Dismantling The Common Lies Used To Push Vaccines

How the System Continually Manipulates Us and How We Can Now Overcome It.

Over the last year and a half, I’ve been doing all that I can to push RFK Jr.’s candidacy along. This was essentially because:

•From both mutual friends who know him personally and my own interactions with him, I know that RFK Jr. is sincerely dedicated to advancing the issues I believe are important and hence unlikely to sell-out to the pharmaceutical industry (whereas the majority of politicians who campaign on populist issues inevitably do so once they are in a position where they can threaten the system).

•A variety of extremely unusual political factors (I described in detail here) coalesced to make what RFK Jr. and the Make America Healthy Again movement were doing suddenly possible—while in contrast, for decades, anything like what we’re witnessing now had simply been impossible (and due to the rapid proliferation global censorship from COVID-19, rapidly becoming increasingly impossible).

•A very small window existed to make the critical changes in medicine we needed, and I felt it was quite likely that this window would close, and if that happened, it would be a long time before a similar opportunity presented itself. Since the abuses of the medical industry keep on increasing, that meant if this window was missed, a lot of people would be severely harmed before the next opportunity to fix things emerged (assuming it even did).

Fortunately, a few miracles happened over the last week, and it appears that RFK Jr. is on his way to becoming the Secretary of Health and Human Services (H.H.S.). From watching that process unfold, I realized there were a few critical points that need be understood as we move forward into the next stage of healing America’s health.

Note: the Secretary of H.H.S. is typically considered to be one of the most important cabinet positions, as in addition to overseeing roughly a quarter of the Federal budget, roughly half of our health related laws have provisions that leave their implementation to the discretion of the Secretary of H.H.S. This is a major reason why the healthcare lobby (e.g., pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and insurance companies) is considered to be the most powerful lobby in Washington and why so much was invested into stopping RFK’s nomination.

Manipulating the Public

When I was in middle school (due to the boys around me entering puberty) I quickly became acutely aware of the common tricks children would use to manipulate others to get what they want, and before long, noticed that many adults were doing the same things, and then that the media was as well (which I later realized indicated they were copying each other).

This rapidly became immensely frustrating for me as I began to see how frequently the media would lie to people, the people around me would then believe it, and that it was often impossible to change their minds regardless of what I said.

To sublimate my frustration, I decided to start seeing if could predict what would happen in the future based on how the things were being portrayed in the present by the media, and before long, patterns started to repeat and the nature of the propaganda we were being exposed to indeed made it possible to predict what its end goal would be (that typically came to fruition).

As I was on this journey, I learned of the concept of “Public Relations” (PR) which forever reshaped my world view. Briefly, PR was a social science created by Freud’s nephew that combined psychology, marketing and propaganda to heavily influence the population in order to shift societal viewpoints in a favorable way for a client (e.g., get women to smoke at a time what that was socially unacceptable, make Americans want to go to war, stopping being mad at a company for causing an environmental disaster, continuing to support an abhorrent leader, convincing the populace to support a policy that goes against their own interests, etc.).

In turn, it is truly remarkable (once you investigate it) how many deeply ingrained beliefs within our society originated from a PR firm being commissioned to instill the belief, and much of what I do here is aimed at dispelling the false beliefs that destroy our health. Likewise, it is immensely tragic that PR has transformed Democracy from being a form of government where policies are decided on the basis of how palatable they are to the electorate to one where they’re decided on the basis of how much the PR campaign to get the public behind them will cost. For example, the 2021-2022 spike in the below graph was in part due to the over-the-top campaign we were bombarded with to badger the public into taking experimental “vaccine” gene therapies many were being harmed or killed by.

Sadly, because PR works, as the years have gone by, more and more has been invested into this invisible industry, and the techniques have become increasingly refined and widespread. In turn, once you learn to recognize those tactics, your perception of reality completely changes (in a manner analogous to putting on the glasses from the 1988 cult classic “They Live” which allowed the wearer to see how invisible aliens were secretly manipulating every facet of society). As such, I find it both immensely valuable to understand the PR industry’s tactics and simultaneously immensely frustrating that those tactics (at least until recently) always worked.

Some of these tactics include:

•Paying focus groups to identify which sculpted messages can emotionally draw the listener to the desired position (which is why you frequently hear “odd” phrases be continually repeated).

•Monopolizing every mass media platform (including medical journals) so that the targeted messages (and no competing narrative) will be heard by everyone, and then blasting it out across those channels at the optimal time.

•Providing fake “news programs” to media stations (especially underfunded local news stations) which are made to look like legitimate news programs but are actually part of a PR campaign.

•Using a variety of “credible” third parties (discussed further here) to promote your client’s message (e.g., paid-off “experts” or “non-profits” with misleading names that imply they are opposed to the industry that’s actually funding them).

•Using a variety of compelling gimmicks (often incorporating the previous three methods) to create a viral story that sweeps the country.

