Post

More from @VigilantFox

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

Jun 4

Remember Aduhelm? It was Biogen’s $56,000/year Alzheimer’s drug that didn’t even work.

Worse, it caused brain swelling, brain bleeding, and sudden falls in patients—and the FDA approved it anyway.

But the truth is, you don’t need deep pockets to treat Alzheimer’s. You just need to look at what Big Pharma can’t monetize.

This report exposes the real causes behind Alzheimer’s—and the cheap treatment options you should explore instead.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher @MidwesternDoc. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-isnt-the…

Modern medicine is addicted to the biochemical model of disease because it creates a pipeline for expensive, patentable drugs, and it often leaves patients and their families in the dark, rather than empowered and in control.

It’s not about finding root causes. It’s about finding something you can bill for.

That’s why the industry has spent decades treating Alzheimer’s like a “chemical imbalance” in the brain caused by amyloid plaques—even though hundreds of trials targeting amyloid have failed.

The more the theory collapsed, the harder the system doubled down. Just like cholesterol and heart disease, the medical machine kept pushing the failed model long after it broke.

Read 27 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

May 28

Tucker Carlson admitted he used to make fun of people who believe vaccines cause autism.

He now describes his behavior as “unthinking, stupid, and reactionary.”

Tucker says people are noticing what Robert De Niro noticed about vaccines before he suddenly abandoned the issue: “There’s something there that people aren’t addressing” with vaccines and autism.

De Niro declared this on “The Today Show” back in 2016. Let the clip roll, and you’ll see it.

Fast forward to today, and it’s hard to believe De Niro actually said what he did on mainstream television.

What’s even harder to believe is just how most of the vaccines used today got approved in the first place.

“Placebo” doesn’t mean what most people think it means when it comes to vaccines.

Once you understand what a vaccine “placebo” is, the way evidence gets buried starts making a lot more sense. 🧵

Something strange happens when people first start looking seriously at vaccine safety data.

They do the research. They find the studies. They bring the evidence carefully into a conversation that feels safe and possible.

But nothing moves.

The other person doesn’t adjust. Doesn’t even get curious. They just double down harder.

Nothing about it feels like a normal disagreement. It feels like something else entirely.

Because it is.

And there’s actually a specific reason for that. A reason that goes much deeper than tribalism.

The reason vaccine orthodoxy functions differently from almost every other medical debate isn’t random.

It’s structural. It was designed and built this way.

To understand why the evidence lands differently here—why the same standards of proof that apply literally everywhere else somehow don’t apply to vaccines—you have to understand what vaccines actually represent in Western medicine.

And it’s probably not what you think.

Read 33 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

May 26

At the height of COVID, a “crazy” doctor was treating patients with a 99.96% survival rate.

Dr. Zelenko’s protocol was so effective, it sparked a war against HCQ.

They mocked his claims, but they kept coming true. Here’s what he said:

#1 - “Not everyone got the same thing.”

In an interview with Mel K, Dr. Zelenko said, “Some of the lots were 5,000% more lethal than others — or think of it as 50x. So, let’s say one vial killed one person. Another vial killed 50 people.”

“If everyone would have gotten the same thing, it would be a clear correlation that you’re being poisoned, and no one would take it,” Dr. Zelenko concluded. Thus, the answer to why some people took the shot and turned out okay is because “not everyone got the same thing.”

Dr. Zelenko’s bold claim was confirmed in March 2023, when a study performed by Schmeling and colleagues found that 4.2% of the batches accounted for a staggering 71% of adverse events.

Read 15 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

May 25

In 2015, Scott Adams made a “crazy” prediction that most people thought was impossible.

He said Trump had a 98% chance of becoming president, and he made that call on a single observation.

The winning attribute that made Scott confident in Trump’s victory was his one-of-a-kind persuasion skills.

While political betting markets dismissed Trump’s chances, Adams argued—using his background in persuasion and hypnosis—that Trump was the most psychologically effective candidate in the race and therefore favored to win. He built a massive following by showing how persuasion, not policy, drives political outcomes.

That insight proved correct. But it also revealed something darker. 🧵

After Trump’s victory, Adams pivoted to punditry—and during COVID, even he struggled to see the truth.

Scott strongly endorsed the vaccines, vaccinated himself, and publicly belittled followers who refused. Many later derisively called him “Clot Adams.”

In January 2023, Adams admitted—on video—that he’d been wrong and that the anti-vaxxers were correct. But he framed it as luck: the right people just happened to distrust the government, while “all the data” supposedly pointed intelligent analysts toward vaccination.

That framing matters. It reveals how even skilled observers of persuasion can mistake marketing consensus for truth—and how the same system that manufactures medical certainty also hides the limits of medicine, until reality forces a reckoning.

Last May, Scott told the world something most people never say out loud until it’s unavoidable: he had terminal, metastatic prostate cancer.

