July 4th, 2026

Our Mission

To champion optimal health through education, scientific inquiry, collaboration, and open discourse that honours our dynamic connection to nature and innate wisdom.

In This Issue

• Our Exploration of The Quantum Field & How We Can Raise Our Consciousness Continues With Darylle Virginia Dennis
• The 12 Medical Screenings That Manufacture the Patients They Claim to Find
• Your FREE Second Chapter of Bill Code’s New Book ‘Solving The Heart Puzzle.’
• Sign-up for our next CHA – VCC National Assembly Call With Dr. Dorle Kneifel In Which We Discuss The Reality and Practice of Quantum Manifesting

Message From The Editor

One of the big focus areas for us at Canada Health Alliance is to educate people and to provide them with the knowledge they need to be able to confidently take full responsibility for their own health and wellbeing.

There is that old saying, that ‘knowledge is power,’ and I think it is true, especially when it comes to our health. If we have the knowledge to truly know and understand how to enhance and strengthen our health and how we can avoid the things that are poisoning us and making us sick, then obviously we can live longer, happier and healthier lives. And that is exactly what we want for you, your families and your community.

This explains why we share as much knowledge as we can with you through this weekly newsletter, the live National Assembly calls we regularly host and the massive archive of knowledge we are building on our website.

We also like to find lesser known things to share with you that you might not have heard about before. Or, especially when it comes to all things Covid, information that has been deemed ‘forbidden knowledge’ by the health authorities, who like to control what we can and can’t know.

At CHA, we believe the more we can share and the more you know, the harder it will be for anyone to take away your health sovereignty again.

Talking of ‘forbidden knowledge’, there is also knowledge that we have forgotten over the course of perhaps thousands of years which we would also like to re-introduce to you. For example, the knowledge of quantum physics and how, by understanding the quantum field, we can rediscover our own incredible power to actually change the world around us and literally manifest the future we want.

It is hard to reconcile this with the ‘physical’ non-spiritual world we live in, but, as Einstein himself said, it is not magic, it is just physics. Just not the type of physics we were taught at school – and now we are beginning to understand why!

Over the last few weeks we have been unpacking the topic of quantum manifesting, and quantum expert and author Darylle Virginia Dennis has been an important guide for us on this journey. She was our National Assembly call guest last week and she hosted a very interesting manifestation training session for CHA members on Tuesday evening. Our next ‘quantum manifesting’ National Assembly call will be on Tuesday, July 14th with Dr. Dorle Kneifel, and Darylle has two more exclusive training sessions for us. See the details below to register for these upcoming online sessions.

Getting back to the mission of information sharing, this week’s newsletter is a bit different from usual in that we essentially just have one big, long feature article. It is a long essay written and researched by UNBEKOMING. Due to its length, I generally wouldn’t consider running anything like this without dramatically editing it down. However, this essay is EXCEPTIONAL.

For a while now I have been looking at running one or two articles that expose the ineffectiveness of some of the screening tests that people have been led to believe are ‘critical for survival.’ We think of things like the cholesterol threshold for statin prescriptions, the emergence of ‘pre-diabetes,’ mammography, Pap smears and HPV testing, to name but a few.

The scandal is that they are usually critical for the profit and shareholder’s dividend of the test manufacturers, instead of making any real improvement to the survivability of those people being tested.

With the following long article by UNBEKOMING we aren’t just getting an exposé on a couple of these questionable tests, we are getting an exposé on TWELVE of them!!
Take my word for it, this is well worth reading – and sharing.

Have a wonderful weekend.

Alan Brough
CHA Executive Director – alan.brough@canadahealthalliance.org

Quote of the Week

“Stop telling yourself how bad you feel and start focusing on all the good things in your life.
Gratitude is a powerful way to live.”

Jonathan Landsman of Natural Health365

Wins of the Week

This week, given how long this newsletter is, we are sharing just a few Wins to keep up the positivity:

1. On June 24 it was reported that Newfoundland and Labrador were going to strip parents of the right to have automatic access to their children’s medical records once they turned 12 years old. After a brief but understandably loud and angry public outcry, led by the likes of Juno News and the Premier of Newfoundland & Labrador, Tony Wakeham announced last weekend that his government would reverse course on the shocking proposed policy. The premier sheepishly acknowledged the concerns raised by families across the province and reaffirmed that parents are the primary protectors of their children and should remain involved in their healthcare decisions. Although it was a clear Win for parents, we should all be reminded of just how much the government wants to have full control over our children, and how the possession of impressionable children has always been a corner-stone policy of all communist countries, from the Soviets to the Chinese to the North Koreans.
2. According to Druthers, this year Pride Toronto had a $700,000 funding shortfall going into this year’s parade, with organizers warning future events may be scaled back if sponsorships continue to decline. While everyone has the right to celebrate whatever they want, the disproportionately high focus and budget expenditure on Pride has skewed its perceived importance in the minds of Canadian youth to the detriment of healthy social balance and equity for everyone else.
3. On the same subject, recent surveys suggest the wave of students identifying as nonbinary is reversing. The percentage of US university and college students identifying as nonbinary is now half of what it was a couple of years ago, while a nationwide FIRE survey of more than 50,000 students found nonbinary identification has nearly halved—from 6.8% to 3.6%. The pendulum seems to have reached its peak and is now swinging back again.
4. More Canadian parents are saying no to the newborn vitamin K shot. Alberta put the refusal rate at just 0.3% in 2012, while a 2026 review says Canada is now seeing average rates of 1% to 3%. While the refusal rate is still low, it means parents are questioning whether this “standard” injection is necessary for their baby’s health.

We would like to thank Druthers newspaper for some of this week’s Wins. You can read the latest July edition of Druthers at https://druthers.ca/newspapers/.

