Therapeutic Hypothermia 101: Cooling Patients, Breaking Barriers, And The Legendary Code Brown

Folks, I’m deep in the trenches working on a series of posts that might be my most important yet. I genuinely believe I’ve uncovered a game-changing therapy for a wide range of chronic diseases (and no, I haven’t been drinking!). This upcoming series will raise awareness about a treatment with a huge potential to protect health and tackle illness—a breakthrough that’s still flying under the radar and sorely overlooked in research circles (as well as among the MAHA crowd and the wider “alternative” health provider community).
 So, hang in and hold on, I would strongly suggest you subscribe now not to miss it, but while I am on this writing “sabbatical,” I thought I would entertain you with some fun and/or interesting excerpts from previous posts that I re-wrote. Enjoy.
 Subscribe now
 In a post I wrote long ago, I recounted my somewhat prolonged and arduous path into medical school, followed by residency and fellowship training. I followed that post with a review of the therapies I did “deep dives” of research into during my academic career.
 Today, I thought I would highlight the first “rabbit hole” I ever went down in my academic career, searching for innovative approaches to healing the human body in illness. That first foray was my research into something called therapeutic hypothermia, a highlight of which was a “Code Brown” incident that all involved will never forget (for those in health care, you know what a Code Brown is).
 After I completed my training, I took a position as a clinician-educator at the teaching hospital where I had done my subspecialty fellowship training (Beth Israel Medical Center in lower Manhattan). It is always an honor when those who trained you.. end up hiring you as a partner. Picture of me when I joined the Pulmonary and Critical Care Division in 2008 :). A little slimmer apparently, yeesh.

 Anyway, one of the proudest achievements in my career as a “clinician-educator” was becoming one of the youngest Program Directors (PDs) of a Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship Training Program in the country (which is relevant to this account).
 However, what I am most proud of from that time was helping pioneer two different, then novel fields of my specialty - the first was on the study and application of therapeutic hypothermia in post-cardiac arrest patients, and the other was in creating and teaching a novel diagnostic approach to critical illness using “point-of-care ultrasonography.” Today, I will share with you my introduction to and experiences with the therapy that was then called “Mild Therapeutic Hypothermia” (now it is called “Targeted Temperature Management”).
 Therapeutic Hypothermia
 My interest in therapeutic hypothermia developed in 2005 when I was still a fellow in training. It stemmed from a case of a patient who had suffered cardiac arrest on one of the hospital wards. We successfully resuscitated and brought him back to the ICU, but, as is typical, he remained in a dense coma with little detectable brain function. The downtime of the arrest was almost 30 minutes, his initial rhythm was PEA, both of which are really, really not good prognostically for achieving neurologically intact survival.
 I was by the nurses station when suddenly, my first mentor Dr. Paul Mayo, told me that we should “cool him.”
 I asked why, and he replied that he had seen some papers on it and that the Europeans were starting to do this to comatose post-arrest patients. I learned later that they did this to cool their brain cells, the intent being to lower metabolic activity, preserve cellular function, and inhibit an inflammatory attack from elsewhere (today, I would just bathe his head in DMSO while running an IV drip… obviously).
 Anyway, we cooled him, and three days later… he regained full consciousness. We actually got him quite cold, purposefully overshooting the non-consensus, but often used 33 °C (91.4°F). I think we went for 28 °C (82.4°F), but don’t quote me on that. Although I will skip a summary of my many early lectures on this topic, I will pull a few cool, historical “fun-facts:”
 Peter Safar: Did you know that in one of the earliest monographs on how to do CPR (1961), from literally the founder of both CPR and ICU, a guy named Safar in Pittsburgh, had put post-arrest hypothermia as part of the protocol?

 It quickly disappeared, though, due to concerns over side effects and the technological challenges of delivering the therapy, and thus became “A Forgotten Side Of Medicine” (as you will learn, I was one of, if not the, guy who resurrected it in NYC). AMD would be proud :).
 I gotta say that I must take a moment to say a few words about Dr. Peter Safar who was an absolute LEGEND (to me anyway)
 Dr. Peter Safar (1924–2003), was an Austrian-American anesthesiologist. He is widely recognized as the " Father of CPR " for developing the modern approach to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Dr. Safar also established the first intensive care unit (ICU) in the United States and played a critical role in creating and standardizing the modern ambulance and emergency medical services system .
 Basically, Safar invented CPR, ICU’s, and the ambulance system. I cannot imagine how many millions of people around the world are now alive as a result of his innovations.
 Baron Dominique-Jean Larrey - Napoleon’s chief army surgeon and a legendary innovator in battlefield medicine.

 Larrey noticed that soldiers who had suffered cold injuries (like frostbite) and were brought close to the campfires often developed gangrene and died, while those who were left farther from the fire and allowed to warm up very slowly were more likely to survive (note that officers typically were allowed places closer to the fire while infantrymen were farther away).
 Although his observations did not directly relate to the mechanisms of benefit of MTH on the brain (it was more on how to treat hypothermia by gradual re-warming), his insights were ahead of his time and laid the groundwork for what we now recognize as modern hypothermia care.
 Anyway, it was after this clinical experience that I delved into researching everything known about the therapy. Wait, another fun fact about my first case that I just remembered. The patient had COPD and a close colleague was his pulmonologist, who later told me that the guy was one of the crabbiest, rudest, most unpleasant patients he had ever taken care of (that’s saying a lot for NYC) Before his arrest, that is. After he became much more docile and even pleasant.
 Anyway, my “advocacy” for therapeutic hypothermia became first clinical initiative that I ever led. I created and instituted my hospital’s first therapeutic hypothermia protocol. As a result, I quickly became a regional and national expert in the therapy and started to get invited to give lectures everywhere (which taught me how to give lectures!).
 I was one of the expert panel members who helped develop NYC’s “Project Hypothermia,” where, when we started, my hospital was the only one out of the 46 NYC area hospitals that had an active post-arrest hypothermia protocol.
 Within a few years, such protocols had been implemented at every NYC hospital, and all ambulances and paramedics were equipped and trained to start cooling post-cardiac arrest patients. I then did research studies trying to find which patients benefited most or not at all, and on whether the speed or depth of cooling mattered, etc (I was the first to do a controlled study on in-hospital cardiac arrest patients, and I also published on the rapidity of cooling using numerous techniques).

 Did The Rate Of Cooling Matter?

 Initially, Paul Mayo and I believed that the faster we lowered a patient's temperature, the better the outcomes would be (although we knew it was safe to do so, we later found out this was not true). But, at the time, thinking speed was critical to their survival, we adopted an aggressive, rapid-cooling protocol which we “borrowed” from the techniques used to cool Muslim pilgrims suffering heat stroke during their annual pilgrimage to Mecca.
 The pilgrims are whisked into treatment units where they are disrobed, placed into hammocks, and exposed to high-speed fans while being sprayed with warm water. Why warm water? Well, if you cover them with warm water under high-speed fanning, the water evaporates faster, and this evaporative process sucks heat from the body much quicker than if you used cold water (cold water causes the surface blood vessels to constrict, thus paradoxically trapping heat).
 Paul had used the same technique to cool a Polish construction worker who had suffered severe heat stroke the summer before (109F on arrival), so we employed the same method to cool our cardiac arrest patients.
 Anytime we admitted a post-cardiac arrest patient, my entire ICU team would wheel in this huge industrial fan which we placed at the foot of the bed. We would strip the patient naked, and my residents would dip towels in lukewarm water and “paint” the patient with the wet towels under a super loud fan, which emitted a terrific racket.
 At the same time, other residents (or students) would cool bags of saline fluids and infuse them through large IV catheters in the neck or groin, sometimes getting 2 liters of iced saline into them in ten minutes using pressure bags. Lastly, we would have two doctors do iced gastric lavages by placing a nasogastric tube in the stomach, and using a comically large syringe, they would push iced water down the tube into the stomach.
 They would instill 500ml and then suck it out, then refill with iced saline, repeat. Using this “combination therapy” protocol, we achieved some of the fastest decreases in body temperature of any method known. Below is my paper shouting to the ICU world about how the fastest (and dumbest) way to cool a patient was:

 As you can see below, ours wasn’t the fastest method, but it was the cheapest and fastest (and again, dumbest) method in medical history :)

 Cooling patients like that was wild. One problem though, was that it created a colossal mess with puddles of water all around the bed and folks slipping, etc.
 The sloppiness of the method was becoming an issue, plus it was massively labor-intensive while trying to care for 16-20 critically ill patients a day. As the leader of the hypothermia program, my hospital asked me to choose a cooling device to purchase for use in patients that was a little less chaotic, labor-intensive, and messy. There were a number of cooling devices on the market.. and I chose the one that was fastest. A device called the “Thermosuit,” which was literally an inflatable bathtub:

 Basically, you unroll this sheet of plastic on the bed, place the patient in the middle, and then you inflate it. Once the bathtub was fully inflated, you put a plastic cover over it, attached the tub via hoses to a large reservoir of iced water, and a pump would propel the ice water into the bathtub via tiny holes in the top sheet, which sprayed the entire body almost like a fine sprinkler.

 Problem: It was glitchy. We would have different “failures” in the process every few times we used it. My fellows began to complain when they had to cool a patient, as it was rarely a “turn-key” process.
 The Code Brown Incident
 I came to work one Saturday and the fellow who had been on call overnight barged into my office, telling me she was never ever going to use that stupid Thermosuit again. Basically, she had to attend to a “Code Brown” the night before. And not just any Code Brown,but a massive one (note that ICU fellows are not typically called for Code Browns (right nurses?), mostly Code Blues (arrests), Reds (massive bleeds), and RRT’s (Rapid Response emergency team calls).
 Anyway, she told me that while she was trying to cool a post-arrest comatose patient at like 3 in the morning, their physiologic response was to have a massive, very watery bowel movement. While in the tub. Not good.
 Then, while trying to transfer the patient out of the tub, the tub apparently deflated partly, and a river of brown spilled over the sides of the bed and all over the floor (and some of the staff). I was not there at the time.. but the fellow and nurses that were on that night never let me forget about it.
 Fun Fact: Joe Varon, one of the other founders of the FLCCC, was an even earlier “hypothermiac” in our specialty. I didn’t know him then, but I had come across this picture of him early in my career, and I used to display it in my lectures (this was before I later would meet him and partner with him in forming the FLCCC). Check out his method of cooling. No wonder we would later become FLCCC brothers.

