The other day I wanted to email someone a link to my book The Deep State Goes Viral, so I typed the title and my name into Google:

And here’s what came up as the top three search results:

The link to my book on Amazon.com did not appear at all on the first page of search results, so I added “Amazon” to the search:

And got this:

Then, for good measure, I tried just the title of the book:

Which generated this:

In all three searches, one of the top two results was a link to a page on Amazon called Debbie Brownstone: Books. Note that the only word in the title of this page that is also in two of my searches is “Debbie.” One of my searches shares no words with this title. How, then, is this a top-ranked search result?

I was somewhat taken aback. Although Brownstone Institute published my book, it was not in my search, and certainly not as my last name.

So I clicked on the link and this is what came up:

As you can see, on this page, it starts with two random books (every time I visit the page these books are different – once they included War and Peace!) that are completely unrelated to “Debbie,” “Brownstone,” or anything else in my search. Then four pornography titles, including the Double Penetration and Anal Sex Collections, only available in Audio, with groups of authors that may or may not include someone called “Debbie Brownstone,” then another random book, and then my book about the Covid pandemic. Immediately followed by more double penetration and anal sex.

What is going on? Is the Google search function just malfunctioning, or is there an agenda in the algorithm?

This is how Google explains its search rankings:

“To give you the most useful information, Search algorithms look at many factors and signals, including the words of your query, relevance and usability of pages, expertise of sources, and your location and settings.”

Taken at face value, this means the Google search algorithms think a page with only one, or even zero, of the words in my search, plus several words not in my search, on a page with explicit pornography, is the most relevant and usable search result for the title of my book about Covid.

Taken not at face value, perhaps there are algorithmic parameters in Google search that suppress the actual link to my book from appearing in the top search results?

Strengthening this possibility is the consistent suppression in Google searches of any of my Covid-related work over the last 4 years. If I just search on “Debbie Lerman” I get my LinkedIn page, which I have not visited or updated for many years, as the top result. The rest of the top ten search results, except for broken links to Spotify and IMDb, go back to my pre-Covid work as an artist, to pages and sites with far fewer views and lower relevance than the articles I’ve published on Brownstone, Substack, and elsewhere and interviews I’ve done that have generated tens – and sometimes hundreds – of thousands of views, and thousands of likes.

Given these results that have consistently been given by Google for several years when I search on my name, I’ve known for a long time that there are agendas in the algorithms that go beyond, and in fact contradict, their claims of “the most relevant, useful results.”

But this Debbie Brownstone page goes a step further: It does not just hide the most relevant results further down in the rankings or omit them. It actually promotes a porn writer named Debbie Brownstone as the most relevant result for a search on my book title, with or without my name.

I don’t think Debbie Brownstone is a real person. Her bio looks like an AI creation, and none of the porn titles in which her writing supposedly appears are available in print. A few of them have AI-narrated audio and/or Kindle versions.

Interestingly, other search engines, like DuckDuckGo and Bing, provide appropriate results for my searches, including links to my book on various websites, as well as links to book reviews and articles on Brownstone.org. For example, here’s what Bing provides:

This strongly supports the supposition that the skewed and reputationally damaging results on Google are manipulated, not organic.

I’m flattered that my book is threatening enough to the powers-that-be to warrant its concealment behind a whole pile of AI-generated pornography. Nevertheless, considering that Google controls over 90% of the global search engine market, this recent type of censorship/content suppression and reputational attack is very concerning.

On Sunday July 11, 2026, the New York Times ran an editorial entitled “We’re Living in a Tick Nightmare. It’s Time to Go to War,” in which a freelance climate-focused writer described unstoppable “tick armies” that are “hard to see, hard to kill, hard to find” and that “appear to already have us surrounded.” The ticks are “a bloodthirsty enemy” that resembles “a miniature version of the alien in the ‘Predator’ movies.” The main threat posed by these vicious alien-like killers? Lyme disease and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) – cases of which, the article noted, have seen “an alarming surge” in recent years.

On July 9, 2026, a mirror image of this panic porn article, this time aimed at the climate change-skeptical “health freedom” side, appeared in a Substack by The 2nd Smartest Guy in the World, who wrote: “The bioterror gain-of-function Lone Star Disease aka Alpha-Gal Syndrome epidemic is rapidly worsening…” In this article, the author argued that the ticks causing the syndrome were engineered bioweapons, probably funded by Bill Gates to get people to stop eating red meat. (AGS is described as a potentially fatal allergy to meat and meat-related compounds.) In a similar article from May 17, 2026, the same author attributed a recently observed rise in tick populations to “a massive deployment of lab-modified gain-of-function ticks” in which “mysterious boxes of ticks” were dropped on farms all over the country.

Similarly, in March 2026, a flurry of articles appeared in alternative media, citing newly declassified documents suggesting that Lyme disease was spread by weaponized ticks created in a secret bioweapons program. These articles also cited the massive reported increase in cases of tick-borne illness in recent years and hyped their horrors. Just one example from The Truth About Cancer Substack: “Four hundred and seventy-six thousand Americans annually join the ranks of the bitten, the infected, and the desperately confused…”

So is it true? Has there really been a huge recent increase in the threat posed to humans by ticks? When you see a tick should you immediately go into a tailspin of healthcare-seeking hysteria?

My recommendation would be to remain calm and look very carefully at the tick fear narratives, using this article as a guide. In it, I will compare the tick stories to the propaganda campaign during Covid, and I will argue that the recently drummed up fear of tick-borne illnesses on all sides is vastly overblown and intended to maintain a high level of public fear regarding potential disease outbreaks, and drive demand for novel, unregulated, rushed-to-market products.

How much should we fear tick-borne illness now? No more than we used to.

All of the panic articles – whether pointing the finger at human-induced environmental changes, secret government bioweapons programs, or evil population-culling billionaires – describe the menace of tick-borne diseases as increasing exponentially. And millions are said to be already infected. And deaths – at least one! – are reported. And everyone bemoans the lack of preventive or curative treatments.

Below is a more detailed examination of the claims shared by all tick-borne fear porn, along with reminders of the identical panic propaganda narratives used during Covid:

Massive rise in “cases”

Articles on all sides claim there has been an enormous rise in the prevalence of tick-borne illnesses. As The New York Times states: “researchers have found a hundredfold increase in positive tests for alpha-gal antibodies from 2013 to 2024.” On the conspiracy side, the Second Smartest Guy in the World gives us the all-caps headline “10,000% RISE IN ALPHA-GAL SYNDROME DEMANDS IMMEDIATE FBI INVESTIGATION FOR POSSIBLE BIOTERRORISM.“

Aaron Siri, a prominent lawyer on the medical freedom side, published this “Grock created chart” on X (with uncorrected errors on the x axis) on May 29, 2026, showing “suspected cases” of alpha gal:

In all three instances, the scary statistics are based on “testing positive for the alpha-gal antibody” – in other words, on the result of a lab test. No related statistics are provided as to how suspected cases correlate with deaths or disabilities actually caused by AGS.

As for Lyme disease, the NYT article claims “there has been a doubling” of “cases” in the last 30 years, and there is an overall surge in “tick bite cases” and “tick encounters” reported to the medical system. On the alternative media side, The Truth About Cancer Substack bemoans that there are nearly half a million new Lyme disease cases in the U.S. every single year. Again, no data is presented to elucidate whether more “cases” or close encounters with ticks translates into more illness or death.

Does the idea of falsely equating rising “cases” based on “positive test results” with a rising threat posed by a pathogen sound familiar? It should: This exact same propaganda narrative was used by every media outlet for years on end during Covid, visually hammered into people’s brains through an omnipresent ticker tape of ever-increasing “Covid cases” – a tally completely untethered to any metrics indicating whether more “cases” meant more illness or death.

You may be “infected” without knowing it – also known as “silent spread”

In tandem with “exploding cases” panic porn, the single most alarming narrative about Covid was that it could “spread silently,” so you could have it and infect everyone without even knowing it. This claim was used to justify universal masking and lockdowns, regardless of whether anyone had any symptoms of anything. It also justified universal vaccination, because the propaganda made people believe that everyone was a threat to everyone else – again, regardless of symptoms – unless you were vaccinated.

And now the killer tick fear mongers are using the exact same storyline. For example, Nicolas Hulscher, on the health freedom Focal Points Substack, shares a CDC info-graph showing that “24% of Adults Carry Alpha-Gal Antibodies linked to Meat Allergies in Hard-Hit States” which suggests, according to Hulscher, that “alpha-gal sensitization linked to meat allergies is far more widespread than previously recognized.”

Does this mean one quarter of all people in the “hard-hit states” — who may not even know they have “alpha-gal sensitization” — will drop dead if they eat meat or meat-derived substances? Have they been dropping dead in droves? Has anything else happened that is linked to the statistic of 24% antibody prevalence? No data is provided to answer these questions.

As for Lyme disease, The Defender (a publication of RFK Jr.’s organization, Children’s Health Defense) reports: “Federal data suggest 5 to 7 million Americans have been infected over the past decade.” But, they add, it’s hard to tell whether this translates into more illness, because Lyme disease is “often complicated by co-infections that can mimic or trigger other conditions, including multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia.”

This means that if you have any symptoms of an autoimmune-related disease like multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis, you might also have Lyme without knowing it. But you can’t really know, because the symptoms of the autoimmune conditions and Lyme are the same.

You could die!

You would think, with all the hype, that Lyme and alpha-gal are causing massive – or at least rapidly increasing – numbers of deaths and serious illness. Indeed, the NYT article opens with an anecdote about a man who dropped dead suddenly from alpha-gal syndrome in 2024 and was the first case ever reported in the medical literature.

This sounds scary. It means if you have “alpha-gal antibodies,” which you can’t know you have unless you test for them, and you eat something that the antibodies reportedly react with (in this case meat-related compounds), you could die.

However, no other statistics about deaths from either alpha-gal or Lyme appear in any articles about them. Likewise, no metric is provided reflecting the number of people hospitalized or suffering serious or debilitating conditions from these two syndromes.

And, if we look at the only AGS-caused death apparently ever reported, we find holes big enough to fit a Godzilla-sized tick through: The determination that the death was caused by AGS was based entirely on a post-mortem blood test, on the wife’s memories about “a dozen bites” on the man’s ankles weeks before his death (no mention of ticks, just “bites”), and the fact that the man had eaten a hamburger earlier that day.

When I read about the sudden death tenuously linked to a scary disease, it reminded me of this photo, which, according to The Guardian on January 30, 2020, was “The Image that captures the Wuhan Coronavirus Crisis”:

Although no subsequent cases of people dropping dead in the streets from Covid were ever recorded anywhere, and the authenticity of this photo is questionable, the image managed to rile people up about the “Wuhan virus” many weeks before the pandemic was even declared.

Ironically, if the man in the picture had indeed died suddenly, the tick narratives tell us that we could have gone back, tested his blood, found elevated levels of a particular chemical, remembered that he ate some beef earlier that day, and declared his death an alpha-gal tragedy!

You’ll find more details on the Covid fear propaganda in this article, published at the Brownstone Institute in 2022: Dr. Birx’s Fake Science Revealed in Her Own Words.

How the fear mongering works on the alternative media side

The articles about AGS in alternative media do not challenge the single reported alpha gal death, nor any of the claims about the condition. To the contrary, they build on the “anyone can be infected and die suddenly any time” narrative by adding the extra-scary hypothesis that this is all intentionally caused by engineered bioweapons.

This “conspiratorial” twist follows the insidious path of the Covid counter-narrative: SARS-CoV-2 was not a naturally occurring pathogen; it was an engineered bioweapon. And there are secret bioweapons labs everywhere. And we need to be worried about every new pathogen that appears, because it might be bioengineered, which makes it super dangerous…

…like whatever is being spread by these obviously bioengineered Frankenticks!

The bottom line is that, whether you believe the mainstream or the alternative tick narrative, the basis for the fear propaganda is the same: non-scientific claims about rising “cases” based on “positive lab tests” and “exposure” to increasing tick populations – without any evidence of increased disease or death.

And regardless of whether you challenge one propaganda framework or the other, you do not question the basic premise of scary ticks or skyrocketing disease risk. You just question the source of the risk. The panic remains.

But, you might ask, what if the risk is in fact greater when ticks are “weaponized” through secret gain-of-function research? This sounds like a reasonable question, yet is in fact just another facet of the propaganda: if there is no actual increase in illness or death related to increased tick populations, then it doesn’t matter where the ticks are coming from.

Furthermore, for a scientific deep-dive into the non-potential for weaponizing ticks, Sasha Latypova has written extensively on this topic.

Driving demand for novel, unregulated products

So why is everyone drumming up fear about tick-borne illnesses now? The answer is the same as the reason – or one of the main reasons – for the Covid panic propaganda: to drive demand for products with dubious safety, no proven efficacy, and no regulatory oversight.

On March 23, 2026 (right around the time when alternative media hyped leaked documents about Lyme being an engineered bioweapon, as noted in the introduction to this article), this headline appeared on the Pfizer website: “Pfizer and Valneva Announce Lyme Disease Vaccine Candidate Demonstrates Strong Efficacy in Phase 3 VALOR Trial.”

In the ensuing article, the companies reported that their phase 3 trial DID NOT meet its primary endpoint – in other words, it did not present statistically significant evidence showing that the vaccine prevented Lyme disease. Nevertheless, they were optimistic that they would achieve “regulatory success.” This means they thought they could get the vaccine approved, even though they did not have solid evidence showing its efficacy.

According to a CDC article from April 26, 2026, “the only [Lyme] vaccine previously marketed in the United States, LYMERix®, was discontinued by the manufacturer in 2002, citing insufficient consumer demand.”

To summarize: between 2002 and the early 2020s, no pharmaceutical company tried to develop and market a Lyme vaccine because people did not want one. Now a Lyme vaccine is about to be approved, even though it did not meet its clinical trial primary endpoint.

No demand. No evidence of efficacy. Enter the propaganda.

What about alpha-gal?

The NYT piece about the current “Tick Nightmare,” proposes that “private-public partnerships could be established to help guarantee markets for risk-averse pharmaceutical companies, creating incentives to develop new vaccines and safe insecticides.”

It does not mention that on May 29, 2020, the department of Health and Human Services already announced precisely such a partnership:

Through ongoing discussions with private-sector innovators, NIH has preliminarily identified promising products that may help protect individuals from developing Alpha-gal syndrome following a tick bite. Under the anticipated collaboration, participating companies would provide candidate products while NIH would support and fund the clinical research needed to evaluate their effectiveness.

Specifically, as reported in the Vinyard Gazette on June 2, 2026, HHS Secretary Kennedy

said the administration is collaborating with private companies to fast-track the development of medications to prevent and cure alpha-gal, and that the NIH is prepared to help fund clinical trials.

‘One of those medicines is almost ready, we’re fast-tracking it,’ he said.

The Internet does not know what this fast-tracked medicine is.

CONCLUSION

All of this has happened before. And, unfortunately, it is still happening, as seen in the case of the recent tick-borne fear porn: the media drums up panic about a non-existent, or minor health threat, and the fear is amplified by public health agencies that then partner with pharmaceutical companies to “fast track” treatments.

This does not mean everyone engaged in fear-mongering about ticks, or novel diseases, is a willing or knowing participant in a propaganda campaign. Many have been suckered into the killer tick narrative because it is so appealing and confirms everyone’s biases. For NYT readers, it’s obvious that human activity is increasing the threat of every terrible animal-harbored disease you can imagine; for medical freedom advocates, there is no doubt that someone like Bill Gates would be happy to engineer a monster tick that would prevent people from eating real meat.

Nevertheless, when The New York Times agrees with the health freedom movement about the need for unregulated, rushed-to-market products, you know the propaganda is working. And that’s what I believe we should worry about most of all.

This is the second part of a podcast I did with Doc Malik, discussing my book The Deep State Goes Viral, and related topics.

https://substack.com/@docmalik/p-206311832

Here’s the first half available for free on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/2mbvljQ_sbQ?is=qqG_B4wNsaVPCE1U

I think the best part, which Doc Malik highlights, is our discussion of what the “Deep State” is and what it is not.

Just yesterday, I was talking to a friend who insisted that we know President Trump is an enemy of the Deep State because they tried to destroy him with Russiagate etc. Here’s my explanation for why this is an incomplete understanding of how the Deep State operates:

The Deep State is not partisan. It is not beholden to a political party or an ideology. It is the source of the power and the money that are shaping the policy of the government and that do not come from elected officials or anywhere that the public has any influence over.

The Deep State is a cartel of financial institutions, global corporations, government agencies, military and intelligence alliances, and Silicon Valley. And it is all of these power entities acting together outside the bounds of the law and the Constitution in order to get more power and resources.

It’s not partisan; it’s not ideological; it’s not capitalism, socialism, Communism or any other ism, although it uses “globalism” to sound like it’s working in the world’s best interests. In fact, it is just a self-interested giant blob of very powerful entities working together to subvert our democratic and Constitutional rights.

This can be a confusing and complicated, because it’s much easier to say: We’re going to fire a bunch of bureaucrats and that’s how we’re going to drain the swamp. Or: The CIA was working against Trump, and that’s the Deep State. All the things that happened that were subverting Trump, like Russiagate — yes, that’s part of the Deep State playing games, and if they don’t want Trump, they’ll do things against Trump. If they don’t want Hillary or Kamala or somebody else, they’ll do stuff against them. But it doesn’t mean Trump is outside of Deep State influence. To the contrary, he is being used to corral a large part of the population into accepting the Deep State’s control and surveillance mechanisms.

What the Deep State really, really wants is for us to think that it’s the Democrats who are doing the bad stuff, or it’s the Republicans who are doing the bad stuff. That if we vote for Trump, he’s going to overthrow the Deep State, even though he is a complete tool of the Deep State. And the same goes for every other President, candidate or politician at this point in time.

So when Trump says I’m going to drain the swamp, or fight against the Deep State, it’s a joke — it’s funny, because it has absolutely no basis in reality. People want to believe that the public-facing puppets that are put in front of us as heroes, they’re the ones who are going to save us. But those people are there to manipulate us against each other.

We agree with Dr. Robert Malone’s bold statement on his Substack that the PREP Act is an abomination, and we call for all emergency declarations under the PREP Act to be terminated forthwith by HHS Secretary Kennedy, who has the sole statutory authority to do so, especially the emergency declaration for Covid, which has been extended over a dozen times, and is currently in effect through December 2029.

We disagree with Dr. Malone that alerting people to the latest abomination is “fearporn” or an exaggerated, unwarranted, response.

Specifically, we want to emphasize that the purpose of the PREP Act is to waive all legal liability for anyone who does anything related to covered countermeasures in the case of a declared emergency or potential emergency. It is extremely important to understand that the PREP Act cannot “create liability protections surrounding the investigational use” (as Dr. Malone states) of any product.

In fact, once a product is designated as a PREP Act-covered countermeasure, any use of it is no longer governed by any “investigational” laws or regulations. No informed consent is required, and no Institutional Review Board (IRB) nor any other body has any regulatory authority over its use.

This is why it is an abomination: Because if you get hurt or killed by a covered countermeasure under the PREP Act, you (or your relatives) have no legal recourse to redress the harm. And it is a clear violation of both citizens’ and states’ Constitutional rights, as explained by those who objected to the law when it was passed.

Strangely, this new declaration by Secretary Kennedy states in Section VII (Limitations of Distribution) that it is for covered countermeasures administered “in accordance with an approved IND [Investigational New Drug] application.” Just like Dr. Malone’s statement about “investigational use,” this misleadingly suggests that the regulations and legal protections that apply to clinical investigations of pharmaceutical products also apply to PREP Act-covered countermeasures. They do not.

Listen to the discussion to learn more, and find below a summary of key information we covered.

KEY INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAY 2026 ANDES VIRUS PREP ACT EMERGENCY DECLARATION

On Friday May 22, 2026, HHS Secretary Kennedy posted a notice of a PREP Act emergency declaration “for medical countermeasures against Andes virus.”

Here is the declaration https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-10539.pdf

It states that Secretary Kennedy has determined that “the spread of Andes virus and the resulting disease, hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) constitutes a credible risk of a future public health emergency.”

As of May 18, 2026, as reported by the CDC, there were no confirmed cases of Andes virus or HPS in the United States, and there were fewer than a dozen in the entire world. Three people were reported to have died of the disease.

The declaration “is effective as of the date of signature.” I cannot find whether that is 5.22.26 or another date.

It is effective through July 18, 2026. This implies that Kennedy believes the virus found nowhere in the United States “constitutes a credible risk of a future public health emergency” in the next two months.

Nevertheless, as with all PREP Act declarations, it can be extended indefinitely.

It is for one Covered Countermeasure: favipiravir. Clinical trials on favipiravir for treating influenza and ebola showed no efficacy and significant safety signals.

Favipiravir is a product very closely related (almost identical) to a product that is covered by the PREP Act emergency declaration for Covid: remdesivir. Extensive evidence has been gathered about the lack of efficacy and terrible safety profile of remdesivir.

We also know that almost no one who has tried to sue anyone over any Covered Countermeasure for Covid, including remdesivir, has succeeded, due to PREP Act protections.

Although no other products are listed right now as Covered Countermeasures for Andes virus, once a PREP Act state of emergency is declared, countermeasures can be added to the list with no need for any additional declarations.

TO SUMMARIZE THE SITUATION:

A state of emergency has been declared for a pathogen that cannot credibly be forecast to cause an emergency necessitating legal liability protections for countermeasures. The covered countermeasure (which is not subject to any investigational drug laws or regulations) has already been shown to be toxic and ineffective against similar pathogens.

This raises this question:

Why are we using an unconstitutional abomination for a non-existent emergency to give legal protections for an ineffective and unsafe drug?

According to Dr. Malone, this is merely “bureaucratic housekeeping” that Kennedy is using to “initiate antiviral therapy,” “empower doctors” and “allow clinicians enough flexibility to respond to a potentially dangerous outbreak.”

None of these explanations makes sense.

A law that is abominable because it violates the Constitution is not less abominable, nor does it violate the Constitution less, depending on the situation to which it is applied. Any use of a blatantly unconstitutional law is abominable and should not be downplayed or trivialized.

There is no law or regulation preventing healthcare professionals from treating an Andes virus patient with favipiravir, if they believe the treatment to be safe and effective.

There is also no reason favipiravir might be considered the only potential treatment for this virus.

Why would Secretary Kennedy want to “initiate antiviral therapy” over any other type of therapy? Is he trying to tell doctors what to do? That would be the opposite of empowering them and allowing them flexibility! In fact, granting PREP Act liability protections for just one antiviral treatment significantly lowers the chance that doctors will consider any other – potentially less harmful and possibly more effective – treatment option.

Think about it: If you were a doctor and had no idea what might work against a disease, would you choose treatments that show promise but have no liability protections? or a treatment that might be more harmful but grants you complete immunity from liability no matter what happens when you administer it?

SPECULATION

What is the purpose of this seemingly spurious invocation of an abominable law, guaranteed to upset those people who understand what the PREP Act is, and who remember how it was used to shield perpetrators of Covid countermeasure harms from liability?

I do not know the answer, but here are some possible reasons:

• Normalizing the idea that the PREP Act is somehow part of an accelerated approval or investigational process for experimental treatments, which it most definitely is not.

• Creating the illusion that it’s OK to use the PREP Act in some limited circumstances, thus making its use in general seem less egregious.

• If the Andes virus declaration is not extended, it could allow Sec. Kennedy to claim that he has, in fact, “ended the PREP Act declaration” which could be conflated (especially in search engines and AI-generated summaries) with ending the PREP Act declaration for Covid – a step he has not taken and says he will not take.

