Donald Trump entered the July 7th/8th NATO summit having recently condemned the alliance as a “paper tiger” over its collective failure to abet the calamitous Zionist-American war on Iran and repeatedly threatened to withdraw US forces from Europe, with reveries of Greenland’s annexation still abounding. He left boasting of the intense “love” and “unity” within NATO, while praising member states for their reaffirmed commitment to spending ever-increasing vast sums on ‘defense’. Meanwhile, the Ukraine proxy war’s world-threatening continuation appears assured for potentially years to come.
As such, the NATO summit signifies a significant triumph in Britain’s never-ending battle to exploit the US Empire to further its own objectives. Highly revealing leaked files amply spell out how the alliance is a key mechanism by which Washington’s “interest” in Europe and West Asia is insidiously maintained, via London’s covert and overt machinations. NATO provides an invaluable “umbrella”, by which Britain projects economic, intelligence, military, and political power throughout these regions and the wider world, while countering competitors.
The documents were authored in March 2021 by Chris Donnelly, a veteran British military intelligence apparatchik who masterminded NATO expansion into the former Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s. Now an influential Ministry of Defense advisor guiding London and Kiev’s escalatory strategies in the proxy war, he writes in the leaks of Britain’s perpetual struggle to retain the “security” provided by “US military power.” This, combined with access to Washington’s globe-spanning intelligence network, “underpins our own position in the world.”
From Britain’s perspective, “the political solidarity between member nations” within NATO and “the permanent political and military mechanisms that enable collaboration between its members and with its partners,” are as vitally important as the alliance’s capacity for “collective defence and security.” For example, “interoperability” between NATO members is considered “both a political and a military asset” and “a valuable product”, enabling countries “with vastly different political and military systems to operate together.” That includes “[undertaking] complex and stressful military activities,” and other joint functions.
This makes NATO “a civilian-led political organisation… whose main tool is armed force,” intimately entrenched within its 32 members. Lacking any democratic structures internally and accountable to none externally, the alliance exerts enormous, often unseen influence over members’ constituent governments, security and intelligence services, militaries, police forces, and more. These “extensive political collaborative mechanisms” mean states can be corralled into adopting policies or taking actions regardless of local public will, or whether such moves actively harm their safety and/or national interests.
“Without the US, there is no NATO,” Donnelly notes. Hence, to “keep the US interested” in the alliance, Washington “must see a return on its (still very large and disproportionate) investment.” The 2026 NATO summit ended with European leaders pledging to plunge tens of billions into US-made military equipment for Kiev over this year and next, a prospect offering Washington quite some “return”. But the British have other means of encouraging and maintaining US hegemony, for their personal profit.
‘Symmetrical exchange’
Elsewhere, Donnelly writes of the “special relationship” – the “political/military/security/intelligence” alliance between Britain and the US, “which has existed since World War II.” He notes how from inception, Washington was driven “by how much the US needed something from the UK to help the US develop and maintain its superpower status.” In other words, “what the UK could provide the US… the US could not itself produce.” Accordingly, London “traditionally contributed” its historical “knowledge and experience” to Washington’s crusade for global domination.
This frequently entailed “intelligence-gathering and analysis; technical expertise, especially inventiveness, ideas, and scientific information; the experience of having dealt with a situation new to the US.” Meanwhile, “political and military support” was provided by London “wherever this supported US policy interests and to help the US get what it wanted in the world.” While Britain’s methods in every regard have evolved significantly over time, these ultimate underpinning and overriding objectives in so many matters military, intelligence, foreign, and even domestic have not changed:
“Being able to provide something the US wants and needs is still the only reliable way to get US respect and to maintain the ‘special relationship’… Today, this is translated into whatever will help the US maintain its position in the world, promote US interests… and ensure US economic well-being. If we can still provide something useful for the US, something they cannot do for themselves, then they will be prepared to reciprocate very generously.”
Donnelly frames this concord as a perpetual “barter deal” – not a “symmetrical exchange” or “issue of cost and payment,” as “if the US can buy what it is deficient in on the world market, then there is no basis for the ‘special relationship’.” He references Britain’s consistent “willingness and ability to deploy a significant contingent of effective army… to reinforce US military operations… readiness to share casualties… [and] continued readiness to host US forces on UK soil or on overseas dependencies” as historic pull factors.
Britain can also “employ other kinds of power to achieve an effect which supports US policy or interests.” This includes “economic power, political influence, a technical ability, such as cyber-warfare, or a civilian state-building or humanitarian relief capability.” Accordingly, files leaked by Edward Snowden indicate British signals intelligence agency GCHQ is acutely aware it “must pull its weight and be seen to pull its weight” by its NSA ‘partner’, to reap vast US funding for elaborate foreign spying operations.
Donnelly concludes, “On balance, the special relationship is of real importance to the UK, but also of some worth to the US… The burden of sustaining the special relationship falls principally to the UK. The US may well lose out if the relationship fails, but it will not notice the loss as much as the UK will. However, the special relationship is neither permanent nor guaranteed. We cannot take it for granted. It needs to be worked at constantly, refreshed and renewed.”
‘Defense capabilities’
On the subject of renewal, Donnelly lamented how London’s utility to the US Empire had been “significantly diminished” over recent years. This resulted from the British Army’s “indifferent military performance in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the “run-down of our intelligence capability,” and “the perception (on the part of the US and other allies) the UK is no longer investing sufficiently in its military to be able to play the leading role it used to do in Europe, both as an operator and as a technical innovator.”
Donnelly moreover noted Britain “used to be at the cutting edge of some aspects of military thinking,” but had in many respects “lost this edge.” For example, “we can no longer instruct the US on how best to conduct counter-insurgency operations.” Furthermore, the “special relationship” was “put under pressure” by President Barack Obama’s “reorientation of US strategy to focus on China.” Instituted in 2011, this “pivot to the Pacific” was sustained under subsequent administrations, with varying degrees of intensity.
Donnelly cheered how “the Ukraine and Syrian conflicts have reawakened US interest a little” in Europe and West Asia, meaning “Russia can no longer be ignored” by Washington. Nonetheless, he warned, “we have not yet turned the corner.” Unmentioned by Donnelly was his personal role in disrupting Washington’s “pivot” toward China by inflaming the Ukrainian war, to ensure the Empire didn’t “ignore” Russia. He openly articulated this malign mission while testifying to a British parliamentary defense committee in July 2014.
Donnelly proposed establishing a permanent British “standing force” in the Baltics, to conduct military exercises on Russia’s border, while serving as a “tripwire” to “dissuade and deter” Moscow. He believed it “very important” for London to pursue this strategy, as “Britain’s leadership… will encourage the Americans to take a greater interest in NATO and reinforce their support of the organisation.” He added, “we have an important role to play in bringing the Americans in more,” as “US eyes” had recently been directed “away from Europe.”
Resultantly, London provocatively dispatched thousands of soldiers to Russia’s periphery. Moreover, Britain took the lead in training Ukrainian forces – including notorious Neo-Nazi paramilitary factions such as the Azov Battalion. At the time, Washington adhered to the “Obama Doctrine”, which stipulated the US should avoid escalation against Moscow and prohibited provision of “lethal aid” and other military assistance to Kiev. A February 2015Kyiv Post report on Britain’s training program quoted Donnelly at length, suggesting his central involvement in its delivery:
“This is just the sort of help Ukraine needs now. The British Army obviously brings considerable operational experience and a pretty good reputation.”
As Donnelly predicted in his defense committee testimony, Britain’s tutelage of Ukrainian forces had the desired effect of “bringing the Americans in more.” In July 2015, it was announced the US would formally begin training Kiev’s military by the end of the year. Still, a State Department spokesperson stressed the effort was merely “small unit training… to help strengthen Ukraine’s internal defense capabilities.” They firmly asserted Washington’s focus in the country remained on “nonlethal aid” and “there is no plan to change that.”
Fast forward to December 2017, and Trump greenlit the provision of weaponry to Kiev. It was among a number of hostile acts during his first term that ratcheted tensions between Washington and Moscow, placing Ukraine firmly on the warpath with Russia. The recent NATO summit, and subsequent pledges by the US to assist Ukraine directly with drone and patriot missile production, show the Empire has “turned the corner” at last. US “interest” in Europe is assured, for at least as long as the proxy conflict endures.
The words ‘killed’, ‘injured’, ‘maimed’, and the like often lose a great part of their meaning when they are repeated so relentlessly.
Take, for example, a headline like: “13 Palestinians Killed in Gaza, Others Wounded.” Though many of us can still feel a deep sense of sadness over such a tragedy, the news itself becomes less shocking over time.
According to figures produced by the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, Israel has killed and wounded a total of over 250,000 Palestinians since the start of the genocide in 2023.
The tally is updated daily because the killing never stops.
On July 23, six Palestinians were killed in Gaza. A day earlier, 13 were killed, and the day before that, nine others were killed, and so on.
It is this “and so on” that makes us lose our sense, over time, of what these tragedies actually entail. These are innocent people who are burned alive in their tents, bombed in their cars, or killed while attempting to enjoy a brief moment of respite from the scorching heat on the beach.
Among the nine killed on July 21, an entire family, including four young children, was wiped out in a single strike. As reports of Israel’s daily harvest of Palestinian lives in Gaza multiply, journalists too often neglect to humanize those killed.
A photo circulating on social media showed three of those children: a boy wearing a T-shirt that read ‘Santa Monica Beach’; his bespectacled sister in a pink shirt, proudly holding a certificate of achievement from her school; and their youngest sister, posing gently.
These three represent every single Palestinian child killed since the start of this genocide. According to UN and international estimates, over 21,000 children have been killed in Gaza, with tens of thousands more maimed or buried under the rubble.
Though the daily routine of killing makes the tragedy feel less shocking for those merely hearing the numbers, it becomes infinitely more tragic for those who must bear it directly. In Gaza, not a single family has been spared the loss of loved ones, making the grief compound day after day.
There are no words to describe the collective pain of Gaza.
What makes the tragedy even more unbearable is that the entire world knows what has transpired and continues to transpire in Gaza, yet fails to do anything about it. We keep track of the numbers, we point to Israel’s barbarity, we decry the failure of international institutions, and we shake our heads in despair.
Yet the outcome remains unchanged: the death toll rises, and new statistics are generated daily to remind us of the magnitude of the crisis.
A July 23 joint report by the FAO, UNICEF, and the World Food Programme found that 1.4 million Palestinians in Gaza face acute food insecurity.
The report also warned that more than 74,000 children under five are expected to require urgent treatment for acute malnutrition over the coming year.
This report was released on the same day that Gaza health authorities updated the official death toll to over 73,311 Palestinians. That number is already higher now, as more have been killed since.
On that same day, Thameen Al-Kheetan of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) stated that “no place in Gaza can be considered safe.”
That statement is true, of course, but it is also the most well-known fact in the world right now. No one is contesting it. And yet, no one acts: Israel keeps bombing, the US Congress continues assigning it more weapons, and the rest of the world tracks the death tally.
Meanwhile, Israel—which has seized control of even more territory in Gaza since the so-called ceasefire—is now constructing massive earth barriers stretching an estimated 23 kilometers across the Strip.
Though it was never fair to begin with, even the original Trump Gaza plan never mentioned the building of interior borders, the theft of additional land, or the concentration of displaced Palestinians into tiny enclaves within an already small piece of land.
Israel’s long-term plan is not only to maintain permanent military control over Gaza, as top Israeli officials have declared, but also to prolong its torment indefinitely.
Even as I write this article, news reports indicate that four more Palestinians have just been killed. It is unlikely the number will remain that low; the Israeli army rarely kills in small numbers.
But even these small numbers represent human beings whose grief cannot be measured in statistics, summed up in official statements, or reduced to clichéd headlines.
Nor do survivors cling to the empty promise of international law prevailing over US-backed impunity. History has made Palestinians cynical. For generations, through every massacre and land theft since the 1948 Nakba, waiting for justice has yielded nothing but hollow promises and rising body counts.
The only difference between the past and the present is that today, we all know, see, and hear exactly what is happening in Gaza and across Palestine.
The very least we can do is refuse to turn our backs or reduce the genocide before our eyes to numbers.
If we allow that to happen, we become culpable, too: Israel does the killing, using American arms, while we sit by, counting the dead and shaking our heads at the sad state of the world.
Author’s Note: The framing of prescription drugs as the third leading cause of death, associated with Peter Gøtzsche and Barbara Starfield, is treated here as an underestimate. When heart disease and cancer are themselves largely produced by the same profession’s pharmaceutical and dietary framework, ranking the profession third against its own products misses the arithmetic. The essay does not argue that individual doctors are malicious. It argues that the training installed by the 1910 Flexner Report was an inversion of what heals, that the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations exported that training globally, and that a century of it has produced the epidemic of chronic disease now called the natural burden of modern life.
The essay operates in two registers. When examining establishment evidence against itself, establishment terminology appears. When stating the author’s own analytical position, terrain language governs.
This essay discusses medical topics for informational purposes. It is not medical advice.
The Prosecution
Sarah Myhill has been investigated by the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council more than thirty times across two decades, more than any doctor in the Council’s history.¹ Not one of the complaints came from her own patients. Every complaint came from other medical professionals and regulatory officials. At the 2010 interim hearing, over 800 patient support letters were submitted alongside a petition with 3,615 signatures. Tom Kark, the Queen’s Counsel acting for the government’s prosecution, described the difficulty of the case in plain terms: the problem with the Myhill cases, he said, was that all the patients had improved and all refused to give witness statements.
The prosecution’s complaint was that her patients got better.
Her practice addresses cellular metabolism through nutritional support and toxin removal. Her patients improve. Her regulator has spent twenty years trying to stop her.
What kind of medical profession prosecutes its healers? A profession whose training was designed to do the opposite of what heals. That training runs across the lifespan of every person the profession treats, from injection in infancy to intubation in the ICU at eighty-three, and it has produced the epidemic of chronic disease now called the natural burden of modern life. The pattern operates in London, Sydney, Toronto, Berlin, Tokyo, and São Paulo because the training that produces it was standardized globally from a single source.
A child has a fever of 102.4. The parent reaches for the cabinet, measures a dose from the red and white bottle, and delivers it to the child’s mouth. The doctor’s advice at the last checkup was clear: bring the fever down.
The child’s body raised the temperature to accelerate metabolic clearing. Higher body heat speeds the enzymatic processes that break down and eliminate whatever the terrain is discarding. The fever is the operation. The intervention interrupts it. The doctor did not fail to know this. The doctor was trained to do the opposite.
The inversion is not confined to fever. It structures every intervention the doctor will offer. The body cleanses through fever, discharge, inflammation, diarrhea, skin eruption; training teaches suppression of each. The body signals distress through cholesterol, glucose, blood pressure; training teaches blocking the signals. The body’s operations and the doctor’s interventions map onto each other with the precision of a mirror.
The pattern was installed deliberately and runs across the lifespan of every person the doctor will treat. The evidence assembles across five thresholds: birth, childhood, adult screening, chronic illness, and death. Applied at scale, this training produces harm at scale. The scale is now planetary.
Joy Garner’s Control Group Survey, conducted in the United States because the American vaccine exemption structure was one of the few environments in the industrialized world where a large fully unvaccinated cohort could still be found, established chronic disease in the fully unvaccinated adult population at 2.64 percent. In the vaccinated it runs at 60 percent.² Standard attributable-fraction methodology assigns 95.6 percent of chronic disease in the vaccinated population to vaccination itself.³ Cancer, heart disease, and the diagnoses that account for the majority of deaths across the industrialized world are conditions Garner counted.
This is the arithmetic behind the essay’s subtitle. Heart disease is ranked first among causes of death in every industrialized country. Cancer is second. Prescription drugs are ranked third by Peter Gøtzsche and Barbara Starfield. The ranking treats the first two categories as phenomena the doctor arrived to treat. They are not. The cholesterol hypothesis that produced the statin era, the seed oil epidemic, and the sugar substitution was invented and sustained by the same profession, and exported through the WHO and every major national dietary guideline body.⁴ The injected substrate from childhood, the screening cascades that route the healthy into oncology pipelines, and the suppression of acute clearing across the adult lifespan produce much of what is later counted as cancer. When the top two categories on the mortality list are themselves iatrogenic, ranking iatrogenic third makes no arithmetic sense. The profession is not the third leading cause of death. It is the first.
Not About Bad People
Most doctors entered medicine because they wanted to help. The individual doctor is not the argument. What was installed in the individual doctor is the argument.
The system runs on convergent opportunism, not coordination. The physician, the researcher, the regulator, the journal editor, the medical school department chair — each pursues rational self-interest within a structure whose maintenance no single actor is responsible for. Upton Sinclair named the local mechanism: a man does not understand what his salary depends on not understanding.⁵ Applied across a profession of a million practitioners, that mechanism produces a system that behaves as if it were coordinated while requiring no coordinator.
There is a category of medical practice this argument does not address: acute trauma care. Broken femurs need setting, gunshot wounds need pressure and sutures, genuine appendicitis needs surgery. These interventions support the body’s repair rather than opposing it, and this is what a critic means by “doctors save lives every day.” They do. The concern here is the other category — the management of chronic illness and the maintenance of ostensibly healthy people through screening, prescription, and intervention. This is the majority of what modern medicine does, and the majority of what it earns.
The life expectancy objection runs like this: populations in the industrialized world lived to roughly 47 in 1900 and to the high seventies today, and medicine is given the credit. The arithmetic does not support it. Most of the increase was compression at the bottom — the reduction of infant and childhood mortality, which the data traces to sanitation, nutrition, and clean water rather than to medical intervention. Life expectancy at age 65 has moved much less: from 76 in 1900 to about 85 today. American life expectancy has been declining since 2014.⁶ British, Australian, and continental European life expectancy has stagnated or reversed across the same period. Cardiovascular disease, overdose, and metabolic collapse are the categories driving the decline — domains the profession has managed with confidence for decades.
