Not to sound judgmental (but hey, I am being judgmental):
If my parents had that much chaos and family disfunction as in the video above- it is easy to see how some adult children might chose to not engage in a similar pattern or behavior…
Which brings us to this trend among a certain liberal set of young adults:
If you nose, you nose.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
For those that ignorantly argue that Acetaminophen has been around since the 1950s, without a rise in autism – until recently, “proving” without looking at the HHS data, that Secretary Kennedy must be wrong about the link with Acetaminophen and autism:
Some facts-
The use of Acetaminophen before and after vaccination of children was not recommended until the 1980s
Nor was Acetaminophen the recommended NSAID for pregnant women until the 1970s.
Timeline and Recommendations
By the 1980s-1990s: Acetaminophen became widely used for post-vaccination fever and pain relief in children as a standard part of aftercare.
2000s: Official vaccine information statements (such as the CDC’s DTaP VIS last updated in 2007) included recommendations to use antipyretics like acetaminophen for 24 hours after vaccination to manage discomfort.
Late 2000s-Present: New research, including the pivotal Prymula et al. study, suggested prophylactic use might blunt immune response, resulting in newer guidelines discouraging routine prophylactic use—but still supporting therapeutic use if a child is in pain or develops a fever after vaccination.
Tylenol (acetaminophen) began to be widely recommended as the preferred pain reliever for pregnant women by the 1970s and 1980s, as concerns grew about the safety of alternatives like aspirin and NSAIDs during pregnancy.
So, yes – Acetaminophen has been around since the 1950s, but no – it has not been the drug of choice during pregnancy or for use during vaccination of children until much more recently…
Now, I have not seen the HHS report – but I do know that to prejudge a scientific report before it has been distributed doesn’t seem like science.
Furthermore, the HHS report apparently just confirms the overwhelming body of previously published peer reviewed literature linking Acetaminophen use and autism. In other words, the actual science supports the hypothesis of use linkage in this context to development of clinical autism.
When I see all these senators trying to lecture and “gotcha” Bobby Kennedy today all I can think is: You all support off-label, untested, and irreversible hormonal “therapies” for children, mutilating our kids and enriching big pharma. You’re full of shit and everyone knows it.
It is most likely the most common phobia in the USA – and yet no one speaks of it.
For some who suffer from needle phobia, the fear is so intense that they avoid doctors nd dentists altogether, to the point where they will completely avoid any visit that might include a needle stick.
The issue is so prevalent that fainting from a needle stick is the cause of over half of the emergencies in dental offices (1).
Needle phobia affects at least 10% of the population, and yet has only recently been classified as an affliction. Since individuals with this condition often avoid medical treatment, it can pose a major obstacle in healthcare. The cause of needle phobia stems from a vasovagal reflex that causes a shock-like response when a needle puncture occurs.
For some, the fear is so intense that they will completely avoid any doctor’s visit that might include a needle stick.
Although many in the medical field used to believe that this was an inherited reflex, there is little evidence to support that hypothesis, which is based on the idea that humans are evolutionarily conditioned to fear puncture and cutting injuries. Countering that narrative is the fact that needle phobia often develops only after repeated exposure in children. That an ever larger percentage of the population, particularly younger people, are now needle-phobic. It is now generally accepted that needle phobia is due to an early-life traumatic event, often associated with vaccine administration.
Needle phobia can be severe, and people with this fear are often terrified of routine needle procedures. There is literature documenting that for some patients, the fear is so profound that they claim they would rather die than undergo a needle procedure. This intense fear can lead to health, social, and legal problems. The vasovagal response (fainting) associated with needle phobia has even caused deaths. But there is an even more sinister side to this that the medical profession doesn’t even acknowledge.
One meta-analysis of studies on needle phobia analyzed 119 original peer-reviewed research articles, “of which 35 contained sufficient information for meta-analysis. The majority of children exhibited needle fear, while prevalence estimates for needle fear ranged from 20-50% in adolescents and 20-30% in young adults. In general, needle fear decreased with increasing age. Both needle fear and needle phobia were more prevalent in females than males. Avoidance of influenza vaccination because of needle fear occurred in 16% of adult patients, 27% of hospital employees, 18% of workers at long-term care facilities, and 8% of healthcare workers at hospitals (2).”
Another study found that most people who experience needle phobia rate their fear as significant, with 52% of the people avoiding blood draws, and 33% avoiding vaccinations.
However, later publications do not provide any documentation that this is an inherited trait, and this thesis has largely been discounted.
I queried various AIs on the subject of how much government funding has been spent on needle phobia. The answer was shocking:
There is not a publicly available record indicating large-scale, multi-million dollar government programs exclusively for “needle phobia” research; most funding is embedded within broader health, vaccine, or mental health initiatives.
The truth is that our government has spent almost nothing to determine the cause or how to manage this condition for those living with this chronic disease. It is almost as if they don’t want to know.
Why is this important?
It is postulated that needle phobia impedes both chronic and acute patient visits to medical care providers and systems. One peer-reviewed paper had needle-phobic patients on record as saying they would rather die than get a needle stick.
How many deaths occur each year because someone didn’t want to get that lump checked out because of a fear of needles? How many people suffer a cardiac event and choose not to go to the doctor because of this fear, until it is too late? How many people have unchecked diabetes because they refuse injectable medications?
Those who work with patients are fully aware that needle phobia often develops in childhood due to the often-repeated traumatic events surrounding vaccination. The following text is from a peer-reviewed paper discussing just how debilitating this phobia is:
Needle phobia without the vasovagal response has often arisen from a situation where classical conditioning has occurred. This puts it more in the realms of a specific phobia that is not B-I-I type.
For instance, a patient who recalls being held down as a child while receiving vaccinations, or undergoing anaesthetic will have learned a paired association of ‘needles plus doctors equals pain and distress’. Therefore, being back in that situation produces distress to the extent that sufferers will simply avoid the situation.
Whether caused by vasovagal reactions or a conditioned response, in its most extreme forms, I have worked with many patients who were refusing life-saving treatment, as the anxiety of a cannula or blood test was too much.
For instance, a 24-yr-old man with Hodgkin’s lymphoma was so distressed by the idea of cannulation that he refused to undergo chemotherapy. His wife was 4 months pregnant with their first child at the time and even this was not enough incentive for him to face his anxiety (3).
It is generally acknowledged that missed cancer diagnoses, cardiac arrests, and other life-threatening situations arise because people are so fearful of needles that they avoid seeking healthcare.
As the vaccine schedule has both increased in scope and the number of injections given at a very early age has skyrocketed, it can be surmised that needle phobia is increasing in the general population in the United States, following along with the increasingly aggressive vaccination schedule. Needle phobia generally starts in very young children, and only increases with each traumatic event.
By the age of two, a child in the USA receives almost 30 shots.
A Canadian study of over one thousand children found that 63% of those born in 2000 or later now fear needles. In a 2017 study, this increase in prevalence was again quantified. Half of preschoolers who got all their boosters on the same day, with often four or five injections all at once, were severely afraid of needles years later.
This problem is growing.
In sorting through the publications, there are almost no data on how many preventable hospitalizations and even deaths are due to needle phobias each year. It is an entirely unstudied phenomenon.
What is the risk-benefit ratio of repeatedly injecting a child with vaccines throughout their childhood? A child who then suffers the “mild” consequences of injection site pain, fatigue, hot-flashes, muscle soreness, nausea, and other vaccine-induced side effects that medical personnel consider perfectly normal? When does preventative medicine cross the line from being “preventive” to abusive?
The Butterfly effect.
Could it be that whatever gains made from the most aggressive vaccine program in the world (courtesy of the USG CDC) is making people sicker, as so many needle-phobic individuals refuse most or even all medical and even dental care because of their fear of needles?
Yet, throughout the peer-reviewed literature, it is generally accepted that the number of people who reject medical care if a needle is involved continues to grow.
It is an unfortunate truth that none of this is being measured. There are no government grants to assess the risk-benefit analysis of the most aggressive vaccine campaign in the world.
A simple shot in a child’s arm at a vulnerable age or mindset, or maybe repeated shots, could cause real psychological damage. The extent of which isn’t being measured.
A Shot in Every Arm.
A child who follows the CDC vaccination schedule from birth until adulthood typically receives between 54 and 60 vaccine doses by age 18, depending on the combination of vaccines used.
So many questions remain unanswered.
What is the long-term mental health consequences of this aggressive vaccination regime?
What percentage of people with needle phobia, became that way due to vaccination at vulnerable age points?
Research has shown that children develop needle phobia during specific age brackets. What are those age brackets?
What is the percentage of people who have suffered a significant health event or even death because of needle phobia?
How many people are so shamed by their fear of needles that they can’t share this fear with their physicians, instead avoiding medical treatments altogether?
Isn’t it time that government officials faced up to the fact that we don’t have the answers that they need to make informed decisions being made in the name of public health, that may actually be causing real harm.
The Bottom Line
The fundamental idea that a true “risk/benefit” analysis of vaccination, or any other medical procedure for that matter, can be calculated is fundamentally flawed. Particularly in situations where the State intervenes to coerce, entice, and/or compel (mandate) acceptance of a medical procedure. There are too many variables, known and unknown.
At the root of modern Western “public health” is the thesis that the State has the right to mandate medical procedures to advance “the greatest good for the greatest number”, a logic that is based on socialist utilitarianism. Yet this is what three-year “Masters in Public Health” (MPH) university curricula teach. The consequence of these non-scientifically trained MPH dominating the US Public Health Service (and specifically CDC management) is that you have a cadre of trained socialists implementing mandates based on conclusions derived from imperfect and incomplete survey data compiled and analyzed by other socialists.
“A Midwestern Doctor” recently pointed out to me that at the most recent ACIP meeting, the following question was asked of a CDC official presenting data on COVID vaccine adverse events:
Question- “How are you monitoring long term side effects”
Answer- “But I think with relation to how are we thinking going forward about our safety and is it well adapted to the situation. I think we feel very confident in our safety systems in the US. We have one of the best safety systems in the world. But we are continuing to think through ways of how to improve them. And I think one thing you’re getting at is our ability to monitor long-term outcomes of vaccination. And obviously that’s very difficult. the longer you get out from vaccination, the more you can introduce confounding infections or other things that are unrelated to the vaccine and the in the ability to tease out vaccine versus other effects becomes much more challenging. But I think we would welcome input from the committee on um you know how to how to better do that.”
Which, distilled from this long-winded deflection, translates to “we are not monitoring long-term side effects because we think it is too hard to do this”.
In other words, the CDC is currently entirely unable to “calculate” risk/benefit ratio for these or any other vaccines. But this does not impede prominent “public health” officials or academics (or their dead media and captured politician allies) from cloaking themselves in “Science” and asserting that their policies and pronouncements shall not be challenged.
COVID taught us to look beyond the curtain and let us see that the “Great Oz” of “Public Health” socialists were merely pretenders.
When a “public health official” presumes to represent “The Science” and acts to manipulate the public into accepting an intervention based on imperfect data, “The Science” is being used as a pretense to justify authoritarian actions that are based on ideology and politics, not on an actual rigorous scientific assessment. And as the issue of needle phobia illustrates, in most cases the full spectrum of “Public Health” benefits, risks, and harms cannot be known and therefore risk/benefit ratio calculations (or quality adjusted life year calculations) become fictional propaganda.
By their own admission, CDC leaders are incapable of accurately and comprehensively assessing risk and benefit of any of their utilitarian interventions. There will always be unknown and in many cases unknowable variables. This applies to mask use, social distancing, lockdown policies, school closures and vaccine mandates. Therefore they are ill suited to make and attempt to enforce “public health policy”. And are completely unqualified to advocate for State-endorsed enticement, coercion and compulsion of any medical procedure or social intervention.
