COVID-19 / Malicious Medical Quackery
[Ed.: FEAR YOUR DOCTOR! Medicine is a disgraced profession. The Hippocratic Oath is no longer applicable… They cannot (and must not) be trusted any longer!
Cultivate Nosocomephobia and iatrophobia. Spread ‘vaccine hesitancy’! How Bad is My Batch? Enter your batch number(s) and find out. Then take action and purge yourself of this shit to the extent possible. It’s do-able!
If you know someone injured by the jabs, direct them to humanitysuit.com to become a plaintiff. Another great legal resource is: Freedom Council https://freedomcounsel.org; For Vaccine Exemptions: https://www.sirillp.com/vaccine-exemption-attorneys/ .
RESOURCE: VACCINE INFO COURSE All material from the course has been transferred to telegram. You can access everything here]
DIED SUDDENLY: Official Documentary Film [1:17:21]
Inside mRNA Vaccines – The Movie [1:00:59]
Premiered Aug 11, 2025
This film explores the unprecedented global rollout of mRNA vaccine technology. www.insidemrnavaccines.com
00:00 Intro
02:53 Surgeon Joel Wallskog’s health issues
06:21 Operation Warp Speed initiative
06:38 Former CDC Director on mRNA vaccines
07:35 Regulators’ safety assessment
08:09 Calls to pause mRNA vaccines
09:32 mRNA researcher Robert Malone
12:56 Pathologist Ryan Cole on COVID vaccination
14:14 Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra on heart health
14:37 Cardiologist Peter McCullough on side effects
17:28 Scientist Jessica Rose on vaccine concerns
18:41 Critical care specialist Paul Marik on patient community
21:17 Explaining mRNA
23:45 How mRNA vaccines work
27:06 Spike protein and possible effects
30:57 Pathologist Arne Burkhardt’s biopsy findings
32:49 Health agencies’ safety stance
33:38 Vaccination in pregnancy and children
34:22 Artist Jessica Sutta’s health issues
39:03 Future uses of mRNA technology
42:55 Tobie Vergara’s health issues
45:12 History of mRNA vaccines
46:44 Modified mRNA technology
48:40 mRNA research status in 2017
49:07 Toxicity concerns in 2017
49:33 Progress in mRNA technology
49:50 mRNA vaccines during the pandemic
55:41 Support for post-vaccination syndrome
57:06 Doctors offering assistance
[Ed.: Other vaccine controversies include:
1. How the vaccines caused the paralysis of polio
2. How vaccines caused sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
3. How vaccines cause brain damage, but we call it autism
4. How we covered up brain damage and made it a mental condition
Bombshell Vax vs. Unvax Study Finally Sees the Light of Day — And the Results Are Staggering
[Ed.: An Inconvenient Study Full Movie [1:20:36]
Here is the link to the documentary An Inconvenient Study, which premiered tonight at the Malibu Film Festival. It is the brilliant true story of the suppression of a vaxed vs unvaxed children’s study and the Henry Ford Health Center–suppressed because it showed over several years 3-6 TIMES the incidence of chronic illness between children who had even ONE childhood vaccine compared with children compared with children who had NO vaccines. PLUS there was ZERO autism, ADHD and a couple of other things in the unvaxed cohort.
Watch the entire video and be sure to share it with everyone you think SHOULD KNOW about what it shows!
Dandelion Root Extract Kills 95% of Cancer Cells In Vitro and Reduces Human Colon Tumor Growth by Over 90% in Mice — With Zero Toxicity by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Human Colon Tumor Growth by Over 90% in Mice — With Zero Toxicity
A peer-reviewed study finds that a common backyard plant selectively kills cancer cells while sparing normal cells, acting through multiple coordinated anti-cancer pathways.
DEC 09, 2025 The Focal Points
Over 1,100 peer-reviewed studies now document the anti-cancer potential of safe, non-toxic natural compounds:
Over 1,100 Studies Reveal 12 Natural Compounds With Potent Anti-Cancer Effects Across All Major Tumor Pathways NICOLAS HULSCHER, MPH NOV 25, 2025 Read full story
[Ed.:
Introducing the Hippocratic Society By STANLEY KURTZ
November 12, 2025 National Review
Conservatives should welcome a new group, the Hippocratic Society, which will appeal to medical students and physicians of varied political stripes but will be particularly friendly to conservatives who might otherwise find themselves relegated to the margins of the medical profession.
