Similar Posts

51 Comments

  1. When I needed a neurologist for a microadenomma, and start to get to the psychotronics , the hot areas, and having been a political target, my GP records of me hand me as being ‘delusional’ and then dragged their feet on disclosure when I started due diligence about who or what was the orogin of their falsehood.

  3. Amazon is now selling suicide assistance kits. They have come under scrutiny as they feel the sellers should not be liable for the teen suicides that have taken place.
    I wonder how the zoom therapy sessions will be used against those who participate.

  4. Newsmax had a segment today on getting your child evaluated asap with a psychiatrist if they have anxiety due to long lasting effects of COVID19. No doubt this affected children but having to go to a psychiatrist may not be the solution – in your report are you offering alternatives if there is a problem to avoid getting into the system which can have endless knock-on effects? It was interesting because I didn’t know this – the report also was concerned because there weren’t enough psychiatrists and gave statistics on the shortages.

  5. Catherine and Friends – This recent report from Amazing Polly is on the mental health trend. Also I see the push everywhere – the constant push on social media, Gavin Newsom and his wife being “mental health proponents,” “concerts to raise awareness. The big push is for online-teleecounseling . Here is Polly’s eye-opening report: https://amazingpolly.net

  6. I couldn’t agree more – it is pervasive in American society – everything has become a “personality disorder”. It used to be, if you could keep your head while all about you were losing theirs (as the poet put it), you were rather well thought of. Now you’re autistic or “on the spectrum”. Unfortunately, all this is powerfully rooted in and resonant with the tendency to conformism among many Americans. None of this is helped by the use of anti-depressants – the people I know who take them seem to have lost a dimension of thought and feeling, very dangerous.

  8. The number of tools in the military and government’s arsenal of bio weapons is quite large and well developed. I urge everyone to watch this brutally honest summary of the state of biowarfare given by Dr James Giordano, speaking to Cadets and faculty at West Point. There is much to be concerned about in this sphere but was especially struck by the ability to access and change one’s health records and the Big Data initiative undertaken by China and other nation states. This part of the lecture starts at ~13:40. BTW, the virus pandemic bio weapon scenario is outlined starting at 33:30. Chilling!

    https://youtu.be/N02SK9yd60s

  9. Hi Catherine,

    Thank you for this very important warning. Persecuting political opponents is right up their alley, as we witness all the time – and imprisonment for “mental illness” fits right in.

    Your post reminds me of the movie “Frances”, starring Jessica Lange. The movie was based on the life of the actress, Frances Farmer, who was a big star in Hollywood in the 30’s, but due to her politics and defiance of the powers-that-be, she was eventually committed to mental hospital, where she was beaten, raped by many men, electroshocked.. I saw the movie in the early 80’s, and never forgot it. Later in life, Farmer was able to recover enough to resume her acting career. Brilliant performance by Jessica Lange. Said to be her best. Looks like it can be rented on amazon.

  11. HERE IN NEW ENGLAND WE ARE BEING GIVEN A “SURVEY”….QUESTIONS REGARDING DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY…
    AND ALSO REGARDING GUN OWNERSHIP…WHEN ASKED WHO MANDATED THE SURVEY,PA REPLIED:
    “I MAGINE THE STATE SINCE THAT’S WHO PROVIDED THE MONEY!”
    FIRST QUESTION: AT ANY TIME DURING THE PAST 2 WEEKS,HAVE YOU FELT UNHAPPY,CONCERNED…AND ON AND ON…RIDICULOUS!
    AFTER I ASKED WHO MANDATED,SHE DID NOT BOTHER TO ADMINISTER THE REST OF THE SURVEY..THINK SHE JUST TYPED IN A “NO” RESPONSE FOR REST…..

  13. A big vote of agreement. I poo-pooed the documentary with Thomas Szasz, as I find him tricky, but the general theme was right, and you are SPOT ON WITH THIS COMMENT. I am a mental health practitioner, have been involved in academic medical research, management and development of mental health programs, and what Catherine is saying is true. To be honest, the PHQ9 and GAD7 they ask are a joke, and you can just answer all 0s. But the overall theme is right – you cannot trust medicine to have your best interests at heart. As a wise man I knew, Don Jones used to say, “Organizations (or the medical industry, govt, etc) are like cows – you have to learn how to milk them without getting kicked off the stool.” Thanks for increasing folks awareness of the coming dark cloud.

    1. Very glad to have your insights on this. If you are willing to share more on what tactics we should anticipate and learn how to navigate, I am sure it would be helpful.

      1. Catherine, I can come up with certain ideas, but the first point that people should realize is that mental health/psychiatry is ontologically bankrupt. I am going to probably be long winded and I hope I dont lose you, but it is important to lay the proper groundwork first.
        The reality is that psychiatry has a serious problem – they define their disorders teleologically, or more simply, defines psychiatric disorders by the symptoms. It is massively flawed. There is no etiology, merely a list of symptoms. Imagine going to your oncologist and having him tell you that you hae or do not have cancer because of symptoms you tell him or her in an appointment. he is defining your cancer based on your self reported symptoms.

