When an Industry is so powerful, it sets a policy that mandates vaccines...It shows how corrupt the government was to permit this. Lobbyists in Washington, D.C. should never have been permitted to influence the votes of our Congressmen...bribing them!
That is for sure! Once they get on the dole...they don't want to lose it. There is no concern for those who elected them I saw a video with Biden: He said,"Don't think that your representatives will vote the way you want. There are too many temptations."
The section on a physician’s right to disagree really caught my attention.
In Poland, we have a similar problem, but it shows up under a different phrase: “current medical knowledge.” It sounds reasonable — until you ask who defines it, how quickly it can change, and what happens to a doctor who steps outside the consensus before the consensus itself changes.
More than half a century ago, the Polish hematologist and oncologist Prof. Julian Aleksandrowicz put it very bluntly. He is often quoted as saying: “If I had to choose between dying in the majesty of medicine and being cured by a folk healer, I would choose the latter.”
I don’t take that as praise for quackery. I take it as a warning about what happens when institutional authority, procedure, or accepted consensus starts to matter more than the actual outcome for the patient.
Aleksandrowicz spent much of his career trying to connect clinical medicine with prevention, environment, nutrition, trace elements, and the host’s own defenses. Some of the questions he asked were far outside the mainstream at the time. Today, some of those same questions are coming back in a very different scientific language.
So your question about medical freedom seems even broader to me: is it only about a doctor’s freedom to speak, or also about science having the freedom to ask questions before the consensus catches up?
Thank you. Aleksandrowicz was a remarkable figure — a hematologist, oncologist, wartime physician, and one of those people in Poland who kept asking whether medicine was treating the disease itself, or the patient’s entire biological environment.
What makes him even more interesting is that he was part of a much longer European tradition. He drew on the work of the French surgeon Pierre Delbet, who decades earlier had studied host defenses, phagocytosis, and the biological effects of magnesium chloride.
Aleksandrowicz took those questions much further. He was interested in whether chronic disturbances and deficiencies of trace elements — in the soil, water, food, and ultimately the human body — could influence immunity, susceptibility to disease, and cancer development. Magnesium held a special place in that work.
Aleksandrowicz called magnesium “the king of life.” Half a century later, we know just how fundamental its role is in more than 600 enzymatic reactions, metabolism, and immune function.
The quote is striking, but the forgotten medical tradition behind it may be even more interesting. That’s the story I’m working on now.
This quote reminds me of Attorney Ralph Lorigo's experience during covid when he sued 212 hospitals on behalf of hospitalized covid patients in regard to Ivermectin. In the 72 cases that he won, & the patients received Ivermectin, all but three survived. In the 140 cases that he lost, & the patients were denied Ivermectin, EVERY patient died. Every. Single. One. As an aside, the judges that sided with the hospitals, & denied the patients Ivermectin, were Democrats. The judges that sided with the patients & their families & were given Ivermectin, were Republican. (according to Dr. Mary Talley Bowden's book, "Dangerous Misinformation"). Think about this when you head to the polls to vote on November 3rd.
Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine was KNOWN for HIS CURES He prescribed Medicine...His Medicine was natural and wholesome Unprocessed Food.. Also, He said that exercise was equally as important as food. He advised his patients to get sunshine, fresh air, change of venue and avoid toxic matter. Simple truths work: Remove the stress of eating the wrong foods, exercise outdoors in the sunlight and breathe fresh air. These worked for his patients. I followed his information and they worked for me. At 92, I have no health complaints, take no medication and do 10,000 steps- 5 miles daily in 100 minutes.
That is very close to what Aleksandrowicz was arguing decades later — that medicine should not only treat disease, but also the biological environment in which disease develops.
By that he meant something much broader than the body alone: nutrition, trace elements, soil, water, surroundings, and the conditions that shape both health and disease.
The amount of peer pressure in America during COVID was profoundly unsettling to me personally. Here it’s more about who controls the public narrative.
When I was young, doctors were treated as professionals who used their judgment to decide how to treat patients.
Gradually, independent practices are disappearing; doctors are hired by medical institutions and are required to follow their protocols. If they go outside of the protocols, they can be fired or even lose their licenses. Mostly, "thinking outside of the box" isn't allowed, and science suffers, as do the patients.
The video on the motivation for pediatricians to administer vaccines was telling. Upton Sinclair, the American novelist best known for "The Jungle" (1906) put it this way:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
"On February 7, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security issued a National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin warning about misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation surrounding COVID-19. The bulletin identified false or misleading narratives that undermined public trust in government institutions as contributing factors in the domestic terrorism threat environment."
Mayorkas' persistently mendacious, malevolent face is permanently seared into my consciousness. And how are we to think this agency is benign in light of the COVID era?