The Installation
Ignaz Semmelweis noticed in 1847 that women whose babies were delivered by doctors died at rates several times higher than women whose babies were delivered by midwives. The doctors moved between autopsies and deliveries without washing their hands. He proposed the connection and required his students to wash with chlorinated lime. Deaths in his ward fell dramatically.⁷ His colleagues rejected the finding. He was driven from his position, committed to an asylum, and died there at forty-seven, beaten by guards, according to his autopsy. A century later, Bernard Lown challenged the strict-bedrest dogma for heart attack patients and let his patients sit up in a chair at the end of the bed. His colleagues met him on the ward with Nazi salutes, chanting “Heil Hitler” at a Jewish physician for suggesting that his patients need not lie motionless for six weeks. Strict bedrest is now understood to have killed tens of millions of people worldwide. The man who challenged it received the salute.⁵ Medicine has a documented history of destroying the practitioners who correctly identify iatrogenic harm.
The mechanism that produced modern medicine’s training is documented. In 1910, Abraham Flexner, funded by the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations, published a report evaluating American medical schools.⁸ Within two decades, the number of American medical schools fell from 162 to 66.⁹ Schools teaching homeopathy, naturopathy, and terrain-based approaches were closed. The surviving schools adopted the curriculum the foundations had specified. Rockefeller money — which was Standard Oil money — flowed to compliant institutions. The American Medical Association’s consultation clause prohibited its members from associating with practitioners outside the approved framework, creating a professional monopoly enforced by economic exclusion.
This is the anti-knowledge point. Flexner did not fill a gap in medical education. The gap did not exist. Many of the 162 schools operating in 1910 taught how the body actually heals — homeopathic, naturopathic, terrain-based traditions with functioning clinical practices and patient outcomes that outperformed the emerging pharmaceutical model. What Flexner destroyed was not ignorance but knowledge. What replaced it was not more knowledge but its inversion: a curriculum designed to suppress the body’s healing responses rather than support them. The distinction matters. A profession that lacks the knowledge to heal can be educated. A profession trained to do the opposite of what heals cannot be corrected without abandoning the training that constitutes it.
The model did not stay inside American borders. Flexner himself was commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation to conduct the same evaluation of European medical education in 1912. The Rockefeller Foundation’s International Health Division and its China Medical Board carried the template outward across the following decades, funding medical schools in England, Belgium, France, Brazil, Thailand, and China on the same pharmaceutical model, closing or defunding institutions that taught otherwise.¹⁰ The Peking Union Medical College, opened in 1921, became the pharmaceutical training center for East Asia. The World Health Organization, established in 1948, took over the export function internationally. By the middle of the twentieth century, every major medical school on the planet was training doctors on essentially the same curriculum.
John D. Rockefeller personally used homeopathic physicians for his own family throughout his life.¹¹ The man who understood terrain well enough to choose it for himself directed his foundations to fund only allopathic schools, at home and abroad. The framework that produces pharmaceutical dependency was profitable. Terrain medicine was not.
The consequences run through every medical school on the developed continents. Approximately two-thirds of American academic department chairs have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, a figure equivalent audits in the UK, Australia, Canada, and continental Europe have found to be broadly comparable.¹² The average medical student, whether in Boston or Manchester or Melbourne, receives roughly twenty contact hours of nutrition instruction across four years, less than one percent of classroom time.¹³ A doctor cannot teach what they were never taught. Taught that symptoms are the malfunction and that the body attacks itself, they prescribe drugs that suppress both. What the training installs is what the training produces.
Birth
The body knows how to birth. Every human being who has ever lived was produced by that process, mostly without medical management.
The training the modern obstetrician receives teaches management, extraction, and control. The process is broken into stages, each with an approved intervention. Consent is technically obtained, in labor, on a hospital bed, surrounded by people in scrubs speaking with confidence and urgency. It is not consent as most people understand the term.
Pitocin, synthetic oxytocin, is delivered by IV during the third stage of labor as a matter of routine.¹⁴ Cochrane reviews show it reduces hemorrhage rates in the overall population, but the absolute risk reduction in low-risk women is small: hundreds of women receive the drug to prevent one hemorrhage that would have occurred. Women who have experienced both physiological and pharmacological third stage describe them as fundamentally different. Natural contractions are productive. Synthetic contractions are violent and overwhelming. Sometimes the drug closes the cervix before the placenta has exited, at which point a doctor’s hand goes inside the uterus to remove the fragments manually.
Fundal massage — deep kneading pressure on the abdomen minutes after delivery — is administered by protocol despite evidence not supporting routine use; many women describe it as the most painful part of their birth. Controlled cord traction is standard. The placenta, left alone, releases in ten to thirty minutes with the mother in a state of physiological calm. Traction rushes what biology completes cleanly and can cause retained fragments that hemorrhage later.
None of these interventions is birth. Each opposes what the body is doing, delivered by a professional trained to consider the intervention a positive contribution.
Childhood
The body of a child clears through fever, discharge, rash, mucus, cough, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin eruption. Every acute episode is the terrain restoring itself. What passes through the child is the accumulated burden the child was carrying: dietary residue, environmental exposure, emotional load. The episode is not the disease. The episode is the resolution of the disease.
Training installs two responses. The first is injection: the introduction of foreign material, including heavy metals, industrial chemicals, and animal-derived proteins, into a body that has developed no method of eliminating them through the digestive tract, because the injection bypasses the digestive tract. The second is suppression: antipyretics for fever, antihistamines for discharge, topical steroids for skin eruption, antibiotics for whatever the acute episode has been diagnosed as.
The pediatric schedule delivers dozens of dose-equivalents of injected pharmaceutical products before the child reaches eighteen. The American schedule has risen from fewer than ten doses in the early 1980s to roughly seventy today. The Australian, British, and continental European schedules are broadly comparable, differing in specific brand names and timing but tracking the same trajectory over the same decades.¹⁵ Each addition is approved by national regulators who move between industry and agency.
The substrate has been photographed. Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari, materials scientists at the Italian National Council of Research, examined forty-four injectable vaccines under electron microscope in 2017 and found tungsten, lead, stainless steel, bismuth, gold, silver, cerium, and rare earth alloys. Nothing on any package insert declared any of it.¹⁶ Pediatric injections had the highest particle counts: Varilrix at 2,723 particles per twenty-microliter drop, Infanrix hexa at 1,821. The body has no enzymatic machinery for breaking down these metals. The particles do not biodegrade. They lodge.
Stanley Plotkin, called an indispensable authority on vaccines by Bill Gates, testified under oath in 2018 that his early vaccine trials had used orphans, mentally disabled children in institutions, and the babies of women in prison.¹⁷ Asked whether he had ethical concerns, he indicated that this was how it had been done. The Nuremberg Code, established after the war to prevent this specific category of medical practice, was not mentioned as a limiting factor in his career.
Roman Bystrianyk pulled the mortality data from archives that had not been digitized.¹⁸ Between 1850 and 1940, measles mortality in the industrialized world fell by 98 percent — the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963. Whooping cough deaths fell from over 1,000 per million children to fewer than 10 per million between 1850 and 1950, before the pertussis vaccine was in widespread use. Scarlet fever, for which no vaccine was ever deployed, declined at the same rate. The mortality collapse was driven by sanitation, nutrition, and clean water. Medical students see charts that begin in 1950, after the decline was complete.
The child is being loaded with substances the body will spend years attempting to sequester and eliminate. When acute episodes arise as the body attempts to clear the burden, the pediatrician suppresses them. The suppression drives the material deeper. Chronic conditions emerge. What is called childhood asthma, eczema, allergy, autism is in significant part the wake of this process. This is the substrate driving Garner’s gradient: 2.64 percent is what a child’s baseline looks like when the loading does not happen. 60 percent is what happens when it does.
The Pipeline
The man at fifty-five is asymptomatic. He walks into his annual checkup because his wife asked him to. He has no complaints. The physician orders a standard panel.
The cholesterol comes back at 225. The blood pressure reads 134/82. The fasting glucose is 108. Each number crosses a threshold. Each threshold has been progressively lowered by guideline panels whose members hold financial relationships with the manufacturers of the drugs used to treat the redefined condition. In 1988, a cholesterol of 240 was considered elevated; by 2001, the threshold was 200.¹⁹ In 2003, the American Diabetes Association lowered the pre-diabetes fasting glucose threshold to 100.²⁰ In 2017, the blood pressure threshold was lowered to 130/80, converting roughly thirty million Americans into hypertensive patients overnight.²¹ British, European, Australian, and Canadian panels typically adopt the American thresholds within a year or two.
The healthy man leaves the office with three prescriptions: a statin, an ACE inhibitor, metformin. Each drug produces the next diagnosis. The statin causes muscle symptoms in 7 to 29 percent of users;²² the aches are attributed to aging, the man walks less, his bone density declines, and a bisphosphonate is prescribed — a class linked to atypical femur fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw. The ACE inhibitor produces a persistent cough in 10 to 15 percent of patients; it is switched to an ARB, which produces dizziness, which elevates fall risk. The metformin causes gastrointestinal symptoms in up to 25 percent of patients; these are addressed with another medication or attributed to irritable bowel syndrome, which becomes its own diagnostic pathway.
Every number the man’s body produced was information. Cholesterol delivers repair material to damaged blood vessels; blocking the delivery does not repair the vessels. Elevated blood pressure indicates the body is working harder to move blood through compromised tissue; blocking the pressure does not repair the tissue. Elevated glucose indicates the terrain is not processing carbohydrates effectively; blocking the glucose does not restore the processing. Each intervention addresses the signal, introduces new material the body must now cleanse, and produces effects that become the next diagnosis. The man is progressively poisoned by his own care.
The screening industry that generated the initial three thresholds operates continuously alongside the pharmacy. The distinction it buries is between disease-specific mortality and all-cause mortality: a screening program can reduce deaths from breast cancer while total deaths remain unchanged, because the treatment kills as many people as the disease prevented. Across the major screening programs, when all-cause mortality is calculated, the benefit largely disappears.²³
Behind the arithmetic sits a reservoir. Approximately 70 percent of men in their seventies have prostate cancer at autopsy, while only about 3 percent die from it. Up to 39 percent of middle-aged women show evidence of breast cancer at autopsy; lifetime risk of dying from it is under 4 percent. Polyps sit in half of older colons. Every screening test dips into this reservoir. Every person pulled from it becomes a patient who cannot benefit from treatment, because they were never at risk.²³
PSA testing has been called a public health disaster by Richard Ablin, the researcher who discovered the antigen.²⁴ For every man whose life is extended by PSA screening, estimates suggest 30 to 100 are overdiagnosed and treated with surgery or radiation. Impotence and incontinence are the price of the overtreatment. Mammography follows the same pattern: the Cochrane review found that for every 2,000 women screened over ten years, approximately one has her life extended and ten are treated unnecessarily for conditions that would never have progressed.²⁵ The colonoscopy case was decided in 2022 when the NEJM published the NordICC trial, the first randomized controlled study of colonoscopy screening ever conducted. It followed over 84,000 people for ten years and found no significant reduction in deaths from colorectal cancer.²⁶ The CT scan produces the cancers it looks for: a 2025 analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine projected that the 93 million CT scans performed in the United States in 2023 will cause approximately 103,000 future cancers, roughly 5 percent of all new cancer diagnoses each year.²⁷
The system is sustained, in significant part, by the people it overdiagnosed. Every woman treated for a non-progressing DCIS becomes, in her own telling, a survivor. Every man whose indolent prostate cancer was cut out becomes a testimonial at the next fundraiser. They believe the screening saved their lives, and they say so — to their families, their neighbors, and their parliaments. The screening programs’ most effective advocates are the people who never had the disease being screened for. They are not lying. The framework that taught them to be grateful cannot acknowledge the mistake without dismantling itself.²³
The pipeline captures the healthy adult and converts him into a chronic patient by treating the body’s signals as the malfunction.
The count is not small, and it is not confined to one country. Approximately 40 million Americans take statins; global prescriptions run to hundreds of millions. Approximately one million prostate biopsies are performed each year in the United States alone; between 0.5 and 2 percent produce sepsis.²⁸ Nearly 500,000 American women have been diagnosed and treated for DCIS since widespread mammography began, with proportionally similar figures from the UK, Australia, and continental Europe; the majority of those cancers would never have progressed. Peter Gøtzsche estimated prescription drugs to be the third leading cause of death in the industrialized world, at approximately 200,000 attributable American deaths per year. Barbara Starfield’s broader iatrogenic estimate ran to 225,000 American deaths when unnecessary surgery, medication errors, hospital-acquired infection, and adverse drug effects were combined. Neither figure includes the deaths from heart disease and cancer whose upstream causation is the profession’s own framework. At the Gøtzsche rate, American medicine alone kills more Americans every year than the country lost in Vietnam, and more every two years than in World War II. Since 1910, at any defensible average of the annual rate, American medicine has killed more Americans than the country has lost in every war it has ever fought, combined. Applied globally, the iatrogenic death total across the century since Flexner runs into figures that no single war or genocide of the modern era approaches.²⁹
Chronic Illness
Multiple sclerosis is labeled autoimmune, incurable, and progressive. The words function together. Autoimmune assigns cause to the body itself, a self-attack whose origin cannot be investigated because it is defined as intrinsic. Incurable forecloses investigation of resolution. Progressive tells the patient what to expect and enrolls them in a lifetime of pharmaceutical management.
Hal Huggins found that MS patients who had mercury amalgams removed from their teeth showed elimination of specific protein bands in their cerebrospinal fluid that had been present before removal.³⁰ The bands were the establishment’s own laboratory markers. Their disappearance corresponded to clinical improvement. The finding was not integrated into treatment protocols. Herbert Shelton described the mechanism a century ago.³¹ The body attempts to expel accumulated toxic burden through acute symptoms; pharmaceutical intervention suppresses the symptoms and adds new toxic material; the new material triggers new symptoms, which are suppressed in turn. What medicine calls progressive disease is the predictable consequence of continuous poisoning combined with continuous suppression.
The financial architecture rewards the labeling. Chronic Care Management billing codes provide recurring monthly reimbursement for conditions expected to last at least twelve months. MS drugs cost fifty-seven to ninety-three thousand dollars per year. A 2025 JAMA Network Open study found pharmaceutical companies paid $164 million to doctors treating MS patients between 2015 and 2019, and physicians who received these payments prescribed the paying companies’ drugs at higher rates.³²
The words the doctor uses are physiologically active. A 1983 British trial divided over 400 cancer patients into three groups; two received chemotherapy, the third received saline. Among the 130 patients who believed they were receiving chemotherapy but were actually getting salt water, 31 percent developed hair loss, 35 percent nausea, and 22 percent vomiting.³³ The side effects they expected produced themselves. A meta-analysis of 130 studies covering 8,219 participants found the nocebo effect clinically significant across somatic and affective outcomes.³⁴ In 1992, a man diagnosed with metastatic esophageal cancer died within weeks of his prognosis. His autopsy found a single two-centimeter nodule on his liver. There was no metastatic spread. His doctor stated the pathological cause of death could not be determined.³⁵ The expectation killed him.
When a doctor tells a twenty-five-year-old that his condition is incurable and progressive, the doctor is administering an intervention. It has no informed consent form, no adverse event reporting system. It is delivered with authority to a patient trained since childhood to trust that authority. It measurably worsens outcomes. Neither the doctor nor the patient recognizes it as an intervention at all.
The Specialties
The inversion runs across every branch of medicine. Two specialties demonstrate it with unusual clarity.
Psychiatry invented the diseases it treats. The chemical imbalance theory of depression, offered as biological fact to millions of patients, was never demonstrated in the research literature. Kenneth Kendler, coeditor of Psychological Medicine, wrote in a 2005 editorial that the search for neurochemical explanations of psychiatric disorders had failed to produce the biological markers the field had promised.³⁶ Robert Whitaker’s investigation of American disability data found psychiatric disability rose sixfold between 1955 and 2007 — a curve that inverts what any real treatment would produce. Martin Harrow’s fifteen-year NIMH follow-up of schizophrenia patients found 40 percent of those who stopped taking antipsychotics were in recovery at fifteen years, against 5 percent of those who remained on medication. The FDA’s 2004 meta-analysis of pediatric antidepressant trials found children on the drugs showed twice the rate of suicidal thinking and behavior compared with placebo.³⁶
Dentistry runs the same inversion on the mouth. No dental school in the United States has a preventive specialty; the American Dental Association has been asked to establish one and declined. Weston Price, who chaired the ADA’s research section from 1914 to 1928, documented in the 1930s that fourteen isolated populations on traditional diets showed decay in less than one percent of teeth examined, and that the same populations one generation after the introduction of refined flour and sugar showed decay in thirty to sixty percent. Ralph Steinman’s laboratory work at Loma Linda established that teeth are hydraulic systems governed by an endocrine signal from the hypothalamus, and that sugar reverses the fluid flow, pulling debris inward through microscopic tubules. The bacteria on the tooth surface are not the cause of the cavity; they are pulled in by the reversal of the flow that should have carried them out. Silver amalgam fillings are approximately fifty percent mercury by weight and release vapor for the life of the filling. Ninety-two percent of American adults have had caries. The specialty that could prevent it does not exist because the profession that repairs it cannot fund itself by graduating dentists who advise patients to eat liver and pastured butter.³⁷
Death
Dying used to happen at home. Within living memory, most people died surrounded by family, in their own beds. The process was understood as natural — not comfortable, not painless, not medicalized.
The condition that brings the person into the ICU is often the accumulated wake of substrate delivered by the same profession decades earlier. The terminal cancer at eighty-three is not the natural end of a long life. It is the destination of a trajectory that began with the injection at age two and was compounded across the decades by pharmaceuticals administered for signals the body was sending.
