Never forget the evil done to the United States when Biden pardoned an accomplice to mass murder deeply involved in both the creation of the COVID-19 virus and bio-weapons development. Speculations surround his most likely profiteering from the various “pandemics” over the years, and the sudden jump in his family net worth after leaving Federal employment.
To quote:
“A pardon for ANY OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.”
Think about that. The actual text of the pardon reads:
I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, …
HAVE GRANTED UNTO DR. ANTHONY S. FAUCI A FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL PARDON FOR ANY OFFENSES against the United States which he may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through the date of this pardon arising from or in any manner related to his service as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force or the White House COVID-19 Response Team, or as Chief Medical Advisor to the President.”
Although many scholars believe that President Biden’s autopen signature and lack of cognitive function make the document invalid and that President Trump could invalidate the pardon with an executive order, I am not so sure that it would stand up in a court of law. Presidents signing with autopens or delegating the signing to subordinates has long been an accepted practice since Thomas Jefferson.
Biden was never declared unfit for office while serving, so this is also unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. It’s worth a try, though, I suppose.
The big legal issue with this pardon is that it is for crimes not named.
The Constitution addresses presidential pardons in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, known as the Pardon Clause. The exact wording is:
“Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Does the wording above mean that a president can give a blanket pardon for any offenses against the United States, or do the offenses have to be named?
The most notable example of a blanket pardon is President Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon. Ford granted Nixon “a full, free and absolute pardon… for all offenses against the United States which he… has committed or may have committed or taken part in” during his presidency. This pardon did not enumerate particular offenses. This blanket pardon was never challenged in a court of law. Therefore, a precedent was not set by the courts.
Some like to point to President Jimmy Carter’s blanket pardon for Vietnam-era draft evaders as a precedent. However, that pardon specified a category of offense and was not a blanket pardon for crimes not enumerated. That said, this pardon was also never challenged in a court of law.
As neither case was challenged in a court of law, many legal scholars still debate whether a pardon must specify offenses in detail. It seems to me that now is the time to question whether a blanket pardon for all crimes not enumerated reflects the framers’ intent when they wrote the Constitution. Of course, another, more straightforward solution would be for Congress to pass a law articulating what that phrase actually means. However, it is still up to the Supreme Court to determine the literal meaning of the Constitution.
This principle was solidified in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which affirmed that “it is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”. While Congress’s interpretations can shape constitutional discussions and legislative actions, when the Constitution lacks clarity, the courts—particularly the Supreme Court—ultimately determine the meaning of constitutional phrases.
That said, there may be an easier route to prosecute Anthony Fauci.
The DOJ can work with state prosecutors to uncover crimes. If the DOJ, during a joint investigation, finds evidence of a crime that has been pardoned federally, that evidence can still be shared with state prosecutors. State authorities may use that evidence to pursue state charges, as the presidential pardon does not extend to state offenses.
So, even if a presidential pardon blocks federal prosecution for the pardoned acts but does not shield the person from state prosecution, the DOJ can share evidence with state prosecutors if the conduct violates state law.
The DOJ can investigate and acquire federal documents related to monetary misconduct, ethical breaches, and even manslaughter, which can then be shared with state attorneys general and prosecutors.
Furthermore, that evidence could be shared with other governments.
A final note: the COVIDcrisis made many people rich; they used psychological bioterrorism to scare government officials into reacting in ways that benefited those parties significantly.
Yes, there is no debate that the COVID-19 crisis triggered what many analysts and organizations describe as the largest upward transfer of wealth in modern history.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States saw a dramatic upward transfer of wealth, primarily benefiting billionaires and the wealthiest households:
Billionaire Wealth Surge: U.S. billionaires’ combined wealth jumped from $2.9 trillion in March 2020 to $4.7 trillion by July 2021-a gain of $1.8 trillion, or about 62% 1, 2, 3. By early 2023, this growth reached $1.7 trillion, with the nation’s roughly 700 billionaires holding more wealth than the bottom half of all Americans combined 4.
New Billionaires: The number of U.S. billionaires increased, with dozens joining the ranks during the pandemic 5.
Wealth Gap: While the typical American household’s net worth increased (partly due to stimulus payments and higher home values), richer households gained far more-adding about $172,000 to their net worth from 2019 to 2021, compared to just $500 for poorer households 6. The richest 25% of households still held over 80% of the nation’s wealth 6.
Inequality Worsened: The share of national wealth owned by the top 1% continued to rise, reaching around 45%, while the bottom 50% received just 10% of total income 7.
In summary: The pandemic accelerated and magnified existing inequalities, with America’s wealthiest corporations, individuals, and households capturing a disproportionate share of the economic gains while millions faced job losses and hardship. This dramatic shift was driven by rising asset prices, stock market gains, and policy responses that disproportionately benefited those who already held significant wealth, deepening the divide between the richest Americans and everyone else.
Conclusion: The pandemic increased billionaire and millionaire wealth at unprecedented rates and deepened inequality in the United States, marking it as a period of historic upward wealth transfer.
Fauci is the figurehead; he must be brought to justice, as must the other public officials, scientists, and physicians who profited enormously from the lies and half-truths.
But in the end – many people and institutions need to be brought to justice for the damages done to the American people. It is the job of the FBI and the DOJ to determine how this upward money transfer happened in the United States during the COVID crisis and who benefited via illegal means. This includes government officials, politicians, scientists, big pharma, and hospital systems that have profited enormously. Which government officials wrote the policies that aided and abetted this upward transfer of wealth and why?
This can not be swept under the rug as just another F/U by big government.
The Biolabs existed. The Russian Federation saw them as a threat, and the USG engaged in an active propaganda campaign to deny the obvious evidence. One report indicates US bombing of these.
On March 09 and 10, 2022, Malone.news published two primary source articles focused on the Ukraine Biolabs. These articles provided direct evidence that the United States Government was funding biological research laboratories in Ukraine. The first of these articles raised the question of whether military action by the Russian Federation to destroy these facilities would be justified, with an analogy drawn to the question of what would be the likely actions of the US Military if it were determined that analogous biological infectious disease research laboratories funded by a global competitor (such as China) were to be discovered in Northern Mexico.
After these articles were published, I was contacted by an active Air Force LTC-rank officer who had direct visibility/intelligence on the early events of the Ukraine conflict that the bombing and destruction via air of those laboratories, attributed by US Corporate media to Russian air force action, was performed by the US Air Force. The implication is that the USG either actively destroyed evidence or acted to prevent the armed forces of the Russian Federation from acquiring information and resources (potentially including biological specimens) from those laboratories.
There is no denying that an active PsyWar propaganda campaign has been deployed to obscure the early events associated with the Ukraine war intentionally. The focus of this propaganda has been to delegitimize the justifications for the invasion of Ukraine offered by the Russian Federation. Any and all in NATO countries who questioned that propaganda campaign were labeled as Russian agents and actively targeted for delegitimization and censorship.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., while a Democratic candidate for the 2024 presidential election, commented on the existence of U.S. biolabs in Ukraine and their connection to biological weapons research. He stated that these biolabs are developing bioweapons using advanced genetic engineering techniques like CRISPR, which were not available to previous generations.
Kennedy also mentioned that the U.S. has been making bioweapons at places like Wuhan, China, and Ukraine, and that soe of the research was moved to the Wuhan laboratory, which is suspected to be the origin point for the COVID-19 pandemic.
The U.S. has long dismissed claims about the biological research laboratories in Ukraine as “Russian propaganda,” until senior State Department official Victoria Nuland unexpectedly confirmed their existence at a 2022 Senate hearing under questioning by Senator Marco Rubio. However, the Pentagon continues to insist that the research is neither illegal nor intended for military purposes.
“As for the Ukranian labs, you should look at the actual DoD agreement and other associated open source materials. The Ukranian labs put out published reports on a variety of public health and agricultural threats, including Swine Fever from China and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) are some of the more recent ones, as well as public health messaging on topical items that you can watch on youtube. Unannounced inspections of these laboratories by DoD personnel are allowed.
These labs fulfill a vital mission in global surveillance of emerging infectious diseases. Similar to US APHIS program, State public health labs, etc. Most work is low biosafety (BSL 2) although some places have Class III cabinets for things like CCHF. I think one place has a small hood line.
There are no micronizers, spray dryers, aerosol test chambers, particle size counters, etc. needed for biowarfare research and aerosol stabilization testing.
All the mainstream media pundits that suddenly became overnight COVID experts have now suddenly become overnight national foreign policy experts. It is aggravating to watch them cloud the issue and add fuel to the current Russian Chinese propaganda. Plus, it’s a huge waste of everyone’s time having to correct their BS.
Outside of some small seed stock cultures in liquid nitrogen or held in -70 cryofreezers, the Ukranians have nothing in these public health or agriculture labs that the Russians do not already have in their own still very active and sophisticated BW program that nobody talks about.”
In recent comments by Tulsi Gabbard, current US Director of National Intelligence, she cites the PsyWar attacks she received consequent to merely speaking the verifiable truths which Malone.news documented on March 09 and 10, 2022. In light of these comments by DNI Gabbard, it is worth reviewing sections of those prior reports.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard (Megyn Kelly Interview
“The reason why this is so important is not just what happened in the past, it’s because this gain of function research is happening in labs around the world. I got attacked, and I think you saw this we’ve probably talked about in your show before when I warned against us funded bio labs in Ukraine when the Russia, Ukraine war kicked off for this very reason. Who knows what kinds of pathogens are in these labs and, if released could create another covid like pandemic. And for that, I was called a Russian asset. You’re trumpeting Putin’s talking points, all of this nonsense simply for speaking the truth and stating facts that by the way, are still on US Embassy Ukraine’s website today about how the US has funded these biolabs in Ukraine. But my point is, in order to prevent another covid-like pandemic or another major health incident that could affect us in the world, we have to end this gain of function research and provide the evidence that shows exactly why and how it’s in our best interest the American people’s best interest to bring about an end to it.”
