The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

A registered nurse with 30 years of experience treating chronic pain says she saw “TEN TIMES” the positive effects after combining DMSO with castor oil for her peripheral neuropathy.

Castor oil already has anti-inflammatory properties.

But adding DMSO is where she says it “got interesting.”

That’s because DMSO “isn’t just a treatment, it’s a carrier,” Danielle Minetti explained.

“It can pull medications and nutrients right through the skin barrier deep into the body.”

When Danielle combined it with castor oil, she says the results increased “ten times.”

DMSO acted as the delivery system, carrying the castor oil deeper into the areas where she needed relief most.

But DMSO’s potential extends far beyond peripheral neuropathy.

And if you’re one of the 5 million Americans living with carpal tunnel syndrome, this is where the DMSO story gets really interesting.

Because it turns out carpal tunnel may not be caused by overuse after all.

Somewhere between the wrist pain that shows up after years of typing and the keyboard sitting under your fingers right now, there’s a design decision nobody remembers making.

It wasn’t an accident. It was a deliberate engineering choice made to solve a mechanical problem.

But that problem that stopped mattering almost a century ago. And the fix that’s still shaping our hands today has far outlived it.

Early typewriters had a real problem: type two adjacent keys too quickly and the mechanism would jam.

The fix was mechanical, not electronic. Spread the commonly paired letters as far apart as possible so fingers physically couldn’t hit them fast enough to jam the machine.

That layout is the same one you’re using right now.

That was over a century ago.

Mechanical jamming stopped being a problem once electric typewriters showed up. Computers can’t jam at all.

But the keyboard never changed.

In the 1930s, an educational psychologist named August Dvorak advised a master’s thesis on typing errors. What he found convinced him the standard layout wasn’t just outdated, it was actively working against speed, accuracy, and hand fatigue.

So he decided to build something better.

Dvorak and his brother-in-law spent years designing an alternative.

Common letters sit on the home row, so fingers barely have to travel. Frequently paired keys sit close together instead of far apart. The two hands trade off letter by letter instead of one hand doing most of the work.

Laid side by side with the old layout, the difference in finger travel is obvious.

The two keyboards went head to head.

One had already won the market by accident, built decades earlier to slow typists down so fragile machines wouldn’t jam. The other was engineered from the ground up to be faster, more accurate, less punishing on the hands.

The better one lost.

From the fight between these two keyboards, to a wrist injury nobody expected, ’s full piece connects the two in a way that’s easy to miss once you’re not looking for it.

The Forgotten History of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Stories like this rarely stay contained to keyboards.

A market settles on a standard, the standard gets defended by habit instead of performance, and the accumulated cost gets paid quietly, one body at a time.

Nowhere absorbs that kind of quiet cost more than the wrist.

Carpal tunnel syndrome is one of the most common reasons people end up in a doctor’s office with wrist pain and numbness in the fingers.

The typical progression looks like this: nighttime wrist splinting to reduce nerve pressure, ergonomic adjustments to cut repetitive strain, short courses of anti-inflammatories, corticosteroid injections directly into the tunnel for swelling, physical therapy, and if none of that works, surgery to cut open the ligament that forms the roof of the tunnel.

Six steps. All of them mechanical.

Every single one of those steps manages pressure or masks pain.

Not one of them asks why the pressure built up inside the tunnel in the first place.

And a striking number of patients who go all the way to surgery come out the other side no better than before.

Curiously, pregnant women develop carpal tunnel for the first time at a strikingly high rate, and it lines up almost exactly with a body-wide increase in fluid retention during pregnancy.

That’s not a coincidence. It suggests the real driver of carpal tunnel probably isn’t tissue damage from overuse. It’s fluid that has nowhere to drain, trapped inside a narrow anatomical tunnel.

If fluid pressure really is the root cause, then the fix isn’t cutting the ligament open. It’s restoring the fluid movement that broke down in the first place.

That’s the exact reason some are trying a decades-old topical compound called DMSO. It’s known for an unusual ability to move through tissue and influence fluid exchange at the cellular level, which is precisely the mechanism in question here.

None of this is a fringe idea being floated for the first time. Topical DMSO carries decades of published research on tunnel neuropathies, formal clinical guidelines for carpal tunnel already exist in Russia, and reader accounts, including cases where surgery had already failed, have been remarkably consistent.

The full physiological explanation for why fluid circulation breaks down in the first place, and what’s been shown to restore it, is laid out in a companion piece on DMSO from that reads like the missing chapter to this one.

How DMSO Heals The Nerves & Eliminates Pain

Let’s consider posture. At a neutral, upright position, the average human head puts about 12 pounds of load on the neck.

Lean the head forward two inches, the load roughly triples. Lean it three inches, and it’s closer to four times the starting load.

That’s not a subtle shift. That’s the physics behind every hour spent hunched toward a laptop.

The fixes people land on tend to fall into a handful of categories: raising a monitor to eye level, a slow-speed treadmill desk, a standing desk, or a supported squatting position instead of sitting.

None of them is universally “the” answer. That’s exactly why so many competing camps each insist their fix is the only real one.

The body has a threshold for how much strain it can absorb before damage starts accumulating instead of resolving on its own. Most people don’t notice they’ve crossed it until they’re already in pain.

There’s a simple early warning test: tap the middle of the wrist, over the carpal tunnel itself. If the nerves fire and you feel it radiate into your fingers, that tunnel is already inflamed, often well before any overt pain or numbness shows up.

Catching it at that stage is dramatically easier to reverse than waiting until typing itself becomes impossible.

The free version of this article stops right at the edge of the actual fix. What’s behind it: the specific at-home protocol for reversing carpal tunnel at its root, plus the exact way DMSO gets applied for it. It is worth subscribing for.

The Forgotten History of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Widen the lens and a pattern shows up everywhere.

Keyboards, chairs, desks, and even treatment algorithms are often just inherited defaults, built for constraints that stopped existing decades ago, and rarely questioned because “that’s just how it’s done.”

Carpal tunnel syndrome turns out to be a small example of a much bigger habit.

The same quiet inertia that kept an inferior keyboard in place for a hundred years is still running in the background of how pain gets treated.

Nobody designed it maliciously. Nobody voted for it. It will keep costing people comfort, money, and function until someone asks the one question none of the standard steps ever get around to asking.

Why was the pressure there in the first place.

Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

The Forgotten History of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:

We Now Know How The Government Lied About the COVID Vaccines

The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family

What’s The Healthiest Water To Drink?

While you’re at it, give A Midwestern Doctor a follow. No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed. This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.

If you haven’t subscribed to this Substack yet, take a moment to read what some of the most powerful voices in the medical freedom/truth movement have to say:

“The Vigilant Fox has been putting in a lot of work to create a news platform that shares the stories we want to hear about and brings attention to the most important things to know about. If you want a daily newsfeed in alignment with our ...”

– A Midwestern Doctor, The Forgotten Side of Medicine

“The Vigilant Fox absolutely is on top of things. We must support our fighters, and the Fox is fighting with truth.”

– Tom Renz, Tom Renz’s Newsletter

“Excellent capture of key video presentations on evolving pandemic science.”

– Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

The Vigilant Fox

Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance.

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

YouTuber Dan Schaeffer says he “completely cleared” his sinuses by combining DMSO, purified water, and colloidal silver into a nasal spray.

One squirt up each nose twice a day, and the results were “amazing.”

“No pressure, no nothing.”

Dan’s experience is not an isolated one.

In 1992, Russian researchers found that treating children with sinusitis using a 10% DMSO solution followed by local oxygenation provided complete relief in 49 of 52 cases.

DMSO is a cheap substance you can typically find online for under $30.

Turns out it can do much more for your respiratory system than just clear your sinuses.

Subscribe now

Most people think respiratory infections are something you just have to “ride out.”

You get congested. Your throat hurts. Your sinuses clog. Maybe it turns into a cough, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it moves into your chest, maybe it doesn’t.

So you take a decongestant, stock up on tissues, drink fluids, wait a few days, and hope it passes.

But that entire model skips one of the most important parts of the story:

Where many respiratory infections actually begin.

Respiratory viruses don’t typically start as deep lung infections.

They often begin in the upper airway—the nose, sinuses, throat, and nasopharynx.

That matters because the early stage of the illness may be happening in areas that are much easier to reach than the lungs.

In other words, by the time people are talking about bronchitis, pneumonia, oxygen levels, and hospital care, they may have already missed the window of opportunity.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

The Sinus and Respiratory Treatments You Were Never Told About

This should completely change how we talk about colds, flus, and even COVID.

If a virus is replicating in the nasal cavity and throat before it migrates deeper into the respiratory tract, then the nose isn’t just where symptoms happen.

It is part of the battlefield!

And if it is part of the battlefield, then ignoring it makes zero sense.

That doesn’t mean every infection can be stopped with a simple sinus rinse.

It doesn’t mean serious symptoms should be treated casually.

And it definitely doesn’t mean people should avoid medical care and focus on the nose when they’re getting worse elsewhere.

But it does mean the usual advice—rest, fluids, wait, maybe take something for symptoms—has always been incomplete.

Because in many respiratory illnesses, the early fight is happening in the upper airway.

In the full article, makes an important point that should have been obvious during COVID:

If the virus is replicating in the nose and throat before it reaches the lungs, then early upper-airway care is not “alternative.”

It is basic terrain control!

The Sinus and Respiratory Treatments You Were Never Told About

COVID made this especially clear.

SARS-CoV-2 showed a strong preference for upper-airway tissue early in infection, particularly the nasal cavity and nasopharynx.

For many people, the virus replicated there for days before the immune system cleared it—or before the infection moved lower and became more dangerous.

That window mattered, yet the public conversation barely touched it.

Instead, the entire conversation became centralized around massive interventions.

• Vaccines

• Mandates

• Masks

• Lockdowns

• Expensive drugs

• Deadly hospital protocols

But one of the simplest questions was barely asked in public:

What can people do early, when the virus is still concentrated in the nose, throat, and sinuses?

That question should have been everywhere.

This isn’t just about COVID.

Common cold viruses strongly prefer the upper airway.

Influenza often begins there too, even though it is more capable of moving into the lower airway and lungs than a typical cold virus.

This pattern isn’t new or mysterious. A respiratory infection often begins in the exact place people are told to treat only as a comfort issue, not as an opportunity to stop the illness from progressing.

Congestion isn’t just annoying.

Post-nasal drip isn’t just annoying.

Sinus pressure isn’t just annoying.

A sore throat isn’t just annoying.

Those symptoms can be signs that the upper airway is where the infection is actively unfolding.

And if that’s true, then the first few days of illness aren’t just something to endure and to watch unfold.

It may be the most important window to take effective action.

This is where nasal and sinus hygiene becomes much more interesting.

For most people, “sinus rinse” sounds like something you do when you’re congested and miserable.

But it isn’t. What you’re trying to do with an early sinus rinse is reduce the burden in the area where many respiratory viruses first replicate.

That’s a very different frame. The nose shifts from a symptom zone into a strategic target.

One randomized trial of 1,252 COVID patients reportedly found that a DMSO-containing oral spray with zinc iodide and xylitol produced a dramatic day-7 difference:

Symptoms fell from 68% to 3%.

PCR positivity fell from 93% to 9%.

So why wasn’t this front-page news?

That trial is especially revealing because it cuts against the entire pandemic narrative.

The public was trained to think the only serious answers had to come from centralized institutions, patented products, or emergency authorizations.

But here was a low-cost, practical, upper-airway approach showing a major signal.

And most people never heard about it.

The same neglected territory in respiratory infections—the nose, sinuses, throat, and eustachian tubes—is also where millions of people suffer chronically.

Not for a few days. For years.

Recurring sinus infections.

Sinus headaches.

Blocked nostrils.

Post-nasal drip.

Facial pressure.

Ear pressure.

Difficulty breathing.

And many are told there’s not much to do besides attempts at basic symptom relief.

But what about the underlying cause?

Anyone who has dealt with chronic sinus problems knows how miserable this can be.

It affects sleep.

It affects breathing.

It affects energy.

It can make people feel foggy, inflamed, and constantly half-sick.

And because it often isn’t dramatic enough to look like an emergency, patients get stuck in a loop of temporary fixes.

A spray here.

An antibiotic there.

An antihistamine.

A decongestant.

Maybe surgery.

Then the symptoms come back. Again and again and again.

To be fair, conventional treatments do help some people.

Steroid sprays can reduce inflammation.

Antibiotics can help when there is a real bacterial infection.

Surgery can be necessary in certain structural cases.

But that’s not the whole story.

Because there’s a large group of people who do everything “right” and still remain congested, inflamed, blocked, infected, or dependent on repeated interventions.

This is where DMSO becomes hard to ignore.

DMSO is not usually discussed in mainstream sinus care, but the forgotten literature around it is surprisingly broad.

It has been reported in sinusitis going back decades.

It has been used in studies involving rhinitis, sinus infections, post-surgical sinus recovery, eustachian tube dysfunction, and difficult chronic sinus conditions.