Roughly half of Americans now die in hospitals or nursing facilities.³⁸ The proportions in the UK, Australia, Canada, and continental Europe are comparable. End-of-life spending absorbs between 13 and 25 percent of Medicare program costs, with equivalent audits of the NHS and Australian and Canadian systems showing similar concentrations.³⁹ Chemotherapy administered within two weeks of death — treatment that cannot extend life meaningfully and almost certainly worsens its quality — happens to a measurable percentage of cancer patients across every industrialized nation with a functioning oncology system.
The system does not have a protocol for stopping. It has protocols for doing. Intubating, resuscitating, monitoring, medicating, scanning, testing. The treatment produces complications. The complications produce further treatment. The question “should we continue treating?” is structurally difficult to ask in an environment designed around the assumption that treatment is always the answer.
The dying body is completing a process. The training the ICU physician received teaches indefinite postponement of the ending, not comfort, not honest acknowledgment, not permission to stop. The final weeks of a life become the most medically intensive and most expensive weeks of the lifespan. What is billed for is not the extension of life. It is the extension of dying.
The Tell
If the inversion were ignorance, healers would be welcomed. They are punished instead. The system’s behavior toward its healers is what distinguishes ignorance from inversion.
In 2023, Myhill was suspended for nine months for recommending ascorbic acid, cholecalciferol, iodine, and ivermectin for the condition attributed to COVID-19. The Tribunal stated that her recommendations undermined public health. Erasure from the register was rejected on the grounds that it would “deprive the public of an otherwise good doctor with over 30 years’ experience.”⁴⁰
A doctor whose patients improve. A protocol that addresses cellular metabolism rather than suppressing symptoms. Recommendations that cost pennies compared to pharmaceutical management. Investigated more than thirty times, not for harming patients, but for undermining the paradigm that requires her patients’ conditions to remain incurable.
The pattern is not new. Semmelweis was destroyed in 1847 for observing that his colleagues were killing patients. Lown was met with Nazi salutes in the 1950s. Myhill’s case is contemporary. If the training were simply incomplete, healers would fill the gap. If the pharmaceutical approach were the best available given current knowledge, alternatives would be welcomed as data emerged. Neither is what happens. Terrain medicine schools were closed by Flexner, terrain practitioners are stripped of their licenses, and the doctors whose patients improve most reliably become the doctors most reliably prosecuted. The system knows the right answer well enough to recognize its practitioners and exclude them.
The Kitchen
Every ordinary childhood illness that now fills pediatric waiting rooms was managed at home by mothers and grandmothers for centuries before the pediatrician existed. What they used is still on the shelf. Honey for the cough — in a University of Pennsylvania trial, honey outperformed dextromethorphan for nighttime cough in children over one.⁴¹ Salt water gargles for the sore throat. A warm compress on the ear; four out of five acute middle ear inflammations resolve on their own within three days, per Cochrane review.⁴¹ Ginger and garlic. Broth. Sunlight, water, rest, warmth, sleep. The kitchen holds most of the toolkit. What the toolkit does not hold, the yard and the sun do.
The mechanism is single. The terrain is the patient. The interventions are supportive: they give the terrain what it needs to complete the clearing that the symptoms represent. Fever is metabolic heat that speeds the clearing; give water and rest. Cough is the airway expelling debris; give honey and warmth. Vomiting and diarrhea are the fastest routes the body has for emptying itself; give broth and time. Skin eruptions are the terrain pushing outward; keep the skin clean and let the clearing happen.
Recovery times have not changed. A cold takes about a week. The flu takes ten days. What the pharmaceutical era added to these timelines was not speed. It added the toxicity of the intervention on top of the illness that was already going to resolve.
The kitchen table works the other way as well.
The Kitchen Table Again
The parent’s hand goes to the cabinet. The bottle is red and white. The child’s fever is 102.4. Behind the parent’s hand stands the doctor. Behind the doctor stand the medical school, the Flexner Report, the Rockefeller money that funded it, and the pharmaceutical industry that has become one of the largest industries on the planet.
The parent does not need to understand any of this in the moment. The parent needs to know one thing. The fever is the operation. The intervention interrupts the operation. Leave the child alone. Offer water. Offer rest. Do not administer the drug that opposes what the body has decided to do.
Every choice a parent makes for a child eventually becomes a choice the child makes for themselves. The child learns whether the body is trustworthy or whether the body is the enemy. That lesson accumulates across a childhood and shapes every medical decision the child will make as an adult. Multiplied across the pediatric schedule, the annual physical, the first prescription, the first surgical referral, the first diagnosis of chronic illness — by the time the person arrives in the ICU at eighty-three, the pattern is complete. The final capture is the destination of a trajectory that began with the red and white bottle.
The parent chooses. The neighbor does not. The pediatrician down the street does not. Every industrialized country’s institutions are now hostile in essentially the same way, because the training that produced those institutions came from essentially the same source. The choice remains available. It has never been popular. It is the difference between the 2.64 percent and the 60 percent. It is the difference between the profession that heals and the profession that has become the first leading cause of death.
The One-Minute Elevator Explanation
The doctor is trained to do the opposite of what heals. When the body raises a fever to clear an illness, the doctor gives a drug to lower the fever. When cholesterol rises to repair damaged blood vessels, the doctor gives a statin to block it. When the body signals distress through blood pressure or blood sugar, the doctor blocks the signals without addressing what produced them.
This is not a gap in the doctor’s education. It is the doctor’s education. In 1910, the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations funded the Flexner Report, which closed the American medical schools teaching how the body heals and standardized every surviving school on the pharmaceutical model. The Rockefeller Foundation then exported the same template across Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Every industrialized country’s medical schools now train on essentially the same curriculum. Rockefeller himself kept homeopathic doctors for his own family.
The result runs across a lifetime. In childhood, the pediatric schedule injects dozens of doses of products that contain undeclared tungsten, lead, stainless steel, and rare earth alloys the body cannot break down. In adulthood, the annual checkup pulls asymptomatic people into pharmacy pipelines that produce the very conditions the next round of screening will identify. In chronic illness, the same profession that produced the damage names it autoimmune. In dying, the ICU postpones the ending until the bills exhaust the estate.
Joy Garner’s Control Group Survey found chronic disease in the fully unvaccinated at 2.64 percent. In the vaccinated it runs at 60 percent.
If this were ignorance, healers would be welcomed. They are not. Semmelweis was destroyed in 1847 for observing that his colleagues were killing patients. Sarah Myhill has been investigated more than thirty times, not because her patients complained but because they got better.
The doctor is not the third leading cause of death. The doctor is the first.
If you want to follow this, read Malcolm Kendrick on heart disease, Thomas Cowan on cancer and the water body of the cell, and Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk on the mortality data.
How to Explain This to a Six-Year-Old
Your body knows how to get better when you are sick. When you get a fever, your body is making itself warmer to fix what is wrong. When you cough, your body is pushing something out. When your skin gets red and itchy, your body is sending the bad stuff outside where it can leave.
Doctors go to school for a long time. But most of what they learn is how to make the fever go away, how to stop the cough, how to make the itchy skin stop being itchy. When the body is working to get better and the doctor stops the body from working, the sickness cannot finish. So it stays.
Doctors also give shots. The shots have tiny pieces of metal in them, too small for your eyes to see. Your body knows how to clean up food and dirt. It does not know how to clean up metal. So the metal stays inside, and where it stays, the body gets sick.
Most doctors are kind people who thought they were going to help. But their school did not teach them how the body heals. They are doing what they were taught. What they were taught is not what makes you better.
When something bad happens to your body, the best thing is usually to let the body do what it knows how to do. Rest. Water. Warm blankets. Good food when you are ready. Time.
There are some doctors who know this. But the other doctors get very angry at them and try to take away their license. That is how you know the other doctors know these good doctors are right. If they were wrong, no one would care.
References
General Medical Council. Records of investigations against Dr Sarah Myhill, 2001–2023, obtained by Freedom of Information Act request and compiled at drmyhill.co.uk. The Tom Kark QC statement is drawn from the 2010 Interim Orders Panel hearing transcript.
Garner, J. Health versus Disorder, Disease, and Death: Unvaccinated Persons Are Incommensurably Healthier than Vaccinated. Control Group Survey, 2020. See also thecontrolgroup.org for methodology and state-level breakdown.
Unbekoming. “The Primary Cause: An Essay on One Impost, Three Shadows.” Lies are Unbekoming, July 2026. The attributable-fraction calculation is developed in the section titled The Numbers.
Kendrick, M. The Clot Thickens: The Enduring Mystery of Heart Disease. Columbus Publishing, 2021. Kendrick, M. The Great Cholesterol Con. John Blake Publishing, 2008. Ravnskov, U. The Cholesterol Myths. NewTrends Publishing, 2000.
Unbekoming. “The Mechanics of Stable Falsehood: An Essay.” Lies are Unbekoming, December 2025. The convergent-opportunism framework is developed in Sections IV and X, drawing on Paul Collits. The Bernard Lown case is drawn from Malcolm Kendrick’s account, cited in that essay. The Sinclair maxim is from Sinclair, U. I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked. University of California Press, 1935.
Case, A., Deaton, A. Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press, 2020. See also National Center for Health Statistics, “Mortality in the United States, 2018,” NCHS Data Brief No. 355, 2020, and subsequent NCHS annual updates documenting the American life expectancy decline that began in 2014 and continued through the pre-COVID period.
Semmelweis, I. P. Die Ätiologie, der Begriff und die Prophylaxis des Kindbettfiebers [The Etiology, Concept, and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever]. C. A. Hartleben, 1861.
Flexner, A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie Foundation Bulletin No. 4, 1910.
Brown, E. R. Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America. University of California Press, 1979.
Brown, E. R. Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America. University of California Press, 1979, Chapters 5-7 for the international export of the Flexner model. See also Farley, J. To Cast Out Disease: A History of the International Health Division of the Rockefeller Foundation (1913-1951). Oxford University Press, 2004; and Bu, L. Making the World Like Us: Education, Cultural Expansion, and the American Century. Praeger, 2003, for the China Medical Board and the Peking Union Medical College. The Carnegie Foundation commissioned Flexner’s European survey, published as Flexner, A. Medical Education in Europe. Carnegie Foundation Bulletin No. 6, 1912.
Bealle, M. A. The Drug Story: A Factological History of America’s $10,000,000,000 Drug Cartel. Columbia Publishing, 1949. Rockefeller’s use of homeopathic physicians is discussed throughout, drawing on the diaries and correspondence of the Rockefeller family physicians.
Campbell, E. G., et al. “Institutional academic-industry relationships.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(15): 1779–1786, 2007.
Adams, K. M., Kohlmeier, M., Zeisel, S. H. “Nutrition education in U.S. medical schools: latest update of a national survey.” Academic Medicine, 85(9): 1537–1542, 2010.
Begley, C. M., Gyte, G. M. L., Devane, D., McGuire, W., Weeks, A. “Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2, 2019.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule, current year, compared with 1983 schedule. Historical comparison compiled by the National Vaccine Information Center. Dose counts vary by counting methodology; the figures here reflect the NVIC compilation counting all recommended pediatric doses including boosters and annual influenza injections through age eighteen.
Gatti, A. M., Montanari, S. “New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination.” International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination, 4(1): 00072, 2017.
Deposition of Stanley A. Plotkin, M.D., taken in Doe v. Doe, Court of Common Pleas, Michigan, January 11, 2018. Transcript widely available; excerpts published by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense.
Humphries, S., Bystrianyk, R. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History. CreateSpace, 2013. See also dissolvingillusions.com for the underlying mortality graphs drawn from U.S. Vital Statistics and UK historical mortality records.
National Cholesterol Education Program. Third Report of the Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (ATP III). National Institutes of Health, 2001. Compared with the 1988 ATP I guidelines.
Genuth, S., et al. “Follow-up report on the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus.” Diabetes Care, 26(11): 3160–3167, 2003.
Whelton, P. K., et al. “2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults.” Hypertension, 71(6): e13–e115, 2018.
Bruckert, E., Hayem, G., Dejager, S., Yau, C., Bégaud, B. “Mild to moderate muscular symptoms with high-dosage statin therapy in hyperlipidemic patients — the PRIMO Study.” Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy, 19: 403–414, 2005. Higher-end figure from patient-reported outcome studies including the STOMP trial and USAGE survey.
Unbekoming. “The 12 Screenings That Manufacture the Patients They Claim to Find: An Essay on Threshold Manipulation, Overdiagnosis, Cascades, and the Markers That Aren’t What They Claim.” Lies are Unbekoming, June 2026. The disease-specific vs all-cause mortality distinction, the autopsy reservoir data, and the survivor-as-advocate mechanism are developed across the essay’s four groups. Primary sources for the autopsy reservoir figures include Welch, H. G. Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here’s Why. University of California Press, 2004; and Welch, H. G., Schwartz, L., Woloshin, S. Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health. Beacon Press, 2011.
Ablin, R. J. “The Great Prostate Mistake.” The New York Times, Op-Ed, March 9, 2010. Extended in Ablin, R. J., Piana, R. The Great Prostate Hoax: How Big Medicine Hijacked the PSA Test and Caused a Public Health Disaster. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
Gøtzsche, P. C., Jørgensen, K. J. “Screening for breast cancer with mammography.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 6, 2013.
Bretthauer, M., Løberg, M., Wieszczy, P., et al. “Effect of colonoscopy screening on risks of colorectal cancer and related death.” New England Journal of Medicine, 387(17): 1547–1556, 2022.
Smith-Bindman, R., Chu, P. W., Azman Firdaus, H., et al. “Projected lifetime cancer risks from current computed tomography imaging.” JAMA Internal Medicine, published online April 2025.
Loeb, S., Vellekoop, A., Ahmed, H. U., et al. “Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy.” European Urology, 64(6): 876–892, 2013. See also Unbekoming, “The 12 Screenings That Manufacture the Patients They Claim to Find,” Lies are Unbekoming, June 2026, for the fuller catalog including statin utilization (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), DCIS overdiagnosis figures (Bleyer & Welch, NEJM 2012), and the harm arithmetic across the major screening programs.
Gøtzsche, P. C. Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare. Radcliffe Publishing, 2013, for the ~200,000 US annual iatrogenic death estimate. Starfield, B. “Is US health really the best in the world?” Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(4): 483–485, 2000, for the 225,000 estimate covering combined iatrogenic causes including unnecessary surgery, medication errors, hospital-acquired infection, and adverse drug effects. US war death totals compiled from US Department of Defense casualty statistics and Congressional Research Service reports: American Revolution (~4,435), War of 1812 (~2,260), Mexican-American War (~13,283), Civil War (~620,000), Spanish-American War (~2,446), World War I (~116,516), World War II (~405,399), Korean War (~36,574), Vietnam War (~58,220), Persian Gulf War (~383), Iraq War (~4,431), Afghanistan War (~2,459). Total US war deaths across the country’s history: approximately 1.35 million.
Huggins, H. A. It’s All in Your Head: The Link Between Mercury Amalgams and Illness. Avery Publishing, 1993. The CSF protein band findings are discussed in Chapter 4.
Shelton, H. M. Human Life: Its Philosophy and Laws. Health Research, various editions from 1928. The acute-to-chronic progression mechanism is developed across Shelton’s collected works, particularly The Hygienic System series.
Bove, R., et al. “Financial Payments from the Pharmaceutical Industry to Neurologists Treating Multiple Sclerosis and Prescribing Patterns.” JAMA Network Open, 2025. Chronic Care Management billing figures from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data compiled by AAFP practice analysis.
Fielding, J. W. L., Fagg, S. L., Jones, B., et al. “An interim report of a prospective, randomized, controlled study of adjuvant chemotherapy in operable gastric cancer: British Stomach Cancer Group.” World Journal of Surgery, 7(3): 390–399, 1983. See also Roytas, D. Can You Catch a Cold? Untold History and Human Experiments. Independently published, 2024, for the placebo/nocebo cancer-trial data compiled from this and related studies.
Petersen, G. L., Finnerup, N. B., Colloca, L., et al. “The magnitude of nocebo effects in pain: a meta-analysis.” Pain, 155(8): 1426–1434, 2014.
Meador, C. K. “Hex Death: Voodoo Magic or Persuasion?” Southern Medical Journal, 85(3): 244–247, 1992.
Unbekoming. “The Top 10 Myths of Modern Psychiatry: An Essay.” Lies are Unbekoming, December 2025. Primary sources include Whitaker, R. Anatomy of an Epidemic. Broadway Books, 2010; Breggin, P. R. Toxic Psychiatry. St. Martin’s Press, 1991; Harrow, M., Jobe, T. H. “Factors involved in outcome and recovery in schizophrenia patients not on antipsychotic medications.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195: 406–414, 2007; the FDA 2004 meta-analysis of pediatric antidepressant trials; and Kendler, K. S. “Toward a Philosophical Structure for Psychiatry.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 162: 433–440, 2005.
Unbekoming. “12 Things Your Dentist Was Trained Not to Tell You: An Essay on the Profession Trained for Repair, Not Prevention.” Lies are Unbekoming, June 2026. Primary sources include Price, W. A. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, 1939; Meinig, G. E. Root Canal Cover-Up. Bion Publishing, 1998; Nara, R. O., Mariner, S. A. Money by the Mouthful. Oramedics International Press, 1979; Steinman, R. R., Leonora, J. “Relationship of fluid transport through the dentin to the incidence of dental caries.” Journal of Dental Research, 50, 1971.
Cross, S. H., Warraich, H. J. “Changes in the Place of Death in the United States.” New England Journal of Medicine, 381: 2369–2370, 2019. Institutional deaths (hospital plus nursing facility) accounted for approximately half of American deaths in 2017 (29.8% hospital, 20.8% nursing facility).