Sadly, this just touches the surface of what this industry does, and for that reason, I highly advise reading this book, or watching this video (which is an abridged version of the book and was named after a PR campaign that convinced the public it was a good idea to put toxic sewage sludge on farmland and thus into our food):

In the case of RFK Jr., I suspected a targeted PR campaign would be launched against him once his H.H.S. nomination was announced, but what I did not expect was for a Left-Wing dark money group (a “non-profit” that is able to hide its industry funding) would publicly announce a campaign against RFK Jr. (likely to solicit more funding), after which a Right-Wing dark money group (led by Mike Pence) would do the same. However, once this happened, I expected to see all the familiar PR tactics be leveled against RFK, the most remarkable of which was RFK Jr. being attacked for being both too “pro-choice” and too “pro-life” (in an effort to take away both Republican and Democrat RFK supporters).

Note: it’s important to remember that the pharmaceutical industry becomes quite vicious when its revenue is threatened and (until recently) could overturn even the most justifiable challenges to its business.

For example, methamphetamine production has been immensely damaging for many parts of America (e.g., roughly 4% of Americans have an amphetamine use disorder, overdoses now kill over 30,000 Americans a year, parental methamphetamine has become a leading reason children are put into foster care and in numerous states cleaning up toxic meth labs have overwhelmed law enforcement). Much of this arose from it becoming possible to easily synthesize meth at home from pseudoephedrine (one of many cough medicines), so legislators in hard hit states sought to stop this by placing limits on how much pseudoephedrine could be purchased over the counter.

However, as this (eye-opening) 2013 article details, since amphetamine production created millions of pseudoephedrine sales, the pharmaceutical industry (behaving like an angry hornet’s nest) mobilized massive campaigns to shoot down every state attempt to limit purchasing it—despite it being well-established restricting pseudoephedrine sales directly reduced methamphetamine catastrophes in communities. As such, despite many attempts to enact these laws, only a few were ever able to pass.

Framing a Debate

One of the most common methods used to manipulate people and win arguments is to present them within a context (frame) where only the desired point can be “true.”

For example, one technique the media will use to discredit their target is to have (often false) insinuations of domestic abuse float into the cultural gossip, and then ask the target not “Did you beat your wife” but rather “Do you enjoy beating your wife,” as that leading question exists within a frame where the allegations are a now an indisputable truth and hence much harder to effectively rebuke (as many of the replies one can give to that question will make them sound “guilty”).

Likewise, we frequently will be presented with unreasonable demands by manipulative individuals where extensive work is done by them to create a frame where the demands seem plausible, and then two choices will be given which both reinforce the frame that individual wants. For example, you could repeatedly be pressured into acknowledging a monetary debt you don’t actually have (in such a manner that it is difficult to argue against it due to the pushback you will receive) and then be told you have two choices to address the debt (one of which is worse than the other), at which point the frame succeeds in its underlying goal, getting you to pay a debt you never owed in the first place (assuming you “choose” the less bad choice given to you).

Similarly, when individuals seek to manipulate others, a great deal of work will often be put into the way they present themselves, as that can often create a frame where the target is pressured to go along with an otherwise dubious scheme. For instance, I’ve lost count of how many unscrupulous people over the years have tried to hustle me into a scam which began with me “being given the honor to work with them,” followed by them doing everything they can to exert the frame they are luxury goods while simultaneously finding ways to direct the conversation away from anything which threatens their frame and their grift.

Note: when I find myself in these situations, I will often go along with it for a bit (to lull them into a false sense of security as they sense an easy victim), and then when the right window appears, “pop their frame” at which point they frequently get quite upset (as by that point they typically have an expectation you will be the successful catch they’ve been waiting for after numerous failed attempts to scam people). All of this for instance frequently comes up when acquaintances approach me with investments “opportunities” that promise a return on the investment far exceeding the existing market rates (which is almost always a red flag as I’ve lost count of how many people I knew who lost a lot of money in those types of situations).

In turn, to overcome a bad frame, one or more of the following can be done:

•Overpower the existing frame with a stronger frame (which is often what people do when they fight for dominance in a social situation).

•Find a way to shatter or dispel an existing frame (which is often an art requiring significant verbal talent).

•Recognize that the premises behind the frame are false.

Framing Vaccination

Within the vaccination debate, over the years, a variety of frames have been developed by the industry (and PR firms) that are constantly overlaid onto any discussion of vaccine safety. As you might expect these frames:

•Reinforce the reality that all vaccines are 100% safe and effective and that all ways vaccines are given are “necessary.”

•Reinforce the reality that vaccines were the greatest thing in human history.

•Reframe any questions of vaccine safety or efficacy as an existential danger to mankind.