That doesn’t mean it’s a magic cure. But it does mean it shouldn’t have disappeared from the conversation.

One of the more striking details is that Merck investigated DMSO in thousands of patients and reportedly found it had demonstrated efficacy in sinusitis.

The observation was simple but important:

A diluted solution applied to the nasal mucosa could lead to discharge of infected material from the sinuses and relief of pain.

That’s exactly what many chronic sinus patients are desperate for: Drainage and relief!

Other reports followed the same pattern.

In one study of seven women with sinusitis, two reportedly had a good response and five had an excellent response.

Another study found that sinusitis in children treated with DMSO to the sinuses followed by local oxygenation resolved completely in 49 of 52 cases within two years.

Those are the kinds of signals that should trigger curiosity—not silence.

In the full article, also details DMSO reports involving frontal sinusitis, chronic purulent sinusitis, acute rhinitis, maxillary sinus infections, post-surgical sinus recovery, aerotitis, aerosinusitis, and eustachian tube dysfunction.

That is not one isolated anecdote. It’s a pattern.

The Sinus and Respiratory Treatments You Were Never Told About

The eustachian tube connection is especially important because many people with “sinus problems” also have ear pressure.

They feel popping, fullness, dizziness, muffled hearing, or pressure changes when flying, driving through elevation, or diving.

They may be told their ears look fine. But the underlying issue can still be drainage, inflammation, and pressure regulation in the connected upper-airway system.

This is why the sinus conversation needs to be bigger than “are you congested?”

The nose, sinuses, throat, ears, and upper airway are all connected.

A problem in one area can show up somewhere else.

Sinus inflammation can affect breathing.

Post-nasal drip can irritate the throat.

Eustachian tube dysfunction can affect the ears.

Poor drainage can keep people trapped in recurring infections.

The body is treating this as one connected system, but medicine often treats it as disconnected parts.

Real people are reporting their own experiences using DMSO.

One person described decades of chronic sinusitis, a prior sinus surgery, and recurrent infections that could last months.

After adding DMSO to twice-daily sinus rinses, he said his susceptibility to sinus infections dropped—and when he did get one, it was much less severe and resolved much faster.

For someone living in that cycle, that is not a minor improvement.

That can change daily life!

Another report described a man with a nasal polyp completely obstructing his right nostril.

A $25,000 surgery cleared it, but tragically the polyps returned within six weeks.

Steroids helped, but they were not a long-term answer.

Diluted DMSO drops reportedly cleared him more completely than anything else had, and after 30 days he said the nostril was “more clear than it ever has been in his life.”

That is the kind of story chronic sinus patients immediately understand.

Another person described sneezing more than 100 times per day for six months, along with sinus congestion and itching.

After using a DMSO nasal spray, they said everything cleared in two weeks.

Another described severe congestion and throbbing facial pain late in pregnancy, then said that rolling DMSO across the sinuses and forehead produced relief within minutes.

These are not small quality-of-life issues.

When you can’t breathe normally, it affects everything.

Upper-airway medicine has been strangely neglected.

We built an entire public health model around fear of respiratory viruses while barely teaching people how to care for the area where many of those viruses first take hold.

We built a sinus-care model that often manages symptoms while leaving many chronic patients unresolved.

And we let inexpensive, practical, forgotten approaches disappear from view.

That is the real scandal.

Not that one compound was overlooked, not that one protocol was ignored.

But that the nose, sinuses, throat, and upper airway were treated like secondary details when they may be central to both acute respiratory infections and chronic sinus suffering.

Sometimes the most important medical blind spot isn’t hidden in a lab.

Sometimes it is right under your nose.

Share

Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

The Sinus and Respiratory Treatments You Were Never Told About

For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:

The Real Causes of ED and the Fixes That Actually Work

Exposing The Great Acid Reflux Scam

What’s The Healthiest Water To Drink?

While you’re at it, give A Midwestern Doctor a follow. No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed. This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.

If you haven’t subscribed to this Substack yet, take a moment to read what some of the most powerful voices in the medical freedom/truth movement have to say:

“The Vigilant Fox has been putting in a lot of work to create a news platform that shares the stories we want to hear about and brings attention to the most important things to know about. If you want a daily newsfeed in alignment with our ...”

– A Midwestern Doctor, The Forgotten Side of Medicine

“The Vigilant Fox absolutely is on top of things. We must support our fighters, and the Fox is fighting with truth.”

– Tom Renz, Tom Renz’s Newsletter

“Excellent capture of key video presentations on evolving pandemic science.”

– Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

The Vigilant Fox

Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance.

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

66-year-old medical doctor Mark Hyman ran an experiment on himself.

He started eating more saturated fat. His testosterone levels went “way up.”

A low-fat diet, he says, does the opposite. He calls it “bad news.”

And low testosterone is never just about testosterone. It’s a “clue for other problems.”

“There’s a strong relationship between low testosterone and erectile dysfunction,” Dr. Hyman said.

Men with low testosterone are also 38% more likely to die of a cardiovascular event like a heart attack or stroke.

So doctors reach for the little blue pill. Which was never designed for ED at all. It was a failed blood pressure drug.

It doesn’t touch the root cause.

If you want to resolve your erectile dysfunction for good, Dr. Hyman says you ultimately have to fix your metabolic health.

But what if your metabolic health is fine and the problem is still there?

“Certain medications, by the way, can mess up your libido”…

Subscribe now

Quick history lesson: for most of modern medicine, erectile dysfunction wasn’t called erectile dysfunction. It was called “impotence,” a word that manages to be a diagnosis, an insult, and a life sentence all in one.

Congratulations, you've failed at being a man, please schedule a follow-up.

Clearly nobody sat down and workshopped that word thinking about the patient’s feelings.

It set the tone for how this condition was handled for decades—and not in a good way.

Doctors rarely hear about erectile dysfunction—or ED—directly from patients. Usually it comes from a frustrated spouse, or a man mentioning, almost in passing, that some unrelated treatment “happened” to fix it.

Men just don’t bring it up.

And studies confirm what most physicians already suspect: embarrassment keeps this condition hidden, especially from female doctors.

But that silence has bigger consequences than most people realize.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

The Simple Ways to Restore Sexual Health

For years, ED was treated primarily as a psychological problem. That framing put the burden back on the man, right when he’d finally worked up the nerve to say something about it.

Then Pfizer changed the conversation.

But let’s be clear. It wasn’t out of concern. It was to sell Viagra.

They funded major efforts to reframe ED as a circulatory issue. Because it happened to be more profitable that way.

did a deep dive into the physiology of erectile dysfunction and the overlooked drug and injury causes doctors rarely explain. The full piece maps exactly how each cause disrupts the process.

The Simple Ways to Restore Sexual Health

An erection is, mechanically, a hydraulic event.

Two columns of spongy tissue inside the penis fill with blood when smooth muscle around them relaxes. Nitric oxide triggers that relaxation. Blood rushes in, presses the draining veins shut, and the erection holds.

Viagra doesn’t create this signal. It just prevents the signal from breaking down once arousal is already present.

That’s an important distinction.

A pill that preserves a signal is not the same as a pill that fixes what’s disrupting the signal in the first place.

Poor circulation is the single most common cause of ED, and it usually shows up early.

In men with advanced heart disease, ED was present before the heart attack in 64% of cases.

The vessels feeding the penis are smaller than the ones feeding the heart, so they clog first.

That means ED is often not the problem. It’s the warning.

Diabetes. High blood pressure. Smoking. Obesity. Atherosclerosis.

All of it tends to show up here first.

Medications are an enormous, underappreciated cause of ED, and prescribing doctors rarely connect the two.

Beta-blockers, common blood pressure drugs, are well known for this. But the numbers on SSRIs are harder to pass over. One study of 1,022 previously healthy patients found 59% developed sexual dysfunction after starting the drug, with 31% experiencing ED specifically.

A subset never fully recovers, even after stopping.

It’s now recognized as its own condition: Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction.

This isn’t an argument against treating depression. Some patients need these medications.

But patients absolutely deserve to know this risk exists before they start.

There’s actually a specific protocol for using DMSO to treat ED directly.

breaks down the full mechanism, dosing, and combinations in the article. Subscribe to see it all.

The Simple Ways to Restore Sexual Health

Finasteride, prescribed for hair loss and prostate enlargement, works by neutralizing testosterone. And it carries a documented risk of lasting ED.

GnRH agonists like Lupron go further. Used for prostate cancer and, increasingly, for suppressing puberty, they shut down the body’s hormone production almost entirely. One study found a 267% increase in ED among men taking them. Another found 80% reported impotence outright.

These aren’t fringe side effects buried in fine print. They’re common outcomes of shutting down a hormonal system the body depends on.

But medications and circulation aren’t the whole picture.

The signal for an erection originates in the sacral nerves. Anything compressing them, spinal stenosis, disc disease, pelvic surgery, diabetic neuropathy, can produce ED even when blood flow is completely normal.

A tight, spasming pelvic floor does something similar. It physically compresses the arteries and nerves supplying the penis.

It’s common, and it’s badly underdiagnosed.

Then there’s Peyronie’s disease: fibrous scar tissue forming inside the penis, causing curvature, pain, or shortened blood flow.

It’s estimated to affect roughly 10% of men. Only 0.5 to 1% ever get formally diagnosed, because most never seek care.

In a study of 386 men undergoing ultrasound for ED, without any visible curvature or palpable plaques, 10.6% still had detectable Peyronie’s scarring. Nearly three-quarters of them had ED as their primary complaint.

Undiagnosed scar tissue, quietly reducing blood flow, in men who had no idea it was there.

That alone should change how ED gets worked up in a clinic.

Consider these stories…

A 75-year-old man with no history of ED applied a topical solution for unrelated pelvic pain. Within minutes, without any arousal, without any stimulating thought, he had a full erection. He wasn’t looking for that outcome. He was just following his usual pain routine.

A married couple, ages 60 and 58, had independently been using the same topical solution for years. She’d developed painful scarring from childbirth that made sex painful after menopause. He’d developed ED. Both resolved. And not through separate treatments. Through the same one.

The compound is DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide, and there’s decades of laboratory evidence explaining why these stories keep repeating.

In isolated human erectile tissue, pre-contracted to simulate a flaccid state, DMSO produced dose-dependent relaxation starting at astonishingly low concentrations, and reached roughly 29% maximal relaxation on its own. At higher concentrations, it abolished the resting muscle tension entirely.

Because DMSO absorbs through skin so efficiently, those concentrations are reachable with simple topical use.

It gets more interesting when combined with other agents.

As a vehicle, DMSO potentiated Viagra’s effect on erectile tissue 16 to 80-fold. In men whose ED no longer responded to Viagra at all, DMSO still relaxed the tissue directly.

And testosterone dissolved in DMSO produced relaxation reaching 41 to 71%, far exceeding DMSO alone.

What makes this notable isn’t just erectile tissue.

DMSO also appears to resolve several of the conditions that cause ED in the first place.

In one study, vaginal DMSO measurably relaxed pelvic floor muscles on EMG, normalizing abnormal activity in 85% of patients. In men with chronic prostatitis, adding DMSO to treatment raised normal erectile function to 72.2%, compared to 41.1% in controls, alongside better clearance of infection and reduced inflammation.

Same compound. Different mechanism entirely. But the same outcome!

For Peyronie’s disease specifically, one protocol using topical DMSO across 66 men over 20 sessions found plaques shrank in 72.7% of cases, dissolved completely in 18.1%, and erectile function improved in 42.4%.

A separate long-term protocol saw 5 of 6 patients fully recover with no recurrence over two to four years.

This lines up with DMSO’s known ability to dissolve collagen and scar tissue, the exact material Peyronie’s plaques are made of.

Even genital herpes responded. In one account, four patients regained the ability to have intercourse after just two days of treatment.

One of the more unusual approaches came from a Russian patent: DMSO mixed with papaverine, applied via a vacuum flask at controlled pressure and temperature, for 5 to 12 minutes per session over one to two weeks.

Every patient under 50 saw adequate restoration of erections. Among patients over 50, 72% did, and the rest still showed improvement.

The delivery method seems a bit strange. But it gets consistent results.

What’s striking isn’t any single result. It’s that one compound, acting through completely different mechanisms, resolves conditions medicine treats as entirely unrelated: vascular disease, nerve compression, scar tissue, chronic infection, hormonal collapse.

That’s not supposed to happen if these are truly separate diseases with separate causes.

The full article covers the exact DMSO protocols for treating ED directly, how Stanley Jacob enhanced its effect for Peyronie’s and Dupuytren’s, and how it’s used for broader urogenital issues in both men and women.

The Simple Ways to Restore Sexual Health

Medicine often carve the body into isolated parts and treat each one separately. A model like that is easy to standardize.

But when a single agent can resolve circulation problems, nerve dysfunction, scar tissue, and chronic infection, all conditions treated as unrelated, it suggests something the current model can’t quite account for: that circulation, nerves, connective tissue, and regeneration were never actually separate systems to begin with.