In a representative democracy governed by a constitution and bill of rights, policy must be made by elected officials. And in the case of medical procedures, that policy must be guided by the fundamentals of medical ethics, which do not provide the State with a special exemption for expediency. People, and specifically patients, have rights. And these rights do not allow the majority to force the minority to accept medical procedures. And they certainly do not provide an exception for a priesthood of Scientism to dictate what medical procedures they are to receive on the basis of socialist-utilitarian logic rooted in incomplete and imperfect data analyses.
Below is a clip of Mandy Cohen, former CDC Director, talking and laughing about how she made policy decisions during COVID. Her approach? She would ask friends, “Well, what are you planning to do?” And they would casually agree on some policy on the phone and then do that. The clip was recently highlighted in an “X” post by Dr. Kevin Bass, who is an actual scientist (molecular biologist and genomics expert).
This is the definition of arbitrary and capricious authority. This is Scientism, not science.
Six Principles of Medical Ethics
Beneficance. Physicians must act in the best interests of the patient. Singular. One specific patient. Not in the best interests of society. Not to advance the greatest good for the greatest number. The patient in front of them at that specific point in time.
Non-Malfeasance. In short, do no harm. This does not mean you can do some harm to some patients for the good of the many.
Autonomy. The PATIENT has the right to choose whether to accept a medical procedure or intervention. Not Society, and certainly not some “Public health official” has the right to make a determination for a patient. THE PATIENT gets to choose. The physician and the “public health official” can provide honest truthful, unbiased information to the patient about risks and benefits, but THE PATIENT gets to decide on whether to accept the procedure. That is called INFORMED CONSENT, and if you disagree with that then you have no right to be involved in any way with the medical enterprise. There is no special “vaccine exclusion” or “exemption” for this fundamental human right.
Justice. There should be no “tiered” or “special” medical care for some that is withheld from others. Treatment options should reflect the merit of the illness. No discrimination based on whether or not a patient has accepted or rejected some other medical procedure. Like withholding organ transplantation from those that refused a COVID genetic vaccine, for example.
Dignity. Both Physician (or other medical care provider) AND THE PATIENT have the right to be treated with dignity. As opposed to hostile arrogance, for example.
Truthfulness and Honesty: Patients deserve to know the whole truth about both illness and treatment to the best of the ability of the physician or medical care provider. No lies about mask or social distancing or lockdown effectiveness. No cover ups of adverse events. No lies about biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, lot variability, adulteration.
This saturation is intentional: repetition prompts patients to “ask your doctor” about brand-name drugs, which can steer demand. Policymakers have taken note. A GAO analysis found that 2016–2018 Medicare drug spending on advertised products accounted for 58% of Parts B and D outlays, underscoring how ad campaigns align with where public dollars go per the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2021 Report to Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate.
Billions Poured into Consumer Advertising
Pharma’s consumer advertising budgets have soared over the past decade. In 2018, companies spent ~$3.73B just on national TV ads; Humira alone accounted for ~$375M in TV placements. By 2022, total DTC advertising across platforms reached ~$8.1B.
A landmark JAMA study shows overall medical marketing (to both consumers and professionals) rose from $17.7B (1997) to $29.9B (2016), with DTC the fastest-growing segment while professional-targeted marketing remained the largest share.
Figure (JAMA 2019): Total U.S. medical marketing climbed from $17.7B (1997) to $29.9B (2016); DTC rose about five-fold, while marketing to health professionals stayed the largest slice.
Proponents argue ads can educate, surface under-diagnosed conditions, and de-stigmatize illnesses. Critics as reported in a Reuters entry counter that saturation inflates demand for high-priced brands and can exaggerate benefits. Both are represented in the literature.
“Education” or Promotion? How Industry Shapes Medical Learning
While TV and online ads target the public, even more is spent influencing clinicians. In 2016, spending directed at health professionals was ~$20.3B—about two-thirds of total promotional spend that year. Tactics include detailing (sales-rep visits), free samples, journal ads, and sponsorship of continuing medical education (CME).
Historically as shown 15 years ago, industry has funded about half of CME costs, and older analyses suggest companies anticipated ~$3.56 in additional sales for every $1 invested in CME sponsorship—an ROI that explains persistent sponsorship despite guardrails. (These are historic estimates; current mixes vary.)
Evidence shows exposure to industry promotion shifts prescribing toward sponsor brands (often pricier than generics). GAO and congressional reviews also link advertised drugs to higher Medicare spending shares suggests the 2021 Senate GAO report.
Lobbying and Political Muscle
Pharma doesn’t just market to patients and prescribers—it also invests heavily in policy influence. In 2024, the pharmaceuticals/health products sector spent a record ~$388M lobbying the federal government—the most of any industry. Cumulatively, since 1998 the sector has spent >$6.3B on federal lobbying.
Trade association PhRMA routinely ranks among the top single spenders.
It’s difficult to prove causation between marketing/lobbying and market “power,” but the correlations are strong: heavy advertising builds blockbuster brands; sustained professional promotion keeps them top-of-mind; and lobbying helps preserve favorable rules on pricing and DTC marketing. Analyses also show many leading firms spend more on sales & marketing than on R&D in a given year (e.g., 9 of 10 in one 2019 analysis; 7 of 10 during 2021), highlighting how promotion remains central to the business model.
Finally, context matters: the $29.9B total medical marketing (2016) rivaled the NIH’s annual budget and was about six times the FDA’s, underscoring the scale of private promotional spend relative to public science and oversight as reported to Congress.
Bottom line
Pharma’s DTC ad presence on U.S. television is pervasive, but it’s only the tip of a larger influence strategy that includes professional promotion and record lobbying. Over the past decade, spending across these channels has surged, as have drug revenues and policy influence. Whether one views DTC as education or enticement, the evidence shows the industry’s marketing-and-lobbying engine has helped shape what drugs Americans see, which ones they get prescribed, and how much we all pay for them. And given the troubles and scandals such as Vioxx, and OxyContin, are collective vigilance should be up.
Sources
TV ad exposure: Ventola 2011; Parekh 2018; DTC legality (US/NZ): Johns Hopkins / JAMA; GAO findings (58% Medicare spending on advertised drugs, 2016–2018): GAO-21-380; TV spend 2018 & Humira: FiercePharma; DTC total 2022 (~$8.1B): FiercePharma roundup; CME funding & ROI (historic): Brody 2009; commentary noting ~50% CME funding; Lobbying: OpenSecrets (2024 $388M; >$6.3B since 1998); Drug spending: HHS/ASPE (2016–2021 to $603B); NASEM/IQVIA reference (> $603B payer net / 2022 > $633B) and finally “Marketing vs. R&D” (many top firms): RAPS 2019; AHIP 2021.
The prime directive of Western medicine, its golden rule, is expressed by the Latin maxim primum non nocere– first, do no harm. Unfortunately, the Covid era taught us that from the patient’s point of view, a better motto for our times might be caveat emptor – let the buyer beware.
Every medical student is taught that, first and foremost, they should not cause harm to their patients, and every doctor is familiar with this maxim. It is echoed in the Hippocratic Oath and forms the basis for the four pillars of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
This rule, and the core tenets of medical ethics that it underpins, were all abandoned during the Covid era. They were replaced with a brutal, inhumane, and unethical martial-law-as-public-health approach to medicine. The results were unconstitutional lockdowns, prolonged school closures, suppression of early treatment, mandated vaccinations, and silencing of dissenting views. These abuses were justified by constant propaganda and lies from public health authorities, the medical establishment, the mainstream media, and medical professional associations.
Enter the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the largest professional association for pediatricians in the United States. Nearly one hundred years old, the AAP’s motto is “Dedicated to the Health of All Children.” But as with so much of the medical establishment, the Covid era revealed that the AAP has abandoned its stated mission, and in the process, it has betrayed children everywhere.
During the Covid era, no group was harmed more – or more unnecessarily – than children, who lost multiple years of education, socialization, and normal growth and development. Many millions of kids also received the fraudulently tested, toxic, experimental mRNA-based injections that were coercively imposed upon the population at large. Countless children have been harmed or killed by these products, with myocarditis being only the most universally acknowledged of the many toxicities associated with the shots.
Adding insult to injury, it was known from the beginning of the pandemic that the gain-of-function-produced SARS-CoV-2 virus affected children very mildly, rarely causing severe illness, and almost never killing them. Even at the height of the pandemic, an article in the preeminent journal Nature described pediatric Covid deaths as “incredibly rare.” A very large population-based Korean study from 2023 found the case-fatality rate in children from Covid to be well under 1 death in every 100,000 cases.
If no segment of the population was harmed more egregiously than children during the Covid era, few medical organizations betrayed their patient population more thoroughly than the American Academy of Pediatrics.
While the AAP has for many years taken questionable stances on a variety of issues, including the ever-enlarging pediatric vaccine schedule, “gender reassignment,” and others, at one early point during Covid, the AAP did attempt to advocate appropriately in the interest of children. It didn’t last long, however, and a review of this incident shows how the AAP, like so many other medical professional organizations, effectively sold its soul during Covid.
Summer 2020: The AAP Changes Its Tune on In-School Learning
From mid-March 2020, when the Covid lockdowns began, until the end of that school year in June, most American schoolchildren had been kept completely out of school. On July 9, 2020, the AAP released a statement arguing forcefully for the return of American schoolchildren back:
The AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school. The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020.
The July AAP statement went on to say that school closure “places children and adolescents at considerable risk of morbidity and, in some cases, mortality.” It went even further to state that:
the preponderance of evidence indicates that children and adolescents are less likely to be symptomatic and less likely to have severe disease resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, children may be less likely to become infected and to spread infection.
All of these claims the AAP made in July 2020 were known to be true to those who did the proper research (as the AAP apparently had done), and they have been repeatedly and definitively confirmed in the following years.
I was acutely aware of that July 9, 2020, AAP statement. I used it as an important resource in my own advocacy during the summer of 2020 to try to get schools reopened for full-time learning in New York State by the fall. The July AAP document was a well-researched, well-constructed, and well-argued advocacy tool that supported all children’s best interests.
So far, so good. Very soon thereafter, however, the AAP shamefully succumbed to pressure from public health officials, teachers’ unions, and others pushing for continued school closures. By August 19, 2020, with school reopening imminent, the AAP suddenly “revised” their recommendations. The AAP dramatically changed its tune, stating that they would go along with whatever measures public health officials decreed:
…many schools where the virus is widespread will need to adopt virtual lessons and [AAP] is calling for more federal funding to support both models.
“This is on us – the adults – to be doing all the things public health experts are recommending to reduce the spread of the virus,” said AAP President Sara “Sally” H. Goza, M.D., FAAP.
In an act of cowardice and dereliction of duty, the AAP surrendered. It abandoned the strong and sound advocacy for normalizing children’s education contained in its July document. As a physician actively following the issues of the day surrounding Covid and publicly fighting for school reopening, I can testify that nothing changed regarding our knowledge of the virus that justified the AAP’s abdication of its responsibility to children. In fact, multiple foreign countries had already returned children to school without ill effect. The AAP’s capitulation significantly undermined school reopening efforts, especially in Blue states.
The AAP’s sudden and craven volte-face regarding in-school learning was just one of many disgraceful acts committed by medical associations during the Covid era, and it acted to the severe harm of schoolchildren across the nation. Millions of American schoolchildren continued to languish in “remote” or “hybrid” learning for the entire 2020-2021 school year. Many thousands simply dropped out of school, never to return.
In retrospect, the AAP cannot claim that they “didn’t know” enough to push for school reopening. Their July 2020 document proves they knew the correct course of action – before caving in to the establishment’s false narrative, and then subsequently devolving into just one more shameless shill organization, pushing for the mass inoculation of children with the toxic Covid mRNA injections.
Why would the AAP have done such a thing?
Money, for one thing. And plenty of it.
The AAP’s Federal Funding Windfall During Covid
As the Covid vaccine push intensified, the AAP became one of the trusted legacy medical associations that was handsomely rewarded to “push vaccines and combat ‘Misinformation’.” By 2023, the year for which data is most available, the AAP was absolutely raking it in.