If you have any personal, local or national wins that you think we should share and celebrate please email then to me at alan.brough@canadahealthalliance.org

Our Exploration Of The Quantum Field

& How We Can Raise Our Consciousness

Continues With Darylle Virginia Dennis

After the STUNNING National Assembly call that we had with international presenter and author Darylle Virginian Dennis on June 25th, we then had a mind-blowing training session with her on Tuesday evening. In that follow up session, we learnt how we can create the reality we want by focusing our consciousness, and, with application, it is absolutely possible.

One of the CHA members who attended the ‘Focused Consciousness Creates Reality’ session with Darylle on Tuesday said afterwards:

“Darylle has formulated the essentials to happiness and success very well and is excited to spread the word. What a great class!”

We have two more training sessions with Darylle that YOU can sign-up for to learn more about our extraordinary quantum capabilities and how we can leverage that God-given power to make the world a better place, and to ensure that we can rise up above our fears and doubts and ensure a future of health, wealth and happiness.
The next two sessions will be as follows:

1. ‘The Quantum Field Is A Mirror.’ In this session on Tuesday, July 28th at 4.30 pm PT / 5.30 pm MT / 7.30 pm ET you will learn how you can see your own reflection in the Field and what this truly means for you.
2. ‘High Frequency Foods That Raise Consciousness’ In this session on Tuesday, August 25th at 4.30 pm PT / 5.30 pm MT / 7.30 pm ET you will learn how your cells ‘bliss-out’ from the energy and vitality of Live Food, and how you can use this knowledge to further raise your consciousness.

Each session is US$33.00 (which is exceptional value-for-money considering the life-changing skills you will learn). To register for these classes visit: https://QuantumLeadership.Group or email darylle@QuantumLeadership.Group

Become A Paid CHA Member Now

And Help Us Educate Canadians On How To Become Healthier!

Our Mission at Canada Health Alliance is to champion optimal health through education, scientific inquiry, collaboration, and open discourse that honours our dynamic connection to nature and innate wisdom.

We do this through our weekly newsletter, our regular live national assembly calls, our schedule of excellent training courses, our partnerships with other like-minded organizations and by hosting conferences and events such as our annual Self-Care is Healthcare Conference & Retreat that will be held in British Columbia in April next year.

These activities are all highly effective and very empowering, but sadly they do need funds to organize and manage, and that is why paid annual memberships are so important for us.

CHA Membership only costs $100 for a year and with that investment you will be helping support CHA and all the programs and initiatives we are working on to improve the quality of healthcare in Canada for you, your children and your grandchildren.

To become a paid member of Canada Health Alliance please fill in the subscription form on our website at: https://canadahealthalliance.org/membership/

THE 12 SCREENINGS

That Manufacture the Patients They Claim to Find

This is a definitive, MUST READ Essay by UNBEKOMING on threshold manipulation, over-diagnosis, cascades, and the markers that aren’t what they claim…

The Pattern Across the Programmes

In 2022, the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of the NordICC trial — the first randomized controlled study of colonoscopy screening ever conducted. Over 84,000 people were followed for ten years. The trial found an 18% reduction in cancer incidence and no significant reduction in cancer deaths. To prevent a single case of colorectal cancer, 455 people had to be invited for screening. To prevent a single death, the numbers were statistically indistinguishable from zero.¹

This is the pattern.

Across the major screening programmes — mammography, PSA, Pap, colonoscopy, lung CT — when the question is whether the screened population actually outlives the unscreened population, the benefit largely disappears.² The statistic the programmes advertise is disease-specific mortality: deaths from the disease the test is looking for. The statistic they bury is all-cause mortality: whether the screened group, taken as a whole, lives longer. The two numbers are not the same. You can reduce deaths from one disease while total deaths remain flat — because treatment has killed as many people as the disease prevented, or because the disease you found was never going to kill anyone.²

The screened do not live longer than the unscreened. They are more likely to spend their remaining years monitored, biopsied, cut, and medicated for conditions that would not have harmed them. This essay catalogues twelve tests that produce that conversion, organized by the four mechanisms through which it is achieved.
This work stays free because paid subscribers make it possible. They get the full book library, the Deep Dive Audio Library, and the Questions for Your Doctor, Before You Consent, and Package Insert series. No grants, no gatekeepers — your subscription is what keeps it that way.

The Frame

Five concepts make the rest of this essay readable.

1. Disease-specific versus all-cause mortality. A screening programme can reduce deaths from breast cancer while total deaths remain unchanged. This happens when treatment kills as many people as the disease — through surgical complications, radiation-induced secondary cancers, cardiovascular effects of chemotherapy, or the cascade of follow-up procedures that screening triggers. Only all-cause mortality reveals whether the programme, taken as a whole, extended life.² Trials that report disease-specific reductions without corresponding all-cause reductions are reporting a redistribution of deaths.
2. Lead-time bias. A cancer destined to kill at age 70 appears as a three-year survival if found at age 67 through symptoms, and a seven-year survival if found at age 63 through screening. The patient dies at the same age in both cases — the clock simply started earlier. Five-year survival statistics, the most commonly cited evidence for screening success, are inevitably improved by earlier detection, even when no life is extended by a single day.² Kidney cancer five-year survival improved from 50% to 60% as imaging found more small tumours; the death rate from kidney cancer remained unchanged.²
   Length bias. Aggressive cancers grow fast, become symptomatic between screening intervals, and reach the patient through the clinic rather than the screening room. Indolent cancers linger for years in the detectable phase, making them easy targets. The cancers screening preferentially catches are the ones least likely to kill. The ones most likely to kill evade it.²
3. Overdiagnosis, and the autopsy reservoir behind it. Approximately 40–70% of older men have prostate cancer at autopsy, while only about 3% die from it.² Up to 39% of middle-aged women show evidence of breast cancer at autopsy; lifetime risk of dying from it is under 4%.² Thyroid cancer appears in 36–100% of carefully examined autopsies, depending on how many microscope slides the pathologist prepares.² Polyps are found in 32–50% of older adults; only 5% develop colorectal cancer.³ The reservoir of detectable-but-harmless abnormality is vast. Every screening test dips into it. Every person pulled from it becomes a cancer patient who can only be harmed by treatment, because they were never at risk.
4. The threshold. The cutoff that separates well from sick is set by a committee, not by biology. In every screening category, the threshold has been lowered — by panels whose members hold financial relationships with the manufacturers of the drugs and devices used to treat the redefined condition.⁴ The 1988 cholesterol panel. The 1994 WHO bone density panel.⁵ The 2003 American Diabetes Association threshold for impaired fasting glucose.⁶ The 2017 American College of Cardiology hypertension revision.⁷ The lowered PSA cutoff. Each revision converts millions of well people into patients overnight. No one inside their body changed.
5. The early-detection objection — that finding disease earlier must, by intuition, help — fails on this evidence. It assumes that everything labelled cancer or pre-cancer will progress; the autopsy data say otherwise. It assumes that finding more is finding harm prevented; the mortality data say otherwise. It assumes that the people setting the thresholds are disinterested; the disclosures say otherwise.