The Federalist Society is a helpful, if imperfect, analogy. Like the Federalist Society, the Hippocratic Society will be a place where conservative views are hosted and put into debate with progressive perspectives. And undoubtedly, conservative-leaning medical students will find colleagues and mentors among its members.
The Hippocratic Society has another function as well, however, not fully paralleled by its legal cousin, and likely to appeal regardless of political perspective. HippSoc (the abbreviated name of the group) addresses the closely related problems of physician burnout and the bureaucratization of medicine, modeling a return to human-scale doctoring. In furtherance of this, HippSoc reconnects doctors to the philosophical and religious roots of medicine, cultivating an active appreciation of the profession’s higher purpose. HippSoc’s activities on this front will surely appeal to many physicians and medical students, politically conservative or not.
Medicine is arguably more insulated from politics than is law, so the analogy between the Hippocratic Society and the Federalist Society is imperfect. On the other hand, as America’s political-cultural controversies have proliferated, medicine has been anything but immune. Familiar disagreements over abortion have lately been augmented by differences over child gender transition surgery, physician-assisted suicide, Covid, DEI, and the government’s role in health care.
The Hippocratic Society takes no position on these controversies. Nor, as many will be surprised to learn, does the Federalist Society take formal positions on major controversies in law and public policy. What both groups do instead is to facilitate debate on issues that the dominant professional orthodoxy would prefer to treat as settled.
As my Ethics and Public Policy Center colleague and NRO Bench Memos blogger Ed Whelan has explained, sponsoring debates with progressive critics, rather than simply confining itself to conservative speakers, has been the secret of Federalist Society success. This, Whelan says, has kept the organization open and attractive to outsiders, moderated factional conflict, and prevented members’ ideas from going stale. Back when I was advocating for state-level legislation to protect campus free speech, for example, I was invited to debate my proposal with a progressive critic before the Federalist Society of Washington, D.C. The Hippocratic Society clearly draws on this FedSoc model.
As Whelan points out, the Federalist Society itself generally steers clear of endorsing particular policy proposals. Most complaints about the Federalist Society, Whelan says, are really complaints, not about anything the organization itself has done but rather “about things done or said by individuals in the broader network it has helped to build.” Again, from what I can see, the Hippocratic Society plans to operate on the same basis.
That said, HippSoc will undoubtedly sponsor talks on controversial issues by conservative-leaning physicians affiliated with the group. As an example of what we’re likely to see from HippSoc, consider this 2023 talk at the University of South Carolina by Dr. Farr Curlin, a HippSoc board member and co-founder: “What Does Conscience Have to Do with Healthcare?” Curlin’s talk conveys the core argument of his 2021 book with Christopher Tollefsen, The Way of Medicine: Ethics and the Healing Profession.
In his talk, Curlin illuminates a key divide in contemporary medicine by setting up a contrast between what he calls the “provider of services model,” on the one hand, and his own “way of medicine,” on the other. The provider of services model, broadly supported by physicians like Ezekiel Emanuel (probably the most influential American physician on policy issues during the Obama years), holds that doctors are essentially service providers to patient consumers. Therefore, should doctors attempt to withhold professionally approved and patient requested services or procedures (like abortion, physician-assisted suicide, or so-called gender affirming care) on grounds of conscience, they should be penalized in some way. Some even argue that doctors should be prohibited from exercising conscience refusals altogether. The core idea here is that a patient’s autonomous determination of what is required for his or her well-being must be accepted by the doctor (unless it violates standard medical practice, e.g., antibiotics should not be prescribed for viral infections).
By contrast, Curlin’s “way of medicine” is grounded on the Hippocratic imperative to do no harm. In this view, the patient’s subjective desires must give way to objective assessments of the harms to health of procedures like abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and gender transition surgery. Curlin argues that conscience refusals are not based on a doctor’s mere personal beliefs or prejudices (as the provider of services perspective claims), but on knowable determinations that some medical procedures are destructive of health. And Curlin not only makes this case, but very effectively exposes the raft of contradictions that beset the standard “provider of services model.”
