正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Does mechanical thrombectomy actually improve meaningful outcomes in intermediate-risk PE? 🤔 In the STORM-PE randomized trial, thrombectomy improved RV/LV ratios at 48 hours—but clinical outcomes were essentially identical to anticoagulation alone. Mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, and clinical deterioration were similar, raising an important question: are we... show more

EM:RAP

2,673 subscribers

12,230 次观看 • 5 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🚨 500% Higher Autism-Related Outcomes. Same Result Across All 12 Studies. Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, joins Del Bigtree to break down a peer-reviewed reanalysis of the Henry Ford vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study featured in An Inconvenient Study. In the original Henry Ford analysis, a result for autism was unclear. One potential reason, according to Hulscher, is that the researchers looked only for a narrow autism diagnosis code. That would miss how autism actually shows up in medical records. Children on the autism spectrum are often diagnosed under related categories like speech disorders, ADHD, learning disabilities, and tics. When those autism-related diagnoses were grouped together to reflect real clinical practice, the signal became clear to Hulscher. Autism-related outcomes were about 500% more likely, roughly a fivefold increase, in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children. This finding does not stand alone. There are now 12 independent vaccinated vs. unvaccinated data sets, and every single one shows the same pattern. Higher rates of chronic and neurodevelopmental conditions in vaccinated groups, with no study showing better overall health outcomes for the vaccinated. See full conversation here:

🚨 500% Higher Autism-Related Outcomes. Same Result Across All 12 Studies. Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, joins Del Bigtree to break down a peer-reviewed reanalysis of the Henry Ford vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study featured in An Inconvenient Study. In the original Henry Ford analysis, a result for autism was unclear. One potential reason, according to Hulscher, is that the researchers looked only for a narrow autism diagnosis code. That would miss how autism actually shows up in medical records. Children on the autism spectrum are often diagnosed under related categories like speech disorders, ADHD, learning disabilities, and tics. When those autism-related diagnoses were grouped together to reflect real clinical practice, the signal became clear to Hulscher. Autism-related outcomes were about 500% more likely, roughly a fivefold increase, in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children. This finding does not stand alone. There are now 12 independent vaccinated vs. unvaccinated data sets, and every single one shows the same pattern. Higher rates of chronic and neurodevelopmental conditions in vaccinated groups, with no study showing better overall health outcomes for the vaccinated. See full conversation here:

An Inconvenient Study

19,266 次观看 • 6 个月前

A few days ago, we learned that the first patient in the U.S., to our knowledge, has been dosed with lidocaine for their breast cancer treatment. Just six weeks ago, we learned about the potential connection between lidocaine and improved breast cancer outcomes from a groundbreaking clinical trial of 1,600 patients conducted in India. That study showed a potential 30% reduction in five-year mortality for patients who received lidocaine injections into their tumors before surgery. Since then, we've engaged in discussions with specialists and researchers, and what we’ve discovered has been surprising —no one seemed to be using this approach, despite the data available. The other day, one of those conversations turned into action. A doctor we spoke to decided to inject a tumor with lidocaine before removing it, marking a critical first step toward translating global insights into real-world patient care. This moment excites us because it shows the power of accelerating drug repurposing insights into clinical practice. At Every Cure, this is exactly what drives us: identifying overlooked opportunities and ensuring they reach patients who need them most—quickly and efficiently. #medtwitter

A few days ago, we learned that the first patient in the U.S., to our knowledge, has been dosed with lidocaine for their breast cancer treatment. Just six weeks ago, we learned about the potential connection between lidocaine and improved breast cancer outcomes from a groundbreaking clinical trial of 1,600 patients conducted in India. That study showed a potential 30% reduction in five-year mortality for patients who received lidocaine injections into their tumors before surgery. Since then, we've engaged in discussions with specialists and researchers, and what we’ve discovered has been surprising —no one seemed to be using this approach, despite the data available. The other day, one of those conversations turned into action. A doctor we spoke to decided to inject a tumor with lidocaine before removing it, marking a critical first step toward translating global insights into real-world patient care. This moment excites us because it shows the power of accelerating drug repurposing insights into clinical practice. At Every Cure, this is exactly what drives us: identifying overlooked opportunities and ensuring they reach patients who need them most—quickly and efficiently. #medtwitter

David Fajgenbaum, MD

55,740 次观看 • 1 年前

⚡️📣👇Tremendously excited to share our new Cell article, where we develop TriPath, a method for analyzing 3D pathology samples using weakly supervised AI. Article: TriPath enables 3D computational pathology via 3D multiple instance learning allowing AI models to capture intricate morphological details from pathology volumes. Code: Blog post: Tested on two different imaging modalities, and patient cohorts from two institutions. Our superstar Andrew H. Song put in a monumental effort of leading the study, in a fantastic collaboration with Jonathan Liu at University of Washington . Interesting aspects: - Utilizing the whole tissue volume and leveraging 3D deep learning enable superior risk prediction performance compared to 2D deep learning baselines based on a few sampled tissue sections that emulate standard clinical practice. This indicates TriPath can harness additional information provided by 3D tissue morphology. - The performance is also superior to clinical baselines from a reader study that involved six expert pathologists. - The morphologically heterogeneous tissue volume could lead to opposing patient-level outcome predictions, dependent on which portion of the tissue volume is used. This concurs with current clinical literature warning that tissue sampling bias can lead to misdiagnosis. Some limitations: - While the 3D pathology cohort size is unprecedented, it is smaller than typical 2D pathology cohorts. Further large-scale studies will be required for validation. Nevertheless, we believe that this study will initiate a positive cycle, encouraging academic institutions and pharmaceutical companies to contribute large banks of human tissue blocks with paired clinical outcomes, thus speeding up advancements in 3D computational pathology. Concluding insights: We believe that 3D pathology is just around the corner - It has the huge potential to not only augment/improve the current clinical practice centered around 2D examination of human tissue, but also help reveal novel biomarkers for prognosis and therapeutic response.. Harvard Medical School Harvard Data Science Initiative Mass General Brigham Broad Institute

⚡️📣👇Tremendously excited to share our new Cell article, where we develop TriPath, a method for analyzing 3D pathology samples using weakly supervised AI. Article: TriPath enables 3D computational pathology via 3D multiple instance learning allowing AI models to capture intricate morphological details from pathology volumes. Code: Blog post: Tested on two different imaging modalities, and patient cohorts from two institutions. Our superstar Andrew H. Song put in a monumental effort of leading the study, in a fantastic collaboration with Jonathan Liu at University of Washington . Interesting aspects: - Utilizing the whole tissue volume and leveraging 3D deep learning enable superior risk prediction performance compared to 2D deep learning baselines based on a few sampled tissue sections that emulate standard clinical practice. This indicates TriPath can harness additional information provided by 3D tissue morphology. - The performance is also superior to clinical baselines from a reader study that involved six expert pathologists. - The morphologically heterogeneous tissue volume could lead to opposing patient-level outcome predictions, dependent on which portion of the tissue volume is used. This concurs with current clinical literature warning that tissue sampling bias can lead to misdiagnosis. Some limitations: - While the 3D pathology cohort size is unprecedented, it is smaller than typical 2D pathology cohorts. Further large-scale studies will be required for validation. Nevertheless, we believe that this study will initiate a positive cycle, encouraging academic institutions and pharmaceutical companies to contribute large banks of human tissue blocks with paired clinical outcomes, thus speeding up advancements in 3D computational pathology. Concluding insights: We believe that 3D pathology is just around the corner - It has the huge potential to not only augment/improve the current clinical practice centered around 2D examination of human tissue, but also help reveal novel biomarkers for prognosis and therapeutic response.. Harvard Medical School Harvard Data Science Initiative Mass General Brigham Broad Institute

Faisal Mahmood

65,541 次观看 • 2 年前

Tony Fauci’s pet drug for COVID was so toxic that more people died in the Ebola trials with it than if they got no treatment at all. The Data Safety Monitoring Board had to shut down the trial after 53% of the patients died with remdesivir. Fauci didn't care, and he decided to make remdesivir standard of care for COVID instead. In fact, his NIH put out protocols that essentially bribed hospitals to push this liver and kidney toxic drug, and the outcomes of those bribes were catastrophic. Hospitals were financially incentivized an easy $3,000 to administer the drug, but on top of that, they were offered a 20% increase on the total bill for following NIH protocols, which could equate to hundreds of thousands of additional dollars on the entire hospital stay. Despite the overwhelming data showing the drug's dangers, remdesivir became the go-to treatment for hospitalized COVID patients. Many people attest that COVID did not k*ll people in the hospitals—the protocols did. This is why Dr. Ryan Cole says, “The majority of hospital deaths were actually caused by Anthony Fauci.”

