Bookmark this page — it grows with every CEPOP installment.

The COVID-era PsyOp Playbook (CEPOP) is a Duty to Dissent series that names the mental manipulations fooling millions in this COVID era — one cognitive bias or logical fallacy per installment. Each stands alone. Together, they build the taxonomy that the biomedical deep state is using against us.

This page is the master index. Bookmark it. It grows with every installment.

Click on each CEPOP to know and believe - to realize - each one:

🟦 COGNITIVE BIASES

#2 — Confirmation Bias — The mind’s tendency to seek what confirms and dismiss what refutes.

#4 — Sunk Cost Fallacy — Why people defend what they know has failed in this COVID era. What keeps them silent.

#5 — Halo Effect — Machiavelli’s Mystique Principle. Why the credential still works even after the credential is discredited.

#7 — Barnum Effect — Vaccinism as Religion. How “safe and effective” has successfully installed a faith system.

🟧 LOGICAL FALLACIES

#1 — Ad Hominem — Attack the messenger to disqualify the message. The oldest move in the book.

#3 — Appeal to Authority — The credential is not the argument. When “trust the science” replaced science itself.

#6 — Middle Ground Fallacy — Why splitting the difference between truth and lie manufactures a bigger lie.

#8 — Appeal to Sex: Argumentum ad Libidinem — The taxonomy gap. How the reward circuit in the biological instinct for reproduction is hijacked at population scale.

COMING NEXT

#9 — Appeal to Flattery: Argumentum ad Superbiam — The one entry in the positive-appeals hemisphere that does exist, and that nobody teaches.

WHY CEPOP EXISTS

The manipulations that run this COVID era are not new. They are centuries-old plays deployed at industrial scale against populations that have never been given the vocabulary to name them.

Formal logic gaves names to fear (ad metum), pity (ad misericordiam), pride (ad superbiam). It leaves the third of the basic drives — the reward-circuit hijack, the identity-installation, the positive-appeal machinery — unnamed for 2,400 years.

The biomedical deep state knows. The public does not.

CEPOP is the correction.

We cannot object to a things that have no name. We cannot refuse mental manipulations we cannot see. Every CEPOP installment adds one entry to the taxonomy the standard curriculums are too embarrassed to teach — and one word to your dissident vocabulary.

The manipulations continue. So does the series.

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

Jessica Rose, PhD, takes apart the New York Times’ miscarriage denial — “Misleading article by the New York Times,” Unacceptable Jessica, August 14, 2026.

The Documents

On January 25, 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci texted CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. Because so many people experienced a significant cytokine response - including cytokine storm - and accompanying fever after the second dose of the COVID-19 modRNA “vaccine,” he wrote, this “theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester.” Walensky called it a good point, particularly after the second dose. Murthy agreed.

PS: Theoretically, the COVID-19 mRNA jabs might actually be true “vaccines”—just like a square might theoretically be a circle if you redefine geometry.

Nine days later, on February 3, Fauci told us that there are “no red flags” for pregnant women.

Both statements are documented. Neither is in dispute. The texts came off Fauci’s government iPhone, produced by HHS on August 5, 2026, and released by Senators Ron Johnson and Rand Paul.

Subscribe now

Biology Makes This Non-Frivolous

Jessica Rose, PhD, dismantles the New York Times’ August 13 response, which recast any discussion of these texts as false claims. Her strongest section is the one the Times never touches.

Reproductive immunology has documented for decades that an excessively pro-inflammatory environment- the cytokine storm - at the maternal-fetal interface can break the immunological tolerance a pregnancy depends on.

Rose stacks multiple citations behind it, anchored in a 2022 review of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines in recurrent pregnancy loss. TNF-α signaling, Th2/Treg balance, trophoblast function, placental blood supply—the pathways are mapped. These are not speculative, not “false claims.” The New York Times propagandists should be ashamed.

That is why the private Fauci-Walenski-Murthy note was not a crank hypothesis. It was a senior immunologist recognizing a known mechanism. And that is why “the studies found no signal” and “no biological pathway exists” constitute total B.S., being excreted from the upper orifices of these ‘trusted authorities’ from the biomedical deep state.

D2D Take

What remains is this. Officials privately identified the mechanistic risk to first-trimester pregnancy, grounded in published immunology, and said nothing about it publicly while recommending the product to pregnant women.

That is not a question of whether these injections cause miscarriage. It is a question of what women were told before they consented — and the answer is on the record, in their own words, in two documents nine days apart.

Observational data can constrain average risk. It cannot retroactively supply informed consent. Whatever else these products are, Bio-logical™ is NOT one of them. Bio-illogical™ nails the description.

Share

What You Can Do

▪ Subscribe to “Unacceptable Jessica” (Jessica Rose). She’s exercising medical conscience over conformity without any GACROcratic institutions behind her.

▪ 🔗 Break the Blackout — read Rose’s full analysis and send it to one person who still trusts the Times on this.

▪ 📄 Go to the primary source — the Johnson/Paul release carries the texts and the public statements side by side. Read both columns.

▪ 🩺 Ask your family obstetrician the consent question — not “is it safe,” but “what did you know privately when you recommended these shots of genetic materials and lipid nanoparticles to pregnant patients?”

▪ Click the ❤️ to support independent analysis, and if you think this belongs in front of more people — it moves the piece further than you think.

🔄 Restack it. Someone in your feed was pregnant in 2021.

🎧 Prefer to listen? The audio version is above.

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

They were right about lockdowns, early treatment, and natural immunity. In 2025 they were handed the agencies. By May 2026, almost none of them are still in the chair.

Thirteen Months

In the spring of 2025, something happened that most of the medical dissent community never expected to witness. The physicians who had been fired, delicensed, deplatformed, and publicly humiliated for questioning COVID orthodoxy were handed the agencies.

Jay Bhattacharya — co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, the document that Francis “Vaccine Royalties” Collins wanted subjected to a “quick and devastating published take down” — became Director of the NIH. Marty Makary took the FDA. Vinay Prasad took CBER, the center that licenses vaccines. Martin Kulldorff, pushed out of Harvard, was made chair of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Kirk Milhoan and Robert Malone were seated beside Kulldorf. Tracy Beth Høeg, who sued the State of California - Høeg v. Newsom - over a statute (AB 2098) policing physician speech, rose to the top of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Then, in thirteen months, nearly all of it came apart.

Departure Ledger

December 12, 2025 — Kirk Milhoan, MD, PhD is terminated by Driscoll Children’s Hospital ten days into his ACIP chairmanship. Reinstated hours later after a colleague intervened. D2D documented it the same day.

March 16, 2026 — U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy (another Biden nominee, from MA) stays the appointments of thirteen ACIP members and nullifies every committee vote taken since June 2025, concluding that the panel unlawfully reconstituted under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

March 19, 2026 — ACIP is disbanded. The Independent Medical Alliance reports the administration will reconstitute rather than appeal.

March 2026 — Robert Malone steps down from ACIP, telling the New York Times that if offered a seat on a relaunched committee, he would decline.

April 30, 2026 — Vinay Prasad leaves CBER, returning to UCSF after sustained pressure over rare-disease and gene-therapy decisions.

May 12, 2026 — Marty Makary resigns as FDA Commissioner after thirteen months. His replacement, acting commissioner Kyle Diamantas, is an attorney and holds no medical degree. His clients include Eli Lilly, Abbot Labs and tobacco companies.

May 15, 2026 — Tracy Beth Høeg was fired as acting CDER director after refusing to resign — and reports that she does not know who ordered her removal.

Standing — Martin Kulldorff was not removed. He was moved: from ACIP chair to chief science officer at HHS’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

What The Record Shows — And What It Does Not

It would be satisfying to be able to assert that the GACROcocracy™ ran them all out. But the record does not support that.

Makary’s resignation was reported to center on flavored vaping products, not vaccine policy. Prasad’s exit followed sustained industry pressure over gene-therapy rejections. Kulldorff was promoted, not purged. Malone left on his own terms and said so.

What is documented is the pattern, not the motive. In thirteen months, nearly every heterodox physician appointee is gone from the post they were appointed to. Some resigned. Høeg says she was fired and cannot find out by whom. An entire advisory committee was dissolved by MA federal judge Murphy. And no one has said on the record who decided, or why.

That is the finding. Not a cabal — a turnover rate. And a turnover rate is something you may be able to subpoena.

Have we processed this? It’s more COVID-era insanity with increased public distrust of our government.

Subscribe now

Venue Changed. Result Did Not.

In December 2025, D2D published Fired by the Fascists, built on Dr. Anna Scherzer’s 1993 warning to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons that American medicine was retracing a documented pre-war German pattern: incremental restrictions, economic coercion, physician report cards, license suspension for deviation from standards, and even psychiatric intimidation as punishment, as with Dr. Meryl Nass.

The Fired by the Fascists post carries an honor roll of eighteen physicians, and it is the tip of a needle. What has happened since suggests something the December version could not yet see.

The persecution did not stop when the dissenters reached the agencies. The persecution changed venue. In 2021, the instruments were the hospital credentialing committees and the specialty boards, mysteriously controlled by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). In 2026, it is the federal district court, the charter renewal, and the resignation letter.

Different instruments. Same outcome: COVID-era heterodox physicians do not keep their chairs - despite the great hopes we had with RFK, Jr. as HHS secretary.

The Mavericks Gallery^TM

THE GREAT BARRINGTON THREE

Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD — Stanford health economist. Argued for focused protection of the vulnerable over blanket lockdowns and was targeted for it by the NIH director Francis Collins, whose job he now holds. Currently NIH Director and, since February 2026, acting CDC Director.

Martin Kulldorff, PhD — Biostatistician. His age-stratified risk arithmetic was sound and is now uncontroversial. Left Harvard in 2024; chaired the reconstituted ACIP; now chief science officer at HHS/ASPE.

Sunetra Gupta, DPhil — Oxford theoretical epidemiologist. Her work on pre-existing cross-reactive immunity was dismissed early and has aged considerably better than the models that displaced it.

THE CLINICIANS

Peter McCullough, MD, MPH — Cardiologist. Built the outpatient early-treatment case when there was no outpatient protocol at all. Faculty position terminated by Baylor; ABIM certifications revoked January 2025.

Pierre Kory, MD — Critical care physician, co-founder of the FLCCC, now the Independent Medical Alliance. ABIM certification revoked August 2024.

Ryan Cole, MD — Pathologist. Faced license complaints filed across multiple states by a hospital system executive. Most were dismissed; the investigations and insurance consequences did the damage anyway.

Scott Atlas, MD — Stanford neuroradiologist and White House pandemic advisor. The heterodox voice in a room that did not want one, and was treated accordingly by his own institution’s faculty.

THE PLATFORM CRITICS AND THE METHODOLOGISTS

Robert W. Malone, MD, MS — His 1989 work on cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection is foundational to the delivery platform. He became its most credentialed critic — on lipid nanoparticle biodistribution, on spike protein toxicity, on an authorization process that unblinded its own placebo arm. Suspended by Twitter in December 2021, reinstated a year later.

John P. A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc — Stanford. Asked in spring 2020 whether the data justified the response and was savaged for asking. His early infection fatality rate estimates were rejected by journals and were substantially closer to correct than what replaced them.

John Campbell, PhD — British nurse educator — not a physician. His daily data walkthroughs reached millions when the institutional channels had stopped explaining anything.

Didier Raoult, MD, PhD — French microbiologist whose hydroxychloroquine work opened the treatment debate. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-era Retraction Plague^TM, some opine that Raoult must be carried with a disposition, not a laurel, since, justified or not, he is the subject of research-integrity findings in France, including sanction proceedings and journal corrections. However, in this era of fraud, corruption, and cover-ups, it is difficult to know who to believe, whom to trust. We the People rightfully doubt financially conflicted individuals and members of the GACROcracy^TM.

THE BOUNDARY CASES — INCLUDED, WITH THE REASON STATED

These three do not sit comfortably in a gallery of dissenters. They are here because the honest version of this list shows its edges rather than hiding them.

Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH — A persistent, evidence-first critic of unscientific COVID policy — who did it from inside the establishment and stayed inside its bounds. He squeaked by, holding the credentials and positions that made it hard to dismiss him as an outsider. He was not treated as disqualifying misconduct. But he was never de-licensed, never deplatformed, never professionally destroyed. That distinction matters. So he belongs on this page, but not on the honor roll of the persecuted.

Michael Mina, MD, PhD — Harvard epidemiologist. Heterodox on just one axis — cheap, frequent antigen testing as an alternative to lockdowns — and correct on it, in principle, assuming acceptable accuracy of the tests. On the modRNA “vaccines” and other mandates, he was conventional. A partial maverick is still a bit of a maverick.

Robert Redfield, MD — The hardest inclusion on this page. He ran the CDC. His agency’s contaminated February 2020 test kits blinded the United States to community spread. He also stated publicly that a laboratory origin was plausible and that he was pressured into silence about it. D2D includes him as a witness, not as a hero — and readers should weigh both halves.

Share

This List Is Incomplete By Design

Every roster on this page is partial, and D2D would rather say so in the text than bury it in a footnote.

The source document behind this gallery names fourteen dissenters. D2D’s own working roster holds more than ninety, across a dozen countries. The Fired by the Fascists honor roll holds eighteen — and it does not include Tracy Beth Høeg, or Kirk Milhoan’s second act, or a single one of the 2026 departures documented above.

D2D has estimated physician silence during the COVID era at above eighty percent. If that is even approximately right, then for every name on this page there are hundreds of physicians who saw the same data, drew the same conclusions, and said nothing — and some more who did speak, paid the full price, and were never written down anywhere at all.

Those are the names we want.

SEND US A NAME. If you are a physician, nurse, pharmacist, technologist, or therapist who was fired, suspended, investigated, decertified, or forced out for putting conscience over conformity — or if you know someone who was — leave it in the comments or write to duty2dissent@gmail.com. Name, credential, institution, approximate date, and a link if one exists. Anonymous submissions are accepted and will be verified before publication; no name goes into the honor roll without documentation and, where the person is living and identifiable, their consent. The Fired by the Fascists honor roll is a living document. Help us make it longer.

A Standing Invitation to Sign the mRNA/modRNA Moratorium Petition

D2D maintains a moratorium petition calling for the modRNA platform to stand down until safety and efficacy are established — not for COVID products alone, but for the platform and its successors, including but not limited to the microneedle patch implant (yet another precious from philanthropath Bill Gates).

Internationally, The Hope Accord makes a narrower version of the same demand, and its signatories include the sitting Director of the National Institutes of Health, who signed before taking office.

Duty to Dissent’s standing invitation to Dr. Malone, and to every physician named on this page: the petition is open. The platform should stand down until safety and efficacy are established. Sign it.

Not one of these people owes a signature. Several have already given more than any publication has a right to ask. We are asking anyway, because that is what a moratorium petition is for.

The Companion Post: Rogues Gallery^TM of the COVID Era

This Mavericks Gallery^TM has a mirror. The Rogues Gallery^TM documents the other side of the same architecture — the funders, administrators, regulators, and platform executives whose conduct during the COVID era is a matter of public record. Same standard of proof, opposite ledger.

Read the companion: The Rogues Gallery^™ [will insert link when published]

One note on method, since it applies to both posts. D2D documents conduct. We can’t diagnose motives. What a person did, when, and on whose payroll is knowable and provable. What was in their head is not. But patterns often support that primary and secondary sociopathy/psychopathy are likely at play.

D2D Take

The architecture is real. It has not closed.

Five years ago these physicians were losing licenses. Three years ago they were losing board certifications. Last year they were running the National Institutes of Health. This year most of them are out of the chair again — and every step of that round trip is in the public record, dated and sourced.

That is not a defeat. That is a ratchet. The Great Barrington Declaration went from fringe to the NIH directorship in four years. A federal judge can vacate a committee’s votes; he cannot vacate the myocarditis data, the FOIA productions, or the many names on our honor rolls. Institutions can be recaptured. Records cannot be unfiled.

So let’s keep filing. And let’s keep writing the names down.

What You Can Do

📄 Read the Record — Judge Murphy’s March 16 ruling vacated every ACIP vote since June 2025. Read what was actually decided before you accept anyone’s summary of it.

🔗 Break the Blackout — Restack this to one physician who is still quiet. 80% of them are. At least the Pareto Principle might be at play, leaving 20% potential mavericks.

🗳️ Remember in November — Leadership turns over with administrations (eg, Judge Murphy, the Biden appointee from MA). Records do not. Vote for the people who we believe will keep producing them.

