Daily Chemicals That Are Severely Disrupting Your Hormones

  • A rapid decline in men’s sperm concentration and count is occurring worldwide

  • While the rate of sperm decline was just over 1% a year beginning in the 1970s, by 2000 the rate of decline more than doubled to 2.64% a year

  • One class of chemicals appears to be particularly detrimental to sperm — endocrine disruptors, such as phthalates and bisphenols

  • Much of the damage occurs in early pregnancy during crucial developmental windows; the damage can be passed on to future generations

  • Beyond phthalates and bisphenols, pesticides have also been shown to lower sperm count, even down to zero in adult men

  • For those interested in protecting their own fertility — and that of future generations — as much as possible, avoiding hormone-disrupting chemicals is essential

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

Shanna Swan, Ph.D., a reproductive epidemiologist with the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, has been studying declining sperm counts for decades. In 2017, she and colleagues published a study that went viral because it predicted an impending fertility crisis.

Men experienced a 50% to 60% decline in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011, the 2017 study found, amounting to a decline of over 1% per year over the last 50 years.

The team then expanded the study, adding seven years of data and an expanded geographical range. The new study, published in Human Reproduction Update in November 2022,

includes data from six continents and 53 countries, including years 2011 to 2018

— but the results reveal an equally disturbing trend.

The original 2017 study included men from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand but was criticized because it didn’t include global data. “At that time, there were too few studies with data from South/Central America-Asia-Africa (SAA) to reliably estimate trends among men from these continents,” the research team explained.

In the time that elapsed since their first study, however, more research was published, enough to show a clear significant decline in sperm concentration and count in men in Asia, Africa and South America. This means the decline is worldwide.

The rate of decline also changed when more recent data was added in. While the decline was just over 1% a year beginning in the 1970s, by 2000 the rate of decline more than doubled to 2.64% a year.

“That is very fast and very unusual, given that this was only in the last 18 years, from 2000 to 2018,” Swan said. “Extremely rapid decline.”

The pertinent question is what’s triggering this rapid decline in sperm counts and concentration. Genetics comes to mind, but Swan has ruled this out because the steep decline took place over just two generations — much too rapid of a change to be caused by genetics.

“That leaves us with environment,” she says, breaking it down into two categories — lifestyle and chemicals.

Lifestyle factors such as smoking, drinking alcohol, stress, diet and exercise all affect sperm. So, too, do chemicals in the environment via our air, drinking water, household dust, food and more.

While there are many factors contributing to this reproductive calamity, Swan believes one class of chemicals to be particularly detrimental to sperm decline — endocrine disruptors.

Sperm are germ cells produced by the reproductive system. “The production of germ cells is governed by hormones,” Swan explains.

And sex hormones are altered by these chemicals, including phthalates, which lower testosterone levels, and bisphenols, including not only BPA but also BPF, BPS and other variants that have been used to replace BPA. Where are these toxic chemicals found? All over the place:

  • Plastics

  • Canned food liners

  • Epoxy adhesives

  • Cash register receipts

  • Toys

  • Caulks and adhesives

  • Vinyl flooring

  • Flexible PVC pipes

  • Food packaging

  • Teething toys

  • Personal care products

  • Sports equipment

Beyond phthalates and bisphenols, pesticides have also been shown to lower sperm count, even down to zero in adult men, according to Swan.

A man’s sperm count can recover from pesticide exposure in about three months, provided he stops being exposed. But if a pregnant woman is exposed to pesticides, her unborn son can be affected — and his sperm count will not recover.

Grandchildren are also affected, as the changes are passed through generations.

Research by Swan and colleagues found that women’s exposure to phthalates during pregnancy is also linked to male babies’ anogenital distance (AGD) — the distance from the anus to the base of the penis — with higher exposure associated with shortened AGD.

Later in life, shorter AGD is linked with a smaller penis

and poorer semen quality, such that Swan believes AGD at birth is predictive of adult reproductive function.

The more testosterone exposure in utero, the greater the AGD distance. If there’s not enough testosterone exposure, or if it comes at the wrong time, Swan says, then that genetic male will have an AGD that’s smaller than it should be:

“There are consequences. And it turns out that if a young man has a shorter than expected AGD for his body size, then he’ll have a lower sperm count and he’ll be more likely to be infertile. So this is undoubtedly part of the picture of declining sperm count.”

During critical phases of development in early pregnancy, if phthalates occupy the testosterone receptors in the fetus, it signals its body to not produce enough testosterone on its own.

At that point, the AGD stops growing and the boy will be under-masculinized, Swan says. “That also affects the germ cells that will go on to become sperm when he’s a young man. And so they are impaired by this as well. So when he goes on to … try and have a child, he won’t do as well. His sperm count will be lower and he won’t be able to do the job.”

While much of the damage occurs in early pregnancy during crucial developmental windows, when the fetus is first forming and cells are rapidly dividing, exposure then continues, accumulating throughout life. Worse still, the damage that occurs can be passed on to future generations, and it’s not only boys that are affected.

“A female fetus, in utero,” Swan explained, “is growing the eggs that she will use to have her own children. These chemicals can make their way to those germ cells, too.”

A PLOS Genetics study also demonstrated generational effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals, with effects worsening with each subsequent generation until, by the third generations, some of the animals could not produce any sperm.

Swan’s book, “Count Down,” goes into detail about how the modern world not only is threatening sperm counts but also altering reproductive development in males and females,

and in so doing “imperiling the future of the human race.”

In terms of reproductive consequences, this means it’s going to be harder to conceive a child, a trend that’s already becoming apparent. Since 1996, U.S. births that occurred via assisted reproductive technology are up more than threefold.

This may also have consequences, Swan says, as research suggests boys born through couples that have gone through assisted reproductive techniques have lower sperm counts themselves.

Meanwhile, men with lower sperm counts tend to die younger than men with higher counts. “Sperm count tells us not just about ability to conceive, but it also tells us something about longevity, which is pretty important.”

Overall, when the fertility rate goes down it means fewer children are being born.

While some believe that’s a good thing, Swan says, the data suggest the world’s population will continue to increase until about 2040 or 2050. At that point, it’s predicted that it will drop “and it will never come back.” This means there will be fewer young people around to support older people. “This is a social problem that’s growing” and already being felt in Japan, China and other Asian countries.

Swan warned in 2021 that if the curve of declining sperm counts from the 2017 study continues, by 2045 the median sperm count will be zero. “It is speculative to extrapolate, but there is also no evidence that it is tapering off. This means that most couples may have to use assisted reproduction,” she said.

Further, now we know declining sperm counts have not tapered off but actually accelerated.

Swan’s findings have implications for the whole of humanity. But in the immediacy, she shared advice for people interested in starting a family in the near future:

“They should think about what they’re allowing into their bodies, even right now, in terms of the kind of food, the kind of drinks, the kind of air, the kind of products they use in their house, the cosmetics they use. Mostly just be aware that it all matters … And then, I would say, men should bank a semen sample. Why not? It’s not difficult. It’s not particularly expensive. Now you can do it at home with a mail-in sample …

If you want to conceive a child in the next 10 years, why not have a sample that’s probably OK. By the same measure, I would say that every man should have his sperm tested. If it’s not great quality, he can think about what to do to improve that in terms of his lifestyle, exposures and so on.”

I believe electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are another significant factor for the observed decrease in male sperm count. Writing in Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine, researchers noted that many in vivo and in vitro studies have revealed the EMF exposure can alter reproductive function, including sperm motility, with effects varying according to the frequency, duration of exposure and strength of EMFs.

For those interested in protecting their own fertility — and that of future generations — as much as possible, reducing your EMF exposure and avoiding hormone-disrupting chemicals are essential. Swan also recommends some simple solutions like eating unprocessed foods that you cook yourself as much as possible to reduce your exposure to plastic food packaging, and using only simple, unscented personal care and household products.

