Much of U.S. Healthcare Is Broken: How to Fix It (Chapter 1, Part 1)


Editor’s Note: Over the next several months, Mad in America is publishing a serialized version of Les Ruthven’s book, Much of U.S. Healthcare is Broken: How to Fix It. In this blog, he addresses the difference between basing a medical system on clinical belief versus one based on scientific evidence. Each Monday, a new section of the book is published, and all chapters are archived here.

“It’s not what you know that kills you. It’s what you know for sure that ain’t true.”
—attributed to Mark Twain

What are some of the sources of much of the poor quality and costly healthcare in the U.S. today?

We are currently spending over $3.6 trillion dollars a year on U.S. healthcare (17% of GDP and climbing). Except for what I will refer to as Blue Ribbon Medicine, a great deal of the medical care delivered in the U.S. today is what I consider to be both inappropriate and of poor quality. I know mine is a minority opinion. The vast majority of people, including those in the medical profession, are very pleased with the quality of healthcare today, but despite this there is general agreement that healthcare is too expensive. We spend more money on healthcare than any other country in the world, and the fact that we rank behind Cuba in infant mortality rate still does not seem to make people consider that the U.S. might have both a cost and a quality problem.

Image of male doctor pulling question sign with ropeAccording to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. health expenditures were at 3.6 trillion dollars in 2018 or $11,172.00 per person or 17.7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and projected to rise to 19.7% ($6.2 trillion) of GDP in 2028! The Peterson Center of Healthcare reports that the U.S. is spending twice as much per person as the Organization for Economic Co-operation in 34 member countries and, in the U.S., we are well below the average member in life expectancy at birth, infant mortality, unmanaged asthma, unmanaged diabetes and safety in childbirth. The Peterson Center reports that, in the U.S., 30% of total healthcare spending goes to unnecessary, ineffective, overpriced and wasteful services. In chapters 2 through 6 I will report on research that suggests the 30% figure is likely to be an understatement of the degree of wasteful spending.

The yearly $3.6 trillion dollar U.S. healthcare bill is only exceeded by the approximately $3.8 trillion dollar a year U.S. malpractice awards for medical errors!1

This latter statistic has led many to believe that they have found the solution to the U.S.’s healthcare cost problem: that is, to simply cap malpractice awards to a maximum of $250,000 for pain and suffering. Such bills have already been enacted in several states. A good case can be made that malpractice litigation actually reduces subsequent medical errors but such a “solution” deals with the effect of the problem and not the cause, the medical errors themselves!

This last is what I will refer to frequently as back end medicine, treating many health problems on the back end rather than the front end—the latter often being much more effective and much less expensive than a great deal of the “back end” medicine of today. Blaming greedy lawyers for our healthcare cost problem comes under the same category as blaming modern medical advances, the expensive new technology and medicines to identify—and at times—cure diseases, and other common “red herrings” in the healthcare industry. Such assumed causes for our healthcare cost problem only distract us from an examination of the real causes, which will be addressed in many of the following pages.

Cost & Quality

After a twenty year or so review of the health outcome literature, combined with my clinical experience as a psychologist and an arranger of behavioral healthcare for large self-insured employers, the above words of wisdom by Mark Twain are certainly relevant to both the quality and cost problems in healthcare today. Most readers will accept my thesis that we do have a cost problem but will argue with my point that we have a major quality problem in U.S. healthcare as well. I will make a case that we can fix the cost problem by fixing the quality problem!

Most people would rate the quality of U.S. healthcare as excellent—perhaps the finest in the world—and would wish that we could maintain the excellent healthcare quality and, at the same time, lower its cost.  However, in examining the sound scientific research on health treatment outcomes, I will present research evidence that our cost problem in healthcare is derived largely and directly from many current healthcare practices that are:

  • unproven
  • inappropriate
  • wrong
  • at times little or no better than a placebo effect
  • of little value in relation to cost, and of poor quality

Yet these same treatments are considered gospel by most physicians, the media, and the public at large. These segments of poor but popular healthcare might be considered some of the “sacred cows” of modern medicine, health practices and policies that enjoy almost unanimous acceptance by physicians and their patients but, in Mark Twain’s words, are treatments “that ain’t true.”