Tony Fauci’s pet drug for COVID was so toxic that more people died in the Ebola trials with it than if they got no treatment at all. The Data Safety Monitoring Board had to shut down the trial after 53% of the patients died with remdesivir. Fauci didn't care, and he decided to make remdesivir standard of care for COVID instead. In fact, his NIH put out protocols that essentially bribed hospitals to push this liver and kidney toxic drug, and the outcomes of those bribes were catastrophic. Hospitals were financially incentivized an easy $3,000 to administer the drug, but on top of that, they were offered a 20% increase on the total bill for following NIH protocols, which could equate to hundreds of thousands of additional dollars on the entire hospital stay. Despite the overwhelming data showing the drug's dangers, remdesivir became the go-to treatment for hospitalized COVID patients. Many people attest that COVID did not k*ll people in the hospitals—the protocols did. This is why Dr. Ryan Cole says, “The majority of hospital deaths were actually caused by Anthony Fauci.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

355,039 次观看 • 1 年前

The Board of REACT19 regrets to inform our community of the sudden cancellation of this week’s meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the CDC. The meeting was cancelled following a federal court ruling that blocked recent vaccine policy changes and invalidated the current ACIP advisory panel while legal challenges move forward. For many in our community, this meeting represented a long-awaited opportunity. After more than five years of waiting, patients and families had prepared impact statements in hopes that the urgent need for clinical recognition, research, and care for those suffering from serious post-vaccination conditions would finally be discussed. For those living with these conditions, this cancellation is deeply painful. It means more waiting, more uncertainty, and more time without the clinical guidance needed to help physicians recognize, diagnose, and treat patients who have been suffering for years. Our hearts are with every member of this community who had hoped their voice would finally be heard this week. However, even in this difficult moment, important progress continues. On March 18, REACT19 will still be part of a historic step forward at the CDC. A proposal for a new ICD-10 diagnostic code related to post-COVID-19 vaccination conditions will be presented, opening a public comment period and moving the medical system closer to formally recognizing these patients. Diagnostic codes are more than administrative tools. They are a critical foundation for clinical recognition, medical education, research, insurance coverage, and ultimately the development of treatments. Establishing an ICD-10 code would represent an important step toward building the clinical infrastructure needed to care for patients who have too often been left without answers. While the cancellation of the ACIP meeting is a heartbreaking setback for our community, the work to achieve medical recognition and appropriate care continues. If the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services prevails in its appeal, the ACIP process may resume. In the meantime, REACT19 remains committed to ensuring that the voices of patients are heard and that progress toward recognition, research, and care does not stop. To every patient and family who has shared their story and stood with us through years of uncertainty: we see you, we hear you, and we will continue advocating for the care and recognition you deserve. — Board of Directors REACT19

The Board of REACT19 regrets to inform our community of the sudden cancellation of this week’s meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the CDC. The meeting was cancelled following a federal court ruling that blocked recent vaccine policy changes and invalidated the current ACIP advisory panel while legal challenges move forward. For many in our community, this meeting represented a long-awaited opportunity. After more than five years of waiting, patients and families had prepared impact statements in hopes that the urgent need for clinical recognition, research, and care for those suffering from serious post-vaccination conditions would finally be discussed. For those living with these conditions, this cancellation is deeply painful. It means more waiting, more uncertainty, and more time without the clinical guidance needed to help physicians recognize, diagnose, and treat patients who have been suffering for years. Our hearts are with every member of this community who had hoped their voice would finally be heard this week. However, even in this difficult moment, important progress continues. On March 18, REACT19 will still be part of a historic step forward at the CDC. A proposal for a new ICD-10 diagnostic code related to post-COVID-19 vaccination conditions will be presented, opening a public comment period and moving the medical system closer to formally recognizing these patients. Diagnostic codes are more than administrative tools. They are a critical foundation for clinical recognition, medical education, research, insurance coverage, and ultimately the development of treatments. Establishing an ICD-10 code would represent an important step toward building the clinical infrastructure needed to care for patients who have too often been left without answers. While the cancellation of the ACIP meeting is a heartbreaking setback for our community, the work to achieve medical recognition and appropriate care continues. If the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services prevails in its appeal, the ACIP process may resume. In the meantime, REACT19 remains committed to ensuring that the voices of patients are heard and that progress toward recognition, research, and care does not stop. To every patient and family who has shared their story and stood with us through years of uncertainty: we see you, we hear you, and we will continue advocating for the care and recognition you deserve. — Board of Directors REACT19

React19 - Official

33,312 次观看 • 4 个月前

PHOTON COUNTING CT is NOT a better CT It is a NEW imaging modality Photon Counting CT (PCCT) represents a transformative leap in medical imaging, not only as a molecular imaging modality but also as a technology offering ultra-high resolution and functional imaging capabilities. It is fundamentally more than just an enhanced version of traditional CT—PCCT introduces new ways of seeing and understanding the human body, providing critical insights at the molecular, structural, and functional levels. This positions PCCT as a unique imaging modality that requires a fresh approach to technical implementation, operational workflows, and financial planning. Despite the larger upfront investment, PCCT’s ability to drastically reduce downstream healthcare costs makes it a highly valuable investment in the long run. 1. Technical Innovations • Molecular Imaging and Energy Discrimination: Unlike traditional CT, which simply measures the total absorbed energy, PCCT counts individual X-ray photons and differentiates their energy levels. This allows for precise molecular imaging, revealing the composition of tissues and materials at a biochemical level. By distinguishing between different tissue types and contrast agents, PCCT opens up new diagnostic possibilities, such as identifying molecular biomarkers in tumors or distinguishing between stable and unstable plaque in coronary arteries. This capability shifts the focus of imaging from purely anatomical to both anatomical and molecular, offering more comprehensive diagnostic information. • Ultra-High Spatial Resolution: PCCT features significantly smaller detector elements compared to conventional CT scanners, allowing for ultra-high resolution imaging. This means clinicians can visualize fine structures such as microcalcifications in arteries, small lesions in soft tissues, or the intricate architecture of bones. This level of detail was previously unattainable with traditional CT. When combined with molecular imaging, this ultra-high resolution allows for the precise localization and characterization of disease at very early stages, which is essential for early diagnosis and intervention. • Functional Imaging Capabilities: PCCT also excels as a functional imaging modality. By capturing energy-resolved information, PCCT can provide insights into tissue functionality and dynamic physiological processes. For instance, it can detect changes in blood flow, tissue perfusion, and oxygenation without the need for additional contrast agents or scans. This functionality allows for real-time assessment of physiological processes, making it particularly valuable in cardiology, oncology, and neurology for evaluating organ function and monitoring disease progression. • Reduced Noise and Artifact Reduction: Photon-counting technology dramatically reduces electronic noise and imaging artifacts, such as beam hardening, resulting in clearer and more accurate images. The ability to deliver ultra-high resolution images with minimal artifacts improves diagnostic accuracy, reducing the need for repeat scans and ensuring that even subtle abnormalities are detected. 2. Operational Considerations • New Workflow for Molecular, High-Resolution, and Functional Imaging: The integration of molecular, ultra-high resolution, and functional imaging into routine clinical workflows introduces complexity that requires adaptation. Radiologists and technicians need specialized training to interpret and analyze multi-energy datasets that include molecular and functional information. PCCT produces a vast amount of detailed data, requiring clinicians to adopt new imaging protocols and refine their diagnostic approaches to fully leverage its capabilities. • Post-Processing and Data Management: PCCT generates richer, more complex datasets, which necessitates advanced post-processing tools and data management systems. Existing PACS and imaging software may not be equipped to handle such large volumes of data or to process functional and molecular information effectively. This means healthcare institutions must invest in robust IT infrastructure, including upgraded software and storage solutions, as well as provide additional training for staff on new imaging analysis techniques. • Revised Clinical Protocols: The molecular, functional, and ultra-high resolution imaging capabilities of PCCT will likely prompt changes in clinical protocols. For instance, the need for contrast agents may be reduced, simplifying patient preparation and decreasing the risk of adverse reactions. Additionally, the ability to monitor physiological functions in real-time through functional imaging could lead to more dynamic diagnostic procedures, such as assessing the effectiveness of interventions or treatments in real-time. 3. Financial Impact • Higher Initial Investment: PCCT systems are more expensive than traditional CT scanners due to their advanced technology, which includes photon-counting detectors and the computational power required for high-resolution, molecular, and functional imaging. While this upfront cost is significant, it is crucial to view it in the broader context of the downstream benefits and cost reductions that PCCT offers. • Downstream Cost Reductions: Although the initial capital investment is higher, PCCT’s ability to combine molecular, functional, and ultra-high resolution imaging leads to substantial reductions in downstream healthcare costs. Its superior diagnostic accuracy minimizes the need for follow-up tests, repeat scans, or invasive diagnostic procedures, such as diagnostic coronary angiographies. For example, in cardiology, PCCT can precisely differentiate between types of coronary plaque, reducing the need for invasive procedures to assess risk. • Lower Overall Healthcare Expenditures: By enabling earlier, more accurate diagnoses, PCCT can reduce the overall cost of patient care. Early detection of disease, particularly through its molecular and functional imaging capabilities, allows for more targeted treatments, potentially preventing the need for more aggressive and expensive interventions down the line. For instance, early-stage tumor detection via molecular imaging could lead to less invasive treatments, reducing hospital stays and improving patient outcomes, ultimately driving down healthcare costs. • Increased ROI Through Enhanced Patient Outcomes: Over time, the combination of molecular, functional, and ultra-high resolution imaging enhances diagnostic precision, which translates into better patient outcomes. Improved diagnostic accuracy reduces the incidence of unnecessary procedures, minimizes treatment delays, and results in more personalized and effective care. This leads to increased patient satisfaction, better healthcare outcomes, and greater patient throughput—all factors that improve the institution’s return on investment (ROI). • Competitive Advantage and New Revenue Streams: By adopting PCCT, healthcare institutions position themselves at the forefront of advanced imaging technologies. The ability to offer molecular, functional, and ultra-high resolution imaging creates a competitive advantage, attracting more complex and high-value cases. This can boost the institution’s reputation for excellence in diagnostics, leading to increased referrals, new patient populations, and expanded revenue opportunities. Summary Photon Counting CT (PCCT) is not just an evolution of existing CT technology—it is a molecular, ultra-high resolution, and functional imaging modality that fundamentally transforms the diagnostic landscape. Its ability to capture detailed molecular data, visualize minute anatomical structures with ultra-high resolution, and provide real-time functional imaging opens new possibilities for earlier and more precise diagnoses. While the financial investment in PCCT is larger, the reduction in downstream healthcare costs through improved diagnostic accuracy, fewer unnecessary interventions, and earlier disease detection far outweighs the initial expense. For institutions committed to advancing patient care and improving long-term financial outcomes, PCCT is an essential investment in the future of medical imaging. The video attached shows a patient accessing the Hospital for ACS. PCCT can provide ALL the imaging information of the concurrent imaging modalities (CXR, CAG, Echo, CMR) that you see around it... that's a lot! #PhotonCountingCT #MolecularImaging #UltraHighResolution #FunctionalImaging #FutureOfImaging #AdvancedMedicalImaging #EarlyDiseaseDetection #InnovativeCT #CuttingEdgeHealthcare #PrecisionDiagnostics #HealthcareInnovation #MedicalTechnology #CostEffectiveImaging #NextGenCT #PatientCareRevolution

