The Cole Center for Healing

10/28/2026

There is a lot more to read on this one, so don't just stop at the highlights!

American medicine does not have to remain trapped between government bureaucracy and corporate control. There is another model, rooted in the traditional American principles of independent businesses, professional responsibility, competition, and individual choice. For generations, physicians operated their own practices, established relationships with patients, and made clinical decisions without consulting corporate administrators or insurance-company utilization-review departments. They were medical professionals and small-business owners, responsible for their employees, expenses, and the financial survival of their practices.

Former Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, himself an obstetrician-gynecologist, spent decades arguing that American health care had become distorted by government intervention and third-party payment systems. His approach emphasized the physician-patient relationship, individual responsibility, market competition, and reducing bureaucratic interference in medical decisions. The central principle is straightforward: insurance should primarily protect people against major financial losses, while ordinary medical care should, wherever practical, involve direct transactions between patients and physicians.

Go here for the whole story:

10/28/2026

Here we go again:

Shingles and shingles vaccines, by the numbers:

0.3 to 1%: Per-year chance the average American over 50 getting shingles. Basically, the likelihood you WON’T catch shingles every year is over 99%. This increases slightly as you get older, but not by much.
32: Number of people over 50 getting vaccinated with Shingrix to prevent ONE shingles case (over 3.5 years). This NNV or Number Needed to Vaccinate means the vaccine has no effect for 31 out of 32 people vaccinated.

333: Number of people over 50 who need to get vaccinated with Shingrix to prevent ONE case of Postherpetic Neuralgia (332 won’t avoid a case of PHN—because they were extremely unlikely to get it in the first place)

11 to 25: Number of people over 50 who get the vaccine who end up with ONE case of systemic reaction (effects include fatigue, weakness, headache, shivering, and stomach problems). This is called NNH or Numbers Needed to Harm. In other words, between one in 11 and one in 25 people vaccinated will experience these side effects and possibly be out of action for several days. There is a small increased chance of getting Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a rare neurological disorder where your immune system mistakenly attacks your peripheral nervous system.

$400: The average cost someone in the US would pay, without insurance, for the two-dose series of Shingrix administered two to six months apart. Obviously, Medicare, Medicaid, and private employer health insurance plans would pay less.

$12,800: Total cost of the shingles vaccine to prevent ONE case of shingles in people over 50 (over 3.5 years). 32 times $400.

$132,800: Total cost of the shingles vaccine to prevent ONE case of PHN in people over 50 (over 3 years). 332 times $400.

125.5 million: Number of American citizens over 50 (about 36% of the US population)

$1.6 trillion: The cost of vaccinating every American over 50 with the shingles vaccine (paying the uninsured rate).

The full explanation here:

Thus, the story follows a predictable direction honed to please the advertisers whose ads are keeping the Times afloat.

10/28/2026

This is NOT just a "vax" issue!

Now take your daughter to the pediatrician for a routine childhood shot. If that shot injures her, federal law sends you first to a special claims court in Washington. The Department of Justice defends HHS against your claim, while the vaccine manufacturer is not even a party to the case. The Supreme Court has held that you cannot later sue the manufacturer over the design of its product (Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 2011). For a COVID-19 shot, the path narrows further. Your claim goes to an administrative office inside the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), with no judge, no jury, and a one-year filing deadline.

The pediatrician, for whom 75% of his or her income is derived from routine vaccinations, can’t be sued either. Their financial conflicts of interest, as the American Academy of Pediatrics, are huge. They are not neutral arbitrators in the vaccine or medical freedom debate.

Medical freedom means having the legal right to refuse a medical product, recover from its maker if it harms you, and hear honest disagreement from your own physician. Congress, HHS, and state licensing boards have narrowed each of those rights over the past forty years, mostly by statute and regulation. Legislatures can restore them by the same means.

There is a lot more info on this, go here:

How medical freedom was eroded, and what it will take to restore it.

10/28/2026

Maybe it will stay here:

In this 2015 iHealthTube interview, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a computer scientist at MIT, explains what she found when she analyzed the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and which vaccine ingredients she believes are behind the link to autism.

What she covers:

• Her analysis of VAERS found MMR associated with autism. She says “MMR is one of the few vaccines that contain glutamate” (2:10).

• In her not-yet-published comparison of MMR reports from before and after 2002, she says autism appears “statistically significantly” more often after 2002, along with brain-related reactions such as seizures and swelling of the face (2:40).

• Her theory is that glyphosate and vaccine glutamate act together: “The two are working synergistically together to cause harm” (3:40).

• She says aluminum-containing vaccines have increased “in step with the autism increase,” and she calls Gardasil (HPV) “a very nasty vaccine” (4:36).

