Archive for the ‘research’ Category

Another Inconvenient Study Retracted While 19 States Reject New Vaccine Schedule

The ‘vaccine’ war is hot and heavy

The Medical Industrial Complex, including the AAP is suing HHS and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr – demanding that a federal court force the government back to ‘business as usual,’ with a blanket vaccine schedule for all and assembly-line medicine where:

  • patient/doctor relationship is trumped by a ‘one size fits all’ medical model
  • there is a lack of informed consent
  • the emphasis is on Big Pharma profit, not patient health
There is no evidence the U.S. Childhood ‘vaccine’ schedule saves lives.

The entire US childhood vaccine schedule has no credible evidence of a mortality or morbidity benefit even though they’ve had 30 years to do the study and failed every time to show a benefit.

There is a long history of health agencies manipulating, obfuscating and even destroying ‘vaccine’ data and of doctors getting financial kickbacks for vaccinating.

How is this unbiased science?

Go here to sign petition to defund the AAP

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/preprint-server-retracts-infant-mortality-study-childrens-health-defense-chd-scientists-censorship/

‘Act of Censorship’: Preprint Server Retracts Infant Mortality Study by Children’s Health Defense Scientists

Preprints.org on Wednesday retracted a paper by Children’s Health Defense scientists who analyzed data from the Louisiana Department of Health. The analysis showed that infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants.

by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
January 15, 2026
screenshot of withdrawn article and word "Censored"

Editor’s note: Since this article was published, the study retracted by Preprints.org has been published here, on the preprint server Zenodo.

Preprints.org on Wednesday retracted a paper by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) scientists. The research showed that infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants.

Lead author Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., called the retraction “an act of censorship.” He told The Defender:

“There are 318 members of the Advisory Board for Preprints. Not a single one of them has published on vaccine safety. Not a single one of them has published on infant mortality. Not a single one of them would have been chosen to peer-review our article. Its retraction, therefore, cannot be a peer-reviewed nor a scientific decision.”

Retraction is an important tool for the scientific community, which needs the ability to edit itself, especially when “negligent or bad actors are at work,” Jablonowski said. “But retracting is also a tool of the censors, by those who muzzle scientific discourse,” he said.

The paper, published on the preprint server last month, analyzed data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Health.

The data revealed that depending on which vaccines they received, vaccinated children were between 29%-74% more likely to die than unvaccinated children. Vaccinated Black infants were 28%-74% more likely to die, and vaccinated female infants had a 52%-98% greater risk of death.

Overall, children who received all six vaccines recommended for 2-month-olds were 68% more likely to die in their third month of life, the data showed.

The paper represents one of the first studies on the cumulative effect of vaccines at age 2 months, when the vaccines are administered according to the pre-January 2026 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended schedule.

Since the paper was published, the CDC has revised the childhood schedule, reducing the number of routine vaccines recommended for infants and children. (See link for article)

__________________

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/us-states-reject-new-cdc-childhood-vaccine-schedule/

Growing Number of States Reject New Childhood Vaccine Schedule

Since Jan. 5, when the CDC pared down the number of routinely recommended childhood vaccines, at least 19 states have announced they won’t follow the new CDC schedule.

by Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.
January 15, 2026
child with vaccine bandage and american flag

A growing number of states say they won’t follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) new childhood vaccine recommendations.

On Jan. 5, the CDC reduced the number of routinely recommended childhood vaccines from 17 to 11. The agency moved several vaccines to a “shared clinical decision-making” category that encourages discussion between the doctor and patient or parent about whether to get the vaccine.

The recategorized vaccines include rotavirus, COVID-19, influenza, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A and hepatitis B.

Since the CDC’s Jan. 5 announcement, 19 states have said they won’t follow the new CDC schedule:  California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,  Pennsylvania,  Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Most plan to follow the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) vaccine guidance released in August 2025, the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy (CIDRAP) reported.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Press Secretary Emily G. Hilliard criticized states that refuse to follow the CDC’s updated vaccine schedule. She told The Defender:

“Democrat-led states that imposed unscientific school closures, toddler mask mandates, and vaccine passports during the COVID era are the ones who destroyed public trust in public health and should not be guiding policy.

