Congressmen To Wear Barcodes So Lobbyists Can Self-Checkout
To make purchasing congresspeople easier for lobbyists, congresspeople will now have barcodes printed on their foreheads to be conveniently scanned at newly installed self-checkout machines.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an attempt to clear up lingering confusion over the role of the nation’s chief executive and avoid ongoing injunctions to block executive actions, the White House asked a federal judge if there’s anything the president is actually allowed to do. After being repeatedly stymied on nearly every attempted action, the Trump administration sought clarification to find out what, exactly, the president of the United States is allowed to do, if anything.
“So, like, can the president do anything? Or no?” asked lead White House counsel David Warrington in a brief submitted to a federal judge. “We were totally under the impression that the president is, like, really important and has a lot of power, but if that’s not the case, it would be helpful to know. Are there actually things the president can do, or is the presidency more like just a powerless ceremonial title, like the King of England or the Governor of North Dakota?”
When asked for comment, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed the curiosity about the president’s role in the government. “It would be great to find out,” she said. “I thought the president was in charge of the executive branch and could make decisions, but maybe not. We’ve learned he’s obviously not as powerful as a federal judge or something like that. Getting some clarity on whether or not he can actually do anything could make the next four years easier.”
At publishing time, a federal judge issued a ruling declaring it illegal for the White House to even ask what the president was allowed to do.
[crap = gówno]
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.
After three days at the pretty awesome Bitcoin Vegas conference, we are on our way home!
I gave a talk on the main stage at Bitcoin Vegas yesterday – driving home the message of my essays this week: people everywhere are waking up to the dangers of the mRNA COVID products. That MAHA’s progress in waking up America is working at…(dare I write it), WARP SPEED. And that disruption that enables innovation is a great thing.
This will be on the front page of the book on Marriage that Jill and I are writing.
I asked Grok to draw a splintered version of “The Persistence of Memory” by Salvador Dali. This is what it came up with.
Splinternet (as defined per Grok):
The splinternet refers to the fragmentation of the internet into separate, often isolated networks due to political, cultural, technological, or commercial reasons. It describes a scenario where the internet is no longer a unified global system but is instead divided into distinct “splinters” or subnetworks. This can happen through government censorship (like China’s Great Firewall), regional regulations (such as the EU’s GDPR), or tech companies creating walled gardens (e.g., Apple’s ecosystem).
The term highlights how these divisions limit universal access to information and create digital borders, often reflecting real-world geopolitical tensions or differing values on privacy, security, and free expression.
Elon asked a key question. This is not dark humor or sarcasm; this is today’s reality:
What does a modern Bot farm look like?
The magazine “Fast Company” recently published an article on bot farms, detailing how these automated systems are increasingly sophisticated and can manipulate social media and other online platforms. According to Fast Company, bot farms are used to deploy thousands of bots that mimic human behavior, often to mislead, defraud, or steal from users.
These bot farms can create fake social media engagement to promote fabricated narratives, making ideas appear more popular than they actually are.
They are used by governments, financial influencers, and entertainment insiders to amplify specific narratives worldwide. For instance, bot farms can be used to create the illusion that a significant number of people are excited or upset about a particular topic, such as a volatile stock or celebrity gossip, thereby tricking social media algorithms into displaying these posts to a wider audience.
Welcome to the world of social media mind control.By amplifying free speech with fake speech, you can numb the brain into believing just about anything. Surrender your blissful ignorance and swallow the red pill. You’re about to discover how your thinking is being engineered by modern masters of deception.
The means by which information gets drilled into our psyches has become automated. Lies are yesterday’s problem. Today’s problem is the use of bot farms to trick social media algorithms into making people believe those lies are true. A lie repeated often enough becomes truth.
A couple of months ago, I had the privilege of recording a podcast with Tim Poole, which focused on MAHA, health, seed oils, desiccant contaminants of our grains and soybeans such as Glyphosate (“Roundup”), and a whole host of related issues. But, as far as I am concerned, the most important part of that visit was not what was broadcast, but rather the long off-camera conversation that followed. Keep in mind that last fall Jill and I published what may be the most definitive analysis to date of the use of PsyWar, censorship and propaganda technology deployed during the COVIDcrisis.
So I know a thing or two about the topic, and am interviewed regularly about this or that aspect of PsyWar tech currently being deployed by the “Fake News”, Pharma, the US Government, the WHO, the UN, and a wide variety of other actors.
But Tim’s insights opened my mind to aspects of the current landscape that Jill and I did not cover in the book. In particular, he provided great examples of the effects and use of “small rooming” – otherwise known as freedom of speech but not of reach (which is explicitly a core “X” algorithmically-enforced policy). But what really expanded my awareness was his discussion of how AI-driven bots are being deployed.
In illustrating his points, he began with the example of a certain influencer who used to be associated with the Daily Wire. I will withhold the names to protect the innocent and reduce the risk of defamation lawsuits. Once upon a time, this influencer posted content mildly to moderately critical of Israeli policies and actions in response to the 7 October 2023 Hamas invasion. Basically, the influencer ventured outside of what was then the Overton Window of allowable public discourse on the topic. The response on social media was immediate and strikingly positive. Thousands of likes and new followers.
So, feeling like a nerve had been struck, the influencer followed up with even more strident statements, and once again, a wave of positive response swept over the sites where these opinions were posted. Feeling encouraged and emboldened, the influencer continued to push forward, motivated by the growing number of new followers. And in so doing, the influencer crossed a number of lines into what has been designated by many as “hate speech”. The result was widespread deplatforming, including from The Daily Wire, and other conservative media sites and censorship.
Here’s the thing – the majority of the new “followers” who were egging on the influencer were not real people. They were bots. Bot armies that had been launched specifically to drive the influencer into self-delegitimization by promoting and advancing what most perceived as hate speech. Mission accomplished, and another influential conservative voice bit the dust.
Can you Grok that?
Turning back to this four-alarm fire bell of an article from Fast Company.
Bot farm amplification is being used to make ideas on social media seem more popular than they really are. A bot farm consists of hundreds and thousands of smartphones controlled by one computer. In data-center-like facilities, racks of phones use fake social media accounts and mobile apps to share and engage. The bot farm broadcasts coordinated likes, comments, and shares to make it seem as if a lot of people are excited or upset about something like a volatile stock, a global travesty, or celebrity gossip—even though they’re not.
Meta calls it “coordinated inauthentic behavior.” It fools the social network’s algorithm into showing the post to more people because the system thinks it’s trending. Since the fake accounts pass the Turing test, they escape detection.
….
“It’s very difficult to distinguish between authentic activity and inauthentic activity,” says Adam Sohn, CEO of Narravance, a social media threat intelligence firm with major social networks as clients. “It’s hard for us, and we’re one of the best at it in the world.”
If one of the leading social media intel companies in the world has a hard time distinguishing between real accounts and bots – particularly AI-enabled bots – then if you think you can easily tell the difference, you are fooling yourself.