❤️ Hit the heart if you can name a physician who paid for telling the truth.

🔄 Restack it so the next one knows they are not alone.

🎧 Click the LISTEN button above to reinforce learning.

💬 Speak Up — Add a name to the honor roll. Comments below, or duty2dissent@gmail.com.

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

📌 ABOUT THIS SERIES Every installment of On the Advice of Counsel™ examines the July 29, 2026 Senate Homeland Security hearing, where Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times. Series index: every installment →

The Phone

On August 5, 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services produced Anthony Fauci’s government-issued iPhone to Sen. Ron Johnson’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

It holds more than 34,000 text messages and 522 voicemails, spanning roughly 2014 through the final days before he left NIAID in December 2022.

It also contains, according to the senators, exactly three saved contacts. Every other message is identified by a bare phone number. ‘Negative evidence’ of criminal activity? Sure looks like it.

Johnson’s assessment of whether everything survived: “My staff can’t guarantee that everything was preserved.”

Hold that thought. We will come back to it.

January 25, 2021

The first release came on August 10. The second came Sunday. Together they produce a sequence.

On January 25, 2021, Dr. John Mascola — then Director of the Vaccine Research Center at NIAID texted his director, Dr. Fauci. Here’s what he said:

“Initial Studies avoid vaccination in first trimester”

That same day, Fauci wrote to Dr. Rochelle Walensky and Dr. Vivek Murthy — the incoming CDC Director and the incoming Surgeon General — raising concerns that “cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose” of the mRNA/modRNA “vaccine” products could “theoretically” result in “miscarriage in the 1st trimester.”

Read what that is. It is not a vague unease. It is a named mechanism, attached to a specific dose, producing a specific outcome, in a specific trimester. That is a clinical hypothesis. Physicians recognize the form because it is how we think out loud before we know.

Four of the most powerful health officials in the United States were discussing it privately, nine days before a single pregnant American heard a word about it.

February 3, 2021

Nine days later, Fauci said this in public:

“…thus far no red flags about that, about pregnant women.”

No red flags.

Not we are monitoring a theoretical signal. Not there is a hypothesis under discussion. Not, “…the initial studies avoided the first trimester, and here is why that’s really, really important, fellow Americans!”

No red flags — an assertion by Fauci that nothing is here. Move right along, plebians.

Subscribe now

What Informed Consent Requires

This is the whole of it, and it is not complicated.

Informed consent does not require confirmed risk. It requires disclosed risk.

A woman weighing an injection in her first trimester was entitled to know that the director of NIAID and three of his fellow ‘expert’ doctor ‘authorities’ privately raised a mechanism by which it might end her pregnancy.

She was entitled to know that the initial studies had avoided her trimester. She was entitled to weigh a theoretical harm against a theoretical benefit, using her own judgment about her own body and her own child, not take the advice of biomedical deepstate operatives, like Fauci, Wallensky, Mascola, Murthy, and others.

Consent isn’t a courtesy to pregnant women. It is the settled ethical floor of medicine, and it was established at Nuremberg by hanging physicians who ignored it.

She was not given the information. She was given no red flags.

Whatever the science now shows, the consent was absent. And the subsequent data on the miscarriage problem from the modRNA jabs cannot retroactively inform a decision already made in the dark.

Share

Mascola, Again

Regular readers will recognize that name.

In Issue #5 we reported that on March 1, 2021, Drew Weissman — the co-inventor of the platform — sent Fauci human-dose intramuscular data in pregnant mice, writing that his lab still had some concern over the data. Within the hour, Fauci forwarded it to Dr. John Mascola with three words:

“Let us discuss.”

The same John Mascola who, five weeks earlier, had told him the initial studies avoided the first trimester.

Same man. Same subject. Same year. Bookending a nine-month stretch during which the federal recommendation for vaccination in pregnancy went forward, was strengthened, and was eventually pressed on women as a matter of near-obligation.

Here’s Dr. Rochelle Walensky, September 29, 2021. She wrote: CDC “strongly recommends” vaccination before or during pregnancy.

Dr. Vivek Murthy, February 1, 2022: “It’s all the more important for you to get vaccinated if you are pregnant.”

Both of them were on the January 2021 text chain.

Three Contacts

Return to the phone.

34,000 messages. 522 voicemails. 8 years. 3 saved contacts.

Let’s hope to find out what the missing contacts mean. But a device on which nearly every correspondent appears as an unnamed number is a device that is difficult to read, difficult to index, and difficult to subpoena usefully. And so Sen. Johnson has said his staff cannot guarantee everything was preserved.

The review continues though. So does this series.

⚡ WHAT YOU CAN DO

❤️ If you believe informed consent means disclosed risk and not merely confirmed risk, tap the heart.

🔄 Restack it. The number circulating this week is the wrong one. This is the right one: nine days.

🔗 Break the Blackout — Send this to a woman who was pregnant that year, and to the obstetrician who advised her.

📄 Read the Record — The full text chain is public. Read Fauci’s January 25 message and his February 3 statement back to back. Nine days.

🎥 Watch It Yourself — The February 3, 2021 “no red flags” statement is on video. Watch his face as he says it.

🎧 Audio player is at the top.

💬 Speak Up — Were you pregnant in 2021? Did anyone tell you that the initial studies avoided the first trimester? Comments are open, and we will read every one.

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

If you’re arriving here first: On August 20, 2026, Chief Judge Lance E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine ruled that the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine cannot claim absolute immunity for ordering Dr. Meryl Nass to submit to a psychological evaluation because their order was issued with no evidence, no probable cause finding, and no process. That claim now proceeds to discovery.

Part 4 covers the ruling itself. This Part 5 is about what it means, and who else the standard reaches. That could be you.

James Corbett calls it “psychiatric intimidation of a COVID skeptic.“ That was eleven months before federal judge Lance Walker now describes the same from his bench.

If dissent is itself evidence of an unsound mind, that standard reaches a lot further than our one physician in Maine.

Dr. Meryl Nass’s original account of the ruling, posted two days ago, is available here.

Ad Hominem With a Statute Behind It

CEPOP #1 documented the ad hominem as the COVID era’s signature move: don’t answer the argument, disqualify the arguer. Misinformationist. Disinformationist. Malinformationist.

The Maine Board ran the same play with a licensing statute behind it. It never had to rebut Dr. Nass’s position on ivermectin. It needed only to treat holding the position as a symptom of her being a misinformationist at best or a disinformationist at worst.

The charges built on her speech were dismissed on 1st Amendment constitutional grounds. What survived was telemedicine procedure and record-keeping — precisely the substitution Part 1 of the PERM-MD series documented in the FSMB’s own April 2022 playbook:

Don’t necessarily charge dissident doctors for what they do. It’s more efficient to charge them with ad hominems that stick, like ‘Misinformationist’.

What the Judge Restored

Read Judge Walker’s opening pages beside four years of the Board’s filings and you are reading about two different physicians: The pre-COVID Meryl Nass and the post-COVID Dr. Nass.

Licensed in Maine since 1997. No disciplinary infractions before any of this. Testified before Congress as global bioweapons expert on six occasions. An acknowledged expert on anthrax and the anthrax vaccine, quoted in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune. But according to the Maine medical board, she’s a misinformationist.

Dr. Nass wrote that she almost cried reading it.

That is not self-pity, and anyone who has been on the receiving end knows the difference. There is a specific grief in being called careless for the one act your conscience required — in having the thing you did right entered into the record as the thing you did wrong — and now undergoing psychiatric intimidation by the Maine medical board.

The complaint that started all of this came from someone who stated plainly that she was not Dr. Nass’s patient and knew none of her patients. The three patients the Board did build its case around were never contacted before charges were issued. All three testified for her.

No patient ever complained about Dr. Nass. Not one.

Kangaroo Court, Lynch Mob Justice, Witch Trial, and Inquisition all come to mind. “Nass! You are engaging in heresy, undermining the faith of others,” say the priests of Allopathic Medicine.

Corbett Named It Eleven Months Ago

In September 2025, James Corbett released his COVID-era documentary Dissent Into Madness.

“There’s nothing more damning, more completely dehumanizing, than to call someone CRAZY.” James Corbett - Dissent Into Madness (documentary)

Dr. Nass appears at 40:35. Corbett’s term for the pattern used in the title and elsewhere is “psychiatric intimidation of a COVID skeptic.” The section of his documentary opens with her case.

The reflexive response to that framing has always been that it is overheated. Conspiracy theory language. Documentary-maker hyperbole.

Subscribe now

Eleven months later, our Article III Judge Lance Walker describes the same act, but today in the language of the bench: no process, ex parte, predetermined, an assumption Dr. Nass must be of unfit mind to speak out as she did.

Here’s filmmaker Corbett and federal judge Lance E. Walker, working from different materials, arriving at the same characterization of the same afternoon. This is not COVID-era hyperbole. This is COVID-era corroboration. Perhaps as with Fauci, David Morens, etc., discovery of the board’s emails will prove conspiracy.

Corbett uses a term sarcastically in his documentary - for a condition they apply to medical dissidents like Dr. Nass: Corona Insanity. Fact is, we’re witnessing genuine corona insanity. It isn’t located where the licensing boards are pointing. It’s them.

“Warning: If you DISSENT on sensitive political issues you risk being institutionalized for your beliefs.” James Corbett - Dissent Into Madness (documentary).

Dissent Into Madness: Click title or image.

You and I Would Qualify

If dissent is itself evidence of an unsound mind, then unless you’re a D2D mole reader from the Allopathic Priesthood^TM, the standard the Maine Board is applying to Dr. Nass reaches you too.

This is not a rhetorical flourish. It is what § 3286 was used to do against Dr. Nass. You and I would qualify.

One Door They Left Unlocked

Here is the irony, and it is not small.

The Board members ARE immune for the eleven months they spent trying to say and prove that Dr. Meryl ‘Maverick’ Nass is a careless physician. But they are NOT immune from the afternoon they decided to employ psychiatric intimidation and claim she is of unsound mind.

Ironically, the most gratuitous act in the entire file — no evidence, no hearing, no predicate — might be the only one Maine’s medical board-related administrative law will not shield.

The board’s cruelty is the crack in their armor.

Where This Goes

Dozens of readers told Dr. Nass via comments here that she is a hero. (Let’s add, again, “COVID-era medical maverick”). But almost none of them know what to do next. And that is not their failure. We’re all baffled during these Orwellian times.

But the architecture is real. The medical board that can call physicians mad for reading the medical data has a sociopathy problem.

They ordered her to prove her sanity, suspended her from practicing medicine the same day, and have apparently reported her to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) as an immediate threat to the public — and it has cost her her practice, a year of rent on an empty office, a reputation she has spent four decades building.

And it has not closed. Younger abstention has expired. Loper Bright ended agency deference. A federal Chief Judge has now written that an order like this ought not occur, ever — and has let the claim proceed.

Go Dr. Meryl-the-Maverick!

One reader asked the question in her comment to Dr. Nass that ought to be the next post: can citizens sue a board for denying them the physician of their choice? We hope to find out.

Share

What You Can Do This Week

● Watch Dissent Into Madness in full, or at least at 40:35 — then send the timestamp to one physician who thinks this psychiatric intimidation by state medical boards is just ‘conspiracy theory.’

● File a public records request with your own state medical board: has it ever ordered a psychiatric or psychological evaluation of a licensee in connection with public statements? Records requests are free. Silence is itself an answer.

● If you are a physician who has been through a version of this, D2D wants your account on the record. Reply to this post.

● Read Part 4 for what the court actually held

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

Leave a comment

Federal judge Lance E. Walker told the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine that ordering a psychiatric evaluation with no evidence and no process “simply ought not occur, ever.”

Dr. Meryl Nass’s original account of the ruling, posted yesterday morning, is available here.

Limbo Ended Yesterday

Eleven months ago, Part 3 of this series ended in suspension — not Dr. Meryl Nass’s, ours. The federal court had invoked Younger abstention. So her constitutional challenge regarding violations of her First Amendment rights could not move until the Maine medical board finished with her. We wrote that the case was stuck in legal limbo. At least for now.

Now is over.

On August 20, 2026, Chief Judge Lance E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine ruled on the Board members’ motion to dismiss in Nass v. Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine.

He granted part of it. The part he refused is why you are reading this.

Door One: Her Hearing — Shut

The ME Medical Board Hearing and Determination — IMMUNE. Eleven months of proceedings, the standard-of-care findings, the fine, the probation terms: the ME Board members are shielded in their personal capacities by absolute “quasi-judicial immunity.” That door is shut.

Door Two: The Sanity Order — Unlocked

The Psychological Evaluation Order — PROCEEDS. The January 2022 order that Dr. Nass submit to a psychological evaluation constitutes psychiatric intimidation, in my opinion. It is getting only qualified immunity, not absolute — meaning the Board members are protected only if what they did looks like a recognizable, reasonable, legitimate version of their job, and the court has not yet decided that it does.

So the claim of psychiatric intimidation lives! (assuming Dr.Nass’s attorneys use that terminology). It then moves to discovery, where the Maine medical board members can be deposed and their emails subpoenaed.

The Board argued (asininely) that the Maine judge who reviewed all their grotesque actions agaist Dr. Nass at the height of the COVIDcrisis never mentioned “retaliation” - that is, their retaliation against Dr. Nass using psychiatric intimidation. So the federal court, they argue foolishly, is stuck with that silence.

Chief Judge Walker’s answer to the Maine medical board: not mentioning something isn’t the same as deciding it. (That’s like calling the modRNA “vaccines” “safe and effective” for COVID-19 - and now for influenza - because research trials never measured transmission.)

“The scope of…Dr. Nass’s claims…includes, at a minimum, the requirement that she submit to a psychological evaluation.” Chief US District Judge Lance E. Walker

The generous reading is that the board, genuinely alarmed for Maine’s patients, moved faster than its own procedures in what it took to be a medical emergency. We can reasonably call this a sort of a board-level administrative Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

And § 3286 does command speed. Where a complaint alleges a physician may be unable to practice safely by reason of mental illness, the board shall treat it as an emergency. Haste is not the defect here. Haste is the instruction.

The defect is upstream. The statute needs a predicate: a complaint or allegation about Dr. Nass’s soundness of mind. There wasn’t one. The complaint that started this concerned a video and a website, filed by a woman who stated she was not Dr. Nass’s patient and knew none of her patients. Nobody alleged Dr. Nass has a mental illness.

The board supplied that theory itself, from Dr. Nass’s opinions — and then acted on its own inference as though it had arrived from somewhere else. That is what Judge Walker meant by “hybrid complainant-adjudicators.” In English: the board filed the complaint, heard the complaint, and ruled on the complaint. It’s like peer review, minus the peers.

“I flag the Psychological Evaluation Order as potentially problematic.” Chief US District Judge Lance E. Walker

The Maine statute knows how to demand evidence when it wants to. To get an injunction, § 3286 requires the board to set out “with particularity“ the facts showing irreparable harm — actual specifics, before an actual judge. The examination order carries no such requirement. The board took the route that skipped the judge, and then produced nothing that would have satisfied one.

Everything the board did by the book is untouchable. This ‘sanity thing’ it did without the evidence its own book requires. And this is the thing that looks…touchable, thank God.

Subscribe now

Door Three: Her Suspension — Still Ajar

The Immediate Suspension Order — OPEN. Judge Walker expressly declined to place the suspension of Dr. Nass’s ability to practice medicine inside the ME medical board’s quasi-judicial immunity, and he invited the parties back to the question at summary judgment.

“Based on these concerns…the Board promptly ordered (among other things) that Dr. Nass submit to a psychological evaluation under 32 M.R.S. § 3286 (hereafter, the “Psychological Evaluation Order”). Chief US District Judge Lance E. Walker U.S. District Court for the District of Maine

The Order That Ought Not Occur

The Board acted under 32 M.R.S. § 3286, which permits a mental examination where a licensee may be unable to practice safely by reason of mental illness. J

“…the Maine Medical Board considered Dr. Nass’s opinions to be the product of not independent thought but a mental illness or mental condition….[suggesting] that the Board was making an example out of Dr. Nass.” Chief US District Judge Lance E. Walker U.S. District Court for the District of Maine

The Judge found the medical board has no probable cause determination regarding Dr. Nass’s alleged mental illness. There were no preliminary proceedings. No process whatsoever.

