Blame the Patient: The Medical Gaslighting Crisis Hiding in Plain Sight
This clip of Dr. Peter Hotez is an extreme case of medical gaslighting that is easy to spot. But what about when it’s not?
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.
This 45-second clip with Dr. Peter Hotez is difficult to watch.
A mom from Texas desperately asks him why she keeps getting “really bad” COVID.
She got three COVID shots, took multiple rounds of Paxlovid, but she keeps “getting COVID often.”
Dr. Hotez tells the woman that her repeated COVID infections are basically her fault for skipping boosters.
WOMAN: “I’m getting COVID often. I took Paxlovid the third time, and then a few weeks later I got it again. COVID was really bad on me.”
HOTEZ: “After you had your first two immunizations way back in 2021, did you get boosters regularly?”
WOMAN: “I got one booster, and then after that I stopped getting them.”
HOTEZ: “Yeah. So that’s the reason why you keep up with the boosters.”
The saddest part about this interaction is that the woman was so convinced by Hotez that getting COVID was her fault that she was eager to get another booster shot after the show.
This is an extreme case of medical gaslighting that is easy to spot.
But what about when it’s not?
What about the times you did everything your doctor recommended—only to find yourself worse off than when you started?
Something seismic has happened to public health in America—and most people haven’t fully processed its scale.
A 2025 JAMA study surveying pregnant mothers and parents of young children found that only 37% fully trusted the CDC vaccine schedule and planned to follow it completely.
Five years ago, a number that low would have been unimaginable.
So what’s causing the drop? And what does it mean?
To understand the big picture and why it matters, you need the baseline.
In 2000, only 19% of parents had concerns about vaccines. By 2009, that number was 50%. And by 2013, 9% had declined all immunizations, while 32% had safety concerns.
The medical establishment found those numbers alarming. But what we’re looking at today is in a different category entirely.
This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.
Ending Medical Gaslighting
The compliance model was never purely scientific. It was sociological.
Mandates work only when the majority is already vaccinated. Social pressure works only when being unvaccinated makes you an outlier.
This is precisely why the aggressive California mandates of 2019—pushed through over massive public opposition—happened when they did.
The industry wasn’t acting from confidence. It was acting from fear of losing the numbers it needed to sustain the entire enforcement architecture.
Here’s what maintained that compliance for decades:
Propaganda. Not science.
Propaganda works by having the emotional response arrive before the logical one.
You didn’t evaluate evidence on vaccines. You were told that questioning them made you dangerous, irresponsible, a threat to your community.
Those weren’t scientific arguments. They were social weapons—specifically designed to make independent inquiry feel like a character failure rather than a legitimate question.
That propaganda infrastructure didn’t operate alone. Behind it was a medical system structurally designed to make drug harms invisible—and a documented playbook for keeping them that way.
A Midwestern Doctor traces both in detail. It’s worth reading in full.
Ending Medical Gaslighting
In 1997, the FDA legalized television pharmaceutical advertising.
Soon after, pharmaceutical companies became the mass media’s largest advertisers. What followed was entirely predictable: critical coverage of pharmaceutical safety quietly disappeared. Journalists who covered vaccine injury found their stories spiked.
An entire category of investigative reporting—once common—became nearly impossible to imagine.
That blank check made the industry increasingly bold.
More products. More censorship. More mandates.
Until it overstepped—and created a backlash it’s not equipped to manage.
But the propaganda was only possible because something else was already in place—a practice embedded deep within medicine itself.
When pharmaceuticals harm patients, the system doesn’t acknowledge it. It tells the patient the harm isn’t real. Or that it was there before the drug. Or that the real problem is the patient’s own psychology.
This is medical gaslighting, and documented examples stretch back to the late 1700s.
It’s not a new corruption of medicine. It is a structural feature of how medicine has always protected itself from the inevitable consequences of its own tools.
One of the clearest illustrations of how it operates is SSRI antidepressants.
Sexual dysfunction, emotional numbness, severe withdrawal, mania—these are recognized side effects. Yet when patients report them, they’re routinely told the symptoms are evidence of their mental illness, not the drug.
If a patient develops bipolar disorder—which happens to roughly 25% of long-term users—the clinical response is a specific framing: the drug didn’t cause it, it “unmasked” a disorder that was always there.
The logical implication—that it would never have appeared without the drug—is never addressed. The dosage gets increased. The patient gets worse. The diagnosis deepens, often leading to more drugs.
The full article documents the specific historical precedents for this pattern—going back to Freud, to mercury poisoning, to a century of psychiatric diagnoses being used to absorb harms that medicine couldn’t afford to acknowledge.
If you’ve ever been dismissed, misdiagnosed, or told your symptoms were anxiety, this gives you the framework you’ve been missing.
Ending Medical Gaslighting
In the Pfizer trial used to establish COVID-19 vaccine safety in adolescents, a 12-year-old named Maddie De Garay developed a severe neurological reaction after vaccination.
The trial’s chief investigator classified it as Functional Neurological Disorder—a psychiatric diagnosis, not a vaccine injury.
The trial had enrolled 1,131 children. A single serious adverse event would have ended the program.