Group A — Threshold Manipulation

The first three screenings illustrate the cleanest mechanism in the catalogue. The cutoff changes while the body does not, and the well become the sick by committee vote. The drug to treat the redefined condition is manufactured by the company whose representative sat on the panel that lowered it.

1. Bone Density (DEXA) and the Manufactured Pre-Disease

In 1994, a World Health Organization panel redefined osteoporosis based on bone mineral density measured by DEXA scan.⁵ The reference standard was the bone density of a healthy 35-year-old woman. By this definition, any woman whose bones had decreased from their youthful peak — which describes virtually every woman over 50 — could be diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis. The condition “osteopenia” did not exist as a clinical category before this redefinition.⁸ Internal Merck memos described the company’s excitement about the new diagnostic category and the market it would create for Fosamax.⁸

The DEXA scan measures bone mineral density. That is all it measures. It cannot assess the collagen matrix — the protein scaffolding on which the minerals deposit. A baby has very low bone mineral density and rarely fractures. An elderly woman with osteoporosis may have adequate minerals deposited in the wrong locations, including her arteries. Bone strength is a property of the matrix as much as of the minerals; the DEXA captures only one of the two and is treated as if it captured both.³

Bisphosphonate drugs raise the number the DEXA measures. They do not so much prevent fractures as change the kind of fracture. Documented harms include osteonecrosis of the jaw — the jawbone literally dying — and atypical femur fractures, where the thigh bone snaps under minimal stress in patients taking drugs prescribed to prevent fractures.⁹,¹⁰ The absolute fracture reduction in randomized trials is 1–2%. Fifty to a hundred women must be treated for years to prevent a single hip fracture, while every one of them carries the risks above.⁸

2. Cholesterol

The cholesterol threshold for statin prescription has been lowered repeatedly since 1988, by panels whose members held financial relationships with the manufacturers of the drugs being recommended.⁴ The 2004 National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines tripled the number of Americans classified as needing treatment. The Washington Post reported the panel’s undisclosed conflicts. The guidelines remained unchanged.⁴

The cholesterol hypothesis has the unusual property of being unfalsifiable. The MRFIT trial followed 361,662 men and found that those with cholesterol below 170 had double the death rate from cerebral haemorrhage of those with higher levels; below 160 the death rate quadrupled.¹¹ The Sydney Diet Heart Study, recovered and reanalyzed by Christopher Ramsden, found that men who replaced saturated fats with vegetable oils had a 62% higher death rate.¹² The Minnesota Coronary Survey, hidden for decades, showed that for every 30 points cholesterol decreased, mortality increased by 22%.¹¹ None of this has altered the trajectory of the threshold or the prescription.

The statin absolute risk reduction in primary prevention — people without existing heart disease — is approximately 1–2% over five years.¹³ Advocates present this as a 30–40% reduction by using relative risk. The numbers describe the same trial result. The first is what the patient experiences; the second is what the press release says. Patients are not shown the first.

Statins raise blood glucose. The Crestor label states that statin-induced glucose elevations “may exceed the threshold for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus.” The warning was added decades after approval, after the diabetes signal had become too large to ignore.¹¹ The statin prescribed for the lowered cholesterol threshold thus produces the prediabetes captured by the next lowered threshold.

3. Blood Sugar — “Prediabetes”

In 2003, the American Diabetes Association lowered the threshold for impaired fasting glucose from 110 mg/dL to 100 mg/dL.⁶ The category “prediabetes,” as it functions clinically today, did not exist before this revision. Millions of additional Americans were added to the surveillance rolls. None of their blood sugar changed. A committee’s definition of normal changed.

Prediabetes is not diabetes. Many people classified as prediabetic will never develop diabetes. The label nevertheless creates patients — patients who are monitored, tested, counselled, and increasingly prescribed metformin for a number on a lab report. Metformin causes gastrointestinal distress in up to 25% of patients.¹⁴ These symptoms are typically addressed with additional medication, or attributed to irritable bowel syndrome, which becomes its own diagnostic pathway.

The label persists across the life cycle. A woman diagnosed with gestational diabetes during pregnancy — using the same threshold-lowering mechanism, which catches around 18% of pregnant women on current criteria — returns six weeks postpartum for a repeat glucose tolerance test.¹⁵ The test is unchanged. Her physiology is largely unchanged. She is re-labelled “glucose intolerant” or “prediabetic” and enters lifelong annual surveillance. The temporary pregnancy label becomes a permanent metabolic identity.¹⁵

The fasting insulin test, which would actually reveal metabolic dysfunction, is rarely ordered.¹¹ The fasting glucose, which lags behind insulin dysregulation by years, is the screening test of record. The earlier marker is upstream and dietary; the later marker is downstream and pharmaceutical. The system selects for the marker that supports its intervention.

This Essay by UNBEKOMING continues below…

Your FREE Second Chapter of The New Book ‘Solving The Heart Puzzle’ By Bill Code MD

‘Solving the Heart Puzzle’ is the latest bestseller by Bill Code MD, and follows on from his internationally acclaimed ‘Solving The Brain Puzzle.’ This remarkable book brings a whole new perspective to understanding heart health and the root causes of chronic heart conditions that many have overlooked in the past.