Board members, he wrote, were “effectively acting as mutant hybrid complainant-adjudicators” making ex parte judgments on a predetermined perspective that Dr. Nass must be of unfit mind to speak out as she did — largely because her views were discordant with their own orthodoxy.

Then Comes Judge Walker’s Sentence That Will Outlive This Case

Absolute immunity exists so that officials aren’t afraid to do their jobs. Before granting it, a court asks whether this is a function that needs protecting — whether shielding it keeps something worthwhile from being chilled, like protecting the public from an insane, incompetent physician.

The Judge asked that here, and the question collapsed. The function, he wrote, does not need protection from the harassment of litigation “because it simply ought not occur, ever.”

You don’t need a permission slip for something nobody should ever be doing.

Note the word ever. Not too far. Not too fast. Not on thin grounds. Those are complaints about dosage — do less of it, do it more carefully. “Ever“ removes the dial. And it doesn’t mean the board broke the law; Judge Walker made no such finding. It means they don’t get the strong shield of absolute immunity, so as the case moves forward they get to answer questions under oath.

One wonders whether any of the ME board members, or others involved, is trembling — even a little. Dr. Nass has had four years to try to get used to the feeling.

And on whether any of this was walled off from politics, Judge Walker wrote: “political influence would appear to have been the point.” Rather than insulation against it, he wrote, the Board members were something like conductors for it.

The Maine board decided that holding the wrong medical opinion was evidence of an unsound mind. Then it shut Dr. Nass’s office door on one day’s notice. But the standard hasn’t stayed behind it. One door is shut. But one is now unlocked.

Tomorrow — Part 5: Would You Qualify for the ME Medical Board’s Mental Examination?

Share

What You Can Do This Week

● Read Judge Walker’s order yourself (I did) — it is public, 18 pages, and free. D2D guarantee: it will change how you see your state medical board.

● Read PERM-MD Part 1 if you are new here. It begins with Dr. Nass honorably reporting herself to the Board because she prescribed ivermectin during the height of the COVIDcrisis — she realized, back then, that prescription-writing has now become politicised.

● Continue to Part 5 [link to be inserted tomorrow after Part 5 is published]

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

📌 ABOUT THIS SERIES

On the Advice of Counsel™ is an ongoing series on the July 29, 2026 Fauci hearing where Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times. Start with this post, or jump to any installment from the Series Hub (Index) →

Watch the full hearing: YouTube · C-SPAN · Senate Committee page

Where It Actually Stands

In Issue #7 we wrote the ‘Bannon-Navarro Standard’ down before we knew the answer. Here’s what we know.

The Justice Department confirmed it received Sen. Rand Paul’s criminal referral and said it is reviewing it. On August 12, Attorney General Todd Blanche was asked whether a decision was near.

“Well, no, I don’t have an update. As you guys know, when the Department of Justice receives a referral from Congress, there’s a process. There’s a process of how we take it in and how we investigate it. But any update that I would expect to come from this department would be if there’s ultimately a decision made, and that certainly won’t be anytime soon.”

Certainly Not Anytime Soon.

Note what AG Blanche’s sentence does and does not commit to. It confirms a process. It confirms a review. It commits to no timeline, no criteria, and no obligation to reach any particular end. It is the administrative equivalent of we’ll circle back.

There are, of course, entirely lawful ways for referrals like this to become genuine nothing burgers. Allegedly “insufficient evidence.” Prosecutorial discretion. Resource priorities. A review that never concludes. Each one individually defensible, and not one of them requires anybody from the imagined Biomedical Deep State Mafia to say, “That’s a nice arm you got there. Be a shame if became a veritable pin cusion - for our new modRNA influenza jabs!”

Subscribe now

What They Are Actually Reviewing

Here is the part almost every account has blurred.

The referral concerns contempt of Congress — specifically, whether Fauci’s repeated Fifth Amendment invocations on July 29 were unlawful.

That is the entire question in front of the Justice Department.

• Not gain-of-function funding. Not the corrupt grant oversight.

• Not who knew what was being built in Wuhan, or when.

• Not the suppression of early treatments.

• Not the physicians who lost their licenses for prescribing it.

• Not the pregnancy recommendation that went forward after the co-inventor of the platform - Drew Weissman - wrote that he still had concerns about miscarriages and accumulation of the modRNA in the ovaries.

• Not the hospital protocols for Remdesivir (AKA per the ICU nurses, “run death is near”).

• Not the mothers and fathers who died alone in rooms their children were forbidden to enter.

• Not the funerals that were not permitted afterward.

• Not the schools that stayed shut, or the year of childhood that isn’t coming back, or the testing scores that have still not recovered.

• Not the businesses declared inessential that never reopened, or the families who had built them over thirty years.

• Not the churches, synagogues, and mosques padlocked while the liquor stores stayed open.

• Not the injured — the ones with myocarditis and many other modRNA “vaccine”-induced pathologies - the ones who cannot work a full day anymore, the ones still being told it is anxiety.

None of that is before the Department of Justice. But it certainly is still before We The People.

What Is Before Attorney General Blanche 

Whether one little doctor they called “America’s Doctor” is permitted to say his 21 words 111 times, in one room, on one morning.

Contempt is the narrowest possible charge available.

And it is the one nobody wants to file.

The Procedural Off-Ramp

Before we get to Why, we owe readers the strongest argument against our own position.

Paul bypassed a full Senate floor vote and hand-delivered the resolution directly to the Attorney General and to Jeanine Pirro, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. His reasoning: “It doesn’t have to go to the House, it doesn’t have to be signed by the president and really doesn’t have to go before the Senate.”

Unfortunately, some legal analysts are disagreeing with Senator Paul’s reasoning. The procedures for congressional contempt are set by statute, and a number of them question whether a committee-only referral carries legal force absent full Senate approval.

That matters because if the DOJ declines on procedural grounds, the Senate could possibly cure it with a floor vote. But that risks the matter being sucked into the congressional vortex of delays, like we’re seeing with the SAVE America act, and the conservatives in Congress who want to solve our massive illegal voting problem.

Regardless, silence is the tell, not the outcome. If the DOJ declines Fauci’s contempt referral but says why, then that becomes a transparent legal dispute we can all read. But if the DOJ declines and says nothing or never declines at all, and simply lets the review run until everyone stops asking, well then that is something else that gets sucked down the proverbial memory hole that so readily afflicts Americans.

📦 SIDEBAR — The Hell a Federal Proceeding Might Compel

• Bill Gates — funded modRNA “vaccine” development and distribution at enormous scale — documented on Gates Foundation website.

• Ralph Baric — UNC: published chimeric bat coronavirus work

• Peter Daszak — EcoHealth Alliance: subgrant recipient and Wuhan collaborator; debarred from federal funding in 2025

• NIAID — the funding agency Saint Fauci directed for 38 years

Discovery matters. It’s how we could find out which claims survive.

Share

Leake’s Thesis: The Attorney General Will Not Prosecute Fauci

John Leake, the author and investigative writer who works alongside Dr. Peter McCullough, has offered the sharpest explanation on the table.

Leake believes Blanche will not prosecute — and that the reason has nothing to do with the strength of the contempt case.

His argument is about discovery.

A contempt prosecution is not a hearing. It is a federal criminal proceeding, and federal criminal proceedings open doors that Senate committees cannot. Subpoena power that does not stop at an agency’s discretion. Depositions under penalty of perjury with no Fifth Amendment shelter for the Fauci underlings who don’t have presidential pardons. Requiring document production compelled by a judge rather than negotiated with Fauci’s counsel - David Schertler and five others.

Leake’s contention is that the discovery attached to a Fauci trial would reach the whole rotten edifice — every official and institution that knew what was being funded and did not intervene.

If he is right, the calculus is grimly simple. The charge is narrow. The proceeding is not. And you cannot open one without opening the other.

That would make the contempt charge not the smallest risk on the table for the Biomedical Deep State, but the largest.

In my opinion, if Fauci is not tried, convicted and placed behind bars, that absence will be ‘negative evidence’ that the USA truly is corrupt to the core.

📦 SIDEBAR — In Fauci’s Own Words

Do images of “rodents,” “cheese,” and “rat traps” keep coming to mind? You’re not alone.

• August 10, 2026: Sens. Paul and Johnson release Fauci’s text messages from his government-issued phone.

• January 2021 exchange: Fauci wrote that the 2nd dose of the COVID-19 “vaccine” could “theoretically” be associated with miscarriages. January 2021.

• In Issue #5 of this series: Drew Weissman sent Fauci human-dose intramuscular data in pregnant mice on March 1, 2021, writing, “I have concerns.” The federal recommendation for injection of the modRNA jabs for America’s pregnant women went forward anyway.

• Fauci’s text on his phone pre-dates that Weissman email by two months. It is not something Weissman sent him. It is what Fauci wrote himself.

What Discovery Would Reach

We do not have to speculate about what such a proceeding might surface. Some of it is already public and has simply never been examined under oath.

We reported one example in Duty Calls #37, before this series began: a peer-reviewed paper in Frontiers in Virology, February 21, 2022, reporting that the 19-nucleotide stretch of the SARS-CoV-2 genome containing the furin cleavage site is a 100% match to the sequence Moderna patented in 2016.

In plain English - for any mass-formed D2D readers from blue states - that means the mad scientists played Frankenstein first, four years before the virus escaped or was released from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The nucleotide stretch is not similar. It is identical. The authors put the probability that the match arose by chance, naturally at 1 in 3.21 trillion - and yet blue-pilled CNN-entranced zombies still want to get injected with these so-called “vaccines.”

Four and a half years on, no laboratory has been asked to replicate the furin cleavage site findings. It sits exactly where it sat in 2022, which is nowhere. Let us not forget this.

So that is one thread. But discovery does not pull just one thread.

The United States (10th Amendment Rocks!)

On August 12, three Republican attorneys general — James Uthmeier (FL), John McCuskey (WV), and Liz Murrill (LA) — issued a joint investigative subpoena to Fauci. Louisiana is also separately examining perjury and obstruction arising from Fauci’s 2022 deposition, in which he answered 174 times that he “did not recall.”

Encouraging. But Leake’s caution deserves airing: state action may function as circus rather than accountability — visible motion that lets a federal department keep saying not anytime soon.

State AGs cannot prosecute federal crimes. But a preemptive auto-penned presidential pardon does not bind them. That’s great news. But jurisdiction and statutes of limitation do, which is the rest of it.

Yet still, we might consider dragging Dr. Anthony Cockroach Fauci before courts in multiple jurisdictions as a sort of Nemesis by a thousand cuts.

Regardless, federal court probably remains the best venue. Unfortunately, it is also the venue with a door that the Washington D&C swamp creatures don’t want opened.

The Standard, Unchanged

We are not moving the goalposts, so we will restate them exactly as written previously in this series.

Charge Fauci, and the system worked. Decline and explain, and we will report the explanation. Decline and say nothing — or never decide at all — and our two men, Bannon and Navarro, served four months apiece for an offense a third insectile man, posing as a caring doctor, committed a hundred and eleven times over.

That is not a theory. That is subtraction.

And nothing would say the machinery does not reach everyone and there are Americans who truly are Above the Law quite like a review of contempt charges that run on and on and on until Americans lose interest and forget entirely, which is a plausible scenario.

Let’s not get distracted and lose interest.

How ’bout them Buckeyes?

⚡ WHAT YOU CAN DO

❤️ Think Saint Fauci deserves prosecution by our justice system ASAP? Tap the heart.

🔄 Does AG Todd Blanche’s “certainly not anytime soon“ gives you a shiver? Reviews that run quietly depend on nobody watching. Restack this post.

🎧 Hearing is a Memory Hole preventive. Audio player is at the top.

📢 Make the Call and Email (I did) — The referral is now at the Department of Justice. Contact the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Dr. Jeanine Pirro, and urge her to treat Fauci the same way Bannon and Navarro were treated, but to be a lot harsher.

📢 Ask Your Own AG — Three states issued a subpoena last week. Ask yours why it isn’t four.

🎥 Watch it Yourself — Fauci’s 2022 deposition - with the camera pointed at his face for 7 insufferable hours: 174 non-recollections. Then the 2026 hearing: 111 invocations. Same man, same subject, four years apart.

🔗 Break the Blackout — Send this post to someone who thinks “under review” necessarily means something is happening.

💬 Speak Up — If DOJ declines to prosecute Fauci, according to the contempt referral from Senator Paul, what reason might you accept?

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

The President says Fauci’s conduct was “far more serious than a lot of crimes.” But the word he attached to prosecuting it was “maybe.”

📌 ABOUT THIS SERIES
On the Advice of Counsel™ is an ongoing series on the July 29, 2026 Fauci hearing where Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times. Start with this post, or jump to any installment from the Series Hub (Index) →

Watch the full hearing: YouTube · C-SPAN · Senate Committee page

What We Are Doing Here

We don’t know what the Justice Department will do. That’s the point of this installment. Let’s write down the Bannon-Navarro standard now, while the answer is still unknown, because a standard announced after the fact is not a genuine standard; it is a post hoc rationalization. It would be like Dr. Fauci pleading the Fifth 111 times and then announcing that silence is the standard for cooperation.

So here it is, in advance.

Subscribe now

The Behavior

Watch what Fauci actually did on July 29, because the legal arguments somewhat obscure it.

He did not just decline to answer questions about gain-of-function funding. He declined to answer questions about the color of the carpet. About his tie. About the day of the week. And about his lifelong phobias related to cockroach sprays.

Sen. Josh Hawley made the point plainly: an invocation that covers the tie you are wearing is not tailored to anything. It is a posture adopted before the questions were asked.

And a posture is a statement. It says: I do not have to be here for the American people in any meaningful sense. You may convene, and subpoena, and swear me in, and I will sit in this chair and give you nothing, and there is nothing you can do about it.

That is not the behavior of a man mounting a defense. It is the behavior of a man who has done the arithmetic with his attorneys and thinks he knows the answer.

Bret Weinstein’s Question

On his podcast the evening of the hearing, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein put it in a frame worth sitting with. He is not describing the law. He is describing what he watched.

Weinstein’s characterization is that Fauci behaved like a made man — someone whose protection is structural rather than legal, who does not need to argue because he cannot be reached. What Weinstein saw in that chair, he said, was a flex.

And a question underneath it is another right question, and it is not rhetorical:

Why is this presumably sociopathic humanoid free?

Six years. Three administrations. Dozens of hearings. And finally, the auto-penned preemptive pardon generated by acolytes of demented Joe Biden. Not one legal consequence.

Either nothing happened worth prosecuting, or Weinstein’s correct and the machinery doesn’t reach Fauci, nor the other operatives at the upper tiers of the Global Power Pyramid, including the Biomedical Deep State. Those are the only two options. The kleptocratic line: “Nothing to see here. Move right along” or “It’s the machinery, people!” The referral now sitting at the Justice Department will tell us which.

The Bannon-Navarro Standard Nobody Can Argue With

This is the part that makes the test clean.

Steve Bannon was charged with contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the Democrats’ authoritarian January 6 committee, investigating his role in efforts to contest the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. Convicted. Served four months. Peter Navarro, the same offense, the same outcome, four months.

Neither man refused 111 times under oath. Neither was asked about the day of the week. Both faced the same statute for summoned witnesses, 2 U.S.C. §192, that now sits before the Attorney General with Anthony Fauci’s name on it.

Mr. President, You Said “Maybe”

Asked on August 6 whether the DOJ should prosecute, President Trump pointed to the Bannon and Navarro cases and said: “So when you see that happen, you sort of say, maybe he should. What he did is far more serious than a lot of crimes, frankly.”

Let’s stay with those words, because a great deal is riding on them.

The President of the United States said Anthony Fauci’s conduct was far more serious than a lot of crimes. Not questionable. More serious than a lot of crimes — from a man who has spent a decade experiencing lawfare against him and his family up close (Flash image: Melania’s underwear drawer items being groped by federal agents). After the Biden administration, Trump knows exactly what the term ‘serious crimes’ really means.

And the strongest thing President Trump would attach to a prosecution is maybe.

There is no reading in which both halves of that sentence sit comfortably together. If the conduct is worse than a lot of crimes, then prosecuting it is not a maybe. It is the ordinary consequence a country applies to conduct worse than a lot of crimes.

And if it genuinely is a maybe, then the first half was rhetoric — and rhetoric is what We The People have been force-fed during this COVID era, for six years, by the biomedical security complex.