“The updated CDC childhood schedule continues to protect children against serious diseases while aligning U.S. guidance with international norms. Many peer nations achieve high vaccination rates without mandates by relying on trust, education, and strong doctor-patient relationships.”  (See link for article)

________________

**Comment**

It’s important to recognize the AAP is completely bought out by Big Pharma and not to be trusted.  It supports water fluoridation which has been shown to lower IQ in children, and it hasn’t updated advice on cellphone radiation in nearly a decade, of which clear evidence has been found that it increases cancer risk.  Now the corrupt agency is suing RFK for simply reducing vaccines that are federally recommended.

This proves that ‘recommendations’ are far, far more than recommendations.

Similarly to Lymeland where treatment ‘guidelines’ serve as literal mandates, ‘the powers that be’ know well and good that ‘recommendations’ will be used to mandate vaccines if you want to attend public school, obtain higher education, work in the health field, see grandma in the hospital, and basically anything else a free person should be able to do without submitting to a medical device/treatment.

I just spoke with someone yesterday that reiterated that science changes depending upon what is known at the time.  She, like the 19 states listed above like to tritely say this, but only follow it when it matches their pre-determined belief.

Time and time again, people have been maimed and killed by vaccines yet many people refuse to admit this very real, verifiable fact.

Any medical treatment should be a personal decision between the patient and their doctor.  A ‘one size fits all’ approach to medicine will never and can never work, and the mantra, ‘for the greater good,’ should be eradicated from speech. COVID proved beyond a shadow of doubt that ‘vaccinating’ for other people doesn’t work. The tyranny used with COVID needs to be admitted and refused for the present and future or history WILL repeat.

Refuse to comply.

Category:

Activism, research, vaccines

Deadly Hospital Protocols Caused Nearly Half a Million Excess Deaths in 2020

Deadly Hospital Protocols Caused Almost 20% Excess Deaths in 2020

By John Beaudoin

In this 10 minute video, John Beaudoin explains CDC mortality data from 2018 – 2023. The largest increase in death happened between 2019 and 2020 – nearly a 20% increase in mortality before the gene therapy injection rollout.

Almost none of these deaths were caused by Covid but by deadly hospital treatment protocols that Covid patients were subjected to. These protocols were issued as guidelines by the NIH and heavily incentivized by the federal health agencies with lavish reimbursements and extravagant bonus payments.

The system that made these hospital murders they declared ‘COVID deaths’ possible, is still in place today.

Ken McCarthy‘s book, ‘What the Nurses Saw: An Investigation into Systemic Medical Murders That Took Place in Hospital During the COVID Panic and the Nurses Who Fought Back to Save Their Patients,’ gives a first hand accounts by nurses that stated they didn’t see a SINGLE patient die from COVID.

Instead of effective treatments like vitamin C, D, HCQ, ivermectin, and steroids for cytokine cascades they were given Remdesivir which is ineffective, and previously pulled for high death rates, and were intubated, which caused 70% of COVID deaths alone.

“Specifically in the US, they incentivized a protocol which virtually guaranteed that people that came to the hospital with respiratory problems were going to die. Not everyone died, but over a million people died in US hospitals.”

And he adds: “It was systematized and it was incentivized by the federal government of the United States.” ~ Ken McCarthy

Then in 2021 when 70% of the population received toxic gene therapy injections, excess mortality went up more, but it’s virtually impossible to parse out how much was due to hospital protocols or how much was from the COVID gene therapy shots due to the CDC’s inaccurate coding of death certificates.

The CDC systematically misclassified COVID as the underlying cause of death (UCod) even when a different condition was listed.

And the code issued by the WHO in January 2021 to be used exclusively for COVID ‘vaccine’ caused death wasn’t used at all by the CDC.  

This is how health officials got away with proclaiming there was not a single COVID ‘vaccine’ death.

The only reason some COVID ‘vaccine’ deaths are even coded is due to some brave doctors who dared to list the nmRNA shots as the cause of death on the death certificate.

Further mudding the waters, such deaths are coded with Y59.0., which is meant to be used for adverse events of viral vaccines, which the mRNA vaccines are not, so death by the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines were thrown in with viral vaccines, making it impossible to distinguish whether death was caused by a viral vaccine or an mRNA gene therapy injection.

Please see this video: The Uncounted COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries 

“More people died in excess from pneumonia in the third wave of Covid than in the first or the second. How does that make any sense? Because they wrecked their immune systems with a vaccine that goes into your bone marrow and your lymph and destroys your ability to create appropriate white cells that will attack a disease. It reprograms your immune system to fight something that doesn’t even exist anymore in society, an old variant of COVID.” ~ John Beaudoin

No wonder nobody wants to talk about this. This cannot be buried. People must know.  Those responsible must be held accountable.