Lubitz, J. D., Riley, G. F. “Trends in Medicare payments in the last year of life.” New England Journal of Medicine, 328(15): 1092–1096, 1993, for the higher end of the range. French, E. B., et al. “End-of-life medical spending in last twelve months of life is lower than previously reported.” Health Affairs, 36(7): 1211–1217, 2017, for the lower end. The range reflects genuine methodological disagreement about how end-of-life spending is measured and attributed.
Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. Determination on Dr Sarah Myhill, 2023. Full text available through the MPTS decision archive.
Paul, I. M., et al. “Effect of honey, dextromethorphan, and no treatment on nocturnal cough and sleep quality for coughing children and their parents.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(12): 1140–1146, 2007. Venekamp, R. P., et al. “Antibiotics for acute otitis media in children.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 6, 2015. Rovers, M. M., et al. “Antibiotics for acute otitis media: a meta-analysis with individual patient data.” Lancet, 368(9545): 1429–1435, 2006.
This essay draws on the framework developed across the Unbekoming library, including The Unvaccinated (2026), Medicalized Motherhood (2026), The Screening Trap (2026), Chronic Conditions (2026), Heart Disease Reconsidered (2025), and The Architecture of Deception (2025). Readers who find the argument here compelling will find the evidence developed in greater depth in those volumes.
The United States has presented its new nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia as a gift: reactors, technology, investment, prestige, and the radiant promise of a peaceful atomic future. Washington is forever giving gifts of this kind. Curiously, they tend to arrive fitted with surveillance equipment, political conditions, and a discreetly concealed choke chain.
This is not merely a civil nuclear agreement. It is a disciplinary instrument aimed at Mohammed bin Salman — a strategic summons issued to a crown prince who has recently behaved less like an obedient client and more like the ruler of an indispensable state.
Its message is simple: Saudi Arabia may diversify its economy, its diplomatic partners, and even its wardrobe of alliances, but it may not diversify the source of its ultimate protection. That franchise still belongs to Washington.
The agreement therefore concerns nuclear energy only in the same sense that a prison contract concerns architecture. Its deeper purpose is to reconstruct American authority over a kingdom that has begun imagining life beyond the imperial security nursery.
Riyadh has committed three increasingly intolerable offenses.
First, it has moved too close to Pakistan. The Saudi–Pakistani relationship is hardly new: money, soldiers, intelligence cooperation, religious patronage, and strategic ambiguity have bound the two states for decades.
What has changed is the context. As confidence in American protection has weakened, Pakistan has ceased to look merely like a useful military subcontractor and begun to resemble a possible component of an alternative security architecture.
That possibility is especially sensitive because Pakistan is nuclear-armed. No formal Saudi–Pakistani nuclear arrangement has been acknowledged, and neither capital needs one publicly declared. Strategic ambiguity is useful precisely because it performs deterrence without submitting an invoice to the International Atomic Energy Agency. A defense pact, carefully suggestive official language, and decades of intimate military cooperation can generate considerable anxiety without anyone having to unveil a warhead in Riyadh.
Washington’s nuclear offer is designed to interrupt that imagination. It tells the Saudis: there will be no Pakistani shortcut to strategic autonomy. If the kingdom wants reactors, fuel-cycle expertise, advanced technology, and the political symbolism of nuclear modernity, those ambitions must pass through American gates. The atomic future may be Saudi, but the key to the laboratory must remain in Washington.
Second, Mohammed bin Salman has shown insufficient enthusiasm for the campaign against Iran. Riyadh has no sentimental attachment to Tehran; states do not exchange friendship bracelets. But it has learned, after years of expensive confrontation, that permanent hostility to Iran is a ruinous American luxury financed by Gulf vulnerability. Saudi–Iranian accommodation is not ideological reconciliation. It is an insurance policy against being drafted into someone else’s war.
This is precisely what makes it objectionable to Washington and Israel. An autonomous Saudi Arabia might decline to become the logistics platform, financier, diplomatic choir, and eventual target of a regional war against Iran. It might decide that oil facilities, desalination plants, investment plans, and glittering megaprojects are poorly served by turning the Gulf into a missile exchange. Such ingratitude cannot be encouraged.
The nuclear deal places Washington back at the center of Saudi strategic planning. Technology creates dependency; dependency creates leverage; leverage restores obedience.
The reactor is not merely an energy source. It is a thirty-year listening device embedded in the kingdom’s national-security imagination.
Third, Riyadh has refused to normalize relations with Israel on Washington’s preferred terms. Saudi leaders continue to tie normalization to a credible pathway toward Palestinian statehood — an inconvenient demand in an imperial order that prefers Palestinians as humanitarian statistics rather than political subjects. Trump’s subsequent insistence that the nuclear arrangement depends on Saudi entry into the Abraham Accords merely stripped the agreement of its ceremonial clothing.
The bargain is now indecently clear: Washington will help construct Saudi Arabia’s nuclear future if Riyadh helps rehabilitate Israel’s regional standing. Nuclear cooperation becomes diplomatic blackmail. The kingdom is invited to purchase strategic reassurance with Palestine. This is less a treaty than a geopolitical obedience course: sit beside Israel, distrust Iran, step away from Pakistan, and receive your reactor.
China and Russia are the other uninvited guests at the signing ceremony. Saudi Arabia is not merely another energy producer; it is the central Arab power in OPEC, a financial heavyweight, and a pivotal actor in the emerging multipolar order. Its relations with Beijing and Moscow challenge Washington not because Riyadh has become anti-American, but because it has become insufficiently exclusive.
Empire does not require affection. It requires the absence of alternatives.
A Saudi nuclear program built with Chinese or Russian assistance would deepen technological, financial, and strategic relationships that Washington can no longer confidently control. American companies want the contracts, certainly, but the larger concern is architectural: whoever builds the reactors helps shape the dependencies surrounding them.
Nuclear cooperation produces decades of training, maintenance, fuel arrangements, regulatory influence, security coordination, and elite access. Washington is not selling machinery. It is purchasing strategic occupancy.
The irony is exquisite. The United States portrays the agreement as evidence of restored strength, yet its generosity reveals its weakness. A hegemon secure in its position does not need to offer extraordinary concessions to retain an old client. It does so when the client has discovered competing suppliers, alternative protectors, and the invigorating sensation of being courted.
Nor does the agreement simplify nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Washington has spent years treating Iranian enrichment as uniquely sinister while now constructing a far more permissive vocabulary for Saudi ambitions. The distinction will be explained through the usual theological machinery of empire: allies possess peaceful atoms; adversaries enrich malicious ones. Centrifuges, apparently, acquire moral character from the flag hanging above them.
The result is a nonproliferation doctrine so intellectually elastic that it can be folded into a campaign brochure.
Mohammed bin Salman may believe Saudi Arabia has accumulated enough leverage to escape the old hierarchy. Washington’s answer is this agreement: not quite a reward, not quite a threat, but an elegant combination of both. America will protect the kingdom — from Iran, from uncertainty, and above all from the dangerous temptation to protect itself through arrangements Washington cannot supervise.
The reactor, then, is the bait. Israel is the condition. Pakistan is the warning. China and Russia are the targets.
And the leash, freshly polished and marketed as partnership, remains unmistakably American.
R. James “Jim” Woolsey, a major Iraq and GWOT promoter and neoconservative Democrat, passed away Tuesday at 84.
Woolsey served briefly as CIA director but rose to much greater prominence as a consistent promoter on television and in the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed pages of both the Iraq War and the broader Global War on Terror, which he sometimes referred to as “World War IV.”
Indeed, immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Woolsey was ubiquitous in arguing that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein not only was linked to al-Qaeda but may very well have approved or helped plan the plot himself.
After being forced out of his CIA director role by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Woolsey moved increasingly to the right, as noted in a generally respectful obituary published by the New York Times Wednesday, joining with the Washington-based Likudist neoconservatives led by the “Dark Prince” himself, Richard Perle of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Woolsey, an engaging if rather glib speaker who never seemed to run out of words, became a key part of what George Mason University anthropologist Janine Wedel identified as the “Neocon Core” in the years running up to and following the Iraq War and the GWOT. That included the promotion of confrontation with Syria and Iran as well as other states deemed hostile to Israel, and, hence, in their view, to the United States, as well.
That 11-member core, according to Wedel, included men who would hold key posts under President George W. Bush, among them Bush’s future deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz; his undersecretary of defense, Douglas Feith; his director for Near East policy on the National Security Council, Elliott Abrams; and Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
All of these men served on a variety of overlapping boards of major Washington-based organizations and think tanks that aligned themselves with Israel’s right-wing Likud Party. Together, these groups acted as a remarkably effective media echo chamber after 9/11 and in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, particularly in spreading mis- or disinformation about Saddam’s alleged development of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction programs and ties to al-Qaeda.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don’t miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.
Woolsey was involved in nearly all of the veritable galaxy of neoconservative front groups created to advocate for policies like invading Iraq. He held positions on the advisory and other boards of CSP, WINEP, and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He also served as the chair of the Leadership Council of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), which, for most of the past 20 years, effectively replaced AEI as the most prominent pro-Israel Washington think tank promoting war with Iran. Woolsey was also a co-founder of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI), an advocacy group closely tied to Israeli intelligence that has promoted comprehensive economic sanctions against Tehran since its founding in 2008.
Although Woolsey was not a signatory of PNAC’s 1997 charter, which was signed by a number of top Bush Jr. policymakers, including Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he did sign on to nine of the group’s open letters, including an April 2002 statement that called for the administration “to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power” and asserted that “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight.”
Woolsey also served as a member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, a civilian advisory body during the Bush administration initially chaired and organized by Perle. Just days after 9/11, Perle convened the Board and invited Ahmed Chalabi, head of the previously CIA-backed opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC) and a long-time Perle collaborator, to participate in its deliberations about Iraq as a possible target for U.S. military action and regime change. As a result of that meeting, Wolfowitz dispatched Woolsey — who, like Perle, had already declared on network television news that Hussein was likely to have been behind the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon — to gather evidence about Saddam’s alleged (but non-existent) ties to al-Qaeda and a previous 1993 bombing in the parking garage of the World Trade Center.
His mission — about which neither the State Department nor the CIA (which had several years before severed ties with Chalabi due to their assessment that he was completely unreliable) were informed — ended without acquiring the desired intelligence. Still, Woolsey, backed by the administration and the neoconservative network and echo chamber of which he had become an important part, continued to claim that Saddam and al-Qaeda worked together.
Chalabi’s INC nonetheless became the key source of disinformation about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction that was seized upon and promoted to the mass media by the Pentagon, the White House, and the neoconservative echo chamber, including Woolsey himself.
Jim Lobe is a Contributing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He formerly served as chief of the Washington bureau of Inter Press Service from 1980 to 1985 and again from 1989 to 2015.
The U.K. government recommended a risky drug combination for COVID-19 patients in 2020, just 16 days after warning doctors to use the medications together only as a last resort, medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., said this week.
For years, Campbell has criticized the widespread use of midazolam and morphine and other palliative drugs to treat COVID-19 patients, questioning why so many patients appeared to receive drugs commonly associated with end-of-life care — even though they didn’t necessarily have a terminal illness.
But in his latest video, he said he had overlooked a key piece of the puzzle: The U.K. government itself had backed guidance recommending the combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines for certain COVID-19 patients — just days after warning that the drug combination could cause fatal respiratory depression.
Campbell, who said a former member of the British Parliament brought the issue to his attention, called the apparent reversal “a national scandal which is being ignored.” … Full article
Tales of the American Empire produces short historical videos about the American empire, like “The Sordid History of the CIA” series that are linked in the description. Most viewers are interested in the American CIA, so this is another episode about videos detailing the evils of the CIA. Some CIA officers work with murderous dictators and criminal organizations involved in the drug trade, arms dealing, and government contract fraud. These evil deeds are sometimes uncovered by the media but receive little attention.
There are great documentaries that provide insight into covert CIA operations. This is far too much material to condense into a short video. Here is a quick review of more great stories about the sordid CIA with a link to them in the description. If the link no longer works, the content has been removed. Two videos from the first part of this series have since disappeared from YouTube. They may be found on smaller hosting websites like Rumble, Bitchute, or Odyssey.
As context is very important for all videos, this message is to confirm that the purpose of this video is reporting on or documenting the content. Note that we make an effort to research for context and cite our sources as appropriate.
Rachel Hotez is a real adult, now in her early thirties. Every description of her in this essay comes from her father’s own words in his 2018 book. The argument is with the book, not with her.
The vaccine visit
Peter Hotez, in his 2018 book Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism, describes his daughter at her pediatric appointments. Rachel “would cry longer and with much fiercer intensity than our other children.”¹ The sentence appears once. Hotez does not return to it. Rachel is one of four Hotez children. Among them, she is the only one on the spectrum, and the only one whose reaction to the injections her father describes in these terms.
Peter Hotez is not a random pediatrician. He holds an MD and a PhD. He is Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Co-Director of the Texas Children’s Center for Vaccine Development, and founding editor-in-chief of the journal PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. He served as a U.S. Science Envoy under the Obama administration. In the years after 2020 he became one of the most visible defenders of vaccination policy on American cable news, and in 2022 was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for developing a low-cost COVID vaccine. His 2018 book was the opening statement in that public role. His daughter is the girl the title is defending.
The book runs to two hundred pages. Roughly two thirds of them are Rachel. Her first words, her flights across the neighborhood, her sneakers thrown from a moving car onto the Merritt Parkway at sixty miles per hour, her decades of intellectual disability that leaves her at twenty-five sorting donated clothes for fourteen dollars a day at Goodwill.¹ The other third argues that none of this can be attributed to the injections.
The book has an unusual quality. It is not, in the strict sense, a defense of the vaccine schedule. It is a father’s project to explain his daughter without implicating his own life’s work. Front to back, the book reads like the case Hotez was building against himself.
Rachel Hotez was born in the early 1990s. Peter Hotez was on the faculty at Yale, developing a vaccine for hookworm. Ann Hotez had two older children already. Rachel, the third of what would become four, is described in the book as an easy baby, “content to sit in her car seat, in the dining room or another quiet place and read.”¹ Her first year was, in her mother’s words, unremarkable. She sat unsupported later than her siblings, at nine months rather than six, but her parents attributed the delay to individual variation. “Children do not all learn and grow in the same ways, or at the same speed,” Ann later wrote.¹
By eighteen months, Rachel was not walking. She was not talking. Her pediatrician, Simone Simon, raised the concern. Ann Hotez writes that she and Peter had not seen it: “How could it be that Peter, a pediatrician himself, and I, an experienced mother, hadn’t noticed? I think we had seen differences, but we attributed them to what we knew, or thought we knew, about child development.”¹
The referral was to the Birth-to-Three intervention team at the Darcey School. Rachel was starting to talk by twenty months. By twenty-nine months she was functioning at the eighteen-month level in most areas. At Yale in the spring of 1995, she was diagnosed by Dr. Wendy S. Levine with pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified. She was three years old.
Between eighteen and twenty-four months, Rachel had lost the trajectory she was on. Her father’s book identifies this window precisely, as a matter of clinical description, and returns to it as the central subject of his Chapter 9.
The timeline that contradicts itself
Chapter 9 of Hotez’s book is titled “What Does Cause Autism? The Scientific Evidence.” It is the book’s central scientific move. Hotez cites a series of brain imaging studies, most prominently a 2017 paper from Joseph Piven’s group at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill.² Piven’s team scanned the brains of infants whose siblings already had autism, and who were therefore considered at higher risk, at multiple points during infancy. They found measurable changes in the brains of children later diagnosed as early as six to twelve months of age. Specifically, the outer layer of the brain, the cortex, expanded faster than normal between six and twelve months, and the brain as a whole grew larger than expected between twelve and twenty-four months. The larger brain size coincides with the age at which most parents first recognize the condition.
Hotez presents this as decisive. If measurable brain changes are present at six months of age, he argues, then the vaccines given at twelve and eighteen months cannot have caused those changes. He writes: “The changes in the brains of kids with ASD are set into motion well before (about a year) many parents recognize any signs of alterations in communication or social behavior.”¹
The argument depends on what a reader does not know, or does not pause to consider.
The current injection schedule for an American newborn begins within hours of birth, with the compound marketed as vitamin K. That injection is not formally part of the vaccine schedule but is administered nearly universally. The formal vaccine schedule begins on the same day, with hepatitis B. It resumes at two months, with DTaP, Hib, pneumococcal conjugate, inactivated polio, rotavirus, and a second hepatitis B dose. At four months, most of the same combination is repeated. At six months, most of it is repeated again, along with the first influenza dose. By six months of age, a child has received approximately twenty vaccine doses, several of which contain aluminum adjuvant. The cumulative aluminum burden by six months of age has been estimated at approximately 4.4 milligrams,³ a figure Hotez himself cites in Chapter 8 while comparing it favorably to dietary aluminum in infant formula.¹
The comparison is where the omission is starkest. When aluminum is eaten in food, less than one percent is absorbed into the body. When aluminum is injected as part of a vaccine, it is designed to stay. The compound is added to vaccines because it holds at the injection site and provokes the inflammatory response that makes the vaccine work. French research groups have documented that aluminum-loaded white blood cells remain at injection sites for years,⁴ and that these particles are then carried through the lymphatic system to distant tissues, including the brain.⁵ Aluminum has been recovered from brain tissue of autism decedents at concentrations substantially higher than in age-matched controls.⁶ Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic have documented dose-response relationships between pediatric aluminum burden and autism prevalence across multiple countries.⁷ None of this literature appears in Hotez’s book. Aluminum adjuvant is addressed in a single dismissive paragraph in Chapter 8, primarily by reference to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia comparison to formula.¹
The Piven timeline does not exonerate the vaccine schedule. It identifies the window in which vaccine-induced injury would produce measurable effects. Whatever is producing the cortical expansion Piven documented at six to twelve months of age is happening after the birth-through-six-month injection schedule, not before it. Hotez names the window. He does not name the exposures inside it.