AAP… received $34,974,759 in government grants during the 2023 fiscal year, according to the organization’s most recent tax disclosure. The grants are itemized in the AAP’s single audit report for 2023-2024.Documents show some of the money was used to advance childhood vaccination in the U.S. and abroad, target medical “misinformation” and “disinformation” online, [and] develop a Regional Pediatric Pandemic Network.
In summary: in July 2020, the AAP ever-so-briefly and correctly sided with the lockdown dissenters, in service of its self-proclaimed motto to serve “the health of all children.” But by mid-August, the AAP switched sides and subsequently got a massive payout to do so. In fiscal 2023 alone, the AAP was receiving $35 million of tax money, much of it directly tied to pushing the Covid mRNA shots in children and to silence dissenters, whom it knew were telling the truth.
Unfortunately, this is unsurprising. Years before Covid, the AAP had already morphed into a highly compromised organization, straying far from its stated goal of being “dedicated to the health of all children.”
The Dinosaurs Sell Themselves to Survive
The business model for the old establishment medical professional organizations, like the AAP, is a dinosaur. The value of paid membership to these organizations has disappeared over the years, causing income from membership fees to fall. Individual paid subscriptions to their flagship journals have nosedived as well. Their financial survival increasingly relies upon Big Pharma largesse and, as we saw above for the AAP during Covid, government payouts.
In return for Big Pharma and government money, these professional organizations function less and less as champions for their professional members and their patients. They become mouthpieces for government initiatives and advertisers for Pharma. If you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor, they have become a strange species of dinosaur-prostitutes.
The AAP in particular is deeply tied to and heavily subsidized by Big Pharma, especially in the area of vaccine promotion.
Starting with the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), which effectively eliminated tort liability for vaccine manufacturers, the CDC pediatric vaccine schedule has ballooned from 7 vaccines in 1985 to 23 vaccines (and over 70 total doses!) in 2024. Since then, the AAP has largely been in the vaccine promotion business.
In accordance with the CDC vaccine schedules, the Federal government purchases huge quantities of the recommended vaccines from pharmaceutical companies. The shots are promoted to the public and to physicians through well-paid organizations like the AAP, and administered by pediatricians, many of whom receive payment – essentially kickbacks – to do so. Every step of the way, palms are greased.
As a result, American children have become what Dr. Meryl Nass calls “a delivery system to transfer taxpayer funds to big pharmaceutical companies, via your child or grandchild’s arm.”
As HHS Secretary Kennedy recently noted, the AAP posts on its own website its financial indebtedness to its corporate “donors.” Lo and behold, the four top vaccine manufacturers for the products on the pediatric vaccine schedule – Merck, Pfizer, Moderna, and Sanofi – stand at the top of the AAP’s corporate “donor” list. (The total amounts of the payouts the AAP receives are not disclosed.)
The AAP, originally created a century ago to advocate for pediatricians and their patients, has devolved into an advertiser and lobbyist for the corporate interests that fund their operations. So much for “dedicated to the health of all children.”
Because everything is public with politicians, this is what GROK had to say about Gavin Newsom’s “personal life” – that being his marriages, affairs, and divorce:
“Before entering the spotlight as San Francisco’s mayor, Newsom was involved in a few notable relationships. There were rumors of a brief fling with singer Jewel around 2005, though it was never confirmed.
His most prominent early relationship turned into marriage: He wed Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former prosecutor and TV personality (now known for her role on Fox News and engagement to Donald Trump Jr.), in 2001. They were often dubbed “the new Kennedys” by the media for their glamorous image and political ambitions.
The couple met in the 1990s through mutual friends in San Francisco’s social scene, and their wedding was a big event at a Catholic church.
However, their marriage hit rough patches, partly due to Newsom’s demanding mayoral duties starting in 2003 and Guilfoyle’s career pulling her to New York.
They separated in 2005 and finalized their divorce in 2006, citing the strains of bicoastal living.
Interestingly, they’ve remained on friendly terms—Newsom has even consulted her for political advice in recent years, despite their ideological differences.
The Affair and Post-Divorce Dating:
Shortly after his divorce, Newsom’s personal life made headlines again in 2007 when he publicly admitted to a brief affair with Ruby Rippey Gibney (then Ruby Rippey-Tourk), who was married to his then-campaign manager and close friend, Alex Tourk.
The affair happened in 2005 while Newsom was still married to Guilfoyle and serving as mayor. Rippey Gibney, who worked as his appointments secretary, later spoke out in 2018, saying the relationship devastated her marriage and led to personal struggles, including substance abuse issues.
Newsom apologized publicly, entered alcohol treatment briefly, and the scandal became a talking point in his later gubernatorial campaigns.
In the years following, Newsom dated a few women before settling down again. He had a short relationship with actress Sofia Milos in 2006, known for her roles in shows like CSI: Miami.
Then came Brittanie Mountz, a 19-year-old college student and restaurant hostess (sometimes described as a model), whom he dated from 2006 to 2007.
Their age difference (he was about 39 at the time) drew some media scrutiny, but it was relatively low-key compared to his other relationships.
Current Marriage:
Newsom met documentary filmmaker and actress Jennifer Siebel in 2006 at a fundraiser, and they married in 2008 in a ceremony at her parents’ ranch in Montana.
She’s since become California’s First Partner, advocating for gender equalityand producing films like Miss Representation and The Mask You Live In. They have four children.”
Trigger warning – the video below is rude and offensive.
But it is so well done – and the message is on point – so that I am including it.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Secretary Kennedy is forced to play a rigged game – what the Senate has permitted is let one Senator with significant conflicts of interests to control HHS.
This is not right, not proper, not fair.
This is a rigged system that undermines genuine reform.
Yes, the Senate has the right to advise and consent to the president’s selection of cabinet members. However, Senate rules should not allow a single Senator to impose unreasonable demands on a cabinet member to secure confirmation; this undermines the authority of the President of the United States.
The Constitution outlines the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. These actions by Senator Cassidy are in breach of those powers due to Cassidy’s conflict of interest regarding the pharmaceutical industry.
Cassidy’s pharma ties, including campaign donations and lobbying dollars, as well as the BIO organization document linking Cassidy to their efforts to remove Sec. Kennedy raises legitimate questions about Cassidy’s influence in health policy, especially amid tensions with Kennedy’s HHS reforms.
It seems like there is an ethics violation here, and if not, it should be.
Lock me up and throw away the key, as I am posting another horrific, violent image:
DNC = MSM
Has anyone else noticed how, in the latest CDC “kerfuffle”, as reported by mainstream media, the media conveniently left out the manipulated RSV data story that seems to have originated from the CDC?
Also, they haven’t addressed the fact that one of the ex-employees, who resigned from the CDC, flaunted photos of himself dressed in what looks like bondage (S&M) gear on various dubious magazine covers after being hired by the Biden administration. These are magazine covers. Other photos from his old Instagram account are even more explicit. Now, what someone does in their private life – fine. I don’t want to know. But public health means promoting healthy behaviors.
How is it even possible not to cover these aspects of the firings and resignations?
As a sidebar, here are magazine photos of Dr. Demetre Daskalakas, who labels himself as the “Activist Doctor”, and was the “Senior Equity Advisor” (reporting directly to then CDC director Rochelle Walensky) during COVID, as he proudly displays his obsession with bondage as a badge of honor, during his tenure in the Biden administration. The CDC COVID picture during Biden/Harris is becoming clearer.
How was this employee in any way, shape or form fit to serve in the Trump administration – an administration working to Make America Healthy Again?
The children are watching.
“Activist Doctor” complains to the press that actual scientists are asking questions. Very interesting.
“The most valuable math you can learn is how to calculate the future cost of your current decisions.”
“Teach your children well”…
MS Now – Stands for “My Source News Opinion World”
Well, at least MS Now is admitting the elephant in the room, so to speak. What MSNBC and now, MS News do is spew their biased opinions of the news, not the news itself.
Going, going… gone.
The “new” rebrand of the Cracker Barrel restaurant is topped off with an interior featuring white walls and the removal of what has been labeled as “kitsch.” Which the CEO believes will give them a “fresh look.”
But don’t worry, folks- they are adamant that they still intend to sell rocking chairs…
The end result of the media blitz: Cracker Barrel’s stock plummeted $94 million on Thursday.
Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Felss Masino, who by appearance is another liberal white female CEO – recently gave a devastatingly honest assessment of the restaurant:
“We’re just not as relevant as we once were.”
Something tells me this “rebranding” ain’t going to help!
OK- this one is pretty funny (and true).
Over in La-La land…
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This video raises a serious question… as to why bathroom scales no longer weigh ounces? Why did manufacturers change from ounces to tenths of a pound? What marketing genius decided that tenths was better than ounces (1/16 of a pound)? And why did we not notice or care?
Enquiring minds want to know, why did we all just accept this major change in our measurements without question and yet completely reject the metric system for common usage?
One can have empathy and still insist that our borders be respected.
True story. The above happened. It was real. Not made-up. We lived through this.
Ensuring that it never happens again – means that we can not forget and we can not let history erase the crimes that were committed in the name of public health.
Robert W Malone MD, MS Aug 16 · Malone News. TARCZYCA
Please read this important essay and then take action to protest this latest affront to logic and natural medicine from the FDA. FAERS data show natural thyroid is very safe. Fortunately, Dr. Marty Makary @DrMakaryFDA recently tweeted that “FDA is committed to pursuing the first-ever approval of desiccated thyroid extract, pending results of the ongoing clinical trials. In the mean time, we will ensure access for all Americans.’ Please help Marty overcome his own bureaucracy and support women’s health! And consider subscribing to my fellow MAHA advocate Sayer Ji’s substack!
In what represents an unprecedented overreach of regulatory authority that prioritizes pharmaceutical profits over patient welfare, the FDA has declared war on 1.5 million Americans who depend on natural thyroid medications for their very survival. As Dr. Robert Malone warned in his urgent alert: “You might think that the FDA wanted older women to be disabled with brittle bones, cognitive decline, metabolic disease, obesity, and poor health.”[1]
This is the systematic dismantling of a treatment that has worked successfully for 130 years—since 1891 when Dr. George Redmayne Murray first used desiccated thyroid extract to save a woman dying from myxedema, an extreme form of hypothyroidism.[2] The FDA’s August 6, 2025 enforcement letters threatening to ban all natural desiccated thyroid (DTE) products—including Armour Thyroid, NP Thyroid, and Nature-Throid—represent medical tyranny designed to funnel billions into synthetic drug manufacturers while condemning millions to unnecessary suffering.
But here’s what makes this particularly egregious: natural thyroid is essentially ancestral food—organ meat that humans have consumed for millennia. The FDA is attempting to ban what is fundamentally a concentrated form of dietary thyroid gland, the same substance our ancestors prized as sacred medicine and nutrient-dense food.
