McCairn, who has treated approximately 25 patients, describes vaccine injuries linked to abnormal amyloid and mis-folded proteins, often triggered by spike protein. These cause widespread microclots, autoimmune responses, brain fog, extreme fatigue, heart irregularities, neuropathy, and organ damage. Many patients arrive after years of misdiagnosis and ineffective treatments, having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Evans, a former rugby player from Houston, exemplifies this struggle. Vaccinated in March 2021, he rapidly developed symptoms: skyrocketing spike antibodies (over 18,000), low B cells, liver dysfunction, endocrine chaos, autoimmune encephalitis, and malignant pericarditis visible on X-rays as a large inflamed sac around the heart. Conventional tests (cardiac MRI, stress tests) appeared normal, and doctors dismissed vaccine causation, sometimes bordering on malpractice. Thyroid removal worsened his condition. He endured ER visits with heart rates spiking to 190 bpm, fainting, blood in multiple sites, and profound brain fog that stripped him of emotion and clarity. “I was dying,” Evans recalls. “I couldn’t get out of bed.”

The Japan protocol involves jugular-vein dual filtration apheresis using specialized canisters to remove autoantibodies, amyloids, and misfolded proteins directly from cerebral outflow, combined with stem cell growth factors (SGF) derived from dental pulp to promote regeneration and inhibit further clotting. Unlike peripheral vein methods, this targets neurovascular injury.

Evans underwent four weeks of treatment. After the first filtration, his cognitive clarity returned. Post-second session, the pressure in his heart and panic lifted. X-rays three weeks later showed near-complete resolution of pericarditis. Spike antibodies dropped 25%, and he regained 85% function—able to laugh, parent, and live normally, though managing residual Hashimoto’s. “I have my life back,” he says.

Chest X-Rays of Ken Evans before and after treatment:

Many others report rapid relief from brain fog and fatigue, with spectacular turnarounds even in severe cases. Nurse Lindsay, previously housebound for years, is now able to run. Recovery is slower with extensive brain damage but generally positive.

Challenges remain. Treatment costs are high, unavailable in the U.S. due to regulatory hurdles, and patients often exhaust resources first. McCairn notes emerging hydrogel-like plasma changes in samples, raising concerns about broader contamination risks. He stresses autoantibodies and molecular mimicry drive much pathology beyond persistent spike. While not a universal cure, the intervention achieves clinical significance for many.

Evans’ story underscores medical gaslighting yet offers hope. As advocates push for U.S. access and recognition, this protocol demonstrates that targeted removal of pathological proteins paired with regenerative support can reverse what seemed irreversible damage. For countless injured individuals, it represents not just treatment, but restored humanity.

If you are interested in having your blood tested for amyloid, go to Synpatek Labs for further instructions.

Haviland, fired in 2021 from his $165,000 defense contracting role at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base for refusing the experimental mRNA shot, turned his analytical skills toward this mystery. Inspired by the 2022 documentary Died Suddenly, he contacted the Ohio Embalmers Association. Vice President Woody Wilson confirmed seeing the clots, corroborating accounts from embalmers who first noticed them roughly six months after vaccine deployment. Haviland and collaborator Laura Kasner launched global surveys of embalmers from 2022 to 2025. Results consistently showed 66-83% of respondents observing these clots in 20-30% of cases, with sharp increases in the 36-50 age group—aligning with excess mortality and disability data from analysts like Edward Dowd.

Scientific teams, including Australian organic chemist Greg Harrison, have analyzed the clots using advanced techniques. Normal clotting involves fibrinogen converting to fibrin in balanced alpha, beta, and gamma chains, forming smooth, plasmin-degradable structures. These abnormal clots show a distorted 9:4:1 ratio, with high phosphorus, sulfur, and sometimes tin, low iron, magnesium, and potassium. Researchers hypothesize that spike protein—whether from infection or vaccine—and phospholipid nanoparticles phosphorylate and hijack fibrinogen, creating misfolded, amyloid-like polymers resistant to breakdown. Thioflavin T staining lights them up green under UV, confirming amyloid properties. Scanning electron microscopy reveals twisted, nodular fibers unlike normal “spaghetti-like” fibrin.

Alarmingly, these clots appear not only in corpses but in living patients. Endovascular specialist Dr. Mahana Basheeret reported extracting them via catheter from legs, hearts, and other vessels in his Jacksonville cath lab. Similar reports from a UK whistleblower describe 3-10 such clots weekly, almost exclusively in vaccinated individuals, with severity increasing by dose count. Standard clot-busters like tPA fail; physical removal is required. Radiologists struggle to detect them as they mold to vessel walls. Microclots resembling “coffee grounds” also clog capillaries, impairing oxygen exchange.Official response has been minimal. Haviland shared survey data with FDA, CDC, and NIH annually since 2023, including before an advisory meeting, yet received no substantive action. Some doctors faced pressure to cease communication. Funeral associations largely remain silent, despite member concerns. Patient surveys (over 1,400 responses) mirror CDC V-safe data, showing post-2021 surges in leg, lung, brain, and heart clots.

This vascular amyloidosis represents a visible, testable signal amid broader debates on vaccine side effects. While spike from infection may contribute in rare cases, persistence of mRNA-driven production offers a plausible driver for ongoing cases years later. Protocols like nattokinase, bromelain, and curcumin aim to address spike, with advanced filtration showing promise. As embalmers continue annual conventions and data collection, independent science must prioritize rigorous autopsy, imaging, and blood supply studies. Transparency and further investigation are essential to understand and mitigate this persistent issue.

The FDA’s 2022 decision to remove several peptides from the compounding safety list disrupted access for patients and clinicians. This shift pushed many toward gray-market sources, often labeled “research only,” raising serious safety concerns regarding purity, potency, and sourcing. Recent enforcement actions have shut down non-compliant suppliers shipping across state lines. DeNeui emphasizes that reputable compounding pharmacies adhering to FDA-inspected facilities and good manufacturing practices remain viable in certain states, but patients should avoid unverified online vendors. Underground products lack proper testing and clinician oversight, posing risks of contamination or inconsistent dosing.

Growth hormone-stimulating peptides like CJC-1295 and ipamorelin attract teenagers via social media for muscle building and performance. DeNeui strongly cautions against this. Healthy adolescents with normal growth and puberty do not need them; exogenous interference can disrupt natural hormone balance, potentially stunting growth, elevating prolactin (causing gynecomastia), or causing pituitary issues. These compounds are better suited for age-related sarcopenia, injury recovery (e.g., Lisfranc fractures under medical supervision), or immune support in adults via peptides like Thymosin Alpha-1 and BPC-157. Proper cycling and clinician guidance are essential, as peptides act briefly and require tailored protocols.

GLP-1 medications demonstrate strong efficacy for obesity and type 2 diabetes but demand careful management. Compounded versions are more affordable and allow micro-dosing to minimize side effects, though muscle loss remains a concern—up to 40% of weight lost can be lean mass without adequate protein and monitoring. Adverse events, including rare severe cases like pancreatitis, underscore the need for baseline assessments and experienced providers. DeNeui favors starting with semaglutide or tirzepatide from trusted sources.

Hormone replacement, particularly subcutaneous bioidentical pellets (estrogen and testosterone), offers sustained release for three to six months. Unlike synthetic options such as Premarin (derived from mare urine), bioidentical or biosimilar hormones more closely mimic the body’s molecules. Pellet hormone therapy, used since the 1930s, supports mood, libido, energy, muscle maintenance, and overall quality of life, especially as testosterone declines in women post-childbearing. Progesterone is typically taken orally and necessary when taking estrogen to protect the uterus. Individual dosing accounts for age, activity, and hormone levels; side effects like unwanted hair growth are manageable. Urine metabolite testing (e.g., DUTCH) and GI mapping provide deeper insights into hormone processing and gut health, which influences conditions like PCOS, endometriosis, and fibroids.

Both peptides and hormones offer powerful tools when used responsibly under trained clinicians. They are not shortcuts for lifestyle deficits but complements to nutrition, sleep, exercise, and stress management. As regulation evolves and research advances, prioritizing safety, evidence, and personalized care will maximize benefits while minimizing risks. Professional guidance remains non-negotiable for these potent therapies.

Follow Terri DeNeui on X and learn more with her book “Hormone Havoc.”

Concerns stem from early observations by European naturopaths and doctors who examined blood under magnification and noted anomalies in vaccinated individuals, sometimes resembling patterns seen in late-stage cancer patients, even among those without symptoms. These findings coincided with a reported 522% increase in blood-related illness claims in the UK from 2021 to 2022. While mainstream health authorities maintain that mRNA shots do not transmit via blood and that vaccinated donors pose no added risk, questions persist about lingering spike protein, potential DNA fragments, and biodistribution effects documented in some studies.

A high-profile case involved a Texas patient at Baylor St. Luke’s whose wife—a universal donor—and friends were denied the opportunity to donate directed blood for his surgery. The hospital also resisted autologous donation despite sufficient lead time. Such denials highlight tensions between patient autonomy and institutional policies. The FDA issued guidance on October 23, 2023, cautioning that directed donations based on characteristics like vaccination status lack scientific support and may carry higher infectious disease risks than the general supply. Critics argue this relies on a 2013 Dorsey et al. study from an earlier era dominated by AIDS-related fears. That study initially showed higher infection markers in directed donations (often from first-time donors), but after adjusting for repeat versus new donors, the risk difference largely disappeared or even favored directed donations in some metrics. Opponents claim the FDA’s interpretation misrepresents the data to discourage patient choice, echoing past controversies over information suppression during the pandemic.

The U.S. blood industry generates substantial revenue—estimated in the tens of billions annually—and the country exports a significant portion of plasma-derived products, accounting for roughly 2.65% of total exports and supplying about 70% of global needs in some categories. Blood banks often separate whole blood into components (packed red cells, platelets, plasma) for efficiency and reformulate as needed, a process that may generate more revenue than simple directed whole-blood transfers. Large organizations like the American Red Cross and others have opposed legislation protecting directed and autologous donations, citing supply chain concerns and invoking the FDA statement. Hospitals contract exclusively with one blood bank, creating bottlenecks when policies conflict.

In response, over a dozen states have introduced bills to safeguard patient rights to autologous or directed donations and, in some cases, require labeling or separation of blood by donor vaccination status. Idaho advanced such legislation with near-unanimous support after testimony revealed local barriers, including denials even for autologous blood. Similar efforts in Texas nearly passed but faced procedural hurdles, while bills in Tennessee, Kentucky, and elsewhere continue. Proponents emphasize that one’s own blood or that from known healthy donors was historically the safest option and should not suddenly become restricted. They also highlight alternatives like Cell Saver technology, which recycles a patient’s own blood during surgery (common in open-heart procedures), though hospitals rarely offer it proactively.

Demand for Safe Blood’s matching services is rising, driven by resistance from hospitals and blood banks. The organization does not collect or store blood itself to avoid heavy regulation; instead, it connects compatible donors and recipients for timely, fresh transfers coordinated through physicians and hospital blood banks. Membership is open on a sliding scale, with donor volunteers (unvaccinated individuals willing to help) providing critical support at no cost.

Ultimately, this debate transcends blood logistics. It concerns medical freedom, transparency, and the right to informed consent in an era of novel biotechnologies whose full effects remain under study. While regulatory bodies assert the blood supply’s safety based on standard infectious disease screening (HIV, hepatitis, etc.), growing patient advocacy seeks empirical verification and choice—especially in non-emergencies. As states deliberate legislation, the core principle endures: the safest blood is often one’s own or from trusted sources, and policies should prioritize patient well-being over institutional convenience or industry flow. Safe Blood and similar initiatives represent a grassroots effort to restore that autonomy, ensuring future generations inherit a blood supply that respects individual risk assessments.

Yet today this same doctor faces up to 50 years in federal prison. The reason? He dared to speak out when the Biden administration pulled monoclonal antibodies in December 2021, a move he argued would cost lives. Appearing on Fox News and Newsmax, Dr. Elfenbein publicly warned that the effective treatment was being sacrificed to protect the emergency-use authorization of COVID vaccines. Federal law, he noted, bars EUAs for vaccines when alternatives exist. Four months later, without warning or subpoena, the Department of Justice indicted him on five counts of healthcare fraud for “upcoding”—billing a Level 4 evaluation-and-management code instead of Level 3, a difference averaging roughly $50 per claim. The total alleged overpayment across the five charts reviewed: $250.

The case was built on five patient charts out of more than 100,000. No professional coder was consulted before indictment; government lawyers simply declared the codes fraudulent. Two independent expert coders later reviewed hundreds of charts and found no fraud—one was the former president of the ethics committee of the American Association of Professional Coders, the other a DOJ trainer who hunts fraud for a living. Even the American Medical Association and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons filed amicus briefs defending Dr. Elfenbein, noting that he followed the very coding rules the AMA itself wrote.

After a three-week trial, a jury convicted him. But Chief Judge of Maryland overturned the verdict in an unprecedented 93-page opinion, declaring there was literally “no evidence” of a crime and that the government’s case should never have been brought. The judge called it a “shoot first and ask questions later” prosecution. The Biden DOJ appealed on its final day in office, forcing a new trial scheduled for August 2026.

Dr. Elfenbein now asks the Trump administration’s weaponization task force—established by Attorney General Pam Bondi—to review his case as a protected whistleblower. Former U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein publicly called the prosecution baseless. Meanwhile, Dr. Elfenbein’s legal bills have reached millions; he drives a Hyundai and relies on his wife, a pediatric oncologist, to keep the family afloat.

This is not a story about $250 in disputed billing. It is a cautionary tale of government retaliation against a doctor who saved lives and told the truth. The case must be dropped—not as a favor, but as simple justice. Americans who risked everything to fight a pandemic should not spend the rest of their lives fighting their own government. Visit dropthecase.com to support Dr. Elfenbein and help ensure this injustice ends.

The patient responded to surgical incision, bone sawing, and organ manipulation with typical hemodynamic changes, requiring standard anesthesia. This experience haunted Dr. Klessig, prompting her to examine primary sources. She later authored The Brain Death Fallacy, arguing that brain death is not equivalent to biological death but a utilitarian redefinition enabling organ procurement.

Historical Context and the Harvard Redefinition

For millennia, death was recognized by the irreversible cessation of heartbeat, breathing, and the passage of time—signs observable without medical technology. Traditions like wakes ensured certainty. In 1968, shortly after Christiaan Barnard’s heart transplants, a Harvard ad hoc committee proposed “irreversible coma” as a new criterion for death. Their JAMA paper, lacking scientific references, described patients as “desperately injured” and a “burden,” justifying the change on utilitarian grounds: freeing ICU beds and resolving controversies over taking organs from comatose individuals.

The committee did not claim these patients were biologically dead; it redefined them as such by fiat. This bypassed the “dead donor rule”—a moral precept requiring donors to be dead before organ removal and not killed by the process. By declaring certain comatose patients dead, procurement could proceed legally while the body remained biologically alive, warm, and perfused.