There is another important medical freedom constraint - often ignored by medical freedom advocates. The absence of FREEDOM TO CURE. No doctor is permitted to officially claim to cure any disease, or even any case of disease. Modern medicine has no test of cured for most diseases. Individuals who are not medical professionals, on the other hand, are not permitted to cure because they are not medical professionals - practicing medicine without a license. Cured cannot be proven, so it must not be claimed. Many curatives, from healthy water, to Vitamin and mineral products - are simply illegal to market, illegal to sell, therefore illegal to buy as "cures." Our ability to cure is so heavily constrained that no Over the Counter (OTC) medicine and few if any prescription medicined dares claim to cure. No cures are permitted in our pharmacies. Even though it is possible to purchase penicillin, the only Nobel Prize recognized cure, the packaging does not dare say the forbidden word "cure."The Nobel Prize committee has given up on cures - no prize has been awarded for a cure in over 75 years. Preventatives are forced on individuals and communities, while curatives are forbidden for individuals, communities, and corporations.
It is so maddening to know the paperwork for so many of these issues has been languishing or dropped. Without the continued pressure of your writings and straightforward education for the public, the chances of anything of consequence getting done is zip. These changes in legislative language called for are necessary and the power of these institutions ($) to block is great. Goliath isn't going to die by one sling of stones, this takes an army.
Drs. Robert & Jill - yes, you've spelled out the canary in the coal mine of the state of medicine today- no efficient, timely system of adequate recourse. The rooster (big profit, pharma, govt agencies with financial stakes) has been guarding the hen house (CDC, DHHS, AAP, AMA) for decades. No adequate, or unbiased means of risks/adverse events exist- as there there is a bias toward profit over prevention, cash over cures. Checks & balances work when medicine is not incentivized. This is an ongoing quagmire that is not easily fixed, yet, we can't quit in searching for answers.
We should naturally be wary of any product that requires immunity from liability.
In this scenario you must rely on the reputation of the seller.
Big Pharma has a history of grossly unethical and illegal conduct over many decades.
Imagine this. Our leader of HHS has rightly stated that the MO of big pharma is criminality.
In this light giving freedom from liability strikes me as quite insane.
Any realistic evaluation of our health authorities clearly defines them as being in bed with big pharma. This became obvious during the pandemic. Dr Malone has documented this extensively.
When the vaccine advisory panel said no to Covid shots for children the panelists were dismissed and replaced. This pretty well sums up the state of affairs. Our health authorities compromised the safety of our children for profit.
If the health authorities had a good track record trust in their recommendations would be enough. But they don’t. So they need coercive legislation and censorship.
Many people are now aware but not nearly enough. Keep up the excellent exposes.
"What we propose" is so basic and a first step to medical freedom, and yet it is not seen as basic, but threatening. These steps need to be under the nose of all the agencies that have a pen and power. Time waits for no one.
Thank you for this excellent and needed discussion! Your disclosures do indeed need to be shared with lawmakers and those impacted by vaccine concerns.
I would offer an informed consent inclusion. I may have missed its being already a part of the discussion. To me effectiveness should be a part of an informed consent discussion. Does/to what extent does the vaccine prevent the disease, prevent transmission, reduce the severity of the disease (should it be contracted), et al. There have been studies showing failures/shortcomings of some vaccines.
This is a vital issue. It would go a good way in lending credibility to our nation's medical community and public health credibility.
In discussing my medical issues, my primary care physician advised that while she could refer me to specialists, surgeries would across the board be their recommendations. (Substantial remuneration being their sole incentive in seeing me?) In that I'm not inclined to surgical interventions, its not worth pursuing.
To me there is a need to dispel the impression that these days the sole/major goal of the profession is personal riches (recognizing administrative issues do have impact). The wellbeing of patients seem to have become of decidedly lesser concern.
Thank you again for covering these needs for reforms that will benefit both the medical community and our citizenry.
Will repeat a comment I have made before. There should be a strenuous effort made to compile a catalogue of just what vaccines are actually needed, by whom and when. Then liability should be returned to manufacturers when poor product or poor product information can be proven. And if manufacturers cannot or refuse finest those standards and leave the market place then the fed should pick up the slack and make them....again only those with a proven need.
In terms of mandates - and volunteerism. Trust the people.
In areas where yellow fever is endemic and the fatality rate is high, people line up for the vaccine. I witnessed this in Brazil firsthand.
People aren't stupid.
See Amish threaten mass exodus from New York over vaccine fight —which is heading to the Supreme Court
https://nypost.com/2026/08/26/us-news/amish-threaten-mass-exodus-from-new-york-over-vaccine-fight-which-is-heading-to-the-supreme-court/
When an Industry is so powerful, it sets a policy that mandates vaccines...It shows how corrupt the government was to permit this. Lobbyists in Washington, D.C. should never have been permitted to influence the votes of our Congressmen...bribing them!