Bill Code has generously gifted a FREE chapter of his new book each and every week to our newsletter readers. To download your second FREE chapter of this ground-breaking book, visit the CHA website at:

You can also get your own printed version of this book. The full paperback version is available on Amazon for $31.36 at: https://www.amazon.ca/Solving-Heart-Puzzle-Bill-Ernest/dp/0978746325/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0

The 12 Screenings That Manufacture Patients Continued…

Group B — Overdiagnosis

Finding what would never have harmed you.

The next three screenings do not invent the condition by adjusting a threshold. They find conditions that exist by the pathology textbook’s definition but would never have caused symptoms or death. Overdiagnosis is the bulk of what these programmes produce, not a marginal side-effect of them.

4. Mammography

The 25-year Canadian National Breast Screening Study, published in the BMJ in 2014, followed nearly 90,000 women. It found no significant reduction in breast cancer mortality from mammographic screening.¹⁶ The 2013 Cochrane Review of randomized trials reached the same conclusion.¹⁷ The relative risk for all-cause mortality in well-conducted trials is 1.01 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.04) — no significant difference between the screened and the unscreened.¹⁷

What screening does find, reliably, is ductal carcinoma in situ. DCIS was a rare diagnosis before the 1980s. It now accounts for a significant proportion of all screen-detected breast cancers. Studies following women whose DCIS was missed at biopsy show that 75–90% never develop invasive cancer over 10–20 years.¹⁸ The condition is treated nonetheless — with surgery, radiation, and in some cases chemotherapy. Nearly half a million women have been diagnosed and treated for DCIS since widespread mammography began.¹⁸ The cancers they were treated for would, in the great majority of cases, never have harmed them.

Up to 60% of women who undergo annual mammograms for a decade experience at least one false positive.¹⁸ Each false positive triggers additional imaging, biopsy, and the psychological burden of waiting. A single mammogram delivers radiation equivalent to approximately 100 chest X-rays, concentrated on compressed breast tissue.¹⁸ Over a decade of annual screening that is 1,000 chest X-rays’ worth of ionizing radiation aimed at the tissue the screening is supposedly protecting. A 2012 BMJ study found that women with BRCA variants who underwent mammograms before age 30 had an increased risk of developing breast cancer compared to those who did not.¹⁹

5. Colonoscopy

The NordICC trial, with which this essay opened, was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2022. It followed over 84,000 people for ten years and found an 18% reduction in cancer incidence and no significant reduction in cancer deaths.¹ Until 2022, gastroenterology had no randomized trial supporting the procedure it had been recommending for decades.

The paradox is structural. Polyps are found in 32–50% of older adults. About 5% of people develop colorectal cancer.³ The vast majority of polyps removed during colonoscopy were never destined to cause harm. The procedure removes them anyway, and each removal leaves a wound in the protective mucosal layer. A 2019 study in Gastroenterology proposed an additional mechanism — iatrogenic tumour seeding via the scope itself, where cancerous cells stick to the biopsy forceps or are aspirated into the scope’s channel and redeposited elsewhere in the colon as the scope is withdrawn.³

The bowel preparation devastates the microbial ecology of the colon. Polyethylene glycol prep causes an “instant and substantial change” in gut microbial balance.³ Beneficial populations decrease significantly. The microbiome rebounds over weeks or months but may never return precisely to its original composition. Repeated colonoscopies across decades may leave the colon both microbiologically disturbed and physically scarred — creating, plausibly, the conditions in which polyps continue to form.

Complication rates from a Canadian population study of 97,204 outpatient colonoscopies: significant bleeding in 1 in 600; perforation in 1 in 1,200; death from the procedure in 1 in 14,000.³ These are surgical-intervention rates, not the rates of a benign screening test. The procedure generates approximately $4 billion annually in the United States.³

6. CT Scan — The Screening Test That Causes the Disease It Looks For

A 2025 study in JAMA Internal Medicine projected that the 93 million CT scans performed in the United States in 2023 will ultimately cause approximately 103,000 future cancers — roughly 5% of all new cancer diagnoses each year.²⁰ CT usage has grown from 3 million scans in 1980 to over 90 million today, a thirty-fold increase. Medical imaging is now the primary source of radiation exposure for most Americans beyond natural background.

The radiation epidemiology is no longer in dispute. The Taiwanese registry study found that CT exposure was associated with a 2.55-fold increase in thyroid cancer risk and a 1.55-fold increase in leukaemia risk, with clear dose-response relationships.²¹ The British NHS registry study of 178,604 children found that those exposed to cumulative doses of 30 mGy demonstrated a threefold increased risk of leukaemia; exposure to 50 mGy showed similarly elevated brain tumour risk.²² Five to ten head CT scans in children under fifteen can accumulate sufficient radiation to significantly increase lifetime cancer risk.²²

Approximately 25% of CT scans reveal incidental findings — unexpected abnormalities unrelated to the original reason for imaging.²¹ The Emory University radiologist who underwent virtual colonoscopy after a routine annual physical illustrates this cascade in its full form:

The scan found no colon problem but identified a kidney mass, a 2-cm liver mass, and multiple lung nodules. Further scans showed the kidney mass was a cyst. High-resolution lung scans revealed seven to eight nodules. CT-guided liver biopsy was inconclusive. PET scan was negative. Surgeons performed video-aided thoracoscopy, collapsing part of his lung to remove three small lung sections. He awoke after five hours of surgery with a chest tube, bladder catheter, central venous line, arterial catheter, spinal catheter, oxygen, heparin, prophylactic antibiotics, and patient-controlled narcotics. Five weeks before he returned to near-normal function, except for permanent rib pain from surgically interrupted nerves. The diagnosis: histoplasmosis — a common, usually asymptomatic fungal exposure.²,²³

38% of CT scans in some clinical settings are ordered for legal protection rather than clinical necessity. Only 2.2% of defensively ordered scans change patient management. Physicians who own imaging facilities order twice as many CT scans as those without financial stakes.²¹

Group C — The Cascade

The positive result that escalates into iatrogenic harm.