Scientific and Philosophical Flaws

Dr. Klessig highlights that brain death is often a prognosis, not a diagnosis of death. A key 1970s neuropathology study of 26 brains declared brain dead under stricter criteria found 10 normal and fewer than half showing diffuse destruction. The authors concluded it predicted possible death, not confirmed it. Subsequent cases, including a boy (known as TK) who lived 20 years post-declaration with no brain tissue at autopsy (only scar tissue), demonstrate that biological life can persist.

Modern guidelines (e.g., 2023 American Academy of Neurology) rely on a clinical bedside exam: unresponsiveness, no motor response to pain, absent brainstem reflexes, and an apnea test. These are subjective. EEG is no longer required, despite 20% of diagnosed cases showing brain waves; over half retain hypothalamic function (regulating temperature, blood pressure, and awareness). Legal definitions demand irreversible cessation of all brain functions, creating inconsistencies that have prompted failed attempts to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act.

Patients like Jenny Heyman, declared brain dead yet inwardly aware and able to recover with attentive care, underscore that unresponsiveness does not equal unconsciousness or death. Dr. Klessig notes the public receives no informed consent about these debates when checking “organ donor” at the DMV.

Financial and Systemic Pressures

Hospitals must report potential donors to organ procurement organizations (OPOs) under CMS rules for Medicare/Medicaid funding. Transplants generate massive revenue—one set of organs (heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc.) can yield over $8 million in billable charges, contributing to a $60+ billion industry.

Cases like TJ Hoover, who showed purposeful movement and survived after being prepared for harvest, illustrate pressure on staff, and practices like controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) and normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) further blur lines. In DCD, life support is withdrawn from non-brain-dead patients with poor prognoses; a short “no-touch” period follows cardiac arrest before procurement. Reports, including Misty Hawkins (who gasped and had a beating heart upon incision), show risks of intervening on still-living individuals. NRP involves clamping brain circulation to declare brain death mid-procedure while resuscitating other organs—ethically controversial.

Internationally, issues are graver: China’s state-linked trafficking from prisoners of conscience and cartel activity in Mexico exploit vulnerable populations.

Ethical Imperative and Protections

Dr. Klessig distinguishes ethical living donation (e.g., kidney from a relative or stranger) from deceased donation reliant on contested definitions. She argues society has sacrificed progress in neurological care by writing off “hard cases” as donors rather than treating them.

To protect oneself: Avoid registering as an organ donor, as it is legally binding and OPOs have sued families. Use resources like respectforhumanlife.com for refusal documents, healthcare power of attorney, and wallet cards. Families should ask detailed questions and seek second opinions.

Dr. Klessig’s account, rooted in clinical experience and historical analysis, urges informed consent and reevaluation. Changing definitions does not alter biological reality. True respect for human life demands transparency, rigorous science, and ethical alternatives to practices that risk treating the living as dead.

Follow Dr. Klessig on X and on YouTube.

Currently operating primarily in St. Louis (Chesterfield Valley), with additional locations in Iowa and an upcoming expansion to Des Moines, the clinic focuses on restoring cellular health, particularly through mitochondrial function. Dr. James highlights MitoRegen™ (also called Mitochondrial Reboot Protocol), an innovative intravenous therapy that replicates the body’s natural pulsatile insulin signaling. Studies dating back to the 1970s identified microscopic insulin oscillations from the pancreas to the liver, triggering enzymes that enhance mitochondrial efficiency and ATP production. Illness disrupts this signal, causing mitochondria to shift away from glucose utilization and lose energy output.

This therapy uses a specialized pump to deliver tiny, pulsatile doses of regular insulin (typically 10-15 units total over three hours) intravenously, mimicking natural bursts every six minutes. Patients often carb-load beforehand, with blood sugar monitored every 15 minutes to prevent hypoglycemia as awakened mitochondria consume glucose. Research cited in her practice shows a 30% increase in ATP production, with profound effects on conditions like neuropathy—published data indicate 90-95% resolution after 12 treatments. Dr. James shares a striking case of a team member whose chemo-induced burning pain vanished within an hour of starting treatment.

The approach views mitochondria as the “root of the root” problem in chronic illness. Exhausted cells enter survival mode, halting repair and detox processes encoded in DNA. By boosting energy, the therapy empowers innate healing, potentially reversing issues like dementia, stroke damage, fatty liver, and cirrhosis. For vaccine-injured patients—whom Dr. James believes suffered mitochondrial toxicity from spike protein—the treatment holds promise, though many affected individuals face financial and trust barriers five years later.

Complementing this are advanced diagnostics like GlycoCheck, which visualizes the glycocalyx (arterial lining damaged by COVID, contributing to clots, strokes, and heart attacks) via sublingual microscopy, paired with Revasca, a seaweed-based supplement for repair. Other offerings include EBOO (extracorporeal blood oxygenation and ozonation) for filtration of cytokines, spike protein remnants, and debris, plus ozone, oxygen, UV/light therapy; soft hyperbaric chambers for neurologic and wound issues; PRP injections; peptides; and foundational supports like CoQ10, L-carnitine, red light therapy, and detox protocols emphasizing sleep, movement, sunlight, clean diet, and hydration.

Dr. James advocates a holistic concierge model with monthly follow-ups, troubleshooting, and objective testing (e.g., VO2 max) to track progress. She practices telemedicine widely but recommends in-person initial visits for testing.

Despite her clean record and exoneration from prior board scrutiny, Dr. James faces unexplained delays in obtaining a Texas medical license—over 15 months since applying in November of the prior year. She suspects irregularities, noting Texas’s streamlined processes for foreign-trained physicians amid shortages, yet her references (sent multiple times) went unlocated.

Through JamesClinic.com, Dr. James offers hope for those with complex, energy-depleted conditions, prioritizing root-cause restoration over symptom masking. Her work represents a shift toward empowering cellular resilience in an era of rising chronic illness.

Follow Dr. James on X and on Instagram.

In December, the Texas Medical Board issued a public reprimand against me for sending a nurse to Texas Huguley Hospital to give my patient Jason Jones ivermectin. When I sent the nurse, I was following a court order and the advice of my attorney, but in their opinion, I was guilty because Texas Huguley Hospital defied a court order and did not grant me privileges. The patient at the center of this, Deputy Sheriff Jason Jones, never received ivermectin and did not survive.

For the past four years, the case has been wrapped up in the executive branch, first with the Texas Medical Board, then in the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). Knowing his stance during the pandemic, my lawyers and I were hoping Attorney General Ken Paxton would help expedite the process, but because the case was not in his jurisdiction, his hands were tied. But following the final order from the board in December, I filed an appeal — a lawsuit against the Texas Medical Board — in the Travis County district court, and Attorney General Ken Paxton stepped in.

On February 13th, the state, represented by Attorney General Ken Paxton, filed the following response to my lawsuit against the Texas Medical Board. This was an unprecedented but necessary move against a state agency gone rogue, who has had no oversight and during the pandemic repeatedly abused its power. The Texas Medical Board pursued many doctors for using ivermectin, but I was the only one who fought back. I could have paid a fine and moved on, but I chose to fight on principle. I am grateful to Attorney General Ken Paxton for taking this action. He has refused to represent the board and asked the court to void the public reprimand Texas Medical Board issued against me.

The Backstory

On October 22, 2021, I received a call I will never forget. Though I knew at the time it was significant, I never would have predicted the impact that call would take on my career and the next four years of my life. Most of the pandemic was a blur, but I remember exactly where I was when I first spoke to Erin Jones — after hours, I was sitting at my desk in my bedroom, taking notes with pen and paper, concern mounting as Mrs. Jones told me what was happening to her husband.

Jason Jones was a 49-year-old sheriff’s deputy for Tarrant County, Texas who served his community for twenty-nine years. Prior to the pandemic, he was healthy and took no medications. He was father to three girls and three boys, the youngest was twelve years old when he became ill with COVID.

Erin relayed to me that her husband Deputy Sheriff Jones had been in a medically-induced coma for over a month. His physician at Texas Huguley Hospital, Dr. Jason Seiden, told her he was unlikely to survive and discussions of hospice were brewing. Erin wanted him to try ivermectin — Mr. Jones unsuccessfully tried to get some prior to going to the hospital — but Dr. Seiden refused. The hospital backed Dr. Seiden up, and Erin had no choice but to find a lawyer.

Erin connected with Ralph Lorigo and Beth Parlato, two lawyers who successfully sued hospitals across the country when they refused to allow dying patients the opportunity to try ivermectin. Ralph and Beth had an impressive track record, but the outcomes of their cases basically hinged on the political affiliation of the judge. Of the one hundred eighty-nine cases they worked on, they won half — all ruled by Republican judges. In the cases where they won, all but two of the patients survived. In the cases where they lost, presided over by Democrat judges, all the patients died.

When Erin called, I had just started using ivermectin to treat COVID patients, and though I had only prescribed it to about one hundred and fifty patients at that point, I knew it was safe. I also knew that even in the late stages of the disease, there was a decent chance it could help his condition. A meta-analysis of using ivermectin for COVID patients shows a 40% improvement when ivermectin is used in the late stages of the disease.

I discussed with Erin the possibility of transferring her husband to Houston under the care of Dr. Joe Varon. Dr. Varon, one of the founding members of FLCCC (now Independent Medical Alliance), was having success other ICU doctors weren’t, using ivermectin and a cocktail of other medications not listed in the government’s protocol plan. Understandably, Erin wanted to keep her husband in Ft. Worth, as she had young children at home and the hospital was allowing her to visit him daily.

After talking to Erin, I wanted to help, so I spoke to her attorney Beth. This was a unique situation I had never been in, but I assumed with attorneys involved — who had successfully sued other hospitals using the same strategy, I would be protected. I knew Jason’s ability to receive ivermectin hinged on the outcome of the lawsuit, and I trusted Beth to guide me.

This all unfolded during the third and largest surge of the pandemic. While managing this life-or-death crisis, I was simultaneously treating a flood of patients in my clinic and caring for my four young children at home. The days were interrupted with frantic intermittent calls and texts with Beth and Erin. I’m grateful for those texts because they prove my intentions and actions during the time — texts the Texas Medical Board willfully chose to ignore.

After the hearing where I testified along with Senator Bob Hall, the judge ordered Texas Huguley Hospital to grant me emergency temporary privileges and access to their ICU to administer ivermectin to Jason Jones without delay. I was required to submit an application for privileges, which I accomplished in record time. During the pandemic, CMS stream-lined the hospital privileging process, and doctors were often granted same-day privileges. But Texas Huguley Hospital made me submit the entire application, complete with doctor recommendations and my surgical case-log for the last two years. Somehow I got that done in less than a day and since Jason’s life was hanging on the line, expected the hospital to process and accept immediately.

Instead, they stalled and waited days… announcing on a late Friday afternoon that they were denying my privileges. At that time, I still had a good reputation and a clean record. I had complied with the court order, submitted the application, and there was absolutely no reason for them to deny my application. Texas Huguley Hospital chose to defy a court order rather than allow him to try ivermectin.

Beth went to the judge to complain. She came back and told me to resubmit the entire application (over twenty pages) with a modification specifying that I only intended to give Mr. Jones ivermectin. Again, in record time, I got it done and awaited permission to move forward.

Beth texted me that the hospital appealed, but since there was no stay on the order, we had the green light. I texted back that I was confused and asked for clarification. She reiterated that I had permission to proceed. I had found a local nurse willing to go to the hospital to give Mr. Jones the ivermectin and told her to go. Beth instructed me to email the hospital to give them a warning the nurse was coming. When I did, the administrative secretary told me I didn’t have privileges. Later we would find out that the judge had granted a stay on the order, but neither the administrative secretary nor the hospital’s attorney (who was in contact with Beth) mentioned that, probably on purpose. The notification of the stay had gone to the pro hac vice’s spam folder, and none of us were aware.

When the secretary told me I did not have privileges, I spoke with Beth, and she assured me I could still proceed. I chose to listen to Beth and the court order, rather than the administrative secretary, and that decision cost me over $250,000 in legal fees and over four years of headache.

Mr. Jones was never allowed to get ivermectin. The nurse was greeted by the police when she arrived at the hospital. She left quietly, without disruption. The hospital won their appeal, and after their victory, they wrapped his feeding tube up in towels and ties to prevent anyone from sneaking ivermectin in. His wife Erin rubbed ivermectin on his skin daily (obtained from another source), and he did manage to make it out of the hospital but was unable to make a full recovery and passed away on April 11, 2023. He is survived by his wife Erin and six children. I reached out to his widow Erin yesterday to get an update, and here’s what she said:

“I did talk to Governor Abbott in person when Jason was honored in Austin. He assured me that he would look into your case, but I don’t think he ever did. We think about you and your family all the time. The kids and I are still moving forward trying to keep Jason proud! We have some big life events this year that I am focusing on. Jerry graduates high school. And then starts college in the fall. Wyatt will start his senior year of high school this fall. Our last one!! Savannah is getting married in September. She met the sone of another officer killed in the line of duty. Crazy how that happened! Dakota is working through college. Brittany is engaged and working. Jacob is figuring out work and life. I still have such a hard time reading about our medical and government systems everyday. I am working on my anger issues and trying to learn to forgive. Thank you so much for this update! We continue to pray for you, your family and business.”

Jones family with Senator Bob Hall at the Texas Peace Officers Memorial Ceremony, April 26, 2025.

This has been the most meaningful experience of my career, and I have absolutely no regrets trying to help Mr. Jones. The story illustrates the sad state of our system, where a hospital has the power to ignore a court order and turn the wrath of the licensing board on a physician trying to save her patient’s life. A patient should not have to sue to get a second opinion or try a safe medication in the final effort to survive, but Texas Huguley Hospital fought tooth and nail to deny Mr. Jones those rights.

In the next legislative session, I plan to collaborate with legislators to introduce and pass a law that empowers patients: if a patient is admitted to a hospital where their regular physician does not have privileges, the patient (or their representative) would have the explicit right to bring in their own trusted physician to provide a second opinion, consultation, or collaborative input on their care. This commonsense reform would restore patient choice, strengthen trust in our healthcare system, and ensure that no one faces life-altering medical decisions without access to the physician they know and trust most.

Pollack’s journey began with dismissal: hospital staff labeled her paralysis psychiatric, despite no prior mental health issues. Only after severe pain and an MRI did they confirm transverse myelitis. Post-discharge, promised home care services vanished, leaving her bedridden and alone for days. Desperate, she returned to the hospital, only to be offered medical assistance in dying (MAID) three times by social workers and doctors. Citing overburdened services and full long-term care facilities, they presented euthanasia as a viable option. Pollack, mother to an 11-year-old son, briefly considered it amid despair but rejected it, emphasizing, “I’m not suicidal; I don’t want to die. I just don’t want to live like this.” The real issue, she argues, is not her paralysis but a healthcare system that prioritizes wars and bureaucracy over basic aid. Costs for wheelchair-accessible transport and modifications soar—$80 for a 15-minute ride versus $26 for a standard taxi—exacerbating isolation.

Compounding her struggles is the vaccine injury compensation program. Despite medical records linking her condition to the Moderna shot, Pollack has fought for four years without resolution. An investigation revealed mismanagement: funds squandered on perks like slushy machines and “drinking Fridays,” with only $18 million of $50 million aiding victims. Now under government oversight, the program restarts, eroding her faith. Politicians, including Ontario Premier Doug Ford, deflect responsibility, ignoring her pleas. Meanwhile, Pollack is suing Moderna for $45 million and has overcome their motion to dismiss. Her lawyer anticipates reluctance from the company to reveal redacted documents, potentially exposing hidden risks.