• If favipiravir has already been used to treat people suspected to have been exposed to the Andes virus, this declaration is necessary to protect the makers and administrators of the countermeasure, which is known to have significant side effects. We will be keeping an eye on the official date on which the Andes virus emergency is declared to be in effect, to see whether it is retro-dated the same way the Covid PREP Act declaration from March 18, 2020 was post-dated to take effect on February 4, 2020 – the date on which the announcement of the “national security threat” for Covid was declared by the biodefense cartel.

Please add any ideas in the comments section below.

Since 2021, the United States and world populations have been subjected to medical products called “Covid mRNA vaccines” that were authorized, manufactured, distributed and administered with no binding legal or regulatory oversight.

These products have caused a great deal of injury and death, the exact scope of which is unknown, because it is being systematically hidden from the public.

In the 2024 U.S. Presidential elections, many people who were angry about the devastation of the Covid era – including most egregiously the mRNA vaccines, but also the entire lockdown-until-vaccine military operation – supported RFK Jr., who had spoken out against the Covid crimes. When RFK Jr. threw his support behind Trump, many of his supporters did as well.

The Covid dissidents were rebranded as MAHA – Make American Healthy Again – a coalition ostensibly working to bring Covid justice once RFK Jr. was appointed to a high public health position.

In actuality, MAHA is a public relations and marketing project run by corporate and political deep state entities, aimed at re-directing the righteous, nonpartisan, civil rights-focused health freedom movement into a docile, politically toothless self-help/healthy-lifestyle consumer coalition, with plenty of grifters and opportunists to top it off.

Nevertheless, many remain loyal to the ideal of RFK Jr. as a Covid dissident leader and health freedom warrior.

When he was appointed head of HHS, RFK Jr. had (and still has) the power to end the declaration of emergency for Covid under the PREP Act, which provides an iron-clad liability shield to all Covid-related products, including mRNA vaccines. He has not ended the emergency and claims he is being prevented from doing so.

This state of affairs has forced RFK Jr.’s supporters, who believe he is subject to forces beyond his control, to drop their primary concern – Covid devastation – and pivot to less aggravating efforts, like addressing the harmful effects of food additives, pesticides, and infant formula.

As an example of what these efforts entail, “Operation Stork Speed” to “Make Infant Formula Healthy Again” proposes the following legal and regulatory overhauls: “Asking for public input on approaches to updating current nutrient requirements based on the latest science; increasing testing for heavy metals and other contaminants”; and “encouraging companies to work with the FDA to increase transparency and improve labeling.”

Such topics and “solutions” are highlighted by MAHA as causes and remedies for the “chronic disease epidemic” that, they emphasize, has been plaguing us for many decades. Which it has. They do not, however, address the acute ongoing emergency of harms caused by mRNA vaccines specifically, and the Covid catastrophe in general. In fact, they steer attention, energy and political will away from anything related to Covid.

An analogy would be a patient having a heart attack, while the doctors focus on his fiber intake.

Now, it seems, the MAHA enthusiasm for dyes, toxins and food pyramids may be wearing thin. With a potentially election-impacting dissatisfaction among MAHA ranks, a new distraction is needed to refocus everyone’s attention and ensure continued compliance with the anything-but-Covid-vaccine/response agenda.

The distraction is a brilliant one, because it is Covid-related and it is a topic RFK Jr. has focused on in the past, but it does not address the mRNA massacre: Bioweapons!

Here is the new narrative being rolled out and propagated in the “health freedom” infosphere:

Problem:

SARS-CoV-2 was a gain-of-function bioweapon! The CIA and Fauci are covering it up! What other bioweapons are they covering up? Why is the government “hiding the genomes” of recent, media-hyped viruses? What if the Hantavirus and Ebola and lyme disease and alpha-gal and every other condition and syndrome is actually caused by a gain-of-function bioweapon?

Solution:

Stop bioweapons research! Stop public health funding for gain-of-function! Prosecute Fauci! If not Fauci, prosecute his minions! Investigate every syndrome and disease on the planet as potentially caused by a gain-of-function bioweapon! Develop treatments for gain-of-function bioweapons! What about mRNA? Maybe it can be re-jiggered to work against scary gain-of-function bioweapons!

Never-addressed crimes and acute emergency situation:

Injuries, deaths and societal devastation caused by Covid response and mRNA products

A Call to Health Freedom Fighters

There are many legitimate health-related topics that might grab our attention, including environmental and dietary contributors to chronic disease.

There are scary-sounding programs, including biowarfare and bioweapons development, that can be used to whip us into a panic.

The most important thing to remember is that Covid is not the enemy. Bioweapons are not the enemy. FEAR IS THE ENEMY.

These are the core Covid truths that get obfuscated by propaganda narratives:

• SARS-CoV-2 did not kill the world. The lockdown-until-vaccine response did.

• The response was not a public health plan mismanaged by Fauci. It was a biodefense scheme orchestrated by a global public-private partnership (or cartel, for short).

• The cartel gained public compliance with the disastrous lockdown-until-vaccine protocols by inducing and sustaining MASSIVE, PROLONGED PANIC.

In 2020, fear of zoonotic spillover was weaponized into the Covid lockdown-until-vaccine catastrophe. Now, a panic over bioweapons-caused illnesses is being propagated to cover up the Covid crimes.

If we succumb to the fear of Covid (the product of mainstream media frenzy), or the fear of bioweapons (a frenzy now being generated in “alternative” media spaces), we will be distracted from the real menace: the global powers that seek to use fear and panic to surveil, propagandize, and control us.

As my regular readers know, I’ve spent the last few years investigating and exposing the military/intelligence operations behind the Covid-19 global events, with an important focus on the mRNA Covid vaccines.

Along with several other researchers, I examined the legal framework within which these novel products were developed, manufactured and administered to the world’s populations – a framework intended for responding to CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) attacks – not naturally occurring viruses.

The result was that the mRNA injections were rushed into billions of arms with no legally binding safety regulations or manufacturing oversight.

Under CBRN laws, the Covid mRNA shots are defined not as pharmaceutical products but as “biowarfare countermeasures” – in other words, mechanisms of protection against bioweapons attacks. Yet they were, and continue to be, advertised as the pinnacle of public health achievement: “safe and effective vaccines,” supposedly developed according to normally regulated pharmaceutical protocols, albeit greatly accelerated.

Trying to explain this is difficult. It involves explicating reams of convoluted legal tracts, military contracts, and government documents. But once you understand that the mRNA vaccines were not developed under normal, civilian legal or regulatory constraints, it becomes possible to question the basis for the “safe and effective” claims, as I and many others have done.

Furthermore, because mRNA products fall into the category of novel genetic therapies/biologics, many people seem willing to question their safety and efficacy, especially as compared to all the other, conventional vaccines. What applies to mRNA Covid vaccines, many people believe, does not apply to the proven track record of our most celebrated medical achievements – like, for instance, the polio vaccine.

And yet…

What if that seemingly unassailable beacon of scientific victory over a terrifying public health scourge was developed in the same shady realms of military and biowarfare research as the mRNA products?

I never intended to ask that question, nor explore that issue, because my focus until now has been everything Covid related. But I chanced upon information that led me into a deep-dive on some of the scientists who were key developers of the polio vaccine. And the hitherto unreported histories I discovered were eye-opening, to say the least.

It turns out that, in the 1930s-1950s, when the polio vaccines were developed, many of the top microbiologists and vaccine specialists were intensely involved in covert bioweapons research and biowarfare activities. This may not be surprising, considering the massive panics about chemical and biological weapons during WWII, and then at the beginning of the Cold War. It might also not be surprising that the same specialists were in charge of both top-secret biowarfare efforts and purported public health endeavors like the polio vaccine.

Not surprising, perhaps, but – at least to me – an important and rarely, if ever, discussed overlap. If we knew that the polio vaccine was developed by the same scientists, at the same institutions, using the same ethical and scientific standards, as biowarfare agents and products intended for the military, would we feel the same about them? Would this knowledge at least allow us to open up for discussion the taboo topic of the safety and efficacy of all such products, not just the Covid vaccines?

I hope the information in this article can provide such an opening.

Understanding the biowarfare/public health vaccine connection

But first, to begin exploring the overlap between biowarfare and public health vaccine endeavors, it’s important to understand how crucial vaccines are to the field of biowarfare. In fact, it would not be an overstatement to say that vaccines are the core project of biowarfare, because they involve both its offensive and defensive goals.

Annie Jacobsen explains this point in her 2014 book Operation Paperclip, about the secret CIA program to move German and Japanese scientists into U.S. weapons programs:

In order to successfully unleash a biological weapon against an enemy force, the attacking army had to have already created its own vaccine against the deadly pathogen it intended to spread. This vaccine would act as the shield for its own soldiers and civilians; the biological weapon would act as the sword.” (p. 14)

International biowarfare expert Dr. Francis Boyle explained the same concept to RFK Jr., as discussed in The Wuhan Cover-Up and the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race:

Anytime you deploy a biological weapon, you need to first inoculate your own troops to avoid casualties from ‘blowback.’ The strategy is always to identify a biological pathogen, formulate a vaccine, and only then, to develop the weapon. You can’t use the weapon if you don’t have a vaccine. (pp. 130-131, Kindle Edition).

Furthermore, because vaccines are also considered important tools in promoting public health, it is in the interest of the covert bioweapons industry to hide its activities on potentially deadly pathogens and their “shielding” vaccines behind a screen of public health work.

A prime example of this was FDR’s War Bureau of Consultants (WBC) – the first official U.S. government bioweapons commission in 1941. As explained in a (perhaps somewhat misleadingly) titled 2022 article “The History of the Now Defunct US Bioweapons Program” on 19.FortyFive.com:

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) formed the War Bureau of Consultants (WBC) who conducted bioweapons research; the WBC’s findings pushed them to advocate for the creation of a bioweapons program.

Outwardly, what FDR authorized was the creation of the War Research Service (WRS) for the purpose of promoting “public security and health.” In reality, what WRS did was coordinate and supervise the development of US bioweapons at several facilities around the country – most importantly, Fort Detrick in Maryland.

Of course, FDR’s commission and all future biowarfare endeavors understandably aimed to recruit the top scientists at the best medical and scientific institutions for their research. Indeed, a 1970s Senate report on secret biowarfare research (as discussed in the section on Dr. Mack below) revealed that at least 88 research institutions received hundreds of government grants to pursue bioweapons research over a thirty-year period. There can be little doubt that the massive government funding for such work not only supported, but also enabled, whatever civilian-oriented public health studies were also taking place at those institutions.

Thus, the funding for the work of many scientists in microbiology, public health, vaccinology and related fields, at a vast number of research institutions, at least partially depended on government funding for biowarfare research.

These scientists and institutions also conducted vaccine research intended to protect civilians against naturally occurring, non-weapons-grade, pathogens. However, the massive overlap and the centrality of the biowarfare research raises important issues.

Examples of biowarfare/polio overlap

In this article, with the aim of raising some of those important biowarfare/public health issues, I will provide details about the secret work of two scientists closely related to foundational research on the polio virus and polio vaccines. One is completely unknown, while the other is widely revered. Both were involved in biowarfare vaccine research at the same time that they were involved in researching polio.

The two scientists are:

• Walter N. Mack, a top-secret bioweapons researcher; and

• Thomas Milton Rivers, the “father of virology.”

Who is Dr. Mack?

Or: Why I Began Investigating the Polio-Biowarfare Connection

The impetus for this article came from a seemingly innocuous sentence I stumbled upon while helping my colleague Sasha Latypova research the origins of the polio vaccine. The sentence refers to the “Mahoney virus” which is classified as a “Type 1” polio virus and is used as a basis for all polio vaccines and a benchmark for testing vaccine efficacy.

The sentence came from a 1973 article in the Journal of Biological Standardization, entitled “History of Sabin attenuated poliovirus oral live vaccine strains.” Here it is:

“The Mahoney virus was isolated in 1941 by Drs. Francis and Mack from the pooled faeces of three healthy children in Cleveland.”

There is no footnote or attribution for the information in this sentence.

I was unable to find any article from 1941, or from any other year, describing or reporting on this historic event.

I found just one article by authors Francis and Mack in the public record: a JAMA article from 1942, “POLIOMYELITIS FOLLOWING TONSILLECTOMY IN FIVE MEMBERS OF A FAMILY: An Epidemiologic Study.” This article is not about isolating the Mahoney virus. In fact, the word “Mahoney” does not appear in the article at all. As the title suggests, it is about how/whether polio spreads in a community.

My curiosity was piqued: How could a single sentence in a 1973 journal article be the only mention on the entire Internet of one of the most important events in the history of polio eradication – the isolation of a strain upon which all polio vaccines were based, starting with the Salk vaccine in the 1950s?

I started by looking up Dr. Francis and Dr. Mack. The former is the celebrated developer of the flu vaccine and overseer of the Salk polio vaccine trials. The latter is not mentioned in any polio books or articles and is seemingly unknown.

The Mysterious Dr. Mack

When I typed the search term “Dr. Mack polio,” into Google, I expected to find at the very least a Wikipedia page and some research papers. Instead, I was informed by Google AI that “there is no widely known ‘Dr. Mack’ specifically recognized for a breakthrough in polio.”

Given his reported role in a historic polio event, I found that hard to believe. I clicked on a few of the top search results. Most were about Dr. Macks who had nothing to do with polio research.

The only two relevant results were single-paragraph New York Times articles, from 1957 and 1972. In these articles, a “Dr. Walter N. Mack” is identified as either “a health aide,” “a microbiologist,” or “a professor of Microbiology at Michigan State University,” and he warns about public drinking fountains and viruses in water supplies as “serious public health hazards.”

Despite their paucity, these results yielded a fuller name than I’d found before: Walter N. Mack; and a place of work: Michigan State University (MSU). Repeating the Google search with these details, I was able to find Dr. Mack’s published research record: a grand total of just twelve articles, only two related to polio, and with gaps of decades between publications. For someone credited with isolating one of the most important viruses in the history of virology and vaccinology, this seemed like a suspiciously meager publication production.

How long did Dr. Mack work at MSU and where else did he work? I asked Google for a “Walter N. Mack bio” or “Walter N. Mack resume” or “Walter N. Mack Michigan State University” and got the same scant results as “Dr. Mack polio,” with one interesting addition: a comment on an obituary notice dated September 29, 2008 written by a Mrs. Susan Stutzky, who identified herself as a former neighbor of Dr. Mack and his wife. She shared these interesting tidbits:

The memories of him shooting individual dandelions in his yard with a syringe are priceless. He once told me he couldn’t understand how people made it through life without syringes. We heard many stories of his work in polio research…

Mrs. Stutzky’s memorial confirmed that Dr. Walter N. Mack did indeed work on polio research, or at least he told his neighbors that he did.

I contacted her to see if she might share some of those “stories of his work in polio research” with me. Here are excerpts from her February 23, 2026 email:

By the time we became neighbors, Dr Mack had been retired for a decade or more from Michigan State University where he had taught microbiology. His work with Jonas Salk probably ended in the 1940s or early 1950s.

He was an absolute character. The dandelion story had nothing to do with polio research. It was his method of lawncare. Rather than spread herbicide over a large area, he would use a syringe with weed killer and give a shot to each individual dandelion in the yard.

But as to details and specifics of his involvement in polio research and development of the polio vaccine, I know nothing. If he talked about any specifics, he probably saved those discussions for other scientists.

I know it was difficult and emotional work for those scientists as many were dying or paralyzed. Many relegated to life in a wheelchair or iron lung. Children were dying. Babies were dying. Unborn fetuses and their mothers were dying. And so part of the research involved in depth autopsies to see if any clues leading to an effective vaccine could be discovered in tissue samples.

Had to be emotional for those scientists to see all those bodies and feel the pressure to hurry up and discover a safe and viable vaccine to stop polio from taking or damaging another life. He never uttered these words, but the pain of what he and others saw in their work was evident in his expression. He had to have seen children in iron lungs. He walked through wards of rows and rows of children lying paralyzed in hospital beds, heard their cries. Took and/or studied brain tissues of dead fetuses. That he told me.

To summarize: Dr. Walter Mack, with no online presence and just two polio-related publications, told his neighbor he “took and/or studied brain tissues of dead fetuses” and that he worked with Jonas Salk, originator of the first polio vaccine. There is no public record I could find of Drs. Mack and Salk ever working together.

I asked myself: Why was Mrs. Susan Stutzky the only person online who openly discussed Dr. Walter N. Mack’s “work in polio research” or any research at all, for that matter?

And, because I have been investigating undercover intelligence and military operations for a while, this led me to the following intriguing question: Could Dr. Mack have been engaged in secret research, perhaps for military/intelligence purposes?

The implications of this could be that polio was researched as part of a secret bioweapons program. Or it could be that it was researched by the same scientists who were working on separate covert bioweapons programs. Or maybe biowarfare researchers put their names on polio research to cover up for their actual secret work. Whatever the answer, if Mack was engaged in covert bioweapons work, this would be the first time anyone ever reported on it.

Needless to say, I found that he was.

Submitting queries about Dr. Mack and bioweapons research to a professional version of ChatGPT yielded a single relevant result: an article from the April 11, 1977 edition of the Michigan State University newspaper entitled “MSU researched germ warfare for Army during 18 year period.”

The article cited the 1977 report by the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research, chaired by Senator Ted Kennedy – a report that exposed some of the secret biowarfare research conducted starting in 1941, when FDR officially established the U.S. biowarfare program.

Based on this Senate report, the university newspaper summarized: “MSU is one of 88 universities that conducted biological warfare research through more than 300 contracts between 1942 and 1971.”

And, the article noted, two of those MSU biowarfare contracts were led by none other than Walter N. Mack, “with money from the former Army base in Ft. Detrick, Md.” According to the article, “Mack said he received a lot of money, approximately $70,000 for the two studies, in the 1950s.” (According to Google AI, that is the equivalent of nearly one million dollars today.)

The article noted that, “University officials could not find any records of the specific studies conducted by researchers at MSU,” but Dr. Mack said one of his studies looked at whether gas masks were protective against viruses and the other was for work on hog cholera. “Mack said he did not know why the Army would be interested in hog cholera,” the article reported. He just said they wanted to study it and “see if a vaccine could be used against it.”

Furthermore, Mack lamented that many biowarfare projects “conducted between the military and universities” were ordered abandoned by Nixon in 1969. “I know there were some terrible things that were done,” he said. “I saw some of them. But the vast majority of the work helped a lot of people and it is a shame they had to stop it.”

It is very hard to imagine that Dr. Mack did not know about the sword-and-shield paradigm of biowarfare research: hog cholera was a potential bioweapon and the biowarfare program which funded his research was focused on finding a vaccine against it.

I confirmed that Dr. Mack was indeed working on secret bioweapons research while employed as a professor at MSU through a FOIA request. The university provided records, with some redactions, of Dr. Mack’s employment, including references to his “research for Camp Detrick and the United States Army,” most of which “is confidential or classified.” [Camp Detrick, also known as Fort Detrick, has been a major hub of the U.S. bioweapons program, beginning with FDR’s bioweapons program, as noted earlier in this article.]

When considering a promotion for Dr. Mack in 1956, the head of his department (redacted in the FOIAed documents I received) wrote:

Due to the fact that Dr. Mack’s research has been supported by Fort Detrick, he has been unable to publish many papers…

Which is exactly what made me suspicious of Dr. Mack in the first place!

And the dean wrote:

By reason of the type of work he does, I am not well acquainted with Dr. Mack. However, by reason of his educational qualifications and effective research [redaction], I feel he is deserving of promotion…

To summarize:

One of the two scientists reported to have isolated the most important strain of the polio virus has nearly no online presence, and barely a dozen scientific publications. He admitted in 1977 that he was working on military-university biowarfare studies at MSU, one of 88 universities with biowarfare contracts between 1942 and 1971. His work on bioweapons programs was confirmed by FOIAed documents from MSU.

He said he saw “some terrible things” being done in biowarfare research, yet lamented its curtailment.

The pathogens we know Dr. Mack was studying included Newcastle disease and cholera. Both are known potential bioweapons, and he was researching vaccines for both.

Strangely, given the dearth of any publicly available polio papers by Dr. Mack, his neighbor of many years said she heard a lot about his “polio research,” which involved, among other things, “taking and/or studying brain tissues of dead fetuses.”

Was he also researching polio vaccines? Was that research secret? Was it part of a bioweapons program? I could find no records to answer these questions.

Still, I was curious: Were any other prominent polio researchers also involved in bioweapons research?

The answer to this question is yes. In fact, the chief scientist at the biggest and most important polio research institution in the world – FDR’s National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP, or The March of Dimes) – was also one of the twelve members of the War Bureau of Consultants (WBC) – originators of FDR’s WWII bioweapons program. His name was Tom Rivers.

Thomas Milton (Tom) Rivers

In contrast to Walter N. Mack, Tom Rivers is one of the most well known polio-related scientists ever. Books, articles and publications about him abound.

In all of them, including Wikipedia, he is celebrated as the “father of virology.” As reported by David M. Oshinsky in his 2005 Pulitzer-prize winning Polio: An American Story, “Those in the relatively new field of virology saw him [Tom Rivers] as the dean of the field, its greatest living pioneer,” because he “helped promote the idea that viruses belong to a unique group of disease-causing agents, distinct from ordinary bacteria.” (p. 59)

Rivers held several prominent medical research positions, including:

• Associate on the infectious disease ward at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research starting in 1922

• Director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, 1937-1955

• Chairman of the Committees on Research and Vaccine Advisory for the NFIP, overseeing the clinical trials of Jonas Salk’s vaccine, 1938-1955

• Head of the Naval Medical Research Unit Two (NAMRU-2) during WWII in the South Pacific, rising to the rank of rear admiral, 1944-1946

Rivers published over 150 scientific papers between 1916 and 1960 [ref]. The most famous and influential articles were not primary research, but rather reviews of all the work that had been done up to that time on viruses.

These are all known aspects of Rivers’ career.

A much lesser known aspect – one, in fact, that I have not seen reported in any of the literature about him – is this: Rivers was a member of the committee that officially established the U.S. bioweapons program in 1941, at the behest of FDR and Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and continued to serve on that committee until at least 1944.

This is new information, not included in any books or articles about Rivers that I could find: The most prominent scientist involved in polio research was also a founder of the U.S. bioweapons program. In fact, as I discovered, Rivers was most likely involved in top-secret biowarfare activities for his entire career, while ostensibly spending his time classifying viruses and overseeing polio vaccine development.

As with Mack, this does not necessarily mean that polio was part of his secret research. It does mean, however, that at the very least, biowarfare countermeasures and polio vaccines were developed in tandem.

Also as with Mack, there is little information in the public record pointing to Rivers’ biowarfare work.

Here are the clues I found:

Missing Documents

In his 1967 oral history memoir, Tom Rivers: Reflections on a Life in Medicine and Science, the most comprehensive story of Rivers’ life that I could find, Saul Benison discusses the archival material he used for background research. He laments that:

None of the collections, for example, were able to provide significant material for an examination of Dr. Rivers’ early life and medical education. Dr. Rivers’ papers, which should have been a prime source of information on these and related matters, proved to be almost useless. Several years before my interviews, Dr. Rivers destroyed the bulk of his papers in order to create more office space. Today all that remains of what was once an undoubtedly magnificent collection is one four-drawer cabinet of correspondence, reports, and photographs--largely for the period between 1940 and 1961--not very much when one considers the breadth of his scientific and administrative activity. (p. 623, boldface added)

Here Beneson reveals that Rivers destroyed nearly all the papers related to his medical education, his activities during WWI, his work before and during WWII, the Korean War, and the concomitant development of the polio vaccines under his supervision.

And, according to Beneson, Rivers did this “to create more office space.”

Maybe that’s the reason. Maybe Rivers could think of no institution that might be willing to preserve his documents for posterity, despite his lengthy and illustrious careers at the Rockefeller Foundation and National Foundation/March of Dimes, both of which house massive scientific archives.

Or maybe Rivers destroyed that “undoubtedly magnificent collection” to erase the evidence of his involvement in biowarfare and bioweapons development.