Rachel’s regression was observed at eighteen months. She had received the standard childhood schedule available at the time. What Piven’s MRI cannot see, because his study was not conducted until decades later, is what Rachel’s brain looked like at six months, or at twelve months. What is preserved in the record is Ann Hotez’s testimony that she had bonded less to Rachel than to her older children, that Rachel was “quiet” and “content,” that Rachel’s motor milestones were behind but her attention span seemed strong. What is also preserved is Peter Hotez’s own observation that Rachel cried longer and more intensely at the needle than her siblings did.
What happens in the window
Piven’s timeline identifies when brain changes become measurable. It does not identify what causes them. Hotez’s book, having named the timeline, moves on. The question of what happens in the birth-through-six-month window remains open. Answering it requires setting the book aside.
Aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate are added to vaccines because they persist. The industry term for a compound added to a vaccine to intensify the body’s response is adjuvant. Aluminum functions as an adjuvant because it resists clearance. The body’s repair processes engage the compound and cannot dispatch it. The resulting sustained inflammation is what the industry calls efficacy.
The design depends on a biological assumption medicine does not defend openly. It assumes that the body will confine its response to the injection site. It will not.
Beginning in 1998, Romain Gherardi and colleagues at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research described a condition in adults who had received aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines. Muscle biopsies at the injection sites showed distinctive lesions: aggregates of white blood cells called macrophages, filled with aluminum hydroxide. The lesions were present years after the injection. Aluminum, in other words, did not clear. It remained at the site, engulfed by cells that could not digest it.⁴
Fifteen years later, Zakir Khan and Gherardi’s group published a follow-up study. Using fluorescent aluminum hydroxide particles injected into the muscle of mice, they demonstrated that the particles were carried away from the site by macrophages, drained through the lymphatic system, and arrived in distant tissues, including the brain, over weeks and months. The transport depended on a specific signaling molecule, CCL2, that summons macrophages to sites of inflammation. Blocking CCL2 stopped the process. Restoring CCL2 restored it.⁵
Aluminum is injected. It provokes the inflammation it was designed to provoke. White blood cells arrive to engulf it. They cannot digest it. They carry it, embedded within themselves, through the lymphatic system to wherever the body is calling for their services. In an infant whose blood-brain barrier is still developing, they carry it into the brain.
Christopher Exley’s group at Keele University has recovered aluminum from brain tissue samples of people who died with autism, at concentrations substantially higher than in age-matched controls without autism.⁶ Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic at the University of British Columbia have documented dose-response relationships across countries: as the pediatric aluminum injection burden has risen, so has autism prevalence.⁷ The correlations do not prove causation. They form the kind of convergent signal the studies Hotez cites in Chapter 8 would have been designed to test, if the field had been oriented toward asking the question.
In 1913, Charles Richet was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his description of anaphylaxis. What Richet actually demonstrated, in a series of experiments on dogs beginning in 1901, was that injecting a foreign protein into an animal produced a heightened response to any subsequent exposure to the same protein. The first injection sensitized. The second could kill. Richet named the process anaphylaxis, from the Greek for “without protection.”¹⁹ His finding, that the injection route sensitizes the body against future encounters with the same substance, is Nobel-documented history.
Every childhood vaccine contains foreign proteins injected in the presence of aluminum designed to hold. The Richet mechanism is not disputed. It is simply not applied to childhood vaccination in the mainstream literature, because to apply it would be to concede what the industry is designed to deny.
The reader does not need to accept every step of this reasoning to hold the essay’s central point. Aluminum accumulates. It travels. It has been recovered from the brains of people who died with autism. The mechanism that would produce sensitization from injected foreign proteins won a Nobel Prize. None of this appears in the book Hotez wrote to close the question.
Rachel’s regression window opened at eighteen months, months after the aluminum-containing doses at two, four, and six months would have completed the biopersistence and transport described above. What her brain looked like at six months of age is not preserved in the record. Neither is her cerebrospinal fluid aluminum concentration at any age. Neither is any measurement that would let a family ask, decades later, whether their daughter’s condition was set in motion by exposures her father’s book does not consider possible.
The years of intervention
By age five, Rachel had a formal IQ evaluation. Her verbal IQ was 84, near the low end of normal. Her performance IQ was 60. Later testing put her performance IQ in the 40s.¹ She was placed on Prozac, then Zoloft, then Luvox, then Risperdal. Each medication, in Hotez’s account, produced worse effects than the last. She was eventually taken off all psychiatric medication.
Rachel had two psychiatric admissions at Yale-New Haven’s Winchester 1 inpatient unit. An EEG revealed right-sided temporal lobe spike discharges. She was placed on tegretol for a period, with what Hotez describes as “possibly some improvement.”¹ The tegretol was eventually discontinued because Rachel would not comply with the blood draws needed for level monitoring. The Hotez family lived through years that Peter describes with candor: “dreary or frightening,” “wearing us down,” “she seldom gave much back emotionally, compared with the other children.”¹
The family relocated to Houston in 2011, where Peter had accepted a position at Baylor College of Medicine. Rachel finished her secondary education at Lamar High School with a certificate. She could not sustain the transition program at Houston Community College. Two brief residential placements failed. She lived, and continues to live, at home with her parents.
By 2016, Hotez had begun writing what he calls “science tikkun” pieces for PLOS. In early 2017 he published an op-ed in the New York Times titled “How the Anti-Vaxxers Are Winning.”⁸ The book followed in 2018.
The name that does not appear
Hotez names his opponents. Andrew Wakefield, characterized as an “elaborate fraud” quoting Brian Deer’s BMJ series. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., named in connection with campaigning around thimerosal and working with the parent group Safe Minds. The film Vaxxed, called “phony.” Hotez identifies a “toxic combination of hysteria and pseudoscience,” “phony propaganda,” “fake news, half-truths, and conspiracy theories.”¹
He does not name William Thompson.
William Thompson is a senior scientist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In August 2014, through his attorneys at Morgan Verkamp LLC, Thompson issued a public statement about a 2004 study he had co-authored in the journal Pediatrics.⁹ The study, DeStefano et al., examined children in the Atlanta area, comparing when they received the MMR vaccine to whether they later developed autism. It concluded there was no link.¹⁰ Thompson’s 2014 statement was direct:
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.⁹
Thompson provided documents to Congressman Bill Posey. On July 29, 2015, Posey read Thompson’s statement into the Congressional Record on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.¹¹ Thompson has never recanted the statement. He remains employed at the CDC. His full statement, released through his attorneys at Morgan Verkamp LLC, is archived among the Vermont Legislature’s official witness testimony documents from its 2015 hearings on vaccine policy.⁹
Vaxxed, the film Hotez dismisses in his book as “phony,” is a documentary built around Thompson’s disclosure. It contains recordings of Thompson’s conversations with the biologist Brian Hooker. Hotez’s characterization of the film appears in a book that never names its subject.
The DeStefano 2004 study Thompson repudiated is one of the studies Hotez cites in Chapter 8. It appears in the list of investigations that, in his summary, demonstrate no link between MMR and autism.¹ The reader is not told that a senior author of one of those investigations has publicly stated that statistically significant findings were omitted.
The pattern extends beyond Thompson. Hotez’s Chapter 10, titled “Struck by Lightning,” offers his central injury statistic: approximately one severe adverse event per one million vaccine doses. He derives the figure by dividing roughly 300 annual compensated claims from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by roughly 300 million annual doses.¹ The comparison to being struck by lightning is presented as authoritative.
The math depends on the pieces used. Hotez’s numerator is the number of NVICP claims that were compensated. NVICP dismisses more claims than it pays. Claims must be filed within three years of the injury appearing. Causation must be proven to a narrow list of conditions the program formally recognizes. Conditions that appear months or years later are not included. The denominator, 300 million doses, is total administered doses. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS, is meant to be the surveillance instrument that catches adverse events at the population level. In 2011, a study conducted by Harvard-Pilgrim Health Care under a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, principal investigator Ross Lazarus, was submitted to the federal government. Its finding on VAERS capture rate was that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”¹²
Hotez does not mention the Lazarus report. The underreporting problem does not appear in his book. His lightning comparison depends on the Lazarus figure being wrong by a factor of a hundred, and that dependence is not addressed. A correction of two orders of magnitude would move his rate from one per million to one per ten thousand. At the CDC’s own current estimate of 1 in 36 children diagnosed with autism,¹³ the question of what a serious adverse event actually is, and how it is counted, is the question the book was written to close.
Hotez closes it by not opening it.
The perpetual gene
In 2017, Peter and Ann Hotez arranged with the Baylor Department of Genetics to sequence their own DNA and Rachel’s. Whole exome sequencing produces the sequences of the protein-coding regions of the genome. The stated purpose was to identify any variants that might be linked to autism or intellectual disability.
Hotez describes the result with unusual restraint. Rachel had “some genetic variants, including one affecting a gene that could be linked to ASD or mental disabilities.”¹ He writes that the family plans to submit her results to the Baylor Johns Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genetics and to the NIH-supported Undiagnosed Diseases Network, “in order to determine if Rachel’s genetic variants might also be present in other individuals on the autism spectrum or with other mental health conditions.”¹
The sentence is worth reading twice. The whole exome sequencing did not identify a cause of Rachel’s condition. It identified variants of uncertain significance that Hotez hopes might one day be shown to be relevant.
This is the outcome the book has been building toward. Chapter 9 promises that autism is genetic. Hotez cites work from the Simons Foundation and Princeton estimating that as many as one thousand genes may eventually be identified as contributing to autism.¹⁴ At the time of the book’s publication, sixty-five had been identified. The remaining nine hundred and thirty-five are described as awaiting discovery.
The reader is asked to accept a paradigm that has produced sixty-five candidate genes across three decades of intensive investigation, and to expect that the next three decades will produce the remaining nine hundred and thirty-five. The larger project has similar dynamics. The Human Genome Project promised to identify the genetic basis of common disease, and produced approximately twenty thousand genes rather than the one hundred thousand originally predicted. Its subsequent genome-wide association studies for autism have identified small-effect variants that account for a modest fraction of the heritability those studies were designed to explain. The gene has been coming for thirty years.
Meanwhile the environmental candidates Hotez does name in Chapter 9 are curated. He cites Phillip Landrigan’s 2010 review identifying prenatal exposures associated with autism-like presentations: valproic acid, thalidomide, misoprostol, chlorpyrifos.¹⁵ He cites maternal rubella exposure during pregnancy as a cause of congenital rubella syndrome, which he says “can closely resemble autism.”¹ From this he draws a conclusion that returns the reader to the book’s title with a strange inversion: “The ‘R’ component of the MMR vaccine is actually the rubella vaccine that protects a mother from transmitting rubella virus to her baby, and in so doing functions as an effective vaccine against autism.”¹
The MMR vaccine, according to Hotez, prevents autism. This appears in a book titled Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism.
He raises maternal fever and points to Ian Lipkin’s Columbia group work on maternal viral exposures.¹⁶ He notes a 2017 Kaiser Permanente study that found a 1.2 odds ratio for autism among children whose mothers received influenza vaccine in the first trimester.¹⁷ He dismisses the finding as “not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons.” An odds ratio of 1.2 in a study of nearly two hundred thousand children is not a finding a scientist would dismiss if he were looking for the cause. It is a finding a scientist would dismiss if he had already located the cause elsewhere.
Aluminum adjuvant does not appear in Chapter 9. In a chapter titled “What Does Cause Autism,” the compound most commonly injected into infants under six months of age, one with documented biopersistence, translocation, and central nervous system deposition, is not discussed as a candidate.
Nor does the chapter engage the growing literature comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated cohorts. Anthony Mawson’s 2017 pilot study of homeschooled U.S. children reported that the vaccinated group had substantially higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, allergies, and chronic conditions than the unvaccinated group.¹⁸ Studies of this design remain the most direct empirical test of the question Hotez’s book is written to close. None appear in his citations. The one study design that could definitively answer the question, he dismisses in a single line elsewhere in the book: a randomized trial of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children would, he writes, be “unethical.”¹
The book’s opening dedication lists the funding sources for Hotez’s Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital. Among them: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Carlos Slim Foundation. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. UNICEF. The World Health Organization. The Kleberg Foundation. The Blavatnik Charitable Foundation. The Brockman Medical Research Foundation. The Japanese Global Health Innovative Technology Fund. The Southwest Electronic Energy Medical Research Institute. The National Institutes of Health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. The United States Public Health Service. Baylor College of Medicine. Texas Children’s Hospital.¹
Hotez addresses this preemptively in Chapter 8. He notes that he holds patents on his vaccines but has “not received a penny” and has “no real prospects for financial gain.”¹ The disclaimer is technically accurate. It is also beside the point. Institutional capture does not require kickbacks. It requires career. A scientist whose salary, laboratory, institutional affiliation, and public standing all depend on the paradigm the book defends is not neutral, whether or not he personally profits from any particular product.
Rachel at twenty-five
At the end of the book, Rachel is twenty-five. She lives with her parents in Montrose, Houston. Her routine is fixed. She wakes at four in the morning to Skype her friend Sabrina in Denver. Her morning walk takes her to Randall’s supermarket for a plain bagel, no butter. Later she walks to Subway for a six-inch tuna sandwich, no cheese, mustard on hearty Italian. Along the way she talks to shopkeepers, asks strangers about their dogs, and occasionally brings home men she meets on the street, whom her father has to ask to leave.
She has, at the time of the book’s writing, just been enrolled in a Goodwill training program. A chance airport encounter between her parents and the wife of the Goodwill Houston board chairman produced the introduction. Rachel sorts donated clothes for stains and rips. She works two hours a day. After taxes, Ann Hotez writes, “it is about $14 a day and $215 so far.”¹
This is what the book’s title is defending. A young woman with a performance IQ in the 40s who cannot count money, cannot sustain a classroom, cannot hold employment for more than two hours per day, and lives with her aging parents in a neighborhood where they worry, in the book’s own words, about her safety at night. Hotez writes with clear love for his daughter. He describes Rachel as loyal to her friends, curious about people, empathetic toward animals, quick to strike up conversation in the neighborhood. She is all of these things. She is also a young woman whose life was, at some point, altered.
Her father spent two hundred pages arguing that the alteration cannot be attributed to what he did for a living. The William Thompson statement of August 2014 is not addressed. The aluminum burden accumulated during the first six months of life is not examined as a candidate cause. The injury statistic in Chapter 10 depends on assuming that VAERS captures nearly all vaccine-related injuries, an assumption the Harvard-Pilgrim report says is wrong by a factor of a hundred. The alternative causation runs through a genetic paradigm that has produced sixty-five candidate genes in thirty years and promises another nine hundred and thirty-five to come. On one page inside a book denying vaccine-autism links, the MMR vaccine is inverted into an anti-autism intervention.
The book was written to close the question. What it does instead is document, in loving and exhaustive detail, the life of the girl whose story the question was always about. Rachel cried at the injections longer and more intensely than her siblings did. Between eighteen and twenty-four months, she lost skills. Her EEG showed spike discharges. Her intellectual disability is profound. She sorts clothes at Goodwill.
The door her father wrote his book to close is still open. He walked past it in every description of his own daughter.
References
Hotez PJ. Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism: My Journey as a Vaccine Scientist, Pediatrician, and Autism Dad. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2018.
Hazlett HC, Gu H, Munsell BC, Kim SH, Styner M, Wolff JJ, et al. Early brain development in infants at high risk for autism spectrum disorder. Nature. 2017;542(7641):348–351.
Offit PA, Jew RK. Addressing parents’ concerns: do vaccines contain harmful preservatives, adjuvants, additives, or residuals? Pediatrics. 2003;112(6 Pt 1):1394–1397.
Gherardi RK, Coquet M, Cherin P, Belec L, Moretto P, Dreyfus PA, et al. Macrophagic myofasciitis lesions assess long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminium hydroxide in muscle. Brain. 2001;124(Pt 9):1821–1831.
Khan Z, Combadière C, Authier FJ, Itier V, Lux F, Exley C, et al. Slow CCL2-dependent translocation of biopersistent particles from muscle to brain. BMC Med. 2013;11:99.
Mold M, Umar D, King A, Exley C. Aluminium in brain tissue in autism. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2018;46:76–82.
Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? J Inorg Biochem. 2011;105(11):1489–1499.
Hotez PJ. How the anti-vaxxers are winning. New York Times. February 8, 2017.
DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C. Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics. 2004;113(2):259–266.
Posey B. Remarks on the William Thompson statement. Congressional Record. July 29, 2015;161(120).
Lazarus R, Klompas M, Bernstein S, et al. Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). AHRQ Grant Final Report, Grant No. R18 HS 017045; 2011.
Maenner MJ, Warren Z, Williams AR, Amoakohene E, Bakian AV, Bilder DA, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 sites, United States, 2020. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2023;72(2):1–14.
Krishnan A, Zhang R, Yao V, Theesfeld CL, Wong AK, Tadych A, et al. Genome-wide prediction and functional characterization of the genetic basis of autism spectrum disorder. Nat Neurosci. 2016;19(11):1454–1462.
Landrigan PJ. What causes autism? Exploring the environmental contribution. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2010;22(2):219–225.
Mahic M, Mjaaland S, Bøvelstad HM, Gunnes N, Susser E, Bresnahan M, et al. Maternal immunoreactivity to herpes simplex virus 2 and risk of autism spectrum disorder in male offspring. mSphere. 2017;2(1):e00016-17.
Zerbo O, Qian Y, Yoshida C, Fireman BH, Klein NP, Croen LA. Association between influenza infection and vaccination during pregnancy and risk of autism spectrum disorder. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(1):e163609.
Mawson AR, Ray BD, Bhuiyan AR, Jacob B. Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children. J Transl Sci. 2017;3(3):1–12.
Richet C. Anaphylaxis. Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1913. Nobel Media AB. Available at: nobelprize.org.