The next three screenings illustrate what happens after a positive result. Each programme has its own version of the cascade, but the structure is consistent: the abnormal finding triggers a sequence of procedures whose cumulative harm to the well far exceeds any benefit to the few who genuinely had the disease being screened for.

7. PSA Testing

Richard Ablin, who first identified a prostate-specific antigen in 1970, called the use of PSA for population screening a “profit-driven public health disaster” in a New York Times op-ed in 2010.²⁴ He wrote against the screening test most associated with his name for the rest of his career. The screening continued.

PSA is prostate-specific, not cancer-specific. The protein is produced by all prostate tissue — cancerous, enlarged, inflamed, and normal. An elevated PSA can mean prostate cancer. It can also mean benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostatitis, recent ejaculation, a urinary tract infection, or simply a larger prostate. No PSA threshold reliably separates cancer from non-cancer, and no threshold separates cancers that will kill from cancers that will not.²⁵

The threshold of 4.0 ng/mL was, by the account of New York Times reporting, chosen “just sort of arbitrarily.” William Catalona’s 1991 New England Journal of Medicine paper established it without reporting false positive rates — a basic requirement for any screening test.²⁵,²⁶ The world adopted the number.

75% of men with elevated PSA do not have cancer. Between 30 and 100 men are overdiagnosed and overtreated for every life saved.²⁵ The 2012 Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) and the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study found no significant survival benefit from radical prostatectomy compared to watchful waiting.²⁵ The surgery causes permanent urinary incontinence in 20–30% of men and erectile dysfunction in 60–80%.²⁵ Active surveillance is appropriate for roughly 99% of low-risk cases.²⁵

30 million American men are screened each year. The screening triggers approximately one million biopsies. At least 750,000 of those biopsies find no cancer. The programme generates $3 billion annually.²⁵ When the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against routine screening in 2012, urology associations mobilized lobbying efforts to preserve the status quo.

8. Prostate Biopsy

The PSA cascade leads to the biopsy. Standard transrectal biopsy routes 10–18 needles through the rectal wall into a sterile organ. The needle carries with it the bacteria living in the rectum. Published infection rates after transrectal biopsy reach 5.4%. Sepsis rates range from 0.2% to 9.4% depending on the setting. Between 50,000 and 150,000 men are hospitalized worldwide each year for post-biopsy infection.²⁷

The standard antibiotic prophylaxis is a fluoroquinolone. Approximately 22% of men undergoing this biopsy carry fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli in their gut flora; the prophylactic antibiotic does not work for one in five men.²⁸ The 2022 GRAM Report in the Lancet estimated that nearly 5 million deaths worldwide in 2019 were closely associated with antimicrobial resistance, with E. coli identified as the most significant contributing organism.²⁹ Transrectal prostate biopsies continue to be performed in this resistance landscape.

A different route exists. Transperineal biopsy enters the prostate through the perineal skin, bypassing the rectum entirely. The 2024 meta-analysis published in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases found that the transperineal approach reduces infectious complications by 77%.³⁰ The transperineal route has been available for decades. The transrectal route, with its known infection profile, remains the default in most clinics.

The broader complication profile is less dramatic but affects more men. Hematuria. Hematospermia. Rectal bleeding, with severe haemorrhage in up to 1% of cases. Lower urinary tract symptoms in up to 25% post-procedure.²⁷ Tuncel and colleagues found that 41% of men reported erectile dysfunction one month after biopsy, with 15% still affected at six months.³¹ A prostate cancer diagnosis itself, even when made for an indolent cancer that would never have caused symptoms, increases cardiovascular events (relative risk 1.3) and suicide risk (relative risk 2.6) within the first year of diagnosis.³² These outcomes do not appear on the consent form. A 1999 study in Effective Clinical Practice found that 31% of men who received a PSA test were unaware their physician had ordered it; of those who were aware, only 47% recalled any discussion of risks and benefits.³³

9. Pap Smear and HPV Testing

Angela Raffle’s 2003 study in the British Medical Journal calculated the arithmetic of cervical screening. One thousand women must be screened for 35 years to prevent one death from cervical cancer. Of those 1,000 women, 150 will receive a stress-causing test result during those 35 years. About 50 will undergo cancer treatment they did not need. Fifty women treated unnecessarily for every death prevented.³⁴

The cascade from abnormal Pap to LEEP runs like this. A woman with no symptoms is screened. The cytology shows abnormal cells. She receives a letter or a call. The words used vary; the message is consistent: something is wrong, further investigation is needed. The waiting period is filled with anxiety, internet searches, and the imagining of worst cases. She undergoes colposcopy. Tissue is removed for biopsy. The cervix has nerve endings; the biopsy is painful, with bleeding and cramping. If the pathology shows precancerous changes, treatment is recommended — typically LEEP (loop electrosurgical excision procedure) or cone biopsy. A portion of the cervix is cut away.²

The harm extends to future pregnancies. LEEP and cone biopsy shorten and weaken the cervix. The woman who underwent the procedure is at increased risk of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies. Her premature infant may require neonatal intensive care, which initiates its own cascade. A screening test administered to an asymptomatic woman has produced not only her own anxiety, procedures, and tissue loss, but increased risk to a future child.²

The new HPV DNA testing — adopted as first-line screening in Australia in 2017 and increasingly in the United States — finds the marker that most sexually active women carry. The Pap looked for abnormal cells. The HPV DNA test looks for sequences attributed to HPV. The yield of positives expands accordingly. Over 99% of those who test positive for HPV markers never develop cervical cancer.² Switching from cytology to PCR-based HPV testing broadens the pool of positives feeding the treatment cascade rather than improving the discrimination of the test.