Here are some more hints supporting the latter hypothesis:

Activities during the the height of the Panama Canal project

As reported by multiple sources, including Wikipedia, In 1910 Rivers abruptly left Johns Hopkins Medical School not long after he started. This was purportedly because he came down with a “fatal form of muscular dystrophy” that “forced him to leave medical school and work as a lab assistant at a hospital in the Panama Canal Zone.” Then, in 1912 “somehow, inexplicably, his condition stabilized.” (Oshinsky, p. 59)

Benison reports that, after three months’ working with a fatal degenerative disorder as a “lab assistant” in a Panamanian hospital, Rivers was put in charge of the drug dispensary, a role in which he gave patients anesthesia during surgeries, and was then instructed to “go over and take care of the prison ward and the police ward” where he “did 85 major operations,” operated a huge x-ray machine, “and even pulled teeth.” (Benison, pp. 13-23)

Additional activities Rivers undertook during this extremely active period of grave degenerative illness, involved administering Salvarsan, an arsenic-based chemotherapy, to syphilis patients. And, as he recalled: “at one point I thought I would try to see what Salvarsan would do for leprosy.”

Having come up with this seemingly random research question in his official position as either a lab assistant and/or the person who ran the prison and police wards of a Panamanian hospital, Rivers then proceeded to “treat a number of [his] leprous patients with Salvarsan,” giving one patient 12 injections. The patient had such a severe reaction after the 12th one that Rivers decided to stop the experiment. “It was hard for me to understand why a person would become sensitive to a chemical agent,” he said, “because at that time most people believed that a person could only become sensitive to a protein.” (Benison, pp. 19-20)

Apparently, questions about what people would become sensitive to, when injected with dangerous chemicals, was of interest to Rivers at this time.

Another type of injection he reports working on was for cerebral malaria: “We had a pretty drastic method for treatment, because it usually killed one out of every three patients,” he says about intravenous injections of hydrochloride of quinine. “About one of every three would fall over dead before you could get the syringe out of the vein.” (Benison, p. 21)

One cannot help but wonder: Why would someone with a potentially lethal muscular degenerative disorder that forced him to leave medical school, decide to spend his time in the tropical wilds of the Panama Canal Zone and engage in intense, physically demanding and shocking activities like injecting lepers experimentally with a highly toxic medicine and other patients with a substance guaranteed to kill at least a third of them?

One answer to this question might be that Rivers was involved in very early chemical/biological warfare research related to the crucial work being done at precisely the time of his stay in Panama, when construction of the Panama Canal was reaching its climax, and the United States was engaged in “intense efforts to solidify control over the Canal Zone, culminating in the 1912 Panama Canal Act.” [ref]

We know that disease control was a major part of those intense efforts.[ref] We also know that in subsequent decades Panama became the site of U.S. chemical weapons research, as reported by envio: “In Panama, the United States had an active chemical weapons program from at least 1930 until 1968.” And, much earlier than that, in 1918, General William Sibert, the Army engineer who had designed the Gatun locks in Panama during the time of Rivers’ sojourn there, was made director of a newly consolidated Chemical Warfare Service.

Studying potential bioweapons before WWII

Following his time in Panama, when Rivers was employed as a research associate at the prestigious Rockefeller Institute in the 1920s and 1930s, he studied several pathogens that were not affecting the civilian population but were recognized as deadly potential bioweapons.

As reported by Dr. Frank L. Horsfall, Jr. in his 1965 biography: Tomas Milton Rivers 1888-1962,

Rivers developed a psittacosis (“parrot fever”) vaccine, using himself as an experimental subject, and did the first clinical studies on several viral infections, including louping ill, Rift Valley fever, and lymphocytic choriomeningitis. (p. 272)

Psittacosis, Rift Valley fever, and lymphocytic choriomeningitis are all listed in the WBC biowarfare report compiled by Rivers and his colleagues as having “sufficient importance in biological warfare to warrant special comment.” Louping ill is also considered a dangerous potential bioweapon. [ref]

Of particular interest to Rivers, psittacosis was, at the time, identified as a potential bioweapon of extreme danger.

As noted in a 2023 Pathogens article “Psittacosis: An Underappreciated and Often Undiagnosed Disease”:

The United States [6], the former Soviet Union [7,8], and China [9,10] have all examined C. psittaci for use as a biological weapon. Rear Admiral (Ret) Ellis Zacharias stated during the 1940’s that biological weapons at that time included “bacteriological bombs containing either botulinus toxin or psittacosis virus … and that “a single milliliter of infectious psittacosis virus could kill 20 million men” [11].

According to several accounts, including the Horsfall biography, after suspected lab-related outbreaks in 1930, everyone in the United States stopped working on Psittacosis – except for Rivers. As Horsfall reports:

For two years his remained the only laboratory in the country that ventured to deal with psittacosis and the only one available for diagnosing the disease in man or birds. In the course of this work he greatly advanced knowledge about the diagnosis, characteristics, and spread of this highly infectious disease. (p. 271)

Activities during WWII

During World War II, Rivers was officially organizing and leading the Navy Medical Research Unit in the South Pacific (NAMRU-2), while secretly serving on the War Bureau of Consultants (WBC), designing FDR’s nascent bioweapons program. Were the two related? Was NAMRU-2 actually one of the programs implemented as part of WBC plans? There is no formal record stating this, but there is some very strong supporting evidence:

As they are described today, NAMRU (Naval Military Research Units) are military research facilities for studying communicable diseases, and also bioweapons. The official NAMRU website states that the activities of the NAMRU ”support the Navy, Marine Corps and joint W.S. warfighters through the study of health concerns that affect the readiness of these forces and the development of methods to treat those concerns. Enterprise areas of research include infectious disease, biological warfare detection and defense…” [boldface added]

Indeed, Rivers’ descriptions of his work on NAMRU-2 sound very much like he was establishing a bioweapons research program with state-of-the-art facilities on Guam – an island situated right in the middle of the Western Pacific Ocean and, according to Wikipedia, a major U.S. military strategic asset.

“The Navy gave me a free hand in acquiring both equipment and personnel,” Rivers boasts. “No question was ever raised about what I bought or the amount of money I spent. I don’t believe that anyone in the navy had ever had that privilege before, but as a result I ended up with some of the most beautiful laboratories you have ever seen.” (Benison, p. 335-6). These facilities, according to Rivers, constructed in less than four months “with the aid of a naval construction battalion,” included 62 buildings, 12 complete laboratories, and “special wards.” (Benison, p. 340).

What was the purpose of those “beautiful laboratories”? Interestingly, Rivers asserts: “Remember, we weren’t stationed on Guam to find out what was going on on Guam; our primary job was to discover what was going on just behind the battle lines.” (Benison, p. 343) Nevertheless, for some inexplicable reason, Rivers says he did one noteworthy thing on Guam: “I ordered … autopsies on everybody who died on the island. It made no difference who they were or where they died, whether in a hospital, hut or tent – if they died on the island, they were autopsied.” (Benison, p. 343)

The purpose for these autopsies and, for that matter, the massive and lavish state-of-the art research facilities supposedly decommissioned, as Rivers mentions, “some time in 1946” (Benison, p. 351), just two years after construction, is never explained by Rivers, nor any other reference I could find.

The person whom Rivers sent to Guam to coordinate this massive project was his longtime colleague and friend, Dick Shope, a fellow Rockefeller Institute scientist who is known to have worked on biological/chemical weapons programs during and after WWII (see “friends and colleagues” appendix below).

And even before the labs were completed, Rivers sent Shope to lead a group of NAMRU-2 men to “participate in the projected Okinawa campaign.” Okinawa was the bloodiest battle in the Pacific in WWII, lasting 82 days and claiming a total of 250,000 lives (150,000 Japanese civilians and 100,000 American and Japanese troops [ref]). The participation of NAMRU-2 in this campaign is apparently not recorded anywhere, as Rivers himself explains: “There was nothing in writing; it was one of those things that are just understood.” (Denison, p. 344)

What was a purportedly medical research unit doing – off the record – during this protracted, bloody battle? Here’s what Rivers recounts: “During a marine invasion of Peleliu in 1944, they [NAMRU-2 men] successfully introduced aerial spraying of DDT. It marked the first time that an airplane had been used for the dispersal of DDT under combat conditions, and several months later, they used the same techniques during the Okinawa campaign… The techniques were highly successful.” (Denison, p. 338).

This very strange story that is apparently not recorded anywhere else, raises many unanswered questions:

Was the NAMRU-2 engaging in “aerial spraying of DDT” to control insects during combat? Or were there other reasons for spraying highly toxic chemicals over Peleliu and Okinawa at the height of the Pacific campaign?

It is interesting to note that, as bioweapons expert Dr. Boyle explains in The Wuhan Coverup:

Aerosolization of the biological agent . . . is critical to the success of the new biowarfare weapon because most anti-human biowarfare agents are delivered to their intended victims by air. (p. 131, Kindle Edition)

Indeed, one of Dr. Walter N. Mack’s greatest achievements, according to the FOIAed documents detailing his employment at MSU and secret biowarfare work, included: “a procedure for developing a homogeneous and reproductive aerosol.”

Close friends and associates

In the oral history memoir written by Saul Benison, Rivers speaks openly about his close association and friendship with at least one scientist known to have led a U.S. government bioweapons program – Richard Shope, mentioned in the WWII section above. Rivers does not mention or acknowledge this secret biowarfare work nor, of course, does he ever mention any participation himself.

More shockingly, Rivers casually mentions encounters and interactions with several scientists who were colleagues at the Rockefeller Institute and then proceeded to work for the Nazi bioweapons program during WWII – including Eugen Haagen and Eric Traub – reporting directly to Heinrich Himmler, one of Hitler’s closest advisers. One of these scientists, Eric Traub, who worked with Rivers before the war, was then brought back through Operation Paperclip to work on the U.S. bioweapons program (Jacobsen, p. 435).

In 1961, When Rivers shared his life stories with Benison, he would at least have known about his former colleagues’ WWII activities, yet these are never mentioned. I find that shocking, because I would expect him to at least admit that he knew and was perturbed by their Nazi activities. He never does.

More information about Rivers’ colleagues who were known biowarfare experts in the U.S., Nazi Germany, and Russia, is provided in the Appendix to this article.

To summarize:

Dr. Tom Rivers is widely known and celebrated as the “father of virology” and the scientist who presided over the development of the first polio vaccines, working simultaneously as research director at the Rockefeller Institute and the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (March of Dimes), 1939-1955.

Yet none of the accounts of his work or life ever mentions that – at the very same time that he held these prestigious positions – Tom Rivers was also a member of the original group advising FDR on the formation of the U.S. bioweapons program, and he most likely helped establish and activate parts of that program during WWII.

In fact, there are hints that Rivers was working on secret chemical/biological weapons programs for his entire career, beginning all the way back when the Panama Canal was completed in 1912. And, perhaps most chillingly, although I have not found any reports of this elsewhere, he may have led a unit that deployed chemical/biological weapons during key Pacific battles in WWII.

Other indications of Rivers’ secret biowarfare career include his close work and relationships with known bioweapons scientists, at least one of whom went on to conduct human experiments on concentration camp inmates during WWII. And Rivers researched many known deadly potential bioweapons himself.

Was polio part of the biowarfare work of Rivers and his fellow bioweapons scientists? Although the WBC biowarfare report prepared for FDR during WWII listed polio as a “virus disease of sufficient importance in biological warfare to warrant special comment,” it also stated that “it is unlikely that a great deal of damage could be done through attempts to introduce this disease into a population.” (pp. 7-8) Thus, the polio work might have been conducted in tandem with, but not necessarily as an integral part of, bioweapons research.

What makes Dr. Rivers’ secret biowarfare career noteworthy, especially when we add it to Dr. Mack’s, is the interconnectedness of the development of the polio vaccine with the development of bioweapons countermeasures. If the same scientists were working on both biowarfare and civilian programs, how much difference was there between those programs in terms of scientific, ethical and human safety approaches?

Specifically as this question relates to top scientists, RFK Jr. notes in The Wuhan Coverup:

History has shown again and again the bioweapons agenda’s awesome power to transform compassionate, brilliant, idealistic doctors into monsters. (p. 47, Kindle Edition).

I believe this observation is supported by the details revealed in this article about Dr. Walter N. Mack and Dr. Tom Rivers’ work.

CONCLUSION

The hidden biowarfare biographies of the scientists discussed in this article point to a fascinating polio-biowarfare connection, which has never been reported elsewhere, as far as I can tell.

More broadly, they exemplify the huge overlaps in terms of funding, research institutions and scientists involved in both biowarfare and public health vaccine development, starting all the way back before WWII.

This raises important questions about the historic development of the polio vaccine in particular, and vaccines in general.

Polio vaccine questions

Did the two endeavors – bioweapons vaccine development and the public health polio vaccine campaign in the 1940s and 1950s, in the shadow of WWII and the Cold War – inevitably share certain underlying motivations, incentives, ethical frameworks and scientific standards?

Are those shared incentives and frameworks – while favorable to the development of a thriving top-secret biowarfare industry and eventually a too-big-to-fail vaccine manufacturing empire – equally conducive to advancing the health and safety of the civilian population?

In other words, if the foundational public health polio vaccine campaign was conducted by scientists primarily engaged in research for “national security” purposes – scientists used to working in extreme secrecy, with great urgency, and with no regulatory oversight or ethical imperatives – can we trust their claims and judgments regarding the products they developed for universal public vaccination campaigns?

General vaccine questions

Furthermore, even if we believe that the polio vaccine was developed with much more rigorous scrutiny and safety oversight than biowarfare countermeasures – such as the psittacosis or Newcastle vaccines developed by Drs. Mack and Rivers – the polio-biowarfare connection raises broader issues about our societal reverence for vaccines as the uniquely safe and effective way to protect the public from infectious disease:

If, as we have learned, vaccines are the linchpins of bioweapons research;

And if, as exemplified by Drs. Mack and Rivers, top scientists and their research institutions have been lavishly funded for many decades for their biowarfare work, while also working on vaccines against non-bioweapons-grade pathogens;

Then, is it far-fetched to surmise that when these top scientists in their top institutions see, or study, a pathogen – which in biowarfare may be described as a sword – they automatically look for the shield, or the vaccine?

Without attributing any ill motives, is it not likely that when studying a disease like polio, which they recognize as not very lethal in a biowarfare context, these scientists nevertheless focus all their energies on countering it with a vaccine – perhaps with little regard to the risk-benefit analysis of how dangerous the pathogen is, compared to the potential hazards of the vaccine?

If they are used to risk-benefit analyses in military and biowarfare contexts, in which, for example, it is desirable to inject all patients with a vaccine guaranteed to kill a third of them, in order to save the other two thirds, might they apply the same type of analysis to their non-covert research? Or at least have a completely different ethical orientation than what we would consider acceptable in a civilian context?

And, as corollaries to those questions, when we look at all universal vaccination campaigns – might we not want to take a closer look at the primacy of vaccines, as compared to all other measures, in public health efforts against infectious disease?

From polio to Covid, and beyond

These questions draw a straight line from the foundational public health polio vaccine campaign – considered a crowning scientific achievement, which we are not supposed to ever question – to the Covid mRNA global vaccine campaign, which was recently touted by President Trump as “one of the greatest military feats ever.”

As demonstrated in this article, the conflation of national security with public health, biowarfare countermeasures with non-military vaccines, and covert biowarfare work with vaccination campaigns involving entire populations, started at least as far back as polio, and culminated in the Covid catastrophe.

I believe, based on this historical understanding, it is time transcend the taboos and open up the topic of universal public health vaccination to rigorous and lively debate.

***

APPENDIX: Friends and Colleagues of Dr. Rivers involved in biowarfare activities

Richard Shope

Reported to have had “many years of association with and friendship for Rivers” (Horsfall, p. 274), Shope was the first director of the Commission on Epidemiological Survey (CES), a biowarfare committee, conceived as part of the mission of the original Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB).

According to the AMEDD (Army Medical Department) Center of Heritage and History:

The CES was formulated in 1954 when it became apparent that the threat of use of biological agents as weapons (biological warfare) was a reality and merited constant vigilance involving new studies of pathogenesis and development of effective means of early detection and control.

The CES was given oversight responsibility for the newly developed Biological Warfare program at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland.

Note that this article erroneously states that the biowarfare program at Fort Detrick was “newly developed” in 1954 when, in fact, we know from documentation on the WBC and WRS (see above) that the biowarfare program at Fort Detrick was activated in the early 1940s.

It is also relevant to note that evidence exists pointing to the use of biowarfare by the United States during the Korean War, 1950-1953 – right before the falsely reported beginning date of the CES bioweapons program at Fort Detrick.

Furthermore, we can surmise that Richard Shope had been involved in biowarfare activities along with Rivers, going back at least to the formation of FDR’s biowarfare commission and the NAMRU-2 (see above). He is listed in the archives of the Committees on Biological Warfare as having been a member 1942-1943.

Eugen Haagen

Rivers tells an extremely strange story about Dr. Eugen Haagen’s work under his supervision at the Rockefeller Institute before WWII.

Rivers says: “In 1929 and 1930 I did a great deal of work with Eugen Haagen.” Then, he reports, in 1932 another Rockefeller scientist wanted to work with Dr. Haagen, “but by that time he [Haagen] had returned to Germany.” So Haagen was “brought back to New York,” but “was not paying full attention to his work.” This was because, Rivers believes, “Haagen, who was an ardent Nazi, got mixed up in the affairs of the German-American Bund [a Nazi organization] in New York.” As a result of his not being able to successfully complete his work, “Haagen was allowed to return to Germany.” (Benison, p. 414-5).

What kind of control did the Rockefeller Institute exercise over Haagen, when it “brought him back to NY” and then “allowed him to return to Germany” to pursue his Nazi-related activities? What connection did the Institute have with Haagen during and after the war, if any?

I could not find answers to these questions, but it is known, as summarized in Annie Jacobsen’s 2014 Operation Paperclip, that Haagen was a “key developer in the Nazi bioweapons program, notably vaccine research” and it was in his apartment that the Allies first found evidence that Nazi doctors were experimenting on humans in concentration camps. (p. 557)

Jacobsen quotes a bone-chilling letter dated November 15, 1943, from Eugen Haagen to a colleague:

Of the 100 prisoners you sent me, 18 died in transport. Only 12 are in a condition suitable for my experiments. I therefore request that you send me another 100 prisoners, between 20 and 40 years of age, who are healthy and in a physical condition comparable to soldiers. (pp. 13-14)

This letter was discovered by the Allies in 1944. After the war Haagen fled “to the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany and worked for the Russians.” (p. 8)

Eric Traub

Rivers reports that in the early 1930s, a scientist named Eric Traub, who was working in the Division of Animal Pathology of the Rockefeller Institute at Princeton along with Richard Shope (see above), “was trying to produce hog cholera in mice.” (Benison p. 176) Hog cholera is a known potential bioweapon, which Dr. Walter Mack would study a decade later under a secret bioweapons grant at MSU (see first section of this article).

Traub returned to Germany in 1939 (he was a visiting scientist at Rockefeller), and during WWII, he was the trustworthy scientist chosen by Heinrich Himmler to travel to Turkey to obtain samples of rinderpest [cattle plague] to weaponize. In 1949 he was brought through Operation Paperclip to work on the U.S. biowarfare program. (Jacobsen, p. 436)

As Jacobsen reports, “Traub worked at Camp Detrick on Antianimal research. The agents and diseases being studied by Detrick researchers at this time, meant to decimate a specific animal population, included rinderpest, hoof-and-mouth disease, Virus III disease of swine (likely African swine fever), fowl plague, Newcastle disease, and fowl malaria. (Jacobsen, p. 435)

We know Shope was the first director of the CES, whose main research facilities were at Camp Detrick. Thus Shope, Rivers’ close friend and colleague, worked with a Nazi bioweapons specialist before and after WWII. When Rivers told Benison about this Nazi scientist in 1961, he made no mention of these hair-raising details.

I am reposting this podcast because Joni, co-founder of No College Mandates, is an excellent interviewer and we discussed topics that I believe are important beyond the ever-cycling hyped-up news items of the moment.

I’d also like to express my gratitude to fearless attorney Warner Mendenhall.

Warner has been waging the battle for medical freedom for many years and has been a true Covid hero, representing, among others, Pfizer whistle blower Brook Jackson.

It was Warner who first helped me realize that the Covid resistance was a civil rights movement — a framing that is extremely clarifying, when you look at what we were fighting for back then, and what contrived political/corporate entities like MAHA are doing now.

Thanks to Warner, to Joni, and to everyone who continues to engage in open-minded, non-partisan, principled conversations and activities.

Joni McGary Talks with People

Did We Trade a Civil Rights Movement for a Political One?

I sat down again with researcher and author Debbie Lerman (The Deep State Goes Viral), who always teaches me something new and opens my mind. She argues that the COVID resistance wasn't a partisan movement, but a true populist civil rights movement concerned with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of movement — all of them gutted by sta…

Listen now

6 months ago · 19 likes · 7 comments · Joni McGary and Debbie Lerman

On February 4, 2020, word went out from the biodefense military leadership to pharmaceutical companies that the “novel coronavirus” circulating in China was a “national security threat” – a designation that opened the floodgates for development, manufacture and distribution of “military countermeasures.”

On that day there were zero deaths and fewer than a dozen cases reported in the United States, and fewer than 500 deaths worldwide.

On the same day, Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and the PREP Act – laws intended for rushing countermeasures to the scenes of bioweapons attacks – were activated, giving the global biodefense public-private partnership the ability to develop, manufacture, distribute and administer such countermeasures without any legal or regulatory oversight and with an iron-clad liability shield.

In other words, Operation Warp Speed was legally launched on February 4, 2020 – resulting in the worldwide forced vaccination of billions of people, millions of whom were injured or killed.

Almost exactly six years later, on January 21, 2026, President Donald Trump – who is currently worshipped as an anti-globalist populist hero – was heard at the premier globalist WEF power shindig in Davos, bragging about Operation Warp Speed:

“Some people say it was one of the greatest military feats ever.”

Some people who heard Trump say this were surprised. Why would a President – elected based on his promises to cut the military budget, stop wars and foreign interventions, and focus on the health and well being of the civilian population – not just admit that Covid was a military operation, but actually brag about it?

Previously, when people like myself and Sasha Latypova published extensive evidence supporting the claim that Covid was not a public health event, but rather a globally coordinated military/intelligence operation (See the Covid Dossier) – we were mostly ignored and/or censored.

When we tried to convince the “medical freedom movement” – now a public relations/public-private partnership known as MAHA – to focus on the legal framework of extra-constitutional military emergencies exemplified by Operation Warp Speed, they insisted that the way to address Covid was to “reform the public health agencies,” and that the increases in deaths and injuries following Operation Warp Speed were the result of a decades-long “chronic disease epidemic.” [ref] [ref]

The military was not supposed to be a player in Covid.

What, then, should we make of the President’s Davos declaration?

I believe this marks Trump’s public transformation from anti-war, anti-military populist champion into what he always was, but never admitted to being: another in the long line of Presidents who are inevitably and inexorably the puppets of the military-industrial complex.

Normalized Militarization and Emergencies

In April 2025, I made a list of trends exposed by the Covid pandemic response, arguing that the U.S. Presidential elections did not reverse any of these and that, in fact, the new administration seemed to be accelerating them:

Digital surveillance.

Militarization of society.

Perpetual states of emergency.

Global corporations and oligarchs in control.

Suspension of human rights.

Pervasive coordinated worldwide propaganda and censorship.

Trump’s boast about the military and Warp Speed is the apotheosis of these trends.