• She explains how glyphosate may carry aluminum past the gut and brain barriers and into the pineal gland. She links this to melatonin, to sleep disorders and to the shikimate pathway used by our gut bacteria (5:37).

For the full story, go here:

Watch now (8 mins) | MIT scientist Dr. Stephanie Seneff explains why she thinks vaccine glutamate and aluminum become more harmful alongside glyphosate.

10/23/2026

I knew I had to be in private practice as I saw these issues even then:

There was a time when American physicians were independent professionals who owned their practices, knew their patients, set their fees, and made medical decisions without consulting a corporate administrator or an insurance company’s utilization-review department. They were also small-business owners, responsible for their employees, their expenses, and the financial survival of their practices. Their success depended on their professional reputations and the willingness of patients to return.

That model is disappearing. American medicine has increasingly become an industry dominated by hospital conglomerates, insurance companies, government reimbursement systems, and corporate investors. Physicians who once owned their practices now work for organizations that determine how many patients they should see, how much time they can spend with them, what software they must use, how their work will be measured, and even what they are allowed to say to their patients.

This transformation is often described as modernization or efficiency. Yet Americans are paying extraordinary amounts for health care, independent physicians are disappearing, and public confidence in the medical system has collapsed.

Sixteen years after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law, Americans face enormous premiums, substantial deductibles, complicated provider networks, and an administrative system that can make obtaining routine medical care unnecessarily difficult.

The AMA identified inadequate reimbursement, expensive resources, and burdensome regulatory and administrative requirements as major reasons physicians sell their practices.

This is where regulatory capture enters the picture. Large corporations have the money, lobbyists, and political connections to influence the regulations governing their industries. Once established, those regulations can become barriers to competition, protecting the very corporations supposedly being regulated. The more complicated the rules, the greater the advantage enjoyed by organizations large enough to absorb the costs. Regulations originally justified as protecting patients can end up protecting market share instead. The cumulative burden now favors large institutions while making it increasingly difficult for smaller competitors, the independent physician, to survive.

For the whole story, go here:

How big business moved in, and quality moved out.

10/20/2026

More bad news about the Covid vaccines:

Before COVID, mRNA had failed for decades and both companies developing it were in financial trouble. However, an emergency framework built years in advance made it possible to rush their vaccines to market. Now there is a major push to replace much of the vaccine schedule with lucrative mRNA vaccines, despite the platform being immensely problematic and still poorly understood.

The mRNA platform’s acceptance rests on the claim that its trials proved it “safe and effective,” yet the same tactics routinely used to rig clinical trials were used throughout them, from the misleading “95% effective” figure to injured participants having their injuries recoded as unrelated conditions.

Using trial data released by court order, a team of independent researchers and whistleblowers spent years auditing Pfizer’s trial. Within the limited records procured, extensive irregularities were documented throughout the trials including 1,203 participants vanishing from the records, 1,209 adverse events re-filed as COVID symptoms, undisclosed deaths in the vaccine group, unequal COVID testing between the groups, and the public receiving a more dangerous formulation of the vaccine which was never tested prior to being released.

Newly released documents from Argentina’s FDA show the trial’s largest site had twenty violations, including 52 participants given nearly double the planned dose, which finally resolves one of the trial’s longstanding mysteries.

Fortunately, the tide has turned. Federal health officials are now acknowledging vaccine injuries, investigators have gained the power to obtain the evidence long kept hidden, and public opinion has shifted to the point that it is finally possible to openly discuss what was done.

For the. fuill story, go here:

Gmail is email that’s intuitive, efficient, and useful. 15 GB of storage, less spam, and mobile access.

10/20/2026

Who knows this about our food supply?

For generations, American farmers grew wheat, oats, soybeans, and other food crops, allowed them to mature, and harvested them without spraying herbicides over the fields shortly before bringing the crops into the food supply. They relied on natural maturation, field drying, swathing, and mechanical harvesting. These methods were not primitive relics of an agricultural past. They were practical techniques that helped feed a growing nation, and many remain in use today. In fact, organic farmers still routinely use these methods to dry crops prior to processing.

Then came another agricultural innovation, one that promised farmers greater convenience, more predictable harvest schedules, and potentially lower operating costs. Instead of waiting for crops to dry naturally, farmers could apply chemical herbicides shortly before harvest to kill remaining green vegetation, accelerate drying, or make harvesting more uniform.

The practice is called preharvest chemical desiccation. Glyphosate, the active ingredient historically associated with Roundup, is among the chemicals used for this purpose. Others include paraquat, diquat, sodium chlorate, saflufenacil, and carfentrazone, depending on the crop and the product’s regulatory approval.