 After the infamous “code brown” incident, I very quickly petitioned for the purchase of a more practical, easy-to-use device (plus by this time, I had learned that speed of cooling was less important than duration). We quickly purchased cooling pads like the ones below and never used the Thermosuit again. See? We evolve with data and clinical experience, setting new “standards of care” along the way :).

 Ultimately, as more and more studies were done, my interests and expertise in therapeutic hypothermia waned as I discovered that it was largely beneficial mostly in witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients of primary cardiac causes and not in my general ICU patients. Subsequent studies have shown that cooling such patients is less important than simply preventing temperature rises; therefore, cooling approaches are now more reactive than proactive and essentially target normothermia. However, it was a great early experience in my career (except for the code brown part :).

 If you can afford to, and appreciate the time, research, and care I invest in crafting these posts (and Op-Ed’s), please support my work with a paid subscription:
 Subscribe now

Summary: Here I reminisce about my evolution in cooling comatose patients, making groundbreaking protocols, and the unforgettable day a “code brown” changed everything in the ICU.


BREAKING: FDA Approves New Covid Vaccines

The Bud Light factory—or maybe it was the Starbucks headquarters where NPR is permanently piped into the breakroom—was all atwitter yesterday: “Did you hear? The FDA approved the updated Covid-19 vaccines, even with Captain Conspiracy steering the ship! ” That’s the story being whispered across woke cubicles nationwide, where rainbow tote bags and pronoun pins go to die.

 Only The Hill even attempted actual journalism.
 The truth is, what actually happened is almost the exact opposite. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s FDA just revoked the Covid shots’ Emergency Use Authorization—the very magic wand that greenlit mandates, job losses, military purges, school expulsions, and the whole dystopian circus of the last four years. Finally, mercifully, the golden ticket for coercion has been run through the shredder.

 Instead of sweeping recommendations that essentially include anyone with a pulse, now you must be over 65 or have at least one health condition to qualify for endless jabs . In other words, if you’re not frail or high-risk, the government is officially done forcing you to take one for the team.
 I know. They’re still allowing poisonous cocktails to be given to the most fragile groups on earth. Tell me you’re keen on depopulating the planet without telling me you’re keen on depopulating the planet. But at least someone is trying to protect some of us.
 Naturally, mainstream media rushed to spin this as great news for vaxaholics . “ FDA APPROVES UPDATED COVID-19 SHOTS ,” PBS bellowed, followed by a sheepish whisper in microscopic type: “… with some restrictions for kids and adults.” The same outlets that once hawked the jab as a granny-saving miracle are now straining to slap a smiley-face sticker on what is, in reality, a massive retreat.
 “Parents will still be able to seek out shots from rival drugmaker Moderna, the other maker of mRNA vaccines, which has full FDA approval for children as young as 6 months,” PBS attempted to soothe, after having to break the tragic news to its readers that Pfizer’s vaccine will no longer be available for any child under five. “But the company’s Spikevax vaccine is only approved for children with at least one serious health problem.”

 Side note: They literally named it Spike vax. The irony is not lost.
 The American Academy of Pediatrics—who just two weeks ago issued their own vaccine guidance (in summary: every arm, every season, quit questioning) that differs from federal policy—moaned that the new limits “may block vaccine access for families who want to protect their children.” Imagine the horror: parents panicking because their healthy toddlers won’t be injected with an experimental gene therapy.
 An epidemiologist at Brown even lamented that the changes might “make it harder for people to get vaccines.” Harder? It means you now have to talk to your doctor before you roll up your sleeve. Oh, the humanity.
 Pfizer and Moderna, of course, rushed out press releases reminding us that yes, the juice is still flowing if grandma wants her Spikevax fix—because nothing says “science” like a quarterly earnings call.
 Not everyone is impressed. (MTB, I’m talking to you. And yes, she’s MTB now.)

 Here’s where the mob completely loses the plot. They’re foaming that Kennedy hasn’t slammed the brakes hard enough, that because a jab of any sort is still accessible, he’s basically twirling a mustache while babies drop like flies. As if a guy could just stroll into FDA headquarters, snap his fingers, and poof —decades of pharma capture and emergency powers would dissolve overnight.
 What he’s doing—unwinding mandates, stripping emergency authorizations, and boxing this poison into tighter and tighter corners—isn’t perfect, but it’s real, tangible progress. People wanted him to flip a switch; he’s dismantling the machine piece by piece, so that it stays dismantled . That’s not compromise—it’s strategy.

 Actual footage of RFK making this happen.
 If you want proof the swamp knows it, look no further than the CDC. Susan Monarez, who managed to hang onto the director’s chair for an impressive 27 days, refused to play ball with Kennedy’s rollback and was promptly “ousted .” (Despite her insistence yesterday that she hadn’t resigned or been officially let go, headlines this morning were all updated to fired .) Three other CDC brass resigned in solidarity, their letters dripping with melodrama about “dark clouds” and “weaponized public health.” Translation: the cocktail party just got canceled. The press is calling it chaos ; to MAHA nation, it looks more like housecleaning.
 Here’s the bottom line: the EUA is gone. Mandates are dead. The whole “we’re all in this together or you’re fired” era has been quietly escorted out the side door. Yes, we’re still waiting for Kennedy to take a wrecking ball to the 1986 liability shield, the get-out-of-court-free card that’s kept Pharma coasting (and cashing in) for nearly forty years. Sure, it would be fabulous if folks who were fired for refusing the jabs were all granted five years of back pay and groveling apologies. But in the meantime, he just reframed the conversation from comply or else to see your doctor if you want one . That’s not a tweak. That’s a tectonic shift.
 If you can’t see that, congratulations—you just qualified for a job at CNN.

 So yes, technically, the FDA “approved updated Covid-19 vaccines.” But the truer headline is this: Mandates are dead. Jabs are optional. The panic-industrial complex just blew its most critical fuse.
 Of course, the media will keep shrieking, the mask-in-the-car crowd will keep weeping, and the HR ladies who used to swing by your Facebook posts just to leave nasty comments will now pretend they were “always skeptical.”
 Me, I can’t decide what’s better: the policy backpedal itself or watching NPR interns trying to peck out ‘ emergency use authorization rescinded ’ without crying.

 Well? Which is it? I know you won’t hold back in the comments. :)
 Leave a comment
 Toss some coins in the tip jar!
 Subscribe if you like your boots on the ground with sequins and faux fur.

 Get this free with your annual subscription or purchase a signed copy here.

Summary: Actually, they sort of destroyed the whole program. I just stole that headline—verbatim—from USA Today.


