Tag: health care

If You Want to Live, Stop Trusting the FDA, CDC, Corporate Media, and Jab-Pushing Doctors

If You Want to Live, You Have to Think For Yourself

I recently posted a flippant comment about not trusting the judgment of people who took the COVID jabs. The backlash was immediate and furious, and it only confirmed what I’ve known for years: too many people have outsourced their thinking to authorities who lie to them for a living.

The anger proves my point. When you confront people with evidence that their trusted institutions deceived them, they don’t want to hear it. They’d rather defend the authority that misled them than admit they were used as guinea pigs in a mass medical experiment. That’s not stubbornness; it’s deep psychological conditioning.

I make one exception: the active-duty military personnel who were physically coerced into taking the shots. The United States Coast Guard members who filed a class-action lawsuit against the Biden administration over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate were victims of medical assault, not naive volunteers. [1] Their “choice” was discharge, career destruction, and public humiliation. I have nothing but respect for the people who fought back.

The ‘I Trusted My Doctor’ Excuse Is Not a Defense

The most common justification I heard from angry commenters was some variation of “I trusted my doctor, the FDA, the CDC, the media, Fauci.” And that is exactly the problem. Your doctor was not the one who authorized an experimental gene therapy with zero long-term safety data. Your doctor was just the final delivery mechanism for a system that had already abandoned real science.

The Biden administration pressured the FDA to “change its procedures, cut corners, and lower agency standards” to approve Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines, according to a congressional report. [2] Emergency use authorization was never meant to bypass the entire clinical trial process, yet that is precisely what happened. Experts said that properly analyzing millions of pages of individual participant data would have required at least six months, so they skipped it entirely. [3]

Pfizer’s own whistleblower, Brook Jackson, testified that trial data were falsified, patients were unblinded, poorly trained personnel administered injections, and follow-up on reported side effects was significantly delayed. [4] Anyone with internet access could have found all of this information in real time from independent voices. Ignorance was a choice, and for too many people, it was a fatal one.

Keep reading

Children’s Hospitals To Begin Offering Restorative Care For Detransitioners

When Texas Children’s Hospital’s “detransition clinic” opens in Houston, it will become the first facility of its kind, giving patients who regret life-altering procedures a chance at restorative care.

The facility, which has yet to announce an opening date, is part of an agreement with state and federal authorities to halt “gender-affirming care” at children’s hospitals while offering help to those who transitioned medically.

A 10-page settlement term sheet, recently obtained by The Epoch Times through an open records request to the Texas attorney general’s office, showed that services at the clinic will focus on multidisciplinary care.

Services are to include endocrinology, surgery, fertility counseling, psychiatry, psychotherapy, and speech pathology, among others.

In May and June, the Department of Justice (DOJ), along with the attorneys general of Texas and Ohio, secured settlements with large hospitals over allegations of fraudulent insurance billing practices related to “gender-affirming care” for children.

The hospitals denied wrongdoing in their billing practices or standards of care.

These agreements require the hospitals not only to cease transitioning procedures, but also to offer discounted or free restorative medical care to detransitioners.

Attorneys representing detransitioners and their clients praised the efforts of the DOJ and the states to assist those suffering from the consequences of life-altering medical changes.

Detransitioners are those who stopped or reversed a medical gender transition they started earlier in life.

Keep reading

How Obamacare Pushes Big Pharma To Overcharge You For Prescriptions

As if our health care “system” wasn’t already complicated enough, here’s example No. 9,572.

I spent the better part of one year trying to ask a prescription drug provider one simple question about my prescription. Even as someone who works in health policy and with advocates on my behalf, I kept getting the run-around.

Unfortunately, as I found out firsthand, big conglomerates — in this case, CVS Health — make profits by keeping the system complicated, bureaucratic, and opaque. But (eventually) I found out there’s a simple solution: returning to good, old-fashioned cash transactions.