One silver lining is that phthalates leave your body quickly, in a matter of hours, after exposure. They’re nonpersistent chemicals — unlike other toxins like dioxin, PCBs or lead, so if people stop taking them in, the damage done to fertility would stop — at least from this class of chemicals.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

More Than 217,000 Americans Killed by the COVID Jab

  • According to a December 2021 survey of 2,840 Americans, between 217,330 and 332,608 people died from the COVID jabs in 2021

  • Survey results also show that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed

  • Of the respondents, 34% knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22% knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot

  • 51% of the survey respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 13% reported experiencing a “serious” health problem post-jab. Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis, which claimed only 1.2% of trial participants experienced a serious adverse event

  • In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll, 34% reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and 7% reported major side effects

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

While it’s clear that the experimental COVID shots have killed a considerable number of people, the total death toll remains elusive, thanks to U.S. health agencies obfuscating, hiding and manipulating data.

That said, the most recent survey

— published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases — puts the death toll from the COVID jabs somewhere between 217,330 and 332,608 in 2021 alone. As noted by Steve Kirsch:

“[We’ve] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million … in just the first year, and the CDC and FDA want to give you more shots … Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.

So the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people … These [data] are consistent with the numbers I’ve been saying for a long time. It’s not a coincidence.”

Now, the slant of this paper is kind of interesting. The primary aim of it was to “identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The author was curious about why 31% of the U.S. population had declined the jab or not completed the primary series by November 2022, nearly two years into a the massively advertised “vaccination” campaign.

Calculating the proportion of fatal events from the jab was secondary. As explained by the author, Mark Skidmore,

Ph.D., an economics professor at Michigan State University:

“A largely unexplored factor is the degree to which serious health problems arising from the COVID-19 illness or the COVID-19 vaccines among family and friends influences the decision to be vaccinated.

Serious illness due to COVID-19 would make vaccination more likely; the perceived benefits of avoiding COVID-19 through inoculation would be higher.

On the other hand, observing major health issues following COVID-19 inoculation within one’s social network would heighten the perceived risks of vaccination. Previous studies have not evaluated the degree to which experiences with the disease and vaccine injury influence vaccine status.

The main aim of this online survey of COVID-19 health experiences is to investigate the degree to which the COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events among friends and family, whether perceived or real, influenced inoculation decisions. The second aim of this work is to estimate the total number of COVID-19 vaccine induced fatalities nationwide from the survey.”

Here’s an excerpt describing the methodology:

“An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted. Information was collected regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, experiences with COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles. Logit regression analyses were carried out to identify factors influencing the likelihood of being vaccinated.”

A total of 2,840 people completed the survey between December 18 and 23, 2021. The mean age was 47, and the gender ratio was 51% women, 49% men. Just over half, 51%, had received one or more COVID jabs.

As Skidmore suspected, results showed that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.

Of the respondents, 34% knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22% knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot. So, as noted by to the author:

“Knowing someone who reported serious health issues either from COVID-19 or from COVID-19 vaccination are important factors for the decision to get vaccinated.”

As for the types of side effects experienced by people within the respondents’ social circles, they included (but were not limited to) the “usual suspects,” such as:

  • Heart and cardiovascular problems

  • Severe COVID infection or other respiratory illness

  • Feeling generally unwell, weak, fatigued and out of breath for weeks

  • Blood clots and stroke

  • Death

Based on these survey data, Skidmore estimates:

“… the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95% CI 217,330-332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.”

Were COVID-19 an infection with an extremely high mortality rate, perhaps high rates of death from a vaccine would be acceptable. But COVID-19 has an exceptionally low mortality rate, on par with or lower than influenza, hence the risk associated with the COVID jabs ought to be equally low.

“The global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people.” ~ Steve Kirsch

As it stands, the risks of the shots are very high, while Pfizer’s own trial data, with more than 40,000 participants, show they offer no benefit in terms of your risk of hospitalization and/or death. The absolute risk reduction is so minute as to be inconsequential.

The death toll from the jabs isn’t the only disturbing part of this paper, though. Skidmore’s findings also suggest side effects from the jab may be more common than previously suspected.

As mentioned, 51% of the respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 15% reported experiencing a new health problem post-jab and 13% deemed it “serious.” Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis,

which claimed only 1.2% of trial participants reported a serious adverse event.

Now, as suggested by Kirsch,

“we need to discount that by a factor of two because people report less severe adverse events as adverse events.” Still, that means serious adverse events from the jab are five times higher than what Pfizer reported.

“This is why the FDA never does after-market surveys in the drugs it approves. Because reality hurts,” Kirsch writes.

“It is the FDA that should have discovered this before Mark Skidmore. The FDA is asleep at the wheel and they just believe everything the drug companies tell them, hook, line, and sinker. This is a major miss. Why aren’t they doing surveys like this to see if the reality matches the study?”

For additional comparison, here are the findings of several other investigations:

  • Rasmussen Reports

    — In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll — taken one year after Skidmore’s survey — 34% reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and 7% reported major side effects.

  • CDC’s V-Safe data

    — In October 2022, ICAN obtained the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe data. This is a voluntary program to monitor adverse vaccine reactions. Of the 10.1 million COVID jab recipients who used the app, 7.7% had to seek medical care post-jab.

  • Kirsch-funded survey

    — A June 2022 U.S. survey by the market research company Pollfish found that 16.3% of COVID jabbed respondents experienced an injury, and 9.7% required medical care.

The graphic below, which visually compares Skidmore’s findings to the findings of the Rasmussen, V-Safe and Pollfish surveys, was created by InfoGame on Substack.

As noted by InfoGame:

“Skidmore’s article serves as another sign that the rate of COVID-19 side effects is extremely high and that the COVID-19 vaccines are an unprecedently risky medical product.”

While we’re on the topic of reported side effects, several surveys have also focused on the frequency of abnormal menses in women who got the jab, which could be indicative of reproductive harm. For example:

  • A British survey published in early December 2021 found 20% of women experienced menstrual disturbances following their jab.

  • A study published in Science Advances in mid-July 2022 found 66% of “fully vaccinated” postmenopausal women experienced abnormal breakthrough bleeding. In total, 42.1% reported heavier menstrual flow post-jab (this included women of all ages, as well as transgenders on hormone treatments).

  • An Italian peer-reviewed study published in March 2022 found that “50-60% of reproductive-age women who received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reported menstrual cycle irregularities, regardless of the type of administered vaccine.” After the second dose, abnormal menses were reported by 60% to 70%.

Not surprisingly, people in high places are already trying to force a retraction of the paper. A special notice from the editor, dated just two days post-publication, states, “Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review.” As noted by Kirsch:

“They are actively trying to get the paper retracted because it destroys the narrative. I’m certain they will succeed because journals are under intense pressure to censor any anti-narrative paper. The problem is that Mark’s survey was entirely consistent with my surveys.

If they want to have the paper retracted they need to show us THEIR surveys. But of course, they don’t have any surveys because they are too afraid of the results.

So they will use hand-waving arguments like “I don’t like the methodology” or some nonsense like that instead of gathering their own data. They will NEVER show us survey data that supports their narrative because it isn’t there.

That’s why there are no success anecdotes. NOBODY can give me the name of a US geriatric practice where all-cause deaths plummeted after the vaccines rolled out. In every case, they went the wrong way. The narrative is unraveling at an accelerated pace but the medical community is still fighting the truth.”

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

The Rise of the Biomedical Security State – Discussion Between Dr. Aaron Kheriaty & Dr. Mercola

Feb 6 • 1HR 16M

Today I interview Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, author of “The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State.” He was fired as a professor for his objections to mandatory COVID shots.