In the past, one of the sacred cows of healers and physicians (and their patients as well), was bloodletting, perhaps the most popular and accepted practice of healing which lasted for more than 3,000 years and on occasion well up to the 20th century! In the U.S., during the 1918 flu epidemic, bloodletting was still in use to treat the disease. Bloodletting was said to treat effectively several dozen or more health problems, from gout to the black plague, much as modern medicine tells us that an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressant treats effectively six or seven behavioral health problems (or “diseases” as they are now called) that plague many Americans.

In the 19th century, some of the sacred but later debunked treatment myths were children’s soothing syrup (narcotics), the curative powers of mercury (mercury does not help one’s brain at all), calm your cough with heroin, and urine therapy (yes, drinking one’s urine). In the 20th century and today we have had and have more than our share of fake treatments, such as you shouldn’t sleep after a concussion, you shouldn’t wake a sleepwalker, to more dangerous sacred cows including lobotomies, leucotomies, infecting the patient with malaria to cure one’s schizophrenia—and, if that doesn’t work, hydrotherapy for schizophrenia—and other current sacred cows of medicine that will be discussed.

Since the 1950s, there has been no letup in popular but fake treatments such as a pill will cure one’s depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, chronic pain (etc., etc.) and others I will discuss, such as epidural steroid injections are an effective and safe way to cure back pain (Chapter 6). In examining the scientific research on these and other popular treatments to be addressed one will find that the science at times finds little or no efficacy and often side effects that are injurious to one’s health as well, yet these bogus treatments thrive despite the absence of any proof.

Of all of the varied sources of poor-quality healthcare, none is more egregious (and anti-scientific) than the endemic use of off-label drugs to allegedly treat a host of health problems without FDA approval. I read somewhere that 20% of all prescribed medicines are used off-label, but I suspect off-label use is substantially higher. If an FDA-approved drug does not treat the health problem, I suspect most physicians turn to the off-label route.

At this point if you think I am a strong supporter of the FDA approval process, you would be quite wrong in some respects. In addition to the research to be discussed, I will present a strong argument that the current efficacy standard in general for FDA approval for any drug or therapy is too modest and a much higher efficacy standard is needed if we are ever to have better healthcare at lower cost. With a higher efficacy standard than the current one for drugs and non-drug treatments, the market would remove a number of popular, but currently inferior and bogus health treatments, totaling many billions of wasted—and often injurious—healthcare dollars.

We have had healers and physicians for over 3,000 years (including many physicians today) recommend (and still recommend) so many fake cures such as bloodletting for the plague, today’s SSRI to cure your depression, and epidural steroid injections (10 or so million a year) to cure your back pain! The healing in primitive cultures and too much of modern medicine are both characterized by false thinking, namely “I gave Mary bloodletting for her plague and she was cured,” or today’s “I gave Mary an SSRI for her depression and she got better.”

Any treatment to patients in distress who are given bloodletting—or any other wrongful modern therapy—are being given a dose of hope. When the healer gives the patient hope, despite the efficacy or non-efficacy of the therapy, the patient often gets better to a degree, probably because hope decreases the patient’s stress and perhaps stimulates the immune system, which helps our body fight the sources of the stressful symptoms.

This erroneous belief in the magic of the treatments is especially found when the treated health problem is self-limiting, i.e., gets better with or without treatment! We can’t depend on patient (or provider) satisfaction with the treatment to prove its efficacy, and if we do as we are now doing, we will continue to have many treatments with very limited or no efficacy and often serious side effects as well. With regard to Mary’s supposed cure of the plague through bloodletting, her doctor may have misdiagnosed plague for the flu and the bloodletting “cured” her flu, which typically remits without any treatment at all.