Broader implications emerge in Pollack’s critique of MAID’s “slippery slope.” Non-terminally ill individuals, including vaccine-injured or disabled veterans, face offers framed as mercy but rooted in cost-cutting. A Paralympian was suggested euthanasia over a wheelchair ramp; others, like those with post-vaccination syndromes, have accepted it. Pollack warns of eugenics undertones, targeting “non-contributing” members. Yet, she contributes profoundly: raising a compassionate son who earned science awards and dreams of inclusive designs, all inspired by her resilience.

Kayla Pollack’s story demands accountability. It reveals how informed consent was undermined by aggressive marketing—Canada’s combined flu-COVID shots persist despite risks—and how vaccine mandates left victims abandoned. Her refusal to succumb underscores human dignity’s value over economic burdens. Society must reform healthcare to support, not euthanize, the vulnerable, ensuring no one is reduced to a “number.” Pollack’s fight is a call for empathy, justice, and true universal care.

Learn more about Kayla’s story and donate here.

This decision prompted DCF intervention. Bodycam footage shows workers arriving at the home, where Joy calmly explained her daughter’s ongoing treatments and offered to document them. Despite no evidence of imminent harm—no oxygen requirement, no hospitalization, and a child described as playful and thriving—Kenlee was taken into state custody that day. Joy has since been required to travel significant distances for supervised visits, while the state pursues permanent termination of her parental rights, with a critical hearing scheduled for February 9, 2026, in Santa Rosa County.

Brian Festa of We the Patriots USA, which has funded legal representation for Joy after she initially proceeded pro se, emphasizes that no records indicate abuse, neglect, or malnourishment. The initial justification centered on alleged refusal of the new drug, though Joy maintains she was researching options, not outright rejecting care. Shifting rationales, such as claims of malnourishment, do not align with prior assessments or the child’s documented health status. A protective order seals much of the court file, limiting public details, but Festa asserts the case lacks evidence of harm warranting removal.

This situation raises broader questions about the threshold for state intervention in parental medical choices. Disagreements between parents and physicians—common in complex conditions—should not automatically equate to neglect. Established cystic fibrosis protocols exist alongside newer options, and informed consent requires time for evaluation, particularly when risks are involved. The prolonged separation, now approaching two years, has caused evident emotional distress to both mother and child, as seen in public statements and footage of Kenlee’s longing for home.

Florida’s leadership has publicly emphasized medical freedom and parental rights, yet this case highlights a disconnect between policy rhetoric and administrative action. Greater transparency and accountability in DCF processes could prevent similar outcomes. Organizations like We the Patriots continue to support affected families through fundraising and legal aid, underscoring the resource challenges parents face against state agencies.

Ultimately, this case serves as a reminder that protecting children must balance legitimate safety concerns with respect for parental authority and medical decision-making. When the state removes a child without clear, compelling evidence of danger, it risks eroding trust in the very systems meant to serve families. Kenlee and Joy deserve a resolution that prioritizes reunification and fairness.

Join supporters on Feb 9th at 8am outside the Santa Rosa County Courthouse in a prayer vigil to show the judges, attorneys and DCF workers than Joy is not alone:

Dan’s been battling this nightmare for over four years, suing Pfizer for wrongful death and the Canadian government for zero informed consent and straight-up malfeasance. The government dragged out mandates, lied about “safe and effective,” and hid risks like myocarditis for months. No warnings, just pressure. Sean could not play hockey if he didn’t get the shot. Yet two months after Sean’s death, they dropped the hockey mandate. Coincidence? Hardly. Dan’s recent appeal —after a knee-jerk dismissal without even letting him amend or present evidence—had judges questioning if throwing teenage boys under the bus to “save grandma” was worth it. Yet, if he loses, they want $47,000 in court costs. That’s not justice; that’s bullying a grieving dad into silence.

Sean was humble, kind, never swore, loved animals—a captain who protected his goalie on the ice. Dan didn’t even know Sean got the shot until the coroner told him, because in Canada, kids 12 and older could get the shot without parental consent. Pfizer ignored Dan’s report; the vaccine injury program denied him, dragging their feet on appeals. People are now waking up—apologizing to Dan after seeing the truth on X—but too many still defend the shots, bragging “I’m fine after six.”

This isn’t just Sean’s story; it’s thousands of kids like Trista Martin, Shana Carroll’s daughter, or Raylene Kennedy’s in Australia—all Pfizer victims. Dan’s connected with parents worldwide, supporting each other while fighting stripped licenses for brave doctors like Dr. Shoemaker, Dr. Trozzi, and Dr. Makis. A new documentary, “The Shot,” featuring Theo Fleury and these heroes, is coming—screenings in Ottawa, Toronto, and more. Request one and spread the word.

Dan’s not backing down, even living paycheck to paycheck as a truck driver. He’s fighting for all of us, exposing the coercion, the lies, the cover-ups. Donate to his GiveSendGo—$7 skips Starbucks but funds truth. We deserve accountability, not mandates that kill our kids. Sean’s birthday is today — January 31—he would have been 22. Honor him with a donation and help his dad fight back.

Festa discusses two parallel cases in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. One involves Amish community schools in New York, where the state has penalized schools for honoring families’ religious objections to vaccines. The U.S. Supreme Court recently remanded this case back to the Second Circuit for reconsideration in light of its 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor. In that landmark ruling, the Court held public schools must allow parents to opt their children out of curriculum elements (specifically LGBTQ storybooks) that substantially burden or threaten to undermine religious beliefs and upbringing. The opinion set a precedent that parents do not shed their First Amendment free exercise rights “at the schoolhouse door.” Festa sees this as directly applicable to vaccine exemption cases, potentially shifting the legal standard from the 1990 Employment Division v. Smith precedent—which defers to neutral, generally applicable laws—to strict scrutiny requiring a compelling state interest and least restrictive means.

We the Patriots’ companion case concerns Milford Christian Church’s Little Eagles daycare and preschool in Connecticut. The state threatened closure for accepting religious exemptions after repealing them in 2021. The organization has kept the school open through litigation since March 2023 via an agreement pending resolution.

Both cases challenge the elimination of religious exemptions while medical (secular) exemptions remain available, raising claims of discrimination under the Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection.

Festa stresses that education is a fundamental right in Connecticut’s constitution, and denying it absent a public health emergency or outbreak fails strict scrutiny. He notes inconsistencies in state enforcement, with some agencies disclaiming authority over private schools yet pursuing action through others.

Beyond these, Festa describes alarming “medical kidnapping” cases, including a Florida child with cystic fibrosis removed from her mother for using a long-established treatment instead of a newer drug with a black box warning. He also mentions a Connecticut special needs autistic child denied federally mandated services (like speech and occupational therapy) due to unvaccinated status, violating special education laws.

Currently, only four states—California, Connecticut, Maine, and New York—fully eliminate religious exemptions for school vaccines, though West Virginia’s status involves ongoing litigation after an executive order attempt. This affects roughly 20% of the U.S. population, leaving families vulnerable to discrimination and denying children education or services based on faith-based choices.

Festa views potential Supreme Court success as monumental for health freedom, setting nationwide precedent against compelled vaccination absent true emergencies. We the Patriots USA is a pro bono nonprofit, whose fight is essential to prevent future mandates. Post-pandemic, blue states are pushing back against federal shifts, forming alliances to enforce compliance. True protection requires judicial precedents, not temporary policy changes, to safeguard parental rights and religious liberty for generations.

Follow Brian and We the Patriots USA on X and support their mission here.

Bigtree recounts initiating contact with Dr. Zervos during a 2016 dinner while touring for his earlier film Vaxxed. He challenged Zervos to perform a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparison of all health outcomes, arguing that true scientific integrity required testing such claims from a pro-vaccine perspective to minimize perceived bias from critics. After years of follow-up, Zervos and his team completed the analysis but declined to publish or submit it for peer review. Bigtree alleges this stemmed from fear of career repercussions in a climate hostile to findings questioning vaccine safety.

In hidden-camera footage featured in the documentary, Zervos reportedly describes the study as well-designed and important but states publishing it would end his career. He allegedly admits the results did not align with expectations, suggesting vaccines correlate with higher chronic disease rates rather than better health. Bigtree obtained the study draft during a recorded dinner meeting.

The film emphasizes that no childhood vaccines on the current U.S. schedule underwent pre-licensure placebo-controlled prospective trials comparable to those for other drugs, making retrospective analyses like this one critical for assessing long-term effects. Bigtree positions the Henry Ford study as particularly compelling because it originated from a mainstream, vaccine-supportive institution.

Reported findings include vaccinated children facing significantly elevated risks: approximately 2.5 times higher for chronic diseases overall (autoimmune or neurological), six times higher for neurodevelopmental disorders, and nearly six times for autoimmune conditions. Projections suggested that by age 10, about 57% of vaccinated children might develop a chronic disease, compared to 17% of unvaccinated ones—differences described as “off the scale” compared to typical study effect sizes.

Senator Ron Johnson entered the study into the congressional record during a 2025 hearing on vaccine science corruption, making it publicly available on Senate websites and An Inconvenient Study, where the full documentary (under 90 minutes and reportedly nearing 100 million views) and related materials, including responses to Henry Ford’s cease-and-desist letters, can be accessed freely.

Henry Ford Health maintains the study was not published because it failed to meet rigorous scientific standards, citing methodological flaws in retrospective data (e.g., potential confounding, unbalanced group sizes, lack of peer review, and unavailable raw data for independent verification). Critics, including mainstream outlets, describe it as rejected science rather than suppressed truth, noting the absence of authors at hearings and no public rebuttal from Zervos.

Bigtree argues the pattern—seen in about 10 similar retrospective studies worldwide—consistently shows worse outcomes in vaccinated groups, demanding replication by major institutions to resolve debates. He frames the issue within broader concerns: rising U.S. chronic disease rates (from ~12% in the 1980s to over 50% today among children), environmental factors, and corporate influence on policy, including liability protections.

The documentary calls for transparency, informed choice, ending medical mandates, and reevaluating the vaccine schedule—echoing Bigtree’s advocacy for medical freedom and voluntary vaccination. While not proving causation, it presents the findings as a “major signal” warranting urgent, unbiased investigation to address America’s childhood health crisis.

Watch the movie for free at www.aninconvenientstudy.com.

At the heart of these disputes lies the Federal-Wide Assurance (FWA) agreement, rooted in the 1974 National Research Act following the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. This law, codified in 42 U.S.C. § 289, mandates that entities receiving federal funds for unlicensed treatments - such as EUA-authorized COVID shots - must obtain “legally effective informed consent.” Hospitals like Shriners and Houston Methodist signed FWAs and contracts with states to administer these vaccines voluntarily, without coercion or punishment. Yet, they mandated injections for employees, contractors, and volunteers, framing refusal as grounds for termination. Plaintiffs argued this breached contracts and the 14th Amendment, as private entities acted as state delegates under Supreme Court precedent like West v. Atkins.

Courts, however, dismissed these claims through procedural sleight-of-hand. District judges, including Jeffrey Brown in Texas, refused to accept plaintiffs’ allegations as true - a violation of motion-to-dismiss standards - and concealed the contracts. Appellate circuits, such as the Fifth and Ninth, exacerbated this by ruling that hospitals’ conduct was “not unlawful,” inventing terms like “clinically identical” to equate EUA products with licensed ones, and ignoring federal preemption under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and PREP Act. These statutes explicitly prohibit states or subdivisions from conflicting with federal requirements, including the option to refuse EUA products without penalty. Shockingly, no defendant claimed authority to mandate unlicensed drugs; courts ruled sua sponte, creating precedents allowing governors and CEOs to override the HHS Secretary’s exclusive domain.

The Supreme Court has denied certiorari in multiple petitions, including those from Houston Methodist and Shriner’s Hospital, perpetuating this judicial overreach. Thirty-one federal judges across circuits have evaded questions of preemption, effectively waiving Americans’ due process rights and bodily integrity. This extends beyond COVID: by classifying vaccine programs as federally funded research - requiring monitoring of adverse reactions without consent - courts enable coercion in any investigational treatment, eroding protections against inducements like free incentives or threats.

The implications are profound. Precedents now permit states to vitiate the FDCA, aligning with initiatives like Illinois’ law prioritizing WHO recommendations over FDA approvals. This “religion of vaccines” transcends politics, with patterns of Obama-Biden appointees dominating dismissals and suspicious case assignments suggesting coordinated efforts. While religious discrimination suits under Title VII have yielded multimillion-dollar settlements, EUA-specific claims remain winless, with statutes of limitations expiring.

To restore liberty, legislative reforms are urgent: explicit civil rights actions for coercion in unlicensed treatments and enforcement of informed consent. Without intervention, the next pandemic could strip Americans of autonomy, turning citizens into unwitting lab subjects. These protections - enshrined since Tuskegee - were always ours; courts must honor them to prevent history’s repetition.

Follow Jennifer Kennedy and Brian Ward on X.

Physicians at hospitals like Houston Methodist are not traditional employees but hold privileges granted by the medical staff and hospital board. This structure is intended to preserve clinical independence, especially in states like Texas with strong prohibitions against corporate practice of medicine. Julapalli explains that the hospital extended its employee mandate to physicians by amending medical staff bylaws—a process supposedly controlled by physicians themselves. However, he alleges these amendments were rushed without proper notice, quorum, or anonymous voting. A proposed change voted on non-anonymously via a Google sheet passed by a slim margin (possibly three votes), granting the medical staff broad authority to revoke privileges for non-compliance, including vaccination.

Alarmed, Julapalli created a listserv connecting over 1,000 physicians to discuss the changes. Responses revealed widespread unawareness and concern, yet most physicians remained silent amid fear of retaliation. Discussions ranged from support to opposition for the mandate, but Julapalli claims administration monitored and even temporarily blocked emails for certain users, suppressing open dialogue. By mid-2021, evidence showed vaccines did not prevent transmission—the stated rationale for the mandate—yet the policy persisted, allegedly to restart lucrative elective surgeries by marketing the hospital as “safe.”

Julapalli applied for a religious exemption, which the hospital previously granted him for flu vaccines, but was denied with a boilerplate letter lacking transparency or appeal process. He contrasts this with his brother, a high-volume interventional cardiologist, who received an exemption—suggesting decisions hinged on economic value to the hospital rather than consistent criteria. More damning, a colleague was offered a “fake” vaccine by the chief medical officer to retain her privileges, an offer implying the mandate’s rigidity was negotiable for valued staff.

These experiences led Julapalli, a law school graduate, to take legal action against Houston Methodist, its medical staff, physician organization, and individuals. He alleges collusion to boycott less “valuable” physicians using the mandate as pretext, violating due process and medical staff independence. The case survived motions to dismiss and venue changes, advancing to discovery—a significant milestone allowing evidence gathering, depositions, and potential exposure of internal communications.