        How did this come about? First off, the field is not really that old. for the sake of illustration, we will say it began at the beginning of the 20th century. The first phase was what is known as the Meyerian era, named after Adolf Meyer of Johns Hopkins.Meyer stressed using a complete history and full mental state examination in evaluating and conceptualizing clinical mental health problems and stressed the importance of identifying every theme that might illuminate a mental disorder. Meyer emphasized the need to appreciate slow and deliberate progress in psychological science and aspired to build psychiatry using a deliberate scientific method. In short, he approached psychiatry with the same patience, discipline and rigor that the internists of his time were using advances in biology to identify and treat physical diseases.

        The second phase was the psychoanalytic one (1940 – 1970), dominated by Freud, where motivational drives, libidinal development, and unconscious psychic conflict were seen as the primary causes of psychiatric illness. Psychoanalysis, aside from being a Frankfurt School anti-nomian chestnut, drew out a belief in the similarity of all human beings to each other and thus enlarged one’s sympathy for patients. However, the practices and conceptions of psychoanalysis led to neglecting the important attention to medical and clinical observation that Meyer had stressed as important. What was left was complicated and byzantine theories unique to each psychoanalyst, and if you sent a distressed person to 5 different psychoanalysts, you would get 5 different diagnoses that resembled literary analyses more so than a medical diagnosis.

        The field soon grew tired of this because psychoanalysis began to sound like a parody of itself and did not foster advancement in treating serious illnesses that are tragic like what is called schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. So in the early 1970s, an effort by some academic medicine researchers led to an effort at the medical school of Washington University in St. Louis to improve the research in psychiatry and radically change the nature of psychiatric science and practice. What they did was define a limited number of common disorders like schizophrenia that are clear problems and can manifest in diverse ways. They were hoping that by creating a set of such “research diagnostic criteria,” it would allow research to be conducted across and among separate laboratories across different regions that might lead to discovering the actual etiologies of some of these diseases.

        Their method was to create the DSM that outlined the features of what they thought were the essential elements of these disorders that could be studied across different nationwide hospitals. They were not, and were not intended to be, actual definitions of the diseases. They knew it was a gamble – they realized the criteria had no validity in the scientific sense of defining a disorder, but they hoped it would allow them to aggregate the findings of the numerous studies and lead to the discovery of etiologies.

        The problem was that their effort to accomplish this failed(the field is still largely ignorant about the causes of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, the two big ones), and their making this move had baleful consequences. In planning DSM-III (1980), the third edition, the APA fell in love with the clarity and reliability that came with the symptom listing and lost interest the truth that comes with stressing scientific validity in defining mental illnesses. As such, what had been developed (i.e., the DSM) at St. Louis U as a tool of scholarly research subtly transformed into a shitty clinical method of diagnosis (and, presumably, treatment) of psychiatric states and conditions of all kinds.

        The result of this has been a disaster, and it has led to all kinds of horrible societal phenomena like transgender pre-teens getting sterilized. I worked under Paul McHugh, and to convey some of his wisdom, I am going to C&P from of his many writings on this subject. If you want an incredible discussion of mental health, his book “the perspectives of psychchiatry” is the best I have ever read – but from an article at American Scholar:

        “The significance of this turn to classifying mental disorders by their appearances cannot be underestimated. In physical medicine, doctors have long been aware that appearances, either as the identifying marks of disorder or as the targets of therapy, are untrustworthy …For all these reasons, general medicine abandoned appearance-based classifications more than a century ago. Instead, the signs and symptoms manifested by a given patient are understood to be produced by one or another underlying pathological process. . . . Internists are reluctant to accept the existence of any proposed new disease unless its signs and symptoms can be linked to one of these processes.

        The medical advances made possible by this approach can be appreciated by considering gangrene. Early in the last century, doctors differentiated between
        two types of this condition: “wet” and “dry.” If a doctor was confronted with a gangrene that appeared wet, he was enjoined to dry it; if dry, to moisten it. Today, by contrast, doctors distinguish gangrenes of infection from gangrenes of arterial obstruction/infarction, and treat each accordingly. The results, since
        they are based solidly in biology, are commensurately successful.

        In DSM-led psychiatry, however, this beneficial movement has been forgone: today, psychiatric conditions are routinely differentiated by appearances alone. This means that the decision to follow a particular course of treatment for, say, depression is typically based not on the neurobiological or psychological data but on the presence or absence of certain associated symptoms like anxiety— that is, on the “wetness” or “dryness” of the depressive patient.

        No less unsettling is the actual means by which mental disorders and their qualifying symptoms have come to find their way onto the lists in DSM-III and
        -IV. In the absence of validating conceptions like the six mechanisms of disease in internal medicine, American psychiatry has turned to “committees of experts” to define mental disorder. Membership on such committees is a matter of one’s reputation in the APA—which means that those chosen can confidently be expected to manifest not only a requisite degree of psychiatric competence but, perhaps more crucially, some talent for diplomacy and self-promotion. In identifying psychiatric disorders and their symptoms, these “experts” draw upon their clinical experience and presuppositions. True, they also turn to the professional literature, but this literature is far from dependable or even stable. Much of it partakes of what the psychiatrist-philosopher Karl Jaspers once termed “efforts of Sisyphus”: what was thought to be true today is often revealed to be false tomorrow. As a result, the final decisions by the experts on what constitutes a psychiatric condition and which symptoms define it rely excessively on the prejudices of the day.