Clinical Belief vs. Science

We will discover that many current and very popular treatments have no real efficacy beyond their placebo value, or the clinical benefit is marginal and often not worth the adverse side effects of the therapy, or there are proven alternative treatments available. I submit that treatment efficacy and safety should be determined by the application of the scientific method and not anecdotal “evidence” such as patient and provider satisfaction with the therapy.

Unfortunately, my reading of the research finds that too much of modern medicine is based on the latter rather than the known science that is already in the health literature but seemingly “buried” from most physicians and the general public. Science and not anecdotes by “believers” should drive everyday clinical practice and this is the source of much of the inappropriate and poor healthcare of today. For example, while seeking treatment for my own back pain/disability problem, including an attempt to get a waiver from my insurance company policy of mandatory steroid injections before authorization for back surgery, my experiences have strengthened my belief that too much of healthcare is governed by clinical belief rather than science.

How do we get more science rather than propaganda to shape current healthcare delivery? I believe all of the existing health entities—providers, health insurance companies, the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, and managed care—cannot and will not make needed changes to improve the quality of healthcare and to lower the cost as well. We will have to invent a powerful new entity that has the guts to bring about “drastic” changes in basic health policies. I will describe such an entity in Chapter 7. Yes, there is fortunately a door to better healthcare at lower and more affordable cost, but from the outset the current health establishment is closed to any needed changes and will fight those like me who argue for change.

The science says there is only one proven way to truly determine a drug or treatment efficacy, and that is through double-blind, randomized drug/therapy placebo-controlled scientifically sound clinical trials, which is the path for FDA approval. Medical care in general, often because of very limited efficacy of the treatment over the placebo effect in both psychiatric and “medical” drugs, has been attacking this standard of proof and have turned to other means to establish the so called “real” efficacy of many of their favorite treatments.

A major and very popular “alternate” path to medical truth is the Open Label study in which a controlled comparison or placebo group is simply avoided entirely! This, of course, proves to be a non-science satisfaction study, which as far as science is concerned is not worth the paper it is written on. This open label “research” study, if not a scientific achievement, was a marketing achievement, which in one case spurred 120 published articles extolling positive antidepressant drug findings, such as that 65% of the patients remitted their depression!

Antidepressant drug sales soared as the result of such publicity directed to general and family physicians who prescribe the vast majority of psychiatric drugs. However, the main government study was fortunately under the freedom of information act, which allowed independent researchers to access the study data and to reanalyze the data, the results of which told a quite different story (as will be described in Chapter 2). Unfortunately, as happens so many times in healthcare, marketing ruled out over science and antidepressant sales escalated!

Much of 20th century medicine smugly looks back at the “pre-science” days of medicine and says the days of mythical and debunked treatments are over! I assure you at the outset that the days of fake treatments are still alive and well. Moreover, I strongly suspect the days of mythical cures will never be over because there seems to be something in the human spirit that wants to believe, and once belief sets in the believer often strongly resists any change in the belief despite any evidence to the contrary, which we will observe many times throughout these pages. We will see that this wanting to believe exists throughout society (including modern healthcare) and is no respecter of age, gender, intelligence, education or profession. As we shall see on many occasions when someone challenges the conventional wisdom (e.g., a healthcare whistle blower) these persons are attacked because they dare to question the accepted truth! I know because several times in my career I have challenged the then currently accepted healthcare wisdom, and needless to say I was not given a warm welcome by those believers who took offence by my failure “to go along” and dare to question the “truth.”

Many of today’s sacred cows of medicine are indeed true (the current antibacterial drug cure for infection, for example), but I will focus on those sacred cows of medicine that are not supported—and are contrary—to the existing sound scientific research. I use the term sound health research because in many of the following pages I will show that much of what passes for accepted health research is of poor quality and that we must approach any piece of health research with skepticism and armed with a good deal of expertise in knowing how to examine the research data to determine its truth or falsity.

