About Captured Medical Organizations

Many left-leaning people are currently insisting that we should trust medical organizations to lead the way on public health issues. I disagree. Many of these organizations have been captured by activists and have lost their scientific moorings. An example the AAP's position on transgender issues, as reported by Helen Joyce: "The American Academy of Pediatrics sidelines formal proposal to revise Pediatric Medical Transition policy for the 4th consecutive year: Unfortunately, it seems that U.S. medical organizations have allowed politics to overshadow their commitment to evidence-based medicine." Here an excerpt:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has, once again, overlooked a formal proposal—its fifth iteration for the fourth year running—intended to amend its stance on pediatric medical transitions. This proposal, known as Resolution #37, was co-authored by 24 pediatricians who are also AAP members. It called for the AAP to align its policy with findings from systematic evidence reviews, universally considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine.

Resolution #37, titled "Align the AAP Treatment Recommendations for Gender Incongruence and Gender Dysphoria with Findings from Systematic Reviews of Evidence," was submitted on April 1, 2023. The resolution sought a comprehensive review and update of the AAP's current policy on gender-affirming care for trans-identified youth, as stated in the 2018 AAP position paper titled "Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents." The existing policy endorses the view that immediate affirmation through psychosocial and medical interventions is the only appropriate approach for youth experiencing gender dysphoria, a stance that Resolution #37 argues requires reevaluation.

Despite assurances from the AAP in February 2023 that policy statements undergo a review every five years, and thus an update of the 2018 statement is already underway, Resolution #37 states that the AAP is proceeding with the update without conducting a systematic review of the evidence. No AAP committees working on these policy updates plan to perform such a review, and there's no indication that a systematic review related to treatments for gender dysphoria is even being considered.

Continue ReadingAbout Captured Medical Organizations

Dr. Peter McCullough Discusses COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Syndromes

Why have I (and many other Americans) lost so much faith in American public health officials and institutions? Well, there was the official narrative that we heard from government officials, something like, "The vaccine is safe. Take it. Or else you will be socially ostracized, perhaps fired from your job." Matt Orfalea's mashup illustrates that official narrative:

On the other hand, consider the testimony of Dr. Peter McCullough in the Pennsylvania Senate. You will learn about massive conflicts of interest among public health institutions, including the CDC and the FDA. You will hear that there was no independent organization dedicated to patient safety of the vaccines, which is ghastly.  McCullough discusses the VAERS risk signal associated with the vaccines, which has been corroborated by subsequent studies.

McCullough testifies that 5% of Americans have suffered permanent disability, primarily stroke and neurologic disability as a result of taking the mRNA vaccine (min 27). He discusses the use of therapeutics for those detrimentally affected by the mRNA vaccine, including the use of the supplement called Nattokinase and other natural substances that seem to dissolve the spike protein that is already in the human body (discussed at min 27). Throughout this video you will hear his descriptions of a hubristic network of government "experts" and pharmaceutical manufacturers who are withholding data and refusing to enter into wide-open no-limits discussions regarding potential adverse affects of the COVID vaccines.

Why are some Americans having adverse affects regarding the vaccines while others are not? McCullough cites to a new R-Squared analysis study tracing problems to certain batches of the vaccines (and not others) (min 22). About 1/3 of people who received Batch 1 and report no side effects. Almost 2/3 of of people took Batch 2 and had side effects, but very few serious side-effects. About 4.2% of Americans received Batch 3, the bad batches and about 75% of those people receiving the bad batch have health issues related to the vaccine. Why? McCullough suggests that there was a "product manufacturing problem."  Either hyper-concentrated lipid nano-particles with an excessive amount of messenger RNA or CDNA contamination or other types of contamination.

I am not an expert, so I have no ability to evaluate McCullough's claims, but I listened closely as he cited to recent studies. What he is saying very much concerns me. At a minimum, how was it that experimental vaccines that never received standard testing labeling (with package inserts) were foisted (often under duress) on Americans via the Emergency Use Authorization?

And again, why are we not seeing wide discussion of these issues?  Why, instead, are we seeing suspicious activities by public health officials, things like this?

Continue ReadingDr. Peter McCullough Discusses COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Syndromes