        Nor are the experts disinterested parties in these decisions. Some—because of their position as experts—receive extravagant annual retainers from
        pharmaceutical companies that profit from the promotion of disorders treatable by the company’s medications. Other venal interests may also be at work: when a condition like attention deficit disorder or multiple personality disorder appears in the official catalogue of diagnoses, its treatment can be reimbursed by insurance companies, thus bringing direct financial benefit to an expert running a so-called Trauma Center or Multiple Personality Unit. Finally, there is the inevitable political maneuvering within committees as one expert supports a second’s opinion on a particular disorder with the tacit understanding of reciprocity when needed.

        The new DSM approach of using experts and descriptive criteria in identifying psychiatric diseases has encouraged a productive industry. If you can describe it, you can name it; and if you can name it, then you can claim that it exists as a distinct “entity” with, eventually, a direct treatment tied to it. Proposals for new psychiatric disorders have multiplied so feverishly that the DSM itself has grown from a mere 119 pages in 1968 to 886 pages in the latest edition; a new and enlarged edition, DSM-V, is already in the planning stages. Embedded within these hundreds of pages are some categories of disorder that are real; some that are dubious, in the sense that they are more like the normal responses of sensitive people than psychiatric “entities”; and some that are purely the inventions of their proponents.

        END

        So, realize when they try and diagnose you, they are using bogus concepts that mean nothing. I need to catch my breath, but I will try and come up with approaches you can use when they try and corner you with mental health diagnoses.

        1. Medicine is ontologically bankrupt, because science taken to logical extreme, as grand narrative, is ontologically bankrupt. There is no meaningful definition of pathological states at any level allopthy. Its garbage, pseudo-scientific inventions of the philosophically inept.

      2. Quoting from “Big Brother in the Exam Room”, an award winning book by Twila Brase, “The systems of health surveillance are growing. State and Federal agencies are building one database after the next while preparing a national medical-records system for 24/7 access to the private medical, genetic, lifestyle and behavioral details of every American. The public has no idea that the HIPAA privacy rule eviscerated their privacy rights rather than protect them.”
        HIPAA is actually a “disclosure” regulation and they can share your information far and wide. Sometimes a HIPAA signature page is attached to the page for financial payment. You can refuse to sign HIPAA, which I have done and was still seen by my dermatologist. If they refuse service, there is a form that will “rescind” the HIPAA page you signed. To learn all about Health Freedom, you can go to cchfreedom.org. Twila Brase is the co-founder who has won multiple awards for her book and campaigns for health freedom. “The Wedge” is a network of doctors across the country on her website who don’t take insurance and can provide individual healthcare without the overreach of the medical establishment and Insurance companies. In 2021, Scott Atlas was her keynote speaker for her annual dinner and this year it was General Michael Flynn. Throughout Covid she kept her members informed of the “latest and greatest” and most of all accurate and truthful information.

      3. On the practical level, it is important to remember that the laws actually favor you when being coerced into mental health restrictions. You cant give someone a diagnosis unless they have “medical evidence” of mental illness. You cannot institutionalize someone or force them to go to an inpatient unit without their consent. No matter how intimidating they may be, remember they cannot force you to do anything on mental health grounds, and they know it. Just stay calm and stick by your guns.

        On the aggregate, any diagnosis that can follow you requires an evaluation by a mental health professional. A psychiatrist, a psychologist, and dependeing on the state, a licensed counselor or LICSW. On the whole, they are not in medical offices, and normally not a part of a medical visit. If you do not take a test, answer a questionnaire, agree to a diagnostic intake, it is hard to get a diagnosis. Virtually all primary care physicians are scared of giving a mental health diagnosis because it can come back and smack them in the face. They hand people off to mental health.

        If you stay away from mental health practitioners, the only way to get a diagnosis without testing or an evaluation is to exhibit behavior that is unstable. Of all things, keep you cool when in a doctors office. Getting mad is acceptable, but do not swear excessively, threaten people, or make a claim of hurting others or yourself. When you do that, you poop the bed. They can and will document that, and it will stick to you like a bad habit, and everyone you see for the next ten years will note it on your chart. The evidence then becomes your behavior, and they can use the system and laws to make things hard for you.

        I make that sound terrible, but the reality is there are people who are unstable and cant help themselves. The laws have good intentions and they are humane and for the common good on the aggregate. And the reality is that the vast majority of people in medical settings are predisposed to be kind, empathic and have a natural sense of how to be ethical. It is helpful to remember that the person got into medicine or behavioral health because they want to be a force for good. We have just had a societal hiccup and people have been deluded and bullied into the covid cult. If you are cool and reasonable, chances are that the medical staff will do the same. Avoid power stuggles with doctors – your power can be to politely refuse taking actions that lead to a diagnosis.

        As far as the questionnaires they give you at the beginning of a visit, my advice is to answer them as all zeros or an occasional 1. If you are suicidal, get help, and from someone you trust, and if you feel you wuld like help from the doctor, circle the suicide quesiton truthfully. They will help you, and I highly doubt that they will hassle you about vaccines, etc. if that is your concern. However, if you are feeling stable, the best course would be to answer all the questions 0.