In their article, Fast Company shares a fascinating tale from Depression-era history that involves the Kennedy family’s fortune, which I had thought was just derived from bootlegging during Prohibition.
Distorting public perception is hardly a new phenomenon. But in the old days, it was a highly manual process. Just months before the 1929 stock market crash, Joseph P. Kennedy, JFK’s father, got richer by manipulating the capital markets. He was part of a secret trading pool of wealthy investors who used coordinated buying and media hype to artificially pump the price of Radio Corp. of America shares to astronomical levels.
After that, Kennedy and his rich friends dumped their RCA shares at a huge profit, the stock collapsed, and everyone else lost their asses. After the market crashed, President Franklin D. Roosevelt made Kennedy the first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Today, stock market manipulators use bot farms to amplify fake posts about “hot” stocks on Reddit, Discord, and X. Bot networks target messages laced with ticker symbols and codified slang phrases like “c’mon fam,” “buy the dip,” “load up now” and “keep pushing.” The self-proclaimed finfluencers behind the schemes are making millions in profit by coordinating armies of avatars, sock puppets, and bots to hype thinly traded stocks so they can scalp a vig after the price increases.
“We find so many instances where there’s no news story,” says Adam Wasserman, CFO of Narravance. “There’s no technical indicator. There are just bots posting things like ‘this stock’s going to the moon’ and ‘greatest stock, pulling out of my 401k.’ But they aren’t real people. It’s all fake.”
Read that last sentence again. “They aren’t real people. It’s all fake.”
Beware, fellow consumer of social and corporate media. Consume this information at your peril. The reality you encounter there is all manufactured. Some may tell themselves that they are influential players, but in fact, all are victims. The very fabric of truth and reality is a victim.
And AI-driven bots are now becoming the leading tool for spinning the lies.
If there’s no trustworthy information, what we think will likely become less important than how we feel. That’s why we’re regressing from the Age of Science—when critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning were central—back to something resembling the Edwardian era, which was driven more by emotional reasoning and deference to authority.
When Twitter introduced microblogging, it was liberating. We all thought it was a knowledge amplifier. We watched it fuel a pro-democracy movement that swept across the Middle East and North Africa called the Arab Spring and stoke national outrage over racial injustice in Ferguson, Missouri, planting the seeds for Black Lives Matter.
While Twitter founders Evan Williams and Jack Dorsey thought they were building a platform for political and social activism, their trust and safety team was getting overwhelmed with abuse. “It’s like they never really read Lord of the Flies. People who don’t study literature or history, they don’t have any idea of what could happen,” said tech journalist Kara Swisher in Breaking the Bird, a CNN documentary about Twitter.
Whatever gets the most likes, comments, and shares gets amplified. Emotionally charged posts that lure the most engagement get pushed up to the top of the news feed. Enrage to engage is a strategy. “Social media manipulation has become very sophisticated,” says Wendy Sachs, director-producer of October 8, a documentary about the campus protests that erupted the day after the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel. “It’s paid for and funded by foreign governments looking to divide the American people.”
Malicious actors engineer virality by establishing bots that leach inside communities for months, sometimes years, before they get activated. The bots are given profile pics and bios. Other tricks include staggering bot activity to occur in local time zones, using U.S. device fingerprinting techniques like setting the smartphone’s internal clock to the time zone to where an imaginary “user” supposedly lives, and setting the phone’s language to English.
Using AI-driven personas with interests like cryptocurrency or dogs, bots are set to follow real Americans and cross-engage with other bots to build up perceived credibility. It’s a concept known as social graph engineering, which involves infiltrating broad interest communities that align with certain biases, such as left- or right-leaning politics.
….
“Bot accounts lay dormant, and at a certain point, they wake up and start to post synchronously, which is what we’ve observed they actually do,” says Valentin Châtelet, research associate at the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the Atlantic Council. “They like the same post to increase its engagement artificially.”
Bot handlers build workflows with enough randomness to make them seem organic. They set them to randomly reshare or comment on trending posts with certain keywords or hashtags, which the algorithm then uses to personalize the bot’s home feed with similar posts. The bot can then comment on home feed posts, stay on topic, and dwell deeper inside the community.
This workflow is repetitive, but the constant updates on the social media platform make the bot activity look organic. Since social media platforms update frequently, programmed bots appear spontaneous and natural.
Software bots posted spam, also known as copypasta, which is a block of text that gets repeatedly copied and pasted. But the bot farmers use AI to author unique, personalized posts and comments. Integrating platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude into a visual flow-building platform like Make.com, bots can be programmed with advanced logic and conditional paths and use deep integrations leveraging large language models to sound like a 35-year-old libertarian schoolteacher from the Northwest, or a MAGA auto mechanic from the Dakotas.
The speed at which AI image creation is developing dramatically outpaces the speed at which social networking algorithms are advancing. “Social media algorithms are not evolving quick enough to outperform bots and AI,” says Pratik Ratadiya, a researcher with two advanced degrees in computer science who’s worked at JPL and Apple, and who currently leads machine learning at Narravance. “So you have a bunch of accounts, influencers, and state actors who easily know how to game the system. In the game of cat and mouse, the mice are winning.”
And here is the mousetrap that caught our influencer formerly with the “Daily Caller”:
On October 7, 2023, as Hamas launched its deadly terror attack into Israel, a coordinated disinformation campaign—powered by Russian and Iranian bot networks—flooded social media with false claims suggesting the attack was an inside job. Social media posts in Hebrew on X with messages like “There are traitors in the army” and “Don’t trust your commanders” were overwhelmed with retweets, comments, and likes from bot accounts.
Along with the organic pro-Palestinian sentiment on the internet, Russian and Iranian bot farms promote misinformation to inflame divisions in the West. Their objective is to pit liberals against conservatives. They amplify Hamas’s framing of the conflict as a civil rights issue, rather than the terrorist organization’s real agenda—which is the destruction of the state of Israel and the expansion of Shariah law and Islamic fundamentalism. The social media posts selected for coordinated amplification by Russian and Iranian actors tend to frame Palestinians exclusively as victims, promoting simplistic victim-victimizer or colonizer-Indigenous narratives—false binaries amplified not to inform but to inflame and divide democratic societies from within.
Bot farm amplification can’t be undone. The same deceptive forces used bot farms to boost posts about a New York Times report that falsely blamed Israel for a bomb that hit a hospital in Gaza that reportedly killed 500 Palestinians. It was later revealed that the blast was actually caused by a rocket misfire from jihadists. The New York Times updated its headline twice. But you can’t put deceptive mass influence back in the bottle.
In the case of the war in Gaza, bot farms may not be solely to blame. “The Twitter algorithm is pretty nefarious,” says Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, Gaza writer and analyst and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. “I really think it optimizes for hate and division to drive engagement and revenue.” Perhaps Twitter is just more bot-farm-friendly?