According to Trump, we are now supposed to applaud the military for doing such a fantastic job with Operation Warp Speed! Just as we are expected to cheer the militarization of policing and the use of force by federal agencies on civilians; the never-ending multiple states of emergency (not just for viruses!) and executive actions not subject to judicial, legislative or regulatory review; the centralization of surveillance and data gathering in the hands of global corporations and oligarchs; and the complete abandonment of any Constitutional protections or democratic pretenses – as summarized by globalist frontman Mark Carney, also at Davos – not just in the United States but across the “free world.”

In this global theater of the absurd, we are also supposed to believe Trump and Carney somehow represent opposite, or opposing, sides of the accelerating militarized control, surveillance and demoralization of their populations. In fact, they are clearly on the same side.

Covid proved it. Trump’s words and actions reinforce it.

During Covid, every single leader of every single Western “democratic” nation went along with the evisceration of legal and constitutional protections for their populations, partnering with transnational corporations and oligarchs to increase censorship, propaganda, digital control and surveillance. No elections have reversed these trends.

Covid Trends Accelerate: Militarized Public-Private Partnerships

The current focus of Presidential and related legislative activities – regardless of party affiliation or proclaimed ideological leanings – is the creation of extra-Constitutional, supra-legal spaces that enable centralization of power and control in the hands of the same global public-private partnerships that ran Covid.

Here are a series of examples of how the Covid trends have continued unabated before, during and after the 2024 U.S. elections. This is just a tiny sample, focused mainly on AI, because AI may be viewed as the new biotech/mRNA: a “breakthrough technology” that we “desperately need” in order to combat a “mortal enemy” (Covid/China), that we must develop and implement without any pesky regulatory hurdles, that will be forced on the population whether they want it or not, that will garner enormous financial windfalls for business leaders, their political partners, and transnational corporations, and that will centralize surveillance mechanisms, making populations easier to monitor and control.

• Early January 2025 Trump Meets with Bill Gates

Before his inauguration, Trump had a 3-hour meeting with Bill Gates – one of the leading Covid profiteers and mRNA shot pushers – of which we have no formal record. Both reportedly enjoyed it and expressed respect and admiration for each other. Gates said: “In the Covid days he [Trump] accelerated the vaccine innovation. So I was asking him if maybe the same kind of thing could be done here [for AIDS]. And we both got, I think, pretty excited about that.”

Here Gates is celebrating the desire he apparently shares with Trump to extend the extra-legal emergency/military framework from Covid countermeasures to other vaccines/medical products.

• Multiple States of Emergency Starting on Inauguration Day (January 20, 2025)

On the day of his inauguration, Trump declared multiple states of emergency. As Newsweek reported at the end of 2025, “ Trump is now responsible for 11 of the 48 national emergencies currently active in the United States.” A state of emergency gives the President/Commander in Chief, and the military under his command, powers that are not constrained by Congressional, Constitutional, or regulatory oversight.

The most noteworthy state of emergency, under which we are now living, is the Energy Emergency, which essentially allows any energy infrastructure – particularly for the insatiable needs of AI data monstrosities – to be constructed without any legal or regulatory impediments.

Trump bragged about this in Davos on January 23, 2025:

“Under the emergency declaration I can get the approvals done myself without having to get through years of waiting. …So I am gonna give emergency declarations so that they can start building them almost immediately. I think it was largely my idea because nobody thought this was possible.”

• Celebrating Half a Trillion Dollars’ Tech Investments in AI Data Centers (January 21, 2025)

The day after his inauguration, Trump invited SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Oracle Chairman Larry Ellison to the White House to launch “Stargate,” described as “a private sector investment of up to $500 billion to fund infrastructure for artificial intelligence.”

The OpenAI website frames it as essential for national security:

“This project will not only support the re-industrialization of the United States but also provide a strategic capability to protect the national security of America and its allies.”

How will this be accomplished? As author and Substacker Jacob Nordangard points out:

“According to Ellison, it will be a ‘miracle machine’ with the potential to cure cancer and heart disease using customized AI-produced mRNA vaccines!

Plus, as an added bonus:

“Ellison presented his vision of a future AI-managed society at the Oracle Financial Analyst Meeting last September [2024]: ‘Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.’”

• Keeping the Biden Executive Order Designating Federal Land for AI Data Centers (January 24, 2020)

Lest we think for a second that the Stargate AI project is a paragon of private enterprise and industry, we find Trump a few days after its announcement cancelling almost all of Biden’s executive orders except the one that bestows public land on these very enterprising private companies. [ref] Which, of course, makes Stargate a perfect poster child of public-private partnerships.

The state gives invaluable public land to private companies to “protect our national security” through projects that surveil and control the civilian population.

• Partnering with Elon Musk/DOGE and Peter Thiel/Palentir to Compile Data on Citizens (March 2025)

Following the exact same public-private “national security” blueprint, under the auspices of DOGE – the government entity controlled by a private tech billionaire (Musk), combined with the AI capabilities of a private company/government defense contractor (Thiel), massive amounts of American citizens’ data — from tax status to medical records — were collected and centralized. [ref] [ref]

Using government authority together with private companies’ technologies to turn the United States into a techno-surveillance state: Think back to government enforcement of Covid measures and vaccine mandates for a nascent example of this type of public-private endeavor.

And, just in case anyone believes the private participants in these partnerships have the public’s best interests in mind, here’s some background on Peter Thiel and Palentir from Patrick Wood’s Substack and an analysis of Elon Musk’s public funding history from the Washington Post.

• Senior Tech Executives Appointed to Military (June 13, 2025)

In another dramatic step to merge the private tech sector and the military/national defense agencies into one giant cartel, as reported by the Greyzone: “Four senior executives at Palantir, Meta, and OpenAI have been formally appointed lieutenant colonels in the US Army following the creation of a ‘special’ unit created for rich Big Tech mavens seeking military leadership roles.”

How much power do lieutenant colonels have? According to a U.S. military website, they generally command “a battalion consisting of 300 to 1,000 soldiers,” and “may also serve as an Executive Officer or Staff Officer in a variety of high-level units or command posts.” And, if they are not billionaires who can purchase their posts through public-private partnerships, “it will generally take an officer 16 to 22 years to rise to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.”

These appointments are not normal, as Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar, noted:

“A decade ago, it would’ve been unthinkable for so many tech heavyweights to openly align with the U.S. military. Equally, it would’ve been out of character for the military to enlist the support of the nation’s business elite — much less to create a special corps so they could deploy their technical talents in service of the government.”

Indeed, as MediaJustice pointed out, a bit less jubilantly:

“Granting private tech companies high-level security clearance and direct input into military strategy is both alarming and a clear escalation of tech power and an authoritarian state rapidly combining under Trump’s second term. What we are witnessing in real time is not only Big Tech providing the infrastructure that powers a police state but now also becoming official advisors to this police state as part of an authoritarian government.”

First They Hid the Military/Corporate Covid Convergence – Now They Celebrate It

With these examples in mind, it is clear that Trump’s boast in Davos about the Warp Speed military operation was not a mistake. It was the culmination of a year during which supporters of the President have been bamboozled into cheering the militarization of everything from law and immigration enforcement to mRNA and AI development – all aspects of the accelerated war being waged against the world’s populations by global public-private partnerships.

Now the very same people who protested the travesties of the Covid era are being nudged to cheer the Covid military operation, or at least to overlook the massive injuries and deaths caused by Warp Speed, the collapse of any separation between private interests and public administrations, the encroachments on civil liberties and human rights, and the abandonment of Constitutional, legislative and regulatory constraints on the powers of political and business leaders – leaders who are allied in pursuit of their own interests, which are diametrically opposed to those of the rest of us.

Anyone who was targeted during the Covid years should be loudly and actively protesting the massive and accelerating militarization of our country and the world. It’s happening to everyone, everywhere – see the Covid Dossier for crucial information on the corporate/military/intelligence global cartels that seek to surveil, control and dominate us.

This is a reprint of Sasha Latypova’s December 10, 2025 Substack post. In case you haven’t seen it, please read about the petition and submit a comment to the FDA (link below). As of right now, it looks like there are already over 100,000 comments submitted. Let’s get it up to a million!

Although I do not expect the FDA to act upon the petition, I think it’s an important document because it contains all the information and links to primary source material demonstrating in purely legal terms (no “science” or “medicine” involved) that the mRNA Covid vaccines are unregulated countermeasures.

This is also a great way for citizens to express their disapproval. Even if the FDA fails to act, it cannot erase our input. And we can publicize this far and wide, with your help.

If anyone — I’m thinking especially of the corporate and alternative press — wants the facts about how mRNA Covid vaccines were never subject to any non-emergency legal or regulatory oversight, it’s all there.

Bottom line is that the “full FDA approval” of the Covid mRNA products as biologics was a legal travesty: Not a single one of the legal requirements for such approval was ever satisfied.

December 8, 2025: Children’s Health Defense (CHD) has formally filed a comprehensive Citizen Petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This petition is drawing heavily on my research into misuse and abuse of the PREP Act law and subversion of pharmaceutical law and regulatory practices for mRNA covid shots marketed by Pfizer and Moderna as BLA vaccine platforms. Read The Defender article about this major development here.

The core argument is not focused on the safety or efficacy of the vaccines, but rather on fundamental, ongoing violations of the legal and regulatory standards required for full Biologics License Application (BLA) approval.

Link to the Citizen Petition Here

We need thousands of comments! I am shadow banned everywhere. I cannot do it alone and I need your help. I rarely ask for anything but this is the time I am asking you to support our effort. We need to flood the FDA with comments.

Instructions: When you submit a comment (follow the red button below), please read “Commenter’s Checklist link on the comment page. It will describe how to effectively write a comment. The comment can be simply that you support this petition. Alternatively, you can provide a more detailed comment and even submit attachments if you wish. If you have friends or family injured by these shots I encourage you to make a more extensive comment. The comment form will ask to designate a category to your comment. You can chose “Drug Industry” or “Federal Government”.

Please Please Please!! Share and submit a comment to the FDA in support of this petition:

Submit a comment to the FDA

More details about this petition below.

The Core Violation: EUA Products Cannot Simply Be Rebranded as “BLA Licensed”

The petition highlights the critical difference between the two regulatory pathways: the non-investigational Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and the investigational Biologics License Application (BLA).

When the FDA initially granted EUA status to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in December 2020, it waived strict BLA legal requirements, such as Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight, clinical trials, and adherence to current Good Manufacturing and Laboratory Practices (cGxP). This is allowed by the PREP Act during an HHS Scy declared emergency.

However, when the FDA granted full BLA approval (Pfizer’s Comirnaty on August 23, 2021, and Moderna’s SPIKEVAX on January 31, 2022), it failed to enforce the requisite BLA licensing standards that exist in the US law. By law, manufacturing practices and data collected solely under EUA status cannot retroactively satisfy the BLA standards because these standards are explicitly made inapplicable to the PREP Act/EUA uses.

The Requested FDA Action

1. Petitioners ask the FDA to revoke all BLA’s for every mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for all demographic groups because manufacturers do not and have never met BLA standards. Further, in granting licensure, FDA failed to enforce these standards.

2. Petitioners ask the FDA to find Comirnaty (all versions) and SPIKEVAX (including MNEXSPIKE) mislabeled/misbranded.

3. Petitioners ask the FDA to find Comirnaty (all versions) and SPIKEVAX (including MNEXSPIKE) adulterated or potentially adulterated.

4. Petitioners ask the FDA to properly designate every mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as an Emergency Use Authorization biologic as long as the HHS Secretary’s Declaration of Emergency is in effect. 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb-3(c)).

I remember back in 2022, when I first learned about Substack, and then later when I started publishing on it, that – in addition to my excitement and gratitude for a platform that did not seem to be censoring disfavored narratives – I also had a nagging apprehension: It looked like all the dissident and contrarian writers were being herded into this little orange corner of the Internet, where it would be very easy to then make us disappear.

Now that apprehension is getting much stronger.

In this article, I will present evidence suggesting that Substack is not just noticeably censored from the outside, but also possibly engaging in censorship on the inside.

I will use data from prominent counter-mainstream-narrative authors who are heavily censored on other platforms and who are experiencing concerning signs of censorship on Substack.

Note on what I mean by “dissident and contrarian writers” and “counter-mainstream-narrative authors”: These are writers who are exposing and opposing the corruption of the powerful, regardless of political party or affiliation. These are not writers who are censored for their “liberal” or “conservative” views. They are censored regardless of the parties or candidates who happen to be in power, because they threaten the supra-political power structures that control the narrative (more in this article: ​​https://debbielerman.substack.com/p/how-awesome-is-the-deep-state-really).

Outside Censorship of Substack

At this point it seems indisputable that Substack — or at least a notable subset of Substack writers — is heavily blocked and censored on major platforms from X to Google.

Famously, as summarized by one Twitter/X user in 2023:

“Substack writers cannot embed tweets in their posts. Twitter users cannot retweet or like tweets with Substack links.”

In a September 2024 conversation about this blockage, Substack founders Hamish McKenzie and Chris Best noted that the most extreme measures taken against Substack by X in 2023 have been lifted, and that blocking or impeding links to other sites is a natural business choice for any platform that needs eyeballs and attention glued to itself.

Nevertheless, the linking barriers between X and Substack severely curtail the ability of Substack authors to access X’s massive user base.

As for Google and other platforms, as John Leake, an author at the Substack “Focal Points” (formerly Courageous Discourse) wrote on August 11, 2025:

I noticed that none of my most popular Substack posts and video interviews were being shared in Google search results for “Author John Leake.” Posts and videos that received over 100,000 views on Substack were nowhere to be found in Google search results.

Moreover, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were also (apparently) blocking or shadow-banning links to our Substack posts and videos.

In light of this, we perceived Substack to be something akin to the old Jewish ghettos of Europe. While ghettos in cities such as Venice, Rome, Vienna, and Krakow were large and flourishing neighborhoods, they were still more or less walled off from the rest of the city. Such ghettos were also vulnerable to occasional pogroms.

With so many “dissident” writers moving to the Substack platform, I grew concerned that the entire free speech movement could be imperiled if Substack came under attack or was taken over by pro-censorship interests.

I do not know if this Substack “ghettoing” experience is shared mostly by controversial or dissident Substackers, or if it affects anyone who wants to see their Substack content served in the top tier of search results.

It may be due to Google’s non-organic ranking algorithms, described on Google Search Central:

Multiple systems work in various ways to show the most reliable information possible, such as to help surface more authoritative pages and demote low-quality content and to elevate quality journalism.”

If Substack is not considered by Google’s “multiple systems” to be a source of “reliable information” or an “authoritative” resource with “quality journalism” then Substack articles will not rank high in search results.

Again, this may apply to specific disfavored Substack writers, or it may apply to Substack as a whole.

Note to readers: Please share your experiences – whether they confirm or contradict these assertions – in the comments section below.

Internal Censorship of Dissident Writers on Substack

Writers who are censored on other platforms

In order to figure out whether censorship algorithms might be operating inside Substack, I contacted several prominent dissident writers, with large numbers of Substack subscribers (between approx. 10K and 60K) who have been censored elsewhere. Here is the list of writers and their testimonials as to their censorship on other platforms (unless otherwise specified, all testimonials were sent to me by email in September 2025). Note that the censorship is ongoing, regardless of changes in ruling political party or President:

Bill Rice (billricejr.substack.com)

Regarding Facebook, my account was suspended three or four times between 2020-2022 for “violating company posting standards” (all true or accurate posts about Covid topics).

I’m now out of Facebook timeout and use the speech platform to promote stories for my local Substack, The Troy Citizen. If I post something innocuous, I seem to get a good number of likes, shares and comments from my 1,600 followers. However, whenever I post something from my national Substack or that’s Covid related, I usually get no likes and no comments, making me think I’m still being shadow-banned. I’ve given up posting anything controversial on Facebook. I know Facebook says they no longer censor objectionable content, but I don’t believe that for a second.

Meryl Nass (merylnass.substack.com)

I have been thrown off twitter twice and my main twitter channel remains frozen since Dec 18, 2024. My google blog (anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com) which I have had since 2007 has taken down posts (sometimes alerting me sometimes not) and threatened if I have more posts they don’t like they will take down the blog.

Sasha Latypova (sashalatypova.substack.com)

I was kicked off Twitter in 2021, but it wasn’t a large account. At the same time, I was banned on Paypal for a couple of years. They unbanned it now, although I had to open another account. I have had a LinkedIn profile since 1998. I have thousands of professional connections. They banned me about a year ago. They locked me out of my account and then removed my profile photo. The account is still there, but has no photo now.

For a long time even putting a clip with me in an interview would get a channel strike on YouTube. It’s less overtly censored now, and any video I put up on Substack is supposed to auto-upload to YouTube, but it’s hard to find my videos or interviews with me there.

CJ Hopkins (cjhopkins.substack.com)

(from a 9/13/23 interview on Substack):

My latest book of essays, The Rise of the New Normal Reich: Consent Factory Essays, Vol. III (2020-2021), is banned by Amazon in Germany, Austria, and The Netherlands, and more or less impossible to order in German bookstores, and I’m under criminal investigation here in Germany for tweeting the cover art. Most of my social media output is censored and/or visibility-filtered by Twitter/X and Facebook. My interviews have been censored by YouTube. Google visibility-filters my search engine results.

Margaret Anna Alice (margaretannaalice.substack.com)

• Most recently, Google slapped a scary warning on my Billionairian Blueprint newsletter for all Gmail users (approximately 19k of my mailing list, so it had a huge impact)

• Comprehensive AI erasure of ALL my Substack articles across ALL search results for nearly every search engine, from Google to Brave to DuckDuckGo: In August 2024, I discovered Google had AI-erased every single one of my Substack articles from all search results.

• YouTube throttling view counts: I first noticed Duck Duck Go’s censorship a few days after I published Cody Hudson’s reading (February 13) of Lament of the Vaxx-Injured. I caught YouTube in the act of throttling view counts for that video and documented it in these tweets (here and then one hour later here; screenshots showing the count going from 762 to 685 within that hour; I’d noticed the video had 1.3k views shortly after I published it that morning; nearly seven months later, it shows as 1.2k views, so they haven’t even let the views get back to where it was when I first published it).
  
  My very first YouTube video—before I even had any followers—shows 6.3k views. Tess’s reading of Mistakes Were NOT Made shows 109k views. My last published video, It’s a Big Beautiful Club, only has 250 views. I find it highly suspicious that my view counts have gone from thousands (even 100k+) to almost zero as my YouTube channel and audience have grown over the years.

• PayPal unpersoning on August 31, 2022

• Big Tech email providers disabling notifications: Readers repeatedly alert me that their email notifications have been disabled without their knowledge as I reported in this PSA.

• Facebook account suspended: My Facebook account has been disabled twice, I believe. I documented one such instance here, which occurred following an exchange I documented in this and this post.

What is happening to these writers on Substack?

It’s important to note that, despite their ongoing censorship on other platforms, these writers do not necessarily believe that Substack is censoring them. Nevertheless, they are experiencing remarkably similar trends that I would argue point to something more than can be explained by their individual experiences.

These trends include:

• Precipitous decline in paid subscribers

• Total subscribers hovering around a set point

• Dramatic declines in page views, impressions, conversions to subscribes

• Demotion of sensitive content

Precipitous decline in paid subscribers 2024/2025

I was first alerted to this trend by Sasha Latypova, with whom I co-published the Covid Dossier – a heavily censored report on the global military/intelligence coordination of the Covid operation. (Try typing Covid Dossier or The Covid Dossier into Google, with or without quotes. In every case, you will not get a link to the Dossier itself, which has thousands of likes and tens of thousands of views on Substack, let alone our most popular interviews, some with over 100K viewers on YouTube).

Sasha noticed the following about her subscriptions: The number of paid subscribers peaked on the date of the release of the Dossier and has been declining precipitously ever since. This is not likely to be due to lack of interest in Sasha’s Substack material, as the overall number of subscribers has been increasing steadily:

While Sasha can point to a specific publication as the potential trigger for her massive decline in paid subscribers, others – including Meryl Nass, Margaret Anna Alice, CJ Hopkins and Bill Rice have all experienced eerily identical precipitous declines in paid subscribers, while their overall subscribers and “followers” (a new Substack category that seems to be counter-productively veering readers away from actually subscribing to newsletters) are rising steadily.

These are their August/Sept 2024-August/Sept 2025 Paid Subscriber curves. I have deleted the names and numbers of subscribers to maintain their privacy:

Other authors on Substack have noted the same pattern, but I was not able to obtain the detailed graphs:

John Leake, an author at the Substack “Focal Points (formerly Courageous Discourse)” noted on August 11, 2025:

In a gambit to try to expand beyond the digital walls that had apparently been erected around Substack, we changed the title of our newsletter to “The Focal Points” and adopted the domain thefocalpoints.com.

We made this change on February 14, 2025. Though it may just be a coincidence or a result of shifting trends and interests, the total number of our paid subscribers peaked on February 14 and has been precipitously declining ever since.

[BOLDFACE ADDED]

POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS

Individual author issues

Several of the Substack authors mentioned above have an explanation for why their particular publication is losing paid subscribers, while maintaining a steady growth in overall interest. As mentioned above, John Leake thinks it may be due to “shifting trends and interests.”

Margaret Anna Alice wrote in a recent email: “ I have lost 231 paid subscribers since January 1, 2024. That’s when I started noticing my paid subscriptions starting to plummet. I attributed it to the tanking economy and still think that is the primary cause based on the few people who take the time to provide feedback when they unsubscribe.”

Meryl Nass wrote: “There may be many troll subscribers that come and go in droves. I think the loss of paid subscribers is about me telling them to donate at DTF instead of paid subscribing, plus the rapidly growing number of choices they have on substack.”

CJ Hopkins wrote: “I think the steady decline is the result of my failure to get on the MAGA/Musk train, rather than any shenanigans.”

For each of the authors separately, these explanations may apply to some extent. But why would they start losing subscribers at almost exactly the same time, and then lose them at an almost identical rate, over the same period of time? And why would this decline in paid subscribers go in the opposite direction of their overall subscriptions and followers, which continue to increase? The uniformity of their curves and of the timing of the declines suggests that there is a larger trend that does not have to do with dissatisfaction or disinterest of their particular audiences, or with the publication or lack of publication of particular articles or viewpoints.

Stripe/external payment processing issues

Escapekey (escapekey.substack.com), another contrarian Substacker, found a possible explanation: He noted that Stripe – the company that processes payments for Substack – recently started rejecting paid subscriptions to his Substack.

Here’s how he described this is a Substack Note on September 1, 2025:

What I have spotted over the past couple of weeks is an astronomical quantity of payment card rejections in my Stripe log.

Especially those who paid in full have had to repeatedly try, again and again and again it appears, more than 50% of recent attempts to pay for a full year were rejected.

Going back in history, no such pattern took place earlier.

When he tried to figure out whether this could be due to chance, here’s what he came up with, as explained in another Note from September 3, 2025:

Overnight, yet another pay-in-full transaction was rejected. That makes recent stats 4 of 7 failing to complete, with 16 prior all succeeding. Statistically, ‘Probability if nothing changed: ~0.08% (less than 1 in 1,000)‘ which sounds about right.

Maybe this is an external censorship issue

When looking at the eerily similar decline curves for paid subscriptions for the writers pictured above, the question arises: how would Substack accomplish this internally? As Margaret Anna Alice noted in an email:

I do still wonder how Substack could be causing paid subscriptions to get canceled as it seems like it would require action on the part of the user.

I do know free subscriptions are getting canceled without some users’ awareness, although my understanding is that is due to Big Tech email providers marking my newsletters as spam and notifications getting automatically disabled as a result.

I suppose Substack could be canceling random paid subscriptions and then some users just let it go and don’t follow up to resubscribe?

Perhaps, as Margaret Anna suggests, external censorship through payments and also through disabled notifications might explain some decrease in paid subscribers. Substack could also be canceling paid subscriptions without notifying the subscribers.

Whatever the answer, I believe the trend is too glaring to be due just to individual Substackers’ audience preferences.