        Research has shown that most people first go to ther medical doctor for mental health issues. 80% of primary care visits are behavioral health issues – things that are normally outside of what a doctor can treat directly. Smoking, diet, drinking, poor sleep habits, depression, mourning the loss of a loved one, a break up, losing a job, etc. Those things are real stressors, and do take a toll on you. that is why they screen for depression and anxiety – they are the low hanging fruit of distress that people experience that underlie the medical issues that brings them to the doctor like a sour stomach, erectile dysfunction, low energy or a long standing cold or infection.

        Docs live for the opportunity to heal people and thrive on the appreciation that their patients have for their care and expertise. Keep that in the back of you mind when interacting with them. THey may be hollow, slightly autistic, but at the root, they want to be a champion and a healer. However, when docs are challenged, they get their backs up I have seen some power struggles to beat the band when a doctor feels their authority is being challenged. That would be the time I would be scared of being diagnosed. Outside of that, I think it would be rare for a doctor to try and corner someone with a diagnosis outside of a correctional or law setting. I hope that helps, thought I suspect I just muddied the waters!

  14. When I arrived in the new doctor’s office, one of the staff brought an electronic signature pad to me in the waiting room and asked me to sign in. I wasn’t given any forms to look at, to go with the signature.

    The doctor told me he was working with physician’s assistant students from a local school that day and asked would I mind meeting with students to help with their training program.
    The student asked why I’d come, and I said I’d come for my annual well visit. I said that that I’d been only eating organic, non-GMO for two years now, had lost 30 pounds and wanted to check how my blood sugar and cholesterol levels were doing. I’d like to try acupuncture for back issues.

    The student at the computer screen student asked me about having a history of chronic anxiety. I responded that I don’t have any anxiety except maybe the normal worries because my father was very sick, and the way they were treating him in the hospital due to covid rules had been pretty awful to witness.
    The student showed me her computer screen which showed my “medication history” and Valium, which is often given for anxiety. But I don’t take it for that. I get prescribed a single low dose tablet once or twice a year as a back spasm rescue, I said.

    The doctor came into the exam room about the last 10 minutes of a 1-hour visit. He asked a few questions about anxiety and depression, which I answered that I didn’t have any symptoms like that. He asked questions about low estrogen levels. I responded that since I’m 57 years old, I’d expect low estrogen levels.

    The doctor then proceeded to pull on my arms and legs, without any warning. It hurt and I asked him not to do that. He stopped.

    He offered me estrogen hormone supplements, that he sells out of the office. I declined.

    He asked me if I smoked. I said I sometimes smoked, but that I wasn’t interested in quitting and please, no more “quit smoking” counseling. He did it anyway.

    He said they’d do my bloodwork there in the office, and that it’d be covered by my insurance. I assumed he meant the standard well-visit blood sugar and cholesterol checks, so I didn’t question it.

    He told me to come back in two weeks to review the blood work.

    As I checked out, the receptionist asked for my email address, to send me my blood work results. No one let me schedule any acupuncture.

    At home, I found an email request from the doctor’s office to link into a “Mychart” type electronic health information system. I didn’t like the data sharing agreement consent forms, which asked for data sharing with mysterious “partners”. I didn’t sign the consents.

    I returned to the doctor’s office two weeks later to review the blood work.

    I met first with the physician’s assistant student. She went over the blood work, which was a hormone level. Why did the doctor do a hormone panel? I didn’t agree to it and I sure can’t afford it. She said, “we do hormone panels on all of our patients”. The doctor came into the exam room and also told me I have low hormone levels, then told me again about the estrogen supplements he sells out of his office. He told me how much better I was going to feel after I started taking the hormone supplements and that they’d give me energy. Did I ever say I wanted more energy? He pulled on my arms and legs again without warning, and again I asked him to stop. He stopped. I left the office deciding I was never going to come back.

    A bill from this doctor’s office came about a month later and was over $800. I called the doctor’s office and asked why they were sending me this bill for my well visit, which I’d expected insurance covers at 100%.

    The receptionist said they don’t do well visits that they don’t bill insurance that way. I asked the practice for an itemized bill to explain how they came to such an astronomical amount of money.

    I have a high deductible insurance plan, which means that other than an annual well-visit, I pay most bills out of pocket. The doctor’s biller sent the bills to the insurance company, and insurance approved all of his bills, then sent the doctor’s biller a notice to send the bill to me. With any other type of insurance, I’d likely have never known what happened.