Let’s restate the obvious, since restatements are now our duty during these Orwellian times. A Sad Little Man in a position of public trust told the country things his own files clearly contradict.

The President says that Fauci’s conduct was worse than a lot of crimes. Two men went to prison for four months for defying a subpoena once. The Fauci man defied one a hundred and eleven times.

None of that is complicated. It simply needs to be restated.

And we are entitled to notice the gap. And to say, on the record and respectfully:

Mr. President — you named the seriousness. The referral is with your Attorney General. The country is waiting to learn which half of that sentence you meant.

Share

Nobody Has to Give an Order

We wrote in Issue #5 that when two warnings reached the top of NIH in the spring of 2021 and neither was published, nobody had to give an order. That is how GACRocratic institutional outcomes are actually produced.

The same mechanism is available now, running the other direction.

No president has to instruct an Attorney General to decline a referral. There are a hundred lawful ways for a criminal referral to become nothing, especially when upper-echelon quid pro quo’s are at play. Things like allegedly insufficient evidence, prosecutorial discretion, resource priorities, a pending review that never concludes. Each is individually defensible. Together they produce a result, and might ultimately answer the “maybe.”

We can’t predict that outcome, but don’t you agree that this should be named and discussed in advance rather than explained away afterward.

The Standard

So, plainly, for the record, before we know:

If the Justice Department charges Anthony Fauci, the system worked. Slowly, imperfectly, six years later, under the autopen pardon of a demented president that should never have been written — but it worked. We will say so.

If the Justice Department declines, then Bannon and Navaro served four months for an offense Fauci committed more than a hundred times over, and the difference between them was not the conduct. That is not a theory.

And nothing would say the machinery does not reach everyone equally quite like Anthony Fauci walking away from a hundred and eleven refusals while two other men served four months apiece.

We will report either outcome. Let’s remember the Bannon-Navaro standard now so that neither one need to be reinterpreted later.

What Is Actually at Stake

In Heather Heying’s COVID-era stories series, a mother named Amy Johnson wrote about her son David, who died at twenty-five after losing a year of his life. Her lines, quoted briefly

“My son died at age 25 [from COVID]...because some sociopaths and psychopaths…chose to play dangerous games with deadly pathogens, and then lied about it all. Five years on, I still hope for justice.

Not a hearing. Not a viral clip. The ordinary thing a country is supposed to provide when someone is harmed — a proceeding, with rules, that reach a conclusion.

That is what is on the Attorney General’s desk. Not vengeance. Procedure.

And If Not

If the referral dies quietly, the question stops being about Anthony Fauci.

It becomes a question about the structure he is sitting inside — what it is, who is in it, and how a man comes to be beyond the reach of a subpoena in a country that abolished nobility - and control by any sort of global power pyramid - in its founding document.

Let’s take that question up next.

⚡ WHAT YOU CAN DO

📢 Make the Call — The referral is with the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Ask the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro - call (202) 252-7566 - to treat Fauci the same way Bannon and Navarro referrals were treated in response to the J6 events. Same statute, same office, same standard.

🎥 Watch It Yourself — Watch ten minutes of the hearing. Not a clip — ten consecutive minutes. The repetition is the evidence.

🗳️ Remember in November — Not one Democrat senator at the hearing asked Fauci any questions and they’ve said nothing since.

🔗 Break the Blackout — Send this to someone who thinks the story ended when the hearing did. It didn’t. It moved our consciences and reminded of our duty to dissent.

❤️ Tap the Heart — If you’re opposed to Trump’s “Maybe.”

🔄 Restack it. The Bannon-Navaro standard is worth having on the record.

🎧 Audio player is at the top.

💬 Speak Up — What outcome would change your mind about whether the system still works? Say it now, before we know. Comments are open.

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

Fauci brought six attorneys to the hearing. Only one of them had to be removed by Capitol Police.

📌 ABOUT THIS SERIES
On the Advice of Counsel™ is an ongoing series on the July 29, 2026 Fauci hearing where Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times. Start with this post, or jump to any installment from the Series Hub (Index) →

Watch the full hearing: YouTube · C-SPAN · Senate Committee page

The Man Behind the Man Behind the Fifth

Anthony Fauci arrived at the July 29 hearing with six attorneys.

Six. But the “America’s Doctor” had already decided he was not going to answer to Americans about anything. You would think the legal labor requirement drops considerably once the client’s entire strategy is 21 words repeated 111 times. But no. Six of his attorneys were present with him.

The hearing lasted 3 hours. At $550 per hour per attorney (conservatively), that’s $10,000 that we paid for, indirectly, and $20,000 (or more) is probably more like it. But that’s still a drop in the bucket of Fauci-caused COVID-era damages.

And of those six attorneys, exactly one managed to get himself physically removed from the Senate hearing room by the Capitol Police.

Meet Attorney David Schertler.

Flushed From the Room

The sequence is a small, 1-minute masterpiece of professional self-immolation, and it is all on video.

Schertler was told, in advance, not to sit at the witness table. He sat at the witness table.

He was told he would not be recognized. He leaned into the microphone and began saying stuff anyway.

Chairman Rand Paul: “You are not recognized. You’re not recognized. If you are unruly, you will be removed from the proceeding!“

The Schertler kept talking. But the broadcast microphones could not quite pick up what was emanating from his upper orifice, which is its own kind of poetry — a lawyer defending someone who appears to be guilty of crimes against humanity, flushed from a Senate hearing for making obnoxious sounds nobody could actually make out.

Paul, escalating: “You will respect these proceedings. You were told not to sit at the table. You insist on sitting at the table, and we told you you would not be recognized. You are not invited here for testimony, sir. You are being disruptive.“

Then the line of the morning:

“Would you behave this way in a courtroom? No, because the judge would put you in jail. I can’t do that today. But I can have you escorted from the premises. So I would say, sir, sit quietly and don’t say another word.“

Shertler then made more noises.

“Security, please remove him from the room!” said Senator Paul calmly.

The audience applauded. Which, in a Senate hearing room, might be the kind of excitement saved for a working toilet on the fifth floor if/when the Democrat party ever gets back into power, or worse, the Democrat Socialists of America.

The Chairman’s Parting Shot

Attorney Schertler then oozed out of the hearing chamber, escorted by the police officer, with the grace of a flushed memory, diffusing his aroma of ethical flexibility. And Paul delivered the closer brilliantly:

“Let the record state that Dr. Fauci will still have the advice of the other half a dozen attorneys that he brought along today.”

Whatever else you think of the hearing, the Senate plumbing worked.

Subscribe now

In Fairness to Gary Peters, Democrat, MI

Sen. Gary Peters, the committee’s ranking Democrat, spoke up and said he would be interested in hearing what attorney Schertler had to say. He was overruled (thank God :-).

But Schertler did eventually get to say it. He told NBC’s Julia Tsirkin afterward: “Dr. Fauci has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege, and he has the right to assert it. That’s what I was trying to tell the committee, and that’s all I was trying to tell the committee.”

That is a perfectly obvious point. Did we need to be reminded, given the circumstances, after the fact? And it took Schertler only eleven seconds to tell Tsirkin that.

A Brief Word About Schertler’s Clientele

Before Fauci, attorney Schertler spent nearly two years representing Nadine Menendez — wife of the former senator, Bob Menendez (D, NJ) who was eventually convicted of accepting gold bars, cash, and a Mercedes-Benz in exchange for political influence.

Schertler withdrew from that case in 2024 after Menendez prosecutors indicated they might call him as a witness. They never did. Nadine’s later attorneys argued this represented government interference with her choice of counsel and that it violated her Sixth Amendment rights. That debate is not our monkey, not our circus, not today at least.

The D2D point is narrower: We’re witnessing a particular kind of practice built around a particular kind of moment.

The moment that Fauci required of Schertler was for this well-greased attorney to explain to We The People - at length, in flatulent, spluttering, unintelligible spurts - why his client should not have to answer the questions being asked by our representatives in the Senate.

Gold bars in the closet. Twenty-one words repeated 111 times. Different clients. Same product.

D2D Take: Everyone is entitled to counsel. That principle is load-bearing, and we will not knock it. But there is a difference between defending Fauci and running interference for him. And the Capitol Police were called for the latter.

Share

On the Name

I’ll say this once, and then let it go: Given the surname, the circumstances, and the internet, I anticipated we’d see a cornucopia of fart jokes last week after Schertler’s gassy and pungent performance. But it seems there was a paucity of them.

D2D is going to rise above it, relatively speaking, and simply note that when an oleaginous attorney is escorted from a Senate chamber for producing unwelcome noises that nobody can quite identify, the material writes itself, and we need only wipe over it with a few fingers for emphasis.

Back to the substance.

Why Attorney Schertler’s Embarrassing Behaviors Matter More Than It Looks

It would be easy to file this under theater. A lawyer got mouthy, a chairman got sharp, security walked him out, the internet had a day.

But watch what actually happened in that exchange, because it is the entire COVID era in ninety seconds.

A doctor witness who previously perjured himself in the Senate will not answer any questions. An attorney retained to explain why he does not have to. A committee that has to physically remove the attorney from the room in order to proceed. And a public that has spent six years realizing that the questions themselves get to the root of our COVID-era problems.

Schertler was not making a legal argument to the Senate committee. He was making one to the cameras — and that argument was supposedly that the asking is illegitimate and uncalled for. That has been the biomedical deep state’s position since 2020. It’s just that it has usually been delivered by the corporate media talking heads who have media credentials rather than a bar card.

On August 6, Senator Paul’s committee voted 8–5 to hold Fauci in contempt. Schertler called the resolution meritless and politically motivated, and said his client has committed no crime.

He is welcome to make that case. And, at least for now, we have a venue for it, if the DOJ decides to prosecute. With a judge randomly chosen, rules of evidence, and a seat reserved for the likes of Scherter et al.

Unfortunately, the proceedings will proceed in Washington D&C; we’re dealing with the swamp corruptocrats; and Trump has said, “Maybe.”

⚡ WHAT YOU CAN DO

🎥 Watch It Yourself — The YouTube clip runs about sixty seconds. Watch it once for the comedy and once for what it tells us about how this decade is being argued.

📄 Read Fauci’s Opening Statement — It is short and worth reading in full. He argues that the questions we have for him are an offense - enough for him to ‘Fifth’ 111 times.

📢 Make the Call — Fauci’s contempt referral is now with the Justice Department. Ask the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro - call (202) 252-7566 - to treat Fauci the same way Bannon and Navarro referrals were treated in response to the J6 events.

🔗 Break the Blackout — Share this post with someone you know who may have watched the clip and laughed out loud, but - thanks to Schertler’s various noises and room-clearing distractions - has no idea what the hearing was actually about.

❤️ Tap the Heart — if you watched the Senate chamber get cleared and felt something like hope.

🔄 Restack it. The clip went viral. Much of the context did not.

🎧 Audio player is at the top.

💬 Speak Up — Six attorneys, 111 refusals, one ejection. Which moment told you the most? Comments are open.

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

Two Polls, One Week Apart

Last Saturday, the Association of Mature American Citizens - yes, they do still exist - asked its readers whether Dr. Anthony Fauci should face prosecution. More than 37,000 members voted. Seventy-eight percent (78%) chose the strongest option on the ballot — the evidence clearly shows the sentiment that Fauci should be prosecuted.

That poll opened two days after the July 29 Senate hearing we spent all last week documenting in the On the Advice of Counsel^TM series.

Understand what that 78% is and isn’t. AMAC is a two-million-member conservative seniors’ organization, and this is a self-selected reader poll, not a probability sample. It does not measure all Americans, about half of whom actually disagree with prosecution, as hard as that is to believe - unless you have a clear understanding of the reality of MSM psyops and mass formation processes (per Dr. Matthias Desmet).

Subscribe now

However, the poll measures something else worth knowing too: at least among mature Americans who show up, the question of Fauci’s accountability and honor appears decided.

PS reminder: Whether Fauci should or will be prosecuted are two different questions. Currently, essentiall 80% say he should but only 40% think he will. That 40% gap - per Polymarket - is not a measure of Anthony Mengele Fauci. It’s a measure of how little trust Americans have left in the justice system that would have to gitter done.

AMACs Question This Week

The same platform is now asking about the threat posed by radical Islam to the United States. More than 35,000 votes. Nearly 600 comments. Ten seconds to vote.

D2D is not telling you how to answer. Here is what you’ll notice instead. The ballot includes whether threats from Islam are “significantly exaggerated by politicians and the media.” And it includes the “largely a moral panic” option. In other words, dissenting answers are available on the ballot - even though so far, zero respondents have chosen either one of them, or they round to nothing.

One Note Before You Click

The poll page carries a photograph of a New York pro-Palestine protest (mostly peaceful, looks like). D2D strives to prosecute only documented conduct and named ideology. Never races/people groups. That discipline does not bend by subject matter, and we try to hold it here.

Share

Thanks to D2D reader and contributor Mitchell Fleisher, MD, DHt, for sending the link.

What You Can Do

🗳️ Remember in November — cast a vote in this week’s question and in last week’s Fauci question. Takes 10 seconds each.

📄 Read the Record — the July 29 hearing transcript and exhibits, documented across On the Advice of Counsel™.

💬 Speak Up — AMAC’s comment threads are open. So are ours. Run the test out loud.

🔗 Break the Blackout — restack this to one person.

❤️ Hit the Heart — 78% is a number worth making louder.

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

Dr. Weissman ran the study Fauci asked for. Three weeks later, he sent the results. Four years after that, he told a reporter his own results were absolutely impossible.

📌 ABOUT THIS SERIES
On the Advice of Counsel™ is an ongoing series on the July 29, 2026 Fauci hearing where Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times. Start with this post, or jump to any installment from the Series Hub (Index) →

Watch the full hearing: YouTube · C-SPAN · Senate Committee page

The Committee Voted

Yesterday morning the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8–5 to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress.

Every Republican voted yes. Every Democrat voted no.

Sen. Rand Paul said the referral would be hand-delivered to the attorney general and to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia yesterday. Whether to charge is up to the Department of Justice. Contempt of Congress carries up to twelve months in prison per count.

Sen. Josh Hawley put the reason plainly. Fauci refused 111 times — not just on gain-of-function funding, but on the color of the carpet, the tie he was wearing, the day of the week, and whether he has a heart for beagles. (I added that last one :-). That, Hawley said, reveals that Fauci’s invocations of the 5th weren’t tailored to anything. It was predetermined, premeditated - designed to evade the committee’s questions on all subjects.

One hundred and eleven refusals. And here is the part that, if my understanding is correct, should bother all of us (including Democrats if they have integrity and consciences): Fauci’s 111 likely amount to only a single count. Contempt is charged per subpoena, not per question — Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro each faced two counts and served four months apiece.

So a witness can stonewall a Senate committee 111 times and face the same twelve-month maximum he’d face for refusing once. The statute never imagined a COVID-era doctor, clearly guilty of crimes against humanity, who would treat an entire Senate hearing as a wall. Too bad each question Fauci refused to answer can’t be counted as a separate count.

Given the plethora of COVID-era atrocities — the fraud, corruption, and coverups — I believe Nemesis would approve of Fauci earning 111 years behind bars in federal prison. What do you think?

Last week I asked a question at the end of Issue #4: Fauci told Drew Weissman it would be interesting to know what happens when the COVID modRNA “vaccine” is given to mice at human dose levels intramuscularly. Weissman said he planned to find out.

Was that study ever run?

It was. And the answer went to Anthony Fauci three weeks later.

March 1, 2021

On March 1, 2021, Weissman emailed Fauci again, a confidential report attached.

“Here is the human dose IM studies in pregnant mice. We still have some concern over the data,” said Weissman.

Read that twice. This is not the hundred-times-overdose intravenous experiment from February. This is the vaccine-equivalent dose, delivered the way it is delivered into your humanoid arm, in pregnant animals. The exact study Fauci said would be “interesting.” Run, completed, and reported within three weeks.

And Weissman, the man who co-invented the modRNA “vaccine” platform, still had “concerns.”

Within the hour, Fauci forwarded the report to the totally non-financially-conflicted - eh-hem; clear throat; cough-cough - former director of the NIH Vaccine Research Center, Dr. John Mascola - pronounced ‘mass cola’.

Here’s what Fauci’s memo to Dr. M said: “Let ussss discusssssssss.” [Sound effects added for emphasis for those listening to the post].

Dr. mass cola then circulated Weissman’s concern and Fauci’s memo to his senior leadership team for review.

