COVID pulled the curtain back for millions of people.
On a mass scale, we learned that hospitals across the country followed standardized federal protocols—not individualized care.
Things like Remdesivir and ventilators were pushed on dying patients.
Ivermectin and other affordable therapies were banned.
Even when doctors knew their patients would die, many refused to try alternatives.
And families were left in the dark.
Why did this happen?
Because the NIH treatment guidelines (written by Fauci’s hand-picked panel) financially rewarded hospitals for using Remdesivir and ventilators, and punished them for using cheaper, off-patent drugs.
Doctors who resisted were threatened and even fired.
Hospitals that complied were paid handsomely. Even when their success rates treating COVID patients were abysmal.
It’s common knowledge now. Remdesivir increased the death rate.
Hospitals and doctors had to see it playing out in real time, but it stayed the “standard of care.”
That’s because the committee behind those rules was stacked with people who had financial ties to Gilead, Remdesivir’s manufacturer.
Nothing about the COVID protocols used by hospitals around the country and around the world was actually about saving patients.
@MidwesternDoc The main cause of preventable hospital deaths isn’t illness itself, but blind obedience to “protocol.”
When “protocols” replace thinking, patients die. It’s simple and it’s beyond tragic.
This report from @MidwesternDoc lays out the case brilliantly:
Desperate families had to sue hospitals for the right to give dying relatives ivermectin.
In 80 court cases handled by attorney Ralph Lorigo:
• 40 families won—38 of those patients survived.
• 40 families lost—only 2 survived.
Those numbers speak volumes. But hospitals still refused to change course.
One whistleblower nurse secretly recorded New York hospital staff during COVID.
Doctors openly admitted that they’d rather follow orders than try something that might save someone’s life.
Let that sink in.
It was a moment that exposed just how far medicine had fallen.
Unfortunately, this attitude wasn’t unique to COVID.
Well before the pandemic, this shift was already underway.
Medicine was moving away from the art of healing toward algorithmic obedience and billing codes. In this new world of medicine, doctors are trained to follow protocols, not question them.
Independent judgment is punished. Bureaucratic compliance is rewarded.
@MidwesternDoc Hospitals have become more dangerous than the diseases they treat.
@MidwesternDoc is shining a light on how—and what it’ll take to fix it. Read the full report.
Hospitals are no longer run by doctors, but by corporate administrators obsessed with metrics.
When it comes to health and medical care, some metrics make sense. For instance, things like infection rates make sense to track.
Others are meaningless (like vaccination rates), yet they determine how much Medicare reimburses hospitals.
Doctors are trained and incentivized to chase numbers instead of outcomes.
Right now, the U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other equally wealthy nation—two to four times as much—yet has the worst outcomes.
In 1900, healthcare cost 0.25% of GDP. Now, it’s a monstrous industry built to serve investors, not patients.
Profit has replaced purpose. It’s profit over people to an extreme.
And most people who end up in a hospital aren’t prepared for it.
Hospitals are financially rewarded for shorter stays, not successful recoveries.
Read that again.
Medicare and JHACO accreditation require the average hospital stay to be under 96 hours.
Doctors are pressured to discharge patients early. And may be reprimanded when they don’t.
Patients who can’t recover fast enough are pushed toward palliative care or even hospice.
That should make everyone very, very angry.
This rule is literally killing people. That’s not a stretch.
Frailer patients often can’t handle the same aggressive drug doses used on stronger ones. They need slower, gentler care for success—but that obviously takes time.
Hospitals and their doctors don’t have time. They have quotas.
Take congestive heart failure, for example.
Aggressive fluid-draining over two days works for some strong and otherwise healthy patients. But in weaker ones, that level of aggression can cause kidney failure or death.
A slower, 4–5 day approach saves lives. There’s no question.
But hospitals don’t care. They push patients through like cattle on a conveyor belt.
When those patients who need more care and a slower pace inevitably decline, families are told: “There’s nothing more we can do.”
Then comes the morphine drip.
The “comfort care.”
The hospice transfer.
But there is more they can do. There’s a lot more they could have done. Instead, they choose systematized euthanasia. And it’s disguised as efficiency.
It’s disgusting.
Because hospitals want empty beds, they invest in social workers to handle discharges, not nurses to handle needed care.
If every floor had just a couple more nurses, outcomes would improve dramatically.
But administrators won’t pay for that, because it doesn’t boost metrics—at least not the ones they’re interested in measuring.
This obsession with early discharge actually costs more.
Patients leave before they’ve healed and often celebrate it, thinking that, despite how they feel, they must be strong enough to go home.
But they bounce back to the hospital for readmission—starting a fatal cycle that drains money and lives.
Quality analysts inside the system see the data. It’s so obvious. But they’re ignored.
It’s the same logic that shaped Obamacare.
Policies aimed to reduce end-of-life costs by denying costly care to people at the end of their lives. Critics called the practice death panels.