Julapalli’s fight underscores broader concerns: when hospitals prioritize financial incentives over physician autonomy and patient trust, public confidence erodes. Patients increasingly distrust institutions, fearing care decisions influenced by corporate interests. As discovery proceeds, supported by public fundraising, this lawsuit could reveal whether mandates truly protected safety or served as tools for control. In an era of strained healthcare trust, restoring independence for physicians may prove essential to rebuilding faith in the system.

Dr. Venu Julapalli is a gastroenterologist in Houston, TX. To donate, go to https://www.givesendgo.com/houstonmethodistmisleadingmedicine.

Lindsey’s ordeal began subtly, mirroring her prior reactions, but escalated on day 10 into a full cytokine storm. Her interleukin-6 levels spiked to 48.8 (normal: 1-3), activating 11 out of 14 cytokines and exhausting her immune system. She describes a life of constant pain, diminished quality of life, and unyielding spike protein production, confirmed by years of labs, videos, and panels. “I’m dying every day,” she laments, highlighting the frustration of being dismissed by a system that mandated these shots. Divorced and childless at 40, her dreams of family were shattered, underscoring the personal devastation amid a broader crisis affecting millions.

Enter Kevin McCairn, a neuroscientist displaced from academia by COVID controversies, who attributes such injuries to the spike protein’s amyloidogenic properties—inducing protein misfolding akin to prions in diseases like Parkinson’s or mad cow. Drawing from biowarfare research suspicions, he argues the virus and vaccines exploit fibrin to form persistent clots, evading standard treatments like ivermectin, nattokinase, or EBOO apheresis. His lab tests on over 100 patients, including embalmer clots, confirm amyloid signatures in blood, resistant to conventional protocols.

Hope emerges from McCairn’s innovative therapy in Japan: dual filtration plasma apheresis (DFPP) combined with stem cell growth factors. DFPP, a closed-circuit blood filtration via jugular catheter, scrubs amyloids and cytokines without donor plasma risks, while growth factors—derived from dental pulp stem cells—inhibit clot formation in vitro. Early results are striking: a severe long-COVID patient reported brain fog lifting within hours; a vaccine-injured teen’s amyloid signals dropped significantly post-treatment. Two sessions, plus daily IV infusions over two weeks, cost around $20,000-25,000—cheaper than U.S. equivalents but still burdensome.

This protocol, not FDA-approved yet common in Asia for autoimmune conditions, represents a “Hail Mary” for Lindsey. Crowdfunded efforts aim to cover her costs, emphasizing community over corporate accountability. As McCairn notes, pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer should fund such recoveries, but delays could prove fatal. Lindsay’s story isn’t isolated; it’s a call to action against censorship, fraud, and neglect. With data showing cytokine normalization and symptom relief, this treatment offers tangible hope, urging trials in the U.S. to restore lives ravaged by an experimental rollout. In the end, healing demands not just science, but solidarity—proving that even in darkness, innovation and empathy can prevail.

Follow Lyndsey on X and donate to help her get to Japan here.

Follow Kevin McCairn PhD on X. To have your blood tested for amyloid, go to Dr. McCairn’s website.

Elfenbein received citations from Maryland’s governor, state legislature, and medical society for his heroic efforts. Yet, in 2022, the federal government indicted him on healthcare fraud charges, alleging he submitted over $15 million in false claims by “upcoding” evaluation and management (E/M) visits during COVID. Prosecutors claimed he billed moderate-complexity Level 4 visits (codes 99214/99204) for patients coming to get tested for COVID, inflating reimbursements by about $50 per visit, despite relaxed pandemic guidelines encouraging provider evaluations alongside testing.

Elfenbein described the indictment as a nightmare, turning his life upside down without warning. He faced up to 50 years in prison, lost banking services, TSA PreCheck, firearm ownership, and school volunteering privileges. The ordeal devastated his family—his wife, a pediatric oncologist at Johns Hopkins, and their four children required therapy. Amid his father’s terminal illness, Elfenbein struggled with grief and fear of missing his children’s milestones.

The indictment was brought prior to reviewing any charts and followed on the heels of an interview Elfenbein did on Fox News where he berated Biden for pulling monoclonal antibodies as a treatment for COVID. At trial in 2023, the government focused on five patient charts out of over 100,000, arguing insufficient time spent, medical necessity lacking, and inaccurate documentation via templates. Elfenbein’s defense highlighted coding ambiguity under 2021 guidelines, where medical decision-making—not time—determined levels. COVID presented an “undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis,” warranting Level 4, especially with dual testing (rapid and PCR). A professional coder testified his billing was 100% accurate, even under-coded in some cases. The government’s expert faltered, unfamiliar with pandemic-specific rules.

A jury convicted him on five counts, but Chief Judge James K. Bredar acquitted him post-trial in a rare 93-page ruling, stating insufficient evidence of falsity and criticizing the prosecution’s reliance on “common sense” over technical compliance. Bredar noted citizens cannot face criminal liability for reasonable interpretations of ambiguous regulations.

The Fourth Circuit reversed the acquittal in 2025, finding thin but sufficient evidence for a jury to convict, including alleged false documentation. However, it affirmed a new trial due to the case’s closeness. The Supreme Court declined review, leaving Elfenbein facing retrial amid mounting legal costs exceeding millions.

Elfenbein’s story exemplifies “lawfare”—weaponized prosecution against outspoken individuals. His advocacy for monoclonals clashed with vaccine prioritization, and his public criticism of federal mishandling may have drawn scrutiny. It underscores dangers in ambiguous billing rules, where reasonable compliance risks criminalization. As of late 2025, Elfenbein awaits retrial, hoping for dismissal. His case warns of justice system perils for those who serve boldly in crisis.

Please consider a donation to Dr. Elfenbein’s GoFundMe to assist with his legal bills.

Part of Jensen’s motivation stems from profound frustration with the state’s healthcare system. He highlights how policies like the Affordable Care Act’s Essential Health Benefits (EHB) mandate overly comprehensive “Cadillac” plans, forcing individuals to purchase coverage far beyond their needs. This one-size-fits-all approach, he argues, inflates costs and disconnects patients from decision-making. Drawing analogies to auto insurance, Jensen emphasizes that true insurance should cover catastrophic events, not routine care. Everyday health maintenance—check-ups, minor illnesses, or preventive measures—should remain the individual’s responsibility, encouraging “skin in the game” and prudent choices.

Central to Jensen’s reform agenda is promoting Direct Primary Care (DPC), a subscription-based model where patients pay an affordable annual fee—often comparable to a gym membership—for unlimited access to a trusted physician. This fosters meaningful doctor-patient relationships built on trust, advocacy, and open dialogue. Patients gain 24/7 availability, telemedicine, and personalized guidance without third-party interference from insurance companies or government mandates. Paired with high-deductible catastrophic policies, DPC empowers individuals to manage routine care while protecting against major expenses. Jensen cites successful examples, such as cash-only surgical centers in Oklahoma delivering high-quality procedures at a fraction of hospital costs, proving that transparency and competition can dramatically lower prices.

Beyond healthcare, Jensen addresses the need for societal healing in a deeply divided Minnesota. He invokes the medical principle that hope is essential for recovery, even in dire diagnoses, suggesting that political leadership must similarly inspire optimism. Drawing from Luke 12:48—“to whom much is given, much is expected”—he celebrates Minnesotans’ innate generosity through volunteerism and community support. His platform advocates limited government, lower taxes, and respect for personal privacy, urging Republicans to stay out of “the bedroom, the doctor’s office, and the church.” This libertarian-leaning approach, focused on competence, affordability, and accountability, aims to appeal to independents, younger voters, and even disaffected Democrats concerned with kitchen-table issues like cost of living, public safety, and education.

Reflecting on the pandemic, Jensen stresses the importance of learning from violations of informed consent and tragic outcomes without descending into bitterness. While calling for investigation of clear conflicts of interest, he advocates charity toward those who changed views based on evolving evidence—including himself, who shifted from accepting a natural origin to favoring a lab-leak hypothesis. The goal is policy reform to safeguard medical freedom and prevent repetition.

Dr. Scott Jensen’s candidacy represents a physician’s commitment to public service, enduring personal attacks to pursue substantive change. His vision—restoring patient-healer relationships, reducing bureaucratic overreach, and promoting hope-driven governance—offers Minnesota a path toward affordable, compassionate, and accountable healthcare. In an era of polarization, his measured, pragmatic conservatism reminds us that healing begins with trust, freedom, and shared responsibility.

Follow Dr. Scott Jensen on X. To donate to his campaign, go to drscottjensen.com.

Dr. Mavrakakis recounts her first encounter with a vaccine-injured patient in 2010 with a chief master sergeant experiencing anthrax-related injuries. Fast-forward to the COVID era, and patterns persist. The shift from E-codes (pre-2012) to T-codes in ICD-10 systems allows for notations like “adverse effect of viral vaccines” (e.g., T50.B95A), but these are broad and nonspecific. Subcodes exist for vaccines like pertussis or rickettsial, yet COVID-specific entries lump under generic viral categories, complicating epidemiological tracking. As Dr. Wallskog notes, this vagueness affects research; without distinct codes, it’s hard to quantify or study the unique mRNA-induced effects, including spike protein production and DNA contamination.

Coding’s importance extends beyond bureaucracy. It’s vital for billing, reimbursement, and patient care. Injured individuals often face gaslighting from providers unaware of these codes, leading to denied diagnoses. Treatments like IVIG (Intravenous Immunoglobulin), costing $20,000 monthly, require precise codes to secure insurance approval. Plasmapheresis helps neutralize hyperimmune responses, but without codes, access is blocked. There are workaround strategies—using T50 codes with descriptive subnotes —but most doctors are unaware of these options. Dr. Mavrakakis stresses that codes have existed since 2010, predating COVID, yet few providers know them, exacerbating delays in care.

Advocacy groups like React19, with nearly 40,000 members and 20 international partners, fill governmental gaps. They’ve disbursed $1.5 million in grants to over 200 Americans for uncovered expenses, contrasting the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP)’s 98.3% denial rate and meager 42 compensations. React19’s proposal to the ICD-10 committee seeks a dedicated code like Germany’s U12.9, potentially effective October 2026. This could enable subcodes for specifics like myocarditis or MCAS (Mast Cell Activation Syndrome), often mislabeled as idiopathic but linked to vaccine adjuvants.

The discussion critiques systemic failures: the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and 2005 PREP Act shield manufacturers from liability, stripping injured parties of due process. Informed consent is deemed irrelevant for what some call a “bioweapon,” violating ethical standards like the Belmont Report. As Dr. Mavrakakis asserts, injecting foreign substances inherently risks immune overreactions—expected, not anomalous.Ultimately, this crisis demands action: specific codes, provider education, and reformed compensation. With long COVID already coded, equity for vaccine-injured is overdue. React19’s efforts offer hope, but broader recognition is essential to prevent further harm and ensure justice for those affected.

React19 has two generous donors matching donations up to $500,000. Click here to donate.

Follow Irene Mavrakakis on X and Joel Wallskog and React19 on X.

Jackson observed rushed procedures prioritizing speed over safety. Patients were injected without proper informed consent processes, which typically require thorough discussions of risks and benefits from a lengthy document. Signatures on consent forms were forged when patients hadn’t even visited the site. Adverse events went unreported, including serious ones. Blinding protocols—essential for unbiased results—were breached, with randomization codes openly placed in patient charts. Private medical information was mishandled, and eligibility criteria, such as pregnancy testing, were ignored. These issues, Jackson reported internally and to the FDA, suggested the trials at Ventavia sites were far from the gold standard needed to claim a product “safe and effective.”

Fired hours after contacting the FDA, Jackson filed a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act in 2021, alleging fraud against the U.S. government. Pfizer had secured billions in contracts tied to trial data, including from the Department of Defense. Jackson argued that flawed data tainted submissions, leading to emergency authorization and massive public funding.

If you’re looking for a great Christmas stocking stuffer, talleybalm.com is offering a Buy One, Get One Free deal right now!

The skincare industry has gone the same direction as our food supply — overprocessed, full of ingredients I can’t pronounce, and pushed by companies I don’t trust anymore. So I’ve been simplifying everything I use on my skin.

I have partnered with Cow Guys Tallow Balm and they made me my own signature product with my name! Use it as an everyday moisturizer for your face, arms, legs etc. It has been very effective for soothing eczema, psoriasis and dry skin. I highly recommend it.

Here’s the link to get two balms for the price of one: https://www.cowguys.shop/products/talleybalm-original?variant=44055563894964

The case has faced intense opposition. Initially sealed for government review, the Biden-era DOJ declined intervention but later moved to dismiss, citing public health policy concerns. A district court allowed dismissal, but Jackson appealed to the Fifth Circuit. In a recent oral argument, her attorney, Warner Mendenhall, argued against late government intervention without good cause. Attorney Robert Barnes highlighted a favorable panel and probing questions toward the government and defendants. Optimism grew, with hopes a new administration might reverse course.

Critics, including attorney Robert Barnes, point to potential conflicts. Newly appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi previously provided legal services to Pfizer, raising questions about recusal and DOJ impartiality in related matters. Defendants have fiercely avoided discovery, suggesting fear of revealing internal communications admitting trial shortcomings.

Jackson’s disillusionment runs deep. From a military family valuing chain of command, she trusted Pfizer and the FDA to uphold standards. Past scandals like Vioxx eroded that faith, but COVID trials exposed systemic issues on a grand scale. She worries about harmed individuals, including coerced patients suffering severe side effects denied as vaccine-related.

Yet Jackson persists, driven by those injured and a belief in public justice. Her case, corroborated by a British Medical Journal investigation, symbolizes resistance against rushed science and corporate influence. As the appeal awaits decision—potentially heading to the Supreme Court—it underscores the need for transparency in public health. Whistleblowers like Jackson remind us that integrity in trials saves lives, and silencing them risks eroding trust in medicine itself.

Follow Brook’s case at IamBrookJackson.com and on X @iambrookjackson.

Dr. Terry Adirim played a key role in implementing an unlawful vaccine mandate that compelled service members to receive Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) products rather than fully FDA-approved ones, signing a 2021 DoD memo which mandated the interchangeable use of Pfizer-BioNTech (EUA) and Comirnaty (FDA-approved) vaccines. However, Comirnaty—the fully approved version—was never manufactured or distributed, creating a “bait and switch.” Under U.S. law, EUA products require informed consent and cannot be mandated without a presidential waiver, which never occurred.

Raiklin points to evidence from adverse event databases like VAERS, claiming thousands of deaths linked to the vaccines, particularly Pfizer’s, and ties Adirim’s memo directly to potential harm among troops.

Adirim has sued Raiklin for defamation after he publicly labeled her the “architect” of this policy, accusing her of contributing to unlawful orders and even “genocide.” Raiklin views the suit as a strategic “mousetrap,” allowing discovery to prove his statements are factual. He notes the DoD rescinded the mandate in 2023 and, under the second Trump administration in 2025, issued executive orders reinstating discharged service members and correcting records, implicitly acknowledging issues with the mandate’s implementation.

Adirim later joined the CIA but was terminated shortly after Raiklin highlighted her past role, leading her to amend the lawsuit to include the CIA, its director, and others, alleging political retaliation.