Listen to Dr. Mercola’s Weekly Podcast, as the legendary natural health pioneer continues to lead you on your journey towards optimal health.

Listen to this episode with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Dr. Mercola’s Censored Library (Private Membership) to listen to this episode and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

Pfizer Admits ‘Directing’ the Evolution of COVID-19 Virus

  • January 25, 2023, Project Veritas released an undercover video of Dr. Jordon Trishton Walker, director of Research and Development for Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning at Pfizer, discussing an internal plan to “direct the evolution” of the COVID-19 virus in order to make more money from COVID boosters

  • According to Walker, Pfizer is doing research to make the virus “more potent,” and this research is “ongoing”

  • Walker explains how the drug industry has captured American regulators, and states that while it’s good for the industry, “it’s bad for everyone else in America”

  • At 8 p.m., January 27, 2023, two days after Project Veritas released the video, Pfizer finally published a response which, oddly enough, seems to substantiate rather than refute Walker’s claims

  • Pfizer basically denies using “directed evolution” in its vaccine development, but suggests it may be used in ongoing Paxlovid-related research

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

By now, many of you will have seen Project Veritas’ undercover video of Dr. Jordon Trishton Walker, director of Research and Development for Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning at Pfizer, discussing an internal plan to “direct the evolution” of the COVID-19 virus in order to make more money from COVID boosters. The video was released January 25, 2023.

Allegedly, the undercover journalist working with Project Veritas also worked at Pfizer. This would help explain Walker’s surprising candor. However, during a later confrontation by Project Veritas, Walker insisted he’d “lied” to impress a date.

“I’m literally a liar,” Walker said when confronted by Project Veritas journalist James O’Keefe in a New York City café. “I was trying to impress a person on a date — by lying.”

In the undercover video, you can hear Walker saying:

“You know how the virus keeps mutating? Well, one of the things we’re exploring is, like, why don’t we just mutate it ourselves so we could focus on — so we could create and preemptively develop new vaccines, right?

So, we have to do that. If we’re gonna do that, though, there’s a risk of, like, as you could imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses.

So, we’re like, do we want to do this? So, that’s like one of the things we’re considering, for, like, the future, like maybe we can, like, create new versions of the vaccines and things like that.”

“OK. So, Pfizer ultimately is thinking about mutating COVID?” the Project Veritas journalist asks, to which Walker replies: “Well, that is not what we say to the public. No. That’s why it was, it was a thought that came up in a meeting.”

Later Walker says:

“Part of what they [Pfizer scientists] want to do is, to some extent, to try to figure out, you know, how there are all these new strains and variants that just pop up.

So, it’s like trying to catch them before they pop up and we can develop a vaccine prophylactically, like, for new variants. So, that’s why they like, do it controlled in a lab, where they say this is a new epitope, and so if it comes out later on in the public, we already have a vaccine working.”

“Oh my God. That’s perfect. Isn’t that the best business model though? Just control nature before nature even happens itself, right?” the Project Veritas journalist says. “Yeah, if it works,” Walker replies. When asked for an explanation, Walker replies:

“Because some of the times there are mutations that pop up that we are not prepared for, like the delta and omicron, and things like that. So, who knows? I mean, either way, it’s going to be a cash cow. COVID will probably be a cash cow for us for a while going forward [laughs].”

While Walker, at one point, states that this is just an idea they’re considering for the future, later he claims efforts to mutate the virus are “ongoing.” So, which is it? Here’s a transcription of that conversation:

Project Veritas journalist: “So, I mean, when is Pfizer going to implement the mutation of all these viruses?”

Walker: “I don’t know. It depends on how the experiments work out because this is just, like, something we’re trying, right?”

Project Veritas journalist: “It sounds like gain of function to me.”

Walker: “I don’t know, it’s a little bit different. I think it’s different. It’s, like, this [thing] — it’s definitely not gain of function.”

Project Veritas journalist: “It sounds like it is. I mean, it’s OK [laughs].”

Walker: “No, no, no. But directed evolution is very different.”

Project Veritas journalist: “Directed evolution, OK. Well, so, I mean, is that what it is?”

Walker: “Maybe. I don’t know [laughs] … Well, you’re not supposed to do gain-of-function research with the viruses. They’d rather we not. But we do these selected structure mutations to try to see if we can make them more potent. So, there is research ongoing about that.”

As noted by Carlson, it very much sounds like Pfizer is engaged in illegal gain-of-function research. Merely making up another term (directed evolution) doesn’t change the end result. Walker clearly stated that Pfizer is doing research to make the virus “more potent,” which is what gain of function is all about. That research, Walker also admitted, is “ongoing,” which means it’s currently happening, and not something merely pondered as a future possibility.

Assuming Walker was telling the truth to his “date,” just how is Pfizer going about mutating COVID into something “more potent”? According to Walker:

“… they’re still kind of conducting the experiments on it, but it seems like, from what I’ve heard, they’re kind of optimizing it. But they’re going slow, [be]cause everyone’s very cautions.

Like, you know, obviously they don’t want to accelerate it too much. But I think they’re also just trying to do it as an exploratory thing, because you obviously don’t want to advertise that you’re figuring out future mutations …

But you have to be, like, very controlled to make sure that this virus that you mutate doesn’t create something [that], you know, just goes everywhere — which, I suspect, is the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. Like, it makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere. It’s bullshit …

Don’t tell anyone. Promise you won’t tell anyone. The way it [the experiment] would work is that we put the virus in monkeys, and we successively cause them to keep infecting each other, and we collect serial samples from them.”

As noted by Carlson, if you suspect the COVID pandemic was the result of a lab-created virus that got out, why would you conduct the same kind of experiments and risk another, possibly worse, pandemic?

Walker also explains to his “date” how the drug industry has captured American regulators:

“It [Pfizer] is a revolving door for all government officials. Yeah, for any industry though. So, in the pharma industry, all the government officials who, you know, review our drugs, eventually they come work for pharma companies. And the military, all the Army and defense government officials eventually go work for the defense companies afterward.”

When asked how he feels about that revolving door, Walker replies:

“It’s pretty good for the industry, to be honest. But it’s bad for everyone else in America.”

When asked “Why is it bad for everybody else?” Walker explains:

“Because if the regulators, who review our drugs, you know that once they stop being a regulator they want to go work for the company, they are not going to be as harsh on the company where they’re getting their job.”

As noted by Carlson, this is a very clear and succinct description of regulatory capture, which we’ve long suspected to be real. We’ve just not heard an industry executive admit it.

In case you’re wondering if Walker might have lied about working for Pfizer, Project Veritas did its homework before putting the video out. Screenshots

from Pfizer’s HR system “Workday” confirm Walker works under Global Pipeline Planning, just two levels below CEO Albert Bourla. His immediate supervisor reports to Dr. Mikael Dolsten, who in turn reports directly to Bourla.

Walker’s LinkedIn also confirmed his position. Additional corroborations of his position can be found on Brian O’Shea’s Substack.

“One of the strangest features of the Hall of Mirrors in which we now live is that the public facade of powerful institutions and corporations is staffed with people who seem stunningly incompetent and unserious.” ~ John Leake

As reported by the Substack Pharma Files:

“He works under Global Pipeline Planning. These are the people who plan new drugs (i.e. analyzing disease trends and unmet needs and evaluating the demographics to see if these drugs would be profitable).

One of their primary responsibilities is ensuring R & D money goes into the right therapeutic areas. For example, spend less R & D money on finding treatment for diseases in some poor countries and put more R & D money into finding treatment for diseases in developed countries because those governments are rich enough to subsidize expensive drugs.

So, when you work in Pharma, usually there are terms that you use ‘publicly,’ and there are terms that you use ‘privately.’ So, for example, his job description would be ‘to evaluate potential future diseases and unmet treatment needs.’