Last weekend brought a brief respite to those of us jaded by the current political order. On July 11, 2026, two days after 71st birthday, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina reportedly died from a sudden and brief illness. For more than three decades, from the halls of the South Carolina statehouse to the upper echelons of the United States Senate, Graham was a defining figure of the Republican Party establishment.
More than just a politician, he was the Senate’s most durable neoconservative hawk—a man who embodied the “invade the world, invite the world” political order. His career was characterized by a relentless drive to project American military power abroad, an unyielding devotion to Zionist causes, and a long-standing willingness to champion mass migration, even as Republican voters began to gravitate toward populism.
Born in Central, South Carolina, Graham was the first in his family to attend college. His worldview was forged in the military, where he spent 33 years in the Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps and the reserve system. Serving as the Air Force’s chief prosecutor in Europe during the 1980s, Graham developed a rigid belief in the necessity of a hyper-interventionist American foreign policy. Though he never deployed to a combat zone during the Gulf War, his brief reserve stints in Iraq and Afghanistan later in life cemented his hawkish credentials.
Entering the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994, Graham quickly made a name for himself as one of 13 Republican House managers who prosecuted the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in January 1999. His conservative South Carolina constituents approved of the performance, and he earned recognition among his colleagues that would follow him to higher office. That early legalistic fervor translated into a broader, more belligerent approach to global affairs when he succeeded Strom Thurmond—who had held the seat since 1956—winning the 2002 Senate race against Democratic opponent Alex Sanders with President George W. Bush actively campaigning on his behalf.
Once in the Senate, Graham found his true calling on the global stage. Alongside John McCain and Joe Lieberman, he formed the “Three Amigos,” a nickname coined by General David Petraeus during one of the trio’s many visits to war zones. The group became a fixture of congressional delegations to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other conflict zones, pitching American intervention as a bipartisan cause at a time when much of the country was souring on it. Graham outlived both his comrades—McCain died of brain cancer in August 2018, Lieberman in 2024.
Graham was a steadfast supporter of the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2007 surge, consistently opposing any drawdown that might let the country slide back into chaos. He opposed bringing troops home from Afghanistan at every turn, blasting Biden’s 2021 withdrawal announcement as “dumber than dirt and devilishly dangerous” and warning that it amounted to canceling “an insurance policy against another 9/11.” His philosophy on the use of force was stark and uncompromising. When discussing the prospect of war with North Korea in 2017, he told NBC’s Today show that “if there’s going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there. If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here.” For Graham, the collateral damage of war was always worth it in the name of long-term stability and national security.
This belligerence extended across the globe. He was a leading advocate for the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, calling on NATO to “cut the head of the snake off” by bombing Gaddafi’s inner circle, compounds, and military headquarters in Tripoli. In Syria, he repeatedly pushed for a U.S. no-fly zone and military intervention to arm anti-Assad rebels, blasting the Obama administration’s handling of the chemical weapons “red line” as profoundly mismanaged. He was equally hawkish on Venezuela, writing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed republished on his Senate website that the U.S. must be willing to intervene in Venezuela the way Reagan did in Grenada, arguing that an ultimatum to Cuba to withdraw its security forces from the country would mean “the beginning of the end of the [Nicolás] Maduro dictatorship.”
His hostility toward Russia and China was equally palpable. In March 2022, Graham publicly called for Putin’s assassination on Fox News and Twitter, asking “Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?” and declaring “the only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.” He stood by the remarks the following day, saying “I hope he’ll be taken out, one way or the other.”
He introduced the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 alongside Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, proposing a 500% tariff on goods imported from any country that continues buying Russian oil, gas, or uranium—a measure that by June 2025 had attracted 84 Senate co-sponsors. He similarly vowed to “draft pre-invasion sanctions from hell” against China over Taiwan, calling a report that Xi Jinping had told Biden he would “unify” Taiwan “beyond unnerving.” He also championed the COVID-19 Accountability Act in 2020, which would have authorized sanctions on Beijing if it failed to cooperate with an international investigation into the pandemic’s origins.
Nowhere was Graham’s hawkishness more pronounced than in his stance on Iran and his devotion to Israel. He vehemently opposed the 2015 JCPOA, warning that the deal would give Iran “a pathway to the bomb, missiles to deliver it, money to pay for it” and describing a nuclear-armed Iran as “an existential threat to our allies in Israel.”
During the 2026 Israel-Iran conflict, he urged the Senate to re-vote the Iran War Powers resolution and defeat it, arguing that passing it would embolden Iran during ceasefire negotiations. Graham backed the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, pushed for American recognition of the Golan Heights, and consistently voted for every annual appropriation of military aid to Israel. Throughout the recent Gaza war, Graham’s rhetoric reached new extremes; he called for giving Israel “the bombs they need to end the war,” shockingly comparing the situation to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and threatened to sanction the International Criminal Court over potential arrest warrants for Israeli officials.
Graham’s unyielding pro-Israel stance was deeply intertwined with his political funding. He was completely in the pocket of Zionist, oligarchical, and defense interests. Advocacy trackers and campaign finance records show Graham received massive financial backing from pro-Israel PACs and donors. Campaign finance records tell much of the story behind that devotion. A Center for Public Integrity investigation found that the top donor to his 2014 super PAC was Larry Mizel—a Colorado developer, AIPAC board member, and Simon Wiesenthal Center chairman who gave $100,000. Sam Fox, a former chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition, gave $50,000. Boeing’s political action committee gave $25,000 to the same super PAC.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg also appeared among the donors. OpenSecrets documented that Sheldon Adelson co-hosted a 2015 fundraiser for Graham’s presidential exploratory committee, alongside Mizel and RJC executive director Matthew Brooks. Graham himself acknowledged the network publicly, telling the Wall Street Journal that he “may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding.”
While Graham was an avatar of invading the world, he was equally committed to inviting the world via mass migration. For years, he was one of the Republican Party’s foremost advocates for comprehensive immigration reform aka amnesty, earning him the moniker “Lindsey Grahamnesty.” He was a critical player in the 2006 and 2007 reform efforts, working closely with John McCain and Ted Kennedy to create pathways to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.
In 2013, Graham was one of eight senators—four Democrats and four Republicans—who drafted and co-sponsored the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, known as the “Gang of Eight” bill, which proposed a 13-year conditional path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. The bill passed the Senate 68-32 but stalled in the House. He also introduced the DREAM Act alongside Democratic Senator Dick Durbin in at least three consecutive sessions of Congress—2017, 2019, and 2021—legislation that would allow illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children to earn permanent residence and eventually citizenship.
There is no cause for mourning in the passing of Lindsey Graham. He served as a key instrument for a nefarious agenda that traded American blood and treasure for imperial adventurism while simultaneously eroding the nation’s demographic core through mass migration.
His entire political lifespan was a tireless campaign against the interests of his own constituents in favor of a Judeo-American order that has hollowed out our country from within. As we reckon with the geopolitical and domestic ruin he helped orchestrate, we must recognize his legacy for what it truly is: a betrayal of the American people. He belongs to the ages, but he deserves no peace; may Lindsey Graham exist in eternal torment for the devastation he brought upon this polity.
Decorous and admissible language fails me, in alluding to that which might have seemed incredible thirty years ago—the commanding of vaccination on a second child of a family, when vaccination has killed the first; and then sending the father to prison for refusal.
— Emeritus Professor F.W. Newman, 1874
Author’s Note
This essay draws heavily on Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History by Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk. Their decade of archival work—recovering the primary documents, mortality tables, medical journal articles, and photographs that mainstream history has quietly buried—made this essay possible. The vaccine farms, the horse stables, the named children, the foot-and-mouth outbreaks, the Beddow Bayly address, the Lancet admissions about equine origin: all of it comes from records that were sitting in libraries and archives waiting for someone willing to look.
Where I have drawn from their book, the sources they cite are primary documents—USDA bulletins, Lancet articles, court records, contemporary medical journals. I have verified and expanded where useful, but the archaeological work is theirs.
Readers who want the full documentary foundation for what follows should read Dissolving Illusions. It is the essential reference on this subject. What I offer here is a narrower cut: the material itself—what has been in the vials, from Jenner’s day to the current schedule.
I have also drawn on Michael Willrich’s Pox: An American History for the Camden and vaccine-farm details, on the peer-reviewed work of H.V. Wyatt for the 1916 Rockefeller passages, on the CDC’s own excipient documentation for the current inventory, and on the work of Dr. Sherri Tenpenny for details on the specific-pathogen-free egg supply chain.
The interpretation is my own. The evidence belongs to the record.
The calf was led from the stable to the operating room and strapped to the table. Its belly was shaved. The skin was washed, then scarified with a surgeon’s knife—superficial linear incisions cut into the shaved abdomen and thighs. Vaccine material was smeared into the bleeding cuts with an ivory or metal instrument. The animal was released to a pen. About a week later, when the wounds had ulcerated and infectious material flowing from them, the calf was brought back. The contents of the ulcers were scraped out, mixed with glycerin, drawn into vials, and shipped.
This was smallpox vaccine. The procedure was documented in the medical and agricultural literature of the period, photographed and described without controversy. The USDA published detailed accounts of the vaccine farms in its Bureau of Animal Industry reports. The medical journals published the technique. Physicians described the work in their own textbooks. Nobody was exposing anything. This was standard industrial practice. The vaccine industry did this on a national scale, in facilities called “vaccine farms,” from 1870 until well into the twentieth century. The material went into the arms of American schoolchildren.
The calf, once bled of its material harvest, was frequently returned to the herd. Some vaccine farms rented their calves from local dairies. When the collection was complete, the animals went back into the food supply.
This is what The Science looked like. Not as an abuse of the paradigm—as the paradigm itself, functioning as designed. For a hundred and fifty years, the vaccine industry’s core problem was biological: how to obtain the raw material. The solutions—cow, horse, sheep, goat, monkey, chicken, mouse, dog, pig, and eventually the aborted human fetus—define the history of what medicine considered “immunization.” Every generation of vaccines has been an animal product, in one direction or another. What follows is the record.
Part One: Before the Farms (1796–1870)
Edward Jenner named his product after the Latin word for cow, vacca. He believed cowpox in cows originated from a disease in horses called “the grease”—an eruption on the horse’s heels caused by an inflammatory condition of the skin. In 1829 the Lancet published a note revealing that the lymph Jenner had been circulating for three or four years around Berkeley was drawn not from cows but from horses. He had, according to the Lancet, “decisively ascertained before he died” that the disease he was using was equine, not vaccine [cow] pox.
By 1834, the medical literature reflected complete confusion about what the substance actually was. A contemporary article listed three competing theories: Jenner’s grease-of-the-horse origin, the theory that the material was smallpox modified by passage through cows, and the theory that cowpox was a disease as native to cows as scarlatina was to man—unrelated to smallpox at all. A French practitioner cited in the same article maintained that in France there was no evidence cowpox had ever appeared in cows at all.
The confusion was not academic. It described what was being scratched into people’s arms.
For a hundred years after Jenner, the standard procedure was arm-to-arm vaccination. Material containing pox was rubbed from the arm of one inoculated child into cuts made on the arm of the next. In this way, the substance was passed forward through generations of children, sometimes serially through dozens or hundreds of hosts before anyone thought to trace its origin. Whatever else was in the material of the last child—syphilis, tuberculosis, hepatitis, the mercury and heavy metals of nineteenth-century treatment—travelled with it.
The procedure required a “good take”: a substantial pustule forming at the site of the wound. To ensure this, doctors made incisions at multiple sites on the same arm at one sitting—up to four wounds per child. The photograph titled “Multiple site vaccination of 1898, showing a typically good arm” shows the result: an arm ruined across four separate infection sites.
Arm-to-arm vaccination was outlawed in England in 1898. Multi-site vaccination continued in various parts of the world until 1975.
A second method existed for towns where arm-to-arm passage was impractical. Human pox scabs were dropped into a jar. Water was added. The jar was shaken. The resulting material was used as vaccine for the entire town.
In 1952, Dr M. Beddow Bayly summarised what a century and a half of “smallpox vaccine” had actually consisted of. His words, delivered in a public address, describe the state of the vaccine supply as it stood in the middle of the twentieth century:
When we recall that vaccine material is derived, in the first place, either from a smallpox corpse, the ulcerated udder of a cow, or the running sores of a sick horse’s heels, the choice depending upon the country of its origin and the firm which manufactures it, it is hardly to be wondered at that it has far-reaching ill effects on the human constitution.
He continued, quoting the Lancet‘s earlier admission: “no practitioner knows whether the material he employs is derived from smallpox, rabbit-pox, ass-pox, or mule-pox.” Bayly noted that England’s own Ministry of Health had “long confessed to complete ignorance of the ultimate source of its own supply.” A British Medical Journal contributor of the period stated that the strain used for routine material preparation in England was “believed to have been derived from a case of smallpox in Cologne during the last century.”
The corpse. The udder. The horse’s heel. The unknown source. This was the substance for a hundred years.
Part Two: The Industrial Calf (1870–1930)
In 1870, calf-based production began in the United States. The original starting material was imported from France and inoculated into a herd of cows at a farm near Boston. Within a few years, “vaccine farms” had sprung up across the country. The proprietors were mostly medical doctors who identified an opportunity to profit from rising demand. The farms produced smallpox vaccine at first. They soon diversified into diphtheria material and other biologics.
The procedure was the one described in this essay’s opening. Calves were rented or purchased, strapped to operating tables, scarified, inoculated, released to incubate, and brought back for the material harvest. Some farms returned the animals to their owners. Others slaughtered them. The New England Vaccine Company, one of the larger commercial operations, ran a farm at Wakefield, Massachusetts, rented calves from a farmer named Owen Clark, and returned them to circulation once the material had been collected.
The commercial products of this era carried the names of firms that later became household pharmaceutical corporations. H.K. Mulford and Company. Parke Davis. Wyeth. Lederle. The vaccine industry was born on these farms.
Two consequences followed. Neither was hidden. Both were documented at the time in the medical and agricultural literature.
Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Production on living calves that were subsequently returned to the food supply produced periodic outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle populations. The disease is highly contagious among cattle and causes economic devastation. Outbreaks occurred in 1870, 1880, 1884, 1902, and 1908.
The 1902 outbreak lasted six months and affected 244 herds. Of these, 205 were slaughtered—3,872 cattle, along with 360 hogs and 220 sheep and goats. The USDA published detailed instructions for the burial of the carcasses: trenches deep enough for five feet of cover dirt, hides slashed to prevent exhumation for the leather trade, quicklime poured over the meat.
The origin of the 1902 outbreak was traced to the New England Vaccine Company and to Dr E.E. Tyzzer’s experimental work at the Wakefield farm—the farm where calves were rented from Owen Clark for the production of vaccine material. The 1908 outbreak was traced to a Japanese vaccine strain imported by another manufacturer (”Manufacturer B” in the USDA report) to improve their standard product. The strain carried foot-and-mouth disease. Because Manufacturer B killed its calves after harvest, the material remained internal for a period. Manufacturer A, on the other hand, rented calves and returned them to circulation—which is how the disease entered the general cattle population.
People who worked with cattle developed severe blistering conditions. The 1902 medical literature contains detailed case reports of butchers who received cuts on their hands while working with animals and subsequently developed bullous eruptions across their bodies. Dr John Bowen documented the connection at Massachusetts General Hospital in 1904.
Human recipients of the smallpox vaccine developed the same conditions. Multiple case series were published between 1902 and 1911 documenting acute pemphigus in children who had recently been vaccinated. The New Orleans outbreak of the same period produced cases in children who had never been near a butcher. The vaccine itself was the vector.
The Camden School District, October 1901
In early October 1901, an eight-year-old girl in Camden, New Jersey died of smallpox. Her father followed her, then seven of her siblings. In the panic, the Camden school board announced it would enforce an 1887 vaccination law. The board took bids. The Mulford pharmaceutical company won the contract.
By the end of October, the arms of approximately 5,000 Camden schoolchildren had been scraped with a metal prong and rubbed with Mulford’s calf-derived material.
On the first of November, William Brower, sixteen years old, died. He had been vaccinated nineteen days earlier. Over the following weeks, eight more children died. Every one of them, with a single exception, had received the Mulford vaccine at school. Children vaccinated at the free downtown clinic or by their own physicians were unaffected.
A parallel outbreak occurred at Pennsylvania Hospital, where 4,500 patients and staff had been vaccinated with the same product. Mulford’s official explanation, delivered by the company’s advertising and sales manager—a 29-year-old chemist named Albert C. Barnes, later famous as the founder of the Barnes Foundation art collection—appeared in the New York Times. The dead children, Barnes wrote, came from a “lower class of people” whose “carelessness” had “poisoned the wounds.” The Camden Board of Health had commissioned the investigation from a Mulford employee. It did not occur to anyone that this constituted a conflict of interest.
Bacterial spores that cause death by lockjaw are common in soil and manure. Production on calves in stables and pens exposed the material harvest to constant potential contamination. The calves were strapped to tables in rooms that had, in many cases, been used for stabling. No sterile technique protected the wound-culture from the animal’s environment.
The dead children were not the exception. They were the visible edge of a system that produced its raw material in barns.
Lübeck, 1930
The end of the animal-vaccine-farm era was marked, in Germany, by an incident that made the same principle explicit in a different biological medium.
Between December 1929 and April 1930, 251 newborns in the town of Lübeck received three oral doses of Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG), a tuberculosis preparation derived from the bovine tuberculosis organism, within the first ten days of life. The programme had been approved by the town’s health council and its medical association. Posters advertised it. Newspapers endorsed it.
Seventy-seven of the vaccinated infants died. One hundred seventy-three developed what was identified as active tuberculosis.