Mail Order Madness

The saga started last summer, when my physician prescribed a maintenance medication to prevent a recurrence of kidney stones. My doctor sent a prescription to CVS Caremark, requesting a 90-day mail-order supply of the drug. CVS is the pharmaceutical benefits manager (PBM) that administers my prescription.

When it arrived, I received the following note:

We filled your prescription with a smaller quantity than what your doctor prescribed. Your prescription plan has limits on the amount of your medication it will cover. We filled your prescription according to these limits. [Emphasis original.]

For the better part of 12 months, I communicated with CVS staff, trying to figure out the reasons for this decision. I also asked a representative from the District of Columbia’s Office of Health Care Ombudsman to investigate on my behalf. Every time my physician prescribed a 90-day supply of this medication, CVS Caremark sent me a 30-day supply of the drug, along with the same note described above.

A few weeks ago, I finally spoke with a CVS representative who could tell me the reason. While my prescription plan covered the drug, it did not cover it as a maintenance medication. This explained why CVS Caremark kept lowering the medicine supplied from 90- to 30-day supplies.

The representative informed me I could use an exceptions process, through which my physician could send a form to CareFirst (my insurer) providing clinical justification to use the drug for maintenance purposes. If approved by CareFirst, then CVS Caremark would honor the 90-day prescription, and provide me with a three-month supply of the drug going forward.

This annoyed me, because I had mentioned the exceptions process (which I know about from working in health policy) while speaking to CVS personnel last summer. That individual never provided me the information I had asked for, which could have saved me months of hassle.

I contacted CVS’ corporate office to ask two simple questions: why did the notices I received refer to “your prescription plan” — a wording that seems deliberately vague as to whether my insurer (CareFirst) or the PBM (CVS Caremark) made the coverage decision; and why didn’t those notices also include specific, written instructions on how request an appeal or exception for longer-term coverage of the drug?

CVS’s communications team sent back this response:

CareFirst is the plan sponsor, and CVS Caremark helps support the administration of the plan’s pharmacy benefit. This CareFirst plan relies on an expert third-party vendor, Medispan, to determine which medications are considered maintenance drugs versus acute. Because Medispan lists potassium citrate as a non-maintenance drug, it is subject to the CareFirst plan’s non-maintenance day supply limit of 30 pills. Members have access to an exceptions process, which is administered directly by CareFirst.

This response didn’t answer my questions about notice wordings. In fact, it suggests that a heretofore undisclosed third party (Medispan) made the decision that limited my prescription. Given CVS’s non-answer, a cynic would suggest the obvious yet unstated reason the notice omitted information about filing an appeal or exceptions request: If people knew about an exceptions process, they might use it.

Keep reading

Christian Physician Assistant Fired for Resisting Transgender Dogma Gets $410,000 Lawsuit Settlement

A Michigan physician assistant (PA) who alleged she was fired after refusing to comply with hospital transgender policies because of her religious beliefs is receiving a $410,000 settlement in her wrongful termination lawsuit.

Valerie Kloosterman sued University of Michigan Health-West (UMHW) filed suit in 2022 after she was fired in August 2021, alleging the 200-bed suburban Grand Rapids teaching hospital was requiring her to go against her conscience as a Christian.

“All I wanted to do was provide the best care possible to my patients without being forced to violate my Christian beliefs,” Kloosterman said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

She was represented in the lawsuit by First Liberty Institute, which documented that Kloosterman had “received positive performance reviews throughout her employment before raising faith-based objections to mandatory gender identity training,” the news outlet reported.

The legal advocacy nonprofit reported she was terminated after requesting a religious accommodation from finishing training that “required her to affirm statements about gender identity that were in violation of her Christian faith.”

No effort was made to accommodate her, according to the institute which takes on civil rights cases to “reclaim religious freedom in America.”

According to Fox Digital’s report:

The lawsuit says University of Michigan Health-West officials called her to a meeting, where they disparaged her religious beliefs, called her “evil” and a “liar,” told her she could not bring her Christian beliefs into the workplace, and accused her of contributing to suicides among individuals with gender dysphoria.

The settlement also calls on the hospital to prevent such punitive behavior from happening again.

