Discussion MANDATES?

Dear VCC Community,
In a recent interview with Jeremy Hammond, Nico Lagan asked a very important question – “What is the purpose of the Centre for Disease Control?” The same question might be asked of Health Canada. The answer is not what most Canadians assume.
Hammond’s response is the following: The CDC is there to advance and protect the pharmaceutical industry. It is there to increase vaccine uptake. It has nothing to do with the health of humanity. It is not there to provide verifiable information to contribute to informed consent.
Let that sink in for a minute.
We have been deceived by the titles of these organizations. We assume Health Canada is about the health of Canadians. We assume the Centre for Disease Control is about controlling disease and assisting individuals to achieve greater health. We assume that organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA) or the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are there for our best interest. They are not.
If you think I’m overstating this claim, consider what happened to health professionals like Dr. Paul Thomas and Ontario nurse practitioner Melissa Dore.
In 2020, Dr. Paul Thomas was challenged by the Oregon Medical Board due to the fact that many of the children in his pediatric practice were either unvaccinated or under vaccinated. This was a result of Dr. Thomas’ commitment to informed consent rather than a commitment to blindly follow the CDC vaccination schedule.
The Oregon Medical Board challenged Dr. Thomas to prove his professional commitment to informed consent produced better health outcomes than adhering to the CDC schedule. In response Thomas had his client’s medical data analysed comparing the health outcomes of his unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children with fully vaccinated children. The results were compelling. Unvaccinated and partial vaccinated children had superior health to fully vaccinated children.
The response of the Oregon Medical Board was immediate. Rather than celebrate the higher health status of his clientele, the OMB immediately suspended his license to practice medicine. They declared that Dr. Thomas’ “continued practice of medicine would pose an immediate danger to the public and to his patients.”
Ontario nurse practitioner Melissa Dore experienced a similar response from health authorities in Canada. In response to the emergency use authorization of the experimental mRNA injections, Dore created an education session using government data for those wishing to make an informed decision. The result was many of her patients chose to decline the injections. Rather than support Dore’s efforts to secure informed consent prior to vaccination, the Ontario College of Nurses stripped Dore of her license to practice nursing after 24 years of service.
Both Dr. Thomas and Melissa Dore were disciplined because of their adherence to informed consent. The message is clear. These professional organizations and regulatory bodies are not about our health. They are there to sell products and punish those who impede this objective.
It’s critical that we recognize that the pharmaceutical industry is a petro-chemical industry. It is not a health care industry. The system is not broken. It was not designed to advance health, but rather to advance the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. These professional organizations are there to sell products. Period.
If we want good health, we need to recognize that these organizations are not there to serve us. If there was ever a reason for “buyer beware”, this is it. If your doctor is more interested in selling a product than in your health, find another doctor who puts you first.
Ted

There’s a lot in this message that resonates, especially the idea that people should question the true purpose of institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Health Canada instead of just assuming they exist purely for public benefit. When you look at how closely public health policy is tied to pharmaceutical solutions, it’s hard to ignore that the system is heavily influenced by industry. That doesn’t mean every decision is harmful, but it does suggest that the priorities of these organizations may not always be perfectly aligned with individual health, especially when profit-driven companies play such a large role in research, development, and policy direction.

The examples of Paul Thomas and Melissa Dore highlight something deeper than just isolated cases, they raise real concerns about whether informed consent is fully supported within the system. When practitioners face consequences for encouraging patients to think critically and make their own decisions, it creates the impression that there are limits to acceptable viewpoints. That’s where trust starts to break down, and it’s why more people are starting to take a step back and question whether these institutions are truly serving the public, or operating within a framework that prioritizes consistency and compliance over open, individualized care.

I think the question “what is the purpose of public health institutions?” is actually a really important one, and it’s fair for people to ask it, especially after everything that happened during COVID.

That said, the claim that organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or Health Canada exist primarily to serve pharmaceutical companies feels like a very large conclusion that requires very strong, consistent evidence across multiple systems and countries.

It’s worth separating a few things:

• Public health agencies do rely on pharmaceutical tools (like vaccines and medications), so naturally they interact with that industry.
• There have been real concerns historically about regulatory capture and conflicts of interest in medicine.
• But that doesn’t automatically mean the entire purpose of these institutions is profit-driven or deceptive.

On the examples mentioned, like Paul Thomas, the situation is actually heavily debated. Critics argue his data wasn’t controlled properly (for factors like socioeconomic status, healthcare access, etc.), which makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Regulatory bodies often act based on standards of evidence, not just outcomes reported by one practice.


I think the stronger and more productive takeaway is this:
We should absolutely demand transparency, accountability, and informed consent,but we also need to be careful not to jump from “there are flaws in the system” to “the system is entirely malicious.” That being said there are definitely terrible things happening within the pharmaceutical space.