Unfortunately, the average physician practitioner has no training or expertise to evaluate the merits of a piece of health research and depends on others (e.g., the drug company) for their science education. Additionally, practitioners are very gullible about endorsing false conclusions from substandard research, which often appears in very prestigious health journals. Since current medical care is largely the dispensing of prescriptions, the average medical practitioner is very vulnerable to persuasion by the drug detail person who is just passing on what he has been told about the “research” behind the drugs he or she is selling.

I will point out dozens of research outcome studies in which the conclusions about the treatment are not only not supported by the data but on examination are contradicted by the data! I will point out that many of these later false studies enjoyed (and enjoy) widespread popularity among providers and often resulted (and result) in poor, expensive and very harmful care.

Here I am just touching upon the prevalence in modern healthcare of non-FDA approved off-label drug use, that is, an FDA-approved drug (for one condition) that is used to treat one or usually several other health conditions because physicians believe the off-label drug is effective. This popular and egregious practice is an abandonment of science and harkens back to the days of bloodletting and must be stopped if we are ever to have better healthcare. I am not opposed to hunches that an approved drug may also be effective in treating other health problems, but let’s put this hunch or hypothesis to a scientific test to determine its truth or falsity before using the drug off-label.

I might point out that Ph.Ds. in psychology (which I am) are trained in statistics, science, and the scientific method and are trained to both conduct sound research and evaluate the soundness of the research of others. Physicians, although principally trained in the biological and physical sciences, are practitioners and are not trained to conduct or evaluate the research of others and are susceptible to endorsing scientifically substandard research, especially if the research is consistent with their clinical opinion about the drug or therapy.

I warn the reader to be especially skeptical of drug industry sponsored and funded health research even when carried out under contract by research professionals who are not a part of the sponsoring industry. One would hope that professionals doing research for a fee would not let their findings be influenced in any way by monetary considerations (and the expectation of future drug contracts). However, contrary to these hopes, and as we shall see, experience suggests that we cannot count on this. In several cases to be pointed out, the questionable “positive” conclusions about the therapy in the study even seem to reach the level of outright fraud in a number of examples to be discussed later.


To see the list of all references cited, click here.


Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.


Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.


  1. Les, Here and on other sites this has been obvious for decades. This is old bath water but thanks for taking the time and effort. And yes stats and the significance of the research results. So important. Have you ever read the deceased writer’s blog One Boring Old Man this was discussed by my Jim and in the commentary.
    Back in the day there were journal clubs and knowing how to comprehend the results of a study was important.Though many times pushed aside as were the number of subjects and how they were picked ect ect ect.
    At one time the hospital I worked at was pushing research. in every department on top of our regular jobs. My group just gave up we did one study planned before I came on board and it was just a study to do a study poorly formulated and insignificant. A way around that was the replication study but that became problematic because it showed the poor quality of studies.
    And the history of psychological and anthropological and sociological research rife with ethical dilemmas and out right violations. Some of these have been discussed here though my guess is there is much more and probably some of them are lost to history at this point.
    I was taught way too early about the research study done but one off the Rusdian Czars he wanted to see if infants needed human exposure. So voila two groups of orphaned infants were comprised with one group only feeding with no other human interaction. And those orphaned infants all died. So my unease with psychology research goes a long way back but there were psychologists I enjoyed working with in the clinal not research area. And like all professions it depended on the human being who was in the role. I was always drawn to the truth tellers who atleast admitted to what they were actually seeing instead of denying the acute and chronic problems of the administration, the system, the staff ect.
    Well maybe next Monday you can bring some really new and earth shattering information. God knows the country and workds system needs a true truth teller and at this point a new design new this new that seems not as important as either pull the collapsing pillars down and or before the new recompense and listening of all the myriad number of victims in the myriad number of ways we all were harmed and then by all the professional and officials involved in the broken and or just say it the house was built on way too shaky ground.

    Report comment

    • Mary, thank you for your comments. You are obviously a serious critic of current healthcare. If you are looking for a smoking gun in my pages for proof that nothing short of major systematic changes to improve the quality and cost of healthcare you will not find it because as you will see the deficiencies are too pervasive for one solution. This is why I try to cover the full range of “everyday” healthcare.