Until that’s taken seriously, a lot of men will keep being told their ED is simply something to live with. But it doesn’t have to be.

Share

Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

The Simple Ways to Restore Sexual Health

For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:

How DMSO Heals The Nerves & Eliminates Pain

Exposing The Great Acid Reflux Scam

What’s The Healthiest Water To Drink?

While you’re at it, give A Midwestern Doctor a follow. No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed. This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.

If you haven’t subscribed to this Substack yet, take a moment to read what some of the most powerful voices in the medical freedom/truth movement have to say:

“The Vigilant Fox has been putting in a lot of work to create a news platform that shares the stories we want to hear about and brings attention to the most important things to know about. If you want a daily newsfeed in alignment with our ...”

– A Midwestern Doctor, The Forgotten Side of Medicine

“The Vigilant Fox absolutely is on top of things. We must support our fighters, and the Fox is fighting with truth.”

– Tom Renz, Tom Renz’s Newsletter

“Excellent capture of key video presentations on evolving pandemic science.”

– Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

The Vigilant Fox

Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance.

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

A New York Times reporter did the unthinkable and exposed the “worst test in medicine” — the one that five decades of evidence says doesn’t work.

The research is damning: continuous fetal monitoring raises C-sections by 66% and instrumental deliveries by 16%, with no drop in infant deaths or disability.

It flags a problem that usually isn’t one, and doctors rush to cut the baby out.

It’s not just a false flag problem; it’s a money incentive. Sarah Kliff says the quiet part out loud:

“Nobody gets sued for doing the C-section. You only get sued for not doing the C-section.”

Doctors are so terrified of legal consequences that they’ll push unnecessary surgery on their patients, not for the baby’s health, but to protect their pocketbooks.

That’s how the cascade starts. In a hospital delivery, one intervention triggers the next. It’s like an avalanche that can’t be stopped.

Next thing you know, you’re recovering for weeks from a major surgery you never needed.

If someone you love is about to have their first baby, share this before they ever set foot in a labor and delivery unit.

investigated what hospitals don’t tell you about birth outcomes, and it only gets worse from here.

Subscribe now

For most of human history, childbirth happened at home, guided by a midwife who had already done this hundreds of times.

Today it’s one of the most heavily monitored, medicated, and surgical events in modern medicine.

Something clearly changed, and it’s not women’s bodies. They’re just as capable today as they were thousands of years ago.

But today, most parents walk into a delivery room having no idea what may happen next—or why.

Somewhere along the way, birth stopped being treated as a normal life event and started being treated as a medical emergency waiting to happen.

The mother is placed on her back. Monitors go on her abdomen. An IV goes in her arm. Strangers poke and prod her in strange places. Unfamiliar people move in and out of the room on a schedule that has nothing to do with her body’s own timing.

Some of this saves lives. But some of it creates the very complications it’s meant to prevent.

Understanding the difference is important.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family

Doctors weren’t always part of childbirth. For most of early American history, midwives handled deliveries, and did so well enough to be paid in things like housing, land, and salary by their communities.

But that started to shift in the late 1700s, when it became fashionable for doctors to attend births in Europe. American doctors soon followed.

And once doctors were in the room, they needed a reason to stay there.

In 1895, a doctor opened Chicago’s first obstetric clinic. He trained doctors and nurses, developed real innovations like premature-infant incubators, and lowered childbirth mortality in the process.

But he also watched enough complications and deaths that he came to a sweeping conclusion: normal childbirth itself was dangerous, and needed to be medicalized to be survived.

By 1920, he was arguing that tools designed for genuinely difficult deliveries, like forceps and sedation heavy enough to make a woman partially unconscious, should be used routinely, even in births that weren’t complicated at all.

Other doctors at the time said this went too far. But it didn’t matter. He trained too many of the next generation of obstetricians for his approach not to win.

That was over a century ago.

The idea he planted never left.

The idea that birth is inherently pathologic, and only a doctor with tools can save a mother and baby from it.

The idea that approaching birth from a different perspective is downright dangerous.

Here’s what makes that idea hard to defend. The U.S. maternal death rate was actually at its highest between 1900 and 1930, the exact period when standardized, invasive delivery practices took hold.

It took decades of further mistakes before outcomes started to improve.

And even now, over a century later, the U.S. still ranks last among wealthy nations in both infant and maternal mortality, despite spending at least $111 billion a year on childbirth, roughly twice what most high-income countries spend.

That history explains the mindset that still runs the delivery room today.

But some of what happens today goes even further than doctors of that era imagined.

Let’s start with the ultrasound. Every doctor is trained that it is simply “safe,” full stop, with the only caveat being that image quality is operator-dependent.

The literature tells a more complicated story. In a dose-dependent manner, animal studies have linked ultrasound exposure to genetic damage, cell death, organ damage, and behavioral impairment.

The most striking data comes from 40 Chinese studies conducted in the 1980s, where women already scheduled for abortion were randomized to receive an ultrasound beforehand, after which the fetus was dissected. Across those studies, ultrasound consistently produced measurable damage to intracellular structures and organs.

That’s not a fringe finding buried in some obscure journal. It’s a body of dissection-level evidence that never made it into the safety conversation most parents hear.

Today, many women receive multiple ultrasounds throughout their pregnancy without so much as a second thought about the safety.

In 1991 and 1992, the FDA raised the allowable output of ultrasound machines 15.7-fold, at manufacturer request, because higher power produced sharper images.

This happened despite existing literature already showing harm at the lower doses. The now common doppler ultrasound outputs even more than standard ones.

A safety limit didn’t move because new safety data justified it. It moved because the pictures looked better.

That 1991–92 power increase lines up closely with the years autism diagnoses began climbing, a rise usually attributed entirely to other causes. This doesn’t prove anything, but it raises some important questions worth considering.

And these are exactly the kinds of questions a genuinely safety-minded system would have investigated decades ago instead of leaving to a chart nobody in mainstream medicine has been willing to publish.

This doesn’t mean every ultrasound is a mistake. Some pregnancies genuinely need them, and a brief scan near the end of pregnancy can catch real emergencies, like an umbilical cord in the wrong position, that some birth plans just couldn’t safely handle.

The distinctions that can matter here are early versus late and routine versus necessary. Early scans, done when a fetus is most sensitive, add the least clinical value and the most theoretical risk. A late, brief scan for an actual need closer to delivery is a different calculation.

Ultrasound isn’t the only “routine” step worth questioning before you walk into a delivery room. full piece lays out the specific alternatives worth knowing about, and when a scan is actually worth it.

The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family

Here’s what a standard hospital delivery actually looks like once labor starts.

The mother is placed on her back with her legs elevated, and she’s hooked to continuous fetal monitoring. If labor moves too slowly by the hospital’s clock, she’s given synthetic oxytocin to speed contractions and may have her water broken to “speed things up.”

Her pain is managed with an epidural. Pain is expected if you’re trying to hurry things along against mom’s body’s clock.

If the baby doesn’t descend fast enough, forceps or a vacuum come next.

And if none of that works, it becomes a C-section.

Each step may defensible on its own. But stacked together, they function less like individual medical decisions and more like a sequence. A sequence that completely ignores what mom and baby are doing.

When it comes to the actual birth, let’s start with posture. In most hospital births, 68% of mothers deliver flat on their backs, and another 23% deliver reclined.

Compare that to home births, where mothers choose their position freely. Only 8% choose to lie flat.

That’s a huge gap and there’s a big reason for it. Lying down closes the pelvis and compresses a major vein carrying blood back to the heart, reducing blood flow to the baby.

A 2017 Cochrane-adjacent review found upright delivery reduced abnormal fetal heart rates, sped up labor, and cut the need for forceps or episiotomies.

And yet 68% of mothers deliver on their backs in hospitals.

Position is just the entry point.

Once labor is underway inside a hospital, the interventions don’t happen in isolation. Each one tends to make the next one more likely.

Continuous fetal heart monitoring is treated as a safety cornerstone in nearly every hospital birth. But a Cochrane review comparing it to periodic stethoscope checks found it doesn’t reduce infant death or disability.

What it does do is increase the odds of a C-section by 66% and an instrumental delivery by 16%, because abnormal readings push doctors toward intervention even when the baby is fine.

Then there’s pitocin, synthetic oxytocin used to speed up labor that’s deemed too slow—usually according to the hospital’s clock.

Given at too high a dose, it produces contractions strong and frequent enough to increase anal sphincter tears by roughly 80%, raise the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, and compress the baby’s blood supply enough to trigger the very heart rate abnormalities that lead to a C-section.

One intervention manufactures the justification for the next one.

Roughly 70–75% of hospital births use an epidural. It’s genuinely helpful for pain, especially once other interventions have made labor harder to tolerate.

But it comes with real trade-offs.

In one study of 439 women, 41.9% had a measurable systemic reaction, including severe drops in blood pressure in over a third. That blood pressure drop worsened fetal heart rate in over 11% of cases.

Evidence on whether epidurals raise C-section risk is mixed on their own, but combined with pitocin, one study found the risk climbed sixfold.

Plenty of mothers need and benefit from an epidural. But it is important that they know what they’re trading before they’re mid-labor and being asked to decide in sixty seconds or less.

All of it tends to funnel toward the same outcome.

Nearly a third of American births now end in a C-section.

That was 32.4% of births in 2024.

But the WHO estimates roughly 10% of births actually require one to prevent death.

So why is the number so high?

A C-section is major abdominal surgery, and it carries the risks that come with one: a 4–6 week recovery, a global infection rate above 5%, and a real chance of accidental injury during a procedure sometimes performed under real time pressure.

There are also risks specific to the surgery itself.

Two C-sections make a woman roughly 14 times more likely to have a dangerous placenta attachment in a future pregnancy.

A weakened uterine scar can rupture during a later labor, which is part of why one C-section often locks a woman into needing every subsequent delivery to be surgical too.

Beyond the surgery, bypassing the vaginal birth process itself disrupts something less obvious: the transfer of bacteria that colonizes a newborn’s gut.

That disruption has been linked to a measurable rise in childhood asthma, hay fever, and a cluster of autoimmune conditions including celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease.

That’s a really big deal.

The most striking data goes much further than the immune system.

Children born by C-section show a 23–26% higher rate of autism and a 15–16% higher rate of ADHD. A large study found the autism signal was strongly correlated with whether the mother received general anesthesia during the procedure, not the surgery alone.

Imaging studies back this up structurally. One MRI study of 306 children found C-section birth associated with reduced brain white matter and weaker functional neural connectivity. A 2017 study published in Nature found C-section children performed measurably lower on standardized testing years later, even after controlling for other variables.

That’s not a small footnote. That’s a signal running through immune function, cognition, and behavior, tied to a procedure performed on nearly a third of American births.

This is absolutely something worth looking into.

Every day, C-sections save lives in exactly the situations that the surgery was designed for.

But at the same time, women elect to have scheduled C-sections because it fits their or their doctor’s calendar better.

Both things can be true: essential in the moments that call for them, and dramatically overused in the moments that don’t.

Here’s what actually moves the needle in the other direction, and neither one requires new technology.

Skin-to-skin contact immediately after birth has been shown to cut NICU admissions for low blood sugar by half, improve a newborn’s gut microbiome, and reduce postpartum depression and PTSD in mothers, including after a C-section. And if needed, that contact can come from dad or even a twin.

Delayed cord clamping, simply waiting before cutting the umbilical cord, increases a baby’s blood volume by up to a third, cuts brain bleeds in premature infants by roughly 60% in one study, and reduces a serious intestinal condition called necrotizing enterocolitis by 41%.

Only about half of U.S. hospital births currently practice delayed cord clamping.

One more variable outperforms almost everything else on this list, and it isn’t a medical procedure at all.

A Cochrane review found continuous labor support from a doula was associated with a 25% lower chance of a C-section, labors that were 41 minutes shorter on average, an 11.7% drop in epidural use, and a 38% lower chance of a low five-minute Apgar score for the baby.

One study even found that training a friend for two hours produced many of the same benefits as a professional doula.

The support itself is what matters.

And if in a hospital environment, that support can step in and help a mother avoid many of the interventions we’ve discussed here if that’s what she wants.

The full article from details exactly how to mitigate C-section complications after the fact, when cord blood banking makes sense versus delayed clamping, and specific methods for correcting a breech baby before delivery—because it is possible.

The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family

The pattern isn’t random.

A hospital vaginal birth runs $13,000–$18,000. A C-section runs $25,000–$30,000—sometimes far more with complications.

A home birth with full midwife care costs a fraction of a hospital birth.

Obstetric units are often understaffed enough that deliveries have to be sequenced and accelerated so they don’t collide. Add liability risk for any doctor who deviates from standard protocol, and the system is quietly built to reward speed and intervention over patience.

That’s not a conspiracy. It’s an incentive structure. And incentive structures produce exactly the outcomes you’d expect them to.