But privately, they are just looking for future drugs that potentially turn into cash cows. That’s why you hear him talk casually about ‘cash cows.’ This is very common among execs in Pharma.

Terminologies are essential in Pharma because they don’t want to get caught. Another example is that he insists that this is not a ‘Gain of Function’ but ‘Directed Evolution.’

For example, people who work in the Commercial side of Pharma are constantly trained to say ‘increasing patient treatment’ instead of ‘increasing sales’ whenever they discuss marketing tactics. You don’t want to get caught, especially since some junior staffs capture these in meeting minutes, and these meeting minutes might go public.”

That people initially doubted Walker could be a Pfizer executive isn’t surprising, considering his behavior. As noted by John Leake, who coauthored “The Courage to Face COVID-19” with Dr. Peter McCullough:

“One of the strangest features of the Hall of Mirrors in which we now live is that the public facade of powerful institutions and corporations is staffed with people who seem stunningly incompetent and unserious …

[It] does seem incredible that a major corporation — one that has played a key role in perpetrating a global criminal fiasco — is staffed with an executive who seems to have been recruited at a frat party.”

Walker isn’t the only example of incompetence at Pfizer. During an FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting, (see video above) the FDA wanted to know why Pfizer’s shot only contained 3 micrograms of mRNA while Moderna’s contained 25 mcg. Was Pfizer’s mRNA just more efficient at making cells produce spike protein?

The Pfizer executive’s response was that they “obviously, we don’t have a complete understanding of the nature in which the COVID vaccine works in terms of producing an immune response.”

They just experimented and found that 3 mcgs seemed to work, but why that dose, they have no clue. In other words, we’re dealing with something that is the complete opposite of precision medicine. This Pfizer representative also lied, stating that the primary benefit of the shot is that it “prevents infection,” which it never did, and wasn’t designed to do.

At 8 p.m., January 27, 2023, two days after Project Veritas released the video, Pfizer finally published a response via press release.

Oddly enough, the press release actually seems to substantiate Walker’s claims rather than refute them:

“New York, N.Y., January 27, 2023 — Allegations have recently been made related to gain of function and directed evolution research at Pfizer and the company would like to set the record straight.

In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research. Working with collaborators, we have conducted research where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern.

This work is undertaken once a new variant of concern has been identified by public health authorities. This research provides a way for us to rapidly assess the ability of an existing vaccine to induce antibodies that neutralize a newly identified variant of concern. We then make this data available through peer reviewed scientific journals and use it as one of the steps to determine whether a vaccine update is required.

In addition, to meet U.S. and global regulatory requirements for our oral treatment, PAXLOVID™, Pfizer undertakes in vitro work (e.g., in a laboratory culture dish) to identify potential resistance mutations to nirmatrelvir, one of PAXLOVID’s two components. With a naturally evolving virus, it is important to routinely assess the activity of an antiviral.

Most of this work is conducted using computer simulations or mutations of the main protease — a non-infectious part of the virus. In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells.

In addition, in vitro resistance selection experiments are undertaken in cells incubated with SARS-CoV-2 and nirmatrelvir in our secure Biosafety level 3 (BSL3) laboratory to assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains of the virus.

It is important to note that these studies are required by U.S. and global regulators for all antiviral products and are carried out by many companies and academic institutions in the U.S. and around the world.”

In a Substack commentary,

Dr. Robert Malone noted that Pfizer “only denies directed evolution as a component of vaccine development, but leaves that research door open for ongoing research supporting Paxlovid … They literally say they engineer viruses that don’t even exist outside of simulations … There’s also no direct response suggesting that Mr. Walker was lying. Interesting … Doesn’t look like they denied anything.”

Not surprisingly, while this is clearly one of the biggest stories of the pandemic, legacy media hasn’t printed or said a word about it, except for Fox News host Tucker Carlson (see video above).

The U.K. Daily Mail did post a summary of the video, but the article was taken down minutes later.

YouTube also blocked and removed the video for violating community guidelines on COVID-19 vaccines, but by then it had already racked up more than 20 million views.

If you haven’t seen it, you can view Part 1 on the Project Veritas website. Carlson also featured parts of it in his report. Part 2, which shows Walker’s response when O’Keefe confronted him about what he’d said, is embedded below.

According to Project Veritas, there’s also more undercover footage of Walker that they haven’t released yet. If you’re in New York City, you can stop by Pfizer’s headquarters at 235 East 42nd Street and view the video “live.” Project Veritas parked a van with video screens on all sides right outside their office, with the video playing on a constant loop.

In his Substack commentary,

Malone also reviewed evidence suggesting a massive collaboration between Pfizer and Google took place in the hours after the video’s release to censor online searches and memory-hole anything related to Walker:

“Almost immediately after the first Veritas video dropped, we all got a masters class in the amazing power and capabilities to control narrative and information which Pfizer has assembled …

People are hitting Google like crazy with queries regarding Jordon Walker, Pfizer and Veritas. As they did when I said ‘mass formation psychosis’ on Rogan #1757, Google manually interferes with the searches, returning wishy washy ‘these results are changing rapidly’ screens instead of actual links.

So, now we have a pretty clear smoking gun involving collusion between Pfizer and Google to suppress the story. Then everything, anything, having to do with Jordon Walker, MD gets memory holed. Wiped from the internet, including the Wayback machine.

And then the chaos agents, bots and trolls descend on all social media channels. Sowing doubt that Jordon Walker is even a real person. Floating paranoid conspiracy theories that this is all a big deep-fake set up of Veritas, O’Keefe and myself.

Which of course get amplified by the usual actors. Now THAT is an example of Fifth Gen Warfare power! And by the way, I gently advise that readers who were aware of this as it was happening set a check-bit in their brains on the names of those chaos agents who actively promoted this false narrative …

Pfizer legal … finally dropped a response at 8:00 PM EST Friday night. Again, classic textbook timing. Designed to bypass the Friday PM news cycle and more importantly to give Wall Street maximal time to digest the news before opening bell next Monday. These guys are professional grade.

To recap, they have shut Google searches down, memory holed/scrubbed the internet, deployed an army of bots, trolls and chaos agents to cause confusion and doubt on social media, and almost completely suppressed any coverage of the story by the many corporate media outlets that they have been pumping money into over the last three years.”

McCullough and Kirsch also discussed Project Veritas’ drop on Tommy Carrigan’s podcast, below.

Pfizer has made record-high revenues these past two years and it seems the waterfall-like cashflow may have gone to their heads. In 2021, they had a net revenue of $81.3 billion

— a 92% operational growth in revenue from 2020 — and in 2022, they raked in $100.3 billion, more than half of which came from COVID jabs and Paxlovid.

It’s worth noting that BOTH of these drugs promote COVID reinfection, which in itself appears to be part of Pfizer’s revenue-growth strategy.

With uptake of boosters dwindling, they expect revenues to drop by 33% in 2023,

and that’s despite quadrupling the price of the shots. Still, that revenue stream is relatively secure, as the the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has added the unlicensed shots to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules.

The European Union is also considering paying more for fewer doses, as governments already have too large a stockpile, so Pfizer will make out like a bandit there too.

The question now is, is Pfizer also mutating the COVID virus to keep demand for reformulated boosters going? If Walker is telling the truth, the answer appears to be yes. In January 2023, Pfizer suffered the largest monthly loss of value since 2009,

and down-trends are never viewed favorably, no matter how much money they’ve already made.

That’s one of the problems with many companies. They must continue to grow, but how do you surpass the success of more than doubling growth in just two years? In this case, could they be resorting to crime to keep milking the cash cow that is COVID?

It’ll be interesting to see what happens next. Pfizer’s financial downturn occurred before Walker spilled the beans on Pfizer’s plans and made himself, and therefore the company, appear foolish, shallow, callous and incompetent at best, and criminal at worst. Just how many scandals and how much criminality will the American people and Congress accept before they say “Enough”?

