Who Funds Your Doctor’s Training?

August 24, 2026

https://imahealth.substack.com/p/who-funds-your-doctors-training?

Who Funds Your Doctor’s Training?

Nearly half of all continuing medical education in America is funded by the companies whose products doctors prescribe. IMA Academy is building the alternative.

Independent Medical Alliance

Aug 22, 2026

A lecture hall of robots in white coats facing a screen displaying the rod of Asclepius

Every year, the doctors we rely on are required to complete continuing medical education, or CME, to keep their licenses current. Every state medical board demands it. It is how new evidence travels from the journal to the exam room, and for most patients it is entirely invisible. Nobody asks their physician where they earned their last twelve credits, or who paid for the room.

But somebody pays for it, and a great deal of it is paid for by the companies whose products doctors prescribe.

  • $815 million in direct industry grants
  • $725 million in advertising and exhibit fees
  • Roughly $1.5 billion altogether, or 40 cents of every dollar

Source: ACCME 2024 Annual Data Report.

Taken together, more than 40% of continuing medical education funding comes from pharmaceutical and medical-device companies.

When medical education depends on that kind of money, we have to ask how it influences the subjects being taught, the speakers being elevated, and the treatments being emphasized. Could this help explain why oncologists overlook the potential of repurposed medicines? Or why psychiatrists often reach for the prescription pad before exploring alternatives?

Continuing medical education was once largely a profession teaching itself, led by medical societies, universities, and hospitals. Its purpose was simple: keep physicians current and improve patient care. By the mid-2000s, industry supplied about half its funding, and a Senate investigation found drug companies using educational grants to build markets and influence what doctors were taught.

Which brings us to IMA Academy

We are building the long-overdue independent alternative: accredited courses taught by independent physicians, with no pharmaceutical or medical-device sponsorship.

Donors make that possible by funding course development, the accreditation work behind every credit, independent faculty who answer to evidence rather than sponsors, and free public access.

______________

**Comment**

HALLELUIAH!

Many are unaware that doctors receive financial kickbacks for vaccinated patients, despite having limited education and training regarding vaccines. The U.S. Government continues to pay millions for vaccine injuries and death settlements, but the indoctrination appears complete with professional medical organizations like the AMA screaming the loudest whenever the vaccine discussion crops up. This corrupt organization has the gall to review their own vaccine safety and efficacy reviews. So much for honest science.

Category:

Activism, vaccines

Comments Off on Who Funds Your Doctor’s Training?

WHO: Pandemic Determinations Can Be Made Without ‘Evidence of Illness’

WHO Says Pandemic Determinations Can Be Made Without ‘Evidence of Illness’

“Evidence of illness is not required” to trigger international pandemic reporting, the World Health Organization declares.

Jon Fleetwood

Aug 21, 2026

Important Excerpts:

The World Health Organization (WHO) says evidence that a person is actually sick is not required for a “laboratory-confirmed” human influenza infection with “the potential to cause a pandemic” to trigger mandatory international reporting.

WHO says countries must “immediately notify WHO of any laboratory-confirmed case of a recent human infection caused by an influenza A virus with the potential to cause a pandemic.”

(See link for article)

__________________

**Comment**

This ‘Laboratory-confirmed’ finding is based on PCR which doesn’t directly observe a virus.

COVID, which has been described as a ‘casedemic,’ showed the world the inaccuracy of PCR tests, particularly when ‘the powers that be’ manipulate the cycling threshold for their own nefarious purpose. Lymeland also includes a chapter where PCR was used to ‘prove’ extended antibiotics don’t work, causing untold needless suffering.

Now, following in a similar ugly vein, the WHO says you don’t even have to show ANY evidence of illness for them to blow your world up by declaring a ‘pandemic,’ and shutting down businesses, schools, etc.

Have we truly learned nothing from the COVID experiment?

For more:

Category:

Activism, Testing, Viruses

Comments Off on WHO: Pandemic Determinations Can Be Made Without ‘Evidence of Illness’

Direct vs. Indirect Testing in Chronic Infections: Why it Matters

https://www.restorativemedcenter.com/blogs/direct-vs-indirect-testing-for-infections-cracking-the-case-of-the-missing-microbes

Published on March 14, 2025

If you’ve ever attempted to get to the bottom of a suspected chronic infection, you’ve likely encountered the ongoing debate between direct and indirect testing. Understanding the distinction isn’t just academic—it’s critical to making accurate diagnoses and effective treatment decisions.

Both methods can provide valuable information, but they operate at different levels of biological evidence. Direct testing seeks to identify the pathogen itself, while indirect testing detects your immune system’s response to it. Knowing which to prioritize—and when—can mean the difference between clarity and ongoing uncertainty.

Direct Testing: Identifying the Pathogen Itself

Direct testing aims to detect the actual presence of a pathogen in the body—whether that’s microbial DNA, RNA, proteins, or intact organisms. It offers the highest level of diagnostic confirmation, and is typically preferred when making treatment decisions, as it confirms that the organism is currently present.