In the case of the pro-Palestinian campus protests, they erupted before the Israeli death toll from the Hamas attack had even been established. How could it happen so quickly? Radical Islamic terrorists were still on the loose inside Israel. The film October 8 explores how college campuses turned against Israel less than 24 hours after the biggest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
“We think most of what we see online is real. But most of what we see is deceptive,” said Ori Shaashua, who is chairman of Xpoz and an AI entrepreneur behind a host of other tech ventures. Shaashua’s team analyzed the ratio between bots, avatars, and humans. “It doesn’t make sense when 418 social media accounts generate 3 million views in two hours,” says Shaashua.
Closing Argument
It’s not just the bots that are gaming the algorithms through mass amplification. It’s also the algorithms that are gaming us. We’re being subtly manipulated by social media. We know it. But we keep on scrolling.
Fast Company, Eric Schwartzman
Get a clue. The “reality” that you think you experience on social and “fake news” media is fabricated. You are being manipulated by a wide variety of agents, and what you think of as “truth” is nothing like truth.
Beware of strident voices seeking to manage your emotions. Even people who you think are on your side. Many of these are “sponsored” by corporations that seek to manipulate your behavior and opinions.
Be careful out there, and stay true to your own soul. It may be the only thing standing between your ability to think and the thoughts and emotions that are being so actively promoted to bend your mind to the will of others.
Never forget that, in fifth-generation warfare, the battle is no longer over territory. The battleground is for control of your mind. In a successful fifth-generation warfare action, those being influenced should not be able to discern who is manipulating them.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Did Obama behind the decisions being made at the Biden White House?
Well, the answer is most likely yes…
President Donald Trump appointed Ed Martin to the following posts, Director of the Justice Department’s new Weaponization Working Group, Associate Deputy Attorney General and U.S. Pardon Attorney.
In these roles, Martin is tasked with leading investigations into what the administration describes as the “weaponization” of government agencies, particularly regarding alleged political targeting during the Biden administration. As Pardon Attorney, he will oversee federal clemency applications and advise the president on pardons.
Ed Martin had a whistleblower come forward who was in the Biden White House. That person has identified the following three “gatekeepers” to President Biden. They are Ron Klain, Biden’s White House chief of staff from 2021 to 2023 who then returned last year amid Biden’s debate preparation; former senior Biden adviser Anita Dunn; and Barack Obama’s former personal attorney Robert Bauer.
Of note, Anita Dunn and Robert Bauer are married.
When AI was queried about these “gatekeepers relationship to Barak Obama, this was the summary response:
“Ron Klain’s relationship with Barack Obama was that of a senior adviser and trusted operative within the Obama administration. Klain served as Chief of Staff to Vice President Joe Biden from 2009 to 2011, making him a key figure in the White House and a close collaborator with both Biden and Obama during Obama’s presidency.
Robert Bauer’s relationship with Obama was that of a trusted legal strategist, personal attorney, and White House Counsel, with ongoing influence as a close adviser and appointee on major commissions throughout and after Obama’s presidency
Anita Dunn’s relationship with Barack Obama is that of “a trusted adviser, strategist, and confidante, with a record of close collaboration and mutual respect that continued well beyond her formal White House role (per CHAT-GPT3).”
So, in fact, these relationships indicate that Obama played a key role in running the Biden presidency, as his ongoing and close relationships with the people fingered by Ed Martin were the gatekeepers to Biden. These are the key figures who were most likely responsible for the autopen signatures that Biden clearly was unable to understand.
Ed Martin also suggests that the whistle blower believes that there was money involved in the choosing of who was to be pardoned. However, the question arises – did these gatekeepers actually make the decisions for Biden or were there also Biden Family members involved?
I am sure that Ed Martin will now turn to finding the email and memos on this subject.
She then went on to scold Trump, as these (illegal) immigrants are now facing deportation. She made this statement during a speech at the Newmark Civic Life Series, where she was criticizing President Trump for his call for a “baby boom” across America.
Clinton’s remarks align with the United Nations’ report “Replacement Migration: Is it A Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”
So says the DNC
The DNC has now “voided” the election of David Hogg, vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC ).
The DNC has determined that the first election should be voided due to procedural errors related to their gender equity rule.
The DNC requires that leadership must have equity and be at least 50% women.
So, both vice chairs of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have had their elections nullified.
Because socialists believe that having equity always takes precedence over having fair elections.
Similarly, they believe that equity is more important than having a meritocracy.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
I did a quick read of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Report, officially titled “Making Our Children Healthy Again (Assessment)”, which was released by the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission on May 22, 2025. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr led the effort behind this report.
Once I did a quick read, I turned to Grok 3 to synthesize the report. Below is a mix of GROK 3’s analysis and my own.
The 68-page document outlines the worsening chronic disease crisis among American children, identifies possible causes, and lays the foundation for a strategy to tackle these issues. The following report is expected in August 2025. The report emphasizes transparency, scientific rigor, and collaboration with farmers while criticizing corporate influence in health policy. Below is a summary of its key points, organized by main themes.
Purpose and Context
Objective: The report aims to identify the root causes of rising childhood chronic diseases, including obesity, diabetes, cancer, mental health disorders, allergies, and neurodevelopmental conditions like autism, to inform policy interventions.
Crisis Overview: American children face unprecedented rates of chronic illness, with 40.7% having at least one health condition as of 2022. The U.S. ranks last in life expectancy among high-income countries despite high healthcare spending, and chronic diseases threaten economic and military readiness.
Global Comparison: The U.S. has the highest cancer incidence rate globally, an 88% increase in cancer from 1990–2021, and higher rates of asthma, autism, and autoimmune diseases compared to other nations.
Key Drivers of Childhood Chronic Disease
The report identifies four primary contributors to the crisis, supported by data and international comparisons:
Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs):
Impact: UPFs, which dominate American diets, are linked to chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease due to high levels of added sugars, sodium, and artificial additives. Children’s reliance on UPFs is a major factor in poor health outcomes.
Evidence: Research cited shows UPFs disrupt nutrient density and contribute to inflammation. Unlike Brazil, Japan, and Nordic countries, U.S. dietary guidelines (e.g., 2020–2025) do not explicitly limit UPFs, treating all calories similarly.
Issues: Federal programs like school lunches and SNAP often promote UPFs, and guidelines fail to prioritize whole foods or distinguish between processed and home-cooked meals.
Recommendations: The report calls for independent studies on food ingredients, long-term NIH trials comparing UPFs to whole food diets, and updated dietary guidelines to reduce UPF reliance.
Chemical Exposures:
Concerns: Children are uniquely vulnerable to environmental toxins (e.g., pesticides like glyphosate, heavy metals, and endocrine disruptors) due to developing systems. These may contribute to chronic inflammation and diseases like cancer and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Caution: The report treads lightly on pesticides to avoid alienating farmers, emphasizing collaboration. It notes pressure from farm lobbies to avoid restrictive regulations but calls for rigorous, transparent research on chemical safety.
Critique: Corporate influence has limited studies on chemical risks, and the EPA’s risk-based processes need reevaluation to ensure safety without undermining agriculture.
