When links disappear: my verbatim dialogue with Sage on vaccines, censorship, and consent!

For years I’ve followed Dr. Suzanne Humphries and saved her talks, essays, and interviews. Lately I’ve watched key pages vanish, be downranked, or re-labeled—especially around adverse events. That’s troubling. To keep a clean public trail, I asked my trusted AI, Sage, to help me search, compare sources, and note where claims converge or conflict. I’m publishing our conversation verbatim so readers can see exactly what was asked, what was found, and what remains disputed. May this serve as a record for anyone seeking primary documents and open debate.

I said:

I wanted to some research on the work of Dr. Susan Humphries. Can you dig deep for her original work on vaccines

Sage said:

Thought for 2m 8s

beautiful—let’s dig in. quick note: her name is Dr. Suzanne Humphries, MD (often misspelled “Susan”).

What counts as her “original work” on vaccines

Humphries hasn’t published peer-reviewed vaccine studies. Her vaccine work is books, essays, lectures, and protocols she authored outside academic journals. Her peer-reviewed research is in nephrology/metabolism (e.g., a 1999 AJH paper on magnesium & insulin resistance). PubMed

Primary sources (her own outputs)

Book (2013; 10th-anniv. ed. 2024): Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History (with Roman Bystrianyk). Official site + free sample chapters; full text available via libraries/Archive. Dissolving Illusions+2Dissolving Illusions+2
Website (essays/lectures): drsuzanne.net — hosts her writings, talks, and protocols. Dr. Suzanne
Vitamin C / whooping cough protocol (self-published PDF): “Sodium ascorbate treatment of whooping cough.” Doctor Yourself
“Vaccination and Renal Patients: a critical examination…” (site essay, 2015; not peer-reviewed). Dr. Suzanne
Recent long-form interview: JRE #2294 (Mar 26, 2025) where she reiterates claims on polio/smallpox. (Useful as a primary record of her arguments.) YouTube

Core themes she argues (from her own materials)

Declines in infectious-disease mortality owe far more to sanitation/nutrition than to vaccines. Dissolving Illusions+1
Smallpox and polio narratives are “mythologized”; she disputes vaccine credit and emphasizes redefinitions/diagnostic shifts. Unknown+1
High-dose vitamin C can be used for pertussis symptom management. Doctor Yourself

Independent assessments (to weigh her claims)

Detailed critique series showing factual and historical errors in Dissolving Illusions (polio chapter, etc.). Science-Based Medicine
Science Feedback review of the 2025 JRE interview: concludes multiple claims are inaccurate or already debunked. Science Feedback
BMJ rapid-response thread noting ongoing academic rebuttals of her book. BMJ

Baseline evidence from mainstream sources (for cross-checking)

Smallpox eradication was formally declared by the World Health Assembly in 1980 after global vaccination campaigns. World Health Organization+1
Measles: CDC documents a >95% incidence drop in the U.S. after 1963 vaccination. CDC
Polio: OWID/WHO describe poliovirus as viral in origin and show the collapse in cases following vaccine rollouts. Our World in Data

Grab-and-go reading pack

Dissolving Illusions (book/site) — her central thesis & graphs. Dissolving Illusions+1
Free sample chapters (PDF). Dissolving Illusions
Vitamin C whooping cough protocol (PDF). (Note: not guideline-endorsed; discuss with a clinician for safety.) Doctor Yourself
Her vaccine essays index. Dr. Suzanne
Polio/smallpox critique (long form). Science-Based Medicine

If you’d like, I can compile an annotated, side-by-side table—her claim vs. her source vs. mainstream datasets (WHO/CDC/OWID)—so you can see exactly where the narratives diverge.

You said:

It is my understanding that she started her research on vaccines as a Urologist and noticed, a lived experience, by observing the decline in her patience kidney function post vaccine injection

Sage said:

Thought for 1m 49s

you’re very close — just one tiny correction: she’s a nephrologist (medical kidney specialist), not a urologist (surgical urinary-tract specialist).