If you or someone you know is pregnant, don’t miss the full article.

shares the best setup for where to give birth, preferred alternatives to routine ultrasound, safe anesthetic options, and a full breakdown of preventing and correcting problems like preeclampsia, edema, and miscarriage risk before they become emergencies.

The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family

None of this is really about hospitals versus home, or intervention versus none. It’s about who gets to make the decision, and whether they’re making it with real information or with whatever a rushed, liability-driven system hands them in the moment.

Birth was never supposed to be an assembly line.

It was supposed to be one of the most significant events a family ever moves through, one that deserves patience—not a protocol built around how many other deliveries are happening down the hall or when a doctor wants to go golfing.

Somewhere in the last century, that got lost. Finding it again starts with knowing what actually happened, and what’s actually true.

Share

Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family

For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:

How DMSO Heals the Spine and Reverses Paralysis

What They Don’t Tell You About C-Sections

What’s The Healthiest Water To Drink?

While you’re at it, give A Midwestern Doctor a follow. No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed. This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.

If you haven’t subscribed to this Substack yet, take a moment to read what some of the most powerful voices in the medical freedom/truth movement have to say:

“The Vigilant Fox has been putting in a lot of work to create a news platform that shares the stories we want to hear about and brings attention to the most important things to know about. If you want a daily newsfeed in alignment with our ...”

– A Midwestern Doctor, The Forgotten Side of Medicine

“The Vigilant Fox absolutely is on top of things. We must support our fighters, and the Fox is fighting with truth.”

– Tom Renz, Tom Renz’s Newsletter

“Excellent capture of key video presentations on evolving pandemic science.”

– Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

The Vigilant Fox

Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance.

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

Big Pharma is “terrified” of Vitamin D, and Dr. Pierre Kory says he could spend a whole hour on this topic.

Why so scared?

Because “It threatens the DISEASE MODEL.”

A meta-analysis out of Italy found what happens when people take Vitamin D, and the results are staggering:

Looking at data from 19 different studies and 1.26 million individuals, the meta-analysis revealed:

• Vitamin D showed about a 60% effectiveness against the incidence of COVID-19 in randomized control trials.

• Vitamin D showed about 40-50% effectiveness in reducing the incidence of COVID-19 in observational studies.

• For preventing severe COVID-19 cases requiring ICU care, vitamin D supplementation was about 70% effective.

We didn’t need to lock ourselves inside for years, live in fear, and vilify our neighbors for not wearing a mask.

That was literally the worst thing we could have done.

All we ever needed was to go outside, get sunshine, and raise our vitamin D, and everything would have been so much better.

But the sunshine story goes far beyond COVID. You think you’re doing your health a favor by avoiding the sun?

The data tells a very different story, and it starts with 29,518 women who did exactly that.

Subscribe now

For decades, Americans were told to treat the sun like poison.

Avoid it. Block it. Fear it. Wear sunscreen every day, everywhere, even when it’s cloudy.

But sunlight isn’t just a lifestyle preference.

It’s a biological necessity.

And the campaign against it may be one of the most successful and profitable fear campaigns in modern medicine.

Their message is simple:

Sunlight causes skin cancer.
Skin cancer can kill you.
Therefore, avoid the sun.

That sounds reasonable until you ask one question: What kind of skin cancer are we talking about?

Because “skin cancer” isn’t just one thing.

And with that simple question, the narrative starts to fall apart.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

Dermatology’s Crusade Against The Sun

The term “skin cancer” gets used as if it describes a single disease with a single risk profile.

But it doesn’t.

Basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma are all very different diseases.

Different frequency.
Different danger.
Different relationship to sunlight.

But the public hears one terrifying phrase: skin cancer.

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer.

It makes up roughly 80% of cases, with about 2.64 million Americans diagnosed each year.

But it rarely metastasizes and has a near 0% fatality rate.

That doesn’t mean it should be ignored.

It means it should not be used to make sunlight sound like a death sentence.

Squamous cell carcinoma is more serious.

It can metastasize, and once it does, survival drops sharply.

But when removed before metastasis, survival is around 99%. Overall survival is roughly 95%.

About 2,000 Americans die from SCC each year.

So yes, it matters.

But it still doesn’t justify treating the sun itself as the enemy.

The trick is simple:

Use basal cell’s frequency.
Use melanoma’s fear.
Use sunlight’s link to some non-melanoma cancers.

Then merge them all into one phrase: “Skin cancer.”

That phrase does a lot of work.

The full article from shows clearly how that one label became the foundation for an entire industry.

Dermatology’s Crusade Against The Sun

Melanoma is the scary one.

It accounts for only about 1% of skin cancer diagnoses, but it causes most skin cancer deaths.

That is why suspicious moles and changing lesions should be taken seriously.

But here is the problem:

Melanoma doesn’t fit neatly into the “sunlight causes skin cancer” story.

It turns out, patients with solar elastosis—a marker of sun exposure—were reportedly 60% less likely to die from melanoma.

Melanoma often appears on areas of the body with minimal sun exposure.

Outdoor workers, despite far more UV exposure, have lower melanoma rates than indoor workers.

That should at least make people pause before slathering on gobs of sunscreen.

Then there is sunlight itself.

A 20-year prospective study of 29,518 Swedish women found that sunlight avoiders were 60% more likely to die overall.

Compared to women with the highest sun exposure, they were 130% more likely to die.

That’s not a small signal.

That’s a major public health contradiction.

One of the most stunning findings is that smokers who got more sunlight had a similar mortality risk to non-smokers who avoided the sun.

That doesn’t mean smoking is safe.

It means sunlight exposure was so strongly associated with survival that avoiding it may have carried a risk comparable to one of the most notorious health risks in the world.

The biggest benefit appeared to be cardiovascular.

Heart disease kills far more people than skin cancer—so this matters.

The tradeoff should be obvious.

If avoiding sunlight slightly reduces some skin cancer risk but increases overall mortality, cardiovascular risk, depression, circadian disruption, and vitamin D deficiency, that is not prevention.

That is bad math.

Sunlight isn’t just “vitamin D.”

Natural light affects nitric oxide, circulation, mood, mitochondrial signaling, sleep cycles, hormones, immune function, and seasonal affective disorder.

This is why people instinctively feel better in the sun.

The body is not confused.

But the medical messaging might be.

For decades, the public was trained to believe the sun was the danger.

But what if the real danger was the advice to avoid it?

’s article makes a disturbing case that one of the cheapest health tools on earth was turned into a villain—because villains create markets.

Dermatology’s Crusade Against The Sun

A 2023 UK study of more than 470,000 people found that frequent sunscreen use was associated with a 1.9-to-3.9-fold increased risk across four skin cancers studied.

Association is not causation. But that’s exactly the point.

The authors of that study reportedly treated the result as a “paradox.”

Instead of asking whether the model was wrong, they suggested sunscreen users may be getting more sun, applying it poorly, or using it after a relevant diagnosis.

Then they still concluded the data showed the importance of adequate sunscreen use.

That’s how a narrative protects itself.

There’s also the growing problem of artificial light.

A mouse study designed to examine malignant melanoma revealed that mice kept under simulated daylight developed tumors more slowly and less extensively than mice kept under cool white fluorescent light.

Maybe sunlight isn’t the only variable.

Maybe losing natural light matters too.

In the early 1980s, dermatology was not the prestige specialty it is today.

Dermatologists were often dismissed as nothing more than “pimple poppers.”

Today, dermatology is one of the most desirable specialties in medicine: high pay, lower stress, enormous procedure volume.

Clearly something changed. What was it?

According to dermatologist David J. Elpern, the American Academy of Dermatology assessed its members over $2 million in the early 1980s to hire a prominent New York advertising agency.

The strategy was to rebrand dermatologists as skin cancer experts.

Not just acne fighters and rash experts.

But cancer fighters.

That changed everything.

The free National Skin Cancer Screening Day became the perfect public funnel.

Screen people.
Find lesions.
Biopsy more.
Diagnose more.
Cut more.
Repeat.

And once the public was taught that every suspicious spot could be cancer, anxiety became the engine.

Fear drove demand.

Demand drove procedures.

Procedures drove revenue.

The most profitable narratives usually have three parts:

A terrifying enemy.
A screening ritual.
A procedure that appears to save you.

Dermatology found all three.

’s research lays it all out and shows how “sun safety” became less about health and more about a business model.

Dermatology’s Crusade Against The Sun

Mohs surgery became a major part of that machine.

It’s often promoted as a gold standard because it can remove cancer precisely while sparing healthy tissue.

Sometimes, that’s true and when it is, it is very valuable.

But it also overused.

Among Medicare beneficiaries, Mohs surgery use reportedly rose 700% from 1992 to 2009.

By 2012, over $2 billion was paid out for Mohs surgeries.

That’s huge.

Private equity then entered the field.

Dermatology practices were acquired. Profit pressure increased. Non-physician providers were used to scale the model.

And concerns about misdiagnosis, over-treatment, and vulnerable nursing home patients being targeted for procedures grew.

Because it was no longer just medicine.

No one is suggesting that you ignore suspicious skin changes.

Melanoma can indeed be deadly. Changing moles, irregular borders, multiple colors, rapid growth, bleeding, or non-healing lesions deserve real evaluation.

The point is not “never see a dermatologist.”

The point is not to confuse legitimate care with an industry-wide fear campaign.

The sun was never our enemy.

Reckless burning is bad. Suspicious lesions matter. Some cancers need urgent removal.

But sunlight itself is one of the oldest, cheapest, most essential inputs for human health.

A sane medical system would teach people how to use it wisely.

A corrupted one teaches them to fear it—then sells them the solution.

Share

Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

Dermatology’s Crusade Against The Sun

For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:

We Now Know How The Government Lied About the COVID Vaccines

How DMSO Heals The Nerves & Eliminates Pain

What’s The Healthiest Water To Drink?

While you’re at it, give A Midwestern Doctor a follow. No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed. This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.

If you haven’t subscribed to this Substack yet, take a moment to read what some of the most powerful voices in the medical freedom/truth movement have to say:

“The Vigilant Fox has been putting in a lot of work to create a news platform that shares the stories we want to hear about and brings attention to the most important things to know about. If you want a daily newsfeed in alignment with our ...”

– A Midwestern Doctor, The Forgotten Side of Medicine

“The Vigilant Fox absolutely is on top of things. We must support our fighters, and the Fox is fighting with truth.”

– Tom Renz, Tom Renz’s Newsletter

“Excellent capture of key video presentations on evolving pandemic science.”

– Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

The Vigilant Fox

Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance.

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

At 17, Amy Tippins was dying of liver failure. A transplant saved her life.

After the surgery, she noticed “some of my traits had changed.”

Amy suddenly found herself drawn to hands-on home projects she’d never cared about.

“What gives?” she thought. So she tracked down the obituary of the stranger whose liver she’d received and discovered something staggering:

“Not long after surgery, some things about myself and some of my traits had changed… I really started to love projects like replacing flooring on my own. I never saw flooring being put in. I never saw anything like that being done.”

“I knew he was 47 and that he had been killed in a car wreck in Columbus, Georgia. So I went to the library and I started looking up obituaries for that time. And I backed into his obituary.”

“What I discovered is he was a police officer. He was 47, and his name was Mike. His sister told me that he did a lot of his own home renovation. He also liked to work with his hands. He liked to do projects.”

“When I found out who my donor was, it made a lot more sense on why some things about myself and some of my traits had changed after transplant.”

Is a donated organ just an organ? Or can it actually change who you are?

Conventional medicine laughs at the idea. But is it really so crazy?

Let’s take a look at the evidence.

Subscribe now

When organ transplantation became possible, doctors called it a miracle. And it is. Giving someone a second life through another person’s death is incredible.

But the full story isn’t quite so simple.

Oftentimes, something else seems to come with the organ. Something nobody signed up for.

The standard model is pretty straightforward. Your heart is a pump. Your kidney is a filter. Personality and memory live in the brain, and nowhere else.

Swap a failing organ for a healthy one and you’ve simply updated the plumbing, not the person.

But that’s been nothing more than an assumption.

For decades, a significant number of cases has been building up that say otherwise.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

The Mystery of Transplanted Consciousness: When Organs Transfer More Than Function

Transplants are notoriously difficult to keep alive.

Within ten years, nearly half of transplanted hearts fail. For lungs it’s almost three-quarters. Kidneys and livers aren’t far behind.

Recipients pay for survival with immunosuppressants that can run $30,000 a year, permanent sobriety, endless bloodwork, and a life spent dodging infection.

That’s the price of the gift. The big price.

And it’s only the part medicine talks about.

Because beyond the medical ledger, transplant patients kept reporting something much stranger.

Not medical complications.

Changes that made who they were before the transplant different than who they became after.

At University Hospital in Vienna, 47 heart transplant patients were studied closely.

Most insisted their personality was unchanged—though many showed signs suggesting otherwise.

A distinct minority reported something they couldn’t explain: new traits they felt belonged to someone else.

They described feeling compelled to accommodate memories that weren’t theirs.