Overmedication and Vaccines:
Overmedication: The report highlights excessive prescription of drugs like SSRIs, antipsychotics, stimulants (e.g., for ADHD, affecting 3.4 million children), and weight-loss drugs, which may pose long-term health risks.
Vaccines: It questions the childhood vaccine schedule, advocating for independent studies, “true” placebo-controlled trials, and open dialogue on risks and benefits. While not explicitly linking vaccines to autism, it notes parental concerns about their role in chronic diseases, reflecting Kennedy’s vaccine skepticism.
Corporate Capture: The report criticizes pharmaceutical lobbying and financial influence over the FDA, alleging it skews drug approvals and safety assessments.
Lifestyle and Environmental Factors:
Stress and Screen Time: Increased stress, social media, and smartphone use are linked to mental health disorders and reduced physical activity, exacerbating chronic conditions.
Physical Inactivity: Sedentary lifestyles contribute to obesity and related diseases, with U.S. guidelines failing to promote active living effectively compared to other nations.
Policy Gaps: Existing federal programs for nutrition, physical activity, and mental health are deemed ineffective, lacking focus on prevention.
Systemic Issues
Corporate Influence: The report accuses industries (food, pharmaceutical, and chemical) of “corporate capture” of health agencies, manipulating legislation and research through lobbying and revolving-door policies.
Data Transparency: It calls for open-source data, elimination of industry bias in federally funded research, and restoration of scientific integrity.
Federal Programs: Current health and nutrition programs, including the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), are criticized for reductionist approaches (e.g., focusing on nutrients like saturated fat rather than whole foods) and industry ties.
Proposed Actions
Research: Prioritize “gold-standard” studies on chronic disease causes, including UPFs, chemicals, and vaccines, with transparent, industry-free methodologies.
Policy Reform: Restructure federal responses to focus on prevention, end practices that exacerbate the crisis, and align guidelines with whole-food, nutrient-dense diets.
Collaboration: Work with farmers to ensure healthy, affordable food without punitive regulations, balancing consumer safety with agricultural viability.
Transparency: Release unpublished data, improve health metrics, and evaluate federal program effectiveness to rebuild public trust.
Controversies and Stakeholder Reactions
Criticism: Farm groups and food industries worry about potential regulations on pesticides (e.g., glyphosate) and food dyes, fearing economic impacts. Bayer, a glyphosate producer, called some pesticide claims “not fact-based.”
Political Tension: Some Republican lawmakers from agricultural districts urged Kennedy to avoid targeting farmers, while others support his health agenda.
Vaccine Skepticism: The report’s vaccine stance has sparked debate due to Kennedy’s history of questioning vaccine safety, though it avoids definitive claims like the <disproven?> autism link.
Next Steps
Timeline: The MAHA Commission has until August 12, 2025, to submit a detailed strategy based on this assessment, per Trump’s February 13, 2025, executive order.
Policy Focus: Expected actions include phasing out harmful food dyes, banning certain additives in school meals, and reviewing pesticide and fluoride regulations, as seen in recent state-level MAHA bills.
Public Engagement: The commission will hold hearings and roundtables to gather expert input and build consensus.
Critical Analysis
The report’s emphasis on transparency and prevention aligns with public health goals, but its cautious approach to pesticides and vaccines may reflect political compromises.
The critique of corporate capture is compelling, but addressing this complex issue is key to the success of the MAHA Commission.
The report risks oversimplifying the complex regulatory systems.
The report’s reliance on international comparisons highlights U.S. shortcomings.
What happened today is critical. It is essential to Trump’s legacy. This means that MAHA will survive and truly make a difference in American health policy.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
86-47, ma być nawoływaniem do zamachu na Donalda Trumpa. W slangu bowiem, liczby “86” używa się jako synonimu pozbycia się czegoś. Głównie w gastronomii, gdy zdjęte z oferty danie obsługa mianuje numerem 86, albo gdy używa się “protokołu 86” wobec klientów, którym odmawia się obsługi . 86 może być synonimem “wyeliminowania” lub “zabicia”. “47” zaś odnosić się ma do Donalda Trumpa, który jest 47. prezydentem USA.
True Story:
Yes, fluoride, specifically in the form of fluorosilicic acid and other fluoride compounds, was historically a byproduct of industrial processes, particularly phosphate fertilizer production. In the early 20th century, the phosphate industry generated substantial amounts of fluoride-containing waste, which was initially released into the environment, resulting in pollution.
Rather than disposing of it as hazardous waste, processes were developed to capture and repurpose these compounds, including their use in water fluoridation, which began in the 1940s.
This practice disposed of an industrial byproduct, otherwise known as a toxic waste product, into the environment without incurring any disposal costs.
[Dr. Jerzy Jaśkowski tłumaczył to, alarmował od ponad 30 lat. Za to go “izby lekarskie” tępiły. MD]
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
“Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and no city or house divided against itself will stand.”
Matthew 12:25
=============================================
The dark triad : Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy.
========================================
Somehow, my mission in life has evolved from teaching people about mRNA drug delivery technology, bioethics, clinical research, and regulatory affairs to educating others about the many ways that corporate and social media are psychologically manipulating them. Many of those ways involve ancient strategies and tactics described in Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. Today, I will focus on tactics and strategies routinely deployed to “divide and conquer.” Matthew said it best, but let’s take a moment to explore how this relates to today’s social and corporate media ecosystem.
This discussion was prompted by a recent posting on “X” by Josh Walkos.
Ancient Wisdom: “The Art of War” versus “The Prince”
One big difference between “The Art of War” and “The Prince” has to do with ethics. Sun Tzu had deeply held beliefs regarding ethics and honor.
Machiavelli’s writing and advice were essentially devoid of ethical considerations, which is why he is often considered evil, to such an extent that modern psychology considers Machiavellian behaviors (Machiavellianism) a key component of the “dark triad” of behaviors.
The dark triad is a psychological theory of personality, first published in 2002, that describes three notably offensive personality types: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy.
Each of these personality types is referred to as dark because each are considered to contain malevolent qualities.
All three dark triad traits are conceptually distinct, although empirical evidence shows them to be overlapping. They are associated with a callous–manipulative interpersonal style.
Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy.
Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulativeness, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest.
Psychopathy is characterized by continuous antisocial behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, callous and unemotional traits, and remorselessness.
Moving on to Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War,” the concept of divide and conquer is explored in various chapters, emphasizing the importance of dividing forces to manage them effectively. According to Sun Tzu, managing a large force can be made like managing a small force by dividing the numbers, allowing for better control and coordination.
Sun Tzu advises that when facing an enemy, if your forces are ten times greater, surround them; if five times greater, attack them; and if double the strength, divide them. This strategy aims to weaken the enemy by causing internal divisions and confusion, making them easier to defeat.
In the context of military tactics, Sun Tzu also highlights the importance of not besieging walled cities if possible, as it is the worst policy. Instead, he advocates for breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting, which can be achieved through strategic planning and manipulation of the enemy’s forces.