He openly stated he planned to use California’s medically assisted dying to reduce suffering.

He also shut down speculation—saying he had already tried fenbendazole and ivermectin and had no interest in continuing them.

The reaction was explosive.

People weren’t just debating treatment choices—they were watching, in real time, what a protracted, modern death actually looks like.

For many, it shattered comforting abstractions about both cancer and mortality.

Read 33 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

May 21

This 45-second clip with Dr. Peter Hotez is difficult to watch.

A mom from Texas desperately asks him why she keeps getting “really bad” COVID.

She got three COVID shots, took multiple rounds of Paxlovid, but she keeps “getting COVID often.”

Dr. Hotez tells the woman that her repeated COVID infections are basically her fault for skipping boosters.

WOMAN: “I’m getting COVID often. I took Paxlovid the third time, and then a few weeks later I got it again. COVID was really bad on me.”

HOTEZ: “After you had your first two immunizations way back in 2021, did you get boosters regularly?”

WOMAN: “I got one booster, and then after that I stopped getting them.”

HOTEZ: “Yeah. So that’s the reason why you keep up with the boosters.”

The saddest part about this interaction is that the woman was so convinced by Hotez that getting COVID was her fault that she was eager to get another booster shot after the show.

This is an extreme case of medical gaslighting that is easy to spot.

But what about when it’s not?

What about the times you did everything your doctor recommended—only to find yourself worse off than when you started? 🧵

Something seismic has happened to public health in America—and most people haven’t fully processed its scale.

A 2025 JAMA study surveying pregnant mothers and parents of young children found that only 37% fully trusted the CDC vaccine schedule and planned to follow it completely.

Five years ago, a number that low would have been unimaginable.

So what’s causing the drop? And what does it mean?

To understand the big picture and why it matters, you need the baseline.

In 2000, only 19% of parents had concerns about vaccines. By 2009, that number was 50%. And by 2013, 9% had declined all immunizations, while 32% had safety concerns.

The medical establishment found those numbers alarming. But what we’re looking at today is in a different category entirely.

Read 30 tweets

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox

May 20

In the 1930s to the early 60s, Americans were convinced smoking was healthy.

Doctors proudly appeared in cigarette ads. “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”

The public was given a clear message: If physicians smoked themselves, how dangerous could it possibly be?

At its peak, more than 42% of American adults smoked, with rates among men climbing as high as 57%.

Business was booming. But behind the scenes, tobacco companies already knew smoking was linked to deadly disease.

Internal research pointed to the dangers early, yet the industry spent years funding doubt, attacking critics, and delaying public awareness long enough to keep the machine running.

Then came January 11, 1964.

The U.S. Surgeon General released the report that changed everything: smoking causes lung cancer and other deadly illnesses.

Almost overnight, one of the most trusted health narratives in America began to collapse.

And it wasn’t the only one.

In the 1940s and 1950s, lobotomies were celebrated as a revolutionary treatment for mental illness. Walter Freeman traveled the country performing thousands of “ice-pick” procedures, sometimes in minutes, sometimes on children.

The technique even earned a Nobel Prize.

Years later, it was widely condemned as barbaric, after leaving countless patients permanently damaged.

Today, we look back at both eras with disbelief and wonder how entire generations came to trust ideas that later proved so catastrophically wrong.

But the more uncomfortable question is harder to escape:

How many medical “certainties” we trust today will future generations one day look back on the same way? 🧵

We hold thousands of assumptions we never question.

Most of them are fine. The dangerous ones are the unquestioned assumptions that aren’t.

This is about what it actually looks like to prioritize truth over being right.

Including when that means publicly correcting something you’ve believed for decades.

Let’s start with a story.

For decades, a widely repeated narrative has appeared in critiques of Western medicine:

That 19th century surgeon James Marion Sims performed experimental gynecological surgeries on enslaved black women without anesthesia—using them as test subjects before performing the same procedures on white women, with anesthesia.

It felt obviously, viscerally wrong. Most people never questioned it.

They just react to it.

As it turns out, what the historical record actually shows is considerably different.

The condition Sims treated—vesicovaginal fistula—was devastating and had no cure at the time. Suffering women were desperate for relief and willingly consented to the procedures.

Ether was brand new, highly controversial, and carried real risks. Sims and other surgeons of the era didn’t believe the pain of these specific operations justified those risks—and applied the same standard regardless of the patient’s race.

The women he worked with helped each other through their recoveries, assisted in surgeries, and pushed him to continue when he wanted to stop. He acknowledged his debt to them publicly. He operated at his own expense.

The narrative most people know about James Marion Sims had been assembled to support a political argument, not drawn from the historical record. And in 2018, after significant protest, his statue in New York City was removed.

Read 30 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @VigilantFox

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!