This is why the Hippocratic Society is needed. It’s evident that the medical profession’s dominant orthodoxy turns progressive moral and political preferences into officially recognized “truths” and does so in a way that, over time, will strip conservatives of their right to practice medicine, or at least severely curtail it. Unless state legislators are able to hear doctors like Curlin critique progressive orthodoxy, there’s a risk that progressive assumptions, improperly elevated into professional truths, will be enshrined in state law. While the Hippocratic Society won’t be officially endorsing any policy perspective, it will provide the kind of platform for individual advocacy and collective debate that can rightly deprive the progressive left of the medical policy monopoly it seeks.
Also, as noted above, the Hippocratic Society is dedicated to revisiting the deeper purposes of the medical profession in ways that will appeal to physicians of many political stripes. Physician burnout is a growing problem, exacerbated by proliferating bureaucratic rules and complex formulae for calculating compensation. Too often, the result is that doctors’ time with their patients is shortened and their scope for exercising professional judgment limited. Yet medicine’s core satisfactions grow out of the doctor-patient relationship and the related art (not just technical skill) of medical judgment. The shrinking human component of doctoring is the deeper cause of burnout. It’s gotten to the point where medical students are sometimes subtly discouraged by older physicians from pursuing the profession.
HippSoc addresses the problem by unpacking (over a meal shared by medical students and more senior professionals) case studies that require of the physician an exercise of various virtues, like compassion, curiosity, devotion, fortitude, hope, humility, integrity, and such. The discussions draw on everything from clinical experience to the ethics of Aristotle to address real-life dilemmas. So, for example, what difference would — or should — it make to the stress of treating severe gunshot wounds in a trauma room, knowing that the victim was a pastor trying to break up a fight, rather than a gangbanger?
The Hippocratic Society also sponsors a series of podcasts that tackle similar issues, everything from the challenge of particularly difficult patients to the implications of “new natural law” theory for medicine. In one episode, a particularly powerful anecdote (24:45 min.—27:20 min.) conveys some of the core ideas behind the Hippocratic Society’s approach to medical virtue.
As this story goes, a medical team of plastic surgeons visited Guatemala to operate on severe burns, cleft lips, and cleft palates. Patients were booked in advance, and the list was full. Then a man with cleft lip and cleft palate who lived 30–40 miles away heard about the clinic, traveled to the site, and begged to be operated on. He was told that the list was full and that he’d have to wait a year for the next visit. This man then slept on the stairs at the entrance to the clinic for five days straight. As the clinic’s time was ending and the team was breaking down the operating room, one of the doctors said he was going to operate on the man out of turn. Everyone agreed to stay. It took hours of extra work as they operated on both the palate and the lip in one sitting (contrary to conventional practice). The procedures were highly successful. This meant more work and more exhaustion for the doctors, and of course it contravened the bureaucratic constraints. Yet the patient was healed, and the doctors got some profound and lasting satisfaction for their trouble.
Something more should be said about the Hippocratic Society’s name. Hippocrates of Cos (ca 460–370 B.C.) was the father of ancient Greek medicine. He initiated the medical tradition ancestral to our own, grounded in meticulous empirical observation. Hippocrates is most famous, of course, for his oath, the code of medical ethics that many or most modern doctors once swore to uphold. The original Hippocratic oath forbade both abortion and physician-assisted suicide. Most medical schools therefore now either forgo the oath altogether or rewrite it to modify or eliminate those and other provisions.
Most Hippocratic Society members, by contrast, tend to remain loyal to the original oath and to the more encompassing “do no harm” morality that lies behind it. Also, as we’ve seen, HippSoc works to revive knowledge of the philosophical and religious (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) foundations of medicine, going back as far as Aristotle. It’s a return to medicine in the great tradition.
I only recently learned about the Hippocratic Society from my EPPC colleague Aaron Kheriaty, who is on the group’s board, and immediately realized that news of a medical counterpart to the Federalist Society would be of interest to conservatives generally.