PHOTON COUNTING CT is NOT a better CT It is a NEW imaging modality Photon Counting CT (PCCT) represents a transformative leap in medical imaging, not only as a molecular imaging modality but also as a technology offering ultra-high resolution and functional imaging capabilities. It is fundamentally more than just an enhanced version of traditional CT—PCCT introduces new ways of seeing and understanding the human body, providing critical insights at the molecular, structural, and functional levels. This positions PCCT as a unique imaging modality that requires a fresh approach to technical implementation, operational workflows, and financial planning. Despite the larger upfront investment, PCCT’s ability to drastically reduce downstream healthcare costs makes it a highly valuable investment in the long run. 1. Technical Innovations • Molecular Imaging and Energy Discrimination: Unlike traditional CT, which simply measures the total absorbed energy, PCCT counts individual X-ray photons and differentiates their energy levels. This allows for precise molecular imaging, revealing the composition of tissues and materials at a biochemical level. By distinguishing between different tissue types and contrast agents, PCCT opens up new diagnostic possibilities, such as identifying molecular biomarkers in tumors or distinguishing between stable and unstable plaque in coronary arteries. This capability shifts the focus of imaging from purely anatomical to both anatomical and molecular, offering more comprehensive diagnostic information. • Ultra-High Spatial Resolution: PCCT features significantly smaller detector elements compared to conventional CT scanners, allowing for ultra-high resolution imaging. This means clinicians can visualize fine structures such as microcalcifications in arteries, small lesions in soft tissues, or the intricate architecture of bones. This level of detail was previously unattainable with traditional CT. When combined with molecular imaging, this ultra-high resolution allows for the precise localization and characterization of disease at very early stages, which is essential for early diagnosis and intervention. • Functional Imaging Capabilities: PCCT also excels as a functional imaging modality. By capturing energy-resolved information, PCCT can provide insights into tissue functionality and dynamic physiological processes. For instance, it can detect changes in blood flow, tissue perfusion, and oxygenation without the need for additional contrast agents or scans. This functionality allows for real-time assessment of physiological processes, making it particularly valuable in cardiology, oncology, and neurology for evaluating organ function and monitoring disease progression. • Reduced Noise and Artifact Reduction: Photon-counting technology dramatically reduces electronic noise and imaging artifacts, such as beam hardening, resulting in clearer and more accurate images. The ability to deliver ultra-high resolution images with minimal artifacts improves diagnostic accuracy, reducing the need for repeat scans and ensuring that even subtle abnormalities are detected. 2. Operational Considerations • New Workflow for Molecular, High-Resolution, and Functional Imaging: The integration of molecular, ultra-high resolution, and functional imaging into routine clinical workflows introduces complexity that requires adaptation. Radiologists and technicians need specialized training to interpret and analyze multi-energy datasets that include molecular and functional information. PCCT produces a vast amount of detailed data, requiring clinicians to adopt new imaging protocols and refine their diagnostic approaches to fully leverage its capabilities. • Post-Processing and Data Management: PCCT generates richer, more complex datasets, which necessitates advanced post-processing tools and data management systems. Existing PACS and imaging software may not be equipped to handle such large volumes of data or to process functional and molecular information effectively. This means healthcare institutions must invest in robust IT infrastructure, including upgraded software and storage solutions, as well as provide additional training for staff on new imaging analysis techniques. • Revised Clinical Protocols: The molecular, functional, and ultra-high resolution imaging capabilities of PCCT will likely prompt changes in clinical protocols. For instance, the need for contrast agents may be reduced, simplifying patient preparation and decreasing the risk of adverse reactions. Additionally, the ability to monitor physiological functions in real-time through functional imaging could lead to more dynamic diagnostic procedures, such as assessing the effectiveness of interventions or treatments in real-time. 3. Financial Impact • Higher Initial Investment: PCCT systems are more expensive than traditional CT scanners due to their advanced technology, which includes photon-counting detectors and the computational power required for high-resolution, molecular, and functional imaging. While this upfront cost is significant, it is crucial to view it in the broader context of the downstream benefits and cost reductions that PCCT offers. • Downstream Cost Reductions: Although the initial capital investment is higher, PCCT’s ability to combine molecular, functional, and ultra-high resolution imaging leads to substantial reductions in downstream healthcare costs. Its superior diagnostic accuracy minimizes the need for follow-up tests, repeat scans, or invasive diagnostic procedures, such as diagnostic coronary angiographies. For example, in cardiology, PCCT can precisely differentiate between types of coronary plaque, reducing the need for invasive procedures to assess risk. • Lower Overall Healthcare Expenditures: By enabling earlier, more accurate diagnoses, PCCT can reduce the overall cost of patient care. Early detection of disease, particularly through its molecular and functional imaging capabilities, allows for more targeted treatments, potentially preventing the need for more aggressive and expensive interventions down the line. For instance, early-stage tumor detection via molecular imaging could lead to less invasive treatments, reducing hospital stays and improving patient outcomes, ultimately driving down healthcare costs. • Increased ROI Through Enhanced Patient Outcomes: Over time, the combination of molecular, functional, and ultra-high resolution imaging enhances diagnostic precision, which translates into better patient outcomes. Improved diagnostic accuracy reduces the incidence of unnecessary procedures, minimizes treatment delays, and results in more personalized and effective care. This leads to increased patient satisfaction, better healthcare outcomes, and greater patient throughput—all factors that improve the institution’s return on investment (ROI). • Competitive Advantage and New Revenue Streams: By adopting PCCT, healthcare institutions position themselves at the forefront of advanced imaging technologies. The ability to offer molecular, functional, and ultra-high resolution imaging creates a competitive advantage, attracting more complex and high-value cases. This can boost the institution’s reputation for excellence in diagnostics, leading to increased referrals, new patient populations, and expanded revenue opportunities. Summary Photon Counting CT (PCCT) is not just an evolution of existing CT technology—it is a molecular, ultra-high resolution, and functional imaging modality that fundamentally transforms the diagnostic landscape. Its ability to capture detailed molecular data, visualize minute anatomical structures with ultra-high resolution, and provide real-time functional imaging opens new possibilities for earlier and more precise diagnoses. While the financial investment in PCCT is larger, the reduction in downstream healthcare costs through improved diagnostic accuracy, fewer unnecessary interventions, and earlier disease detection far outweighs the initial expense. For institutions committed to advancing patient care and improving long-term financial outcomes, PCCT is an essential investment in the future of medical imaging. The video attached shows a patient accessing the Hospital for ACS. PCCT can provide ALL the imaging information of the concurrent imaging modalities (CXR, CAG, Echo, CMR) that you see around it... that's a lot! #PhotonCountingCT #MolecularImaging #UltraHighResolution #FunctionalImaging #FutureOfImaging #AdvancedMedicalImaging #EarlyDiseaseDetection #InnovativeCT #CuttingEdgeHealthcare #PrecisionDiagnostics #HealthcareInnovation #MedicalTechnology #CostEffectiveImaging #NextGenCT #PatientCareRevolution

Dr. Filippo Cademartiri

11,820 次观看 • 1 年前

Modern psychiatry rests on a made up narrative, says Robert Whitaker, publisher of Mad In America. Here’s how two studies on schizophrenia made him realize things were amiss: “One was a study by Harvard researchers published in 1994 which looked at longer term outcomes for schizophrenia patients, and they said they had *declined* since the 1970s—not improved—and were now no better than they had been in the first third of the 20th century. Now we look back at the first third of the 20th century as these dark ages. So how can it be that with these modern drugs that fix chemical imbalances, we are no better [off]?” The second study was done by the World Health Organization that compared outcomes for patients in three developing countries - India, Colombia, Nigeria - to longer term outcomes in the US and five other developed countries: “The outcomes in the developing countries were much, much better than in the developed countries—so much so that they concluded that living in a developed country is a strong predictor that you won't have a good outcome if you're diagnosed with schizophrenia.” And here’s the big difference: In the developing countries, they used the antipsychotic drugs *short-term* instead of long-term like they do in America. Whitaker decided he needed to investigate further, and that’s when he realized there was no basis to the idea that these drugs are fixing chemical imbalances in the brain, contrary to what we’d been told for decades. “I started calling up people… who had told me that the drugs fixed the chemical imbalance in the brain. I said: ‘Can you just show me where you found that too much dopamine is the cause of schizophrenia? Or can you show me where you actually found that too little serotonin is the cause of depression?’ And I swear to God, here's what they said: ‘Oh, we didn't actually find that. That's a metaphor for explaining why they should take the drugs - like insulin for diabetes.’ And I said: ‘I understand that like insulin for diabetes is a metaphor, but, surely, you actually found these chemical imbalances. And I just want to read the research where you did.’ And the first person says: ‘No, we didn't really find it.’ Second person: ‘No, we didn't really find it.’ And then I went to the makers of Risperdal, which is a second generation atypical, and Risperdal was being marketed as fixing not only a dopamine imbalance in the brain, but as a serotonin imbalance in the brain. “And I actually managed at that time to get to the actual researchers, and you know what they said? ‘Yeah, that's just such nonsense…I'm sort of embarrassed that we say this,’” he told me.