Under its terms, UMHW has agreed to formulate a religious accommodation policy that complies with the law, inform and train all employees, and give reasonable religious accommodations without retribution to those who request it, the institute said.

“This new policy ensures that providers of faith and employees at UMHW will receive religious accommodations so that they can provide excellent care consistent with their medical judgment, because all patients are created in the image of God,” Kloosterman said in her statement to Fox News Digital.

The PA’s lawsuit was not a frivolous pursuit, her attorney said, but based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on several characteristics, including race and religion.

“Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against and punishing employees for their faith,” Kayla Toney, counsel at First Liberty, said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital.

She continued, “Valerie is an exceptional physician assistant who cares for each of her patients. Employers cannot drive out people like Valerie just because of their sincere religious beliefs. We are grateful to have resolved this matter with University of Michigan Health-West.”

Keep reading

Chaos Agent: Anthony Fauci Represents A System That Needs To Be Cleansed

I think nothing enrages Americans more than a lack of accountability from government officials. Yes, it happens often, and the public hasn’t taken up torches and pitchforks (yet), but I would point out that these incidents are cumulative and they light a growing fire within the collective memory. Eventually, people are going to snap if they don’t see action taken to rectify past wrongs.

This week, Dr. Anthony Fauci faced a flurry of questions from the Senate Homeland Security Committee over his handling of the covid response as well as his involvement in the gain of function research which likely led to the creation of the viral variant that spread around the world and nearly triggered a permanent Orwellian police state.

Fauci pleaded the Fifth over 100 times.  It’s not a sign of confidence in his own innocence.

He knows he’s untouchable legally, but I think what the man fears most is public judgment, and he’s not going to offer any confirmation that conservatives and the alternative media were right about him all along.  Unfortunately, even with substantial evidence, there is very little that any congressional committee or even the Trump Administration can do about him.

Fauci is well protected, and not just by the sweeping pardon “signed” by Joe Biden which covers the Doctor back to 2014. No, Fauci is also protected by the system – The bureaucracy and the globalist network of which he is a member.  Fauci is a chaos agent and he served his purpose well. They’re not going to let him face punishment.  If they did, then they might find it harder to procure the cooperation and loyalty of other bureaucrats in future schemes.

Keep reading

Nutcase James Talarico Tries to Suggest the Bible Requires the Passage of a Government-Run Healthcare System

During a recent campaign event, Texas Democrat senate candidate James Talarico used the Bible to justify the idea of a government-run healthcare system.

This is what Talarico always does. He uses Christianity to justify left wing political policy. It’s the only time he ever discusses his faith.

You will also notice that when talking about this plan, he says that they must finish what Obama started, which is an admission that Obamacare was meant to be a Trojan Horse for government-run healthcare.

Breitbart News reports:

Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico said Scripture requires the government to guarantee health coverage, telling a Texas church crowd that the New Testament makes a public health insurance option a Christian obligation.

Talarico made the argument at a town hall he held at a DeSoto church on July 20, footage of which his campaign posted Saturday under the title “James Talarico Unveils Plan For Black Voters.” The Austin Democrat argued the country should “finish the work of President Obama” and pass a public option, then grounded the pitch in the Gospels.

“Because health care is a human right. It is not a privilege,” Talarico said.

Talarico told the crowd he wanted to speak scripturally, given the setting, and pointed to how Jesus spent his ministry.

“If you read our scriptures, if you read the New Testament, what does Jesus spend most of his time doing? It’s not preaching, it’s not teaching, it is healing. Healing the sick,” Talarico said. “And in Matthew 25, scripture says that’s how we will be judged and how we will be saved. By healing the sick, by feeding the hungry, by welcoming the stranger, by visiting the prisoner.”

Keep reading

Canada: The Illusion Of Free Healthcare

With the rise in popularity of the Democratic Socialist movement in the United States, one of the promises made to voters is “free healthcare.” Advocates frame healthcare as a human right, pointing north to Canada as the example of universal coverage.