The Bioidentical Illusion: Why Patient Experience Is Ontological Truth
Natural desiccated thyroid extract from a porcine source is the most physiologically complete thyroid replacement available. Unlike synthetic levothyroxine’s single-molecule approach, DTE provides:
T4 (Thyroxine): The storage hormone
T3 (Triiodothyronine): The active metabolic hormone
T2 (Diiodothyronine): Critical for mitochondrial function
T1 (Monoiodothyronine): Emerging metabolic roles
Calcitonin: Essential for bone health
UNKNOWN YET HIGHLY LIKELY: Yet to be fully characterized indispensable biological co-factors
As Dr. Malone emphasizes, “T3 is the active thyroid hormone responsible for controlling metabolism, heart and digestive functions, muscle and brain activity, growth, and temperature regulation. Its actions are more potent than its precursor T4, and balanced T3 levels are essential for good health.”[3]
The Molecular Deception
The FDA wants you to believe synthetic levothyroxine is “identical” to natural thyroid hormone. This is scientifically false. As GreenMedInfo’s research has revealed for over a decade, synthetic T4 is produced through a mind-numbingly complex chemical process involving “nitrating L-tyrosine,” “tetrazotized and iodized” compounds, and treatment with “aqueous HI in acetic acid.”[4] This Frankenstein molecule is then contaminated with up to 6% dextro-thyroxine, a mirror-image stereoisomer that is cardiotoxic and acts as an endocrine disruptor.[5]
One patent describes the dizzyingly complex process of levothyroxine synthesis as follows:
“The process for preparation of Levothyroxine sodium comprises the steps, wherein compound obtained from steps a-g is prepared by conventional methods, a. nitrating L-tyrosine to give 3,5- dinitro-L-tyrosine, b. acetylating 3,5- dinitro-L-tyrosine to give 3,5- dinitro-N-acetyl L-tyrosine, c. esterifying the compound obtained from step (b) to give 3,5- diπitro-N-acetyl L-tyrosine ethyl ester, d. reacting the compound obtained from step (c) with p-TsCI in presence of pyridine to give corresponding tosylate salt, which is further reacting with 4-methoxy phenol to give 3,5- DinKro-4-p-methoxy phenoxy-N-acetyl-L-phenyl alanine ethyl ester, e. the compound obtained from step (d) is hydrogenated to give 3,5-diamino-4-p-methoxy phenoxy-N-acetyl-L-phenyl alanine ethyl ester, f. the compound obtained from step (e) is tetrazotized and iodized to give 3,5-Diiodo-4-p- methoxy phenoxy-N-acetyl-L-phenyl alanine ethyl ester, g. the compound obtained from step (f) is O-demethylated, N-deacetylated, and deesterified using aqueous HI in acetic acid to give 3,5-Diiodo-4-p-hydroxy phenoxy-L-pheπyl alanine followed by preparing hydrochloride salt of same and isolating, drying it h. lodinating 3,5-Diiodo-4-p-hydroxy pheπoxy-L-phenyl alanine HCI salt using methyl amine.”
The critical epistemological issue is this: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because current assays cannot detect functional differences between synthetic and natural T4 doesn’t mean such differences don’t exist. Biological systems are nonlinear and exquisitely sensitive to subtle variations that cascade into significant physiological effects.
The Thyroglobulin Reality: Nature’s Infinite Complexity
The image above exposes the breathtaking gulf between natural and synthetic thyroid hormone. Natural desiccated thyroid contains T4, T3, T2, T1, and calcitonin bound to the massive thyroglobulin protein—a 660,000 dalton molecular complex representing millions of years of evolutionary optimization. Each hormone exists in specific conformational states, held in precise spatial relationships, creating an information-rich matrix the body recognizes holistically.
In contrast, synthetic hormone consists of isolated T4 molecules floating in pharmaceutical void, stripped of biological context, devoid of the intricate molecular choreography that defines natural thyroid function.
Levinthal’s Paradox and the Information That In-Forms
To understand the true magnitude of this difference, we must invoke Levinthal’s Paradox. For thyroglobulin to fold from a linear chain into its precise three-dimensional structure requires navigation through near-infinite conformational possibilities—a journey that would take longer than the universe’s age if done randomly. Yet it folds perfectly in milliseconds.
What Levinthal’s Paradox teaches us is that biological specificity contains inconceivable amounts of information—but not information as mere data. This is information as that which in-forms—that which puts form into biological matter, guiding the transformation of potential into actuality.
When thyroglobulin folds into its native state, it demonstrates information as a formative force. Each T4 molecule bound to thyroglobulin is literally in-formed by this protein matrix. The scaffold puts form into:
How the hormone is held in three-dimensional space
What microenvironmental conditions it experiences
How it relates to neighboring hormone molecules
When and how it will be released
What conformational memory it carries forward
This formative information—accumulated over millions of years of evolution—cannot be replicated in a reaction flask.
The Hydration Shell: Water as Information Carrier
Consider a dimension rarely discussed: every biological molecule exists within a hydration shell—a structured water envelope. Research into water’s fourth phase reveals it as an exquisite carrier of information and memory, capable of structuring itself in ways that drive molecular actions and cellular communication. The water surrounding naturally-produced hormones has been structured by living processes, carrying biophysical information that influences hormone behavior.
Remarkably, even when natural thyroid is desiccated, this information is not entirely lost. The freeze-drying process preserves molecular architecture, and upon rehydration in the body, water restructures itself according to the biological template, partially restoring the information field. It’s like a compressed file expanding back to its original form—not perfectly, but with far more fidelity than starting from scratch.
The synthetic hormone’s hydration shell, formed in industrial conditions, lacks this biological structuring entirely. The qualitative difference between natural and synthetic forms is ontologically vast—an insurmountable chasm that the false equivalence model cannot bridge.
From “Subjective” to Structural: The Science of Patient Experience
When patients report life-changing improvements on natural thyroid—like Vicera co-founder Chrissy, who shared with me her experience of restored energy, mental clarity, weight loss, and emotional balance using the natural thyroid product she developed with her husband Heath —the medical establishment waves these away as ‘subjective’ or ‘merely anecdotal.’ But the molecular science reveals why dismissing these patient experiences is anti-scientific:
1. Conformational Intelligence: Each hormone bound to thyroglobulin exists in a specific three-dimensional state that carries information. The protein presents hormones to the body in evolutionarily optimized conformations that synthetic hormones cannot replicate.
2. Synergistic Delivery: The thyroglobulin complex ensures coordinated release of ALL thyroid hormones, creating cascading physiological effects patients experience as comprehensive well-being.
3. Information Beyond Chemistry: The 660,000 dalton thyroglobulin molecule represents biological information—protein folding patterns, binding sites, enzymatic cleavage points—all influencing how the body receives and processes hormones.
4. Evolutionary Recognition: Human physiology evolved with thyroglobulin-bound hormones. Our cellular machinery is optimized for this natural presentation. Synthetic T4 is a 70-year-old pharmaceutical approximation of a system refined over evolutionary time.
When patients report feeling profoundly different on natural versus synthetic thyroid, they’re experiencing the difference between medicine that carries biological information and medicine that doesn’t.
The landmark 2013 Hoang study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism revealed a truth the pharmaceutical industry desperately wants suppressed.[6] In this randomized, double-blind, crossover study with 70 patients: natural thyroid was preferred by nearly 3x as many patients as synthetic levothyroxine—48.6% preferred DTE versus only 18.6% for levothyroxine.
Those choosing natural thyroid reported dramatic improvements in their lived experience. Their scores showed statistically significant improvements (p < 0.001) in energy, mood, mental clarity, and quality of life.
Perhaps most tellingly, patients on DTE lost an average of 3-4 pounds without trying—actual metabolic activation from receiving the full hormone spectrum.
The 2021 Shakir study reinforced these findings. Among the most symptomatic patients—those failed most dramatically by synthetic monotherapy—switching to DTE produced significant improvements in mood, memory, and well-being.[7]
The Conversion Crisis No One Talks About
The dirty secret of synthetic thyroid treatment: up to 15% of patients cannot efficiently convert T4 to T3 due to genetic polymorphisms affecting deiodinase enzymes.[8] For these millions, synthetic levothyroxine is metabolic poison. Their bodies flood with inactive storage hormone while being starved of active T3.
When they report persistent symptoms despite “normal” TSH levels, they’re told it’s psychological. Meanwhile, their bodies deteriorate with:
The Postmenopausal Crisis: FDA’s Betrayal of Women’s Health
Dr. Malone’s warning about postmenopausal women exposes a particularly cruel dimension. Research demonstrates that declining estrogen levels directly impair the body’s ability to convert T4 to active T3.[9] The FDA’s mandate forcing these women onto T4-only treatment is tantamount to prescribing metabolic dysfunction.
The calcitonin component becomes critical during this life stage. Studies reveal 50% of thyroidectomized patients develop osteopenia specifically from calcitonin deficiency.[10] Postmenopausal women already facing dramatic bone loss from estrogen decline are essentially guaranteed osteoporosis without access to DTE’s calcitonin.
Clinical evidence shows postmenopausal women on natural thyroid experience:
Better cognitive function
Improved energy levels
Modest but significant weight loss
Enhanced mood stability
Given that thyroid disease incidence is 5-20 times higher in women (much of which is preventable and even reversible through root-cause resolution medical approaches applied early enough)*, with highest rates in postmenopausal and elderly women, the FDA’s actions appear designed to maximally harm the population most dependent on comprehensive thyroid support.
From Dr. Murray’s first use in 1891 through seven decades as standard treatment, DTE has 130 years of real-world safety data.[11] During this time, it transformed myxedema from death sentence to manageable condition.
The FDA’s own adverse event database tells the story they want buried. Between 1968-2025, only 500 adverse events were reported for DTE—approximately nine per year across millions of doses.[12] Compare this to synthetic levothyroxine:
Associations with increased lung cancer risk
Documented links to atrial fibrillation and fractures
Recent FDA recall of 160,000+ bottles for subpotency[13]
Most damning: the X account OpenVAERS’s analysis of FDA’s FAERS database shows synthetic medications have proportionally higher rates of injury and death, even accounting for larger user population.[14] Their conclusion: “There is no world in which taking natural hormone is more dangerous than the synthetics.”
The agency’s selective enforcement reveals the truth. Smaller manufacturers face recalls for minor potency variations, while AbbVie’s Armour Thyroid—made by the same company producing Synthroid—continues unimpeded. Safety isn’t the concern—market control is.
The Economic Conspiracy: Follow the Money
The global levothyroxine market generates $4 billion annually, projected to reach $5.88 billion by 2033.[15] The DTE market, serving only 1.5 million patients, represents a dangerous precedent that natural solutions can outperform patented drugs.
Synthetic levothyroxine costs 50-100 times less to produce than natural thyroid extract. When you can charge the same price for a product costing pennies versus dollars to make, eliminating competition becomes a business imperative.
AbbVie’s unique position reveals the conspiracy. This pharmaceutical giant, spending $4.53 million on lobbying, manufactures both Synthroid and Armour Thyroid.[16] While smaller competitors face extinction, AbbVie remains untouched. Consider:
RLC Labs ($30 million revenue) can’t afford regulatory lawyers
Acella Pharmaceuticals ($120 million) lacks political connections
These companies face extinction not for safety reasons, but for lacking financial firepower
Research documents that 73% of FDA advisory meetings include members with drug manufacturer ties.[17] The endgame is clear: force 1.5 million DTE patients onto synthetics, eliminate competition, establish precedent for banning natural alternatives.
The Resistance Movement
Multiple Change.org petitions have gathered tens of thousands of signatures. Board-certified endocrinologists who personally take DTE lead opposition campaigns. The Alliance for Natural Health and numerous medical professionals condemn the FDA’s action to “Protect Natural Thyroid!”, and have created a call to action you can participate in right here now.
The post-Chevron legal landscape offers hope. The Supreme Court’s elimination of automatic deference to agency interpretations means the FDA must prove clear Congressional authorization, scientific basis, and rational enforcement after 130 years—all impossible.
The Thyroid Disease CARE Act of 2024 (H.R.10297) specifically addresses “barriers that individuals diagnosed with thyroid disease face in accessing treatments.”[18]
The Call to Action
This is about medical freedom—the right to access ancestral foods and traditional medicines that have sustained human health for millennia.
I don’t care where you live, everyone likes chicken dinner. Most varieties of chickens – particularly those docile, backyard egg laying breeds just aren’t fast enough.
If you want tick control on your farm, get guineas.
Chickens just ain’t gonna last long enough to do any good.
A technical point – I think this is more of a Boomer Disaster Kit -This model had all been made obsolete – before GenXers hit the schoolyards.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
“Dr. Robert Malone on MAHA, Censorship & The Future of Truth”:
Dr. Robert Malone joins Brian Rose to expose the battle over truth, censorship, and the rise of MAHA (Make America Healthy Again).
From silenced voices to digital control, this explosive conversation dives deep into the war on free speech and the future of independent thought.