Time will tell. For now, in response to Project Veritas’ undercover video of Walker, Sen. Ron Johnson has taken the lead and is calling on Congress to investigate vaccine manufacturers and the COVID jab approval process. In a January 26, 2023, tweet, Johnson wrote:

“Federal health agencies have been captured by Big Pharma and grossly derelict in their duties throughout the pandemic. It’s time for Congress to thoroughly investigate vaccine manufacturers and the entire COVID vaccine approval process.”

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

A Primer on Medical Gaslighting

By: A Midwestern Doctor

  • The medical industry has a vested interest in concealing injuries from its products

  • A cruel but common method for accomplishing this is medical gaslighting

  • Two of the most common diagnoses use to gaslight patients severely injured by the COVID-19 vaccines are “anxiety” and “functional neurologic disorder”

  • Most doctors do not intend to gaslight their patients, but this behavior is an almost inevitable consequence of of their training and the modern practice of medicine. A patient understanding their perspective helps make it possible for doctors to see that patient’s medical injuries

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

One of the classic ways an abuser controls their prey is to manipulate the environment so that the abused individual begins doubting their own observations regardless of what is occurring in front of them.

In the 1944 movie, Gaslight, this was accomplished by the villainous husband (played by Charles Boyer) adjusting the intake to gas-powered lights (causing them to flicker) and simultaneously denying that any change was occurring to his mentally abused wife (played by Ingrid Bergman). The term gaslighting originated from this classic movie.

In modern times, this is accomplished by having medical providers all echo the same message that a patient’s injury has nothing to do with the pharmaceutical (or other medical procedure in question). Most commonly, it instead is argued that the symptoms they are experiencing are due to pre-existing psychiatric issues the patient has (e.g., anxiety), which are treated with medications that often create additional issues.

Before we go any further, I want to emphasize just how miserable this is to go through as an injured patient. Imagine what it would be like if (due to the medical injury) the world you had previously known collapsed around you and every single person you trusted (including your friends and family who defer to the judgment of “experts”) told you that it was all in your head and you just needed psychiatric help. It’s a perfect recipe for going insane.

For example, let’s consider the recent experiences of Maddie De Garay in the pivotal Pfizer trial that was used to argue for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the adolescent population:

Note: This was clipped from episode 280 of the Highwire which we shortened (e.g., much of what she had to deal with in the hospital was cut out) so her story could reach a broader audience.

Although Maddie’s experience was atrocious, it was sadly not unique and many others had similar experiences in the COVID-19 vaccine trials. Similarly, I have heard many similar stories from other people who were harmed by the medical system.

Pharmaceuticals are inherently toxic. For example, most medications work by inhibiting enzymes (which are essential for life) and because of how interconnected the body is, this inhibition will create a variety of unintended consequences.

Similarly, most vaccinations function by making the immune system (often with the aid of toxins that help provoke that response) have an unnatural and narrowly focused response to a target substance.

The creation of this immune response unfortunately also often creates dysregulation within the immune system as this provocation can cause the immune system to be diverted away from attacking things it is supposed to address (e.g., microbes and cancers), while simultaneously triggering it to attack the body’s own tissue.

Since toxicity has always been inherent to the practice of allopathic (Western) medicine, the profession has gradually come up with a playbook to prevent its inevitable medical injuries from sabotaging business. This has essentially been accomplished by doing the following:

  • Telling patients the adverse events they experienced either are not occurring or are unrelated to the toxic pharmaceutical.

  • Developing an elaborate scientific apparatus that provides evidence refuting the link between these injuries and pharmaceuticals on the market, while concurrently training the population to defer to the scientific consensus rather than trusting their own observations.

  • Making competing forms of medicine that lack a similar degree of inherent toxicity illegal, therefore making the only choice within the existing medical monopoly be a toxic form of medicine (similarly consider how allopathic medicine is always considered to be the best form of medicine every other approach must find a way to measure up to).

    This is also why we have the doctrine in allopathic medicine that every treatment has risks and the treatments are chosen because its benefits outweigh its risk (as opposed to just exploring systems of medicine without those risks).

All of this in turn results in the tragic phenomenon known as medical gaslighting, or as some like to put it “allopathic medicine gaslights you to death.”

I have found numerous documented examples of medical gaslighting stretching back to the late 1700s and in each case, typically only a minority of the medical profession is willing to acknowledge the injuries that are occurring could be linked to their pharmaceuticals.

At the same time, it’s rare for me to meet doctors I consider to be evil; on the contrary, most tend to be remarkably intelligent and well-intentioned individuals who genuinely want the best for their patients.

At this point, I believe medical gaslighting is a natural consequence of our training. Since the therapeutic toolbox of allopathic medicine is quite limited, most doctors cannot practice their craft without administering unsafe pharmaceuticals to their patients, and thus for the sake of their self-identity, they must fully believe in their pharmaceuticals (this subject was discussed further here).

It is an enormous personal investment to become a physician and it is extremely difficult for someone who goes through that to acknowledge that much of what they learned is highly questionable.

Similarly, no well-intentioned doctor wants to harm a patient, and since they often do, the reflexive psychological coping mechanism is to deny the possibility of each injury that occurs (discussed further here).

This first dawned on me at the start of my medical education when one of our professors inserted a tirade against anti-vaxxers into his lecture and concluded his argument with “… and just think about it. Do you really think pediatricians would vaccinate their patients if they thought vaccines could harm them?”

Although widespread denial of the harms that Allopathy causes likely explains some of my profession’s predilection for gaslighting, I do not believe it is the primary issue. Instead, I believe it is a result of the training doctors receive making them unable to recognize medical injuries.

Because the human body is immensely complex, humans in every era face significant difficulties in being present to everything that is occurring within a human being. Most medical systems address this challenge by creating diagnostic models which simplify the immense complexity present in each patient down to the key things that must be focused upon to positively affect patient wellbeing.

The downside to this approach is that there will always be things in each patient that lie outside the diagnostic model being used to evaluate them. When this happens, those things understandably will not be recognized (unless the medical practitioner innately can perceive a complexity that transcends the limitations of their diagnostic model, something the majority of the population is not capable of).

In the case of allopathic medicine, we are taught a diagnostic model that is excellent for identifying many things (particularly indications for prescribing pharmaceutical drugs). However, our model also fails to notice many other things which are critical for health and wellness.

For example, much of medicine is taught by having a series of lists to memorize that are plugged into linear algorithms. Because this requires breaking many complex subjects into a binary “yes” or “no,” many important things that lie between these two polarities get lost in translation.

This is the easiest to illustrate with the nervous system (but the issue is by no means exclusive to it). When evaluating it, one of the things we are all taught to do is quickly check if the twelve cranial nerves are functioning normally (e.g., can you swallow, make a smile, or follow a finger with your eyes).

Frequently, although the cranial nerves are “generally normal” they will have some difficulty firing (e.g., at some point in the motion arc as the eyes travel side to side, they will jump instead of moving smoothly). These “minor” deficits often have a significant impact on a patient’s quality of life, but in most cases (except when evaluated by certain neurologists or neurosurgeons), the function of those nerves will be noted as normal and ignored.

One of the most common signs of a vaccine injury is a subtle cranial nerve dysfunction (discussed further here). While these are very easy to recognize if you are trained to look for them, that training does not exist within allopathic medicine, and as a result, most physicians simply cannot see the large number of vaccine injuries occurring around them.

The cranial nerve example unfortunately is only one of many areas where a complex presentation of symptoms is simplified into a box that excludes an inconvenient diagnosis from ever being recognized. Another common way this boxing occurs is when an authoritative diagnosis is used to define a complex phenomenon without actually stating what it is.