The slogan is simple, powerful, and politically effective: Canadians enjoy free healthcare. The belief that Canadian healthcare is free stems from the fact that Canadians do not pay at the point of service. Yet the question remains: Is it truly free, and what does “free” actually mean?

Anyone applying basic logic and common sense quickly realizes that a system as complex as healthcare, involving doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment, pharmaceuticals, and administrators, cannot exist without someone paying for it. The real question is not whether money is paid, but how it is collected, who controls it, and how the system functions behind the scenes.

Canada’s healthcare system is often described as universal, equitable, and accessible. But beneath the surface lies a prepaid tax‑funded model controlled almost entirely by government. The mechanics of this system are not widely understood by the average Canadian consumer, largely because the costs are hidden within layers of taxation rather than presented as a monthly insurance premium or deductible.

In Canada, healthcare funding flows through a combination of federal transfers (CHT), provincial taxes, employer payroll taxes, and individual income‑based health premiums. These mechanisms create the illusion of “free” care because the consumer never sees a bill at the doctor’s office. Instead, the costs are embedded in the tax structure, quietly deducted long before the patient ever steps into a clinic.

One of the most significant components of Canadian healthcare funding is the Employer Health Tax (EHT)—a payroll tax applied to businesses based on total compensation paid to employees. In provinces such as Manitoba and Quebec, this tax can reach over four percent of payroll.

While the tax is levied on employers, its economic burden does not remain there. Businesses inevitably pass these costs on to consumers through higher prices, reduced wages, or slower hiring. Canadians may not see a healthcare bill, but they pay for healthcare every time they buy groceries, fill their gas tank, or purchase consumer goods whose prices have quietly risen to absorb payroll taxes.

Beyond employer taxes, individual Canadians also contribute directly through provincial health premiums and income‑based surcharges. Ontario, for example, includes a “Health Premium” on its tax return that can reach up to $900 per year depending on income. Other provinces embed healthcare funding within general income tax brackets, meaning a portion of every paycheck is siphoned into the healthcare system without explicit labeling.

This is why many Canadians believe they pay nothing for healthcare—because the payment is hidden inside broader taxation rather than itemized as a healthcare expense. In reality, most middle‑income Canadians contribute between $400 and $800 annually through these mechanisms, in addition to the indirect costs they incur due to higher consumer prices.

Keep reading

EVIL: America Federation of Teachers Passes Resolution Supporting ‘Gender-Affirming’ Care, Vows Legal Challenges to Trump Policies

In the latest assault on family values Campus Reform is reporting “The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the nation’s second-largest teachers union representing approximately 1.8 million members, adopted a resolution on July 19 supporting access to “gender-affirming care” across “all stages of life” and pledging to challenge Trump administration healthcare policies through litigation.”

This is an insult to the American public, who rejected these policies at the polls by voting for President Trump.

The resolution that this teachers’ union supported is called “Protecting Medical Research, Healthcare Access and Health Equity for LGBTQIA+ Communities.” Unfortunately, this means life-altering surgery for young people.

“The resolution was adopted as the Trump administration has moved to restrict “gender transition” procedures for minors. ”

This is Randi Weingarten’s teachers’ union, someone who has sadly been at the forefront of Woke in education.

She is known for her anti-Trump and left-wing activism. She became famous for her left-wing ideology during COVID.

President Trump was elected in part as a rejection of Wokeness by the American people.

Keep reading

What Fauci’s Diary Reveals About America’s Health Care Apparatus

Yesterday, a rather contentious hearing occurred where Fauci was subpoenaed by the Senate to testify over what happened during COVID, which was immediately preceded by the private diaries (which HHS Secretary RFK Jr. team found sequestered on government HHS servers) being released to the public.

