Peptides and Hormones: Hype vs Science

White Amyloid Clots: Spike Protein Gone Wild

Since the rollout of COVID shots in 2021, embalmers worldwide have reported a startling new phenomenon: unusual white, fibrous clots unlike any seen in decades of practice. These rubbery, calamari-like structures, often solid and stretchy, have appeared in 20-30% of corpses according to multiple surveys, primarily in individuals who received mRNA vaccines. Retired U.S. Air Force Major Tom Haviland, a data analyst and engineer, has become a leading voice documenting this issue after his own professional stand against vaccine mandates. Haviland, fired in 2021 from his $165,000 defense contracting role at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base for refusing the experimental mRNA shot, turned his analytical skills toward this mystery. Inspired by the 2022 documentary Died Suddenly, he contacted the Ohio Embalmers Association. Vice President Woody Wilson confirmed seeing the clots, corroborating accounts from embalmers who first noticed them roughly six months after vaccine deployment. Haviland and collaborator Laura Kasner launched global surveys of embalmers from 2022 to 2025. Results consistently showed 66-83% of respondents observing these clots in 20-30% of cases, with sharp increases in the 36-50 age group—aligning with excess mortality and disability data from analysts like Edward Dowd. Scientific teams, including Australian organic chemist Greg Harrison, have analyzed the clots using advanced techniques. Normal clotting involves fibrinogen converting to fibrin in balanced alpha, beta, and gamma chains, forming smooth, plasmin-degradable structures. These abnormal clots show a distorted 9:4:1 ratio, with high phosphorus, sulfur, and sometimes tin, low iron, magnesium, and potassium. Researchers hypothesize that spike protein—whether from infection or vaccine—and phospholipid nanoparticles phosphorylate and hijack fibrinogen, creating misfolded, amyloid-like polymers resistant to breakdown. Thioflavin T staining lights them up green under UV, confirming amyloid properties. Scanning electron microscopy reveals twisted, nodular fibers unlike normal “spaghetti-like” fibrin. Alarmingly, these clots appear not only in corpses but in living patients. Endovascular specialist Dr. Mahana Basheeret reported extracting them via catheter from legs, hearts, and other vessels in his Jacksonville cath lab. Similar reports from a UK whistleblower describe 3-10 such clots weekly, almost exclusively in vaccinated individuals, with severity increasing by dose count. Standard clot-busters like tPA fail; physical removal is required. Radiologists struggle to detect them as they mold to vessel walls. Microclots resembling “coffee grounds” also clog capillaries, impairing oxygen exchange.Official response has been minimal. Haviland shared survey data with FDA, CDC, and NIH annually since 2023, including before an advisory meeting, yet received no substantive action. Some doctors faced pressure to cease communication. Funeral associations largely remain silent, despite member concerns. Patient surveys (over 1,400 responses) mirror CDC V-safe data, showing post-2021 surges in leg, lung, brain, and heart clots. This vascular amyloidosis represents a visible, testable signal amid broader debates on vaccine side effects. While spike from infection may contribute in rare cases, persistence of mRNA-driven production offers a plausible driver for ongoing cases years later. Protocols like nattokinase, bromelain, and curcumin aim to address spike, with advanced filtration showing promise. As embalmers continue annual conventions and data collection, independent science must prioritize rigorous autopsy, imaging, and blood supply studies. Transparency and further investigation are essential to understand and mitigate this persistent issue. Get full access to Dangerous Misinformation at drbowden.substack.com/subscribe [https://drbowden.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Peptides and Hormones: Hype vs Science

Dr. Terri DeNeui, DNP, APRN, ACNP-BC, founder of Evexias [https://www.evexias.com] and a leading expert in peptide and hormone therapies, discusses regulatory challenges with peptides and the importance of clinical supervision. Insulin and GLP-1 agonists are peptides with an established role in medicine. Now we are seeing broader applications of peptides used for inflammation, autoimmune conditions, muscle preservation, sleep, and tissue repair. The FDA’s 2022 decision to remove several peptides from the compounding safety list disrupted access for patients and clinicians. This shift pushed many toward gray-market sources, often labeled “research only,” raising serious safety concerns regarding purity, potency, and sourcing. Recent enforcement actions have