A woman films herself from a hospital bed. Her left side will not move. Her speech is slurred. She took the COVID vaccine three weeks earlier and had a stroke within days. The camera shakes because she is holding it with the hand that still works. And she says, into the lens, that she is glad she took it. Because it could have been worse.
By every ordinary standard of how people respond to injury, the woman in the bed should be angry. She should want to know what happened to her body, who gave her the injection, what was in it, why she was not warned. Instead she is defending the thing that harmed her, and she is doing it sincerely, from a bed she may never leave.
The pattern repeated at scale throughout 2021 and 2022. Myocarditis in young men, received with gratitude. Sudden hearing loss, received with gratitude. Menstrual disruption, miscarriage, Bell’s palsy, shingles, tinnitus, cognitive fog — received with gratitude. The injured gave television interviews thanking the health authorities. They wrote newspaper columns urging others to take the product that had injured them. They volunteered at vaccination centres. The more severe the injury, the more fervent the testimony.
The COVID case is the clearest and most recent instance of something older. Chemotherapy patients credit the treatment with saving them while enduring a devastation that is the treatment.¹ Flu shot recipients who get the flu report that the shot made it milder — a claim no one can check. Statin patients who develop muscle weakness, diabetes and cognitive decline continue taking the drug in gratitude for a heart attack that may never have been coming.² SSRI patients who cannot feel, cannot sleep without the pill, cannot leave the house without the prescription, describe the drug as having saved their lives.³ Parents whose children regress after vaccination defend the schedule that preceded the regression.
The gratitude is real. That is what makes it devastating. These patients are not lying or performing. They feel what they say they feel. They are captured, and the gratitude is what their captivity looks like when it speaks.
What follows rests on one claim. The phenomenon is an engineered room, not a cognitive error or a cultural drift. Four walls stand around the captured person, each sealing a different exit, built by identifiable actors serving documented interests. The same four walls stand around every major medical intervention of our time.
The essay names the walls, shows them at work across several medical domains, names their architects, and ends where it must — with the one act that brings them down.
2. The Sealed Room
Four walls hold the captured person in place. Each seals a different kind of escape. Together they form a room from which the individual patient, acting alone, cannot exit. The walls fail only at population scale, and only when enough of the captured begin to speak at once — a condition the later sections will examine.
Wall One — The Counterfactual Shield. The intervention is defended by an imagined alternative that never happened. It would have been so much worse without it. The worse outcome is unfalsifiable. It did not occur and cannot be examined. It exists only as a claim, and a claim that cannot lose.
Wall Two — Injury as Vindication. Actual harm from the intervention is converted, at the moment of appearance, into evidence the intervention was necessary. Side effects become signs the drug is working. Adverse events become imagine how bad it would have been otherwise. The harm is recruited to defend the thing that caused it.
Wall Three — The Sunk Cost Bind. The patient has submitted their body to risk, cost, violation. The psychological price of admitting the submission was unnecessary — or worse, actively harmful — is unbearable. Every subsequent piece of evidence gets reorganised to vindicate the original decision, and the reorganisation strengthens with time.
Wall Four — The Tribal Seal. The intervention is tribal. Taking it is membership. Refusing it is defection. Honest testimony about injury breaks ranks with the tribe that formed around the intervention. The social cost of speaking is exile, so the injured stay silent, or perform gratitude to remain inside.
The walls appear here in the order the captured person meets them psychologically. Wall One is intellectual — it is installed before anything happens, as the framing of the intervention. Wall Two is empirical — it activates when harm arrives, renaming it before the patient can. Wall Three is interior — it operates in the self, on the self. Wall Four is social, and it closes the last door, the one that opens onto another person.
The sections that follow examine the walls one by one, and then name the people who built them.
3. Wall One: The Counterfactual Shield
A man takes the COVID vaccine in March 2021 and does not get COVID for the next year. He reports that the vaccine worked.
A woman takes the same vaccine and gets COVID in September. She reports that the vaccine worked, because it would have been worse without it.
A second woman ends up in hospital with COVID in October. She reports that the vaccine worked, because without it she would have died.
A third ends up on a ventilator, survives, and reports that the vaccine saved her life.
Every possible outcome confirmed the intervention. The counterfactual shield is the mechanism that made this possible. For each real outcome, an imagined worse outcome was available for comparison, supplied by the same system that administered the injection. The patient did not compare their actual experience to another actual experience. They compared it to a hypothetical that could never be tested.
This is the structure of every statin prescription. The patient cannot feel cholesterol. They cannot feel the heart attack that did not occur. What they can feel is the muscle pain, the fatigue, the cognitive changes, the new diabetes — and they are told this is the acceptable cost of preventing something invisible. Prevention is the absence of an event, which means the benefit can never be observed, only claimed. Every year without a heart attack is credited to the drug. When a heart attack arrives anyway, the cardiologist explains how much worse it would have been.
The shield needs a particular statistical apparatus to stand. The patient does not invent the imagined alternative from nothing; it is delivered to them, precisely calibrated, by the medical literature. Relative risk reduction is the instrument. A drug that cuts heart attacks from two per hundred to one per hundred is described as producing a fifty percent reduction. The absolute change — one person in a hundred — is rarely spoken. The patient hears fifty percent and pictures a world in which they were twice as likely to die. The shield, built from numbers the patient cannot audit, is in place before the first dose.
Notice what the wall does with time. It is installed before the intervention. The patient arrives already committed to the counterfactual, and every subsequent event gets filtered through it. The shield is not a defence the patient raises under challenge. It is the prior condition of the encounter.
COVID delivered this with unprecedented coordination. The vaccine reduced severe illness by ninety-five percent.⁴ The number appeared in advertising, press conferences, pharmacy windows, social media posts. It was a relative risk reduction calculated from a trial of approximately forty thousand people in which one hundred and seventy total COVID cases occurred.⁴ The absolute reduction was roughly zero point eight percent. The ninety-five percent was mathematically real and useless to any individual patient, but it did the only thing it needed to do — it installed the counterfactual. By the time a person rolled up their sleeve, the severe illness they had been rescued from was already in their head. Every later event could only confirm it.
A patient who wants to question the shield has no tools. They cannot run the experiment on themselves. They have no access to an un-treated version of their own body. They can only trust the number, and the number was given to them by the people who sold the intervention.
4. Wall Two: Injury as Vindication
The second wall turns on when the intervention produces harm. It renames the harm, before the patient can examine it, as evidence the intervention was needed.
Chemotherapy is where this wall stands most nakedly. The treatment produces hair loss, nausea, vomiting, bone marrow suppression, secondary cancers, organ damage, cognitive decline, and in a significant fraction of patients death directly attributable to the treatment itself rather than the disease.¹ Every one of these effects is explained to the patient in advance as a sign the treatment is working. Worse side effects mean the cancer is being fought harder. The patient who is destroyed by the treatment is told, and comes to believe, that the destruction is evidence of the drug doing its job.
In any other domain, a substance that caused hair loss, marrow suppression, neuropathy and death would be called poison. In oncology, it is called treatment, and the symptoms of poisoning are called response. A patient loses her hair and is congratulated. A patient vomits for six hours and the oncologist nods with satisfaction. A patient’s white cell count collapses and the number is entered into a chart labelled progress.
The vindication continues after the treatment ends. Survivors describe the treatment as having saved them, even though the untreated survival rate for many cancers — particularly low-grade and early-stage — is substantial and, in some studies, superior.¹ Patients who do not survive are said to have succumbed to the disease. The treatment itself, in the grammar of the explanation, cannot lose. Recovery means the treatment worked. Decline means the cancer was too aggressive. Death from treatment-induced organ failure becomes death from cancer. The death certificate rarely names the chemotherapy.
The same inversion ran through the COVID rollout with identical logic. Myocarditis in a young man after the second dose was classified as mild and self-limiting, and official guidance explicitly declined to treat it as a reason to halt the programme.⁵ The injury was converted, in real time, from a reason to stop into what officials called a sign the body was responding as intended. A teenage boy who developed pericarditis was described as fortunate to have been vaccinated, because imagine how bad it would have been otherwise. The inversion operated not only in the patient but in the cardiologist giving the diagnosis, in the journalist writing the story, in the regulator reviewing the report. The injury was never an injury. It was always a sign.
Pfizer’s own documents, obtained by court order after the FDA requested seventy-five years to release them, list over one thousand two hundred distinct adverse events in the first twelve weeks of the rollout.⁶ The company had to hire more than two thousand additional staff to manage the caseload. Of two hundred and seventy pregnant women who reported injury, only thirty-two were followed up, and twenty-eight of their babies died — an eighty-seven point five percent fetal death rate in the followed cohort.⁶ These numbers were not volunteered by Pfizer. They were extracted through litigation. In the public conversation of 2021 and 2022, the events they describe were either denied or converted into evidence the programme was working.
The wall holds because the patient has no independent framework from which to resist it. When the oncologist says hair loss is good, the patient has no counter-language. When the cardiologist says myocarditis is mild, the young man has no access to population data. When the physician calls the side effects signs of the body responding properly, the patient accepts it because no other account is available in the room. The injury is named by the apparatus that produced it, and the name replaces the thing.
By the time the patient might think to examine the injury on their own terms, the third wall has already closed behind them.
5. Wall Three: The Sunk Cost Bind
The third wall stands inside the patient rather than outside, which is why it is the hardest to see. From inside, it feels like the patient’s own mind.
Consider a woman who has taken a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor for fifteen years. She began after a divorce. The initial diagnosis was depression. She was told her brain had a chemical imbalance that the medication would correct.³ Within weeks she felt a kind of emotional flattening that her doctor called the medication working. She stayed on it. Over years she noticed she could not cry at funerals, could not feel desire, could not grieve her mother’s death when it arrived. She tried twice to come off the drug. Both times the withdrawal was catastrophic — electric shocks in her head, intrusions of suicidal thought, panic that kept her awake for days — and both times she went back on, convinced by the severity of the symptoms that she needed it.
Ask this woman whether the medication saved her and she will say yes. She will say it without hesitation and without calculation. She will also say she does not know who she was before it, because the person who took the first pill is no longer available for comparison. Fifteen years of her life have been built around the diagnosis and the drug. Her identity contains the diagnosis. Her marriage, her friendships, her children’s memories of their mother all include the medication as a feature of her personality.
To admit the medication was not needed — that her grief had been grief, that the withdrawal was the drug rather than the return of her underlying condition, that the emotional flattening was damage rather than improvement — would require her to accept that fifteen years of her life were spent inside a false frame. She would have to grieve what the medication took from her. She would have to face her absence from her children, her distance in her marriage, her unfelt goodbye to her mother. The cost of that reckoning is more than most people can pay. So she stays on the drug and says it saved her life. The gratitude is real because the cost of it being otherwise is unbearable.
Wall Three most resembles ordinary human psychology, which is why it reads as personal rather than architectural. Everyone has known some version of it — the defence of a choice after it has gone wrong, memory quietly rewriting itself to fit where money and years have already been spent. What makes the medical version structural is the scale of what has been paid in and the absence of any exit that does not require grieving it.
A man who has taken statins for twenty years, and who has watched his strength fade, his memory slip and his diabetes arrive — the exact trio the drug is known to cause² — is asked whether the statins helped. He says yes. He has to say yes. Saying no would mean accepting that two decades of growing weakness were caused by the drug he took to protect himself. It would mean admitting the heart attack he was preventing may never have been coming, that the cholesterol number he was taught to fear was a fabricated risk marker, that the man he became — slower, forgetful, diabetic — is a product of a prescription rather than of ageing. The alternative is gratitude, and he is grateful.
A mother whose child regressed after the MMR vaccination is asked whether she regrets it. Most of the time she says no. She says the vaccine was necessary. She says the autism was coming anyway. Admitting otherwise would mean accepting that she brought her child to be injured, held him down while the injection was delivered, paid for it and thanked the paediatrician afterwards. The grief on the other side of that admission is more than most parents can carry, and the wall is shaped precisely so she does not have to carry it. She can stay grateful. Her paediatrician will reinforce the gratitude. Her friends will reinforce it. The media will reinforce it. Wall Four will hold her there.
Wall Three has a property worth naming directly. It thickens with time. The longer the patient has been inside the frame, the higher the cost of leaving it becomes, and so the more fervent the defence. This is why the elderly chemotherapy survivor speaks with more heat about the drug that saved her than the recent survivor does. This is why the twenty-year statin patient is more certain of the drug’s necessity than the one-year patient. The wall grows. At some point it becomes unbreachable by any means available to the patient alone.
What completes the bind is that the captured person becomes a recruiter. The grateful SSRI patient urges her grieving friend to see a psychiatrist. The grateful chemotherapy survivor tells the newly diagnosed to accept the protocol. The grateful vaccinated parent shames the unvaccinated one at the school gate. Each captured person, defending their own wall, helps build walls around others — because their own wall depends on the walls around others holding. If the friend refuses medication and flourishes, fifteen years come into question. So the friend must be pressured, shamed, or cut off. The sunk cost in one person becomes the tribal pressure on the next, which brings the architecture to its final closure.
6. Wall Four: The Tribal Seal
The fourth wall operates outside the patient, in the community. It is the social enforcement of the narrative the patient has begun to perform, and it closes the last available exit.
Throughout 2021 this wall stood in open view. Taking the COVID vaccine was an act of public membership — selfies from vaccination centres, profile frame overlays, stickers worn on lapels, doses announced on social media. Refusing was public defection. The refusers lost jobs. They were barred from restaurants, gyms, concert venues, churches, universities, sometimes from hospitals even as visitors. They were removed from family gatherings. They were called murderers on national television by the president of France, by the prime minister of Canada, by physicians on major networks. Official communications described them as a selfish minority whose refusal was costing the compliant their freedom.