Total subscribers hovering around set point

Whereas the declining paid subscriber trend described above may be another external censorship phenomenon, this one seems internal to Substack:

Several of the authors mentioned above have experienced a strange stagnation in their overall subscription numbers, not coinciding with the decline in paid subscriptions, nor with a steady increase in followers.

This phenomenon manifests in regular losses of a bunch of subscribers, whenever the “Overall Subscriber” number climbs to a certain point, and then a re-upping of about the same number. So the subscriptions just keep going up and down around the set point, and there is no steady increase. For several of the authors, this phenomenon seems to have started in the spring of 2025.

Here’s how the authors describe this (in emails in September 2025):

Bill Rice

This rings true to me as I never could get past 8,000 total subscribers. I have recently (thanks to one Steve Kirsch cross-post), but barely and I now get 20 to 50 unsubscribe notices with about every story I publish. So 8,000 might be my ceiling?

I add 20 new subscribers and then lose 21. I lose many of these former subscribers just after I post an article I thought was pretty good. A few people in the reader comments tell me that article was “brilliant” or “great” or “the best thing you’ve written yet.”

Margaret Anna Alice

The sawtooth effect in all subs shows how each time I send out a newsletter, I receive a bunch of email disabled notifications. Overall, my mailing list is growing, but it’s like two steps forward one step back. I reached 45k in March but dropped back down to 44k in June due to the waves of unsubs, and I haven’t gotten back to 45k yet.

EscapeKey (in a September 7, 2025 private chat with me on Substack):

probably around a year back i was growing exponentially (as growth usually is), and then suddenly out of nowhere, all growth went very oddly linear which isn’t natural at all. this was intermittently interrupted by just as odd period of times where growth would be super-slow followed by a few days of explosive growth - as though i was artificially range bound

Sasha Latypova and Meryl Nass shared All Subscriber graphs showing this phenomenon, beginning around June-July 2025:

Meryl Nass followed up in an email on October 2, 2025:

These really don’t make sense. Supposedly I get about 30 subscribers daily and about 85 total followers daily, but I have been stuck for over a month on subscribers.

In the case of free/overall subscriptions, it seems that there is mostly an internal mechanism – whether intentional or not – leading to lots of unsubscribes, followed by approximately the same numbers of subscribes, and then more unsubscribes, etc.

Dramatic declines in page views, impressions, conversions to subscribes

This trend has been noted extensively by Bill Rice and EscapeKey.

As Bill noted in a July 23, 2025 email:

I thought my last article was pretty good and original, but it only generated 3,800 “page views,” which is what I was getting when I had 3,000 subscribers two years ago. And I got one new free subscriber.

In another email Bill wrote:

I also have gotten a good number of emails or reader comments from subscribers telling me they don’t get my dispatches or when someone makes a comment to one of their Reader Comment posts, they don’t get a notification of this. One reader just notified me that he thinks someone is unsubscribing him without his knowledge - when he didn’t unsubscribe or cancel a subscription.

EscapeKey wrote in a September 16, 2025 Substack Note:

I find it quite amusing how every time I post a new essay, within 10 minutes, I lose 3-10 followers, just like that, regardless of topic. I just don’t see that statistically being even remotely likely, but hey.

There are just so many statistical oddities… nah, impossibilities on this platform… it’s becoming increasingly hard to tell the difference between the outright manipulation taking place on this platform and that taking place on twitter.

And in a private Substack chat with me:

wrt sudden unsubscriptions, pretty much every time i post an essay i lose between 3-10 within 30 minutes. it’s very rare that it doesn’t drop, which doesnt appear real to me. i also see regular drops of singular subscribers at almost timed intervals.

oh yeah, and lots of reports from people about not being able to like or comment on posts - and others complaining about likes that has gone missing.

oh yeah, not forgetting the very strange patterns i often get in the middle of the night while asleep where i get like 5-10 new followers out of nowhere, and then absolutely nothing again - as though there’s some quota after which my notes are not displayed organically.

Again, these strange trends might be coincidental, or due to individual authors’ articles or audiences. Or they may be intentional. Please comment, if you have any insights into these trends.

Demotion of sensitive content

I initially began researching this article due to a random observation I made while perusing Sasha Latypova’s Substack.

I was looking for the Covid Dossier (which we published together) and another one of her articles that contained a leaked audio recording revealing the national security nature of the Covid response. These articles received 675 and 735 likes on her Substack, respectively.

When I clicked on the “TOP” filter on Sasha’s site, I expected to see them at the top. But they were not. So I started going down the list, which I understand is supposed to be ordered according to the number of likes (and possibly factoring in the number of comments and shares). To my surprise, I found articles with even more likes – over 1,000 in several cases – buried way down among the 200-300s.

Here are a few examples of this phenomenon:

Sasha’s most popular article, as far as I can tell from endless scrolling through her “TOP” list – which does not list the most popular at the top – is this one: Dear Dr. Malone… (1,227 likes, 737 comments, 147 reposts). Based on its popularity, I presume it should appear as the first article in the “TOP” section. (If that presumption is wrong, please let me know in the comments.)

Instead, I found it after a lot of scrolling, below Putin endorses New World Order by Pretend-hating on Klaus Schwab (355 likes, 376 comments, 38 reposts).

Sasha’s next most popular article (I think) is this one, which she has pinned at the top of her site: Summary of Everything and Quick Links, Updated - April 2025 (1,103 likes).

Presumably, it should appear second, or close to that, under “TOP,” but instead it appears many dozens of articles down, under Looking at a Drop of Dental Anesthetic Drying Under a Microscope (397 likes).

There are many more examples of articles with likes in the 600s and 700s buried among the 200-300s.

This demotion of Sasha’s most popular – and most dangerous to those protecting the establishment Covid narrative – content corresponds to the censorship tactics used on other platforms, where the algorithm serves as top search results the items with low or middling popularity and engagement, while burying or completely ignoring the most popular items. (A good example of this is the Google search results for “The Covid Dossier,” as discussed above.)

WHAT DOES SUBSTACK SAY ABOUT CENSORSHIP?

In an April 25, 2025 message to Margaret Anna Alice, Mills Baker, the Head of Design at Substack said:

I can say with confidence that we are still not suppressing anyone, shadow banning anyone, being pressured by 3rd parties to control discourse, etc. no one tells us what to do (or even tries, so far; I guess we’re not big enough?), and we don’t try to influence any of this stuff and would resist any attempts to force us to.

it’s like a whole reason the platform exists and is very important to the founders, Chris [Best - Substack Co-founder] in particular…

Hamish McKenzie, the other Substack Co-founder, wrote in July 2025:

Unlike social media, the Substack model isn’t about top-down order or submission to a ruler’s whims. You get to set the terms of the culture you want to live in.

We are building a system that allows order to emerge through facilitating the free flow of information and thought, where people help one another understand the world and feel part of something larger than themselves.

If the founders are to be believed, Substack does not engage in internal censorship at all.

How can we reconcile such statements with the experiences of the writers presented in this article? One way might be to follow the money.

Who Owns/Controls Substack?

Perhaps, despite their best intentions, the founders of Substack, like the founders of every social media and search platform, are ultimately beholden to the needs and decisions of their funders who are the same overlapping group of companies and tech billionaires.

Just one example of a prominent investor in both X and Substack is Marc Andreessen, whose company Andreessen Horowitz invested $400 million in X [ref] and was a lead investor in the July 2025 $100 million funding round in Substack, as well as earlier rounds [ref].

Andreessen’s analysis of the Covid response, in a widely cited article entitled “It’s Time to Build,” included lamenting that “Every Western institution was unprepared for the coronavirus pandemic, despite many prior warnings” and

Our scientists will hopefully invent therapies and a vaccine, but then we may not have the manufacturing factories required to scale their production. And even then, we’ll see if we can deploy therapies or a vaccine fast enough to matter—it took scientists 5 years to get regulatory testing approval for the new Ebola vaccine after that scourge’s 2014 outbreak, at the cost of many lives.

Notably, in April 2020, Andreessen was not questioning the pandemic narrative and was laser focused on the biodefense lockdown-until-vaccine solution – using the declared emergency to argue that the regulatory barriers to vaccines in the past needed to be discarded for Covid, as indeed they were – with disastrous results.

This is just one small example of how the investors in tech platforms might have an interest in the type of censorship experienced by those who question those investors’ assumptions about what we need to do to prepare for pandemics, develop vaccines, etc.

For my readers’ reference, here’s a list of some stakeholders in Substack, as reported by Tech Crunch on July 17, 2025 (it’s interesting to note that July 2025 is around when some of the writers mentioned in this article started to experience the strange stagnation in their subscription numbers):

Substack announced on Thursday that it has raised $100 million in Series C funding led by investors at BOND and The Chernin Group (TCG). The round included participation from Andreessen Horowitz; Rich Paul, CEO and founder of Klutch Sports Group; and Jens Grede, CEO and co-founder of Skims.

And, just for interest’s sake, or in case you encounter someone who says “Elon Musk made X a free speech platform,” here are some of the stakeholders in X (from Tech Crunch):

• Andreessen Horowitz

• Pershing Square Foundation, linked to Pershing Square Holdings, founded by billionaire investor Bill Ackman 20 years ago

• Oracle founder Larry Ellison

• Sean Combs Capital, a business linked to the American rapper Diddy—previously known as Puff Daddy

• Saudi Prince HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud

• Twitter founder Jack Dorsey

CONCLUSION

I cannot say for certain that Substack is censoring authors who challenge/question/ oppose/expose the global criminal cabal, more benignly known as the biodefense public-private partnership, that ran Covid, or other dissident writers.

This article presents evidence that external censorship of contrarian authors is very likely happening. Internal censorship seems like it’s happening, but we do not have definitive proof.

Please add comments, if you have any experience or information to share about these topics.

And if anyone can get Substack leadership to address these issues, that would be amazing!

mRNA Vaccines DID NOT UNDERGO a legally regulated drug approval or manufacturing process

It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process. (2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academies publication, p. 28)

All mRNA products on the market and in development today became available as a result of the declared Covid pandemic, through legal pathways intended for CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) emergencies – in other words, war or terror incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

These WMD-related laws include Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and blanket legal indemnity granted through the PREP Act.

The manufacturing agreements for the COVID mRNA vaccines were military Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) signed by the Pentagon. This type of “other than contract” agreement is intended to supply the military with cutting edge technology while bypassing pesky regulations and red tape. It is not intended for civilian use.

No Regulatory Oversight = No Scientifically Valid Claims

These laws and contractual instruments do not require any regulatory oversight for the development, manufacture, distribution or administration of countermeasures covered under EUA and PREP Act. Any oversight activities, clinical investigations or reporting of trial methods/practices/results are entirely voluntary on the part of the developers/manufacturers.

In other words: any trials, inspections, experiments or other activities carried out on these products do not have to comply with any safety standards, laws, or regulations that apply to the development of non-emergency medical products.

This is not speculation or interpretation. It is the letter of the law. These articles will walk you through the convoluted legalese:

• What is EUA?

• What is the PREP Act?

According to these laws, and the OTA contracts, the developers/manufacturers of the countermeasures are solely responsible for conducting whatever trials or experiments they choose, under whatever conditions they want, with whatever reporting standards they decide to follow. There is no enforceable legal or regulatory oversight on any of these activities.

THEREFORE, any claims about the products made by the manufacturers are NOT based on clinical trials conducted according to regulatory guidelines or scientific standards and CANNOT be the basis for regulatory approval under non-EUA drug development frameworks.

This is stated very clearly in the quote at the beginning of this article, which I will repeat here. (It was brought to light by Katherine Watt who has done the most thorough and extensive research on these and related laws):

It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process. (2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academies publication, p. 28)

Here’s how the FDA and CDC explain what EUA means, compared to other “Access Mechanisms” for medical products:

Here’s what this table tells us about EUA:

1. The process of granting EUA is not likely to generate any information about a product’s effectiveness.

2. The process of granting EUA is not designed to provide evidence of safety or effectiveness, but safety signals might be identified.

3. It is unlikely, once a product is granted EUA and administered to some patients, that any useful information will be obtained to benefit any future patients.

4. There is no systematic data collection on effectiveness or safety with EUA, and no data is published in medical journals as part of the regulatory approval process.

5. No informed consent is required, but patients who “volunteer” to take the product must be told they can refuse and that the product is unapproved/available under EUA.

6. No institutional review board (IRB) is required. [IRB is a board that is supposed to protect the well-being of human subjects in clinical trials.]

One important note: The last line in this table references “access to investigational product” which legally applies only to the “Clinical Trial” and “Expanded Access” categories. The term “investigational” is misapplied in the case of EUA, because EUA precludes legally binding investigation, and only covers countermeasures which, by definition, are non-investigational. I know this sounds extremely convoluted to the point of absurdity, but that’s how these laws are (I would contend intentionally) written, to confuse and obfuscate. Sasha Latypova provides a detailed explication of this legal morass.

Here’s what this means in terms of potential harms caused by these products, and the ability to hold anyone legally accountable for them:

• The process through which the products were developed and manufactured was not expected by regulators, lawmakers or anyone else to produce any useful information regarding safety or efficacy. Therefore, any claims related to safety or efficacy were purely promotional and not based on any scientifically validate-able data.

• There is not, nor has there ever been, any requirement to follow up on any safety signals that may or may not be detected in the process of the unregulated experiments conducted on these products.

• Even if safety signals are detected and people are harmed or killed, no one who tests, develops, manufactures, distributes, administers or does anything else related to these products is legally liable.

• As long as these products are covered by an emergency PREP Act declaration, this legal framework remains intact.

QUESTIONS TO ASK ANYONE ADDRESSING COVID mRNA VACCINES

Given this information about how COVID mRNA vaccines were developed and manufactured, I would argue that any investigation of their potential harms or benefits must necessarily begin with an acknowledgement that they were never subjected to any non-EUA drug development regulations or legal oversight.

In addition, it must be acknowledged that they are still covered by the PREP Act, which is based on a declaration by the HHS Secretary that we are in an emergency, or potential emergency, related to COVID-19. The current PREP Act declaration is in effect until December 2029. The HHS Secretary has the sole discretion and power to end that declaration.

So when someone sits down to interview a regulator who claims to be undertaking an investigation of COVID mRNA vaccines, or writes an article about “giving the COVID vaccines a good hard look” I would at the very least expect the topic of EUA/PREP Act to be mentioned.

It never is.

Here are some questions to ask a CDC or FDA regulator, or a MAHA enthusiast, if you find yourself talking to one at a cocktail party, or if you are a journalist interviewing them or writing about their activities:

• Do you know that the mRNA vaccines on the market and in trials now were all developed under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)?

• Do you know that EUA was intended to rush countermeasures to the battlefield or the site of a CBRN attack and is not part of the drug approval process?

• Do you know that COVID mRNA vaccines are covered by the PREP Act, which means no one can be held legally liable for any activity related to their development, manufacture, distribution, administration, or anything else?

• Do you know the PREP Act was intended to cover medical countermeasures rushed to the scene of a CBRN emergency – not to a disease outbreak involving billions of civilians? Do you know that it was considered unconstitutional by many lawmakers at the time of its covert and rushed passing?

• Do you know that PREP Act and EUA-covered countermeasures do not require any followup if/when safety signals are detected?

• Given this information, what do you believe the claims of “safe and effective” for these products are based on?

• Given this information, would you agree that the only way to put mRNA products on a legal regulatory pathway is to subject them to the same laws/regulations that govern the development and manufacturing of non-emergency medical products? And that this means they must undergo legally binding regulated clinical trials outside the EUA/PREP Act CBRN emergency framework?

• In the mean time, while we’re waiting for the years that it will take such legally regulated trials to take place, do you agree that anyone who wants to get, or is recommended by a healthcare professional or regulatory agency to receive, an mRNA product — including in the context of clinical trials — should be notified of its status as an EUA/PREP Act-covered countermeasure?

• Do you believe we are still in a COVID-19 emergency warranting blanket legal protection for all countermeasures until the end of 2029? If not, why do you think the HHS Secretary has failed to end the PREP Act emergency Declaration for COVID?

• Will you join the efforts to ask the Secretary to end the emergency and to repeal the PREP Act entirely?

The following is a list, in alphabetical order, of Covid documentaries I was able to find (many have been heavily suppressed and censored), with short descriptions and links. As I searched and watched these, I found most did a good job of telling part of the Covid story, but none seemed to encapsulate the whole event in a clear and impactful way – for obvious reasons: it was so enormous and unprecedented, it seems almost impossible to encompass in one film, or even a series.

If I (or anyone else) were to embark on such a crazy project, it would help to understand what’s already out there, what the audience response has been, and what’s missing.

I’m curious to hear from my readers: Which of these documentaries do you like more, which less? What do they do well, what do they do poorly? What’s missing and what kind of Covid film would you want to see, or want to show others?

Please leave your thoughts in the comments below, and invite anyone you know who’s interested in this topic to do the same.

I realize this is not an exhaustive list, and I’m sure there are missing films/ documentaries. Please alert me to anything I should add.

Thank you in advance for your input and feedback.

COVID AND RELATED DOCUMENTARIES

The Agenda

2025

https://theagendafilm.com/

The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future examines the digital prison which awaits us if we do not push back right now. How your food, energy, money, travel and even your access to the internet could be limited and controlled; how financial power is strangling democracy and how global institutions like the World Health Organisation are commandeered to champion ideological and fiscal objectives.

Anecdotals

2022

https://www.anecdotalsmovie.com/

In March 2021, after receiving my Pfizer shot, I couldn't feel the left side of my face for a month. Eighteen months later, electric shocks and muscle weakness continue. Unable to receive the 2nd dose, I am amongst a group of partially-vaccinated people who have been outcast from many aspects of society with no empathy. We've been censored and told it's unethical to talk about our stories because we are just anecdotes.

This movie provides a glimpse into the lives of the Anecdotals–those of us whose lives have been changed drastically by taking the vaccine. It also reflects on the division and politics that prevents us from getting much needed care. Anecdotals is a personal journey that focuses on questions, not answers, and people, not politics.

Battleground Melbourne

2022

https://battlegroundmelbourne.com/

Narrated by Topher Field, and featuring gritty, real life footage of protests and police repression mixed with interviews with top freedom fighters including sitting Members of Parliament, resigned police officers, illegal protest organisers, and journalists arrested just for doing their job… This documentary will forever stand as a snapshot of a city in crisis, and a cautionary tale for the whole world.

The Big Reset

(Spanish original, English narration and translation)

2022

https://thebigresetmovie.com/area-video/

Following the declaration of the COVID-19 global pandemic, the society in which we live has undergone major changes. Through fear, policies have been carried out that under normal conditions would seem unthinkable. Meanwhile, concepts such as The Great Reset, the Fourth Industrial Revolution or transhumanism, remain unknown to the general public.

Covid Collateral

2024

https://covidcollateral.com/screenings-media/ (trailer)

Available for Rent ($8.99) or purchase ($12.99)

Reveals the deep suppression of science during Covid: that the severe lockdowns imposed by western governments were not driven by scientific consensus or accurate data. Instead, important scientific debate which would have served the public good, was shut down. How was the powerful medical establishment, and the government involved in influencing Big Tech (including Mark Zuckerberg) to shut down dissenting prominent scientists, who were critical of lockdowns?

COVID Safe Domestic Violence By The State

2024

https://dailyclout.io/documentary-covid-safe-domestic-violence-by-the-state/

The Australian state used the bogeyman of the COVID-19 virus to terrorize the population of 25 million into submission.

Stripping away the rights and privileges of its citizens during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022 the Australian Government meets its own definition of domestic violence.

The film includes three chapters: 1. ‘Theft’, 2. ‘False Imprisonment’ and 3. ‘Skull Crack’

‘Theft’ – includes interviews with owners of small Sydney businesses who explain how the state stripped away their livelihoods during the Covid lockdowns.

‘False Imprisonment’ – a Nepalese-Australian man explains the psychological abuse he endured during his state-imposed solitary confinement in a Sydney hotel room.

‘Skull Crack’ – includes an interview with the mother of Mr Daniel Peterson-English, who on 22 September 2021 was thrown to the floor of Melbourne’s Flinders Street Station, headfirst by a Victorian policeman.

COVID UNMASKED: 2020 and Beyond (4-part series)

2023

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/world-premiere-covid-unmasked-2020-and-beyond-or-sept-11-14/

In early 2020, life as we knew it changed forever. What was sold to us as a fight against “a new and deadly virus“ soon revealed itself as merely the opening act of a Great Reset, in which we will “own nothing and be happy”. This film documents exactly who is behind it all, how long it’s been in the works, and how to stop it… before we lose our country, our liberty, and our humanity.

Covidism: Contagious Deception

2023

https://vaccineimpact.com/2023/new-2023-documentary-premiere-covidism-contagious-deception/

Part 1 carefully examines how authorities worldwide have been gaming the numbers regarding cases, hospitalizations and deaths from the alleged coronavirus and explains how health officials actively suppressed safe and effective treatments for Covid-19, while employing deadly protocols for hospital patients.

Part 2 focuses on the fascinating timeline of events, which led to the global Covid-19 response, and investigates whether or not the science on the lethality and infectivity of Sars-Cov-2 justified countermeasures such as lockdowns and mask-wearing.

Part 3 is a deep dive into the topic of Covid-19 “vaccines,” detailing the plethora of scientific evidence for their unsafe and ineffective nature, while exposing the deceptive tactics of manipulating the statistics.

Part 4 puts all the pieces of the puzzle together, exposing the premeditated sinister political motivations behind the global Covid-19 response, and how it is intricately tied to a much larger agenda – The Great Reset.

Died Suddenly

2022

https://www.bitchute.com/video/VW8lhitj3vLM/

https://rumble.com/v1wcs7o-died-suddenly-2022-full-documentary.html

Insurance companies: inexplicable increases in deaths, certain conditions. Malthusian overpopulation fears. Undertakers, funeral directors. Embalmers - white fibrous clots. Army Flight Surgeon whistleblower: 40% increase in deaths, deadly medical conditions in soldiers (DMED data - shut down 24 hours after Ron Johnson committee). Propaganda. Steve Kirsch/VAERS. Lots of footage of people dropping dead.

Epidemic of Fraud

2024

https://www.epidemicoffraud.com/

explores the bizarre media, medical, and partisan political attacks levied against a class of ancient medications, told from the perspective of a former CNN journalist and Hollywood industry veteran. Why were the people who allowed the fentanyl disaster to go unchecked so eager to discredit a drug that is safer than tonic water? Director John Davidson takes you into an audio/visual time machine back to 2020 to reveal the forbidden knowledge that our medical, academic, and political officials are desperate to hide from you.

Follow the Silenced

2025

https://followthesilenced.com/

Follow the Silenced tells the untold stories of those who stepped up first, believing they were "doing the right thing", blindly trusting the system… and were left abandoned. Injured in the initial COVID vaccine trials, these individuals were ignored, gaslit, and pushed into the shadows — but they found each other, and rose together. This is their story.

Fluvid-19

2022

https://rumble.com/v1o8v3p-let-the-truth-be-told.-fluvid-19-2022-hard-hitting-high-impact.html

Covid propaganda, vaccines, Great Reset

Hold-Up-On-Out

3-part series (French and translated versions)

2020, 2021, 2022

https://www.oval.media/en/hold-up-2020-2/

The Covid-19 pandemic has given rise to contradictory exchanges between doctors, specialists, professors, politicians, and experts, all orchestrated and fueled by the media's intense coverage. Scientists have thus found themselves discredited, particularly with the Lancet affair. The Scientific Council, which is supposed to be steering this pandemic, is openly accused of incompetence and arrogance, with supporting evidence. And what about us in all this? What should we think? What should we do with all this information? Who should we believe?