For example, many disorders in medicine are simply symptoms written in Latin. Dermatitis quite literally translates to “inflammation of the skin,” and in most cases is simply treated with a cream that suppresses that inflammation.

Conversely, in many other medical systems, inflammation of the skin is recognized as an important sign of something being awry in the body, and the exact character and location of the inflammation are focused upon to identify and address the root cause of that inflammation (to some extent this is recognized in dermatology, but even there it occurs nowhere to the degree that it should).

Similarly, “migraine” headaches, although not exactly Latin, falls into a similar boat. While many things can cause migraines (e.g., they are very frequent after COVID-19 vaccine injuries) their cause is rarely focused upon, and instead, the standard medical approach is to throw pharmaceuticals at them until something improves the headache.

In my medical practice, I frequently treat migraines. In these patients, I find over and over that they have seen numerous doctors (including highly regarded specialists). Despite this, it is very rare anyone they saw was able to recognize the diagnostic signs or aspects of their history that point to the root actual cause of their headaches, and thus, not surprising that they will simply be prescribed more and more medications in the hope one will work.

Iatrogenesis is the term for any type of illness or medical complication resulting from a bad reaction to medical care (e.g., a complication from a surgery or a pharmaceutical). A common pattern I’ve observed for decades is everyone denying a particular iatrogenic complication exists (e.g., “there is no evidence”), and then once overwhelming evidence exists that it does, it will be acknowledged.

Once this happens, the harm from the drug will be reframed so that only the accepted harm can be bad and an underlying assumption is created that nothing else is a possible complication.

For example, fluoroquinolones (e.g., Cipro) are fairly toxic antibiotics that can severely harm people and are frequently given for many minor infections (e.g., urinary tract infections) where their corresponding toxicity is simply not justified.

In medical school, everyone learns that a tendon rupture (something unique and hard to ignore) is a side effect of these drugs, and as a result, when doctors evaluate for harms, they will look for that but not be able to recognize most of the other well-documented complications from them.

My favorite recent example of this reframing occurred with the J&J COVID-19 vaccine. At the start of Operation Warp Speed, I hypothesized that a major goal was to get mRNA technology onto the market since it held the promise of trillions of dollars in future revenue for the pharmaceutical industry (but since there were safety challenges with it, nothing short of an “emergency” would be able to break the barrier to human testing).

Because of this, I suspected that once vaccine safety concerns emerged, a non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine would be thrown under the bus to make the mRNA technology look “safe.” This is what then happened with the J&J vaccine when six cases of an extremely unusual blood clot being linked to that vaccine caused the FDA and CDC to pause its administration for 11 days.

By doing so, it created the perception the FDA was monitoring for vaccine side effects with a fine-tooth comb and was willing to pull the vaccine if it caused a rare side effect in a very small number of people.

Nothing could be further from the truth as the mRNA vaccines have caused far more blood clots than the J&J vaccine. Similarly, investigation after investigation shows the FDA is ignoring the endless deluge of red flags from the COVID-19 vaccines.

Unfortunately, this ploy worked, and in the odd instances where I hear a doctor willing to debate the safety of the vaccines, one of the most common arguments they still utilize is that if the FDA was willing to temporarily pause J&J after six blood clots, there is no possible way a larger unaddressed problem exists with the mRNA vaccines.

As the above points have shown, a variety of factors work against doctors being able to recognize the presence of medical injuries. The question then becomes, how will the injuries that inevitably occur be explained?

As you might imagine, the default strategy is to fold the injury into an amorphous diagnosis which (instead of allopathic medicine) can take the blame for the medical injury and then put that label on everyone with the injury. Typically this is done with psychiatric diagnoses, but recently COVID-19 infections have also been appointed to that role (both of these diagnoses were used to gaslight patients in the clinical trials for those vaccines).

The earliest references to this gaslighting I have found were at the time of Freud, where his new model of psychoanalysis was used to explain the complex symptoms observed within patients doctors otherwise had difficulty making sense of. However, as detailed in The Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-Made Epidemic, an outside evaluation of Freud’s case studies suggests those patients’ problems actually arose from mercury poisoning.

Mercury, despite being extremely toxic, was used by the medical profession for centuries (and to some extent still is). Frequently, individuals with mercury poisoning would develop a wide array of complex diseases which included neurological and psychiatric complications (which like many other conditions were often attributed to “female hysteria”).

Freud’s message that these complications were the fault of the patient (e.g., as a result of unresolved sexual desires) rather than the physician was an immensely appealing message to the medical profession, and as a result, became the party line.

Ever since this time there has been a systemic failure to recognize that neurologic damage can produce psychiatric symptoms. Instead, neurologic symptoms are viewed as a manifestation of a pre-existing psychological illness that must be treated with psychological counseling and psychiatric medications.

One of the best examples of this issue is “Functional Neurological Disorder” (FND) which recognizes that something is wrong with the brain, but since no explanation can be found, it is assumed to have been due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions.

If you review the National Institute of Health’s description of FND, you will see that the above description is no exaggeration, and it is extremely sad to hear about the experiences vaccine-injured patients go through since FND is one of the most common diagnoses they receive.

When I look at FND cases, the cause of the disorder (e.g., seizures) can frequently be found, but since neurologists (including friends of mine) do not want to consider the actual cause, the tests needed to diagnose it are often not ordered or even known about by the doctors attending to the patient.

If you review Maddie’s story, you will note that this is also exactly what happened to her and her permanent paralysis from the vaccine was labeled as FND resulting from a psychiatric condition. Because of this gaslighting, she was not able to get appropriate care when her neurological reaction to the vaccine was occurring (that would have prevented permanent disability).

I believe this occurred because the chief investigator was fully aware that a severe neurologic reaction to a single participant would have made the vaccine too dangerous for children to take, so he decided to gaslight Maddie so her injury would not need to end up in the trial. Sadder still, Maddie’s experiences were not unique, and their experiences that indicate systemic fraud in the vaccine trials were detailed here.

Another common symptom doctors place the blame for medical injuries on is “anxiety.” The two major problems with this process are:

  • Failing to recognize that having a life-changing injury will normally create distress, and similarly failing to recognize that being collectively gaslighted by medical providers is not good for anyone’s mental health.

  • Pharmaceutical injuries frequently cause tissue damage that will trigger anxiety.

Sadly, very few doctors recognize that damage to the nervous system (which is a common toxicity of pharmaceuticals) can also create psychiatric disturbances. Instead, they only can recognize that psychiatric distress can often worsen neurologic symptoms, but do so without also realizing that it is much rarer for psychiatric distress to be the originating cause of a neurologic issue.

Similarly, many common psychiatric disorders have organic causes (e.g., chronic undiagnosed infections, traumatic brain injuries, or nutritional and metabolic deficiencies). However, in most cases, psychiatrists prescribe medications based on the symptoms a patient presents with (e.g., you are depressed so you need Prozac) rather than looking at the underlying cause.

I believe this is because doing the former pays well but the latter typically does not and is not emphasized in a psychiatrist’s training.

In addition to neurological damage frequently creating psychiatric complications (e.g., vagal dysfunction creating anxiety), damage to other organ systems can as well (Chinese medicine does an excellent job of mapping these correlations out). One of the best examples I have seen with the COVID-19 vaccines relates to the heart and I have had variations of the following conversations multiple times since 2021:

Friend: I have been having severe anxiety attacks since I got the vaccine. My heart starts beating rapidly, and I start to have pain in my chest. I never had this problem before, but now everything makes me anxious and it’s so hard for me to be calm.

Me: You should get your heart looked at.

Friend: What do you mean? Everyone told me it was anxiety due to stress.

Me: Trust me, you need to get your heart looked at.

(Time passes)

Friend: How did you know I had myocarditis?

Damage to the heart (or the vagus nerve) will often create an irregular heart rate and chest pain, and these palpitations often provoke anxiety. Unfortunately, since these symptoms are also triggered by anxiety, when they are observed, doctors will often default to a diagnosis of anxiety and look no further.