Inside that environment, an injured person who testified honestly about their injury was not merely raising a medical concern. They were defecting. Their testimony confirmed what the refusers had been saying. Their testimony was a gift to the outgroup. The tribe could not absorb it, because tribal cohesion depended on the intervention being unquestionable. So the injured were managed. Sometimes through silence — their accounts went unpublished, their videos removed, their doctors declining to code the injury as vaccine-related. Sometimes through reframing — the injury classified as COVID, as long COVID, as coincidence, as pre-existing. Sometimes through direct punishment — the injured person who insisted on naming the cause was accused of spreading misinformation, of harming public health, of serving the outgroup.
Every injured person watched this happen to others before it happened to them, and the lesson was not subtle. Most adjusted. They stopped describing their injury as an injury. They began describing it as unfortunate but acceptable. They began saying the words that returned their membership: I’m glad I took it. It could have been worse. The gratitude was not only psychologically needed. It was socially required.
Wall Four is not specific to COVID. It has stood around childhood vaccination for decades.⁷ A parent who questions the schedule loses access to paediatric practices that refuse unvaccinated patients. She is asked to leave mothers’ groups. Family members cut her off on the grounds that her choice endangers their vaccinated grandchildren. Her children are barred from schools. Any paediatrician willing to accommodate her operates under constant professional threat. Entire parenting communities organise around the vaccination question, and the penalty for dissent is exile. Parents whose children regress after vaccination, and who begin to suspect a causal link, face a choice between silence and exile. Most choose silence. Many perform gratitude instead, because gratitude reopens the community. The mother who says I’m so glad we vaccinated; his regression was just coincidence keeps her paediatrician, her friends, her family. The mother who says I believe the vaccine injured my child loses all of them.
The same seal stands around psychiatric medication, around cancer treatment, around mainstream obstetric care. In each, the patient who voices doubt is pressured first by the clinician, then by the family, then by the wider community that has already accepted the intervention as standard. Doubt is not only intellectually costly. It is socially costly, and the social cost arrives first. By the time the patient has finished working through their own doubts, the tribal apparatus is already at work on them, and the route back into membership requires the precise language of the first two walls. I’m so glad I took it.
What makes Wall Four the final seal is that it closes the one exit the other walls do not reach — the exit through honest testimony to another person. An intellectually awakened patient, who has seen through the counterfactual shield, recognised the injury as injury and refused to let sunk cost rewrite their history, still cannot speak, because speaking costs their community. The wall holds them silent. And in silence, the other three walls rebuild. The shield recloses. The injury reverts to vindication. The sunk cost reasserts its grip. The captive, left alone with the structure, returns to gratitude — because gratitude is the one posture that lets them remain intact on every side at once.
7. The Architects
The walls do not grow. They are built, funded, and maintained by identifiable actors working in documented financial arrangements. Nothing here is hidden. Everything is filed, recorded, disclosed in annual reports, visible in congressional testimony, available by Freedom of Information request. The architects have names and budgets.
Wall One — Who Builds the Counterfactual Shield
The shield is built from clinical trials and the statistical practices that translate trial results into claims patients can repeat to themselves. Most clinical trials are now run by for-profit Contract Research Organisations in jurisdictions with minimal oversight.⁸ Forty percent of medical journal articles are ghostwritten by the pharmaceutical industry.⁸ Authors with industry conflicts of interest are twenty times less likely to publish negative findings.⁸ Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, has written that perhaps half the scientific literature is simply untrue.⁸ Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, has written that the profession has been bought.⁸
The statistical habit that builds the counterfactual — relative risk reduction as the default metric — is a choice, not a necessity. Absolute risk reduction tells the patient what actually changes for them. Relative risk reduction amplifies the apparent effect. Every major drug marketing campaign of the last forty years has preferred the relative figure. The FDA permits it. Journals publish it. Physicians pass it along to patients who cannot tell the two apart.
For COVID, the ninety-five percent figure came from a trial of roughly forty thousand participants that recorded a total of one hundred and seventy COVID cases — one hundred and sixty-two in the placebo arm, eight in the vaccinated arm.⁴ The trial was not designed to measure transmission, hospitalisation, or death.⁴ Pfizer’s own documents show the company knew the lipid nanoparticles crossed the blood-brain and blood-testicular barriers, accumulated in ovaries and testes, and had caused reproductive harm in earlier nanoparticle studies — and proceeded without reproductive toxicity studies, citing urgency.⁶ The shield that reached hundreds of millions of minds was built from this data, presented in relative terms, and installed before the first injection.
Wall Two — Who Converts Injury Into Vindication
The apparatus that turns harm into proof operates across three layers: pharmacovigilance, physician training, and media framing.
Pharmacovigilance is structurally designed to undercount. The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is passive; physicians are not required to file, and most do not. A Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study, funded by the federal government, concluded that fewer than one percent of vaccine adverse events are reported.⁹ If that figure is correct, official vaccine injury numbers understate real injury by a factor of one hundred. The study was delivered to the CDC, which declined to act on it and declined to implement active surveillance. The undercount is the default.
Physician training teaches doctors to name injuries in ways that protect the intervention. Hair loss is treatment response. Myocarditis is mild and self-limiting. Autism is coincidental regression that would have happened anyway. Death during treatment is disease progression. Medical school curricula are funded, in part, by the pharmaceutical industry.¹⁰ Two-thirds of medical school department chairs have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.⁸ Continuing medical education — the system through which practising doctors update their knowledge — is dominated by industry-funded programmes. The doctors performing the reframing are not reading from a cynical script. They have been trained to see what they say they see.
Media framing completes the conversion. Pharmaceutical companies are the largest advertiser on American evening news.¹⁰ Twenty-seven billion dollars flows annually into pharmaceutical marketing — more than the entire NIH budget.⁸ The major news divisions are owned by investment firms — BlackRock, Vanguard — that also hold substantial stakes in pharmaceutical companies. When a young man develops myocarditis after a COVID shot and his story reaches the local news, the frame — rare, mild, unrelated to vaccination, which remains safe and effective — is not written in the newsroom. It arrives through press releases, expert contacts, and editorial relationships supplied by the same apparatus that sold the intervention.
Wall Three — Who Reinforces the Sunk Cost
The sunk cost bind is thickened by patient advocacy groups and chronic disease management organisations, most of which are funded, directly or indirectly, by the pharmaceutical industry. Depression advocacy organisations receive substantial funding from SSRI manufacturers. Cancer advocacy organisations receive funding from chemotherapy manufacturers. The official vaccine safety organisations — not the dissident ones — receive funding from vaccine manufacturers, or from the CDC, which is itself funded in part by industry through its foundation.⁸
These organisations produce the narratives that keep the bind in place. The chemotherapy survivor community is built around the claim that the treatment saved them; dissenting voices are marginalised. The depression survivor community is built around the claim that medication saved them; those who question the diagnosis or the drug are accused of encouraging suicide. The vaccinated parent community is built around the claim that vaccines are necessary; parents who describe injury are labelled anti-vaccine and removed. In each case, the community functions as a structure that reinforces the patient’s need to stay grateful.
Chronic disease management delivers the reinforcement annually. The decade-long statin patient is told, at every physical, that her cholesterol is still elevated and she should continue the drug. The SSRI patient who describes emotional flatness is told the dose may need adjusting. A patient reporting withdrawal symptoms is told she is experiencing the return of her underlying condition. The clinical encounter reinforces the sunk cost every time she walks in. Her doubts, if she has any, are resolved by the clinician in favour of continued treatment.
Wall Four — Who Builds the Tribal Seal
The seal is built through public health communication, employer mandates, regulatory policy, media coordination, and the enforcement infrastructure of digital platforms.
COVID-era public health communication was produced and coordinated across federal agencies, corporate media, social media companies, and advertising campaigns. The specific framing — that the unvaccinated endangered the vaccinated, that refusal was antisocial, that vaccination was a civic duty — was not organic. It was produced. The Biden administration funded a multi-hundred-million-dollar campaign to promote vaccination.¹¹ Equivalent campaigns ran in every Western country. The narrative was coordinated enough that the same talking points surfaced nearly simultaneously across English-language media in multiple nations.
Employer mandates provided the enforcement. Workers were required to accept the injection as a condition of employment. Refusers were dismissed, often for cause, stripped of unemployment benefits and professional licences. Healthcare workers, teachers, service members, and federal contractors faced mandates that ended careers built over decades. The mandates did not issue from a vacuum. They were produced by regulatory decisions, legal memoranda, and executive orders that made refusal economically catastrophic.
Platform moderation finished the seal. Social media companies, under pressure from federal officials, removed accounts, posts and videos describing vaccine injury.¹¹ The label misinformation was applied to accurate first-person accounts. Fact-checking systems, funded in part by industry-adjacent foundations, rated injury reports false. The injured could not speak publicly about their own injury without suppression. In the digital age, the fourth wall was algorithmic.
Opioids: The Paradigm Run to Completion
The four walls can be seen at their fullest — and their eventual failure — in the OxyContin case, because that one ran all the way to the end.
Purdue Pharma received FDA approval for OxyContin in 1995. The approval process included language, permitted by the FDA, describing the drug as less addictive than other opioids because of its delayed-release formulation. The language was not supported by evidence. It was promotional text permitted into the regulatory record.¹² The company built a sales force that trained physicians to prescribe OxyContin for chronic pain, funded pseudo-science suggesting that patients seeking more of the drug were suffering from pseudo-addiction to be treated with higher doses, and paid consultants and patient advocacy groups to reinforce the claim that OxyContin was safe.¹²
The counterfactual shield was installed: patients were taught that without adequate pain management they would suffer unnecessarily. Wall Two took over when harm arrived: patients who developed tolerance and needed higher doses were told they had pseudo-addiction and required more of the drug, not less. Wall Three tightened as the months passed: patients who had been on OxyContin for years had organised their lives around it and could not stop without devastating withdrawal, and the withdrawal was interpreted as proof they had needed the drug all along. Wall Four held: patients who became dependent were categorised as addicts — a moral failing, a personal weakness — a category that separated them from each other and from the community that might otherwise have listened to them.
Patients thanked the physicians who prescribed it. They gave interviews thanking Purdue. Many became dependent and many of them died, and among those who died some were still grateful at the end. Then the bodies became too many to hide. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, families documenting the progression from legitimate prescription to heroin to fentanyl, internal Purdue documents forced into the open through litigation, Sackler family settlements, DEA investigations and congressional hearings. The walls came down twenty years late, with bodies stacked against them.
The lesson of OxyContin is not that the system corrects itself. The system corrects only when the damage becomes too visible to contain, and by then most of the damage is already done. Everything known at the end was knowable at the beginning. The FDA had the data. Purdue had its internal memoranda. The paid consultants had the complaints. The patients did not know, because the four walls stood around them, and most of them died grateful.
8. What the Captured Person Is Owed
If the architecture is engineered, the captured person is not a fool. They were not gullible or poorly educated. They were inside a structure built by specific actors for specific reasons, and its purpose was to produce exactly the response they gave — gratitude from the injured, defence from the captured, compliance from the well.
This is the first thing they are owed: the return of their dignity. The woman in the hospital bed who thanked the vaccine that stroked her is not a fool. She is inside the room, and her gratitude is the designed output of a designed apparatus. The same goes for the chemotherapy survivor who credits the poisoning, the parent who defends the schedule, the grandfather on his twentieth year of statins, the widow who still has OxyContin in the cupboard. None of them failed. A structure was built around them. The structure is what failed, because it was never designed to succeed at healing. It was designed to succeed at extraction, and at that it succeeded brilliantly.
The second thing they are owed is clarity about what their gratitude costs. When the injured cannot testify honestly about their injury, the injury does not appear in the record. It never becomes a safety signal, never gets studied, never reaches the next person considering the same intervention. The apparatus that produced the injury continues to produce it. The signals that might have shut down OxyContin in 1997 rather than 2017 were there in 1997, in the voices of the first dependent patients. Those voices were absorbed into the gratitude of the captured and converted into testimonials. The delay cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
The captured person’s dissenting voice is the most valuable instrument in medicine. Grateful testimony has been manufactured at scale for a century — that is what the previous sections have shown. What cannot be manufactured is the captured person turning, after years of defending the injury, and naming it. Once one captured person speaks that way, others recognise themselves in the testimony, and the walls begin to fail at the only point where they can fail — in the social layer, from inside the community. The injured testifying to the injured breaks the tribal seal. The tribal seal failing exposes the sunk cost. The sunk cost examined reveals the injury as injury rather than as vindication. The injury named dissolves the shield. The walls depend on each other, and the one that gives first is the fourth, because the fourth is the only one where another person’s voice can reach.
This is why the essay closes here, and not with a call to action. There is nothing general to be done. There is only the specific, costly, socially expensive act of breaking the silence — by the captured person who survives long enough to recant their gratitude, or, where the captured cannot speak, by those close enough to them to testify on their behalf. That single act, repeated, is the entire dismantling. It is what the apparatus was never designed to process, and it is the only thing that has ever worked against it. The OxyContin walls came down because the families of the dead spoke for those who could no longer speak. The Vioxx walls came down because injured patients outlived the cover-up long enough to name it. The DES walls came down because the daughters, injured in utero by what their mothers had been given, lived to testify to the inheritance. The machine ran, in each case, until the testimony arrived from someone it could not silence. Then it stopped.
The captured person speaking honestly is not an act of politics or rebellion. It is accurate description. What was done to the body was real, the captivity that followed was real, and the people who built it can be named. Under the gratitude is a person who has the right to say, at last, what actually happened.
That voice is what the room was built to prevent. It is also the only thing that has ever brought a room like this down.
References
Thomas Cowan, discussed in When Your Body Whispers, Listen: The Intelligence of Symptoms. New England Journal of Medicine finding on breast cancer overdiagnosis: approximately 1.3 million American women overdiagnosed over thirty years. On lead-time bias and survival statistic manipulation in early-stage cancer screening, see H. Gilbert Welch and colleagues’ work on overdiagnosis.