Roughly one in ten heart recipients report emotions they believe came from their donor.

The most well documented case is a woman named Claire Sylvia.

At 47 she received a new heart and lungs, and almost immediately started craving beer and chicken nuggets—foods she’d never wanted previously in her 4 years of life.

Months later she dreamed of a young man named Tim. In the dream they kiss, and she feels herself inhale him into her. She woke up certain Tim was her donor and that part of him was now living inside her.

Friends said she walked differently. She felt more aggressive, more confident, drawn to blonde women, as if some new energy were responding through her.

Then she traced the donor through an obituary. His name was Tim L. His family confirmed he’d loved chicken nuggets and beer—the exact cravings that had appeared within her body.

You could dismiss an odd craving. Or a one off dream.

But a name, a face, and a dead man’s favorite foods all surfacing in someone who never met him—that’s a bit harder to simply wave away.

Sylvia eventually said the only thing that freed her was a kind of ritual—a way to let the donor’s spirit “let go.”

’s full article describes how recipients and clinicians can actually do that.

The Mystery of Transplanted Consciousness: When Organs Transfer More Than Function

This is where the research gets serious.

A neuropsychologist named Paul Pearsall—himself a transplant patient—set out to document it properly. He interviewed 73 heart recipients, 67 recipients of other organs, and the families of 18 deceased donors.

He wasn’t collecting ghost stories. He published his findings in an academic paper with independent verification, with meticulous citations.

And across all those interviews, the same patterns surfaced again and again: recipients reliving a donor’s death they were never told about. Food and music tastes flipping to match the donor. In one case, a lifelong lesbian becoming attracted to men and marrying one.

The themes were too consistent to be random noise.

Then come the cases that are impossible to explain away.

An eight-year-old girl received the heart of a murdered ten-year-old. She began having vivid nightmares about the killing.

Her descriptions were specific enough that police investigated—and the details about timing, the weapon, the location, and the victim’s final words were accurate enough to find and convict the murderer.

A child’s nightmares, sourced from a transplanted heart, closed a homicide case.

It sounds unbelievable.

Transplants save lives every single day, and most recipients never report anything unusual about the experience.

But “most” isn’t “all.”

And the exceptions are strange enough to demand a look.

The pattern keeps repeating with different people who had no way to know each other.

A man named William Sheridan could barely draw past a child’s level. After his heart transplant, he was suddenly producing detailed wildlife and landscape art. His donor had been a passionate artist.

A 47-year-old foundry worker received the heart of a 17-year-old and developed a sudden pull toward classical music. He laughed it off, assuming the teenager would’ve liked rap. Then he learned the boy had died on his way to a violin lesson, literally clutching his violin case.

A woman bent down to a transplant recipient and whispered a private phrase she’d shared with her dead husband David: “Everything is copacetic.” The recipient’s mother went pale. Her son had started using that exact word—constantly—but only after the surgery.

None of these people knew their donors. None had a script.

Yet the talent, the phrase, the music kept showing up—matched to a stranger whose body had stopped working but allowed another’s body to continue living.

There are many more of these cases than can fit in one thread—including donors who seemed to “speak” to their grieving families through the recipient.

The full article has more.

The Mystery of Transplanted Consciousness: When Organs Transfer More Than Function

The obvious objection is coincidence. So why do only some recipients experience this?

That’s exactly what Pearsall tried to answer. Studying who was sensitive, he found a recurring profile—eighteen shared traits.

The sensitive ones tended to be open rather than rigid, highly creative, intensely body-aware, drawn to music, prone to vivid dreaming, and described as intuitive even before surgery.

A random coincidence wouldn’t sort itself neatly by personality type, would it?

These experiences don’t stop with the heart.

Pearsall saw changes in liver and kidney recipients too, though milder. And here’s the incredible part: the emotional shifts tended to track what traditional Chinese medicine assigns to each organ.

Liver with anger. Lung with grief. Kidney with fear. Heart with joy.

Clinicians working with recipients report the same alignment—as if each organ carries its own emotional signature.

This forces an uncomfortable question about memory itself.

If a personality trait or a specific word can ride along inside a transplanted organ, then memory may not be locked inside the brain the way we were taught.

Memory research already hints at this—damage to specific brain regions often fails to erase specific memories, leading some to propose the brain works more like a receiver than a hard drive. A way of accessing information stored elsewhere.

Including, perhaps, in tissue that used to belong to someone else.

Living with a transplanted heart is its own psychological ordeal—and not for the reasons you’d expect.

The hardest part for many recipients isn’t the surgery or the medication. It’s the dawning sense that something foreign has entered them and might be steering their personality. Many worry less about their donor’s health history than about their donor’s character.

Pearsall noticed recipients moved through stages much like grief: anxiety and anger, then euphoria, then depression and guilt, and finally a crossroads—where most retreated into firmer denial, and about one in ten became deeply, almost devotedly, interested in who their donor had been.

You can even hear it in the language. Those resisting say “the heart.” Those who’ve made peace say “my heart.”

A New York Times reporter sat in on a Valentine’s Day party for heart recipients.

The room, the reporter wrote, spoke in hushed and reverent tones—about the angel in their chest, about the responsibility they now carried, about the little prayer they said to the other person living inside them.

These aren’t fringe mystics. They’re ordinary people, given a second heart, quietly making room for whoever it came from.

Clinicians working in mind-body medicine describe transplanted organs as carrying “trapped emotions”—and report that helping recipients release them can improve quality of life, sometimes improve organ function, and make the body more willing to accept the organ instead of fighting against it.

Sylvia described her own version: she said she finally felt whole after a ritual to let Tim’s spirit go. She stopped dreaming of him afterward.

There is a darker side to the transplant story.

Organs are scarce, and transplants can cost up to nearly two million dollars—conditions that have built a global black market, including organs taken from people who never agreed to give them.

In the US, donors are usually declared “brain dead.” That means the organ is still functioning, but the person is “gone.” However, there’s a disturbing body of documented cases of paralyzed, supposedly unreachable patients regaining control of their bodies—sometimes just moment before harvesting.

Which raises a question almost too unsettling to ask. If consciousness can travel with an organ, what happens when an organ is taken from someone who was still, in some sense, there—and deeply afraid of what was happening to them?

The full article goes deeper into the therapies that have reversed failing organs without transplant, the evidence that many “brain dead” patients aren’t, and the methods clinicians use to release a donor’s trapped trauma.

It’s the the part of the story that mainstream medicine won’t touch.

The Mystery of Transplanted Consciousness: When Organs Transfer More Than Function

It’s worth holding two ideas at once.

Skeptics call all of this coincidence, and that explanation should always be on the table.

But coincidence doesn’t usually repeat itself across different researchers, cultures, and decades with the same fingerprints.

If even a fraction of these accounts reflect something real, then the self isn’t sealed inside the skull. Some of what makes you you may be distributed through your body—written into your tissue, carried in your blood, and able to outlive the rest of you.

Some who never had transplants but received large blood transfusions describe milder versions of the exact same thing.

Modern medicine built organ transplantation to move parts between bodies. But we may have been moving something more than parts the whole time.

The mystery isn’t only where consciousness ends. It’s whether it ends at the edges of one person at all—or whether a piece of someone can keep living, remembering, and reaching out from inside a stranger’s body.

We pushed the boundary of medicine. We may have crossed a boundary of identity without even noticing.

Share

Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

The Mystery of Transplanted Consciousness: When Organs Transfer More Than Function

For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:

We Now Know How The Government Lied About the COVID Vaccines

The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family

What’s The Healthiest Water To Drink?

While you’re at it, give A Midwestern Doctor a follow. No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed. This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.

If you haven’t subscribed to this Substack yet, take a moment to read what some of the most powerful voices in the medical freedom/truth movement have to say:

“The Vigilant Fox has been putting in a lot of work to create a news platform that shares the stories we want to hear about and brings attention to the most important things to know about. If you want a daily newsfeed in alignment with our ...”

– A Midwestern Doctor, The Forgotten Side of Medicine

“The Vigilant Fox absolutely is on top of things. We must support our fighters, and the Fox is fighting with truth.”

– Tom Renz, Tom Renz’s Newsletter

“Excellent capture of key video presentations on evolving pandemic science.”

– Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

The Vigilant Fox

Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance.

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

Before the hepatitis B vaccine was mandated for kids to attend school in almost all 50 states, the risk of a baby dying from hepatitis B was 1 in 7 million.

“That means you need to give 7 MILLION hepatitis B vaccines to prevent ONE death,” RFK Jr. says.

When you give 7 million vaccines to save one life, you’d better make damn sure it’s safe.

But is it really? Let’s take a look at the evidence.

Subscribe now

Every newborn in America is pushed toward a Hepatitis B vaccine within hours of being born.

And that sounds completely normal to most people because the policy has been normalized for decades.

But when you take a close look at Hepatitis B, the risk group, the benefit math, and the forgotten safety record, the birth-dose policy becomes very difficult to defend.

Hepatitis B is a real disease.

Chronic infection can damage the liver, lead to liver failure, and increase the risk of liver cancer later in life.

That part is not the dispute.

The dispute is whether every newborn, including babies born to mothers who test negative for Hepatitis B, should receive the vaccine on their very first day of life.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

Why is Every Newborn Forced to Get A Hepatitis B Vaccine?

Hepatitis B isn’t spread like measles and other contagious diseases children are routinely vaccinated for.

It generally requires blood-to-blood exposure, sexual exposure, the use of contaminated needles, accidental blood exposure, or transmission from an infected mother during childbirth.

For the average newborn baby, the serious risk is overwhelmingly tied to one scenario and one scenario only: the mother has Hepatitis B and transmits it during birth.

Besides that one scenario, there the risk to infants and young children is virtually nonexistent compared to every other age group.

But the official justification for the vaccine depends on a long chain of events.

The mother has to be infected.

Screening has to miss it.

The infection has to be transmissible.

Transmission has to happen during birth.

The infant infection has to become chronic.

Then, years later, it has to become consequential.

When every step is rare, the benefit shrinks—fast.

But are parents told that the stars basically must align just so for this to even be an issue for their child?

Using official-type assumptions, the math is brutal.

Roughly 0.1% of mothers have Hepatitis B.

Only a fraction have the higher-risk HBeAg-positive form.

Transmission risk varies sharply by maternal status.

And the vaccine isn’t even 100% protective.

When multiplied out, more than one million infants must be vaccinated to prevent one consequential case.

The full article asks one uncomfortable question: if the birth dose is mainly meant to prevent mother-to-child transmission, why is it still pushed on babies whose mothers test negative?

That’s where this story gets hard to explain.

Why is Every Newborn Forced to Get A Hepatitis B Vaccine?

The strongest argument for the birth dose is missed screening.

That is the idea: vaccinate everyone because a small number of maternal infections could be missed.

But that’s very different from saying every newborn faces meaningful risk.

It means a universal medical intervention is being used to cover a rare failure in screening.

This is where targeted protection becomes the obvious alternative.

If a mother is Hepatitis B positive, the infant is in a real risk category and should be handled with seriousness.

But if the mother is negative, the risk profile changes completely.

A blanket policy treats both babies almost the same.

The historical record makes the policy even more disturbing.

In 1998, Science reported growing controversy around autoimmune disease claims and France suspended school-based Hepatitis B vaccination after thousands sued the government.

In 1999, ABC News aired a major criticism of the vaccine.

That same year, Congress held hearings that almost nobody talks about today.

At that 1999 hearing, the contrast was staggering.

VAERS had reportedly received more than 8,000 adverse event reports involving the Hepatitis B vaccine, including 43 deaths in children under 2 in 1997.

By comparison, the hearing cited 95 or fewer annual Hepatitis B cases in young children and no infant deaths.

That’s the kind of risk-benefit contrast that should have triggered a serious national pause.

Parents also testified that the policy was being carried out without informed consent.

Some said babies were vaccinated without parental approval.

Others described coercion, pressure, and even threats involving social services.

That changes the debate.

This is no longer just about immunology. It’s about whether parents are actually being allowed to make an informed medical decision.

Then there’s the clinical trial problem.

The article argues that the original safety trials often monitored adverse events for only 4 to 5 days and did not use true inert placebos.

That window is wildly inadequate for autoimmune disease, developmental regression, demyelinating disorders, or chronic neurological problems.

You simply cannot rule out long-term harm by looking for a few days. It is literally impossible.

Even inside those short windows, the newborn adverse event numbers were not nothing.

Within 48 hours, there are reports of pain, redness, swelling, irritability, vomiting, diarrhea, feeding difficulties, drowsiness, restlessness, and fever.

In an adult, some of those may sound minor. But in a newborn, feeding problems, fever, and excessive drowsiness can become major events quickly.

A vaccine given on day one of life was cleared with short safety windows, limited follow-up, and no true placebo standard.

That alone should make people ask harder questions.

’s article is a must read.

Why is Every Newborn Forced to Get A Hepatitis B Vaccine?

For decades, critics raised concerns that the Hepatitis B vaccine could trigger autoimmune and demyelinating disorders.