Modern psychiatry rests on a made up narrative, says Robert Whitaker, publisher of Mad In America. Here’s how two studies on schizophrenia made him realize things were amiss: “One was a study by Harvard researchers published in 1994 which looked at longer term outcomes for schizophrenia patients, and they said they had declined since the 1970s—not improved—and were now no better than they had been in the first third of the 20th century. Now we look back at the first third of the 20th century as these dark ages. So how can it be that with these modern drugs that fix chemical imbalances, we are no better [off]?” The second study was done by the World Health Organization that compared outcomes for patients in three developing countries - India, Colombia, Nigeria - to longer term outcomes in the US and five other developed countries: “The outcomes in the developing countries were much, much better than in the developed countries—so much so that they concluded that living in a developed country is a strong predictor that you won't have a good outcome if you're diagnosed with schizophrenia.” And here’s the big difference: In the developing countries, they used the antipsychotic drugs short-term instead of long-term like they do in America. Whitaker decided he needed to investigate further, and that’s when he realized there was no basis to the idea that these drugs are fixing chemical imbalances in the brain, contrary to what we’d been told for decades. “I started calling up people… who had told me that the drugs fixed the chemical imbalance in the brain. I said: ‘Can you just show me where you found that too much dopamine is the cause of schizophrenia? Or can you show me where you actually found that too little serotonin is the cause of depression?’ And I swear to God, here's what they said: ‘Oh, we didn't actually find that. That's a metaphor for explaining why they should take the drugs - like insulin for diabetes.’ And I said: ‘I understand that like insulin for diabetes is a metaphor, but, surely, you actually found these chemical imbalances. And I just want to read the research where you did.’ And the first person says: ‘No, we didn't really find it.’ Second person: ‘No, we didn't really find it.’ And then I went to the makers of Risperdal, which is a second generation atypical, and Risperdal was being marketed as fixing not only a dopamine imbalance in the brain, but as a serotonin imbalance in the brain. “And I actually managed at that time to get to the actual researchers, and you know what they said? ‘Yeah, that's just such nonsense…I'm sort of embarrassed that we say this,’” he told me.

Jan Jekielek

62,889 次观看 • 7 个月前

Pfizer Knowingly Caused 18,000 Women To Develop Brain Tumors. Birth Control Injections Cause 5X More Meningioma Brain Tumors & Pfizer Has Known This Data For Decades. Other Countries Warn Patients Of The 5.6X Greater Risk, But The US FDA Never Forced Pfizer To Warn The Public. The Discovery of Medroxyprogesterone Acetate Depo-Provera’s active ingredient, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), was first synthesized in 1954 by scientists at the Upjohn Company, now part of Pfizer. MPA, a synthetic progestin, mimics the hormone progesterone. Depo-Provera Clinical Trials and Ethical Concerns Depo-Provera’s journey to approval was fraught with ethical issues. Clinical trials in the 1960s & 1970s often targeted vulnerable populations, including low-income women & those in developing countries, many of whom were not fully informed about the drug’s risks. Concerns about side effects—including menstrual irregularities, significant bone density loss & potential links to cancer—sparked public outcry. Advocacy groups criticized the lack of informed consent during trials, particularly in populations with limited access to alternative family planning methods. The FDA approved Depo-Provera as a contraceptive in 1992. The approval included warnings about potential side effects, such as bone mineral density loss, irregular bleeding & mood changes, but its ease of use made it a popular choice for family planning. 42 million women use injectable long term chemical contraception & in the US, use is 25%---1 in 4 women use injectable birth control. In March 2024, a study published in The BMJ investigated the the use of various progestogens & the risk of developing intracranial meningiomas. The research analyzed data from over 18,000 women who underwent surgery for meningiomas. The findings showed that prolonged use (defined as one year or more) of certain progestogens, including medroxyprogesterone acetate (marketed as Depo-Provera), had an increased risk of meningiomas. Specifically, the study reported a 5.6-fold increased risk for users of medroxyprogesterone acetate injections. Given the extensive use of Depo-Provera by millions of women over several decades, the litigation is expected to grow into a mass tort. Mass tort litigation allows for collective action by plaintiffs who have suffered similar injuries, ensuring that their voices are amplified while holding pharmaceutical companies accountable. As litigation unfolds, the implications for millions of women who have used Depo-Provera will come into sharper focus. For now, its story serves as a critical reminder of the importance of transparency, informed consent & patient safety in pharmaceutical development. 👇2024 BMJ Study On Injectable Birth Control👇 👇Progestogens & Adverse Health Outcomes👇 👇Progestins & The Risk Of Cancer👇 Speaker: It's Isabel Brown!!!

Pfizer Knowingly Caused 18,000 Women To Develop Brain Tumors. Birth Control Injections Cause 5X More Meningioma Brain Tumors & Pfizer Has Known This Data For Decades. Other Countries Warn Patients Of The 5.6X Greater Risk, But The US FDA Never Forced Pfizer To Warn The Public. The Discovery of Medroxyprogesterone Acetate Depo-Provera’s active ingredient, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), was first synthesized in 1954 by scientists at the Upjohn Company, now part of Pfizer. MPA, a synthetic progestin, mimics the hormone progesterone. Depo-Provera Clinical Trials and Ethical Concerns Depo-Provera’s journey to approval was fraught with ethical issues. Clinical trials in the 1960s & 1970s often targeted vulnerable populations, including low-income women & those in developing countries, many of whom were not fully informed about the drug’s risks. Concerns about side effects—including menstrual irregularities, significant bone density loss & potential links to cancer—sparked public outcry. Advocacy groups criticized the lack of informed consent during trials, particularly in populations with limited access to alternative family planning methods. The FDA approved Depo-Provera as a contraceptive in 1992. The approval included warnings about potential side effects, such as bone mineral density loss, irregular bleeding & mood changes, but its ease of use made it a popular choice for family planning. 42 million women use injectable long term chemical contraception & in the US, use is 25%---1 in 4 women use injectable birth control. In March 2024, a study published in The BMJ investigated the the use of various progestogens & the risk of developing intracranial meningiomas. The research analyzed data from over 18,000 women who underwent surgery for meningiomas. The findings showed that prolonged use (defined as one year or more) of certain progestogens, including medroxyprogesterone acetate (marketed as Depo-Provera), had an increased risk of meningiomas. Specifically, the study reported a 5.6-fold increased risk for users of medroxyprogesterone acetate injections. Given the extensive use of Depo-Provera by millions of women over several decades, the litigation is expected to grow into a mass tort. Mass tort litigation allows for collective action by plaintiffs who have suffered similar injuries, ensuring that their voices are amplified while holding pharmaceutical companies accountable. As litigation unfolds, the implications for millions of women who have used Depo-Provera will come into sharper focus. For now, its story serves as a critical reminder of the importance of transparency, informed consent & patient safety in pharmaceutical development. 👇2024 BMJ Study On Injectable Birth Control👇 👇Progestogens & Adverse Health Outcomes👇 👇Progestins & The Risk Of Cancer👇 Speaker: It's Isabel Brown!!!

Valerie Anne Smith

160,919 次观看 • 9 个月前

And then Brecka went for the jugular—exposing statins using the one thing Big Pharma can’t control: data. “Sometimes we just have data.” That’s how he started. Then he lit a match under one of the most prescribed drugs in America. “One of the things I used to get absolutely slaughtered for was I spoke out about the simple LDL hypothesis of cholesterol,” “Saying that there is no correlation between elevated levels of LDL cholesterol on its own and cardiovascular disease.” “You had to have corresponding increases in triglyceride. You had to have inflammatory factors. Usually had to have other metabolic factors like hypertriglyceridemia, hyperinsulinemia.” “Everyone would really come after me for that.” And now? “And now we're starting to see that the data on statins is really falling apart.” “Big data is starting to tell us to that the extension of life is near zero.” “But the extension of all cause mortality is near zero.” That alone should end the conversation. But Brecka wasn’t finished. “And then the complications down stream, which we never study. You'll never find a randomized clinical trial looking at more than one pharmaceutical compound in the same biome.” “Yet almost everybody at the age of 60 is on almost 5 or more prescriptions.” “We don't study prescriptions in concert with one another, we study them independently.” “If you have high cholesterol, you're on a statin. Okay that's independent.” “If your hemoglobin A1.C is over 6.4, you're now insulin dependent. Okay, so now you're on insulin.” “And you've been a little sad lately, so now you're on an SSRI.” “We never studied the compounding effect of all of these different pharmaceuticals in the same biome. We just assume that the randomized clinical trial and these independent silos is valid, even though we are going to smack all of these things together.” Let that sink in: They’re stacking drug after drug in the same body—without ever testing what happens when you combine them. That’s not medicine. That’s human experimentation. And it’s unraveling.