John Abramson, MD, Harvard Medical School; Peter Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare (CRC Press, 2017). On the chronic disease cascade around statins — muscle pain, memory effects, diabetes — see Extraction: The Middle Class as Colony.
Andrew Kaufman, MD, on SSRI mortality and pediatric prescribing pressures; Peter Breggin’s work on the suicide signal eventually acknowledged in black box warnings. On identity capture around psychiatric diagnosis, see Four Causes, Seventy Thousand Diseases.
Pfizer BNT162b2 Phase 3 trial data as summarised in the Pfizer Document Analysis Report (War Room/DailyClout, December 2022). The 95% relative risk reduction figure was calculated from 170 total COVID cases in a trial of approximately 40,000 participants.
CDC and FDA advisory communications on post-vaccination myocarditis, 2021–2022, including the June 2021 ACIP meeting that concluded benefits outweighed risks for adolescents and young adults. Critical account: Peter McCullough, MD, and Nicolas Hulscher’s published work on vaccine-associated myocarditis.
Pfizer Document Analysis Report, War Room/DailyClout (December 2022), summarising the FDA-released Pfizer clinical trial documents obtained through court order after the FDA requested 75 years to release them.
Turtles All the Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth (2019). The 2013 Institute of Medicine report acknowledged that the childhood vaccination schedule as a whole has not been properly studied for safety.
Peter Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime (2017); Marcia Angell, The Truth About the Drug Companies; Richard Horton, The Lancet, 2015. Aggregated in Extraction: The Middle Class as Colony.
Lazarus R et al., “Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS),” Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, funded by AHRQ, 2010. Finding: fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.
Abramson J and Starfield B on the purpose of commercially funded clinical research. FDA revolving door: nine of the last ten FDA commissioners as of 2019 joined pharmaceutical companies after leaving the agency. Congressional capture: more than two-thirds of Congress took money from the pharmaceutical industry in 2020.
Missouri v. Biden (2023) and related federal court findings on federal coordination with social media platforms to suppress COVID-related speech, including first-person vaccine injury accounts. Twitter Files disclosures, December 2022 – March 2023.
Patrick Radden Keefe, Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty (2021); Barry Meier, Pain Killer: An Empire of Deceit and the Origin of America’s Opioid Epidemic (updated edition, 2018); internal Purdue Pharma documents released through multi-state litigation and the 2020 Department of Justice settlement.
Of 18,426 patients enrolled in 71 antidepressant trials — 67,319 pages of clinical data, a stack seven metres high, obtained from drug regulators and read for the first time by Peter Gøtzsche’s research group — 12 percent more dropped out while taking the drug than while taking placebo.¹
The psychiatrists’ position is that these drugs do more good than harm. The patients, through their behaviour, delivered the opposite verdict. They preferred the sugar pill.
Nobody who takes a psychiatric drug and reports feeling better is lying. The experience is real. But what produced it, what it is made of, and what it costs — none of this is what the patient was told. Six mechanisms account for almost everything people attribute to their medication. None of them require the drug to be treating a disease.
The Prescription
A person in distress sits across from a doctor. Fifteen minutes later they leave with a diagnosis and a prescription. They are told they have a chemical imbalance that the drug will correct. They may be told depression runs in families — that there is a genetic predisposition, a biological vulnerability they inherited. They are told to give it a few weeks.
The chemical imbalance theory has been abandoned by every serious researcher in the field.² No gene or set of genes for depression has ever been identified despite decades of searching and billions in funding. As Peter Breggin observed, there is no substantial scientific evidence that depression is genetic in origin — and telling patients otherwise leaves them convinced they are stuck with an innate defect, dependent on experts, and resigned to lifelong medication.⁴⁵ The drug was approved on the basis of trials lasting five to six weeks.³ Long-term effects have never been properly studied.⁴ And the condition being treated has a spontaneous remission rate so high that the head of the NIMH’s depression section once observed that most depressive episodes “will run their course and terminate with virtually complete recovery without specific intervention.”⁵
The patient knows none of this. They go home, swallow the pill, and wait.
The First Weeks: Time Heals What the Pill Takes Credit For
Depression, before pharmacology claimed it, was understood to be self-limiting. NIMH psychopharmacologist Jonathan Cole wrote in 1964: “Depression is, on the whole, one of the psychiatric conditions with the best prognosis for eventual recovery with or without treatment. Most depressions are self-limited.”⁶ His colleague Nathan Kline: “In the treatment of depression, one always has as an ally the fact that most depressions terminate in spontaneous remissions. This means that in many cases regardless of what one does the patient eventually will begin to get better.”⁷
Cole and Kline were not dissidents. They were among the most prominent figures in American psychopharmacology.
A study tracking eighty-four patients through untreated depressive episodes found that 23 percent recovered within one month, 67 percent within six months, and 85 percent within a year.⁸ Mark Posternak, the researcher, noted that his results confirmed Kraepelin’s century-old observation that untreated depression typically clears within six to eight months. Dean Schuyler, who headed the NIMH’s depression section, recognised the problem as early as 1974: spontaneous recovery rates were so high that it was difficult to “judge the efficacy of a drug, a treatment or psychotherapy in depressed patients.”⁹
Antidepressants take four to six weeks to produce their claimed effect. Spontaneous recovery begins immediately and continues at roughly 2 percent per week.¹⁰ A person who starts a drug during a depressive episode is beginning treatment at the moment when natural recovery is already underway. A month later, they feel better. The drug gets the credit. The calendar does not.
The Side Effects That Sell the Cure
In the NIMH’s review of all antidepressant studies, well-controlled trials showed 61 percent of drug-treated patients improved versus 46 percent on placebo — a net benefit of 15 percent.¹¹ Irving Kirsch, reviewing FDA data on Prozac, Effexor, Serzone, and Paxil, found the drug-placebo difference on the Hamilton Rating Scale was 1.8 points. The UK’s National Institute for Clinical Excellence had established 3 points as the minimum for clinical significance.¹² The best Danish meta-analysis found a difference of 2 points, and the smallest effect that can actually be perceived on this scale is 5 to 6 points.¹³
That is the margin on which billions of prescriptions rest.
Breggin identified why even this margin exists. He called it the “enhanced placebo effect.” A patient on a sugar pill senses, consciously or not, that nothing powerful has entered their system. An antidepressant produces noticeable physical effects — dry mouth, nausea, drowsiness, sexual dysfunction, weight change. The patient feels these and concludes, reasonably, that they are taking potent medicine. The side effects convince the patient the drug is real. This conviction amplifies the placebo response.¹⁴
Investigators tested this in at least seven studies comparing tricyclic antidepressants to “active” placebos — chemicals that produce unpleasant side effects like dry mouth but have no antidepressant properties. In six of the seven, there was no difference in outcomes.¹⁵ When both pills cause side effects, neither is superior. A Cochrane review confirmed the finding.¹⁶
The entire marginal advantage of antidepressants over placebo may be an artefact of broken blinding. Patients and clinicians can guess who is on the drug and who is on the sugar pill, because the drug has obvious physical effects. This knowledge contaminates every rating, every assessment, every reported outcome.
The NIH-funded St. John’s wort trial demonstrated this by accident. Because St. John’s wort causes side effects similar to an antidepressant, this trial was genuinely blinded — neither patients nor clinicians could tell who was taking what. Results: 24 percent of the herbal group had a full response, 25 percent of the Zoloft group, 32 percent of the placebo group. Zoloft did not outperform placebo. The investigators concluded that the herb was ineffective and neglected to mention that their own drug had failed the same test.¹⁷
The Flattening
Psychiatric drugs produce their effects the same way in patients, healthy volunteers, and laboratory animals. Gøtzsche, drawing on clinical trial data, lists what these effects actually are: numbing of feelings, emotional blunting, drowsiness, reduced concern about oneself and others, diminished capacity for sexual function and romantic attachment.¹⁸
These are not side effects. They are the effects. The drug does not selectively remove depression while leaving everything else intact. It reduces the brain’s capacity to generate emotional intensity across the board. A person who was in anguish may interpret this flattening as recovery. A clinician observing calmer behaviour will rate the patient as improved. Both are observing something real. Neither is observing the treatment of a disease.
Breggin made the point precisely: antidepressants reduce emotional responsiveness generally, which is why they are prescribed not only for depression but for anxiety, panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive behaviour, bulimia, chronic pain, and aggression. They are not treating different diseases through different mechanisms. They are producing the same blunting effect across all of them.¹⁹
The rating scales used to measure “improvement” cooperate with this illusion. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale — the standard instrument — scores items like sleep quality, appetite, and psychomotor behaviour. A sedated patient who sleeps more and eats more registers as improved. Breggin observed that psychiatric improvement standards are often behavioural (”sleeps better,” “gaining weight”) rather than psychological (”feels better about life,” “actively building a better future”).²⁰ A tranquillised patient and a recovered patient score identically.
Patient self-ratings tell a different story. In Greenberg and Fisher’s meta-analysis of newer antidepressants, patient self-ratings showed virtually no benefit beyond placebo.²¹ The doctors see improvement. The patients, asked directly, do not.
In Denmark, researchers surveyed patients on antidepressants. Half agreed the drugs altered their personality and that they had less control over their thoughts and feelings. The psychiatrists who received these results refused to believe what their own patients told them, called the patients ignorant, and recommended “psychoeducation.”²² The patients’ relatives, independently surveyed, agreed with the patients.
Breggin described a further mechanism operating in some patients: mild organic brain syndrome. Antidepressants, through their general toxicity, can produce a delirium characterised by memory difficulties, confusion, impaired judgment, and mood instability. A patient in this state may experience artificial euphoria or generalised apathy and be evaluated as “improved” — because depression requires a relatively intact brain to sustain itself. Damage the brain sufficiently and the depression lifts, not because the distress has been addressed, but because the capacity to experience it has been impaired.²³ A Yale study found this drug-induced delirium appeared two to four weeks after starting treatment — the exact interval when “therapeutic response” is expected — in more than one-third of patients over age forty.²⁴
The Attempt to Stop
Months pass. Perhaps years. The patient decides to stop. They feel well. They are tired of the side effects. They may have read something that unsettled them.
Within days: headaches, dizziness, nausea, insomnia, agitation, anxiety, confusion, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, electric shock sensations. As many as 50 percent of patients who stop antidepressants experience these withdrawal effects.²⁵
The symptoms vanish when the drug is restarted. The trap closes.
Patient and doctor both conclude that the return of distress proves the drug was treating a real condition. The depression has “come back.” The drug is “needed.” But the symptoms are not relapse. They are withdrawal. The brain, having adapted to the presence of a chemical that altered its neurotransmitter activity, protests the chemical’s removal.
Gøtzsche coined a term for this: “abstinence depression.” A depression that occurs in a patient who is not currently depressed but whose drug is stopped too quickly. Its hallmark: symptoms appear rapidly after discontinuation and disappear within hours when the full dose is resumed. A real depressive episode does not respond to a pill within hours. The speed of response is the diagnostic marker that separates withdrawal from genuine relapse.²⁶
He demonstrated this with a cold turkey trial. Stable, well patients were secretly switched to placebo for 5 to 8 days. Twenty-five of 122 patients on sertraline or paroxetine met criteria for depression during that window. Gøtzsche calculated the expected number of genuine relapses in such a short period, based on known relapse rates from an adolescent depression study: 0.03. Effectively zero. Every one of the twenty-five “relapses” was a withdrawal reaction.²⁷
The profession does not call these symptoms “withdrawal.” It calls them “discontinuation syndrome.” Gary Greenberg described this renaming for what it is: in any other context, a malaise that appears when you stop a drug and disappears when you restart it is called dependence with withdrawal. Calling it “discontinuation syndrome” keeps antidepressants at a comfortable distance from alcohol, benzodiazepines, and opioids.²⁸
The clinical consequences are specific. Breggin described the vicious circle: a patient attempts to stop the drug and experiences withdrawal. The treating professionals mistake withdrawal for relapse. The drug is reinstated. The patient — who might have recovered fully without the medication — is now physiologically dependent on a chemical they were told was safe to stop at any time.²⁹ A study of twenty-two children withdrawn from the tricyclic Tofranil documented this pattern: staff attributed the children’s withdrawal symptoms to “mental illness,” to stress, to allergies, even to viral illness. Antidepressants were restarted in children who were “mistakenly diagnosed as relapsing during the withdrawal period.”³⁰
Gøtzsche reviewed the five most-used psychiatry textbooks in Denmark and found that their withdrawal guidance is wrong and frequently dangerous. Doctors taper too quickly and in linear fashion rather than the exponential taper the drugs’ pharmacology demands. None of the textbooks acknowledged that withdrawal symptoms and disease symptoms are often identical.³¹
The Long Decline
European psychiatrists began noticing the pattern in the 1960s. German physician H. P. Hoheisel reported in 1966 that antidepressant exposure appeared to be “shortening the intervals” between depressive episodes. A Yugoslavian doctor observed the drugs were causing “chronification” of the disease. Bulgarian psychiatrist Nikola Schipkowensky agreed: the tricyclics were inducing “a change to a more chronic course.”³²
Dutch physician J. D. Van Scheyen examined ninety-four depressed patients over five years. Long-term antidepressant medication, he found, “exerts a paradoxical effect on the recurrent nature of the vital depression” — the drugs increased the rate of recurrence and shortened the time between episodes.³³
In 1994, Italian psychiatrist Giovanni Fava forced the question into the open. The drugs, he argued, perturb neurotransmitter systems in ways that produce compensatory brain changes. When the drug is stopped, these changes operate unopposed, producing withdrawal and increasing vulnerability to relapse. The longer someone takes the drug, the worse this becomes. Antidepressants, Fava concluded, “may propel the illness to a more malignant and treatment unresponsive course.” He raised the possibility that the drugs cause “irreversible receptor modifications” that “sensitize” the brain to depression.³⁴
Ross Baldessarini of Harvard confirmed it: half of all patients withdrawn from antidepressants relapsed within fourteen months, and the longer a person had been on the drug, the higher the relapse rate upon withdrawal.³⁵
The profession’s response was not investigation. Donald Klein of Columbia University told Psychiatric News: “The industry is not interested, the NIMH is not interested, and the FDA is not interested. Nobody is interested.”³⁶
Instead, the history was rewritten. The pre-drug studies showing that depression was episodic and self-limiting were declared “flawed.” The 1999 APA Textbook of Psychiatry stated that it was previously believed “most patients would eventually recover from a major depressive episode. However, more extensive studies have disproved this assumption.” Depression was now “a highly recurrent and pernicious disorder.”³⁷
The drugs worsen the long-term course of the illness. Rather than withdraw the drugs, the profession rewrote the natural history of the illness to match the drug-damaged outcomes.