There are essentially two models of medical practice which are followed:

  • The paternalistic model (where you are expected to unquestioningly trust and comply with everything the doctor tells you).

  • The collaborative model where the physician is your partner in working towards health.

Although the paternalistic model was the standard for most of allopathic medicine’s history, in recent times, there has been a push for the collaborative model. Presently, many patients are seeking out collaborative physicians (especially since system doctors have to spend so much time going through checklists that there is little time for actual engagement with their patients), and the market is economically rewarding physicians who are making this change.

A key misconception much of the public holds about doctors is that we are infallible beings (which is a key justification for the paternalistic model). In reality, once you peer behind the lab coat, we struggle with many of the same issues you all do too. Being able to genuinely recognize this and respectfully treat the physician you see as a fellow human being is one of the most effective strategies for initiating a collaborative doctor-patient relationship.

Although doctors sometimes gaslight injured patients for self-serving reasons (e.g., to protect Pfizer’s vaccine in its clinical trials or under the misguided belief it will protect a doctor from a lawsuit), I believe the majority of cases occur because the doctors simply cannot see the injury occurred. As a result, these doctors believe they are doing the best for the patient when in reality they are just gaslighting them.

One of the largest issues in our modern era is how disconnected we have become from ourselves and others. Within the doctor-patient relationship, this disconnection makes it much less likely a physician will be able to recognize what is happening in a patient (e.g., a medical injury) or feel compelled to go to bat for them while every other healthcare provider is gaslighting them.

When people ask me for their best options to avoid being gaslighted, I thus suggest pursuing one of the following options:

  1. See a physician who you pay directly (rather than one who takes insurance). This business model matters because it forces the doctor to have a collaborative doctor-patient relationship and stay in business (no one will pay to see them if they just get gaslit). I am a big believer in the statement “you get what you pay for” and if only see system doctors who base their practice around insurance payments, you often do not get a good outcome.

    For example, I had a patient recently who I felt exemplified this issue. He had what I felt was a relatively straightforward problem that had significantly impacted his life for 25 years. When I reviewed his history, he told me he had seen a dozen (insurance-taking) doctors, many of whom promised they could fix the problems with elaborate procedures from their specialty (all of which did nothing or made his issue worse).

    What was striking about his story was that only one of them had ever even performed an extensive evaluation (e.g., talking with him about the history of his disease) to try to figure out what was causing the problem.

  2. However, while seeing a private-pay physician often is an excellent investment, many patients simply cannot afford to do so. In this case, the ideal scenario is to find an insurance-taking physician through word of mouth who has earned a reputation for forging collaborative doctor-patient relationships. Unfortunately, these recommendations are hard to come across and typically these doctors will have full practices that are hard to get into.

  3. The third (and often the only available option is to take the initiative to forge a collaborative relationship with the doctor through having a respectful demeanor where you treat the doctor as a fellow human being rather than “the doctor.”

    In general, this approach will be the most effective on doctors who recently completed their medical training (everyone becomes more rigid with age, plus their practices are not yet full), and in medical settings where the doctors get longer per visit (you can’t really build a collaborative relationship in 10-15 minutes).

Regardless of the option you choose, it is also often important to provide the documentation to support the occurrence of your medical injury. This includes records establishing a timeline of the injury following the medical therapy and scientific literature substantiating the link between the two.

Physicians in turn (especially younger ones) will be the most receptive to considering this link if it is presented in a composed and thoughtful way rather than a confrontational manner, because like every other human they tend to become defensive. Given how upsetting the process of being gaslighted is, maintaining this demeanor can be extremely challenging.

Sadly though, it is necessary because doctors are trained to see these injuries as being psychological in nature, and a patient expressing their completely justifiable feelings about the situation will often feed into the doctor’s erroneous perceptions about the patient’s mental health.

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician from the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

USA Today Smears Mercola Over Vitamin C and D Information

  • Mainstream media, supported by monopoly tech platforms like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, are going to great lengths to control the narrative of what you see and read about the COVID-19 pandemic

  • May 2, 2020, USA Today tried to debunk my April 7, 2020, article, “Vitamins C and D Finally Adopted as Coronavirus Treatment,” which has more than 814,600 views, without presenting any counterevidence

  • The majority of mainstream media in the U.S. are owned, funded (through advertising) — and therefore easily controlled — by only a few powerful corporate entities and industries, some of which are overseas and may not even have American interests at heart

  • Only 47% of American adults trust mainstream digital publishers to report accurate information about COVID-19. Still, 85% trust the CDC and 77% trust WHO, both of which have the same conflicts of interest as most mainstream media

  • Both vitamin C and D have an enormous amount of evidence showing they provide important immune function benefits, and that your immune function is your front-line defense against all illness, including COVID-19

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement
ℹ️ From Dr. Joseph Mercola

Since COVID-19 first entered the scene, exchange of ideas has basically been outlawed. By sharing my views and those from various experts throughout the pandemic on COVID treatments and the experimental COVID jabs, I became a main target of the White House, the political establishment and the global cabal.

Propaganda and pervasive censorship have been deployed to seize control over every part of your life, including your health, finances and food supply. The major media are key players and have been instrumental in creating and fueling fear.

I am republishing this article in its original form so that you can see how the progression unfolded.

Originally published: May 18, 2020

The fact that there is an information war going on is quite evident at this point. Mainstream media, supported by monopoly tech platforms like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, are going to great lengths to control the narrative of what you see and read about the COVID-19 pandemic.

Videos questioning the narrative — even when done by health professionals and scientists — are taken down faster than you can share them. Social media accounts of well-respected health professionals are being suppressed and removed. Twitter is even trialing a moderator tool that warns users when they’re about to post “harmful” language, although it’s unclear what the company might deem harmful.

“Fact-checking” is also in overdrive, with journalists who are clueless about health and choose to side with the authoritarians writing articles “debunking” clear and provable facts without any counterevidence whatsoever.

Case in point: May 2, 2020, USA Today published “Fact Check: Vitamins C and D Are Not Used in ‘Conventional Treatment’ of Coronavirus,”

an article aimed at debunking my April 7, 2020, article, “Vitamins C and D Finally Adopted as Coronavirus Treatment,” which has more than 816,000 views. USA Today writes, in part:

“Mercola’s claim about vitamins and the coronavirus cites a New York Post article from March 24 that describes the use of vitamin C by Northwell Health, a New York hospital system, to treat patients with coronavirus.

Northwell spokesperson Jason Molinet confirmed to USA TODAY that ‘vitamin C was one of many therapies employed at the discretion of physicians in our health system.’

Molinet declined to answer follow-up questions about how widespread the use of vitamin C was, what the results of the treatment were and what studies or data Northwell relied on when deciding whether to use vitamin C as part of COVID-19 treatment. He declined to make a doctor available to speak about the treatment, saying, ‘That’s the extent of our statement on this.’

Our Ruling: False.

Though vitamin C is used, at least in one New York hospital system, to help treat some patients on a case-by-case basis, there is no known evidence to suggest it is effective.

Occasional use of vitamins C or D in COVID-19 treatment at the discretion of a patient and doctor is not the same as saying they are being adopted ‘in the conventional treatment’ of the coronavirus, as Mercola’s article says.”

This is beyond a shoddy “debunking” attempt. What does “adopted in conventional treatment” actually mean? The fact that vitamin C is being used in a conventional hospital setting to treat COVID-19 patients means it is in fact being adopted in conventional treatment.

I never stated or implied vitamin C is being used as “the standard of care” everywhere, but the fact is, it has been adopted as part of COVID-19 treatment by New York state’s largest hospital system.