The hearing (after opening statements), began with Fauci giving a statement claiming he had been a dutiful servant helping the government for decades, that he was facing a malicious prosecution that put science itself at risk, and that he would be invoking his 5th amendment rights. Following this, Democrat members of the committee repeated this message, while Republican senators gave scathing criticisms of his conduct throughout the pandemic (eclipsing everything we’ve seen thus far), and Fauci, over a hundred times, in response to each question stating:

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

While the focus of this hearing was largely directed at the scathing statements made toward Fauci (and his refusal to respond to or even acknowledge them), it was also apparent that many of the questions were designed to set up a future prosecution, and that Fauci’s allies gave speeches but never asked him a single question. This suggests the primary focus of both sides was executing a legal strategy each had worked out beforehand.

Note: there are widespread questions about the legitimacy of Fauci’s presidential pardon, which covers all of his federal actions between 1/1/2014 and 1/19/2025, given existing legal precedent that a pardon can negate one’s ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. Multiple Republican senators pressed this contradiction (that Fauci either does not have a valid pardon or is willfully committing contempt) and it will likely be an issue that plays out in the courts, especially if the committee votes to hold him in contempt.

Given all of this, there were a few noteworthy things about the hearing and Fauci’s diary I felt merited discussion.

Keep reading

The bone density fraud: How a flawed test and toxic drugs created a multi-billion dollar medical myth

The medical screening that labels healthy aging as disease

A 65-year-old woman learns from a DEXA scan that her T-score is -2.3, labeling her osteopenic. She leaves with a bisphosphonate prescription, told it will strengthen her bones. What she won’t hear: her bone density is normal for her age. The T-score system was never meant for clinical diagnosis. And the drug—originally developed to soften water in orange grove irrigation systems—works by poisoning the cells that keep bones resilient.

How normal aging became a disease

In 1994, a WHO study group proposed diagnosing osteoporosis at 2.5 standard deviations below a healthy 30-year-old’s bone density, calling the cutoffs “somewhat arbitrary.” These criteria were intended only for research. But the meeting was funded by Rorer Foundation, Sandoz and SmithKline Beecham—companies that would profit immensely from turning aging into a treatable condition. Today, 52% of white women over 50 qualify as osteopenic, and 28% as osteoporotic. Only 20% have “normal” bones.

The toxic history of bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates were first used to prevent calcium scale in irrigation pipes. They work by poisoning osteoclasts, the cells that break down old bone. After three to five years, bone density rises, but the bone is brittle—old, weak tissue accumulates beneath new growth. Fracture rates often increase. Side effects include intestinal perforation, liver and kidney damage, atrial fibrillation, spontaneous fractures and irreversible jawbone degeneration. The FDA warns of severe bone, joint and muscle pain that may never resolve.

What the data actually shows

The T-score does not predict fractures. A 2019 study of 3,700 adults found that only 16% of fractures in women and 15% in men were linked to low bone density. Nearly 73% of women and 94% of men who broke a bone had normal scans. In 1996, the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment concluded that bone density cannot identify fracture risk and recommended against screening. Yet 18 million Americans carry an osteopenia diagnosis. A 2014 study found that repeating DEXA scans after the first provided no useful information over eight years.

The real causes of bone loss

Bone health requires more than calcium. Weight-bearing exercise signals the body to maintain bone. Astronauts lose up to 10% of bone density in six months. Acid-blocking drugs (PPIs) increase hip fracture risk by 26%. Fluoride in water produces structurally inferior bone. Environmental toxins like BPA, lead and mercury inhibit bone formation. Even soda consumption raises fracture risk.

The safe path to strong bones

Magnesium activates vitamin D for calcium absorption; deficiency itself is a risk factor. Vitamin D with K2 increases bone strength and reduces fractures. Vitamin C supports bone formation at the genetic level. Strength training produces bone that bends rather than breaks—unlike bisphosphonates, which increase density at the cost of quality.

Reclaiming bone health from the marketing machine

The current osteoporosis approach is a marketing triumph. A drug designed for irrigation pipes became standard treatment. The T-score, known for decades to fail at predicting fractures, still drives overdiagnosis. But patients can reclaim bone health through nutrition and exercise. The question is whether medicine will treat the patient or the arbitrary number on a scan.

Keep reading