These are the questions that the documentary HOLD-UP attempts to answer by meeting caregivers, researchers, experts, and lawyers who offer another perspective on this unprecedented crisis and denounce a battery of government measures that most of them consider ineffective.

House of Cards

2023

https://odysee.com/@showmetheevidence:7/House-of-Cards-v3:2

House of Cards reveals the real story of what happened to the world during the Covid years. See behind the vast censorship to hear the testimony of independent experts who were discredited and censored. You’ll find out about the deception perpetrated on the entire world, in pressuring everyone to take a poorly tested, highly dangerous, gene therapy product marketed as a safe and effective vaccine.

The film was designed for those Australians who have wondered about puzzling aspects, such as why the vaccine was supposed to protect us from infection, yet millions ended up catching Covid anyway!

The film connects the vaccines and draconian public health response to the global perspective, and show that the Covid vaccines served a purpose, which had nothing to do with public health. We discuss what each person can do about resisting the move towards turning the citizens of the world into digital serfs, ruled by an ultrawealthy elite group, who have every intention of presiding over a much smaller population than at present.

Inside the Vaccine Trials

2025

https://www.vaccinetrialstories.com/

This educational film shares the deeply personal stories of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants from around the world. These volunteers stepped forward with hope and trust, only to face life-altering health challenges.

Now caught in medical limbo, their experiences highlight a broader issue: post-vaccination patients left without care and silenced by censorship.

Medical Racism: The New Apartheid

2021

https://medicalracism.childrenshealthdefense.org/medical-racism-the-new-apartheid/

From post-Civil War era and the Tuskegee Experiment to the present, explore the medical experimentation on Blacks in this unprecedented journey to unearth the truth.

This powerful documentary will show you:

• That medical racism has happened before, and why we’re raising awareness to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

• How racism in the drug industry impacts the perception of others.

• Why, when our bodies and risk are involved, it shouldn’t be about governmental control.

• How to feel empowered to have a voice about your choices.

MONOPOLY - Who owns the world?

2022

https://rumble.com/vn7lf5-monopoly-who-owns-the-world-must-see.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_m

This documentary by Tim Gielen reveals how a small group of super rich criminals have been buying virtually everything on earth, until they own it all. From media, health care, travel, food industry, governments... That allows them to control the whole world. Because of this they are trying to impose the New World Order.

Never Again Is Now Global

2023

https://neveragainisnowglobal.com/

Holocaust survivors, children of survivors, and grandchildren -- as well as German freedom fighters -- express their shock at today's fear-mongering and divisive dictates that are reminiscent of the prelude to the Holocaust.

Episode 1. Here We Go Again On Steroids

Episode 2. Anyone Who Wants To Start A War Has To Lie

Episode 3. Breaking The Veil Of The Real Conspirators

Episode 4. This Time Around We’re All Jews

Episode 5. Never Give In – Never Give Up

Plandemic 1, 2, 3

2020, 2020, 2023

https://plandemic.com/plandemic-1/

https://plandemic.com/plandemic-2-indoctornation/

https://plandemic.com/plandemic-3-the-great-awakening/

The film that assembles forbidden puzzle pieces to reveal the big picture of what's really happening in America and beyond.

Planet Lockdown

2022

https://planetlockdownfilm.com/

Planet Lockdown is a 90-minute documentary on the situation the world finds itself in. We spoke to some of the brightest and bravest minds in the world including epidemiologists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, protesters a statesman and a prince. These brave souls had the courage to speak truth against all odds and inspire us to do the same. We must have the courage to overcome our fears. Once we do, it gets easier every time.

All the full interviews are being released to make the information available for free. Each interview is mirrored several times, can be downloaded in full resolution and via the BitTorrent protocol to make the content censor resistant. By watching all the interviews, you will have the equivalent of a masters degree on current events.

The Real Anthony

2022

archive.org/details/The_Real_Anthony_Fauci_Movie_2022/The.Real.Anthony.Fauci.2022.Part.1.WEBRip.x264-ION10.mp4

A documentary based on the book by Robert Kennedy Jr.

Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion

2022

https://odysee.com/@OracleFilms:1/safeandeffective:4?ref=truth11.com

Shines a light on Covid-19 vaccine injuries and bereavements, but also takes an encompassing look at the systemic failings that appear to have enabled them. We look at leading analysis of pharmaceutical trials, the role of the MHRA in regulating these products, the role of the SAGE behavioural scientists in influencing policy and the role of the media and Big Tech companies in suppressing free and open debate on the subject.

Something Ain’t Right with Kevin Sorbo

2024

https://rumble.com/v49p0m9-something-aint-right-with-kevin-sorbo.html

This documentary looks at physicians who were successfully treating covid since March 2020. Yet the majority of these physicians through out the world were censored. Countless lives could have been saved had this not happened. Had this censorship not happened, would we have needed the economically destructive lockdowns? Would people be living in fear as they are today? How would our lives be different?

The Time Is Now

2021

https://rumble.com/v215k3y-the-time-is-now.html

Dr. Ben Tapper, a small-town chiropractor who is black-labeled as a member of the "Disinformation Dozen" during the COVID-19 pandemic, rallies together healthcare professionals across America to share an alternate viewpoint of the global narrative.

Uninformed Consent

2022

https://librti.com/view-video/uninformed-consent#dpr

An in-depth look into the Covid 19 narrative, who's controlling it, and how it's being used to inject an untested, new technology into almost every person on the planet.

VAXXED III: Authorized to Kill

2024

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/videos/vaxxed-3-or-authorized-to-kill-movie/

Children’s Health Defense embarked on a nine-month journey across America, gathering powerful testimonies from the people. Our interviews ranged from mothers and fathers to teenagers, families, medical professionals, whistleblowers, lawyers, and people from all walks of life.

What we discovered was nothing short of staggering. We listened to harrowing accounts of COVID hospital protocols that shook us to our very core. The consistency of these stories was alarming.

People also shared their experiences after taking the COVID-19 vaccine, revealing tragic outcomes of either death or serious injury. Now, fueled by these powerful firsthand testimonies, we are creating a documentary by the people, for the people.

Witness Statement

2025

https://rumble.com/v6t1f1b-witness-statement-2025-covid-19-documentary.html

The documentary addresses all Australian Police, State and Federal, and calls on them to identify and investigate alleged crimes and pursue prosecution of the offenders, without fear or favour. The film outlines numerous facts supported by indisputable data and evidence, of alleged criminal actions perpetrated on the people of Australia through the approval, promotion, mandating and injection of Covid-19 vaccines.

2030 Unmasked - For Those Preparing for what’s Coming After Covid-19

2021

https://rumble.com/vlmsmn-2030-unmasked-for-those-preparing-for-whats-coming-after-covid-19.html

A Documentary revealing the connection between Covid-19 Vaccines, Masks, The Banking System and The Great Reset.

I am also grateful for the assistance of citizen researcher/journalist Benjamin Marten, who generously shared his VAERS data queries and results with me.

Why am I writing about excess mortality associated with Covid mRNA vaccines?

Recently, I was talking to some friends about various Covid topics and casually mentioned deaths and disabilities associated with the mRNA vaccines, as documented by the company that made them. My friends, who are somewhat open to Covid skepticism but have not explored the subject very thoroughly, and are still ensconced in the corporate media bubble, were taken aback. “You mean people died from the vaccines?” they asked incredulously.

Which, for me, raised the question: How can we still be arguing about this?

I hope the information compiled here can help put an end to the question of whether or not Covid mRNA vaccines harm and kill people.

What is “Excess Mortality”?

According to Wikipedia, excess mortality is an epidemiological term that means “the increase in the number of deaths during a time period and/or in a certain group, as compared to the expected value or statistical trend during a reference period (typically of five years) or in a reference population.”

Simply put, it means more deaths than expected based on previous trends and future projections. As it relates to Covid-19, starting very early in 2020, a major topic of concern became how much excess mortality was caused by the disease (whether or not the disease actually caused a lot of excess mortality is a separate issue). After 2020, with near universal exposure to the novel coronavirus, and the rollout of a global vaccination campaign, excess mortality was expected to go back down. Instead, it increased.

THE THREE-SPIKE PATTERN

In this article, I will not attempt to quantify excess mortality in the years since Covid, nor will I establish a one-to-one correlation between Covid vaccinations and deaths.

Others, including most prominently Ed Dowd and Dennis Rancourt et al, have done extensive work on this topic, which I encourage readers to explore.

My purpose is to provide information that supports and corroborates these researchers’ conclusions, showing that in a variety of disparate databases, an almost identical pattern of excess deaths appears every time – which I will refer to as the three-spike pattern. The same pattern appears in death reports in VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System of the CDC) and in overall mortality trends both nationally and in individual states.

Specifically, the three-spike pattern appears in every data set around these periods:

December 2020-January 2021

August-September 2021

January-February 2022.

My contention in this article is that the mRNA vaccine rollouts/approvals are the singular events that correspond exactly with the three-spike pattern in all of these datasets:

December 11, 2020: Pfizer/BioNTech Emergency Use Authorization

December 18, 2020: Moderna Emergency Use Authorization

August 23, 2021: Pfizer “full FDA approval”

January 31, 2022: Moderna “full FDA approval”

If anyone can find another explanation for the three-spike pattern correlations in all of the graphs and data presented here, please contact me with the information and/or add to the comments section.

Three-Spike Post-2020 Excess Mortality Shocks Life Insurance Experts

In May 2024, life insurance experts affiliated with the nonprofit Insurance Collaboration to Save Lives got together to discuss trends in the life insurance industry – specifically, the surprising rise in excess mortality rates after 2020. The conversation began with a statement about how unusual it was to even be talking about “excess mortality”:

When people start talking about excess mortality, and that's not something you ever hear in life insurance companies, not ever in my entire career as an insurance analyst, not something we ever talk about…

The implication here is that the life insurance industry does a good job of projecting death rates, because that’s what their entire business model depends on. So talking about “excess mortality” – which means unanticipated deaths – almost never happens.

This was followed by an acknowledgement of the unprecedented trend of excess mortality after Covid:

In past pandemics, you see a pull forward of mortality, and then you see a valley for the mortality that was pulled forward. That usually is the next year. We're four years on, and we haven't seen any kind of a valley, and when you see an average of a 6%, a 12% increase, there are some age groups that were still 20% last year, still 20% up.

In other words, based on previous mortality trends after disease outbreaks, we would expect an increase in mortality above the projected level the first year, and then a decrease back to pre-outbreak projections, or even below them, after that. But with Covid this has not happened.

Detailing the unprecedented elevated excess mortality following the 2020 Covid emergency, a participant presented this analysis of the age-standardized excess mortality for the United States:

Look at these numbers for two years. There is excess above the baseline, These were periods when we were seeing deaths that were higher than we expected. This is monthly data. In December 2020, it was 41% higher than it was supposed to be. September 2021 was a weird month for that, as it was 39% higher than it was supposed to be. But luckily in 2022, it declined. But you're still in this 10%, 12%, 11%, 14% in December 2022. These are big numbers, these are very stable. Recently, in 2023, it's been more like 6%. The data's not mature yet for the more recent months, but in January 2024, so far it's 6.2%.

(table presented by insurance experts; green arrows added to show three-spike pattern)

The participants go on to speculate about what could be causing the prolonged excess death rates. They do not come up with a satisfactory answer.

They also do not ask a crucial and obvious question: What might have happened in December 2020/January 2021 that could cause such a shockingly unexpected bump in deaths, a whole year after the novel coronavirus started circulating? And what happened in or around September 2021 and January 2022 when the other biggest death spikes occurred, that might be correlated?

The mRNA vaccine rollouts are an obvious potential explanation, which everyone seems to willfully ignore.

Three-Spike Pattern in Obituary Database

HeritageHub is an obituary database that “provides access to hundreds of years of obituaries and death notices from thousands of newspapers and funeral homes throughout the United States.” It is paywalled and available through public libraries and other institutional subscriptions.

The researcher made this graph showing the number of obituaries in the database recorded for each month since January 2016. Here’s what it looks like:

The three-spike pattern is clear: after March 2020, the biggest month-over-month spikes are in January 2021, September 2021, and January 2022.

Interestingly, After the big March-April 2020 spike (which nonetheless does not exceed previous peaks), corresponding to the beginning of the declared pandemic emergency in the United States, there is a big dip that goes lower than any other dip in obituaries since 2015. How could this be, when we were only a few months into the emergency at that point?

One explanation tracks with the life insurance experts’ point that after a surge in deaths, when the most vulnerable population dies in large numbers (which could be caused by multiple factors), we expect to see a “valley” because the population of vulnerable people has significantly decreased. Indeed, we see that the valley continues all the way until the introduction of the first mRNA vaccines in December 2020.

Three-Spike Pattern in Oregon State Retiree Death Data

The researcher also looked at every state’s Employee Retirement Benefits report (discussed in more detail below). For most states, he relied on published reports showing the number of retirees removed annually from benefits rolls in the state’s retirement system, which reflects the number of retirees who died.

For Oregon, the researcher asked the state for more granular data, reflecting the number of retirees removed from the rolls monthly instead of yearly.

This is the graph showing the monthly number of deaths of Oregon state retirees January 2014-December 2024. The graph includes a line indicating the average number of deaths in the period before Covid (2014-2019) and shows how many deaths above that average occurred.

The green arrows indicate the three-spike pattern. Interestingly, an additional big spike occurred between September 2023 and January 2024. On September 11, 2023 the FDA “approved and authorized for emergency use” updated mRNA Covid vaccines.

Three-Spike Pattern in Oregon & California All-Cause Mortality Data

The researcher proceeded to chart overall mortality data in Oregon, and in other states for which data was available. Included here are the graphs for Oregon and California, showing the very clear 3-spike pattern. (Additional states are available on the researcher’s Substack).

Three-Spike Pattern in VAERS Death Reports

This graph was provided to me by independent researcher Ben Marten, based on his queries to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System for deaths reported between 2020 and 2024.

(The full data set is available upon request.)

As in every other data set we have examined, the biggest month-over-month spikes occurred between December 2020 - January/February 2021 (from 57 to 803 to 1231), July and August 2021 (from 482 to 1,084) and December 2021 - January 2022 (from 788 to 1,225).

Three-Spike Pattern in All-Cause Mortality in CDC Data

Marten also provided this graph of monthly all-cause mortality, as reported by the CDC. Once again, the biggest month-over-month spikes occur at exactly the same points:

What can we say about the three-spike pattern?

The more different data sets we examine, the more we see the same pattern over and over: in the one-to-two-month period right after the rollouts/approvals of Pfizer and Modern mRNA vaccines, death rates spike above all previous (and in most cases subsequent) levels.

Yet in almost all discussions of post-Covid mortality and disability, the experts grasp at every explanation, except the mRNA vaccines. Maybe it’s obesity and diabetes, or depression and drug use, or motor vehicle accidents, or delayed cancer care exacerbated by the lockdowns. Maybe it’s a baby boomer death bubble suddenly materializing. Or everybody’s favorite: “long Covid.”

The unanswered (and I would argue unanswerable) question is why any of those causes would follow the three-spike pattern that corresponds exactly with the rollouts of the mRNA vaccines.

THE SAME 2021 & 2022 SPIKES IN EXCESS DEATHS AND DISABILITIES ACROSS LOCATIONS AND POPULATIONS

Notably, some excess mortality discussions also try to claim that the spikes in excess deaths did not occur uniformly across all age groups and geographic areas, thus presumably excluding the mRNA vaccine rollouts as an explanation. For example, one March 2022 article on excess mortality claims that “Surges in excess deaths varied in timing and duration across states,” implying that different issues were causing excess deaths in different places.

As we will see in this section, an analysis of very similar population segments (state retirees), across dozens of states, belies the “varied surges” notion, as does data on both deaths in young people and disabilities in the U.S. working population.

The Same Excess Death Trends Revealed Across Dozens of State Retiree Databases

In addition to the Oregon state retiree data presented above, the researcher csofand analyzed data from the annual financial reports of the Employee Retirement Systems in all 50 states in the U.S. The researcher focused on these reports, because they reflect state finances and fiscal liabilities, and do not address death rates directly. Thus, the death counts included in the reports may be less prone to manipulation or obfuscation.

These reports also reflect a slice of the population that other researchers may not have focused on: state retirees. This is an older population that is not in the workforce anymore. The retirement age for most state employees across the country begins at 50 and goes through 65. It is noteworthy that the excess death trends in this population mirror almost identically the findings in so many other data sets.

But first, to understand the researcher’s work on retiree benefits reports, it’s important to understand the data he analyzed.

What are Employee Retirement System financial reports?

Each state’s retiree annual report provides accounting and actuarial information pertaining to the expenses, investments, assets and liabilities of the system that manages retirement and death benefits for that state’s employees. These reports are compiled separately by each state and encompass state employees across many areas including administration, education, transportation, law enforcement and more. The number of people in each state’s retirement system ranges from approx. 40,000 to 2.3 million (corresponding to the overall population of each state).

Buried in the actuarial sections of these reports are tables that show how many retirees and beneficiaries were removed from the retirement benefits rolls each year, which means that they stopped receiving benefits. According to spokespeople in multiple states contacted by the researcher, when someone is removed from the rolls, it almost always (>90% of the time) means that the person died. Thus, the number of retirees removed from state benefit rolls is a good indicator of the number of deaths in the state retiree population.

This sample chart shows “number removed from retiree benefit rolls” in the Oregon State Employee Retirement Report (p. 147)

When this data is presented as a bar graph, with a line denoting the 6-year pre-Covid average, we can see the excess deaths rising in 2020, reaching a peak in 2022, and barely declining in 2023.

The researcher made similar graphs for every retiree benefits system in the U.S. All the data, with links to all the reports, is available on his Substack.

The researcher also aggregated data from 23 states (see list below graph) to show the overall excess mortality trends.

(NOTE: He chose these 23 states because they all used the same reporting metrics. Other states differed in the calendar periods they used and the groups of state employees they included in their calculations.)

In this chart, the biggest surge in excess deaths occurs between July 2020 and July 2021 – the period that includes the first spike in the three-spike pattern. The excess mortality does not decline at all in the July 2021-July 2022 period, which includes the second and third spikes. And it remains significantly elevated in the following year.

(States included: Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia)

Although the goal here is not to calculate the number of excess deaths, it is worth noting that in every year after June 2020, there were over 10,000 excess deaths in this population. Very crudely calculated, that means that over 30,000 excess deaths occurred in a relatively small population (the retirees in 23 states) in the three years following the mRNA vaccine rollout.

Parallel Pattern in Young Population

Tens of thousands of deaths also occurred in younger populations after the rollouts of the mRNA vaccines, with the same 3-spike pattern. As Ed Dowd noted in his examination of excess deaths among young people:

Between March of 2021 and February of 2022, 61,000 millennials died excessively above the prior 5 year base trend line.

More millennials died in 2021 than American soldiers were killed in the Vietnam War.

​The relative timespan and rate of change into the fall of 2021 is a signal that a harmful event occurred to this 25-44 age group.

Here’s Ed Dowd’s graph, with the three-spike pattern:

Even if only a portion of these deaths is attributable to the mRNA vaccines, that’s tens of thousands just in the United States.

And the numbers have never returned to the expected baseline.

A “New Normal” Following 2021-2022 Excess Death Spikes

As illustrated in the researcher’s combined state retiree chart above, excess mortality spiked in 2021, remained high in 2022, and did not return to anything close to normal in 2023. Additional reports show a continuation of elevated excess mortality in 2024 (see csofand.substack.com).

This is the same trend discussed by the life insurance experts at the beginning of this article. In their analysis, they puzzled over the fact that the death rates after 2020 never returned to the expected baseline. “I’d say we’re living in the new normal now,” one of them said, based on the fact that even in January 2024 mortality was still about 6% above expected rates.

Where is all the extra death coming from?

The life insurance experts proposed an interesting explanation for continued excess deaths in 2023-2024: a steep increase in the number of disabilities in the population, way above pre-2021 rates, potentially resulting in a “new normal” mortality baseline.

This graph, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows disabilities in the U.S. workforce skyrocketing after January 2021 and continuing to climb to alarmingly high rates without any sign of decline ever since.

The disabilities may not correspond to the excess deaths – which are likely also associated with the ongoing millions of mRNA Covid vaccines still administered in the U.S. But the huge spike beginning in January 2021 (as in every other data base we’ve examined) corresponds to the rollout of the mRNA vaccines.

According to one of the life insurance experts, this chart shows that disability in the population of people who are working or trying to work in the U.S. was “38% higher” than pre-Covid at the beginning of 2024. “That’s nuts,” he admits.

Could this all be attributed to “long Covid” or lockdown-related lapses in care and increases in chronic illnesses? Does this graph reflect the trends repeatedly (and I would argue intentionally) emphasized by MAHA leaders, including our nominated Surgeon General, that “We live in a toxic stew” which supposedly explains why “in 2024, is the highest rates in American history of Alzheimer’s, cancer, autoimmune conditions, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, kidney disease, autism. Every single chronic disease you could think of…”?

If it’s a chronic toxic stew causing all these issues, why would they show such a giant, unprecedented spike between January 2021 and January 2022?

As demonstrated in this article, failing to address the mRNA vaccine factor is, to quote one life insurance expert, totally nuts.

CONCLUSION

There is no doubt that excess mortality rates in various populations surged in 2021 – above all predictions, even given the Covid-19 event of 2020.

This occurred on the population level and in sub-populations across diverse geographic regions.

A giant spike in disabilities also occurred in 2021.

The spikes in deaths and disabilities corresponded to the rollouts of the mRNA vaccines.

If there is a different cause that can explain these correlations, I have not found it.

Apparently, current HHS Secretary RFK Jr. agrees. Here’s what he said in December 2022 about Ed Dowd’s analysis of excess deaths in young people:

In this unusual book, “‘Cause Unknown’: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,” Dowd proves an undeniable and urgent reality, laid out with facts that can be confirmed by any reader, point by point, page by page.

He has helped us all understand something that many powerful people want to deny — and would get away with denying were it not for his skills and integrity.

Secretary Kennedy claims here that he understands that many thousands of excess deaths in young people happened in 2021 and 2022 due to the mRNA Covid vaccines.

I support Kennedy’s decision to stop funding mRNA vaccine development through BARDA. Yet the question remains: How can Kennedy, or anyone for that matter, justify the study, authorization or administration of any mRNA vaccines ever, in any population, based on this understanding?

The shield “prohibits EPA from approving a label or taking action inconsistent with a human health assessment or carcinogenicity classification previously approved by the EPA—freezing the EPA's position on a pesticide in place for decades, and eliminating the ability to hold the company accountable.”

Here is the official wording in the appropriations bill:

Dr. Nass has explained in detail why this shield is important to global pesticide manufacturers, and concluded:

This is at least as big a deal as the bill that removed liability from vaccines, and worth many billions to the industry. In fact, it is ONLY the industry that will benefit from such a bill, which is designed to withhold knowledge of side effects of pesticides from the public and the EPA.

In her article, Dr. Nass also provides a legal analysis of the proposed liability shield by Attorney Daniel Hinkle, from the American Association for Justice. Hinkle warns:

That means dangerous products could stay on the market with misleading labels — even if the company lied about the risks and covered up critical safety data. No one could be held accountable. It’s not just immunity from lawsuits. It’s immunity from the truth.

Here is a summary of Dr. Nass’s reasons to oppose the pesticide liability shield:

Liability shields simply invite industry to do a poor job making their products safe. Why would we want to issue them? The only ones who benefit are the pesticide manufacturers, and the recipients of their largesse. This is a LOSE-LOSE addition to US laws, and it is difficult to see how any Congressmember can justify a vote in favor of it.

What’s at stake with federal pesticide immunity?

• This isn’t about one product – it’s about the future of 16,000 chemicals.

• The EPA does not independently test these products – it relies on the companies.

• This legislation eliminates accountability – even when companies break the rules.

• It gives total immunity to Chinese military controlled pesticide giants.