I never really allowed myself to confront the possibility that we might not be the good guys, the white hats. Until I experienced what we have all been through over the last two years. A government (or really multiple governments) that clearly believes that it is justified in disregarding fundamental principles of bioethics and the common rule. And like many others, once I saw that, it was like having backed into a light switch and suddenly the entire room was lit up, and I could never un-see what was revealed. Are we always the good guys? Or is this just more interchangeable Spy vs Spy, where ethics and roles and fungible and “situational”. A world in which there are no good guys, no white hats. Just a matter of media spin, perspective, and realpolitik. The world as envisioned by Henry Kissinger and Klaus Schwab.
And by the way, “biodefense” is big business. Yet more weapons of war.
Most of us that are not deep into the mass formation process at this point can see the coordinated pivot from legacy media pushing the COVID fear-porn to the same outlets pushing the “Putin crazy bad man – Zelenskyy good man” theme. But almost as soon as the shooting war started, a more nuanced and complex counter-narrative cropped up.
That is the deep ties between children of key Democratic party leaders and Ukrainian petroleum industry interests.
And the USA-sponsored bioweapon research facilities located throughout Ukraine, including along the Russian border.
And the legitimate Russian concerns about NATO efforts to geopolitically encircle Russia.
And the issue of whether Zelenskyy is really just a western puppet, rather than being the populist leader that has been pitched to us.
And the surreptitious hand of World Economic Foundation meddling in all of this.
Things started looking a lot more complicated that just “Putin crazy bad man – Zelenskyy good man”.
Biological warfare agents are potent, cheap, easy to manufacture (particularly compared to thermonuclear devices), readily deployed, and have changed the tide of history on many occasions. Back to the “Indian” wars, where smallpox was basically weaponized from time to time against indigenous peoples in North America. And probably all the way back through recorded history.
So now we have the emerging rich documentation of US sponsored bio labs scattered across what had increasingly become the US client state called Ukraine.
If you want to dip your toe into that topic, dive down that rabbit hole, please see the following:
“China urges U.S. to release details of bio-labs in Ukraine” <here is the money quote in this one – “only the United States has for 20 years blocked the building of the Biological Weapons Convention verification protocol, and refused to accept inspections of biological facilities within and outside its borders, further aggravating the concerns of the international community, the spokesperson said.”>
“The U.S. Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program collaborates with partner countries to counter the threat of outbreaks (deliberate, accidental, or natural) of the world’s most dangerous infectious diseases. The program accomplishes its bio-threat reduction mission through development of a bio-risk management culture; international research partnerships; and partner capacity for enhanced bio-security, bio-safety, and bio-surveillance measures. The Biological Threat Reduction Program’s priorities in Ukraine are to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats.”
It doesn’t take much to add all of this up. Ukraine is at the forefront of the US Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program that essentially is another form of a Wuhan lab, which means the US DoD is researching bioweapons right across the border from Russia. Putin may be brutal, but given what came out of Wuhan, these bioweapon research facilities in the Ukraine appear to be an existential danger to Russia. Why would he want to take a chance with an increasingly brazen NATO on his doorsteps and the threat of bioweapons?
None of the above justifies the Russian army’s brutality in its attacks on Ukraine, but the US DoD’s games in far off places having been causing more problems than they solve and if the game here was to get a one up on Russia, then it is America’s willingness to play with fire that is the real trigger for this war.
NATO has done a good job over the years painting itself as the “defender of freedom” against an autocratic Russia. However, given the brutality showed across the world connected to COVID-19 restrictions, coupled with the fact that it was the USA’s own government (albeit only a clandestine part of it) that had a direct hand in developing the COVID-19 pathogen, it is increasingly getting harder to tell the difference between the two sides.
Returning to my commentary:
Here’s the point. Once upon a time, the US engaged in thermonuclear war brinksmanship with the USSR because of Russian missiles being placed on Cuban soil. The weapons of war have evolved. Bioweapons technologies have matured. What would the USA do if Russia was transforming Mexico into a client state and had placed biowarfare research laboratories along our southern border. Would we invade? I strongly suspect so.
Are “we” the good guys or the bad guys here?
Or is this just more Spy vs Spy, with a strong dose of fearporn administered to the general populace by the legacy media to insure that we “think” and behave as the Overlords desire us to.
Documents which detail these laboratories are purported to have been removed by the US Embassy-
So here is my “assuming best intention” current “working hypothesis” concerning this hot mess:
USA DoD/DTRA partnered with the government of Ukraine to (at a minimum) support collection, storage and monitoring of infectious biological agents and toxins by researchers in Ukraine, and there seems to have been some component of personnel training and facilities engineering involved with this.
US State Department via the Embassy in Ukraine announced this DoD/DTRA effort in a transparent manner via a readily available web page.
If I were working as an analyst for the Russian government, paid to perform and enable risk assessment, I would be skeptical that the US DoD/DTRA effort was limited to just collecting and archiving biological samples, and I would have to conclude that there is significant risk that these facilities were involved in (at a minimum) “dual purpose” research. “Dual purpose” is a euphemism for “could be used to develop defensive capabilities or could be used to develop offensive capabilities”.
Clearly, whether in sincerity or for propaganda purposes (time will tell if they provide the documentation and receipts), the Russian government is stating that the activities of these laboratories included bioweapon research which was coordinated with US DoD/DTRA.
Prior to invasion of Ukraine, the government of Russia signaled that the presence of these DTRA-sponsored “biolabs” in this region was perceived as a threat to Russian national security and biosecurity. Again, if I were a Russian analyst, I would likely conclude that these laboratories represent a threat to national security.
Based on information available to me, the US Government does not seem to have made any attempt to assure the government of Russia that these laboratories were performing benign activities. One action which might have mitigated Russian concerns would have been to allow unannounced inspections, much as US and NATO have insisted on in the case of foreign nuclear enrichment or reactor programs.
In my professional opinion, based on the language employed by Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, I believe that there is a significant risk that the Russian government has obtained documents or other evidence that (at a minimum) one or more of these laboratories have had biological materials the existence of which is likely to prove embarrassing to the United States. The language used appears to my ear to imply that there are biological materials the existence of which could damage US strategic and tactical geopolitical interests.
It is likely that the “chain of custody” or veracity of any evidence which the Russian government may present to support their case will not be clean, and that there will be a strong effort by western media and information sources (social media, tech) to delegitimize any communication by Russia (as a government) and by any persons (Russian or otherwise) who present or attempt to discuss such communication. Including myself. It is highly likely that management of any information concerning this topic is already being globally handled by the Trusted News Initiative organization, and that obtaining or discussing unfiltered and unprocessed “raw” information will soon not be possible.
In other words, in my opinion, this is another topic that we will never be able to get to the bottom of, and we will never be able to discern something akin to objective “truth”. Best we can hope for is some sort of approximation of truth that is sort of like a kalidescope image viewed in a hall of mirrors.
In conclusion
In my opinion, the partnership relationship between DoD/DTRA (as historically structured) and the current government of Ukraine (which has functionally become a client state of the USA) was ill advised. At a minimum- this relationship has provided some semblance of political cover for military actions which the government of Russia believes are in its strategic interests, and which are of such importance that the Russian government was willing to take significant geopolitical and financial risk.
At a minimum, congressional testimony on this topic by a relevant US official representing DoD/DTRA should include a detailed description of the nature and capabilities of each of the facilities which have been funded, and a summary of the activities taking place therein. DoD inspection reports should be disclosed both to congressional investigators and the general public, with redaction if necessary for sensitive information. This would go a long way to dispelling concerns which the US public and global community may have, might help to reduce tensions, and at a minimum might mitigate the blowback which may damage the reputation of DoD/DTRA and the USG if not managed appropriately and intelligently.
Given the lack of faith engendered with the US public and global community after the demonstration of coordinated public health-related propaganda activities during the last two years (clearly involving USG-legacy media-social media-big tech coordination), mounting yet another propaganda campaign attempting to discredit all information and discussion of this topic is unlikely to be effective, and may boomerang. In my opinion.
Finally, the (mis)management of this whole mess personally reminds me of the mismanagement of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I have no opinion or insight regarding whether the shooting war and subsequent cascade of tragic events could have been avoided, given the multiple geopolitical factors which provide motivators for Russian aggression in this context at this time. But focusing on the specifics of the biological laboratories in question, assuming that the intent and activities associated with the DoD/DTRA- Ukranian “cooperation/collaboration” (my term and quotes) was as benign as my deep state colleague asserts, the risk that the purpose and intent of these facilities would be misinterpreted by the government of Russia should have been assumed, and risks stemming from such misinterpretation should have been anticipated and mitigated.
Assessing whether or not there was adequate planning, risk evaluation, and risk mitigation for the obvious potential for Russian concerns and reaction, particularly given the historic tendency of the Kremlin to be a bit (understandably) paranoid, is absolutely a topic that merits investigation by Senate and House of Representative committees. I hope that this is something that both political parties can agree on.
But let’s please stop the propaganda/media war response to every crisis.This increasingly strikes me as very immature, and a horrible way to run a country. Grow up, own your mistakes, and stop trying to obfuscate them with a barrage of flying feces. The USA is supposed to be the dominant political, military, and economic power in the world at this point. So act like it. This reminds me of a young child that keeps seeking to blame everything bad that happens on someone or something else. Just stop it.
Black propaganda is being used to try to take down President Trump, Sec. Kennedy, and the MAHA movement. In the following essay, Jeffrey Tucker of Brownstone Institute documents one such ploy of many.
Yet another report just appeared about how HHS has contracted with Moderna to produce a Bird flu vaccine. The contract is worth $176 million. The latest report, dated May 1, 2025 runs in something called Endocrinology Advisor.
Similar stories have run inU.S. News & World ReportandInfectious Disease Advisor.
Here is where things get odd. You can search the sites of HHS, NIH, and ASPR and will not find anything about this contract. That’s odd because government announces all these things unless they are classified.
So what’s the credible authority for this huge breaking news?