Saturday Night Fight.. At The Pharmacy

January 9, 2022
 I am exhausted.. physically and emotionally and morally. Although I am not sure moral exhaustion is “a thing,” the daily witnessing of masses of physicians and pharmacists abandoning their core responsibility of placing the welfare of the patient as their primary consideration is beyond wearying.
 As my friend and Covid expert, Dr. Hector Carvallo, has long ago said, “it’s time for the lawyers.” It is becoming increasingly critical that the law profession aid the medical profession, as it has long ago been led astray by captured federal pharmaceutical agencies.
 Note that I no longer refer to them as “federal health agencies,” as their actions have been entirely consistent with what a pharmaceutical or vaccine manufacturer would want them to do. To prove that point, I simply ask that, when you read an announcement in corporate media that reports a new decision or action by the federal pharmaceutical agencies (FPA’s for short), ask yourself, “Is that what a pharmaceutical company would do?”
 Perfect example of this exercise was 2 days ago when it was announced that the “FPA” had authorized boosters for 12-17 year old’s against omicron (a generally mild cold in kids), using a vaccine designed for older, fundamentally different variants that have already spectacularly failed at giving protection against omicron given ever-increasing data of “negative efficacy” (i.e. vaccinated people are getting omicron more frequently than the unvaccinated).
 Yet the FPA “doubles down” with yet another “non-scientific policy” so that Pharma can increase the total market size of those eligible for a vaccine… and who cares if this decision ends up sending more kids to the hospital than the disease ever would. Another brutal assault on public health. Another day in the United States of Pharma.
 In the United States of Pharma, individual docs and pharmacists have been led so far astray, forgivably or unforgivably, due to the relentless barrage of disinformation targeted at them by the FPA (further supported by relentless, daily propaganda appearing in both major media and medical journals). The resulting proportion of these two professions that have failed to display even a modicum of either critical thinking or moral conviction is terrifying. It is also causing lots of problems for patients and physicians (a colleague of mine now differentiates “doctors” from “physicians”, reserving the latter term for those who follow our guiding principles and ethics by always putting the patient’s welfare as their primary goal above all else, even at personal sacrifice).
 What prompted me to write this Substack was my most recent failure (and the resulting distress that led to crap sleep last night) over not being able to get a pharmacist to fill my orders in the hours before closing for an acutely ill COVID patient that had contacted me reporting high fevers, sore throat, and body aches. I immediately wanted to start him on a short course combination regimen of three old, safe, cheap generic medications, all with large clinical trial evidence bases showing high efficacy against COVID (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide).
 What is important to note is that, months ago, I stopped trying to contact ANY pharmacy unless I KNEW they would fill my scripts for these off-patent medications because, unless I knew a pharmacy was “safe”, I ran a high probability of entering an unaffordable, time-wasting, and ultimately losing argument with some smug, obstinate pharmacist. As a result, we, as early treatment doctors, have long since been forced to build lists of “safe haven” pharmacies where we know we can easily get access to these medicines for our patients ( a sort of “Underground Railroad” in a way).
 However, last night, I was inspired to make an attempt on a new, unknown pharmacy on behalf of a new patient because I had just read Steve Kirsch’s substack about my colleague and early COVID-treatment pioneer/expert Dr. Brian Tyson, in which was included a letter written by Dr. Tyson’s attorney that he used to “sway” a local pharmacy that had suddenly refused to fill.
 The letter is thorough , deeply well-argued, and informs the pharmacists that they are: 1) violating the civil rights of patients, 2) interfering with a physician's ability to practice medicine, and 3) exhibiting behavior that constitutes the unlicensed and negligent practice of medicine. Now, I had argued all these points before in previous “conflicts” with pharmacists, but never all at the same time, and rarely threatening a lawsuit. Duly and newly emboldened.. I made the call.
 4:20 Pacific time (pharmacies close there at 6 pm).
 Transcript (from memory):
 “Hi, I’d like to call in a prescription for a couple of patients.”
 “OK, what’s the first patient’s name and date of birth?”
 “Timothy Thomas (not his real name), born Nov. 6th, 1977.”
 (pause, clacking of keyboard)
 “OK, what does he need?”
 (Wait for it)
 “He needs ivermectin, 3 milligram tablets, I want him to take 15 each day as he is a big guy, and for 5 days with a refill. Then he needs hydroxychloro…
 “Doctor, I am sorry, but I cannot fill the ivermectin. The owner has said we are not to fill for COVID, there is no evidence it works.”
 “Listen, I don’t know who the owner is, but you are the pharmacist on duty, and I am calling in a prescription to you, not the owner.”
 “I,I, I am sorry, but I can’t..”
 I look at the letter, and then start spewing rapid fire arguments at him, “well unfortunately for you, my patient is an executive of a company and their lawyer is prepared to and will send a letter of intent to sue if it has not been filled because you are violating his civil rights, blocking my licensed ability to practice medicine and care for my sick patient, and you are clearly practicing medicine illegally and highly ignorantly. You should at least know what you are doing if you are going to do it without a license man."
 “But I am allowed to refuse, doctor.”
 “That is what you think and what you have been told… However, I can assure you that if you present your arguments in court regarding your refusal, they will not be upheld if any harm comes to my patient as a result. They will NOT HOLD UP, but you can try. The lawyer will serve the letter on Monday, I promise you, we are fed up out here and are fighting back, all of my fellow physicians being blocked by pharmacists are now using legal action (OK, so I overstated things a bit), I am sorry you are in the position you are in, but you have no rational or scientific evidence to support a refusal, but if you want to go to court to find out, we can make that happen for you”
 “I..I.. feel intimidated.”
 “Well, I am sorry for that, but you are hurting my patient and my ability to care for them. It is THEY who YOU are intimidating, Sir! All you have to do is fill out my script, and we can move forward. These medications are FDA-approved. I am using them off-label based on a large body of evidence and experience in COVID, and off-label prescribing is both legal and historically encouraged by the FDA. You are clearly practicing medicine, and I promise that will be proven to you in a court of law. Please just fill it, and you won’t have to hear from me or my patient again.”
 (Pause, silence)
 “I cannot do it, I am not supposed to.”
 “OK then, I will also remind you that you are legally required to provide me with your name and license number as we will be pursuing legal action against you.”
 “I am not giving you my name, I am not comfortable with that.”
 “OK, so you think I can’t find it out? Fine, I am also documenting this refusal. Again, I am not interested in a contentious argument. I am asking you to fill the prescriptions for two sick patients who need my help, and if you do, you won’t have to hear from me or the patient’s lawyer.”
 He whispers.. “OK, tell me the rest of the prescriptions.”
 I tell him the rest, then say, “My patient will be there by closing time, thank you, and I apologize for my tone, but I am just trying to do the best for my sick patients.”
 Victory? Yes! Haven’t won one of these in months. The letter and its well-articulated legal threats worked! Thanks, Steve! Thanks, Bryan (and your attorney)!
 I finish telling him the rest of the scripts for my patient and his wife (I also needed to call in medicines for her so she could have some on hand and also begin ivermectin as a prophylactic agent given it ensures an easier course even if she is already or eventually becomes infected).
 I then call the patient, instructing him to have his wife collect the medicines, along with other over-the-counter compounds that have clinical trials supporting their use. And then I go to the couch to literally lie down (insane day of dozens of pro-bono patient care requests, other Zooms and phone calls, maybe 12+ hours on the phone).
 30 minutes later, the patient texts me, “My wife went there and the pharmacist won ’t fill. ”

 Now, even though I co-wrote a document for the FLCCC called “ Overcoming the Barriers to Access, ” which is full of sound, pragmatic tactics and dialogue examples offered to patients (and docs) to help them navigate such pharmacist obstructions, they typically will not work when it is an hour before closing on a weekend.
 So, here I am the next morning. Fortunately, I was able to get 2 of the medicines filled through another pharmacy, with enough for his wife, as she unsurprisingly fell ill overnight (omicron moves fast). Unfortunately, they will have to wait until tomorrow to get the 3rd medicine from an “underground" pharmacy (not really underground, but you get the analogy).
 This is what it is like out here trying to fight for patients sick with COVID - widespread delays in care as blocking access to generic or “repurposed” medicines by ignorant/arrogant pharmacists is ubiquitous. The majority of pharmacists (not all) have stopped thinking critically or devoting effort to review the evidence base, instead merely believe what they are told by their Boards (a.k.a. their “Ministries of Truth”). As if the insane numbers of ill Omicron patients to care for are not challenging enough.
 In the words of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, who went after his state’s Pharmacy Board when they tried to scare the state’s pharmacists away from prescribing ivermectin by sending them threatening letters, “ it is shocking that pharmacists are suddenly developing a conscience after spending the last decade handing out opiates like they were M & M’s.” Well said and tragically absurd.
 This newfound conscience influencing such actions is likely further fueled by a sometimes resident psychology of pharmacists who may feel “less than” a physician, given their limited scope of patient care tasks. Emboldened by a seemingly legal opportunity to assert superiority and control over physicians, many find these irresistible. Consequently, they seem to be “getting off” from telling the “stupid” doctors that the Ministry of Truth has done the research for them and the Ministry has found that, in the name of science, doctors stop using “ineffective horse de-wormer” to treat COVID. Good times. Just another day in the life of an early COVID treatment expert.
 Let me end with the following disturbing data and observations. Take a look at this chart compiled by the FLCCC data analyst, Juan Chamie.

 From the above, it should be noted that prior to our FLCCC ivermectin paper being posted on a pre-print server (Nov 13, 2020) and prior to my testimony in the Senate hearings of Senator Ron Johnson noted above (Dec. 8, 2020), nursing home residents made up about 30% of all COVID deaths in the U.S. (also note that Senator Johnson’s efforts have made him one of the most (if not the most) impactful of the early treatment advocates for COVID in this country.. (and in history?).
 As you can see from above, suddenly, by mid-to-late December 2020, the proportion of dying U.S COVID patients that were residents in nursing homes started to plummet to now around 5-6% of all U.S COVID deaths.. and it has stayed stably low at this level ever since (notice how you never read any more newspaper reports of legions of people dying in nursing homes?). Hmmm. Was it the vaccines? Nope - nursing home resident vaccination rates were equal to or lower than the over-65 non-nursing home population, and the latter continued to make up a large proportion of COVID deaths in the U.S. So, why did nursing homes become such “safe havens” relative to the rest of society after December of 2020?
 I maintain there are three reasons; 1) nursing homes often have their own in-house pharmacy so do have to rely on negotiating with arrogant/ignorant retail pharmacists for access to medications like ivermectin, and 2) nursing home directors across the country learned that ivermectin is highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death , and thus they used it to treat COVID outbreaks in nursing homes ( here , here , here , and here ), and 3) this practice makes for excellent business since dead or hospitalized nursing home residents.. no longer generate income for the nursing home . Once again, all about the Benjamins. Shocker.
 P.S. I thought I would throw in a brief mention of another insane action by pharmacists:
 December 31, 2021: Effective immediately, patients will no longer be allowed to be on ivermectin, even if it is their home medication. Happy Holidays!"
 This hospital’s PNT (Pharmacy and Therapeutics) Committee, in their infinite and unquestionable wisdom, came to the communal decision that, even though an admitted patient had already been started on a prescription for ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 by their personal physician, it was imperative they immediately terminate the use of non-FPA approved medicines.

 If you can afford to, and appreciate the time, research, and care I invest in crafting these posts (and Op-Ed’s), please support my work with a paid subscription:
 Subscribe now

Summary: I take a trip down memory lane with a reposting of two of my least favorite memories of battles I fought during the Covid War. We must never forget what many pharmacists did to American patients.