Dr. Kheriaty’s new book, Making the Cut: How to Heal Modern Medicine, explores the problem of physician burnout and the numerous other ailments besetting his profession. Toward the end of the book, Kheriaty calls for the creation of a series of alternative medical institutions to help shift the profession’s current direction. Sounds like a good idea to me. Stanley Goldfarb’s group, Do No Harm, which addresses the harmful effects of identity politics on medicine, is another excellent example of the sort of thing that is needed, I’d say.
The Hippocratic Society is growing rapidly. When Kheriaty wrote his book, published in September of this year, HippSoc chapters for premedical and medical students had been established at nine universities. I now count 28. (If you’d like to join, or start a chapter of your own, go here.)
What Kheriaty recommends for medicine applies more broadly. We need to establish a set of alternative institutions across many fields of endeavor in order to break monolithic progressive control of our institutions under the guise of “professional” consensus. The Federalist Society established the model. The Hippocratic Society, with modifications, continues it. With luck, we’ll see yet more to come.
[Ed.:
The Dam Is Breaking: We’re Making America Healthy Again A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR
The remarkable changes on the horizon and forces conspiring to stop them
DEC 07, 2025
At a young age, after becoming aware of many of the issues in the world, I gradually got pulled into an addictive sea of negativity and frustration over how things were and the fact they kept getting worse. As this was not healthy or productive, in time, I decided the best way to cope with this situation was to shift my focus on what I could do to make things better and be at peace with the fact I was doing something rather than torn apart over everything I wished was different but was powerless to change.
Because of this, my focus gradually shifted to seeing the existing trends in society (e.g., more medical corruption and increasingly dangerous pharmaceutical regimens being forced upon the public) and trying to identify any possible window to shift them. This perspective, for instance, both allowed me to avoid becoming completely distraught over what unfolded during COVID-19, and likewise to keep searching for a way to help avert the catastrophic course we were on, even though doing this seemed nearly impossible, given the monolithic forces we were against.
Likewise, I long ago accepted that the bulk of the medical system and leadership in the government will be incapable of deviating from the pharmaceutical industry’s narrative, regardless of how much those beliefs are at odds with reality or what the public wants. As such, rather than become upset about the continual abhorrent revelations that come out (e.g., all the ways the FDA and CDC covered up COVID vaccines and injuries and death), I’ve simply been grateful we’ve entered a political climate where those revelations can come out.
Making America Healthy Again
Due to how much influence the pharmaceutical industry has over the government and media, until fairly recently, I never imagined a group that would directly oppose their interests could come into power. Yet, due to the public backlash against the egregious profiteering we saw throughout COVID-19, the convergence of a few longstanding political trends (e.g., the Tea Party moving vaccine skepticism into the Republican Party) and Trump requiring RFK Jr.’s political coalition to win the 2020 election—it did.
Because of this, we are now again in a situation of “glass half empty or half full” situation, as on one hand, it is beyond extraordinary RFK Jr. became the H.H.S. Secretary while on the other, it’s disappointing that he has not yet enacted many of the policies we wanted done on day one.
Presently, I am in the former camp, in part because of how much opposition we’ve had to overcome to get things to where they are currently (which has taken a lot of work on our part) and because, knowing the forces he is up against, I feel that if I were the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, I would have gotten much less done at this point than RFK Jr. has.
Likewise, as hard as it is to get things done now (e.g., health bureaucrats throughout the HHS are continually trying to sabotage RFK Jr.’s efforts), I know things will become infinitely more challenging after the next election when there is no longer strong top down support to enact MAHA policies. So, were I in RFK Jr’s position, my own focus would be directed towards using the once in a lifetime window we have right now to enact long term structural changes rather than focusing on short term gains that will be swept away by the next administration.
I mention all of this because currently, the playbook the pharmaceutical industry seems to be using to kill our window to change things is to stall and delay things as much as possible so that by the time RFK Jr.’s term ends, nothing will yet have gotten done to enact those critical long-term changes. As such, our focus has been on trying to counteract each approach being used to stall Making America Healthy Again (e.g., that’s why we’ve put so much work into exposing the financial conflicts of interest Congressmen and Senators actively sabotaging MAHA have).
