Tom's Blog on Life and Livingness
After 4+ years of censorship, the truth is finally free.
My April 2020 video — banned and labeled “misinformation” — has just been restored (along with both of my channels) after Alphabet admitted it was government-induced suppression of lawful speech.
Finish reading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp4wXSku8Ik
This newsletter was created out of a desire to help others, and each day I hear from dozens of readers with thoughtful and pressing questions. For a while I tried my best to answer them, but given the volume and how long writing in-depth articles takes—it’s no longer possible.
For this reason, I decided to have monthly open threads where readers can ask whatever they want and tie that into a brief and insightful topic and connect it to a shorter topic many are interested in.
For this month’s open thread, I would like to share some of my thoughts on the practicalities of making people healthier and why so much of this newsletter’s focus has been directed towards publicizing the forgotten “umbrella therapies.”
The Fallacy of Medical Models
Since reality has an almost infinite degree of complexity, any framework we create to define it is doomed to be an oversimplification which excludes critical elements of the picture. However, rather than admit the shortcomings of any given model, that gap in understanding is typically bridged by forcefully asserting the validity of the chosen narrative and selectively focusing on the instances which affirm the validity of the model. Because of this (particularly within politics), you will frequently find a large number of people who are utterly convinced their side is 1000% correct despite another large contingent holding a diametrically opposing view of reality.
Likewise, in medicine, a similar politicization of truth will occur where people will believe their (or their tribe’s) chosen therapy is effective regardless of all evidence to the contrary, and likewise that it is safe regardless of how much evidence exists to the contrary. For example, while going through 54 forgotten news clips, in which, the news media (prior to being bought out by pharmaceutical industry) would routinely report on the dangers of vaccination, I came across this poignant quote from Barbara Loe Fisher:
What’s scientific about that assumption, that every time something bad happens after vaccination it’s a coincidence? That’s not science, that’s politics.
Note: after I originally sent that article out, I unearthed a large number of additional clips not present in the original that were subsequently added in (and you should watch here when you have the time too as they show vaccine injuries are very real and have been with us for decades).
When diagnosing patients, if one’s goal is to get the patient better (rather than just put a diagnostic label on them and the accompanying prescription) a few major challenges emerge:
•First, the same underlying issue can manifest quite differently from patient to patient (e.g., the inflammation and blood clotting created by the COVID vaccines gave rise to dozens of different symptom presentations).
•Second, very similar symptoms can be caused by different agents—particularly those which create systemic inflammation and blood flow obstructions (e.g., Lyme disease and mold toxicity are commonly confused with each other).
•Third, while certain things are more likely to trigger chronic illnesses, less frequent ones can as well (e.g., I’ve seen more cases than I can count where the underlying cause of a patient’s illness was missed by both conventional and integrative practitioners due to a more common cause of that cluster of symptoms being focused on).
•Fourth, the same disease process can interact very differently with different patients (either due to their constitution, co-existing health issues, or what stage of healing they are in), and as a result, the “correct” therapy for a disease may not always be the correct one for them (which amongst other things is why I try to always know multiple ways to treat each ailment I come across).
•Fifth, in many cases, patient’s respond differently to the same therapies due to their constitution (e.g., sensitive patients cannot handle stronger treatments many others do very well with).
Because of this, patients will frequently see numerous providers without having any significant improvement from any of what they’re told to do, and in many cases, they simply have to hope to have the luck to end up in the office of a doctor who’s preferred treatment modality happens to be what their body needs. However, as that is quite an unsatisfactory situation, it will normally be “addressed” by the treating physician adamantly insisting their diagnosis and treatment is correct, and then when treatment failures inevitably emerge, attributing the failure to the patient—in essence no different from the process we observe throughout the political system.
Bridging the Medical Divide
Almost everyone I know in the integrative medical field who has had success treating challenging cases is aware of the previous, and hence does all they can to avoid getting stuck in this trap by prioritizing accurate and personalized diagnoses so the correct treatment can be chosen.