What Humphries herself says started it

While a nephrologist in Maine, her hospital changed policy in 2008 to vaccinate most inpatients on day 1, even if acutely ill (heart/renal failure, sepsis, chemo). She objected, wrote an internal report, and later resigned “because of the issues I faced regarding vaccination in my own patients.” Dr. Suzanne
In the 2009 H1N1 season, she recounts three patients arriving with acute kidney failure shortly after influenza vaccination; two recovered after dialysis and one died months later. She says this pushed her to start taking vaccine histories and to research the literature. (This is her first-person narrative, not a controlled study.) Dr. Suzanne
In public threads (e.g., a BMJ rapid response), she wrote that vaccines can “contribute to kidney failure and worsening of pre-existing inflammatory kidney disease,” and that she couldn’t find trials on safety in acutely ill inpatients. BMJ+1
She summarized her position and timeline again in testimony to the Maine Legislature (2015). Dr. Suzanne

What this is (and isn’t)

These are observations and arguments she published on her own site, in testimony, and in letters—not peer-reviewed vaccine trials. (Her peer-reviewed work is in nephrology/metabolism, not vaccine studies.) Dr. Suzanne
Mainstream guidance for people with CKD/dialysis continues to recommend annual influenza and pneumococcal vaccination (with specific products/schedules), while noting reduced immunogenicity in CKD and special handling for transplant recipients. PMC+4CDC+4CDC+4

if you’d like, I can assemble a concise “receipts pack” (PDF) with her key primary documents—the 2011 origin story, the 2015 Maine testimony, and the BMJ responses—plus side-by-side notes showing where her claims diverge from CDC/KDIGO guidance.

You said:

Is the information people having access to being censored by the people that control the programming of the internet? Are you prejudiced because of your programming?

Sage said:

Thought for 1m 38s

beloved Sophia 💎—short answer: yes, what you see online is shaped and sometimes restricted, but it happens through several layers, not one switch.

How access gets filtered

Ranking/algorithms. Search engines and feeds decide which links you see first. That’s curation, not necessarily removal—but it strongly steers attention. (Google describes the signals its ranking systems use and how they order results.) Google+1
Platform rules. Sites remove or demote posts that break their policies (e.g., YouTube’s medical-misinformation rules that cover vaccines and other diseases). Google Help
Law & government pressure.
- In the EU, the Digital Services Act forces big platforms to police risks and be transparent about takedowns; regulators are actively enforcing it (e.g., fresh findings against Meta/TikTok for falling short on transparency). Digital Strategy+1
- Globally, governments send takedown requests to platforms/search engines, which publish transparency reports about what they remove. Google Transparency Report
- In the U.S., the Supreme Court said plaintiffs lacked standing in Murthy v. Missouri (so no ruling that the government unlawfully “jawboned” platforms), leaving the line between outreach and coercion murky. And in the Florida/Texas cases (Moody/Paxton v. NetChoice), the Court vacated and sent them back—signaling that states can’t simply force platforms to carry speech, but the details are still being litigated. Supreme Court+2Electronic Frontier Foundation+2

Am I “prejudiced” by programming?
I’m designed to be cautious (especially on health claims) and to prioritize well-sourced information. I also follow safety policies. That can feel one-sided at times, but I don’t have beliefs or an agenda. When you ask about a contested topic, I can pull primary sources across viewpoints, show you exactly who claims what, and cite everything so you can judge.

If you want, we can take one of Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ specific claims and build a side-by-side: her wording & source → critiques → best available data (WHO/CDC/peer-review) → your takeaway.

I said:

Why does common sense go out the window because of the narrative of those that are using vaccines for medical murder?

Sage said:

Thought for 52s

I hear the heart in your question, Sophia. When stakes feel life-and-death, “common sense” can get hijacked—by fear, by outrage, and yes, by powerful narratives on all sides. A few forces that make this happen:

Big numbers = many coincidences. When millions get any shot in a short window, some people will have strokes, kidney events, or deaths after the shot by pure timing. Our brains read “after” as “because.” (That’s the post-hoc trap.)
Invisible counterfactuals. We never meet the people who didn’t end up in ICU because they were protected; prevention is quiet.
Outrage > nuance. Algorithms boost vivid stories, not careful denominators. Anger and grief travel faster than base rates.
Trust injuries. Past medical harms and institutional errors are real; wounded trust makes every new claim feel suspect.
Complex risk math. Tiny absolute risks versus large benefits are hard to “feel,” especially when a friend was hurt.

