Catherine discusses the threats posed by Health Provider Mental Health Inquiries.
Please login to see stories, charts, and subscriber-only content.Not a subscriber yet? You are invited to join here!
Catherine discusses the threats posed by Health Provider Mental Health Inquiries.
Please login to see stories, charts, and subscriber-only content.Comments are closed.
Our mission is to help you live a free and inspired life. This includes building wealth in ways that build real wealth in the wider economy. We believe that personal and family wealth is a critical ingredient of both individual freedom and community, health and well-being.
Nothing on The Solari Report should be taken as individual investment, legal, or medical advice. Anyone seeking investment, legal, medical, or other professional advice for his or her personal situation is advised to seek out a qualified advisor or advisors and provide as much information as possible to the advisor in order that such advisor can take into account all relevant circumstances, objectives, and risks before rendering an opinion as to the appropriate strategy.
Be the first to know about new articles, series and events.
No products in the cart.
You’ve touched on something I’ve been dealing with lately, which is the impossibility of removing embedded but inaccurate diagnoses.
I noticed, on a computer screen in a doctor’s office, that I had a diagnosis of “BRCA Gene” (breast cancer gene). I asked where that diagnosis came from and they couldn’t say.
I called the health information department of my local health system and asked, “who gave me that diagnosis and when?” The rep either couldn’t or wouldn’t say. Shouldn’t this be something I’d know about, if I have such a gene? The rep said I must’ve had genetics testing at some point and I should call the genetics department. I called, and no, I never had any genetics testing. So, it’s a phony diagnosis, and I want it removed. The health information people told me they can’t remove it. Why not? Who is controlling this information so that you can’t remove it. The rep wouldn’t say.
I know from experience that at some point some doctor’s office used that BRCA diagnosis in a claim for reimbursement, and to remove the diagnosis would be an admission of lying in their billing a claim for reimbursement. I wanted to know what doctor did this, and so I started digging.
Back in 2010, I was briefly uninsured. Somehow, my local health system knew this and got word to me that they were offering free mammograms to uninsured people like me. At that time, I still believed that mammograms were a good thing and I was pretty naïve still. I accepted the free mammogram and of course they “saw something”. I let them do a biopsy, which was negative but they told me I had stage 0 breast cancer (what the hell?), that I was at risk for full blown breast cancer, and they offered me free double mastectomy with free new fake breasts and told me I should now take this drug, Tamoxifen, because of my risk, which would also be free. There was a lot of breast cancer grant money flowing at the time and seems they planned to bill all of my “free” surgery and drugs to some grant, probably funded with pink ribbon sales. It was they who gave me the BRCA diagnosis and they did so based on me saying my mother’s great aunt might have had breast cancer in like 1930. That was enough, at the time, for the BRCA diagnosis which would’ve unlocked their access to all the pink ribbon grant money available to them, had I agreed to the surgery and drugs, which I did not agree to. Why would I do all this when I don’t have breast cancer? All the “free” care I’d had to date, including the biopsy, was no longer free once I said “no” to the Tamoxifen, and they billed me $1000’s that I had to pay out of pocket for this manipulation and scare tactics. I understood later, when I was less naïve, that it was only free if I’d taken the Tamoxifen. I never got another mammogram again, and so far am completely healthy. The doctor, like some sort of huckster snake oil salesman, is long gone and I can’t find her to confront her about removing that phony diagnosis. So, I’m stuck with it because it’s out there with the big data now, and embedded in so many systems, most of whom protect my “privacy” from me by refusing to tell me anything about my own data, so that I’ll never get to fighting all of it successfully.
My point in this very long story is that Catherine is right. Whereas 10 years ago the money was in the breast cancer diagnosis, its looking like today the money is in the mental health diagnosis and, in my experience, once you’ve been manipulated into giving the information for a diagnosis that they need to unlock the money, there’s no getting rid of that diagnosis (as happened to me when I gave up information that a great great aunt might’ve maybe had breast cancer in 1930). Doctors are financially incentivized and required to do these current mental health screenings, with patient responses and diagnoses pinging around who knows where out there. Because I’ve told such a long story already, I’ll save this part of the story, for another time, of a doctor recently using my admission of grief over the death of parent to level weird diagnoses to jack up my bill from a level 2 E&M to a level 5 E&M, bringing in a much higher reimbursement payment for himself plus demand a massive out of pocket payment from me, with my high deductible plan. If I didn’t have a high deductible plan, I’d have never known it happened. I’m fighting this, the costs and the phony diagnoses, through the PA attorney general at present, and will update.