The Red Cross Suppressed A Cure For Malaria in 2012, Causing Over Half A Million People To Die Every Year Since

I am going to start this post out with my standard declaration that: 1) I am not suicidal, 2) I am in good health, and 3) I am living my best life. For what that is worth.
 The Red Cross Malaria Trial
 “The Water Reference Center (WRC)” is a research center within the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). In 2012, their CEO at the time, Klaas Proesmans, conducted a study testing the efficacy of a common water purification agent called chlorine dioxide to treat malaria. The treatment consisted of increasing the concentration in cups of drinking water to levels above those typically used solely for water purification. Note that this effective treatment was first accidentally discovered by an applied scientist working in Nigeria in 1982, as I reported in this prior post .
 In that study, the WRC and the Ugandan Red Cross identified 154 patients from the community around Iganga, Uganda, using skin pricks to gather drops of blood from patients suspected of being ill with malaria. They then placed the blood on slides and examined them under a microscope to look for the malaria parasite. Then they treated the patients who were positive for malaria by giving them cups of water to drink that had been treated with chlorine dioxide in the form of what Jim Humble called “Master Mineral Solution” (a mixture of sodium chlorite and hydrochloric acid). They then had the patients return to the testing/study center daily for re-testing and clinical follow-up.
 They rapidly cured 154 malaria patients within two days. Sounds historic, right? A cure for malaria had been found! But no, it was not to be. Not even close.
 As word of the trial and its success began to circulate, the “authorities” sprang into action, culminating in the Ugandan Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) issuing statements denying any official involvement in the study. They then went even further, stating that no formal clinical trial or endorsement of MMS took place under their auspices. The IFRC also added that “chlorine dioxide is not approved for the treatment of malaria and that any suggestion of Red Cross involvement was misleading.” They even got the CEO of the Water Reference Center who had planned and conducted the trial… to deny it ever happened.
 Interestingly, none of the statements above were published in an official Press Release or statement; they were instead communicated solely via quotes in an interview with an investigative journalist in a blatantly obvious “ debunking article ” published by Business Insider .
 First, I will review the extensive evidence verifying both the conduct and results of that trial. Then I will cover the above “Disinformation Response” from the media and the Red Cross in more detail. However, to understand the importance of the documented evidence that I will provide below, you need to know that the Business Insider article tried to “debunk” the claim that the trial was done by: 1) claiming it never took place, and 2) that Red Cross officials were “duped” into taking part. Yes, I know, the argument contradicts itself - either the trial never took place or Red Cross officials were “duped” into taking part, you can’t have both. Later, you will see how they later reconciled those two statements.
 Documentation of the Trial And its Results
 Problem #1 for the Red Cross : During my research for this post, I came across a website where someone named Santiago Cabrera uploaded the full project plan for the trial by the Water Reference Center. After paying $11.99, I was able to download the document, which I include here for those interested:
 467534847 Informe Cruz Roja Uganda Mms Y Malaria Pdf
 711KB ∙ PDF file

 Download
 Download

 Most damning is the Table of Contents where you can clearly see that “Klaas” (Proesmans) drafted Version 1.0 of the document in the below right corner, where it is dated November 16, 2012:

 Here is an AI-generated summary of the document:
 The objective of the project plan in the document is to conduct a water purification pilot case in Uganda through the Water Reference Center (WRC). The pilot aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using chlorine dioxide (ClO2) and sodium chlorite (NaClO2) for purifying water, with a specific focus on any positive side effects in the fight against malaria .
 Key goals of the project include:
 Performing field tests in malaria-infested areas in Uganda, leveraging the expertise of the Uganda Red Cross Society.

 Documenting the outcomes in a comprehensive report and audiovisual material ( Ed: this latter objective is important as you will see below).

 Establishing a "center of excellence" in the pilot location for ongoing research and development within the Red Cross/Red Crescent network.

 Coordinating between private sustainable businesses, research institutions, academic bodies, and humanitarian organizations to advance water purification technologies and their deployment.

 The project also includes clear planning for communication, testing protocols, and legal terms of engagement among involved parties.

 Overall, the project is designed to validate the water purification approach, assess its broader health impact , and promote sustainable water treatment solutions within vulnerable communities.
 Problem #2 for the Red Cross: As stated in #2 of the project plan above, they planned to document the outcomes using “audiovisual material.” Thus the documentary of the trial had been planned beforehand (and later paid handsomely for) by the Water Reference Center, likely because the organizers of the study strongly suspected it would be a success ( Jim Humble and many others in Africa had been covertly curing malaria with MMS for almost 2 decades at that point).
 So a team of filmmakers documented the entire study from start to finish? “Real world evidence” as it were. And not just any filmmaker. The cameraman was… Mustaque Abdallah:

 From AI as of today:
 Mustaque Abdallah is a prominent Ugandan documentary filmmaker and director of photography. He is best known as one of the first DOPs (Directors of Photography) in Uganda and is associated with Ebony Hue Studios, Ebony Hue Films, and Ebony Heights Ltd. Abdallah has a long history in the Ugandan film industry, starting out filming weddings and gradually building his career to work on major projects.
 Some of his notable achievements and projects include:
 Serving as the DOP for the acclaimed Ugandan feature film "27 Guns," which is regarded as a landmark production in Ugandan cinema.
 Working alongside international film crews from South Africa and the UK, which helped develop his craft and reputation.
 Being involved in a wide variety of music videos and documentaries that helped put Ugandan media on the international stage, including music videos aired on MTV.
 Abdallah’s career demonstrates significant influence in elevating documentary and music video standards in Uganda, and he is recognized as a visionary and leader among Ugandan filmmakers.
 So, this supposedly “fake” documentary was made by someone who became one of the top filmmakers in Uganda? I wonder if Abdallah’s above reputation would be possible if he was known to “fake his documentaries.”
 From accounts I have read online, and in an interview with Mark Grenon who had helped train one of the study investigators in how to treat malaria with MMS), what happened next is that, since the Red Cross and Proesmans were denying that the trial took place, Leo Koehof, a Dutch humanitarian and one of the other principal organizers of the trial, defiantly posted the documentary on YouTube in 2013.
 Oddly, YouTube did not take it down until the Business Insider article was published in 2019.
 Now, lets take a close look at all the documented evidence compiled in the documentary.
 Subscribe now

 The Red Cross Trial Documentary ( can be viewed here on BitChute )
 Even before I discovered that the cameraman became a highly regarded and accomplished filmmaker, it was clear from the quality of the documentary (expertly blended cuts and montages of “B-roll” scenes and sit-down interviews with all those involved in the planning and conduct of the trial) that it was a planned film project by an expert filmmaker. Of note, I emailed the Mustaque Abdallah for an interview, but have not heard back.
 Most importantly, the vast majority of the commentary and interview footage in the documentary was with the principal investigator of the trial who drafted the project plan above - “Klaas” Proesmans, an ex-Belgian Special Forces soldier who, at the time of the trial, was the CEO and founder of the Water Reference Center (WRF), a “research” unit of the Red Cross .
 Damning no? His CV on LinkedIn is also impressive , having worked in the aviation industry as the Director of Operations at Virgin Express Airlines before going into full-time humanitarian work, first for Virgin Airlines and then as an independent consultant before volunteering for the WRC.
 In the documentary interviews with the key participants, the language used indicates that the interviews were conducted both during and soon after the trial (as planned), and before the dissemination of results. I say this because one of the last statements by Proesmans in the documentary was;
 We close the operation to report back to the Secretary General here in Uganda's Red Cross Society, and to report back to the Water Reference Center about the results of the severe test.
 Next, he states that “it has been said that the use of sodium chlorite cleans the body within one hour to four hours of the malaria parasite.” Tellingly, he then states that he was also told “ that it was too good to be true ” and “ not to go further and do an investigation . ”
 Hmm. So he is clearly positioning himself as being defiant of that directive because he immediately segues into explaining how Uganda was chosen for the trial.
 Through our network, since we are affiliated with the International Red Cross, we contacted a number of national societies where malaria is present. One of them was Uganda.
 He then explains the actions he took to make the trial happen, with astonishingly precise detail, by first contacting the National Society Secretary General of Uganda;
 “We explained what the intentions were, and we came over here just to to look at the field, what different steps one need to make in order to do this test pilot case. We visited the National Drug Agency, the Ministry of Health, all the people that have something to do with public health and purifying of water. We identified a village. Actually, it is the National Society who identified a village, and we had nothing to do with it. They chose Iganga. It has been chosen by the Red Cross National Society for two reasons. One, because the national authorities use sodium chlorite as a way to purify water, which is exactly the same way as our water reference center purifies water. Second reason is because they do have ongoing water and sanitation programs in that area, which is very convenient to the water reference center, because what we actually want to do in this month of December is look at the effect that sodium chlorite has on the human body after being offered a glass of water.”
 Not only does this convey a highly organized, detailed, and planned “investigation.” but he also almost covertly describes the intervention. He purposely does not mention they will be testing MMS, and instead presents the treatment obliquely as simple “water purification,” in as subtle a manner as possible.
 He says all this over a montage of footage showing Proesmans s urrounded by Ugandans in Red Cross uniform shirts discussing something, followed by scenes of an open-air, roofed enclosure with dozens of Ugandan people sitting in chairs, and you see a flag of the Ugandan Red Cross hanging from the tent .
 He then literally describes the sequence of actions they took to make the trial happen:
 We started with mobilizing the local population. We had the use or the cooperation of the National Society. Lots of volunteers went on their bikes, bicycles, cars, motorbikes, whatever you have, all around the streets. The first day of operation, we gathered about 163 patients from all the villages around, and we identified only five malaria-positive people. She comes from far away? Yeah, she comes from far away. We do a little blood test, just a little prick, and then we do a quick strip malaria test.
 This is said over footage showing a Red cross worker doing a finger prick under the tent, the Ugandans waiting, and then a shot of the test strips laid out on a worn table, and, for those with an observant eye, you can see a piece of paper in the corner of the frame with letterhead which reads “Water Reference Center” – the Red Cross research organization he was the CEO of at the time!
 The following scenes include blood being smeared on slides, then placed under a microscope, and a shot of a Ugandan (I assume) technician (or clinician) peering into the microscope. You also see workers with Red Cross uniforms dispensing the MMS drops into cups of water.
 Next, there is a scene where the subtitles introduce “Leo Koehof, author and publisher on health-related topics.”
 From AI (apparently taken from an account on Humbles MMStestimonials website:
 Leo Koehof was actively involved in the clinical procedures during the 2012 Uganda MMS trial. He trained the Uganda Red Cross staff on the specific treatment protocol using MMS (sodium chlorite activated with citric acid) for malaria patients. Koehof is seen in video footage speaking to clinic staff and sharing test results of malaria patients treated and cured within 24 to 48 hours. He was not just reporting on the trial but played an instructional and hands-on role in guiding the administration of the MMS treatment to patients
 In the documentary, you see Koehof next to aid workers, looking through results printed on a number of study documents before him. He says;
 We have some test results, and the most amazing test results are coming from the prisoner, We have a prison here in Lukana. Yesterday, we did some blood proofs in the prisoner, and all of them were positive. Now, we did a second blood test, and all of them shows negative. So you can see that's a very amazing result because there's only 24 hours between it.
 I asked AI if Koehof and Proesmans knew each other before the trial:
 Leo Koehof and Klaas Proesmans (sometimes misspelled as Prusmans) did know each other and worked together in a malaria treatment field test context connected to the Red Cross. Leo Koehof trained the Red Cross staff on a protocol to treat malaria successfully using MMS (a solution involving sodium chlorite producing chlorine dioxide). Klaas Proesmans was the narrator in a video about this field test and was involved in managing and reporting on it. He was also the Founder and CEO of the Water Reference Center affiliated with the Red Cross. The two appear in the same context of this malaria cure project and coordinated efforts around it, with Proesmans trying to control the dissemination of the results and Koehof actively demonstrating and promoting the treatment protocol.
 Hmm, seems the two Belgian humanitarians quickly developed some differences of opinion after the trial was completed. Interesting. I immediately decide I need to talk to Mr. Koehof. I start to research him, trying to find a contact, and discover that Koehof was deeply inspired by both Jim Humble and MMS, eventually writing nine books about MMS and/or Humble. One of his book titles was “Jim Humble in Europe,” which described Humble’s visits and activities there. Again, interesting.
 Then I discovered that he died, which I learned from an Instagram post by the non-profit organization Kensad Children’s Hope (weird because he looked healthy and relatively young in the documentary (late 50s, early 60s). He struck me as a good guy. What is Kensad Children’s Hope?
 Kensad Children’s Hope is a non-profit organization focused on empowering vulnerable groups, including orphans, single mothers, children with disabilities, and school dropouts, by promoting equality and access to education for these children.
 Hmm, doesn’t seem like a group that would be involved with someone who faked a clinical trial documentary.
 The post read:
 “In loving memory of late Leo Koehof, one of our first donors who showed us that kindness and generosity still thrive. Your contribution not only supported our cause but also inspired us to keep making a difference.