    What the doctor and his biller did is often referred to as “upcoding”, which is the exaggerating of diagnoses and services rendered in order to obtain maximum possible reimbursement. They billed a level 5 evaluation and management visit for me, which offers the highest reimbursement rate possible. One description of the requirements to bill a level 5 evaluation and management visit is: “Very sick patients often require level 5 work if they have a high complexity problem such as acute respiratory distress, depression with suicidal ideation, or any new life-threatening illness or severe exacerbation of an existing chronic illness”.
    Because I had no physical illnesses, the doctor and his biller created mental health and “female hormone problems” diagnoses to create a profile of me as having complex mental health and hormonal problems, thus meeting the level 5 reimbursement complexity requirement. By having me sit with a physician’s assistant student for 45 minutes, the doctor met the requirements (in his own and in his biller’s mind), for the time of the visit taking greater than or equal to 60 minutes as required to bill a level 5. Billing a student’s time as being the doctor’s time is not OK.
    By pulling on my arms and legs for a few seconds, he was able to bill $108 each for two sessions of “osteopathic manipulation”. He billed over $120 for the nicotine counseling that I outright refused. But since I gave up the information that I smoke sometimes, I handed him a “nicotine dependance” diagnosis, worth $120 in “counseling” fees to himself, whether I wanted it or not.
    My admission of eating organic, non-GMO for two years, and losing weight, became an “abnormal weight loss” diagnosis, another diagnosis which helped qualify him for the “high complexity reimbursement rate.
    The low estrogen level he found (which seems normal to me at age 57) became yet another diagnosis in his high fee arsenal.
    I had a lot of concerns because I never signed any consent for osteopathic manipulation, plus told him not to do it. When I asked the doctor’s office about it, they told me I signed consent forms in the waiting room when I gave them my electronic signature on a signature pad. Even though I’d never seen any consent forms.
    I filed a complaint with the insurance company, thinking they’d be happy to put a stop a doctor like this. They could not care less, and they did very little about it.
    I next filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Health Care Division. To their credit, I was taken seriously. They assigned an investigator and requested documents from the doctor. The doctor’s initial written response to the Attorney General was that I was “mentally unbalanced”, that he had the diagnoses and blood work to prove it, and that I shouldn’t be taken seriously. The doctor claimed that I’d signed consent forms. He stated, “I set aside an hour of my time for her”.
    The investigator requested from the doctor the consent forms, copies of the blood work, and documentation to show that the doctor, not a student, had spent an hour on my case.
    The doctor sent back the consent forms and blood work only. He had no proof to show he’d spent any hour with me, himself. The consent forms included very obvious forgeries, both electronic and handwritten. For instance, one handwritten signature that the doctor claimed was my own was not only not my handwriting, but my name was spelled wrong. The electronic forged signatures still had a “square” around them from the signature pad, and was exactly the same form to form, with the same square around each signature. The bloodwork abnormality, on which the doctor was basing his claim that I was mentally unstable and shouldn’t be taken seriously, was the low estrogen level. All else was normal.
    In the end, so far as I’m aware, the Attorney General’s office did nothing about the upcoding, the forgeries, the potentially damaging and inaccurate diagnoses. For the doctor to remove the diagnoses would be to admit to fraudulent billing, which he wasn’t going to do. And no one can make him. He additionally sent these diagnoses out on the health information exchange, despite me NOT signing the consent for that information exchange.
    The Attorney General’s office imposed a resolution that the doctor cease billing me anything, that I pay him nothing, and that he never bothers me or tries to contact me again.
    I haven’t visited a doctor since, and never will again but for an emergency. I manage back spasms with peppermint oil now, which works very well.

      1. Thanks! I’m not the best writer but wanted to use my story as a way to warn others of a few points: 1. in the absence of any physical illness, a profile of mental health diagnoses may be used by a doctor’s office to “upcode” to higher reimbursement rates, and unless one asks either the practice or the insurance company for the diagnoses and procedure codes used, one may not ever know what happened. 2. Once these diagnoses are made, they can and will be used, especially in a legal situation, to discredit a person. Courts and lawyers may defer to the doctor’s judgement and diagnoses, even though the doctors goal in diagnoses may have been a higher reimbursement rate and 3. signatures, especially electronic signatures, can and will be forged onto consent forms or onto acknowledgments of receipt of equipment and services. Electronic forgeries can be spotted by exact same signature from form to form, white out, obliterated sections. I wrote this as a warning and to illustrate how it happens. My situation isn’t unusual. Its just that many don’t realize what is happening to them behind the scenes

        1. Thanks for your excellent report Carol. I’ve not experienced anything on this scale here in Germany, although the same tendencies are also present.

        2. This is a recent 2 minute video from UK Column News, talking about a “frailty score”, being used in their National Health System. Many UK patients especially elderly may be unaware of. Of interest to all others as well, as it would not be surprising if this is a model for other countries. (We may have to become very proactive and inform / insist on copies of all notes from medical personnel to be aware of all obscure classifications, subjective opinions, etc.)
          https://www.bitchute.com/video/KSrc2JzmNnRr/

      2. I second that. THat doc has been bitten by the greed bug. I would not trust him as far as you can spit in the wind.

    2. Stunning stuff… and yet, comports perfectly with our post Rule of Law out of control data circus.

      The lawlessness just goes deeper and wider, month by month.

  15. It’s looking like past time to distance from the as is medical system and seek health care professionals who are 1) not in the “system”, 2) who will partner with you as a 50/50 relationship (meaning you have to do your own health due diligence too), 3)pay cash instead of insurance 4) possibly try some alternatives that may be new to you (I’ve had fabulous acupuncture treatments),
    5) Diligently keep your own health records (health journal!) and copies of any providers you use 6) Opt out of systems and record keeping vis a vie computer,
    (7) I am simply appalled by “Telemedicine” and would never use it.
    I say this as someone who is very healthy, but racking up the years. At one time a practicing mental health professional I’ve seen this insanity coming, little by little, and tried to think about how to navigate these very choppy waters. There are good human provider(s) out there but it may take some work to find the right one(s) for your situation. Asking friends who are pro-active about there own health care people recommendation(s) is a good option. Not being afraid to interview a few people before making a commitment is OK. I’m considering simply not using Medicare at all, which means possibly different financial priorities to save my sanity, my freedom and my privacy. I would only consider the hospital for broken bones if there’s not another option. Just some thoughts…..