My article also clearly states Northwell hospital system is using vitamin C “in conjunction with the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin.” I never stated or implied vitamin C is being used in isolation as the sole treatment, or that it could be (it probably shouldn’t).

So, essentially, USA Today confirmed my report, then slapped a “fake news” label on it after falsely asserting “there is no known evidence to suggest [vitamin C] is effective.”

My article, meanwhile, detailed the scientific evidence — with scientific references — underpinning the suggestion to use vitamin C and vitamin D to boost your immune system, which in turn can help protect against COVID-19, seeing how it protects against most other viral illnesses.

USA Today presents no such counterevidence. Instead, it cites an opinion expressed by the founder of QuackWatch.org in 2012 — eight years ago — and directs readers to information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, which states “the only way to minimize the chances of contracting the virus is to take preventive steps such as social distancing … frequent hand-washing and cleaning of often-used surfaces.”

Why do USA Today, CDC and WHO want the public to believe that there’s absolutely nothing they can do to protect themselves against SARS-CoV-2? Why do they want us to think our immune system is irrelevant when it comes to preventing and/or surviving COVID-19? Could it be because they want you to feel helpless enough to want a vaccine?

Rule 101 of debunking is that you have to present counterevidence. There’s clear evidence showing vitamin C’s usefulness against infectious disease, including sepsis, which is a major cause of death from COVID-19. If you’re going to claim that there’s “no known evidence to suggest vitamin C is effective,” then that means you have to produce studies showing vitamin C is useless against infections and sepsis.

So, why did USA Today not bother digging up those scientific references rather than quoting Quackwatch and directing readers to the CDC and WHO websites, where, again, no actual scientific evidence is cited? Could it be because their shoddy journalists are counting on people to not think critically?

Unfortunately, we’re bound to see more and more of this kind of irrational censoring of valuable health information as mainstream media pushes the WHO/CDC/Bill Gates narrative that our only hope for a return to normalcy is to vaccinate and digitally track, trace and surveil the global population.

In other words, their answer to the COVID-19 pandemic is the rapid rollout of a global totalitarian regime under which you can be placed in house arrest at any moment and be banned from travel, work, education, leisure and social activities simply because you’ve been infected or not infected/have or do not have antibodies/have or have not been vaccinated.

This strategy stands to make drug and tech companies untold billions of dollars, and the drug industry is undoubtedly a key player behind the media messages you see. The drug industry spent roughly $6 billon on drug ads to consumers in 2016,

and drug ads (sometimes disguised as content through the use of something called advertorials) make up a fair share of the advertising dollars that media corporations depend on for their survival.

In November 2019, Gannett, the parent company of USA Today, merged with GateHouse Media, owned by New Media Investment Group.

Together, they now form the largest media monopoly in the U.S., with more than 260 dailies under their umbrella.

The management of this vast news network is done by Fortress Investment Group, a private equity firm, which in turn is owned by Tokyo’s SoftBank.

According to CNBC,

SoftBank’s CEO, the Japanese billionaire Masayoshi Son, also has “a wide network of relationships” in the tech industry and is said to be “one of the technology industry’s most influential investors.”

In 2018, Son funded EarthNow, a project involving 500 satellites equipped with machine learning technology to surveil the entire planet with real-time video. Another funder of this project was Bill Gates.

(Incidentally, this project sounds like it could find a purpose in Gates’ proposed surveillance plan, and not be relegated to catching illegal fishing and tracking animal migration.)

My point, though, is this: The majority of mainstream media in the U.S. are owned, funded (through advertising) — and therefore easily controlled — by powerful corporate entities and industries, some of which are overseas and may not even have American interests at heart.

Media’s ties to Big Pharma and Big Tech run deep. Is it any wonder then that so often, so many news outlets use the same exact talking points on health, drugs, pesticides, GMOs and 5G, just to name a few? How is it that they’re using the identical language, as if they’re all reading and copying a single script?

Fortunately, many are starting to see through the bias. The censorship has gotten so ridiculously blatant, it’s hard to miss. As a result, mainstream media are losing what little credibility they had left. Their machinations have simply become too obvious.

As of September 2019, American’s trust in mass media had dipped to 41%; only 13% trusted the media “a great deal.”

March 19, 2020, Publishers Daily reported

the results from a February 2020 Axios/Ipsos poll

showing only 51% of American adults trust newspapers to provide them with accurate information about COVID-19 — the same ratio saying they track the pandemic “very closely.”

Only 47% trust mainstream digital publishers to report accurate information about COVID-19. Still, 85% trust the CDC and 77% trust WHO, both of which have the same conflicts of interest as most mainstream media.

In the EU, the average net trust in the media as a whole is in the negative — minus 9% — when you include all forms, including radio, television, press, digital publishers and other online sources, including social media.

Regardless of what the mainstream media want you to think, many are starting to realize the truth, which is that both vitamin C and D have an enormous amount of evidence showing they provide important immune function benefits, and that your immune function is your front-line defense against all illness, including COVID-19.

As reported in the paper

“Optimal Nutritional Status for a Well-Functioning Immune System Is an Important Factor to Protect Against Viral Infections,” published April 23, 2020:

“The role nutrition plays in supporting the immune system is well-established. A wealth of mechanistic and clinical data show that vitamins, including vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D, E, and folate; trace elements, including zinc, iron, selenium, magnesium, and copper; and the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid play important and complementary roles in supporting the immune system.

Inadequate intake and status of these nutrients are widespread, leading to a decrease in resistance to infections and as a consequence an increase in disease burden. Against this background the following conclusions are made:

(1) supplementation with the above micronutrients and omega-3 fatty acids is a safe, effective, and low-cost strategy to help support optimal immune function;

(2) supplementation above the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), but within recommended upper safety limits, for specific nutrients such as vitamins C and D is warranted; and

(3) public health officials are encouraged to include nutritional strategies in their recommendations to improve public health.”

In related news, Finnish researchers have identified specific immune health-related genes that are regulated by vitamin D.

In vitro tests show vitamin D targets genes that support immune function in response to acute infection, infection in general, and autoimmunity. According to the authors, “15 genes were identified as major mediators of the action of vitamin D in innate and adaptive immunity.”

Irish researchers recently published an editorial

highlighting the role of vitamin D deficiency in severe COVID-19 infections specifically. According to the authors:

“… the evidence supporting a protective effect of vitamin D against severe COVID‐19 disease is very suggestive, a substantial proportion of the population in the Northern Hemisphere will currently be vitamin D deficient, and supplements, for example, 1,000 international units (25 micrograms) per day are very safe.

It is time for governments to strengthen recommendations for vitamin D intake and supplementation, particularly when under lock‐down.”

You can learn more about this in “Vitamin D Level Is Directly Correlated to COVID-19 Outcome.” Similarly, a May 6, 2020, report

published in Aging Clinical and Experimental Research (its prepublication featured in the Daily Mail May 1

), found that countries with lower vitamin D levels have higher death rates from COVID-19. According to the authors:

“The Seneca study showed a mean serum vitamin D level of 26 nmol/L in Spain, 28 nmol/L in Italy and 45 nmol/L in the Nordic countries, in older people. In Switzerland, mean vitamin D level is 23 nmol/L in nursing homes and in Italy 76% of women over 70 years of age have been found to have circulating levels below 30 nmol/L.

These are the countries with high number of cases of COVID-19 and the aging people is the group with the highest risk for morbidity and mortality with SARS-CoV2.”

In the preprint version

of this paper, the authors concluded: “We believe that we can advise vitamin D supplementation to protect against SARS-CoV2 infection.” In the final version,

they toned down the recommendation to: “We hypothesize that vitamin D may play a protective role for COVID-19.”

Gannett-owned USA Today is clearly, knowingly, publishing health news aimed at preventing people from effectively protecting themselves against severe COVID-19 infection. So, what’s their excuse for not sticking to scientifically verifiable facts?

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.