• It protects companies that destroy farmers’ crops – even when they lied to get EPA approval.

If this bill passes, nothing would stop a foreign chemical companies from pushing a new product they know is likely to drift or damage nearby fields. They could downplay the risks to the EPA, get a label approved, and leave neighboring farmers with scorched crops, lost yields, and no legal recourse. Even when livelihoods are wiped out, immunity means farmers would be stuck with the costs — not the companies who caused the damage.

TAKE ACTION NOW

On Tuesday, July 22nd, the full Appropriations Committee will meet to vote on the appropriations bill, including the pesticide rider.

Again, from Meryl Nass:

There are 63 members of the full Appropriations Committee. They will not want it known that they voted in favor of giving chemical companies a liability shield. Some of their offices are even denying the bill rider will do that. Shining a bright light on them is what is critical. We need lots of calls!

Our job is to tell the Members that the rider (Section 453) must be defeated or removed. They must vote:

a) in favor of an amendment to remove it, which we expect will be offered or

b) they must vote against the Appropriations bill if the liability shield is included.

A full list of the members of the committee is in Dr. Nass’s post (click on the post to find the list):

Meryl’s CHAOS letter (Critical Health Analysis and OpinionS)

The pesticide liability shield can be stopped at the full Appropriations Committee meeting this Tuesday, July 22. An amendment to remove the rider (Section 453) will be offered and we need a majority

FACT SHEET ON THE PESTICIDE LIABILITY SHIELD…

Read more

a year ago · 73 likes · 28 comments · Meryl Nass

Is MAHA acting to oppose the pesticide liability shield rider?

The Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) organization has made bold claims about its intention to change laws and regulations that benefit corporations at the expense of citizens’ health.

When it comes to pesticides, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. himself worked as lawyer in a suit against Monsanto, the maker of the herbicide Roundup, for causing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and for failing to warn consumers about the potential dangers of exposure to Roundup. Subsequently, Monsanto was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Then Bayer bought Monsanto and, in order to mitigate the damage of these lawsuits and avoid such potential legal action in the future, has successfully lobbied to get the liability shield rider into the appropriations bill.

It would be ironic, to say the least, if Secretary Kennedy’s work as an environmental lawyer against pesticide manufacturers led to one of the worst pro-pesticide-manufacturer pieces of legislation in the country’s history. And if that piece of legislation passed on Secretary Kennedy’s watch!

Another MAHA luminary and possibly our future Surgeon General, Casey Means, said in an October 8, 2024 interview with Joe Rogan: “There are 6 billion pounds of pesticides sprayed on our global food supply every single year, most from China and Germany, and these are literally tied very strongly to Alzheimer’s, dementia, cancer, obesity, mitochondrial dysfunction, infertility, ADHD, liver dysfunction.” (min. 35:50:00)

If Secretary Kennedy, Surgeon General Nominee Casey Means, and the rest of the MAHA consortium are serious about MAKING AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN, I hope they will come out strongly against the pending pesticide liability shield.

People are celebrating, but I would not consider it a win, in any way shape or form. They need to get out of that over-optimistic 6D chess mindset and start seeing that we’re still being played. He’s playing you the same way we got played with Bernie. RFK is just doing it at a little more sophisticated level. And Trump is as well. But it’s the same outcome: We’re all being played.

We need to stop the hero worshipping. That is step one.

Listen to my May 28th interview with Matt Weinglass, political podcaster at The Homeless Left.

PART 1

PART 2

INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS

6D chess is not being played. We are.

The mindset we were in as Bernie supporters: You want to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and pretend, or just believe with all your heart, that he’s playing a game of 5D chess, 6D chess. We didn’t use that term then, but we’re hearing people use it now about Trump, about RFK. There’s something so familiar about that: the over-optimism that he’s not saying the thing he wants to say because he’s waiting for the right time.

With Bernie, even though we knew that the system is rigged, we decided to go with this over-optimistic mindset that he’s just gonna chill, he’s got a plan for the next time. And then what he ended up doing is tricking us into staying in the Democratic party for four more years. We all stayed. I wanted out, of course I wanted out. But it was the 6D chess Bernie must be playing. He’s gonna come back with a vengeance, so we’re gonna stick around and not organize on our own, not do a third-party movement.

We wanted him to do a third-party run. Exit the damn party right now and start a third-party movement. But he stayed and he made us stay. And we thought: There must be this big genius move coming. And it never came.

The leaders we supported are not in control.

With RFK, the key word is concessions. He made concessions to get in a position of power.

They maneuver to get power, but when you step back, you see that something greater is controlling them. There is no way RFK can be the head of HHS without making concessions. He had to say behind closed doors: We won’t touch the mRNA. I don’t know if there’s any way he could be in any position of power without saying that.

So many MAHA supporters got on the Trump train specifically to do something about the Covid vaccines, to do something specifically about mRNA, to say we are going to hold people accountable. That was something that they ran on. But now, as we know, none of that is happening. So now we’re back to baby steps, little bread crumbs, there’s a long game he’s playing…

Nobody’s going to trial, no one’s gonna be held accountable for anything that was done against the American people.

No one’s going to jail for the Epstein files, the JFK files. No one’s going to jail for any of the things that Trump said: we’re gonna get a team in place, we’re gonna do it.

We went through this way back with Obama. He was gonna hold Bush and Cheney accountable. No one ever went to jail. No one is ever going to go to jail.

We need to know when we’re being used and stop the hero worship.

We need to have more self awareness, regardless of who’s pulling the strings. We need to have more self awareness of when we’re being used.

Our emotion, our humanity, the things that we get up in the morning and care about: the things that got me inspired in my early years, and getting on the streets, and knocking on doors, is the same inspiration I’ve seen in MAHA people and MAHA Moms. And I want to say: We need to have more self awareness of how those emotions are being used against us. And we’re being played. And so, again, we don’t know who’s pulling those strings, but we have to be aware of our relationship to these people that we tend to start to hero worship.

We need to stop the hero worshipping. I think that’s step one.

The labels “Bernie Bro” and “MAHA Mom” are intended to diminish us.

Like the Bernie Bros, there’s a label being made that a MAHA Mom is someone who doesn’t fully understand what’s going on because she acts out of emotion for her kids, so she overreacts about being an “anti-vaxxer” or whatever they want to label you as.

I would say to MAHA Moms: Be aware that there is a deliberate act to put you in a place where you’re not going to be fully taken seriously, the reason you voted, the reason you came out and you showed up at the Trump rally, because RFK was there on that stage. You showed up for a reason, but that reason is going to be minimized in the way that they package you.

The people that want to diminish you the most are the people that have to protect their own jobs now, and the fact that they’re not going to be doing the things that they ran on. They’re not going to be holding people accountable for this mRNA stuff that went out everywhere. They’re not going to do that. No one’s going to jail.

The people who are going to be the most upset about this are the moms who showed up to rallies, gave their money to the campaign. They are fully invested in justice happening in the realm of big pharma, and the capture of medicine, and the capture of the health of our families and our kids. They are fully invested in this. So of course it’s on the inside of that movement where they have to diminish the value of the people that are gonna scream the loudest when they notice that these things aren’t actually getting done.

Understand that things aren’t going to be easy, especially the more vocal you are. They’re going to try to put you in a label, put you in a box, and use it against you.

Bernie-MAHA parallels

We’ve been through this already. Just a weaker version of it. But we understand what it looks like: a populist movement, a populist campaign, and then the people that show up for that, they get turned into the bad guys. Then you get turned into the bad guy and nothing ever gets done.

At any point in that process, it can turn on you, and you become the sucker, you become the bad guy, you become the thing that doesn’t have any value. The person that actually showed up, that actually cast the vote, that actually gave money. You don’t have any value any more. This can happen at any point in the process. With the MAHA Moms it’s happening further into the process, but make no mistake: It is happening.

The silver lining: strength and self-awareness outside the oligarchic duopoly

The bottom line is: We can’t change anything from the inside. We just have to accept that. You could say I’m black pilled, but I do think there is a silver lining here: We can prove to the parties themselves that we’re capable of walking away from them. There are ways to do that. Not showing up is a good way. Another way is writing somebody in. Another way is just going completely third party, non-party independent candidates like RFK. Go for that.

But make no mistake, no matter who shows up and tells us that a populist movement is happening within the party, whether blue or red, it’s not real, it’s not gonna happen. The only thing that’s gonna happen is from the outside in. So if an election year comes up again, prove to the parties, this two-party duopoly oligarchy, prove to them that you can walk away from them, however that looks like for you.

At some point, if enough people do that, they will have no choice but to cave to at least some of our needs, at least start a conversation: What would it take to get you to come back? That would be a little tiny goal, just to get them to ask that question. Because ultimately, no, we cannot change anything from the inside. We’ve learned that lesson. We’re stronger from that.

Action readers can take right now, to apply pressure from the outside

Sign the open letter authored by a group of outspoken MAHA critics – including Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, Naomi Wolf, Shannon Joy, Sasha Latypova and Catherine Austin Fitts – who are not falling for the manipulations of the Uniparty and are calling for immediate action on the issues that matter most.

Not for Sale: An Open Letter to HHS Secretary Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Makary – Stop mRNA shots, deliver on your campaign promise

Excerpts from the letter:

The MAHA vote, especially of independent moms, is an historic game-changer. Neither MAGA nor the Democrats could have won without this critical swing vote.
MAHA voters can walk away if we continue to see inaction, let alone condescending non-policy, on our core issues.

And we will.

If you continue to ignore the centerpiece of our policy agenda – taking all mRNA products covered by PREP Act emergency declarations entirely off the market – you will pay a political price. We will run our own candidates at the state level; and we will find other challengers and sponsors, who share our values and get behind our draft bills, at the Federal level, for the midterms and even for 2028. We ask you to deliver our actual policy goals in the near term, or we advise that you will face the electoral consequences:

1. Ban mRNA/gene therapy-derived technologies for all vaccines, due to definitively
   demonstrated abject failure regarding safety, efficacy and disease prevention in the real-world setting of over 4 years of deployment and billions of administered doses.

2. Terminate the PREP Act declaration for COVID injections, as there is no emergency. Extension of this declaration, with its ironclad liability shield for manufacturers and administrators, serves no public health interest whatsoever.

3. Recommend that Congress repeal the PREP Act entirely, due to numerous Constitutional conflicts.

4. Ban pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising, as is the case in every other country except New Zealand.

5. Review and revise current HHS level policies that create perverse incentives for
   healthcare providers for medical coercion, including but not limited to vaccinations.

6. End conflicts of interest at CDC, FDA, NIH and NIAID.

[NOTE: This is a fable – it does not necessarily reflect actual medical practices.]

Once there was a beautiful, fun-loving, and gregarious woman named Jane. Sadly, at the age of 62, Jane was diagnosed with metastatic cancer of unknown origin. Scans showed she had cancer in her bones, in her breasts, in one of her kidneys, and possibly in a lung. She had severe pain, was losing weight because she had no appetite, and felt too tired to get out of bed most days. Luckily, Jane had many loving family members whom she trusted to get her the best possible medical care.

The first specialist the family consulted about Jane’s condition was a breast cancer oncologist, Dr. D.

Dr. D had just recently received a patent for a new treatment that, when injected directly into the breast, could kill cancer cells in the area of the injection. Jane had a big growth of cancer in her right breast that was causing pain, and Dr. D said the injections could shrink the mass and make Jane feel better.

Some of Jane’s family members thought this sounded like a good plan. Others, who read about the potential side effects and limited effectiveness of the newly patented breast cancer injections, were not happy with Dr. D’s approach. They thought it was more important to relieve other symptoms: Jane’s trouble urinating and the pain in her lower right back. So they consulted Dr. R – a kidney cancer specialist.

Coincidentally, Dr. R had just patented a radiation protocol designed to reduce cancer masses in the kidneys. He recommended that Jane receive a month’s worth of radiation treatments to improve her kidney function and reduce pain in that area.

The family asked if it was safe for Jane to get both Dr. D’s breast injections and Dr. R’s kidney radiation. Unfortunately, said the doctors, the two treatments could not be given simultaneously. They could, however, try alternating months, and as long as each intervention succeeded in treating its body part, they could continue alternating indefinitely.

But which to try first?

A big family feud ensued. Dr D’s fans argued that the breast was more painful and therefore required more urgent treatment. Dr. R’s admirers wanted the kidney radiation first, due to the urination issues. Finally they decided to start injecting the breast and, after a month, switch to irradiating the kidney.

Every day during the first month, the family members who supported Dr. D’s breast approach crowded around Jane’s bed to find out if it was working. “Do you feel less pain in the breast?” they inquired. “Is it a lot better? A little bit better? Better at all?” When Jane mumbled what sounded like a yes, they cheered. They started bringing balloons and flowers every day to celebrate the success of the treatment. They even brought champagne and raised a glass to the brilliance of Dr. D.

Some days, Jane was so weak she couldn’t answer the family’s questions about her breast. Then the family members who were on Dr. R’s team shook their heads and clucked their tongues and said: “See. We should have started with the kidney radiation.”

The entire family became obsessed with assessing every aspect of the tumor in Jane’s breast. They requested extra tests and scans, and they all spent hours and days analyzing how much the cancer in the breast had shrunk (according to Team D) or not (Team R). Even though they were engaged in vicious arguments nearly 24/7, the family felt strangely united, because they were all monomaniacally focused on the outcome of each day’s breast injection.

Some of the members of Team D even went so far as to invest in the biotech company that made Dr. D’s injections. They followed the ups and downs of the company’s stock nearly as closely as the shrinkage or non-shrinkage of Jane’s breast mass.

A month of breast injections passed. Jane had lost 20 more pounds and rarely got out of bed, even to go to the bathroom. Her room was full of flowers, balloons and empty champagne bottles. Scans showed the cancer in her breast may have shrunk, or may have just stayed the same. Or maybe it grew a tiny bit. But not a lot. Most critically, the stock price for Dr. D’s treatment company was up. And Jane nodded feebly when asked whether her breast was less painful. Team D declared victory.

As planned, Jane’s treatment now switched to Dr. R’s kidney radiation. The same rituals happened in reverse: The family members who supported Dr. R’s approach crowded around Jane’s bed to ask if she felt any relief in her lower back or if she had less trouble urinating. If she seemed to nod, they rejoiced. Team D pounced on any indication that Jane was not actually being helped by the treatment. Team R bought stock in the company that made the kidney radiation devices. The old flowers and balloons and champagne bottles were removed. New ones were brought in.

Jane was growing thinner by the day and could no longer get out of bed at all or eat by herself.

One day, while the family was huddled around trying to get Jane to blink her eyes if the treatment was working or wiggle her nose if it wasn’t, Jane’s youngest nephew, Jeremy, who was just 9 years old, slipped into the room (where he wasn’t supposed to be) and snuck up to the bed. When he saw the limp, emaciated body lying there, he forgot he was trespassing on adult-only territory and exclaimed: “Aunt Jane! What’s wrong? Are you dying?”

A unanimous gasp erupted from the huddled family cluster.

The “d word” had never been uttered in Jane’s room before. The family felt it would lower Jane’s morale and reduce her trust in Dr. D and Dr. R’s treatments. Plus, why be all doom and gloom when you could celebrate the daily successes in the breast or kidney?

The family stopped staring at Jane’s eyes and nose and directed furious glares at Jeremy’s mother, who, flush with embarrassment, shushed her son and ushered him out to the vending machines in the hallway.

“Mommy, mommy,” cried Jeremy. “What’s wrong with Aunt Jane?”

“Shhhh, don’t worry Jeremy,” his mother tried to soothe him. “Aunt Jane is very sick, but she has wonderful doctors taking care of her.”

“Can they make her better?” Jeremy tearfully inquired.

Jeremy’s mother started to say that if Jeremy’s stubborn cousins would just stop forcing her to get useless kidney radiation and go back to breast injections, she’d be fine, but she caught herself mid-sentence. What was she saying? How was anything they were doing helping Jane stay alive?

Jeremy’s mother felt overwhelmed with guilt and despair.

Without telling anyone, she decided to consult Dr. W, a retired doctor who had been a friend of her father’s. Dr. W was an old-school oncologist who did not know much about all the fancy new-fangled injections and targeted radiation treatments. He said the only way to treat metastatic cancer was systemic: You have to find a way to shrink or stop the growth of the cancer all over the body. Focusing on just one organ or the other can provide temporary relief in that area, but does nothing to treat the actual disease.

“So what can we do for Jane?” Jeremy’s mother pleaded.

Dr. W said there were several types of systemic treatments: old-fashioned chemotherapy, and some newer systemic approaches. Dr. W added that Jane could only survive these treatments if she also received extensive psychological, cognitive, and spiritual support in addition to physical, occupational, and nutritional therapy. And even with all that, he admitted, there was no guarantee that the treatments would work. It may be too late. Jane’s cancer, he said, may be too advanced. But, he concluded, systemic treatment was the only way to potentially save her life.

Dr. W said all the systemic choices were difficult for the patient, painstaking for the medical staff, and may not yield immediately apparent results. The family might have to move Jane to a less luxurious facility, where such un-patented, non-lucrative treatments were administered by doctors and practitioners who were considered backward-thinking or downright loony.

When Jeremy’s mother brought Dr. W to the hospital to meet the family and explain about the potentially life-saving but very difficult approach to treating the cancer all over the body, they were apoplectic. The breast injections were working! half of them shouted. The kidney radiation was successful! the others screamed.

Why in the world, they asked, would we try to look at so much cancer in so many different places, when the breast and kidney treatments were working so fabulously? Not to mention that the stocks of both companies were soaring. How could it possibly be useful to switch to treatment protocols so difficult and so tedious, with no patents or commercial viability, and without any idea whether they would succeed or not?

The family started throwing wilted flowers and empty champagne flutes at Jeremy’s mother and Dr. W. While they were violently pushing them out the door, Jane took her last breath.

Only Jeremy, who had snuck in with his mom and the old doctor, was there to notice.

[The End]

It’s been 10 days since my book, The Deep State Goes Viral: Pandemic Planning and the Covid Coup, came out in print, and just a week since the Kindle and audio versions have been available.

Thanks to Brownstone and ZeroHedge and all the people who are reading and responding positively, it has been getting some good publicity. I am so grateful!!

This is my first book, and I’m very excited about getting the word out, so if you feel inclined to purchase it, read or listen to it, write a review, recommend it to a friend — any or all of these would be most helpful.

My husband cautioned me before the book came out about spending all my time checking the rankings, so I completely ignored them until yesterday. When I checked, I found that the Kindle version is the #1 New Release in Public Policy and #3 New Release in Public Affairs and Policy. The print version is in the top 400 in Politics & Government and in World History. I’m going to try to get it up to the top 100 — hopefully, with your help (and with apologies to my husband, because now I’m going to be checking the rankings all the time)!

Even if you’ve read most of the material included in the book on this Substack and/or on Brownstone (the first chapter is adapted from these articles which you can read for free) — buying the book is a huge show of support and a way of getting the word out to more people. Plus, it’s the best title (if I do say so myself) and the coolest looking cover you’ll find anywhere, thanks to the incredible work of the super-talented artist Anthony Freda.

And since I’m here, writing about the cover art of my book, I guess I’ll tell you the short story about:

How I discovered the one and only Anthony Freda

I started working with Anthony over a year ago, when one of my heroes, CJ Hopkins, mentioned on his Substack that Anthony was not getting work from the mainstream publications that used to sustain him. Anthony designed the book cover that got CJ persecuted as a “hate criminal” in Germany. I am so proud to have a book cover by the same artist!

I have used many of Anthony’s images to illustrate my Substack articles, and he has even created some original pieces especially for me.

This one illustrates my article The Catastrophic Covid Convergence Revisited - Part 1:

And here’s another favorite, the image that so beautifully encapsulates the article Questions for Trump About Covid:

Anthony created this one long before we ever met — it’s as if he knew all about The COVID Dossier before it even existed:

I hope this gives you yet another reason to order a physical copy of The Deep State Goes Viral — so you can add a stunning Anthony Freda piece to your bookshelf, or give one as a gift!

Less than an hour ago I got notice that my book, The Deep State Goes Viral: Pandemic Planning and the Covid Coup, from Brownstone Publishing, is now available for purchase. Interestingly, it is categorized under “World History” on Amazon. That actually makes sense, although at first I thought it might be considered more a Public Health or Policy type book. In fact, it is about the most consequential global events of the 21st century!

Order your copy — and copies for all your friends and relatives and everyone you know :) — here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1630692999/

I am also excited to share that a Swedish translation is in the works from the esteemed publishing house Karneval Förlag. Estimated publication is in August 2025. It is not yet available for advanced purchase in Swedish - stay tuned.

Below is a synopsis, followed by acknowledgements.

THE DEEP STATE GOES VIRAL: SYNOPSIS

This is the culmination of three years of extensive research and writing about the events generally known as the Covid pandemic. The author, a retired medical writer before Covid, applies her research skills – honed over decades of studying scientific literature, statistical analyses, and government and pharmaceutical industry documents – to a deep and relentless investigation into how and why the pandemic happened.

The inspiration for the book is a discovery made by the author in 2022 that has never been reported in the corporate media and that remains largely unknown even as this book goes to publication in January 2025: The US pandemic response was not a public health response. It was a biodefense/counter-terrorism response, run by the Pentagon, National Security Council, and Department of Homeland Security, according to centrally planned, globally coordinated directives.

Why does it matter if the pandemic response was run by national security agencies according to a biodefense/counterterrorism playbook, rather than according to public health protocols?

Put simply, If it had been a regular public health response, it would not have differed from the responses to any of the viral epidemics or pandemics of the last century:

• The public would have been told to stay calm, wash hands frequently, and stay home if sick.

• Public health agencies would have tracked clusters of severe disease and treated them accordingly.

• Most people would barely have been aware that there was a novel virus circulating among them.

Instead, the response to Covid was the exact opposite:

• The media and public health agencies whipped the population into levels of panic massively disproportionate to the threat actually posed by the virus.

• Everyone was convinced that the only way to “beat the virus” was to lockdown the whole world and wait for a never-before-tested or manufactured vaccine.

How did this happen? As the author argues, the geopolitical, economic and social trends that had been building over recent decades made the pandemic response not only not surprising, but inevitable.

Why, then, did so few seem to notice what was happening, and why did most of the world believe then – and continue to believe to this day – that the pandemic response was in keeping with public health principles or protocols? The answer is age-old, but it occurred during Covid on an unprecedented scale: Propaganda and censorship. Not only did these serve to whip up the panic, but they convinced even scientists and medical professionals to abandon their ethical and scientific knowledge and push an entirely untested and known-to-be dangerous “vaccine platform” known as the Covid mRNA vaccines.

At the time of this book’s publication, no one has really been held accountable for any of this. The author leaves us with the questions that must be asked to reveal the responsible individuals and institutions and to prevent such a global catastrophe from happening again.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without the support of my family, I could not have survived, let alone thrived in the crazy investigative endeavors that culminated in the compilation of this book. My husband and daughter are the most exacting editors, letting me know when the first drafts of my articles inevitably sound like the “ravings of a lunatic” and helping me turn them into compelling pieces. My mother and son, and my dear friends Susan and Tamar, although they might not always agree with me, or even understand what the heck I’m going on about, are nevertheless supportive and proud of my work – which is all that matters.

Outside my family, more than anyone or anything else, Jeffrey Tucker and Brownstone Institute have helped me retain my sanity through these years of madness, and have made possible all my investigations, research, and writing that are included in this book. I cannot imagine my life without the support I have received from Brownstone, the collegiality and friendship of so many Brownstone scholars and contributors, and the ongoing community that Brownstone provides.

Rebekah Barnett, the fearless investigative journalist from Down Under, has provided invaluable editorial insight and advice. I am proud to have an image by the master graphic designer and artist Anthony Freda gracing the cover of this book.