      Report comment

      • I am not sure if serious critic is the best conceptual term because it makes me think to the scene in Samuel Becket’s Waiting for Godot( He always wrote in a French even as Irish born and lived like Joyce and Edna O’Brian out of) one of the two male tramps in a very divisive argument while eating eternally for Godot to appear says critic to the other. The tramp who is labeled that falls back as if having been shot.
        I and most other s here are aware of the need for multimodal frameworks of every kind. Professional education and all of the isms that create a top down system. And this has been in all of any healthcare related systems some movement but not enough. And just looking at a medical school memoir. I can think of the satirical House of God and some others but mainly white males and perhaps a white female or two.Or just that just never got any type of notice.Insurance as stated before but the pattern of use of DRGs and many hospital administrations wanting to get on the Medicaid payroll which started with governmental ties healthcare sysyems. The Hill Burton act.
        And the great sweep into private practice and insurance policy advisory boards and panels and who got in and who got left out.
        The hierarch of healthcare and the lack of an ability to rise instead ofcadministrationbabdcDepartmebtbheadscreaching out and lending a hand upward.
        And criticism comes after caring. I was fortunate to live around and then work with outstanding folks who did care. Imperfect and isms like myself but we tried to work within the framework of dignity and respect and first do no harm. It was once again imperfect but then the entire huge sysyem became strangled muddled over burned and then the caring and dignity and first do no harm which was there in sometimes just random acts of kindness and knowledge became less instead of more and it all went on a downward slide of chutes like in the game chutes and ladders. Anyone of us in those times could have easily delineated what was wrong the bad stuff and the peers or management we thought trouble ahead but now and recent past no otger word than yuck fits.
        I hold in my memory the amazing things that certain folk did going beyond the not my job and talking truth to power. And done walked a fine not great balanced tight rope.
        Many other modalities thst are needed to change of course and just like the human body. The brain is one organ in a multimodal human being everything is interested. And cutting off the brain from the human body and psyche is another great tragedy. So call me a serious critic I will wear that label proudly.

        Report comment

  2. Western culture has no hope since it is totally centered on fame and fortune. Since the West lives by the credo of “every man for himself” we live isolated mean lives of competition and aggression. To live healthy cooperative happy lives with each other we must live according to the aphorism “one for all and all for one”.

    Report comment

    • Yes in many ways the coercive formats make no sense and are probably and are human rights violations.
      The concept of harm to oneself and others seems to have widen and before the policeman at your elbow requirement and other legal provisions that for awhile Suppossedly stopped coercion action seems to have disappeared. Surprisingly it was a colle psych class where the prof was a forensic psychiatrist where zi learned of the policing history and he did not give a counter history of Clifford Beers or even Dorothea Dix nor Nelly Bly’s undercover work. It was basically one sided but I had already been exposed to the other side in small ways but my classmates had not. And I certainly was not going to rock the boat with a Prof like that who worked in the court sysyem.
      But harm needs to be discussed and in other areas of medicine when Inwas working there was a girl who did not refused to take her insulin for Type I. The docs let her choose that course and then after several really bad and scary days she decided to go with the insulin. The medical staff run by a senior medical resident did that with another ot who shiv did not want to east was very elderly and they just did follow her lead which the family was fine eith. It was hospice before hospice became a thing in my region.
      It’s a fine thin balance and not everything is going to work out easy peasy or we’ll but independent choice is so crucial.
      And somehow a new or whatever sysyem has to included this concept and the staff have to be not only able to understand but feel comfortable with unknown processes. Intentional Peer Support talks about this and one just never knows. Any wise person woth their salt know people know themselves best even if imperfectly and we just have to let folks choose tbough violence is never an option and that what laws are there for. And I woukdvsay even violent folks need a framework of choice and support because they were taught violence.
      Human beings are not born violent and the toddler phase of hityingbiscavdevelopmrntal process of learning how to cope with feelings and families and the human community itself.
      Trauma as seen by history can instigate harm because of the harm from the first experience.
      So how can we create a framework of harm snd zi know harm reduction but not sure of all its ins and outs and where it lies in the now of now.