Thank you for sharing- very helpful lesson for us all.
US Patent 20200197510
Respiratory virus vaccines
0012 DNA vaccination is one technique used to stimulate humoral and cellular immune responses to foreign antigens. The direct injection of genetically engineered DNA into a living host results in a small number of its cells directly producing an antigen , resulting in a protective immunological response. With this technique, however, comes potential problems, including the possibility of insertional mutagenesis, which could lead to the activation on oncogenes (onco=cancer) or the inhibition of tumor suppressor genes. (Body’s natural ability to suppress cancers)

This is from the patent on one of the covid vaccines. As you can read it speaks of tumor suppressor genes. So our bodies can be making abnormal “cancer” cells all the time, but the God of creation gave us ways to keep these in check.
My curious question is if people keep pursuing “preventive” care could they be finding abnormalities that would never end up being an issue because the body will take care of it, OR are they getting themselves in the pipeline for unnecessary surgery and dangerous treatments?
I suspect as with all things there is a bit of both, but as for me I don’t seek preventative testing anymore because I don’t want the treatments. It would be illogical if I don’t trust the treatments to be seeking out the studies which may or may not be jaded. This is the same reason I don’t get my cholesterol checked….I love raw butter and have no intention of not using lard from a regenerative farm.
The problem with electronic health records is if you go to doctors and don’t want the treatment they offer it is documented. I agree with solari there is a weaponized ion of mental health so getting your negative opinions on allopathic medicine in the EHR would not be a great idea anymore than telling a provider you are sad.
There are great functional MD’s and DO’s one of which I have and she uses paper charts still. The only problem is insurance does not cover her cost or some of the cost of her testing.
If people quit vaccinating and eat regenerative farm food and know a little about herbal medicines they can make themselves, we might put allopathic medicine out of business with all the good healthy habits…..
Pay cash. Insurance is only useful for car accidents and other trauma. Great advice:
If people quit vaccinating and eat regenerative farm food and know a little about herbal medicines they can make themselves, we might put allopathic medicine out of business with all the good healthy habits…..
THE DARK TRUTH OF AMERICA’S FEDERATION OF STATE MEDICAL BOARDS – DR. BRUCE DOOLEY
Found this on bitchute.com……had no idea that this organization existed
Very interesting…..a little of what I know from working as a Physician’s Assistant.
The billing for office visits is level 2-3-4-5. Most doctors bill a 9921(4) and I mostly billed 99213. A 99215 is the highest reimbursement which I considered for diagnosis of cancer or heart failure or a patient who wanted to talk and I spent over an hour in the room. Generally to have 99213 requires 3 different diagnoses 99214 needs 4 unless again there is a lot of time spent with a particular patient.
The EMR’s are a nice because I don’t have to struggle with poor hand writing, but a nightmare because unless I hear it from a patient I don’t know what is true.
For example, the computer will not allow me to order a cholesterol test without a diagnosis. There are no diagnosis codes like “rule out hypercholesterolemia”. So per the computer every patient with a cholesterol diagnosis does not have elevated cholesterol….because I don’t know until the blood work comes back.
If I don’t attach a diagnosis then the patient with insurance will pay out of pocket.
It is a totally messed up system and I personally would avoid it as much as humanly possible.
Since the breast cancer gene is a blood test, the patient and doctor should have had to sign special paperwork because it goes to a special lab.
You might try and get the diagnosis codes and go through the billing department to find out what the definition of it says to see if that is how they got it slipped in there.
The stages of cancer
Stage 0: non invasive Ductal carcinoma in situ
Treatment: hormonal therapy tamoxifen would be in this category
*look at your pathology report to see if you see that language
I am not endorsing any of these treatments/testing but just wanted to give you some info from a previous insider.
Additionally, “Stage 0: non invasive Ductal carcinoma in situ” is highly technical way of saying “no cancer found”. So what exactly is Tamoxifen “treating”? Its “treatment” for not having cancer.
According to him carcinoma in situ is cancer withi. The mammary duct also called ductal carcinoma in situ.
As far as Tamoxifen that is handled by oncology and he has some patients that take it some that refuse. He follows these patients for 6 months only so he cannot say whether the outcome is better or worse in those taking Tamoxifen.