Note: Dr. Mascola is involved in a patent ownership conflict with Moderna over the COVID-19 modRNA “vaccine.” Apparently, he is claiming co-inventorship of the “vaccine,” but Moderna is giving him the middle finger, it seems. Despite Mascola’s financial interest in the modRNA technology under threat, maybe a silver lining for Dr. M is his perfect COVID-era last name, including, perhaps, the potential to develop his very own beverage he could call “Mask Cola,” lest we forget.

What Happened Next in Public?

Nothing.

The federal recommendation for vaccination in pregnancy went forward anyway. It went forward through the spring, through the summer, through the mandates. Around 75% of American women completed a primary series of the modRNA jabs before or during their pregnancies. In total, roughly 50 million US women of childbearing age were injected with the genetic materials at least once.

Everybody outside that email chain was ignorant of Weissman’s damning research. That includes you, your daughter, or your granddaughter.

Weissman had told Fauci in February that he was waiting to release the findings, until follow-up studies were complete. The follow-up studies were completed on March 1, 2021.

They were never released.

The Part That Isn’t New

Here is what makes the Fauci-Weissman-Mascolla silence harder to explain rather than easier: none of this was a surprise finding.

In 2013, French researchers published in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine that the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) carrier accumulates in organs including the ovaries. This was eight years before Weissman’s email.

And the pre-clinical regulatory submissions for the COVID-19 “vaccines” themselves — the biodistribution studies handed to regulators before the rollout — showed the same thing: The lipid nanoparticles accumulate in every tissue and organ of our bodies. Ovaries included.

So when the American public is told the COVID-19 modRNA “vaccine” ingredients remain in the deltoid muscle of our arms, three separate bodies of evidence already said otherwise: the 2013 literature, the manufacturers’ own regulatory filings, and the co-inventor’s private correspondence with the director of NIAID.

D2D Take: The stays-in-your-arm claim was not a scientific error later corrected by ‘better data’. ‘Better data’ existed way before these genetic “vaccines” were mass-mandated. The false claim was made over it.

September 2025

Four and a half years later, the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccine workgroup was chaired by MIT professor Retsef Levi. Dr. Levi, who is considered by us COVID-era dissident doctors to be honorable (and unlikely to be a primary sociopath). He raised concerns about the known wide biodistribution and prolonged persistence of the modRNA genetic materal, the known toxicity of the lipid nanoparticles, the COVID-19 spike protein, and around 8 other foreign substances present in the “vaccine” vials..

STAT News asked Weissman to respond to what Dr. Levi’s workgroup was trying to warn us about. And Weissman rejected Levi’s concerns outright saying, “It is absolutely impossible.” The RNA is gone in days. If you put a vaccine-equivalent dose, you see it in the muscle, you see it in the draining lymph node, and that’s about it.”

Turns out, the only thing that stayed at the injection site was Weissman’s lie.

And notice, “Vaccine-equivalent dose.” He chose that phrase deliberately, and it is the precise condition of the study he ran in 2021 — the one whose results he sent to Fauci with the words we still have some concern over the data.

One Weissman statement was for Fauci. The other was for We The People.

Subscribe now

Nothing Says Nobel Prize Like….

Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. The story told about the prizes is that he read a premature obituary calling him the merchant of death, disliked what the world would say about him, and endowed the awards to buy his reputation back.

Historians have never actually located that obituary — but the shape of the story survived because it rings true. A man’s explosive legacy purchased after the fact.

Will any of the COVID-era villains be known as contemporary “merchants of death”? Or will history succeed in reframing them as saints?

Weissman Doesn’t Have Nobel’s Problem. Not Yet, At Least.

He shared the 2023 Nobel Prize in Medicine with Katalin Karikó for the nucleoside modification that made the platform work. The reputation came first.

Over the same period between the private emails and the public certainty, financial disclosures show that BioNTech gave Weissman roughly $2.5 million in support of research in his laboratory.

The documents Sen. Paul released do not explain what changed Weissman’s heart and mind, to make him deny the obvious dangers from the COVID-19 “vaccine’s.” They record only what he knew, when he knew it, and what he said afterward.

Draw your own conclusion.

Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

And The Same Spring, On The Other Side Of NIH

Two months after the Weissman report reached Fauci’s desk, Dr. Avindra Nath at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke sent his institute director a draft paper on patients with neurological symptoms following modRNA vaccination. His finding (we covered on the previous post): early recognition and corticosteroid treatment could reverse them.

Nath had suffered hearing loss himself, from the jab. Another employee had developed tinnitus.

NIH Director Francis Collins called Nath’s approach at research very troubling — not the nerve damage, not the hearing loss in his own investigator. What troubled him was that collecting cases would feed vaccine hesitancy.

Dr. Nath’s paper was rejected by the New England Journal of Medicine. It has never appeared in any journal. But it does survive here, as a preprint.

D2D Take: In the spring of 2021, two important legitimate warnings reached Fauci and others at the top of NIH. One was about the systemic distribution of the modRNA genetic material; one was about injuries from it. Neither warning was disputed. Neither was published. Nobody had to give an order.

The Question That Was Answerable Last Week

Was Weissman’s March 1, 2021 report ever acted on? Who read it? What did Mascola’s leadership team conclude? Why did the federal recommendation for pregnancy proceed unchanged?

Sen. Ron Johnson raised the substance of it at the famous Fauci hearing…hearing the Fifth Amendment repeated ad nausum.

On the advice of counsel, Dr. Fauci “respectfully” declined to answer. And not a single Democrat senator asked Fauci anything.

The Vote On Fauci Being in Contempt of Congress Was 8–5. All Five Democrats Voted No.

That is the part worth sitting with.

Not one Democrat on the committee was willing to say that a witness under subpoena must answer questions about his own emails. Sen. Gary Peters (D, MI) called criminal contempt punitive and warned it would create a damaging precedent weakening the committee’s ability to compel testimony. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D, CT) moved to ask federal prosecutors to grant Fauci immunity in exchange for his testimony — which, to be fair, was the one Democrat motion of the morning that may result in us getting answers rather than preventing them.

The rest was Democrat procedure deployed as a shield. Motions to table. Motions to postpone.

Six years after the lockdowns, the mandates, the school closures and the injuries from the modRNA “vaccines,” the question of whether the man at the center of it should have to answer for what he wrote is now decided by which party you belong to. Not by what the science, the emails, the diary and the phone say.

View the 3-minute CHD video here.

Now we have Fauci’s diary and the acquisition of his government phone. The documents keep arriving. None of the Democrat Senators in that room are disputing a single fact about them. They’re disputing whether Fauci should have to talk to us about them.

Paul’s referral went to the Justice Department yesterday afternoon. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were both charged with contempt of Congress under President Autopen Biden and both were convicted and served months in prison. Whatever you think of those cases, at least they establish the thing that matters here: the wheels of justice can turn when somebody decides to turn them.

So the question is no longer whether Fauci can be held to account. It is whether this Trumpian Justice Department will do what the previous one did, to men it disliked less, to the man holding the preemptive pardon signed by the autopen.

Six years of mass formation says the country will shrug. Six years of documents says it shouldn’t. And the documents don’t get to plead the Fifth.

⚡ WHAT WE CAN DO

📄 Read the Record — The Weissman emails are in Sen Paul’s documents. Read the February 8 and March 1 exchanges yourself, then decide whether they sound like a man with nothing to answer for.

📢 Make the Call and Email (I did) — The referral is now at the Department of Justice. Contact the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Dr. Jeanine Pirro, and urge her to treat Fauci the same way Bannon and Navarro were treated, but to be a lot harsher.

📢 Ask Your Own Senator — If your senator sits on Homeland Security, ask how they voted this morning and why. If they voted no, ask which fact in the Weissman emails they dispute.

📄 Read the Suppressed Paper — Dr. Nath’s preprint is still public. Send it to your doctor and ask him to share it with his favorite neurologist.

🎥 Watch It Yourself — Sen. Johnson’s questioning at the July 29 hearing. Watch what a Fifth Amendment invocation looks like when the document was written by the witness.

🔗 Break the Blackout — Forward this to one family member, friend, or physician who still believes modRNA genetic material stays in the deltoid muscle.

💬 Speak Up — Were you or someone you love vaccinated during pregnancy in 2021? The comments are open.

❤️ If a scientist’s own emails should count as evidence, tap the heart.

🔄 Restack this. Somebody in your network still thinks this question was settled.

🎧 Audio player is at the top — listen on the drive.

🗣️ Comments welcome below. We read every one.

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

“Dude” was an embellishment (in the title), but the rest isn’t. In February 2021, the Nobel laureate who co-invented the mRNA platform sent Fauci his own lab’s data showing spread of the modRNA genetic material beyond the injection site. Two days later, Fauci told the country there were no red flags.

📌 ABOUT THIS SERIES
On the Advice of Counsel™ is an ongoing series on the July 29, 2026 Fauci hearing where Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times. Start with this post, or jump to any installment from the Series Hub (Index) →

Watch the full hearing: YouTube · C-SPAN · Senate Committee page

Subscribe now

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.” Anthony Fauci, repeated ad nauseum, 111 times.

DREW WEISSMAN’S EMAIL

Among the documents Sen. Rand Paul released ahead of the July 29, 2026 Fauci hearing - formally titled the “Testimony of Anthony Fauci” - is a message dated February 8, 2021, from Dr. Drew Weissman to Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Weissman is not a critic. He is one of the two scientists who made the modRNA “vaccine” platform possible — he shared the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Katalin Karikó for the nucleoside modifications (Uridine → N1-methylpseudouridine, m1Ψ) that make these so-called “vaccines” good enough for government use, on us. Every dose administered worldwide runs on their m1Ψ work.

Weissman wrote to alert Fauci to new data he had discovered from his own laboratory, on mice. Working with a maternal-fetal researcher, his team found that the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) and the modRNA genetic material reached the placenta and the fetus, and produced an immune response in the amniotic fluid. And in non-pregnant mice, the particles accumulated in the uterus and ovaries.

And here’s Fauci’s Frankensteinian reply on that same day: “It would be interesting to see what human dose levels given [to the mice] intramuscularly do.

Turns out there were about 270 million American humans (80%) who were jabbed at least once, without mouse data first. A total of 675 million doses in total were administered, and nobody asked.

Fauci might as well have said, “So, bro, let’s skip the mice and my beagle puppies and go directly to jabbing humans.” Okay, as a dog (and human) lover, I added that for enhancement and as a reminder that Fauci and others in his circle of nefarious influencers may well be primary sociopaths, not just narcissists. That is, they may have zero conscience.

Anyway, Fauci’s communication to Weissman is just one of many in this dystopian COVID era. It is also exactly the study Weissman said he wanted to run next.

WHAT THIS IS — AND ISN’T

Precision is what makes this information.

It was a mouse study at that point in time. The particles were delivered intravenously, at roughly one hundred times a human dose — both standard practice in biodistribution work, and both very different from a shot in the deltoid muscle of the arm. Weissman said so himself in the email.

It wasn’t evidence, at that time, that the modRNA crossed the placenta to the fetus of pregnant humans. It didn’t establish, then, that any woman or any pregnancy had been harmed. Anyone telling us differently would be going further than the Weissman document went.

However, the data now clearly demonstrates that the components of these so-called “vaccines” do not remain at the injection site where we humans are jabbed. And the substances certainly do reach the human placenta, the umbilical cord, and the ovaries, where they exert measurable, undesirable changes on cellular regulatory factors.

Please forward this post as a red pill for your blue-pilled, mass-formed, CNN-entranced friend or relative to ask them to finally confront reality and realize that the mRNA “vaccine” platforms have a biological distribution in humans far broader than what is officially being told by the ‘experts’. They’ll see, through their blue lenses, this definitive journal article from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Transplacental transmission of the COVID-19 vaccine messenger RNA: evidence from placental, maternal, and cord blood analyses postvaccination.

What the Weissman mouse research findings established back in 2021 was narrower, but it still needed explanation: Dr. Weissman helped make the modRNA platform possible (along with Robert Malone (early work), Katalin Karikó, and the translational engineers at BioNTech and Moderna). Feeling some twinges of responsibility at that time, apparently, he (Weissman) told the Sad Little Man (Fauci), who was directing the federal response to the COVIDcrisis, that his own lab had watched the particles distribute beyond the site of injection.

So, again, whatever else was true in February 2021, the oft-repeated stays-in-the-arm declaration for the modRNA “vaccines” was already known to be B.S. And the problem was raised in writing, by the person best positioned to raise it, and communicated directly to the diminutive ‘public servant’ who most needed to know, on our behalf.

TWO DAYS LATER

On February 10, 2021, at a White House briefing, Fauci told We the People of the United States of America that there were no red flags regarding these mass-injected genetic materials.

Three weeks after that, a March 2, 2021 NIH email recorded that subject-matter experts — particularly obstetricians — were aware that mRNA might reach the fetus.

But the federal recommendation for vaccination in pregnancy went forward anyway. CDC leadership - Dr. Rochelle Walensky - told us there were no safety concerns and no elevated miscarriage risk.

Were those public statements outright lies? Can’t say for sure. But look again above at what was in Fauci’s inbox two days before he made the first statement, after a heads-up from Weissman, and weigh the plausibility yourself.

Unfortunately, we cannot diagnose primary sociopathy from their countenances.

THE PART THAT SHOULD TROUBLE EVERY PHYSICIAN

Last year, Weissman was asked publicly whether the modRNA and the lipid nanoparticles could travel beyond the injection site and persist in the body. His answer: it was absolutely IMPOSSIBLE, and the RNA is gone in days.

Set that aside from what he wrote privately to Fauci - “The Good Doctor” - four years earlier. Both statements came from the same scientist, about the same technology, from the same laboratory. It’s funny how Weissman’s memory - of his own science - has about the same half-life he claims for the modRNA after it is injected into us.

One Weissman statement was for a colleague. The other Weissman statement was for us.

That gap is the entire subject of this series. It is what Sen. Paul described at the opening of the Fauci hearing — one thing in private, another thing in public — and it is why Fauci can spend three hours refusing 111 times to answer questions about the incriminating documents he wrote himself.

THE QUESTION NOBODY HAS ASKED

Fauci’s reply to Weissman is an important thread, and no one has pulled it.

He knew about the mice, and he then wanted to find out what happens to us when we’re jabbed intramuscularly with the “vaccine” ingredients, at human dose levels. And then Weissman said he planned to find out.

Was that study ever run? If it was, where are the results, and when were they available? If it wasn’t, why not? Even though the cockroach director of the NIAID himself identified this as an interesting question - while the country continued to be forced to be jabbed with the genetic materials.

That question was answerable last week at the “Testimony of Anthony Fauci” hearing. The man who asked it was Fauci himself, seated there at the witness table, under oath, with counsel, claiming the Fifth ad nauseum.

Sen. Ron Johnson raised the substance of it.

On the advice of counsel, Dr. Fauci respectfully declined to answer.

AND THE SAME SPRING

Two months later, in April 2021, a reputable NIH investigator named Dr. Avindra Nath sent his institute director a draft paper on people with neurological problems following the modRNA “vaccinations.” His finding: early recognition and treatment with corticosteroids could reverse the symptoms.

The institute director passed it up with a detail of his own — Nath and another employee had developed tinnitus after their shots, and Nath had suffered hearing loss.

The manuscript went to Fauci and, separately, to NIH Director Francis Collins. Collins then called Dr. Nath’s approach “very troubling”: Collecting “anecdotes” and building a case, he wrote, isn’t scientifically compelling, and would mainly feed vaccine hesitancy and social media overreaction.

Then - like black icing on a tainted cake - the institute’s second-ranking official, Dr. Lawrence Tabak, wrote privately to Collins asking why he hadn’t already shut Dr. Nath’s investigations down. It’s as if Tabak is telling Collins, “Let’s just consider the NIH a daytime soap opera—because Dr. Nath’s lab findings are clearly not what we are hoping for.”

By the way, anecdote is the word financially-conflicted physicians use for a patient nobody wants to count.

Share

And yes — Dr. Nath was describing case reports. ‘Just case reports’. But case reports are what built the cases for stopping thalidomide, Reye’s syndrome, and the Dalkon Shield. They are called anecdotes right up until somebody with integrity, like Dr. Nath, actually counts them, at which point they are called signals which deserve to be reported. Medically ethical. For medical science. What a concept.