Common direct methods include:

  • PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction):
    This technique amplifies microbial DNA to detectable levels, making it highly specific and sensitive, especially when an infection is active.
    PCR is available through a variety of labs, including the DNA Connexions Lyme Panel, which uses a urine sample to test for DNA from Borrelia, Babesia, Bartonella, Ehrlichia, and other vector-borne pathogens.
    PCR may still miss infections if the microbes are hidden in tissue or biofilms and not shedding into the sampled fluid at the time of collection.
  • Culture:
    Considered the gold standard in conventional infectious disease medicine because it allows for isolation and identification of live organisms. However, culturing vector-borne infections (VBIs) like Bartonella, Borrelia, and Babesia is notoriously difficult.
    These organisms are often slow-growing, intracellular, or biofilm-forming, which makes them hard to culture using standard techniques.
    This culturing difficulty is a major reason why many infectious disease specialists struggle to validate or diagnose chronic forms of these infections—they simply don’t grow well using the gold standard method.
  • FISH (Fluorescent In-Situ Hybridization):
    FISH testing uses fluorescent probes that bind to the genetic material of specific pathogens, allowing for direct visualization under a microscope.
    It is especially useful for detecting organisms in blood smears, even when present in low quantities.
    IGeneX offers FISH testing for both Bartonella and Babesia, providing an important tool for clinicians dealing with suspected chronic infections.
    Like PCR, FISH confirms active presence of the organism—but may also be limited by where and when the pathogen is present in the body.

Indirect Testing: Measuring the Host Response

Indirect testing evaluates immune system responses rather than looking for the pathogen itself. These tests infer the presence of an infection based on patterns of immune activation or memory, and can be helpful when direct detection methods are inconclusive.

Common indirect methods include:

  • Antibody Testing (IgM, IgG, IgA): Measures immune memory and recent immune responses. Interpretation can be complex due to persistent antibody elevation or cross-reactivity.
  • T-Cell Response Assays (e.g., Elispot): Measure cell-mediated immune activity, often reflecting an ongoing immune response not captured by antibodies alone.
  • Cytokine Panels & Inflammatory Biomarkers: These offer insight into generalized immune activation but are nonspecific.

The main limitation with indirect testing is that it cannot definitively confirm the presence of a pathogen—only that the immune system has responded to it at some point. This makes it vulnerable to both false positives (from past exposures, autoimmunity, or cross-reactivity) and false negatives (due to immunosuppression or immune exhaustion).

Why Direct Testing Is Clinically Preferred

In my clinical experience, when high-quality direct testing is available, it consistently provides the most actionable data. Direct evidence of a pathogen’s presence allows for more targeted and confident treatment decisions.

Indirect testing can be helpful—especially in cases where no clear pathogen is identified—but it is ultimately a secondary measure, best used to support or contextualize findings rather than as a standalone diagnostic tool.

I’ve seen numerous cases where indirect tests were falsely positive or falsely negative compared to reliable direct testing. In some situations, indirect markers suggested a strong immune response to an infection that was no longer present, leading to unnecessary or prolonged treatment. In other cases, indirect tests missed active infections entirely due to immune dysfunction or suppression. (See link for article)

________________

**Comment**

And yet, indirect testing remains the accepted testing for all tick-borne illness despite being abysmal.

In fact, there’s been a concerted effort to suppress direct testing. This, is the first red flag one experiences in Lymeland. Why would public health ‘authorities’ suppress an accurate test? And yet, here we are.

For more:

Category:

Lyme, research, Testing

Comments Off on Direct vs. Indirect Testing in Chronic Infections: Why it Matters

Pfizer’s Lyme Vaccine Just Cleared EU Review. Is the Stock Already Priced In?

August 19, 2026

https://www.tikr.com/blog/pfizers-lyme-vaccine-just-cleared-eu-review-is-the-stock-already-priced-in

Pfizer’s Lyme Vaccine Just Cleared EU Review. Is the Stock Already Priced In?

Gian Estrada•6 minute read

Reviewed by:David Hanson

Last updated Aug 17, 2026

MerinoPhotos and Max Mishin from Pexels

Key Takeaways for Pfizer Stock as of August 2026

  • Lyme Validation: The European Medicines Agency validated the marketing application for Pfizer and partner Valneva’s Lyme disease vaccine candidate PF-07307405 on August 14, starting the formal EU review with a possible US filing later this year.
  • Street Split: Pfizer stock carries 8 buys, 2 outperforms, 16 holds, 1 underperform, and 1 sell among 26 analysts, with a $29 mean target sitting 7% above the $27 close.
  • Model Gap: TIKR pegs Pfizer stock at $29 by 2030, a 9% return.
  • Insider Buying: CEO Albert Bourla bought $1.0M of stock at $26.34 in mid-August while director Mortimer Buckley added $960K at $25.52 days earlier, two of the largest insider purchases logged this year.