And then Brecka went for the jugular—exposing statins using the one thing Big Pharma can’t control: data. “Sometimes we just have data.” That’s how he started. Then he lit a match under one of the most prescribed drugs in America. “One of the things I used to get absolutely slaughtered for was I spoke out about the simple LDL hypothesis of cholesterol,” “Saying that there is no correlation between elevated levels of LDL cholesterol on its own and cardiovascular disease.” “You had to have corresponding increases in triglyceride. You had to have inflammatory factors. Usually had to have other metabolic factors like hypertriglyceridemia, hyperinsulinemia.” “Everyone would really come after me for that.” And now? “And now we're starting to see that the data on statins is really falling apart.” “Big data is starting to tell us to that the extension of life is near zero.” “But the extension of all cause mortality is near zero.” That alone should end the conversation. But Brecka wasn’t finished. “And then the complications down stream, which we never study. You'll never find a randomized clinical trial looking at more than one pharmaceutical compound in the same biome.” “Yet almost everybody at the age of 60 is on almost 5 or more prescriptions.” “We don't study prescriptions in concert with one another, we study them independently.” “If you have high cholesterol, you're on a statin. Okay that's independent.” “If your hemoglobin A1.C is over 6.4, you're now insulin dependent. Okay, so now you're on insulin.” “And you've been a little sad lately, so now you're on an SSRI.” “We never studied the compounding effect of all of these different pharmaceuticals in the same biome. We just assume that the randomized clinical trial and these independent silos is valid, even though we are going to smack all of these things together.” Let that sink in: They’re stacking drug after drug in the same body—without ever testing what happens when you combine them. That’s not medicine. That’s human experimentation. And it’s unraveling.

Vigilant Fox 🦊

140,826 次观看 • 1 年前

Last night Dr David Unwin was on mainstream news talking about the benefits of reducing carbs for those living with diabetes. The results he gets are amazing. I know it can be replicated by others because I copy what he does in my own clinical practice using David Oliver, Freshwell resources (which are free btw). As a result, in 2024 forty of my patients achieved remission too. The news report featured an endocrinologist Shivani Misra who, at the 4mins 27s timestamp in the video, said: "If someone does a low carb with higher fat what does that mean for their cholesterol and their cardiovascular disease risk? We don't know the answer to this" I'm here to tell you this is a false statement. The research has been done. Let me show you: In 2020 a meta analysis looking at the effects of low carb on CVD risk found: "For total cholesterol there was no significant change in the data corresponding to low-carbohydrate diets lasting 12–23 months and over 24 months" With regards LDL the meta analysis says: "For plasma LDL, as the forest map shows, that there was no significant difference between the low-carbohydrate diet group and the control group at 6–11 months, 12–23 months, and 24 months" All other factors improved (blood pressure, triglycerides, etc) The meta analysis concluded: "In conclusion, the overall effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on cardiovascular risk factors tended to be favorable at less than 6 months and 6–11 months, but after 2 years of a low-carbohydrate diet, there was no significant effect on cardiovascular risk factors" So short term: CVD risk factors are improved, long term, things don't get worse". This mirrors what I see in clinical practice and with myself having been low carb full time since the start of 2020 - all my CVD risk markers are in the normal range. Study source: The reporter also talks about low carb as a "restrictive diet". What's more restrictive: Giving up bagels, bread, sweets and other junk IN FAVOUR OF protein, vegetables etc Or Giving up solid food entirely for a 850kcal liquid diet for months? Despite the latter being far more restrictive it has been rolled out nationally by the NHS. Nothing wrong with this as it works but so does low carb. Why not give patients a choice? The reporter also says Dr Unwins results are just because of the support he provides. Whilst support matters (a lot), this is blatant misinformation. Plenty of studies show that reducing carbs is disproportionately better for those with diabetes than low fat. Here are some: In 2023 Novo Nordisk published a randomized controlled trial comparing low carb to low fat for diabetes. They found: 🩸 Low carb led to the greatest reduction in hba1c 💉 Only the low carb group reduced medications 📉 Low carb had the greatest reduction in triglycerides + higher HDL (LDL was similar) ⚖️ Low carb group lost more weight + more fat spontaneously despite eating more calories 🩸 Systolic blood pressure was lower for low carb The low carb group non significantly raises their LDL but 0.23mmol. The researchers said: "we consider the beneficial effects of low carb to outweigh the minor increase in LDL (0.23mmol) induced by the diet. This is supported by other studies" So low carb is better and CVD risk markers overall improved. Naturally, the study was hidden behind a Paywall. Link: I can hear the skeptics now: "But Mike, this is one study, it's not enough" Ok here's a meta analysis showing that hba1c is directly proportional to the carbs eaten: This meta analysis concluded:

Last night Dr David Unwin was on mainstream news talking about the benefits of reducing carbs for those living with diabetes. The results he gets are amazing. I know it can be replicated by others because I copy what he does in my own clinical practice using David Oliver, Freshwell resources (which are free btw). As a result, in 2024 forty of my patients achieved remission too. The news report featured an endocrinologist Shivani Misra who, at the 4mins 27s timestamp in the video, said: "If someone does a low carb with higher fat what does that mean for their cholesterol and their cardiovascular disease risk? We don't know the answer to this" I'm here to tell you this is a false statement. The research has been done. Let me show you: In 2020 a meta analysis looking at the effects of low carb on CVD risk found: "For total cholesterol there was no significant change in the data corresponding to low-carbohydrate diets lasting 12–23 months and over 24 months" With regards LDL the meta analysis says: "For plasma LDL, as the forest map shows, that there was no significant difference between the low-carbohydrate diet group and the control group at 6–11 months, 12–23 months, and 24 months" All other factors improved (blood pressure, triglycerides, etc) The meta analysis concluded: "In conclusion, the overall effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on cardiovascular risk factors tended to be favorable at less than 6 months and 6–11 months, but after 2 years of a low-carbohydrate diet, there was no significant effect on cardiovascular risk factors" So short term: CVD risk factors are improved, long term, things don't get worse". This mirrors what I see in clinical practice and with myself having been low carb full time since the start of 2020 - all my CVD risk markers are in the normal range. Study source: The reporter also talks about low carb as a "restrictive diet". What's more restrictive: Giving up bagels, bread, sweets and other junk IN FAVOUR OF protein, vegetables etc Or Giving up solid food entirely for a 850kcal liquid diet for months? Despite the latter being far more restrictive it has been rolled out nationally by the NHS. Nothing wrong with this as it works but so does low carb. Why not give patients a choice? The reporter also says Dr Unwins results are just because of the support he provides. Whilst support matters (a lot), this is blatant misinformation. Plenty of studies show that reducing carbs is disproportionately better for those with diabetes than low fat. Here are some: In 2023 Novo Nordisk published a randomized controlled trial comparing low carb to low fat for diabetes. They found: 🩸 Low carb led to the greatest reduction in hba1c 💉 Only the low carb group reduced medications 📉 Low carb had the greatest reduction in triglycerides + higher HDL (LDL was similar) ⚖️ Low carb group lost more weight + more fat spontaneously despite eating more calories 🩸 Systolic blood pressure was lower for low carb The low carb group non significantly raises their LDL but 0.23mmol. The researchers said: "we consider the beneficial effects of low carb to outweigh the minor increase in LDL (0.23mmol) induced by the diet. This is supported by other studies" So low carb is better and CVD risk markers overall improved. Naturally, the study was hidden behind a Paywall. Link: I can hear the skeptics now: "But Mike, this is one study, it's not enough" Ok here's a meta analysis showing that hba1c is directly proportional to the carbs eaten: This meta analysis concluded:

Mike - Low Carb Dietitian

17,028 次观看 • 1 年前

Today was incredibly meaningful as we honored the victims of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Standing in front of the Statue of Liberty, I was reminded of what freedom represents—not just for Americans, but for people everywhere. The U.S. is going through a tough time right now, especially here in New York City with curfews in place, but it highlights how freedom is something we must fight for every day. I want the Chinese people to know that overthrowing the CCP is only the beginning—the real work is preserving liberty afterward. I remember a year ago, Miles Guo and I were preparing for the Hong Kong broadcasts, and he said the winds of change were coming to China. He was right. It’s been incredible to see young people rise up, speak out, and create powerful art. Only the Chinese people can free themselves—but you’re not alone. Many of us around the world are ready to stand with you and support your fight for freedom. —— Mr. Steve Bannon, June 4, 2020