Is truth under siege? “
Brian Rose of London Real with Dr. Robert Malone Watch The Full Episode: “The Fight Has Just Begun” Dr. Robert Malone on MAHA, Censorship & The Future of Truth –
Brian Rose of London Real with Dr. Robert Malone. Watch The Full Episode:
A State Department of Fish and Wildlife sent a letter to a home/landowner asking for permission to access a creek on his property to document the decline in a certain species of unheard of frogs.
The letter is as follows:
Dept. Of Fish & Wildlife:
Dear Landowner:
WDFWR Staff will be conducting surveys for foothill yellow-legged frogs & other amphibians over the next few months. As part of this research, we would like to survey the creek on your property. I am writing this letter to request your permission to access your property.
Recent research indicates that foothill yellow-legged frogs have declined significantly in recent years and are no longer found at half their historic sites. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated and will help contribute to the conservation of this important species.
Please fill out the attached postage-paid postcard and let us know if you are willing to let us cross your property or not.
If you have any concerns about this project please give us a call. We would love to talk with you about our research.
Thank you for your inquiry regarding accessing our property to survey for the yellow-legged frog. We may be able to help you out with this matter.
We have divided our 2.26 acres into 75 equal survey units with a draw tag for each unit. Application fees are only $8.00 per unit after you purchase the “Frog Survey License” ($120.00 resident / $180.00 Non-Resident). You will also need to obtain a “Frog Habitat” parking permit ($10.00 per vehicle).
You will also need an “Invasive Species” stamp ($15.00 for the first vehicle and $5.00 for each add’l vehicle) You will also want to register at the Check Station to have your vehicle inspected for Non-native plant life prior to entering our property. There is also a Day Use fee, $5.00 per vehicle.
If you are successful in the Draw you will be notified two weeks in advance so you can make necessary plans and purchase your “Creek Habitat” stamp. ($18.00 Resident / $140.00 Non-Resident).
Survey units open between 8 am. And 3 PM. But you cannot commence survey until 9 am. And must cease all survey activity by 1 PM.
Survey Gear can only include a net with a 2″ diameter made of 100% organic cotton netting with no longer than an 18 in handle, non-weighted and no deeper than 6′ from net frame to bottom of net. Handles can only be made of BPA-free plastics or wooden handles.
After 1 PM. You can use a net with a 3″ diameter if you purchase the “Frog Net Endorsement” ($75.00 Resident / $250 Non-Resident).
Any frogs captured that are released will need to be released with an approved release device back into the environment unharmed.
As of June 1, we are offering draw tags for our “Premium Survey” units and application is again only $8.00 per application.
However, all fees can be waived if you can verify “Native Indian Tribal rights and status”.
You will also need to provide evidence of successful completion of “Frog Surveys” and your “Comprehensive Course on Frog Identification, Safe Handling Practices, and Self-Defense Strategies for Frog Attacks.”
This course is offered on-line through an accredited program for a nominal fee of $750.00.
Please let us know if we can be of assistance to you. Otherwise, we decline your access to our property but appreciate your inquiry.
The above little meme caught my attention because during our extensive travels across Europe, we have noticed just how truly depressing and ugly the vast swathes of cities bathed in Brutalist architecture truly are. These buildings are like entering an Orwellian nightmare.
What is Brutalist architecture?
Brutalist architecture is an architectural style that emerged in the 1950s, characterized by its use of raw, exposed materials, most notably concrete, minimal ornamentation, geometric forms, on a monumental scale.
The ‘social ambition” of Brutalist architecture refers to its primary goal of using architecture to promote socialism and communism for people of all social classes. Whereby, everyone are forced to live in the same structures – in the name of equity and inclusion. Hence, social equity becomes the driving force for “public” housing. Housing for which all are expected to dwell.
In fact, Brutalist architecture is a socialist and communist construct, especially during the mid-20th century. While Brutalism originated in the postwar West (notably the UK), it soon became the dominant style across the communist Eastern Bloc from the 1960s through the 1980s, including in the USSR, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. Socialist and communist governments, in particular, promoted them with purpose.
While Brutalist architecture does not include explicit surveillance features like cameras or monitoring systems – as those systems were not available at the time, in its style – the design elements, such as minimal external windows, centralized layouts, and controlled entry points, facilitate restricting public access and controlling environments. These all align well with government security goals. Furthermore, the association between Brutalism and government bureaucracy, authority, and secrecy has made these structures symbolic of surveillance for the public and in popular media.
Let’s turn to 15-minute cities. They are supposed to provide:
Sustainability – By keeping people within a 15-minute walking distance from where they live and work.
Community and Social Cohesion:
Economic Resilience:
Equity and Inclusion:
Sound familiar?
The truth about 15-minute cities is that they allow governments to conduct massive and routine surveillance of their populace, as well as impose permanent restrictions on the daily activities of large groups of people. These cities work to exclude car ownership from ordinary citizens by making it too expensive through the permitting process and via road restrictions (such as limited traffic zones in residential areas). In the name of social equity, the rights of citizens to move freely are being restricted.
What happens when one gets a better job elsewhere, but other family members are forced to stay within their zone for work or educational purposes? Where one can’t afford to commute or own a car? Will this cause the extended and even nuclear family to break down further?
During any sort of public emergency, the government can limit who can move in and out of these zones. For instance, if one doesn’t have an updated vaccine green pass, their ability to leave their enforcement zone can be easily disabled.
We witnessed this on a massive scale during the COVIDcrisis in Europe. Similarly, in Canada, people were not allowed to board a train or take an airplane for almost a full year, even for medical care, work, or a funeral. Just think if being able to leave the 15-minute zone of your residence was tied to your ability to take public transportation.
In places where 15-minute cities have actually been implemented for any length of time, such as London, most people are resentful and not happy living under these conditions.
Whereas government security goals were once associated with brutalist architecture, in London, there are over a million CCTV cameras, and 15-minute cities have also become associated with the security state. Under these conditions, the right to privacy disappears… when centralized planning becomes the law.
But it gets worse: Brussels is now actively pursuing the 10-minute city model, not only for “climate and sustainability reasons”, but also to explicitly promote equity across its neighborhoods.
The architectural style of a 15-minute city may not be “brutalist,” but the goals don’t seem much different.
Yep- another true story. The Norwegian censorship authority invoked the blasphemy section of the Penal Code (section 142) to prohibit The Life of Brian, even though this law had not been applied in decades.
And yes, the Swedish film industry did run a marketing campaign on that fact.
Thank goodness for our First Amendment rights!
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
One of the benefits of being elderly and having held numerous roles within the US biomedical enterprise is the ability to delve into the details or broaden the perspective to see the bigger picture when necessary. I do not know many people who have the same breadth of exposure that I do, for better or worse. And now, as the sun sets on my so called career, my bicoastal random walk through academe, non-governmental organizations, pharma, DoD, NIH, FDA, and CDC while trying to pay my bills and raise a family, I have become even more aware of how dysfunctional the whole system has become. My learned cynicism is being further refined consequent to getting a glimpse from an inside-the-CDC point of view due to the recent ACIP appointment. One important conclusion is that the deep dysfunction of the US Government’s response to COVID is not only due to the nefarious activities of bad actors who have refined abilities to game the system, but it is also the product of evolved structural flaws that they exploited for personal and corporate gain.
This recently came to a head when questioning a CDC leader during the most recent ACIP meeting, and then speaking to a colleague about the immunologic consequences of repeated dosing (“boosting”) with any vaccine, including the gene therapy-based products (mRNA or recombinant AdV). During the recent ACIP meeting, I asked a question about lot-to-lot variability in safety and effectiveness with the mRNA products. The “how bad is my batch” question that is near and dear to my own heart (so to speak) as my second dose elicited such significant adverse events (POTS syndrome, restless leg, atrial fibrillation, malignant hypertension) and was identified as being a “bad lot” based on VAERS report analysis.
The answer I received from a CDC official was that it was not CDC’s job to monitor lot-to-lot variability, but rather that was FDA’s job. No matter that CDC VAERS data clearly document significant lot-to-lot variability, not in our wheelhouse. As an ACIP member, I was told to seek data from the FDA.
The immunology discussion related to the perplexing, persistent issues of whether repeated antigen exposure can cause the immune system to become less (rather than more) responsive to either a specific antigen, pathogen, or even in general. The immunobabble terminology related to these issues include “original antigenic sin”, “immune imprinting”, “immunoglobulin class switching”, “high zone tolerance”, and Allergen immunotherapy, also known as “desensitization” or “hypo-sensitization”. Bottom line? In immunology, more is not necessarily better. And yet rigorous vaccine primary and “booster” dose selection, timing and repeated boosting studies are rarely if ever done, even in rodent models. Now the ACIP makes recommendations to the CDC director about such matters, so you might assume that the CDC would have the data to demonstrate that decisions about the short and long term effects of re-administration of “vaccines” are based on solid human clinical research findings, wouldn’t you. And you would be wrong. These data just do not exist within the world of CDC data sets. Why you ask? Same answer as for the lot-to-lot variability. Not in our wheelhouse. Paraphrasing- “We do not have the capabilities to do those studies.” “This would require sophisticated immunologic analyses and we do not have either the equipment or the staff.” So who does, one might ask? WELL, that is NIH’s job.
I have DECADES of experience with the NIH and its grants, contracts, and peer-review processes. And Jill’s PhD research project specifically focused on the NIH peer review process. We know a lot about both intramural and extramural NIH funding. First thing you should know about that, aside from the chronic and persistent conflicts of interest and bias (overt and subtle) inherent in that system, is that it takes 4-5 years from initial concept to actually awarding a grant or contract via NIH. A paragon of bureaucratic inefficiency. So, rapid response to a novel public health threat is not consistent with the NIH system.
Aside – Which is why the “other transactional authority” contracting system was set up over at BARDA and DoD. Which was the system that lead to the famous Pfizer defense (paraphrasing) that “we did not commit fraud, we delivered the fraud that the government contracted us to deliver’. Someone should be charged with contracting fraud on that one, but that is a different topic. I was there over a decade ago when this “OTA” system was developed, and have used it myself for major contracts that I have built and won for clients. I know what I am talking about.
But getting back to the crevasses. In the case of the immunologic consequences of repeated dosing with antigens (ergo, “boosting”), no Dr. Peter Marks, inbred mice do not predict human responses.The only thing that predicts outbred human responses is outbred human responses. Not mice, not ferrets, and not monkeys.
And immune system responses in humans that live in the rough and tumble stew of chronic parasites and pathogen exposure on the African continent do not even predict how North American humans will respond, in part due to the cytokine responses generated by the parasites and pathogens. Does NIH routinely fund evaluation of these sorts of issues for existing or new vaccines? No. That would be the job of the FDA. Does the FDA do it? No, that would be the job of the pharmaceutical companies.
Another fundamental inconvenient truth is that, if you are a pharmaceutical industry researcher, it is career suicide to do any studies during advanced development (clinical research stage) just because they seem like the right thing to do to answer an important question. You only do those studies that the FDA forces you to do. Otherwise you might get an answer that will delay or block FDA marketing authorization. And if the FDA is not on the ball or willfully looking the other way due to various pressures and biases, they do not require the studies that would address things like, say, shedding or adverse long-term effects of repeated boosting.
So, CDC says it is FDA or NIH’s problem. NIH is distracted, incredibly inefficient, and driven by fame, fortune, the Nobel Prize hunt and racking up “peer reviewed” publications that go nowhere. DoD does what it can, but its mission is fighting wars and protecting the warfighter, not civilians. And the FDA just muddles through, constantly getting pressured, gamed and spun by Pharma. Medical caregivers have been indoctrinated to have faith in the system and have no idea of how deeply messed up things actually are.
And the average person (and average politician) believes the promoted marketing and propaganda that all is “safe and effective” and that they should just shut up and do what their doctor tells them to do. And the profit rolls in like a tsunami.