If you’re looking for a great Christmas stocking stuffer, Talley Balm is offering a Buy One, Get One Free deal right now! Click on photo to redeem.

Raiklin expands the narrative to a broader “11 years of treason,” linking COVID policies to intelligence community involvement, including alleged CIA coordination with Anthony Fauci and events like Event 201. He criticizes lack of accountability in the current administration, calling for declassification of origins and prosecutions. The lawsuit, in his view, provides a venue to litigate these claims in federal court, mobilizing public pressure for reinstatements and exposure.

Ultimately, Raiklin sees this as part of a larger fight to reverse institutional overreach. By turning defense into offense, he aims to hold officials accountable, arguing that truthful speech—protected by the First Amendment—cannot be defamatory. The case underscores ongoing debates over vaccine mandates, military readiness, and government transparency, with Raiklin positioning it as a pivotal moment for COVID reckoning.

Follow Ivan Raiklin on Substack Ivan Raiklin and on X.

Unlike classic food allergies (peanuts, shellfish) that strike within minutes, AGS reactions are delayed three to eight hours, making diagnosis challenging. The condition was first described in 2007–2008 by researchers in Australia and the University of Virginia who noticed clusters of severe reactions to the cancer drug cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody produced using mouse cells that carry alpha-gal. Patients in the southeastern and south-central United States, areas heavily populated by Lone Star ticks, were disproportionately affected. Many of these same patients later reported reactions after eating red meat, leading investigators to connect tick bites to alpha-gal sensitization.

Since its recognition, reported cases have exploded. From roughly two dozen identified patients in 2008, estimates now exceed 450,000 diagnosed individuals in the United States alone by 2025, with the true number likely far higher. The geographic distribution closely mirrors Lone Star tick habitat, which continues to expand northward and westward due to climate change and wildlife patterns.

The delayed nature of the reaction, the specificity to mammalian products (poultry and fish remain safe), and the sudden emergence of a novel allergy in adults who previously tolerated red meat for decades have raised profound questions. Humans and ticks have coexisted for millennia, as have dietary traditions centered on mammalian meat. Why, then, is a potentially fatal allergy to a ubiquitous mammalian sugar appearing only now?

If you’re looking for a great Christmas stocking stuffer, Talley Balm is offering a Buy One, Get One Free deal right now!

Some researchers point to natural evolutionary changes in tick saliva or shifting ecology. Others, including experienced clinicians familiar with both Lyme disease and bioweapons history, note unsettling parallels: Plum Island Animal Disease Center (off Long Island, New York), long rumored to have conducted tick-related military research during the Cold War; the rapid geographic overlap of emerging tick-borne illnesses; and the broader context of gain-of-function and entomological warfare studies. The timing also coincides with large-scale funding of tick and mosquito research by entities openly interested in reducing livestock methane emissions and global meat consumption.

Whatever the ultimate cause, alpha-gal syndrome forces hundreds of thousands of people to permanently eliminate red meat and dairy, fundamentally altering diet and lifestyle. Diagnosis requires a high index of suspicion, a compatible history of tick exposure, and specific IgE blood testing. Treatment is strict avoidance; epinephrine remains the emergency therapy of choice for severe reactions.

Alpha-gal syndrome is more than a medical curiosity. It is a stark reminder of how quickly the interface between humans, wildlife, and the environment can generate new pathologies, whether by natural selection or human design. As tick ranges expand and cases continue to rise exponentially, society must confront not only the clinical challenge but also the deeper questions about what, exactly, has changed in the past two decades to make an ancient sugar suddenly lethal to so many.

Follow Dr. Diaz at Biopolitiks by Dr. Alejandro Diaz and on X @alejandrodiazmd .

The turning point came on September 27, 2021, when ABOG, in collusion with the American Board of Medical Specialties and the Federation of State Medical Boards, issued a chilling threat to 62,000 obstetricians: inject pregnant patients with the novel mRNA products or risk loss of board certification and licensure. Dr. Thorpe, a former ABOG oral board examiner, refused to comply. When the executive director refused to speak with him, Thorpe responded with a meticulously documented 16-page open letter—fifteen pages of argument backed by 1,019 peer-reviewed publications demonstrating catastrophic reproductive harms in the first year alone. His pioneering analysis of VAERS data during the initial ten months of the rollout revealed fetal deaths, miscarriages, placental abruption, and maternal hemorrhage at unprecedented rates.

The letter went viral. Rather than engage or refute the evidence, the boards fell silent. Discovery in any lawsuit would have been devastating, so they retreated. Dr. Thorpe retained his certification and continues practicing—the rare obstetrician who forced the machine to blink.

He shared one representative tragedy from his forthcoming book, Sacrifice: How the Deadliest Vaccine in History Targeted the Most Vulnerable. A close friend’s daughter-in-law, previously delivered of a healthy baby pre-2020, received the COVID injections while pregnant. Sudden complete placental abruption necessitated emergency cesarean section. The baby was stillborn; the mother required massive transfusion and barely survived. Such stories, Thorpe says quietly, “have been my life for the last five years.”

If you’re looking for a great Christmas stocking stuffer, talleybalm.com is offering a Buy One, Get One Free deal right now!

Here’s the link to get two balms for the price of one: https://www.cowguys.shop/products/talleybalm-original?variant=44055563894964

While ACOG, ABOG, and SMFM continue to recommend COVID vaccination in pregnancy—now contradicting even the new HHS leadership under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—independent physicians like Thorpe, McCullough, and Biss rely on real-world outcomes rather than captured guidelines. Thorpe contrasts their courage with the cowardice of figures like Dr. Marcus Zervos of Henry Ford Health System, who allegedly buried a large retrospective study showing dramatic increases in chronic disease, neurological injury, and death among children of vaccinated mothers because publication would jeopardize his career.

Dr. Thorpe’s message is unflinching: the professional societies meant to protect mothers and babies were purchased, the data were clear from the beginning, and the human cost is incalculable. Yet because of warriors like him who refused to be silenced, the truth is finally breaking through. Every copy of his book sold funds grants for vaccine-injured families abandoned by a government that acknowledges harm in fewer than 0.2 percent of claims.

In an era of institutional betrayal, Dr. James Thorpe stands as living proof that one physician armed with evidence and conscience can force even the most powerful medical cartels to back down.

Follow Dr. Thorpe on X at @jathorpmfm and visit his website, drjamesthorp.com.

Jackson’s attorney, Warner Mendenhall, argued that the government’s intervention lacked “good cause” as required by FCA provisions. He contended that the government’s mere “desire to dismiss” was insufficient, especially post-seal when the case had progressed. Mendenhall emphasized that Congress designed the FCA to empower relators like Jackson as checks against potential government complicity in fraud. He cited the 1986 FCA amendments, which prioritize combating fraud in federal healthcare programs and protect whistleblowers from dismissal without rigorous scrutiny. The district court, he claimed, erroneously conflated the motion to intervene with the motion to dismiss, ignoring Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24’s requirement to consider prejudice to original parties.

Mendenhall highlighted evidentiary support for Jackson’s claims, including affidavits and documents showing more deaths in the vaccine arm than placebo, and criticized the government’s lack of investigation details. He argued for remand to force the government to demonstrate good cause, potentially tied to shifting public health policies amid emerging vaccine injury data. On dismissal, he advocated for “without prejudice” under Rule 41, allowing refiling with new evidence, as Jackson had not previously dismissed the case. He warned that prejudice would eviscerate whistleblower protections, signaling that reports involving government complicity are futile.

The government’s attorney, Sarah Smith, argued that the government’s own decision to end the case is, by itself, a sufficient legal reason to allow it to intervene and dismiss the lawsuit. She relied on a Supreme Court ruling in Polansky v. Executive Health Resources to support this position.

Smith explained that when the government seeks dismissal before the defendants have filed a formal answer, the court has no authority to second-guess or block that request under the normal rules for voluntary dismissal (Rule 41(a)). In such situations, the judge must grant the dismissal.

She further maintained that dismissing the case with prejudice (meaning Brook Jackson could not refile it) was proper because it would prevent repeated, pointless attempts to bring the same claim again. She pointed out that Jackson had already filed two amended versions of her complaint, and the government had concluded that continuing the case would not serve its interests—regardless of whether that conclusion was based on cost, policy changes, or other considerations. Her core argument was that qui tam lawsuits under the False Claims Act are brought on behalf of the United States, so when the government decides the case should not go forward, the court should respect that decision and close the matter permanently.

Ventavia’s lawyer, Andrew Guthrie, spoke only about the separate claim that his client had fired Brook Jackson as payback for blowing the whistle.

He told the judges this retaliation claim should stay thrown out because Jackson’s lawsuit never properly explained two key things the law requires:

* She never clearly said that what she was complaining about was actual fraud on the U.S. government (the specific kind the False Claims Act protects). Instead, her complaints were mostly about broken rules and bad practices in the clinical trial—serious problems, but not automatically the same as defrauding the government.

* Even more importantly, she never claimed that Ventavia knew she had called the FDA to report those problems. For a retaliation claim to work under this law, the employer has to realize the employee is trying to expose fraud against the federal government—not just complaining about safety or regulations in general.

Guthrie admitted that, yes, she was fired just hours after her FDA call and only 18 days after starting the job, which looks suspicious. But Guthrie said timing alone isn’t enough: the company has to actually know she was reporting possible government fraud, and her lawsuit never says they did. Because those two pieces were missing, the lower court was right to dismiss the retaliation part of the case.

In his rebuttal, Warner Mendenhall powerfully countered both opponents: he first humanized Brook Jackson’s retaliation claim by reminding the court that ordinary whistleblowers don’t speak in legal jargon—they simply see dangerous fraud in a vaccine trial and report it; the suspicious six-hour gap between her FDA call and being marched off the job, with no prior discipline, was enough for a jury to infer Ventavia knew and retaliated. He then turned to the government’s lawyer, Sarah Smith, and used her own words against her: by openly admitting that the government’s mere “desire to dismiss” equals “good cause,” she proved his point that the government wants a blank check to shut down any case it dislikes. Mendenhall argued that new evidence of vaccine injuries and deaths continues to pour in daily, making a final dismissal with prejudice wrong—Jackson should be allowed to refile as the full picture of alleged fraud on the government emerges, fulfilling Congress’s intent that whistleblowers serve as an independent check when the government itself may be protecting wrongdoers.

This case underscores tensions in FCA enforcement: balancing government prerogative with relator autonomy. Dismissal with prejudice risks chilling whistleblowers, especially in politically charged public health contexts. As vaccine data evolves—revealing injuries and inefficacy—Jackson’s suit highlights the need for robust checks on corporate-government ties. Ultimately, it tests whether the False Claims Act fulfills its anti-fraud mandate or yields to executive discretion, potentially undermining accountability in crises.

For more information on Brook Jackson and her case, go to https://www.iambrookjackson.com/ and follow Brook on X at @iambrookjackson.

The retaliation was methodical. School nurses, trained under a secretive Medical Exemption Pilot Program orchestrated by public health officials, flagged exemptions that deviated from rigid, unspoken criteria. Records were scoured, physicians’ names leaked to newspapers, and targets painted on their backs. Dr. Sutton estimates roughly sixty California doctors wrote the majority of exemptions; nearly all who were investigated faced discipline. One colleague was punished for writing just a single exemption; another for two. In Dr. Sutton’s case, the Medical Board waited years—investigating 2015–2016 exemptions in 2019 and holding a hearing in 2021—before revoking her license over eight cases. No patient complained. No harm was alleged. Two thousand patients signed a letter begging the Board to spare her license. It made no difference.

The administrative hearing exposed the farce of due process. Expert witnesses, including a distinguished pediatric neurologist, were dismissed as “extreme.” A 300-page petition for reconsideration was rejected over a weekend, without board members even receiving it. When a superior court briefly forced reconsideration, the outcome remained the same: revocation. Massachusetts and New York followed suit under the principle of reciprocal discipline, stripping licenses Dr. Sutton held—even one forty years old and never used—because California had spoken.

This was not isolated incompetence; it was coordination. The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), a private organization, maintains a disciplinary clearinghouse that facilitates rapid interstate punishment. Evidence suggests its reach is global: disciplined physicians in New Zealand have discovered their cases transmitted to the FSMB. An international counterpart, IAMRA, mirrors this structure worldwide. In California, key architects of the crackdown—figures like Senator Richard Pan and then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra—later ascended to federal posts, carrying their playbook to Washington during the COVID-19 response.

If you’re looking for a great Christmas stocking stuffer, talleybalm.com is offering a Buy One, Get One Free deal right now!

The skincare industry has gone the same direction as our food supply — overprocessed, full of ingredients I can’t pronounce, and pushed by companies I don’t trust anymore. So I’ve been simplifying everything I use on my skin.

I have partnered with Cow Guys Tallow Balm and they made me my own signature product with my name! Use it as an everyday moisturizer for your face, arms, legs etc. It has been very effective for soothing eczema, psoriasis and dry skin. I highly recommend it.

Here’s the link to get two balms for the price of one: https://www.cowguys.shop/products/talleybalm-original?variant=44055563894964

Today, California’s subsequent law, SB 276, caps physicians at four medical exemptions per year and restricts them to a narrow list of contraindications—often requiring prior severe reactions to each individual vaccine. Family history, genetic predisposition, or a pattern of autoimmunity no longer suffices. In practice, meaningful medical exemptions have been extinguished.

Dr. Sutton’s story is not merely personal tragedy; it is a warning. When a private entity working in concert with state boards can end a physician’s career for writing a legal medical opinion, the ancient covenant between doctor and patient is broken. Informed consent collapses. Individualized medicine becomes impossible. And the precedent extends far beyond vaccines: any clinical judgment that conflicts with centralized public-health dogma can be framed as “misinformation” and punished accordingly.

Dr. Sutton, myself, Dr. John Humiston and Dr. Mark Brody now sue the FSMB, six state medical boards, and their officers, arguing that revoking licenses for exercising medical judgment and free speech violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Our case asserts a simple but profound principle: a physician’s pen, when guided by training, experience, and conscience, is an instrument of protected speech—no less than a journalist’s or citizen’s.

If we lose, the message to every doctor in America will be unambiguous: deviate from the approved narrative at your peril. If we win, the tide may finally turn, restoring the most fundamental right in medicine—the right to place the patient, not the state or its corporate partners, first.

Follow Dr. Sutton at drsutton.org and on X @drkellysutton.

For more on this lawsuit, go to an earlier interview, Silenced Healers: Doctors Sue to Reclaim Free Speech from Medical Boards.

That moment sparked a decade-long journey that would not only save his life but reshape his entire medical practice. Dr. Tro dove deep into the literature, reading everything from early 20th-century starvation studies to modern interventional trials. The conclusion was undeniable: every direct trial comparing calorie-restricted low-fat diets to low-carbohydrate approaches showed the same result—low-carb always won for sustained weight loss. Over two years, without ever deviating, he lost 150 pounds. More importantly, the mental clarity returned. The joint pain vanished. The exhaustion lifted. For the first time in his adult life, he felt truly alive.

