamine To City Workers’ Healthcare Plans Under Pending Resolution

A new proposal from an Atlanta City Council member would direct municipal officials to explore the pros and cons of adding coverage for psilocybin and ketamine as mental health treatments to the city’s healthcare plan for firefighters, police and other government workers.

“Traditional treatments for mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety, PTSD, and others have shown limited effectiveness for some individuals, leading to a need for exploring alternative therapeutic options,” the legislation, which is currently being sponsored by 11 of the Council’s 16 members, states. “Recent research has demonstrated the potential efficacy of alternative therapies such as ketamine-assisted therapy and psilocybin-assisted therapy in treating various mental health conditions, offering promising results where other treatments have failed.”

The resolution’s lead sponsor, Councilmember Liliana Bakhtiari, has said city workers deserve access to a broad range of mental health services.

“We should be offering our employees—and especially our first responders, who are expected to be superhuman—the same amount of grace and providing them with a tool set to essentially overcome this issue,” The lawmaker recently told Axios.

Bakhtiari said the impetus for including the drugs on public employees’ health plans was meeting a West Virginia police officer who witnessed a fellow officer die of suicide and later used ketamine to treat his PTSD. The lawmaker said they’re not aware of any other city governments that have looked into covering psilocybin or ketamine treatment.

The resolution from Bakhtiari would request the Atlanta’s human resources department to “explore the feasibility of adding coverage for ketamine therapy, psilocybin therapy, and other alternative therapies for mental illness in the City’s employee benefits contract during its next round of negotiations.”

Keep reading

‘A Failed Medical School’: How Racial Preferences, Supposedly Outlawed in California, Have Persisted at UCLA

Long considered one of the best medical schools in the world, the University of California, Los Angeles’s David Geffen School of Medicine receives as many as 14,000 applications a year. Of those, it accepted just 173 students in the 2023 admissions cycle, a record-low acceptance rate of 1.3 percent. The median matriculant took difficult science courses in college, earned a 3.8 GPA, and scored in the 88th percentile on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT).

Without those stellar stats, some doctors at the school say, students can struggle to keep pace with the demanding curriculum.

So when it came time for the admissions committee to consider one such student in November 2021—a black applicant with grades and test scores far below the UCLA average—some members of the committee felt that this particular candidate, based on the available evidence, was not the best fit for the top-tier medical school, according to two people present for the committee’s meeting.

Their reservations were not well-received.

When an admissions officer voiced concern about the candidate, the two people said, the dean of admissions, Jennifer Lucero, exploded in anger.

“Did you not know African-American women are dying at a higher rate than everybody else?” Lucero asked the admissions officer, these people said. The candidate’s scores shouldn’t matter, she continued,  because “we need people like this in the medical school.”

Even before the Supreme Court’s landmark affirmative action ban last year, public schools in California were barred by state law from considering race in admissions. The outburst from Lucero, who discussed race explicitly despite that ban, unsettled some admissions officers, one of whom reached out to other committee members in the wake of the incident. “We are not consistent in the way we apply the metrics to these applicants,” the official wrote in an email obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. “This is troubling.”

“I wondered,” the official added, “if this applicant had been [a] white male, or [an] Asian female for that matter, [whether] we would have had that much discussion.”

Since Lucero took over medical school admissions in June 2020, several of her colleagues have asked the same question. In interviews with the Free Beacon and complaints to UCLA officials, including investigators in the university’s Discrimination Prevention Office, faculty members with firsthand knowledge of the admissions process say it has prioritized diversity over merit, resulting in progressively less qualified classes that are now struggling to succeed.

Race-based admissions have turned UCLA into a “failed medical school,” said one former member of the admissions staff. “We want racial diversity so badly, we’re willing to cut corners to get it.”

This story is based on written correspondence between UCLA officials, internal data on student performance, and interviews with eight professors at the medical school—six of whom have worked with or under Lucero on medical student and residency admissions.

Together, they provide an unprecedented account of how racial preferences, outlawed in California since 1996, have nonetheless continued, upending academic standards at one of the top medical schools in the country. The school has consequently taken a hit in the rankings and seen a sharp rise in the number of students failing basic standardized tests, raising concerns about their clinical competence.

“I have students on their rotation who don’t know anything,” a member of the admissions committee told the Free Beacon. “People get in and they struggle.”

Keep reading

Childhood Vaccine Schedule Led to ‘Greatest Decline in Public Health in Human History’

A U.S. Senate roundtable discussion, hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson, tackled a taboo topic — why public health agencies have not studied the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children — and have refused to make data on the topic available to the public.1

“They do not publish the results [or] let any independent scientist in to look at that information,” Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, said. “They refuse to publish the results and they really know why. It’s because the bloated vaccination schedule is responsible and is, I would say, in part responsible for the epidemic of chronic disorders that we see in children in the U.S.”2

In 1962, children received just five vaccine doses. As of 2023, children up to age 18 receive 73 doses of 16 different vaccines. The cumulative effects of this childhood vaccine schedule have never been tested.

Keep reading

The Dam Is Breaking on Medical Trafficking Evidence – The Blood Was Contaminated

For the last four years, global citizens have been forced, coerced, defrauded and lied to about the COVID-19 vascular, neurological and severe cardio injuries, but this month, the damn has broken further about the endless greed associated with medical corruption about who knew what when it comes to medical trafficking and known medical corruption for decades. 

It should be a massive wake-up call for those who are in denial that governments, the medical industry, and PHARMA are incapable of lying to the public and citizens should just believe in the medical divinity of those in white coats. 

This week in the UK a cataclysmic story broke when the UK Inquiry on Blood Contamination released its findings. It is a stunning story about people in the know keeping their mouths shut and going about their jobs selling, profiting and administering blood transfusions since the 1970s to innocent human beings in dire need that resulted in Hep C to HIV and other diseases, and resulted in horrific deaths that affected loved ones and family caretakers. 

The 2,000-plus page report was released on Monday. The summary alone is devastating blow to humanity and has brought shame upon the UK bureaucrats elected to protect their citizens via regulatory agencies and the medical industry’s lack of ethical standards. 

In the 1970s, the UK was in need of blood and imported it – some from the U.S. The blood was sold and known to be contaminated by some in the know, who chose to remain silent. 

By the mid-1970s, there were repeated warnings that imported US Factor VIII carried greater risk of infection and the UK’s NHS continued to use foreign supplies. For a summary of the findings, as reported by Sky News watch this short report. 

Sir Brian Langstaff, a former High Court Judge, led the inquiry since 2017 across the U.K. He stated that thousands of patients were admitted to hospitals and ended up with “life shattering” medical complications. 

His announcement of the findings publicly can be watched here.

Keep reading