This is what I see from my perch. Yes, over decades of experience, I have become deeply cynical. But I still hold out hope that things can be made better. And I hope that you do too. The Make America Healthy Again movement is like nothing I have ever experienced or even imagined. It will not be easy, and it will not be quick. Secretary Kennedy and his team do not have a magic wand, and the resistance to change (internal and external) is enormous. This will take years, and will require massive reimagining and restructuring of the entire health enterprise.
Do we have a choice? If we fail in this endeavor, then our children will continue to live shorter and less healthy lives than their parents. And this is just not acceptable.
One of the big outstanding COVID crisis questions is “How did the medical care system get things so wrong?.” This excellent essay from Dr. Randall Bock uses personal experience and anecdotes from a lifetime of primary care practice spanning rural W Virginia to big city Boston to illustrate and illuminate the sickness at the heart of modern western medicine. I first met Dr. Bock right after the recent election when he reached out to interview me about USG HHS, government contracting, and BARDA. We have had many conversations since, and I have become a fan of his work and perspective. But I had no idea of his personal history. What this essay reveals is the systemic medical system dysfunction seen throughout the US and western medicine during COVID was part of a much broader problem.
“Chemistry – well, technically chemistry is the study of matter. But I prefer to see it as the study of change…. But that’s all of life, right? It’s just the constant, it’s the cycle…. It is growth, then decay, then transformation. It is fascinating. Really.” — Walter White, Breaking Bad
Like Walter White, I started as a chemistry major. During medical school summer breaks, I taught organic chemistry at Yale. That subject (which for most premeds involved “rote” memorization) is better tackled gleaning structure; finding coherence in complexity; crossing pathways of learning a language and mastering circuitry. I co-majored in physics as both disciplines demand clarity, logic, proof.
College, for me, had been a time of free-form exploration: fear, discovery, curiosity, and the exhilarating process of learning how to make propitious use of time with so many diversions possible. Medical school, by contrast, was a shock. I had imagined a deeper dive into science; what I found instead was regimentation: biology boot camp. The emphasis wasn’t on understanding but on discipline– on memorizing vast catalogs of facts before smartphones made the world’s knowledge a thumb-swipe away. It was a jarring adjustment. You weren’t guided to think critically so much as force-fed– like the goose in the pâté de foie gras process– stuffed with information until deemed ripe. Then tested.
Medicine talks a lot about being a science– but too often, it behaves like abstract art. And not the rigorous, rule-bound kind. It resembles Jackson Pollock: slapdash, mood-driven, open to interpretation depending on who’s paying the bill or writing the guideline. To be fair, some domains– like pathology or parasitology– offered clarity. I had professors in those fields whose lessons I still carry. The facts were the facts; the science was the science.
But in softer, more interpretive areas– especially those entangled with human behavior, hormones, or institutional consensus– medicine shifts. It gets personal, tribal, even theatrical. One moment, doctors are confidently headed in one direction; then comes a splash in the water– and the whole “school” veers. This isn’t clinical reasoning– it’s choreography, and fishy at that.
We call medicine an “art,” but that doesn’t excuse it from having structure. When medicine forgets it is grounded in science, it stops being either: good medicine or good science– let alone worthy art.
A Physician’s Unorthodox Path
My journey through medicine hasn’t followed the path most physicians walk. It’s been both more mundane and more surreal. I’ve practiced more hands-on primary care medicine—without mid-level clinicians—than any other MD in my circle (27 years running a solo outpatient office in a blue-collar town). I followed a simple principle: if you’re sick, come in; letting care come before coding (I also offered appointments).
A few years earlier, I’d stepped off the medical-academic track—turning down a Yale Psychiatry residency to spend a year doctoring in Calhoun County, West Virginia: a region of proud but impoverished, tradition-bound people, where time moved differently, and medicine meant earning trust across the chasm of an English spoken seemingly from different centuries (theirs from the previous).
Switching back and accepting a slot in Harvard-MGH’s Psychiatry, I found myself clashing with hierarchy and conformity, a theme that has dogged and defined much of my career. (For those interested, I tell the full story in On Becoming a Doctor, a chapter within my as-yet unpublished memoir.)
That restless streak—the refusal to go along just to get along—shaped everything that followed. I’ve questioned sacred cows, challenged orthodoxy, and paid dearly for it: a personally and professionally painful form of “no good deed goes unpunished”.
I have always believed that physicians (like attorneys) must serve the needs of the individuals enlisting them– not any institutional nor governmental directive (unless those happen to align). But in today’s system – far too often, the opposite has become the norm: medicine (perceptually and practically) genuflects to bureaucracies, to pharmaceutical incentives, and public health “narratives”– all wrapped in the sterile armor of “consensus”.
I’ve essentially never not said what I thought. That is the starting point for creating patient interactions’ comprising integrity; and shepherding a best pathway to health– or at the very least an accommodation to chronic disease. I practiced just outside of Boston, arguably a “medical mecca”; yet time and again, I saw patients emerge from these prestigious institutions utterly confused, unable to grasp what their physicians had explained: words spoken over the patient’s head, directed to medical students in tow. “Elite care” had failed the most basic test of communication.
One episode that has stayed with me involves a brilliant, older family friend who had had a one-day bout of delirium, likely due to an infection. The hospital– Brigham, no less– quickly slotted him into a psychiatric pathway (albeit on a medical floor, but failed to obtain acutely the most basic of tests to rule out intercurrent infection); perhaps subtly branding him as just another doddering, demented elderly man. Various medical teams seemingly hadn’t bothered to ask the right questions or listen. They didn’t grasp that this man had been attending dinners and holding his own in conversations at the highest intellectual levels. He had a life, a mind, a voice– and they ignored all of it: seeing only the outer mask of an old man’s briefly spouting nonsense.
It wasn’t the hospital that called me in, but the family, who were rightfully alarmed that he was being dismissed and misunderstood. Unpaid and unofficial, I found a disjointed set of subspecialists’ drifting by like ships in the night, each pursuing its own protocol without any unified direction or clinical narrative– or cohesive “business plan”within the chart.
Shockingly, no blood cultures had been done. I had to push to get even a urine culture ordered. They weren’t curious, merely operating in silos: ticking off non-sequitur procedures; entirely missing (and never finding) the cause of his condition. I made multiple phone calls to each of the sub- branches (pleading for a concerted effort to find the cause of his acute delirium), but could never get them together on a conference call.
Fortunately, he recovered fully (because of – or despite this medical stay). His mind is sharp as ever (but for that one day).
This experience, among many others, crystallized my growing disillusionment with a medical system that too often prioritizes protocol over patients, pushing me to question not just clinical practices but the very institutions shaping them.
Challenging Medical Dogma
My Authority Magazine bio-interview sketches the outlines of regulatory injustices’ culminating in professional tragedy – and rebirth. I grew up in a financially struggling (five of us in a 1.5 bedroom apartment) but conversationally forthright household, where my parents sacrificed to send us to private school. Asking inconvenient questions in pursuit of truth is my way of paying them respect. That paradigm led to my exposing the shakily irrational underpinnings of Zika-microcephaly in my book Overturning Zika; to dissect the institutional and semantic inflation behind autism diagnoses in my Substack (praised by Dr. Robert Malone as a “treatise”); and to push back against both the COVID panic machine and the prevailing mythologies of addiction.
These seemingly disparate medical topics are not unrelated threads. They represent stories of how external factors distort medical theory. Public health today isn’t about your health: it’s about managing perception, maintaining hierarchy, and avoiding blame. This pattern of prioritizing ideology over evidence extends beyond addiction to other medical domains.
Rethinking Addiction: A Heretic’s Approach
When I wrote that methadone maintenance had ignited (and continues to fan) the opioid crisis, I wasn’t merely guessing.
I had developed a successful, (multi-month-duration) slow-taper detox program– offering a pathway back to genuine sobriety, not a subscription to a lifetime of dependency, via replacement narcotics (whether methadone or Suboxone).
My patients came from all over New England– but mostly from poorer enclaves of Lynn, Chelsea, and Revere (and so often with stories sadder even than merely poverty: foster care, broken households, abuse). Many gave testimony to the joy at making progress in their lives rather than being treated with methadone clinics’ “soft bigotry of low expectations” that they would never be able to “get clean” completely. This was especially poignant on the occasion of women in early pregnancy who had begged and begged their methadone counselors and physicians to be allowed to taper to zero so they could avoid the mewling, tense, isolating detox that a methadone-babyendures on birth.
“When I first had her, she was really bad. Like, she had tremors real bad. It was the worst thing I could ever, ever see for an infant to be withdrawing.”KATIE (on methadone)
But the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (BORIM), led by proudly biasedDr. Candace Lapidus Sloane, didn’t see me as a physician committed to helping addicts reclaim their lives. It saw a heretic. My medical license was suspended, in part, based on testimony from a so-called “state expert” who never reviewed a single one of my patient charts. Moreover, she objected to my tapering narcotic addicts to sobriety (vs. “maintaining” them); while her own practice involved tapering benzodiazepine-addiction. Her entire argument amounted to quoting Nora Volkow and proclaiming, without a trace of irony, that addiction is “a brain disease by definition.” By definition (!?), that’s not science; it’s dogma.
To be fair, BORIM had its foot in the door via a patient complaint– a vindictive, vengeful, and entirely self-serving grievance from a narcotic addict who feared I might jeopardize his disability payments by helping him get sober. I never would have “snitched,” but that didn’t matter. He embellished and distorted his story, and BORIM took the word of a part-time heroin dealer over mine. It was a classic “he said, he said” (even though I had four witnesses on premises who had never noticed an untoward word from me nor any note of displeasure from him during his time in our office).
In retrospect, I was probably naïve. Maybe too self-assured. When the Board first opened an inquiry into me, I assumed its sage members would recognize that I was serious, conscientious, even thoughtful about addiction treatment. I had just finished writing Withdraw to Freedom: Navigating the Addiction Maze, which existed in manuscript form. I believed– wrongly– that reading it would reassure them. Instead, it had the opposite effect.
BORIM leadership treated the book as a smoking gun. My core sin? I didn’t believe addiction was a “disease.” The Board’s own summary got even that wrong: I didn’t merely propose “discourse and reflection.” I implemented a structured, taper-based treatment protocol from the outset—gradually reducing Suboxone over months, not just “toward the end.”
Patients came in grieving, broken, often self-destructive—and many left restored. Addiction isn’t Type I diabetes. People fall into despair and drug use, but they can climb back out. I saw it happen, repeatedly. Until I didn’t, 2014, my annus horribilis.
“Addiction is not a disease. We have a word for diseases– it’s diseases— and we have a word for addiction– it’s addiction. Changing the names of things may work for a moment, but ultimately the meaning catches up with them. People say, ‘Well, it is a disease because it changes your brain chemistry.’ Love changes your brain chemistry. Taking a walk in the woods changes your brain chemistry. That’s what the brain is: the brain is a router… for communicating spiritual truths to your physical body so you can experience them as a physical entity.”
That’s not denialism. That’s clarity. Addiction may be tragic, consuming, and complex– but so are many aspects of human behavior. Calling it a disease because it feels grave or because it changes the brain isn’t medicine. It’s theology in a lab coat; dogma dressed as science.
I don’t deny addiction’s complexity. But I reject its rebranding into a deterministic, pathological inevitability– as though relapse were as unpreventable as pancreatic cancer. Not every serious problem is a disease. Break your hip, and it might kill you– but we still call it an injury, a trauma, not a chronic illness.
The author of Naked Lunch (1959), William Burroughs– a dissolute scion of a wealthy family, muse to the Beat Poets, (in)advertent William Tell–wannabe wife-killer, and (of course!) a Harvard man– didn’t stumble into heroin addiction blindly. By his own account, he embraced it knowingly. Burroughs aptly called narcotic addiction a “disease of exposure.” It doesn’t arise spontaneously. It requires cultivation, distribution, and availability of the drug– “junk,” in his terms. Nobody in 1000 years of (not so Dark-) Middle Ages’ Europe suffered from heroin addiction. It didn’t exist. Some in Asia, where opium was prevalent, perhaps did. That makes narcotic addiction a condition with a historically and geographically contingent distribution– not a timeless biological disease.