Unfortunately, to some extent, this is diametrically opposed to how medicine is taught, as everyone is conditioned to learn standardized protocols that can be applied to everyone (e.g., colleagues with successful clinics have shared one of the greatest challenges in hiring new integrative doctors is finding people who can go beyond reproducing standard protocols).
Furthermore, personalized approaches to medicine aren’t scalable as the medical system revolves around repeatedly performing the same medical service (e.g., the treatments often cost a lot, so facilities which offer them will try to recoup that investment by giving them to everyone and insurance companies typically will only cover “proven” treatments that apply to larger patient demographics, rather than those which are specifically indicated for a small subset of patients with a condition).
Similarly, while writing this newsletter, I’ve tried to avoid discussing the things I routinely use in practice which I feel are only applicable to 5-10% of patients, as I know if I give an endorsement of the therapy for a specific issue, a large number of people will report back to me it did not work and their money was wasted.
Likewise, many therapies are incredibly dependent on the skill of practitioner, so I try to avoid saying “go see a _____ for this specific issue,” unless it happens to be a health issue I know that modality of healing is highly effective at treating, so even if the specific practitioner is mediocre, a good result is still likely to emerge. For example, I’ve seen Chinese medicine treat a wide range of challenging issues and I know a few talented acupuncturists across the country I will refer patients to, but at the same time, within this newsletter, I’ve had a much smaller number of specific diseases I’ve suggested using acupuncture to treat.
Because of all of this, the ideal solution is to have safe therapies which are fairly likely to help a wide range of conditions (known as “umbrella therapies”—due to everything which falls under them) and for this reason, a significant portion of this newsletter has focused on the forgotten umbrella therapies.
Economic Barriers to Umbrella Remedies
One of the most consistent ways a faulty narrative maintains its dominion over truth is by having a monopoly over the existing discourse so competing ideas which would expose its shortcoming can never be heard. This for instance is why the pharmaceutical industry spent so much money ensuring news stations would no longer air stories critical of vaccination and medical journals will never allow studies comparing the health of vaccinated to unvaccinated children to be published (as anytime they are done, they all show vaccines increase chronic illnesses by roughly 3 to 7 times).
One of the primary ways the medical monopoly is maintained is by forbidding “unapproved” therapies from entering clinical practice (or being covered by insurance). As such, regulators set (highly subjective) standards for approval which essentially make it contingent upon a lot of money being spent to secure the approval rather than solid evidence of efficacy and safety (e.g., best demonstrated by what happened with the COVID vaccines, and to a lesser extent by the suppression of off-patent therapies for COVID-19 while lethal and ineffective drugs like remdesivir were mandated across the country).
Note: in tandem, regulators are routinely offered high paying jobs at pharmaceutical companies once they leave the FDA or CDC, best illustrated by Peter Marks, the man largely responsible for the COVID-19 vaccine disaster, getting a multimillion dollar position six months after leaving the FDA—a corrosive process which both causes the FDA to approve bad therapies and makes it impossible for revolutionary therapies without a lucrative pharmaceutical company behind them to ever have a chance at getting approved.
In short, if there is not an easy way to monetize a therapy and recoup the initial investment to get it approved (e.g., because its off-patent), it is virtually impossible to get an approval—even if mountains of data show it is safer and more effective than the existing therapeutic options for a condition. Rather, that data is often counterproductive, as if a therapy is too effective at treating too many different things (as is the case of umbrella therapies), it immediately intrudes upon the turf of a lot of pharmaceutical companies who have patented drugs for some of those conditions (leading to them doing what they can to protect their interests).
Note: the regulatory system is designed to need specific targeted molecular mechanisms to justify why a therapy works in a specific instance (for which it gets approved), and as such, is inherently antagonistic towards therapies which do too many things.
Finally, within the alternative health field, economic interests still prevail which make it quite challenging for umbrella therapies to succeed. For example, while quite helpful in certain cases, I believe the primary reason so much focus is now on both ivermectin and fenbendazole is because a significant potential markup exists with them, so many (who need advertising money to support their platforms) were willing to spend the time and effort to promote it (and able to do so due to the grass roots support that already existed from the successes of those therapies).