The long-term studies are unambiguous. British researchers found that never-medicated depressed patients experienced a 62 percent symptom reduction in six months; drug-treated patients, 33 percent.³⁸ A WHO study found that patients diagnosed and treated with psychiatric drugs fared worse — in both depressive symptoms and general health — over one year than those not exposed to the drugs.³⁹ In a five-year study of 9,508 depressed patients, those on antidepressants were symptomatic nineteen weeks per year, versus eleven weeks for those on no medication.⁴⁰ An NIMH study found the eighteen-month stay-well rate was highest for cognitive therapy (30 percent) and lowest for antidepressants (19 percent).⁴¹
The STAR*D trial — $35 million of NIMH money, over four thousand “real-world” patients — was announced with the claim that about 70 percent of those who stayed in the study “became symptom-free.” Ed Pigott and colleagues spent more than five years analysing the actual data. The real figure: 3 percent of patients who entered the trial remitted, stayed well, and remained in the study during the one-year follow-up. Confronted with the 3 percent number, investigator Maurizio Fava acknowledged it was accurate. The investigators had known all along.⁴²
The Patients Vote
Those 18,426 patients across Gøtzsche’s 71 trials voted with their feet. Twelve percent more chose to stop taking the drug than chose to stop taking placebo.¹ The finding is worse than it appears, because some of the patients randomised to placebo were suffering cold turkey withdrawal from drugs they had been taking before the trial. Even with this handicap, the placebo group was more willing to continue.
Gøtzsche’s team attempted to assess quality of life — the outcome that matters most to patients. The data was virtually non-existent. Out of 131 studies, three had published quality-of-life results. The data was not missing because it was not collected. It was missing because the results were unfavourable.⁴³
A Danish parliamentarian asked the Minister of Health whether it was reliable to conclude that antidepressants improved quality of life when only three of 131 studies had published data on the question. The minister referred the question to the drug agency, which replied that an effect on quality of life had been found in the studies where it was measured. Quality of life was measured in far more studies than those that published their findings.⁴⁴
What Was Not Disclosed
The feeling was real. It was produced by the natural passage of time and the body’s tendency toward spontaneous recovery. By the placebo effect of receiving treatment from an authority figure. By the enhanced placebo effect of a pill that produces noticeable physical sensations. By emotional blunting that reduced the capacity to feel distress along with the capacity to feel everything else. And in some patients, by a mild organic brain dysfunction that made the sustained experience of depression temporarily impossible.
When it came time to stop, the drug produced withdrawal symptoms indistinguishable from the original condition. Patient and doctor both interpreted this as proof that the disease had returned and the medication was needed for life. The dependence was renamed “discontinuation syndrome.”
For those who stayed on, the drug altered brain chemistry in ways that increased vulnerability to future episodes, shortened the intervals between them, and converted an episodic, self-limiting condition into a chronic one. This conversion was attributed not to the treatment but to a revised understanding of the disease. The textbooks were rewritten to match the drug-damaged outcomes.
At no point was the patient given accurate information. Not about the spontaneous remission rate. Not about the drug’s negligible advantage over placebo. Not about the blunting. Not about the withdrawal. Not about the long-term prognosis.
Three percent of STAR*D patients recovered and stayed well. The investigators announced 70 percent. Sixty-seven thousand pages of clinical trial data sat unread until one research group opened them and discovered that patients preferred placebo. Quality of life data was collected and buried. The profession was told the drugs were sensitising the brain to depression and responded that nobody was interested in investigating.
The patient was told they had a chemical imbalance. They were told the drug would correct it. They were told depression ran in their family and that they were genetically predisposed. They were told to give it a few weeks. Every element of that narrative has been contradicted by the profession’s own research.
The feeling was real. What produced it was not what they said.
References
Sharma, T., et al. “Drop-out rates in placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant drugs.” Int J Risk Saf Med 30 (2019): 217–232. Discussed in Gøtzsche, P.C. “Is psychiatry a crime?” (2024), p. 21.
Moncrieff, J., et al. “The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence.” Molecular Psychiatry (2022). See also Lacasse, J.R., Leo, J. “Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature.” PLoS Med (2005).
Breggin, P.R. Toxic Psychiatry. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991, pp. 160–163.
Deshauer, D., et al. “Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for unipolar depression.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 178 (2008): 1293–1301.
Schuyler, D. The Depressive Spectrum. New York: Jason Aronson, 1974. Cited in Whitaker, R. Anatomy of an Epidemic. New York: Broadway Paperbacks, 2010, p. 150.
Cole, J. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 150.
Kline, N. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 150.
Posternak, M.A., et al. “The naturalistic course of unipolar major depression in the absence of somatic therapy.” J Nerv Ment Dis 194 (2006): 324–329. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 163–164.
Schuyler, D. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 150.
Posternak, J Nerv Ment Dis (2006).
NIMH review of antidepressant studies. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 151.
Kirsch, I., et al. “Initial severity and antidepressant benefits.” PLoS Medicine 5 (2008): e45. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 152–153.
Jakobsen, J.C., et al. “Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus placebo.” BMC Psychiatry 17 (2017): 58. Leucht, S., et al. “What does the HAMD mean?” J Affect Disord 148 (2013): 243–248. Cited in Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” p. 19.
Breggin, P.R. Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 159–160.
Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 151.
Moncrieff, J., Wessely, S., Hardy, R. “Active placebos versus antidepressants for depression.” Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2004): CD003012.
Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group. “Effect of Hypericum perforatum in major depressive disorder.” JAMA 287 (2002): 1807–1814. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 153.
Gøtzsche, P.C. “Is psychiatry a crime?” (2024), p. 9.
Breggin, P.R. Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 163–164.
Ibid., pp. 160–161. Fisher, S. and Greenberg, R. The Limits of Biological Treatments for Psychological Distress. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989.
Greenberg, R., et al. Meta-analysis of newer antidepressant drugs. Cited in Breggin, P.R. Talking Back to Prozac. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994, pp. 89–92.
Kessing, L., et al. “Depressive and bipolar disorders: patients’ attitudes and beliefs towards depression and antidepressants.” Psychological Medicine 35 (2005): 1205–1213. Cited in Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” p. 21.
Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 164–166.
Davies, R., et al. “Confusional Episodes and Antidepressant Medication.” American Journal of Psychiatry (July 1971). Cited in Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 165–166.
Greenberg, G. Manufacturing Depression. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010, pp. 281–282.
Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” pp. 104–105.
Rosenbaum, J.F., et al. “Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor discontinuation syndrome.” Biol Psychiatry 44 (1998): 77–87. Analysis in Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” pp. 104–105. Expected relapse rate calculated from Lewinsohn, P.M., et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatr 33 (1994): 809–818.
Greenberg, Manufacturing Depression, pp. 281–282.
Breggin, P.R. Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 169–171.
Law, W., III, et al. American Journal of Psychiatry (May 1981). Cited in Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 169–170.
Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” pp. 104–105. See also Gøtzsche, P.C. Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal from Psychiatric Drugs. Ann Arbor: L H Press, 2022.
Hoheisel, Schipkowensky, and others cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 155–156.
Van Scheyen, J.D. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 156.
Fava, G. “Do antidepressant and antianxiety drugs increase chronicity in affective disorders?” Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 61 (1994): 125–131. Fava, G. “Holding on: depression, sensitization by antidepressant drugs, and the prodigal experts.” Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 64 (1995): 57–61. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 157–159.
Viguera, A. “Discontinuing antidepressant treatment in major depression.” Harvard Review of Psychiatry 5 (1998): 293–305. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 156.
“Editorial sparks debate on effects of psychoactive drugs.” Psychiatric News, May 20, 1994. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 159.
Hales, R., ed. Textbook of Psychiatry. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1999, p. 525. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 159–160.
Ronalds, C., et al. “Outcome of anxiety and depressive disorders in primary care.” British Journal of Psychiatry 171 (1997): 427–433. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 162.
Goldberg, D., et al. “The effect of detection and treatment on the outcome of major depression in primary care.” British Journal of General Practice 48 (1998): 1840–1844. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 168.
Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 168–169.
Shea, M.T., et al. “Course of depressive symptoms over follow-up.” Archives of General Psychiatry 49 (1992): 782–787. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 156.
Pigott, H.E., et al. “Efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants.” Psychother Psychosom 79 (2010): 267–279. Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” pp. 27–28.
Paludan-Müller, A.S., et al. “Extensive selective reporting of quality of life in clinical study reports and publications of placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants.” Int J Risk Saf Med 32 (2021): 87–99. Discussed in Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” pp. 21–22.
Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” p. 22.
Breggin, P.R. Talking Back to Prozac. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994, pp. 73–74. See also Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 109–141 (chapter on genetics of psychiatric disorders).
The mental health system is failing children by treating everyday struggles as “chronic illness requiring lifelong pharmaceutical treatment,” former psychiatric patient Laura Delano told lawmakers this week.
Delano said many challenges people face are “rooted in nutrition, sleep, stress, trauma, substance use, relationships, vocation, environment, economics, meaning, faith and purpose.” Yet the system often reduces those issues to medical diagnoses, she said.
Drawing on her own 14 years in the mental health system, Delano told lawmakers her experience reflects a broader trend.
Now the founder of Inner Compass Initiative and author of “Unshrunk: A Story of Psychiatric Treatment Resistance,” Delano said more Americans are seeking mental healthcare than ever, but outcomes — including suicide rates among young people — continue to worsen.
‘Two meds became three, four, five. My life unraveled’
Delano said she began treatment at 13. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and told she would need medication for life.
“You’re told this is an incurable illness. You’ll have this for the rest of your life. It’s manageable with medications, but you will never not have it,” she said. “And that’s the story that many, many people are being told about these conditions, which is simply not true.”
Over time, her diagnoses expanded and her prescriptions multiplied.
“Two meds became three, four, five,” she said. “My life unraveled.”
She said she gained weight, developed chronic health issues and became “increasingly anxious and suicidal.”
“Eventually, I couldn’t work or take care of myself,” she said.
“Nobody told me” that many psychiatric drugs were approved based on trials lasting “on average 6 to 12 weeks,” or that the long-term effects of taking multiple drugs together have “never been properly established.”
She said she wasn’t warned that medications could cause “serious physical health problems,” impair sexual function or, in some cases, increase suicidal thoughts.
When she tried to stop taking the drugs, she said she experienced withdrawal symptoms, but was told it was a relapse.
“Nobody told me that what I experienced … was withdrawal,” she said. “Instead, I was told that my worsening state meant my illness was so severe that it was now resistant to any treatment.”
At 25, Delano said she believed there was no hope. She attempted suicide.
‘This is the next opiate crisis, and I think it’s bigger’
Delano’s testimony comes as mental health outcomes worsen, even as diagnoses and prescriptions keep rising.
From 2007 to 2021, the suicide rate among people ages 10-24 increased by 62%. In 2023, over 49,000 Americans died by suicide — the highest number on record, and about 20,000 more than in 2000.
Among adolescents in 2024, 2.6 million reported serious suicidal thoughts, 1.2 million made a plan, and 700,000 attempted suicide.
At the same time, diagnoses have surged. Today, about 23.4% of U.S. adults — roughly 61.5 million people — experienced mental illness. This includes more than 36% of young adults.
Medication use has climbed alongside those numbers.
Since 2006, the use of SSRIs in children has more than doubled. A December 2025 report found that 6.1 million U.S. children ages 17 and under are taking at least one psychiatric drug.
“This is the next opiate crisis, and I think it’s bigger,” Delano said.
Doctors are increasingly medicalizing ‘normal human unhappiness’
Other experts at the roundtable raised similar concerns about diagnosis and treatment.
Dr. Sally Satel, a psychiatrist and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said clinicians often blur the line between clinical depression and life challenges.
“I can’t tell you how many people … once got a diagnosis [of depression], but their diagnosis is really demoralization,” she said.
“Do we need medications for that?” Satel asked. In some cases, what patients need to hear is, “Your life is difficult. You’re actually having a rational response to a difficult life,” she said.
Satel also said psychiatrists do not prescribe most psychiatric medications.
Primary care providers and midlevel practitioners write many of the prescriptions, she said. “That’s definitely … a problem.”
“We are overdiagnosing,” she added. “We’re turning … normal human unhappiness into … diagnoses that we then prescribe medications for that probably won’t work.”
‘Doubling down on what we’re doing … is not going to get us anywhere’
Dr. David Hyman, a physician and legal scholar, drew a similar distinction.
“Sadness and depression are two different things,” he said. Treatment — and not necessarily with medication — should focus on the latter, he added.
He also warned against a system that increasingly defaults to prescribing. “Doubling down on what we’re doing, which isn’t working, is not going to get us anywhere better than where we are,” he said.
While medications must show safety and efficacy to gain approval, he said, there is no consistent system to study the long-term effects or what happens when patients stop taking them.
“There’s not a mechanism or systematic reevaluation of things after they’ve been approved,” he said.
Tapering can take ‘not just months, but years’
Delano said that gap is especially clear when patients try to taper off medications.
Asked how often patients receive full information about their diagnosis and medications, she said: “From what I’ve seen, never.”