Even today, addiction correlates more closely with trauma, alienation, idleness– and yes, bad choices: just like gambling, porn, or compulsive overeating– than with any pathogen or gene. And irony abounds: the same population, placed in different social and moral environments, can display wildly different addiction rates. The English and Scots-Irish stock of the Intermountain West, for instance, show nearly zero heroin addiction when Mormon, but substantial addiction rates when not. Likewise, heroin and opium abuse plagued a war-torn Southeast Asia, but plummeted when the same people– Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian– migrated to the U.S. and thrived in ways they never could back home. In Indochina, they were impoverished, but for opium crops – but never diseased at the molecular level. Addiction is not destiny. It is context.
Yet instead of treating narcotic addiction as a human condition (or even analogously to how it treats alcohol- or benzodiazepine- addictions: certainly with care and psychotherapy but with either abrupt or gradual detoxing completely away from the addicting substance), medicine decided (surprise!) to “medicalize” it– carving out a permanent revenue stream, wrapped in scientific jargon, enforced by regulation. I had challenged that model: arguing for autonomy; for tapering; for sober pregnancies’ leading to unaddicted babies; for personal agency; for treating the individual– not for extending dependency any longer than necessary under the guise of (a coincidently self-reimbursing) compassion. That stance put me squarely in the crosshairs.
Professional Exile and the Cost of Truth
After I overturned the Board’s first suspension in court, it reinstated my license– and then immediately suspended it again. Not because I had harmed patients, but (arguably) because I was a threat to the model: refusing to endorse the “lifetime Suboxone subscription” racket that lines the pockets of addiction “specialists.” I fought back– again– and won. But the damage had been done: years of lost income; professional exile; endless legal forays and expenses; my beloved walk-in clinic shattered and shuttered.
“Regrets, I’ve had a few”: the upheaval my family was put through; a lack of realizing a Sword of Damocles’ looming within an ideologically-driven BORIM (but how could I have known?)– however, I don’t regret my thoughts, my imperatives, my theories, and (case-by-case) my actions. I am a (pre-Covid -era) victim of thinking freely (wrongthink thoughtcrime). Conversely, my docketed Supreme Court case advocates for medical free speech– and a reversal of politicization of medical boards.
Panic as Policy: Medicine’s Failure to Learn
I see now that this pattern– of channeling physicians’ thoughts and actions through ideology rather than evidence– is everywhere. It’s not just addiction. It’s COVID. It’s autism. It’s Zika. It’s menopause. Remember Dr. Susan Love? A prominent breast surgeon with little clinical focus on hormone therapy, she helped spark a national panic over HRT in the 1990s. The ensuing hysteria– amplified by the media and medicine (via the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, led by JoAnn Manson)– drove millions of women into abrupt, unmanaged menopause.
Dr. Manson two decades later called it“the most dramatic sea change in clinical medicine that I have ever seen.” Newsweek characterized the response as “near panic.”
Lost in that stampede was the simple truth: regular medical contact– especially for women on HRT– not only improved quality of life, but also enhanced early cancer detection and survival. The initial WHI findings, skewed by a cohort of older women well past menopause, ignored the benefits for younger women in early menopause– where the risks are lower, and the improvements in vitality, mood, and long-term health are significant.
It’s the same playbook we saw during COVID: a narrow risk in one demographic– exaggerated, universalized, and weaponized against everyone. The best course for the young was buried beneath panic meant for the old. We were told the science had spoken, when in fact it had only whispered– and been misheard.
They say history doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. In modern medicine, it rhymes with silence, panic, and obedience. The fallout from that blind spot is only now being reversed. “Women live longer, feel better. The benefits are overwhelming”, said the FDA’s Dr. Marty Makary– just days ago.
“We” (in “Big Medicine“) should have known better, sooner. PS, I did – and I never changed my HRT-prescribing willingness throughout the 2000s and 2010s: as a lonely voice in the wilderness: treating individuals individually.
Big Medicine too often prefers consensus to truth. Same with autism. As I outlined in my essay Unraveling Autism’s Surge, the explosion in diagnoses isn’t just biology– it’s semantic. Funding, insurance codes, and shifting diagnostic categories, have fueled the surge in autism diagnoses. COVID followed a similar pattern, prioritizing catastrophe over calm, mandates over choice, and censorship over debate, dismissing the collateral damage– overdoses, shuttered businesses, educational collapse– as necessary.
A Call for Courage in Medicine and Beyond
What I’ve learned is this: we have too many experts, too few advocates.When O.J. Simpson went to court, he didn’t get a general counsel for society– he got lawyers just for him. We are far more innocent than he and we deserve the same and better: not groupthink; not population-level dictates. A physician (rightly) serves the patient, not the state, not the insurer, not the CDC. That was the ethic of my medical office. And for that, I was crushed.
Now, I’m still speaking out: through Brownstone; through Substack; through YouTube; through the courts, where I argued that licensing boards shouldn’t get a free pass to crush dissent under the guise of (a falsely-perceived sense of) “safety.” I’ve paid a price. But I’ve gained something more valuable: clarity.
The real public health crisis isn’t opioids, viruses, or autism. It’s cowardice. It’s the institutional refusal to say, “We were wrong.” And worse– it’s the power to punish those who do. If you’ve read this far, you already know what I mean. You’ve probably felt it. If so, I invite you to stand with me. Because the truth isn’t cheap– but it’s worth every sacrifice.
“The trouble is that …much of the application process isn’t built for honesty. Just as I once scrambled to demonstrate my fluency in D.E.I., students now scramble to script the ideal disagreement [civility test], one that manages to be intriguing without being dangerous.” Alex Bronzini-Vender
Why not admit students based on merit, and then teach them how to debate vigorously and disagree honorably? Civility has its place– on the bus, at the dinner table– but not as a gatekeeping metric for truth-seekers– and not on the debate stage whether real or metaphoric (and medical). Not when lies are on the line, personally and societally. But that’s the direction we’re heading. DEI initiatives, peer enforcement of ideological etiquette, and a shift away from academic rigor toward enforced emotional consensus are eroding the very foundations of intellectual independence.
We need a generation of physicians– and thinkers– trained not in compliance, but in courage. The future of medicine, and of liberty itself, depends on it. But liberty is eroding fast. In the UK, the benignly named Online Safety Bill grants bureaucrats sweeping authority to censor speech online in the name of “protection.” In reality, it’s protection for power– protection from dissent. Echoing Elon Musk, Hananya Naftali noted, “They don’t ban hate speech. They ban speech they hate.”
When we can no longer tell the truth– about medicine, about biology, about addiction, about risk then all we have left are narratives. And those who challenge the narrative become the enemy. We must continue with clarity, courage, and a commitment to serving the individual– not the system. That is the only path forward. The only oath that matters.
Today’s essay provides brief reviews of two recent books that I recommend for your reading pleasure, links to two important recent “insider’ substack essays, and some updates concerning the ongoing PsyWar campaigns designed to divide the Make America Healthy Again movement. MAHA is increasingly acknowledged as the most significant contemporary US political movement. Those industries, cabals, trade organizations (particularly corporate political action committees), and Medical guilds (AMA, AAP, etc.) that are at risk for losing revenue, stock value, power, and status from the coming policy changes are not going to take this lying down.
Forbidden Facts: Government Deceit & Suppression About Brain Damage from Childhood Vaccines
Author Gavin DeBecker is unquestionably the most important person you have never heard of in the campaign for truth, transparency, and medical freedom during the COVID crisis. The author of the bestseller “Gift of Fear”, Gavin is a personal friend of both Jill and me, as well as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tony Lyons (publisher and leader of the MAHA Action 501C4), and an amazing broad cross-section of Hollywood/entertainment elite. One of many examples is that he was a close lifelong friend (since childhood) of actress Carrie Fisher. He has provided quiet behind-the-scenes support for many that you would recognize in the COVID “medical freedom”—movement, including myself. He was the original financial backer of the super-PAC that financially supported RFKjr during his Presidential Campaign. During the COVID crisis until now, DeBecker, author of multiple bestselling books published under his own name, has silently ghostwritten and published important COVID books using the names of others. Now he has decided to publish this important new work under his own name.
How do you counter officious “debunking”? How do you refute government-promoted medical falsehoods, propaganda, and gaslighting? This book leads by example. You carefully, calmly, and objectively cite and document multiple examples of how a fake “debunking” process is deployed. How government, industry and academia collude to craft seemingly definitive but false narratives designed to avoid corporate and governmental accountability. You demonstrate that those doing the “debunking” are actually agents acting at the behest of the organizations facing blowback from their actions, lies, and coverups. You leaven the loaf with a bit of sardonic wit to lighten the reader’s burden as they encounter repeated patterns of fraud. You provide the data proving the inconvenient truths previously obscured by the coverups. And then you let your readers draw their own conclusions. That is precisely what this clearly and persuasively written book does, no more and no less.
I was grateful to receive an advance copy to read and review. Talk about truth bombs! One after another. Once again, as when Bobby Kennedy asked me to edit “The Real Anthony Fauci”, I was struck by the sense that – despite all that I thought I knew about US government, Academic medicine, and Pharma/Bio collusion, misdeeds, propaganda, and just plain outright coverups, there is so much more to know. This is a book both for our times and for the ages. Once again, what I learned is not to trust pseudo-government-sounding organizations like the “National Academy of Sciences’, which is just as much of a government organization as the “Federal Reserve”. Read this carefully researched book, and then make your own determination about the promoted truths and falsehoods concerning the safety of the current US childhood vaccine schedule.
As many are increasingly aware, the worm is turning, and now even Wikipedia is allowing edits to the outright defamation and slander that has been woven into what many now refer as “Wokopedia.” While on “working vacation” recently, I was talking to a colleague who specializes in reputation reconstruction following targeted defamation campaigns, and we started discussing the aggressive editing of my own bio on Wikipedia. To my great surprise, when I looked up the latest version of my Wiki bio, I was pleasantly surprised. The usual sentence that I “spread vaccine misinformation during COVID” (which never defines what that misinformation was and relies on biased corporate media propaganda) is still there. As is a quote from the NY Slimes hit piece on me written by the “disinformation reporter” Davey Alba – after which she was terminated from the NYT. No context provided for that one either, including her uncanny insider knowledge of CIA matters. But all and all, it was packed with accurate and generally favorable new information – including a section on Jill, listing her PhD, and reporting that we have a long-standing stable marriage beginning with being high-school sweethearts.
People often speak to me of “how hard” it must have been/still is to deal with the barrage of censorship and defamation campaigns I have experienced during the last five years. My response is always that what I have had to deal with pales in comparison to President Trump. But right up there is the smear campaign and roll up smears deployed against the “Disinformation Dozen” that include Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Dr. Mercola, and Sayer Ji. Akin to my failed suits against the NYT, WaPo, and various social media influencers that engaged in coordinated delegitimization and defamation campaigns, Sayer has filed a lawsuit against the firm that launched this campaign against him – the Center for Combating Digital Hate (CCDH). Notice how these shadowy astroturf organizations like to give themselves such benign-sounding names?
Unlike my lawsuits, Sayer is making progress. The legal climate has shifted considerably, and judges are increasingly aware that people’s rights have been damaged by these PsyWar campaigns. And now, like my own, his Wikipedia page is starting to come around. If you want to know more about what is going on in his case, I recommend you read this recent Substack.
I hesitate to mention this essay because it will just feed the ongoing trollery. Still, for those of you who have been following the escapades of Jane Ruby and her colleagues and associated outrage farmers Sasha Latypova and Naomi Wolf, there has been an update from “Open Vaet”. Just to address that attack line, “Open Vaet” is not an anonymous pseudonym for me, despite Jane Ruby’s delusions. If for no other reason, it is useful to read and engage with this author and her work to better understand the tactics and strategy being used by the current crop of chaos agents.