  17. Right On to that!!! This happened to my mother in the 70’s! Paranoid schizophrenia! She woke up!

  18. The continuing food-fight that has emerged between the Desmet/Malone and Breggins’ debate has highlighted that the health industry is the lowest barrier to entry for top-down control. How Peter and Ginger have been accused of wounding the “truth” or “freedom” movement is beyond me. They pointed out, factually, that mental health has been weaponized and will continue to be weaponized, especially if you provide further building blocks for the quasi-legal use of public health/mental health to go after those you view as ideological enemies.

    This, along with the CBDC, ESG and Climate Change portfolio of scenarios has revealed some of the more obvious patterns in instituting these changes.

    The track record for using mental health for societal control is well laid out (CCP, USSR, USA, UK, France, etc…) and must not be ignored.

    There are groups of people that have been working very hard to attack the foundation of control of Mr. Global (via public health). I would like to recommend that folks visit the website for https://informedconsentdefense.org/. These lawyers are putting up an amazing suit against the President of the United States to guarantee the rights of the unvaccinated to live in society (not just the CV19 jabs, but all vaccines). The filing is amazing in its thorough review of the facts. Please take a look, as the case is made stark on the galactic-scale difference in health status between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

    Finally, on a more spiritual note, Archbishop Vigano spoke very candidly of the need to fight against the global tyranny that is being instituted against humanity. Worth the time to listen.

    https://rumble.com/vwr8in-archbishop-carlo-maria-vigano-calls-for-resistance-against-new-world-order.html

  19. How do I find out information collected about me in a study that my mother made me a part of done by the Rockerfella Foundation at the university of chicago when I was 7 years old. It was called the woodlawn study a psychological study that used 1200 children. They sent me a letter recently.

    2. If they sent you a letter recently you have an address. Just send them a letter asking them to provide you with their full file on you.

  20. You’ve touched on something I’ve been dealing with lately, which is the impossibility of removing embedded but inaccurate diagnoses.

    I noticed, on a computer screen in a doctor’s office, that I had a diagnosis of “BRCA Gene” (breast cancer gene). I asked where that diagnosis came from and they couldn’t say.

    I called the health information department of my local health system and asked, “who gave me that diagnosis and when?” The rep either couldn’t or wouldn’t say. Shouldn’t this be something I’d know about, if I have such a gene? The rep said I must’ve had genetics testing at some point and I should call the genetics department. I called, and no, I never had any genetics testing. So, it’s a phony diagnosis, and I want it removed. The health information people told me they can’t remove it. Why not? Who is controlling this information so that you can’t remove it. The rep wouldn’t say.

    I know from experience that at some point some doctor’s office used that BRCA diagnosis in a claim for reimbursement, and to remove the diagnosis would be an admission of lying in their billing a claim for reimbursement. I wanted to know what doctor did this, and so I started digging.

    Back in 2010, I was briefly uninsured. Somehow, my local health system knew this and got word to me that they were offering free mammograms to uninsured people like me. At that time, I still believed that mammograms were a good thing and I was pretty naïve still. I accepted the free mammogram and of course they “saw something”. I let them do a biopsy, which was negative but they told me I had stage 0 breast cancer (what the hell?), that I was at risk for full blown breast cancer, and they offered me free double mastectomy with free new fake breasts and told me I should now take this drug, Tamoxifen, because of my risk, which would also be free. There was a lot of breast cancer grant money flowing at the time and seems they planned to bill all of my “free” surgery and drugs to some grant, probably funded with pink ribbon sales. It was they who gave me the BRCA diagnosis and they did so based on me saying my mother’s great aunt might have had breast cancer in like 1930. That was enough, at the time, for the BRCA diagnosis which would’ve unlocked their access to all the pink ribbon grant money available to them, had I agreed to the surgery and drugs, which I did not agree to. Why would I do all this when I don’t have breast cancer? All the “free” care I’d had to date, including the biopsy, was no longer free once I said “no” to the Tamoxifen, and they billed me $1000’s that I had to pay out of pocket for this manipulation and scare tactics. I understood later, when I was less naïve, that it was only free if I’d taken the Tamoxifen. I never got another mammogram again, and so far am completely healthy. The doctor, like some sort of huckster snake oil salesman, is long gone and I can’t find her to confront her about removing that phony diagnosis. So, I’m stuck with it because it’s out there with the big data now, and embedded in so many systems, most of whom protect my “privacy” from me by refusing to tell me anything about my own data, so that I’ll never get to fighting all of it successfully.

    My point in this very long story is that Catherine is right. Whereas 10 years ago the money was in the breast cancer diagnosis, its looking like today the money is in the mental health diagnosis and, in my experience, once you’ve been manipulated into giving the information for a diagnosis that they need to unlock the money, there’s no getting rid of that diagnosis (as happened to me when I gave up information that a great great aunt might’ve maybe had breast cancer in 1930). Doctors are financially incentivized and required to do these current mental health screenings, with patient responses and diagnoses pinging around who knows where out there. Because I’ve told such a long story already, I’ll save this part of the story, for another time, of a doctor recently using my admission of grief over the death of parent to level weird diagnoses to jack up my bill from a level 2 E&M to a level 5 E&M, bringing in a much higher reimbursement payment for himself plus demand a massive out of pocket payment from me, with my high deductible plan. If I didn’t have a high deductible plan, I’d have never known it happened. I’m fighting this, the costs and the phony diagnoses, through the PA attorney general at present, and will update.