      Report comment

  3. Les writes, incorrectly, “The science says there is only one proven way to truly determine a drug or treatment efficacy, and that is through double-blind, randomized drug/therapy placebo-controlled scientifically sound clinical trials, which is the path for FDA approval.”
    Firstly, disproves the first part. But the second issue is more interesting. DBRCTs are NOT the only FDA path for approval. At least not if one looks at the statutes. It may be the case that due to corruption, the FDA requires DBRCTs. But, for example, consider those autoimmune diseases that are known to be caused by specific antibodies. If patients (or lab animals) have such a disease and after a treatment the antibodies are gone, is a DBRCT needed? I think the disappearance of the antibodies, especially in the presence of large relative patient health improvement, no. Documentation I’ve found at talks about clinical trials typically being done in 3 clinical phases, preceded by in vitro and in vivo studies, but it doesn’t prescribe them. It also doesn’t prescribe a p-value or any other measure of statistical significance – no hurdle height is specified. The statue is shockingly vague. It’s possible the hurdle height is set based on the personal preference of the senior FDA staffer(s) of the division responsible for the medication’s sub-field. Which may be influenced by envelopes of colored paper handed over under tables at the required arranged meetings that ARE prescribed by the NDA and ANDA processes.
    I look forward to future installments.
    Amongst the most severe breakdowns in medicine is the avoidance of curative treatments.
    BioNTech has, in lab mice, cured the autoimmune disease that is killing me. But there is no willingness to commercialize it. The MIC (Medical Industrial Complex) makes a ton of money every year keeping me sick but alive. Curing me (of MOGAD with would be killing the goose that lays golden eggs. So the drug isn’t in BioNTech’s pipeline.
    I think evidence for extensive avoidance of curative treatments by the MIC is weighty, but it’s not smoking gun proof, and I’m curious what others think.

    PS: Mary, sure that Russian Czars story isn’t a myth? I know the experiment was done with monkeys. Humans too?

    Report comment

  4. ” I submit that treatment efficacy and safety should be determined by the application of the scientific method and not anecdotal “evidence” such as patient and provider satisfaction with the therapy.”

    NO! Please do not deny a patient their own senses: This is the truth! This is the evidence! Who is anyone else to tell me that some “treatment” I am finding torturous is not indeed torture? NO! This is how holocausts occur.

    OK. Drink a few cups of coffee, just once, and you will likely quickly learn, with near certainty, that it wakes you up and energizes/activates you. Similarly with drinking some nice refreshing water (with the poisons dumped in there by the “experts” removed) when thirsty: does not take long to learn that drinking it causes the quenching of thirst. Dogs learn this very quickly, and understand causation better in this intuitive way then most “scientists” and “experts” these days. Please wake up! Most “scientists” and “experts” are working unwittingly on behalf of oligarchs who have captured “science” and weaponized it to try to murder/enslave/holocaust humanity [see below for evidence]. Statements like “Correlation doesn’t imply causation”, “That’s only anecdotal”, “N=1 is not valid medicine”, and “you need a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed trial to prove causation” are non-sense. Drop a piano on your head and then tell me correlation doesn’t imply causation and the N was only 1. Get a lobotomy and tell me about anecdotal.

    I am sick of being holocausted by “scientists” and “experts”, and told my own senses are not real and not to be trusted. NO! Just NO!


    The corruption in medicine and the world is very widespread, and has been for a long time.