 Your legacy lives on in our hearts, and we're grateful for the impact you made. Rest in peace, Leo. Your memory will forever be cherished. Family Koehof we are with you always❤
 Most interesting is that, although I could not find evidence that Koehof and Proesmans knew each other before they both participated in the trial and documentary, I discovered that both names are of Flemish origin and both were humanitarians. Weird coincidence, no? Two Dutch-speaking Belgian humanitarians in Africa had to have known each other, and further, I surmise that Koehof is the guy that told Proesmans about MMS, as reflected in his opening statement in the documentary:
 “ It has been said and written that the use of sodium chlorite cleans the body within one hour to four hours of the malaria parasite. ”
 Thus, I think it is fair to conclude that Koehof knew Proesmans and that he was the one who got Proesmans to embark on “doing an investigation” of MMS, even though he was told it would be dangerous.
 Anyway, one of the most validating images in the documentary is at 10:29, where you see Koehof, Proesmans, Red Cross workers, a woman in a lab coat (later introduced as “Betty, Senior Clinician”), all looking down on a table covered with study documents, with Koehof picking up a stack of papers to show the camera, saying “these are the tests” and then:
 Every other day, we had around 150 to maybe 200 patients every single day. In total, we identified 154 malaria-positive patients, together with the local health authorities and the doctors. All of them were treated. All of them were between 24 hours and 48 hours, malaria negative, without any side effects.
 Then it cuts to a man titled as Hannington Segiringya, Former Uganda Red Cross Youth Council President who says:
 I'm so much impressed by this water. It's so unbelievable. From a layman's view, you may think it's impossible, but it's very possible. I've seen people healed, looked at their results from yesterday and seeing the results of today after taking the water. It's super impressive
 I dug into Mr Seginringya above, and found this from his LinkedIn profile:
 Hannington Segiringya is a humanitarian and development professional with over 20 years of experience working with organizations such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent, New Dawn Africa Foundation, and Assist International. He has been involved in projects related to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) in healthcare facilities, safe surgery improvements, and empowerment initiatives primarily in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
 He currently serves as the Country Representative for Assist International in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, a position he has held since 2017. He is also the founder and team lead of the New Dawn Africa Foundation in Uganda and has held leadership roles in Rotary International. Hannington studied Social Work at Makerere University
 So, this highly accomplished humanitarian is the “Red Cross Officer” that Business Insider and the Red Cross claim “got fooled” into participating in the trial? Right.
 Next is a shot of “Paul Kabweru, SMCO Luuka District” (SMCO refers to Social Monitoring and Community Organization and Luuka is the bordering district to Iganga where the study took place), who says :
 Those ones who are positive and they're on treatment, they are getting better. If we continued with this exercise, helping the need in this way, we shall decrease malaria. But these ones now, the few who have come and they are positive, we are testing them for the second time, we see that the malaria process and decreasing, and some of them, they are not detected at all after taking the water. So if we went ahead with this program, I think it would help our district.
 I have messaged Mr. Kabweru on LinkedIn but have also not yet received a response.
 Then Vincent Okonera, Uganda Red Cross, Senior Branch Manager Iganga, says:
 I’m excited because the instant results that are happening among all the people we have so far tested It is incredibly unbelievable to see that somebody tested of malaria When you have a clear positive yesterday, it turns up to be negative today and it feels quite extremely better and more happy and healthier. To me, this is a very good partnership, and I feel that if there is opportunity, to increase this to these communities, it will be so much of great impact and beneficial towards the health of these people
 I have also messaged Mr. Okonera on LinkedIn but have not heard back.
 Most importantly is the last statement made in the documentary, where the WRC CEO, Klaas Proesmans, looking straight at the interviewer on camera, says slowly what he will do next:
 We close the operation well enough. We will go back in January because we need to secure contingency. But we close the operation to report back to the Secretary General here in Uganda's Red Cross Society, and to report back to the Water Reference Center (he is the CEO remember) about the results of the severe test. Now, all in all, 100% cured people, less than five days, all within 24 hours to 48 hours. That asks for further investigation.
 The documentary ends with the logo of “the Water Reference Center” and then the credits follow, listing the names of the cameraman (Mustaque Abdallah), editor, and music team.
 As I kept watching past the credits (something I don’t ordinarily do but I could see from the video timeline that a few minutes remained), suddenly these words below appeared on the screen, read with a voice over from none other than Leo Koehof, the late Dutch Humanitarian and MMS trainer to the Red Cross staff:
 When I published my video of the Red Cross MMS malaria test on YouTube in May 2013, I was totally surprised by the comments I received. The doubters suggested the video was faked and wanted more detailed information. This misinformation was put out by Klaas Proesmans himself, the one who initiated the test in the 1st place period. He even suggested that the people wearing red cross T-shirts just happened to come by to see what was going on and had nothing to do with the test period. Since december 2012, when the malaria test was conducted… today, June 29th, 2013... we estimate that over 1,000,000 children have suffered and died from malaria, based on yearly World Health Organization statistics. That's about one child dying every minute. It is clear from the statements by the Red Cross staff and the video... they are very happy to have found something that works so well against malaria, so they can reduce the suffering in their area. To date, the Red Cross has done nothing with the results except of course… tto hide the truth… and tell lies. This is equivalent to genocide. I, as the one who showed the Red Cross Staff how to use MMS, cannot allow this to quietly continue. I need to remind the Red Cross, and all other humanitarian agencies, of their responsibility. It is one thing to have fear of losing one’s job. But, when we contrast that to the millions of lives lost each year to malaria, it is time they stop being cowardly and step into the light of truth.
 Leo Koehof
 Spoken like a true badass humanitarian (a group which I like to think I belong). Rest in peace Leo. I hope this post and my upcoming book help in disseminating knowledge of your work.
 The Disinformation Response
 Predictably, in 2019, as increasing attention started to be paid to the documentary, the “disinformation response” started with a media attack article in Business Insider which tried to “debunk” the notion that the trial took place. This was quickly followed by social media censorship with YouTube quickly taking down the documentary off its platform. Every single one my readers should be familiar with these two coordinated tactics by now (a new normal in our world). From AI:
 YouTube took down several versions of the Red Cross MMS malaria documentary after it was made aware of the video's harmful content ( Ed: Really? ) by Business Insider. The removals mainly occurred around May 2019, following media investigations and coverage that prompted content moderation and warnings about MMS in Uganda. At least some versions remained online as late as May 2019, but were deleted after media reports and policy violations were flagged by journalists and advocacy groups.
 Now, onto the “Business Insider” article, also full of the same tired, FDA-inspired propaganda trope (“bleach,” “poison,” “no evidence it works,” “people harmed” etc).