“It took 13 years to realize I needed to get out,” Delano said. But getting off the drugs is “incredibly difficult.”
“We have a system set up that makes it incredibly easy to start these drugs that were really only ever studied for … short-term use,” she said. “Yet, most people stay on them long term for years and have zero safe off-ramps.”
Without clear guidance, people often stop too quickly, feel worse and assume they need the drugs indefinitely, she said.
Delano called for updated drug labels, public education and clinical guidelines for gradual tapering.
She stressed that these medications can create physical dependence. “Not addiction, it’s different than addiction,” she said. It’s a biological effect that can make stopping difficult.
“It sounds so unfathomable that a capsule … might require chipping away … over not just months, but years,” she said. Yet for some patients, that level of gradual tapering is necessary, she added.
Now 16 years off psychiatric medications, Delano said her experience drives her work.
“It’s urgent that we better understand what is happening in people’s brains and bodies from using these medications long term and from trying to get off them,” she said.
Watch an excerpt from the subcommittee hearing here:
This story was on the evening news and also on the website. I read many of the comments posted online. The majority were worried and adamant that we must ‘do something before it is too late’. I wanted to reassure people that there is nothing happening to the climate that could be described as a crisis and carbon dioxide is not the control knob of planetary weather patterns. I decided it was best to direct them towards some of the world’s leading physicists rather than attempt to explain it myself. This is what I tried to post on the BBC website:
‘May I respectfully suggest that everyone worried about a man-made climate crisis do some research. I recommend the work of Prof Richard Lindzen, Prof William Happer, Prof Willie Soon, Nobel Laureate John Clauser and the CO2 Coalition. Most people don’t realise how much we are all manipulated by vested interests including the mainstream media. Be smarter than most and learn from world experts.’
The website moderators informed me that my post had been deleted because it broke their house rules: ‘We reserve the right to fail comments which . . . are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others, are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable; contain swear words or other language likely to offend.’
I appealed against their decision, not because I expected them to change their minds, but because it gave me the opportunity to ask which part of my post they considered to be ‘sexist, racist, homophobic or abusive’. This was their response: ‘In this instance, we believe the moderator made the correct decision so we will be unable to uphold your appeal. Due to the volume of correspondence we receive, we are unable to discuss this matter further.’
They were confident the ‘rules’ had been broken but would not tell me which part of my message transgressed which part of their rules. I didn’t express an opinion about the climate but suggested that the opinion of world-renowned specialist scientists was worth reading. Did the BBC object to this, or was it my reference to manipulation by the mainstream media? I included that comment in reference to the BBC’s Environmental Correspondent, Justin Rowlatt, who was found to have lied about the climate in a 2022 BBC Panorama programme called Wild Weather. He said deaths worldwide were rising due to extreme weather caused by climate change – whereas the opposite is true.
The BBC’s Charter states that ‘The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.’
The Public Purposes of the BBC are ‘To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them.’
When it comes to coverage of the climate the BBC is not impartial, high-quality or informative. In this case, it has blocked an opportunity for people to discover high-quality scientific research from around the world. I am firmly of the opinion that I am not the one breaking rules; it is the BBC which is ignoring its own rules and charter.
On June 13, 2019, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum signed a partnership deal to “accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” That same evening, WEF president Börge Brende — Norway’s former Foreign Minister — had dinner with Jeffrey Epstein at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. The Epstein files, released January 2026, contain an exchange between the two from the previous year. Epstein to Brende: “Davos can really replace the UN. C21, cyber, crypto . genetics… intl coordination.” Brende back to Epstein: “Exactly — we need a new global architecture. World Economic Forum (Davos) is uniquely positioned — public private.”
The next day, the UN General Assembly adopted the framework for restructuring global governance.
That sequence — the partnership signing, the Epstein dinner, the candid admission about replacing the UN with a public-private architecture, and then the formal adoption — opens Jacob Nordangård’s The Digital World Brain. Pages two and three. Footnoted to the UN resolution number, the Epstein files, and the General Assembly record.
I keep coming back to it because it captures what this book does that almost nothing else in the independent research space manages. I’ve followed Jacob’s work for years now and interviewed him about his research. Each book peels back another layer of the same institutional architecture, and each time I think he’s reached the limit of what can be documented, the next one goes further. Nordangård doesn’t speculate. He doesn’t editorialize much. He lays institutional actions next to each other in chronological order and lets the pattern announce itself.
The Researcher
Nordangård has a PhD in Technology and Social Change from Linköping University. Master’s degrees in geography and in culture and media production. He’s taught at three Swedish universities. His doctoral work traced how institutional networks shape EU biofuels policy — mapping the actors, the funding flows, and the coordination mechanisms that produce outcomes which look spontaneous but aren’t.
He’s been applying that same method to global governance for over a decade now, across five books. Rockefeller: Controlling the Game followed the money behind the climate agenda from the 1950s forward — Rockefeller Foundation grants to climate scientists, Rockefeller Brothers Fund involvement in virtually every major environmental conference and agreement. The Global Coup d’Etat documented the pre-existing plans that the pandemic accelerated. The Digital World Brain, first published in Swedish in 2022 and now out in an expanded English edition, takes the UN Secretary-General’s 2021 report Our Common Agenda and its twelve commitments apart, chapter by chapter, tracing the institutional genealogy behind each one.
The man also fronts a doom metal band called Wardenclyffe whose lyrics are drawn from his research. Make of that what you will.
What the Documents Actually Say
Our Common Agenda proposes twelve commitments. Read casually, they sound like boilerplate — leave no one behind, protect the planet, build trust, upgrade digital cooperation. The kind of language that slides past without friction.
Nordangård slows down and traces where each commitment came from, who drafted it, who funded the drafting, and what it requires in practice. A “new social contract” that ties your individual obligations to planetary boundaries defined by a scientific council you didn’t elect. Digital identity for every person on earth, connected to monitoring infrastructure. A Futures Lab to collect and analyse data on citizens’ attitudes, opinions, and life choices using AI. A Climate Governance Council. A Special Envoy to speak on behalf of future generations — meaning, in practice, an unelected office with a mandate to override present democratic decisions in the name of people who don’t yet exist.
Traced back through the commissions and think tanks that produced them, these twelve commitments form a three-layer governance structure. At the top, an upgraded United Nations with enforcement powers and a standing army. Beneath that, anticipatory governance — mass data collection feeding AI systems that predict behaviour and detect non-compliance. And at the base, multi-stakeholder governance: public-private partnerships implementing decisions at every level of society.
The preparatory work goes back to at least 2015, when the Albright-Gambari Commission — supported by the Stimson Center, a Washington think tank sitting at the intersection of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the major philanthropic foundations — recommended a World Conference on Global Institutions to coincide with the UN’s 75th anniversary in 2020.
Two months before that anniversary conference could take shape, COVID-19 shut down the world. The questions that had been prepared for member state discussions — “What are today’s most fundamental global challenges? How is the UN standing up to new challenges?” — suddenly had a very specific answer.
The New Material
This English edition adds two chapters covering events through early 2026, and they’re the reason even readers of the Swedish original need this book.
The Pact for the Future was signed at the UN Summit of the Future in September 2024. Nordangård documents the signing and the opposition — such as it was. Russia objected. But Russia’s complaint wasn’t about individual freedom or democratic accountability. It was about ensuring Russian participation as an equal partner in the new architecture. The BRICS nations voted against Russia’s procedural amendment. They didn’t want to stop the digital governance infrastructure. They just didn’t want to be junior partners in it.
The chapter called “The Great Disruptor” will unsettle people across the political spectrum, which is probably the point. Nordangård maps the network connections between the Trump administration and the very institutions Trump’s supporters believe he opposes. J.D. Vance came up through Peter Thiel’s venture capital world. Thiel sits on the Bilderberg Group’s steering committee — alongside WEF’s Börge Brende. His company Palantir was seed-funded by the CIA’s In-Q-Tel and is a partner of the WEF’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. ICE is now using Palantir’s AI surveillance to generate “confidence scores” for tracking immigrants. Elon Musk’s grandfather ran the Canadian branch of Technocracy Inc. Musk himself was named a WEF Young Global Leader in 2008. The book includes an appendix table of Young Global Leaders with ties to the Trump administration. It runs long.
Nordangård isn’t arguing that Trump is a puppet. He’s documenting that the institutional connections run in every direction, and that what looks like opposition may be accelerating the dissolution of the old order in ways that serve the same technocratic endpoint. The evidence is specific enough that readers can evaluate it themselves.
But the most unsettling material in the new edition is a May 2025 white paper from the WEF’s Global Government Technology Centre called The Agentic State. Nordangård catches something in the title that the authors may not have intended to advertise. In psychology, the “agentic state” is Stanley Milgram’s term for the mental condition in which a person stops seeing themselves as responsible for their own actions and becomes an instrument of authority. It’s the mechanism that made ordinary people administer what they believed were lethal electric shocks in Milgram’s obedience experiments.
The white paper’s meaning is the other one — a state governed by AI agents. But the resonance hangs in the air.
The paper proposes that laws can evolve from static rules into “a far more dynamic living system, continuously interpreted, tested, and refined by agents.” Human legislators would set “broad societal goals.” Everything else — specific rules, thresholds, requirements — gets “adjusted dynamically by agents with limited or no human intervention.” Compliance becomes continuous, monitored in real time by AI systems issuing yes/no attestations across health, safety, financial, environmental, and ethics domains. Citizen input comes through “emotion detection in digital interactions” feeding into the system’s self-adjustment loops.
The authors ask what safeguards would be needed if AI agents could “issue fines or trigger legal action in real time.” They don’t answer their own question. They move on.
This isn’t a leaked memo. It’s a public white paper from a WEF-affiliated centre whose founding strategic partners include IBM, Microsoft, SAP, Oracle, and Huawei. Its lead author is the Chief Information Officer of the Estonian government. Nordangård’s contribution is placing it in the context of everything else in the book. After 250 pages of institutional genealogy, the paper reads less like futurism and more like a product specification.
The book runs 283 pages with more than 250 footnotes, a multi-page bibliography, and appendix tables cross-referencing WEF Young Global Leaders to government positions, milestones in the digital ID agenda, and the full timeline of climate governance from a 1971 MIT study through the 2024 Pact for the Future. It’s dense, and it demands an engaged reader. This is a reference work — the kind of book you come back to six months later when something shows up in the news and you want to understand which institutional thread it connects to.
Where It Comes From
The concept of a “World Brain” was articulated by H.G. Wells in 1938. Oliver Reiser, a philosophy professor at the University of Pittsburgh, developed it further through the 1940s and 1970s into a vision he called the “World Sensorium” — all of humanity integrated into a collective technological organism, governed by a World Organisation, guided by what he termed “radio-eugenics.” His book Cosmic Humanism and World Unity was published posthumously by the World Institute, which operated from offices at the United Nations Plaza in New York.
This wasn’t fringe material that got ignored. It ran directly through the Club of Rome, the Club of Budapest, the World Future Society, and into the bodies that drafted Our Common Agenda. Nordangård traces the institutional lineage. That lineage is the book’s spine.
In 1968, Columbia University professor Zbigniew Brzezinski — later US National Security Advisor, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller — wrote that new technologies could make possible “extensive population control, including the monitoring of each citizen and maintaining up-to-date files on their health or personal behaviour.” Power, he wrote, would “gravitate into those who control information and can correlate it most rapidly,” encouraging “tendencies during the next several decades toward a technocratic dictatorship, leaving less and less room for political procedures as we now know them.” That was 1968. The technology now exists to do everything Brzezinski described. The institutional architecture to deploy it is what this book documents.
The Proportionality Problem
One detail from the conclusion stays with me. Human-generated CO2 represents roughly 4% of total atmospheric carbon dioxide, which itself makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. That comes out to about 16 parts per million. To influence a fraction of those 16 parts per million, the plan requires digitising, monitoring, tokenising, and subjecting to real-time compliance enforcement essentially everything — food production, energy, transportation, land use, individual consumption. All overseen by unelected “Planetary Stewards.”
Nordangård asks the obvious questions. How much energy will the Digital World Brain itself consume? Can the stated carbon targets be reached without measures indistinguishable from permanent authoritarian control? The white papers don’t address this.
Read the Documents
The Pact for the Future has been signed. The Global Digital Compact is annexed to it. The WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted in May 2025. The Agentic State white paper is online for anyone to read. The UN-WEF partnership agreement is a matter of public record. The foundation funding behind the organisations that drafted all of this is disclosed in their own annual reports.
What Nordangård has done across 283 pages and more than 250 footnotes is demonstrate that these are not independent initiatives happening to converge. They are components of an architecture that has been under construction for decades, advanced by identifiable people through documented channels. He’s brought the receipts.
The book ends on a note of conviction — that this system, however carefully engineered, cannot ultimately prevail against what he calls humanity’s “natural intelligence.” Whether or not you share that faith, the institutional map he’s drawn demands a serious response. The documents are real. The signatures are dated. The timelines check out.
Read the book. Then read the documents it cites. Nordangård includes the URLs in his footnotes. You can verify every claim that matters without leaving your desk.
Then decide for yourself what a system designed to monitor every person, predict every behaviour, and enforce compliance in real time through AI agents actually is — regardless of what its architects choose to call it.
Jacob is an independent researcher doing work that no university department and no mainstream publisher would touch. He funds this through book sales and reader support. If what you’ve read here matters to you, buy the book. Give it to someone who’s starting to ask questions. This is the kind of research that deserves to find a wider audience, and that only happens when readers carry it forward.
The Digital World Brain: Our Common Agenda and The Pact for the Future by Jacob Nordangård, PhD. First English edition, 2026. Pharos Media Productions.
Britain’s new £1 billion ($1.3m) pandemic strategy treats a future outbreak as a “certainty” and proposes building a contact tracing system that would feed on real-time location data harvested with the help of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies.
The plan, published by the Department of Health and Social Care, also calls for PPE stockpiles, new emergency legislation, and a biosecurity research hub in Essex.