Note: the phrase “safe and effective” is a very clever marketing frame, as the terms are deliberately not defined but imply “100% safe and effective,” thereby both giving vaccinators the wiggle room to not be caught in a lie (as they [e.g., Fauci here] can say “I never said it was 100% effective”) but simultaneously effectively able to constantly assert that lie [e.g., which Fauci did throughout COVID-19] and gain all the political capital that comes with it (since arguing against the widespread belief vaccines are completely safe and effective is a huge uphill battle). As such, vaccine zealots will never define what “safe and effective” means (as that would destroy their grift), and as I showed here, this slogan so effectively frames the vaccination debate that it’s been re-used since the dawn of vaccination despite honest experts in each generation complaining about its dishonesty. Likewise, we are constantly told extensive testing goes into ensuring vaccines are safe (and that they are the safest thing in existence), but most of that is never made available to public, and whenever it is unearthed, inevitably shows vaccines actually are quite dangerous.

In turn, since the same arguments are continuously reused, one of the “missions” of this Substack has been to dispel the false premises behind many of the common vaccine talking points. As such, when I watched the confirmation hearings, I noticed that the deceptively framed arguments repeatedly used there were the same ones I’d repeatedly discussed in this publication.

Measles Deaths or Chronic Disease?

Many of the Senators chose to blame RFK Jr. for a “deadly” measles outbreak in Samoa and used that to argue they could not justify voting for him. In truth, the press and medical literature had long stated the declining Samoan measles vaccination rates were due to improperly administered measles vaccines killing children in 2018, which the Samoans were outraged about, particularly since the responsible nurses covered up what happened (and it was only recently that history was revised to blame all of that on RFK Jr.). However, beyond it being a lie, this argument establishes the following frames:

•Measles is an existential threat to humanity, and as such, the 83 deaths that happened in Samoa are far more important than the millions of Americans with (ever-increasing) chronic illness and the deaths that result from them (which is obviously absurd).

•All deaths from measles are due to a lack of vaccination rather than nutritional deficiencies (whereas large reviews have found vitamin A deficiency causes 87% of measles deaths).

•Prior to vaccination, measles was a deadly killer and we are forever in debt to mass vaccination for ending this scourge. This however omits that the death rate for measles had massively declined prior to vaccination (e.g., in 1967 in Sweden, 2 or 3 out of an estimated 86,300 infected died—which means the flu now is hundreds of times more deadly than measles was then).

Vaccines Ending Infectious Diseases

Due to the industrial revolution, the lower class were packed into the early cities and lived in absolute squalor where infectious disease could rapidly spread. For instance:

•There was no public sanitation, sewage ran in open ditches outside people’s windows, human fecal matter often overflowed into the streets or into the water supply (frequently leading to disease outbreaks), and animal feces littered the streets (e.g., this article gives an idea of just how vast a public health hazard horse manure created).

•Houses were so tightly packed with impoverished people that when a relative died, they often had to keep the (diseased) corpse in the house because the family could not afford to pay for a burial.

•Children as young as 4 worked 12-16 hour days in extremely dangerous environments (with the most vulnerable and malnourished children typically working the most dangerous jobs because they did not have parents who could effectively advocate for them)—to the point in 1830, children composed 50% of England’s labor force.

•A significant amount of the food the lower classes could afford was rotten and adulterated. Because of this, they frequently were sickened by the food and faced significant nutritional deficiences.

Within this context, the death rate of children were astronomically high (e.g., in some cities 60% of children died before age 5). As such, the progressives of the era fought lengthy and arduous battles to improve public sanitation and protect the basic living conditions of the common people, and because of this, the rate of death, including from infectious diseases rapidly declined.

The medical industry in turn pulled off one of the greatest PR feats in modern history and was able to take credit for this decline, despite the fact (as this chart shows) that much of the decline preceded vaccination, and that scarlet fever (severe strep), the number one infectious killer (which we conveniently never hear about now), also declined, despite a vaccine never having been made for it.

Note: many different schools of natural medicine which emerged during this era all noticed that living in squalor made one dramatically more likely to die from infectious disease (which in turn played a major role in shaping the natural medicine philosophy of focusing on the body’s terrain to prevent infectious disease).

In turn, I believe a key reason why the medical profession is so wedded to asserting vaccines rescued us from the dark ages of infectious disease (and hence are the “greatest invention in human history”) is because much of the profession’s credibility and superiority to every other form of healing rests upon this mythology.

Smallpox and Polio

Whenever you question vaccines, one of the most common counter arguments is that vaccines eliminated two of the deadliest diseases in history, so it is unacceptable to ever question any vaccine. Beyond this being illogical (as rather than be the same, the risk-benefit ratio varies immensely—something I discussed in detail here in regards to each vaccine we give our children), it’s also a lie.

In the case of smallpox (which I covered in detail here), many do not know that:

•At the time the smallpox vaccine was created, it was met with immense skepticism by the medical profession, with many doctors (correctly) accusing Jenner of fraud as no data existed to support it, they’d known many people who’d gotten cowpox and then smallpox, and they routinely saw the vaccine fail. The medical profession in turn only got behind the vaccine once they started being paid to administer it, and even then, many doctors still spoke out against it.