In addition to financial considerations, the aim of the politicians (and courts) is to protect themselves, rather than the public.
That is for sure! Once they get on the dole...they don't want to lose it. There is no concern for those who elected them I saw a video with Biden: He said,"Don't think that your representatives will vote the way you want. There are too many temptations."
I think the Amish should sue the State of NY for harassment.
The section on a physician’s right to disagree really caught my attention.
In Poland, we have a similar problem, but it shows up under a different phrase: “current medical knowledge.” It sounds reasonable — until you ask who defines it, how quickly it can change, and what happens to a doctor who steps outside the consensus before the consensus itself changes.
More than half a century ago, the Polish hematologist and oncologist Prof. Julian Aleksandrowicz put it very bluntly. He is often quoted as saying: “If I had to choose between dying in the majesty of medicine and being cured by a folk healer, I would choose the latter.”
I don’t take that as praise for quackery. I take it as a warning about what happens when institutional authority, procedure, or accepted consensus starts to matter more than the actual outcome for the patient.
Aleksandrowicz spent much of his career trying to connect clinical medicine with prevention, environment, nutrition, trace elements, and the host’s own defenses. Some of the questions he asked were far outside the mainstream at the time. Today, some of those same questions are coming back in a very different scientific language.
So your question about medical freedom seems even broader to me: is it only about a doctor’s freedom to speak, or also about science having the freedom to ask questions before the consensus catches up?
This is brilliant. Thank you - and what a fantastic quote:
“If I had to choose between dying in the majesty of medicine and being cured by a folk healer, I would choose the latter"
Thank you. Aleksandrowicz was a remarkable figure — a hematologist, oncologist, wartime physician, and one of those people in Poland who kept asking whether medicine was treating the disease itself, or the patient’s entire biological environment.
What makes him even more interesting is that he was part of a much longer European tradition. He drew on the work of the French surgeon Pierre Delbet, who decades earlier had studied host defenses, phagocytosis, and the biological effects of magnesium chloride.
Aleksandrowicz took those questions much further. He was interested in whether chronic disturbances and deficiencies of trace elements — in the soil, water, food, and ultimately the human body — could influence immunity, susceptibility to disease, and cancer development. Magnesium held a special place in that work.
Aleksandrowicz called magnesium “the king of life.” Half a century later, we know just how fundamental its role is in more than 600 enzymatic reactions, metabolism, and immune function.
The quote is striking, but the forgotten medical tradition behind it may be even more interesting. That’s the story I’m working on now.
This quote reminds me of Attorney Ralph Lorigo's experience during covid when he sued 212 hospitals on behalf of hospitalized covid patients in regard to Ivermectin. In the 72 cases that he won, & the patients received Ivermectin, all but three survived. In the 140 cases that he lost, & the patients were denied Ivermectin, EVERY patient died. Every. Single. One. As an aside, the judges that sided with the hospitals, & denied the patients Ivermectin, were Democrats. The judges that sided with the patients & their families & were given Ivermectin, were Republican. (according to Dr. Mary Talley Bowden's book, "Dangerous Misinformation"). Think about this when you head to the polls to vote on November 3rd.
Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine was KNOWN for HIS CURES He prescribed Medicine...His Medicine was natural and wholesome Unprocessed Food.. Also, He said that exercise was equally as important as food. He advised his patients to get sunshine, fresh air, change of venue and avoid toxic matter. Simple truths work: Remove the stress of eating the wrong foods, exercise outdoors in the sunlight and breathe fresh air. These worked for his patients. I followed his information and they worked for me. At 92, I have no health complaints, take no medication and do 10,000 steps- 5 miles daily in 100 minutes.
That is very close to what Aleksandrowicz was arguing decades later — that medicine should not only treat disease, but also the biological environment in which disease develops.
By that he meant something much broader than the body alone: nutrition, trace elements, soil, water, surroundings, and the conditions that shape both health and disease.
The amount of peer pressure in America during COVID was profoundly unsettling to me personally. Here it’s more about who controls the public narrative.
When I was young, doctors were treated as professionals who used their judgment to decide how to treat patients.
Gradually, independent practices are disappearing; doctors are hired by medical institutions and are required to follow their protocols. If they go outside of the protocols, they can be fired or even lose their licenses. Mostly, "thinking outside of the box" isn't allowed, and science suffers, as do the patients.
The video on the motivation for pediatricians to administer vaccines was telling. Upton Sinclair, the American novelist best known for "The Jungle" (1906) put it this way:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
"On February 7, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security issued a National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin warning about misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation surrounding COVID-19. The bulletin identified false or misleading narratives that undermined public trust in government institutions as contributing factors in the domestic terrorism threat environment."