It’s been an interesting few days since the release of our coverage – produced with a few selfless anons – of Jane Ruby’s life and how her frauds directly endangered children with opioids, for career advancement… before she mysteriously evaded accountability and emerged unscathed from the lawsuit that led to her company’s $2-billion fine…
Another fascinating and very readable survey, in this case written by an author who is firmly rooted in Academic Medicine but has also decided to come out and put his insights and criticisms of the vaccine enterprise on paper, despite the blowback he is likely to receive. And as was the case with the DeBecker book, I was provided with a publisher’s pre-print to read and review.
Author’s Bio follows as provided by the publisher. Northwestern Med Transplantation Immunology (Chicago- my alma mater) AND Scripps (LaJolla, CA) is about as mainstream medicine as you are going to find. And yet here it is. An amazingly broad analysis of the history of virology, vaccines, molecular biology, and the comprehensive corruption of the entire academic/governmental/pharmaceutical industrial complex inadvertently brought about by the Bayh-Dole Act.
DR. RICHARD K. BURT is a Fulbright Scholar, CEO of Genani Biotechnology, a tenured retired Professor at Northwestern, and current Scripps faculty. He pioneered America’s first hematopoietic stem cell transplant for autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and scleroderma. Dr Burt has seven United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patents on using induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells for aging and degenerative diseases.
Dr. Burt was awarded Leukemia Scholar of America, the Lupus Foundation of America Fidelitas Award, the van Bekkum Award by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), the Distinguished Clinical Achievement Award by the Clinical Research Forum, the EBMT Clinical Achievement Award, and the “Keys to the Vatican” in Rome. He has spoken at numerous conferences, universities, and institutions. Hospitals worldwide offer his stem cell protocols to patients.
Dr. Burt was recognized by Science Illustrated for accomplishing one of the Top 10 medical breakthroughs and by Scientific American as one of the Top 50 individuals for improving humanity and outstanding leadership. Dr Burt has written 150 medical / science articles, four medical textbooks, and two lay books: Everyday Miracles and Kill Switch.
What is the Kill Switch that Dr. Burt refers to in the title? Basically, Burt argues that transparent disclosure of risk and proper informed consent for medical procedures provides the most effective check on out-of-control medical research and mandates.
The scope of this volume is amazing, reaching back to the dawn of the written history of western civilization and the role of Smallpox as both a bioweapon and as a key factor in the collapse of the Roman Empire, through the development of the initial Smallpox vaccines, to the missteps and consequences of early polio vaccine development and deployment, through AIDS, the Ebola vaccine, and ending with the origin of SARS-CoV-2. However it stops short of commenting on the missteps associated with Operation Warp Speed and the genetic vaccines, and to my jaded eye, cautiously side steps a number of controversies that I have had direct experience with. Particularly notable is the lack of a chapter describing the early attempts to develop an RSV vaccine and the problem of vaccine-associated disease enhancement. Despite those mild reservations, I really enjoyed reading this during my recent ‘working vacation’, was fascinated with the many historic facts that the author did discuss, and am completely aligned with his comments and analysis concerning the central critical importance of informed consent as well as the deeply corrupting effects of the Bayh-Dole act.
Another book that is absolutely worth reading, made even more so because the author is so deeply embedded in mainstream academic medicine and biotechnology. The intellectual landscape concerning the modern vaccine and biomedical industrial complex is clearly shifting. This book provides hope that it is moving in the right direction. For those not familiar with the history of vaccination, the role of modern biochemistry and molecular biology, and the ethical issues confronting this sector, this is also an excellent introductory primer.
For the gullible, easily manipulated, and frankly, paranoid personalities, outrage trolling – or really, rage-baiting posts and essays- often cause great confusion and anger, as they are meant to do.
What is outrage trolling or rage-baiting?
(Definitions below) are based on AI queries)
Outrage trolling involves intentionally posting inflammatory, provocative, or offensive content online designed to provoke strong negative emotions like outrage or anger.
It exploits controversial topics or polarizing opinions to spark heated arguments, disrupt discussions, or manipulate groups into public outrage. This behavior is common on social media, comment sections, or forums where emotionally charged content can spread rapidly, increasing division, misinformation, or the visibility of the troll’s message.
Outrage trolling is a specific form of provocative trolling and is closely related to rage-baiting or rage-farming, which also aim to generate engagement by manipulating emotions.
It is related to what I often refer to as “Fear Porn”, but represents a significant departure and evolution of the use of fear to drive clicks, likes, follows, and social media engagement.
**Key features of outrage trolling:**
• **Intentional provocation:** Posts are created to maximize anger or offense.
• **Escalation of conflict:** It often amplifies debates and spreads misinformation through emotionally manipulative tactics.
• **Viral potential:** Emotions like outrage are particularly effective at increasing online engagement and visibility.
**Limitations:** Although related to general trolling behaviors, outrage trolling mainly targets anger and public controversy, not just annoyance, confusion, or humor.
Rage-baiting is a deliberate online tactic aimed at provoking anger or outrage to increase engagement, such as comments, shares, and visibility or revenue. This is often done through inflammatory posts, memes, headlines, or comments intended to trigger strong emotional responses – mainly anger from audiences.
Key aspects of rage-baiting include:
Intentional provocation: Content is crafted to elicit anger or frustration, often without regard for truth or accuracy14.
Engagement-driven: The manipulation is aimed at increasing online interaction, which in turn boosts the post’s visibility due to how social media algorithms reward engagement, regardless of whether it is positive or negative246.
Financial and social incentives: For creators, this can result in more followers, subscribers, and sometimes direct financial gain from increased traffic or monetization27.
Distinction from trolling:While similar to trolling, rage-baiting is usually more calculated, aiming at maximizing algorithmic reward rather than simply upsetting individuals for amusement3.
Common in politics, political influence campaigns, media and marketing: It is also used as a political tactic to manipulate public opinion, distract from issues, or target opponents, sometimes by combining partial truths with misinformation.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
There isn’t any way to respond to rage baiting, except to ignore it. That includes queries and comments from the gullible, who don’t seem to understand that the attacks are coordinated and meant to stir up outrage and confusion. Usually for revenue and that these attacks are being coordinated.
It used to bother me a lot, so a few years back, I consulted various experts as to how I should respond. This is the standard playbook that I follow:
“Do Not Engage Emotionally: Trolls thrive on provoking emotional reactions. Responding in anger feeds the cycle and can damage your public image. Maintain a calm, collected, and professional tone in all public interactions123.
Resist the Urge to Respond: In most cases, the simplest and most effective response is silence. Ignoring trolls deprives them of the attention they seek. They often lose steam if there’s no reaction from their target145.
Block and Report: Use moderation tools to block the offender and report abusive content to the platform. Take screenshots before doing so, in case legal action or official reporting becomes necessary.”
The truth is that blocking stops the angst, but reporting does very little.
That said, I personally have recently had a full day with two FBI agents about the harassment, threats, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, psyops, etc. Apparently, an investigation has been launched from within the government.
And yes, we do fear for our lives sometimes.
So, when I don’t respond to the hate, which is designed to cause engagement by the readers, it isn’t that I don’t want to. It is that my responses would literally “feeds the trolls.”
What I don’t know is how many of these attacks are coordinated. I do know that some (maybe most) of the people involved are getting paid to do this. And I know of at least one organization that pays people to write this filth.
I recently received an apology from someone who has been involved in slandering and libeling me. I won’t dox them – but here are parts of their letter (some of it has been redacted both to protect the writer and because of the ongoing investigation0:
“I’ve owed you an apology for quite some time now, and I deeply regret not delivering it sooner. That delay is on me. But I believe we’re now more aligned in how we view things, and I want to be transparent with you. First, the article in question (redacted) was written by me. I regret it deeply. I didn’t write it voluntarily—I was under duress. But that’s not an excuse. I take full responsibility and offer you a sincere apology.
(redacted)
I said things like, “His posts don’t seem to be affecting sales. There’s no reason to go to war with him publicly.” I wanted us to focus on content that mattered to people, not petty drama. I was worried that obsessing over you would sink the business (redacted). But (redacted) shut me down: “We tried ignoring him. He’s not going away. We have to do something.”
I tried to resist further, but I eventually caved to the idea of … (redacted). Drama was the only angle you were vulnerable to because, frankly, you had been right about almost everything. I published (redacted) under the (redacted) name because I did not want my name attached to it.
At first, I didn’t promote it. I was already mad that I was strong-armed into doing this, and I didn’t want to be a part of their drama. I figured no one would even see (redacted) unless I shared it (redacted).
Then came the pressure. (Redacted) called me and said (redacted) was worried I was “wavering”—meaning that I was not passing his loyalty test. At the time, 80% of my income came from (redacted). I caved and chose the path of least resistance.
For that, I am truly sorry. I’m even more sorry that it appears the (redacted) may have harmed your reputation. That’s what weighs on me the most. You didn’t deserve that (redacted), and your criticisms of (redacted) were completely fair.
I see (redacted) for what they are now, and I’m disgusted that they built their success by exploiting my influence and grifting off the medical freedom movement. (redacted) operation deserve to be held accountable. I am sorry that I not only hurt your good name but contributed to their success. If there is anything I can do to make this right, I am open to having that conversation. Sincerely, (redacted)”
(end of letter -sent to my X DM from an account with almost two million followers)
At least one person apologized. More than I ever expected. But this is my world. Sometimes, it is hard not to be bitter or afraid.
The outrage trolling and rage baiting is not “just” about engagement farming. The outrage trolling and rage baiting is coordinated, and yes, pharma is involved.
Secretary Kennedy and his team at HHS are also under attack. From literally all sides. But please understand, none of us subjected to these types of attacks can defend ourselves. We just have to suck it up. No matter how much we want to fight, clear our good name, or strike back with some pithy comment.
The only thing we can do is go quiet. To engage in their war is to lose.
In the meantime, I continue to keep my gate closed, my dogs wild, and my weapons nearby. But not too nearby, because frankly, the risk of getting swatted is great, and makes any defense dangerous. And yes, the widespread deployment of swatting continues unabated, and according to my sources, the FBI won’t do anything to stop it.
The rage baiting against MAHA may eventually get someone killed, and at times, I am afraid it will be me.
There is no winning in this war, except by educating followers and MAHA movement supporters of how this trick is played, in hopes that they will not fall for the bad jacketing and false flag attacks.
In retrospect, was this an attempt by legacy media, at the behest of the deep state controlled by Obama, to set the narrative that the findings of the Mueller report were inaccurate, due to Mueller’s “cognitive aging”?
As the deep state knew dam well that Trump did not collude with the Russians all along and that the report exonerating Trump was exactly what they didn’t want to come out – with the 2020 presidential election on the horizon?
This was propaganda, plain and simple. PsyWar tech was repeatedly deployed by the deep state against American Citizens to delegitimize a duly elected president.
Will there be consequences?
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
With Stephen Colbert gone from Cable TV, just think about we all will be missing.
Yah, “that” vaccine dance!
But for anyone who needs more indoctrination and propaganda from our good friends in the pharma industry and government – oh, Stephey delivered so much more!
(If you watched all of that video, you are a better man than I)!
So say we all- Good riddance to bad trash news!
But what about big bird?
Let’s face it, who remembers when “Bird Bird” tried to guilt parents of toddlers into getting their babies vaccinated with an experimental product, to “save” grandma?
And we thought thegood times would never end <insert sarcasm>!
Taking out the trash…
The truth is that when Big Bird became a child predator, it became time to defund PBS.
This week Congress did the right thing. They deserves our gratitude for defunding PBS.
It is past time to eliminate such rubbish from the airwaves.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Sayer Ji’s Substack
OpenVAET’s Substack