shut down non-compliant suppliers shipping across state lines. DeNeui emphasizes that reputable compounding pharmacies adhering to FDA-inspected facilities and good manufacturing practices remain viable in certain states, but patients should avoid unverified online vendors. Underground products lack proper testing and clinician oversight, posing risks of contamination or inconsistent dosing. Growth hormone-stimulating peptides like CJC-1295 and ipamorelin attract teenagers via social media for muscle building and performance. DeNeui strongly cautions against this. Healthy adolescents with normal growth and puberty do not need them; exogenous interference can disrupt natural hormone balance, potentially stunting growth, elevating prolactin (causing gynecomastia), or causing pituitary issues. These compounds are better suited for age-related sarcopenia, injury recovery (e.g., Lisfranc fractures under medical supervision), or immune support in adults via peptides like Thymosin Alpha-1 and BPC-157. Proper cycling and clinician guidance are essential, as peptides act briefly and require tailored protocols. GLP-1 medications demonstrate strong efficacy for obesity and type 2 diabetes but demand careful management. Compounded versions are more affordable and allow micro-dosing to minimize side effects, though muscle loss remains a concern—up to 40% of weight lost can be lean mass without adequate protein and monitoring. Adverse events, including rare severe cases like pancreatitis, underscore the need for baseline assessments and experienced providers. DeNeui favors starting with semaglutide or tirzepatide from trusted sources. Hormone replacement, particularly subcutaneous bioidentical pellets (estrogen and testosterone), offers sustained release for three to six months. Unlike synthetic options such as Premarin (derived from mare urine), bioidentical or biosimilar hormones more closely mimic the body’s molecules. Pellet hormone therapy, used since the 1930s, supports mood, libido, energy, muscle maintenance, and overall quality of life, especially as testosterone declines in women post-childbearing. Progesterone is typically taken orally and necessary when taking estrogen to protect the uterus. Individual dosing accounts for age, activity, and hormone levels; side effects like unwanted hair growth are manageable. Urine metabolite testing (e.g., DUTCH) and GI mapping provide deeper insights into hormone processing and gut health, which influences conditions like PCOS, endometriosis, and fibroids. Both peptides and hormones offer powerful tools when used responsibly under trained clinicians. They are not shortcuts for lifestyle deficits but complements to nutrition, sleep, exercise, and stress management. As regulation evolves and research advances, prioritizing safety, evidence, and personalized care will maximize benefits while minimizing risks. Professional guidance remains non-negotiable for these potent therapies. Follow Terri DeNeui on X [https://x.com/DrTerriDeNeui] and learn more with her book “Hormone Havoc [https://a.co/d/0ixk47fM].” Get full access to Dangerous Misinformation at drbowden.substack.com/subscribe [https://drbowden.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Blood Contamination Crisis: mRNA Shots and the Fight for Safe Transfusions

The rollout of modified mRNA COVID-19 shots raises profound questions about long-term safety, including their potential persistence in the body and impact on the blood supply. Many individuals, particularly those unvaccinated or concerned about adverse reactions, now seek greater control over blood transfusions during planned surgeries or emergencies. Organizations like Safe Blood address this by matching recipients with donors who share similar vaccination status preferences, reviving practices once considered routine and noncontroversial. Safe Blood, founded in September 2021 by George Della Pietra in Switzerland, operates internationally with a strong U.S. presence across all 50 states. Vice President Clinton Ohlers, who heads media relations, explains that the group facilitates directed donations—where friends, family, or community members donate specifically for a patient—and supports autologous donations, in which patients donate their own blood in advance when time allows the body to regenerate red blood cells. This service proves especially vital when patients require multiple units for complex procedures like C-sections, aneurysm repairs, or cancer surgeries, exceeding what one person can safely provide alone. Concerns stem from early observations by European naturopaths and doctors who examined blood under magnification and noted anomalies in vaccinated individuals, sometimes resembling patterns seen in late-stage cancer patients, even among those without symptoms. These findings