Additionally, Sun Tzu emphasizes the importance of unity within one’s own army and the use of spies to gather information about the enemy, which can be crucial in implementing divide and conquer strategies effectively.
However, Sun Tzu teaches that the divide-and-conquer strategy must never be used for personal gain, amusement, or profit. It must only be employed to combat an evil foe. Doing so otherwise would only make you nothing more than a sociopath, a narcissist, a fiend. Not a Warrior of Virtue.
Sun Tzu states that the commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage, and strictness.
Wisdom: Refers to the ability to make sound judgments and decisions.
Sincerity: Indicates honesty and genuineness in dealings.
Benevolence: Implies kindness and compassion towards others.
Courage: Represents bravery and fearlessness in the face of danger.
Strictness: Denotes the need for discipline and adherence to rules.
These virtues are essential for a commander to lead effectively and ensure the success of their military endeavors.
The splinternet (also referred to as cyber-balkanization or internet balkanization) is a characterization of the Internet as splintering and dividing due to various factors, such as technology, commerce, politics, nationalism, religion, and divergent national interests. “Powerful forces are threatening to balkanise it”, wrote the Economist weekly in 2010, arguing it could soon splinter along geographic and commercial boundaries.[1] The Chinese government erected the “Great Firewall” for political reasons, and Russia has enacted the Sovereign Internet Law that allows it to partition itself from the rest of the Internet.[2][3] Other nations, such as the US and Australia, have discussed plans to create a similar firewall to block child pornography or weapon-making instructions.[1]
Clyde Wayne Crews, a researcher at the Cato Institute, first used the term in 2001 to describe his concept of “parallel Internets that would be run as distinct, private, and autonomous universes.”[4] Crews used the term in a positive sense, but more recent writers, like Scott Malcomson, a fellow in New America‘s International Security program, use the term pejoratively to describe a growing threat to the internet’s status as a globe-spanning network of networks.[5]
Splintering of the Internet community can occur when people engage in confirmation bias and create echo chambers, using the Internet to exclude or avoid views that contradict their beliefs and attitudes.[24] Called Cyberbalkanization (or sometimes cyber-balkanization), it refers to the division of the Internet or the World Wide Web into sub-groups with specific interests (digital tribes), where the sub-group’s members almost always use the Internet or the web to communicate or read material that is only of interest to the rest of the sub-group. The term may have first been used in an MIT paper by Marshall Van Alstyne and Erik Brynjolfsson that was published online in March 1997.[25] The concept was also discussed in a related November 1996 article in the journal Science[26] and in a Spring 1997 law review article.[27] The term is a hybrid of cyber, relating to the Internet, and Balkanization, a phenomenon that takes its name from the Balkans, a part of Europe that was historically subdivided by languages, religions and cultures.
In his 2001 book Republic.com, Cass Sunstein argued that cyberbalkanization could damage democracy, because it allows different groups to avoid exposure to one another as they gather in increasingly segregated communities, making recognition of other points of view or common ground decreasingly likely. The commentator Aleks Krotoski feels that Jihadist groups often use the Internet in this way.[28]
Despite the concerns of cyberbalkanization, there is mixed evidence that it is actually growing. One Wharton study found that internet filters can create commonality, not fragmentation. However, this study primarily focused on music recommendation algorithms, and openly states that more research is required surrounding other domains (e.g. news, books, fashion).[29] Another study found that ideological segregation of online newsconsumption is low in absolute terms, higher than the segregation of most offline news consumption, and significantly lower than the segregation of face-to-face interactions with neighbors, co-workers, or family members. The study notes that an important caveat, however, is that none of their evidence speaks to the way people translate the content they encounter into beliefs, which may be a larger factor in the problem these types of studies seek to address.[30]
^ Hosanagar, Kartik; Fleder, Daniel; Lee, Dokyun; Buja, Andreas (December 2013). “Will the Global Village Fracture into Tribes: Recommender Systems and their Effects on Consumers”. Management Science, Forthcoming. SSRN1321962.
^ Gentzkow, Matthew; Shapiro, Jesse M. (2010-04-13). “Ideological Segregation Online and Offline”. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. SSRN1588920
Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW) is characterized by its focus on non-kinetic military actions such as social engineering, misinformation, and cyberattacks, often leveraging emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. It is described as a war of “information and perception,” aiming to manipulate cognitive biases and create new ones to achieve strategic objectives. This form of warfare seeks to dominate the human domain without resorting to overt violence or kinetic military actions, making it difficult to attribute attacks to specific actors.
Key principles of 5GW include:
Secrecy: Operations are often covert, making it hard to identify the perpetrators.
Manipulation of Proxies: Using intermediaries to carry out actions on behalf of the actual instigators.
Manipulation of Identity and Culture: Leveraging disinformation and big data to shape societal attitudes and behaviors.
Psychological Warfare: Employing tactics to influence the mental and emotional states of adversaries and civilians.
These principles are applied through various technologies and techniques, such as social media manipulation, cyber operations, and the use of emerging technologies to influence human behavior and societal structures. In 5GW, the battlefield is your mind, and the objective is control of the battlefield. There are no rules of engagement – anything goes. 5GW seeks to control all information you access via any source, and thereby to control your ideas, thoughts, emotions, motivations, and actions- all of the things that are associated with who you are. In 5GW, there is no distinction between combatants and non-combatants.
In a successful Fifth Generation Warfare campaign, those targeted should never be aware that they are the targets, and they should never be aware of who is doing the targeting. In the resulting surrealistic media landscape, it becomes extremely difficult to tell the difference between friend and foe, and to discriminate between truth and lies.
Virtually all modern governments, all large corporations, and most large non-governmental organizations have adopted PsyWar technologies and approaches to advance both political and marketing objectives. Propaganda, marketing, and modern PsyWar methods have merged to yield a seamless continuum.
Psychological Warfare relies upon the theory and art of war, but extends this theory into the information sphere. This includes the use of historically effective tactics and strategies such as “divide and conquer”. In the case of social media, the new toolkit for dividing and conquering communities and populations provides a wealth of opportunities. The use of bots, trollery, and all of the many ways that these can be used to manipulate audiences are routinely deployed. This includes the use of chaos agents and bot farms to sow and promote discord, anger, and division within dissident communities. The practice of paying “influencers” to promote narratives has become routine.
Reporter Nick Sortor was the first to reveal that the public relations firm Influenceable was behind the posts. It had reportedly paid influencers up to $1,000 per post to oppose the SNAP reforms.
Several conservative social media influencers were caught accepting money from a public relations firm to oppose reforms to SNAP benefits — the government assistance program formerly known as food stamps — investigative journalist Lee Fang reported last week.
The campaign emerged in response to Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s proposal that soda and processed foods be excluded from the over $100 billion government program that helps 42 million low-income people supplement their grocery budget.
Brooke Rollins, secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has also signaled support for the proposed reforms. The program is administered by the USDA, not HHS.
A significant portion of SNAP benefits are spent on “ultra-sugary drinks” that offer minimal nutrition, according to Fang.