    1. Very interesting…..a little of what I know from working as a Physician’s Assistant.
      The billing for office visits is level 2-3-4-5. Most doctors bill a 9921(4) and I mostly billed 99213. A 99215 is the highest reimbursement which I considered for diagnosis of cancer or heart failure or a patient who wanted to talk and I spent over an hour in the room. Generally to have 99213 requires 3 different diagnoses 99214 needs 4 unless again there is a lot of time spent with a particular patient.
      The EMR’s are a nice because I don’t have to struggle with poor hand writing, but a nightmare because unless I hear it from a patient I don’t know what is true.

      For example, the computer will not allow me to order a cholesterol test without a diagnosis. There are no diagnosis codes like “rule out hypercholesterolemia”. So per the computer every patient with a cholesterol diagnosis does not have elevated cholesterol….because I don’t know until the blood work comes back.

      If I don’t attach a diagnosis then the patient with insurance will pay out of pocket.

      It is a totally messed up system and I personally would avoid it as much as humanly possible.

      Since the breast cancer gene is a blood test, the patient and doctor should have had to sign special paperwork because it goes to a special lab.

      You might try and get the diagnosis codes and go through the billing department to find out what the definition of it says to see if that is how they got it slipped in there.

      The stages of cancer
      Stage 0: non invasive Ductal carcinoma in situ
      Treatment: hormonal therapy tamoxifen would be in this category
      *look at your pathology report to see if you see that language

      I am not endorsing any of these treatments/testing but just wanted to give you some info from a previous insider.

      1. Yes I understand very well how the Tamoxifen machine works. I would suggest maybe researching how the treatment: Tamoxifen, came to be. Just because its the recommended treatment, doesn’t mean its treatment. And stage 0 cancer isn’t cancer, but can scare someone into double mastectomy, reconstruction and 5 years of risky Tamoxifen. That said, the way the visit is jacked up to a level 5 E&M, which I also understand the coding very well, is to have the patient come to the office and agree to be seen by a PA student. The patient, thinking they are being helpful to a student in training, might agree, as I did. The PA (physician’s assistant) student, asked a lot of mental health type questions for a good 45 minutes. I have no illness, no chronic illnesses, admitted to no mental health problems but for being upset about my dad dying, which I said I considered a normal response and I wasn’t seeking any treatment for normal grief. I was floored when I got a bill for over $800, for what I thought was my covered well visit. The 45 minutes with the PA covered the 1 hour requirement portion of the level 5 E&M, so far as the practice biller/coder was concerned. The creative biller at the physician practice turned my admission of being an an all organic, non GMO diet for 2 years and losing 30 pounds into an “abnormal weight loss” diagnosis. Because we non-GMO organic people must have mental issues, due our mistrust of the mainstream food system, so therefor my weight loss was abnormal, though I have a normal range BMI. See how that works? Diagnoses are certainly influence by the practice biller/coders who’s job is to maximize reimbursement. And on and on it went with these diagnoses. But there is more to this story and I’ll tell it when I review the details of my fight with the doctor and his biller through the Pennsylvania AG Healthcare division. I want to get my facts straight before I post the rest

        2. Gosh I’m taking up a lot of space here, but I feel I should explain more fully how the BRCA gene diagnosis came to be for me, in the complete absence of any genetic testing. I was uninsured, and the health system I was dealing with, who’d offered me that free mammogram, promised payment for all of my “treatment” out of alternate funding (which I assumed to be race for the cure money, pink ribbon money, pharma research grant money). I also assume, that for an insurance company to have covered double mastectomy, reconstruction and Tamoxifen, the doctor would have had to have done real genetic testing. But this was not so with other funding doled out to the uninsured. The doctor only needed me to dig deep and try to remember any story of any family member having breast cancer, and I’d said I think I recalled my mother once saying that her great aunt might’ve died of breast cancer. Ding ding ding. That is all that was needed for the breast cancer gene diagnosis, so far as the health system and doctor getting paid by this mysterious grant funding, for a double mastectomy, reconstruction and 5 years of Tamoxifen. If whomever is paying the bills will allow such a diagnosis based on a vague recollection of something that might’ve happened in 1930, then you have the diagnosis. Insured people and those who deal with insurance billing don’t believe that something like this could’ve happened to me. Its only starting to come out now, what was going on with all those mammogram vans in poor neighborhoods back in 2010. It went that way for me because I was uninsured. My phony BRCA diagnosis stuck with me 12 years later, and can’t be taken away.

        3. Per my husband, a breast cancer surgeon, the noninvasive ductal carcinoma is cancer in the duct but has not spread. But, this is totally separate from a positive test for the breast cancer gene which is a blood test.
          I would totally want that off my chart if they cannot produce the documents to prove it was done and positive.