The diagnosis Maddie was given made the math work.
Functional Neurological Disorder is a real diagnosis—and it reveals something important about the system.
It acknowledges that something is wrong neurologically, but assigns the cause to pre-existing psychiatric conditions rather than physical damage. It’s now one of the most common labels given to vaccine-injured patients.
The tests that could identify the actual cause often aren’t ordered. In many cases, the attending physicians don’t even know those tests exist.
The system wasn’t designed to find the root cause.
What Maddie experienced was not an anomaly. It was literally the playbook being executed the way it was designed.
The medical profession has developed a structured response to the inevitable harms of its own tools: deny or dissociate the adverse event from the drug; build a scientific apparatus producing published evidence against any causal link while training the public to trust the consensus over personal observation; and use regulation to eliminate competing systems of medicine that don’t carry the same inherent toxicity.
This ensures that the only available medical marketplace is a toxic one—and that the system controlling it has every incentive to gaslight the people it harms.
The J&J vaccine episode showed the playbook working in real time.
Six cases of an unusual blood clot triggered an 11-day FDA pause—widely covered, widely discussed. The effect was a powerful reference point: “If they paused J&J for six clots, the mRNA vaccines must be clean.”
The mRNA vaccines produced far more blood clots. And somehow the FDA noticed none of them.
The pause wasn’t careful oversight. It was theater.
The myocarditis pivot followed a familiar sequence.
First: deny it exists. Then: concede it exists but insist it’s minor. Then: claim COVID itself causes more myocarditis than the vaccine—so the vaccine is protective.
Each stage narrows the frame to exclude everything that doesn’t fit. Physicians who believe this aren’t necessarily lying. They’re applying a template.
That’s what makes it so durable—it doesn’t require bad intentions at the point of delivery.
Most doctors aren’t villains. They’re trained within a diagnostic model that is genuinely excellent at identifying pharmaceutical indications—and structurally blind to pharmaceutical harms.
The nervous system makes this visible. Medical students are taught to check whether the twelve cranial nerves are “generally normal.” But “generally normal” systematically misses the subtle dysfunctions that follow microstrokes from vaccine injuries—minor asymmetries in eye tracking, small misfires that have significant effects on quality of life.
Those get recorded as “normal” and dismissed.
The injury never enters the chart. And what doesn’t enter the chart doesn’t exist, no matter what parents and patients see and experience.
The invisible injury becomes the patient’s fault.
When a pharmaceutical injures the nervous system, it frequently produces anxiety, mood dysregulation, and cognitive disruption—not because the patient has a psychiatric condition, but because the nervous system is damaged.
The standard response is to prescribe psychiatric medication targeting the symptoms. The original injury deepens. The original cause remains unexamined.
This is what might be called the psychiatric pipeline: a drug-induced neurological injury treated with more drugs, often neurologically destructive ones.
A pattern surfaces in clinical practice with enough regularity to constitute evidence.
Patients report severe anxiety attacks, racing heartbeat, and chest pain—all appearing after vaccination, none present before. And every provider they see just calls it stress.
What it turns out to be, in case after case, is myocarditis.
Cardiac damage triggers palpitations. Palpitations provoke anxiety. The anxiety confirms the psychiatric framing. The heart never gets evaluated.
The full article lays out specific strategies for navigating this system—how to find physicians who practice a genuinely collaborative model, what documentation makes a medical injury visible in the record, and how to present that evidence without triggering the defensive responses that bury it.
It’s worth your time if you or someone you know is struggling to be believed.
Ending Medical Gaslighting
What the data captures is a fracture.
A JAMA study of 443,445 Americans found that trust in doctors and hospitals fell from 71.5% in April 2020 to 40.1% in January 2024.
That’s not a fringe signal. That’s a generational shift in institutional credibility happening in compressed time—and the medical industry is not yet equipped to understand what caused it, let alone how to reverse it.
Institutions in decline tend to escalate their lies rather than retreat from them. The mass media is facing the same dynamic.
The problem is that the media no longer holds the monopoly it once did. People can now compare what they’re being told against what they can observe directly.
The more aggressively the gaslighting doubles down, the faster the trust erodes. It’s a mechanism with only two exits: tell the truth, or continue the spiral.
What do you think happens next?
There may be something genuinely unprecedented happening.
The COVID era exposed medical gaslighting to millions of people who had never encountered the concept before—patients dismissed, injuries buried, clinical trials manipulated. A critical mass of them are refusing to absorb it quietly.
The medical industrial complex is now losing enough revenue from lost trust that it faces economic pressure to begin telling the truth.
It’s important to understand that that isn’t idealism. It’s market logic finally being applied to a system that has operated above market accountability for decades.
The question is whether what emerges will be genuine reckoning—or just enough transparency to recapture the lost business. Stay vigilant.
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.
Ending Medical Gaslighting
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)
Hotez is a special kind of evil. When the shots were about to be rolled out he questioned their safety and efficacy in a public (Senate?) hearing. A few weeks later he was extolling their virtues with gushing enthusiasm. Turns out Dr. H. received a multi-million dollar grant for his school (Baylor) from Fauci's NIAID for his about face.