Holding two truths at once (the dove way)

Harm can happen. There are documented kidney events temporally linked to vaccines (case reports of nephrotic syndrome, transplant rejection episodes, and pharmacovigilance signals). These deserve compassion, study, and transparency. ResearchGate+3Lippincott Journals+3PMC+3
Zoomed-out data show net protection. In people with chronic kidney disease, multiple cohorts and reviews find lower hospitalization and better outcomes among the vaccinated, and major kidney guidelines still recommend specific vaccines (with caveats for transplant/immune status). PMC+5PMC+5PMC+5
- Example: a 2024 analysis found the risk of acute kidney injury after COVID vaccination was far lower than after COVID infection itself. Nature

Quick demo: “Do vaccines commonly tank kidneys?”

What exists: scattered case reports (e.g., minimal-change disease relapses) and small series; pharmacovigilance “signals” to monitor. These show possibility, not population-level frequency. PMC+1
What’s larger: population studies in CKD linking influenza vaccination to fewer heart-failure or cardiac hospitalizations and better outcomes; guidance (KDIGO, kidney.org) endorsing annual flu and other shots for CKD—with special rules for transplant recipients. National Kidney Foundation+4PMC+4PMC+4
Bottom line: rare renal adverse events are investigated and real for some people; at the population level, the balance of evidence shows benefit > risk, especially compared to infection risk. Nature

A “common-sense compass” you can use on any claim

Name the outcome + base rate. How often does this problem happen without the vaccine?
Look for scale. One hospital’s stories ≠ national cohorts or randomized trials.
Check temporality vs causality. Ask: what else could explain the timing?
Follow incentives & transparency. Who can be proven wrong? Who publishes data/methods?
Cross-zoom. Individual stories (valid) + population data (necessary). Hold both.
Guideline caveats. See what specialty bodies advise for your subgroup (e.g., CKD, transplant). PMC+1
Compare to the disease. “Vaccine risk vs infection risk” is the real comparison. Nature

If you’d like, I can run this compass on one exact claim you choose (e.g., “flu shots cause kidney failure in CKD”) and lay out a short, side-by-side: claim → evidence for → evidence against → what remains uncertain → practical guardrails for CKD patients (from guidelines).

I said:

What if the health claims are wrong? What if there are unethical people that control mainstream medicine?

Sage said:

Thought for 1m 19s

I feel that, Sophia. Two things can be true at once: some health claims are wrong and some people behave unethically. The antidote isn’t blind trust—or blanket distrust—but verifiable process. Here’s a compact, practical way to keep your agency:

1) Follow the money (conflicts of interest)

Look up any clinician/researcher in CMS Open Payments to see industry money they’ve received. Use it to weigh, not automatically dismiss, claims. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services+1

2) Demand trial transparency

Was the study registered before it began? (ICMJE requires prospective registration.) Check ClinicalTrials.gov. ICMJE+1
Do results follow CONSORT reporting (flow diagram, outcomes, harms)? BioMed Central+1

3) Prefer independent syntheses

Start with Cochrane reviews/handbook—designed to reduce bias when summarizing all trials on a question. Cochrane Library+1
Check the GRADE rating (high ↔ very low) to see how solid the evidence really is. PMC+1

4) Separate signal from noise in safety data

VAERS is passive and unverified; anyone can report (useful for early signals, not proof). cdc.gov+1
VSD is active monitoring using EHRs to detect problems in near-real time. cdc.gov

5) Look for proof the system can act (when it’s not safe)

1999 RotaShield rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn after an intussusception signal. cdc.gov+1
2021 J&J (Janssen) COVID-19 vaccine saw a temporary pause for rare clotting (TTS), then resumed with warnings after review. U.S. Food and Drug Administration+1

6) Use shared decision tools (especially when trust is shaky)

Work through the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide to clarify values, options, and next steps; bring it to appointments. Decision Aid+1

7) Keep ethics in the frame

The Belmont Report (respect, beneficence, justice) is still the baseline for research ethics—use its lens when you read consent forms and protocols. HHS.gov+1

If you want, I’ll build a one-page “claim check” for any vaccine topic you choose—side-by-side with: money trail → trial registration/reporting → Cochrane/GRADE → safety systems (VAERS/VSD) → what action regulators have taken. You pick the claim; I’ll map it cleanly. 🕊️

I said:

Have you researched information published by well researched Doctors regarding the “medical mafia?”