    Here are a few atrocities:

    Merck – vioxx – see Merck whistleblower Brandy Vaughn’s talks [1] and how she was retaliated against (intimidated and then, in my belief, almost certainly murdered) for speaking out [2]
    several criminal organizations – opioids
    Johnson & Johnson – asbestos in baby powder
    Eli Lily – zyprexa, see Jim Gottstein’s book The Zyprexa Papers
    many other medical atrocites reported in Dr. Peter Gotzsche’s book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime
    “We’re in business of shareholder profit, not helping the sick.”
    –. Michael Pearson, CEO of Valeant Pharamaceuticals [I saw this in some of the Brandy Vaughn videos on the Learn the Risk channel]

    February 1981. CIA Director William Casey criminally conspiring [working together] with President Ronald Reagan and others in cabinet meeting to attack American people: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” [3]

    Operation Mockingbird
    Operation Paperclip

    Lies about WMDs under President George W. Bush’s administration. This is a conspiracy, too. PATRIOT Act attack on American civil liberties. Tortures on Guantanamo Bay.

    Eric Schmidt. Google Chairperson from early 2000s to mid-2010s. Conspired with NSA to violate American people by spying on them. Lied about this when confronted by Julian Assange and Wikileaks, covering for things like United Nations criminals sexually abusing refugee girls [4]. Earlier this year, gave talk with war criminal Condaleeza Rice, who was Secretary of State in the second half of George W. Bush’s administration. [Sorry, I don’t have the link readily available right now.] Co-authored book with Henry Kissinger recently. Invading the Mayo Clinic (on Board of Trustees).

    Elon Musk. Working with military on projects like nerualink. Already running cybernetic weapon interface with X/Twitter. This and the other Big Tech websites and devices are part of a huge cybernetic weapon that is actively being used against us. Please see Melissa and Aaron Dykes’s documentary The Minds of Men, and the follow up documentary on Elon Musk at their YouTube channel.

    Bill Gates’s wife Melinda Gates got out in a Newsweek article through some friends of hers that she was “haunted” by Bill Gates’s relationship with Jeff Epstein. [5]

    Orwellian, evil censorship public-private-partnerships (fascist criminal conspiracies). This Children’s Health Defense article [6] reports outrageous evils like the following:
    “Repetition is truth.”
    “The ethos was that if we get away with it, it’s legal.”

    These are only a few of the many atrocities I know of.

    Silence is complicity.



    With agape love to all, Amen.

    Report comment

  5. American mental health care isn’t designed to cure anyone— it’s designed to only suppress symptoms until the patient eventually dies. Is it because mental illness is incurable? No, mental illnesses have been curable for 200 years, just not with man-made chemicals. The problem is that we allow the corporation called, The Amer Psych Ass’n, to be in charge of all mental health care in the U.S. As a corporation, they’re in business to make money. To that end, they employ lobbyists who sit in Congress to make sure no bill is introduced that might change the system in any way, thereby lowering the APA’s and Big Pharma’s profits. In fact, there is no law that provides government oversight on WHICH approach the APA uses on patients. The APA has carte blanche to use any approach they like—and what they like is the one that, coincidently, brings in the highest profits while curing NO ONE.

    Report comment

    • Agree 100%. “American Healthcare” is, first and foremost, Big Business — meaning its main purpose is to make money for its shareholders.

      But you left out one important factor: the advertising industry. And the APA must have found a good one that knew all too well that changing the law is one thing, but that real power lies in manipulating the hearts and mind of the American public. So as soon as the APA (with help from Big Pharma!) got the congress to legalize Direct-To-Consumer-Advertising (DTCA), it had no trouble convincing the American public that gulping down any number of psychiatric “medications” is the right thing to do.

      But maybe if the APA changed its name to the American Psychiatric Corporation the public would realize how much they’ve been sold A BILL OF GOODS —

      Report comment

    • Linda thanks for your thoughtful comment. I can’t argue with anything you posted. If you read the rest of my book you will find much of what you say is equally applicable to the medical profession as well in that their training, which is mostly in the bio physical sciences, gives us a disease approach when much of our health problems are due to our self-injurious behavior and other non-organic health problems.

      Report comment

      • I was treated so badly by the Health system in 2023. I cannot believe what has happened to me. It is so easy to be lost in the world and then to find yourself in a bad position due to others. We can lose our life as we get older. We can easily end up having the life that we never wanted and not knowing how to get back to where we were.

        Report comment