          1. Nope. Ductal carcinoma is cancer. The diagnosis they gave me is NOT cancer. But its worded in such a way to sound cancer-y and get people scared. They get the wording “carcinoma in situ” in there and its scares the crap out of people. You don’t have cancer but you have carcinoma in situ so you’re at risk for cancer, they tell you. Does your husband know whether Tamoxifen is off patent yet? Being off patent might explain the pull back on the mammogram vans, less breast cancer hype, ect. that I notice these days. I don’t know really because I’ve stayed away from that whole mammogram nightmare for a long time now, so consequently I don’t have cancer

        4. Reminds me of Angelina Jolie’s highly publicized “preventative” double mastectomy. She did not have Cancer, but “carried the gene”. She was hailed as being the ultimate Mother since she took these measures “proactively” so as to not leave her kids Motherless. At the time, I wasn’t buying it. My intuition told me she was unhappy with her breasts after having three children, wanted “new boobs”, and this was a win-win for her: she could get the implants without being accused of vanity, which wouldn’t have worked in her new “UN Ambassador” role. Also, now she didn’t have to pay- not that she can’t afford it, but its amazing how cheap some rich people can be. Wonder how many women she “inspired” to go down that path.

          1. I think I heard somewhere that’s she’s a male to female trans sexual, to boot. But I can in no way verify that this is true. Something to consider though, is this being a stunt to encourage women to go along with this sort of thing. Kind of the hype to cut off breasts before the current hype to cut of breasts for trans sexuals. Hollywood encouraging chopping off our breasts for 15 years now, for one reason or another. Hmmm.. II think you’re onto something

      2. Additionally, “Stage 0: non invasive Ductal carcinoma in situ” is highly technical way of saying “no cancer found”. So what exactly is Tamoxifen “treating”? Its “treatment” for not having cancer.

        1. According to him carcinoma in situ is cancer withi. The mammary duct also called ductal carcinoma in situ.

          As far as Tamoxifen that is handled by oncology and he has some patients that take it some that refuse. He follows these patients for 6 months only so he cannot say whether the outcome is better or worse in those taking Tamoxifen.

          We knew of one person the mother of a naturopath that just had surgical excision of her cancer and opted for nothing else and was 14 years cancer free. The side effects of Tamoxifen have to be taken into consideration also.

          It would be a good question to as oncologists what they see on patients not taking Tamoxifen vs those that do and I will ask my husband to ask one of them when he runs into them.

          1. Thanks for the follow up but the BRCA thing happened to me 12 years ago. I never got any surgery, took no Tamoxifen and am not considering ever doing either. If carcinoma in situ were truly cancer, I should be dead by now of cancer. I suspect that they play around with the wording and such on these cancer testing and diagnoses like they do with Covid PCR tests and what carcinoma in situ was in 2010, well maybe they’ve ascribed some other meaning to it in 2022. Who knows. My point at the start was about how phony diagnoses happen, why they happen, and how impossible a phony diagnosis is to shake. I’m not here to debate a breast surgeon about what is truly cancer. In my own case, it wasn’t any cancer.

      1. US Patent 20200197510

        Respiratory virus vaccines

        0012 DNA vaccination is one technique used to stimulate humoral and cellular immune responses to foreign antigens. The direct injection of genetically engineered DNA into a living host results in a small number of its cells directly producing an antigen , resulting in a protective immunological response. With this technique, however, comes potential problems, including the possibility of insertional mutagenesis, which could lead to the activation on oncogenes (onco=cancer) or the inhibition of tumor suppressor genes. (Body’s natural ability to suppress cancers)
        

        This is from the patent on one of the covid vaccines. As you can read it speaks of tumor suppressor genes. So our bodies can be making abnormal “cancer” cells all the time, but the God of creation gave us ways to keep these in check.

        My curious question is if people keep pursuing “preventive” care could they be finding abnormalities that would never end up being an issue because the body will take care of it, OR are they getting themselves in the pipeline for unnecessary surgery and dangerous treatments?

        I suspect as with all things there is a bit of both, but as for me I don’t seek preventative testing anymore because I don’t want the treatments. It would be illogical if I don’t trust the treatments to be seeking out the studies which may or may not be jaded. This is the same reason I don’t get my cholesterol checked….I love raw butter and have no intention of not using lard from a regenerative farm.

        The problem with electronic health records is if you go to doctors and don’t want the treatment they offer it is documented. I agree with solari there is a weaponized ion of mental health so getting your negative opinions on allopathic medicine in the EHR would not be a great idea anymore than telling a provider you are sad.

        There are great functional MD’s and DO’s one of which I have and she uses paper charts still. The only problem is insurance does not cover her cost or some of the cost of her testing.

        If people quit vaccinating and eat regenerative farm food and know a little about herbal medicines they can make themselves, we might put allopathic medicine out of business with all the good healthy habits…..

        1. Pay cash. Insurance is only useful for car accidents and other trauma. Great advice:
          If people quit vaccinating and eat regenerative farm food and know a little about herbal medicines they can make themselves, we might put allopathic medicine out of business with all the good healthy habits…..

          1. THE DARK TRUTH OF AMERICA’S FEDERATION OF STATE MEDICAL BOARDS – DR. BRUCE DOOLEY

            Found this on bitchute.com……had no idea that this organization existed

Comments are closed.