Today was incredibly meaningful as we honored the victims of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Standing in front of the Statue of Liberty, I was reminded of what freedom represents—not just for Americans, but for people everywhere. The U.S. is going through a tough time right now, especially here in New York City with curfews in place, but it highlights how freedom is something we must fight for every day. I want the Chinese people to know that overthrowing the CCP is only the beginning—the real work is preserving liberty afterward. I remember a year ago, Miles Guo and I were preparing for the Hong Kong broadcasts, and he said the winds of change were coming to China. He was right. It’s been incredible to see young people rise up, speak out, and create powerful art. Only the Chinese people can free themselves—but you’re not alone. Many of us around the world are ready to stand with you and support your fight for freedom. —— Mr. Steve Bannon, June 4, 2020

Rica

10,562 次观看 • 1 年前

"Brook Jackson's case against Pfizer...[is] the largest case in the world...there's literally...trillions in potential damages." "The clinical trial data was manipulated...[Pfizer's] vaccine...increased all cause mortality...And...they hid deaths." (1/7) Warner Mendenhall (Warner Mendenhall), an activist, citizen, and lawyer representing Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson (Brook Jackson 💜), describes for Leslie Manookian (Leslie Manookian) of Health Freedom Defense Fund (Health Freedom Defense Fund) how the pharma giant conducted a "manipulated" clinical trial for its COVID injections. Mendenhall notes that Pfizer manipulated its "clinical trial" (which was really a "demonstration" of a clinical trial—see tweet 2), in various ways. First and foremost, by "[hiding] deaths" in the "shot" arm of the trial. Furthermore, Mendenhall notes that more people died in the "shot arm" of Pfizer's trial than in the placebo arm. (Indeed, the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action published by the FDA on November 8, 2021 for Pfizer's *supposedly* FDA approved injection, COMIRNATY, clearly stated that there were 21 deaths in the injection arm of the trial and 17 in the placebo arm—see tweet 5). Also note that while Mendenhall doesn't discuss this point in this clip, Trump's own Department of Justice requested—in 2025(!)—that Jackson's case against Pfizer be dismissed. "Trump sides with Pfizer!" Jackson wrote on X on April 28, 2025. "[Trump's] DOJ explained to the court that it has had continued access to the Pfizer vaccine clinical trial data and the vaccine is effective," Jackson added. Trump's DOJ asked the court to dismiss Jackson's lawsuit against Pfizer, in part, because her case is "inconsistent with public policy" (see tweet 5). Furthermore, note that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. himself has called Pfizer's COVID-injection clinical trial "kabuki theater." Kennedy noted in an interview conducted in 2023 that the trial "was meaningless theater." He added that Pfizer's COVID injection "is a demonstration product, not a medical product" and that "the FDA has no authority over it." (See tweet 3.) ---------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "We have a couple of cases that are very well known. Brook Jackson's case against Pfizer I think is the most well known. But it is something that we've had no mainstream coverage of. What could be the largest case in the world right now because there's literally hundreds, of billions, essentially trillions in potential damages that Pfizer would never be able to pay. "They'd be bankrupt if Brook Jackson is, successful in her case. That case is again, it's very simple. The clinical trial data was manipulated to show that this drug, was somewhat effective against COVID 19. They started with 43,000 people in the clinical trial, but the data that the FDA, made a decision on was only based on 170 people out of 43,000. So why, why only 170? "I think anyone would ask if you have 43,000 data points. It's because that came after they went through the data, you know, and basically manipulated it to where it showed a quote unquote 90 or 95% effectiveness rate. But if you go back to a little broader view of the data, you can see, right in the broader view that of the folks who didn't get the vaccine, there were 1800 who got COVID-19. "Of the folks who did get the supposed vaccine, there were like 1600 that got COVID 19. That is not a statistically relevant difference in any way and really doesn't show, any benefit from it. And then you look at all cause mortality. That's a normal thing to look at with any drug. What does it do to all cause mortality? If you take the drug, it should reduce all cause mortality. This didn't, when you took the vaccine, it increased all cause mortality among the vaccine arm. And I hate to use the word vaccine, but I'll do that as a shorthand here. "Let's make people understand that the shot arm had higher all cause mortality. So more people were dying if they got the drug than the ones if they didn't. That's just a good overall test of something. And then they hid deaths. So we knew there were deaths. They were hidden. And it's taken a lot of basically citizen and amateur research to go through all those tens of thousands of pages of Pfizer documents. But they found them and people who were injured in the trial. They managed to exclude them, and not count them as serious adverse events. "And we have a great one, great example is a gentleman out of Argentina who's contacted us, Augusto Roux. He's been fighting that issue in Argentina. And that site and Augusto Roux. And what he had to say to us was really interesting because they managed to enroll 4,000 people in a clinical trial in a couple of weeks. Get them run through, get the data and. And it was at a military hospital. And. And then on top of it all, there has been in the Argentine press an allegation of bribery. "And one of the chief researchers who by the way, wrote a, wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine is Fernando Pollock. He's who ran that clinical trial down there. He's well known to us in the United States. He's no longer licensed in the United States. I'm not sure exactly why. He has military and intelligence contacts, which makes me very curious. And he wrote this article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which has essentially been debunked since then about how effective this vaccine, trial. This vaccine was, based on the trial numbers. So all kinds of very interesting things on that case."

"Brook Jackson's case against Pfizer...[is] the largest case in the world...there's literally...trillions in potential damages." "The clinical trial data was manipulated...[Pfizer's] vaccine...increased all cause mortality...And...they hid deaths." (1/7) Warner Mendenhall (Warner Mendenhall), an activist, citizen, and lawyer representing Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson (Brook Jackson 💜), describes for Leslie Manookian (Leslie Manookian) of Health Freedom Defense Fund (Health Freedom Defense Fund) how the pharma giant conducted a "manipulated" clinical trial for its COVID injections. Mendenhall notes that Pfizer manipulated its "clinical trial" (which was really a "demonstration" of a clinical trial—see tweet 2), in various ways. First and foremost, by "[hiding] deaths" in the "shot" arm of the trial. Furthermore, Mendenhall notes that more people died in the "shot arm" of Pfizer's trial than in the placebo arm. (Indeed, the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action published by the FDA on November 8, 2021 for Pfizer's supposedly FDA approved injection, COMIRNATY, clearly stated that there were 21 deaths in the injection arm of the trial and 17 in the placebo arm—see tweet 5). Also note that while Mendenhall doesn't discuss this point in this clip, Trump's own Department of Justice requested—in 2025(!)—that Jackson's case against Pfizer be dismissed. "Trump sides with Pfizer!" Jackson wrote on X on April 28, 2025. "[Trump's] DOJ explained to the court that it has had continued access to the Pfizer vaccine clinical trial data and the vaccine is effective," Jackson added. Trump's DOJ asked the court to dismiss Jackson's lawsuit against Pfizer, in part, because her case is "inconsistent with public policy" (see tweet 5). Furthermore, note that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. himself has called Pfizer's COVID-injection clinical trial "kabuki theater." Kennedy noted in an interview conducted in 2023 that the trial "was meaningless theater." He added that Pfizer's COVID injection "is a demonstration product, not a medical product" and that "the FDA has no authority over it." (See tweet 3.) ---------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "We have a couple of cases that are very well known. Brook Jackson's case against Pfizer I think is the most well known. But it is something that we've had no mainstream coverage of. What could be the largest case in the world right now because there's literally hundreds, of billions, essentially trillions in potential damages that Pfizer would never be able to pay. "They'd be bankrupt if Brook Jackson is, successful in her case. That case is again, it's very simple. The clinical trial data was manipulated to show that this drug, was somewhat effective against COVID 19. They started with 43,000 people in the clinical trial, but the data that the FDA, made a decision on was only based on 170 people out of 43,000. So why, why only 170? "I think anyone would ask if you have 43,000 data points. It's because that came after they went through the data, you know, and basically manipulated it to where it showed a quote unquote 90 or 95% effectiveness rate. But if you go back to a little broader view of the data, you can see, right in the broader view that of the folks who didn't get the vaccine, there were 1800 who got COVID-19. "Of the folks who did get the supposed vaccine, there were like 1600 that got COVID 19. That is not a statistically relevant difference in any way and really doesn't show, any benefit from it. And then you look at all cause mortality. That's a normal thing to look at with any drug. What does it do to all cause mortality? If you take the drug, it should reduce all cause mortality. This didn't, when you took the vaccine, it increased all cause mortality among the vaccine arm. And I hate to use the word vaccine, but I'll do that as a shorthand here. "Let's make people understand that the shot arm had higher all cause mortality. So more people were dying if they got the drug than the ones if they didn't. That's just a good overall test of something. And then they hid deaths. So we knew there were deaths. They were hidden. And it's taken a lot of basically citizen and amateur research to go through all those tens of thousands of pages of Pfizer documents. But they found them and people who were injured in the trial. They managed to exclude them, and not count them as serious adverse events. "And we have a great one, great example is a gentleman out of Argentina who's contacted us, Augusto Roux. He's been fighting that issue in Argentina. And that site and Augusto Roux. And what he had to say to us was really interesting because they managed to enroll 4,000 people in a clinical trial in a couple of weeks. Get them run through, get the data and. And it was at a military hospital. And. And then on top of it all, there has been in the Argentine press an allegation of bribery. "And one of the chief researchers who by the way, wrote a, wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine is Fernando Pollock. He's who ran that clinical trial down there. He's well known to us in the United States. He's no longer licensed in the United States. I'm not sure exactly why. He has military and intelligence contacts, which makes me very curious. And he wrote this article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which has essentially been debunked since then about how effective this vaccine, trial. This vaccine was, based on the trial numbers. So all kinds of very interesting things on that case."