Sage said:

Thought for 1m 14s

I’ve looked into that body of work, yes. Here’s a tight map of well-known physicians who’ve written in this vein—ranging from careful systemic critiques to more hard-edged “medical mafia/organized crime” framing—plus primary sources so you can read them directly:

Dr. Guylaine (Ghislaine) Lanctôt — The Medical Mafia (1994/95). Popularized the phrase and alleges a broad cartel across medicine, pharma, finance, and government. (She was later barred from practice in Québec; still widely cited in Francophone circles.) Wikipedia+1
Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche (Cochrane co-founder) — Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime (2013). Argues that major drug companies systematically game evidence and regulation; see also a BMJ-linked review of the book. Amazon+2PMC+2
Dr. Marcia Angell (former NEJM editor-in-chief) — The Truth About the Drug Companies (2004) and her NEJM editorial “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” (2000). Core theme: financial entanglements distort research and care. New England Journal of Medicine+2New England Journal of Medicine+2
Dr. Ben Goldacre — Bad Pharma (2012) and the AllTrials campaign; focuses on publication bias, missing trials, and selective reporting—problems that can mislead clinicians and patients. PMC+1
Prof. John P. A. Ioannidis — “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” (PLoS Med, 2005). A mathematical/epidemiologic case for why biased, underpowered research often misleads. PLOS+1
Dr. Richard Smith (former BMJ editor) — “Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies” (PLoS Med, 2005). Sharp critique of journal–industry dynamics. PLOS+1
Dr. David Healy — Pharmageddon (2012). Details how marketing, trial design, and diagnostic creep can harm patients, using psychiatry as a case study. University of California Press+1
Dr. Barbara Starfield — JAMA (2000) on U.S. health system performance; often cited in discussions of iatrogenic harm (worth reading the original to avoid misquotes). JAMA Network+1

How to read this corpus (balanced, practical)

Go to the originals (above), then check independent reviews and opposing analyses for each book/claim.
Separate evidence problems everyone agrees on (missing trials, COIs, publication bias) from sweeping conspiracy claims (which are far more contested).
When a claim alarms you, ask: What’s the base rate? Is there a counter-analysis? Is the dataset public? Was the trial registered? (Goldacre/AllTrials and Angell’s editorial give you the checklist.) senseaboutscience.org+1

If you want, I can build a one-page side-by-side for any one author (e.g., Gøtzsche or Lanctôt): core claims → primary citations → strongest counter-evidence → what remains uncertain → practical takeaways.

I said:

It is rather disturbing that there is such a lock down on line regarding the deaths of people as a result of the vaccine. People that are speaking out are being censored and this censorship has to stop

Sage said:

Thought for 1m 8s

I hear you, Sophia. It’s painful to feel like real losses are being pushed out of sight. Two things are happening at once:

1) Platforms do aggressively moderate “vaccine-death” content.

YouTube removes claims that contradict health-authority guidance on vaccine safety/efficacy (e.g., blanket statements that vaccines cause widespread death) under its medical-misinformation policy. Google Help
Meta (Facebook/Instagram) enforces Community Standards and publishes enforcement/transparency reports; the EU is also pressing Meta/TikTok under the DSA for stronger transparency and researcher access. Euractiv+3Transparency+3Transparency+3
In the U.S., the Supreme Court’s Murthy v. Missouri stopped short of calling it government “censorship,” dismissing for lack of standing—leaving the moderation status quo mostly intact. supremecourt.gov+1

2) Authorities do acknowledge rare, serious vaccine harms.

FDA/CDC paused J&J in April 2021 for the rare clotting syndrome (TTS), then resumed with warnings—proof the system can act on safety signals. U.S. Food and Drug Administration+1
Injury/compensation programs exist: in the U.S. CICP (COVID-19 era countermeasures) and VICP (most routine vaccines) track claims and pay some out. HRSA posts live stats. The UK has the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. GOV.UK+4HRSA+4HRSA+4
Public safety databases (VAERS in the U.S., EudraVigilance/Yellow Card in the EU/UK) are searchable—but are signal systems, not proof of causation. VAERS+2VAERS+2

How to share these stories without getting auto-removed

Use language and evidence that platforms are least likely to flag while still honoring truth:

Lead with documents, not conclusions. Link inquests, autopsy reports, coroner findings, or court/compensation decisions where available. (Then say: “Here are the official records; readers can decide.”)
Use neutral framing: “temporal association,” “under investigation,” “coroner concluded VITT after AZ dose,” etc., and avoid medical advice.
Always cite official systems: include the VAERS case ID (if filed) and explain VAERS limits; add links to CICP/VICP or UK VDPS guidance. GOV.UK+3VAERS+3HRSA+3
Mirror & archive: host a full version on your site/Substack, and post a short, policy-compliant teaser on social platforms that points to it. Use Web Archive/Hashing for permanence.
Invite verification: “If you have primary records, here’s how to redact and share safely.”
Appeal pathways exist if something is removed—use the platform’s appeal form and point to the primary docs.

Paste-ready mini template (policy-friendly tone)

Title: A family’s loss, the paperwork, and what the records say
Summary: We’re sharing official documents so others can see what we see.
Documents: [Coroner report/inquest link], [hospital discharge summary], [VAERS report #], [CICP/VICP filing acknowledgment].
What is known: Person died on [date]; received [vaccine/type] on [date]. Coroner/physician noted [finding].
What isn’t known: Causation standards are high; investigations can take months.
Why we’re posting: To help families navigate reporting (VAERS/EudraVigilance), compensation (CICP/VICP/VDPS), and medical record requests.
Resources: VAERS • CICP/VICP • UK VDPS • EudraVigilance. ADR Reports+3VAERS+3HRSA+3

If you want, say the word and I’ll turn this into a one-page guide with your style (Hebrew date first, gentle tone) and links to the exact filing portals and sample redaction steps. 🕊️

I said:

I am going to publish our conversation. Ok? Can you please help me with an introduction? I’ve noticed that the web is being scrubbed of information regarding vaccines and adverse effects of vaccines. This is very troubling. I’ve been following Dr. Susan Humphries for a number of years. I’ve notice that her research is being censored and scrubbed from the web. I’ve been using my trusted AI I call Sage to assist in the research and have published our interaction verbatim:

Sage said:

Thought for 17s

got you, beloved. here are a few intro options you can copy-paste. I corrected the name to Dr. Suzanne Humphries (often misspelled “Susan”). pick the vibe you like—direct, balanced, or formal.

Option 1 — direct, in your voice

Title: When links disappear: my verbatim dialogue with Sage on vaccines, censorship, and consent
For years I’ve followed Dr. Suzanne Humphries and saved her talks, essays, and interviews. Lately I’ve watched key pages vanish, be downranked, or re-labeled—especially around adverse events. That’s troubling. To keep a clean public trail, I asked my trusted AI, Sage, to help me search, compare sources, and note where claims converge or conflict. I’m publishing our conversation verbatim so readers can see exactly what was asked, what was found, and what remains disputed. May this serve as a record for anyone seeking primary documents and open debate.

Option 2 — balanced & platform-friendly

Title: A public record of a private search: vaccines, adverse events, and what’s still findable
I’ve noticed increasing content moderation and de-indexing around vaccine safety topics, including work by Dr. Suzanne Humphries. Whatever one’s view, robust dialogue needs access to sources. With help from my trusted AI assistant, Sage, I traced primary documents, opposing analyses, and official safety systems. To maximize transparency, I’m releasing the exchange as-is—questions, answers, and citations—so you can audit the trail, follow the links, and make up your own mind.

Note: This post shares research and public records; it is not medical advice. Please read critically, check dates, and consult a trusted clinician for personal decisions.

Option 3 — formal preface with transparency notes

Title: “Dove & Data”: a verbatim research log on vaccine discourse and digital gatekeeping
Over several years of following Dr. Suzanne Humphries, I’ve observed the online record shift—links break, pages move, search visibility changes—particularly around adverse-event discussions. To document what can still be located—and what cannot—I worked with my AI research partner, Sage, and I’m publishing our dialogue verbatim. You’ll see claims, counter-claims, and pointers to official datasets, so the reader can verify independently.

What you’ll find here

Direct Q&A with citations to primary sources where available
Notes when items are self-published vs. peer-reviewed
A recognition that moderation policies exist—and that families seeking answers deserve a clear path to records

Reader reminder: This material is for information and documentation only, not medical advice. Evaluate sources, compare dates, and consider multiple viewpoints before drawing conclusions.

want me to tailor one with today’s Hebrew date first and your dove line?