 However, things get pretty interesting if you read the article closely. The investigative reporter from Business Insider reached out to Proesmans whereupon he first… denies involvement in the trial. He was quoted as saying " It is not possible... There was no trial with Red Cross. But he also cryptically states, “There is more to the picture than meets the eye ." Then he is quoted as writing in a later email to the reporter, " But if you would move from behind your desk into the field with me, you can write about what you will witness with your own eyes ."
 Let’s think about those quoted statements for a second. My take is that Klaas is actually a “good guy” (comes across as one in his lengthy interview from the documentary) but has been threatened to keep quiet, and so he is just trying to stay alive. I also think this because in the later email, he tells the reporter to “come out into the field” to “write about what you can witness with your own eyes.” He is clearly trying to get the reporter to learn about and write about how MMS works to cure malaria. Yeah, like that will happen.
 He thus strikes me as deeply conflicted, given that he seems to want the world to know about MMS but also knows it would finish him and his ability to do more humanitarian work (or to stay alive).
 This also explains why he and Koehof parted ways. Proesmans was put under immense pressure, and/or had his life or career threatened whereas Koehof was independant, and did not have a “master” controlling him.
 Now let’s see how the journalist tries to explain how the trial was faked, it’s pretty comical:
 Filmed in 2012, the video seems to offer a glimpse of a new breakthrough in malaria treatment, pioneered by the world's most famous aid organization.
 A source at the charity now tells Business Insider that they believe their staff were duped into giving their patients poison.
 MMS advocates with ties to a US religious group told local Red Cross staff they were working on a water treatment project. But they later edited the video to make MMS look like a cure for malaria, the source says ( Ed: If I was Mustaque Abdallah, I would sue them for defamation).
 The video then became a fundamental piece of "evidence" in a wider movement to push MMS on thousands of vulnerable people, even though the Red Cross denounced the video at the time.
 When contacted by Business Insider , the advocates who made the video denied they did anything wrong. A spokesperson for the church said in an email, "We don't answer FAKE NEWS organizations that lie with an agenda from the REAL owners that are just plain evil and DO NOT want to see the TRUTH get out about how BIG Pharma/Medical industry are paying the politicians and the courts to look the other way while their Toxic DRUGS is poisoning the world!" ( Ed: If any of you have read my previous posts on chlorine dioxide, or read any of his books , you should know without asking that the last quote is 100% from Mark Grenon :) .
 The article goes on with above, tired anti-MMS propaganda tropes from regulatory agencies:
 MMS is, in fact, a type of toxic bleach which is banned in several countries and can prove fatal in large doses. In the US, complainants to the Food and Drug Administration have claimed it is linked it to two deaths .
 This week, Business Insider published an investigation into MMS, laying out a slew of medical complaints, and at least one criminal prosecution, in several western countries .
 Recent reporting by outlets including the Guardian and Business Insider have prompted warnings in Uganda from the police, the government, and the US embassy, all of which state emphatically that MMS has no known curative properties.
 On May 23, three men were arrested over their MMS activities , in an apparent sign that Ugandan authorities are ready to take action.
 In their mission to spread the word about MMS, followers of the Genesis II church have targeted communities in Africa, where they have found less resistance from government officials. According to the Guardian , as many as 50,000 people in Uganda may have been exposed to MMS over the years.
 The article then immediately continues with the below, which, I maintain, is the exact same tactic that was deployed to counter the Egyptian Professor Ahmed El-Gazzar’s wickedly positive ivermectin trial early on in the Covid pandemic, i.e., similarly arguing the positive MMS trial was a fraud:
 The Red Cross denied involvement in the video in a 2012 statement claiming it "does not support or endorse in any manner the claims made in relation to this project, and has at no time been involved in 'clinical trials' related to malaria treatment. "
 But in 2019, a Red Cross official told Business Insider that the Ugandan Red Cross Society officials were duped into taking part . The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the organisation was approached to partner on a water treatment project. (Sodium chlorite can be used to purify water in extremely small doses.)
 The project was later morphed into the fake clinical trials depicted in the video without the Red Cross's understanding or consent, the source says. ( Ed: perhaps the Red Cross should have read Proesmans' “Project Plan” above, where he clearly states “audiovisual documentation” would be conducted.
 Emanuele Capobianco, Director of Health at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, told Business Insider, "This video is not only wrong, it is dangerous. MMS is not a malaria cure. It is bleach — it is snake oil. At the very least, it diverts attention away from what actually works."
 So, an “anonymous source” told them that “officials were duped into taking part”, and also that they took part in “the project”, “without the Red Cross's understanding or consent . ” The way I read that is 1) there was a project and 2) Red Cross officials participated.
 So, to explain this away, the journalist then concocts the story that “ The project was later morphed into the fake clinical trials depicted in the video.”
 Conclusion
 In summary, the evidence showing the trial actually occurred as presented in the documentary rests on:
 A detailed project plan document, titled by the Water Reference Center, drafted by the CEO of this research unit of the Red Cross, provides evidence of their plan to study the “effects of water purification in malaria patients” (an admittedly subtle way of not calling attention to what they actually did)

 The document clearly stated that, as part of the project, they planned to document outcomes in an “audiovisual” format - thus the documentary was planned.

 The fact that the project had a budget large enough to hire the top filmmaker in Uganda - random “MMS advocates” would not have the money to do so.

 The documentary is high-quality, and has senior, highly accomplished leaders of the Ugandan Red Cross as well as the CEO of the Water Reference Unit, all on camera, speaking in the present tense about the results they were witnessing.

 The documentary also takes great pains to give as little detail as possible to the actual treatment protocol, essentially only describing it as purifying the drinking water and giving it to patients, never mentioning that it relied on mixing MMS and giving it in two doses over one day. Why leave that part out? Further evidence that they knew exactly what they were embarking on - a study whose results would post the biggest threat to the pharmaceutical industry in history.

 Further corroboration can be found from my previous post on the MMS pioneer, Mark Grenon, who apparently had trained and sent Koehof to help with the trial thus he was able to describe in exact detail all of the events in the documentary in Uganda above.
 Grenon’s description of what happened in Uganda ended with:
 I was excited because of the instant results among all the people we had so far tested. It was unbelievable that somebody who tested positive for malaria yesterday turned out to be negative today and feels significantly better, happier, and healthier. And what's sad is that after word got out to the higher levels of command of the Red Cross about what we had done, they suppressed the whole thing. They now say it never happened; nobody was ever there. They even went as far as telling people that it was a hoax and it was a joke. The people who were there in the Red Cross shirts were just there for fun. They put the shirts on to put the whole thing together! I mean, it's just ridiculous. Ridiculous. Even the narrator of the film, an ex-veteran of the Belgian Army and ex-director of one of the Virgin Airlines, now says “it never happened. I was never even there.” That's how far they're willing to go to suppress the evidence.
 I will end by saying what should be unsurprising to my regular readers, that all national and international health care organizations have been captured and are complicit in causing massive amounts of needless deaths, in Covid and beyond, all for profit or depopulation aims. There, I said it.

 If you can afford to, and appreciate the time, research, care (and RISK) I invest in crafting these posts (and Op-Ed’s), please support my work with a paid subscription.
 Subscribe now
 P.S. Anyone want to send this to Trial Site News to remind them how real (albeit amateur) journalism should be done?
 P.P.S. I will be participating in a historic debate in NYC on September 13th - the first public pro-vax/anti-vax debate in history (literally.. in history - never been done before). For those in the NY Metro area, come on down:

Summary: More evidence that international health care organizations (and all governmental health care and regulatory agencies) are fully captured by Big Pharma.


Repurposed Drugs in Oncology: Current State Of The Evidence And A Case Series In Metastatic Lung Cancer

Story At a Glance
 History of Leading Edge Clinic’s Cancer Program - researching and developing complementary cancer care protocols

 Overview of Drug Repurposing : Exploring the concept of using existing non-cancer drugs for oncology, highlighting its potential to address unmet needs in cancer treatment.

 The ReDO Project : Introducing the Repurposing Drugs in Oncology (ReDO) Project, its mission, and its focus on identifying and testing well-characterized drugs for cancer treatment.

 Leading Edge Clinic’s Role : Detailing the clinic’s involvement in research, including the Rebuild Medicine study on repurposed drugs for cancer.

 Case Studies and Evidence : Highlighting real-world examples and emerging scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of repurposed drugs in oncology.