Sense Receptor

25,606 次观看 • 1 年前

He Studied 10,000 of His Own Patients, Found a 400% Increase in Childhood Illnesses Linked to Vaccines, and Lost His License for Telling the Truth Stanford's Prof. Annelise Barron reveals the story of Dr. Paul Thomas, an Oregon pediatrician who believed in informed choice. He typically recommended a conservative, Danish-style vaccine schedule (≈17 shots by age 5) instead of the full CDC schedule, but honored parents' decisions for any path, including zero vaccines. Dr. Thomas then did what more should: he looked at the real-world data. He analyzed thousands of children born into his practice, tracking diagnoses before age five. His study compared health outcomes—from ear infections and allergic rhinitis to ADHD—between his largely partially vaccinated/selectively vaccinated patients and the completely unvaccinated cohort. The findings were unequivocal and alarming. The vaccinated children had a 4x higher risk of a wide range of health issues. For publishing this objective, practice-based data, the system made an example of him. His medical license was revoked. His paper was retracted. He was professionally destroyed for telling an inconvenient truth. This case is about more than vaccines. It's about the suppression of scientific inquiry and the silencing of a doctor who simply reported what he found in his own patient population. As Prof. Barron states, this was "real data" that should have been headline news, prompting a serious scientific discussion. Instead, it was buried. When we silence messengers for their data, we are not protecting public health—we are protecting a narrative. The truth has a cost, and Dr. Paul Thomas paid it.

He Studied 10,000 of His Own Patients, Found a 400% Increase in Childhood Illnesses Linked to Vaccines, and Lost His License for Telling the Truth Stanford's Prof. Annelise Barron reveals the story of Dr. Paul Thomas, an Oregon pediatrician who believed in informed choice. He typically recommended a conservative, Danish-style vaccine schedule (≈17 shots by age 5) instead of the full CDC schedule, but honored parents' decisions for any path, including zero vaccines. Dr. Thomas then did what more should: he looked at the real-world data. He analyzed thousands of children born into his practice, tracking diagnoses before age five. His study compared health outcomes—from ear infections and allergic rhinitis to ADHD—between his largely partially vaccinated/selectively vaccinated patients and the completely unvaccinated cohort. The findings were unequivocal and alarming. The vaccinated children had a 4x higher risk of a wide range of health issues. For publishing this objective, practice-based data, the system made an example of him. His medical license was revoked. His paper was retracted. He was professionally destroyed for telling an inconvenient truth. This case is about more than vaccines. It's about the suppression of scientific inquiry and the silencing of a doctor who simply reported what he found in his own patient population. As Prof. Barron states, this was "real data" that should have been headline news, prompting a serious scientific discussion. Instead, it was buried. When we silence messengers for their data, we are not protecting public health—we are protecting a narrative. The truth has a cost, and Dr. Paul Thomas paid it.

Camus

100,698 次观看 • 9 个月前

In 2022, Bioengineered Mosquitoes Were Released In Florida By Biotech Oxitec, Funded By Bill Gates, For The Purpose Of Ending Malaria. The Mosquitoes Were Released In The Florida Keys, Where There Was No Malaria. Now, For The First Time In 20 yrs, We Have Malaria In Florida. GMO Free USA & The Coalition Against GMO Mosquitoes lost their battle to stop the Bill Gates funded company Oxitec from releasing the mosquitoes. The EPA gave the green light of approval to release 2.4 million of the genetically modified mosquitoes in areas where there was no malaria, for the purpose of eradicating disease. Florida residents were outraged. Oxitec failed to provide sufficient answers to the most pressing questions posed by concerned residents. Oxitec claimed that the GMO mosquito experiments would be monitored by the CDC. But, the CDC has stated, “CDC is not formally involved in any evaluation at this time. CDC is not overseeing the trial, and CDC does not plan to conduct any health assessments before, during, or after the trials.” Barry Wray, Executive Director of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition: “What people should realize is that this is not just a Florida Keys issue. It’s a national issue,” Wray continued, “I truly believe we are fighting one of the most consequential regulatory malfunctions we could ever imagine. We all watched as four experts in the biotech field, each enthusiastic about the technology Oxitec had created and each wise enough to say that without proper scientific rigor and prudence, we risk unnecessary outcomes and mistakes. The problem is that the discovery of those mistakes and consequences may not be realized until damages are more severe and irreversible. All of this risk, that benefits a for-profit company getting to market quicker with a product that has yet to actually prove anything other than failure in all of its historical field trials.”

In 2022, Bioengineered Mosquitoes Were Released In Florida By Biotech Oxitec, Funded By Bill Gates, For The Purpose Of Ending Malaria. The Mosquitoes Were Released In The Florida Keys, Where There Was No Malaria. Now, For The First Time In 20 yrs, We Have Malaria In Florida. GMO Free USA & The Coalition Against GMO Mosquitoes lost their battle to stop the Bill Gates funded company Oxitec from releasing the mosquitoes. The EPA gave the green light of approval to release 2.4 million of the genetically modified mosquitoes in areas where there was no malaria, for the purpose of eradicating disease. Florida residents were outraged. Oxitec failed to provide sufficient answers to the most pressing questions posed by concerned residents. Oxitec claimed that the GMO mosquito experiments would be monitored by the CDC. But, the CDC has stated, “CDC is not formally involved in any evaluation at this time. CDC is not overseeing the trial, and CDC does not plan to conduct any health assessments before, during, or after the trials.” Barry Wray, Executive Director of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition: “What people should realize is that this is not just a Florida Keys issue. It’s a national issue,” Wray continued, “I truly believe we are fighting one of the most consequential regulatory malfunctions we could ever imagine. We all watched as four experts in the biotech field, each enthusiastic about the technology Oxitec had created and each wise enough to say that without proper scientific rigor and prudence, we risk unnecessary outcomes and mistakes. The problem is that the discovery of those mistakes and consequences may not be realized until damages are more severe and irreversible. All of this risk, that benefits a for-profit company getting to market quicker with a product that has yet to actually prove anything other than failure in all of its historical field trials.”

Valerie Anne Smith

31,292 次观看 • 24 天前

In the UK, only around 14% of menopausal women take HRT and this number usually shocks people. But as you can hear Dr Mary Claire Haver talk about here - in the US it is only 4% now, when just over 20 years ago it was around 40%. Much of this reduction in HRT use and the negativity regarding HRT stems from the misinterpretation of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study which was published in 2002. For those of you who don’t know much about this, in 1993, the WHI began a clinical trial looking at the health effects of women taking oestrogen-only or combined HRT compared to a placebo. In 2002, researchers halted the part of the study looking at women taking both oestrogen and progesterone (two hormones that decline during the perimenopause onwards) early over concerns there were small increased risks of breast cancer, heart disease, strokes and blood clots. This led to confusion and concern from doctors and women worldwide, and in the UK women taking HRT fell sharply. But even with the older versions of HRT, the WHI researchers have subsequently acknowledged that HRT is the most effective treatment for managing menopausal symptoms like hot flushes and that taking oestrogen alone reduces the risk of breast cancer by 23% and death by breast cancer by 40%. It is time we move on from the misinterpretation of this study and allow more women to access hormone replacement if that is what they want.

In the UK, only around 14% of menopausal women take HRT and this number usually shocks people. But as you can hear Dr Mary Claire Haver talk about here - in the US it is only 4% now, when just over 20 years ago it was around 40%. Much of this reduction in HRT use and the negativity regarding HRT stems from the misinterpretation of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study which was published in 2002. For those of you who don’t know much about this, in 1993, the WHI began a clinical trial looking at the health effects of women taking oestrogen-only or combined HRT compared to a placebo. In 2002, researchers halted the part of the study looking at women taking both oestrogen and progesterone (two hormones that decline during the perimenopause onwards) early over concerns there were small increased risks of breast cancer, heart disease, strokes and blood clots. This led to confusion and concern from doctors and women worldwide, and in the UK women taking HRT fell sharply. But even with the older versions of HRT, the WHI researchers have subsequently acknowledged that HRT is the most effective treatment for managing menopausal symptoms like hot flushes and that taking oestrogen alone reduces the risk of breast cancer by 23% and death by breast cancer by 40%. It is time we move on from the misinterpretation of this study and allow more women to access hormone replacement if that is what they want.