We knew of one person the mother of a naturopath that just had surgical excision of her cancer and opted for nothing else and was 14 years cancer free. The side effects of Tamoxifen have to be taken into consideration also.
It would be a good question to as oncologists what they see on patients not taking Tamoxifen vs those that do and I will ask my husband to ask one of them when he runs into them.
Thanks for the follow up but the BRCA thing happened to me 12 years ago. I never got any surgery, took no Tamoxifen and am not considering ever doing either. If carcinoma in situ were truly cancer, I should be dead by now of cancer. I suspect that they play around with the wording and such on these cancer testing and diagnoses like they do with Covid PCR tests and what carcinoma in situ was in 2010, well maybe they’ve ascribed some other meaning to it in 2022. Who knows. My point at the start was about how phony diagnoses happen, why they happen, and how impossible a phony diagnosis is to shake. I’m not here to debate a breast surgeon about what is truly cancer. In my own case, it wasn’t any cancer.
Yes I understand very well how the Tamoxifen machine works. I would suggest maybe researching how the treatment: Tamoxifen, came to be. Just because its the recommended treatment, doesn’t mean its treatment. And stage 0 cancer isn’t cancer, but can scare someone into double mastectomy, reconstruction and 5 years of risky Tamoxifen. That said, the way the visit is jacked up to a level 5 E&M, which I also understand the coding very well, is to have the patient come to the office and agree to be seen by a PA student. The patient, thinking they are being helpful to a student in training, might agree, as I did. The PA (physician’s assistant) student, asked a lot of mental health type questions for a good 45 minutes. I have no illness, no chronic illnesses, admitted to no mental health problems but for being upset about my dad dying, which I said I considered a normal response and I wasn’t seeking any treatment for normal grief. I was floored when I got a bill for over $800, for what I thought was my covered well visit. The 45 minutes with the PA covered the 1 hour requirement portion of the level 5 E&M, so far as the practice biller/coder was concerned. The creative biller at the physician practice turned my admission of being an an all organic, non GMO diet for 2 years and losing 30 pounds into an “abnormal weight loss” diagnosis. Because we non-GMO organic people must have mental issues, due our mistrust of the mainstream food system, so therefor my weight loss was abnormal, though I have a normal range BMI. See how that works? Diagnoses are certainly influence by the practice biller/coders who’s job is to maximize reimbursement. And on and on it went with these diagnoses. But there is more to this story and I’ll tell it when I review the details of my fight with the doctor and his biller through the Pennsylvania AG Healthcare division. I want to get my facts straight before I post the rest
Reminds me of Angelina Jolie’s highly publicized “preventative” double mastectomy. She did not have Cancer, but “carried the gene”. She was hailed as being the ultimate Mother since she took these measures “proactively” so as to not leave her kids Motherless. At the time, I wasn’t buying it. My intuition told me she was unhappy with her breasts after having three children, wanted “new boobs”, and this was a win-win for her: she could get the implants without being accused of vanity, which wouldn’t have worked in her new “UN Ambassador” role. Also, now she didn’t have to pay- not that she can’t afford it, but its amazing how cheap some rich people can be. Wonder how many women she “inspired” to go down that path.
I think I heard somewhere that’s she’s a male to female trans sexual, to boot. But I can in no way verify that this is true. Something to consider though, is this being a stunt to encourage women to go along with this sort of thing. Kind of the hype to cut off breasts before the current hype to cut of breasts for trans sexuals. Hollywood encouraging chopping off our breasts for 15 years now, for one reason or another. Hmmm.. II think you’re onto something
Per my husband, a breast cancer surgeon, the noninvasive ductal carcinoma is cancer in the duct but has not spread. But, this is totally separate from a positive test for the breast cancer gene which is a blood test.
I would totally want that off my chart if they cannot produce the documents to prove it was done and positive.