Each of these stories links to the cited authority as HealthDay and its report. However, that story is from July 2, 2024, fully nine months old. HealthDay in turn cites the Associated Press, which also has a story from July 2, 2024.
In other words, this supposed breaking news was old news, suddenly resurrected by U.S. News as if it were new. For no apparent reason. The supposed journalists who wrote the story, Robin Foster and Stephanie Brown, are said to work at HealthDay. They have no contact information and my email to the site has not been yet answered.
So far as I can tell, if such a contract did exist, it is now cancelled or on pause.
What the breaking news stories did do was circulate widely in the health freedom movement, cited as an example of “how RFK and Trump are betraying their base”. I personally received probably half a dozen contacts from people who sent the U.S. News story to me.
Several mentioned it on the phone without recalling the source.
It is now widely believed that the Trump administration has approved $176 million for Moderna even though there is no credible or new source on this at all. The canard is already burrowed into the brains of the people who matter.
Is this how medical news works?
The story gets even better. The $176 million number from last spring was upped in January 2025 to an incredible $600 million. The widely reported story appeared on January 17, 2025.
The announcement used to live here. You can try the link. The page has been archived. Kaput.
So far as anyone knows, this contract is on pause or canceled. Not just the $600 million but the $176 million contract too.
It was archived by RFK following the Trump inauguration. Pretty obviously, the old HHS tried to sneak in a huge contract to Moderna just before Trump arrived. It was quickly nixed by the new administration.
There is not one word either way on the Moderna site itself.
Meanwhile, Moderna’s stock price has been devastated, down a shocking 75% in one year. You can also observe how the stock briefly blipped upwards when the big contract was announced in January.
It had previously reached a high of $454. Now it stands at $27. That’s what is called a freefall. No government money is there to rescue the stock. Nor can the company rely on forced consumption in the form of vaccine mandates, all of which have been repealed.
What’s shocking is to realize that this kind of shabby journalism might not be unusual. Take it as a case in point. You cannot believe what you read in legacy media. It is just as likely to be designed to manipulate your sense of things, to goad you into thinking a certain way in order to achieve some surreptitious scheme. In this case, it is all about the goal of undermining RFK with his base, thus preventing future reforms.
Already in such a short time, HHS under Trump has closed Fauci’s gain-of-function lab in Maryland, newly required placebo-controlled trials for vaccines, and said that private interests will no longer share in royalties for new vaccine products. Further, he has worked with NIH to fund new research into the cause of autism in addition to working out agreements with food producers to stop putting petroleum dyes in their consumer products.
These are the first major steps toward eliminating a deeply corrupt system. Do you see why the controlled media – 70% of the advertising for that comes from pharma – might want to undermine RFK?
This is a must-read for those interested in the topics of Dr. Fauci and gain-of-function research. Speculation about the author includes Dr. Jeffrey Taubenberger. The question now is whether or not DNI Tulsi Gabbard is serious about calling out Fauci’s perjury before Congress, and whether the autopen blanket pardon is valid. I strongly suspect that the pardon relates to much more than just the WIV GOF. Fauci probably knew what was happening in the Ukraine biolabs and much more.
“I admired Fauci in his earlier career because I thought he was a strong leader with a vision for global research. But I can’t say that anymore.”
MAY 4
Today’s guest essay is by a infectious disease researcher at the National institutes of Health who wishes to remain anonymous to guard against retribution.
As a decades-long NIH insider, I wasn’t surprised to see Dr. Tony Fauci go toe-to-toe with President Trump in his first term. After all, this is a man who built a $4 billion taxpayer-funded empire—the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)—and transformed it into a medieval Italian Signoria, where his every word was law, his every whim obeyed. When I entered his office, I couldn’t help but notice a portrait of The Godfather hung above his desk—Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone, not Al Pacino as the young, upstart Michael—a fitting tribute to his persona and leadership style.
Upon entering NIH meetings, I sometimes caught a favored capo slouching down in his chair after dutifully raising Fauci’s own, so that, feet dangling, the diminutive Don would appear the tallest man in the room. From such commanding heights, the Boss often humiliated staff members, both women and men, in expletive-laden tirades. To avoid this wrath, his minions worked feverishly to anticipate his every desire and satisfy a relentless ambition to expand the Fauci’s scientific dominion.
I admired Fauci in his earlier career because I thought he was a strong leader with a vision for global research. But I can’t say that anymore.
Several incidents caused me to change my view beginning in March 2020 when a group of renowned virologists published a paper in Nature Medicinethat falsely concluded a lab accident could not have started the COVID pandemic. A year later, I watched in disbelief as Dr. Fauci testified before Congress where he strongly denied allegations about dangerous virus research he was funding at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I realized that the Fauci-led NIAID had participated in a classic Washington ploy: satisfy your critics by pretending to regulate activity that can harm the public, while actually letting your friends do whatever they want. In this case, I’m talking about gain-of-function virus studies, research that should end tomorrow to protect us from future man-made pandemic disasters.
Like most everyone in the federal government, in the early months of the pandemic I was working from home when Nature Medicine published a paper called “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Written by prestigious virologists Scripps researcher Kristian Andersen and Tulane University’s Robert Garry, this paper concluded, “We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” The paper analyzed the genetic sequence of the COVID virus and concluded that SARS-CoV-2 was a naturally occurring virus, as no clear signs of “gain-of-function” were detected.
Gain-of-function is a process where virologists manipulate a virus’s genetic sequence to make it more transmissible, lethal, or able to overcome countermeasures. After making a virus more dangerous through gain-of-function, researchers then try to figure out how to defeat it. However, the “Proximal Origin” letter in Nature Medicine overlooked a common gain of function method.
Virologists often use a technique called “serial passaging,” where a virus is repeatedly introduced to laboratory animals or different cell types, such as human cell lines. Repetitive passaging allows the virus to genetically adapt, enabling it to grow in the new animal or cells. And such passaging does not require direct genetic manipulation.
The authors of the “Proximal Origin” paper completely ignored the possibility of serial passaging. And because they didn’t discuss this very common laboratory practice, they did not “disprove” a laboratory origin for the virus. I have no idea how ignoring something so obvious could make it pass peer review and get published in a prestigious journal like Nature Medicine.
I remember sitting in my living room, carefully reading the paper line by line, and shouting over to my partner in the next room, “What the fuck is going on?!”
Despite such a gaping hole in the analysis, the paper was taken as gospel by basically every reporter covering it—New York Times, CNN, Science Magazine, NBC, Science News, Nature Magazine, Washington Post, etc…—as if it ended all doubt that the COVID virus could have come from a lab.
I discussed this quietly with a few close colleagues I consider friends, but I’m embarrassed to admit that I was afraid to speak out publicly. At the time, people were being called “conspiracy theorists” for even asking if the virus could have had a lab origin. There was a real fear of saying what you thought—shame, humiliation—and I was worried about getting fired. I believed the entire virology and the NIH-funded scientific communities would have banded together to discredit me if I said anything, and my career would have been over. Dr. Fauci was the most powerful man in the scientific community at that time and his word was undisputed.
Besides, the toxic political climate at the NIH did not allow much for dissenting opinions. All communications by federal employees are vetted and go through a multi-layered review process, and criticism of the official narrative would never have been allowed. As any member of the NIH knew, you don’t ever take sides against the family.
The authors of the “Proximal Origin” paper completely ignored the possibility of serial passaging.
During this same time period, I also became aware that something weird was happening inside the NIH. In April 2020, Trump cut off a grant to Peter Daszak who ran a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance. Daszak was partnering with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to collect and characterize bat coronaviruses in China. Trump’s executive action was an effort to prevent another possible COVID-19-like pandemic, even though Politico called these concerns a “conspiracy theory.” But rather than reassess the risks of this research, as the President wanted, the Fauci-led NIAID doubled down on high-risk viral research, funding new programs called Centers for Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID). These research programs focused entirely on global collection and surveillance of zoonotic viruses from nature.
Instead of pausing to investigate whether a lab leak had occurred, Fauci awarded Daszak a new multi-million-dollar CREID grant dedicated to hunting for novel viruses in bats—not just in Chinese caves, but across Southeast Asia and parts of Africa. From 2020 to the present, Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance received $4,474,707 for his CREID grant plus another $3,353,628 for similar virus hunting grants.
At the same time, NIAID also awarded the authors of the Proximal Origin paper—Scripp’s Andersen and Tulane’s Garry—large CREID grants which have cost American taxpayers $11,322,650. By handing out awards to political allies, Don Fauci maintained a web of allegiances.
But these grants were a slap in the face to President Trump and completely dismissed the American public whose family members were dying from a pandemic which could have started from NIH-funded virus research. The timeline of these awards is also interesting. Andersen’s CREID grant had been reviewed in November 2019 and presented to the official NIAID Advisory Council in January 2020. Fauci would have known the names of researchers getting such a massive grant, and Andersen and Garry would have been very eager to please Fauci.
By publishing the “Proximal Origin” paper, both Andersen and Garry gave Fauci a handy talking point to misdirect public attention away from a lab accident in a Wuhan lab that he was funding. Dr. Collins promoted Andersen’s “Proximal Origin” paper in his March 2020 NIH Director’s Blog, and Fauci seized upon the paper during a televised White House briefing.
Fauci cast aside the possibility of a laboratory-based origin by citing the “Proximal Origin” paper in an April 17, 2020 White House Coronavirus Task Force press briefing. When asked whether the virus was possibly manmade in a lab in China, President Trump stepped aside from the podium and let Fauci answer:
There was a study recently that we can make available to you, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists look at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve and the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of species from an animal to a human. So, the paper will be available. I don’t have the authors right now, but we can make that available to you.
Fauci’s remarks, as he stood next to the President, really gave the paper added media and public value. At the time, I thought it was weird that Fauci would promote researchers who ignored the obvious possibility of serial passaging, but we later learned that Fauci was intimately involved in the “Proximal Origin” paper.