Note what troubled Francis Collins and what didn’t. Not the nerve damage. Not the hearing loss in his own investigator (Dr. Nath). What troubled the director of the National Institutes of Health was that someone had written it down and that it could now result in the dreaded curse of vaccine hesitancy - the vaccine cartel’s worst nightmare.

Not surprisingly, the Big-Pharma-funded New England Journal of Medicine rejected Dr. Nath’s paper. So his important toxicological research has never appeared in any journal. This is how COVID-era $cience works. But thankfully, at least Dr. Nath’s findings are still available to us as an unreviewed preprint. And you can find it here, titled Neuropathic symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Bottom line: when NIH leadership discussed research into those of us injured by the COVID-19 modRNA “vaccines,” the concern on the table was political, not clinical - skepticism about these so-called “vaccines” - not the neurological damage from them.

WHAT WEISSMAN’S EMAIL TO FAUCI ADDS UP TO

February 2021: the inventor, Weissman, says the modRNA and lipid nanoparticles travel to distant tissues and organs far beyond the deltoid injection site. April 2021: an investigator, Nath, identifies the neurological injuries and even says they are treatable. Both findings go to the top of NIH. Both are ‘handled ’-by that microcosm of the GACRocracy^TM.

Nobody even has to give an order for this to happen. That’s what makes it worth understanding — and what makes Fauci’s silence, five years later, so much easier to arrange than an answer.

⚡ WHAT YOU CAN DO

✍️ Sign the Petition — Liberty Counsel is petitioning: Demand Congress pursue criminal indictments against Anthony Fauci. It took me four seconds. Sign here. No contribution required. But it’s recommended 🙂.

📢 Make the Call (even if you’re a Democrat) — U.S. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. State the names of your two Senators. The operator will transfer you. One sentence: “I support the Fauci contempt resolution. Please vote yes so that it goes to the full Senate.”

🎥 Watch the Hearing

❤️ Hit the Heart — Fauci answered his colleague in one day. He’s had five years to answer us, but won’t.

💬 Speak Up — Whether physician or patient, were you told that the injection stays at the injection site? Who told you that? What did you tell them?

Leave a comment

A petition worth your time. That’s the whole post.

Subscribe now

We Briefly Interrupt the On the Advice of Counsel™ Series

For something that takes less time than reading this sentence.

Liberty Counsel — the nonprofit litigation firm that has spent the COVID era fighting vaccine mandates in federal court — is circulating this petition:

Demand Congress pursue criminal indictments against Anthony Fauci.

It takes four seconds. There is a place to contribute; it is not required, but highly recommended, and the petition counts either way.

→ Sign it here.

Share

That’s it. That’s the post.

On July 29, 2026, we watched the man, Dr. Anthony Fauci. He’s supposed to be the honorable pubic servant for We The People. But he refused - “respectfully declined” - to answer more than a hundred critically important COVID-era questions from the eight Republican senators at the hearing. And the five Democratic senators present declined to ask Fauci a single thing: Not one question from the Fauci Five^TM.

The lesson some readers took from the congressional event is that nothing can be done.

Here is four seconds’ worth of evidence to the contrary.

Our thanks to D2D reader and contributor Dr. Avery Brinkley, MD, who flagged this petition. This is what the D2D network is for.

⚡ WHAT YOU CAN DO

✍️ Sign the Petition — Demand Congress pursue criminal indictments against Anthony Fauci. It took me four seconds. Sign here. No contribution required, but encouraged 🙂.

🔗 Break the MSM Blackout — Forward this post to one person. That’s one second.

❤️ Hit the Heart — Cheaper than a stamp, and it still counts.

📢 Make the Call (even if you’re a Democrat) — U.S. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. State the names of your two Senators. Operator will transfer you. One sentence: “I support the Fauci contempt resolution. Please vote yes so that it goes to the full Senate.”

Leave a comment

📌 ABOUT THIS SERIES
On the Advice of Counsel™ is an ongoing series on the July 29, 2026 Fauci hearing where Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times. Start with this post, or jump to any installment from the Series Hub (Index) →

Watch the full hearing: YouTube · C-SPAN · Senate Committee page

Subscribe now

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.” Anthony Fauci (ad nauseum >100 times)

THE TALLY

Eight Republican senators asked Dr. Anthony Fauci more than a hundred questions. He refused to answer every one.

This witness is probably the most shameful and disgraced COVID-era personality. There he sat, shaking, under subpoena, under oath, about the pandemic that killed more than a million Americans, with many of the families watching him shake while still refusing to answer to us.

The five Democrat senators asked Fauci zero questions. Not one. Not a single question. From a single Democrat. Not even something simple and light, like, “Dr. Fauci, in your expert opinion, if a vampire sneezes, does it spread your COVID-19 virus, or is that just a myth?

GARY PETERS IS WORTH PAUSING ON

In his own opening, the Democrat senator from Michigan reminded the room that when he chaired this same committee, he and Sen. Rand Paul, R (KY) jointly launched a bipartisan biosecurity investigation covering the risky research and the origins of COVID-19 — because, he said, the work would be stronger done together.

Bipartisan efforts! How endearing!

Six years later, it’s the same subject, the same room, the same two senators. This time Peters brought no questions about the risky ramifications of Dr. Anthony Fauci and his ‘leadership’. What’s up with that, Senator?

SHE SAID IT OUT LOUD

Sen. Hassan opened by thanking Dr. Fauci for more than fifty years of service and calling the proceeding an attempt to entrap him.

Then she said this: that she was going to ask him a series of questions about matters relevant right now to the people of the United States. She was going to. She didn’t. She spent the rest of her time blasting the Trump administration, and then yielded.

Senator Hassan, there was a man sitting ten feet in front of you who spent 38 years running the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, now under subpoena, sworn, with counsel. If you had questions worth asking on behalf of We The People - about our ‘public health’ - he was the most qualified person in the arena to be asked. Why didn’t you ask him any questions, Senator?

A SENATOR MOODY MADE THIS ARGUMENT FROM THE DAIS

Sen. Ashley Moody, R (FL) cataloged it in real time, near the end of the hearing.

One Democrat senator, she reminded us, claimed that the hearing does damage and would deter people from ‘public service’. D2D note: We hope it will deter primary sociopaths from ‘public service.’ Another Democrat (Hassan, above) said it was designed to entrap the witness. Another (Andy Kim from NJ) thanked Fauci repeatedly and quoted Man in the Arena, comparing him to that man.

And Senator Moody’s conclusion of the Democrats in this arena: “all of their time was used on why the hearing should not be happening.” That’s not our analysis. That’s the sitting senator, on the record, describing what she had just watched.

ABOUT SENATOR FETTERMAN

Fetterman belongs in the zero column. He asked nothing. But at least he didn’t do what the other four did.

He spoke about members of his own family who died of COVID, and about people he’d met who lost businesses they will never get back. Fetterman was PA’s ‘diversity’ and ‘color-inclusive’ Lieutenant Governor at the time and said plainly during the hearing that he “wasn’t sure” his Democrat colleagues got it right.

Fetterman isn’t sure they got it right. But the 8 Republican senators all read the Fauci diary and were sure they got it right.

Then he said the thing nobody else on his side said all day: that early on, the lab-leak theory had seemed to make sense to him, that it got coded as a right-wing idea, and that he regrets having let partisanship blind him to it. He hoped that next time, the country would follow the truth wherever it came from.

That is not a defense. That is a Democrat man from PA thinking out loud in public, which is rarer than any courage we witnessed amongst the other Democrat senators in the room. Let’s take it. And say so.

WHAT THIS PROVES — AND WHAT IT DOESN’T

Five Democrat United States senators, sitting on the committee of jurisdiction, with the subpoenaed witness in front of them and the floor for as long as they wanted it, decided ahead of time that there was nothing worth asking Fauci.

Not about the gain-of-function funding. Not about the deleted federal records. Not about the cash awards solicited by federal employees while Americans were dying. Not about the email Nobel laureate, Drew Weissman, MD, sent Fauci in February 2021, warning that the COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” content crosses into fetal tissue. Not about the emails in which NIH’s second-ranking (presumably sociopathic) official asked why the agency’s own research into the COVID-19 modRNA “vaccine” injuries hadn’t been shut down by then. Not about the six-foot rule Fauci later admitted had no science behind it. Not about the royalties he receives. Not about the schools he helped shut down.

Not one question about any of it…from the 5 Democrats.

And none of it is finished. The injured are still being told it’s in their heads. The children who lost two years of school can’t get them back. Many businesses did not reopen. The people who were kept out of hospital rooms while their mothers and fathers died are still the people who were kept out of hospital rooms while their mothers and fathers died. This is not just history. It is a condition. Millions of Americans are still living inside it. But these 5 Democrat senators are pretending they don’t perceive it.

The senators weren’t silent. They used the floor — to thank Fauci, to defend him, to explain why the hearing shouldn’t have been convened at all. Fauci and the five made statements and then remained silent. Total silence would have been easier to explain.

At best, that is a failure of judgment on a scale this committee needs to answer for. At worst, the ‘Fauci Five’ are now complicit in Fauci’s crimes against humanity, having coordinated to run interference and exhibit dereliction of their duties, fail oversight, and choose institutional, bureaucratic loyalty over their sworn public duties - to us.

It was a choice they each made, with the damage still running - made with the most notorious witness in America sitting ten feet away, sworn, under subpoena, and willing to say nothing at all.

WHAT’S LEFT

Something is left, and it isn’t nothing.

More than a hundred questions now sit in the Congressional Record, unanswered, under oath, permanently. Every one of them survives the 5 Democrat senators who are choosing not to ask Fauci anything.

The questions don’t expire. Neither does this record of who declined to ask them.

The contempt vote is on the calendar for next week.

⚡ WHAT YOU CAN DO

📢 Make the Calls (even if you’re a Democrat):

1. U.S. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. State the names of your two Senators. The operator will transfer you. One sentence: “I support the Fauci contempt resolution. Please vote yes so that it goes to the full Senate.”

2. If Blumenthal, Fetterman, Hassan, Kim, or Peters is supposed to be representing you, call and ask one thing: Why didn’t you f*cking ask Fauci any questions, mo-fo? Be polite. Be civil. Be specific. Get the staffer’s name.

🎥 Watch It Yourself — Don’t take our tally on faith. Watch all five rounds and count. It takes about three hours, but it’s worth it.

❤️ Hit the Heart — Five senators had a hundred chances to ask something. You get one click.

🗳️ Remember Blumenthal (CT) in November — He’s up for Connecticutians’ vote. Question for them: Do you still really want someone to represent you who won’t question Anthony Fauci? PS: We the People are stuck with Fetterman, Hassan, Kim, and Peters until 2028.

Leave a comment

Share

Fauci declined to answer more than a hundred times - “On the advice of counsel.” Then Chairman Paul put a contempt resolution on next week’s Senate calendar. Here is what that can do — and what it can’t.

Watch the full 3-hour hearing: YouTube · C-SPAN · Senate Committee page

📌 ABOUT THIS SERIES

On the Advice of Counsel™ is an ongoing series on the July 29, 2026 Fauci hearing where Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times. Start with this post, or jump to any installment from the Series Hub (Index) →

He Was Still in the Chair

Nearly three hours had produced that one sentence, delivered more than a hundred times, read off a card each time. Then, before the room emptied, Chairman Rand Paul said the thing that converts a hearing into a proceeding.

The committee, he announced, has scheduled a vote next week on a resolution certifying Dr. Fauci’s contempt.

Not we will consider it. Not we may refer this. Scheduled.

Subscribe now

The Record Was Built On Purpose

Watch what Paul did in the first ten minutes, and the vote stops looking like temper.

He placed a red folder on the witness table containing a printout of 2 U.S.C. § 192 — the statute making it a crime for subpoenaed Congressional witnesses to refuse questions pertinent to the inquiry. Paul asked Fauci whether the folder was there in front of him. Fauci claimed the Fifth. He then read the presidential (auto-penned) pardon into the record: full and unconditional, dated January 19, 2025, reaching back to January 1, 2014. He asked whether Fauci had refused it, or believed it still required him to plead the Fifth. Fauci ‘Fifthed’ again.

Then the sentence that matters more than any of the questions:

“The chairman has denied your assertion of privilege and directed you to answer.”

Fifth. And again. And roughly a hundred more times, through the many important questions asked by Senators Johnson, Lankford, Scott, Hawley, Moreno, Ernst, and Moody.

Every one of those steps is a box on a form. The form is § 192. A witness must be asked a pertinent question, must refuse, must be directed by the chair to answer, and must refuse again. All four boxes are checked, on video, under oath.

D2D Take: The theatrics got the coverage. The paperwork is what will matter in a year (let’s hope sooner).

📋 SIDEBAR — THE LADDER

Rung 1 — Criminal contempt. 2 U.S.C. § 192. Committee vote, then full Senate. Certified to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. under § 194. A misdemeanor: up to twelve months in prison, plus a fine.
Rung 2 — Civil enforcement. 2 U.S.C. § 288d. The Senate directs its Legal Counsel to sue for a court order compelling testimony. This is the rung that puts the pardon question in front of a federal judge— which is exactly what Paul has said he wants.
Rung 3 — Immunity. 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002–6005. A two-thirds committee vote and a court order extinguish the privilege of the 5th Amendment outright, allowing the government to compel testimony. Refusal afterward is coercive contempt.

Next week’s vote is Rung 1 only. Anyone telling you a jail cell is imminent is skipping two rungs and a courthouse.

Share

Two theories, Not One

Most coverage has fixated on the Biden (autopen) pardon. There are actually two independent arguments that Fauci had no privilege to assert, and the second is the stronger one.

The pardon theory. Sen. Hawley put it on the record by name: Brown v. Walker, 1896 — when a witness has been pardoned, he may not stand upon his privilege of 5th Amendment rights. No prosecution possible, no self-incrimination possible, no privilege.

The waiver theory. Sen. Lankford raised it at the very end, and it’s cleaner. Lois Lerner gave an opening statement to a House committee in 2013 and then took the Fifth. She was held in contempt precisely because you cannot do both — testify, then refuse questions. Fauci delivered a three-paragraph opening statement under oath before invoking anything.

The waiver theory doesn’t require litigating whether a pardon strips a constitutional privilege. It only requires that he opened his mouth first, which he did.

D2D Take: His attorneys prepared for the pardon fight. It isn’t obvious they prepared for the opening statement.

The Honest Forecast

We are not going to tell you Fauci is going to prison.

Rung 1 ends at the Department of Justice, and DOJ decides whether to charge for criminal contempt. Congressional contempt referrals die there routinely, under both parties. Can you imagine Fauci’s criminally contemptuous actions escaping justice at rung #1?

Rung 2 is slower than it sounds. The full Senate has to vote, and then a federal judge has to agree. Federal Judges have not been friendly to the Fauci ‘file.’ And Fauci’s lawyers are not bluffing. Here is their argument in plain English: A presidential pardon covers federal crimes. It cannot reach a state prosecutor.

Seventeen state attorneys general have already announced that Biden’s pardon does not bind them. That matters because of a 1964 Supreme Court decision, Murphy v. Waterfront Commission. The rule is simple: you may refuse to answer a question in a FEDERAL proceeding if a truthful answer could get you charged by a STATE.

The pardon closed the federal door. Murphy says the state door is still open — and as long as one door is open, the Fifth Amendment still works. So this is not a dodge, though it looks like one. It is real law, and it is the strongest card Fauci holds.

Now the bitter part. The state attorneys general already came after Fauci to increase his exposure. In doing so, they handed him the one thing he needed to stay silent.

So the sober forecast is…a wrist slap, or nothing.

And yet. For the first time, the machinery is moving in the right direction. The subpoena of Fauci was enforced by court order. He appeared under compulsion. A privilege was formally denied on the record.

A contempt resolution has a date on it. More than a hundred questions from the Republican senators now sit in the Congressional Record, unanswered, permanently, under oath — about gain-of-function funding, about deleted federal records, about cash awards solicited with federal employees, about fifteen million dead.

Silence is not acquittal. It is a procedural posture. The receipts don’t take the Fifth.

Next Up

The vote is on the calendar. Between now and then, every member of that committee is reachable — including the five Democrat senators who sat through three hours and never asked the witness a single question.

That’s the next installment.

⚡ WHAT YOU CAN DO

📢 Make the Call (even if you’re a Democrat) — U.S. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. State the names of your two Senators. Operator will transfer you. One sentence: “I support the Fauci contempt resolution. Please vote yes so that it goes to the full Senate.”