Presently, one of the primary tactics being used to obstruct MAHA has been to split the base so they fight against each other rather than uniting behind their shared goal (as this is one of the most reliable ways to fracture populist movements) by shifting our focus from what is getting done to what is not getting done as it is critical for the pharmaceutical industry that the MAHA support which won 2024 is not present for the 2026 midterms.
Note: a lot of influencers are trying to promote this black-pilled message about MAHA. Many believe this is being funded by the industry, but I feel it is equally plausible that those influencers are simply chasing clicks (as negativity and hysteria are the easiest forms of journalism to market).
Because of this, I firmly believe our focus at this point should be on what we can do to make things better and thankful for each previously impossible thing we enact.
The CDC Vaccine Schedule
I have long believed inertia, beyond being a physical principle, also applies to groups and bureaucratic structures. This is why, for example, as the years go by, more and more increasingly dangerous vaccinations get “recommended” (mandated) for all of our children, and why regardless of the evidence against them, virtually every vaccine will be added to the CDC vaccine schedule and none will ever be withdrawn from it.
I feel this was best highlighted by the COVID vaccines for children, as the risk of death from COVID in children was effectively zero (as the only known cases were in severely immunocompromised individuals), while conversely, there were many cases of healthy children dying suddenly in a similar manner after vaccination. Yet, despite the mortality benefit clearly favoring not vaccinating, and this specific “recommendation” provoking more public pushback than any other childhood vaccine policy in history, the entire medical apparatus continued to double-down on it.
As such, while many felt differently, I was pleasantly surprised that it only took RFK Jr. 15 weeks (from taking office) to lay the necessary groundwork to remove the COVID vaccine from the childhood vaccine schedule—particularly since the last time a vaccine was taken off the childhood CDC schedule (excluding occasional instances where one was replaced with a newer version) was the smallpox vaccine in 1972.
Note: RFK’s decision to stop recommending the COVID vaccines to children and pregnant women (which had serious unresolved safety concerns) was met with widespread opposition, eventually resulting in numerous Democrat states breaking from the CDC to adopt their own (COVID including) vaccine schedules and Senate hearings against RFK Jr.
Despite this pushback, I was nonetheless hopeful MAHA would then turn their attention to the next most unjustifiable vaccine on the CDC schedule, newborn Hepatitis B vaccination (and possibly also consider questioning the other particularly egregious vaccination—the HPV vaccine Gardasil).
Because of this, once RFK replaced the membership of ACIP (the committee that crafts the CDC’s vaccine schedule) with ACIP members not beholden to the pharmaceutical industry and I learned (in September) that the newborn hepatitis B was up for discussion, we began a large project to try and bring public awareness to the very real dangers of this vaccine and the fact there was no justifiable reason to give it to every newborn.
Remarkably, despite numerous attempts to delay and sabotage this (along with widespread hysteria from the medical field), on Friday, a vote was finally held and at long last—and thanks to a variety of things coming together (e.g., many of you hearing the call and making your voices heard on the issue), something many of us, for decades, never imagined could happen—the hepatitis B vaccine was removed from the infant vaccine schedule.
Even more remarkably, immediately afterwards, President Trump, building on this momentum, made a rather extraordinary announcement that again illustrates we are in a historic window most of us previously never imagined would occur.
STUDY: Common Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s NICOLAS HULSCHER, MPH
The single largest vaccine–dementia study ever conducted (n=13.3 million) finds risk intensifies with more doses, remains elevated for a full decade, and is strongest after flu and pneumococcal shots.
DEC 07, 2025
The single largest and most rigorous study ever conducted on vaccines and dementia — spanning 13.3 million UK adults — has uncovered a deeply troubling pattern: those who received common adult vaccines faced a significantly higher risk of both dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
The risk intensifies with more doses, remains elevated for a full decade, and is strongest after influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. With each layer of statistical adjustment, the signal doesn’t fade — it becomes sharper, more consistent, and increasingly difficult to explain away.