Emails showed that Andersen sent Fauci several updates as the paper was being written, and even invited him to make suggestions. In a sworn congressional deposition, Fauci later admitted to receiving 5 to 10 drafts of the paper but claimed he didn’t really understand it. But if he really didn’t understand the paper, then why did he promote it to reporters at a White House briefing?
For such a politically savvy man to manipulate the scientific process directly under the nose of the President was rather unexpected. But it got worse. He also thumbed his nose at Congress.
Fauci was the darling of Republicans and Democrats, so he shocked me during a May 2021 Senate hearing when he pointed his finger at physician Senator Rand Paul and called him a liar for noting that NIAID funded dangerous gain-of-function virus research in Wuhan, China.
“Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect,” Fauci said while under oath. “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
In retrospect, none of this behavior should have surprised me. Fauci is highly territorial and has never allowed anyone—even the President of the United States—to mess with his fiefdom.
President Obama put a pause on funding for gain-of-function research in 2014 that lasted until 2017. The gain-of-function moratorium suspended federal funding for research that enhanced the pathogenicity, transmissibility, or host range of dangerous pathogens—the exact type of research Chinese scientists had been conducting at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This moratorium covered all types of pathogens such as influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses—the type which gave us the COVID pandemic. President Obama imposed the moratorium in 2014 after growing concerns from the scientific community and public advocacy groups about the risks associated with research and the potential for accidental release or misuse of enhanced pathogens.
The pause was triggered by a group of virologists at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands who used a gain-of-function techniques including serial passaging to adapt influenza to ferrets and made the virus airborne. The pause was lifted in 2017 after the government created a new framework to assess the dangers of gain-function research called P3CO Framework (Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight).
But in the end, nothing really changed.
The P3CO Framework was supposed to enforce stricter oversight for high-risk virus research. I now think it was a distraction. Once P3CO was put in place, Fauci’s NIAID simply resumed funding scientists to develop bioengineered viruses. For instance, researchers used a synthetic gene library to generate all possible H5 bird flu variants capable of escaping detection by the human immune system.
I feel certain today that the moratorium was a political show that lasted just long enough for the critics to forget about the dangers of high-risk virus research that created the airborne influenza virus. NIH spent years creating the P3CO safety review, but I now realize there is a gaping hole in the very guidelines designed to check the power of funders like Fauci. A gain-of-function study was only sent for P3CO review if Fauci or his subordinates felt it needed review.
This is an obvious conflict of interest, like allowing a batter to call his own balls and strikes, while sometimes letting an umpire opine, but only if the batter permits it. Although I have no direct evidence, I am suspicious that Fauci purposely avoided sending gain-of-function projects for review to the P3CO committee.
The details of this process are very intricate and hard for outsiders to follow, but Senator Rand Paul made some of this public during an interview a year back.
We have evidence, yes, that they were dishonest, that Anthony Fauci lied in hearings to me, which is a felony, punishable up to five years. We have emails that show him saying that he knew it was gain-of-function, that the virus looked manipulated, and he was worried that this came from Wuhan lab [on] February 1 of 2020. Then he spent the last three years saying nothing to see here. We also know there was a safety committee that should have reviewed this and we know that Anthony Fauci went around the safety committee – the safety committee set up in place to make sure this didn’t happen.
After President Biden granted Fauci a preemptive pardon on his last day in office, Senator Paul sent subpoenas to get answers about what Fauci knew and when he knew it. “In the wake of Anthony Fauci’s preemptive pardon, there are still questions to be answered,” he posted on X. “Who at NIH directed funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and why was the proposal not scrutinized by the P3CO safety committee?”
Throughout the COVID pandemic, concerned scientists and the general public began piecing together a troubling narrative. Emails found that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been funded by NIAID through a subcontract to Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. The work was ostensibly classified as viral surveillance, which allowed it to bypass the new P3CO guidelines created to rein in dangerous virus research.
However, a closer look revealed that scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology led by Dr. Zhengli Shi had been trained by Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina. Baric is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading bioengineers specializing in coronaviruses, and the NIAID had been funding him for years through a combination of grants and service contracts for pandemic preparedness. His groundbreaking work on manipulating coronaviruses (including constructing Frankenviruses) was pivotal, and that expertise had made its way to Wuhan—intentionally or otherwise.
This is an obvious conflict of interest, like allowing a batter to call his own balls and strikes, while sometimes letting an umpire opine, but only if the batter permits it.
“Don’t want to be cited in as having commented prior to submission,” Baric emailed the essay authors, before sending in his text changes.
NIAID’s international cooperation efforts were rooted in the belief that building scientific capacity abroad was a global good—an ideal that often holds true. But in this case, cooperation with foreign researchers came with unintended consequences. The transfer of technical expertise and bioengineering know-how across borders, paired with inadequate oversight and misclassification of research objectives, may have created the perfect storm. While the intent may have been altruistic, the outcome was anything but.
The NIH has repeatedly demonstrated a dangerous inability to safeguard public safety. The P3CO Framework was intended to enforce stricter oversight, but proved to be a hollow safeguard, allowing NIAID to continue funding dangerous research with a fig leaf for compliance. Worse, EcoHealth Alliance’s funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology was classified as “viral surveillance,” an administrative sleight-of-hand that enabled high-risk experiments to continue with impunity. By allowing gain-of-function research to proceed unchecked, NIH abandoned its responsibility to ensure that taxpayer-funded science did not jeopardize public health.
But NIH’s errors are not merely a matter of oversight failure—they are the result of scientific arrogance compounded by an ingrained, symbiotic relationship between federal science officers and the research academics they fund. This relationship is mutually beneficial as scientists depend on NIH funding to build their careers, while NIH officers rely on these same scientists to generate the groundbreaking studies that justify new initiatives and expand NIH’s influence.
Academic scientists and NIH bureaucrats don’t just collaborate professionally—they often emerge from the same university laboratories, attend the same conferences, and publish together in the same journals. Instead of government oversight of academic research, we have a system that rewards allegiance and mutual advancement. This cozy relationship is cemented by lavish taxpayer-funded travel to international conferences, where federal officers and the university scientists they support fly around the world, stay together at luxury hotels, and forge alliances that prioritize career advancement over public safety.
This conflict of interest is baked into the system, making genuine oversight of dangerous research nearly impossible. This is not just my professional experience, emails show this is the case. Despite public concerns about the nature of EcoHealth Alliance’s research and multiple media reports about the veracity of Peter Daszak’s public statements, the NIH program officer who oversaw EcoHealth Alliance’s grants began working directly with Daszak on his 2023 grant renewal.
NIH’s pattern of circumventing research safeguards, misrepresenting funding, and the entrenched culture of mutual dependency between program officers and academics has created a system where oversight becomes performative and regulatory frameworks like P3CO become mere window dressing. Dr. Fauci’s public denials of NIH involvement in gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, despite documented evidence to the contrary, highlights a culture of obfuscation and regulatory evasion. NIH has forfeited public trust and can no longer be relied upon to serve as the gatekeeper for high-risk pathogen research.
Instead of government oversight of academic research, we have a system that rewards allegiance and mutual advancement.
The “conspiracy theory” label deployed by NIH leadership to knock down the possibility of a lab accident troubles me to this day, especially since it seems to have been a misinformation campaign. In my entire scientific career, I have never seen an alternative hypothesis shot down by labeling it a “conspiracy theory.” This was something completely foreign to me, a shameful example of McCarthyism in the scientific community, and the very antithesis of science.
To prevent future disasters, gain-of-function virus research should end at the NIH and should not be funded by any federal agency. Moreover, the government needs to assume legal authority to prevent gain-of-function virus research at private companies or institutions as well. High-risk research that involves manipulating pathogens capable of causing global pandemics should not be treated as routine biomedical research—it should be viewed as having the same risk as bioweapons development.
Despite its defenders, gain-of-function research has not demonstrably contributed to the prevention of pandemics. Let’s not forget, the COVID pandemic started in Wuhan, China, a city that hosts a research lab that is supposed to stop pandemics. The time has come to abandon the false promise that we can outwit nature by engineering lab viruses. We need to shift research to rapid identification of emerging pathogens when they cause symptoms in humans and domesticated animals, and funding should be redirected toward safer, more responsible methodologies such as structural and computational modeling, and laboratory techniques like deep mutational scanning, and loss-of-function studies.
These approaches can help us understand how viruses jump from animals to humans without making these same pathogens more dangerous. For too many years, scientists have sold the public on a lie. It is time to realign our research priorities with the principle that science should serve public safety and protect lives—not gamble with them.
This one below may be dated- but it is still damn funny.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. We are deeply grateful to the decentralized network of paid subscribers that enables us to continue doing what we do to support freedom.
“What bureaucrats and power elites always want is for the opposition to shut up and go away, to obey orders, to accept their assigned tasks.” —Murray N. Rothbard
We won’t shut up or go away.
Bureaucracy is both a weapon and a weakness for the modern state. While bureaucracy regulates, spies on, and controls almost every aspect of our lives, it is impeded by its own incompetence and waste. That’s why Mises said, in his book of the same name, “The ultimate basis of an all-around bureaucratic system is violence,” and “Of course, the bulk of the bureaucrats were rather mediocre men.”
Maybe we should be thankful for bureaucratic inefficiency because without it we’d suffer more bureaucratic violence.
Join the Mises Institute this April in Phoenix, Arizona, to expose the danger and waste of bureaucracy. Speakers include Dr. Robert Malone, discussing his provocative book PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order and the role of psychological operations in bureaucratic control; Tom Woods, exposing the madness of covid-era “public health” authorities, which he documented in his bookDiary of a Psychosis; and Tom DiLorenzo roasting the corruption and hypocrisy of our federal bureaucracy.
============================
MAGA, MAHA, and the Nanny State
=============================
Dla Polaków, mikro słownik tamtejszego slangu współczesnego:
[Nanny state is a term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice. MAGA: Make America Great Again. MAHA: Make America Healthy Again MD
==========================================
Robert W. Malone, MD, MS
There are fundamental fault lines between MAHA and MAGA, and in many ways they resolve into pro-regulatory big government initiatives versus promotion of deregulation/small government.