•The smallpox vaccine had an extraordinarily high rate of severely injuring recipients, so as the years went by, more and more people resisted getting it. Conversely, there are documented instances of doctors covering up those injuries to protect the vaccine program.
Note: I believe that the smallpox vaccine was the initial culprit behind the immense decline in vitality humanity has seen in the last 150 years.

•The smallpox vaccine routinely failed to prevent smallpox. In fact, outbreaks frequently followed its deployment, which remarkably were attributed to “not enough people being vaccinated” and harsher and harsher mandates being enacted to ensure they were.

•This (and the tsunami of injuries) led to increasingly large public protests against mandatory vaccination that eventually culminated in an 1885 English protest in Leicester consisting of 100,000 people from around Europe that resulted in the municipal government being thrown out and mandates being replaced with improved public sanitation and quarantining of both individuals with smallpox and those who’d been exposed to them.

•When Leicester’s policy was enacted, the medical profession proclaimed that it would create a smallpox disaster which would make the world never again question vaccination, but instead the opposite happened, Leicester got rid of smallpox, and the rest of the world copied their epidemiological methods. In turn, the actual reason we were able to eliminate smallpox was not due to vaccination but rather because the disease spread very slowly and had no animal reservoir (hence making it possible to eliminate—something which despite many attempts has only been accomplished for one other disease [the cattle virus rinderpest]).

In the case of Polio (which is discussed extensively in Dissolving Illusions):

•Populations existed who had widespread poliovirus infections but no cases of polio (e.g., a 1964 paper discussed the Xavante Indians of Brazil). Similarly, prior to 1900, polio was extremely rare, but then suddenly exploded in incidence. To some extent, I believe this was a result of vaccination as immune suppressing vaccines (e.g., DTwP) can provoke latent infections, and as I showed here many polio outbreaks were conclusively linked to vaccination campaigns (which has long made me wonder if the urgency to find a vaccine for polio, to the point a contaminated one was released, was in part due to the need to sweep that issue under the rug).

•In 1955, the year the Salk polio vaccine was released, the diagnostic criteria for polio was made much more stringent, specifically requiring laboratory confirmation of the polio virus and for paralysis to last at least 60 days after disease onset. In contrast, to quote a noted expert in the field:

Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: “Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.

The change in 1955 meant that we were reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.

Note: one of the most noteworthy polio misdiagnoses was Franklin D. Roosevelt’s, which was most likely actually Guillain-Barré Syndrome (a condition that from the start was recognized to be caused by vaccination).

•Many neurological injuries can cause paralysis. Pesticide ones are particularly noteworthy, as waves of paralysis followed lead arsenate spraying (used to stop the gypsy moth) and then DDT spraying (which caused almost identical spinal cord lesions to polio). In turn, the rise and fall of polio roughly parallels the use of DDT in the United States (which was rapidly phased out in 1959).

•At the time polio emerged, modern (positive pressure) ventilators did not exist. As such, people had to be treated with external negative pressure ventilators (the iron lungs). Nowadays, many individuals have a wide range of neurologic conditions (e.g., transverse myelitis—another complication of vaccination) which can lead to respiratory paralysis, but we do not associate them with the horrors of polio because iron lungs are no longer needed to treat them.

•While highly effective treatments for polio existed (e.g., ultraviolet blood irradiation and IV vitamin C), the normal approach was to cast the affected limbs (under the erroneous belief it would protect them), when in reality, it caused permanent paralysis to develop (e.g., immobilizing polio-affected muscles causes rapid muscle loss with rates of 5-10% loss of strength per day, or 10-20% per week).

•Unlike the injectable (inactivated) polio vaccine, the oral polio vaccine is a live virus which can shed and cause polio. In turn, each year about a thousand cases of polio are due to vaccination campaigns (e.g., see this 2021 CDC report), and since 1979, the only cases of polio in the USA (e.g., one in 2022) have been due to the polio vaccine virus.

In short, while Polio did “disappear” after the polio vaccine, much of that disappearance was effectively smoke and mirrors, and it’s very hard to know how much was actually due to the vaccine.

Note: other issues existed with the polio vaccine such as it having hot lots which contained the actual polio virus (which the government was warned about but nonetheless released) which then caused polio outbreaks. Given this, the association between severe polio and previous tonsil surgeries,^1,2,3 and its association with other types of vaccination, the medical field eventually concluded that penetrating injuries which directly exposed nervous system tissue enabled the polio virus to enter it and cause paralysis.

Herd Immunity

Because of the immense pushback harmful vaccine mandates caused, reasons had to be concocted to pressure those who didn’t want to vaccinate into vaccinating. One of these was to argue that vaccination could prevent others from getting ill (e.g., those who can’t vaccinate due to immune-suppression), as this:

•Encouraged shunning those who wouldn’t vaccinate (as they might make you ill—even though if they did that meant the vaccine you already took didn’t work)

•Justified violating someone’s bodily autonomy for the greater good.

Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons (which I listed here) vaccines almost never actually create the herd immunity they promise, and in many cases, we’ve had decades of promises they would, and ever increasing vaccine thresholds be proposed for herd immunity (e.g., consider what happened throughout COVID).

As far as I know, the only way vaccines can actually create herd immunity is through using a live viral vaccine (as these both provide the most robust immunity and are the hardest for pathogens to evolve resistance to) for a virus that does not have an animal reservoir. When this is done (with measles being the classic example), the existing herd immunity can be replaced with a pseudo-herd immunity from vaccination (or created from scratch if no herd immunity existed in the first place).
Note: even in the case of measles this is not entirely true as there are many cases of individuals getting measles from vaccine strains of the virus and outbreaks have occurred in vaccinated populations.

However, unlike natural herd immunity (where the small amounts of the virus circulating continually re-establish immunity in the population without causing illness and maternal antibodies make infants immune to the virus), vaccine “herd immunity” requires almost all of the population (and everyone born subsequently) to be vaccinated. As a result, by initiating a mass-vaccine campaign to eliminate measles (which was done at a time when it was no longer needed) a situation was created where measles outbreaks would inevitably occur the moment vaccination rates dropped (as the actual herd immunity of the population had been eliminated). Likewise, chickenpox vaccination destroyed our natural herd immunity to it, which in turn caused the rates of shingles to skyrocket after the vaccines were released (whereas medical authorities had believed mass chickenpox vaccination would eliminate shingles and then tried to bury the data once their study showed the opposite).

Note: while there are a lot of issues with the MMR vaccine, there are also two strong justifications for it. The first was that measles was devastating to indigenous populations it was introduced to (who had no herd immunity to begin with and were likely nutritionally deficient). The second is that because it non-specifically stimulates the immune system (which can cause autoimmunity), in areas where there are a high number of lethal infections and deficient medical care, this stimulation reduces the overall death rate (which was demonstrated in Sub-Saharan Africa).

Viruses are “Incurable”

In medicine, it is often implicitly (or explicitly) taught that many viral infections cannot be cured (and sometimes not indefinitely treated either). This frame in turn is used to justify an immense fear of viruses and an urgent need to vaccinate everyone as “vaccines are the one thing that can prevent viruses” (and being familiar with this was essentially how at the end of 2019, based off early anonymous reports from Wuhan, I was able to accurately predict most of what would happen throughout the pandemic).

In reality, this is not true as many “incurable” viral infections have specific drugs that are highly effective at treating them (e.g., ivermectin for COVID-19), and simultaneously, a few natural therapies exist (e.g., ozone and ultraviolet blood irradiation) that for decades have proven themselves to be remarkably effective at treating “incurable viral diseases” (e.g., I complied the extensive evidence demonstrating ultraviolet blood irradiation completely transforms the treatment of viral infections here).

Note: I have long suspected this mythology was created because the effective antiviral therapies (e.g., the oxidative therapies) tend to be fairly universal and un-patentable, so were any of them to become the standard of care for one virus, they would rapidly be used for other viral infections and then destroy the entire viral illness market (whereas with other types of infections, there is much more specificity to the patentable drugs that can be used to treat them).

We Need More Research

One of the longstanding cultural mythologies we have is that “science will eventually solve all of our problems” and everything hence will be better in the future.

I believe this has been immensely detrimental to our society as:

•It causes us become passive and ignore viable solutions that already exist.

•Those promised solutions often never arrive.

•This faith in science causes us to invest billions upon billions into research without setting clear standards for accountability (in order to receive more funding). As a result, the research sector becomes a bloated institution which becomes focused on getting more funding rather than stepping on anyone’s toes and solving the problem it’s been tasked with (as doing so would then eliminate any future research funding).

In turn, I can list countless medical (and non-medical) where this dynamic has played out. For example, many of the senators at RFK’s hearing became incensed that he was not willing to disavow the “throughly debunked link” between vaccines and autism—yet they simultaneously neglected to mention that despite decades (and billions of dollars) in autism research and skyrocketing autism rates, we still “don’t know what causes autism,” and “need more research” to know. As you can guess, both I (and many others) have been approached by numerous autism researchers who had clear evidence vaccines caused autism, but all of them were unwilling to publish that data because they knew it would never be accepted for publication, and, like Andrew Wakefield, they would be crucified if they violated that taboo.

We Can’t Cut Healthcare Funding

One of the key points RFK was hammered on was that “To Make America Healthy Again” he needed to ensure comprehensive (conventional) healthcare could be available to everyone as people suffer immensely when they can’t get the care they need. While “true” within its frame, this point is also highly misleading because the reason most people can’t get medical care is because:

•It’s too expensive.

•Each time government money is allocated to make it more affordable, it just becomes even more expensive because funding without accountability incentivizes higher costs (consider that in the last century, healthcare has gone from less than 3% of America’s GDP to 17.6%).