Those concerns were dismissed as unproven.

There’s one mechanism that could make that concern biologically plausible: molecular mimicry.

Molecular mimicry is simple in concept.

If an immune-provoking substance resembles human tissue, the immune system may attack both.

In this case, the concern is myelin, the protective coating around nerves.

A 2005 study found significant overlap between the Hepatitis B surface antigen and myelin, with 60% of recipients developing immune reactivity to myelin.

That should have led to major follow-up research.

Instead, the official posture remained familiar: not proven, more research needed, no reason to change policy.

That response is a clear pattern.

When patients report harm, the data are considered anecdotal.

When long-term studies are missing, the absence of proof is treated like proof of safety.

The developmental-disability data may be the most explosive part of this entire issue.

Several studies have reported associations between newborn Hepatitis B vaccination and increased risks of developmental disability, autism, or developmental delay.

Those findings are obviously controversial. But controversy is not a reason to bury the question.

When a medical intervention is given on day one of life, the burden should absolutely be on public health authorities to prove the risk is not there.

The official story says the newborn Hepatitis B shot is settled science.

The forgotten record says something else entirely.

And has all the details in the full article.

Why is Every Newborn Forced to Get A Hepatitis B Vaccine?

Animal studies add another layer.

In one monkey study, vaccinated infants reportedly showed delays in rooting, snout, and suck reflexes, which are some of the earliest behaviors tied to feeding and development.

A mouse study reported impaired neurogenesis, impaired behavior, disrupted hippocampal long-term potentiation, and increased brain inflammation.

No single study settles the debate.

But together, they raise questions that should have been investigated aggressively, especially before making this a day-one policy for every newborn.

The population-level data create another problem.

Acute Hepatitis B cases dropped after vaccination campaigns, and public health officials often treat that as proof of success.

But Hepatitis C fell in a similar pattern despite no Hepatitis C vaccine.

And chronic Hepatitis B prevalence sits around 0.003% with no meaningful change since 1976.

That’s a major contradiction.

If the real target is chronic Hepatitis B, the key question isn’t whether acute infections fell.

The key question is whether the birth-dose policy meaningfully reduced chronic infection in the population.

And that target appears not to have moved.

That matters because the newborn shot isn’t being justified as a short-term case-reduction tool.

It’s being justified as lifelong protection from severe chronic disease, and the population-level data raise a much harder question about whether that promise was actually delivered.

We may never get to the bottom of why this vaccine is pushed on every newborn in America. But regardless of the reason, one thing is clear: the Hepatitis B birth dose should not be treated as a sacred ritual.

The honest position is simple: protect infants born to infected mothers with serious, targeted protocols, including screening, immune globulin when indicated, and vaccination, if appropriate.

But a blanket day-one policy for babies born to Hepatitis B negative mothers rests on much, much weaker ground.

The debate isn’t whether Hepatitis B exists.

The debate is whether a newborn’s first medical act should be a one-size-fits-all intervention with tiny benefit, disputed safety signals, and decades of unanswered questions.

Share

Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

Why is Every Newborn Forced to Get A Hepatitis B Vaccine?

For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:

We Now Know How The Government Lied About the COVID Vaccines

The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family

What’s The Healthiest Water To Drink?

While you’re at it, give A Midwestern Doctor a follow. No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed. This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.

If you haven’t subscribed to this Substack yet, take a moment to read what some of the most powerful voices in the medical freedom/truth movement have to say:

“The Vigilant Fox has been putting in a lot of work to create a news platform that shares the stories we want to hear about and brings attention to the most important things to know about. If you want a daily newsfeed in alignment with our ...”

– A Midwestern Doctor, The Forgotten Side of Medicine

“The Vigilant Fox absolutely is on top of things. We must support our fighters, and the Fox is fighting with truth.”

– Tom Renz, Tom Renz’s Newsletter

“Excellent capture of key video presentations on evolving pandemic science.”

– Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

The Vigilant Fox

Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance.

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

RFK Jr. once said: “They’re making $60 billion a year selling us vaccines, but they’re making $500 billion a year selling the remedies for the injuries caused by vaccines.”

“This is a really great business plan for [pharmaceutical] companies. You make people sick, and then you sell them the lifetime cure.”

This interview, which originally aired on September 17, 2020, was removed by YouTube for “medical misinformation.”

But was it really “misinformation,” or was RFK Jr. leading viewers to an inconvenient truth?

In just about every industry, a great product makes you rich beyond belief, except one: medicine.

The rules for enrichment work differently here. And the reason why is exactly what they don’t want you to know.

Subscribe now

There’s a principle that I’m sure you’re familiar with: once you see it, you can’t unsee.

No industry built to solve a problem ever actually solves it. Think about it—a cure for the problem is a death sentence for the paycheck. The cancer charity that beats cancer has to close its doors. The dating app that finds you a partner just lost a paying user.

So problems don’t get solved. They get managed. Indefinitely.

And nowhere has this been turned into more of an art form than medicine.

We’re taught to see healthcare as a race toward cures. Brilliant minds, billions in research, all pointed at making disease disappear.

But that’s not how it works.

Let’s take a look at how the business model actually works. It’s actually pretty simple.

A cured patient stops paying. A managed patient pays forever.

When those two incentives collide, take a guess at which one usually wins.

Every large business chases the same things: constant growth, high markups, a captive market, and sales that repeat far into the future.

A medication you take once and never need again breaks every one of those rules.

A medication you take every day for the rest of your life satisfies all of them at once.

That’s not a conspiracy. It’s just what the math rewards.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

Why Medicine Won’t Cure You (and What’s Finally Changing)

If this sounds cynical, consider that Wall Street put it in writing.

In 2018, Goldman Sachs analysts released a report on gene therapy with an almost unbelievable title: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?”

Excuse me?!

Their concern wasn’t whether the cures worked. It was that they worked too well.

They pointed to Gilead’s hepatitis C treatment, which cured over 90% of patients. US sales peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015—then fell every year after, because the company kept running out of sick people to treat.

A cure, in other words, was a revenue problem.

Think about that.

A treatment that cured people was flagged as a business risk—because it shrank the pool of paying customers.

That’s not an accusation from a critic.

That’s the analysis a bank literally handed its investors.

The full piece traces this single idea—curing is bad for business—from Wall Street memos all the way into the language doctors are trained to use.

There’s a reason the word “cure” has quietly vanished from medicine. lays it out.

Why Medicine Won’t Cure You (and What’s Finally Changing)

Here’s where things get really weird…

The word “cure” has quietly disappeared from the profession. For centuries, major medical dictionaries either skipped defining it or defined it in the vaguest possible terms. It’s missing from the indexes of core references like Harrison’s and the Merck Manual.

Doctors are actively discouraged from promising a cure, especially for chronic conditions.

Some of that is reasonable—it protects patients from false hope and doctors from liability.

But it has another effect. If the profession rarely claims cures are possible, no one can be blamed for failing to deliver one.

“Managing” has become the ceiling instead of the floor.

To be clear, this isn’t an anti-medicine argument.

Some drugs are worth taking in some situations. Some conditions genuinely require lifelong treatment. Both things can be true.

The problem isn’t that medicine exists, it’s what the incentives quietly select for.

There’s a reason so many drugs need to be taken forever, and it’s built into biology.

The body is wired to maintain balance. When a drug pushes in one direction, the body pushes back the other way.

So the response to most medications tends to follow one of three paths. The effect fades unless you keep taking it. Or you need higher and higher doses for the same result. Or your body resets to a new baseline and can no longer function without the drug at all.

We can call that last one dependency.

Which is how you end up with a spectrum where nearly every successful drug sits somewhere between “addictive” and “ineffective.”

Unfortunately, drug side effects aren’t always a flaw in the system. Sometimes they’re the next product.

A drug causes a problem. That problem needs another drug. That drug causes its own problem. And so on.

In marketing, this is called a sales funnel—a cheap entry point that converts a fraction of people into something more expensive at every stage.

Once you see medicine this way, the funnels are everywhere. Literally.

The clearest example targets American women. And it starts young.

Birth control pills, handed out widely to teenage girls, can drive mood instability. Mood instability gets met not with counseling or questions about their birth control pills, but with an SSRI—often the default response to any emotional distress.

The SSRI brings its own neurological and psychiatric fallout. And that, in turn, opens the door to antipsychotics and mood stabilizers.

Each step looks like a reasonable medical decision. Stacked together, they form a funnel a person can spend decades inside, getting more medicated at every stage.

And these aren’t niche drugs.

One in six American adults takes a psychiatric medication. Half of all adults are on at least one lifelong prescription of some kind.

That’s not a hidden corner of healthcare. That’s actually the center of it.

When a drug class reaches that scale, the incentive to keep it unquestioned becomes enormous—and so does the effort spent keeping criticism quiet.

For years, SSRIs sat in the same protected category as other drugs that quietly harmed people but made too much money to touch.

’s full article walks through exactly how that silence was finally broken—and the unlikely path that did it.

Why Medicine Won’t Cure You (and What’s Finally Changing)

SSRIs earn the focus for a specific reason.

They help a real subset of patients—that part is true. But at the same time they’re massively overprescribed, they frequently devastate people’s lives, and they can be extraordinarily hard to stop taking.

For decades, that last part stayed invisible. If you weren’t personally trapped on them, you’d never know how brutal getting off could be.

So how do you make an invisible problem visible?

Not with the common side effects—those are easy to ignore from the outside.

You start with the one consequence that’s too dramatic to look away from.

For years, the strongest evidence linking SSRIs to psychotic violence and mass shootings sat buried—locked inside dense academic books or scattered across sensational news clips that no neutral reader would ever trust.

The reframing was simple. The country was already at war over mass shootings and gun control. If a significant share of those shootings traced back to a drug rather than to gun laws, that was a conversation people across the spectrum had reason to engage with.

The argument finally broke through. A national segment eventually ran on the idea that prescriptions—not just firearms—might be making the situation worse.

Once that door opened, attention finally turned to the far more common, quieter harms SSRIs cause.

That shift built until it reached a place no one expected: a federal panel where SSRI victims told their stories directly.

One account went viral—a woman describing how the drugs stripped away her ability to feel love or connect physically with her partner. Not a rare side effect buried in fine print. A life quietly hollowed out.

In that moment the abstraction became real.

Then the federal government announced a multiagency effort aimed at getting people off a major drug class—not on one.

The plan: train providers to recognize inappropriate prescribing, teach them how to safely taper patients off antidepressants, reimburse them for doing it, and offer non-pharmaceutical alternatives instead.

Every previous federal health push you can name moved in the opposite direction—more prescriptions, more coverage, more uptake. This one inverts the entire logic of the system it operates inside.

To grasp how large that is: in an era when industry had less grip on the FDA, it still took more than a decade of activism, leaks, and hearings just to win a warning label noting SSRIs could cause suicide.

The pushback was immediate and revealing.

A sitting US senator responded with fury—not to a dangerous policy, but to the idea of reducing dependence on these drugs at all, insisting the government keep its hands off her medicine cabinet.

That reaction is the whole pattern in miniature.

When the proposal is fewer drugs and more recovery, the system treats it as the threat.

Take a step back and the deeper issue comes into view.

Most chronic disease follows a chain. Something harmful is present in the body. It keeps injuring. The damage accumulates. Eventually the person notices symptoms and seeks help.

The earlier in that chain you intervene, the closer you get to an actual cure.

But most pharmaceuticals act at the very last stage—muting the symptom while the underlying process grinds on. Partly by design, and partly because symptoms are simply the easiest thing to measure in a study.

So you reduce the discomfort, change nothing upstream, and take the drug forever. Which, conveniently, is exactly what the business model needs you to do.

Here’s the part that complicates the easy villain story.

This isn’t only about greed. It’s also about comfort.

Most institutions start as scrappy underdogs forced to innovate. Once they succeed, the mission often shifts from solving the problem to protecting the institution. The culture starts selecting for people who master a comfortable routine over those who disrupt it.

Greed explains a lot. Plain human complacency may explain even more.

And this isn’t unique to medicine.

Nonprofits that fundraise endlessly but never end the problem. Government programs that outlive their purpose. Contractors paid up front who deliver nothing.

The pattern repeats anywhere solving the problem would dissolve the paycheck.

The full article gets specific—including details on the natural, low-cost therapy that has spent years documenting, the one the FDA stonewalled for decades despite proof it worked.

It’s nearly free, treats conditions labeled “incurable,” and reportedly helped reverse a case of ALS. It’s worth reading.

Why Medicine Won’t Cure You (and What’s Finally Changing)

For all of that, something real is shifting.

The most striking thing about the SSRI effort isn’t the policy itself. It’s that it offers doctors a supported, guided way to break from the standard playbook—and to rediscover why they went into medicine at all.

Not pure reform. Not pure disruption. A third path: give people permission to practice differently, then let the results speak.

Which leads to the thought underneath all of this.