The cause was traced to the laboratory where the BCG material was prepared. In the same unlocked incubator space, what was identified as virulent human tuberculosis organisms (the Kiel strain) were also being cultivated. There was no separate designated area for vaccine preparation. There was no animal testing to confirm the safety of the batches before administration. The vaccine and the other organism shared a room. Dr Georg Deycke, head of the general hospital, was later convicted of negligent homicide and sentenced to two years. Ernst Altstaedt received fifteen months.
The BCG preparation itself is a live bovine organism. The organism was originally isolated from the udder of a tuberculotic cow in France by Albert Calmette and Camille Guérin, then serially processed by passing it through 230 subcultures over thirteen years. The Lübeck disaster ended the oral route of administration worldwide. The preparation itself, still derived from the same 1908 bovine isolate, remains in use today.
Part Three: The Horse Stables (1895–1940s)
What medicine calls diphtheria antitoxin, introduced in 1895, was manufactured from horse blood.
The procedure was straightforward. A horse was injected with escalating doses of material extracted from what medicine calls diphtheria toxin over a period of weeks. The body responded to the injected substance by producing what is identified as antibodies. The horse was then bled—large quantities of blood drawn from the jugular vein—and the serum extracted. The serum was drawn into vials and injected into humans.
The first commercial producers included Parke Davis, Mulford, and the New York City Board of Health. By the early 1900s, horses were being used to produce a range of preparations: the diphtheria material, what was called tetanus antiserum, meningococcus material, and staphylococcus preparations in multiple varieties. A 1911 New Zealand pharmacopoeia list includes—among many other products—an item called simply “Normal Horse Serum,” administered as a therapeutic agent.
The horse serum was foreign protein. The human response to repeated injection of foreign animal protein was documented by Charles Richet in 1901, work that won him the 1913 Nobel Prize. Richet showed that injection of foreign proteins created sensitisation—the body responds with increasing intensity to subsequent exposures. Serum sickness—fever, joint pain, rashes, kidney inflammation, and in severe cases death—was a documented consequence from the early years and remains listed on package inserts as a caution today.
The mortality curve tells its own story. In Leicester, England, the death rate from what medicine calls diphtheria had been declining steadily for the fifty-seven years from 1838 to 1895. In 1895, horse-serum preparation was introduced. The death rate then rose to approximately ten to fifteen times its previous level and stayed elevated for the next five years.
In New York City, the death rate among children under ten fell from 785 per 100,000 in 1894 to under 300 by 1900—a decline that was already well underway when the serum came into use. By 1920, when the toxoid preparation was introduced, the rate had already fallen below 100. The mainstream story credits the horse serum and then the preparation with these declines. The curves credit sanitation, nutrition, and improved living conditions.
Jim
On the second of October 1901, a horse named Jim was euthanised at the St. Louis city stable. Jim was a former milk wagon horse, retired to the poorhouse two years earlier and put to work producing what was called diphtheria antitoxin for the St. Louis Board of Health. Over the course of his career, Jim produced more than thirty US quarts—about twenty-nine litres—of serum.
Two days before his euthanasia, on the thirtieth of September, Jim had been routinely bled. The blood was drawn into flasks and processed into serum. By the time Jim showed signs of illness and was killed, the serum had already been bottled and distributed.
Jim had what was identified as tetanus. The serum drawn from him on the thirtieth of September was contaminated with spores from this condition in incubation phase.
Dr Amand Ravold, the physician responsible for the operation, was aware of the danger. He ordered the September thirtieth batch destroyed. It was not destroyed. Bottles labelled “August 24”—a date when Jim’s serum had been clean—were filled with the contaminated September thirtieth material. The bottles were distributed to the physicians of St. Louis.
The first child began convulsing on the twenty-sixth of October 1901. Her name was Veronica Keenan. She was one of two Keenan children who had received the serum as a preventive measure. Neither had shown symptoms related to what the material supposedly protected against. Within a week, all three Baker children were dead. The symptoms included arched back and convulsions.
Thirteen St. Louis children died. The last, on the seventh of November.
The court of inquiry named Ravold and the janitor Henry Taylor as responsible. Both were dismissed. Ravold went on to a distinguished career. He served as president of the St. Louis Medical Society. His 1942 obituary made no mention of the deaths.
The St. Louis deaths and the Camden deaths, occurring in the same weeks of the same autumn, produced sufficient public pressure that Congress passed the Biologics Control Act of 1902. Historians describe this as the origin of American vaccine regulation. What it regulated was the horse stables and the calf farms.
Use of what was called diphtheria antitoxin dropped sharply nationwide in the aftermath. In Chicago, physicians and parents refused it. The death rate from what medicine calls diphtheria in Chicago that year rose by a third.
Part Four: The Monkey House (1955–present)
By the mid-1950s, the vaccine industry had largely abandoned the calf farms and the horse stables. The new production medium was cell culture. The new species was the rhesus macaque and, later, the African green monkey.
The Rockefeller Passages
Between 1910 and 1916, at the Rockefeller Institute in Manhattan, Simon Flexer and his associates were serially passing material through the spinal cords of rhesus monkeys. The material was extracted from a monkey, injected into the spinal cord of another monkey, and then extracted again after paralysis developed. This passage process was repeated many times, selecting for material that would replicate highly in the neural tissue of monkeys. Occasionally, the passages were reinforced with fresh material from human cases.
By 1916, the resulting material had become highly destructive to nervous tissue and capable of high replication in multiple cell types.
In May 1916, an outbreak began in Brooklyn. It reached 23,000 cases and 5,000 deaths. It moved through New England and the Middle Atlantic states, reaching Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The death rate was twenty-five percent—sixteen times higher than typical presentations. The proportion of two-year-olds affected was the highest ever recorded. The outbreak began in early May, well before the normal summer season. None of these features were ever recorded again in any similar outbreak.
The first known case lived a few blocks from a rail line that connected via the Brooklyn Bridge and 63rd Street directly to the Rockefeller Institute, three miles away, where Flexner’s laboratory was conducting the passages. The material being cultivated there had been selected, through serial passage, for unprecedented ability to damage the nervous system of the hosts receiving it. Dr H.V. Wyatt published this analysis in 2011.
No investigation was undertaken at the time. No inquiry into the laboratory’s work. No examination of what material had been cultivated or where it might have gone. The outbreak was attributed to Italian immigrants. Immigration records show the outbreak began before the accused children arrived. The official explanation required no investigation because it required no explanation.
Salk, Sabin, and the Monkey Kidney
The preparations introduced in the 1950s were produced by growing material on the kidney cells of monkeys. The kidneys were removed from live rhesus macaques—hundreds of thousands of them, over the years—minced, and used as culture medium.
In 1960, Bernice Eddy, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, discovered that the monkey kidney cells routinely used were contaminated with a virus. She called it Simian Virus 40 (SV40). When injected into hamsters, SV40 produced tumors. When mixed with human cells in culture, it transformed them—the standard laboratory signature of a cancer-causing virus.
The material had been in mass administration in the United States since 1955. Approximately 98 million Americans had received it. Every dose administered before 1963 contained SV40. Doses after 1963 were required to be screened, but the screening was, in Stanley Kops’ documented analysis, incomplete—the seed strains themselves were never fully verified. SV40 has been detected in material produced through the 1990s.
SV40 has since been found in human tumors: mesothelioma of the lung, several types of brain tumor, and cancers of the bone, breast, colon, and kidney. Dr Michele Carbone, one of the principal researchers in the field, called SV40 “the perfect war machine”—it affects at least four major cellular mechanisms that either promote tumor growth or interfere with the cell’s cancer defences. It is not found in the healthy tissue surrounding these tumors.
When Carbone and Dr Harvey Pass prepared to publish their findings, a senior NIH figure told Carbone that if he or Pass spoke to the press “against his wishes,” they would be “punished.” Pass said afterwards: “I didn’t think you got punished for science.”
Formaldehyde was the killing agent for the preparation. SV40 was shown in 1961 to survive formaldehyde treatment beyond the standard twelve-day treatment period. The manufacturer’s cited standard remained twelve days.
Monkeys are still used in production today.
The Cutter Incident
In April 1955, several batches of Cutter Laboratories’ preparation—produced on monkey kidney cells—contained what was identified as live, unattenuated material that had survived the formaldehyde process. Within days, children who had received the Cutter preparation began developing paralysis. The final tally: 40,000 children affected, 200 permanently paralyzed, ten dead.
Cutter’s product was the only one recalled. In 1990, Freedom of Information Act documents revealed that Wyeth had also produced batches with similar properties during the same period. Wyeth’s product remained on the market. Congressman Percy Priest, chair of the investigation, later stated: “We felt that no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited.”
Swedish researchers, testing their own supplies in the aftermath of Cutter, discovered that thirty percent of batches previously certified as safe contained what was identified as live material when re-tested. Dr Sven Gard, the Swedish expert, later stated that the American material in 1955 caused as much paralysis as it prevented.
The pattern would repeat. Regulation followed disaster, then legitimised the practice it was meant to constrain. Expansion followed.
Part Five: The Current Inventory
The vaccine schedule administered to American children in 2026 is the direct descendant of the calf farms, the horse stables, and the monkey house. What has changed is the range of species. What has not changed is the principle: biological material derived from animals is grown, harvested, processed, and injected into the human body.
The list below is drawn from the CDC’s Vaccine Excipient Summary and from the FDA-approved package inserts of the current vaccines. It is not a critic’s characterisation. It is the manufacturers’ declaration of what is in their products.
From cattle. Fetal bovine serum. Bovine serum albumin. Bovine calf serum. Calf serum protein. Bovine extract. Bovine muscle tissue. Bovine protein. Lactalbumin hydrolysate. Lactose. Present in DTaP, Td, Tdap, IPV, rotavirus (RotaTeq), hepatitis A (Vaqta), Japanese encephalitis (Ixiaro), MMR, MMRV, varicella, zoster, HepA-HepB, Pentacel, Kinrix, and Pediarix.
Fetal bovine serum extraction represents industrial blood harvest. When pregnant cows arrive at slaughter, workers discover the pregnancy during processing. While the mother cow is dying but not yet dead—before the umbilical cord is cut—they ram a large-bore needle directly into the beating heart of the unborn calf, draining all the blood. The fetus is killed through exsanguination while still connected to the dying mother. This blood is then centrifuged to separate the serum, creating the product injected into children. The different names on package inserts—fetal bovine serum, calf serum, newborn calf serum—indicate the age of the fetus when killed, with older fetuses yielding more blood and different grades of serum.
From chickens. Egg protein. Ovalbumin. Chicken protein. Chick embryo cells. Chick embryo fibroblasts. Chick kidney cells. Present in every standard influenza vaccine (Fluzone, Fluvirin, Fluarix, Flulaval, Afluria, Agriflu, FluMist), yellow fever, rabies (RabAvert), MMR, and MMRV.
The influenza vaccine supply chain requires 500,000 eggs weekly to produce 76 to 80 million doses annually. These eggs come from specialized hatcheries maintaining “specific pathogen-free” (SPF) status—tested for approximately thirty designated organisms. Critically, coronaviruses are excluded from the testing panel despite being endemic in chickens, existing there symbiotically like yeast on human skin. This means every dose produced from SPF eggs contains chicken coronaviruses that are then injected into humans. This undisclosed viral presence exposed generations to pre-existing reactions, which later manifested in severe reactions when COVID vaccines were administered—explaining the widespread anaphylaxis requiring emergency equipment at vaccination sites.
From pigs. Hydrolysed porcine gelatin. Standard porcine gelatin. Present in Zostavax, MMR-II, yellow fever, several influenza vaccines, Japanese encephalitis (JE-Vax), and varicella. Trypsin—an enzyme extracted from pig pancreas—is used as a processing agent in the manufacture of the rotavirus vaccines. In 2009, a porcine virus type 2 (a virus associated with wasting disease in pigs) was discovered in both licensed brands of infant rotavirus vaccine. It had entered the manufacturing stream through the pig-based enzyme.
From monkeys. Monkey kidney tissue is still used in material production. Vero cells—an immortalised cell line derived in 1962 from the kidney of an African green monkey—are used in production of the polio, rotavirus, and rabies vaccines currently distributed.
From dogs. Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cell protein and MDCK cell DNA. Present in Flucelvax influenza vaccine. The cell line was established from the kidney of a cocker spaniel in 1958.
From mice. Mouse serum protein. Present in the Japanese encephalitis vaccine JE-Vax.
From insects. Baculovirus. Insect cell lines derived from Spodoptera frugiperda (the fall armyworm moth). Present in Flublok recombinant influenza vaccine.
From humans. MRC-5 cells and WI-38 cells. Both are cell lines derived from the lung tissue of aborted human fetuses. MRC-5 was established in 1966 from the lung of a fourteen-week-old male fetus. WI-38 was established in 1962. Present in hepatitis A (Havrix), Twinrix, MMR-II, MMRV, varicella, zoster, rabies (Imovax), the adenovirus vaccine, and Pentacel. The residual DNA of the aborted fetus—cellular DNA fragments from the original 1962 or 1966 tissue, carried forward through decades of cell passage—remains in the final vaccine as an unavoidable component of the manufacturing process. Human serum albumin (drawn from pooled human plasma) is present in the ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine and the rabies vaccine.
The current inventory is an incomplete list. Each package insert specifies the ingredients for a single vaccine. The consolidated list is the responsibility of researchers who compile it from many sources.
The list is what medicine considers, in 2026, to be the state of the art.
What Was Actually Happening
The historical record is not ambiguous. For a hundred and fifty years, the vaccine industry took biological material from the wounds, glands, blood, kidneys, and cell lines of animals—first cattle, then horses, then monkeys, and eventually chickens, dogs, mice, pigs, insects, and the tissues of aborted human fetuses—processed it minimally, drew it into vials, and scratched, scarified, or injected it into the bodies of healthy children.
The material was, by definition, foreign to the recipient. Whatever else was in it—the spores from the stable floor, the SV40 from the monkey’s kidney, the foot-and-mouth material from the calf that had been rented back to a dairy, the porcine virus from the pig-based enzyme processing—travelled with the intended payload. The vaccine industry’s own package inserts describe these contaminants as “residual.” The word describes what remains. It does not describe how much of it is there, or what it does when injected.
The suppression of independent inquiry continues into the present. In 2016 and 2017, Italian researchers Gatti and Montanari—scientists whose rigorous methodology had made them trusted industrial product testers for European governments—analysed vaccine contents using electron microscopy and mass spectrometry. They found multiple vaccines contaminated with undeclared metallic particles including stainless steel, tungsten, lead, zirconium, and other industrial materials never listed on ingredient disclosures. When they published these findings, their laboratory was raided by authorities in 2018, equipment confiscated, government contracts terminated, and they were run out of the country. The message remained constant across generations: measure the vaccines and lose everything.
The mainstream story is that this practice worked. The mortality curves say otherwise. What medicine calls diphtheria declined ninety-seven percent between 1900 and the mid-1940s before the preparation was introduced. What medicine calls whooping cough declined more than ninety percent before the preparation of the mid-1940s. What medicine calls measles declined more than ninety-eight percent before the preparation of 1963. Scarlet fever, for which no preparation was ever widely deployed, declined by a comparable amount over the same period. The declines correlate with sanitation, nutrition, refrigeration, and the exit from overcrowded slum housing.
The population whose grandparents received the Mulford calf material, whose parents received the horse-serum preparation, and whose children receive the fetal-bovine-serum-cultured products of the current schedule is the same population. It is the reader’s family, in serial generations, submitting the same veins to the same industry.
The record contains named children. Bessie Baker was six. Veronica Keenan was four. William Brower was sixteen. The Lübeck infants had names their mothers had chosen a few weeks before administering the poster-advertised preparation. The children paralyzed by the Cutter material are alive today in some cases, in wheelchairs.
The vaccine industry did not begin in the mid-twentieth century. It began on the operating table where the calf was strapped. The industrial infrastructure—the farms, the horses’ stables, the monkey colonies, the fetal cell repositories—was constructed generation by generation to solve one problem: how to produce, at scale, biological material that could be pushed through a needle into a healthy person. The material has always been what the animal or the fetus produced.
The name given to this practice was “vaccination.” What was actually happening was the industrial-scale injection of foreign biological substance into the bodies of populations that had, in most cases, no way to refuse. The material was drawn from a calf’s wound, or from a horse’s neck, or from a monkey’s kidney, or from the lung of a human being who was aborted in 1966 and whose cells are still being passaged in laboratories in 2026.
This is what The Science looked like. This is what The Science is.
The photograph from the vaccine farm era shows a calf strapped to a wooden table, its belly shaved and cut. The image exists in the archival record. It was published without controversy. It described the standard practice.
The photograph is what was injected.
How to Explain This to a Six-Year-Old
Your child asks: “What does the needle do?”
You say: “A long time ago, doctors wanted to help people not get sick. But they didn’t really understand how sickness works. So they had an idea: What if we take the sick stuff from a cow or a horse, and put it in a healthy person? Then maybe that person’s body will learn how to fight the sickness.”
Your child asks: “Did it work?”
You say: “That’s the interesting question. Sometimes people got sicker instead of better. And sometimes they died. The doctors noticed this, but they didn’t stop. They kept doing it anyway.”
Your child asks: “Why?”
You say: “Because once they started, it was hard to stop. More and more people used it. Factories were built to collect this stuff from animals. People got jobs doing this work. Money was being made. When people asked questions about whether it was actually helping, they got in trouble or lost their jobs.”
Your child asks: “What happened?”
You say: “People’s bodies got used to the animal stuff. And sometimes other bad stuff was mixed in with it—poison from the stables, diseases from other animals. People got sick from the animal stuff itself, not from the sickness they were supposed to be protected from.”
Your child asks: “Do they still do this?”
You say: “Yes. They just use different animals now—chickens, monkeys, and even cells from people. They call it science. They call it protecting you. But if you look at what actually happened to people’s health, it went up because houses got better, food got cleaner, people had less crowded places to live. The animal stuff wasn’t the reason people got healthier. But the people making and selling it got rich, so they kept saying it was.”