•Things that could lower costs (e.g., outlawing harmful medical therapies, no longer subsidizing a toxic food supply, or allowing effective off-patent medical therapies like DMSO into the marketplace) are continually shut down.

•It ignores that many of the health issues we face can’t be solved by external medical interventions and instead require us to take charge of our health.

•It ignores the fact that the central problem with healthcare is government corruption, so the “hope” that universal medical care could force the negotiation of lower costs never materialized in America and instead, once alternatives (e.g., private pay care) are mostly eliminated, that is always used to blacklist any alternative therapy that competes with the medical industry (e.g., we see many patients who come here from Europe because the treatments for their chronic illnesses are illegal there). Likewise, rationing is virtually inevitable once a robust parallel system does not exist (e.g., in Canada, it now takes an average of 30 weeks for a patient to see a necessary specialist they were referred to). Consider for a moment how harsh the prosecution was of anyone (who safely and effectively) treated COVID in an unapproved way, and then imagine what would happen if there had never been independent doctors who even had the liberty to do that.

As such, while statements like “healthcare is a human right” and we need “Medicare for all” tap into an understandable frustration people have, all it actually accomplishes is reinforcing the frame that the solution to increasing healthcare costs is endlessly fighting for more healthcare subsidies (and then withdrawing life-saving care once there is no longer enough money to feed the industry’s insatiable demand or promoting medically assisted death—which now accounts for 4.7% of deaths in Canada).

Note: while these frames are immensely frustrating to deal with, due to the manner in which they are deployed (getting everyone to mindlessly repeat them) they are also extremely predictable and repetitive. Because of this, it is typically very easy to predict the arguments that will be used to promote the current narrative and all the responses that will be given to any counter-narrative. As such, you can often think through dozens (if not hundreds) of potential strategies in order to identify the approach which has a real chance of counteracting the existing propaganda push.

Additionally, because there is typically incredible power behind an institutional narrative (and very little real competition to it), more and more, the people who promote it are selected on the basis of conformity and loyalty rather than competence or adaptability (e.g., consider the current crop of establishment politicians). Because of this, when they are confronted with something they did not prepare for, rather than adapt to it, they will typically double down on their existing approach, even if it is highly counterproductive to their aims (something that became very clear to me after the press continually mishandled Trump by allowing themselves to be baited again and again into attacking him in a manner that elevated his stature with the electorate and now that they are effectively paralyzed because the pace the new administration is going at is too fast for them to respond to).

The Power of Waves

Typically, when two frames are competing against each other, the one that “wins” is the one that has more power behind it (e.g., the one projected by the dominant individual with more charisma). Similarly, on one level, the reason why PR works so well is because of how much force is behind its frames (e.g., they’re often presented in a hypnotic manner that pulls you in, everyone on every platform repeats them with a dominating conviction and questioning that unison of voices requires one to then question so many other foundational beliefs used to navigate society that it’s easier to simply close ones mind to the counter-narrative than consider the clear red flags it raises).

Note: the final point is encapsulated by the line “the individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists” (which was part of an often cited Hoover quote about the evils of Communism that I believe is also applicable to many other areas).

Since it is typically impossible to overpower the propaganda apparatus (as like many of you, I’ve tried more times than I can count), an alternative option needs to be found that does not require clashing with that programming, such as honing in on a weak point within an existing propaganda campaign, or finding a way to sidestep an implanted belief but still get your message across (e.g., by planting the seed of a contrary idea that can later sprout when the time is right).

Of these options, I have found one of the best is to harness societal waves (or on an individual level, waves within someone’s life).

For context, any time a wave propagates, if force is added into it, it can either enhance or cancel out the wave (or do some combination of both), all of which depends upon how it aligns with the existing wave. Consider for example a pendulum swinging back and forth. If, when it swings left, you hit it (to push it left) the amplitude (height of its swing) will increase, while if you instead hit to the right, that will cancel out the existing swing to the left and decrease the total height of its swing. Similarly, with an existing wave:

Within societies, waves will continually propagate (e.g., the same thing will repeatedly recur at sequential points in history) and oftentimes, if something that is trying to express itself is suppressed (e.g., the decades of relentless gaslighting towards anyone who speaks out on the dangers of vaccination), it will re-emerge with a greater and greater intensity that requires more and more force to suppress (which I would argue describes much of what’s happened politically in the last decade as, at last, it’s no longer to hold the inevitable recoil back).

Beyond this perspective being useful as it often makes it feasible to “predict the future,” if harnessed correctly, it also can provide the power necessary to overcome the propaganda apparatus. This is because the existing PR structure effectively works by spamming every platform to create artificial waves (which often are so powerful it feels hopeless to oppose their inexorable tide—which for example is how I felt for much of the pandemic as abhorrent and unjustifiable policies were forced upon us) but artificial waves are typically much weaker than natural waves (which is why in just a few short years, the greatest propaganda effort in history was not able to maintain the COVID vaccine program as it so deeply violated humanity a far stronger natural wave emerged).

