44 Comments
User's avatar
Evil Harry's avatar

"public trust in medicine will be permanently shattered".

Yeah. That ship has already sunk..

Expand full comment
Ryn's avatar

That's a trust that needs to be shattered. Then rebuilt on transparent uncompromised science that is performed without any conflicts of interest.

Expand full comment
Cruising Economist's avatar

No longer any trust in the honesty of medical "professionals" or even their fundamental competence as human beings frankly. How could they be so deceitful or obtuse or reckless or cowardly?? There are a few notable exceptions of course.

Expand full comment
Don Lutz's avatar

This cancer risk has been predicted based on the other toxins in these covid vaccines.

Expand full comment
Dr Philip McMillan's avatar

That is true. This was predictable.

Expand full comment
Don Lutz's avatar

I have been in touch with a woman in Connecticut who has many covid symptoms. She will be going to Dr. Kory's Leading Edge Clinic. It just seems odd that Connecticut has the highest covid problems in the Northeast. I would think New York would have more. Does it make any sense to you ?

Expand full comment
Dag Waddell's avatar

How come public health use correlation to advance their interests but then dismiss it wherever it is not convenient? The Pandemic of the unvaccinated comes to mind - and that was only possible because of the protocol to not count someone as vaccinated until 14 days past their 2nd shot. How are we to ever trust this group again?

Expand full comment
Alann Smith's avatar

Thank you Sir , you are humanities icon

Expand full comment
Dr Philip McMillan's avatar

Thank you.

Expand full comment
Paul Traynor BSc's avatar

Thanks for Sharing this Dr McMillan

Expand full comment
Cruising Economist's avatar

Over the now numerous decades I've been on this planet I only ever had one acquaintance, who wasn't elderly, die of cancer. Since COVID injections were employed two more have died; both previously healthy, vigorous individuals who were stricken and killed by sudden, aggressive cancers. Anecdotal, yes. Very suspicious, also yes.

Expand full comment
Sagewoman's avatar

Bravo, Dr. McMillan!!!

Expand full comment
Compsci's avatar

Wish these studies—maybe they do, I’ve not read them—begin to publish clear cost/benefit (odds ratios?) stat’s for vaccine use. In other words, nothing in this world seems entirely without risk, neither the disease nor the touted “cure”. All I ask for is accurate, unbiased information to make a sound decision wrt such trade off’s. At this point, I’ve become adverse to all medicines and vaccines. That can’t be right. Somewhere we’ve lost our way.

Expand full comment
Richard A.'s avatar

If you look deeply into many studies (especially the covid "vaccine" trials, you realize that they unethically removed people who had adverse events and claimed that they were removed for reasons unrelated to the "vaccine". This was done in numerous occasions, but one of the best known was Maddy deGray (spelling probably wrong, but its close and she is well known) for "stomach pains". She is among the worst affected by the "vaccine". When the do this, they also abandon the patient and refuse to treat- so they can say that the disease was unrelated to the shots. This was done numerous times in order to defraud the government (but the government "went along" with this because they also profit financially from "vaccine" sales. The point I'm yrying to make is that you cannot trust either "Big Pharma" OR the government in your hralth care decisions. We were frightened deliberately in order for certain connected groups to financially profit from our fear. And since profit was considered more important than science, a very poor medical intervention, falsely labeled a "vaccine" in order to avoid normal testing (which would have taken years and resulted in a safer more effective medical intervention (its not and never was a vaccine, its completely different- gene therapy, which was never before used in large scale experiments because of the danger shown in small scale experiments) The "testing" was totally "theater", not only were they not legally necessary (legally the shots were called "countermeasures", and required no testing of any kind amazingly!) the "testing" was not rigorous and was scientifically invalid (which was the subject of Brooke Jackson's lawsuit against the government in which she argued exactly that, and that the government KNEW the "testing" was invalid, but the case was dismissed because there are NO requirements for "countermeasures" to be tested at all, and it was moot that the government KNEW the testing was invalid)

The end result of many billions spent by the government was a product that was ineffective but dangerous in that it "focused" everyones immune system in a uniform way, and the constantly evolving virus now is not even close to what the "vaccine" was designed for, yet is still being sold. And sine "countetmeasures" require no testing, they ALSO require no standards regarding contamination, and there is immense contamination ALSO (in Pfizer) SV40 gene promoters, which activate not only your genes, but allow the DNA contamination to integrate with your genome, this is permanant and can result in passing deficient genetic material to your children, along with possible cancer and birth defects.

But the government AND "Big Pharma" did make many, many billions of dollars from this ineffective and dangerous "vaccine". And by the "focusing" or "refocusing" of the human immune system of the majority of the world's population, they have inserted a huge future risk for humanity to a rapidly evolving virus.

Expand full comment
Compsci's avatar

I’m somewhat aware of the above. For example, I read the JAMA “Safety Study” for Pfizer when all the world—CDC, NIH, others—were simple misstating what was said in the study. The vaccine test subjects excluded pregnant women, under represented certain population cohorts, stated plainly that the vaccine would not prevent infection, etc.

Where I was going was wrt recent studies detecting and tweezing out adverse effects. Myocarditis for example. Shenanigans wrt subject selection is well known, but not always in the forefront of discussion. One of the big ones is calling off effectiveness/safety studies short of completion under the guise of moral “necessity” to provide treatment of the control group. We see a similar situation with the Covid vexxine—and now look where the hell we are. :-(

Expand full comment
Troy Tempest's avatar

I have nothing but respect for you Phillip.

I have been with you since the beginning and have shared many of your reports and talks. I have been where you are, although on a much smaller scale and it can be tough, but please know many of us consider you an inspiration.

(I never talk like this)

Expand full comment
Dr Philip McMillan's avatar

Thank you so much.

Expand full comment
Elnyp Dryke's avatar

Is there some milage in looking at glutamate starvation from the diet to help patients in this scenario ? Just a thought.

Expand full comment
DUANE HAYES's avatar

Just yesterday read a report confirming a decrease in cancer rates for those who had mumps and measles as children. .

.

Expand full comment
Jeanine's avatar

Epidemiologist Catherine Bennett is another Aussie who needs to be investigated for Crimes against Humanity.

Expand full comment
Nathan Bedford's avatar

I keep saying when they can't hold the damn wall of evidence back any longer then War will hide it.

Expand full comment
Craig Lawrance's avatar

I’m ready with my tar and feathers , right now! Kevin McKernan already has the evidence to prosecute the “fiat medicine” mafiosa healthcare industry. Viz his latest interview with Bretigne

Expand full comment
Sagewoman's avatar

It took you a while, but you got there!

Expand full comment
Lin Weiman's avatar

More information, please!

Expand full comment