📄 Read the Record — 2 U.S.C. § 192 and § 194 - only about four hundred words combined. Read the statute Fauci wouldn’t confirm was sitting in front of him.

🎥 Watch It Yourself — Paul’s directive and the folder exchange land in the first fifteen minutes of questioning.

🔗 Break the Blackout — Most outlets report that Fauci pled the Fifth. Far fewer report that a contempt-of-Congress vote is already scheduled. Fix that.

❤️ Hit the Heart — He had a hundred chances to say something. You get one click.

Leave a comment

📌 ABOUT THIS SERIES
Every installment of On the Advice of Counsel™ examines the July 29, 2026 Senate Homeland Security hearing, where Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times. Watch the full hearing: YouTube · C-SPAN · Senate Committee page

Start here at the Hub, bookmark it, and jump to any installment from the Index below.

One Sentence, More Than One Hundred Times

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.” Anthony Fauci

He read it off a card. Every time. Ad nauseum and ultimately, Ad iracundiam. He read it when asked whether American inspectors had ever set foot in the Wuhan lab. He read it when asked whether he’d changed his mind about gain-of-function research since fifteen million people died. He read it when Sen. Hawley asked what color the carpet was.

And he read it when Sen. Paul asked whether there was a folder on the table in front of him — a folder containing a printout of 2 U.S.C. § 192, the statute that makes refusing to answer Congress a crime.

Senator Paul: “Let the record state that the witness has refused to answer whether there is a folder in front of him.”

Subscribe now

THE INDEX

This page updates with every installment. Bookmark it.

PUBLISHED:

Issue #1 — Series Hub: this post

Issue #2 — The Contempt Vote They Scheduled Before Fauci Left the Hearing Room

Issue #3 — Zero Questions: Eight Republican senators asked Fauci more than 100. The five Democrat senators asked zero.

Issue #4 — Weissman To Fauci: The modRNA Doesn’t Stay In Your Arm, Dude!

Issue #5 — Drew Weissman Discovered the COVID-19 modRNA Harms, Then Said That It Is Impossible

Issue #6 — Schertler’s Loud Exit: The Fauci Lawyer Who Got the Senatorial Flush

Issue #7 — Four Months Prison for Bannon & Navarro. What for Fauci? Trump says “Maybe”!

Issue #8 — The Fauci Discovery Problem: The narrowest possible charge is the one nobody wants to file

Issue #9 — To Every Woman Who Was Pregnant in 2021: Here’s what Fauci was told on day 1. Here’s what he told you on day 9.

IN PRODUCTION:

Issue #10 —

ALSO COMING

The red folder and the Lerner waiver · The Dan David Award · Bill Gates’s security clearance · Fauci’s “Please delete this email after you read it” · The six-foot rule that sort of just appeared and disappeared (like DEI and the climate crisis hysteria) · The media blackout audit · The silence of the medical societies · What’s It Gonna Take? (Van Morrison capstone)

Why the Series, “On the Advice of Counsel™”

Because one post cannot hold it all.

• Three hours produced a Nobel laureate’s February 2020 email to Fauci about mRNA-lipid nanoparticles crossing into fetal tissue.

• A $900,000 cash prize for Fauci solicited on federal time by eight federal employees.

• Dr. Lawrence Tabak asked then-NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins why nobody would shut down NIH’s research into the COVID-19 modRNA “vaccine”-injured.

• Bill Gates held a CIA security clearance from 2014 to 2021.

• CIA funds transferred to NIH.

• A pardon reaching back to precisely the year NIAID began funding EcoHealth’s bat coronavirus work.

And underneath all of it, the thing almost nobody is reporting: Five Democrat senators spoke during the Fauci hearing, and not one of them asked the witness a single question. They thanked Fauci. They read Teddy Roosevelt aloud to him. They entered his lawyer’s letter into the record after Chairman Paul had to have security remove that lawyer physically from the hearing room.

What This Series Is Not

It is not a victory lap. Nothing has been won. A contempt vote is scheduled, a presidential (auto-pen) pardon has never been tested in court, and the people who lost jobs, businesses, parents, and children got no apology during the July 29, 2026 hearings — Senator Paul asked Fauci for one in his opening, Moreno asked six times in a row, Scott asked, Ernst asked. Nothing from Fauci - except he “respectfully declined” ”on the advise of counsel” - that would be Mr. David Schertler and 5 other attorneys - to answer based upon his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

It is also not a doom loop. The architecture is real, and it has not closed. More than a hundred questions now sit in the Congressional Record, unanswered, under oath, permanently. That is a foundation.

We will prosecute the documented behavior and name the institutions. We will hold the people we agree with to the same standard as the people we don’t — including Sen. Fetterman (D, PA), who, like his Democrat colleagues, asked Fauci no questions, but who at least said out loud that partisanship had blinded him on the lab-leak question and that he regretted it. Credit where it’s earned.

Share

⚡ WHAT YOU CAN DO

🎥 Watch Fauci Hearing Yourself — Don’t take our word for any of it. The full hearing is linked above.

🔖 Bookmark This Page — New installments will land here first.

🔗 Break the Blackout — Forward this to one person who still thinks this hearing was just about Anthony Fauci’s reputation.

❤️ Hit the Heart — He wouldn’t answer. You can.

💬 Speak Up — Were you fired, shamed, injured, or told to stay quiet? Tell us in the comments. Some of you will end up in this series.

Leave a comment

Seven scientists requested an investigation in February 2022 into why Moderna’s 2016-patented gene sequence appeared in the COVID-19 virus. Does Fauci admit to knowing this? Why didn’t anybody ever run the check? Will Senator Paul ask Fauci these questions?

Fauci Testifies This Morning

The committee’s notice lists 8:30 a.m. ET.

• Children’s Health Defense TV — Live Coverage: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/fauci-hearing-live-coverage/

• C-SPAN Networks: https://www.c-span.org/networks/

Yesterday I published a brief on what we can listen for: The COVID-era Reckoning Has a Start Time: Tomorrow at 8:30 AM. Two hours later, I discovered that John Leake published a better question than any of mine — and you should have it before the gavel.

🔗 Senator Paul Should Ask Fauci Why Moderna’s 2016 Patented Gene Sequence Turned Up in SARS-CoV-2— Courageous Discourse with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake

The Finding

February 21, 2022. Frontiers in Virology published a peer-reviewed paper by seven scientists. Lead author: Dr. Bala Ambati. Among the co-authors: Giorgio Palù, former president of the Italian Medicines Agency, and Kenneth Lundstrom, with thirty years in virology.

They report that a 19-nucleotide stretch of the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) genome is a 100% match to a sequence Moderna patented in 2016 — US Patent 9,587,003.

That stretch is not a random piece of the genome. It contains the furin cleavage site: the feature that lets this virus dock onto your lung tissue. It is the characteristic that made the virus dangerous to us humans.

The nucleotide stretch is not similar. It is identical. The authors put the probability that the match arose by chance at 1 in 3.21 trillion.

Subscribe now

What 1 in 3.2 Trillion Is — And What It Isn’t

Take every person alive on Earth today - that’s 8.3 billion. Now do that four hundred times over: Four hundred Earths’ worth of people. Imagine exactly one of them still has the COVID-19 modRNA “vaccine” syringe dangling from his deltoid.

Blindfold yourself and then try to find him. First try, no do-overs. It’s a needle in a haystack — except this time the needle is real, and the haystack is four hundred planets. And that’s 1 in 3.21 trillion odds.

Dr. Ambati himself has said the match could be a random chance. So could finding one special needle in a haystack. So he wanted to prompt further study.

So: a number that size proves nothing on its own. I get it. But given the implications, it is more than enough to justify one afternoon in one laboratory.

Nobody has spent the afternoon.

The Building Analogy

An architect creates and files a blueprint for an exquisitely complex house. Four years later, a contractor puts up a structure that matches the filed blueprint exactly — down to the last detail. The contractor says he’s never seen the blueprint. Maybe he hasn’t, but odds are he has.

And when seven licensed architects file a formal request for review, but the county puts it in a drawer, and four and a half years later nobody has opened the drawer — at some point the question stops being just about the moral integrity of the contractor.

Share

What Overwhelming Evidence is Actually Worth

In 1995, in the OJ Simpson case, Cellmark laboratory director Robin Cotton testified that the blood found on the walkway at Bundy Drive matched O.J. Simpson’s profile, and could have come from only one person out of 170 million.

The prosecution put on 108 exhibits of DNA evidence. Sixty-one drops of blood. Three separate laboratories, different tests, cross-validated, no discrepancies found. They offered the defense the samples to test independently. The defense declined to test them.

Ultimately, OJ Simpson was acquitted, but in both cases — Simpson’s and Moderna’s — they measure the same thing: the chance of a match arising at random. And the odds of the Moderna-COVID-19 genetic sequence being in the COVID-19 virus are roughly nineteen thousand times higher than the odds of that blood being OJ’s blood.

The Simpson evidence was on trial. Nine months of it. Three labs. Weeks of cross-examination. The system looked, exhaustively and in public, and returned a verdict that most of us found to be ridiculously indefensible.

And yet this Moderna vaccine-COVID-19 virus link has never been examined by anyone. No hearing. No inquiry. No laboratory asked to replicate it or bury it.

O.J. Simpson at least got a trial. This Moderna-COVID-19 horror got a shrug.

Why Nobody Looked

Leake personally carried this matter to Senator Paul and former CDC Director Robert Redfield. Both had heard of it. Neither was curious. He sent the paper to Paul’s staff and never received a reply. Why?

Bandwidth? A Senate office drowns in claims, and the filter that screens out noise cannot tell the signal from the noise.

Domain distance? Paul is an ophthalmologist, Redfield a virologist. This is bioinformatics and probability theory — adjacent to both, native to neither.

Possibly discipline? Paul is building a gain-of-function case he can prove with documents and testimony. A careful prosecutor doesn’t let a contested item contaminate a provable one. That may be competence rather than indifference.

Saturation? Six years in, the marginal revelation lands on exhausted ground.

And the structural reason nobody says out loud: the scientists competent to settle this question are funded by the agency that would be examined. The referee is on the payroll of one of the teams. That requires no conspiracy — only ordinary self-interest working exactly as designed. (“Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”).

Or the most mundane possibility of all: he emailed a staffer. The staffer is twenty-six years old and drowning. It may never have reached the Senator’s desk.

I don’t know which it is. Here is why it may not matter: every one of those explanations produces the identical outcome, and every one of them is cured by the identical action.

Somebody runs the check and publishes the result.

Four and a half years is long enough to establish that nobody intends to.

The Question

Fauci would (or will?) say he cannot answer how the Moderna sequence ended up in the COVID-19 virus. “It’s not my patent and not my company” - AKA, “not my monkey, not my circus!” Ask him that, and he'll probably say “I have no idea” in four seconds and move on. Or “I plead the Fifth” - ad nauseum.

But NIAID had been collaborating with Moderna on coronavirus vaccine development since 2015. NIAID was Fauci’s agency. So the question isn’t just how the Moderna sequence got into the virus.

It’s whether anyone at NIAID ever looked into it after that paper was published in February 2022 — and if not, why not.

“We looked” invites the follow-up. “We didn’t” is the story.

Senator Paul has the gavel this morning, and the witness - the tiny tyrannical “America’s Doctor” - is under oath.

The Senator could ask. Let’s hope he does. Because it seems like this is the most important smoking gun of this COVID-era.

Thank you, John Leake, for the reporting and the documentation. Read his piece in full at Courageous Discourse.

❤️ If you think somebody should have run this check by now, tap the heart.

🔄 Restack this before the gavel knocks in a few hours.

🎧 Listening on the way in? The audio player is at the top.

🗣️ Watching this morning? Comments are open. Tell us what you hear.

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

EDITOR’S NOTE — added a few hours after publication: This post went out earlier today. Not long after, I saw an email from John Leake, who published an important question he’d like Senator Paul to put to Fauci at the hearing — and it’s possibly the most important question that Fauci can be asked: Why did Moderna’s 2016 Patented Gene Sequence Turn Up in the SARS-CoV-2 virus in 2020? I’m leaving this post as written and following up with a separate brief tomorrow morning, before the Senate gavel sounds. Leake’s piece is here, and it deserves our time.

Tomorrow morning Anthony Fauci lies testifies under subpoena. Here’s where to watch — and what we can listen for.

Anthony Fauci Will Raise His Right Paw Hand in Dirksen SD-342 Tomorrow

Not voluntarily. He was invited to testify. He agreed. Then he quietly slithered back into his hole backed out. So Senator Rand Paul — fellow physician, committee chairman, and the man Fauci once described in an official email as an “asshole, ”followed by “please delete this e-mail after you read it” — issued a subpoena and set the historic date for tomorrow: July 29, 2026.

The architect of America’s pandemic response hasn’t faced Congress for about 2 years (since June 2024). Six years of the COVID era have produced document dumps, retractions, quiet corrections, and an ocean of testimony from everyone except the man at the center of it — answering, on the record, under oath, to a chairman who is himself an MD and has actually read the Fauci files and shared them with us.

Tomorrow is the moment. The rat trap is cocked. Let’s watch it!

Where and Where to Watch

1. Children’s Health Defense TV — Fauci Hearing Live Coverage:

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/fauci-hearing-live-coverage/

2. C-SPAN:

https://www.c-span.org/networks/

Start time: the committee’s official notice lists 8:30 a.m. ET; several outlets are reporting 10:00 a.m. ET. But the committee page says 8:30 AM.

Subscribe now

Why This Whip-Crack Surprise Hearing Will Be Different

Since his last Senate shame parade hearing, Fauci carries a preemptive pardon signed by Joe “Autopen” Biden on his last day in office. That pardon covers conduct up to the day it was signed. It does not cover a single thing he says tomorrow.

Every stinking lie answer given under oath during tomorrow’s extra crispy roast session event is a fresh legal act carrying fresh legal exposure.

Senator Paul spent the weekend releasing Fauci’s personal diary entries spanning December 2019 through December 2022 — the full arc of the pandemic reign, which is why the questions will be as deliciously entertaining engaging as the answers.

Seven Minutes of RFK, Jr, and Worth Every One of Them

HHS Secretary RFK Jr. spent Monday night on national television with Laura Ingram describing what’s in the Fauci files: A human cockroach man cataloguing his own celebrity while We The People were forced to be jabbed with the COVID-19 modRNA “vaccine” genetic materials; told what we could and could not use to treat the infections; and instructed on what we were allowed to say about where the disease came from.

Watch here: www.foxnews.com/media/rfk-jr-says-fauci-prioritized-getting-tv-over-public-health-after-revealing-diary-release

PS: Anyone who believes leftist corporate media calling the HHS Secretary “worm-brained“ and “disengaged” should watch the interview and then explain themselves. (Our own assessment of what one Secretary can and cannot do inside the captured HHS system is here: https://dutytodissent.substack.com/p/rfk-jr-cant-do-what-he-promised-hes)

What We Can Listen For

Our tax dollars routed to Wuhan, China for the gain-of-function research necessary to create the COVID-19 virus and “vaccines,” from which Fauci et al profited handsomely. The manufacture of the “proximal origin” fraud. Deleted federal records. And the questions no senator is obligated to ask but every American should:

If the mRNA/modRNA platform is so safe, why did Fauci get a pulmonary embolism (PE) from it? Why did he hide that from We the People? And why is CDC still writing contracts for the Frankensteinian technology?

On June 1, 2026, CDC awarded Pfizer two more contracts with a combined ceiling of roughly $1.24 billion for pediatric and adult modRNA COVID injections covering FY2026–2027 — about $735.7 million of it earmarked for children.

Explain why the framework and platform exist at all.

Share

mRNA/ModRNA Moratorium Petition

If the Pfizer financing above bothers you, do something with it — read, sign and share the mRNA/modRNA moratorium petition:

Sign: www.change.org/p/we-the-people-demand-a-moratorium-on-mass-deployed-mrna-modrna-gene-therapy-products

And someday — not tomorrow, but someday — we would like to hear a certain US president say eleven words out loud: “Operation Warp Speed was a catastrophe. I was duped by Fauci-the-Rat and Scarf Lady. I’m sorry.”

One Ask

Forward this. Restack it. Text it to the relative who spent 2021 telling you to shut up and trust the science.

Tomorrow, we can all watch “The Science” take questions.

❤️ Six years of waiting for one morning. Tap the heart so it doesn’t get ignored.

🔄 Restack it before the gavel. A friend or family member in your network still has no idea this is happening.