Dr Louise Newson

39,122 次观看 • 2 年前

Shocking Covid-19 Hospital Protocols: Unvaccinated Patients Targeted for Deadly Treatments A disturbing pattern has emerged from hospitals across the U.S.—unvaccinated Covid-19 patients were subjected to aggressive, profit-driven protocols that often led to fatal outcomes. Dr. Brian Hooker reveals what patients and grieving families witnessed firsthand: 🔹 Vaccination Status Determined Care – The first question asked in hospitals wasn’t about symptoms, but “Are you vaccinated?” Unvaccinated patients were funneled into a dangerous, pre-set protocol with higher mortality rates. 🔹 Remdesivir: A Deadly Cash Cow – This failed Ebola drug (with questionable efficacy) was pushed aggressively. Why? Gilead Sciences and the NIH held the patent, meaning huge profits for hospitals via reimbursement. Studies showed organ failure risks, yet it remained the go-to treatment. 🔹 The Lethal Progression 1️⃣ Remdesivir → Kidney/liver damage 2️⃣ Oxygen (CPAP/BiPAP) → Further complications 3️⃣ Mechanical Ventilation → Often a death sentence 4️⃣ ICU Sedation Cocktails (Propofol, Fentanyl, Morphine) → Patients chemically restrained, sometimes in four-point restraints if they resisted. Result? Countless preventable deaths—families devastated, while hospitals profited at every step. “This wasn’t medicine—it was a business model built on desperation,” says Dr. Hooker. “Patients were denied early treatments (like ivermectin) in favor of a protocol designed to maximize billing, not healing.” The evidence is clear: We must investigate these deadly hospital protocols and hold those responsible accountable.

Shocking Covid-19 Hospital Protocols: Unvaccinated Patients Targeted for Deadly Treatments A disturbing pattern has emerged from hospitals across the U.S.—unvaccinated Covid-19 patients were subjected to aggressive, profit-driven protocols that often led to fatal outcomes. Dr. Brian Hooker reveals what patients and grieving families witnessed firsthand: 🔹 Vaccination Status Determined Care – The first question asked in hospitals wasn’t about symptoms, but “Are you vaccinated?” Unvaccinated patients were funneled into a dangerous, pre-set protocol with higher mortality rates. 🔹 Remdesivir: A Deadly Cash Cow – This failed Ebola drug (with questionable efficacy) was pushed aggressively. Why? Gilead Sciences and the NIH held the patent, meaning huge profits for hospitals via reimbursement. Studies showed organ failure risks, yet it remained the go-to treatment. 🔹 The Lethal Progression 1️⃣ Remdesivir → Kidney/liver damage 2️⃣ Oxygen (CPAP/BiPAP) → Further complications 3️⃣ Mechanical Ventilation → Often a death sentence 4️⃣ ICU Sedation Cocktails (Propofol, Fentanyl, Morphine) → Patients chemically restrained, sometimes in four-point restraints if they resisted. Result? Countless preventable deaths—families devastated, while hospitals profited at every step. “This wasn’t medicine—it was a business model built on desperation,” says Dr. Hooker. “Patients were denied early treatments (like ivermectin) in favor of a protocol designed to maximize billing, not healing.” The evidence is clear: We must investigate these deadly hospital protocols and hold those responsible accountable.

Camus

104,381 次观看 • 11 个月前

Humacyte is proud to announce that the FDA has granted full approval for Symvess™, a first-in-class, universally implantable, bioengineered human vessel for extremity vascular trauma replacement and repair. This approval is a significant milestone in regenerative medicine, offering a new treatment option for patients with severe arterial injuries. Congratulations to our incredible team and partners who made this possible! Learn more at See the Prescribing Information, including Boxed Warning: INDICATION SYMVESS is an acellular tissue engineered vessel indicated for use in adults as a vascular conduit for extremity arterial injury when urgent revascularization is needed to avoid imminent limb loss, and autologous vein graft is not feasible. IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION BOXED WARNING: GRAFT FAILURE -Loss of SYMVESS integrity due to mid-graft rupture or anastomotic failure can result in life threatening hemorrhage. CONTRAINDICATIONS DO NOT use SYMVESS in patients who have a medical condition that would preclude long-term antiplatelet therapy (such as aspirin or clopidogrel) after resolution of acute injuries. WARNINGS & PRECAUTIONS -Graft Rupture: Vascular graft rupture has occurred in patients treated with SYMVESS. Advise patients that arterial bleeding can be life-threatening and to seek emergent medical evaluation for any signs or symptoms of graft rupture such as bleeding, pain and swelling in the extremity, or signs of extremity ischemia. Follow appropriate procedures for handling and administering SYMVESS. -Anastomotic Failure: Anastomotic failure has occurred in patients treated with SYMVESS. In clinical studies of SYMVESS, anastomotic failure occurred within the first 36 days post-implantation. Monitor patients for signs of anastomotic failure such as pain and swelling at the surgical site, decreasing hemoglobin or other signs and symptoms of bleeding. Advise patients to seek urgent medical evaluation if they have any signs or symptoms that may be indicative of anastomotic failure such as bleeding, swelling or worsening pain at the surgical site or changes in color of overlying skin. Follow appropriate procedures for handling and administering SYMVESS. -Thrombosis: Thrombosis has occurred in patients treated with SYMVESS. In clinical trials of SYMVESS, patients received antiplatelet therapy following implantation of SYMVESS to reduce the risk of thrombosis. The risk of thrombosis may increase in patients who discontinue antiplatelet therapy. Anti-platelet therapy is recommended following treatment with SYMVESS. -Transmission of Infectious Diseases: SYMVESS is manufactured using cells and reagents that may transmit infectious diseases or infectious agents. The cells used in the manufacture of SYMVESS are derived from a donor who met the donor eligibility requirements for transmissible infectious diseases. Animal-derived reagents are tested for animal viruses, bacteria, fungi, and mycoplasma before use, but this does not eliminate the risk of transmitting these or other transmissible infectious diseases and disease agents. No transmissible agent infections have been reported during clinical testing. ADVERSE REACTIONS The most common adverse reactions (≥3%) were thrombosis, fever, pain, anastomotic stenosis, rupture or anastomotic failure, and infection. USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS Pediatric Use: The safety and effectiveness of SYMVESS in pediatric patients (0 to 17 years old) have not been established. Geriatric Use: Two patients out of the 54 Extremity Group implanted with SYMVESS as a conduit in Study 1 were aged ≥65 years. The number of patients aged ≥65 years was not sufficient to determine whether they responded differently than younger patients to SYMVESS. #Humacyte #FDAApproval #RegenerativeMedicine #Innovation #Biotech #Firstinclass $HUMA

Humacyte is proud to announce that the FDA has granted full approval for Symvess™, a first-in-class, universally implantable, bioengineered human vessel for extremity vascular trauma replacement and repair. This approval is a significant milestone in regenerative medicine, offering a new treatment option for patients with severe arterial injuries. Congratulations to our incredible team and partners who made this possible! Learn more at See the Prescribing Information, including Boxed Warning: INDICATION SYMVESS is an acellular tissue engineered vessel indicated for use in adults as a vascular conduit for extremity arterial injury when urgent revascularization is needed to avoid imminent limb loss, and autologous vein graft is not feasible. IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION BOXED WARNING: GRAFT FAILURE -Loss of SYMVESS integrity due to mid-graft rupture or anastomotic failure can result in life threatening hemorrhage. CONTRAINDICATIONS DO NOT use SYMVESS in patients who have a medical condition that would preclude long-term antiplatelet therapy (such as aspirin or clopidogrel) after resolution of acute injuries. WARNINGS & PRECAUTIONS -Graft Rupture: Vascular graft rupture has occurred in patients treated with SYMVESS. Advise patients that arterial bleeding can be life-threatening and to seek emergent medical evaluation for any signs or symptoms of graft rupture such as bleeding, pain and swelling in the extremity, or signs of extremity ischemia. Follow appropriate procedures for handling and administering SYMVESS. -Anastomotic Failure: Anastomotic failure has occurred in patients treated with SYMVESS. In clinical studies of SYMVESS, anastomotic failure occurred within the first 36 days post-implantation. Monitor patients for signs of anastomotic failure such as pain and swelling at the surgical site, decreasing hemoglobin or other signs and symptoms of bleeding. Advise patients to seek urgent medical evaluation if they have any signs or symptoms that may be indicative of anastomotic failure such as bleeding, swelling or worsening pain at the surgical site or changes in color of overlying skin. Follow appropriate procedures for handling and administering SYMVESS. -Thrombosis: Thrombosis has occurred in patients treated with SYMVESS. In clinical trials of SYMVESS, patients received antiplatelet therapy following implantation of SYMVESS to reduce the risk of thrombosis. The risk of thrombosis may increase in patients who discontinue antiplatelet therapy. Anti-platelet therapy is recommended following treatment with SYMVESS. -Transmission of Infectious Diseases: SYMVESS is manufactured using cells and reagents that may transmit infectious diseases or infectious agents. The cells used in the manufacture of SYMVESS are derived from a donor who met the donor eligibility requirements for transmissible infectious diseases. Animal-derived reagents are tested for animal viruses, bacteria, fungi, and mycoplasma before use, but this does not eliminate the risk of transmitting these or other transmissible infectious diseases and disease agents. No transmissible agent infections have been reported during clinical testing. ADVERSE REACTIONS The most common adverse reactions (≥3%) were thrombosis, fever, pain, anastomotic stenosis, rupture or anastomotic failure, and infection. USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS Pediatric Use: The safety and effectiveness of SYMVESS in pediatric patients (0 to 17 years old) have not been established. Geriatric Use: Two patients out of the 54 Extremity Group implanted with SYMVESS as a conduit in Study 1 were aged ≥65 years. The number of patients aged ≥65 years was not sufficient to determine whether they responded differently than younger patients to SYMVESS. #Humacyte #FDAApproval #RegenerativeMedicine #Innovation #Biotech #Firstinclass $HUMA

Humacyte

27,430 次观看 • 1 年前