Right now, about one-fourth of all medical spending happens in the final year of life. Bureaucrats are always trying to shrink that number. How? By shrinking life itself.
@MidwesternDoc Modern doctors are trained not to think.
They’re taught to follow the playbook, call for consults, and “manage expectations.”
We put them on a pedestal, but they’ve become mindless drones with a really expensive education.
Hospital doctors today are taught to accept death, not prevent it.
Of course, death is inevitable, but there’s often a fairly wide spectrum between entering the hospital and leaving via the morgue.
Death need not be an option for many people who unfortunately unnecessarily reach that outcome.
@MidwesternDoc To Make America Healthy Again, we need to retrain doctors to think critically and outside of the box, tailor treatment to the unique patient before them, listen to patients and their families, and break free from bureaucratic pressure.
It’s not impossible.
Emergencies happen. Despite our best efforts, we and the people we love sometimes end up in the hospital. So how can families protect themselves?
Find out which hospitals and doctors near you have better outcomes.
When someone you love is hospitalized, stay at the bedside 24/7 as an advocate.
Engage staff calmly—build a trusting relationship, not confrontation.
And as always, treat at home with proper medical support whenever possible.
@MidwesternDoc During COVID, countless families secretly gave “unapproved” treatments like ivermectin or vitamins—and their loved ones survived.
Those who trusted the system often didn’t.
It was tragic.
Sometimes saving a life means defying the rules.
There are still good doctors hidden within hospitals—the ones who think, question, problem solve, get creative, talk to their patients, and refuse to abandon the art of medicine.
Pierre Kory once analyzed ICU records and found massive differences in survival depending on which doctor you got.
In medicine, who treats you matters more than where you are.
That shouldn’t be the case. But it is.
Now imagine if hospitals revived the therapies that once worked—the ones bureaucrats buried.
Things like ultraviolet blood irradiation, DMSO, and high-dose IV vitamin C for sepsis (the #1 killer in hospitals).
Each could save thousands. Yet all were erased to protect the pharmaceutical monopoly.
@MidwesternDoc The most effective medical intervention of COVID wasn’t a drug. It was suing the hospital. 38 lived. 2 didn’t.
@MidwesternDoc If RFK Jr. follows through on reform, the quickest way we can improve outcomes is hospital trials of these forgotten therapies—and restoring doctor autonomy.
Healing must come before profit. Doctors must not be punished for trying to save lives.
@MidwesternDoc Hospitals don’t have to be where you go to die. But as long as money dictates medicine, they will be.
The cure isn’t another regulation or billion-dollar drug—it’s remembering what healing actually means and giving the power to heal back to doctors.
@MidwesternDoc Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by @MidwesternDoc.
Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
@MidwesternDoc For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by @MidwesternDoc.
The Great Alzheimer’s Scam and The Proven Cures They’ve Buried for Billions
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
REPORT: Across America, farmers are reporting scenes straight out of a nightmare, mysterious boxes of ticks appearing on rural properties while infestations explode at levels many say they’ve never witnessed before.
Now those reports are colliding with documented Bill Gates-funded research into genetically modified ticks, growing fears over Alpha-Gal Syndrome, and scientific papers openly arguing it could be “morally good” to spread meat allergies through engineered tick populations.
Social media is flooding with horrifying footage of animals overwhelmed by massive tick swarms while officials wave the crisis away as “climate change.” Meanwhile, more than 450,000 Americans are already suffering from Alpha-Gal Syndrome after tick bites, a condition with no cure that can trigger severe allergic reactions to red meat.
Even more alarming, Russian biologists are now warning about so-called “mutant ticks” reportedly resistant to conventional methods and behaving far more aggressively toward humans and animals.
So why is nobody in authority seriously investigating the reports, the research, or where these infestations may really be coming from?
@zeeemedia's new report uncovers the disturbing connections raising alarm bells across rural America.
There are two financial systems—one for the connected, and one for everyone else.
While most people struggle to grow their savings, the wealthy have been quietly multiplying theirs through crypto.
Animus AI, available through BlockTrust IRA, analyzes market data and executes trades with precision most investors simply can’t match. Since 2022, it has outperformed Bitcoin by 250%.
In 2025 alone, it helped create over 80,000 new millionaires.
Right now, you can get $2,500 in bonus crypto when you open a qualifying account.
Meanwhile, young Americans are openly revolting against the billionaire-led AI agenda.
At graduation ceremonies across the country, students are now booing the people telling them “the AI revolution” will reshape society, while quietly threatening the careers they spent years and thousands of dollars preparing for.
In back-to-back commencement speeches, executives took the stage expecting applause for their vision of an AI-dominated future. Instead, they were met with visible disgust from young people completely fed up with the tech elites already reshaping modern life around surveillance, automation, and dependency.
These students don’t sound inspired anymore. They sound betrayed.
See the moment the crowd turns on the AI sales pitch in @zeeemedia's explosive report.