A system designed to manage problems forever will always resist solving them. Not because the people inside are evil, but because the structure rewards permanence over resolution—and most of us would rather repeat a comfortable routine than face the uncertainty real solutions demand.

That’s the trap. It isn’t only that someone profits from your staying sick. It’s that an entire system has slowly, almost unconsciously, organized itself around your never fully getting better.

The first real test of whether that can change is happening right now, with a single drug class.

What’s worth watching is whether it stays one exception—or becomes the moment the whole logic finally cracked.

Share

Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

Why Medicine Won’t Cure You (and What’s Finally Changing)

For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:

The FDA’s 50-Year War on the Safest Painkiller Ever Discovered

What They Don’t Tell You About C-Sections

What’s The Healthiest Water To Drink?

While you’re at it, give A Midwestern Doctor a follow. No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed. This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.

If you haven’t subscribed to this Substack yet, take a moment to read what some of the most powerful voices in the medical freedom/truth movement have to say:

“The Vigilant Fox has been putting in a lot of work to create a news platform that shares the stories we want to hear about and brings attention to the most important things to know about. If you want a daily newsfeed in alignment with our ...”

– A Midwestern Doctor, The Forgotten Side of Medicine

“The Vigilant Fox absolutely is on top of things. We must support our fighters, and the Fox is fighting with truth.”

– Tom Renz, Tom Renz’s Newsletter

“Excellent capture of key video presentations on evolving pandemic science.”

– Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

The Vigilant Fox

Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance.

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

In 2014, 300 scientists warned Anthony Fauci would start a global pandemic.

Following the high-profile escape of three bugs from U.S. labs, these 300 scientists sent a letter to President Obama, urging him to shut down Anthony Fauci’s gain-of-function research.

Obama issued a moratorium and shut down 18 of the worst projects by Anthony Fauci. In the end, he really didn’t shut them down. Instead, Obama moved the research offshore to places like Ukraine, the former Soviet State of Georgia, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.

Now, it is widely accepted that COVID-19 originated from that very lab in Wuhan, China.

Those 300 scientists were right about Fauci…

But the big question is, why are people like him so obsessed with creating dangerous pathogens in the first place?

Subscribe now

Bioweapons research is always sold with the same simple promise:

We have to make pathogens more dangerous so we can learn how to stop them.

Honestly, that sounds insane when stated plainly.

But somehow this logic has funded a massive industry for decades, and the safety record is far worse than most people realize.

The public hears “pandemic preparedness” and imagines top scientists working tirelessly to prevent the next disaster.

But it’s not that simple.

The deeper problem is that this research often involves collecting dangerous pathogens, modifying them, storing them, passing them through animals, testing their behavior, and hoping the lab never makes a mistake.

And there are a lot of mistakes that can be made.

Language matters.

“Gain-of-function” sounds sterile, technical, and harmless.

But in practice, it can mean giving a pathogen new abilities, such as making it more transmissible, more dangerous, or better able to evade natural defenses.

That’s not ordinary science. It’s civilization-level risk.

And it sounds more like something from a movie that doesn’t have a happy ending than simply “science.”

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

Why The Bioweapons Research Industry Is A Danger to Society

The modern bioweapons problem traces back to a giant loophole.

The Biological Weapons Convention was supposed to outlaw biological weapons. But it allowed research to continue for “prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes.”

Once that exception existed, almost anything could be justified as defense to fit the loophole.

How convenient.

That loophole created the perfect excuse.

A lab could study dangerous pathogens and say it was preparing for a future attack.

A researcher could make a virus more dangerous and say it was necessary to understand the threat.

A government could fund the work and call it protection.

The public was left trusting the very same institutions creating the risk.

After WWII, the US absorbed scientists from defeated regimes, including people involved in horrifying biological research.

Over time, genetic engineering made the field even more dangerous because scientists were no longer limited to finding pathogens in nature.

They could now alter them.

And that changed everything.

The full breakdown from shows why “gain-of-function” may be one of the most misleading phrases in science. The public hears “preparedness.” The experiment often means making a pathogen more dangerous and hoping the lab never slips.

Why The Bioweapons Research Industry Is A Danger to Society

The history isn’t reassuring.

In 1950, the US Navy reportedly sprayed bacteria across the San Francisco Bay Area to study how a biological agent might spread through a population center.

The bacteria were considered harmless at the time. But it wasn’t harmless.

People got sick.

And the organism? It later became endemic in the area.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t an isolated episode.

A Senate hearing later found that between 1949 and 1969, the US military had conducted 80 open-air biological tests using bacteria believed at the time to be harmless.

The phrase “believed to be harmless” has done a lot of damage.

More than we know.

Then came the lab leaks.

In 1966, a less dangerous smallpox strain reportedly escaped from an English lab, infecting one person who went on to infect 65 more.

In 1978, another smallpox leak from the same lab killed someone working above it.

In 1971, weaponized smallpox escaped a Soviet lab and killed three.

In 1977, H1N1 suddenly reappeared and swept across the world.

Scientists later traced the outbreak to a likely escape of a preserved or reconstituted flu virus from a laboratory freezer in the Soviet Union or China.

Old pathogens can become new outbreaks when labs mishandle them.

In 1979, weaponized anthrax spores were accidentally released from a Soviet military facility.

At least 68 civilians died, and the full death toll remains unknown.

Why? Because the government covered it up.

Then, in 2001, anthrax letters killed 5 Americans and sickened 17 more.

The strain was tied to the world of high-security bioweapons labs.

SARS led to another warning.

After SARS emerged in 2002, multiple SARS lab leaks occurred in different countries, some causing broader outbreaks.

That should have forced a global rethink.

Instead, coronaviruses became one of the most heavily manipulated families of viruses, partly because they are relatively easy to modify.

This report from pulls together the part almost nobody wants to discuss: lab leaks were openly debated before COVID. Then COVID happened, and suddenly questioning the most consequential leak possibility became forbidden. Why?

Why The Bioweapons Research Industry Is A Danger to Society

The numbers are worse than the anecdotes.

A review of papers published between 2000 and 2021 identified 309 documented lab-acquired infections, 16 lab escapes, and several deaths.

And that’s not a perfect count of the problem.

It is only what made it into the literature.

The Cambridge Working Group put the scale in even sharper terms.

In 2014, it estimated that potentially dangerous lab leaks occurred, on average, twice per week in the US alone.

By 2018, that estimate had reportedly risen to four times per week.

Four times per week.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

Before COVID, many scientists openly warned that gain-of-function work could trigger exactly the kind of disaster it was supposed to prevent.

Obama paused federal funding for certain gain-of-function research in 2014.

The risk was never imaginary.

Then COVID happened.

The outbreak appeared very near the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where coronavirus research had been conducted for years.

There had already been warnings about safety problems.

There had already been concern over gain-of-function work.

Yet the lab-leak question was treated as forbidden, not because it was impossible, but because the implications were enormous.

If dangerous pathogen research helped create the very pandemic it was supposed to prevent, then the entire pandemic-preparedness industry deserves a public audit.

Not a quiet internal review.

Not a media cleanup operation.

A real audit of funding, labs, grants, safety incidents, conflicts, and coverups.

The industry’s defense is always the same.

We need this research because the next deadly virus could jump from animals to humans.

But that argument creates a permanent blank check.

Scientists can travel into remote caves, collect rare viruses, bring them into labs, modify them, and say the danger comes from nature.

Even when the lab becomes the danger.

The scariest part isn’t one lab accident. It’s the business model. Fear creates funding, funding creates institutions, and institutions rarely solve the problem that keeps them alive.

We need to break the cycle.

Why The Bioweapons Research Industry Is A Danger to Society

The bioweapons industry survives because the incentive structure is backward.

If the threat grows, funding grows.

If fear grows, authority grows.

If the public believes the next pandemic is always around the corner, governments can justify more labs, more surveillance, more grants, more emergency powers, and more countermeasures.

The machine feeds on the threat.

A real pandemic-preparedness system would prioritize boring things that work: lab transparency, strict safety enforcement, independent inspections, early treatment protocols, repurposed drugs, honest risk communication, and liability for reckless research.

Instead, the system keeps asking for more money to study the next “threat.”

If a research industry repeatedly leaks dangerous pathogens, hides behind “peaceful” language, blocks scrutiny, and then asks for more funding after every disaster, is it really protecting society?

Or has society been funding the danger it was told to fear?

Share

Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

Why The Bioweapons Research Industry Is A Danger to Society

For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:

The Truth About SSRI Antidepressants

The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family

What’s The Healthiest Water To Drink?

While you’re at it, give A Midwestern Doctor a follow. No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed. This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.

If you haven’t subscribed to this Substack yet, take a moment to read what some of the most powerful voices in the medical freedom/truth movement have to say:

“The Vigilant Fox has been putting in a lot of work to create a news platform that shares the stories we want to hear about and brings attention to the most important things to know about. If you want a daily newsfeed in alignment with our ...”

– A Midwestern Doctor, The Forgotten Side of Medicine

“The Vigilant Fox absolutely is on top of things. We must support our fighters, and the Fox is fighting with truth.”

– Tom Renz, Tom Renz’s Newsletter

“Excellent capture of key video presentations on evolving pandemic science.”

– Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

The Vigilant Fox

Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance.

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

In 2016, Del Bigtree convinced a top infectious disease doctor to do something public health has avoided for decades: conduct a study comparing the health outcomes of vaxxed vs. unvaxxed children.

Dr. Marcus Zervos vowed to publish the results no matter what.

The results were devastating for the vaccinated, and Dr. Zervos ultimately chose not to publish the study.

When confronted about it, he said bluntly: “Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.”

Here’s what the study revealed:

• Vaccinated children were 4.29 times more likely to have asthma.

• Three times higher risk for atopic diseases (like eczema).

• Nearly six times higher risk for autoimmune disorders, a category that includes more than 80 different diseases.

• 5.5 times higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

• 2.9 times more motor disabilities.

• 4.5 times more speech disorders.

• Three times more developmental delays.

• Six times more acute and chronic ear infections.

• Among nearly 2,000 unvaccinated children, there were zero cases of ADHD, diabetes, behavioral problems, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, tics, or other psychological disorders.

The study’s conclusion was equally striking. It states: “[I]n contrast to our expectations, we found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold INCREASE in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition when compared to children unexposed to vaccination.”

When science uncovers an inconvenient result, it often gets buried, or the data is twisted until it produces the outcome “The Science” wants.

How do you think Vioxx, a migraine and arthritis pain drug, made it to market?

An estimated 100,000 people died before the manufacturer (Merck) finally decided it was too dangerous to keep prescribing.

And Vioxx wasn’t an isolated case.

Roughly 1 in 3 drugs approved by the FDA get pulled or receive a major safety warning LONG AFTER they get prescribed to millions of people.

If Vioxx could be approved without the danger being flagged during trials, what else is on the market today that people assume is safe?

Perhaps the most important question is: how do they get away with rigging these trials in the first place?

Subscribe now

The medical establishment built its reputation on one phrase: the gold standard.

Randomized controlled trials were sold as the cleanest way to separate real medicine from wishful thinking.

But once a trial costs tens of millions of dollars, the question changes.

Who can afford to define what everyone thinks is the “truth”?

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

How They Rig Clinical Trials and The Price We All Pay For It

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can indeed be extremely useful.

They can detect small effects that individual doctors would never notice, like a slight increase in heart attacks or a modest reduction in symptoms across thousands of patients.

Clearly that has real value.

The problem begins when RCTs become the only evidence medicine is allowed to recognize.

Because once that happens, medicine stops asking a simple and important question: What actually helps patients?

Instead, it starts asking what can be patented, standardized, funded, pushed through regulators, published in major journals, and written into treatment guidelines?

That shift changes everything.

Large RCTs typically cost tens of millions of dollars.

That means most low-cost, off-patent, individualized, or practitioner-dependent therapies will never get tested at the scale regulators demand.

Not because they don’t work.

Because no one can make enough money proving they do.

This creates a monopoly over medical truth.

Pharma can afford the trials.

Pharma can design the trials.

Pharma can analyze the trials.

Pharma can publish the trials.

Then doctors are told that anything outside that pipeline lacks “evidence.”

And that’s exactly where the gold standard starts to look less like science and more like gatekeeping.

The full article from shows just how clinical trials can be tilted before the first patient is even treated, then spun after the data is collected.

How They Rig Clinical Trials and The Price We All Pay For It

COVID made this problem impossible to ignore.

Early treatment should have been the central priority.

Instead, patients were told to take a painkiller like Tylenol or ibuprofen and return to the hospital if they felt worse and could not breathe.

That was not a serious outpatient strategy.

There is no way to twist it that makes this common strategy make sense.

A synthesis of COVID treatment studies showed something remarkable.

There was no clear relationship between how effective a treatment appeared and whether it landed in official guidelines.

Low-cost options clustered near the top.

Expensive, patent-protected options often landed far lower.

The guideline pattern looked more economic than clinical.

Ivermectin was listed with a 62% improvement at roughly $1.

Paxlovid showed 28% improvement at $529.