What stunned him most, however, was a second realization that came years into his journey. While screening a patient for alcohol dependence using the CAGE questionnaire, he found himself answering “yes” to every question—about food. He had been a food addict his entire life, hooked from age eight when he first attended Weight Watchers with his mother. The processed carbohydrates and sugars he once believed were “healthy in moderation” had functioned like drugs, driving insatiable hunger, shame, and bingeing.

This insight transformed how he treats patients. Food addiction, he argues, explains why two-thirds of American adults and nearly 20% of children are now overweight or obese, why children develop fatty liver and type 2 diabetes before adulthood, and why traditional “eat less, move more” advice fails so spectacularly. Like alcoholism, recovery requires abstinence from the addictive substance—in this case, processed carbohydrates and sugar—combined with strategic planning for high-risk social situations like holiday meals.

If you’re looking for a great Christmas stocking stuffer, talleybalm.com is offering a Buy One, Get One Free deal right now!

The skincare industry has gone the same direction as our food supply — overprocessed, full of ingredients I can’t pronounce, and pushed by companies I don’t trust anymore. So I’ve been simplifying everything I use on my skin.

I have partnered with Cow Guys Tallow Balm and they made me my own signature product with my name! Use it as an everyday moisturizer for your face, arms, legs etc. It has been very effective for soothing eczema, psoriasis and dry skin. I highly recommend it.

Here’s the link to get two balms for the price of one: https://www.cowguys.shop/products/talleybalm-original?variant=44055563894964

Dr. Tro has now helped over 2,000 patients collectively lose more than 100,000 pounds through a rigorous, data-driven low-carb/carnivore approach. His nationwide virtual practice tracks everything: continuous glucose and ketone monitors, connected scales, blood pressure cuffs, sleep studies, coronary artery calcium scores, and frequent metabolic labs. Patients meet weekly with coaches and see dramatic results—80% reduction in binge-eating symptoms, average drop of two medications, and 50–60% lower calculated cardiovascular risk despite often rising LDL (which he explains is a normal adaptation to fat metabolism, not a danger signal when metabolic health is restored).

His message is uncompromising yet hopeful: the standard dietary guidelines pushed by major medical organizations have failed catastrophically. Meat is not the villain; ultra-processed carbohydrates are. A rib-eye steak before Thanksgiving dinner, bringing your own berries and whipped cream for dessert, and treating carbohydrate addiction with the same seriousness as opioid or alcohol dependence—these are not extreme measures. For many, they are the path back to health.After a lifetime of obesity, food addiction, and conventional medical training that offered no real solutions, Dr. Tro found freedom on the other side of a plate of meat and eggs. His story is living proof that radical health transformation is possible—even for the doctor who once knew everything except how to save himself.

Dr. Tro is licensed to help patients in all 50 states. Find him here at Toward Health, on X at @DoctorTro, and listen to his podcast, Low Carb MD.

He was right.

What happened to Gail was not medical misfortune. It was the methodical execution of a nationwide protocol that thousands of families now recognize as the “Hospital Deadly Playbook.” Gail and Brad Seiler are among the rare survivors who lived to tell the story in excruciating detail.

It began like so many others. Gail, already wary of hospitals because of her involvement in the medical-freedom movement, nevertheless trusted that Medical City Plano would treat her fairly — after all, Texas hero Lt. Col. Allen West had received ivermectin and budesonide there only weeks earlier. Instead, she was isolated, denied food and water for twelve days, refused even ice chips for the first seven, forcibly catheterized, and left naked under bright lights so staff could “monitor” her through the window without entering the room.

Her doctor walked in, asked if she was vaccinated, and when she answered no, patted her hand and declared, “I’m sorry, but you’re going to die.” He refused to prescribe ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, or budesonide. He refused to allow her priest to administer last rites unless she first accepted remdesivir — a drug Gail describes as feeling like “fiberglass flowing through my veins.” When a sympathetic pulmonologist finally wrote an order for budesonide nebulizer treatments, the pharmacy “delayed” it, then halved the dose, then substituted albuterol. Every small improvement was met with escalation: higher oxygen, BiPAP torture, sedatives pushed despite her refusal.

Most chilling of all, staff repeatedly listed her as DNR against her clear, daily objections, while telling Brad, “What do you want us to do when she codes?” — implying her death was inevitable and imminent.

By day fourteen, Gail was convinced she would be murdered. Her daughter and Brad, with the help of Senator Bob Hall and attorney Paul Davis, served a cease-and-desist letter citing Texas’s “No Patient Left Alone” law. Police refused to enforce it. On day fifteen, Brad exploited a momentarily unattended door and an open elevator, marched straight into the ICU, and took command of the room. For six hours he stood guard while staff, security, and police circled. Doctors tried to gaslight Gail into staying, claiming Brad could not manage her oxygen at home. She looked them in the eye and said, “I would rather die with my husband trying to save me than be murdered by you.”

They finally handed over a fraudulent Against Medical Advice form that Brad altered on the spot into a hospice transfer — forcing the hospital to provide equipment instead of washing their hands of her. A smirking nurse wheeled Gail not through the main lobby but down the service corridors used for corpses, out the morgue door, while telling Brad, “Mark my words — she’ll be dead tonight.”

She was home by noon. With donated oxygen tanks, prescriptions from Dr. Richard Bartlett, and Brad’s relentless nursing, Gail slowly recovered. Today she breathes with the same lungs the hospital insisted would require transplantation or lifelong ventilation.

The Seilers did not retreat into silence. They co-founded BetrayalProjectUSA.org with eleven other survivors and grieving family members to collect and amplify victim testimonies. Their research has documented over twenty-five nearly identical tactics used across the country: isolation, denial of fluids and nutrition, coerced remdesivir, fabricated DNR status, fraudulent billing, and, in the final hours, heavy sedation without pain or respiratory distress.

Gail and Brad’s story is extraordinary in its happy ending, but the playbook executed against her was routine. An estimated 1.6 million Americans died in hospitals during the pandemic, the vast majority after the same sequence of deliberate deprivation and toxic protocols. Most families still believe their loved ones “died of COVID.” They did not. They were killed for federal bounty money under legal immunity provided by the PREP Act.

As Brad told the nurse who predicted Gail’s death: “If she lives, even God can’t help you.” She lived. And she — along with a growing army of betrayed families — will not stop talking until the architects and executors of this democide are exposed and brought to justice.

The hospitals were never “overwhelmed.” They were weaponized.

And the only thing that ever interrupted the killing protocol was a loved one willing to risk everything to storm the gates.

Delaney’s role was intended to bridge HHS with medical freedom advocates, fostering communication on controversial issues like revoking Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca. However, he faced immediate roadblocks. Stefanie Spear, a key advisor to Kennedy, prohibited external outreach, forcing Delaney to pivot to indirect channels like MAHA Action. Announcements, such as cutting over $500 million in mRNA technology funding, were made without preparation, leading to lost momentum. Delaney questioned why he was hired if his core duties were blocked, attributing it to a broader problem: “Personnel is policy.” Kennedy lacks allies like Peter McCullough or Harvey Risch in key positions, facing massive resistance from entrenched bureaucrats at FDA and CDC. Delaney’s firing stemmed from his proactive defense of these decisions on social media, which Spear deemed uncontrollable. He accused Spear and Matt Buckham of sequestering Kennedy, controlling information flow, and prioritizing inexperienced, compliant staff over qualified reformers.

Dr. Hatfill echoed these concerns, describing his onboarding as fraught with delays and marginalization. Initially overlooked despite endorsements from figures like Peter Navarro, Hatfill was eventually appointed to ASPR (Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response) to advance Kennedy’s policies. He played a pivotal role in halting further funding of mRNA vaccines, citing overwhelming evidence of harms—including kidney failure, cancers, and permanent genetic changes via methylation. Hatfield’s television appearances explained these risks, emphasizing how new biochemical snapshots revealed vaccines activating oncogenes and disrupting DNA repair. Yet, his efforts clashed with pharmaceutical interests. He criticized FDA Commissioner Makary as too mild for overhauling corrupt approvals and highlighted the duplicity in promoting expensive drugs like Paxlovid while suppressing affordable ones like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Hatfill’s abrupt firing, without explanation, coincided with his work on DNA-interfering therapies and a chloroquine-based drug—threats to Big Pharma’s profits. He suspects Spear and Buckham orchestrated it to maintain the status quo, influenced by figures like Susie Wiles.

Hatfill and Delany paint a picture of sabotage, with Kennedy “managed” and isolated, reminiscent of his campaign struggles. Big Pharma’s lobbying—evident in Trump’s recent Pfizer handshake and vaccine endorsement—appears to have infiltrated the administration. The MAHA summit, funded by Eli Lilly and Palantir, is criticized as a diluted version prioritizing AI and wearables over core issues like safe vaccines and pesticide-free food. Delaney and Hatfill warn that without firing gatekeepers like Spear and Buckham, and installing true reformers, opportunities for addressing vaccine harms, autism links to toxins, and food supply crises will be squandered.

This insider testimony underscores a crisis in American health governance: reform stymied by corruption and control. For MAHA supporters, it calls for collective pressure through platforms like X to demand transparency and accountability. Without it, the promise of making America healthy again risks becoming another unfulfilled political slogan, leaving citizens vulnerable to ongoing public health failures.

Huff’s account begins with historical context. Post-World War II Operation Paperclip imported Nazi scientists to bolster U.S. bioweapons programs, accelerating dual-use research—technologies with both civilian and military applications—through the Cold War and into the present. EcoHealth Alliance exemplified this: ostensibly collecting viral samples worldwide to predict pandemics, but effectively building a genetic database of coronaviruses. Samples funneled to partners for gain-of-function experiments, enhancing viral transmissibility or pathogenicity under the guise of countermeasure development. The WIV, a key collaborator, emerges as the epicenter. Genomic analysis reveals no natural progenitor linking SARS-CoV-2 to known bat viruses, with man-made sequences statistically improbable in nature (odds of one in a billion). This echoes prior lab escapes, like the 1970s Soviet flu pandemic, yet the response here—suppressing blood bank serology studies that could trace early U.S. circulation—suggests deliberate obfuscation.

U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, FBI, Department of Defense, and Energy, drive this ecosystem. Their goal: monitor foreign labs for biothreats and non-proliferation. EcoHealth’s Peter Daszak pitched to In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, which funds biotech with guaranteed government buyers. Though EcoHealth reportedly received no direct investment, partners like Metabiota—backed by Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca—did. This network blends science, venture capital, and espionage, creating mRNA vaccines as “countermeasures” while evading liability.

Huff became a target after whistleblowing. A suspected CIA operative, posing as a business contact, probed EcoHealth’s gain-of-function work. Days after Huff mentioned possessing “missing” viral sequences on a hard drive, it vanished from his locked safe alongside sensitive data on U.S. food infrastructure vulnerabilities—mapping two to three million facilities, highlighting critical nodes for potential contamination. Subsequent food plant attacks (arson, explosions) matched this dataset with one-in-a-trillion probability, yet FBI, DHS, and local authorities ignored fingerprints and evidence. Attacks ceased abruptly after media exposure, hinting at domestic actors like eco-terrorists rather than foreign powers.

The fallout extends to mRNA vaccines. Rushed without long-term trials, they face mounting evidence of harm: South Korean cohort studies link them to cancers; actuarial data show excess injuries. Virus evolution has reduced severity, rendering vaccines obsolete and risky. Liability shields and lucrative contracts—potentially influencing political deals—prolong their use, but declining uptake signals market rejection. Huff predicts a “tidal wave” of claims overwhelming manufacturers.

Emerging synthetic biology amplifies risks. AI designs viral clones; future self-replicating entities—carbon- or silicon-based—could mimic life, repair materials, or disrupt ecosystems. Applications in agriculture or computing promise benefits, but absent robust oversight (beyond export controls), misuse looms. Gain-of-function persists globally; banning it unilaterally disadvantages the U.S.

Huff’s narrative exposes a perilous intersection of science and security. Accidental or not, the Wuhan leak underscores dual-use dangers. Without accountability—serology audits, independent probes, regulatory reform—trust erodes, inviting greater catastrophes. As history evolves, so must our vigilance.

Follow Andrew Huff on Substack - Dr. Andrew G. Huff and purchase his book “The Truth about Wuhan.”

Dr. Sutton’s ordeal began pre-pandemic. California’s 2015 SB 277 eliminated personal belief exemptions, forcing medical ones based on broad doctor judgment. Writing exemptions for at-risk children—often referred by fearful colleagues—she faced investigations using arbitrary standards. No patient complained; instead, school nurses and public health doctors rifled through records to target her. California revoked her license in 2022, and reciprocal discipline stripped her Massachusetts and New York licenses. “Doctors were afraid,” she recalled. “I became the go-to for exemptions.”

Dr. Humiston experience echoed this in San Diego, after issuing a mere 16 exemptions for families with vaccine injury histories. One father begged delay for his son after a sibling’s devastation; another mother’s girls showed immune issues. “This child is reality,” he said. “The board is a concept.” After his license was revoked in California (2023), Indiana suspended his via reciprocity—prompted by a hospital resident spotting his record during IV treatment.

Dr. Brody’s sent a cautionary email to his patients in December 2020, urging them to wait for better vaccine data before getting the COVID shots. An out-of-state doctor complained, resulting in Rhode Island suspending his license in 2021. When forced to choose between renouncing his medical opinion or failing a board-imposed ethics course, he surrendered his license voluntarily, now practicing integrative medicine without prescriptions.

The Texas Medical Board targeted me for court testimony I made on behalf of a dying patient’s wife who was suing Texas Huguley Hospital to obtain ivermectin. To date, defending myself has cost me over $250,000+, and my fight is not over.

Attorney Feoktistov revealed the “head of the snake”: FSMB, a private nonprofit monopolizing licensing exams (USMLE) and databases. State medical boards have ceded functions and autonomy, fearing expulsion. In July 2021, FSMB issued a COVID policy labeling dissenting views “misinformation” and encouraging state medical boards to discipline doctors who violated this policy. Influenced by UK’s Center for Countering Digital Hate and Biden’s HHS (led by ex-CA AG Xavier Becerra, who targeted exemptions), it laundered censorship through states.

All punishments targeted “pure speech”—exemptions as letters, emails, testimony. Retaliation and discrimination against physician’s medical opinions violates the First Amendment. Reciprocal discipline spread punishment nationwide, unmoored from local legislatures (e.g., Texas allows over-the-counter ivermectin).

Our suit demands license restoration, damages from FSMB’s millions in annual revenue, and severed ideology from regulation. “Science progresses by falsification, not consensus,” Feoktistov argues. Doctors must be allowed to advocate ethically, per the Hippocratic Oath.

This battle exposes centralized capture harming patients. Intimidated physicians withhold speech and treatments for fear of medical board discipline. We advocate for decentralize boards, curtailing or eliminating the FSMB, and restoring doctor-patient autonomy. As Dr. Brody said, “We want honest doctors.” In an era of eroded freedoms, we as healers fight for all.

Forged by military service into a “Swiss Army knife” leader, Chambers excels at assimilating information and decentralizing power. He aims to restore sovereignty to Texans by dissolving bloated agencies like the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Texas Medical Board (TMB), replacing them with citizen-led task forces. “Action is always better than inaction,” he insists, prioritizing grassroots input over corporate optics.