In contrast, most of the umbrella therapies cost almost nothing (e.g., DMSO is 20 dollars a bottle and lasts for months if not longer), so I almost never see them promoted unless someone has come up with a way to make them profitable. For example:
•DMSO alone is “unsafe and ineffective” but many profitable “safe and effective” pharmaceuticals exist which combine DMSO with another drug (thereby creating a patentable product).
•Ultraviolet blood irradiation is “unsafe and ineffective” but once combined with a photosensitizer, becomes a (fairly expensive) “safe and effective” therapy for many of the same things UVBI alone can treat.
For this reason, the umbrella therapies fall into a rather unfortunate niche, where despite having hundreds if not thousands of incredibly compelling studies, almost no one knows they exist (they don’t even show up in most AI searches), and no one wants to promote them.
On my end, when I created this newsletter, I never had any intention of it going anywhere (hence why I chose “a midwestern doctor”), and instead simply did it because I was distraught over what I saw was happening with the COVID vaccines and wanted to try to do something that would make me feel less powerless about the entire situation. In turn, once a fluke of unexpected events made me realize it was going somewhere, I decided to structure the newsletter so that my success was dependent upon if I gave accurate and useful information to readers (as I knew without feeling I was doing that, there was no possible way I would be able to motivate myself to put the time and personal sacrifices into writing this that would be necessary for the endeavor).
In turn, for the reasons mentioned above, I was strongly motivated to focus on the umbrella therapies, particularly those like restoring the physiologic zeta potential, as impaired circulation underlies so many different chronic illnesses. Likewise, in the case of DMSO, I have seen so many people over the years recover from otherwise disabling strokes and spinal cord injuries (which are so sad for everyone involved), that I felt DMSO’s ability to treat central nervous system injuries was something everyone needed to know about.
Note: I’ve now had a lot of readers (compiled here) who had strokes after having read the DMSO stroke article (and procuring DMSO) were able to treat their stroke and avoid a lifetime of disability—which both makes me very happy for them, but also distraught that simple life-changing therapies like that always get stonewalled by the medical industry. Overall, from the thousands of reader reports I’ve received, DMSO seems to help about 85% of those who try it for the myriad of conditions it treats.
Simultaneously however, I also had to grapple with a major challenge—many of the therapies I wanted to write about had thousands, if not tens of thousands of articles written about them, so if I actually wanted to create a real push for them to be able to enter medical practice, doing so would be a truly massive undertaking. Ultimately, I decided I needed to as I was one of the only people positioned to do so and since then, that’s been the primary focus of this publication.
For this reason, more than half of the time I spend on the newsletter goes to that research (along with work behind the scenes to open critical doors for the therapies). This is why, for example, most of the DMSO articles I published here (while compelling and extensively researched) were nonetheless, in my eyes, woefully incomplete so over the last three months I’ve significantly updated some of them (e.g., the the ones on strokes, internal organ disorders, eyes, ears nose and mouth issues, and skin disorders)—and still have a lot more research to go through (which I’m hoping I can finish in about a year).
Likewise, I’ve also been focusing on going through an extensive review of other therapies I feel offer a similar wide spectrum of benefits to DMSO as my principal goal is to create a large swelling of grassroots support for each of them while RFK is H.H.S. Secretary, because having watched this dynamic play out for decades, I feel this is by far the best chance we will ever have to bring these therapies into general medical practice.
In the final part of this article (which exists as an open forum to ask any questions you have), I will cover what some of those other therapies are, along with providing an abridged summary of some of that research I plan to release in the next few years (e.g., the dozens of “incurable” conditions studies found they successfully treated), and discuss a few others I am frequently asked about (e.g., methylene blue and low dose naltrexone)…
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-are-umbrella-therapies-and-why
JAMA just published a study that purportedly compared the rates of fetal malformations in mothers who got the COVID jab versus the fortunate ones who did not. In the study, they purposely:
Doing the above (and propensity weighting the groups, which invites immense additional opportunity for chicanery), they happily arrived at the following conclusion:
In this cohort study of pregnancies exposed to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the first trimester, exposure was not associated with an increased risk of any major congenital malformations.