And critically, these associations persisted even after adjusting for an unusually wide range of potential confounders, including age, sex, socioeconomic status, BMI, smoking, alcohol-related disorders, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, coronary artery disease, stroke/TIA, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney and liver disease, depression, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, traumatic brain injury, hypothyroidism, osteoporosis, and dozens of medications ranging from NSAIDs and opioids to statins, antiplatelets, immunosuppressants, and antidepressants.
Even after controlling for this extensive list, the elevated risks remained strong and remarkably stable.
Vaccinated Adults Had a 38% Higher Risk of Dementia
The primary adjusted model showed that adults receiving common adult vaccines (influenza, pneumococcal, shingles, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis) had a:
38% increased risk of developing dementia (OR 1.38)
This alone dismantles the narrative of “vaccines protect the brain,” but the deeper findings are far worse.
Alzheimer’s Disease Risk Is Even Higher — 50% Increased Risk
Buried in the supplemental tables is a more shocking result: when the authors restricted analyses to Alzheimer’s disease specifically, the association grew even stronger.
50% increased risk of Alzheimer’s (Adjusted OR 1.50)
This indicates the effect is not random. The association intensifies for the most devastating subtype of dementia.
Clear Dose–Response Pattern: More Vaccines = Higher Risk
The authors ran multiple dose–response models, and every one of them shows the same pattern:
Dementia (all types)
From eTable 2:
- 1 vaccine dose → Adjusted OR 1.26 (26% higher risk)
- 2–3 doses → Adjusted OR 1.32 (32% higher risk)
- 4–7 doses → Adjusted OR 1.42 (42% higher risk)
- 8–12 doses → Adjusted OR 1.50 (50% higher risk)
- ≥13 doses → Adjusted OR 1.55 (55% higher risk)
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) Shows the Same—and Even Stronger—Trend
From eTable 7:
- 1 dose → Adjusted OR 1.32 (32% higher risk)
- 2–3 doses → Adjusted OR 1.41 (41% higher risk)
- ≥4 doses → Adjusted OR 1.61 (61% higher risk)
This is one of the most powerful and unmistakable signals in epidemiology.
Time–Response Curve: Risk Peaks Soon After Vaccination and Remains Elevated for Years
Another signal strongly inconsistent with mere bias: a time-response relationship.
The highest dementia risk occurs 2–4.9 years after vaccination (Adjusted OR 1.56). The risk then slowly attenuates but never returns to baseline, remaining elevated across all time windows.
After 12.5 years, the risk is still meaningfully elevated (Adjusted OR 1.28) — a persistence incompatible with short-term “detection bias” and suggestive of a long-lasting biological impact.
This pattern is what you expect from a biological trigger with long-latency neuroinflammatory or neurodegenerative consequences.
Even After a 10-Year Lag, the Increased Risk Does Not Disappear
When the authors apply a long 10-year lag — meant to eliminate early detection bias — the elevated risk persists:
- Dementia: OR 1.20
- Alzheimer’s: OR 1.26
If this were simply “people who see doctors more often get diagnosed earlier,” the association should disappear under long lag correction.
Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccines Drive the Signal
Two vaccines show particularly strong associations:
Influenza vaccine
- Dementia: OR 1.39 → 39% higher risk
- Alzheimer’s: OR 1.49 → 49% higher risk
Pneumococcal vaccine
- Dementia: OR 1.12 → 12% higher risk
- Alzheimer’s: OR 1.15 → 15% higher risk
And again, both exhibit dose–response escalation — the hallmark pattern of a genuine exposure–outcome relationship.
Taken together, the findings across primary, supplemental, dose–response, time–response, stratified, and sensitivity analyses paint the same picture:
• A consistent association between cumulative vaccination and increased dementia risk
• A stronger association for Alzheimer’s than for general dementia
• A dose–response effect — more vaccines, higher risk
• A time–response effect — risk peaks after exposure and persists long-term
• Influenza and pneumococcal vaccines strongly drive the signal
• The association remains after 10-year lag correction and active comparator controls
This is what a robust epidemiologic signal looks like.
In the largest single study ever conducted on vaccines and dementia, common adult vaccinations were associated with a 38% higher risk of dementia and a 50% higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease. The risk increases with more doses, persists for a decade, and is strongest for influenza and pneumococcal vaccines.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