This Essay by UNBEKOMING continues below…

Sign-Up NOW For Our Next CHA-VCC National Assembly Call With Dr. Dorle Kneifel As We Continue To Explore Quantum Manifesting

Our next CHA – VCC National Assembly call will be on the evening of Tuesday, July 14th and our special guest, who will help guide us through the incredible topic of Quantum Manifestation, will be none-other than our own CHA President, Dr. Dorle Kneifel herself!

Dr. Kniefel has been developing her own quantum capabilities over the years and will share how she came to realize that there was more to the world than the mere ‘physical,’ and how she has been honing her ability to manifest which she will share with us in this remarkable interview.

This FREE Zoom call starts at 5.00 pm PT / 6 pm MT / 8 pm EST

To pre-register for this remarkable discussion, and the audience Q&A that will follow it, simply click: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/rSINKJFtQxypchbJJo5JZQ, or you can check out our Events page on the website at: https://canadahealthalliance.org/events/

The 12 Screenings That Manufacture Patients Continued…

Beyond the Threshold: When the Marker Is the Construct

The first nine entries indict screening on the establishment’s own data — the studies, the trials, the autopsy reservoirs, the conflicts of interest disclosed in the papers themselves. The next three entries ask something deeper: whether the marker the test detects has any necessary connection to the disease the test claims to predict, or whether the marker itself is an artefact of a methodology that produces what it looks for.

10. PCR

Kary Mullis won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction. He spent much of the remainder of his career warning that PCR should not be used for diagnostic purposes. “PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something,” Mullis said in 1997. “It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.” In another formulation: “With PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”³⁵

PCR doubles the targeted nucleotide sequence with each cycle. After 20 cycles, a millionfold amplification. After 30 cycles, a billionfold. At 40 cycles, a trillionfold.³⁵ The MIQE guidelines — the internationally recognized standard for PCR methodology — state that “Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported.”³⁶ Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina, quoted in the New York Times in August 2020, said he would set the threshold at 30 or even less.³⁷ The Corman-Drosten protocol, which became the basis for Covid-19 PCR testing worldwide, used 45.³⁸

The 2006 Dartmouth-Hitchcock incident demonstrated the mechanism in miniature. Hospital staff developed a persistent cough. A rapid molecular test was deployed. 142 staff tested positive for pertussis. Nearly 1,000 were taken off work. Thousands received antibiotics. 3,599 doses of pertussis vaccine were administered. By year’s end, the established gold-standard culture results returned. Not a single case of pertussis was confirmed. The outbreak had been manufactured by the test.³⁵

In May 2020, Tanzania’s President John Magufuli submitted samples from a papaya, a quail, and a goat to the national laboratory under false names. The papaya and the goat tested positive for Covid-19.³⁵ The 27 different PCR test manufacturers examined in Dutch court proceedings all carried the same product disclaimer: “Research Use Only (RUO), not for diagnostic purposes.”³⁵

EDITOR’S NOTE: Within less than a year of conducting this exposé President Magufuli was dead. The cause was “attributed by the government to a long-standing heart issue” but many in Africa believe that it was because he was one of the first (and one of the last!) national leaders to publicly question the Covid narrative. We will probably never really know for sure…

The WHO’s August 2020 case definition completed the circle: “a person with laboratory confirmation of Covid-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.”³⁵ A person with no symptoms was a confirmed case of disease on the basis of a biochemical reaction in a laboratory.

11. Antibody Tests

The antibody test inverts traditional immunology. The presence of antibodies was historically interpreted as evidence of recovery and protection: the body had encountered something, responded to it, and was now resistant. HIV testing reinterpreted a positive antibody result — for the first time in the history of immunology — as evidence of an active, ongoing, deadly infection rather than a successful response.³⁵

The reliability of the reinterpretation depends on whether the test detects antibodies specific to the claimed agent. The HIV antibody test manufacturer’s insert states: “There is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.”³⁵ The German weekly Die Woche ran a headline calling this “The AIDS Test Lottery,” reporting that “the antibody tests do not measure what they should: HIV infection. They also react to people who have overcome a tuberculosis infection.”³⁵

Nancy Banks compiled a list of more than sixty conditions known to cause false-positive HIV antibody results — kidney failure, tuberculosis, flu, flu vaccination, tetanus vaccination, malaria, haemophilia, leprosy, and pregnancy in women who have given birth multiple times.³⁹ The proteins in the test, Banks writes, “are cellular in origin and are not specific to HIV.” The calibration was circular: proteins that caused the strongest reaction in seriously ill AIDS patients were selected to define the test. That those proteins had any connection to a retrovirus of any type was never independently established.³⁵

The monoclonal antibodies that became the diagnostic industry’s stock in trade were developed in 1975 through hybridoma technology — fusion of cancerous myeloma cells with mouse spleen cells. These are laboratory-manufactured chimeras that exist nowhere in nature. Harvard’s Clifford Saper has confirmed that they bind indiscriminately to similar protein sequences rather than to a single specific target.⁴⁰ Children born with agammaglobulinaemia, who produce none of what immunology calls antibodies, recover from illness normally.⁴⁰ The British Medical Research Council’s 1950 Report #272 found no correlation between antibody count and susceptibility to diphtheria.⁴⁰

The antibody test is the mechanism by which a healthy person becomes a sick one on paper. It measures cross-reactive binding to uncharacterized proteins and reports the binding as specific recognition of a pathogen.

12. BRCA Testing and Prophylactic Mastectomy

In 1994, Yoshio Miki and colleagues published in Science the identification of a gene they named BRCA1, associated with breast cancer in selected families.⁴¹ The 80–87% lifetime risk figure that drives prophylactic mastectomy decisions today derives from families chosen for inclusion because they had extreme cancer clustering — six, eight, ten cases across generations. This is ascertainment bias. A 2007 simulation analysis in the Journal of Medical Genetics quantified its magnitude: risk estimates from clinically ascertained families are inflated by a factor of two to three.⁴² A 2019 study in the European Journal of Human Genetics found the bias to be pervasive and unacknowledged.⁴³ The corrected estimates were rarely communicated to women making surgical decisions.