But the centerpiece that deserves the most scrutiny is the contact tracing proposal, which would create a surveillance architecture designed to track the movements of millions of people, ready to switch on at a moment’s notice.
The UKHSA will run the new system, which the strategy document says will use “live location data” and artificial intelligence to provide “a more rapid, large-scale detection and alert system during pandemics.”
The agency plans to “explore options to work with ‘big tech’” to build it, with deployment targeted for 2030. The government is pre-building a location surveillance system in partnership with companies whose entire business model depends on harvesting as much personal data as possible.
The strategy doesn’t name which companies, what data-sharing agreements would look like, or what happens to your location history once the pandemic ends.
The UK government has already tracked its own citizens through their phones without telling them. A 2021 report by the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviors (SPI-B) revealed that government-funded researchers tracked one in ten people in Britain via their mobile phones in February of that year, without the users’ knowledge or permission.
Researchers used cell phone mobility data to select over 4,200 vaccinated individuals, then monitored them through 40 call data records with corresponding location observations. The data was used for behavioral analysis, tracking radius of movement on vaccination day, whether people visited businesses during opening hours, and whether they went straight home afterwards. None of this was made public at the time.
When the tracking came to light, a spokesperson for Big Brother Watch said citizens would be “disturbed to discover they were unwittingly tracked and subjected to behavioral analysis via their phones.”
“No one expects that by going to get a vaccine they will be tracked and monitored by their own Government,” the spokesperson said. “This is deeply chilling and could be extremely damaging to public trust in medical confidentiality. Between looming Covid passports and vaccine phone surveillance, this Government is turning Britain into a Big Brother state under the cover of Covid. This should be a wake up call to us all.”
The government’s defense was that the data was collected at cell tower level, not the individual level, and that it was “GDPR-compliant” data provided by a company that “collected, cleaned, and anonymized” it.
A government spokesperson said “the mobile phone location data used is GDPR-compliant and has been provided from a company that collected, cleaned, and anonymized the data” and that “the data is at cell tower rather than individual level and the researchers were granted access to the dataset under a research contract with ethical approval provided to the researchers from the University of Oxford, working on behalf of SPI-B.”
That defense tells you everything about how the government thinks about location surveillance. It tracked millions of people and called it ethical because a private company “anonymized” the data first. It monitored the movements of vaccinated individuals and called it acceptable because the tracking happened at cell tower resolution rather than GPS precision. The distinction between “cell tower level” and “individual surveillance” is thinner than the government wants you to believe.
Cell tower data can still reveal where you live, where you work, and what you do on a given day, especially when cross-referenced with other datasets. The fact that a private company sat between the government and the raw data doesn’t change what happened: people went to get vaccinated, and their government secretly tracked where they went afterwards.
That history makes the new strategy’s contact tracing plans look less like pandemic preparedness and more like the next step in normalizing population-level location surveillance.
The 2021 tracking was done covertly, without legislation, using data purchased from a private company. The new strategy proposes formalizing this kind of capability, building it into permanent government systems, and enlisting “big tech” to run it at scale. What was done secretly during Covid is now being written into official policy.
During the pandemic, the UK’s first attempt at a centralized contact tracing app collapsed under its own privacy problems. The government’s original NHSX app tried to store user data on a central server, a design so invasive that Apple and Google refused to let it run properly on their operating systems.
Aaron Siri, attorney and managing partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP, appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience in early March 2026. What he described over the course of that conversation is worth examining carefully.
In 2019, the United States Department of Justice signed a court order on behalf of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The order, entered in the Southern District of New York, stipulated the complete list of studies the CDC relied upon to support its public claim that vaccines administered in the first six months of life do not cause autism.
There were twenty studies on the list.
Nineteen had nothing to do with the vaccines given in the first six months of life. They were either MMR studies — and MMR is not given until at least twelve months — or studies of vaccine ingredients not present in the products in question.
The twentieth was a 2012 Institute of Medicine review that had specifically examined whether the DTaP vaccine causes autism. The IOM found exactly one study on the subject. That study showed an association between DTaP and autism. The IOM discarded it because it lacked an unvaccinated control group — and concluded there was insufficient evidence to accept or reject a causal relationship.
The DOJ signed the order. A federal judge entered it. The CDC’s evidentiary basis for one of its most repeated public health claims was now a matter of court record.
Aaron Siri, the managing partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP and author of Vaccines, Amen: The Religion of Vaccines, described this outcome in a recent appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience.¹ He had spent years demanding the studies through Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of his client, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN). The CDC stonewalled. He sued in federal court. Days before the hearing, the DOJ produced its list of twenty studies. Siri read them. Then he called the DOJ attorney.
“Are you sure,” he told Rogan he asked, “that your client, the CDC, wants to settle this case on the basis that these are the studies they rely upon?”
They did. The stipulation was signed. It is publicly available.
I dedicate this article to all women invited to mammography screening and those who love them because the public has consistently been lied to, for over 40 years. In invitations to screening, women have been told that by detecting cancers early, screening saves lives and leads to less invasive surgery.1,2 I shall demonstrate that all three statements are wrong.
Women are still being told these lies, by professional associations, screening advocates, screening researchers, cancer charities, and national boards of health.3-5 The American Cancer Society declares in a headline that “Mammography Saves Lives”4 and claims, with no references, that results from many decades of research clearly show that women who have regular mammograms are less likely to need aggressive treatments like surgery to remove the entire breast (mastectomy).5
Screening Does Not Save Lives
In the randomised trials of mammography screening, the risk ratio for overall mortality after 13 years of follow-up was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.03) for those trials with adequate randomisation.6 The estimate happened to be the same for the other trials, some of which were so poorly randomised that the average age in the two compared groups was not the same, which makes an analysis of overall mortality unreliable.
For two of the three adequately randomised trials, those from Canada and the UK, there are follow-up data after 25 and 23 years, respectively.7,8 The risk ratio for overall mortality was 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.03) for all three trials (both with a fixed effect and a random effects model, Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 3.0). In the table, the year means the year the trial started:
This is a very strong result as it is derived from a total of 25,046 deaths. We can therefore say with great confidence that mammography screening does not save lives.
If we restrict the analysis to the two trials with a very long follow-up, the result is the same, a risk ratio of 1.01 (0.99 to 1.04).
Breast Cancer Mortality Is a Seriously Flawed Outcome
It will surprise most people to learn that we cannot trust what has been reported in the randomised trials about the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality but this is an objective fact.6
A minority of the women who died were autopsied, and in several trials, cause of death was not assessed blindly.6 I have documented that assessment of cause of death was seriously biased.6,9 If we include all trials in the analysis, we would expect to see the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality in those trials that were most effective in lowering the rate of node-positive cancers (cancers that had metastasised) in the screened group.
This was indeed the case, but the regression line was in the wrong place. It predicts that a screening effectiveness of zero (i.e. the rate of node-positive cancers is the same in the screened groups as in the control groups) results in a 16% reduction in breast cancer mortality (95% confidence interval 9% to 23% reduction).6,9 This can only happen if there is bias, and further analyses showed that assessment of cause of death and of the number of cancers in advanced stages were both biased in favour of screening.
Systematic reviews that include all the trials, also the poorly randomised ones, have reported that mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 16-19%.6,10 As this estimate is of the same size as the bias in the regression analysis, this suggests that screening does not lower breast cancer mortality.
Another reason why breast cancer mortality is a flawed outcome is that screening leads to overdiagnosis, which is the detection of cancers and precursors to cancer (carcinoma in situ), which would not have come to the attention of the woman in her remaining lifetime and therefore would not have become a problem without screening. Since it is not possible to distinguish between harmless cancers and dangerous ones, they are all treated, and radiotherapy and chemotherapy given to women who are healthy increase their mortality.6
If we take into account the cardiac and lung cancer deaths caused by the type of radiotherapy used when the screening trials were carried out and generously assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 20% and results in only 20% overdiagnosis of healthy women, then there is no mortality benefit from screening.11
Finally, it is noteworthy that the most unreliable trials were those that reported the greatest reductions in breast cancer mortality.6 The difference in the effect estimates between the adequately randomised trials and the poorly conducted trials was statistically significant, both after 7 and 14 years of follow-up (P = 0.005 and P = 0.02, respectively).12
Total Cancer Mortality
Since misclassification of cause of death often concerns deaths from other cancers,6 total cancer mortality is a less biased outcome than breast cancer mortality.
Some trialists have not reported what the total cancer mortality was but we have data from the three adequately randomised trials.6,8 There was no effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, risk ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.04. There were two different age groups in the Canadian trial, 40-49 (a) and 50-59 years (b):
Since total cancer mortality is less biased than breast cancer mortality, it is of interest to see what the expected cancer mortality (including breast cancer mortality) would have been if the reported reduction in breast cancer mortality of 29% after 7 years in the poorly randomised trials6 were true.
It would have been a risk ratio of 0.95, which is significantly lower (P = 0.02)6 than what was actually found. This provides further evidence that assessment of cause of death was biased in favour of screening.
Breast Cancer Is Not Detected Early but Very Late
If we assume that the observed doubling times in longitudinal tumour studies are constant from initiation till the tumour becomes detectable, the average woman has harboured the cancer for 21 years before it acquires a size of 10 mm and becomes detectable on a mammogram.13
Given this large time span, it is misleading to call it “early detection” also because the effect of screening is trivial, namely to advance the diagnosis by less than a year.13
Yet all authorities repeat this mantra. As it is impossible that everyone working with cancer is unaware of the basics of tumour biology, we can draw the conclusion that the public all over the world is being misinformed. This is fraud because it is deliberate and because women think “early detection” will save their lives.
I once asked a famous tumour biologist, Keld Danø, during a coffee break at an international meeting, whether he agreed with me that it was impossible to lower breast cancer mortality by 30% with screening, based on our knowledge of tumour biology.14 He agreed. When I asked why people like him didn’t participate in the scientific debate, he didn’t reply and it is not difficult to imagine why. It is not wise to point out that your colleagues are wrong when you are on the receiving end of major funds from a cancer charity that touts screening.
The women suffer while everyone else prospers.
The earliest cell changes, carcinoma in situ, are not detected unless the women get a mammogram. In our systematic review of countries with organised screening programmes, we found an overdiagnosis of 35% for invasive cancer and 52% when we included carcinoma in situ.15
Although less than half of carcinoma in situ cases progress to invasive cancer,16,17 the women are nevertheless routinely treated with surgery, drugs, and radiotherapy.
The deep irony is that the surgery is often mastectomy because the cell changes may be diffusely spread in the breast, and sometimes even in both breasts. In New South Wales, one-third of women with carcinoma in situ had a mastectomy,18 and in the UK, carcinoma in situ was more often treated by mastectomy than invasive cancer,19 and the number of women treated by mastectomy almost doubled from 1998 to 2008.20
This brings us to the third big falsehood in the propaganda about mammography screening.
Screening Does Not Decrease but Increases Mastectomies
Because of the substantial overdiagnosis of invasive cancer and carcinoma in situ, and because screening only advances detection of invasive cancers slightly,13 it is inevitable that screening increases mastectomies.
In the randomised trials of screening, we found 31% more mastectomies in the screened groups than in the control groups.6
Denmark is a unique country to study this in practice as we had a period of 17 years (1991-2007) where only about 20% of potentially eligible women were invited to screening because some counties did not have screening.21 When screening starts, more breast cancer diagnoses than usual will be made and there will be more mastectomies. However, as can be seen on the graphs, the huge increases in mastectomies are not compensated by a drop in mastectomies later where there was a similar decline in mastectomies in non-screened areas as in screened areas:22
Moreover, as the next graph shows, there is no compensatory drop in old age groups:22
Yet women are told that screening leads to less invasive surgery, with fewer mastectomies. This is disinformation in the extreme.
The most commonly used trick used to disinform the women about this issue is to report percentages instead of numbers.3 Imagine a town with a certain level of crime. You divide the crimes into serious and less serious ones. Over a period of time, the rate of serious crime increases by 20% and the rate of less serious crime by 40%. This is a development for the worse. But although more people are exposed to serious crime and more people are exposed to less serious crime as well, a trickster would say that, as there are now relatively fewer cases of serious crime, the situation has improved.
It is deplorable that people who know better – screening researchers, cancer charities, national boards of health, etc – have lied to the public this way3 and still do, in direct contrast to logic and the scientific evidence.
The Final Layers of Dishonesty
The mammography screening area is riddled with dishonesty. So much that I needed to write a whole book detailing all the elaborate ways in which researchers and others had made it look like the Emperor was dressed when in fact he was naked.3
The deception is total because it always continued after I had pointed out in letters to the editor what the researchers had done wrong, and to which they responded.3,14 They therefore cannot claim they didn’t know that they continued to manipulate the data and to deceive the public.
Three of the most dishonest and most prolific authors are László Tabár, Stephen Duffy, and Robert Smith. Over many years, they aggressively attacked my extensive research on mammography screening but never with convincing arguments3,14 – they excel at ad hominem arguments.
László Tabár was the primary investigator for the Swedish Two-County study, an early trial that reported a huge effect of screening, a 31% reduction in breast cancer mortality.23 This trial was instrumental for introducing screening. However, there are so many serious discrepancies in numbers, and some of the findings are so implausible and incompatible with reported tumour characteristics, that it looks like scientific misconduct.3,6,24-27 Tabár has made a fortune on mammography screening and has a habit of threatening with litigation whenever anyone gets too close to his secrets.3,14,23
One would not think that Stephen Duffy is a professor of statistics because he has bent the data beyond belief and beyond what is appropriate in many creative and obscure ways.3,6,14 Robert Smith was once the Director of Cancer Screening at the American Cancer Society.
This triumvirate reported a 63% reduction in breast cancer mortality in an observational study.28 I pointed out some of the problems with their study,29 but in their reply,30 they compared women who attended screening with women who didn’t, although it is clear from their own paper that they were aware that such comparisons are seriously misleading.