Problem: Thalidomide (yes, %$#$! thalidomide) and other major teratogens were not discovered to be toxic to babies… until they looked at all births, not just the live ones. Happened over and over, to the point that the WHO and EMA both emphasize the necessity of including prenatal losses in teratogenicity surveillance.
Description of “The Fake”
Recall one of the definitions of the famous Disinformation Playbook Tactic called “The Fake:”
To evade these standards, some companies choose to manufacture counterfeit science—planting ghostwritten articles in legitimate scientific journals, selectively publishing positive results while underreporting negative results, or commissioning scientific studies with flawed methodologies biased toward predetermined results. These methods undermine the scientific process—and as our case studies show, they can have serious public health and safety consequences.
Did you get that last part? “These methods can have serious public health and safety consequences.” You don’t say. Like causing deaths to unborn babies and traumatizing women? I am so $%^# ’ing sick of this %$#, I want to scream (and punch a wall).
My interpretation of this data, knowing how modern “Science” operates, is that “they” know there has been a massive increase in congenital malformations among the vaccinated. Thus, the “esteemed” researchers (whores, sorry) were tasked with publishing a “negative study” to counter the data emerging from around the world, thus making any assertion that Covid vaccines are teratogenic a “controversial” topic with conflicting data.”
Welcome to modern science, folks. Any doctor reading this who belongs to the AMA should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
https://open.substack.com/pub/pierrekory/p/covid-scientific-misconduct-rages
Once again, I have made a finding that should have been shouted from the rooftops as soon as the facts were known. It is absolutely no wonder that we are seeing the initiation/progression of chronic disease after the administration of COVID mRNA. The amount of inflammation created in the body is just about unprecedented from a prophylactic medical intervention…
…The most stunning evidence I discovered in all of this proving that we are NOT dealing with a normal vaccine? The difference in hsCRP levels over baseline post COVID mRNA vs the flu vaccine. From the table above we can calculate that the difference over baseline for the COVID mRNA vaccine is 139.5%…
,,,the COVID mRNA vaccine induces a hsCRP response 462% greater over baseline than the flu vaccine. It would seem then, given the cardiovascular effects noted short term and long term, that the COVID mRNA vaccine likely may induce systemic vasculitis. Spike, indeed! A spike in systemic inflammation with every exposure.
Finish reading: https://wmcresearch.substack.com/p/a-comparison-of-hscrp-inflammation
If you’ve had the Covid shot, you should check out my new repair formula: https://www.healthelicious.com.au/NutriBlast_DNA_Heart_Mitochondria.html
High doses led to:
☆ 36% drop in carotid plaque area
☆ 21% decrease in carotid intima media thickness Nattokinase acts by being proteolytic – it shreds up certain proteins and:
☆ Improves blood flow (critical for endothelial health)
☆ Prevents blood clotting
☆ Has antioxidant properties ☆ Reduces lipids for an overall cardioprotective effect.
A federally run experiment funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation deliberately infected 80 American adults with a lab-grown pandemic influenza virus at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.
Data from 74 of those infected were analyzed, and 53 of them (72% of analyzed participants, or at least 66% of all infected participants) were confirmed to be shedding the pathogen, meaning they were actively contagious and could infect others.
We do not know whether six participants who were excluded from the study after being deliberately infected were shedding the virus or not.
Regardless, 53 of the individuals became contagious to others.
The human-infection experiment—officially published in Science Translational Medicine (Aug. 2025) under the title “Nasal and systemic immune responses correlate with viral shedding after influenza challenge in people with complex preexisting immunity”—was conducted entirely under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The original HHS manuscript can be found here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12375958/pdf/nihms-2097372.pdf
Lab-Made Pandemic Virus Used to Infect Humans
According to the paper, participants were “challenged with 107 half-maximal tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) of a 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain, A/Bethesda/MM2/H1N1.”