🗣️ Comments welcome. We read every one.

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up!

Part I asks us to refuse the reflex to extinguish the 4% of humans who are primary sociopaths. Part II shows us the machinery — how the 96% of us with consciences get recruited to run what the other 4% design. Which leaves the most primordial question of all, and it was raised in the comments on the foundational post for this three-part series, titled Do We Have a Sociopathic Culture?.

If we can now explain a great deal of what we have always called ‘evil’ in clinical terms — a heritable absence of conscience in the relatively small fraction of humans, the 4% — then what happens to ‘evil’? Is our supernatural idea of evil a Bio-illogical™ guess at something that is, in fact, Bio-logical™ — inherited, in the flesh?

Which raises the question this installment is really about: Is the devil a diagnosis?

D2D readers pressed this from four directions in their comments to the original question, and their objections are really one objection.

The Colloquy

One correspondent I respect in many ways — a physician on a separate platform of COVID-era dissident doctors and scientists — answered “Do We Have a Sociopathic Culture?“ with a serious objection:

Our natural rights, he argued, are not conventions to be revised at anyone’s pleasure. And the only real protection against the man who believes he is a god is our belief in the God who authored human dignity in the first place. Strip that away and, plausibly, nothing stands between us and a return to barbarism.

I agree entirely. Though I’d note that this correspondent’s sword cuts both ways: the man certain his god sanctions his cause - his Isms - can become the very self-appointed god he is warning us about. We’re focusing on primary and secondary sociopathy, but self-righteousness is also an ancient permission for cruelty.

Nonetheless, the doctor makes a strong argument, and it should be sharpened because there is a harder version of the problem sitting just underneath his: There are people who don’t believe natural rights are real to begin with.

Not the ethical persuasion that “The COVID-era deep-staters stole our rights” — but the unethical one: “There were never any rights to take to begin with; those are just comforting stories that we tell ourselves continuously.”

Once dignity becomes just a fiction we agreed to, it can be un-agreed to. And then my correspondent’s fear isn’t hypothetical. It’s discourse in the Overton Window destined to become unthinkable policy.

Our reader named Jack Dresden came at it from the other side of the same coin. My framework, he observed, is fundamentally materialist — biological circumstance determining moral reality. But in the biblical account we are all fallen, in degrees; the Law was given precisely because all human nature requires boundaries. Without an accurate spiritual analysis, he wrote, no amount of investigation arrives at a complete understanding of conscience.

Dave Scrimshaw brought the text itself: “Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Timothy 4:2). Notice ‘conscience’ in the ancient script, well before science now tells us it is absent in 4%.

And David 1260 said the first essay reframed his thinking from “Evil” to sociopathy, and he asked the question that organizes this entire installment: “At the same time, though, I see the contemporary world as a spiritual battle with the powers of Evil. Is it possible to hold those two views simultaneously?”

I think so. And here is why.

Subscribe now

Clever Men Invented the Gods

Around 400 BC, someone wrote a remarkable piece of theater. A fragment survives — forty-two lines quoted by Sextus Empiricus, who attributes it to Critias, an Athenian oligarch.

The speaker says that in the beginning human life was lawless and brutish, so men invented laws and punishments to restrain open violence. Let’s be reminded, from anthropology and archaeology, that humans have, from the start, lived as inherently tribal beings organized in kin-based groups rather than as isolated individuals.

But laws can only reach crimes committed by us (inherently tribal) beings in the open. And men still do wrong in secret. So plausibly, shrewd and clever men invented the gods long ago — beings who see everything, who hear every whisper, who know the thoughts of our hearts — precisely so that wrongdoers amongst us - whether primary sociopaths, or a portion of the 96% behaving sociopathically (secondarily, per Milgram experiments) - will fear being watched even when no one is watching.

This sounds familiar. Swap the all-seeing gods for the all-seeing lenses here in the COVID era — the Flock cameras on the corners, the traffic cameras, the license readers, the feeds nobody wants to admit are recording — and the machine seems identical.

But the eyes that watch everyone will control and discipline the people who are already behaving. The 4% architects aren’t afraid of the cameras. They build them.

(Featured on Tucker Carlson Books)

Twenty-four centuries ago, someone worked out that religious fear and terror could be engineered as a behavioral control system. And here is the paradox, the thing that has been sitting in that fragment the whole time.

The fear of the all-seeing eye works on the man who already feels guilty. It works on the 96% of us — the people who already don’t want to steal, who already flinch at the notion of mankind being mass-injected by modRNA, who lie awake over things nobody ever discovered. It does little or nothing whatsoever to the 4%, who feel no guilt to amplify and fear no gods they don’t believe are watching or don’t care if they are.

And notice the second turn, sharper than the first: the men who invent the watching gods are not themselves afraid of them. They know it’s a device. They are outside the fear machine they build. This is not a metaphor for the conscienceless. It is a description. Have you ever perceived one or more of them? Probably not, unless you are looking for them.

D2D Take: Perhaps every priesthood since Critias — and long before him — has aimed terror at the people who least need it. And same for every mandate, every compliance regime, every “trust the science” campaign of the COVID era. The Standard of Scare™ of the Allopathic Priesthood™ terrifies compliant physicians of conscience and never once touches the architects. Fauci is not afraid of Fauci’s rules.

🎯 A Word on the Man Being Grilled by the Senate Tomorrow

Tomorrow Anthony Fauci sits again before the Senate under subpoena, answering Senator Dr. Rand Paul — or not — for this COVID era.

We can’t pronounce the diagnosis of primary sociopathy. We don’t have the psychometrics, the scans, the clinical basis. But the pattern is fair to name: the man, and his NIH partners, wrote rules they did not fear, administered terror that never touched them, and who may still think they exist above the mechanisms of justice you and I are under.

Conscience absent, or conscience seared? We cannot say. The architecture doesn’t require us to read Fauci’s heart. Only that we stop looking away and start looking for the diagnosis — and to see, at last, being held to account while under oath tomorrow, if he perjures himself again before the American people and the rest of the world.

Written in Their Hearts

Now Paul’s answer, which is older than the objection.

“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness“ (Romans 2:14–15, KJV). Notice again, “conscience” by nature…written in their hearts” in the scriptures way before the science which now tells us that conscience is absent in 4% humans.

Note too that Paul is not describing an imposed rule. He’s describing something found—written in, not handed down as a story to believe. Standard equipment. And he says it of people who never received the Law at all.

Which raises the obvious problem: if the law is written in every heart, what about the 4% of people who are primary sociopaths, without consciences?

Here is the resolution, and it costs Scripture nothing. Paul is describing how the majority of human beings are made. Martha Stout, PhD, is describing what you find when you count. Some people are born unable to feel physical pain (the congenital insensitivity to pain) — a rare, documented condition. That doesn’t mean pain isn’t standard equipment. It means you can only lack something that was supposed to be there. Conscience is standard issue for the majority of us, but there is a defect rate. Both are true, and the second is what Paul’s sentence quietly predicts: you cannot be missing a ‘law’ that was never written in your heart.

Dave Scrimshaw’s verse does the other half of the work, and his instinct is better than my own first reading. A conscience seared with a hot iron — the Greek is kekaustēriasmenōn, branded, cauterized — is a conscience that was there and got burned out. That is not the 4%. That is Part II of this series. That is the seared conscience of the recruited: the battalion, the compliant staff, the physician with a medical conscience who knew but conformed anyway. It’s Milgram in Koine Greek, written eighteen centuries earlier.

So the text distinguishes exactly what the clinical literature distinguishes: those born without, and those who burned theirs away.

Share

The Demon and the Diagnosis

Another reader, JohnSmith, brought Rudolf Steiner’s “children of Ahriman” — beings who appear human but are inwardly devoid of conscience. Let’s take that seriously rather than wave at it, because it’s doing real work.

Read Steiner’s phrase as an archetype, and it is astonishingly accurate: the hard, remorseless, morally detached type who gives destructive systems their human faces. What the ancients lacked was not perception. They saw the phenomenon clearly. What they lacked was a name for it that didn’t require the supernatural: primary sociopathy.

But one correction, and it matters: They appear human because they are human. Not demons. Not a separate species. Not identifiable by red aura, horns, black costume, and pointed tail. The science describes low fear, low emotional reactivity, callousness, subtle or overt cruelty without remorse — in people who look ordinary, sound reasonable, and frequently charming. The danger is never that they stop looking human. It’s that harmful traits sit concealed behind an entirely normal presentation.

That correction is the moral spine of this whole series. The moment we make them monsters, we’re back at Part I’s reflex — and a monster can be exterminated, while a human being who is a primary sociopath must be recognized, resisted, and held to account.

🎯Sidebar 1 — The Word No One Reaches For

Serious, intelligent people describe organized harm with real precision — and stop one word short.

• Scholars name it: “unhinged” leaders, toxic leadership, dark-triad executives.

• Historians name the recruitment: Browning’s ordinary men, conformity, deference.

• Commentators name the villains: greedy, ‘souless’, inhumane globalists, oligarchs; the deep state.

Every one of them circles the same shape. None names the core: the small, stable fraction born without the brake called conscience.

Why? You cannot look for what you haven’t been told exists. Primary sociopathy, in the popular mind, means the man on the true-crime show — not the composed hospital executive, bureaucrat, researcher, or clergyman who may never have broken a law, but never feels a pang. So the mind reaches for what’s nearest: Dr. Evil, egotistical bastard, greedy zealot, nut job, GACROcrat.

Each names a manifestation of behaviors. None names the deficit.

Both Views at Once

So, David — yes. I think we can hold both, and I’d argue we must.

Human beings reach for the supernatural at the edge of ignorance. I do. But the history of science is the history of that edge moving. When Galileo argued the earth moved, the Catholic church persecuted and condemned him for it — and the earth went on moving. Comets were omens of doom. Lightning was divine wrath; now it’s electrical potential (and it is no less awesome for being understood). Sleep paralysis and seizures were demonic assaults. Epidemic diseases were from miasmas and curses.

Each time, the naturalistic account replaces the supernatural one as a mechanism, without settling the older question of origin and ramifications.

Conscience may be the same. That it is Bio-logical™ — inherited, embodied, standard-issue in ninety-six out of a hundred Homo sapiens. But that does not demote it beneath the soul. It locates where the soul meets the flesh. Dr. Stout herself writes that conscience is the place where psychology and spirituality meet: through our genes, our brains, and perhaps our very souls. The forbid isn’t hovering above the animal. It’s in the animal, installed at the factory.

Here’s where I land, and you’re free to land elsewhere: I think the forbid is installed by a Maker, and that the Maker is Love — simple enough that a dying thief with a conscience can see it from his cross, with little or no creed, learning, or time, in the last hour of his life. Recognition of Love doesn’t require a seminary. Never did. Never will.

But there were two thieves on that hill, and only the one turned. Which leaves the question this whole series finally cannot answer. Since science indicates that conscience is something we of the 96% are born with, what of the 4% who are born without it — the people who have no fear of a God and feel no guilt to drive them to repent?

Are the primary sociopaths condemned? I don’t know. I don’t think medicine knows, and I’m not certain theology does either, since best I can tell, contemporary theology hasn’t caught up with the science of sociopathy. Somewhere past the last thing the science can measure and the last thing anyone can prove, those people stand alone with the Maker — and what Love or lack thereof passes between them is above my pay grade, and probably yours too.

Some of What Binds Us

All of which is the quarrel this series has always had with the fashionable claim that our restraints are somehow revisable fictions. Money is an imagined order. Nations are social constructs. We can outlaw and eliminate a currency by Tuesday. But we cannot legislate a conscience into the 4% who don’t have one, and we cannot legislate one out of the 96%. Some of what binds us is never up for a vote.

And to my physician correspondent, who voiced his: you are right that faith protects and unites. But only-ness gives the 4% too much credit. Recognition protects too. That is Martha Stout’s hope and mine — that people of conscience, simply by learning to see the ones who have none, can blunt their effect and shield the people they love. No theology holds a monopoly on that defense, and no playbook can switch it off. But first we have to see it.

D2D Take: Conscience is the moral compass of consciousness. Its absence does not dim awareness — it reveals the primary sociopath’s cold clarity: they know they lack it, and feel no remorse about that either.

🎯Sidebar 2 — Aiming at the Wrong Target

Watch what happens when the same well-meaning people propose a remedy:

• Be kind.

• Come together.

• Recognize our common humanity.

Every word of it is aimed at people who already have a conscience — which is exactly why it never reaches the ones who don’t.

• You cannot shame the shameless.

• You cannot appeal to the empathy of someone born without it.

The blessed peacemakers aren’t wrong. They’re aiming at the wrong target — the same error every priesthood since Critias has made: terror, or tenderness, pointed at the 96% who aren’t the primary problem.

As one D2D reader put it: Once you see this, you can’t unsee it. The trouble is seeing it in the first place.

What D2D Readers Answered

You said yes: we have a sociopathic culture. Over three installments we’ve refused the purge, named the machinery, and located the thing itself — inherited, embodied, ancient, and now speakable.

None of that closes the door. The 4% are still here, and still placed, and still followed. But the 96% are also still here, still flinching, still lying awake, still occasionally standing up, like our reader Peggy, in the meeting and saying no — to the modRNA “vaccines,’ to the mandate, to all of it — out loud while everyone watches.

Clever men invented gods to frighten people who were never the problem. We don’t need to be frightened. We need to be able to see the architects. And now you’ve four installments teaching you how we can.

← Start at the beginning: Do We Have a Sociopathic Culture? Then to Parts I, II and III inspired by D2D readers’ comments: Part I: The Reflex We Must Refuse · Part II: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Evil

❤️ Every heart pushes this dissent beyond COVID-era clever men. Tap it — it matters.

🔄 Every restack is a circuit breaker that brings increased awareness to sociopathy. Spread the resistance.

🎧 COVID-era truth sticks best when you hear it. Tap the audio player at the top — listen on the move.

💬 Comments welcome below. This series was built from yours.

Leave a comment

First, do no harm. Second, speak up.

The 4% of humans who are primary sociopaths design the machine. The rest of us are recruited to run it — and a Holocaust historian, counting the same three groups you’d predict, shows how.

Not Enough Sociopaths to Go Around

Last week we asked, “Do We Have a Sociopathic Culture?” And Part I of the follow-up posts asked us to refuse a temptation: the reflex to solve the 4% who are primary sociopaths (the people amongst us who have zero conscience), by removing them. I promised that the answer was something slower and harder — realizing they exist, first, and then learning to see them. But seeing raises a harder question, and a lot of you went straight to it in the comments.

If only 4% are born without a conscience, who commits all the rest of it? Who staffed the camps? Likewise, during this COVID era, who enforced the mandates for the modRNA genetic “vaccines,” surveilled, censored, and fired the dissenting doctors and nurses, wrote the memos, signed the directives?

Seems that there wouldn’t be enough primary sociopaths to go around. The arithmetic doesn’t work — unless most of the damage in this world is done by people who have a conscience and override it anyway.

That is the uncomfortable heart of this whole series. The 4% are the architects of dystopias, past, present, and future. But the construction is completed by the rest of us.

The Historian Who Counted

D2D reader Diane shared this history with us in her comments regarding historian Christopher Browning, who went through the WWII interrogation records of the German Order Police, specifically Reserve Police Battalion 101. In 1942, the battalion was sent into occupied Poland. Over the months that followed, roughly 500 of the middle-aged men shot and deported tens of thousands of Jews, Poles, and Gypsies to their deaths.

Browning was braced to find that the battalion was comprised of monsters. He found the opposite, and it is more frightening than monsters.

They were, in his words, ordinary men. Most had not been Nazis before Hitler. They were dockworkers, truck drivers, machine operators — family men — from Hamburg, mostly too old for the regular army. Nothing in their histories marked them as being primary sociopaths, conscienceless. Yet these reserve police became, in Browning’s phrase, cold-blooded murderers of thousands, out of a mixture of motives: conformity, deference to authority, role adaptation, and the gradual altering of moral norms (creeping compromises) until - as the Overton Window teaches us - the unthinkable became the policy.

In these ordinary men we see the potential for secondary sociopathy amongst all of us normies, the 96%.

Then comes the detail that stopped me when I first read it. Browning writes that “very quickly three groups emerged within the battalion.” A core of eager killers. A plurality who carried out their duties reliably but without initiative. And a small minority who evaded participation — who quietly got themselves reassigned, faded to the back during selections, found a way not to fire.