35–55% of BRCA variant carriers never develop breast cancer. The papers themselves document women carrying clearly “deleterious” mutations who lived to age 80 without malignancy.⁴¹ Compare this with Huntington’s disease, the case mainstream genetics treats as definitive — penetrance reportedly approaching 100% in carriers of the expanded repeat. A sequence variant that fails to produce the disease in half its carriers cannot be the cause of the disease; at most, it is a correlate in pre-selected families.

The 2002 BMJ study by Metcalfe and colleagues examined women who had already undergone prophylactic bilateral mastectomy after BRCA testing. Most overestimated their cancer risk by more than 90% compared with computer-generated estimates.⁴⁴ Twenty-two of seventy-five women believed their risk was 100%. The eighteen women with the lowest computed risk — those with limited family history — believed their risk was highest, averaging 80% when the models gave 12%. Their belief was wrong by a factor of seven. The machinery that produced the belief — the testing, the counselling, the risk communication — failed them. They removed healthy breasts.

The original BRCA papers carry conflict-of-interest disclosures. The race to identify the genes was explicitly a race to patent them. Myriad Genetics won and held a monopoly on the test until the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics.⁴⁵ At peak, BRCA testing alone generated over $500 million annually. Preventive surgeries, surveillance, and PARP inhibitors added billions.

Healthy women with no symptoms are routed toward mastectomy and oophorectomy on the basis of a probability inflated by ascertainment bias, applied to laboratory markers whose causal connection to the cancer has never been established outside the families originally selected for clustering. They are not given the corrected numbers. They are not told that 35–55% of carriers never develop the disease. They are told they have a gene that causes cancer, and they are routed to the operating theatre.

What the Twelve Have in Common

Twelve tests. Four mechanisms. One output: more patients.

The threshold-manipulation group converts the well into the sick by lowering the cutoff. The drug to treat the new diagnosis is manufactured by the company whose representative sat on the panel that lowered the cutoff. The body is unchanged.

The overdiagnosis group finds conditions that exist by the textbook definition but would never have caused symptoms or death. The mammogram finds DCIS that would have resolved or remained dormant. The colonoscopy finds polyps that were never destined to become cancer. The CT scan finds incidentalomas that lead to thoracic surgery for histoplasmosis.

The cascade group illustrates what a positive result produces. The PSA leads to the biopsy that leads to the sepsis that leads to the radical prostatectomy that leads to the incontinence and impotence — for cancers that, in autopsy series, are present in 70% of men over 80 and kill 3%. The Pap smear leads to the colposcopy that leads to the LEEP that leads to the preterm birth in a future pregnancy. The biopsy needle is the test as injury.

The marker-as-construct group asks the deeper question of whether the test detects what it claims to detect. PCR amplifies fragments and is read as detection of a whole organism it never isolates. The antibody test picks up cross-reactive binding and reports it as specific recognition. The BRCA test identifies a correlate in pre-selected families and frames it as a deterministic cause.

Each of these tests was developed for a specific clinical purpose: PSA to monitor men already diagnosed with prostate cancer, mammography to investigate palpable breast lumps, colonoscopy to assess symptomatic patients. They worked reasonably well within that scope. Repurposed to screen the asymptomatic, on the intuition that earlier detection must help, they fail because most of what they find is pseudodisease and the cascades they trigger produce harm exceeding any benefit to the few with genuine disease.²

The reservoir is vast. Seventy percent of men in their seventies harbour prostate cancer at autopsy. Up to 39% of middle-aged women show evidence of breast cancer at autopsy. Polyps are present in half of older colons. Thyroid cancer appears in nearly every carefully examined thyroid.² Every screening test dips into this reservoir. Every person pulled from it becomes a patient who cannot benefit from treatment, because they were never at risk.

The financial architecture is consistent across the catalogue. Colonoscopy generates $4 billion annually in the United States.³ PSA produces $3 billion.²⁵ CT scanning is a multi-billion-dollar industry.²¹ The DCIS treatment cascade — surgery, radiation, follow-up — runs to tens of thousands of dollars per case across hundreds of thousands of cases.¹⁸ BRCA testing exceeded $500 million annually at peak; the downstream surgeries and PARP inhibitors add billions. Each abnormal result triggers a sequence of follow-up procedures that generates more revenue. No conspiracy is required — only that every participant follow their own incentives.

The system is sustained, in large part, by the people it overdiagnosed. Every person overtreated for pseudodisease becomes, in their own telling, a survivor. They believe the screening saved their life, and they say so — to their families, to their neighbours, at fundraisers, and before parliaments. The screening programmes’ most effective advocates are the women whose healthy breasts were removed for a non-progressing DCIS, the men whose prostates were taken out for indolent cancers that would never have killed them, the people who were treated for a disease they never had and now organize their identity around the rescue. They are not lying. The framework that taught them to be grateful cannot acknowledge their mistake without dismantling itself.

How to Explain This to a Six-Year-Old

Some grown-ups have machines that look inside your body to find things that might be dangerous. They say finding things early is good, and going to the doctor sounds safe.

Here is what they don’t tell you. The machines find lots of small things that were never going to hurt you. Sometimes they find nothing at all and say they found something. Sometimes they find a piece of something and pretend it is the whole bad thing.

Once the machine says it found something, the grown-ups cut it out, or give you medicine to fight it, or make you come back every year to check. The cutting and the medicine often hurt you more than the thing would have.

The grown-ups also have a rule about what counts as sick. They get to change the rule. Every few years they change it so that more people are called sick. The people who change the rule are often paid by the companies that sell the medicine for being sick.

You can feel fine on Monday and be called sick on Tuesday, and nothing inside you changed. Only the rule changed.

Closing

The body that was well on Monday is a patient on Tuesday. Nothing inside it changed. The number on the chart changed.

A committee lowered a cutoff. A scan found a shadow. A biopsy went through the wall and brought back what it always brings back. A PCR amplified a fragment 35 trillion times and the result was labelled detection of a virus. A sequence variant labelled BRCA1, present in hundreds of thousands of women, was assigned a probability inflated by ascertainment bias and then offered as the basis for removing healthy breasts.