That purported virus was not naturally circulating.
It was a lab-engineered clone of the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus, manufactured by NIH scientists in Bethesda and maintained as a standardized “human challenge” stock.
The virus name itself—A/Bethesda/MM2/H1N1—identifies it as an NIH-made strain.
The “Bethesda” designation marks its laboratory origin at NIH’s Maryland facility, and “MM2” denotes the second master-mix batch of the cloned challenge stock.
80 Individuals Deliberately Infected Under HHS Oversight
The study describes the deliberate exposure of 80 adults to this laboratory-made pandemic influenza strain in 2019.
“The challenge study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01971255) was performed at the NIH Clinical Center between April and October 2019,” the study reads.
Interestingly, that means the 80 human participants were intentionally infected with the NIH-made H1N1 influenza virus roughly five to six months before COVID-19 was first reported in Wuhan, China (December 2019).
So, while the study was published in Science Translational Medicine in August 2025, the actual human infections occurred in mid-2019.
Half of those deliberately infected had been vaccinated roughly two months earlier with a commercial quadrivalent influenza vaccine; the other half had not.
“All 80 participants were brought into the NIH Clinical Center as mixed cohorts and challenged with 107 TCID50 of influenza A/Bethesda/MM2/H1N1 virus … and assessed daily for a minimum of 9 days.”
Although only 74 participants were ultimately included in the analysis (after six were excluded), every one of them was intentionally inoculated with a live, replication-competent pandemic virus.
The experiment was run on U.S. federal property by U.S. government scientists.
It was approved by the NIAID Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 19-I-0058), making it an officially sanctioned HHS human-infection study.
The human infection experiment was carried out under a multi-million U.S. taxpayer dollar project titled “Universal Influenza Vaccine Development” (project number 1ZIAAI001372), led by Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger.
Dr. Taubenberger—listed as an author on the study—is the current NIAID Director, taking over Anthony Fauci’s spot.
Taubenberger holds a patent for the carcinogenic BPL technology at the center of the Trump administration’s new ’Generation Gold Standard’ influenza bird flu pandemic vaccine platform.
His agency is also directing U.S. tax dollars to fund the creation of never-before-seen “Frankenstein” bird flu viruses.
Confirmed 72% of Analyzed Participants—& at Least 66% of All Infected—Became Infectious
A total of 80 volunteers were deliberately infected with the NIH-made influenza virus, but data from only 74 participants were included in the final published analysis.
Among those 74 analyzed participants, 53 were confirmed to actively shed virus, meaning they were contagious.
Because the six excluded individuals were not evaluated for viral shedding, the true number of infectious participants could be higher, but only 53 are confirmed in the published dataset.
That equates to 72% of the analyzed group and at least 66% of everyone infected becoming contagious, some for several days.
Shedding was tracked by daily nasal swabs using the BioFire Respiratory Pathogen Panel and qRT-PCR testing for the influenza M gene.
Participants were considered “shedding” when viral RNA was detected in nasal-wash samples.
“[P]articipants shedding virus for two or more days showed higher early viral loads and exhibited stronger induction of antiviral responses compared with participants who shed virus for one day.”
The highest viral loads appeared in multiday shedders on days 1–3 post-infection, coinciding with the most severe flu-like symptoms, as measured by NIH’s FluPro symptom scoring system.
Vaccination Failed to Prevent Infection or Shedding
Vaccination did not prevent infection.
The paper admits that “vaccinated shedders” displayed increased T-cell activity and inflammatory markers, including CD8A, PD-L1, IFN-?, IL-6, and TNF-ß, compared to unvaccinated shedders—indicating that vaccination did not stop infection but instead triggered a hyper-inflammatory immune response.
Females were three times more likely to clear the infection after only one day of shedding, while males were more likely to shed virus for multiple days.