coincided with a reported 522% increase in blood-related illness claims in the UK from 2021 to 2022. While mainstream health authorities maintain that mRNA shots do not transmit via blood and that vaccinated donors pose no added risk, questions persist about lingering spike protein, potential DNA fragments, and biodistribution effects documented in some studies. A high-profile case involved a Texas patient at Baylor St. Luke’s whose wife—a universal donor—and friends were denied the opportunity to donate directed blood for his surgery. The hospital also resisted autologous donation despite sufficient lead time. Such denials highlight tensions between patient autonomy and institutional policies. The FDA issued guidance on October 23, 2023, cautioning that directed donations based on characteristics like vaccination status lack scientific support and may carry higher infectious disease risks than the general supply. Critics argue this relies on a 2013 Dorsey et al. study from an earlier era dominated by AIDS-related fears. That study initially showed higher infection markers in directed donations (often from first-time donors), but after adjusting for repeat versus new donors, the risk difference largely disappeared or even favored directed donations in some metrics. Opponents claim the FDA’s interpretation misrepresents the data to discourage patient choice, echoing past controversies over information suppression during the pandemic. The U.S. blood industry generates substantial revenue—estimated in the tens of billions annually—and the country exports a significant portion of plasma-derived products, accounting for roughly 2.65% of total exports and supplying about 70% of global needs in some categories. Blood banks often separate whole blood into components (packed red cells, platelets, plasma) for efficiency and reformulate as needed, a process that may generate more revenue than simple directed whole-blood transfers. Large organizations like the American Red Cross and others have opposed legislation protecting directed and autologous donations, citing supply chain concerns and invoking the FDA statement. Hospitals contract exclusively with one blood bank, creating bottlenecks when policies conflict. In response, over a dozen states have introduced bills to safeguard patient rights to autologous or directed donations and, in some cases, require labeling or separation of blood by donor vaccination status. Idaho advanced such legislation with near-unanimous support after testimony revealed local barriers, including denials even for autologous blood. Similar efforts in Texas nearly passed but faced procedural hurdles, while bills in Tennessee, Kentucky, and elsewhere continue. Proponents emphasize that one’s own blood or that from known healthy donors was historically the safest option and should not suddenly become restricted. They also highlight alternatives like Cell Saver technology, which recycles a patient’s own blood during surgery (common in open-heart procedures), though hospitals rarely offer it proactively. Demand for Safe Blood’s matching services is rising, driven by resistance from hospitals and blood banks. The organization does not collect or store blood itself to avoid heavy regulation; instead, it connects compatible donors and recipients for timely, fresh transfers coordinated through physicians and hospital blood banks. Membership is open on a sliding scale, with donor volunteers (unvaccinated individuals willing to help) providing critical support at no cost. Ultimately, this debate transcends blood logistics. It concerns medical freedom, transparency, and the right to informed consent in an era of novel biotechnologies whose full effects remain under study. While regulatory bodies assert the blood supply’s safety based on standard infectious disease screening (HIV, hepatitis, etc.), growing patient advocacy seeks empirical verification and choice—especially in non-emergencies. As states deliberate legislation, the core principle endures: the safest blood is often one’s own or from trusted sources, and policies should prioritize patient well-being over institutional convenience or industry flow. Safe Blood [https://safeblood.com] and similar initiatives represent a grassroots effort to restore that autonomy, ensuring future generations inherit a blood supply that respects individual risk assessments. Get full access to Dangerous Misinformation at drbowden.substack.com/subscribe [https://drbowden.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

A COVID Hero Faces 50 Years in Prison: The Ordeal of Dr. Ron Elfenbein