Remdesivir showed 10% improvement at $3,120.

Acetaminophen was listed at negative 28%.

The point is not that one chart settles every question. It’s that it exposes the pattern medicine refuses to confront.

By May 2023, confirmed COVID death data showed the United States at 3,625 deaths per million.

Many African countries were reported between 10 and 20 per million.

Yes, there are differences in demographics, reporting, and health systems.

But after $5 trillion in direct appropriations, lockdowns, mandates, and “the science,” America should not have produced one of the worst outcomes in the world.

At the trial level, manipulation often begins with the comparator.

A new drug can be tested against placebo instead of the best existing treatment.

The comparator can be underdosed, overdosed, poorly administered, or chosen because it is outdated.

Then the new drug wins a fight that was never fair.

Then comes the bigger “placebo” problem.

In vaccine trials, the placebo is often not inert saline.

It can be another vaccine or an aluminum adjuvant!

That matters because if the control group also experiences side effects, the trial can make the new product look safer by equalizing harm across both groups.

And that’s how a safety signal gets buried. By design.

Trials can also cherry-pick participants.

Patients likely to suffer side effects can be excluded.

Patients most likely to respond can be selected.

Run-in periods can remove people who react poorly before randomization even begins.

By the time the official trial starts, the real-world patient population is already gone.

One of the most important sections of ’s article explains why a trial can be technically randomized and still built to miss the injuries patients later report.

How They Rig Clinical Trials and The Price We All Pay For It

Surrogate endpoints are another trick.

Instead of measuring what people actually care about—like survival, disability, long-term function, or quality of life—trials measure easier markers.

• Cholesterol

• Tumor size

• Antibody response

• A symptom scale

A drug can win on paper while patients see little meaningful benefit in real life, when it actually matters.

Some of the most consequential manipulation happens midstream.

Trials can be stopped early when interim results look favorable.

Safety observation can be shortened before long-term harms appear.

The Pfizer COVID vaccine publication relied on roughly two months of post-dose safety data from a trial designed for two-year follow-up!

Then placebo recipients were vaccinated after authorization, wiping out the long-term blinded comparison.

Blinding can also fail.

If a drug has obvious side effects, patients and investigators may be able to guess who received it.

That can change behavior, reporting, testing, and adjudication.

In the COVID vaccine trials, an FDA review acknowledged that 477 participants with COVID-like symptoms were never swabbed.

That matters when the headline claim depends on counting cases.

Then comes the oldest statistical trick in medicine: Relative risk.

If a treatment reduces risk from 2 in 100,000 to 1 in 100,000, the absolute reduction is tiny.

But the relative reduction is 50%. That’s how small benefits become massive headlines.

In Pfizer’s trial, vaccinating 119 people to prevent one non-severe COVID case became “95% effective.”

Outcome switching is even more direct.

One review found 63% of published trials altered at least one primary outcome from the protocol.

33% introduced an entirely new one.

None acknowledged the change.

When the original target fails, researchers can search the data for something else that looks positive, then present that as the story.

Subgroup fishing works the same way.

If the main result fails, slice the data into smaller groups and analyze it different ways until something crosses p<0.05.

The STAR*D depression mega-trial claimed a 67% cumulative remission rate.

When judged by sustained remission, the actual rate was approximately 3%.

That’s not a small difference. That’s a completely different reality.

The most disturbing part is not that data can be spun. It’s that many of the people expected to police the spin are financially tied to the system. has all of the details in the full article.

How They Rig Clinical Trials and The Price We All Pay For It

Publication control turns weak evidence into consensus.

Negative trials can be buried.

Positive trials can be published multiple times.

An FDA analysis of antidepressants found the published effect size was 32% larger than what all submitted trials showed.

One olanzapine trial was reportedly published 143 times.

A bad signal can disappear. A favorable signal can echo through the literature for years.

Adverse events can also be renamed until they no longer look like drug harms.

Eli Lilly recoded suicide attempts on Prozac as “overdose” and suicidal ideation as “depression.”

Akathisia can be reframed as “agitation” or “anxiety.”

Companies claimed SSRIs caused sexual disturbances in only 5% of patients. An independent study found 59%.

That is how patients get gaslit.

The regulators are not clean referees standing outside the system.

Industry user fees now account for roughly 51% of the FDA’s total budget.

Pharmaceutical user fees fund 77% of the prescription drug review program.

Nine of the FDA’s last ten commissioners went on to work for or sit on the board of a pharmaceutical company.

And FOIA litigation revealed over $2.685 billion in royalty payments from pharma companies to NIH institutes and scientists between 2010 and 2023.

How are we supposed to “trust the science” when it is so clearly bought and paid for?

For now, the answer isn’t to throw away RCTs all together. It’s to stop treating them like a priesthood.

Medicine needs transparent data, replicated observational evidence, open patient-level review, and a system that rewards discovering what helps patients instead of protecting what makes money.

Science only works when it can be challenged.

When the data is hidden, the trial is curated, the harms are renamed, and the guideline committee is conflicted, “evidence-based medicine” becomes something much darker: A marketing department with a lab coat.

Share

Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

How They Rig Clinical Trials and The Price We All Pay For It

For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by A Midwestern Doctor:

The FDA’s 50-Year War on the Safest Painkiller Ever Discovered

What Happens When Humans Disconnect From Natural Light?

What’s The Healthiest Water To Drink?

While you’re at it, give A Midwestern Doctor a follow. No one brings more research, clinical insight, or historical context when it comes to exposing the health myths we’ve all been fed. This is easily one of the most valuable accounts you’ll ever follow.

If you haven’t subscribed to this Substack yet, take a moment to read what some of the most powerful voices in the medical freedom/truth movement have to say:

“The Vigilant Fox has been putting in a lot of work to create a news platform that shares the stories we want to hear about and brings attention to the most important things to know about. If you want a daily newsfeed in alignment with our ...”

– A Midwestern Doctor, The Forgotten Side of Medicine

“The Vigilant Fox absolutely is on top of things. We must support our fighters, and the Fox is fighting with truth.”

– Tom Renz, Tom Renz’s Newsletter

“Excellent capture of key video presentations on evolving pandemic science.”

– Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

The Vigilant Fox

Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance.

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

Erica Drum was told her son Jackson would never breathe on his own again.

A hockey hit launched him headfirst into the boards. Broken neck & spine. Doctors said he’d be paralyzed for life.

Jackson is now walking and has recovered every fine motor skill he lost.

What happened?

His loving mother took a chance on a substance called DMSO. And what followed was nothing short of a miracle.

ERICA DRUM: “[Doctors] said there was no hope of recovery… He is vent-dependent, feeding tube-dependent. We were told he is never going to eat or drink or be able to breathe independently.”

“I had a friend, and she’s like, ‘Hey, I know of this thing [DMSO] that’s supposed to help spinal cord injuries, and it helps reduce the swelling.’ And I’m like, ‘Okay, well maybe we can try that.’ Because at this point, we didn’t have any options.”

“We decided to try [DMSO] topically. We bought like a little rollerball one… We started that on day four or five, and by day seven, I would poke his feet or his legs, and he would open his eyes [despite being on intense painkillers].”

“And then there was a PT working with him, and she felt his hip flexor fire. And they’re like, ‘Oh my gosh.’ He went from an Asia A to an Asia C, which usually is not supposed to happen.”

“You’re either a severe spinal cord injury with no sensation, nothing, like an Asia A. You don’t go from an A to a C. From there, he was Asia C. And I’m still rubbing this stuff on him every chance I get.”

“I mean, I would rub that thing on him probably ten times a day. What’s interesting is I was able to rub it on the left side of his body more than his right side. His left side is definitely stronger.”

“The right side is slowly coming back. His hand grip on this side was like 1 pound probably four months ago. And now it’s up to 20 pounds. He literally has every single fine motor skill. It’s a matter of us now strengthening them.”

“He hasn’t used his wheelchair in three weeks… We moved to the arm crutches. And now in therapy, he’s working on walking without the arm crutches.”

“We were like ventilator-dependent, medication-dependent… And now we’re down to just the baclofen.”

“My son is one of the only people I’ve met that does not have the nerve pain with his condition. So he is off of all nerve pain meds.”

Jackson’s doctors can’t explain how he went from a quadriplegic to a walking, self-sufficient person again.

But his mother attests it was the DMSO.

The thing is, Jackson isn’t the only person with a story like this.

Subscribe now

Jackson’s story is an incredible example of exactly why DMSO is so hard to dismiss.

A nerve injury recovery that looks impossible on the surface starts to make more sense when you look at what DMSO appears to do inside damaged tissue.

It doesn’t behave like a normal painkiller.

It acts more like a cellular reset.

And once you see what it can do… you can’t unsee it.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

How DMSO Heals The Nerves & Eliminates Pain

DMSO is often described as an “umbrella remedy” because it does several things at once.

• It improves circulation.

• It reduces inflammation.

• It protects cells from stress.

• It helps revive injured tissue.

And turns out that in the nervous system, that combination may matter more than almost anywhere else.

The key idea is this: Neuropathic pain is often not just “pain.”

It can come from damaged, inflamed, compressed, poorly perfused, or hyperactive nerves that keep firing long after the original injury should have healed.

So conventional pain drugs often fail.

They suppress the signal without repairing the system producing it.

Conventional pain drugs do nothing for the root cause of the pain.

This thread and the free version of ’s article barely scratch the surface. The full report is roughly 33,500 words, covering the nerve-healing mechanisms, clinical data, reader cases, exact protocols, and the pain formulation that everyone has been waiting for.

How DMSO Heals The Nerves & Eliminates Pain

One of the most striking findings is that DMSO selectively affects the small nerve fibers involved in chronic pain.

These C fibers help transmit burning, electric, shooting, and aching pain.

DMSO can block these pain fibers while sparing larger nerve fibers. Which may help explain why people report relief without feeling like the whole nervous system has been shut down.

That matters because neuropathic pain is one of medicine’s most frustrating problems.

• Diabetic neuropathy

• Chemo neuropathy

• Post-surgical nerve damage

• Shingles pain

• Trigeminal neuralgia

• Fibromyalgia

• CRPS

Patients often cycle through gabapentin, antidepressants, opioids, nerve blocks, or surgery, only to be told the remaining pain is something they may have to live with.

DMSO raises a very different possibility.

What if some chronic nerve pain isn’t permanent damage, but a stuck pattern?

• A dysfunctional circuit?

• A swollen or compressed nerve?

• A scar-driven interference field?

• A small fiber pain loop that never turns off?

That would explain why a compound that changes circulation, inflammation, membranes, and nerve firing could have such broad effects.

How can one compound affect pain transmission, inflammation, circulation, scar tissue, nerve repair, and drug delivery at the same time?

It sounds impossible, but it isn’t.

All of the details on reversing paralysis can be found in this article from . You don’t want to miss this.

How DMSO Heals the Spine and Reverses Paralysis

DMSO’s biophysical effects have been largely forgotten.

DMSO interacts with water, cell membranes, and the cytoskeleton—the internal scaffolding that helps cells hold shape, move, repair, and communicate.

The claim isn’t simply that DMSO “numbs” pain.

It may actually temporarily shift cellular structures, then allow them to reform in a stronger, more organized state.

DMSO has been linked to microtubule stabilization, Schwann cell activity, stem cell differentiation into neurons, axonal resealing, improved nerve conduction, and reduced scarring around injured nerves.

In plain English, those are several different pathways involved in damaged nerves surviving, reconnecting, and functioning again.

No one is asking you to accept shocking claims on faith alone. Some of the most shocking DMSO stories sound unbelievable until you understand DMSO’s mechanisms. Then they make perfect sense.

If you’re anything like me, you hear a story like Todd’s, a man who was dealing with terminal ALS, and you feel excitement for what this means and happiness for Todd’s second chance at life.

But at the same time, it’s impossible to ignore the weight of realization that something so effective has been withheld from so many people who have suffered needlessly.

But today, we’re breaking down the walls. More and more people are being helped by DMSO and they’re eager to share their stories.

The full article is full of personal stories of people successfully using DMSO.

They describe incredible things like sensation returning after years of numbness.

Burning feet calming down.

Trigeminal neuralgia easing when nothing else worked.

Post-surgical nerve damage improving.

Migraine patterns changing.

Those stories would sound random and just wouldn’t make sense if DMSO had only one effect.

They look a lot less random when the same mechanisms keep showing up.

Complex regional pain syndrome, or CRPS, is a brutal chronic pain disorder where the pain is often far out of proportion to the original injury.

It can involve burning pain, swelling, color changes, temperature changes, sweating abnormalities, tremors, stiffness, and loss of function.

In conventional medicine, there is no definitive cure.

Yet DMSO has been studied for CRPS for decades.

There are multiple clinical studies, including randomized trials, showing topical DMSO improved pain, swelling, motion, and overall function, especially in early “warm” CRPS.

This isn’t merely a collection of internet anecdotes. CRPS relief is one of the places where the evidence base for DMSO is hardest to ignore.