Pfizer Stock’s Lyme Vaccine Just Cleared Its First EU Hurdle

Pfizer (PFE) stock’s Lyme disease vaccine program took a real step forward on August 14, when the European Medicines Agency validated the marketing authorization application for candidate PF-07307405, developed with French vaccine maker Valneva. Validation starts the formal EU review clock. It doesn’t guarantee approval, but it confirms the dossier is complete enough for regulators to evaluate.

The filing rests on Phase 3 VALOR data showing more than 70% efficacy in people aged five and older, with no safety concerns identified. Valneva shares jumped 15.6% on the news, its best single-day move since August 2025. Kempen analysts called the Lyme program “the key” driver of the investment case and flagged a possible US filing from Pfizer in the second half of 2026, with a US approval decision potentially landing in the second half of 2027. (See link for article)

_______________

**Comment**

If you haven’t felt the vibe yet, I’ll clue you in: it’s all about money. Nothing whatsoever to do with health.

When it comes to ‘vaccines,’ never expect a straight, transparent answer. Just don’t. Then, you won’t be disappointed.

‘Vaccines’ are by far the biggest cash cow for Big Pharma. Just read the article & learn that Pfizer’s own CEO bought $1.0M of stock at $26.34 in mid-August while director Mortimer Buckley added $960K at $25.52 days earlier, two of the largest insider purchases logged this year. This should be illegal.

Further, you can’t create a ‘vaccine’ for a chronic/relapsing illness, which is often complicated by numerous coinfections, none of which are in the vaccine, – which is exactly what Lyme/MSIDS is, despite public health ‘authorities’ and bought out researchers claims. It’s also created with the very same OspA protein which caused people that took the Lymerix vaccine to develop debilitating chronic Lyme symptoms. The claim that it was removed due to ‘lack of demand,’ only tells part of the story. Nobody wanted an injection that made them sick!

For a refresher course on the Lyme vaccine:

Category:

Activism, Lyme, research, vaccines

Comments Off on Pfizer’s Lyme Vaccine Just Cleared EU Review. Is the Stock Already Priced In?

John Miller Was So Sick With Chronic Lyme Disease He Was Passing Out

In the following article and video, Dr. Julian Douwes of St. George Hospital states that Miller was ‘cured’ of Lyme disease. Please note what I wrote in the comment section:

“BS. I spoke with Douwes’ father at a convention on this very topic and he was at least honest enough to admit patients need follow up or ‘tune ups.’ This is not cured. There is no cure for Lyme/MSIDS – you maintain it like diabetes. I’m not stating the treatment doesn’t have merit and won’t help patients. I’m solely addressing the ‘cured’ issue. Further, 3 weeks is far too soon to be declaring anyone ‘cured.’ Since this is relapsing in nature due to pleomorphism (organism shape shifting to go dormant when threatened) it might take weeks, months, or even years to relapse with symptoms.

It’s important to note that under Jauregg’s treatment of syphilis with malaria, several patients died after being given a potent strain.”

https://rumble.com/v7ec25w-john-miller-was-so-sick-with-chronic-lyme-disease-he-was-passing-out Go here for article & video

John Miller was so sick with chronic Lyme disease he was passing out

Question Everything

John Miller was so sick with chronic Lyme disease he was passing out and could barely take part in life.

He flew to a clinic in Germany and after three weeks, he came home cured.

“We heat the body to 106.8 Fahrenheit,” says Dr. Julian Douwes of St. George Hospital. “It has been shown that the spirochetes, the bacteria behind Lyme disease, actually dies off at that temperature.”

Antibiotics can’t reach chronic Lyme. “It’s in the brain. It’s intracellular. They have a lot of immune evading mechanisms.”

The idea won a Nobel Prize in 1927. Syphilis comes from the same family of bacteria as Lyme, and back then there were no antibiotics. So Julius Wagner-Jauregg injected his syphilis patients with the blood of malaria patients. The fever spikes cured them. He had 18 patients. 16 came out of a wheelchair.

Meanwhile, chronic Lyme patients today are being “ignored and tossed away.”

“They actually have a positive lab test and people still tell them your symptoms are not valid, your symptoms do not exist, chronic Lyme doesn’t exist.”

The treatment isn’t available in the United States.
https://x.com/epochhealth/status/2089336089530048933?s=20

_______________

**Comment**

It’s also important to clarify that hyperthermia is NOT the only modality used at St. George’s. IV antibiotics are also used as well as detoxification protocols and physical therapy. It also says that with patients with ‘confirmed’ coinfections, they use photodynamic therapy and apheresis. It’s important to point out that it’s highly likely you must test positive on tests that are wrong upto 90% of the time. So – you won’t get treated for coinfections which are as bad if not worse than Lyme.

For more:

Category:

Activism, Lyme, Treatment

Comments Off on John Miller Was So Sick With Chronic Lyme Disease He Was Passing Out