Note: this is best illustrated by the Berlin Wall, a hated structure which divided East and West Germany (e.g., many who attempted to cross it were shot and killed) that appeared unassailable for decades, but then after 28 years, suddenly collapsed in the blink of an eye due to the fact a wave had been building against it and that a series of events (e.g., a mistake by the Communists overseeing it) happened coincide with an existing wave and hence amplified it enough to shatter the wall.

I believe a great deal of the (fairly unprecedented) success of this publication has essentially come from the fact I sensed existing waves when they were still beneath the surface, and then tried to time what I did so I could either be prepared for when they emerged, or so that I could amplify an existing wave enough to create a tangible result. As such, I’ve repeatedly been able to be in the “right place at the right time” with this publication.

For example, prior to the election, I put my life on hold to spend months working on a DMSO series. This was because beyond the fact I felt it could help a lot of people, I had a sense that the country (and presidential campaign) would drift towards people wanting concrete proof the entire medical system was lying to them and that it was possible to improve the issues they struggled with. So, if that proof could be presented to them, it would likely amplify the existing wave that was gradually breaking public trust in the (corrupt) mainstream scientific institutions and be able to make a tangible positive impact on people’s lives.

In turn, I went with DMSO as beyond it being highly effective but relatively unknown, it was fairly safe (so bad reader experiences that could dampen its wave were unlikely), was able to treat a very wide range of issues people struggled with, and most importantly, was very accessible.

As it turned out, that sense was likely correct, as:

•The articles (the first of which was released on September 15) quickly went viral (and collectively have now been viewed by millions of people), and in a few months made this newsletter go from being the number eight to number one Substack newsletter in this genre.

•Shortly before the election, RFK Jr. sensed that same wave and also amplified it (with what I considered to be one of the most important messages of the campaign):

Note: a key reason why I have emphasized the Forgotten Sides of Medicine here is because I believe it’s not enough to simply know the existing paradigm is “bad.” Rather, to actually change things, it’s necessary to have a superior alternative (so you can displace the existing paradigm rather than continually fighting against it) and if you have a lived experience of the concept (e.g., over the counter DMSO safely curing decades of debilitating pain that toxic conventional care was useless for) that is the most impactful as this concept (that the FDA continually stonewalls life-changing therapies) goes from being a intellectual idea to a visceral truth.

The Next Secretary of H.H.S.

Unless you have an inside view of the system, it’s difficult to appreciate how improbable someone like RFK Jr. being nominated to run H.H.S. is (let alone being confirmed) as so many vested interests see that as an existential threat. Because of this, I’ve put a lot of thought into all the moving parts and if there was anything I can do that would tangibly improve his chance of success.

To that end, once the election was over (and I’d had a few days to rest), I began testing out the points I felt had the best chance of being persuasive against the likely tactics that would be taken against RFK Jr. and saw this one got the most traction.

In writing this, my thought process was:

•One of the few frames which can potentially displace all of the misleading ones currently being propped up by the PR apparatus to attack RFK and shield vaccines from all criticisms is that these people are lying to you because they are corrupt.

•It’s critical to highlight that the Democrat Party (during the Obama administration) got bought out by the pharmaceutical industry, and ever since then, have consistently promoted positions which benefit the industry (e.g., vaccine mandates) regardless of how much their constituents oppose them. In turn, the main reason MAHA exists is because the Democrat party stopped advocating for the health issues much of their base cares about, and the disgust in these disingenuous politicians has hence caused a wave to exist that can be further amplified (and amplify the messages promoted by this platform).

•It’s very likely Bernie Sanders will jump on this bandwagon as well, particularly since he has a long history of being extremely devoted to the vaccine paradigm (which I know from mothers of autistic children who’ve been shut down whenever they tried to talk to him about it). As such, beyond the point about him making the post more likely to go viral, it planted a critical seed for the months to come (e.g., when Sanders hosted a symposium to defend vaccines a few weeks ago, 98% of the comments saw through it and called him out for being corrupt—whereas in 2016, I believe few if any would have).

Following this, I then tried to get this out there a few more times (which got similar degrees of traction) and noticed that more and more commenters were pointing it out to Warren as well. In parallel, I also started trying to lay out a comprehensive picture of both the corruption within the FDA (which for over a century has prevented dedicated and beloved civil servants from being able to fix anything) and to dissect the entire campaign being waged against RFK so more people knew how to opposed to it.

By the time the actual hearings happened, I had a fairly good idea of what would be brought up at them, and made the predictions that:
•It would be possible to show the belligerence RFK Jr. received would be directly proportional to how much pharmaceutical money someone was taking.
•That if this message was presented correctly (assuming the criticisms RFK Jr. faced at the hearing were grossly out of line), it would quickly go viral.
•Depending on how day one of the hearing went, it might be critical for it to go viral before day two so the narrative shifted appropriately.

As such, I pre-emptively put something together that I felt had the best shot of doing that (which built upon my earlier work of exposing that PR campaign).