It is worth noting that the MAHA movement exists outside of Kennedy and the government, and encompasses many societal issues outside of the focus of the Trump administration. For instance, homesteading, medical and personal sovereignty, and personal responsibility for healthcare choices may all be outside of the MAHA whole-of-government approach. For this discussion, I am primarily concerned with the MAHA directives within the government. But MAHA is much bigger than that.
MAHA has emerged mainly from the left and, out of frustration due to the Democrat party corruption and rejection, has embraced the center-right. In turn, MAHA has been enthusiastically endorsed by MAGA and center-right populists, including many formerly associated with the Tea Party movement.
The arc of the Presidential campaign of RFK Jr. closely adheres to this narrative. Bobby started out seeking the Democratic party nomination as representing “Kennedy Democrats,” and announced a platform proposing a return to his legendary father and uncle’s pre-Carter, pre-Ronald Reagan “New Deal” positions. But the Democrat party of today bears little resemblance to that of his father and uncle’s time, and the changes in National political thought on both left and right wrought by Reagan, Carter, and then the succession of the military-industrial corporatist Bushes and Clinton(s)-Obama-Biden on the left. To no one’s surprise, apparently other than Bobby and his team, today’s Democrat party made it abundantly clear that there was no room for this Kennedy in the tent. So he decided to make a run as an independent, and Nicole Shanahan stepped up to bankroll and prop up the drive to get Bobby on the ballot in all 50 states – which was amazingly successful to the credit of all concerned. However, it was clear that, once again, an independent run would primarily function as a spoiler, in this case for the campaign of Donald J. Trump. After much advice, consideration, deep self-examination, and the disappointment of many of his supporters, RFK Jr. famously decided to pivot to endorsing and joining the candidacy of the once and future President Trump. The pivotal moment was RFK jr.’s empathetic phone call to DJT after the assassination attempt, which still reeks of a deep state operation much like what happened to Bobby’s uncle and father. And RFK Jr. did so in a spectacular manner, with a ringing endorsement speech that will live in history.
So, MAHA largely originates from the left, but the appeal crosses all party lines. Who does not want to be more healthy?
The initial MAHA mandate is to demonstrate measurable improvements in the health of US citizens within 12-18 months, with a particular focus on chronic disease and children’s health. One aspect of this effort will involve re-focusing the HHS on health promotion and de-emphasizing disease-specific treatment.
At its core, MAHA is predominantly pro-regulation. The logic is that we must use regulatory authority to improve transparency and eliminate that which leads to unhealthy outcomes. Examples include drugs with side effects that, when considered in whole, do not have a strongly favorable risk/benefit ratio. And glyphosate (Roundup) contamination of our grain and soybeans.
However, there is also a deregulatory aspect to the MAHA movement. For example, is unpasteurized milk really a health risk, and what health promotion properties are associated with unpasteurized milk? Similarly, the move towards backyard poultry and eating locally slaughtered grass fed beef. Or reexamination of the widespread US policy of fluoridating municipal water supplies. And there is also an investigational research aspect, for example, what are the drivers behind the explosion of autism, obesity, and other childhood chronic diseases.
To date, the MAHA movement has primarily focused on things that big government can do to promote improved health of US Citizens. Removing known toxins from food. Investigating autism causes. Questioning the pediatric vaccine schedule and revising the CDC VAERS vaccine adverse event reporting system so that truly informed decisions can be made concerning the safety and efficacy of vaccine products.
But behind that is the potential for the MAHA initiative, if institutionalized and bureaucratized, to morph into another overbearing set of nanny state mandates. To make the point, I often use the example of the person who loves McDonald’s Hamburgers consumed with Sugary Coca-Cola. You know who I am talking about. Should the State mandate that such a person not eat these things, despite the clear-cut health risks? Should the State outlaw cigars? And what about regulating foods? Where should MAHA draw the line? What principles should be applied to guide these decisions? What is the proper role of small government as it relates to food and drug regulation?
This really involves the boundaries between individual sovereignty, libertarianism, Murray Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism, and the utilitarian/socialist logic of modern “Public Health”. The modern “public health” enterprise seeks the greatest good for the greatest number and is driven by narrow analysis of large data sets to identify, regulate, promote or mandate specific “health care” interventions such as vaccines- while often disregarding other related issues including long term, unanticipated or difficult to predict consequences.
A “public health” enterprise that seeks to achieve optimization of collective health outcomes rather than optimizing health opportunities coupled to respect for individual autonomy (choice). A “public health” enterprise that has repeatedly used top-down management via government, insurer, and health management organizations to require and deploy pre-approved treatment protocols rather than individually optimized health management and promotion, reflecting each patient’s complexities. One size fits all, and do what you are told. An expansionist Public Health enterprise and bureaucracy that has come to fully embrace Socialism and Socialist logic. Enforcing a “one size fits all” “Greatest Good for the Greatest Number” at the expense of individual liberty of thought and deed via a centralized global “command economy”-based bureaucracy now routinely alluded to as the “One World Order” by the European Union.
Consider seat belt mandates. Like many big government initiatives that stand at the top of slippery slopes, there is a general consensus that it is right and proper for government to mandate seat belts be installed in cars. But is it right to legally require their use when driving? Next comes motorcycle helmets. Same issues, but slightly less clear. Cigarette smoking? In all three cases, the argument is made that irresponsible health behaviors by individuals cost all of society due to increased health care and insurance costs (including publicly subsidized costs), and loss of person-years. The same logic then can be applied all the way down to whether the State should mandate your dietary choices, which is why I use the McDonald’s hamburger example. Should we “allow” citizens to experiment with nutraceuticals and health supplements that are not officially endorsed by the FDA?
And there we go, right straight to nanny state medical fascism. But seatbelts save lives. Air traffic controllers save lives (most of the time, with some recent exceptions). You get my point.
If MAHA is to transition from merely a populist uprising and set of immediate grievances to a new, transformed and sustainable set of public health enterprise policies, we need to take some time to think about and define acceptable limits on the role of the State in promoting, advancing and in some cases mandating limits on infringement of individual sovereignty and autonomy.
Immediate short term interventions are absolutely necessary, and I applaud the use of both the bully pulpit as well as executive orders. But if MAHA is to become more than just a populist uprising, and to result in sustainable long term policy changes, it is also important to take the time required to examine, define, and develop public support for the boundaries between the proper role of a Constitutional Republic – based federal government, the constitutional role of individual States (which are constitutionally responsible for regulating the practice of medicine), and both the sovereign rights of the individual and the global right to truly informed consent to medical interventions.
To drive home this final point, as a component of his commitment to no longer “walk on eggshells”, the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has recently stated that the COVID genetic “vaccines” were experimental medical products, and that the “vaccine mandates” were illegal. These mandated experimental products were associated with severe adverse events including myocarditis, stroke, and death, and the US bureaucracy actively suppressed the ability of those who were either forced or willingly accepted these products to obtain informed consent. These actions were violations of the Nuremberg accords, and there must be accountability and consequences.
I travelled to Brussels to meet Robert Malone, who was there for a conference. After the press conference I sat together with Robert and his wife Jill in the hotel restaurant for a casual conversation, an interview for Dutch language magazine De Optimist.
Robert Malone, MD, first made his mark in biological sciences in the late 1980s when he was pioneering the use of mRNA for therapy purposes and suggesting its possible use for vaccines. He moved to medicine and biomedical consultancy, specializing in drug repurposing. In the Corona years he was an outspoken critic of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines based on bioethical principles.
To start off with an optimistic thought: in 100 million years, everything that we see around us, including ourselves, will be compressed to a couple of millimeters in sedimentary stone. Does that worry you?
‘I don’t see that as a negative. Time flows. Things change. I live in the present and celebrate my family, my wife, my life. I’m not seeking immortality. I’m totally comfortable with the fact that I will die and I will become dust.’
Not everyone is comfortable with that…
As a graduate student, I was able to go to what, at the time, I thought was the pinnacle of biological science, the Salk Institute. At the time I was there, I think there were eight Nobel laureates. Francis Crick was still there, and Jonas Salk was still alive.
What I learned was these people are incredibly competitive. To my great surprise, because they had achieved the pinnacle of success in biological science and research: the Nobel Prize. And yet most of them were not content with that. There was a pecking order, a hierarchy among them, having to do with how important their prize was compared to the other person’s prize, whether or not they’d had to share it or they got it alone.
The Nobel laureates were competing with each other for status, influence and immortality. They were striving so hard that they sacrificed their family, they sacrificed their life. They sacrificed their happiness on the altar of fame and fortune. I think that one of the big problems we have right now in Western society is rampant narcissism, the obsessive need to glorify the individual. That is not a path to happiness.
Talking about the Nobel prize, what is your personal experience with those?
‘The Nobel Prize for the mRNA vaccines was clearly political. The politicization of science awards has a long, rich history, but in this case it became very overt. The Nobel prize committee and the spokesperson for the prize committee said outright that the reason why they awarded the prize to Karikó and Weissman was because of their work enabled this COVID vaccine. They didn’t mention whether or not this was all their idea or initial work. They only limited it to this vaccine. And the justification for that was that they hoped that by awarding it for this vaccine, it would encourage people all over the world to take it.
Therefore it was in the service of a social objective that was predicated on the thesis that this product was safe and effective, and that it had saved millions of lives. The paper they cited at the time, for the millions of lives saved, has since been demonstrated to be false. It was based on modelling and assumptions which did not withstand scrutiny. So the Nobel Prize was awarded in this case based on a false pretence.
In the year before the Nobel was awarded, according to a senior full professor at the Karolinska whom I know well, the committee had reviewed the advocacy and submissions for Karikó and Weissman and didn’t feel like their work merited the prize. And then the following year they did, on the basis of this seemingly humanitarian objective of needing to promote the uptake of the vaccine because it has “saved millions of lives”.’