Texans crave authenticity. Exhausted by decisions favoring corporate profit and H-1B visas that displace local jobs, they want leaders focused on people—the true “center of gravity.” Young families struggle under taxes that make homeownership nearly impossible. Chambers gathers everyday experts into task forces, fusing their insights into actionable plans. From day one in office, he pledges real change: no campaigning, just results. Unlike the “cloistered” Abbott, backed by a $90–100 million war chest, Chambers stays accessible, engaging on social media and touring small towns.

Victory is within reach in an off-cycle election requiring just 1.2–1.5 million votes from Texas’s 20 million. Chambers emphasizes transparency and security—border, fiscal, and bodily autonomy. “The country has changed in the last four years,” he observes. Security underpins everything, including informed consent eroded by “corporate medicine.” Recalling his father’s house calls—delivering babies, removing tonsils—Chambers mourns the loss of true family medicine.

His COVID experience defines him. On Abbott’s task force, he watched millions wasted on ventilators and Chinese PCR tests. As a bio-weapons expert, red flags emerged: coronavirus is the common cold, yet something felt “off.” At the border with Operation Lone Star, vaccinated troops presented myocarditis and strokes—abnormal for young soldiers. Whistleblower data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) revealed an 11x spike in neurologic disorders. Four doctors, including Chambers, testified against DOD mandates. Retaliation was swift: declared persona non grata, his career ended. “We took the hit,” he says. The DMED system “broke” after their report, data suspiciously altered.

To reform Texas healthcare, Chambers champions decentralization, starting with eliminating boards vulnerable to MICE (Money, Ideology, Coercion, Ego). He intends to appoint leaders of true character—uncoercible, ego in check. “Stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.” His informed consent saved lives; defying unlawful orders cost his job but upheld ethics.

Grassroots momentum powers the campaign. At docpetechambers.org, volunteers canvass and signs rise. Filing November 8, the primary falls on March 3—“Liberation Day.” “The grassroots in Texas is on fire,” he declares, rejecting Uniparty complacency.

Chambers didn’t seek this role; he was called. Wearing only the U.S. and Texas flags, he fights for all. His story inspires hope: a superhero veteran ready to lead with competence, courage, and people-first policy.

Then, in August 2021, Cumulus Media, KABC’s parent company, issued an ultimatum: stop criticizing the vaccines or leave. Victory refused. “I’ve been doing this for free, carrying your show,” she told them. “You want to remove the only reason I’m here—to tell the truth?” She walked away. The timing was no coincidence. That summer, the FDA mocked ivermectin users with its infamous “horse dewormer” tweet, the Surgeon General declared war on “misinformation,” and President Biden mandated shots while restricting monoclonal antibodies. Across America, dissenting physicians—Victory included—received near-simultaneous complaints from state medical boards. She faced seven investigations in Ohio, North Carolina, and Colorado, none involving patient care, all targeting her public statements.

Victory had already been deplatformed from YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. She later joined President Trump’s class-action lawsuit against Big Tech censorship—a case that settled with platforms admitting wrongdoing. “Trust the people who got it right last time,” she now advises. Those who risked everything to speak out, not the compliant majority, earned credibility.

This litmus test extends to leadership. Victory was a leading contender for U.S. Surgeon General under the Trump administration. She spoke extensively with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., submitted credentials, and believed the nomination was hers—until Kennedy called from a grocery store line with the news: Dr. Casey Means had been chosen. Victory harbors no personal animosity but grave concerns. Means abandoned her ENT residency, never practiced independently, and holds no medical license. “It’s like saying a law student who’s done moot court has litigated cases,” Victory argues. The Surgeon General must command respect, set standards, and communicate complex science accessibly. A placeholder without clinical authority or gravitas cannot lead.

Victory’s own battle with breast cancer underscores her philosophy. Diagnosed early via aggressive screening, she rejected chemotherapy despite protocol. “There’s no proof it works in my case,” she told her oncologist, “but there is proof it destroys immunity—your first defense against cancer.” At City of Hope, specialists pushed drugs without asking about diet, exercise, sleep, or stress. “This system is broken,” she declared. “I am not a protocol.” Nearly two and a half years later, cancer-free, she credits immune optimization—intermittent fasting, exercise, and supplements like those in her Wellness Company’s new Shield formula.

The lesson from COVID and beyond is clear: medicine is an art, not a flowchart. Protocols fail nuance; AI cannot replace judgment. Victory and her peers paid dearly for defying orthodoxy, but their courage exposed a fragile system—and illuminated a path forward. Trust those who spoke truth when it mattered most. Empower patients to own their health. And never again let fear silence science.

At the heart of the critique is the Affordable Care Act (ACA), portrayed not as a benevolent reform but a Trojan horse for single-payer control. Rojas recounts paying $188 monthly for catastrophic coverage in his youth, sufficient for a healthy 23-year-old, yet the ACA dismantled such options under false promises: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Pre-existing conditions, often cited as justification, affected only about 8 million uninsured—a fraction solvable through targeted measures, not wholesale overhaul. Instead, the ACA expanded Medicaid via financial arbitrage, as seen in California, ballooning enrollees without improving outcomes, merely siphoning federal dollars to states. This, Rojas argues, accelerates bankruptcy toward inevitable government takeover, echoing Democratic ambitions for 20% of GDP.

Nonprofit hospitals epitomize the scam. Exempt from property and income taxes, they receive $125 billion in annual subsidies, tax-free bonds at preferential rates, and disproportionate reimbursements—up to 12 times more than independent providers for identical services via CMS arbitrage. Once 74% of physicians practiced independently in 2009, fostering competition and lower costs; today, only 12% do, seduced by multimillion-dollar buyouts that recoup investments swiftly. These “nonprofits” like Kaiser amass $118 billion in revenue, sponsor lavish ads, and evade taxes while independents foot the bill. Price transparency laws exist on paper, but hospitals encode data in impenetrable formats, shielded by lobbyists who redefine regulations without altering statutes.

Insurers fare even better, hoarding premiums in a $34 trillion investment pool, with giants like Berkshire Hathaway profiting from unused benefits. Property and casualty lines subsidize health, turning coverage into a wealth engine rather than risk pool. Unions pay $28,000–$30,000 for first-dollar plans, yet middle-class families—earning $80,000–$120,000—lose $2,000 monthly to premiums, crippling retirement.

Yet hope glimmers in rebellion. Direct primary and specialty care clinics eschew third-party payers, serving patients directly. Physician coalitions negotiate rates collectively, flipping power dynamics: payers now court independents. Employers embrace direct contracting, recognizing deductibles deter care—80% of households fear financial ruin from routine visits. Practical steps abound: demand good-faith estimates under the No Surprises Act, appeal denials via HR (resolving 99% of self-insured claims), and amplify stories on platforms like X.

Reform demands dismantling structural favoritism—enforcing site-neutral payments, true transparency, and empowering independents. As Rojas notes, irrational systems break under pressure; unsustainable Medicare/Medicaid budgets and premiums will force change. Patients and physicians must reclaim agency, rejecting complacency for coalitions and cash-pay innovation. Only then can healthcare revert to its essence: healing, not harvesting.

Deb Conrad’s story began when she noticed patients returning to her hospital with injuries potentially linked to the COVID shots. As required by law, she diligently filed VAERS reports, only to face retaliation from her employer, Rochester Regional Health System, which terminated her employment. Conrad’s case underscores a systemic issue: hospitals failing to report adverse events, leaving patients without recourse and undermining public health surveillance. Her lawsuit, now in the discovery phase, aims to expose the extent of unreported cases and hold the hospital accountable for breaching its federal contract to report such incidents.

The significance of Conrad’s case lies in its potential to circumvent the PREP Act, which has made it nearly impossible to sue for pandemic-related injuries. By framing the lawsuit under the False Claims Act, Conrad and Mendenhall argue that hospitals defrauded the government by failing to report adverse events, a violation that carries significant penalties. The discovery phase will reveal critical data, including how many patients received vaccines at Rochester Regional and subsequently sought treatment for moderate to severe reactions. Estimates suggest at least 1,200 patients experienced such outcomes, with a broader population of 12,000 potentially affected across various vaccination sites. This data could lead to substantial financial penalties, with each unreported case carrying a minimum fine of $13,000, potentially totaling millions.

The case also highlights the inefficacy of the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), designed to compensate vaccine-injured individuals. With only 41 out of 14,000 claims compensated—a mere 0.2%—the program has proven inadequate, leaving patients like those Conrad reported without support. Many of these patients, dismissed as psychosomatic or misdiagnosed, face lifelong disabilities or even death, yet their cases go unreported, perpetuating a cycle of neglect.

Conrad’s legal battle sets a precedent for other vaccine-injured individuals and whistleblowers. The six-year statute of limitations, tied to the end of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), provides ample time—potentially until 2029—for similar lawsuits. Groups of affected patients can band together to sue hospitals that failed to report adverse events, with potential settlements offering significant financial recovery. Moreover, employees like Conrad, fired for attempting to comply with federal reporting requirements, have personal claims for lost wages, adding another layer of accountability.

This case also raises broader questions about institutional accountability. Mendenhall suggests that criminal penalties could be pursued against hospital leadership, such as CEOs, for suppressing reports. The failure of nearly 2,800 U.S. hospitals to meet their VAERS obligations represents a massive public health oversight. Conrad’s case, the first to successfully move past a motion to dismiss under this legal theory, could inspire similar actions nationwide, potentially coordinated by organizations like Freedom Counsel or React 19.

In conclusion, Deb Conrad’s lawsuit against Rochester Regional Health System is a pivotal step toward accountability in the healthcare industry. By exposing systemic failures in vaccine injury reporting, it challenges the protections of the PREP Act and empowers patients and whistleblowers to seek justice. As the case progresses, the use of AI to analyze vast datasets could further illuminate the scale of unreported injuries, reinforcing the urgency of reform. This legal effort not only seeks redress for past wrongs but also aims to restore trust in a healthcare system that has, in many instances, failed its patients.

If you suspect you were injured from the COVID shots and your provider failed to report it to VAERS, reach out to Warner Mendenhall at Freedom Counsel to discuss joining this effort. To learn more about Deb Conrad and her case, go to I Am Deb Conrad.

The student, now in 10th grade, has been barred from returning to school since his expulsion in December of the previous year. His family faces not only the loss of his education but also criminal truancy charges, despite their desire to keep him enrolled. This situation underscores a growing national debate over vaccine mandates and the erosion of personal and religious exemptions.

The student had previously been allowed to remain in school under California’s personal belief exemption, which was repealed in 2015. At that time, the student’s mother provided proof of homeoprophylaxis immunizations, which the school nurse accepted. However, a state audit revealed that the student lacked traditional vaccinations required under California law, leading to his expulsion and the assignment of failing grades, despite his academic excellence.

The Ventura County District Attorney’s decision to pursue truancy charges against the parents, who were not keeping their child out of school voluntarily, was dropped after a First Amendment challenge. The case now hinges on whether the state’s actions constitute hostility toward the family’s religious beliefs, a claim that advocates argue violates the free exercise clause of the Constitution.

This legal battle has escalated to an emergency petition before the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Elena Kagan ordering a response from Ventura County and the state of California. While some question whether Kagan, assigned to the Ninth Circuit, will be sympathetic to the case, the Supreme Court’s plenary jurisdiction allows it to take up such appeals independently. The state’s response, filed recently, argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction, a claim that legal advocates dispute, citing the Court’s authority over appellate matters.

This case follows previous unsuccessful attempts to bring similar religious exemption cases before the Supreme Court, including a 2021 challenge against New York’s ban on religious exemptions for healthcare workers, which fell one vote short of being heard.

The implications of this case extend far beyond California. A favorable ruling could restore religious exemptions for families in states like New York, Connecticut, Maine, and West Virginia, affecting over 20% of the U.S. population. Advocates argue that while religious liberty is upheld in other contexts—such as public prayer or refusing service based on personal beliefs—it is inconsistently denied when it comes to vaccines. This disparity fuels a broader push for medical autonomy, with organizations like We the Patriots USA advocating for amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination based on vaccination or health status. Such a change could eliminate mandates nationwide, protecting students, employees, and individuals in public accommodations.

The urgency of this case, coupled with its potential to reshape the landscape of religious and medical freedom, demands public attention. Advocates are rallying support through petitions and social media, urging Congress to act. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the nation watches to see whether individual rights will prevail over state mandates, setting a precedent for personal autonomy in an increasingly regulated world.

Update: This interview originally aired on 10/1/25. On October 17th, SCOTUS declined to take up their petition for emergency review. This case has NOT been dismissed, and proceedings will continue at the district court and the Ninth Circuit. For more information, please go to We the Patriot’s website.

The heart of Jackson’s lawsuit centers on claims of fraud in Pfizer’s clinical trials and manufacturing processes. Evidence suggests the vaccine, particularly the scaled-up Process 2, was inadequately tested, with only a couple of hundred people evaluated compared to the 40,000 in Process 1 trials. This shift introduced significant risks, including DNA contamination from E. coli and the inclusion of SV40, a segment known to promote rapid cell growth, potentially linked to increased cancer rates. These allegations point to a product that not only failed to meet contractual obligations but also posed serious health risks, with approximately 20% of recipients experiencing adverse effects, 5% of which were severe, ranging from cancers to fatalities.

The legal battle has been fraught with obstacles. The Biden administration intervened, arguing that the case was contrary to public health policy, leading to its dismissal by a federal judge. This decision, lacking clear justification, is now under appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) standards for dismissing such cases were not met, raising questions about political motivations. The delay in scheduling oral arguments further complicates the pursuit of justice, leaving Jackson and her legal team in a “weird vacuum” of media silence. Mainstream outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post have largely ignored the case, underscoring the challenges whistleblowers face in gaining public attention.

The implications of this case are profound. A successful appeal could strip Pfizer of its legal immunities, exposing the company to liabilities potentially in the trillions, which could lead to its bankruptcy. Such an outcome would send a powerful message about corporate accountability and the necessity of rigorous oversight in pharmaceutical development. The case also highlights systemic issues with regulatory agencies like the FDA, which have been criticized for inadequate scrutiny of Pfizer’s submissions. The intentional inclusion of SV40, hidden from regulators, further erodes trust in these institutions, suggesting a prioritization of corporate interests over public safety.Jackson’s case is not just about one company; it reflects a broader struggle against the erosion of individual liberties under the guise of public health.

Historical precedents like Buck v. Bell and the eugenics movement reveal a troubling pattern of prioritizing collective goals over personal rights, a trend that continues with vaccine mandates for healthcare workers. These mandates, often enforced without regard for individual choice, echo past injustices and underscore the need for reform, possibly through legislative changes to Title VII to protect bodily autonomy.

Ultimately, Jackson’s fight is a call to action for the American public to demand transparency and accountability. As her attorney Warner Mendenhall emphasizes, relying solely on government figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or political leaders is insufficient. The public must engage, research, and amplify these issues to hold corporations like Pfizer accountable. By supporting whistleblowers like Jackson, society can challenge the unchecked power of pharmaceutical giants and ensure that public health serves the people, not corporate profits. The road to justice is long, but the pursuit of truth remains essential for a free and informed society.