 Introduction
 At Leading Edge Clinic , we specialize not only in treating post-COVID and post-COVID-19 vaccine syndromes but also in integrative, repurposed drug treatments for cancer. Our approach utilizes FDA-approved medications with anti-tumor mechanisms that have been repurposed to complement conventional, standard of care (SOC) approaches.
 This post reviews the current published evidence base for, and research activity in, the use of repurposed drugs in oncology. It culminates with a case series of five consecutive patients with metastatic lung cancer, all treated under the care of the same clinician (me) using similar combination repurposed drug therapies combined with metabolic interventions (i.e., ketogenic diets and/or fasting).
 What makes the case series particularly remarkable is that four out of five patients showed no cancer progression over the observation period (one even achieved complete remission), despite advanced-stage diagnoses and advanced ages. Notably, two of the patients, per their insistence, achieved disease stability while receiving only repurposed drugs and dietary interventions - without any conventional chemotherapy, radiation, or targeted treatments.
 I share these cases to offer a real-world glimpse into the potential of individualized, low-toxicity, evidence-informed repurposed drug protocols. This post will illustrate not only the scientific rationale behind drug repurposing in oncology but also the powerful role of patient engagement, metabolic interventions, and close clinical monitoring in the pursuit of disease control and quality of life.
 Background
 I previously wrote a post about how my interest in cancer was inspired by my close friend and co-founder of the FLCCC, Professor Paul Marik. His insight inspired me to do a deep dive into the history of research into the causes of cancer, culminating in the now validated “Metabolic Theory Of Cancer” (MTOC). I was further inspired by Paul’s comprehensive scoping review of the world’s medical literature, compiling the scientific and clinical evidence bases for dozens of repurposed drugs and nutraceuticals in the treatment of cancer. Paul’s work was an impressive effort, as it drew from nearly 1,500 scientific references. That work culminated in his increasingly popular book, now in its 2nd edition, called Cancer Care .
 In a previous series, I explored the scientific evidence supporting the Metabolic Theory of Cancer (MTOC) , which overturned the long-standing Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT ) about 15 years ago, with the final pieces to the puzzle stemming from the groundbreaking work of Dr. Thomas Seyfried . His research helped fill the final gaps in the understanding of how cancer originates, offering a comprehensive framework that aligns with decades of observations dating back to Otto Warburg's Nobel Prize–winning discovery in 1927—that cancer cells uniquely generate energy primarily through glucose fermentation, even in the presence of oxygen, unlike normal cells .
 I hope it goes without saying that if the understanding of the “root cause” of a disease changes, so should the treatment approach. That is what we have done at the Leading Edge Clinic. Meanwhile, the field of oncology is still obsessively (and financially) focused on cytotoxic therapies (chemotherapy and radiation) rather than therapies targeting disrupted metabolic pathways.
 However, our goal at Leading Edge is not to recommend that patients forego standard of care therapies (SOC) but instead that SOC should be “complemented” with more diverse, mechanistic, and non-toxic approaches, based on the considerable scientific and clinical data that Paul compiled.
 Most significantly, in Paul’s scoping review and book, he graded the strength of the scientific evidence for repurposed drugs and nutraceuticals, where he identified only seventeen as having a “strong” level of evidence to support, eight as having a “weak level of evidence” to support, fifteen others which he deemed the evidence “insufficient” and another five as having evidence to “recommend against.”
 Remarkably, Paul only found sufficient scientific (i.e., in vivo, in vitro, and clinical) evidence to make assessments on a total of 60 repurposed drugs and nutraceuticals, even though there are 254 repurposed drugs and over 2,000 nutraceuticals that purportedly have anti-tumor mechanisms. I often tell my patients that the “best” treatment for cancer might be in that dizzying list of potential candidates, but we don’t have the evidence of both safety and efficacy for me to recommend them.
 My practice is to instead rigidly stick to the compounds with the “strongest published evidence” (although I have made exceptions with specific therapies that have had their research severely restricted, as per “ The Kory Scale ” (wink, wink).
 This is important because many cancer patients, upon diagnosis, begin to research therapies online and on social media (often obsessively, but who can blame them). Once they start doing that, they find claims of efficacy and/or cure for... just about anything. As a result, they are constantly asking me about this therapy or that therapy that they have read about. I say, “I don’t know,” or, in cases where there is little published research, I typically recommend against it due to lack of safety data with chronic use (remember, first do no harm).
 One example supporting the above concern is the widespread recommendations to use soursop fruit for its anti-cancer mechanisms, ignoring the fact that chronic use has been shown to cause Parkinson’s.
 Again, I want to emphasize that we do not recommend that patients avoid or refuse well-established and evidence-based “standard of care” (SOC) approaches like chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, and targeted therapies. We insist that our patients have both an oncologist and a primary care provider, although to be fair, I can’t tell my patients what to do - a minority decline standard of care or “system docs” despite my recommendation that they work with one. Iatrophobia and nosocomephobia run rampant, it seems.
 One — and only one — of the reasons I make this recommendation is, admittedly, a “defensive” one. If a patient experiences a poor outcome after choosing to rely solely on repurposed drug protocols, I want to avoid the risk of being sued by a family member who disagreed with that choice and later claims I failed to sufficiently encourage the patient to seek more established oncology guidance — a scenario that has, in fact, happened to other physicians who treated cancer patients with so‑called “alternative” methods.
 Observational Study Of Repurposed Drugs In Cancer
 Further, we applied for and obtained ethics oversight approval (IRB) to conduct a prospective, observational study to compare the survival and functional status of patients treated with complementary repurposed drug protocols versus patients treated with standard of care therapies alone.
 That research study is just part of the work that my new non-profit, called Rebuild Medicine , is doing in advocacy for the research and use of repurposed medicines.
 This post was inspired by the fact that I saw three of the five patients I am treating for metastatic lung cancer in the past few weeks, and was very pleased with their progress. Although the study is still ongoing (and will be for several years), I decided to write a preliminary, interim report of the metastatic lung cancer patients that I have personally treated, all presented consecutively, leaving none out.
 I cannot overemphasize the importance of avoiding “cherry-picking” when discussing treatment outcomes, a practice that social media is riddled with - all you hear about are cases of cures by providers or patients without a minimum of effort (or ability) to compile data in an unbiased, transparent, systematic manner. This behavior runs the risk of overestimating the efficacy of such approaches, which might lead patients to avoid SOC, whose efficacy, although often sub-optimal or even harmful if not well chosen, is well established “scientifically.”
 Growing Focus On Combination Repurposed Drug Therapy in Modern Oncology
 Treating cancer with combinations of repurposed drugs—medications originally developed for other indications—is no longer just an alternative approach; it is increasingly recognized as a mainstream strategy in oncology. Over the past decade, the number of major academic centers and research groups conducting rigorous clinical trials on repurposed drug protocols for cancer has grown dramatically, reflecting rising interest from both the scientific community and regulatory bodies .
 The drug repurposing movement utilizes the central or ancillary attributes of a drug typically used for non-cancer indications to constructively interact with a cancer's growth mechanisms, thereby slowing the cancer's growth.
 Know that such approaches, instead of directly killing cancer cells, simply target multiple, growth-driving pathways. On page 31 of Paul’s Cancer Care book, he lists the main pathways our Leading Edge Clinic targets with our combination regimens (Hexokinase 2, p53, TGF-B, Wnt, Notch, PI3/AKT, Hedgehog, IGF-1).
 Two cancer non-profit organizations ( The AntiCancer Fund and Global Cures ) partnered to create The ReDO project (Repurposing Drugs in Oncology). ReDo created a database of all published, planned or active trials of repurposed drugs in cancer from U.S, European, and WHO Trial Registries. They identified 970 trials from 45 countries :

 Current RCTs OF Repurposed Drugs in Oncology:
 Now, although the ReDO project has identified 970 trials of repurposed drugs in oncology, very few are “actionable” given that many were terminated for lack of enrollment, others are still recruiting, or their recent status is unclear in the registry (updates not filed). Most disappointing is that the vast majority tested a single repurposed drug added to SOC (Ed: dumb). It is challenging to find published results of trials testing the addition of multiple agents at the same time; however, of the few available, the results are highly encouraging.
 In one trial called CUSP9 , they treated patients with a combination of 9 (yes, 9) different repurposed drugs in addition to standard of care. Note this approach is in line with our Leading Edge clinic practice and observational study, where we commonly use combinations of up to ten or more different therapies depending on stage and type of cancer (and “type” of patient).
 GLIOBLASTOMA TRIALS
 The majority of combination repurposed drug trials study patients with glioblastoma, a brain cancer. One reason is that glioblastoma is one of the more deadly cancers and has a highly predictable median overall survival of 15 months and a two-year survival of 27%, despite SOC combinations of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and oral maintenance chemotherapy.
 This highly predictable (and terrible) survival allows for comparison in outcomes between the two approaches, as you will see below. Another reason is that glioblastoma has numerous mechanisms driving its growth, thus demanding a combination, multi-mechanistic approach. The results of the accumulating data are impressive:
 CUSP9
 Repurposed regimen: aprepitant, auranofin, captopril, celecoxib, disulfiram, itraconazole, minocycline, ritonavir, and sertraline .
 A report of their phase 1 trial in 2021 showed:
➤ 30% of patients were alive and disease-free at over 4 years post-treatment.
 Compared to historical prognosis with standard-of-care (SOC) therapies:
➤ Long-term disease-free survival (>4 years) is extremely rare ,
➤ Typically occurs in under 5–10% of patients ,
➤ Mostly limited to exceptional responders .

 So, 30% of such patients were alive and disease-free over 4 years later, compared to only 5-10% being alive historically? Wow.

 METRICS
 Published in 2019, this study included 95 patients with Stage IV advanced glioblastoma who they treated with four drugs in addition to SOC ( metformin, atorvastatin, mebendazole, and doxycycline) . Check out the survival compared to historical controls:
 ➤ Two-year survival = 64% vs. 26-28%
➤ Median survival of repurposed patients = 27.1 months vs. 14-15 months
 Again wow. Also, know that in this study, the median duration between diagnosis and start of the 4-drug regimen was 6.6 months. Imagine if they had started treatment at diagnosis instead of almost 7 months later? Further, 85% of patients tolerated all four drugs “without issue.”

 CLOVA
 Another four drug regimen study in glioblastoma patients (note the 4 drugs were completely different than the METRICS or CUSP9 studies above): cimetidine, lithium, olanzapine ( an anti-psychotic? ), and valproate. Results:
 7 patients with recurrent, chemotherapy-resistant GBM

 All were “RPA class 7.” RPA (recursive partitioning analysis) is a statistical tool used to stratify patients by expected survival. Class 7 refers to the group of patients with the poorest prognosis.

 Median overall survival (OS) after recurrence: 11.2 months vs. 4.3–4.9 months in historical controls alone (p = 0.004).

 See their chart below depicting survival curves and note the steep, plummeting trajectory of historical controls compared with the more staggered, prolonged survival of those treated with (just 4) repurposed drugs:

 Solid Tumors
 COMBAT
 This was a study that included 74 children with advanced, refractory, or relapsed pediatric solid tumors, many heavily pretreated and with poor prognosis. They were then treated across three European academic medical centers with celecoxib, vitamin D, fenofibrate, and retinoic acid along with standard chemotherapy regimens. In a historical comparison of the high-grade sarcoma subgroup, they reported:
 Median overall survival with COMBAT: 15.4 months vs. 3.9 months in historical controls
→ COMBAT-treated patients lived nearly 4 times longer (p = 0.001)

 In summary, although I could find only four small to modestly sized studies using combinations of repurposed drugs, to date, all have shown significant improvements in survival and tolerance to medications.

 Planned/Ongoing Trials
 MDACT : is testing 6 drugs in colon, biliary, lung, and brain cancer. The six drugs are: celecoxib, dapsone, disulfiram, itraconazole, pyrimethamine, and telmisartan .
 MEMMAT - includes children with recurrent medulloblastoma, ependymoma, or atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors being treated with thalidomide, celecoxib, and fenofibrate alongside conventional chemotherapies.