Background: Robert Malone and the Nobel Prize
Robert Malone is a pioneer in the development of mRNA technology. In a 1989 article titled “Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Malone demonstrated that mRNA, encapsulated in cationic liposomes (fat droplets), could be successfully delivered into cells of various types (human, rat, mouse, frog, and fruit fly cells) to produce proteins. This was a groundbreaking experiment that first showed mRNA could serve as a potential tool for gene therapy and vaccine development.
Despite this contribution, he was overlooked for the Nobel Prize, which was awarded in 2023 to Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman for their further refinement of the technology. Malone’s objections to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, such as concerns about their effectiveness and safety, appear to have undermined his chances of receiving this honor.
How did you experience COVID-19 personally?
‘I got very sick in February 2020 with the original Wuhan strain. I thought I was going to die. I self-treated with some of the drugs that we’ve been doing drug repurposing discovery on, and was able to gradually recover.
Disciplines, people, endeavors, technologies tend to get invested in one intellectual structure, which is what we saw with COVID. It’s very difficult to get the people that are within that mental space to break free because they have all kinds of investments in that. For example, virology, it’s kind of a guild, with an insider’s culture. If you challenge the accepted norms you’ll essentially be disbarred from the guild. You won’t be welcome anymore. This insider culture, characterized by hyper competitiveness, with a driver to consensus, not challenging accepted beliefs, is entirely consistent with what we observed during the COVID crisis. For instance, the natural origin theory of the virus became a litmus test: you must support the natural origin of the virus if you were among the guild. Now it’s increasingly accepted that this was a false narrative.’
How do you protect yourself, as an academic, from being caught within a dogma?
‘People have a tendency to become invested personally in a hypothesis. They will say my hypothesis. As soon as you take ownership of a hypothesis, you can never be objective about it. At the center of my thinking is the Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, published by T.C. Chaimerlin in the 1960s. For this method, first you need to formulate a question based on your observations. That’s perhaps the hardest thing, a good question. Once you formulate the scientific question, you need to generate as many possible explanations or hypotheses – for answering that question. It’s very helpful to have outsiders that aren’t in your discipline to participate in this effort to generate ideas. Then you design and perform experiments to differentiate between the hypotheses. In the end, what remains is the best approximation of scientific truth. The book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn teaches that often the revolutionary ideas, transformational ideas, come from the outside.
Once you’ve generated this list of ideas, your experimental design becomes simplified. Your experimental design should be structured to differentiate between those hypotheses. So instead of “proving” your hypothesis, you design experiments to differentiate between these alternatives, in an iterative process. When you do this, it becomes child’s play to get to objective “truth” because you’re not invested in one idea or another. They’re either all your hypotheses, or really none of them belong to you.
This Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses is a process that I assimilated, and was ground into my brain by my first scientific mentor. It served me really well, because it’s at the root of how I’m able to repeatedly enable innovation. I’ve been through rounds of this where, because I was trained to be more objective about explaining the unknown, I was able to see things that other people weren’t able to see. Simply because they were so invested in the current models. For example, the use of RNA as a drug to generate an immune response, but not as gene therapy. The problem with using it for gene therapy is that you’re conveying a foreign protein, and the patient’s body will reject it. When I had that realization it was heresy, because it basically destroyed the logic of an entire field; the field of gene therapy for treating genetic diseases.’
And so…?
‘For me, COVID wasn’t hard to see through. The thing that was challenging was the fear. Apart from the fear for the virus, there was a very real present fear of retaliation and of economic harm for those who contradicted the approved experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci. But I wasn’t afraid of Tony. I had seen Tony Fauci acting inappropriately, breaking clinical research rules and all kinds of ethical rules, my whole career. Yet, a lot of people that were accepted as experts by the press were in positions to retaliate. I knew very well what their capabilities were, but I was willing to take the risk.
A calculated risk?
I didn’t think they had really that much power over me. I was no longer an academic, I wasn’t dependent on Government grants or contracts, I wasn’t dependent on the approval of a medical board. I wasn’t seeing patients. I was a clinical researcher, and I was standing on solid ground speaking about bioethics and informed consent. I thought it was solid ground. What I didn’t expect, was the corporate media turning on me in a coordinated fashion. That was new, I’d never seen that before.
To analyze that in a broader context, we’ve written our latest book, on propaganda and psychological warfare. The way these have been transformed into an industry, with a huge depth and capability to control how people think and feel.
While this book, PsyWar, focuses primarily on exposing the history and tactics of psychological warfare and the threats to our freedom and autonomy, it is also an optimistic book. By understanding psychological warfare—such as propaganda and censorship—we can strengthen our minds and resist control. Personal and collective resilience can prevail, even against a sophisticated propaganda industry.’
Robert W. Malone and Jill Glasspool Malone co-authored “Psywar: Enforcing the New World Order” [Goodreads].
This article first appeared in print in De Optimist, 2025, Issue 222, pages 60-62.
“All elements are lickable; some elements are lickable only once.”
Is this true? Did researchers actually study this?
#PSYWAR
So, I looked up this article – and yes, the mainstream media had tens of articles, all the same, spread all across the world – same title, same article, same photo about this study. Below is a screenshot of a few such articles:
Not a single one had an actual reference to the study in their “news” story.
So, I went and found that reference – the peer-reviewed article that this was all based upon. This is important because at the end of the conclusions is the sentence:
they could offer mechanisms for enhancing vaccine effectiveness, particularly among populations at greater risk of vaccine failure.
Why yes, this is all about “vaccine hesitancy” and how to overcome it. So, it is no surprise that so many “local” media outlets picked up this study – as money is still floating around to promote overcoming vaccine hesitancy and improving uptake. Frankly, this has all the hallmarks of being disseminated through The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
The journal that this study was reported in does not require that the authors list who paid to have the study conducted, but it has all the hallmarks of being yet another of the 6,000+ studies that governments, NGOs and big pharma have funded to overcome “vaccine hesitancy.”
Of course, the placebo effect is real, and neither the study nor the news articles mentioned the possibility that maybe this is all in people’s heads…
Moving on to something a little more in keeping with comedy:
Truth: Tokyo hotel rooms are the size of postage stamps, but the toilets were awesome.
[to taka chyba piosenkarka, wystrzelili ją jako towar na orbitę. md]
A year ago today, on Easter, President Biden celebrated this sacred event by honoring people who “transitioned.”
Easter honors the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which is a victory over sin and death, offering the promise of eternal life.
That we can all overcome sin in our lives, is something to strive for. The story of Christ gives us that hope. A hope and promise. But we all must work for our own salvation, for our own goodness. To live a life as free of sin as possible.
Which is why, honoring people for their mental health issues that are then being foisted on children, during Easter, of all religious celebrations, was so morally offensive. From the co-option of the rainbow colors, colors that children adore, to the bringing of these fetishes into children’s spaces – such as drag queen hour and a presidential easter egg hunt, is morally wrong. Unbelievably wrong.
That our White House, the people’s house, that was sullied in this way on Easter day. This was and will always be unacceptable.
Ben Garrison – made this cartoon a year ago. It has stood the test of time.
Today is a day to celebrate, to rejoice in family, friends and life.
[Whack-a-Mole: Seria bezsensownych, syzyfowych zadań, których pomyślne ukończenie powoduje, że gdzie indziej pojawia się kolejne . md]
Robert W Malone MD, MSApr 19 · Malone News
Dr. Bock’s thoughtful and provocative essay raises several interesting points about our past and future histories regarding bioweapons, the bioweapons treaty, our allies and enemies, and where do we go from here?
One key note- this essay overlooks the fact that Israel is not a signatory to the treaty, and has highly developed advanced molecular biology, immunology, microbiology, and virology capabilities.
The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs’ 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) has 188 States Parties— and nine outside the BWC: four states in limbo (Egypt, Haiti, Somalia, Syria) and five non-signatories (Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea, Israel, Kiribati). This document didn’t prevent Iran and Iraq’s lobbing bioweapons at each other in the 1980s; Russia’s targeted political bio-agent poisonings; nor Syria’s chemically attacking its own, 2010s. Control’s an illusion—treaties don’t kill intent or capability.
History agrees. Look at U.S. narcotics from 1920 to 1965: prohibition didn’t eliminate drugs, but it kept use low. Then we medicalized addiction, rebranded users as patients, and demand exploded. A vast opiate-hunger’s incentivizing Fentanyl-smuggling is our reward.
Grand schemes don’t fix root causes; they backfire. The War on Poverty threw cash at need, but people adapted—gaming the system became the game. Gun control? Gangs still shoot. The BWC’s another noble façade, a paper wall against a world that laughs at rules.
Rewind to the Cold War. In a bipolar world—U.S. vs. Soviets—the BWC had more bite. Fear of the U.S. kept many in line, while Soviet alignment shielded others. Ken Alibek, a top Soviet bioweapons scientist who defected in 1992, revealed how vast their program really was: two systems—one he helped dismantle, the other, run by Russia’s Ministry of Defense, left intact.
He warned that Russia never stopped, instead diving into genetic manipulation—signaled by Putin in the early 2000s and echoed in recent accusations against Ukraine. Treaties mean nothing when capabilities persist. Today, we’re overextended and strapped for cash while rogue states catch up fast. AI and open info-sharing—GitHub, arXiv—flatten the playing field. Compliance is obsolete; it’s whack-a-mole without a referee.
This is exactly the concern echoed in a 2023 future-planning study by the U.S. Marine Corps. It identified cutting-edge biological applications—genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and CRISPR gene editing—as some of the most disruptive and dangerous dual-use technologies on the horizon. CRISPR, in particular, is a game-changer: cheap, precise, and accessible. It allows live genomic editing in bacteria, viruses, fungi, plants—even humans. Synthetic biology pushes further still, with the first fully artificial bacterial genome created in 2019. What once took years in military labs can now be built from a desktop and a DNA printer. With synthetic life on the table, biological weapons become modular, programmable, and disturbingly democratized.