Funding: NIAID, DARPA, and Gates Foundation
The study lists its financial backers as:
NIAID Intramural Research Program (grants AI000986-12 and AI001157-07)
DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), contract HR0011831160
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, grant OPP1178956
That combination of government and private funders represents the same triad—HHS, the Pentagon, and the Gates Foundation—responsible for many dual-use biological and “pandemic preparedness” programs that blur the line between public health and bio-defense research.
Containment & Biosafety Measures Not Disclosed
Remarkably, the 2025 Science Translational Medicine paper and HHS manuscript provide no description whatsoever of biosafety precautions—no mention of negative-pressure rooms, isolation conditions, or post-infection quarantine protocols to prevent secondary transmission.
Readers of the study are unable to verify how the government prevented infected subjects from spreading the lab-made virus to others, raising national security concerns.
It further raises grave informed-consent concerns, as individuals who interacted with these infected volunteers beyond the study setting were never informed that they might be exposed to an NIH-made pandemic influenza virus.
Given that 72 percent of participants were confirmed viral shedders, this omission raises serious biosafety and public-transmission concerns.
Conducted Entirely Under HHS Authority
The trial was hosted, funded, staffed, and overseen by HHS agencies from start to finish:
Conducted at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland
Run by the NIAID Laboratory of Infectious Diseases
Reviewed by an HHS Institutional Review Board
Carried out under HHS Good Clinical Practice guidelines
In short, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services infected 74 American adults with a lab-grown pandemic influenza virus to study viral shedding and immune-system responses—while omitting basic transparency about containment.
The nation’s top health agency is infecting Americans with pandemic-grade pathogens.
Bottom Line
The federally directed experiment—funded by NIAID, DARPA, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—was a live human-infection challenge using a lab-engineered influenza strain created by NIH scientists in Bethesda.
Eighty adults were deliberately infected with the laboratory-made pandemic H1N1 virus; data from 74 were analyzed, and 53 of them (72 % of those analyzed, or at least 66 % of everyone infected) were confirmed to be shedding the pathogen—actively contagious and capable of transmitting it to others.
The six excluded participants were also infected, but the government provided no data indicating whether they shed virus, leaving the full extent of contagiousness unknown.
No description was provided for biosafety controls, isolation conditions, or post-infection release criteria, meaning the public record offers no verification of how HHS prevented the spread of its own lab-created virus beyond the NIH facility.
This omission raises not only national-security concerns but also informed-consent violations, since people who may have interacted with participants outside the study were never notified of possible exposure to an NIH-made pathogen.
Although the paper frames the experiment as advancing “next-generation vaccine development,” its findings instead showed that vaccination failed to prevent infection or viral shedding and appeared to trigger immune hyperactivation in vaccinated participants.
The newly published HHS study therefore stands as a rare, fully documented example of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services deliberately infecting American citizens with a laboratory-grown pandemic-grade virus—underwritten by HHS, DARPA, and the Gates Foundation, with no transparent account of how the resulting contagion was contained.
Finish reading: https://open.substack.com/pub/jonfleetwood/p/niaid-darpa-bill-gates-intentionally
“Unequivocally…For Every Single Vaccine On The Childhood Schedule…Your Risk Of Dying From The Vaccine Far Exceeds Your Risk Of Death From The Disease.”
Dr Paul Thomas, MD
“If You’re Afraid Of Your Child Dying, If That’s What You Fear The Most…Do Not Give Them A Vaccine.”
Full Data—Rounded For Ease Of Reference… Unrounded Raw Data Listed At Bottom Of Post.
Polio:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 1 Trillion
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 215K
Diphtheria:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 42.5 Million
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 76K
Tetanus:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 1.5 Million
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 76K
Pertussis:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 2.3 Million
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 76K
Measles:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 106.5 Million
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 108K
Mumps:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 40.3 Million
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 108K
Rubella:
Death From The Disease: 0/ Negligible
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 108K
Varicella:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 32.3 Million
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 202K
Hepatitis A:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 1.6 Million
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 73K
Hepatitis B:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 305K
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 96K
HIB:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 1.5 Million
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 46K
Pneumococcal:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 236K
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 50K
Meningococcal:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 822K
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 141K
Influenza:
Death From The Disease: 1 in 136K
Death From The Vaccine: 1 in 15K
Dr. Paul Thomas, Dr. Kenneth P. Stoller & Stand for Health Freedom, are suing the CDC. The lawsuit accuses the CDC of recommending 72+ vaccine doses for American children without ever testing the cumulative schedule for safety.