In the darkest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Ron Elfenbein emerged as a true American hero. An emergency medicine physician and operator of Maryland’s largest monoclonal antibody infusion network, he treated more than 100,000 patients across eight sites with the most effective treatment we had for COVID. Patients arrived on death’s door; within hours, many were dramatically improved. Dr. Elfenbein scaled his practice from six employees to over 300, working around the clock for two years while forgoing time with his own family. His efforts earned him citations from the Maryland governor and state legislature, plus “Person of the Year” honors from the state medical society—even after his indictment. Yet today this same doctor faces up to 50 years in federal prison. The reason? He dared to speak out when the Biden administration pulled monoclonal antibodies in December 2021, a move he argued would cost lives. Appearing on Fox News and Newsmax, Dr. Elfenbein publicly warned that the effective treatment was being sacrificed to protect the emergency-use authorization of COVID vaccines. Federal law, he noted, bars EUAs for vaccines when alternatives exist. Four months later, without warning or subpoena, the Department of Justice indicted him on five counts of healthcare fraud for “upcoding”—billing a Level 4 evaluation-and-management code instead of Level 3, a difference averaging roughly $50 per claim. The total alleged overpayment across the five charts reviewed: $250. The case was built on five patient charts out of more than 100,000. No professional coder was consulted before indictment; government lawyers simply declared the codes fraudulent. Two independent expert coders later reviewed hundreds of charts and found no fraud—one was the former president of the ethics committee of the American Association of Professional Coders, the other a DOJ trainer who hunts fraud for a living. Even the American Medical Association and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons filed amicus briefs defending Dr. Elfenbein, noting that he followed the very coding rules the AMA itself wrote. After a three-week trial, a jury convicted him. But Chief Judge of Maryland overturned the verdict in an unprecedented 93-page opinion, declaring there was literally “no evidence” of a crime and that the government’s case should never have been brought. The judge called it a “shoot first and ask questions later” prosecution. The Biden DOJ appealed on its final day in office, forcing a new trial scheduled for August 2026. Dr. Elfenbein now asks the Trump administration’s weaponization task force—established by Attorney General Pam Bondi—to review his case as a protected whistleblower. Former U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein publicly called the prosecution baseless. Meanwhile, Dr. Elfenbein’s legal bills have reached millions; he drives a Hyundai and relies on his wife, a pediatric oncologist, to keep the family afloat. This is not a story about $250 in disputed billing. It is a cautionary tale of government retaliation against a doctor who saved lives and told the truth. The case must be dropped—not as a favor, but as simple justice. Americans who risked everything to fight a pandemic should not spend the rest of their lives fighting their own government. Visit dropthecase.com [http://dropthecase.com]to support Dr. Elfenbein and help ensure this injustice ends. Get full access to Dangerous Misinformation at drbowden.substack.com/subscribe [https://drbowden.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Organ Harvesting and the Illusion of Brain Death

As a trained anesthesiologist and pain medicine specialist, Dr. Heidi Klessig had a pivotal experience as a resident that shattered her assumptions about the definition of brain death and organ harvesting. During night call, Dr. Klessig was assigned to anesthetize a young man declared brain dead after a motorcycle accident for organ procurement. She expected a corpse-like patient but found him warm, pink, with stable vital signs and occasional movements—indistinguishable from other ICU patients. When she proposed a paralyzing agent to prevent movement and fentanyl to stabilize hemodynamics (to protect organs), her attending asked if she planned to administer a drug to block consciousness. Stunned, she replied that he was dead. The attending’s cool suggestion to give it “just in case” planted seeds of doubt. The patient responded to surgical incision, bone sawing, and organ manipulation with typical hemodynamic changes, requiring standard anesthesia. This experience haunted Dr. Klessig, prompting her to examine primary sources. She later authored The Brain Death Fallacy [https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Death-Fallacy-Heidi-Klessig/dp/B0CL5VKJGY], arguing that brain death is not equivalent to biological death but a utilitarian redefinition enabling organ procurement. Historical Context and the Harvard Redefinition For millennia, death was recognized