These chemicals have multiple adverse effects on our health. For the full story, go here:

Gmail is email that’s intuitive, efficient, and useful. 15 GB of storage, less spam, and mobile access.

10/20/2026

If you want to get an idea of how the system works, read this:

study falsely implied the Amish suffered more deaths because they eschewed public health guidance. But correcting the record proved nearly impossible.

In 2021, I reported on my national television program, Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson that the largest Amish community in the US, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, had rejected masking, vaccines, isolation, testing, and all the other CDC recommendations for Covid…and apparently fared none the worse for having done so.

The story was of such high interest that even after it aired on TV, it racked up millions more views online.

This attention to the Amish approach and its apparent success obviously didn’t please public health officials and industry advocates who were heavily pushing different narratives. They wanted the public to believe that anyone who wasn’t socially distancing, staying home, getting vaccinated, shutting down the works, and taking government-favored prescription drugs were putting themselves and others in grave danger.

As the revelations about the Amish made international headlines, there appeared to be a propaganda-driven effort to make it seem as if the Amish actually suffered far worse than everyone else for having failed to follow CDC’s advice.

A study was published entitled: “Closed but Not Protected: Excess Deaths Among the Amish and Mennonites During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” It appeared in the Journal of Religion and Health on June 11, 2021.

But I noticed serious flaws with the study and decided to challenge it......In the end, that study supported my reporting on the Amish approach to Covid.

This is an instructive example of some of the flaws with the system that produces “peer-reviewed, public studies.” The “tell” is the fact that all concerned seem to work against transparency (which legitimate, well-designed studies should welcome), and treat the public as if they have no right to know whether their tax dollars are being properly spent.

For the full story, go here:

I reported on my television program that Amish community in US, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, had rejected masking, vaccines, isolation, testing.

10/04/2026

This is an article everyone should read, as it sums up what I and others have said for years and the fact that it affects so many people:

In the 1960s and 1970s, a debate emerged over what caused heart disease. On one side, John Yudkin effectively argued that the sugar being added to our food by the processed food industry was the chief culprit. On the other side, Ancel Keys (who attacked Yudkin's work) argued that it was due to saturated fat and cholesterol.

Ancel Keys won, Yudkin's work was largely dismissed, and Keys became nutritional dogma.

Likewise, recently, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world published internal sugar industry documents. They showed the sugar industry had used bribes to make scientists place the blame for heart disease on fat so Yudkin's work would not threaten the sugar industry. In turn, it is now generally accepted that Yudkin was right, but nonetheless, our medical guidelines are still largely based on Key’s work.

However, despite a significant amount of data that now shows lowering cholesterol is not associated with a reduction in heart disease (e.g., this study, this study, this study, this review, this review, and this review) the need to lower cholesterol is still a dogma within cardiology.

The primary approach to treating heart disease is to prescribe cholesterol lowering statin drugs (to the point, nearly a trillion dollars have now been spent on them).

Unfortunately, the benefits of these highly toxic drugs are minuscule (e.g., at best taking them for years extends your life by a few days) and the harms are vast (statins are one of the most common pharmaceuticals that severely injure patients).

For the whole article, which I highly recommend, go here:

Why statins fail, how their injuries are hidden, and what really causes heart disease.

10/03/2026

We are once again seeing politics and money ahead of science:

Something deeply corrupt has happened inside the CDC

The agency has just issued its COVID-19 vaccination guidance for the 2026–2027 season. Buried inside that guidance is an extraordinary admission. CDC recommends COVID vaccination through “shared clinical decision-making” for healthy children beginning at six months of age, while simultaneously acknowledging that vaccination of people six months through 64 years without a qualifying high-risk condition is off-label.

It would be easy to treat this as another CDC controversy. I think that misses the larger problem. This is how the administrative state operates.

Congress creates agencies. Political appointees come and go. Advisory committees meet publicly, debate evidence and cast recorded votes. But underneath those visible structures sits a permanent administrative apparatus that writes guidance, interprets recommendations, maintains schedules, defines terminology, determines implementation and converts broad policy decisions into the rules healthcare systems actually follow.

That bureaucracy has enormous practical power.

In this case, FDA had examined the evidence and declined to approve an mRNA COVID vaccine for healthy children. ACIP then met under an explicitly stated principle of access within the FDA-authorized population.

Yet the system eventually produced a CDC recommendation encompassing vaccination of healthy children outside that FDA indication.

No new FDA approval for healthy babies was required.
No new randomized trial demonstrating clinical benefit in healthy babies was required.
And there was no ACIP vote explicitly recommending off-label vaccination of healthy babies. And no CDC director approved this either.
Instead, the result emerged through administrative interpretation.

That should concern people regardless of what they think about COVID vaccines.

For all of the details, go here:

And I am mad as hell about it