The Lawsuit…
No safety testing: The CDC & FDA has never studied the long term, combined effects of the full childhood schedule. The Institute Of Medicine has issued two decades of warnings, but no accountability or action has resulted.
27 years of silence: By law, HHS must file biennial reports to Congress on vaccine safety efforts. No reports have been issued since 1998.
Constitutional violations: The suit charges the CDC with First Amendment violations(silencing dissenting doctors), the Fifth Amendment violations(due process & bodily integrity) & the Administrative Procedure Act violations(arbitrary & capricious rulemaking).
The Plaintiffs Seek…
Reclassification of all childhood vaccines to Category B. This shifts to shared decision making, which would make medical exemptions far easier to obtain.
That rigorous safety studies be required, comparing fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children before any return to a mandated schedule.
To end retaliation against doctors. Physicians who issue exemptions based on individualized medical judgment, would be protected.
If the case is won, this lawsuit will expose the unlawful CDC hyper vaccination program. It will mark a massive victory for families who seek vaccine exemptions & for physicians fighting to practice real ‘patient focused’ medicine.
Full Raw Data—‘Unrounded’ Complete Numbers…
POLIO: Risk of death from Polio is 1 in 1 Trillion. Risk of death from the Polio Vaccine is 1 in 214,973.
DIPHTHERIA: Risk of death from Diphtheria is 1 in 42,509,839. Risk of death from the DTaP Vaccine is 1 in 76,341.
TETANUS: Risk of death from Tetanus is 1 in 1,506,184. Risk of death from the DTaP Vaccine is 1 in 76,341.
PERTUSSIS: Risk of death from Pertussis is 1 in 2,346,718. Risk of death from the DTaP Vaccine is 1 in 76,341.
MEASLES: Risk of death from Measles is 1 in 106,506,429. Risk of death from the MMR Vaccine is 1 in 108,666.
MUMPS: Risk of death from Mumps is 1 in 40,371,594. Risk of death from the MMR Vaccine is 1 in 108,666.
RUBELLA: Risk of death from Rubella is 0. Risk of death from the MMR Vaccine is 1 in 108,666.
VARICELLA: Risk of death from Chickenpox is 1 in 32,331,860. Risk of death from the Vaccine is 1 in 202,398.
HEPATITIS A: Risk of death from Hepatitis A is 1 in 1,667,135. Risk of death from the Vaccine is 1 in 72,948.
HEPATITIS B: Risk of death from Hepatitis B is 1 in 305,465. Risk of death from the vaccine is 1 in 96,314.
HIB: Risk of death from HIB is 1 in 1,494,710. Risk of death from the HIB Vaccine is 1 in 45,966.
PNEUMOCOCCAL: Risk of death from Pneumonia is 1 in 236,562. Risk of death from the vaccine is 1 in 50,056.
MENINGOCOCCAL: Risk of death from Meningitis is 1 in 821,925. Risk of death from the Vaccine is 1 in 141,124.
INFLUENZA: Risk of death from Influenza is 1 in 135,905. Risk of death from the Flu Vaccine is 1 in 15,702.
Dr Paul Thomas, MD “Vax Facts”
https://a.co/d/h2HLWEk
Stand For Health Freedom
https://standforhealthfreedom.com
Dr Paul Thomas’ Research Data
https://doctorsandscience.com/presentations.html
Speaker:
@Paulthomasmd
Video: @toxins_in_children
Click to view the video: https://x.com/ValerieAnne1970/status/1977615087847321647
Just spoke to a physicians assistant who worked on the Pfizer randomized trial for the Covid vaccine. This is what she said.
Click to view the video: https://x.com/stkirsch/status/1977462231735706043