 Proposed Trial Protocols
 I also discovered a series of published papers in which the authors proposed multi-repurposed drug regimens to treat several cancers; however, to date (years later), these studies have still not been conducted. This suggests that publishing such “aspirational trial protocols” has become a cottage industry in oncology - resume padding anyone?
 A reason for the lack of conducting such trials could be that there is no funding (all meds are off-patent, so no financial incentive). Again, this is something Rebuild Medicine is hoping to change. All study acronyms below are hyperlinked to the paper:
 AVRO : glioblastoma - aprepitant, vortioxetine, roflumilast, olanzapine.
 IPIAD - pancreatic cancer - irbesartan, pyrimethamine, itraconazole, azithromycin, and dapsone
 OPALS - lung and glioblastoma - pyrimethamine, cyproheptadine, azithromycin, loratadine, and spironolactone.
 EIS : glioblastoma: itraconazole, metformin, naproxen, pirfenidone, quetiapine rifampin
 MTZ: glioblastoma- minocycline, telmisartan, and zoledronic acid
 ADZT -glioblastoma - apremilast, dapsone, zonisamide, and telmisartan
 Why Standard Therapies Fall Short: Cancer Stem Cells
 Another critical aspect of the role of repurposed drugs in treating cancer is that they can target cancer stem cells, something that current SOC approaches fail at doing. Know that cancer stem cells (CSCs) were first identified in leukemia in the 1990s and a decade later in solid tumors, which represents, in my mind, a relatively recent discovery in “medical time.”
 CSCs are a small, resilient subset of tumor cells driving growth, relapse, and metastasis (they make up between 0.01% to 2% of a tumor ). Unlike the other fast-dividing cancer cells targeted by standard cytotoxic therapies (chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy), CSCs exhibit self-renewal , differentiation , and anti-apoptotic pathways , enabling them to survive within protective tumor microenvironments (e.g., hypoxic or inflammatory niches).
 These properties make CSCs not only resistant to conventional treatments, but some (chemo and RT) have even been shown to promote CSC proliferation , leading to tumor recurrence inadvertently. For example, this below study’s title is not reassuring:

 This study is even less reassuring, yikes:

 Leading Edge Clinic’s Unique Approach
 Thus, I believe that one critically important aspect of our treatment approach (where Leading Edge departs from the rest of the drug repurposing in oncology movement) is based on our specific targeting of cancer stem cells (CSCs) with repurposed drugs.
 From Perplexity AI:
 Currently, there are no FDA-approved therapies specifically and exclusively targeting cancer stem cells (CSCs) as a distinct class of treatment.
 Since chemotherapy and radiation target rapidly dividing cells, shrinking tumors but sparing (or again, even inducing) slow-growing CSCs, it should come as no surprise that the biopharmaceutical industry is currently developing various CSC-targeted therapies (e.g., very costly monoclonal antibodies requiring infusion centers). Still, these remain inaccessible and as yet unproven.
 The Role Of Repurposed Drugs Against Cancer Stem Cells
 Although research into developing patented treatments directed at CSCs is underway, the beauty is that, since the discovery of CSCs, extensive in vitro studies have identified affordable, accessible drugs that inhibit CSC proliferation, suggesting the potential of cost-effective, readily available alternatives. At Leading Edge Clinic, we specifically target CSCs with the repurposed drugs that have been identified as having anti-CSC mechanisms , aiming to prevent relapse and improve outcomes.
 Repurposed Drugs Targeting CSCs
 Based on our research and clinical experience, we use, depending on the cancer and the patient:
 Metformin , ivermectin , mebendazole , doxycycline (antibiotics with anti-CSC properties)

 Curcumin , green tea extract , resveratrol , berberine (plant-based compounds)

 Melatonin , vitamin D3 , omega-3 fatty acids (nutritional supplements)

 Aspirin , diclofenac , statins (atorvastatin) , phosphodiesterase 5-inhibitors (anti-inflammatory and metabolic modulators)

 Our CSC-focused strategy addresses a critical gap in standard care, leveraging affordable repurposed drugs to enhance patient outcomes without reliance on expensive, centralized systems. This aligns with our mission to empower patients and challenge profit-driven healthcare models.
 I include the below forward to Paul’s book, written by our friend, colleague and mentor, the pseudonymous Dr. Justus R. Hope (I really like his tree/roots analogy re: CSC’s in the below graphic):

 Metastatic Lung Cancer Case Series From The Leading Edge Clinic
 In the published CLOVA study mentioned above, only seven patients were included. Here I present the outcomes in five consecutive patients. This is important because it is impossible to know the true efficacy of a therapy if the only data point being shared is a dramatically positive result without any sense of how many did not respond or were harmed (you can be sure that practitioners blasting treatment successes on social media never post about their adverse outcomes or non-responders).
 Further, what is often underemphasized in such “reports” are the other, potentially contributory treatments or dietary changes. Thus, in this case series (and upcoming ones), I did the following:
 The patients all presented consecutively, with the same stage and type of cancer (metastatic lung cancer in this series)

 Patients were all treated by the same clinician (me)

 All treatments employed, both SOC and repurposed, are detailed

 Estimates of adherence to ketogenic diets/fasting are included

 Medical records of imaging and stage, along with dates, are provided

 Reports of intolerances or side effects to therapies are all documented

 Clinical assessments of performance status over time are included

 Of the five consecutive metastatic lung cancer patients I have treated with combination repurposed drug protocols and ketogenic diets:
 2 received no other conventional treatments (no chemo, RT, targeted therapies etc) but not on my advice; this came out of their personal preference, both are octogenarians

 2 received concomitant oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors

 1 received multiple, aggressive conventional therapies - pneumonectomy, post-op RT to new metastases, and numerous cycles of various chemotherapy regimens

 As you will see from this series, as well as from the above studies, it is clear to me that “complementary” repurposed drug protocols have considerable efficacy. Still, I do not feel the evidence is anywhere near sufficient to suggest that patients forego more supported treatments at this time.
 I am putting the following case series behind a paywall because 1) I am submitting for publication, 2) I will pay the (up to $2,000) fee to make the article open access, 3) I promise to post the article to my free subscribers when that happens 4) I put an immense amount of effort into performing the detailed chart review writing up the cases for this series.
 I wrote up two versions of the case series, one short, one long:
 The longer, granularly documented version with concurrent commentary can be found at this link (10+ minute read).

 A more concise, AI-assisted version can be found at this link (3-minute read)

 If you can afford to, and find value in the time, research, and care I invest in crafting these posts (and Op-Ed’s) which aim to expose critically important truths about the safety and efficacy of a diverse set of medical therapeutics, please support my work with a paid subscription.
 Subscribe now

Summary: A review of the existing evidence base for repurposing drugs to treat cancer, followed by a case series of five consecutive patients treated with combination repurposed drug protocols.


We Published an Op-Ed About Children Killed By Vaccines In A Mainstream Media Outlet

As many of my readers know, I have published over thirty Op-Eds in major media outlets over the past 4 years, with quite a few on “controversial” health topics related to Covid. However, the vast majority were in right-wing or center-right publications.
 The first Op-Ed I ever published was early in the pandemic, in USA Today (July 1, 2020), where I tried to alert the world that Covid was aerosol (not droplet) transmitted, something the CDC and WHO took another 1 and 2 years to officially recognize, respectively.
 Some other left-wing exceptions were Op-Eds I wrote with the veteran investigative journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer; Newsweek ( spikes in death and disability ), The Hill ( alarming rates of young people dying , and USA Today ( Covid vaccine injuries and explosions in excess mortality in the U.S ).

 However, in those those Op-Eds, we were rarely able to make explicit links between the epidemiological catastrophes and Covid vaccines—the references were either subtle or omitted altogether—the notable exception was the Op-Ed published in The H ill, where we specifically identified Covid vaccines as a possible factor in the surge of sudden deaths among young Americans, illustrated in the following paragraph:
 Vaccines were given to more than 270 million people , among them babies, pregnant women and workers under employer mandates. The therapeutic’s “warp speed,” emergency use authorization must be part of any post-pandemic analysis, in light of more than 1 million reports of possible harm to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System and a new Yale University study validating a chronic post-vaccination syndrome.
 However, to date, we have never ventured into exploring the topic of the deadly harms of traditional childhood vaccines, a topic that would typically guarantee career suicide. Since my academic career has already been suicided, and Mary Beth has long left corporate media, we were free to venture.
 Unsurprisingly, our article was a “tough sell” as they say. To wit, we received rejections from Newsweek, Washington Post, The Hill, Fox News, and Newsday (no reply). Somewhat shockingly, we did receive an initial acceptance from the USA Today Network, but they never ran it and stopped responding to our queries as to when it was going to run.
 Then yesterday, our Op-Ed was accepted by and published on SILive.com , the news site of the Staten Island Advance newspaper (founded in 1886):

 OK, fine, so most of you have never heard of it but if you are a New Yorker (largest city in the U.S and a bastion of still-mask-wearing liberal pro-vaxxers), you likely have read it. From Perplexity AI:
 2.6 million unique visitors per month on silive.com, with over 7.4 million monthly page views.

 This reflects a substantial local and regional readership mainly focused on Staten Island and New York area news.

 Fun fact: Mary Beth’s first job as an investigative reporter right out of college… was with the Staten Island Advance! See young “cub” reporter Mary Beth plugging away at the Advance in 1976 on the left (love the old school phone), and Mary Beth now:

 I would be remiss if I didn’t share a link to a compilation of her investigative reporting .
 Anyway, it seems “the times they are a-changing” because our Op-Ed highlighted the potential deadly harms of childhood vaccines, a topic which runs the risk of strengthening Big Pharma’s #1 enemy, that of vaccine hesitancy (oh no). It can be read at this link .

 If you can afford to, and also find value in the time, research, and care I invest in crafting these posts (and Op-Ed’s) which aim to expose critically important truths about the safety and efficacy of a diverse set of medical therapeutics, please support my work with a paid subscription.
 Subscribe now

Summary: Our Op-Ed exposed apparent cases of SIDS that were actually caused by childhood vaccines. It was published in a highly read news outlet... in New York City.