In another interview with podcaster Michael Knowles, Kennedy said, “If you want a Coca-Cola, you ought to be able to get one and we have no objection to that.” But taxpayer money intended to feed low-income children shouldn’t be used for sugary soda “which is giving them diabetes.”
Kennedy said taxpayers foot the bill twice, when Medicare funds then go to cover healthcare for people with chronic diseases.
The proposed reforms have gained popular support, particularly from conservatives, who tend to favor cuts to welfare programs, according to Substack writer Will Sommer.
But shortly after Kennedy publicly made his case, several high-profile conservative accounts began criticizing the reforms, denouncing Kennedy’s “war on soda.”
According to Sommer:
“A wave of MAGA types started to take the pro-soda position. In similarly worded posts, Cheong, Prather, Daugherty, popular MAGA meme account ‘Clown World,’ and other X users with big followings said it was unfair for the government to tell recipients how to spend their food-stamp money.
“‘Is Mountain Dew nutritious and life-giving?’ posted Kevin Posobiec, a pro-Trump figure best known for being the brother of pundit Jack Posobiec, in a since-deleted post on X. ‘No. But freedom of choice is.’
“A number of the posts focused on the fact that Donald Trump himself drinks Diet Coke — the implicit suggestion being that it would be horribly wrong to tell the president that he can’t drink his soda.
“‘President Trump literally has a Diet Coke button in his Oval Office,’ wrote Daugherty.”
Many of the posts had near-identical messages, Fang wrote. Blake Marnell, a pro-Trump anchor whose X handle is Brick Suit, first pointed out the similarities on X. Then Turning Point USA’s Riley Gaines posted that she was offered money to make similar posts, but declined.
Sorter found messages that included templates provided by Influenceable to influencers in what he said was an attempt “to turn MAGA folks against RFK Jr. and MAHA” — Make America Healthy Again.
After Sorter outed the influencers on X, Daugherty confirmed the allegations, posting on X, “Yeah, that was dumb of me. Massive egg on my face. In all seriousness, it won’t happen again.”
Sorter also said this was a playbook, often used by soda industry lobbying firms like American Beverage and Cart Choice. This led some people to mistakenly report that American Beverage was behind the scheme, which the firm denies.
Fang similarly noted this tactic revealed a “longstanding pattern in the beverage industry’s approach to policy debates over sugary drinks.” For example, the industry has funded scientists to persuade people to focus on exercise instead of calorie intake for weight loss strategies.
When San Francisco proposed taxes on sweetened beverages, Big Soda paid protestors to attend anti-tax rallies and argue the tax would disproportionately harm minority communities, Fang wrote.
The industry used similar tactics in New York, where Coca-Cola funded the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation, which then promoted similar arguments when the city proposed a soda tax.
Fang also reported that the industry targets organizations focused on children’s health. For example, Coca-Cola has given nearly $3 million to the American Academy of Pediatrics over six years, and the organization stayed silent during contentious policy debates over sugary drinks.
Save the Children, which supported a soda tax in the past, changed its position when it sought grants from soda producers, including $5 million from PepsiCo.
Health reporter Nina Teicholz commented on the influencer grift on her Substack. She said she wasn’t surprised. “But I do wonder why conservative influencers, some with more than 1M followers each, would sell their credibility for so little cash. Only $1,000 to sell your soul?”
Concluding Remarks
Please do not be naive. Big food, Big Pharma, Big Ag, the Democrat party, and a multitude of leftist organizations and NGOs are actively deploying Fifth Generation Warfare tactics to divide and conquer the Make America Healthy Again movement, and specifically to delegitimize and neutralize both Secretary Kennedy and President Trump’s HHS appointees. Let’s resolve to all try not to help them achieve their objectives?
I beg you. When online, please be sure to act like a mature adult. No matter how pissed off you may be at someone. Don’t let your passion or anger get the better of you. When you interact on social media, this is often done to influence others. Avoid witch hunts, no matter how important the cause. Remember that you are acting as both a role model and an ambassador for your cause. Be like Sun Tzu’s Commander and not like Machiavelli’s Prince. Choose your words wisely. Others are watching and are judging your cause by your actions and words.
Washington DC is functionally the Imperial Capital of the world, and DC politics are the big league. If you are going to gird your loins and enter the big league PsyWar battlefield, remember that you may think you are a player, but more likely than not you are going to get played. So get smart, and maintain professionalism, balance, humility and decorum. You are an idea ambassador, so act the part.
And if you can’t run with the Big Dogs, then stay on the porch.
One way to detect PsyWar propaganda campaigns is that the promoted narrative does not make sense. For example; “The nominated Surgeon General did not publicly condemn the COVID mRNA “vaccines”, and so is therefore not qualified.”
But in the US HHS system, the Surgeon General has nothing to do with regulatory affairs (FDA Commissioner Marty Makary has that job), or with recommending FDA authorized vaccines (CDC Director nominee Susan Monarez would have that responsibility).
To those who have been following the teapot tempest over the recent Surgeon General appointment that has come to a boil within the political base of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, I invite you to take a quiet moment to think about the broader politics of this with me. For those who are blissfully ignorant, you should consider and choose whether or not you want to take a dive into this particular teapot.
Many strong words have been written on “X” and across the social media niches frequented by the MAHA base regarding the recent appointment by President Trump of Dr. Casey Means as the replacement candidate for Surgeon General. Based on the large number of “low complexity” accounts (few followers, no blue check, recently created etc.), a substantial minority of the comments have the hallmarks of a bot campaign being staged to amplify division within the base. Some close to the topic assert that Pharma has set up war rooms assigned the objective of derailing Senate confirmation for the candidate, Dr. Casey Means. I also hear through my network that the Trump administration sees this as a crucial appointment and is ready to go to the mat to fight for Dr. Means’ confirmation.
Naomi Wolf is raising more substantive concerns about the Surgeon General nominee. She asserts that the true back story of concern here is about the undue influence of Silicon Valley “Broligarchs,” and the biometric tracking company Levels.com founded by Dr. Casey Means and capitalized by a handful of Broligarchs (currently valued at over 300 Million US dollars).
“Casey Means’ main credentials are that she is an entrepreneur in the health space, with a highly valued startup, and that she wrote, with her brother, a bestselling book, Good Energy.
Let us start with her tech startup, Levels.com. I will argue that her business is an empty storefront, a misleadingly-packaged void into which value has been pumped artificially by some of the most entrenched, corrupt interests in Silicon Valley.”
Naomi Wolf, “The Imaginary Casey Means”
Here is the essence of this argument- a bit breathlessly hyperbolic for my taste, but still, I think it is a significant contribution to the topic area;
Was it because Casey Means was taking a “fresh new approach” to health care, avoiding allopathic Rockefeller medicine, as she claims? And as a huge, multi-million-dollar PR campaign, sustained now for many months, seeks to spin the story?