Your child asks: “So should I get the needle?”
You say: “That’s a question for your family to decide together. What I’m telling you is what actually happened, and what’s actually in the needle. The needle contains animal stuff. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it hurts. But the doctors and the companies making it won’t be honest about that part. They’ll say it’s completely safe. They have money riding on you believing that. So you need to know what’s actually true.”
Your child asks: “How do I know what’s true?”
You say: “Ask the question: Where did this come from? What’s actually in it? What happened to people who got it? What happened to people who didn’t? Then read the answers yourself. Don’t let someone else tell you what’s true just because they’re a doctor or they’re in charge. Look at the actual evidence. That’s how you know.”
The Shape of the Ritual
A healthy child is brought to a room. A trained man in a robe or coat receives the child. He holds a small vial. Inside the vial is a substance drawn from the body of an animal — a cow, a horse, a chicken, a monkey, a pig, or a human being who was killed before birth. The substance was obtained by inflicting injury on the animal: the calf strapped and cut, the horse bled from the neck, the monkey’s kidneys removed and minced, the fetus exsanguinated through a needle to the heart while still connected to its dying mother. The substance is drawn from the animal’s suffering.
The man in the coat holds the child. He pierces the child’s skin with a metal instrument. He pushes the substance from the animal into the child’s flesh. The child cries. The parents are told this is protection. They pay for it, or the state pays for it. They are told that refusal would be an act against the child.
The shape is old. It is older than germ theory, older than the Latin word vaccina, older than Edward Jenner and the horse’s heel and the calf farm at Wakefield. In its previous incarnations it was called by other names. In each case the mechanics are the same: a substance from a suffering animal, mediated by a priest-class, delivered into the flesh of the healthy in exchange for a promise. In the older forms, the promise was protection from famine, plague, or unseen enemies. In the current form, the promise is protection from disease. The substance and the ceremony have not changed. The vocabulary has changed.
The hermetic-alchemical tradition — the current of Western esoteric thought that reached Renaissance Europe through Pico della Mirandola and Johannes Reuchlin, was carried forward at the court of Elizabeth I by John Dee, was systematised in the Rosicrucian manifestos of 1614 and 1615, and became the intellectual substrate of Freemasonry and its later derivatives — held that the human being is base matter to be worked upon. The goal of the operation, called the Great Work, was the transformation of that base matter into something higher through serial technical operations conducted by adepts. The material was to be purified, mixed, tested, and refined until it moved. This was not metaphor. The alchemists attempted the operation on matter and on themselves.
Among the specific images transmitted through this tradition was the creation of an artificial being — an animate creature made from dead matter by human hands rather than by God. Medieval sources, drawn into the Western hermetic mainstream by the sixteenth-century Christian Kabbalists, describe the operation as following the pattern of a calf. The calf was the template. Frances Yates, the twentieth century’s principal historian of the hermetic tradition, documented in The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age how this material entered Christian Europe through Pico, Reuchlin, and above all John Dee, whom Elizabeth I employed as her royal astrologer and code-named 007. The 1615 Rosicrucian Confessio Fraternitatis announced the program that would shape the next four centuries: “that which in before times hath been unseen shall be spoken forth and uttered.” The program had two parts. The first was the transformation of the human being into something the operator had produced. The second was the eventual open confession of the operation to a public that had been ritually prepared to accept it.
The tradition that carried this program into the Anglo-American world was Rosicrucian, Freemasonic, and — in its American form — the network of secret societies of which Skull and Bones (founded 1832 at Yale) is the best-documented example. The industrial builders of the American vaccine industry were embedded in this world. Frederick Taylor Gates, who directed Rockefeller philanthropic funding into the Rockefeller Institute where Flexner conducted the 1910–1916 monkey passages, was a Baptist minister who described medical research in explicitly missionary terms. The Mulford, Parke Davis, Wyeth, and Lederle firms were Anglo-Protestant industrial operations. What linked them was not shared religion but shared intellectual atmosphere: the hermetic-alchemical conviction that the human being is material to be improved through technical operation, and that the technicians conducting the operation stand outside the moral rules that apply to the operated-upon.
Michael Hoffman, in Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, argues that modern medical practice — the injection of animal cells into the brain, the transplantation of pig organs into humans, the fetal-cell-cultured pharmaceuticals — is the industrial-scale completion of this ancient project. He calls the resulting creature the hunimal: the human-animal hybrid produced by the operation. The individual doctor does not know this. The individual mother in Camden did not know it. Nor did the chemist Albert C. Barnes at Mulford. Knowledge of the design was not a requirement for the design to be executed. The design proceeded by generations of technical improvement on a substrate — the calf, the horse, the monkey, the aborted human being — that was always the same substrate.
Whether one accepts Hoffman’s specific framework — that the operation is hermetic-alchemical in origin, that its trajectory is intentional across centuries, that the industrial infrastructure of modern medicine is the material completion of a magical program — the correspondence exists on its own. The mechanics of the practice map, point for point, onto the mechanics of an operation that older traditions considered forbidden. The forbidden operation was the mixture of the human being with animal substance for the purpose of transforming what the human being was. The older tradition understood this as a fundamental violation of the created order — the crossing of a line that God had placed between kinds.
The Book of Leviticus contains numerous injunctions against the mixture of substances: two kinds of seed in one field, two kinds of thread in one garment, animal blood consumed with meat. These injunctions were categorical. They were not explained. They were held to reflect a structural feature of creation — that the kinds were distinct, that the blood belonged to the animal, that the human being was not to be mixed with what was not human. The injection of foreign animal substance into the human bloodstream is, by the terms of this older understanding, the exact operation the older tradition forbade.
The vaccine industry did not invent this. It industrialised it. What was performed in one temple with one calf on one day of the year became a schedule administered to every child in every country over a lifetime of appointments. The scale is new. The operation is not.
The photograph exists. The children’s names exist. The package inserts exist. What remains is the recognition of what the practice is at its root. It is not medicine that has gone wrong. It is an operation that was never medicine. It was, from the strapped calf onward, a ceremony that took its substance from the wounds of animals and placed that substance into the flesh of the healthy in the name of protection, while producing — generation by generation — the transformation of the recipient into something the operator had made.
The word for this operation, in every tradition that has a word for it, is the same word. The tradition that gave the modern West its ethical vocabulary — the biblical tradition — called the operation an abomination, and the being produced by it, an unclean thing. The hermetic-alchemical tradition, working in the opposite direction, called the operation the Great Work and the being produced by it, the artificial man. The two traditions agree on what is happening. They disagree on whether it is good.
The vaccine is the substance of the Great Work, industrialised. The vaccinated body is the vessel of the operation. The generations that have received the material — from Bessie Baker to the child in the pediatrician’s office this afternoon — are the material upon which the operation was performed.
Truth Be Told: I’ve Accepted an Invitation to Speak on The Unvaccinated
On September 17th, I’ll be giving a one-hour presentation titled The Unvaccinated as part of a six-hour livestream called Truth Be Told. This is the first time I have accepted an invitation to an event, and I have been honoured with the opening act. The livestream begins at 12pm EST.
Vaccination is the subject closest to my heart, and this is another opportunity to spread the word. The format will preserve the pen name.
Jamie Andrews (Decentralized Science Projects) and Agent131711 (Dinosaurs) will also be presenting. Jamie’s Virology Control Studies work led to an interview here last year. Agent’s research shaped my essays on vitamin D and dinosaurs. Tickets are here. The code UNBEKOMING is $5 off and applies automatically at that link. Replay available afterwards. Hope you can make it.
Primary Historical Sources
Bayly, M. Beddow. “Inoculation Dangers to Travellers.” Speech at Caxton Hall Westminster, October 2, 1952. Published by the London and Provincial Anti-Vivisection Society.
Bowen, John T. “Acute Infectious Pemphigus in a Butcher, During an Epizotic of Foot and Mouth Disease, with a Consideration of the Possible Relationship of the Two Affections.” Journal of Cutaneous Diseases Including Syphilis, vol. XXII, no. 6, June 1904, pp. 254–264.
Mohler, John R., and Milton J. Rosenau. “The Origin of the Recent Outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the United States.” US Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Circular 147, 1909.
Salmon, D.E. “Foot-and-Mouth Disease; Warning to all Owners of Cattle, Sheep, and Swine.” US Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Circular No. 38, December 1902.
United States Department of Agriculture. “Method of Slaughtering and Burying Cattle.” Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1915, pp. 20–21.
St. Louis 1901 Diphtheria Antitoxin Incident
“1901 Diphtheria Antitoxin Contamination Incident.” Wikipedia, May 4, 2026, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_diphtheria_antitoxin_contamination_incident.
Wellcome Collection. “Jim, the Horse of Death.” wellcomecollection.org/stories/jim–the-horse-of-death.
Camden 1901 Smallpox Vaccine Incident
Dixon, Mark E. “Why Nine Camden Children Died from Smallpox Vaccines in 1901.” Mainline Today, September 2016.
“Why Nine Camden Children Died from Smallpox Vaccines in 1901.” Slate, February 9, 2021, slate.com/technology/2021/02/smallpox-vaccine-innoculation-history-19th-century-virus-squads.html.
Lübeck 1930 BCG Disaster
Donald, Peter R., et al. “Pathogenesis of Tuberculosis: The 1930 Lübeck Disaster Revisited.” European Respiratory Review, vol. 31, no. 164, June 28, 2022, article 220046.
Nakayama, Don K. “A Novel Microbe, Immunization Deaths, and Vaccination on Trial: BCG and the Lübeck Disaster of 1930.” SAGE Open Nursing, vol. 11, 2025, article 23779608251313994.
“Lübeck Disaster.” Wikipedia, September 27, 2025, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lübeck_disaster.
1916 Polio Outbreak
Wyatt, H.V. “The 1916 Poliomyelitis Epidemic and the Rockefeller Institute.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, vol. 33, no. 1, 2011, pp. 95–110.
Polio Vaccination and SV-40
Cutrone, Rochelle, et al. “Some Oral Poliovirus Vaccines Were Contaminated with Infectious SV40 After 1961.” Cancer Research, vol. 65, no. 22, November 15, 2005, pp. 10273–10279.
Carbone, Michele, et al. “Simian Virus 40 Transformation, Malignant Mesothelioma and Brain Tumors.” Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, vol. 5, October 2011, pp. 683–697.
Kops, Stanley. “Re: Debate on the Link Between SV40 and Human Cancer Continues.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 94, no. 3, February 6, 2002, pp. 229–230.
Cutter Incident 1955
“Historical Vaccine-Associated Incidents.” History of Vaccines, historyofvaccines.org/blog/historical-vaccine-associated-incidents.
Richet and Anaphylaxis
Richet, Charles. Anaphylaxis. University Press, 1913. (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1913.)
Current Vaccine Excipients
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Vaccine Excipient Summary — Appendix B.” CDC Pink Book, cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/appendix-b-vaccines.html.
Food and Drug Administration. Package Inserts for Currently Licensed US Vaccines. FDA, fda.gov.
Gatti and Montanari Research
Gatti, Antonietta M., and Stefania Montanari. “New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination.” International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination, vol. 4, no. 1, 2017, pp. 00072.
Historical Analysis and Background
Humphries, Suzanne, and Roman Bystrianyk. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform, 2013.
Willrich, Michael. Pox: An American History. Penguin Press, 2011.
The Hermetic-Alchemical Tradition and Modern Medicine
Hoffman, Michael. Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare. Independent History and Research, 2018.
Yates, Frances A. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. University of Chicago Press, 1964.
Yates, Frances A. The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972.
Yates, Frances A. The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979.
Scholem, Gershom. On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism. Translated by Ralph Manheim, Schocken Books, 1965.
Idel, Moshe. Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid. State University of New York Press, 1990.
Brown, E. Richard. Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America. University of California Press, 1979.
Robbins, Alexandra. Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power. Little, Brown and Company, 2002.
A former police detective involved in the investigations of roughly 250 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) cases claimed that roughly 50% occurred within 48 hours of a vaccination.
In a video interview today with The Defender, the detective, who gave only her first name, “Jennifer,” said she and her husband were detectives in the police department of a major U.S. city with a population of over 300,000 for a combined seven years, from roughly 2003 to 2010.
Jennifer said she is keeping her last name and city name undisclosed to protect her family. She said:
“The pharmaceutical industry does not want to be threatened by those sorts of secrets coming out. So, I’m a mother of many children, and their safety is my number one priority, my family’s safety. I’m a mama bear before I’m anything else.”
Jennifer said she hadn’t initially questioned the safety of vaccines. But that changed when she noticed a recurrent pattern among the police reports for SIDS cases in her unit.
“I’m like, what is the main thing that is true with all of these, the recurring theme with all of these babies? And that’s that they were recently vaccinated,” she said.
She estimated that around half of the SIDS cases involved babies who had received a vaccination in the 48 hours before their death and a “pretty decent number” of additional cases had received a vaccination in the week before their death.
The pattern was strongest among 6-month-olds, she said.
What particularly concerned Jennifer was that although the police reports noted these babies’ recent vaccinations, that information went unmentioned on the county coroner’s autopsy reports and death certificates.
“It didn’t make sense to me,” she said.
She discovered it wasn’t just her county coroner. Coroners across the U.S. are trained not to record vaccination information on autopsy reports, she said.
Some states are working to change that.
In May, Oklahoma and Louisiana passed legislation that amends existing public health law by directing coroners to document any vaccines administered within 90 days of death on autopsy reports for children under age 15 who died unexpectedly and without explanation.
Pediatrician: ‘The threat of death in SIDS is real’
Jennifer’s realization that many SIDS deaths happened soon after vaccination prompted her to start researching vaccines.
Around that time, she and her husband were looking for a pediatrician for their children. Jennifer told the pediatrician about the SIDS pattern she saw and that she and her husband did not want to vaccinate their kids.
The pediatrician acknowledged that there are risks with vaccination and said he would respect their choice, Jennifer said.
He shared that he once vaccinated a baby for hepatitis B, and it died the next day. “He’s like, I 100% believe that it was that vaccine,” she said.
The pediatrician told Jennifer he had many parents of unvaccinated kids whose medical files are super thin. The medical files of the vaccinated kids he served are really thick, he said.
Jennifer, who also shared about her conversation with the pediatrician in a 2023 interview with Steve Kirsch, told The Defender :
“He goes, there is a downside to vaccines. First of all, the threat of death in SIDS is real, and he’s like, it messes with the immune system, so it opens the door to asthma, allergies.”
The pediatrician told Jennifer that he was not supposed to tell parents any of this.
“He’s like, in fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) actually trains us on how to deflect when parents think that their child’s having a vaccine reaction or that they’re hesitant. We’re supposed to deflect and tell them those are unrealistic fears and that it’s just coincidence that this happened after the vaccine,” Jennifer said.
But his conscience wouldn’t let him do that, he told her.
Journal removes peer-reviewed analysis showing potential SIDS-vaccines link
The public debate about a possible link between vaccines and SIDS has recently heated up.
Last week, Idaho mother Andrea Shaw — whose twin babies died eight days after receiving their 18-month vaccines — was arrested for allegedly murdering her twins. Shaw said doctors ignored her when she warned that the twins’ father had previously experienced a bad reaction to a flu vaccine.
Last month, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) wrote to the journal Toxicology Reports, demanding to know why a 2021 peer-reviewed paper that presented data suggesting a possible link between vaccination and SIDS was recently removed from the Toxicology Reports website.
In a June 29 letter, Johnson called on the editor-in-chief of Toxicology Reports and the CEO of Elsevier, which owns the journal, to release all records related to the decision to remove vaccine researcher Neil Z. Miller’s analysis: “Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature.”
The analysis lined up with what Jennifer witnessed in police reports following SIDS deaths.
Miller found that from 1990 to 2019, many more SIDS reports were filed in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the first few days after vaccination compared to later on after vaccination.
The paper also included a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on vaccines and SIDS, including documentation of large increases in SIDS rates following the rollout of national immunization campaigns and case reports of SIDS in babies who were recently vaccinated.
Although Toxicology Reports published Miller’s analysis in June 2021 after it passed the peer-review process, the journal on April 9 posted a removal notice for Miller’s article, citing “serious methodological flaws.”
Miller told The Defenderin an earlier interview why he believes the removal was unjustified. He said:
“The core findings of my paper — the temporal clustering of infant deaths in the immediate post-vaccination window, the historical SIDS rate spike following the national immunization campaign, the full literature review — remain unrefuted.
“No one has engaged with the data. They simply made the paper disappear. That should concern every parent, every researcher, and anyone who believes science advances through open inquiry rather than institutional gatekeeping.”
ICD revision eliminated vaccination as official cause of death
Research published since Miller’s analysis has also suggested a link between SIDS and vaccines. For instance, a 2025 study suggested that infants with underdeveloped liver pathways may be more susceptible to SIDS after vaccination, because their bodies cannot process toxic chemicals present in small quantities in vaccines.
The SIDS diagnosis didn’t exist until the late 1960s, when the category was created in response to a rise in sudden unexplained infant deaths.
In the early 1960s, the number of vaccines administered to most U.S. infants increased, according to Miller’s analysis.
As SIDS rates rose, so did parental concern that SIDS was connected to vaccination. However, health officials assured parents that unexplained death following vaccination was “merely coincidental,” Miller wrote.
He also said that before 1979, the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) included cause-of-death classifications associated with “prophylactic vaccination” as an official cause of death.
However, in 1979, the ICD was revised, and that category was eliminated. As a result, “medical examiners are compelled to misclassify and conceal vaccine-related fatalities under alternate cause-of-death classifications,” Miller wrote.
The following is taken from Vernon Coleman’s long-term no 1 bestselling book `Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying: Here’s the Proof.’ Dr Coleman has for decades been the world’s leading medically qualified critic of vaccination programmes. … 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.