Nope. Ductal carcinoma is cancer. The diagnosis they gave me is NOT cancer. But its worded in such a way to sound cancer-y and get people scared. They get the wording “carcinoma in situ” in there and its scares the crap out of people. You don’t have cancer but you have carcinoma in situ so you’re at risk for cancer, they tell you. Does your husband know whether Tamoxifen is off patent yet? Being off patent might explain the pull back on the mammogram vans, less breast cancer hype, ect. that I notice these days. I don’t know really because I’ve stayed away from that whole mammogram nightmare for a long time now, so consequently I don’t have cancer
Gosh I’m taking up a lot of space here, but I feel I should explain more fully how the BRCA gene diagnosis came to be for me, in the complete absence of any genetic testing. I was uninsured, and the health system I was dealing with, who’d offered me that free mammogram, promised payment for all of my “treatment” out of alternate funding (which I assumed to be race for the cure money, pink ribbon money, pharma research grant money). I also assume, that for an insurance company to have covered double mastectomy, reconstruction and Tamoxifen, the doctor would have had to have done real genetic testing. But this was not so with other funding doled out to the uninsured. The doctor only needed me to dig deep and try to remember any story of any family member having breast cancer, and I’d said I think I recalled my mother once saying that her great aunt might’ve died of breast cancer. Ding ding ding. That is all that was needed for the breast cancer gene diagnosis, so far as the health system and doctor getting paid by this mysterious grant funding, for a double mastectomy, reconstruction and 5 years of Tamoxifen. If whomever is paying the bills will allow such a diagnosis based on a vague recollection of something that might’ve happened in 1930, then you have the diagnosis. Insured people and those who deal with insurance billing don’t believe that something like this could’ve happened to me. Its only starting to come out now, what was going on with all those mammogram vans in poor neighborhoods back in 2010. It went that way for me because I was uninsured. My phony BRCA diagnosis stuck with me 12 years later, and can’t be taken away.
What a nightmare!?
How do I find out information collected about me in a study that my mother made me a part of done by the Rockerfella Foundation at the university of chicago when I was 7 years old. It was called the woodlawn study a psychological study that used 1200 children. They sent me a letter recently.
If they sent you a letter recently you have an address. Just send them a letter asking them to provide you with their full file on you.
You might try the University of Chicago Institutional Review Board (IRB). https://sbsirb.uchicago.edu/
The continuing food-fight that has emerged between the Desmet/Malone and Breggins’ debate has highlighted that the health industry is the lowest barrier to entry for top-down control. How Peter and Ginger have been accused of wounding the “truth” or “freedom” movement is beyond me. They pointed out, factually, that mental health has been weaponized and will continue to be weaponized, especially if you provide further building blocks for the quasi-legal use of public health/mental health to go after those you view as ideological enemies.
This, along with the CBDC, ESG and Climate Change portfolio of scenarios has revealed some of the more obvious patterns in instituting these changes.
The track record for using mental health for societal control is well laid out (CCP, USSR, USA, UK, France, etc…) and must not be ignored.
There are groups of people that have been working very hard to attack the foundation of control of Mr. Global (via public health). I would like to recommend that folks visit the website for https://informedconsentdefense.org/. These lawyers are putting up an amazing suit against the President of the United States to guarantee the rights of the unvaccinated to live in society (not just the CV19 jabs, but all vaccines). The filing is amazing in its thorough review of the facts. Please take a look, as the case is made stark on the galactic-scale difference in health status between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
Finally, on a more spiritual note, Archbishop Vigano spoke very candidly of the need to fight against the global tyranny that is being instituted against humanity. Worth the time to listen.
https://rumble.com/vwr8in-archbishop-carlo-maria-vigano-calls-for-resistance-against-new-world-order.html
Thanks! Vigano is so uplifting.
Right On to that!!! This happened to my mother in the 70’s! Paranoid schizophrenia! She woke up!
The tentacles are everywhere. Thank you for the insight.
It’s looking like past time to distance from the as is medical system and seek health care professionals who are 1) not in the “system”, 2) who will partner with you as a 50/50 relationship (meaning you have to do your own health due diligence too), 3)pay cash instead of insurance 4) possibly try some alternatives that may be new to you (I’ve had fabulous acupuncture treatments),
5) Diligently keep your own health records (health journal!) and copies of any providers you use 6) Opt out of systems and record keeping vis a vie computer,
(7) I am simply appalled by “Telemedicine” and would never use it.
I say this as someone who is very healthy, but racking up the years. At one time a practicing mental health professional I’ve seen this insanity coming, little by little, and tried to think about how to navigate these very choppy waters. There are good human provider(s) out there but it may take some work to find the right one(s) for your situation. Asking friends who are pro-active about there own health care people recommendation(s) is a good option. Not being afraid to interview a few people before making a commitment is OK. I’m considering simply not using Medicare at all, which means possibly different financial priorities to save my sanity, my freedom and my privacy. I would only consider the hospital for broken bones if there’s not another option. Just some thoughts…..