Or was it to get a whole new line of biometric-harvesting products to be pushed by the White House and HHS — along with someone reliably to advance existing biotech VC interests and to corral medical data — but all of this repackaged with a benign, “MAHA” face in front of it?
Let’s drill into the value of Levels.com. It has 60,000 subscribers and has been in business for six years.
How does a startup with 10,000 subscribers a year, and no new technology, get a valuation of $313 million? Doesn’t it say something that the only two tech founders who are well-known in the MAHA movement, Nicole Shanahan and myself, are equally taken aback by Casey Means’ nomination?
Tech CEOs understand the red flag represented by a $313 million valuation for a company founded by someone with no tech experience, no successful exits, a company with few subscribers and no new technology, whose investors and founders include Google and Twitter and SpaceX and Andreessen Horowitz.
This graph below, from Crunchbase.com, is Levels.com’s growth over five years. The company had zero organic growth since shortly after it was launched in 2020. Indeed, growth was not only flat — it was declining, til the Means’ siblings were in the news.
How is this going to generate a valuation of $313 million? Why would it even generate new investment?
Unless…the co-founder, who happens to talk to trees, and whose X bio to this day reads, “Committed to awe” — has been put into place by Big Tech interests, who are also funding a costly PR campaign around her, so as to secure her nomination to serve as the next Surgeon General.
Related to this emerging story is that the 300M$ valuation company Levels did not actually develop the glucose monitoring device being used to collect the data, but rather uses the device developed and marketed by another company, Dexcom. As of March 2025, DexCom had a market cap of $27.88 Billion USD, making DexCom the world’s 734th most valuable company. Unfortunately for both DexCom and Levels.com, the FDA, having determined upon manufacturing site inspection that the DexCom device is adulterated, and has issued a dreaded 483 warning letter to DexCom for this adulteration.
Surprisingly, Wall Street is relatively unconcerned about this 483 adulteration letter, which was issued on March 04, 2025. That seems rather odd to me.
For those not closely following the mRNA vaccine story, myself and others assert that the presence of substantial DNA fragment contamination in these products also meets criteria for adulteration, and the manufacturers of these products should also have been issued 483 letters and those products should have been withdrawn from the market for that reason, if not for the (disputed) wide spectrum of product-associated adverse events including death.
For further information about adulteration and mRNA “vaccines”, please see the following:
Passions among the MAHA base are running high for a few reasons.
Many in the base are (understandably, IMO) quite angry that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA-based products have not been withdrawn from the market due to strong (un)safety signals and inverted risk/benefit profiles in virtually all age cohorts. There are nuanced divisions within MAHA supporters and HHS appointees on this topic; for example, new NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya believes that the risk/benefit ratio for some high-risk cohorts (including the elderly) supports continued dosing with these products, but not with others (children). Some identified with MAHA who remain outside of HHS at this time (such as myself) called for the products to be withdrawn from the market years ago, but this remains a minority position among the general electorate.
Others, such as key Secretary RFK Jr. presidential campaign funder and VP candidate Nicole Shanahan, have voiced more personal objections to both Dr. Means and her brother Calley serving in the Trump administration within HHS. Calley Means currently serves as an advisor to Secretary Kennedy within HHS as a Special Government Employee (SGE), akin to the Elon Musk SGE appointment. Nicole Shanahan had previously announced that she would also be serving as an advisor, but it appears that this appointment may have run into some sort of obstacle, perhaps due to the federal statutory conflict-of-interest restrictions on SGE service.
In the world of DC politics, use of words like “RFK very clearly lied to me” and “bred and raised Manchurian assets” to describe President Donald Trump’s appointments are usually restricted to grandstanding members of the opposition, such as AOC and Elizabeth Warren. I understand from a third party that Secretary Kennedy has generously offered to speak with Ms. Shanahan to better understand her concerns personally. Historically and notoriously, such language would disqualify the speaker or writer from any future role in Team Trump. WH COS Susie Wiles is known to be particularly sensitive to such.
Personally, I find this discussion particularly cringeworthy because of the appearance of influence peddling (see below).
Ms. Shanahan’s “Manchurian” comment seems to align with one promoted narrative that both Casey and Calley Means are not what they appear to be, but rather that their apparent rapid rise to prominence is the consequence of being guided and placed in these positions by some shadowy force acting on their behalf, with both the pharmaceutical industry and the CIA often being mentioned.
Rather than speculating about “bred and raised Manchurian assets”, if Ms. Shanahan and other prominent critics had raised concerns and provided details about Levels.com, then these concerns would have been more compelling.
Having personally experienced this tactic of delegitimization on an almost daily basis (such as “You worked for DARPA” – which is a promoted false narrative), I have a lot of empathy and understanding concerning how insidiously demoralizing and demeaning it can be to be unjustly and repeatedly attacked by persons deploying this smear tactic based merely on “intuition” unencumbered by actual evidence. So I freely admit to bias grounded in empathy in support of both the Means and others on the receiving end of this particular flavor of smear campaign.
Among the MAHA base, the predominant criticism has been that Dr. Means has not explicitly called for withdrawal of the mRNA-based COVID gene therapy tech-based “vaccines”. Irony abounds, as both the notoriously TDS-mad Huffington Post and NY Times consider Dr. Means an anti-vaxxer.
From the NY Times-
Is Dr. Means guilty of what corporate media frames as the crime of entertaining questions regarding the appropriateness of the current pediatric vaccine schedule, the sin of being a “vaccine skeptic”? Well, basically, yes.
Has Dr. Means met the required criteria of many within the MAHA base, and was the Surgeon General candidate one of the physicians who was early to call for withdrawal of the mRNA-based COVID gene therapy tech-based “vaccines” from the US market? No. But many, including most if not all physicians acting as self-appointed arbiters of purity on this topic were also not so pure themselves in this regard early on, when speaking out was to invite a wide range of media retaliation, blacklisting, censorship and to risk debanking.
Finally to this point, there is a curious failure among these rather loud and persistent voices to recognize that the political reality at this point is that any of those physicians who prominently questioned the safety, efficacy and bioethics of these mRNA-based product deployments are unlikely to be confirmed by this Senate at this time.
As to Dr. Means, my personal point of view is that the narrative that she is unqualified to serve as Surgeon General because of her failure to denounce the COVID mRNA “vaccine” products is not compelling. I am much more concerned about the issues surrounding her company Levels.com and her ties to Silicon Valley Oligarchs. However, this is something that the army of conflict-of-interest attorneys at HHS will have to grapple with; it is above my pay grade.
In addition to these substantive issues relating to ties to Silicon Valley and medical data harvesting, Katherine Eban of Vanity Fair has also raised questions concerning Dr. Means explanation of her decision to leave her surgical residency. Of course, the decision to walk away from 18+ years of your life invested in training would bring many to tears, and there are serious overtones of a Trump administration hit piece in this Vanity Fair article.
Donald Trump’s new nominee to be the next surgeon general has said she walked away from a promising career in the medical establishment. Some fellow residents and a former department chairman say the situation was more complicated.