Mayorkas' persistently mendacious, malevolent face is permanently seared into my consciousness. And how are we to think this agency is benign in light of the COVID era?
I was appa!led by the creation of this agency. We needed another nest of spying, interferring bureaucrats like we needed a pimple on our .....
I like you believe the trade off is worth it! If Pharma can’t stand up for their vaccines then they need to get out of that business.
There is another important medical freedom constraint - often ignored by medical freedom advocates. The absence of FREEDOM TO CURE. No doctor is permitted to officially claim to cure any disease, or even any case of disease. Modern medicine has no test of cured for most diseases. Individuals who are not medical professionals, on the other hand, are not permitted to cure because they are not medical professionals - practicing medicine without a license. Cured cannot be proven, so it must not be claimed. Many curatives, from healthy water, to Vitamin and mineral products - are simply illegal to market, illegal to sell, therefore illegal to buy as "cures." Our ability to cure is so heavily constrained that no Over the Counter (OTC) medicine and few if any prescription medicined dares claim to cure. No cures are permitted in our pharmacies. Even though it is possible to purchase penicillin, the only Nobel Prize recognized cure, the packaging does not dare say the forbidden word "cure."The Nobel Prize committee has given up on cures - no prize has been awarded for a cure in over 75 years. Preventatives are forced on individuals and communities, while curatives are forbidden for individuals, communities, and corporations.
Defund the "public health" cult!
It is so maddening to know the paperwork for so many of these issues has been languishing or dropped. Without the continued pressure of your writings and straightforward education for the public, the chances of anything of consequence getting done is zip. These changes in legislative language called for are necessary and the power of these institutions ($) to block is great. Goliath isn't going to die by one sling of stones, this takes an army.
That fact alone should be a read flag house-high ; that you cannot sue someone for a bad product.
Drs. Robert & Jill - yes, you've spelled out the canary in the coal mine of the state of medicine today- no efficient, timely system of adequate recourse. The rooster (big profit, pharma, govt agencies with financial stakes) has been guarding the hen house (CDC, DHHS, AAP, AMA) for decades. No adequate, or unbiased means of risks/adverse events exist- as there there is a bias toward profit over prevention, cash over cures. Checks & balances work when medicine is not incentivized. This is an ongoing quagmire that is not easily fixed, yet, we can't quit in searching for answers.
We should naturally be wary of any product that requires immunity from liability.
In this scenario you must rely on the reputation of the seller.
Big Pharma has a history of grossly unethical and illegal conduct over many decades.
Imagine this. Our leader of HHS has rightly stated that the MO of big pharma is criminality.
In this light giving freedom from liability strikes me as quite insane.
Any realistic evaluation of our health authorities clearly defines them as being in bed with big pharma. This became obvious during the pandemic. Dr Malone has documented this extensively.
When the vaccine advisory panel said no to Covid shots for children the panelists were dismissed and replaced. This pretty well sums up the state of affairs. Our health authorities compromised the safety of our children for profit.
If the health authorities had a good track record trust in their recommendations would be enough. But they don’t. So they need coercive legislation and censorship.
Many people are now aware but not nearly enough. Keep up the excellent exposes.
"What we propose" is so basic and a first step to medical freedom, and yet it is not seen as basic, but threatening. These steps need to be under the nose of all the agencies that have a pen and power. Time waits for no one.
Thank you for this excellent and needed discussion! Your disclosures do indeed need to be shared with lawmakers and those impacted by vaccine concerns.
I would offer an informed consent inclusion. I may have missed its being already a part of the discussion. To me effectiveness should be a part of an informed consent discussion. Does/to what extent does the vaccine prevent the disease, prevent transmission, reduce the severity of the disease (should it be contracted), et al. There have been studies showing failures/shortcomings of some vaccines.
This is a vital issue. It would go a good way in lending credibility to our nation's medical community and public health credibility.
In discussing my medical issues, my primary care physician advised that while she could refer me to specialists, surgeries would across the board be their recommendations. (Substantial remuneration being their sole incentive in seeing me?) In that I'm not inclined to surgical interventions, its not worth pursuing.
To me there is a need to dispel the impression that these days the sole/major goal of the profession is personal riches (recognizing administrative issues do have impact). The wellbeing of patients seem to have become of decidedly lesser concern.
Thank you again for covering these needs for reforms that will benefit both the medical community and our citizenry.
Will repeat a comment I have made before. There should be a strenuous effort made to compile a catalogue of just what vaccines are actually needed, by whom and when. Then liability should be returned to manufacturers when poor product or poor product information can be proven. And if manufacturers cannot or refuse finest those standards and leave the market place then the fed should pick up the slack and make them....again only those with a proven need.