If not, way more people are going to be killed next time.

It’s important to note that infant deaths to vaccines are NEVER listed on death certificates because a specific ICD code doesn’t exist.  They’ve been misclassifying vaccine deaths as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) for decades.  The CDC lists 131 causes of childhood deaths but omits vaccines.

Another way the CDC obfuscates vaccine data is by classifying 95% of measles cases as ‘unvaccinated or unknown’ – two fundamentally different categories.

Truth be told, measles cases with unknown vaccination status may in fact be vaccinated.

The CDC purposely merges unknown cases with unvaccinated ones maximizing the association between measles cases and non-vaccination while obscuring uncertainty in the data.  It purposely does not apply the same logic in reverse – merging ‘unknown cases with vaccinated cases maximizing the association between measles cases and vaccination, which very well could be true.

This allows them to smugly reinforce a predetermined narrative.

The MMR vaccine contains a live measles virus that was created through a laboratory process U.S. military biodefense experts state “could be considered, by current definitions, gain-of-function research.”  Peer-reviewed studies further document vaccine-strain replication and shedding, measles-like illness following vaccination, and frequent inability to distinguish vaccine-strain illness from wild measles in symptomatic cases.

For more:

Category:

Activism, research, vaccines, Viruses

Reduce Cancer Risk by 90% Using Evidence-Based Natural Compounds

This protocol was derived by the author’s personal experience, which is often how we move forward in health.  It’s amazing what you can find when you are desperate for yourself or your loved ones.  This is certainly true in Lymeland. The sick and infected are the ones who find answers.

https://justusrhope.substack.com/p/how-to-reduce-cancer-risk-by-90-using?

How to Reduce Cancer Risk by 90% Using Evidence-Based Natural Compounds

The Most Practical ROOT™ Protocol Solution in the Modern Era

Justus R. Hope
Jan 12, 2026
Article Excerpts:

This is the first time a 90% cancer prevention threshold has been achieved using six or fewer readily available, over-the-counter agents—making it both scientifically sound and practically achievable for the majority of people.

The author then traces hidden sources of carcinogens that drive cancer:

  • processed meat at 3 daily servings elevates colorectal cancer risk to levels comparable to heavy smoking
  • sugar-sweetened beverages create a metabolic environment that systematically promotes cancer growth
  • advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) caused by high temperature cooking, food additives and ultra-processed foods (UPFs) operate as independent carcinogens multiplying cancer risk beyond sugar and processed ingredients alone, driving chronic inflammation, promoting tumor cell growth and immune evasion and creating hypoxic conditions
  • fast food
  • synergistic combination of the 4 carcinogens listed above creates catastrophic AGE accumulation – a continuous state of cellular damage and malignant transformation
By eliminating the carcinogen listed and adopting Mediterranean-style eating, overall cancer is reduced 50-66% across multiple cancers – which rivals or exceeds pharmaceutical interventions.

Dosage Protocol: Nine Agents Daily

  1. Vitamin D3: 1000-2000 IU
  2. Curcumin: 500-1000 mg + piperine
  3. EGCG: 400-800 mg
  4. Omega-3 (EPA/DHA): 1000-2000 mg (500-1000 mg for prostate)
  5. Aged Garlic Extract: 2.4 mL daily OR 600-900 mg standardized extract
  6. Sulforaphane: 40-60 mg daily (2 tablespoons fresh broccoli sprouts OR supplement)
  7. Berberine: 900-1500 mg daily (300-500 mg three times daily before meals
  8. Monk Fruit Extract (Mogroside V): 150-250 mg mogrosides daily (as sweetener replacement)
  9. Stevia Extract (Stevioside): 750-1500 mg daily (250-500 mg three times as sweetener replacement)

All can be taken once daily with food. Excellent safety: No significant interactions. Minimal side effects.