Learn more about Brook Jackson’s case and follow her on X @iambrookjackson. Warner Mendenhall is the founder of Freedom Counsel. Follow him on X @mendenhallfirm.

Dr. Drew’s multifaceted background weaves together medicine, media, and music, with his early training as an opera singer leading to performances at charity events and national anthems for sports teams, though a vocal injury (varices and reflux) halted this passion, necessitating vocal rehab and possible laser surgery. His personal life as a father of triplets and now a grandfather offers a relatable glimpse into the challenges of parenting under pressure, with a humorous nod to the “PTSD” of revisiting those days. An asteroid named after him, a gesture from a fan and astronomy professor, underscores his cultural impact beyond medicine, stemming from his radio show fame.

Dr. Drew ‘s initiation into addiction medicine began when he moonlighted at a psychiatric hospital during residency, and he spent over 30 years refining the medical management of psychiatric patients and drug withdrawal. He describes a disciplined, evidence-based approach to detox, contrasting the haphazard methods he encountered early on, such as using antipsychotics for alcohol withdrawal, which led to severe complications. His structured protocols, involving benzodiazepines, magnesium, and thiamine, transformed detox into a systematic process, improving patient outcomes. This evolution reflects his broader realization that addiction treatment extends beyond detox to long-term brain healing and addressing underlying psychological factors.

Dr. Drew’s views on addiction have matured significantly. Early in his career, he misunderstood addiction as solely about stopping drug use, underestimating its complexity. He also struggled with codependency, initially empathizing excessively with patients, which some exploited. Over 15 years, he learned to set boundaries and manage patients with trauma and character pathology effectively, adopting a less confrontational approach. He critiques the popularized “Dr. Phil” style of confrontation, advocating instead for “therapeutic wonderment”—a technique of gentle questioning that fosters authentic patient responses without triggering defensiveness.

Dr. Drew expresses concern about its psychosis-inducing potential, particularly with high-potency concentrates in legalized states like Colorado. He cites increased ER visits, including for anticholinergic delirium in older adults, and references Alex Berenson’s book Tell Your Children, which links marijuana to mental illness and violence. His daughter’s sobriety journey reinforces his stance, as she embraced Berenson’s findings after overcoming cannabis addiction.

Dr. Drew avoids dogmatic positions, emphasizing clinical judgment over rigid adherence to literature, a principle he applies to debates like ivermectin use, where he respects differing physician opinions. On emerging treatments, Dr. Drew is skeptical of psychedelics like LSD, psilocybin, and ketamine for mental health. He describes LSD’s neurotoxic effects, citing cases of personality changes and mood disturbances, and questions the bioethics of chemically induced personality shifts. Psilocybin and ketamine show limited therapeutic promise in controlled settings (e.g., end-of-life care or recalcitrant depression), but he warns of risks like mania or addiction relapse with misuse. His clinical experience prioritizes evidence-based, long-term interventions over trendy solutions.

Dr. Drew’s reflections underscore the value of clinical judgment, shaped by decades of experience, over reliance on literature alone. His support for medical freedom, echoed by his affiliation with organizations like The Wellness Company, aligns with patient-centered care. Dr. Drew blends expertise, empathy, and skepticism, advocating for nuanced approaches to addiction and mental health while championing the doctor’s role in navigating complex medical landscapes.

Dr. Rogers, a fellow at Brownstone, has conducted a systematic review of over 1,100 autism causation studies, revealing a critical flaw: the vast majority fail to account for vaccination status. This omission renders many studies unreliable, as they cannot isolate vaccines as a potential risk factor. Rogers highlights that 22 studies claiming vaccines do not cause autism lack unvaccinated control groups, while 500 genetic studies are equally flawed, as the human genome cannot change rapidly enough to explain the 32,158% increase in autism prevalence since 1970—from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 31 children today. Epigenetic studies, examining interactions between toxicants and the genome, also fall short by ignoring vaccines as a confounder, a choice Rogers attributes to researchers’ fear of challenging the pharmaceutical industry.

In contrast, six robust studies, including those by Gallagher, Goodman, Mawson, and Hooker and Miller, demonstrate a significant correlation between vaccines—particularly the hepatitis B vaccine—and increased autism risk. These findings align with the FDA Commissioner’s statement, which implies that autism is caused by toxicants, not solely genetics. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya further reinforced this shift by acknowledging that the autism surge cannot be attributed to genetic factors alone, marking a historic departure from the narrative championed by figures like Peter Hotez, who emphasize genetics over environmental triggers.

The September ACIP meeting, while primarily focused on COVID shots, also touched on broader vaccine policy reforms. The decision to move away from universal COVID shot recommendations, leaving choices to patients and doctors, reflects a nod toward informed consent. However, doctors dismissed adverse reactions during the pandemic, and the ensuing public distrust extends to autism research, where patients with vaccine-related injuries are often gaslit by healthcare providers.

The acknowledgment that “autism can be prevented” opens the door to actionable reforms. Proposals include moving the hepatitis B vaccine to age 12, administering MMR as separate shots, limiting one vaccine per visit, and removing mercury and aluminum from vaccines. These changes aim to reduce toxicant exposure and prioritize patient safety. Additionally, emerging treatments like leucovorin (folinic acid) show promise in alleviating autism symptoms, offering hope to families.

This paradigm shift demands urgent action: ban toxicants, update cancer and autism data (with the CDC’s last real data from 2022), and remove liability protections for vaccine manufacturers to ensure accountability. By addressing vaccines as a potential toxicant and prioritizing rigorous, transparent research, the medical community can move toward preventing autism and restoring public trust.

McKernan’s research, supported by ten independent studies, has identified DNA contamination in vaccine vials at levels far exceeding the permissible limits set by regulatory bodies like the FDA. These contaminants, remnants of the plasmid DNA used in the manufacturing process, were supposed to be eliminated before the vaccines reached the public. However, independent analyses have shown that these safeguards were either inadequately enforced or entirely overlooked. The FDA’s reliance on assurances from Pfizer and Moderna, without independent verification, has allowed these companies to bypass critical safety protocols. This lack of oversight is particularly concerning given the presence of lipid nanoparticles, which protect the contaminating DNA from the body’s natural degradation processes. This protection allows the DNA to potentially enter cells, including the nucleus, raising risks of integration into the human genome—a process that could lead to long-term health consequences, including oncogenesis due to the presence of the SV40 gene, known for its tumor-enhancing properties.

The FDA’s response to these findings, as observed during the recent ACIP meeting, has been inadequate and evasive. When questioned by experts like Dr. Kirk Milhoan, the FDA cited proprietary information and failed to provide transparent answers, further eroding public trust. This reluctance to engage with independent findings suggests a troubling alignment with pharmaceutical interests, potentially at the expense of public safety. McKernan’s assertion that the SV40 region was hidden from regulators points to possible fraud or collusion, as such omissions in gene therapy products typically warrant stringent genotoxicity studies—studies these vaccines have conspicuously avoided by being classified as vaccines rather than gene therapies.

The implications of DNA contamination extend beyond immediate health risks. The inflammatory response triggered by plasmid DNA, particularly when methylated differently from human DNA, can exacerbate conditions in individuals with genetic predispositions, such as MTHFR mutations. This is especially concerning for populations already vulnerable to oxidative stress, as highlighted by McKernan’s work in autism genetics. The combination of DNA contamination, lipid nanoparticle delivery, and inflammatory triggers like the cGAS-STING pathway creates a cascade of potential harm, including cancer and mitochondrial damage. Yet, the FDA’s failure to act decisively—despite evidence from even high school students replicating these findings—underscores a systemic issue in regulatory accountability.

The removal of blanket COVID shot recommendations for children and pregnant women is a step forward, but it falls short of the necessary action: a complete halt to the use of these products until rigorous, independent testing can confirm their safety. The fact that only 10% of healthcare workers have received the latest COVID booster, as reported by the CDC, reflects a broader skepticism within the medical community—a clear signal that trust in these vaccines is waning.

Addressing this crisis requires immediate action. The FDA must conduct independent, transparent testing of vaccine lots, prioritizing the safety of the public over corporate interests. Regulatory bodies should also reconsider the liability waivers granted to vaccine manufacturers, which have seemingly enabled lax quality control. Furthermore, the potential therapeutic role of drugs like ivermectin, which may block nuclear targeting of contaminating DNA, warrants further investigation as a precautionary measure.

The DNA contamination issue in COVID shots is a stark reminder of the need for robust oversight, transparency, and accountability in public health. The findings of McKernan and other independent researchers demand urgent action to protect vulnerable populations and restore trust in medical institutions. Until these concerns are thoroughly addressed, the continued administration of these vaccines, particularly to children and pregnant women, poses an unacceptable risk.

Dr. Huff’s journey into the heart of the pandemic’s origins began with his recruitment by EcoHealth Alliance, an organization ostensibly focused on wildlife conservation to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. However, as he rose to the role of vice president, he uncovered a starkly different reality: the organization was heavily funded by national security and defense agencies, including DARPA, DHS, and the Department of Defense. This funding supported programs like PREDICT, which collected global samples to study infectious diseases. While marketed as a conservation effort, Huff found that the true purpose was to develop advanced biotechnology, including gain-of-function research, which enhances the pathogenicity or transmissibility of viruses. This research, conducted in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, raises suspicions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

Huff highlights a disturbing lack of transparency and accountability, describing a system where classified projects, often redundant due to over-classification, were shielded from public scrutiny. At EcoHealth Alliance, under the leadership of Dr. Peter Daszak, financial motivations appeared to override scientific integrity. Huff recounts a chilling moment when Daszak laughed off questions about conservation spending, admitting that no funds had been allocated to the organization’s stated mission. This, coupled with Daszak’s alleged ties to the CIA, suggests that EcoHealth Alliance may have served as a front for intelligence operations, transferring biotechnology to China under the guise of scientific collaboration.

Conducted in substandard biosafety level (BSL-2 and BSL-3) facilities, gain-of-function research posed significant risks, as these settings lack the stringent controls needed for highly contagious pathogens, and the U.S. government’s continued funding of such work, despite known risks, could constitute criminal negligence. He speculates that the transfer of technology to the Wuhan Institute was a strategic move to infiltrate China’s bioweapons program, but this gamble backfired, potentially leading to the release of SARS-CoV-2. Whether the virus emerged accidentally or was deliberately released remains unresolved, but Huff leans toward an accidental leak from Wuhan due to inadequate biosafety measures.

To address this crisis, Huff proposes a radical solution: military tribunals under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He argues that since the Department of Defense funded much of the research, key figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci and others involved should face prosecution through this system. Military tribunals, he contends, would bypass the inefficiencies of civilian courts, ensure access to classified information, and maintain order and confidentiality. This approach, modeled after the Nuremberg trials, would hold individuals accountable while protecting sensitive national security data. However, Huff acknowledges the complexity of assigning liability, given the global scale of the pandemic and the involvement of multiple actors, from pharmaceutical companies to government officials.

Huff also touches on the broader societal impact of the pandemic response, particularly the mRNA vaccines developed under Operation Warp Speed. While he views the rapid production of vaccines as a logistical success, he criticizes the suppression of alternative treatments, such as ivermectin, and the overlooking of safety signals, including cancer risks and batch contamination. The lack of informed consent and the mandating of vaccines for healthy populations, including the military, further eroded public trust. Huff’s call for accountability extends beyond the origins of the virus to the mismanagement of the pandemic response, which he believes has wasted trillions of dollars and caused widespread harm.

Dr. Andrew Huff exposes a web of secrecy, financial conflicts, and ethical failures surrounding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. His call for military tribunals reflects the magnitude of the crisis and the need for a decisive, transparent reckoning. As the world grapples with the pandemic’s aftermath, his insights underscore the urgent need for reform in scientific research, government oversight, and public health policy to prevent future catastrophes. For more information on Dr. Huff, follow him on X (@AGHuff) and visit his website at www.andrewhuff.com.

Pre-order my new book!

Conrad, with over 20 years as a hospitalist in a small New York community, witnessed an alarming shift during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in December 2020. As nursing home residents and healthcare workers received the shots, her hospital saw an influx of patients with unusual conditions—blood clots, arrhythmias, and other anomalies—often linked by patients to their recent vaccinations. Initially unaware of VAERS, Conrad educated herself and discovered that these events required mandatory reporting under the vaccines’ Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Shocked by the lack of hospital guidance, she began reporting cases herself, a task that consumed hours of unpaid time.

As Director of Advanced Practice Providers, Conrad held a leadership role, overseeing credentialing and compliance across a nine-hospital system. Her advocacy for VAERS reporting initially received lukewarm support from local leadership, who underestimated the scope of adverse events. However, as she reported nearly 200 cases and received hundreds more from colleagues, system-wide leadership intervened. They audited her reports, accused her of over-reporting, and barred her from documenting cases not directly under her care. This gaslighting extended to patients and families, who were dismissed when linking symptoms to vaccines. Despite her exemplary record, including a 2021 Physician Excellence Award, Conrad faced reprimands and, on October 6, 2021, was escorted out mid-shift by HR, effectively ending her employment.

Conrad’s lawsuit, filed in Buffalo, New York, under the Federal False Claims Act, is the first of its kind. It alleges wrongful termination for her whistleblowing and accuses the hospital system of failing to report thousands of vaccine injuries, each carrying a potential fine of $13,000 to $27,000. The case, now in discovery, aims to access hospital records to reveal the extent of unreported cases, such as hospitalizations for COVID post-vaccination. This failure not only violates federal law but also deprives patients of documentation needed for Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) claims, which have a 98% denial rate and meager payouts.

Conrad’s experience reflects a broader healthcare crisis. She notes a surge in conditions like shingles in young patients and a persistent spike in spike protein antibodies years after vaccination. Yet, many providers remain unaware of VAERS or are reluctant to report due to fear of retaliation or denial of vaccine risks. Her new practice supports her continued reporting, but systemic issues—such as a lack of provider education, pharmaceutical influence in medical training, and a cumbersome VAERS system—persist. Conrad advocates for mandatory VAERS education, treating vaccine injuries like drug side effects, and creating funded clinics to address these conditions.

Her story, available at iamdebconrad.com, serves as a rallying cry for transparency. Supported by groups like FreedomCounsel.org, Conrad’s fight aims to restore trust in medicine by promoting accountability, educating healthcare providers, and acknowledging vaccine injuries without stigma. Her courage offers hope for systemic change in a healthcare landscape marred by silence and suppression.

Pre-order Dr. Mary Talley Bowden’s new book!

Dangerous Misinformation: The Virus, the Treatments, and the Lies

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a Houston-based otolaryngologist, chronicles her contentious battle against medical institutions and her passionate advocacy for early COVID-19 treatments and healthcare transparency. If there’s one Covid book…

Read more →

Join us on weekdays at 5 pm ET on America Out Loud Talk Radio. Listen on iHeart Radio, our world-class media player, or our free apps on Apple, Android, or Alexa. Discover all the episodes on podcast networks, i.e., Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, TuneIn, Stitcher, and iHeart. You’ll find them the day after they air on talk radio, available on podcast. Extraordinary voices for extraordinary times.