These authors claimed, based on the Two-County study data, that they had found a “statistically significant 13% reduction in mortality in association with an invitation to screening.”31,32 This is plain wrong and totally impossible. Even if screening was 100% effective and prevented all deaths from breast cancer, it could not reduce total mortality by 13%.
They furthermore predicted that when a screening programme had been running for some time, one could expect a reduction of 3-4% in total mortality.31 This is also impossible unless screening prevents all breast cancer deaths. The lifetime risk of dying from breast cancer is 2.5-3%,33 and it was 3-4% in many countries before screening was introduced.
I dryly remarked in my book that if they continued their line of research for other diseases, they may find the recipe for eternal life.3 I also noted that the problem with lying is that
sooner or later people usually contradict themselves, which they did in relation to a study they had published in The Lancet.3
A common way of duping the readers is to say that early detection of breast cancer “reduces mortality”34 without specifying what kind of mortality this is, which makes the reader believe that screening saves lives.
The most common error in the screening literature could be that people falsely translate a recorded effect on mortality from a cancer into an effect on all-cause mortality. We see claims everywhere that common cancer screening tests save lives but a systematic review of the randomised trials found that the only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy. It extended life by 110 days on average, and as the 95% confidence interval went from 0 to 274 days, this result was on the verge of not being statistically significant.35
Another common trick is to use hypothetical statements when we have certain knowledge. For example, authors may write – even in our most esteemed medical journals – that overdetection “may” occur for invasive cancers and that it “may” cause harm through unnecessary labelling and treatment of patients who, without screening, “might” never have been diagnosed.34 These are not hypothetical possibilities; they are inevitable consequences of screening.
Final Remarks
Starting in 2000, I have published numerous scientific articles, letters to the editor, newspaper articles, and two books about mammography screening that do not leave a shred of doubt that this intervention is very harmful.37
Even though I know that no one will ever be convicted, I consider it a crime that women have been systematically lured into believing that screening is good for them. According to the principles for informed consent, people must be fully informed about the most important benefits and harms of interventions they are offered, but this ethical requirement has been brutally ignored. To such a degree that in many countries, women receive an “invitation” to mammography screening with a pre-allotted time for a mammogram they never asked about.1 This makes them believe it is very important that they show up and puts pressure on them to cancel the appointment if they don’t want a mammogram taken. If they refuse, they are often subjected to highly coercive and paternalistic follow-up letters.
Here are some examples of the deeply unethical practice:1
“We have reserved a time… If the time is very inconvenient, we ask you to contact the mammography screening centre as soon as possible;” “I am concerned that you have not yet responded to our recent invitation for a screening mammogram;” “If you would like to avoid participation, we ask you to fill out a form. You obtain this form by calling the breast-diagnostic centre;” “During the past two years, over 340,000 Queensland women have benefited from taking part in the BreastScreen Queensland Programme,” “You can take a positive step to decrease your own risk, and help us achieve our goal, by deciding to take part.”
What matters is to ensure a high uptake, “our goal,” not that the women understand what they are being subjected to.
I advise women in all countries to not go to mammography screening and to do nothing if they are “invited,” which my wife did. She had no obligation to decline an “invitation” with a pre-allotted time she never asked for, and the letter made her angry.
Screening is harmful in many other ways than those I have mentioned here, e.g. between one quarter and one half, depending on the country, of all women attending screening repeatedly will experience at least one false positive result, which can be distressful for several years.36 It therefore constitutes another tremendous harm.6,14
As I have explained elsewhere,38 the Cochrane Collaboration refused to allow us to update our Cochrane review on mammography screening last year, even though I had updated it three times before and the update was only about adding more deaths to two of the trials.
Absurdly, the ”Sign-Off Editor” noted that our review might create a potentially damaging firestorm of misinformation and we were accused of having pre-conceived ideas about no benefit of screening “rather than considering it may actually have benefit not detected.” We were also forbidden to use the term overdiagnosis even though this is standard and appears in other Cochrane reviews of cancer screening, including our own.6,12
When I first published the Cochrane review, in 2001, there was a huge scandal39 because Cochrane forbade us from publishing our data on the most important harms of screening, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment.3 This should have made the Cochrane leaders handle our update professionally, but they preferred to support the prevailing dogma about screening rather than telling the women the truth.
Only one question remains: Which country will be the first to show a little sanity and respect for the science and abandon screening?
Dr. Peter Gøtzsche co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration, once considered the world’s preeminent independent medical research organization. In 2010 Gøtzsche was named Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen. Gøtzsche has published over 100 papers in the “big five” medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine). Gøtzsche has also authored books on medical issues including Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime.
The New Republic (TNR) posted an article titled “Somali Immigrants Fled Climate Change. Now They’re Facing ICE,” claiming that Somali migrants in the United States have been driven out of their country by climate-change caused drought. This is false, or at least incomplete. Drought is a natural part of the region, even multi-year drought, and the present one is no different than the region has experienced with some regularity historically. It is civil strife and government corruption, resulting in continued poverty, that is leading Somalis to flee their homeland. With present governing institutions and security, they have been unable to improve water handling practices. Climate change has nothing to do with Somali emigration elsewhere in the region or to the United States, as even those interviewed for the article acknowledge.
TNR undermines its titular claim that unprecedented man-made climate change has forced Somalians to migrate by admitting that Somalian culture has “deep-rooted traditions of movement and migration.” TNR goes on to say that “Somalis have been caught in civil war and unrest for decades, and many have migrated to Kenya, Ethiopia, Europe, and the United States.”
Somehow not noticing the actual central point of that statement, that Somalians often move and that political strife has kept them destabilized, TNR says that climate change plays a “pervasive role” in the migration.
TNR claims that a multi-year drought “made a hundred times more likely due to warming caused by fossil fuel emissions—is affecting Somali people’s decisions to either relocate internally or migrate across international borders.”
Incredibly, later in the article, TNR refutes its own suggestion that this drought is worse, and pushing unprecedented migration, by explaining that this is how farmers have long dealt with drought in Somalia:
Traditionally, Somali pastoralists had resilient ways to deal with changes in rainfall and drought patterns, where families migrated and moved on a regular basis, even crossing borders in the process. But the nature of climatic changes—and conflict—overwhelmed their traditional capacities, leading to more rural-urban migration within the country and in East Africa.
That’s right, severe drought is something Somalians have dealt with for ages, long enough to have known traditions regarding adaptation to the dry periods.
There is no evidence that this drought is worse than those that drove historic migration.
The cited claim that recent drought in Somalia was made “a hundred times more likely” by climate change is not based on sound science. It comes from an attribution study from World Weather Attribution that specifically seeks to tie various weather conditions to human-caused climate change, they do not come to any other conclusions. Climate Realism has gone into the specifics of how unscientific World Weather Attribution studies are here, here, and here.
The TNR piece says that “[f]rom 2020 to 2023, the East Africa region had five failed rainy seasons, an unprecedented drought and climatic episode not seen in 40 years, which led to 70 percent crop loss, three million livestock deaths, and the displacement of about 2.9 million people in Somalia, according to some estimates.”
Admitting that a weather event also happened 40 years ago should tell a writer that their argument about something being “unprecedented” – meaning, without precedent, or never happened before—is faulty.
In fact, studies and data show a long history of swings between severe drought and monsoon floods in the region, and they show that nothing about modern drought is unprecedented. Paleo studies, including one published in Science, show that “intervals of severe drought lasting for periods ranging from decades to centuries are characteristic of the monsoon and are linked to natural variations in Atlantic temperatures.”
Climate Realism has covered this very claim before: In Anthony Watts’ “No, CBS News, Drought in Somalia is Not Being Driven by Climate Change,” he compared natural weather-driving patterns like the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation (AMO) and recent drought in Somalia and found repeated patterns of drought that were similarly severe.
Somalia is part of the Sahel region, and Watts shared this graphic of the region’s rainfall index since 1900, which shows that the rainfall in the Sahel varies widely over time:
Figure 1: More than a century of rainfall data in the Sahel show an unusually wet period from 1950 until 1970 (positive index values), followed by extremely dry years from 1970 to 1991. (negative index values). From 1990 until present rainfall returned to levels slightly below the 1898–1993 average, but year-to-year variability was high. Source: Benedikt Seidl – based on JISAO data
Additionally, comparing crop production data between Somalia and neighboring countries like Ethiopia and Kenya reveals that even when drought impacts East Africa, Somalia is uniquely incapable of maintaining agricultural production. During the same period in which Ethiopia and Kenya saw increasing production in vital cereal crops, UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data show Somalia declining. (See figure below)
Is climate change not hitting Kenya and Ethiopia? What is the difference?
While Somalia has a long history of severe, recurring droughts, the worst drought in the past 50 years was the “Long-tailed Drought” from 1973 to 1975. That drought, and a subsequent similarly deadly drought in the early 1980s, occurred when the Earth was in a cooling spell and atmospheric carbon dioxide was much lower than today.
Somalia’s civil war and resulting destruction and corruption is the prime force behind Somalia’s emigration. Ironically, one of the interviewees in the TNR piece says as much:
Drought does not necessarily lead to famine and does not always lead to migration,” said Abdi Samatar, a Somali scholar and geographer at the University of Minnesota […] Somalis were unable to “put Humpty Dumpty back together in their country,” and in the absence of government support, “people have to do what they can for themselves,” Samatar added.
We at Climate Realism could not have said it better ourselves, though we have explained as much in pastarticles where mainstream outlets tried to link climate change and Somalia’s migration issue.
The New Republic’s effort to tie Somalians fleeing their country for the United States to climate change was a flawed, agenda-driven effort from the start. Even when those interviewed by TNR link the mass exodus of residents from Somali to other factors, TNR persists in pushing the narrative that climate change is playing a “pervasive role.”
It is true that Somalia is suffering through a severe, life threatening drought. It is also true that such droughts are not unprecedented but have been common throughout the region’s history. The nation’s unstable government and the ongoing, long-standing, civil war bear far more of the blame than climate change, especially since there is little or no evidence that Somalia’s climate has changed much over the past century.
The current drought is hitting Somalia’s populace worse than those of nearby countries in the region because of the political instability there. The New Republic was told this by the experts they interviewed but chose to ignore it to advance a climate scare story. Evidently, it’s too much to hope for honest journalism at The New Republic.
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.
Public health policy should rest on solid, transparent evidence — not slogans, not marketing and not selective readings of scientific reviews, biochemist Lucija Tomljenović, Ph.D., said recently.
In a wide-ranging interview on the “Slobodni Podcast,” Tomljenović challenged the evidence base for HPV vaccination programs.
She told host Andrija Klarić that safety and efficacy claims are unsubstantiated, and the benefits of the vaccine do not outweigh the risks.
The widely circulated claim that the HPV vaccine dramatically reduces cervical cancer risk — by as much as 80% if administered before age 16 — collapses under closer examination.
Tomljenović has published more than a dozen papers on the HPV vaccine. She was also an expert witness in litigation against Merck, maker of the Gardasil HPV vaccine. In that role, she presented a systematic critique of the claims that the HPV vaccine prevents cancer.
She also delivered an overview of the science on the adverse events associated with the shot, and she presented evidence that Merck manipulated regulators and legislators to grow the market for its vaccine.
Claims that HPV vaccine reduces cancer risk based on flawed Cochrane reviews
However, systematic reviews are only as reliable as the studies they include, she said.
According to Tomljenović’s analysis of the 300-plus-page review, the majority of epidemiological studies cited to show the vaccine’s effects — including its ability to stop invasive cervical cancer — had serious or critical risk of bias, according to the ratings of Cochrane’s own reviewers.
A systematic review is a “study of studies,” a high-level research method that reviews, synthesizes and critically appraises the available body of evidence for a given disease or health topic in a standardized and systematic way.
Risk-of-bias assessments in those reviews evaluate whether methodological flaws — in design, analysis or reporting — are likely to invalidate results. A “serious” or “critical” rating signals substantial flaws that make conclusions highly questionable.
Yet despite this, Tomljenović said the Cochrane review concluded there was “moderate certainty evidence” that HPV vaccines reduce cervical cancer incidence.
She said that when the studies included in a systematic review are predominantly rated as low quality by the reviewers themselves, it is not justified to conclude the studies provide “moderate certainty evidence” for any outcome.
“Garbage in equals garbage out,” she said.
“If the majority of your studies are of such poor quality — by your own assessment — you cannot claim moderate certainty evidence,” she says. “That is just misinformation.”
Cervical cancer rates were in decline before HPV vaccine introduced
If HPV vaccination dramatically reduces cervical cancer, it follows that there would be a clear population-level decline of the disease following widespread vaccination.
Tomljenović presented national cervical cancer statistics from the U.K., Australia, and the U.S. showing that cervical cancer rates had been declining — and in some age groups were already near zero — before HPV vaccines were introduced into immunization schedules.
“The rate of cervical cancers in the U.K. have been rapidly declining and they have reached their lowest point long before HPV vaccines were introduced,” she said.
In Australia, despite very high vaccination rates, she said there has been no corresponding dramatic improvement when it comes to cancer rates.
She shared those statistics in her presentation slides. “You want me to believe something,” she says. “Show me the data.”
Clinical trials didn’t test for cancer prevention
Health officials and vaccine makers claim the HPV vaccine prevents cancer. However, neither the clinical trials nor the studies included in the Cochrane reviews actually studied whether the vaccines prevented cancer.
However, CIN2 lesions often resolve without becoming cancerous.
Even if one assumed that CIN2 was a valid surrogate, Gardasil 9 demonstrated roughly 60% efficacy against CIN2 or worse over 3.5 years in those trials, Tomljenović said.
This can’t logically translate into claims of 90% lifetime cervical cancer prevention — especially when cervical cancer develops over decades and trials followed participants for only about three years.