China, according to U.S. intelligence assessments, continues to blur the line between civilian biotech and military ambition. Presentations from Chinese military medical institutions reportedly explore, identify, and test numerous toxins with potential dual-use applications. The United States has explicitly accused China of failing to distance itself from weaponizable biotech. Add North Korea, Iran, and an unrepentant Russia to the mix, and the idea of a globally enforceable ban begins to look delusional.
Syria refused to ratify and already has a history of chemical and biological attacks. Israel, a non-signatory, faces existential threats. Signing the BWC while Syria shrugs would be like locking your door while the arsonist roams free—especially after October 7, 2023’s literal playing out of that analogy. Iran signed, but taqiyya invites deception; its nuclear program tells the story. China signed too—but Wuhan’s SARS redux speaks louder. It’s bait-and-switch: we chase signatures, they chase capability.
Worse, we’ve outsourced biodefense to partners like China and Ukraine via groups like EcoHealth Alliance. We poured USAID cash into countries we assumed would play fair. While we debated gain-of-function semantics, China mastered the technique—and may lead this tech race, as happened with cars. Ford and GM entered China thinking they’d struck gold. Beijing reverse-engineered their playbooks, undercut them, and waved goodbye with a smirk. That happened in public—why expect anything different in secret labs?
Grand strategies fail when execution is uneven. ASPR and BARDA embody this: bloated bureaucracies that slow U.S. biodefense while adversaries push forward. Since 1972, the BWC has banned lethal bioweapons research—hamstringing our ability to develop countermeasures. Our adversaries don’t care. Think SALT, or the Paris Accords: we step back, they sprint ahead. Now we settle for treaty-compliant “non-lethal” viruses that disable, not kill — half-measures in a (war-)game designed to be lost.
The UN? Useless. Morally bankrupt. It churns out resolutions against Israel—a functioning democracy—while brutal regimes that imprison dissidents and crush minorities skate by. USAID mirrors that hypocrisy: we fund, they pretend to reform, the UN looks the other way.
Alibek’s take on COVID-19 resonates—our containment model is too slow, too rigid. But where does this leave us? No treaty at all? The BWC tasks signatory states with self-enforcement – undoubtedly akin to O.J. Simpson’s vowing to find Nicole’s killer.
Ditch the treaty? It’s difficult to recommend that, but certainly we should have vigilance and skepticism that many others have already done it, despite external façades.
The good news? We’re not stuck in the “old days” of rigid vaccine stockpiles—prevention’s the play, not proliferation. mRNA tech can churn out vaccines fast—COVID proved it—but the rollout flopped, awkwardly timed after SARS-CoV-2 peaked, peddling an antiquated jab for a virus that’d already left the stage, risks with dwindling benefits. Still, with CRISPR, synthetic biology, and genetic tricks, we could mix-and-match smarter: a diffuse nationwide network for just-in-time vaccine and therapeutic production, tailored to active, severe threats—not blanket shots for ghosts.
Stockpiles still matter—but not for vaccines. Think treatments—ivermectin, once sneered at by the CDC
—antivirals, antibodies, anything to blunt the edge while we scale up.
The weather is getting above 80 degrees today – we have a farrier coming, a trip tothe dump planned, lots of planting in the raised vegetable gardens to do, and we plan to go out and do some “foal wrangling.” This photo was taken a few years back:
I hope your day is as productive and great as I plan mine to be!
When I discuss the China tariffs with Trump haters I can’t help but ask, why do we in the United States want to trade with communist China after what they did to us regarding Covid? Really, objectively, this is a country that released a biological weapon, a manufactured, fabricated super virus produced in a lab in Wuhan, and they released it upon the entire world deliberately. They knowingly flew infected people all around the world resulting in millions of people dying. They lied about it. Xi Jinping the communist strong man, that butcher that slave holder, systematically covered it up and didn’t bat an eye as he knowingly allowed infected people to fly out of Beijing and Shang Hai, into Australia, Europe, America, and they spread that virus all over the world. Then to add insult to injury they tried to maximize profit, money, take economic advantage, because they sold us and the world masks and pharmaceuticals. So why would we want to trade with them. I’ll tell you why, because we had a president that was completely compromised, he was on the take, a media that was compromised, they were on the take. They lied to us. The FBI lied, our intelligence agencies lied, the CIA lied, the NSA lied. They knew it came from that lab in Wuhan. Our own government was implicated in it, led by Obama, Fauci and his boss Francis Collins. We funded it, we supported it. We aided and abetted in this crime.
So honestly 125 % isn’t nearly enough, 500% isn’t enough for causing the spread of this death and destruction. Nothing against the Chinese people, they are good hard working people, but this Chinese government, this brutal communists regime in Beijing needs to be bankrupted and they need to collapse just like the old Soviet Union. This is Trumps clear end game and God bless him, I hope, it will work! J.Goodrich
Yes, Bobby Kennedy Is Crazy – But Not In The Way You Think.
It will take a “Greater Fool” like those who built this country to fix it.
Guest Editorial by Sofia Karstens
Our government is broken. It’s not working. Only a Cervantean Greater Fool with the zenith combination of imagination, courage, and strength to stand up and tilt at this windmill will give us a fighting chance. We are already off the cliff and we need a Quixotic hero right now or all hope will be lost.
We also need to trust the people we put into office; trust them to navigate this terrain effectively and to appoint people who will navigate this terrain effectively. RFK Jr. is in the lions’ den right now – not us. If he makes a wrong move and is eaten, who will we have? Strategy is so called for a reason – it’s not always comfortable, but if it were a choice between cake or death then it wouldn’t require strategy in the first place.
Senator Cassidy has the power to unilaterally block RFK Jr.’s picks for deputy, chief counsel, and other critical roles where he needs his generals. Senator Cassidy is and others involved in selection and confirmation oversight are a very real problem, and RFK can’t blow himself up right out of the gate; because then he can’t do anything. It is not optimal that he has to be strategic, but he does. That’s the reality. He is not all-powerful and he is up against political forces that are both powerful and entrenched.
Armchair quarterbacking is not helpful. People used to ask me about my friend Bill (Maher) “why doesn’t he just come out and say everything about everything? Why does he hold back he should just blow it all up…” Well, genius, partly because it’s not reasonable to expect him to suddenly be an extremist, or to agree with you about everything, partly because he’s an equal opportunity offender, and partly because then he’d be canceled and wouldn’t have a show. So how much is he going to get to say without a platform? Sometimes you need to keep your powder dry. Sometimes you need to live to fight another day. And sometimes that means preventing civil war. Including mini-civil-wars inside the civil war… even when you know everything might not be ideal internally, and inside baseball sucks.
Bobby is the only one with the testicular fortitude to even go up against these forces at his every expense… and right now he is exposed and has virtually no cover. So maybe we let him get the ball down the field before we ask him to blow himself up, after which he can’t advance any ball at all. Or, find someone else and see how long they last. You don’t turn your back on the person in the foxhole with you when you’re under fire from literally all directions. You certainly don’t turn around and shoot him in the face.
If we can give RFK a year he can course correct, but he’s performing triage right now, scalpel in hand… anything less than surgical precision and the patient will die on the table. We have to stop pulling at him whining about our stubbed toe.
What we all really need to do is look at how we might HELP Bobby accomplish this herculean lift against all odds. Instead of adding to the weight… perhaps we also could be strategic and ask ourselves what we can do… how we can help? “Ask not…” and all that…
We didn’t come all this way to dump the load onto Bobby and expect him to shoulder the entire burden. We still have work to do. Now, finally, the road has opened ever so slightly (not much – he’s not a magician) for us to do the work and make some progress… but don’t just walk away and expect him to do it all. This is OUR fight. ALL of us. We need to be asking ourselves how we can best support Bobby so he can support us. Help me help you, Jerry Maguire.
Here’s a thought… Bobby is hobbled and muzzled because people like Senator Cassidy can make a real problem for him if he tries to do too much too quickly… but we’re not. How about we give Bobby some cover and put out the information that Senator Cassidy can’t exploit to start swinging.
I’ll start:
The second case of a claimed “death from Measles” involved a girl in Texas who had not had Measles for 2 weeks. She had mono and tonsillitis for up to two months before the measles, came into the hospital with a tonsil problem post-measles, and after admission, developed complications (including sepsis) for which the hospital refused to give treatment according to the parent’s request, which could suggest this was an instance of medical malfeasance. The hospital put her on a bunch of protocols with the assumption that she had active Measles pneumonia, after which she died. For any of us who lived through Covid, from our perspective, that should sound familiar. And what will happen to RFK Jr. if he tries to open rigorous debate around this issue? The same thing happened then: optics and headlines which block the truth from making its way into the mainstream while distracting everyone with ad holmium attacks on and misinformation campaigns about Bobby.
Some of you might recall when Hank Aaron died, and RFK Jr. commented that it was another unexpected death following the Covid Jab. Immediately, a dozen mainstream media outlets attacked him, condemning him and “debunking” something he never said. He never said that the Moderna shot caused Aaron’s death. He made the factual observation that Aaron’s death was part of a wave of deaths among the elderly following acceptance of Covid vaccination. This is a fact.
The recent headlines about this unfortunate death are all of the “RFK Jr. Stoops to New Low by Falsely Tying Hank Aaron’s Death to Vaccine” variety. Citing the Fulton County coroner’s office, The New York Times assured the public that “the Covid vaccine did not kill Hank Aaron.” NBC’s national wire service reported that the Fulton County coroner had determined that Aaron’s death was from “natural causes unrelated to the vaccine.”
The problem is, though… the fact checker lied when they said the coroner exonerated the Moderna vaccine. The Fulton County coroner’s office now denies that any of their staff ever saw Aaron’s body, much less conducted an examination. Candace, a spokesperson and investigator for the coroner, told RFK: “His body was never here. We declined jurisdiction. There was never any autopsy.” Candace explained that since Aaron’s personal physician assumed his death was from “natural causes,” there was never any necropsy or postmortem investigation.