-Katherine Eban; “She Was Tearful About It”: The Nuances of Casey Means’s Medical Exit and Antiestablishment Origins
All of this reeks of Elizabeth Holmes and the Theranos scandal. The business model of Levels.com is also related to aspects of the “Stargate” initiative announced on the first day of the Trump Presidency.
In my opinion, it is likely that the issues surrounding Levels.com will compromise the Senate confirmation of Casey Means as Surgeon General.
Returning to Naomi Wolfe’s recent essay;
Look at who came in as founders: “Josh Clemente (SpaceX, Hyperloop), Sam Corcos (CarDash, YC), David Flinner (Google), and Andrew Conner (Google) founded Levels to solve the metabolic health crisis.”
So Casey Means’ cofounders are….Twitter and SpaceX and Google.
Was it because Casey Means was taking a “fresh new approach” to health care, avoiding allopathic Rockefeller medicine, as she claims? And as a huge, multi-million-dollar PR campaign, sustained now for many months, seeks to spin the story?
Or was it to get a whole new line of biometric-harvesting products to be pushed by the White House and HHS — along with someone reliably to advance existing biotech VC interests and to corral medical data — but all of this repackaged with a benign, “MAHA” face in front of it?
Naomi Wolf, “The Imaginary Casey Means”
Having covered the basic issues driving this particular tempest, let’s step back and take a moment to consider the larger context within which these are playing out.
Through most of its lifespan, the center-right populist/constitutional conservative movement that coalesced around President Trump’s inspired political framing of “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) did not include the policy positions now embodied in the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) coalition.
Furthermore, while MAGA originates from libertarian, Tea Party, and other center-right political movements, the MAHA movement comes from the left, particularly from the modern inheritors of the 70s health food and environmentalism movements.
MAHA has historically focused more on nutrition and food purity than on vaccine skepticism. The weaponized term “anti-vaccine” has typically been associated with Children’s Health Defense, the non-profit for which Secretary Kennedy previously served as Board Chairperson, and with Del Bigtree’s “Informed Consent Action Network” (ICAN). Bigtree served as communications director for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 presidential campaign.
Although the MAHA movement included aspects of vaccine skepticism, it was not an “anti-vaccine” populist movement. I have previously made the case that the RFK jr presidential campaign adroitly assimilated rather than created the MAHA movement and coalition, and that this astute political move allowed Bobby to pivot away from the promoted narrative that he is an “anti-vaxxer”, which was effectively weaponized against him during his campaign for both the Democratic nomination and then as an independent candidate.
My sense is that most objective outsiders would conclude that Calley and Casey Means have played a key role in defining and coalescing the coalition now known as MAHA, both via their book “GOOD ENERGY: The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health” and through their social media and high profile interviews. The MAHA political coalition includes many who are skeptical of the currently expanded, CDC-endorsed pediatric vaccine schedule. But it also includes a wide range of issues and voters that are more closely aligned with food safety, nutrition, Sierra Club, ‘Earth First” and Burning Man. Movements that used to be referred to by terms such as “granolaheads” and “tree huggers”. The irony here being that Casey Means, Nicole Shanahan and to a significant extent Secretary Kennedy himself all have roots in these political initiatives.
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, endorsed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., significantly impacted the 2024 election for Donald Trump. The political calculus of merging of MAGA and MAHA during the 2024 election of President Trump was that of a “big tent” strategy. By assimilating MAHA into the Trump campaign, a fraction of the Democratic party base was split off and merged into the Trump coalition. Kennedy, who had suspended his own campaign for president, endorsed Trump and launched the MAHA Alliance Super PAC to mobilize undecided voters, particularly younger and female voters who were generally anti-vaxxers and concerned about reproductive rights.This endorsement and the subsequent PAC efforts aimed to sway these voters by promoting health-focused policies and a message of wellness, which was seen as a strategic pivot for Trump to appeal to a broader demographic.
The MAHA movement targeted the 2-5% of undecided voters in swing states, using ad campaigns, voter mobilization efforts, and social media algorithms to spread a message about health rather than politics. This strategy was part of a broader effort to secure Trump’s victory, as the PAC aimed to raise $3.5 million by Election Day 2024 to support Trump’s re-election campaign.
Trump ultimately won the 2024 presidential election with 312 electoral votes, defeating Kamala Harris, who received 226 electoral votes. Trump also won the national popular vote with a plurality of 49.8%, making him the first Republican to win the popular vote since George W. Bush in 2004. The MAHA movement played a crucial role in mobilizing undecided voters and contributing to Trump’s victory in swing states.
Whether or not Dr. Casey Means will be confirmed by the Senate for the position of Surgeon General, whether her public statements concerning her leaving a Surgical residency were fully transparent, and whether her role and the overall business model of her company, Levels.com, are on the up and up will now be examined in depth.
However, as far as I am concerned, the primary effect of the indignation and umbrage concerning whatever her position is on the COVID mRNA “vaccine” products will be to fracture the “Big Tent” coalition formed by the merger of MAHA and MAGA movements. This internal fighting poses a political threat to achieving the objectives of both MAHA and MAGA, particularly in light of the upcoming midterm elections. This may be why I am seeing many bot accounts acting to amplify and drive wedges into these divisions.
Focus on the signal, not the noise.
I suggest that all concerned should ask themselves the following:
Do you support the MAHA objectives of the President? Are your actions advancing or hindering those objectives? Or are your actions helping those who seek to hinder and obstruct the ability of the President and his team to achieve those objectives?
Politics is complicated, and the general public is easily manipulated and distracted. We need to focus on the objectives, avoid short-term distractions and noise.
You can’t always get what you want But if you try sometime You’ll find You get what you need
Mick Jagger and Keith Richards
I also suggest that throwing temper tantrums because your personal top issue- no matter how valid- is not being achieved as rapidly as you want, can and will be exploited by others who oppose your interests.
And in terms of integrity, it is worth also keeping the following in mind-
When a donor to a political campaign seeks to gain promises from a political candidate in exchange for their contribution, this is commonly referred to as influence peddling or, in more severe cases, as a form of political corruption or bribery. When a powerful person withholds support from a candidate to extract specific promises, this is also influence peddling. If powerful people are doing this to kill or support MAHA or MAGA goals and objectives, it is still influence peddling.
John 8.7
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
What I love about America is that American citizens have the freedom to express themselves. For instance, they can hate on the American flag and still be welcome to live here.
That is what the First Amendment promises us. The right to free speech is written into the Constitution. This is unlike most nations in the world, where free speech is not a right.
I may not particularly like someone else’s viewpoints, but they are free to express their opinions; even so-called hate speech.
And I am free to express my disdain.
When I first viewed the video below – my thought was that this was close to crossing a line- making fun of Pope Leo, and I was going to pass it by.
Upon closer inspection…
I don’t know how the creator did it, but this video, produced by Demon Flying Fox, was made before the Pope was chosen. It was released seven days ago.
Now, that was incredible timing!
(The truth about livestock guardian dogs)
If you know, you know…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