“High efficacy against lower-grade precancerous lesions does not necessarily translate to high vaccine efficacy against … cervical cancer,” she said.
Tomljenović said her conclusion is shared by several independent research groups, including a group of German physicians and a group led by Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, writing in peer-reviewed literature.
HPV vaccines associated with many serious side effects
Tomljenović said that many known adverse events associated with the HPV vaccines are not disclosed in official vaccine product information.
Those side effects, which are documented in case reports and adverse event reporting systems, include cardiac arrhythmias, neurological conditions such as acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis, autonomic nervous system disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome, premature ovarian failure, and permanent disability.
Other studies have identified similar adverse events.
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has also recognized serious adverse events. For example, a judge awarded compensation to the family of Christina Tarsell, a young woman who died following Gardasil vaccination.
Tomljenović said serious and life-threatening injuries may be rare, but people should be properly informed about the risks.
Financial interests, not science, driving vaccine policy
Tomljenović said she does not dismiss research purely based on funding sources. However, when methodological weaknesses align with extensive pharmaceutical lobbying and financial relationships, legitimate concerns arise that financial interests rather than evidence-based science are driving vaccine policy.
A 2012 article in the American Journal of Public Health documented Merck’s role in drafting and promoting legislation that mandated the HPV vaccine for school attendance in the U.S.
The researchers found that Merck served as “an information resource, lobbying legislators, drafting legislation, mobilizing female legislators and physician organizations, conducting consumer marketing campaigns, and filling gaps in access to the vaccine.”
She also said there is a “revolving door” between Merck and regulatory agencies. Dr. Julie Gerberding, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, became president of Merck’s vaccine division when she left the agency.
During her tenure at Merck, she accumulated over $100 million in personal wealth.
Tomljenović also invoked the Vioxx scandal — another Merck product later withdrawn from the market after killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people — as a cautionary tale about regulatory failures.
Researchers have suggested that Merck pushed Gardasil to compensate for its financial losses from Vioxx.
Pap screenings are the best way to prevent cervical cancer
Tomljenović concluded that regular Pap screenings remain a proven, risk-free alternative to HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention.
She said that “exposing healthy children to long-term, unpredictable and incompletely understood vaccine risks for no proven substantial benefits … is utterly unscientific, unreasonable, immoral and plain reckless.”
Pap screenings, she argues, carry no risk of autoimmune complications or neurological injury and have already driven substantial declines in mortality.
Newly surfaced documents and reporting are fueling questions about whether a small network of powerful players including Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epstein, and individuals linked to Robert Maxwell’s scientific publishing legacy sought outsized influence over how research is distributed and amplified. Emails, investments, and media-funding ties are being cited as potential indicators of an effort to shape which scientific ideas rise to prominence and which get sidelined. The broader issue: who controls the pipelines of modern science—publishing, PR, and perception—and what transparency is owed to the public when power concentrates behind the scenes.
The Man Who Lost a Foot Before Anyone Told Him the Truth
Morgan Nolte, a board-certified clinical specialist in geriatric physical therapy, walked into an apartment to evaluate a patient with a history of diabetes and multiple amputations. Several toes gone. One foot removed entirely. She began the standard medication reconciliation—reviewing every drug the patient was taking—and stopped.
“Where’s your diabetes medications? You have amputations, you have a history of diabetes, you’re not taking any medications. Let me check your blood sugar, because it’s probably raging high.”
“I don’t need them anymore,” he said. “I got off of them.”
He had changed his diet. Started eating low carb. Reversed his diabetes.
What motivated him to finally make that change? “I didn’t want them to take my other foot, because then I couldn’t live independently anymore.”
The system had taken his toes. Taken his foot. Failed him completely. Only then, facing the loss of the second foot—and with it, his independence—did he discover what no one had told him: the disease was reversible all along.
A Last Ray of Hope
Nolte describes another patient. A woman, morbidly obese, bedbound for ten months. She had sold assets to qualify for Medicaid, to get the care she needed. The physical therapy order read, literally, “as a last ray of hope.” The woman had wounds, skin breakdown, vision loss from diabetes. She couldn’t get up. Couldn’t go to the bathroom. Couldn’t do anything anymore. She wasn’t old.
And she was taking massive doses of insulin.
When Nolte visited, she observed the household. Potato chips. Spaghetti. The woman’s husband had consulted a nutritionist, who told him to switch to whole wheat pasta.
“Let’s pump the body with some glucose,” Nolte reflected, “and then let’s add more insulin to get rid of that glucose. But that’s making the problem of insulin resistance even worse.”
The word Nolte uses for this: heartbreaking.
It’s why she left traditional practice.
What Causes Insulin Resistance?
Type 2 diabetes is defined as a disease of insulin resistance. The cells resist insulin’s signal to absorb glucose from the blood. Blood sugar rises. The standard treatment: give insulin to force the glucose into the cells.
The logic seems sound until you ask a question that medical training apparently discourages: What causes insulin resistance in the first place?
Jason Fung, a nephrologist and researcher, poses an analogy. When antibiotics are first introduced, they work brilliantly. With time and steady use, bacteria become resistant. The drugs lose effectiveness. The body’s response to persistent exposure is adaptation—resistance. This principle is universal in biology. Resistance requires two conditions: high levels of the stimulus, and persistence of those high levels.
Antibiotics cause antibiotic resistance. Viruses cause viral resistance. Drugs cause drug tolerance.
Insulin causes insulin resistance.
This is not speculation. Insulinomas are rare tumors that continuously secrete abnormally large amounts of insulin. Patients with these tumors develop insulin resistance in lockstep with their rising insulin levels. Remove the tumor surgically, and the insulin resistance reverses.
Experimentally, constant infusion of insulin into healthy, non-diabetic volunteers induces insulin resistance within days—a 20 to 40 percent drop in insulin sensitivity. Young, lean, healthy men can be made insulin resistant simply by giving them insulin.
When type 2 diabetics are started on intensive insulin therapy, their average dosage climbs steadily. In one study, patients went from zero to 100 units daily over six months. Blood glucose control improved. But the more insulin they took, the more insulin resistant they became. The underlying disease worsened even as the surface marker—blood glucose—looked better.
Ben Bikman, a metabolic researcher, frames it starkly: “Giving a type 2 diabetic insulin is like giving an alcoholic another glass of wine. We’re giving them more of the very thing that caused the problem.”
The Vicious Cycle
The vicious cycle operates like this: A patient is prescribed insulin for high blood sugar. The insulin forces glucose into cells that are already overfull. The patient gains weight—commonly 20 to 30 pounds. Weight gain worsens insulin resistance. Blood sugar rises again. The doctor increases the insulin dose. More weight gain. More resistance. More insulin.
Fung describes patients confronting their doctors: “You gave me this insulin. I gained 30 pounds, and then you gave me more insulin. How is that making me better?”
It’s not.
Fung uses the image of an overfilled balloon. You keep forcing more air into a balloon that’s already stretched to capacity. It takes more and more pressure to add anything. Eventually something gives. But the standard treatment keeps pumping.
Gary Taubes documents a particularly graphic case in his research on insulin’s effects. A woman developed type 1 diabetes at seventeen. For the next forty-seven years, she injected insulin into the same two sites on her thighs. The result: cantaloupe-sized masses of fat on each thigh—visible proof of insulin’s direct fattening effect on tissue, independent of diet or calories consumed.
A 2008 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that type 2 diabetics on intensive insulin therapy gained an average of eight pounds. Nearly one in three gained more than twenty pounds in three and a half years.
The treatment makes patients fatter. Fatter patients become more diabetic. More diabetic patients need more treatment.
Chronic and Progressive
Fung practiced nephrology for ten years, following orthodox protocols for his diabetic patients. When he looked back at the results, he realized he had not helped them much. He had made them fatter, sicker, and more reliant on drugs.
This confronted him with a choice that confronts every physician working within this system. If the treatment isn’t working—if patients are getting worse—there are two possible explanations. Either the treatment is wrong, or the disease is simply like this: chronic and progressive, inevitably worsening no matter what you do.
Doctors, Fung observes, don’t want to blame themselves. So the profession chose the second explanation. Type 2 diabetes was declared a chronic, progressive disease. The treatment was correct; the disease was just incurable.
“The doctor said, well, the treatment is correct because the blood glucose is fine. Therefore, this must be just the way the disease is—chronic and progressive. Not understanding that their entire treatment paradigm was quite incorrect.”
This framing persists despite obvious counter-evidence. Everyone in medicine knows that if a type 2 diabetic loses significant weight, their diabetes usually improves dramatically or disappears entirely. The disease is observably reversible. The profession declared it irreversible anyway.
Fung identifies two “big lies” in diabetes treatment. The first: that type 2 diabetes is chronic and progressive and cannot be cured. The second: that lowering blood sugar is the primary goal. The actual disease is not high blood sugar—that’s a symptom. The disease is too much glucose in the body and too much insulin trying to manage it. Lowering blood sugar with more insulin just moves the glucose from the blood into the tissues, where it continues to cause damage. The trash isn’t thrown out; it’s hidden under the bed.
Twenty Years On, Off in a Month
The reversal evidence is not subtle. Fung conducted a case series with three patients who had been on insulin for twenty years. They implemented 24-hour fasting three days per week. Within one month, all three were off all their insulin.
Twenty years on the drug. Off in a month.
Nolte reports clients getting off blood pressure medications they’d taken for years within a couple of months. Cholesterol medications. Blood sugar medications. “Happens all the time,” she says. “All the time.”
The man with the amputated foot reversed his diabetes after losing multiple toes and an entire foot to a treatment paradigm that never addressed the underlying cause. His remaining independence depended on figuring out what his doctors hadn’t told him.
Tim Noakes, the South African scientist, puts the absurdity plainly: The medical profession has never encouraged people with lactose intolerance to consume milk, or people with gluten intolerance to eat wheat, or alcoholics to keep drinking. “Yet somehow this common-sense rule seemingly does not apply to the treatment of diabetes.” Patients who cannot properly metabolize carbohydrates are told to eat carbohydrates and inject insulin to manage the consequences.
We fuel the fire with carbohydrates and try to put it out with insulin. The fire grows.
The New Standard of Care
In 2023, the American Diabetes Association updated its standards of care. For patients 65 and older with few other health problems, an A1C of 7 to 7.5 is now acceptable.
An A1C over 5.6 indicates prediabetes. Over 6.5 indicates diabetes.
The new standard of care is diabetes.
As populations get sicker, the definition of sickness is adjusted. The threshold for concern rises to meet the worsening baseline. Physicians become desensitized to illness. One of Nolte’s members lost 50 pounds, eliminated her blood pressure medication, resolved her joint pain. At a church function, someone asked if she was sick—she looked so thin. “I’ve actually never been healthier,” she said.
We are becoming desensitized to what healthy bodies look like. We are becoming accustomed to people who are overweight, on multiple medications, progressing through a disease they were told could not be stopped.
She has seen a physician refuse to order a fasting insulin test, writing back: “I reached out to some colleagues in endocrinology and they said they only check insulin for a type 2 diabetic. You’re only prediabetic, so we’re not going to do that. And you can’t really reverse insulin resistance anyway.”
The patient needed a new doctor. But most doctors learned the same curriculum.
The Endpoint
The woman bedbound for ten months, covered in wounds, losing her vision, taking massive amounts of insulin while eating spaghetti—she represents the endpoint of a treatment logic that inverts cause and effect. The system identified high blood sugar as the enemy. It deployed a weapon that causes weight gain, which worsens insulin resistance, which raises blood sugar, which requires more of the weapon. Then it declared the resulting devastation proof that the disease was always going to progress this way.
The man who reversed his diabetes after losing a foot did so by removing carbohydrates from his diet—by stopping the influx of glucose that insulin was trying to manage. He addressed the cause. The insulin had been addressing the symptom while worsening the cause.
Prescribing insulin for type 2 diabetes is putting gasoline on a fire. Patients see this. “You gave me this insulin, I gained 30 pounds, and then you gave me more insulin.” They experience the paradox in their own bodies. But the institution that created the paradox cannot acknowledge it without acknowledging decades of harm.
So the disease remains chronic and progressive. The patients remain blamed for their failure to comply. And the treatment that worsens the condition remains the standard of care.
References
Books:
Taubes, Gary. Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health. Anchor Books, 2008.
Taubes, Gary. Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It. Anchor Books, 2011.
Noakes, Tim. Lore of Nutrition: Challenging Conventional Dietary Beliefs. Penguin Random House South Africa, 2017.
Noakes, Tim, et al. Diabetes Unpacked: Just Science and Sense. No Sugar Coating. Columbus Publishing, 2017.
Fung, Jason. The Diabetes Code: Prevent and Reverse Type 2 Diabetes Naturally. Greystone Books, 2018.
Bikman, Benjamin. Why We Get Sick: The Hidden Epidemic at the Root of Most Chronic Disease—and How to Fight It. BenBella Books, 2020.
Interviews and Presentations:
Fung, Jason. “Get Rid of Diabetes Once and for All.” The Jesse Chappus Show, September 2022.
Nolte, Morgan. “How to ELIMINATE Insulin Resistance Once and for All (COMMON Early Signs).” The Jesse Chappus Show, December 2024.
Bikman, Ben. “If You DO THIS Your Insulin Resistance Will Be Normal FAST!” The Jesse Chappus Show.
By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | April 22, 2026
Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s book, The Technological Republic, is a clarion call for Silicon Valley to abandon its consumer trinkets and rush headlong into the arms of the military-industrial complex. According to Karp, America’s future depends on wielding hard power through technology—arming soldiers, AI-weaponry, and mass surveillance systems—rather than on the “soft” influence demonstrated by free markets and liberty-first principles. The book claims that “the survival of the American experiment depends on the technological revitalization of the military-industrial complex” and urges the country’s engineering talent to focus on national defense. Karp and his co-author, Nicholas Zamiska, argue that tech bros should “grow up” and start killing America’s enemies before they kill us. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 