by the irreversible cessation of heartbeat, breathing, and the passage of time—signs observable without medical technology. Traditions like wakes ensured certainty. In 1968, shortly after Christiaan Barnard’s heart transplants, a Harvard ad hoc committee proposed “irreversible coma” as a new criterion for death. Their JAMA paper, lacking scientific references, described patients as “desperately injured” and a “burden,” justifying the change on utilitarian grounds: freeing ICU beds and resolving controversies over taking organs from comatose individuals. The committee did not claim these patients were biologically dead; it redefined them as such by fiat. This bypassed the “dead donor rule”—a moral precept requiring donors to be dead before organ removal and not killed by the process. By declaring certain comatose patients dead, procurement could proceed legally while the body remained biologically alive, warm, and perfused. Scientific and Philosophical Flaws Dr. Klessig highlights that brain death is often a prognosis, not a diagnosis of death. A key 1970s neuropathology study of 26 brains declared brain dead under stricter criteria found 10 normal and fewer than half showing diffuse destruction. The authors concluded it predicted possible death, not confirmed it. Subsequent cases, including a boy (known as TK) who lived 20 years post-declaration with no brain tissue at autopsy (only scar tissue), demonstrate that biological life can persist. Modern guidelines (e.g., 2023 American Academy of Neurology) rely on a clinical bedside exam: unresponsiveness, no motor response to pain, absent brainstem reflexes, and an apnea test. These are subjective. EEG is no longer required, despite 20% of diagnosed cases showing brain waves; over half retain hypothalamic function (regulating temperature, blood pressure, and awareness). Legal definitions demand irreversible cessation of all brain functions, creating inconsistencies that have prompted failed attempts to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act. Patients like Jenny Heyman, declared brain dead yet inwardly aware and able to recover with attentive care, underscore that unresponsiveness does not equal unconsciousness or death. Dr. Klessig notes the public receives no informed consent about these debates when checking “organ donor” at the DMV. Financial and Systemic Pressures Hospitals must report potential donors to organ procurement organizations (OPOs) under CMS rules for Medicare/Medicaid funding. Transplants generate massive revenue—one set of organs (heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc.) can yield over $8 million in billable charges, contributing to a $60+ billion industry. Cases like TJ Hoover, who showed purposeful movement and survived after being prepared for harvest, illustrate pressure on staff, and practices like controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) and normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) further blur lines. In DCD, life support is withdrawn from non-brain-dead patients with poor prognoses; a short “no-touch” period follows cardiac arrest before procurement. Reports, including Misty Hawkins (who gasped and had a beating heart upon incision), show risks of intervening on still-living individuals. NRP involves clamping brain circulation to declare brain death mid-procedure while resuscitating other organs—ethically controversial. Internationally, issues are graver: China’s state-linked trafficking from prisoners of conscience and cartel activity in Mexico exploit vulnerable populations. Ethical Imperative and Protections Dr. Klessig distinguishes ethical living donation (e.g., kidney from a relative or stranger) from deceased donation reliant on contested definitions. She argues society has sacrificed progress in neurological care by writing off “hard cases” as donors rather than treating them. To protect oneself: Avoid registering as an organ donor, as it is legally binding and OPOs have sued families. Use resources like respectforhumanlife.com [https://www.respectforhumanlife.com/] for refusal documents, healthcare power of attorney, and wallet cards. Families should ask detailed questions and seek second opinions. Dr. Klessig’s account, rooted in clinical experience and historical analysis, urges informed consent and reevaluation. Changing definitions does not alter biological reality. True respect for human life demands transparency, rigorous science, and ethical alternatives to practices that risk treating the living as dead. Follow Dr. Klessig on X [https://x.com/heidiklessigmd] and on YouTube [https://www.facebook.com/people/Dr-Heidi-Klessig/61552512071413/]. Get full access to Dangerous Misinformation at drbowden.substack.com/subscribe [https://drbowden.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]