The twelve tests are not twelve separate stories. They are one story in twelve forms — the conversion of the well into the patient. The conversion is achieved through thresholds set by people who profit when the threshold moves; through overdiagnosis of conditions that would never have mattered; through cascades that begin with a positive result and end in the operating theatre or the morgue; and through markers whose existence, as the test claims them, is itself unverified.

The screened do not live longer than the unscreened. The trials are explicit on this point. The benefit the programmes advertise is disease-specific mortality; the number they bury is all-cause mortality. Moving the first without moving the second relocates death rather than preventing it.

The information needed to see this is not behind a paywall. It sits in the journals the physicians ordering these procedures subscribe to and cite — the NEJM, the BMJ, JAMA, the Cochrane reviews. It appears in the disclosures attached to the original papers, the financial filings of the companies that hold the patents, the consent forms no one reads aloud, the package inserts no one is handed, and the policy documents no one quotes back at the practice.

The document exists. The data exists. Most patients who go through these procedures never see them.

We would like to sincerely thank UNBEKOMING for this extremely well researched and written article and would strongly encourage you to read the full article on the UNBEKOMING substack at https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-12-screenings-that-manufacture which includes their full list of sources and references.

We would also recommend subscribing to UNBEKOMING whose stated objective is Investigating what medicine got wrong — from screening and vaccines to psychiatry and chronic disease.

We would like to thank Barry for bringing this very informative article (and UNBEKOMING generally) to our attention.

Meetings & Events

Tuesday, July 14, 2026 – Learn The Practice of Quantum Manifesting with CHA President Dr. Dorle Kneifel. YES! On Tuesday, July 14th our special guest to continue unpacking the incredible topic of Quantum Manifesting will be none-other that our CHA President, Dr. Dorle Kneifel herself! Dr. Kniefel has been developing her own quantum capabilities over the years and will share with us how she came to realize that there was more to the world than the mere ‘physical,’ and how she has been honing her understanding and her ability to manifest which she will share with us in this remarkable interview.
This FREE Zoom call starts at 5.00 pm PT / 6 pm MT / 8 pm EST
To sign-up click: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/rSINKJFtQxypchbJJo5JZQ

Tuesday, July 28, 2026 – Part 2 of the Exclusive Quantum Manifesting training course presented by Quantum Living author Darylle Virginia Dennis, titled ‘THE QUANTUM FIELD IS A MIRROR.’ In this unique training session you will learn about the evolution of consciousness that the entire world is in the midst of right now. You will also learn how you can intentionally expand and create more of whatever you desire to manifest, RIGHT NOW! This 2 hour course starts at 4.30 pm PT / 7.30 pm EST and tickets cost US$33.00 which you can buy off Darylle’s website at, https://QuantumLeadership.Group

Tuesday, August 25, 2026 – Part 3 of the Quantum Manifesting training course presented by Darylle Virginia Dennis, titled ‘HIGH FREQUENCY FOODS RAISE CONSCIOUSNESS.’ In this unique training session you will learn the secrets of how healthy food can enhance your ability to raise your consciousness – and your ability to manifest! This exclusive session starts at 4.30 pm PT / 7.30 pm EST and tickets cost US$33.00 which you can buy off Darylle’s website at, https://QuantumLeadership.Group

September 10 to 12 – The 2026 Reclaiming Birth Gathering, at the Mount Alverno Luxury Resort in Caledon, Ontario. Now in its fourth year, the Reclaiming Birth Gathering is an established movement that brings back our primal knowing. It’s a living network of people who are moving forward with a deep respect for our body’s intelligence and our shared experiences – reminding us of the wild wisdom that lives within. Mothers, families and birth workers come together and Reclaim Birth to collectively question what we’ve been taught and honour the quiet intelligence beneath the noise. Change begins here – in conversation, in connection, and in community. For more information and to register your participation, visit the website at https://www.reclaimingbirthconference.com/

September 26 to 28 – Holosonic (Tuning Fork) Sound Therapy Introductory & Advanced Training Courses, featuring UK Osteopath Geoffrey Montague-Smith DO. Hosted by Dr. Lisa Polinsky ND, this is a two or three day practical workshop to explore the use of sound for assessment and healing. The intro course will be on September 26th and 27th and the advanced course will be on September 28, 2026. For more information, email Circle Integrative Wellness at admin@circleintegrative.com or phone +1 250 590 7809.

October 2 to 4 – The 2026 Reclaiming Alberta Conference, presented by WE UNITY. This is WE UNIFY’s fifth Annual Conference which will be hosted in Calgary, Alberta. At this timely conference, WE UNIFY will be assembling a coalition of leaders from digital platforms, media, academia, government and civil society to discuss creating greater resilience within individuals and families to prevent the decline of Western Civilization. Presenters currently include, Chris Scott, Drea Humphrey, Ben Trudeau, Dr. Charles Hoffe, Matthew Ehret and our good friend Ted Kuntz. For more information and ticket details visit the website at: https://www.weunify.ca/

If you are hosting any training courses or know of any courses, or relevant meetings and events that you think our Canada Health Alliance members should be aware of and would like to attend, please email the details to info@canadahealthalliance.org. And please email us sufficiently early so that we have enough time to get them into the next edition of this newsletter.

DISCLAIMER: Canada Health Alliance is not responsible for the content of this newsletter and makes no medical claims, statements or assertions based any of the content which is often provided by third-party contributors. It is presented purely for information purposes and should not be taken as medical, nutritional or legal advice. Canada Health Alliance nor any of its representatives have any responsibility or liability for any content, statements, implications, actions or consequences that may arise as a result of this publication. We encourage everyone to do their own research and make their own conclusions and decisions about what is right for them and their personal circumstances.

CHA Members Only

To continue reading, please join CHA now or login to your account.
The full content of the newsletter is available only for CHA members.