It worked (e.g., it and similar follow-up tweets from other influencers collectively garnered over 100 million views) and the next day, became the focus of the hearing (which was important as many of the Democrat legislators switched to more crude smears since the attempts from the previous day had not worked).

More specifically, at the time I did this, I felt it was very unlikely anything could be done to get the Democrat Senators to change their vote. For example, many people felt Bernie Sanders would be the most likely to Senator to support RFK Jr. since he’d spent decades working on many of the same issues RFK Jr. was fighting for. However Sanders was unwilling to break from the pharmaceutical industry and do the right thing, even in spite receiving immense outrage over his conduct that has permanently damaged his reputation (although fortunately Sanders also created one of the funniest moments in Congressional history by becoming incensed about anti-vax infant onesies sold by a non-profit).

Instead, I felt the most important thing was to ensure the Republican Senators did not abandon RFK Jr., and my hope was that this going viral would put them in a position where they knew if this happened to Sanders, they would be taking on a huge risk if they broke from their party to veto RFK Jr. as that would likely be subject to same fate as Sanders.

In turn, to quote a [now deleted] Trial Site News article posted after the second hearing titled “Prominent Beltway Insider: “RFK Jr. In”:

This seemingly conclusive information apparently is attributed to Kennedy's confrontation with Senator Bernie Sanders, where he criticized substantial pharmaceutical contributions to senators. Following this in the past day Republican research continues to highlight significant pharma donations to various senators, leading many to distance themselves from such associations and rally behind Kennedy's nomination. TrialSite asked the source their level of confidence in this information. The source, a highly respected person in the Beltway, stated a high amount of confidence.

Note: it was also amazing at the RFK Jr. hearings (especially the later ones) to hear so many Republican senators directly challenge the misleading frames the medical industry has used for decades to take advantage of us.

Overall, I believe much of the success of this campaign was a result of Joe Rogan and then Elon Musk deciding to promote the Tweet. I believe this was in part due to the fact my post tapped into an even larger wave—the fact that Musk’s DOGE was preparing to unveil how much of the Federal budget (e.g., through USAID) was being diverted into paying people off (whose corrupt positions were thus whatever allowed them to continue their grift—particularly within the mainstream media), and hence having a viral meme already being in everyone’s mind about massive conflicts of interest supported the larger wave Musk wanted to create (and fortunately simultaneously reinforced the wave I was trying to create to help RFK Jr.).

Note: those who are interested in learning more about the scope of these revelations and how much they change everything, Joe Rogan’s interview yesterday with Bret Weinstein does an excellent job of providing that context.

Conclusion

One of my favorite articles to cite reviews the history of American propaganda which highlights that when PR was first being developed, much of the public (and intellectual class) was opposed to it, as they felt brainwashing voters was antithetical to Democracy. In contrast, the advocates of propaganda argued society and technology had become so complex that we could no longer rely upon the public to make decisions that were in the best interest of the country so it instead was necessary to have an “expert” class make those decisions for the public and sell them to the electorate with PR.

The propagandists eventually won (as propaganda was viewed as a necessary evil to win World War 2) and ever since then we’ve lived under it. Recently however (due to both the internet and the increasing loss of trust in our system as its corruption intensifies) that’s changed, and the system of propaganda we’ve lived under is no longer viable (e.g., there are now a lot of people online who in their free time can rapidly create counter-narratives which outcompete the costly and laborious traditional propaganda campaigns). As such, we at last have the opportunity to return to the path the anti-propagandists had hoped for—to create a society where the public was educated and empowered enough that they could correctly make the decisions that most benefitted the society (e.g., we not the experts were correct about COVID-19).

In turn, the ultimate goal of this article was to use the remarkable story of RFK’s confirmation process to highlight two critical themes as we move forward:

1. Now is the time for us to begin challenging many of the misleading frames that have been erected to enslave and exploit us—and sadly, this article just touched the tip of the iceberg on that (e.g., there are many outside of medicine).

2. There is a massive wave behind us that has been building for over a century (e.g., my first article here highlighted how the global protests we saw against the COVID mandates were almost identical to those against the abhorrent smallpox vaccine mandates 150 years ago). Because that wave is now cresting, we have the power to change a lot of things which previously could not be changed. However, if we want to maximize it, it is critical that we work in a manner where our actions compound each other rather than counteracting and dissipating the wave that is sweeping through.

I am now immensely hopeful we can continue to build the wave of truth around us that has been generations in the making and profoundly grateful for the support that each of you that has given me the chance to play part in this. In turn, going forward, it is my sincere hope that each of us can play a role in amplifying it by having the courage to speak truth to those around us and support those we know who are doing the same. The opportunity we now have before us is extraordinary, and it is imperative we make the most of it.

To learn how other readers have benefitted from this publication and the community it has created, their feedback can be viewed here. Additionally, an index of all the articles published in the Forgotten Side of Medicine can be viewed here.