Brownstone’s Managing Editor, Logan Chipkin, and Copy Editor, David Schatz, worked tirelessly on all of the technical aspects of bringing this book project to successful completion.

To everyone mentioned here, and everyone else who has supported and encouraged me through these tumultuous times: Thank you. I am profoundly grateful.

In conjunction with EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), the PREP Act is the legislation that enabled – and continues to perpetuate – the rollout and administration of mRNA “countermeasures” against Covid-19.

In this article I will discuss what the PREP Act says, how it was passed, what prominent politicians and legal experts said about it at the time, how it is related to COVID, and why I support efforts (1) calling for the HHS Secretary to immediately repeal the PREP Act emergency declaration for COVID, and (2) calling on legislators to repeal the law entirely.

WHAT THE PREP ACT SAYS

The PREP Act is a long and convoluted piece of legislation. You can read the entire thing here:

42 U.S. Code § 247d-6d - Targeted liability protections for pandemic and epidemic products and security countermeasures

This is a summary of the main sections of the law:

(a) Liability Protections

• Anyone defined as a “covered person” is immune from legal liability related to the use or administration of anything defined as a “covered countermeasure.”

A “covered person” includes (A) “the United States” or (B) any person or “entity” that manufactures, distributes, plans a program for, prescribes, administers, or dispenses a covered countermeasure, or an official, agent or employee of any of the above.

A “covered countermeasure” includes any drug, biological product or device that is authorized under Emergency Use Authorization or approved through any other legal pathway.

• Scope of claims for loss:

  • The immunity applies to any claim related to death, actual or fear of physical, mental or emotional injury, illness, disability, or condition; and loss of or damage to property, including business interruption loss.

  • The immunity applies to any causal relation to any of the above types of loss related to the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, or use of a covered countermeasure.

• The immunity applies only if a countermeasure was applied or used during the effective period of the emergency declaration for that countermeasure, and was used for the disease, population and geographic area specified in the declaration.

• For manufacturers or distributors, the immunity applies to any population in any geographic area, without regard to the population or area specified in the emergency declaration for the countermeasure.

(b) Declaration by Secretary

• The HHS Secretary has the sole discretion to determine that a disease or other health condition or other threat to health constitutes a public health emergency, or that there is a credible risk for a future such emergency and, based on that determination, to make a declaration recommending the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration or use of one or more covered countermeasures, thereby activating the legal immunity described in section (a).

• In the emergency declaration, which is made by publishing it in the Federal Register, the secretary shall identify – with respect to the use of countermeasures – the category of threat, the period during which the threat is in effect, the population for which it is in effect, and the geographic area for which it is in effect.

• The period during which the emergency declaration is effective is flexible, depending on various determinations by the Secretary.

• The Secretary can change any aspect of the declaration of emergency without retroactively affecting the immunity granted under the declaration.

• The Secretary’s decision to issue an emergency declaration for immunity can be based on anything, including the “desirability of encouraging” the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, or licensing of a covered countermeasures

• No court – whether Federal or State – has subject matter jurisdiction to review any action by the Secretary related to the emergency declaration

• No State may pass or enforce any law that is different from or in conflict with anything related to the declaration of emergency or to anything related to the qualified persons or covered countermeasures.

(c) Definition of Willful Misconduct

(d) Exception to Immunity of Covered Persons

These two sections define the circumstances under which the PREP Act immunity does not apply. In general, the sole exception is defined as “an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury caused by willful misconduct.”

The definition of “willful misconduct” is: “an act or omission taken intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; knowingly without legal or factual justification; and in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.” This is specifically defined as “a standard for liability that is more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.”

A plaintiff who tries to sue under this section has “the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence willful misconduct.”

Exceptions to “willful misconduct”

7-day disclosure exception: If a qualified person or program planner acted under the HHS Secretary's directions, guidelines or recommendations regarding a covered countermeasure, and if that person or planner provided within seven days “either the Secretary or a State or local health authority” with “notice of information” related to a plaintiff’s alleged loss, then that person or planner “shall not have engaged in ‘willful misconduct’ as a matter of law.”

Lack of Federal action against a manufacturer/distributor exception: If neither the HHS Secretary nor the Attorney General initiates enforcement action with respect to an act or omission in a willful misconduct claim against a manufacturer or distributor, then that act or omission “shall not constitute ‘willful misconduct.’”

(e) Procedures for Suit

Any willful misconduct action can only be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In adjudicating the action, Federal law preempts any State law in which the alleged willful misconduct occurred.

SUMMARY:

The Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to declare a public health emergency based on any present or future risk determined at his sole discretion, to apply that emergency to any period of time, any population and any geographic area. Once he declares the emergency, he can recommend the manufacture and distribution of any countermeasures, again based on his sole discretion. Anyone who does anything with those countermeasures is immune from any legal liability. Courts cannot make any rulings regarding the legality of declarations or activities covered by this Act. No State law can supersede this act.

HOW THE PREP ACT WAS PASSED

The extremely consequential and arguably unconstitutional PREP Act became part of U.S. law in December 2005 through a surreptitious, rushed process that allowed little to no debate or discussion. Here’s how it happened: [ref][ref][ref]

-Sunday, December 18, 2005, the US House and Senate finished their deliberations over the FY2006 budget, an omnibus spending bill.

-Night of Sunday, December 18, 2005, the PREP Act was inserted into the defense appropriations bill, which was part of the omnibus spending bill.

-Monday, December 19, 2005, the appropriations bill with the PREP Act legislation was approved by the House of Representatives in a vote of 308–106. According to the Clerk’s records, the vote took place at 5:04AM (which would be just a few hours after the PREP Act had been inserted).

-Tuesday, December 20, 2005, law professor and legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky submitted a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy detailing ways in which the PREP Act is unconstitutional.

-Wednesday December 21, 2005, The Chemerinsky letter was entered into the Congressional Records, and the only debate/discussion about the PREP Act took place. Members of the Senate expressed their frustration with the fact that the Act was inserted secretly into the spending bill with no time for debate and no committee reviews or discussions. They raised many objections, challenging the Constitutionality of the law. [see below]

-Thursday December 22, 2005, despite those vehement objections, the Senate passed the omnibus bill with the PREP Act, 93-0 (7 not voting) [ref] and then Congress adjourned for the year.

OBJECTIONS TO THE PREP ACT THE DAY BEFORE IT WAS PASSED

On December 21, 2005 – the only day on which the PREP Act was ever discussed or debated by any legislator in either chamber of Congress – a number of prominent Senators raised very serious objections to the proposed legislation (which, as they pointed out, is not an appropriation but an actual law) and the way in which it was snuck into the appropriations bill. Objections notwithstanding, the following day they voted to pass the appropriations bill that included the PREP Act – which then became law.

Here are some of the Senators’ objections to the PREP ACT: [ref][ref]

Sen. TED KENNEDY:

I ask unanimous consent to amend the resolution to strike division E, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. This is the provision that provides drug companies with unprecedented immunity from liability which was added to the Defense appropriations bill in the conference during the middle of the night. It does not belong in this bill.

With regard to the manufacturers? What kind of immunity have we given to them? It’s really extraordinarily broad, effectively complete.…So companies are not deterred from acting recklessly, or with gross negligence.

The bill defines a very narrow standard of willful misconduct, and it sets a very high standard of evidence. Shouldn’t that be enough? Wrong. You don’t have a case against a company under these provisions unless the FDA begins an enforcement case against that company. So if FDA goes ahead and begins the case, you have a chance, right? Wrong again. FDA has to bring it and conclude it successfully before you have any right to proceed with your case.

A person might think, I am not very satisfied with how this liability provision has worked, maybe I will appeal to the courts of this country, right? Wrong. There is absolutely no, no, no, no judicial review when the Secretary of Health and Human Services grants a company immunity by issuing a declaration. No judicial review of that. And there is no judicial review of FDA’s decision not to bring an enforcement action. So it is whatever the administration says, whatever the Secretary says, whatever the head of the FDA says, with changed and gimmick rules.

This is a sham. There is no possibility of liability here.

Slipping a provision into a major spending bill late at night at the end of [sic] Congressional session is a trick to shield from public debate a provision that is so wrongheaded that it would never stand public scrutiny.

Sen. JOE BIDEN:

I rise to express my surprise and deep-seated opposition to the so-called Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which is included in the Defense Department Appropriations bill. This provision would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to provide almost total immunity from liability to the makers of almost any drug, and to those who administer it. While the measure’s proponents portray it as a simple tool to make sure we have sufficient vaccine [sic] available in the case of an avian flu pandemic, the actual language of the provision is far broader than that, and it therefore poses a danger to all Americans.

The actual provision permits immunity for the makers of virtually any drug or medical treatment. All the secretary need do is declare that it is a ‘‘countermeasure’’ used to fight an epidemic. One solitary person gets to decide what is a countermeasure and what is an epidemic. There is nothing to prevent the declaration of immunity for, say, Tylenol. There is nothing to prevent a declaration that, say, arthritis is an epidemic.

What’s more, this is no typical grant of immunity. No, the breadth of this provision is staggering. A drug maker can be grossly negligent in making or distributing a drug, and still escape liability. It can even make that drug with wanton recklessness and escape scott-free after harming thousands of people.

No hearings were held on this language; no Committee vote was taken; no bill passed the House or the Senate. Not even the House and Senate conferees had a chance to give input on this provision.

Sen. HILLARY CLINTON:

I support limited liability protections for manufacturers to help cover their risks in developing products that our Nation will need in case of emergency. However, this provision would grant immunity to all claims of loss, including death and disability, for a broad range of products, including any drug that the Secretary designated as one that would limit the harm caused by a pandemic—a definition so broad as to encompass nearly any drug. This immunity is not subject to judicial review. It preempts any State laws that provide different liability protections or that may provide stronger consumer safety protections for pharmaceutical products.

This authorizing—authorizing, not appropriating—language was never considered, let alone agreed to by the Senate. It was never agreed to by the HELP or Judiciary Committees, which have jurisdiction over this matter. It is a mockery of the legislative process. I believe that the American people are ill-served by Congress when controversial and potentially harmful provisions can simply be inserted without undergoing the open deliberations and debate that are fundamental to the democratic process and are designed to protect our citizens from special interests and back-room dealings.

Sen. ROBERT BYRD:

I continue to have serious concerns about the avian flu-related liability provisions that were slipped into the conference report without debate. These liability provisions did not appear in either the House- or the Senate-passed bill. These provisions were not in the materials presented to the conference committee during its deliberations. It was not until the dead of night on this past Sunday, after signatures had already been collected on the conference report, that the Republican majority slipped these provisions into the bill before the Senate today. What an insult to the legislative process.

Sen. PATRICK LEAHY:

This provision is a gift to the drug manufacturers and will likely have a devastating effect on our ability to protect our constituents. Under the guise of a threatened pandemic, this legislation goes far beyond the scope of vaccine preparedness and includes language that is far more sweeping than any language previously passed by the House or the Senate.

The only exception to the broad immunity given to drug companies in this proposal is the possibility that a victim could prove that the company acted with ‘‘willful misconduct.’’ Knowingly committing health violations would not even suffice to state a claim. Knowing violations as well as gross negligence would be immunized from accountability. Even if the drug company acted with the intent to harm people, it would nevertheless be immune from criminal conduct unless the Attorney General or Secretary of Health and Human Services initiates an enforcement action against a drug company that is still pending at the time a personal claim is filed. That is unbelievable.

I question whether such a role for the Secretary of HHS is even constitutional. Since when do we in Congress allow a political appointee of the administration to determine when, and if, someone injured by willful misconduct can be compensated for their injuries?

Passage of the Defense appropriations bill is of vital importance to all of us, but the inclusion of provisions that excuse even gross and deadly negligence on the part of drug companies makes it impossible for many of us to vote for this bill in good conscience.

PREP ACT EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS IN EFFECT NOW

According to a December 18, 2024, report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), these are the PREP Act emergency declarations that are in effect now. This means the HHS Secretary has determined that there is a current or future risk of a public health emergency that justifies indemnifying from any legal liability anyone who manufactures, distributes, administers or does anything else related to “countermeasures” (which the Secretary also determines) against these threats.

The arbitrary nature of these declarations raises so many questions, including:

• None of these public health threats are actually posing an emergency now, so how does the Secretary know that the risk for anthrax, acute radiation syndrome, botulinum toxin, pandemic influenza, and Zika will extend until the last day of 2027, while the risk for Ebola and Marburg will continue through 2028, and COVID-19 will remain a public health emergency until the end of 2029, with monkeypox posing a mortal danger until 2032?

• How can the Secretary justify giving legal immunity to anyone who does anything with any “countermeasures” for all of these future projected public health emergency risks?

• Why has nobody challenged the Constitutionality of giving one public health official the power to declare emergencies that give blanket legal shields that are exempt from judicial review, require no Congressional oversight, and pre-empt any State law?

THE PREP ACT AND COVID-19

On March 17, 2020, Secretary of HHS Alex Azar issued the first “Declaration Under the PREP Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19,” and immediately post-dated it to February 4, 2020 (the date on which pharmaceutical companies were notified by the Pentagon that the novel coronavirus was a “national security threat”).

According to the Declaration, PREP Act immunity covers “any antiviral, any other drug, any biologic, any diagnostic, any other device, or any vaccine, used to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, or mitigate COVID-19, or the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, or any device used in the administration of any such product, and all components and constituent materials of any such product.”

Immunity from liability is granted to “manufacturers,” “distributors,” “program planners,” “qualified persons,” and their officials, agents, and employees and any person authorized … to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors and volunteers.

The Declaration was amended/extended 12 times, the last amendment extending the Declaration until December 31, 2029.

This means that for 10 years, from the beginning of 2020 to the end of 2029, anyone who does anything related to any product designated as a “countermeasure against COVID-19” has no legal liability for any harm or damage caused by that product.

The Covid mRNA vaccines, developed and produced under Emergency Use Authorization and non-contractual military transaction instruments, with no legally binding regulatory standards or oversight, are of course included in the PREP Act coverage.

Thus, when Covid mRNA vaccine manufacturers documented thousands of deaths and injuries potentially caused by their products as early as February 2021, they knew they would be shielded from any liability. Indeed, as discussed at length in many Substack posts by Sasha Latypova, only one court case so far has managed to pierce the PREP Act liability shield. All others have failed, including Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson’s case, in which the government actually intervened to protect the pharmaceutical company against the complaint.

It turns out Joe Biden – under whose Administration the PREP Act was extended eleven times – was correct when he noted that under this law:

“A drug maker can be grossly negligent in making or distributing a drug, and still escape liability. It can even make that drug with wanton recklessness and escape scott-free after harming thousands of people.”

And Senator Ted Kennedy, whose nephew has had the sole authority to end the Covid PREP Act emergency declaration from the moment he stepped into his role as HHS Secretary, was correct is his damning assessment:

“This is a sham. There is no possibility of liability here.”

TAKE ACTION

If, after learning about the PREP Act, readers would like to take action, several initiatives are underway:

1. Join Sasha Latypova in asking HHS Secretary Kennedy to terminate the PREP Act emergency declaration for Covid.

2. Sign the petition put together by James Roguski to Repeal the PREP Act.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Much of the information in this article is based on the work of independent researcher Katherine Watt. I am grateful for her tireless investigations and meticulous documentation of the legal framework behind pandemic planning in general, and Covid in particular.

(The interview is in two parts, due to Zoom issues.)

Part 1

Part 2

I’m publishing the interview today, April 29, 2025, to celebrate the official publication of CJ’s newest book: Fear and Loathing in the New Normal Reich. Order your copy today! Also, read CJ’s article about the new book.

We spoke about the global capitalist system in which, according to CJ, we all live – and what we can do to counteract its seemingly inexorable evolution into totalitarianism. Here is a pdf of the full transcript:

DL Interview With CJH

278KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The following are highlights of our conversation, in CJ’s words.

THE EVOLUTION OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM – NOT ALL GOOD OR BAD

People need to understand I’m not an enemy of capitalism. We have been trained more and more these days to think in black and white terms – something is either good or it’s bad. History doesn’t work that way. Power doesn’t work that way. Systems don’t work that way.

Capitalism was born from the age of absolutism, from the time when it was the Church and the Kings and monarchs and the aristocracies that determined what reality was and what our values were going to be. Capitalism was born out of that world. And what it did is it decoded all of those old absolutist or despotic values, and it wiped them away, and it replaced them with a value system that is based on the market.

So instead of the King or the Church or some tyrant or despot determining what our values are, the market determines what our values are. And the market has really only one value, which is exchange value.

What capitalism does as an ideological force, is it moves into societies, it wipes away those old values, and it transforms those societies into marketplaces, where the only real operative value is exchange value.

This gets complex, because I’m not an enemy of capitalism. When I say capitalism moved in and it decoded all these old values, I'm talking about values like racism and sexism and all sorts of discrimination and oppression – capitalism was the force that said: OK, we’re not going to operate according to those values anymore. We’re going to wipe those values away.

You can’t transform a society into a marketplace without transforming the people in that society into consumers. And when you strip the monarchies and the despotisms of power, and you re-situate power within the marketplace, democratization comes along with it. So democracy and capitalism are inextricably linked.

There are the democratic principles and rights that we have, which absolutely were and continue to be inextricably linked to the expansion of global capitalism and to the formation and evolution of this global empire that we all live in. That does not mean that power, that the system, the empire, will not set those rights aside whenever it needs to.

This is part of the evolution that I’m talking about. Those rights were absolutely essential during global capitalism’s expansion, during its struggle against Naziism, against Communism, it was very important for us all to believe that the side that we’re on is the side that guarantees us these democratic rights, and that upholds these principles. That ended in 1989 and the early 1990s. The system now has no reason to continue to guarantee us those rights, because there is no external adversary that is offering us another option. We’re all stuck here.

And so part of what’s happening is the system is saying to us: yes, you have those rights, and you will continue to have those rights, because we want you to be consumers, we need you to be consumers, and so we need you to be free to a certain extent, and have liberty and so on. Unless you start to create a problem. Unless you start to rise up and push back and get in our way and interfere with our continued evolution. If you start to do that, we will take those rights away from you in a heartbeat. And we will remind you that you’re living in an empire, and you do not have the power. We have the power, and we will lock you in your home, and we will make you wear a silly mask on your face, and we will inundate you with propaganda, and we will do whatever we want to you. So wouldn’t you rather stop resisting, and go back to the mall and watch Netflix and have a nice time as a consumer?

THERE IS NO CONSPIRING ELITE BEHIND GLOBAL CAPITALISM

If you’re as old as I am, you come from a world where we were trained when we were looking for power, and looking for tyrannical power, to look for something that was centralized. We were looking for a dictator, or we were looking for a cabal, or a conspiracy, a group of people who were orchestrating things. And it’s just not the world that we’re in anymore.

I don’t think that the people who are administrating the system are irrelevant. The system doesn’t operate without the people that administrate it. What I’ve always said is they are absolutely essential, and they are utterly interchangeable. It really doesn’t matter who they are. It doesn’t matter what family they come from, it doesn’t matter what country they come from. None of this stuff matters. They are fulfilling functions. They are performing roles within the evolution of the system. And they are performing the roles and the functions that the system needs them to perform. And if they are not performing those functions, then they will be replaced with someone else who will perform those functions.

Maybe I can just give an example that will piss a lot of people off. I’ve used Elon Musk as an example of this. If you look at the role and the function that Elon Musk has played since he jumped onto the scene, he and all of his global capitalist partners: Elon Musk didn’t buy Twitter. Elon Musk and an incredible number of global capitalist entities and Saudi royalty and oligarchs bought Twitter. X Holdings Corp is the name of the company.

When they bought Twitter, at that point, it was completely delegitimized, and people saw it as infiltrated by government censors and woke ideologists who were censoring people and deplatforming people and what have you.

So Musk comes in, he “buys Twitter” and announces: OK now it’s going to be “free speech Twitter,” it’s going to be “free speech X.” But I think it’s actually more censored, more visibility filtered now than it ever was during the days of bad old Twitter. He didn’t create a free speech platform. But what he did is he rebranded a product. And the rebranding was brilliant: it went from the old woke Twitter to now it’s the hard right, far right Twitter.

What Musk did, his role, his function within the system: he corralled this right wing populist resistance energy, he corralled it into a market demographic, and started relentlessly advertising to it, propagandizing it, and just pumping out messaging, and in essence, he neutralized it.

There was back in 2016 and during the Covid era, there was this amorphous, undefined resistance force that was pushing back. Yes, a lot of it was coming from the right, but there were also old lefties like me, and people from all over the spectrum, that were pushing back. Musk’s takeover of Twitter and everything that has happened since went a long way to corralling and containing the right-wing populist resistance. And it fed seamlessly into the MAGA movement when Musk went MAGA with Trump and what have you. And if you look now, that energy is completely neutralized, it’s completely contained, it’s completely manipulatable. It is no longer dangerous to the system.

What I’m trying to get at: this was not an evil conspiracy on the part of Elon Musk. I don’t care about whether Elon Musk even knows what he’s doing. But if you look at the moment when he comes on the scene, and this happened with Twitter and with that right wing populist resistance, what happened is exactly what the system needed to happen at that point.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO DISRUPT THE GLOBAL CAPITALIST TOTALITARIAN SYSTEM?

People hit me with that all the time. And people get angry with me and say: what do you suggest, CJ? What’s the solution, what’s the answer? And I don’t know what the answer is. But I do know one thing: If we cannot apprehend what we’re actually dealing with – there is no solution. There is no way to fix anything if we can’t even see the system that we’re living in, and how it’s operating and how it’s evolving.

Voting cannot change the system anymore

The one thing that could be done, that would have to be done, to make the electoral system in the United States meaningful in any way is to somehow put a Chinese wall around the elected government in terms of money and corporate influence and control. In the U.S., by the time you’re voting for someone, you’re voting for people who have already been bought and paid for. Those are your choices.

The only way to get around that is to somehow create a system where those who are serving in government, whether in Congress or what have you, have to have a Chinese wall around them in terms of money and corporate power and influence. How do you get there? I have no idea how you could possibly get there from here.

Resistance comes from the values we want to live by

I think the fundamental problem comes down to values. I’ve described global capitalism and the evolution of global capitalism as this ideological machinery that wipes away all values and replaces them with a single value, which is exchange value, which is the value of the marketplace. It wipes away values.

The resistance comes from the values that it has been wiping away. It comes from people with religious values. It comes from people with social values. It comes from people with traditional values. And this is a reactionary resistance, and I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense. It’s a resistance saying: We want to hold on to our old values. We don’t want global capitalism to wipe them away and turn us all into interchangeable consumers.

Inevitably, if we ever get to the point where we can have an intelligent discussion about what’s actually happening, people will have to ask the question: How can we impose values on this global capitalist system that we live under? Being such a heterogeneous population – just look at the United States, at how conflicted and heterogeneous it is, and then expand that throughout the entire world. How do we get to a point where people can start restraining the forces of the global capitalist system based on their values? Based on values that they decide democratically?

I don’t know how we get there, but I know that if we cannot see what we’re actually up against, if we can’t see how the system that we all live under operates, and where it is going, and how it is evolving, we’re never going to get to a place where we can explore those questions.

I like to think of the weirdos like us as a contrast to the reactionary forces that are trying to stop the evolution, stop the advancement, of global capitalism. I understand these reactionary forces, I don’t condemn them, I understand them: they’re pushing back trying to retard it and trying to hold on. I don’t see myself that way. I see myself more as one of the seeds of death that’s inside the system as it evolves. And that perhaps, through my writing and talking and thinking and contaminating people, perhaps I’m influencing the way that the system ultimately reaches its ultimate form and what becomes possible after it collapses. Which, every system eventually does.

CJ’s NEW BOOK AND THE UPCOMING 2ND EDITION OF HIS NOVEL

Pre-order the new edition of Zone 23 (publication expected July 15, 2025).