To achieve even greater benefits, fast overnight 16 hours 2-3 days per week.
The author gives his routine implementation of the 9 ingredient protocol as well as this cost comparison:
  • Nine-supplement protocol: ~$80-120 per month (preventive intervention achieving 93% cancer risk reduction)​
  • Single chemotherapy cycle: $10,000-30,000 (palliative intervention with modest survival benefit)​

For more:

Category:

Cancer, diet and nutrition, research, Supplements, Treatment

The Ethical Cost of Dismissing PTLDS

https://danielcameronmd.com/ptlds-ethical-challengesptlds-ethical-challenges/

The Ethical Cost of Dismissing PTLDS

Posted By: Dr. Daniel Cameron
1/3/26

The ethical challenges of post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS) often begin at the moment symptoms persist after treatment. Patients may do everything right—receive a timely diagnosis, complete recommended antibiotics, and follow medical advice—yet continue to worsen.

This is not simply a clinical dilemma. It is an ethical one.

Why This Matters Clinically

These ethical challenges are not theoretical. They shape diagnostic decisions, treatment options, insurance coverage, and whether patients remain engaged in care or are quietly discharged when recovery does not follow expected timelines.

The Ethical Challenges of PTLDS Begin at the First Dismissal

A month after a confirmed Lyme disease diagnosis, she completed the standard 21-day course of doxycycline. Her bull’s-eye rash had faded. But the fatigue didn’t lift. The joint pain spread. She began forgetting names, appointments, even how to get home on familiar roads.

When she returned to her primary doctor, she was told the infection was gone. “This sounds like stress,” one physician said. Another suggested early menopause. A third offered an SSRI.

None mentioned post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS). None discussed the possibility of persistent infection. And none explored co-infections.

She wasn’t just dismissed. She was excluded from her own care.

Patient experiences of delayed recognition and dismissal after Lyme treatment are explored further in She Was Told To Wait. Then Told It Was PTLDS.

When Patients Lose Autonomy in PTLDS Care

One of the most overlooked PTLDS ethical challenges is the erosion of patient autonomy. This patient was not given the information necessary to participate meaningfully in decisions about her care. Without acknowledgment of ongoing symptoms or discussion of uncertainty, informed consent became impossible.

She was told she was fine—when she wasn’t. That silence didn’t just delay treatment. It stripped her of agency.

Nonmaleficence: The Harm of Being Dismissed

The ethical principle of nonmaleficence—to do no harm—can be violated not only through action, but through omission.

Over the next six months, she deteriorated. Her work performance suffered. Her relationships strained. She began to question her own perceptions and sanity.

Her harm did not come from over-treatment. It came from disbelief, inaction, and the refusal to consider alternatives when standard explanations failed.

Dismissing the possibility of persistent tick-borne infection does not protect patients. It compounds their suffering.

Diagnostic uncertainty and downstream harm caused by delayed or incomplete evaluation are examined in Problems with PTLDS Diagnosis.

Beneficence: Patients Deserve More Than Protocols

When she eventually came to my office, she brought a binder of labs, symptom charts, and denial letters. What she wanted was not reassurance—it was to be evaluated as a whole person.

We reviewed her history carefully, including tick exposure, prior antibiotic response, neurocognitive and autonomic symptoms, and co-infection risk such as Babesia and Bartonella.

Further evaluation revealed equivocal Babesia titers and autonomic testing consistent with POTS. Clinically, her presentation was consistent with persistent Lyme disease.

Her treatment plan addressed multiple dimensions, including antimicrobial therapy, antiparasitic treatment, POTS management, and cognitive and nutritional support.

Gradually, her symptoms improved. But nearly a year had passed before anyone looked beyond the protocol.

Beneficence requires doing what is best for the patient—not only what guidelines allow.

Clinical decision-making around individualized care after standard therapy is discussed in Intravenous Antibiotics and Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome (PTLDS).

Justice: Who Gets Believed, and Who Gets Left Behind?

The justice-related ethical challenges of PTLDS are “ethical consequences”.

This patient was denied insurance coverage for extended care, access to knowledgeable specialists, and disability benefits despite functional impairment. She was treated as a liability rather than a person in distress.

The skepticism surrounding PTLDS has created a two-tiered system: those who are believed and treated, and those who are dismissed.

Justice demands better.

The broader implications of contested terminology and access to care are addressed in Chronic Lyme vs PTLDS: The Debate.

Fidelity: The Ethical Duty to Stay With the Patient

Fidelity means remaining loyal to patients, even when answers are incomplete. For individuals with PTLDS, this often means acknowledging uncertainty, continuing evaluation, and refusing to abandon care simply because tests are normal.