Robert Kennedy cannot spend all day untangling everyone’s misinformation, misunderstanding, or simple LACK OF understanding. This is all very nuanced and complex even before you add the fact that the media are manipulating narratives, often contain enough false information to sink a ship, and further are being COORDINATED distinctly to make us all react precisely the way we are so that Bobby has no chance of making any progress. He’s trying to save us after we’ve fallen from a tall building, and all we keep doing is pulling on his cape.
A clever man never has to lie. Consider Bobby’s words: “The most effective way to prevent the measles is the MMR vaccine”. That is a true statement. Never did he advocate for anyone to get it. Never did he say preventing the measles was necessary or even advisable. Never did he suggest it was safe or effective. Never did he allude to downstream harms or vaccine-induced infections being acceptable. He said the MMR vaccine prevents measles infection… nothing more or less. He has to be more clever than the liars he is dealing with. He has to wait till he’s advanced the ball before he brings in us crazies. The circus can’t come in before our entrance… they’re not ready for us yet.
People aren’t trusting RFK Jr. because he didn’t go in and fix things in a day – those people are hobbling the entire medical freedom movement and everything for which we have worked… and I’m not unconvinced that isn’t the point. Please. Stop. Falling. For. It.
Only a Greater Fool believes he will succeed where all others have failed. Anyone willing to do that has to be a little bit crazy, and in a good way. If those men did not periodically exist throughout history… we would not have a country.
And we won’t have one again if someone like Bobby Kennedy doesn’t have a touch of the madness to take that risk for us. Only someone with a touch of madness can right this ship. He’s taken us this far. Let’s help him carry this ball over the finish line by trusting and supporting him.
The least we can do is stop lighting side fires while he’s battling the inferno alone without any water in the reservoir.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. We are deeply grateful to the decentralized network of paid subscribers that enables us to continue doing what we do to support freedom.
The UK Home Office has implemented several measures to address knife crime, including a ban on home deliveries of knives ordered online. Under new proposals, anyone buying a knife online will need to submit photo ID at the point of sale and again upon delivery. Companies will only be able to deliver knives to the person who bought them, and it will be illegal to leave a package containing a bladed weapon on a doorstep when no one is present. Additionally, the Offensive Weapons Act of 2019 made it illegal to possess certain dangerous knives, such as flick knives, even in private.
The Home Office has also proposed banning the sale of long pointed kitchen knives, as these are often used in stabbing incidents. Furthermore, the government is considering banning the sale of knives to individuals under 18 and expanding the ban on possessing offensive weapons to cover educational institutions beyond schools. These measures aim to reduce the availability of knives and thus decrease the incidence of knife crimes.
Artificial intelligence will be the next big thing. There is no stopping that juggernaut.
So, we must learn the tools to use AI to our advantage in this fight for freedom – religious, medical, and personal.
That means insisting on standards for training data sets that include precisely what those data are and making those standards transparent to all, providing education on how to use AI at the input level, and training people to understand how AI can be corrupted.
We, the small minority protecting this country, must take it upon ourselves to learn how to use AI to our advantage.
The big truth with AI is that it is a bit like the Wizard of Oz. When you control the data (inputs), then you control the outputs – not the AI system. We can’t let the corporatists – represented by the WEF, the globalists, the administrative state – and, yes, the deep state control the inputs.
So, learn the tools, learn to play the game, and then take control of AI programs in your life and insist on transparency within the government and corporations using AI.
Because this technology isn’t going away, and it will fundamentally change how we live – like it or not.
It appears that the terrorist attacks on conservative influencers and journalists are ramping up.
This is a list of people who were swattedthis week:
Joe Pagliarulo: A Texas-based talk show host was swatted early on March 12, 2025. The false report claimed a shooting and hostage situation at his home.
Gunther Eagleman: A social media influencer who reported being swatted following a false claim of a hostage situation at his home on March 13.
Chase Geiser: An Infowars host who experienced swatting twice within 12 hours, with armed officers responding to his residence.
Catturd: A popular pro-Trump social media account that reported being swatted for the fourth time.
Nick Sortor: A journalist whose father and sister were swatted after a false report claimed his father was planning to harm the family.
Shawn Farash: A comedian who reported police being dispatched to his home after false claims of a murder and a suicide by cop scenario.
The simultaneous swatting of multiple large conservative X political accounts is more than a mere “coincidence,” especially in light of the recent murder of Alex Jones’ InfoWars reporter, Jamie White.
From the other side of the world in New Zealand, A.I.Fabler writes political satire and absurdist fiction. His Substack today was a fun read and very quotable. His essay begins with…
My brain used to be my filing cabinet. Now it is so full that I can’t even open it.
So, I’ve resorted to notebooks. There is at least one book in every room of the house. I’d like to think that I record insightful gems there, but the truth is they are mainly unintelligible snippets that would defy interpretation by the most brilliant of cryptologists. But I’m a compulsive list maker. Lists give me a sense of order, and sometimes, of inspiration.
One such list is Oxymorons. I add to it almost every day. They are such fun: contradictions in terms, accepted unthinkingly. For example:
Public Servants: No, they’re definitely not servants.
United Nations: They’ve never been united about anything.
Mainstream Media: Mainstream? They speak only to a small and shrinking minority.
Great Britain: Who is kidding who?
Another of my favourite lists is Stolen Words. These are words whose meanings we used to have confidence in understanding but have been flipped by segments of society so that they now have different, or even opposite, meanings. Here are some:
Gay: It used to mean having a jolly good time.
Elites: They were once the best examples of leadership, not the worst.
Progressives: Once in favour of progress, now progressively intolerant of others’ ideas.
My list already runs to many pages, but here are three that are worth examining.
Let’s start with you describing yourself as Liberal. Do you mean you believe it is important to allow men who wear lipstick to use the changing rooms and lavatories of young girls — or do you mean you find Ricky Gervais very funny and you support Free Trade?
Perhaps you see yourself as being on the Far Left or the Far Right, or is it only other people who fall into those categories? For, the further left you are, the further away will the centrist and conservative views appear to be of those you deem to be Far Right. And, of course, the reverse applies. This is political myopia, an example of strained vision; which is what the Mainstream Media seems to suffer from.
One of my favourites is Racism(though Anti-Racism probably belongs in the Oxymoron list). When you level the Racist charge against me, it is not to describe me, but to silence me. Not because of my evident prejudice but because I disagree with you and you have insufficient faith in your views to defend them. It is the most frequently used ad hominem of the Maori Party, whose election is based solely on race.
However, there is one word that leaps out at me and disturbs me, so that I am becoming intimidated about using it. That word is Democracy: “The powers of the state being vested in the people equally through elected representation involving universal suffrage.” It’s a word that’s mostly venerated in western societies and despised by the rest. But something is happening to it which I will come to in a minute. First though, let’s rattle off a few cynical quotes, just to get them out of the way.
“Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.”(E.B. White)
“Under universal suffrage the elected are those who know best how to take in the masses.”(Enrico Malatesa, 1891)
“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” (Joseph Stalin)
… and my favourite …
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” (H.L Mencken).
Transparency can only reveal the dirty tricks played upon the world’s people by the globalists – real good will come of exposing their crimes. The truth is that facts now hidden will expose the globalists and their plans for a new world order. However, to those hiding the truth and crimes committed under the name of biodefense, the international court of law must be used to ensure that such international crimes are never committed again.
“I don’t want to connect my coffee machine to the Wifi network. I don’t want to share the file with OneDrive. I don’t want to download an app to check my car’s fluid levels. I don’t want to scan a QR code to view the restaurant menu. I don’t want to let Google know my location before showing me the search results.
I don’t want to include a Teams link on the calendar invite. I don’t want to pay 50 different monthly subscription fees for all my software. I don’t want to upgrade to TurboTax platinum plus audit protection. I don’t want to install the Webex plugin to join the meeting. I don’t want to share my car’s braking data with the actuaries at State Farm.
I don’t want to text with your AI chatbot. I don’t want to download the Instagram app to look at your picture. I don’t want to type in my email address to view the content on your company’s website. I don’t want text messages with promo codes. I don’t want to leave your company a five-star Google review in exchange for the chance to win a $20 Starbucks gift card.
I don’t want to join your exclusive community in the metaverse. I don’t want AI to help me write my comments on LinkedIn. I don’t even want to be on LinkedIn in the first place.
I just want to pay for a product one time (and only one time), know that it’s going to work flawlessly, press 0 to speak to an operator if I need help, and otherwise be left alone and treated with some small measure of human dignity, if that’s not too much to ask anymore.”
~ Robert Sterling
(For those who haven’t followed this news story, and are interested – I suggest reading “The NSA’s Secret Sex Chats.” The article can be graphic in describing the chat discussions, so you are forewarned.)
True Story:
Between choosing to wear sweatpants in the Oval Office and his prior career, viewing this as a serious person is hard.
It may be the best analysis of the situation I have read.
==========================
The meme wars:
In the meantime, in mass, the cra-cra on Facebook are having a very public meltdown:
And of course, this one:
These memes are being rolled out systematically, with organized “protests” nationwide.
Folks, this is a movement that is being funded from the top. It is organized and has all the hallmarks that the Soros-funded NGOs are driving this synthetic bus.
Last year, Jeffrey Sachs delivered a most crucial history lesson at the European Union.
I stand with the United States and President Trump.
I attended a meeting recently, under Chatham House rules, where I heard a Senator state on stage argue that we need to continue funding wars in the Middle East and around the world to ensure these forever wars happen on their soil rather than ours. Otherwise, foreign countries will invade American soil. He further explained that supporting the economy long-term required funding the military-industrial complex to the tune of billions of dollars (trillions?) for at least another decade.
This Senator didn’t read the room; the dead silence of the audience encapsulated the mood. Conservatives are no longer interested in this strategy of empire-building.
The warmongering Republican Party of old is crumbling. Something new and revolutionary, exemplified by MAGA and developed by the Trump team to drive the American economy, is afoot – and it doesn’t involve perpetual wars on foreign soil.