This patient did not need false certainty. She needed someone to say, “I believe you. Let’s keep looking.”

That commitment alone can alter the course of chronic illness.

Disclosure and Ethical Uncertainty in PTLDS

An additional ethical concern arises when patients are not informed that the underlying cause of PTLDS remains debated. Immune dysregulation, neuroinflammation, autonomic dysfunction, and central sensitization are commonly discussed. Some clinicians also raise the possibility that persistent infection may contribute to symptoms in a subset of patients.

When this debate is omitted entirely, patients are denied a full understanding of their condition and the range of clinical perspectives that exist.

Patients deserve transparency. Silence is not ethical care.

A broader clinical overview of definitions, proposed mechanisms, and current understanding is discussed in What Is Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome (PTLDS)?

Ethical responsibility in Lyme disease care, including the role of clinical judgment when evidence is incomplete, is discussed in Ethical Lyme Disease Care: When Clinical Judgment Matters.

Conclusion: PTLDS Ethical Challenges Demand More Than Silence

This case is not rare. It reflects a growing population of patients harmed not only by illness, but by institutional neglect.

The ethical challenges of PTLDS require more than academic debate. They require action.

We must support autonomy through honest disclosure. We must avoid harm caused by disbelief, individualize care beyond rigid protocols, pursue justice in access to treatment, and remain with patients when answers are incomplete.

PTLDS is not a myth. Ignoring it is.

Clinician Mini-FAQ

Is discussing persistent infection ethical in PTLDS?
Yes. Ethical care requires disclosure of uncertainty and ongoing debate, even when mechanisms are not fully resolved.

Does acknowledging PTLDS mean abandoning evidence-based medicine?
No. It means applying evidence with humility, clinical judgment, and continued responsibility to the patient.

Selected References

Clinical Infectious Diseases Aucott JN, Rebman AW, Crowder LA, Kortte KB. Post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome symptomatology and the impact on life functioning 2013;57(2):333–340. Pubmed

Neurobiology of Disease Fallon BA, Levin ES, Schweitzer PJ, Hardesty D. Inflammation and central nervous system Lyme disease. 2010 Mar;37(3):534–541.. Pubmed

Infectious Disease Clinics of North America Marques A. Chronic Lyme disease: a review. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2008;22(2):341–360. Pubmed

______________

**Comment**

This needed to be written.

It also exemplifies why RFK’s proclamation that the ‘gaslighting of Lyme patients is over,’ is vastly oversimplified.

The entire Lyme/MSIDS paradigm needs a ‘do over.’

Every single thing about it’s history is shrouded in bias and faulty or incomplete science.

Category:

Activism, Lyme, research, Uncategorized

Preventing Cancer: The Root Protocols

https://imahealth.substack.com/p/preventing-cancer-the-root-protocols?  Go here for video

Preventing Cancer: The ROOT Protocols

Drs. Paul Marik and Justus Hope introduce the ROOT Protocols—combining nutraceuticals and repurposed drugs to reduce cancer risk—featured in the latest edition of the Journal of Independent Medicine.

Independent Medical Alliance and Justus R. Hope
Nov 12, 2025

A Data-Driven Blueprint for Cancer Prevention

Cancer is one of the greatest public health challenges of our time—its incidence rising steadily across all age groups, with an alarming surge among younger adults. In the last decade alone, the risk of cancer has increased by 17%, translating to over 2 million new cases and 600,000 deaths annually in the United States.

A new paper published in the Journal of Independent Medicine offers a proactive response. “Preventing Cancer: The ROOT Protocols” presents a novel framework to help individuals lower their cancer risk using accessible, evidence-based interventions.

Authored by Paul Marik, MD, Co-Founder and Chief Scientific Officer of the Independent Medical Alliance, and Justus Hope, MD, the study identifies synergistic combinations of nutraceuticals and repurposed medicines that disrupt cancer pathways at multiple stages of development.  (Go to link to read and download full paper)

______________

Important excerpt:

The study underscores that up to 40% of cancers may be preventable through changes in lifestyle, environment, and nutrient support. By combining the best-studied compounds in integrative oncology—such as green tea extract (EGCG), curcumin, vitamin D, and omega-3 fatty acids—with carefully selected repurposed drugs, the ROOT Protocols form a scalable, multi-tiered approach to cancer prevention.

For more:

Category:

Activism, Cancer, Parasites, research, Treatment